IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Comparative study of seismic and non-seismic analysis of a soil slope to

develop correlations for factor of safety considering horizontal and
vertical seismic coefficients
To cite this article: Muhammad Israr Khan and Shuhong Wang 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 529 012013

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 36.102.7.106 on 13/07/2020 at 07:18

2020 4th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 529 (2020) 012013 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/529/1/012013

Comparative study of seismic and non-seismic analysis of a

soil slope to develop correlations for factor of safety
considering horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients

Muhammad Israr Khan1*, Shuhong Wang2

1.2
School of Resources and Civil Engineering, Northeastern University, China

*
Corresponding Author Email; 1727011@stu.neu.edu.cn

Abstract: Seismic and non-seismic analysis of any engineering project always gives different
results. A soil slope is analysed in this research and both seismic and non-seismic analysis is
performed to know about the difference in the factor of safety values. Correlations are developed
between both these cases. These correlations are applicable for homogenous slopes only.

1. Introduction
Stability of any structure depends mainly on the structure internal strength and loads applied on it. If the
applied loads exceeds the strength of the structure, it may fail and damaged. This statement is applied
for any structure whether concrete or made of soil. In this paper, the concern is about soil slopes.
Whenever a highway is constructed in hilly areas or an earth fill dam is constructed, the slope stability
analysis is performed and the factor of safety is calculated. The factor of safety mainly depends on soil
properties and the slope layout etc. If the factor of safety is less, then it is stabilized by different ways
such as changing the slope layout or inserting nails to increase the stability [1-3].

2. Literature Survey
Some of the researchers claim that the vertical seismic effect is very less and therefore can be neglected
while other researchers claim that the vertical effect must also be considered to know about the actual
response [4-8]. In this paper both the horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients are considered and
correlations are developed between both the cases. There are many other researchers who provided very
useful results in this area [9-14]. The plus point of this paper is that a comparison is done between
seismic and non-seismic analysis and researchers can get a clear idea for any slope stability project to
know about the seismic and non-seismic factor of safety in homogenous slopes.
There are many ways to check the stability of any slope. Such as it can be analysed using limit
equilibrium methods or finite element methods. Also the analysis may be 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional.
The simplest way is 2 dimensional limit equilibrium method. This limit equilibrium 2 dimensional
method is used in the paper to calculate the seismic and non-seismic factor of safety for a predefined
soil slope.

3. Methodology
Keeping the past research in consideration, this work is done in four stages:
• Non-Seismic analysis and calculated the factor of safety
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
2020 4th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 529 (2020) 012013 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/529/1/012013

• Analysis with considering Horizontal Seismic Coefficient (HSC) and ignoring vertical
effect
• Analyse with considering Vertical Seismic Coefficient (VSC) and ignoring horizontal
effect
• Analyse with considering both horizontal and vertical seismic effects

Thirty six number of analysis was performed on a predefined slope. The angle of repose was varied
from 30 to 45 degrees during this analysis. The horizontal seismic coefficient was 0.05 minimum and
0.15 maximum as recommended in the paper [15]. While the vertical seismic coefficients are in range
of 0.0125 to 0.05.
A limit equilibrium software is used in this analysis namely slide. The variation of factor of safety is
provided in graphical form for all the cases.
Figure 1 shows the slope model used in this analysis:

Figure 1. Slope model

Cohesion range is 11 kN/m2 to 13 kN/m2.

Angle of repose range is 30 to 45 with five degrees interval.
Unit weight is 14 kN/m3.
Angle of internal friction range is 31 to 33 degrees.
Horizontal seismic coefficient is 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20
Vertical seismic coefficient is 0.012, 0.25 and 0.05.
Table 1 shows the summary of material properties and the factor of safety achieved in all the cases.

2
2020 4th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 529 (2020) 012013 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/529/1/012013

Table 1. Material properties and analysis details

Non-
Seismic
Seismic
Angle of Unit Friction Factor
Case Cohesion Horizontal Vertical Factor
Repose Weight angle of
Number (kN/m2) (AOR) (kN/m3)
coefficient Coefficient of
Safety
()
Safety
(FS)
(FS)
1 11 30 14 31 0.05 0 1.631 1.451
1 12 30 15 32 0.10 0 1.690 1.348
1 13 30 16 33 0.20 0 1.750 1.145
2 11 35 14 31 0.05 0 1.539 1.397
2 12 35 15 32 0.10 0 1.590 1.317
2 13 35 16 33 0.20 0 1.641 1.144
3 11 40 14 31 0.05 0 1.431 1.315
3 12 40 15 32 0.10 0 1.477 1.252
3 13 40 16 33 0.20 0 1.522 1.101
4 11 45 14 31 0.05 0 1.295 1.195
4 12 45 15 32 0.10 0 1.336 1.140
4 13 45 16 33 0.20 0 1.377 1.010
5 11 30 14 31 0 0.0125 1.631 1.628
5 12 30 15 32 0 0.025 1.690 1.683
5 13 30 16 33 0 0.05 1.750 1.735
6 11 35 14 31 0 0.0125 1.539 1.533
6 12 35 15 32 0 0.025 1.590 1.578
6 13 35 16 33 0 0.05 1.641 1.616
7 11 40 14 31 0 0.0125 1.431 1.425
7 12 40 15 32 0 0.025 1.477 1.463
7 13 40 16 33 0 0.05 1.522 1.495
8 11 45 14 31 0 0.0125 1.295 1.289
8 12 45 15 32 0 0.025 1.336 1.324
8 13 45 16 33 0 0.05 1.377 1.353
9 11 30 14 31 0.05 0.0125 1.631 1.450
9 12 30 15 32 0.10 0.025 1.690 1.349
9 13 30 16 33 0.20 0.05 1.750 1.156
10 11 35 14 31 0.05 0.0125 1.539 1.393
10 12 35 15 32 0.10 0.025 1.590 1.312
10 13 35 16 33 0.20 0.05 1.641 1.143
11 11 40 14 31 0.05 0.0125 1.431 1.311
11 12 40 15 32 0.10 0.025 1.477 1.245
11 13 40 16 33 0.20 0.05 1.522 1.098
12 11 45 14 31 0.05 0.0125 1.295 1.191
12 12 45 15 32 0.10 0.025 1.336 1.134
12 13 45 16 33 0.20 0.05 1.377 1.004

3
2020 4th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 529 (2020) 012013 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/529/1/012013

4. Results and Discussions

Figure 2 shows the factor of safety graph in case when only horizontal seismic coefficient are considered
and the vertical seismic coefficient is kept zero.
Figure 3 shows the factor of safety graph in case when only vertical seismic coefficient are considered
and the horizontal seismic coefficient is kept zero.
Figure 4 shows the factor of safety graphs in case both horizontal seismic coefficient as well as
vertical seismic coefficient are considered.

Case - 1 SFS = -2.5737 (NSFS) + 5.6651 Case - 2 SFS = -2.4804 (NSFS) + 5.2298
R²= 0.9674 R²= 0.9569
1.6 1.451 1.6 1.397
1.348

Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS)

1.317
Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS)

1.4 1.4
1.145 1.144
1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65
Non-Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS) Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS)

Case - 3 SFS = -2.348 (NSFS) + 4.6899 Case - 4 SFS = -2.2561 (NSFS) + 4.1291
R²= 0.9438 R²= 0.9481
1.4 1.315 1.25
1.252
Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS)
Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS)

1.2 1.101 1.195

1.2
1
1.14
0.8 1.15

0.6 1.1
0.4
1.05
0.2 1.01
0 1
1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.28 1.3 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.4
Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS) Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS)

Figure 2. Factor of Safety graph in case HSC is considered and VSC is kept zero

4
2020 4th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 529 (2020) 012013 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/529/1/012013

Case - 5 SFS = 0.8991 (NSFS) + 0.1623 Case - 6 SFS = 0.8137 (NSFS) + 0.2818
R²= 0.9996 R²= 0.9976
1.76 1.735 1.64
1.616
Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS)

Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS)

1.74 1.62
1.72 1.6
1.683 1.578
1.7
1.58
1.68
1.66 1.56
1.628 1.533
1.64 1.54
1.62 1.52
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65
Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS) Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS)

Case - 7 SFS = 0.7694 (NSFS) + 0.3248 Case - 8 SFS = 0.7805 (NSFS) + 0.2793
R²= 0.9981 R²= 0.9971
1.495 1.353
1.5 1.36
Seismic Factor of Safety

Seismic Factor of Safety

1.48 1.463 1.34 1.324
1.46 1.32
(SFS)

1.44 (SFS) 1.3 1.289

1.425
1.42 1.28
1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4
Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS) Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS)

Figure 3. Factor of Safety graph in case VSC is considered and HSC is kept zero

SFS = -2.4727 (NSFS) + 5.498 Case - 10 SFS = -2.451 (NSFS) + 5.1797

Case - 9
R²= 0.9701 R²= 0.9603
1.393 1.312
2 1.5
1.143
Seismic Factor of Safety

Seismic Factor of Safety

1.45 1.349
1.5 1.156
1
1
(SFS)

(SFS)

0.5
0.5

0 0
1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65
Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS) Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS)

Case - 11 SFS = -2.3373 (NSFS) + 4.6694

Case - 12 SFS = -2.2805 (NSFS) + 4.1564
R²= 0.9513
1.311 R²= 0.9517
1.4 1.245 1.25
1.098 1.191
Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS)

Seismic Factor of Safety (SFS)

1.2 1.2
1 1.134
1.15
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.4 1.05 1.004
0.2 1
0 0.95
1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.28 1.3 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.4
Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS) Non Seismic Factor of Safety (NSFS)

Figure 4. Factor of Safety graph in case both HSC and VSC is considered

5
2020 4th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 529 (2020) 012013 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/529/1/012013

Case 1: Considering HSC and keeping VSC as zero

From figure 2, the final mean equation for the factor of safety came out to be:

SFS = - 2.4145 * NSFS + 4.9285 (1)

Applicability of this equation is 95.40 %.

Case 2: Considering VSC and keeping HSC as zero

From figure 3, the final mean equation for factor of safety came out to be:

SFS = 0.8157 * NSFS + 0.2620 (2)

Applicability of this equation is 99.81 %

Case 3: Considering both HSC and VSC

From figure 4, the final mean equation in case of HSC came out to be:

SFS = - 2.3854 * NSFS + 4.8759 (3)

Applicability of this equation is 95.84 %.

5. Conclusions
Equation 1, 2 and 3 can be used to find out the fa[tor of safety in different cases, such as to consider
seismic coefficients or ignoring it. These equations are applicable for homogenous soil. A 3D analysis
with non-homogenous type of soil is recommended for future work to get more clear understanding of
the factor of safety in both the cases. Moreover finite element analysis is also recommended for future
work to cross check the results and develop correlations.

References
[1] A. K. G. S. Rawat, “Analysis of a Nailed Soil Slope Using Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element
Methods,” International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1-
23, October 28, 2016.
[2] G. Yang, Z. Zhong, Y. Zhang, and X. Fu, “Optimal design of anchor cables for slope
reinforcement based on stress and displacement fields,” Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 411-420, 2015/08/01/, 2015.
[3] J. H. L. B. G. Chae, H. J. Park, J. Choi, “A method for predicting the factor of safety of an infinite
slope based on the depth ratio of the wetting front induced by rainfall infiltration,” Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 15, pp. 1835-1849, 2015.
[4] G. G. Gazetas, E. Anastasopoulos, I. Georgarakos, T., “Effects of Near-Fault Ground Shaking on
Sliding Systems,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 135, pp. 1906-1921, 2009.
[5] S. S. Sarma, M., “The effect of vertical acceleration on seismic slope stability,” In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 15–18 June, 2009.
[6] L.-H. C. Zhao, X. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Li, D.-J. , “Stability analysis of seismic slopes with cracks,”
Comput. Geotech., vol. 77, pp. 77-90, 2016.
[7] H. I. L. Ling, D. Mohri, Y., “Soil slopes under combined horizontal and vertical seismic
accelerations,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 26, pp. 1231-1241, 1997.
[8] Y. C. Zhang, G. Zheng, L. Li, Y. Wu, J. , “Effects of near-fault seismic loadings on run-out of
large-scale landslide: A case study,” Eng. Geol., vol. 166, pp. 216-236, 2013.
[9] L. D. Baker R, “Spatial distribution of safety factors,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 135-145, 2001.
[10] L. D. Baker R, “Spatial distribution of safety factors: Cohesive vertical cut,” International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1057-1078, 2003.

6
2020 4th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 529 (2020) 012013 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/529/1/012013

[11] S. K. Leshchinsky D, “Pseudostatic seismic stability of slopes: Design charts,” Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 120, no. 9, pp. 1514-1532, 1994.
[12] M. Y. Ling H I, Kawabata T. , “Seismic analysis of sliding wedge: Extended Francais-Culmann’s
analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,” vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 387-393, 1999.
[13] N. N. M., “Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments,” Geotechnique, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.
139-160, 1965.
[14] Y. He, Liu, Y., Hazarika, H., & Yuan, R., “Stability analysis of seismic slopes with tensile
strength cut-off,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 112, pp. 245-256, 2019.
[15] S. S. Cristiano M., “Seismic Coefficients For Pseudostatic Slope Analysis,” 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August, vol. 369, 2004.

Acknowledgments
This work was conducted with supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
Nos. U1602232 and 51474050), Doctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Liaoning Province (Grant
No. 20170540304 and 20170520341), China Scholarship Council (Grant No. 201806080103), Key
Research and Development Program of Science and Technology in Liaoning Province, China (Grant
No. 2019JH2/10100035), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No.
N170108029).

Appendices
HSC = Horizontal Seismic Coefficient
VSC = Vertical Seismic Coefficient
SFS = Seismic Factor of Safety
NSFS = Non-Seismic Factor of Safety
FS = Factor of Safety