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

net/publication/292212842

A simple procedure to directly estimate yield acceleration for seismic slope

stability assessment

Article  in  Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication · January 2016

DOI: 10.3208/jgssp.TWN-08

CITATIONS READS

6 2,831

2 authors, including:

Chi-Chin Tsai
National Chung Hsing University
60 PUBLICATIONS   518 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Site effect and site response analysis of vertical ground motion View project

Geotechnical reconnaissance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chi-Chin Tsai on 10 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication The 15th Asian Regional Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

A simple procedure to directly estimate yield acceleration for seismic slope stability assessment

Chi-Chin Tsai i) and Yu-Chun Chien ii)

i) Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan.
ii) Gradate Research Assistant, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan

ABSTRACT

Accurate assessment of the stability of natural slopes and earth structures during earthquakes has become a critical
aspect of the safe and cost-effective design of several projects in seismically active areas in Taiwan. As an
intermediately complicated and accurate approach, Newmark-type displacement method, capable of estimating
permanent earthquake-induced displacements as a reliable index of slope performance, is widely adopted to evaluate
slope stability under seismic loading. This approach, however, becomes unwieldy when hundreds or thousands of
iterations are required for a regional assessment because the yield acceleration (ky), a key parameter of this approach,
is estimated by trial and error in conventional slope stability analyses. To cut down the computational effort, we
developed a simple procedure to directly evaluate the ky for both shallow and deep slope failures. The factor of
safety (FS) of slopes under static condition is first calculated without any iterative procedures, then the ky is
determined through the established correlation between FS and ky. The ky calculated by the proposed procedure
corresponds well with that obtained by the trial and error approach and, thus, can be applied efficiently to a regional
assessment with thousands of slopes.

Keywords: yield acceleration, Newmark-type displacement methods, slope stability, earthquake

1 INTRODUCTION methods). As an intermediately complicated and

accurate approach, displacement-based methods
Earthquake-induced landslides often cause
produce a reliable index of slope performance under
thousands of deaths and injuries, thus resulting in huge
seismic loading through predictive calculation of
economic losses. Sloping lands cover more than 70% of
permanent earthquake-induced displacements.
the total area of Taiwan, and the country is located on a
Newmark's (1965) methodology, referred as rigid-block
seismically active area between the boundaries of the
analysis, is widely used in engineering practice to
Philippine and Eurasian plates. Consequently,
estimate earthquake induced displacement. Several
earthquakes frequently occur. The geological condition
prediction models (e.g. Jibson, 2007, Saygili and Rathje
of Taiwan is fairly fragile, with three to five typhoons
2008) have been developed to correlate ground motion
passing over the country annually. All these combined
parameters with permanent displacements based on
conditions make Taiwan vulnerable to landslide
rigid block analysis.
hazards, especially under seismic conditions. During
The displacement-based approach, however,
the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (ML= 7.3), more than
becomes unwieldy when hundreds or thousands of
10,000 landslides of various types were triggered in the
iterations are required for a regional assessment
steep mountainous terrain of Central Taiwan
because the yield acceleration (ky), a key parameter of
throughout an area of approximately 11,000 km2 (Hung,
this approach and the prediction model, is estimated by
2000). Accurate assessment of the stability of natural
trial and error in conventional slope stability analyses.
slopes and earth structures during earthquakes has
To cut down the computational effort, we developed a
become a critical aspect of the safe and cost-effective
simple procedure to directly evaluate the ky for both
design of several projects in seismically active areas in
shallow and deep slope failures. The factor of safety
Taiwan.
(FS) of slopes under static condition is first calculated
Available methods for assessing the performance of
without any iterative procedures, then the ky is
slopes during earthquake shaking, according to the
determined through the established correlation between
order from low to high complexity, include
FS and ky. The ky calculated by the proposed
pseudo-static methods, displacement-based
procedure corresponds well with that obtained by
(Newmark-type) methods, and stress-deformation
traditional trial and error approach and, thus, can be
numerical methods (finite element or discrete element

http://doi.org/10.3208/jgssp.TWN-08 915
applied efficiently to a regional assessment with
thousands of slopes.
2 CURRENT PROCEDURE AND LIMITATION
In simplified sliding block procedures, yield
coefficient represents the dynamic slope resistance and
is as important as the characteristics of ground motion
(i.e., dynamic loading). Moreover, predicted seismic
displacements are highly dependent on yield coefficient.
The primary issue when calculating ky is to estimate
the dynamic strength of critical strata within the slope.
ky is assumed to be constant. Thus, earth materials do
not undergo severe strength loss during earthquake
shaking (e.g., liquefaction). In practice, yield
coefficient is determined by interactively employing
different horizontal earthquake accelerations in pseudo
static limit equilibrium analysis until the safety factor
approaches 1.0. However, the procedure requires time
and effort during iteration.
According to the Newmark method, the yield
coefficient of the sliding block is correlated to the static
factor of safety (FS) of the block on the sliding surface,
with the angle of from the horizontal (Figure 1).
ky = (FS - 1) * sin
Therefore, yield coefficient can be determined
quickly once FS of the potential sliding plane is known.
Conditions for shallow failure could be approximated
as infinite slope, and its FS can be calculated as:
c tan
FS = + (2)
hcos sin tan
where c is the cohesion of soil, is the unit weight of
soil, h is the depth of failure surface (Figure 1(a)), and
is the friction angle of soil. FS is dependent on h (i.e.,
h should be known or determined beforehand).
Therefore, Eq. (2) is suitable for cases that weak plane
is clearly defined. In contrast, as cohesion contributing
to shear resistance increases, potential failure surface
goes deeper, which conflicts with the assumption of
shallow failure. Consequently, the equation becomes
inapplicable, and a circular type of failure is adopted
instead.
Fig. 1. Slope failure and approximated Newmark sliding block
Due to lack of an exact solution, obtaining FS for a
deep circular type of failure is more complex than the
expressed simple equation in Eq. (2), which leads to
difficulty in estimating ky. FS is dependent on several
variables including slope geometries, soil strengths, and
maximum depths of failure surfaces. Moreover, Eq. (1)
cannot accurately calculate ky if the circular failure
failure plane becomes very deep.
3 PROPOSED PROCEDURE
We proposed a two-step procedure similar to the
original Newmark method to determine ky:
1. Estimate static FS for deep and shallow failures
under static conditions without any iterations.
2. Calculate ky through established correlations
between FS and ky.
In this study, a simple procedure to estimate static
FS was developed and the correlations between FS and
ky was established.
4 SIMPLE PROCEDURE TO ESTIMATE
STATIC FS
4.1 Review
Taylor’s stability charts (1937) are one of the main
tools for simply calculating the safety factor of the
homogeneous soil slope, but the procedure of
(1) evaluating the safety factor is iterative. Michalowski
(2002) presented a set of new stability charts, based on
the kinematic approach of limit analysis, that eliminate
the need for iterations. Steward et al. (2011) updated
the Taylor’s stability charts using the limit equilibrium
method. These updated charts not only enable the safety
factor of the soil slope to be calculated without any
iterative procedure, they also determine the type of
failure mode. Recently Klar et al. (2011) presented a
new graphical interpretation of the safety factor of the
soil slope and its relation to the probability of failure.
Sun and Zhao (2013) extended the work of Klar et al.
(2011) by presenting convenient charts for estimation
of the safety factor and identification of the failure
mode. In this study, we extended Sun and Zhao (2013)
approach to quickly estimate FS of a deep failure case.
4.1 Stability chart approach
Three dimensionless parameters are important to
establishing stability charts for slopes as described in
the follwoing. Stability number N is a dimensionless
parameter that combines cohesion c, unit weight , and
slope height H (Taylor 1948; Das 2008; Klar et al.
2011)
c
N= (3)
H
Another dimensionless parameter is tan . Two
homogeneous dry slopes with similar values of slope
angle , N, and friction angle tan have the similar
safety factor. The combination of N and tan derives
another important dimensionless parameter, c
(Duncan and Wright 1980), which is defined as:
916

Htan
c =
c to determine the values of tan and c/ H at the limit
For a particular slope, the position of the critical
failure surface is related only to c , and the failure
surface becomes shallower as c increases (Jiang and
Yamagami 2006).
The approach of Klar et al. (2011) initially identifies
the relationship between tan and c/ H at the limit
equilibrium state (FS=1), which is graphically
presented using a single line in (c/ H, tan ) space (i.e.,
the g line). Figure 2 shows the g line for a
homogeneous slope with a particular slope angle. A
homogeneous slope with combined c/ H and tan
positioned above the g line is stable, which implies that
the safety factor FS is greater than 1.
B
Fig. 2. Illustration of FS calculation using the dimensionless
chart
Figure 2 shows the procedure in which the g line is
used to determine the safety factor. The g line defines
the combination of c/ H and tan associated with the
limit equilibrium state. Thus, the safety factor is simply
calculated as:
FS = a/b = y1/y2 = x1/x2
where a is the vector length from the origin to the
coordinates (x1, y1), x1 and y1 are the true values of
c/ H and tan , respectively, and b is the section length
along the vector from the origin to its intersection (x2,
y2) with the g line. The definition of FS provided in Eq.
(5) is mathematically identical to that of Eq. (2).
The advantage of this chart type is that no iteration
is required to compute the safety factor of a specific
slope. The slope of line OA in Figure 2 is the
dimensionless parameter c . The combinations of c/ H
and tan along line OA have the same c and thus have
the same failure mode. The failure mode varies from
deep failure mode to shallow failure mode as c
increases.
4.2 Development of new stability charts
(4) Hundreds of slope stability analysis were performed
state. The Morgenstern–Price method was to analyze
slope stability using SLOPE/W (one of the modules of
GeoStudio 2007). Figure 3 shows the critical line (dot
points indicating each analysis case) with slope-angle
equal to 15°, 20°, 25°, 30°, 35°, 40°, 45°, 50°, 55°
and 60°. If the slope angle is 15°, then the deep failure
mode is expected for soils with low internal friction
angle ; intermediate and shallow failure modes are
observed as internal friction angle increases. The
shallow failure mode mostly occurs as slope angle
increases. When the slope angle is 45° to 60°, the
deep failure mode is not observed regardless of material
properties and slope height in the present study. Figure
3 also shows that the safety factor decreases as
increases for the combination of tan and c/ H.
tan
Fig. 3. Critical state line for different slope angles in the
dimensionless chart
Our developed limit state curve is slightly different
(5) from that of Sun and Zhao (2013), especially for the
small friction angle condition. Our calculated curves
(Figure 3) merge when become zero regardless of
slope angle, whereas Sun and Zhao (2013) curves show
different intersect points to x-axial given different slope
angles. Our curves are consistent with the Taylor chart,
where FS becomes constant regardless slope angle,
specifically for the zero friction condition.
By means of regression analyses, the determined
curves of the limit state for different slope angles are
further expressed mathematically as:
c
tan = -0.399× tan × ln( 5.11 + 0.101) (6)
H
The limit state curve calculated by the above Eq. is also
917
shown as solid line in Figure 3 for comparison. By propose a depth correction factor CFh and additional
means of formulating the limit state curve, FS can be passive correction factor CFp to calculate ky accurately
directly calculated through the following steps: as follows:
1. Calculate the coordination of point A (x1, y1) as
CFh /(h/H) = 0.45 - 2.28 ( tan( - ) - tan(5) ) for < 20
(c/ H, tan ) according to slope parameters.
2. Determine the intersection point B (x2, y2) between CFh /(h/H) = 0.45 - 2.28 ( tan( - ) - tan(5) ) (8)
OA and the limit state line by solving Eq. (6) and + 0.34 (tan( ) - tan(20)) for 20
vector OA.
3. Calculate FS using Eq. (5). and
The proposed procedure can be implemented in any CFp/(d/H) = 2.44 tan( ) - 1 (9)
code to calculate FS without using stability charts.
Eq. (7) should be used in conjunction with Eqs. (8)
5 CORRELATION BETWEEN FS AND KY and (9) to estimate ky accurately, especially for deep
circular failure, as follows:
Eq. (1) of the correlation between FS and ky is
evaluated first. Figure 1 show that Eq. (1) is only valid ky, circle = ky (CFh + 1) (CFd + 1) (10)
for shallow (infinite) failures in which the failure
The error introduced by Eq. (7) is less than 10%
surface angle approximates the slope angle and the
when the failure surface is above the slope toe, and the
seismic force (coefficient) acts along the slope angle
underestimated ky attributes to over calculated
direction. However, seismic (inertial) forces are
displacements, which is acceptable for engineering
typically considered only in a horizontal direction
practices because of its conservative estimation.
(Figure 4(b)). Therefore, Eq. (7), derived based on fore
equilibrium in Figure 4(b), should be used instead to
estimate ky from FS:
FS - 1
ky =
1 (7)
+ tanα
tan

Moreover, Figure 4(a) shows that the angle of

failure slope is no longer close to the angle of slope
as the failure surface setback from the slope surface.
In this case, becomes less than and should be used (b)
in Eq. (7) to calculate ky. However, Eq. (7) is only
applicable to wedge type failures because deep circular
failure cannot be modeled as a block sliding on a
well-defined slope as shown in Figure 4(b). The ky
obtained from Eq. (7) can potentially be underestimated
compared to the circular type limit equilibrium results
as the failure surface become deeper, changing from
plane/wedge failure (ABC) to circular failure, as
indicated in Figure 4(a). Figure 5 shows the error Fig. 4. (a) Shallow and deep slope failure and (b) approximated
induced by using Eq. (7) compared to the ky calculated Newmark sliding block applied seismic coefficient along
by pseudo static slope stability analysis. The horizontal direction.
discrepancy is dependent on depth h (Figure 4(a)),
setback distance (difference between and Figure
4(a)), and friction angle and less dependent on cohesion.
Figure 5(b) shows that the error linearly increases as h
increases, while the failure surface is above the slope
toe. In addition, Figure 5(a) also shows that the error is
no longer linearly proportional to h when the failure
surface becomes deeper (i.e., lower than the slope toe).
As shown in Figure 4(b), medium failure mechanism
(green curve in Figure 4(a)) can be still approximated
as a sliding block on the slope subjected to inertia force.
However, a passive resistance near the toe develops Fig. 5. (a) Deviation of ky obtained from Eq. (7) and from slope
when deep failure mass (red line in Figure 4(a)) is stability analysis, (b) depth correction factor.
subjected to horizontal inertia force. Therefore, we

918
6 VERIFICATION this approach becomes unwieldy when hundreds or
thousands of iterations are required for regional
The ky estimated by the proposed procedure is
assessment because ky is traditionally estimated by trial
compared with that obtained by the conventional slope
and error in slope stability analysis.
stability analysis using Slope/W, which is considered
To cut down the computational effort, we develop a
an accurate solution. In the present study, static FS is
simple procedure to directly evaluate the values of ky
first calculated as described in Section 4.2. Then, ky
for both shallow and deep slope failures and diminish
is estimated by Eq. (6) in conjunction with Eq. (7) for
computational effort. We propose a simple method to
the depth and passive correction. Table 1 lists the cases
calculate FS of slopes under static condition without
used for verification, in which the slope angle varies
requiring any iterative procedures. The ky is then
from 30° to 60°, soil friction angle ranges from 0° to
determined through the established correlation between
45°, and coefficient range from to 0 to 600 psf. Figure 6
FS and ky and other correction factors. The ky
shows the comparison between the estimated ky by the
calculated by the proposed procedure corresponds well
proposed procedure, ky by Eq. (7), and the accurate ky
to that obtained by the traditional trial and error slope
under horizontal acceleration only. The ky estimated by
stability analysis approaches and can thus be applied
the proposed procedure agree well with the accurate ky
efficiently to regional assessment with thousands of
and significantly improves the accuracy of using Eq. (7)
slopes.
without any corrections.

Table 1. Cases for verifying the proposed procedure ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Parameter Range This work was supported by the Taiwan National

Science Council under Award No.
Slope angle ( ) (degree) 30,45,60 NSC102-2625-M-005-004. The authors gratefully
Soil friction angle ( ) (degree) 30,35,40,45,50 acknowledge these supports.
Cohesion (c) (kpa) 0,2.4,4.8,9.6,14.4,19.2,24,28.7
Slope height H (m) 7.6,14.2
REFERENCES
Angle ( - ) (degree) 0-15
1) Das, B.M. (2008): Fundamentals of geotechnical
engineering, CENGAGE Learning, Stamford, CT.
2) Duncan, J.M., and Wright, S.G. (1980): The accuracy of
equilibrium methods of slope stability analysis, Eng. Geol.,
16(1-2), 5-17.
3) Hung, J.-J. (2000): Chi-Chi earthquake induced landslides
in Taiwan, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Seismology, 2, 25–32.
4) Jiang, J. C., and Yamagami, T. (2006): Charts for estimating
strength parameters from slips in homogeneous slopes,
Comput. Geotech., 33(6–7), 294–304.
5) Jibson, R.W. (2007): Regression models for estimating
coseismic landslide displacement, Engineering Geology, 91,
209-218.
6) Klar, A., Aharonov, E., Kalderon-Asael, B., and Katz, O.
(2011): Analytical and observational relations between
landslide volume and surface area, J. Geophys. Res., 116(F2),
F02001.
7) Michalowski, R.L. (2002): Stability charts for uniform
slopes, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 128(4), 351-355.
Fig. 6. Comparison between the estimated and accurate ky. 8) Newmark, N.M. (1965): Effects of earthquakes on dams
and embankments," Geotechnique, 15, 139-159.
7 CONCLUSION 9) Saygili, G., Rathje, E.M. (2008): Empirical predictive
models for earthquake-induced sliding displacements of
Accurate assessment of slope stability during slopes, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental
earthquakes has become a critical aspect for safe and Engineering , 134(6), 790-803.
cost-effective design of several projects in 10) Steward, T., Sivakugan, N., Shukla, S. K., and Das, B. M.
seismically-active areas in Taiwan. The Newmark-type (2011): Taylor’s slope stability charts revisited, Int. J.
Geomech., 11(4), 348-352.
displacement method is a simple but accurate approach
11) Sun, J. and Zhao, Z. (2013): Stability Charts for
in estimating permanent earthquake-induced Homogenous Soil Slopes, Journal of Geotechnical and
displacements. The method estimates Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(12), 2212–2218.
earthquake-induced displacements as a reliable index of 12) Taylor, D. W. (1937): Stability of earth slopes, J. Boston Soc.
slope performance and is extensively adopted to Civil Eng., 24(3), 197-247.
evaluate slope stability under seismic loading. However, 13) Taylor, D. W. (1948): Fundamentals of soil mechanics,
Wiley, New York.

919

View publication stats