Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Finite-element upper-bound analysis of seismic slope stability considering T

pseudo-dynamic approach
Jianfeng Zhoua, Changbing Qinb,
⁎

a
College of Civil Engineering, Huaqiao University, Xiamen, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, Hong Kong, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The present study presents a novel procedure to assess the seismic slope stability, using the finite-element upper-
Earthquake bound method combined with the pseudo-dynamic approach. A pioneering work is performed to incorporate the
Finite-element upper-bound analysis pseudo-dynamic accelerations into the finite-element upper-bound analysis which combines the advantages of
Pseudo-dynamic approach upper bound and finite element methods. The finite element method is principally used to discretize the domain
Limit surcharge
of soil mass into finite elements, aiming to construct a kinematically admissible failure mechanism based on
Factor of safety
which the external and internal rates of work can be expressed. Based on the upper bound theorem, the upper
bound formulations are derived from the virtual work rate equation, in the form of slope safety factor and limit
surcharge acting on the slope crest. The problem of seeking the optimal upper bound solution is transformed to
solve a linear programming problem within numerous kinematically admissible velocity fields, and this is
achieved by using the interior-point algorithm implemented into the MATLAB. Pseudo-dynamic solutions are
calculated and compared with the pseudo-static, limit equilibrium and FLAC results. The proposed procedure is
versatile in considering the homogeneity and non-homogeneity of soil strength properties in seismic slope sta-
bility analysis. A benchmark problem with 0.5 m thick weak interlayer is discussed.

1. Introduction
Finite-element limit-analysis method has been widely applied to
geotechnical stability analyses, since it combines the merits of finite
element and limit analysis methods. It consists of two bifurcations: fi-
nite-element upper-bound and finite-element lower-bound, aiming to
estimate the stability of geotechnical structures in the form of upper
and lower bounds. The authentic collapse load is accordingly limited to
a range of lower and upper bound solutions. In a sense, the actual
failure load is likely to be sought if the upper bound is infinitely ap-
proaching to the lower bound, by constructing a kinematically ad-
missible velocity field and a statically allowable stress field. In geo-
technical engineering, slopes widely exist and its stability/safety must
be ensured, or casualties and engineering loss are to be induced once
slope failure occurs. Note that slopes are vulnerable to extreme loading
conditions such as earthquake disturbance, and in this case catastrophic
hazard is likely to occur, such as landslides and/or debris flows.
The finite-element limit-analysis method is superior to the conven-
tional limit analysis approach which was systematically discussed in
Chen [1] for dealing with classical geotechnical problems including
slope stability, footing bearing capacity and earth pressure calculations.
A pioneering work was made by Lysmer [2] where the finite element
method was incorporated to the limit analysis to assess the ultimate
bearing capacity of geotechnical structures and the safety factor of
slopes. The numerical limit analysis was then improved for plane strain
problems, which further facilitates the development of the finite-ele-
ment limit analysis [3–4]. A large-scale linear programming model for a
lower bound analysis was developed by discretizing the area of interest
to linear triangular elements [5]. The shared side between elements is
regarded as the interface in the model, and the yield function is line-
arized within each element. Based on the characteristics of sparse linear
programming problems, a steepest edge active set algorithm was pro-
posed by Sloan [6], with the problems solved in high efficiency. After
that, Sloan [7–8] further proposed the finite-element upper-bound
method without/with consideration of the velocity discontinuous sur-
face. One can find that Sloan’s work on the finite-element limit-analysis
method has been strengthening its status as an effective approach for
the assessment of geotechnical stability problems. Many scholars ap-
plied this method to deal with actual geotechnical problems in tunnels,
slopes and strip footings, considering different geomaterials [9–15].
In theory, rigorous upper and lower bound solutions can be ob-
tained from the finite-element limit-analysis method, and hence it has

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: changbingqin@u.nus.edu (C. Qin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103530
Received 22 June 2019; Received in revised form 12 February 2020; Accepted 29 February 2020
Available online 20 March 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Zhou and C. Qin
Fig. 1. A schematic view for finite-element upper-bound analysis within an element.
been widely applied to slope stability assessment. Yu et al. [16] used
the above mentioned method to evaluate the stability of a soil slope
under undrained condition, and the research finding shows that an
approximate linear relationship is observed between the stability
coefficient of slopes and dimensionless parameter λcp. This method was
also used to investigate the influence of pore water pressure on slope
stability by considering the pore ware pressure as an external force
[17–18]. The seismic slope stability was discussed with a pseudo-static
approach, in combination with the finite-element limit-analysis method
[19]. This method was also adopted to investigate the stability of a bi-
layered purely cohesive soil slope [20]. Lim et al. [21] used this method
to study the slope stability considering a slope with a soft band, a post-
quake slope and a rock slope. The upper bound formulation of the ul-
timate bearing capacity for a stone retaining wall slope was derived
based on a mixed numerical discretization procedure of finite element
method and rigid finite element method [22].
When geotechnical structures are subjected to an earthquake, a
reliable prediction of geotechnical stability is highly dependent upon
the approach used to represent the earthquake input. The acceleration
time-history is commonly used in a numerical analysis where com-
mercial software has certain merits in dealing with complicated issues.
The use of the pseudo-static approach is more straightforward by
quantifying the earthquake as constant horizontal and/or vertical ac-
celerations [23–24]. However, this approach is incapable of considering
the dynamic earthquake effect varying with time and space within
slopes. In an effort to solve this drawback, the pseudo-dynamic ap-
proach was proposed by Steedman and Zeng [25], for a retaining wall
analysis, considering shear waves propagating upwards. Then this ap-
proach was used to evaluate the seismic stability of a retaining wall,
with the horizontal and vertical accelerations expressed in the form of
sinusoidal waves [26–28]. Note that the limit equilibrium analysis was
adopted only and hence rigorous upper or lower bounds cannot be
2
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530
obtained. In view of this, a discretization-based kinematic analysis was
proposed to investigate the seismic stability of a non-uniform soil slope
and a rigid retaining wall, combined with the pseudo-dynamic ap-
proach [29–31].
The present study aims to investigate the seismic stability of a soil
slope, using the finite-element upper-bound analysis combined with the
pseudo-dynamic approach. Such a combined procedure provides an
avenue to derive the upper bound solutions of limit bearing capacity
that a slope can support at limit state and the slope safety factor, besides
the critical failure mechanism.
2. Methodologies
2.1. Finite-element upper-bound method
In the realm of the upper bound analysis, the core work is to express
the internal and external rates of work in a kinematically admissible
velocity field. When the external rates of work obtained from the strain
rate field are equal to or greater than the internal dissipated energy, the
geotechnical structure is under critical limit state or fails. Therefore, the
upper bound theorem states that the authentic failure load is no greater
than the load computed from the power-based balance equation, i.e. the
virtual work formulation which is expressed as
TiU viU dS + XiU viU dV = U U
ij ij dV
U
ij ij dV (1)
S V V V
where TiU and XiU denote the surface and body loadings, respec-
tively, viU is the velocity field which is kinematically compatible with
the strain rate field ijU , ijU refers to the stress field corresponding to
external loadings, ij is actual stress field.
It can be found in an upper bound analysis, the kinematic solutions
are highly dependent upon the kinematically admissible velocity fields
within which the compatibility condition, the flow rule as well as
J. Zhou and C. Qin Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

velocity boundary conditions must be satisfied. Although the equili- A11 X1 A12 X2 = 0 (6)
brium condition in Eq. (1) cannot be always satisfied since there are
A21 X1 A23 X3 = 0 (7)
numerous potential velocity fields satisfying the above formula and
kinematically compatible conditions, the optimal upper bound solution A3 X1 = B3 (8)
can be sought through a numerical analysis. In this way, the upper
in which X1 = [u1 v1 u2 v2 unp vnp ]T represents the vector of
bound analysis is then combined with numerical simulation, such as the
nodal velocities for a total of np nodes;
finite element method. T
X2 = 11 12 is the
When the finite element method is combined with the upper bound 1p 21 22 2p ne1 ne2 nep

analysis, the soil mass of interest is discretized to finite elements so as to vector of plastic multiplier rates for ne elements where the yield cri-
construct a potential kinematically admissible failure mechanism. For terion is linearized with a p-polygon;
T
the case of a plane strain problem in this study, linear three-nodded X3 = 11 12 13 14 21 22 23 24 nd1 nd2 nd3 nd 4
is the
triangular elements are utilized, with the velocity variable linearly vector of plastic discontinuity multipliers for nd discontinuity edges.
changed within triangles in such an upper bound analysis. In this way, a A11, A12 , A21 , A23 , A3 and B3 are matrices of constraint coefficients, as
linear function of nodal velocities would suffice to express all condi- presented in the Appendix in detail.
tions required for a kinematic analysis within a compatible failure When soil failure is imminent or underway, the internal energy
mechanism. After having obtained the upper bound formulations, such would dissipate in the continuum and along the velocity discontinuities.
as limit bearing capacity and safety factor, the optimal upper bound Therefore, the total internal energy dissipation can be obtained through
solution is sought through an optimization procedure. In this study, a sum of that within elements owing to continuous deformation (Win1,
linear programming is applied to achieve this specific purpose. by plastic multipliers) and that along velocity discontinuities because of
The procedure of linear programming is specifically introduced plastic shearing (Win2 , by velocity discontinuity multipliers), namely,
herein. Fig. 1 presents a constant-strain triangular finite element, as
well as its nodal and elemental variables necessitated for a kinematic Win1 = ( x x + y y + x xy ) dA (9)
A
analysis. The velocity discontinuity appears along the edges which are l
shared by two adjacent elements to which each node uniquely belongs. Win2 = c( a + b) dl (10)
0
A total of four variables are included in each element, including nodal
velocities (horizontal and vertical velocities, u and v), the elemental where A shows the cross-sectional area of the soil mass, l is the total
variable (constant plastic multiplier rate ), and a discontinuity vari- length of the velocity discontinuity and c denotes the soil cohesion.
able (plastic discontinuity multiplier ). In order to express the velocity The applied loads include the weight of the soil mass, tractions and
at a specific point (u and v) belonging to an element, shape functions seismic loading when considering earthquake effects. Specifically, the
are used with linear combinations of the corresponding nodal velocities work rates produced by the soil self-weight (Wex1), by the tractions
of this element, i.e. (Wex2 ) and by the seismic forces (Wex3 ), are separately expressed as
3 3 Wex1 = vdA
u= Ni ui ; v = Ni vi ; A (11)
i=1 i=1 (2)
Wex 2 = Fq
¯n vds (12)
in which Ni represents the shape function, ui and vi are horizontal and
s

vertical velocities at node i, respectively. Wex 3 = kh (t , y )· ud A+ k v (t , y )· vd A

As stated earlier, the failure mechanism should satisfy the kinematic A A (13)
admissibility conditions, including the associative flow rule within each where is the soil unit weight, F is the overload coefficient, q̄n denotes
element (Eq. (3)); velocity discontinuities conditions (Eq. (4)); and the prescribed load (load/length), s represents a portion of the
velocity boundary conditions (Eq. (5)); i.e. boundary to which q̄n is applied, kh (t , y ) and k v (t , y ) are horizontal and
u F v F u v F vertical seismic coefficients which vary with time t and position y. The
x = = ; y = = ; xy = + = ; 0 positive directions of horizontal and vertical accelerations are defined
x x y y y x xy
as leftwards (←) and downwards (↓).
(3a) By equating the total external rates of work to the internal energy
F=( x y )2 + (2 xy )2 [2c cos ( x + y) sin ]2 =0 (3b) dissipation rates, the upper bound formulation of the collapse load (qn )
is derived as
where x , y and xy refer to the plastic strain rates, F is to describe the
Win1 + Win2 Wex1 Wex3
generalized Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for a plane strain problem, qn =
vds (14)
with x , y, xy being the planar stress components, c denoting the soil s

cohesion and φ the internal angle of soil friction. The overload coefficient is accordingly expressed as
F
f f W + Win2 Wex1 Wex 3
vn = us = ; 0; = in1
n s (4a) F
q¯n vds (15)
s

f = | s| + n tan c=0 (4b) The optimal upper bound solution can be obtained through opti-
mizing the above objective function. Note that, however, a non-linear
where vn and us denote velocity jumps normal to the edge and along
programming technique is involved in the optimization of Eq. (15).
the edge which is shared by two adjacent elements, respectively, and f
Alternatively, optimization of Eq. (15) is transformed to seek the best
is the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion expressed by shear stress ( s ) and
upper bound solution of Eq. (16),
normal stress ( n ), for the discontinuous edge.
= Win1 + Win2 Wex1 Wex 3 (16)
us = u¯ s , vn = v¯n (5) F

by imposing the following constraint condition:

where ūs and v̄n are the prescribed velocities which are tangential and
perpendicular to the boundary of the soil mass, respectively. q¯n vds = 1 (17)
Substituting Eq. (2) into Eqs. ((3)–(5)), the above conditions can be s

further written as linear equations of nodal velocities, plastic multiplier Based on the preceding analysis, Eq. (16) is a linear objective
rates and plastic discontinuity multipliers, in the form of: function in some scenarios, for example, when boundary tractions are

3
J. Zhou and C. Qin Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

Fig. 2. A finite element mesh for upper bound analysis of a soil slope model.

to be optimized. In this case, the linear programming technique can be VS = (G/ )0.5 and the primary wave velocity
applied to search the best upper bound solution of a linear objective Vp = [2G (1 )/ (1 2 )]0.5 where G is the shear modulus, and are
function where linear constraints are involved. More concisely, the the soil density and Poisson’s ratio. A sinusoidal function is used to
problem of interest is described as: represent the horizontal and vertical acceleration propagating from the
base at the same time upwards to the slope crest surface. Meanwhile, a
Minimize: F = Cin1 X2 + Cin2 X3 Cex1 X1 Cex 3 X1
parameter to characterize the phase difference (t0) between the hor-
Subject to: izontal and vertical acceleration can be considered in the finite-element
A11 X1 A12 X2 = 0 upper-bound analysis due to the discretization of the whole domain into
A21 X1 A23 X3 = 0 elements. It is well understood that earthquake acceleration varies with
A31 X1 = B31 the position, and such an effect is reflected by a constant soil amplifi-
Cex 2 X1 = 1.0 cation factor (f) which represents a linear increase in the amplitudes of
X2 0 both horizontal and vertical acceleration from the base to the slope
crest surface. If the acceleration amplitudes are kh g and k v g at the slope
X3 0 (18)
toe, horizontal and vertically, where g denotes the gravitational ac-
in which Cin1, Cin2 , Cex1, Cex2 and Cex3 represent the vectors of objective celeration, kh and k v are horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients at
function coefficients which can be found in the Appendix. The above the toe elevation, the harmonic seismic waves of horizontal and vertical
linear programming problem can be solved with the interior-point al- seismic coefficients, kh (t , y ) and k v (t , y ) , at depth y and time t can be
gorithm implemented into MATLAB. written as
When considering a dynamic earthquake, the acceleration changes
with time, implying that Cex3 is time-related, and in this case a series of k h (t , y ) = 1 +
y
h
(f 1) ·kh·sin 2 ( t
T
y
Vs T )
F (t ) values can be calculated throughout the acceleration time-history.
The purpose is to seek the best upper bound solution and hence under
the effect of dynamic forces, Eq. (18) is further modified as
k v (t , y ) = 1 +
y
h
(f 1) · k v ·sin 2 ( t
T
y
Vp T
+
t0
T ) (20)

Minimum Minimum: F (t ) = Cin1 X2 + Cin2 X3 Cex1 X1 Cex 3 X1 in which T is the period of seismic waves and h denotes the slope
t , t [tstart , tend] X1, X2, X3 height.Since the dynamic analysis has not been well incorporated into
Subject to: the finite-element upper-bound analysis, an attempt is made in this
study to consider the earthquake effect with the pseudo-dynamic ap-
A11 X1 A12 X2 = 0 proach. The specific procedure will be presented further in detail as
A21 X1 A23 X3 = 0 below.
A31 X1 = B31
Cex 2 X1 = 1.0
X2 0 3. Pseudo-dynamic analysis of slope stability
X3 0 (19)
3.1. Problem statement

2.2. Pseudo-dynamic approach
As mentioned earlier, three different approaches including the ac-
celeration time-history, the pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic method
are commonly used to represent earthquake inputs. However, in this
study, the pseudo-dynamic approach is adopted due to its capacity to
characterize the horizontal and vertical accelerations varying with time
and position. Finite shear and primary waves are considered in the
pseudo-dynamic approach. The shear wave velocity is defined as
In this study, a soil slope model is discussed, as presented in Fig. 2
where the slope height is h. In a numerical analysis, the height of the
model, H, is supposed to be larger than h to avoid the geometric
boundary condition. Apart from soil self-weight, traction forces such as
surface surcharge acting on the slope crest surface exist, and the sur-
charge force is characterized by F (t ) q¯n where F (t ) is the dynamic
overload coefficient and q̄n is the prescribed surcharge. For an upper
bound analysis performed based on finite elements, the velocity
boundary conditions are supposed to be satisfied, i.e., vn = us = 0 as

4
J. Zhou and C. Qin
shown in Fig. 2. It is worthwhile highlighting that the horizontal and
vertical accelerations are assumed to act at the bottom of the model,
with the amplitudes being khg and kvg at the slope toe, and then pro-
pagate upwards. Based on this model, the upper bound formulations of
the limit surcharge and safety factor are derived, with the optimal so-
lutions sought by an optimization procedure.
3.2. Determination of overload coefficient
As presented in the preceding analysis, the objective function of the
overload coefficient is transformed to solve a linear programming
problem. The specific procedure for obtaining the optimal upper bound
solution is introduced as below: firstly, to collect data including mate-
rial parameters (γ, c, and φ of a soil type), geometric parameters where
the whole domain of interest is divided into finite elements, and load
data inclusive of soil self-weight, traction force q̄n as well as seismic
loading at time t (the whole time duration for calculation is from 0 to
5T); secondly, to form a linear programming problem with the objective
function being expressed by F (t ) , Eq. (16), in a kinematically ad-
missible velocity field where four conditions are satisfied including
plastic flow, Eq. (3), velocity discontinuities, Eq. (4), velocity boundary,
Eq. (5) and additional constraints, Eq. (17); and lastly to calculate F (t )
using the interior-point algorithm. This is solely a procedure for one
run, and if the time t is less than the prescribed calculation time, 5T
herein, the current time t plus an interval of T/30 is updated for the
variable t for the next run, following the previous procedure, until
t = 5T. In this way, a series of solutions, F (t ) are computed at different
time t, and the next step is to seek the minimal one which is deemed as
the optimal upper bound solution for the overload coefficient, F,opt .
The above procedure shows a specific process to search the pseudo-
dynamic solution of the limit surcharge, as shown in Fig. 3, and specific
upper bound solutions will be presented later.
3.3. Determination of safety factor
Different from the calculation of the overload coefficient, an itera-
tive algorithm is necessitated to calculate the factor of safety. The
specific procedure is given as below: the first step is to read soil strength
parameters, c and φ, and let the initial safety coefficient, Fs = 1.0; then
calculate the mobilized soil strength parameters, ci and φi, using the
strength reduction technique; the next step is to perform a finite-ele-
ment upper-bound analysis to calculate the optimal overload coefficient
Fi, opt , with the same procedure stated above, and if this value is
equivalent to a prescribed value related to the surface surcharge, ¯F , the
final factor of safety, Fs, is sought, or the next run is initiated by in-
creasing or decreasing the Fs value. More specifically, if the optimized
Fi, opt value in a run is greater than F , the mobilized soil strength
¯
parameters should be reduced by increasing the safety coefficient, and
vice versa. It can be noted that the principle of the safety factor cal-
culation is to compare the optimized overload coefficient calculated
from the mobilized soil strength parameters with the prescribed value
¯F . Actually, there are two scenarios for this value: if no surcharge load
exists on the slope crest surface, ¯F equals to zero; otherwise, it is
equivalent to unity in the presence of surcharge loads. A flow chart is
presented in Fig. 4 to show the whole procedure for the calculation of
slope safety factor, and specific results will be discussed later in detail.
4. Comparison
In order to verify the robustness of the proposed approach, com-
parison is carried out considering different approaches. Since the factor
of safety calculated in this study is based on the strength reduction
technique which is similar to that used in the limit equilibrium, the
limit analysis and limit equilibrium solutions (calculated from Bishop
and Morgenstern-Price method) are directly compared, as summarized
5
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530
in Table 1. Meanwhile, the comparison between pseudo-static and
pseudo-dynamic solutions is also presented in Table 1. Apart from this,
the factor of safety is calculated using the finite difference method,
FLAC. The mesh used in FLAC is identical to that used in the finite-
element upper-bound analysis with 880 finite elements (Fig. 2). Besides
the same Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters, the shear modulus
G = 18 MPa and Poisson’s ratio υ = 0.3 are used in the FLAC simu-
lation. It is observed that minor discrepancies exist between the upper
bound and FLAC solutions when using the pseudo-static approach with
constant seismic accelerations within the soil domain, and the max-
imum difference between the upper bound and limit equilibrium so-
lutions is around 5%, thereby validating the procedure presented above
for a pseudo-static analysis. Relatively, the upper bound solutions are a
little bit greater than the others, and this is sensible since the upper
bound analysis gives an upper bound to a specific problem. The ap-
plicability of the proposed approach is well reflected from the change
pattern of safety factor Fs versus c, φ and kh. Notice that the pseudo-
dynamic solutions of safety factor are greater than those calculated
from the pseudo-static. This is sensible because the soil amplification
factor is set as 1.0, with no amplification in seismic accelerations along
depth, and hence the horizontal and vertical accelerations are not
greater than the pseudo-static, thereby yielding a larger Fs.
Apart from the upper bound solutions of limit surface surcharge and
safety factor, the velocity field at critical state can also be plotted with a
programming code. The velocity vector fields obtained from the
pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic analysis are presented in Fig. 5a and
Fig. 5b, respectively, with the parameters corresponding to: kh = 0.1,
kv = 0.05, c = 25 kPa, φ = 15°, and Vs = 100 m/s, Vp = 187 m/s,
f = 1, T = 0.3 s, t0 = 0 for pseudo-dynamic calculations, which is also
compared with the failure surface obtained from the Morgenstern-Price
(M−P) method and the shear strain rate from FLAC. It is observed that
the velocity fields are almost identical, which means the critical failure
mechanism is not much affected by the use of the pseudo-static or
pseudo-dynamic approach herein. Moreover, the critical failure surface
from the M−P method could be a sound approximation to the velocity
discontinuous surface encompassing the kinematically admissible ve-
locity field. Also, the velocity fields of the pseudo-static and pseudo-
dynamic analyses agree well with the shear strain rate simulated from
FLAC.
The upper bound analysis of this study is performed based on the
finite element method, and hence the mesh does have certain effects on
the accuracy of the slope stability solution. In an effort to discuss its
effect on seismic slope stability, a parametric study is carried out,
considering different mesh models. As shown in Fig. 6, four types of
mesh models are discussed: the mesh 1 model as used in this paper,
with 880 elements (termed as Mesh 1–880), the mesh 2 model for-
mulation with 908 elements (Mesh 2–908), the randomly generated
mesh 3 model with 878 elements (Mesh 3–878), and the mesh 4 model
which is extended from the mesh 1 with finer (1848) elements (Mesh
4–1848). Based on these models, the upper bound solutions of slope
safety factor are calculated with the above finite-element upper-bound
procedure. Table 2 shows the comparison results of the safety factor.
Apart from a higher pseudo-dynamic solution of Fs than the pseudo-
static that has been observed in the former results, one can find that the
mesh 1 model yields the lowest Fs, followed by the model 2, and then
the random model 3, when considering similar mesh size. This in a
sense substantiates the superiority of the model 1, and it is therefore
selected for latter calculations. Besides, a much finer model with more
elements is proved to improve the accuracy of the solution. Interest-
ingly, its improvement in the reduction of the Fs is minimal, in contrast
to the mesh model 1, which on the other hand demonstrates that the use
of model 1 could produce reasonable solutions for seismic slope stabi-
lity analysis in this study.
J. Zhou and C. Qin
Fig. 3. A specific procedure for determining
5. Upper bound solutions
5.1. Limit surcharge load
After having obtained the upper bound formulation of the overload
coefficient, the limit surcharge load acting on the slope crest surface can
be sought with the procedure presented above. In order to better un-
derstand the effect of dynamic earthquake and soil strength parameters
on limit overload, a parametric study is carried out herein. The nu-
merical results are calculated, with the basic input parameters in-
cluding soil properties: γ = 18 kN/m3, φ = 15° and c = 20 ~ 35 kPa,
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530
F , opt using the finite-element upper-bound analysis.
seismic load: kh = 0.2, kv = 0.1, Vs = 100 m/s, Vp = 187 m/s, f = 1.0,
T = 0.3 s and t0 = 0, and slope geometry: H = 20 m, h = 10 m,
β = 40°.
The influence of soil shear strength parameters on the limit overload
is illustrated in Fig. 7 where φ varies from 10° to 20° with an interval of
2.5°, for the case of kh = 0.1 and kv = 0.05. As expected, an increase in
soil strength aids to improve the limit bearing capacity of a soil slope,
because the self-resistance of soils is accordingly improved. It almost
shows a linear relationship between soil cohesion and limit load,
compared with the nonlinear one specific to soil friction angle. This in a
sense means the soil friction angle is more sensitive than soil cohesion,
6
J. Zhou and C. Qin Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

overload. It is manifest that with an increase of T value from 0.1 to 0.6,

the limit overload reduces sharply at the start and then decreases gra-
dually.
In the pseudo-dynamic analysis of earth retaining structures, the
initial phase difference between the horizontal and vertical accelera-
tions was not accounted for. However, it is considered in this study to
encompass wider scenarios. The initial phase difference widely exists
because primary and shear seismic waves propagate to a specific point
or surface in different velocities, and can be of any value, depending on
the actual seismic and geological conditions. Since the initial phase shift
(t0) is reflected in the sinusoidal function, its effect on the limit overload
presents a cyclic characteristic, as substantiated in Fig. 9 where t0
varying from 0 to 2T is selected to better illustrate the cyclic change
pattern.

5.2. Safety factor Fs

In seismic slope stability analysis, the factor of safety is of much

Fig. 4. Calculation of factor of safety from finite-element upper-bound analysis.
with a faster velocity in the increase of limit load.
Although the period of the primary and shear seismic waves can be
differently considered in the finite-element upper-bound analysis, the
same value is assigned for specific calculations herein. Fig. 8 presents
the effect of the period (T) on the pseudo-dynamic solution of limit
interest since it provides a direct estimate for slope stability. Based on
the above procedure and the basic input parameters, the pseudo-dy-
namic solution of safety factor is calculated and discussed under the
influence of soil shear strength (c and φ) and dynamic earthquake
parameters (kh, f and Vs).
Within the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, the soil shear strength
parameters include soil cohesion and internal angle of friction. A soil
slope with higher values of soil cohesion and friction angle is more
likely to maintain its stability by the inherent resistance, as sub-
stantiated in Fig. 10. This verifies the feasibility of enhancing the slope
stability by replacement of weak soils with good ones. Roughly, the soil
cohesion has a linear effect on the factor of safety, and a slightly non-
linear relationship is observed between the soil friction angle and safety
factor.
The earthquake magnitude can be reflected by the seismic accel-
eration amplitude, and note that from the preceding analysis the
seismic waves propagate from the bottom of the slope model upwards,
where the initial amplitudes at the slope toe reach khg and kvg for the
horizontal and vertical acceleration, respectively. The seismic coeffi-
cients (kh and kv) have a direct effect on the slope stability, and in the
whole calculations, kv = 0.5kh. The pseudo-dynamic solutions are
shown in Fig. 11. It is within expectation that the increase in earth-
quake amplitude leads to a significant reduction in the factor of safety.
This is logical since a greater kh implies a stronger earthquake to which
a slope is subjected, thereby leading to a lower safety factor.
Fig. 12 presents the effect of shear wave velocity (Vs) on the safety
factor, for the case of φ = 10°. Therein, the shear wave velocity changes

Table 1
Comparison of slope safety factors calculated from different approaches in a homogeneous soil slope.
Method

Case c/kPa P-d Upper P-s Upper P-s FLAC P-s Bishop P-s M−P

φ = 15° 20 1.12 1.09 1.09 1.05 1.04

kh = 0.1 25 1.28 1.25 1.24 1.18 1.18
kv = 0.05 30 1.44 1.40 1.38 1.32 1.33
35 1.59 1.54 1.53 1.45 1.46
φ = 15° 20 0.97 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90
kh = 0.2 25 1.11 1.06 1.04 1.03 1.02
kv = 0.1 30 1.24 1.19 1.16 1.14 1.14
35 1.37 1.31 1.28 1.26 1.27
φ = 20° 20 1.28 1.25 1.26 1.23 1.20
kh = 0.1 25 1.45 1.41 1.42 1.36 1.35
kv = 0.05 30 1.61 1.57 1.57 1.50 1.50
35 1.78 1.73 1.71 1.64 1.64
φ = 20° 20 1.12 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.04
kh = 0.2 25 1.26 1.21 1.20 1.18 1.16
kv = 0.1 30 1.40 1.34 1.33 1.30 1.29
35 1.53 1.47 1.45 1.42 1.43

7
J. Zhou and C. Qin
Fig. 5. Velocity fields obtained from: (a) pseudo-static analysis and (b) pseudo-dynamic analysis, versus critical failure surface and shear strain rate.
from 50 m/s to 10000 m/s, and in order to better present results, the
Log10(Vs) value is adopted as the horizontal axis. It can be found from
Fig. 12 that an increase in shear wave velocity is not favorable for slope
stability, although the cohesion effect aids to improve slope safety
factor. Interestingly, the factor of safety gradually converges to a spe-
cific value with the increasing shear wave velocity. This is sensible since
the pseudo-dynamic approach is equivalent to the pseudo-static when
Vs and Vp , implying that the converged value is the pseudo-
static solution as depicted in Fig. 12 in red hollow triangle. Moreover,
one can note that the pseudo-static solution is overly conservative when
compared with the pseudo-dynamic.
In this pseudo-dynamic approach, the seismic accelerations are as-
sumed to be linearly varied from the bottom of the model to slope crest
surface, by a constant soil amplification factor f. There are some sce-
narios where acceleration amplitude increases linearly with depth,
implying f greater than 1.0, and f less than 1.0 for characterizing a
reduced acceleration profile from the bottom of the model upwards.
The effect of factor f on the slope stability is shown in Fig. 13 where f
varies from 0.6 to 1.4. Considering the fact that an increasing factor f
demonstrates an increased acceleration profile, the slope stability is
weakened with the increase of the soil amplification factor. Apart from
Fig. 6. Different mesh models used in the finite-element upper-bound analysis of seismic slope stability.
8
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530
the above pseudo-dynamic solutions, the pseudo-static solution can also
be calculated considering a varied seismic acceleration along depth,
with the same amplification factor f, instead of using a constant ac-
celeration within the whole domain. In this case, comparison between
pseudo-static (P-s) and pseudo-dynamic (P-d) solutions is highlighted,
accounting for a linearly varied acceleration profile. It is again sub-
stantiated that the pseudo-static approach tends to yield a more con-
servative solution, in contrast to the pseudo-dynamic.
6. Discussion
6.1. ‘NC’ soil slope
In the above calculations, a homogeneous soil slope is considered
with constant shear strength parameters. However, there are some si-
tuations where non-uniform soil properties widely exist in site, such as
in normally consolidated or deposited soils. In this case, the shear
strength profile is supposed to be adopted in the finite-element upper-
bound analysis, for the sake of providing a reliable solution, although it
is hardly able to find similar research with considerations to non-uni-
form soil properties in existing studies, using the finite-element upper-
J. Zhou and C. Qin Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

Table 2
Comparison of safety factor for seismic slope stability analysis with pseudo-dynamic and pseudo-static approaches.
Method Mesh model φ = 20°, kh = 0.1, kv = 0.05 φ = 20°, kh = 0.2, kv = 0.1

c = 20 c = 25 c = 30 c = 35 c = 20 c = 25 c = 30 c = 35
kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa kPa

P-d Upper Mesh 1–880 1.28 1.45 1.61 1.78 1.12 1.26 1.40 1.53
Mesh 2–908 1.30 1.47 1.63 1.79 1.14 1.28 1.42 1.55
Mesh 3–878 1.34 1.51 1.67 1.84 1.18 1.33 1.47 1.61
Mesh 4–1848 1.28 1.44 1.60 1.77 1.11 1.26 1.39 1.53
P-s Upper Mesh 1–880 1.25 1.41 1.57 1.73 1.07 1.21 1.34 1.47
Mesh 2–908 1.27 1.43 1.59 1.74 1.09 1.23 1.35 1.48
Mesh 3–878 1.30 1.47 1.63 1.78 1.13 1.27 1.40 1.52
Mesh 4–1848 1.25 1.41 1.57 1.72 1.07 1.21 1.34 1.46

Fig. 7. Effect of soil shear strength parameters on limit overload.

Fig. 9. Effect of initial phase difference on limit overload.

Fig. 8. Effect of seismic wave period on limit overload.

Fig. 10. Influence of soil shear strength on the factor of safety.

bound method. The following results of safety factor are calculated

considering a linearly varied soil strength profile (termed as “NC” soil
herein) of which the gradient is defined as ρc and ρφ for soil cohesion
and friction angle, respectively. The basic input parameters are:
Vs = 100 m/s, Vp = 187 m/s, kh = 0.2, kv = 0.1, f = 1, T = 0.3 s,
t0 = 0, c0 = 25 kPa and φ0 = 10° where c0 (φ0) denotes the cohesion
(friction angle) at the slope crest surface.
When considering a constant soil friction angle and an increased soil
cohesion along depth (ρc), its effect on the slope stability is shown in
Fig. 14. Undoubtedly, the increasing ρc leads to a linear increase in
slope safety factor. This is attributed to the additional resistance pro-
vided by the increased part of soil cohesion. For ease of comparison, the
results calculated from average soil cohesion and friction angle are also
plotted for reference. It implies that the safety factor is under-estimated
Fig. 11. Influence of seismic coefficient (kh) on the factor of safety.
if an average value of soil shear strength parameter is assumed in non-

9
J. Zhou and C. Qin
Fig. 12. Influence of shear wave velocity (Vs) on the factor of safety.
Fig. 13. Influence of soil amplification factor (f) on the factor of safety.
Fig. 14. Pseudo-dynamic solutions of safety factor under a linearly increased
soil cohesion profile.
uniform soil strata. Similarly, the soil friction angle presents a similar
effect on seismic slope stability, as substantiated in Fig. 15 where a
constant soil cohesion and linearly varied friction angle profile are
accounted for, together with the reference values which are calculated
from average strength parameters. Therefore, in an effort to produce a
reliable solution, the actual soil shear strength profile should be used in
the limit analysis since it has a significant effect on seismic slope sta-
bility.
6.2. Two-layered soil slope
It is not uncommon to see layered soil strata in site, apart from “NC”
10
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530
Fig. 15. Pseudo-dynamic solutions of safety factor under a linearly increased
soil friction angle profile.
soils. In order to distinguish the partition of layered thickness in a two-
layer soil slope, coefficient η, defined as η = h1/h where h1 denotes the
thickness of upper layer, as illustrated in Fig. 2, is introduced for the
ease of clarification. Based on the preceding analyses including gen-
eration of a kinematically admissible failure mechanism for a two-layer
soil slope and the subsequent work rate calculations as well as the
optimization process, the pseudo-dynamic solutions of seismic slope
stability analysis are calculated in this part, with the above basic input
parameters in Section 5.1 and the following soil strength parameters:
c1 = 20 kPa, φ1 = 10° for the upper layer, and c2 = 25 kPa, φ2 = 15°
for the lower layer, unless specified in the figures.
In order to provide a convincing evidence for the proposed proce-
dure which can be applied to layered soil strata, a comparison is carried
out here considering a two-layer soil slope. The results are summarized
in Table 3 where η = 0.5 and kv = 0.5kh. Similar as before for the case
of a homogeneous soil, the pseudo-static solutions calculated from this
study agree well with those obtained from FLAC analysis, and are a
little bit greater than the limit equilibrium solutions (minor dis-
crepancies), thereby showing the applicability of the proposed proce-
dure in the pseudo-static analysis of a two-layer soil slope. It is also
within expectation that the use of pseudo-dynamic approach tends to
over-estimate the seismic slope stability solution, because the accel-
eration profile used is no greater than the pseudo-static.
Fig. 16 presents the pseudo-dynamic solutions of safety factor of a
two-layer soil slope influenced by model geometry (η) and seismic ef-
fects (kh, kv = 0.5kh). Owing to competitive soils with higher soil
strength in the lower layer, the smaller coefficient η, the thicker the
lower layer, thereby having a greater factor of safety. Note that the
increment in Fs gradually becomes slow with the increase in the
thickness of the lower layer, implying that replacing weak soils with
good ones could improve seismic slope stability but with decreasing
efficacy as the upper weak soils are gradually replaced. Therefore, the
determination of replaced thickness of soils is dependent upon the de-
gree of slope stability improvement and construction expenditure in a
practical project.
For the problem of a two-layer soil slope stability discussed herein,
the main difference lies in the consideration of different soil strength
properties in each layer, and hence its effect on seismic slope stability is
of much interest. Replacement of weak soils with geomaterials re-
presented by higher soil cohesion has a substantial effect on the im-
provement of seismic slope stability, as substantiated in Fig. 17. For the
case of soil cohesion in the upper layer greater than that of the lower
layer, the safety factor experiences an upward trend with the increase of
coefficient η, and vice versa. Interestingly, there are some cases where
the Fs value continues to increase after η exceeds 1.0 and in other cases
Fs remains unchanged. This can be well interpreted based on the critical
J. Zhou and C. Qin Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

Table 3
Comparison of slope safety factors obtained from different approaches in a two-layered soil slope.
Case Method

P-d Upper P-s Upper P-s FLAC P-s Bishop P-s M−P

φ1 = φ2 = 15° c1 = 15 kPa, c2 = 20 kPa 1.08 1.05 1.06 1.04 1.01

kh = 0.1 c1 = 20 kPa, c2 = 20 kPa 1.12 1.09 1.09 1.05 1.04
c1 = 25 kPa, c2 = 20 kPa 1.16 1.13 1.12 1.07 1.08
φ1 = φ2 = 15° c1 = 15 kPa, c2 = 20 kPa 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.86
kh = 0.2 c1 = 20 kPa, c2 = 20 kPa 0.97 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90
c1 = 25 kPa, c2 = 20 kPa 1.01 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.93
c1 = c2 = 25 kPa φ1 = 10°, φ2 = 15° 1.26 1.23 1.22 1.17 1.17
kh = 0.1 φ1 = 15°, φ2 = 15° 1.28 1.25 1.24 1.18 1.18
φ1 = 20°, φ2 = 15° 1.29 1.26 1.25 1.19 1.19
c1 = c2 = 25 kPa φ1 = 10°, φ2 = 15° 1.09 1.05 1.03 1.02 1.01
kh = 0.2 φ1 = 15°, φ2 = 15° 1.11 1.06 1.04 1.03 1.02
φ1 = 20°, φ2 = 15° 1.12 1.07 1.06 1.04 1.03

surface are plotted in Fig. 18 for η = 1.0 and 1.15, respectively. It is

observed that a below-the-toe failure pattern is identified and more
soils are positioned below the slope toe level for the latter case, re-
sulting in a greater Fs.
Analogous to soil cohesion, the soil frictional angle presents similar
effects on the seismic slope stability, as demonstrated in Fig. 19. Spe-
cifically, the soil friction angle in the upper layer greater than that of
the lower layer is likely to yield a larger Fs, with the increasing η. The
similar phenomenon is observed for the soil friction angle effect that the
Fs value continues to go up for the case of η beyond 1.0, which can be
also expounded by the failure mechanism at limit state. For instance,
the velocity field or the critical failure surface indicates a below-the-toe
failure mode at η = 1.0, with a small portion of soils below the slope toe
elevation, as illustrated in Fig. 20(a). When η is increased to 1.15, a
deeper failure surface is produced, as shown in Fig. 20(b), having more
soils under passive state and greater safety factor accordingly. It is
Fig. 16. Pseudo-dynamic solutions of safety factor against coefficient η and kh
worthwhile noting that minor variation in Fs is observed at small η,
in a two-layered soil slope stability analysis.
particularly for η less than 0.3. For the soil friction angle of the upper
layer, φ1 = 10° herein, the increase in upper layer thickness, η, yields a
gradual reduction in the factor of safety, and the Fs value remains un-
changed after η ≥ 1.0, demonstrating a toe failure in this case, as can be
seen in Fig. 20(c).

6.3. Soil slope with a soft band

There are some conditions in reality where a weak interlayer exists

Fig. 17. Pseudo-dynamic solutions of safety factor against soil cohesion c1 and η
in a two-layered soil slope stability analysis.
failure mechanism at limit state. More specifically, if a toe failure mode
can be used to represent the kinematically admissible velocity field, η
greater than 1.0 has no effect on the slope safety factor. However, as for
a portion of the critical failure block below the slope toe elevation,
implying a below-the-toe or intermediate failure mode, the seismic
slope stability could be influenced by η. For example, for the case of
c1 = 30 kPa, the velocity field and the corresponding critical failure
in a soil slope. The finite-element upper-bound procedure is capable of
solving such a complicated problem that may be challenging for other
kinds of upper bound analyses. The slope model with a soft band is
described in Fig. 21, showing the geometry and soil properties of weak
interlayer and the remaining soils. As an example, the weak layer is
simulated with a 0.5 m thickness and horizontally located 0.75 m below
the slope toe surface, which is the same as that discussed in Sloan [32].
The use of this benchmark problem is to validate the correctness and
applicability of the proposed procedure. The FEM mesh model is illu-
strated in Fig. 22 where the zone near the weak layer is further refined.
The simulated results are demonstrated in Fig. 23 where (a) is from
Sloan [32] and (b) from this study, in terms of safety factor and velocity
field. It is observed that the Sloan’s result (Fs = 1.27) is a little bit
smaller than that calculated in this study (1.28). Minor discrepancy on
the other hand substantiates the validity of the proposed procedure. A
relatively small Fs obtained from Sloan [32] may be attributed to the
‘adaptive mesh refinement’ used, because the mesh model is proved to
affect the accuracy of the solution as discussed in Fig. 6 and Table 2.
Apart from the factor of safety, the velocity fields are quite similar. A

11
J. Zhou and C. Qin
Fig. 18. Velocity fields at limit state for a two-layered soil slope considering the effects of soil cohesion and coefficient η.
Fig. 19. Pseudo-dynamic solutions of safety factor against soil friction angel φ1
and η in a two-layered soil slope stability analysis.
portion of the failure surface follows the weak layer and moves upwards
around the slope toe, at the limit state, which indicates the worst sce-
nario providing the least resistance.
A sandy weak layer is discussed in the above benchmark problem.
Based on this slope model, a discussion is performed considering dif-
ferent values of soil cohesion of the weak layer. The pseudo-static and
-dynamic solutions of slope safety factor are presented in Fig. 24. As
expected, an increase in Fs is observed when the cohesion of the weak
Fig. 20. Velocity fields at limit state for a two-layered soil slope considering the effects of soil friction angle and coefficient η.
12
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530
layer keeps increasing. This is sensible since the increased cohesion
provides additional resistance for improving the seismic slope stability.
Similar as above, the safety factor of the slope subject to earthquakes
decreases gradually with an increase of kh, and the pseudo-static ap-
proach is again proved to provide an overly conservative solution than
the pseudo-dynamic.
7. Conclusion
This study presents a pseudo-dynamic procedure with finite-element
upper-bound analysis to assess the seismic stability of a slope in a
uniform and non-uniform soil stratum. Such an analysis retains the
merits of upper bound theorem and finite element method, and hence
can be applied to resolve complicated stability problems, such as under
earthquake effect. The finite element principle is used to discretize the
soil mass into finite elements so as to construct a kinematically ad-
missible velocity field, and based on which the internal and external
rates of work are expressed. The upper bound formulations of limit
surcharge and slope safety factor are derived from the power-based
balance equation. In order to seek the optimal upper bound solution,
the seismic slope stability analysis is then transformed to a linear pro-
gramming problem subjected to: plastic flow, velocity discontinuities
and velocity boundary conditions. The interior-point algorithm is used
in the optimization process to search the optimal pseudo-dynamic so-
lutions of slope stability.
The numerical results indicate that the pseudo-static solutions
J. Zhou and C. Qin Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

Fig. 21. A soil slope model with weak interlayer.

Fig. 22. A FEM mesh considering weak interlayer in the slope.

Fig. 23. Comparison of slope safety factor and velocity field from: (a) Sloan [32], and (b) this study.

obtained from the finite-element upper-bound method are a little bit
greater than the limit equilibrium and FLAC solutions, and this well
reflects the characteristics of an upper bound analysis. More im-
portantly, the comparison results show that the use of the pseudo-static
approach yields an overly conservative solution, and in a sense the
pseudo-dynamic approach is recommended for producing a reliable
solution by considering the dynamic characteristics of the earthquake
effect. Interestingly, the velocity fields are insignificantly influenced by
the use of the pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic approach. If a linearly
increased soil strength profile is considered in the above analysis, the

13
J. Zhou and C. Qin Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

In order to encompass more scenarios, the proposed procedure is fur-

ther applied to the seismic stability analysis of a soil slope considering
0.5 m thick soft band, with the safety factor and velocity filed obtained
and compared with the existing literature.
The finite-element upper-bound analysis presented in this study
provides a sound avenue to offer a quick estimate for seismic slope
stability in a pseudo-dynamic way. Note that, however, the upper
bound of slope stability is discussed only, and in order to better predict
the authentic failure load, the rigorous lower bound is necessitated.
Therefore, the finite-element lower-bound analysis will be investigated
and performed in the near future.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jianfeng Zhou: Methodology, Software, Data curation,

Visualization, Validation. Changbing Qin: Conceptualization, Writing -
Fig. 24. Slope safety factor considering the effects of soil cohesion of weak
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Investigation.
layer.

Acknowledgements

slope stability is accordingly improved, and in such situation the use of This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of
average soil strength parameters is likely to yield a conservative solu- Fujian Province, China (Grant No.: 2019J05088) and Scientific
tion. As for a two-layered soil slope, the partition of soils has a sub- Research Funds of Huaqiao University, China (Grant No.: 18BS112),
stantial effect on the factor of safety and the critical failure mechanism. which are greatly appreciated.

Appendix:. Finite-element upper-bound analysis

Plastic flow constraints in a continuum

Since an associative flow rule is considered in the upper bound analysis, the corresponding constraints in the form of matrix must be followed for
each triangle of the mesh. A circumscribed p-polygon is adopted to represent a linear approximation of the generalized MC failure criterion for the
sake of formulating a linear programming problem. More specifically, for a triangular element e as presented in Fig. 1, the flow rule gives
e
A11 X1e e
A12 X2e = 0 (A1)
b1e 0 b2e 0 b3e 0
T e e e e T
where X1e = [ u1e v1e u 2e v2e u3e v3e ] , X2e = , ,
1
1 2 k p X e
2 0 A e
11 = 2Ae
0 c1e 0 c2e 0 c3e , b1e = y2e y3e , b2e = y3e y1e ,
c1e b1e c2e b2e c3e b3e
b3e = y1e y2e , c1e = x 2e + x 3e , c2e = x 3e + x1e , c3e = x1 + x 2 , with (x1 , y1 ), (x 2 , y2 ), and ( x 3 , y3 ) being the coordinates of three nodes in element e,
e e e e e e e e

M1 M2 Mk Mp
e
A12 = N1 N 2 N k Np , Mk = cos(2k / p) + sin , Nk = cos(2k / p) + sin , Rk = 2 sin(2k / p) , k = 1, 2, , p .
R1 R2 Rk Rp
Eq. (6) is accordingly assembled by Eq. (A1) if a total of ne elements are included in the domain of interest, with the matrices A11, A12 , X1 and X2
assembled by A11 e
, A12
e
, X1e and X2e , respectively.

Velocity discontinuities constraints

There exist velocity jumps on the interface shared by adjacent elements, as shown in Fig. 1. The matrix form for describing discontinuity
constraints of each velocity discontinuity (for example d), can be expressed as
d d
A21 X1 d
A23 X3d = 0 (A2)

T1d 0 sin d cos d sin d cos d

where A21
d
= , T1d = , with d
being the angle of the discontinuity inclined to the x-axis,
0 T1d cos d sin d cos d sin d

T2d 0 tan tan T d T

, X1d = u1d v1d u2d v2d u3d v3d u4d v4d , and X3d = 1 2 3 4 , X3d 0 .
d d d d
A23 = , T2d =
0 T2d 1 1
Similarly, for nd velocity discontinuities existed in the whole domain, Eq. (7) can be assembled by the above equation, with the matrices A21 , A23
and X3 in Eq. (7) separately assembled by A21 d
, A23
d
and X3d .

Constraints for velocity boundary conditions

Considering a portion of the velocity boundary (for example, boundary b with the end nodes 1 and 2), the following expression can be used to
describe the constraint of such a boundary condition of nodes i (i = 1, 2), i.e.

14
J. Zhou and C. Qin Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530

b b
A31 b
X1 = B31 (A3)
cos sin b b T T
where A31
b
= , X1b = [uib vib ] , B31
b
= [u¯ sib v¯nib ] , with b being the angle of the portion of the boundary b to the x-axis, ūsib and v̄nib
sin b cos b
represent prescribed tangential and normal nodal velocity components of node i, respectively.
In this way, Eq. (8) is assembled by Eq. (A3), considering nb boundaries in the domain of interest, where the matrices A31 and B31 in Eq. (8) are
assembled by A31 b
and B31
b
, respectively.

Work rate calculations

The fundamental procedure of finite-element upper-bound analysis is carried out based on an elementary analysis, including the calculation of
internal and external rates of work. For example, the dissipated energy from the plastic stresses in each triangle (such as triangle e) gives
Wine1 = Cine1 X2e (A4)
e e e e T
where Cine1
= 2Ae c cos
[1 1 1 p] and =[ X2e 1 2 k p] .
The internal energy dissipation also occurs along the velocity discontinuities. For instance, the plastic shearing-induced rate along each velocity
discontinuity d yields
Wind2 = Cind2 X3d (A5)
1 d T
where Cind1 = 2 cld [1 1 1 1], X3d = 1 2 3 ,
and ld is the length of the velocity discontinuity d.
d d d
4
The external rate of work produced by soil weight can be calculated within each element. For a random element e, it results
Wexe1 = Cexe1 X1e (A6)
Ae T
where Cexe1
= 3
0 [0 0 ] and = X1e [ u1e v1e u 2e v2e u3e v3e ] .
If there exists a traction force q̄n on the edge q, the corresponding work rate yields
Wexq 2 = Cexq 2 X1q (A7)
lq
where Cexq 2
= q¯n 0 q¯n ],
2
[0 = X1q [u1q v1q u2q v2q ]T ,
and lq refers to the length of the edge q.
The applied forces include seismic loading when considering an earthquake effect, and its work rate within a random element (element e)
presents the following form:
Wexe 3 = Cexe 3 X1e (A8)
Ae · T
where Cexe3 = [ kh (t , y ) k v (t , y ) kh (t , y ) k v (t , y ) kh (t , y ) k v (t , y ) ] and X1e =
3
[ u1e v1e u 2e v2e u3e v3e ] .
If the pseudo-static approach is used to
represent the earthquake, Cexe3 is not time-related.
Based on the above elementary analysis, the total external and internal rates of work (Win1, Win2 , Wex1, Wex2 and Wex3) can be obtained through the
summation of all elementary rates of work (Wine1, Wind2 , Wexe1, Wexq 2 and Wexe 3). Therein, Cin1, Cin2 , Cex1, Cex2 and Cex3 as presented in Eq. (19) are
assembled by Cine1, Cind2 , Cexe1, Cexq 2 and Cexe3 , respectively, considering ne elements, nd discontinuities and nq traction force edges within the domain of
interest.

References [13] Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S. Three-dimensional lower bound finite element

[1] Chen WF. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1975.
[2] Lysmer J. Limit analysis of plane problems in soil mechanics. J Soil Mech Found Div
ASCE 1970;96(4):1131–334.
[3] Anderheggen E, Knöpfel H. Finite element limit analysis using linear programming.
Int J Solids Struct 1972;8(12):1413–31.
[4] Bottero A, Negre R, Pastor J, et al. Finite element method and limit analysis theory
for soil mechanics problems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1980;22(1):131–49.
[5] Sloan SW. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear program-
ming. Int J Numer Anal Met Geomech 1988;12(1):61–77.
[6] Sloan SW. A steepest edge active set algorithm for solving sparse linear program-
ming problems. Int J Numer Anal Met Geomech 1988;26(12):2671–85.
[7] Sloan SW. Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear program-
ming. Int J Numer Anal Met Geomech 1989;13(3):263–82.
[8] Sloan SW, Kleeman PW. Upper bound limit analysis using discontinuous velocity
fields. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1995;127(1–4):293–314.
[9] Shiau JS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Bearing capacity of a sand layer on clay by finite
element limit analysis. Can Geotech J 2003;40(5):900–15.
[10] Wilson DW, Abbo AJ, Sloan SW. Undrained stability of dual square tunnels. Acta
Geotechnica 2015;10(5):665–82.
[11] Shi XS, Nie J, Zhao J, Gao Y. A homogenization equation for the small strain
stiffness of gap-graded granular materials. Comput Geotech 2019;113. 10.1016/
j.compgeo.2020.103440.
[12] Peng DL, Xu Q, Liu FZ, He YS, Zhang S, Qi X, et al. Distribution and failure modes of
the landslides in heitai terrace. China. Eng Geol 2018;236:97–110.
limit analysis of an anisotropic undrained strength criterion using second-order
cone programming. Comput Geotech 2019;106:327–44.
[14] Xiao Y, Zhao M, Zhao H. Finite Element Limit Analysis of the Bearing Capacity of
Strip Footing on a Rock Mass with Voids. Int J Geomech 2018;18(9):04018108.
[15] Yamamoto K, Lyamin AV, Wilson DW. Stability of a circular tunnel in cohesive-
frictional soil subjected to surcharge loading. Comput Geotech 2011;38(4):504–14.
[16] Yu HS, Salgado R, Sloan SW. Limit analysis versus limit equilibrium for slope sta-
bility. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(1):1–11.
[17] Kim J, Salgado R, Yu HS. Limit analysis of soil slopes subjected to pore-water
pressures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;125(1):49–58.
[18] Kim J, Salgado R, Lee J. Stability analysis of complex soil slopes using limit analysis.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2002;128(7):546–57.
[19] Loukidis D, Bandini P, Salgado R. Stability of seismically loaded slopes using limit
analysis. Geotechnique 2003;53(5):463–80.
[20] Qian ZG, Li AJ, Merifield RS. Slope stability charts for two-layered purely cohesive
soils based on finite-element limit analysis methods. Int J Geomech
2014;15(3):06014022.
[21] Lim K, Li AJ, Schmid A. Slope-stability assessments using finite-element limit-
analysis methods. Int J Geomech 2017;17(2):06016017.
[22] Li Z, Zhou Y, Guo Y. Upper-Bound Analysis for Stone Retaining Wall Slope Based on
Mixed Numerical Discretization. Int J Geomech 2018;18(10):04018122.
[23] Michalowski RL. Slope stability analysis: a kinematical approach. Géotechnique
1995;45(2):283–93.
[24] Qin CB, Chian SC, Du SZ. Revisiting seismic slope stability: intermediate or below-
the-toe failure? Géotechnique 2019;70(1):71–9.
[25] Steedman RS, Zeng X. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static

15
J. Zhou and C. Qin
earth pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique 1990;40(1):103–12.
[26] Nimbalkar SS, Choudhury D. Sliding stability and seismic design of retaining wall
by pseudo-dynamic method for passive case. Soil Dyn Earthq Engng
2007;27(6):497–505.
[27] Basha BM, Babu GLS. Seismic reliability assessment of internal stability of re-
inforced soil walls using the pseudo-dynamic method. Geosynth Int
2011;18(5):221–41.
[28] Pain A, Choudhury D, Bhattacharyya SK. Seismic stability of retaining wall-soil
sliding interaction using modified pseudo-dynamic method. Géotechnique Letters
2015;5:56–61.
16
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103530
[29] Qin CB, Chian SC. Kinematic analysis of seismic slope stability with a discretisation
technique and pseudo-dynamic approach: a new perspective. Géotechnique
2018;68(6):492–503.
[30] Qin CB, Chian SC. Discretization-based kinematic analysis method to seismic sta-
bility of geosynthetics-reinforced slopes involving differing earthquake approaches.
Int J Geomech 2019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001660.
[31] Qin CB, Chian SC. Pseudo-dynamic lateral earth pressures on rigid walls with
varying cohesive-frictional backfill. Comput Geotech 2019;103289.
[32] Sloan SW. Geotechnical stability analysis. Géotechnique 2013;63(7):531–72.