17-10-2012

Seismic Slope Stability

Dr. R S Jakka

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,

Roorkee, UttharaKhand

Contests
Introduction
Landslides
Slope failures

Types of Earthquake Induced Landslides

Earthquake Induced Landslide Activity
Evaluation of Slope Stability
Static Slope Stability Methods
Seismic Slope Stability Methods

17-10-2012

(Contd..)
Static Slope Stability M ethods
Wedge Method
Method of Slices
Ordinary or Fellenius Method (Swedish Circle Method)
Bishops Method
Janbus Simplified Method
Spencer Method
Morgenstern price method
Sarma Method
General limit equilibrium method
Stress deformation analysis (Finite element stress based method)

Seis mic Slope Stability M ethods

Inertial slope stability methods
Pseudostatic Analysis
Displacement Analysis
Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
Makdisi-Seed Analysis
Dynamic analysis (Dynamic FEM Analysis)
Weakening slope stability
Flow slide analysis
Deformation failures/lateral spreads
Advanced FEM

Introduction

L andslides are nothing but slope instabilities of natural s lopes

L andslides occur on a regular basis

Landslides can cause tremendous damage to properties , lives of

people

Landslides have been responsible for as much or more damage than

all other s eismic hazards c ombined

Slides c an also occur in man-made s lopes, s uch as ? ..

E arthquake very often trigger slope failures/landslides

Due to ground shaking (inertial forces)
Due to raise in the pore water pressures/liquefaction

Slope failures influenced by number of phenomenon

Slopes exist in states ranging from very stable to marginally stable

There are many examples of slope failures (e.g. Lower San Fernando
D am, Sheffield D am, many examples of road and rail embankments;
L andslides during Alaska 1964, Sikkim 2011)

..

17-10-2012

Computer simulation of a "slump" landslide in San Mateo County,

Calif ornia (USA) in January 1997

Typical failures of Landslides

Photo of the 2005 La Conchita Landslide

17-10-2012

2005 La Conchita Landslide - John Lehmkuhl

300 Ton Topanga Cany on Boulder - 2005 Landslide - (AP Photo)

17-10-2012

Holbeck Hall Landslide - England 1993 - British Geological Surv ey

17-10-2012

October 2, 1978 Bluebird Cany on landslide in Orange County California

Landslide & Debris Flow Scars in the San Gabriel Mountains - USGS

17-10-2012

National Highway 1-D connecting Srinagar with Leh town

Typical failures of Embankments

17-10-2012

Damage to kerb of highway pavement due to lateral spreading of soil,

Bhuj 2001

yp

This rail embankment at Vaka Nala damaged due to

occurrence of Liquefaction at the base

17-10-2012

Types of Earthquake Induced

Landslides
1.

Disrupted slides and falls

2.

C ohere nt slides

3.

Late ral spreads and flows

17-10-2012

Earthquake-Induced Landslide Activity

Magnitude Effects

Distance Effects

10

17-10-2012

11

17-10-2012

Evaluation of Slope Stability

Review of available documents

Rec onnaissance
I ns trumentation: Slope movement monitoring
Surfac e investigations
L aboratory tests
P erforming stability analysis
Static slope stability analysis
Seismic slope stability analysis

Slope Stability: Introduction

Why is water not stable when we force a slope on it?

Why are some soils stable at gentle slopes and

others at steeper slopes?

When does a stable soil cease to be stable and then

slides?

What causes instability?

What ensures stability?

12

17-10-2012

Static Slope Stability Analysis

Types of Slopes
Infinite
Finite

Types of Failure Surfaces

Translational
Circular
Toe failure, slope failure, base failure

Log-spiral
Compound failure
Wedge failure
Two-way wedge failure

Stability Analysis for I nfinite s lopes - ----Simple, hand c alculations

Stability Analysis for finite s lopes
Limit Equilibrium Analysis: Wedge method, Method of slices,
Stress Deformation Analysis: FEM, FDM, DEM,

Stability of Infinite Slopes

A ty pical element below an inf inite slope

13

17-10-2012

Case 1: Dry Cohesionless soil

Condition of Failure:

Case 2: Cohesive soil

Condition of Failure:

14

17-10-2012

Case 3: C and Phi Soils

Condition of Failure:

Case 4: Down-ward Seepage

15

17-10-2012

Various Steps in the Stability Analysis:

i.

Identifying the critical failure surface,

ii.

Estimating the driving forces/stress,

iii.

Estimating the resisting forces/stress,

and

iv.

Comparing the two stresses to

determine the Safety Factor.

16

17-10-2012

Stability of Finite Slopes

C ritical F.S (Failure Surface) ?

A f inite slope with possible f ailure surfaces

Assume some failure surface(FS) as possible

failure surface and estimate FOS

A f inite slope with a circular arc as a f ailure surf ace

17

17-10-2012

Weight of soil =
Driv ing Force =
Total Driv ing Force along the F.S =
Driv ing Moment
Ef f ective Normal Stress Acting on ds =
Resisting Force =
Total Resisting Force =
Resisting Moment,
Factor of Saf ety = Md/Mr

Method of Slices

Analytical te chniques not feasible

Num e rical te chniques are to be adopted
Sum m ation of small but finite e lements (ie number of
slice s)

18

17-10-2012

Fellenius (1927) made simplest assumption about inter-slice forces

Each inter-slice force is zero (ie ignored the existence of inter-slice forces)

19

17-10-2012

5m

21m

C = 10kN/m2
Phi = 350
17kN/m3
.

25m

14kN/m3

Embankment Ht.= 5m
.

1:2.5

Assume number of FS, and then estimate FOS for each of the FS..
FS with Min FOS is the Critical FS

20

17-10-2012

Mathematical Equations For Factor

of Safety (FOS)
Moment Equilibrium Condition

The summation of Moments, about ce nter of rotation (an

ax is point) of the forces acting on slices. Typical FOS e q.

Force Equilibrium Condition

R e solving forces acting on slices in horizontal direction and

sum ming for all slices. Typical FOS eq.

Where,
c' = effective cohesion
' = effective angle of friction

= pore-water pressure
N = slice base normal force
W = slice weight
D = line load
, R, x, f, d, = geometric parameters

= inclination of slice base

21

17-10-2012

Swedish Method of Slices (or)

Ordinary or Fellenius method

The simplicity of the method made it possible to compute

factor of safety using hand calculations.
In this method, all inter-slice forces are ignored.
For homogenous soil slopes with circular failure surfaces,
usually this method provides conservative FO S (low FO S)
com pared to other methods of slope stability
Howe ve r, due to the poor force polygon closure, this
m e thod can sometimes give unrealistic factor of safety and
conse quently should not be used in practice .
F.S is the total available shear stre ngth along slip surface
divide d by summation of gravitational driving force s.
F .S

F.S

C N tan Sresistace
(W * sin ) Smobilized

C N tan Sresistace

(W * sin )

Smobilized

Where,
c = cohesion,
= slice base length,
N = base normal (W cos ),
= friction angle,
W = slice weight, and
= slice base inclination

22

17-10-2012

Bishops simplified method

T his method include interslice normal forces, but ignores

inters lice s hear forces
T his resulted the base normal becomes a func tion of the factor of
s afety.
T he fac tor of s afety equation becomes nonlinear (i.e. F.S appears
on both s ides of the equation).
F.S

[C W tan {cos
(W * sin )

sin tan
}]
F .S

To find fac tor of s afety, it is necessary to s tart with a guess for

FS. T he initial guess is taken as the ordinary factor of s afety .
T he forc e polygon c losure is now fairly good with the addition of
the interslice normal forc es.

23

17-10-2012

Janbus simplified method

This method is similar to the Bishops method (No

horizontal interslice shear force is considered)
This method satisfies only overall horizontal force
equilibrium, but not overall moment equilibrium
The slice force polygon closure is usually better than
that for the Bishops method
There is a significant difference in FS from Janbu and
Bishop methods.
Factor of safety is actually too low compared to
Bishops method
This is due to the fact that force equilibrium is
sensitive to the assumed interslice shear, ignoring the
interslice shear makes the resulting factor of safety
too low for circular slip surfaces

24

17-10-2012

Spencer method

It is an advanced method.

It considers both shear and normal interslice forces

It considers both factor of safety related to Moment equilibrium condition

and force equilibrium condition. It satisfies both conditions of equilibrium

It assumes a constant interslice force function.

(ie. a constant relationship between the interslice shear (X) to
normal (E) forces between all slices)

Where, f(x) = 1 (i.e. the interslice shear normal ratio is the same
between all slices)

is interslice shear force to normal force ratio

It is an iterative procedure altering the interslice shear and normal ratio
until the two factors of safety were the same.
Spencers method was presented originally for the analysis of
circular slip surfaces, but it is easily extended to non-circular slip
surfaces.

25

17-10-2012

26

17-10-2012

Morgenstern-price method

Morgenstern-Price (M-P) method similar to the

Spencer, but this method allows use of various
user-specified interslice force functions like
Constant, Half-sine, Clipped-sine, Trapezoidal.
Selecting the Constant function makes the M-P
method identical to Spencer method.
M-P method considers both shear and normal
interslice forces satisfies both moment and
force equilibrium.
As with the Spencer method, the force polygon
closure is very good with the M-P method, since
both shear and normal interslice forces are
included.

27

17-10-2012

28

17-10-2012

29

17-10-2012

Comparisons of various methods

= X /[E f(x)]
f(x)= Interslice force function
E = Interslice normal force
X = Interslice shear force
= % of function used
(decimal form)

Sarma method

This method used primarily to assess the stability of

soil slopes under seismic conditions. Using
appropriate assumptions the method can also be
employed for static slope stability analysis also.
This method satisfies all conditions of equilibrium, i.e.
horizontal and vertical force equilibrium and moment
equilibrium for each slice.
It may be applied to any shape of slip surface as the
slip surfaces are not assumed to be vertical, but they
may be inclined.
It is called advanced because it can take account of
non-circular failure surfaces
Sarma method is now a day used as verification to
finite element programs.
It is the standard method used for seismic analysis.

30

17-10-2012

General limit equilibrium methods

The GLE m ethod provides a framework for discussing,

de scribing and understanding all the other m ethods.
The GLE formulation is based on two factors of safety
e quations and allows for a range of inter slice shear-normal
force s assumptions. O ne equation gives the factor of safety
with re spect m oment equilibrium (Fm), while the other
e quation gives the factor of safety with re spect to
horizontal force e quilibrium (Ff).
The idea of using two factors of safety equations follows
from the work of Spencer (1967).
The inter slice shear force in the GLE m ethod are handled
with an e quation proposed by Morgenstern and price
(1965). The e quation is
X = E f(x )

Comparison of limit equilibrium slope stability methods (Abramson et

al, 2002;Interslice
Sinha,Interslice
2008) Moment
Moment
Force
Force
Interslice

S.
Methods
N
o
1. Culman Wedge
Block method
(no-slice)
2.
Fellenius,
Swedish Circle
or Ordinary
method (1936)
3.
Bishop
Simplified
method (1955)
4. Janbu simplified
method (1954)

Equilibrium

Equilibrium

NO

YES

Shear
Forces
NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

NO

Normal
Forces
NO

Factor of
safety
NO

Factor of
safety
YES

Force
Function
NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

NO

5. Spencer method
(1967)
6. Morgenstern
-price method
(1965)

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Constant

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

7.

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Constant
Half-Sine
Clipped-Sine
Trapezoid
YES

Sarma method
(1973)

31

17-10-2012

Various Steps in the Slope Stability Analysis of

Finite Slopes:
i.

Assume a possible failure surface,

ii.

Divide it into small finite slices

iii.

Estimating the driving forces/stress for each

slice,

iv.

Estimating the resisting forces/stress for each

slice,

v.

Sum up all driving forces and resisting forces

on all the slices

vi.

Comparing the two quantities to determine the

Safety Factor

vii.

Repeat steps i to vi with other possible failure

surfaces

viii.

Identify critical failure surface

Wedge Method
It occurs w hen a soil deposit has a specific plane of weakness

32

17-10-2012

What is the minimum required FOS for the design of embankments?

For long term loading conditions = 1.5
For temporary or end of construction conditions = 1.3

Limitations of Method of Slices

Stre ss distributions are not necessarily re presentative of

the actual field stresses.
Stre ss distributions are obtained considering e quilibrium
conditions of each slice.
All the slices are assumed at the same state of e quilibrium
(ie FO S is assumed to be the same for e ach slice )
Many other assumptions about inter-slice forces
No inform ation on slope deformations (Soil above potential
failure surface is assumed to be rigid-perfectly plastic)
In actual conditions, strength of soil at all points doesnt
re ach failure surface at the same time.

33

17-10-2012

Stress-Deformation Analysis
(FEM Analysis)

This analysis allows consideration of actual stress-strain

be havior of the soil
FEM analysis of slopes provides magnitudes and patterns of
stre sses, m ovements, and pore pressures in slopes during
and after the construction/deposition
Non-linear stress-strain behavior, complex boundary
conditions, irre gular geometries, and a variety of
construction operations can all be simulated/considered in
this analysis (advanced FEM analysis).
Analysis can identify most likely mode of failure by locating
m ost critically stressed zones within a slope
Provides the slope deformations up to the point of failure

Finite Element Method (FEM) Analysis

The finite element-computed stresses can be

imported into a conventional limit equilibrium
analysis. The stresses x, y and xy are known
within each element, and from this information
the normal and mobilized shear stress can be
computed at the base mid-point of each slice

34

17-10-2012

Procedure
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

The known x, y and xy at the Gauss numerical integration point in each element
are projected to the nodes and then averaged at each node. With the x, y and xy
known at the nodes, the same stresses can be computed at any other point within
the element.
For Slice 1, find the element that encompasses the x-y coordinate at the base midpoint of the slice.
Compute x, y and xy at the mid-point of the slice base.
The inclination ( ) of the base of the slice is known from the limit equilibrium
discretization.
Compute the slice base normal and shear stress using ordinary Mohr circle
techniques.
Compute the available shear strength from the computed normal stress,
Multiply the mobilized shear and available strength by the length of the slice base to
convert stress into forces.
Repeat process for each slice in succession up to Slice # n

Once the mobilized and resisting shear forces are available for each slice, the forces can
be integrated over the length of the slip surface to determine a stability factor. The
stability factor is defined as:

where, S r is the total available shear resistance and S m is the total mobilized shear
along the entire length of the slip surface.

Typical Finite element mesh for

Computing insitu stress

35

17-10-2012

Computed Stress Distributions

36

17-10-2012

37

17-10-2012

Analysis of complex boundary conditions

38

17-10-2012

Advantages of FEM Based Slope

Stability Analysis

The re is no need to m ake assumptions about interslice

force s
The stability factor is deterministic once the stresses have
be e n computed, and consequently, there are no iterative
conve rgence problems.
The issue of displacement compatibility is satisfied
The computed ground stresses are much closer to re ality.
Stre ss conce ntrations are indire ctly considered in the
stability analysis.
Soil-structure interaction effects are re adily handled in the
stability analysis
Dynam ic stresses arising from earthquake shaking can be
dire ctly considered in a stability analysis.

Limitations/Disadvantages

Increased engineering time for problem

formation
Detailed characterization of material properties
and interpretation of results
Increased computational effort
Accuracy of the analysis is strongly influenced by
the accuracy with which stress-strain model
represents actual material behavior
Accuracy of simple models restricted to certain
ranges of strain
Advanced models require a large number of input
parameters, whose values can be difficult to
determine

39

17-10-2012

SEISMIC SLOPE
STABILITY METHODS

Seismic Slope Stability

Methods
Inertial Slope Stability Methods
Weakening Slope Stability
Methods

40

17-10-2012

Inertial Slope stability methods

Pseudostatic Methods
Displacement Based Methods
N ewmark Sliding Block Analysis
M akdisi-Seed Analysis

Dynamic Finite Element Method

Pseudostatic Analysis: Introduction

Most commonly used method for analyzing

seismic slope stability. This method is also
recommended by IS code of practice.
This method is easy to understand and is
applicable for both total and effective stress
slope stability analyses.
Effects of earthquake are represented by
constant horizontal and/or vertical
accelerations
Several commercial software available:
GeoStudio 2004/Slope W; Slide, etc..

41

17-10-2012

Pseudostatic Analysis: Methodology

Pseudostatic analysis represent the effects of

earthquake shaking by considering
pseudostatic accelerations that produce
inertial forces, F h and F v, which act through
the centroid of the failure mass.

Where, ah is horizontal pseudostatic acceleration, k h is dimensionless

horizontal pseudostatic coefficients, W is the weight of the failure mass

Methodology Contd..
Selection of appropriate pseudostatic
accelerations/coefficients is very important step
of the analysis
Magnitude of the pseudostatic
accelerations/coefficients should be related to the
severity of the anticipated ground motion
After arriving at the appropriate horizontal &
vertical forces, rest of the procedure is same as
routine slope stability analysis: Resolve forces on
the sliding mass in a direction parallel to the
failure surface. Estimate driving and resisting
forces and then FOS. Repeat for different possible
failure surfaces, and then identify critical failure
surface.

42

17-10-2012

Typical Example of Pseudostatic

Analysis

Observations on Effects of Fh and Fv

Horizontal pseudostatic force, Fh reduces the
resisting force and increases the driving force.
Thereby FOS decreases.
Vertical pseudostatic force typically has less
influence on factor of safety since it reduce both
driving force and the resisting force
Thats why effects of vertical accelerations are
frequently neglected in pseudostatic analysis.
This method can be used for planar, circular and
noncircular failure surfaces.

43

17-10-2012

Selection of Pseudostatic Coefficient

If the slope material is rigid, the inertial force
induced in the sliding mass, would be equal to
the product of actual horizontal acceleration and
the mass of the sliding mass.
According to Marcuson (1981): pseudostatic
coefficients for dams correspond to one-third to
one-half of the maximum acceleration (including
amplification or deamplification of crest
acceleration)

Information Required For the

Analysis

Peak design acceleration

Geometry of considered soil
structure
Mohr-Coulomb strength
parameters

44

17-10-2012

Earthquake Loading

Pseudostatic accelerations
(related to the severity of the earthquake)

Pseudostatic Coefficients

Pseudo-static Methods
Modified Swedish Circle Method (IS Code
suggested m ethod)
Bishops Method
Janbus Method
Morgenstern-Price Method
Wedge Method

45

17-10-2012

Procedure for calculation of seismic coefficients

Seismic coefficient is obtained using I.S code 1893(2002 and 1984)
Initially, time period of the structure is to be calculated using IS 1893-1984 [clause

7.4.1.2(a)]
T 2 .9 H

For this time period, Sa/g is to be obtained from response spectra given in IS1893-

2002.

Seismic Coefficient is calculated from IS 1893-2002 (clause 6.4.2)

Z
I
Sa
* *
g
2 R

Where
Z = Zone Factor (For Roorkee Zone IV) = 0.24 (From table-2 IS 1893-2002)
I = Importance Factor (For Embankment) = 1.5 (From table-6 IS 1893-2002)
R = Reduction Factor = 1.5 .
Calculated seismic coefficient is scaled to appropriate damping of the structure.
Damping suggested for embankments in IS1893 (Table:3 IS 1893-1984) = 10%
Multiplication factor = 0.8
Estimate equivalent uniform seismic coefficient (Section 7.4.2.2, IS1893-1984)

Newmark Sliding Block Analysis

(displacement analysis)

Pseudostatic method provides an index of

stability but no information on deformations of
slopes
This (NSBA) analysis provides the acceleration,
velocity and displacement of the sliding mass
under a given ground motion.
Major assumption of Newmark method is that the
slope will deform only when peak ground
acceleration exceeds yield acceleration.
Determining the yield acceleration is the most
critical step in this analysis.
Analysis is most appropriate for wedge type
failure.

46

17-10-2012

Forces acting on a block resting on an inclined plane under static conditions

47

17-10-2012

Forces acting on a block resting on an inclined plane under dy namic conditions

As Kh increases factor of safety reduces.

There will be some positive value of Kh that
will produce a factor of safety of 1.0. This
coefficient, termed as the yield coefficient
ky, corresponds to the yield acceleration,
ay = ky *g
The yield acceleration is the minimum
pseudostatic acceleration required to
produce instability of the block.

48

17-10-2012

When a block on an inclined plane is subjected to a pulse of acceleration

that exceeds the yield acceleration, the block will move relative to the plane.

Total relative displacement

(10.11)

Displacement depends upon: A, ay, dt

Characteristics of EQ influencing
displacement are amplitude, frequency &
duration.

49

17-10-2012

Displacement of the sliding mass under a single earthquake

pulse loading,

A s suming number of puls es in a earthquake motion are propitiate

to the ratio of A /ay, N ewmark c ome up with following equation to
obtain total dis placement of the s liding mass produced during
earthquake s haking,

T he above equation usually, provides upper bound es timate of the

permanent dis placements produced by the earthquake motion

50

17-10-2012

Diagram illustrating Newmark method

(a) ac c eleration vs time

(b) V elocity vs time for darkened portion of acceleration pulse
(c ) c orresponding down s lope displacement vs time in response to
velocity pulses

51

17-10-2012

Unlike Newmark, Yegian et al. (1991) come with the following expression which explicitly
considers both frequency content and duration of ground motion on the total displacement
of the sliding mass,

Sliding block displacement can also be correlated with arias intensity as follows

52

17-10-2012

Information Required For Analysis

Yield Acceleration/Critical Acceleration
Ground Motion Characteristics
Amplitude
Frequency
Duration

Accuracy of Displacement Method

Depends on
Accuracy of input motion applied to the
inclined plane.
Geometry of the slope and stiffness of
slope materials.
Ground motion characteristics.

53

17-10-2012

Dynamic FEM analysis provides most

accurate assessment of dynamic
stresses/inertial forces

54

17-10-2012

Makdisi-Seed Analysis

Mak disi and Se ed (1978) improved upon Ne wm ark

proce dure by accounting for the dynamic re sponse of the
e m bankment.
Back ground: During the San Fernando Earthquake of 1971,
the Upper San Fernando Dam, despite a large pseudostatic
factor of safety, failed. In 1973, Seed performed a dynamic
analysis of the embankment and computed displacements
that closely agreed with the observed deformations.
In Makdisi and Se eds proce dure, the yield acce leration is
com puted for the failure surface using the dynamic yield
stre ngth, which is approximately 80% of the static
stre ngth.
A slope , howe ver, is compliant and will de form during
shaking. Thus, it is possible for adjacent portions of the
sliding m ass to be out of phase; different areas of the slope
m ay be accelerating in different directions .
M-S sim plified procedure is wide ly used for e stimation of
pe rm anent displacements in dams and embankments

55

17-10-2012

56

17-10-2012

Weakening Slope Stability

Analysis
This is the pre ferred method for those soils that will
e x perience re duction in shear stre ngth during an earthquake.
R e duction in shear strength is due to liquefaction.

R e duction in shear strength is also due to e xcess pwps.

Weakening Slope Stability Results in

Flow slides

Liquefaction induced lateral spreading

57

17-10-2012

Flow slide

If liquefaction (flow liquefaction) occurs in or under a

sloping soil mass, the entire soil mass will flow or translate
late rally to the unsupported slide in a phenomenon termed
as flow slide.
Flow slide s develop whe n static driving forces e xceed
we ak e ned shear strength of soil along slip surface.
C onsequently, factor of safety is less than 1.
O ccurre nce of flow slides can be identified by carrying out
slope stability analysis for e nd of e arthquake conditions.
Lique fied re gions should be given re sidual strength.
Effe ctive stress analysis should be considered to include
e ffe ct of development of excess pore wate r pressures.

Liquefaction Induced Lateral

Spreading (or) Deformation
Failures
Lateral spreading is caused due to the
liquefaction of embankment soil or soil behind a
retaining wall. Occurrence of liquefaction
subsequently increase pressures on the retaining
wall or gently sloping or flat ground surfaces.
If the liquefaction induced lateral spreading is
restricted to localized ground surface, it is called
localized lateral spreading.
If it causes lateral movement over an extensive
distance, it is called large scale lateral spreading.
Concept of cyclic mobility can be used to describe
large scale lateral spreading

58

17-10-2012

Even though concept of cyclic mobility can

be used to describe large scale lateral
spreading. Its accurate quantification is
very difficult due to complex stress strain
behavior of soil during cyclic mobility.
Simulation of cyclic mobility of soil in the
field models is very difficult and
complicated. Consequently, only empirical
methods/formulae are only available
currently to estimate lateral
spreading/deformation failures.

Selection of appropriate method of

analysis
For F.S against liquefaction < 1, soil is
expected to liquefy due to earthquake. Flow slide
analysis or lateral spreading analysis will be
performed.
For F.S against liquefaction > 2, the pore water
pressure due to earthquake is usually small. It
can be neglected. Soil is not weakened by
earthquake. So inertial slope stability analysis will
be performed.
For F.S against liquefaction >1 and < or =2, soil
is not expected to liquefy due to earthquake, but
sufficient excess pore water pressures will be
developed. Consequently, their effect is to be
included in the analysis by carrying out effective
stress analysis

59

17-10-2012

60