Simplified Seismic Slope

Displacement Procedures
Jonathan D. Bray, Ph.D., P.E.

Univ. of California at Berkeley


Thanks to Dr. T. Travasarou, Prof. E. Rathje, & others,
with support from PEER & the Packard Foundation
Simplified Seismic Slope Displacement Procedures

OUTLINE
I. Introduction

II. Seismic Slope Displacement Analysis
a. Earthquake Ground Motion
b. Dynamic Resistance
c. Dynamic Response
d. Seismic Displacement Calculation

III. Simplified Slope Displacement Procedures

IV. Conclusions






I. Seismic Slope Stability
4
th
Ave. Slide, 1964 Alaska EQ
1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan EQ
EERC Slide Collection

Landslide Stabilization
CSA
Solid-Waste Landfill
Two Critical Design Issues
1. Are there materials that will lose significant
strength as a result of cyclic loading?
Flow Slide

2. If not, will the system undergo significant
deformations that may jeopardize system
performance?
Seismic Displacements

Seismic Slope Displacement
Slip along a distinct surface

Distributed shear deformation

Add volumetric-induced deformation, when appropriate


Newmark-type
seismic displacement
FEA of Shaking Table Test of Clay Slope
0 2 4 6 8 10
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Horizontal displacement (D2)
PLAXIS
RECORD
0 2 4 6 8 10
-3
-2
-1
0
1
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Horizontal displacement (D4)
0 2 4 6 8 10
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Time (sec)
Horizontal displacement (D5)
0 2 4 6 8 10
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
Vertical displacement (D1)

II. Seismic Displacement Analysis:

Critical Components
a. Earthquake Ground Motion
b. Dynamic Resistance
c. Dynamic Response
d. Seismic Displacement Calculation
a. Earthquake Shaking:
Acceleration Time History



a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
time (s)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30



Izmit (180 Comp) 1999 Kocaeli EQ (Mw=7.4) scaled to MHA = 0.30 g
PGA = 0.3 g Tm = 0.63 s & D5-95 = 15 s
Acceleration Response Spectrum
(provides response of SDOF of different periods at 5% damping,
i.e., indicates intensity and frequency content of ground motion)

0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (s)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
5% Damping
Sa(0.5)
Sa(1.0)
PGA
Sa(0.2)
b. Dynamic Resistance:
Simplified Estimates of Yield Coefficient (ky)
(seismic coefficient that results in FS=1.0 in pseudostatic stability analysis)

H

c =cohesion
=
friction angle
k
c
H
y
= +
+
tan( )
cos ( tan tan )


2
1
1
S
2
1 H
L
S
1
k
FS S H
H S S L
y
static
=

+ +
( ) cos sin
( )
1 2
2
1
1
1
1 2

( )
FS
S H L S H
S H
static
=
+ +

tan cos
cos sin


1
2
1 2
1 1 1
2 2
2
with
1
1
1
1 =

tan ( ) S
Shallow Sliding
Deep Sliding
Shewbridge 1996
Bray et al. 1998
Factors Affecting
Dynamic Strength of Clays
Rate of loading: C
rate
> 1

Number of significant cycles: C
cyc
< 1

Progressive failure: C
prog
< 1

S
dynamic
= S
static
(C
rate
) (C
cyc
) (C
prog
)

Also, post-peak strength reduction if EQ-
induced strain exceeds strain at peak stress
Vane Shear and Direct Shear tests
Small vane 2.5 cm diameter

Large vane 5.7 cm diameter

Large direct shear box 30 cm
by 30 cm square
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
displacement (in)
s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
p
s
f
)
original vane shear data
derived from vane shear
direct shaer data

Seed and Martin 1966
c. Dynamic Response of Sliding Mass
Dynamic Response: Equivalent Acceleration Concept
accounts for cumulative effect of incoherent motion in deformable sliding mass


Horz. Equiv. Accel.: HEA = (
h
/
v
) g

MHEA = max. HEA value

k
max
= MHEA / g

H
v

h
Seed and Martin 1966
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Ts-waste/Tm-eq
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
M
H
E
A
/
(
M
H
A
,
r
o
c
k
*
N
R
F
)
Rock site median, and 16th and 84th
0.1 1.35
0.2 1.20
0.3 1.09
0.4 1.00
0.5 0.92
0.6 0.87
0.7 0.82
0.8 0.78
MHA,rock (g) NRF
probability of exceedance lines
(Bray & Rathje 1998)
FACTORS AFFECTING MAXIMUM SEISMIC LOADING
k
m
a
x


/

(
M
H
A
r
o
c
k

*

N
R
F

/

g
)

T
s-sliding mass
/ T
m-EQ
k
max
depends on stiffness and geometry of the
sliding mass (i.e., its fundamental period)
Ts,1-D = 4 H / Vs

Ts, 1-D = Initial Fundamental Period of Sliding Mass

H = Height of Sliding Mass

Vs = Average Shear Wave Velocity of Sliding Mass
d. Seismic Displacement Calculation
Newmark (1965) Rigid Sliding Block Analysis
Assumes:
Rigid sliding block
Well-defined slip surface develops
Slip surface is rigid-perfectly plastic
Acceleration-time history defines EQ loading

Key Parameters:
ky - Yield Coefficient (max. dynamic resistance)
k
max
- Seismic Coefficient (max. seismic loading)
ky /

kmax (if > 1, D = 0; but if < 1, D > 0)
Rigid
Sliding
Block:

use
accel.-
time hist.

k
max
= PGA/g
Cover
Base
Rock


Deformable
Sliding
Block:

use equiv.
accel.-time
hist.

k
max
= MHEA/g
Mid-Ht
Decoupled & Coupled
Deformable Sliding Analysis
Earth Fill
Potential Slide Plane
Decoupled
Analysis
Coupled
Analysis
Flexible System
Dynamic Response
Rigid Block
Sliding Response
Flexible System
Flexible System
Dynamic Response and
Sliding Response
Max Force at
Base =k
y
W
Calculate HEA-
time history
assuming no
sliding along base
Double integrate
HEA-time
history given ky
to calculate U
0.1 1 10 100 1000
U (cm)
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
c
m
)
:
U












-

U









decoupled
d
e
c
o
u
p
l
e
d









c
o
u
p
l
e
d



































k =0.05
k =0.1
k =0.2
y
y
y



(b)
D
e
c
o
u
p
l
e
d

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e

Calculated Seismic Displacement
Expected k
y
SAFE
UNSAFE
?
Think About It as a Cliff
Calculated Seismic Displacement is an Index of Performance
Evaluate Seismic Performance
Given seismic displacement estimates:

Small (e.g., D 15 cm)
Moderate
Large (e.g., D 1 m)

Evaluate the ability of earth structure and systems founded on it to
accommodate this level of deformation.

Consider:

Consequences of failure and conservatism of hazard assessment
and stability analyses, e.g., the consequences of shallow sliding
are usually less severe than deep sliding & more easily repaired.

Defensive measures that provide " ductility" or " shield" critical
components from damage, e.g., slip layer above critical liner
system.
III. Simplified Seismic Slope Procedures:
Makdisi & Seed (1978)
1. Evaluate materials strength loss potential

If significant, do not use this method
If slight, use slightly reduced strength (in many
cases, use ~ 10% to 20% strength reduction)
2. Calculate ky
3. Estimate max. crest acceleration
MHA at Top vs. Base Rock MHA for Some Solid-Waste Landfills
(Bray & Rathje 1998)
MHA,top = ?
4. Estimate kmax for sliding mass using plot of
max. accel. ratio vs. (y/h)
Kmax varies with Ts

5. Estimate seismic displacement (U) based
on ky/kmax & EQ Magnitude
WARNING: Do not use
figure in original
Makdisi & Seed (1978)
paper; it is off by an
order of magnitude
Limitations
It must be noted that the design curves are derived from a
limited number of cases. These curves should be updated and
refined as analytical results for more embankments are obtained.
Makdisi & Seed (1978)


Very limited number of earthquake ground motions used.

Estimating MHA at the crest to estimate kmax is problematic.

Relatively simple analysis employed, e.g., shear slice method.

Decoupled analysis to calculate seismic displacement.

Upper and lower bounds are not true upper and lower bounds.

No estimate of uncertainty.
INTENSITY MEASURES, e.g.:
amplitude: PGA, PGV, PGD, Sa, Sv
frequency content: T
p
, T
m

duration: D
5_95,

combination: Arias Intensity
Housner Spectral Intensity

Bray & Travasarou (2007)
1. SLOPE MODEL
nonlinear soil response
fully coupled deformable stick-slip
stiffness (T
s
) & strength (k
y
)
8 Ts values & 10 ky values
T
s
k
y

D
2. EARTHQUAKE DATABASE
41 EQ - 688 records

Over 55,000 analyses
EFFICIENCY
of Ground Motion
Intensity Measures
STIFF WEAK SLOPE
P
G
A
S
A
S
A
(
1
.
3
T
s
)
S
A
(
1
.
5
T
s
)
S
A
(
2
.
0
T
s
)
a
r
m
s
A
r
i
a
s
I
c
P
G
V
E
P
V
S
I
P
G
D
T
m
D
5
_
9
5
Intensity Measure
0
1
2
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
0
1
2
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
k
y
=0.10 T
s
=0.5 s
k
y
=0.20 T
s
=0.5 s
0
1
2
P
G
A
S
A
S
A
(
1
.
3
T
s
)
S
A
(
1
.
5
T
s
)
S
A
(
2
.
0
T
s
)
a
r
m
s
A
r
i
a
s
I
c
P
G
V
E
P
V
S
I
P
G
D
T
m
D
5
_
9
5
Intensity Measure
0
1
2
k
y
=0.20 T
s
=1.0 s
k
y
=0.10 T
s
=1.0 s
S
T
R
O
N
G
E
R
MORE FLEXIBLE
EFFICIENCY RESULTS
Sa (1.5T
s
) Arias Intensity Housner Spectral Intensity
(1) Model for D = 0 P (D = 0 ) = f (S
a
(1.5T
s
), k
y
, T
s
)










Note: D = 0 is negligible displacements, i.e. D < 1 cm
MIXED RANDOM VARIABLE APPROACH

0.01 0.1 1
Yield Coefficient
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
P
(
D
=
"
0
"
)
0 1 2 3
Fundamental Period (s)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
P
(
D
=
"
0
"
)
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
SA(1.5T
s
) (g)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
P
(
D
=
"
0
"
)
(a) (b) (c)
(2) Model for D > 0 Ln (D) = f (S
a
(1.5T
s
), k
y
, T
s,
M) + [ = 0.66]
MIXED RANDOM VARIABLE APPROACH
1) Zero Displacement Estimate
( ) + + = )) 5 . 1 ( ln( ) ln( 566 . 0 ) ln( 333 . 0 ) ln( 83 . 2 10 . 1 ) ln(
2
s a y y y
T S k k k D
( ) )) 5 . 1 ( ln( 52 . 3 ) ln( 484 . 0 ) ln( 22 . 3 76 . 1 1 ) " 0 " (
s a s y y
T S T k k D P + = =
2) NonZero Displacement Estimate
( ) + + ) 7 ( 278 . 0 50 . 1 )) 5 . 1 ( ln( 244 . 0 )) 5 . 1 ( ln( 04 . 3
2
M T T S T S
s s a s a
is the standard normal cumulative distribution function (NORMSDIST in Excel)
Bray & Travasarou (2007) Seismic Displacement
is a normally-distributed random variable with zero mean and standard deviation = 0.66

*Replace first term (i.e., -1.10) with -0.22 for cases where Ts < 0.05 s
MODEL TRENDS
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T
s
(s)
0
0.5
1
S
A
(
1
.
5
T
s
)

(
g
)
5% damping
Scenario Event:
M 7 at 10 km
Soil SS fault
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T
s
(s)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P
(
D
=
"
0
"
)
ky= 0.3
ky= 0.2
ky= 0.1
ky= 0.05
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T
s
(s)
1
10
100
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
c
m
)ky= 0.05
ky= 0.1
ky= 0.2
ky= 0.3
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T
s
(s)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P
(
D
=
"
0
"
)
ky= 0.3
ky= 0.2
ky= 0.1
ky= 0.05
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T
s
(s)
1
10
100
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
c
m
)ky= 0.05
ky= 0.1
ky= 0.2
ky= 0.3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
T
s
(s)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
P
(
D

>

3
0

c
m
)
ky= 0.3
ky= 0.2
ky= 0.1
ky= 0.05
Scenario Event:
M 7 at 10 km
Soil SS fault
System EQ
Obs.
D
max

(cm)
Bray & Travasarou 2007



P (D = 0 ) Est. Disp (cm)
Makdisi &
Seed 1978
D (cm)
Bray &
Rathje 1998
D (cm)
BuenaVista LF LP None
0.75
0.8 - 3
0 0
Guadalupe LF LP Minor
0.95
0.3 - 1
0 0 4
Pacheco Pass LF LP None
1.0
0 - 0.1
0 0
Marina LF LP None
0.9
0.5 - 2
0 0
Austrian Dam LP 50
0.0
20 - 70
1 30 20 100
Lexington Dam LP 15 0.0
15 - 65
0 10 30 110
Chiquita Canyon C LF NR 24 0.0
10 - 30
1 40 3 20
Chiquita Canyon D LF NR 30 0.0
6 - 22
0 10 2 15
Sunshine Canyon LF NR 30 0.0
20- 70
0 0
OII Section HH LF NR 15 0.1
4 - 15
3 30 2 25
La Villita Dam S3 1 0.95
0.3 - 1
0 0
La Villita Dam S4 1.4 0.5
1 - 5
0 0
La Villita Dam S5 4 0.25 3 - 10 0 1 0
Validation of Bray & Travasarou Simplified Procedure
Hypothetical Example: 57 m-High Earth Dam
Located 1.1 km from Hayward Fault
s
s m
m
V
H
T
s
s
33 . 0
/ 450
57 6 . 2 6 . 2

=
No liquefaction or soils that will undergo significant strength loss

Undrained Strength: c = 14 kPa and = 21
o
so ky = 0.14

Triangular Sliding Block with avg. Vs ~ 450 m/s & H = 57 m
Deterministic Analysis:
Mean Max. Mw ~ 6.9 at R ~ 1.1 km; Ts = 0.33 s; & ky = 0.14

Using 1.5 Ts = 1.5 (0.33 s) = 0.5 s & Abrahamson & Silva (97) &
Sadigh et al. (97) rock attenuation relations for strike-slip fault:
avg. Sa(0.5 s) = 1.07 g

Probability of Zero Displacement (i.e., D < 1 cm):


Nonzero Seismic Displacement Estimate:






Design Seismic Displacement Estimate (16% and 84 %):

D ~ 0.5 to 2 times median D = 20 cm to 80 cm
( ) 0 ) 07 . 1 ln( 52 . 3 ) 33 . 0 )( 14 . 0 ln( 484 . 0 ) 14 . 0 ln( 22 . 3 76 . 1 1 ) " 0 " ( = + = = D P
( ) + + = ) 07 . 1 ln( ) 14 . 0 ln( 566 . 0 ) 14 . 0 ln( 333 . 0 ) 14 . 0 ln( 83 . 2 10 . 1 ) ln(
2
D
( ) + + ) 7 9 . 6 ( 278 . 0 ) 33 . 0 ( 50 . 1 ) 07 . 1 ln( 244 . 0 ) 07 . 1 ln( 04 . 3
2
cm D D 40 ) 77 . 3 exp( )) exp(ln( = =
For fully probabilistic implementation see Travasarou et al. 2004
Pseudostatic Slope Stability Analysis
1. k = seismic coefficient; represents earthquake loading

2. S = dynamic material strengths

3. FS = factor of safety

Selection of acceptable combination of k, S, & FS
requires calibration through case histories or
consistency with more advanced analyses
A Prevalent Pseudostatic Method

Seed (1979)
appropriate dynamic strengths
k = 0.15
FS > 1.15



FS > 1.15 does not mean the system is safe!
BUT this method was calibrated for earth dams where
1 m of displacement was judged to be acceptable

WHAT about other systems?
WHAT about other levels of acceptable displacement?
IS k = 0.15 reasonable for all sites?
Seismic Coefficient
k should depend on level of shaking, i.e.,
distance to fault, earthquake magnitude,
dynamic response of earth structure


k should also depend on criticality of structure
and acceptable level of seismic performance, i.e.,
amount of allowable seismic displacement

How does one then select k?
Calculate k as function of D
a
, S
a
, T
s
, M
w
, &


Seismic Coefficient from Allowable Displacement
Bray &Travasarou (2009)

+
Seismic coefficient, k:

Ts= 0.2s
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Sa(@1.5Ts) (g)
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Seismic Coefficient depends on:
D
a
, EQ (S
a
& M
w
), & T
s
5 cm
15 cm
30 cm
M=7.5
M=6
1. Are there materials that could lose significant
strength? If so, use post-shaking reduced strengths.
Otherwise, use strain-compatible dynamic strengths

2. Select allowable displacement: D
a
and select
exceedance probability (e.g., use = 0 for 50%)


3. Estimate initial period of sliding mass: T
s


4. Characterize seismic demand: S
a
(1.5T
s
) & M
w

5. Calculate seismic coefficient: k = f (D
a
, S
a
, T
s
, M
w
& )
& perform pseudostatic analysis using k. If FS 1,
then D
calc
< D
a
at specified level of exceedance


Pseudostatic Slope Stability Procedure
Simplified Seismic Coefficient Estimates
(used in code applications, e.g., B.C., Canada)
Stiff Slopes: T
s
0.1 s & Using: D
a
= 15 cm
For M 7.5:
k
15 cm
0.25 S
a
0.25 (2.5 PGA) 0.65 PGA
Conclusions
First question: will materials lose strength?

If not, evaluate seismic slope stability in
terms of seismic displacements

Bray & Travasarou (2007) approach with
deformable sliding mass captures:
a. Earthquake shaking - Sa(1.5 T
s
) & Mw
b. Dynamic resistance of slope - ky
c. Dynamic response of sliding mass - T
s
d. Coupled seismic displacement - D
Earthquake and material characterization
are most important