2/25/2012

Screen Analysis Procedure for Seismic Slope Stability

From: J.P. Stewart, T.F. Blake, and R.A. Hollingsworth, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 697-212, 2003

Two important components of seismic slope stability analysis:

Screening Analysis Analysis, to establish likely hood of seismic stability hazard. Displacement Analysis when the slope fails the screening, or when large displacement would be critical

Note: It is very important that the strength evaluation procedures follow the recommendations of Blake (2002)

2/25/2012

Methods to establish k, historical compilation

k is the seismic coeficient giving a SF = 1 in the pseudo static analysis. Often referred as ky Makdisi & Seed (1978) related Newmarks displacement with M and ky/kmax LA County (1978): ky = 0.15 FS 1.10 regardless of seismicity Seed (1979) (for earth dams) : ky = 0.1 for M = 6.5 = 0.15 for M = 8.25 Slope is safe if SF >1.15 1.15 Strength Loss < 15 %, and acceptable displacement as high as 0.9 m (displacement was calibrated with Newmarks sliding block method).
Notes: It is unreasonable to utilize k = amax or 0.65 amax, as the maximum acceleration only occurred once for a very short period, and soil has the ability to deform to absorb the shaking.

Hynes-Griffin (1984), for earth dams, based on:

Embankment shaking evaluated using linear elastic shear beam models after Sarma (1979). Newmark s displacements from time histories using Franklin and Chang Newmarks Changs s (1977) method. Results were statistically correlated, i.e. amplifications (kmax/MHAr), depth of sliding surface, Newmarks displacement, and ky/kmax. The developed pseudo static procedure uses 95th %ile amplification value for deep sliding, with upper bound ky/kmax value that produces a 1.0 m displacement. The result is k = 0.5 MHAr and screen is passed when SF 1.0, provided that 80% of shear strength is used for non degrading materials. Method is not recommended for areas subject to large earthquakes, embankments on liquefiable soils and embankments with small displacement tolerances

2/25/2012

Bray et al. (1998) for solid waste landfills: a. Obtained statistical correlations between peak acceleration of the slide mass (kmax to MHAr). ) b. Obtained statistical correlations between displacement for a given ky/kmax and amplitude+duration of shaking The developed procedure uses near upper bound amplification (kmax/MHAr), and 0.15 to 0.3 m tolerable displacements. displacements The procedure calls for k = 0.75 MHAr and screening is passed when SF 1.0 (analogous to k>ky)

Bray et al. (1998) for solid waste landfills:

Obtained statistical correlations between peak acceleration of the slide mass (kmax to MHAr). Obtained statistical correlations between displacement for a given ky/kmax and amplitude + duration of shaking. The developed procedure uses near upper bound amplification (kmax/MHAr), and 0.15 to 0.3 m tolerable displacements. displacements The procedure calls for k = 0.75 MHAr and screening is passed when SF 1.0 (analogous to k > ky)

2/25/2012

Important Issues for Screening Procedures

Level of tolerable displacements Earthquake magnitude used for displacement analysis Level of conservatism in interpretation of the statistical distributions

Comparisons

Limiting displacements: Seed (1979) & Hynes-Griffin (1984), 100 cm for earth dams; Bray (1998)15-30 cm for solid waste embankments, embankments Seed & Bonaparte (1992) 15 cm. Earthquake Magnitude: Seed M = 8.25, Hynes-Griffin M = 3.8 to 7.7 (most around 6.6); Bray used duration ~ M = 7-8, closer to 8. Seed used upper pp bound displacement p for given g ky/kmax, Hynes-Griffin used 95% amplification level & upper bound displacements for given ky/kmax, Bray used near upper bound amplification and 84% percentile displacements.

2/25/2012

Arguments

Need a screen procedure for residential and commercial developments (mostly embankment dams and landfills). The tolerable displacements are not applicable for residential and commercial developments. The level of earthquake magnitude will be different for residential and commercial developments. The amplification and distributions from the said embankments are at a different risk level than that of the ground motions, i.e. ground motion ~ hazard analysis ~ return period. Slope displacement on that ground motion is extreme, rare, and having a longer return period.

Developments of a screening procedure

Purpose: To obtain a filter where a site has no or low landslide potential during earthquakes. Outline of method: Obtain a k value to be used in pseudo=static analysis S 1, , slope s ope passes t the e sc screen, ee , no o more o ea analysis a ys s If FS If FS < 1, slope fails the screen, need displacement analysis.

2/25/2012

MHEA vs MHAr

Actually must use MHEA of the sliding body k = feq* x MHEA/g

In practice k = feq x MHAr/g

feq*

= feq x (MHAr/MHEA)

Brays (1998) results:

Calculated MHEA from MHAr using 1- dimensional wave propagation analysis Normalize it to MHAr x NRF (non linear response factor) Not applicable to deep soft clays (Site Class E), for which a site specific analysis is required. Compile p data for different Tm ( (input p motion mean p period) ) and Ts (small strain/elastic mean period of sliding mass ~ Ts = 4H/vs)

2/25/2012

Data was for urban Ca, M = 6.5 to 7.5, r < 10 km, associated Tm, and vs = 300 m/sec. or less Not conservative for shallow surface slides (use Ashford & Sitar 2002)

For H > 20 m, and vs = 300 m/sec (soft rock & compacted fill) Ts/Tm > 0 5 MHEA/(MHAr x NRF) < 1 0.5 For Ts/Tm < 0.5 average MHEA/(MHAr x NRF) ~1 k = feq* x MHEA/g = feq* x MHAr x NRF = feq x MHAr
We can use k = feq x MHAr if feq includes effects of NRF

Formulation of feq

For the same MHAr, larger earthquake causes more g due to it long g duration (and ( longer g Tm ) ). damage Bray & Rahtje (1998) run 309 Newmarks displacement analysis, M = 6.25 to 8, 19 Input Rock Motions, and ky/kmax = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8. Correlate u (displacement) to amplitude of shaking (kmax = MHEA/g), significant duration of shaking D5-95, and ky/kmax

2/25/2012

Influence of M and r (and therefore MHAr), and NRF, to feq

From k = feq* x MHEA/g, when k = ky , feq* represents the reduction factor to MHEA (= kmax) to achieve a SF = 1 at the slope, slope therefore feq* = ky / kmax. Since we can simplify, for most cases MHEA/(MHAr x NRF) ~ 1.0; feq = feq* x NRF = ky / kmax x NRF Establish threshold u = 5 and 15 cm, should be understood as indices, of conditions where very small or p are likely. y moderate to small displacements In the last equation, kmax = MHAr x NRF/g, and D5-95 can be estimated from available attenuation functions. Thus feq can be calculated.

2/25/2012

Example

2/25/2012

Example

Median feq values

10

2/25/2012

11

2/25/2012

Design Ground Motions

Must use a PSHA, usually 475 return period Use deaggregation analysis for a specific site, to obtain mode Magnitude M and mode distance r A severe deterministic scenario would have a higher return period most of the times.

12

2/25/2012

Limitations

Many would not be familiar to the procedure Not applicable for soils with significant strain softening Must be used with shear strengths as recommended by Blake (2002) Not applicable for slopes over soft clays. Typical to California tectonic regions Not applicable when 5 cm displacement is an i inappropriate i t th threshold. h ld Not applicable for surficial slopes and rock falls

13