SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY

INTRODUCTION
Landslides occur on a regular basis throughout the world as part of the
ongoing evolution of landscapes. Many landslides occur in natural slopes,
but slides also occur in man-made slopes from time to time. At any point in
time, the, slopes exist in states ranging from very stable to marginally
stable. When an earthquake occurs, the effects of earthquake-induced
ground shaking is often sufficient to cause failure of slopes that were
marginally to moderately stable before the earthquake. The resulting
damage can range from insignificant to catastrophic depending on the
geometric and material characteristics of the slope.
Earthquake-induced landsides, which have been documented from as early
as 1789 B.C. (Li, 1990), have caused tremendous amounts of damage
throughout history. In many earthquakes, landslides have been responsible
for as much or more damage than all other seismic hazards combined. In
the 1964 Alaska earthquake, for example, an estimated 56% of the total
cost of damage was caused by earthquake-induced landslides (Youd, 1978;
Wilson and Keefer, 1985). Kobayashi (1981) found that more than half of all
deaths in large (M>6.9) earthquakes in Japan between 1964 and 1980 were
caused by landslides. The 1920 Haiyuan earthquake (M=8.5) in the Ningxia
Province of China produced hundreds of large landslides that caused more
than 100,000 deahts (Close and McCormick, 1922). Evaluation of seismic
slope stability is one of the most important activities of the geotechnical
earthquake engineer.

This chapter we describes different types of earthquake-induced landslides

and the conditions under which they occur. It also reviews the basic
principles of slope stability evaluation, including static stability analysis, and
then presents several methods for seismic slope stability analysis.

TYPES OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDES

Many factors, including geologic and hydrologic conditions, topography,
climate, weathering, and land use, influence the stability of slopes and the
characteristics of landslides. A number of procedures for classification of
landslides have been proposed; that of Varnes (1978) is perhaps most
widely used in the United States. Similar principles and terminology can be
used to classify earthquake-induced landslides (Table 10-1) on the basis of
material type (soil or rock), character of movement (disrupted or coherent),
and other attributes, such as velocity, depth, and water content.
Earthquake-induced landslides can be divided into three main categories:
disrupted slides and falls, coherent slides, and lateral spreads and flows.
Dsrupted slides and falls include rock falls, rock slides, rock avalanches, soil
falls, disrupted soil slides, and soil avalanches. Then earth materials
involved in such failures, usually found in steep terrain, can produce
extremely rapid movements and devastating damage; rock avalanches and

rock falls have historically been among the leading causes of death from
earthquake-induced landslides.
Coherent slides, such as rock and soil slumps, rock and soil block slides. and
slow earth flows, generally consist of a few coherent blocks that translate or
rotate on somewhat deeper failure surfaces in moderate to steeply sloping
terrain. Most coherent slides occur at lower velocities than disrupted slides
and falls.
Lateral spreads and flows generally involve liquefiable soils, although
sensitive clays can produce landslides with very similar characteristics. Due
to the low residual strength of these materials, sliding can occur on
remarkably flat slopes and produce very high velocities. Liquefactioninduced spreads and flow slides were discussed in detail in Chapter 9.
The different types of earthquake-induced landslides occur with different
frequencies. Rock falls, disrupted soil slides, and rock slides appear to be the
most common types of landslides observed in historical earthquake (Table
10-2). Subaqueous landslides, slow earth flows, rock block slides, and rock
avalanches are least common, although the difficulty of observing
subaqueous slides may contribute to their apparent rarity.

EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY

For preliminary stability evaluations, knowledge of the conditions under
which earthquake-induced landslides have occurred in past earthquakes is
useful. It is logical to expect that the extent of earthquake-induced landslide
activity should increase with increasing earthquake-induced landsliding
would rarely occur. It is equally logical to expect that the extent of
earthquake-induced landslide activity should decrease with increasing
source-to-site distance and that there could be a distance beyond which
landslides would not be expected in earthquakes of a given size.

A study of 300 U.S. earthquake between 1958 and 1977 showed that the
smallest earthquakes noted to have produced landslides had local
magnitudes of about 4.0 (Keefer, 1984). Minimum magnitudes for different
types of landslides were estimated as shown in Table 10-3. Where
magnitudes were not available, minimum Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI)
values of IV and V have been observed for disrupted slides or falls and other
types of slides, respectively.
Although these empirically based limits are useful, their approximate nature
must be recognized; failure of slopes that are near the brink of failure under
static conditions could be produced by quite weak earthquake shaking.
---------------The maximum source-to-site distance at which landslides have been
produced in historical earthquakes are different for different types of
landslides (Figure 10.1). Disrupted slides or falls, for example, have rarely
been found beyond epicentral distances of about 15 km for M=5 events but

have been observed as far as about 200 km (124 mi.) in M=7 earthquakes.
Note that the curve for lateral spreads and flows correlates reasonably well
with the magnitude-distance curve for liquefaction shown in Figure 9.5.
Similarly, the area over which earthquake-induced landsliding can be
expected also increases with increasing earthquake magnitude (Figure
10.2). Regional differences in attenuation behavior have little apparent
influence on the area of earthquake-induced landsliding.

Example 10.1

Estimate the maximum distances at which rock avalanches, soil slumps, and
soil lateral spreads would be expected in a M=6.5 earthquake.

Solution

Rock avalanches, soil slumps, and soil lateral spreads fall under the
headings of disrupted falls and slides, coherent slides, and lateral spreads
and flows, respectively. From Figure 10.1, the maximum distances of these
types of slides from the fault rupture zone would be

Rock avalanche

61km

Soil slumps

22km

Soil lateral spreads

20km

EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILITY

The stability of slope is influenced by many factors, and a complete slope

stability evaluation must consider the effects of each. Geological,
hidrological, topographical, geometrical, and material characteristics all
influence the stability of a particular slope. Infomation on these
characteristics is needed to reliably perform and interpret the results of both
static and seismic slope stability analyses. Review of available documents,
field reconnaissance, field monitoring, subsurface investigation, and
material testing can all be used to obtain this information.
For many sites, considerable useful information can be obtained from
previously published documents such as geologic maps, soil survey and/or
agricultural maps, topographic maps, natural hazard maps, and geologic
and geotechnical engineering reports. Additional information may be

obtained from aerial photographs (particularly

photographs) and other forms of remote sensing.

stereo-paired

aerial

Field reconnaissance involves careful observation and detailed mapping of a

variety of site characteristics associated with existing or potential slope
instability. Features such as scarps; tensin crack; bulges; hummocky
terrain; displaced ditches, channels, and fences; cracked foundations, walls,
or pavements; and leaning tres or poles can be identified and mapped as
evidence of instability. The locations of streams, springs, sepes, ponds, and
moist reas, and differences in vegetative cover, can provide evidence of
altered or disrupted water flow caused by slope instability.
If time permits, slope movement can be monitored. Surface monuments can
be installed at points on and near the slope and surveyed periodically to
identify
the
magnitude
and
direction
of
Surface
movement.
Photogrammetric methods can be used to determine relative movements
from sets of stereo-paired aerial photographs taken at different times.
Inclinometers are very useful for monitoring lateral deformation patterns
below the ground Surface. In many case, crack gauges, tiltmeters, and
extensometers can also be used to observe the effects of slope movement.
When, as is commonly the case, pore pressures are important, piezometers
and/or observation wells can provide important information on pore
pressures and their variation with time.
Subsurface investigation can include excavation and mapping of test pits
and trenches, boring and samplig, in situ testing, and geophysical testing.
Such investigations can reveal the depth, thickness, density, strength, and
deformation characteristics of subsurface units, and the depth and variation
of the groundwater table. In situ and geophysical test are particulary useful
for determining the location of an existing failure Surface.
Laboratory tests are often used to quantify the physical characteristics of
the various subsurface materials for input into a numerical slope stability
analysis. Soil density, strength, and stress-strain behavior are of prime
importance; other characteristics, such as grain size distribution, plasticity,
permeability, and compressibility, are also useful.
Only after this information is obtained can a stability analysis be performed.
Although in the remainder of this chapter we focus on methods of slope
stability analysis, it is important to remember that the analysis itself is but a
single part of a complete slope stability evaluation and that its accuracy will
be reduced if careful attention is not given to the other aspects of the
evaluation.
10.5 STATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Slopes become unstable when the shear stresses required to maintain
equilibrium reach or exceed the available shearing resistance on some
potential failure Surface. For slopes in which the shear stresses required to
maintain equilibrium under static gravitational loading are high, the
additional dynamic stresses needed to produce instability may be low.
Hence the seismic stability of a slope is strongly influenced by its static
stability. Because of this and the fact that the most commonly used methods

of seismic stability analysis rely on static stability analyses, a brief summary

of static slope stability analysis is presented.
The procedures for analysis of slope stability under static conditions are well
established. An excellent, concise review of the state of the art for static
analysis was presented by Duncan (1992). Detailed descriptions of specific
methods of analysis can be found in standard references such as National
Research Council (1976), Chowdhury (1978), and Huang (1983). Currently,
the most commonly used methods of static slope stability analysis are limit
equilibrium analyses and stress-deformation analyses.

10.5.1 LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

Limit equilibrium analyses consider force and/or moment equilibrium of a
mass of soil above a potential failure surface. The soil above the potential
failure surface is assumed to be rigid (i.e., shearing can occur only on the
potential failure surface). The available shear strength is assumed to be
mobilized at the same rate at all points on the potential failure surface. As a
result, the factor of safety is constant over the entire failure surface.
Because the soil on the potential failure surface is assumed to be rigidperfectly plastic (Figure 10.3), limit equilibrium analyses provide no
information on slope deformations.
Slope stability is usually expressed in terms of an index, most commonly the
factor of safety, which is usually defined as.

FORMULA FS=

Thus the factor of safety is a ratio of capacity (the shear strength of the soil)
to demand (the shear stress induce on the potential failure surface). The
factor of safety can also be viewed as the Factory by which the strength of
the soil would have to be divided to bring the slope to the brink of instability.
In contrast to the assumptions of limit equilibrium analysis, the strength of
the soil in actual slopes is not reached at the same time at all points on the
failure surface (i.e., the local factor of safety is not constant).

A variety of limit equilibrium procedures have been developed to analyze

the static stability of slope. Slopes that fail by translation on a planar failure
surface (Figure 10.4a) such as a bedding plane, rock joint, or seam of weak
material can be analyzed quite easily by the Culmann method (Taylor,
1948). Slopes in which failure is likely to occur on two or three planes (Figure
10.4b) can be analyzed by wedge methods (e.g., Perloff and Baron, 1976;
Lambe and Whitman, 1969). In homogeneous slopes, the critical failure
surface usually has a circular (Figure 10.4c) or log-spiral shape. Since the
mnimum factors of safety for circular and log-spiral failure surfaces are very
close, homogeneous slopes are usually analyzed by methods such as the
ordinary method of slices (Fellenius, 1927) or Bishops modified method

(Bishop, 1955), which assume circular failure surfaces. When subsurface

conditions are not homogeneous (e.g, when layers with significantly
different strength, highly anisotropic strength, or discontinuities exist),
failure surfaces are likely to be noncircular (Figure 10.4d). In such cases,
methods like those of Morgenstern and Price (1965), Spencer (1967), and
Janbu (1968) may be used. Nearly all limit equilibrium methods are
susceptible to numerical problems under certain conditions. These
conditions vary for different methods but are most commonly encountered
where soils with high cohesive strength are present at the top of a slope
and/or when failure surfaces emerge steeply at the base of slopes in soils
with high frictional strength (Duncan, 1992).
In concept, any slope with a factor of safety above 1.0 should be stable. In
practice, however, the level of stability is seldom considered aceptable
unless the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0. Criteria for
acceptable factors of safety recognize (1) uncertainty in the accuracy with
which the slope stability analysis represents the actual mechanism of
failure, (2) uncertainty in the accuracy with which the input parameters
(shear strength, groundwater conditions, slope geometry, etc.) are known,
(3) the likelihood and duration of exposure to various types of external
loading, and (4) the potential consequences of slope failure. Typical
mnimum factors of safety used in slope design are about 1.5 for normal
long-term loading conditions and about 1.3 for temporary slopes or end-ofconstruction conditions in permanent slopes (when dissipation of pore
pressure increases stability with time).

When the mnimum factor of safety of a slope reaches a value of 1.0, the
available shear strength of the soil is fully mobilized on some potential
failure surface and the slope

is at the point of incipient failure. Any additional loading will cause the slope
to fail (i.e., to deform until it reaches a configuration in which the shear

stresses required for equilibrium are less than or equal to the available
shear strength of the soil). The limit equilibrium assumption of rigidperfectly plastic behavior suggests that the required deformation will occur
in a ductile manner. Many soils, however, exhibit brittle, strain-softening
stress-strain behavior. In such cases the peak shear strength many not be
mobilized simultaneously at all points on the failure surface. When the peak
strength of a strain-softening soil is reached, such as point A in Figure 10.5a,
the available shearing resistance will drop from the peak to the residual
strength. As it does so, shear stresses related to the difference between the
peak and residual strength of the soil at point A are transferred to the
surrounding soil.
These redistributed shear stresses may cause the peak strengths in the
surrounding soil to be reached (Figure 10.5b) and exceded, thereby reducing
their available shearing resistances to residual values. As the stress
redistribution process continues, the zone of failure may grow until the
entire slope becomes unstable. Many instances of such progressive failure
have been observed in strain-softening soils, even when the limit
equilibrium factor of safety (base on peak strength) is well above 1.0. Within
the constraints of limit equilibrium analysis, the stability of slopes with
strain-softening materials can be analyzed reliably only by using residual
shear strengths.
Limit equilibrium analyses must be formulated with great care. Since the
avaliable shearing resistance of the soil depends on porewater drainage
conditions, those conditions must be considered carefully in the selection of
shear strengths and pore pressure conditions for the analysis. Duncan
(1992) provided guidelines for the slection of input parameters for limit
equilibrium slope stability analyses.