Evaluating The Seismic Coefficient For Slope Stability Analyses

Evaluating the Seismic Coefficient
for
Slope Stability Analyses
by
Edward Kavazanjian, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.,D.GE., NAE
Ira A. Fulton Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment
Arizona State University
22 October 2013
School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment
AGENDA
What is the Seismic Coefficient, ks?
Factors affecting ks
Historical approach
Modern approach
Example
Summary / Conclusions
Questions / Answers
What is the seismic coefficient, ks?

The seismic coefficient is:
A lateral force coefficient used in pseudo static limit

equilibrium analysis
A means of representing the effect of seismic
loading on slopes and earth retaining structures

using limit equilibrium analysis
What is the seismic coefficient, ks?
What the seismic coefficient is not.

The seismic coefficient is not:
The same as the peak ground
acceleration (PGA) [not usually]
A vertical force coefficient
Independent of the factor of safety
PGA vs. ks
PGA (peak horizontal ground acceleration)
occurs at one point
Acceleration elsewhere is less than PGA
PGA may only occur one time during the EQ
ks is an average value over entire mass

ks is usually less than (and never more
than) the PGA ( g)
Note: ks = PGA / g for brittle and/or sensitive
soil (due to progressive failure)
Maximum Horizontal Acceleration

MHA
Maximum Average Horizontal Acceleration of failure mass
Governs maximum horizontal inertial force on failure mass
PGA MHA (so PGA MHA ks)

PGA
Note: a1
through a4 are
less than the
PGA
Factors Influencing ks
The value of ks may depend upon:
The associated factor of safety
The seismic performance criteria
The design ground motions
Slope height
ks FS Coupling
Specifying ks without an associated FS is
meaningless
Specifying a seismic FS without specifying
an associated ks is meaningless
Different combinations of ks and FS can
describe an equivalent performance
standard
Increase FS, decrease ks
Seismic Factor of Safety

Specifying ks without an associated FS is
meaningless
Seismic Coefficient, ks
[(ks)1,FS1] [(ks)2,FS2] [(ks)3,FS3]

PGA/g
MHA/g
o1
Equivalent seismic
performance
o2
o3
1.0
Factor of Safety, FS
Seismic Performance Criteria

Seismic Coefficient, ks
Different performance criteria correspond to

different ks, FS combinations
PGA/g
MHA/g (unconditional stability for ductile soil)
Negligible permanent displacement

15 cm permanent displacement
1 m permanent displacement
1.0
Factor of Safety, FS

Unconditional seismic stability is elusive
May not be obtainable in high seismicity areas
Probably not necessary
Seismic performance usually quantified by

allowable permanent displacement
Negligible (minor cracking)

Small (inches)
Large (feet)
Instability (tens of feet)

MHA ks relationship depends upon seismic
performance criteria
Unconditional stability: ks = MHA, FS = 1
Exception: Soils susceptible to progressive
failure (use ks = PGA)
Allowable displacement: ks< MHA
Increase allowable displacement,
decrease ks
Allowable Displacement
Allowable displacement = f(soil ductility,
impacts of slope displacement)
Greater allowable displacement, smaller ks
Permanent displacement accumulates when average acceleration > ky
Note: ky = ks for FS = 1
Design Ground Motions

Design ground motions influence:
The relationship of the PGA to the MHA
Factors include ground motion frequency,
slope height
The relationship of the MHA to ks

Factors include performance criteria
(allowable displacement), frequency and
duration of motion
Relationship of PGA to MHA

PGA MHA relationship impacted by spatial
and temporal incoherence (variability)
Maximum acceleration at all other points is

less than PGA
Maximum acceleration at other points occurs
at different time than PGA
Maximum average acceleration

(MHA) is less than PGA
Influence of Slope Height

Increasing H reduces MHA (more averaging)
H1 < H2, then MHA1 > MHA2
MHA2
MHA1
H1
PGA
PGA
H2
Influence of Slope Height

Makdisi and Seed (1978)
Influence of Frequency on MHA

Higher frequency (w), shorter wave length (l),
reduced MHA
MHA1
PGA
H
w1 < w2
l1 > l2
MHA1 > MHA2
MHA2
PGA
H
l2 , w2
l1,w1
Z
Influence of Duration, Frequency

Increased duration, larger displacement
potential, smaller reduction in ks from MHA
Higher frequency, more cycles of loading,
but shorter cycles impact unclear
Both duration and frequency effects on

MHA-ks relationship traditionally
captured as magnitude dependence
Influence of Magnitude
Makdisi and Seed, 1978
Other Factors Influencing ks

Shear strength
Peak vs. large displacement
Cyclic softening
Multiple failure surfaces

Amplification of ground motions
Rock vs. soil site motions
Influence of topography
Peak vs. Large Displacement

Shear Strength
In a non-ductile soil, use large displacement
shear strength (by convention / conservative)
Shear
strength
g
Peak shear
strength
Large
displacement
shear strength
Cyclic Softening
Reduce soft clay shear strength for cyclic
softening
Typically reduce Su by 10-20%
Use residual shear strength in liquefiable soil
Multiple Failure Surfaces

Note that a is a function of H
MHA decreases with depth
Stability also may decreases with depth

May need to check multiple surfaces
Ratio of ky (ks for FS = 1) to MHA critical
aH1 > aH2
(MHA)H1 > (MHA)H2
(ky)1 > (ky)2

(ky/MHA)1 vs. (ky/MHA)2 ???
Ground Motion Amplification

Seismic hazard maps typically developed for
a reference site condition
US: Site Class B (B/C boundary per USGS)
Canada: Site Class C
Ground motions (PGA and Sa) must be

adjusted for other site conditions
Code values adjusted using site factors
Can also have topographic amplification
PGA Amplification
Seed and Idriss, 1982: Rock vs. Soil Sites
PGA Amplification
Idriss, 1992: Rock vs. Soft Clay Sites
Spectral Amplification
1957 Daly City Earthquake (Seed, 1975)
Site Class
Based on average shear wave velocity in top 100 ft
(30 m), (VS)30 (or other geotech characteristics)
Site Class
(VS)30
SPT
Su
> 5000 ft/s
N.A.
N.A.
B
C
2500 - 5000 ft/s

1200 - 2500 ft/s
N.A.
> 50
N.A.
> 2 ksf
D
E
F
600 - 1200 ft/s

15 - 50
1 -2 ksf
< 600 ft/s
<15
< 1 ksf
(Special Study Sites)
PGA Site Factor, FPGA (NBCC Values)

PGA = PGASite Class C x FPGA
Site
Class
Peak Ground Acceleration for Site Class C

PGA
0.10 g
PGA =
0.20 g
PGA =
0.30 g
PGA =
0.40 g
PGA
0.50 g
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
2.1
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.9
Table
notes:
a
Use straight line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA, where PGA
is the peak ground acceleration obtained from the ground motion maps.
Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response

analyses shall be performed
Long Period Site Factor, FV (NBCC)

S1 = (S1)Site Class C x FV
Site
Class
Spectral Acceleration at 1 Sec Period, S1. for Site Class B

S1
0.10 g
S1 =
0.20 g
S1 =
0.30 g
S1 =
0.40 g
S1
0.50 g
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.7
Table
notes:
a
Use straight line interpolation for intermediate values of S1, where S1 is

the spectral acceleration at 1.0 seconds obtained from the ground motion
maps.
Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response
analyses shall be performed
Special Study Sites

Yerba Buena Island (Rock) / Treasure Island (Soil)
sites in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake
Special Study Sites

Mexico City, 1985
Special Study Sites

Shallow Stiff Layer Sites
Topographic Amplification
Harder, 1991: Embankments Response
Historical ks Values
Seed, 1979: For acceptable displacement
of earthen dams (displacement 1 m)
ks = 0.15, FS = 1.15 for PGA 0.75g, M 7.5
ks = 0.10, FS = 1.15 for PGA 0.75g, M 6.5
Notes:
Both ks and FS specified

Influence of earthquake magnitude on ks
ks/PGA = 0.167 for M 7.5, ks/PGA = 0.133 for M 6.5
Not valid for liquefiable soil, 15% strength reduction
for soft clay
Historical Values
Hynes and Franklin, 1984: Also for 1 m
acceptable displacement of earth dams
ks = 0.5 PGA(free field) for M 8.3
Notes:
No consideration of magnitude dependence
Assumes PGA amplification of 3 from base to
top of embankment (ks/PGAcrest = 0.167)
Reduce soft clay strength by 20% for cyclic
softening
Historical Values
FHWA (1997): For acceptable performance
of slopes and retaining structures for
transportation facilities:
ks/PGA(free field) = 0.5
Acceptable performance = 15 cm (6 in.)

displacement
Historical Values
Kavazanjian, 1998:
Values of ks/PGA as a function of allowable
displacement (based upon Hynes and Franklin):
Note:
PGA includes amplification effects
Modern Approaches
Displacement-based values for the
seismic coefficient (and factor of
safety)
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA 2011
Bray and Travasarou, 2009
Note: Both methods can be applied to slopes
and walls.
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_of_Retaining_Walls_Bur_160387.aspx
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/library_arc.cfm?pub_number=19
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)

Based upon:
Finite element analysis to get MHA,
average acceleration time history
Newmark analysis to get seismic
displacement from average acceleration
time history
Sensitivity study to establish ks as a
function of permanent seismic
displacement, FS
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)

ks = MHA x r
r = soil ductility factor [r 1]
MHA = a x PGA
PGA is site-specific value
a = f(H, b) [a 1]
H = slope height
b captures frequency, duration (i.e. magnitude)
effects
FS = f(performance criteria)
Allowable displacement
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)

Seismic environment (magnitude, frequency,
duration) characterized by b = S1/PGA
After correcting for local site conditions
b = 1.5: Upper Bound, for large magnitude,

west coast earthquakes
b = 0.5: Lower Bound, for smaller magnitude
east coast earthquakes
b = 1: Intermediate value for intermediate
events
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)

Methodology
1. Adjust ground motions (PGA, S1) for local site
conditions
2. Adjust PGA for slope height, ground motion
characteristics to get MHA
3. Adjust MHA based upon soil ductility to get ks
4. Select FS based upon allowable displacement
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)

1. Adjust ground motions for local site
conditions, embankments
Method A: Site factors
Method B: Site specific hazard analysis
that includes local site conditions
Method C: Reference site ground motions,
site response analysis (e.g. SHAKE)
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)

2. Adjust site corrected PGA for slope
height, ground motion characteristics to
get MHA
NCHRP / FHWA
MHA = a x PGA, a = 1 + 0.01H [0.5b - 1] (H 100 ft)

Notes: H is in feet
For rock sites (Site Class A and B), increase a by 20%
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)

3. Adjust MHA for soil ductility to get ks
ks = r x (MHA/g) = r x a x (PGA/g), where r =
allowable displacement (ductility) factor
r = 1 for brittle soil
r = 0.5 for ductile soil
NCHRP 12-70 / FHWA (2011)

4. Establish FS based upon allowable
displacement
For negligible displacements:
If r = 1: ks = MHA/g = a x PGA/g, FS = 1.0
If r = 0.5: ks = 0.5 x a x PGA/g, FS = 1.1
For small displacements (5 cm max):

r = 0.5: ks = 0.5 x a x PGA/g, FS = 1.0
NCHRP / FHWA SUMMARY

1. Find PGA and S1 (include site effects)
2. Get b = (S1 x FV) / (PGA x FPGA)
3. Get a = 1 + 0.01 H (0.5b 1) or from
chart
4. Find ks = r x a x PGA
For brittle system: r =1.0, FSmin = 1.0

For ductile system: r = 0.5
FSmin = 1.1 for negligible displacement
FSmin = 1.0 for small ( 5 cm)
displacement,
Vancouver Example 1: Site Class C

1000 yr Ground Motions
Site Class C: (from NRC Canada website)
PGA = 0.32; S1 = 0.23; b = 0.23/0.32 = 0.72
Find a:
a = 0.85 @ H = 7.5 m, 0.69 @ H = 15 m, and 0.38 @
H = 30 m
Find ks (for 5 cm displacement, i.e. r = 0.5):

ks = 0.14 for H = 7.5 m, 0.11 for H = 15 m, and 0.06
for H = 30 m
Vancouver Example 1
Vancouver Example 2: Site Class E

Site Class E: (from NRC Canada website)
(PGA)C = 0.32; FPGA = 1.06; (PGA)E = 0.34
(S1)C = 0.23; FV = 1.97; (S1)E = 0.45
b = 0.45/0.34 = 1.32
a = 0.92 @ H = 7.5 m, 0.84 @ H = 15 m, and 0.68 @
H = 30 m

ks = 0.16 for H = 7.5 m, 0.14 for H = 15 m, and 0.12
for H = 30 m
Quebec Example 1: Site Class C

Site Class C: (from NRC website)
PGA = 0.285; S1 = 0.15; b = 0.15/0.28 = 0.54
Find a:
a = 0.82 @ 7.5 m, 0.63 @ 15 m, and 0.26 @ 30 m

ks = 0.12 for 7.5 m, 0.09 for 15 m, and 0.04 for 30 m
Quebec Example 1
Quebec Example 2: Site Class E

Site Class E: (from NRC website)
(PGA)C = 0.285; FPGA = 1.145; (PGA)E = 0.33
(S1)C = 0.15; FV = 2.05; (S1)E = 0.31
b = 0.31/0.33 = 0. 94
a = 0.87 @ 7.5 m, 0.74 @ 15 m, and 0.49 @ 30 m

ks = 0.14 for 7.5 m, 0.12 for 15 m, and 0.08 for 30 m
Seismic Coefficient Examples

Summary
Return
Location
Site Period
Class (yrs)
Vancouver
C
1000
Vancouver
E
1000
Quebec
C
2500
Quebec
E
2500
PGA
(g)
0.32
0.34
0.29
0.33
H=
7.5
m
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
H=
15
m
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.12
H=
30
m
0.06
0.12
0.04
0.08
MHA from Site Response Analysis

Method C: Site Response (e.g. SHAKE) Analysis
H
(Fi)max = m x MHA
Area = A
Mass = m
Weight = W
W=mxg
1
Fi
H
+
C
tbase
FI
(tbase) max = Fmax/A

(tbase) max = [m x MHA] / A
(tbase) max = [(mxg)/A] x [MHA/g]
(tbase) max = [W/A] x [MHA/g]
(tbase) max = sv x [MHA/g]
MHA
= [(tbase) max/sv] max x g
Use ratio of peak shear stress to total vertical

stress at failure plane elevation to get MHA
Bray and Travasarou (2009)

ks based upon:
Probabilistic equation for Newmark
displacement (Bray and Travasarou 2007)
Fundamental period of potential slide mass,
Ts
Ts = 4H/Vs
Spectral acceleration, Sa, at a spectral
period = 1.5 x Ts (equal to degraded
fundamental period)
Allowable displacement
Bray and Travasarou (2009)

Ground motion characterization:
Requires spectral acceleration at 1.5 x TS
May need entire response spectrum
TS = 4H/VS
Only use TS = (2.6 x H) /VS for earth dams
(triangular embankment)
Also requires earthquake magnitude, M

Need to deaggregate hazard
Summary and Conclusions (6)

NCHRP / FHWA well suited for relatively
uniform profiles
No sharp impedance contrast in top 150
200 ft
Formal response analysis (e.g. SHAKE) can be

used with NCHRP method for all soil profiles
Bray and Travasarou may be OK for layered

profiles
Sharp impedance contrasts at base of slope
References
Bray, J. D., and Travasarou, T. (2007) Simplified procedure for estimating
earthquake-induced deviatoric slope displacements. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 4, pp. 381392.
Bray, J. D., and Travasarou, T. (2009) Pseudostatic Coefficient for Use in
Simplified Seismic Slope Stability Evaluation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 9, pp. 1336-1340
FHWA (1998) Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for
Highways, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3, Federal Highway
Administration, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, Reports No. FHWA-SA-97-076 and
FHWA-SA-97-077
FHWA (2011) LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation
Geotechnical Features and Structural Foundations, Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 3, Report No. FHWA-NHI-11-032, 592 p
References
Harder, L.F., Jr. (1991), "Performance of Earth Dams During the Loma Prieta
Earthquake," Proc. Second International Conference on Recent Advances
in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, University of
Missouri, Rolla, pp. 11-15.
Hynes, M.E. and Franklin, A.G. (1984). Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient
Method, Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, U.S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 21 pp.
Idriss, I.M. (1990), "Response of Soft Soil Sites During Earthquakes," Proc.
Memorial Symposium to Honor Professor H.B. Seed, Berkeley, California,
Bi-Tech Publishers.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr. (1998), Current Issues in Seismic Design of Geosynthetic
Cover Systems, Proc. Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics,
Atlanta, Georgia, Vol. I, pp. 219-226
Makdisi, F.I. and Seed, H.B. (1978), "Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam
and Embankment Earthquake-Induced Deformations," J. Geotech. Eng.
Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT7, pp. 849-867.
References
NCHRP 12-70 (2008) Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried
Structures, Slopes and Embankments, NCHRP Report 611, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC (2 volumes)
NEHRP (1997) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures: Part 1, Provisions (FEMA 302), prepared
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency by the Building Seismic
Safety Council, Washington, DC
Seed, H. B. 1979. Considerations in the Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth
and Rockfill Dams. Geotechnique, 293, 215263.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1982), "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction
During Earthquakes," Monograph No. 5, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Berkeley, California, 134 p.
Questions?
Effect of Vertical Acceleration

Evaluating The Seismic Coefficient For Slope Stability Analyses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating The Seismic Coefficient For Slope Stability Analyses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating The Seismic Coefficient For Slope Stability Analyses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating the Seismic Coefficient

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

What is the seismic coefficient, ks?

A lateral force coefficient used in pseudo static limit

A means of representing the effect of seismic

loading on slopes and earth retaining structures

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

What is the seismic coefficient, ks?

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

What the seismic coefficient is not.

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

ks is an average value over entire mass

Maximum Horizontal Acceleration

PGA MHA (so PGA MHA ks)

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Seismic Factor of Safety

[(ks)1,FS1] [(ks)2,FS2] [(ks)3,FS3]

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Seismic Performance Criteria

Different performance criteria correspond to

MHA/g (unconditional stability for ductile soil)

Negligible permanent displacement

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Seismic Performance Criteria

Seismic performance usually quantified by

Negligible (minor cracking)

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Seismic Performance Criteria

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Design Ground Motions

The relationship of the MHA to ks

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Relationship of PGA to MHA

Maximum acceleration at all other points is

Maximum average acceleration

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Influence of Slope Height

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Influence of Slope Height

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Influence of Frequency on MHA

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Influence of Duration, Frequency

Both duration and frequency effects on

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Other Factors Influencing ks

Multiple failure surfaces

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Peak vs. Large Displacement

Use residual shear strength in liquefiable soil

School of Sustainable Engineering for the Built Environment

Multiple Failure Surfaces

Stability also may decreases with depth

(ky)1 > (ky)2