the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Limit analysis of earthquake-induced landslides considering two strength envelopes
Abstract. Stability analysis of soil slopes undergoing earthquake remains an important research aspect. The earthquake may have some different effects on slope stabilities associated with nonlinear and linear criteria, which need to be further investigated. For homogeneous soil slopes undergoing earthquake, this paper established the three-dimensional (3D) failure mechanisms with the Power-Law strength envelope. The quasi-static method was employed to derive the work rate done by the earthquake in limit analysis theory. The critical heights and critical slip surfaces associated with nonlinear and linear criteria were obtained for four slope examples undergoing different seismic loads. Comparisons of the nonlinear and linear results illustrated that two critical inclinations (resulted from the overlap of nonlinear and linear results) both decrease as the seismic force increases, but their difference is almost constant. For steep slopes, the use of linear strength envelope can lead to the non-negligible overestimation of slope critical height. This overestimation will become significant with the increase of seismic force, especially for the steeper slope with a narrow width. Since the seismic force has positive influence on equivalent internal friction angle, the critical slip surface for the slope obeying nonlinear envelope tends to be slightly deeper as the earthquake becomes stronger. For steep soil slopes undergoing earthquake, the development of 3D stability analysis with nonlinear yield criterion is necessity and significant. These findings can provide some references for risk assessment and landslide disaster reduction of soil slopes.
- Preprint
(2372 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2318', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Dec 2023
Grom the first glance paper is good. However, I'm not well qualified in such analysis and that is why will nor review new version of the paper if it will be ubmitted.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2318-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Di Wu, 21 Feb 2024
Thanks for your interest in our research. We will upload the latest version of the manuscript based on the comments of other reviewers.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2318-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Di Wu, 21 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2318', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jan 2024
Results presented in the paper show interesting comparison of two types of strength envelops. But, the analysis are a significantly simplified which need to be addressed properly.
Seismic action has vertical acceleration along with the horizontal one. This vertical acceleration has significant influence on the strength parameters, linear or non-linear. The research presented with this paper considers only horizontal acceleration. This is not incorrect but is not correct either. Can Authors explain how they simplified their research?
The analysis presented does not consider any kind of drainage conditions, and from the parameters taken it looks like the drain parameters are used. Since the earthquakes have high frequency of acceleration, the pore water pressure would be generated in the slope, if saturated. Such fast-loading should be considered through the undrained conditions. How did you consider this?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2318-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Di Wu, 21 Feb 2024
Thanks for pointing these out. For 2D slopes and 3D slopes, some attempts have been made to discuss the differences between the slope stability numbers and slip surfaces associated with the linear and nonlinear strength criteria. These differences between the nonlinear and linear solutions may change for slopes subject to different external influences, such as the water pressure and the earthquake. Our groups have made some investigations into the effects of pore-water pressure and outside water pressure on the nonlinear and linear solutions. Since few attempts have been made to illustrate the effect of seismic action on the difference between nonlinear and linear solutions for 3D soil slope stability, this study focused on the comparisons of the nonlinear and linear results (in forms of critical height and critical slip surface) with respect to different seismic loads.
As to the vertical acceleration, some studies have suggested that the vertical acceleration significantly affects the seismic performance and the permanent displacement of slopes when the horizontal acceleration is high and the slope is steep. But in the quasi-static method adopted in this study, the vertical acceleration can be reflected in the increase of gravitational acceleration. The results for analyzing the dynamic stability of slopes by using the vertical acceleration will be linear proportional relation with those for the static stability of slopes. Hence, the horizontal seismic acceleration will have more significant effects on the slope stability and the vertical acceleration was ignored in this study. Our subsequent study will further investigate the influences of the combined action of two seismic accelerations on slope stability.
In this study, the slope examples were presented in four homogenous dry clays. Though the total strength parameters derived by unconsolidated-undrained strength tests will be appropriate for water-bearing slopes undergoing earthquake, the effective or total strength parameters are both valid for clays in dry conditions. Hence, the nonlinear and linear strength parameters for the four clays can be selected as the soil bodies of slope examples in this study.
Following the reviewer’s comments, the authors will add some statements and make corresponding revisions in the subsequent revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2318-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Di Wu, 21 Feb 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2318', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Dec 2023
Grom the first glance paper is good. However, I'm not well qualified in such analysis and that is why will nor review new version of the paper if it will be ubmitted.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2318-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Di Wu, 21 Feb 2024
Thanks for your interest in our research. We will upload the latest version of the manuscript based on the comments of other reviewers.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2318-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Di Wu, 21 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2318', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jan 2024
Results presented in the paper show interesting comparison of two types of strength envelops. But, the analysis are a significantly simplified which need to be addressed properly.
Seismic action has vertical acceleration along with the horizontal one. This vertical acceleration has significant influence on the strength parameters, linear or non-linear. The research presented with this paper considers only horizontal acceleration. This is not incorrect but is not correct either. Can Authors explain how they simplified their research?
The analysis presented does not consider any kind of drainage conditions, and from the parameters taken it looks like the drain parameters are used. Since the earthquakes have high frequency of acceleration, the pore water pressure would be generated in the slope, if saturated. Such fast-loading should be considered through the undrained conditions. How did you consider this?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2318-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Di Wu, 21 Feb 2024
Thanks for pointing these out. For 2D slopes and 3D slopes, some attempts have been made to discuss the differences between the slope stability numbers and slip surfaces associated with the linear and nonlinear strength criteria. These differences between the nonlinear and linear solutions may change for slopes subject to different external influences, such as the water pressure and the earthquake. Our groups have made some investigations into the effects of pore-water pressure and outside water pressure on the nonlinear and linear solutions. Since few attempts have been made to illustrate the effect of seismic action on the difference between nonlinear and linear solutions for 3D soil slope stability, this study focused on the comparisons of the nonlinear and linear results (in forms of critical height and critical slip surface) with respect to different seismic loads.
As to the vertical acceleration, some studies have suggested that the vertical acceleration significantly affects the seismic performance and the permanent displacement of slopes when the horizontal acceleration is high and the slope is steep. But in the quasi-static method adopted in this study, the vertical acceleration can be reflected in the increase of gravitational acceleration. The results for analyzing the dynamic stability of slopes by using the vertical acceleration will be linear proportional relation with those for the static stability of slopes. Hence, the horizontal seismic acceleration will have more significant effects on the slope stability and the vertical acceleration was ignored in this study. Our subsequent study will further investigate the influences of the combined action of two seismic accelerations on slope stability.
In this study, the slope examples were presented in four homogenous dry clays. Though the total strength parameters derived by unconsolidated-undrained strength tests will be appropriate for water-bearing slopes undergoing earthquake, the effective or total strength parameters are both valid for clays in dry conditions. Hence, the nonlinear and linear strength parameters for the four clays can be selected as the soil bodies of slope examples in this study.
Following the reviewer’s comments, the authors will add some statements and make corresponding revisions in the subsequent revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2318-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Di Wu, 21 Feb 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
208 | 81 | 29 | 318 | 26 | 25 |
- HTML: 208
- PDF: 81
- XML: 29
- Total: 318
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1