International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 215–229 | Cite as

Experimental and Numerical Study of Soil Slopes at Varying Water Content Under Dynamic Loading Condition

  • Suman Hazari
  • Sima GhoshEmail author
  • Richi Prasad Sharma
Research paper


This paper presents both experimental and numerical study on a slope made up of c-ϕ soil. The effect of different reinforcements such as geotextile and geogrid are also studied in both cases. Small shaking table tests are conducted on the model slope to evaluate the different parameters like acceleration amplifications and horizontal deformation at different levels of the slope. In addition to the variation of the c-ϕ nature of the soil, the variation of water content is also done for the model soil slope. The effect of variation of frequency level, base shaking and a number of reinforcement layers are also studied. Using PLAXIS, numerical models are developed for both unreinforced and reinforced soil slope made up of c-ϕ soil. Comparison of the results as obtained from the experimental study is done with those of the numerical models. Results presented either in tabular form or graphically and from the results acceptability of the models is also discussed.


Shake table test Seismic analysis c-ϕ soil Geotextile Geogrid Numerical analysis 


  1. 1.
    Taylor DW (1937) Stability of earth slopes. J Boston Soc Civ Eng 24:197–246Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fellenius W (1936) Calculation of the stability of earth dams. In: Proceedings of the second congress of large dams, Washington, DC, vol 4, pp 445–463Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bishop AW (1955) The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of earth slopes. Geotechnique 5(1):7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morgenstern NR, Price VE (1965) The analyses of the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotechnique 15(1):79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newmark N (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 15(2):139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Clough RW, Pirtz D (1956). Earthquake resistance of rockfill dams. Soil Mech Found Div 82(2):1–26.
  9. 9.
    Seed HB, Clough RW (1963) Earthquake resistance of sloping core dams. J Soil Mech Found Div 89(1):209–242.
  10. 10.
    Wartman J, Seed RB, Bray JD (2003) Inclined plane studies of the Newmark sliding block procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(8):673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 15(2):139–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koga Y, Ito Y, Washida S, Shimazu T (1988) Seismic resistance of reinforced embankment by model shaking table tests. In: Proceedings of the international geotechnical symposium on theory and practice of earth reinforcement, Fukuoka, Japan, pp 413–418Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perez A, Holtz RD (2004) Seismic response of reinforced steep soil slopes: results of shaking table study. In: Yegian MK, Kavazanjian E (eds) Geotechnical engineering for transportation projects, ASCE GSP 126, pp 1664–1672.
  14. 14.
    Latha GM, Krishna AM (2008) Seismic response of reinforced soil retaining wall models: influence of backfill relative density. Geotext Geomembr 26(4):335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turan A, Hinchberger SD, El Naggar H (2009) Design and commissioning of a laminar soil container for use on small shaking tables. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 29(2):404–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nova-Roessig L, Sitar N (2006) Centrifuge model studies of the seismic response of reinforced soil slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(3):388–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Viswanadham B, Konig D (2009) Centrifuge modeling of geotextile-reinforced slopes subjected to differential settlements. Geotext Geomembr 27(2):77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guler E, Enunlu AK (2009) Investigation of dynamic behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining structures under earthquake loads. Bull Earthq Eng 7(3):737–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin ML, Wang KL (2006) Seismic slope behavior in a large-scale shaking table model test. Eng Geol 86(2):118–133MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang CC, Horng JC, Chang WJ, Chueh SY, Chiou JS, Chen CH (2010) Dynamic behavior of reinforced slopes: horizontal acceleration response. Geosynth Int 17(4):207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Wang J, Yao L, Hussain A (2010) Analysis of earthquake-triggered failure mechanisms of slopes and sliding surfaces. J Mt Sci 7(3):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lo Grasso AS, Maugeri M, Montanilli F, Recalcati P (2004) Response of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall under seismic condition by shaking table tests. In: Proceedings of 3rd European geosynthetics conference, Munich, Germany, 1–3 March, vol 2, pp 723–728Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lo Grasso AS, Maugeri M, Recalcati P (2005) Seismic behavior of geosynthetic reinforced slopes with overload by shaking table tests. In: Gabr EA, Bowders JJ, Elton D, Zornberg JG (eds) Slopes and retaining structures under static and seismic conditions, ASCE GSP 140, pp 1–14.
  25. 25.
    Sugimoto M, Ogawa S, Moriyama M (1994) Dynamic characteristics of reinforced embankments with steep slope by shaking model tests. In: Tatsuoka F, Leshchinsky D (eds) Recent case histories of permanent geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Proceedings of Seiken symposium, Tokyo, pp 271–275Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin Y, Leng W, Yang G, Li L, Yang J (2015) Seismic response of embankment slopes with different reinforcing measures in shaking table tests. Nat Hazards 76(2):791–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Srilatha N, Latha GM, Puttappa CG (2016) Seismic response of soil slopes in shaking table tests: effect of type and quantity of reinforcement. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2:33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chanda N, Ghosh S, Pal M (2017) Response of slope made up of soil and other waste materials under sinusoidal motion. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2017, Article ID 2456724. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ASTM D4595-11 (2011) Standard test method for tensile properties of geotextiles by the wide-width strip method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  30. 30.
    ASTM D6637-01 (2001) Standard test method for determining tensile properties of geogrids by the single or multi-rib tensile method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  31. 31.
    Whitman RV, Lambe PC (1986) Effect of boundary conditions upon centrifuge experiments using ground motion simulation. Geotech Test J Am Soc Test Mater. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    PLAXIS 2D 8.2 [Computer software]. Plaxis, Delft, The Netherlands.
  33. 33.
    Pasternack SC, Gao S (1988) Numerical methods in the stability analysis of slopes. Comput Struct 30(3):573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matsui T, San KC (1992) Finite element slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction technique. Soils Found 32(1):59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Duncan JM (1996) State of the art: limit equilibrium and finite element analysis of slopes. J Geotech Eng 122(7):577–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ugai K, Leshchinsky D (1995) Three dimensional limit equilibrium and finite element analyses: a comparison of results. Soils Found 35(4):1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Griffiths DV, Lane PA (1999) Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Geotechnique 49(3):387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lane P, Griffiths DV (2000) Assessment of stability of slopes under drawdown conditions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(5):443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Griffiths DV, Fenton GA (2004) Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite elements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(5):507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li X (2007) Finite element analysis of slope stability using a nonlinear failure criterion. Comput Geotech 34(3):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hammouri NA, Malkawi AIH, Yamin MMA (2008) Stability analysis of slopes using the finite element method and limiting equilibrium approach. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67(4):471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suman Hazari
    • 1
  • Sima Ghosh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richi Prasad Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Institute of Technology AgartalaJiraniaIndia

Personalised recommendations