Table 1.
Dimensions and dimensionless π terms of key parameters considered in similitude (mass [M], length [L], time [T] are the fundamental dimensions).
Table 2.
Scaling factors used in shaking table tests.
Fig 1.
Two model slopes with a weak interlayer with different thicknesses.
Fig 2.
Schematics of model slopes in shaking table test with sensor arrangement (Unit: Cm).
Table 3.
Physical and mechanical properties of prototype slopes and model slopes.
Table 4.
Loading scheme of shaking table tests.
Fig 3.
Input ground motion in shaking table tests for the case of 0.1 g input amplitude: (a) horizontal acceleration time histories; (b) vertical acceleration time histories; (c) corresponding Fourier spectrum.
Fig 4.
Horizontal acceleration responses at different monitoring points of two model slopes under 0.1 g and 0.8 g levels of horizontal shaking: (a) input amplitude = 0.1 g, Slope A, (b) input amplitude = 0.8 g, Slope A, (c) input amplitude = 0.8 g, Slope B.
Fig 5.
Horizontal acceleration responses at selected monitoring points under 0.1 g and 0.8 g levels of horizontal shaking: (a) Slope A; (b) Slope B.
Fig 6.
Topographic amplification of peak horizontal acceleration (R-PHA) under 0.1 g and 0.8 g levels of horizontal shaking: (a) 0.1 g; (b) 0.8 g.
Fig 7.
Peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) and corresponding amplification factor (R-PHA) of all monitoring points vs. amplitude of horizontal input acceleration: (a) Slope A; (b) Slope B.
Fig 8.
Vertical acceleration responses at two monitoring points of two model slopes under 0.1 g and 0.6 g levels of vertical shaking: (a) input amplitude = 0.1 g, slope A; (b) input amplitude = 0.6 g, slope A; (c) input amplitude = 0.6 g, slope B.
Fig 9.
Vertical acceleration responses at selected monitoring points under 0.1 g and 0.6 g levels of vertical shaking: (a) Slope A; (b) Slope B.
Fig 10.
Topographic amplification of peak vertical acceleration (R-PVA) under 0.1 g and 0.6 g levels of vertical shaking: (a) 0.1 g; (b) 0.6 g.
Fig 11.
Peak vertical acceleration (PVA) and corresponding amplification factor (R-PVA) of all monitoring points vs. amplitude of vertical input acceleration: (a) Slope A; (b) Slope B.
Fig 12.
Fourier amplitude spectral ratios of vertical accelerations (V-FASR) under different levels of vertical shakings: (a) Slope A; (b) Slope B.
Fig 13.
Fourier amplitude spectral ratios of horizontal accelerations (H-FASR) under different levels of horizontal shaking: (a) Slope A; (b) Slope B.
Fig 14.
Conceptualized dynamic response process of two model slopes.
Dash line indicates the speculated strong response/deformation zone but not slip surface.
Fig 15.
Final deformation and failure (Phase Ⅳ) of two model slopes: (a) surface of Slope A; (b) surface of Slope B; (c) side view of Slope A; (d) side view of Slope B.