13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 1957

INVESTIGATION INTO THE PREDICTION OF SLIDING BLOCK DISPLACEMENTS IN SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF EARTH DAMS
Sarada K SARMA1 and Rallis KOURKOULIS2 SUMMARY A number of investigators have looked into the validity of using sliding block displacements in earth dam design in the past and have concluded that for small displacements, decoupled sliding block displacements agree reasonably well with permanent yields computed using rigorous analysis with known strong-motion records. On the other hand, for prediction purposes, the decoupled sliding block displacements in earth dam analysis do not agree very well with the available empirical relationships. The aim of this paper is to investigate the parameters controlling the sliding block displacements and to improve on the predictive empirical relationships. Several strong-motion records and some analytical response records of dam-layer systems are used for this purpose. The paper also looks into some simple systems to check the validity of decoupled sliding displacements. INTRODUCTION Newmark [1] in 1965 introduced the concept of the sliding block model for the calculation of permanent deformation in an earth dam caused by a seismic event. This is a very simple model based on the idea that the failure of a soil mass in a slope causes a shear surface to develop and the mass of soil above the shear surface slides down along the surface. This mechanism of sliding is approximated to a block of soil sliding down a plane even though the real slip surface may be a curved one. It is taken for granted that the slope is statically stable and a certain amount of seismic acceleration is needed to make the slope fail along a slip surface. This acceleration is termed the critical or yield acceleration. The amount of displacement of the sliding block then depends on the applied seismic acceleration, which must be bigger than the critical. Since its inception, despite its deficiencies, the simple sliding block model has been used extensively in seismic design of earth structures and in estimating hazard of natural slope failures during earthquakes. Even though Newmark did not consider the effect of the response of the dam to the seismic ground motion directly in his model, the response of the dam was introduced later through the concept of the average seismic acceleration of sliding wedges in earth dams, Seed and Martin [2]; Ambraseys and Sarma [3]; Makdisi and Seed [4]. Thus the simplicity of the sliding block model is retained along with the complexity of the earth dam response in estimating the permanent deformation in a dam. Several researchers have looked into the sliding motion through non-planar surfaces and have come to the

1 2

Reader, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London. Email: s.sarma@imperial.ac.uk Civil Engineering , NTUA, Greece; (formerly of Imperial College, London). Email: rallisko@yahoo.com

conclusion that for small displacements, the planar sliding is sufficiently accurate for engineering purposes, e.g. Sarma & Chlimintzas [5]. The average seismic acceleration of sliding wedges is derived by using the elastic response of the dam, as if there is no sliding. The critical acceleration is determined as if the acceleration acts on a rigid body. This method of combining the two ideas and computing the seismic deformation in the dam is termed the decoupled model. A coupled solution is one in which the response of the structure and the permanent deformations are interlinked and are determined at the same time, which therefore needs the use of nonlinear material behaviour in the response analysis. Because of the complexity of non-linear analysis and because the input data for response analysis is not very well known, the sliding block displacements with the decoupled model still play an important part in seismic design of earth dams and in estimating seismic slope safety. PARAMETERS EFFECTING SLIDING DISPLACEMENTS In order to assess the sliding block displacements due to seismic accelerations, numerous parameters of the motion need to be taken into account. Obviously, the basic parameter is the acceleration ratio (kc/km) of the critical acceleration (kcg) to the peak acceleration (kmg=amax). The other parameters are the actual value of the peak acceleration, the peak velocity, the peak displacement, the Arias Intensity and the duration of the strong shaking. However, these parameters of the records either alone or in some combination are usually not sufficient to determine the displacement accurately. The uniform duration through which the seismic acceleration exceeds the critical is much more important than the total duration. Since, there is more than one pulse bigger than the critical, the number and the shape of the pulses exceeding the critical also play a role in the determination of the sliding displacement. Also, the fraction of the Aria's Intensity above the critical acceleration level is an important parameter. The intention of this paper is to check the influence of as many such parameters as possible on the sliding block displacements to be able to predict it as accurately as practical without using the seismological parameters such as magnitude and distance or even site characteristics. By using a rectangular pulse of acceleration, Newmark [1] showed that the displacements depend on the peak velocity (vmax) and the peak acceleration (amax) of the record along with the acceleration ratio. Sarma [6] similarly showed that the displacements depend on the peak acceleration and the duration of pulses. For earthquake strong motion records, Sarma [6] used the predominant period of the record to define the duration of pulses. Ambraseys and Menu [7] used only the acceleration ratio to determine the displacement. By using records of earthquakes of a limited magnitude range and using only near-field records, they were able to reduce the scatter of the displacements about the mean to about one order of magnitude. However, when no such restriction is applied to the data set, the scatter of data about the mean displacement around any value of kc/km increases to more than three orders of magnitudes. The scatter increases to four orders when the average seismic accelerations of wedges are taken into consideration, as can be seen from Figure 1. The idea of the present paper is to investigate the displacements based on the recorded or derived parameters of the records rather than source characteristics of the earthquakes or site characteristics. The reason being that in the average seismic coefficient records of earth dam response, the characteristics of the original ground motion record may be lost which are usually replaced or augmented by the earth dam response. It is interesting to note that for a given kc/km ratio and for a given record, if the accelerations of a record are scaled by a factor , simultaneously scaling the critical acceleration maintaining the acceleration ratio, leaving the time scale unchanged, then the resulting sliding displacements are also scaled by the same factor . Similarly, if the time coordinates are scaled by a factor leaving the acceleration values unchanged, then the displacements are scaled by a factor 2. This is

apparent from the results given for simple pulses as in Sarma [6], but this effect is true for strong motion records as well.

DATABASE
The data base used in this paper includes 110 strong motion records and 20 average seismic accelerations of earth dam response. The 20 response records are made up of only 4 strong-motion records with 5 dam periods each. The wedges are in the top 20% of the dam. Table 1 gives a list of the records that are used in the sliding block analysis. These are chosen simply on the basis of availability and no criterion of acceptance was used. These are listed in the chronological order in this table. The table also gives the maximum acceleration, amax, maximum velocity, vmax, Emax and the predominant period, T, which are derived from the records as a whole and which are independent of the kc/km ratio. For the average acceleration records for the dams, the predominant period is replaced by the fundamental mode period of the dam. The predominant period is determined from the acceleration spectrum of the records. Emax represents Arias Intensity as explained later. Table 2 shows the derived parameters of the records that are deemed useful for the analysis which are dependent on the acceleration ratio. However, in this table, data for only one record is being shown. The sliding block displacements are in two columns, one giving the "two-way" displacements representing displacements in level ground and the other one giving the "oneway" displacements representing the same in sloping ground. To get the actual displacements in slopes, the "one-way" displacements should be multiplied by a constant, which is dependent on the inclination of the slope and the internal friction of the soil in the sliding layer. In this table, three parameters need explaining. These are termed "dur", "no" and "n". The "dur" is the duration and the "no" is the number of pulses over which the accelerations exceed the critical but counting on both sides of the record. This is because the counting was done over the squared acceleration record. The "n" is half of "no" rounded upward to represent the number in one side only. "E" is the integral of the squared acceleration above the critical over the "dur" and Emax is E when the critical acceleration is zero. A95 is defined by Sarma and Yang [8], which is the value of the critical acceleration when E/Emax is 0.05. Emax is a measure of the Arias Intensity [9], which is given by AI= (/2g)(Emax). The two parameters Emax and A95 appear in table 1. For the average acceleration records, only four strong-motion records are used and those are the three Tabas records and the Gazli record. Five periods are chosen. It is our intention to continue this study with more response records later and will be published separately. Only the "one-way" displacements are analysed here. ANALYSIS

1.0E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 k c/k m 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 1: "One-Way" displacements for strong-motion and response records.

u(cm)

Figure 1 shows the scatter of the "one-way" sliding block displacements for different values of kc/km ratios. The data includes the strong-motion records and the average seismic acceleration records. For the strongmotion records only and for the acceleration ratios from 0.1 to 0.8, the scatter of the displacements is of three orders of magnitudes. When the average seismic acceleration records are added to the same data, the scatter increases to four orders and that too with only 20 such records. For the acceleration ratio of 0.9, the scatter increases to several orders of magnitudes. Sarma and Cossenas [10] show that the scatter is much more when many response records are included. Therefore, the prediction based only on the kc/km ratio becomes meaningless. Following Sarma [6]) and Sarma [11], the sliding displacements were normalized to [4u/kmgT2] where u is the sliding displacements and T is the predominant period of the records or the fundamental period of the dam. The normalization reduces the scatter to about two orders of magnitudes as shown in figure 2 and the relationship becomes: log [4u/kmgT2]= 1.17-4.07 kc/km (1)

The standard error of this fit is = 0.51 with R2=0.81. This relationship compares reasonably well with that given by Sarma [11].

1.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 1.0E-01 0 1.0E-02 1.0E-03 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 1.0E-07 k c/k m 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 2: Normalised displacement as a function of the acceleration ratio

4u/(k m.g.T2)

1.0E+00 0 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

u/S
1.0E-03 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 k c/k m

Figure 3: Scaled displacement versus the acceleration ratios.

A further attempt is then made to normalise the displacements by a factor dependent on the maximum velocity of the record, the average duration of the pulse (Tdn =dur/no) and the number of pulses n. The normalisation factor is given as: S= vmax(dur/no)m .n (2)

In this relationship vmax is the peak velocity of the record in cm/sec "dur", "no" and "n" are as defined before. The value of m is chosen to reduce the scatter. For a value of m=1, it was found that the scatter reduces to about an order of magnitude for smaller values of the acceleration ratios, as shown in figure 3. For the kc/km ratio of 0.9, even though the scatter reduces, it is still large. The examination of the data suggests that the value of m to reduce the scatter is different for different kc/km ratio. Instead of vmax, other parameters of the record such as amax , A95 and Emax are also tried but the curve fitting is poor in terms of the standard error and the R2 value of the regression. Similarly, the use of the predominant period instead of the average pulse duration the curve fitting gives poorer results. The next stage of the analyses was performed for each kc/km ratios. The parameters chosen were the peak velocity, vmax, average duration of pulses, (Tdn=dur/no), and the number of pulses, n, exceeding the critical. The number of pulses is important except for kc/km ratio of 0.9 and this is simply because, at this level, there is only one pulse for almost all records. A regression analysis of the data in the following form is performed for each kc/km ratio. log (ucm)= C0 +C1 log vmax +C2 log Tdn + C3 log n (3)

in which Tdn =average duration of pulses,= dur/no. vmax is in cm/sec. Figure 4 shows the very good fit of the data to the equation for kc/km=0.1. The fit is not as good for kc/km=0.8 but still acceptable. As can be seen from the standard error, the goodness of fit worsens as kc/km changes from 0.1 to 0.8.
kc/km=0.1 3

Predicted log u

2 1 0 -1 -1 Computed log u 0 1 2 3

Figure 4: The computed and predicted log(u) for the acceleration ratio of 0.1 using peak velocity, average duration and the number of pulses. The results in table 3 show that the curve fitting for the acceleration ratio of 0.9 is again poor. Changing the vmax to amax for this particular set improves the standard error to 0.5. The relationship becomes: log (ucm)= -0.116 + 0.954 log amax + 2.751 log Tdn+ 1.945 log n with R2=0.827 and Standard error =0.506. (4)

Table 3: Coefficients for the prediction of sliding displacements kc/km 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 C0 0.063 -0.090 -0.132 -0.182 -0.199 -0.237 -0.407 -0.556 0.633 C1 1.007 1.025 1.007 0.997 0.975 0.936 0.942 0.923 0.752 C2 1.061 0.998 1.016 1.032 1.077 1.146 1.221 1.327 2.347 C3 0.738 0.679 0.641 0.598 0.541 0.525 0.593 0.694 1.391 R2 0.988 0.984 0.979 0.977 0.976 0.948 0.936 0.906 0.805 0.095 0.107 0.122 0.125 0.127 0.190 0.214 0.275 0.537

Since the number of pulses for kc/km ratio is mostly one, dropping the log(n) term from the regression, the equation becomes: log(ucm) = -0.019+ 0.875 log amax + 2.623 log Tdn with R2= 0.778 and = 0.57 (5)

Closer examination of the data shows that at this level of acceleration ratio, even the shape of the pulse becomes important as can be seen from Sarma [6,11] by comparing the triangular pulse with the half-sine pulse. The coefficients in table 3 for kc/km ratios of 0.1 to 0.8 are fitted to a relationship of the kind Ci = a0 +a1.(kc/km) +a2.(kc/km)2 ; 0.1 kc/km 0.8 The values of a0,1,2 are given in Table 4. Table 4 a0 a1 0.033 -0.239 1.024 -0.031 1.097 -0.612 0.875 -1.264 a2 -0.561 -0.130 1.132 1.252

(6)

Co C1 C2 C3

From the above study, it becomes apparent that over and above the knowledge of the peak acceleration and the peak velocity, some idea of the average duration and the number of pulses in acceleration records is necessary in order to predict the sliding displacements accurately enough. This therefore poses the problem associated with predicting sliding block displacements. For prediction purposes, in the absence of the record itself, the peak acceleration is known as the design parameter. Hazard analysis often provides the peak velocity of the expected record but not always. Sarma and Casey [12] and Sarma and Srbulov [13] showed that the "dur" and the "no" of strong motion records are related to A/A95 for each record. The present database shows a relationship between the peak acceleration and the peak velocity, which is given as: vmax = 0.07 kmg (7) with R2= 0.82 and standard deviation =0.019g.

This relationship appears to be true for both the strong motion records as well as for the average seismic acceleration records obtained from the dam response analysis. A marginally better approximation is: vmax = 0.06 kmg + 0.028 gT with R2= 0.85 and =0.017g. (8)

In the above two expressions, g is the acceleration due to gravity and it defines the dimension of vmax. Also T is the predominant period of the record or the fundamental period of the dam.

0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 0.5 1 Peak Acceleration (g) 1.5

Figure 5: Relationship between Peak velocity vmax and peak acceleration amax. The average duration, Tdn="dur/no" appears to be dependent on the predominant period T of the record and on the acceleration ratio kc/km, as shown in figure 6.
kc/km=0.1

Peak Velocity (g.sec)

0.2

Average Duration of Pulses (sec)

0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.5 1 Predom inant Period (sec) 1.5

Figure 6: Relationship between the average duration and the predominant period A linear regression gave the following results: Tdn= b0 + b1 T As before, the b0 and b1 values, given in table 5, can be expressed as b0 = 0.0315 - 0.021 kc/km and b1 = 0.1319 - 0.0963 kc/km (11) (10)

(9)

Table 5: The coefficients for the relationship between average duration of pulse and the predominant period kc/km b0 b1 R2 0.1 0.029 0.127 0.689 0.02 0.2 0.027 0.114 0.641 0.02 0.3 0.024 0.102 0.687 0.017 0.4 0.023 0.086 0.56 0.018 0.5 0.022 0.083 0.521 0.019 0.6 0.02 0.074 0.522 0.017 0.7 0.019 0.063 0.375 0.02 0.8 0.016 0.058 0.336 0.02 0.9 0.009 0.047 0.456 0.012 The number of pulses, n, above a given acceleration ratio, kc/km, has no relationship to any of the strong motion parameters in the records. From the data base, the average number of pulses above an acceleration ratio is found and from this, the relationship between the average number of pulses can be related to the acceleration ratio as: log (n) = 1.924 - 2.089 kc/km (12)

The relationship of peak velocity with peak acceleration, the relationship of average duration of pulses with the predominant period and the acceleration ratio and the number of pulses with the acceleration ratio suggests a relationship of log u with the peak acceleration and the predominant period along with the acceleration ratio, as was suggested by Sarma [6,11]. A further analysis is therefore performed to regress log u with the peak acceleration and the predominant period for each acceleration ratios. A linear regression equation of the following form is adopted. log ucm = S0 + S1log amax + S2 log T Table 6 gives the values of the constants with the standard error and the R2 values. Table 6 S1 S2 R2 kc/km S0 0.100 0.146 0.838 1.607 0.800 0.382 0.200 -0.214 0.828 1.615 0.822 0.353 0.300 -0.444 0.793 1.632 0.830 0.342 0.400 -0.691 0.768 1.629 0.832 0.336 0.500 -0.920 0.742 1.652 0.837 0.330 0.600 -1.102 0.692 1.715 0.820 0.352 0.700 -1.417 0.672 1.776 0.818 0.360 0.800 -1.886 0.669 1.846 0.767 0.432 0.900 -2.586 0.650 2.283 0.574 0.790 The goodness of fit of the data shown in figure 7 is obviously poor compared to that shown in figure 4. As before, for the acceleration ratio of 0.9, the fit is very poor. (13)

kc/km=0.1

Predicted log u

2 1 0 -1 -1 0 1 2 3

Computed log u

Figure 7: Computed and Predicted log u using peak acceleration and predominant period From the values in table 7, the following relationships can be derived which is valid for 0.1 S0 = 0.3862 - 2.6717 kc/km S1 = 0.8728 - 0.2722 kc/km S2 = 1.6364 - 0.2703 kc/km + 0.6638 (kc/km)2 kc/km 0.8 (14) (15) (16)

The analysis performed above shows that the sliding block displacements can be predicted within about half an order of magnitude knowing the peak acceleration and the predominant period of the record or the fundamental period of the dam. If the duration and number of pulses can be predicted sufficiently accurately, the sliding block displacement prediction may be improved considerably. From the point of view of prediction, the acceleration ratio of 0.9 gives the poorest result but at this level of acceleration ratio, the actual displacements are very small and errors of one or even higher order of magnitudes is of no consequence. It is to be noted that replacing the predominant period by the fundamental period of the dam for the average seismic acceleration records may not be acceptable for periods greater than 1 second and further examination is therefore necessary. This will be dealt with in a future publication. THE VALIDITY OF THE SLIDING BLOCK MODEL IN EARTH DAM DESIGN The analyses incorporating the concept of the average seismic acceleration of sliding wedges and the sliding block model have been adopted worldwide in the seismic design of earth dams and embankments. This effect was based in the de-coupling approximation. The approximation assumes that the simplified procedure can be split into the following two tasks, Gazetas and Uddin [14]: a. Perform an elastic dynamic analysis of the dam and obtain the spatial distribution of the response acceleration in the dam. This part assumes that no failure occurs. b. Use that distribution to assess the driving force on a possible sliding mass in a sliding block type of analysis. This part assumes that failure along a slip surface has no effect on the response accelerations of the dam. The concept of the model can be visualised as in figure 8. This is a simple model of a 3 degrees of freedom non-linear system.

u +ve M1 C1 K1 M21 M22 C2 K2 x(t) C2 C1

up

M1 K1 M21 M22 K2 x(t)

Figure 8: A simple model to understand the sliding block model with the average seismic coefficient approach. Let us consider the model as displayed in figure 8. The model consists of three masses M1, M21 and M22. The masses M1 and M21 are connected by an elastic spring of stiffness K1 and by a damper of coefficient C1 as shown. The mass M22 is connected to the rigid base by a spring of stiffness K2 and a damper of coefficient C2. The masses M21 and M22 are in rigid plastic contact with limit strength F. The limit strength for sliding in the left and right directions may be different thus causing the "one-way" or the "twoway" displacements. The motion of these masses can be described in two phases. In phase 1, when the two masses are in rigid contact, these form a single mass M2= M21 + M22 and the system behaves as a 20 of freedom system. When the net force above the contact exceeds the limit strength, the phase 2 of the 30 of freedom system begins when the mass M21 slides over the mass M22 causing relative displacement between the two. However, when the relative motion stops, the masses are stuck together again but leaving a yield displacement between the two sections of mass 2 and the motion reverts back to phase 1. Therefore the system shifts between a 20 and a 30 of freedom systems in time. We assume that the whole system is subjected to a ground shaking x(t). It is relatively easy to write the equations of motion for this two phase system and solve analytically. These equations and solutions are not shown here but some of the results are shown. We will call this solution the rigorous model representing the coupled solution. If on the other hand, we assume that there is no possible sliding between the masses and therefore responds in elastic mode only, then we can compute the average acceleration above the sliding surface. The limit strength provides the critical acceleration. The sliding block model is then applied to determine the permanent displacement, which represents the decoupled solution. Lin and Whitman [15] have tested the validity of the de-coupling approximation, using a multi degrees of freedom lumped-mass model of a dam and solved the equations numerically. The permanent displacement calculated through this method is then compared to the de-coupled solution. They found that, in general, the decoupled approach provides conservative results for most practical cases. The largest overestimation occurs when the predominant period of the input is the same as that of the dam (i.e in resonance conditions). The error is higher for the case of deep wedges, and negligible for the case of shallow ones. They also found that for the kc/km ratio of nearly 0.5, and for a damping ratio of 0.15, the de-coupled approximation overestimates the permanent displacement by about 20 %. Gazetas and Uddin [14] have performed similar evaluation of the same issue, utilizing a finite element model to calculate the exact solution numerically, assuming a pre-existing potential sliding interface. The response acceleration records they produced for the case of the coupled analysis, exhibit some spikes at the end of each slipping phase. Those sharp spikes appear to be due to the additional dynamic excitation of the mass triggered by

the reattachment of the sliding mass with the underlying body of the dam. The analysis has confirmed that the most severe overestimation of the permanent displacement by the decoupled method occurs when the dam is excited close to its resonant frequency. It is because, in the coupled method, build up of the response is drastically limited by the shearing strength of the interface, a constraint that is particularly effective at resonance. This is not the case for the de-coupled method where the driving acceleration is allowed to grow without limit, thus producing too high deformations, Gazetas and Uddin [14]. However their study again leads to the conclusion that the decoupled solution provides reasonable results for engineering purposes. Cascone and Rampello [16], indicate that the de-coupled analysis has provided a very helpful tool for the design of an earth dam in Southern Italy. Wartman et al [17] compared the coupled and decoupled displacements experimentally and found that the decoupled displacements may be non-conservative for some frequency ratios but this is because their reference ground motion is the base one. In the case of the soil column, the base motion is magnified near resonance. The simple system shown in figure 8 is used to determine the rigorous and the sliding block displacements for four strong motion records and the results are given in table 7. In this table, the values for the mass and stiffness were arbitrarily chosen to produce the first and second mode periods as shown. It can be seen that the method is more accurate for the higher values of the ratio kc/km. For low kc/km ratios, the sliding block displacements produce about four times higher displacements compared to the rigorous. This may be even higher for other records when the system may tend to resonate with the ground motion records. This accuracy is within the uncertainty associated with the prediction of sliding block displacements. Table 7: Comparison of Rigorous and Sliding Block Displacements 1st Mode Period 2nd Mode Period Damping 0.64 s 0.26 s 10% Average Original kc/km

Seismic 0.1 0.4 0.7 Accn. Rigorous Sliding Rigorous Sliding Rigorous Sliding Pred Period sec 0.3 0.16 0.38 0.3 Amax g 0.64 0.06 0.26 2.81 Block cm cm 66.71 265.84 3.92 8.20 13.73 28.35 570.94 2076.54 cm 15.70 0.98 1.96 94.18 Block cm 52.89 0.82 4.70 222.00 cm 5.89 0.00 0.98 16.68 Block cm 7.11 0.12 0.74 22.15

Record

Amax g 0.28 0.16 0.14 0.16

Lp1 Lc1 Mv1 Iv1

CONCLUSIONS Sliding block model provide an estimate of the displacements associated with slope failures within an accuracy of one order of magnitude even for very low acceleration ratios. The acceleration ratio as well as the number and the duration of pulses control the displacements. Comparison of rigorous and sliding block displacements shows good accuracy for engineering purposes.

REFERENCES 1. Newmark, N. M. "Effects of earthquakes on Dams and Embankments." Geotechnique, 1965; 15, 140158. 2. Seed, H.B. and Martin, G.R. "The seismic Coefficient in Earth dam Design." J.Geotech. Engrg.,ASCE, 1966; 92, 3, 25-28. 3. Ambraseys,N. N. and Sarma, S.K. "The response of earth dams to strong earthquakes." Geotechnique, 1967; 25, 4, 743-761. 4. Makdisi, S.I. and Seed, H.B. "Simplified Procedure for estimating dam and Embankments earthquakeinduced deformation." J. Geotch. Engrg. Div.,ASCE, 1978; 104, 7, 849-867. 5. Sarma S.K. and Chlimintzas G. "Co-seismic and post seismic displacements of slopes." XV ICSMGE TC4 Satellite conf. "Lessons learned from recent strong earthquakes", Istanbul, Turkey, 2000; 183-188. 6. Sarma, S.K. "Seismic Stability of earth dams and Embankments." Geotechnique, 1975; 17, 181-213. 7. Ambraseys, N.N. and Menu, J.M. "Earthquake induced Ground Displacements." Earth. Eng. And Struct. Dynamics, 1988; 16, 6, 985-1006. 8. Sarma, S.K. and Yang, K.S. "An evaluation of Strong motion records and a new parameter A95." Earthq. Engng. And Struct. Dynamics, 1987; 15, 119-132. 9. Arias, A. "A measure of Earthquake intensity." Seismic Design for Nuclear Power plants, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970; 438-483. 10. Sarma S. and Cossenas G. "Dynamic response of dam layer systems to earthquake excitations." 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, California, 2001; Paper No. 5-19. Sarma S.K. "Seismic response and stability of earth dams." Seismic risk assessment and design of building structures., Ed A. Koridze, Omega Scientific, 1988; 143-160. 11. Sarma S.K. and Casey, B.J "Duration of strong motion in Earthquakes." Proc. 9th Euro. Conf. On Earthq. Eng., Moscow, 1990; 10-A, 174-183. 12. Sarma S.K. "Seismic response and stability of earth dams." Seismic risk assessment and design of building structures., Ed A. Koridze, Omega Scientific, 1988; 143-160. 13. Sarma, S.K. and Srbulov, M. "A uniform estimation of some basic ground motion parameters." J. Earthq. Eng., 1998; 2, 267-287. 14. Gazetas, G. and Uddin, N. "Permanent Deformation on Pre-existing sliding surfaces in Dams." J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994; 120, 11, 2041-2060. 15. Lin J.S and Whitman, R.V. "De-coupling approximation to the evaluation of Earthquake-Induced plastic slip in Dams." Earthquake Engrg. And Struct. Dynamics, 1983; 11, 667-678. 16. Cascone,E. and Rampello, S. "Decoupled seismic Analysis of an earth dam." Soil Dynamics and Earthq. Engrg.,Elsevier Science Direct, 2003; 23, 5, 349-365. 17. Wartman, J., Bray, J.D. and Seed, R.B. "Inclined plane studies of the Newmark sliding block procedure." Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2003; 129, 8, 673-684. Table 1: Data Base
EARTHQUAKE 1 LYTLE CREEK 2 LYTLE CREEK 3 SAN FERNANDO 4 SAN FERNANDO 5 SAN FERNANDO 6 SAN FERNANDO 7 SAN FERNANDO Code lc1 lc2 sf1 sf2 sf3 sf4 sf5 Y 1970 1970 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 M D Time Station Name Comp Amax (g) 9 12 14:30:53 DEVILS CANYON. CWR 9 12 14:30:53 DEVILS CANYON. CWR 2 2 2 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 6:01:00 SANTA FELICIA DAM 6:01:00 SANTA FELICIA DAM 6:01:00 FAIRMONT RESERVOIR 6:01:00 FAIRMONT RESERVOIR 6:01:00 GRIFFITH PARK OBS. 180 90 172 262 56 326 180 0.164 0.178 0.214 0.197 0.069 0.103 0.183 vmax (m/s) 0.071 0.041 0.092 0.064 0.041 0.079 0.209 Emax (m^2/s) a95 (g) P. Per* (sec) 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.1 0.26 0.24 0.24

0.695 0.133 0.622 0.123 1.721 0.133 1.638 0.125 0.270 0.050 0.369 0.074 2.208 0.130

8 SAN FERNANDO 9 SAN FERNANDO 10 SAN FERNANDO 11 SAN FERNANDO 12 SAN FERNANDO 13 SAN FERNANDO 14 SAN FERNANDO 15 SAN FERNANDO 16 SAN FERNANDO 17 SAN FERNANDO 18 SAN FERNANDO 19 SAN FERNANDO 20 SAN FERNANDO 21 ALASKA 22 ALASKA 23 HOLLISTER 24 HOLLISTER 25 FRIULI 26 FRIULI 27 FRIULI 28 FRIULI 29 FRIULI 30 FRIULI 31 GAZLI 32 FRIULI 33 FRIULI 34 FRIULI 35 FRIULI 36 FRIULI 37 FRIULI 38 FRIULI 39 FRIULI 40 TABAS 41 TABAS 42 TABAS 43 MONTENEGRO 44 MONTENEGRO 45 MONTENEGRO 46 MONTENEGRO 47 MONTENEGRO 48 MONTENEGRO 49 MONTENEGRO 50 MONTENEGRO 51 COYOTE LAKE 52 COYOTE LAKE 53 COYOTE LAKE 54 COYOTE LAKE 55 IMPERIAL VAL. 56 IMPERIAL VAL. 57 IMPERIAL VAL. 58 IMPERIAL VAL. 59 ANZA 60 ANZA

sf6 sf7 sf8 sf9 sf10 sf11 sf12 sf13 sf14 sf15 sf16 sf17 sf18 al1 al2 hol1 hol2 fri3_1 fri3_2 fri3_3 fri3_4 fri4_1 fri4_2 gaz1 fri1 fri2 fri3 fri4 fri5 fri6 fri2_1 fri2_2 tabl1 tab1 tab2 mn1 mn2 mn3 mn4 mn5 mn6 mn2_1 mn2_2 cl1 cl2 cl3 cl4 iv1 iv2 iv3 iv4 a1 a2

1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 2

6:01:00 GRIFFITH PARK OBS. 6:01:00 LAKE HUGHES ARAY #4 6:01:00 LAKE HUGHES ARAY #4 6:01:00 LAKE HUGHES ARAY #9 6:01:00 LAKE HUGHES ARAY #9 6:01:00 LAKE HUGHES ARAY #12 6:01:00 LAKE HUGHES ARAY #12 6:01:00 CASTAIC OLD RIDGE 6:01:00 CASTAIC OLD RIDGE 6:01:00 CAL TECH SEISMO LAB 6:01:00 CAL TECH SEISMO LAB 6:01:00 SANTA ANITA RES. ARC 6:01:00 SANTA ANITA RES. ARC 6:08:00 ADAK NAVAL BASE 6:08:00 ADAK NAVAL BASE

270 111 201 21 291 21 291 21 291 180 270 3 273 NS EW 247 157 NS WE NS WE NS WE EW NS WE NS EW NS EW NS EW N74E N80W N10E NS EW NS WE NS WE NS EW 250 160 320 230 237 147 135 45 135 45

0.171 0.196 0.158 0.125 0.114 0.357 0.285 0.329 0.271 0.092 0.194 0.139 0.216 0.093 0.185 0.144 0.103 0.366 0.311 0.100 0.159 0.128 0.079 0.730 0.146 0.238 0.138 0.110 0.106 0.075 0.194 0.100 0.873 0.369 0.398 0.094 0.081 0.171 0.230 0.219 0.251 0.122 0.154 0.246 0.139 0.117 0.087 0.157 0.167 0.190 0.114 0.085 0.127

0.149 0.057 0.084 0.048 0.041 0.164 0.127 0.171 0.284 0.061 0.120 0.047 0.054 0.037 0.063 0.051 0.040 0.229 0.310 0.040 0.080 0.038 0.017 0.700 0.124 0.188 0.096 0.040 0.053 0.037 0.102 0.030 0.187 0.251 0.888 0.043 0.031 0.187 0.280 0.152 0.117 0.076 0.089 0.205 0.114 0.102 0.040 0.189 0.117 0.090 0.046 0.022 0.050

3.112 0.106 1.322 0.114 1.180 0.103 0.750 0.074 0.584 0.075 5.502 0.263 4.751 0.204 4.263 0.202 6.072 0.172 0.696 0.058 2.081 0.138 1.597 0.082 1.693 0.109 0.500 0.055 1.907 0.115 0.304 0.104 0.229 0.071 4.835 0.243 7.234 0.244 0.208 0.082 0.460 0.145 0.193 0.101 0.080 0.055 29.751 0.454 0.765 0.096 1.413 0.173 1.278 0.102 0.762 0.080 0.357 0.059 0.278 0.043 0.532 0.178 0.180 0.070 9.947 0.199 10.044 0.239 70.239 0.545 0.303 0.068 0.217 0.056 3.728 0.118 4.550 0.159 4.463 0.155 2.745 0.152 0.886 0.080 1.208 0.102 2.211 0.207 1.153 0.101 0.447 0.081 0.336 0.054 7.984 0.094 7.068 0.107 1.213 0.127 0.513 0.064 0.144 0.065 0.288 0.110

0.22 0.12 0.2 0.14 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.2 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.1 0.1 0.26 0.64 0.24 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.14 0.2 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.1 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.4 0.24 0.28 0.26 0.52 0.72 0.26 0.3 0.22 0.4 0.38 0.38 0.18 0.1 0.3 0.32 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.08

1974 11 28 23:01:00 GILROY ARRAY STN#1 1974 11 28 24:01:00 GILROY ARRAY STN#2 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1978 1978 1978 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 20:00:13 TOLMEZZO-1 6 20:00:13 TOLMEZZO-1 6 20:00:13 TOLMEZZO-2 6 20:00:13 TOLMEZZO-2 7 23:49:00 TOLMEZZO-1 7 23:49:00 TOLMEZZO-1 2:58:42 GAZLI 9:21:18 S ROCCO 9:21:18 S ROCCO 9:21:18 TARCENTO 9:21:18 TARCENTO 3:15:20 ROBIC. 3:15:20 ROBIC.

5 17 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 15

9 16 23:48:06 SOMPLAGO (U.G.) 9 16 23:48:06 SOMPLAGO (U.G.) 9 16 15:35:57 TABAS 9 16 15:35:57 DAYHOOK (IR) 9 16 15:35:57 DAYHOOK (IR) 4 15 14:43:00 HERCEG NOVI,SKOLA 4 15 14:43:00 HERCEG NOVI,SKOLA 4 15 14:43:00 ULCINJ-2 4 15 14:43:00 ULCINJ-2 4 15 14:43:00 HERCEG NOVI 4 15 14:43:00 HERCEG NOVI 5 24 17:24:00 KOTOR NAS,RAKITE 5 24 17:24:00 KOTOR NAS,RAKITE 8 8 8 8 6 17:05:00 SAN MARTIN 6 17:05:00 SAN MARTIN 6 17:05:00 GILROY ARRAY STN#1 6 17:05:00 GILROY ARRAY STN#1

1979 10 15 23:16:00 CERRO PRIETO 1979 10 15 23:16:00 CERRO PRIETO 1979 10 15 23:16:00 SUPERSTITION MT. 1979 10 15 23:16:00 SUPERSTITION MT. 1980 1980 2 25 10:47:00 PINYON FLAT 2 25 10:47:00 PINYON FLAT

Amax 61 MEXICALI VAL. 62 MEXICALI VAL. 63 VICTORIA 64 VICTORIA 65 IRPINIA 66 IRPINIA 67 IRPINIA 68 IRPINIA 69 IRPINIA 70 IRPINIA 71 IRPINIA 72 IRPINIA mv1 mv2 vi1 vi2 ir1 ir2 ir3 ir4 ir5 ir6 ir7 ir8 1980 1980 1980 1980 6 6 6 6 9 10:00:00 CERRO PRIETO 9 10:00:00 CERRO PRIETO 9 9 3:28:00 CERRO PRIETO 3:28:00 CERRO PRIETO 45 315 45 315 NS EW NS EW NS EW NS EW 135 45 18 288 L T L T T L 135 45 90 0 285 195 320 230 285 195 NS EW NS EW NS EW 360 270 90 0 90 0 90 0 NS EW L T 0.143 0.104 0.556 0.599 0.133 0.187 0.223 0.305 0.157 0.172 0.099 0.098 0.104 0.082 0.148 0.175 0.124 0.206 0.172 0.342 0.109 0.108 0.112 0.091 0.123 0.138 1.292 0.701 0.091 0.072 1.293 0.701 0.103 0.109 0.151 0.220 0.138 0.088 0.284 0.203 0.113 0.097 0.200 0.100 0.449 0.408 0.776 0.271 0.210 0.260

vmax 0.135 0.084 0.324 0.197 0.214 0.325 0.388 0.670 0.253 0.297 0.144 0.075 0.077 0.036 0.013 0.016 0.012 0.021 0.017 0.044 0.011 0.023 0.025 0.041 0.091 0.117 0.801 0.512 0.029 0.028 0.801 0.512 0.037 0.036 0.064 0.095 0.070 0.043 0.316 0.383 0.147 0.107 0.337 0.135 0.344 0.313 0.421 0.233 0.063 0.098

Emax

a95

F. Per* 0.38 0.3 0.22 0.14 0.18 0.12 0.38 0.2 1.26 0.34 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.3 0.38 0.3 0.28 0.14 0.08 0.3 0.28 0.12 0.24 0.16 0.18 0.28 0.18 0.3 1 0.46 0.32 0.48 0.72 0.38 0.2 0.48 0.4 0.22 0.24

0.839 0.096 0.602 0.073 11.666 0.338 5.861 0.193 2.220 0.094 2.740 0.121 7.992 0.157 9.285 0.201 6.532 0.094 8.327 0.098 3.860 0.059 2.883 0.056 0.481 0.066 0.221 0.045 0.159 0.099 0.265 0.105 0.144 0.079 0.317 0.145 0.290 0.118 0.520 0.231 0.036 0.094 0.086 0.098 0.115 0.098 0.112 0.072 0.956 0.087 1.001 0.097 23.384 0.920 17.253 0.480 0.339 0.055 0.287 0.035 23.387 0.920 17.255 0.480 0.373 0.058 0.319 0.066 0.725 0.097 0.910 0.154 0.253 0.122 0.107 0.069 5.828 0.196 3.586 0.140 0.652 0.076 0.860 0.075 1.641 0.180 0.956 0.074 10.105 0.410 6.192 0.327 40.740 0.436 8.818 0.171 1.282 0.162 1.891 0.184

1980 11 23 18:34:52 BAGNOLI IRPINO 1980 11 23 18:34:52 BAGNOLI IRPINO 1980 11 23 18:34:52 STURNO 1980 11 23 18:34:52 STURNO 1980 11 23 18:34:52 CALITRI (A) 1980 11 23 18:34:52 CALITRI (A) 1980 11 23 18:34:52 VULTURE 1980 11 23 18:34:52 VULTURE 1981 1981 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1983 1983 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 4 26 12:09:00 SUPERSTITION MT. 4 26 12:09:00 SUPERSTITION MT. 3 31 21:02:20 HOLMES LAKE 3 31 21:02:20 HOLMES LAKE 3 31 21:02:20 MITCHELL LK. RD. 3 31 21:02:20 MITCHELL LK. RD. 3 31 21:02:20 LOGGIE LODGE 3 31 21:02:20 LOGGIE LODGE 5 5 6 16:28:05 LOGGIE LODGE 6 16:28:05 LOGGIE LODGE

73 WESTMORELAND wm1 74 WESTMORELAND wm2 75 MIRAMICHI, CAN mir1 76 MIRAMICHI, CAN mir2 77 MIRAMICHI, CAN mir2_1 78 MIRAMICHI, CAN mir2_2 79 MIRAMICHI, CAN mir2_3 80 MIRAMICHI, CAN mir2_4 81 MIRAMICHI, CAN mir3_8 82 MIRAMICHI, CAN mir3_7 83 ANZA 84 ANZA 85 COALINGA 86 COALINGA 87 MORGAN HILL 88 MORGAN HILL 89 MORGAN HILL 90 MORGAN HILL 91 MORGAN HILL 92 MORGAN HILL 93 LAZIO ABRUZZO 94 LAZIO ABRUZZO 95 LAZIO ABRUZZO 96 LAZIO ABRUZZO 97 LAZIO ABRUZZO 98 LAZIO ABRUZZO 99 LOMA PRIETA 100 LOMA PRIETA 101 LOMA PRIETA 102 LOMA PRIETA 103 LOMA PRIETA 104 LOMA PRIETA 105 LOMA PRIETA 106 LOMA PRIETA 107 TELIRE, LIMON 108 TELIRE, LIMON 109 FRAILES 110 FRAILES a2_1 a2_2 coa1 coa2 mh1 mh2 mh3 mh4 mh2_1 mh2_2 lz1 lz2 lz2_1 lz2_2 lz2_3 lz2_4 lp1 lp2 lp3 lp4 lp5 lp6 lp7 lp8 tel1 tel2 fra1 fra2

6 15 23:49:00 TERWILLIGER VALLEY 6 15 23:49:00 TERWILLIGER VALLEY 5 5 2 23:42:00 PARKFIELD,GOLDHILL 3W 2 23:42:00 PARKFIELD,GOLDHILL 3W

4 24 21:15:19 COYOTE LAKE DAM 4 24 21:15:19 COYOTE LAKE DAM 4 24 21:15:00 GILROY ARRAY STN#1 4 24 21:15:00 GILROY ARRAY STN#1 4 24 21:15:00 SAN MARTIN. 4 24 21:15:00 SAN MARTIN. 5 11 17:49:41 ST.ATINA 5 11 17:49:41 ST.ATINA 5 11 10:41:50 ST.VIETTA BARREA 5 11 10:41:50 ST.VIETTA BARREA 5 11 13:14:57 VILLETTA BARREA 5 11 13:14:57 VILLETTA BARREA 0:04:15 STANFORD, SLAC LAB 0:04:15 STANFORD, SLAC LAB 0:04:15 DIAMOND HEIGHTS, S.F. 0:04:15 DIAMOND HEIGHTS, S.F. 0:04:15 PRESIDIO, SF'CO 0:04:15 PRESIDIO, SF'CO 0:04:15 GILROY NO.1, GAVIALN 0:04:15 GILROY NO.1, GAVIALN

1989 10 18 1989 10 18 1989 10 18 1989 10 18 1989 10 18 1989 10 18 1989 10 18 1989 10 18 1991 1991 1991 1991

4 22 21:56:00 SIQUIRRES STATION 4 22 21:56:00 SIQUIRRES STATION 9 9 8 8 9:33:00 LA LUCHA 9:33:00 LA LUCHA

Amax Dam Response Record 111 Tabas-L 112 Tabas-L 113 Tabas-L 114 Tabas-L 115 Tabas-L 116 Gazli 117 Gazli 118 Gazli 119 Gazli 120 Gazli 121 Tabas1 122 Tabas1 123 Tabas1 124 Tabas1 125 Tabas1 126 Tabas2 127 Tabas2 128 Tabas2 129 Tabas2 130 Tabas2 Code tabLd1 TabLd2 TabLd3 TabLd4 TabLd5 Gazd1 Gazd2 Gazd3 Gazd4 Gazd5 Tab1d1 1978 tab1d2 tab1d3 tab1d4 Tab1d5 Tab2d1 1978 Tab2d2 tab2d3 tab2d4 tab2d5 9 16 9 16 1976 5 17 1978 9 16 Dam1 Dam2 Dam3 Dam4 Dam5 Dam1 Dam2 Dam3 Dam4 Dam5 Dam1 Dam2 Dam3 Dam4 Dam5 Dam1 Dam2 Dam3 Dam4 Dam5 (g) 3.127 2.513 2.419 2.625 1.696 2.033 2.027 1.914 1.414 1.204 1.570 0.998 0.860 0.807 0.516 0.869 1.594 0.893 0.942 0.780

vmax (m/s)

Emax (m^2/s)

a95 (g)

F. Per* (sec) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.149 767.619 1.962 2.049 601.923 1.640 2.102 581.493 1.492 2.427 725.061 1.644 2.046 453.207 1.133 0.797 201.198 1.261 1.267 376.129 1.436 1.434 229.270 1.210 1.192 168.035 0.987 1.189 132.515 0.886 0.493 107.456 0.950 0.548 0.543 0.547 0.504 0.299 0.662 0.775 0.750 93.528 0.618 85.761 0.543 60.562 0.525 48.797 0.346 71.374 0.466 95.282 0.574 79.983 0.607 68.026 0.548

0.772 112.784 1.056

* P.Per= Predominant Period of the record *F.Period= Fundamental Period of the dam

Table 2:Sliding block displacements and other parameters dependent on kc/km (Representative only for one record)
Record Code kc/km lc1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Level Gr. Sloping Gr. 2-way u(cm) 0.5971 0.3871 0.3359 0.2924 0.2091 0.1243 0.0718 0.0356 0.0119 1 way u(cm) 2.7347 1.5496 0.9051 0.5325 0.3144 0.179 0.095 0.0405 0.012 accn (g) 0.0164 0.0328 0.0493 0.0657 0.0821 0.0985 0.1149 0.1314 0.1478 0.1239 0.2477 0.3716 0.4954 0.6193 0.7432 0.867 0.9909 1.1147 a/a95 E m^2/sec 6.10E-01 4.98E-01 3.75E-01 2.60E-01 1.79E-01 1.19E-01 7.26E-02 3.58E-02 9.56E-03 0.878 0.717 0.54 0.375 0.257 0.171 0.104 0.051 0.014 E/Emax dur sec 1.906 1.167 0.779 0.483 0.267 0.167 0.117 0.075 0.041 52 26 19 17 10 6 3 2 2 no Tdn=dur/no sec 0.036654 0.044885 0.041 0.028412 0.0267 0.027833 0.039 0.0375 0.0205 26 13 10 9 5 3 2 1 1 n