Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Insight into the seismic response of earth dams with an emphasis

on seismic coefficient estimation
Konstantinos I. Andrianopoulos a,⇑, Achilleas G. Papadimitriou b, George D. Bouckovalas a,
Dimitrios K. Karamitros a
a
Geotechnical Department, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Thessaly, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a numerical investigation of the seismic response of earth dams by employing results
Received 17 December 2012 from 110 nonlinear two-dimensional (2D) dynamic analyses of four different cross-sections with heights
Received in revised form 6 September 2013 ranging from 20 to 120 m. The analyses were of a parametric nature, considering the effects of seismic
Accepted 9 September 2013
excitation characteristics (intensity and frequency content), foundation soil stiffness, and the existence
Available online 5 October 2013
of typical stabilising berms and/or an impounded reservoir. The results of these studies indicated that
the predominant period of a dam’s vibration was strongly affected by its height and the input motion
Keywords:
characteristics. The results also indicated that the peak acceleration at the dam’s crest was governed
Earth dams
Earthquake
by its height, the input motion characteristics, and the stiffness of the foundation soil, but not by the
Embankments other parameters. These same analyses yielded results on pseudo-static seismic coefficients for a total
Non-linear soil response of 1084 potential sliding masses within the analysed cross-sections, demonstrating that the seismic coef-
Numerical analysis ficients decreased as the sliding mass became deeper and bulkier, increased if the mass was located
Pseudo-static analysis upstream rather than downstream, and were strongly affected by the seismic excitation characteristics
Seismic coefficient and stiffness of the foundation soil. Moreover, these results allowed for a thorough evaluation of existing
methodologies for seismic coefficient estimation, quantifying their accuracy and depicting their limita-
tions. This evaluation process also illustrated the fact that there is currently no methodology accounting
for all significant problem parameters.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Reports of severe seismic earth dam failures have been limited
worldwide and related mainly to liquefaction (e.g., the Lower San
Fernando Dam during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, numer-
ous tailings dams such as the Mochikoshi dams during the 1978
Izu–Ohshim–Kinkai earthquake [1], and a number of Indian dams
such as the Chang and Shivlakha dams during the 2001 Bhuj earth-
quake [2]). In contrast, as reported by numerous reconnaissance
reports and studies (e.g. [3–7]), there have been many more cases
in which some sort of cracking or slope sliding has occurred during
strong shaking, which is not necessarily related to liquefaction
(e.g., the Austrian dam during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake).
Moreover, earthquake-related damages to earth dams continue to
occur worldwide and unfortunately still include total collapses,
such as the complete failure of the 18.5 m Fujinuma embankment
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Mourgkanas 6, Maroussi, 15126, Athens,
Greece. Tel.: +30 2108069604.
E-mail addresses: kandrian@tee.gr (K.I. Andrianopoulos), apapad@civ.uth.gr
(A.G. Papadimitriou), gbouck@central.ntua.gr (G.D. Bouckovalas), dimkaram@
gmail.com (D.K. Karamitros).
dam during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Thus, questions have
been raised regarding the seismic safety of existing dams that have
not been designed to withstand earthquakes (small and/or old
dams) or have been designed using methods of analysis that are
now considered outdated [8]. New, taller dams have also been con-
structed in unfavourable foundation conditions, creating an in-
creased need for more accurate design methods.
In general, the assessment of the seismic stability of new or
existing dams can be performed via (a) pseudo-static analyses
[9], (b) displacement-based (Newmark or sliding block) methods
[10–12], and (c) dynamic stress-deformation numerical analysis
[13]. Although such robust numerical analyses as method (c) are
now quite common, methods (a) and (b) still form the basis of
engineering practice in the seismic design of earth dams around
the world, at least in the design preliminary stages of new dams
or the safety assessment of existing dams. Compared to (b), pseu-
do-static analyses have the benefit of accumulated experience and
user friendliness because they were first employed in the 1950s
and require merely the estimation of a pseudo-static factor of
safety, FSd, against seismic ‘‘failure’’ of the geostructure’s slopes.
An example of such a pseudo-static problem is illustrated in
Fig. 1, which also depicts significant problem parameters, such as

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.09.005
196 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210
Fig. 1. Definition of the critical geometric and geotechnical parameters for the
seismic slope stability of earth dams and tall embankments.
the peak values of the seismic acceleration at the crest, PGAcrest, at
the outcropping (bed)rock, PGArock, and in the ‘‘free field’’ of the
foundation soil, PGA. The most critical point of the approach is
the value of the horizontal inertial force, Fh, applied at the sliding
mass’s centre of gravity. This force Fh is equal to the weight of
the sliding mass, W, multiplied by a dimensionless seismic coeffi-
cient, kh. Therefore, the selection of an appropriate value for kh is
crucial for the estimation of FSd and of paramount importance to
a safe, rational design or safety assessment.
The value of kh should reflect the vibration of the sliding mass
during the design earthquake. Given that the sliding mass is gener-
ally not rigid, different locations within this mass do not vibrate in
phase (especially in tall dams where the predominant wave length,
kd, of the seismic shear waves within the dam body is comparable
to their height, H [14]), and their vibrations are not of equal inten-
sity (e.g., vibrations are less intense deep within the dam body than
on its surface). Therefore, the value of kh should be related to the
resultant acceleration time history of the sliding mass, which is re-
lated to the resultant (horizontal) force time history along the
shear band delineating the sliding mass within the dam body. This
resultant acceleration time history is generally expected to be a
function of the characteristics of the dam and excitation and the
geometry of the sliding mass [15]. Yet, it can also be affected if slip-
page has been initiated along the shear band delineating the slid-
ing mass within the dam body [16]. In any case, the peak value
of the resultant acceleration time history is observed only momen-
tarily, and therefore, the design of earth dams using the respective
peak value of the seismic coefficient khmax, along with a require-
ment for a pseudo-static factor of safety against seismic ‘‘failure’’
FSd P 1.0, leads to an overly conservative approach. Hence, com-
mon practice dictates the use of an ‘‘effective’’ value of the seismic
coefficient, khE (a percentile of khmax), combined with the existing
requirement of FSd P 1.0, at the expense of generally ‘‘small’’ (but
still unknown) permanent downslope displacements. Based on
Papadimitriou et al. [17], literature values for the khE/khmax ratio
have ranged from 0.5 to 0.8, with the most commonly used value
equal to 0.67 (e.g., in the British Standards for pseudo-static anal-
yses of the slopes of dams or embankments [18]). Alternatively,
there have been recent efforts to relate the appropriate selection
of an ‘‘effective’’ seismic coefficient, khE (for use in pseudo-static
analyses), directly to the allowable downslope displacement [18–
22], thus introducing performance-based design principles in the
well-established pseudo-static analysis method.
Given the complexity of the problem, an accurate estimation of
the resultant acceleration time history of a (generally) flexible slid-
ing mass has required robust dynamic numerical analyses. Two
types of numerical procedures have been used for this purpose:
‘‘decoupled’’ analyses, in which the dynamic response of the exam-
ined dam (and sliding mass) is calculated separately from possible
slippage [15,23], and ‘‘coupled’’ analyses, in which the dynamic re-
sponse is considered simultaneously with the accumulation of the
sliding mass’s permanent downslope displacement [14,16]. Such
analyses are always demanding in terms of software, expertise,
and cost and thus defeat the purpose of selecting method (a) over
(c). To avoid these downsides, researchers and practitioners around
the world have devised various simplified methods for estimating
appropriate seismic coefficient values for use in pseudo-static
analyses. Still, it is unclear how well such simplified methods agree
with measured responses and the results of robust dynamic anal-
yses of earth dams’ seismic responses.
Thus, this study attempted to clarify the compatibility between
existing simplified methods for estimating seismic coefficients
(outlined in Section 2) and robust dynamic numerical analyses
(performed using the methodology described in Section 3). These
analyses provided insight into the seismic response of zoned earth
dams and homogeneous tall embankments and ascertained the rel-
ative significance of various problem parameters. As fully detailed
in Section 4, such parameters included excitation characteristics
(intensity and frequency content), dam geometry (height and exis-
tence of stabilising berms), foundation soil conditions, and the
dam’s operation phase (‘‘end of construction’’ and ‘‘steady-state
seepage’’ conditions). Note that in addition to the excitation charac-
teristics, the other parameters under study are crucial to the static
stability of earth dams, but their significance in terms of seismic
loading is unknown. Whereas Section 4 considers the seismic re-
sponse of the whole dam, Section 5 focuses on seismic coefficients
and pinpoints which of the foregoing parameters are important to
designating their values. Finally, Section 6 presents a critical eval-
uation of the methodologies outlined in Section 2, providing a
quantification of their accuracy and limitations based on the
numerical results.
As clarified above, the paper deals with the seismic response of
‘‘zoned earth dams and homogeneous tall embankments’’. Yet, for
reasons of brevity, in the remainder of the paper the studied geo-
structures will be referenced as ‘‘dams and embankments’’.
2. Methodologies for seismic coefficient estimation
This section begins with an overview of proposals from the
literature for ‘‘effective’’ seismic coefficients, khE, for use in pseu-
do-static slope stability analyses of dams and embankments (Sec-
tion 2.1). It then provides estimators from the literature of peak
values of the seismic coefficient, khmax, for use in displacement-
based (Newmark-type) methods (Section 2.2).
2.1. Estimating ‘‘effective’’ seismic coefficients
According to Kramer [14], it was Terzaghi [9] who first depicted
values of khE = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.5 for ‘‘severe’’, ‘‘violent, destructive’’,
and ‘‘catastrophic’’ earthquakes, respectively. Until the mid-1970s,
the depiction of khE had been based on local experience and typi-
cally led to values between 0.10 and 0.15, with the assumed value
increasing as a function of the design earthquake magnitude, M, or
the significance of the civil engineering work, without exceeding a
value of 0.2 (the old design guidelines of the US Army Corps of
Engineers). However, Kramer [14] has increased the range of khE
up to 0.25 in both the USA and Japan for more recent practice.
The older values (up to 0.15) have been corroborated by Seed
[24], who has proposed values of 0.1 for M = 6.5 and 0.15 for
M = 8.5, together with a requirement of FSd = 1.15 to ensure that
displacements will not exceed 1 m (a value considered allowable
for tall dams).
Seed’s proposals have more recently been validated as being
quite reasonable, even for high PGA values [22]. However, the
influence of the PGA level on the value of khE, which has been intu-
itively acknowledged as early as Terzaghi [9], was incorporated
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210
explicitly in literature proposals in the mid-1980s. In particular,
based on a technical report from USCOLD [25], the typical practice
of the time in the USA was to use khE values ranging from
0.25(PGA/g) to 1 PGA/g, with the largest values accounting the
elastic amplification of motion within the body of the dam. Accord-
ing to Pyke [26], khE has ranged from 0.2(PGA/g) to 0.6(PGA/g), but
based on earthquake magnitude values M ranging from 6.5 to 8.5,
respectively. Note that although there are different measures of
earthquake magnitude, the values of M mentioned above must
be considered equal to the most ‘‘accurate’’ moment magnitude
Mw. Nevertheless, after Idriss [27], one may consider the local mag-
nitude ML as accurate (ML ffi Mw) for ML 6 6.25 and the surface
wave magnitude MS ffi Mw as accurate for 6.25 < MS 6 7.5, but not
for higher-magnitude events.
Similarly, the respective British Standards [18] have proposed
the use of khE = 0.67(PGA/g). This proposal essentially implies that
any sliding mass within the dam is rigid and therefore the peak va-
lue of its resultant acceleration time history, denoted by khmaxg, is
equal to the PGA, or equivalently that khmax = PGA/g. A similar cor-
relation between the ‘‘effective’’ seismic coefficient and the PGA has
also been proposed by seismic codes (e.g., EC8 and the Greek code
EAK) for the pseudo-static analysis of slopes, but not dams or
embankments. For example, EC8 proposes the use of khE = 0.5(-
PGA/g), which is estimated using intensity maps for rock outcrop-
ping locations in National Annexes and the soil factor according to
ground category, thus introducing one-dimensional (1D) site
amplification effects for each value. In the Greek code, the intensity
maps provide values for the ‘‘effective’’ ground acceleration (=0.8
PGA), which essentially translates to khE = 0.4(PGA/g). In any case,
Salgado [28] has criticised the use of a unique percentile value
(0.5 above) in estimating khE in EC8 because this value should be
a function of earthquake magnitude, M, and PGA level, which vary
according to country and region, among other code-related issues.
Moreover, EC8 accounts for the expected amplification of seismic
motion near topographic irregularities (e.g., near slopes) due to
the scattering and diffraction of incident seismic waves, a phenom-
enon commonly referred to as ‘‘topography effects’’ [30]. In particu-
lar, it has been proposed that an estimate of khE increases linearly
from its minimum foregoing value when z = H to its maximum va-
lue, which is 20% higher for very shallow failure surfaces (z ? 0)
due to topography effects that are applied if the slope has a height
H P 30 m and its inclination is between 15° and 30° (higher angles
appear in natural slopes but rarely in earth dams). Thus, EC8 is con-
sistent with explicit recommendations for increasing the PGA by
25% for moderately steep slopes [29]. This increase could be larger
for steeper slopes (e.g., 40% for slope angles >30°, according to EC8)
or even moderately sloped dams and embankments if their crests
are relatively narrow [30,31].
According to Marcusson [32], the slope stability of dams should
be performed using khE values related to PGAcrest (Fig. 1), a peak va-
lue of acceleration that accounts for dam vibration, which PGA
does not.
2.2. Estimating peak seismic coefficients
In their seminal work, Makdisi and Seed [15] were the first to
correlate the value of the peak seismic coefficient khmax with both
the value of (PGAcrest/g) and a decreasing function of the ratio (z/H),
representing the maximum depth z of the failure surface (mea-
sured from the crest) over the dam’s height H (Fig. 1). In particular,
by employing ‘‘decoupled’’ analyses, they have reported values of
khmax 6 PGAcrest/g, with the equal sign holding for z/H = 0. The ben-
efit arising from their proposal is that khmax accounts not only for
dam vibration through PGAcrest but also for the sliding mass’s geo-
metric characteristics through z/H, both of which are not depicted
with the PGA.
197
The use of Makdisi and Seed’s correlation [15] and that of Mar-
cusson [32] (in Section 2.1) has created a practical need for esti-
mating PGAcrest, a value that is generally not equal to the PGA or
PGArock values that may be known from a seismic hazard study
of the site. In general, the accurate estimation of PGAcrest requires
the execution of non-linear numerical analyses, such as those per-
formed for this study (Section 3). Alternatively, an estimate may be
obtained by using inelastic response spectra for the free-field sur-
face of a dam’s foundation soil, which should be available from the
aforementioned seismic hazard study. In doing so, the value of
PGAcrest can be estimated by accounting for the dam’s first two to
three modes of vibration [15].
Although less sound from a theoretical perspective, if khmax is
related to the PGA itself, then the foregoing practical problem no
longer exists. This scenario has been studied by Zania et al. [21],
who performed a ‘‘decoupled’’ procedure for estimating downslope
displacements of embankments. In particular, they correlated the
ratio of khmax/(PGA/g) with the tuning period ratio of the embank-
ment’s eigenperiod over the predominant period of excitation. This
correlation has enabled the proposal of a ‘‘seismic coefficient spec-
trum’’ for zero-slope displacements (the term ‘‘spectrum’’ implying
a maximum plateau value for khmax/(PGA/g) at (tuning) period ra-
tios of approximately one due to resonance).
Much more recently, Rathje and Antonakos [33] performed
parametric ‘‘coupled’’ analyses for flexible sliding masses and
established a predictive equation for the khmax/(PGA/g) ratio. This
equation indicates that the ratio of khmax/(PGA/g) decreases with
an increasing PGA input, and its value is governed by the (Tmass/
Tm) period ratio. In particular, the period Tmass is the fundamental
period of the sliding mass, which is assumed to vibrate approxi-
mately as a 1D horizontal soil layer over bedrock with a thickness
equal to the maximum thickness of the sliding mass. Concurrently,
Tm is the mean period of the seismic excitation, which is similar but
not equal to the predominant period, Te (see [16] for its definition).
In particular, this predictive equation indicates that as the sliding
mass becomes more flexible (i.e., it becomes thicker), the value
of khmax/(PGA/g) decreases significantly, particularly for Tmass/
Tm > 0.20.3.
3. Description of numerical analyses
3.1. Overview
To shed light on the seismic response of geostructures, such as
dams and embankments, 110 non-linear 2D dynamic analyses
were performed using the methodology described herein. Four dif-
ferent cross-sections were considered to investigate the effect of
the geostructure’s height on its dynamic response. In particular,
one case describing a tall uniform embankment of maximum
height H = 20 m was considered along with three cases of zoned
earth dams:
 a small dam of maximum height H = 40 m,
 a medium dam of maximum height H = 80 m, and
 a tall dam of maximum height H = 120 m.
The dams’ slope inclinations were chosen to vary between 1:2
and 1:2.5 (vertical:horizontal) to achieve an adequate factor of
slope safety under static conditions. Excluding the case of the tall
embankment (H = 20 m), that was considered uniform, the
remaining cross-sections included a clay core with slope inclina-
tions of the core–shell interfaces ranging between 4:1 and 5:1
(vertical:horizontal).
The effect of typical (upstream and downstream) stability
berms on the overall response was also investigated. The heights
198 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210
Table 1
Type and plasticity index PI(%) for each geomaterial comprising the various
earthdams, and related model constants for the employed non-linear hysteretic
model (po is the mean effective pressure at equilibrium (in kPa), used to vary the
(small strain) shear wave velocity V (in m/s) with depth).
Geomaterial PI (%) V (m/s) a1 c1 (%)
Uniform rockfill (H = 20 m) 0–7.5 115 (po)0.27 0.64 0.016
Non-cohesive shells (H = 40, 0–7.5 86 (po)0.31 0.64 0.016
80, 120 m)
Clay core (H = 40, 80, 120 m) 7.5–15 60 (po)0.29 0.64 0.027
and widths of typical stability berms were set approximately equal
to H/3 and 2H/3, respectively (where H is the ever-current dam
height). Apart from the tall dam (H = 120 m), the remaining
cross-sections were analysed both with and without typical
stability berms to depict the berms’ relative effect on dynamic
responses.
A multi-stage construction of each cross-section was initially
simulated to establish an admissible stress field under static condi-
tions at the end of construction. Based on the computed mean
effective stresses, the initial shear-wave velocity profile of each
cross-section was estimated according to Table 1. For H = 20 m,
the empirical correlation of Kokusho and Eshashi [34] for dense
(void ratio e = 0.4) gravels was used. For the other cross-sections,
an initial dynamic shear modulus, Gmax, was computed according
to Hardin and Drnevich [35,36] for both clay core and core–shells.
Thus, the H = 20 m section could be considered a tall, dense rockfill
embankment, whereas the remaining cross-sections simulated the
dynamic response of zoned earth dams of various heights.
The effect of foundation conditions was examined by assuming
various shear wave velocities for the foundation layer, ranging
from Vb = 250 m/s to 1500 m/s (the minimum value was used only
for H = 20 m). Finally, to investigate the effect of reservoir
impoundment on seismic response, the same dam cross-sections
were analysed for both the ‘‘end of construction’’ and ‘‘steady-state
seepage’’ conditions. In the former case, the water table was as-
sumed to lie at the dam base, whereas in the latter case, the water
table followed the surface of the impounded reservoir until the up-
stream crest and then decreased linearly within the clay core,
reaching the dam base at the core–downstream shell interface.
Furthermore, in the analyses conducted for ‘‘steady-state seepage’’
conditions, the reservoir was modelled as an incompressible mate-
rial with a density of q = 1 Mg/m3. The elastic stress–strain relation
was used for its modelling, with Poisson’s ratio of approximately
m = 0.5, a bulk modulus of 2 GPa, and a shear modulus of approxi-
mately zero. This calibration corresponded to a compressional
wave velocity equal to 1500 m/s and a shear wave velocity of zero
within the reservoir.
The parametric analyses also studied the effects of seismic mo-
tion characteristics, as described in Section 3.4.
3.2. Constitutive model for geomaterials
The mechanical response under dynamic loading of the various
geomaterials comprising the dams was simulated using the non-
linear hysteretic constitutive model described below, which has
been implemented as a user-defined model routine in FLAC [37]
by the authors. Given the time-domain analysis performed, the
equations were written in an incremental format, and the soil re-
sponse was simulated by employing a step-by-step integration
based on the ever-current tangential values of the material moduli.
The soil was modelled as a non-linear hysteretic material using
constantly updated values of the tangential bulk Kt and shear Gt
moduli. Following isotropic elasticity, Kt and Gt are interrelated
via a constant elastic Poisson’s ratio m (a model constant). Then,
based on [38–41], the non-linear hysteretic form of Gt is given by
the following generalised Ramberg and Osgood [42] relation type
for monotonic and cyclic loading paths:
Gmax
Gt ¼ ð1Þ
A
m 8   9
0.33 >
< 1 þ 2 a1  1 2Xg ; for cyclic loading >
=
1 1
0.33 A¼   P1
>
: 1 þ 2 a1  1 gX ; for monotonic loading >
;
1 1
0.33
where Gmax is the maximum (small-strain) shear modulus and A is a
dimensionless scalar that decreases during loading that introduces
Gt degradation and thus hysteretic damping, denoted as n. In partic-
ular, the Gmax of Eq. (1) is either quantified as a function of the
(small strain) shear wave velocity V of the soil (and its mass density
q), using Gmax = qV2, or estimated as a function of the mean effec-
tive pressure p and void ratio e of the soil:
 rffiffiffiffiffi
Bpa p
Gmax ¼ ð3Þ
0:3 þ 0:7e2 pa
where B is a model constant and pa is the atmospheric pressure. In
turn, scalar A of Eq. (2) is a function of the ‘‘distance’’ X in the gen-
eralised stress-ratio space of the ever-current deviatoric stress ratio
tensor r (=s/p, where s is the deviatoric stress tensor and p is the
mean effective stress) from its value rref at the last reference state.
The latter is estimated by
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X¼ 1=2ðr  rref Þ : ðr  rref Þ ð4Þ
where ‘:’ denotes the double inner product of the two tensors. The
reference state for monotonic loading is the equilibrium state,
whereas the reference state is updated at each shear reversal state
for cyclic loading. In addition, scalar g1, which divides ‘‘distance’’ X
in Eq. (2), provides a correlation to the (updating) reference state:
!
Gref
max
g1 ¼ a1 c1 ð5Þ
pref
where pref and Gref max correspond to the values of p and Gmax (using
Eq. (1) for A = 1) at the last reference state (where rref is also up-
dated), respectively, and c1 and a1 are model constants. For simplic-
ity, shear reversal is assumed to be triggered when the X value
reduces from its previous step. Then, pref, Gref
max , and r
ref
are updated,
rendering ‘‘distance’’ X to be zero, as it was initially at the equilib-
rium state, and A = 1 for this time step. Given this updating upon
shear reversal and the form of Eqs. (1)-(5), the predicted soil re-
sponse is non-linear hysteretic. The non-linear model has four
dimensionless constants: the elastic Poisson’s ratio m (with 0.33
being a commonly assumed value), constant B (or velocity V) that
scales the Gmax value, positive scalar a1 (61) that introduces non-
linearity (a1 = 1 for A = 1 and a linear response), and c1, a reference
cyclic shear strain level. Fig. 2 provides sample simulation runs for
calibrating constants a1 and c1 to best fit the experimental curves of
the normalised secant shear modulus G/Gmax degradation and hys-
teretic damping n increase curves with a cyclic strain amplitude c,
from Vucetic and Dobry [43].
For the purposes of this paper, the (small strain) shear wave
velocities, V (related to the Gmax and model constant B values),
for the dam shells and clay core were considered functions of the
initial mean effective stress po, as this stress was estimated using
a staged construction analysis of each dam under study (Table 1).
The constants a1 and c1 were chosen based on the calibration of
Fig. 2, depending on the plasticity index PI(%): 0–7.5% for the shells,
modelled as a PI = 0% material, and 7.5–15% for the clay core, mod-
elled as a PI = 15% material (Table 1).
Fig. 2 illustrates that the foregoing non-linear hysteretic model
used in this study yields almost no damping at very small cyclic
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210 199

quency numerical perturbations, stiffness Rayleigh damping was

also used in the numerical analyses, calibrated to 1% damping for
the predominant frequency of the excitation.

3.3. Mesh discretisation and boundary conditions

When employing FLAC, the continuum was divided into a finite-

difference mesh composed of quadrilateral elements (‘‘zones’’ in
FLAC terminology). Proper care was taken in creating a dense
mesh, with a maximum zone dimension equal to 1/10 of the pre-
dominant shear wavelength in each part of the medium, to avoid
the numerical distortion of the propagating waves’ frequency con-
tent. The mesh extended laterally and to the bottom sufficiently far
from the dam body (at least two times the dam height H) to min-
imise the effects of artificial reflections. Transmitting boundaries
[44] were applied at the base of the mesh for the same reason,
whereas boundaries simulating the free-field response [45] were
applied at its lateral sides. The seismic excitation, represented by
vertically propagating in-plane SV waves (i.e. shear waves with
polarisation in the vertical plane), was applied as a time history
of shear stress along the mesh’s horizontal base to avoid artificial
wave reflections at the bottom boundary that are unavoidable
when time histories of displacement, velocity, or acceleration are
applied.

3.4. Seismic excitations

Fig. 2. Calibration of model constants a1 and c1 in the employed model to fit the
experimental curves of Vucetic and Dobry [43].
Recorded ground motions from strong earthquakes in Greece
were used as seismic excitations in all 110 analyses:

shear strains, which is not in accordance with experimental data. (a) Splb time history recorded during the 1999 Athens earth-
Thus, to incorporate non-zero damping in the discretised soil med- quake (M = 5.9, longitudinal component, 12 km epicentral
ium irrespective of cyclic shear strain level and avoid high-fre- distance).

Fig. 3. Acceleration time histories a(t) normalised by their peak acceleration value, amax, that were used as input excitations.
200 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210
Fig. 4. Elastic response spectra (5% critical damping) normalised by their peak
ground acceleration value, amax, compared to the elastic design spectra for ground
categories A and B of EC8.
(b) Aigio time history recorded during the 1995 Aigio earth-
quake (M = 6.2, east–west component, 18 km epicentral
distance).
(c) Argostoli time history recorded during the 1983 Cephallonia
earthquake (M = 7.0, east–west component, 34 km epicen-
tral distance).
(d) Kozani time history recorded during the 1995 Kozani–Greve-
na earthquake (M = 6.6, east–west component, 16 km epi-
central distance).
Fig. 3 presents the acceleration time histories employed, nor-
malised with respect to their peak acceleration values for compar-
ison purposes. These recordings are characterised by durations of
strong motion that vary from 1 to 2 s (Aigio) up to approximately
10 s (Argostoli). The Aigio time history includes a directivity pulse
at approximately 3 s, whereas the other recordings may be consid-
ered relatively far field motions. In addition, Fig. 4 presents (and
compares) their elastic response spectra (for 5% critical damping).
The selected group of seismic recordings covers a wide range of
predominant periods, Te = 0.14–0.5 s, which is the expected range
of predominant periods of bedrock motion in EC8 (at least for
Southern Europe, where M > 5.5). Fig. 4 also illustrates that the se-
lected recordings include relatively monochromatic excitations
(Aigio, Splb), as well as an excitation with a wide range of signifi-
cant periods (Argostoli). Furthermore, the selected group of excita-
tions covers almost the entire range of significant periods for the
elastic design spectra of ground categories A and B of EC8, which
correspond to relatively stiff ground conditions that are generally
used as foundation layers for dams and embankments.
The seismic excitations applied at the base of the mesh were
appropriately scaled in each analysis to attain the desired peak
ground acceleration (PGA) at the foundation layer’s free-field sur-
face. The PGA values in the performed analyses ranged from
0.05 g to 0.5 g, thus enabling the study of the entire spectrum of
seismic dam responses, from the linear range for low-intensity mo-
tions up to the highly non-linear range for high-intensity motions.
4. Insights into the seismic responses of earth dams
4.1. Spatial variation of the peak ground accelerations
Section 4 presents typical results from the numerical analyses
with the goal of providing insights into the seismic responses of
dams as geostructures, with no reference being made to seismic
coefficients of any potential sliding mass within the dam’s body.
In particular, this section presents results related to the effects of
the investigated parameters (input motion characteristics, founda-
tion soil stiffness, existence of berms, and/or impounded reser-
voirs, dam height) on fundamental indices of the dam’s response,
such as the non-linear fundamental dam vibration period, To (Sec-
tion 4.2), and peak acceleration at the crest, PGAcrest (Section 4.3).
Section 4.1 presents results pertaining to the spatial variation of
the peak horizontal acceleration along the dam’s surface and with-
in its body, providing a clearer picture of how seismic waves atten-
uate in a dam’s vicinity.
Fig. 5a presents typical results corresponding to the response of
the short dam (H = 40 m) founded on firm ground (Vb = 1000 m/s)
at the ‘‘end of construction’’ when subjected to the Splb time history
scaled at PGA = 0.05 g. In particular, Fig. 5a provides information
on how the peak horizontal acceleration varies spatially with the
horizontal distance at the ground surface along the dam (surface
level) but also at its base (foundation level). As shown, the peak
horizontal acceleration exhibited intense spatial variability at the
surface level along the dam’s inclined shells, as opposed to the
more uniform response along the horizontal ground away from
the dam. By directly comparing the results for the surface and
foundation levels, it became obvious that significant amplification
of seismic motion existed within the dam body (a factor of almost
three, on average, between the two levels), which was a clear man-
ifestation of topography effects [31]. Fig. 5a also illustrates that due
to the presence of a heavy geostructure, the peak horizontal accel-
eration was clearly de-amplified at the foundation level by a factor
of approximately 1.5 compared to the peak horizontal acceleration
at the free-field (away from the dam) of PGA = 0.05 g. Hence, the
average amplification of peak horizontal acceleration at the dam’s
surface level was equal to approximately two times that of the
PGA. However, the amplification at the crest was significantly
higher (approximately 2.6 times that of the PGA), with seismic mo-
tion that was far from uniform despite its narrow width. This result
was similar to what analyses of 2D uniform hills have shown [31].
Fig. 5b compares these results in terms of the peak horizontal
acceleration’s spatial variability at the surface and foundation lev-
els of a dam, yielding similar results for conditions identical to
those described before but with typical stability berms at the toes
of both the dam’s sides. Fig. 5b illustrates that the existence of
berms did not essentially affect the peak horizontal accelerations
at the crest, foundation level, or ground surface away from the
dam. In contrast, the existence of berms intensified the spatial var-
iation in the peak horizontal acceleration along the dam surface.
This intensification could again be attributed to the topographic
amplification of the seismic ground motion observed in the vicin-
ities of the two berms. Fig. 5b also illustrates that these local
amplification phenomena could be quite significant but did not af-
fect the seismic responses at the centre of the dam or its crest.
Fig. 5c compares the results of the combination of dam-founda-
tion-excitation from Fig. 5a (at the ‘‘end of construction’’ condition)
with those for the same dam after impoundment (at the ‘‘steady-
state seepage’’ condition). The peak accelerations are amplified
along the upstream shell and remain unaltered or slightly reduced
along the crest and downstream shell in the latter condition. These
differentiations were observed at surficial parts of the dam body
because the peak accelerations were not affected by the existence
of the reservoir at the dam’s base. Overall, the impoundment of the
reservoir made the spatial variation in the peak accelerations at
surface level more non-uniform than in previously tested cases
with or without berms.
This amplification of peak accelerations in the upstream shell,
compared to those in the downstream shell under ‘‘steady-state
seepage’’ conditions, were attributed to the contrast between shear
wave velocities, V (proportional to the effective stresses in Table 1),
that existed between the non-saturated downstream shell and
submerged dam body (the upstream shell and part of the core).
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210 201

Fig. 5. Spatial variation in the maximum horizontal acceleration along the dam’s surface and base (H = 40 m, Splb time history, PGA = 0.05 g, Vb = 1000 m/s): (a) reference case
(without berms and at the end of construction), (b) effect of stabilising berms at the end of construction, and (c) effect of reservoir impoundment for the dam without berms.

An example of this contrast in shear wave velocity values is pre-
sented in Fig. 6, which depicts the shear wave velocity contours
in the portion of the mesh close to the dam with H = 40 m. Observe
that the V values in the downstream shells exceed 500 m/s at large
depths, while at symmetric locations in the upstream shells the V
values remain much lower. Thus, the stiffer downstream shell ap-
peared to partially reflect the vertically impinging SV waves to-
ward the upstream shell, producing seismic amplification effects
in the upstream region without affecting the peak acceleration at
the crest. There was no such stiffness contrast within the dam’s
body in the ‘‘end of construction’’ conditions, and therefore, the spa-
tial variation in the peak accelerations was uniform, and there was
no difference between upstream and downstream accelerations for
vertically impinging SV waves (see Table 2).
4.2. Factors affecting the non-linear fundamental dam vibration
period, To
As with any structure, knowledge of a dam’s fundamental vibra-
tion period provides a good index of its seismic response, at least as
a first approximation. Thus, comparing this period with the range
of predominant periods, Te, expected at the dam’s location roughly
determined whether resonance would occur and thus whether sig-
nificant amplification of accelerations from the base to the crest
would be observed. The geomaterials perform elastically for low-
intensity motions, so the dam’s fundamental vibration period is
considered essentially equal to its elastic eigenperiod, Toe. How-
ever, most geomaterials are prone to stiffness degradation and an
increase in hysteresis, particularly under strong shaking. Thus, dur-
ing an maximum credible earthquake (MCE) design scenario (in
which the dam must survive without the loss of impounding
capacity), or even an operating basis earthquake (OBE) scenario
(in which the dam must survive without considerable damage) in
high-seismicity areas, the geomaterials behaved in a non-linear
manner that may be reflected on the dam’s fundamental vibration
period, To.
To validate this scenario, Fig. 7 presents results from four of the
performed analyses, all pertaining to the trapezoidal cross-section,
without berms, of a medium height dam (H = 80 m) founded on
firm ground (Vb = 1000 m/s) in ‘‘end of construction’’ conditions. In

Fig. 6. Shear wave velocity contours under steady-state seepage conditions in the case of the short dam (H = 40 m).
202 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210

Table 2 particular, Fig. 7a presents the results for very-low-intensity

List of symbols. (PGA = 0.05 g) and very-high-intensity (PGA = 0.5 g) shaking due
A Dimensionless scalar of employed model to the low-frequency Aigio time history, whereas Fig. 7b does the
B Constant of the employed model same for the relatively high-frequency Splb time history. The re-
e Void ratio sults are presented in terms of the dam’s base-to-crest spectral
Fh Horizontal inertial force of the sliding mass
FSd Factor of safety against seismic ‘‘failure’’
amplification ratios Sa,crest/Sa,base, normalised by their values for
Gmax Maximum (dynamic) shear modulus T = 0 (normalised transfer functions). This normalisation empha-
Gref
max
Maximum (dynamic) shear modulus at reference state in employed sises only the depicted value of the dam’s fundamental vibration
model period, To, and not the amount of seismic amplification, which var-
Gt Tangential shear modulus
ies widely given the very different PGA levels compared. Based on
H Dam height
kh Seismic coefficient of the sliding mass Fig. 7a for the Aigio time history, the dam’s fundamental vibration
khE ‘‘Effective’’ value of the seismic coefficient period almost doubles, from its value To = 0.8 s to a value of To = 1.4
khmax Peak value of the seismic coefficient based on the resultant s, as a result of a 10-fold increase in the PGA from 0.05 g to 0.5 g.
acceleration time history This 75% increase in To was attributed to severe stiffness degrada-
kh(t) Resultant (horizontal) acceleration time history of the sliding mass
Kt Tangential bulk modulus
tion and an increase in the hysteretic damping of the dam’s geoma-
M Earthquake magnitude terials during the strong seismic event compared to that of the
MCE Maximum credible earthquake very-low-intensity motion. However, when the same dam was
OBE Operating basis earthquake subjected to the Splb excitation, the initial value of the dam’s fun-
PGAcrest Peak value of the seismic acceleration at the crest
damental vibration period To = 0.73 s (for PGA = 0.05 g) was af-
PGArock Peak value of the seismic acceleration at the outcropping bedrock
PGA Peak value of the seismic acceleration at the ‘‘free-field’’ of the fected very little by the 10-fold increase in the PGA: a 16%
foundation soil increase to a value of To = 0.85 s.
PI Plasticity index This quantitative difference in the amount To increases between
p Mean effective stress Fig. 7a and b was attributed to the difference in the predominant
pref Mean effective stress at reference state in employed model
pa Atmospheric pressure
period, Te, of the applied excitation each time. In particular, the
r Deviatoric stress-ratio tensor low-frequency Aigio time history had a predominant period
rref Reference state in employed model Te = 0.4 s that was relatively similar to the elastic eigenperiod of
Sa,crest Spectral acceleration at crest dam vibration Toe = 0.73 s, making near-resonance phenomena ex-
Sa,base Spectral acceleration at dam’s base
pected. In contrast, the relatively high-frequency Splb time history
s Deviatoric stress tensor
Tmass Fundamental period of the sliding mass had a value of Te = 0.14 s that was very different from the elastic
Tm Mean period of the seismic excitation eigenperiod of dam vibration Toe = 0.73 s, and thus, the dam was
Te Predominant period of the seismic excitation expected to vibrate out-of-phase from its excitation. As an effect,
Toe Elastic fundamental dam vibration period the expected geomaterial non-linearity was minimal. Overall, it
To Non-linear fundamental dam vibration period
t Width of the sliding mass in the horizontal direction
was concluded that the dam’s fundamental vibration period To al-
V Shear wave velocity of the soil ways increased due to shaking intensity (with the PGA being a
Vb Shear wave velocity of the foundation layer good index for the shaking intensity), but this increase was signif-
Vsd Average (non-linear) shear wave velocity within the dam body icant only for cases near resonance; that is, for values of Toe/Te
W Weight of the sliding mass
slightly larger than one. Values of Toe/Te 6 1 are hardly expected
w Maximum distance between two lines that are parallel to the
points of entry and exit of the failure surface and adjoin the sliding in practice because they may appear for only regular (and not tall)
mass embankments under very-high-frequency motions.
z Maximum depth of the failure surface However, it was still uncertain whether other parameters also
a1 Model constant affected the increase in the dam’s fundamental vibration period
c1 Model constant
from its elastic eigenperiod value of Toe to its non-linear counterpart
c Cyclic strain amplitude
kd average shear wavelength within dam body To. To shed light on this issue, Fig. 8 compares the results in terms of
m Poisson’s ratio the dam’s base-to-crest spectral amplification ratios Sa,crest/Sa,base
n Hysteretic damping from three analyses pertaining to a dam with H = 40 m and founded
q Material density
on Vb = 1000 m/s, under the Splb seismic excitation for PGA = 0.05 g.
X Distance in generalized stress-ratio space used in employed model
The difference between these three analyses was that the dam had a
trapezoidal cross-section without stabilising berms and fell within

Fig. 7. Typical comparison of dam base-to-crest spectral amplification ratios normalised by their values for T = 0 (normalised transfer functions) and PGA = 0.05 g and 0.5 g
for two cases of seismic excitation (results for a trapezoidal dam section with H = 80 m, founded on Vb = 1000 m/s, ‘‘end of construction’’ condition): (a) Aigio time history
when Toe/Te = 1.85 (near resonance) and (b) Splb time history when Toe/Te = 5.2 (out-of-phase vibration).
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210 203

To disregard local amplifications and spatial variations at the

dam’s crest that are of little practical importance (see Fig. 7 for
an example), the value of PGAcrest in this paper was estimated as
the maximum value of the resultant acceleration time history in
the area of the upper 10% of the dam’s height, i.e. the area of the
dam in the close vicinity of the crest. Papadimitriou et al. [17],
by compiling pertinent data from 2D non-linear analyses, have
demonstrated that this amplification ratio is affected by the dam’s
fundamental vibration period, To, and the predominant period of
excitation, Te. They have also demonstrated that scatter is reduced
if the PGAcrest/PGA ratio is correlated to the dam-to-excitation per-
iod ratio, To/Te, because this latter ratio acts as a tuning period
ratio.
Thus, Fig. 9 adopts this type of correlation for the analyses per-
formed in this study and presents only the pertinent data that cor-
Fig. 8. Typical comparison of dam base-to-crest spectral amplification ratios
(transfer functions) for a dam without stabilising berms or an impounded reservoir, respond to two distinct cases: tall embankments founded on a very
the same dam with stabilising berms but no reservoir and the same dam without compliant foundation soil (Vb = 250 m/s, represented by hollow
berms but with an impounded reservoir (H = 40 m, founded on Vb = 1000 m/s, under symbols) and dams founded on a solid rock foundation
the Splb seismic excitation for PGA = 0.05 g). (Vb = 1500 m/s, represented by solid symbols). Moreover, the
shapes of the symbol differentiate the data related to low-intensity
(PGA < 0.15 g) excitations from those related to high-intensity
the ‘‘end of construction’’ (without an impounded reservoir) condi-
(PGA > 0.15 g) excitations. The employed data verify the adopted
tions in one case, whereas in the remaining two analyses, the same
correlation to the tuning period ratio given the small relative scat-
dam appeared once with stabilising berms (again without an im-
ter, and the peak dam amplifications are observed for tuning ratio
pounded reservoir) and once with both a trapezoidal cross-section
values close to unity. Furthermore, the peak amplification ratios
and an impounded reservoir (‘‘steady-state seepage’’ conditions).
range from 1.1 to 3.6, comparable to but somewhat lower than
Observe, first, that the existence of typical stabilising berms did
the values reported by Hwang et al. [49] and Cascone and Rampello
not appear to affect the dam’s fundamental vibration period, To, be-
[48]. These relatively smaller values in the results presented here
cause the berms had to be much bulkier than H/3 in height and 2H/3
could be because the literature reports normalise the peak acceler-
in width (the dimensions used in this paper) to provide the ex-
ation at the crest to the peak acceleration at the dam base, not to
pected stiffening effect on the dam’s fundamental vibration period
the PGA. Thus, the literature-reported amplification ratios are sys-
To. Similarly, the impounded reservoir did not appear to affect the To
tematically higher because de-amplification of the motion (with
value, which could be attributed to the reduced amplitude of hydro-
respect to the PGA) is consistently observed at the dam base (see
dynamic pressures at the typically mildly inclined slopes of dams
examples in Fig. 5). Our numerical estimates depicted PGAcrest as
and embankments (assumed equal to 1:2–1:2.5 (vertical:horizon-
the peak value of the resultant acceleration in the close vicinity
tal) in this paper), compared to the full (Westergaard) amplitude
of the crest (i.e., the upper 10% of the dam’s height) and not the va-
expected in the almost vertical slopes of other types of concrete
lue at the very top of the dam, which has generally resulted in
dams or retaining walls [47].
slightly smaller yet more consistent values.
Focusing on the effect of foundation conditions, Fig. 9 indicates
4.3. Factors affecting the peak ground acceleration at the crest, PGAcrest that the dam amplification ratio was significantly affected by the
stiffness of the foundation layer. In particular, Fig. 9 clearly demon-
The significance of the peak acceleration at the crest, PGAcrest, strates that founding a dam on hard rock led to reduced radiation
was already highlighted in Section 2. Of special interest is the com- damping and thus much higher seismic amplification within the
parison of its value to the intensity of the applied seismic motion dam’s body. The opposite trend occurred for relatively soft soil
(PGA) because the PGAcrest/PGA ratio essentially depicts the seis-
mic amplification ratio within the dam body macroscopically. Re-
ported values of this ratio from case studies have not been found
in the literature. However, there have been reports of ground mo-
tion amplification values from the bases to the crests of various
dams. Cascone and Rampello [48] have presented real cases in
which a dam’s base-to-crest amplification ratio ranges from 1.5
to 10, with the higher values referring to stiff dams subjected to
weak motion and the lower values to more flexible dams under
strong motion. Similarly, Hwang et al. [49] have presented an anal-
ysis of seismic records for the Liyutan dam, reporting amplification
values of approximately two to six, with an average amplification
ratio of four under very weak excitations. However, these amplifi-
cation values decrease by 1.4–1.7 times under strong seismic shak-
ing, such as during the Chi–Chi earthquake. Such reports have
depicted significant amplifications within a dam’s body, and only
parametric numerical studies can systematically shed light on
the factors affecting these amplification phenomena. Thus, in addi-
tion to the previous section’s study of how various factors affect Fig. 9. Correlation of the dam amplification ratio, PGAcrest/PGA, to the tuning dam
period ratio, To/Te, for two extreme cases of foundation layer stiffness (Vb = 1500 m/s
the dam’s fundamental vibration period, To, the numerical investi- and 250 m/s) and two PGA levels (lower and higher than 0.15 g). The results
gation was extended to how the same factors affected the value of correspond to trapezoidal cross-sections with H = 20 and 120 m under the Splb and
PGAcrest, or, more accurately, the PGAcrest/PGA ratio. Aigio excitations and ‘‘end of construction’’ conditions.
204 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210
conditions, which offered significant radiation damping to the
vibrating geostructure, thus reducing the seismic amplification
within the dam. Furthermore, Fig. 9 fully describes the tuning role
of the period ratio To/Te because the seismic amplification was re-
duced due to the dam’s increasingly out-of-phase vibration when
this ratio became greater than 1.0. De-amplification effects were
even observed for unusually large values of To/Te (such as in very
tall dams under strong, high-frequency shaking) due to the dam’s
complete out-of-phase vibration. However, this de-amplification
effect was much more probable when the foundation soil stiffness
was relatively low due to the contributing effect of increased radi-
ation damping. In such cases, de-amplification could be observed
even for relatively low, more probable values of To/Te. For example,
de-amplification effects within the dam body could be observed for
values of To/Te as low as two in the extreme case of Vb = 250 m/s,
whereas such effects could be observed only for To/Te > 6 when
Vb = 1500 m/s. Finally, Fig. 9 also investigates whether the PGAcrest/
PGA normalisation alleviated the effect of the PGA level on the em-
ployed correlation. It was observed that for both relatively low
(<0.15 g) and relatively high (>0.15 g) PGA values, the data fol-
lowed the same trend lines (roughly delineated by dashed lines)
governed by the foundation layer stiffness (Vb value), but the data
for the low PGA values corresponded to lower To/Te values than
their counterparts for high PGA values. Thus, the effect of the
PGA level was satisfactorily introduced through the PGAcrest/PGA
normalisation but also correlated with the tuning period ratio To/
Te indirectly because an increase in PGA led to more intense geo-
material nonlinearity and thus increased the value of To.
According to these observations, high amplification ratios were
expected for short dams characterised by low fundamental dam
periods, To, that were comparable to the usual predominant excita-
tion periods, Te, especially for low PGA values and stiff foundation
layers. For higher PGA values, when non-linearity increased the To
values of such short dams, the seismic amplification within the
dams was smaller and de-amplification may even have been ob-
served, especially if these dams were founded on soft layers. For
tall dams, low amplification ratios were generally expected, irre-
spective of the usually expected seismic excitations. Nevertheless,
de-amplification effects were not generally expected for tall dams
because such dams could not be readily founded on soft layers.
The foregoing conclusions with respect to PGAcrest were based
on observations made in Fig. 9, where the data correspond to trap-
ezoidal cross-sections and conditions at the ‘‘end of construction’’.
Thus, it was worth investigating whether the presence of typical
stabilising berms and/or an impounded reservoir affected these
conclusions. To this end, Fig. 10 investigates whether the dashed
Fig. 10. Effect of typical stabilising berms and/or an impounded reservoir on the
correlation of the dam amplification ratio, PGAcrest/PGA, to the tuning dam period
ratio, To/Te. The results correspond to earth dams with H = 40 and 80 m, founded on
hard rock (Vb = 1500 m/s), under the Splb and Aigio excitations with PGA = 0.25 g.
trend line of PGAcrest/PGA versus To/Te for Vb = 1500 m/s that was
established in Fig. 9 was still valid for cases of dams that were
founded on hard rock but also included typical stabilising berms
and/or an impounded reservoir. These cases are denoted by differ-
ent symbols and comprise a relatively narrow band of data around
the dashed trend line in the figure. Thus, it was concluded that the
presence (or absence) of typical stabilising berms and the
impoundment of the reservoir did not affect the correlation be-
tween PGAcrest/PGA and To/Te. In addition, given that these param-
eters were also found insignificant to the value of the dam’s
fundamental vibration period To (Section 4.2), it was concluded
that they did not affect the value of PGAcrest. The reasons why these
parameters did not affect PGAcrest were identical to those given in
Section 4.2, explaining why the parameters also did not affect the
dam’s fundamental vibration period To, and need not be repeated
here.
5. Factors affecting the peak seismic coefficient khmax
This section investigates the factors affecting the peak seismic
coefficient, khmax, of potential sliding masses within dams. To this
end, each of the 110 performed nonlinear ground response analy-
ses was processed to provide the resultant horizontal acceleration
time history, kh(t), for a number of potential sliding masses within
its body (approximately 10 sliding masses per analysed case). By
estimating the peak acceleration value of each of these time histo-
ries, a database of 1084 khmax values was created for sliding masses
of different geometries. Given the parametric nature of the per-
formed analyses, the results also enabled the study of the relative
importance of the investigated parameters (input motion charac-
teristics, stiffness of foundation soil, existence of berms and/or im-
pounded reservoir, dam height) on the values of khmax.
First, the effect of sliding mass geometry on the values of khmax
was investigated, namely, the fundamental effect of the sliding
mass’s maximum depth (Section 5.1) and of its exact shape (Sec-
tion 5.2), to evaluate pertinent literature proposals. Next, the ef-
fects of reservoir impoundment (Section 5.3) and the existence of
berms (Section 5.4) on the values of khmax, which have attracted
less attention in the literature, were examined.
5.1. Effect of the maximum depth z of a sliding mass on khmax
Based on Makdisi and Seed [15], the values of khmax were suc-
cessfully normalised by the peak acceleration at the crest, PGAcrest,
for generalisation purposes. These authors also demonstrated that
the dimensionless ratio khmax/(PGAcrest/g) decreases with an in-
crease in the normalised ratio z/H, i.e. the maximum depth z of
the sliding mass within a dam body divided by the dam’s height
H (see Fig. 1 for definitions). The analyses performed in this paper
enabled the testing of this geometric normalisation of the maxi-
mum depth z. Fig. 11a and b present a typical comparison of the
normalised horizontal acceleration time histories kh/(PGAcrest/g)
for the same sliding mass (with z/H = 0.5) of an dam with
H = 40 m (‘‘end of construction’’ conditions, Vb = 1000 m/s without
berms) under two widely different excitations, Splb and Aigio, with
the same low-intensity PGA = 0.05 g. In addition to the differences
in the duration of the sliding mass vibration, the results exhibited
different values of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) with 0.60 for the high-fre-
quency Splb and 0.66 for the low-frequency Aigio. This type of dif-
ference in the khmax/(PGAcrest/g) values for sliding masses with
identical z/H ratios under different excitations is systematic and
characterises the majority of the numerical results. Thus, the
proposal made by Makdisi and Seed [15], which employs a purely
geometrical normalisation of maximum depth z (for generalisation
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210
Fig. 11. Typical effect of the maximum depth z of a sliding mass on the value of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) for sliding masses with different z/H values and under different excitations,
namely: (a) with z/H = 0.5, z/kd = 0.29 under the Splb excitation, (b) with z/H = 0.5, z/kd = 0.21 under the Aigio excitation, and (c) with z/H = 0.67, z/kd = 0.28 under the Aigio
excitation (H = 40 m, PGA = 0.05 g, Vb = 1000 m/s, ‘‘end of construction’’ conditions, without berms).
purposes) and neglects input motion characteristics, needs
refinement.
Thus, a new normalisation scheme was needed that would
introduce the input motion characteristics and combine them with
the geometry of the sliding mass. The maximum depth of the slid-
ing mass z can be normalised over kd, i.e. the average shear wave-
length within the dam’s body. By definition, this wavelength
depends on the average (non-linear) shear wave velocity within
the dam’s body, Vsd, and the predominant vibration period of the
dam, Td. The former can be estimated based on the dam’s non-lin-
ear fundamental vibration period, To, and the dam height, H, using
the following equation:
V sd ¼ ð2:6HÞ=T o
which is a simplification of the equation proposed by Dakoulas and
Gazetas [46] for dams. The predominant vibration period of the
dam, Td, is equal to neither the predominant excitation period, Te,
nor the dam’s non-linear fundamental vibration period, To, but
generally takes a value in between the two. Thus, for simplicity,
its value can be estimated as the mean value of the two period
values, and hence the average shear wavelength, kd, within the
dam’s body can then be approximately estimated by:
 
2:6H T o þ T e
kd ¼ V sd T d ¼
To 2
Fig. 12. Correlation of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) ratio to z/kd ratio of a sliding mass
(founded on Vb P 1000 m/s, all seismic excitations and PGA = 0.05–0.5 g).
205
The validity of simplifying Eq. (7) was verified in Papadimitriou
et al. [50]. Of interest here was the determination of whether the
z/kd normalisation correlated better to khmax/(PGAcrest/g) than the
z/H normalisation. Fig. 11c presents the normalised horizontal
acceleration time history kh/(PGAcrest/g) for another sliding mass
with z/H = 0.67 in the same dam as that depicted in Fig. 11a and
b, under the Aigio excitation with PGA = 0.05 g from Fig. 11b. Ob-
serve that the khmax/(PGAcrest/g) values in Fig. 11a and c almost coin-
cide despite the different z/H values, which could be attributed to
the fact that the two different sliding masses corresponded to the
same z/kd value given the different predominant excitation periods
of the Splb (Fig. 11a) and Aigio (Fig. 11c) excitations. Interestingly,
this type of coincidence in the khmax/(PGAcrest/g) values for sliding
ð6Þ
masses with the same z/kd under different excitations was system-
atic and could provide the basis for correlating khmax/(PGAcrest/g) to
the dimensionless thickness z/kd for design purposes. This alterna-
tive is investigated in Fig. 12, which includes peak seismic coeffi-
cient data for dams in ‘‘end of construction’’ conditions and with
H = 40, 80, and 120 m, founded on stiff soil or rock (Vb P 1000 m/
s) under all four excitation waveforms, and with PGA values ranging
from 0.05 to 0.50 g. Fig. 12 illustrates that the well-known decreas-
ing effect of the maximum depth z on the value of khmax/(PGAcrest/g)
was corroborated by our analyses. More importantly, this decreas-
ð7Þ ing effect could be successfully generalised if the maximum thick-
ness z was normalised over kd.
5.2. Effect of the exact shape of a sliding mass on khmax
Given the relatively small scatter of the data in Fig. 12, it was
understood that the correlation of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) to the nor-
malised maximum depth z/kd provided a good overall estimate
of the acceleration regime in any sliding mass. However, from
a geometrical perspective, the maximum depth z of a sliding
mass cannot fully describe its geometry because many differ-
ently shaped sliding masses with the same z value could be
defined within a single dam. Two additional geometrical param-
eters, w and t, were introduced to better describe the shape of
any sliding mass. As illustrated in Fig. 1, parameter ‘‘t’’ corre-
sponded to the width of the sliding mass in the horizontal direc-
tion, whereas parameter ‘‘w’’ corresponded to the maximum
distance between two lines that were parallel to the failure sur-
face’s points of entry and exit and adjoined the sliding mass.
Small (t/w) ratios corresponded to relatively elongated ‘‘thin’’
sliding masses, whereas large (t/w) ratios corresponded to rela-
tively ‘‘bulky’’ sliding masses. To investigate the relative impor-
tance of the normalised thickness (t/w) on the resultant
acceleration time history and its related peak seismic coefficient,
khmax, Fig. 13 provides a typical comparison of the normalised
resultant acceleration time histories for two sliding masses with
the same dam-foundation-excitation combination and the same
206 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210

5.3. Effect of reservoir impoundment on khmax

In Section 4, it was demonstrated that reservoir impoundment

Fig. 13. Typical effect of the normalised thickness of a sliding mass, t/w, on the
value of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) for ‘‘thin’’ and ‘‘bulky’’ sliding masses with the same z/kd
ratio. H = 80 m, Vb = 1000 m/s, under the Aigio excitation with PGA = 0.25 g and
‘‘end of construction’’ conditions.
depth z and width w but different thicknesses t. In particular,
the sliding mass with (t/w) = 0.12 could be considered ‘‘thin’’,
whereas its counterpart with (t/w) = 0.24 was ‘‘bulky’’. The
comparison indicated that the time histories were qualitatively
similar, yet the ‘‘thin’’ sliding mass was characterised by higher
peak seismic coefficient values because khmax/(PGAcrest/g) = 0.62,
compared to 0.55 for its ‘‘bulky’’ counterpart that had the same
z/kd value. Such differences were systematic and attributed to
the fact that the former included mostly surficial locations on
the dam body, where higher accelerations were expected, com-
pared to the latter sliding masses, which were heavier and
reached deeper locations within the dam body that vibrated less
intensely (Fig. 5).
does not affect the PGAcrest/PGA dam amplification ratio (Fig. 10),
nor does it affect the value of the dam’s non-linear fundamental
vibration period, To (Fig. 8). However, it was also shown that a res-
ervoir does affect the spatial variation of the peak horizontal accel-
erations at the dam’s surface, mainly by amplifying the motion in
the upstream shell for ‘‘steady-state seepage’’ conditions (Fig. 5).
Thus, it was still uncertain whether reservoir impoundment would
have a different effect on the vibration of upstream or downstream
sliding masses within the same dam. Therefore, Fig. 14a investi-
gates this issue by presenting a typical comparison of resultant
acceleration time histories for upstream and downstream sliding
masses with the same geometry that are of intermediate depth
(z/kd = 0.37) but apply to the same dam-foundation-excitation
combination. The time histories were relatively similar, but there
was a clear amplification depicted in the upstream sliding mass,
reflected by a higher value of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) = 0.62 compared
to 0.53 for the downstream sliding mass with identical geometry.
This type of difference was found systematically in all relatively
shallow to medium-depth sliding masses but not in relatively dee-
per sliding masses. To illustrate this phenomenon, Fig. 14b pre-
sents a similar comparison of upstream and downstream sliding
masses with z/kd = 0.55, in which the differences are diminished.
These effects could be attributed to amplification phenomena
due to the stiffness contrast between the saturated (and thus soft-
er) upstream shell compared to the non-saturated (and thus stiffer)
downstream shell of a zoned earth dam at ‘‘steady-state seepage’’
conditions. Note the differences in the shear wave velocity values

Fig. 14. Typical effect of reservoir impoundment on the value of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) for upstream and downstream sliding masses with identical geometries that are: (a)
shallow (z/kd = 0.37) and (b) deep (z/kd = 0.55). H = 80 m, Vb = 1000 m/s, under the Aigio excitation with PGA = 0.25 g and ‘‘steady-state seepage’’ conditions.

Fig. 15. Typical effect of stabilising berms on the value of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) for sliding masses with identical geometrical properties z, w, and t but within earthen dams
without or with berms. The results for sliding masses that are: (a) shallow (z/kd = 0.37) and (b) deep (z/kd = 0.55). H = 80 m, Vb = 1000 m/s, under the Aigio excitation with
PGA = 0.25 g and ‘‘end of construction’’ conditions.
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210 207

of the two shells in Fig. 6. However, the effect of reservoir

impoundment on resultant accelerations diminished for deeper
sliding masses because the peak accelerations at the dam base
were unaffected by the existence of an impounded reservoir (see
typical results in Fig. 5).

5.4. Effect of typical stabilising berms on khmax

Section 4 also demonstrated that the existence of typical berms

did not affect the PGAcrest/PGA dam amplification ratio (Fig. 10) or
the value of the dam’s non-linear fundamental vibration period, To
(Fig. 8). In contrast, such berms did affect the spatial variation of
the peak horizontal accelerations at the dam’s surface, mainly by
amplifying the motion in their vicinity (see typical results in
Fig. 5). Thus, it was worth investigating whether these local ampli-
fication effects also applied to the vibration of sliding masses that
contained stabilising berms. Fig. 15a presents a typical comparison
of resultant acceleration time histories for a sliding mass of inter-
mediate maximum depth (z/kd = 0.37) based on two distinct anal-
yses: a) a case in which the dam exists without berms
(symmetric trapezoidal cross-section) and b) a case in which the
same dam also has typical stabilising berms, as described in Sec-
Fig. 16. Evaluation of empirical estimates for the ‘‘effective’’ seismic coefficient, khE,
tion 3. The foundation and excitation conditions were identical in based on numerical data.
both analyses. The results indicated that the time histories were
largely identical, proving that the existence of a stabilising berm
played no role when the endpoint of the sliding mass was above with the proposal given by the British Standards [18]. However, the
the berm. This is not the case in Fig. 15b, which presents a similar large scatter (standard deviation of ±0.33) related to this crude
comparison of time histories for a deep sliding mass (z/kd = 0.55 average value demonstrated that other problem parameters ex-
and an endpoint within the berm). The presence of the berm pro- isted apart from the PGA that should be considered (e.g., character-
duced a higher peak seismic coefficient, khmax/(PGAcrest/g) = 0.39 istics of the dam, frequency content of the excitation, and
compared to 0.31 in the dam without berms. Again, these effects geometrical characteristics of the sliding mass; see Sections 4
were systematic and demonstrated that the seismic amplification and 5 for their significance).
phenomena in the vicinity of berms affected only sliding masses Similarly, Fig. 17 evaluates various estimates for the ‘‘effective’’
that contained these berms. seismic coefficient, khE, that are based on correlations to the PGA.
Additionally, the existence of an additional effect of the normalised
maximum sliding mass depth z/H was assessed. An increase in the
6. Evaluation of existing methodologies for seismic coefficient
normalised maximum depth z/H consistently reduced the value of
estimation
the seismic coefficient for the same PGA level, an issue that has
been qualitatively addressed only by the EC8. From a quantitative
6.1. Overview
perspective, the overall quantitative consistency of the proposal
made by the British Standards [18], implied by Fig. 17, masks the
The insights made into the seismic response of dams (Section 4)
and the knowledge obtained on the factors affecting the peak seis-
mic coefficient, khmax (Section 5), could prove invaluable when
evaluating existing methodologies for estimating seismic coeffi-
cients (outlined in Section 2). Such an evaluation is performed in
this section based on the pertinent numerical data from the 110
2D analyses described in Section 3.
The aforementioned methodologies found in the literature were
applied as proposed and their predictions were compared to the
respective numerical data. To evaluate the khE methodologies, the
numerical estimates of the ‘‘effective’’ seismic coefficient value,
khE, were estimated by assuming khE/khmax = 0.67, i.e. the typically
ad hoc selected value for this ratio based on the literature.

6.2. Evaluation of methodologies for ‘‘effective’’ seismic coefficients

Fig. 16 evaluates various empirical estimates for the ‘‘effective’’

seismic coefficient, khE, and illustrates that the intuitive proposals
of Terzaghi [9] are rational. Furthermore, the typical empirical val-
ues of khE (=0.1–0.25 in [14]) were considered safe options for val-
ues of PGA 6 0.25 g but could prove very non-conservative for
dams or embankments that were designed to withstand earth-
quakes of larger intensities. In addition, Fig. 16 corroborates the
intuitively rational and increasing effect of PGA on the value of Fig. 17. Evaluation of estimates for the ‘‘effective’’ seismic coefficient, khE, related to
khE, leading to an average khE/(PGA/g) = 0.66 that largely coincides the PGA and based on numerical data.
208 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210
fact that it leads to an overestimation of khE values for deep sliding
masses (z/H P 0.8) and an underestimation for their shallow coun-
terparts (z/H 6 0.4). In addition, the range of empirical estimates
compiled by USCOLD [25] includes the majority of the numerical
results for sliding masses of intermediate and large depths (z/
H P 0.5) but is nonconservative for shallower sliding masses. Fi-
nally, the proposal made by Pyke [26] appears appropriate only
for deep sliding masses (z/H P 0.8). Fig. 17 illustrates that the
EC8 code provisions, which qualitatively address the issue of z/H,
have generally underestimated the numerical results for deep slid-
ing masses (z/H P 0.8). Nevertheless, these code provisions must
be evaluated with caution because they are intended to be used
for natural slopes only.
6.3. Evaluation of methodologies for maximum seismic coefficients
Fig. 18 evaluates estimates of the maximum seismic coefficient
khmax based on the values of the maximum acceleration at the
crest, PGAcrest, and the normalised maximum depth, z/H. Estimat-
ing the maximum seismic coefficient, khmax, based on PGAcrest re-
duced the scatter of the numerical results compared to similar
estimates based on PGA (Fig. 17). This result could be attributed
to the fact that PGAcrest reflected the dam’s vibration characteris-
tics, whereas the PGA did not. In addition, Fig. 18 illustrates that
the reducing effect of the normalised maximum depth, z/H, on
the value of khmax, also depicted in Fig. 17, remained consistent.
With respect to the pertinent proposals from the literature, it
was observed that the guidelines of Marcusson [32] are oversim-
plistic and lead to conservative estimates of khmax for sliding
masses of intermediate to large depths (with z/H > 0.5). In contrast,
the proposal made by Makdisi and Seed [15] is qualitatively accu-
rate and leads to accurate estimates of khmax, largely for medium
size dams (H = 40 and 80 m) comparable to the height of the dams
considered in their publication. Nevertheless, Fig. 18 also illus-
trates that their design charts are conservative for tall dams
(H = 120 m) and nonconservative for short dams or tall embank-
ments (H = 20 m).
Fig. 19 attempts an evaluation of khmax estimates based on the
PGA that do not require an a priori estimation of the PGAcrest (un-
like those evaluated in Fig. 18). The numerical estimates of khmax/
(PGA/g) were correlated to the (tuning) period ratio of the dam’s
Fig. 18. Evaluation of estimates for the peak seismic coefficient, khmax, related to the
PGAcrest and based on numerical data.
Fig. 19. Evaluation of estimates for the peak seismic coefficient, khmax, related to the
PGA and based on numerical data.
non-linear fundamental vibration period, To, to the predominant
period, Te, of the excitation, and the different symbols in the figure
denote different normalised maximum depths, z/H, of the sliding
masses. These numerical estimates corroborated the resonance ef-
fects in the khmax values, and the out-of-phase dam vibration, cor-
responding to large values of To/Te, led to reduced values of khmax,
as depicted by the ‘‘seismic coefficient spectrum’’ given by Zania
et al. [21]. However, in quantitative terms, this spectrum clearly
underestimated the values of khmax for To/Te P 1.5. Overall,
Fig. 19 underlines the significance of the (tuning) period ratio To/
Te on the response and demonstrates that estimates of khmax made
based on the PGA led to larger scatter than that shown in Fig. 18
because seismic coefficients appeared to be better correlated to
PGAcrest than to PGA.
Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 19, the ratio of khmax/(PGA/g)
clearly decreased with an increase in z/H for all (tuning) period ra-
tios, To/Te (see denoted trend lines). This result was in qualitative
agreement with what Rathje and Antonakos [33] have demon-
strated by ‘‘coupled’’ analyses, in which their predictive equation
for this ratio generally reduces with Tmass/Tm, where Tmass is a linear
function of the maximum depth z.
Finally, no methodology was found in the literature to account
for such issues as reservoir impoundment and the existence of typ-
ical stabilising berms. This fact alone contributed to the relatively
large scatter of the evaluated methodologies when compared to
the numerical data obtained from robust analyses.
7. Conclusion
This paper provided insights into the seismic response of earth
dams and tall embankments, with an emphasis on the factors
affecting the peak seismic coefficients of potentially sliding
masses. This insight was achieved by performing and processing
results obtained from 110 non-linear 2D dynamic ground response
analyses of a parametric nature, which yielded results for 1084 po-
tential sliding masses. These results were also used to evaluate
methodologies in the existing literature for the estimation of seis-
mic coefficients for pseudo-static slope stability analyses. The fol-
lowing conclusions were drawn based on this study:
 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210
 In addition to the area of the crest, local seismic amplification
phenomena were expected at the upstream shell of an
impounded reservoir and in the vicinity of typical stabilising
berms. Due to the local nature of the foregoing phenomena,
the impoundment of the reservoir and the existence of typical
stabilising berms did not affect the peak acceleration at the
crest, PGAcrest, or the dam’s non-linear fundamental period, To.
 PGAcrest was efficiently used as a normalising parameter for the
estimation of the peak seismic coefficient, khmax, of potential
sliding masses because it accounted for the dam’s vibration
characteristics, as opposed to the most frequently used peak
ground acceleration at the free field, PGA, which did not.
 The correlation of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) to the dimensionless maxi-
mum depth, z/H, of the sliding mass proposed by Makdisi and
Seed [15], although accurate in concept, has been characterised
by large scatter. More accurate estimates of khmax/(PGAcrest/g)
could be achieved if this ratio was correlated to the dimension-
less maximum depth, z/kd, of the sliding mass, where kd is the
predominant shear wavelength within the dam’s body. The
increased accuracy was because kd accounted for the frequency
content of the excitation, as opposed to the height, H, which did
not.
 ‘‘Thin’’ sliding masses had higher khmax/(PGAcrest/g) values than
‘‘bulky’’ sliding masses with the same z/kd ratio and dam-foun-
dation-excitation combination. Similarly, relatively increased
values of khmax/(PGAcrest/g) were observed for upstream sliding
masses in ‘‘steady-state seepage’’ conditions and/or deep sliding
masses that included typical stabilising berms.
 Existing methodologies for estimating seismic coefficients for
pseudo-static analyses were not proved stand-alone, suffi-
ciently accurate, widely applicable, or any combination thereof.
Furthermore, there was no methodology that could account for
all of the significant problem parameters depicted above (e.g.,
frequency content of excitation, exact geometry and upstream
or downstream location of sliding mass, existence of berms).
Nevertheless, the database of peak seismic coefficient, khmax,
values created for this study could be used to establish a
rational, stand-alone, and easy-to-use methodology, and an
effort along these lines has been presented by Papadimitriou
et al. [50].
These conclusions’ range of applicability is identical to the var-
iation of the problem parameters in the analyses on which they
were based. Thus, they are valid for the following scenarios:
(a) Earth dams or tall embankments, with heights, H, ranging
from 20 to 120 m, that are sufficiently long to allow for an
accurate 2D approximation. These geostructures may or
may not have typical stabilising berms (height and width
up to H/3 and 2H/3, respectively), and their reservoir may
or may not be impounded. In all cases, they should be
founded on firm ground with shear wave velocities, Vb,
greater than 250 m/s.
(b) Seismic excitations with predominant periods, Te, between
0.14 and 0.50 s and peak accelerations, PGA, at the free field
of the foundation soil reaching up to 0.50 g.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Public Power Corporation
of Greece S.A. for funding this research, as well as Civil Engineers
Angelos Zographos, Sofia Tsakali and Stavroula Stavrou for execut-
ing the numerical analyses, whose results are partly presented
herein. Furthermore, the authors would like to thank the editor
209
and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments
that helped in enhancing the quality of the manuscript.
References
[1] Seid-Karbasi M, Byrne PM. Embankment dams and earthquakes. Int J
Hydropower Dams 2004;11(2):96–102.
[2] Singh R, Roy D, Jain SK. Investigation of liquefaction failure in earthen dams
during the Bhuj earthquake. Kharagpur, India: Indian Institute of Technology;
2003.
[3] Elgamal AM, Scott RF, Succarieh MF, Yan L. La Villita Dam response during
earthquakes including permanent deformation. J Geotech Eng ASCE
1990;116(10):1443–62.
[4] Ozkan MY, Erdik M, Tuncer MA, Yilmaz C. An evaluation of Surgu dam response
during 5 May 1986 earthquake. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2006;15(1):1–10.
[5] Ozkan MY, Ozyazicioglou M, Aksar UD. An evaluation of Guldurcek dam
response during 6 June 2000 Orta earthquake. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2006;26:405–19.
[6] Singh R, Roy D, Das D. A correlation for permanent earthquake-induced
deformation of earth embankments. Eng Geol 2007;90:174–85.
[7] Liping J, Haian L, Yongqiang L, Chunhui L. Characteristics and factors that
influenced damage to dams in the Ms 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake. Earthq Eng &
Eng Vib 2011;10:349–58.
[8] ICOLD. Dam safety and Earthquakes. Position paper of International
Commission on Large Dams, chaired by Dr. Martin Wieland; 2012.
[9] Terzaghi K. Mechanisms of landslides. Engineering geology (Berkey)
volume. Geological Society of America; 1950.
[10] Newmark N. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique
1965;15(2):139–60.
[11] Franklin AG, Chang FK. Permanent displacements of earth embankments by
Newmark sliding block analysis. Report 5, Miscellaneous paper S-71-17, US
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi; 1977.
[12] Yegian MK, Marciano EA, Gharaman VG. Earthquake-induced permanent
deformations: probabilistic approach. ASCE, J Geotech Eng
1991;117(1):35–50.
[13] Seed HB, Lee KL, Idriss IM, Makdisi R. Analysis of the slides in the San Fernando
dams during the earthquake of Feb. 9 1971. Report No. EERC 73–2, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley; 1973. p. 150.
[14] Kramer S. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall; 1996.
[15] Makdisi FH, Seed HB. Simplified procedure for estimating dam and
embankment earthquake-induced deformations. J Geotech Eng Division,
ASCE 1978;104(7):849–67.
[16] Rathje EM, Bray JD. ‘‘Nonlinear coupled seismic sliding analysis of earth
structures’’. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2000;126(11):1002–14.
[17] Papadimitriou AG, Andrianopoulos KI, Bouckovalas GD, Anastasopoulos K.
Improved methodology for the estimation of seismic coefficients for the
pseudo-static stability analysis of earthdams. In: Proceedings, 5th
international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake
engineering and soil, dynamics; 2010. p. 24–9.
[18] Charles JA, Abiss CP, Gosschalk EM, Hinks JL. An engineering guide to seismic
risk to dams in the United Kingdom. Build Res Establish Rep 1991.
[19] Biondi G, Cascone E, Rampello S. Performance-based pseudo-static analysis of
slopes. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on earthquake
geotechnical engineering, Greece; 2007.
[20] Bray JD, Travasarou T. Pseudostatic coefficient for use in simplified slope
stability evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2007;135(9):1336–40.
[21] Zania V, Tsompanakis Y, Psarropoulos PN. Seismic slope stability of
embankments: a comparative study on EC8 provisions. In: Maugeri M,
editor. Proceedings, ERTC-12 workshop on evaluation of geotechnical
aspects of EC8, Athens, Sept. 11. Patron Editore – Quarto Inferione –
Bologna; 2011.
[22] Bozbey I, Gundogdu O. A methodology to select seismic coefficients based on
upper bound ‘‘Newmark’’ displacements using earthquake records from
Turkey. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2011;31:440–51.
[23] Lin J-S, Whitman RV. Decoupling approximation to the evaluation of
earthquake induced plastic slip in earth dams. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam
1983;11:667–78.
[24] Seed HB. Considerations in the earthquake-resistant design of earth and
rockfill dams. Geotechnique 1979;29(3):215–63.
[25] USCOLD. Guidelines for selecting seismic parameters for dam projects. Report
of Committee on Earthquakes. U.S. Committee on Large Dams; 1985.
[26] Pyke R. Selection of seismic coefficients for use in pseudo-static slopestability
analyses; 1991. <http://www.tagasoft.com>.
[27] Idriss IM. Evaluating seismic risk in engineering practice. In: Proceedings, 11th
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San
Francisco, vol. 1; 1985. p. 255–320.
[28] Salgado F. Re-evaluation of the slope stability pseudo-static method of
analysis. In: Proceedings, ERTC-12 workshop on evaluation of EC8, Athens;
September 11, 2011.
[29] Rathje EM, Bray JD. One- and two-dimensional seismic analysis of solid-waste
landfills. Can Geotech J 2001;38(4):850–62.
[30] Bouckovalas GD, Papadimitriou AG. Numerical evaluation of slope topography
effects on seismic ground motion. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2005;25(7–
10):547–55.
210 K.I. Andrianopoulos et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 55 (2014) 195–210

[31] Papadimitriou AG. Topographic aggravation of the peak seismic acceleration School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens; 2006 [in
near two dimensional hills and slopes. In: Proceedings, 5th international Greek].
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Santiago, Chile; 2011, [41] Papadimitriou AG. Elastoplastic modelling of monotonic and dynamic
January 10–13. behavior of soils. Doctorate thesis. Department of Geotechnical Engineering,
[32] Marcusson WF III. Moderator’s report for session on ‘Earth dams and stability Faculty of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens; June,
of slopes under dynamic loads’. Proceedings, international conference on 1999 [in Greek].
recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, [42] Ramberg W, Osgood WR. Description of stress-strain curve by three
vol. 3; 1981. p. 1175. parameters. Technical note 902, National Advisory Committee for
[33] Rathje EM, Antonakos G. A unified model for predicting earthquake-induced Aeronautics; 1943.
sliding displacements of rigid and flexible slopes. Eng Geol 2011;122:51–60. [43] Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng,
[34] Kokusho T, Esashi Y. Cyclic triaxial test on sands and coarse materials. In: ASCE 1991;117(1):89–107.
Proceedings of 10th international conference on soil mechanics and [44] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech
foundation engineering, Stockholm; 1981. 1969;95(EM4):859–77.
[35] Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement [45] Cundall PA, Hansteen H, Lacasse S, Selnes PB. NESSI – soil structure interaction
and parameter effects. J Soil Mech Found Division, ASCE program for dynamic and static problems. N.G.I., Report 51508-9; 1980.
1972;98(SM6):603–24. [46] Dakoulas P, Gazetas G. A class of inhomogeneous shear models for seismic
[36] Hardin BO, Drnevich VP. ‘‘Shear modulus and damping in soils: design response of dams and embankments. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
equations and curves’’. J Soil Mech Found Division, ASCE 1985;4(4):166–82.
1972;98(SM7):667–92. [47] Zangar C., Hydrodynamic pressures on dams due to horizontal earthquake
[37] Itasca Consulting Group Inc. FLAC – Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. effects. Monograph, http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/EM/
Version 5.0, User’s Manual; 2005. EM11.pdf
[38] Andrianopoulos KI, Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD. Bounding surface [48] Cascone E, Rampello S. Decoupled seismic analysis of an earth dam. Soil
plasticity model for the seismic liquefaction analysis of geostructures. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2003;23:349–65.
Dynam Earthq Eng 2010;30(10):895–911. [49] Hwang J-H, Wu C-P, Wang S-C. Seismic record analysis of the Liyutan earth
[39] Andrianopoulos KI, Papadimitriou A, Bouckovalas G. Explicit integration of dam. Can Geotech J 2007;44:1351–77.
bounding surface model for the analysis of earthquake soil liquefaction. Int J [50] Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD, Andrianopoulos KI. Methodology for
Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2010;34(15):1586–614. estimating seismic coefficients for performance-based design of earthdams
[40] Andrianopoulos KI. Numerical modeling of static and dynamic behavior of and tall embankments. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng; 2014, submitted for
elastoplastic soils. Doctorate thesis. Department of Geotechnical Engineering, publication.