You are on page 1of 22


16,985-1006 (1988)

N. N. AMBRASEYS AND J. M. MENU Imperial College o f Science and Technology, London, U.K.

The paper brings up to date and amplifies earlier work on earthquake-induced ground displacements using near-field strong-motion records, improved processing procedures and a homogenizing treatment of the seismological parameters. A review of upper bound limits to seismic displacements is given and a predictive procedure is examined that allows the probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of exceedance of predicted displacements to be made in the near field of earthquakes in the magnitude range 6.6 to 7.3. Using a considerable number of unscaled ground motions obtained at source distances of less than half of the source dimensions,graphs and formulae are derived that allow the assessment of permanent displacements of foundations and slopes as a function of the critical acceleration ratio.

Fracturing and cracking of level ground and of natural and man-made slopes caused by earthquakes is not an uncommon phenomenon. Comparatively long, open cracks, extending to some depth in flat or sloping ground, and compression ridges are features usually attributed to strong ground movements, strong enough to overcome the yield resistance of a soil mass and cause permanent deformations. These permanent displacements are produced because the material through which acceleration pulses have to travel before reaching the ground surface, be it alluvium or soft rock, has a finite strength, and stresses induced by strong earthquakes may bring about failure, with the result that accelerations, above a certain value in the frequency range of engineering interest, will be prevented from reaching the surface, and permanent deformations of the ground will occur. Field observations show that soils and soft rocks in a strong earthquake will distort and develop cracks and deformations; the real design problem is to determine how much such materials will deform and to establish what displacements or deformation are acceptable. The question of whether there is an upper bound for ground accelerations and of whether the associated permanent ground displacementscan be calculated is indeed of importance to the engineer. An early attempt to back-analyse the displacements observed in embankments and level ground affected by the Tokachi-Oki earthquake of 4 March 1952 was made by Ambraseys,' Figure 1, but the procedure for evaluating potential slope and ground deformationsdue to earthquake shaking was developed by Newmark.2 In this simple method it is assumed that slope or ground failure would be initiated and movements would begin to develop if the seismic forces on a potential slide mass were large enough to overcome the yield resistance and that movements would stop when the seismic forces were removed or reversed. Thus, by computing the acceleration at which yielding begins and summing up the displacementsduring the periods of instability, the final cumulative displacement of the slide mass can be evaluated. The calculation is based on the assumption that the whole moving mass is displaced as a single rigid body with resistance mobilised along a sliding surface. Newmark's sliding block method is based on the simple equation of rectilinear motion under the action of a time-dependent force involving a resistance that may or may not be dependent on other factors such as displacement, rate of slip, pore water pressure or heat. When the input inertia forces and the yield resistance can be determined, the method gives useful and realistic results. One of the earliest applications of the sliding block method, that gave consistent and sensible answers, was made for the assessment of the ground motions associated with the Skopje earthquake of 1963. A large number of displacements of different objects of known 'yield resistance' was used to estimate the predominant
009~8847/88/080985-22$11.00 0 1988 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 6 October 1987 Revised 16 February 1988



acceleration and periods of ground motion generated during the Skopje e a r t h q ~ a k e The . ~ method was recommended as a check for the earthquake resistance of earth dams and foundations? and was applied to a variety of soil mechanics and foundation problems in which assessment of permanent earthquake-induced displacements was Studies of the character of displacement induced by stochastic inputs were also published by, among others, Crandall et al.," Gazetas et ~ l . , ~ 'Ahmadi" and Constantinou and Tadjbak hsh.* In principle, the sliding block method is based on the time-history of the ground acceleration g(t) that controls inertia forces, and on two parameters: namely keg, the minimum ground acceleration required to bring about incipient failure of a slope or foundation, a parameter controlled by yield resistance, and k,g, the maximum acceleration of the ground-motion time-history (k,g = g(t),,,). The critical acceleration coefficient k , is a function of the geometry and soil properties of the sliding mass corresponding to a factor of safety of one (F= l), and in calculating k, for a given slip surface, the distortions within the mass, the pore water pressure changes from static to failure conditions, and changes in the geometry of the mass must be taken into account. The critical coefficient k , is the most appropriate measure of the resistance to sliding of a soil mass subjected to an earthquake, k, playing the same role in the sliding block method as the factor of safety F does in the limiting equilibrium method, the two coefficients being interrelated. , g and a potential slide Given a design earthquake ground-motion time-history g ( t ) of peak acceleration k mass in a foundation or slope material for which the horizontal acceleration required to cause failure under undrained conditions is k,g, it is possible, using a simple numerical model, to calculate the permanent


m -0

Figure l(a). Deformations ofembankmentscaused by the Tokachi-Okiearthquake of4 March 1952 in Japan (Report on the Tokaki-Oki earthquake, Publ. Special. Comm. Inves., Sapporo, 1954)

. they exhibit a perfectly explained scatter below this upper limit. say. and they are plotted as a function of the critical acceleration ratio k.3 . and also if the material loses little or no strength due to earthquake deformations./k. a- Figure l(b). k. The data points in this figure show a well-defined upper bound. or equation (l). The analysis was carried out with ground-motion time-histories not scaled to a constant acceleration and velocity. and give some idea of the scatter due to directional effects.1 <kc/k. we find that for the strongest ground motions recorded before 1972..- . assuming a constant yield resistance during sliding expressed by the critical coefficient k. if a slope shows F = 1 for. Figures 2 and 3 describe briefly the sliding block method and Figure 4 shows a plot of the permanent displacements calculated for a variety of ground-motion timehistories recorded before 1972.3 kIn where u is in centimetres. which is the result not only of the different energy content of the unscaled time-histories used. g of materiai when its maximum resistance to sliding.. b and c) and final shape (d) after deformation of earth dam' earthquake-induced displacement when k . The upper bound of the plot is given by kc log (u) = 2. is exceeded by the peak acceleration k an earthquake time-history. then from Figure 4. >k. = 0. -- _ / .The large dots in this figure show the data points from the three orthogonal components of ground motion produced at Pacoima by the SanFernando earthquake of 9 February 1971.EARTHQUAKE-INDUCEDGROUND DISPLACEMENTS 987 . Deformations patterns produced by three shocks causing yielding (a. valid for down-slope displacements in the range 0.8.expressed by k. Displacementsu in centimetres shown in this figure have been computed for an unsymmetrical yield resistance. and just as importantly.3. -.5. permanent . i.. but also of directional and duration effects./k.<0.6 Equation (1) may readily be used to assess the maximum permanent displacement of a slide mass of stable . half as large an acceleration as its design value. Thus.e. that is we have allowed sliding only in one direction down-slope.

The critical coefficient k . The upper bound for the unsymmetrical displacement is given by log(&)= 1-07-3. Notice that for practical purposes. and it can be calculated using a standard stability analysis. by Franklin and Chang. Resolving forces in the direction of sliding o-a. = 0. slope geometry and pore pressure changes due to the application of seismic forces function of the soil strength parameters c' and 6 causing failure. on the other hand. and k . is the critical acceleration of the mass. T is the predominant half-period of the ground in seconds and C is a factor that depends on the slope and material properties of the sliding material. An upper bound limit for displacement based on four strong earthquakes and several explosions was derived by S a ~ m a . defined in diagram (B).988 N. For k > k. down-slope motion we may write ui= u. where now displacements are measured in a horizontal direction.e.g where u(t) is the displacement of the mass relative to the slip surface AB.k C km in which u.. i. x(t) = -g(t) is the absolute ground acceleration time-history. N.. the corresponding displacements would be almost one metre. is the maximum horizontal ground acceleration [g(t)lmnX. it can be shown that the equation of motion down-slope is given by cos 6 ' U(t) cos (6'-B) =X(t)-k.B)cos B and the critical acceleration ratio kJk. a convienient way of expressing the results of the analysis for different ground motion time-histories would be in terms of the quantity." .l4 ~. from a much larger body of scaled data. (B) Vector diagram of forces at F = 1 for the critical slip surface AB.Note that for dry. sliding takes place on a plane AB inclined to the horizontal by an angle B. For all other cases of practical interest 8 varies between 85 deg and 100 deg. for j = O . If k . In its simplified version the model assumes that during deeoupling the mass moves progressively down the slip surface generated at F = 1 without any further change of the yield resistance. we may write ui=u2. displacements will be less than 5 cm. Application of simplified sliding block method for the stability analysis of slopes. M. It should be noted that Figure B refers to the overall stability of the sliding mass within A-B (Figure A) for a factor of safety of one. is the permanent displacement.. A B I C a 1 Figure 2. (C)Sliding block model satisfying diagram (B).83. AB is defined as the sliding surface between levels a-a and b-b that obtains for a factor of safety of one (F= I ) and also for the minimum horizontal acceleration k. (A) Forces acting on a slice Cl of a soil mass within the critical slip surface AB. AMBRASEYS AND J. of the soil mass between these two levels is a ' . purely frictional materials B = 9 0 deg. the multiplier of u may be taken equal to one. say to a value as low as kc/k. in centimetres. which is constant.1. and for a two-way. and not of the sliding element Ci. For a one-way. If.g. U( = u cos 9' cos(6' . Charts for the evaluation of permanent displacements as a function of critical acceleration ratio for six real and one synthetic scaled ground motions have been presented by Makdisi and Seed.13 and. horizontal motion. MENU ILU-l. because of earthquake-induced stresses the soil loses part of its strength.

.9 cm Figure 4. = 03k. of maximum acceleration k. ./k. If a sliding block system with a critical coefficient k. Ground acceleration time-history x(t)= -g(t) of one of the horizontal components of motion recorded at Parkfield.g =0.3 -3.3 989 -A u u Yield Index -B .(/3 = 15 deg and W = 32 deg) is subjected to the ground motion shown in A it will slide down-slope in two stages shown by the yield index in Figure B. u being the horizontal displacement in cm. Large dots show displacements calculated for the three orthogonal components of ground acceleration recorded at Pacoima during the earthquake of 9 February 1971. Absolute Displacement of Block Figure 3. The resulting absolute displacement of the block is shown in Figure C (continuous line) and the relative displacements between block and sliding surface is shown by the dashed time-history.495g. . plotted against critical acceleration ratio kJk. Data points and upper bound envelope (A-A) of permanent displacement for the unsymmetrical (one-way) case.3 cm and the actual displacement down the slope would be 22.’ The envelope is given by log (u) =2. =20.EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED GROUND DISPLACEMENTS Parkfield Array 2 (N65E) Acceleration of Ground Kc/Km = 0. for natural earthquakes and explosions.3 k. In this case u.

P in second. scaling effects and other factors that vary from site to site.35 The predominant period of the records.990 N.3). because of the many variables which are not considered. or M. the frequency at which the bulk of the seismic energy radiates at the site. Ground motions were selected. What is important in Figure 4 is that the scatter. and also to develop a better correlation between permanent displacement and earthquake characteristics for near-field conditions. Referring to Figure 4. varying by a factor of 25.) and not in terms of local magnitude (ML) which is determined from high frequency radiation. of peak acceleration between 6 and 115 per cent g were baseline corrected and low-pass-filtered. and further enhances the role of acceleration or particle velocity as a variable.. suggesting that the actual scatter is probably even larger than shown in Figure 4.AMBRASEYS AND J. source parameters in Table I were carefully revised. To re-examine the behaviour of permanent displacement as a function of critical acceleration ratio.34 Moment magnitudes were calculated from published teleseismic moment estimates using the relation of Kanamori and Anderson. directional effects associated with the two or three orthogonal components of ground motion. produced by 11earthquakes.MENU DATA AND ANALYSIS Since 1971.) or moment magnitude (M. but has the disadvantage that for larger events instruments may overload. and the results were expressed in terms of k.9 ( & 0. Source distances of the recording stations were re-examined. is confined below an upper bound of the displacement u. The duration of the record D in seconds was calculated as the time elapsed between the 0. and that this spread becomes larger as more data points are included in this plot. together with relative fault displacements. a significant dependence that allows the assessment of extreme values of u to be made from equation (1) with some confidence. is shown in Tables I and I1 together with the main earthquake parameters and ground motion characteristics used in the analysis. and it is difficult to interpret when the source size becomes comparable with station distance.95 of the Arias plot. the duration of shaking D. the source distance R. However. The set of 26 two-component horizontal ground motions chosen. CORRELATION OF MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT WITH CRITICAL ACCELERATION RATIO To determine the extent to which displacements can be predicted in terms of critical ratio. M. we concentrated our analysis on near-field data. were taken from field reports and special studies. therefore. Frequency cut-offs were chosen from visual examination of the amplitude Fourier spectrum of uncorrected time-histories.05 and 0.22Source dimensions were taken to be of the order of the length of surface fauIting L. we notice that different ground motions may produce very different permanent displacements. within source distances comparable with the source dimensions of causative earthquakes. base-line correction errors of the input motion associated with small values of the critical acceleration ratio. We have chosen to define the size of earthquakes in terms of surface-wave (M. was estimated by taking the sum of the zero crossings in the positive and negative directions and by dividing the duration of the digitized record by half of the sum. In the computation of . and applied to frequencies below those that showed an unrealistic energy increase due to digitization noise and instrument distortions. This reduces magnitude. a bound that shows a well-defined dependence on the cube of the critical acceleration ratio. the data in Table I1 were used to calculate displacements. from near-field data generated by shallow earthquakes. which. attenuation and duration problems arising from site-specific conditions in the far field. when equation (1) was first derived. therefore. Values of M .N. therefore were recomputed uniformly using the Prague formula. regardless of the number of data points. additional strong-motion records have become available. = 6. In order to reduce uncertainties associated with earthquake characteristics./k. a unique functional relationship between permanent displacement and critical acceleration ratio does not exist. The 50 strong-motion records listed in Table 11.. These variables include the size of the earthquake in terms of its magnitude M . The present study is made to investigate whether this additional body of data alters the upper bound defined by this equation. It should be noted that the magnitude range for which we have near-field data is very limited and that our investigation in terms of magnitude is. and Arias intensities were calculated in the usual way. it should be noted here that equation (1) in Figure 4 has been derived as an upper bound solution to a problem for which. restricted within the narrow range of M .

8 U 64' Imp.3)*/18' 35. L (km) d (m) 2 5-90' ST 2.14' T H 0.1 - 7.3)*/19' 40.6 s s s 6.38E 15 7. 15 32.7 5.00N-119. 16 1979 Apr.37N-5744Ed 42. Valley Kern County Humbolt County Parkfield Borrego Moun.9 7. Earthquake Date Epicentre H (km) M s rn x ML M.2 5. 21 1954 Dec.3)*/49 6.3)10+ 10 7. 15 1979 Oct.3(+04)*/56' 33.05' l o 6.86N-1 15. 9 1973 NOV.80 ST E vl 'd r * &I ST= Strike-Slip TH = Reverse * =Standard a = USGS c=Bonilla et al.73N-115.7' 6.9( f0. 9 1971 Feb.7( & 0.67b 1.w 0-56 63' 75' 28 38' 31' 16' 10 30' 80' 701 30' ST 0.42Wd 9 6.8 6.7 6.5' 2 7r: P w z 6.4' 7.40 ST 2.88N-120.5 C z U 0 ' 6.43Wd 9 67(f04)*/30' 38.23 e =Brune and Allenz4 g =Niazi and Kanamori2' i =Stein and Thatcherz9 k =Bolt and Miller3] m = Dziewonski and W o ~ d h o u s e ~ ~ deviation =Number of stations used b = Kanamori and Anderson" d = ISC f = Kristy et aLZ5.2)*/29' 3440N-118.3)*/54' 4028N-63. San Fernando Leukas Gazli Tabas 10 Montenegro 1 1 Imp. 21 1966 Jun.3)*/5li 32.4(&0-3)*/9' 33.5 6.10' 154W 4.Table 1.5' 5.87N-20.5 6. List of earthquakes used in analysis Mo F w Fault No. HartzellZ6 h = Andersonz8 j = Joyner and Boore30 I = Dede32 3 L a .22N-116.8 5-2 6-5 6.82N-124.3 6.1(f0. 28 1968 Apr.01N-19. Valley 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1940 May 19 1952 Jul.2' 6. 0 6 " 2.2 6.1 6.4 7.7(f0.1( +0.08Wa 6-6(f0.2 5. 4 1976 May 17 1978 Sep.00W" 20 7.26b 0.6' 560b 20Wb 1-37" 0.2(f0.4' - 6-9 7.10' TH TH 3.2)*/18' 35.1 7.4 6.24Ed 15 5.46Wd 6.45W" 10 7.05Ed 10 7.50 TH TH 0.20b 0 .30' TH 1.0(+0.19Wd 12 7.

3 0.318 21.272 11.0 21.2 7.56 88.0 16.0 6.7 1 106.9 6.9 0.5 28.0 0.00 120. M.366 0218 0.0 11.9 6. Code CENTL70 CENTT70 KER2L70 KER2T70 EURlL70 EURlT70 EUR2L70 EUR2T70 PAR2L70 BORlL70 BORlT70 SFElL70 SFElT70 LEUlL70 LEUlT70 GAZL7O GAZT7O DAYL71 DAYT71 BOST71 TB4L71 TB4T71 MONlL71 MONlT71 MON3L71 MON3T71 MON4L71 MON4T71 MONSL71 MONST71 IV13L70 IV13T70 IV14L70 IV14T70 IV15L70 IV15T70 IV16L70 IV16T70 IV17L70 IV17T70 IV18L70 IV18T70 IV19L70 IV19T70 IV20T70 IV20T70 IV21L70 IV21T70 IV22L70 IV22T70 Earthquake Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Kern County Kern County Humbolt County Humbolt County Humbolt County Humbolt County Park fieId Borrego Mountain Borrego Mountain San Fernando San Fernando Leukas Leukas Gazli Gazli Tabas Tabas Tabas Tabas Tabas Montenegro Montenegro Montenegro Montenegro Montenegro Montenegro Montenegro Montenegro Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Station El-Centro El-Centro Taft Taft Fed.0 3.Build Ferndale Ferndale Array 2 El-Centro El-Centro Pacoima Pacoima Leukas Leukas Gazli Gazli Dayhook Dayhook Boshrooyeh Tabas Tabas Petrovac Petrovac Ulcinj-2 Ulcinj-2 Bar Bar Herceg Nov Herceg Nov Huston Huston Bonds Corn Bonds Corn Cruicksh. In order to avoid problems of scaling when widely different records are used.189 0.57 s 42.o 45.272 0165 0205 0.495 0.3 0.3 7.o 1.174 12.853 0.9 R (km) 12.3 0. two values were calculated..1 7.412 0424 0375 0748 0597 0.72 15.0 10.4 0.2 0.9 6.0 42. AMBRASEYS AND J.0 32.205 0.4 7.61 45.40 5 1.1 6.091 6.223 0. using both sides of the record.1 7.0 0.0 11.23 74.87 38.5 0-254 8.1 7.0 0163 12.96 97. the 50 records in Table I1 were not normalized.5 0.328 12.9 6.0 5.162 5.7 6.2 7.79 18. one for each of the two horizontal components of ground acceleration.25 183.99 2 N.058 1.44 S S S S S S S S S S S S S S unsymmetrical displacements.6 0.335 0.3 7.53 43.270 9.6 0.5 0261 15.164 0.97 797.76 230. Cruicksh.0 11.3 0.7 5. Build.265 116.36 21.31 2643 17.302 0.24 4478 28.45 24.4 14.7 66 6.9 6.475 0.63 35.152 1.143 0.6 0.8 0.0 40.266 13.224 0.278 9.0 32.286 6.0 5.0 8.59 112.0 20.3 0.344 0.2 0129 11.186 17.09 742.4 0.55 120.7 0.9 6.9 6.346 0.156 0.693 0.181 21.7 5.21 7953 56.1 7.12 9934 125.9 7.6 10.0 16. Fed.0 8.2 0. and at this stage no attempt was .9 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.278 0.9 6.3 7.201 7.340 0.7 0.76 34.6 66 6.3 7.241 6.155 12.653 0181 0.7 7.0 11.361 0.162 33.217 0.22 4458 23.7 1 50.485 0.1 49.269 12.223 11.5 0.9 6.73 505. 7.261 13.220 8-6 0-247 9.33 38.0 7.0 1.03 34.10 303.7 0.0 7.0 83. MENU Table 11.305 16.477 0.245 0.68 35600 92-62 85.0 54.486 0.5 13 0.0 1.0 100 13.0 7.631 0.785 0-810 0593 0.209 18.367 0.9 6.0 5.0 8.7 6.181 0.0 4-0 4.0 4.2 52.6 13 0.0 8.0 0.02 275.276 G S S R R S S S S S S S R R S S R R S S S S S S R R S S R R S S S S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 0. N.6 18.227 5.164 0.7 0. James James Dogwood Dogwood Anderson Anderson Browley Browley Holtville Holtville Keystone Keystone Calexico Calexico A.0 45.453 0302 0.5 0.1 7.0 Ari (kAr) D P.65 102.2 0. (sec) (sec) 24.0 7.4 0.265 10.0 20.188 21.7 30.249 0.3 7.937 0.6 0.0 19. List of earthquake strong-motion characteristics No.082 32.8 0.385 6.219 0.1 0.0 0.0 24.9 6.9 0.418 6-8 0.0 7.98 50.229 15.1 7.34 102.120 0.8 0.1 7.1 7.0 13.0 40.0 3.9 6.03 26.9 69 69 6.20 322.1 0.9 6.198 0.o 30 3.245 0.247 12.392 0.0 4.93 101.734 0340 0.243 13.0 12.1 7.0 42.171 0.322 14. M.378 0092 0.9 6-9 6.412 8.0 24.26 967 548.0 5.

This is partly due to other variables which are not and perhaps cannot be considered.27-4.=O and 1. The results corresponding to symmetrical motion are shown in Figure 6 together with the best fit given by k (4) km with a variance of log (uz) of 0-17 and a goodness of fit of 083.)= 2. log (u./k. Figures 5 and 6 show the regression of log (ui) on (k. in both regressions the critical acceleration ratio is the predominant variable. 90 Z confidence Mean m t o0 B.'2 0!4 0:s Oh 3 170 Ratio Kc/Km Figure 5.1 < k. when we were investigating an upper bound.08 k. these formulae do not satisfy the necessary conditions at k. Estimated regressions for unsymmetrical displacements ul. / k .9. . and partly due to directional effects associated with the two different components of acceleration used for each station.38 . in fact./k./k. Mean from equation (3)./k.) is.9. strictly speaking. the sample is large enough to allow us to assume that s2 is constant . . these figures show that. Comparing Figures 4 and 5 we notice that the upper bound equation (l). < 0. confirming the upper bound nature of this relationship. and confidence limits for 900%. are plotted in Figure 5 together with the best fit expressed./k.1 < k. in the range 0.3. '.. 0 0. here also with the mean we find ui depending on the third or fourth power of k. in its simplest form. < 0. a quadratic function of the dependent variables. ' O u1 should tend to infinity and uz should approach the maximum absolute displacement. However. by the regression with a goodness of fit of 0. the second condition is not obviously satisfied. both equations should give zero ./k. .EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED GROUND DISPLACEMENTS 993 made to compute displacementsby combining the two horizontal components of ground motion in real time or include in the computation vertical motion.9 and a variance of 0. = ground displacement. only the first condition of k . giving values of about 002 cm.72. which for all practical purposes are zero. = 1-0 is satisfied approximately by both equations.) and also the scatter of the data points which is significant. while for k. However. In reality. The results of the computation. valid in the range 0.. and the lack of known or accurately determined absolute ground log (u. For a critical ratio of 1. Returning to equations (3) and (4) we notice that.. while for larger ratios the limit rises to 99 per cent .. that dominates over the weaker influence of other variables.0./k. The variance of log(#.13. corresponds approximately to equation (3) with a confidence limit of about 65 per cent for small critical acceleration ratios.)= 1. As with equation (l). ..

/ k . with variance of log (ul) of 0.)"' or (l/kc/km)".0% and 975% displacement makes it difficult to impose on the functional relationship for u2 the appropriate values at k. MENU 10' 0 :o .11. ) for unsymmetrical displacements.=O. where andK. In all cases. and they explain only 10 per cent of the observed dispersion of the data points. Estimated regression for symmetrical displacements u2. Their ranking varies depending on whether a high value for the goodness of fit.17 +log ( K 2 ) for symmetrical displacements.) = 1./k. is more suitable for small values of the critical acceleration ratio. while the second expression. an improvement of the model may be made by introducing into the regression the analytical expressions for ui in terms of k . . N. The first expression with rn = 2 or rn = 3. for instance./k. with variance of log (uz) of 0. <0. and confidence limits for 90./ indication of the preponderance of the critical acceleration ratio over other variables. together with those for previous cases. directional effects do seem to increase scatter.9.. but the differencesare not great..58 k -1. for inputs of pulses of simple shape such as (1 . are shown in Table 111. Nevertheless. a situation more relevant to symmetrical displacement associated with level ground where there are no orientation contraints.14. - 0. . the goodness of fit is greater than 0-8. As indicated earlier. 1: o Ratio Kc/Km Figure 6. is considered most appropriate.= K . log(u.72. The results of the regressions for these two cases.16 . an expression suitable for large values of k. with n = 0 or n = 1. On average. or low variance. A combination of these two expressions was used therefore to regress log (uJ with the following results: log (u 1 ) = 0. is not very large. = 1-These equations show an improvement on equations (3) and (4). n = 0 is obviously required to provide a finite value of the displacement at k. For the symetrical case. The data in Table 111 also show that the effect of directivity on permanent displacement. =O. M. An approximate method of minimizing the role of this variable in the regression for displacements would be to use in the analysis either (i) only the largest computed value of displacement or (ii) the square root of the sum of the squares of the two largest displacements produced by the two horizontal components of each record.k.2 0:4 0:1 o:.338 k.1 < k.994 N. (6) + (5) ( i:)(c) 2.77 log (K. Mean from equation(4). and log (14%)= 1. directivity effects add about 20 per cent to the displacements computed from individual components of motion. AMBRASEYS AND J. corresponds to a square or triangular pulse respectively. and they are valid in the range 0./k.

0 9 0.94 0. equations (5) and (6) Case Equation a 2.88 0.08 3.00 - - - - 2./k. 2. + CORRELATION OF MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT WITH CRITICAL ACCELERATION RATIO AND SEISMIC PARAMETERS In order to investigate the influence of other variables on permanent displacements that could explain the observed scatter and arrive at a better prediction model. permanent displacement calculated for each of the two horizontal components of each record (two values per acceleration record). n are the dummy variables.53 2. yi is retained and fitted to the expansion variables.85 0.-c-I u 1-A-I1 ul-B-11 u. The expansion of the constant term in equations ( 5 ) and (6) was performed using dummy so that the equations can be written variables Zir36 where Z i .38 3.12 5 6 ll(A)-12 13(C) ll(Bk-12 A: B: C: I: 11: r2: 2: unsymmetrical (one-way) displacement. .92 0. + q.)-". goodness of fit.36 1.00 0 .96 1.09 1. predominant period P.)" (k./k. permanent displacement computed from the two horizontal maxima combined vectorially.17 1.11 0 .33 2.54 3-00 2.00 1.. M . .) on various combinations of variables. The method allows for the decoupling of the critical acceleration ratio dependence from other variables and therefore it is convenient to separate the expansion terms from the influence of k. 2 regression equation.77 0.96 2.91 0. the index i being associated with inputs from a given earthquake at a specific source distance.14 0.86 0.34 3.00 1.: U2: (3) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6) (6) (6) 4.15 014 0.96 4.16 1./k.72 1.R +r' log (P)+s' log D n (84 or i= 1 (8b) .10 017 0.-c-I uZ-A-I u.27 2./k. U. symmetrical (two-way)displacement.90 0.00 1-00 1.11 0.91 0. rendered linear by appropriate transformations.)=a+b log (1 -k.58 2.-B-I u. permanent displacement calculated for each record (one value per acceleration record).98 1.85 0.90 0.93 0. C and yi are determined.83 0.00 3.EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED GROUND DISPLACEMENTS 995 Table 111. Results of regression analyses of log@. i = 1.12 000 0. 0 0 0. log (u.38 b m - n - rz sz Figure u 1-A-I ~1-B-I u .31 1. The subsequent step of the technique gives i= 1 fyiZi=p+qlog(A)+rlog(P)+slog(D) 1 yizi= p' + q .13 0. . .92 0.-c-I1 Notes. duration of shaking D and peak acceleration A were introduced in a multiple regression model that includes the effects of critical ratio in the form of equations ( 5 ) and (6). source distance R.85 1.42 1.13 0. B.) i = 1.. variance of log (ui)..84 0. the effects of magnitude M. The technique used is a conventional multiple regression procedure.-c-I1 uZ-A-11 uZ-B-11 u. for each record.00 1.08 0. regression equation. Once the coefficients A. log (ui)=a b(k.

N. . a -0.m one-sided sliding a ib -1.1 Yb Jb 8b 4 60 . a VARIATION OF y.1 a 8 (a) P) -8.0 ' 5 0 I -1 E 4 M . and duration D play an insignificant role in the prediction of the permanent displacement. -1.0 3 . Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show the ill-defined variation of yi with these two variables. 111 C a 0. MENU The results of the analysis show that as expected magnitude M.0 i 0.8 one-sided sllding .o D h 0 4 & I .996 N. WITH DURATION D . (b) -0. VARIATION OF yI WITH MAGNITUDE M s I .0 0 0 two-sided slidlng ib xb Jb ab rb Duration D r= 0. 0 ! -0. M.z E c .=6.4 rp. AMBRASEYS AND J.s a egm m . resulting from the fact that the bulk of the earthquakes used centre at M.f E 8.4 0 two-sided sliding 0 0 8 i i " 0 h 0.35). .9( kO.

98 n r2 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.06 006 017 0.59 0 .96 298 2.53 2.09 1. "i 'U 10 e q u a t i o n 9. Combining equations (7) and (8) we have (9) The coefficients of equation (9) are shown in Table IV for the combination of the variables that show the log & ) = a +b log (Ki)+ c log ( P ) + d log (A)+ eR Table IV.26 1.2) (9.84 085 085 SZ 1.007 Notes.43 1.00 1. P: Predominant period of ground motion in sec. 0:m Ratio Kc/Km b 9.3 a a 0 0:2 0 :4 0S ' .97 098 0.46 044 0-48 044 0.00 2.16 1.1) (plot a) and equation (9.59 072 0.54 2.00 1.14 0. P and R.)+c log ( P ) + d log(A)+eR.00 1.3) (9. where K i isdefined inequations(5)and (6). Variation of the ratio LI of displacement calculated from a sliding block model to predicted displacement from equation (9.54 1.58 2.14 u.00 1.66 1.54 3.26 0 0 0 0.12 1. Cases as in Table 111.41 1.94 0.00 C d 0 0 e 0 0 0 -0005 0 0 -001 m 2.96 1.-A-111 uZ-B-111 u.15 0. Results of regression analysis of log (a) on various combinations of variables equations (9) Case u.3) (plot b) with critical ratio.-c-111 Equation (9.1) (9.-A-111 uI-B-111 u.6) a b 1.98 0-83 0.07 0. For all practical purposes scatter of CI is bracketed by a factor of 3 .00 1. I a a 1 equation R a t i o Kc/Km Figure 8(a). A: Peak acceleration in g. R: Source distance in km.EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED GROUND DISPLACEMENTS 997 More significant are found to be the variables A.log ( u i ) = a + b log(K. 111: regressionequation-equation(9). the effects of which may be included in a regression of a more general character.4) (95) (9.-c-111 -0.12 0 0 0 0 0-08 0.63 0.16 1.00 1. 4 4 0.

are of practical interest in design.998 N. For all practical purposes scatter of U is bracketed by a factor of 3 highest significance. M. may be used to bracket design values for displacements within acceptable limits.6 Q n 16' 0:o 0: z 0 :4 0 :a 0 : s PJ Ratio K c / b b 1. therefore. For each subset permanent displacements were ranked and several probability distributions were tested. therefore. was found to fit all subsets remarkably well. were classified into nine sets for values of the critical ratios 0. We used. The characteristic value of the .0. . .2. ln-(1 : z ) ] .1. AMBRASEYS AND I. with ui > 0. EXTREME VALUES Permanent displacements generated by earthquakes are variables whose largest values. For both unsymmetrical and symmetrical motions. one of which.4) (plot a) and equation (9. An extreme values model. The plots of the ratio of calculated to predicted permanent displacement versus critical acceleration ratio depicted in Figures 8(a) and 8(b) show that the scatter arising from the use of equation (9) is now bracketed within a ratio of 3 which. with lower limit equal to zero (Gumbel's type III). 1) to (9. 'Oj U equation 9. R a t i o Kc/Km Figure 8(b). permanent displacements calculated from a sliding block model by combining vectorially the two horizontal maxima for each record (case C in Tables I11 and IV). MENU . for all practical purposes. for k. Variation of the ratio U of displacement calculated from a sliding block model to predicted displacement from equation{9./k.=0.9.These equations [(9.6) (plot b) with critical ratio. is shown in Figure 9.l ' b i [ where the dependent variable is the percentage of confidence z.0. the inverse Weibull distribution ui= a. such as those given by equation (l). A Weibull distribution.6)] show a somewhat reduced variance and predict relatively well displacements calculated from a sliding block model. N.8. . . is independent of the critical acceleration ratio.

. Means and standard deviations are proportional to a.2 subset. . . while equation (1lb) shows some dependence on the nature of the ground motions.2 Cumulative Probability F. . The slope and intercept of the linearized plot give the coefficients oi and bi of equation (10) distribution a. implies an invariance in the shape of the distribution in the case of symmetrical displacements. when constant..b . . -I :r r-.o . ...16 (1 1 4 The dependence of a. . and bi on critical ratio is shown in Figure 10. and the exponent b.(Urnax) Figure 9. -2. Using the expressions for uiin terms of K.The figures show an exampleof the fitting for the case of the symmetrical k.[see equations (5) and (6)]. is an indicator associated with a confidence of 63 per cent./k.2 per cent and compares the values of the latter with the actual maxima in the data subsets which have a size of 26. Fitting of maximum displacements uito an extreme value distribution.=0. . As an example. . . Equations (10) and (11) may be used to predict permanent displacements associated with a given probability of not being exceeded. . Table V lists the predicted values of uifor confidence levels of 90-0 and 96. The constant value of b.rl r -0!4 -Ln ( 1 . the distributions parameters are found to be given by: -0.12 bl= 1*18(2) and b2 = 1.EARTHQUAKE-INDUCEDGROUND DISPLACEMENTS 999 DISTRIBUTION OF ONE-SIDED MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENTS ‘7 lid -4 . .0 1 0 !a Kc/Km = 0. reflects an invariance in the shape of the distribution.

8 0.0 5.. Maximum displacements calculated from extreme value distribution Unsymmetrical displacements UI Symmetrical displacements kJk. 0.8 5.0 0!2 0:4 0:s v 120 Table V.5 0.0 :2 0:4 0:s 0:0 1.7 0. .-.. ..2 3.1 0. M.2 0.loo0 N.26 /::.8 per cent probability of exceedance computed from equations (10) and (1 I). .7 2. .1 Notes.2 A (90.1 69.9 45. .6 33.0 93.4 8.00 0.. Extreme value prediction of permanent displacement ui computed for vectorially combined maxima in two horizontal directions. A: Displacements with a 10 per cent probability of exceedance computed from equations (10) and (11).0 30. .8 0. We have used only acceleration time-histories recorded at source distances of up to 45 per cent of the source dimensions of events in the magnitude range .8 32.6 0.1 0. .. ..8 0.7 0.00 1.9 1.8 05 01 uz(cm) B (96.. 0:2 0:4 D :6 -x---1 .5 42.1 11.1 19.7 32.. AMBRASEYS AND J.5 A (90.5 225 14.3 04 0.0%) 47.7 11..2 19...3 4.0 * ? ri'l 0:o - .1 2..2 0.1 5.D Ratio Kc/Km 24 0 2. B: Displacements with a 3.0 21.2 8. N.0 88. ' O D 0 O O " * 1.1 242..8 4.00 Ratio Kc/Km * 1-76 4 -76 U N +J $ 'z c u Q) 1-60 0 u 1...6 0.0%) B (96'2%) (4 C (96..1 1.6 16.2 1.4 0.. ..0 0. ..2%) 128...1 38.3 10.1 C (96.2%) 63.7 0...7 0.2 71. C Extreme values of the data subsets of size 26.7 14.7 0.0 1. . .0 .8 7..9 194.. DISCUSSION The near-field data used in this study have served to establish empirically the behaviour of permanent ground displacements in the epicentral area of strong earthquakes.... MENU 1 2 1 0:o 0:) Or4 D :e 0:a 1.2%) 85..

This is perfectly acceptable. which predits displacements induced by vectorially combined ground accelerations. The reason for this is that. the significant part of the ground acceleration record inducing sliding is reduced (essentially to a single triangular pulse on one side of each acceleration c ~ m p o n e n tThis .9.3)in terms of V. and equal to m = 2-54 and n = 1-12 for the unsymmetrical case. (6-B-11). and m = 2. invariant (Table VI).limits investigated. This may be done by adding to the expressionsfor log (ui) the term t x s. It must be stressed that these regressions are not major axis solutions. by multiplying the values from curves (A) and (B) by 1. equation (9. which could be exceeded 50 per cent of the time. It is of interest that. From Table IV we notice that the coefficients of the terms that involve acceleration A and periods P are.l. the exponents m and n in the expressions for K iare.25 and 1. Equations (5-B-11). rather than maximum values. At k. < 7. becoming practically equal for ratios greater than about 06. However. and caution is indicated in using these equations for t values larger than about 1.=O. improvements are not all that great. become important. since for values of the critical ratio greater than about 0. The influence of pore pressure and rapid loading effects on displacements3' awaits further study. directional effects are not significant.and replace A and P in equation (9. magnitude M. but the data set analysed shows that the remaining variables. for ratios smaller than 0.7. errors due to other factors. Figure 11 is valid for M. for different probabilities of exceedance. such as the length of the record used in analysis and base-line corrections. we find that displacements may now be predicted in terms of critical acceleration ratio and ground velocity only. Figure 13 . From Tables 111 and IV we notice that the main variable in the prediction displacement is the critical acceleration ratio. In our analysis we have made the crucial assumption that the yield resistance to sliding remains constant and equal to that mobilized at a factor of safety of one. If we define by V the ground velocity that corresponds to 4 V = A x P(cgs).98 and n =0 for the symmetrical case. and these estimates are interpreted as'most likely.3. ~ ~also suggests that the dependence coefficientsin equation (7) should be in fact a function of the critical ratio and not constants. the difference between displacements induced down-slope and on level ground decreases with increasing values of the critical ratio. This figure shows that. Alternatively. Extreme values of permanent displacement computed from equations (10) and (1 1) offer a better alternative in this case and hold true in the magnitude range of the data investigated. Figure 12 shows predicted unsymmetrical (A) and symmetrical (B) displacements in the direction of maximum acceleration. Site effects have not been considered and we have limited our regression analyses to critical ratios between 0. estimates at other probability levels may be calculated using the relevant variances.1 and 0./k. other things being equal.= 6. these displacements may be assessed from Figure 11.3). regardless of the method of analysis in the regression of log@.15 respectively. Of the regression equations that involve variables in addition to the critical ratio (Table IV).)on one variable. is of particular interest. The purpose of equations (4) to (6) and (9) is prediction of the mean value of permanent displacement. Predominant period P and to a lesser extent peak acceleration A do seem to have some significance on predicted displacements.1.6. and that although additional variables in equations (5) and (6) do improve their predictive value.9( 0. Estimates of displacement have been calculated by regressing log (ui) on critical acceleration ratio and on other variables. for all practical purposes.and duration of shaking D are even less significant in the narrow M. Figure 11 shows a plot of unsymmetrical (A) and symmetrical (B) displacements in the direction of maximum acceleration for a 50 per cent probability of exceedance as a function of the critical ratio. As already pointed out.4 < M . However. and t can be obtained from a table of the normal distribution function. a range often used for the design of structures in areas of high seismicity. the data are insufficient to allow such a refinement of the model to be tested. and as such they should not be used to estimate a variable from ui.3). the data are insufficient to warrant probabilities smaller than about 10 per cent.EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED GROUND DISPLACEMENTS 1001 6. However. Equations (5-C-11) and (64-11) in Table I11 may be used to calculate displacements induced by ground accelerationsin two horizontal components combined vectorially. source distance R. (5-C-11) and (6C-11) may also be used to predict displacements with probabilities of exceedance smaller than 50 per cent. identical so that they may be replaced by a single velocity term. down-slope displacements are on average 5 times larger than on level ground. predicted from equations (5-B-11)and (64-11) respectively (Table 111). where s are the relevant variance given in Tables 111and IV. for all practical purposes.

M. soil masses may resist with negligibly small displacements (of the order of millimetres). provided k J k . such cracking.effective design accelerations may be reduced to 0 7 k. This implies (i)that.MENU 100 50 U (cml 10 5 1.0 Figure 11. for ground velocities of 10.3) for an average ground velocity of 25 cm/sec. remains constant. Although these cracks by themselvesmay have little detrimental effect on stability. There is some evidence that landslides.9( +_ 0 shows a plot of the unsymmetrical displacement u1 as a function of the critical ratio and V. subsequent flooding by seepage. AMBRASEYS AND J.ground motions generated in the near field.1 O. The use in design of a reduced peak acceleration. fine silty soils or poorly compacted fills. Curve (C)implies that displacements predicted from equation (5-C-11) are almost identical to those predicted by equation (9. 2 0-7. M.1002 N. Predicted unsymmetrical (A) and symmetrical (B) displacements for 50% probability of exceedance as a function of critical . N.. rain or reservoir water may bring about instability and failure of a slope sometime after the earthquake. implies that surface cracking of several millimetres to a few centimetres is acceptable and of little consequence for the stability of a slope or a foundation.7 k. However. in a static analysis. even when peak accelerations exceed critical values by 40 per cent. and (ii) that recorded ground accelerations on soil sites may include such yield effects. The same figure shows a plot of equation (5-C-11) for comparison (C). 3 ) ratio (equations 5-5-11 and 6B-II in Table 111). of say 0. particularly near the top of a slope.0 0. particularly those in clays with . aided by tensile stresses. drying effects and aftershock activity may extend to a considerable depth.O! 0.=6. The present analysis demonstrates that. particularly in materials of low plasticity. that is k . 100 and 200 cm/sec.5 0. provided the yield resistance to sliding does not deteriorate with displacement.

12 1.96 2.12(k0.09 1.98 ma. take place some time after the earthquake.00 2.96 298 2.9(+0.98 3.16 1.50 3.EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED GROUND DISPLACEMENTS 1003 Figure 12. and in . Predicted values of unsymmetrical (A) and symmetrical (B) displacements in the direction of maximum acceleration as a function ofcritical ratio for probabilitiesofexceedenceof 1.A-I 11) (9-B-111) (9-C-111) (1 lc) Unsymmetrical case: Symmetrical case: 2. Dashed curvesshow extrapolation of the prediction to be used with caution.16 1.=6.98(+_ 002) nnv= 0 preexisting slip surfaces.^^ Piping failures may originate from embankment cracks.09 1. In such cases.16 and 50 per cent.3) Table VI.58 2.53 2. = 2. M. from equations5-&I1 and 68-11. Values of m and n derived from different models m n 1.00 2.A-111) (9-B-111) (9-C-111) (1 la) (6-A-11) (CB-11) (CC-11) (9.03) ma.03) nav = 1. the shock can have only an indirect effect on stability.5.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equation (5-A-11) (5-511) (54-11) (9. and this may very well be due to cracking and subsequent flooding of cracks induced by permanent displacement^.54 2.12 1.58 253 2.54 2. = 254( +_ 0.

31 (5-B-11) +. CONCLUSIONS Several prediction equations for permanent displacement are presented in terms of critical ratio. AMBRASEYS AND J.Curves (A) and (B) show predictions in terms ofequation (9. and the most appropriate prediction equations for unsymmetrical u1 and symmetrical u2 displacements in the direction of the maximum acceleration are 10g(u.35 allowing small permanent displacements to develop in earth dams (an effect implicit in the reduction of the peak acceleration). standard deviation 0. Input data range M.[ ( . the amount of damage which may ensue from cracking and requirements for effective repair are difficult to assess and great caution must be exercised in protecting such structures from piping.1004 N. where Vis the ground velocity. ground acceleration and source distance.P ) ’ . curve (C). equation 5-C-111.9 ( +_ 0*3).. for near-field conditions and for earthquake magnitude must be taken to safeguard against secondary effects that may lead to instability. MENU Figure 13. For smaller probabilities t could be obtained . = 6. N. regardless of site conditions. For concrete faced dams.3)in which we have substituted 4 V= A x P.=69. predominant period. ~ ~ ~(6-B-111) where t is zero for a probability of exceedance of 50 per cent.)=090+10g and 1. for V = 10 cm/sec and V= 100 cm/sec. Predicted vectorially combined maximum displacements for the unsymmetrical case as a function of critical ratio. M. Critical acceleration ratio is the fundamental parameter. ~ ~ ] + ~ .

Paper No. Seis. Geotechnique 24. F. ‘Aseismic foundation systems for nuclear power plants’. 7. Ch. < 0. C. Miscellaneous Paper 971-17. 5. ‘The seismic stability of earth dams’. suggesting a velocity dependence. N. Plichon and F. It is of interest to note that. Inst. used. diu. We thank Drs. becoming about 5 times larger than on horizontal ground for values of the ratio approaching 0. 661-665 (1974). Seed. speciality meeting antiseismic design nuclear installations. A. 8 . ‘Behaviour of foundation materials during strong earthquakes’. to one decimal place.pp. ‘Simplifiedprocedure for estimating dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformation’. (1978) C190/1978.15 respectively. N. eng. ‘Effects of earthquakes on dams and embarkments’.3 & Vol. . Proc. 9. 4. Kirijas. ‘Earthquake resistance of earth and rockfill dams. For critical acceleration ratios greater than about 0. is not statistically significant. S. ‘Feasibility of simulating earthquake effects on earth dams using underground nuclear events. S. K. R or V that unduly complicate the confidence that can be placed on predicted displacements and it seems quite reasonable that preference should be given to equations (543-11) and (MI-11). Displacements resulting from two components combined vectorially may be obtained from equations (54-11) and (6-B-II). SMIRT con5 London. K. ~~ 1977. REFERENCES 1. Ambraseys. Appendix A. T. Ambraseys. Plan. is shown in Figure 13. P. Vicksburg. 1972. Roorkee 11-21 (1962). Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 2nd Symp. maximum displacementson sloping and level ground are almost identical. ‘The seismic stability of dams’.25 and 1. 197. From Table IV we notice that the source distance coefficient e is of the order of magnitude that one would expect in an attenuation relationship valid in the near field of strong earthquakes and that the period coefficient c is the same. C. 71. ‘Hooped rubber bearings and frictional plates: a modern antiseismic engineering technique’. Thesis University of London. as that for acceleration d. a measure of the size of seismic event. 11. Bhave. 13. 139-160 (1965). Makdisi and H. Zemjotr. For the narrow range of magnitudes used.9. Earthquake Resistance of earth dams’. Franklin and F. G. Proc. Plichon. resulting in a small improvement in the total variance. ‘Seismic stability of earth dams and embankments’ GPotechnique 25. is also not significant for displacements. Inzen. Sarma and M. 1 0 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the Science and Engineering Research Council under Grant No. Equation (9) and Table IV provide somewhat improved regressions for displacements. lies between 6. Finally.6 and 7-3. Viughan and J. 181-213 (1967). provided k. permanent displacements of embankments by Newmark sliding block analysis’. Opredeluuanje nu Zemjotresot uo Skopje od 26 Juli 1963. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Miscellaneous Puper S. S. earthquake eng. Skopje. Proc. equation (1) is still valid and comparison of Figures 3 and 12 suggests that this equation in fact represents displacements that have a probability of about 25 per cent of being exceeded. M. equations (9) involve additional assumptions to be made regarding P. 17. duration of shaking D. Newmark. F. A. Directional effects are relatively small and would increase values derived from (54-11) and (6-B-11) by 1.1 < k. Paris (1 975). 743-761 (1975). Ambraseys. GR/D/38620. Sarma. London.geotech. N. 4th Eur. The examination of the sensitivity of the prediction equations to other variables shows that predominant period and to a lesser extent peak acceleration and source distance have some significancefor displacements. 1. Ambraseys.. 3. US. Sarma. earthquake eng. Hutchinson for comments and constructive criticisms. ‘The response of earth dams to strong earthquakes’ Geotechnique.D. 1959. 17.ll-12 (1972). ASCE 104. equations (5-B-11) and (6B-11) may be used for design purposes. Chang. for the narrow range of M . N. N. 6. Ge‘otechnique 15. These equations are shown on Figure 12 and they are valid for 0. N. N. K. However. Sarma. ‘Critical acceleration versus static factor of safety in stability -~analysis ofearth dams and embankments’. the former shown in Figure 13. 8. 2 . M . However. any reliable prediction model for displacements must involve data from a wider range of magnitudes and distances and in particular more realistic yield resistance characteristics. symp. 1968. 13.EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED GROUND DISPLACEMENTS 1005 from a table of the normal distribution function. based on ground velocity. Until then. 12. V. 1. However. Jolivet.curve (C)for t = 0.6./k. Publ. for design of which. Ambraseys and S. US. Vol. 2 Suppl. Vicksburg. is based on residual strength and M.1.849-867 (1978). Proc. down-slope displacementsincrease more rapidly with decreasing values of the critical acceleration ratio. Ph. 7 .

‘Response and stability of earth dams during strong earthquakes’. ‘The focal mechanism of the Gazli USSR earthquake’ Bull. 20. Allen. struct. length. appl. Whitman and S. eng. GLotechnique 31. 1976 Gazli. H. 16. 18. ‘Seismotectonic of the western Mediterranean’. ‘Statistical relations among earthquake magnitude. ‘A low stress-drop. 1715-1736 (1980). Yang. series no.Niazi and H. Session 7B: Seismic stability of natural slopes. S. dyn. Williams ‘Accumulated slip of a friction-controlled mass excited by earthquake motions. S. Proc. Albania. A. Geogiannou. Gasparini. Sarma and K. Mark and J. Thatcher. 1985. f Earthquakes in Northern ColiJornia 1910-1972. Anderson. S. 86. 1980. Bonilla. seism. 2. 1966. Seism. 155-158. M. geophys res. ‘Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records’. soc. in Dams and Earthquakes. ‘Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding foundations’. Gazetas.Republ.soc. Ahmadi. Zatopek et al. J . Lemos and T. soc. 501-514 (1967). 261-277 (1981). R. ‘A simplified method for the earthquake resistant design of earth dams’. San Francisco (1985).MENU 14. seism. Am.. H. A. S. Dede. Ph. V. 2379-2411 (1984). Debchaudhury and D. London. V. USSR Geophys. soc. 449464 (1979). soc. The Earthquake ofApril 15. Am. D. Miller. sci. 8th world con$ earthquake eng. Sci. L. Lienkaernper. 12. 34. 4913-4928 (1981). ‘Response of a sliding structure to filtered random excitation’. S. G. 401-418 (1984). Smith. 17. L. S. H. 88. 1975. Bolt and R. R. ‘The effect of vertical cracks on slope stability’. found. eng. C. eng. Am. mech. 11th int. M. Boore. 28. 71. Brady. 24. 21. Earthquake. US. University of California. ‘Source parameters of the 1978 Tabas and 1979 Qainat earthquakes from long-period surface waves.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. pp. seism. California earthquake of March 4. 27. 65. seism. soc. Am. 1979. 70. San Francisco 3. ASCE 105. M. Stein and W.Sc.581426 (1975). W. ‘Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology’. 1980. R. res. Acad. 71. ASME 41. J . Crandall. geophys. CA. B. Imperial College of Science and Technology. A. 26. J. . M. seism. Burdick and D. ‘Standardization of magnitude scales’. H. mech. akad. Simpson. J. Anderson. 74. ‘Seismic and aseismic deformations associated with the 1952 Kern County earthquake. J. Engineering Seismology Section. New York. P. 31. 15. Dissertation. Bull. Bull. K. geotech. Am. 70. 21. Sarma. Moscow (1962). R. 1737-1750 ( 1980). Bull. N. G.533-540 (1984). Kanamori. ‘Faulting process of the May 17. G. Tadjbakhsh. Trifunac and A. the Imperial Valley. London. 37. seism soc. ‘Random vibration analysis for the seismic response ofearth dams. Dissertation. Draper and H. K. seism. Catalogue o Berkeley. surface rupture. USSR earthquake’.108. 1966‘. ‘Seismic behavior of gravity retaining wall’. Tirana. Lee and J. University of Cambridge. ‘An experiment in systematic study of global seismicity: centroid-moment tensor solutions for 201 moderate and large earthquakes in 1981’. Bull. S. Applied Regression Analysis. J. G. M. con5 soil mech. Liao ‘Seismicdesign of gravity retaining walls’. Brune and C. S. AMBRASEYS AND J. diu. 57. eng. K. etc. 35.D. 32. Publ. Int. struct. 29. Vicksburg. seism. Miscellaneous Paper GL79-13. M. 1985. Richards and D. j . Station. Hartzell. 38. Vaughan. Sarma. 22.Kristy. Dziewonski and J. S. Tika ‘Strength loss on shear surfaces due to rapid loading’. H. Am.2011-2038 (1981). Wiley. sci. SOC. Vanek. 33. 119-132 (1987). 1201-1213 (1981). Constantinou and I. Bull. 25. G. R. Joyner and D. Publ. low-magnitude earthquake with surface faulting. Bull. J . 3247-3271 (1983). 15. M.93-102 (1983). 19.1006 N. iruest. ‘An evaluation of strong motion records and a new parameter A9S. 10941098 (1974). 1073-1095 (1975). ‘A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion’. A. 30. R. Bull. 23. 1979. Am. Am. 39. J. Kanamori and D. TTL. Elms. soc. 65. 36. Woodhouse.