Embankment dam deformations caused by earthquakes

J. R. Swaisgood, P.E., C.P.G.

Swaisgood Consulting, Conifer, Colorado, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT: An extensive review of case histories of embankment dam behavior during

earthquake was undertaken after several major embankment dams were severely shaken by
the 1990 Philippines earthquake. The objectives of the study, which continues to date, were to
determine if there is a “normal” trend of seismic deformation that can be predicted and if
there are certain factors that consistently have an effect on the amount of damage and
deformation incurred during earthquakes. Nearly 70 case histories have been reviewed,
compared and statistically analyzed in this effort. The results of this empirical study have
shown that the most important factors that appear to affect dam crest settlement during
earthquake include the peak ground acceleration at the site and the earthquake magnitude. A
chart has been prepared to summarize the relationship between the amount of measured
settlement and the peak ground accelerations experienced in the incidents that were studied.
In addition, an empirical equation was formulated and a graph developed as an aid in
estimating the amount of deformation to be expected.

1 INTRODUCTION

An evaluation of case histories of embankment dam behaviour has been in progress since 1990 with
two objectives in mind:
° Providing a tool for immediate assessment of a structure that has undergone seismic
loading and
° Creating a method for estimating how much an embankment dam will deform based on
actual dam behaviour during past earthquakes.
The findings from these ongoing empirical studies were last presented four years ago. Since that
time, the research has continued, increasing the data base by nearly 30 percent. This paper presents
the results of the extended examination and analyses of the entire data base.

2 CASE HISTORY DATA BASE

2.1 Previous work

During the 1990 Philippines earthquake, a review of incidents of seismically-induced deformation

of embankment dams was initiated to aid in evaluating the damages exhibited by several major
dams during that event (Swaisgood and Au-Yeung, 1991). These studies continued on with the
results last presented in 1998 (Swaisgood, 1998). At that time , the screening efforts had produced
54 incidents that had been described with sufficient quantified data for meaningful comparative
studies and statistical analyses
2.2 Updated version

Continuing research has yielded an additional 15 case histories, making a total data base of 69
incidents. Pertinent details of all 69 of these incidents are presented in Table 1. The new additions
include nine located in California – Case Nos. 10, 25, 26, 36 to 40 (Tepel, et. al. 1996) and 19

Paper Number 014

 (ICOLD 2001); four in Chile – Nos. 28, 66,67, and 68 (Pinos 2000); one in the Philippines – No. 46
(ICOLD 2001); and one in Peru (So. Peru Copper Corp. 2001). The entire data base is plotted in
Figure 1 where the crest settlement is shown in relation to the peak ground acceleration at the site.
Table 1. Earthquake induced settlement of embankment dams
GENERAL INFORMATION CREST RELATIVE
DEGREE
ID DAM DH CL AT EARTHQUAKE DATA SETTLEMENT OF

No NAME OF DAM LOCATION TYPE m m m DATE M D,km PGA, g. m * % ** DAMAGE

UPPER MURA-
1 YAMA Japan E-HF 24 320 3 1 Sep 23 8.2 18 0.32 e 0.20 0.74 Moderate

2 ONO Japan E 41 309 11 1 Sep 23 8.2 98 0.30 e 0.27 0.53 Serious

CHATSWORTH
3 NO.2 California HF 12 610 ?*** 30 Aug 30 5.3 1 0.40 e 0.08 0.63 Moderate

4 MALPASSO Peru ECRD 78 152 30 10 Oct 38 VI+ n/a 0.10 e 0.08 0.07 Minor

5 COGOTI Chile CFRD 85 159 0 6 Apr 43 7.9 89 0.20 e 0.38 0.44 Minor
6 SOUTH HAIWEE California HF 25 457 38 21 Jul 52 7.7 151 0.05 e 0.02 0.04 Minor

7 HEBGEN Montana E 25 213 10 17 Aug 59 7.6 0 0.71 e 1.69 4.82 Serious

8 MIBORO Japan ECRD 130 444 0 19 Aug 61 7.0 20 0.15 e 0.03 0.02 Minor

9 MINASE Japan CFRD 67 210 ? 16 Jun 64 7.5 145 0.08 e 0.06 0.09 Minor
10 UVAS California E 32 335 ? 18 Dec 67 5.3 11 0.20 e 0.02 0.06 Minor
U. SAN FER-
11 NANDO California HF 25 390 18 9 Feb 71 6.6 2 0.55 e 0.91 2.11 Serious

12 OROVILLE California ECRD 235 1707 0 1 Aug 75 5.9 7 0.10 r 0.01 0.004 None
13 LA VILLITA Mexico ECRD 60 427 75 15 Nov 75 7.2 20 0.04 r 0.02 0.02 None

14 EL INFIERNILLO Mexico ECRD 146 340 0 15 Nov 75 7.2 23 0.09 r 0.02 0.02 None
15 EL INFIERNILLO Mexico ECRD 146 340 0 11 Oct 75 5.9 79 0.08 r 0.04 0.03 None

16 TSENGWEN Taiwan ECRD 131 n/a ? 14 Apr 76 5.3 8 0.16 e 0.04 0.03 n/a
17 EL INFIERNILLO Mexico ECRD 146 340 0 14 Mar 79 7.6 95 0.12 r 0.13 0.09 Minor
18 LA VILLITA Mexico ECRD 60 427 75 14 Mar 79 7.6 108 0.02 r 0.05 0.03 Minor

19 VERMILION California E 50 1290 50 27 May 80 6.3 22 0.24 r 0.05 0.05 None

20 LA VILLITA Mexico ECRD 60 427 75 25 Oct 81 7.3 31 0.09 r 0.14 0.11 None

21 EL INFIERNILLO Mexico ECRD 146 340 0 25 Oct 81 7.3 55 0.05 e 0.06 0.04 None
22 NAMIOKA Japan ECRD 52 265 0 26 May 83 7.7 145 0.08 r 0.06 0.11 None

23 COYOTE California E 43 299 0 24 Apr 84 6.2 0 0.63 e 0.08 0.18 Minor

LEROY ANDER-
24 SON California ECRD 72 427 0 24 Apr 84 6.2 2 0.41 r 0.02 0.02 Minor
ELMER J. CHES-
25 BRO California E 29 220 0 24 Apr 84 6.2 22 0.18 e 0.02 0.05 Minor

26 UVAS California E 32 335 ? 24 Apr 84 6.2 29 0.14 e 0.02 0.08 Minor

27 MAKIO Japan ECRD 77 264 29 14 Sep 84 6.8 5 0.57 e 0.50 0.47 Minor
28 AROMOS Chile ECRD 43 220 9 3 Mar 85 7.8 45 0.25 e 0.09 0.177 Minor

29 EL INFIERNILLO Mexico ECRD 146 340 0 19 Sep 85 8.1 76 0.13 r 0.11 0.08 Minor
30 LA VILLITA Mexico ECRD 60 427 75 19 Sep 85 8.1 43 0.13 r 0.33 0.24 Minor

31 LA VILLITA Mexico ECRD 60 427 75 21 Sep 85 7.5 61 0.04 r 0.12 0.09 None
New Zea-
32 MATAHINA land ECRD 86 400 ? 2 Mar 87 6.3 9 0.33 r 0.12 0.14 Moderate

33 NAGARA Japan ECRD 52 n/a ? 17 Dec 87 6.9 29 0.27 r 0.02 0.04 n/a

34 AUSTRIAN California E 56 213 0 17 Oct 89 7.1 2 0.57 e 0.85 1.51 Serious

35 LEXINGTON California E 63 253 0 17 Oct 89 7.1 3 0.45 r 0.26 0.41 Minor

36 UVAS California E 32 335 ? 17 Oct 89 7.1 10 0.40 e 0.02 0.06 None

37 STEVENS CREEK California E 37 305 ? 17 Oct 89 7.1 16 0.30 e 0.02 0.04 None

38 ALMADEN California E 32 140 ? 17 Oct 89 7.1 9 0.44 e 0.03 0.10 Minor

39 CALERO California E 30 256 ? 17 Oct 89 7.1 13 0.38 e 0.01 0.03 None

40 RINCONDA California E 12 73 ? 17 Oct 89 7.1 9 0.41 e 0.02 0.15 Minor

41 GUADALUPE California E 43 204 0 17 Oct 89 7.1 10 0.42 e 0.20 0.45 Minor
ELMER J. CHES-
42 BRO California E 29 220 0 17 Oct 89 7.1 13 0.42 e 0.11 0.39 Moderate

43 VASONA California E 10 149 8 17 Oct 89 7.1 9 0.37 e 0.05 0.27 Minor

2
 GENERAL INFORMATION CREST RELATIVE
DEGREE
ID DAM DH CL AT E A R THQUAKE DATA SETTLEMENT OF

No NAME OF DAM LOCATION TYPE m m m DATE M D,km PGA, g. m * % ** DAMAGE

LEROY ANDER-
44 SON California ECRD 72 427 0 17 Oct 89 7.1 21 0.26 r 0.04 0.06 Minor
45 SAN JUSTO California ECRD 40 340 14 17 Oct 89 7.1 27 0.26 r 0.04 0.07 None

46 AMBUKLAO Philippines ECRF 120 450 5 16 Jul 90 7.7 10 0.49 e 1.10 0.880 Serious

47 MASIWAY Philippines E 25 427 3 16 Jul 90 7.7 3 0.68 e 1.06 3.79 Serious

48 PANTABANGAN Philippines ECRD 114 732 0 16 Jul 90 7.7 6 0.58 e 0.28 0.24 Moderate

49 AYA Philippines ECRD 102 427 0 16 Jul 90 7.7 6 0.58 e 0.20 0.20 Minor
50 DIAYO Philippines ECRD 60 201 0 16 Jul 90 7.7 18 0.38 e 0.07 0.11 Minor

51 CANILI Philippines ECRD 70 351 0 16 Jul 90 7.7 18 0.38 e 0.04 0.06 Minor
52 MAGAT Philippines ECRD 100 1296 0 16 Jul 90 7.7 81 0.05 e 0.01 0.006 None

53 COGSWELL California CFRD 81 200 0 28 Jun 91 5.8 7 0.37 e 0.04 0.051 Minor
ROBERT MAT-
54 THEWS California E 46 192 0 25 Apr 92 6.9 64 0.07 e 0.00 0.007 None

55 WIDE CANYON California E 26 678 ? 28 Jun 92 7.5 30 0.20 e 0.01 0.048 Minor

56 YUCAIPA No. 1 California E 13 128 9 28 Jun 92 6.6 28 0.15 e 0.01 0.028 Minor
57 YUCAIPA No. 2 California E 15 146 9 28 Jun 92 6.6 28 0.15 e 0.00 0.019 Minor
UPPER LAKE
58 MARY Arizona E 13 247 1 29 Apr 93 5.5 77 0.02 e 0.00 0.004 None
U. SAN FER-
59 NANDO California HF 25 390 18 17 Jan 94 6.7 10 0.42 e 0.44 1.021 Serious
L. SAN FER-
60 NANDO California E-HF 38 537 6 17 Jan 94 6.7 9 0.44 e 0.20 0.460 Serious

61 LOS ANGELES California E 47 671 0 17 Jan 94 6.7 10 0.43 r 0.09 0.188 Moderate
62 NORTH DIKE [LA] California E 36 427 0 17 Jan 94 6.7 10 0.43 e 0.03 0.089 Moderate
LOWER FRANK-
63 LIN California HF 31 152 ? 17 Jan 94 6.7 18 0.30 e 0.05 0.146 Moderate

64 SANTA FELICIA California E 65 389 0 17 Jan 94 6.7 33 0.18 e 0.02 0.030 Minor

65 COGSWELL California CFRD 81 200 0 17 Jan 94 6.7 53 0.10 e 0.02 0.026 Minor
66 PALOMA Chile ECRD 82 1000 14 14 Oct 97 7.6 45 0.23 e 0.14 0.141 Minor
67 COGOTI Chile CFRD 83 160 0 14 Oct 97 7.6 45 0.23 e 0.25 0.302 Moderate

68 SANTA JUANA Chile CFRD 113 390 19 14 Oct 97 7.6 260 0.03 r 0.02 0.015 None

69 TORATA Peru CFRD 120 600 0 23 Jun 01 8.3 100 0.15 e 0.05 0.042 Minor

L E G E N D
DH = dam height
M = earthquake magnitude, surface-wave scale: M S
D = distance from nearest ground rupture or epicenter, whichever is closest
PGA = peak horizontal ground acceleration; e = estimated, r = recorded
HF = Hydraulic Fill
E= Earthfill
ECRD = Earth Core Rockfill Dam
CFRD = Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam

NOTES:
* - Settlement shown is the single maximum reported or is an average from upstream, downs tream and centerline readings
** - Determined as a percentage of combined dam height and alluvium thickness
*** - If alluvium thickness unknown (?), it is considered to be 0 for % settlement calculations

3
 DH % STTLMT = ---------------- x 100
DH + AT

AT

10

SERIOUS
1

MODERATE

RELATIVE DEGREE OF DAMAGE

CRESTSETTLEMENT,in%(DH+AT)

MINOR
0.1

CFRD
ECRD
HF
0.01 Earthfill

NONE
0.001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
PEAKGROUND ACCELERATION,g

Figure1. Settlement of embankment dams during earthquake

3 ANALYSIS OF DATA

3.1 General

Similar to the previous studies, crest settlement was selected as the parameter to represent
earthquake related deformation because it was the most often mentioned quantified measurement of
damage presented in the case histories. It also appears to be directly related to the severity of
deformation and cracking, i.e., as the percent of crest settlement increases, the extent of deformation
and cracking that occurs also increases. The ranges of the relative levels of damage are summarized
in Figure 1.
The data base of case histories was analyzed using statistical regression techniques for the purpose
of identifying those factors that have a major influence on the deformation and damage of
embankment dams during earthquakes. These statistical studies were performed using the percent of
crest settlement as the dependent variable and the other factors to be evaluated as the independent
variables.

4
From these regression analyses, it was found that the only factors that had major, statistically
significant effects on the amount of crest settlement included peak ground acceleration and
earthquake magnitude.
3.2 Peak horizontal ground acceleration

The peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) experienced by an embankment dam has a major,
direct influence on the amount of crest settlement. This relationship is apparent in the plot shown in
Figure 1. In general, dams that experience greater PGAs undergo greater deformations and
damages. In this study, it was found that serious levels of damage were reported only in instances
where the PGA exceeded 0.2g. This finding supports one of the findings of an earlier investigation
in which it was concluded that “there is ample evidence that well-built dams can withstand
moderate shaking with peak accelerations up to at le ast 0.2g with no harmful effects” (Seed,
Makdisi, and DeAlba, 1978).
3.3 Magnitude

The amount of crest settlement is also directly related to the magnitude (M) of the earthquake. As
the magnitudes increase, settlements increase. This relationship held true even at sites where the
PGAs were identical because of the longer duration of strong motion shaking associated with the
greater magnitude event.
3.4 Other factors considered

Several other independent variables were analyzed statistically and were found to have only
minimal relational effects on the amount of crest settlement. These factors included dam type,
distance from seismic source to dam site, dam height, ratio of crest length to dam height,
embankment slope angles, and reservoir water level at the time of the earthquake.

4 RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSES

The regression analyses also provided a mathematical relationship between the crest settlement and
the two factors, PGA and M. This relationship can be expressed as:
(6.07 PGA + 0.57 M -8.00) (1)
% Settlement = e
where % Settlement = the amount of settlement of the crest of the dam (in meters) divided by the
height of the dam plus the thickness of the alluvium (in meters) times 100 (see. Fig 1); PGA = peak
horizontal ground acceleration of the foundation rock (in g) recorded or estimated at the dam site;
and M = earthquake magnitude (in surface-wave scale: MS).

This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2.

5
 10
% STTLMT = e (6.07 PGA + 0.57 Ms + 8.0)
(6.07 PGA + 0.57 Ms + 8.0)
% STTLMT = e

ESTIMATED CREST SETTLEMENT, in %(DH + AT)

9
1
8

7
0.1
6

5
0.01
Earthquake Magnitude - M s

0.001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (PGA), in g

Figure 2. Chart for estimating crest settlement

5 OTHER OBSERVATIONS

5.1 Calculated vs. actual crest settlements

Using the regression equation, crest settlements were calculated for each of the 69 case histories
included in the data base. Calculated settlement values are compared to the actual values in Figure
3. It is noteworthy that the statistical fit of actual to calculated values was found to be similar to that
for acceleration attenuation data from recent well-instrumented earthquakes including the Loma
Prieta earthquake (Governor’s Board of Inquiry 1990) the Landers earthquake (Boore et al. 1993),
and the Northridge earthquake (Finn et al. 1995). These statistical similarities suggest that
prediction of crest settlements cannot be improved unless the prediction of site-specific ground
accelerations can be improved. Also, this observation supports the prudent use of the mean-plus-
one-standard-deviation value of the PGA for estimating crest settlements of critical, high-hazard
structures.

10

1
Actual Settlement, % (DH + AT)

Actual settlement is
MORE than calculated

0.1

Actual settlement is
0.01 LESS than calculated

0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Calculated Settlement, % (DH + AT)

Figure 3. Actual vs. calculated settlements

6
5.2 Suitability of Newmark method for settlement calculations

Currently, it is common practice to use one of several analytical procedures based on the Newmark
method of analysis (Newmark 1965) to calculate theoretical crest settlements of embankment dams
subjected to earthquake loadings. This method is founded on the basic assumption that a rigid block
of soil slides downward along a definite shear surface whenever a critical “yield” horizontal
acceleration is exceeded.
There has been some concern expressed by others that the Newmark method may not correctly
model crest settlement caused by earthquake. Day (Day 2002) demonstrated that it is theoretically
possible for dry granular slopes to settle and spread laterally without earthquake accelerations
exceeding yield values to initiate slides. He says that the Newmark method may prove to be
unreliable in some instances. Matsumoto (Matsumoto 2002) described centrifuge shake table tests
and supporting nonlinear analyses for modelled accelerations up to 0.7g that revealed only shallow
ravelling with no deep shear surfaces in the core zones and no definite slip surfaces anywhere in
rock fill dam models. Accordingly, he says that the hypothesis of deep slide surfaces in the
Newmark approach “may be somewhat erroneous”.
Evidence from this case history study also refutes the settlement mechanism assumed in the
Newmark procedure. Personal inspection (Swaisgood & Au-Yeung 1991) and review of many
photos of earthquake damages to dams disclosed that crest settlements and deformation (for
structures not subject to liquefaction) seem to be from slumping and spreading movements that
occur within the dam body without distinct signs of shearing displacement. This appears to be true
for earth fill embankments as well as for rock fill dams. Longitudinal cracks along the crests have
the appearance of tension cracks with little or no vertical offset. An example of these crest cracks is
shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Tension cracks on Cogoti Dam crest after 1997 earthquake (Case No. 67)

6 CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions from this empirical study of embankment dam settlement and deformation during
earthquake include:
° The vertical crest settlement experienced during an earthquake is an index of the amount of
deformation and damage incurred by the embankment
° The amount of crest settlement is related primarily to two factors: peak ground
acceleration at the dam site and magnitude of the causative earthquake.
° An approximate estimate of the amount of crest settlement that will occur due to an
assumed earthquake can be made by using mathematical formulas that relate deformation to
the peak ground acceleration and earthquake magnitude.
° Deformation of a dam’s crest caused by earthquake is principally settlement and spreading;
apparently, there is no slide failure along a distinct shear plane.

7
REFERENCES:

Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E. 1993. Estimation of response spectra and peak accelerations
from western North American earthquakes: an interim report, United States Geological Survey, Menlo
Park, California, Open File Report No. 93-509.
Day, R.W. 2002. Geotechnical earthquake engineering handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Finn, L.,Ventura, C.E., & Schuster, N.D. 1995. Ground motions during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol 22, 300-315.
Governor’s Board of Enquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake: George W. Housner, Chairman. 1990.
Co mpeting Against Time, a report to Governor George Deukmejian.
ICOLD 2001. Design features of dams to resist seismic ground motion. Bulletin 120.
Matsumoto, N. 2002. Evaluation of permanent displacement in seismic analysis of fill dams. In Proc third
US-Japan workshop on advanced research on earthquake engineering for dams, San Diego, 22-23 June
2002.
Newmark, N. 1965. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique, Vol 15 (2) 139-160
London.
Pinos S. F. 2000. Instrumentación de presas de tierra, aplicaciones para evaluar la respuesta sísmica de presas
chilenas. University of Chile (Universidad de Chile). Unpublished thesis presented to obtain the degree of
Civil Engineer in Construction and Structures (Ingeniero Civil en Construcción y Estructuras).
Seed, H.B., Makdisi, F.I., and DeAlba, P. 1978. The performance of earthfill dams during earthquakes.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 104, No. GT7, pp. 967-994.
Southern Peru Copper Corp 2001. Unpublished settlement monitoring data – Torata Dam.
Swaisgood J. R. 1998. Seismically-induced deformation of embankment dams. In proceedings of sixth
national conference on earthquake engineering. Seattle, Washington, U. S. A. May 31 – June 4 1998.
Swaisgood, J.R. and Au-Yeung, Y. 1991. Behavior of dams during the 1990 Philippines earthquake.
Presented at the ASDSO 1991 annual conference, San Diego, 29 Sep- 2 Oct 1991.
Tepel, R.E.; Nelson, J.L. & Hosokawa, A.M. 1996. Seismic response of eleven embankment dams, Santa
Clara County, California, as measured by crest monument surveys. In Seismic design and performance of
dams; Sixth annual USCOLD lecture, Los Angeles, 22 -26 July 1996.