DESIGN OF EMBANKMENT DAMS TO WITHSTAND EARTHQUAKES –

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE ANCOLD GUIDELINES WERE PUBLISHED

Robin FELL*

ABSTRACT
The ANCOLD Guidelines for the Design of Dams for Earthquake (ANCOLD 1998) were developed by a
working group convened by the author over the period 1993-1998.

Since the release of the guidelines there have been some important developments in the design of embankment
dams for earthquakes, and it has become apparent some aspects of the guideline could be explained better.

This paper outlines some of these issues with a view to encouraging the Profession to use up-to-date methods.

1. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Risk Based Vs Deterministic

Approach
The ANCOLD Guidelines for the Design of Dams
for Earthqauke (ANCOLD 1998) were developed
The ANCOLD (1998) Guidelines encourage the use
by a working group of 15 members over the period
of the Risk Based approach, where the effects on
1993 – 1998. The author was Convenor of the
the dam of the full range of earthquake loads is
Working Group.
assessed.
The Guidelines cover all types of dams, and apply
In practice, apart from the some detailed Risk
to existing and new dams. They cover the selection
Assessments, owners are accepting a
of the design earthquake analysis and design of
“deterministic”, or “prescribed” approach.
embankment and concrete dams, and appurtenant
Commonly, for high or extreme consequence of
structures. In my capacity as a review consultant
failure dams, a 1 in 10,000 AEP earthquake loading
working around Australia it has become apparent
is being adopted. This is apparently consistent with
that there are some aspects of the guideline which
the Guideline which suggests the CDSA (1994)
could be better explained. It is also apparent that
criteria may be used. However, as pointed out
not all are following the advice in the guideline:
(point (d), Table 5-1 in Appendix C of the
“The area is rapidly evolving, and those involved in
Guidelines), for “very high” consequence category
the analysis and design of dams for earthquake
dams, the CDSA guidelines require “an appropriate
should refer to the references given, and to more
level of conservatism shall be applied to the factor
recent publications so as to be fully informed”.
calculated from these loads to reduce the risks of
failure to tolerable values. Thus the probability of
This paper discusses some of these issues as applied
dam failure could be much lower than the
to the design of embankment dams. The views
probability of extreme event loading”. Not all
expressed are those of the author, and do not
consultants and owners seem to appreciate this point
represent the view of ANCOLD.
fully.

2. SELECTION OF THE DESIGN The author is of the view that the only logical
EARTHQUAKE approach is a risk based one, which properly
accounts for the conditional probability of the dam

*Professor of Civil Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South
Wales, Sydney 2052. r.fell@unsw.edu.au

ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004 Page 1

Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published

Peak Ground Acceleration Recurrence

using Sadigh & others 1997 Attenuation

10
Mw 0.0 and above
Mw 2.0 and above
Mw 3.0 and above
1 Mw 4.0 and above
Mw 5.0 and above

0.1

PGA
(g)

0.01

0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Return Period (Years)

Figure 1 – Peak ground acceleration versus annual exceedance probability and earthquake magnitude for a site in
Australia

failing given the earthquake occurs, summed over
the full range of earthquake loads.
2.2 Effect of Earthquake
Magnitude on Seismic
Loading
The example of “typical eastern Australian peak
ground acceleration Vs AEP” in Appendix B of the
Guideline does not show the contributions of the
different magnitude earthquakes. Figure 1 shows an
example where this is done.
It can be seen that a major contribution to the
earthquake hazard at high probabilities is from
earthquakes of very small magnitude.
The motion from these small magnitude
earthquakes is a very high frequency and will not
contribute significantly to deformations. They do
not cause liquefaction because of the high frequency
and small number of cycles of loading.
For assessment of liquefaction, only earthquakes
with magnitude 5 or higher should be included in
the earthquake loading (Youd et al 2001). The
same assumption has been shown to be acceptable
for deformation analysis.
Where the available earthquake hazard analysis
does not separate the effects of magnitude it is
worth having the analysis re-done. This will also
mean more up-to-date attenuation equations will be
incorporated in the earthquake hazard analysis.
3. RISK ANALYSIS APPROACH
The section in the Guideline on Risk Analysis is
largely superseded by the ANCOLD (2003)
Guidelines for Risk Assessment. The method
outlined in section 4.2.2 is correct in principle, but it
should be recognised that when assessing the
conditional probability (PBC) that the dam will
breach for each of the ground motion ranges, this
should be done for each of the potential failure
paths eg.:

ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004 Page 2

Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published

(a) For loss of freeboard due to liquefaction of safety is less than 1.0, freeboard is lost and breach
the foundation soil, consider: will occur.

(i) The probability, given the earthquake 4. LIQUEFACTION OF DAM

that liquefaction occurs.
(ii) Given liquefaction occurs, whether the
EMBANKMENTS AND
crest settles sufficiently to lose FOUNDATIONS
freeboard, taking account of the
reservoir level at the time of the
earthquake. 4.1 Soils Which Are Susceptible
(iii) Given freeboard is lost, whether breach to Liquefaction
occurs.
It has long been recognized that saturated sands,
(b) For cracking, leading to internal erosion and
silty sands, and gravelly sands are susceptible to
piping
liquefaction. Figure 2 shows the boundaries
suggested in 1985 by USNRC and reproduced in the
(i) The probability, given the earthquake,
Guidelines.
transverse cracking occurs.
(ii) Given it occurs, whether it will persist
For mine tailings, USNRC recognized that soils
to below the reservoir level at the time
with high silt and even clay size particles would be
of the earthquake or before repairs can
liquefiable as shown in Figure 3.
be carried out.
(iii) Given it does, whether erosion will
Hunter and Fell (2003a and 2003b) gathered data
initiate along the crack, whether filters
from case studies where flow liquefaction had
will prevent erosion continuing,
occurred, mainly under static loading conditions.
whether erosion progression and a
These would also apply to earthquake loading.
breach forms.
Figure 4 shows the data separated into classes of
slope, with a suggested range of soils susceptible to
As is widely recognised, it should not be assumed
flow liquefaction. This data would be more reliable
that because liquefaction occurs, breach is a
than Figure 2 or 3.
certainty, or given that a pseudo static factor of

Figure 2 – Limits in the particle size gradation curves separating liquefiable and unliquefiable soils as suggested
in 1985 by USNRC (USNRC 1985).

ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004 Page 3

Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published

Figure 3 – Ranges of particle size gradation curves for mine tailings with low resistance to liquefaction as
suggested in 1985 by USNRC (Ishihara 1985, USNRC 1985).

Figure 4 – Particle size gradation of soils susceptible to flow liquefaction under static and earthquake loading
(Hunter and Fell 2003a, b).

Seed and Idriss (1982), based on data on - The ‘clay’ content (particles smaller than
liquefaction in China produced by Wang (1979, 0.005 mm) is ≤ 15% by weight.
1981), recognised that clayey soils could liquefy - The liquid limit is ≤ 35%.
provided their water content was high (relative to - The natural moisture content is ≥ 0.9 times
the liquid limit), the soils were not too plastic and the liquid limit.
not too much clay was present. They proposed that
liquefaction can occur only if all three of the These were included in the Guideline attributed to
following criteria are met: USBR (1989).

ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004 Page 4

Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published
Collins and Tjoumas (2003) point out that the
original Wang (1979, 1981) criteria were somewhat
different, being that soils which satisfied the
following criteria may liquefy:
1. wc ≥ 0.9 wL, where wc is water content,
wL is liquid limit
2. IL ≥ 0.75, where IL is Liquidity index, (wc
– wP)/Ip
3. qu ≤ 50 – 70 kN/m2, where qu is
unconfined compressive strength
4. SPT N ≤ 4
5. Sensitivity St ≥ 4
They also point out that the Seed and Idriss (1982)
type criteria should only apply to shallow (less than
5 m) soils and, at higher stresses, the original
criteria may be more meaningful. They quote
experience from Saluda dam where silty (ML) and
sandy (SM) soils outside the criteria were shown to
be liquefiable in laboratory tests. They recommend
the Seed and Idriss (1982) criteria not be applied to
non-plastic ML or SM soils, and suggest that such
soils, up to a plasticity index of 7, may be
susceptible to liquefaction.
Youd et al. (2001), quoting Robertson and Wride
(1998) suggest additional criteria if cone penetration
tests are being used.
From the above data it is concluded that:
(a) Soils within the boundaries for flow
liquefaction in Figure 4 are susceptible to
flow liquefaction.
(b) Finer soils, particularly mine tailings, which
may have clay size particles which are not
clay minerals, and dredged fills may also be
subject to liquefaction under earthquake
induced deformations.
(c) Soils which meet all of the following criteria
may be susceptible to liquefaction:
- The ‘clay’ content (particles smaller than
0.005 mm) is ≤ 15% by weight.
- The liquid limit is ≤ 35%.
- The natural moisture content is ≥ 0.9
times the liquid limit.
(d) ML and SM soils, which have a plasticity
index less than 7%, may be susceptible to
ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004
liquefaction, even if not all criteria in (c) are
met.
(e) If soils are close to the boundaries of these
criteria, and the consequences of
liquefaction are great enough, err on the
side of caution and/or carry out laboratory
tests.
4.2 The Seed Method for
Assessing Whether a Soil Will
Liquefy
The Guidelines outline the Seed method for
assessing whether a soil will liquefy based on
Standard penetration Test data. This is based on
Seed and De Alba (1986).
In 1996 a NCEER workshop on the evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils was attended by 21
experts, who reached a consensus report on the state
of the practice at the time. This is reported in
NCEER (1997) and Youd et al. (2001).
While there have been some further developments
since 1996, they have not significantly altered the
method detailed in Youd et al (2001).
The Youd et al (2001) approach has some important
modifications compared to the Guideline and Seed
and De Alba (1986), and it is the author’s opinion
that given the status of that paper, it should now be
adopted by the Profession in Australia.
However further developments will occur, and the
literature should be read regularly to seek these.
The main changes in the Youd et al (2001) approach
compared to the Guideline are:
(a) The stress reduction factor rd is shown to be
uncertain and dependent on the depth below
the ground surface.
(b) Corrections are applied to the SPT blow count
for borehole diameter, rod length, and
sampler liner as well as hammer efficiency.
In practice only the rod length correction and
hammer efficiency should come into the
Page 5
Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published
calculation for conventional sized boreholes
and SPT samplers with the inner liner in
position. It should be noted that tests on two
Australian free fall SPT hammers at Hume
Dam gave efficiencies CE of about 0.6, much
lower than the 0.8 to 1.3 for USA safety
hammers with automatic trip-free fall (Youd
et al 2001). Why the Hume values were so
low is not known. The author is of the
opinion that for significant decision making it
should be required that the hammer efficiency
is measured, because there will be a
significant difference in the likelihood of
liquefaction of the hammer efficiency is 0.8
or 0.9, not the 0.6 usually assumed by default.
The assessment using CE of 0.6 is likely to be
conservative for virtually all Australian SPT
hammers and drilling rig set-ups.
(c) There is a small adjustment to the SPT clean-
sand cyclic resistance ratio curve for
magnitude 7.5 earthquakes. Curves are also
presented for Cone Penetration Tests.
(d) There are new equations for fines content
correction.
Figure 5 – Magnitude scaling factors (MSF). Earthquake use “range of recommended MSF from NCEER
workshop” for M < 7.5; and Idriss for M > 7.5 (Youd et al. 2001, from Youd and Noble, 1997).
ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004
(e) There is a significant change to the correction
factor for earthquakes of magnitude less than
7.5.
Smaller magnitude earthquakes giving the
same peak horizontal acceleration are less
likely to initiate liquefaction, because the
earthquake will have fewer cycles of motion.
Larger magnitude earthquakes are more likely
to initiate liquefaction. This is allowed for by
using a magnitude scaling factor (MSF) in the
equation for factor of safety (FS) against
liquefaction:
FS = (CRR7.5/CSR)MSF
where CSR = calculated cyclic stress ratio
generated by the earthquake shaking; and
CRR7.5 = cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude
7.5 earthquakes.
Youd et al. (2001) present a discussion on
MSF and conclude that the original Seed and
Idriss (1982) factors are too conservative for
M < 7.5. They recommend MSF in the range
shown in Figure 5 for M > 7.5.
Page 6
Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published
Liu et al. (2001) publish some additional
information relating to MSF. Their studies
show MSF lower than the NCEER workshop
values for M < 7.5. Given this, it would seem
prudent to use the lower bound of the NCEER
workshop values in Figure 5, and, for critical
studies, consider lower values after reviewing
Liu et al. (2001) and the most recent literature.
Given that in the Australian context, most of
the seismic hazard is for earthquakes M < 7.5.
This is a very important change, and will
reduce the estimated annual probability of
liquefaction compared to the Seed and Idriss
(1982) factors given in the Guidelines.
(f) Youd et al (2001) provide a new graph for
estimating the overburden stress correction
factor Kσ where in-situ effective stresses are
greater than 100kPa.
It should be noted that there is considerable
scatter in the input data to derive these curves.
They have been described as “minimal, or
conservative estimates” by Hynes and Olsen
(1999) and Youd et al. (2001), but
considerable care should be taken in their
application.
Figure 6 – Sloping ground correction factor Kα suggested by Harder and Boulanger (1997).
ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004
(g) The NCEER workshop participants concluded
that “although curves relating Kα to α have
been published (Harder and Boulanger, 1997),
these curves should not be used by
nonspecialists in geotechnical earthquake
engineering or in routine engineering
practice”.
Harder and Boulanger (1997) suggested the
use of Figure 6 for soils with an effective
confining stress less than 300 kPa. They point
out that at significantly higher confining
stresses, sandy soils will be more contractive
and low Kα may be appropriate. For high risk
and critical projects on sloping ground or
where there are high initial static shear
stresses, they recommend site-specific
laboratory testing using high quality samples.
In Figure 6:
α = τs/σ′vo
where τs = static shear stress; σ′vo = effective
vertical stress.
Page 7
Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published
It is clear there is considerable uncertainty in
the estimation of Kα. It seems that Kα will be
less than 1.0 (meaning liquefaction is more
likely) for relative densities lower than about
50%, so, marginal cases should be assumed
liquefiable if there are existing shear stresses,
or laboratory tests and analysis of stresses
should be carried out to assess the effects.
Idriss and Boulanger (2003) and Boulanger
(2003a, 2003b) present later information and
readers should review the latest literature.
4.3 Post Liquefaction Shear
Strength
The Guideline recommends the use of the Stark and
Mesri (1992) method for assessing the residual
undrained strength, and this has been the common
approach in Australia.
The Stark and Mesri (1992) method is based on
laboratory tests done by a number of researchers.
Their recommended equation is:
Sus/σvo′ = 0.0055 (N1)6oCS
Where (N1)6oCS = SPT ‘N’ value corrected to 100
kPa effective overburden stress,
and 60% energy ratio, for clean
sand.
In 1997, a National Science Foundation Workshop
was held on “Shear Strength of Liquefied Soils”
(NSFW, 1998). The main objectives of the
workshop included seeking consensus on practice
related issues concerning the shear strength of
liquefied soils. Unfortunately, unlike the NCEER
workshop the year before (reported in Youd et al.,
2001), the participants did not reach consensus on
important issues. The proceedings are however a
valuable reference.
NSFW (1998) recommend for high risk or high
consequence of failure projects, laboratory testing
using undisturbed samples obtained by ground
freezing, but could not reach a consensus on test
procedures. The use of frozen samples is far too
costly for most projects.
ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004
There was a consensus that empirical corrections
relating Su(LIQ) to back-analysed field failures
represented an economical and reasonable means
for estimating the liquefied shear strength.
NSFW (1998) question the use of fines content
corrections and recommend momentum effects be
accounted for in the analysis of case studies.
Olsen and Stark (2002) have followed this
procedure in the analysis of 33 case studies of flow
liquefaction (excluding lateral spreading as
recommended by NSFW, 1998). They demonstrate
that it appears that the Stark and Mesri (1992)
recommendation was generally conservative.
Given this, it is the author’s opinion that the Olsen
and Stark (2002) method should be adopted. This
uses (N1)60 and qc1 values (for SPT and CPT),
corrected to 100 kPa overburden stress, but with no
fines content correction. It is also based on the mean
(N1)60 or qc1 for the liquefied zone, not the minimum.
Figures 7 and 8 show the back-analysed liquefied
shear strength ratio (Su(LIQ)/σvo′) where σ′vo is the
pre-failure vertical effective stress for CPT and SPT.
Olsen and Stark (2002) indicate that the average
trend lines which are described by:
Su(LIQ)/ σvo′ = 0.03 + 0.0143 (qci) ± 0.03, for qc1 <
6.5 mPa
and
Su(LIQ)/σvo′ = 0.03 + 0.0075 ((N1)60) ± 0.03, for
(N1)60 < 12
can be used. They prefer the use of CPT because of
the continuous profile given by the test. The author
prefers to use a mix of CPT and SPT, as a check on
each other. The SPT also allows recovery of a
sample for classification and measurement of fines
content.
NSFW (1998) caution against the use of Su(LIQ)/σvo′
ratios, particularly for clean sands. This is
particularly important if it is planned to use a berm
to improve the post earthquake stability of a dam.
Olsen and Stark (2002) indicate that, however in
Page 8
Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published

Figure 7 – Liquefied shear strength ratio Su(LIQ)/ σvo′ based on normalized cone penetration test qc1 (Olsen and
Stark, 2002).

Figure 8 – Liquefied shear strength ratio Su(LIQ)/σvo′ based on normalized standard penetration test (N1)60, (Olsen
and Stark, 2002).

ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004 Page 9

Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published
their view, at least for silty sands with > 12% fines,
it is reasonable to allow for the increase in Su(LIQ
which would be indicated by the increase in σvo′
from the berm. For high risk projects they suggest
laboratory consolidation tests be carried out to
confirm that it is parallel to the steady state line
which is implicit in the assumption that Su(LIQ)/σvo′
is constant. Based on NSFW (1998) it would appear
unwise to allow for the strength increase from the
increased effective stress of the berm for clean
sands, and the Su(LIQ) obtained without the berm
should be assumed to apply after the berm is built,
unless sampling and laboratory testing indicates
otherwise.
Whether the mean lines or upper and lower lines are
used for design, is for designers to assess, based on
the amount and quality of data available and the
consequences of failure. It would be wise to err
somewhat on the conservative side given the
uncertainty in the estimated strengths.
It should be noted that the residual undrained
strength (Sus) or liquefied shear strength (Su(LIQ))
only applies to contractive soils which are subject to
flow liquefaction.
Figure 9 – Comparison of flow liquefaction boundaries in terms of SPT (N1)60 for sands and silty sands from
monotonic laboratory undrained tests and earthquake triggered field case (Hunter and Fell, 2003a, b).
ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004
Baziar and Dobry (1995), Ishihara (1993) and
Cubrinovski and Ishihara (2000a, b) have
investigated the boundary of flow liquefaction
conditions. Figure 9 summarizes the outcomes.
Readers should read the original papers before
applying this figure to serious decision making.
Saturated soils which are potentially liquefiable, but
which have not been subject to sufficient cyclic
shear stress to reach a liquefaction condition, will
develop positive pore pressures during the cyclic
loading of the earthquake. The amount of positive
pore pressure will depend on many factors relating
to the soil and the cyclic loading.
For assessment of the post earthquake factor of
safety the pore pressure in these zones can be
estimated from Figure 10, which relates the residual
excess pore pressure ratio Ru, at the end of the
earthquake loading to the factor of safety against
liquefaction, FS calculated from the simplified
method.
Page 10
Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published
Figure 10 – Method for approximate estimation of the residual excess pore pressure Ru in non liquefied zones
(Marcuson et al., 1990).
This procedure is used by USBR and US Corps of
Engineers. For more critical projects, carefully
planned and executed cyclic laboratory tests should
be used.
5. ANALYSIS OF SPT AND CPT
DATA
It is the author’s opinion that it is best to analyse the
available SPT and CPT data on an individual test
(for SPT) or typical test values (for CPT) in each
borehole/probe. This allows the estimation of the
AEP of the earthquake peak ground acceleration at
which liquefaction will occur for each data point.
These can in turn be contoured so that it can be
readily seen when a viable post earthquake
mechanism through flow liquefied soil can be
developed.
6. SEISMIC STABILITY AND
DEFORMATION ANALYSIS
OF EMBANKMENT DAMS
6.1 Pseudo Static Analysis and
Loss of Freeboard
The Guideline points out the limitations of the
pseudo static method of stability analysis, but
ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004
recommends the US Corps of Engineers (1984)
method be used as a screening tool.
This is virtually a waste of time and money in
Australian conditions where the MDE is likely to be
less than 0.2 to 0.3g, so the pseudo static factor of
safety will be below 1.0. In reality it is the potential
for deformations leading to loss of freeboard, and
cracking, leading to internal erosion and piping
which are critical.
Swaisgood (1998) gathered data on crest settlement,
dam height, dam type, depth of alluvium in the
foundation, earthquake magnitude and peak ground
acceleration, and the focal distance of the dam to
the earthquake.
Figure 11 shows relative crest settlement
(settlement/{dam height + thickness of alluvium in
the foundation}) versus peak ground acceleration
(bedrock).Swaisgood (1998) recommended the
following equations to predict settlement:
CS = SEF x RF
where CS is the vertical crest settlement expressed
as a percentage of the dam height plus the alluvium
thickness. SEF is the seismic energy factor and RF
is the resonance factor. These factors are calculated
from:
SEF = e(0.72 M + 6.28 PGA – 9.1)
Page 11
Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published
Figure 11 – Relative crest settlement versus peak ground acceleration (Swaisgood, 1998).
in which M is the magnitude of the earthquake (ML
or local magnitude below 6.5, and MS or surface
wave magnitude at 6.5 or above), and PGA is the
peak horizontal ground acceleration at the damsite
as a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity.
RF = 2.0 D-0.35 for earthfill dams
= 8.0 D-0.35 for hydraulic fill dams
= 0.12 D0.61 for rockfill embankments
in which D is the distance between seismic energy
source and dam, in kilometres.
This method should only be used to give an
approximate estimate of settlements, where there is
no potential for liquefaction or significant strain
weakening. Account should be taken of the scatter
in the data as shown in Figure 11 and in practice it
is probably best just to use Figure 11.
What is clear is that for dams with normal freeboard
and without strain weakening clays, or liquefaction
issues, it is very unlikely there will be enough
ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004
deformation to lead to overtopping. Eg. a 30 metre
high dam with 2m freeboard could withstand peak
ground acceleration greater than 0.7g.
This has also been demonstrated on a number of
projects by more detailed SHAKE/Newmark type
analyses.
6.2 Cracking Under Earthquake
Loading
It is suggested that the method of Pells and Fell
(2003) be adopted to assess the likelihood of
transverse cracking. This is approximate but is
based on a fairly extensive database. Note that for
embankments with foundation profiles leading to
differential settlement across the valley, cracking
may already be present, or may initiate at low
seismic loading.
Page 12
Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have been fortunate to have been involved in the
review of a number of projects over recent years
and wish to thank my clients, and their consultants
for having me involved, and for their contribution to
my awareness of the issues discussed above. It is
emphasized that the opinions given here are my
own, and are not necessarily endorsed by my clients
or their consultants.
8. REFERENCES
ANCOLD (1998). Guidelines for design of dams
for earthquake. Australian National Committee on
Large Dams.
ANCOLD (2003). Guidelines on dam safety
management. Australian National Committee on
Large Dams, Melbourne. ISBN 0731 027 620.
Baziar, M.H. and Dobry, R. (1995). Residual
strength and large scale deformation potential of
loose silty sands. J. Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 121, No.12, 896-906.
Boulanger, R.W. (2003(a)). Relating Kα to a
relative state parameter index. Accepted for
publication in ASCE J. Geotechnical and
Geoenviromental Engineering.
Boulanger, R.W. (2003(b)). High overburden stress
effects in liquefaction analysis, accepted for
publication in ASCE J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering.
CDSA (1994). Canadian Dam Safety Association,
Interim dam safety guidelines.
Collins, S.A. and Tjoumas, C. (2003). FERC
oversight and input, Saluda dam seismic evaluation
and remediation, Part 1, Proc. 23rd USSD
Conference, Charleston. US Society on Dams, 531-
558.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (2000a). Flow
potential of sandy soils with different grain
compositions. Soils and Foundations, 40 (4): 103-
119.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (2000b). Flow
potential of sandy soils. Proc. GeoEng. 2000,
Technomic Publishing, Lancaster, 549-550.
Harder, L.F. Jr. and Boulanger, R.W. (1997).
“Application of Kα correction factors”. Proc.
NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils, Nat. Ctr. For Earthquake Engrg.
ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004
Res., State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, 167-190.
Hunter, G. and Fell, R. (2003a). Mechanics of
failure of soil slopes leading to “rapid” failure.
Proceedings international conference on fast slope
movement, prediction and prevention for risk
mitigation, Naples, Editor Picarelli, L. Patron
editore, Bologna, 283-296.
Hunter, G. and Fell, R. (2003b). Travel distance for
rapid landslides in constructed and natural slopes.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, No. 6,
1123-1141.
Hynes, M.E., and Olsen, R.S. (1999). Influence of
confining stress on liquefaction resistance. Proc.,
Int. Workshop on Phys. And Mech. Of Soil
Liquefaction, Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 145-152.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2003).
Estimating Kα for use in evaluating cyclicth
resistance of sloping ground. Proceedings of the 8
US-Japan workshop on earthquake resistant design
of lifeline facilities and counter measures against
liquefaction, Technical report MCEER 03.
Ishihara, K. (1985). Stabilityth of natural deposits
during earthquakes. Proc. 11 ICSMFE. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 321-376.
Ishihara, K. (1993). Liquefaction and flow failures
during earthquakes. Geotechnique, Vol. 33, No. 3,
351-415.
Liu, A.H., Stewart, J.P., Abrahamson, N.A. and
Moriwaki, Y. (2001). Equivalent number of
uniform cycles for soil liquefaction analysis. J.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 12, 1017-1026.
Marcuson, W.F., Hynes, M.E. and Franklin, A.G.
(1990). Evaluation and use of residual strength in
seismic safety analysis of embankments.
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 6, No. 3, 529-572.
NCEER (1997). Proceedings of the NCEER
workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of
soils. Editors Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M. National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
technical report NCEER – 97-0022.
NSFW (1998). Shear strength of liquefied soils.
Proceedings of National Science Foundation
Workshop, Editors T.D. Stark, S. Molson, S.L.
Kramer and T.L. Youd. National Science
Foundation, Earthquake Hazard Mitigation
Program.
Olsen, S.M. and Stark, T.D. (2002). Liquefied
strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case
histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 39,
No. 3, 629-647.
Page 13
Design of Embankment Dams to Withstand Earthquakes – Developments Since The ANCOLD Guidelines Were
Published

Pells, S. and Fell, R. (2003). Damage and cracking Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I.,
of embankment dams by earthquake and the Castro, G., Christian J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L.,
implications for internal erosion and piping.
Proceedings 21st International Congress on Large Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester,
Dams, Montreal. ICOLD, Paris Q83-R17, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R.,
International Commission on Large Dams, Paris. Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, MS.,
Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E. (1998). Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H.
Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary
cone penetration test. Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
35(3), 442-459. NCEER/NSF Workshops on evaluation of
Seed, H.B. and De Alba, P. (1986). Use of the SPT liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotechnical and
and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127,
resistance of sands. In-Situ 86, Conference on use No. 10, 817-834.
of in-situ tests in geotechnical engineering.
Clemence, S.P. (ed). ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication, No. 6, 281-302.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1982). Ground motions
and soil liquefaction during earthquakes.
Monograph series, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
Stark, T.D. and Mesri, G. (1992). Undrained shear
strength of liquefied sands for stability analysis.
JASCE Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 118, No.
11, 1727-1747.
Swaisgood, J.R. (1998). Seismically-induced
deformation of embankment dams. 6th US National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle,
Washington.
US Corps of Engineers (1984). Rationalising the
seismic coefficient method. Miscellaneous Paper
GL84-13.
USBR (1989). Design Standards. Embankment
dams, No. 13, Chapter 13. Seismic design and
analysis. US Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Co.
USNRC (1985). Liquefaction of soils during
earthquakes. National Academy Press, Washington
DC.
Wang, W. (1979). Some findings in soil
liquefaction. Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric
Power Research Institute, Beijing.
Wang, W. (1981). Foundation problems in a
seismic design of hydraulic structures. Proceedings
joint US – PRC microzonation workshop, Harbin,
China, 15-1 to 15-13.
Youd, T.L., and Noble, S.K. (1997). Liquefaction
criteria based on statistical and probabilistic
analyses. Proc., NCEER Workshop on Evaluation
of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Nat. Ctr. for
Earthquake Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York at
Buffalo, 201-215.

ANCOLD/NZSOLD Conference 2004 Page 14