at the base. The value of m varies between 0.3 and 0.8. more accurate method should be utilised.

ilised. This method

Assuming that a point within z/H of 0.5 to 0.67 (between
the mid-height and centroid of the dam section) is
representative of the whole dam, the value of (z/H)m for
the representative points varies from 0.57 to 0.89, with a
mean value of around 0.7. Therefore, the average value of
shear modulus can be approximated as:
𝐺𝐺𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ~ 0.7 𝐺𝐺𝑏𝑏 [8]
and Gb is equal to Gmax at the base of the dam. Seed and
Idriss (1970) proposed the following relationship for the
shear modulus of granular material:
σo )0.5
Gb = 220(K 2max )avg ( [9]
where σo is the average mean effective stress at the base
of the dam:
1 180
σo =
 (1 + 2 K o ) γH [10]
3 160
The value of K2max ranges from 80 to 180 for gravels
does not have the obvious weakness of the pseudo-static
approaches and is also relatively simple and inexpensive
in comparison with more complex numerical methods.
One of the main reasons for the wide application of the
Makdisi and Seed method is based on the assumption that
this method gives a conservative estimate of crest
deformations. Nevertheless, recent reported investigations
show there is serious doubt about the conservatism of the
method in comparison with results obtained by numerical
or theoretical analyses. Previous investigations show that
the simplified methods is potentially non-conservative
when the tuning ratio (To/Tm) is greater than unity.
200
140

Dam Height (m)

(Kramer, 1996) and varies from 52 to 70 for sands with 120 T = 0.45 Sec
K2max = 50
relative densities between 60% and 90% (Seed and Idriss,
100 K2max = 60
1970). Note that (K2max)avg in Equation 10 represents the K2max = 70
mean value of K2max for different materials used in the 80
T = 0.21 Sec K2max = 80
dam body. 60 H = 50 m
K2max = 90
Combining the above equations, the fundamental period 40 K2max = 100
H = 20 m
of a dam (To) could be calculated as a function of H0.75, γ, 20 K2max = 110
(K2max) avg and ρ. The value of γ can be well approximated 0
as 18 to 22 kN/m3. Therefore, To becomes a function of 0 0.5 1 1.5
height and (K2max)ave. To (Sec)
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the variation of To as a Figure 14: Variation of To vs. H for earthfill dams
function of H for two different ranges of K2max. In (K2max from 50 to 110)
Figure 14 the range of (K2max)avg varies from 50 to 110
which is more relevant to earthfill dams and in Figure 15 200
(K2max)avg varies from 120 to 180 which represents 180
earth/rockfill to rockfill materials. 160 T = 0.45 Sec
According to these figures and recalling the critical range 140
Dam Height (m)

of To (0.45s or 0.21s), it can be concluded that in the 120

active seismic regions (e.g. west U.S.) for earthfill dams K2max = 120
higher than 50m and earth/rockfill to rockfill dams higher 100 H = 90 m
T = 0.21 Sec K2max = 130
than 90m, the value of To exceeds the critical threshold 80 K2max = 140
where the simplified method of Makdisi and Seed (1978) 60 K2max = 150

is potentially non-conservative. Similarly for the stable K2max = 160

40 H = 35 m
K2max = 170
regions (e.g., Australia) the critical heights are 20m and
20 K2max = 180
35m for earthfill and earth/rockfill to rockfill dams
respectively. If embankment dam heights are less than 0
these values, the Makdisi and Seed (1978) method is most 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
likely conservative and can be relied upon as a screening
tool. Note that the maximum dam height used in the To (Sec)
development of Makdisi and Seed’s method was limited Figure 15: Variation of To vs. H for earth/rock and
rockfill dams (K2max from 120 to 180)
to 60m, and therefore the effects of the tuning ratio in the
active seismic regions of US, could not be detected by
this method. In this study, an 84m high asphaltic concrete core rockfill
Conclusions dam which was analysed by Ghahreman Nejad et al.
(2010) was considered as an example where the
The simplified methods, especially the method presented application of the simplified methods has been reported to
by Makdisi and Seed (1978), are widely used in practice be non-conservative. It was shown that the tuning ratio of
to evaluate the deformation of embankment dams under this dam under the Loma Prieta 1989 earthquake (Gilroy
earthquake loading. This method is also recommended by #1, E-W, and 0.8g) is between 1 and 1.9.
some codes and guidelines for use as a screening tool to
identify cases with marginal factors of safety for which a
To evaluate the effects of the tuning ratio on the
applicable range of the simplified methods, a simple
calculation was performed where the tuning ratios of
dams within 100 km of a causative fault were
approximated as a function of the dam height and
materials. Assuming the critical tuning ratio threshold of
unity is reasonable, it was shown that the simplified
method of Makdisi and Seed (1978) is potentially non-
conservative for earth and rockfill dams higher than 50m
in active seismic regions and higher than 20m in stable
seismic regions.
It should be noted that since the previous investigations
on the effects of tuning ratio were mainly focused on
natural slopes and landfills rather than earthfill dams, it
would be necessary to evaluate the critical threshold of
the tuning ratios for dams more rigorously to be able to
evaluate the reliability of the simplified methods
specifically to dam engineering.
Acknowledgments
The first author is the recipient of the Endeavour
Postgraduate Award, Funded by the Australian
Government via Department of Education, Employment
and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). The support of
DEEWR is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Ambraseys, N. (1958). The Seismic stability of Earth
Dams, PhD Dissertation, University of London.
Ambraseys, N. and Sarma, S. K. (1967). Response of
Earth Dams to Strong Earthquakes. Geotechnique, 17(3),
181- 213.
ANCOLD (1998). Guidelines for design of dams for
earthquake. Australian National Committee on Large
Dams, Melbourne.
Dobry, R. and Alvarez, L. (1967). Seismic failures of
Chilean tailings dams. J. Soil. Mech. Foundation Div. 93,
237–260.
Feizi-Khankandi, S., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Mirghasemi,
A.A. and Hoeg, K. (2009). Seismic Analysis of the
Garmrood Embankment Dam with Asphaltic Concrete
Core. Soils and Foundations, 49(2), 153-166.
Fell, R., Mac Gregor, P., Stapledon, D., and Bell, G.
(2005). Geotechnical Engineering of Dams, A.A.
Balkema Publishers, UK.
Gazetas, G. (1987). Seismic response of earth dams: some
recent developments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 6(1), 2-47.
Ghahreman Nejad, B., Soden, P., Taiebat, H.A. and
Murphy S. (2010). Seismic Deformation Analysis of a
Rockfill Dam with a Bituminous Concrete Core, 9th
World Congress on Computational Mechanics and 4th
Asian Pacific Conference on Computational Mechanics,
Australia.
Ghahreman Nejad, B., Taiebat, H.A., Noske, C. and
Murphy, D. (2011). Seismic response and dynamic
deformation analysis of Sar-Cheshmeh tailings dam,
Continuum and Distinct Element Numerical Modelling in
Geomechanics, Melbourne, 539-548.
Ghanooni, S.M. and Roosta, R.M. (2002). Seismic
Analysis and Design of Asphaltic Concrete Core
Embankment Dams. International Journal of
Hydropower and Dams, (b), 75-78.
Goodman, R.E. and Seed, H.B. (1966). Earthquake
induced displacements in sand embankments. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 92,
(SM2), 125–146.
Hatanaka, M. (1955). Fundamental Considerations on the
Earthquake Resistant Properties of the Earth Dam. Part I
on the Vibration of Earth Dam. Bulletins-Disaster
Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University (11),
1-22.
Ishibashi, I. and Zhang, X. (1993). Unified dynamic shear
moduli and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils and
Foundations, 33(1), 182-191.
Jansen, R.B. (1990). Estimation of embankment dam
settlement caused by earthquake. International Water
Power and Dam Construction, 42(12), 35-40.
Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Makdisi, F.I. and Seed, H.B. (1978). Simplified
Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment
Earthquake-induced Deformations. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104(7),
849-867.
Makdisi, F.I. and Seed, H. B. (1979). Simplified
Procedure for Evaluating Embankment Response. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
105(12), 1427-1434.
Mononobe, N., Takata, A. and Matumura, M. (1936).
Seismic stability of the earth dam. 2nd Congress on Large
Dams, Washington DC.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). Effects of Earthquakes on Dams
and Embankments. Geotechnique, 15(2), 139-160.
Pells, S. and R. Fell (2002). Damage and Cracking of
Embankment Dams by Earthquakes and the Implications
for Internal Erosion and Piping, UNICIV Report R 406,
University of New South Wales, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering.
Pells, S. and Fell, R. (2003). Damage and cracking of
embankment dams by earthquake and the implications for