EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS OF SOLID-WASTE LANDFILLS

By Jonathan D. Bray, l Member, ASCE, and Ellen M. Rathje2

ABSTRACT: The response of municipal solid-waste landfills at high levels of earthquake shaking is explored.
Results from fully nonlinear dynamic analyses indicate that the seismic response of a landfill, particularly the
seismic loading for the cover, can vary significantly due to reasonable variations of waste properties, fill heights,
site conditions, and design rock motions. However, for the base sliding case, the maximum seismic loading
depends primarily on the amplitude (peak acceleration) and frequency content (mean period) of the design rock
motion and the dynamic response characteristics of the landfill represented by its initial fundamental period.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The calculated permanent base displacement is largely a function of the ky/krnv. ratio, but it is also influenced
significantly by the intensity, frequency content, and duration of the design rock motion and the dynamic response
characteristics of the landfill and its foundation. Charts with normalized parameters are presented, which aid in
the development of preliminary estimates of the expected seismic loading and displacement. These analytical
results are consistent with observations from available case records.

INTRODUCTION et al. (1995), Kavazanjian et al. (1996), and Augello et al.

Fully nonlinear dynamic analyses of municipal solid-waste
landfills (MSWLFs) are performed using reasonable variations
in waste fill properties, height, and foundation conditions to
investigate the seismic response of MSWLFs at relatively high
levels of maximum horizontal ground accelerations (MHAs)
(Le., MHAs from 0.2g to 0.8g). Previous seismic response
studies of MSWLFs [e.g., Bray et al. (1995)] have largely been
restricted to MHAs below OAg, although Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) regulations specify prescriptive MHAs
at the 10% probability of exceedance in the 250-years level in
excess of 0.8g in some areas of the United States. Results from
the nonlinear analyses are processed to evaluate the relative
importance of factors that influence seismically induced per-
manent deformations within the base liners and covers of
solid-waste landfills. The accuracy of the commonly used de-
coupled approximation for calculating earthquake-induced
displacements, which is also used in this study, is reassessed.
The proposed analytical results are compared to field obser-
vations, and recommendations based on insights gained from
this study are presented.
BACKGROUND
Concerns about the seismic performance of MSWLFs have
motivated a number of recent studies that investigate dynamic
properties of waste fill and seismic analysis procedures for
landfills. Anderson and Kavazanjian (1995) summarize the re-
suits of many of these studies. In short, regulatory concerns
are identified and a state-of-the-practice survey is reported in
Seed and Bonaparte (1992). Commonly used seismic stability
procedures are reviewed, and insights from a one-dimensional
equivalent-linear parametric response study are presented in
Bray et al. (1995) and Augello et al. (l995a). Singh and Sun
(1995) and Ling and Leshchinsky (1997) study the seismic
loading and stability, respectively, of landfill cover systems.
Kramer and Smith (1997) propose a modified Newmark model
for calculating seismic displacements for waste fills. Kavazan-
jian et al. (1995) present MSW dynamic properties. More re-
cent studies, such as those by Idriss et al. (1995), Matasovic
'Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710.
2Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-
1076.
Note. Discussion open until August I, 1998. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on February 24, 1997. This paper is part of the lour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No.
3, March, 1998. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/98/0003-0242-0253/$4.00 +
$.50 per page. Paper No. 14107.
242/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998
(1998), which include back-analyses of the instrumented Op-
erating Industries, Inc. (OIl) landfill and geophysical mea-
surements of the shear wave velocity of MSW, define the pro-
fession's current state of knowledge regarding the dynamic
properties of MSW. Lastly, shaking table tests [e.g., Yegian et
al. (1995)] have provided useful measurements of the dynamic
interface shear response of geosynthetics.
Well-documented case records have also provided insight.
An evaluation of important case records, in particular, the seis-
mic performance of MSWLFs during the 1994 Northridge
earthquake, is presented by Augello et al. (1995b). The ob-
served performance of solid-waste landfills during recent
earthquakes has been encouraging in that no global instability
has occurred. However, significant damage in the form of geo-
membrane tears, cover cracking, broken gas header lines, and
loss of power to gas extraction systems was experienced at
several landfills during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. These
case records are providing important lessons, but due to the
uncertainties involved, many questions remain unanswered.
This study examines the factors involved in assessing the po-
tential seismic performance of waste fills at high levels of
shaking through fully nonlinear response analyses with up-
dated waste fill property characterizations and deformable slid-
ing block displacement calculations.
BASIS OF NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSES
D-MOD Program
The nonlinear dynamic analysis program D-MOD (Mata-
sovic 1993; Matasovic and Vucetic 1995) was used to study
the seismic response of landfills at high acceleration levels. D-
MOD is essentially DESRA-2 (Lee and Finn 1978), except
that it incorporates a Modified Konder-Zelasko (MKZ) hyper-
bolic stress-strain representation. With two additional param-
eters, the MKZ model allows for more control over the shape
of the strain-dependent shear modulus reduction and damping
curves (Matasovic and Vucetic 1995). D-MOD uses a one-
dimensional (ID) lumped mass model and solves the equations
of motion in the time domain using the Newmark integration
procedure, updating the soil stiffness at each time step. D-
MOD and other DESRA-based nonlinear codes have been
shown to calculate seismic responses similar to the established
equivalent-linear program SHAKE91 (Idriss and Sun 1992) at
low acceleration levels where nonlinearity is less pronounced
[Fig. 1; see also Finn (1988); Matasovic (1993); Kavazanjian
and Matasovic (1995)], but D-MOD typically calculates a
lower response at high acceleration levels in agreement with
recorded strong motion data at rock and soft soil sites (e.g.,
Borcherdt (1994); Seed et al. (1991)]. Back-analyses of several

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253

 30 m MSW, High Vs profile
3.0
Rock Site
D-MOD
....
'::
'bil
'-'
SHAKE91 ./ \
2.5 Input, Pac. Dam Dnstrm .:
§ .
,.
'i ,.,
-8
~ 2.0
,.,
.
,
,f
0
<: 1.5
'a
J:l
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0
~
l:l.
1.0
en
0.5
0.0
0.01 0.1
Period (sec)
FIG. 1. D-MOD and SHAKE91 Comparison at 'TWo Accelera-
tion Levels
well-documented case histories, such as Treasure Island during
the Lorna Prieta earthquake and the Wildlife Liquefaction site,
have validated the use of D-MOD for ground response analysis
(Matasovic 1993).
The use of a 1D model to represent the seismic response of
an earth/waste fill has been discussed in Vrymoed and Cal-
zascia (1978), Elton et al. (1991), and Bray et al. (1996), and
it has been found that dynamic shear stresses near the base of
a two-dimensional (2D) earth/waste fill can be approximated
reasonably well with 1D analysis. Capturing the cover re-
sponse is more tenuous, but as the primary focus of the present
study is to examine base sliding and key factors affecting seis-
mic response (other than 2D geometry effects for cover sys-
tems), the use of 1D analytical procedures is judged to be
appropriate.
Cases Analyzed
The nonlinear analyses performed in this study encom-
passed a large number of landfill configurations to allow eval-
uation of the relative importance of key parameters on the
seismic response of a MSWLF. The landfill configurations in-
cluded waste heights (H) of 10m, 20 m, 30 m, 45 m, 60 m,
and 90 m, and three shear wave velocity (V.) profiles (Fig. 2),
resulting in initial 1D fundamental periods (T.-waste = 4H/
V., where H = height of waste fill and V. = average initial
shear wave velocity of the waste fill) ranging from 0.17 s to
2.74 s. Recent shear wave velocity measurements at six
MSWLFs in southern California indicate that the mean shear
wave velocity of municipal solid waste is generally stiffer than
previously thought and lies within the Kavazanjian et al.
(1996) band shown in Fig. 2. Based on these data, as well as
data from other landfills, the lower, medium (best), and high
V. profiles shown in Fig. 2 were used as reasonable variations.
The unit weight of MSW was selected to vary from 6.3 kN/
m 3 (40 pcf) at the surface to 11.9 kN/m 3 (75 pcf) at a depth
of 45 m. Below this depth, the unit weight remained constant.
These values are consistent with those recommended by Ka-
vazanjian et al. (1995). Fig. 3 shows the strain-dependent shear
modulus reduction and damping curves used for MSW, as rec-
ommended by Kavazanjian et al. (1995). More recent studies
[e.g., Idriss et al. (1995); Matasovic et al. (1995); Augello et
al. (1998)] have indicated that MSW may respond more elas-
ticalIy than initially thought. Therefore, analyses were also
performed with the Vucetic and Dobry (1991) shear modulus
S%Damping
20
\.
,,
,,
, ,,
40
"
.,,,
. 60
80
100 L...L............L-1....L....L............J....I...L..JL....L..L...L............L-1....L....L............J....I...L..J.......
o 100 200 300 400 500 600
1 10 Vs (m/sec)
FIG. 2. Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for MSW
reduction and damping curves for a clay with a plasticity index
of 30. For these analyses, the maximum shear strain in the
waste fill typically ranged from 0.2% to 2%, and the maximum
shear stress never exceeded the dynamic strength of waste fill
[i.e., an effective friction angle of 35°, Augello et al. (1995b)].
Three site profiles represented disparate landfill foundation
conditions: rock, shallow sand, and deep soft clay. The rock
site had 3 m of weathered rock (V. = 760 mls) overlying hard
bedrock. The sand site had 30 m of medium dense sand
overlying bedrock. The shear wave velocity profile in the sand
varied with overburden pressure and ranged from 135-300 mI
s for low waste fill heights (10-20 m) to 350-400 mls for
high waste fill heights (60-90 m). The deep, soft clay site
contained 21 m of soft clay, which was overlain by 3 m of
stiff clay and underlain by 67 m of stiff clay over bedrock.
The shear wave velocity of the soft clay was varied with over-
burden pressure with V. = 100-200 mls for low waste fill
heights and V. = 150-230 mls for high waste fill heights. The
stiff clay was varied in the range of 250-425 mls. Modulus
reduction and damping curves proposed by Seed et al. (1984)
for sand and Vucetic and Dobry (1991) for clay were used,
with reasonable unit weight profiles.
Four dissimilar baseline rock motions were selected to study
the effects of the input earthquake motion characteristics. Two
of these records are from the western United States, one is
from eastern Canada, and one is a synthetic record, developed
by Abrahamson (personal communication, Dec. 1, 1995) for
the analysis of the west span of the Oakland-San Francisco
Bay Bridge. Significant duration (Trifunac and Brady 1975)
ranged from 4.4 to 25 s for these records from Moment Mag-
nitude 5.8, 6.7, 6.9, and 8.0 earthquakes. Fig. 4 shows the
normalized acceleration response spectra for the four baseline
motions and presents key characteristics of these ground mo-
tions. The frequency content of these motions is quite differ-
ent, and they cover a reasonably wide range of possible input
motions. Mean period (Tm ) is used, as well as predominant
period (Tp ). Tm is defined as (Rathje et al. 1998)
~ C;'(i)
Tm = for 0.25 Hz ::5: fi ::5: 20 Hz (1)
2: cf I
where Cj = Fourier amplitudes of entire accelerogram; and fi
= discrete Fourier transform frequencies between 0.25 and 20
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998/243
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253
 1.0 30
0.9
0.8 25
0.7 20 -..
/ ~
~ 0.6 '-"

.r!
~
0.5 15
I:l.
0.4
10 0
i
0.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2
5
0.1
0.0 0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain (%)
FIG. 3. Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves for MSW

4.0 NONLINEAR RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS OF

StF......ol 5% damping
MSWLFs
Magnitude 8 (Bay Bridge)
3.5
Pacoima Dam Downstream The importance of fill height, waste stiffness, and founda-
d " tion conditions for the Pacoima Dam Downstream ground mo-
0 Yerba Buena Island "
'+:3 3.0 tion with its MHA scaled to 0.6g is illustrated in Fig. 5. The
E!
~ relative importance of these factors is similar for the other
] 2.5 ground motions used in this study. Examining Fig. 5, the ac-
celeration response spectrum of the input motion is shown as

I
tI)
2.0
a bold line, and the remaining lines show acceleration response
spectra computed at the top of the MSWLF. First [Fig. 5(a)],
comparing the 10 m and 45 m high MSWLFs overlying rock,
] 1.5 both with the medium V, profile, the response of the 10 m
waste fill is higher at periods less than about 1 s. Yet at longer
-.a
periods, the deeper waste fill, with its higher initial fundamen-
~
Z
1.0 tal period, has a slightly higher response. If the waste stiffness
of the 45 m waste fill is increased to the high V, profile, the
0.5 waste fill's response at periods of less than 2 s is significantly
higher, with the MHA increasing from 0.31g to 0.58g,
whereas, if the waste stiffness is decreased to the low V, pro-
0.0 file, the waste fill's response is substantially reduced at periods
0.01 0.1 10
Period (sec) of less than 2 s, with the MHA decreasing to O.09g. However,
the response at periods of greater than 2 s is higher for this
case than those calculated for the previous cases.
StatloD StFemol Pacoima YerbaBucna MagDitude8 The response of the 45 m high waste fill of medium stiffness
Dam Island Bay Bridge is largely unaffected by changing from a rock foundation to a
DoWllSll'e3Jll
Eartbquake Sal!Uenav Northridae LomaPrieta Svnthetic
sand foundation [Fig. 5(b)]. The importance of site conditions
Mw 5.8 6.7 6.9 8.0 at high periods is more apparent for the deep, soft clay site,
Distance CIuD) 114 9.3 77 15 which enhances long period motions that are amplified further
TDII« 0.16 0.4 0.64 0.25
1.0 0.58
by the waste fill. This result is important, because earthquake-
Tmll« 0.13 0.47
MHA(, 0.12 0.42 0.067 0.59 induced displacements are strongly influenced by long period
Arias IllteDlitv (emil) 9.9 94 4.3 1013 motions; hence, site conditions may be important in this re-
Slmlf1eut Duratloa (aee) 21.5 4.4 8.3 25
spect. Conversely, for this relatively high level of shaking, the
FIG. 4. Baseline Input Rock Motion Characteristics low period motions are reduced, with the MHA at the top of
the waste fill decreasing from O.3g to 0.2g when the waste fill
is underlain by soft clay. However, the MHA at the top of a
Hz. The Fourier amplitude is defined as the square root of the landfill situated atop a soft clay foundation would typically be
sum of the squares of the real and imaginary parts of the Fou- amplified at lower levels of shaking.
rier coefficient. Mean period can be estimated based on mag- These results are consistent with numerous other seismic
nitude, distance, and site conditions (Rathje et al. 1998). The site response studies, and they are important, as they demon-
four baseline rock motions were scaled to MHAs ofO.2g, O.4g, strate the significant variation in waste fill response due to
0.6g, and 0.8g to investigate the sensitivity of the results to reasonable variations of waste fill dynamic properties, fill
shaking intensity. Additionally, 19 other high intensity re- heights, and site conditions. These results emphasize the im-
corded and synthetic rock motions were used to assess the portance of waste material, fill geometry, and site characteri-
generality of the results. zation on a project-specific basis. As the seismic stability of
244/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAl ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253

 3.0 As developed by Seed and Martin (1966) for earth em-
- Input. Pee. Dam Down_ 0.6 1 bankments, the horizontal equivalent acceleration (HEA) rep-
10 m MSW. Me<! Va, Rock Site. 1.-0.25 I resents the shear stress at the base of a potential sliding mass,
2.5 45m MSW, Low VI. Rock Site, 11-1.11 and thus is an appropriate parameter to represent seismic load-
45m MSW, Me<! VI, Rock Site, 11-0.15 • ing. The equivalent acceleration captures the cumulative effect
2.0 of the nonuniform acceleration profile in the potential sliding
45 m MSW. Hilh VI, Rock Site. 1.-0.58 I
mass, and hence, it is used herein to represent the seismic
~%Damping
loading for a potential sliding mass. Its maximum value, the
1.5 MHEA, which acts for only an instant during the earthquake,
can be expressed as MHEA = (Th.mu/rrv)g, where MHEA =
maximum horizontal equivalent acceleration acting on column
1.0 of fill above depth Z; Th,mu = maximum horizontal shear stress
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

at depth z; and rr v = total vertical stress at depth z (Bray et al.

0.5 1995).

0.0 ~i.:.f.l~a::::1::L:u.u..u.L.....J::i:~lUJ Base Stability

0.01 0.1 1 10 At lower levels of acceleration, where the landfill response
(a) is fairly linear, Bray et al. (1995) found that MHEA for base
Period (sec)
sliding increased proportionally with the peak acceleration
3.0 (MHA) of the earthquake rock motion. Numerous studies [e.g.,

2.5
-
r--T""T''TTTmr---r''T"Tnmrr--T'''T'TTTnn
Input, PIc. Dam DownsIJeIm 0.61
45m MSW. Me<! Va, Rock Site
Borcherdt (1994); Seed et al. (1991)] have shown that the peak
ground acceleration at the top of a soil site is amplified at low
rock input peak accelerations and attenuated at high rock input
45m MSW. Me<! Va, Snl Site
peak accelerations. As an example, the semiempirical/semian-
45m MSW. Me<! Va, Clll)' Site alytical Seed et al. (1991) MHA-site versus MHA-rock rela-
2.0 ~%Damping tionship for a deep cohesionless or stiff cohesive soil site is
shown in Fig. 6(a). To account for the nonlinearity expressed
1.5 in this type of relationship, the nonlinear response factor
[(NRF) = MHA-siteIMHA-rock] was developed. This factor
recognizes that the MHEA for a potential sliding mass will
1.0 not be directly proportional to the input MHA-rock across a
wide range of shaking intensities. The nonlinear response fac-
tor shown in Fig. 6(b) is based on the Seed et al. (1991) re-
0.5 lationship shown in Fig. 6(a), because the range in dynamic

0.0 1-...&..J:.Lu.u.IL-........L.J...LU.W-......L....&.;;l-.lWl 1.0

0.01 0.1 1 10
(b) 0.8
Period (sec)
FIG. 5. Comparison of Responses from Different Landfill Con-
~
0.6
figurations: (a> Effect of Waste Fill Height and Stlffne..; (b> Ef- .~
fect of Site Conditions

an MSWLF depends on its dynamic response and strength

characteristics, as well as the design rock motions, developing
i 0.4

0.2
good waste fill property characterizations remains a top pri-
ority, Moreover, a simplified design procedure that does not 0.0
capture the importance of the waste fill dynamic stiffness and 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
height (Le., its fundamental period) is judged to be inappro- (a) MHA, rock (g)
priate.
2.0 I
SEISMIC LOADING
Equivalent Acceleration
The pseudostatic slope stability method (Seed and Martin
J 1.5 1-,
, -
1966) is often used in practice because of its relative simplic-
ity, its general consistency with case histories for nondegrad-
ing materials (Seed 1979), and its citation in governing state
and federal regulations and guidelines [e.g., "Solid Waste"
(1993)). With this method, the seismic loading is represented
h
j
1.0

0.5 ~
--- ---
-
by a seismic coefficient that acts as a horizontal destabilizing
~
force on the landfill. The seismic coefficient, in conjunction 0.0 I I
with compatible factor of safety (FS) and dynamic strengths, 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
is crucial if the results of a pseudostatic analysis are to be MHA, rock (g)
meaningful. A simplified seismically induced permanent de- (b)
formation analysis [e.g., Makdisi and Seed (1978)) also re- FIG. 6. Diagram of: (a> Site Amplification Factor (Seed et al.
quires an estimate of the seismic loading. 1991); (b) Nonlinear Response Factor

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998/245

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253

 2.0

1.8 •<> KlMmlnjillne( aI. (l99S) MSWclyn8mic properli<s. MHA~.4g

KlMmlnjilll c( aI. (l99S) MSWclyn8mic properties, MHA>O.4g
1.6
..
x
x
X
0
Vucetic am ~(1991) ClayPl.-3O d)namic JI'OIlSIies
Results from othor inpt tmliCIII
1.4

1.2
. ~ x RllCIc site beot fit am +(- one staOO8rd error_
Base1ine. tmliCIII:
I'lIc:obm DBrn IIcMnstre8m 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 g
1.0 St. F~ 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 g
Yalle Buom Islam 0.2, 0.4
~8 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, O. g
f
0.8
MSW . : 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 90 m
~n: Low, Medillll, ani Higb IIlII&"S
0.6

0.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2

0.0
(a) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Ts-waste/fm-eq
1.2
RllCIc site best fit (R'=O.86)
1.0 0 SarJj site beot fit ~.80)

~
0 SarJj site daIa

0.8 ==-~~.79)am+{-one
Oay site dala
*
Baseline InpJI tmlions:

i
0.6 Pacolml DBrn Dowmtretm 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 g
St. F~ 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 g
Yalle Buena Island 0.2, 0.4
~ 80.2, 0.4, 0.6, O. g
f
0.4 MSW .gIIt: 10,20, 30,45,60, 90m
Vs profile: Low, Medium, am Higb rt\lllOS

0.2

0.0
(b) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Ts-waste!fm-eq
FIG. 7. Normalized Maximum Horizontal Equivalent Acceleration versus Normalized Fundamental Period of Waste Fill: <a> Rock Site;
<b) All Sites

stiffnesses of this site category is close to that used for waste
fill.
The nonlinear response factor captured the nonlinear vari-
ation in seismic loading across a range of ground motion in-
tensities. In Fig. 7, the MHEA at the base of the landfill nor-
malized with respect to the MHA and corresponding NRF of
the input rock motion is plotted against the initial fundamental
period of the waste fill (T,-waste) normalized by the mean
period of the input rock motion (Tm-eq). Introduction of the
nonlinear response factor and replacement of the predominant
period by the mean period in this normalization reduced the
variation of the data about the median relationship (i.e., R 2
increased from 0.74 to 0.86). For the rock site cases shown in
Fig. 7(a), the data (which include 14 rock motions ranging in
intensity from 0.2g to 0.8g, three V, profiles, two pairs of mod-
ulus reduction and damping curves, and six waste fill heights,
all together 324 analyses) follow a well-defined trend, except
near the resonance condition (T,-wasteITm-eq < 1). Note that
due to modulus reduction, resonance does not occur at T,ITm
= 1, because T, is defined as the initial (small strain) funda-
mental period of the waste fill system. A degraded T" as was
used by Makdisi and Seed (1978), is difficult to define in a
fully nonlinear analysis, and attempts to estimate it with an
equivalent-linear approximation did not reduce the scatter. As
a check, additional analyses were performed with three landfill
configurations using an additional 19 recorded and synthetic
high intensity rock motions, and the consistency of the results
indicates that Fig. 7(a) is applicable for motions other than
those used in this sensitivity study.
Although Fig. 7(a) highlights the importance of the funda-
mental period of the waste fill (i.e., its shear wave velocity
246/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998
and height), a number of other trends are important. For in-
stance, to a lesser degree, the modulus reduction and damping
curves used to represent the waste fill's response at larger
strains are important, with the slower reducing Vucetic and
Dobry (1991) PI = 30 cohesive soil curves giving uniformly
higher responses at comparable T,ITmvalues than analyses per-
formed using the Kavazanjian et al. (1995) waste fill curves.
Site condition effects are displayed in Fig. 7(b). Regression
curves for the rock, sand, and clay site results for the various
landfill configurations and input rock motions described pre-
viously are shown in this figure. In terms of MHEA, the
MSWLF responses at rock and sand sites are comparable, but
the response at clay sites is lower. At significant levels of shak-
ing, nonlinearity within the deep, soft clay reduces the inten-
sity of the seismic loading. Due to the long period motion
amplification at deep, soft clay sites [Fig. 5(b)], these sites may
not necessarily be less critical in terms of earthquake-induced
displacements, and this will be discussed later in this paper.
Fig. 7 is not meant to replace site-specific seismic response
analyses; however, it does provide useful insight on the im-
portance of the waste fill's dynamic characteristics and the
input rock motion's intensity and frequency content on the
calculated MHEA. As this graph has been prepared with nor-
malization parameters that may be estimated based on avail-
able information for many projects, Fig. 7 may be used as a
guide in the selection of an appropriate seismic coefficient for
simplified pseudostatic and deformation analyses. It should be
remembered, however, that duration of strong shaking is an
important earthquake parameter that is not captured by
MHEA.
For comparison with the normalized graph presented by

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253

 Bray et al. (1995) based on ID equivalent-linear analyses, the
response of a 30 m high waste fill with average waste prop-
erties (Ts-waste = 0.63 s) to an earthquake record with
Tm-eq = 0.6 (Tp-eq = 0.4) at two intensities is examined. For
this case with MHA-rock = 0.2g, the D-MOD results shown
in Fig. 7 indicate MHEA = 0.12g-0.17g, which is in good
agreement with the Bray et al. (1995) estimate of O.l1g-
0.17g. However, at MHA-rock = 0.8g, the fully nonlinear
D-MOD analyses provide MHEA estimates between 0.32g-
0.45g, whereas extrapolation of the Bray et al. (1995) results,
which were developed from less intense ground motions,
would suggest relatively high levels of MHEA = 0.44g-0.68g.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cover Stability
Previous analytical results [e.g., Bray et al. (1995); Kava-
zanjian and Matasovic (1995); Singh and Sun (1995)] and case
records from the instrumented 011 landfill [e.g., Idriss et al.
(1995)] have shown that ground motions can be amplified as
they propagate up through a waste column. Given the poten-
tially low strengths of geosynthetic interfaces in cover systems
due partly to the relatively low normal stresses at these shallow
depths, the seismic stability of cover systems is an important
design concern. Although 2D analyses may be warranted for
analyzing landfill cover systems in many cases, the results

Thus, Fig. 7 appears to provide more reasonable estimates from these ID analyses will be discussed, as a number of
of MHEA for base sliding over a wide range of intensity lev- insights are relevant.
els. Partial results from the D-MOD analyses at rock sites are

0.0
(a) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
MHA, rock (g)

2.2
()
X MediwnVs
2.0 ()
o HighVs
1.8 Best fit and +/- one stmIard
deviation curves

f 1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
o
0.8
0.6 x

0.4 •
0.2
0.0
(b) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Ts-waste/Tm-eq
FIG. 8. Diagram of: (a) MHA, Top versus MHA, Rock Calculated by D-MOD and Observed at 01/ Landfill; (b) Normal/zed Maximum Ac-
celeration versus Normalized Fundamental Period of Waste Fill

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998/247

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253

 shown in Fig. 8(a), in which the peak acceleration at the top
of the waste fill (MHA, top) is plotted against the peak rock
acceleration (MHA, rock). Notice that the trend of the D-MOD
results is consistent with observations at the 011 landfill as
well as the Seed et al. (1991) relationship for stiff soil sites.
These results are also consistent with other previously refer-
enced landfill studies, with the data being enveloped by a sim-
ilar relationship developed by Harder (1991) for earth dams.
However, the scatter in the data is significant, which should
be a source of concern for engineers responsible for evaluating
the seismic performance of cover systems. The scatter in Fig.
8(a) is due to variations in the fill height, waste stiffness, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
zation scheme used to develop Fig. 7 was applied to these
data, and the resulting plot is shown in Fig. 8(b). Note that
reasonable variations in just the waste's V. profile produce sig-
nificant differences.
This 1D response study emphasizes the importance of per-
forming project-specific studies to evaluate cover stability.
Simplified stability procedures that require an estimate of the
peak acceleration at the top of the waste fill should also be
viewed with caution. These findings highlight the relative ro-
bustness of using Fig. 7 directly to estimate the seismic load-
ing (MHEA) for base sliding as opposed to using a procedure
that requires the peak acceleration at the top of the waste fill

input rock motions. Attempts to reduce this scatter through to be estimated first in order to evaluate MHEA within the
normalizations were only somewhat successful. The normali- landfill [e.g., a Makdisi and Seed (1978) approach].

K)""O.
Dec:oupled
60
•••••• Coupled
- - RigidBloclc:
40
Input MHA~.4 g
Damping 15%
20 t--------"-'~~-1

1 2 3 4 123 4
Tslfm Tslfm
(a)
1000 r-r-...-.,......,.....,.-..,.....,."""'T"""T"""W
<>

100 100
• <>
• <>
. ~

10 10 •
1 1 •
Tsffm-1.0 • TIff.......O
0.1 • Coupled
<> 0.1 • Coupled •
o Decouplcd o Decoupled
0.01 0.01 ..........................-"-............-.&-............
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Ky/Kmax Ky/Kmax
(b)
100 .........-r-...,......,..-..--r-...,......,..-..--.
• TslTm= 1.0 • • TslTm=4.0
• •
•
•
•
•
•t •·
•• ••
• ••

• Damping 15%
-50 L..-L...........L-.........- - ' -......L.......L.--1 -50 .....
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
KylKrnax KylKrnax

FIG. 9. Comparison of Displacements Calculated Using Decoupled and Coupled Deformable Sliding Block Analyses with 15% Ma-
terial Damping: (a) Fundamental Period; and (b) k,llcm.. Effects for Synthetic Magnitude 8 Input Motion (MHA = 0.4g); and (c) Differ-
ences for Several Input Motions

248/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253

 SEISMICALLY INDUCED PERMANENT
DISPLACEMENTS
Sliding Block Analysis
The MHEA is useful for representing the maximum desta-
bilizing force induced by the earthquake shaking, but it does
not address directly the issue of earthquake-induced permanent
displacements. In areas of high seismicity, it may be overly
conservative to design MSWLFs to resist the maximum desta-
bilizing force without allowing some seismically induced per-
manent displacement. Thus, the Newmark (1965) sliding rock
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
approach, which was originally developed for analyzing earth
embankments, may be applied to MSWLFs to estimate earth-
quake-induced permanent displacements. The assumptions and
limitations involved in applying a Newmark deformation anal-
ysis to MSWLFs have been discussed in Bray et al. (1995).
Due to the simplicity of the analysis and the uncertainties in-
volved in characterizing geomaterials and earthquake ground
motions, the calculated earthquake-induced displacement
should be viewed as merely an index of earthquake perfor-
mance. The Franklin and Chang (1977) calculational proce-
dure implemented in the program TNMN (Pyke and Beikae
1991) is used to estimate permanent displacements based on
the computed horizontal equivalent acceleration-time history
at the depth of sliding. Use of equivalent acceleration allows
for the seismic response of the deformable potential sliding
mass to be represented in the Newmark rigid sliding block
procedure (Makdisi and Seed 1978). However, a potentially
significant limitation of this simplified procedure is that the
computation of the seismic response of the potential sliding
mass is decoupled from the subsequent double-integration of
the computed equivalent acceleration-time history.
A number of investigators have addressed this concern. Us-
ing a single lumped mass, stick-slip model, Lin and Whitman
(1983) found that the decoupled approximation provided rea-
sonably conservative estimates of the seismically induced per-
manent displacements calculated by a coupled analysis. For
example, for simulated earthquake motions in which the yield
acceleration of a sliding block representing a deep base failure
was about half of the expected maximum block acceleration,
1000
100
-.
~ 10
--
~
- 0
e <>
-i
~ *
.~ 0.1
0 0
0 0
&
6
0.01
0.001
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
kylkmax
FIG. 10. Base Liner Sliding Block Displacements
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998/249
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253
the average overestimation from the decoupled approach at
15% material damping was on the order of 20%. They con-
cluded that "the errors arising from the decoupling assumption
are insignificant compared to other uncertainties involved in
the use of the sliding block analogy." Gazetas and Uddin
(1994) performed coupled and decoupled 20 finite element
analyses of earth dams and similarly found that "the two-step
approximation leads, in general, to very good results, although
it often provides conservative estimates of sliding deforma-
tions." Kramer and Smith (1997) agreed that the decoupled
approach was somewhat conservative for stiff and/or shallow
sliding masses, but that "it may produce unconservative esti-
mates for failure masses that are soft and/or deep." Chopra
and Zhang (1991) reexamined the decoupling assumption in
the context of earthquake-induced base sliding of concrete
gravity dams. These analyses computed the linear elastic re-
sponse of a dam using its fundamental mode of vibration based
on distributed mass, and included reservoir induced forces and
a rigid perfectly plastic stick-slip foundation interface. They
found that the decoupled approximation could provide an or-
der-of-magnitude estimate of the sliding displacement calcu-
lated through a coupled procedure, which was conservative for
large displacements but not necessarily for small displace-
ments. Because commonly accepted tolerable earthquake-in-
duced base displacements for MSWLFs (e.g., 2-30 em) are
considerably less than those values often considered accepta-
ble for earth or concrete gravity dams (e.g., 1 m or more), this
is potentially an important issue.
The writers used the procedures developed by Chopra and
Zhang (1991), except dynamic properties appropriate for
MSWLFs and a mode shape satisfying level ground boundary
conditions were used without the reservoir to reexamine this
issue. Representative results are shown in Fig. 9, where ley is
the yield acceleration and !emu = MHEAlg. In Fig. 9(a), de-
coupled displacements are conservative, except for large fun-
damental periods (Ts ). Note that a rigid sliding block analysis
(i.e., direct integration of the input acceleration-time history)
can be significantly unconservative, and it should not be used.
Examining Fig. 9(b), the decoupled approximation does pro-
vide a reasonable estimate of the coupled earthquake-induced
displacements (i.e., within a factor of three). However, a de-
Rock Site Results
All landfill configurations
6 Sl Fcrrcol 0.2 g
... StFe.,..,1 0.4 g
t:. 51 Fcrrcol 0.6 g
A 51 Ferrool 0.8 g
•<> P1Ic. Dam Dnstnn 0.2 g
Pac. Dam Dnlllrm 0.4 g
Pac. Dam Dnstnn 0.6 g
X
Pac. Dam Dnstnn 0.8 g
YBIO.2g
YB10.4g
0 MlIlP'ilude 8 0.2 g
181 MlIlP'ilude 8 0.4 g
MlIlP'ilude 8 0.6 g
EEl MlIlP'ilude 8 0.8 g
• 100prob.ofex_
I~
....
16% prob. of excoedonoe
31% prob. ofexcoedonoe
_0 '0% prob. of exceedInoe
0 Remits from other Input
motion.
0.8 1.0
 coupled analysis may predict smaller displacements than a
coupled analysis for systems with larger values of kylkmax . In
these cases, the displacements calculated from both analyses
are generally small (i.e., less than a few centimeters). Differ-
ences between decoupled and coupled displacements for sev-
eral input motions are shown in Fig. 9(c). For cases applicable
to landfills where only minor earthquake-induced base dis-
placements are generally tolerable (Le., ky/kmax > 0.5), the de-
coupled approximation is reasonable, so it will be used in this
study to evaluate the factors influencing earthquake-induced
displacements of MSWLFs. At lower kylkmax ratios (especially
at higher T,/Tm ratios) where the calculated displacements are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
scaled to MHAs of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8g, the upper bound,
median, and lower bound calculated seismically induced per-
manent displacements are shown for all landfill configurations
sited on rock, sand, and deep soft clay. For these input mo-
tions, the median and upper bound displacements are signifi-
cantly higher for cases where the MSWLF is situated atop a
deep soft clay foundation. Even the sand site produces signif-
icantly larger displacements than the rock site at low ky/kmax
values. Hence, site conditions are important in evaluating seis-
mically induced permanent base displacements. Note, how-
ever, that the larger displacements calculated at soft soil sites
for a specified ky/kmax ratio are offset by the results shown in

large, the decoupled approximation is less reliable, and this Fig. 7(b), indicating that deep soft clay sites produce lower
may be important in evaluating earth dams. kmax values for identical rock motions and landfill configura-
tions. Thus, for identical landfill configurations and rock mo-
Results tions, the base sliding displacement calculated at soft sites is
comparable to that calculated at stiff sites (i.e., only slightly
Calculated seismically induced permanent displacements higher when ky < 0.1, but slightly lower at higher ky values).
(U) for the base sliding case for all landfill configurations [see
Calculated earthquake-induced cover displacements for the
Fig. 7(a)] sited on rock undergoing the 14 input rock motions
listed are shown in Fig. 10. In this figure, U is plotted versus 1000
selected ky/k max ratios of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8. Additionally, t::. Mw 6.25 - SId Emr 0.35
three landfills were analyzed with another 19 input rock mo-
tions, so that 309 data points are plotted at each kylkmax ratio.
There is considerable scatter, both with respect to results from
j 100 .... ~ .. ~x
X
<>
Mw 7.0· SUI. Emr 0.33
Mw 8.0 - SUI. Emr 0.36

different input motions and results from different landfill con-

figurations undergoing the same input motion. Much of this
!'[ 10
scatter is expected. For example, the longer duration Magni- ~~
:= .,r
tude 8 earthquake produces large calculated displacements, tnO\
1
~~
and the high frequency St. Ferreol motion produces relatively
small displacements. Moreover, at the same intensity level, the ••
Yerba Buena Island record generally produces larger displace-
ments than the Pacoima Dam Downstream record because of
its significant long period motion, which better matches the
!j 0.1
x

I
fuJI Dala Set Rqp'essi0ll
long period response characteristics of most waste fills. For a
0.01 16% IlId 84% prob. ofCllCl:IlOdance x
given input motion, significantly larger displacements are cal-
S% '"'" 95% prob. of c:x=lonce
culated for landfill configurations with stiffer response char- log(Uikrlllx°DS-9S) - 1.87·3.477"kylknolx, SUI. Emr 0.35
acteristics that more closely match the short period motions 0.001
contained in most rock records. As the landfill's fundamental 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
period increases, due to increasing height or decreasing shear kylkmax
wave velocity, the calculated displacements decrease. This
finding is consistent with the results presented in Fig. 7(a) and FIG. 11. Normalized Base Liner Displacements
results presented in Augello et al. (1995a). In fact, at a spec-
1000 ~""-r---r--r---r--'r-.....,.-...----r--:r
ified kylkmax ratio, the calculated displacement is roughly pro-
portional to MHEA, indicating that those factors that have
been shown to affect MHEA also affect U. However, there is
considerably more scatter in the calculated displacements, es-
pecially at higher MHEA values. 100
Several attempts were made to normalize the calculated dis-
placement data presented in Fig. 10. These attempts were of
limited success. The best normalization for the cases analyzed
is shown in Fig. 11. In this figure, the calculated seismically 10
induced permanent displacement is normalized by kmax
(MHENg) and significant duration (D S - 9S %) of the input mo-
tion. MHEA has been shown to capture the important effects
of earthquake intensity and frequency content (e.g., Fig. 7),
and significant duration captures another key ground motion
characteristic. The normalized displacement decreases with in-
creasing kylkmaxo and shows considerably less inter- and in- -+- PIlC. Dam Dnstrm, rock site

traearthquake scatter. Hence, an order-of-magnitude estimate ~ PIlC. Dam Dnstrm, sand site
of earthquake-induced displacement can be made given an es- 0.1 ~ PIlC. Dam Dnstrm. clay site
timate of the intensity (MHA), frequency content (Tm ), and ....... M"llIIitudc 8. rock site
duration (D S - 9S %) of the design rock motion, and the dynamic ---w- M"llIIitudc 8, sand site
response characteristics (T,) and strength (ky ) of the landfill. -e- M"llIIitude 8, clay site
With this information, the seismic coefficient kmax (which is 0.01 L.--........._..L---L_~.......lL...... ......._""----'-_.....I----I
MHENg) can be estimated using Fig. 7(a), and the seismically 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
induced displacement (U) can then be estimated using Fig. 11. kylkmax
Site effects are apparent in Fig. 12. For both the Pacoima
Dam Downstream and Synthetic Magnitude 8 rock motions FIG. 12. Site Condition Effects on Base Liner Displacements

250 I JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING I MARCH 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253

 1000
0 All landfill oonfiguratiom
100
B
-..-.-
::> 10
I!
1 X
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.."
~ 0.1
~ EE
8 0.01
0.001
0.0 0.2 0.4
ky/kmax
FIG. 13. Cover Liner Sliding Block Displacements
rock site cases discussed previously are shown in Fig. 13.
Again, the data exhibit considerable scatter, emphasizing the
need for project-specific earthquake-induced deformation anal-
ysis of cover systems. In general, landfills with the low V.
profile had larger calculated cover displacements than those
with the high V. profile, due to the long period motion ampli-
fication in the softer waste fill. The calculated cover displace-
ments are significantly larger than those calculated for base
sliding (note the 16% probability of exceedance lines for both
cases shown in Fig. 13). Combining this observation with the
unknown reliability of calculating cover displacements using
ID analyses, the seismic stability of MSWLF cover systems
requires additional study. Although not shown (because the
trend is similar to that shown previously for the base sliding
case in Fig. 12), deep soft clay sites produced larger cover
displacements than those calculated at rock sites at similar
kylkmax ratios.
Calibrated Pseudostatic Slope Stability Analysis
A conservative, preliminary pseudostatic slope stability
analysis may be performed with a seismic coefficient cali-
brated with the preceding seismically induced permanent de-
formation results. For the sake of simplicity, one could use the
MHEA/g directly as the seismic coefficient with FS =:: 1 and
conservative strength values, because MHEA represents the
maximum destabilizing force during the earthquake, which
aCts for only an instant. Conservative strength values and a
calculated FS of at least one means that the resisting force is
always equal to or higher than this maximum destabilizing
force, and hence no seismically induced deformations would
be calculated for this case. For cases where some level of
deformation is acceptable, Fig. 10 indicates that for a wide
range of landfill heights, waste fill properties, and input rock
motions, the calculated base sliding permanent displacements
for the rock site case are less than about 15 cm (with about a
10% probability of exceedance) when the yield acceleration is
greater than 60% of the kmax • Hence, 60% of the MHEA/g may
be used as an estimate of the seismic coefficient to be used in
pseudostatic analyses in combination with conservative dy-
namic strength properties and a factor of safety of one. How-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998/251
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253
Rock Site Results
I:::. St Forreol 0.2g
• St Ferreol 0.4g
6.
JJ..
St Forreol 0.61
St Femol 0.8g
• Pac. DIm D1slrm 0.2g
¢ Pac. Dam D1slrm 0.4g
0 Pac. Dam Dnslnn 0.61
~ Pac. DlmD1slrmO.8g
YBIO.2g
YBlO.4g
*0 Magnitude 8 0.2g
181
0
Maanitude 8 0.4g
MIgllitude 8 0.61
Magnitude 8 0.8g
..
10',1, prob. of exceedmcc
16% prob. of exceedcnce
~O% prob. of exceedcnce
A
"a<> 16% P"'!!. ofexceedmcc
fll' bise deflI'maticns
0 ~r:sfrcm other inpIl
0.6 0.8 1.0
ever, the engineer must decide whether or not 15 cm of per-
manent displacement along the landfilllliner interface at the
site is tolerable. Moreover, site effects may be significant at a
kylkmax ratio of 0.6 if the landfill foundation has a tendency to
amplify long period motions, as is the case for a deep soft
clay site (see Fig. 12). For these special soil conditions, pro-
ject-specific analyses should be performed or the seismic co-
efficient should be increased accordingly. For instance, Fig. 12
suggests that the seismic coefficient for landfill base sliding at
a deep, soft clay site should be 80% of kmax to ensure that the
calculated seismically induced permanent displacements are
just as likely to be less than 15 cm.
COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS TO
OBSERVED PERFORMANCE
The results of this analytical study (e.g., Figs. 7 and 11)
were used to estimate the expected range of earthquake-in-
duced permanent displacements for a number of California
landfills that were strongly shaken by the 1989 Loma Prieta
and 1994 Northridge earthquakes. Landfill configurations and
seismic performances are described in Buranek and Prasad
(1991) and Augello et al. (l995b). Calculations and observa-
tions are summarized in Table 1. The yield acceleration rec-
ommended by Buranek and Prasad (1991) was used for the
Loma Prieta earthquake case records, and ky was calculated
with the 2D limit equilibrium slope stability analysis program
UTEXAS3 (Wright 1990) for the Northridge earthquake cases
using the strength values recommended by Augello et al.
(1995b). The mean and plus one standard error kmax values
were estimated using Fig. 7, based on the estimates of T"
MHArocko and Tm shown. The calculated displacements, U,
were then estimated using the median and 16% probability of
exceedance lines shown in Fig. 11, with significant duration
estimated using the Abrahamson and Silva (1996) relationship.
Median and 84% values were used to develop reasonably con-
servative displacement estimates. As shown in Table 1, the
earthquake-induced displacements calculated using the results
from the present study are consistent with the magnitude of
permanent displacements observed at these landfills after the
earthquakes. Except for two cases, no cracking was observed
 TABLE 1. Back Analysis of Landfill Performance during Recent Earthquakes
MHA, rock
Idriss (1991) Tm D5 - 1l5% T. kmax Calculated U
Landfill EO (g) (s) (s) (s) ky (mean/+1a) (em) Observed damage
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Buena Vista LP 0.40 0.6 13 0.64 0.26" 0.17/0.23 None No cracking"
Guadalupe LP 0.45 0.6 13 0.64 0.20" 0.24/0.32 0.3-4 Minor downslope movement"
Pacheco Pass LP 0.30 0.6 14 0.76 0.30" 0.16/0.21 None No cracking"
Marina LP 0.21 0.6 15 0.59 0.26" 0.1210.16 None No cracking"
Zanker Road LP 0.19 0.6 15 0.56 0.14" 0.07/0.10 None No cracking"
Lopez Canyon C-A NR 0.42 0.5 11 0.64 0.27 0.18/0.25 None No cracking"
Lopez Canyon CoB NR 0.42 0.5 11 0.45 0.35 0.24/0.33 None No cracking"
Chiquita Canyon C NR 0.33 0.6 11 0.64 0.09 0.18/0.24 3-20 24 cm tear in high-density poly-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ethylene (HDPE)"
Chiquita Canyon D NR 0.33 0.6 11 0.64 0.10 0.18/0.24 2-15 30 cm tear in HDPE"
OIl Section HH NR 0.11 0.6 16 0.47 0.14 0.10/0.13 None 5-15 cm cover cracks"
OIl Section HHc - - - - 0.81 0.08 0.13/0.16 2-25 5-15 cm cover cracks"
Sunshine Canyon NR 0.46 0.5 11 0.77 0.31 0.17/0.23 None 2-30 cm cover cracks"
Sunshine CanyonC - - - - 1.3 0.25 0.30/0.37 0.2-5 2-30 cm cover cracks"
"Observations of damage and k,; values from Buranek and Prasad (1991).
'Observations of damage from Augello et ai. (1995b).
CAnalyses performed for shallow sliding along cover system using Fig. 13.

when the calculated displacement was zero, and some distress
was observed for cases when the calculated displacement was
nonzero. As the calculated earthquake-induced displacement
should be viewed as merely an index of earthquake perfor-
mance, the results presented in this paper are judged to provide
an index of expected seismic performance that correlates rea-
sonably well with the actual seismic performance of these
landfills. Moreover, these results are consistent with results
obtained by double integration of the equivalent acceleration
time history computed from a project-specific dynamic anal-
ysis. A simplified seismic design procedure for solid-waste
landfills, which is based on the results of this study, is de-
scribed in Bray et al. (1998).
CONCLUSIONS
In areas of high seismicity, where EPA regulations require
the use of relatively high intensity earthquake motions, fully
nonlinear seismic response analyses are appropriate. Results
from the nonlinear D-MOD analyses performed in this study
indicate that the dynamic response of an MSWLF can vary
significantly due to reasonable variations of dynamic waste
properties, fill heights, site conditions, and input rock motions.
However, for the case of base sliding along the landfilVfoun-
dation interface, the maximum seismic loading represented by
MHEA is shown to follow a well-defined trend. MHEA de-
pends largely on the mean period (Tm ) and MHA of the input
rock motion adjusted by the NRF and the initial fundamental
period of the waste fill (T, =4HIV,). MHEA may be estimated
using the normalization presented in Fig. 7.
The results of this study indicate that the MHA (or MHEA)
calculated at the top of a landfill can vary erratically for rel-
atively modest variations in landfill configurations and input
motions. Hence, simplified procedures for estimating the seis-
mic loading for cover systems are judged to be lacking, as
significant conservatism would need to be employed with
these procedures. Moreover, procedures that require an esti-
mate of the MHA at the top of a landfill to estimate the seismic
loading within and at the base of the landfill should be used
with caution, due to the relatively large uncertainty in esti-
mating MHA at the top of a landfill.
A reasonable estimate of the seismically induced permanent
displacement can be obtained using the decoupled approxi-
mation delineated in Makdisi and Seed (1978). The magnitude
of earthquake-induced permanent displacements is intimately
linked to the ratio of kvlkm... but it is also influenced signifi-
cantly by the intensity, frequency content, and duration of the
rock motion, and by the foundation soils. The waste fill's dy-
namic response characteristics are also important, and many
of these factors are captured by km... Normalizing the calcu-
lated seismic displacement by kmax and significant duration re-
duced the scatter in the results considerably. For the base slid-
ing case at a rock or shallow, stiff soil site, if kylkmax is greater
than 0.6 (or in using a seismic coefficient equal to 0.6 times
MHEAlg with conservative strength values, the pseudostatic
factor of safety exceeds one), the calculated permanent dis-
placements are likely to be less than 15 cm (Fig. 10). At deep,
soft sites, the seismic coefficient would need to be increased
to 0.8 times the MHEAlg to ensure the same likeliness that a
displacement of 15 cm was not exceeded (Fig. 12), but re-
member that the MHEA calculated at a deep, soft clay site is
generally lower than that at a rock site. These analytical results
are consistent with observations from available case records,
and may be used for a simplified design procedure (e.g., Bray
et al. 1998).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support was provided by the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation and National Science Foundation under grant BCS-9157083;
this support is gratefully acknowledged. Dr. Matasovic of GeoSyntec
Consultants shared his D-MOD program and expertise with us. Reviews
by A. J. Augello and Dr. Seed of the University of California, Berkeley,
were particularly helpful.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J. (1996). "Empirical ground motion
models." Rep. Prepared for Brookhaven Nat. Lab.
Anderson, D. G., and Kavazanjian, E. Jr. (1995). "Performance of land-
fills under seismic loading." 3rd Int. Con! on Recent Adv. in Geotech.
Engrg. and Soil Dyn., Univ. of Mo. at Rolla, St. Louis, Mo., III, 1557-
1587.
Augello, A. J., Bray, J. D., Leonards, G. A., Repetto, P. C., and Byrne,
R. J. (l995a). "Response of landfills to seismic loading." Proc.,
Geoenvironment 2000, ASCE Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 46, ASCE, Res-
ton, Va., 1051-1065.
Augello, A. J., Matasovic, N., Bray, J. D., Kavazanjian, E. Jr., and Seed,
R. B. (l995b). "Evaluation of solid waste landfill performance during
the Northridge earthquake." Earthquake design and peiformance of
solid waste landfills. ASCE Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 54, M. K. Yegian
and W. D. L. Finn, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 17-50.
Augello, A. J., Bray, J. D., Abrahamson, N. A., and Seed, R. B. (1998).
"Dynamic properties of solid waste based on back-analysis of 011 land-
fill." J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 124(3),211-222.
Borcherdt, R. D. (1994). "Estimates of site-dependent response spectra
for design (methodology and justification)." Earthquake Spectra,
10(4), 617-653.

252/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253

 Bray, J. D., Augello, A. J., Leonards, G. A., Repetto, P. C., and Byrne,
R. J. (1995). "Seismic stability procedures for solid waste landfills."
J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 121(2), 139-151.
Bray, J. D., Augello, A. J., Leonards, G. A., Repetto, P. C., and Byrne,
R J. (1996). "Closure to 'Seismic stability procedures for solid-waste
landfills.''' J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 122(11),952-954.
Bray, J. D., Rathje, E. M., Augello, A. J., and Merry, S. M. (1998).
"Simplified seismic design procedure for lined solid-waste landfills."
Geosynthesis Int. J., 4, in press.
Buranek, D., and Prasad, S. (1991). "Sanitary landfill performance during
the Lorna Prieta earthquake." Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Adv. in
Geotech. Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dyn., Univ. of Mo. at Rolla, St.
Louis, Mo., 1655-1660.
Chopra, A. K., and Zhang, L. (1991). "Base sliding response of concrete
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ECOLE POLYTECH/BIBLIOTHEQUE on 02/23/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
gravity dams to earthquakes." Rep. No. UCB/EERC-9//05, Earthquake
Engrg. Res. Ctr., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Elton, D. J., Shie, C.-F., and Hadj-Hamou, T. (1991). "One- and two-
dimensional analysis of earth dams." Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent
Adv. in Geotech. Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dyn., 1043-1049.
Finn, W. D. L. (1988). "Dynamic analysis in geotechnical engineering."
Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II. ASCE Geotech. Spec.
Publ. No. 20, J. L. Von Thun, ed., ASCE, Reston, Va., 523-591.
Franklin, A. G., and Chang, F. K. (1977). "Earthquake resistance of earth
and rockfill dams." Misc. Paper S-71-17, U.S. Army Wtrwy. Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Gazetas, G., and Uddin, N. (1994). "Permanent deformation on preex-
isting sliding surfaces in dams." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 120(11),
2041-2061.
Harder, L. S. Jr. (1991). "Performance of earth dams during the Lorna
Prieta earthquake." Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Adv. in Geotech.
Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dyn., Univ. of Mo. at Rolla., St. Louis,
Mo., 1673.
Idriss, I. M. (1991). "Procedures for selecting earthquake ground motions
at rock sites." Rep. Prepared for Nat. Inst. of Standards and Technol.,
Univ. of California.
Idriss, I. M., Fiegel, G. L., Hudson, M. B., Mundy, P. K., and Herzig, R
(1995). "Seismic response of the operating industries landfill." Earth-
quake design and performance of solid waste landfills. ASCE Geotech.
Spec. Publ. No. 54, M. K. Yegian and W. D. L. Finn, eds., ASCE,
Reston, Va., 83-118.
Idriss, I. M., and Sun, J. I. (1992). User's manual for SHAKE9I. Ctr. for
Geotech. Modeling, Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Califor-
nia, Davis, Calif.
Kavazanjian, E. Jr., and Matasovic, N. (1995). "Seismic analysis of solid
waste landfills." Proc., Geoenvironment 2000, ASCE Geotech. Spec.
Publ. No. 46, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1066-1080.
Kavazanjian, E. Jr., Matasovic, N., Bonaparte, R, and Schmertmann, G.
R. (1995). "Evaluation of MSW properties for seismic analysis."
Proc., Geoenvironment 2000, ASCE Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 46,
ASCE, Reston, Va., 1126-1141.
Kavazanjian, E. Jr., Matasovic, N., Stokoe, K. H., and Bray, J. D. (1996).
"In situ shear wave velocity of solid waste from surface wave mea-
surements." Proc., 2nd Int. Congr. on Environ. Geotechnics, 1,97-102.
Kramer, S. L., and Smith, M. W. (1997). "Modified Newmark model for
seismic slope displacement of compliant slopes." J. Geotech. and
Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 123(7),635-644.
Lee, M. K. W., and Finn, W. D. L. (1978). "DESRA-2, dynamic effective
stress response analysis of soil deposits with energy transmitting
boundary including assessment of liquefaction potential." Soil Mech.
Ser. No. 36, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancou-
ver, Canada.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / MARCH 1998/253
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 1998, 124(3): 242-253
Lin, J. S., and Whitman, R. V. (1983). "Decoupling approximation in the
evaluation of earthquake-induced plastic slip in earth dams." Earth-
quake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., 11, 667-678.
Ling, H. I., and Leshchinsky, D. (1997). "Seismic stability and permanent
displacement of landfill cover systems." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE,
123(2), 113-122.
Makdisi, F. I., and Seed, H. B. (1978). "Simplified procedure for esti-
mating dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformations." J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 104(7), 849-867.
Matasovic, N. (1993). "Seismic response of composite horizontally-lay-
ered soil deposits." Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of
California, Los Angeles, Calif.
Matasovic, N., Kavazanjian, E. Jr., and Abourjeily, F. (1995). "Dynamic
properties of solid waste from field observations." Proc., lst Int. Conf.
on Earthquake Geotech. Engrg, Tokyo, Japan, 1, 549-555.
Matasovic, N., and Vucetic, M. (1995). "Seismic response of soil deposits
composed of fully-saturated clay and sand layers." Proc.. 1st Int. Conf.
on Earthquake Geotech. Engrg., Tokyo, Japan, 1,611-616.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). "Effects of earthquakes on dams and embank-
ments." Geotechnique, 15(2), 139-160.
Pyke, R, and Beikae, M. (1991). "TNMN." Taga Engineering Software
Services, Lafayette, Calif.
Rathje, E. M., Abrahamson, N., and Bray, J. D. (1998). "Simplified con-
tent estimates of earthquake ground motions." J. Geotech. and Geoen-
vir. Engrg., ASCE, 124(2), 150-159.
Seed, H. B., and Martin, G. R (1966). "The seismic coefficient in earth
dam design." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 92(3), 25-58.
Seed, H. B. (1979). "Considerations in the earthquake-resistant design of
earth and rockfill dams." Geotechnique, London, England, 29(3),
215-263.
Seed, H. B., Wong, R. T., Idriss, I. M., and Tokimatsu, K. (1984). "Mod-
uli and damping factors for dynamic analysis of cohesionless soils."
Rep. UCB/EERC-84/14, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., Univ. of Califor-
nia, Berkeley, Calif.
Seed, R B., and Bonaparte, R. (1992). "Seismic analysis and design of
lined waste fills: Current practice." Proc., ASCE Spec. Conf. on Sta-
bility and Perf. of Slopes and Embankments, II, ASCE, Reston, Va.,
1152-1187.
Seed, R. B., Dickenson, S., and Mok, C. M. (1991). "Seismic response
analyses of soft and deep cohesive sites: A brief summary of recent
lessons." Proc., 1st Annu. CALTRANS Seismic Res. Seminar, CAL-
TRANS.
Singh, S., and Sun, J. (1995). "Seismic evaluation of municipal solid
waste landfills." Proc., Geoenvironment 2000, ASCE Geotech. Spec.
Publ. No. 46, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1081-1096.
Trifunac, M. D., and Brady, A. G. (1975). "A study of the duration of
strong earthquake ground motion." Bull., Seismological Soc. of Am.,
65, 581-626.
"Solid waste disposal facility criteria." (1993). Technical manual
EPA530-R-93-017, PB94-IOO-450. U.S. Envir. Protection Agency.
Vrymoed, J. L., and Calzascia, E. R (1978). "Simplified determination
of dynamic stresses in earth dams." Proc., Earthquake Engrg. and Soil
Dyn. Conf., ASCE, Reston, Va., 991-1006.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. (1991). "Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic
response." J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(1), 89-107.
Wright, S. G. (1990). UTEXAS3, a computer program for slope stability
calculations, Dept. of Civil Engineering of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Yegian, M. K., Yee, Z. Y., and Harb, J. N. (1995). "Seismic response of
geosynthetic/soil systems." Proc., Geoenvironment 2000, ASCE Geo-
tech. Spec. Publ. No. 46, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1113-1125.