Embankment dam deformations caused by earthquakes

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

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

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

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

Providing a tool for immediate assessment of a structure that has undergone seismic
loading and

Creating a method for estimating how much an embankment dam will deform based on
actual dam behaviour during past earthquakes.

The findings from these ongoing empirical studies were last presented four years ago. Since that
time, the research has continued, increasing the data base by nearly 30 percent. This paper presents
the results of the extended examination and analyses of the entire data base.
2 CASE HISTORY DATA BASE
2.1 Previous work
During the 1990 Philippines earthquake, a review of incidents of seismically-induced deformation
of embankment dams was initiated to aid in evaluating the damages exhibited by several major
dams during that event (Swaisgood and Au-Yeung, 1991). These studies continued on with the
results last presented in 1998 (Swaisgood, 1998). At that time , the screening efforts had produced
54 incidents that had been described with sufficient quantified data for meaningful comparative
studies and statistical analyses
2.2 Updated version
Continuing research has yielded an additional 15 case histories, making a total data base of 69
incidents. Pertinent details of all 69 of these incidents are presented in Table 1. The new additions
include nine located in California Case Nos. 10, 25, 26, 36 to 40 (Tepel, et. al. 1996) and 19

Paper Number 014

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

INFORMATION

CREST

DAM

DH

CL

AT

NAME OF DAM
UPPER MURAYAMA

LOCATION

TYPE

Japan

E-HF

24

320

ONO
CHATSWORTH
NO.2

Japan

41

309

California

HF

12

610

MALPASSO

Peru

ECRD

78

152

COGOTI

Chile

CFRD

85

159

SOUTH HAIWEE

California

HF

25

HEBGEN

Montana

MIBORO

Japan

ECRD

MINASE

Japan

CFRD

10

California

11

UVAS
U. SAN FERNANDO

California

HF

12

OROVILLE

California

ECRD

13

LA VILLITA

Mexico

ECRD

14

EL INFIERNILLO

Mexico

15

EL INFIERNILLO

Mexico

16

TSENGWEN

17

EARTHQUAKE
DATE

DATA

D,km

SETTLEMENT

PGA, g.

**

RELATIVE
DEGREE
OF
DAMAGE

Sep

23

8.2

18

0.32

0.20

0.74

11

Sep

23

8.2

98

0.30

0.27

0.53

Serious

?***

30

Aug

30

5.3

0.40

0.08

0.63

Moderate

30

10

Oct

38

VI+

n/a

0.10

0.08

0.07

Minor

Apr

43

7.9

89

0.20

0.38

0.44

Minor

457

38

21

Jul

52

7.7

151

0.05

0.02

0.04

Minor

25

213

10

17

Aug

59

7.6

0.71

1.69

4.82

Serious

130

444

19

Aug

61

7.0

20

0.15

0.03

0.02

Minor

67

210

16

Jun

64

7.5

145

0.08

0.06

0.09

Minor

32

335

18

Dec

67

5.3

11

0.20

0.02

0.06

Minor

25

390

18

Feb

71

6.6

0.55

0.91

2.11

Serious

235

1707

Aug

75

5.9

0.10

0.01

0.004

None

60

427

75

15

Nov

75

7.2

20

0.04

0.02

0.02

None

ECRD

146

340

15

Nov

75

7.2

23

0.09

0.02

0.02

None

ECRD

146

340

11

Oct

75

5.9

79

0.08

0.04

0.03

None

Taiwan

ECRD

131

n/a

14

Apr

76

5.3

0.16

0.04

0.03

n/a

EL INFIERNILLO

Mexico

ECRD

146

340

14

Mar

79

7.6

95

0.12

0.13

0.09

Minor

18

LA VILLITA

Mexico

ECRD

60

427

75

14

Mar

79

7.6

108

0.02

0.05

0.03

Minor

19

VERMILION

California

50

1290

50

27

May

80

6.3

22

0.24

0.05

0.05

None

20

LA VILLITA

Mexico

ECRD

60

427

75

25

Oct

81

7.3

31

0.09

0.14

0.11

None

21

EL INFIERNILLO

Mexico

ECRD

146

340

25

Oct

81

7.3

55

0.05

0.06

0.04

None

22

NAMIOKA

Japan

ECRD

52

265

26

May

83

7.7

145

0.08

0.06

0.11

None

23

COYOTE
LEROY ANDERSON
ELMER J. CHESBRO

California

43

299

24

Apr

84

6.2

0.63

0.08

0.18

Minor

California

ECRD

72

427

24

Apr

84

6.2

0.41

0.02

0.02

Minor

California

29

220

24

Apr

84

6.2

22

0.18

0.02

0.05

Minor

26

UVAS

California

32

335

24

Apr

84

6.2

29

0.14

0.02

0.08

Minor

27

MAKIO

Japan

ECRD

77

264

29

14

Sep

84

6.8

0.57

0.50

0.47

Minor

28

AROMOS

Chile

ECRD

43

220

Mar

85

7.8

45

0.25

0.09

0.177

Minor

29

EL INFIERNILLO

Mexico

ECRD

146

340

19

Sep

85

8.1

76

0.13

0.11

0.08

Minor

30

LA VILLITA

Mexico

ECRD

60

427

75

19

Sep

85

8.1

43

0.13

0.33

0.24

Minor

31

LA VILLITA

ECRD

60

427

75

21

Sep

85

7.5

61

0.04

0.12

0.09

None

32

MATAHINA

Mexico
New Zealand

ECRD

86

400

Mar

87

6.3

0.33

0.12

0.14

Moderate

33

NAGARA

Japan

ECRD

52

n/a

17

Dec

87

6.9

29

0.27

0.02

0.04

n/a

24
25

Moderate

34

AUSTRIAN

California

56

213

17

Oct

89

7.1

0.57

0.85

1.51

Serious

35

LEXINGTON

California

63

253

17

Oct

89

7.1

0.45

0.26

0.41

Minor

36

UVAS

California

32

335

17

Oct

89

7.1

10

0.40

0.02

0.06

None

37

STEVENS CREEK

California

37

305

17

Oct

89

7.1

16

0.30

0.02

0.04

None

38

ALMADEN

California

32

140

17

Oct

89

7.1

0.44

0.03

0.10

Minor

39

CALERO

California

30

256

17

Oct

89

7.1

13

0.38

0.01

0.03

None

40

RINCONDA

California

12

73

17

Oct

89

7.1

0.41

0.02

0.15

Minor

41

California

43

204

17

Oct

89

7.1

10

0.42

0.20

0.45

Minor

42

GUADALUPE
ELMER J. CHESBRO

California

29

220

17

Oct

89

7.1

13

0.42

0.11

0.39

Moderate

43

VASONA

California

10

149

17

Oct

89

7.1

0.37

0.05

0.27

Minor

GENERAL
ID

INFORMATION

CREST

DAM

DH

CL

AT

LOCATION

TYPE

44

LEROY ANDERSON

California

ECRD

72

427

17

Oct

45

SAN JUSTO

California

ECRD

40

340

14

17

Oct

46

AMBUKLAO

Philippines

ECRF

120

450

16

47

MASIWAY

Philippines

25

427

16

48

PANTABANGAN

Philippines

ECRD

114

732

49

AYA

Philippines

ECRD

102

427

50

DIAYO

Philippines

ECRD

60

201

51

CANILI

Philippines

ECRD

70

52

MAGAT

Philippines

ECRD

53

California

54

COGSWELL
ROBERT MATTHEWS

55

WIDE CANYON

56
57

No

NAME OF DAM

E A R THQUAKE

DATA

SETTLEMENT
m

**

D,km

89

7.1

21

0.26

0.04

0.06

Minor

89

7.1

27

0.26

0.04

0.07

None

Jul

90

7.7

10

0.49

1.10

0.880

Serious

Jul

90

7.7

0.68

1.06

3.79

Serious

16

Jul

90

7.7

0.58

0.28

0.24

Moderate

16

Jul

90

7.7

0.58

0.20

0.20

Minor

16

Jul

90

7.7

18

0.38

0.07

0.11

Minor

351

16

Jul

90

7.7

18

0.38

0.04

0.06

Minor

100

1296

16

Jul

90

7.7

81

0.05

0.01

0.006

None

CFRD

81

200

28

Jun

91

5.8

0.37

0.04

0.051

Minor

California

46

192

25

Apr

92

6.9

64

0.07

0.00

0.007

None

California

26

678

28

Jun

92

7.5

30

0.20

0.01

0.048

Minor

YUCAIPA No. 1

California

13

128

28

Jun

92

6.6

28

0.15

0.01

0.028

Minor

California

15

146

28

Jun

92

6.6

28

0.15

0.00

0.019

Minor

Arizona

13

247

29

Apr

93

5.5

77

0.02

0.00

0.004

None

California

HF

25

390

18

17

Jan

94

6.7

10

0.42

0.44

1.021

Serious

60

YUCAIPA No. 2
UPPER LAKE
MARY
U. SAN FERNANDO
L. SAN FERNANDO

California

E-HF

38

537

17

Jan

94

6.7

0.44

0.20

0.460

Serious

61

LOS ANGELES

California

47

671

17

Jan

94

6.7

10

0.43

0.09

0.188

Moderate

62

California

36

427

17

Jan

94

6.7

10

0.43

0.03

0.089

Moderate

63

NORTH DIKE [LA]

LOWER FRANKLIN

California

HF

31

152

17

Jan

94

6.7

18

0.30

0.05

0.146

Moderate

64

SANTA FELICIA

California

65

389

17

Jan

94

6.7

33

0.18

0.02

0.030

Minor

65

COGSWELL

California

CFRD

81

200

17

Jan

94

6.7

53

0.10

0.02

0.026

Minor

66

PALOMA

Chile

ECRD

82

1000

14

14

Oct

97

7.6

45

0.23

0.14

0.141

Minor

67

COGOTI

Chile

CFRD

83

160

14

Oct

97

7.6

45

0.23

0.25

0.302

Moderate

68

SANTA JUANA

Chile

CFRD

113

390

19

14

Oct

97

7.6

260

0.03

0.02

0.015

None

69

TORATA

Peru

CFRD

120

600

23

Jun

01

8.3

100

0.15

0.05

0.042

Minor

59

PGA, g.

58

DATE

RELATIVE
DEGREE
OF

L E G E N D
DH = dam height
M = earthquake magnitude, surface-wave scale: M S
D = distance from nearest ground rupture or epicenter, whichever is closest
PGA = peak horizontal ground acceleration; e = estimated, r = recorded
HF =
E=

Hydraulic Fill
Earthfill

ECRD =

Earth Core Rockfill Dam

CFRD =

Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam

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

DAMAGE

% STTLMT = ---------------- x 100

DH + AT

DH

AT

SERIOUS

10

0.1

0.01

NONE

CFRD
ECRD
HF
Earthfill

RELATIVE DEGREE OF DAMAGE

MINOR

MODERATE

CRESTSETTLEMENT,in%(DH+AT)

0.001
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

PEAKGROUND ACCELERATION,g

Figure1. Settlement of embankment dams during earthquake

3 ANALYSIS OF DATA
3.1 General
Similar to the previous studies, crest settlement was selected as the parameter to represent
earthquake related deformation because it was the most often mentioned quantified measurement of
damage presented in the case histories. It also appears to be directly related to the severity of
deformation and cracking, i.e., as the percent of crest settlement increases, the extent of deformation
and cracking that occurs also increases. The ranges of the relative levels of damage are summarized
in Figure 1.
The data base of case histories was analyzed using statistical regression techniques for the purpose
of identifying those factors that have a major influence on the deformation and damage of
embankment dams during earthquakes. These statistical studies were performed using the percent of
crest settlement as the dependent variable and the other factors to be evaluated as the independent
variables.
4

From these regression analyses, it was found that the only factors that had major, statistically
significant effects on the amount of crest settlement included peak ground acceleration and
earthquake magnitude.
3.2 Peak horizontal ground acceleration
The peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) experienced by an embankment dam has a major,
direct influence on the amount of crest settlement. This relationship is apparent in the plot shown in
Figure 1. In general, dams that experience greater PGAs undergo greater deformations and
damages. In this study, it was found that serious levels of damage were reported only in instances
where the PGA exceeded 0.2g. This finding supports one of the findings of an earlier investigation
in which it was concluded that there is ample evidence that well-built dams can withstand
moderate shaking with peak accelerations up to at le ast 0.2g with no harmful effects (Seed,
Makdisi, and DeAlba, 1978).
3.3 Magnitude
The amount of crest settlement is also directly related to the magnitude (M) of the earthquake. As
the magnitudes increase, settlements increase. This relationship held true even at sites where the
PGAs were identical because of the longer duration of strong motion shaking associated with the
greater magnitude event.
3.4 Other factors considered
Several other independent variables were analyzed statistically and were found to have only
minimal relational effects on the amount of crest settlement. These factors included dam type,
distance from seismic source to dam site, dam height, ratio of crest length to dam height,
embankment slope angles, and reservoir water level at the time of the earthquake.
4 RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSES
The regression analyses also provided a mathematical relationship between the crest settlement and
the two factors, PGA and M. This relationship can be expressed as:
% Settlement = e

(6.07 PGA + 0.57 M -8.00)

(1)

where % Settlement = the amount of settlement of the crest of the dam (in meters) divided by the
height of the dam plus the thickness of the alluvium (in meters) times 100 (see. Fig 1); PGA = peak
horizontal ground acceleration of the foundation rock (in g) recorded or estimated at the dam site;
and M = earthquake magnitude (in surface-wave scale: MS).
This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2.

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

ESTIMATED CREST SETTLEMENT, in %(DH + AT)

% STTLMT = e

8
7
0.1

6
5
0.01
Earthquake Magnitude - M s

0.001
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (PGA), in g

Figure 2. Chart for estimating crest settlement

5 OTHER OBSERVATIONS
5.1 Calculated vs. actual crest settlements
Using the regression equation, crest settlements were calculated for each of the 69 case histories
included in the data base. Calculated settlement values are compared to the actual values in Figure
3. It is noteworthy that the statistical fit of actual to calculated values was found to be similar to that
for acceleration attenuation data from recent well-instrumented earthquakes including the Loma
Prieta earthquake (Governors Board of Inquiry 1990) the Landers earthquake (Boore et al. 1993),
and the Northridge earthquake (Finn et al. 1995). These statistical similarities suggest that
prediction of crest settlements cannot be improved unless the prediction of site-specific ground
accelerations can be improved. Also, this observation supports the prudent use of the mean-plusone-standard-deviation value of the PGA for estimating crest settlements of critical, high-hazard
structures.
10

Actual Settlement, % (DH + AT)

1
Actual settlement is
MORE than calculated

0.1

Actual settlement is
LESS than calculated

0.01

0.001
0.001

0.01

0.1

Calculated Settlement, % (DH + AT)

Figure 3. Actual vs. calculated settlements

10

5.2 Suitability of Newmark method for settlement calculations

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

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

6 CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions from this empirical study of embankment dam settlement and deformation during
earthquake include:

The vertical crest settlement experienced during an earthquake is an index of the amount of
deformation and damage incurred by the embankment

The amount of crest settlement is related primarily to two factors: peak ground
acceleration at the dam site and magnitude of the causative earthquake.

An approximate estimate of the amount of crest settlement that will occur due to an
assumed earthquake can be made by using mathematical formulas that relate deformation to
the peak ground acceleration and earthquake magnitude.

Deformation of a dams crest caused by earthquake is principally settlement and spreading;

apparently, there is no slide failure along a distinct shear plane.

REFERENCES:
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E. 1993. Estimation of response spectra and peak accelerations
from western North American earthquakes: an interim report, United States Geological Survey, Menlo
Park, California, Open File Report No. 93-509.
Day, R.W. 2002. Geotechnical earthquake engineering handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Finn, L.,Ventura, C.E., & Schuster, N.D. 1995. Ground motions during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol 22, 300-315.
Governors Board of Enquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake: George W. Housner, Chairman. 1990.
Co mpeting Against Time, a report to Governor George Deukmejian.
ICOLD 2001. Design features of dams to resist seismic ground motion. Bulletin 120.
Matsumoto, N. 2002. Evaluation of permanent displacement in seismic analysis of fill dams. In Proc third
US-Japan workshop on advanced research on earthquake engineering for dams, San Diego, 22-23 June
2002.
Newmark, N. 1965. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique, Vol 15 (2) 139-160
London.
Pinos S. F. 2000. Instrumentacin de presas de tierra, aplicaciones para evaluar la respuesta ssmica de presas
chilenas. University of Chile (Universidad de Chile). Unpublished thesis presented to obtain the degree of
Civil Engineer in Construction and Structures (Ingeniero Civil en Construccin y Estructuras).
Seed, H.B., Makdisi, F.I., and DeAlba, P. 1978. The performance of earthfill dams during earthquakes.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 104, No. GT7, pp. 967-994.
Southern Peru Copper Corp 2001. Unpublished settlement monitoring data Torata Dam.
Swaisgood J. R. 1998. Seismically-induced deformation of embankment dams. In proceedings of sixth
national conference on earthquake engineering. Seattle, Washington, U. S. A. May 31 June 4 1998.
Swaisgood, J.R. and Au-Yeung, Y. 1991. Behavior of dams during the 1990 Philippines earthquake.
Presented at the ASDSO 1991 annual conference, San Diego, 29 Sep- 2 Oct 1991.
Tepel, R.E.; Nelson, J.L. & Hosokawa, A.M. 1996. Seismic response of eleven embankment dams, Santa
Clara County, California, as measured by crest monument surveys. In Seismic design and performance of
dams; Sixth annual USCOLD lecture, Los Angeles, 22 -26 July 1996.