The 12

th
International Conference of
International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

Comparison of Dynamic Responses of an Embankment Dam
Based on Equivalent Linear and Nonlinear Methods
R. Mahin Roosta
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Zanjan University, Zanjan, Iran
Keywords: Dynamic analysis, equivalent linear method, nonlinear method, embankment dam.
ABSTRACT: Usually permanent displacements of slopes are calculated by combination of Newmark method
and linear or equivalent linear dynamic analysis. In these analyses, calculating the real acceleration is
impossible, because the real acceleration of sliding block should not be more than yield acceleration (Kc),
otherwise values of displacements will be insignificant. Therefore permanent displacements are usually
calculated based on unreal accelerations in linear analysis. On the other hand in nonlinear analyses the
acceleration of sliding blocks will not be more than Kc and permanent displacements occur during analysis.
In this paper, this paradox is compared in the dynamic analyses of Alborz embankment dam against Maximum
Credible Earthquake motion. Although maximum permanent displacements in these two methods of analyses
are nearly equal (1.55 m and 1.5 m), but maximum crest accelerations are very different.
1 Introduction
Before mid-1960s, most slopes were analyzed by pseudo static method against earthquake loading. In this
method factor of safety of sliding surface had to be at least 1 with considering the horizontal coefficient of
acceleration. But nowadays determination of permanent displacement of earthquake motion is a common
method for identifying the stability of embankment dams in earthquake condition. Because of transient
condition of earthquake loading and variation of acceleration direction in a very small period of time, sliding
mass may have a factor of safety less than one; in this condition permanent displacement is produced in
slopes. This displacement must be less than the allowable displacement. Newmark (1965) introduced the
method of calculating this displacement; In his idea, permanent displacement is determined by double
integrating on the difference between acceleration in the critical surface and the yield acceleration (Kc)
supposing that the sliding surface is perfect plastic. Makdisi and Seed (1978) presented a simplified
procedure for estimating this permanent displacement. In their method first natural period and maximum crest
acceleration of slope are defined, then maximum average horizontal acceleration of slope and coefficient of
yield acceleration are calculated; afterward permanent displacement is defined from their presented figures.
Sarma (1981) determined permanent displacement of some slopes from earthquakes and atomic explosion
and represent a figure for deriving the maximum displacement. Also Ambrayses and Menu (1988) developed
an equation for calculating these displacements. Most recently method is developed by Bray and Travasarou
(2007); in their method seismic response of the sliding mass is captured by an equivalent linear viscoelastic
modal analysis. They used variety of ground motion database to generate the seismic displacement data and
finally using probability density function for seismic displacement, introduced a method for estimating the
displacement, which is related to yield acceleration of the slope (kc), magnitude of earthquake (M) and value of
acceleration response spectra for 1.5 times of initial fundamental period of slope (Sa(1.5Ts)).

Dynamic analysis can be done using linear or nonlinear method. In engineering purposes, effect of material
nonlinearity in dynamic analysis is considered using the equivalent linear method. In equivalent linear method,
behavior of material is linear; but damping ratio increases and shear modulus decreases due to increasing of
shear strain. Effective shear strain is calculated from trial and error. First of all, shear modulus and damping
ratio are defined with some curves and a predefined shear strain. With these initial parameters, dynamic
analysis is performed in linear approach and shear strain histories in all parts of the structure are determined.
For next analysis, effective shear strain (about 65 percent of maximum shear strain in the dynamic analysis) is
used for identification of shear modulus and damping ratio. This method converges after 4 or 5 analyses. In
this approach, nonlinearity is modeled approximately and the displacement of slope after dynamic analysis is
zero because of linearity in the material model. Hence the irreversible displacement is not modelled in this
2628

method; For instance Newmark method can be used for defining the permanent displacement. Whereas in
nonlinear material model there is no need to use Newmark method and permanent displacement is
calculated during the analysis.

In this paper both equivalent linear and nonlinear methods have been used in the dynamic analysis of Alborz
embankment dam. This zoned embankment dam with maximum 77 m height is being constructed in
Mazandaran state in North of Iran. Both above mentioned methods are used for controlling the stability of the
dam against maximum credible earthquake (MCE) motion. Transient dynamic analyses are carried out using
the finite difference code FLAC. In the nonlinear method, Mohr-Coulomb model is used in such a way that
shear modulus and friction angle are depends on confining pressure; for instance, some fish functions are
provided and applied in the software. Also in the equivalent linear method, shear modulus reduction and
increase in the damping ratio are considered with some other fish functions in the program.
2 Geometry and mesh of the embankment
The critical section of Al borze dam is chosen for dynamic analysis; most of dam body has lain on marlstone
rock formation with average strength. Figure 1 shows the cross section of the embankment dam and its
foundation. The slopes of the upstream and downstream shells are 1.V:2.25H and 1.V:1.9H, respectively. Due
to safety evaluation, two berms with 10 m and 40 m width are designed in the upstream and downstream of
the dam.

Since in the stability analyses some of critical slip surfaces pass through the foundation and due to effect of
dam weight in the stresses of the foundation, 100 m depth of the foundation is modeled in these analyses.
Also about 150 m distance is considered between left and right boundaries to the toe of the upstream and
downstream of dam body.

Ratio of crest length to height of the dam is such a way that 2-D analysis is enough for stability evaluation.
Therefore the dam section is discretized into a plane strain finite different grid. Figure 1 gives the prepared
mesh of the model. Based on Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer's study (1973), for accurate representation of wave
transmission through the model, maximum dimension in the grids is considered to be less than one-tenth of
the earthquake wavelength. Beside of this criterion, due to stress and strain concentration in the upper part of
the dam, finer elements are used near the dam crest. For reducing the reflection of waves from right and left
boundaries, transmitting boundaries with free field option are considered in the boundaries of the model.


Figure 1. Dimensions of the model and finite difference mesh of Alborz embankment dam.
3 Input motion characteristics
In this paper, dynamic analyses are carried out for an extreme earthquake with a peak ground acceleration of
0.54g. Figure 2 shows the acceleration time history, pseudo spectral acceleration for 5% of damping and the
Fourier amplitude spectrum of the input motion. It is shown that maximum response of a system with a single
degree of freedom is about 1.45g. Maximum Fourier amplitude occurs in frequencies of 0.8 and 1.9 HZ and
majority of earthquake has frequency less than 10 HZ.
2629

-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 20 40 60
Time (sec)
I
n
p
u
t

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz)
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2. a)Acceleration time history, b) Pseudo spectral acceleration (5% damping) and c) Fourier amplitude
spectrum
The above mentioned acceleration time history is presented for river bed (Mahab Ghodss, 1996); but due to
modeling of the foundation up to 100 m, input acceleration is modified and transmitted to this elevation using
equivalent linear software EERA(Bardet etal, 2000). Figure 3 shows the modified acceleration time history and
its characteristics.


-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 20 40 60
Time (sec)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

d
e
p
t
h

1
0
0

m
(
g
)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz)
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3. a)Modified Acceleration time history, b) Pseudo spectral acceleration (5% damping) and c) Fourier
amplitude spectrum
4 Material modeling and parameters
In this paper, two different models are considered in the dynamic analyses: equivalent linear model and
nonlinear elasto-plastic model. These two models and their parameters are explained in the following
paragraphs.
4.1 Equivalent linear method
This method works with some iteration; in fact some dynamic analyses are performed to adjust the dynamic
parameters respect to the input motion. After these iterations which are based on maximum dynamic shear
strain, a complete dynamic analysis is done based on ultimate shear modulus and damping ratio of each of
zones (elements) of the model.
In this model the dynamic behavior of the material is described through the following parameters:
- Initial shear modulus or shear modulus in small shear strain, Gmax
- The Poisson's ratio
- The decrease of secant modulus G with increasing shear strain
- The hysteretic damping ratio, , which is an increasing function of the amplitude of shear strain .
In the dam body, shear modulus is estimated as a function of effective confining pressure
1 2 3
' ( ' ' ' ) / 3
o
= + +
, (Ishihara 1986). Maximum shear modulus, Poissons ratio () and void ratio (e) for
different part of the dam body are obtained from literature but shear modulus of the marlstone foundation is
measured from geophysical tests; these parameters are shown in Table 1. In this table unites of
0
and
Gmax is Kpa.
Decrease of secant modulus (G) and increase of damping ratio () with increasing shear strain ??are shown in
Figure 4. Changes of these parameters are based on the studies of Seed and Idriss (1970), Seed etal. (1986)
and Sun etal. (1988).

2630

Table 1. Material properties in the dynamic analyses.
Material

d

KN/m
3

e Gmax
Filter & Drainage 20 0.1 0.3
59 , ) ( 220
max 2
6 . 0
0 max 2 max
= = K K G , Seed & Idriss (1970
)
Gravelly Shell 20 0.25 0.3
55 . 0 '
0
2
max
) (
1
) 17 . 2 ( 8400

e
e
G
+

=
, Kokusho & Esachi (1981)
Rock fill 20 0.25 0.3
55 . 0 '
0
2
max
) (
1
) 17 . 2 (
13000
e
e
G
+

=
, Kokusho & Esachi (1981)
Clay core 19.5 0.15 0.35
5 . 0
2
max
) (
1
) 973 . 2 (
) 3270 (

e
e
G
, Hardin & Black (1968)
Marlstone 23 0.15 0.35
Gpa G 62 . 1
max
=


0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Shear Strain
S
h
e
a
r

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
0
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.3
D
a
m
p
i
n
g

R
a
t
i
o
G/Gmax, Imperviouse Clay Core G/Gmax, Filter & Drainage
G/Gmax, Sandy Gravel Shell G/Gmax, Rock Fill Shell
Damping ratio, Imperviouse Clay Core Damping ratio, Filter & Drainage
Damping ratio, Sandy Gravel Shell Damping ratio, Rock Fill Shell

Figure 4. Shear modulus reduction curves and variation of damping ratio of materials
4.2 Non-linear elasto-plastic model
The nonlinear material model used in this study is Mohr-Coulomb model in which value of Poisson's ratio and
maximum shear modulus is derived from the expression given in previous section (Table 1). Shear strength
parameters of clay core and marlstone foundation is the same as table 2 but in the rock fill material following
expression is used for friction angle:

a
o
P
Log
3

=
(1)
Where
a
P = atmospheric pressure,

3
= confining pressure,
o
= friction angle in confining pressure of 1 atm and
= decrease of friction angle due to changes of confining pressure from 1 to 10 atm.
With respect to laboratory tests which are done on the rock fill borrow area,
o
and in this zones
considred 42
o
and 4
o
, respectively.

In the nonlinear analysis, the amount of viscous damping is taken as 3% which is minimum values in the
figure 4. This value is added to the hysteretic damping which develops during cycles of loading and unloading
due to nonlinearity in the material model.

2631

5 Results of dynamic analyses
Using above mentioned material models, the dynamic response of the dam to maximum earthquake level
(MCL) in the steady seepage condition (full reservoir) are analyzed. In the following sections, results of
equivalent linear and nonlinear method are compared with each other.
5.1 Crest acceleration response
Figures 5 and 6 represent horizontal crest acceleration in both equivalent linear and nonlinear analysis. It can
be seen that horizontal acceleration amplitudes in the equivalent linear analysis are greater than nonlinear
analysis. The maximum crest acceleration in the equivalent linear method and nonlinear method is 1.25 g and
0.7 g, respectively. This increase of acceleration in the equivalent linear and nonlinear methods is also shown
in the pseudo acceleration responses in the figure 5 and 6. Maximum accelerations of a mass with single
degree of freedom in the equivalent linear and nonlinear analyses are 4.5g and 2.1g, respectively.

It has to be mentioned that in the nonlinear analysis, due to definition of yielding surface, acceleration in each
element becomes less than a critical acceleration. In fact, in the steps of analysis, differences of elastic
stresses from yield surface results in some iterations and development of permanent displacement in each
element.

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 20 40 60
Time (sec)
C
r
e
s
t

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
(
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

L
i
n
e
a
r

M
e
t
h
o
d
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz)
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5. a)Crest acceleration history from equivalent linear method, b) Pseudo spectral acceleration (5%
damping) and c) Fourier amplitude spectrum

-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 20 40 60
Time (sec)
C
r
e
s
t

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

(
n
o
n
l
i
n
e
a
r

m
e
t
h
o
d
)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz)
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

a) (b) (c)
Figure 6. a)Crest acceleration history from nonlinear method, b) Pseudo spectral acceleration (5% damping)
and c) Fourier amplitude spectrum
5.2 Displacement field
As it was mentioned, Newmark concept can be used in conjunction with equivalent linear method to calculate
permanent displacement due to earthquake loading. The permanent displacements are derived from double
integration between average seismic acceleration history and yield acceleration of each sliding mass. For
instance, critical slip surfaces and yield acceleration coefficient in both upstream and downstream side of dam
should be identified. The yield acceleration coefficient (Kc) for each slip surface is derived using the pseudo
static analysis. Kc is horizontal seismic coefficient, in which safety factor of stability of each sliding mass
becomes 1 (each slide starts to move). To obtain these surfaces and their Kc value, limit equilibrium stability
analyses have been done on the cross section of the dam. Typical cross section of dam and critical slip
surfaces are shown in figure 7. Shear strength parameters of dam body is shown in table 2. Region numbers
in this table is seen in figure 7. It should be mentioned that yield strength of clay material in the dynamic
condition is about 80 % to 90 % of its undrained shear strength in the static condition (Makdisi and Seed,
1978); therefore in this analyses dynamic yield strength of clay core is assumed about 0.85 % of its static yield
2632

strength in the consolidated drained tests (CU parameters). Other dam body parameters are in the
consolidated drained conditions (CD parameters).

In the figure 7, 12 slip surfaces are considered for both upstream and downstream of dam. Each slip surface
is critical in its level and is determined from pseudo static limit equilibrium method. Based on these analyses,
yield acceleration of each slid mass is calculated which can be seen in table 3.
Table 2. Selected parameters used in the pseudo static analyses
Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cohesion (Kpa) 42.5 - - - - - - - 130
Friction angle (
o
) 9.4 38 39 40 42 36 37 38 31
Dry density (KN/m
3
) 19.5 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 23
Wet density
(KN/m
3
)
20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 24

Figure 7. Typical section for limit equilibrium stability analyses and critical slip surfaces.
Table 3. Yeild acceleration, maximum acceleration response and permanent displacement of each slid
Slides Side Kc Kmax
Horizontal
Displacement
(cm)
Verical
Displacement
(cm)
U
1
0.255 0.85 155 53
U
2
0.23 0.77 136 51
U
3
Upstream 0.22 0.65 100 32
U
4
0.25 0.51 28 7
U
5
0.27 0.51 19.5 3.7
U
6


0.38 0.28
D
1
0.4 0.75 54 20
D
2
0.33 0.66 44 15
D
3
Downstream 0.28 0.53 30 12
D
4
0.25 0.38 11.5 2
D
5
0.24 0.35 10 2
D
6
0.27 0.33 2.2 0.3

Average acceleration history of previous critical slip surfaces at different heights of the embankment is
calculated from dynamic analyses and derived from the following formula:

i
n
i
i i
n
i
m
m t a
t a

=
=
=
1
1
) (
) (
(2)

where ) (t a
i
= acceleration of element i in the time t,
i
m = mass of element i and
n = total number of elements in each slip surfaces.
For 12 slip surfaces in the upstream and down stream of dam, the above mentioned formula is used and their
2633

average acceleration histories are determined during the analysis. Figure 8 shows average acceleration time
histories of 2 slip surfaces in the upstream and downstream. Based on the results of the analysis, maximum
average acceleration coefficient of each slide (Kmax) is determined and presented in the table 3.
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

(
s
l
i
d

U
2
)
Ky = +0.23
Ky = -0.23
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

(
s
l
i
d

D
2
)
Ky = + 0.33
Ky = - 0.33

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)

(
s
l
i
d

U
2
)

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)

(
s
l
i
d

D
2
)

Figure 8. Average acceleration time histories and permanent displacement of two slides U2 and D2
Permanent displacements are calculated from double integration of differences of acceleration time histories
of each slid and its yield acceleration; in figure 8, two of these calculations are shown. It can be seen that most
of displacements are developed during the time 12 to 15 s and 32 to 38 s. permanent displacements of all
slides are shown in table 3. It is shown that maximum horizontal displacement of the dam is about 1.55 m and
is developed in the upstream side and near the crest elevation; maximum horizontal displacement of
downstream side is about .54 m.

Figure 9. Displacement field at end of nonlinear dynamic analysis

In the nonlinear analysis, permanent displacement is determined through the analysis directly. In fact,
postulation of stresses from yield criterion during dynamic analysis causes plastic shear strains and
permanent displacement. Figure 9 shows the deformation field of the embankment caused by earthquake.
Maximum displacement is about 1.51 m toward upstream side. Maximum horizontal displacements are 1.25
and 0.25 m in the upstream and downstream direction, respectively. The crest settlement of the embankment
is about 1 m.

Horizontal and vertical displacement histories of one point in the crest of dam are shown in figure 10. Like
equivalent linear and Newmark concept, maximum jump in the displacement develops during the time 10 to
2634

15 s and 31 to 35 s.
6 Conclusion
This study was focused on a comparison between the dynamic behavior of an embankment dam in equivalent
linear and nonlinear method. It was shown that acceleration magnification in nonlinear analysis is smaller
than equivalent linear analysis. Crest settlement in the nonlinear analysis is more than linear analysis,
whereas maximum permanent displacement of embankment dam in both analyses are the same.

These permanent displacements are very large but they are due to excitation in the level of maximum credible
earthquake. Maximum settlement is less than freeboard of dam and overturing will not occure in this level of
earthquake with normal water level. Thus, major failure and break will not occur in this level and remaining
dimensions of the filter and clay core after deformation will be enough for their performance.
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
C
r
e
s
t

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Horizontal Displacement
Vertical Displacement

Figure 10. Horizontal and vertical displacement histories of dam crest
7 References
Bardet, J.P., Ichii, K. and Lin, C.H. 2000. EERA, A Computer Program for Equivalent-linear Earthquake site Response Analyses
of Layered Soil Deposits. University of Southern California.
Bray, J.D. and Travasarou, T. 2007. Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced deviatoric slope displacement.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 133(4): 381-392.
Hardin, B.O. and Black, W.L. 1968. Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay, J. Soil Mechanics & Foundation
Engineering, ASCE, Vol 84, No 2, pp1531-1537.
Ishihara, K. 1986. Evaluation of soil properties for use in earthquake response analysis, Geomechanical Modeling in
Engineering Practice, The Netherlands, Chapter 10.
Itasca consulting group, 1998. FLAC, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Minneapolis, MN, US.
Kokusho, T. and Esachi, Y. 1981. Cyclic tri-axial test on sands and coarse materials, Proceedings, 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,(Quoted by Ishihara 1986).
Kuhlemeyer, R. L., and Lysmer, J., 1973. Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems, J. Soil Mech. &
Foundations, Div. ASCE, 99(SM5), 421-427.
Mahab Ghodss consulting engineers, 1996. Report of seismicity and seismic hazard of Alborz embankment dam, Phase II.
Newmark, N. 1965. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments, Geotechnique, Vol 15, pp139-160,.
Sarma, S. K. 1979. Response and stability of earth dams during strong earthquakes, Misc paper, Gl-79-13, Geotechnical
Laboratory, US Army Engineer water ways experiment station, Vicksburg, US.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. 1970. Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis, Report No. EERC 75-29,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkely, California.
Seed, H.B., Wong, R.T., Idriss, I.M. and Tokimatsu, K. 1986. Module and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analysis of
Cohesionless Soils, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 112(11), 1016-1032.
Sun, J. I., Golesorkhi, R. and Seed, H. B. 1988. Dynamic Moduli and Damping Ratios for Cohesive Soils, Report No. UCB/EERC-
88/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
2635