This paper presents the nonlinear response of an earthfill dam subjected to spatially varying ground motion, which includes the wave-passage, incoherence and site response effects. An equivalent linear method is considered in the nonlinear response formulation. The importance of the site response effect, which arises from the difference in the local soil conditions at different support points of the structure, is investigated particularly. The mean of maximum and variance response values obtained from a spatially varying ground motion case are compared with those of specialized ground motion models. It is observed that the variation in local soil conditions has important effects on the nonlinear response of earthfill dams.
AlvesS.W. (2004). Nonlinear Analysis of Pacoima Dam with Spatially Varying Nonuniform Ground Motion, Technical Report: CaltechEERL: EERL-2004-11, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
2.
BasuU.ChopraA.K. and TaylorR.L. (2004). Transient Finite-Element Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams Including Dam-Water-Foundation Interaction for Spatially Varying Ground Motion, Research Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August.
3.
BayraktarA.HaciefendiogluK. and MuvafikM. (2005). “Asynchronous seismic analysis of concrete-faced rockfill dams including dam–reservoir interaction”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 940–947.
4.
ChenM.T. and HarichandranR.S. (1995). “Effect of spatially varying ground motion on earth dam response”, Proceedings of the 10th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, Boulder, Colorado, pp.78–81.
5.
ChenM.T. (1995). Response of an Earth Dam to Spatially Varying Earthquake Ground Motion, PhD Thesis, Michigan State University, Michigan.
6.
ChenM.T. and HarichandranR.S. (2001). “Response of an earth dam to spatially varying earthquake ground motion”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 9, pp. 932–939.
7.
CloughR.W. and PenzienJ. (1993). Dynamics of Structures, McGraw Hill, Inc., Singapore.
8.
Der KiureghianA. (1980). “Structural response to stationary excitation”, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. 6, pp. 1195–1213.
9.
Der KiureghianA. and NeuenhoferA. (1991). A Response Spectrum Method for Multiple-Support Seismic Excitations, Report No. UCB/EERC-91/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
10.
DumanogluA.A. and SevernR.T. (1984). “Dynamic response of dams and other structures to differential ground motion”, Proceeding of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part 2, pp. 333–352.
11.
DumanogluA.A. and SoylukK. (2002). SVEM: A Stochastic Structural Analysis Program for Spatially Varying Earthquake Motions, Turkish Earthquake Foundation, TDV/KT 023–76.
12.
GazetasG.DebchaudhuryA. and GaspariniD.A. (1982). “Stochastic estimation of the nonlinear response of earth dams to strong earthquakes”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 39–46.
13.
HaciefendiogluK. (2006). “Transient stochastic analysis of nonlinear response of earth and rock-fill dams to spatially varying ground motion”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vo. 22, No. 6, pp. 647–664.
14.
HaciefendiogluK.BayraktarA.SoylukK. and DumanogluA.A. (2004). “Incoherence effects on the nonlinear stochastic response of embankment dams”, Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, October, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
15.
HaricandranR.S. and VanmarckeE.H. (1986). “Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 2, pp. 154–174.
16.
HarichandranR.S. (1991). “Estimating the spatial variation of earthquake ground motion from dense array recordings”, Structural Safety, Vol. 10, No. 1–3, pp. 219–233.
17.
HarounM.A. and Abdel-HafιzE.A. (1987). “Seismic response analysis of earth dams under differential ground motion”, Bulletin of the Seismological of America, Vol. 77, No. 5, pp. 1514–1529.
18.
HudsonM.IdrissI.M. and BeikaeM. (2003). User's Manual for QUAD4M: A Computer Program to Evaluate the Seismic Response of Soil Structures Using Finite Element Procedures and Incorporating a Compliant Base, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California Davis, California.
19.
IdrissI.M. (1973). QUAD4-A Computer Program for Evaluating the Seismic Response of Soil Structures by Variable Damping Finite Element Procedures, Report No. EERC/73-16, University of California, Berkeley.
20.
IdrissI.M. (1990). “Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes”, Proceedings-Memorial Symposium to Honor Professor Harry Bolton Seed, Berkeley, California, May.
21.
KanaiK. (1957). “Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground”, Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, Tokyo University, Vol. 35, pp. 307–325.
22.
MaheriM.R. and Ghaffar-ZadehH. (2002). “Asynchronous and non-uniform support excitation analysis of large structures”, JSEE: Summer and Fall, Vol. 4, No. 2–3, pp. 63–74.
23.
SeedH.B. and IdrissI.M. (1970). Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis, Report No. EERC/70-10, University of California, Berkeley.
24.
SeedH.B.WongR.T.IdrissI.M. and TokimatsuK. (1986). “Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11, pp. 1016–1032.
25.
SunJ.I.GolesorkhiR. and SeedH.B. (1988). Dynamic Moduli and Damping Ratios for Cohesive Soils, Report No. UCB/EERC-88/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
26.
TajimiH. (1960). “A statistical method for determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earthquake”, Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, pp. 781–797.
