HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Technical Paper

Empirical approaches to estimate the nonlinear dynamic responses

of earth-core rockfill dams subjected to earthquake ground motions
Arman Ghaemi ⇑, Jean-Marie Konrad
Department of Civil and Water Engineering, Laval University, Québec, Canada

Received 4 April 2021; received in revised form 28 December 2021; accepted 17 January 2022
Available online 23 February 2022

Abstract

This study investigates three aspects of the dynamic response of earth-core rockfill dams (ECRDs) under earthquake loadings, includ-
ing induced shear strain, increased fundamental period, and shear modulus reduction. A database of the recorded ground motions of
ECRD cases in Japan is analyzed to carry out this study. The required response parameters as mentioned above are extracted by ana-
lyzing the acceleration time histories recorded at the dams’ crests and foundations. Subsequently, statistical analyses are performed to
achieve the objectives of this study. A graph is developed describing the change in the dam’s fundamental period with the induced shear
strain, and it is observed that the increase of the dam’s period is dependent on the increase in the shear strain levels. A relationship is
established to estimate the anticipated levels of shear strain from the intensity measure (IM) of the earthquake signals. In the proposed
predictive relationship, a new IM is used that can adequately characterize the severity of an earthquake. Finally, a curve and a range are
suggested for the average shear modulus degradation of the ECRD’s core materials. The presented empirical graphs and relationships in
this study are valuable tools to obtain an appropriate perception of dams’ nonlinear behaviour under strong earthquake excitations.
Ó 2021 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Earth-core rockfill dams; Dynamic properties; Vibration; Natural period; Shear strain; Shear modulus; Intensity measure; Empirical; Eart-
hquake; Seismic

1. Introduction dam experiences a high response due to the amplified vibra-

The dynamic response of a rockfill dam to an earth-
quake is influenced by various factors, including the earth-
quake’s severity, the dam’s dynamic characteristics, the
dynamic properties of the materials, geometry, and water
reservoir level (Gazetas and Dakoulas, 1992; Pelecanos
et al., 2016; Pelecanos et al., 2020; Russo et al., 2017;
Saberi et al., 2019b, 2019a, 2013; Sarma and Ambraseys,
1967; Sica and Russo, 2021; Yaseri and Konrad, 2020).
The natural vibration period is one of the characteristics
that can highly affect a dam’s dynamic response. It is
related to all the above-mentioned influential factors. The
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arman.ghaemi.1@ulaval.ca (A. Ghaemi).
tion when its natural period is close to the predominant
period of a ground motion. This phenomenon is called res-
onance, and it has a decisive role in an earthquake’s dam-
age potential (Albano et al., 2015; Chakraborty et al., 2019;
Dakoulas and Gazetas, 1985; Gazetas, 1987; Ghaemi,
2021; Ghaemi and Konrad, 2020; Kramer, 1996; Sarma
and Ambraseys, 1967; Uddin and Gazetas, 1995; Yaseri
and Konrad, 2020).
Ghaemi and Konrad (2020) highlighted the significance
of a dam’s first mode period on quantification of the sever-
ity of an earthquake by using intensity measures (IM).
Accordingly, they proposed a new IM that accounts for
the resonance phenomenon in order to estimate the relative
crest settlement of concrete-faced rockfill dams (CFRDs).
They determined that the initial mode period is dominant

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2022.101106
0038-0806/Ó 2021 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
for a CFRD’s response, and that the maximum response
occurs at a nearly resonance condition. However, the seis-
mic performance of an earth core rockfill dam (ECRD) is
different from that of a CFRD, since their constituent
material compositions and zoning are dissimilar. CFRDs
have an impervious concrete layer on the upstream face,
resulting in a dry body dam (Saberi et al., 2018, 2019c;
Sherard and Cooke, 1987). In contrast, the body of an
ECRD is not completely dry, and some sections within
the body experience fully saturated conditions. Moreover,
ECRDs have a low-permeable core surrounded by rockfill
materials. The core material is commonly clayey soil, which
is softer than the stiff rockfill body. Thus, the contrast in
the stiffness between the core and the outer cohesionless
rockfill layers impacts the dynamic response of an ECRD
and results in variations of the dam’s fundamental period
under earthquake excitation (Park and Kishida, 2019;
Xenaki and Athanasopoulos, 2008).
The shear modulus (G) is an essential dynamic material
property representing the rigidity of a dam’s materials.
Depending on the severity of ground motions, G varies
with regard to the induced levels of shear strain (c), and
G decreases as c increases (Gazetas and Dakoulas, 1992;
Park and Kishida, 2019; Vucetic and Dobry, 1991a). Sub-
sequently, the shear wave velocity (Vs ) of the dam’s mate-
rials decreases, since it is directly associated with the
reduction in G. Consequently, the dam’s fundamental per-
iod (TD ), which is inversely correlated to Vs , will then be
increased. Hence, the increase in TD is dependent on the
increase in c, and higher strain levels show longer funda-
mental periods (Chakraborty et al., 2019; Ohmachi and
Tahara, 2011; Papadimitriou et al., 2014; Soda et al.,
2012). Moreover, the pore water pressure could possibly
build under cyclic loadings, since water exists in an
ECRD’s body (Gazetas and Dakoulas, 1992). The genera-
tion of excess pore water pressure causes softening of the
core materials, which amplifies the nonlinearity effects
and ultimately increases the dam’s period (Gazetas and
Dakoulas, 1992; Ohmachi and Tahara, 2011; Park and
Kishida, 2019; Pelecanos et al., 2016; Pelecanos et al.,
2020). Ohmachi and Taharz (2011) analyzed the recorded
ground motion at a clay core rockfill dam (i.e., the Ara-
tozawa dam) during the Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake
in 2008, and found that the dam’s period became longer,
about three times greater than the first mode period,
because of the considerable stiffness degradation of the
core’s material. Therefore, evaluating the mentioned
strain-dependent responses of an ECRD is vital for its
dynamic performance analysis.
Different methods have been developed to determine the
natural vibration characteristics of a dam. Based on their
computational complexity, these methods can be catego-
rized as empirical methods (Sasaki et al., 2018), the simpli-
fied shear beam method (Ambraseys, 1960; Gazetas and
Dakoulas, 1992), modal numerical analysis using finite ele-
ment and finite difference methods (Chopra, 1967; Chugh,
2007; Ghaemi and Konrad, 2020; Makdisi et al., 1982;
2
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
Mejia and Seed, 1983), and in-situ field tests (e.g., forced
vibration/ambient vibration tests) (Abdel-Ghaffar and
Scott, 1981; Jafari and Davoodi, 2006). These methods
are used to calculate the fundamental period at low strain
levels, where the shear modulus has its maximum value.
In general, the increased period of a dam due to stiffness
degradation (TN ) can be determined by two independent
approaches: (a) performing a series of numerical simula-
tions, which requires using a constitutive model to capture
the nonlinear soil behaviour; and (b) using ground motion
signals recorded at the dam’s body, which may not be
available for all dams.
Recently, Chakraborty et al. (2019) proposed a numeri-
cal method known as ‘sum of sines’ to calculate the strain-
dependent natural frequency of earthen dams. In this tech-
nique, sinusoidal loads with varying frequency ranges and
amplitudes are applied to the dam. Subsequently, the
dam’s response is calculated by using the equivalent linear
approach incorporating a shear modulus reduction curve.
This method has a high computational cost, as it requires
generating a numerical model of a dam and then applying
a series of cyclic sinusoidal loads. Therefore, the advance-
ment of empirical approaches to conveniently estimate
the induced shear strain and increased vibration period
due to stiffness degradation is still challenging.
This study mainly addresses the nonlinear seismic
responses of ECRDs, including the maximum shear strain
at the dam’s body (cmax ), the increase in period or decrease
in the frequency of the dam (TTDN ), and the shear modulus
reduction (G=Gmax ). A database consisting of the ground
motions recorded at the body of 16 ECRDs located in
Japan is analyzed. The data used for this study are col-
lected from a strong motion database provided by the
Japan Commission on Large Dams (JCOLD, 2014). A
methodology comprising various approaches is provided
in order to obtain the required information from the earth-
quake signals at the dam’s crest and foundation. The shear
strain, shear wave velocities, fundamental period, increased
period, and shear modulus of each case are calculated using
the proposed methodology, and based on the information
extracted from the earthquake records, the following objec-
tives are achieved:
1. Establishing a relationship between the TTDN ratio and the
cmax
2. Developing a predictive relationship to estimate the
amount of cmax from the ground motion IM. In the
developed relationship, a new IM is utilised that can
appropriately describe the severity of an earthquake to
damage in ECRDs.
3. Suggesting a curve and a range representative of average
shear modulus reduction of the core materials of
ECRDs (i.e., G=Gmax
cmax Þ
The current work is based on actual case histories,
which makes it distinctive among other studies based on
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

numerical simulation results. The empirical relationships
developed herein are useful tools for estimating dams’ non-
linear dynamic responses under strong earthquake
loadings.
2. Methodology
Fig. 1 depicts the flowchart of the methodology pro-
posed to achieve the objectives of this study. This flowchart
presents an overview of the analyses conducted and the
approaches applied in the current study. It starts with col-
lecting the accelerograms (i.e., acceleration time histories)
of rockfill dams from the extensive JCOLD database
(JCOLD, 2014). The accelerograms are corrected for base-
lines and filtered where applicable. Subsequently, the neces-
sary response parameters, including the dams’ maximum
induced-shear strain, periods, shear wave velocities, and
shear moduli, are calculated for each case.

Fig. 1. Flowchart of step-by-step procedures of the analyses conducted in this study.

3
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
Fig. 2. Aratozawa dam cross-section (Touileb et al., 2018).
A well-documented dam is used to validate the
approaches employed in extracting the mentioned essential
parameters. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the Aratozawa dam
with a height of 74.4 m, is selected as a case study. The
information for this dam from the literature provides an
excellent opportunity to validate the proposed methodol-
ogy. The calculation procedures are initially applied to
the accelerograms recorded during the Iwate-Miyagi Nair-
iku earthquake (i.e., case number 5 in Table 1). Subse-
quently, the results are compared with those calculated
by other researchers (Ohmachi and Tahara, 2011; Soda
et al., 2012). The following sections discuss each step of
the methodology as well as the validation process.
2.1. Case history database of ECRDs
A database of 16 different ECRDs located in Japan that
contains their recorded earthquake motions and available
geometry information is presented in Table 1. The charac-
teristics in the collected database are as follows:
 The selected dams have a wide range of heights, from
27.5 m to 158 m.
 The earthquake signals were recorded at downhole sen-
sors installed at the dams’ crests and foundations. The
sampling time intervals for the acceleration recordings
were similar for each pair of downhole sensors.
 There are 98 horizontal (stream direction) acceleration
time series components from 49 earthquake events.
 The earthquakes’ magnitudes range widely, from 3.3 to
9. The type of magnitude is M J , and defined by Japan
Meteorological Agency (Ito et al., 2004).
 The epicentral distances range widely from 4 to 460 km.
2.2. Calculation of maximum earthquake-induced shear
strains (cmax )
The cmax of the studied dams are calculated from the dif-
ference between the displacement time histories of the
4
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
crests and foundations (Fig. 3). The displacement–time his-
tory is the result of the filtered accelerograms’ double inte-
gration. The maximum displacement difference (dmax Þ
relative to dam height (HÞ is the cmax (Eq. (1) and Eq.
(2)). Historically, this concept has been identified as appar-
ent shear strain. Fig. 4-a depicts the calculated displace-
ment time histories of the selected case study (Aratozawa
dam). The calculated value of dmax is 0.14 m, which repre-
sents a 0.19% strain. Fig. 4-b presents the calculated time-
varying shear strain. The cmax occurs almost 5 s after the
beginning of the earthquake, and then gradually decreases
over time. The obtained value of cmax perfectly matches
that indicated by previous studies (Ohmachi and Tahara,
2011; Soda et al., 2012).


dmax
c max ð%Þ ¼  100 ð1Þ
H
dmax ¼ MaxðDisplacementð2Þ
Displacementð1ÞÞ ð2Þ
2.3. Calculation of increased vibration periods of the dams
(TN )
The TN is determined using a method known as the
Ratio of Fourier Amplitude Spectrum (RFAS) (Hwang
et al., 2007). In this method, the Fourier Amplitude Spec-
trum (FAS) of the acceleration time series is initially calcu-
lated by applying the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
function. Subsequently, the transfer function (TF) or spec-
tral ratio is calculated by dividing the FAS obtained at the
dam’s crest by that obtained at the foundation.
The TN is determined at the longest period correspond-
ing to the highest amplitude in the TF spectrum. However,
due to unexpected spikes in the TF spectrum, it is rather
challenging to find the TN with high accuracy. Hence, the
method proposed by Konno and Ohmachi (1998) is used
to smooth the TF spectrum. The above procedures are
applied to the case dam, and the results are presented in
Fig. 5. This figure displays both smoothed and non-
smoothed spectral ratios versus the periods in logarithmic
scales. As observed, the last two peaks occurred at the peri-
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

Table 1
Database of the ECRDs’ case histories.
Dam’s information Earthquake information
Name of dam Height (m) Crest length (m) No. Date Time Magnitude Epicentral Time step of acceleration
(M J ) distance data (s) (Crest &
(km) Foundation)
Aratozawa 74.4 413.7 1 1996-08-11 0.3:12 AM 6.1 25 0.01
2 1996-08-11 0.8:10 AM 5.8 20 0.01
3 1996-08-11 3:01:34 PM 4.9 19 0.01
4 2003-05-26 6:24:33 PM 7.1 69 0.01
5 2008-06-14 8:43:45 AM 7.2 16 0.01
6 2011-03-11 2:46:18 PM 9 195 0.01
7 2011-04-07 11:32:43 PM 7.2 120 0.01
Kassa 90 487 8 2011-03-12 3:59:16 AM 6.7 19 0.01
9 2007-07-16 10:13:23 AM 6.8 78 0.01
10 2004-10-23 5:56:00 PM 6.8 49 0.01
Kisenyama 91 255 11 1984-05-05 2:12:51 AM 4.7 16 0.01
12 1990-01-11 8:10:52 PM 5 25 0.005
13 1995-01-17 5:46:52 AM 7.3 82 0.005
14 2011-04-12 8:08:16 AM 6.4 460 0.005
Kuttari 27.5 220.1 15 1994-10-04 10:22:57 PM 8.2 389 0.01
16 2003-09-26 4:50:07 AM 8 181 0.01
17 2012-08-25 11:16:17 PM 6.1 93 0.01
Kuzumaru 51.7 220 18 2003-05-26 6:24:33 PM 7.1 96 0.01
19 2008-07-24 12:26:20 AM 6.8 14 0.01
20 2011-03-11 2:46:18 PM 9 222 0.01
Naramata 158 520 21 2004-10-23 5:56:00 PM 6.8 49 0.01
22 2004-10-23 6:34:06 PM 6.5 49 0.01
Oogaki 84.5 262 23 1987-02-06 10:16:15 PM 6.7 108 0.01
24 1987-04-07 9:40:43 AM 6.6 90 0.01
25 1987-04-23 5:13:23 AM 6.5 80 0.01
Oouchi 102 340 26 1994-12-18 8:07:34 PM 5.5 6 0.01
27 1994-12-18 9:51:57 PM 4.9 7 0.01
28 2011-03-11 2:46:18 PM 9 277 0.01
Sannnoukai 61.5 241.6 29 2003-05-26 6:24:33 PM 7.1 98 0.01
30 2011-03-11 2:46:18 PM 9 223 0.01
Shichikashuku 90 565 31 2005-08-16 11:46:26 AM 7.2 156 0.01
32 2011-03-11 2:46:18 PM 9 207 0.01
33 2011-04-07 11:32:43 PM 7.2 126 0.01
Tarumizu 43 256.5 34 1993-11-27 3:11:24 PM 5.8 61 0.01
35 2008-06-14 8:43:45 AM 7.2 177 0.01
36 2011-04-07 11:32:43 PM 7.2 94 0.01
Terauchi 83 420 37 2005-03-20 10:53:40 AM 7 61 0.01
38 2005-04-20 6:11:27 AM 5.8 49 0.01
39 2011-02-05 10:16:27 PM 3.3 4 0.01
Urushizawa 80 310 40 2008-06-14 8:43:45 AM 7.2 55 0.01
41 2011-03-11 2:46:18 PM 9 201 0.01
42 2011-04-07 11:32:43 PM 7.2 119 0.01
Zarigawa 45.5 270 43 1993-01-15 8:06:07 PM 7.5 236 0.01
44 1994-12-28 9:19:21 PM 7.6 330 0.01
45 2003-09-26 4:50:07 AM 8 247 0.01
Tadami 30 582.5 46 2004-10-23 5:56:00 PM 6.8 39 0.005
47 2004-10-23 6:11:57 PM 6 43 0.005
48 2004-10-27 10:40:50 AM 6.1 24 0.005
Takami 120 435 49 2003-09-26 4:50:07 AM 8 155 0.01

ods 0.65 s and 1.2 s. These values prove that the case dam
exhibits highly nonlinear behaviour under the imposed seis-
mic wave.
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, which illustrate the time domain and
frequency domain, respectively, offer an interpretation of
the case dam’s seismic performance. The dam period
increased up to 1.2 s when the maximum strain (i.e.,
5
cmax ¼ 0:19%) occurred at around 5 s after applying the
ground motion. At this time, the ground motion has its
highest intensity. Afterwards, the TN decreased to 0.65 s
as the intensity of motion began to decay. This is where
the second peak occurred, at around 8 s in the strain–time
history plot (Fig. 5). It can be noted that the dam’s nonlin-
ear behaviour changes as the intensity of motion changes
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

Fig. 3. Schematic calculation method for earthquake-induced shear strain (replotted from (Soda et al., 2012)).

(a) Foundation (b) Strain time-history

0.2 max Crest 0.2 Strain envelope
Displacement (m)

0.1 0.1

Strain (%)
0 0

-0.1 -0.1

-0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 4. The obtained results for the selected case study (Aratozawa dam): a) displacement time histories; b) shear strain.

Fig. 5. Transfer function of the FAS of the Aratozawa dam’s foundation and crest during the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake.

over time. For better illustration, the Stockwell transform
(Stockwell et al., 1996; Sundar, 2019) was adopted to calcu-
late the variations in the dam’s response in the time and fre-
quency domains. Fig. 6 provides meaningful information
about the amplitude distribution over time for any given
6
period of the time-histories recorded at the case dam. As
observed, the propagated wave from foundation to crest
resonated significantly in the time period between 4 and
9 s, during which the dominant periods change from 1.2
to 0.65 s which is associated with the changes in the earth-
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
Fig. 6. Stockwell transform of the acceleration time histories recorded at
the Aratozawa dam’s foundation and crest during the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi
Nairiku earthquake.
quake’s intensity and different levels of induced-shear
strain.
2.4. Calculation of the shear wave velocity
The shear wave velocity (Vs Þ is essential for the seismic
analysis of geotechnical structures. Vs can be estimated
using various methods, including experimental tests either
in the field or in the laboratory (e.g., (Campanella et al.,
1986; Karray et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2014; Robertson
et al., 1995; Stokoe and Woods, 1972)), surface wave prop-
agation techniques (e.g., (Foti, 2000; Heisey et al., 1982;
Karray et al., 2010; Parolai, 2009; Rosyidi and Yusoff,
2018; Tokeshi et al., 2013)), or analysis of the ground
motions recorded at the studied structures (Ohmachi and
Tahara, 2011). In this study, estimation of the Vs parame-
ter for the analyzed dams was carried out with data from a
7
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
pair of accelerograms, one recorded at the dams’ founda-
tions and one recorded at the crests. To accomplish this
task, two methods, known as the Cross Correlation (CC)
method (Elgamal et al., 1995) and the Regression Line
Slope (RLS) method (Matthews et al., 1996; Rosyidi and
Yusoff, 2018; Zarrabi, 2006), are applied. Using these
methods, the apparent wave velocity is obtained. Accord-
ing to the locations of the earthquake recording stations
at the studied dams (see Fig. 3), it is assumed that the wave
propagation direction is perpendicular to the connection
line between the stations at the crest and foundation. Thus,
the actual vs is considered to be equal to the apparent wave
velocity (see (Elgamal et al., 1995)).
As previously mentioned, Vs decreases with changes in
the strain levels. Thus, the initial or maximum shear wave
velocity (Vsi ) and the degraded shear wave velocity due to
the materials’ nonlinearity effects (Vsn ) are defined for
low and high strain levels, respectively. It is important to
note that the CC method is used to calculate both Vsi
and Vsn , while the RLS method is applied to obtain the Vsn .
2.4.1. Cross-correlation method
From a signal-processing perspective, the CC of two
waveforms is a measure of their similarity in their
responses to time lags. This method calculates the shear
wave velocity from the time delay (DT), which is the travel
time for a wave propagated at the foundation to reach the
crest. DT is defined as the time lag where the two signals
have a maximum correlation. The CC method has been
successfully used to obtain the wave velocities for geotech-
nical structures (Elgamal et al., 1995; Kishida et al., 2018).
All of the calculation processes are conducted in
MATLAB. The CC method formula, considering two
acceleration time series of x (t) and y (t), is given in the fol-
lowing equation:
XN
M
1
CCxy ðmÞ ¼ n¼0
xnþm yn ; m  0 ð3Þ
where CCxy ðmÞ is the cross-correlation,  denotes the
complex conjugation,
1 < n < 1, and m ¼ 1; 2;    ;
2N
1. Note that the normalization of CCxy ðmÞ was also
accomplished. Further explanation of mathematical for-
mulations can be found in MATLAB documentation
(Buck et al., 1997; Stoica and Moses, 2005). Considering
the height of the dam (H) as the distance between the
two seismometers, the shear wave velocity is then expressed
as:
H
vs ¼ ð4Þ
DT
To obtain the Vsi and Vsn , two windows with different
durations were considered in the acceleration time series.
The time windows’ selection is based on the calculated
transient strain time history for each of the studied dams.
Vsi and Vsn are obtained from the portion of a signal where
their corresponding shear strain levels are the minimum
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

0.5 10
Acceleration (m/s 2 )

Magnified time window-1 Magnified time window-2

5
0 0

-5

-0.5 -10
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Time (s) Time (s)

10
(1) (2) Foundation
Acceleration (m/s )
2

-5

-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10
(1) (2) Crest
Acceleration (m/s 2 )

-5

-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

1 5
Acceleration (m/s 2 )

Magnified time window-1 Magnified time window-2

0.5
0 0
-0.5
-1
-5
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 7. Selected time windows for the Aratozawa dam’s signals during the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake.

and maximum, respectively. The CC method is applied to

each window in order to calculate their respective wave
velocities.
Fig. 7 shows the windows selected for the recorded
acceleration time series for the selected case study. The
sizes of the selected windows range from 1.5
3.2 s and
from 4
9 s, at which the cmax are about 0.0001% and
0.19%, respectively (see Fig. 7 and Fig. 4-b).
Fig. 8 illustrates the plots of the CCs versus the time lag
for both of the time windows. As indicated in Fig. 8-a, the
peak cross-correlation occurs when the time lag is 0.15 s.
Since the distance between the two sensors is 74.4 m, the
Vsi is quantified as being equal to 496 m/s. For the second
window (Fig. 8-b), the DT between the two seismographs is
0.33 s. Increases in DT value leads to a lower velocity, Vsn = Fig. 8. Cross-correlations and time lags of the selected time windows for
225 m/s. There is a good agreement between the estimation the case study: a) time window-1 (elastic-linear mode); b) time window-2
of the wave velocities in this study and those reported by (nonlinear mode).

8
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

previous works (Ohmachi and Tahara, 2011; Soda et al.,

2012).
In order to obtain a rational value for Vsi , the calcula-
tion procedures mentioned above are applied to one or
more earthquake events available for each analyzed dam.
The average value is considered for use as the Vsi .

2.4.2. Regression line slope method

The RLS method uses the variation of the phase shift
between two signals by frequency in order to obtain the
wave velocity. In this method, the entire duration of the
signals is applied. In the first step, the Cross-Power Spec-
trum Density (CPSD) between each pair of earthquake
records is calculated. The CPSD is an array of complex
quantities that shows the distribution of power versus fre-
quency. It is defined as shown in Eq. (5), considering the Fig. 9. Phase lags versus frequencies for the Aratozawa dam during the
2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake.
waveforms of x and y. Further mathematical expressions
and the calculation process can be found in (Oppenheim
et al., 2001; Rabiner and Gold, 1975; Welch, 1967).
X
1
Using Eq. (9), the two-dimensional planar period of the
CPSDxy ðxÞ ¼ CCxy ðmÞe
jxm ð5Þ dam, TD1, is first calculated:
m¼
1

The phase angle of the CPSD refers to the phase differ-
ence angle (D£xy ðradianÞÞ between the two signals. The
D£xy (radian) is then calculated from the CPSxy from Eq.
(6).
 
ImðCPSxy Þ
D£xy ¼ tan
1 ð6Þ
ReðCPSxy Þ
where ImðCPSxy Þ and ReðCPSxy Þ respectively denote the
imaginary and real parts of the cross-power spectrum.
Next, the calculated phase shift is unwrapped and plotted
against the frequency (f (Hz)). The D£xy can be expressed
as:
D£xy ¼ 2pfH=Vs ð7Þ
Lastly, using the slope of the linear regression line (S)
and the distance between the two seismographs (H), the
wave velocity (Vsn ) can be defined as:
 
2pH

Vsn ¼   ð8Þ
S 
In Fig. 9, the unwrapped D£xy values were plotted
against frequency for the studied case dam. A linear regres-
sion analysis was performed to find the slope (S) of the
linear regression line. Substituting the calculated S (i.e.,
S = -2.07) in Eq. (8), the Vsn is obtained as equal to
225.7 (m/s). The Vsn resulting from the RLS method is
close to that calculated by the CC method.
2.5. Calculation of the dam’s fundamental period (TD )
The TD for each studied dam is estimated by using the
approach proposed in (Gazetas and Dakoulas, 1992). This
approach is principally based on the shear-beam theory.
9
H H
TD1 ¼ 2:61 ¼ 2:61 ð9Þ
Vs Vsi
In Eq. (9), the Vsi , which was calculated in Section 2.4, is
used as the average shear wave velocity of the dam’s mate-
rials. The three-dimensional fundamental period with con-
sideration of the canyon shape is then determined using
Fig. 10. In this figure, each graph represents the variation
of the dam’s period (TD1 TD
) versus the aspect ratio (L/H)
for a specific canyon shape. The parameter L is the crest
length. The wider the canyon, the longer the TD . For the
cases with no information regarding canyon shape, the
curve that represents the average between the wide trape-
zoidal and the narrow canyon is utilized (Ghaemi and
Konrad, 2020).
The TD is determined from the existing empirical formu-
lation suggested in (Sasaki et al., 2018) (Eq. (10)). From
comparison of the TD calculated from the two methods,
the most reasonable values are selected.
0:542
TD ¼  H  0:148 ð10Þ
100
As observed in Table 2, there is a slight discrepancy in
the TD values obtained from the two methods. It is noted
that TD can also be determined from the seismic records
of small earthquakes by using the RFAS method. Among
all of the cases, the periods of only two cases (i.e., Ara-
tozawa and Treauchiu) are calculated from the RFAS
method. As an example, the obtained TD for the Ara-
tozawa dam under earthquake number 3 (see Table 1) from
the RFAS method is 0.32 s. The Vsi for this dam is deter-
mined to be equal to 496 s (see Section 2.4). Using Eq.
(9) and Fig. 10, the TD is then calculated as equal to
0.35 s. It is seen that the TD resulting from both the RFAS
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

Fig. 10. Graphical estimation of canyon shape effects on the fundamental period of dams (Gazetas, 1987; Ghaemi and Konrad, 2020).

Table 2
Calculated values of TD for the studied cases.
No. Name of dam TD (s)
Shear beam-based method Empirical method RFAS method Selected
Eq. (9) and Fig. 10 (Gazetas and Dakoulas, 1992) Eq. (10) (Sasaki et al., 2018)
1 Aratozawa 0.35 0.40 0.32 0.32
2 Kassa 0.47 0.48 0.47
3 Kisenyama 0.38 0.51 0.38
4 Kuttari 0.12 0.15 0.15
5 Kuzumaru 0.26 0.28 0.26
6 Naramata 0.71 0.85 0.71
7 Oogaki 0.42 0.46 0.42
8 Oouchi 0.48 0.55 0.48
9 Sannnoukai 0.29 0.33 0.29
10 Shichikashuku 0.37 0.49 0.37
11 Tarumizu 0.21 0.23 0.21
12 Terauchi 0.40 0.45 0.39 0.39
13 Urushizawa 0.38 0.43 0.38
14 Zarigawa 0.20 0.24 0.24
15 Tadami 0.22 0.16 0.22
16 Takami 0.45 0.65 0.45

and shear beam-based formulations are in good agreement.
This is evidence showing that considering Vsi in Eq. (9) pro-
vides a good estimation of a dam’s fundamental period.
TD
3. Relationship between cmax and TN
Fig. 11-a illustrates the ratio of the fundamental period
to the increased period versus the maximum induced strain
level for all analyzed cases. This graph displays the clus-
tered data points by the name of each studied dam. The
data distribution has a nonlinear downward tendency;
10
the larger the cmax gets, the smaller the TTDN becomes. The
declining trend observed in this graph represents the
increase of TN or decrease in the dam’s natural frequency,
since the period is a reciprocal of the frequency.
Nonlinear regression analysis is performed to fit a curve
to the whole dataset. The derived mathematical relation-
ship Eq. (11) is based on the Ramberg-Osgood regression
model (Ramberg and Osgood, 1943):
 
TN TD cmax r
1


1 ¼ a  ð11Þ
TD T N cr 
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
Fig. 11. Relationship between TD/TN and cmax : a) scatterplot; b) best-
fitted line and defined bounds.
In this equation, the regression coefficients a, r, and cr
are calculated as equal to 1.746, 2.0174, and 0.05, respec-
tively. The reference strain, cr , is considered as the strain
level when TTDN = 0.5. The standard deviation (SD) for the
log-transformed data is 0.22.
Fig. 11-b depicts the prediction curve of the proposed
relationship along with its confidence interval (plus and
minus one SD). As observed, the fitted curve and defined
interval are well matched to most of the data points. In a
semi-logarithmic space, the shape of the proposed curve
is analogous to the shear modulus degradation curve, since
both are dependent on the induced strain level, and starts
to decrease when the TTDN ratio has its maximum value at a
small strain, where there is no nonlinearity effect to increase
11
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
the period. The decreasing rate of the curve becomes more
significant as cmax increases. This behaviour is attributed to
the material’s nonlinear behaviour under cyclic loadings.
Stronger earthquakes result in a more significant strain that
leads to a more considerable stiffness degradation. Subse-
quently, the dam’s period-increase rate is intensified, which
in turn amplifies the decrease of TTDN . The above interpreta-
tion is consistent with that observed by previous scholars
(Boulanger et al., 1995; Chakraborty et al., 2019; Mejia
and Seed, 1983).
4. Relationship between ground motion intensity measure
(IM) and cmax
In this section, a relationship is established to estimate
the earthquake-induced shear strain of ECRDs from a
ground motion IM. It is important to use an IM that is
capable of capturing the severity of a seismic wave to
induce shear strain on dams. Peak amplitudes of earth-
quake time histories, including PGA, peak ground velocity
(PGV) and peak ground displacement (PGD), are com-
monly used IMs; however, these IMs reflect only a single
cycle’s amplitudes and do not consider the influence of
the earthquake period on the dam’s dynamic response
(Ghaemi and Konrad, 2020; Sarma and Ambraseys, 1967).
Nowadays, spectral-based IMs are frequently used as
efficient alternative IMs for peak amplitude parameters.
These types of IMs are calculated from the response spec-
trum of an earthquake record. The response spectrum plots
the peak response of a series of SDOFs (single degree of
freedom systems) under seismic excitation against their
natural periods. The response is calculated for a given
damping ratio and can be demonstrated in the forms of
acceleration, velocity, and displacement (Chopra, 1967;
Kramer, 1996). From the spectrum plots, the response of
any structure (e.g., dams) can be approximately evaluated
based on its natural vibration period. The spectral-
pseudo acceleration value at the structure’s fundamental
period (PSa ðTD Þ) is a widely used IM. Although PSa ðTD Þ
considers the vibration period characteristics of both dams
and earthquakes, it is not ideal for ECRDs, as their periods
increase due to the degradation of their rigidity. This issue
can significantly impact the dam’s response, since the spec-
tral shapes of the ground motions are not the same.
In order to overcome the mentioned limitations of
PSa ðTD Þ, many researchers have suggested considering
the acceleration values at multiple natural periods for var-
ious types of structures, particularly buildings (e.g., (Biasio,
2014; Eads et al., 2015; Kadas et al., 2011; Mehanny and
Cordova, 2004; Zhou et al., 2012)) and concrete gravity
dams (e.g., (Hariri-Ardebili and Saouma, 2016)). In this
study, an IM called Mean Spectral Pseudo Acceleration
M. PSa ðTÞ is suggested for ECRDs. The suggested IM rep-
resents the average of acceleration values at all natural
periods, as indicated in Eq. (12).
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

1X n
M:PSa ðTÞ ¼ PSa ðT; n ¼ 5%Þ ð12Þ
n i¼1

In this equation, i and n are the defined period intervals

for the response spectra, equal to 0 to 4 s, respectively. In
this range, the response spectrum is discretized at 0.1-
period steps. M:PSa ðTÞ covers the effects of all amplitudes
in both the high and low acceleration regions of a response
spectrum, and hence it is a more efficient IM for ECRDs
than single-period spectral-based IMs such as PSa ðTD Þ.
Fig. 12 shows the scatterplot of the M:PSa ðTÞ versus
cmax calculated for the analyzed case histories. The pattern
of the distributed data follows an incremental trend in log-
arithmic space. A regression analysis is carried out to fit a
power-style equation to the data set (Eq. (13)).
0
0
cmax ¼ a :ðM:PSa ðTÞÞb ð13Þ
This equation is expressed in a linear form by taking the
natural logarithm of both sides, as given in Eq. (14):
 0 0 Fig. 13. Comparison of the estimated cmax from the newly developed
Lnðcmax Þ ¼ Ln a þ b :LnðM:PSa ðTÞÞ ð14Þ relationships and the actual cmax for all the analyzed case histories.
0 0
In Eqs. (13) and (14), the coefficients a and b are equal
to 0.0428 and 1.032, respectively. The standard deviation pared data. As observed, there is a good agreement
of the proposed relationship (Eq. (14)) is 0.59. between the estimated and observed values, and most of
Fig. 12 shows the log-transformed data and the predic- the data points are close to the identity line. The calculated
tion lines of the proposed formulation. It is observed that values of R2 and RMSE are 0.82 and 0.012, respectively.
the prediction lines are well-fitted to the data points. An The presented results confirm the efficiency and the correct-
ascending trend is evident, indicating that the shear strain ness of the proposed relationship.
increases as the proposed IM increases. Therefore,
M:PSa ðTÞ is well-correlated to cmax and appropriately 5. Shear modulus reduction curve (G=Gmax -cmax )
expresses the intensity level of the input ground motions.
In order to verify the predictive ability of the proposed The extracted dynamic properties for the studied case
relationship, the estimated and actual values of cmax for histories provided the opportunity to develop a set of mod-
each case are plotted in Fig. 13. Two statistical metrics, ulus curves for an ECRD’s core materials. The required
including the coefficient of determination (R2 ) and the root parameters are cmax , maximum shear modulus (Gmax Þ,
mean square error (RMSE), are calculated using the com- and decreased shear modulus (G) for a given cmax . Except

Fig. 12. Scatterplot of M:PSa ðTÞ versus cmax along with the prediction lines of Eq. (14) in natural logarithmic scales.
12
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
for the cmax values that were already computed in Sec-
tion 2.2, G and Gmax were calculated as follows:
G ¼ qVsn 2
Gmax ¼ qVsi 2
In Eqs. (15) and (16), q is the unit density of the dam
material; however, q will be omitted when the modulus
reduction ratio (GGmax ) is calculated, and subsequently, the
changes in GGmax are associated with the changes in the calcu-
lated Vs , which is based on the travelling time of the waves
between two recording stations and their distance apart. As
indicated in Section 2.4, the recording station at the dam’s
foundation is located underneath the core at the dam’s cen-
terline, and is vertically connected to the recording station
at the dam’s crest. It is assumed that the wave at the foun-
dation propagates upward along the core zones to reach
the crest, and as such, the decrease in the calculated wave
velocity is mostly influenced by the core materials. There-
fore, the modulus reduction curves in this section are sug-
gested for the cores of dams, given the wave propagation
direction and comparison with the available curve for the
core material that will be discussed in the following
sections.
5.1. Curve fitting
The Ramberg and Osgood (1943) regression model is
applied for fitting a curve to the distributed data. This
model has been frequently used for geotechnical problems
(e.g., (Papadimitriou et al., 2014; Park and Kishida, 2019;
Soda et al., 2012; Ueng and Chen, 1992)). The basic formu-
lation is given in Eq. (17) (Ueng and Chen, 1992):
 
Gmax  Gc r
1

1 ¼ a  ð17Þ
G Gmax cr 
Fig. 14. Fitted shear modulus curves for the existing dams with sufficient data: a) Aratozawa dam; b) Kisenyama dam.
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
where a and r are regression coefficients and cr is the ref-
erence strain. cr defines the maximum curvature of the fit-
ted curve. It is considered as the strain level corresponding
ð15Þ
to GGmax ¼ 0:5. A detailed explanation of the computational
ð16Þ procedures for the model’s regression coefficients can be
found in (Ueng and Chen, 1992).
5.1.1. Modulus curve for two existing ECRDs
Among all the dams in the compiled database, the Ara-
tozawa and Kisenyama dams are the only ones with suffi-
cient data to fit a curve. The fitting procedure is first
applied to the data for the Aratozawa dam. Fig. 14 pre-
sents the fitted curve for the Aratozawa dam (i.e., solid
red line) as well as the previously developed curves by
(Ohmachi and Tahara, 2011; Soda et al., 2012). The new
curve for the Aratozawa dam is well fitted with all of the
data points, and passes through them. This curve is almost
identical to the existing curves in the literature. There is a
negligible difference among the compared curves, which
can be interpreted as being due to: (a) differences in the
applied regression models; and (b) differences in the num-
bers of data used in each study.
Similarly, a modulus curve is developed for the Kise-
nyama dam, as indicated in Fig. 14-b. The proposed curve
is well-matched to the data available for this dam. The sta-
tistical parameters of the fitted curves for both dams are
presented in Table 3.
(a) Average modulus reduction curve for all data
Fig. 15-a presents the scatterplot of the G=Gmax ratio
versus the cmax for the whole dataset. In this figure, the
solid red curve is the best-fitted curve resulted from the
regression analysis using Eq. (17). The regression parame-
ters are indicated in Table 3. The suggested curve repre-
13
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
Table 3
Statistical parameters for the fitted shear modulus curves using the Ramberg-Osgood regression model.
Names of considered dams Fitted curves’ regression coefficients
a r
Aratozawa 1.55
Kisenyama 59.98
All studied dams (Average curve) 2.08
sents the average degradation of the G=Gmax for the cores
of the analyzed dams. The reduction tendency of G=Gmax is
slow at low strain levels (cmax 10
3 %) and becomes signif-
icant at larger cmax , where the materials’ nonlinearity effects
become of importance. The data distribution reveals some
degree of scattering related to the difference in the analyzed
dams’ unknown core materials’ properties. Soil types, den-
3  10
3 % and becomes more
Fig. 15. Average modulus curve (G=Gmax -cmax ) fitted to all the studied
ECRDs’ materials: a) scatterplots clustered with the names of analyzed
dams; and b) area of the defined bounds for the proposed average curve.
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
cr SD (for log-transformed data)
3.005 0.0177 0.10
3.620 0.0177 0.91
2.503 0.0145 0.39
sity, plasticity index, void ratio, and mean effective stress
are some essential factors that can influence the G=Gmax
(Vucetic and Dobry, 1991b; Zhang et al., 2005); thus, a
range is determined considering the  one standard devia-
tion of the fitted curves (see Figure 15). The suggested
range is well-defined and covers most of the data points,
despite small outliers.
5.2. Comparison of the proposed curves with the literature
This section compares the curves proposed herein with
those available in the literature for ECRDs. The considered
curves, for comparison, are: (a) an available curve for
ECRD core materials obtained from laboratory tests
(Park and Kishida, 2019); (b) a curve for the Changheba
dam based on empirical models developed by Cao et al.,
(2010); (c) proposed curves for the Aratozawa and Kise-
nyama dams from the recorded ground motions; and (d)
proposed average curve in the current study. In Fig. 16,
these curves are plotted along with the data points and
the defined bounds (gray shaded area). It should be noted
that Changheba dam is an ECRD located in China, and its
curve is used in this section just for comparison purposes.
The comparison results are summarized as follows:
 The curves of the Changheba and Aratozawa dams are
close to the suggested average curve.
 The proposed curve for the Kisenyama dam lies below
the average curve near the lower bound.
 Except for the laboratory curve, the rest of the curves
effectively fall within the defined range.
 The laboratory curve falls above the defined range.
The difference between the laboratory curve and the
others begins when cmax
significant as cmax increases. The observed difference is
related to the difference in the laboratory test conditions
and the actual cores of the dams during earthquakes. The
laboratory curve resulted from resonant column tests on
various specimens of the core materials of ECRDs under
drained conditions (Park and Kishida, 2019), while in real-
ity, water exists in an ECRD so that most parts of the core
area are in a fully saturated condition. Thus, excess pore
water pressure could possibly be generated during strong
shakes. As previously noted, the generation of excess pore
water pressure affects the materials’ nonlinearity, which can
intensify the stiffness degradation process (Boutonnier and
Mahmutovic, 2018; Fry et al., 2018; Vucetic and Dobry,
14
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
Fig. 16. Comparison of curves in the literature and the curves developed
in the current study for shear modulus reduction of the core materials of
ECRDs.
1991a). For better illustration, the Aratozawa dam’s per-
formance under the 7.2 magnitude Miyagi earthquake
(case 5 in Table 1) is evaluated. As reported in previous
works (Fry et al., 2018; Ohmachi and Tahara, 2011), this
dam experienced a high strain level that led to significant
stiffness degradation and high pore water pressure. As
shown in Fig. 16, the G=Gmax for the Aratozawa dam is
Fig. 17. Surikamigawa dam cross-section, topographic, plan and downstream view, reproduced from Yamaguchi et al., (2012) and http://damnet.or.jp/
cgi-bin/binranA/enAll.cgi?db4=0536.
15
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
overestimated by the laboratory curve, while being reason-
ably predicted by the proposed average curve. Therefore, it
can be noted that the excess pore water pressure can affect
the overall nonlinear behaviour of the core, which has been
indirectly considered in the average curve proposed herein.
Comparison illustrates that the G=Gmax curves differ for
each dam, and this highlights the importance of the poten-
tial influence of the dam-dependent characteristics on their
stiffness degradation behaviour; however, the proposed
range based on the in-situ G=Gmax data reasonably covers
most of the curves used in the comparisons. The graphs
given in this section can be used for comparison purposes
to create a new modulus reduction curve. They can be
improved by having more data and information for the
influential factors. Further research is suggested in order
to verify the applicability of the proposed average curve
in the dynamic analysis of an ECRD.
6. An example application of the proposed relationships
This section presents an example case study to illustrate
the procedures for application of the proposed relation-
ships. The selected case is the Surikamigawa dam, with a
105 m height and 718.2 m crest length (Fig. 17). The March
2011 earthquake shook this dam with a large magnitude of
9. The dam was well-instrumented at the time of the earth-
quake. The accelerograms were recorded at the stations
located at the dam’s foundation and crest.
First, the methodology proposed in Section 2 is
applied to the recorded earthquake signals in order to
compute the required parameters. The procedures and
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

Fig. 18. Calculation of the required parameters by applying the methodology proposed in Section 2 to the accelerograms recorded at the Surikamigawa
dam during the March 2011 earthquake in Japan.

extracted information are presented in detail in Fig. 18
and Table 4.
Subsequently, the seismic response of the case dam in
terms of cmax , TD =TN , and G=Gmax are estimated by apply-
ing the approaches proposed herein. The step-by-step
calculation procedure is visualized in Fig. 19. As observed,
the actual and estimated values of cmax , TD =TN , and
G=Gmax are compatible. These observations prove the
capabilities of the developed relationships to reasonably
predict the earthquake response of ECRDs.

Table 4
Calculated parameters from accelerograms at Surikamigawa dam during March 2011 earthquake.
Response parameters Actual values extracted from recorded acceleration time histories
Vsi (m/s) 525
Vsn (m/s) 308
TN (s) 0.8
TD (s) (using Eq. (9) and Fig. 10) 0.47
TD
TN 0.59
G=Gmax 0.33
cmax (%) 0.041

16
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106

1- Calculation of max
Using either Figure-12 or Eq.13

-1
Actual max = 0.041%
-2 Mean+SD
-3.176
Mean
-3
(-3.176)
Estimated max = e = 0.0417%
) [%]

-4 Mean-SD
max

-5
Ln (

-6

-7

-8
-0.0243
-9
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
2
Ln (M.PSa (T)) [m/s ]

Having max
= 0.0417%
2- Determination of T D/TN (Figure -11) 3- Determination of G/Gmax (Figure -15)

1 1
Mean
0.9 0.9 Mean
Mean+SD
0.8 Mean-SD 0.8 Mean+SD
Mean-SD
0.7 Actual 0.7

0.6 0.6
G/G max
TD /T N

0.5 0.5
Estimated Actual
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 Estimated
0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
(%) max
(%)
max

Fig. 19. Calculation process of the proposed empirical relationships to estimate the response of the Surikamigawa dam during the magnitude 9 Japan
earthquake in 2011.

7. Conclusion and earthquake-induced shear strain (cmax ). As well, a

study on the shear modulus degradation with regard to
This study analyzes the earthquake signals recorded at cmax is carried out. A methodology is proposed that
sixteen earth-core rockfill dams (ECRDs) during forty- includes various approaches to extracting the required
nine earthquake events. The ground motions are obtained information from acceleration time histories. In this
from an extensive database provided by the JCOLD. The methodology, the cmax is calculated from the differences
main goals of this work are to develop empirical relation- between the displacement time histories calculated at the
ships to estimate the nonlinear responses of ECRDs in crests and foundations of the studied dams. The TN is
terms of the increased vibration period of a dam (TN ) determined using the RFAS (Ratio of Fourier Amplitude
17
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
Spectrum) method. The initial wave velocity (Vsi Þ at a low
strain level (specific time window of a signal) is calculated
using the CC (Cross-Correlation) method. The decreased
shear wave velocity Vsn , as the result of materials’ nonlin-
earity effects, is computed using both the CC and RLS
(Regression Line Slope) methods. Afterwards, the maxi-
mum shear modulus (Gmax ) and degraded shear modulus
(G) are determined by using the calculated Vsi and Vsn ,
respectively. The analyses and the conclusions are summa-
rized as follows:
 A curve is developed in which the cmax is connected with
the ratio of TD =TN . The proposed curve has a nonlinear
decreasing trend in semi-logarithmic scales similar to the
shear modulus curve of the dam’s materials. It is shown
that an increase of cmax causes a reduction of TD =TN .
This means that the dam’s period increases due to the
reduction of the materials’ rigidity.
 An intensity measure (IM) is introduced for ECRDs to
adequately describe the damage potential of an earth-
quake signal. The introduced IM is the mean value of
the pseudo-accelerations in a ground motion response
spectrum.
 A predictive relationship is developed for the estimation
of the expected amount of cmax of a dam under earth-
quake loading. The proposed relationship has a power
form equation in which the introduced IM is correlated
with the cmax .
 The relationship between the cmax and G=Gmax is inves-
tigated. Two modulus reduction curves are developed
for two existing dams (Aratozawa and Kisenyama). A
curve is also suggested for ECRDs by employing the
extracted data for all of the analyzed case histories.
The suggested curve is representative of the average
reduction of G=Gmax with respect to cmax for an ECRD’s
materials. A confidence interval is defined for the sug-
gested average curve in order to adequately cover the
scattering of the data resulting from the difference in a
dam’s materials properties, which impacts the G=Gmax
value.
 The proposed graphs and relationships are applicable
for: (a) seismic performance analysis of a dam under
earthquake loading; and (b) comparison purposes for
calibrating or verifying the results of numerical
simulations.
 Identifying a dam’s dynamic characteristics and many
essential aspects of its seismic response are possible by
using in-situ downhole accelerograms. Hence, instru-
mentation of dams with seismographic stations would
be very beneficial in: a) better understanding of a dam’s
dynamic response such as natural vibration periods,
mode shapes, and dynamic material properties; and b)
providing a collection of data that would be valuable
for developing new empirical approaches to predict a
dam’s seismic performance under earthquake loading.
18
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-
port provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and their industrial
partners, Hydro-Québec, Klohn Crippen Berger, SNC-
Lavalin, Golder Associates, Contec, Hatch, WSP, and
Qualitas. The authors also express their appreciation to
the Japan Commission on Large Dams (JCOLD) for pro-
viding an outstanding database of earthquakes recorded at
the bodies of dams.
References
Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M., Scott, R.F., 1981. Vibration tests of full-scale earth
dam. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 107 (3), 241–269.
Albano, M., Modoni, G., Croce, P., Russo, G., 2015. Assessment of the
seismic performance of a bituminous faced rockfill dam. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 75, 183–198.
Ambraseys, N., 1960. On the shear response of a two-dimensional
truncated wedge subjected to an arbitrary disturbance. Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 50, 45–56.
Biasio, M.D., 2014. Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Seismic
Probabilistic Risk Analysis Ground Motion Intensity Measures for
Seismic Probabilistic Risk Analysis. Université de Grenoble.
Boulanger, R.W., Bray, J.D., Merry, S.M., Mejia, L.H., 1995. Three-
dimensional dynamic response analyses of Cogswell Dam 464, 452–
464.
Boutonnier, L., Mahmutovic, D., 2018. Dynamic analysis of Aratozawa
dam including the effect of occluded air and pore fluid compressibility,
in: Validation of Dynamic Analyses of Dams and Their Equipment:
Edited Contributions to the International Symposium on the Quali-
fication of Dynamic Analyses of Dams and Their Equipments, 31
August-2 September 2016, Saint-Malo, France. CRC Press, p. 367.
Buck, J.R., Daniel, M.M., Singer, A.C., 1997. Computer Explorations in
Signals and Systems Using MATLAB. Prentice-Hall Inc..
Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K., Gillespie, D., 1986. Seismic cone
penetration test, in: Use of in Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering.
ASCE, pp. 116–130.
Cao, X., He, Y., Xiong, K., 2010. Confining pressure effect on dynamic
response of high rockfill dam. Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China 4 (1),
116–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-010-0014-5.
Chakraborty, S., Das, J.T., Puppala, A.J., Banerjee, A., 2019. Natural
frequency of earthen dams at different induced strain levels. Eng. Geol.
248, 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.12.008.
Chopra, A.K., 1967. Earthquake response of earth dams. J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div. 93 (2), 65–81.
Chugh, A.K., 2007. Natural vibration characteristics of gravity structures.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 31 (4), 607–648.
Dakoulas, P., Gazetas, G., 1985. A class of inhomogeneous shear models
for seismic response of dams and embankments. Int. J. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 4 (4), 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-7277(85)
90037-3.
Eads, L., Miranda, E., Lignos, D.G., 2015. Average spectral acceleration
as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 44 (12), 2057–2073. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
Elgamal, A.-W., Zeghal, M., Tang, H.T., Stepp, J.C., 1995. Lotung
downhole array. I: Evaluation of site dynamic properties. J. Geotech.
Eng. 121 (4), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1995)121:4(350).
Foti, S., 2000. Multistation methods for geotechnical characterization
using surface waves. Politecnico di Torino.
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
Fry, J.-J., Jellouli, M., des Garets, A., 2018. The FR-JP simplified
dynamic analysis—development and validation, in: Validation of
Dynamic Analyses of Dams and Their Equipment: Edited Contribu-
tions to the International Symposium on the Qualification of Dynamic
Analyses of Dams and Their Equipments, 31 August-2 September
2016, Saint-Malo, France. CRC Press, p. 255.
Gazetas, G., 1987. Seismic response of earth dams: some recent develop-
ments. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 6 (1), 2–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0267-7261(87)90008-X.
Gazetas, G., Dakoulas, P., 1992. Seismic analysis and design of rockfill
dams: state-of-the-art. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 11 (1), 27–61. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0267-7261(92)90024-8.
Ghaemi, A., 2021. Development of Empirical Approaches to Estimate the
Seismic Settlement of Embankment Dams Under Earthquake Load-
ing. Université Laval.
Ghaemi, A., Konrad, J.-M., 2020. A semi-empirical relationship for
predicting earthquake-induced crest settlement of concrete faced
rockfill dams. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 132, 105990. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105990.
Hariri-Ardebili, M.A., Saouma, V.E., 2016. Probabilistic seismic demand
model and optimal intensity measure for concrete dams. Struct. Saf.
59, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.12.001.
Heisey, J.S., Stokoe, K.H., Hudson, W.R., Meyer, A.H., 1982. Determi-
nation of in situ shear wave velocities from spectral analysis of surface
waves. Publication FHWA/TX-82/34+ 256-2. FHWA, U.S. Dep.
Transp., pp. 47–118.
Hwang, J.-H., Wu, C.-P., Wang, S.-C., 2007. Seismic record analysis of
the Liyutan earth dam. Can. Geotech. J. 44 (11), 1351–1377. https://
doi.org/10.1139/T07-062.
Ito, Y., Obara, K., Takeda, T., Shiomi, K., Matsumoto, T., Sekiguchi, S.,
Hori, S., 2004. The seismological and volcanological bulletin of Japan.
Earth, Planets Sp. 56, 301–306.
Jafari, M.K., Davoodi, M., 2006. Dynamic characteristics evaluation of
Masjed Soleiman Dam using in situ dynamic tests. Can. Geotech. J. 43
(10), 997–1014.
JCOLD, 2014. Acceleration Records on Dams and Foundations. Tokyo,
Japan.
Kadas, K., Yakut, A., Kazaz, I., 2011. Spectral ground motion intensity
based on capacity and period elongation. J. Struct. Eng. 137 (3), 401–
409. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000084.
Karray, M., Lefebvre, G., Ethier, Y., Bigras, A., 2010. Assessment of deep
compaction of the péribonka dam foundation using ‘‘modal analysis of
surface waves” (MASW). Can. Geotech. J. 47 (3), 312–326. https://doi.
org/10.1139/T09-108.
Karray, M., Ben Romdhan, M., Hussien, M.N., Éthier, Y., 2015.
Measuring shear wave velocity of granular material using the
piezoelectric ring-actuator technique (P-RAT). Can. Geotech. J. 52
(9), 1302–1317. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0306.
Kishida, T., Haddadi, H., Darragh, R.B., Kayen, R.E., Silva, W.J.,
Bozorgnia, Y., 2018. Apparent wave velocity and site amplification at
the california strong motion instrumentation program carquinez
bridge geotechnical arrays during the 2014 M6.0 South Napa
Earthquake. Earthq. Spectra 34 (1), 327–347. https://doi.org/
10.1193/042317EQS074M.
Konno, K., Ohmachi, T., 1998. Ground-motion characteristics estimated
from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of
microtremor. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 228–241.
Kramer, S.L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Pearson
Education India.
Lee, C.-J., Hung, W.-Y., Tsai, C.-H., Chen, T., Tu, Y., Huang, C.-C.,
2014. Shear wave velocity measurements and soil-pile system identi-
fications in dynamic centrifuge tests. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 12 (2), 717–
734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9545-1.
Makdisi, F.I., Kagawa, T., Seed, H.B., 1982. Seismic response of earth
dams in triangular canyons. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 108 (10), 1328–1337.
Matthews, M.C., Hope, V.S., Clayton, C.R.I., Rayleigh, 1996. The use of
surface waves in the determination of ground stiffness profiles. Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. 119, 84–95.
19
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
Mehanny, S.S., Cordova, P.P., 2004. Development of a two-parameter
seismic intensity measure and probabilistic design procedure. J. Eng.
Appl. Sci. 51, 233–252.
Mejia, L.H., Seed, H.B., 1983. Comparison of 2-D and 3-D dynamic
analyses of earth dams. J. Geotech. Eng. 109 (11), 1383–1398.
Ohmachi, T., Tahara, T., 2011. Nonlinear earthquake response charac-
teristics of a central clay core rockfill dam. Soils Found. 51 (2), 227–
238. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.51.227.
Oppenheim, A.V., Buck, J.R., Schafer, R.W., 2001. In: Discrete-time
Signal Processing, Vol. 2. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Papadimitriou, A.G., Bouckovalas, G.D., Andrianopoulos, K.I., 2014.
Methodology for estimating seismic coefficients for performance-based
design of earthdams and tall embankments. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 56,
57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.10.006.
Park, D., Kishida, T., 2019. Shear modulus reduction and damping ratio
curves for earth core materials of dams. Can. Geotech. J. 56 (1), 14–22.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017-0529.
Parolai, S., 2009. Determination of dispersive phase velocities by complex
seismic trace analysis of surface waves (CASW). Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 29 (3), 517–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.05.008.
Pelecanos, L., Kontoe, S., Zdravković, L., 2016. Dam-reservoir interac-
tion effects on the elastic dynamic response of concrete and earth dams.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 82, 138–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.soildyn.2015.12.003.
Pelecanos, L., Kontoe, S., Zdravković, L., 2020. The effects of dam–
reservoir interaction on the nonlinear seismic response of earth dams.
J. Earthq. Eng. 24 (6), 1034–1056.
Rabiner, L.R., Gold, B., 1975. Theory and Application of Digital Signal
Processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Ramberg, W., Osgood, W.R., 1943. Description of Stress-strain Curves by
Three Parameters. NACA-TN-902, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics, Washington, D.C.
Robertson, P.K., Sasitharan, S., Cunning, J.C., Sego, D.C., 1995. Shear-
wave velocity to evaluate in-situ state of Ottawa sand. J. Geotech. Eng.
121 (3), 262–273.
Rosyidi, S.A.P., Yusoff, N.I.M., 2018. Wavelet-spectrogram analysis of
surface wave technique for in situ pavement stiffness measurement. J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 30, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0002504.
Russo, A.D., Sica, S., Del Gaudio, S., De Matteis, R., Zollo, A., 2017.
Near-source effects on the ground motion occurred at the Conza Dam
site (Italy) during the 1980 Irpinia earthquake. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 15
(10), 4009–4037.
Saberi, M., Annan, C.D., Konrad, J.M., 2013. Numerical modeling tools
for the analysis of Concrete-Faced Rockfill Dams under dynamic
earthquake loading. Proc. Annu. Conf. - Can. Soc. Civ. Eng. 2, 1849–
1858.
Saberi, M., Annan, C.-D., Konrad, J.-M., 2018. Numerical analysis of
concrete-faced rockfill dams considering effect of face slab–cushion
layer interaction. Can. Geotech. J. 55 (10), 1489–1501.
Saberi, M., Annan, C.-D., Konrad, J.-M., 2019a. Implementation of a
soil-structure interface constitutive model for application in geo-
structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 116, 714–731.
Saberi, M., Annan, C.-D., Konrad, J.M., 2019b. Seismic response analysis
of face slabs in concrete face rockfill dams. J. Earthq. Eng. 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1666756.
Saberi, M., Annan, C., Konrad, J., 2019. Analysis of face slabs in
concrete-faced rockfill dams under earthquake ground motions, in:
12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Québec City,
Canada.
Sarma, S.K., Ambraseys, N.N., 1967. The Response of Earth Dams to
Strong Earthquakes. Géotechnique 17, 181–213. doi:
10.1680/geot.1967.17.3.181.
Sasaki, T., Ohmachi, T., Matsumoto, N., 2018. Analysis on acceleration
data of dams collected by JCOLD, in: Validation of Dynamic Analyses
of Dams and Their Equipment. CRC Press, pp. 3–30.
Sherard, J.L., Cooke, J.B., 1987. Concrete-face rockfill dam: I. Assess-
ment. J. Geotech. Eng. 113 (10), 1096–1112.
 A. Ghaemi, J.-M. Konrad
Sica, S., Russo, A.D., 2021. Seismic response of large earth dams in near-
source areas. Comput. Geotech. 132, 103807. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compgeo.2020.103807.
Soda, H., Hatano, K., Sato, N., 2012. Dynamic response evaluation and
dynamic analysis of a rockfill dam on strong ground motion during the
2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku Earthquake. Comm. Int. des Gd. Barrages.
24ème Congrès Des Gd. Barrages, Kyoto.
Stockwell, R.G., Mansinha, L., Lowe, R.P., 1996. Localization of the
complex spectrum: the S transform. IEEE Trans. signal Process. 44 (4),
998–1001.
Stoica, P., Moses, R.L., 2005. Spectral analysis of signals.
Stokoe, K.H., Woods, R.D., 1972. In situ shear wave velocity by cross-
hole method. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div 98 (5), 443–460.
Sundar, A., 2019. Time frequency distribution of a signal using S-
transform (stockwell transform) [WWW Document]. (https //www.-
mathw orks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/51808-time-frequency-
distribution-of-a-signal-using-s-trans form-stockwell-transform).
MATLAB Cent. File Exch.
Tokeshi, K., Harutoonian, P., Leo, C.J., Liyanapathirana, S., 2013. Use of
surface waves for geotechnical engineering applications in Western
Sydney. Adv. Geosci. 35, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-35-37-
2013.
Touileb, B., Roy, M., Andrian, F., Veylon, G., 2018. Effects of strong
earthquakes on already strongly shaken rockfill large dams. Applica-
tion to Aratozawa Dam (Japan), in: Validation of Dynamic Analyses
of Dams and Their Equipment: Edited Contributions to the Interna-
tional Symposium on the Qualification of Dynamic Analyses of Dams
and Their Equipments, 31 August-2 September 2016, Saint-Malo,
France. CRC Press, p. 343.
Uddin, N., Gazetas, G., 1995. Dynamic response of concrete-faced rockfill
dams to strong seismic excitation. J. Geotech. Eng. 121 (2), 185–197.
Ueng, T.-S., Chen, J.-C., 1992. Computational Procedures for Determin-
ing Parameters in Ramberg-Osgood Elastoplastic Model Based on
20
Soils and Foundations 62 (2022) 101106
Modulus and Damping Versus Strain. Lawrence Livermore National
Lab, CA (United States).
Vucetic, M., Dobry, R., 1991a. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response.
J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (1), 89–107.
Vucetic, M., Dobry, R., 1991b. Shear strain for the first cycle of
unidirectional cyclic shear loading. J. Geotech. Eng. 117, 89–107.
Welch, P., 1967. The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of
power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified
periodograms. IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 15 (2), 70–73.
Xenaki, V.C., Athanasopoulos, G.A., 2008. Dynamic properties and
liquefaction resistance of two soil materials in an earthfill dam—
Laboratory test results. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 28 (8), 605–620.
Yamaguchi, Y., Kondo, M., Kobori, T., 2012. Safety inspections and
seismic behavior of embankment dams during the 2011 off the Pacific
Coast of Tohoku Earthquake. Soils Found. 52 (5), 945–955. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.013.
Yaseri, A., Konrad, J.-M., 2020. Estimation of natural periods of Earth
Dam-Flexible canyon systems with 3D coupled FEM-SBFEM. Com-
put. Geotech. 123, 103546. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compgeo.2020.103546.
Zarrabi, M., 2006. A New Procedure for Estimation of Shear wave
Velocity Profiles Using Multi Station Spectral Analysis of Surface
Waves, Regression Line Slope, and Genetic Algorithm Methods. The
University of Memphis.
Zhang, J., Andrus, R.D., Juang, C.H., 2005. Normalized Shear Modulus
and Material Damping Ratio Relationships. J. Geotech. Geoenviron-
mental Eng. 131 (4), 453–464.
Zhou, Y., Su, N., Lu, X., 2012. An elastic spectral value-based intensity
measure for the incremental dynamic analysis of tall buildings, in:
Proceedings of the 5th Kwang-Hua Forum on Innovations and
Implementations in Earthquake Engineering Research, Shanghai,
China.