See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315615330

Seismic Deformation Analyses of Embankment Dams: A Reviewer's Checklist

Conference Paper · April 2016

CITATIONS READS
2 413

2 authors, including:

Michael H. Beaty
Beaty Engineering LLC
24 PUBLICATIONS   246 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael H. Beaty on 24 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SEISMIC DEFORMATION ANALYSES OF EMBANKMENT DAMS:
A REVIEWER'S CHECKLIST

Ross W. Boulanger1
Michael H. Beaty2

ABSTRACT

Developing confidence in non-linear seismic deformation analyses of embankment dams,

and the insights they may offer, is dependent on thorough internal or external reviews of
the analysis procedures and results. Difficult geologic characterizations, selection and
calibration of constitutive models, determination of material parameters, general
limitations of numerical modeling, and development of input ground motions that
appropriately reflect the seismic hazard – each of these aspects individually and
collectively are important factors affecting the quality of the analysis results. Current
analysis practices cover a wide range in approaches, which can make it difficult for dam
owners, regulatory agencies, technical reviewers, and engineering supervisors to assess
the appropriateness of any particular analysis. The nature of this task does not lend itself
to standardization, but improved documentation practices are an important step toward
facilitating thorough reviews and improving standards of practice. The purpose of this
paper is to provide a checklist of questions that a reviewer of an NDA study may
reasonably ask as part of any internal or external review process.

INTRODUCTION

Non-linear deformation analyses (NDAs) to evaluate seismic performance of

embankment dams have become increasingly common in engineering practice (e.g.,
Beaty and Perlea 2011). NDA studies, while routinely performed for large or high-risk
embankment dams, have also proven valuable for a wide range of other embankment dam
and seismic engineering projects. NDAs can provide insights that simpler analysis
methods cannot, such as the patterns of deformations, influence of progressive failure
mechanisms, interactions between embankments and embedded structures, dependence
on ground motion characteristics, or relative effectiveness of remediation options. The
insights afforded by NDAs should, in principle, lead to increased confidence in decisions
regarding risk assessments or economical design of remedial measures.

The increased use of NDAs has, however, been accompanied by concerns regarding the
repeatability of results. There are examples where different engineers have analyzed the
same embankment dam, with apparently similar representations of the site
characterization and seismic loading conditions, and produced results that have ranged
from being in reasonable agreement to being so dissimilar they would lead to different
decisions on the nature of any remedial actions. Evaluating these differences is
challenging due to the complexity of the analyses as well as the somewhat unpredictable

1
Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616,
rwboulanger@ucdavis.edu
2
Principal Engineer, Beaty Engineering LLC, Beaverton, OR, 97007, mhb@beatyeng.com

Seismic Deformation Analyses of Embankment Dams 535

paths that each analysis may follow. The ability to resolve or understand the reasons for
these differences in NDA results is important for establishing confidence in these types of
analyses (e.g., Boulanger et al. 2015).

Reviewers and regulators can have difficulties evaluating the suitability of a particular
analysis because of wide variations in the available analysis methods, the procedural
details of calibrating the constitutive models and executing the analysis, and the level of
documentation provided in engineering reports. Increasing the confidence that owners,
regulators, and engineers can have in the standard practice and performance of NDA
studies will require improved guidance (or protocols) for use of these analysis methods
and higher standards for documentation of the methods and results. These improvements
will facilitate the necessary internal or external review process and can lead to improved
insights and benefits for all involved.

Other factors affecting the quality and value of an NDA study include the organization of
the team (necessary range of skills; effective communications; review process) and the
reasonableness of the budget and schedule. The effort spent in performing a high quality
NDA study can add value over the long-term for dam owners by, for example, reducing
undue levels of conservatism and avoiding schedule delays that could develop if the
NDA results are later questioned by external reviewers or regulatory agencies. Improved
guidance on NDA documentation requirements or expectations will accordingly help
facilitate better definition of budgets and schedules for NDA studies.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a checklist of questions that a reviewer of an NDA
study should consider asking as part of any internal or external review process. The
questions posed herein are not exhaustive, but rather represent the authors' perspectives
on many of the details that can significantly affect NDA results. Not all of the aspects
presented below will be relevant or significant to all projects, but most should be
considered or addressed in engineering analyses and reports representing the highest
levels of practice.

The questions are grouped into twelve categories, spanning from numerical details to the
judgments drawn from the NDA results. The technical issues behind each question are
not discussed, as the scope of issues covered in an NDA study must draw from a large
body of technical literature. Similarly, opinions on the best technical approaches are not
provided because of length restrictions for providing context on each issue. The focus is
instead on suggesting what should be addressed in reports summarizing NDA studies,
with the aim that the first step toward advancing the standard of practice is improving the
transparency with which actual practices are documented. It is the authors' hope that the
checklist provided herein will help both consumers and producers of NDA studies for
critical facilities.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

Questions that should be considered when reviewing an NDA study are presented in
twelve categories. The questions are intended to encompass a range of issues that can

536 USSD 2016 Annual Conference

significantly affect NDA results, but they cannot be viewed as exhaustive because any
given project or analysis procedure can raise other questions of equal importance.
Instead, it is hoped that these questions illustrate the type and nature of questions that
should be addressed in engineering studies and reports at the highest levels of practice.

The engineering effort involved in addressing these questions is not large for a well-
executed analysis study given the increased value it provides. In most cases, the answers
involve brief statements documenting the basis of the work that was done and transparent
presentation of intermediate results which were likely already available. Much of the
information can be easily obtained if the need for transparent documentation is
anticipated at the beginning of the analysis process. The inclusion of such details,
however, can determine if the consumers of the analyses can independently evaluate the
results or exercise their own judgment regarding the insights they provide.

The process of addressing these questions, like the process of an NDA study, is likely to
be iterative. NDA studies frequently benefit from a cycle of updates or refinements to the
input parameters based on the insights gained as the study progresses. For example, the
results of the initial analyses may indicate that certain parameters have a greater influence
on the computed response than originally anticipated, such that additional effort to refine
the estimates of those parameters is warranted. In fact, addressing the following questions
as the NDA study progresses can help identify when such a cycle of refinement may or
may not be warranted. Thus, the order of the following questions should not be viewed as
implying a linear process for either the NDA study or its review.

Aspect 1: Seismic Failure Modes and Important Behaviors

Have the potential failure modes associated with seismic loading been summarized or
discussed?

• Performance objectives for life safety and operations should be summarized to

provide context for the NDA study.
• For NDA studies in support of risk analyses, the failure modes addressed in the
analysis should be identified.
• The potential for liquefaction, cyclic softening, or strain softening in all materials
should be discussed.
• All loading conditions concurrent with seismic loading, including reservoir levels
and phreatic surfaces, should be summarized.
• The existence of conditions that might accentuate embankment cracking should
be discussed; e.g., steep abutments, variations in foundation stiffness, or presence
of embedded structures.
• The potential effects of embankment deformations on embedded or appurtenant
structures should be discussed.
• The dependence of potential failure modes on embankment deformations should
be summarized; e.g., overtopping, seepage erosion through cracks, piping in the
dam and/or foundation, seepage erosion into or around damaged or deformed

Seismic Deformation Analyses of Embankment Dams 537

 embedded structures, increased pore pressures following damage to drainage
elements, and possible post-earthquake operating restrictions.

Have the engineering behaviors important to those failure modes been adequately
identified? Are the limitations in the NDA model's ability to simulate the key engineering
behaviors acknowledged?

• The choice of a simpler versus more complex analysis model should be justified
based on the degree to which the key behaviors can be modeled and the degree to
which a more refined analysis may or may not affect final decisions regarding risk
mitigation efforts or remedial works.
• Limitations in the numerical model's ability to simulate certain behaviors should
be acknowledged and how they may affect the performance assessment should be
discussed. For example, current two-dimensional models cannot address most
cracking mechanisms and so crack depths must be estimated by other means.

Aspect 2: Validation Record for the Numerical Modeling Procedure

Have the constitutive models and numerical modeling procedures been fully described
and validated?

• The record of validation of the numerical modeling approach against case

histories or physical models of embankments, levees, or similar structures should
be briefly summarized or referenced. Validation results depend on the numerical
procedures, constitutive models, and the approach used to determine (or calibrate)
all input parameters.
• Any record of comparisons between the adopted numerical modeling approach
and other analysis approaches should be noted. For example, the first time a user
applies a new constitutive model or numerical approach, the results should be
compared to those obtained using more established procedures.
• Details of how the numerical modeling approach was applied in the referenced
validation or comparison studies should be summarized, if available. The extent
to which the same details were followed in the application NDA should be
discussed.

Aspect 3: Site Characterization Basis for Material Parameters

Has the basis for all material parameters been described and related to the site
characterization?

• The input parameters for all components of the numerical model should be listed
in tables, including all geotechnical materials, structural elements, and any
interface elements.
• The basis for all soil and rock constitutive model parameters should be discussed
with reference to the site characterization data. A geologically based description

538 USSD 2016 Annual Conference

 of the site stratigraphy should be provided. The site characterization report(s)
should be included as part of the NDA review process.
• Either the site characterization report or NDA report should provide geotechnical
cross-sections that include plots of the in-situ test data (i.e., fence diagrams). The
sections should include a geologically based interpretation of the stratigraphy with
identification of subzones having common properties.
• Key summaries of site data should be provided to support selection of material
subzones and their respective material properties; e.g., profiles of shear wave
velocity and penetration resistances binned in various ways to evaluate potential
spatial trends and distributions.
• The basis for selecting representative material properties for each subzone should
be documented. For example, presentation of cumulative distributions for
penetration resistances in each model subzone and the selection of a
representative percentile for analysis purposes.

Have the key material properties and their uncertainties been identified and adequately
addressed?

• Key parameters affecting the response, and the relative magnitude of these
effects, should be identified through sensitivity studies.
• The adequacy of the site characterization for support of the analysis models
should be discussed. For example, the potential for additional explorations to
affect final decisions should be addressed based on the geologic setting, available
site characterization data, the likelihood of additional explorations to reduce
uncertainty in the input parameters, and the sensitivity of the analysis results to
reasonable variations in the estimated material properties.

Aspect 4: Calibration and Evaluation of the Constitutive Model

Are the constitutive models able to approximate the important soil behaviors for both the
static and dynamic phases of the analysis? Have the strengths and limitations of the
constitutive model been assessed and documented?

• Comparisons of constitutive model element behavior to laboratory test results

and/or published relationships should be provided.
• Comparisons should include relevant element behaviors such as:
o Monotonic drained and undrained shearing.
o Shear modulus reduction and damping curves.
o Cyclic resistance ratio versus number of uniform loading cycles for several
overburden stresses and initial static shear stress ratios spanning the ranges of
interest.
o Cyclic undrained stress-strain responses for representative conditions,
specifically including cases with and without initial static shear stresses.
• Constitutive model behaviors should be documented in the report, a manual, or
some other accessible document (e.g., Beaty and Byrne 2011, Boulanger and

Seismic Deformation Analyses of Embankment Dams 539

 Ziotopoulou 2015). The strengths and limitations of the constitutive model as
applied to the current analysis should be identified.

Aspect 5: Numerical Modeling Procedures

Have the modeling approaches for the static and dynamic phases of the analyses been
documented and are the approaches reasonable?

• The documentation of the modeling procedures should include a description,

assessment, and/or justification of the following items:
o The boundary conditions for the lateral edges and base of the model for
both static and dynamic loading phases.
o The inclusion or exclusion of transient seepage effects during dynamic
loading.
o The inclusion or exclusion of large deformation effects during dynamic
loading.
o The viscous damping parameters (e.g., Rayleigh damping type, amount,
frequency, and basis for frequency).
o The appropriateness of the element size with respect to the geometry,
materials, and loading (e.g., the ability of the element mesh to transmit
waves in the frequency range of concern or to adequately represent
gradients of stress, strain and pore pressure).
o The porosity of all materials and the bulk modulus of the pore fluid. These
should be consistent with those used in the single element
validation/calibration studies.
o Any special analysis features that were used (e.g., multi-stepping in
FLAC, automatic or manual remeshing, modification of ill-behaved
surface elements) or significant non-physical adjustments made to
improve solution time.
• Static modeling procedures are often simplified but must be sufficient to create a
reasonable initial stress state for the dynamic analysis. The dam construction and
reservoir filling sequence should be included as required by the unique nature of
the project and modeling procedure.
• The method of applying the input ground motions should be consistent with the
modeling objectives and the selected time series. If a compliant base is used for
both the x and y directions, the efforts used to control base bending should be
identified.
• The effects of large geometry changes should be discussed, particularly if the
analyses were performed using a small-strain formulation.
• The importance of the drainage assumptions often depends on hydraulic
conductivity contrasts and layering. The inclusion of transient seepage during the
dynamic analysis requires extra attention to the site characterization.
• The assumptions regarding strain-rate effects and the potential for softening in
clay-like soils should be described and justified.

540 USSD 2016 Annual Conference

 • When the estimated strain magnitude is used to control the element response (e.g.,
for strain softening materials), the effect of element size on the estimated strain
magnitudes should be assessed.
• The estimated residual strength for any liquefied zone should be directly
considered in the analysis, such as through a post-shaking stability analysis. The
criteria used to identify elements that have liquefied during the analysis should be
identified (e.g., peak excess pore pressure ratio and/or shear strain). The residual
strength in sand-like zones should be capped to the drained strength in each
element. Any special steps needed to perform a post-shaking stability analysis
after completion of the dynamic phase of the analysis should be described.
• If ground improvement or other remedial measures are included in the analysis,
the modeling of these features should be described in detail and any limitations to
the analysis identified (e.g., approximation of 3D effects, assumptions regarding
densification and/or drainage, modeling of potential bending effects or strain
incompatibilities).
• If discrete structural elements are present, the method of structural modeling and
any resultant approximations should be discussed. For structural or ground
improvement elements that are not continuous in the out-of-plane direction,
assumptions regarding the estimate of drag loads on those elements should be
presented.
• The analysis should be performed in reasonable agreement with the validation and
calibration studies, and this should be apparent from the supplied documentation.
Any discrepancies should be identified and assessed.

Aspect 6: Input Ground Motions

Are the selected ground motions consistent with both the seismic hazard evaluation and
the numerical model?

• The primary earthquake scenarios contributing to the seismic hazard should be

identified and addressed by the selected time series. Significant parameters and
characteristics of the selected earthquake recordings should be described, such as
source earthquake and magnitude, type of fault rupture, distance to fault rupture,
site conditions, peak acceleration, peak velocity, Arias intensity, and duration.
• In most cases, the VS30 of the target response spectrum should be similar to the
corresponding VS30 of the rock underlying the dam. Any discrepancy between the
response spectrum and site condition should be addressed in the development of
the input ground motions.
• The number of input time series evaluated in the analysis should be sufficient to
allow a reasonable estimate of the average deformation response. This is often
considered to require three or more spectrally matched motions, or seven or more
motions scaled to the frequency range of interest, for each earthquake scenario. If
three spectrally matched motions produce significantly different estimates of
behavior, use of additional records is often needed.
• If input motions have been spectrally matched, the method of spectral
modification should be referenced and a comparison plot of the target and

Seismic Deformation Analyses of Embankment Dams 541

 individual response spectra should be provided. Plots of acceleration and velocity
histories before and after matching should also be provided, particularly for
ground motions that include directivity effects.
• The method of applying the input ground motions to the model should be
consistent with the modeling objectives and the selected time series. If the input
motions have been deconvolved to the base of the model, the method for
deconvolution should be described and the spectra compared to the spectra for the
outcrop motions. If the input motions are applied to a fixed base without
deconvolution, the potential impact of the additional conservatism should be
assessed. The inclusion or exclusion of vertical input motions should be
identified.
• The input ground motions should be baseline corrected. Alternatively, if there is a
modest baseline drift, displacement results can be reported as displacements
relative to the base.

Aspect 7: Initial Static Stress Conditions

Are the estimates of the initial static stress state reasonable?

• The static stress state (e.g., σ′yy, σ′xx, τxy), pore pressure (u), coefficient of lateral
earth pressure Ko (where Ko = σ′xx/σ′yy), and static shear stress ratio α (where α =
τxy/σ′yy) should be documented with contour plots.
• Equipotential plots for hydraulic head should also be provided as an aid in
evaluating the steady state seepage solution. The pore pressure head distribution
should be compared to available piezometric measurements if available.
• The initial stress state, as documented on the contour plots, should be consistent
with the anticipated variations across material zones and beneath slopes (e.g., no
unreasonable arching of stress between zones, no areas of excessively high Ko, no
unreasonable artifacts of modeling procedure, no random fluctuations). Simplified
approaches for static analysis have been known to introduce local stress
concentrations that are not realistic.
• If the initial pore pressure conditions were imposed assuming a ground water
table and hydrostatic conditions, the potential impacts of this approximation on
the dynamic response should be discussed.
• Contour plots of total unit weight should be provided to ensure the proper mass is
included both above and below the phreatic surface. If elements above the
phreatic surface fully desaturate during a steady-state seepage analysis, some
analysis programs will compute unit weights for these elements that are less than
typical moist unit weights.

542 USSD 2016 Annual Conference

Aspect 8: Dynamic Response

Is the estimated dynamic response reasonable, and has it been presented in sufficient
detail to allow for this assessment?

• The following information should be provided and assessed for at least one input
motion:
o Acceleration time series for a few key points (e.g., crest, downstream face,
upstream face, toes, top of rock, base of model).
o Acceleration response spectra for the above points.
o Displacement time series for the above points.
o Spectral amplification ratios for key points, such as the crest relative to the
bedrock outcrop motion. Alternatively, Fourier amplification spectra can
be used to evaluate predominant response frequencies.
o Deformed shapes with contours of shear strains, excess pore water
pressure ratios, and displacements. Deformed shapes with displacement
vectors can also be valuable.
o For cases with undrained strength loss (e.g., residual strength or remolded
strength), contour plots of the final strength distribution.
o Displacement, moment, and shear envelopes for embedded beam-type
structures.
o Stress-paths and stress-strain response for representative elements.
• Response summaries should be provided for each set of modeling conditions and
suite of ground motions (e.g., peak crest acceleration and displacements, ground
surface displacement profile, peak response of embedded structural elements).
• The full suite of ground motions should be evaluated using best-estimate input
parameters.
• Significant differences in the character of the estimated response over the range of
input motions and modeling conditions should be identified and assessed.
• The magnitude of base bending should be described if a compliant base is used
for both the x and y directions.
• If remedial measures such as ground remediation are included in the analysis, the
response of these measures as well as their impact to the dam response should be
clearly described.
• Comparisons of the estimated responses to field observations from past
earthquakes and, where possible, to the results from other applicable analysis
techniques (e.g., two-dimensional equivalent linear response analyses) should be
provided.

Aspect 9: Post-Shaking Deformations

Is the post-dynamic stability analysis reasonable, and has it been sufficiently documented
to permit this assessment?

• The following information should be provided and assessed for the same input
ground motion(s), nodal points, and elements detailed in Aspect 8:

Seismic Deformation Analyses of Embankment Dams 543

 o Deformed shapes with contours of shear strains, excess pore water
pressure ratios, and displacements.
o Stress-path and stress-strain response for representative elements.
o Displacement time series continued for the same key points examined
during shaking.
• Pockets of non-liquefied zones that may stabilize the slope should be identified.
These pockets may indicate a potential brittleness in the response (i.e., small
changes in the predicted response could induce large increases in displacements),
or they may result from limitations in the constitutive model for addressing the
effects of initial static shear stress. The potential impact of the zones, and the
reliability of the estimates, should be assessed.
• Zones showing dilative tendencies with negative pore pressures should be
identified and their influence on the post-earthquake stability should be discussed
and assessed.
• Analyses that were unable to reach static equilibrium due to excessive grid
distortion should be noted.

Aspect 10: Parametric Analyses

Have sufficient parametric analyses been performed to identify the behaviors and
parameters of most importance to the computed responses?

• The parameters evaluated in the sensitivity studies should be those expected to

have a stronger effect on computed responses; the selection of those parameters
should be guided by, in part, by an understanding of the initial analysis results.
• Direct comparisons of results from the parametric analyses and those from the
best-estimate input parameters should be provided. An assessment of the relative
importance of each parameter should be made.
• The set of parametric analyses should include some or all of the following items
depending on the characteristics of the dam and the initial response estimates:
o Sensitivity to properties of the liquefiable materials: e.g., CRR values,
shear moduli (velocity profiles), peak strengths, residual strengths.
o Sensitivity to properties of the non-liquefiable materials: e.g., shear
moduli (velocity profiles), drained and undrained shear strengths, post-
cyclic strengths.
o Sensitivity to procedural issues such as the liquefaction "triggering"
criteria used to decide if residual shear strengths are imposed.
o Sensitivity to modest changes in any remediation elements (e.g., depth
and/or length of soil mix grids).
o Sensitivity to any other input parameters having the potential of
significantly affecting the dam response.
o The polarity (or sign) of the input ground motion, and the effect of the
vertical component of the input motion.
• A simple fragility evaluation should generally be performed. The relationship
between dam displacement and the amplitude of the input motion can be assessed
using best estimate properties. The objective is to identify if a modest increase in

544 USSD 2016 Annual Conference

 loading above the selected design level produces a significant increase in dam
response.

Aspect 11: Uncertainties and Limitations

Have the uncertainties and limitations in the numerical model been identified and
addressed?

• Mechanisms such as cracking, particularly in the direction transverse to the dam

axis, are outside the capabilities of most numerical models. The report should
recognize and account for this limitation. A discussion should be provided on
locations and materials susceptible to cracking.
• An assessment of apparent bias towards an overly optimistic or pessimistic
selection of the best-estimate inputs at each step of the process should be
provided.
• The potential significance of 3-dimensional effects should be discussed.
• The impact of simplifications or uncertainties in the site characterization should
be discussed.
• As possible, the analysis results should be compared to relevant responses from
case histories (e.g., observed deformations, peak crest accelerations).
• The range of estimate responses considering the full suite of ground motions
should be assessed and best-estimate response values provided.
• Undefined uncertainties in the model estimates should be considered in the
discussions of dam performance and potential risk. It has been common practice
for high quality analysis programs to consider best estimates of displacement to
be between 0.5 and 2.0 times the best estimate of the analysis. A factor larger than
2.0 may need to be considered if the analysis shows the displacements are unduly
sensitive to one or more input parameters.

Aspect 12: Reasonableness of Conclusions

Has the case been made, in plain language, for the conclusions and recommendations
drawn from the results of deformation analyses?

• The case for the overall conclusions or recommendations should be concisely

summarized with reference to the essential aspects of the geology, material
characteristics, dam configuration, seismic hazard, estimated response, and key
sources of uncertainty.
• The case should include discussion of whether additional information (e.g.,
exploration or analysis) could reasonably be expected to change the outcomes.
The parameters found to have the greatest impact on the estimated performance of
the dam should be identified. An evaluation of reasonable variations in these
values on the estimated response should be included.

Seismic Deformation Analyses of Embankment Dams 545

 CONCLUSION

Nonlinear deformation analyses (NDAs) are a valuable tool for evaluating soil and soil-
structure systems affected by liquefaction, cyclic softening, and/or large seismic loads. A
high-quality NDA study can provide more realistic assessments of deformation
mechanisms and potential failure modes than are possible with simplified equivalent-
static or equivalent linear analysis methods.

A suggested checklist of questions was provided for participants and reviewers of NDA
studies. The questions are not exhaustive but represent the authors' perspectives on many
of the details that can significantly affect NDA results for embankment dams. These
details should be addressed or considered in engineering analyses and reports
representing the highest levels of practice. An additional objective was to foster
discussion on items that should be addressed in engineering reports summarizing NDA
studies. It is hoped that advancing the standard of practice for documentation will help
advance the standard of practice for NDA studies and ultimately benefit both consumers
and producers of NDA studies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The opinions expressed in this paper draw from the practices of numerous colleagues
whom the authors have been fortunate to work or interact with over many years. The
authors also appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions provided by Dr. Rambod
Hadidi and Mr. Andrew Dinsick during their review of the draft paper.

REFERENCES

Beaty, M. H., and Byrne, P. M. (2011). UBCSAND constitutive model: version 904aR.
Documentation report: UBCSAND constitutive model on Itasca UDM Web Site,
February.

Beaty, M.H. and Perlea, V.G. (2011). Several Observations on Advanced Analyses with
Liquefiable Materials. In Proc., 31st USSD Annual Meeting and Conference, United
States Society on Dams, San Diego, April 11 – 15, 2011. (pp. 1369-1397).

Boulanger, R. W., Montgomery, J., and Ziotopoulou, K. (2015). "Nonlinear deformation

analyses of liquefaction effects on embankment dams." Perspectives on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, A. Ansal and M. Sakr, eds., Geotechnical, Geological and
Earthquake Engineering 37, 247-283, Springer, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10786-8_10.

Boulanger, R. W., and Ziotopoulou, K. (2015). "PM4Sand (Version 3): A sand plasticity
model for earthquake engineering applications." Report No. UCD/CGM-15/01, Center
for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, CA, 112 pp.

546 USSD 2016 Annual Conference

View publication stats