CECW-ED

Department of the Army

ER 1110-2-1806

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulation No.
1110-2-1806

Washington, DC 20314-1000

Engineering and Design

EARTHQUAKE DESIGN AND EVALUATION FOR
CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

31 July 1995

CECW-ED
CECW-EG

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000

Regulation
No. 1110-2-1806

ER 1110-2-1806

31 July 1995

Engineering and Design

EARTHQUAKE DESIGN AND EVALUATION FOR CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS

1. Purpose
This regulation provides guidance and direction for the
seismic design and evaluation for all civil works
projects.

of confidence in the final conclusions. Survival of

operating equipment and utility lines is as essential as
survival of the structural and geotechnical features of
the project. When justifying circumstances exist,
requests for departures from this policy should be submitted by the District Commander through the Division
Commander to HQUSACE (CECW-E).

2. Applicability
This regulation is applicable to all HQUSACE elements
and USACE commands having responsibilities for the
planning, design, and construction of civil works
projects.

3. References
References are listed in Appendix A.

4. Policy
The seismic design for new projects and the seismic
evaluation or reevaluation for existing projects should be
accomplished in accordance with this regulation. This
regulation applies to all projects which have the potential to malfunction or fail during major seismic events
and cause hazardous conditions related to loss of human
life, appreciable property damage, disruption of lifeline
services, or unacceptable environmental consequences.
The effort required to perform these seismic studies can
vary greatly. The scope of each seismic study should
be aimed at assessing the ground motions, site characterization, structural response, functional consequences,
and potential hazards in a consistent, well-integrated,
and cost-effective effort that will provide a high degree

This regulation supersedes ER 1110-1-1806, dated 16

May 1983.

5. General Provisions
a. Project hazard potential. The classification in
Appendix B is related to the consequences of project
failure. Critical features are the engineering structures,
natural site conditions, or operating equipment and
utilities at high hazard projects whose failure during or
immediately following an earthquake could result in loss
of life. Such a catastrophic loss of life could result
directly from failure or indirectly from flooding damage
to a lifeline facility, or could pose an irreversible threat
to human life due to release or inundation of hazardous,
toxic, or radioactive materials. Project hazard potential
should consider the population at risk, the downstream
flood wave depth and velocity, and the probability of
fatality of individuals within the affected population.
All other features are not critical features.
b. Design. Seismic design for new projects shall
include assessments of the potential earthquake motions
and project features to ensure acceptable performance
during and after design events. The level of design
required to help ensure such performance is dependent
upon whether or not seismic loadings control design, the
complexity of the project, and the consequences of
losing project service or control of the pool. The analysis should be performed in phases in order of increasing
complexity. Continuity of the design process is important throughout each stage. The plan of study for each
stage of design should be consistent with this regulation
and with ER 1110-2-1150. An initial assessment of

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

project hazards associated with the earthquake shall be

included in the reconnaissance stage of study. The
magnitude of seismic motions and an initial evaluation
of key project features shall be included in the feasibility stage in design of sufficient detail to determine
whether seismic loads control the design. Detailed
seismic analysis should be completed during the design
memorandum stage. Final detailing should be in the
plans and specifications. In-progress review meetings
should be accomplished early in the study and at key
points within each phase.

(4) Project modifications are made to improve operational conditions which adversely impact or reduce the
seismic resistance of particular project features.
(5) Periodic inspection is required. Reevaluations
should be conducted every third periodic inspection or
every 15 years, whichever comes first.
e. Remediation. Bringing existing project features
up to current seismic design standards is generally
expensive. Expert judgment as well as appropriate
linear elastic and nonlinear analytical studies may be
required to clearly demonstrate the need for remediation.
In instances where the capacity of the project feature is
less than the earthquake demand, a risk assessment
should be performed. The risk assessment should
include a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, as
defined in paragraph 5h(2)(b), to quantify the threshold
event corresponding to failure. This information is
needed to evaluate the urgency of remediation, and to
justify funding for additional investigations and retrofit
design. Downstream, nonstructural measures to reduce
the project hazard should be considered as an alternative
to seismic remediation.

c. Evaluation. Evaluation of existing project features differs from the design of new features. The evaluation of existing project features should be initiated for
circumstances outlined in paragraph 5d. The evaluation
begins with a careful review of the project foundation
conditions and construction materials, and an understanding of design and construction practices at the time
the project was built. Available information such as
geological maps, boring logs, acceleration contour maps,
standard response spectra, and as-built project records
should be used to screen from further consideration
project features that have adequate seismic designs, or
for which seismic loads do not control the design.
Detailed site explorations, site-specific ground motion
studies, and structural analyses should be undertaken
only for projects in zones 3 and 4, or for zone 2A and
2B projects when seismic loads control the design. All
potential modes of failure must be carefully evaluated
using field investigations, testing, and appropriate
analyses.

(2) An alteration of the project functions is made

which could cause more stringent loading conditions
(higher pools, more frequent high pools, or longer duration) during major earthquakes.

f. Project team concept. Earthquake design or evaluation of civil works projects requires close collaboration of an interdisciplinary team that includes specialists
in seismology, geology, material, and geotechnical and
structural engineering. The team is responsible for
establishing the earthquake engineering requirements for
the project, planning and executing the seismological
and engineering investigations, and evaluating results.
A senior structural or geotechnical engineer should be
responsible for leading the seismic design or evaluation
studies related to the principal structural or geotechnical
features, respectively, of the project. Technical experts
should be included on the team to provide guidance on
seismic policy, advice on the overall earthquake engineering requirements, and evaluation of results for the
project, or to provide advice on specific aspects of the
seismological and engineering investigations. This team
should establish the scope of the entire seismic study
early in the design or evaluation process to ensure that
resources are being used efficiently and that the seismotectonic, geologic, site, and structural investigations are
compatible and complete.

(3) An advance in the state of the art occurs which

demonstrates that previous evaluations are inadequate or
incomplete and potentially hazardous.

g. Consulting technical experts. Seismic design or

evaluation of civil works projects is a rapidly evolving
and highly complex field of earthquake engineering

d. Basis. Existing project features, designed and

constructed to older standards, may not provide adequate
seismic protection, or a ductile response to earthquake
ground motions for reinforced concrete structures.
Evaluation or reevaluation of existing projects should be
undertaken for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) Performance is inconsistent with the design
intent during a major earthquake.

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95
which requires special expertise and substantial judgment to be effective. In many instances, the project
team should augment the inhouse staff with technical
experts to ensure independent review of the methodology and results, to add credibility to the results, and to
ensure public acceptance of the conclusions. Such
experts should be drawn from the fields of geology,
seismology, and structural and geotechnical earthquake
engineering. These experts may be from within the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other government agencies, universities, or the private sector. Technical
experts should be included in the early team planning
sessions to assist in identifying the scope of earthquake
problems, selecting approaches and criteria, reviewing
results, and selecting interim and final seismic parameters. The experts shall participate with the team in
meetings and provide memoranda of concurrence and
summary advice which shall be a part of the formal
record of design or evaluation.

affect the site. Seismologic investigations should

describe the earthquake history, earthquake recurrence
relationship, and the strong motion records to be used in
design or evaluation. Special emphasis should be placed
on identifying all geological, seismological, and geotechnical parameters necessary to encompass the design
and response of foundations and structures. Structural
investigations should accurately account for all relevant
factors which affect the seismic hazard at the specific
site and the actual dynamic behavior of the structure,
including damping and ductility of the structural systems. Geotechnical investigations should determine the
types and spatial distribution of foundation and embankment maturate and the engineering properties of soil and
rock. Propagation of the ground motion through the
foundation and embankment, liquefaction potential of
foundation and embankment soils, stability of natural
and artificial slopes, and estimates of deformations
should also be determined. The final results of sitespecific studies are used as a basis for making design or
evaluation decisions and for designing any remedial
measures. Site-specific studies should be conducted for
all zone 3 and 4 projects, and for zone 2A and 2B projects for which earthquake loadings control the design.
There are two general approaches for conducting sitespecific seismic hazard analyses, which are described
below:

h. Standard and site-specific studies. Seismic

studies should include the seismotectonic, geologic, site,
geotechnical, and structural investigations required to
select the design ground motions, and to determine the
foundation and structural response for the earthquake
events applicable at the project site. Further guidance
on the design and analysis requirements are provided in
Appendices B-F.

(a) Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA).

The DSHA approach uses the known seismic sources
sufficiently near the site and available historical seismic
and geological data to generate discrete, single-valued
events or models of ground motion at the site. Typically one or more earthquakes are specified by magnitude and location with respect to the site. Usually the
earthquakes are assumed to occur on the portion of the
source closest to the site. The site ground motions are
estimated deterministically, given the magnitude, sourceto-site distance, and site condition.

(1) Standard seismic studies are based on existing

generic seismological studies, available site data and
information, and simplified methods of evaluation developed for similar projects or structures. Generally, standard studies use preliminary values of the ground
motions obtained from published seismic zone maps, a
preliminary structural analysis, and a simplified assessment of soil liquefaction and deformation to determine
if seismic loadings control the design, and to set the
scope of any proposed site-specific studies. Standard
methods and data in the referenced guidance are useful
for preliminary and screening investigations in all seismic zones, and may be satisfactory for final design or
evaluation in seismic zones 1 or 2A.

(b) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA).

The PSHA approach uses the elements of the DSHA
and adds an assessment of the likelihood that ground
motions will occur during the specified time period.
The probability or frequency of occurrence of different
magnitude earthquakes on each significant seismic
source and inherent uncertainties are directly accounted
for in the analysis. The results of a PSHA are used to
select the site ground motions based on the probability
of exceedance of a given magnitude during the service
life of the structure or for a given return period.

(2) Site-specific studies involve the use of actual

site and structural conditions in evaluating the project
hazards and the response of project features to seismic
loading. Detailed field exploration and testing programs
should be carefully planned and executed. Geologic
studies should describe the seismotectonic province,
characterize the site, and investigate all faults that can

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

motions. Typical results of a probabilistic analysis are a

hazard curve and an equal hazard spectrum which relate
the level of ground motion to an annual frequency of
exceedance or return period. This information can be
used to complement the deterministic analysis by
removing from consideration seismic sources that appear
unreasonable because of low frequencies of occurrence,
by justifying mean or mean-plus-standard deviation
estimates of deterministic ground motion, or by ensuring
consistency of MDE ground motions with some performance goal.

6. Design Earthquakes and Ground Motions

a. Maximum credible earthquake (MCE). This
earthquake is defined as the greatest earthquake that can
reasonably be expected to be generated by a specific
source on the basis of seismological and geological
evidence. Since a project site may be affected by earthquakes generated by various sources, each with its own
fault mechanism, maximum earthquake magnitude, and
distance from the site, multiple MCEs may be defined
for the site, each with characteristic ground motion
parameters and spectral shape. The MCE is determined
by a DSHA.

7. Site Characterization
b. Maximum design earthquake (MDE). The MDE
is the maximum level of ground motion for which a
structure is designed or evaluated. The associated performance requirement is that the project perform without
catastrophic failure, such as uncontrolled release of a
reservoir, although severe damage or economic loss may
be tolerated. For critical features, the MDE is the same
as the MCE. For all other features, the MDE shall be
selected as a lesser earthquake than the MCE which
provides economical designs meeting appropriate safety
standards. The MDE can be characterized as a deterministic or probabilistic event.

a. Site studies. The two primary concerns in the site

characterization for a project are: the effects of the
ground motion on the site, such as loss of strength in
foundation materials and instability of natural slopes;
and the effects of soil strata and topographic conditions
(basin effects, or ray path focus) on the propagation of
the specified ground motion from rock outcrop to a
particular project feature. The objective of a site characterization study is to obtain all of the data on the site
conditions that are essential to design or to operate a
project safely. Relevant site conditions normally include
topographic and hydrologic conditions; the nature and
extent of the material present in the foundation, embankment, natural slopes, and structures at the site; and the
physical and dynamic engineering properties (such as
modulus, damping, and density) of these materials. The
site characterization should be of a progressive nature
starting with the information from available sources on
the geology, seismicity, and project features at the site.
This should include a description of the site geology,
seismicity such as known faulting in the region, seismic
history, and prior relevant seismic evaluations in the
vicinity, and any known data related to specific project
features at the site or proposed for the site.

c. Operating basis earthquake (OBE). The OBE

is an earthquake that can reasonably be expected to
occur within the service life of the project, that is, with
a 50-percent probability of exceedence during the service life. (This corresponds to a return period of
144 years for a project with a service life of 100 years.)
The associated performance requirement is that the
project function with little or no damage, and without
interruption of function. The purpose of the OBE is to
protect against economic losses from damage or loss of
service, and therefore alternative choices of return
period for the OBE may be based on economic considerations. The OBE is determined by a PSHA.

b. New projects. For new projects, field exploration

and material testing programs should be developed to
identify the stratigraphy and the physical and engineering properties of the foundation materials for the project
features. Prior field investigations in the area of the
project may also be used to provide additional
information.

d. Estimating OBE and MDE ground motions.

Estimates are usually made in two phases. The first
estimates are used as a starting point for the study and
are obtained from the National Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program (NEHRP) spectral acceleration maps
(Appendix D). Site-specific studies in accordance with
paragraph 5h(2) are often required for selecting the final
estimates of OBE and MDE ground motions. Both
DSHA and PSHA approaches are appropriate. Combining the results of deterministic and probabilistic analyses
is often an effective approach for selecting MDE ground

c. Existing projects. For evaluation or re-evaluation

of existing projects, new field investigations may be
required where available data are insufficient to resolve
all significant safety issues. The project team should

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95
integrate this information into the decisionmaking process for designs or resolution of safety issues.

CSHS shall have adequate stability, strength, and

serviceability to resist an OBE and MDE. The structural and operating requirements are different for these
two levels of earthquakes, and either level may control
the design or evaluation. The structure should essentially respond elastically to the OBE event with no
disruption to service. The structure may be allowed to
respond inelastically to the MDE event, which may
result in significant structural damage and limited disruption of services, but the structure should not collapse
or endanger lives. Economic considerations will be a
factor in determining the acceptable level of damage.
For critical structures, the MDE is equal to the MCE.
In general, the OBE is an unusual loading condition,
and the MDE is an extreme loading condition.

8. Concrete and Steel Structures and

Substructures
a. Role of structural engineers. Appropriate methods for seismic studies vary greatly with the type of
structure or substructure. Structural engineers should be
involved in the selection of ground motions from the
earliest stages of study. Their understanding as to how
the ground motions will be used in the structural analysis as it proceeds through progressively more sophisticated stages is needed to reach definitive conclusions
and make sound decisions. The structural engineer
needs to establish how response spectra from standard
and site-specific studies and time-histories from sitespecific studies will be used in the progressive stages of
the structural investigations. This progression is related
to the level of accuracy or sophistication of the model
needed, and to all the uncertainties which must be dealt
with correctly and consistently so that the final result
will be reliable and safe but not overly conservative and
unnecessarily expensive.

e. Analysis methods. Techniques used to evaluate

the structural response to earthquake ground motions
include seismic coefficient methods, response spectrum
methods, and time-history methods. Details of these
methods of analysis may be found in the references in
Appendix A. Simplified response spectrum analysis
procedures are available for analysis of some types of
CSHS, for example concrete gravity dams and intake
towers (Chopra 1987, Chopra and Goyal 1989). These
methods utilize idealized cross-sections and make various assumptions concerning the structures response to
ground motions and its interaction with the foundation
and reservoir. The validity of these assumptions must
be carefully examined for each project prior to using
any simplified analysis procedure; however, in most
cases, these methods will be sufficient for use in feasibility level studies. The seismic coefficient method
should not be used for final design of any structure
where an earthquake loading condition is the controlling
load case. Final designs in seismic zones 3 and 4
should use either response spectrum or time-history
methods.

b. Design standards. Minimum standards for the

seismic design or evaluation of buildings and bridges
are available in national, regional, or local building
codes, in Tri-Service technical manuals, and in Federal
and state design specifications for highway systems.
New building designs and upgrades to existing buildings
shall be in accordance with the provisions of Tri-Service
manuals TM 5-809-10 and TM 5-809-10-1. Existing
buildings conforming to the seismic requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, the National Building Code, or
the Standard Building Code, including their 1992 supplements and additions, need not follow the seismic
design provisions of TM 5-809-10. Bridges on projects
which are open to public access shall be designed or
evaluated in accordance with the American Association
of State Highway Transportation Officials and state
design standards.

f. Input from ground motion studies. Site-specific

ground motion studies required in accordance with paragraph 5h(2) should provide magnitude, duration, and
site-specific values for the peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground
displacement (PGD), and design response spectra and
time-histories in both the horizontal and vertical directions at the ground surface or a rock outcrop as a
minimum. Site-specific studies should also consider
soil-structure interaction effects which may reduce
ground motions at the base of the structure.

c.
Code requirements. Seismic code requirements
for concrete and steel hydraulic structures (CSHS) have
not been developed as fully as those for buildings and
bridges. Design guidance for CSHS shall be in accordance with the references in Appendix A.
d. Load combinations. Design loading combinations for CSHS shall be in accordance with the referenced guidance for specific structures. In general,

g. Analysis progression. An important aspect of the

design or evaluation process is to develop an analytical

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

model of the structure and substructure which adequately represents the seismic behavior. The analysis
process should be performed in phases, in order of
increasing complexity, beginning with simplified
empirical procedures. These procedures are based on
satisfactory experience with similar types of structural
materials and systems, and observations of failure due to
strong ground motions. These general requirements are
outlined in Appendix E. Performing the analysis in
phases will ensure that the analytical model is providing
realistic results and will provide a logical basis for decisions to revise the structural configuration and/or proceed to a more accurate analysis method. The structural
analysis can range from simple two-dimensional (2D)
beam models to sophisticated three-dimensional (3D)
finite element models. All three components of ground
motion may be required to capture the total system
response. Dynamic analyses of most massive concrete
structures usually require a model which includes interaction with the surrounding soil, rock, and water to
produce meaningful results. Differences in structural
shapes and variations in foundation materials or ground
motion should be accounted for in evaluating the spatial
variation in response between points on large structures.
The structural significance of the mode shapes must be
understood, especially when evaluating the stresses
using a response spectrum analysis. The results of a
finite element analysis of a reinforced concrete structure
should be expressed in terms of moment, thrust, and
shear, not just linear stresses at a point, in order to
correctly evaluate the behavior of the reinforced crosssection. Areas where inelastic behavior is anticipated
should be identified and concrete confinement requirements stated. In general, linear time-history methods
applied to 2D or 3D models will provide the most complete understanding of structural performance during an
earthquake. If a design is found to be inadequate using
linear time-history methods of analysis, then nonlinear
time-history methods should be considered. Such methods are beyond the scope of this policy, and shall be
conducted in consultation with CECW-ED.

safe-guards to ensure that structures loaded past their

elastic limit will continue to perform adequately and
will function after extensive cracking. An example of
load path redundancy is to lay out concrete gravity dams
with a curved axis and keyed monolith joints. This will
permit loads to be redistributed to the abutments even if
the base foundation is weakened or displaced by an
earthquake.

9. Embankments, Slopes, and Soil Foundations

a. General. The seismic evaluation and design of
soil foundations, slopes, and embankments involves the
interaction of geologists, seismologists, and geotechnical
engineers. The activities for this effort can be grouped
into four main areas: field investigations, site characterization, numerical analyses, and evaluation. It is essential that the investigations and site characterization
adequately portray the nature, extent, and in-situ
physical properties of the materials in the foundation,
embankment, or slope being investigated.
b. Embankments. Appropriate methods should be
used to analyze the liquefaction potential and/or to estimate deformations for embankment (dams, dikes, levees
that retain permanent pools), slope, and foundation
materials when subjected to ground motions corresponding to the MDE and the OBE.
c. Slopes and foundations. Slopes to be analyzed
should include natural, reservoir rim, and other slopes,
with or without structures, with the potential to affect
the safety or function of the project. Foundation materials to be analyzed for liquefaction of the project include
all foundation soils that support project features or the
liquefaction of which would affect project features. The
results of investigations and data review as described in
paragraph 7 and the seismological evaluation will determine the appropriate methods, including dynamic analysis, to be performed on the project.

h. Seismic design principles. It is important to

incorporate sound seismic engineering concepts in all
aspects of the design or evaluation process. In all
instances the design engineer should ensure that the
structural configuration has minimum geometric irregularities, there are only gradual variations in structural
stiffness, and any necessary structural discontinuities are
properly detailed to account for the localized effects of
stress concentrations. Continuous load paths, load path
redundancy, and ductile behavior are important

d. Evaluations. Evaluations of embankment, slope,

and/or foundation susceptibility to liquefaction or excessive deformation will be performed for all projects
located in seismic zones 3 and 4, and those projects in
zone 2 where materials exist that are suspected to be
susceptible to liquefaction or excessive deformation.
Such evaluation and analysis should also be performed
regardless of the seismic zone location of the
project, where capable faults or recent earthquake

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95
epicenters are discovered within a distance that may
result in damage to the structure.

10. Actions for New Projects

For new projects, the phases of study required for the
seismic analysis and design shall be in accordance with
ER 1110-2-1150 and shall progress as described in
Appendix E. These requirements are summarized
below.

e. Defensive design measures. Defensive design

features should be incorporated in the foundation and
embankment design regardless of the method of seismic
analysis. These details of these features should be optimized based on the results of the analysis. Defensive
features include:

a. Reconnaissance phase. This study phase shall

include the initial assessment of the seismic ground
motions at the project site for each of the design earthquakes, the potential impact of these motions on the
projects design, and the engineering effort required for
the seismic design during the feasibility study phase. If
no site-specific ground motions are available for the
design earthquakes, the ground motions can be estimated
as described in paragraph 6d.

(1) Additional dam height to accommodate the loss

of crest elevation due to deformation, slumping, and
fault displacement.
(2) Crest details that will minimize erosion in the
event of overtopping.
(3) Wider transition and filter sections as a defense
against cracking.

b. Feasibility phase. This study phase shall include

the preliminary seismic analysis and design of the key
features of the project in sufficient detail to prepare the
baseline cost estimate and determine the contingencies
appropriate for the level of sophistication of the analysis. The preliminary seismic analysis should also be of
sufficient detail to develop a design and construction
schedule, and allow detailed design on the selected plan
to begin immediately following approval of the
feasibility report. For projects for which seismic loads
control the design, the feasibility study phase should
include site-specific studies to determine the design
ground motions and preliminary stability and response
spectra analyses for design of the project.

(4) Use of rounded or subrounded gravel and sand

as filter material.
(5) Adequate permeability of the filter layers.
(6) Near vertical drainage zones in the central portion of the embankment.
(7) Zoning of the embankment to minimize saturation of materials.
(8) Wide impervious cores of plastic clay materials
to accommodate deformation.

c. Design memorandum phase. This study phase

requires a seismic analysis and design in sufficient detail
to serve as the basis for preparing plans and specifications (P&S). Subsequent engineering for preparing the
P&S should generally be limited to detailing and preparing specifications. The design memorandum study
phase will also include detailed site-specific studies to
determine the design ground motions 2D and 3D
response spectrum analyses, and time-history analyses.
When the project studies proceed directly to P&S from
the feasibility phase, the design memorandum seismic
studies should be conducted during the feasibility stage
or as a separate study prior to the P&S phase.

(9) Well-graded core and filter materials to ensure

self healing in the event cracking should occur.
(10) Stabilization of reservoir rim slopes to provide
safety against large slides into the reservoir.
(11) Removal and replacement of liquefaction susceptible material in the foundation.
(12) In-situ densification of foundation materials.
(13) Stabilization of slopes adjacent to operating
facilities to prevent blockage from a slide associated
with the earthquake.

11. Actions for Existing Projects

For existing projects, the phases of study required for
seismic analysis shall be in accordance with ER 1110-21155 or the current major rehabilitation program

(14) Flaring embankment sections at the abutment

contacts.

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

guidance as provided by CECW-O. These requirements

are summarized below and in Appendix F.

b. Special studies. After approval of the DSAER or

MRER, special studies may be required, and should
proceed in three phases as defined in the current major
rehabilitation program guidance as provided by
CECW-O. Phase one studies can be reported as a letter
report addendum to the evaluation report or as a supplement to an existing design memorandum. Phase two
studies should be reported in a design memorandum.

a. Preliminary evaluation. When an evaluation of

existing project features must be initiated for reasons
stated in paragraph 5d, the preliminary results should be
presented in a Dam Safety Assurance or Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Report (DSAER or MRER, respectively) using the latest guidance. The report will
adequately explain the seismic deficiency, and will
outline additional investigations necessary to access the
risk and to upgrade the project to meet current seismic
criteria. This report will be submitted to HQUSACE,
through the major subordinate command, for approval.

12. Funding
General Investigation, Construction General, or Operation and Maintenance General funds should be used as
appropriate to accomplish the investigations.

FOR THE COMMANDER:

6 Appendices
APP A - References
APP B - Hazard Potential Classification
for Civil Works Projects
APP C - Uniform Building Code Seismic
Zone Map
APP D - National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program Spectral Acceleration Maps
APP E - Progressive Seismic Analysis
Requirements for Concrete and Steel
Hydraulic Structures
APP F - Design and Analysis Requirements
for Seismic Evaluation Reports

ROBERT H. GRIFFIN
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Chief of Staff

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

APPENDIX A
REFERENCES

Clough and Penzien 1993

Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. 1993. Dynamics of
Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.

A-1. Required Publications

ER 1110-2-1150
Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects

Cornell 1968
Cornell, C. A. 1968. Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
Vol 58, pp 1583-1606.

ER 1110-2-1155
Dam Safety Assurance
TM 5-809-10/NAVFAC P-355/AFM 88-3, Chap. 13,
Sec A
Seismic Design for Buildings

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

Committee on Seismic Risk 1989. The Basics of
Seismic Risk Analysis, Earthquake Spectra, Vol 5,
pp 675-702.

TM 5-809-10-1/NAVFAC P-355.1/AFM 88-3,

Chap. 13, Sec A
Seismic Design Guidelines for Essential Buildings

Ebeling 1992
Ebeling, R. M. 1992. Introduction to the Computation
of Response Spectrum for Earthquake Loading, Technical Report ITL-92-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Chopra 1987
Chopra, A. K. 1987. Simplified Earthquake Analysis
of Concrete Gravity Dams, ASCE Journal of the
Structural Division, 113ST8.

FEMA 1992
Federal Emergency Management Administration. 1992.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development
of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, 1991 Edition, FEMA 222 and 223, Washington DC.

Chopra and Goyal 1989

Chopra, A. K., and Goyal, A. 1989. Earthquake
Analysis and Response of Intake-Outlet Towers,
Report No. UCB/EERC-89-04, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
CA.

Finn et al. 1986

Finn, W. D. L., Yogendrakumar, M., Yoshida, N., and
Yoshida H. 1986. TARA-3: A Program to Compute
the Response of 2-D Embankments and Soil-Structure
Interaction Systems to Seismic Loadings, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada.

A-2. Related Publications

EM 1110-2-1902
Stability of Earth and Rockfill Dams
EM 1110-2-2200
Gravity Dam Design

Housner and Jennings 1982

Housner, G. W., and Jennings, P. C. 1982. Earthquake Design Criteria, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.

EM 1110-2-2201
Arch Dam Design
Algermissen 1983
Algermissen, S. T. 1983. An Introduction to the
Seismicity of the United States, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.

Hudson 1979
Hudson, D. E. 1979. Reading and Interpreting Strong
Motion Accelograms; Engineering Monographs on
Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong
Motion Records, Vol 1, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.

Chopra 1981
Chopra, A. K. 1981. Dynamics of Structures, A
Primer, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Berkeley, CA.

A-1

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

Newmark and Rosenbleuth 1971

Newmark, N. M., and Rosenbleuth, E. 1971. Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Hynes-Griffin and Franklin 1984

Hynes-Griffin, M. E., and Franklin, A. G. 1984.
Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method, Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Poulos, Castro, and France 1985

Poulos, S. J., Castro, G., and France, J. W. 1985. Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 111, No. 6, pp
772-792.

International Committee on Large Dams 1989

International Committee on Large Dams. 1989. Selecting Seismic Parameters for Large Darns, Guidelines,
Bulletin 72.

Poulos, 1988
Poulos, S. J. 1988. Liquefaction and Related Phenomena, Advanced Dam Engineering for Design and Construction and Rehabilitation, Ch. 9, Robert B. Jansen,
ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Krinitzsky and Chang 1987

Krinitzsky, E. L., and Chang, F. K. 1987. Parameters
for Specifying Intensity-Related Earthquake Ground
Motions, Report 25, State-of-the-Art for Assessing
Earthquake Hazards in the United States, Miscellaneous
Paper S-73-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Reiter 1990
Reiter, L. 1990. Earthquake Hazard Analysis, Issues
and Insights, Columbia University Press, New York.

Makdisi and Seed 1978

Makdisi, F. I., and Seed, H. B. 1978. Simplified
Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment Earthquake Induced Deformations, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 104, No. GT7,
pp 849-867.

Seed et al. 1975

Seed, H. B., Lee, K. L., Idriss, I. M., and Makdisi, F. I.
1975. The Slides in the San Fernando Dams During
the Earthquake of February 9, 1971, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 101,
No. GT7, pp 651-688.

Marcusen, Hynes, and Franklin 1990

Marcusen, W. F., III, Hynes, M. E., and Franklin, A. G.
1990. Evaluation and Use of Residual Strength in
Seismic Safety Analysis of Embankments, Earthquake
Spectra, Vol 6, No. 3, pp 529-572.

Seed 1979
Seed, H. B. 1979. Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground During Earthquake,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol 105, No. GT2, pp 201-225.

National Research Council 1988

National Research Council. 1988. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Seed 1979
Seed, H. B. 1979. 19th Rankine Lecture: Considerations in the Earthquake Design of Earth and Rockfill
Dams, Geotechnique, Vol 29, No. 3, pp 215-263.

Newmark and Hall 1982

Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. 1982. Earthquake
Spectra and Design; Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion
Records, Vol 3, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Berkeley, CA.

Seed, Idriss, Arango 1983

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M. and Arango, I. 1983. Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance
Data, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol 1005, No. 3, pp 458-482.

A-2

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

APPENDIX B
HAZARD POTENTIAL CLASSIFICATION
FOR CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS

Table B-1
Hazard Potential Classification
Direct
Loss of Life2

Lifeline
Losses3

Property
Losses4

Environmental
Losses5

Low

None (rural location, no

permanent structures
for human habitation)

No disruption of services
(cosmetic or rapidly
repairable damage)

Private agricultural
lands, equipment, and
isolated buildings

Minimal incremental damage

Significant

Rural location, only

transient or day-use
facilities

Disruption of
essential facilities and access

Major public and private facilities

Major mitigation
required

High

Certain (one or more) extensive residential,

commercial, or industrial development

Disruption of
critical facilities and access

Extensive
public and private facilities

Extensive
mitigation cost
or impossible
to mitigate

Category1

1
2

Categories are based upon project performance and do not apply to individual structures within a project.
Loss of life potential based upon inundation mapping of area downstream of the project. Analyses of loss of life potential should take
into account the population at risk, time of flood wave travel, and warning time.
Indirect threats to life caused by the interruption of lifeline services due to project failure, or operation, i.e direct loss of (or access to)
critical medical facilities.
Direct economic impact of property damages to project facilities and downstream property and indirect economic impact due to loss of
project services, i.e. impact on navigation industry of the loss of a dam and navigation pool, or impact upon a community of the loss of
water or power supply.
Environmental impact downstream caused by the incremental flood wave produced by the project failure, beyond which would normally
be expected for the magnitude flood event under which the failure occurs.

B-1

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

APPENDIX C
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC ZONE MAP

...

u
I!!

&

li:

C-1

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

APPENDIX D
NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION
PROGRAM SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MAPS

NOTES

1.

Irregularly spaced contours are at intervals of 2, 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 200, and 300 percent g. In a
few locations, supplemental contours are provided. Supplemental contours, if included, are always labeled. Spot
values are included to supplement contours.

2.

Contour variation with distance is rapid and complex in California, particularly near major faults and coastal regions.
More detailed maps should be used when information is required in these areas.

3.

The dashed curvilinear north-south line labeled attenuation boundary is the approximate division between western
seismic source zones, modeled with Joyner and Boores (1982) attenuation for soil, and eastern seismic source zones,
modeled with Boore and Joyners (1991) attenuation for soil.

D-1

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

D-2

Figure 01. 1991 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map of the 5-percent damped, 0.3INIC pseudo-acceleration apectrat rasponse,
expt'essed In percent of the acceleration of gravity, wHh a 1D-<percent probability of axceedance In 50 yeart

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

Figure D-2. 1991 USGS map of the 5-percent damped, 0.3-sec pseudo-acceleration spectral response,
expressed in percent of the acceleration of gravity, with a 10-percent probability of exceedance in
50 years

D-3

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

D-4

Figure D-3. 1991 map of the 5-parc:ent damped, 1.0-sec pseudo-acceleration spectral resp<~nse, eoxprassed In percent of the ~c:celeretlon
of gravity, wHh a 10-parcent probabty of eoxClllldanca In 50 years

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

Figure D-4. 1991 USGS map of the 5-percent damped, 1.0-sec pseudo-acceleration spectral
response, expressed in percent of the acceleration of gravity, with a 10-percent probability
of exceedance in 50 years

D-5

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

D-6

figure D-5. 1991 map of tha 5-percent damped, 0.3sc p.saudo-acceleratlcn spectral response, expressed In percent of the acceleration
of gravity, wlh 1 1()-percent probability of exceedance in 250 years

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

Figure D-6. 1991 USGS map of the 5-percent damped, 0.3-sec pseudo-acceleration spectral
response, expressed in percent of the acceleration of gravity, with a 10-percent probability
of exceedance in 250 years

D-7

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

D-8

Figure 0.7. 1991 map altha 5"JJarcent damped, 1.0sec pseudo ..acceleration 'IIIJ8CI1al responsa, expressed ~ percenl of the acceleration
of gravity, whh a 10percent probability of axceed.ance n 250 yearll

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

"'

19

-!:--f---

---+--~~

;;;

l:j

Figure D-8. 1991 USGS map of the 5-percent damped, 1.0-sec pseudo-acceleration spectral
response, expressed in percent of the acceleration of gravity, with a 10-percent probability
of exceedance in 250 years

D-9

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

APPENDIX E
PROGRESSIVE SEISMIC ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
FOR CONCRETE AND STEEL HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES

Table E-1 shows the progression of seismic analyses required for each phase of project design. Additional guidance
concerning these methods of analysis is provided in paragraphs 8e and 8g, and in the references in Appendix A. The
types of project seismic studies are described in paragraphs 5h and 10.

Table E-1
Seismic Analysis Progression
Project Stage
DM1

Zone

Reconnaissance

0 and 1

SCM

RS2

2A and 2B

E
SCM2

SCM
RS2

RS
TH3

SCM

RS

TH

SCM
RS2

RS
TH3

RS4
TH3

3 and 4

Feasibility

Note:
E = Experience of the structural design engineer.
SCM = Seismic coefficient method of analysis.
RS = Response spectrum analysis.
TH = Time-history analysis.
1

3
4

If the project proceeds directly from feasibility to plans and specifications stage, a seismic design memorandum will be required for all projects in zones 3 and 4, and projects for which a TH analysis is required.
Seismic loading condition controls design of an unprecedented structure, or unusual configuration or
adverse foundation conditions.
Seismic loading controls the design requiring linear or nonlinear time-history analysis.
RS may be used in seismic zones 3 and 4 for the feasibility and design memorandum phases of project
development only if it can be demonstrated that phenomena sensitive to frequency content (such as soilstructure interaction and structure-reservoir interaction) can be adequately modeled in an RS.

E-1

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

APPENDIX F
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION REPORTS
The following outline summarizes the reporting requirements for seismic design and evaluation studies for both standard
seismic studies and site-specific seismic studies as described in paragraph 5h. These are minimum requirements and
should be supplemented as needed on a case-by-case basis.
A. Summary of Applicable Seismic Criteria
1. Hazard potential classification from Table B-1 (Include consequences of project failure)
2. Uniform Building Code seismic zone from map in Appendix C
3. Design earthquakes
a. MCE
b. MDE
c. OBE
d. For each design earthquake provide:
(1) PGA, PGD, PGV
(2) Duration
(3) Response spectra
4. Critical project features (See paragraph 5a)
5. Impact of seismic loads on project design (for new designs)
6. Impact of seismic loads on project safety (for existing projects)
B. Description of Seismic Design or Evaluation Procedure
1. Progressive seismic analysis process
2. Input motions used in the analysis
3. Loading combinations analyzed
4. Modeling techniques used for:
a. Structure
b. Substructure
c. Reservoir
d. Backfill or sediment
5. Material assumptions
a. Mass
b. Stiffness
c. Damping
6. Computer programs used in the analysis
a. Dynamic analysis programs
b. DSHA and PSHA ground motion programs
c. Soil column effects programs
C. Presentation of Results of Ground Motion Studies
1. Standard spectra used for preliminary studies and/or final designs
2. DSHA site-specific response spectra
a. Design response spectra
b. MCE (Mean)
c. MCE (84th percentile)
3. PSHA site-specific response spectra. Equal hazard mean spectra for return periods of:
72 years
144 years
475 years
950 years
2,000 years
F-1

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95

5,000 years
10,000 years
4. Time-history records
a. Natural time-history records used for final design
b. Synthetic time-history records used for final design (Natural time-histories modified to match target design
response spectrum analysis)
c. Natural time-history scaling procedures
d. Synthetic time-history development procedures
e. Comparison of time-histories with design response spectra
D. Results of Dynamic Analysis
1. Periods of vibration
2. Mode shapes
3. Modal mass participation factors
4. Modal combination procedure (square root sum of squares, complete quadratic combination, etc.)
5. Governing loads and load combinations
6. Maximum forces (moments and shears)/or stresses where appropriate
7. Maximum displacements
8. For time-history analysis:
a. Plots of stress (or forces) with time for critical location
b. Plots of displacements with time
c. Procedure used to determine effective stresses (or forces) for design
d. Stress contour plots at points in time when stresses are maximum
9. Stability
a. Resultant locations (permanent rotations)
b. Sliding factors of safety (permanent translations)
E. Design Measures Taken to Obtain:
1. Ductility
2. Redundancy
3. Continuous and direct load paths
4. Prevent hammering of adjacent structures or components
5. Prevent loss of support at bridge bearings or other bearing locations
6. Smooth changes in mass or stiffness
F. Results of Embankment Analyses
1. Slope stability
2. Liquefaction potential
3. Settlement potential
4. Defensive design measures
G. Results of Foundation Analyses
1. Liquefaction potential
2. Bearing capacity
3. Settlement and deformation analyses
4. Defensive design measures
H. Verification of Analysis Results
1. Comparison of simplified procedure results with dynamic analysis results
2. Comparison of response spectra with time-history results
3. Comparison of results with those for similar type structures
4. Results of consultant review

F-2

ER 1110-2-1806
31 Jul 95
I.

Presentation of Seismic Design or Evaluation Results

1. Assessment of the project and project features to resist the design earthquake results
2. Defensive design measures taken to protect project features from the damaging effects of earthquakes
3. Remedial measures required for existing projects

F-3