L. Rojas et al.

21

ON SEISMIC SLOPE DISPLACEMENT ESTIMATION METHODS,

PROCEDURES, COMPARISON, AND APPLICATION
MÉTODOS DE PREDICCIÓN DE DESPLAZAMIENTOS SÍSMICOS,
PROCEDIMIENTO, COMPARACIÓN Y APLICACIÓN
Luis Rojas1*
Lesly Ortiz1 , Jesus Cabrera1
1*
Civil Engineering Faculty, National University of Engineering, Lima, Peru
Received: 15/08/2021 Accepted: 06/06/2023

ABSTRACT
The methodology in the seismic design of slopes has evolved with technological advancement and the development of
geotechnical engineering. Since methods with great limitations such as pseudo-static analysis to rigorous methods that require
a lot of information for a better understanding of the behavior of the soil such as the dynamic analysis.

This article develops the procedure, comparison, and application of methods for estimating seismic displacements, which are
the Newmark (1965), Sarma (1975), Makdisi & Seed (1978) and Bray, Macedo & Travasarou (2018). Each of these methods
considering the criteria of each one to obtain permanent displacements, such as yield acceleration, degraded period, spectral
acceleration, magnitude, etc.

As an applicative case, a rockfill dam and core central 50 m high placed in sandstone strata and moraine deposits interspersed
with shale intrusions is shown, as seismic scenarios the Lima 1974 earthquake, the Attic 2001 earthquake and the earthquake
were used. of Pisco 2007, considering both NS and EW directions. Likewise, the response spectrum on the base of the failure
surface, resulting from a nonlinear seismic response analysis from 3 columns in the dam, is considered as information. The
methods of Newmark (1965), Sarma (1975), Makdisi & Seed (1978), and Bray, Macedo & Travasarou (2018) were applied,
obtaining deformation results between 1 to 30 cm that according to their order of magnitude represent a stable condition for
the dam.

Keywords: earthquake-induced simplified displacement methods, dynamic analysis, measure stability and earth dam.

RESUMEN

La metodología en el diseño sísmico de taludes ha evolucionado con el avance tecnológico y el desarrollo de la ingeniería
geotécnica. Desde métodos con grandes limitaciones como el análisis pseudoestático hasta méto-dos rigurosos que requieren
mucha información para una mejor comprensión del comportamiento del suelo como el análisis dinámico.

En este artículo se desarrolla el procedimiento, comparación y aplicación de los métodos para estimar los des-plazamientos
sísmicos, que son el Newmark (1965), Sarma (1975), Makdisi & Seed (1978) y Bray, Macedo & Tra-vasarou (2018). Cada uno de
estos métodos considera los criterios característicos para obtener desplazamien-tos permanentes, tales como aceleración de
fluencia, periodo degradado, aceleración espectral, magnitud, etc.

Como caso aplicativo, se muestra una presa de enrocado y núcleo central de 50 m de altura emplazada en es-tratos de areniscas
y depósitos morrénicos intercalados con intrusiones de lutitas, como escenarios sísmicos se utilizaron el terremoto de Lima 1974,
el terremoto de Atico 2001 y el terremoto de Pisco 2007, considerando las direcciones NS y EW. Asimismo, se considera como
información el espectro de respuesta en la base de la su-perficie de falla, resultante de un análisis de respuesta sísmica no lineal
de 3 columnas de la presa. Se aplicaron los métodos de Newmark (1965), Sarma (1975), Makdisi & Seed (1978), y Bray, Macedo &
Travasarou (2018), obteniéndose resultados de deformación entre 1 y 30 cm que de acuerdo a su orden de magnitud representan
una condición estable para la presa.

Palabras clave: Métodos de desplazamiento simplificado inducido por sismo, Análisis dinámico, Medida de estabilidad, Presa de tierra.

*
Corresponding author.:
E-mail: luis.rojas.g@uni.pe
 L. Rojas et al. 22

1. INTRODUCCIÓN

The significance of methods for estimating seismic subsequent sections describe several common
displacements is due to the potential occurrence of approaches to inertial instability analysis. Pseudo-
large landslides triggered by earthquakes of certain static analysis, the first approach, calculates a factor
magnitudes, as noted by Keefer (1984): "Moderate to of safety along the slope failure surface under seismic
large earthquakes can cause large landslides at great conditions, like how static limit equilibrium analyzes
distances from the epicenter, with distances up to factors of safety against static slope failure. All other
500 km, depending on their magnitude" (p. 406-421). approaches attempt to assess permanent slope
displacements caused by seismic shocks (p. 433-434).
Kramer (1996) provides a comprehensive explanation
of the effects of seismic movements on slopes in his The importance of the methods for estimating
book. Seismic movements generate significant seismic displacements lies in the large landslides that
horizontal and vertical dynamic stresses, producing can occur due to earthquakes of a certain magnitude,
shear and normal dynamic stresses along potential from the results of Keefer (1984): “The earthquakes
failure surfaces within the slope. of moderate to large magnitude can trigger large
landslides at great distances from the epicenter such
Dynamic shear stresses can exceed the available as 500 km, this depending on its magnitude” (p. 406-
shear strength of the soil and cause inertial instability 421).
on the slope when combined with previously existing
static shear stresses. Numerous techniques have Due to the different existing methods, it is necessary
been proposed for the analysis of inertial instability, to evaluate the application of each of these; Fig. 1
differing in the precision with which seismic motion shows a diagram of the methods available to analyze
and dynamic slope response are represented. The a slope in a seismic condition.

Fig. 1. Representative diagram with some of the methodologies used to represent the seismic condition.
that of an infinitely rigid block that slides on a flat
2. BACKGROUND surface whose movement begins when the
accelerations induced by earthquakes exceed the
2.1 RIGID BLOCK MODEL yield acceleration, ky.

The rigid block model was proposed by Newmark in During the movement of the sliding block the speed
1965, based on the simplification of the sliding surface of the support surface and the sliding mass are
by different, the movement (sliding) will continue until
the following 2 conditions are met:
 L. Rojas et al. 23

− When the accelerations no longer exceed During each interval of movement of the block, the
the yield acceleration, ky permanent displacements accumulate, and these will
be determined with the double integration method,
− The speed of the sliding mass is equal to the which consists of obtaining the speed of the block
speed of the underlying ground or bearing from the integration of the acceleration that exceeds
surface. the yield acceleration, ky, as a function of time and
then obtain the displacements by integrating said
speed as a function of time. The Fig. 2 illustrates the
simplification to rigid block model:

Fig. 2. Representative diagram of the mass simplification of the potential sliding volume to a rigid sliding block.
2.2 DECOUPLED MODEL

The theoretical assumptions presented by the rigid The decoupled model was proposed by Makdisi and
block model are described below based on what Seed in 1978, based on the concepts of slip and
Murphy (2010) mentions in his publication: permanent deformation proposed by Newmark in
1965, but modified by considering the dynamic
− The sliding mass is assumed to be a non- response of the sliding surface. The dynamic
conforming or non-deformable rigid response of this model is the result of the
block (acceleration of the sliding mass is development of codes to perform a finite element
equal to the acceleration of the bearing analysis. The decoupled model is made up of 2 parts,
surface while “a<ky”, where "a" refers hence its name:
to the acceleration of the sliding mass)
The dynamic response analysis, which consists of
− The performance behavior of the obtaining the dynamic response of the sliding mass as
material is non-elastic, perfectly plastic a function of depth, this calculation can be done with
(implicit in the use of ky). one-dimensional or two-dimensional systems,
resulting in an average of the accelerations acting on
− The displacements are assumed to occur the sliding mass as a function of the time known as
along a single well-defined slip surface horizontal equivalent acceleration, AEH (t).
(typically the critical pseudo-static
surface of Limit equilibrium method, ky- The sliding response analysis is performed with the
associated surface) double integration of the horizontal equivalent
acceleration.
− The material does not suffer loss of
strength because of shocks. The theoretical assumptions presented by the
decoupled model corresponding to the dynamic
− The accelerations and the response analysis are described below based on what
corresponding inertial forces act in the Murphy (2010) mentions in his publication:
direction of the initial motion at the
center of gravity of the sliding mass. Sliding mass is modeled as a compliant block (if there
is a dynamic response).

The dynamic response of the slipping mass is not

influenced by the slip that occurs, as these two
 L. Rojas et al. 24

behaviors are modeled by separate analyzes (the slip 2.3 COUPLED MODEL
surface is not present for the dynamic response
analysis). The coupled model cannot be attributed to a single
researcher since that its use has been proportional to
The nonlinear stress-strain hysteretic behavior of the the evolution of numerical codes and the greater
material is modeled in an approximate way (most computing power available. The coupled analysis is
commonly linear-equivalent based on iterations). used in sophisticated numerical codes such as FLAC,
OpenSees and PLAXIS, although there are also
Seismic waves approximate horizontally polarized simplified methods based on equations (e.g., Bray
and vertically propagating shear waves. and Travasarou 2007). The coupled model manages
to represent the interaction between the dynamic
And the theoretical assumptions presented by the response and the slip response that the decoupled
decoupled model corresponding to the sliding model could not relate to.
response analysis are the same as the rigid block
mentioned above. As can be seen in Fig 3, there are various models for
the mechanism of earthquake-induced deformation.

Fig. 3. Diagram of the rigid uncoupled and coupled block models. Modified from: Bray & Travasarou (2007)
This acceleration represents the available soil
3. METHODOLOGY resistance that must be overcome for sliding to occur.

3.1 NEWMARK METHOD 1965 3. Integration of accelerations: The

mathematical integration method is used to
1. Acceleration record acquisition: The seismic obtain the velocities; the integration is
accelerations record is collected for the performed when the acceleration recorded
three earthquakes mentioned (Atico 2001, at the base of the slope failure surface
Lima 1974 and Pisco 2007) in the NS and EW exceeds the value of the creep acceleration.
directions. The accelerations at the base of
the slope failure surface downstream of the 4. Displacement calculation: Integration is
dam are obtained. applied again to obtain the total
displacement of each of the analyzed
2. Evaluation of the threshold acceleration columns of the dam.
(creep acceleration): The value of the creep
acceleration (ky) is determined for the
specific case of the dam under study. The
creep acceleration has been obtained from a
pseudo-static analysis with a factor of safety,
SF=1, in this case the value is 0.28 g.
 L. Rojas et al. 25

Fig. 4. Double integration scheme following

Newmark 1965 algorithm.

3.2 SARMA METHOD 1975

1. Definition of initial parameters: The

fundamental period, peak acceleration at the
surface and soil depth are determined. These
parameters are necessary for the calculation
of earthquake-induced deformations.
Fig. 5. Variation of dimensionless displacement with
2. Calculation of creep acceleration (ky): Using Kc/Km. [9]
the information provided, the value of creep
acceleration (ky) is determined. This 3.3 MAKDISI & SEED METHOD 1978
acceleration represents the available
strength of the soil and is used to evaluate 1. Calculation of creep acceleration (yield
the resulting deformation. acceleration, 𝒌𝒚 ): Using the available data,
the value of creep acceleration (𝒌𝒚 ) is
3. Obtaining earthquake-induced determined. This acceleration represents the
displacements: The algorithm and the figure available resistance of the soil and is an
provided (Fig. 5) are used to calculate the important parameter in the calculation of
earthquake-induced displacements. Note earthquake-induced deformations.
that Sarma's method considers the
frequency content of the ground motion, 2. Calculation 𝒖̈ 𝒎á𝒙 (maximum Acceleration):
which distinguishes it from other simplified Using earthquake data and dam geometry,
methods. and a nonlinear seismic response analysis,
the maximum acceleration at the dam crest
4. Verification of the allowable displacements: is determined.
The displacements obtained are compared
with the established allowable 3. Use of the 1st abacus (see Fig. 6): The 1st
displacements. According to the literature, it abacus is used to determine the value of
is mentioned that the allowable 𝐤 𝐦𝐚𝐱 /𝒖̈ 𝒎á𝒙 (coefficient that relates the
displacements should be less than 1 meter (∆ available resistance to the maximum
< 1m). acceleration at the crest of the dam).

4. Use of the 2nd abacus (see Fig. 6): Using the

values of 𝒌𝒚 , 𝒌𝐦𝐚𝐱 /𝒖̈ 𝒎á𝒙 and the magnitude
of the moment of the earthquake (𝑴𝒘), the
2nd abacus is used to determine the
earthquake-induced displacements.
 L. Rojas et al. 26

Fig. 6. Scheme indicating the use of the abaci raised in the method of Makdisi & Seed 1978. [8]

3.4 METHOD OF BRAY MACEDO AND TRAVASAROU 2018

Determination of the necessary variables: Using the Calculation of the probability of zero displacements
input parameters provided (ky, Ts, 1.5 * Ts, Mw, (P (D = 0)): Depending on the value of the
Sa(1.5Ts)), the values corresponding to each variable fundamental period Ts, the following formulations
are determined. are applied to calculate the probability that no
displacement will occur:

1. 𝑇𝑠 ≤ 0.7𝑠
2
𝑃(𝐷 = 0) = 1 − 𝛷 (−2.64 − 3.20 ∗ ln(𝑘𝑦 ) − 0.17 ∗ ln(𝑘𝑦 ) − 0.49 ∗ 𝑇𝑠 ∗ ln(𝑘𝑦 ) + 2.09 ∗ 𝑇𝑠 + 2.91
∗ ln(𝑆𝑎 (1.5𝑇𝑠)))

2. 𝑇𝑠 > 0.7𝑠
2
𝑃(𝐷 = 0) = 1 − 𝛷 (−3.53 − 4.78 ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑘𝑦 ) − 0.34 ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑘𝑦 ) − 0.30 ∗ 𝑇𝑠 ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑘𝑦 ) − 0.67 ∗ 𝑇𝑠 + 2.66
∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑆𝑎 (1.5𝑇𝑠)))

Where 𝜙 represents the cumulative distribution

function of a standard normal distribution.

Estimation of non-zero seismic displacement (D):

Using the coefficients a1, a2 and a3 provided in the
formulation, the natural logarithm of the estimated
displacement (ln(D)) is calculated. The complete
formulation is shown below:

𝑙𝑛(𝐷) = 𝑎1 − 3.353 ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑘𝑌 ) − 0.390 ∗ (𝑙𝑛(𝑘𝑌 ))2 + 0.538 ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑘𝑌 ) ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑆𝑎(1.5𝑇𝑠) ) + 3.060 ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑆𝑎(1.5𝑇𝑠) )
2
− 0.225 ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑆𝑎(1.5𝑇𝑠) ) + 𝑎2 ∗ 𝑇𝑠 + 𝑎3 ∗ (𝑇𝑠)2 ∗ (0.55𝑀𝑤 )
 L. Rojas et al. 27

Where the values of a1, a2 and a3 are provided in the − ky = 0.28 g

text, depending on the condition 10sTs ≥ 0 o 10sTs <
0. − 𝑉𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚 = 642 m / s

a1 = -6,896; a2 = 3,081; a3 = -0.803 for 10 s𝑻𝒔 ≥ 𝟎. − Ts = 0.311 s

a1 = -5,864; a2 = -9,421; a3 = 0.0 for 10 s𝑻𝒔 < 𝟎.
− 𝑇𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑔 = 0.467 s

The method of Bray, Macedo, and Travasarou is a All methods were applied for this case:
simplified approach for estimating deformations in
dams by considering the sliding mass with a coupled
model. This method integrates the dynamic response 175

and sliding response, specifically focusing on

150
subduction earthquakes. The input variables required
for the analysis include the yield acceleration (ky), the 125

fundamental initial period (Ts), the degraded period 100

(1.5Ts), the moment magnitude (Mw), and the C1

spectral acceleration (Sa(1.5Ts)). The method 75
C2
C3
provides the displacement along with a probability of 50

non-displacement as the result, which can be

25
considered as a mixed variable.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
It is important to follow the exact formulations and
make sure you use the correct values for each input
parameter. The application of the method of Bray, 4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Macedo and Travasarou will require an analysis of
seismic response and spectral adjustment based on For the analysis of the results, the acceleration
the specific data of the rockfill dam with central core, response spectrum is shown in Fig. 8 and the induced
using the acceleration records of the earthquakes seismic displacements in Fig. 9.
(Lima 1974, Atico 2001 and Pisco 2007).
It is important to observe the amplification of the
3.5 APPLICABLE CASES: ROCKFILL DAM WITH spectral acceleration for the degraded period (Ts deg =
CENTRAL CORE 0.467 s) as shown in Fig. 8, column 1 has a greater
There is the following rockfill dam with a central core amplification than column 2 and 3, this is reflected in
located on sandstone strata and moraine deposits the displacements obtained in the method of Bray,
interspersed with 50 m high shale intrusions, the Macedo & Travasarou 2018.
spectral adjustment and response analysis were
developed in the 3 soil columns observed in Fig. 7,
which also has the following basic data of the dam:

There is the following rockfill dam with a central core

located on sandstone strata and moraine deposits
interspersed with shale intrusions 50 m high, the
spectral adjustment and response analysis were
developed in the 3 soil columns observed in Fig. 8, it
also has the following basic data of each of the
analyzed columns of the dam:

Data:

− Earthquakes used: Lima 1974, from the IGP;

Attic 2001, from CISMID; Pisco 2007, from
CISMID

− Mw = 7.9 (Pisco), 8.4 (Atico) y 8.1

(Lima)

− H = 50 m
 L. Rojas et al. 28

Fig. 8. Acceleration spectra of the seismic response at the top of the 3 analyzed columns.

Fig. 9. Resulting displacements for each method.

 L. Rojas et al. 29

Where according to its nomenclature:

− C1, C2 and C3 : Column analysed.
− EW and NS : Earthquake in
East-West and North-South directions,
respectively. The following table shows the maximum
displacements obtained by the four simplified
− ATI01, LIM74 and PIS07 : Earthquake of methods for each analysis column.
Atico 2001, of Lima 1974 and of Pisco 2007,
respectively.
TABLE I
PGA obtained in each column for three earthquakes.

Pisco 2007 Atico 2001 Lima 1974

C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3
PGA 0.42 0.35 0.52 0.38 0.35 0.47 0.46 0.39 0.51

TABLE II
Displacements obtained by the four applied methods for three earthquakes.
Maximum displacements (cm)

Method Pisco 2007 Atico 2001 Lima 1974

C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3

Newmark 1965 0.49 0.05 0.95 1.45 0.29 1.47 0.57 0.06 0.92

Sarma 1975 1.33 0.32 4.96 0.60 0.32 2.87 2.20 0.70 4.43

Makdisi & Seed 1978 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.30

Bray, Macedo and Travasarou 2018 11.90 11.90 5.60 27.00 14.20 5.30 7.90 5.20 3.90

The displacements obtained in column 3 by the Sarma which represents the dynamic resistance in these two
method are higher because the peak ground methods. (See TABLE II)
acceleration (PGA) has higher values, this parameter
being significant for this particular method. (See
TABLE I). The Makdisi & Seed method does not show variation
between columns, this may be due to the use of
The maximum displacements were observed with the abacuses, since it is a method that considers fewer
method of Bray, Macedo and Travasarou, with factors, while the other methods do show variation
displacements of approximately 3.90 to 27.00 between one column and another. (See TABLE II)
centimeters, while the minimum displacements
occurred with both the methods of Newmark, Sarma CONCLUSIONS
and Makdisi & Seed. (See TABLA II)
Based on the work carried out, the following
It is observed that the seismic induced displacements conclusions and recommendations are presented:
obtained by the Newmark, Sarma and Makdisi Seed
− According to the results of the application
methods are in the range of 0 to 2 cm (except Sarma's
example, it is concluded that all the
method in column 3) which indicates displacements
deformations presented are in the range of 0.1
that are not significant for the dimensions of the dam,
- 30 cm, which indicates an acceptable
this is explained according to the fact that the seismic
deformation for the stability of a dam.
demand does not exceed the creep acceleration,
 L. Rojas et al. 30

− It is recommended to limit the use of the fostering our enthusiasm for geotechnical
Newmark 1965 method to fault surfaces with engineering and its techniques.
shallow depth and composed of rigid materials
because the dynamic response of this sliding REFERENCES
mass intervenes in the final deformation
results, however, if we take a failure surface [1] N.M. Newmark, “Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and
Embankments.” Geotechnique, vol. 15, pp. 139-160, 1965.
with the characteristics mentioned can
[2] F. Makdisi, and H. Seed, “A simplified procedure for
approximate its behaviour to that of a rigid estimating earthquake-induced deformations in dams and
block as indicated by Newmark. embankments”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
− The use of the method of Makdisi & Seed 1978 Division, vol. 104, pp. 849-867, 1977.
[3] D. K. Keefer, “Landslides caused by earthquakes.”
should be taken with care because the abacus
Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 95, no. 4, pp.
that indicate the dynamic response and the 406-421, 1984.
response to sliding have been generated from [4] S.L. Kramer, Geotechnical earthquake engineering. New
limited cases of dams, this could be the reason Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
why the values obtained with this method are [5] J. D Bray and T. Travasarou, “Simplified procedure for
similar in the three columns for the three estimating earthquake-induced deviatoric slope
cases, today there is much more information displacements”. e Journal of Geotechnical and
and to want to use This methodology should Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 133, no. 4, pp. 381-392,
update the data. Apr. 2007.
[6] P. Murphy. Evaluation of Analytical Procedures for
− The earth dam studied presents varied estimating seismically induced permanent deformations in
materials with different dynamic behaviors, Slopes, Pennsylvania, USA. Drexel University, 2010.
which generates that the displacements [7] J. D. Bray, J. Macedo, and T. Travasarou, “Simplified
Procedure for Estimating Seismic Slope Displacements for
obtained by the Newmark, Makdisi & Seed and
Subduction Zone Earthquakes,” Journal of Geotechnical
Sarma methods are not as close to a more and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 144,no. 3,
rigorous method such as Bray, which considers 2018.
the dynamic response in a coupled manner. [8] Dam Engineer (1997, Jul 8) Makdisi-Seed Simplified
Procedure for Estimating Embankment Earthquake-
− It is convenient to perform displacement
Induced Deformations (1978) [Online]. Available:
analysis with the methods of Sarma and Bray, https://www.damengineer.com/embankments/sm.html
Macedo & Travasarou since they usually [9] S. K. Sarma, “Seismic Stability of Earth Dams and
present a more conservative result. Embankments” Geotechnique, vol. 25, pp. 743-761, 2018.
− The use of the Bray, Macedo and Travasarou
2018 method is quite acceptable because it Los artículos publicados por TECNIA
considers within its equations the use of more pueden ser compartidos a través de
variables such as the fundamental period of la licencia Creative Commons: CC
the slippery mass or the spectral acceleration BY 4.0. Permisos lejos de este
on the failure surface that implicitly requires an alcance pueden ser consultados a
analysis response seismic. través del correo
revistas@uni.edu.pe
− The use of the method of Bray, Macedo and
Travasarou 2018 is an extremely reliable
method applicable to our seismic zone, so its
use is recommended in terms of simplified
methods of earthquake-induced
deformations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Primarily, we express our gratitude to God for

granting us the knowledge and opportunity to write
this article. We would also like to extend our sincere
thanks to the group of students at the National
Engineering University, GEOGROUP UNI, for
generously providing us with access to their lectures
and training sessions. Their support has been
instrumental in broadening our knowledge and