Efficiency of scalar and vector intensity measures for seismic slope displacements

Research Article


Ground motion intensity measures are usually used to predict the earthquake-induced displacements in earth dams, soil slopes and soil structures. In this study, the efficiency of various single ground motion intensity measures (scalar IMs) or a combination of them (vector IMs) are investigated using the PEER-NGA strong motion database and an equivalent-linear sliding-mass model. Although no single intensity measure is efficient enough for all slope conditions, the spectral acceleration at 1.5 times of the initial slope period and Arias intensity of the input motion are found to be the most efficient scalar IMs for flexible slopes and stiff slopes respectively.

Vector IMs can incorporate different characteristics of the ground motion and thus significantly improve the efficiency over a wide range of slope conditions. Among various vector IMs considered, the spectral accelerations at multiple spectral periods achieve high efficiency for a wide range of slope conditions. This study provides useful guidance to the development of more efficient empirical prediction models as well as the ground motion selection criteria for time domain analysis of seismic slope displacements.


seismic slope displacements intensity measures empirical prediction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Newmark N M. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique, 1965, 15(2): 139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambraseys N N, Menu J M. Earthquake-induced ground displacements. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1988, 16 (7): 985–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jibson R W. Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement. Engineering Geology, 2007, 91(2–4): 209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saygili G, Rathje E M. Empirical prediction models for earthquake-induced sliding displacements of slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2008, 134(6): 790–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jibson R W. Predicting earthquake-induced landslide displacements using Newmark’s sliding block analysis. Transportation Research Record, 1993, 1411: 9–17Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Romeo R. Seismically induced landslide displacements: a predictive model. Engineering Geology, 2000, 58(3–4): 337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson N. Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2006, 26(5): 477–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rathje E M, Bray J D. Nonlinear coupled seismic sliding analysis of earth structures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2000, 126(11): 1002–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bray J D, Travasarou T. Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced deviatoric slope displacements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2007, 133(4): 381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schnabel P B, Lysmer J, Seed H B. SHAKE—A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC-72/12. University of California, Berkeley, 1972Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W. NGA project strongmotion database. Earthquake Spectra, 2008, 24(1): 23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1991, 117(1): 89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kramer S L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1996Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, Hansen RJ, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970, 438–483Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kempton J J, Stewart J P. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and nearsource effects. Earthquake Spectra, 2006, 22(4): 985–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rathje E M, Abrahamson N A, Bray J D. Simplified frequency content estimate of earthquake ground motions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1998, 124(2): 150–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Travasarou T, Bray J D. Optimal ground motion intensity measures for assessment of seismic slope displacements. Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2003Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang G. A ground motion selection and modification method capturing response spectrum characteristics and variability of scenario earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2011, 31(4): 611–625MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations