Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 100
100
Figure 8-3. Permanent seismic deformation charts (Makdisi
and Seed, 1978).
Figure 8-5 shows a median prediction sliding displacement 8.3 Proposed Design Methodology
chart, normalized by kmax and D595, an earthquake duration
parameter dependent on magnitude. For example, if ky/kmax = Two approaches for the seismic design of embankments
0.2, kmax = 0.4, D595 = 10 seconds, then u equals about 15 inches, and slopes are described in the previous section: (1) the limit
equilibrium approach, and (2) displacement-based method.
compared to about 6 inches (or 12 inches to achieve an 84 per-
Both are relatively simple to use, and both involve essentially
cent confidence level) for the recommended Newmark chart
the same modeling effort. The advantage of the displacement-
shown on Figure 7-18 of this report. This difference is rela-
tively small considering the general accuracy of the Newmark
method.
Figure 8-4. Normalized MHEA for deep-seated slide
surface vs. normalized fundamental period of slide Figure 8-5. Normalized sliding displacement
mass (Bray and Rathje, 1998). (SCEC, 2002; modified from Bray and Rathje, 1998).
