Discussion of “Framework to assess Newmark-type simplified methods for evaluation of earthquake-induced deformation of embankments”

Abstract

]. 2 Rationale for filtering recorded seismic data at the dam crest to remove high-frequency components is not clear -considering that the dam material acted as a filter to the propagating wave, the recorded data should be usable as is. As such, we attached a greater credence to the PCA of 1.65g than to the PCA of 0.8g. 3 This confusion regarding which of the two components (N-S or E-W) was actually used in Kan et al. (2017) is also observed in Kan and Taiebat (2016). Therein, the text indicates use of the N-S component but the Fig. 13 caption therein shows the plot of data using the E-W component. There is also a mention of filtering frequencies >20 Hz, and performance of base-line correction. However, a rationale for filtering and its effects on computed results are not given. Copyright remains with the author(s) or their institution(s). Permission for reuse (free in most cases) can be obtained from RightsLink.

Reply to the discussion by Chugh on “Framework to assess Newmark-type simplified methods for evaluation of earthquake-induced deformation of embankments”

“…We have read the Discussion submitted by A. Chugh (2018) and appreciate his endeavor in assessing some parts of our work in Kan et al (2017). We believe that in general the Discussion does not change the main outcome of our paper in questioning the reliability of the Newmark-type simplified methods for assessing the seismic-induced deformations of embankment dams.…”