Evaluation of the Pseudostatic Analyses of Earth Dams Using FE Simulation and Observed Earthquake-Induced Deformations: Case Studies of Upper San Fernando and Kitayama Dams

Table 3

Soil properties of the Kitayama dam.

Layer number	𝛾dry  (kN/m^3)	𝛾wet  (kN/m^3)	E  (MN/m^2)	𝑉𝑆  (m/s)	c  (kN/m^2)	φ  (degree)	𝜈	K  (m/day)
1	19.5	20.60	8.519𝐸+5	405.8	2	46	0.3	0.06
2	19.5	20.60	8.390𝐸+5	401.3	2	48	0.31	0.06
3	19.5	20.60	6.238𝐸+5	347.2	2	45	0.3	0.06
4	19.5	20.60	6.689𝐸+5	359.6	2	48	0.3	0.06
5	19.5	20.60	6.881𝐸+5	364.7	2	46	0.3	0.06
6	19.5	20.60	8.562𝐸+5	406.8	2	46	0.3	0.06
7	19.5	20.60	7.884𝐸+5	386	2	44	0.3	0.09
8	19.5	20.60	5.079𝐸+5	313.3	2	44	0.3	0.09
9	19.5	20.60	2.048𝐸+5	215.7	2	44	0.3	0.09
10	27.5	29.1	3.655𝐸+5	215.7	63.7	—	0.3	86.4
11	27.5	29.1	6.472𝐸+5	297.8	63.7	—	0.3	86.4
12	27.5	29.1	8.792𝐸+5	347.1	22.5	39	0.3	82
13	27.5	29.1	1.201𝐸+5	408.7	22.5	39	0.3	82
14	19.3	20.4	2.385𝐸+5	216.8	63.7	—	0.3	0.06
15	19.2	20.5	2.472𝐸+5	210	63.7	—	0.33	0.06
16	19.3	20.4	4.186𝐸+5	280.6	63.7	—	0.35	0.06
17	19.2	20.5	4.119𝐸+5	273.1	63.7	—	0.36	0.06
18	19.3	20.4	7.105𝐸+5	366.9	63.7	—	0.34	0.06
19	19.2	20.5	6.944𝐸+5	357.1	63.7	—	0.36	0.06
20	19.3	20.4	9.007𝐸+5	408.6	63.7	—	0.37	0.06
21	19.3	20.4	1.023𝐸+6	437.1	63.7	—	0.36	0.06
22	19.2	20.5	9.404𝐸+5	420.1	63.7	—	0.35	0.06
23	21.7	23.64	1.61𝐸+6	521.6	2	30	0.34	0.06
24	23.1	24.53	9.36𝐸+6	1222	2	28	0.33	0.1