Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (3) : 701-715     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-018-0507-1
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Evaluation of seismic reliability of gravity dam-reservoir-inhomogeneous foundation coupled system
Hamid Taghavi GANJI1, Mohammad ALEMBAGHERI2(), Mohammad Houshmand KHANEGHAHI3
1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3. Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Download: PDF(3455 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The seismic performance of gravity dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system is investigated utilizing probabilistic approach. In this research, the uncertainties associated with modeling parameters are incorporated in nonlinear response history simulations to realistically quantify their effects on the seismic performance of the system. The methodology is applied to Pine Flat gravity dam and the foundation is considered to be inhomogeneous assuming a constant spatial geometry but with various rock material properties. The sources of uncertainty are taken into account in the reliability analysis using Latin Hypercube Sampling procedure. The effects of the deconvolution process, number of samples, and foundation inhomogeneity are investigated.

Keywords gravity dams      dam-reservoir-foundation interaction      seismic reliability      inhomogeneous foundation      earthquake deconvolution     
Corresponding Authors: Mohammad ALEMBAGHERI   
Just Accepted Date: 27 July 2018   Online First Date: 06 September 2018    Issue Date: 05 June 2019
 Cite this article:   
Hamid Taghavi GANJI,Mohammad ALEMBAGHERI,Mohammad Houshmand KHANEGHAHI. Evaluation of seismic reliability of gravity dam-reservoir-inhomogeneous foundation coupled system[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 701-715.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-018-0507-1
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2019/V13/I3/701
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Hamid Taghavi GANJI
Mohammad ALEMBAGHERI
Mohammad Houshmand KHANEGHAHI
Fig.1  The general framework of the analysis implemented in this research
Fig.2  The algorithm of utilized methodology
Fig.3  Schematic representation of the deconvolution process
Fig.4  (a) Pine Flat dam with full reservoir and illustrative inhomogeneous foundation; (b) finite element mesh of the dam-reservoir-inhomogeneous foundation system
Fig.5  Response spectra of the selected earthquake ground motions
domain random variable unit distribution function mean coefficient of variation
dam density, rc kg/m3 lognormal 2400 0.1
elastic modulus, Ec GPa lognormal 30 0.2
rock region 1 density, rr1 kg/m3 lognormal 2600 0.1
elastic modulus ratio, α1 = Er1/Ec ? uniform 0.875 0.4
rock region 2 density, rr2 kg/m3 lognormal 2600 0.1
elastic modulus ratio, α2 = Er2/Ec ? uniform 0.875 0.4
rock region 3 density, rr3 kg/m3 lognormal 2600 0.1
elastic modulus ratio, α3 = Er3/Ec ? uniform 0.875 0.4
base joint fiction coefficient, m ? normal 1 0.2
Tab.1  Selected random variables, the related domains, and parameters shown in Fig. 4(a)
Fig.6  Histograms of seismic analysis output for the three sets of samples under different ground excitations. (a) Maximum tensile stress; (b) base joint opening; (c) base joint sliding. The results of 1000-, 2000-, and 4000-sample sets are shown in red, brown, and light brown, respectively. The distribution fit in each plot belongs to the 1000-sample set
seismic output ground motion distribution 1000-sample 2000-sample 4000-sample
mean STDEV mean STDEV mean STDEV
tensile stress (MPa) OBE lognormal 0.197 0.232 0.204 0.221 0.197 0.217
MDE lognormal 0.733 0.276 0.739 0.266 0.734 0.263
MCE beta 4.787 1.149 4.808 1.152 4.802 1.132
base joint opening (cm) OBE normal 0.349 0.204 0.349 0.201 0.349 0.198
MDE beta 0.820 0.346 0.818 0.333 0.820 0.334
MCE logistic 2.032 0.316 2.020 0.306 2.001 0.330
base joint sliding (cm) OBE lognormal 0.261 0.676 0.288 0.701 0.284 0.702
MDE lognormal 1.130 0.850 1.139 0.861 1.140 0.868
MCE lognormal 2.674 0.710 2.683 0.718 2.648 0.787
Tab.2  Mean and standard deviation of distribution fits on the output histograms
Fig.7  EP curves of the three sets of samples under increasing ground excitation intensities for (a) overstressing, (b) base joint opening, and (c) base joint sliding performance functions
Fig.8  Effects of the earthquake deconvolution process on the EP curves for (a) overstressing, (b) base joint opening, and (c) base joint sliding performance functions. deconv.: Deconvolution
Fig.9  Comparison of the earthquake deconvolution curves of the 1000-sample set under the MDE with and without deconvolution: (a) Overstressing, (b) base joint opening, and (c) base joint sliding performance functions. deconv.: Deconvolution
seismic output ground motion distribution homogeneous inhomogeneous
mean STDEV CoV CoV
tensile stress (MPa) MDE beta 0.624 0.351 0.56 0.38
base joint opening (cm) MDE normal 0.767 0.412 0.53 0.40
base joint sliding (cm) MDE lognormal 1.021 0.927 0.91 0.75
Tab.3  Mean and standard deviation of distribution fits with the assumption of homogeneous foundation for the 1000-sample set under the MDE
Fig.10  EP curves under the MDE assuming homogeneous and inhomogeneous rock foundation for the 1000-sample set. (a) Overstressing; (b) base joint opening; (c) base joint sliding
Fig.11  Comparison of the EP curves obtained from the FOSM and LHS methods under increasing earthquake intensities: (a) Overstressing, (b) base joint opening, and (c) base joint sliding
Fig.12  Contours of EP for overstressing performance function under the MDE ground motion considering different threshold values (concrete tensile strength). The first and second rows show the results excluding and including the earthquake deconvolution process, respectively
random variable tensile overstressing base joint opening base joint sliding
OBE MDE MCE OBE MDE MCE OBE MDE MCE
rc −0.042 0.037 −0.146 −0.004 −0.006 0.004 0.017 −0.025 −0.034
Ec 0.167 −0.007 −0.474 0.038 0.191 0.305 0.031 −0.084 0.113
µ 0.001 −0.085 0.020 0.022 0.040 0.056 0.006 −0.014 0.042
rr1 0.082 −0.005 −0.357 0.047 0.053 0.022 0.046 0.015 0.249
rr2 0.020 −0.013 −0.052 0.028 0.008 −0.008 0.018 −0.001 −0.106
rr3 0.156 0.082 −0.377 −0.182 −0.108 −0.073 −0.221 −0.198 0.267
α1 0.138 0.012 −0.358 0.017 0.047 0.006 0.109 0.068 0.277
α2 0.206 −0.146 0.015 0.091 0.071 −0.003 0.043 0.085 0.176
α3 0.262 0.292 0.019 −0.346 −0.343 −0.346 −0.341 −0.343 −0.129
Tab.4  Importance measure of random variables from the FOSM method including the deconvolution process
1 C Bernier, J E Padgett, J Proulx, P Paultre. Seismic fragility of concrete gravity dams with spatial variation of angle of friction: Case study. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016, 142(5): 05015002
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001441
2 USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). Gravity Dam Design. EM-1110-2-2200. 1995
3 ICOLD (International Commission on Large Dams). Design Features of Dams to Resist Seismic Ground Motion: Guidelines and Case Studies. Bulletin No. 120, 2001
4 B Ellingwood, P B. Tekie Fragility analysis of concrete gravity dams. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2001, 7(2): 41–48
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2001)7:2(41)
5 P B Tekie, B Ellingwood. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete gravity dams. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2003, 32(14): 2221–2240
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.325
6 A Lupoi, C Callari. A probabilistic method for the seismic assessment of existing concrete gravity dams. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2011, 8(10): 985–998
7 Y Ghanaat, R C Patev, A K Chudgar. Seismic fragility analysis of concrete gravity dams. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo: International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 2012
8 M Alembagheri, M Seyedkazemi. Seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of gravity dams. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2015, 44(1): 41–58
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2457
9 A B Liel, C B Haselton, G G Deierlein, J W Baker. Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings. Structural Safety, 2009, 31(2): 197–211
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.002
10 Y Huang, M Xiong. Probability density evolution method for seismic liquefaction performance analysis of earth dam. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 46(6): 925–943
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2837
11 L Altarejos-García, I Escuder-Bueno, A Serrano-Lombillo, M G de Membrillera-Ortuño. Methodology for estimating the probability of failure by sliding in concrete gravity dams in the context of risk analysis. Structural Safety, 2012, 36–37: 1–13
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.01.001
12 G Fenves, A K Chopra. Earthquake analysis of concrete gravity dams including reservoir bottom absorption and dam-water-foundation rock interaction. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1984, 12(5): 663–680
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290120507
13 M Alembagheri, M Ghaemian. Seismic performance evaluation of a jointed arch dam. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2016, 12(2): 256–274
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1009124
14 Z T Bieniawski. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum Engineering. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 1989
15 A K Vaish, A K. Chopra Earthquake finite element analysis of structure-foundation systems. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1974, 100(6): 1101–1116
16 A K Chopra, P Chakrabarti. Earthquake analysis of concrete gravity dams including dam-water-foundation rock interaction. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 1981, 9(4): 363–383
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290090406
17 R E Goodman, C Powell. Investigations of blocks in foundations and abutments of concrete dams. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2003, 129(2): 105–116
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:2(105)
18 S H Chen, S Qiang, I Shahrour, P Egger. Composite element analysis of gravity dam on a complicated rock foundation. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2008, 8(5): 275–284
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:5(275)
19 L Zhang, D Wang, H Zhang, W Wang. Stability analysis of gravity dams on sloping layered rock foundation against deep slide. In: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments. ASCE, 2008
20 F J Sanchez-Sesma. Site effects on strong ground motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1987, 6(2): 124–132
https://doi.org/10.1016/0267-7261(87)90022-4
21 P Léger, M Boughoufalah. Earthquake input mechanisms for time-domain analysis of dam-foundation systems. Engineering Structures, 1989, 11(1): 37–46
https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(89)90031-X
22 A Bayraktar, E Hançer, M Akköse. Influence of base-rock characteristics on the stochastic dynamic response of dam-reservoir-foundation systems. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27(10): 1498–1508
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.05.004
23 G G Deierlein. Overview of a comprehensive framework for earthquake performance assessment. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, eds. Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation Proceedings of an International Workshop. Bled: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2004, 15–26
24 USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). Time-History Dynamic Analysis of Concrete Hydraulic Structures. EM-1110-2-6051. 2003
25 J C Helton, F J Davis. Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2003, 81(1): 23–69
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00058-9
26 R Y Rubinstein, D P Kroese. Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method. Vol. 707. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2011
27 K R Dalbey, G N Karystinos. Fast generation of space-filling Latin hypercube sample designs. In: Proceedings of the 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference. Fort Worth, 2010
28 K M Hamdia, M A Msekh, M Silani, N Vu-Bac, X Zhuang, T Nguyen-Thoi, T Rabczuk. Uncertainty quantification of the fracture properties of polymeric nanocomposites based on phase field modeling. Composite Structures, 2015, 133: 1177–1190
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.051
29 N Vu-Bac, M Silani, T Lahmer, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. A unified framework for stochastic predictions of mechanical properties of polymeric nanocomposites. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 520–535
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2014.04.066
30 R B Reimer. Deconvolution of seismic response for linear systems. University of California at Berkeley Report CB/EERC-73/10. 1973
31 Y Ghanaat, P S Hashimoto, O Zuchat, R P Kennedy. Seismic fragility of Muhleberg dam using nonlinear analysis with Latin Hypercube simulation. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual USSD Conference. San Diego, 2011, 1197–1212
32 V Saouma, E Hansen, B Rajagopalan. Statistical and 3D nonlinear finite element analysis of Schlegeis dam. In: Proceedings of the Sixth ICOLD Benchmark Workshop on Numerical Analysis of Dams. 2001, 17–19
33 V Cvijanovic, M G Schultz. Nonlinear finite element model validation at lower crystal springs dam and Pacoima dam. Journal of Dam Safety, ASDSO, 2016, 14(1): 33–37
34 G S Sooch, A Bagchi. A new iterative procedure for deconvolution of seismic ground motion in dam-reservoir-foundation systems. Journal of Applied Mathematics, 2014, 287605
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/287605
35 E M Bretas, J V Lemos, P B. Lourenço Seismic analysis of masonry gravity dams using the discrete element method: Implementation and application. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 20(2): 157–184
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1085463
36 USBR (United States Bureau of Reclamation). State-of-practice for the nonlinear analysis of concrete dams at the Bureau of Reclamation. 2013
37 T Haukaas, A Der Kiureghian. Finite element reliability and sensitivity methods for performance-based earthquake engineering. Peer, 2004, 266
38 USBR (United States Bureau of Reclamation). Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, Raise Pine Flat Dam. Surface Storage Option Technical Appendix to the Phase 1 Investigation Report. 2003
39 M Alembagheri, H E Estekanchi. Nonlinear analysis of aboveground anchored steel tanks using endurance time method. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2011, 12(6): 731–750
40 M Alembagheri. Dynamics of submerged intake towers including interaction with dam and foundation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 84: 108–119
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.02.004
41 M Alembagheri, M Ghaemian. Incremental dynamic analysis of concrete gravity dams including base and lift joints. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2013, 12(1): 119–134
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0156-2
42 Y Ghanaat. Failure modes approach to safety evaluation of dams. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, 2004, 1115
43 K M Hamdia, M Silani, X Zhuang, P He, T Rabczuk. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0210-6
44 K Y Lo, B Lukajic, S Wang, T Ogawa, K K Tsui. Evaluation of strength parameters of concrete-rock interface for dam safety assessment. In: Proceedings of Canadian Dam Safety Conference. Toronto, 1990, 71–94
45 EPRI (Electrical Power Research Institute). Uplift Pressures, Shear Strengths, and Tensile Strengths for Stability Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams. EPRI TR-100345. 1992
46 K Champagne, P Rivard, M Quirion. Shear strength parameters of concrete gravity dams in Quebec. In: Proceedings of CDA 2013 Annual Conference. Toronto, 2012
47 G Lin, J Du, Z Hu. Earthquake analysis of arch and gravity dams including the effects of foundation inhomogeneity. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 2007, 1(1): 41–50
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-007-0004-4
48 R E Melchers. Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction. New York: John Wiley & Son, 1999
49 R L Iman. Encyclopedia of quantitative risk analysis and assessment. New York: John Wiley & Son, 2008
50 W C Broding, F W Diederich, P S Parker. Structural optimization and design based on a reliability design criterion. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1964, 1(1): 56–61
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.27592
51 S S Chauhan, D S. Bowles Dam safety risk assessment with uncertainty analysis. Ancold Bulletin, 2004, 73–88
52 T W Anderson, D A Darling. A test of goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1954, 49(268): 765–769
https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1954.10501232
53 N Vu-Bac, T Lahmer, Y Zhang, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Stochastic predictions of interfacial characteristic of polymeric nanocomposites (PNCs). Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2014, 59: 80–95
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.11.014
54 N Vu-Bac, T Lahmer, X Zhuang, T Nguyen-Thoi, T Rabczuk. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.06.005
55 D W Harris, C E Mohorovic, T P Dolen. Dynamic properties of mass concrete obtained from dam cores. Materials Journal, 2000, 97(3): 290–296
56 G L Fenves, J W Chavez. Evaluation of earthquake induced sliding in gravity dams. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo, 1996
57 USBR (United States Bureau of Reclamation). Guidelines for Achieving Public Protection in Dam Safety Decision Making. Technical Report. 2003
58 D F Munger, D S Bowles, D D Boyer, D W Davis, D A Margo, D A Moser, Regan P J, Snortel N. Interim tolerable risk guidelines for US Army Corps of Engineers dams. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual United States Society on Dams Conference. 2009, 1125–1141
59 E H Vanmarcke. Matrix formulation of reliability analysis and reliability-based design. Computers & Structures, 1973, 3(4): 757–770
https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(73)90056-4
60 A Karamchandani, C A Cornell. Sensitivity estimation within first and second order reliability methods. Structural Safety, 1992, 11(2): 95–107
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(92)90002-5
61 W Liping, R V Grandhi. Efficient safety index calculation for structural reliability analysis. Computers & Structures, 1994, 52(1): 103–111
https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(94)90260-7
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed