Optimal intensity measure selection and probabilistic seismic demand models for dam-reservoir-layered foundation system

Tidke, Aniket R.; Adhikary, Shrabony

doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2022.01.005

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is essential to note that PGA‐based normalization (and comparison) is an outdated method, as numerous studies have shown that PGA is not the optimal IM parameter and can lead to significant dispersion even in SDOF systems. The optimal IM parameter for concrete gravity dams has been extensively discussed in 35,36 . In particular, 27 examined the optimal IM for a large dataset comprising 75 pulse‐like and 60 nonpulse ground motions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comments regarding “Seismic damage analysis due to near‐fault multipulse ground motion” by Guan Chen, Jiashu Yang, Ruohan Wang, Kaiqi Li, Yong Liu, Michael Beer; Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2023

Hariri‐Ardebili

2023

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This discussion is based on the paper by Chen et al. in 2023 (hereafter referred to as “the original paper/authors”). In their study, the original authors conducted a series of analyses using nonpulse, single‐pulse, and multipulse ground motion records, evaluating their impact on a frame structure, a slope, and a gravity dam. Their key finding suggests that multipulse ground motion leads to more severe structural damage compared to nonpulse and single‐pulse ground motions. However, it is important to note that the seismic damage analysis of the gravity dam in this paper does not adhere to state‐of‐the‐practice recommendations. Consequently, drawing a definitive conclusion regarding the influence and importance of multipulse ground motion records on the seismic response of concrete dams requires further justification. This necessitates the incorporation of high‐fidelity numerical models and probabilistic performance evaluation. We will discuss the significance of modeling assumptions, specifically addressing the dam–rock dynamic interaction in crack propagation and failure in dams.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The optimal IM parameter for concrete gravity dams has been extensively discussed in. 35,36 In particular, 27 examined the optimal IM for a large dataset comprising 75 pulse-like and 60 nonpulse ground motions. Their findings suggested that the pulse nature tends to yield more varied response results.…”

Section: Optimal Intensity Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Comments regarding “Seismic damage analysis due to near‐fault multipulse ground motion” by Guan Chen, Jiashu Yang, Ruohan Wang, Kaiqi Li, Yong Liu, Michael Beer; Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2023

Hariri‐Ardebili

2023

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methods like Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) [34][35][36] and Multiple Stripe Analysis (MSA) [37][38][39] account for RTR variability by utilizing scaled ground motion records, while the cloud analysis typically uses the un-scaled ground motion records. [40][41][42][43][44] Seismic fragility functions are valuable tools to convey the outcomes of extensive probabilistic seismic simulations, 45 and enhance the understanding of dam responses under varying seismic conditions.…”

Section: Ground Motion Rtr Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying modeling uncertainties in seismic analysis of dams: Insights from an international benchmark study

Hariri‐Ardebili

2023

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in nonlinear dynamic analysis of dams have not completely resolved concerns over modeling confidence and analysis accuracy. Verification and validation offer accuracy assessment, but uncertainties persist during performance evaluation due to both epistemic (modeling) and aleatory (parametric) sources. Epistemic uncertainties arise from simplifications and modeling techniques. This paper addresses epistemic uncertainties in a gravity dam seismic analysis using data from the International Comnission on Large Dams (ICOLD) benchmark study. While the benchmark formulation included the finite element model of the dam, mechanical material properties, and dynamic loads, participants retained the flexibility to opt for best‐practice modeling assumptions, simplifications, and other specifics. Notable response variability emerged, particularly in crack profiles and damage predictions. This study examines sources of variability, quantifying modeling uncertainty for the benchmark problem. More specifically, the modeling variability is quantified using the logarithmic standard deviation, also known as dispersion. This metric enables its incorporation into other seismic risk assessment and fragility studies. Under relatively low‐intensity motion (peak ground acceleration [PGA] of 0.18 g in this case), modeling dispersion of 0.45, 0.30, 0.32, and 0.30 were calculated for the maximum dynamic crest displacement, maximum hydrodynamic pressure at the heel, heel and crest maximum acceleration, respectively. Additionally, the dispersion of the failure PGA was determined to be 0.7. Findings underscore the need for systematic seismic response modeling in dam engineering to enhance prediction accuracy. A better understanding of the sources and magnitudes of modeling uncertainties can help improve the reliability of dam seismic analysis and contribute to the development of more effective risk assessment and mitigation strategies.

show abstract

“…Several evaluation criteria have been proposed to determine the best IM for seismic risk assessment of various structures, including correlation, efciency, practicality, profciency, sufciency, relative sufciency, and hazard computability. To date, these criteria and extensive studies are mainly focused on buildings [22,23], bridges [24], dams [25], storage tanks [26], tunnels [27,28], ofshore platform [29,30], and nuclear power plant [31,32]. Due to the space constraints, an elaboration of the work about optimal IM for above-given structures is not shown herein.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Intensity Measures for Probabilistic Seismic Stability Assessment of Large Open-Pit Mine Slopes under Different Mining Depths

Che

Chang

Wang

2023

Shock and Vibration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dynamic stability of slopes is the key to ensure the safety of a large open-pit mine during and after a strong earthquake. This study was mainly focused on the identification of optimal intensity measures (IMs) for the probabilistic seismic stability assessment of large open-pit mine slopes within the framework of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE). To this end, four open-pit slopes with different mining depths were constructed as the reference cases for the numerical investigation. The randomness of input ground motions and the uncertainty of material properties of the slopes were also considered. A total of 96 ground-motion records and 29 common IMs were selected for testing. By a series of nonlinear time-history analyses, the probabilistic seismic demand models (PSDMs) between the minimum factor of safety (FOS) of slopes and all considered IMs were developed. The optimal IMs with respect to FOS were identified based on the evaluation of five criteria: correlation, efficiency, practicality, proficiency, and sufficiency. The impacts on seismic fragility and FOS response hazard of the slopes were discussed when using different IMs. The results reveal that sustained maximum velocity (SMV) and velocity spectrum intensity (VSI) are recognized as the optimal IM for a mining depth of 50 m and 100 m, respectively. However, Housner intensity (HI) is observed to have the best predictability for both the mining depths of 200 m and 300 m. Moreover, for the three most commonly used IMs, peak ground velocity (PGV) is superior to peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration at first mode period (Sa (T1)) for different mining depths. Finally, based on the evaluations of seismic fragility and FOS response hazard, the uncertainty of seismic stability prediction of open-pit slopes can be greatly reduced when using a more appropriate or optimal IM.

show abstract

Optimal intensity measure selection and probabilistic seismic demand models for dam-reservoir-layered foundation system

Cited by 13 publications

References 58 publications

Comments regarding “Seismic damage analysis due to near‐fault multipulse ground motion” by Guan Chen, Jiashu Yang, Ruohan Wang, Kaiqi Li, Yong Liu, Michael Beer; Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2023

Comments regarding “Seismic damage analysis due to near‐fault multipulse ground motion” by Guan Chen, Jiashu Yang, Ruohan Wang, Kaiqi Li, Yong Liu, Michael Beer; Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2023

Quantifying modeling uncertainties in seismic analysis of dams: Insights from an international benchmark study

Optimal Intensity Measures for Probabilistic Seismic Stability Assessment of Large Open-Pit Mine Slopes under Different Mining Depths

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About