Seismic Fragility Analysis of Two Earth Dams in Southern Italy Using Simplified and Advanced Constitutive Models

Regina, Gianluca; Zimmaro, Paolo; Ziotopoulou, Katerina; Cairo, Roberto

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-11898-2_180

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the PM4Sand parameters are calibrated to obtain a cyclic resistance curve to liquefaction that matches that estimated from empirical procedures (Boulanger and Idriss, 2014). More details about the calibration of the PM4Sand model and the numerical modeling are provided by Regina (2021). Modeling parameters for both dams and constitutive models are presented in Tables 2 and 3.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This relatively high number of ground motions per IM level ensures that the ground motion uncertainties are captured (Figura, 2020; Hurtado-López and Mayoral-Villa, 2020). More details about the ground motion selection, scaling process, and estimation of the fundamental period of the dam are provided by Regina (2021). Five IMs are used to construct analytical fragility functions for the case studies: (1) peak ground acceleration (PGA), (2) peak ground velocity (PGV), (3) Arias intensity (AI), (4) cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), and (5) cumulative absolute velocity above 5 cm/s 2 , CAV5 (Kramer and Mitchell, 2006).…”

Section: Msa-based Fragility Functions For Different Imsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We adopted a variation of the shear modulus with depth (i.e. or mean effective stress), based on available field investigation data (Regina, 2021). For both dams, a 0.5% Rayleigh damping with a central frequency of 3 Hz is used to remove high frequency noise.…”

Section: Numerical Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the optimal ground motion intensity measure in the prediction of the seismic vulnerability of earth dams

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The large majority of existing earth dams were designed with old standards, which often accounted for the effects of earthquakes in a simplified manner. As a result, seismic re-evaluation of these structures is now becoming increasingly important for dam owners. The seismic performance of earth dams can be evaluated at different levels of resolution, typically ranging from simple sliding block analysis, to the use of advanced numerical models. Seismic inputs for these models are typically chosen using code-based or site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). In this study, we analyze the seismic vulnerability of two major earth dams located in Southern Italy, a seismically active area. The two dam systems have different geotechnical characteristics: one of them is founded on potentially liquefiable materials, whereas the other one is not susceptible to liquefaction. Our analyses are based on finite difference numerical simulations using both simplified and advanced constitutive models. Seismic vulnerability of both dams is analyzed by means of analytical fragility functions for various damage mechanisms and ground motion intensity measures (IMs). Such fragility functions are based on nonlinear deformation analyses within the multiple stripe analysis framework. We analyze efficiency and predictability of various IMs in predicting different damage levels and mechanisms. We show that the cumulative absolute velocity is overall the optimal IM in predicting vulnerability of both earth dams. We also analyze the relative importance of PSHA inputs (i.e. alternative ground motion and earthquake rupture forecast models; GMMs and ERFMs, respectively) and numerical models (simplified vs advanced) in the seismic analysis of earth dams by means of tornado diagrams. We show that the choice of GMMs and ERFMs is always more important than that of the constitutive model. However, for dams prone to liquefaction, the choice of the constitutive model has a higher importance than for non-liquefiable earth dams.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%