Advertisement

Reliability and variance-based sensitivity analysis of arch dams during construction and reservoir impoundment

  • M. Houshmand Khaneghahi
  • M. AlembagheriEmail author
  • N. Soltani
Research Article

Abstract

The static performance of arch dams during construction and reservoir impoundment is assessed taking into account the effects of uncertainties presented in the model properties as well as the loading conditions. Dez arch dam is chosen as the case study; it is modeled along with its rock foundation using the finite element method considering the stage construction. Since previous studies concentrated on simplified models and approaches, comprehensive study of the arch dam model along with efficient and state-of-the-art uncertainty methods are incorporated in this investigation. The reliability method is performed to assess the safety level and the sensitivity analyses for identifying critical input factors and their interaction effects on the response of the dam. Global sensitivity analysis based on improved Latin hypercube sampling is employed in this study to indicate the influence of each random variable and their interaction on variance of the responses. Four levels of model advancement are considered for the dam-foundation system: 1) Monolithic dam without any joint founded on the homogeneous rock foundation, 2) monolithic dam founded on the inhomogeneous foundation including soft rock layers, 3) jointed dam including the peripheral and contraction joints founded on the homogeneous foundation, and 4) jointed dam founded on the inhomogeneous foundation. For each model, proper performance indices are defined through limit-state functions. In this manner, the effects of input parameters in each performance level of the dam are investigated. The outcome of this study is defining the importance of input factors in each stage and model based on the variance of the dam response. Moreover, the results of sampling are computed in order to assess the safety level of the dam in miscellaneous loading and modeling conditions.

Keywords

concrete arch dams reliability randomness improved Latin hypercube sampling variance-based sensitivity analysis exceedance probability Sobol′ index 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wieland M, Kirchen G F. Long-term dam safety monitoring of Punt dal Gall arch dam in Switzerland. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2012, 6(1): 76–83Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    USBR. Design Criteria for Concrete Arch and Gravity dams. Denver: United States Bureau of Reclamation, 1977Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    USACE. Earthquake Design and Evaluation of Concrete Hydraulic Structures. Engineer Manual, EM 1110–2-6053. 2007Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luísa M, Farinha B, de Lemos J V, Neves E M. Analysis of foundation sliding of an arch dam considering the hydromechanical behavior. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2012, 6(1): 35–43Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayraktar A, Hancer E, Akkose M. Influence of base-rock characteristics on the stochastic dynamic response of damreservoir-foundation systems. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27(10): 1498–1508Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin G, Du J, Hu Z. Earthquake analysis of arch and gravity dams including the effects of foundation inhomogeneity. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 2007, 1(1): 41–50Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohammadi P M, Noorzad A, Rahimian M, Omidvar B. The effect of interaction between reservoir and multi-layer foundation on the dynamic response of a typical arch dam to P and S waves. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2009, 34: 91–106Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joshi S G, Gupta I D, Murnal P B. Analyzing the effect of foundation inhomogeneity on the seismic response of gravity dams. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 2015, 6: 11–24Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raychowdhury P, Jindal S. Shallow foundation response variability due to soil and model parameter uncertainty. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2014, 8(3): 237–251Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheibany F, Ghaemian M. Thermal stress analysis of concrete arch dams due to environmental action. In: Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Heat Transfer. Volume 1. California, 2004Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thoft-Christensen P, Baker M J. Structural Reliability Theory and Its Applications. Berlin: Springer, 1982zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Altarejos-García L, Escuder-Bueno I, Serrano-Lombillo A, de Membrillera-Ortuño M G. Methodology for estimating the probability of failure by sliding in concrete gravity dams in the context of risk analysis. Structural Safety, 2012, 36–37: 1–13Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang I H. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of time-dependent effects in concrete structures. Engineering Structures, 2007, 29(7): 1366–1374Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ICOLD. Risk Assessment in Dam Safety Management. Bulletin 130. International Commission on Large Dams, 2005Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bjerager P, Krenk S. Parametric sensitivity in first order reliability theory. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1989, 115(7): 1577–1582Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ditlevson O, Madsen H O. Structural Reliability Methods. New York: John Wiley, 1996Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hohenbichler M, Rackwitz R. Sensitivity and importance measures in structural reliability. Civil Engineering Systems, 1986, 3(4): 203–209Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karamchandani A, Cornell C A. Sensitivity estimation within first and second order reliability methods. Structural Safety, 1992, 11(2): 95–107Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Madsen H O, Krenk S, Lind N C. Methods of Structural Safety. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1986Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Keitel H, Zhao J, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic predictions of bulk properties of amorphous polyethylene based on molecular dynamics simulations. Mechanics of Materials, 2014, 68: 70–84Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hamdia K M, Silani M, Zhuang X, He P, Rabczuk T. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhang Y, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic predictions of interfacial characteristic of polymeric nanocomposites (PNCs). Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2014, 59: 80–95Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith M. Influence of uncertainty in the stability analysis of a dam foundation. In: Llanos J A, Yagüe J, Sáenz de Ormijana F, Cabrera M, Penas J, eds. Dam Maintenance and Rehabilitation. London: Taylor & Francis, 2003, 151–158Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hartford N D, Baecher B. Risk and Uncertainty in Dam Safety. London: Thomas Telford Ltd., 2004Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lupoi A, Callari C. The role of probabilistic methods in evaluating the seismic risk of concrete dams. In: Dolšek M, ed. Protection of Built Environment Against Earthquakes. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011, 309–329Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Araújo J M, Awruch A M. Probabilistic finite element analysis of concrete gravity dams. Advances in Engineering Software, 1998, 29(2): 97–104Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alembagheri M, Ghaemian M. Seismic assessment of concrete gravity dams using capacity estimation and damage indexes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013, 42(1): 123–144Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alembagheri M, Ghaemian M. Incremental dynamic analysis of concrete gravity dams including base and lift joints. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2013, 12(1): 119–134Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alembagheri M, Ghaemian M. Damage assessment of a concrete arch dam through nonlinear incremental dynamic analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 44: 127–137Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alembagheri M, Seyedkazemi M. Seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of gravity dams. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2015, 44(1): 41–58Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alonso E. Risk analysis of slopes and its application to slopes in Canadian sensitive clays. Geotechnique, 1976, 26(3): 453–472Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tang W H, Yücemen M S, Ang A H S. Probability based short term design of slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1976, 13(3): 201–215Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Christian J T, Ladd C C, Baecher G B. Reliability applied to slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, 1994, 120(12): 2180–2207Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Griffiths D V, Fenton G A. Influence of soil strength spatial variability on the stability of an undrained clay slope by finite elements. In: Proceedings of Geo-Denver 2000. ASCE, 2000, 184–193Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Husein Malkawi A I, Hassan W F, Abdulla F A. Uncertainty and reliability analysis applied to slope stability. Structural Safety, 2000, 22(2): 161–187Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Griffiths D V, Fenton G A, Manoharan N. Bearing capacity of rough rigid strip footing on cohesive soil: Probabilistic study. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2002, 128(9): 743–755Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fenton G A, Griffiths D V, Williams M B. Reliability of traditional retaining wall design. Geotechnique, 2005, 55(1): 55–62Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vu-Bac N, Silani M, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A unified framework for stochastic predictions of mechanical properties of polymeric nanocomposites. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 520–535Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vu-Bac N, Rafiee R, Zhuang X, Lahmer T, Rabczuk T. Uncertainty quantification for multiscale modeling of polymer nanocomposites with correlated parameters. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2015, 68: 446–464Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Iman R L. Latin Hypercube Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rajabi M M, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Janssen H. Efficiency enhancement of optimized Latin hypercube sampling strategies: Application to Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis and meta-modeling. Advances in Water Resources, 2015, 76: 127–139Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Helton J C, Davis F J. Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2003, 81(1): 23–69Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Olsson A, Sandberg G, Dahlblom O. On Latin hypercube sampling for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 2003, 25(1): 47–68Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Helton J C, Davis F J, Johnson J D. A comparison of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results obtained with random and Latin hypercube sampling. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2005, 89(3): 305–330Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Homma T, Saltelli A. Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1996, 52(1): 1–7Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Archer G E, Saltelli A, Sobol I M. Sensitivity measures, ANOVAlike techniques and the use of bootstrap. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 1997, 58(2): 99–120zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chan K, Saltelli A, Tarantola S. Winding stairs: A sampling tool to compute sensitivity indices. Statistics and Computing, 2000, 10(3): 187–196Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sobol′ I M. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 2001, 55(1): 271–280MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Oakley J E, O’Hagan A. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of complex models: A Bayesian approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical Methodology, 2004, 66(3): 751–769MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Helton J C, Johnson J D, Sallaberry C J, Storlie C B. Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2006, 91(10–11): 1175–1209Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Storlie C B, Swiler L P, Helton J C, Sallaberry C J. Implementation and evaluation of nonparametric regression procedures for sensitivity analysis of computationally demanding models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2009, 94(11): 1735–1763Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Saltelli A, Annoni P, Azzini I, Campolongo F, Ratto M, Tarantola S. Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Computer Physics Communications, 2010, 181(2): 259–270zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tian W. A review of sensitivity analysis methods in building energy analysis. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 20: 411–419Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hall J W, Boyce S A, Wang Y, Dawson R J, Tarantola S, Saltelli A. Sensitivity analysis for hydraulic models. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2009, 135(11): 959–969Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wan H P, Ren W X. Parameter selection in finite-element-model updating by global sensitivity analysis using Gaussian process metamodel. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2014, 141(6): 04014164Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rajabi M M, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Simmons C T. Polynomial chaos expansions for uncertainty propagation and moment independent sensitivity analysis of seawater intrusion simulations. Journal of Hydrology, 2015, 520: 101–122Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    ICOLD. Guidelines for use of numerical models in dam engineering. International Commission on Large Dams. Bulletin 155. Ad-Hoc Committee on Computational Aspects, 2013Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Marco C. Crack Models in Concrete Dams. College of Civil Engineering, Channels and Ports, Madrid, 1995Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ghrib F, Lèger P, Tinawi R. Lupien R, Veilleux M. A progressive methodology for seismic safety evaluation of gravity dams: From the preliminary screening to non-linear finite element analysis. International Journal of Hydropower and Dams, 1998, 2: 126–138Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ruggeri G, Pellegrini R, Rubin de Célix M, Bernsten M, Royet P, Bettzieche V, Amberg W, Gustaffsson A, Morison T, Zenz G. Sliding Safety of Existing Gravity Dams—Final Report. ICOLD European Club. Working Group on Sliding Safety of Existing Gravity Dams, 2004Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hosseinzadeh A, Nobarinasab M, Soroush A, Lotfi V. Coupled stress-seepage analysis of Karun III concrete arch dam. Geotechnical Engineering, 2013, 166(5): 483–501Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Marinos V, Fortsakis P, Stoumpos G. Classification of weak rock masses in dam foundation and tunnel excavation. In: Lollino G, Giordan D, Thuro K, Carranza-Torres C, Wu F, Marinos P, Delgado C, eds. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory. Cham: Springer, 2014, 859–863Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Alembagheri M, Ghaemian M. Seismic performance evaluation of a jointed arch dam. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2016, 12(2): 256–274Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bernier C, Padgett J E, Proulx J, Paultre P. Seismic fragility of concrete gravity dams with spatial variation of angle of friction: Case study. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 142(5): 05015002Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hoek E. Practical Rock Engineering. On-line Course, 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Houshmand Khaneghahi
    • 1
  • M. Alembagheri
    • 2
    Email author
  • N. Soltani
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringShahid Beheshti UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations