0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

0 (de) vizualizări8 paginicivil

Dec 13, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

civil

© All Rights Reserved

0 (de) vizualizări

civil

© All Rights Reserved

- Fault Lines
- Soul Harvest: The World Takes Sides
- Soul Harvest: The World Takes Sides
- Life As We Knew It
- Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883
- Krakatoa
- Introduction to Design of Building Structures
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- Rogue Wave
- Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine
- Aftershock
- Earthquake-Resistant Structures: Design, Build, and Retrofit
- Imperfection
- Industrial Power Engineering Handbook
- Cataclysm
- The Dark Flood Rises: A Novel
- Dispatches from the Edge: A Memoir of War, Disasters, and Survival
- Dispatches from the Edge

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

A. Cunha, E. Caetano, P. Ribeiro, G. Mller (eds.)

ISSN: 2311-9020; ISBN: 978-972-752-165-4

a progressive methodology

Bretas, E.M.1, Batista, A.L.1, Lemos, J.V.1, Lger, P.2

1

Concrete Dams Department, National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Av. do Brasil, 101, 1700-066 Lisbon, Portugal

2

Department of Civil, Geol and Min Eng, cole Polytechnique de Montral, 2900, boul. douard-Montpetit, Canada H3T 1J4

email: ebretas@lnec.pt, a.l.batista@lnec.pt, vlemos@lnec.pt, pierre.leger@polymtl.ca

ABSTRACT: In structural analysis, it is widely accepted that simplified methods, that require fewer resources, should produce

more conservative results, while more sophisticated methods, which require greater resources, allow the calculation of more

realistic results. For gravity dams, (i) pseudo-static methods, (ii) pseudo-dynamic methods, (iii) linear time history analysis, and

(iv) non-linear time history analysis are common techniques. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of a

progressive analysis methodology, using the four mentioned methods (i-iv) for seismic analysis, and define the scope of its

applicability. The study of 52 gravity dam models, representing dams with different heights and properties, was performed by

this progressive methodology, regarding the stress distribution along the base of the dam, the sliding safety factor (SSF) and the

permanent sliding of the dam. The results show that the pseudo-static method gives a good approximation of the SSF, but the

stresses are generally lower, when compared with the values obtained by more sophisticated methods. The pseudo-dynamic

method gives a good approximation of the SSF and the stresses on the base of the dam, while the linear time history analysis did

not give additional information for the dams analysed with SSF > 1when compared with the pseudo-dynamic method. The non-

linear time history analysis confirms the dam behavior against a sliding failure scenario, even after the stress redistribution,

giving an actual time-history of the SSF and stress during an earthquake. The results show that the proposed progressive

methodology, is a beneficial procedure to conduct gravity dam safety assessment.

Generally the seismic analysis of dams begins with simplified applicability. The study of 52 gravity dam models,

methods and, if necessary, progresses through more representing dams with different heights and properties, was

sophisticated methods. For gravity dams, (i) pseudo-static performed, using the four mentioned methods (i-iv) for

methods, (ii) pseudo-dynamic methods, (iii) linear time seismic analysis, regarding the stress distribution along the

history analysis, and (iv) non-linear time history analysis are base of the dam, sliding safety factor and the permanent

common techniques [1]. Numerous aspects influence the sliding of the dam. In terms of geometry, the considered

selection and application of the analysis method, most of them gravity profiles ranged between small dams (15 m high) and

related to the dam-reservoir-sediment-foundation interactions. very large dams (100 m high). The properties of the materials

For example, the representation of the hydrodynamic effect of were adopted considering the case of aged or damaged dams,

the reservoir, the application methodologies of the seismic dams in good condition, good quality rock mass foundations

input ground motions, the type and amount of equivalent and weak rock mass foundations.

viscous and radiation damping, the consideration of internal

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS

uplift pressures, and the possibility of cracking. Many

regulations suggest the assessment of the dam against an 2.1 Dams geometry and materials properties

earthquake with moderate intensity, for which the dam must Four different dams size were considered (Figure 1),

present an elastic behavior, and also an earthquake with high representing a small dam, 15 m high, a medium dam, 30 m

intensity for which the dam can suffer some damage, but high, a large dam, 50 m high, and a very large dam, 100 m

keeping the ability to retain the reservoir. The criteria for high. The base of the dams was defined from a downstream

assessing the behavior of the dam are both local, such as the slope of 0.8:1 (H:V), and the upstream face is assumed

stress response of the structure in relation to the strength of vertical for simplicity. The crest width is adjusted according

the material, and also global, such as the possibility of to the dam height. The main dimensions are presented in

permanent sliding of the dam or through sections of the dam. Table 1. The material properties of the dams were selected to

It is widely accepted that simplified methods, that require represent two scenarios. The first scenario represents the case

fewer resources, should produce more conservative results, of a dam in a good condition, characterized by a Youngs

while more sophisticated methods, which require greater modulus of 30 GPa. The second case is intended to represent

resources, allow the calculation of more realistic results. The an aged dam or a damaged dam, characterized by a Youngs

aim of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of this modulus of 15 GPa.

3707

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

For the material properties of the rock mass, a similar is assumed that the uplift load keeps unchanged during the

approach was adopted, considering the case of a rock mass earthquake. Table 3 summarized the total hydrostatic pressure

with good quality, moderately fractured, characterized by a and uplift loads, dead weight and the ratio between uplift and

Youngs modulus of 20 GPa and a rock mass highly fractured, self-height. For all cases, the uplift is about 12.5% of the dead

characterized by a Youngs modulus of 10 GPa. For all weight.

scenarios, the material density is 2400 kg/m3 for the concrete

and 2500 kg/m3 for the rock mass. All properties are listed in Table 3. Hydrostatic pressure ( ), uplift ( ), dead weight

Table 2. ( ) and the ratio between uplift and self-height ( ).

15 m 1125 270 2160 0.125

30 m 4500 1080 8640 0.125

50 m 12500 3000 24000 0.125

100 m 50000 12000 96000 0.125

0.8

H=50m 1 For the hydrodynamic effect of the reservoir, the

Westergaards solution [1] was adopted (Figure 2), using the

following equation:

H=30m (1)

H=15m

point ; is the water density; is the reservoir elevation;

is the vertical height measured from the reservoir elevation

at point ; and is the influence area of point .

Figure 1. Geometry of the dams.

Table 1. Main dimensions of the models. - Dead weight

- Uplift

Base Crest , - Hydrostatic pressure

Description Height

width width , - Hydrodynamic pressure

Small dam 15 m 12 m 3m

, ,

Medium dam 30 m 24 m 5m

Large dam 50 m 40 m 7m

Very large dam 100 m 80 m 10 m

Youngs

Density Poissons

Description modulus

[kg/m3 ] ratio Figure 2. Static and dynamic loads.

[GPa]

Dam Good The mass of the dam and the added mass for each case are

30 2400 0.2 listed in Table 4 that also shows the ratio between the added

condition

Dam Old or mass and the mass of the dam. For all cases, the added mass

15 2400 0.2

damaged represents approximately 61% of the dam mass.

Rock mass

20 2500 0.2 Table 4. Dam mass ( ), added mass ( ), and the ratio

Moderately fractured

between the added mass and the dam mass ( ).

Rock mass Highly

10 2500 0.2

fractured Dam mass Added mass

Height

( ) [103 kg] ( ) [103 kg]

2.2 Static and dynamic loads

15 m 216 132 0.61

In addition to the dead weight, the hydrostatic pressure was

applied using the elevation of the crest, in each case, as the 30 m 864 562 0.61

reservoir level (Figure 2). For the uplift, a triangular diagram 50 m 2400 1462 0.61

was adopted, with null pressure at the downstream toe and

30% of the hydrostatic pressure at the upstream heel (Figure 100 m 9600 5848 0.61

2). This reduction of 70% was assumed to take in account the

effect of the grout curtain and the drainage system, reducing From the geometry of the model, the material properties,

the flow rate and the uplift on the dam-foundation interface. It and the added mass, the fundamental period of vibration was

3708

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

calculated, using a simplified method described in reference stiffness of 7 GPa/m. The NL models are similar to the L

[1]. Figure 3, representing a dam 100 m high, with a models, except the constitutive model of the joint on the

foundation 280 m wide and 150 m high, shows the foundation plane, between the dam and the rock mass,

fundamental mode of vibration. Four models for each dam assuming a non-linear behavior, with a friction angle of 45,

height were considered: model 15/10, Ec=15 GPa and Er=10 null cohesion and no tensile strength.

GPa, model 15/20, Ec=15 GPa and Er=20 GPa, model 30/10,

Ec=30 GPa and Er=10 GPa, and model 30/20, Ec=30 GPa and 1.6 m/s2 Accelerogram n. 1

Er=20 GPa, where Ec is the Youngs modulus of the concrete

Acceleration

and Er is the Youngs modulus of the rock mass. The results

t=42.0 s

are summarized in Table 5.

-1.6 m/s2

1.6 m/s2 Accelerogram n. 2

Acceleration

t=42.0 s

-1.6 m/s2

Figure 3. Fundamental mode of vibration, representing a dam 5.0

100 m high.

Long distance earthquake

4.0 scenario

Table 5. Fundamental period of vibration.

Acceleration [m/s2]

2

3.0 PGA: 1.6 m/s

Period

Height

15/10 15/20 30/10 30/20 2.0

15 m 0.075 s 0.068 s 0.064 s 0.056 s

30 m 0.150 s 0.136 s 0.129 s 0.112 s 1.0

100 m 0.500 s 0.454 s 0.429 s 0.372 s 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Period [s]

The seismic load was defined considering the case of a dam Figure 5. Shape of the elastic response spectrum.

located in vora, Portugal, and laid out on a rock mass

foundation. For a long distance earthquake scenario and for a 2.3 Static loading

1000 years return period, according to the Portuguese In the first stage only the static loads, dead weight, hydrostatic

National Annex of Eurocode 8 (EC8) [2], the peak ground pressure and uplift, were considered. For all model cases, the

acceleration (PGA) is approximately 1.6 m/s2. Two artificial sliding safety factors (SSF) are 1.80 for the dam 15 m high,

accelerograms were generated (Figure 4), 42 seconds long, to 1.76 for the dam 30 m high, 1.74 for the dam 50 m high and

match the elastic response spectrum proposed in EC8 (Figure 1.71 for the dam 100 m high. The stresses are plotted in

5). A 5% viscous damping ratio, proportional to the mass and Figure 6.

centered on the fundamental frequency of vibration, was a b c d e f gh

100

adopted.

As mentioned before, the seismic analysis was carried out

Only static

using four different methods: a pseudo-static method (PS), a loads

pseudo-dynamic method (PD), a linear time history analysis

a: L-, NL-30/10-d

Dam height [m]

(L) and a non-linear time history analysis (NL). The first two b: L-, NL-15/10-d

methods, pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic, were solved L-, NL-30/20-d

using the numerical tool CADAM [3]. For the last two c: PS-d, PD-d

50 L-, NL-15/20-d

methods, linear time history analysis and the non-linear time d: L-, NL-30/10-u

history analysis, the studies were developed using a numerical e: L-, NL-15/10-u

L-, NL-30/20-u

application developed by means of the discrete element 30 f: PS-u, PD-u

method (DEM), to carry out structural and hydraulic analysis g: L-, NL-15/20-u

of gravity dams [4]. CADAM uses the gravity method and the h: L-15/20-u

15

stresses are calculated using the beam theory. The L analysis -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0

Vertical stress [MPa]

is a finite element analysis, whose model is composed by two

continuous meshes representing the dam and the foundation. Figure 6. Vertical stress considering only the static loads (u -

Between the dam and the foundation, an elastic interface was upstream; d downstream).

assumed, with a normal stiffness of 20 GPa/m and a shear

3709

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

3 EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS ACCORDING TO by the simplified response spectra method as described by

THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHODS Chopra [5]. The dynamic amplification is considered only in

the horizontal direction. The dynamic flexibility of the dam-

3.1 General considerations

foundation is modeled with the Youngs modulus of the

For the seismic analysis, the main results include the vertical concrete and the rock mass. The oscillatory nature of the

stresses and the safety factor as described for the static inertia forces is not considered, the horizontal and vertical

loading. For the linear time history analysis and the non-linear loads are continuously applied. For this reason, the stress

time history analysis, the stresses and the sliding safety factor analysis is performed using the peak spectral acceleration

were registered as time-histories. For this reason, the stresses while the stability analysis is performed using the sustained

are characterized by the minimum and maximum values spectral acceleration. Those values are, respectively, 4.1 m/s2

recorded during the earthquake. In the case of the sliding and 2.7 m/s2, keeping the same horizontal and vertical ratio

safety factor, only the minimum value is relevant to assess the for the peak and sustained ground acceleration described

stability of the dam. before for the pseudo-static seismic analysis. Table 7 shows

3.2 Seismic analysis using a pseudo-static method the SSF. The reduction from the SSF obtained in the static

loading is around 33%. The stresses are plotted in Figure 8. In

In the pseudo-static analysis, the inertia forces result from the the upstream heel, the stresses are tensions. In the downstream

product of the mass times the acceleration. The dynamic toe the compressive stresses are magnified by a factor around

amplification of the inertia loads along the height of the dam 2.1. The materials properties have a slight impact on the

and the oscillatory nature are neglected. For the horizontal results.

direction, an acceleration of 1.6 m/s2, the PGA, was applied in

the stress analysis, while an acceleration of 1.1 m/s2, sustained Table 7. Sliding safety factors obtained from the pseudo-

acceleration taken as 2/3 of the peak acceleration value, was dynamic linear seismic analyses.

used in the stability analysis. For the vertical direction, the

acceleration was reduced by a factor of 2/3, being, in the Model 15 m 30 m 50 m 100 m

stress analysis and in the stability analysis, respectively, 0.5 PD-15/10 1.25 1.17 1.14 1.11

and 0.4 m/s2. The values obtained for the SSF are presented in

Table 6, and the vertical stresses at the upstream heel and at PD-15/20 1.26 1.17 1.14 1.11

the downstream toe are plotted in Figure 7. Comparing to the PD-30/10 1.28 1.18 1.15 1.12

results from the static loading, the SSF is reduced

PD-30/20 1.29 1.18 1.15 1.12

approximately 35%, the vertical stresses at the upstream heel

are tensile stresses, while the compressive stresses at the

downstream toe were magnified around 65%. a b c d

100

seismic linear analyses.

Pseudo-

dynamic

Model 15 m 30 m 50 m 100 m

Dam height [m]

a: 15/10-d

PS 1.19 1.17 1.15 1.13 15/20-d

30/10-d

a b c d 50 30/20-d

100 b: d-s

c: u-s

d: 15/10-u

30 15/20-u

30/10-u

30/20-u

15

Dam height [m]

Vertical stress [MPa]

static

analysis (u - upstream; d - downstream; s - static loading).

a: d

30 b: d-s 3.4 Seismic analysis using a linear time history method

c: u-s

d: u A finite element model was employed in the linear time

15 history analysis. The two accelerograms presented in the

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0

Vertical stress [MPa] section 2.2 were used. The accelerogram n. 1 was applied to

the horizontal direction, while the accelerogram n. 2 was

Figure 7. Vertical stresses of the pseudo-static seismic applied to the vertical direction, with a reduction of 2/3. The

analysis (u - upstream; d - downstream; s - static loading). seismic analysis was developed by applying an equivalent

time-history of shear and vertical stress at the lower

3.3 Seismic analysis using a pseudo-dynamic method

foundation elements. Through the integration of the time-

The pseudo-dynamic seismic analysis is similar to the pseudo- history of the horizontal unbalanced forces, the permanent

static seismic analysis except that it recognizes the dynamic displacement can be estimated, when the safety factor is

amplification of the inertia forces along the height of the dam, below the unity.

3710

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

The SSF are presented in Table 8. The vertical stresses are 100

a b c d

presented in four different figures, according the materials

properties, from Figure 9 to Figure 12. The compressive stress

at the upstream heel and at downstream toe are similar, with a

maximum of -3.5 MPa, in the case of the model 30/10 (Ec=30

GPa and Er=10 GPa), representing a dam 100 m high. The

maximum tensile stress at the upstream heel is +1.6 MPa, for

the model 15/10 (Ec=15 GPa and Er=10 GPa), representing a

50

dam 100 m high. a: u-min

d-min

Table 8. Sliding safety factors obtained from the seismic b: d-s

linear time history analyses. 30 c: u-s Linear

d-max Ec=30 GPa

Model 15 m 30 m 50 m 100 m d: u-max Er=10 GPa

15

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0

L-15/10 1.07 1.12 1.11 1.15 Vertical stress [MPa]

L-15/20 1.04 1.23 1.12 1.20 Figure 11. Vertical stress of the linear time history analysis for

L-30/10 1.05 1.17 1.12 1.16 the case Ec=30 GPa and Er=10 GPa (u - upstream; d -

downstream; s - static loading).

L-30/20 1.06 1.19 1.16 1.22

a b c d e f

a b c d e 100

100

Dam height [m]

Dam height [m]

50

50 a: d-min

a: d-min b: u-min

u-min c: d-s

b: d-s 30 d: d-max Linear

30 c: d-max Linear e: u-s Ec=30 GPa

d: u-s Ec=15 GPa f: u-max Er=20 GPa

e: u-max Er=10 GPa 15

15 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0 Vertical stress [MPa]

Vertical stress [MPa]

Figure 12. Vertical stress of the linear time history analysis for

Figure 9. Vertical stress of the linear time history analysis for the case Ec=30 GPa and Er=20 GPa (u - upstream; d -

the case Ec=15 GPa and Er=10 GPa (u - upstream; d - downstream; s - static loading).

downstream; s - static loading).

3.5 Seismic analysis using a non-linear time history

method

a b c d e

100

The model used for the non-linear time history analysis is

very similar to the one considered to the linear time history

analysis. The main difference is concerned with the properties

of the joint between the dam and the foundation. A non-linear

model was assumed, with a friction angle of 45, null cohesion

Dam height [m]

vertical stresses are plotted according to the materials

50 properties, from Figure 13 to Figure 16.

a: u-min

d-min Table 9. Sliding safety factors obtained from the seismic non-

b: d-s

30 c: d-max Linear linear time history analyses.

d: u-s Ec=15 GPa

15

e: u-max Er=20 GPa Model 15 m 30 m 50 m 100 m

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0

Vertical stress [MPa] L-15/10 1.08 1.13 1.16 1.10

Figure 10. Vertical stress of the linear time history analysis for L-15/20 1.11 1.23 1.12 1.22

the case Ec=15 GPa and Er=20 GPa (u - upstream; d - L-30/10 1.05 1.17 1.11 1.16

downstream; s - static loading).

L-30/20 1.06 1.19 1.17 1.24

3711

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

a b c d e f a b c d e

100 100

Dam height [m]

50 50

a: u-min a: d-min

b: d-min u-min

c: d-s b: d-s

30 d: d-max Non-linear 30 c: d-max Non-linear

e: u-s Ec=15 GPa d: u-s Ec=30 GPa

f: u-max Er=10 GPa e: u-max Er=20 GPa

15 15

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0

Vertical stress [MPa] Vertical stress [MPa]

Figure 13. Vertical stress of the non-linear time history Figure 16. Vertical stress of the non-linear time history

analysis for the case Ec=15 GPa and Er=10 GPa (u - upstream; analysis for the case Ec=30GPa and Er=20GPa (u - upstream;

d - downstream; s - static loading). d - downstream; s - static loading).

The maximum compressive stress at the upstream heel is

a b c d e f found in the case of the model 15/10, with a value of -3.9

100

MPa, representing a dam 100 m high. The maximum tensile

stress on the base of the dam is null, because the nonlinear

constitutive model of the joint, between the dam and the

foundation, does not admit tensile stresses.

Dam height [m]

THE DAM HEIGHT

50

a: u-min 4.1 Results for the dam 15 m high

b: d-min

c: d-s The results obtained for the static and seismic analyses are

30 d: d-max Non-linear presented, respectively, in Table 10 and in Table 11.

e: u-s Ec=15 GPa

f: u-max Er=20 GPa

Considering the seismic analyses, the SSF obtained from NL

15

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0

models, are smaller than those from the others methods. The

Vertical stress [MPa] dam-foundation interface opening acts as a base isolation

system reducing the inertia forces transmitted to the dam.

Figure 14. Vertical stress of the non-linear time history Great variations on the stress, both at the upstream heel and at

analysis for the case Ec=15 GPa and Er=20 GPa (u - upstream; the downstream toe, can also be found. The local permanent

d - downstream; s - static loading). displacements, observed after the earthquake, were measured

at the downstream toe. The SSF are above the unity in all

a b c d e instants, probably the sliding did not occur simultaneously in

100

all points of the dam base.

Table 10. SSF, vertical stress and permanent sliding for the

static loading, for the dam 15 m high.

Dam height [m]

Perm.

Vert. stress Vert. stress

Model SSF displ.

upstream [MPa] downstr. [MPa]

[mm]

50

a: u-min PS -0.11 -0.22 1.80 0.0

d-min PD -0.11 -0.22 1.80 0.0

b: d-s

30 c: d-max Non-linear L-15/10 -0.15 -0.28 1.80 0.0

u-s Ec=30 GPa

d: u-max Er=10 GPa L-15/20 -0.08 -0.23 1.80 0.0

15

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 +1.0 +2.0 L-30/10 -0.21 -0.34 1.80 0.0

Vertical stress [MPa]

L-30/20 -0.14 -0.27 1.80 0.0

Figure 15. Vertical stress of the non-linear time history NL-15/10 -0.15 -0.28 1.80 0.0

analysis for the case Ec=30 GPa and Er=10 GPa (u - upstream; NL-15/20 -0.09 -0.23 1.80 0.0

d - downstream; s - static loading).

NL-30/10 -0.21 -0.34 1.80 0.0

NL-30/20 -0.14 -0.27 1.80 0.0

3712

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

Table 11. SSF, vertical stress and permanent sliding for the Table 13. SSF, vertical stress and permanent sliding for the

seismic analyses, for the dam 15 m high. seismic analyses, for the dam 30 m high.

Vert. stress Vert. stress Perm. Vert. stress Vert. stress Perm.

Model upstream [MPa] downstr. [MPa] SSF displ. Model upstream [MPa] downstr. [MPa] SSF displ.

Min. Max. Min. Max. [mm] Min. Max. Min. Max. [mm]

PS 0.10 -0.39 1.19 0.0 PS 0.22 -0.78 1.17 0.0

PD-15/10 0.11 -0.44 1.25 0.0 PD-15/10 0.32 -0.94 1.17 0.0

PD-15/20 0.10 -0.42 1.26 0.0 PD-15/20 0.32 -0.94 1.17 0.0

PD-30/10 0.09 -0.41 1.28 0.0 PD-30/10 0.30 -0.93 1.18 0.0

PD-30/20 0.08 -0.40 1.29 0.0 PD-30/20 0.30 -0.93 1.18 0.0

L-15/10 0.20 -0.49 -0.11 -0.47 1.07 0.0 L-15/10 0.39 -0.99 -0.26 -0.90 1.12 0.0

L-15/20 0.31 -0.44 -0.04 -0.48 1.04 0.0 L-15/20 0.44 -0.79 -0.20 -0.82 1.23 0.0

L-30/10 0.14 -0.57 -0.12 -0.57 1.05 0.0 L-30/10 0.15 -1.04 -0.33 -1.02 1.17 0.0

L-30/20 0.29 -0.55 -0.04 -0.59 1.06 0.0 L-30/20 0.32 -0.91 -0.22 -0.96 1.19 0.0

NL-15/10 0.0 -0.55 -0.16 -0.53 1.08 < 0.1 NL-15/10 0.0 -1.08 -0.30 -0.98 1.13 < 0.1

NL-15/20 0.0 -0.52 -0.08 -0.50 1.11 0.6 NL-15/20 0.0 -0.94 -0.26 -0.90 1.23 < 0.1

NL-30/10 0.0 -0.59 -0.15 -0.63 1.05 0.1 NL-30/10 0.0 -1.08 -0.37 -1.07 1.17 0.1

NL-30/20 0.0 -0.59 -0.05 -0.59 1.06 1.2 NL-30/20 0.0 -1.00 -030 -0.99 1.19 0.2

4.2 Results for the dam 30 m high 4.3 Results for the dam 50 m high

Table 12 shows the results for the static loading and Table 13 The results obtained for the static and seismic analyses are

shows the results for the seismic analyses. For the seismic presented, respectively, in Table 14 and in Table 15. The

analyses, the results seem to be relatively consistent between comments to the results are similar to the ones expressed for

all the models. The SSF are quite similar and the stresses, the dam with 30 m. The SSF are equivalents and stresses are

excepted for the model PS, are equivalents. The permanent similar, excepted for the model PS, which values are lower

displacements are small and not of engineering significance. than those achieved by the others methods. A global

The pseudo-dynamic model is a reasonable approximation of displacement of the dam through the foundation plane is

the actual seismic behavior of the dam 30 m high. unlikely.

Table 12. SSF, vertical stress and permanent sliding for the Table 14. SSF, vertical stress and permanent sliding for the

static loading, for the dam 30 m high. static loading, for the dam 50 m high.

Perm. Perm.

Vert. stress Vert. stress Vert. stress Vert. stress

Model SSF displ. Model SSF displ.

upstream [MPa] downstr. [MPa] upstream [MPa] downstr. [MPa]

[mm] [mm]

PS -0.21 -0.45 1.76 0.0 PS -0.33 -0.76 1.74 0.0

PD -0.21 -0.45 1.76 0.0 PD -0.33 -0.76 1.74 0.0

L-15/10 -0.27 -0.58 1.76 0.0 L-15/10 -0.42 -0.99 1.74 0.0

L-15/20 -0.13 -0.47 1.76 0.0 L-15/20 -0.18 -0.79 1.74 0.0

L-30/10 -0.41 -0.70 1.76 0.0 L-30/10 -0.66 -1.19 1.74 0.0

L-30/20 -0.26 -0.57 1.76 0.0 L-30/20 -0.41 -0.97 1.74 0.0

NL-15/10 -0.27 -0.58 1.76 0.0 NL-15/10 -0.42 -0.99 1.74 0.0

NL-15/20 -0.15 -0.47 1.76 0.0 NL-15/20 -0.22 -0.79 1.74 0.0

NL-30/10 -0.41 -0.70 1.76 0.0 NL-30/10 -0.66 -1.19 1.74 0.0

NL-30/20 -0.26 -0.57 1.76 0.0 NL-30/20 -0.41 -0.97 1.74 0.0

3713

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

Table 15. SSF, vertical stress and permanent sliding for the Table 17. SSF, vertical stress and permanent sliding for the

seismic analyses, for the dam 50 m high. seismic analyses, for the dam 100 m high.

Vert. stress Vert. stress Perm. Vert. stress Vert. stress Perm.

Model upstream [MPa] downstr. [MPa] SSF displ. Model upstream [MPa] downstr. [MPa] SSF displ.

Min. Max. Min. Max. [mm] Min. Max. Min. Max. [mm]

PS 0.38 -1.29 1.15 0.0 PS 0.78 -2.58 1.13 0.0

PD-15/10 0.57 -1.60 1.14 0.0 PD-15/10 1.27 -3.28 1.11 0.0

PD-15/20 0.57 -1.60 1.14 0.0 PD-15/20 1.27 -3.28 1.11 0.0

PD-30/10 0.54 -1.57 1.15 0.0 PD-30/10 1.22 -3.23 1.12 0.0

PD-30/20 0.54 -1.57 1.15 0.0 PD-30/20 1.22 -3.23 1.12 0.0

L-15/10 0.80 -1.46 -0.50 -1.58 1.11 0.0 L-15/10 1.56 -2.99 -0.95 -2.95 1.15 0.0

L-15/20 0.88 -1.23 -0.35 -1.25 1.12 0.0 L-15/20 1.46 -2.41 -0.91 -2.34 1.20 0.0

L-30/10 0.42 -1.75 -0.62 -1.81 1.12 0.0 L-30/10 0.74 -3.52 -1.20 -3.40 1.16 0.0

L-30/20 0.52 -1.45 -0.46 -1.60 1.16 0.0 L-30/20 0.88 -2.63 -1.22 -2.87 1.22 0.0

NL-15/10 0.0 -1.73 -0.64 -1.72 1.16 0.2 NL-15/10 0.0 -3.87 -1.13 -3.23 1.10 0.3

NL-15/20 0.0 -1.53 -0.52 -1.44 1.12 0.3 NL-15/20 0.0 -3.26 -1.11 -2.58 1.22 0.2

NL-30/10 0.0 -1.82 -0.69 -1.91 1.11 0.3 NL-30/10 0.0 -3.70 -1.33 -3.56 1.16 0.4

NL-30/20 0.0 -1.62 -0.56 -1.66 1.17 0.2 NL-30/20 0.0 -2.95 -1.35 -2.97 1.24 0.3

Table 16 shows the results for the static loading and Table 17 A set of 52 seismic analyses of gravity dam models, using

shows the results for the seismic analyses. For the seismic four different methods, were carried out. It was found that (i)

analyses, the pseudo-static and the pseudo-dynamic methods the pseudo-static method model gives a good approximation

seem to be conservative relative to the SSF, because the of the sliding safety factor (SSF), but the stresses are generally

results for the SSF are smaller than the results obtained by the lower, when compared with the values obtained by more

linear time history and by the non-linear time history analyses. sophisticated methods; (ii) the pseudo-dynamic analysis gives

The stresses are similar, excepted for the PS analysis, whose a good approximation of the SSF and stresses on the base of

stresses, both in upstream and downstream faces, are lower. the dam, the materials properties have small influence on

The permanent displacement is also small. those results; (iii) for the dam analysed with SSF > 1 the linear

time history analysis did not give additional relevant

Table 16. SSF, vertical stress and permanent sliding for the information when compared with the pseudo-dynamic

static loading, for the dam 100 m high. method; and (iv) the non-linear time history analysis

confirmed the dam response against a sliding failure scenario,

Perm. even when stress redistribution is taking place, giving an

Vert. stress Vert. stress

Model SSF displ. actual time-history of the stress during an earthquake and

upstream [MPa] downstr. [MPa]

[mm] permanent displacements.

PS -0.60 -1.57 1.71 0.0

REFERENCES

PD -0.60 -1.57 1.71 0.0

[1] R. Priscu, A. Popovici, D. Stematiu, and C. Stere, Earthquake

L-15/10 -0.74 -2.00 1.71 0.0 engineering for large dams, John Wiley & Sons, Bucharest, Romania,

1985.

L-15/20 -0.27 -1.59 1.75 0.0 [2] Portuguese National Annex of NP EN 1998-1: Design of structures for

earthquake resistance.

L-30/10 -1.24 -2.42 1.71 0.0 [3] M. Leclerc, P. Leger, R. Tinawi, Computer Aided Stability Analysis of

Gravity Dams - CADAM. Advances in Engineering Software, 34(7):

L-30/20 -0.74 -1.99 1.75 0.0 403-420, 2003.

[4] E.M. Bretas, Development of a discrete element model for masonry

NL-15/10 -0.76 -2.01 1.71 0.0 gravity dams analysis, PhD Thesis (in Portuguese), Engineering School,

University of Minho, 2012.

NL-15/20 -0.38 -1.61 1.71 0.0 [5] A.K. Chopra, Earthquake response analysis of concrete dams. Advanced

NL-30/10 -1.24 -2.42 1.71 0.0 Dam Engineering for Design, Construction, and Rehabilitation, Edited

by R.B. Jansen, Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp.416-465.

NL-30/20 -0.76 -1.99 1.71 0.0

3714

- HIGHER MODE EFFECTS ON THE SEISMIC RESPONSES OF HIGH-RISE CORE-WALL BUILDINGSÎncărcat deFernando Aduriz
- Seismic Analysis of Multi-Storeyed Building Having Vertical Irregularities using Pushover AnalysisÎncărcat deAnonymous kw8Yrp0R5r
- Evaluation NSP to Estimate Seismic Deformation SDF SystemÎncărcat deMathias Pezo Rivera
- Finite Element Seismic Analysis of a Guyed MastÎncărcat desebaing
- Part2Încărcat deChakshu Gautam
- 300 English IranArzeÎncărcat deMAGDUM SAMMED JINENDRA
- History of Nonlinear Seismic Analysis.pdfÎncărcat deDr Rajeev
- Chapter_1Încărcat denhulugalla
- 00b7d521fe291acc5d000000Încărcat deGenie
- NIST.TN.1863-3Încărcat dePourang Ezzatfar
- NIST.TN.1863-3.pdfÎncărcat deAsif Mostafa Anik
- 08-01-0035Încărcat demihaidelian
- Deepak_thesisÎncărcat deapi-19884175
- Performance Objectives for LDD SystemsÎncărcat dejcvalencia
- Fema p440aÎncărcat deajalil2000
- Fema p440a Part1Încărcat dePourang Ezzatfar
- Sextos Et Al-2003-Earthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsÎncărcat deAmin Kotb
- Richard E. Goodman 1989Încărcat deFelipe Pérez Pérez
- 04_Publications_SKPÎncărcat deKishor Singh
- SAVIAcDDAMÎncărcat debitconcepts9781
- CE58A_syllabus_fall010Încărcat debladeyus
- Dayamas Rotational Molded PE Tank Brochures-09Încărcat deKoay Chee Wai
- 1871-5248-1-PBÎncărcat deMouhamad Wehbe
- Retrofit of Bridges in Korea Using Viscous DamperÎncărcat dejaswant
- Assignment # 3Încărcat deGEMPF
- Wind and Eq DesignÎncărcat desk8javi_surfer
- Spillway Interface Wall(Sudden Drawdown)Încărcat desatyakam0601050
- Research PaperÎncărcat deSalauddinAnsari
- Building Dam Safety Regulations 2008Încărcat dedrjaved12000
- Hot Sustained Stress CheckÎncărcat detiwanasandy

- New Microsoft Word DocumentÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- New Microsoft Word Document.docxÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Minutes of Meeting - CopyÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- minutes of meeting - Copy.docxÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Worenz+Oliver_761.pdfÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Draft Reply of QS-19gÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Draft Reply of ContrÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Visa Invitation LetterÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Minutes of Meeting - CopyÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- OE_Scope of WorkÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- E314-SW-C-B-1001-RevA - CopyÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- E314-SW-C-B-1001-RevA - CopyÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Minutes of Meeting - CopyÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Minutes of Meeting - CopyÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Doc for TableÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- SeperatiorsÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- CT Type TestÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- CVT TestÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- PT TestÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Concept of Solar Powered Irrigation SystemÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Estimation of Mannings nÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Retaining WallÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Book-Water Supply and Sewerage-Dr SajjadÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- Formula SheetÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- STORM WATER CHANNEL PLAN & L SECTION) .pdfÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- STORM WATER CHANNEL PLAN & L SECTION) .pdfÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- 25-Lecture06-Design loadsÎncărcat detakis.papadopoulos6672
- New Block Model (1)Încărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- IrfanulHassan MUET Bridge 2009Încărcat deMirza Waqar Baig
- GiveawaysÎncărcat deMirza Waqar Baig

- impact_of_Defects_-_Measuring_Defect_LevelsÎncărcat deJesus Noel Mendoza Ventura
- RAC Lab ManualÎncărcat deKewal Singh
- hmt-ppt.pdfÎncărcat deanand003
- logger_UCAM-70A.pdfÎncărcat dejbmune6683
- GUIDELINE FOR EUROPEAN TECHNICAL APPROVAL of KITS FOR EXTERNAL WALL CLADDINGSÎncărcat deIonuț Bârzan
- Chapter_14-2.pdfÎncărcat deadtijanic-1
- d.- 74LS76A_Motorola FF JKÎncărcat deEfra Ibaceta
- TSLC Civil Post SLC Final, 2014Încărcat deRabi Krishna Budha Chhetri
- 04-TURBO.pdfÎncărcat deFabioMaciel
- Gas Turbines Modeling Simulation and Control Using Artificial Neural NetworksÎncărcat deKamil
- GAMBAR MESIN FOGINGÎncărcat deNiken Kriswandari
- Veertical Shaft Brick KilnÎncărcat deindiamillers
- Gear Cutting FormulaeÎncărcat deAjitpal Singh
- SGEM-paperv03Încărcat deTeptep Gonzales
- Bolnica u FirenciÎncărcat deMilaJoksimović
- Naina ResumeÎncărcat deNaina Mohamed
- Isolated Footing 73Încărcat deRitz Anne Chan Tan
- Worksheet 2Încărcat deMelissa A. Bernardo
- Curriculum Vitae- Mohamed Ali IbrahimÎncărcat deMOHAMED ALi IBRAHIM HASSAN
- Content Final ReportÎncărcat deYew Wooi Jing
- WACT Hydraulic ActuatorsÎncărcat dejhonyblaze1984
- Manual for LTO 86B 106A 126AÎncărcat deAllan Roosmaa
- NEHS0708Încărcat deVictor Nunez
- The 10 Most Common Mistakes Made by Injection Molders- Bob HatchÎncărcat deStarchyLittleOleMe
- One Stop Solution for Minerals Industry Rashtriya Chemicals and MineralsÎncărcat devivek vaishnav
- Sanctuary magazine issue 9 - Prestige prefab - Modscape green home profileÎncărcat deSanctuary Magazine
- Production Planning and ControlÎncărcat deRaksha Gavli
- STULZ Solutions and Services BrochureÎncărcat deRolando
- Firms Jan 2017Încărcat deAkihiro Nakai
- phys11_6_2.pdfÎncărcat denurshafiqarafi

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.