logo

SCIENCE CHINA Technological Sciences, Volume 62 , Issue 4 : 635-648(2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-017-9220-8

Seismic performance assessment of high CFRDs based on fragility analysis

More info
  • ReceivedOct 25, 2017
  • AcceptedFeb 26, 2018
  • PublishedSep 7, 2018

Abstract

Due to a large number of high concrete face rockfill dams (CFRDs) being constructed, the seismic safety is crucially important and seismic performance assessment must be performed for such dams. Fragility analysis is a method of great vitality for seismic performance assessment; it can intuitively forecast the structural effects of different ground motion intensities and provide an effective path for structure safety assessment. However, this method is rarely applied in the field of high earth dam risk analysis. This paper introduces fragility analysis into the field of high CFRD safety assessment and establishes seismic performance assessment methods. PGA, Sa (T1, 5%), PGV and PGD are exploited as the earthquake intensity measure (IMs). Relative settlement ratio of dam crest, cumulative sliding displacement of dam slope stability and a new face-slab destroying index (based on DCR and COD) are regarded as the dam damage measures (DMs). The dividing standards of failure grades of high CFRDs are suggested based on each DM. Fragility function is estimated according to incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and multiple stripes analysis (MSA) methods respectively from a large number of finite element calculations of a certain CFRD, and seismic fragility curves are determined for each DM. Finally, this study analyzes the failure probabilities of the dam under different earthquake intensities and can provide references and bases for the seismic performance design and safety risk assessment of high CFRDs.


Funded by

National Key Research and Development Program of China(Grant,No.,2017YFC0404904)

the National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant,Nos.,51679029,51508071,51779034)


Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC0404904) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51679029, 51508071 and 51779034).


References

[1] Bayraktar A, Kartal M E. Linear and nonlinear response of concrete slab on CFR dam during earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 2010, 30: 990-1003 CrossRef Google Scholar

[2] Zhou W, Hua J J, Chang X L, et al. Settlement analysis of the Shuibuya concrete-face rockfill dam. Comput Geotech, 2011, 38: 269-280 CrossRef Google Scholar

[3] Xu B, Zou D G, Kong X J, et al. Dynamic damage evaluation on the slabs of the concrete faced rockfill dam with the plastic-damage model. Comput Geotech, 2015, 65: 258-265 CrossRef Google Scholar

[4] Mojiri S, El-Dakhakhni W W, Tait M J. Shake table seismic performance assessment of lightly reinforced concrete block shear walls. J Struct Eng, 2015, 141: 04014105 CrossRef Google Scholar

[5] Ellingwood B R, Tekie P B. Fragility analysis of concrete gravity dams. J Infrastruct Syst, 2001, 7: 41-48 CrossRef Google Scholar

[6] Tekie P B, Ellingwood B R. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete gravity dams. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn, 2003, 32: 2221-2240 CrossRef Google Scholar

[7] Lin L, Adams J. Lessons for the fragility of Canadian hydropower components under seismic loading. In: Proceedings of the 9th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Ottawa, 2007. 1762–1771. Google Scholar

[8] Zhong H, Li H J, Bao Y L. Seismic risk analysis of an arch dam. Appl Mech Mater, 2013, 353-356: 2020-2023 CrossRef Google Scholar

[9] Abdelhamid H, Mahmoud B, Hussein M. Seismic fragility and uncertainty analysis of concrete gravity dams under near-fault ground motions. Civil Environ Res, 2014, 5: 123–129. Google Scholar

[10] Kadkhodayan V, Aghajanzadeh M, Mirzabozorg H. Seismic assessment of arch dams using fragility curves. Civil Eng J, 2015, 1: 14–20. Google Scholar

[11] Morales-Torres A, Escuder-Bueno I, Altarejos-García L, et al. Building fragility curves of sliding failure of concrete gravity dams integrating natural and epistemic uncertainties. Eng Struct, 2016, 125: 227-235 CrossRef Google Scholar

[12] Ghanaat Y, Patev R, Chudgar A. Seismic fragility analysis of concrete gravity dams. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 2012. Google Scholar

[13] Hariri-Ardebili M A, Saouma V E. Probabilistic seismic demand model and optimal intensity measure for concrete dams. Struct Safety, 2016, 59: 67-85 CrossRef Google Scholar

[14] Hariri-Ardebili M A, Saouma V E, Porter K A. Quantification of seismic potential failure modes in concrete dams. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn, 2016, 45: 979-997 CrossRef Google Scholar

[15] Hariri-Ardebili M A, Saouma V E. Collapse fragility curves for concrete dams: Comprehensive study. J Struct Eng, 2016, 142: 04016075 CrossRef Google Scholar

[16] Hariri-Ardebili M A, Saouma V E. Sensitivity and uncertainty quantification of the cohesive crack model. Eng Fract Mech, 2016, 155: 18-35 CrossRef Google Scholar

[17] Ansari M I, Agarwal P. Categorization of damage index of concrete gravity dam for the health monitoring after earthquake. J Earthq Eng, 2016, 20: 1222-1238 CrossRef Google Scholar

[18] Chen S S, Li G Y, Fu Z Z. Safety criteria and limit resistance capacity of high earth-rock dams subjected to earthquakes (in Chinese). Chin J Geotech Eng, 2013, 1: 59–65. Google Scholar

[19] Zhao J M, Liu X S, Yang Y S. Criteria for seismic safety evaluation and maximum aseismic capability of high concrete face rockfill dams (in Chinese). Chin J Geotech Eng, 2015, 12: 2254–2261. Google Scholar

[20] Ozkan M Y. A review of considerations on seismic safety of embankments and earth and rock-fill dams. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 1998, 17: 439-458 CrossRef Google Scholar

[21] Zou D G, Xu B, Kong X J, et al. Numerical simulation of the seismic response of the Zipingpu concrete face rockfill dam during the Wenchuan earthquake based on a generalized plasticity model. Comput Geotech, 2013, 49: 111-122 CrossRef Google Scholar

[22] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn, 2002, 31: 491-514 CrossRef Google Scholar

[23] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra, 2004, 20: 523-553 CrossRef Google Scholar

[24] Baker J W. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra, 2015, 31: 579-599 CrossRef Google Scholar

[25] Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R. Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra, 2007, 23: 471-489 CrossRef Google Scholar

[26] Eads L, Miranda E, Krawinkler H, et al. An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn, 2013, 42: 25-41 CrossRef Google Scholar

[27] Shome N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree. Providence: Stanford University, 1999. Google Scholar

[28] Newmark N M. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Géotechnique, 1965, 15: 139-160 CrossRef Google Scholar

[29] Ling H I, Leshchinsky D, Mohri Y. Soil slopes under combined horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn, 1997, 26: 1231-1241 CrossRef Google Scholar

[30] Ghanaat Y. Failure modes approach to safety evaluation of dams. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, 2004. Google Scholar

[31] Jia Y F, Xu B, Chi S C, et al. Research on the particle breakage of rockfill materials during triaxial tests. Int J Geomech, 2017, 17: 04017085 CrossRef Google Scholar

[32] Xiao Y, Stuedlein A M, Chen Q, et al. Stress-strain-strength response and ductility of gravels improved by polyurethane foam adhesive. Int J Geomech, 2017. Google Scholar

[33] Xiao Y, Liu H L. Elastoplastic constitutive model for rockfill materials considering particle breakage. Int J Geomech, 2017, 17: 04016041 CrossRef Google Scholar

[34] Xiao Y, Liu H L, Ding X, et al. Influence of particle breakage on critical state line of rockfill material. Int J Geomech, 2016, 16: 04015031 CrossRef Google Scholar

[35] Liu J M, Liu H B, Zou D G, et al. Particle breakage and the critical state of sand: By Ghafghazi, M., Shuttle, D.A., DeJong, J.T., 2014. Soils and Foundations 54 (3), 451–461. Soils Found, 2014, 55: 220-222 CrossRef Google Scholar

[36] Xiao Y, Sun Y F, Liu H L, et al. Model predictions for behaviors of sand-nonplastic-fines mixturesusing equivalent-skeleton void-ratio state index. Sci China Tech Sci, 2017, 60: 878-892 CrossRef Google Scholar

[37] Liu J M, Zou D G, Kong X J, et al. Stress-dilatancy of Zipingpu gravel in triaxial compression tests. Sci China Tech Sci, 2016, 59: 214-224 CrossRef Google Scholar

[38] Xiao Y, Sun Y F, Yin F, et al. Constitutive modeling for transparent granular soils. Int J Geomech, 2017, 17: 04016150 CrossRef Google Scholar

[39] Duncan I M, Chang C Y. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. J Soil Mech Found Division, 1970, 96: 1629–1653. Google Scholar

[40] Shen Z J, Xu G. Deformation behavior of rock materials under cyclic loading (in Chinese). Hydro-Science Eng, 1996, 2: 143–150. Google Scholar

[41] Hardin B O, Drnevich V P. Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves. Geotech Spec Publ, 1972, 98: 667–692. Google Scholar

[42] Zou D G, Meng F W, Kong X J, et al. Residual deformation behavior of rock-fill materials (in Chinese). Chin J Geotech Eng, 2008, 30: 807–811. Google Scholar

[43] Ozkuzukiran S, Ozkan M Y, Ozyazicioglu M, et al. Settlement behaviour of a concrete faced rock-fill dam. Geotech Geol Eng, 2006, 24: 1665-1678 CrossRef Google Scholar

[44] Yu X, Kong X J, Zou D G, et al. Linear elastic and plastic-damage analyses of a concrete cut-off wall constructed in deep overburden. Comput Geotech, 2015, 69: 462-473 CrossRef Google Scholar

[45] Zou D, Zhou Y, Ling H L, et al. Dislocation of face-slabs of Zipingpu concrete face rockfill dam during Wenchuan earthquake. J Earthq Tsunami, 2012, 06: 1250007 CrossRef Google Scholar

[46] Gooodman R E, Taylor R L, Brekke T L A. A model for the mechanics of jointed rock. J Soil Mech Found Div, 1968, 94: 637–659. Google Scholar

[47] Kong X J, Zhou Y, Zou D G, et al. Numerical analysis of dislocations of the face slabs of the Zipingpu concrete faced rockfill dam during the Wenchuan earthquake. Earthq Eng Eng Vib, 2011, 10: 581-589 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[48] Xu H, Zou D G, Kong X J, et al. Study on the effects of hydrodynamic pressure on the dynamic stresses in slabs of high CFRD based on the scaled boundary finite-element method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 2016, 88: 223-236 CrossRef Google Scholar

[49] Zou D G, Kong X J, Xu B. Geotechnical dynamic nonlinear analysis GEODYNA. Dalian: Dalian University of Technology, 2005. Google Scholar

[50] Westergaard H M. Water pressures on dams during earthquakes. Trans ASCE. 1933, 98: 418–432. Google Scholar

[51] Raphael J M. Tensile strength of concrete. J Am Concrete Inst, 1984, 81: 158–165. Google Scholar

[52] Liu J B, Lu Y D. A direct method for analysis of dynamic soil-structure interaction. Develop Geotech Eng, 1998, 83: 261–276. Google Scholar

[53] Swaisgood J R. Embankment dam deformations caused by earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Christchurch, 2003. Google Scholar

[54] Darbre G R. Swiss guidelines for the earthquake safety of dams. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, 2004. Google Scholar

[55] Tian J Y, Liu H L, Wu X Y. Evaluation perspectives and criteria of maximum aseismic capability for high earth-rock dam (in Chinese). J Disaster Prevent Mit Eng, 2013, 33(S1): 128–131. Google Scholar

  • Figure 1

    (Color online) Time histories of input ground motion. (a) Transverse direction; (b) vertical direction.

  • Figure 2

    (Color online) The earthquake acceleration response spectrum curves.

  • Figure 3

    Schematic diagram of the safety factor calculation.

  • Figure 4

    (Color online) Finite element mesh of CFRD.

  • Figure 5

    (Color online) Seismic performance and destroying evaluation standards of face-slab.

  • Figure 6

    (Color online) Cumulative overstress duration for two DCRs using stress time histories in four PGA levels (No.12 waves).

  • Figure 7

    (Color online) Performance curves for the face-slab using linear elastic analysis (No.12 waves). DCR, demand capacity ratio; COD, cumulative overstress duration.

  • Figure 8

    (Color online) IDA curves for different DMs. (a) Relative settlement ratio of dam crest with PGA; (b) relative settlement ratio of dam crest with Sa (T1, 5%); (c) relative settlement ratio of dam crest with PGV; (d) relative settlement ratio of dam crest with PGD; (e) cumulative sliding displacement with PGA; (f) cumulative sliding displacement with Sa (T1, 5%); (g) cumulative sliding displacement with PGV; (h) cumulative sliding displacement with Sa PGD.

  • Figure 9

    (Color online) Seismic fragility curves for all different IMs of every performance index.

  • Table 1   The earthquake records used in the fragility analysis

    No.

    Earthquake name

    Recording stations

    Magnitude

    Rjb (km)

    PGA (g)

    Year

    1

    Imperial Valley-06

    El Centro Array #11

    6.53

    12.56

    0.367

    1979

    2

    Imperial Valley-06

    Calexico Fire Station

    6.53

    10.45

    0.277

    1979

    3

    Imperial Valley-06

    El Centro Array #3

    6.53

    10.79

    0.267

    1979

    4

    Mammoth Lakes-01

    Long Valley Dam

    6.06

    12.56

    0.430

    1980

    5

    Loma Prieta

    Gilroy Array #2

    6.93

    10.38

    0.370

    1989

    6

    Loma Prieta

    San Jose-Santa Teresa Hills

    6.93

    14.18

    0.276

    1989

    7

    Northridge-01

    LA 00

    6.69

    9.87

    0.263

    1994

    8

    Northridge-01

    Sun Valley-Roscoe Blvd

    6.69

    5.59

    0.277

    1994

    9

    Northwest China-03

    Jiashi

    6.1

    9.98

    0.300

    1997

    10

    Tottori Japan

    SMN001

    6.61

    14.42

    0.236

    2000

    11

    San Simeon CA

    Templeton-1-story Hospital

    6.52

    5.07

    0.435

    2003

    12

    Niigata Japan

    NIGH12

    6.63

    9.93

    0.417

    2004

    13

    Iwate Japan

    AKT023

    6.9

    11.68

    0.368

    2008

    14

    Iwate Japan

    Kurihara City

    6.9

    12.83

    0.422

    2008

    15

    Artificial seismic wave

  • Table 2   Parameters for Duncan model

    Materials

    ρ(kg m−3)

    K

    n

    Rf

    Kb

    m

    φ0 (°)

    Δφ (°)

    Rockfill A

    2214

    1350

    0.28

    0.80

    780

    0.18

    55.5

    11.3

    Rockfill B

    2214

    1000

    0.26

    0.79

    700

    0.16

    53.0

    11.0

    Rockfill C

    2214

    1300

    0.31

    0.79

    800

    0.12

    55.0

    12.2

    Transition

    2222

    1250

    0.31

    0.78

    500

    0.16

    53.5

    10.7

    Cushion

    2258

    1200

    0.30

    0.75

    680

    0.15

    54.4

    10.6

  • Table 3   Parameters for Shen Zhu-jiang dynamic model

    Materials

    k1

    k2

    n

    λmax

    Rockfill A

    32

    2570

    0.471

    0.22

    Rockfill B

    48

    3668

    0.377

    0.22

    Rockfill C

    65

    5596

    0.268

    0.17

    Transition

    36

    3383

    0.413

    0.20

    Cushion

    2258

    1200

    0.30

    0.17

  • Table 4   Parameters for residual deformation calculations

    Materials

    c1 (%)

    c2

    c3

    c4 (%)

    c5

    Rockfill A

    1.36

    0.85

    0.00

    23.26

    0.74

    Rockfill B

    3.46

    1.03

    0.00

    31.46

    0.83

    Rockfill C

    0.84

    0.81

    0.00

    10.82

    0.62

    Transition

    1.45

    0.97

    0.00

    4.91

    0.51

    Cushion

    1.45

    0.97

    0.00

    4.91

    0.51

  • Table 5   Equal intervals of each ground motion corresponding to every IM

    No.

    Earthquake name

    PGA (g)

    Sa (T1, 5%) (g)

    PGV (m s−1)

    PGD (m)

    1

    Imperial Valley-06

    0.1

    0.013

    0.083

    0.051

    2

    Imperial Valley-06

    0.1

    0.070

    0.083

    0.036

    3

    Imperial Valley-06

    0.1

    0.044

    0.070

    0.038

    4

    Mammoth Lakes-01

    0.1

    0.051

    0.056

    0.018

    5

    Loma Prieta

    0.1

    0.022

    0.057

    0.028

    6

    Loma Prieta

    0.1

    0.053

    0.096

    0.274

    7

    Northridge-01

    0.1

    0.027

    0.034

    0.036

    8

    Northridge-01

    0.1

    0.048

    0.037

    0.015

    9

    Northwest China-03

    0.1

    0.026

    0.067

    0.010

    10

    Tottori Japan

    0.1

    0.040

    0.078

    0.056

    11

    San Simeon CA

    0.1

    0.068

    0.068

    0.039

    12

    Niigata Japan

    0.1

    0.070

    0.066

    0.049

    13

    Iwate Japan

    0.1

    0.097

    0.064

    0.072

    14

    Iwate Japan

    0.1

    0.063

    0.071

    0.048

    15

    Artificial seismic wave

    0.1

    0.069

    0.094

    0.220

  • Table 6   Number of different failure grades in different IMs levels based on MSA

    PGA

    Sa (T1, 5%)

    PGV

    PGD

    Level (g)

    Minor

    Mederate

    Level (g)

    Minor

    Mederate

    Level (m s−1)

    Minor

    Mederate

    level (m)

    Minor

    Mederate

    0.1

    0

    0

    0.05

    0

    0

    0.05

    0

    0

    0.05

    1

    0

    0.2

    0

    0

    0.1

    2

    0

    0.1

    0

    0

    0.1

    3

    2

    0.3

    4

    0

    0.15

    7

    1

    0.15

    0

    0

    0.15

    6

    3

    0.4

    10

    1

    0.2

    7

    3

    0.2

    5

    0

    0.2

    11

    4

    0.5

    13

    4

    0.25

    13

    5

    0.25

    8

    2

    0.25

    12

    5

    0.6

    14

    8

    0.3

    15

    5

    0.3

    12

    2

    0.3

    13

    9

    0.7

    15

    11

    0.35

    15

    10

    0.35

    13

    4

    0.35

    13

    10

    0.8

    15

    11

    0.4

    15

    12

    0.4

    13

    6

    0.4

    13

    12

    0.9

    15

    11

    0.45

    15

    15

    0.45

    14

    10

    0.45

    13

    12

    1

    15

    13

    0.5

    15

    15

    0.5

    15

    12

    0.5

    13

    12

    1.1

    15

    14

     

     

     

    0.55

    15

    13

     

     

     

    1.2

    15

    15

     

     

     

    0.6

    15

    13

     

     

     

  • Table 7   Failure probabilities of every dam performance index based on different IMs

    IMs

    Performance index

    Permanent deformation

    Slope stability

    Face-slab safety

    Failure grade

    Minor

    Moderate

    Severe

    Minor

    Moderate

    Severe

    Minor

    Moderate

    Severe

    PGA

    0.2 g

    4.90%

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1.50%

    0

    Assess usingnonlinear analysis

    0.4 g

    98.10%

    8.90%

    0.20%

    11.60%

    0

    0

    63.40%

    9.90%

    0.6 g

    100%

    73.80%

    12.60%

    61.90%

    3.40%

    0.60%

    96.50%

    44.40%

    0.8 g

    100%

    98.00%

    55.20%

    91.40%

    22.90%

    7.70%

    99.80%

    75.00%

    1.0 g

    100%

    100%

    87.00%

    98.60%

    53.80%

    27.20%

    100%

    90.40%

    1.2 g

    100%

    100%

    97.40%

    100%

    78.20%

    52.60%

    100%

    96.60%

    Sa (T1, 5%)

    0.1 g

    32.30%

    2.90%

    0.30%

    4.70%

    0

    0

    8.50%

    0.10%

    Assess usingnonlinear analysis

    0.2 g

    87.10%

    35.30%

    11.00%

    33.70%

    2.30%

    0.60%

    70.10%

    14.20%

    0.3 g

    98.00%

    69.50%

    37.00%

    62.30%

    16.20%

    6.90%

    94.90%

    54.80%

    0.4 g

    99.70%

    87.20%

    62.00%

    79.90%

    39.30%

    22.30%

    99.20%

    83.30%

    0.5 g

    100%

    94.80%

    78.80%

    89.30%

    61.10%

    42.00%

    100%

    98.50%

    0.6 g

    100%

    97.90%

    88.50%

    94.20%

    76.80%

    60.10%

    100%

    100%

    PGV

    0.1 m s−1

    3.70%

    0

    0

    5.50%

    0.50%

    0.20%

    0.20%

    0

    Assess usingnonlinear analysis

    0.2 m s−1

    63.40%

    5.30%

    0.50%

    26.50%

    6.20%

    3.10%

    25.50%

    1.10%

    0.3 m s−1

    94.40%

    33.60%

    6.90%

    47.70%

    17.70%

    10.70%

    72.80%

    16.60%

    0.4 m s−1

    99.30%

    66.40%

    24.80%

    63.60%

    31.20%

    21.20%

    93.30%

    48.10%

    0.5 m s−1

    99.90%

    86.00%

    47.60%

    74.60%

    44.00%

    32.50%

    98.60%

    74.80%

    0.6 m s−1

    100%

    94.70%

    67.30%

    82.00%

    55.00%

    43.10%

    99.70%

    89.50%

    PGD

    0.1 m

    42.30%

    17.00%

    8.10%

    7.10%

    1.10%

    0.80%

    27.30%

    7.20%

    Assess usingnonlinear analysis

    0.2 m

    72.60%

    43.60%

    27.40%

    27.30%

    8.40%

    5.90%

    61.60%

    33.20%

    0.3 m

    85.70%

    61.80%

    44.60%

    46.10%

    19.80%

    14.60%

    79.40%

    56.70%

    0.4 m

    91.90%

    73.60%

    57.70%

    60.30%

    31.80%

    24.40%

    88.40%

    72.50%

    0.5 m

    95.10%

    81.20%

    67.40%

    70.50%

    42.80%

    33.90%

    93.10%

    82.30%

    0.6 m

    96.90%

    86.30%

    74.50%

    77.80%

    52.30%

    42.60%

    95.70%

    88.50%

Copyright 2020 Science China Press Co., Ltd. 《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司 版权所有

京ICP备17057255号       京公网安备11010102003388号