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

被引:11
|
作者
Hariri-Ardebili, Mohammad Amin [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Coll Comp Math & Nat Sci, College Pk, MD 20742 USA
[2] Natl Inst Stand & Technol NIST, Earthquake Engn Grp, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA
来源
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS | 2024年 / 53卷 / 03期
关键词
benchmark study; concrete dams; modeling variability; seismic analysis; uncertainty quantification; CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS; SHAKING TABLE; ARCH DAMS; QUANTIFICATION; RISK; DAMAGE; DECONVOLUTION; PROBABILITY; COLLAPSE; DEMANDS;
D O I
10.1002/eqe.4064
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1168 / 1194
页数:27
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Estimating seismic slope displacements of embankment dams using statistical analysis and numerical modeling
    Hamed Javdanian
    Mehdi Zarei
    Gholamreza Shams
    Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2023, 9 : 389 - 396
  • [22] Seismic water pressure in cracked concrete gravity dams:: Experimental study and theoretical Modeling
    Javanmardi, F
    Léger, P
    Tinawi, R
    JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, 2005, 131 (01) : 139 - 150
  • [23] Source Mechanism of Seismic Explosion Signals at Santiaguito Volcano, Guatemala: New Insights From Seismic Analysis and Numerical Modeling
    Rohnacher, Alicia
    Rietbrock, Andreas
    Gottschammer, Ellen
    Carter, William
    Lavallee, Yan
    De Angelis, Silvio
    Kendrick, Jackie E.
    Chigna, Gustavo
    FRONTIERS IN EARTH SCIENCE, 2021, 8
  • [24] Quantifying the advantage of a kitting system using Petri nets: a case study in Turkey, modeling, analysis, and insights
    Reza Vatankhah Barenji
    Banu Yuksel Ozkaya
    Ali Vatankhah Barenji
    The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2017, 93 : 3677 - 3691
  • [25] Quantifying the advantage of a kitting system using Petri nets: a case study in Turkey, modeling, analysis, and insights
    Barenji, Reza Vatankhah
    Ozkaya, Banu Yuksel
    Barenji, Ali Vatankhah
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, 2017, 93 (9-12): : 3677 - 3691
  • [26] Stochastic dynamic response and seismic fragility analysis for high concrete face rockfill dams considering earthquake and parameter uncertainties
    Chen, Kehao
    Pang, Rui
    Xu, Bin
    SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2023, 167
  • [27] Insights gleaned from NRC-BNL benchmark evaluation of seismic analysis methods for non-classically damped coupled
    Xu, J
    DeGrassi, G
    Chokshi, N
    JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 2004, 126 (01): : 75 - 84
  • [28] A rapid seismic fragility and risk analysis of electrical substation equipment considering modeling uncertainties
    Delaviz, Arman
    Estekanchi, Homayoon E.
    ENGINEERING STRUCTURES, 2023, 293
  • [29] Analysis of Deep Learning Neural Networks for Seismic Impedance Inversion: A Benchmark Study
    Marques, Caique Rodrigues
    dos Santos, Vinicius Guedes
    Lunelli, Rafael
    Roisenberg, Mauro
    Rodrigues, Bruno Barbosa
    ENERGIES, 2022, 15 (20)
  • [30] On the seismic response of mountain topography-Insights from numerical modeling
    Yin, C.
    Zhao, C. G.
    Li, W. H.
    EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FOR PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSTRUCTIONS, 2019, 4 : 5770 - 5776