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

doi:10.1007/s11709-018-0495-1

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2019, Vol. 13

Issue (3) : 526-541 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-018-0495-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

M. Houshmand KHANEGHAHI¹, M. ALEMBAGHERI²(

), N. SOLTANI²

¹. Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
². Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Download: PDF(6030 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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

Corresponding Author(s): M. ALEMBAGHERI

Just Accepted Date: 28 May 2018 Online First Date: 27 June 2018 Issue Date: 05 June 2019

Cite this article:

M. Houshmand KHANEGHAHI,M. ALEMBAGHERI,N. SOLTANI. Reliability and variance-based sensitivity analysis of arch dams during construction and reservoir impoundment[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 526-541.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-018-0495-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2019/V13/I3/526

Fig.1 (a) Aerial view of Dez arch dam; (b) the finite element mesh of the dam-foundation models; (c) the considered five construction stages; (d) position of the soft rock layer; (e) configuration of the contraction joints

Tab.1 The models studied in this paper, along with their assumptions, random variables and failure scenarios

Fig.2 The constitutive behavior of the joints in (a) normal, and (b) tangential direction [⁴⁹]

Tab.2 The properties of the random variables used in the reliability analysis of Dez dam-foundation system

Tab.3 The probability distributions of the random variables

Fig.3 The procedure of implementing reliability framework along with deterministic model

model	loading sequence	exceedance probability (%)
1	construction Stage 1	3.95 $×$ 10
	construction Stage 2	6.03 $×$ 10
	construction Stage 3	8.01 $×$ 10
	construction Stage 4	9.13 $×$ 10
	construction Stage 5	9.85 $×$ 10
	reservoir impoundment	9.45 $×$ 10
2	construction Stage 1	3.44 $×$ 10
	construction Stage 2	4.63 $×$ 10
	construction Stage 3	6.21 $×$ 10
	construction Stage 4	8.72 $×$ 10
	construction Stage 5	9.78 $×$ 10
	reservoir impoundment	9.02 $×$ 10
3	construction Stage 1	6.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	construction Stage 2	5.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	construction Stage 3	4.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	construction Stage 4	2.00 $×$ 10^?³
	construction Stage 5	2.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	reservoir impoundment	9.00 $×$ 10⁻³
4	construction Stage 1	8.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	construction Stage 2	7.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	construction Stage 3	5.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	construction Stage 4	4.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	construction Stage 5	2.00 $×$ 10⁻³
	reservoir impoundment	1.10 $×$ 10⁻²

Tab.4 The exceedance probability of the tensile overstressing limit-state function for the threshold value of 3 MPa

Fig.4 The contours of the exceedance probability of the tensile overstressing limit-state function on the dam’s upstream and downstream faces depicted for Models 1 and 2

Fig.5 The exceedance probability versus threshold value (concrete tensile stress) for all models. (a) Model 1; (b) Model 2; (c) Model 3; (d) Model 4

Fig.6 The histograms of the maximum tensile stress illustrated for all models. The horizontal and vertical axes are the tensile stress and number of observations, respectively. μ: Mean; σ: Standard deviation; CoV: Coefficient of variation

Tab.5 The exceedance probability of the sliding and opening limit-state functions

Fig.7 The exceedance probability curves for (a) the joints sliding, and (b) the joints opening limit-state functions

Fig.8 First order (S_i) and total (S_T_i) sensitivity measures for all the models are presented

Fig.9 Sensitivity indices calculated based on opening and sliding limit-state function (LSF) for: (a) Model 3, and (b) Model 4.

1	M Wieland, G F Kirchen. Long-term dam safety monitoring of Punt dal Gall arch dam in Switzerland. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2012, 6(1): 76–83 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-012-0144-z
2	USBR. Design Criteria for Concrete Arch and Gravity dams. Denver: United States Bureau of Reclamation, 1977
3	USACE. Earthquake Design and Evaluation of Concrete Hydraulic Structures. Engineer Manual, EM 1110-2-6053. 2007
4	M Luísa, B Farinha, J V de Lemos, E M Neves. Analysis of foundation sliding of an arch dam considering the hydromechanical behavior. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2012, 6(1): 35‒43 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-012-0142-1
5	A Bayraktar, E Hancer, M Akkose. Influence of base-rock characteristics on the stochastic dynamic response of dam-reservoir-foundation systems. Engineering Structures, 2005, 27(10): 1498–1508 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.05.004
6	G Lin, J Du, Z Hu. Earthquake analysis of arch and gravity dams including the effects of foundation inhomogeneity. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 2007, 1(1): 41–50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-007-0004-4
7	P M Mohammadi, A Noorzad, M Rahimian, B Omidvar. 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: 91–106
8	S G Joshi, I D Gupta, P B Murnal. Analyzing the effect of foundation inhomogeneity on the seismic response of gravity dams. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 2015, 6: 11–24
9	P Raychowdhury, S Jindal. Shallow foundation response variability due to soil and model parameter uncertainty. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2014, 8(3): 237–251 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-014-0242-1
10	F Sheibany, M Ghaemian. 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, 2004
11	P Thoft-Christensen, M J Baker. Structural Reliability Theory and Its Applications. Berlin: Springer, 1982
12	L Altarejos-García, I Escuder-Bueno, A Serrano-Lombillo, M G de Membrillera-Ortuño. Methodology for estimating the probability of failure by sliding in concrete gravity dams in the context of risk analysis. Structural Safety, 2012, 36 ‒ 37: 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.01.001
13	I H Yang. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of time-dependent effects in concrete structures. Engineering Structures, 2007, 29(7): 1366–1374 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.07.015
14	ICOLD. Risk Assessment in Dam Safety Management. Bulletin 130. International Commission on Large Dams, 2005
15	P Bjerager, S Krenk. Parametric sensitivity in first order reliability theory. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1989, 115(7): 1577–1582 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:7(1577)
16	O Ditlevson, H O Madsen. Structural Reliability Methods. New York: John Wiley, 1996
17	M Hohenbichler, R Rackwitz. Sensitivity and importance measures in structural reliability. Civil Engineering Systems, 1986, 3(4): 203–209 https://doi.org/10.1080/02630258608970445
18	A Karamchandani, C A Cornell. Sensitivity estimation within first and second order reliability methods. Structural Safety, 1992, 11(2): 95–107 https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(92)90002-5
19	H O Madsen, S Krenk, N C Lind. Methods of Structural Safety. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1986
20	N Vu-Bac, T Lahmer, H Keitel, J Zhao, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Stochastic predictions of bulk properties of amorphous polyethylene based on molecular dynamics simulations. Mechanics of Materials, 2014, 68: 70–84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2013.07.021
21	K M Hamdia, M Silani, X Zhuang, P He, T Rabczuk. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0210-6
22	N Vu-Bac, T Lahmer, Y Zhang, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Stochastic predictions of interfacial characteristic of polymeric nanocomposites (PNCs). Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2014, 59: 80–95 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.11.014
23	N Vu-Bac, T Lahmer, X Zhuang, T Nguyen-Thoi, T Rabczuk. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.06.005
24	M Smith. 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, 151–158
25	N D Hartford, B Baecher. Risk and Uncertainty in Dam Safety. London: Thomas Telford Ltd., 2004
26	A Lupoi, C Callari. 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, 309–329
27	J M de Araújo, A M Awruch. Probabilistic finite element analysis of concrete gravity dams. Advances in Engineering Software, 1998, 29(2): 97–104 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-9978(98)00052-0
28	M Alembagheri, M Ghaemian. Seismic assessment of concrete gravity dams using capacity estimation and damage indexes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013, 42(1): 123–144 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2196
29	M Alembagheri, M Ghaemian. Incremental dynamic analysis of concrete gravity dams including base and lift joints. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2013, 12(1): 119–134 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0156-2
30	M Alembagheri, M Ghaemian. Damage assessment of a concrete arch dam through nonlinear incremental dynamic analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 44: 127–137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.09.010
31	M Alembagheri, M Seyedkazemi. Seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of gravity dams. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2015, 44(1): 41–58 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2457
32	E Alonso. Risk analysis of slopes and its application to slopes in Canadian sensitive clays. Geotechnique, 1976, 26(3): 453–472 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1976.26.3.453
33	W H Tang, M S Yücemen, A H S Ang. Probability based short term design of slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1976, 13(3): 201–215 https://doi.org/10.1139/t76-024
34	J T Christian, C C Ladd, G B Baecher. Reliability applied to slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, 1994, 120(12): 2180–2207 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:12(2180)
35	D V Griffiths, G A Fenton. 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, 184–193 https://doi.org/10.1061/40512(289)14
36	A I Husein Malkawi, W F Hassan, F A Abdulla. Uncertainty and reliability analysis applied to slope stability. Structural Safety, 2000, 22(2): 161–187 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(00)00006-0
37	D V Griffiths, G A Fenton, N Manoharan. Bearing capacity of rough rigid strip footing on cohesive soil: Probabilistic study. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2002, 128(9): 743–755 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:9(743)
38	G A Fenton, D V Griffiths, M B Williams. Reliability of traditional retaining wall design. Geotechnique, 2005, 55(1): 55–62 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2005.55.1.55
39	N Vu-Bac, M Silani, T Lahmer, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. A unified framework for stochastic predictions of mechanical properties of polymeric nanocomposites. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 520–535 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2014.04.066
40	N Vu-Bac, R Rafiee, X Zhuang, T Lahmer, T Rabczuk. Uncertainty quantification for multiscale modeling of polymer nanocomposites with correlated parameters. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2015, 68: 446–464 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.09.008
41	R L Iman. Latin Hypercube Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008
42	M M Rajabi, B Ataie-Ashtiani, H Janssen. Efficiency enhancement of optimized Latin hypercube sampling strategies: Application to Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis and meta-modeling. Advances in Water Resources, 2015, 76: 127–139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2014.12.008
43	J C Helton, F J Davis. Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2003, 81(1): 23–69 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00058-9
44	A Olsson, G Sandberg, O Dahlblom. On Latin hypercube sampling for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety, 2003, 25(1): 47–68 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(02)00039-5
45	J C Helton, F J Davis, J D Johnson. A comparison of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results obtained with random and Latin hypercube sampling. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2005, 89(3): 305–330 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.09.006
46	T Homma, A Saltelli. Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1996, 52(1): 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(96)00002-6
47	G E Archer, A Saltelli, I M Sobol. Sensitivity measures, ANOVA-like techniques and the use of bootstrap. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 1997, 58(2): 99–120 https://doi.org/10.1080/00949659708811825
48	K Chan, A Saltelli, S Tarantola. Winding stairs: A sampling tool to compute sensitivity indices. Statistics and Computing, 2000, 10(3): 187–196 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008950625967
49	I M Sobol′. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 2001, 55(1): 271–280 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6
50	J E Oakley, A O’Hagan. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of complex models: A Bayesian approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical Methodology, 2004, 66(3): 751–769 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2004.05304.x
51	J C Helton, J D Johnson, C J Sallaberry, C B Storlie. Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2006, 91(10–11): 1175–1209 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.017
52	C B Storlie, L P Swiler, J C Helton, C J Sallaberry. Implementation and evaluation of nonparametric regression procedures for sensitivity analysis of computationally demanding models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2009, 94(11): 1735–1763 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2009.05.007
53	A Saltelli, P Annoni, I Azzini, F Campolongo, M Ratto, S Tarantola. Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Computer Physics Communications, 2010, 181(2): 259–270 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018
54	W Tian. A review of sensitivity analysis methods in building energy analysis. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 20: 411–419 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.014
55	J W Hall, S A Boyce, Y Wang, R J Dawson, S Tarantola, A Saltelli. Sensitivity analysis for hydraulic models. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2009, 135(11): 959–969 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000098
56	H P Wan, W X Ren. Parameter selection in finite-element-model updating by global sensitivity analysis using Gaussian process metamodel. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2014, 141(6): 04014164 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001108
57	M M Rajabi, B Ataie-Ashtiani, C T Simmons. Polynomial chaos expansions for uncertainty propagation and moment independent sensitivity analysis of seawater intrusion simulations. Journal of Hydrology, 2015, 520: 101–122
58	ICOLD. Guidelines for use of numerical models in dam engineering. International Commission on Large Dams. Bulletin 155. Ad-Hoc Committee on Computational Aspects, 2013
59	C Marco. Crack Models in Concrete Dams. College of Civil Engineering, Channels and Ports, Madrid, 1995
60	F Ghrib, P Lèger, R Tinawi. R Lupien, M. VeilleuxA 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: 126–138
61	G Ruggeri, R Pellegrini, M Rubin de Célix, M Bernsten, P Royet, V Bettzieche, W Amberg, A Gustaffsson, T Morison, G Zenz. Sliding Safety of Existing Gravity Dams—Final Report. ICOLD European Club. Working group on Sliding Safety of Existing Gravity Dams, 2004
62	A Hosseinzadeh, M Nobarinasab, A Soroush, V Lotfi. Coupled stress-seepage analysis of Karun III concrete arch dam. Geotechnical Engineering, 2013, 166(5): 483–501 https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.10.00119
63	V Marinos, P Fortsakis, G Stoumpos. 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, 859–863 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09060-3_155
64	M Alembagheri, M Ghaemian. Seismic performance evaluation of a jointed arch dam. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2016, 12(2): 256–274 https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1009124
65	C Bernier, J E Padgett, J Proulx, P Paultre. Seismic fragility of concrete gravity dams with spatial variation of angle of friction: Case study. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 142(5): 05015002 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001441
66	E. HoekPractical Rock Engineering. On-line Course , 2007

[1]	Wengang ZHANG, Libin TANG, Hongrui LI, Lin WANG, Longfei CHENG, Tingqiang ZHOU, Xiang CHEN. Probabilistic stability analysis of Bazimen landslide with monitored rainfall data and water level fluctuations in Three Gorges Reservoir, China[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1247-1261.
[2]	Jie LI. A PDEM-based perspective to engineering reliability: From structures to lifeline networks[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1056-1065.
[3]	Alireza GHAVIDEL, Mohsen RASHKI, Hamed GHOHANI ARAB, Mehdi AZHDARY MOGHADDAM. Reliability mesh convergence analysis by introducing expanded control variates[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 1012-1023.
[4]	Narjes SOLTANI, Mohammad ALEMBAGHERI, Mohammad Houshmand KHANEGHAHI. Risk-based probabilistic thermal-stress analysis of concrete arch dams[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1007-1019.
[5]	Mohammad Reza GHASEMI, Charles V. CAMP, Babak DIZANGIAN. Novel decoupled framework for reliability-based design optimization of structures using a robust shifting technique[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 800-820.
[6]	Hamid Taghavi GANJI, Mohammad ALEMBAGHERI, Mohammad Houshmand KHANEGHAHI. Evaluation of seismic reliability of gravity dam-reservoir-inhomogeneous foundation coupled system[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 701-715.
[7]	Arash SEKHAVATIAN, Asskar Janalizadeh CHOOBBASTI. Application of random set method in a deep excavation: based on a case study in Tehran cemented alluvium[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 66-80.
[8]	Karim BENYAHI, Youcef BOUAFIA, Salma BARBOURA, Mohand Said KACHI. Nonlinear analysis and reliability of metallic truss structures[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 577-593.
[9]	Ahmad IDRIS, Indra Sati Hamonangan HARAHAP, Montasir Osman Ahmed ALI. Jack up reliability analysis: An overview[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 504-514.
[10]	Chen WANG, Yuching WU, Jianzhuang XIAO. Three-scale stochastic homogenization of elastic recycled aggregate concrete based on nano-indentation digital images[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 461-473.
[11]	Xiao-ping BAI,Ya-nan LIU. Reliability analysis on civil engineering project based on integrated adaptive simulation annealing and gray correlation method[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 462-471.
[12]	Abdelmadjid SI SALEM,Souad AIT TALEB,Kamal AIT TAHAR. Experimental and statistical investigation of a new concrete-composite beam with encased polymer tube wrapped by FRP[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(2): 154-162.
[13]	Yaojun GE, Haifan XIANG. Concept and requirements of sustainable development in bridge engineering[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(4): 432-450.
[14]	LI Jie. Progress in lifeline engineering researches[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(1): 34-40.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed