Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Given the recent impetus for probabilistic based analyses of dams, and the limited previous attempts to
Received 21 April 2016 address this timely question, there is a need for a comprehensive assessment of the disparate previous
Revised 15 September 2016 work. Hence, this paper provides a comprehensive and comparative review of major (over twenty) pub-
Accepted 18 September 2016
lications addressing seismic fragility analyses of concrete dams.
First, fundamental concepts are reviewed and clarified to facilitate comprehension of the later part.
Then, papers are individually scrutinized, key figures redrawn to provide a uniform basis for comparison.
Keywords:
When deemed necessary, additional clarifications and cross referencing with equations in the first part
Fragility function
Concrete dam
are provided.
Earthquake Next, tables summarizing the various methods are presented, on the basis of which the authors provide
Uncertainty quantification a set of minimum requirements for seismic fragility curve/surface development. It is noted that the vast
Damage majority of the papers still relied on linear analyses with simplified limit states. On the other hands few
papers pursued a nonlinear approach and addressed the collapse mechanism and/or hybrid limit state
definitions.
Finally, the contextual framework within which fragility curves are used is presented within the scope
of a performance based earthquake engineering analysis of a concrete dam.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abbreviations: 2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional; AD, Anderson-Darling test; AIC, Akaike information criterion; ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers;
ASDSO, Association of State Dam Safety Officials; ASI, acceleration spectral intensity; CDF, cumulative distribution function; CIA, cumulative inelastic area; CID, cumulative
inelastic duration; CLA, cloud analysis; COV, coefficient of variation; CP, collapse prevention; CS, conditional spectrum; DBL, design base level; DC, damage control; DCR,
demand capacity ratio; DI, damage index; DPM, damage probability matrix; DS, damage state; DSA, double stripe analysis; DSDR, damage spatial distribution ratio; EDP,
engineering demand parameter; EIDA, extended incremental dynamic analysis; EPA, effective peak acceleration; ETA, endurance time analysis; ETAF, endurance time
acceleration function; FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency; FFT, fast Fourier transform; FSI, fluid-structure interaction; FSS, factor of safety against sliding; GSI,
geological strength index; H, horizontal; IDA, incremental dynamic analysis; IM, intensity measure; Lg, very large data; LHS, Latin hypercube sampling; LS, limit state; MCE,
maximum credible earthquakes; MCS, Monte Carlo simulation; MDL, maximum design level; MLE, maximum likelihood estimation; MM, material/modeling uncertainty;
MMI, modified Mercalli intensity; MOM, method of moments; MSA, multiple stripe analysis; NLg, no very large data; PBEE, performance based earthquake engineering; PBEE-
2, second generation performance based earthquake engineering; PDF, probability density function; PFMA, potential failure mode analysis; PGA, peak ground acceleration;
PGAH, Horizontal peak ground acceleration; PGV, peak ground velocity; PMF, potential maximum floods; PSA, pseudo-spectral acceleration; PSDA, probabilistic seismic
demand analysis; PSHA, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; RV, random variable; S, serviceability; SED, specific energy density; SIL, seismic intensity level; SSA, single
stripe analysis; SSE, sum of squared error; UHS, uniform hazard spectrum; V, vertical.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: saouma@colorado.edu (V.E. Saouma).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.09.034
0141-0296/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399 375
Nomenclature
2. Fundamentals
Fig. 1. Geographical distribution of hazardous dams in the US [4]. 2.1. Next generation performance based earthquake engineering
Facility
Site hazard Structural response Damage response Loss response
definition D is OK?
IM (im) EDP (edp) DM (dm) DV (dv)
D
Narrow-range Analyses
Overall Capability
Moderate Single-stripe Analysis Very Good minor damage, moderate and collapse. Those in turn are assessed
Moderate Very Good
Moderate
Double-stripe Analysis
Very Good from either EDP such as stresses, drifts, or from damage index
Cloud Analysis
(DI) such as crack length ratio or plastic deformations. IMs in turn
Nonlinear Static Analysis
Moderate
Moderate Displacement Ductility Method
Very Good
Very Good
are not limited to the usual PGA, as they may include Sa T, specific
Low
Pushover Analysis
Very Good
energy density (SED) or Arias intensities (IA). Hence, fragility is
Nonlinear Time-History Analysis defined as [20]:
Deterministic Analysis
Low Good
Linear Time-History Analysis
Low
Response Spectrum Method
Moderate Fragility PLSjIM im 3
Low Moderate
Equivalent Lateral Force Method
Low Low where P AjB is the conditional probability that A is true given that B
Seismic Coefficient Method
is true, and im refers to a specific value of IM.
Alternatively, fragility can be defined as [21]:
Fig. 4. Progressive analysis methodology for concrete dams [18].
Cumulative probability
X NT 0.8
Aacc atT p
X acc t eaT p
e|{z} cos xn t /n 6
k0 n1
ht 0.6
Uniform Random Variable 1 Uniform Random Variable 1 ground motion record-to-record variability) uncertainties.
Fig. 7 illustrates two of these methods and the difference:
...
...
...
1 2
Two major assumptions in Eq. (14) are: (1) two sources of uncer- LS2: Foundation material compressive failure at the toe: (1) a
tainties are independent, and (2) the uncertainty only propa- plastic strains of 104 is assumed to be the onset of nonlinearity
gates on the dispersion, b, while the median is kept constant. around the toe, and (2) a plastic strains of 103 dominates the
Note that some recent studies have shown that the epistemic nonlinearity of the foundation.
uncertainty not only increases dispersion but also affects the LS3: Sliding at the dam-foundation interface: (1) slippage of
median response [43,44]. 3 mm is considered to be the onset of sliding, (2) slippage of
13 mm may affects the performance of the drainage system,
The Bluestone dam in West Virginia [45], US was selected as
and (3) slippage of 152 mm may cause differential movements
case study. The height of the non-overflow section is 53 m and
between adjacent monoliths.
the overall crest length is 629 m. The dam consists of rigid blocks
LS4: Deflection at the crest with respect to the heel: two values
situated side-by-side and the shear transfer between them occurs
are considered 8 and 15 mm which are correspond to 0.014%
by friction. The dam is originally designed for 0.1 g horizontal
and 0.028% of the dam height, respectively.
and vertical accelerations. Commercial finite element program
[46] is used for all the simulations. Dam-foundation interface is
Fig. 8 shows the fragility curves at different LSs. The curves are
modeled by a perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb friction law. The
based on log-normal CDF, Eq. (9). However, it is important to note
contact surface is allowed to have elastic slip (0.005 in). The
that the b includes both uncertainty types. It is apparent that LS1
recorded free-field ground motions are de-convolueded before
and LS2 are less likely to occur than LS3 and LS4.
they are applied to the base of the foundation. The uplift pressure
is modeled by piecewise linear distribution: heel to drain, drain to
toe. A simplified two-parameter Darbres model (nodal masses in 3.3. Lin and Adams (20072008) [47]
series with dampers) is used for fluid-structure interaction (FSI).
The uncertainties are: The authors presented a set of empirical seismic fragility curves
for concrete dams located in eastern and western Canada [47] [48]
Uniform distribution: drain effectiveness, grout curtain effec- based on [25] (which is originally focused on the damage probabil-
tiveness, tail water elevation, effective uplift area, angle of fric- ities for California). Damage probabilities are expressed in terms of
tion, cohesion, dilation angle of foundation, mass and stiffness a mean DPM. It describes the probability of the facility having a
proportional Rayleigh damping. certain damage state (DS) at a given ground shaking intensity (in
Normal distribution: compressive strength of concrete. term of Modified Mercalli Intensities - MMI), Table 1.
Random Earthquake ground motions: 12 records (based on seis- Given the similarity of design codes, construction methods, and
mic hazard analysis). seismic conditions between California and western Canada, [25]s
DPM is applied. Then, the fragility curves are derived by fitting
A total of N sim 12 samples are drawn based on LHS. Each one the optimal log-normal CDF to discrete points of DPM in Table 1.
is analyzed by one of the 12 selected ground motions at six differ- Fig. 9 illustrates the relation between a group of fragility curves
ent SILs, this leads to totally 72 simulations, Method (I) in Fig. 7. (with three DSs) and a column of DPM for intensity im [49]. Finally,
The intensity levels correspond to the spectral accelerations of the IM parameter is converted from MMI to PGA [50]. The resulting
0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, and 1.2 g. Four LSs, are considered as: fragility curves for western Canada are shown in Fig. 10(a).
Characteristics of the seismic motions in eastern Canada are dif-
LS1: Cracking of the neck: if the tensile stress at the neck ferent from the western one. Thus, the previously derived fragility
exceeds the desired tensile strength. Sa 0:2
curves must be modified. This is achieved through the PGA
ratio,
1 1
LS1: Tensile cracking LS3: Sliding > 0.1 in
Limit state probability
Limit state probability
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Sa(T1) [g] Sa(T1) [g]
Fig. 8. Seismic fragility curves with four LSs (adapted from [37]).
Table 1
Damage probability matrix for concrete dams (adapted from [25]).
1 1
Damage state probability
0.8 0.8
East
0.6 0.6
West
0.4 0.4
Slight
Light Old
0.2 0.2 Standard
Moderate
Heavy New
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
PGA [g] PGA [g]
Fig. 10. Empirical seismic fragility curves for different DSs, locations and construction ages (adapted from [47]).
382 M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399
LS2: original
tensile normal stress, rt , at specific node(s) based on: rt;D > rt;C .
LS2: best logN
0.6 Two options are considered:
Single node (also called as series arrangement): which corre-
0.4
sponds to onset of cracking.
Group of nodes on a straight horizontal line (also called par-
allel arrangement): in which the LS is exceeded if this length
0.2
is reached to one third of the dam width at each specific
elevation.
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Sliding at the base which is governed by tangential stress, s, at
PGA [g] specific node(s) based on: sD > sC . Both the above mentioned
conditions should be checked.
Fig. 11. Seismic fragility curves with two LSs (adapted from [51]). Cracking at the upstream face. Identical procedure as for crack-
ing of base/neck.
other random structural properties are kept constant at their mean Two basic RVs, two others for external actions, and two error
value. On the other hand, the uncertainty in the demand due to terms were used, Table 2.
structural parameters, x, is approximated by a linear expansion Ten ground motions (scaled from 0.1 to 0.9 g) and three water
of the demand vector with respect to mean of x: levels (HW 31, 36 and 41 m) were considered. First, the transient
X@Di x; y; t
analyses are performed at PGA = 0.1 g (as a base SIL). Then, assum-
; y; t
Di x; y; t Di x
xj xj 17 ing a linear behavior, the dam response at higher seismic levels are
@x
1 1
System
Probability of failure
Probability of failure
Drift deformation
0.8 Base cracking 0.8
Base sliding With Struc. Uncer.
0.6 US face cracking 0.6
Neck cracking
0.4 0.4
Without
Struc. Uncer.
0.2 0.2
0 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g]
(a) Parallel arrangement for components (b) Series arrangement for components
Table 3
Maximum joint sliding/opening at different SILs (in mm) [54].
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
1.5 0 1.5 0
1 1
0.5 50 0.5 50
0 100 0 100
IM edp IM edp
Fig. 13. Seismic fragility surfaces for joint response based on raw data from [54].
where g and b are median and the logarithmic standard deviation of Select n ground motion records.
the EDP conditioned on the IM. Assuming a range of edp (not spec- Determine the acceleration response spectra of the selected
ified by the authors) one can determine a fragility surface, Fig. 13, ground motions (Sa vs. T).
from which it is noted that the probability of exceedance of a speci- Analyze the dam under a unit impulse with the magnitude 1
fic im is higher for joint sliding than for opening (mostly at smaller [m/s2] (the dam with a full reservoir is considered and effects
edp values). of static loads are excluded).
Compute the horizontal crest displacement response in the
angular frequency domain using fast Fourier transform (FFT)
3.7. Ycel and Bichini (2013) [59] of the calculated time domain response.
Convert the displacement response to acceleration using
A set of parametric linear elastic analyses of a typical gravity x2 u.
u
dam are conducted and analytical fragility curves computed. 2D Determine the fundamental angular frequency from the first
finite element models were analyzed by the EAGD-84 finite ele- peak and convert it to the vibration period using T 1 x
2p
.
1
ment code [60]. The parametric values are:
Determine the spectral acceleration of n ground motion at the
computed vibration period, Sna T 1 .
Dam height (Hd ): 50, 75, 100, 125 and 150 m.
Perform linear elastic dynamic analyses of the system for n
Downstream face slope (mDS ): 0.70, 0.85 and 1.00.
selected ground motions.
Ratio of elasticity modulus in Concrete to rock (EEc ): 0.02, 1.00
f Extract the response, Respi , corresponds to ground motion i at
and 2.00. the spectral level Sia T 1 . Considering that the system behaves
Concrete tensile strength (f t ): 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0. linearly, find the results for any other spectral level j using
j
S T
Thus, a total of 5 3 3 3 = 135 different finite element Respj Sia T 1 Respi .
a 1
models are generated. In all cases the reservoir is assumed to be Determine the probability of observing visible damage as a
full and the foundation is massless. The following procedure was ratio of number of failed cases to total. The author of the thesis
used to generate fragility curves: did not mention what is the exact definition of the visible
384 M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399
Fig. 14. Seismic fragility curve for a dam with Hd 50 m (adapted from [59]).
Probability of exceedance
capacity ratio (DCR) or cumulative inelastic duration (CID); Medium
0.8
Serious
however, again, the quantitative threshold is not clear. Collapse
Fit a Weibull distribution to the empirical data points: 0.6
Sa j
Pf 1 e k 21 0.4
Both the uncertainties in ground motion record and concrete 3.9. Abdelhamid et al. (2013) [62]
material are considered using MCS. However, no details about
the number of ground motions, SIL, type of distributional models Both the aleatory and epistemic uncertainties are considered
for RVs (modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio and concrete damp- simultaneously. The methodology proposed by [37] is adapted to
ing) are given. A 296 m high arch dam is analyzed though a 3D derive the seismic fragility curves of an old gravity dam. A 2D
finite element model with nonlinear concrete model. Considered model is used, concrete is linear elastic, dam-rock interface gov-
loads are: hydrostatic pressure, silt, temperature drop, and seismic erned by Coulombs friction law. The foundation material is
assumed to be a Mohr-Coulomb with the perfectly plastic nonlin-
Table 4
ear behavior. Ground motion is applied at the foundation bottom
Damage state for arch dams [61]. through a deconvolution. LHS is used for sampling of the six uncor-
related RVs:
Level State Description
I No damage The dam remains intact after earthquake with only minor Uniform distribution: angle of friction; cohesion; dilation angle
cracks or spalling of concrete at un-important local areas
which do not affect the functionality of dam
of foundation; elasticity modulus of concrete; and Youngs
II Minor Localized surface cracks occur, the crack lengths are small modulus of soil.
damage and do not daylight. The dam can be restore to its normal Normal distribution: compressive strength of concrete.
functionality after minor repair
III Medium Aside from localized surface cracks, localized penetrating
Four LSs are defined and three threshold (or performance mea-
damage cracks occur at the dam abutment or near the crest. The
dam can restore the normal functionality with medium sures) are assigned to each one:
repair
IV Serious Penetrating cracks propagate in a vast area in vicinity of LS1: Tensile stress at the neck; thresholds: 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 MPa.
damage abutment and the crest. Cracking is extensive and LS2: Sliding at the dam-foundation interface; thresholds: 5, 10
seriously affect the impounding of the water. Repairing is
difficult
and 20 mm.
V Collapse Cracks extend over 2/3 of the dam with penetrating cracks LS3: Crest relative horizontal displacement to heel; thresholds:
from crest to abutments or even bottom of the dam. The 5, 20 and 40 mm.
dam is collapsed and reservoir water is released LS4: Compressive stress at the dam heel; thresholds: 1, 3 and
6 MPa.
M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399 385
1 1
Probability of exceedance
Probability of exceedance
0.8 0.8
LS4 LS1
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
LS3 LS2
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PSA [g] PSA [g]
On the other hand, six near-fault ground motions are selected Probability of exceeding each LS (denoted as failure in the orig-
and scaled based on pseudo-spectral acceleration (PSA) from 0.2 inal paper) at different SILs are computed and a log-normal CDF is
to 2.0 g with the increment of 0.2. Thus, a total of 60 nonlinear fitted to the empirical data points. The resulted fragility curves are
transient analyses are performed. The resulting fragility curves shown in Fig. 17. As seen, for most LSs, the near-field ground
are shown in Fig. 16. motions lead to higher probability of failure. Also, comparing the
LSs of the weir (i.e. LS1 and LS2) with those for concrete block
(i.e. LS3 and LS4) show that the failure probability of concrete block
3.10. Ju and Jung (2015) [63]
is higher.
LS4 Farfield
LS5 ulus, rock cohesion, and rock angle of friction. Except for the last
0.6
Nearfield two RVs, log-normal distribution is assumed. A logic tree analysis
is performed to determine the cumulative distributions of the
0.4
cohesion and friction angle (this method and the corresponding
values were not explained in the original paper).
0.2
For the time history analysis, method (I) in Fig. 7 with 30 three-
component ground motions (n) was used with an initial point
0 PGAH = 0.85 g (capacity of the system from deterministic analysis).
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PGA [g] Subsequently, two higher intensities 0.95 and 1.10 g and five lower
intensities 0.75, 0.675, 0.60, 0.52, and 0.3872 g were selected. A
Fig. 17. Seismic fragility curves of the weir structure (adapted from [63]). total of 240 nonlinear analyses (k = 8 SILs and 30 trails for each)
386 M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399
1 1
Probability of failure
Probability of sliding
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Base joint
Lift joint
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
H
PGA [g] PGA [g]
(a) Adapted from [64] (b) Adapted from [66]
1
Probability of sliding failure
0.8
0.6
0.4
Dam (Composite)
Dam (RTR)
0.2
Pier (Composite)
Pier (RTR)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
PGA [g]
(c) Adapted from [67]
Fig. 18. Seismic fragility curves for gravity dams (Ghanaat et al. series).
should have been performed. Given the computational cost of such 3.11.3. Ghanaat et al. (2015) [67]
an endeavor, analyses were terminated when the first convergence In this paper, the authors applied a similar procedure to the
failure (i.e. collapse) occurred, and the concept of possible resur- 332 ft reinforced concrete overflow section of the previous exam-
rection [16,65] at a higher intensity discarded. Though this ple [66]. A detailed 3D finite element model is used with only
approach greatly reduced the computational efforts, starting with the overflow section being nonlinear, and joint elements were
a relatively high initial PGAH only collapse fragility curves are applied at the base of the dam.
derived. Thirty ground motions are selected and scaled to five SILs (0.2,
i
Discrete Pif for each intensity (im ) were first determined 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, and 0.8 g). Each analysis is performed twice: with and
D i i1 E without the following epistemic RVs:
through a moving average approach im im 2
; P if . A log-normal
CDF is then fitted through the data points using least-square Concrete: elastic modulus (Log-normal), compressive strength
approach, Fig. 18(a). It would have been better if additional SILs (Log-normal), tensile strength (Log-normal), maximum aggre-
were considered beyond 1.1 g so as the discrete analyses would gate size (Log-normal).
yield probabilities of failure close to unity. Dam-foundation joint: rock modulus (Log-normal), tensile
strength (Log-normal), cohesion (Triangular), friction angle
(Triangular).
3.11.2. Ghanaat et al. (2012) [66]
Pier reinforcing steel: yield strength (Triangular), Strain-
The previous method was simplified by: (1) reducing the num-
hardening slope (Log-normal), rapture strain (Log-normal).
ber of trials from 30 to 10, (2) ground motions are scaled from 0.05
Others: Drain efficiency (Triangular), damping (Log-normal)
to 1.10 g and also are modified by directionality factors to account
for variability of horizontal and vertical components of the earth-
Simultaneous allocation of the RVs (Method I, Fig. 7) was used,
quake, and (3) using a Weibull distribution (Eq. (21)) in lieu of
and results fitted through a log-normal CDF. Fig. 18(c) shows the
the log-normal one [64]. Then this modified approach was applied
sliding probability with/without epistemic uncertainties. This
again to the tallest non-overflow section of a gravity dam (geomet-
example highlighted the importance of the material uncertainty
rically similar to the Folsom Dam) 336.50 ft high and 50 ft wide. A
on the seismic fragility curves.
constrained (in the cross-stream direction) 3D model was used,
dam-reservoir-foundation modeled as in the previous paper, and
3.12. kadkhodayan et al. (2016) [68]
again the nonlinearity stems from horizontal joint at the dam-
foundation interface and an upper lift joint at the neck.
A nonlinear (induced solely by the contraction joints) analysis
RVs for concrete are: elastic modulus, damping and for rock is
with IDA was performed while the DI was the percentage of over-
simply elastic modulus. For the base and lift joints the RVs are: ten-
sile strength, friction angle, cohesion; and finally drain efficiency. stressed area (A%
OS ) (originally proposed by [69]) on dam faces
Fig. 18(b) shows the probability of sliding based on two failure (upstream and downstream separately considered). Evolution of
modes, i.e. local and global. For the lower seismic intensities, slid- A%
OS vs. IM parameter is explained in Fig. 19. This approach yields
ing probability of the base joint is higher than upper lift joint and a brittle response, in that damage is not incrementally captured
vice versa. for IM < im1 and IM > im2 (as would be the case for a displacement
M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399 387
Fig. 19. Evolution of the overstressed area on dam face under increasing IM.
based one). This problem may not be the best criterion for an IDA, were used and three potential IMs considered: PGA, PGV and
but would be better suited for a MSA [70]. Sa T 1 . On the other hand, three performance levels were iden-
Surprisingly, rather than adopting the usual logarithmic model tified and quantified based on the 5th order regression model,
[71] or cubic polynomial splines [57] for the regression analysis Table 5.
(IM in terms of A%
OS ), a 5th order polynomial equation is used. Such
The potential error in using a normal distribution for fragility
an unusual choice should have been first assessed by Akaike infor- curves is highlighted in Fig. 20 where a non-zero probability of
mation criterion (AIC) [72]. This criterion rewards goodness-of- exceedance at zero IM (e.g. for PGV) is clearly evidenced. This
fitting and penalizes spurious parameters [70]. handicap could be easily alleviated by adoption of a log-normal
A 203 m high arch dam was selected as case study and a distribution model.
3D finite element model of the dam-foundation-reservoir sys- The choice of LS may have also resulted in another idiosyncrasy:
tem was developed [73] while nonlinearity was limited to con- the intersection of two fragility curves. This is not unusual, and was
traction and peripheral joints. Foundation is massless and first reported by [34] who proposed two methods to address it,
linear elastic. Nine three-component ground motion record Fig. 21:
Table 5
Limit state definition for arch dams in [68].
1 1
Limit state probability
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
LS1: S LS1: S
0.2 0.2
LS2: DC LS2: DC
LS3: CP LS3: CP
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100
PGA [g] PGV [m/s]
Fig. 20. Seismic fragility curve for dam upstream face (adapted from [68]).
Fig. 21. Crossing fragility functions and their modifications (adapted from [34]).
388 M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399
Method (1): For any two log-normal fragility functions i and j Nonlinear analysis: displacements; joint opening damage index
with medians gj > gi and logarithmic standard deviations - DIopening max dopening ; joint sliding damage index -
bi bj which are crossing, Eq. (9) can be replaced with
8 0 19 DIsliding max dsliding ; crack-based damage index -
< ln x=gj =
DIcracking AACT (ratio of the cracked to total area).
Pi LSjX x max U@ A for all j P i 22
j : bj ;
A 203.5 m high arch dam was selected as a case study, the
Method (2): Select only fragility function i and modify its mean model accounted for dam, pressure based reservoir model, mass-
and dispersion: less foundation and analysis performed with [73]. In the nonlinear
analyses, rotating smeared cracks and Mohr-Coulomb based joint
1X N
elements were used. However, the material (epistemic) uncer-
bi 0 b for all i
N i1 i 23 tainty was neglected.
0 The purpose of the linear analysis was to assess the need for a
gi 0 exp 1:28b bi ln gi
nonlinear analysis at a given SIL [74,69]. Proposed criteria for the
limit of acceptability are shown in Table 6 for different dams.
3.13. Hariri-Ardebili and Saouma Series (20152016) Fig. 22(a) illustrates the probability of exceedance of the linear
analysis threshold for three indices (CID = 0.4 s; and DSDR = 20%).
Using an as much comprehensive approach as possible (in Clearly, nonlinear analyses are needed for intensities higher than
terms of nonlinear analysis and probabilistic methods) the authors 0.45 g. The spread of the fragility curves can be explained by the
have developed modern fragility curves/surfaces for concrete dams different spatial coverage of the CID (local) and DSDR (global).
in this series of publications. In Fig. 22(b) results of linear (DSDR) and nonlinear (DIcracking ) are
contrasted for SIL-3. Considering that only nine analyses were per-
3.13.1. Hariri-Ardebili et al. (2015) [70] formed for the SIL-3 stripe, and that many more are needed to
For the first time, MSA was used for concrete dams by the develop a fragility curve, the approach proposed by [75] was pur-
authors. The ground motion record-to-record variability was based sued. This method uses the original limited set of analysis to gen-
on m 3 SILs (DBL: design base level, MDL: maximum design erate multiple EDPs (N sim > 1000) such that the two sets have
level, and intermediary ones) and n 9 ground motion for each identical moments. Based on the original and generated data sets,
resulting in 27 nonlinear transient analyses. For comparison pur- a log-normal CDF was fitted. It is apparent that the two fragility
poses another set of 27 linear elastic analyses were also performed. curves (linear and nonlinear) are nearly identical (since their stan-
Fragility curves for both sets were derived and compared. The fol- dard deviations were originally identical) but one is shifted with
lowing were extracted from each analysis: respect to the other. Hence, one can conclude that for this particu-
lar dam a gross approximation of the nonlinear fragility curve may
Linear elastic analysis: stress; strain; displacements; demand be estimated from the one based on linear analysis by simply
capacity ratio, DCR frt ; cumulative inelastic duration (CID) that dividing the mean value of DSDRrby 2.
is the total duration of stress or strain excursions beyond a
threshold value associated with a DCR; cumulative inelastic
3.13.2. Hariri-Ardebili and Saouma (2016-a) [76]
area (CIA) that is the integral of stress time history for a given
To the best of the authors knowledge this was the first applica-
DCR; Damage spatial distribution ratio (DSDR), ratio of the over-
tion of CLA to the probabilistic analysis of concrete dams. CLA
stressed region to total dam area for a given DCR.
method is particular applicable in the context of such analysis
because the discrete data points are linear in the logarithmic scale
Table 6
Proposed index criteria for linear analysis. [71,77,78]:
1
1
0.9
Probability of Exceedance
Probability of Exceedance
CID
0.8
0.8 DSDR
0.7
DSDR
0.6 0.6
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3
0.2 0.2
Cracked area
0.1
Overstressed area
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PGA [g] Damage measure parameter [%]
Fig. 22. Seismic fragility curve for an arch dam (adapted from [70]).
M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399 389
(which did not account for lack of convergence, i.e. failure) was the increments, failure may not be properly captured. The
modified by [21] as follows: approach followed in this paper is different. First a ground motion
is properly selected, then scaled to 1.0 g, and then it is this refer-
P EDP P edp j IM P EDP P edp j IM; NLg:1 P Lg j IM ence scaled record which is incrementally multiplied by small
P Lg j IM 25 increments until failure occurs. However, to capture possible res-
urrection [16] an additional analysis is performed. It is believed
where P Lg j IM is the probability of having very large (Lg) EDP for that this fine-grained approach would yield more accurate results.
a given IM. In addition, P EDP P edp j IM; NLg is the fragility func- Two types of ground motion combinations are considered: hor-
tion given no very large (NLg) EDP and IM parameter. izontal only, horizontal and vertical. Furthermore, for each case
The reported study analyzed the tallest non-overflow monolith two loading scenarios are further considered: full and empty reser-
of a 122 m high gravity dam using Merlin [79]. 2D mesh of the dam voirs. Finally, each one of these four cases is subjected to 21 site-
and foundation was provided while the only source of nonlinearity specific actual ground motions scaled by 14 SILs resulting in a
being the interface between the two [80]. It is noteworthy that potential total of 4 21 14 1176 analyses. However, in many
beside gravity and hydrostatic loads, the uplift pressure is auto- cases failure did occur prior to the 13th SIL, and fewer analyses
matically adjusted in terms of crack length. had been performed. For each of the four cases a log-normal CDF
The aleatory uncertainty included by ground motion record-to- is fitted through the discrete data points to determine g ^
^ and b.
record variability only, and the epistemic one ignored. A large
number of ground motions (n 100) was selected using a Method of moments (MOM) where the functional relationship
Matlab-based code [81]. Fragility curves and surfaces were derived and the discrete data points have same moments.
using 70 different IMs and the optimal one was then identified. The Sum of squared error (SSE) based on the minimization of the
optimal ones, as defined by [22], were found to be: (1) structure- sum of the squared errors between functional relationship
dependent spectral IMs (i.e. Sa T 1 ; Sv T 1 and Sd T 1 ), (2) ground and discrete data points.
motion-dependent scalar IM (i.e. PGA and PGV), and (3) Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) based on the to maxi-
structure-independent spectral IMs (i.e. ASI and EPA) are the best mization of the likelihood function [28].
IMs. However, from a practical and proficiency point of view
[22], the combined acceleration response spectra including the Based on the evaluation procedure suggested by [83], the worst
effective mass, Sa1toN , is the best. fit turned out to be the one based on the simplest method, i.e. MM.
Fig. 23(a) shows the fragility curves for joint opening and slid- On the other hand, the other two approaches (i.e. SSE and MLE)
ing at the dam-rock interface for three different LSs: 2 mm (initia- lead to nearly identical. Fig. 24(a) shows the probability of collapse
tion of opening/sliding), 5 mm (propagation of the opening/ for the four cases. As seen, H + V scenario increases PCjIM with
sliding), and 8 mm (near collapse condition). In all cases, joint slid- respect to H only case. Also, probability of collapse for the full
ing has the highest probability of exceedance. As the LS increases, reservoir is higher than the empty one. Though intuitive, these
the differences between those two fragility curves diminishes. analysis not only confirmed the expectations but also quantified
In so far all the fragility curves are derived for a finite values of them.
the EDP (such as sliding of 3, 5 and 8 mm). However, this can be Whereas most fragility curves are expressed in terms of IMs
generalized for continuous values of EDPs and a fragility surface (specific to a site and a structure), it is preferable to express them
could then be generated, Fig. 23(b). The more challenging problem in terms of EDPs. The advantage being twofolds: (1) curve is less
of developing a fragility curve in terms of two IMs was reported by site specific, and more generic thus potentially applicable to other
[82]. similar structures; and (2) it ties with the PBEE paradigm, Fig. 3.
This is illustrated in Fig. 24(b) where the EDP in this case corre-
sponds to the crest horizontal displacement and the LS have been
3.13.3. Hariri-Ardebili and Saouma (2016-b) [65]
smoothed.
IDA for collapse fragility curves was applied for the first time to
concrete dams. The finite element model, similar to a previous one
[76], with the difference that beside joint nonlinearity, concrete 3.13.4. Hariri-Ardebili and Saouma (2016-c) [84]
nonlinearity is also accounted for through smeared crack model. To the best of the authors knowledge, ETA was for the first time
A word of caution: IDA has been interpreted by some used to derive fragility curves. Since a single ETAF is used, there is
[37,64,66,67] as a preset number of amplifiers of a given earth- no record-to-record variability and thus fragility curves with alea-
quake record, and then analyses are performed on the basis of each tory uncertainty can not be determined. Hence, fragility curves for
one of them. Should failure occur prior to the last one, analyses are epistemic (material/modeling) uncertainty only can be computed.
terminated, on the other hand given the coarse grained nature of The procedure is simple:
1
P[EDP edp|IM]
1
P[EDP edp|IM]
0.8
0.6
Opening = 2 mm 0.5
0.4 Opening = 5 mm
Opening = 8 mm
Sliding = 2 mm 0
0.2 Sliding = 5 mm 0.4 0
Sliding = 8 mm 0.01
0 0.2 0.02
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.03
IM edp
Sa(T1) [g]
Fig. 23. CLA-based seismic fragility curve and surface for a gravity dam (adapted from [76]).
390 M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399
Probability of collapse
H only (H)
0.8 H + V (H)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
PGA [g]
Fig. 24. IDA-based seismic fragility curves and surface for a gravity dam (adapted from [65]).
Develop the structural model, select the random variables (with Eq. (14) to obtain a global comprehensive fragility model (Method
possible correlations), and the ETAF. III in page 10), Fig. 25(b).
Select the sampling procedure, i.e. MCS, LHS.
Prepare n inputs for analysis. 3.14. Bernier et al. Series (20152016)
Perform nonlinear analysis of the n models up to failure.
Define appropriate DIs and LSs and extract the fragility curves. 3.14.1. Bernier et al. (2015) [85,86]
The case study is again similar to the previous ones (2D gravity Fragility curves based on 3D finite element analyses of a 78 m
dam). The nonlinearity is originated only from zero-thickness gravity dam-foundation-reservoir system are developed following
interface joint element between the dam and foundation. Random LS-DYNA analyses where cross-canyon displacements are
variables associated with the joint, concrete and rock are listed as restrained. Nonlinearity stems from horizontal joints at dam-
follows: foundation interface and a single lift joint at the neck. Non-
reflecting boundary conditions are applied at the far-end of the
Interface joint [80]: tangential stiffness, normal stiffness, tensile massed foundation and reservoir is modeled using displacement-
strength, cohesion, friction angle, dilatancy angle, specific mode based fluid elements (Lagrangian formulation). Finally, uplift pres-
I fracture energy, and specific mode II fracture energy. sure is modeled by a bilinear distribution and is kept constant dur-
Concrete and rock: concrete modulus of elasticity and Poissons ing the analysis.
ratio, foundation modulus of elasticity. Many synthetic ground motion records were first generated,
and ultimately only 20 were retained: those with smallest sum
In all cases a truncated ([0.5, 1.5] times the mean) normal dis- of squared errors with respect to the National Building Code of
tributional assigned to the RVs. Mean values are based on engi- Canada. Vertical components were also applied by simply scaling
neering judgment, and COV were arbitrarily set at 1020%. LHS the corresponding horizontal ones by a random factor between
was used with 100 simultaneous samples. Two cases were consid- [0.5, 0.8]. Material uncertainties were assigned only to the inter-
ered with and without correlation resulting in a total 200 ETA faces (uniform distribution): cohesion, tensile strength, and angle
based simulations. Finally, fragility curves were develop based on of friction. Finally, the damping ratio was also a RV with log-
log-normal CDF assumption and MLE approach is used for curve normal distribution.
fitting. Fig. 25(a) shows the fragility curves with correlated epis- Using method I (Fig. 7) LHS was adopted and each of those 20
simulations were performed for first mode spectral accelerations
temic uncertainties, the corresponding DI is LLCT and the four selected
at intensities of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, and 1.1 g. Thus, a total
bCorr
LSs are 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and 0.99. For the uncorrelated RVs bUncorr
varies of 20 8 = 160 simulations were performed.
from 0.85 to 0.94 for different LSs implying that whenever possible Two LSs were considered: sliding at the concrete-to-rock inter-
correlations should be used. face and sliding at the concrete lift joint. Four damage levels,
Finally, the epistemic uncertainty bMM was combined with the adapted from [37], were used with the following damage thresh-
record-to-record variability bRTR , determined from IDA [65] using olds, Fig. 26(a):
1 1
Probability of collapse
0.8 0.8
P[DI LS | IM]
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
LS = 0.10
LS = 0.30 0.2
RTR Uncert.
0.2 LS = 0.60 RTR+Mat.(COV=0.1) Uncert.
RTR+Mat.(COV=0.2) Uncert.
LS = 0.99 0
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
PGA [g] S (T ) [g]
a 1
Fig. 25. ETA-based seismic fragility curves with epistemic uncertainty for a gravity dam (adapted from [84]).
M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399 391
Fig. 26. Seismic fragility curve for a gravity dam (adapted from [85,87]).
Minor or slight damage: incipient sliding. foundation-reservoir model using LHS. Probabilistic seismic hazard
Moderate damage: 25 mm sliding (moderate damage to the analyses are performed for 7 SILs (stripes) associated with Sa T 1
drain system with an increase of the uplift pressure). values of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 g (which corresponds
Severe (extensive) damage: 50 mm sliding (inefficiency of to return period ranges of 35020,000 years). In each level, 20
drains due to severe damage). ground motions are selected, and conditional spectrum (CS) is used
Major damage: 150 mm at the base or 100 mm at the neck instead of the uniform hazard spectrum (UHS). CS represents the
(causing unacceptable differential movements between the expected (mean and variability) response spectrum that has a
adjacent monoliths and loss of reservoir control). specified spectral acceleration at a conditioning period, T 1 in this
case. For any Sa T 1 , each of the 20 samples of the dam-reservoir-
Three types of distributional models, e.g. normal, log-normal foundation model is randomly paired with one of the 20 sets of
and Weibull were used on the raw data based on two fitting meth- horizontal and vertical ground motions selected with the CS
ods: SSE and MLE. Results indicted that SSE-based fitting with log- method for the same Sa T 1 .
normal model was the most suitable one. Finally, a log-normal CDF is used for fitting the discrete data
Also investigated was the variability of the RVs which arises points with the MLE. Fig. 26(c) shows the fragility curves for the
from the heterogeneity of the concrete, rock materials and con- base and neck sliding using MSA. All analyses were subsequently
struction methods. Only the spatial variation of the angle of friction repeated using IDA (selecting one set of ground motions based
in concrete-rock interfaces was scrutinized. Random field theory on UHS and incremental scale factors). Resulting fragility curves
was used to represent the spatial variability and correlation of a for four LSs with and without material/modeling uncertainty are
parameter within the system. An auto-covariance function similar contrasted, Fig. 26(d). A sample comparison for the incipiency of
to Eq. (8) was used. The correlation length for the dam-foundation sliding at the dam-foundation interface. It was determined that
interface was assumed to be equal to base length, half and quarter the median and dispersion parameters of the curves are signifi-
of base length; while for the lift joint at the neck, it is neck length cantly higher using MSA, as this will result in lower probability
and half of it. Fig. 26(b) shows the impact of spatially variation of of exceedance for identical Sa T 1 . Finally, it was shown that the
the angle of friction only on the fragility curves. It is clear that uncertainty related to material/modeling becomes less significant
the effect of spatial variation of angle of friction is minimal for when using the CS method and the fragility curves could be rea-
the three lower damage levels, while a slight difference can be seen sonably estimated by considering the RTR variability as the only
for the most severe one. source of uncertainty.
3.14.2. Bernier et al. (2016) [87] 3.15. Ansari and Agarwal (2016) [88]
Repeating the previous investigations, the authors in here
applied the MSA method. Uncertainties are propagated by again Ignoring material/modeling uncertainties and accounting for
generating 20 statistically significant samples of the dam- only 17 records (horizontal components only), this reported
392 M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399
As mentioned in the introduction, Section 1, fragility curves This study sought to better understand and contrast the various
play an essential role in the modern probabilistic risk assessment seismic fragility analyses of concrete dams. Despite the review of
of engineering structures. This is further explained with reference over twenty publications, this is still a nascent research field. As
to Fig. 29. More specifically: such, prior to further growth, it is important to cross-correlate
Site and Dam Characteristics Determine Dam Site Seismicity them. These findings are best summarized in the following three
Map, examine the dam (Physical Model), select Instrumentation, Tables 79.
1 1
Probability of exceedance
Probability of exceedance
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
Slight Slight
Moderate Moderate
0.2 0.2 Extensive
Extensive
Severe Severe
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PGA [g] Crest displacement [m]
Fig. 28. Seismic fragility curve for a gravity dam (adapted from [88]).
M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399 393
395
396
Table 9
Summary of the fragility analysis of concrete dams: Part III.
Table A.10
Concrete dams shaken by significant earthquake (adapted from [92]).
ID Dam (completed) Type Height (m) Crest (m) Earthquake (date) R (km) Mag. PHGA (g) Notes
1 Lower Crystal Gravity 47 183 San Francisco (Apr 18, 0.4 8.3 0.520.68 (Est.) Not the slightest crack
Springs (1890) 1906)
2 Koyna (1963) Gravity 103 807 Koynanagar (Dec 11, 3.0 6.5 0.5 Cracks in both faces
1967)
3 Williams (1895) Gravity 21 27 Loma Prieta (Oct 17, 9.7 7.1 0.60 (Est.) No damage
1989)
4 Bear Valley (1912, Gravity 28 110 Big Bear (Jun 29, 1992) 14.5 6.6 0.57 No structural damage
1988)
5 Shih Kang (1977) Gravity 21.4 357 Chi Chi (Sep 21, 1999) 0 7.6 0.51 Vertical displ. of 9 m, concrete
rapture
6 Mingtan (1990) Gravity 82 Chi Chi (Sep 21, 1999) 12 7.6 0.40.5 (Est.) No damage
7 Kasho (1989) Gravity 46.4 174 Western Tottori (Oct 6, 38 7.3 0.54 Cracks in control building
2000)
8 Takou (2007) Gravity 77 322 Tohoku (Mar 11, 2011) 109 9.0 0.38 Cracking of gatehouse
9 Miyatoko (1993) Gravity 157 Tohoku (Mar 11, 2011) 135 9.0 0.32 No damage
10 Gibraltar (1920) Arch 52 183 Santa Barbara (Jun 29, 6.3 >0.3 (Est.) No damage
1925)
11 Pacoima (1929) Arch 113 180 San Fernando (Feb 9, 5 6.6 0.60.8 (Est.) Joint opening near thrust block
1971)
Northridge (Jan 17, 18 6.8 0.53 2 Joint opening between arch
1994) and thrust block
12 Ambiesta (1956) Arch 59 145 Gemona-Friuli (May 6, 20 6.5 0.36 (abutment) No damage
1976)
13 Rapel (1968) Arch 111 270 Santiago (Mar 3, 1985) 45 7.8 0.31 Damage to spillway and intake
tower, cracked pavement
Maule (Feb 27, 2010) 232 8.8 0.302
14 Techi (1974) Arch 185 290 Chi-Chi (Sep 21, 1999) 85 7.6 0.5 Local cracking of curb at crest
15 Shapai RCC (2003) Arch 132 250 Wenchuan (May 12, 32 8.0 0.250.5 (Est.) No damage
2008)
16 Hsinfengkiang Buttress 105 440 Reservoir (May 19, 1.1 6.1 0.54 Horiz. cracks in top of dam
(1959) 1962)
17 Sefidrud (1962) Buttress 106 414 Manjil (Jun 21, 1990) 7.7 0.71 (Est.) Horiz. cracks near crest, minor
displ. of blocks
[15] Shome N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures [Ph.D. [48] Lin L, Adams J. Seismic vulnerability and prioritization ranking of dams in
thesis]. Stanford: Stanford University; 1999. canada. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake
[16] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct engineering, Beijing, China.
Dynam 2002;31:491514. [49] Ioannou I, Rossetto T. Empirical fragility. In: Beer M, Kougioumtzoglou I, Patelli
[17] Nozari A, Estekanchi H. Optimization of endurance time acceleration functions E, Au I, editors. Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering. Berlin,
for seismic assessment of structures. Int J Optim Civ Eng 2011;1:25777. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 112.
[18] Hariri-Ardebili M, Sattar S, Estekanchi H. Performance-based seismic [50] Worden C, Gerstenberger M, Rhoades D, Wald D. Probabilistic relationships
assessment of steel frames using endurance time analysis. Eng Struct between ground-motion parameters and modified Mercalli intensity in
2014;69:21634. california. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2012;102(1):20421.
[19] Kennedy R, Cornell C, Campbell R, Kaplan S, Perla H. Probabilistic seismic [51] Mirzahosseinkashani S, Ghaemian M. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete
safety study of an existing nuclear power plant. Nucl Eng Des 1980;59:31538. gravity dams. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual USSD conference, Nashville,
[20] Ellingwood B, Kinali K. Quantifying and communicating uncertainty in seismic Tennessee, US.
risk assessment. Struct Saf 2009;31(2):17987. Risk Acceptance and Risk [52] Lupoi A, Callari C. The role of probabilistic methods in evaluating the seismic
Communication Risk Acceptance and Risk Communication. risk of concrete dams. In: Dolek M, editor. Protection of built environment
[21] Jalayer F, Franchin P, Pinto P. A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability against earthquakes. p. 30929.
analysis of rc frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2007;36:205979. [53] Lupoi A, Callari C. A probabilistic method for the seismic assessment of
[22] Tothong P, Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced existing concrete gravity dams. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2012;8:98598.
ground motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2007;36:183760. [54] Yao X, Elnashai A, Jiang J. Analytical seismic fragility analysis of concrete arch
[23] Rossetto T, DAyala D, Ioannou I, Meslem A. Evaluation of existing fragility dams. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake
curves. In: SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
elements at seismic risk. Springer; 2014. p. 4793. [55] Westergaard H. Water pressures on dams during earthquakes. Trans Am Soc
[24] Muntasir Billah A, Shahria Alam M. Seismic fragility assessment of highway Civ Eng 1933;98:41833.
bridges: a state-of-the-art review. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2015;11(6):80432. [56] Jalayer F, Cornell C. Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for
[25] ATC-13. Earthquake damage evaluation data for california. report no.atc-13. probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam
Tech. rep., Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council; 1985. 2009;38:95172.
[26] Kappos A, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G. A hybrid method for [57] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq
the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng Spectra 2004;20:52353.
2006;4(4):391413. [58] Jalayer F, De Risi R, Manfredi G. Bayesian cloud analysis: efficient structural
[27] Shinozuka M, Feng M, Lee J, Naganuma T. Statistical analysis of fragility curves. fragility assessment using linear regression. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13
J Eng Mech 2000;126:122431. (4):1183203.
[28] Baker J. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural [59] Ycel A. Seismic analysis of concrete gravity dams including dam-foundation-
analysis. Earthq Spectra 2015;31(1):57999. reservoir interaction [Masters thesis]. Turkey: Middel East technical
[29] Lallemant D, Kiremidjian A, Burton H. Statistical procedures for developing University; 2013.
earthquake damage fragility curves. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam [60] Fenves G, Chopra A. EAGD-84: A computer program for earthquake analysis of
2015;44:137389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2522. concrete gravity dams. University of California, Earthquake Engineering
[30] Porter K. A beginners guide to fragility, vulnerability, and risk. In: Beer M, Research Center; 1984.
Kougioumtzoglou IA, Patelli E, Au IS-K, editors. Encyclopedia of earthquake [61] Zhong H, Li H, Bao Y. Seismic risk analysis of an arch dam. Applied mechanics
engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2015. p. 129. http://dx.doi.org/ and materials, vol. 353356. Trans Tech Publ; 2013. p. 20203.
10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_256-1. [62] Abdelhamid H, Mahmoud B, Hussein M. Seismic fragility and uncertainty
[31] Sudret B, Mai C, Konakli K. Assessment of the lognormality assumption of analysis of concrete gravity dams under near-fault ground motions. Civ
seismic fragility curves using non-parametric representations. Struct Saf Environ Res 2013;5:1239.
2015:132. [63] Ju B, Jung W. Evaluation of seismic fragility of weir structures in South Korea.
[32] Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia A. SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility Math Prob Eng 2015;2015:10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/391569.
functions for physical elements at seismic risk. Geotech Geol Earthq Eng [64] Ghanaat Y, Hashimoto P, Zuchuat O, Kennedy R. Seismic fragility of Mhleberg
2014;27. dam using nonlinear analysis with latin hypercube simulation. In: Proceeding
[33] de Arajo J, Awruch A. Probabilistic finite element analysis of concrete gravity of the 2011 USSD annual conference. p. 1197212.
dams. Adv Eng Softw 1998;29:97104. [65] Hariri-Ardebili M, Saouma V. Collapse fragility curves for concrete dams:
[34] Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R. Creating fragility functions for performance- comprehensive study. ASCE Struct Eng 2016;142(10). http://dx.doi.org/
based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 2007;23:47189. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001541.
[35] Anderson T, Darling D. A test of goodness of fit. J Am Stat Assoc [66] Ghanaat Y, Patev R, Chudgar A. Seismic fragility analysis of concrete gravity
1954;49:7659. dams. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake
[36] Marsaglia G, Marsaglia J. Evaluating the Anderson-Darling distribution. J Stat engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Softw 2004;9:15. [67] Ghanaat Y, Patev R, Chudgar A. Seismic fragility for risk assessment of concrete
[37] Tekie P, Ellingwood B. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete gravity dams. gravity dams. In: Proceeding of the 2015 USSD annual conference. p. 64560.
Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2003;32:222140. [68] Kadkhodayan V, Aghajanzadeh M, Mirzabozorg H. Seismic assessment of arch
[38] Tekie P, Ellingwood B. Fragility analysis of concrete gravity dams. Tech. rep., dams using fragility curves. Civ Eng J 2015;1(2):1420.
Washington, DC: Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for U.S. Army [69] Ghanaat Y. Failure modes approach to safety evaluation of dams. In:
Corps of Engineers; 2002. Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering,
[39] McKay M, Beckman R, Conover W. A comparison of three methods for selecting Vancouver, BC, Canada.
values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. [70] Hariri-Ardebili M, Saouma V, Porter K. Quantification of seismic potential
Technometrics 2000;42(1):5561. failure modes in concrete dams. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2016;45:97997.
[40] Iman R, Conover W. A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation [71] Padgett J, Nielson B, DesRoches R. Selection of optimal intensity measures in
among input variables. Commun Stat Simul Comput 1982;11(3):31134. probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthq Eng
[41] Dolek M. Estimation of seismic response parameters through extended Struct Dynam 2008;37:71125.
incremental dynamic analysis. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M, Lagaros ND, [72] Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom
editors. Computational methods in earthquake engineering. Computational Control 1974;19(6):71623.
methods in applied sciences, vol. 21. Netherlands: Springer; 2011. p. 285304. [73] ANSYS. Ansys software reference manuals, release notes, mechanical apdl,
[42] Cornell A, Jalayer F, Hamburger R. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal elements reference, commands reference and theory reference, version release
emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 11; 2007.
2002;128:52632. [74] USACE. Earthquake design and evaluation of concrete hydraulic structures.
[43] Vamvatsikos D, Fragiadakis M. Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating Tech. Rep. EM 1110-2-6053. Washington D.C., USA: Department of the Army,
seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 2007.
2010;39:14163. [75] Yang T, Moehle J, Stojadinovic B, DerKiureghian A. Seismic performance
[44] Dolek M. Simplified method for seismic risk assessment of buildings with evaluation of facilities: methodology and implementation. ASCE Struct Eng
consideration of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2009;135:114654.
2012;8:93953. [76] Hariri-Ardebili M, Saouma V. Probabilistic seismic demand model and optimal
[45] Anon., Dam safety assurance program evaluation report for bluestone lake. intensity measure for concrete dams. Struct Saf 2016;59:6785.
Tech. rep., Huntington District: US Army Corps of Engineers, vol. 3; September [77] Jankovic S, Stojadinovic B. Probabilistic performance-based seismic demand
1994. model for {R/C} frame buildings. In: Proceeding of the 13th world conference
[46] ABAQUS. Abaqus theory manual, version 6.7 ed., Providence, RI, USA: ABAQUS, on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Inc.; 2007. [78] Ramamoorthy S, Gardoni P, Bracci J. Probabilistic demand models and fragility
[47] Lin L, Adams J. Lessons for the fragility of canadian hydropower components curves for reinforced concrete frames. J Struct Eng 2006;132:156372.
under seismic loading. In: Proceedings of the 9th Canadian conference on [79] Saouma V, Cervenka J, Reich R. Merlin finite element users manual; 2010.
earthquake engineering, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. p. 176271. <http://civil.colorado.edu/saouma/pdf/users.pdf>.
M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, V.E. Saouma / Engineering Structures 128 (2016) 374399 399
[80] Cervenka J, Chandra J, Saouma V. Mixed mode fracture of cementitious [87] Bernier C, Monteiro R, Paultre P. Using the conditional spectrum method for
bimaterial interfaces; Part II: Numerical simulation. Eng Fract Mech 1998;60 improved fragility assessment of concrete gravity dams in eastern canada.
(1):95107. Earthq Spectra 2016;0:null. http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/072015EQS116M.
[81] Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker J. A computationally efficient ground-motion selection [88] Ansari MI, Agarwal P. Categorization of damage index of concrete gravity dam
algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthq for the health monitoring after earthquake. J Earthq Eng 2016(ja):null. http://
Spectra 2011;27:797815. dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1138167.
[82] Gehl P, Seyedi DM, Douglas J. Vector-valued fragility functions for seismic risk [89] Hariri-Ardebili M, Furgani L, Meghella M, Saouma V. A new class of seismic
evaluation. Bull Earthq Eng 2012;11(2):36584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ damage and performance indices for arch dams via eta method. Eng Struct
s10518-012-9402-7. 2016;110:14560.
[83] Lilliefors H. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and [90] Olsson A, Sandberg G. Latin hypercube sampling for stochastic finite element
variance unknown. J Am Stat Assoc 1967;62(318):399402. analysis. J Eng Mech 2002;128(1):1215.
[84] Hariri-Ardebili M, Saouma V. Sensitivity and uncertainty quantification of the [91] PEER. Ground motion database; 2014. <http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/> [last
cohesive crack model. Eng Fract Mech 2016;155:1835. viewed November 2014].
[85] Bernier C, Padgett JE, Proulx J, Paultre P. Seismic fragility of concrete gravity [92] Nuss L, Matsumoto N, Hansen K. Shaken, but not stirred - earthquake
dams with spatial variation of angle of friction: case study. J Struct Eng performance of concrete dams. In: Proceedings of the 32nd USSD annual
2015:05015002. meeting and conference: innovative dam and levee design and construction
[86] Bernier C. Courbes de fragilit pour la vulnrabilit sismique de barrages-poids for sustainable water management, New Orleans, Louisiana.
en bton; March 2015.