Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 635–648 | Cite as

Seismic performance assessment of high CFRDs based on fragility analysis

  • Rui Pang
  • Bin XuEmail author
  • DeGao Zou
  • XianJing Kong


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.


high CFRDs seismic performance fragility analysis failure grades IDA MSA 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bayraktar A, Kartal M E. Linear and nonlinear response of concrete slab on CFR dam during earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, 2010, 30: 990–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou W, Hua J J, Chang X L, et al. Settlement analysis of the Shuibuya concrete-face rockfill dam. Comput Geotech, 2011, 38: 269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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: 258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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: 04014105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellingwood B R, Tekie P B. Fragility analysis of concrete gravity dams. J Infrastruct Syst, 2001, 7: 41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tekie P B, Ellingwood B R. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete gravity dams. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn, 2003, 32: 2221–2240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 1762–1771Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhong H, Li H J, Bao Y L. Seismic risk analysis of an arch dam. Appl Mech Mater, 2013, 353–356: 2020–2023Google Scholar
  9. 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: 123–129Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kadkhodayan V, Aghajanzadeh M, Mirzabozorg H. Seismic assessment of arch dams using fragility curves. Civil Eng J, 2015, 1: 14–20Google Scholar
  11. 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: 227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, 2012Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hariri-Ardebili M A, Saouma V E. Probabilistic seismic demand model and optimal intensity measure for concrete dams. Struct Safety, 2016, 59: 67–85Google Scholar
  14. 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: 979–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hariri-Ardebili M A, Saouma V E. Collapse fragility curves for concrete dams: Comprehensive study. J Struct Eng, 2016, 142: 04016075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hariri-Ardebili M A, Saouma V E. Sensitivity and uncertainty quantification of the cohesive crack model. Eng Fract Mech, 2016, 155: 18–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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: 1222–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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: 59–65Google Scholar
  19. 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: 2254–2261Google Scholar
  20. 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: 439–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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: 111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn, 2002, 31: 491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra, 2004, 20: 523–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baker J W. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra, 2015, 31: 579–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R. Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra, 2007, 23: 471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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: 25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shome N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree. Providence: Stanford University, 1999Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Newmark N M. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Géotechnique, 1965, 15: 139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ling H I, Leshchinsky D, Mohri Y. Soil slopes under combined horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn, 1997, 26: 1231–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghanaat Y. Failure modes approach to safety evaluation of dams. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, 2004Google Scholar
  31. 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: 04017085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 2017Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xiao Y, Liu H L. Elastoplastic constitutive model for rockfill materials considering particle breakage. Int J Geomech, 2017, 17: 04016041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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: 04015031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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: 220–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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: 878–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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: 214–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Xiao Y, Sun Y F, Yin F, et al. Constitutive modeling for transparent granular soils. Int J Geomech, 2017, 17: 04016150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Duncan I M, Chang C Y. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. J Soil Mech Found Division, 1970, 96: 1629–1653Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shen Z J, Xu G. Deformation behavior of rock materials under cyclic loading (in Chinese). Hydro-Science Eng, 1996, 2: 143–150Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hardin B O, Drnevich V P. Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves. Geotech Spec Publ, 1972, 98: 667–692Google Scholar
  42. 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: 807–811Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ozkuzukiran S, Ozkan M Y, Ozyazicioglu M, et al. Settlement behaviour of a concrete faced rock-fill dam. Geotech Geol Eng, 2006, 24: 1665–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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: 462–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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: 1250007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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: 637–659Google Scholar
  47. 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: 581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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: 223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zou D G, Kong X J, Xu B. Geotechnical dynamic nonlinear analysis GEODYNA. Dalian: Dalian University of Technology, 2005Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Westergaard H M. Water pressures on dams during earthquakes. Trans ASCE. 1933, 98: 418–432Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Raphael J M. Tensile strength of concrete. J Am Concrete Inst, 1984, 81: 158–165Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Liu J B, Lu Y D. A direct method for analysis of dynamic soilstructure interaction. Develop Geotech Eng, 1998, 83: 261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Swaisgood J R. Embankment dam deformations caused by earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Christchurch, 2003Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Darbre G R. Swiss guidelines for the earthquake safety of dams. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, 2004Google Scholar
  55. 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): 128–131Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Hydraulic Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations