Seismic response of concrete arch dams due to different non-uniform ground motion models

Document Type : Case Study


1 Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

3 Graduate PhD Student, Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.


This paper investigates the effects of spatially variable (non-uniform) seismic excitation incorporating incoherency effect on earthquake-induced stresses of arch dams. Coherency functions reflect the waveform variation between two different stations, which decays with an increment of distance and frequency. The response spectrum compatible non-uniform ground motions are generated utilizing the coherency functions. Besides, to study the valley shape effects and dam height on seismic responses, V-shaped and U- shaped valleys with different heights are considered. Finite element models of typical arch dams are provided, including the relevant compressible reservoirs and surrounding massed foundation rocks. Dynamic analyses are carried out for uniform and non-uniform excitations. Comparing the stress magnitudes revealed that, non-uniform ground motion inputs considering coherency functions lead to less tensile and compressive stresses than the uniform ones(identical excitation across the supports). Moreover, the stress distribution pattern depends on the utilized coherency function. Finally, the results demonstrated that the magnitude of maximum tensile stress is lower in the V-shaped valley as a general trend. Additionally, due to uniform excitation, the increase of dam height leads to an increment of tensile stresses.


1. Salamon, J., et al., Seismic assessment of a dam-foundation-reservoir system using Endurance Time Analysis. 2019. [DOI:10.1201/9780429319778-236]
2. Maheri, M. and H. Ghaffar-Zadeh, Asynchronous and non-uniform support excitation analysis of large structures. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 2002. 4(2-3): p. 63.
3. Harichandran, R.S., Spatial variation of earthquake ground motion, what is it, how do we model it, and what are its engineering implications. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, Mich, 1999.
4. Chopra, A.K. and J.T. Wang, Earthquake response of arch dams to spatially varying ground motion. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2010. 39(8): p. 887-906. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.974]
5. Chopra, A.K., Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. 1995: Prentice Hall.
6. Huang, J. and A. Zerva, Earthquake performance assessment of concrete gravity dams subjected to spatially varying seismic ground motions. Structure and infrastructure engineering, 2014. 10(8): p. 1011-1026. [DOI:10.1080/15732479.2013.782323]
7. Alves, S.W., Nonlinear analysis of Pacoima Dam with spatially nonuniform ground motion. 2005, California Institute of Technology.
8. Mirzabozorg, H., M. Akbari, and M.H. Ardebili, Wave passage and incoherency effects on seismic response of high arch dams. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2012. 11(4): p. 567-578. [DOI:10.1007/s11803-012-0142-0]
9. Davoodi, M., M.K. Jafari, and S.M.A. Sadrolddini, Effect of multi-support excitation on seismic response of embankment dams. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 2013. 11(1): p. 19-28.
10. Yao, Y., et al., Seismic response of high concrete face rockfill dams subjected to non-uniform input motion. Acta Geotechnica, 2019. 14(1): p. 83-100. [DOI:10.1007/s11440-018-0632-y]
11. Davoodi, M., A. Razmkhah, and A. Javaheri, Considering the effects of SVEGM on dynamic stress-strain distribution of embankment dams. Civil Engineering Infrastructures Journal, 2012. 45(5): p. 529-541.
12. Sohrabi-Gilani, M. and M. Ghaemian, Spatial variation input effects on seismic response of arch dams. Scientia Iranica, 2012. 19(4): p. 997-1004. [DOI:10.1016/j.scient.2012.06.006]
13. Bilici, Y., et al., Stochastic dynamic response of dam-reservoir-foundation systems to spatially varying earthquake ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2009. 29(3): p. 444-458. [DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.05.001]
14. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M. and A. Zerva, Two uncertainties in simulating spatially varying seismic ground motions: incoherency coefficient and apparent propagation velocity. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018. 16(10): p. 4427-4441. [DOI:10.1007/s10518-018-0385-x]
15. Zerva, A., M.R. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, and M.K. Poul. Issues with the use of spatially variable seismic ground motions in engineering applications. in European Conference on Earthquake Engineering Thessaloniki, Greece. 2018. Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4_9]
16. Adanur, S., et al., Wave-passage effect on the seismic response of suspension bridges considering local soil conditions. International Journal of Steel Structures, 2017. 17(2): p. 501-513. [DOI:10.1007/s13296-017-6010-z]
17. Bayraktar, A., K. Haciefendioglu, and M. Muvafik, Asynchronous seismic analysis of concrete-faced rockfill dams including dam-reservoir interaction. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2005. 32(5): p. 940-947. [DOI:10.1139/l05-055]
18. Wang, D., et al., Wave-Passage Effect of Earthquake Loadings on Long Structures. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 2016. 16(07): p. 1550037. [DOI:10.1142/S0219455415500376]
19. Xiong, M., Y. Huang, and Q. Zhao, Effect of travelling waves on stochastic seismic response and dynamic reliability of a long-span bridge on soft soil. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018. 16(9): p. 3721-3738. [DOI:10.1007/s10518-018-0316-x]
20. Zhang, Y., et al., Wave passage effect of seismic ground motions on the response of multiply supported structures. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2005. 20(6): p. 655-672. [DOI:10.12989/sem.2005.20.6.655]
21. Chen, M.-T. and R.S. Harichandran, Response of an earth dam to spatially varying earthquake ground motion. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2001. 127(9): p. 932-939. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:9(932)]
22. Cacciola, P. and G. Deodatis, A method for generating fully non-stationary and spectrum-compatible ground motion vector processes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2011. 31(3): p. 351-360. [DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.09.003]
23. Deodatis, G., Simulation of ergodic multivariate stochastic processes. Journal of engineering mechanics, 1996. 122(8): p. 778-787. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1996)122:8(778)]
24. Hao, H., C. Oliveira, and J. Penzien, Multiple-station ground motion processing and simulation based on SMART-1 array data. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1989. 111(3): p. 293-310. [DOI:10.1016/0029-5493(89)90241-0]
25. Shinozuka, M. and G. Deodatis, Simulation of stochastic processes by spectral representation. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 1991. 44(4): p. 191-204. [DOI:10.1115/1.3119501]
26. Wang, J., et al., Simulations of non‐stationary frequency content and its importance to seismic assessment of structures. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 2002. 31(4): p. 993-1005. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.134]
27. Clough, R.W. and J. Penzien, Structural dynamics. New York: McGrowHill Inc, 1975.
28. Bogdanoff, J.L., J.E. Goldberg, and M. Bernard, Response of a simple structure to a random earthquake-type disturbance. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1961. 51(2): p. 293-310.
29. Zerva, A., Spatial variation of seismic ground motions: modeling and engineering applications. 2016: Crc Press. [DOI:10.1201/9781420009910]
30. Harichandran, R.S. and E.H. Vanmarcke, Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1986. 112(2): p. 154-174. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1986)112:2(154)]
31. Hindy, A. and M. Novak, Pipeline response to random ground motion. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1980. 106(2): p. 339-360. [DOI:10.1061/JMCEA3.0002588]
32. Cacciola, P., A stochastic approach for generating spectrum compatible fully nonstationary earthquakes. Computers & Structures, 2010. 88(15-16): p. 889-901. [DOI:10.1016/j.compstruc.2010.04.009]
33. Rosenblueth, E., basis for aseismic design of structures. 1951.
34. Vanmarcke, E. and D. Gasparini, Simulated earthquake ground motions, in Structural mechanics in reactor technology. 1977.
35. Standard, B., Eurocode 6-Design of masonry structures-. British Standard Institution. London, 2005.
36. Asaadi, A.R., et al., Reshaping of a Double-Curvature Arch Dam Using APSO Algorithm to Increase Safety. 2019.
37. Mirzabozorg, H., M. Varmazyari, and S.A. Gharehbaghi, Seismic evaluation of existing arch dams and massed foundation effects. Soils and Foundations, 2016. 56(1): p. 19-32. [DOI:10.1016/j.sandf.2016.01.002]
38. Commission, F.E.R., Engineering guidelines for the evaluation of hydropower projects .Chapter 11-Arch Dams. 1999.
40. Hall, J.F., Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 2006. 35(5): p. 525-545. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.541]