VALIDATION OF DYNAMIC ANALYSES OF DAMS AND THEIR EQUIPMENT ICOLD Proceedings series ISSN: 2575-9159 (Print) ISSN: 2575-9167 (Online) Book Series Editor: ICOLD / CIGB (International Commission on Large Dams / Commission Internationale des Grands Barrages) Paris, France Volume 1 EDITED CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE QUALIFICATION OF DYNAMIC ANALYSES OF DAMS AND THEIR EQUIPMENTS, 31 AUGUST–2 SEPTEMBER 2016, SAINT-MALO, FRANCE Validation of Dynamic Analyses of Dams and Their Equipment Editors Jean-Jacques Fry EDF-CIH, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France & EURCOLD Working Group on Dams and Earthquakes Norihisa Matsumoto JCOLD, Tokyo, Japan CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018, CIGB/ICOLD. All rights reserved. Published by Taylor & Francis Group plc. Typeset by V Publishing Solutions Pvt Ltd., Chennai, India All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the publisher. Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein. Published by: CRC Press/Balkema Schipholweg 107C, 2316 XC Leiden, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] www.crcpress.com – www.taylorandfrancis.com ISBN: 978-1-138-59017-5 (Hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-49116-0 (eBook) Validation of Dynamic Analyses of Dams and Their Equipment – Fry & Matsumoto (Eds) © 2018 CIGB/COLD, ISBN 978-1-138-59017-5 Table of contents Preface by JCOLD ix Preface by CFBR xiii Editorial Board xv Part 1: Introduction Analysis on acceleration data of dams collected by JCOLD 3 T. Sasaki, T. Ohmachi & N. Matsumoto Practical guide for selecting seismic parameters and numerical models in earthquake analysis of dams 31 Z. Cao, N. Matsumoto, B. Tardieu, J.-J. Fry, E. Bourdarot & E. Robbe Part 2: Validation of dynamic analysis of embankment dams Introduction Lessons learn in seismic analysis of embankment dams during the JCOLD-CFBR symposia 57 J.-J. Fry & N. Matsumoto Material properties and performance of embankment dams Modelling of stress-strain behaviour of compacted soils for seismic stability analysis of earth-fill dams 67 F. Tatsuoka Soil properties and seismic stability of old and new Fujinuma dams 119 F. Tatsuoka, T. Tanaka, K. Ueno, A. Duttine & Y. Mohri Performance and analysis of the faced rockfill dams (AFRD and CFRD) 171 N. Matsumoto, H. Yoshida, T. Tsukada, M. Kashiwayanagi & H. Okumura Evaluation of seismic performance of asphaltic concrete facing 195 Y. Nakamura & K. Narita Validation of simplified analysis of embankment dams A new simplified seismic stability analysis taking into account degradation of soil undrained stress-strain properties and effects of compaction 215 A. Duttine, F. Tatsuoka, T. Shinbo & Y. Mohri Dynamic response of embankments on soft soils: A parametric study on the relevance of Sarma’s simplified method 235 C. Durand, E. Chaljub, P.-Y. Bard, L. Baillet, J.-J. Fry, R. Granjon & F. Renalier v A simplified method for estimating seismic performance of small homogeneous earth dams 247 L.-H. Luu, G. Veylon, S. Mercklé, C. Carvajal & P.-Y. Bard The FR-JP simplified dynamic analysis—development and validation 255 J.-J. Fry, M. Jellouli & A. des Garets Validation of analysis of embankment dams Analyses on earthquake-induced settlement of the Aratozawa dam due to the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake, Japan 277 T. Ohmachi & T. Tahara Comparison of linear and nonlinear earthquake response analyses of Aratozawa Dam 291 Z. Cao, N. Matsumoto, P. Kolmayer & J.-J. Fry Elasto-plastic dynamic response of fill-type dams: Total stress and effective stress analyses 313 T. Tanaka Effects of strong earthquakes on already strongly shaken rockfill large dams. Application to Aratozawa Dam (Japan) 343 B. Touileb, M. Roy, F. Andrian & G. Veylon Investigation on the dynamic characteristics and seismic behavior of Aratozawa Dam 353 N. Matsumoto, N. Yasuda, M. Naruoka & Z. Cao Dynamic analysis of Aratozawa dam including the effect of occluded air and pore fluid compressibility 367 L. Boutonnier & D. Mahmutovic The reproduction analysis of Aratozawa dam during 2008 earthquake 389 N. Yasuda, N. Matsumoto, M. Naruoka & Z. Cao Uncoupled elasto plastic dynamic response of dams 403 F. Lopez-Caballero & A. Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi Application of non-linear constitutive models to three-dimensional simulation analysis of Aratozawa Dam 417 S. Tsukuni, H. Ogino, N. Yasuda & N. Matsumoto Part 3: Concrete dams Introduction-Context-Main results Framework, results and lessons learned from the CFBR-JCOLD cooperation on concrete dams 443 B. Tardieu, E. Bourdarot, E. Robbe, T. Sasaki & M. Kondo Dynamic analysis, experimental and in-situ results, calibration and validation for concrete dams 457 E. Bourdarot, M. Kashiwayanagi & T. Sasaki Dynamic records on dams Characteristics of predominant frequency of an existing arch dam—for better safety assessment against seismic impact 471 M. Kashiwayanagi & H. Oonishi vi Dynamic behavior of concrete dam: Lessons learned from the JCOLD database 481 E. Robbe & B. Pallu Characterization of the dynamic behavior of an arch dam by means of forced vibration tests 493 J.P. Gomes & J.V. Lemos Spatial variability of the seismic ground motion at the dam-foundation interface of an arch dam 503 E. Koufoudi, E. Chaljub, F. Dufour, N. Humbert, E. Robbe & E. Bourdarot Comparison between numerical analyses and seismic records on dams 3-D reproduction analysis of the Kasho concrete gravity dam during the October 6, 2000 earthquake 519 T. Sasaki, Y. Ozawa & N. Matsumoto Seismic behaviour of Monticello Dam: A comparison between numerical results and experimental measures 535 G. Faggiani & P. Masarati Seismic analyses of concrete dams—comparison between finite-element analyses and records 553 E. Robbe Effects of radiative boundary conditions on seismic analyses of gravity dam 567 F. Andrian & P. Agresti Simplified analyses for gravity dam Prediction of gravity dams behavior under strong earthquakes (Part I) 583 B. Tardieu, A. Beraki & A. Si-Chaib Prediction of gravity dams behavior under strong earthquakes (Part II): Application to Beni-Haroun dam 593 A. Si-Chaib, B. Tardieu, M.-K. Abidi, X. Molin & P. Lignier Towards displacement-based seismic assessment of concrete dams 609 A. Andonov, A. Iliev & K. Apostolov Improving gravity dams simplified models: Why we should go on 621 S. Mével Part 4: Seismic validation of equipment A comparison of mechanical design criteria for gates, between Japan and France, and their relevant consequences on earthquake resistance 637 P. Bouquier & M. Kashiwayanagi Seismic analysis characterizing the behavior of one of “H72” dam’s spillway gates: Test/calculation comparison 643 D. Graveleine & V. Lhuillier Author index 657 vii Validation of Dynamic Analyses of Dams and Their Equipment – Fry & Matsumoto (Eds) © 2018 CIGB/COLD, ISBN 978-1-138-59017-5 Preface by JCOLD Technical exchanges between CFBR and JCOLD was decided officially in 24th ICOLD Congress 2012 in Kyoto, which was proposed by CFBR to aim at improvement and simpli- fication of the seismic analysis method in cooperation with JCOLD according to revision of the French seismic standards. Based on the exchange program, both representative mem- bers had repeated to make inspections of the various dam types and to compare the revised analysis method results with the actual measured seismic vibration on them. These activities reached to hold the final workshop in Mont-Saint Michel in August 2016. In addition, the 1st symposium of working group “Dams and Earthquakes” of the ICOLD European Club in Saint-Malo was held to reflect our results. I am very pleased the book is published as our achievement of 3-year activity after the peer review by three academic experts of both France and Japan, and I am honored to write the preface on behalf of JCOLD. I want to devote a few pages in this preface on the efforts of earthquake and seismic design about dams in Japan. As anyone knows, the Japanese Islands are located at the western edge of the Pacific Ocean. This area is “the Subduction Zone” where the oceanic plates of the Pacific Plate and the Philippine Sea Plate slip under the continental plates of the Eura- sian Plate and the North American Plate. And Japan is one of the most famous earthquake countries because various earthquakes such as plate type and inlands type occur in this area. Checking damaging earthquake records for the past about 1700 years since the dawn of history, the earthquakes with the magnitude of more than 7.0 defined by the Japan Mete- orological Agency, which occurrence date is recorded, count 176, and among them the great earthquakes with the magnitude of more than 8.0 count 27. The pioneer of the seismic design of dam in Japan is “the Seismic Coefficient Method” proposed by Dr. Nagaho Mononobe, the professor of the University of Tokyo, at the time of the Great Kanto Earthquake with the magnitude of 7.9 hitting the Tokyo capital on Septem- ber 1, 1923. This method was initially adopted for the design of the Komaki dam completed in 1930. This dam still fulfills the function as the exclusive use for power generation. In no computer era different from these days, the Seismic Coefficient Method gives the sufficient aseismic capacity to the dam with the horizontal force by multiplying the dam deadweight by the coefficient on the basis of the size of earthquakes in consideration of sufficient safety, under the condition that investigation and construction are properly carried out. About 1100 dams have been constructed after the completion of the Komaki dam, and almost all of them are designed based on the Seismic Coefficient Method. There is an undeniable fact that these dams have not fallen into significant trouble under the above-mentioned many earthquakes with big seismic forces up to now. I interpret the Seismic Coefficient Method becomes the safe way including many uncertain factors because of having its primitive characteristics. The most influential earthquake in the recent Japanese seismic design is Kobe Earth- quake with the magnitude of 7.3 in 1995. The death toll and the completely destroyed houses reached 6500 and about 100000, respectively. It’s not too much to say that the city lifeline such as railways, roads, power and gas facilities was suffered a fatal damage. As for the dam structure, most of dams in definition of ICOLD showed the satisfactory aseismic capacity, and a few dams were suffered only slight damage. The earthquake recorded the maximum acceleration of 818 gal at the Kobe local meteorological office, and it was a big opportunity that the stability of dam in the seismic design was verified and evaluated by not only the Seismic Coefficient Method but also the dynamic analysis. “Level 2 Earthquake” as the larg- est class of earthquake motions at each region from the present into the future was defined ix