Seismic Hazard and

Seismic Safety of Dams

Dr. Martin Wieland
Chairman, ICOLD Committee on Seismic
Aspects of Dam Design
 Switzerland M. WIELAND, Chairman
China H. CHEN, Vice-Chairman
ICOLD Japan N. MATSUMOTO, Vice-Chairman
France M. LINO, Secretary
Committee Algeria
Argentine
K. BENSEGHIER
J. CARMONA
on Seismic Australia
Austria
I. LANDON-JONES
G. ZENZ
Canada B. FAN
Aspects of Chile
Costa Rica
G. NOGUERA
A. CLIMENT

Dam Egypt
FYROM
A.M. SHALABY
V. MIHAILOV
India M. GOPALAKRISHNAN
Design Germany
Iran
C. KOENKE
A. MAHDAVIAN

26 countries Italy
Korea
A. CASTOLDI
Y.S. CHOI
Mexico M. ROMO
Norway K. HOEG
Pakistan G.M. ILYAS
Portugal P.S. SECO E PINTO
Russia A.N. MARCHUK
Serbia & Montenegro A. BOZOVIC
Thailand T. HARNPATTANAPANICH
UK J.L. HINKS
USA J.L. EHASZ
Terms of Reference of Committee on
Seismic Aspects of Dam Design
• Seismic safety of existing dams
• Seismic interpretation of integrated
observation data (strong motion
instrumentation of dams)
• Reservoir-triggered seismicity (RTS)
• Seismic risk determination and related
techniques (seismic hazard; seismic
vulnerability of dams; consequences of
dam failure)
 ICOLD Bulletins on Earthquakes
• 46 (1983): Seismicity and dam design
• 52 (1986): Earthquake analysis procedures for dams
(Zienkiewicz, Clough, Seed)
• 62 (1988): Inspection of dams following earthquakes
• 72 (1989): Selecting seismic parameters for large dams
• 112 (1998): Neotectonics and dams (faults in foundation)
• 113 (1999): Seismic observation of dams
• 120 (2001): Design features of dams to effectively resist
seismic ground motion
• 123 (2002): Earthquake design and evaluation of
structures appurtenant to dams
Seismic hazard – multiple hazard
• ground shaking: vibrations in dams,
appurtenant structures, equipment and
foundations
• fault movements in dam foundation
• fault displacement in reservoir bottom:
water waves in reservoir or loss of
freeboard
• mass movements into reservoir:
impulse waves in the reservoir.
Usoi Dam - Lake
Sarez, Pamir, Tajik.
largest natural dam
Landslide dam created
by 1911 earthquake
height ca. 650 m,
freeboard 50 m
dam volume ca. 2 km3
Observed earthquake
effects on dams
Sefid Rud buttress dam, Iran, M = 7.5 Manjil
earthquake June 21,1990
Cracks in Sefid Rud Buttress Dam
Effects of Cross-canyon Earthquake
Component, Sefid Rud Dam, 1990
Transmission tower failure due to
rockfall, Sefid Rud dam, 1990
Rockfall, Sefid Rud dam
Switchyard, Sefid Rud dam
Control room, Sefid Rud dam
Buildings at dam site , Sefid Rud dam
Sefid Rud dam, Repair with rock anchors
Shih-kang weir, Chi-Chi earthquake 1999
Bhuj earthquake 2001, Irrigation dams
Bhuj earthquake 2001
Upstream slide Kitayama dam
Kobe earthquake 1995
Comparison of Resultant of Water
Load of CFRD and Conventional
Rockfill Dam with Clay Core

Nurek fill dam, Tajikistan (300 m high)

 New types of dams
Is this Behaviour of a Concrete-face
Rockfill Dam (CFRD) Possible?
 Large concrete dams subjected to
strong ground shaking
Reservoir-triggered seismicity
• Hsinfengkiang buttress dam (1962 EQ, M = 6.1 China)
• Koyna gravity dam (1967 EQ, M = 6.3, India)

‘Normal’ seismicity
• Pacoima arch dam (1971 and 1994 EQ, California, 116 m)
• Rapel arch dam (1985 EQ, Chile, 110 m)
• Sefid Rud buttress dam (1990 EQ, M = 7.5, Iran, 106 m)
Lower Crystal Springs Gravity Dam located
at San Andreas Fault
survived 1906 San Francisco EQ undamaged
Lower Crystal Springs dam
Ghir arch-gravity dam, Iran, 128 m
 Integral Dam Safety Concept
• Structural Safety
Stiffness, Strength and Ductility
Deformations and Stability...
• Safety Monitoring
Strong motion instrumentation, Observations
Data analysis and interpretation...
• Operational Safety
Rule curves and operation guidelines
Experienced and qualified staff, Maintenance…
• Emergency Planning
Water alarm, Flood plane mapping, Evacuation plans,
Engineering back-up...
Seismic Design Criteria for Dams

Operating Basis Earthquake

Return period: ca. 145 years

Maximum Credible, Maximum Design,

Safety Evaluation Earthquake

Return period: ca. 500 (Chile) to > 10,000 years

 Seismic hazard, Australia
10

1
Acceleration (PGA, g)

0.1

0.01

0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Years (annee)
Strong motion instruments
Minimum
System
Dam crest
Dam base
Free field
Inguri arch dam, Georgia, 272 m
Strong motion instrumentation
Distribution of dams with seismographs, Japan
(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport)

500km

140 dams in 1994; 413 dams in 2003

Number of earthquakes observed and
records obtained at dam sites
2500
Total number of Earthquakes
Total number of Records
Earthquakes observed at dam sites
2000 Records obtained

1500

1000

500

0
1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000
Year
Kasho gravity dam, Japan

N
Tottori Earthquake, Oct. 6, 2000
MJ = 7.3 MW = 6.6
 Accelerometer in elevator shaft

0 20 40 60m
Accelerometer in gallery

Location Map of Instruments

 600
Peak Acc.
400
200
N -S -2000
-400
0.54g
Gallery

-600
600
400
200
E -W-2000 0.54g
-400
-600
600
400
200
U -D-2000 0.49g
-400
-600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
2000
1000
Dam Crest

N -S 0 2.1g
-1000
-2000
1500
1000
500
E -W-5000
-1000
1.4g
-1500
1000
500
U -D 0 0.9g
-500
-1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)

Acceleration Records
 cm Permanent
40 N -S
30 Displacement
20
10 27.6 cm
0
-10 to the North
20 cm
E-W
10
0 6.5 cm
-10 to the West
-20
15 cm U -D
10
5 4.7 cm
0 uplift
-5
時間(sec)
10 20 30 40 50 time (s)

Ground Displacement
 6

Water level in cm
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
0 2 4 6 time (h)
100
Fourier spectrum

Natural period
T= 6.5 min
10
Damping ratio
3 h= 0.02
3 period (min.) 10

Free vibration of reservoir

Tokachi-Oki earthquake, Sept. 26, 2003
Effects on dams
Niigata Earthquake, Oct. 23, 2004, M = 6.8
Station E-W (gal) N-S (gal) vertical (gal)

TOKAMACHI 1850 1715 564

OJIYA1 308 1147 820
NAGAOKA 706 871 436
KOIDE 407 521 312
NAGAOKA 369 468 331
TSUNAMI 275 397 86
NUMATA 293 359 126
SHIOSAWA 342 342 127
MIZUKAMI 279 341 194
KASE 291 237 63
 Seismic rehabilitation of spillway on
crest of Whakamaru dam, New Zealand
 Rehabilitation of crest spillway
Design: 0.1 g, Rehabilitation: 1.8 g
 Seismic improvements of 116 dams, California
36 Temporary storage restrictions
34 Buttresses added or slopes flattened on earth
dams
27 Freeboard increased
21 Outlet works rehabilitations
12 Permanent storage restrictions
11 Foundation and/or embankment materials removed
and replaced
11 Foundation grouting – drainage or cutoff wall
construction
 General Conclusions
• The technology for building dams and
appurtenant structures that can safely
resist the effects of strong ground shaking
is available.
• New concepts are still needed for very
high dams in highly seismic regions, for
dams at difficult sites, and new types of
dams such as roller compacted concrete
and concrete-face rockfill dams
 Conclusions
• Concrete and embankment dams can be
designed to resist strong ground shaking
• Modern dams shaken by strong earthquakes have
performed well
• Well designed concrete dams do not fail after the
development of cracks
• Very limited experience exists on seismic
behaviour of high arch dams and new types of
dams (RCC and CFR dams)
 Conclusions
• Strong motion instruments belong to the standard
instrumentation of
(i) very large dams
(ii) dams with large damage potential
(iii) dams located in areas of high seismicity
(iv) dams showing abnormal behaviour
 Next earthquake

• Earthquake experience with modern dams is

still very limited
• After a major earthquake the guidelines for
seismic design and seismic safety
assessment of dams may have to be revised
again!
 Problems for future
• Reassessment of seismic safety of existing
dams and rehabilitation of dams with
unacceptable seismic risk
• Earthquake safety of small dams that have
not been designed by engineers
• Consistent use of risk-based seismic design
criteria for new dams
• Realistic seismic hazard assessment of dam
sites to establish credible seismic
parameters for design or safety evaluation