Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
Summary of Present Practices
on Dam Safely Standards
INVENTORY OF CURRENT PRACTICES
In preparation for this study, inquiries regarding current practices relat-
ing to safety provisions for the hazards to dams from extreme floods and
earthquakes were directed to the federal agencies most concerned with
dams, the appropriate unit of each state government, several private engi-
neering firms with worldwide prominence in the dam design field, other
professional organizations with interests in dam safety, and a cross section of
utility firms and other organizations that own dams. Also, there have been
reviews of a number of standards or policy statements, issued by technical
societies relating to the safety of dams against extreme floods and earthquake
hazards. Responses to these inquiries and the pertinent actions of the techni-
cal societies are summarized in Appendixes A and B.
The data from 10 federal organizations, 35 state and local agencies, 9
private firms, and4 professional engineering societies provide a comprehen-
sive overview of current practices in the United States and, to a great extent,
in foreign countries. Because U.S. engineering firms are active in engineer-
ing for dams in other countries and because U.S. engineers play a prominent
role in such organizations as the International Commission on Large Dams
(ICOLD), many practices followed in the United States, particularly those
of major federal dam-building agencies, have been adopted in other coun-
tries. However, there is considerable variation in the criteria adopted in the
United States for evaluating the ability of dams to withstand extreme floods,
especially in criteria for the smaller, less-hazardous dams.
15
OCR for page 16
16
CLASSIFICATION OF DAMS
SAFETY OF DAMS
Basic to all safety standards relating to hydrologic and seismic events are
systems for classifying dams according to the probable damages caused by
dam failure. As indicated by material in Appendixes A and B. there is consid-
erable variety in the classification systems that have been adopted, and this
variety often makes difficult any precise comparisons between criteria used
by different agencies.
Most systems for classifying dams specifically utilize dam height, volume
of water impounded, and character of the development in the relevant
downstream area as parameters in regard to probable effects of dam failure.
The classifications used by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in the National
Dam Inspection Program are typical of such systems, and for ease of refer-
ence, the tables used in that system are shown below (Table 3-1~. Although
the committee has not specifically recommended a system for classifying
hazard potentials, usage of the terms "low," "significant," and "high" in this
report when referring to hazards generally conforms to Table 3-1, with the
term "intermediate" being used interchangeably with "significant."
A number of federal and state agencies (e.g., U.S. Forest Service, Alaska,
Illinois, South Carolina, and Virginian have adopted a classification system
TABLE 3-1 Terms for Classifying Hazard Potentials
Category Impoundment (ac-ft) Height of Dam (ft)
Size of dama
Small 50 to 1,000 25 to 40
Intermediate 1,000 to 50,000 40 to 100
Large Over 50,000 Over 100
Loss of Life (Extent
Category of Development) Economic Loss
Hazard potential classification
Low None expected (no perma- Minimal (undeveloped to occa-
nent structures for signal structures or agriculture)
human habitation)
Significant Few (no urban develop- Appreciable (notable agriculture,
meets and no more than industry, or structures)
a small number of inhab-
itable structures)
High More than few Excessive (extensive community,
industry, or agriculture)
aCriterion that places project in largest category governs.
OCR for page 17
Summary of Present Practices
17
either identical to or essentially the same as that displayed below. Other
agencies and states (e.g., U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Arizona, Kansas,
Missouri, and Pennsylvania) have systems that are similar but use the prod-
uct of dam height (in feet) and storage volume (in acre-feet) as a size crite-
rion. A number of states (e.g., Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, North
Carolina, North Dakota, and South Carolina) have four or more categories
of size. Arkansas appears to base its dam classification entirely on storage
capacities and drainage areas, while Georgia and North Dakota utilize only
height of dam and reservoir storage in their systems. New Jersey has three
categories based on "hazard potential" and one labeled "small dams." The
classification systems of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the State of Utah,
and the Institution of Civil Engineers of the United Kingdom in general refer
only to the level of hazards that would be created by failure of the dam.
In some systems for classifying dams, overall evaluation of the factors
affecting downstream hazards is implied, but criteria for such evaluation are
not set out. The following types of classification criteria, described in Appen-
dix A, are such systems:
· "loading conditions" as used by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
· "functional design standards" as used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, and
· "security standards" as user] by the U.S. Committee on Large Dams
(1970~.
While it appears that many of the differences in dam classification systems
are the result of arbitrary choices of regulatory authorities, it also appears
that most of the classification systems have been structured to meet the
perceives] needs of the issuing agency or state government.
SPILLWAY CAPACITY CRITERIA
Table 3-2 shows all the spillway capacity criteria as stated in agency
standards in terms of either design rainfall or design floods reported to be in
current use by the entities responding to the committee's inquiries. Criteria
based on estimates of probable maximum precipitation (PMP), and proba-
ble maximum flood (PMF) are widely used. In fact there is some indication
that corresponding values (e.g., 0.50 PMP ant} 0.50 PMF) are used more or
less interchangeably by some engineers. The mixer! criteria are listed by the
Soil Conservation Service and by West Virginia. The California Division of
Safety of Dams allows use of the one-in-1,000-year flood as the required
minimum flood for spillway design for low hazard! dams. Michigan's criteria
call for use of a 200-year flood. Those two are the only references to any
OCR for page 18
18
SAFETY OF DAMS
TABLE 3-2 Spillway Capacity Criteria Reported to Be
in Current Use by Various Agencies
Deterministic Mixed
Criteria Criteria
Probabilistic
Criteria
C"te7~a specifying rainfalls
PMP Peso + 0.40 (PMP-P~oo)
0.90 PMP Plot + 0.26 (PMP-P~oo)
0.80 PMP Pioo+ 0.12 (PMP-P~oo)
0.75 PMP Peso + 0.06 (PMP-P~oo3
0.50 PMP
0.45 PMP
0.40 PMP
0.33 PMP
0.30 PMP
0.25 PMP
0.225 PMP
0.20 PMP
0.10 PMP
Cr?tena spec~fyingiloods
PMF
0.75 PMF
0.50 PMF
0.40 PMF
0.30 PMF
0.25 PMF
0.20 PMF
2.25 Ploo
1.50 Ploo
Ploo
P50
Plo
10,000
1,000
200
150
100
50
NOTES: This is simply a listing of reported criteria. Position of
entries in adjacent columns does not imply any relationship. PMP,
probable maximum precipitation; PMF, probable maximum flood; P
(with subscripts), precipitation having average return period in years
indicated by subscript; 10,000 year, etc., flood having indicated aver-
age return period.
average return period greater than 100 years in any criteria in use in the
United States. The 10,000-, 1,000-, and 150-year frequency floods are listed
in the criteria of the Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Table 3-3 gives an approximate comparison (based on the classifications
used for the National Dam Inspection Program) of the various criteria more
fully described in Appendix A. As noted above, differences in systems for
classifying dams make precise general comparison of this type difficult.
Although not set out in many published criteria, there appears to be growing
use of dam safety evaluation procedures based on estimating effects in rele-
vant downstream areas of a dam being overtopped] and failing during vari-
OCR for page 19
19
o
o
o
·=
Ct
d
,c-,)
u
Ct
3
C~
C~
C)
._
o
o ~
'iC-~ ~
Ct
o
U
..
~ '; a
e O
N ~
c:S N
-
Ct
C~
I .~
~=
_
~4
CS
C~
cn
, a,
_ ~;
Ct
Ct
cn
, Ct
C)
bC
Ct
* * * *
* * *
o
~ O
O O
~ _
o
o
-
O ~ O
~ ~ O
O ~ ~ O
O ~ O O
* * * * _ _ ._ _ _
E ~ ~ E E ~
* * * P" * * * * ~ ~ _ o C~
~ o ~
.° ~ ~ ~ ~ o
. ~ 8 . -- 8 =~ ~ —~ ~ ~—
a .~=l . ~" ~
=0
~4 ~—~ D ~ >< ~ ~ O ·0
, ~ Z, ~ + ~ , ~ ~ $ Z
* ~ ~ * _ _ * ~ _
O O
~ C)
V)
P" ~, ~, ~ P.
P4 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ P" ~ P" ~ P"
P~ ~ c4 _ ~ _ p~ p~ ~ ~ ~ _
-s a ~ O o ~ ;: ,,. 9 ~ ~G D - 1~5
~ o
_ ~
OCR for page 20
- -
· -
o
up
- ~
cO
Go
-
CQ
~ =5
3 ~
_
U)
,=
'_
to
U) ~
_
U)
,=
to
..
a ~
4-
Ct O
Ct be
~ .
~ CQ
*
* * *
* * * *
Cal ~ ~ O
* * * Cal O —
0 4- .
* ~ * ~ O P" O
P"
P"
Cal
O *
~ ~ a O .o
O ~
E ~ ~ ~ ~ E Tic
.°
;~4 '0~9
~ Z o
O .= e5 *
._
~ 0 ~ ~ ~
Z
=° ~ ~ O
0 ~ ° tV
a ~
~ O
C~_
C,1 0
O
*
* *
* * *
.
O *
U' ~
O * P" *
g
-
8
_
·C)
O
~ ~ ~ O
.~ - * * ~ ~ ~ ~ O
. - ,D ·—
C~ ~ ~ U)
C: ~ ~ ~
CD C,? ~' U~
$ * * ~ C4 $ *
Ct
U)
.> ~ ~
Ct C4
* ~ — O
o
O O
O O
_ _
~ ~ O
0 ~ ~4
o
.
O ~ ~
O O O
U. O O ~ c;
_ _ _ _ Ct!
~ O
`4 —
~ Ct
p-, Z
~_
~ Ct
O
O
O ~ ~
U
_ ~4
o
_ CO ._
._
Ct
~ O
· — (L)
~ e! ·—
^;
~ ~ m
_ ~
* ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ O _ _ * _ O * _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _
E ~b · ~ E . 3 y E 3 E E a
E ~ ~ ,y ~ z z E z ~ 3 ~ z z
OCR for page 21
21
g ~
- g * *
-
' G
~ Cal
O _
O O
+
0= 8
at ~ 4
~ ~ =0 ~ ~
O O ~ O O ~
~ ~ ·o _ ~ O ~
~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ , j , . ~ b
.~ .= o c ~ ~ ~
o o C) o a
C: ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Q) ~ ~ ~
up up Ct cn Cal
lo, ~ ~ *
o
Pa
-
~ _ as_ __ __ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ ~
. ..
~~ a .= ~~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ c ~ '~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ^
OCR for page 22
22
_`
o
U
Cal
Cal
3
es
4_
UD
Cal
4~
. as
_ ~
so
Cal
4 -
1 C'S
_ ~
Ct
4~
C
_
._
CD
Ct
C)
~ O
~ E ~ E E
~ ~ ~ ~ D
o
o
lo:
-
Cal
A
o
.s
x
C.
3
~ I:
an,= ~ .C~
._ In ~ ~
o
a,
lo; o
C) ~ C:
Am.
~ ~ Cal
g ~ 3 ~
_ Cal
~ o
:^ 4-
o
8 ~
o ~
— v
o C)
U)
;^
Ct
-
._
U.
._
a
Ct
.
.
Cal
If
._
"0 Cl,
~ lo:
.= ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ct
~ .~5
c)
~4 C~ ~
e~ c~ =5
~ ~ .~ 3
c~ u~ _
~
4- ~
c~ u,
~ ct
3
=: ~ ~
~ ~ 3
m ~ ~ P"
~ ¢
~; c; a
.
cq
C:
~ =- E c'
to 0 ¢ ·—
.q =o ~
_ ct
$
u, .
.= . -
0 ·~ ~;
E ~ ~
O
6.~
~o . -
o; ~ ~
~ 0
~ ct ._
Z 0 ~
I-,
O =, i-
~ ~! —
8 ~3
c~ ~ u'
cs
O
~ 3
.~ c
·§ 0
* ._
;: .g
c~
¢
~ ~o
O ~
c'
-
~s
~^
o
-
o
o
-
~^
;^
oo
o
-
o
0
·— 41)
~ 5
c~ ~
.O .~
.~ ~
c) .°
0 :'s
..D ·—
£
8
·-
·-
c,
c~ c~
°^ .5
- 5 ~
~ 3
._ 0
~5
,o~
° ~ ~ ~ C7
~ 22 ~ ~ ~ Z O
OCR for page 23
Summary of Present Practices
23
ous size floods. By such procedures, the dam safety evaluation flood selection
is based on these estimated effects. Thus, fixed criteria, such as illustrated in
Tables 3-2 and 3-3, are not used.
This inventory of current practices in providing dam safety cluring ex-
treme floods shows considerable diversity in approach by various federal,
state, and local government agencies, professional societies, and privately
owned firms. There is a fair consensus on the spillway requirements for
large, high-hazard dams. But the results of the inventory show widespread
uncertainty as to what might be appropriate hydrologic criteria for safety of
other classes of dams. From study of the inventory results, the following
observations can be made:
· Use of PMP estimates for evaluating spillway capacity requirements for
large, high-hazard dams predominates, although a number of state agencies
have indicated that their standards do not require that such dams pass the
full estimated PMF based on the PMP.
· The influence of the practices of the principal federal dam-building
agencies is evident in the majority of the standards for large, high-hazard
dams, but the practices of those agencies have had less effect on current state
standards for small dams in less hazardous situations.
· Apparently as a result of the National Dam Inspection Program for
nonfederal dams carried out by the Corps of Engineers in the 1977-1981
period, several state dam safety agencies have adopted the spillway capacity
criteria used in those inspections.
· Several states have adapted the standards used by the Soil Conservation
Service for the design of the tens of thousands of smaller dams constructed
under that agency's programs.
· Current practices include use of arbitrary criteria (such as 150 percent
of the 100-year flood, fractions of the PMF, and combinations of the PMF
with probability based floods) for which there is no apparent scientific
rationale.
· Practices of the major federal dam-building agencies for large, high-
hazard dams have been adopted by most U.S. companies owning dams and
by U.S. engineering firms designing dams for domestic and foreign clients.
(The regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have re-
quired such standards for licensed hydroelectric projects. ~
· It appears that only three agencies (the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, and the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) have issued
explicit standards for existing dams that differ from the requirements for
new dams. (However, other responses did not specifically state whether
different standards were applicable to existing dams.)
OCR for page 24
24
CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS
SAFETY OF DAMS
Table 3-4 shows a summary of current practices in evaluating safety of
dams against earthquakes as specifically reported in response to the commit-
tee's requests for information. Since many of the responses gave no specific
information in regard] to a number of the practices shown, this table should
be used with caution, as some of the agencies may be actually using more of
the approaches to dam safety than indicated. However, even though it may
be not completely reliable, Table 3-4 does give some indication of the proba-
ble extent of use of the various techniques for analysis of earthquake effects
on dams.
Seismic Zones of the United States
Seismic zone maps of the United States (AIgermissen, 1969; AIgermissen
and Perkins, 1976) are used by most federal and state agencies as basic
references when deciding if any seismic factors should be considered in dam
design and if special investigations are required. Since such maps are incor-
porated in most building cocles, they are often employed in selecting design
criteria for buildings and ancillary structures and systems at dams. The zone
maps, in part, are developed on the basis of historic seismicity, such as shown
in Figure 3-1 . The historic earthquake record indicates that damaging earth-
quakes occur throughout the United States. Figure 3-2 shows the Algermis-
sen (1969) seismic zone map, as it appears in the Uniform Building Code,
1979 Edition.
The Soil Conservation Service, the Corps of Engineers, and some states,
when dynamic response analyses are not required, employ seismic zones for
determining the minimum seismic coefficients for pseudostatic analyses.
The following Corps of Engineers criteria (giving coefficients to be multi-
plied by weight of structure to determine estimated horizontal earthquake
loadings) are typical:
Seismic
Zone
o
2
3
4
Minimum Coefficient
(x g)
o
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
OCR for page 25
25
Cal
·=
be
¢
U.
Cd
o
4 -
U)
o
o
._
Cal
Cal
o
be
._
Cd
lo;
o
-
Ct
C)
40
._
C)
a;
U)
Cal
C)
._
C)
Cd
o
Cal ~
Ct
~ Ct
U: ~
Cal
Cal
. -
lo;
o
Cal
Cal
.=
o
.o
Cal
;> ~
·_ l,
·— Ct
Ct
;^
=5 C)
C) Ct
U) ¢
4- o
o ~ V:
V: 4 - ~
:^
Ct
._ o
o
C) o
._ ~
.~ ~ Ct
~ — ~
U) lo; ~
-
.
C)
* *
* *
* * *
* * *
* * * * * * *
* * * *
*
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
~ -
co
~ -
a Y E ~ ' y ° A ~ ~ _
E ~ ~ ~ 8 C' ~ ~ a. v °c c ~: Ce 8 ~, 't 0 ~ A
01 U) - / ~ Z V) << ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~
OCR for page 26
26
a
~ ~ ¢
U'
O
=5 C)
=_eS
C.O V]
~ ~ Pa
.
~;
o
.=
o
.o
C)
Cd
C) O
C~ ~ ~ * * * *
. Ct
_ ~= ~ ~ 3=
~ ~ZZZZZ
*
* * * * *
*
* * *
* * *
*
* * * *
q)
.C
.= ~ ~ ~ ,'
b4 ~ o ~ ~
." o~ ~ Ct ,~
o ~ —
~ :5 0 ~ ~
*
*
* *
*
*
.o
.=,
^ ::'
3 o ~
~, ~ ~ —
>,, ~ .> U
3 ~ ~ ~
~ Cd o
Z cn u,
C)
~,
C:
~ 1
C~
·— U)
;> _ ;~;
U) ~ C~
~ o
#_
C) 3
,. o
c-) e~
OCR for page 27
27
~ ^
C,) _
~ CC
~ 3
V] ~
._ _
._
4-
ct
o
Ct
._
a,, o
C)
C:
~ o
~ O
o
*
*
c4 o =^ C:
~ ~ ~ 3 ~
* *
* *
*
Ct
At C)
sow o
~ ~: ¢
.
o
U]
.=
o
.o U)
C) =.
Ct
* z
.
~4
.
3
o
-
o
E~
C,
Ct ~
s:
~C °
Ct Ct ,=
,=:
Y'- ~
~:
Ct
o .=
C)
~, ~ ._
o
~ o
O .N .Ct
~4 c:
~ ¢ ·=
Ct ~ ·—
>= ;>
L1 ~ ~
4- ·= ·—
C~
t_ C;
ct ~ V:
Ct
~ 3 ~
U]
— C,) Ce
~ ~ .=
~ Cd V,
o ~..~ 3
o
.
Cd
O
° c~s -t C)
U:
Ct Ct L~
o C33 ~
~ .= V
— o ._
V]
~g ~
Ct C~
~ 3
, C~ CD
Ct
.
.s
.~
.o
.=
V:
C)
3
. -
~o
C)
o
Ct
o
Ct
m
C:
~o
o
·=
Ct ~
0
C) ~
°
~a =~=
Ct ~ ~ O
~ O C~
· - ~ ~ 0
C~ Z
~ ~ O
.~= ~ ~
O ~ O
O U, ~ ~
.0 0 _o
· - ~ ~
·_
.=
_
O ~
Ct ~ · ~ Ct
,,, ~ ~ o 3
Ct ~ ~ C~
o
¢
C 'o C ~ C
o ~ ~ ~ C~
V: Co C)
=, C) ·;>
C~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4- ~ ~ o .=
o ~ o
o ¢
~ ~ ~ 3 ~
o
~? ~ :i O ~ ~
. - C ~ ~ -O (D
· ~ =, Ct CoJ
~ ~ C 3 ~ 3
o ~ ~ o ~ 0
V'
Ct
OCR for page 28
28
Cat
._
o
~5
G)
_ j . ~
W1..o
— (3,
_
3 E
..
a:)
Cat _
C' o
—1-
1 o
~~-
'I'm
~ ° .' .
;' ,.~d
OCR for page 29
Summary of Present Practices
,25° ,20° ,,5° ,~o° 305° ~oo°
A-- ~~'r~rl-~1
95° 90° 85° 80° 75° 70° 65°
4501~
~n°
25°
_... ..~..
1
\ ~/ ~
SEISMIC RISK MAP OF THE UNITED STATES '~_
ZONE 0 No damage. r2~F _
ZONE 1 Minor damage; distant earthquakes may
cause damage to structures with tunda.
mental periods greater than 1.0 second.
corresponds to intensisios V and Vl of
the M, M. ~ Scale.
ZONE 2 Moderatadamago;correspondsto intensity Vl1
of the M.M.. Scale.
ZONE 3 Major damage; corresponds to intensity All I
and higher of the M.M.. Scale.
ZONE 4 Those areas within Zone No. 3 determined by
the proximity to certain major fault sVstoms.
·Modifiod Mercatal tntonsitv Scaloof 1931
\~~_:L~
1 1
\ ma_ ~~~
_ .
80° 75°
so ~ 1 Do 1 o5o 1 ooo 950 900 85°
29
45°
40°
35°
Boo
25°
FIGURE 3-2 Seismic risk map of the United States. Source: Reproduced from the Uniform
Building Code, 1979 (1982) (1985) edition, ~ 1979 (1982) (1985), with permission of the pub-
l~sher, the International Conference of Building Officials.
Earthquake Intensity and Magnitude Scales
Both the Modified Mercalli intensity scale (Table 3-5) and the Richter
magnitude scale are in use to describe earthquakes, although clam safety
criteria usually refer to the Richter scale.
The Richter magnitude scale describes the size of the earthquake; that is,
it describes the seismic energy released by a fault rupture as well as the size of
the area affected by strong ground shaking. Thus, Richter magnitudes are
not directly comparable with Mercalli intensity ratings that vary over the
affected area. The approximate relationships between Richter magnitudes
and areas in square miles affected by various levels of peak accelerations, as
developed for the western United States, are shown in Table 3-6.
Seismologists actually have defined four types of magnitude measures or
scales: Me, Ms. mb, and Mw, which are based on the recorded amplitudes of
local waves, surface waves, body waves, and very long period waves, respec-
tively; these waves become prominent on seismograms at different distances
from the earthquake source. The Richter magnitudes commonly reported in
the news media are actually Mr for earthquakes relatively close to the seis-
mograph and Ms for earthquakes at greater distances from the seismograph.
OCR for page 30
30
TABLE 3-5 Modified Mercalli Intensity Ratings
SAFETY OF DAMS
MMI Condensed Description
I Not felt
II Felt indoors by few, especially on upper floors
III Felt indoors by several
IV Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few
V Felt indoors by practically all, outdoors by many
VI Felt by all, damage slight in poorly built buildings
VII Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction, slight to moderate
in well-built ordinary buildings, considerable in poorly built or badly designed
buildings
VIII Damage slight in structures built especially to withstand earthquakes, considerable
in ordinary substantial buildings
IX Damage considerable in structures built especially to withstand earthquakes
X Many specially designed structures destroyed
XI Few, if any, structures remaining standing
XII Complete destruction
The commonly used Richter magnitude (based on Me for smaller earth-
quakes and Ms for large earthquakes) does not have the same numerical
value as the mb and Mw; hence these differences should be taken into ac-
count.
Seismic Design Terminology
The following terms in reference to ground motions at the dam site, or to
earthquakes causing those motions, are presently used by various govern-
ment agencies ant! other entities with respect to seismic design criteria:
DBE design basis earthquake (Planning Research Corporation)
DE- design earthquake (R. W. Beck & Associates)
EDBE economic design basis earthquake (USER, California)
MCE maximum credible earthquake (most agencies)
MCGM maximum credible ground motion (USER, California)
MDE maximum design earthquake (ICODS)
ME—maximum earthquake (FERC)
OBE operational basis earthquake (NRC, USACE, TVA)
PMA probable maximum acceleration (Missouri)
SSE—safe shutdown earthquake (NRC3
Definitions of these terms as used by various entities follow. Maximum
credible earthquake (MCE) is defined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
OCR for page 31
Summary of Present Practices
TABLE 3-6 Richter Magnitudes and Square-Mile Areas as Affected by
Peak Accelerations
31
Peak Acceleration Earthquake Magnitude (Richter)
(percent of acceleration (area in square miles)
of gravity equalled or
exceeded) 5 6 7 8
5 400 3,600 13,000 50,000
10 90 1,600 7,500 30,000
20 - 150 2,500 14,000
30 - 300 6,000
40 - 3,000
50 - -
as, "the earthquake that would cause the most severe vibratory ground
motion or foundation dislocation capable of being produced at the site under
the currently known tectonic framework" (emphasis supplied); by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation as, "at a specific seismic source the maximum earth-
quake that appears capable of occurring in the presently known tectonic
framework. It is a rational and believable event that is in accord with all
known geologic and seismologic facts"; by the Tennessee Valley Authority as,
"the earthquake associated with specific seismotectonic structures, source
areas, or provinces that would cause the most severe vibratory ground mo-
tion or foundation dislocation capable of being produced at the site under
the currently known tectonic framework"; and by the Interagency Commit-
tee on Dam Safety as, "the hypothetical earthquake from a given source that
could produce the severest vibratory ground motion at the dam."
The term maximum credible ground motion (MCGM) or equivalent ter-
minology is used by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Division of
Safety of Dams, and others; however, all entities do not define MCGM in the
same way for use in dam safety analysis. For such purpose, MCGM may be
described by several of the following sets of data:
· peak ground acceleration
· peek ground velocity
· duration of strong shaking
· response spectrum
· time history (a recording of ground acceleration versus time)
The draft paper entitled "Proposed Federal Guidelines for Earthquake
Analysis and Design of Dams," developed by an interagency task group of the
Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS), uses the term maximum
OCR for page 32
32
SAFETY OF DAMS
design earthquake to describe the earthquake selected for design analysis of a
project after considering earthquake potential of the dam site and the poten-
tial losses from failure of the dam.
The term maximum earthquake used by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, apparently generally refers to the same type event as the term
maximum credible earthquake.
Planning Research Corporation has defined design basis earthquake
(DBE) as, "the largest earthquake which would be expecter] to occur once
during the expected life of the project."
R. W. Beck & Associates used design earthquake (DE) in the design of
Swan Lake arch dam in Alaska, and define it as the "largest earthquake that
would be expected to occur during the economic life of the dam (recurrence
interval of once in 100 years)." "Largest earthquake" implies the "earth-
quake producing the greatest loading on the structure."
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation defines the economic design basis earth-
quake (EDBE) as that earthquake under the loacling from which "the proj-
ect facilities not critical to the retention or release of the reservoir would be
designed to sustain the earthquake with repairable damage." The degree of
damage that wouicI be acceptable could be based on an economic analysis or
an estimate of the cost of the repair versus the initial cost to repair the
damage.
Operating basis earthquake is definer! by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers as, "the maximum level of ground motion that can be expected to occur
at the site during the economic life of the project, usually 100 years"; by the
Tennessee Valley Authority as, "the earthquake for which the dam is de-
signed to resist and remain operational"; and by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission as, "that earthquake which, considering the regional and local
geology and seismology and specific characteristics of local subsurface mate-
rial, could reasonably be expected to affect the plant site during the operat-
ing life of the plant."
Regulations proposed by the State of Missouri specify a fraction of proba-
ble maximum acceleration (PMA) as the design acceleration for various
stages of design and different classes of dams, defining PMA as the "probable
maximum acceleration of bedrock determined by the seismic zones" used by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines safe shutdown earthquake
(SSE) as that earthquake based on an evaluation of the maximum earth-
quake potential considering the regional and local geology and specific char-
acteristics of local surface material.
Maximum credible and safe shutdown earthquakes are used to evaluate
the safety of dams; however, some damage to the facility cluring such an
earthquake is acceptable, provided there is no release of reservoir water. All
OCR for page 33
Summary of Present Practices
33
respondents said they determine such earthquakes for dams using determi-
nistic approaches, except Acres American, Inc., which develops both proba-
bilistic and deterministic approaches and adopts the most severe earthquake
found by either approach. Operating basis, design, design basis, and eco-
nomic design basis earthquakes are used for dynamic analyses. Probabilistic
methods sometimes are used to develop these earthquake estimates. Minimal
damage is expected from these earthquakes.
Seismic Criteria for Pseudostatic Stability Analysis
Before the mid-1960s only the pseudostatic methods of stability analysis
were used for dams in seismic areas. The seismic load was assumed to be a
sustained horizontal force acting on the dam in the most critical direction.
Depending upon the size of the dam and the seismic risk, the seismic force
was assumed to range from 0.05 to 0.15 times the weight of the structure.
For larger dams the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation combined horizontal
acceleration effects with a vertical component, which was 50 percent of the
horizontal acceleration; the assumed directions of the two components were
those most unfavorable to structural stability. Most large foreign dams
adopted similar criteria. For example, Bhakra Dam in India, a 740-foot-
high concrete gravity structure located about 180 kilometers from the epi-
center of the Richter magnitude (M) 8.6 Kangra earthquake of 1905, was
designed for a lateral force coefficient of 0.15 and a vertical force coefficient
of 0.075. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers still requires the use of seismic
coefficients for sliding and stability analyses of concrete dams and struc-
tures. Hydrodynamic pressures also were taken into account by similar
methods in some cases.
Dynamic Response Analyses
Analysis of the dynamic response of a dam to specified earthquake ground
motion, when it is located in seismic zones 3 or 4 (and under some conditions,
in zone 2), is now part of the dam safety criteria of most federal agencies.
Only three states specifically stated that dynamic response analyses were
used; others stated they user] standards of federal agencies and, thus, implied
use of such analyses. It is surmised that states that have relatively new dam
safety programs and/or do not have mapped active faults within their
boundaries are using pseudostatic methods or are not considering earth-
quake loadings.
The dynamic response analyses may be two- or three-dimensional and
employ the finite element technique. Depending on the size and type of
dam, the foundation characteristics, and the severity of the design earth-
OCR for page 34
34
SAFETY OF DAMS
quake, the analysis may consider deformations of the foundations and abut-
ments as well as the structure.
For embankment dams, the principal objectives of a dynamic analysis are
assessment of liquefaction potential of susceptible materials and determina-
tion of permanent deformations and the potential for cracking. For concrete
dams, the dynamic response analyses determine the instantaneous total (dy-
namic plus static) stresses at both faces of the dam and at designated loca-
tions.
The possible effects of fault movement on the dam are included as appro-
priate.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
probable maximum
