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 269
Ides
A
Accelerograms, 71-72
Acres American Inc.
earthquake design criteria, 26, 33,
203-207
spillway capacity design, 22,
163-164
Acts of God, 12,86,90-92
Ad Hoc Interagency Committee on
Darn Safety of the Federal
Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering and Technology, 19,
25,118,177
Aetna Insurance Co. v. United States,
86
Air mass analysts, 38
Alabama, 207
Alabama Power Company
(Birmingham), 22, 26, 164, 207
Alaska, 19, 25, 134,190
Alaska earthquake of 1964, 41
Ladd Airforce Base incident and
liability, 87
American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE)
design criteria, 159-160
spillway capacity design, 21,38-39
Antecedent conditions, 48-50
Applied Technology Council (1978J, 70
269
Arch dams, 205
Arizona, 19, 25,52, 134-136, 158-159,
202-203
Arkansas, 17, 20,126
Attenuation relations, 65
B
Baldwin Processing Co. v. Georgia
Power Co., 90
Bar. Game, Fish & Park
Comm~on, 91-92
Basin runoff, 49
Bayesian procedures, 235
Beck, R. W., and Associates, 22, 27,32,
164,208-210
Bhakra Dam, 33
Breach development, 245-246
Bulletin 17 (Interagency Advisory
Committee on Water Data, 1982J,
228-230
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior
dams designed or constructed, 163
earthquake design criteria, 177-180
earthquake hazard evaluation, 25
existing dams, evaluation of,
119-120
flood design criteria, 118-120
loading conditions, 118-119
OCR for page 270
270
maximum design earthquake, 119
probable maximum flood, 118
risk-cost analysts, 52, 244-249
seismic loading, 177-179
spillway capacity design, 19
Burleson v. United States, 87
California. See also Los Angeles,
Department of Water and Power; Concrete dams
East Bay Municipal Utility
District.
Crystal Springs Dam, 40
dam safety standards, 100
earthquake design criteria, 191
earthquake hazard evaluation, 25
faults, 61-62, 64
hydrologic and earthquake safety
criteria, 137-138
Liability, 94
probabilistic safety approach, 51
pseudostatic analysts, 41
San Andreas fault, 40
San Fernando earthquake of 1971,
41
San Francisco earthquake of 1906,
40
spillway capacity design, 20, 137
Van Norman dams, 41
California Department of Water
Resources, 41
California Division of Safety of Dams,
17
Capable fault, 189-190
Central Maine Power Company
(Augusta), 22,27, 164-165, 207
China, HsingfengkiangDam, 41, 71
Chrysler Corp. v. Dallas Power &
Light Co., 90
Cities Service Co. v. State of Florida,
95
Clark-Aiken Co. v. CTon2vell-Wright
Co., 95
Clark v. United States, 86
Classification of dams. See Hazard
potential classification of dams;
Size classification of dams.
Colorado, 20,25,52, 191-192
Committee on Safety Criteria for
Dams, 1, 5-7
Index
design approach, proposed, 108-109
earthquake criteria, proposed,
106-112
federal government, impact of
proposals of, 104
hydrologic criteria, proposed,
97-105
nonfederal dam owners, impact of
proposals of, 104-105
design approach to, 40, 108, 148,
187, 205-206
dynamic analysis for, 34
seismic analysis for, 40-43
spillway capacity design, 55
Congressional legislation on liability,
84-86
Crawford v. Cobbs & Mitchell Co., 90
Crystal Springs Dam, 40
Cart~sv. Dewey, 91
D
Dalehite v. United States, 85
Dam-break routing models, 58
Dam owner's liability during floods,
89-90
Damage estimation, 236-240, 247-251
Dams, existing, 120-121, 148-149, 187
Dawson v. Chrysler Corp., 93,96
De minimus risk level, 78
Defensive design measures, 42
Delaney clause, 78-79
Design approach for earthquakes,
proposed, 108-109
Design basis earthquake (DBE), 32,
208
Design criteria, evolution of for
extreme floods, 35-38
Design criteria, proposed, 107-109
Design earthquake criteria, 32,
175-210
Design flood estimates, 44-60, 77
Design motion, 204
Design objectives, 8-14
Discount rate for public-sector
benefit-cost studies, 39
Dispersion effect, 71
Diversion floods, 165
Downstream areas, effect of floods on,
18,23
OCR for page 271
Index
Downstream damage predictions, 58
Downstream warning systems. see
Warning and evacuation systems.
Duke Power Company (Charlotte,
North Carolina), 22, 27,165, 207
Duration time, 70-71
Dynamic response analysis, 33 34,
41-43, 209
E
Earth dams, 34, 36, 40, 108-109, 141,
144, 147,187, 206
seismic analysis, 40-43
spillway design, 137-138
Earthquake criteria, proposed,
10~112
Earthquake effects, criteria for, 24-34
Earthquake engineering technologies,
development of, 110,112
Earthquake hazard potentials, 24-34
Earthquake loading, 179-180, 194, 200
Earthquake research, 112
Earthquake-resistant design, 39-43
Earthquakes. See also Seismic.
largest, 32
magnitude analysts, 3, 28-31, 65
reservoir induced, 71-73, 179, 208
East Bay Municipal Utility District
(California), 21,26, 158, 201
Economic analysis for dam safety
designs, 39
Economic design basis earthquake
(EDBE), 32
Embankment dams. See Earth dams.
Envelopment, 213
Environmental classification, 145-146,
195
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), 79,82
Epicentral intensity, 65
Equity objectives, 9-10
Evacuation systems. See Warning and
evacuation systems.
Executive Order 12291, 78
Extreme floods, evolution of design
criteria, 35-38
F
Failures and liability, 84-96
Fault rupture, 64, 66, 70
271
Fault slip, 64
Faults, 61, 189-191
Federal agencies
dams designed or constructed, 163
design criteria, 115-134, 175-190
seismic stability analysis, 42-43
Federal and state court liability cases,
85-86
Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), risk management
standards, 79, 81-82
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), 120-121,
180
earthquake hazard evaluation, 25
existing dams, 120-121
maximum earthquake, 32
risk management, 82-83
spillway capacity design, l9,
120-121
Federal government
Executive Order 12291, 78
liability and torts, 84-89
proposals, impact of, 104
risk management, 3, 77-83
Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, 118
Federal Torts Claims Act, 84-86
Flood control, 50
Flood Control Act, 86
Flood frequency analysis, 3~37,
228-231,234-244
Flood magnitude analysis, 2-3
Flood prediction, 12-13
Flood risk, 230-234
Flood rousing, 58
Florida, strict liability, 94-95
Florida East Coast By. Co. v. United
States, 8~87
Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
risk management standards, 79
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 78
Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
earthquake design criteria, 181
earthquake hazard evaluation, 25
hazard classification of dams,
122-123
spillway capacity design, l9,
121-122
Frank v. County of Merce7, 91
OCR for page 272
272
Fuller, W. E., flood frequency formula,
36
G
Georgia, 17, 20,52, 138-140, 192
Gibson Dam, 159
Graci v. United States, 85-87
Gravity and buttress dams, 108
Gravity-arch dams, 205
Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 92
Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. Merritt
Chapman & Scott Co., 86,94
H
Harriman Dam, 166-168
Hawaii, 20, 39, 193
Hazard potential classification of
dams, 2,4,16-17,102,122-123,
125-128,130-131, 135, 150-151,
155-156, 170, 174
Hazards, downstream, 2, 55
Hebgen Dam,41
Hebgen Lake earthquake of 1959, 41
Herro v. Board of County Road
Commisszonersfor County
Chippeu~a, 88-89
High-hazard dams, 3-4, 10, 98-102
Historic seismicity, 178
Horseshoe Dam, 159
HsingfengkiangDam, 41, 71
Human fatalities estimates, 74-76
Human life cost analysis, 52, 55, 57-58,
244-252
Hurricanes Connie and Diane, 1955,
89
Hydraulic effects analysis, safety
evaluation flood, 52
Hydrodynamic pressures, 40
Hydrograph, flood, 51
Hydrologic criteria, proposed, 97-105
Hydrologic engineering technologies,
development of, 110-112
Hydrology, concepts of probability in,
227-240
Hydrometeorological research,
111-112
I
Illinois, 19, 25, 139-140, 193
Illinois Association of Lake
Index
Communities, legality of criteria
forexistingdams,168-169
India, Koyna Dam,41,71
Indiana, 20, 140, 193
Inflow Design Flood (IDF), 119, 123
Institution of Civil Engineers (London)
dam classification, 17, 170-174
dam safety standards, 100
design criteria, 168-174
flood frequency, 18, 51
reservoir flood and wave standards,
170-171
spillway capacity design, 22,37
Interagency Committee on Dam Safety
(ICODS)
earthquake design criteria, 181-184
earthquake hazard evaluation, 25
inflow design flood selection,
123-124
maximum credible earthquake, 31
maximum design earthquake, 31-32
risk-cost analysts, 53
spillway capacity design, l9
Interagency Committee on Large
Dams (ICOLD), 21, 42, 160-161
Interest rate and economic analysis of
dam safety design, 39
Inundation mapping, 55
Japan, seismic stability of dams, 40
jury trials and liability, 92-93
K
Kansas, 20, 25, 141-143, 193
KoynaDam,41,71
Krupa v. Farmington River Pouter
Co.,90
Kunz v. Utah Power & Light Co., 90
L
Legal care, standard of, 88
Liability, 3, 10, 39, 84-96
Little v. Price, 92
Loading conditions, ll9
Lognormal plotting grid, 243
Los Angeles, Department of Water and
Power, 21, 26,157-158,200-201
Louisiana, 20, 143-144, 193
OCR for page 273
Index
M
Main, Charles T., Inc. (Boston,
Massachusetts), 22, 27, 207
Maine, 20, 144, 194, 207
Massachusetts, strict liability, 94-95
Maximum credible earthquake (MCE),
4,30-32,62-64,68, 106, 177-178
Maximum credible ground motion
(MCGM),31
Maximum design earthquake (MDE),
31-32,181-183
Maximum possible precipita, tion
(MPP),46
Maximum possible spillway design
floods, 37
McClaskey v. United States, 86-87
273
NewJersey, 20, 26,146,196
Newm ark analysis, 205
New Mexico, 20, 26,92, 146-147,
196-197
New-oldriskstandard, 80-81, 98, 147
New York, 20, 26, 147-149,197
New York Power Authority, 26,
201-202
Nonfederal dam owners, impact of
proposals, 104-105
North Carolina, 20, 26,52, 54-55,
149-150,197
North Carolina Dam Safety Program,
54-55
North Dakota, 17, 20, 150, 197
Nuclear power plants, 132-134
Mercalli intensity scale, 28-30 Nuclear reactor facilities, risk analysis
Meteorological estimation, 49 for, 63
Meyers rating, 36
Miami Conservancy District (Ohio)
flood control project, 43
Michigan, 17, 20, 144,194
Minnesota, standard of care, 88
Mississippi, 20, 25, 144-145, 194
Mississippi River flood control project,
85
Missouri, 20,26,32, 145, 194-196
Montana, 41, 159
Monci Corp. v. United States, 87
Mortality, annual, 75
Moulton v. Groveland Paper Co., 94,
96
Mountainous regions, 214
N
National Dam Inspection Program, 23
National F food Insurance Program, 37
National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration (NHSTA),
82
NationalManufactunng Co. v. United
States, 85-86
National Weather Service (NWS),
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce,
19,111, 124-125
Nebraska, 20, 26, 146, 196
Negligence, 85, 87-89
New Hampshire, 94-96
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), 19, 25, 78-81,133, 168,
267
nuclear power plants, earthquake
and flood design guidelines,
132-134
safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), 32,
189
Safety of Existing Dams: Evaluation
and Improvement, 45
uranium mills, 133
Nuttli, Otto W., 267
o
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), risk
management, 78, 82
Ohio, 21, 150-151, 198
Old risk-new risk standards, 80-81,98,
147
Operating basis earthquake (OBE), 32,
181-183, 189
Orographic regions. See mountainous
regions under Probable maximum
precipitation.
p
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 52
Paleohydrological methods, 112, 235
Peak ground motion, 69
Peak natural inflow, 49
Peak reservoir outflow, 49
OCR for page 274
274
Pearson Type III (gamma)
distribution, 229
Peg model, 37-38
Pennsylvania, 21,52,151-153
Peterson v. United States, 87
Phoenix Valley (Arizona), 158
Pinopolis West Dam, 203
Planning Research Corporation (PRC),
22,27,32, 165-166, 208
Population at risk, 75
Private firms' design criteria, 163-168,
203-210
Privately owned dams, 23,59-60
Probabilistic approach, 51-52
Probability density function, 236
Probable maximum acceleration
(PMA),32
Probable maximum flood (PMF), 2,
10,13-14,48-49,50,90-92,
98-102,118-119, 231-234,
241-244
Probable maximum precipitation
(PMP), 2, 13,38,45-48,56, 106,
124-125
charts and studies, 214-219
evaluation of estimates, 221-226
moisture adjustment for, 212-213
mountainous regions, 214-215
seasonalvariation of, 220-221
spatial distribution, 215,219
specific basin application, 213-214
spillway capacity criteria, 23
storm transposition, 212-214
temporal distribution, 219-220
Project safety evaluation, 50-51
Pseudostatic analysis, 33, 40-43, 192
Public perception of safely, 8, 10
Public-sector benefit-cost studies, 39
R
Rainfall. See also Probable maximum
precipitation.
estimation, 46, 227-228
reporting, 35-36
Rare floods, frequency analysis for,
234-240
Reasonablecare,13
Reservoir flood and wave standards,
170-171
Index
Reservoir-induced earthquakes, 71, 73,
179,208
Reservoir operations, 49-51
Reservoir routing, 50-51
Response spectrum, 71-72, 209
Retrofitting of dams, 79-83, 246
Richter scale, 29-31,65
Risk-cost analysis, 52-59, 101,
104-105, 241-254
advantages and limitations of,
57-59, 252-254
damage estimation, 236-240,
247-251
economic analysts, 52
flood frequency curves, 241-244
human life cost estimates, 52, 55,
57-58, 244-252
illustrated example, 246-249
Risk management, 74-83
Risks, 11-14, 87-89
Roosevelt Dam, 159, 202
Rylands v. Fletcher, 93-95
S
Safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), 32,
189
Safety costs versus hazard probability,
9-14,39,52,76,80-83,88,
92-93,102, 172-174, 246-252
Safety evaluation earthquake (SEE),
107-108
Safety evaluation flood, 52, 97-98
Salt River Project (Arizona), 21, 26,
158-159, 202-203
Salt River Valley Water Users
Association v. Giglio, 90
San Andreas fault, 40, 63
San Fernando earthquake of 1971, 41,
64
San Francisco earthquake of 1906, 40,
64
Sanborn v. United States, 87
Santee Cooper, 159, 203
Seismic coefficients, 33, 185, 188, 204
Seismic design criteria, 30-34
Seismic hazard estimation, 24-34,
61-73,168
deterministic-statistical method,
63-66,77
OCR for page 275
Index
ground motion, 62-66, 68-70
probabilistic risk analysis, 69
seismotectonic (semiprobabilistic)
method, 66-69
Seismic history, 178-179
Seismicload, 33, 179-180,194, 200
Seismic stability of dams, 40-43
Seismic zone, 24, 29
Seismographs, 65
Seismotectonic province, 68
Shearing stress failures, 61
Size classification of dams, 130, 141,
143,148,151, 155, 162
Slope deformation analyses, 192
Smith v. East Bay Munu~pal Utility
District, 90
Snowmelt, 118, 220-221
Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
125-127
dams designed or constructed, 163
earthquake hazard evaluation,
24-25
seismic assessment, 184-185
spillway capacity design, 17, 19
Soil moisture, 49
Soules v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 91
South Carolina, 21,52, 153-154, 159,
198
South Carolina Public Service
Authority, 21, 26
South Dakota, 21, 153
Sovereign immunity, 84-87
Spillway capacity design, 17-23,
3~39, 44, 55-57,91-92,
103-104, 136-137, 145-146
deterministic approach, 18,44-51
probabilistic approach, 18, 51-52
retrofitting, 246-247
risk-cost analysis, 38-39, 52-53,
102-103
unsafe dams, 57, 79-80,82-83
Spillway design flood (SDF), 13-14,
52,98, 121-122,133-134
Spillways, 8-9, 50
Standard of care, 88-89
State and local agencies' design
criteria, 134-159, 168-169,
190-203
Static lateral force coefficient, 40
275
Storm transposition, 212-214
Storms, effects of, 49
Stoverv. United States, 86
The Strategy of Social Regulation, 77
Stream stage data, 36
Strict liability, 85, 93-96
Surface faulting potential, 179
Sutliffv. Sweetwater Water Co., 94
Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project,
Alaska, 32, 208-210
T
Technological hazards, 75
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 17,
19,25,31-32,37,47, 126,
128-129,163, 185-188
Teton Dam Compensation Act, 86
Texas,21, 153, 198-199
Texas city disaster liability tort, 85
Time history response analysis, 205,
210
Torts (tort law), 84-96
Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co., 94
U
Unconditional probability approach,
167-168
Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition,
seismic zone map, 24, 29
Unit hydrographs, 37, 165
United States v. Carroll Towing
Company, 88
Unsafe dams, 7, 79-83, 99-102, 131,
158,168-169,246
Uranium mills, 133
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 16-17,
19, 24,32-33,37, 128-132, 163,
188-190
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC), human fatalities
estimates, 74
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 31-33, 52
U.S. Committee on Large Dams
(USCOLD), 21, 161-163
U.S. engineering role in worldwide
dam design, 15
U.S. Supreme Court
liability and torts, 85
risk management, 78
OCR for page 276
276
U.S. Weather Bureau, rainfall
reporting, 35-36
Utah, 17, 21, 26, 153,199
V
Valley Cattle Co. v. United States, 87
Van Norman dams, 41
Vegetation, 49
Verde River, 158-159
Vermont, unconditional probability
approach, 167-168
Villarreal v. United States, 86
Virginia, 21,46,154-155, 199
Volumetric conservation equation, 50
Index
W
Warning and evacuation systems, S2,
57-58
Washington, 21, 156
Washington, D.C., estimated rainfall,
46
Wave train, 71
West Virginia, 17, 21, 26, 15~157, 200
Willie v. Minnesota Power ~ Light
Co.,88
y
Yankee Atomic Electric Company
(Framingham, Massachusetts),
22, 166-168, 210
Representative terms from entire chapter:
spillway capacity
