Click for next page ( 270


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 269
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 269
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 269
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 269
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 269
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 269
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 269
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