monticello blind prediction workshop - ussd€¦ · monticello blind prediction workshop ussd...

of 13/13
Monticello Blind Prediction Workshop USSD EARTHQUAKES COMMITTEE APRIL 2016

Post on 15-Oct-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Monticello Blind Prediction WorkshopUSSD EARTHQUAKES COMMITTEEAPRIL 2016

  • 340-ft tall medium arch Earthquake recorded on May 22, 2015

    Epicenter 16 km away from the dam

    4.1M ground motion

  • Material Testing

    Static Compression: 3080-5820 lb/in2

    Dynamic Compression: 3640-5570 lb/in2

    Static Direct Tension: 55-245 lb/in2

    Static Split Tension: 260-425 lb/in2

    Dynamic Split Tension: 230-595 lb/in2

    Static Modulus of Elasticity: 4.12-7.18x106 lb/in2

    Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity: 3.00-6.68x106 lb/in2

  • Eccentric Shaker Test

  • Ground Motion

  • Ground Motion Response Spectra

    0

    0.05

    0.1

    0.15

    0.2

    0.25

    0.3

    0.35

    0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

    Acc

    eler

    atio

    n (g

    )

    Period (seconds)

    Response Spectrum

    EW NS VERT

  • Prediction Assumptions

  • Upstream/Downstream Displacement Predictions

  • Cross-CanyonDisplacement Predictions

  • Upstream/Downstream Response Spectra

  • Cross-Canyon Response Spectra

  • Questions for Discussion Given the information provided, what is the ideal analysis

    methodology? Multiple? What boundary conditions are appropriate? Could there have been considerable impacts of resonance on the

    instrument? What model assumptions are subject to the greatest uncertainty in

    this analysis? What other data or assumptions would have been needed to

    improve the blind predictions? What conclusions can we draw from the presented responses for

    future predictions of dam response? Do these predictions provide enough confidence to make decisions

    informed by finite element analysis? How do we do better?