MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2294525609 · doi:10.14288/1.0050426

Seismic analyses of Wappapello Dam

2009· article· en· W2294525609 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. O. Ahlfield

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueDam Engineering and Safety
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGeologySeismology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Wappapello Dam is a rolled-fill, earth dam located on the St. Francis River, approximately 15 miles north of Poplar Bluff, in Missouri, USA. The dam is currently owned and operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District (USACE-CELMS). The dam was constructed between 1938 to 1941 for flood control purposes. The dam is approximately 73 ft high and the crest is 30 ft wide at El. 419.74 ft (NGVD). The dam is approximately 2,700 ft long. The dam is founded on approximately 120 ft of alluvium underlain by bedrock material identified as dolomite. The upper 40 ft of the alluvial deposits consist of loose, fine sands and silts, less than 500 years old, identified as the Young Point Bar Deposits. This deposit has been identified as potentially liquefiable, and the USACE have initiated a number of studies over the years to determine the dynamic behaviour of Wappapello Dam. The first phase of the seismic study was carried out in 1982 by the USACE-Memphis District and consisted of a one-dimensional liquefaction assessment of Wappapello Dam and the underlying foundation soils. The main conclusions resulting from this work indicated that the Young Point Bar Deposits were indeed susceptible to liquefaction under the design earthquake loads. The second phase of the seismic study was carried out in 1988 b> the USACE-St. Louis District and consisted of limit equilibrium stability analyses, assigning post-liquefaction residual strength values to the liquefied deposits. The residual strength values were determined using an empirically-based correlation relationship with field measured penetration values. The postearthquake limit equilibrium factor of safety was about 1.0 for the estimated residual strength, and therefore, the main conclusion from the phase 2 studies was that the likelihood of an earthquakeinduced embankment slide causing a reservoir release was low. Since 1988, further advances have been made in the liquefaction assessment procedures, the assessment of residual strength and the evaluation of post-liquefaction deformation analyses. Therefore, the USACE initiated the third phase of the seismic study of Wappapello Dam. This phase included a critical review of the phases 1 and 2 work, to ensure that advances made in the liquefaction assessment techniques and the residual strength evaluations since 1988 have not changed the previous conclusions, and a more rigorous evaluation of the post-earthquake deformation analyses, to ensure that the magnitude of the movements are within acceptable limits. The post-earthquake deformation analyses was carried out using the finite element computer programs, TARA-3 and TARA-3FL, developed by Dr. W.D.L. Finn of the University of British Columbia, Canada. The phase 3 work deformation analyses indicated that the magnitude of the post-earthquake movements were in the order of 25 ft vertically and greater than 200 ft horizontally, if the same design parameters as used in the phase 2 work were assumed. The discrepancy between the results of the finite element analyses and the limit equilibrium slope stability analyses was attributed to the different failure mechanisms assumed in each analysis. In the finite element analysis, failure was a result of the squeezing out of the liquefied foundation deposits due to the high gravity loads of the dam and the sliding on the softened material as a result of reservoir loading. In the limit equilibrium slope stability model, the failure is modelled by a circular slip surface cutting through both the embankment having a high strength of 3,000 psf and the Young Point Bar Deposit with a low, post-liquefied strength of 115 psf. The seismic stability of structures with extensive zones of liquefiable materials in the foundation should not be assessed using limited equilibrium slope stability analyses as the conclusions resulting from this type of analysis may be misleading. Additional deformation analyses were carried out in the phase 3 work using more realistic fieldmeasured penetration test values for the Young Point Bar Deposit. Parametric analyses were carried out by assuming different residual strength correlation relationships and varying ( N^ values for the Young Point Bar Deposits located downstream of the dam toe (which was unknown during the phase 3 work). The deformation values ranged from less than about 3 ft of vertical and horizontal deformations to greater than 20 ft vertically and 250 ft horizontally for the varying strength assumptions. Therefore, the seismic stability of Wappapello Dam depends on two critical input parameters: the penetration test values of the Young Point Bar Deposits located downstream of the dam toe; and the evaluation of residual strength. The following recommendations are made following the phase 3 studies: further field investigations should be carried out to determine the (Nj)^ values of the Young Point Bar Deposits located downstream of the dam toe; further studies should be carried out to determine the residual strength of the Young Point Bar Deposits. Additional laboratory testing and review of the empirically-derived residual strength vs (N,)^ database should be carried out to establish appropriate Sur values for this site; after the ( N ^ values of the Young Point Bar Deposit have been established and the appropriate design Sur values have been assigned, further deformation analyses should be carried out to determine the post-earthquake deformations of Wappapello Dam. The maximum acceptable post-earthquake deformation limits to ensure seismic stability of Wappapello Dam should be established by the USACE. If the estimated deformations are not acceptable, potential remedial measures should be assessed and implemented.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,957
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,180
Écart entre enseignants0,171 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetDam Engineering and SafetyTravaux en français237 207