Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Statistical analysis and structural identication in concrete dam monitoring
A. De Sortis
a,
, P. Paoliani
b
a
Department of Civil Protection, Via Vitorchiano 4, 00189 Roma, Italy
b
Large Dams National Authority, Via Curtatone 3, 00185 Roma, Italy
Received 18 October 2005; received in revised form 24 March 2006; accepted 18 April 2006
Available online 30 June 2006
Abstract
Large dam monitoring systems are usually based on both boundary conditions (temperature, rainfall, water level, etc.) and structural responses
(i.e. displacements, rotations, pore pressures, etc.). Statistical analysis tools are widely used to compare the current response of the dam to a whole
string of recorded data, in order to highlight in a timely manner eventual unwanted behaviours. The main drawback of this approach is that the
structural response quantities are related to the external loads using analytical functions, whose parameters do not have physical meaning. Another
option is using the structural identication technique, based on nite element models of the structure, that can be usefully adopted to obtain an
estimate of true physical parameters, such as the elastic Young modulus, an overall indicator of structural integrity.
In this paper, some hollow buttress gravity dams, built in Italy some decades ago, have been considered. The horizontal upstreamdownstream
crest displacement with respect to the foundation of each buttress, generally recorded with an acceptable degree of accuracy by pendulum
instruments, is mainly induced by variations of air temperature and reservoir water level. Eventual non-reversible effects, caused by the
accumulation of permanent drifts due to concrete deterioration, can also be evidenced.
Two different procedures have been compared: a statistical approach and a structural identication technique. Besides the additional advantages
in terms of information about the structural integrity of the dams, the structural identication results provide also a higher degree of accuracy in
predicting the future behaviour of the structure.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Structural monitoring; Statistical analysis; Structural identication; Structural integrity
1. Introduction
Large dams, more than other engineering constructions,
have strong interactions with environmental, hydraulic and
geomechanical factors (i.e. air and water temperature, water
level, pore pressure and uplift, rock deformability and so on),
each of which inuences the structural behaviour. Therefore
the detection of signicant indicators of structural behaviour
poses a constant challenge for engineers involved in large dam
safety control. Actually it is not easy to get reliable measures
by means of instruments often placed in hostile environments,
where humidity, temperature change, freeze and uncomfortable
access put to the test any kind of mechanical and electronic tool.
So, even if good records are available, data handling is essential
to attain dam safety control [1].

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 6820 4181; fax: +39 06 6820 2877.
E-mail addresses: adriano.desortis@protezionecivile.it (A. De Sortis),
paolo.paoliani@registroitalianodighe.it (P. Paoliani).
Statistical analysis is a well-known method, useful for
setting the rough string of measures in mathematical
expressions. The advantages of the method consist in simplicity
of formulation, speed of execution, availability of any kind
of correlation between governing and dependent parameters.
The main drawback is that statistical coefcients do not
have physical meaning, which prevents the engineer from
going back to unexpected structural response causes. So it
seems of interest to analyse the collected measures using also
structural identication techniques, in order to correlate the
dam behaviour with intrinsic parameters of the dam, such
as structure size, boundary conditions, and elastic properties.
In the following a comparison is given of statistical and
identication procedures, using the recorded response of some
hollow buttress gravity dams.
In Italy there are 11 hollow buttress gravity dams, whose
maximum height varies from 30 to over 100 m. Fig. 1 shows
downstream and upstream views of two dams. The dams are
0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.04.022
A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120 111
Fig. 1. Downstream view of Sabbione dam (a) and upstream view of Malga
Bissina dam (b).
Fig. 2. Malga Bissina dam: vertical (a) and horizontal (b) sections (units: m).
each subdivided into buttresses having (Fig. 2) T shape in plan,
with the larger side located upstream, triangular outline and the
same slope for the upstream and downstream faces (inclination
with respect to the vertical: almost 24

). The thickness of the


buttress walls increases from top to bottom with a constant
slope. The total width of the buttress (18 or 22 m, depending
on the dam), the shape and dimension of the crest and the
slopes are the same for all the buttresses, thus implying that
a shorter element can be obtained by cutting a taller one.
Hence, the geometry of a buttress can be uniquely determined
from its height. Permanent vertical joints are located between
the elements. In the case of structural regular behaviour, the
amount of joint opening assures that the response of each
buttress is independent from those of the adjacent elements,
a hypothesis that forms the basis of the subsequent analyses.
When joints come into contact, the structural dam behaviour no
longer lies in the upstreamdownstreamplane and a 3Danalysis
of the whole dam is required.
The reliability of the statistical data process depends on long
records of relevant and reliable measures. For this reason a
rst attempt to apply statistical and identication procedures
has been performed on hollow buttress gravity dams, built in
the 1950s, for which records of the upstreamdownstream
crest displacements, measured with a high degree of accuracy
by direct pendulum devices, span over decades. Thanks to
its standardized shape, this dam typology is suitable for
comparison of different structures in different environmental
conditions. In the past, several studies have been devoted to this
dam typology, as reported in [25].
The statistical and identication processing is outlined in
the following for Ancipa dam, while the other structures
will be referred to in the concluding remarks. In any case,
the analyses performed deal with few and reliable measures,
such as air mean daily temperature (T), reservoir water level
above the foundation (Q) and upstreamdownstream crest
displacements (D) with respect to the foundation of each
buttress. The last choice was made in order to take into
account just the contribution of the structure deformation to
the crest displacement. An example of data records is shown
in Fig. 3, where the available measures spanning over 40 years
of monitoring are reported; some lack of data concerning the
crest upstreamdownstream displacement (D record) is due to
instrument faults and rehabilitation works.
2. Statistical analysis
For a long time now, statistical procedures have been applied
to dam safety to nd out the contribution of external loads to
structure deformation and to identify irreversible components
in the structural response. An analytical formulation gives the
upstreamdownstream crest displacement D
j
(where j is the
time step, a day in the present analyses) as the sum of three
terms: the rst is due to air temperature change (D
T
j
) and the
second is related to the hydrostatic pressure (D
Q
j
); the third
term takes into account unexpected behaviour, in the following
called the trend line (D
A
j
):
D
j
= D
T
j
+ D
Q
j
+ D
A
j
. (1)
The simplest expressions for each term are:
D
T
j
= a cos
_
2j
365
_
+b sin
_
2j
365
_
(2)
D
Q
j
= c
1
Q
j
+c
2
Q
2
j
(3)
D
A
j
= d
0
+d
1
j. (4)
The unknown coefcients (a, b, c
1
, c
2
, d
0
and d
1
) are
computed by minimizing the difference between the real
measures and the analytical expression (1) by using the least
squares minimum method. For the set of data shown in Fig. 3,
the procedure gives the results reported in Fig. 4. Different time
intervals (ranging from 2 to 15 years, as highlighted in Fig. 5)
were tested for the assessment of the correlation coefcients.
As expected, the longer the time interval, the more accurate
the prediction of the crest displacement. Fig. 5 shows that
after 10 years it is possible to obtain an accurate and stable
regression. The statistical procedures allow one to single out
the inuence of each term of the regression, air temperature
change, hydrostatic pressure and the trend line, as illustrated
in Figs. 6 and 4. The same procedure has been applied also to
other buttresses, as discussed in the concluding remarks.
3. Structural identication
In statistical analysis the measured response of the
structure is approximated using the analytical expression
112 A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120
Fig. 3. Upstreamdownstream crest displacements (D, in mm, positive upstream), mean daily air temperature (T, in

C) and water level above the foundations (Q,
in m) at Ancipa dam, main buttress.
Fig. 4. Statistical procedure: measured, computed crest upstreamdownstream
displacements and the trend line contribution.
(1). The regression algorithm calculates the values of the
unknown coefcients in order to minimize the difference
between measured and analytical responses. The coefcients
of the approximating functions (2) and (3) do not have a
physical meaning and hence they cannot furnish any relevant
information about the integrity conditions of the structure.
On the other hand, structural identication techniques can be
useful in the integrity assessment of concrete dams [6,7]. The
aim of the structural identication approach proposed in this
paper is to rewrite the expressions (2) and (3) using coefcients
related to: (i) the geometry of the buttress (in particular
its height); (ii) physical properties of the concrete (elastic
modulus and thermal coefcient); and (iii) external loads (air
Fig. 5. Statistical procedure: percentage errors in assessing the regression
coefcients as a function of the time interval extension used in the analyses.
temperature change and water pressure). General closed form
solutions are not available for the problem at hand (particular
cases are discussed in the following). Therefore parametric
analyses using numerical models have been performed to obtain
relationships between external loads and crest displacements.
The unknown parameters are then identied applying well-
known optimization techniques. The details are reported in the
following paragraphs.
3.1. Effects of hydrostatic pressure
Two different sets of numerical models (Fig. 7) subjected
to water load have been used: (i) a 2D nite difference model,
approximating the size and the stiffness of the real buttress with
A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120 113
Fig. 6. Statistical procedure: contribution of the air temperature change and
hydrostatic pressure to the upstreamdownstream crest displacement.
a plane structure; and (ii) a 3D nite element model, that gives
an accurate description of the real structure. Both the 2Dand 3D
models were restrained at the base. A parametric analysis was
conducted varying the values of the elastic modulus and buttress
height over the whole ranges typical for this kind of structure.
For each model, the variation of the upstreamdownstreamcrest
displacement with the water level above the foundations was
calculated. It was found that the structural response is governed
by the following non-dimensional parameters:

d
Q
=
_
D
Q
E

w
H
2
_
q =
_
Q
H
_
where D
Q
is the crest displacement due to water load,
w
is the water density, H is the height of the buttress and
E is the Young modulus of the concrete. The relationships
Fig. 7. Structural identication: 3D (a) and 2D (b) models for non-dimensional
analyses.
between the non-dimensional parameters are plotted in Fig. 8.
The crest displacement is assumed positive upstream. The
results obtained with 2D models for Q/H = 1 can be
compared with the analytical expression proposed by Marcello
and Spagnoletti [2]:
D
Q
E

w
H
2

Q
H
=1
=
1
8
_
1

2
+2(1 +
2
)
2
_
(5)
where (i.e. the slope of the upstream or downstream faces)
in the present case equals 0.45 and is the Poisson ratio. The
values of (5) for = 0.15 and = 0.3 are reported in Fig. 8.
In the non-dimensional plot the crest displacements
computed with 2D models and related to different heights of
the structure and mesh densities lie within a narrow band.
The non-dimensional crest displacements computed with 3D
models are almost coincident. In the following, a polynomial
Fig. 8. Structural identication: results from 2D and 3D models for hydrostatic pressure.
114 A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120
Table 1
Values of the coefcients c
Q
i
of the regression (6)
i 1 2 3 4 5 6
c
Q
i
0.04794 0.78648 3.8031 9.7953 9.9221 5.1635
regression based on 3D models will be adopted, with expansion
coefcients c
Q
i
:
D
Q
E

w
H
2
=
6

i =1
c
Q
i
_
Q
H
_
i
. (6)
The expansion coefcients are reported in Table 1. The
expression (6) is valid when the buttress lies on a horizontal
foundation plane. This situation is typical of the elements
near the centre of the valley, while the lateral elements are
characterized by signicant differences between the elevations
of right and left side foundations. The 3D models have been
modied to account for this aspect and the analyses have
been repeated, producing the results reported in Fig. 9. The
parameter governing this aspect is = z/H, where z
is the difference between the elevations of left and right
side foundations. It was found that the expression (6) can be
replaced with a more general one:
D
Q
E

w
H
2
=
_

_
0,
Q
H

3
2
6

i =1
c
Q
i
_
Q
H

3
2
_
i
,
Q
H
>
3
2
.
(7)
Expression (7) reduces to (6) when = 0. The regression
curves are compared in Fig. 9 with results from 3D nite
element models; a satisfactory agreement is seen.
In the methodology proposed herein the structural response
is assumed linear elastic and the Young modulus is considered
uniform over the whole buttress. For undamaged structures the
rst hypothesis holds, due to the very low allowable stresses
assumed in the design. The second assumption results from
the availability of one measurement point (i.e. the top of the
buttress), while a larger set of measurements should be used to
reliably estimate the spatial variation of mechanical properties.
In damaged structures cracks act as sources of nonlinearity.
In these cases the identication procedure presented herein
leads to a reduced value of the global elastic modulus, thus
highlighting the presence of a deterioration process, but the
damaged zone cannot be localized.
3.2. Thermal effects
While the hydrostatic load on a buttress can be accurately
modelled on the basis of the reservoir water level, an accurate
description of the thermal load requires a detailed knowledge
of the temperature values at several points of the structure.
This level of knowledge is usually not available and, as
often as not, only the maximum and minimum daily air
temperatures are known. Thus, a rough simplication of the
real phenomenon was attempted, in order to relate the crest
upstreamdownstream displacement to the mean daily air
temperature. Initially, the following assumptions were made:
(i) same temperature for the points on the submerged portion
of the upstream face; this temperature value is proportional to
the temperature of the water; (ii) the water temperature assumed
constant with depth and time; (iii) to the points lying on the dry
portion of the upstream face and on the downstream face the
same temperature is assigned; this temperature is proportional
to the mean daily air temperature. Under these hypotheses, the
Fig. 9. Structural identication: results from 3D models for hydrostatic pressure on elements with different foundation elevations.
A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120 115
Fig. 10. Structural identication: results from 2D and 3D models for thermal effects.
temperature time change of each point of the upstream and
downstream faces is related only to the time variation of both
the water level and the mean daily air temperature.
The distribution of temperature at the internal points of
the structure and the effects in terms of crest displacement
have been studied with the two different sets of numerical
models described previously (Fig. 7). In 2D models, a
coupled thermalstructural steady state analysis was made:
boundary conditions included only the temperature of the
faces, while the internal distribution of the temperatures was
calculated using the code. In 3D models a linear distribution
of the temperatures along the buttress horizontal sections
was assumed, so the temperatures of the internal points
were included in the boundary conditions and plain structural
analyses were performed. A parametric analysis was conducted
varying the thermal expansion coefcient, buttress height and
temperature difference between dry and wet contours. The
variation of the upstreamdownstream crest displacement with
the water level above the foundation was calculated for each
model. It was found that the structural response is governed by
the following non-dimensional parameters:

d
T
=
_
D
T
HT
_
q =
_
Q
H
_
where D
T
is the crest displacement due to thermal effects,
is the thermal expansion coefcient, H is the height of the
buttress and T is the temperature difference between dry and
wet contours.
The relationships between the non-dimensional parameters
are plotted in Fig. 10. Also in this case the crest displacement is
assumed positive in the upstreamdirection. The results obtained
with 2D and 3D models are very close, also considering the
differences in thermal boundary conditions. In the following, a
linear regression based on 3D models will be adopted:
D
T
HT
= c
T
_
Q
H
_
(8)
where c
T
= 1.1835. The expression (8) is valid when the
buttress lies on a horizontal foundation plane. Again the 3D
models have been modied for considering buttresses with
different foundation elevations and the analyses have been
repeated, yielding the results reported in Fig. 11. It was found
that expression (8) can be replaced with a more general one:
D
T
HT
=
_

_
0,
Q
H

5
6

c
T
_
Q
H

5
6

_
,
Q
H
>
5
6
.
(9)
Expression (9) reduces to (8) when = 0. The regression
curves are compared in Fig. 11 with the results obtained using
3D nite element models; a satisfactory agreement is seen.
On assuming Q/H = 0, the expressions (8) and (9) give
D
T
= 0, i.e. no thermal effect is present for very low reservoir
levels, whatever the air temperature history is. This can be
explained from considering that the length of the upstream face
is almost the same as that of the downstream one. Thus, if
the temperature variations are the same on the two faces, their
deformations are almost identical. This means that the crest
moves up or down, with negligible displacement component
in the upstreamdownstream direction. This behaviour can
actually be observed in most cases. When only one face is
exposed to solar radiation, the hypothesis of uniform dry
contour temperature is not consistent. To account also for this
behaviour, expression (9) can still be used, with
Q
H
= 1
and T =

T, i.e. the temperature difference between the
116 A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120
Fig. 11. Structural identication: results from 3D models for thermal effects on elements with different foundation elevations.
downstream and upstream faces of the buttress. The latter
phenomenon is evident only for lowreservoir level and vanishes
when the reservoir is full, so the following expression, obtained
from (9), can be proposed, with
Q
H
= 1 and T =

T,
multiplied by the term
_
1
Q
H
_
:
D
T
H

T
= c
T
_
1
5
6

__
1
Q
H
_
. (10)
Considering all the above described effects, the following
general expression can be proposed for the structural
identication procedure:
D
T
=
_

_
c
T
H

T
_
1
5
6

__
1
Q
H
_
,
Q
H

5
6

c
T
H
_
T
_
Q
H

5
6

_
+

T
_
1
5
6

__
1
Q
H
__
,
Q
H
>
5
6
.
(11)
3.3. Identication algorithm
On the basis of the results of the parametric analyses
reported in the previous paragraphs, the displacement D
t
of
the buttress crest relative to its foundation at time t can be
expressed as the sum of three terms (superscripts T, Q and A
refer respectively to hydrostatic, temperature and other effects):
D
t
= D
Q
t
(E) + D
T
t
(t
0
, t , T
w
, , ) + D
A
t
(d
0
, d
1
) (12)
D
Q
t
(E) =

w
H
2
E
6

i =1
c
Q
i
_
Q
t
H
_
i
(13)
D
T
t
(t
0
, t , T
w
, , )
= c
T
H
_
_

T
t
(t
0
, t ) T
w
_
_

Q
t
(t
0
, t )
H
_
+

T
t
(t
0
, t )
_
1

Q
t
(t
0
, t )
H
__
(14)
D
A
t
(d
0
, d
1
) = d
0
+d
1
t. (15)
For the sake of simplicity, in the above expressions the case
= 0 has been considered. Expression (13) has been obtained
directly from (6), in which the function Q
t
is the water level
above the foundation at time t . Expression (14) has been
obtained from (11) assuming:
T =

T
t
(t
0
, t ) T
w
(16)

T
t
(t
0
, t ) =
1
t
_
t t
0
+
t
2
t t
0

t
2
T

d. (17)
Expressions (16) and (17) mean that the temperature of the
dry contour of the buttress is proportional, through a parameter
to be identied, , to a suitable mean value of the air
temperature

T
t
. This value is obtained by integrating the
mean daily temperature T

over a time interval called t . This


operation affects the computed crest displacement and results in
a smoothing of the measured temperature time history. In fact,
abrupt temperature changes do not produce signicant effects
on the crest displacement, due to the thermal inertia of the
structure. Also the presence of the parameter t
0
, that governs
the time shift between the structure response and the external
temperature, is due to the thermal inertia of the concrete. The
parameter T
w
is the constant temperature of the wet contour of
the structure. The above parameters t , t
0
and T
w
are included in
A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120 117
the identication procedure. Furthermore, to obtain expression
(14) the term Q in (11) has been replaced by

Q
t
:

Q
t
(t
0
, t ) =
1
t
_
t t
0
+
t
2
t t
0

t
2
Q

d (18)
for which the same considerations as were already reported for

T
t
are valid. Finally, to obtain (14) from (11) the following
substitution has been made, introducing the parameter to be
identied:

T =

T
t
(t
0
, t ). (19)
For the trend line term (15), a simple linear expression has
been selected, where the parameters d
0
and d
1
(respectively
the initial mean value of the crest displacement and the
daily gradient of the irreversible displacement) have to be
identied. Obviously, different analytical expressions can be
used, depending on the characteristics of the problem at hand.
Let us collect the measured crest displacement time
history in a vector called z, the parameters to be identied in
the vector x:
x = {E t
0
t T
w
d
0
d
1
}
T
(20)
and the differences between measured and analytical displace-
ments in the vector e. It can be written as
e = z h(x) (21)
where the vector h(x) collects the time history of the analytical
crest displacements calculated with expression (12) for the x
values of the parameters. To assemble the above vectors, the
time variable contained in (12) has to be discretized. Usually
the step selected corresponds to one day.
The vector e can be considered a function of the unknown
parameters and can be expanded using Taylors theorem with
initial point e
0
= z h(x
0
), corresponding to an initial guess
x
0
for the parameter set:
e(x) = e
0
+J(x x
0
). (22)
For the elements of the Jacobian matrix J the following
denitions hold:
J
i j
=
h
i
(x)
x
j

x=x
0
= H
i j
. (23)
The matrix H = J is the sensitivity matrix. The inuence
of a parameter on the response can be expressed by the
corresponding diagonal term of the Fischer matrix A:
A = H
T
H. (24)
The lower the diagonal term, the less important the parameter
for the response. The analytical expressions for the derivatives
(23) are reported in the Appendix.
The algorithm adopted in this paper for the nonlinear least
squares minimization is based on the objective function:
f (x) =
1
2
e
T
e =
1
2
[e
0
+J(x x
0
)]
T
[e
0
+J(x x
0
)]. (25)
Fig. 12. Structural identication: measured and identied crest displacements
and the drift term.
From expression (25) we get:
f (x) = J
T
[e
0
+J(x x
0
)] (26)

2
f (x) = J
T
J. (27)
Solving for the minimum by setting f (x) = 0 we obtain the
approximate solution:
x
min
= x
0
+(H
T
H)
1
H
T
[z h(x
0
)]. (28)
The solution (28) can be considered as a new guess x
0
and a
new iteration can be started, calculating new estimates of h(x
0
)
and H and putting them into (28). The procedure continues
until convergence occurs. Several improvements of the above
outlined procedure are available in the literature [8,9]. In the
present paper, the base formulation has been adopted, as it
proved to be reasonably reliable. The identication procedure
has been carried out using a purposely developed computer
code.
3.4. Results
For the set of data shown in Fig. 3, previously analysed
by means of a statistical approach, the identication algorithm
gives the results reported in Fig. 12. The procedure allowed
us to single out the inuence of each term of the regression,
air temperature change, hydrostatic pressure and trend line, as
illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13. On comparing Fig. 6 with Fig. 13
it is evident that the thermal contribution estimated with the
structural identication procedure follows the air temperature
cycles more closely than that estimated with the statistical
analysis, in which a sinusoidal behaviour has been simulated.
To deal with this shortcoming, the use of alternative analytical
expressions for (2) involving higher order terms has been
attempted, but no signicant improvement has been achieved.
The identication procedure has been applied also to other
buttresses and the results are discussed in the following.
4. Conclusions
Both statistical analysis and structural identication have
been applied to 13 buttresses belonging to the three dams listed
118 A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120
Fig. 13. Structural identication: contribution of the thermal load and water
load to the total crest displacement.
Table 2
Dimensional parameters of the dams considered
Dam Height
(m)
Top elevation
(m ab. sea level)
Reservoir volume
(10
6
m
3
)
Malga Bissina 84.0 1790.0 62.37
Ancipa 111.9 952.4 31.05
Sabbione 63.6 2461.6 44.83
in Table 2. A comparison of the accuracy of the two methods is
reported in Table 3. It can be observed that the coefcients of
correlation and the standard deviations of the error are similar
for statistical and identication analyses, the latter method
showing a better accuracy. The error of the estimate is close to
the resolution error of the eld measures, drawing attention to
the excessive approximation in eld operation and instrument
care.
Statistical and identication procedures lead to comparable
errors in the assessment of upstreamdownstream crest
displacements and therefore both methods are useful in
anticipating the structural response for the hollow gravity
dam previously discussed. In Fig. 14 two applications
of the structural identication technique are shown: the
upstreamdownstream crest displacements measured during a
ve-year interval are plotted using a narrow predictive band
(2 times the error standard deviation), computed on the basis
of the previous 10 years monitoring. The predictive band for
the shorter buttress, characterized by a smaller displacement
amplitude, appears larger than the corresponding one for the
taller element, because the measuring errors have a greater
inuence on the accuracy of the identication solution.
Table 4 reports the values of the eight parameters introduced
in the procedure and, in brackets, the corresponding normalized
diagonal terms of the Fischer matrix (24). The normalization
has been performed by dividing A
i i
by the number of
measurement days M, in order to compare different dams
characterized by different lengths of the measurements interval.
Finally the square root was calculated.
Firstly one can observe the almost uniform values of the
Young moduli E for each dam; at the same time, due to the
shorter time interval of available measures, for the Sabbione
Fig. 14. Structural identication: comparison between the measured displace-
ment and predicted condence interval for buttresses 5 (a) and 1 (b) of Ancipa
dam.
dam the value of E identied appears to be too high and the
Fischer terms reveal an inaccurate prediction. As previously
stated, a longer time integration interval allows a better
estimation of the parameters and reduces the ill-conditioning
aspects always inherent in the inverse approach. Furthermore
the accuracy of the displacement measures has a similar
inuence, as can be stated on observing the higher values of the
Fischer terms for the highest buttresses. Worthy of interest are
the values identied for the parameters t
0
(time shift between
the structure response and the external air temperature), t (the
mean air temperature is calculated over this time interval), T
w
(mean temperature of the wet contour of the structure) and
(parameter for correlating the temperature difference between
the upstream and downstream faces of the buttress with the
mean air temperature) which are well related to the different
environmental conditions and thermal inertia of each dam.
Structural identication allows a useful determination of the
equivalent Young modulus (relative to the global behaviour of
the buttress, rather than to the local properties of the material),
and of its change in time and for each different buttress of the
same dam. So it can be used in investigating dam structural
defects and ageing. The method could also be applied in
evaluating the effectiveness of remedial works, comparing the
parameters identied before and after the intervention, and
A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120 119
Table 3
Comparison between statistical analysis and structural identication
Dam
a
Butt.
b
H
c
D
d
Statistical analysis Structural identication
R
e
d
1
f

e
g
e
D
(%) R
e
d
1
f

e
g
e
D
(%)
1 43 3.1 0.983 0.10 0.71 22.9 0.988 0.11 0.44 14.2
2 58 4.7 0.947 0.07 1.32 28.1 0.987 0.11 0.61 12.3
A 3 73 5.8 0.959 0.15 1.25 21.5 0.988 0.08 0.61 10.5
4 95 8.2 0.968 0.18 1.13 13.8 0.989 0.20 0.75 9.1
5 104 8.4 0.967 0.27 1.28 15.2 0.989 0.29 0.84 10.0
6 56.7 3.2 0.959 0.13 0.47 14.7 0.956 0.04 0.47 14.7
S 7 57.2 3.4 0.958 0.08 0.52 15.3 0.652 0.00 0.55 16.2
8 49.8 2.4 0.948 0.02 0.42 17.5 0.944 0.03 0.43 17.7
4 67 4.9 0.877 0.09 0.98 20.0 0.933 0.05 0.72 14.7
6 79.5 7.3 0.909 0.02 1.23 16.8 0.950 0.03 0.91 12.5
M 7 81.5 7.4 0.915 0.06 1.23 16.6 0.953 0.02 0.91 12.3
8 78.5 7.4 0.916 0.05 1.24 16.8 0.954 0.00 0.90 12.1
9 78.5 6.7 0.896 0.11 1.17 17.5 0.933 0.06 0.94 14.0
a
A = Ancipa (15 years monitoring), S = Sabbione (5 years), M= Malga Bissina (9 years).
b
Buttress number.
c
Buttress mean height (m).
d
Upstreamdownstream crest displacement semi-amplitude (mm).
e
Correlation coefcient.
f
Annual gradient of the irreversible displacement (mm/year).
g
Standard error of estimate (mm).
Table 4
Values of the parameters obtained with structural identication (in parentheses: the corresponding normalized diagonal terms of the Fischer matrix)
Dam
a
Butt.
b
E (MPa) t
0
(days) t (days) T
w
(

C) d
0
(mm) d
1
_
mm
year
_

A
11
/M

A
22
/M

A
33
/M

A
44
/M

A
55
/M

A
66
/M

A
77
/M

A
88
/M
_
mm
GPa
_
_
mm
day
_ _
mm
day
_ _
mm

C
_
(mm) (mm)
_
mm
mm
_
_
mm
mm
year
_
1 22 524 24 57 5.6 0.50 0.14 63.2 0.11
(0.013) (0.023) (0.006) (0.31) (4.4) (3.2) (1) (8.7)
2 14 786 23 53 11.0 0.68 0.12 70.1 0.11
(0.086) (0.038) (0.011) (0.48) (6.9) (3.2) (1) (8.7)
A 3 15 745 25 55 9.8 0.61 0.13 64.6 0.08
(0.138) (0.046) (0.013) (0.65) (9.3) (3.2) (1) (8.7)
4 18 131 28 65 12.3 0.57 0.16 48.3 0.20
(0.222) (0.058) (0.015) (0.91) (13.0) (3.2) (1) (8.7)
5 18 900 29 67 10.3 0.53 0.05 51.0 0.29
(0.263) (0.061) (0.016) (1.01) (14.5) (3.2) (1) (8.7)
6 37 038 4 27 1.2 0.38 0.41 2.2 0.03
(0.010) (0.052) (0.022) (0.41) (2.5) (1.7) (1) (2.8)
S 7 32 375 5 31 1.5 0.39 0.50 2.6 0.04
(0.013) (0.051) (0.021) (0.41) (2.5) (1.7) (1) (2.8)
8 38 316 3 29 1.1 0.35 0.37 1.5 0.05
(0.006) (0.040) (0.016) (0.33) (2.0) (1.7) (1) (2.8)
4 17 028 8 21 5.3 0.46 0.08 2.1 0.05
(0.110) (0.055) (0.021) (0.57) (4.9) (2.1) (1) (4.8)
6 13 918 8 23 5.6 0.55 0.08 3.4 0.03
(0.261) (0.083) (0.032) (0.71) (6.1) (2.1) (1) (4.8)
M 7 13 661 9 27 5.5 0.54 0.11 3.0 0.02
(0.288) (0.076) (0.030) (0.73) (6.2) (2.1) (1) (4.8)
8 13 692 8 23 7.0 0.56 0.12 4.0 0.01
(0.262) (0.082) (0.032) (0.70) (6.0) (2.1) (1) (4.8)
9 19 095 9 25 7.1 0.46 0.10 3.8 0.06
(0.134) (0.062) (0.024) (0.70) (6.0) (2.1) (1) (4.8)
a
A = Ancipa (15 years monitoring), S = Sabbione (5 years), M= Malga Bissina (9 years).
b
Buttress number.
120 A. De Sortis, P. Paoliani / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 110120
can also be extended to other phenomena and events, such
as earthquake or rapid water level drawdown, to check, for
instance, how the elastic constant of the concrete depends on
the load applying velocity.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all the people that allowed us
to get reliable measures in dam monitoring, especially those
at ENEL and from the other companies that provided the data
for the statistical and identication procedures outlined in this
paper.
Appendix. Elements of the sensitivity matrix
In the following, the derivatives of the analytical expression
(12) with respect to the parameters are reported. Their
knowledge is needed to assemble the sensitivity matrix (23).
H
t 1
=
D
t
E
=

w
H
2
E
2
6

i =1
c
Q
i
_
Q
t
H
_
i
H
t 2
=
D
t
t
0
= c
T
H
_

T
t
t
0

Q
t
H
+
_

T
t
T
w
_
1
H

Q
t
t
0
+

T
t
t
0
_
1

Q
t
H
_

T
t
1
H

Q
t
t
0
_
H
t 3
=
D
t
t
= c
T
H
_

T
t
t

Q
t
H
+
_

T
t
T
w
_
1
H

Q
t
t
+

T
t
t
_
1

Q
t
H
_

T
t
1
H

Q
t
t
_
H
t 4
=
D
t
T
w
= c
T

Q
t
H
t 5
=
D
t

= c
T

H
t 6
=
D
t

= c
T
H

T
t
_
1

Q
t
H
_
H
t 7
=
D
t
d
0
= 1
H
t 8
=
D
t
d
1
= t

T
t
t
0
=
1
t
_
T
t t
0

t
2
T
t t
0
+
t
2
_

Q
t
t
0
=
1
t
_
Q
t t
0

t
2
Q
t t
0
+
t
2
_

T
t
t
=
1
2 t
_
T
t t
0
+
t
2
+ T
t t
0

t
2
_

1
t
2
_
t t
0
+
t
2
t t
0

t
2
T

Q
t
t
=
1
2 t
_
Q
t t
0
+
t
2
+ Q
t t
0

t
2
_

1
t
2
_
t t
0
+
t
2
t t
0

t
2
Q

d.
References
[1] ICOLD. Bulletin 118: Automated dam monitoring systems guidelines
and case histories. Paris: International Commission on Large Dams; 2000.
[2] Marcello C, Spagnoletti S. On the structural behaviour of hollow buttresses
gravity dams Theoretical behaviour. LEnergia elettrica 1960;37(10) [in
Italian].
[3] Appendino M, Di Monaco F, Garino A, Manzo F, Scarinci S. Specic and
general trends of the ageing of buttress dams as revealed by investigations
carried out on Ancipa dam. In: Proceedings of the 17th conference on large
dams. 1991.
[4] Brindisi P, De Sortis A, Di Lemma G, Orsini G. Seismic analysis of hollow
buttress gravity dams. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on
earthquake engineering. 2002.
[5] De Sortis A, Paoliani P. Statistical and structural identication techniques
in structural monitoring of concrete dams. In: Proceedings of the 73rd
annual meeting of international commission on large dams. 2005.
[6] Ardito R, Bartalotta P, Ceriani L, Maier G. Diagnostic inverse analysis of
concrete dams with statical excitation. Journal of Mechanical Behavior of
Materials 2004;15(6):3819.
[7] Fedele R, Maier G, Miller B. Identication of elastic stiffness and local
stresses in concrete dams by in situ tests and neural networks. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering 2005;1(3):16580.
[8] Levenberg K. A method for the solution of certain problems in least
squares. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 1944;2:1648.
[9] Marquardt D. An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear
parameters. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 1963;11:43141.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi