Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Semester project
Spring term 2015
Supervisor
Fabian Barras
Introduction 1
ii
CONTENTS
Conclusion 50
iii
INTRODUCTION
Supervision This project was done within the LSMS at EPFL under the
direction of Professor Molinari. The supervision was done by Fabian Barras,
who we collaborated closely with throughout the term.
1
Part I.
2
1
ABOUT PROBABILISTIC AND DETERMINISTIC APPROACH
IN STRUCTURE DESIGN
Most engineering problems can be solved by the confrontation of the two follow-
ing quantities:
solicitation or stress S
Structural safety requires that R > S. Failure occurs whenever R < S. This gen-
eral formulation is applicable to most civil engineering problems.
Currently, deterministic approach is the method most widely used by civil engi-
neers when designing structures.
3
1.2 the deterministic approach - the classical approach in civil engineering
The design value Sd takes into account the different scenarios taken into ac-
count as well as the corresponding loads. Here again, a safety coefficient S is
defined in order to include simplifications. When designing a building, one has
to differentiate between predominant and concomitant effects, inducing different
safety factors. However, this differentiation is not relevant in the context of this
project and will not be done for the rest of this report.
The most characteristic feature of the deterministic approach is the fact both
resistance and solicitation are defined by a fixed value, the characteristic value,
being the result of multiple considerations and scenarios. In the concept of this
fixed value lies the major difference with the probabilistic approach [1].
As a help for structural engineers, the Eurocode and the SIA standards give
guidelines about how determining a characteristic value for an action as well as the
safety coefficients. The guiding principles of the SIA standards are described in
section .
safety factor S
this factor takes into account the lack of precision of the character-
istic load value with the factor f and the uncertainties linked to
the structural analysis m . Values for both factors are well defined
in the Standard. In the case of linear relationship between actions
and action effects, the safety factor S is computed as
S = f m (2)
4
1.2 the deterministic approach - the classical approach in civil engineering
M = R m
The considerations of this entire section are mostly taken from course [1].
5
1.3 the probabilistic approach
safe structures, but in reality it does not give a good understanding of the reliabil-
ity of the structure. The probabilistic method exposed in 1.3 balances this lack of
quantification of reliability and suggests a way to evaluate reliability of structures.
According to the different possible verification formats, how can reasonable safety be
defined considering uncertainties related to different parameters? Chapter 7,[1]
6
1.3 the probabilistic approach
This relation shows that probability of failure p f and the reliability index are
directly related and dependent of each other.
7
1.3 the probabilistic approach
This shows that the reliability expressed through or the failure probability
p f of an element is compared to a limit value. This limit value fixes a minimal
reliability expected by society and shows an expectation of society with respect to
the structures. [1]
resistance
R = Rm (1 R R ) (11)
R R
Rm : mean value, = G =influence value and R = Rm =variation coefficient
1.3.3 Methodology for determining safety factors in the SIA Standard: interrelation
between probabilistic and deterministic design
8
1.3 the probabilistic approach
Sm
S = (1 + S S ) (12)
Sk
resistance
Rd = R
Rk
Rd =
M
R = Rm (1 R R )
Rm
M = (1 R R ) (13)
Rk
It goes without saying that the choice of the parameters , , and is a key choice
for the determination of the safety factors. A safety factor is a function of the
importance of the variable (defined with limit value p f and the reliability index
limit .[1]. The design values determined with the probabilistic approach are sensi-
tive to the choice of these parameters. This was observed later in the project when
defining the values for the dam design verification.
All the safety factors in the standard should be determined following the fore-
going procedure, even if, according to Professor Bruwiler, Les normes SIA se
disctuent autout dune tasse de cafe-Prof. Bruwiler, Septembre 2014.
For basic cases, it is efficient and precise to compute probability of failure via
the analytical method. However, for more complex examples with numerous
parameters, each one following a different probabilistic law, it gets impossible
to find analytical expressions as well as computing the integrals with equations
(5),(6) and (7). To face this shortcoming of analytical tools, a method called Monte
Carlo has been developed and widely used, being a reliable method to estimate
failure probability. The Monte Carlo approach and it usefulness in the context of
probabilistic design in civil engineering structures will be explained in section 2.1.
9
1.3 the probabilistic approach
10
2
M AT H E M AT I C A L A N D N U M E R I C A L T O O L S R E Q U I R E D F O R
A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH
In this chapter, we will describe the probabilistic approach for designing struc-
tures. First, the description of the random variables via probability density func-
tion will be discussed. Later, the Monte Carlo method will be explained, as well
as its advantages and limitations.
For each parameter of interest, its uncertainties are taken into account by as-
signing a probabilistic law to that parameter. Depending of the nature of the
parameter, a different probabilistic law is chosen. The most relevant Probability
Density Functions (PDF) in the context of civil engineering are exposed in the
next paragraphs.
1
PDF = for x e[ a, b] (14)
ba
A parameter following this uniform law is equally likely when lying in the
range between a and b. This type of parameter is not relevant in the context of a
probabilistic design since the value will not vary. [5]
11
2.1 define probability density functions and the monte carlo method
1 ( x )2
PDF = f ( x ) = e 22 (15)
2
with : mean value and : standard deviation
The normal distribution is probably the most important one in science and
engineering. The central limit theorem states that averages of random variables
independently drawn from independent distributions are normally distributed,
which makes the normal distribution attractive to engineers and scientists. In
civil engineering, when providing a construction material, manufacturers give
the mean value and standard deviation characterizing the material strength or
size. These references from the factory can be used by engineers in order to esti-
mate the variability of the material resistance and extrapolating it to the structural
reliability.[5]
k x k 1 ( x ) k
PDF = f ( x ) = e (16)
with k: shape parameter and the scale parameter of the distribution.
From figure 2, it can be noticed that the shape parameter k has a strong influ-
ence on the type of the curve. When k=1, the function looks like an exponential
function, and when k is equal to 5, the Weibull is close to a normal law.
Figure 2 shows the Weibull law and the influence of the different parameters
and k.
12
2.1 define probability density functions and the monte carlo method
The Weibull law is typically used in material science in the domain of failure
analysis of a material over their life span. The Weibull distribution is useful to
describe the ultimate stress of a material and gives an idea about the dispersion
of the default sizes present in the material. The shape parameter k is commonly
referred to as the Weibull modulus. The more similar the defaults of the studied
material, the larger the statistical variance k. Ceramic materials with a homoge-
neous distribution of defaults in the material have a high shape parameter k. In
the context of failure mechanics and defect analysis, the scale parameter repre-
sents the mean ultimate stress of the sample volume.
13
2.2 the monte carlo method
Figure 3 shows the shape of the probability mass function of the Poisson distri-
bution for different parameters of the average rate .
For sufficiently large values of (say > 10), the normal distribution and the
Poisson distribution converge. Assuming that is bigger than 10 in the context of
this project, we may relate the Poisson distribution to a normal distribution and
will not use it for future application.
This method differs from the probabilistic distributions explained above in a way
that it does not proceed analytically, but is based on repeated random sampling
to obtain numerical results. It is widely used in numerical simulations when it is
14
2.2 the monte carlo method
106 N = 108,9 samples are required in order to achieve good accuracy of results
15
2.3 advantages and limitations of using monte carlo
Through the counter implemented in the code, the number of failure cases
in known at the end of the simulation. The probability of failure is then
obtained by dividing by the total number of Monte Carlo simulations N.
The main advantage of Monte Carlo is its easy numerical implementation, espe-
cially for complex cases where the analytical expressions are too complicated. The
results are reliable and accurate.
However, it may take a lot of time depending on the complexity of the problem
and the number of samples drawn.
16
Part II.
17
3
A N I L L U S T R AT I V E E X A M P L E O F T H E M O N T E C A R L O
T H E O RY I N P Y T H O N
estimate the failure probability of a steel bar subjected to an axial force using
the principles of Monte Carlo theory
This basic example is relevant because it allowed us to study how the accuracy
of Monte Carlo simulations evolves with the sample size and how the resulting
failure probability converged to a value after sufficient simulations were done.
Different cases were considered: each parameter was considered following ei-
ther Weibull or Gaussian distribution, which resulted in eight different possible
combinations (each one of the three parameters can follow two different laws).
This allowed to compare the different outputs and influence of the laws on the
results.
Only one single case out of the eight studied cases will described in this report.
18
3.1 evolution of the accuracy of the results
The mean and standard deviation chosen for the inputs to define the state of
the beam are
for the cross-sectional area of the bar A: = 700 mm2 and = 0.2 mm2
for the tensile resistance of the steel bar R: = 330 MPa and = 10 MPa
The force F is chosen to follow a Weibull law with a shape parameter = 6 and
the area A and the resistance Rare chosen to follow a Gaussian law. The stress
in the steel bar subjected to tension is given by equation 18.
= F/A (18)
Comment: The choice of the force following a Weibull distribution has only
been done for illustrative purposes. It does not make physical sense for a force to
follow a Weibull distribution. However, to stay as close as possible to the reality,
the shape parameter k of the Weibull distribution is chosen in order to have a
probability density function as close as possible to a normal law.
3.1.2 Methodology
In order to implement the Monte Carlo theory, a loop is introduced in the code in
order to compare for each loop passage the tensile strength induced in the bar
with the tensile resistance R of the bar. This methodology is deterministic since
it compares two values and draws meaningful consequences in terms of failure
probability and reliability of the bar.
The results obtained on the Python interface for this example are given in this
section. Since the goal of this example was to study the evolution of accuracy of
the results with the sample size, different results related to different Monte Carlo
simulations are shown in the figures below, as well as the associated failure prob-
ability.
Starting with one simulation (N=1), the number of simulations was progres-
sively increased to N=10e7, being the limit of the Virtual Box installed on our
computer. The outputs are shown in the figures 4,5,6,and 7.
19
3.1 evolution of the accuracy of the results
20
3.1 evolution of the accuracy of the results
The different figures shown here above give a good idea about the evolution
of the accuracy of the failure probability estimation with respect to the number
of Monte Carlo simulations (resulting in the sample size). At the very beginning,
when the number of simulations is still low, the bar chart illustrates well the
studied case: in fact, it can be seen visually that the bars from the resistance
and stress chart do not intersect in the first four images. With the number of
simulations increasing, the chart starts taking the appearance of a continuous
normal law and the areas of the two curves do intersect, giving a first estimation
of the failure probability.
21
3.1 evolution of the accuracy of the results
The results shown in the figures from the previous section are summarized in the
table 1.
This plot renders the evolution of the Python outputs with the increase of the
number of Monte Carlo simulations and brings to light the convergence of the
22
3.2 study of the accuracy of the monte carlo method
The failure probability of the steel bar has been hereby computed with a code
implemented in Python and plausible results have been found through a conver-
gence analysis. It is now necessary to study the accuracy of the results predicted
by the Monte Carlo method compared to the analytical results. Therefore, an
other example has been done and will be explained in the following section.
The goal of this example was to estimate the failure probability of a basic example
via three methods, being the
analytical method
The results obtained with the three methods will be compared and relevant
conclusion can be drawn concerning the accuracy of each of the approaches.
The same model as in section 3.1 was chosen: a steel bar subjected to axial ten-
sion. The stresses induced in the bar are governed by equation 18.
For this example, the stresses in the bar are following a normal distribution
with a mean value of = 286MPa and a standard deviation of = 14.29MPa.
The resistance is following a Weibull distribution with the scale parameter chosen
to be = 360MPa and a shape parameter k = 20.
23
3.2 study of the accuracy of the monte carlo method
Since the computation of the integral involves a Normal and a Weibull distri-
bution, it cannot be done analytically. Thus, it will be done numerically using the
Python function scipy.integrate.quad.
p f = 1.550 102
Z x Z
pf = f R ( x )dx + f s ( x )dx (20)
x
x: the value where the probability density of both resistance and stress function
is the same:
f s ( x ) = f R ( x ) (21)
24
3.2 study of the accuracy of the monte carlo method
By using the same numerical integration tool in Python as for the previous
section, we found an estimation of the failure probability of
p f = 8.788 102
Similar to the example in the previous section, for each Monte Carlo drawing, the
stresses in the bar are compared to the resistance. A counter is set in order to
count the number of times the stress in the bar exceeds the resistance.
Figure 11 shows the distribution for the stresses and the resistance.
The sample size for this Monte Carlo simulation was fixed at N = 105 in order
to limit the computation time. The failure probability was calculated by dividing
the number of failed specimens by the total sample size N. For this example, we
found a failure probability of
p f = 1.502 102
25
3.2 study of the accuracy of the monte carlo method
Figure 11.: Failure probability calculated with 105 Monte Carlo simulations
The results are summarized in the table 2 with a fixed number of Monte Carlo
simulations N.
This example shows accurately how the Monte Carlo simulation can underesti-
mate the failure probability if the target probability is very small. In that case, in
26
3.2 study of the accuracy of the monte carlo method
order to increase accuracy of the solution, a larger sample size is necessary. The
fact that for = 560MPa none of the samples failed shows that the sample size is
not big enough.
The basic example of a steel bar in tension gave us the possibility to learn how
to
code in Python
estimate failure probability with the Monte Carlo methodology and imple-
ment a code for the Monte Carlo simulations
compare Monte Carlo results with the analytical solutions and draw conclu-
sions
evaluate the accuracy of Monte Carlo results with respect to the sample size
The next step is to use Akantu via the Python interface in order to estimate
failure probability of more complex cases using the basic principles explained in
the above section.
27
4
A N I L L U S T R AT I V E E X A M P L E O F T H E M O N T E C A R L O
T H E O RY U S I N G A K A N T U
In order to learn the Akantus operation and the functions important for the rest
of the project, we did a couple of basic examples to get familiar with Akantu. First,
we made examples for a static and dynamic response of a beam, then did some
implicit and explicit simulations. We also learned the main differences between
the solid and structural mechanics part and the relevant functions that we would
use for the future example. We visualized most of our result in Paraview [13].
28
4.3 the analytical method
Youngs Modulus E, following a normal law with = 2e10 MPa and = 2e7
MPa.
Moment of intertia I
the resistance of the beam R, following a normal law with = 2430 MPa
and = 2.4 MPa.
The moments resulting in the steel beam can be easily computed using first princi-
ples of statics. This was useful in order to check the results obtained with Akantu.
4.5 results
The results of the simulations are shown in the figures 12,13,14. The evolution of
the sample distribution can be clearly seen on these figures.
29
4.5 results
30
4.5 results
The convergence rate analysis of this example is shown in the figure 15. The
convergence is not as smooth as the for the example of the steel bar in tension,
but it nevertheless converges to a value of 9.89e 4.
The failure probability of this beam for the studies load case is estimated to be
p f = 9.89e 4.
This example was a good introduction to Akantu and a key element for the
implementation of case of the dam in the next chapter.
31
5
U S I N G A K A N T U F O R A N A P P L I C AT I O N O F T H E M O N T E
C A R L O T H E O RY
5.1 introduction
Having used Akantu via the Python interface for a basic example to estimate
the failure probability of a structure, we are now eager to apply to knowledge
acquired so far in order to study a complex structure. In order to do that, the
structure of a dam has been chosen for the purpose of this semester project. The
idea is to create the mesh of a dam embedded in rock, define key parameters
which follow a given probabilistic law and finally apply the Monte Carlo theory
in order to compute the failure probability of a structure.
Through a loop over the number of Monte Carlo drawings, each drawing com-
pares the maximum displacement computed via Akantu with the allowable dis-
placement, the maximum tensile strength in the concrete with the resistance in
tension, the maximum compressive strength with the resistance of concrete in
compression.
For simplification purposes, it has been assumed that the dam fails when the
stress at least one element exceeds the resistance of the concrete. We are aware
of the fact that this is not totally corresponding to the reality since a local failure
of concrete would not necessary imply a total failure of the dam. However, this
simplification allows a quick assessment of the reliability of the dam and gives a
good approximation of the failure probability of the structure.
32
5.2 considerations about the model
The mesh of the dam set up for the simuation is taken form another project of an
arc dam in Canton Bern, Switzerland. The dam does not exist yet and the geomet-
rical properties have been taken from another semester project at the Laboratoire
de Constructions Hydrauliques (LCH) at EPFL.
The analysis of the dam was done using Akantu through the Python interface.
Akantu was used for static solid mechanics analysis.
For each Monte Carlo simulation, the principal stresses in each element of the
dam are computed via a function directly computing the Eigenvectors and Eigen-
values. Then, the maximum of the principal stresses of all the elements is com-
pared to the tensile resistance of concrete in order to determine whether or not
failure occurs. The same procedure is implemented for the compressive strength.
A counter is set up in the code and increases each time the tensile strength in
one element exceeds the concrete resistance or the compressive strength in one
element exceeds the concrete resistance in compression. Finally, the total number
of failure cases is divided by the number of Monte Carlo drawings in order to
determine the probability of failure.
The displacement of the midpoint of the dam is computed for each Monte
Carlo drawing and compared to an maximum allowable displacement, an arbi-
trary value fixed by the engineer. Even if the displacement is not relevant in
terms of structural safety (tensile stresses and compressive stresses will deter-
mine whether the structure will fail or not), it is interesting to study the evolution
of the displacement over the Monte Carlo drawings.
Our aim was to model a real example, with a complex 3D geometry due to a
double curvature of the arch and the presence of the cantilever, as well as the
asymmetry of the valley flanks.
33
5.2 considerations about the model
We set two different mesh sizes: a fine one for the dam and a coarse one for the
bedrock. In order to define the optimal mesh size, a sensitivity analysis has been
done: by decreasing the mesh size, we analysed the evolution of the maximal
displacement and of the computation time required for each simulation.
First, this had to been done for the dam alone in order to find the optimal mesh
size of the dam. The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in figure 17 and
34
5.2 considerations about the model
18.
The loads applied on the structure are the dead load of the dam and the hydro-
static pressure. It is interesting to see that the relation between computation time
and the number of nodes on the mesh is almost linear.
Figure 17.: Influence of dam mesh size in m (on the x axis) on maximal displace-
ment in m (on the y axis)
Figure 18.: Influence of dam mesh size in m (on x axis) on computation time in s
(on y axis)
Then, fixing the mesh size of the dam, we varied the mesh size of the bedrock
and performed the same calculations. The final mesh size has been chosen by do-
ing a compromise between execution time and precision.The optimal mesh sizes
adopted for the Monte Carlo simulation are: for the dam hdam = 4m and for the
35
5.2 considerations about the model
Figure 19.: Influence of bedrock mesh size in m (on the x axis) on maximal dis-
placement in m (on the y axis)
Figure 20.: Influence of bedrock mesh size in m (on the x axis) on computation
time in s (on the y axis) and the number of nodes
It is important to note that this analysis has been done by considering only the
displacement. For a real life application it would be essential to perform the same
analysis considering the evolution of the stresses as well. In fact, the thickness of
the dam is in the range of 10m, with a mesh of 4m by looking at the cross-section
we realize that the mesh is rather coarse and the stresses caused by the bending
moment in the cantilever may not be accurate cf. figure 21.
Another issue occurred at the contact between the dam and the foundation. In
our simplified geometry there is a sharp edge at this interface dam-foundation,
36
5.2 considerations about the model
which causes a local stress concentration cause by the model, but not necessarily
occurring in reality. Therefore, our model is accurate to compute displacements,
but not to compute stresses in the vicinity of the foundation and on the interface
on the side between the dam and the bedrock, as it can be seen in figure 21.
Considerations for future work: For a better estimation of the stresses over the
entire domain and for a more accurate model, the mesh model should be revisited
and sharp edges should be avoided, and a finer mesh should be chosen.
The materials are assumed to behave in a linearly elastic way and are described
in the model by their Young Modulus E, Poisson Ratio and Density .The nu-
merical values are defined in chapter 5.3.
37
5.2 considerations about the model
The density of the rock is set to 0 since we are only interested in the stresses
and displacements in the concrete and we are not performing a dynamic analysis
where the rock mass have an influence. Furthermore, we do not want to take
into account the deformation due to the wight of the rock-mass and can therefore
neglect the dead load of the rock for the purposes of our project.
The loads considered are the dead load of the dam and the hydrostatic pressure
due to the water considering a full lake (worst case scenario in term of magnitude
of hydrostatic pressure).
The dead load of the dam has been applied through a force vector at the
centre of every element. The hydrostatic pressure is applied on the dam at
the upstream face and is applied perpendicular to the surface via the function
model.applyHydrostaticPressure defined in Akantu and used through the
Python interface.
38
5.3 the monte carlo simulations
The considered risk scenario is the lake entirely filled with water. We did not
consider the scenario of the empty lake. We did not consider any pressure in-
duced by the depositions of sediments or by the formation of ice. The effect of
the temperature was not taken into account.
The height of the water is fixed at 1720m (the altitude of the crown of the dam)
and will not vary with the different simulations, since it is upper boundary for
the water height and the worst possible case for the considered scenario.
A first criterion is necessary for the maximal allowable tension in the concrete.
From [9], we fixed this value to a 2MPa resistance. For each Monte Carlo simula-
tion, the maximum tension stress in the concrete will be compared to the 2MPa
resistance, and each exceeded value will be kept as a failure case.
The second criterion is necessary for the maximal compression in the concrete.
Again, from [9], we defined this value as 8MPa.
These two criteria are the key criteria for structural resistance and will be used
in order to evaluate structural reliability.
Since we are not dealing with an extreme scenario (ultimate failure scenario),
we chose to impose a more conservative characteristic resistance than the one sug-
gested by Prof. Schleiss in [9]. This is also related to the fact that, for the given
risk scenario, we want no damage at all to occur and assume that an exceeded
resistance value in one single element corresponds to the failure of the structure
(conservative approach). The tensile resistance of concrete was fixed to be around
0.3MPa (one failure occurred for this tensile resistance). The compressive strength
is chosen to be 6MPa.
39
5.4 results
occurred, hence no failure probability could have been computed, which would
be at no interest in the context of this project).
5.3.3 Material parameters used and description of the nature of these parameters
Two materials have been defined in the model: concrete and bedrock.
In this project, only the parameters related to the concrete of the dam are as-
sessed with a probabilistic approach. We chose Youngs Modulus E and density
of the dam following a normal law, which accurately corresponds to reality since
the concrete quality in the dam is of high variability.
The sample size required to estimate a failure probability in the order of magni-
tude of 106 (which corresponds to the estimated failure probability for an im-
portant structure and equivalent to a = 4.7 according to SIA Standard) would
require sample size N = 108 . Because of the limited computation time it was not
possible to produce such a big sample. The number of computations achieved
was N = 340000.
5.4 results
In the following paragraph the results of the Monte Carlo simulation will be
discussed. First the distribution of the maximal displacements and the stresses
will be presented, later we will study the evolution of the failure probability with
increasing sample size.
40
5.4 results
5.4.1 Distributions
Figure 22 shows the distribution of the maximal displacement in the central part
of the dam. The average displacement is d = 1.07 mm and its standard deviation
is 0.104mm.The average value is just above the arbitrary limit we imposed to be
dmax = 1mm. N.B.:This arbitrary value has been chosen in order to get an interesting
example and does correspond to displacement boundary values in reality
41
5.4 results
Figure 24 shows the distribution of the maximal tensile stress present in the
structure. The mean value is t = 0.29 MPa with a standard deviation of 0.00025
MPa. This value has a great importance because the tensile strength of concrete
is very low and is in most cases the weakest link in a failure scenario. Since there
is no reinforcement in an arch dam, the structure is supposed to be solely under
compressive stress and tensile stresses should be absolutely avoided. The geome-
try of this dam should be optimized in order to have compression everywhere in
the structure and no significant tensile stress should appear in the concrete.
An interesting feature is the very sharp lower boundary in the distribution. This
behaviour is unexpected and physically unrealistic. Further study should be done
to asses the origin of this phenomena, whether is coherent with the real behaviour
of the structure or it is caused by a computational error or by a singularity in the
mesh.
42
5.4 results
5.4.2 Interdependences
It is relevant to study which input parameter mostly affects the behaviour of the
structure. In a qualitative way we can say that the smaller the E moduli of both
dam and bedrock, the greater the maximal displacement. On the other hand the
influence on the stresses is difficult to predict, we could imagine that a lower E
modulus of the bedrock would cause lower stresses in the structures, due to the
hyperstaticity. This hypothesis will be verified in the following paragraph.
43
5.4 results
44
(c) Maximal displacement vs
For all the considered parameters, we notice a strong relation with the Young
modulus of the bedrock. This is reasonable, because an arch dam is a hyperstatic
structure and therefore the conditions at the connection with the foundation is
of fundamental importance for the behaviour of the structure and thus for the
assessment of its safety.
45
5.4 results
47
(c) Maximal tensile stress vs
Using the data obtained with the simulations, we were able to asses the failure
probability of our structure, by setting for criteria a tensile strength of sr = 0.3
MPa and a compressive strength of cr = 7 MPa.
The value of the tensile strength has been chosen for didactic reason in order
to have at lest one failure. Theoretically, we could also have imposed no tensile
resistance at all, but then the failure probability would have been p f = 1 (there
would certainly at least one element failing the criterion). Moreover, due to a
stress redistribution after a crack opening, imposing zero tensile resistance to the
concrete would not be accurate.
Figure 28 shows the evolution of the failure probability with increasing sample
size. The failure probability p f = 2.94 106 is not accurately estimated, because
just one sample failed. A larger sample size would be necessary, as discussed in
chapter 5.3.4.
Figure 28.: Evolution of failure probability with sample size: Stress criterion
48
5.4 results
Figure 29.: Evolution of failure probability with sample size: Displacement crite-
rion
To illustrate the evolution of the failure probability with increasing sample size,
we decided to introduce a fictive failure criterion by setting an upper limit to the
displacement capacity of the structure dmax = 0.001 m. This criterion is fictive in
the sense that displacement will not govern structural safety of dam. Figure 29
shows very clearly that p f slowly converges to its asymptote, and estimates the
failure probability of the dam to be p f = 0.264.
49
CONCLUSION
What we have learnt from this project: the biggest challenge of this project
probably lies in the use of the numerical tools and the implementation of
50
5.4 results
Considerations for future work in the topic: for more accuracy and a more
efficient computation of probability of failure, the approach proposed by
the course [8] would be a good starting point for future imporvements. In
fact, the methodology proposes more specific analysis (more samples in the
context of Monte Carlo) in the zone of interest. In the context of our dam
structure, it would mean increasing the number of samples in the failure
zones (middle of the dam) and decreasing the number of sample drawings
in the irrelevant zones.
Another interesting study for future work would be the assessment of the
safety of an existing structure under a rare event, e.g. seismic loading.
51
5.4 results
52
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[4] Laurent Vulliet. Polycopie du cours Fiabilite et securite des systemes civils. Partie
1, EPFL-ENAC-LMS, Juin 1997.
[7] Maurice Lemaire and Alaa Chateauneuf. Structural reliability. London ISTE,
2009.
[8] B. Sudret, Slides from lecture Structural reliability and risk analysis, Simulation
methods. ETH-Department of civil, environmental and geomatic engineering-
Chair of risk, safety and uncertainty quantification, November 2014.
[9] Anton J. Schleiss et Henri Pougatsch, Les barrages. Traite de Genie Civil, vol-
ume 17. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, 2011.
[13] http://www.paraview.org
[14] hhtp://geuz.org/gmsh
53
Bibliography
[15] https://www.python.org/
[16] http://lsms.epfl.ch/akantu
54