search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
SAFETY PERFORMANCE OF DAMS IN CHILE’S HIGHLY SEISMIC ENVIRONMENT


were built in 1951. According to the limited information available these dams were repaired in 1979 after a flood caused serious damage. The secondary dam is a homogenous earth dam with a much longer crest (1000m) than the main dam. This dam did not show any evidence of damage from the 2010 earthquake.[14]


The Coihueco dam experienced significant seismic deformations during the Maule earthquake. The dam, which was built in 1971, is located approximately 28km east of Chillán. It is a zoned earthfill dam with a crest length of 1040m and a maximum height of 29m (31m∗), as shown in Figure 16. Following the earthquake a portion of the upstream slope experienced failure that generated significant deformations and cracks, as indicated in Figures 17 and 18. Maximum vertical displacements of the upstream slope were observed towards the left abutment, reaching values close to 4m. Uniform clean sand (SP) ejecta was present at the toe of the upstream earth slump.


Figure 16. Coihueco dam design cross-section, significant damage during the Maule earthquake in 2010[14]


According to the analyses performed after the earthquake[14], the foundation consisted of layers of sandy gravels with low to medium non-plastic fines content, clayey silts of medium to high plasticity (MH) and silts of low to medium plasticity. A pseudo-static slope


stability analysis applied to non-circular surfaces was performed with both horizontal (Kh) and vertical (Kv) seismic coefficients, and Kv ≤ 0.5Kh. The results showed that failure (FoS ≤ 1) occurs for seismic coefficients: Kh ≥ 0.22 and


Kv ≥ 0.11. The authors concluded that “These values are consistent with the level of shaking experienced at this site and match well with values adopted in engineering practice for


evaluating the impact of large earthquakes (i.e. MCE) on earthen structures”.


Vol XXXI Issue 3


DAM ENGINEERING


201


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95