| Seismic safety
through every iteration,” said Principal Civil Engineer Justin Buetel, PE. “That collaboration assured that the deformation models reflected the seismic inputs and appropriately estimated the real-world behaviour of the dam under a hypothetical seismic load.” This approach eliminated the “telephone game” effect that often occurs when analyses are divided among firms. The benefit of this integration extends beyond technical consistency. When the same team defines both the seismic demand and the structural response, questions from regulators or review boards can be answered efficiently, with a clear understanding of how each assumption influenced the results.
Closing the loop: structural
performance assessment Integration reaches its fullest expression when hazard, deformation, and structural expertise converge. At a concrete arch dam in Colorado, the structural team re- evaluated stress, stability, and dynamic behavior under combined seismic and thermal loading. “For me, the most valuable part of this process is the feedback loop,” explained Senior Structural Engineer Aimee Corn, PE. “When I can trace every load case back to its seismic source, I know our model isn’t just numerically sound; it’s physically meaningful.” This alignment of hazard inputs, nonlinear modelling, and structural assessment created a cohesive understanding of dam behaviour and built confidence among regulators and dam owners alike.
Collaboration as technical practice Behind every integrated analysis lies a network of
expertise that functions as a single organism. Seismic hazard specialists provide ground motion inputs that align with the deformation modelling team’s needs, with time histories and target spectra developed to reflect the site’s seismic environment and structural characteristics. Structural analysts use those same results to refine finite element models. Oversight validates the assumption and results remain consistent across all phases. “We think of collaboration not as a project phase but as a technical discipline,” said Walling. “It’s the structure that holds our analyses together.” Each model, from hazard curves to finite element
simulations, is developed with the next analytical step in mind and reviewed across disciplines before delivery. The process isn’t a series of handoffs, but a continuous conversation that continues until the system is fully understood.
An evolving industry perspective The hydropower industry’s approach to seismic safety
has evolved significantly. Where evaluations were once viewed primarily as regulatory exercises, they are now recognised as essential tools for understanding resilience. This shift has been driven by updated seismic hazard models, aging infrastructure that requires reassessment, and a growing recognition that downstream consequences have increased as development expands. The industry has also moved toward viewing seismic safety as a continuous process. Owners now regularly revisit and refine their understanding of risk, integrating new inspection results, analytical updates, and lessons from events elsewhere. This adaptive approach creates infrastructure that responds to
About GFT
GFT specialises in integrated seismic hazard analysis, deformation modeling, and structural assessment for hydropower and dam safety infrastructure. The company’s multidisciplinary team brings together geologists, geotechnical engineers, and structural specialists who collaborate throughout each project, from defining earthquake sources and ground motion characterization through nonlinear modeling and performance evaluation. This integrated approach ensures continuity of assumptions across all analytical phases, providing dam owners with consistent, traceable, and reliable evaluations. GFT works closely with regulatory agencies including FERC and state dam safety offices, translating complex technical analyses into an actionable understanding of infrastructure resilience.
For more information:
https://www.gftinc.com/
evolving conditions rather than remaining locked into outdated assumptions. “Owners are realising that seismic analysis isn’t a one-time event – it’s a living process,” said Hunt. “Every update, every new dataset, makes the system safer and smarter.”
Key considerations for integrated
seismic evaluation For hydropower projects, successful seismic evaluation depends on several critical factors. Site-specific hazard analyses incorporating local fault geometry and site response characteristics provide more reliable estimates than regional maps. Accurate characterisation of foundation and embankment materials, including their strength-strain properties, ensures that models accurately reflect their actual behavior. Equally important is maintaining analytical continuity. When the same team develops ground motion inputs, performs deformation modelling, and evaluates structural response, the consistency of assumptions across all phases reduces uncertainty and accelerates regulatory review. Finally, integrating technical analysis with routine inspections and operational monitoring creates feedback loops that strengthen resilience over time.
Resilience through integration True resilience emerges when integrated teams
ensure that critical infrastructure, and the communities it serves, remain safe and reliable. When geologists, geotechnical engineers, and structural specialists collaborate from hazard definition through performance assessment, the result is more than technical precision. It is confidence that infrastructure has been evaluated thoughtfully, that assumptions have been challenged across disciplines, and that dam owners and communities can trust the conclusions. “When the same team defines the fault, models the deformation, and evaluates the structure, we reduce uncertainty,” said Salimi. “That’s how we deliver confidence, not just compliance.” As communities continue to emphasise resilience over simple compliance, integrated practice becomes not only advantageous but essential. The path forward requires bringing together the full spectrum of seismic expertise, from fault characterisation to foundation response, under a shared analytical framework that serves both rigour and clarity.
Authors details
Melanie Walling, PhD, PE, Chief Seismic Hazard Engineer,
mwalling@gftinc.com
Dina Hunt, PE, Vice President & Chief Seismic Hazard Engineer,
dbhunt@gftinc.com
Aimee Corn, PE, Senior Structural Engineer,
acorn@gftinc.com
Justin Buetel, PE, Principal Civil Engineer,
jbeutel@gftinc.com
Kwestan Salimi, PhD, PE, Senior Geotechnical Analyst, ksalimi@
gftinc.com
Michael Gray, PG, CEG, Principal Engineering Geologist, mgray@
gftinc.com
www.waterpowermagazine.com | December 2025 | 31
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
