2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2016.03.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational Aspects of Dam Risk Analysis: Findings and Challenges

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In 2013 the International Committee of Large Dams organized a numerical benchmark where the participants were invited to predict the breach outflow hydrograph of a hypothetical dam failure; that is, the true outcome was not known (Zenz & Goldgruber, 2013). The results demonstrate that the variations between the predicted hydrographs of different dam breach models/modelers are large and can significantly influence the result of hydrodynamic calculations (Escuder-Bueno et al, 2016). The origin of the discrepancies in the resulting hydrographs of the benchmark participants can be mainly attributed to variability of the erodibility of embankment material as a result of different soil types, compaction effort, and water content (Morris et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In 2013 the International Committee of Large Dams organized a numerical benchmark where the participants were invited to predict the breach outflow hydrograph of a hypothetical dam failure; that is, the true outcome was not known (Zenz & Goldgruber, 2013). The results demonstrate that the variations between the predicted hydrographs of different dam breach models/modelers are large and can significantly influence the result of hydrodynamic calculations (Escuder-Bueno et al, 2016). The origin of the discrepancies in the resulting hydrographs of the benchmark participants can be mainly attributed to variability of the erodibility of embankment material as a result of different soil types, compaction effort, and water content (Morris et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…1 Risk assessments of concrete gravity dam have been performed for several decades. 2 Some of the early applications are purely based on qualitative assessment, engineering judgment, and expert opinions. 3 Some others use logical modeling techniques for risk quantification such as event tree 4,5 or fault tree 6 methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For a reliable probabilistic analysis, the emphasis must be placed on the quality of the input parameters and in particular the uncertainties. However, probabilistic assessment, no matter how sophisticated, can still lead to very different solutions for a given problem because of the complex choices of random variables (RVs), characteristic values, PDFs, and bounds, which can largely influence final results [25][26][27]. Consequently, the analysis is generally not updated in light of new information due to the time-consuming re-evaluation and the lack of flexibility in the methods regarding including modified PDFs and bounds.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%