D. B. Edwards, B.H. Jackson & R. H. Wright
Ground anchorages are installed to support structures such as dams, slopes and tunnels. Failure of anchorages could be serious.
The condition of these critical supports is currently assessed by monitoring the load in the anchorages by either load cells or lift-off testing (jacking). Both methods are expensive and testing may damage the corrosion protection beneath the anchorage head.
A non-destructive testing method for ground anchorages needed developing and the UK Universities of Aberdeen and Bradford developed a testing system called GRANIT with patent applications on the system filed world-wide.
Full scale measurements were conducted during the construction of Penmaenbach and Pen y Clip Tunnels on the UK’s A55, where rock support was provided by prestressed rock anchorages. In all 9000 records of anchorage response were analysed.
A major finding from the research was that the response of the anchorages to the dynamic impulse motion produced by the blast loading depended on how the anchorage had been constructed and on the nature of the surrounding rock mass. If the prestress load in the anchorage was changed, or the free length increased, a noticeable change was observed in the response ‘signature’ as monitored by an accelerometer located at the anchorage head.
Applying a known impulse load to the anchorage head immediately after construction and measuring the response, provides a datum response signature for the intact anchorage. If the anchorage was to deteriorate in any way, eg loss of prestress, this should be noticeable on subsequent response signatures. This approach is the basis of the GRANIT system.
A short programme of anchor calibration testing for bolts was conducted in Hawkesbury sandstone in Sydney during March 1998 and developments in Australia and UK are proceeding.
Now showing 1-12 of 31 2948:
David Watson and John Adem
For several years risk management has been promoted by the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment – Water Agencies as the key mechanism for the effective and efficient business management of dams. As part of an extensive water reform program, the Victorian Government announced in October 1997, a financial assistance package for the water industry which included funding for dam improvements covering a majority of large dam owners in the State. One of the conditions for receipt of these improvement funds was the need for each water authority to undertake a Business Risk Assessment of all significant and high hazard dams under its responsibility.
This paper discusses the Business Risk Assessment document based on a framework developed by Water Agencies after consultation with the industry and expands on the following reasons why the document was produced:
D. C. Green
The disaggregation of public water supply bodies in recent years has seen the functions of ownership, design and operation transferred to separate bodies. Consequently , issues of risk management associated with legal liability which previously could be ignored because all risks were absorbed in -house must now be faced and addressed in a more formal way.
This paper looks firstly at the general principles of legal liability for dam performance associated with construction and design, ownership of an existing dam and monitoring of its performance. Liability under several different areas of the law is discussed. Special issues associated with “design and construct” contracts are then highlighted, and warnings are given for project sponsors who control the letting of contracts and the briefing of consultants.
Andrew Pattle and Bram Knoop
This paper provides an outline of a process that can be used to optimise regular dam surveillance and monitoring activities. The process is applicable for a wide range of dam types that an owner/operator may be responsible for. Basic assessments are made of inherent reliability and potential consequences of failure using key factors such as construction features, foundation conditions and observed performance. The key factors are combined to give a relative risk ranking for each dam. These rankings are used to determine specific dam monitoring schedules. The process focuses the monitoring effort on those dams that are perceived to constitute the greatest portion of the overall risk. The methodology is simple and provides a cost-effective framework for setting appropriate resourcing levels for dam monitoring.
David S. Bowles, Andrew M. Parsons, Loren R. Anderson and Terry F. Glover
This paper summarises the Portfolio Risk Assessment (PRA) process that was implemented for SA Water’s 17 large dams, the information obtained from the PRA, and its use by SA Water. The PRA was designed to provide a baseline assessment of the existing dams and an initial prioritisation of future investigations and possible risk reduction measures. The PRA comprised a reconnaissance-level engineering assessment and risk assessment. These assessments were performed for floods, earthquakes, and static loading. Various structural and non-structural risk reduction measures were developed and evaluated. Information from the PRA can be used to provide inputs to capital budgeting, due diligence and liability evaluations, contingency planning and business criticality assessment, evaluation of loss financing and insurance programs, and a firm basis for monitoring and surveillance, operations and maintenance, and emergency preparedness planning.
D.N.D. Hartford and R.A. Stewart
It seems perfectly logical, obviously desirable and apparently sensible to prioritise dam safety reviews, deficiency investigations and capitalised remediation projects in terms of risk. However, our experience in attempting to apply the various deterministic and risk- based approaches in prioritising dam safety activities has revealed that, while it may appear to be quite logical and desirable to prioritise in terms of risk, it is rather less feasible than it appears.
This paper explores why different prioritisation processes can lead to different priority rankings across the same portfolio of dams. B.C. Hydro’s Preliminary Risk Exposure Profile process, which utilises the best and most robust attributes of risk analysis process at the preliminary level but avoids the pitfalls associated with estimating risks which will often have little or even no basis is presented. The paper explains how this process provides a “fail-safe” backup which will identify non-conservative and erroneous facility risk estimates; thereby allowing for correction in a timely fashion. The paper also raises some awkward philosophical issues which the profession will have to address in order to permit confident dam safety decision-making on the basis of risk analyses. Not the least of these is the following issue – “If preliminary estimates of risk are reasonably good, then there should be little need for more detailed risk analysis for confident and defensible decisions concerning making or not making dam safety improvements”.