Matthias WILD, James STEWART, Chris IRVIN, Sander Van Ameijde
The awareness of safe and sustainable utilisation of all forms of construction such as bridges, tunnels, dams or industrial buildings during its whole lifetime is increasing more and more. The safe operation of our dams is of critical importance to society. As our assets age, the focus on monitoring, control systems and lifespan management is of increasing importance. Communities need to have peace of mind these assets are not going to fail. To prevent failures of structures, a common method is for periodical or situational site visits to check the crucial points of construction. Site visits are cost intensive, subjective and non-continuous. This results in a global research focus on measurement devices and evaluation systems to generate a full structural health monitoring system which guarantees measurement and data evaluation adapted for the specific application over the full lifespan.
For important structures like the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant or Australian Dam structures it’s not just the inspection costs and a sustainably utilisation during service life that are important. The safety during operation of the nuclear power plant is also critical to its operation. To monitor the deep excavation at the power plant DYWIDAG provided geotechnical systems combined with measurement sensors and a monitoring concept for the lifespan of the structure. About 14,000 soil nails and bar anchors are stabilising the excavation. Movements of the retaining wall will lead to a change of stress in the geotechnical tension members. This change is monitored by DYNA-Force Sensors, which are used for load monitoring. This monitoring system has been used successfully in a range of critical structures like stadium roof-beams, staycables, dam-anchors with strands or bars.
A simple installation and read out of sensors is not a major facilitation compared to site visits. The implementation of sensors in a sophisticated monitoring system is the big advantage of structural health monitoring which guarantees a safe and sustainable utilisation of the construction. DYWIDAG is making infrastructure lifespan management smarter and offers a cloud-based online sensor management system (Platform Interactive) which enables processing of large volumes of sensor data and performing complex calculations. It provides real-time alerting, presenting the information in an innovative and interactive way, removing subjective interpretation and providing numerical data online in real time. Platform Interactive with plug and play pre-configured sensors, may also be adapted and applied for a range of SHM projects. It provides continuous reporting and the reassurance structures are performing as they should without the possibility of failure. At DYWIDAG we are making infrastructure lifespan management smarter, safer, stronger
Now showing 1-12 of 14 3380:
Richard M Robinson, Siraj Perera, Gaye Francis
Due diligence has become endemic in Australian legislation and in case law, to the point that it has become, in the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s terms, a categorical imperative. That is, our lawmakers seem to have decided that due diligence is universal in its application and creates a moral justification for action. This also means the converse, that failure to act demands sanction against the failed decision maker.
This applies to dam safety management which represents the archetypical high consequence – low likelihood event. It is now essential to have positively demonstrated safety due diligence in a way that can withstand post-event judicial scrutiny. Presently the only way this can be done is by using the notion of criticality and precaution, not hazard and risk. The test is not that of risk acceptability (as low as reasonably practicable or ALARP), rather it is that no further reasonably practicable precautions (so far as is reasonably practicable or SFAIRP) are available, and that what results is not prohibitively dangerous.
This paper will document the difference between the two approaches and how to positively demonstrate safety due diligence. It also discusses the definition of ALARP as stated in ANCOLD’s Guidelines on Risk Assessment 2003 and the relevance of the safety case principle for dam safety management.
Mark Pearse, John Pisaniello, Sam Banzi, Peter Hill
A completely new dam safety regulation framework was introduced into NSW in November 2019. The new framework addresses all aspects of dam safety management. The implications for dam owners in respect of risk reduction measures (RRMs) that will need to be undertaken have been the matter of debate and are the focus of this paper. The Dams Safety Regulation 2019 requires that dam owners eliminate or reduce the risk posed by their dams but “only so far as is reasonably practicable” (SFAIRP). This is a change from the previous Dams Safety Committee requirement that risks should be reduced as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). The previous guidance around the extent and timing of risk reduction has been removed and dam owners are now required to determine what is ‘reasonably practicable’. These changes were anticipated to save hundreds of millions of dollars from the reduced cost of risk reduction measures across the state of NSW. These savings appear unlikely to materialise given that dam owners are likely to be highly cognisant of the need to meet the common law expectation that RRMs should be implemented unless the costs associated with the RRMs are grossly disproportionate to the benefits gained. The key changes in the new regulatory framework are identified along with the legal and financial implications in regard to RRMs followed by next steps that should be considered by dam owners in NSW. Many of the implications are applicable to other dam owners who operate under common law (including all states of Australia and New Zealand).
Paul Somerville, Andreas Skarlatoudis, Jeff Bayless, Polly Guan
The 2019 ANCOLD seismic guidelines state that “A hazard assessment should be conducted for earthquake magnitudes Mw 5 and above. However, under certain circumstances, smaller magnitude earthquakes may form the lower limit. With masonry dams, slab and buttress dams, older concrete dams, and structural concrete components of dams, Mw 4 earthquake magnitudes should form the lower limit.” However, when using probabilistic Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) with Mmin less than 5.0 per the 2019 ANCOLD Guidelines, the hazard will be overestimated unless Conditional Mean Spectra (CMS) are used to represent the ground motions. As described by Somerville et al. (2015), use of the UHS can significantly overestimate the seismic hazard levels presented by individual earthquake scenarios because the UHS envelopes the ground motions from multiple earthquake scenarios in one spectrum. This overestimation is especially true of the ground motions from small magnitude earthquake scenarios. The probabilistic UHS may have large short period ground motions with contributions from a range of scenario earthquakes, but if the UHS is used as the design spectrum, these ground motions will often be represented by earthquake scenarios having inappropriately large magnitudes, long durations, and high long period ground motion levels. As a result, these design ground motions have the potential to overestimate the response of the structure under consideration. By using CMS spectra and time histories, the large probabilistic peak accelerations, predominantly from small earthquakes, are better represented by earthquakes having appropriately small magnitudes, short durations, and lower long period ground motion levels, yielding more realistic estimates of the response of the structure.
Ryan Singh, Jiri Herza, James Thorp
Recent and continual failures of tailings storage facilities (TSFs), often resulting in catastrophic consequences, has led to calls for action from the industry, stakeholders and the public at large. Several standards and guidelines are being prepared at the time of writing, most notably a Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM), with the overall objective to reduce the rate of TSF failures globally. While better guidelines are certainly necessary, there are requirements that must be carefully followed in developing a document that has the ambition to become a standard. If such requirements are not fulfilled, the document can become ineffective or potentially have the opposite result to that which was intended. This paper discusses whether or not the GISTM meets the requirements of the standards and analyses the potentially negative impacts of its implementation on the industry and wider society. Based on this analysis, this paper provides several recommendations for improvements that should be considered by the GISTM panel and other working groups preparing standards and guidelines.
Hench Wang, Peter Hill, Sam Banzi, Muhammad Hameed
Dam owners can often struggle to demonstrate the dam safety risk benefits that can be achieved through non-structural risk reduction measures, such as adoption of smart technological solutions that improve the timeliness and quality of decision making. WaterNSW collaborated with HARC to develop a novel way of demonstrating benefits from improved data management. This paper discusses the use of HEC-LifeSim to demonstrate the reduction in life safety risk from improved monitoring through DamGuard for a case study dam in Sydney. DamGuard is a real-time dam safety monitoring system implemented by WaterNSW. This case study was the first time in Australia where a simulation model such as HEC-LifeSim was applied to quantify the life safety risk benefits pre and post the implementation of DamGuard. The implementation of DamGuard to the sample dam was estimated to reduce the life safety risk by 15%.