archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/acme

Original Research Article

Simplified reliability analysis of multi hazard risk in

gravity dams via machine learning techniques

Mohammad Amin Hariri-Ardebili a,*, Farhad Pourkamali-Anaraki b

a
Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, 428 UCB, Boulder,
CO 80309, USA
b
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Colorado Boulder, 526 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309, USA

article info abstract

Article history: Deterministic analysis does not provide a comprehensive model for concrete dam response
Received 9 February 2017 under multi-hazard risk. Thus, the use of probabilistic approach is usually recommended
Accepted 3 September 2017 which is problematic due to high computational demand. This paper presents a simplified
Available online reliability analysis framework for gravity dams subjected to flooding, earthquakes, and
aging. A group of time-variant degradation models are proposed for different random
Keywords: variables. Response of the dam is presented by explicit limit state functions. The probability
Concrete dams of failure is directly computed by either classical Monte Carlo simulation or the refined
Classification importance sampling technique. Next, three machine learning techniques (i.e., K-nearest
Seismic neighbor, support vector machine, and naive Bayes classifier) are adopted for binary
Temporal degradation classification of the structural results. These methods are then demonstrated in terms of
Hydrological hazard accuracy, applicability and computational time for prediction of the failure probability.
Results are then generalized for different dam classes (based on the height-to-width ratio),
various water levels, earthquake intensity, degradation rate, and cross-correlation between
the random variables. Finally, a sigmoid-type function is proposed for analytical calculation
of the failure probability for different classes of gravity dams. This function is then
specialized for the hydrological hazard and the failure surface is presented as a direct
function of the dam's height and width.
© 2017 Politechnika Wrocławska. Published by Elsevier Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.

and industrial use. However, disasters such as human

1. Introduction
Concrete dams are part of the nations infrastructures which
can be used for generating energy, impounding water,
suppressing floods and activities such as irrigation, navigation
operating errors and natural hazards affect performance of
dams. A dam's potential failure mode (PFM) is a chain of events
that lead to unsatisfactory performance, which could result in
uncontrolled water release [1]. There are several well-known
PFMs for concrete dams such as sliding, overturning, over-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mohammad.haririardebili@colorado.edu (M.A. Hariri-Ardebili), farhad.pourkamali@colorado.edu (F. Pourkamali-
Anaraki).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.09.003
1644-9665/© 2017 Politechnika Wrocławska. Published by Elsevier Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
stressing, cracking, and foundation failure [2]. Failures start
with some initiating event that causes an adverse change in
the structure. The initiators can be classified into the following
main groups:

Hydrological events (e.g., floods and an increase of water
flow through the spillway).

Static events (e.g., reservoir water load, ice load, equipment
failure).

Time-dependent events (e.g., erosion, alkali-aggregate reac-
tion in concrete, increased seepage, clogged drain, degraded
grout curtain).

Seismic events (e.g., earthquake load).

Other events (e.g., human operating errors, fire, landslides into
the reservoir, vehicular impact, sabotage, and vandalism).
There are many concrete dams around the world that are
entering middle age [3]. Over one-third of the United States
dams are already fifty years old and in another ten years, nearly
70% of dams in the United States will have reached the half-
century mark [4]. Thus, predicting their long term behavior,
service life, and quantifying the failure probability is necessary.
Detailed deterministic numerical analysis of concrete dams
with all sources of nonlinearities is computationally expensive
[5]. Moreover, it does not account for the uncertainties
associated with the structure itself (epistemic) and the applied
loads (aleatory). Thus, the primary goal of this paper is to
provide a simplified probabilistic framework to determine the
failure probability in gravity dams subjected to multi-hazard
risks. The secondary goal is to employ several machine
learning techniques in order to facilitate classification of the
results and estimate the reliability index. Both these tasks are
achieved by using explicit limit state functions. Finally, these
results are generalized for different gravity dam classes based
on the height-to-width ratio.
1.1. Literature review
1.1.1. Reliability analysis of concrete dams
Bury and Kreuzer [6] calculated the sliding failure probability of
gravity dams based on rigid body analysis. Gumbel distribu-
tional model was assumed for both the annual peak flood and
the ground acceleration. Saouma [7] combined the concept of
reliability index with fracture mechanics and determined the
safety index of working dams based on the nonlinear finite
element analysis. Four random variables were considered:
reservoir elevation, fracture toughness, cohesion, and friction
angle. Carvajal et al. [8] performed reliability analysis of a
gravity roller compact concrete (RCC) dam by Monte Carlo
simulation (MCS) and the first order reliability method (FORM).
Statistical analysis of RCC density, analysis of scatter at
different spatial scales, data unification, and a physical
formulation of the RCC intrinsic curve were all considered.
Sliding and cracking were considered as limit state functions.
Also, Peyras et al. [9] proposed a combined method of risk,
reliability analysis, and event tree methods for safety analysis
of concrete dams. Altarejos-Garcia et al. [10] proposed a
methodology to improve the estimation of the conditional
probability of responses in gravity dam-reservoir systems by
using complex behavior models based on numerical simula-
593
tion techniques, together with reliability analysis. Yu [11]
introduced the first finite element based time-variant reliabil-
ity assessment of gravity dams. He used stochastic ground
motions along with FORM approximation and Koo's analytical
solution to compute the mean up-crossing rate of a given
performance function. Krounis [12] studied the sliding stability
and failure probability of concrete dams with bonded
concrete-rock interfaces. The heterogeneous properties of
the interface joint were considered with different spatially
correlation lengths.
Nearly all prior studies on reliability assessment of concrete
gravity dams are limited to single-hazard analysis, constant
pool level, and random concrete material capacity (e.g., friction
angle and cohesion). The existing simplified models do not
take into account the seismic or aging hazards. The simula-
tions were performed with crude MCS and the findings are
usually limited to a specific case study (not a generic dam
model) subjected to a non-intensifying hazard. Time-depen-
dency of the structural reliability was only discussed in the
theoretical level without any realistic example.
1.1.2. Machine learning for reliability analysis of concrete
dams
Machine learning techniques are basically used either for
‘‘regression’’ or ‘‘classification’’ purposes. The former one is
mainly used to forecast the future response (dam safety
monitoring) based on the collected past information (dam
instrumentation). Also, different branches of machine learn-
ing are adopted for the so-called ‘‘back analysis’’ and
determination of mechanical properties for concrete materi-
als. This line of work considers the prediction of continuous-
time variables (regression) based on ‘‘training’’ data sets. For
example, Salazar et al. [13,14] discussed and contrasted some
of the machine learning based predictive models for dam
safety assessment, i.e., random forests, boosted regression
trees, neural network (NN), support vector machine (SVM), and
multivariate adaptive regression splines. The prediction
accuracy in each case was compared with the conventional
statistical model. Saouma et al. [15] used stepwise linear
regression and K-nearest neighbor local polynomial techni-
ques for prediction of arch dam responses based on pendulum
recordings. The results of statistical analysis were compared
with nonlinear finite element method.
The latter group of machine learning techniques have been
used for classification of dam responses. The research in this
field is very limited and there is a gap between all the
theoretical aspects and the real world dam engineering
applications. Gaspar et al. [16] proposed a probabilistic thermal
model to propagate uncertainties on some RCC's physical
properties. A thermo-chemo-mechanical model was then
used to describe the RCC behavior. Moreover, the global
sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of
random variables. Mata et al. [17] proposed a method based on
linear discriminant models for the construction of decision
rules for the early detection of developing failure scenarios.
They developed a single classification index by combining the
physical measured quantities.
Thus, there is an urgent need for comprehensive research
on the failure probability estimation of concrete dams by using
machine learning techniques. For example, by exploring
594 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
different hazard models and assessing their correlations, it is
possible to obtain a multi-hazard reliability model.
1.2. Contribution
Detailed deterministic numerical analysis of concrete dams
with all sources of nonlinearities is computationally expensive
[5] and does not account for the uncertainty sources dealing
with the structure itself (epistemic) and the applied loads
(aleatory). Thus, this paper aims to provide a simplified
probabilistic framework in order to determine the failure
probability for gravity dams subjected to multi-hazard risk.
The major contributions can be itemized as:

Multi-hazard analysis of gravity dams are performed for the
first time in the context of a single paper.

Aging hazards of gravity dams are studied for the first time
with up to six degrading/increasing models for random
variables.

A comprehensive study on the temporal reliability of gravity
dams are performed considering both instant and cumula-
tive failure probabilities.

For all the studied multi-hazards, the failure probability is
presented for the intensifying hazard which eventually
forms a so-called fragility function.

Comparison of three machine learning techniques for
estimation of ‘‘structural failure probability’’ based on two
classical reliability analysis techniques (i.e., MCS and
importance sampling (IS)).

Study the impact of random variable cross-correlation on
the failure probability.

Generalization of the estimated failure probability for class
of dams for the first time.

Proposing a sigmoid-type analytical model for the failure
probability.
1.3. Organization of the paper
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 1.1 provides
the existing literature review on the topics investigated and
the contribution of the authors are briefly summarized in
Section 1.2. It is followed by reviewing the time-variant and
time-invariant structural reliability (Section 2), as well as
machine learning based classification techniques used in this
work (Section 3). Next, the case study is introduced and the
random variables are identified (Section 4). Results are
provided in Section 5 for three hazard models (pilot, general-
ized and analytical models). Finally, the concluding remarks
are summarized in Section 6.
2. Structural reliability analysis
In the classical structural reliability, the safety is assessed by
developing a so-called ‘‘margin of safety’’ or a ‘‘limit state
function’’, G. Based on the nature of the investigated problem,
a deterministic, time-invariant probabilistic, or time-variant
(time-dependent) probabilistic versions of the limit state
function can be written as:
8
< G ¼ RS deterministic
GðXÞ ¼ RðXÞSðXÞ time-invariant probabilistic
:
GðXðtÞÞ ¼ RðXðtÞÞSðXðtÞÞ time-dependent probabilistic
(1)
where R is resistance (i.e., capacity), S is stress (i.e., applied load
or demand), t refers to time, and X 2 RM is a random vector of N
basic variables X = X1, X2, . . ., XN. G  0 corresponds to failure,
while G > 0 presents the safe region.
2.1. Time-invariant case
In ‘‘time-invariant’’ structural reliability problems, it is
assumed that all the parameters are either deterministic or
random variables. They are usually presented by probability
distributional models showing the uncertainty over a given
time interval. In addition, they can be combined to account for
multiple effects on variables [18]. In the time-invariant model,
the resulting formulation seeks the probability that the
uncertain demand exceeds the uncertain capacity at least
once during the selected time period.
The time-invariant failure probability, Pf, can be written as
(the convolution integral), Fig. 1(a):
Z 1
Pf ¼ P½RðXÞ < SðXÞ ¼ FR ðdÞf S ðdÞdd
1
Z 1
¼ 1 FS ðdÞf R ðdÞdd (2)
1
where the randomness of R and S is expressed by probability
density functions (PDFs) fR and fS, while FR and FS are the
corresponding cumulative density functions (CDFs).
In the case that several random variables are contributing,
the overall failure probability of the system is determined as
R
Pf = {x:G(x)0}fX(x)dx. Since the integration domain is the only
implicitly available, the direct estimation of Pf is very difficult
(and impossible in many cases). Thus, Pf can be estimated by
calculation of the expectation of a binary (safe/fail) classifier If
as [19]:

1 if GðxÞ0
Pf ¼ E½If ðXÞ; If ðxÞ ¼ (3)
0 if GðxÞ > 0
2.2. Time-variant case
Demands on the structures as well as the structural capacity
are often not constant, but they can change over time. It
implies that the probabilistic analysis does not only include
random variables, but also random function of time. Fig. 1(b)
shows an example of time-dependent system. At t0 (construc-
tion time), the PDFs of demand and capacity models are far
from each other with a (codified) safety factor. Structural
resistance (capacity) often decreases as a function of time due
to deterioration (e.g., alkali aggregate reaction), while the
demand may increase over time (e.g., accumulated debris in
the reservoir). Two PDFs are first crossing (assuming that they
are truncated model) at ti while the failure probability is
practically zero. Further deterioration of the system or
increase of the demand lead to overlapping PDFs (the over-
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610 595

Fig. 1 – Concept of the reliability analysis with basic random variables.

lapped area is interpreted as Pf). There are various methods to
incorporate the temporal effects of both the demand and
capacity in the reliability assessment (e.g., time-integrated and
discrete approaches) [21]. In the present paper, the time-
variant failure probability is written as:
Z 1
Pf ðtÞ ¼ P½RðXðtÞÞ < SðXðtÞÞ ¼ FR;t ðdÞf S;t ðdÞdd
0
where FR,t and fS,t are the instantaneous CDF of R and the
instantaneous PDF of S at time t respectively, assuming that
R and S are statistically independent [22].
Next, the time interval (t0, tf) (where t0 = 0 is the initial or
construction time and tf refers to the final or expected life time
of the structure) can be divided into n non-overlapping time
instants, t1, t2, . . . tn (tn = tf) and the probability of failure can be
reported in two ways:

Instant probability of failure, PIf , where the failure probability
is calculated based on the instant status of both R and S,
Eq. (2). This model only considers the system behavior at
time t = ti and there is no condition on the previous failures.

Cumulative probability of failure, PCf , in which the failure
probability is calculated within the time interval (0, t] as:
PCf ð0; t ¼ 1P½ðRðXðt1 ÞÞ > SðXðt1 ÞÞÞ \    \ ðRðXðtk ÞÞ > SðXðtk ÞÞÞ
Y
k
¼ 1 ð1PIf ðtj ÞÞ
j¼1
Detailed time dependent models for cracking, load increas-
ing and material degradation will be discussed in Section 4.2.
2.3. Simulation based techniques
Estimation of Pf is the challenging part in reliability analysis
[20]. There are many methods to achieve this goal depending
(4) on the problem type, the required accuracy and computational
time, e.g., FORM, second-order reliability method (SORM),
crude MCS, and MCS with importance sampling (IS) [23], MCS
with Latin Hypercube sampling (LHS) [24], and subset simula-
tion (SS) [25]. In this paper, two simulation based techniques
are used and briefly discussed below. Crude MCS is used as it is
the reference method in structural reliability, while IS is used
specifically for ‘‘rare events’’.
Rare events refer to those with low frequency of occur-
rence and encompass both natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes,
tsunamis, floods) and anthropogenic hazards (e.g. industrial
accidents) as well as their interactions. Rare events have
‘‘small failure probability’’, usually in the order of 105 
102. Thus, the standard random generation techniques
cannot be easily applied, as they require a large amount of
simulations.
2.3.1. Monte Carlo simulation
In this method, the failure probability is directly calculated
based on the joint PDF of all the random variables. An unbiased
estimator of Pf is given by:
(5)

In this model, the failure probability at any time instant is 1 X

Nsim
^MCS ¼ N
conditioned on all the previous times. The final simplified P I ðx Þ ¼ fail (7)
f
Nsim j¼1 f j Nsim
formula is, in fact, a generalized equation for a system with
series components. where Nsim is the total number of simulations, Nfail number of
failed simulations, and the hat is the estimation sign.

Time-dependency of the random variables is simply ^MCS are:

The confidence intervals for Pf
modeled using the initial state and a temporal degrading, c
(t). In the most general form, they can be written as: 2 0 11=2 3
  1P^ MCS

P ^MCS 6
^MCS 2 P 41F1
a @ f A 7 5 (8)
 f f
2 N P ^MCS
RðtÞ ¼ R0 cR ðtÞ; R0 ¼ Rjt¼0 sim f
(6)
SðtÞ ¼ S0 cS ðtÞ; S0 ¼ Sjt¼0
596 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610

where F(.) is the standard normal CDF and a 2 [0, 1] is used to
calculate the bounds with confidence level of 1  a.
2.3.2. Importance sampling
Importance sampling is a technique to reduce the large
number of simulations (and consequently the variance of the
responses) in the crude MCS specifically for rare events (e.g.,
small failure probability). In this method, which was originally
proposed by Harbitz [23], the idea is to concentrate the
distribution of sampling in the most important region [26]. One
way this can be done is by moving the sampling center from
the origin in the standard normal space to the ‘‘design point’’
on the limit state function [27]. Design point is the closest point
from the origin to the limit state function (usually estimated by
FORM). Consequently, a new sampling PDF, hX(x) is defined to
obtain the samples in the desired region and the failure
probability can be approximated with the similar analogy of
Eq. (7) as:
1 X
Nsim
^IS ¼ f X ðxj Þ
P If ðxj Þ
f
Nsim j¼1
hX ðxj Þ
As it is clear, the appropriate choice of hX(x) facilitates
implementation of this method. Melchers [20], Melchers [28]
and Au and Beck [29] proposed different techniques to use the
importance sampling along with structural reliability.
3. Classification techniques
In machine learning, classification is the problem of assigning
new observations to one of the finite numbers of discrete
categories. Therefore, the goal of classification is to learn a
model that makes accurate predictions on new observations
based on a set of training data points. To be formal, let x1, . . .,
xn be a set of training observations in Rp with corresponding
categories y1, . . ., yn, where yi 2 { 1, + 1}. Here, p denotes the
number of features (random variables) and each category yi is
a binary variable such that yi =1 corresponds to class C1
(failure region) and yi =+1 corresponds to class C2 (safe region).
Using the learned classification rule in the training phase,
a new observation x 2 Rp is assigned to one of these two
categories.
In practice, the set of n training observations are used to
form the training matrix Xtrn ¼ ½x1 ; . . .; xn T 2 Rnp , where each
row corresponds to one observation. Prior to the training
phase, observations are often preprocessed since features or
random variables might be measured in different units [30].
There are two main techniques to preprocess the training data:
(1) rescaling and (2) standardization. In the first method, also
known as Min–Max scaling, features or random variables are
rescaled to the range in [0, 1] by computing the maximum and
minimum values. However, the second method computes the
sample mean and standard deviation of random variables.
Then, the features in each column of Xtrn are standardized by
subtracting the mean and dividing them by the standard
deviation. As a result, random variables will be rescaled so that
they have the properties of a standard normal distribution
(9)
with zero mean and unit standard deviation. The second
method is employed in the present work since it has been
shown to be crucial in clustering analyses [31].
In this paper, three popular classification algorithms are
studied and contrasted: (1) K-nearest neighbor (KNN), (2)
support vector machine (SVM), and (3) naive Bayes classifier
(NBC), Fig. 2. These algorithms cover both deterministic and
probabilistic classification approaches and they are among top
ten data mining algorithms [32]. The training procedure,
properties, and computational complexity of these three
techniques are explained through Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
3.1. K-nearest neighbor
The K-nearest neighbor algorithm is one of the simplest
classification techniques in machine learning. Given a new
observation x 2 Rp , K training observations from the rows of

Fig. 2 – Three classification techniques in machine learning. From left to right: K-nearest neighbor (KNN), support vector
machine (SVM), and naive Bayes classifier (NBC). In KNN, a new observation is classified based on the labels of K nearest
neighbors. SVM solves an optimization problem to find a separating hyperplane with maximum margin and a new
observation is classified based on its position. NBC is a probabilistic approach to find the most likely class for a new
observation using Bayes theorem.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610 597

Xtrn closest in distance to x are found. Then, x is classified Under this setup, the points that are closest to the
using the majority vote among these K nearest observations separating hyperplane, known as ‘‘support vectors’’, lie on
from the training set. Therefore, the KNN algorithm is the following hyperplane:
sensitive to the local structure of the data and its performance
 
depends heavily on the choice of K. yi wT ’ðxi Þ þ b ¼ 1 (14)
To reduce the sensitivity of KNN, one possible approach is
to weigh the contribution of each of the K nearest neighbors This hyperplane and the separating hyperplane in Eq. (11)
according to their distance to observation x. For example, the are parallel (they have the same orientation or coefficient
class of each of the K nearest training observations is vector w) and the distance between them is 1/k wk, where kwk
multiplied by a weight which is proportional to the inverse is the Euclidean norm of w. Thus, the hyperplane which gives
of the distance from x. Thus, greater weight is given to closer the maximum margin is obtained by maximizing kw k 1,
neighbors. The classification rule of weighted KNN for a new which is equivalent to minimizing kw k 2, subject to the
observation x and its K nearest neighbors x1, . . ., xK with labels constraints given in Eq. (13).
yi, i = 1, . . ., K, can be written as: To solve the above constrained optimization problem the
! Lagrange multipliers method is often used which results in
PK
i¼1 wi yi 1 maximizing the following term with respect to a [34]:
f ðxÞ ¼ sign PK ; wi ¼ (10)
i¼1 wi
kxxi k
Xn
1X n X n
~
LðaÞ ¼ ai  a a y y kðxi ; xj Þ (15)
where wi is the distance weighting function. 2 i¼1 j¼1 i j i j
i¼1

3.2. Support vector machine subject to the constraints:

Support vector machine is one of the most popular classifica- 8

< ani 0; i ¼ 1; . . .; n
>
tion algorithms. The determination of the model parameters X (16)
can be written as a simple optimization problem by using the >
: ai yi ¼ 0
i¼1
Lagrange multipliers method. Therefore, one can use standard
off-the-shelf optimization softwares to find the required Here, the ‘‘kernel function’’ is defined by k(xi, xj) = w(xi)Tw(xj),
parameters. which represents the dot product between two mapped data
The key idea of SVM is to map the training observations points w(xi) and w(xj). Given the optimal solution a
¼
from Rp into a high (maybe infinite) dimensional feature space ½a
1 ; . . .; a
n T in the training procedure, a new data point xtest
so that the mapped data is linearly separable. Therefore, there is classified according to the sign of f(xtest):
exists at least one separating hyperplane of the form (because
of linear separability assumption [33]): X
n
f ðxtest Þ ¼ a
i yi kðxtest ; xi Þ þ b
(17)
i¼1

f ðxÞ ¼ wT ’ðxÞ þ b (11) where b* can be found by substituting the optimal value w
¼
Pn

i¼1 ai yi ’ðxi Þ in Eq. (14) and can be expressed in terms of the

where the operator ’ : Rp ! RH represents the transformation;
w 2 RH is the coefficient vector that determines the orientation
of the hyperplane, and b 2 R is the bias term. Among all
possible hyperplanes, the one with the largest margin is se-
lected, where margin is defined as the smallest distance be-
tween the hyperplane and any of the training observations.
After determination of the model parameters w and b, a new
test data point x is classified according to the sign of f(x) (recall
that the corresponding target for each observation is either 1
or þ1).
Now, we explain the problem formulation and optimization
to find the separating hyperplane in SVM. Since the mapped
data is linearly separable, all the training observations x1, . . .,
xn satisfy the following constraints:
kernel function.
Note that the separating hyperplane is optimized without
ever having to explicitly compute the coordinates of data
points w(xi) in feature space. Thus, employing kernel functions
is an efficient approach to perform nonlinear classification by
‘‘implicitly’’ mapping training observations into feature space.
The two commonly used families of kernels are polynomial
kernels and radial basis functions (RBF) [35,36]. The polyno-
d
mial kernel function is of the form kðxi ; xj Þ ¼ ðxTi xj þ 1Þ with
parameter d 2 N. On the other hand, RBF (also known as
Gaussian kernel) takes the form k(xi, xj) = exp(g k xi  xj k 2)
with parameter g 2 Rþ .
3.3. Naive Bayes classifier

 Naive Bayes classifier is a probabilistic classification algorithm

wT ’ðxi Þ þ b þ 1 for yi ¼ þ1 which is based on Bayes theorem. In the training phase, this
(12)
wT ’ðxi Þ þ b1 for yi ¼ 1
method estimates the parameters of a probability distribution
and these two constraints can be combined into one set of which is often assumed to be the normal distribution for
inequalities: continuous variables. Then, a new observation x is classified
based on the probability that x belongs to each class. To
 
yi wT ’ðxi Þ þ b 1 0 for all i ¼ 1; . . .; n (13) explain this classification technique, Bayes theorem is
adopted.
598 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
Given a new observation x, the main idea behind Naive
Bayes Classifier is to find the following probability for each of
two classes known as posterior probability:
PðCj jxÞ; j ¼ 1; 2: (18)
where PðCj jxÞ is the probability of observing Cj given that x is
true.
Then, x is assigned to the class that has the maximum
posterior probability:
b
C ¼ argmax PðCj jxÞ: (19)
j 2 f1;2g
To find the posterior probability in Eq. (18), Bayes theorem is
used to get the following reformulation:
PðxjCj ÞPðCj Þ
PðCj jxÞ ¼ : (20)
PðxÞ
In this equation, the denominator does not depend on the
class Cj , which means that the denominator is effectively
constant. Therefore, the main difficulty in finding the posterior
 
probability is to calculate the term P xjCj in the numerator. To
solve this problem, a ‘‘naive’’ assumption is considered: the p
features of new observation x 2 Rp are conditionally indepen-
dent given the class. Thus, the classification rule for the new
observation vector x = [x1, . . ., xp]T is given as:
Y
p unit thickness, FR(t) and FS(t) are time-variant resisting and
b
C ¼ argmax PðCj Þ Pðxi jCj Þ: (21)
j 2 f1;2g i¼1
4. Studied cases
Three main examples are studied in this paper corresponding
to three natural hazard risks, i.e., hydrological, aging, and
seismic. All examples follow the classical reliability analysis of
gravity dams based on limited equilibrium method (LEM) in
which the dam is assumed to be a rigid body and the sliding is
only allowed along the critical surfaces (i.e., concrete-rock
interface and concrete lift joints). Thus, only the magnitude
and the moment arm of the resultant loads are important. No
internal stress is evaluated in this method. It is noteworthy
that the whole framework in this paper can be applied in
conjunction with more complex finite element techniques;
however, the overall run time will be increased enormously.
Such methods allow us to evaluate the internal stresses.
Readers should notice that for detailed safety assessment
of concrete dams, specially under the collapse scenario,
employing the nonlinear time history analysis is recom-
mended for final design purposes. This is important because
there are many construction and design limitations as well as
material heterogeneity and loading variations which are not
considered in the initial simplified analysis and design stage.
All these conditions may (or may not) lead to the non-uniform
distribution of demand and capacity and facilitate (or
accelerate) the failure process.
The first author performed transient analysis accounting
for the soil-fluid-structures interaction, material and geometry
nonlinearities [5], and performance based earthquake engi-
neering research [2] for concrete dams. However, LEM is used
in this paper in conjunction with explicit limit state functions
to facilitate the machine learning based classifications. This
method is followed by many regulators/countries and is based
on experiences and engineering judgment [37]. Moreover, it is
the basis of several recent works, e.g., Carvajal et al. [8],
Westberg [38], Altarejos-Garcia et al. [10], Westberg Wilde and
Johansson [39], Huaizhi et al. [40] and more recently Morales-
Torres et al. [41]. In the most general form, the limit state
function is:
Z ¼ f ðT; W; U; f; c; A; Lcr ; tÞ (22)
where T is shear force, W is the weight, U is uplift force, w and c
are angle of friction and cohesion at the considered plane
respectively, A is the area of rupture (for unit thickness), Lcr
is the pre-existing crack length, and t is time to be used in time-
variant problems.
In the context of LEM, two main limit state functions can be
developed: (1) Z1(t) sliding limit state (at dam-foundation
interface or along any lift joint), and (2) Z2(t) overturning limit
state (around the dam's toe):
Z1 ðtÞ ¼ ðWðtÞUðtÞÞtan’ þ cðtÞðAAcr ðtÞÞTðtÞ
Xn X
m
Z2 ðtÞ ¼ ðFR ðtÞ:dR ðtÞÞi  ðFS ðtÞdS ðtÞÞj (23)
i¼1 j¼1
where Acr = Lcr  1 is the pre-existing cracked area with the
driving forces, respectively; and dR(t) and dS(t) are the corre-
sponding moment arms around the dam's toe [39]. The pa-
rameters n and m are values of resisting and driving force
components (resulted from different loads and segments of
dam body). Note that these limit state functions can be used
for all hazard models. The time parameter is only active for
‘‘temporal’’ hazard. Magnitude of the resisting and driving
loads depend on the random variables and hazard intensity.
The model parameters are listed in Table 1. Depending on
the analysis type, the natural hazard, and the potential risk
these parameters may take deterministic or probabilistic
values. Considering the three types of hazards that are
investigated in this paper, the load combinations and the
effective parameters are discussed separately. Note that for
most of the parameters the appropriate distributional model is
selected based on the current literature. For the new/unknown
models one may use either normal or uniform distribution.
The former is appropriate when there is some information
about the central values (e.g., mean), while the latter is used in
the case that the information is only limited to upper and
lower bounds. In fact, normal and uniform distributions are
identical in one critical information theoretical sense: ‘‘they
both have maximum entropy’’. Uniform distribution has max
entropy over a compact interval and normal distribution has
maximum entropy over the real numbers with a specified
variance, i.e., a particular moment.
Fig. 3 shows all the applied loads on the dam as well as
dimensions. Magnitude and distribution of the uplift pressure
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610 599

Table 1 – Model parameters for analytical limit state function [8,39].

Parameter Symbol Unit Distributional model

Width at the base B1 m Parametric (dam classes)
Width at the crest B2 m 0.08  B1
Height of the dam H1 m Parametric (dam classes)
Height of the neck H2 m 0.06  H1
Location of drainage Ld m 0.15  B1
Crack at the base Lcr m Uniform (depends on B1)

Height of the water Hw a m Lognormal (depends on H1)

Height of the silt layer Hs m Normal (depends on H1)
Concrete mass density rc kg/m 3 Normal
Water mass density rw kg/m 3 Deterministic
Silt mass density rs kg/m 3 Deterministic
Rock-concrete cohesion crc MPa Lognormal
Rock-concrete friction angle frc deg. Normal
Drain efficiency effD - Uniform (0, 1)
Silt internal friction angle fs deg. Deterministic

Aging time tage year t0 : tf

Seismic coefficient agm – 0 : amax
Earthquake vibration period te s Uniform
a
Height of the water, Hw , is equal to Hf (flooding height) when it exceeds H1.

Fig. 3 – Model description; loads and geometry.

is changed based on location of drainage and crack length.
Moreover, the class of gravity dams are shown in this figure
where HB1 ratio varies 0.5:0.1:1:0. The one with HB1 ¼ 0:7 is
1 1
considered as the standard shape.
4.1. Hydrological hazard
In this example, it is assumed that the gravity dam is subjected
to flooding load. The applied loads are: (1) self-weight, (2) uplift
pressure, (3) hydrostatic pressure (based on flood level), and (4)
silt pressure. Note that based on the authors preliminary
research, the ice pressure, wind load, and the surface wave
load do not have any dominant impact of the failure
probability and thus they are ignored in this research (this
is indeed achieved by performing FORM based sensitivity
analysis on all the initial random variables). Waves due to the
sudden landslide into the dam's reservoir may (or may not)
also cause a large driving force. The magnitude of such a force
depends on the topology of the valley. In any case, its hazard
can be quantified similar to the flooding condition.
The stress, S, in Eq. (1) is applied by hydrostatic, uplift and
silt pressures, while the resistance, R, is dam-foundation
interface. Only one limit state function (sliding at dam-
foundation interface which is the predominant failure mode)
is considered to facilitate comparison of different models. In
situations where other failure modes are taken into account
(e.g., overturning), the final failure probability is composed of
all limit state functions in the series and/or parallel modes [40].
600 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610

4.2. Aging hazard upper bounds are 85% and 99.9% of H1. Sampling at any time
interval is based on a normal distributional model, Fig. 4(b).
As it is discussed in Section 2.2, time-variant reliability is Silt height increases with time as the sediment accumu-
considered by simply using a temporal degrading or increasing lates behind the dam. The following empirical model is
function, c(t), (see Eq. (6)) for random variables. The applied proposed to account for time-dependent alluvium height:
loads on the system are identical to the hydrological hazard,
except that the reservoir operates in the normal water level.
Time dependent uplift pressure is automatically adjusted as a cHs ðtÞ ¼ Kðtts Þb (26)
function of reservoir water level, crack length and drain where K and b are the constants optimized based on site
efficiency, Fig. 3. In this paper, six random variables are observations. In this paper, they are assumed to be 0.0085
assumed to be changed by time, Fig. 4. The following describes and 0.5, respectively. Moreover, ts refers to the delay in silt
the quantification of these time dependent empirical models: accumulation time. It corresponds to the time interval in
wCrack length is assumed to increase linearly by time. No which the silt is not fully passed through the gates and starts
repair is expected within the life span of the dam. At any given to stack in the dam's reservoir. Consequently, the mean,
time interval, the crack length is a uniform distribution bounded standard deviation, and the bounds are computed as:
between the minimum and maximum values, Fig. 4(a):
8
8 >
> 0
8 for tts
>
>>m : H1 cHs ðtÞ
<0 for tts < >

tts
< s: COVH1 cHs ðtÞ
Lcr ðtÞ ¼ for t > ts (24) H
s ðtÞ ¼ (27)
: t t Lcr >
>>U : UBH1 cHs ðtÞ
for t > ts
>
:>
>
f s
:
L: LBH1 cHs ðtÞ
where ts is the cracking start time, tf is the final (life) time, *
refers to either upper (LU L
cr ) or lower (Lcr ) bound of the crack
where superscript * refers to m (mean), s (standard deviation), U
U L
length. In this paper, Lcr and Lcr are 5% and 40% of the total base (upper bound), and L (lower bound). In this paper, the coeffi-
length (B1), respectively. cient of variation is COV = 0.6, while LB and UB are assumed to
Water height at the upstream face (headwater) varies based be 0.1 and 3.0, respectively. A normal distributional model is
on the following regime [40]: assumed for the Hs, as shown in Fig. 4(c).
Cohesion at the rock-concrete interface is assumed to be
8  deteriorated based on the normalized stochastic model
>
> 1
< Hmw ðtÞHmw0 þ 3:5 1 p
4
ffiffi Hsw0 proposed by Li et al. [22]:
t (25)
>
> 1 s
: Hsw ðtÞ p
4
ffiffi Hw0
8
t Xn
>
> ^ Þeðt Þ
>
> cc ðtn Þ ¼ 1 dðt
where m and s refer to the mean and standard deviation, >
>
i i
< i¼1
respectively, and subscript zero is the initial value (first opera- ^ Þ ¼ ktm Dt
dðt (28)
>
>
i
tion). In this paper, Hmw0 and Hsw0 are assumed to be 90% and 1.5% >
> ^
dðtÞ j
>
>
of the dam height (H1), respectively. Moreover, the lower and : aðtÞ ¼ j ; bðtÞ ¼ ^
dðtÞ

Fig. 4 – Empirical time dependent models for the random variables; in (a) and (f) the black line means the bounds for the
uniform distribution and the green bars are showing the histogram; in (b), (c), (d) and (e) the black solid line shows the mean,
the dashed black lines are mean Wstandard deviation, and the dashed blue lines are the lower/upper bounds.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610 601

where dðt^ Þ is the time-dependent mean degradation occurring 4.3. Seismic hazard
i
between ti1 and ti (describing the shape of degradation mod-
el), Dt is the time separation between ti1 and ti (usually taken In this example, it is assumed that the gravity dam is subjected
as one year), k and m are the scale factor and the shape factor, to earthquake loading. There are various methods to model
respectively. The parameter e(ti) is a sequence of independent the loads/stresses due to an earthquake event on the dam.
random variables, dðt ^ Þ; and is described by a Gamma distribu- Based on Hariri-Ardebili [2], one may categorize these methods
i
tion, with time-dependent shape factor a(t) and scale factor b as: (1) pseudo-static analysis, (2) pseudo-dynamic analysis, (3)
(t). Finally, j is a constant parameter defining the variation linear time history analysis, (4) nonlinear time history
associated with cc(tn). analysis, (5) narrow-range nonlinear analyses, and (6) wide-
The degradation function can be simplified as a Gamma range nonlinear analyses. Many aspects influence the selec-
distributional model with the following mean and standard tion and application of an appropriate method [43]; however,
deviation [22]: in this paper, pseudo-static analysis (also known as seismic
coefficient method) is used. The main reason can be attributed
8
>
> k to simplicity of this method and a straightforward procedure
< cmrc ðtÞ ¼ 1 tmþ1
mþ1
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (29) for combining it with explicit limit state functions and provide
>
> k j mþ1
: csrc ðtÞ ¼ t a fully analytical model for the reliability assessment.
mþ1
In the seismic coefficient method (which is originally
In this paper, k, m and j are assumed to be 0.00007, 0.8 and developed for design not analysis), the earthquake loading is
0.4, respectively. Initial mean and standard deviation are treated as an inertial force applied statically to the structure
crc 0m ¼ 0:65 and crc 0s ¼ 0:2 MPa, respectively. Finally, constant [44]. Two additional loads are applied to the system (compared
lower and upper bounds equal to 0.5 and 1.05 times crc 0m are to the hydrological hazard): (1) inertia force due to the
considered for sampling purposes, Fig. 4(d). horizontal acceleration of the dam, and (2) hydrodynamic
Friction angle is assumed to be deteriorated based on a force. The former one is computed by the principle of mass
survivor function proposed by Yang et al. [42]: times the earthquake acceleration and acts through the center
of mass. The seismic coefficient, agm, is defined as the ratio of
g
cf ðtÞ ¼ elf ðtts Þ (30) the horizontal ground acceleration to gravity (and in no case
can it be related directly to acceleration from a strong motion
where lf is the failure rate, g the shape factor, and ts is the
instrument) [44].
delay in deterioration starting time. Consequently, the mean,
On the other hand, the hydrodynamic pressure, Phyd, and
standard deviation and the bounds are computed as:
consequently the force, Fhyd, on the upstream face of the dam
may be computed by means of Westergaard [45] parabolic
88 approximation:
> >m : frc 0m
>>
>
> <
s: frc 0s
>
>
>
> U: frc 0m þ UB
for tts
> > 8
<>
> : pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
< Phyd ðyÞ ¼ Ce agm Ku Hw y1=2

8 L: frc 0m LB
frc ðtÞ ¼ (31) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>>
> >m : frc 0m cf ðtÞ
: Fhyd ðyÞ ¼ 2 Ce agm Ku Hw y3=2
(33)
>
> <
>
> s: frc 0s c1f ðtÞ 3
>
> for t > ts
> >
::U :
> > fmrc ðtÞ þ UB
where y is the water depth measured from the free surface
L: fmrc ðtÞLB
down to the dam's base, Ku is a correction factor to account for
where superscript * refers to m (mean), s (standard deviation), U upstream slope (unit for dams with vertical face), and Ce is a
(upper bound), and L (lower bound). In this paper, frc 0m ¼ 30, correction factor to account for water compressibility and is
frc 0s ¼ 5, LB = UB = 15. Moreover, lf and g are assumed to be presented in SI unit ([KN], [m], [s]) as:
0.005 and 1, respectively. A normal distributional model is
assumed for frc, as shown in Fig. 4(e).
1
Drain efficiency is assumed to be reduced by time due to Ce ¼ 7:99Cc ; Cc ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi (34)
2
Hw
clogged drains and no remediation action on the pipes is 17:75 1000 te
expected. At any given time interval, the drain efficiency is a
uniform distribution bounded between the minimum and where te is the period to characterize the ground acceleration
maximum values, Fig. 4(f): imposed on the dam.
Fig. 5(a) shows sensitivity of the hydrodynamic pressure for
8

different te values ranging 0.50:0.25:1.5 s. Three dams are

< eff D s
>
tts
for tts
considered with full reservoir where the heights are 50, 100

eff D ðtÞ ¼ eff D s

þ ðeff D c
eff D s
Þ for ts < ttc (32) and 150 m. Also, the seismic coefficient is assumed to be 0.1 in
>
: tc ts
eff D c
for t > tc all cases (it does not affect the relative results). As seen, there is
where ts is the start of clogging, tc is the clogging completion, * no difference among the hydrodynamic pressure parabolic
refers to either upper (effDU) or lower (effDL) bound of drain curves for Hw ¼ 50 m. Variation is negligible for the case with
efficiency. In this paper, eff D sU , eff D sL , eff D cU , eff D cL are as- Hw ¼ 100 m, while te is quite important for the large dams, i.e.,
sumed to be 100%, 90%, 40% and 0%, respectively. Moreover, ts Hw ¼ 150 m. On the other hand, 5(b) shows the relative
and tc are set to 20 and 120 years. importance (and magnitude) of the hydrodynamic pressures
with increasing agm compared to the hydrostatic pressure for
602 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610

Fig. 5 – Impact of te and agm on the hydrodynamic pressure.

the standard dam (i.e., H1 ¼ Hw ¼ 100 m). As seen, the value of in PREDICT to estimate the responses for a set of standardized
hydrodynamic pressure reaches the hydrostatic one at the test data points.
base under a quite large seismic coefficient value (i.e.,
agm = 1.2). However, as it will be shown later, the probability
Algorithm 1. Estimation of Pf via machine learning techniques
of failure increases drastically when the dam is subjected to a
seismic hazard.
Input: Xtrn 2 RNtrn 6 , ytrn 2 RNtrn , Xtest 2 RNtest 6 , classification-
method
Output: estimated failure probability P ^f
5. Results Training classifier:
1: for i = 1, . . ., 6 do
This section investigates the application of classical reliabili- 2: mi =MEAN(Xtrn(:, i))
ty analysis as well as three machine learning based 3: si =STD(Xtrn(:, i))
4: XÄtrn ð:; iÞ ðXtrn ð:; iÞmi Þ=s i
classification techniques, explained in Section 3, to estimate
5: end for
the failure probability of gravity dam classes. In each 6: ifclassification-method=KNN then model FITCKNN(XÄtrn ; ytrn )
classification technique, a set of Ntrn training data points 7: end if
in R6 (for hydrological and aging hazards and later R8 for 8: if classification-method=SVM then model FITCSVM(XÄtrn ; ytrn )
seismic hazard) and their corresponding labels are given as 9: end if
the input. These training data points can be viewed as the 10: if classification-method=NBC then model FITCNB(XÄtrn ; ytrn )
11: end if
rows of the matrix Xtrn 2 RNtrn 6 , where each column
Estimation via trained classifier:
represents one of the six random variables used in the
12: for i = 1, . . ., 6 do
analyses. The labels are also stored in the column vector 13: XÄtest ð:; iÞ ðXtest ð:; iÞmi Þ=s i
ytrn 2 Rtrn , where each entry is either þ1 (for safe) or 1 14: end for
(for fail). 15: ^
ytest PREDICT(model; X Ätest )
Three classification techniques are used to learn a classifier 16: ^f ¼ jfi : ^
P ytest ðiÞ ¼ 1gj=Ntest
from the training data that allows us to predict responses
(safe/fail) for a new set of test data points. Thus, the learned For each hazard model, the failure probability can be
classification rules can be used to estimate the failure discussed in three levels, i.e., (1) pilot dam, (2) generalized
probability. Similar to the training phase, test data points model, and (3) analytical solution for the generalized form.
are stored as the rows of matrix Xtest 2 RNtest 6 . The goal is to These three levels are fully explained for the hydrological
predict the response vector ^ ytest 2 RNtest by using three hazard (Section 5.1). To avoid duplication (and limited page
classification techniques. Finally, the failure probability can numbers), only the generalized model is discussed for two
be estimated as the number of failed cases, i.e., number of other hazard models (Sections 5.2 and 5.3). Developing the
entries of ^ ytest that are equal to 1, normalized by the total analytical solution is straightforward as will be discussed in
number of cases, Ntest. Given the estimate of failure probability Section 5.1.3 and can be easily repeated for the aging and
^f , the normalized estimation error is used to measure the
P seismic hazard models.
accuracy which is defined as jP ^f Pf j=Pf .
The overall training and estimation procedure are sum- 5.1. Hydrological hazard
marized in Algorithm 1. In order to make the implementation
of the proposed method easier for interested readers, 5.1.1. Pilot model
MATLAB's built-in functions are used in the given algorithm This first example deals with hydrological hazard on the
[46]. Here, Xtrn(:, i) denotes the i-th column of matrix Xtrn. As standard dam (HB1 ¼ 0:7). Material and modeling are selected
1
mentioned in Section 3, the features or random variables based on Table 1. More specifically, they can be summarized as
(columns of Xtrn) should be standardized by computing the follows: B1 = 70 m, H1 = 100 m, Ld = 11.25 m, Lcr = U(0, 28) m,
mean and standard deviation. The three classification Hw ¼ LNð85; 20Þ m, Hs = N(10, 6) m, rc = 2400 kg/m3,
3
methods can be implemented in MATLAB using FITCKNN, rs = 1850 kg/m , crc = LN(0.6, 0.15) MPa, frc = N(30, 7) deg.,
FITCSVM, and FITCNB. The learned classification rule is then used effD = U(0, 0.99), fs = 30 deg. Note that in most cases the values
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
of the normal and lognormal distributions are truncated to
avoid unreal (and not necessarily negative) values. Classical
structural reliability is performed first based on crude MCS and
IS technique, Fig. 6. As seen, both these methods result in the
same Pf (MCS-IS underestimates crude MCS with 4%). However,
the number of simulations required for crude MCS is 100 times
of MCS-IS (1e6 vs. 1e4). Variation of mean Pf is relatively high in
crude MCS up to 1e5, showing that in no case the number of
simulations should fall below this value. However, MCS-IS
results are stable even after 5000 simulations. Shown in Fig. 6
is also the confidence intervals based on Eq. (8). Although MCS-
IS shows a narrower confidence interval at the same Nsim = 1e4
compared to crude MCS; for a complete Pf assessment (with 1e6
simulations for crude MCS and 1e4 for MCS-IS), the crude MCS
has a narrower confidence interval.
Next, the performance of three classification methods are
studied for a various number of training data points. The value
of Ntrn varies from 1e3 to 1e4 and from 1e2 to 1e3 in crude MCS
and MCS-IS, respectively. A set of 1e6 test data points are used
to estimate the failure probability as described in Algorithm 1,
which is compared with true value of Pf (which is assumed to
be PMCS
f in Fig. 6(a)). Fig. 7 reports the mean and standard
deviation of the normalized estimation error over 50 trials. In
each trial, Ntrn data points are chosen randomly from the total
number of 1e6 data points for crude MCS and 1e4 data points
for MCS-IS. The normalized estimation error for each trial is
defined as jb Pf Pf j=Pf , where b
Pf and Pf are the estimated and
true values of the failure probability, respectively. We compute
the mean and standard deviation of 50 normalized estimation
errors.
It is observed that the KNN classification method has much
higher accuracy on crude MCS compared to MCS-IS. This is
mainly due to the fact that KNN depends heavily on the local
structure of the data which may not be preserved under
importance sampling assumptions. Moreover, based on Fig. 7
(a), KNN method with K = 1 performs more accurate compared
to K = 2, 3. To explore the possibility of improving the accuracy
using weighted KNN (WKNN), results are reported in Fig. 7(b)
and (f). It is concluded that the WKNN method nearly has
identical accuracy as KNN for both crude MCS and MCS-IS.
Therefore, it is reasonable to use KNN instead of WKNN due to
less complexity.
The accuracy of SVM classification technique using both
linear and polynomial kernel functions is reported in Fig. 7(c)
and (g). It is shown that the polynomial kernel function leads
to more accurate estimates of Pf for both crude MCS and MCS-
Fig. 6 – Estimated failure probability and the confidence intervals for the pilot hydrological hazard model; the blue line shows
the mean and the pink lines are confidence interval.
603
IS. This means that the polynomial kernel function is capable
of dealing with the nonlinearity in the structure of the data in
this example. Furthermore, the accuracy of SVM using MCS-IS
is nearly identical to crude MCS with an order of magnitude
less training data points Ntrn. This comes from the fact that
importance sampling provides a better sampling of the global
structure and, thus, facilitates finding the separating hyper-
plane.
Finally, the accuracy of NBC is investigated for both crude
MCS and MCS-IS in Fig. 7(d) and (h). It is observed that the
Naive Bayes Classifier using MCS-IS has higher accuracy than
crude MCS. In fact, the estimation error is reduced by a factor of
2 using MCS-IS.
5.1.2. Generalized model
Results of the pilot model in the previous section is generalized
for different dam classes; see Fig. 3. Different classes of dams
are distinguished by HB1 ratio. Other characteristics of the model
1
are parametrically changed based on Table 1.
Fig. 8(a) illustrates general class of gravity dams, where H1
varies from 60 to 160 m and B1 takes values from 40 to 90 m.
This wide range of HB1 ratio is used to determine the failure
1
probability of dams with proportional water level (mean of Hw
changes proportional to H1 while standard deviation is kept
constant). Also, in this figure, the red rectangle represents a
narrow range of HB1 ratio in which H1 is 100 m, while Hw varies
1
from 80 to 110 m. Finally, the green square in this figure is the
location of the standard dam with HB1 ¼ 0:7 (already studied as a
1
pilot model). Fig. 8(b) shows the cases where increasing H1 and
reducing B1 lead to an increase in the failure probability, while
Fig. 8(c) shows increasing water level, increases the failure
probability for the constant HB 1 ratio.
1
Based on the previous results in Section 5.1.1 for the pilot
model, four sets of experiments are performed in this section:
(1) SVM using crude MCS, (2) SVM using MCS-IS, (3) KNN using
crude MCS, and (4) NBC using MCS-IS. In experiments with
crude MCS, a set of Ntrn = 1e4 data points are chosen randomly
from the total of 1e6 data points for training classifiers.
Learning classifiers using MCS-IS is based on random sampling
of Ntrn = 1e3 training data points from 1e4 data points.
In Fig. 9, the mean of Pf estimation error over 50 trials is
reported for two cases: (1) varying (H1, B1) with proportional Hw
(corresponds to Fig. 8(b)), and (2) varying ðHw ; HB 1 Þ (corresponds
1
to Fig. 8(c)). According to Fig. 8, small values of two parameters
lead to very small failure probabilities. This means that it is
more difficult to learn a reliable classification rule in this
604 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610

Fig. 7 – Failure probability estimation error using various machine learning techniques for the pilot hydrological hazard
model.

Fig. 8 – Estimated failure probability and the confidence intervals for different dam classes under hydrological hazard risk; the
blue line shows the mean and the pink lines are confidence interval.

regime due to the small number of training data points from
the class that corresponds to failure. This observation can be
easily verified in Fig. 9 since all classifiers have larger
estimation errors for smaller values of (H1, B1) or ðHw ; HB 1 Þ.
1
However, as these quantities get larger, the estimation error
decreases and it gets closer to zero as one expects.
Based on Fig. 9(b) and (f), SVM using MCS-IS has the best
performance among four different classification techniques.
This observation confirms that importance sampling is a
successful technique to preserve the global structure of data
using small number of training data points Ntrn. Furthermore,
it is seen that SVM and KNN using crude MCS have high
accuracy in estimating the failure probability Pf.
5.1.3. Analytical model
So far, reliability analysis of gravity dams performed with
MCS family and the results were estimated with three
machine learning techniques. In most cases, the failure
probability was presented as a direct function of one or two
parameters while the other variables were selected random-
ly. This resulted in a group of increasing curves/surface
similar to sigmoid-type growth curves. By definition, a
sigmoid function is a bounded differentiable real function
that is defined for all real input values and has a positive
derivative at each point [47].
Thus, the question arises: is there an analytical model to fit
the results of reliability analysis? Hariri-Ardebili [2] already
proposed a sigmoid-type curve to be used in quantifying dams
capacity curve, yet this can be used for reliability function too:
1ec3 xþc4
SðxÞ ¼ c1 þ c2 (35)
1 þ ec5 xþc6
where ci (i=1, 2,. . ., 6) are the model constants obtained from
nonlinear least-squares curve-fitting.
Since Fig. 8(b) is the most complete set of analyses on
different dam classes, it is selected as the case study to
examine the applicability of Eq. (35) in providing a general
analytical model for the failure probability. To prevent over-
fitting of the results, coefficients c1 and c2 are set to zero and
one. Thus, the remaining model includes four coefficients to be
fitted by nonlinear least-squares optimization techniques [46].
Shown in Fig. 10(a) is the fitted curves and the original data
points. Quality of fitting is shown in Fig. 10(b), where all the
residuals are limited to 1.5%. The coefficient of determination
is more than 0.99 in all six curves.
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
Fig. 9 – Failure probability estimation error for different dam classes subjected to hydrological hazard.
So far, each curve presents dependency of Pf to H1. To
establish a relationship between these coefficients and B1, the
resulted coefficients (ci, i=3,. . ., 6) are plotted versus B1, Fig. 11.
As it is clear, there is a (semi-) linear relationship between ci
and B1. To avoid further complexity in the model, these four
relations are assumed to be linear functions of B1 and can be
written in the form of ci ¼ ðp1 Þi B1 þ ðp2 Þi . Again, the two
parameters, slope and intercept, are found for four coefficients
ci. Consequently, the analytical model can be wrapped up in
the following form:
1eð0:0001888B1 0:02008ÞH1 þð0:008561B1 þ1:067Þ
Pf ðH1 ; B1 Þ ¼
1 þ eð0:0001975B1 0:04129ÞH1 þð0:07097B1 þ1:503Þ
The potential application of quadratic functions for ci
coefficients are also evaluated. Overall, the quality of failure
surface is improved less than 5%. However, the competing
linear and quadratic functions should be controlled based on
the Akaike information criterion (AIC) [48]. AIC not only
rewards goodness-of-fit, but also includes a penalty that is an
increasing function of the number of estimated parameters.
We found that AIC for linear relationships is better than
quadratic forms.
This model is plotted in Fig. 12 with very fine grid (as
opposed to the results obtained from reliability analysis based
on very coarse grid). This model obviously can be used for all
the dam classes having similar loading and material proper-
ties. This paper is not intended to propagate this equation for
the other random properties (e.g., water level, cohesion,
friction angle) and natural hazard risks (e.g., aging and
seismic). This is clearly subject of another paper with more
details and larger number of base simulations.
5.2. Aging hazard
In this section, four sets of experiments are performed to
investigate the estimation of failure probability under the
aging condition: (1) SVM using crude MCS, (2) SVM using MCS-
605
IS, (3) KNN using crude MCS, and (4) NBC using MCS-IS. Similar
to Section 5.1.2, a set of Ntrn = 1e4 data points are chosen
randomly from the total of 1e6 data points for training
classifiers using crude MCS. Learning classifiers using MCS-
IS is based on random sampling of Ntrn = 1e3 training data
points from 1e4 data points.
In Fig. 13(a), the mean and standard deviation of the
estimated Pf is reported and compared with the reference
value of PMCS
f using 1e6 simulations. It is observed that all four
classification strategies lead to accurate estimates of Pf (i.e., the
differences between estimated and true values are negligible).
However, in the small scales, SVM family underestimates the
failure probability while, KNN and NBC overestimate Pf. To
(36)
further investigate the performance of these methods, a plot of
estimation error in log scale is provided in Fig. 13(a). In general,
the estimation error is reduced when time passes (therefore,
increasing the failure probability). Among four methods, SVM
using crude MCS has the best performance. Furthermore, SVM
using MCS-IS has the most stable condition as the estimation
error has smaller reduction rate. Finally, the Pf estimation error
in NBC using MCS-IS is higher than SVM using crude MCS by
one order of magnitude.
The reported Pf and estimation error in Fig. 13(a) and
(b) were based on instant probability of failure conditions,
PIf (see Section 2.2). All these results are based on standard
dam shape (HB1 ¼ 0:7) and are subjected to time dependent
1
loads/degradation models explained in Section 4.2. One
major assumption in these analyses is that all the random
variables are uncorrelated. Fig. 13(c) investigates the
impact of correlation between crc and frc on the failure
probability. These two random variables are used because
they are the only variables in the system that are connected
physically through the rock-concrete interface characteris-
tics. Also, shown in this figure is the comparison between
instant and cumulative failure probabilities (Eq. (5)). Correla-
tion varies 0.0:0.25:1.0 (zero means two variables are
independent and one means they are fully correlated). Three
main conclusions are:
606 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
Fig. 10 – Fitting an analytical model to discrete data points from different dam classes under hydrological hazard.
Fig. 11 – Estimated coefficients and their relation with B1.
Fig. 12 – Analytical failure probability for different dam
classes under hydrological hazard, Eq. (36).

In the case of PIf , there is an intersection point that
corresponds to PIf 0:5 in which all the five curves are
passing through. Consequently, for lower failure probabili-
ties, increasing the correlation coefficient decreases failure
probability and vice versa.

In the case of PCf , increasing the correlation coefficient
decreases failure probability at any time. For example, the
ratio of cumulative failure probabilities at t = 100 years
between fully correlated and uncorrelated cases is about 1/2.

As it is expected from Eq. (5), the cumulative Pf reaches unit
faster than instant Pf as it depends on all the previous instant
partial failures. For example, the cumulative curves reach
unity sometime between 110 and 120 years. However, the
instant curves reach 50% probability of instant failure at
t  130 years.
5.3. Seismic hazard
Seismic hazard is modeled by using seismic coefficient
method by adding the inertia force of the dam itself and
hydrodynamic pressure to demands, S, Eq. (1) on dam. Fig. 14
(a) shows the failure probability as a function of seismic
coefficient, agm. Two broad models are considered: (1)
uncorrelated random variables (zero), and (2) fully correlated
random variables (unit) between friction angle and cohesion.
Within each model, the value of te (see Eq. (34)) varies
0.5:0.25:1.5. As seen, there is no difference among the curves
with varying te meaning that this variable can be assumed
constant for practical cases. The correlated and uncorrelated
curves are close and intersect at Pf  0.6. Before the crossing
point, fully correlated model provides higher Pf and vice versa.
Fig. 14(b) shows the failure probability of different dams
classes. In all cases, uncorrelated random variable assumption
is considered and te is one. As expected, decreasing the HB1 ratio,
1
increases the failure probability. For example, comparing Pf for
B1 B1
H1 ¼ 0:5 and H1 ¼ 1:0 shows that the former is about five times
the latter at agm = 0.2 and twice at agm = 0.5. Based on this
figure, even under very small agm values, there is a jump in Pf
value.
Next, the simultaneous impact of seismic loading and
reservoir water levels are studied on the failure probability,
Fig. 14(c). Again the fully correlated and uncorrelated modes
are contrasted. As in Fig. 14(a), the curves are crossing at
Pf = 0.6. Increasing Hw increases Pf. For the half reservoir (i.e.,
Hw ¼ 50 m), the probability of failure is not unit even for a large
value of seismic coefficient (i.e., agm = 0.8). For the full reservoir
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
Fig. 13 – Estimated failure probability, the confidence intervals and estimation error under aging risk.
Fig. 14 – Estimated failure probability for different dam classes, correlation and water level subjected to seismic hazard.
(i.e., Hw ¼ 100 m), the probability of failure under relatively
small agm values (i.e., 0.1) is already 40%.
As in Section 5.1.2, four sets of experiments are performed:
(1) SVM using crude MCS, (2) SVM using MCS-IS, (3) KNN using
crude MCS, and (4) NBC using MCS-IS. A set of Ntrn = 1e4 data
points are chosen randomly from the total of 1e6 data points
for training classifiers using crude MCS. Learning classifiers
using MCS-IS is based on random sampling of Ntrn = 1e3
training data points from 1e4 data points.
In Fig. 15, the mean of Pf estimation error over 50 trials is
reported for different combinations of ðHw ; agm Þ. From Fig. 14, it
is observed that small values of Hw and agm lead to very small
failure probabilities. Therefore, as mentioned before, the
training procedure gets more difficult due to the small number
of training data points. However, when the values of Hw and
agm increases, more training data points are available from
both classes (safe/fail) to learn a reliable and accurate
classification rule. This phenomenon can be seen in Fig. 15
since all classifiers have higher estimation error for small
values of ðHw ; agm Þ. However, as these quantities get larger, the
estimation error decreases and it gets very close to zero.
The SVM classifier using MCS-IS has the best performance
among four different classification techniques based on Fig. 15
(b). This observation is consistent with the results in Sec-
tion 5.1.2, where SVM using MCS-IS has the highest accuracy as
well. Therefore, importance sampling is a successful technique
to preserve the global structure of data using small numbers of
training data points for both hydrological and seismic hazards.
Furthermore, similar to Section 5.1.2, it is concluded that SVM
607
and KNN using crude MCS have high accuracy in estimating the
failure probability Pf. Furthermore, NBC using MCS-IS provides
high accuracy estimates when Pf is relatively large.
6. Concluding remarks and future work
This paper presented a simplified reliability analysis frame-
work for concrete gravity dams subjected to multi (hydrologi-
cal, aging, and seismic) hazard risk. A group of time-variant
degradation models were proposed for different random
variables. Limit state functions were presented in the explicit
form. Both the classical reliability analyses techniques and the
machine learning methods were applied.
For each of three hazard risk, three types of models are
considered: (1) pilot model, (2) generalized model, and (3)
analytical model. The framework for each model is entirely
explained in hydrological hazard. However, only the pilot
model is explored for aging and seismic hazards. For less
experienced readers the following algorithm explains the step
by step procedure to develop all three models:
1. Quantify the uncertainties in the system and determine the
distributional models, Table 1.
a. System uncertainties, e.g. dimensions, location of
drainage, crack, resistance parameters, etc.
b. Hydrological hazard uncertainty, i.e. pool water height.
c. Aging hazard uncertainty, i.e. aging time.
d. Seismic hazard uncertainty, i.e. seismic coefficient.
608 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
Fig. 15 – Failure probability estimation error for different water levels subjected to seismic hazard.
2. Select the pilot model. Many of gravity dams have HB1 of
1
about 0.7. Thus, B1 = 70 m and H1 = 100 m can be a good
starting point.
3. Determine the specific demand-affecting parameter in each
hazard model (i.e. water level, age, seismic coefficient).
4. Perform a set of probabilistic simulations based on MCS and
develop a sigmoid-type failure model, where the vertical
axis presents Pf and the horizontal one is demand-affecting
parameter. Such plots are shown in Figs. 13(c) and 14(b).
5. Determine the possible range of dam width and height and
build a matrix of dam classes, Fig. 3.
6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 for any individual combination of B1 and
H1. Use the machine learning techniques to reduce the
computational efforts.
7. Present the ‘‘generalized’’ model as Pf = f(B1, H1, Di), in
which Di refers to Hw in hydrological model, t in aging
model, and agm in seismic model. Such plots are shown in
Fig. 8(b) and (c).
8. Fit a sigmoid-type curve (or surface) to the data and develop
the ‘‘analytical’’ model, Figs. 10(a) and (12). There are
different models to be used for this purpose. This paper
presented a new model based on Eq. (35); however, a
comprehensive set of models with their pros and cons can
be found in Hariri-Ardebili [49].
The following summarizes the main observations and
results:

In the conducted experiments, SVM has the highest
accuracy among three classification techniques for estimat-
ing the failure probability. This is mainly because of two
reasons: (1) SVM takes into account the global structure of
the data by finding a separating hyperplane, and (2) SVM can
be used to deal with the nonlinear structure of the data using
nonlinear kernels such as the polynomial kernel function.

The performance of SVM can be improved using the
importance sampling technique. This improvement is more
significant for small failure probabilities since the impor-
tance sampling technique provides a much better training
data set to distinguish failure from non-failure cases. It is
observed that SVM using MCS-IS requires an order of
magnitude less training data compared to the crude MCS.

KNN is an extremely simple algorithm which eliminates the
need to solve any optimization problem. However, KNN is
based on the local structure of data and for this reason it can
only be used in conjunction with crude MCS. Therefore, KNN
often requires more training data points specifically for
small failure probabilities to achieve high accuracy.

NBC is a simple probabilistic classification technique.
However, the performance of this method for small failure
probabilities is not as accurate as other classification
techniques studied in this work.

Accounting for the cumulative failure probability increases
the value of Pf considerably compared to the instant failure
mode.

Accounting for the correlation between the random
variables increases the failure probability at the smaller Pf,
while it decreases the failure probability for near collapse
cases.

Results of reliability analysis are generalized for different
classes of gravity dams. A sigmoid-type function is further
proposed and only applied to the hydrological hazard. This
model can be helpful for practitioners by providing a general
solution for different dam types.
The following remarks can be considered in future
research:

Despite the superior performance of SVM technique, it is still
not a precise classification algorithm specially for ‘‘rare
events’’. One reason can be attributed to the fact that
determination of a clear separation using linear functions in
a projected high-dimensional feature space is difficult to
achieve. Applications of other machine learning techniques
such as artificial neural networks can be investigated to
support the findings in this paper or to improve the
classification.

Applications of advance analysis techniques such as finite
element, finite difference, etc. can be combined with the
framework proposed in this paper to improve the quality of
results and classify based on any desired response quantity
(e.g. internal stresses and pore water pressure).

The interaction between the aging hazard and either
hydrological or seismic can be accounted for. This
allows to quantify the reliability of the existing old and
deteriorated gravity dams. Such a framework is already
proposed by Hariri-Ardebili [2] for the capacity function
of dams and Ghosh and Padgett [50] for fragility function of
bridges.
Ethical statement
Authors state that the research was conducted according to
ethical standards
 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610 609

analysis of an RCC gravity dam construction. Modelling of

Acknowledgements temperature, hydration degree and ageing degree fields, Eng.
Struct. 65 (2014) 99–110.
[17] J. Mata, N.S. Leit ao, A.T. de Castro, J.S. da Costa, Construction
The first author would like to express his sincere appreciation
of decision rules for early detection of a developing concrete
to his prior advisor (and the current mentor), Professor Victor arch dam failure scenario. A discriminant approach, Comput.
E. Saouma at the University of Colorado Boulder for his Struct. 142 (2014) 45–53.
enthusiastic guidance and advice throughout this research. [18] R. Melchers, Simulation in time-invariant and time-variant
reliability problems, in: Reliability and Optimization of
Structural Systems' 91, Springer, 1992 39–82.
references [19] S. Marelli, R. Schobi, B. Sudret, UQLab user manual - Structural
Reliability, Tech. Rep., Chair of Risk, Safety and Uncertainty
Quantification, ETH Zurich, report UQLab-V0. 92-107, 2016.
[20] R.E. Melchers, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction,
[1] FERC-PFMA, FERC guidance document: potential failure
John Wiley & Son Ltd, 1999.
mode analysis, Tech. Rep., Federal Emergency Regulatory
[21] J. Jeppsson, Reliability-based assessment procedures for existing
Committee, 2005.
concrete structures (Ph.D. thesis), Lund University, 2003.
[2] M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, Performance based earthquake
[22] Q. Li, C. Wang, B.R. Ellingwood, Time-dependent reliability of
engineering for concrete dams (Ph.D. thesis), University of
aging structures in the presence of non-stationary loads and
Colorado, Boulder, CO, 2015.
degradation, Struct. Saf. 52 (2015) 132–141.
[3] R. Charlwood, Predicting the long term behaviour and service
[23] A. Harbitz, An efficient sampling method for probability of
life of concrete dams, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International
failure calculation, Struct. Saf. 3 (2) (1986) 109–115.
Conference in Long Term Behavior of Dams, Graz, Austria,
[24] M. McKay, R. Beckman, W. Conover, A comparison of three
2009.
methods for selecting values of input variables in the
[4] ASDSO, State and federal oversight of dam safety must be
analysis of output from a computer code, Technometrics 21
improved, Magazine of Association of State Dam Safety
(2) (1979) 239–245.
Officials (ASDSO).
[25] S.-K. Au, J.L. Beck, Estimation of small failure probabilities in
[5] M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, M.R. Kianoush, Integrative seismic
high dimensions by subset simulation, Probab. Eng. Mech. 16
safety evaluation of a high concrete arch dam, Soil Dyn.
(4) (2001) 263–277.
Earthq. Eng. 67 (2014) 85–101.
[26] Y. Lee, D. Hwang, A study on the techniques of estimating the
[6] K. Bury, H. Kreuzer, Assessing the failure probability of
probability of failure, J. Chungcheong Math. Soc. 21 (4) (2008)
gravity dams, Int. Water Power Dam Construct. 37 (11)
573–583.
(1985) 46–50.
[27] G.I. Schuëller, R. Stix, A critical appraisal of methods to
[7] V. Saouma, Reliability based nonlinear fracture mechanics
determine failure probabilities, Struct. Saf. 4 (4) (1987) 293–309.
analysis of a concrete dam; a simplified approach, Dam Eng.
[28] R. Melchers, Search-based importance sampling, Struct. Saf. 9
16 (3) (2006) 219–241.
(2) (1990) 117–128.
[8] C. Carvajal, L. Peyras, C. Bacconnet, J. Bécue, Probability
[29] S. Au, J.L. Beck, A new adaptive importance sampling scheme
modelling of shear strength parameters of RCC gravity dams
for reliability calculations, Struct. Saf. 21 (2) (1999) 135–158.
for reliability analysis of structural safety, Eur. J. Environ.
[30] T. Hastie, R.J. Tibshirani, J.H. Friedman, The Elements of
Civil Eng. 13 (2009) 91–119.
Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction,
[9] L. Peyras, C. Carvajal, H. Felix, C. Bacconnet, P. Royet, J. Becue,
Springer, 2011.
D. Boissier, Probability-based assessment of dam safety using
[31] K. Tanioka, H. Yadohisa, Effect of data standardization on the
combined risk analysis and reliability methods – application
result of k-means clustering, in: Challenges at the Interface of
to hazards studies, Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng. 16 (2012) 795–817.
Data Analysis, Springer, (2012) 59–67.
[10] L. Altarejos-Garcia, I. Escuder-Bueno, A. Serrano-Lombillo, M.
[32] X. Wu, et al., Top 10 algorithms in data mining, Knowl. Inf.
de Membrillera-Ortuno, Methodology for estimating the
Syst. 14 (1) (2008) 1–37.
probability of failure by sliding in concrete gravity dams in
[33] B. Schölkopf, A. Smola, Learning with Kernels: Support Vector
the context of risk analysis, Struct. Saf. 36–37 (2012) 1–13.
Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond, MIT
[11] C. Yu, Time-variant finite element reliability for performance
press, 2002.
degradation assessment of concrete gravity dam, in: 2015
[34] C.M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning,
Fifth International Conference on Instrumentation and
Information Science and Statistics, Springer-Verlag New
Measurement, Computer, Communication and Control
York, Inc., 2006, , ISBN: 0387310738.
(IMCCC), IEEE, 2015 73–76.
[35] F. Pourkamali-Anaraki, S. Hughes, Kernel compressive sensing,
[12] A. Krounis, Sliding stability re-assessment of concrete dams
in: IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, 2013,
with bonded concrete-rock interfaces (Ph.D. thesis), KTH
494–498.
Royal Institute of Technology, 2016.
[36] F. Pourkamali-Anaraki, S. Becker, A randomized approach to
[13] F. Salazar, M. Toledo, E. Oñate, R. Morán, An empirical
efficient kernel clustering, in: IEEE Global Conference on
comparison of machine learning techniques for dam
Signal and Information Processing, 2016, 207–211.
behaviour modelling, Struct. Saf. 56 (2015) 9–17.
[37] J. Spross, A Critical Review of the Observational Method
[14] F. Salazar, R. Morán, M.Á. Toledo, E. Oñate, Data-based
(Licentiate dissertation), 2014 Stockholm. Retrieved from
models for the prediction of dam behaviour: a review and
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-144207.
some methodological considerations, Arch. Comput.
[38] M. Westberg, Reliability-based assessment of concrete
Methods Eng. (2015) 1–21.
dam stability, Licenciate Thesis, Division of Structural
[15] V. Saouma, E. Hansen, B. Rajagopalan, Statistical and 3d
Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University,
nonlinear finite element analysis of Schlegeis dam, in:
2010 Report TVBK-1033.
Proceedings of the Sixth ICOLD Benchmark Workshop on
[39] M. Westberg Wilde, F. Johansson, System reliability
Numerical Analysis of Dams, 2001, 17–19.
of concrete dams with respect to foundation stability:
[16] A. Gaspar, F. Lopez-Caballero, A. Modaressi-Farahmand-
application to a spillway, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139
Razavi, A. Gomes-Correia, Methodology for a probabilistic
(2) (2013) 308–319.
610 archives of civil and mechanical engineering 18 (2018) 592–610
[40] S. Huaizhi, H. Jiang, Z. Wen, Service life predicting of dam
systems with correlated failure modes, ASCE J. Perform.
Construct. Facil. 27 (2013) 252–269.
[41] A. Morales-Torres, I. Escuder-Bueno, L. Altarejos-Garcia, A.
Serrano-Lombillo, Building fragility curves of sliding failure
of concrete gravity dams integrating natural and epistemic
uncertainties, Eng. Struct. 125 (2016) 227–235.
[42] S.-I. Yang, D.M. Frangopol, L.C. Neves, Service life prediction
of structural systems using lifetime functions with emphasis
on bridges, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 86 (1) (2004) 39–51.
[43] E. Bretas, A. Batista, J. Lemos, P. Léger, Seismic analysis of
gravity dams: a comparative study using a progressive
methodology, in: Proc. of the EURODYN 2014 – 9th
International Conference on Structural Dynamics, Oporto, 2014.
[44] USACE, Gravity Dam Design, Tech. Rep. EM 1110-2-2200,
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, D.C., USA, 1995.
[45] H. Westergaard, Water pressures on dams during
earthquakes, Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 98 (1933) 418–433.
[46] MATLAB, version 9.1 (R2016b), The MathWorks Inc., Natick,
MA, 2016.
[47] J. Han, C. Moraga, The influence of the sigmoid function
parameters on the speed of backpropagation learning, in:
International Workshop on Artificial Neural Networks,
Springer, 1995 195–201.
[48] H. Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19 (6) (1974) 716–723.
[49] M.A. Hariri-Ardebili, Analytical failure probability model for
generic gravity dam classes, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O: J.
Risk Reliab. 231 (5) (2017) 546–557.
[50] J. Ghosh, J. Padgett, Aging considerations in the development
of time-dependent seismic fragility curves, J. Struct. Eng. 136
(2010) 1497–1511.