Brizendine, A L (1997) Risk based analysis of levees. PhD thesis, West Virginia University, USA.
Abstract
A multi-phased research program consisted of performance of both laboratory and field test programs, development of hydraulic conductivity probability density functions, and development of a first generation risk model to assess relative risk among groups of levees to determine rank for systemic allocation of scarce rehabilitation resources. The laboratory test program consisted of determining basic soil properties at four USACE WES REMR demonstration sites: Talulla, MS, Sny Island, IL, Skagit, WA, and Elkhorn, CA. Additionally, flexible wall hydraulic conductivity tests were performed with subsequent development of hydraulic conductivity probability density functions (PDF's). The field testing program consisted of conducting in situ two-stage borehole (TSB) tests and developing PDF's. Goodness of fit tests were performed against 21 distributions to develop rank order of best fit distributions. Results varied for the sites with inverse gaussian, lognormal, pearson, weibull, and beta consistently providing the highest ranking fits for hydraulic conductivity. Best fit distributions for the log of hydraulic conductivity were evaluated as extreme value, weibull, normal, logistic, beta, and gamma. Analysis and design of levees is a complex procedure in which multi-modal failures should be addressed. Development of a risk tree model for levees allows for the performance of the decision analysis to describe the chance of failure while incorporating the uncertainty in the analysis parameters. A first generation risk based model was developed to assess uncertainties in a quantitative manner. The analysis risk model presented combines the traditional probability analysis and the risk tree approach to evaluate risk of failure. The uncertain risk of failure is modeled through estimating the probability of deviation from design assumptions. Items contributing to uncertainty and describing the multi-modal aspects in the design of levees are grouped into four main categories: embankment instability, seepage instability, geometric uncertainty, and flood event. Accordingly, the relative risk of groups of levees can be evaluated for a rational analysis/design/rehabilitation decision process. The risk model was applied to six case scenarios for demonstration purposes. Results of the analysis yielded relative risk levels from which rehabilitation decisions may be systemically developed.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Gabr, M A |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | uncertainty; embankment; estimating; rehabilitation; decision analysis; probability; probability analysis; field testing; failure |
| Index terms: | program, conductivity, borehole, field test, embankment, estimating, probability analysis, laboratory, hydraulic, field testing, in-situ, density, decision process, deviation, decision analysis |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, professional practice, analytical methods, financial and cost management, fluid mechanics, water management, material properties and characteristics, software systems, infrastructure and transport systems, statistical analysis, building construction, decision analysis, research management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here