STUDY OF DETERMINING THE SEISMIC COEFFICIENT FOR PSEUDO-STATIC ANALYSIS OF TUGU DAM
Evaluation of safety against earthquake loads can be done by dynamic analysis or pseudo-static analysis. Most practitioners rarely use dynamic analysis as an evaluation of dam safety. Dynamic analysis of the dam modeled seismic loading in an alternating direction with a certain time span. The existe...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Theses |
Language: | Indonesia |
Online Access: | https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/68392 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Institut Teknologi Bandung |
Language: | Indonesia |
Summary: | Evaluation of safety against earthquake loads can be done by dynamic analysis or pseudo-static analysis. Most practitioners rarely use dynamic analysis as an evaluation of dam safety. Dynamic analysis of the dam modeled seismic loading in an alternating direction with a certain time span. The existence of this back and forth movement leads to a unique frequency. While the pseudo-static analysis, the resulting design will be more conservative. Pseudo-static analysis models the existence of seismic loads in the form of coefficient values in the same direction on the slope of the dam. Because each dam has a different geometry and fill material, the pseudo-static coefficient value generated for each dam will also be different. This research will determine the value of the pseudo-static coefficient at the Tugu Dam location based on the dynamic response to its natural frequency.
This study looks at how the wave propagation that occurs in the Tugu Dam by modeling it in the Quake/W software. With this wave propagation, the natural period of the dam is known and an earthquake hazard analysis is carried out to obtain the synthetic ground motion of the Tugu Dam.
Based on the research results obtained pseudo-static coefficient for the Tugu Dam with the search parameters ???? and ????. Based on these parameters, the pseudo-static coefficient for Tugu Dam is ?????(????)=0.334 ???? (1+0.336????). When compared with previous studies. The results showed a value close to the study of Makdisi-Seed, 1978. |
---|