Submitted:
10 July 2025
Posted:
11 July 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Seepage Safety Monitoring Model and Risk Rate Quantification for Earth-Rock Dams
2.1. Seepage Safety Monitoring Model for Earth-Rock Dams
2.2. Quantification of Seepage Risk Rate at Single Measurement Points
3. Quantitative Analysis of Earth-Rock Dam Risk Rate Based on Copula Functions
3.1. Risk Rate Quantification Analysis for Earth-Rock Dams Based on Copula Function
3.2. Quantification Process of Operation Risk Rate for Earth-Rock Dams Under Sudden Changes in Reservoir Water Levels

4. Early Warning Methods for Earth-Rock Dams Under Sudden Changes in Reservoir Water Levels
4.1. Risk Rate Early Warning for Earth-Rock Dams
4.2. Single Measurement Point Early Warning

5. Application Example
5.1. Dynamic Warning for Earth-Rock Dams Under Sudden Changes in Reservoir Water Level

5.2. Risk Rate Analysis Model for Single Measurement Points in Earth-Rock Dams
5.3. Real-Time Seepage Risk Rate Quantification Model for Earth-Rock Dams Under Sudden Changes in Reservoir Water Levels
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
- Newman, R.; Noy, I. The Global Costs of Extreme Weather that are Attributable to Climate Change. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nanditha, J.S.; Kushwaha, A.P.; Singh, R.; Malik, I.; Solanki, H.; Chuphal, D.S.; Dangar, S.; Mahto, S.S.; Vegad, U.; Mishra, V. The Pakistan Flood of August 2022: Causes and Implications. Earth’s Future 2023, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, C.S.; Hu, J. Impact of climate change on safety of water infrastructures and response measures. China Water Resources 2024, 60–67. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, W.; Ma, F.H.; Hu, J.; et al. Seepage behaviors of inclined wall dams under drought-flood abrupt alternation[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2018, 40, 1923–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, C.; Tu, J.; Li, D.; Guo, S.; Liang, H. The Failure Mechanism of Concrete Gravity Dams considering Different Nonlinear Models under Strong Earthquakes. Shock and Vibration. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, X.; Chen, A.; He, J. Optimized variable selection of Bayesian network for dam risk analysis: A case study of earth dams in the United States. Journal of Hydrology. 2023, 617, 129091–129091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.; Li, J.; Wen, Z.; Fu, Z. Dynamic non-probabilistic reliability evaluation and service life prediction for arch dams considering time-varying effects. Applied Mathematical Modelling. 2016, 40, 6908–6923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moharrami, A.; Hassanzadeh, Y.; Salmasi, F.; Moradi, G.; Moharrami, G. Performance of the horizontal drains in upstream shell of earth dams on the upstream slope stability during rapid drawdown conditions. Arabian Journal of Geosciences. 2013, 7, 1957–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axel Moellmann, P.A. Vermeer, M. Huber, A probabilistic finite element analysis of embankment stability under transient seepage conditions, Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards. 2011, 5, 110–119. [CrossRef]
- Ye, W.; Ma, F.H.; Hu, J.; et al. Centrifugal model tests on danger incubation and catastrophic process of inclined wall dams under drought-flood abrupt alternation[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2023, 45, 2100–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Yang, J.; Hu, D. Dam monitoring data analysis methods: A literature review. Structural Control and Health Monitoring. 2019, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rico, J.; Barateiro, J.; Juan, M.T. Applying advanced data analytics and machine learning to enhance the safety control of dams, Springer, New York ; London, 2011.
- Kang, F.; Liu, J.; Li, J.; Li, S. Concrete dam deformation prediction model for health monitoring based on extreme learning machine. Structural Control and Health Monitoring. 2017, 24, e1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Jiang, F.; Chen, W.; Wang, M.; Zhai, C. A bi-directional missing data imputation scheme based on LSTM and transfer learning for building energy data. Energy and Buildings. 2020, 216, 109941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assaad, R.; El-adaway, I.H. Evaluation and Prediction of the Hazard Potential Level of Dam Infrastructures Using Computational Artificial Intelligence Algorithms. Journal of Management in Engineering. 2020, 36, 04020051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.; Niu, X.; Gu, C.; Dai, B.; Huang, L. A Fuzzy Clustering Logic Life Loss Risk Evaluation Model for Dam-Break Floods. Complexity. 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelsen, R.B. An introduction to copulas, Springer, New York ; London, 2011.
- He, M.; Li, H.; Xu, J.; Wang, H.; Xu, W.; Chen, S. Estimation of unloading relaxation depth of Baihetan Arch Dam foundation using long-short term memory network. Water Science and Engineering. 2021, 14, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Z.; Yang, Q. Experimental study on failure process of arch dam based on acoustic emission technique. Engineering Failure Analysis. 2019, 97, 128–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Yang, J.; Hu, D. Dam monitoring data analysis methods: A literature review, Structural Control and Health Monitoring. 2019, 27. [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Moon, N. BiLSTM model based on multivariate time series data in multiple field for forecasting trading area. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Hu, Z.; Lin, G.; Li, J. A scaled boundary finite element method procedure for arch dam-water-foundation rock interaction in complex layered half-space. Computers and Geotechnics. 2021, 141, 104524–104524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Zhang, T.; Chen, J.; Li, J.; Li, C. The influence of reinforcement strengthening on seismic response and index correlation for high arch dams by endurance time analysis method. Structures. 2021, 32, 355–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, P.; Guan, J.; Peng, H.; Shi, J. Horizontal cracking and crack repair analysis of a super high arch dam based on fracture toughness. Engineering Failure Analysis. 2019, 97, 72–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, J.T.; Jiang, L.; Deng, Z.P.; et al. Real-time risk rate model for deformation of ultra-high arch dams based on prototype monitoring data[J]. Journal of Water Resources and Water Engineering 2021, 32, 166–174. [Google Scholar]
- Gu, C.S.; Wu, Z.R. Dam and dam foundation safety monitoring theories and methods and their applications, Hohai University Press, Nanjing, 2006.
- Van Vliet, B. Abe Sklar’s “FONCTIONS DE REPARTITION A N DIMENSIONS ET LEURS MARGES”: The Original Document and an English Translation. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.X.; Yang, R.; Xie, M. Maximum likelihood estimator of scale parameter under perfect and imperfect Median ranked set sampling design[J]. Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica 2020, 43, 572–583. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, J.; Ma, F.; Wu, S. Nonlinear finite-element-based structural system failure probability analysis methodology for gravity dams considering correlated failure modes. Journal of Central South University. 2017, 24, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Bao, T.; Chen, H.; Zhang, K.; Shu, X.; Chen, Z.; Hu, Y. A large-scale sensor missing data imputation framework for dams using deep learning and transfer learning strategy. Measurement. 2021, 178, 109377–109377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Distribution Type | Probability Density Function | |
|---|---|---|
| Normal | ||
| Lognormal | ||
| Gamma | ||
| Weibull | ||
| Exponential | ||
| Rayleigh |
| Structural Safety Level | Level I | Level II | Level III | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indicator Measurement | Reliability Index | Allowable Risk Rate | Reliability Index | Allowable Risk Rate | Reliability Index | Allowable Risk Rate |
| Type I Failure | 3.7 | 1.08×10−4 | 3.2 | 6.87×10−4 | 2.7 | 3.47×10−3 |
| Type II Failure | 4.2 | 1.34×10−5 | 3.7 | 1.08×10−4 | 3.2 | 6.87×10−4 |
| Section | Monitoring Point | Multiple Correlation Coefficient | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1+341 | 1+341-1 | 0.956 | 0.181 |
| 1+341-2 | 0.962 | 0.177 | |
| 1+341-3 | 0.968 | 0.170 | |
| 1+343 | 1+343-1 | 0.976 | 0.068 |
| 1+343-2 | 0.982 | 0.103 | |
| 1+343-3 | 0.989 | 0.054 | |
| 1+666 | 1+666-1 | 0.978 | 0.157 |
| 1+666-2 | 0.983 | 0.106 | |
| 1+666-3 | 0.987 | 0.084 |
| Monitoring Point | Distribution Type | Monitoring Point | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1+341-1 | Normal | 0.093 5 | 0.171 5 | |
| Lognormal | -2.913 8 | 1.154 5 | 0.074 2 | |
| Gamma | 1.0541 | 0.088 7 | 0.087 9 | |
| Weibull | 0.094 1 | 1.013 8 | 0.082 5 | |
| Exponential | 0.093 5 | 0.0777 | ||
| Rayleigh | 0.094 2 | 0.3473 | ||
| Distribution Type | of Copula Function | K-S Test Value | ERMSE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gaussian | 1.000 0 | -0.019 2 | 0.086 4 | 0.087 5 | 1.572 1 |
| t | 1.000 0 | -0.030 2 | 0.098 9 | 0.099 4 | 1.646 4 |
| Frank | 0.1281 | 0.012 4 | 0.031 4 | 0.441 2 | |
| Gumbel | 1.005 7 | 0.135 4 | 0.117 8 | 1.975 8 | |
| Clayton | 0.001 4 | 0.208 1 | 0.193 3 | 2.135 4 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).