Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

27th Annual USSD Conference Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 5-9, 2007

Hosted by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

On the Cover
The Corps of Engineers Beltzville Lake in East-Central Pennsylvania. In this south-facing photo, from the bottom to the top, features include the project office, the emergency spillway, the 4,560-foot long embankment, the intake tower, and a series of ridges of the Appalachian front. Beltzville Lake is on Pohopoco Creek, which drains into the Lehigh River. The Lehigh Rivers water gap through Blue Mountain can be seen in the background of the photo. (Photo by Anthony S. Bley.)

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams for the benefit of society. Mission USSD is dedicated to: Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation, performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety; Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water resources systems; Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water resources; Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this report regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made or the opinions expressed in this publication. Copyright 2007 U.S. Society on Dams Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Control Number: 2007921375 ISBN 978-1-884575-40-2 U.S. Society on Dams 1616 Seventeenth Street, #483 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-628-5430 Fax: 303-628-5431 E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org Internet: www.ussdams.org

CURRENT STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE FOR EXISTING GRAVITY DAM STABILITY ANALYSIS Robert A. Kline, Jr., PE1 Steven M. Davidheiser, EIT3 ABSTRACT For over 150 years, engineers have been wrestling with a proper analytical understanding of the structural stability of concrete dams on rock foundations. During this period, both the analytical methods and engineers appreciation of various factors that affect structural stability have evolved. A concurrent evolution has occurred in the application of safety factors that address uncertainties in structural loadings, material strengths, construction quality, and analysis methods. Within the past five years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have again formally revised their gravity dam stability requirements. For almost the past ten years, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and more recently the Corps have adopted a risk-based approach, where the site specific risks of each dam are evaluated. Establishing analysis and the remedial design criteria for existing dams is not always straightforward since each facility has varying degrees of available information concerning its original construction, foundation conditions, and performance history, especially during notable floods or seismic events. Furthermore, interpretation of the available facility information and published guidance may differ among engineers. This paper summarizes the evolution of gravity dam stability analyses and safety factors used by engineers in the United States over the past 150 years with an emphasis on current practices adopted by key federal agencies including the Corps, FERC, and Reclamation. HISTORIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES When considering the stability of existing dams, especially those constructed prior to the advent of modern extreme flood and earthquake estimation techniques in the 1970s, it is highly beneficial to have an awareness of the typical design and construction practices in place at the time an existing dam was built. This is particularly true when few specific record documents are available. Such awareness aids the engineer in better pinpointing likely deficiencies and in developing sound remedial solutions. Boyd Howard, PE2

Senior Associate, Dams and Hydraulics Section; Gannett Fleming, Inc.; PO Box 67100, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106 2 Project Manager, Dams and Hydraulics Section; Gannett Fleming, Inc.; PO Box 67100, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106 3 Project Engineer; Lahkani & Jordan Engineers, P.C.; GF Field Office, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106

Existing Gravity Dam Stability Analysis

341

Unfortunately, great time and effort can be expended in researching historic practices since no single publication presently exists that compiles all the available information. In the following text, some of the more noteworthy practices are presented, which will hopefully prove to be of value to the reader. It should be understood that even though published guidance existed in the past, a particular designer may not have adopted it for any number of reasons. Inexperience in dam design, lack of current knowledge of the field, or disagreement with such practices contributed to past (and present) inconsistencies. Page limitations do not allow this paper to be exhaustive on this subject but only serve as a general guide. Design Practice Prior to 1900 The theories and design practices developed by French engineers, Sazilly and Delocre and British scholar, Rankine between the 1850s and 1880s established three fundamental requirements for masonry (gravity) dams: 1) compressive stresses must not exceed set limits, 2) tensile stresses should be avoided by using the middle third rule and 3) the structure must resist horizontal sliding. This earlier work by the French and British influenced the work of Edward Wegmann, who was involved with the design of New York Citys, New Croton Dam, and who first published The Design and Construction of Dams in 1888 and subsequent revisions and updates in seven more editions, the last being published in 1927. This document was the primer for gravity dam design in the United States over a span of more than 40 years. One significant goal of each engineer who built on the original work of Sazilly (1853) was to determine a means to reduce the minimum profile area needed by a masonry dam to safely withstand the reservoir empty and reservoir full loading cases in an effort to achieve greater economy. This reduction was accomplished by 1) increasing the maximum allowable compressive stress from Delocres range of 86-114 psi to Wegmanns range of 114-208 psi, 2) abandoning Sazillys equal resistance rule by using higher stress limits for the upstream face in comparison to the downstream face as opposed to equal limits for both faces, and 3) increasing the unit weight of masonry from 125 pcf to a less conservative but likely more realistic value of 146 pcf. Furthermore, all the profiles produced by Wegmanns predecessors had a stepped, polygonal, or curvilinear shape for both the upstream and downstream faces. Wegmann argued that for dams less than 200 feet in height, a simple right triangle with its vertical side facing upstream was much more practical to construct. To combat shock from floating debris and wave action at the crest, he allowed for a vertically-sided crest (or chimney section) with a width ranging between 5 to 20 feet depending upon access needs. This practical profile, as Wegmann deemed it, has served as the basic profile used by U.S. engineers for over the past 100 years. For a 50-meter-high dam, Wegmanns practical profile reduced the minimum area by 16% and 11% in comparison with Delocres (1861) and Rankines (1881) profiles, respectively.

342

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

By the end of the 19th century, much was gained in the understanding of gravity dam design. At the same time, engineers were also aware that rigid bodies and linear stress distribution, although the basis for the classical analysis method was not exact, albeit still reasonable and that a short, high dam behaved differently than a long, low one, leading to the development in 1929 of the trial-load method. Construction Practice Prior to 1900 The last fifty years of the 19th century also witnessed a dramatic evolution in the materials and methods used to construct gravity dams. Until the 1860s, gravity dams where mainly constructed of cut stone masonry (Ashlar) bonded by lime mortar or a less costly alternative involving a rubble masonry core with cut stone masonry and mortar facades. By the 1870s, lime was being replaced by cement mortar mixed to a ratio of 1:2 to 1:3 cement:sand and as early as 1900 cut stone was being replaced by pre-cast concrete blocks. Care was exercised to avoid creating horizontal courses of cut stone or stone rubble that would create horizontal weak planes that are more susceptible to sliding. Due to a scarcity of suitable nearby rubble stone, Crystal Springs Dam (formerly known as San Mateo Dam) near San Francisco, California became the first use of mass concrete in the U.S. Completed in 1888, this dam withstood the infamous 1906 San Francisco earthquake and is still in service today. From the 1860s to the 1920s, a hybrid material referred to as cyclopean masonry was in vogue. Cyclopean masonry consists of large plum stones embedded in concrete mortar to form a homogeneous monolithic matrix of stone and concrete mortar. During the span of this 70 year period, the trend moved toward reducing the volumetric percentage of plum stones from about 50 to 10 percent, with the smaller percentage involving application of plum stones only at the concretes horizontal lift joints to improve shear resistance. During this era, the typical concrete mix was a ratio of 6:3:1 to 4:2:1 stone:sand:cement with an intended ultimate compressive strength of 2,600 to 3,300 psi, respectively. The ultimate strength of stone masonry and rubble was typically assumed to be 1,700 to 2,100 psi. Despite the relatively slow and small material production, delivery and placement rates compared to todays standards, the final in-place strength of the stone masonry and mortar, cyclopean masonry, or mass concrete for many dams of this era has been proved by modern sampling and laboratory testing to be of reasonably uniform and adequate strength. Standard practice was to take special care in ensuring proper bonding of the structure to the foundation rock by washing the foundation with pressurized water, isolating and capping springs, hand cleaning and backfilling any surface fissures with concrete or grout and placing a grout or mortar bedding on the foundation rock in advance of the masonry. A listing of the more noteworthy gravity dams constructed between the 16th and 19th centuries is provided in Table 1. Of interest is the apparent confidence engineers placed

Existing Gravity Dam Stability Analysis

343

in the advent of mathematical design methods with the trend toward ever increasing structural heights in wider stream valleys without the added benefit of arch action. Table 1. Gravity Dams Over 100 Feet High Constructed Prior to 1920 [Wegmann]
Dam Alicante Puentes Furens Habra San Mateo Vyrnwy New Croton Wachusett Kensico Location Spain Spain France Algeria U.S. England U.S. U.S. U.S. Date of Constructio n 1579-1594 1785-1791 1862-1866 1865-1873 1887-1888 1882-1889 1892-1907 1900-1906 1910-1917 Height Ft 135 164 183 125 170 146 297 228 307 Crest Width ft 67.25 35.73 9.9 14.1 20.0 20.0 22.0 25.8 28.0 Base Width ft 111.0 145.0 161.0 95.0 176.0 117.8 206.0 187.0 235.0 Base/ Ht Ratio 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.76 1.04 0.81 0.69 0.82 0.77 Crest Length ft 190 925 328 1,476 700 1,350 2,168 1,476 1,843 Plan Curved Polygonal Curved Straight Curved Straight Straight Straight Straight

CURRENT PRACTICE Jumping ahead from the initial origins of gravity dam design practices in the U.S. to the present day practice of analyzing existing dams, it is important to note that the three fundamental requirements of preventing overturning (moment equilibrium) and sliding and satisfying internal stress limits remain the main focus. However, differences in stability criteria persist among the Reclamation, FERC, and Corps. The following is a brief summary of the noteworthy differences and further discussion on the evolution of the modern analysis approach. Failure Modes and Risk Analyses Perhaps the most notable development that has occurred within the past ten years has been the inclusion of potential failure mode and risk analyses in dam safety evaluations. These analyses place more emphasis on an existing dams site specific characteristics and vulnerabilities that could lead to failure and the associated public risk as opposed to satisfying a finite, one size fits all, set of safety standards. Since the majority of U.S. dams are reaching their intended design life and since associated costs to fully rehabilitate these facilities are well beyond the funding capacity of most dam owners, risk assessments are being used to either prioritize repairs or decide whether or not the risk is great enough to substantiate the repair. In some cases, improved instrumentation and monitoring programs are considered to be a more effective solution to reduce public risk in comparison with more costly structural repairs. The Corps has integrated specific site knowledge and risk into the traditional stability load cases and safety factors. Reclamations new risk-based approach is yet to be formally published but supersedes the stability criteria found in previous Reclamation design manuals like Design of Small Dams (1987) and should be noted when consulting their literature and the comparison tables in this paper.

344

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

Load Combinations During the 1970s, loading combinations were divided into three principle categories: usual, unusual, and extreme in which the cases for each have grown well beyond the reservoir empty (construction) and reservoir full (flood) cases used in the latter half of the 19th century. Table 2 provides the loading combinations required for analysis by the three most prominent Federal agencies. Between these agencies, no two agencies approach the loading combinations in the same way. Most noteworthy is the categorization of the maximum flood case by Reclamation and FERC as an unusual load combination; whereas, the Corps categorizes it as extreme for spillway design floods with a return period greater than 300 years, which is typically the case for the probable maximum flood (PMF). This divergence in approach is most significant when considering the associated minimum stability criteria for overturning (moment equilibrium), sliding, and stresses. Oddly, all three agencies neglect including a loading combination that consists of evaluating the record flood or earthquake experienced by an existing dam during its service life to determine if the structure may have sustained any damage. For example, past tensile cracking at the upstream face may warrant increasing uplift pressure conditions or reducing shear resistance for other loading combinations. Such damage would be undetectable except by stability analysis or a decidedly more costly core sampling and testing program. Table 2. Standard Federal Agency Load Combinations
Load Category Usual Reclamation 1987 (1) Normal Pool Level + dead load, uplift, silt, ice, silt, tailwater, and minimum usual temperature load. (4) Case (1) + drains inoperative. (2) Maximum Pool Level + dead load, silt, tailwater, uplift, and minimum usual temperature load. (4) Case (2) + drains inoperative. (4) Dead load only. (3) Usual + Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) Load Combinations FERC 2002 Corps 2005 Case I Normal Pool Case 2 Normal Operation + uplift, ice, silt with 10-Year Flood

Unusual

Case II Flood with lowest safety factor Case IIA Case I + ice Case III Post earthquake

Case 1 Construction Case 3 Infrequent Flood Case 5 Coincident Pool with Operational Basis Earthquake (OBE) Case 4 Construction + OBE Case 6 Coincident Pool with Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) Case 7 Maximum Design Flood (>300-Year Return Period)

Extreme

Note: Within the past ten years, Reclamation uses a site specific risk-based approach in place of the 1987 criteria shown here in Table 2.

Existing Gravity Dam Stability Analysis

345

Forces By 1900, the need to account for less understood forces such as ice pressure, uplift pressure, and earthquake accelerations as part of or in addition to the standard loading cases of reservoir empty (construction) and reservoir full (flood) was increasingly recognized. The following is a brief discussion of how these forces evolved into the current practice. Ice and Uplift Pressure Longstanding practice has been to use a pressure of 5,000 psf per foot of ice thickness (Reclamation assumes a 2-foot-thickness as standard) at the contact surface of the normal reservoir level with the structure in regions where applicable. In the U.S., only one dam in Minnesota in 1899 has been known to fail as a result of ice pressure and was largely due to restraint provided by a retaining wall parallel to and 350 feet opposite the dam. For run of river dams, ice impact loading is also another important consideration. In 1895, another French engineer, Maurice Levy, proposed a principle, rejected by his peers that equated to applying full headwater pressure at the heel to tailwater pressure at the toe to the full area of any horizontal joint. Opponents held that 100% uplift could not be true because a large portion of the joint or base area must be in contact to support the load and that most existing dams would have failed since their design neglected uplift entirely. However, with the failures of the Colorado Dam in Austin, Texas in 1900 and the Bayless Dam in Austin, Pennsylvania in 1911, U.S. engineers were starting to give more credence to the need to account for uplift pressure, albeit for only high dams with high-hazard potential like Wachusett and Kensico. The typical practice, which continued from the 1890s into the 1950s, was to use full headwater at the heel to tailwater at the toe acting over half or two-thirds of the area, with a two-thirds intensity factor being the most common. By the mid-1950s, through advocates like Karl Terzhagi and L.F. Harza, the industry began adopting the present practice first proposed by Levy. Even while uplift was being debated, design features were included to reduce seepage and uplift with the use of cutoff walls, grout curtains and/or drain curtains at or near the heel. Medina Dam (1911-12) in San Antonio, Texas was the first U.S. dam to have drainage in both the structure and foundation. By 1915, nearly all high gravity dams incorporated structure and foundation drain systems. The current practice for analyzing existing dams allows for application of an uplift pressure that is less than the accepted full headwater to tailwater rule for the usual loading category; but only for instances where it can be fully substantiated by a thorough instrumentation and monitoring program. Extrapolating historical uplift data to predict uplift pressures for unprecedented flood conditions is viewed with caution and skepticism. This constraint should not negate the practice of routinely monitoring uplift pressure to at least verify that analysis assumptions are valid and safe conditions persist. For dams with tension in the base, full headwater pressure must be applied throughout the

346

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

non-compression (cracked) zone. Several publications provide more detailed descriptions and diagrams of the various potential uplift conditions to be used for analysis. Earthquake Acceleration A detailed discussion of earthquake forces and associated analysis are well beyond the scope of this paper. However, some interesting points will be briefly noted. It is not clear when earthquake forces were first applied in design, but as early as 1931, Westergaard suggested using an acceleration of 0.10g in earthquake regions. And as late as 1958, published guidance still suggested use of 0.10g in moderate to severe earthquake regions and a value of 0.05g in more favorable regions. A pseudo-static method of analysis was first used to evaluate earthquake loadings, and for some cases is still used. In the 1960s, Anil Chopra began developing the pseudo-dynamic and dynamic methods. Todays technology includes linear and non-linear finite element computer analyses for high dams in high seismic regions. In the past two decades, seismologists estimates of potential earthquake forces have moderately to significantly increased in certain active seismic regions, causing the need for remediation for some dams. A recent departure from the traditional seismic analysis approach is FERCs policy change in which evaluation of stability under seismic loading is replaced by criteria for post-seismic static conditions. This new approach uses a dynamic analysis to determine the degree of cracking resulting from the earthquake to determine if the structure meets certain stability criteria in a cracked state. This approach includes a separate stability evaluation of cracked sections by means of a block rocking analysis. FERC does not allow the use of the pseudo-static method with the view that conventional moment equilibrium is not valid for oscillatory type loadings. Material Strength Properties Critical material strength properties are typically unit weight of the masonry or concrete and the shear strength of the foundation rock, the foundation/dam interface and to a lesser degree the masonry or concrete within the dam, all of which are best determined by sampling and laboratory testing. For stone rubble or cyclopean masonry dams, a weighted average by percent volume of the stone and concrete should be used to estimate a bulk unit weight. Regarding concrete joint shear strength, an accepted assumption is to use zero cohesion and a 45 friction angle. For the dam/foundation interface, construction photos, if available, can be very helpful in selecting shear strength. Foundation rock shear strength is the most difficult parameter to select and requires the expertise of both an experienced geologist and geotechnical engineer. In 1976, Don Deere noted that a reasonable preliminary estimate of rock shear strength is to assume cohesion is zero and friction angle for a smooth surface is 30 to 35 for hard, massive rock; 25 to 30 for hard, shaley or schistose rocks; and 20 to 25 for softer laminated or schistose rocks to which must be

Existing Gravity Dam Stability Analysis

347

added an asperity (i) angle for the geologic discontinuity. He also noted that these values are for unweathered rock and should be reduced 5 to 10 for weathered surfaces. Resultant Location (Overturning) Criteria Prior to 1900, engineers mainly focused on maximum compressive stresses and satisfying the middle third rule and largely ignored sliding stability. Current practice for existing gravity dams continues to be use of the middle third rule for the usual load combinations with less stringent requirements for the unusual and extreme loading combinations as long as minimum sliding and stress criteria are met. FERC allows tension in the heel (cracked base) for all loading categories as long as the crack stabilizes, the resultant remains within the base, and sliding stability and stress criteria are still satisfied. FERC includes the caveat that remedial measures should attempt to satisfy the middle third rule for static loadings. Table 3 provides the most recently published resultant location criteria for Reclamation, FERC, Corps, and New York State Dam Safety, one of the few states with separate stability criteria. However, it should be noted that with Reclamations adoption of a risk-based approach within the past ten years, this criteria is viewed as a starting point and is not considered an absolute requirement. Sliding Criteria Prior to 1933, the shear or cohesion (C) strength of stone masonry, concrete, and rock was viewed as indeterminate and ignored, thus only the friction component of sliding resistance was considered. The elimination of cohesion from the Coulomb-Mohr equation was viewed as an added, albeit unquantifiable, margin of safety. With this view in mind, the sliding factor became the requirement that the ratio of the sum of the horizontal forces to the sum of the vertical forces must not exceed the friction factor (tana); typically varying among practitioners from 0.67 to 0.75 (i.e., 33.8 to 36.9 friction angle). In 1933, D.C. Henny proposed a means of determining cohesion through compression testing of concrete and rock specimens culminating into the shear-friction formula. He indicated that the typical cohesion strength of sound rock is on the order of 800 psi but ultimately proposed a value of 400 psi for use in design with the view that the weak plane was in horizontal concrete lift joints and not foundation rock. An example problem in Hennys 1933 paper used a safety factor of 4 for the maximum flood case which inadvertently became the industry standard in use as late as the early 1960s. Henny conceded that the shear-friction formula was not applicable for dams founded on horizontal or near-horizontally bedded rock, arguably since he understood that cohesion at the bedding planes could be substantially less than 400 psi and even approach zero. As late as the early 1960s, both the sliding factor (friction only) and the shear-friction methods were used in conjunction by Reclamation and the Corps. If a dam did not satisfy the sliding factor requirement, the alternative was to evaluate it using the shearfriction method. Until the 1970s, cohesion and friction values for foundation rock tended

348

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

to be unconservatively high since they were based on intact samples and not on weaker joints and fault planes. For example, Reclamation typically used a cohesion value of 300 to 700 psi based on intact foundation rock. By the 1970s, renewed recognition was being given to the complexity of assigning a reasonably valid cohesion value for foundation rock. The shear-friction method was widely used until the 1980s when the Corps migrated to using what is referred to as the limit equilibrium method, which is largely based on soil mechanics. This method requires that the ratio of available to mobilized shear strength be above a minimum safety factor and that the mobilization of strength be such that all segments of the potential failure plane have an equal factor of safety. Limit equilibrium appears to be best suited for dams with steeply sloping multi-wedge (passive wedge) foundation conditions. The shear-friction and limit equilibrium methods only yield equivalent safety factors for the special cases of a horizontal failure plane with no passive wedge and when tan is equal to V/H. Presently, Reclamation and FERC still endorse the use of the shear-friction method, but with the caveat that strain compatibility may need to be considered for such features as shear keys and passive restraint. Due to present limitations in availability of qualified testing laboratories, the high cost of sampling and shear testing, and the limited degree to which such testing may fully represent actual conditions, FERC has recently implemented an alternate set of sliding safety factors if cohesion is ignored in the interface and foundation. This alternate approach basically reverts back to the friction-only criteria in use since the 1890s. The trend over the past three decades has been to lower sliding safety factors to better match the concurrent advances in rock mechanics that is yielding lower and likely more realistic shear strengths. Table 4 provides a comparison of the most recently published sliding criteria. Stress Criteria The concrete used for most gravity dams has a minimum ultimate compressive strength of 3,000 to 5,000 psi. For older gravity dams, moderate to significant strength gains can occur over a long service life due to favorably moist curing conditions. Maximum principal stresses are typically well below the concretes ultimate compressive strength, with exceptions occurring under cracked base and/or high seismic loading conditions. Table 5 provides a comparison of the most recently published stress criteria. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Even after over 150 years have passed since the advent of the modern gravity dam era, different design approaches and associated standards still remain and will likely continue to remain in the United States. This situation is the biggest challenge for private consultants and state dam safety officials whose practice usually requires them to be well-versed in all design approaches and standards.

Existing Gravity Dam Stability Analysis

349

Partly driven by current funding constraints in both the private and government sectors, recent design standard revisions have placed more emphasis on possible failure modes and their associated probabilities of occurrence so that remedial measures can be focused on more likely problems, thus maximizing the value of limited available funding. When using modern techniques for estimating unusual and extreme load cases such as floods and earthquakes, many existing gravity dams violate current stability safety margin minimums. However, these same dams have demonstrated good long-term performance that is largely a testament to past design practices erring on the side of conservatism with known parameters, unwittingly counterbalancing shortcomings in less understood or unknown parameters, in combination with the implementation of sound construction practices. Since some parameters will always remain less understood, todays engineers would do well to continue this practice. The following are recommendations to further improve the practice: 1) Establish a better defined method for assigning seismic forces in less seismically active regions such as the east coast region and eliminate the earthquake analysis requirement in less active regions when the pga is less than say 0.20g. In the east coast, the flood case typically governs due to the relatively higher potential for extreme rainfall events as opposed to extreme seismic events in contrast with more arid and seismically active western regions where the opposite may be true. 2) Require an analysis of the record flood and/or seismic load cases taking into account, to the extent practical, changes in material strength properties throughout the structures life to assess the potential for otherwise difficult to detect cracking damage. 3) Establish a better defined approach and formulation for addressing deep-seated failure planes within foundation rock and the associated passive wedge resistance. 4) Place more emphasis on substantiating loading and material strength parameters in comparison to satisfying minimum stability criteria since the typical bias is to manipulate parameters to meet criteria. 5) Place more emphasis on parametric analyses of critical load and strength parameters. 6) Determine load conditions necessary for marginal stability/failure as a reality check and as an alternate method of evaluating the degree of safety similar in part to the Reclamations new risk analysis procedures. REFERENCES Wegmann, The Design and Construction of Dams, John Wiley & Sons, 1927. The complete reference list is too long to mention and can be provided upon request.

350

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

Table 3. Resultant Location Criteria Comparison

Corps 2005 Middle 1/3 Middle 1/2 Within Base New York Dam Safety 1989 New Dam Existing Dam Middle 1/3 Middle 1/3 Middle 1/3 Middle 1/2 Within Base Within Base

Load Reclamation 1987 FERC 2002 Case New Dam Existing Dam Existing Dam Repair Design Middle 1/3A Middle 1/3A Within Base Middle 1/3C Usual A A,B Middle 1/3 Within Base Within Base Middle 1/3C Unusual A A Within Base Within Base N/A N/A Extreme Notes: A Inferred by stress criteria, B Drains Inoperative, C To extent possible,

Table 4. Sliding Safety Factors Criteria Comparison

Reclamation 1987 FERC 2002 Corps 2005 New York Dam Safety 1989 (Shear-Friction) (Shear-Friction) (Limit Equilibrium) (Shear-Friction) Dam/ Foundation WellOrdinary New Dam Existing Dam Interface C>0 C=0 Defined C>0 C=0 EQ No EQ C>0 C=0 C>0 C=0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 Usual 2.0 2.7 1.5 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.25 Unusual1 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.25 1.25 1.0 Extreme2 Notes: 1 FERC allows SF of 1.3 if the SDF=PMF, C=0. NYS allows the SDF=PMF for existing dams and requires SDF=PMF for new dams. 2 Corps projects in which no site-specific seismic data is available, the unusual and extreme SF must be increased to 1.7 and 1.3, respectively.

Load Case

Table 5. Internal Stress Criteria Comparison

Intact/Dam c < f'c / 3.0 t = 1.7 f'c2/3 c < f'c / 2.0 t = 1.7 f'c2/3 N/A Post-Seismic Corps 2005 = allowable w/ safety factor = 115% of usual allowable = 150% of usual allowable

Load Case

Usual

Unusual

Extreme

Reclamation 1987 Dam Interface/Foundation c < f'c / 3.0 c < 1,500 psi c < ult / 4.0 t = 0 t = 0 c < f'c / 2.0 c < 2,250 psi c < ult / 2.7 t = 0 t = 0 c < f'c /1.0 c < ult / 1.3 t allowed t = 0

FERC 2002 Cracked/Dam Interface/Foundation c < f'c / 3.0 < 1.4 n c < ult / 3.0 t = 0 t = 0 c < f'c / 2.0 < 1.4 n c < ult / 2.0 t = 0 t = 0 N/A N/A Post-Seismic Post-Seismic

General Note: Within the past ten years, Reclamation uses a site specific risk-based approach in place of the 1987 criteria/analysis methods shown here in Tables 3, 4, and 5.