Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Hosted by
Black & Veatch Corporation
GEI Consultants, Inc.
Kleinfelder, Inc.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc.
URS Corporation
On the Cover
Artist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide
a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions
imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117
feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the
United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.
The information contained in this publication 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 2011 U.S. Society on Dams
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673
ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5
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
Project Manager, HATCH Renewable Power, 4342 Queen Street, Suite 500, Niagara Falls, Ontario,
Canada L2E 7J7; Tel: (905)357-6998; Fax (905) 374-1157; email: dcurtis@hatch.ca
295
(a) Mohr Coulomb Envelope - The Mohr Coulomb strength criterion is given as:
(1)
= c + n tan
where
c is cohesion (shear strength at zero normal stress)
n is the normal stress applied perpendicular to the shear plane
is the friction angle.
Figure 1 shows the Mohr Coulomb strength envelope. In Figure 1, =
. The
4 2
cohesive strength can be expressed as a function of the uniaxial compressive strength and
the friction angle as follows:
(2)
(
1 Sin )
c = f c
2 Cos
296
compression and tension test results. Mee (2001) developed a shear strength
envelope using a parabolic fit to strengths from Mohr circles. The derivation is given
in Appendix A. From Figure 2, the shear strength envelope is defined as follows:
(3)
f
2 = f c 2 f t 1 + 1 + c ( n + f t )
f t
at n = 0
f
f
= c = f t c + 2 2 1 + c
ft
ft
(c) Griffith Criterion The Mohr Coulomb criterion is empirical whereas the Griffith
criterion is mechanistic. Griffith postulated that fracture of brittle materials is
initiated at tensile stress concentrations at the tips of hypothetical minute elliptical
cracks (Griffith cracks) in the material. The Griffith criterion (Griffith, 1921) is given
as follows:
(4)
= 2 f t ( n + f t )
where
297
f td = c1 c 2 1.7( f c) 3
298
For concrete dams where the aggregate is typically greater than 1 in., use c1 = 0.9 and
c2 = 0.8.
Then:
(6)
f td = 1.22( f c)
2
3
McColm et al (1997) tested the concrete tensile strength with and without horizontal
construction joints. Both direct and indirect (splitting) tensile strengths were measured.
The test results from McColm et al (1997) for mass concrete without joints are given in
Figure 4. The Raphael indirect tensile strength shown in Figure 4 is computed using:
(7)
2
f t = 1.7( f c) 3
The aggregate used by McColm et al was in., hence according to the USACE the direct
tensile strength is computed using:
(8)
2
f t = 0.8 1.7( f c ) 3
Comparison of Measured and Computed Tensile Strength
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
Measured Direct
150.0
Measured Indirect
Raphael Indirect
100.0
Raphael x 0.8
50.0
0.0
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
299
A comparison of the cohesive strength using the three failure envelopes is given in
Table 1. These strengths would not be used in design because they represent the ultimate
strength of a jointless material. In design, safety factors would be applied to these
strengths as discussed later in this paper.
Table 1. Comparison of Cohesion Computed from Various Failure Criterions
Mohr Coulomb Envelope
Parabolic Mohr Envelope
Griffith Envelope
f c = 3000 psi
f c = 3000 psi
f c = 3000 psi
2
2
= 45
f = 1.22( f ) 3
f = 1.22( f ) 3
t
f c(1 sin )
2 Cos
c=
c = 620 psi
f t = 250 psi
f
f
c = ft c + 2 2 1 + c
f
f t
t
c = 650 psi
f t = 250 psi
1
c = 2 ft
c = 500 psi
The Griffith failure criterion was selected to estimate the shear strength of shear keys and
lift joints, and to compare with results obtained from direct shear testing at low normal
stresses. The Griffith criterion was selected for the following reasons:
It assumes the presence of microcracks which are now known to exist i.e., real
materials contain imperfections
It predicts failure at stresses lower than the empirical Mohr Coulomb criterion
It is directly applicable to shear failure of concrete which is a brittle failure mode i.e.,
the Griffith criterion is not applicable to ductile failure.
From Figure 3, a tensile normal stress causes a significant reduction in shear strength.
However, shear keys do not transfer tension across the joint, hence the lowest strength
applicable to shear keys is the cohesive strength of concrete which is determined using
c = 2 x ft where ft is the uniaxial tensile strength of concrete. The cohesive strength, c, is
the shear strength at zero normal stress. The fact that shear keys do not transfer tension
across the joint offers a significant benefit to limiting tensile forces on the shear keys
themselves and preserving its ability to transmit shear forces across keyed vertical
contraction joints in compression and shear. It is noted that Lo et al. (1990) found the
same relationship between tensile strength and cohesion as Griffith after testing well
bonded dam/foundation contacts. In the work (Lo et al. 1990), the tensile strength was
determined using direct tension tests.
It is noted that rock joint failure criteria are not discussed herein because we are dealing
with bonded joints and failure through the intact concrete of shear keys. Figure 5 shows
the shear resistance offered by the shear key even when the contraction joint is open (for
example, under seismic loading).
300
Figure 5. Shear Transfer Mechanism for a Shear Key with an Open Joint
STRENGTH OF SHEAR KEYS
A review of the shear strength of shear keys was given in Curtis and Lum (2008). From
this paper, the average shear strength of concrete cores taken from Ruskin Dam was
670 psi. The shear strength was measured at a low normal stress of 15 psi. The average
compressive strength of the concrete cores was 4200 psi. The direct tensile strength is
computed using Equation 6 and this gives a tensile strength of 317.6 psi. The computed
shear strength using the Griffith criterion is 650 psi, i.e.,
(9)
= 2 317.6(15 + 317.6 ) = 650 psi
Kaneko et al (1993) provided test results for shearing of concrete shear keys from
laboratory testing. The lower limit test results from Kaneko are plotted in Figure 6.
301
2500.00
2000.00
y = 1.6929x + 890.58
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
The Griffith criterion is also used to estimate the shear strength of bonded lift joints.
McColm et al (1997) measured the tensile strength of concrete joints with lift joints
prepared as follows:
(a) No Preparation The bottom lift was placed and the surface covered with wet burlap.
The top lift was placed 24 hours later. No preparation of the joint surface was carried
out.
(b) Initial Set The bottom lift was placed and once the initial set had been reached
(between 5 to 6 hours after mixing), the top 13 mm of the concrete was scraped off
and the surface cleaned with compressed air. The surface of the concrete was kept
damp with burlap for 24 hours at which time the top lift was placed. Immediately
302
prior to placing the top lift, the joint surface was wetted and sprinkled with a thin
layer of cement which was broomed into the surface.
(c) Water Jet The bottom lift was placed and the surface was covered with wet burlap.
After 20 hours, the joint surface was cleaned with a high-pressure water jet to remove
any laitance or loose material. This exposed the coarse aggregate particles. The
surface was kept wet until the top lift was placed, 24 hours after placing the bottom
lift.
Table 3 summarizes the minimum tensile strength on the joint as a percentage of the mass
concrete tensile strength.
Table 3. Minimum Measured Tensile Strength from McColm et al (1997)
Joint Preparation
Tensile
Strength
Direct
Indirect
70
75
90
92
75
81
The Griffith criterion uses the direct tensile strength of concrete, hence from Table 3, it is
conservative to use a joint tensile strength of 60% of the mass concrete strength.
Therefore, for bonded horizontal lift joints use
(10)
= 2 f t ( n + f t )
j
where
f t j = 0.6 f t = 0.734 ( f c )2/3
c = 2 ftdj = 429 psi . Figure 7 also shows an allowable shear strength envelope assuming a
factor of safety of 3 for static conditions.
303
Table 4. Summary of Shear Test Results on Bonded Mass Concrete Construction Joints
Dam
Approx. Age Specimen No. of
Compressive Break-bond
at Time of
Diameter Bonded Strength
Cohesion Phi
Testing
(in.)
Samples (psi)
(psi)
(Degrees)
(Years)
Tested
Arrowrock, 64
6
7
2090
258
60
Idaho
Arrowrock, 64
6
6
1250
205
52
Idaho
Minidoka, 73
6
9
3740
338
60
Idaho
Owyhee,
50
6
12
4170
472
55
Oregon
Parker,
44
6
7
4590
309
25
Arizona
Stewart
48
6
5
3810
527
25
Mountain
Note: Data omitted if less than 5 samples in the set.
700.0
Griffith
Lab Data
Allowable Static with FS = 3
600.0
Cohesion (psi)
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
It is interesting to note from Figure 7, that at f c = 3000 psi the computed cohesion is
about 300 psi. A cohesive strength of 300 psi was typically used in the design of many
dams in North America from 1930 to about 1970.
There are existing dams which are subjected to large shear stresses under static loading.
One example is Hiwassee dam owned and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority as
described in Curtis et al (2005). The dam is affected by alkali-aggregate reaction and the
concrete has been expanding for over 60 years. A finite element stress analysis of this
dam is briefly summarized in Curtis et al. From this paper, it was noted that prior to
cutting slots in the dam, the spillway end piers were being pushed into the spillway as a
result of concrete growth, thus causing a significant tilting of the piers. This tilt generates
very large shear stresses at the base of the piers. From Curtis et al., The model results
taken prior to slot cutting predicted relatively large horizontal shear stresses acting
longitudinally at the spillway end pier/spillway crest junction. The fact that the model
matches the measured longitudinal stresses and slot closures at this location suggests that
other stress components are probably estimated reasonably well by the model. There was
no evidence of Block 16 sliding longitudinally into the spillway opening; therefore, the
construction joints at this must possess surprisingly high cohesive strengths in excess of
400 psi. In fact, shear stresses of more than 580 psi were computed extending several
feet in from the face at the base of the end piers (see Figure 8). Similar findings have
been observed in other AAR-affected dams.
305
SUMMARY
=2
f t ( n + f t )
1.22( f c )2/3
3.0
1.83( f c )2/3
1.67
Horizontal
Lift Joint
=2
f t ( n + f t )
0.73( f c )2/3
3.0
1.10( f c )2/3
1.67
Figure 9 presents the allowable shear strength envelope on a horizontal lift joint assuming
a concrete compressive strength of 3,000 psi. From Figure 9, the allowable dynamic
shear strength is significantly larger than the allowable static strength because of higher
dynamic tensile strength and the lower factor of safety.
600
500
400
Static - Allowable
300
Dynamic - Allowable
200
100
0
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure 9. Allowable Shear Strength Envelope on Horizontal Lift Joint with f c = 3000 psi
306
The cohesive strength of concrete shear keys and lift joints is about 2 times the tensile
strength using the Griffith criterion
The tensile strength can be estimated using the compressive strength and an
adjusted Raphael formulae
The dynamic shear strength of shear keys and bonded lift joints is relatively high and
experience has shown that large strengths are required for moderately high seismic
events (say with a PGA greater than 0.3 g)
The author would like to thank James Molyneux and Jim Zhou for their review
comments.
REFERENCES
Curtis D.D., Davis, B.J., Rahman, S. and Powell, R., 2005. Updated Assessment of
Concrete Growth Effects on a TVA Dam, 25th Annual USSD Conference, June 6-10,
2005: Salt Lake City, Utah.
Curtis, D.D. and Lum, K.Y., 2008. Estimated Strength of Shear Keys in Concrete
Dams, CDA Annual Conference, Winnipeg, MB.
Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1995. Engineering
and Design Seismic Design Provisions for Roller Compacted Concrete Dams, EP11102-12, September 20, 1995.
Griffith, A.A., 1921. The Phenomena of Flow and Rupture in Solids, Phil. Trans.
Royal Society: London, Vol. A221.Kaneko, Y., Connor, J.J., Triantafillou, T.C. and
Leung, C.K., 1993. Fracture Mechanics Approach for Failure of Concrete Shear Key II:
Verification, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 4773, Vol. 119, No. 4, Paper No. 4773.
Lo, K.Y., Lukajic, B., Wang, S., Ogawa, T. and Tsui, K.K., 1990. Evaluation of
Strength Parameters of Concrete-Rock Interface for Dam Safety Assessment: Session 2
Dam Safety Assessments, Proceedings of Canadian Dam Safety Conference,
September 17-20, 1990: Toronto, Ontario. pp 71-94.
307
McColm, E.J., Ko, P.K. and Mukherjee, P.K. Evaluation of Horizontal Construction
Joints in Massive Concrete Hydraulic Structures, Proceedings of CDSA/CANCOLD
Joint Dam Safety Conference, Montreal, 1997.
McLean, Francis G., and Pierce, James S., 1988. Comparison of Joint Shear Strengths
for Conventional and Roller Compacted Concrete, Proceedings, Roller Compacted
Concrete II Conference, ASCE, New York, pp 151-169.
Mee, A.L., 2001. Personal Communication.
Raphael, J. M., 1984. Tensile Strength of Concrete, ACI Journal. Technical Paper,
Mar-Apr 1984. Title No. 81-17.
308
d 2a
=
d
= 4a
d
Compression circle
2 + 2 c = 0
differentiate 2
d c 2
=
d
2
d
+ 2 c = 0
d
c
or p 2 + 2 pt ct + 0 then p = t 1 + 1 +
t
c
t
c
a = 1 + 1 +
4 2
t
(c 2 p )( p + t ) = cp p 2
c
And 2 = c 2t 1 + 1 + ( + t )
t
c
c
at = 0, = t + 2 2 1 +
t
t
309