Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
evaluation earthquake
M. Wieland1, S. Ahlehagh2
1
Chairman, ICOLD Committee on Seismic Aspects of Dam Design, Poyry Energy Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland
2
Poyry Energy Ltd., Tehran, Iran
E-mail: martin.wieland@poyry.com
Summary
The seismic stability analysis of a large concrete gravity dam
is described. The peak ground acceleration on the rock
surface of the horizontal component of the safety evaluation
earthquake was estimated as 0.78 g. A simplified dynamic
stability analysis was carried out, which is based on (i) a
linear-elastic dynamic analysis in time domain followed by
(ii) dynamic sliding stability analyses of different concrete
blocks formed by cracks along horizontal lift joints. The
different concrete blocks can undergo sliding and rocking
movements during an earthquake. The support motion of the
blocks is obtained from analysis (i). The gravity dam and the
foundation are modeled as plane stress plane strain system,
respectively. Full reservoir was considered and the water was
assumed to be incompressible. The hydrodynamic pressure
was modeled using an added mass at the upstream face of
the dam according to Westergaard. A triangular uplift
distribution at the base of the concrete blocks is assumed.
The friction coefficient along the horizontal sliding surface
is varied from 0.75 to 1.0. The results of the dynamic sliding
stability analyses show that the maximum horizontal
downstream movement of the critical block near the crest of
the highest section is about 4.4 m. Different alternatives for
the reduction of block movements are discussed.
Introduction
Under strong earthquake shaking concrete gravity dams may
crack along horizontal lift joints, which have lesser strength
than the parent mass concrete. Moreover, sliding may occur
at the dam-foundation contact. Usually the focus is on the
sliding movement of the rigid dam body at the damfoundation contact. However, as the horizontal component of
the ground acceleration is amplified towards the top of the
dam, concrete blocks formed by cracks along the horizontal
lift joints will undergo larger movements than the entire dam
sliding along the dam-foundation contact.
A typical non-overflow section of a large concrete gravity
Eigenfrequency analysis
0.669
0.777
0.006
0.333
0.048
0.878
0.280
0.152
0.107
0.977
0.991
1.000
1.000
Horizontal acceleration at
dam base (m/s2)
SET3
5.0
3.0
1.0
-1.0
-3.0
-5.0
-7.0
0.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
SET3
25
15
5
-5
-15
-25
-35
0.0
5.0
35
Horizontal acceleration at
dam crest (m/s2)
vertical direction
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
LC2
0.30
0.20
LC3
0.10
LC4
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
Figure 6: Sliding displacement of the dam along the damfoundation contact (downstream movement) for three
different friction angles (with uplift)
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
2.00
1.50
1.00
friction angle = 37 d eg
friction angle = 40 d eg
0.50
friction angle = 43 d eg
0.00
2.50
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2.00
1.50
LC2
1.00
LC3
0.50
LC4
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
1.50
1.00
LC3
0.50
LC4
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2.00
35.0
Time (s)
1.50
1.00
0.50
LC2
1.60
LC3
1.40
LC4
1.20
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
35.0
Time (s)
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
3.00
1.00
0.80
0.60
LC2
0.40
LC3
0.20
LC4
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
Sensitivity studies
In the previous sections different sensitivity studies were
carried out, i.e.
Three different artificially generated acceleration time
histories;
Variation of residual friction angle from 37 to 43; and
Effect of uplift forces on concrete blocks 2and 3 near
the crest.
A frequently asked question in connection with the
dynamic sliding stability analysis is related to the
earthquake components to be considered. In Figs. 5 to 12
both the horizontal and vertical earthquake components
are taken into account. Often only the horizontal
component is used. Therefore, for the sliding movement
along the dam-foundation contact a comparison is made
between the results obtained from (i) an analysis where
both the horizontal and vertical components are
considered and those from (ii) an analysis with the
horizontal component only. The main results of analysis
(i) are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 and those of (ii) in Figs. 13
and 14.
Without uplift
Block 2
Block 3
Block 2
Block 3
LC2
4.4
2.9
1.6
2.1
LC3
4.0
2.6
1.3
1.8
LC4
4.0
2.4
1.4
1.8
0.70
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
0.80
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
LC2
0.20
LC3
0.10
LC4
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
Figure 13: Sliding displacement of dam along damfoundation contact (downstream movement) for three
different earthquakes, a friction angle of 37 (with uplift),
and horizontal earthquake component only.
0.80
Horizontal Sliding
Displacement (m)
0.70
friction angle = 37 deg
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Time (s)
Figure 14: Sliding displacement of the dam along the damfoundation contact (downstream movement) for three
different friction angles (with uplift) and horizontal
earthquake component only
The maximum sliding movement in case (i) is 96 cm and for
case (ii) where only the horizontal earthquake component is
analysed is 72 cm. also when the residual friction angle is
varied from 37 to 43 the sliding movement varies from 98
cm to about 35 cm in case (i). For case (ii) the variation is
from 72 cm to about 18 cm.
This comparison shows that the effect of the vertical
earthquake component on the sliding movement is very
important. It appears that the vertical component has a more
significant effect on the sliding movement for larger friction
values (43) than for smaller values (37).
Figure 15 shows the downstream movement of block 3 when
only the horizontal earthquake component is taken into
account. The comparison with Fig. 9, where the effects of
both the horizontal and vertical earthquake components are
included shows that, for a residual friction angle of 37, the
maximum displacement is 2.1 m whereas it is only 1.3 m
when only the horizontal earthquake component is included.
This means that for block 3 the sliding movement is about
60% larger when the vertical component is included in the
analysis. Thus the neglect of the vertical earthquake
component in the dynamic sliding stability analysis is not
acceptable.
[2]
Conclusions
[3]
References
[1]