Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN

The following section outlines the structural design and analysis considerations of the
Blue River Dam. The majority of the design considerations are based on the Canadian
Dam Association (CDA) Technical Bulletin and the US Army Corps of Engineers, Gravity
Dam Design (EM 1110-2-2200). The rest of this section will discuss the CDA design
criteria, static and dynamic loads, analysis methods, and design decisions.

1.1 Material Properties


The material properties used for design of gravity dams are of crucial importance
because they tend to influence several performance factors such as seepage, durability
of concrete, weathering, cracking etc. The table below shows the concrete properties
used for the Blue River Dam design.
Table 1: Concrete Properties

Lift Joints
Property Concrete
Bonded Unbonded
Assessed by
Compressive Strength f’c = 30 MPa f’c = 30 MPa
professional
Tensile Strength 0.1f’c = 3MPa 0.05f’c = 1.5MPa 0MPa

Shear Strength C=0.05f’c, Ө = 57O C=0.05f’c, Ө = 57O C=0, Ө = 45O

To avoid the use of reinforcement, the lift joints are specified to be bonded. Due to the
low tensile demand in the concrete monolith, the tensile reinforcement can be avoided
in this design.

1.2 Design Criteria


After a brief overview of the types of dams outlined in the CDA, we determined that a
gravity dam would be the most suitable structure for this application. Due to the
relatively short height and simplicity of the valley, there was no need for geometrical
complications with an arch or buttress dam. The following sections outline the main
design criteria considered for the preliminary design of Blue River Dam.
1.2.1 Sliding Factor

The following sliding factors of safety were taken into consideration during the
design of Blue River Dam.
Table 2: Sliding Factors of Safety

Sliding Factor Sliding Factor


Load
(Friction (Friction and Cohesion)
Combination
Only) With Tests No Tests
Usual ≥1.5 ≥ 2.0 ≥ 3.0
Unusual ≥ 1.3 ≥ 1.5 ≥ 2.0
Extreme- The earthquake load case is used to establish post-
Earthquake earthquake condition of the dam.
Table 2 is reproduced from the CDA Technical Bulletin. In our stability calculations,
we relied on cohesion from an engineered material used for the design of a shear
key. The mechanical properties of the specified soil-cement mixture used are well
known and tested.
1.2.2 Normal (Perpendicular) Stresses

The tensile stresses within the mass of concrete and at lift joints are limited to 0.1f’c
and 0.05f’c respectively. The compressive stresses are limited to the following
values:
Table 3: Maximum Allowed compressive stresses at the toe of the dam
Normal Compression
Load Combination
Stress
Usual 0.3f’c

Unusual 0.5f’c

Earthquake 0.9f’c

Table 2 is reproduced from the CDA Technical Bulletin.


1.2.3 Overturning

The factor of safety approach is not appropriate for evaluating an overturning mode
of failure. This is mostly because a shear failure at the toe will occur way before a
full rotational failure could develop. The CDA evaluates the behavior of dams by
statically calculating the location of the resultant force with respect to the potential
failure plane. Table X below shows limits on the position of the resultant force to
ensure full contact between the structure and the foundation.
Table 4: Acceptance Criterion for Position of the Resultant Force
Load Combination Position of the Resultant Force
Usual Within the middle third of the base (100% compression)
Unusual 75% of the base in compression and other criteria met
Extreme Resultant within the base and other criteria met

Table X is reproduced from the CDA Technical Bulletin.

1.3 Load Combinations


The load combinations used for the design of Blue River Dam are obtained from the
Canadian Dam Association Technical Bulletin. The load combinations are presented by
the likelihood of occurrence. Table X below summarizes the combinations outlined in
the CDA.
Table 5: Load Combinations

Loading Condition Load Combination Considered Return Period (Tr)


Usual Loading (D+H+I+S+U) Yes Tr ≤ 50 years
Unusual Loading (D+HF+I+S+UF) No (N/A) 50 ≤ Tr ≤1000 years
Earthquake Loading (D+H+S+Q+UQ) Yes Tr ≥ 1000 years
Flood Loading 1:1000 year flood No Tr ≥ 1000 years
Post-Earthquake (D+H+S+UPQ) No
D-dead load, H- hydrostatic load, I- Ice load, S– soil load, U – uplift, Q- earthquake load

Table 2 above shows the load combinations considered for the preliminary design of
the Blue River Dam. Justification for omitting these cases is provided below.

Unusual Loading
According to the CDA, the unusual loading condition refers to loads that occur
infrequently such as: Plugged Drains Condition and Flood Discharge Condition.
Due to the relatively small size of the dam and shallow reservoir, the foundation
drains were omitted in the design. This makes the plugged drains condition not
applicable for this analysis.
Additionally, the Blue River Dam has a weir-like design where the excess water is
constantly being discharged. The special design allows the structure to handle flows
up to the 200-year storm. So for this structure, the usual and unusual condition are
essentially the same loading.

Flood Loading
The extreme flood loading (1:1000-year flood) was not considered for the
preliminary design of Blue River Dam. The hazard potential of the dam was fairly
low and therefore the flood loading was limited to the 200-year storm which is
considered in the usual loading case.

Post-Earthquake Condition
The post-earthquake condition is applicable for structures that have undergone
seismic loading and may have concrete cracks and stability issues. This condition is
not applicable to the Blue River Dam.

1.4 Static Loads


The static loads considered for the preliminary design of the Blue River Dam included:
dead load, hydrostatic load, uplift, and temperature load.
Dead Load
The dead load (DL) consists only of the self-weight of the structure, no
superimposed loads were considered. We assumed a unit weight of concrete of 23.5
kN (2400kg/m3) which resulted in a total DL of 417kN per meter of dam.
Hydrostatic Load
The reservoir hydrostatic forces were applied as a linear distribution along the
depth of the dam with its maximum of 47.6 kPa at the base. The tailwater loads
were neglected since their impact would be insignificant.
Uplift Base
The CDA Technical Bulletin provides guidance on calculating the uplift force on
gravity dams with or without drainage. However, due to the implementation of a
shear key in our foundation the seepage was disturbed and the regular linear
pressure distributions did not apply anymore. We used a commercially available
software, Sleep/W, in determining the uplift force. Figure 20 and 21 (Section 8.1)
show the Seep/W model and uplift force distribution along the base of the dam. As
shown on Figure 21, the uplift is reduced to zero for the majority of the base. The
shear key was the only section with non-zero pore-pressure. To calculate the uplift
force, we averaged the pressure on the shear key and converted it to point loads
which were later applied to the SAP2000 model.
Uplift Crest
Uplift at the crest of the overflow section occurs due to the high velocity of the
flowing water. The figure below shows an estimated value for the hydrostatic load
at the top of the overflow section.
Figure 1: Sub atmospheric pressure due to moving water (Bureau of Reclamation, 1987)
The uplift pressure can be estimated based on the height of the overflowing water.
The magnitude of this load turned out to be insignificant but regardless it was
applied to the SAP2000 model.
Temperature
Stresses induced due to temperature gradients and differential cooling are of major
concern in large concrete monoliths. To investigate these stresses, we modelled a
40OC temperature gradient between the upstream and downstream face. The
tensile stresses developed due to the temperature gradient did not exceed the
cracking strength of the concrete and therefore temperature loading was
considered as insignificant. To deal with shrinking and expanding, of the concrete
we specified contraction joints with waterstops on regular intervals as per ACI
224.3R-95.
Soil and Ice Loads
Soil and ice loads were not considered for the preliminary design of Blue River
Dam. The ice loads are thermally-driven by a rapid warming trend that creates
expansive forces within the ice sheet. The reservoir at Blue River Dam has water
levels that are constantly fluctuating which would prevent build-up of a 300mm
thick ice cover. The accumulation of sediment against the upstream face of the dam
has been an issue in the past. However, with the newly designed check-dams just
upstream of the dam, the sediment build-up should be reduced to insignificant
levels. Vortech recommends both loads, ice and soil, to be recheck for the final
design of the structure.

1.5 Dynamic Loads


In calculating the dynamic loads on the structure, we employed the Simplified Analysis
Procedure (SAP) for concrete gravity dams (Fenves & Chopra, 1986). This procedure
involves computation of lateral earthquake forces associated with the fundamental and
higher vibration modes of the dam. The SAP is advantageous to a static analysis because
it accounts for dam-water and dam-foundation interaction.
1.5.1 Simplified Analysis Procedure

The analysis of the fundamental mode of vibration is the most important part of the
procedure because it accounts for the majority of the dynamic response of the
structure. Analysis of the actual response of the dam can be very complicated and
would involve frequency-dependent (period-dependent), complex-valued
hydrodynamic and foundation terms (Fenves & Chopra, 1986). To simplify the
procedure, Fenves and Chopra developed a series of charts and tables for an
equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system where the above mentioned
parameters are frequency-independent. The result of the analysis is a static force
that has the hydrodynamic pressure and seismic load lumped together. The
procedure is performed in several steps (outlined in Appendix X) usually starting
with a rigid foundation and empty reservoir and slowly accounting for more
complex parameters.
The governing equation of the Simplified Analysis Procedure is shown below:
𝐿̃1 𝑆𝑎 (Ť1 ,𝜉1 )
𝑓1 (𝑦) = ̃1 𝑔
[𝑤𝑠 (𝑦)Φ(𝑦) + 𝑔𝑝1 (𝑦, Ť1 )] Eq.(X)
𝑀

Where,
 𝑤𝑠 (𝑦) − 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
 𝑝1 (𝑦, 𝑇̅𝑟 ) − 𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒
 Φ(y) − 𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒
̃1 = 𝑀1 + ∫𝐻 𝑝1 (𝑦, Ť1 )Φ(𝑦)𝑑𝑦 − 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 (𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 + 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)
 𝑀 0
1 𝐻
 𝑀1 = 𝑔 ∫0 𝑤𝑠 (𝑦)Φ2 (𝑦)𝑑𝑦 − 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠

̃1 = 𝐿1 + ∫𝐻 𝑝1 (𝑦, Ť1 )𝑑𝑦 − 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡


 𝐿 0
1 𝐻
 𝐿1 = 𝑔 ∫0 𝑤𝑠 (𝑦)Φ(𝑦)𝑑𝑦 − 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡

 H − 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑎𝑚
 𝑆𝑎 (Ť1 , 𝜉1 ) − 𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚

Equation (X) calculates the lateral force acting on the dam at a particular point. To
calculate the base shear we had to integrate Eq.X along the height of the dam.
However, many of the parameters above where published as charts with no
particular functions to integrate. To get past this problem, Vorthec Engineering
used Lagrange Polynomial Interpolation to come up with equations for each of the
given parameters. We limited the R2 value of the interpolated curve to 0.99 which
ensured an accurate fit. Once we had all of the equations expressed in terms of the
dam height, y, we developed an excel function based on Simpson’s Rule to
numerically integrate and calculate the base shear and base moment. The detailed
procedure and calculations are displayed in Appendix X. For more information see
Simplified Analysis for Earthquake Resistant Design of Concrete Gravity Dams in
Volume III.
1.5.2 Static Correction for Higher Modes

Due to the very short period of the higher vibration modes, the design earthquake
for these modes equals the peak ground acceleration. Since the acceleration is
assumed to be instantaneous, there is little dynamic amplification which makes the
higher modes to respond in a static manner. We used the equation shown below
published by Fenves and Chopra to calculate the contribution from higher vibration
modes.
1 𝐿 𝐵
𝑓𝑠𝑐 (𝑦) = 𝑔 {𝑤𝑠 (𝑦) [1 − 𝑀1 𝜙(𝑦)] + [𝑔𝑝𝑜 (𝑦) − 𝑀1 𝑤𝑠 (𝑦)𝜙(𝑦)]} 𝑎𝑔 Eq.(X)
1 1
Where,
 Po(y) –hydrodynamic pressure function on a rigid dam undergoing unit acceleration
 B1 – measure of the portion of Po(y) that acts in the fundamental vibration mode
 ag – maximum ground acceleration
 M1, L1, Ws(y), ϕ(y) have been defined above in Equation X

Detailed calculations are displayed in Appendix X.


A comparison between the shear force obtained from the first eight modes
(essentially an exact response) and the static correction method for a 300ft dam
with an elastic foundation (Ef/Es = ¼) is shown in the figure below.
Figure 2:Height-wise Distribution of Maximum Shear Force in Dams (Fenves & Chopra, 1986)
The static correction method accurately follows the exact response of the structure.
The above-shown graph is for a dam with similar foundation elasticity to ours but
taller structure. Nevertheless, the static correction method shall still provide an
accurate representation of the total shear force acting upon the dam.
1.5.3 Response Combination

We used the square-root-of-the-sum-of-squares (SRSS) method to combine the


response of the fundamental mode with the higher modes.
𝑟𝑑 = √(𝑟1 )2 + (𝑟𝑠𝑐 )2 Eq.(X)
Where,
 𝑟1 − 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒
 𝑟𝑠𝑐 − ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒
The SRSS is a conservative method because it combines the maximum responses for
each mode even though they do not occur at the same time. Additionally, as Eq.(X)
shows, each response is squared which eliminates any negative signs of the force
and ends up summing them together. In reality, due to the reversibility of
earthquakes, some modes may act in opposite direction and effectively canceling
out a portion of the seismic force.
1.5.4 Damping Modification Factor

One of the advantages of the Simplified Analysis Procedure was the ability to
capture the dam-foundation and dam-water interaction which slightly modifies the
fundamental period but more importantly adds damping to the equivalent single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system. The final damping ratio was determined to be
22%. The damping ratio calculation is shown in Step 5 in Volume II, Appendix X.
We recognized that the 22% damping could reduce the response spectra for this
site. We used a scaling method (Li & Chen, 2017) to scale down the response
spectra obtained from NBC2015. The scaled response spectra is shown below.

Spectral Acceleration
0.6
SPECTRAL ACCELERATION (G)

0.5

0.4

0.3 5% damping
20% damping
0.2
Period of Dam

0.1

0
0.01 0.1 PERIOD, T (S) 1 10

Figure 3: Scaled Spectral Acceleration


As shown on Figure X, we managed to obtain a 12% reduction in acceleration which
directly manifested in reduction of the seismic force. The detailed calculation is
shown in Appendix X of Volume II.

1.5.5 Pressure Distribution and Results

The final converted static base shear and base moment for both sections, overflow
and non-overflow, is displayed below.
Table 6: Summary of converted seismic forces

Fundamental
Higher Modes SRSS Combination
Section Mode
Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment
Non-Overflow 135kN 400kNm 87.8kN 93.9kNm 161kN 411kNm
Overflow 55kN 90.3kN 27kN 17.5kN 61kN 92kNm

As shown on Table X above, the fundamental mode accounts for the majority of the
shear and moment exerted on the structure. The highest contribution can be seen
in the non-overflow section where higher modes account for an additional 26kN
(16%) to the original first mode load.
The overall static pressure distribution along the height of the dam is displayed
below:

Figure 4: Seismic force distribution on overflow section

Figure 5: Seismic force distribution on non-overflow section


The effects of SRSS can be seen on the pressure distribution on the non-overflow
section. Near the top of the dam, both the fundamental and higher mode responses have
negative values, however, they are squared and summed together and appear as a spike
in the pressure distribution.

1.6 Rigid Body Analysis


The rigid body analysis is the simplest analysis method; it involves vector summation of
all forces and moments acting on the dam and converting them into stresses and
stability factors. For our rigid body analysis, we used a method outlined in the 1976
publication “Design of Gravity Dams” by the United States Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation. This method is suitable for design of straight gravity dams with
vertical upstream face and variable downstream face. The formulas used for calculating
stresses are based on the assumption of a trapezoidal distribution of vertical stress and
a parabolic distribution of horizontal shear stress on horizontal planes (Bureau of
Reclamation, 1976). This method assumes that the dam is made out of homogeneous,
isotropic concrete and there is no differential movement of the monolith.
1.6.1 Equations

The following equations and diagrams are reproduced from Design of Gravity Dams
(1876) and were used for calculating stresses within the dam monolith.

𝜎𝑧 = 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑦
Σ𝑊 6Σ𝑀
𝑎 = 𝜎𝑍𝐷 = − 2
𝑇 𝑇

12 𝑀
𝑏=
𝑇3

𝜏𝑧𝑦 = 𝜏𝑦𝑧 = 𝑎1 + 𝑏1 𝑦
+ 𝑐1 𝑦 2
𝑎1 = 𝜏𝑍𝑦𝐷= = (𝜎𝑍𝐷 )𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝐷
−1 6Σ𝑉
𝑏1 = ( + 4𝜏𝑍𝑌𝐷 )
𝑇 𝑇
1 6Σ𝑉
𝐶1 2 ( + 3𝜏𝑍𝑌𝐷 )
𝑇 𝑇

𝜎𝑌 = 𝑎2 + 𝑏2 𝑦 + 𝑐2 𝑦 2 + 𝑑2 𝑦 3
𝑎2 = 𝜎𝑌𝐷= = (𝑎1 )𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝐷
𝜕𝑎1
𝑏2 = (𝑏1 )𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝐷 + + 𝜔𝑐
𝜕𝑍
1𝜕𝑏1
𝑐2 = (𝑐1 )𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝐷 +
2𝜕𝑍
1𝜕𝑐1
𝑑2 =
3𝜕𝑍

𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒:
σZ – Normal stress on horizontal plane
τ – Shear stress
ΣW – Total weight of dam plus superimposed loads
ΣM – Sum of all moments
ΣV – Sum of horizontal forces (shear on plane)
T – Width of section under analysis
tanϕD – Slope of downstream face
ωc – unit weight of concrete
a, a1, a2, b, b1, b2 c, c1, c2 - coefficients

Once we obtained the normal and shear stress, we proceeded to calculate the principal
stresses using the following equation:
𝜎𝑍 − 𝜎𝑌 𝜎𝑍 − 𝜎𝑌
± √( ) + (𝜏𝑍𝑌 )2 𝜎𝑝1/2 =
2 2
Then, we compared all principal stresses across the concrete monolith and determined
the maximum and minimum design stresses.

1.6.2 Procedure

To do a more precise analysis, we used Visual Basic for Applications (VBA). We coded
the above-presented equations and ran a loop function which looped through the y and
x component of the dam. The loop function recalculated the equations several hundred
times while incrementing the location of the element. This allowed us to calculate
principal stresses at small increments across the dam. Once we had the stresses at each
point, we assigned specific colors (RGB parameters) for different values of stress and
used small boxes to represent the stress gradient of the dam. Figure X below displays
the obtained result.
Principal Stress 1 Principal Stress 2

0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 507 476 31 001
0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.10 - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 73 672 415 001
0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.13 - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 97 869 522 001
0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.15 - - - - - - - 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 247 078 637 001
0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.18 - - - - - - 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 259 552 301 759 001
0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.21 - - - - - - 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 758 88 537 89 001
0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.18 0.24 - - - - - - 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 304 225 788 029 001
0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.21 0.28 - - - - - - 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 875 585 053 177 001
0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.24 0.32 - - - - - - 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00
0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 45 96 333 334 001
0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.27 0.36 - - - - - - 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
0.01 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.00 016 353 63 503 001
0.07 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.41 - - - - - - 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.00 571 767 948 684 001
0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.22 0.30 0.39 - - - - - - 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01
0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.00 148 643 151 221 968 426
0.04 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.22 0.29 0.38 - - - - - - - 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 166 982 426 774 925 956 898
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.28 0.35 - - - - - - - - - 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 027 402 67 36 842 228 56
0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.26 0.32 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 274 119 422 359 106 756 35
0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.24 0.29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.08 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 215 575 675 609 442 213
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 201 264 225 119
0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 017 071 053
0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00
0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 005
0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Max Stress 0.41 Mpa Compression Max Stress 0.20 Tension

Figure 6: Stress gradient obtained with the rigid body method


The maximum and minimum obtained principal stresses were 0.41MPa (compression)
and 0.20MPa (tension) respectively. The stress gradient shown above from the Rigid
Body Analysis agrees with the gradient obtained from SAP2000 (Figure X). The
agreement of the two methods increased our confidence in our model.
1.7 Finite Element Analysis (FEM)
We used SAP2000 to perform a finite elements analysis of Blue River Dam. FEM is
advantageous to the Rigid Body Method because it accounts for deformations and
geometric irregularities of the structure. Figure X below shows the SAP2000 model and
the mashed dam cross-sections.

Figure 7: Sap2000 Model


As specified in the CDA, the tensile strength between the concrete monolith and the
foundation shall be taken as zero. To properly model that, we used the gap feature
which allowed us to define a compression-only spring with stiffness (k) equal to the
modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) of the foundation. We used the following equation
publish by Vasic (1961) to calculate the modulus of subgrade reaction of the foundation
soil.
𝐸𝑠
𝑘𝑠 =
𝐵(1 − 𝜇2 )𝐼𝑠 𝐼𝑓

As shown in the equation above ks is dependent on the modulus of elasticity of the soil
(Es), Poisson’s ratio (μ), the width of the footing (B), and correction coefficients Is and If.
Detailed calculation is displayed in Appendix X.
To apply the loads to the 2D model, we had to convert the pressure loads to point loads
and apply them at each mesh joint. Figure X below shows the analyzed section with its
principal stresses.
Figure 8: Principal stresses
As shown above, the principal stresses in the concrete monolith are small and range
between 1MPa to -1MPa. Full summary of the results can be found in Section 9.9 Design
Results.

1.8 Stability Analysis


The two major stability issues related to the design of dams are discussed in the
following two sections.
1.8.1 Overturning Stability

Due to the large width to height ration of the Blue River Dam the overturning
stability analysis produced desirable results. All of the load combinations yielded
a resultant force within the middle third of the base of the dam. Summary of the
results is displayed in Section 9.9 Design Results.
1.8.2 Sliding Stability

To ensure a desirable factor of safety against sliding, we implemented a shear


key in the foundation of the dam. The shear key provides extra resistance at the
dam- soil interface but also against global rotational failure. The figure below
shows a conceptual model of the dam with the shear key.
Figure 9: Conceptual model of the dam with shear key
We used a soil-cement mixture for the design of the shear key which provides
cohesion and a desirable friction angle. To estimate the cohesion of the mixture, we
referred to the Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, specifically
a paper by Jianguo Fan et al, which suggested the following formula for estimating
cohesion of soil-cement mixtures:
𝑐 = 48.265 + 0.225𝑞𝑢 qu - soil stress in kPa.
The internal angle of friction, ϕ, was estimated between 38o – 43o (Fan et al, 2017).
Using the above mentioned parameters we calculated sliding factors of safety (FS)
for the different load combinations. The results of the analysis are summarized in
Section 9.9 Design Results.
Besides sliding failure, we had to ensure that we also have a reasonable factor of
safety against a global rotational failure as discussed in Section 8.2. To determine
the most critical slipping surface, we checked several planes with Slope W. As
shown on Figure 22 (Section 8.2), the most critical plain is located in the alluvial
layer just below the base of the dam with a factor of safety of 2.485. For the final
design, the selection of the governing sliding surface should be performed by an
experienced geotechnical engineer based on site inspections and laboratory testing.
1.9 Design Results
The following section summarizes the design parameters and factors of safety for the
three major design criteria as outlined in Section 9.2 Design Criteria. Table X below
summarizes the design parameters used for Blue River Dam.
Table 7: Summary of Design Parameters

Modeling
Overflow Section Non-overflow section
Parameters
Section Height, H 2.82m 4.85m
Base Width, W 4.0m 7.66m
Slope (H:V), S 𝑦𝐿 = −0.28𝑥1.85 2.0
Friction Angle, ϕ 40o 40o
Period, Tn 0.024s 0.04s
Wconcrete 24kN/m3 24kN/m3
Wwater 9.81kN/m3 9.81kN/m3
Econcrete 25GPa 25GPa
Efoundation 2GPa 2GPa
Damping, ξ 22% 22%
Sa(ξ Tn) 0.45g 0.45g
Modulus of Subgrade
14,838.6MPa/m 7,748.6 MPa/m
Reaction, ks
Sap2000 spring k 3,709,639 N/mm 3,956,948 N/mm

Additional parameters can be found in the appendices section.


1.9.1 Sliding Factor of Safety

The following table below summarizes the sliding factors of safety for the dam-
soil interface.
Table 8: Sliding Factor of Safety

Overflow Non-overflow
Parameters Min FS
Section section
FS (Usual Case) 2.18 2.44 ≥ 2.0
FS (Extreme Case) 1.40 1.20 ≥ 1.10

Table 8 above shows that the minimum allowed sliding factor of safety (FS) as
well as the calculated FS. If the sliding resistance relied on both cohesion and
friction, the CDA suggests that the FS with no tests performed should be ≥3.0
(See Section 9.1.3). In our calculation we used cohesion for the soil-cement mix
interface without actually testing the mix. However, this mix has been tested
before and is expected to provide at least the specified cohesion.
1.9.2 Overturning Factor of Safety

Table X below shows the location of the reaction force measured from the
upstream corner.
Table 9: Overturning Factor of Safety

Overflow Section Non-overflow section


Parameters Allowed Location
Calculated Allowed Calculated Allowed
Resultant Location
1.58 m 1.33m – 2.66m 3.17 m 2.55m – 5.1m
(Usual Case)
Resultant Location
2.49 m Within Base 4.39 m Within Base
(Extreme Case)

As shown above, the location in each case is located within the middle third of
the base. This case is ideal because it maintains full contact between the base
and the foundation.
1.9.3 Normal Stress

The induced stress in the Blue River Dam was not of concern. We decided to use the
stresses obtained with SAP2000 as those would be a more accurate representation of
the actual behavior of the dam. Summary of all results is displayed below.
Table 10: Summary of internal stresses
Allowed
Parameters Overflow Section Non-overflow section Max Max
Tension Compression
Crest Deflection (Ux) 0.002 mm (→) 0.003mm (→) /
Loading

Base Deflection (Uz) 0.004 mm (↓) 0.009mm (↓) /


Usual

SAP2000 Stress 0.01MPa -0.09 MPa 0.001MPa -0.14MPa 1.5MPa 9MPa


Rigid Body Stress 0.02MPa -0.14MPa 0.02MPa -0.34MPa 1.5MPa 9MPa
Crest Deflection (Ux) 0.02 mm (→) 0.07mm(→) /
Extreme
Loading

Base Deflection (Uz) 0.004 mm (↑) 0.01mm (↑) /


SAP 2000 Stress 0.03MPa -0.17 MPa 0.05MPa -0.28MPa 1.5MPa 27MPa
Rigid Body Stress 0.17MPa -0.25MPa 0.20MPa -0.41MPa 1.5MPa 27MPa
Note: the negative sign denotes compression
As shown in Table X, the stresses from the Rigid Body Analysis were slightly more
conservative which was expected since this method does not allow deformations in the
concrete. In general, both methods were in agreement. Because the tensile stresses did
not exceed the cracking stress of the concrete, reinforcing steel was not required. The
maximum utilization of the compressive and tensile stresses was 1.6% and 3%
respectively.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen