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