21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

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.

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 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

MYPONGA DAM STABILITY EVALUATION: MODELING STRESS RELAXATION FOR ARCH DAMS USING LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS Scott L. Jones, P.E.1 Guy S. Lund, P.E.2 Bill Moler, P.E.3 Derek Moore, P.E.4 ABSTRACT Myponga Dam, a concrete arch dam owned and operated by the South Australia Water Corporation (SA Water), is located on the Myponga River, approximately 55 km (34 miles) south of Adelaide, South Australia. As part of a previous safety inspection, a cursory pseudo-static study of the extreme (seismic) loading condition performed in 2003 indicated the potential for overstressing of the concrete and a more detailed dynamic analysis of the dam was recommended. To address these recommendations, SA Water contracted with URS to perform a linear finite element analysis as part of a Stage 1 Safety Review of Myponga Dam. The linear finite element analysis was used to perform a stability evaluation of Myponga Dam for the usual (full supply level), unusual (inflow design flood), and extreme (maximum design earthquake) loading conditions. The initial results from the preliminary evaluation indicated the potential for overstressing, especially in the colder winter months. Based on the initial results and the understanding that the joints in the foundation would not carry significant tension, adjustments were made to the material properties in the linear model to better simulate conditions and understand the response of the dam. The updated results from the modified model indicated that the stresses in the dam were less than the allowable strength of the concrete; therefore, no further analysis was deemed necessary, allowing SA Water to move forward with the Stage 2 Safety Review without further expense on seismicity or stability evaluations. INTRODUCTION Myponga Dam is a concrete arch dam on the Myponga River, approximately 4 km west of Myponga township and 55 km south of Adelaide. The original supply was unfiltered water, but since the completion of a filtration plant at the dam site in 1993, the Myponga Reservoir has provided a filtered water supply to southern Adelaide and as far south as Victor Harbor and Goolwa, Australia. The Myponga River and its tributaries rise in a low range of hills, which extend from 10 km east to 17 km north east of Myponga township. The catchment area is 124 square km.
Civil/Structural Engineer, URS, 8181 E. Tufts Ave., Denver, CO 80237; scott_jones@urscorp.com Principal Civil/Structural Engineer, URS, 8181 E. Tufts Ave., Denver, CO 80237; guy_lund@urscorp.com 3 Principal Engineering Geologist, URS Australia Pty Ltd, Level 4, 70 Light Square, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia; bill_moler@urscorp.com 4 Principal Dams and Geotechnical Engineer, SA Water, 250 Victoria Square, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia, derek.moore@sawater.com.au
2 1

Myonga Dam Stability Evaluation

131

Myponga Dam was completed in 1962 to a height of 47.6 m and impounding a storage of 26,800 Mega Liters (ML). The dam consists of central arch with thrust blocks at the abutments. A gated spillway was constructed on the left abutment adjacent to the left thrust block. A public roadway traverses the crest of the dam and a bridge over the spillway. A view of the dam is presented in Figure 1. The central arch of the dam has a crest width of 4.57 m at El. 213.52. The central arch has a length of approximately 166 m along the upstream edge of crest. A 1.48-m-high parapet wall was constructed at the upstream edge of the crest to El. 215.00 in 2009. The upstream face of the dam subtends an angle of 104 degrees with a radius of 91.44 m. The curvature of the downstream face of the dam is defined by a line of centers. A comprehensive inspection of the dam was performed in 2003 to inspect the condition of the dam, review the design methods, and review operations and maintenance procedures for the dam [1.]. A finding in the review of previous design documentation was that the dam had not been designed for seismic loading. To address this, a cursory pseuso-static study was performed and described in the inspection report. The cursory study indicated the potential for overstressing during the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE). Based on these results, recommendations were made to perform a site-specific seismic evaluation and a more detailed seismic stability evaluation that includes the temperature response of the dam.

Figure 1. Photograph of Myponga Dam. In 2009 to 2010, South Australia Water (SA Water) managed a Stage 1 Safety Review of Myponga Dam to inspect and assess key elements of Myponga Dam in order to identify Stage 2 investigations and designs of remedial work that might be necessary. As part of the Stage 1 Safety Review, URS performed an updated stability evaluation of Myponga 132 21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Dam using a three-dimensional linear finite element model of the dam. As per the recommendation of the 2003 inspection, the finite element analysis evaluated site specific ground motions [2.] and included the effects of temperature. The finite element analysis also included an evaluation of normal operating conditions and the updated flood [3.]. This paper describes the approach used to demonstrate the stability of the dam using linear finite element analysis methods. The analysis was performed in two stages. First, the analysis was run using previously developed material properties for the dam and foundation, assuming continuity at all joints. The results from this analysis were evaluated to determine if the model predicted tensile stresses at known joints in the model (e.g., along the dam/foundation interface, contraction joints, etc.). In the second stage of the analysis, the material properties were modified locally to eliminate tensile stresses from these areas and simulate the redistribution of the stresses that would naturally occur in the dam. The following sections describe the geometry, material assumptions, loading conditions, and results of the finite element analyses. MODELING PARAMETERS Finite Element Model The finite element computer program ANSYS [4.] was used to perform analyses of Myponga Dam to determine the maximum stresses and deformations in the dam due to the assumed loading conditions. The ANSYS finite element program is a fully threedimensional finite element method of analysis modeling tool. The ANSYS model that was used to evaluate the stability of Myponga Dam consists of 31,401 elements and 34,787 nodes, resulting in 103,461 degrees of freedom. The model includes a significant portion of the foundation in addition to the concrete dam. The foundation extends approximately one dam height into the abutment and upstream and downstream from the extreme edges of the dam. Myponga Dam is simulated in the finite element model using 8-noded brick elements and 4-noded contact elements. Note that the two foundation types (slate and limestone) were modeled. The bonded contact elements were included along the dam/foundation interface. The ANSYS model that was used to evaluate the stability of Myponga Dam is shown in Figure 2. Fixity within the foundation was modeled using displacement boundary conditions, which were placed on the exterior edges of the foundation portion of the finite element model.

Myonga Dam Stability Evaluation

133

PURPLE SLATE

BRIGHTON LIMESTONE

DAM MAXIMUM SECTION

Figure 2. Finite Element Model of Myponga Dam. Material Properties Myponga Dam was constructed using two different concrete mixes, one for the core of the dam (Class D) and one for the faces of the dam (Class C). The structural material properties of the concrete assumed in the model were selected based on a review of design documentation for Myponga Dam [5.] and on typical values for concrete [6.]. The material properties of the concrete are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Concrete Material Properties
Values Properties Compressive Strength Tensile Strength Static Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity Static Dynamic Unit Weight Poissons Ratio Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat
Class D Concrete Class C Concrete

28.6 2.8 4.2

MPa MPa MPa 23,000 34,500 23.5 MPa MPa kN/m3

32.2 3.1 4.6

MPa MPa MPa

0.20 9.0 x 10-6 13,600 950 / C J/hr/m/C J/kg/C

134

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Table 2. Foundation Material Properties

Properties Limestone Unconfined Compressive Strength Deformation Modulus Poissons Ratio Assumed Shear Strength Parameters Friction Angle Cohesion 60 24,800 MPa MPa Values Slate 43 13,000 0.3 45 0 Degrees MPa MPa MPa

0.3 55 0 Degrees MPa

The structural material properties for the foundation were selected based on rock core test data [7.] and comparison with data from tests on similar rock types [8.]. The dam foundation consists primarily of slate and limestone Adelaidean bedrock of Precambrian age. The left abutment is primarily limestone (Brighton Limestone) and the right abutment is primarily slate (Purple Slate). The maximum section of the dam is also founded on slate. The material properties of the foundation are summarized in Table 2. Loads The behavior of the dam was analyzed for static, flood, and dynamic loads. The static loads include gravity, normal reservoir elevation, seasonal temperature variations, and normal tailwater elevation. The flood loads include assumed probable maximum flood (PMF) reservoir and tailwater elevations. The dynamic loads include the design ground motion time histories and the hydrodynamic added mass. Sediment against the dam was determined to be negligible. The individual loads are summarized in Table 3 and shown on Figure 3. Table 3. Individual Loads
Load
Gravity Reservoir Temperature Tailwater Uplift Hydrodynamic Added Mass MCE Dead weight of dam. Hydrostatic water pressure applied to the upstream face of the dam. Load caused by variation in reservoir and air temperature. Hydrostatic water pressure applied to the downstream face of the dam. Hydrostatic pressure applied to the dam/foundation interface. Added mass to represent the reservoir/dam interaction during the earthquake. Ground accelerations due to the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE).

Description

Myonga Dam Stability Evaluation

135

Mass Elements on Upstream Face of Dam Based on Westergaard to Represent the Reservoir/Dam Interaction during the Earthquake

Temperatures Applied as a Body Load (Induce a Strain relative to the Stress-Free Temperature of the Concrete) Vertical Ground Acceleration Gravity Upstream-Downstream Ground Acceleration

Cross-Canyon Ground Acceleration

Reservoir HW Uplift

TW

Tailwater

Figure 3. Summary of Assumed Loads for Myponga Dam Stability Evaluation. The studies evaluated the usual loading conditions (i.e. normal operations), unusual loading condition (PMF event), and extreme loading conditions (MDE event). The five load combinations and the corresponding individual loads are summarized below. Usual Load Combinations: Winter Gravity, FSL reservoir El. 211.69, winter temperature, and uplift. Spring/Fall Gravity, FSL reservoir El. 211.69, spring/fall temperature, and uplift. Summer Gravity, FSL reservoir El. 211.69, summer temperature, and uplift. Unusual Load Combination: PMF Gravity, PMF reservoir El. 216.87, summer temperature, PMF tailwater El. 173.1, and uplift. Extreme Load Combination: MDE Gravity, FSL reservoir El. 211.69, spring/fall temperature, uplift, hydrodynamic added mass, MDE acceleration time histories. EVALUATION CRITERIA The structural adequacy of Myponga Dam was evaluated for the following failure modes, in accordance with ANCOLD criteria: Overstressing. The computed stresses from the structural analysis were compared with the allowable strength of the concrete to determine the potential for cracking or crushing of the material. The required factor of safety was taken as 4.0, 2.7, and 1.3

136

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

for the usual, unusual, and extreme load combinations, respectively (allowable stresses presented in results tables below). Sliding Stability. The computed sliding stability factor of safety for the dam/foundation interface was compared to the required factor of safety as described in the ANCOLD guidelines. The required factor of safety was taken as 1.5, 1.3, and 1.3 for the usual, unusual, and post-earthquake load combinations, respectively.

Note that overturning (moment equilibrium) is not considered to be a viable failure mode for an arch dam because of the redundancy of load paths in this type of dam. The following paragraphs describe in detail the criteria that were used to evaluate the structural adequacy of Myponga Dam. ANALYSIS RESULTS The results of the analyses are presented in this section for the assumed usual winter and extreme load combinations. These two load combinations were found to be the critical load combinations on the dam. The results are used to evaluate the behavior of the dam with regard to the typical failure modes, which include overstressing and sliding stability along the dam/foundation interface. The results from the finite element analysis were \transformed into local cylindrical coordinate systems so that the stresses in the model of the dam could be more easily evaluated. The local cylindrical coordinate systems are oriented such that the X-axis is normal to the face (i.e. radial), Y-axis is horizontal and tangent to the curvature of the face (i.e. arch), and Z-axis is vertical (i.e. cantilever). The local stress results are evaluated using the horizontal Y- and vertical Z-components, defined as arch and cantilever stresses, respectively. The stress results from the analysis are presented in the form of color contour plots with the contour units in Pascals (Pa). Negative and positive values correspond to compressive and tensile stress, respectively. Usual Load Combination Winter The computed arch and cantilever stresses in the dam were compared to the allowable compressive and tensile stresses (8.0 MPa and 0.8 MPa, respectively, based on the strength values reported in Table 1 and the required factor of safety of 4.0). The arch and cantilever stress plots are shown on Figures 4 and 5. The plots show that the computed compressive stresses are less than the allowable compressive stress. These plots also show that significant areas of the upstream and downstream face are in tension, and the maximum computed tensile stresses are greater than the allowable tensile strength of the concrete. The estimated tensile stresses from the model indicate the potential for cracking of the concrete; however, due to structural characteristics of the dam and interpretation of the plots (as described in the following paragraphs), the stress results do not indicate that there is a concern regarding the safety of the dam.

Myonga Dam Stability Evaluation

137

Stress (Pa)

Figure 4. Arch Stresses Computed for Usual Winter Load Combination.

Stress (Pa)

Figure 5. Cantilever Stresses Computed for Usual Winter Load Combination. The analyses for Myponga Dam were performed using linear analysis assumptions and techniques. Linear analyses use simplified assumptions to simulate structural and 138 21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

material behaviors. The benefit to linear analysis is that the response of concrete dams to loads similar to those used for Myponga Dam is generally well within the limits of linear behavior, and linear evaluations are more cost effective. However, there are limitations in some of the assumptions used to perform linear analysis, and these limitations must be understood to properly evaluate the behavior of the dam. The dam is simulated using homogeneous and monolithic assumptions, thus, the finite element model behaves linearly. This means that external loads on the model can generate tensile stresses as well as compressive stresses. However, Myponga Dam utilized monolithic construction techniques with vertical joints between adjacent concrete blocks. These joints can open and close when subjected to different loads. For example, the colder temperature loads on the dam will cause contraction of the concrete. The vertical joints between the monoliths will open to allow the contraction to develop. During warmer summer temperatures, the joints will close when the concrete expands. The horizontal arch tensile stresses shown in Figure 4 indicate that the load will result in opening of the vertical joints between monoliths. The opening of the joints will significantly reduce, or eliminate, the horizontal arch tensile stresses in the dam. Also, the arch stress results shown on the selected sections of the dam indicate that the high magnitude horizontal tensile stresses are confined to the area near the face. These tensile stresses develop in the model because the effect of the colder temperatures is limited to the face; the thermal diffusivity of concrete requires longer periods of time for thermal loads to affect the core of the dam. The vertical cantilever stresses, shown in Figure 5, indicate that high magnitudes of tensile stress will develop near the base of the upstream face of the dam. These stresses are primarily due to the reservoir load on the dam, which induces a bending moment. However, the re-entrant corner between the foundation and the upstream face of the dam is also influencing the results. The pressures on the upstream face of the model used to simulate the effect of the hydrostatic reservoir load cause the foundation in the model to develop horizontal tensile stresses (upstream/downstream direction) between the boundary conditions on the upstream edge of the foundation and the dam portions of the model. These tensile stresses are transferred into the dam, which result is an over magnification of the vertical stresses in the dam model. The foundation will contain discontinuities, such as joints, bedding planes, and shears, that prevent the horizontal tensile stresses from developing in the foundation. If the foundation discontinuities were simulated in the finite element model, then the cantilever tensile stresses would be reduced, or eliminated. The results from the analysis demonstrate that the finite element model is behaving as anticipated. The computed stress results indicate that minor cracking may develop in the dam along the upstream face, but at worst the cracking would be limited to the surface area of the dam. The linear assumptions have likely resulted in over-estimation of the tensile stresses, and the actual tensile stresses in the dam are significantly less, or eliminated. Based on the discussion presented above, the material properties were changed locally (i.e., deformation modulus was reduced for individual foundation

Myonga Dam Stability Evaluation

139

elements) to prevent the formation of significant tension in areas that are unlikely to resist tension. The arch and cantilever stress plots for the modified analysis are shown on Figures 6 and 7. The results from the analysis show that the maximum computed compressive stresses in the modified finite element model are greater than those for the original model (increased by as much as 80 and 160 percent for the arch and cantilever stresses, respectively). The results indicate that the maximum computed compressive stresses are still less than the allowable compressive strength of the concrete in the dam. This indicates that the dam will have sufficient compressive strength to support the assumed usual winter load combination. The results from the analysis show that the maximum computed tensile stresses in the modified finite element model are less than those for the original model (decreased by as much as 20 and 65 percent for the arch and cantilever stresses, respectively). This reduced tensile stress in the model is a direct result of the reduced deformation modulus in the foundation elements. The results indicate that the cantilever tensile stresses are less than the allowable tensile strength of the concrete in the dam; whereas, they were greater than the allowable strength according to the original model. The results indicate that the maximum computed arch tensile stresses are still greater than the allowable

Stress (Pa)

Figure 6. Arch Stresses Computed for Modified Analysis of Usual Winter Load Combination.

140

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Stress (Pa)

Figure 7. Cantilever Stresses Computed for Modified Analysis of Usual Winter Load Combination. tensile strength of the concrete in the dam. As was previously discussed, the linear assumptions in the finite element model likely resulted in an over-estimation of the magnitude of the tensile stresses, and the actual tensile stresses in the dam are significantly less, or eliminated. If further modifications to the model were performed to simulate the behavior of the vertical joints in the dam, then the horizontal arch tensile stresses would be reduced more than shown. Additional modifications were not considered necessary, because the horizontal tensile stresses are isolated to the area near the face of the dam. The sliding stability factors of safety along the base of the dam, predicted using the original and modified linear finite element analyses, are summarized in Table 4. The results show that the sliding factor of safety increased from the original model to the modified model. The computed increase is due to the modifications in the foundation elements, which reduced the effect of the re-entrant corner at the upstream heel of the model. The reduced foundation modulus allowed the arches in the dam to support more of the load, and the redistribution increased the thrust on the abutments, which increased the normal component of the load and the resistance due to friction. Similarly, the modifications to the deformation modulus in the foundation elements reduced the effect of the vertical tensile stresses at the upstream heel of the dam near the base, which resulted in an increase in the normal force and an increase in the frictional resistance. Therefore, the study shows that simple modifications to the model resulted in an increase in the computed sliding factor of safety.

Myonga Dam Stability Evaluation

141

Table 4. Summary of Sliding Stability Factors of Safety for the Usual Winter Loads.
Analysis Description Spillway Left Abutment Right Abutment Minimum Allowable Factor of Safety Original
2.9 0.9 0.8 1.5

Modified
3.3 1.4 1.4 1.5

Additional modifications could be made to the model to simulate the effect of opened vertical joints; however, the effect would be similar, in that the dam would relax and redistribute the load to the arches, and the sliding stability would also be increased. The computed sliding factors of safety along the right and left abutment are slightly less than the minimum allowable factor of safety. The lower factors of safety are not a concern regarding the stability of the dam. Based on the change in behavior between the original and modified model, the sliding factor of safety will likely be greater than that computed, if the effects of vertical joints were included in the analysis. Based on these results, the dam is considered to satisfy sliding stability criteria for the assumed usual winter load. Extreme Load Combination The linear dynamic analysis was performed using modal superposition. First, a modal analysis was performed on the finite element model using the computer program ANSYS. The dam/reservoir interaction was simulated using mass elements attached to the upstream face of the dam. The first 10 mode shapes were extracted for use in the transient modal superposition analysis. The time history plots (three to twelve seconds after the start of the ground motion) of the maximum horizontal and vertical stresses at any point on the upstream and downstream faces of the dam are shown on Figures 8 and 9. The results show that the computed stresses are less than allowable strength of the concrete for the extreme loading condition. Based on these results, the dam is considered to satisfy overstressing criteria for the assumed extreme load.

142

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Allowable Tensile Stress

4.00E+06 3.00E+06 2.00E+06 1.00E+06 Stress (Pa) 0.00E+00 -1.00E+06 -2.00E+06 -3.00E+06 -4.00E+06 -5.00E+06 -6.00E+06 3 4 5 6 7 Time (s) 8 9

Upstream Face Downstream Face D t F

10

11

12

Figure 8. Arch Stress Envelopes Computed for the Extreme Load Combination.
Allowable Tensile Stress
4.00E+06 3.00E+06 2.00E+06 1.00E+06 Stress (Pa) 0.00E+00 -1.00E+06 -2.00E+06 -3.00E+06 -4.00E+06 -5.00E+06 -6.00E+06 3 4 5 6 7 Time (s) 8 9 10 11 12 Upstream Face Downstream Face D t F

Figure 9. Cantilever Stress Envelopes Computed for the Extreme Load Combination.

Myonga Dam Stability Evaluation

143

CONCLUSIONS An evaluation of the results from the analyses of the Myponga Dam led to the following conclusions: A linear static analysis of the dam using the measured material properties of the dam indicates the potential for overstressing (i.e., cracking) and sliding during the usual loading conditions. As the dam has withstood this loading condition approximately every year since construction was completed, modifications to the model were required to more accurately describe the behavior of the dam. A linear static analysis of the dam using modified material properties in local areas (areas not capable of carrying the predicted tensions) indicates that the computed stresses in the dam are generally within acceptable limits and that the sliding stability of the dam satisfies safety criteria. A linear dynamic analysis of the dam indicates that the computed stresses in the dam are within acceptable limits; therefore, the dam is considered to satisfy safety criteria for the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE).

Based on the results of these analyses, no further studies under the Stage 2 Safety Review were recommended to demonstrate the stability of the dam. REFERENCES [1.] [2.] [3.] [4.] [5.] URS Australia Pty Ltd (2003). Myponga Dam Comprehensive Inspection Final Report, Hackney, SA, Australia, May 7. URS (2010). Myponga Dam Ground Motion Time History Draft Report, Pasadena, CA, January 14. SKM (2010). Myponga Dam Flood Hydrology, Malvern, VIC, Australia, February 26. ANSYS, Inc. (2007). ANSYS Mechanical, Canonsburg, PA. Hryniewicz, Z. W. and R. B. Stevens (1958). Report of Design of Concrete Mixes for Myponga Dam, The Engineering and Water Supply Department, South Australian Government, 22 May. Bureau of Reclamation (2006). State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams at the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, January. The Engineering and Water Supply Department (1962). Myponga Dam Geological Committee Part I: Meeting Minutes and Part II: Geological Reports, South Australian Government.

[6.]

[7.]

144

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

[8.] [9.]

Bureau of Reclamation (1974). Rock Mechanics Properties of Typical Foundation Rock Types, REC-ERC-74-10, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado. ANCOLD (1998). Guidelines for Design of Dams for Earthquake, Australian National Committee on Large Dams, August.

Myonga Dam Stability Evaluation

145

146

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations