See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/294247282

Investigating stress concentration

Article · January 2007

CITATION READS
1 144

2 authors:

Martin Wieland Sujan Malla

Independent Dam Consultant Axpo Power AG
75 PUBLICATIONS   728 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Plavinas HPP Latvia View project

Rudbar Lorestan dam project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Wieland on 01 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ARCH DAMS

Investigating stress concentration

Dr Martin Wieland and Dr Sujan Malla present the results of a detailed investigation of
the stress concentration at a dam-foundation contact of a 250m high arch dam due to the
water pressure, and discuss the effects of cracking on the three-dimensional behaviour

Figure 1: 3D arch dam model (left) and equivalent 2D model of crown cantilever with part of
the water load carried by crown cantilever (remaining part is carried by arch action)

T
HE analysis of the stresses and deformations in a highly
statically indeterminate arch dam was a challenging task
for structural engineers in the past when the analyses had
to be performed without the benefit of today's electronic
tools. Therefore, simplified methods were developed, such as the
trial load method based on the beam theory. Most of the existing
arch dams built before the 1980s were analysed using this method.
In this method, the arch dam is modelled by a series of cantilever
beams and arches, which are interconnected at their intersections.
The elastic supports of the cantilevers and arches were represented
by different types of foundation springs, which were derived from
half space solutions. The resulting three-dimensional (3D) struc-
tural system would be a beam model. The number of cantilevers
and arches in such models was generally kept small in order to min-
imise the computational effort. Besides the computational effort,
the main advantage of beam models is that the stresses vary linear-
ly across the sections of the cantilevers and arches due to the
assumption of plane sections. This also includes the contact between
the cantilevers and arches with the foundation rock. Because of its
simplicity and the fact that the behaviour of beam models can be
easily understood by the dam engineers, the trial load method has
survived almost up to now. The arch dam analysts still refer to can-
tilever and arch stresses, although such a distinction is less mean-
ingful today when an arch dam is analysed using 3D solid elements.
When the dam body is rigidly connected to the foundation rock,
then stress singularities occur at the upstream heel and the down-
stream toe of the dam under the assumption of the linear-elastic
behaviour of mass concrete and rock [3]. These stresses are infinite
if there is a sharp corner at the heel or toe of the dam. In many FE
analyses of arch dams, relatively coarse models are used and stress-
es are often calculated only at integration points of finite elements.
Thus, the real nature of the stress concentration along the edges may
not show up in the results of the stress analyses [4].
High tensile stresses occur mainly at the upstream heel due to the
water load exerted by the reservoir, leading to crack formation.
However, as the bond between the dam body and the rock founda-
tion is not perfect, and since the rock may be jointed or may under-
go inelastic deformations under high local stresses, these cracks are
usually not detected, and they may have no effect on the safety of
the dam. This applies mainly to cracks in massive arch dams with a
base width of several tens of meters. In slender dams, cracking is a
much more severe problem, as they may reduce the shear resistance
and thus may propagate further due to the high shear forces at the
base of the cantilevers. Crack propagation is also enhanced by water
pressure in the cracks, as it reduces the effective stress and thus the
shear strength of the cracked section.
Although high tensile stresses are mainly observed at the
upstream heel of the dam under the usual load combinations, high
dynamic tensile stresses may also occur at the downstream toe
under seismic actions. In view of the fact that the tensile strength

28 JANUARY 2007 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION


is less than 10% of the compressive strength of mass concrete (a
similar ratio may be assumed for the foundation rock), the empha-
sis of the subsequent discussion is on the zone of high tensile stress-
es at the upstream heel of the dam. As soon as a tension crack
develops in the dam or the foundation, water will penetrate into
the crack. Therefore, the wet crack at the upstream heel will prop-
agate further than a dry crack at the downstream toe of the dam.
The objective of this paper is to analyse and discuss the stress
concentration at the upstream heel of a large arch dam. For that
purpose, the load combination comprising the gravity load acting
on the dam and the water load due to the reservoir are considered.
The effects of the properties of the foundation rock (elasticity,
joints, anisotropy) as well as the contact between mass concrete
and rock are discussed.
Based on a linear-elastic FE analysis, it can be expected that cracks
exist at the upstream heel of very large arch dams. Such cracks – if
they exist – can only be observed when the reservoir is empty or by
exploratory drilling in the highly stressed zone. Because of the silt
at the bottom of the reservoir, the cracks are usually not visible.
The problem of high tensile stresses at the upstream heel of large
arch dams is well known and in some cases, such as the Katse dam
in Lesotho, the tensile stresses are controlled by a special joint with
variable pressure according to the reservoir level.
The best known and oldest solution is the peripheral joint or
the so-called 'Pulvino', which was first developed by Italian dam
engineers. It should be mentioned that Enguri arch dam in
Georgia, the highest arch dam in the world, also has a periph-
eral joint. However, the great majority of arch dams do not have
any foundation joints at all.
O VERVIEW OF NUMERICAL ANALYSES
The following types of analyses were carried out for a 250m
high arch dam:
• 3D linear-elastic analysis of dam-foundation system assuming
that the dam and the foundation are perfectly bonded. This is
the standard analysis for arch dams. The results of this analysis
were then used to determine the load sharing between the arch
and cantilever actions.
• 3D nonlinear analysis of dam-foundation system assuming that
no tensile stresses can be transferred at the dam-foundation con-
tact; hence, a crack will form under tension. Two conditions of
the dam-foundation interface were considered: (a) without uplift
pressure (dry joint), and (b) with uplift pressure (wet joint;
hydrostatic pressure was varied linearly from the maximum
value at upstream heel to zero at downstream toe).
• Equivalent 2D analysis of crown cantilever of an arch dam by
determining the water pressure acting on the cantilever in such
a way that the radial displacements obtained from a linear-elas-
tic analysis of the 2D crown cantilever are the same as those of
Figure 2: Zones with crack opening at dam-foundation contact for dry joint (left) and wet joint with triangular uplift pressure (right)
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM JANUARY 2007
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ARCH DAMS
the 3D arch dam (Note: this approach is basically the same as
that of the trial load method). The following cases were inves-
tigated using the equivalent 2D model: (i) Linear-elastic behav-
iour of mass concrete and foundation rock (isotropic
properties): investigation of the effect of mesh size at upstream
heel and downstream toe of the dam; parameter study by vary-
ing the modulus of elasticity (E) of the foundation rock (ratio
of E-modulus of concrete to that of rock: 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0,
for each of which the equivalent water load acting on the 2D
cantilever was determined separately); (ii) Linear-elastic behav-
iour of mass concrete and foundation rock (orthotropic mate-
rial properties of rock): investigation of the effect of the
orientation of the joint systems; (iii) Nonlinear analysis with
no-tension contact elements at the dam-foundation contact:
Two conditions of the dam-foundation interface were consid-
ered: (a) without uplift pressure (dry joint), and (b) with uplift
pressure (wet joint; hydrostatic pressure was varied linearly
from the maximum value at upstream heel to zero at down-
stream toe); (iv) Embedded dam with perfect bond between
mass concrete and foundation rock; linear-elastic behaviour of
mass concrete and foundation rock (isotropic properties): vari-
ation of embedment from 5m to 10m; (v) Nonlinear material
behaviour of concrete and rock with biaxial strength proper-
ties based on the Kupfer model [2] of concrete available in
ADINA [1]: parameter studies with the following values of ten-
sile strength of both concrete and rock: 1.0, 0.5 and 0.1 MPa.
The stresses were computed in all cases for the load combination com-
prising the dead load of the dam and the full water load. The dam dis-
placements were calculated only for the water load. The dead load
was applied in one step; incremental construction of the dam and the
grouting sequence of the contraction joints were not simulated.
In the nonlinear analyses, the gravity load was applied first, fol-
lowed by the water load. The sequence of the load application is
important in nonlinear analyses. In the nonlinear concrete model
with a tensile strength of 0.1 MPa, a large number of iterations were
required to achieve convergence. The error tolerance was defined in
terms of a global energy criterion with a tolerance value of 0.1%.
In the 3D arch dam and 2D cantilever models with no-tension
contact elements at the dam-rock interface, the tolerance of the con-
tact forces was specified as 2%.
Numerous checking analyses were needed for the verification of
the reliability of the results of the nonlinear analyses. In comparison
to the linear-elastic analyses, the nonlinear analyses are very time-
consuming and need a lot of experience.
The 3D arch dam-foundation model and the equivalent 2D model
of the crown cantilever are shown in Figure 1. The main advantage
of an equivalent 2D model is that a very fine mesh can be used to
perform parameter studies very efficiently. In the 3D arch dam
models, usually a relatively coarse mesh is used and local effects such
as those discussed in this paper cannot be analysed efficiently.
29
 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ARCH DAMS

E-moduli in the tangential and vertical directions of the joints were

20 taken as 33GPa and 6.6GPa, respectively. The equivalent shear mod-
15 ulus was taken as the geometric mean of the shear moduli in the two
orthogonal directions.
10
For the contact elements at the dam-foundation contact, a fric-
5
zz (MPa)

tion angle of 35° was assumed (friction coefficient: 0.7).

0 Most of the material parameters of the nonlinear Kupfer model
-5 of the mass concrete are those of the standard concrete model pro-
-10
vided in the computer program ADINA. The most important para-
meter in this model is the tensile strength, as this quantity governs
-15
the formation of cracks. Concrete and rock were assumed to be
-20 homogeneous and isotropic materials.
-25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Upstream face
Distance (m)
Downstream face
D ISCUSSION OF RESULTS
In Figure 2, the cracked zone of the dam-foundation contact in the
Figure 3: Distribution of vertical stresses along the dam foundation contact 3D model is shown for the dry and wet conditions. It can be noted
(equivalent 2D model of crown cantilever; load combination: dead load plus that the crack width at the base of the dam increases from 8m when
water load; modulus of elasticity of concrete and rock: 33 GPa and 24 GPa, the uplift pressure was not considered (dry joint) to 30m (about half
respectively; linear-elastic analysis) of the base width) when the uplift pressure with a triangular distri-
bution was applied at the dam-rock contact (wet joint).
In the subsequent figures, the results of the equivalent 2D crown
M ATERIAL PROPERTIES cantilever model are shown.
For the 3D arch dam analysis, mass concrete and rock were assumed Figure 3 shows the distribution of the vertical stresses along
to be homogeneous and linear-elastic materials. The modulus of elas- the base of the dam obtained from a linear-elastic analysis (dead
ticity of mass concrete was taken as 33 GPa and that of the foun- load and equivalent water load according to Figure 1). The stress
dation rock as 24 GPa. The Poisson's ratios of mass concrete and concentrations at the upstream heel and downstream toe are
rock were taken as 0.20 and 0.25, respectively. The mass density of clearly visible. For that purpose, a very fine FE mesh as shown
the concrete was chosen as 2500kg/m3 and no gravity load was in Figure 7 was used.
applied on the foundation rock. In Figure 4, the vertical stresses and the crack opening dis-
For the 2D cantilever analyses, the same elastic properties of placements at the dam-foundation contact are shown for the dry
the mass concrete were taken as for the 3D analysis. However, and wet joint conditions. The effect of the foundation stiffness
the E-modulus of the rock was varied from 6.6 to 66 GPa in the on the crack width is shown. It can be clearly seen that a rigid
sensitivity analyses in which isotropic linear-elastic material foundation leads to a larger crack than a soft one. In the figure,
behaviour was assumed. the total stresses are plotted, i.e. the effective stresses would
The analyses with orthotropic behaviour of the rock foundation become zero when the vertical compressive stresses are less than
were performed for joint orientations of 0°, 45°, 90° and 135°. The 2.5MPa at the base of a 250m high dam.

2 1.2
Crack opening displacement (mm)

0 1.0 Er = Ec
-2 Er = 0.5 Ec
0.8
-4 Er = 2 Ec
zz (MPa)

0.6
-6
0.4
-8 Er = Ec
0.2
-10 Er = 0.5 Ec
-12 Er = 2 Ec 0.0

-14 -0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (m) Distance (m)
Upstream face Downstream face Upstream face Downstream face

0 8
Crack opening displacement (mm)

-2 7 Er = Ec

-4 6 Er = 0.5 Ec
5 Er = 2 Ec
-6
zz (MPa)

4
-8
3
-10 Er = Ec 2
-12 Er = 0.5 Ec 1
-14 Er = 2 Ec 0
-16 -1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (m) Distance (m)
Upstream face Downstream face Upstream face Downstream face

Figure 4: Distribution of total vertical stresses along dam-foundation contact (left) obtained by using equivalent 2D model of crown cantilever for different values
of modulus of elasticity of rock (load combination: dead load plus water load), and corresponding crack opening displacements (right); the upper diagrams are for
the dry joint condition and the lower ones for the wet joint condition with a triangular distribution of uplift pressure at the dam rock interface

30 JANUARY 2007 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ARCH DAMS
Figure 5: Maximum (top) and minimum (bottom) principal stresses in 2D model of crown cantilever with perfect bond at dam-foundation contact (left figures) and
with no-tension contact with triangular distribution of uplift pressure at dam-rock interface (right figures) (modulus of elasticity and rock: 34 GPa; load combina-
tion: dead load plus water load; shear stresses in MPa)
In Figure 5, the effect of the crack opening at the dam-foun-
dation contact on the stress distribution within the crown can-
tilever is shown. It can be seen that the maximum principal
tensile stress reduces from 25MPa (at upstream heel) to 1MPa
when a crack is allowed to form along the dam-foundation
contact. The largest compressive principal stress also reduces;
however, the zone with high compressive stresses becomes bigger
Figure 6: Shear stresses in 2D model of crown cantilever for dam-foundation
interface with perfect bond (left), with dry joint (middle), and with wet joint
subjected to triangular uplift pressure (right) (modulus of elasticity and rock:
34 GPa; load combination: dead load plus water load; shear stresses in MPa)
at the downstream toe of the dam.
In Figure 6, the shear stresses in the dam are shown for the follow-
ing conditions: (i) dam bonded to foundation, (ii) dry joint at dam-
foundation contact, and (iii) wet joint at dam-foundation contact.
Finally, the crack pattern that would develop at the base of the
dam is shown in Figure 7, when the same ADINA concrete materi-
al model with a tensile strength of 0.5MPa is used for both the mass
concrete and the foundation rock.
When tensile strengths of both the concrete and the rock are
equal to 1MPa, 0.5MPa and 0.1MPa, cracks originating at the
upstream heel of the dam and with depths of 15m, 19m and 21m,
respectively, would develop in the foundation rock. The effect of
water in the cracked zone is not taken into account. Therefore, if
the water pressure would be included, the orientation and length
of the crack may change. It is interesting to note that the crack
extends into the foundation and does not propagate along the
dam-foundation contact, provided that the bond between the dam
and foundation remains intact. However, if the strength proper-
ties at the dam-foundation contact are much inferior to those of
the parent mass concrete and rock (rock properties are usually
improved by consolidation grouting), then the crack may devel-
op along the dam base.
The results of the other parameters such as the orthotropic prop-
erties of the foundation rock and the embedment of the dam in the
foundation are not presented in this paper in the form of figures.
In the case of the embedment of the dam in the foundation and a
perfect bond between concrete and rock at the embedded faces of
the dam, the stress concentration will occur at the location where
the foundation surface intersects with the dam body, instead of the
edges of the dam base.
For the orthotropic rock properties, the maximum principal stress-
es at the upstream heel of the dam are as follows for different incli-
32 JANUARY 2007 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

nations of bedding planes or joint systems: 0°: -2.5MPa (compres-
sion); 45°: 13.1MPa; 90°: 26.2MPa; and 135°: 15.4MPa. At a dis-
tance of about 30m from the dam-foundation contact, the stresses
within the crown cantilever do not depend on the properties of the
foundation rock. However, the orthotropic rock properties have an
important effect on the deformations of the dam.
C ONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from the comprehensive
numerical stress analysis of a 250m high arch dam subjected to dead
load and water load:
• 1 – At the upstream heel and the downstream toe of a concrete
dam (reentrant corners), stress concentrations occur with theoret-
ically 'infinite' elastic stresses, which may lead to cracks in the foun-
dation rock, the concrete dam or along the dam-foundation
contact.
• 2 – For isotropic conditions, a crack originating from the upstream
heel of the dam is likely to develop in the rock foundation.
• 3 – A crack may develop along the dam-foundation contact when
its strength properties are inferior to those of the mass concrete
and the foundation rock.
• 4 – The uplift pressure at the dam-foundation contact greatly
increases the crack width; this is mainly a problem for very high
dams (in the present study the maximum hydrostatic pressure
reaches 2.5 MPa). For the formation of cracks, the effective stress-
es in a cracked section are relevant.
• 5 – The embedment of the dam in the foundation rock has only a
minor effect on the stress concentration at the upstream face.
• 6 – The maximum tensile stresses at the upstream heel become
larger with increasing foundation stiffness.
• 7 – The maximum crack sizes obtained from the different
parameter studies are as follows: a) 3D arch dam model with
dam-rock interface modelled by contact elements and with tri-
angular distribution of uplift pressure at dam-foundation
interface: crack width of up to 30m; b) 2D model of crown
cantilever with dam-rock interface modelled by contact ele-
ments and with triangular distribution of uplift pressure at
dam-foundation interface: crack width of 10 m for foundation
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM JANUARY 2007
View publication stats
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ARCH DAMS
Figure 7: Crack distribution
computed using concrete model
of ADINA with tensile strength of
0.5 MPa for both mass concrete
and rock (left), and fine mesh
used at the base of dam (right)
rock half as stiff as dam concrete, and crack width of 28m for
foundation rock two times stiffer than dam concrete; c) 2D
model of crown cantilever with concrete material model
having a tensile strength of 0.1MPa for both mass concrete
and foundation rock (without the effect of water pressure in
the crack): 21m deep crack in rock foundation
• 8 – Cracking can be expected to occur at the upstream heel of a
massive arch dam. These cracks are usually stable, as long as shear
stresses do not exceed the shear strength of mass concrete and
rock. Shear cracks are generally a problem for slender arch dams
in wide valleys, where the cantilevers carry a substantial part of
the water load. In narrow valleys, most of the water load is car-
ried by arch action.
• 9. – If the crack at the base of a dam opens, the deformations of
the dam will increase resulting in a redistribution of the stresses,
i.e. the arch action will attract more forces.
• 10 – The existence of cracks at the upstream heel of large arch
dams can only be detected by exploratory boreholes or by the
observation of changes of the seepage discharge when the foun-
dation crack has damaged the grout curtain. IWP & DC
Dr Martin Wieland, Chairman, ICOLD Committee on
Seismic Aspects of Dam Design, and Dr Sujan Malla,
Poyry Energy Ltd., Hardturmstrasse 161, CH-8037
Zurich, Switzerland. Email: martin.wieland@poyry.com,
sujan.malla@poyry.com
References
[1] ADINA R & D (2003), Theory and Modeling Guide, Volume I: ADINA,
Report ARD 03-7, ADINA R & D, Inc., Watertown, USA.
[2] Kupfer H., Hilsdorf H.K., Rusch H. (1969), Behaviour of Concrete under
Biaxial Stresses, ACI Journal, Vol. 66, pp. 656-666.
[3] Wieland M. (2005), Stress management, International Water Power &
Dam Construction, March 2005, pp. 32-36.
[4] Wieland M., Guimond R., Malla S. (2005), Uncertainties in Seismic
Analysis of Concrete and Embankment Dams, Proceedings of the 73rd
Annual Meeting of ICOLD, Tehran, Iran, 1-6 May 2005, Paper no. 015-S1.
33