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

net/publication/346270881

Seismic Analyses for Menta Embankment Dam: Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses

with HS-Small (Hardening Small Strain) Model

Chapter · January 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-51085-5_30

CITATIONS READS

0 82

2 authors:

H. Lu Corneliu Athanasiu
Multiconsult Norge AS Multiconsult
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Corneliu Athanasiu on 13 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Seismic Analyses for Menta
Embankment Dam: Nonlinear Dynamic
Analyses with HS-Small (Hardening
Small Strain) Model

H. Lu and C. Athanasiu

Abstract Dynamic behaviour of a rockfill dam with bituminous facing is assessed

through non-linear time domain FEM (Finite Element Method) analyses. Plaxis HS-
small model is used for the rockfill materials. Sensitivities analysis of two different
time acceleration histories, bituminous facing stiffness with different temperature and
with or without upstream reservoir is undertaken. The dynamic response is generally
in line with the expectation. The post-earthquake settlement is estimated 0.21 m, so
the dam is unlikely to be overtopped. There could be cracks in the middle part of
the bituminous facing. The cracks are more likely to occur when the temperature
is 1 °C than 28 °C. Even though a non-linear analysis of this type is more time
costly, today’s computer hardware makes it possible for the engineer to perform a
full nonlinear dynamic analysis within reasonable time.

Keywords Dynamic · Rockfill dam · HS-small model

1 Introduction

Large dams have been designed systematically against earthquakes since the 1930s
[1]. With severe failure consequences, the dam safety under the seismic load condi-
tions is always a topic for the dam design, particularly in the earthquake active regions.
With the advanced computation technology and modern criteria, it is achievable to
detail assess the dam safety under the seismic load in the engineering design practice.
This paper addresses the response of the seismic analyses for embankment dam in a
workshop case prepared for the 15th ICOLD International Benchmark Workshop on
Numerical Analysis of Dams—Theme B Seismic analysis of Menta Embankment
dam [1].
Menta Dam is a bituminous-faced rockfill dam located in southern Italy [1]. The
dam is 90 m high 325 m long. The dam crest is at 1431.75 masl. The inclination
for both upstream and downstream slope inclination is 1:1.8. The downstream face

H. Lu (B) · C. Athanasiu
Multiconsult, Oslo, Norway
e-mail: hui.lu@multiconsult.no

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 527
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
G. Bolzon et al. (eds.), Numerical Analysis of Dams, Lecture Notes
in Civil Engineering 91, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51085-5_30
528 H. Lu and C. Athanasiu

Fig. 1 Overview of the model layout mesh and analysis stage structure

has two berms. Fully supplied water level is at 1424.5 masl. The bituminous face is
0.35 m thick. There is a drainage layer under the bituminous face and embankment
foundation interface. There is a concrete gallery at the upstream face of the dam. The
Plaxis 2D FEM model layout is shown in Fig. 1.

2 Analysis Methodology

The analysis is undertaken in commercial FEM program Plaxis2D version 2019 with
the HS-small soil model for the rockfill. Nonlinear dynamic method is applied to this
analysis.
It is assumed that the dam is constructed to EL 1366 masl, EL 1396 masl and to
the dam crest EL 1431.75 masl in three stages. It is also assumed that the seismic
loads are applied afterwards (Table 1).
Moreover, sensitivity analysis is undertaken for two different time acceleration
earthquakes, under fully supplied water level condition versus empty reservoirs and
different assumed stiffness of the bituminous facing under the temperature of 1 and
28 °C.

Table 1 Modelling strategy

Construction stage
01 Initial stage
02 Construction stage-1
03 Construction stage-2
04 Construction stage-3
05 Under the operation load condition
Description
Before any construction
Assuming the dam is constructed to EL 1366 masl
Assuming it is constructed to EL 1396 masl
Assuming it is constructed to the dam crest EL 1431.75
masl
Assuming the upstream water level is filled up to EL
1424.5 masl and the steady state condition is achieved
Seismic Analyses for Menta Embankment Dam … 529

3 FEM Model and Inputs

3.1 FEM Model

The layout of the Plaxis2D FEM model is shown in Fig. 1.

For the mesh generation, the element size is recommended to fulfil the requirement
suggested by Kuhlmeyer and Lysmer [2] in Formula (1). With estimated lowest
Vs,min = 400 m/s, f max = 5 Hz, average element size should be <10 m. The element
size can be referred to Fig. 1. The average mesh size is 4.84 m.

λ Vs,min
Average Element Si ze ≤ = (1)
8 8 f max

3.2 Earthquake, Material and Structure Inputs

Time Acceleration Histories. Both Friuli (1976) and Central Italy earthquake (2016)
are input into the analysis. They are shown in Fig. 2. The horizontal time acceleration
histories are scaled to the design PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) = 0.26 g. The
peak accelerations for the vertical time acceleration histories are around 0.2 g. The
duration of the Friuli and Central Italy earthquakes are selected as 20 s and 18 s,
respectively. Both horizontal and vertical time acceleration histories are applied at
the model base.

Fig. 2 Input time acceleration histories: upper-left horizontal Friuli EQ (PGA = 0.26 g); upper-
right horizontal Central Italy EQ (PGA = 0.26 g); lower-left vertical Friuli EQ; lower-right vertical
Central Italy EQ
530 H. Lu and C. Athanasiu

Material Properties for Rockfill, Concrete and Rock Mass. Since many input
′
parameters for the rockfill are depending on the consolidation stress, σ3c , a simple
′
static model is made (Fig. 3). It is observed that the σ3c for the rockfill is generally
ranging between 0 and 600 kPa. It is decided, therefore, to separate the rockfill
′
into two materials. For the material with σ3c ranging from 0 to 200 kPa, the input
′
parameters are selected based on the triaxial test at σ3c = 100 kPa; for the material
′
with σ3c ranging between 200 and 600 kPa, the input parameters are selected based
′
on the triaxial test at σ3c = 300 kPa.
The common strength, stiffness, hydraulic and damping material properties are
summarised in Table 2. All the parameters are either specified by the proposer or
well-established in the engineering practice.
According to ICOLD B148 [3], the fundamental frequency for the embankment
dam is typically in range between 0.67–2 Hz. The material Rayleigh damping coef-
ficient α and β are assigned to make sure that the frequency in the range out of
0.1–10 Hz has over 10% of extra damping ratio. So, the analysis result will be
focused on the dominated frequency (Fig. 4). HS-small model is selected to simu-
late the behaviour of rockfill material. The reason for this is that while HS model

Rockfill and drainage Rockfill and drainage

average ı’3 = 100kPa average ı’3 = 300kPa
respectively respectively

Fig. 3 σ3′ distribution and material adopt to it

Table 2 Common strength, stiffness and hydraulic material inputs

Parameters Rock mass Concrete gallery Rockfill/Drainage Rockfill/Drainage
average average
′ = 100 kPa
σ3c ′ = 300 kPa
σ3c
Material type Linear-elastic Linear-elastic HS-small, drained HS-small, drained
Unit weight γ 27 kN/m3 24 kN/m3 23 kN/m3 23 kN/m3
Permeability k 1E−07 m/s 1E−10 m/s 1E−05 m/s 1E−05 m/s
(rockfill) (rockfill)
1E−04 m/s 1E−04 m/s
(drainage) (drainage)
Elastic modulus E 1E+06 kPa 30E+06 kPa – –
Poisson’s ratio ν 0.25 0.2 – –
Cohesion c′ – – 1 kPa 1 kPa
Friction ϕ′ – – 48.8° 42.6°
Seismic Analyses for Menta Embankment Dam … 531

Fig. 4 Rayleigh damping of the Rockfill material to damp out the vibration outside of the 0.1–10 Hz
dominated frequency

assumes elastic behaviour during unloading/reloading in small strain range, the HS-
small model assumes the elasto-plastic behaviour of soils during loading, unloading
and reloading in small strain range. This ensures a realistic stress-strain hysteresis
curves and damping ratios during earthquake analysis. Input parameters are shown
in Table 3.
The HS-small model parameter estimation is based on combination of the given
test results [1], Plaxis soil model manual [4] and our best engineering practice. The
ref
E 50 is calculated from σ1′ − εa curve from the triaxial tests. E 50 is calculated by
′
E 50 , c, ϕ, σ3c and m according Formula (2). The parameter m is estimated as 0.5 as
the best practice of the granular soil. Since the loading and reloading oedometer test
ref ref
and void ratio are not available, E oed is estimated as 0.8 × E 50 suggested by Plaxis
ref
as the Formula (3). It is also suggested by Plaxis to estimate E ur as three times of
ref
E 50 . γ0.7 is obtained from the G0 and corresponding t ult and Gult obtained from σ1′
and εa curve suggested by Formula (5).
m
c cos ϕ − σ3′ sin ϕ

ref
E 50 = E 50 (2)
c cos ϕ + pr e f sin ϕ

Table 3 Detail HS-small

Detail HS-small Rockfill/drainage Rockfill/drainage
model input parameters for
model input average: σ 3c = average: σ 3c =
the rock fill and drainage
parameters 100 kPa 300 kPa
layer
ref
E 50 100E + 03 kPa 86.92E + 03 kPa
ref
E ode 80E + 03 kPa 69.53E + 03 kPa
ref
E ur 300E + 03 kPa 260.74E + 03 kPa
m 0.5 0.5
ν ur 0.2 0.2
ref
G0 375E + 03 kPa 446.5E + 03 kPa
γ0.7 0.000223 0.0002783
532 H. Lu and C. Athanasiu

ref ref
E 50 = 1.25E oed (3)
m
c cos ϕ − σ3′ sin ϕ

ref
G0 = G0 (4)
c cos ϕ + pr e f sin ϕ
G0γ
τ = Gs γ = (5)
1 + 0.385 γγ0.7

ref
G 0 is calculated from the G0 , c, ϕ, σ3′ and m as Formula (4) shown. G0 is obtained
from the E 0 − σ3′ curve (Fig. 5), using ν ur = 0.2. The m = 0.5 is verified and well fit
with the given test results. The G/G0 function and damping ratio function is controlled
ref
by G 0 and γ0.7 in Plaxis HS-small model. The G/G0 functions are converted to E 0 /E
function and axial strain εa . They are presented in Fig. 6. The function curves are

ref ref ref

Fig. 5 Selection of G 0 for materials 1 (G 0 = 375,000 kPa) and 2 (G 0 = 446,500 kPa) based
on cyclic triaxial test results; m = 0.5

Fig. 6 Normalized E/E0 functions obtained from Plaxis HS-small model from the corresponding
input parameters as Table 2 comparing with the given cyclic triaxial test results
Seismic Analyses for Menta Embankment Dam … 533

Fig. 7 G/G0 functions and damping ratio function obtained from the HS-small model (Rockfill
σ1′ = 100 kPa on the left, Rockfill σ1′ = 300 kPa on the right). They are compared with cyclic
triaxial test results of rockfill from 35 large rockfill dams from China [10]

overlapped and comparable with the given cyclic triaxial test results [1]. Moreover,
G/G0 functions and damping ratio functions are overlapped and compared with the
cyclic triaxial test data from 35 large rockfill dams in China [5] shown in Fig. 7. It
indicates that the inputs are generally in the correct range.
ref ref ref
Moreover, the relative magnitude of E 0 , E 50 and E ur is also compared to
experience and recommendations from literature for stiff clays and cohesion less,
high relative density soils shown in Fig. 8. According to Vermeer [6] and Cox and
Mayne [7] the ratio E 50 /E 0 and E ur /E 0 are 0.1 and 0.4 respectively. The corresponding
inputs for rockfill material are comparable to them.
Bituminous Facing. Bituminous facing is assumed isotropic elastic perfectly-plastic
material. EA and EI is calculated from complex Young’s modulus E* with assuming
the bituminous facing is 0.35 m thick. Since the isotropic model is assumed, the lower
tensile strength 950 kPa is used and the compressive strength is assumed the same
as the tensile strength. Maximum allowed bending moment is calculated 5/6 * EI
suggested by Plaxis [4]. The Rayleigh damping coefficient is assumed the same as
the Rockfill. The detail inputs for the bituminous facing is presented in Table 4.
Boundary Condition. For the seepage analysis at the fully supplied operation condi-
tion, hydraulic head boundary EL 1424.5 masl is applied to the dam upstream bound-
aries. Bituminous facing is simulated as the impermeable interface layer. Seepage
review boundary condition is given to the dam downstream surfaces. No-flow
boundary condition is given to the model left, right and bottom boundaries.
For the dynamic analysis, free-field boundary conditions are applied on the both
sides of the model. The compliant base boundary condition is applied at the bottom
of the model.
534 H. Lu and C. Athanasiu


ref ref
Fig. 8 Stiffness degradation curve, Recommended ratios for stiff soils: E 50 E0 = 0.1,

ref ref
E ur E 0 = 0.4. Comparison with input data

Table 4 Material inputs for

Parameters Bituminous Bituminous facing
the bituminous facing with
facing 1 °C 28 °C
difference temperatures
Material type Isotropic elastic perfectly-plastic
Unit weight γ 24 kN/m2
Complex young 14E + 06 kPa 2.8E + 06 kPa
modulus E*
EA 4.9E + 06 980E + 03 kN/m
kN/m
EI 50.02E + 03 10E + 03 kN * m2 /m
kN * m2 /m
Complex poisson’s 0.16 0.33
ratio ν*
Tensile strength N p,1 950 kN/m 950 kN/m
Maximum allowed 41.68E + 03 8.34E + 03
bending movement kN * m/m kN * m/m
MP
Rayleigh damping 0.124
coeff. α
Rayleigh damping 0.003152
coeff. β
Seismic Analyses for Menta Embankment Dam … 535

Fig. 9 Total settlement contour plot at the end of the construction. The maximum settlement is
about 0.46 m

4 Analysis Results

4.1 End of Construction

Three construction stages are considered. At the end of the construction, the total
settlement is about 0.46 m (Fig. 9), which is in line with the total settlement (0.5–1%
of the dam height) of a well-constructed rockfill dam according to the engineering
practice.

4.2 Pore Pressure Distribution in the Operation Condition

The steady-state seepage analysis is undertaken to simulate the initial stress condition
at the full supplied water level (EL 1424.5 masl) during the operation.
The pore pressure distribution is presented in Fig. 10. In general, the pore pressure
is not built up in the rockfill. The functionality of the bituminous facing and the
drainage layers are well simulated in the model.

Fig. 10 Pore pressure after the fully supplied water level (EL 1424.5 masl) after the steady-state
seepage analysis
536 H. Lu and C. Athanasiu

Fig. 11 Variation of acceleration amplified factor at crest against PGA from case histories (Category
A are the old dams, the Category B are the new well-compacted rockfill dams) [8]

4.3 Dynamic Behaviour

Crest Acceleration. The response spectrum at the model base and dam crest centre
are plotted in Fig. 12. The peak crest acceleration is 0.808 g and 0.606 g respectively
for these two earthquakes. The crest to base acceleration amplification factor is 3.11
and 2.33 respectively. According to the existing actual measurements summarised
by Yu et al. [8] in Fig. 11, the crest acceleration amplification factor for the Central
Italy EQ is in line with the measurements, but it is higher above the average under
the Friuli EQ.

Fig. 12 Response spectrum at the model base and dam crest for EQ1 Friuli (left) and EQ2 Central
Italy (right)
Seismic Analyses for Menta Embankment Dam … 537

Dam Fundamental Frequency. Dam fundamental frequency is obtained from the

Fourier power spectrum of the x-direction velocity at the dam crest centre (Fig. 13).
The fundament frequency for the dam under Friuli and Central Italy earthquake
is 2.00 and 0.72 Hz respectively when the reservoir is at EL 1424.5 masl. The
fundament frequency for the empty reservoir is 2.00 and 0.44 Hz respectively. The
typical fundamental frequency for the embankment dam is in the range (0.67–2 Hz)
discussed by ICOLD [3]. Different fundament frequency of the same dam at the
different earthquake is likely due to the input shear strain depending stiffness for the
rockfill.
Maximum Shear Strain. The maximum shear strain is 1.3% and 0.8% respectively
under these two earthquake loads (Fig. 14). According to the common engineering
practice and given triaxial tests, the failure shear strain is generally well above 2% for
the rockfill materials. Moreover, a failure pattern has not been formed as indicated
in the maximum shear strain plots. It indicates that the overall stability of the dam is
acceptable.
Dam Centre Line Deflection and Post-earthquake Deformation. The dam
maximum centre line deflection and post-earthquake centre line deflection are
presented in the Fig. 15. The highest horizontal deflection is as expected at the dam
crest, and they are 0.37 m and 0.19 m respectively. The horizontal displacements

Fig. 13 Fourier spectrum of the x-direction velocity, the fundamental frequency for Menta dam
under Friuli EQ and Central Italy EQ is about 2.0 Hz (left) and 0.72 Hz (right) respectively

Fig. 14 Maximum shear strain of Menta dam under Friuli EQ for example
538 H. Lu and C. Athanasiu

Fig. 15 Dam maximum centre line deflection (left) and the dam post-earthquake centre line
deflection

due to the Central Italy earthquake are significantly lower than those due to Friuli
earthquake.
The post-earthquake deformation is generally vertical and towards the down-
stream direction as expected (Fig. 16). The maximum post-earthquake settlement
is 0.21 m under the Friuli earthquake. It is well below the freeboard height, thus
overtopping is not likely to happen.
The acceleration amplification, deformation and maximum shear strain, due to
the Friuli earthquake are generally significantly more critical than those induced by
the Central Italy earthquake.

Fig. 16 Typical post-earthquake settlement under Friuli EQ for example

Seismic Analyses for Menta Embankment Dam … 539

Fig. 17 Bituminous facing deformation for different temperatures (1 °C at the left and 28 °C at the
right)

4.4 Bituminous Facing

Bituminous Facing Deformation. Shown in Fig. 17, the deformation of the bitumi-
nous facing is about 0.284 m and 0.281 m respectively for the same Friuli earthquake
but different temperature. The bituminous facing near the dam crest has the largest
deformation since the acceleration and deformation of the dam crest is the highest.
So the deformation pattern is as expected.
Bituminous Facing Normal Force. The maximum experienced and the last step
normal force in the bituminous facing is presented in Fig. 18. It can be seen that
when temperature is 1 °C, both the tensile and compressive stress has reached to the
capacity of 950 kPa. It is over 1/2 of length in the middle of the bituminous facing
that load is equal to the capacity. When temperature is 28 °C, the length the load
is equal to capacity is reduced to 1/3 of bituminous facing length: Moreover, the
compressive stress is never of the strength for the entire bituminous facing length.
It is quite difficult to assess if the bituminous facing will crack even through the
force is over the capacity. The reason is that the bituminous is viscous-elastic-plastic
material with self-healing ability. However, it is almost certain that the situation
bituminous facing shall be favourable at 28 °C than 1 °C.

Fig. 18 Maximum experienced and the last step normal force of the bituminous facing at the
different temperatures (1 °C at the left and 28 °C at the right)
 540 H. Lu and C. Athanasiu

5 Conclusion and Discussion

The conclusion and discussion are presented as follows:

• The fundamental frequency of the dam is believed around 0.72–2 Hz. It is compa-
rable with the ICOLD description. Different fundamental frequency for the same
dam under different earthquake is likely due to the shear strain depending stiffness.
• The dam crest to base amplification factors are 3.11 and 2.33 respectively for two
earthquakes. Amplification factor is well in line with the actual measurements.
• Deformation and the dam centre line deflection pattern is as expected. The
post-earthquake deformation and maximum settlement are 0.37 m and 0.21 m
respectively. They are generally low and acceptable compared with the freeboard.
• Regarding to acceleration amplification, deformation and maximum shear strain,
the Friuli earthquake is believed more critical than the Central Italy earthquake.
• It is quite difficult to comment if the bituminous facing will crack. It is almost
certain that the bituminous facing shall be favourable at 28 °C than 1 °C.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank section leaders Robin Wood and Steffen Giese
in section dam and underground and marine geotechnics respectively in Multiconsult for giving us
the opportunity to undertake this study.

References

1. Russo G, Vecchietti A, Cecconi M, Pane V, Marco SD, Fiorino A (2019) 15th international
benchmark workshop on numerical analysis of dams, Theme B seismic analyses of Menta
Embankment damhttps://www.eko.polimi.it/index.php/icold-bw2019/2019
2. Kuhlmeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems.
J Soil Mech Found Div 99:421–427
3. ICOLD (2016) Bulletin 148, selecting seismic parameters for large dams guidelineshttps://www.
icold-cigb.org/GB/publications/bulletins.asp
4. Plaxis (2019) Material models manual https://www.plaxis.com/support/?category=1100
5. Jia YF, Chi SC (2012) Application of Rockfill dynamical characteristic statistic curve in mid-
small scale concrete face dam dynamic analysis. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on
earthquake engineering, Lisbon
6. Vermeer P.A (2001) On single anchored retaining walls. PLAXIS Bulletin No 10
7. Cox C, Mayne P (2015) Soil stiffness constitutive model parameters for geotechnical problems:
a dilatometer testing approach. In: Proceedings DMT-2015
8. Yu L, Kong X, Xu B (2012) Seismic response characteristics of earth and Rockfill dams. In:
Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon

View publication stats