Mario L. Cassimo - Relatorio (Cadam)

1 - Model parameters
CADAM - Model parameters Page 1

by Martin Leclerc, M. Ing.
NSERC / Hydro-Quebec / Alcan Industrial Chair on Structural Safety of Concrete Dams
École Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada
General Information:
Project: Análise de Estabilidade de Barragem Gravidade
Dam: Barragem de Ribaué
Owner: Mário Lourenço Cássimo
Dam location: Nampula
Project engineer: Mário Lourenço Cássimo
Analysis performed by: Eng.º Ezequiel Fernandez Carvalho
Date: 09/08/2019
Geometrical Dimensions & Concrete Volumetric Mass(  ):
L4
G
F
L3
L2
DOWNSTREAM
E
UPSTREAM
1 2 1 ,0 0 0
1 2 0 ,0 0 0 1 2 0 ,5 0 0
1 1 9 ,0 0 0
1 1 9 ,0 0 0
D I
H C
1 1 7 ,5 0 0 A B
1 1 7 ,0 0 0
L1
1 1 6 ,0 0 0
1 1 5 ,0 0 0 L1 = 15,000 m
1 1 4 ,5 0 0
L2 = 1,500 m
L3 = 3,000 m
1 1 3 ,0 0 0
1 1 2 ,0 0 0 L4 = 3,000 m
1 1 1 ,5 0 0 1 1 1 ,5 0 0 1 1 1 ,0 0 0
Elev. A = 107,000 m
1 1 1 ,0 0 0
Elev. B = 107,000 m
1 1 0 ,0 0 0 1 1 0 ,0 0 0 1 1 0 ,0 0 0 Elev. C = 112,000 m
1 0 9 ,0 0 0 Elev. D = 111,000 m
1 0 8 ,5 0 0
Elev. E = 119,000 m
Elev. F = 122,000 m
Elev. G = 122,000 m
Elev. H = 110,000 m
Elev. I = 110,000 m
 2400,00 kg/m³
10/08/2019 de
SEMESTRE\Projecto 23:20:43
Barragem\Barragens_de_Betao-Cadam\CADAM - PROJECTOS\Mario Lourenco Cassimo.dam
Material Properties:
Option 1 Option 2
Concrete strength Shear strength
Material name f'c ft Cohesion Angle (  ) 
n Curve type
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (deg) (kPa) (kPa)
Betao - B2 30000,0 0,000 Peak: 2500,000 51,340 0,000 Option 1
Residual: 0,000 45,000 0,000 Option 2
Base joint 30000,0 0,000 Peak: 196,200 32,000 200000,00 0 Option
Residual: 1 0,00 0 45,00 0 0,00 0 Option
Rock Passive Shear Strength Properties:

Consideration of Unit mass Cohesion Friction angle Failure plane angle
passive shear strength (kg/m³) (kPa) (deg) (deg)
No 2400,000 0,000 30,000 30,000
Lift Joint(s):
Upstream end Downstream end
ID Material name Elevation Position x Elevation Position x Length Inertia
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m^4)
1 Betao - B2 121,000 1,500 121,000 5,455 3,955 5,1535734
2 Betao - B2 120,500 1,500 120,500 5,932 4,432 7,2537830
3 Betao - B2 119,000 1,500 119,000 7,364 5,864 16,800409
4 Betao - B2 117,500 1,179 117,500 8,795 7,617 36,825668
5 Betao - B2 117,000 1,071 117,000 9,273 8,201 45,969168
6 Betao - B2 116,000 0,857 116,000 10,227 9,370 68,557597
7 Betao - B2 115,000 0,643 115,000 11,182 10,539 97,546603
8 Betao - B2 114,500 0,536 114,500 11,659 11,123 114,69083
9 Betao - B2 113,000 0,214 113,000 13,091 12,877 177,91999
10 Betao - B2 111,500 0,000 111,500 14,523 14,523 255,24856
11 Betao - B2 111,000 0,000 111,000 15,000 15,000 281,25000
12 Betao - B2 110,000 0,000 110,000 15,000 15,000 281,25000
13 Betao - B2 109,000 0,000 109,000 15,000 15,000 281,25000
14 Betao - B2 108,500 0,000 108,500 15,000 15,000 281,25000
15 Base joint 107,000 0,000 107,000 15,000 15,000 281,25000
10/08/2019 de
Pre-Cracked Lift Joint(s):

Upstream end Downstream end
ID Material name Elevation Crack length Elevation Crack length
(m) (m) % of joint length (m) (m) % of joint length
1 Betao - B2 121,000 121,000
2 Betao - B2 120,500 120,500
3 Betao - B2 119,000 119,000
4 Betao - B2 117,500 117,500
5 Betao - B2 117,000 117,000
6 Betao - B2 116,000 116,000
7 Betao - B2 115,000 115,000
8 Betao - B2 114,500 114,500
9 Betao - B2 113,000 113,000
10 Betao - B2 111,500 111,500
11 Betao - B2 111,000 111,000
12 Betao - B2 110,000 110,000
13 Betao - B2 109,000 109,000
14 Betao - B2 108,500 108,500
15 Base joint 107,000 107,000
Concentrated Mass(es):
ID Elevation Position x Horizontal mass Vertical mass
(m) (m) (kg) (kg)
1 114,500 7,500 67149,000 67149,000
Reservoirs, Ice & Silt:

Water volumetric weight Crest overtopping pressure Ice
 9,810kN/m³ Upstream pressure = 0,00% Load = 0,000kN
Downstream pressure = 50,00% Thickness = 0,000 m
Operating reservoir elevations
Elevation = 119,000m
Upstream Downstream
119,000 m 111,000 m Silt Floating debris
Elev. = 111,500m Load = 0,000kN
Flood reservoir elevations
 27,000kN/m³ Apply at elev. = -1,000 m
Upstream Downstream
 20,000deg Max. elevation = 2,000 m
120,000 m 112,000m Assumption: Active pressure
Uplift pressures:
Uplift pressures are considered as an external load (linearisation of effective stresses)
10/08/2019 de
Cracking options:
Cracking is considered for all combinations ? YES
Tensile strength:
Usual Flood Seismic Post-seismic

Crack initiation: ft / 3,000 ft / 2,000 ft / 1,000 ft / 3,000
Crack propagation: ft /10,000 ft /10,000 ft /10,000 ft /10,000
Dynamic magnification: ft * 1,500
Uplift pressure updates:

Static analyses: Full uplift pressures applied to the crack section
Seismic analyses: Uplift pressures remain unchanged
Post-seismic analyses: Full uplift pressures applied to the crack section
Downstream closed crack:Restore uncracked uplift condition
Drain effectivness: No drain effectiveness upon cracking
Numerical options:
Convergence method: Bracketing + Bi-section method
Accuracy: Medium (1E-6)
10/08/2019 de
II - Results Report
CADAM - Results report Page 1
by Martin Leclerc, M. Ing., Research Engineer
Date: 09/08/2019
Load Combination Factors:

Usual Flood Seismic #1 Seismic #2 Post-seismic #1
Self-weight 1,0000
Hydrostatic (upstream) 1,0000
Hydrostatic (downstream) 1,0000
Uplift pressures 1,0000
Silts 1,0000
Ice
post-tensioning
Applied forces
Floating debris
Seismic (horizontal)
Seismic (vertical)
Combination Required Safety Factors:

Peak sliding factor 3,0000 2,0000 1,3000 1,3000 2,0000
Residual sliding factor 3,0000 1,3000 1,0000 1,0000 1,1000
Overturning factor 1,5000 1,1000 1,1000 1,1000 1,1000
Uplifting factor 3,0000 1,1000 1,1000 1,1000 1,1000
Combination allowable stresses:

Tension (% of ft) 0,0 50,0 90,9 90,9 66,7
Compression (% of f'c) 33,3 50,0 90,9 90,9 66,7
10/08/2019 23:22:09
DO SONGO\QUARTO ANO\SEGUNDO SEMESTRE\Projecto de Barragem\Barragens_de_Betao-Cadam\CADAM - PROJECTOS\Mario Lourenco Cassimo.dam
Usual Combination (Stresses):

Joint Cracking Normal stresses Allowable normal stress Shear stresses
ID U/S elevation Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Tension Compression Upstream Maximum Maximum at Downstream
(m) (%) of joint (%) of joint (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (% of joint) (kPa)
1 121,000 -27,855 -13,550 0,000 -9990,000
2 120,500 -43,040 -16,183 0,000 -9990,000
3 119,000 -88,280 -18,489 0,000 -9990,000
4 117,500 -103,469 -27,133 0,000 -9990,000 22,172 -9,870 48,625 25,900
5 117,000 -108,592 -29,904 0,000 -9990,000 23,270 -9,414 48,131 28,545
6 116,000 -118,540 -35,695 0,000 -9990,000 25,401 -7,927 47,113 34,073
7 115,000 -128,008 -41,920 0,000 -9990,000 27,430 -5,942 46,009 40,015
8 114,500 -146,979 -149,225 0,000 -9990,000 31,495 -36,662 38,153 142,442
9 113,000 -176,534 -127,008 0,000 -9990,000 37,829 -23,600 39,440 121,235
10 111,500 -202,012 -114,423 0,000 -9990,000 0,000 -12,765 24,442 109,222
11 111,000 -212,075 -110,214 0,000 -9990,000 0,000 -9,354 22,225 105,205
12 110,000 -216,201 -133,557 0,000 -9990,000 0,000 40,729 50,000 0,000
13 109,000 -218,027 -159,199 0,000 -9990,000 0,000 48,577 50,000 0,000
14 108,500 -218,156 -172,804 0,000 -9990,000 0,000 52,501 50,000 0,000
15 Base joint -215,402 -216,760 0,000 -9990,000 0,000 64,273 50,000 0,000
10/08/2019 23:22:09
Usual Combination (Stability):

Joint Safety factors Resultants over ligament Final uplift Rock wedge
ID U/S elevation Sliding Overturning Uplifting Normal Shear Moment Position Normal Resistance
(m) Peak Residual toward U/S toward D/S (kN) (kN) (kN·m) % of joint (kN) (kN)
1 121,000 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 -81,87 0,00 -18,6 44,24160 0,00 0,000
2 120,500 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 -131,23 0,00 -44,0 42,44178 0,00 0,000
3 119,000 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 -313,03 0,00 -200,0 39,10555 0,00 0,000
4 117,500 > 100 45,06883 11,71936 8,80220 9,87545 -497,39 11,04 -369,1 40,25849 56,04 0,000
5 117,000 > 100 28,94610 9,58307 7,11500 8,05891 -567,92 19,62 -441,1 40,53070 80,45 0,000
6 116,000 > 100 16,36883 7,45363 5,40836 6,24075 -722,60 44,15 -606,1 41,04779 137,88 0,000
7 115,000 > 100 11,40974 6,39881 4,54128 5,33050 -895,44 78,48 -796,8 41,55647 206,77 0,000
8 114,500 > 100 16,58568 11,09013 5,63993 7,70979 -1647,39 99,33 23,2 50,12639 245,52 0,000
9 113,000 > 100 11,06751 8,31483 4,67876 6,15703 -1954,30 176,58 -684,3 47,28066 378,96 0,000
10 111,500 > 100 8,32800 6,85604 4,10870 5,30085 -2297,75 275,91 -1539,4 45,38668 534,25 0,000
11 111,000 > 100 7,65959 6,51101 3,98044 5,10665 -2417,17 315,57 -1909,9 44,73243 588,60 0,000
12 110,000 > 100 6,44054 5,47706 3,59171 4,56532 -2623,18 407,29 -1549,6 46,06187 735,75 0,000
13 109,000 84,47671 5,82411 4,89592 3,28930 4,20443 -2829,19 485,77 -1103,0 47,40083 882,90 0,000
14 108,500 78,40807 5,58501 4,69110 3,16150 4,06563 -2932,20 525,01 -850,3 48,06667 956,48 0,000
15 Base joint 3,15113 5,04287 4,26107 2,84275 3,75333 -3241,21 642,73 25,5 50,05240 1177,20 0,000
Required: 3,000 3,000 1,500 1,500 3,000
10/08/2019 23:22:09
III - Loads report
CADAM - Loads report Page 1
Date: 09/08/2019
Static Loads:
D: Dead load
M: Masses
H: Horizontal hydrostatic
Vnc or Vfc V: Vertical hydrostatic
Flood U: Uplift
level I: Ice
S: Silt
Pc P: Post-tension
FD F: Applied force
Normal FD: Floating debris
level
I
u: Upsream
d: Downstream
Pd c: Crest
Vfu h: Horizontal
v: Vertical
Vnu n: Normal level
D f: Flood level
Mv
Silt Flood
Normal
level Hfu level
Hnu level
Sv Fv
 Vfd
Vnd
Sh Fh
Hnd
Hfd
l
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
Un
Uf
X
10/08/2019 23:21:29de Barragem\Barragens_de_Betao-Cadam\CADAM - PROJECTOS\Mario Lourenco Cassimo.dam

DO SEMESTRE\Projecto
Dam Self-Weight (D) & Added Mass(es) Weight (Mv):

Lift joints Dam Added mass(es)
ID U/S Elevation Weight (D) position (x-axis) Elevation Weight (Mv) position (x-axis)
(m) (kN) (m) (m) (kN) (m)
1 121,000 -81,869 3,250 121,477 0,000 0,000
2 120,500 -131,231 3,381 121,202 0,000 0,000
3 119,000 -313,028 3,793 120,338 0,000 0,000
4 117,500 -551,067 4,194 119,422 0,000 0,000
5 117,000 -644,173 4,322 119,108 0,000 0,000
6 116,000 -851,024 4,575 118,471 0,000 0,000
7 115,000 -1085,394 4,824 117,828 0,000 0,000
8 114,500 -1212,898 4,949 117,504 -658,732 7,500
9 113,000 -1636,690 5,320 116,527 -658,732 7,500
10 111,500 -2121,769 5,691 115,546 -658,732 7,500
11 111,000 -2295,540 5,819 115,221 -658,732 7,500
12 110,000 -2648,700 6,043 114,591 -658,732 7,500
13 109,000 -3001,860 6,215 113,992 -658,732 7,500
14 108,500 -3178,440 6,286 113,701 -658,732 7,500
15 Base -3708,180 6,460 112,851 -658,732 7,500
Upstream Hydrostatic Forces - Operating level (Hnu & Vnu):

Reservoir normal operating elevation (upstream side) = 119,000 m
Lift joints Horizontal Vertical
ID Elevation Force (Hnu) Elevation Force (Vnu) position (x-axis)
(m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
4 117,500 11,036 118,000 -2,365 1,286
5 117,000 19,620 117,667 -4,204 1,214
6 116,000 44,145 117,000 -9,460 1,071
7 115,000 78,480 116,333 -16,817 0,929
8 114,500 99,326 116,000 -21,284 0,857
9 113,000 176,580 115,000 -37,839 0,643
10 111,500 275,906 114,000 -51,502 0,500
11 111,000 313,920 113,667 -51,502 0,500
12 110,000 397,305 113,000 -51,502 0,500
13 109,000 490,500 112,333 -51,502 0,500
14 108,500 540,776 112,000 -51,502 0,500
15 Base 706,320 111,000 -51,502 0,500
Upstream Hydrostatic Forces - Flood level (Hfu & Vfu):

Reservoir flood elevation (upstream side) = 120,000 m
Horizontal Vertical
Joint Elevation Force (Hfu) Elevation Force (Vfu) position (x-axis)
ID (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
3 119,000 4,905 119,333 0,000 0,000
4 117,500 30,656 118,333 -5,518 1,316
5 117,000 44,145 118,000 -8,409 1,250
6 116,000 78,480 117,333 -15,766 1,114
7 115,000 122,625 116,667 -25,226 0,976
8 114,500 148,376 116,333 -30,744 0,907
9 113,000 240,345 115,333 -50,451 0,696
10 111,500 354,386 114,333 -66,218 0,556

11 111,000 397,305 114,000 -66,218 0,556
12 110,000 490,500 113,333 -66,218 0,556
13 109,000 593,505 112,667 -66,218 0,556
14 108,500 648,686 112,333 -66,218 0,556
15 Base 828,945 111,333 -66,218 0,556
Downstream Hydrostatic Forces - Operating level (Hnd & Vnd):

Reservoir normal operating elevation (downstream side) = 111,000 m
Horizontal Vertical
Joint Elevation Force (Hnd) Elevation Force (Vnd) position (x-axis)
ID (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
12 110,000 -4,905 110,333 0,000 0,000
13 109,000 -19,620 109,667 0,000 0,000
14 108,500 -30,656 109,333 0,000 0,000
15 Base -78,480 108,333 0,000 0,000
Downstream Hydrostatic Forces - Flood level (Hfd & Vfd):

Reservoir flood elevation (downstream side) = 112,000 m
Horizontal Vertical
Joint Elevation Force (Hfd) Elevation Force (Vfd) position (x-axis)
ID (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
10 111,500 -1,226 111,667 -1,171 14,364
11 111,000 -4,905 111,333 -4,682 14,682
12 110,000 -19,620 110,667 -4,682 14,682
13 109,000 -44,145 110,000 -4,682 14,682
14 108,500 -60,086 109,667 -4,682 14,682
15 Base -122,625 108,667 -4,682 14,682
Silt Forces (Sh & Sv):

Silt elevation (upstream side) = 111,500 m
Horizontal Vertical
Joint Elevation Force (Sh) Elevation Force (Sv) position (x-axis)
ID (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)
11 111,000 1,655 111,167 0,000 0,000
12 110,000 14,893 110,500 0,000 0,000
13 109,000 14,893 110,500 0,000 0,000
14 108,500 14,893 110,500 0,000 0,000
15 Base 14,893 110,500 0,000 0,000
Uplift forces (Un & Uf):

Normal operating level Flood level
Joint Elevation Force (Un) position (l-axis) p factor Force (Uf) position (l-axis) p factor
ID (m) (kN) (m) (USBR) (kN) (m) (USBR)
3 119,000 0,000 0,000 28,761 1,955
4 117,500 56,041 2,539 93,402 2,539
5 117,000 80,455 2,734 120,682 2,734
6 116,000 137,881 3,123 183,842 3,123
7 115,000 206,774 3,513 258,468 3,513
8 114,500 245,521 3,708 300,081 3,708
9 113,000 378,959 4,292 442,119 4,292
10 111,500 534,255 4,841 641,106 5,110
11 111,000 588,600 5,000 735,750 5,500
12 110,000 735,750 5,500 882,900 5,833
13 109,000 882,900 5,833 1030,050 6,071
14 108,500 956,475 5,962 1103,625 6,167
15 Base 1177,200 6,250 1324,350 6,389

IV - Stabillity Drawing
CADAM - Stability drawing Page 1
By Martin Leclerc, M. Ing.

NSERC / Hydro-Quebec / Alcan Industrial Chair on Structural Safety of Concrete Dams, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada
Project: Análise de Estabilidade de Barragem Dam location: Nampula Analysis performed by: Eng.º Ezequiel Fernandez Carvalho
Dam: Barragem de Ribaué Date: 09/08/2019 Project engineer: Mário Lourenço Cássimo
Usual combination (effective stress analysis)
Joint # Crack Normal Principal Uplift Crack Normal Principal Uplift

(% joint) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (% joint) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
1 -27,855 -27,855 0,000 -13,550 -25,896 0,000
2 -43,040 -43,040 0,000 -16,183 -30,928 0,000
3 -88,280 -88,280 0,000 -18,489 -35,335 0,000
4 -103,469 -108,220 14,715 -27,133 -51,856 0,000
5 -108,592 -113,578 19,620 -29,904 -57,152 0,000
6 -118,540 -123,983 29,430 -35,695 -68,219 0,000
7 -128,008 -133,886 39,240 -41,920 -80,117 0,000
8 -146,979 -153,728 44,145 -149,225 -285,193 0,000
9 -176,534 -184,640 58,860 -127,008 -242,733 0,000
10 -202,012 -202,012 73,575 -114,423 -218,680 0,000
11 -212,075 -212,075 78,480 -110,214 -210,637 0,000
12 -216,201 -216,201 88,290 -133,557 -133,557 9,810
13 -218,027 -218,027 98,100 -159,199 -159,199 19,620
14 -218,156 -218,156 103,005 -172,804 -172,804 24,525
15 -215,402 -215,402 117,720 -216,760 -216,760 39,240
10/08/2019 23:23:50
CADAM - Stability drawing Page 2
By Martin Leclerc, M. Ing.

NSERC / Hydro-Quebec / Alcan Industrial Chair on Structural Safety of Concrete Dams, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada
Project: Análise de Estabilidade de Barragem Dam location: Nampula Analysis performed by: Eng.º Ezequiel Fernandez Carvalho
Dam: Barragem de Ribaué Date: 09/08/2019 Project engineer: Mário Lourenço Cássimo
Usual combination (stability analysis)
Joint # SSF SSF OSF OSF USF Normal Shear Moment Res. Pos.
(peak) (residual) (U/S <-) (-> D/S) (kN) (kN) (kN·m) (% joint)
1 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 -81,9 0,0 -18,6 44,242
2 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 -131,2 0,0 -44,0 42,442
3 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 -313,0 0,0 -200,0 39,106
4 > 100 45,069 11,719 8,802 9,875 -497,4 11,0 -369,1 40,258
5 > 100 28,946 9,583 7,115 8,059 -567,9 19,6 -441,1 40,531
6 > 100 16,369 7,454 5,408 6,241 -722,6 44,1 -606,1 41,048
7 > 100 11,410 6,399 4,541 5,330 -895,4 78,5 -796,8 41,556
8 > 100 16,586 11,090 5,640 7,710 -1647,4 99,3 23,2 50,126
9 > 100 11,068 8,315 4,679 6,157 -1954,3 176,6 -684,3 47,281
10 > 100 8,328 6,856 4,109 5,301 -2297,7 275,9 -1539,4 45,387
11 > 100 7,660 6,511 3,980 5,107 -2417,2 315,6 -1909,9 44,732
12 > 100 6,441 5,477 3,592 4,565 -2623,2 407,3 -1549,6 46,062
13 84,477 5,824 4,896 3,289 4,204 -2829,2 485,8 -1103,0 47,401
14 78,408 5,585 4,691 3,162 4,066 -2932,2 525,0 -850,3 48,067
15 3,151 5,043 4,261 2,843 3,753 -3241,2 642,7 25,5 50,052
3,000 3,000 1,500 1,500 3,000
10/08/2019 23:23:50

Mario L. Cassimo - Relatorio (Cadam)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mario L. Cassimo - Relatorio (Cadam)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Model parameters

CADAM - Model parameters Page 1

 2400,00 kg/m³

Rock Passive Shear Strength Properties:

Pre-Cracked Lift Joint(s):

Reservoirs, Ice & Silt:

Usual Flood Seismic Post-seismic

Uplift pressure updates:

Load Combination Factors:

Combination Required Safety Factors:

Combination allowable stresses:

Usual Combination (Stresses):

Usual Combination (Stability):

10/08/2019 23:21:29de Barragem\Barragens_de_Betao-Cadam\CADAM - PROJECTOS\Mario Lourenco Cassimo.dam

Dam Self-Weight (D) & Added Mass(es) Weight (Mv):

Upstream Hydrostatic Forces - Operating level (Hnu & Vnu):

Upstream Hydrostatic Forces - Flood level (Hfu & Vfu):

10/08/2019 23:21:29de Barragem\Barragens_de_Betao-Cadam\CADAM - PROJECTOS\Mario Lourenco Cassimo.dam

Downstream Hydrostatic Forces - Operating level (Hnd & Vnd):

Downstream Hydrostatic Forces - Flood level (Hfd & Vfd):

Silt Forces (Sh & Sv):

Uplift forces (Un & Uf):

10/08/2019 23:21:29de Barragem\Barragens_de_Betao-Cadam\CADAM - PROJECTOS\Mario Lourenco Cassimo.dam

By Martin Leclerc, M. Ing.

Usual combination (effective stress analysis)

Joint # Crack Normal Principal Uplift Crack Normal Principal Uplift

1 -27,855 -27,855 0,000 -13,550 -25,896 0,000

2 -43,040 -43,040 0,000 -16,183 -30,928 0,000

3 -88,280 -88,280 0,000 -18,489 -35,335 0,000

4 -103,469 -108,220 14,715 -27,133 -51,856 0,000

5 -108,592 -113,578 19,620 -29,904 -57,152 0,000

6 -118,540 -123,983 29,430 -35,695 -68,219 0,000

7 -128,008 -133,886 39,240 -41,920 -80,117 0,000

8 -146,979 -153,728 44,145 -149,225 -285,193 0,000

9 -176,534 -184,640 58,860 -127,008 -242,733 0,000

10 -202,012 -202,012 73,575 -114,423 -218,680 0,000

11 -212,075 -212,075 78,480 -110,214 -210,637 0,000

12 -216,201 -216,201 88,290 -133,557 -133,557 9,810

13 -218,027 -218,027 98,100 -159,199 -159,199 19,620

14 -218,156 -218,156 103,005 -172,804 -172,804 24,525

15 -215,402 -215,402 117,720 -216,760 -216,760 39,240

By Martin Leclerc, M. Ing.

Usual combination (stability analysis)

13 84,477 5,824 4,896 3,289 4,204 -2829,2 485,8 -1103,0 47,401

14 78,408 5,585 4,691 3,162 4,066 -2932,2 525,0 -850,3 48,067

15 3,151 5,043 4,261 2,843 3,753 -3241,2 642,7 25,5 50,052

3,000 3,000 1,500 1,500 3,000

You might also like