Cracking In Thin Arch Concrete

Dam – Nonlinear Dynamic

Structural Analysis
Presentation Overview

• Investigations
• Finite Element Model
• Material Properties
• Loads
• Static Analysis Results
• Dynamic Analysis Results
• Conclusions
Investigations
1. Foundation Stability Analysis
2. Geophysical Investigations Spectral Analysis of Surface
Waves (SASW) Surveys
– Phase I: Downstream face of Block 3 of the dam located near
the left abutment and approximately 85 feet below the crest
– Phase II: Entire extent of the crack on the downstream face of
the dam including Blocks 2 through 9
Concrete Quality vs. Velocity
Finite Element Model
Concrete Arch Dam

Existing Cracks

Overflow Spillway

Downstream

Reservoir

C Block

AB Block
Material Properties
Foundation Properties Final Values

Average Density 165 lb/ft3 Material Properties Water

Young’s Modulus 8.3 x 106 lb/in2 Modulus of Elasticity

189.7 lb/in2

Poisson’s Ratio 0.19 Poisson’s Ratio

0.4999

Density
62.4 lb/ft3
Material Properties Concrete Testing
Bulk modulus K
316,166.7 lb/in2
Average Density 147 lb/ft3 Pressure Cutoff
0.0 lb/in2
Young’s Modulus 6.5 x 106 lb/in2
Viscosity Coefficient
Poisson’s Ratio 0.17 0.0

Compressive strength (f’c) 5,500 lb/in2

Tensile strength 300 lb/in2

Maximum aggregate size 2.5 in

Nonlinear Concrete Material Models
• Material 159 - uses a damage parameter with a range
from zero (indicating no damage) to one (indicating
cracking or crushing). This parameter is displayed
under the “Effective Plastic Strain” title in the output.
The area of damaged concrete is shown in red in the
effective plastic strain plots.

• Winfrith material - damage is displayed in terms of

crack orientation. The orientation matches the
orientation a physical crack would take.
Loads
• Gravity
• Foundation uplift pressure
• Temperature 5,000-year = 0.27g
• Seismic loads (5k,10k and 50k year) 10,000-year = 0.33g
50,000-year = 0.54g
Gravity Load Application
• Dam
• Foundation Rock Blocks
• Water

Dam

Foundation
Rock Blocks Water
Application of Uplift Pressure
• Full Uplift on Both Release Plane and AB Base Plane
• Full Uplift on Release Plane and 50% Uplift on AB Base Plane

Release Plane

AB Base Plane
Temperature Load Application

Hot Temperature, Downstream

Upstream
Seismic Load Application
Free-Field vs Measured Motion
Static Analysis Results

Reservoir Water Pressure Applied to the Upstream Face of the Dam

Dynamic Analysis Results
Concrete Damage in Arch Dam Under Different Seismic Loadings

5K STU, Material 159 5K STU, Winfrith

10K STU, Material 159 10K STU, Winfrith

50K STU, Material 159 50K STU, Winfrith

Concrete Damage in Arch Dam Under Different Temperatures

Cold Temperature,
Winfrith

Cold Temperature,
Material 159

Average Temperature,
Average Temperature, Winfrith
Material 159

Hot Temperature,
Hot Temperature, Winfrith
Material 159
Concrete Damage in Arch Dam under Full Uplift and 50%
Uplift on AB Base Plane

50% Uplift, Material 159 50% Uplift, Winfrith

Full Uplift, Material 159

Full Uplift, Winfrith
Dynamic Analysis Results
Foundation Blocks Displacement

Apex of AB Block,
Node C

Foundation,
Node B

Apex of C Block,
Node A
Concrete Damage Caused by Rock Block Displacement

Concrete Damage, Small Rock Concrete Damage, Large Rock

Block Displacement, Material 159 Block Displacement, Material 159

Concrete Cracks, Small Rock

Concrete Cracks, Large Rock
Block Displacement, Winfrith
Block Displacement, Winfrith
Rock Block Displacement Caused by 50%Uplift and Full
Uplift – Material 159

50% Uplift, Material 159 Full Uplift, Material 159

Apex of C Block, Node A

Foundation, Node B

Apex of AB Block, Node C

Rock Block Displacement Caused by 50%Uplift and Full
Uplift – Winfrith

50% Uplift, Winfrith Full Uplift, Winfrith

Apex of C Block, Node A

Foundation, Node B

Apex of AB Block, Node C

 Conclusions
• Results of the structural analysis indicate the ability for an arch dam to redistribute
stresses through arch action even in a damaged state resulting in stability of the dam.

• The earthquake magnitude has a significant impact on the stability of both concrete dam
and foundation blocks. However a time history of displacements of the dam at various
locations show that the displacements stabilize after the seismic events, indicating stability
of the arch.

• The uplift pressures are critical to understanding the movement of foundation blocks. The
arch dam experienced more overall cracking on both upstream and downstream faces
under larger uplift pressures. In general, the stability of the concrete dam is related to the
magnitude of the uplift pressure at the foundation block.

• The analysis showed that the ambient temperature doesn’t have a significant impact either
on the arch dam cracking patterns or on the foundation block displacements