Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Rupert Feldbacher
Institute of Hydraulic Engineering
and Water Resources Management
Graz University of Technology
Stremayrgasse 10/II
8010 Graz
Gerald Zenz
Institute of Hydraulic Engineering
and Water Resources Management
Graz University of Technology
Stremayrgasse 10/II
8010 Graz
mortezasohrabigilani@Yahoo.com
rupert.feldbacher@tugraz.at
gerald.zenz@tugraz.at
1. Introduction
One of the most important aspects in the stability analysis of arch dams, which has been encountered for
many years, is the stability of the abutment. This study is aimed to evaluate within the Tenth Benchmark
Workshop on Numerical Analysis of Dams-Theme C, the abutment stability of Luzzone arch dam under
static and seismic loadings. At first the three dimensional model of the dam has been transferred for being
applicable in the finite element program of Abaqus 6.7.
With the FEM the interface forces between concrete dam and wedge are calculated for the required loading
cases. The stability analysis of the given wedge is evaluated by Londe method.
2. System Assumption
2.1. Luzzone dam
The Luzzone dam is a double curved concrete arch dam which was initially built in the sixties. The dam
was heightened within the ninetieths. The total height of the dam is 225 m.
Figure 1 shows the Luzzone dam.
Fig.2: Finite element model of dam and foundation and Geometry of the wedge
``
=0.001
Foundation rock:
Density ( ) = 2600 kg/m3
Poisson ratio ( ) = 0.2
Modulus of elasticity (E) = 25 GPa
Rayleigh damping coefficients: =0.6 and
=0.001
Water:
Density ( ) = 1000 kg/m3
Fig 3: Material properties of dam and foundation
It should be mentioned that in calculating the interface forces between dam and wedge, only the stiffness of
foundation is considered and density of it is taken as zero. In other words a massless foundation is
considered.
2.4. Loading
The static and seismic load cases are considered to calculate the dam-foundation interface forces. In the
self-weight condition the dam is considered monolithic and isotropic material behavior is used.
Under the reservoir full condition the hydrostatic pressure is applied to the dams upstream surface
according to the programs loading definition.
1610 m
1510 m
1385 m
3. Calculation Procedure
Figure 2 presents the finite element model of the dam. This model is created within Abaqus 6.7 and linear
elements (C3D8) are used to define dam and foundation body.
The dam-foundation interface is modeled as a joint with a high friction coefficient to reduce relative
displacement between dam and foundation to a minimum. The resultant forces transmitted between dam
and wedge are computed as the sum of pressure and shear stresses at the wedge dam interface.
For the seismic analysis direct time history approach is used and hydrodynamic pressure is computed by
Westergaards added mass method. According to westergaard, the hydrodynamic pressures that the water
exerts on the dam during an earthquake are the same as if a certain body of water moves back and forth
with the dam whiles the remainder of the reservoir is left inactive. The added mass per unit area of the
upstream wall is given in approximate form by the expression 7 w hw (hw y ) , where w is the density
8
of water.
It should be mentioned that in calculating the interface forces between dam and wedge, only the stiffness of
foundation is considered and density of it is taken as zero. In other words a massless foundation is
considered.
4. Stability of wedge
The next step for the analysis is to evaluate is to evaluate the wedge stability. For this purpose Londe
method for stability of rock slopes is used and some simplifying assumptions are made. The volume of the
wedge is limited by intersections of three planes (Planes Plane1, Plane2 and Plane3 in the figure 2). This
assumption is conservative as the natural surfaces are generally irregular [2]. The wedge is considered as a
rigid body and the geometry of the wedge would not change during application of the forces throughout the
investigation. Cohesion and tensile strength are neglected in the contact planes and therefore, it is supposed
that the friction between surfaces is the only parameter that can resist sliding. It is supposed that the
moments of the forces have negligible influences and can be ignored. The applied forces can be categorized
as:
-
For wedge stability evaluation at first the three plane reaction forces are to be calculated by solving static
equilibrium equations in three direction x, y and z, Figure 5-a. For this wedge geometry and applied forces,
due to equilibrium condition and calculated plane reaction forces, eight cases are possible. Table 1 shows
all possibilities.
-
Case 1: All plane reaction forces are compressive: all planes are in contact and the wedge is
perfectly stable.
Case 2: The reaction force of plane 1 is tensile, but the other two reaction forces are compressive
(N1>0, N2<0 and N3<0). In other words plane 1 is open but planes 2 and 3 are in contact yet. In
this case to check the movement along the intersection of plane 2 and 3 the force in this direction
is calculated. For this purpose the equilibrium equation is solved with these three existing forces,
N2, N3 and S23 again, Figure 5-b. Then the stability factor can be calculated accordingly:
SF =
S 23
N 2 tan 2 + N 3 tan 3
If the safety factor is less than one the rupture will occur and wedge will move along intersection
line of planes 2 and 3.
-
Case 3: Sliding along the intersection of plane 1 and 3 (N2>0, N1<0 and N3<0). This case is
similar to case 2.
Case 4: Sliding along the intersection of plane 1 and 3 (N3>0, N1<0 and N2<0). This case is
similar to case 2.
Case 5: Sliding in plane 3 (N1>0, N2>0 and N3<0). In this case the only plane which remains in
contact is plane 3. The normal and shear forces of this plane are calculated again by solving the
equilibrium equation and ignoring the plane 1 and 2. The Safety factor reads accordingly:
SF =
Case 6: Sliding in plane 2 (N1>0, N3>0 and N2<0). This case is similar to case 5.
Case 7: Sliding in plane 1 (N2>0, N3>0 and N1<0). This case is similar to case 5.
Case 8: N1>0, N2>0 and N3<0. In this case all planes are open and the wedge is obviously freely
moving.
The wedge stability safety factor of the dam during the earthquake is plotted in the figure 6. As shown, the
safety factor for a short period of time is less than 1, which means that the wedge would move during this
time period. The concept of Newmarks method is used to calculate displacement of the wedge.
Case
Nature of sliding
No sliding
1, 2, 3
2, 3
1, 3
2, 3
in plane 3
1, 2
in plane 2
1, 3
in plane 1
2, 3
in space
Diagram
1, 2, 3
SF
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Time(s)
6. Conclusion
Under the assumption of a rigid body wedge the analysis is carried out for dead weight, water loading and
uplift. No variation of the earthquake acceleration along the valley is assumed.
The uplift pressure at the wedge interface is very conservative, as it would never be the case that the entire
planes are under full uplift.
With the help of FEM the wedge is suggested to be analyzed as deforming body and with this the stability
of the abutment. However, this assumption used normally, was out of scope of this benchmark.
ax
ay
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
-1.2
-1.6
-1.6
-2
-2
-2.4
-2.4
time (s)
Vy
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
Vy (m/s)
0.01
0.01
Ux
13.10
Uy
2.5
2
1.5
time (s)
13.10
13.08
12.98
13.06
0
13.04
0
13.02
0.5
13.06
0.5
13.04
13.02
1.5
13.00
Uy (mm)
2.5
13.00
13.08
time (s)
time (s)
12.98
13.06
13.04
13.02
13.06
13.04
13.02
13.00
12.98
-0.01
13.00
12.98
Vx (m/s)
13.10
time (s)
Vx
Ux (mm)
13.08
-0.8
-1.2
-0.01
13.06
13.04
13.02
13.00
-0.8
-0.4
12.98
ay (m/s2)
13.06
13.04
13.02
-0.4
13.00
0
12.98
ax (m/s2)
time (s)
7. Acknowledgement
The support of this work by the research project Design of Hydraulic Structures by Pyry Energy Ltd is
gratefully acknowledged.
8. References
1. Dr. Russell Michael Gunn, Computational aspects of analysis and design of dams, Tenth benchmark
workshop on numerical analysis of dams.
2. P. Londe, Analysis of the stability of rock slopes, published in Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology and Hydrogeology, vol. 6, issue 1, p. 93-124, 1973.
3. Prof. N. M. Newmark, effect of earthquakes on dams and embankments, published in Geotechnique,
Milestones in Engineering, vol. 15, No. 2, p. 109-129, 1965.
4. Abaqus version 6.7-EF Documentation.
6955.55
18618.85
18618.85
18620.77
18622.47
.
.
37.95
1736.03
2694.97
2485.85
1056.29
726.15
2663.26
4980.63
7630.22
10742.62
14013.06
17602.69
21197.32
24014.10
25861.84
26909.53
.
.
27019.54
26892.51
26774.81
26667.86
26572.85
26490.00
26419.23
9787.71
47437.30
47437.30
47439.50
47441.70
.
.
5814.40
2000.55
585.01
1018.86
1366.05
4860.24
8792.95
14115.90
20813.70
29353.90
38231.60
47234.90
55629.30
61647.80
65403.80
67836.30
.
.
68269.00
67984.10
67722.40
67487.40
67281.20
67104.50
66957.10
ResultantForces(Damthrust)
Fx(MN)
Fy(MN)
Fz(MN)
4182.65
20776.25
20776.25
20777.58
20777.42
.
.
4175.12
3086.85
2477.41
2358.44
3150.52
4858.73
6682.26
8511.44
10874.14
14152.58
17461.17
20452.24
23248.78
25308.30
26704.27
27772.21
.
.
29496.00
29382.09
29279.72
29190.29
29114.32
29051.89
29002.50
Alpha
50.3
59.5
59.5
59.5
59.5
.
.
54.3
29.5
9.1
16.6
22.3
44.7
50.7
55.1
57.5
58.8
59.6
60.3
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.3
.
.
59.6
59.6
59.6
59.6
59.6
59.6
59.6
Beta
31.0
131.9
131.9
131.9
131.9
.
.
89.5
60.6
42.6
43.5
71.5
98.5
111.7
120.3
125.1
127.2
128.7
130.7
132.4
133.5
134.1
134.1
.
.
132.5
132.5
132.4
132.4
132.4
132.4
132.3
ResultantForces(Damthrust)
FR(MN)
12715.09
55032.82
55032.82
55035.87
55038.28
.
.
7158.23
4067.51
3707.11
3574.88
3592.72
6910.61
11360.52
17219.46
24691.64
34312.55
44304.78
54399.31
63909.71
70835.29
75230.38
78084.46
.
.
79124.75
78793.10
78488.95
78216.34
77977.69
77773.69
77603.96
Jh(MN)
38457.94
58094.61
58094.06
58095.32
58096.78
.
.
20469.26
18315.04
15917.85
16396.92
19023.48
21815.56
24983.98
29517.55
35570.08
43341.38
52829.17
60393.94
66254.51
69672.12
72166.35
74540.92
.
.
74669.53
74448.27
74245.41
74063.73
73904.75
73769.07
73656.55
3000.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.
.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.
.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ContactPlaneForces
J1(MN)
J2(MN)
0.00
10705.24
10681.88
10684.14
10685.94
.
.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1965.01
8045.91
13678.51
17512.70
20171.95
.
.
20777.64
20627.06
20487.84
20361.68
20249.94
20152.87
20070.34
S(MN)
26928.54
48174.18
48157.43
48159.89
48162.18
.
.
14332.73
12824.33
11145.80
11481.24
13320.39
15275.42
17493.97
20668.41
24906.44
30347.96
36991.38
43664.21
52025.71
58362.74
62793.95
66318.66
.
.
66832.83
66572.46
66332.93
66117.38
65927.82
65764.85
65628.27
StabilityandDrivingForce
D(MN)
7576.19
22488.11
22496.20
22497.30
22496.88
.
.
9418.90
12414.58
15936.06
17697.27
18587.25
19206.45
16940.47
16190.56
17440.42
19660.06
22397.91
23308.65
23968.14
25137.37
24744.46
26162.33
.
.
30442.51
30340.11
30248.38
30168.61
30101.21
30046.24
30003.21
Yes
No
No
No
No
.
.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
.
.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
.
.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
.
.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LossofContactPlane
Jh
J1
J2
No
No
No
No
No
.
.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
.
.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
ResultsCase
Fsw
Fsw+hyd
0
0.01
0.02
.
.
12.97
12.98
12.99
13
13.01
13.02
13.03
13.04
13.05
13.06
13.07
13.08
13.09
13.1
13.11
13.12
.
.
31.94
31.95
31.96
31.97
31.98
31.99
32
Table 2: Dam thrust force, Contact plane forces, driving and stabilizing forces
ResultsCase
Fsw
Fsw+hyd
0
0.01
0.02
.
.
12.97
12.98
12.99
13
13.01
13.02
13.03
13.04
13.05
13.06
13.07
13.08
13.09
13.1
13.11
13.12
.
.
31.94
31.95
31.96
31.97
31.98
31.99
32
Ux(mm)
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
0.01
0.06
0.17
0.36
0.59
0.81
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
.
.
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
Wedgedisplacements
Uy(mm) Uz(mm)
UR
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
0.01
0.10
0.29
0.55
0.86
1.16
1.43
1.65
1.81
1.93
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
.
.
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
0.02
0.12
0.33
0.65
1.04
1.42
1.72
1.91
2.05
2.16
2.23
2.23
2.23
2.23
.
.
2.23
2.23
2.23
2.23
2.23
2.23
2.23
alpha
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
beta
0
0
0
0
0
.
.
0
0
28.49
29.44
31.18
33.05
34.46
34.85
33.72
30.12
27.82
26.33
25.41
25.41
25.41
25.41
.
.
25.41
25.41
25.41
25.41
25.41
25.41
25.41
10
Factorofsafety
3.55
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
.
.
1.52
1.03
0.70
0.65
0.72
0.80
1.03
1.28
1.43
1.54
1.65
1.87
2.17
2.32
2.54
2.53
.
.
2.20
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19