Modernization and Optimization

of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

27th Annual USSD Conference
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 5-9, 2007

Hosted by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

On the Cover
The Corps of Engineers Beltzville Lake in East-Central Pennsylvania. In this south-facing photo, from the bottom
to the top, features include the project office, the emergency spillway, the 4,560-foot long embankment, the intake
tower, and a series of ridges of the Appalachian front. Beltzville Lake is on Pohopoco Creek, which drains into the
Lehigh River. The Lehigh Rivers water gap through Blue Mountain can be seen in the background of the photo.
(Photo by Anthony S. Bley.)

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision
To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams
for the benefit of society.
Mission USSD is dedicated to:
Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,
performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;
Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water
resources systems;
Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water
resources;
Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and
Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on
Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this report regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for
advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or
from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made
or the opinions expressed in this publication.
Copyright 2007 U.S. Society on Dams
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2007921375
ISBN 978-1-884575-40-2
U.S. Society on Dams
1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org
Internet: www.ussdams.org

CARTER LAKE INTAKE TOWER DESIGN:

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING DESIGN METHODS
Scott L. Jones, P.E.1

Michael Zusi, P.E.2

Steve Higinbotham, P.E.

ABSTRACT

In the process of designing the intake tower for the Carter Lake Dam No. 1 Outlet Works
Addition, URS performed an extensive review of intake tower design guidelines and
discovered two different design philosophies for seismic design of intake towersload
factor design (as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and working stress
design. The review revealed that the two design approaches employ nearly identical
methods for developing applied loads on the structures to determine the shear and
moment in cross-sections of the tower; however, the two approaches employ different
methods to evaluate the nominal strength and stability of the structure. For example, load
factor design prescribes large reductions to the applied forces relative to the increase in
allowable stresses prescribed by the working stress approach for the earthquake loading
conditions. As a result of the differences between the two approaches, the design of the
intake tower for the Carter Lake Dam No. 1 varies considerably depending on the
approach used. This paper compares and contrasts the two design approaches considered
in the design of the intake tower and presents the tower designs resulting from application
of the two different methods. This paper also presents a discussion on the differences
between the two approaches to moment design and stability evaluation. Specific
attention is given to the methods for evaluating the stability of an intake tower.
INTRODUCTION
Carter Lake Reservoir is located in Larimer County, approximately ten miles southwest
of Loveland, CO. The project is owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation). Reclamation delegated responsibility for this project to the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD). Carter Lake Dam No. 1 is an
earth embankment dam with a structural height of 214 feet and a crest length of 1235
feet. Figure 1 shows a photograph of Carter Lake Dam No. 1 taken from the right
abutment. The dam has a crest width of 40 feet and a maximum base width of 1320 feet.
The upstream slope varies, with a slope of approximately 2.5 horizontal (H) to 1.0
vertical (V) from El. 5769 to El. 5680, a slope of approximately 3.0 H: 1.0 V from El.
5680 to El. 5615, and a slope of approximately 5.0 H: 1.0 V from EL. 5615 to the base
elevation of 5555 feet. The downstream slope varies, with a slope of approximately 2.0
H: 1.0 V from El. 5769 to El. 5700, a slope of approximately 2.5 H: 1.0 V from El. 5700
to El. 5600 and a slope of approximately 5.0

Structural Engineer, URS, 8181 E. Tufts Ave., Denver, CO 80237; scott_jones@urscorp.com

Senior Structural Engineer, URS, 8181 E. Tufts Ave., Denver, CO 80237; michael_zusi@urscorp.com
3
Senior Consultant, 8181 E. Tufts Ave., Denver, CO 80237, steve_higinbotham@urscorp.com
2

Carter Lake Intake Tower Design

395

Figure 1. Photograph of Carter Lake Dam No. 1 Taken from the Right Abutment.
H: 1.0 V from EL. 5600 to the base elevation of 5555 feet. The reservoir has a total
storage capacity of 112,200 acre-feet with the reservoir surface elevation at El. 5759.
The existing outlet works consists of a tunnel outlet located on the right side of Carter
Lake Dam No. 1. The intake consists of a submerged reinforced concrete structure fitted
with trashracks. The tunnel was mined in the abutment along an alignment perpendicular
to the dam crest. The tunnel consists of a 75-inch diameter, steel lined, concrete encased
pipe. Flow through the outlet works is controlled by two high pressure slide gates located
in a gate chamber below the center of the dam. Access to the gate chamber is gained
through a vertical shaft below an existing shaft house. The outlet conduit discharges into
a reinforced concrete hydraulic jump stilling basin. The inlet for the tunnel is located at
El. 5618 and the outlet into the stilling basin is located at El. 5600. The existing outlet
works has a maximum discharge capacity of 1260 cfs with the reservoir surface at the
maximum expected elevation of 5763 feet.
The NCWCD has asked URS to design the Carter Lake Dam No. 1 Outlet Works
Addition (CLDOWA) to:

Provide an additional outlet works to supplement the existing outlet works so that
the existing outlet works can be taken out of service periodically for repairs or
maintenance without interrupting water deliveries.

Provide an outlet works that meets low release flows (20 cfs) without incurring
cavitation damage.

Provide the capability for selective withdrawal.

A critical component of the outlet works addition is a reinforced concrete, 107-foot tall,
freestanding intake tower located on a bench upstream of the right abutment of the dam.
URS initially designed the tower for all loading conditions according to the Load Factor

396

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

Design (LFD) approach. In performing the design for seismic loading, critical sections of
the tower were identified and designed according to the more conservative Working
Stress Design (WSD) approach to provide for reservoir drawdown capability in a postseismic condition. Both design methods rely on a response spectrum analysis of the
tower for development of the seismic loads. This paper describes the methodology
employed in developing the loading for and designing the tower and compares LFD and
WSD designs for the sections of the tower identified as critical to reservoir operations.
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA FOR THE INTAKE TOWER
The design of the intake tower was based on assumptions regarding the material
properties and loading conditions for the tower. It was also designed according to criteria
for stress in the concrete and reinforcing steel and for stability against sliding and
overturning. Preliminary design of the reinforced concrete intake tower was performed
using an LFD approach in accordance with USACE EM 1110-2-2104 (1992), USACE
EM 1110-2-2400 (2003), and ACI 318-02 (2004). The load factors for the LFD approach
are consistent with USACE EM 1110-2-2104 and USACE EM 1110-2-2400. This
section describes the assumptions made and the criteria used to design the tower.
Material Properties
The material properties used to design the intake tower are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Material Properties Assumed in the Design of the Intake Tower.
Material

Specified Strength

Structural Concrete

fc` = 4000 psi

Reinforcing Steel

Fy = 60,000 psi

Loads and Load Combinations

The loads and forces described in this section were used to design the intake tower. The
load types are summarized in Table 2.
The following load combinations were used to evaluate the structures:
Case I: Intake structure operating at normal maximum operating pool; dead load of
structure; earth loads, if any; full uplift over 100% of the structure base area; Maximum
Design Earthquake (MDE) seismic load in direction to produce most severe loading.
Case II: Intake structure operating at normal maximum operating pool; dead load of
structure; full uplift over 100% of the structure base area; Operational Basis Earthquake
(OBE) seismic load in direction to produce most severe loading.

Carter Lake Intake Tower Design

397

Table 2. Loads Considered in the Design of the Intake Tower.

Load
Dead

Description
- For normal weight concrete, a unit weight of 150 lb/ft3 was assumed.
- Equipment, and piping weights will be based on information determined during design.

Live

- Floor and Roof Loadings were determined according to IBC (2003).

Hydrostatic

- For calculating lateral loads from water and buoyancy effects, a unit weight of 62.4
lb/ft3 was assumed.

Wind

- Wind effects were determined in accordance with IBC (2003) and local building codes.
- A lateral pressure of 40.8 lb/ft2 was assumed to act on the tower walls and access
bridge.

Ice

- Ice loads were determined according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publication,
Ice Pressure on Engineering Structures.
- A load of 6,000 lb/ft was assumed to act on the intake tower at El. 5759 based on an
assumed initial air temperature of 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

Seismic

- The structures were designed to withstand forces from the MDE and the OBE.
- The MDE was taken from a site-specific study for the Chimney Hollow dam site and
has a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.21 g and a 10,000-year return period.
- The OBE was taken from the 2002 USGS Probabilistic Uniform Hazard Response
Spectra database and has a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.04 g and a 475year return period.

Case III: Reservoir at normal maximum operating pool; dead load of structure; all gates
closed; intake structure dewatered; ice load; and full uplift over 100% of the base area for
that part of the structure that is submerged.
Case IV: Reservoir empty. Wind load applied to full height intake structure and half of
the bridge structure span.
Overstressing Design Criteria
Using the LFD approach, the structures were designed against overstressing by sizing the
sections and reinforcing such that the computed moments and forces acting on the
structure were less than the calculated moment and force capacities for all load cases.
Sliding and Overturning Stability Criteria
In the design of the reinforced concrete structures, the minimum factors of safety required
to satisfy sliding and overturning stability were selected based on discussions with
Reclamation staff. The factors of safety are presented in Table 3.

398

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

Table 3. Sliding and Overturning Stability Factors of Safety

Minimum Allowable
Sliding Stability
Factor of Safety

Minimum Allowable
Overturning Stability
Factor of Safety

Static Load Cases III and IV

1.5

1.5

Dynamic Load Cases I and II

1.15

1.15

Loading

Sliding stability factors of safety for the reinforced concrete structures were computed
using the following equation:

Q=

FN tan (e )
FD

(1)

where Q is the sliding factor of safety, e is the effective friction angle between the tower
and the foundation, FN is the normal force at the base of the tower, and FD is the driving
(shear) force at the base of the tower. A value of 39 degrees was assumed for e. The
computations for sliding stability neglected the effects of cohesion in the foundation.
Overturning stability factors of safety for the reinforced concrete structures were
computed using the following equation:

FS =

MR
MD

(2)

where FS is the overturning factor of safety, MR is the restoring moment about the toe of
the tower base slab, and MD is the disturbing moment about the toe of the tower base
slab. The intake tower was designed to satisfy a minimum overturning stability factor of
safety of 1.0 for all load cases without considering foundation anchors. Foundation
anchors were added to provide the appropriate factor of safety for the extreme seismic
loading condition.
RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

The intake tower was modeled for load cases I and II with a spreadsheet developed using
the two-mode approximation described in USACE EM 1110-2-2400 and with a twodimensional finite element model using the commercial software package, ANSYS. The
finite element model is shown in Figure 2. The finite element model used to simulate the
structural behavior of the intake tower was comprised of 2-noded beam elements and
single-noded mass elements. The beam elements were used to model the behavior of the
concrete that make up the tower structure. The mass elements were used to model the
structure-water interaction during the seismic loading event. The mass attributed to each

Carter Lake Intake Tower Design

399

(a)

(b)
Figure 2. (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D representations of the 2-D Finite Element Model of the
CLDOWA Intake Tower.
mass element was based on the mass of the water internal or external to the tower
attributable to each node, determined according to the methods described in USACE EM
1110-2-2400. Dead and live loads from the access bridge and the intake tower
superstructure were applied as added mass elements. The dynamic loads were evaluated
by performing a linear elastic response spectrum analysis, using modal superposition.
The dynamic analysis applied the maximum horizontal component of spectral
acceleration from the ground motion record to the base of the structure. The maximum
horizontal component is defined as the component that produces the maximum stress
response in the structure.

400

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

Performance of the response spectrum analysis in ANSYS included the following steps:
Modal Analysis: ANSYS performed a modal analysis to determine the mode shapes and
natural frequencies of the structure. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine
the number of modes required to insure that the results of interest did not change
significantly with the inclusion of additional modes.
Computation of Mode Coefficient: ANSYS computed the mode coefficient, which
represented the relative contribution a particular natural frequency had on the total
response of the structure to the dynamic loads. If the mode coefficient was small, then
the contribution to the final response was small. For this study, if the mode coefficient
was less than 1/10 of a percent, then the effects of the corresponding mode were
neglected. In the case of the intake tower, three modes were considered to be significant
to the response of the tower.
Modal Superposition: ANSYS determined which of the considered modes were to be
included based on the relative magnitude of the mode coefficient and combined all
included modal responses using a square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) approach.

For the purposes of this study, the response spectrum developed by URS for the Chimney
Hollow Dam, as part of the Windy Gap Firming Project, was used for the dynamic
analysis. The analysis was based on the following assumptions:

The tower base is founded on a mass concrete slab, anchored into foundation
rock.
The effect of the new bridge was included in the analysis.

The results of the response spectrum analyses according to the USACE two-mode
approximation and the finite element analysis are shown in Figure 3.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Comparison of Predicted (a) Shear and (b) Moment in the Intake Tower from
the USACE Two-Mode Approximation and the 2-D Finite Element Analysis

Carter Lake Intake Tower Design

401

In accordance with USACE EM 1110-2-2400 (2003), multi-component earthquake

responses were analyzed. The responses from two orthogonal horizontal motions were
combined using the following equations:

E = +/- {Ex + 0.3Ey}

E = +/- {0.3Ex + Ey}

where E is the total horizontal seismic response, Ex is the seismic response in one
orthogonal horizontal direction, and Ey is the seismic response in the other orthogonal
horizontal direction.
The effects of the vertical ground motions were assumed to be independent of the
horizontal ground motions and, therefore, not to contribute significantly to the structural
response.
INTAKE TOWER DESIGN

The CLDOWA intake tower was designed according to the LFD approach with seven
different sections based on varying geometry (wall thickness and presence of gates) and
reinforcement patterns. The sections are shown in Figure 4. The design utilized #9 bars
in different configurations for each section in the tower. For example, the section
between the base of the tower and El. 5680 required #9 bars spaced at 6 inches on the
exterior and interior faces of the walls and an extra layer of #9 bars spaced at 12 inches
on the exterior face of the tower.
The moment capacity was calculated at several elevations in the tower to determine a
moment envelope and the nominal moment capacity was compared to the factored
applied moment and shear for all elevations in the tower. Figure 5 shows the comparison
of the factored applied moment and the nominal capacity as a function of elevation. Note
that the design of most sections in the tower was controlled by the USACE criteria that
the nominal moment capacity exceed the uncracked moment capacity by at least 20
percent. For all sections between El. 5680 and the top of the intake tower, this criteria
controlled the design, which explains the high moment capacity relative to the demand on
the tower.
The LFD method described by USACE 1110-2-2400 specifically allows cracking to
occur in the intake tower during the MDE loading condition (Load Case I in this study).
Several sections of the tower, especially the base which houses two of the four control
gates on the structure, were deemed critical to reservoir operations. Cracking in this
section of the tower could potentially lead to larger deformations than the slide gates can
withstand while still maintaining operability (a displacement of 1/4 inch would likely
cause the gates to bind).

402

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs

Figure 4. Tower Sections Each Section Varies in Geometry and/or Reinforcement

Pattern.

Figure 5. Factored Moment Demand vs. Nominal Moment Capacity

Carter Lake Intake Tower Design

403

Due to the critical nature of the base, the design was checked according to the more
conservative WSD approach, which is based on elastic response of the structure. The
WSD approach requires that the stresses in the steel and the concrete remain below
allowable stresses which are a percentage of the yield strength (the allowable stress for
steel is 40% of the yield strength for grade 60 reinforcing steel). It was determined that
in order for the base section of the tower to satisfy the WSD criteria, the reinforcement
needed to be increased substantially over that required by the LFD approach. Instead of
the reinforcement scheme described above, the recommended reinforcement between the
base of the tower and El. 5680 was two layers of #11 bars spaced at 6 inches on the
exterior face and one layer of #11 bars spaced at 6 inches on the interior face.
CONCLUSIONS

This paper described the design of the intake tower for the Carter Lake Dam No. 1 Outlet
Works Addition. In general, the Load Factor Design approach described in USACE EM
1110-2-2400 was deemed adequate to determine the required reinforcement for the tower.
In fact, the USACE criteria that the nominal moment capacity exceed the uncracked
moment capacity by at least 20 percent, to limit the likelihood of fracture of the
reinforcement, often governed the design. However, in sections of the tower deemed
critical to reservoir operations, the more conservative Working Stress Design approach
was deemed more appropriate to insure the operability of the lower gates under all
considered loading conditions.
REFERENCES

[1.]

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003). Structural Design and Evaluation of

Outlet Works, EM 1110-2-2400, Washington, DC.

[2.]

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003). Strength Design for Reinforced-Concrete

Hydraulic Structures, EM 1110-2-2104 Washington, DC.

[3.]

ACI Guidelines (2004). American Concrete Institute, Manual of concrete

Practice, Part 1, 2004.

[4.]

Michel, Bernard (1970), Ice Pressure on Engineering Structures, Cold Regions

Science and Engineering Monograph III-B1b, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.

404

Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs