Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 381-397.

April 1973

THE KOYNA EARTHQUAKE AND THE DAMAGE TO KOYNA DAM

BY ANIL K. CHOPRAAND P. CHAKRABARTI
ABSTRACT

The Koyna earthquake (surface-wave magnitude 6.5) occurred on December 11,

1967 near Koyna Dam in a region of India which was considered to be stable and
nearly nonseismic. The relationship between the recent increase in number of
earthquake occurrences in the vicinity of Koyna Dam and the filling of the
reservoir behind the dam is discussed. The response of the dam to the strong
ground motion recorded during the Koyna earthquake is analyzed by the finite
element method including dynamic effects of the reservoir. The cracking anticipated
in the monoliths of Koyna Dam on the basis of stresses obtained from these
analyses and strength of concrete in the dam is consistent with the earthquake
damage. On the basis of analytical results, it would be useful to provide relatively
higher strength concrete in selected parts of gravity dams; appropriate suggestions
are made in this connection. Present design criteria need to be improved to
recognize that significant tensile stresses occur in gravity dams during earthquakes
and to provide for the consequences of these tensile stresses.
INTRODUCTION

A number of destructive earthquakes have occurred in populated areas during the

past decade, and these have led to extremely valuable experience concerning performance
of houses and multistory buildings during earthquakes. On the other hand, major dams
have rarely been subjected to strong ground shaking, so that there is little experience of
earthquake performance of these structures. One such rare experience was provided by
the Koyna earthquake (surface-wave magnitude 6.5) which occurred on December 11,
!967 in the southwestern region of India. The 2800-ft long and 338-ft high Koyna Dam,
which is a concrete gravity dam, was in the epicentral region of this earthquake (Figure 1)
and it suffered structural damage. Although the dam did not appear to be in danger of a
major failure, the damage was serious enough to result in lowering of the reservoir for
inspection and repairs and to require permanent strengthening. Considerations and
criteria that had been employed in designing Koyna Dam were similar to those used in
many parts of the world including the United States. It, therefore, becomes important to
analyze and study the performance of Koyna Dam during the Koyna earthquake with the
aim of recognizing deficiencies in criteria currently used in design.
The Indian peninsula was widely considered to be stable and nearly nonseismic, and
the Indian seismologists, therefore, expressed surprise at the occurrence of this major
earthquake in that part of India. This event was preceded by hundreds of smaller earthquakes which began to occur near Koyna Dam after the reservoir behind the dam started
filling in 1962. The relationship between the occurrence of these swarms of small earthquakes and the filling of the reservoir at Koyna is explored in this work. This is followed
by a description of the criteria used in the design of Koyna Dam. The principal characteristics of the motion, which was recorded during the December 11, 1967 earthquake on a
strong-motion accelerograph located in a gallery of the dam, are presented next. For
brevity, only the structural damage caused to the main dam is described. Reference may
be made to other sources (Berg et aL, 1969; Chopra et al., 1971, UNESCO Committee of
Experts 1968) for a more complete description of the effects of the earthquake on various
381

382

ANIL K. CHOPRA AND P. CFIAKRABARTI

structures including the dam, spillway bridge, appended structures on top of the dam,
intake structure, power plant, bridges in the area, houses and buildings in Koynanagar
(Koyna Town). The remainder of this work, following the description of damage, is
devoted to earthquake analyses of Koyna Dam including correlation with observed
damage.
EARTHQUAKES OF KOYNA REGION

Koyna Dam is located on the Koyna River in the western margin of the Indian peninsula (Figure 1). The epicenter map of India (Indian Standards Institution, 1962) shows
that many large earthquakes have occurred in northern and eastern India, Pakistan and
Tibet, but little seismic activity is shown in peninsular India. However, recent search for
historical records has pointed out that about 20 earthquakes strong enough to have been
felt have occurred during 1594 to 1967 in the western margin of the Indian peninsula
which included the Bombay-Poona-Koyna region; fewer earthquakes have been reported
in other parts of the Indian peninsula (Guha et al., 1968). Despite occurrence of the
earthquakes mentioned above, the Indian peninsula was widely considered to be stable
and nearly nonseismic. This is reflected in the Seismic Zoning Map of India (Indian
Standards Institution, 1967) in which zone 0 is assigned to almost the entire Indian
peninsula.
Recent earthquakes in Koyna Region. After the reservoir behind Koyna Dam started
filling during the monsoons of 1962, there were frequent reports of small earthquakes in
the area, especially near the dam site. More than 100 earthquakes of magnitude ranging
from 1.5 to 3.5 were recorded during the 3-year period beginning September 1964. These
earthquakes originated at focal depths of about 2 miles. Two relatively large shocks
occurred on September 13, 1967. Their magnitudes were reported to be in the range of
5.0 to 5.5, the epicenters were in the vicinity of the dam, and their focal depth was estimated to be in the range of 2 to 6 miles. These shocks were felt over a radius of about
75 miles, causing some damage to poorly constructed buildings and creating fissures in
soft soil in Koynanagar. An earthquake of magnitude 6.5 occurred on December 1l, 1967
(December 10, GMT). The epicenter was in the vicinity of the dam, and the focal depth
was estimated in the range of 5 to 13 miles. This earthquake was felt over a radius of 375
miles; it demolished much of Koynanagar and also caused structural damage to Koyna
Dam. About 180 people were killed and 2200 injured. The earthquake of December I l,
1967 is probably the largest of earthquakes known to have occurred in the Indian
peninsula.
Recent earthquakes and filling of the reservoir. As mentioned earlier, small earthquakes
began to occur near Koyna Dam after the reservoir started filling in 1962. That the filling
of a large reservoir behind a dam can be accompanied by swarms of small earthquakes
has been experienced before. It was first reported in the case of Boulder Dam in U.S.A.
(Carder, 1945) and recently at Monteynard and Grandval Dams in France, Kremasta Dam
in Greece, and Kariba in Africa (Rothe 1969). On the other hand, at many dam sites
apparently similar to those mentioned above, the reservoir has not caused any significant
increase in seismic activity. For example, tremors have not been reported at Grand
Coulee Dam which stores a reservoir larger than the one at Koyna on foundation rock
similar to that at Koyna. In the Indian peninsula itself, more than a dozen dams of
varying heights, including Koyna Dam, have been constructed since 1900. Although all
of these dams are founded on similar volcanic basalts, the only reservoir site where
swarms of small earthquakes have occurred is at Koyna Dam (Murti 1968).
The reservoir at Koyna Dam may in some complex way be related to the increase in
seismic activity in that area. However, it has not been possible to establish correlation

THE KOYNA EARTHQUAKE AND THE DAMAGE TO KOYNA DAM

F~G. t. M a p of India.

383

384

ANIL K. CHOPRAAND P. CHAKRABARTI

between earthquake occurrences and either the reservoir level or the inflow. There is
some indication that the energy release through seismic activity increases after the monsoons with a certain time lag (Gupta et al., 1969; Gupta et al., 1972).
The swarms of small earthquakes that occurred at Koyna originated at focal depths of
about 2 miles. It is apparent from a simple analysis that the increase in shearing and
compressive stresses in foundation rock caused by filling of the Koyna reservoir is very
small compared to the stresses existing in the Earth's crust at such depths. It seems that
swarms of small earthquakes can be triggered by small stress increases in those regions of
the Earth's crust where the existing state is such that the release of a small earthquake is
incipient (Housner 1969). Such was apparently the situation at Koyna but it was not so,
for example, at other dams in the Indian peninsula or at Grand Coulee Dam in the U.S.
The redistribution of stresses in the fault area that would result from the occurrence of a
small earthquake could well be responsible for triggering another small earthquake. The
change of stresses caused by hundreds of small earthquakes could well be responsible for
triggering a magnitude 5 to 6 shock (Housner, 1969).
KOYNA DAM
Koyna Dam is a straight gravity structure with the general plan, elevation, and sections
as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Construction started in 1954 and was completed in 1963.
The dam is about 2800 ft long, 280 ft high above the river bed, and 338 ft high above the
deepest foundation. It is constructed in 50-ft wide monoliths, and the contraction joints
between the monoliths are provided with copper water seals. The spillway is about 300 ft
long. The dam is made of rubble concrete. To provide a more impervious zone, conventional concrete is provided for 6-ft thickness at the upstream face of all monoliths and
also at the downstream face of the overflow monoliths. The last six monoliths near the
left bank are not made of rubble concrete but of hand-laid rubble masonry. The location
of the two strong motion accelerographs in the dam are also shown in Figure 2. One is
located in monolith 13 in a gallery near the foundation, and the other is in monolith 1A
in a gallery at about mid-height.
Design criteria. The criteria adopted in designing the Koyna Dam section were (1) no
tension in the section, (2) maximum compressive stresses to be less than the allowable
stresses for the concrete used, and (3) the shear friction factor to be less than allowable
values. Uplift pressures are considered to act over the entire area, and they correspond to
full reservoir depth at the heel, reducing linearly to two-thirds value at the drainage
gallery, and further reducing linearly to the value corresponding to the maximum tail
water level at the toe (Mane and Gupta, 1962). Koyna Dam is located in zone 1 of the
Seismic Zoning Map of India of 1966, and the specified seismic coefficients for gravity
dams in this zone are 0, 0.02, and 0.04 depending upon the soil conditions (Indian
Standards Institution, 1967). A seismic coefficient of 0.05, uniform over the height, was
considered in the design of Koyna Dam (Mane and Gupta, 1962). Additional reservoir
forces associated with earthquakes computed according to specified equations (Indian
Standards Institution, 1967), which are similar to those used in the United States
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1960; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1966), were apparently included. The sections of Koyna Dam were checked against the above criteria
for the following load conditions: (1) reservoir at maximum water level K R L 2165.00,
(levels are given in feet in terms of Koyna Reduced Level (KRL) the datum of which is
above Mean Sea Level by 31.0 feet), (2) reservoir full at K R L 2158.5, (3) reservoir full
plus earthquake loads, (4) reservoir at minimum draw-off level K R L 2000.00, and (5)
reservoir at minimum draw-off level plus earthquake loads. A small tension of about

385

THE KOYNA EARTHQUAKE AND THE DAMAGE TO KOYNA DAM

! ~ ~

4tM

--

--

OOo~

800

oo

I
I
'
....

lie

\\

I I

~\

I%

/'/--I

" I

I
"

"

,.,

:,

,'

'%

,"

Ii

....,~

ill ?
~--KI I

j'4-J

L_.

"J/-71i I

~-0te13
s

,I

~o.
----A

'

//o8oz
/

"1 r

.
.,,,rF~-l~

/s

IS

,ql I

~'~'%

~ w ~

~.11

__

..

\, x . . ."---"
..--~-:'-~
I"-.
.
..,.
,%--TRL

0
I-<:[
>
LIJ
.J
i,i

--X

I ~ \ \ ~'~.

',~

s---~,,,

,,~\\,.-~,

~,, :

001] s / " "~ / I I I

"s//t.1
~ I I I I
080|"s/
s"
I / I I I

OEOZ"

%
I

LL._ J~l

",,

~.,,

,-J.

,-.

'%

L---J~I,

__

r-

:i ,"

E
Z

<1
LLI
rr

.iiiiii

...............

"-2Z=2-=

O.
::)

..''..

",,

\N

~%

j'~'

\%

"~

01kl~ % %% N ~ ' ~ "~*'~/ "

---..,
081;,p . . . .
"1~1)1

;o~o

"

X /

.s
-~ $t

"------"'-090~

"--~"

I I
~,%
\~

%
i% \% OIH3
\% "ltDI
%%

L~

386

ANIL K. CHOPRA AND P. CHAKRABARTI

5 psi in some of the deepest nonoverflow monoliths was permitted under load condition
(3). It is apparent that the design criteria adopted for Koyna Dam are similar to those in
practice in the United States for gravity dams.
The nonoverflow and overflow sections of Koyna Dam are presented in Figure 3. The
Koyna section is not typical of gravity dams, as demonstrated in Figure 4. Departure from
a typical section was the result of changes in design that had to be introduced while
,6 I,

MW.L ~165

M.W.L.2165

WL.on Decll: 2143 ~ 0

.153

WLon Decll: 2143

KRL.197(

~,~

K.RIL 1~14p
Iq

Dora

'\""s"[Xk)4

x\\ ~ _ . ]

24r
KRL. 1842[

230.28'
A

Axis of

KR.L 1970

--Axis of Dam

24

240.78'

KR.L 1906

,
I=~

FIG. 3. Koyna Dam. (A) Nonoverflow section, foundation KRL 1842 to 1900, monoliths 15 to 17, 18/2.
(B) Overflow section, monoliths 18/2, 19 to 23, 24/2.
max

water leve

FXG.4. Koyna and typical gravity dam sections.

THE KOYNA EARTHQUAKE AND THE DAMAGE TO KOYNA DAM

387

construction was in progress. It was originally planned to construct the dam in two
stages. The top of the dam at the end of stage 1 was to be significantly lower than the
final level, thus requiring a thinner section. In stage 2, the dam was to be raised to the
final height and the section was to be increased on the downstream side. Construction on
stage 1 was in progress when increasing rate of power demand led to the decision to
combine the two construction stages and build the dam to its final height. Modifications
in the section, therefore, became necessary, resulting in increased thickness in the upper
part of the dam. It was concluded that the resulting section would be as safe as typical
gravity dam sections (Mane and Gupta, 1962). The peculiar overhang on the upstream
side at the top of the overflow sections is also a consequence of the above mentioned
modifications.
KOYNA GROUND MOTION

The magnitude of the Koyna earthquake of December 11, 1967 has been reported to be
about 6.5 (Guha et al., 1968, UNESCO Committee of Experts, 1968). The epicenter was
determined to be within 8 miles of Koyna Dam, and the focal depth was estimated as
5 to 8 miles. Ground motion in the epicentral area was recorded on the accelerograph in
monolith 1A, but not on the other accelerograph as it failed to function. The accelerogram recorded during the earthquake was faint, resulting in the peaks being read differently by different persons. For example, the maximum accelerations in one version of the
record are about 20 per cent less than those in another version, and the response spectra
differ by as much as 30 per cent (Berg et al., 1969; Krishna et al., 1969; Guha et al.,
1972). It seems that the accelerogram presented in Figure 5 is generally considered as the
"official" record. This accelerogram is a record of the response of monolith 1A at about
mid-height. However, it seems reasonable to consider the accelerogram as representing
the ground motion at the site because monolith 1A behaved essentially as a rigid structure
(Guha et al., 1971).
The Koyna accelerogram has higher frequency components compared to typical
accelerograms recorded in California, the number of zero crossings per second being about
twice. Some of the other properties of the Koyna ground motion are listed in Table 1
(Krishna et al., 1969) and compared with those of two California earthquakes.
The following observations are worthy of note. Moderate earthquakes recorded in
California have typically smaller peak accelerations but have a longer strong phase of
ground shaking. The intensity of the ground shaking at Koyna Dam was significantly less
than that which occurs in the epicentral area of magnitude 7 earthquakes, such as the
E1 Centro 1940 and Taft 1952 shocks. Furthermore, it was probably less than one half of
that which would be expected in the vicinity of the causative fault in a great (magnitude 8
or greater) earthquake. The intensity of the vertical component of Koyna ground motion
relative to its horizontal components, is much larger than what is typically observed for
California earthquakes.
DAMAGE TO KOYNA DAM

The most important structural damage to the dam were horizontal cracks on either the
upstream or the downstream face or on both faces of a number of monoliths. The
locations of some of the cracks are shown in Figure 6. The cracks on the upstream face
were located with the aid of divers using television cameras. An approximately horizontal
crack developed near K R L 2060 on the downstream face of monoliths 13 through 18 and
25 through 30. Horizontal cracks were observed between K R L 2040 and K R L 2084,
especially near K R L 2060, on the upstream face of monoliths 10 through 18 and 24

388

ANIL K. CHOPRA AND P. CHAKRABART!

!I~II,

'i i ~ ' i ' l ' ;

I'1
HORIZONTAL COMPONENT TRASVERSE TO DAM AXIS

VERTICAL COMPONENT

THIS pAInT OF RECORO FAINT

I.o.,zo.TA. CO. ONE.. 0

T I M I [ - SECONDS

o
|

lo
;

00AM AX,S
zo
,

0 $

ACCELER/tTION_ g L

ao
l

40
I
1.0
I

FI~. 5. Accelerogram recorded at block 1A of Koyna Dam on December 11, 1967 at 04-21 I.S.T
(after UNESCO Committee of Experts, 1968).
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF GROUND MOTION
Location

Koyna, India
Dec. 11, 1967
E1 Centro, Calif.
May 18, 1940
Taft, Calif.
July 21, 1952

Component

Max.
Accel. (g)

Spectrum Intensity,
20% Damping

Longitudinal
Transverse
Vertical

0.63
0.49
0.34

Av. 1.77

NS
EW
Vertical

0.33
0.23
0.28

Av. 2.71

N69W
N21E
Vertical

0.18
0.17
0.12

Av. 1.91

Duration of
Strong Phase
(secs)

1.69
24

0.69

0.58

17

THE KOYNA EARTHQUAKE AND THE DAMAGE TO KOYNA DAM

389

Top of Darn
KRL 2180

G)

210(2

I
C
0

. m
4--

0
UJ
2070-

i
. . ,

2050 .

--il
.

" " - I I I
m
1

2o2o.
KRL2010

Spillway

I I

Monolith Numbers
FIG. 6. Cracks in Koyna Dam caused by Koyna Earthquake.
on downstream face.

, cracks on upstream face; - - -, cracks

through 30. It should be noted that K R L 2060 is the level at which the slope of the downstream face changes abruptly (Figure 3). Monolith 18 suffered the worst cracking, which
may have been due to several factors. It is unsymmetrical, with half of it being overflow
section and the remaining nonoverflow. An elevator tower extending 50 ft above the
roadway is located on this monolith, which must have caused additional inertia forces.
Significant leakage of water was observed on the downstream face of monolith 26 near
K R L 2060, and traces of seepage of water were observed on monoliths 18, 19, 28, 29, and
31.

390

ANIL K. CHOPRA AND P. CHAKRABARTI

There were evidences of relative movement between adjacent monoliths. This is to be

expected because the monoliths have different height, and, therefore, have different
periods of vibration which results in different motions during an earthquake. These
evidences included some spalling of concrete along the vertical joints between adjacent
monoliths. There was considerable increase in seepage through the contraction joints
between adjacent monoliths after the earthquake, especially from between monoliths
18 and 19 and also 26 and 27.
Although there were significant changes between the readings of some stress meters
before and after the earthquake, it is not obvious that they were caused by the earthquake,
because they seem to be of the same order as in the long-term stress curves (UNESCO
Committee of Experts, 1968). There appeared to be a sudden change in the deflections of
the dam caused by the earthquake, e.g., the deflection of monolith 22 changed by about
0.2 in in the downstream direction during the period December 7 to 16, 1967. This change
in deflection seems to be a consequence of change in elastic deformations in the monolith and not the result of any rigid body rotation about the base or foundation settlement.
Cores drilled from the foundation gallery into the foundation rock through the concrete
indicate that the contact between rock and concrete has not suffered any distress. No
important changes in the uplift pressures seem to have been caused by the earthquake.
Contraction joints between monoliths have opened at the lower elevations, especially
between monoliths 26 through 29, and closed near the top of the dam.
Repairs and strengthening of Koyna Dam. The damage caused to Koyna Dam by the
earthquake of December 11, 1967, was soon repaired in two ways. First, the major
cracks were repaired by injecting epoxy resin. Second, the taller nonoverflow monoliths
were prestressed along the height from the roadway down to KRL 1990 which is 70 ft
below the major cracks. In view of the recent increase in seismic activity in the vicinity of
Koyna Dam and the weakening of the dam by the December 11, 1967 shock, it was
considered necessary to strengthen the entire dam. According to information from the
Central Water and Power Commission, India, the nonoverftow monoliths are being
strengthened by increasing the section over the entire width of the monolith from the
base up to KRL 1970, and providing a buttress of width varying between 20 and 30 ft
above this level.
ANALYSIS OF KOYNA DAM

Like all gravity dams, Koyna Dam has a complicated three-dimensional geometry,
and during the earthquake it was subjected to three-dimensional ground motion with
possibly significant spatial variations along its base. As the motion was recorded only at
one location, these variations are not known. Such variations have rarely, if ever, been
recorded during other earthquakes and, because it is not possible to hypothesize them,
they are ignored in this study. The length of Koyna Dam is about 8 times its height and
about 11 times its width, and the vertical joints between monoliths were not grouted,
resulting in the various monoliths vibrating somewhat independently during the earthquake. In analyzing the dam, therefore, it seems reasonable to neglect the vibration in the
longitudinal direction (along the axis of the dam) and consider the vibration of each
monolith in the transverse (perpendicular to the axis of the dam) plane to be independent
of the others, thus simplifying the problem to a two-dimensional vibration of a monolith
resulting from transverse and vertical components of the earthquake ground motion. An
important concern of this investigation is to identify, by dynamic analyses, those regions
of the monoliths which were likely to be overstressed and crack during an earthquake.
A linear analysis is considered to be adequate for this purpose and is employed in this

THE KOYNA EARTHQUAKE AND THE DAMAGE TO KOYNA DAM

391

investigation, but it should be recognized that a nonlinear analysis would be required if

the objective were to study the behavior of the dam including the progression of cracking.
Response of nonorerflow monoliths. As mentioned earlier, the earthquake caused
cracks in the upper part of a number of nonoverflow monoliths on both sides of the
spillway section. As the cracking was worse in the taller monoliths, they have been
selected for analysis. Their typical section has been presented earlier in Figure 3. This
monolith is assumed to constitute a plane stress system and is analyzed by the finite
element method (Chopra et al., 1969) utilizing a computer program developed recently
(Chopra and Chakrabarti, 1970). The dynamic interaction between the dam and the
reservoir is ignored in the first analysis. In view of the high modulus of elasticity (exceeding 10 x 106 psi) of massive basalts at Koyna, it seems reasonable to assume the foundation to be rigid for purposes of the analyses. Although the strength of the four different
concrete mixes used in the dam is significantly different, their density, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's ratio is similar, and for purposes of a finite element analysis the
section is, therefore, considered to be homogeneous with modulus of elasticity =
4.5 x 106 psi, unit weight = 165 pcf, and Poisson's ratio = 0.20 (Murti et al., 1964). It
seems reasonable to select 5 per cent as the damping ratio for the lower modes of concrete
gravity dams.
The periods of the first four modes of vibration of the nonoverflow monolith of
Figure 3 are 0.326, 0.122, 0.093 and 0.063 sec. Considering these four modes of vibration,
the response of the monolith to simultaneous action of the transverse and vertical
components of the Koyna ground motion is presented in Figures 7 and 8. The initial
displacements and stresses in the dam caused by self weight and hydrostatic loads have
been included. These results represent only a small part, which is considered to be most
significant, of the total computer output. At the crest, the maximum displacement is about
1.3 in and the vertical displacement has a peak value of about 0.5 in, with the principal
contributions being from the first mode of vibration, Of special interest are the critical
stresses over the cross section and these are presented in Figure 8, wherein the contours
of maximum principal stress (largest tension or smallest compression) are plotted at two
instants of time: t = 4.25 and 4.425 sec after the beginning of the earthquake. Tensile
stresses exceeding 500 psi develop at the upstream face between KRL 2040 and KRL
2080. On the downstream face, tension exceeding 700 psi develops over an area of
comparable size; more important, there is a concentration of stresses near KRL 2060
where the downstream face changes slope abruptly with tension exceeding 1000 psi over a
small area. The maximum compressive stress in the section exceeds 1200 psi.
Hydrodynamic effects. The analyses discussed above have not considered the hydrodynamic pressures that would be acting on the upstream face of the dam. A solution is
available to estimate the hydrodynamic pressures resulting from the transverse component
of ground motion and their effect on the response of the dam. This analysis recognizes
the compressibility of water and includes the dynamic interaction between the dam and
the reservoir (Chopra, 1970). It has the limitation, however, that only the first mode of
vibration of the dam is included, but this is not considered to be serious because earthquakes tend to excite motions of the structure in which the first mode of vibration
dominates. The hydrodynamic pres'sures resulting from the vertical component of ground
motion are not understood nearly as well, and the dynamic interaction between the dam
and the reservoir has not been included in their analysis. Consequently, although it is
realized that the vertical component of ground motion may cause significant hydrodynamic pressures on the upstream face of the dam, they are not considered herein.
The analysis described in an earlier paper (Chopra, 1970) is utilized to determine the
response of the nonoverflow monolith, including the hydrodynamic pressures and

Horizontal

#,

.,~,,~r~Am I1\11 IAA~AAk,.,,..~

0
-I

"

vV
v-,

-vvv

,-,^.

-2

Vertical

0
-I

-2
Horizontal

.E

U P S T R E A M FACE - CREST

Vertical

._
r'~

0
-I

%%-~ v

Horizontal

UPSTREAM FACE- KRL 2 0 6 0

o
-I

-2
Vertical
2

-I
-2
0

4
5
Time - s e c s

LO

UPSTREAM FACE- KRL 193B

FIG. 7. Displacement response of Koyna Dam to transverse and vertical components of Koyna earthquake.

PO0

oo

200
300
400
500

\ \\\\',II~oo

\ \XX
oo
-

Fla. 8. Critical stresses in nonoverflow monoliths of Koyna Dam as a result of transverse and vertical
components of Koyna earthquake. (A) Maximum principal stresses in pounds per square inch at
4.425 sec. (B) Maximum principal stresses in pounds per square inch at 4.25 sec.

THE KOYNA E A R T H Q U A K E A N D THE DAMAGE TO K O Y N A DAM

393

dynamic interaction between dam and reservoir, to the transverse component of Koyna
ground motion. This analysis can treat dam cross sections with arbitrary geometry and
non-homogeneity, except for the restriction thatthe upstream face must be nearly vertical.
In applying it to the analysis of Koyna Dam, the mass distribution is taken to be, according to the actual geometry of the nonoverflow monolith, the shape of the first mode of
vibration as obtained earlier by a finite element analysis, and the reservoir depth is taken
to be 301 ft, the depth at the time of the earthquake. The dynamic displacement at the
crest of the dam without the reservoir is shown as a function of time in Figure 9 and has a
maximum value of 1.23 in. When the first four modes of vibration were included, the
Dam without reservoir

..c

A^^A^A I AAI

, vvv

-I

max: 1.23 in
I

E
D a m - Reservoir

stem
I

~max :1.77 in
0

v v '/ll/Ij

~ / AA^,,f~ ^ , , , , A
~V q VVVV . . . . .

]vv

-2

"
"

~o

.2-

t,

._o

"o

-.2

-.4

V~

~VV~V,V

vV~ v~ ,~

"~max :0.29
1

10

T i m e - secs

FiG. 9. Response of Koyna Dam-Reservoir System to Koyna earthquake.

peak value was about 1.3 in (Figure 7), which indicates that the contributions of the
modes higher than the first to the crest displacement are small and the above mentioned
analysis which ignores the higher modes is, therefore, satisfactory. The time-history of
the crest displacement is also shown in Figure 9, and when the hydrodynamic pressures
and the dynamic interaction between the dam and the reservoir are included, it has a
longer dominant period indicating a lengthening of the vibration period of the dam
because of the reservoir. The peak value of the crest displacement is 1.77 in, which is
about 45 per cent larger than the value when the reservoir was excluded. The timehistory of the total hydrodynamic force on the upstream face of the monolith is shown in
the lower part of the same figure and has a peak value of 0.29 times the hydrostatic force.
The results presented above indicate that stresses larger than those computed earlier
are to be expected when the dynamic effects of the reservoir are included. On the basis of

394

ANIL K. CHOPRA AND P. CHAKRABARTI

the increase in crest displacement in the first mode, the dynamic stresses would increase
about 45 per cent. It is not possible to compute the total principal stresses after the 45 per
cent increase directly from Figure 8 because the values in these figures include the static
stresses and the static component of principal stresses cannot be eliminated by a simple
subtraction. However, the largest dynamic stresses occur in the upper part of the monolith near KRL 2060 and because the static stresses in this region are relatively small, the
total principal stresses in this region, including dynamic effects of the reservoir, may be
estimated simply by increasing the values in Figure 8 by about 45 per cent.
On this basis, the peak stresses will be as follows: tension of the order of 700 psi
between K R L 2030 and K R L 2090 near the upstream face, tension of the order of
1400 psi at K R L 2060 near the downstream face, and a maximum compression of the
order of 1800 psi.
These stresses are considerably larger than those obtained earlier (Berg et al., 1969) by a
simpler approximate procedure in which the dam was idealized as a cantilever beam and
the hydrodynamic effects represented by an added mass. The cantilever beam idealization
fails to completely include the stress concentration near KRL 2060, especially on the
downstream face, and the hydrodynamic effects may be underestimated by the added mass
approach.
Concrete strength and cracking. The pertinent data concerning three of the four
different mixes used in Koyna Dam are listed in Table 2; only a small volume of
mix no. 1 was used in the lowest parts of the dam and it is, therefore, excluded. The
compressive strength values are based on the data presented earlier (Mufti et al., 1964),
and the tensile strength is assumed to be about 10 per cent of the compressive strength.
The allowable stress in compression is taken to be 25 per cent of the compressive strength,
and, although tensile stresses are generally not permitted by the design criteria for gravity
dams, the allowable stress in tension is assumed to be about 50 per cent of the tensile
strength.
TABLE 2
CONCRETE MIXES USED IN KOYNA DAM

Mix No.

Parts of the Dam

Compressive
Strength
(psi)

Tensile
Strength
(psi)

Allowable
Compressive
Stress
(psi)

Allowable
Tensile
Stress
(psi)

2
3
4

Up to K R L 1900
K R L 1900-2160
A b o v e K R L 2160

4100
3500
2900

410
350
290

1025
875
725

205
175
145

The results of linearly elastic response analyses of the dam presented and discussed
earlier indicate that the tensile stresses exceed the tensile strength of mix no. 3 from K R L
1990 to 2130 near the faces; the peak tensile stress on the upstream face exceeds twice the
tensile strength and that on the downstream face is about four times the tensile strength.
The time-history of responses indicate that the larger peaks occur for about a 3-sec
duration. Cracking would, therefore, be anticipated in the tallest nonoverflow monoliths
near the two faces between K R L 1990 and 2130, especially near K R L 2060 where the
largest stresses occur. Cracking is not likely to occur over the entire zone over which
stresses exceed the tensile strength because their spreading would be curtailed by the
dissipation of energy in the earliest cracking. This is generally consistent with the observed
cracks in monoliths 15 through 18. Analysis of other nonoverflow monoliths would lead
to similar correlation between anticipated and observed cracks.

1HEKOYNAEARTHQUAKE
ANDTHEDAMAGE
TOKOYNADAM

395

It seems to be a common practice in India to use concrete mixes of different strengths in

different parts of a gravity dam; the highest strength concrete is used in the lower parts
of the dam and the strength is decreased at higher elevations. This practice would seem
to be logical if the stresses should increase with distance below the top of the dam. The
loading considered in conventional design procedures for gravity dams include selfweight, hydrostatic pressures, uplift forces, and additional static forces to represent
earthquake effects. All of these design loads increase with distance below the top, and
the resulting stresses are, therefore, smallest near the top of the dam and increase at
lower elevations. The above mentioned practice of decreasing the concrete strength at
higher elevations is probably based on such considerations. However, a dynamic analysis
of stresses in gravity dams caused by earthquakes demonstrates that the stresses do not
decrease at higher elevations; on the contrary, the most critical stresses occur in the upper
part of the dam. The concept of decreasing the concrete strength at higher elevations,
therefore, does not seem to be a sound one; on the contrary, relatively higher strength
concrete would be preferable in the upper part of the dam.
Response of overflowmonolitks. The overflow monoliths (nos. 19 through 23) of Koyna
Dam were not damaged during the earthquake of December 11, 1967. The typical section
of overflow monoliths has been presented earlier in Figure 3. It is analyzed by the finite
element method with the dynamic interaction between the dam and the reservoir ignored
and the foundation assumed to be rigid. The most important results of this analysis are
presented in Figure 10, wherein the critical stresses resulting from simultaneous action of
the transverse and vertical components of the Koyna ground motion have been plotted.

,50
15
250

250

//0

-50
5OO

-100

-50

FIG. 10. Critical stresses in overflow monoliths of Koyna Dam caused by Koyna earthquake. (A) Maximum principal stresses in pounds per square inch at 2.90 secs. (B) Maximum principal stresses in pounds
per square inch at 3.825 sec.
A comparison with the corresponding results for the nonoverflow monoliths (Figure 8)
reveals that the maximum tensile stresses in this case are considerably smaller. The maximum tensile stress at the upstream face of the overflow monoliths is about 300 psi in
contrast to about 500 psi in the case of the nonoverflow monoliths. More important, there
is no stress concentration near the downstream face of the overflow monoliths and the
maximum stress is only about 250 psi compared to about 1000 psi for the nonoverflow
monoliths. The total stresses may be larger than the values shown in Figure 10 when the

396

ANIL K. CHOPRA AND P. CHAKRABARTI

hydrodynamic pressures that would be acting on the upstream face of the section are
included. If the increase in stresses in the overflow monoliths resulting from hydrodynamic effects is roughly similar to that in the case of the nonoverflow monoliths, the
results of a linearly elastic response analysis indicate that the maximum tension on the
downstream face would be roughly equal to or slightly less than the tensile strength of
mix no. 3, whereas the tensile stresses near the upstream face would slightly exceed the
strength. Consequently, little or no cracking would be expected to occur in the overflow
monoliths, which is consistent with the observed damage.
CONCLUSIONS

Destructive earthquakes can occur in regions considered to be stable with very low
seismicity. The seismicity of some regions of the Earth's crust can apparently be affected,
at least for a few years, by filling of large reservoirs. The possibility of occurrence of
destructive earthquakes should, therefore, be considered in the design of dams.
The cracking anticipated in the nonoverflow monoliths of K o y n a D a m on the basis of
tensile stresses computed from dynamic analyses and concrete strength data is consistent
with the damage caused to the dam by the Koyna earthquake of December l 1, 1967.
Analyses demonstrate that little or no cracking would be expected to occur in the overflow monoliths, and this is consistent with the observed performance.
Dynamic analyses demonstrate that the more critical tensile stresses occur in the upper
parts of gravity dams. The practice of decreasing the concrete strength at higher elevations in dams, which was employed at Koyna Dam, is, therefore, not a sound one; on
the contrary, relatively higher strength is required in the upper parts of gravity dams.
The damage to K o y n a D a m by the Koyna earthquake shows that concrete gravity
dams are not as immune to earthquake damage as has been commonly supposed.
Although the cross section of K o y n a D a m is not typical of gravity dams and at first sight
would appear to be significantly more vulnerable, it has been demonstrated otherwise by
analyses (Chopra and Chakrabarti, 1971). The present practice for design of gravity
dams needs to be modified to recognize that earthquakes can cause large tensile stresses
and to provide for their consequences.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The discussions with Mr. S. Balasurbrahmanyam, Central Water and Power Commission, New Delhi,
and Dr. S. K. Guha and Dr. B. Pant, Central Water and Power Research Station, Poona, were very
fruitful. Gratitude is due to them as well as to Professor G. V. Berg, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor;
Professor A. R. Chandrasekaran, University of Roorkee; Professor D. E. Hudson, California institute
of Technology, Pasadena; Professor N. C. Nigam, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur; Professor
S. Okamoto, University of Tokyo; Mr. Y. R. Taneja, Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi; the
Office of the Chief Engineer, Koyna; and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; for providing valuable
information.
The research investigation described in this work was sponsored by the Officeof the Chief of Engineers,
Department of the Army, Washington, D. C. The authors are grateful for this support.
REFERENCES
Berg, G. V., Y. C. Das, K. V. G. K. Gokhale, and A. V. Setlur (1969). The Koyna, lndia, Earthquakes,
Proc. Worm Conf. Earthquake Eng., 4th, Santiago, Chile.
Carder, D. S. (1945). Seismic investigations in the Boulder Dana area, 1940-1944, and the influence of
reservoir loading on local earthquake activity, Bull. Seism. Soe. Am. 35, 175-192.
Chopra, Anti K. (1970). Earthquake response of concrete gravity dams, J. Eng. Mech. Div. A S C E 96,
No. EM4.

THE KOYNA EARTHQUAKEAND THE DAMAGE TO KOYNA DAM

397

Chopra, Anil K. and P. Chakrabarti (1970). A Computer Program for Earthquake Analysis of Dams,
Report No. EERC 70 5, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
Chopra, Anil K. and P. Chakrabarti (1971). The Koyna Earthquake of December 11, 1967 and the
Performance of Koyna Dam, Report No. EERC 71-1, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, California.
Chopra, Anil K., M. Dibaj, R. W. Clough, J. Penzien, and H. B. Seed (1969). Earthquake analysis of
earth dams, Proc. WorM Conf. Earthquake Eng. 4th, Santiago, Chile.
Guha, S. K., S. P. Agarwal, V. P. Agarwal, P. D. Gosavi, and S. C. Marwadi (1971). Analysis of accelerograms and structural response, J. Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE 97, No. EM2.
Guha, S. K., S. P. Agarwal, and P. D. Gosavi (1972). Accelerogram of Koyna Earthquake of December
11, 1967, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 62, 413~114.
Guha, S. K., P. D. Gosavi, M. M. Varma, S. P. Agarwal, J. G. Padale, and S. C. Marwadi (1968).
Recent Seismic Disturbances in the Shivajisagar Lake Area of the Koyna Hydroelectric Project,
Maharashtra, India, Research Report Central Water and Power Research Station, Poona, India.
Gupta Harsh, Hari Narain, B. K. Rastogi, and Indra Mohan (1969). A study of the Koyna earthquake
of December 10, 1967, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 59, 1149-1162.
Gupta, Harsh K., B. K. Rastogi, and Hari Narain (1972). Common features of the reservoir-associated
seismic activities, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 62,481-492.
Housner, G. W. (1969). The Seismic Events at Koyna Dam, Proc. Syrup. Rock Mech. llth, Berkeley,
California.
Krishna, J., A. R. Chandrasekaran, and S. S. Saini (1969). Analysis of Koyna accelerogram of December
11, 1967, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 59, 1719-1731.
Mane, P. M., and V. S. Gupte (1962). Koyna Dam, Indian J. Power and River Valley Development,
Koyna Project Special Number, 19-28.
Mufti, N. G. K. (1968). Write up on Koyna, Irrigation andPower, April, 1968.
Murti, N. G. K., P. M. Mane, and M. R. Vinayaka (1964). Evaluation of rubble concrete for the Koyna
Dam and its performance in the structure, Trans. Intern. Congr. Large Dams, 8th, Edinburgh.
Rothe, J. P. (1969). Earthquake and reservoir loadings, Proc. Worm Conf. Earthquake Eng., 4th,
Santiago, Chile.
UNESCO Committee of Experts (1968). Koyna Earthquake of December 11, 1967, Report, New Delhi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1960). Gravity dam design, Design Manual, E M 1110-2-2200, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1966). Design Standards No. 2-Concrete Dams, Chapter 2 gravity dams,
Denver.
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

Manuscript received June 16, 1972