Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

A Paper by R. I. D. M. MYBURGH, M.Sc.(Eng.), M.B.A., A.IVI.I.C.E.

(Member)

VALLEY SHAPE FACTOR IN ARCH DAM


DESIGN
SYNOPSIS
'
E XISTING criteria of for determining the suitability of a site for an arch darn involving the
height and the span are not realistic, nor do they form a fair basis for comparing the
merits of one arch darn with another.
The use of the lI(chfoc/OI, as developed, effectively overcomes these difficulties and provides
a standard for the evaluation of sites of widely different form. The volume of concrete in the
, Iando(d anh, as proposed in the Paper, is a standard measure against which the efficiency of a
particular design may be judged.

Introduction and the arch type dam is govemed by the shape of


the valley, with the arch obtaining a greater advantagt~
THE prinlt' fUllction or any dam is to plug oR' a valley ,IS th .. villle"~ ' narrows clown.
and retain the water ill tht' basin. H economic
studies have shown that one or the concrete types i~ The shape Df the valley illftut'llces an arch dam
to be preferred to the embankment types and if the in two very important respects, the first being whether
rock foundations arc capable of supporting the load it is possible to effect dosurc by means of an efficient,
imposed, tile choice between the" gr(lvity or buttress economical arch dam and the st~cond is the effect of

T
H
<15
0

~b<H--
(a) U-Shaped ( b) Narrow V- Shape
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

--b<2H~
Fig. I
(c) Wide V-Shape (d) Composite U- V- Shape
Valley Shape classification
according to Sarkaria

IS _'' ' .o>.i..._,,__/


(e)
~-- - - b > 2 H --- -------1
Wide and Flat Canyon

(f) Unclassified Shapes

DIE SIVIELE INGENIEUR in Suid-Alrika - Januarie 1964


the shape of the valley on the shape of the arch; Only the basis of the criterion proposed by Kim and Sarkaria
first aspect will be treated here. as suitable for an arch and just more economical tha~
the equivalent gravity dam. If the same valley shape was
,Inadequacy of existing shape proportionately; doubled in size, the canyon-shape
factor would still be five and presumably it will still
parameters be suitable for an arch dam. Yet, while the concrete
To start with it is necessary to define and classify quantity of the equivalent gravity dam would only
the various valley cross-sections. In collaboration with increase by 2 3 or 8 times, that of the doubled up arch
F. D. Kim, G. S. Sarkaria 1 has proposed a classification would increase by 24 or 16 times. At this stage the arch
which was intended to eliminate the confusion caused would certainly not be more favourable than the gravity
by references to general terms like wide, narrow and dam. The illustration serves to show up the main
U-shaped canyons. These are shown in Fig. 1. inadequacy of the canyon-shape factor both as a basis
for comparison between arches and as a deciding factor
The ratio of the top width to height of a valley in the choice between the alternative of the arch or
was at one time used as a criterion for assessing whether the gravity solution.
or not a particular site was suitable for an arch dam
and for comparing one arch site with another. This Proposed new shape parameter
would only have been a fair criterion if all valleys
were V-shaped, because it is of course clear that two As a new basis for the evaluation of the suitability
valleys one V-shaped and one U-shaped could have of sites and to overcome the shortcomings of the canyon-
the'same ratio and yet be widely different with respect shape or span-to-height factors, the Author proposes
to their influence on arch shape and efficiency. the use of what he calls the arch factor of a valley. The
arch factor can be defined as the ratio of the volume of
The writers referred to have therefore proposed concrete in the equivalent standard graviry dam to the
what they term a canyon-shape factor, which is defined volume of concrete in the standard arch dam for the site
as the ratio of the foundation perimeter to the maximum in question.
height of the dam; This is an improvement, because The standard arch dam is used as a basic standard
the added influence of the foundation contact at depth against which to determine the relative efficiency of an
is brought to bear, but, as will be shown, is not enough. arch design for a particular valley. It is derived as
From an empirical comparison of a rather restricted follows:-
tabulation of existing arch and gravity dams they Because the aim in arch dam design is to use the
conclude -that sites with canyon-shape factors greater concrete in compression as effectively as possible, the
than five' are unsuitable for building economical arch value of the average stress across a section is a measure
dams. This conclusion can of course not be generally of the efficiency of design. A useful basic comparator
valid, because it can be altered by improved arch design. here is the average stress and associated thickness
Simply by doubling up the allowable arch stresses the
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

derived fwm the thin cylinder theory as, for a particular


factor can be pushed up to ten. The canyon-shape stress value, the thickness of an arch is directly related
factor also does not take into account the fact that an to the water depth and upstream radius and is given by:-
arch foundation follows a curved path in plan, while
the equivalent gravity dam follows a straight line at the T = Pw h r
site. However, there is a much more cogent reason for fe
rejecting the canyon-shape factor. where h = depth below design water level
Because an arch dam is intended to use concrete Pw = densiry of water
in its optimum strength form, that is, in direct com- r = thin cylinder radius
pression, the only fair comparison between arch dams .f~ = average concrete stress.
would be one that takes into account the quantity of
concrete required to perform its specific function. In the For arches of the usual slender proportions r may,
case of gravity dams where weight of concrete and not with reasonable accuracy, be taken as the mid-thickness
so much its strength is the design factor, concrete volume radius.
is also the measure of efficiency. The value of fe adopted for the standard should
In an arch dam the thickness at a particular level be set at a level which can be attained by reasonably
is proportional, on the thin cylinder theory, to the radius, good design. As a basic standard a stress of 500 Ib(in. 2
or, for a constant angle, the span times the height. is proposed. This is equivalent to the average stress in
The unit volume of concrete at that height is proportional an arch ring under combined thrust and bending
to the square of the span times the height. The total moment with a compressive stress of 1,000 Ib/in. 2 on
volume of the arch is therefore proportional to the fourth one face and zero on the other. Efficient designs should
power of its dimensions. In the case of a gravity dam be able to improve on this condition and poor designs
the thickness is proportional to its height only, while will be shown up.
the total volume is proportional to the third power of While the theoretical most economical thin cylinder
its dimensions. arch angle is 133t 0 and the angle for thick arches is
A particular valley shape might have a canyon- slightly greater, practical site considerations play a
shape factor of five and therefore be judged, on the part to reduce the angle that can be maintained as an

2 DIE SIVIELE INGENIEUR in Suid-Afrika - Januarie 1964


average in an arch dam to about 110, which wiII h=H
therefore be adopted as a standard. The thickness of the Qg = h = ) 075 h I dh
arch may now be made independent of the designer's
choice of radius by expressing it in terms of I, the chord
length between the abutments of the site:-
Thus the arch factor = Q!
Q

T = Pw X hi
Ie 2 sin. 55 1,210 orh I dh
The use of the chord length of the arch has the
additional advantage that it can be used as the length, orO. 00062 h 12 dh orh12 dh
at that elevation of the arch, of the equivalent gravity
dam used as a comparator. Evaluation of shape factors
The volume of concrete contained in the arch per For illustration purposes the comparable para-
unit thickness at the particular level is meters of certain geometric valley shapes, depicted in
P- X hI I Fig. 2, to which many natural valleys can be approxi-
X 1100
w
- X
fe 2 sin. 55 2 sin. 55 mated, are tabulated below:-
000062 h 12 Subject to the reservation that the comparison is
The total volume of concrete in the standard arch limited to cases where the arches can be considered
dam is the summation of the quantities in all the mainly as spanning horizontally ~nd are therefore in
arches or the range of thin to medium thick arches, where canti-
h=H . lever and gravity action is not dominant, the most
Qa = h =) 000062 h 12 dh important deduction is that, completely contrary to
accepted practice, the span-height ratio has nothing at
The efficiency of various arch designs for a par- all to do with the suitability of a site for an arch dam.
ticular, or any, site may not be compared by comparing The arch factor, which is a true measure of the suitability
their volume of concrete with the volume in the of a particular site for an arch, is actually governed
standard arch. only by the width and geometric shape of the valley
and not by the height.
The volume of concrete in the equivalent standard
gravity dam is a comparator against which the suitability Comparing the extreme cases of rectangular and
of a site for an arch dam can be compared. The usual triangular valleys it will be seen that the triangular
basis of using the slenderness ratio, namely base thickness valley can be twice as wide as the rectangular and still
to height of an arch, as an efficiency comparator is as retain the same relative arch efficiency. The parabolic
misleading as the top width to height ratio and for the shape, to which many valleys suitable for arches
same reasons, because, on this basis, the ratio for a conform, characteristically falls between the often met
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

dam in a narrow V-shaped valley would be far smaller triangular shape and the very unusual rectangular shape.
than for a dam of the same height in a wide and flat The same holds true for the trapezoidal shape, which
canyon, yet the latter might be a better and more can be used to approximate most valley shapes, except
efficient design. those which are very irregular.
The base-height ratio for a standard gravity dam will It is interesting to note, that 011 the assumptions
be taken as 075 to 1 0, which represents a reasonably made, the limit to the span of an economical arch for a
efficient section for a modern gravity dam. The total rectangular valley is about 1,200 ft, while for a
volume of concrete in the standard gravity dam is the triangular valley the corresponding value is 2,400 ft.
summation of the volumes at all elevations:- At these values the arch factor is unity.

Vol ume of standard Volume of standard Arch factor


Valley shape gravity arch Qg
Qg Qa Qa
...
_ _- ---
BH2 B2H2 1,210
Rectangular ... ... . .. ... 075 -- 000062 -- ---

2 2 B

4BH' IJ'H' 1,936


Parabolic ". ... O 75 - - - 000062 _ . .--
15 6 B

lJH' B'H' 2,420


Triangular ". ". ". O 75 -- 000062 ._-- ---
6 12. B

Trapezoidal ... ... ... ... 075


[BH'
-6+3 bH'J 000062
rB2f]' bBH'
-+--+--
2
b H"j J ,210
--x [ 2+4bjB J
12 6 4 . B 1+ 2bjB+ 3(bjB)'

DIE SIVIELE INGENIEUR in Suid-Afrika'- Januarie 1964 3


~ 8 "1
r
H
I

!
~
'+
'dh
L 'YfA.\Yh,' I
I

Rectangular Parabolic
Fig. 2
8--~ B -------II""i GeOlnetric valley shapes
I" ~----~

T
H
L._
1---- b . . . ----1-1
Triangular Trapezoidal

In practice, howcver, the unit price of arch concrete As an example of the use of the parameters developed
cannot be the samc as that of gravity concrete and is will be quoted the case of the Tweerivierin double
increased by such factors as increased cost of shuttering, curvature arch dam now under construction on the
higher quality concrete, more intricate construction Kouga River near Port Elizabeth. vVhen completed this
procedures and probably more complicated ancillary dam will have a maximum height above foundation rock
works. Consequently, it is clear that in a comparison .of 310ft. Because of the poor quality of the rock, the
between arch and' gravity proposals the arch must foundations are specially widened and the geometric
be weighted and for the arch proposal to be more arch proper above the foundation concrete has a height
economical than the gravity proposal, thc arch factor of 275 ft and a clear span of 6765 ft at the level of
must be greater than I O. Based on experience of cost the top arch. The valley is of the parabolic form. The
values it should be greater than 125. actual volume of concrete in the double 'curvature arch
shell above the foundations is 146,650 yd 3 .
The iimit to the 'span for an economical arch must
therefore be reduced to 1,000 ft for the rectangular and Using the standards proposed, the concrete volume
2,000 ft for the triangular, with about 1,600 ft for the in the equivalent standard gravity dam occupying the
same foundation profile is 470,830 yd 3, while that in
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2011)

parabolic. These limiting values can, of course, all be


increased by the adoption of higher stresses and by the equivalentstandard arch dam is 191,680 yd 3
improved design making use of all the strength resources The arch factor is therefore 2456 and the valley
of the arch such as cantilever and gravity action and is thus definitely of the form where the arch shape can
the two-dimensional arching associated with double be used to obtain structural efficiency and economy.
curvature. The volume of concrete in the double curvature
Finally, in the same way as the feasible limit to arch as built is 765 per cent of that in the standard
the span of arch and suspension bridges has been arch and this economy is therefore a measure of the
pushed up again and again by improvements in design efficiency of the design.
and materials accompanying technological advances, REFERENCE
it is clear that what is regarded to-day as the limit to l. KIRN, F. D., SARKARIA, G. S. Influence of canyon shape on the
the span of an arch dam will tomorrow be surpassed design of concrete dams. Civil Engineering and Public Works Review.
by a new marvel of the civil engineering art. London, ]\"Iarch, 1955.

DISCUSSION
Written discussion on the above paper will be accepted until March, 26, 1964. This, together with the Author's Reply,
will be published in the July, 1964, issue of The Civil Engineer in South Africa, or later.
Such written discussion, which must be submitted in duplicate, should be in the third person present tense, and should
be typed in double spacing. It should be as short as possible and should not normally exceed 600 words in length. It
should also conform to the requirements laid down in the 'Notes for the Guidance of Authors and Contributors'
as published in the March, 1959, issue of The Civil Engineer in South Africa.
REFERENCE
Whenever reference is made to the above paper this publication should be referred to as the Transactions of the South
African Institution of Civil Engineers, and the volume and date given thus: Trans. S. Afr. Insfn. Civ. Engrs. 6 (Jan.,1964)

DIE SIVIELE INGENIEUR in Suid-Afrika Januarie 1964

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi