Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stress Marseilles
Stress Marseilles
Structures Laboratory
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180
Septembelr 1980 *C
Final Re9port
Distribution Unlimited
Approved For Public Release;
.-4
so
0
Ii4
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSII'ICATION OF THIS PAGE (When D11t• Entered)
READ INSTRUCTIONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
I'· AEPOR T NUMBER
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME a AOORESS(/1 dltter""t from Conttolllnl Oltl ce) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (ollhle r_,.,rt)
1'7. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of lila Nallac t ontered In Blocl< 20, II dlllerent from Report)
lt. KEY WOROS (Continue on ,....,•• aide II neceaaary .,d Identity l>y l>locl< number)
Base pressure Keys (Splines ) Stabili ty
Finite element method Marseilles Dam Tainter gates
Head gates Monoliths
Ice chute monolith Post-tensioni ng
Illinois Waterway Sluice ga t es
10. A-Tl'IAC:T (C'__,.-,._ • l tlt II ..--eery - ldenJity,. block n-1>«)
,...-y )
-- )ay
- ..,;b. The monoli th s of Ma r seilles Dam we re ana ly zed t o sec if t hey meet present-
<A..
s tab i lit y r equi r ements .
ln the analysis of t he tain ter gate monoli t hs , the keys connecting the pier
.
and spillway sec tions were de t ermined to be overs tresse d; t herefo r e, t he spillway
and pier sections were cons i de red to act i ndepend en tly.
Using this assumption, the pie r a nd spi~lway sections wer e ana lyzed ind e-
pende ntly for stabilit y consid e ring the followi ng load cases: ( 1)~
(Continued)
DD I ~=-71 1473 ~TIOM OF I NOV 8S IS OltSOl.E TE Unclassified
SECURITY C LASSIFICATION 0,. T HIS PAG£ ( ..,._,Date Entered}
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE( -IMP DMta Bnt..4)
Normal operation;
Normal operation with ice,
Normal operation with earthquake, -
Flood condition.
The results showed that the spillway sections were adequate in stability,
the in-
and the pier sections were inadequate against overturning. To correct
of the pier sections, it was recommended that each pier section be
adequacy
in-
posttensioned using a 602-kip force. The pier sections were reanalyzed to
clude the recommended posttensioning and were determined to be adequate in
stability. The resulting stresses in the structure, foundation, and grouted
anchors were computed and determined to be within allowables.
A previous stability investigation by the U. S. Army Engineer District,
Chicago, concluded that the stability of the ice chute monoliths was adequate.
This paper concurs with that conclusion.
I.
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOE(ft.., Dof KnjereJ)
J III
PREFACE
Al
&
I- ___
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE......................... .. .. ......
CONVERSION FACTORS, INCH-POUND TO METRIC (SI) UNITS OF
MEASUREMENT. .. ........................... 3
PART 1: INTRODUCTION. .. ...................... 4
Background......................................................4
Stability Analysis*.. ....................... 4
Stress Analysis. .. ........................ 6
Objective. .. ........................... 7
PART II: STABILITY ANALYSIS .. .. ................. 8
Tainter Gate Monolith. .. ..................... 8
Ice Chute Monolith. .. .................. .... 12
PART III: STRESS ANALYSIS. .. .................... 13
Pier. .. ................. ............ 13
Pier Foundation .. .................. ...... 14
REFERENCES. .. ................. .......... 17
APPENDIX A: STABILITY AND STRESS ANALYSIS DATA
2
CONVERSION FACTORS, INCH-POUND TO METRIC (SI)
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Multiply by To Obtain
,'l
.
STABILITY AND STRESS ANALYSES, MARSEILLES DAM,
ILLINOIS WATERWAY
PART I: INTRODUCTION
Background
Stability Analysis
4
section where stability is being considered within the dam, at the base-
foundation interface, or at a plane or combination of planes below the
base. In general, the gravity sections where stability against -verturn-
ing is being considered are required to have the resultant of applied
loads fall within the kern of the base of the section being analyzed.
However, for operating conditions with earthquake, the resultant may
fall outside of the kern, but within the base, as long as allowable
foundation stresses are not exceeded.
5. The percent effective base (percent of the base which is in
compression) is a good way of representing where the resultant falls in
a rectangular based section. It is a good guide for representing over-
turning resistance for any shape base. An example for a rectangular
base follc-s:
Sliding
6. Sliding resistance of a monolith is calculated by choosing a
trial failure plane or combination of planes and calculating the resis-
tance along that path. The resistance may be composed of several types.
The sliding resistance due to friction and cohesion of the surface be-
tween the monolith and its foundation is calculated by the shear-friction
formula given in ETL 1110-2-184 (Department of the Army, Office, Chief
of Engineers, 1974). However, the formula in this ETL is inadequate for
evaluating structural sliding on inclined planes. The sliding resistance
due to all or any part of the failure plane extending through either the
concrete monolith or the foundation is calculated from the shearing
strength of the material acting over the length in which shearing occurs.
7. In general, a shear-friction safety factor of 4 is required
for all conditions of loading where earthquake is not considered and is
2-2/3 for loading conditions considering earthquake. In discussions
5
with the Office, Chief of Engineers, it was concluded that the following
safety factors for sliding would be adequate.
From the above, the criteria using safety factors of 1.5 and 1.15 will
be considered only if the criteria using safety factors of 4 and 2-2/3
are exceeded.
Base pressure
8. The water pressure used to assure adequate design against
earthquake was obtained as described in EM 1110-2-2200 (Department of
the Army, Office, Chief of Engineers, 1958) (Westergaard Theory).
9. The base pressures are the sum of the contact and uplift pres-
sures on the concrete-foundation interface.
Stress Analysis
6
Objective
i7
1 !°7
-.
PART III: STABII.ITY ANALYSIS
8
centroid of the keys, and the average maximum shear stress in the out-
side key was calculated as that produced by direct shear, plus the shear
created by the torsion.
16. The maximum average shear stress on the downstream key was
calculated to be 708 psi for the normal operation and 955 psi for normal
operation with ice.
17. The shear stress produced in the keys is also increased by
the applied horizontal forces. The contribution of the shear stress
due to the horizontal forces is not calculated because that contributed
by the vertical forces is already excessive. An allowable shear stress
of 1.1 Vr'
C
= 1.1 v9998 = 110 psi is used. At this point it is seen
that the keys cannot be depended upon to cause the pier and spillway
sections to act monolithic. The stability analysis must then be per-
formed for the pier and spillway as if they act independently.
Stability analysis of pier
18. A summary of the stability analysis results of the pier is
presented in Table Al.
19. The analysis of the rtability of the pier alone is presented
in Figures A4-A7. The adequacy of the stability of the pier alone will
be determined by its sufficiency in resistance to overturning, sliding,
and base pressures.
20. The first trial solution for overturning of the pier was to
determine whether the total base is in compression under the given
operating condition. These calculations are necessary to determine if
some area of the base is not in compression, thereby causing full uplift
to exist under the noncompressive area. The pier is inadequate in its
resistance to overturning. The tainter gate piers have to be postten-
sioned to the foundations to meet present-day criteria against overturn-
ing. The general details of the posttensioning are presented in Figure
A8. The posttensioning force needed is 602 kips per pier and is pro-
posed to be accomplished by six posttensioning holes per pier located
as shown in Figure A8. The design calculations for posttensioning are
given in Figure A9. After the piers are posttensioned to the founda-
tion, they will have adequate resistance against overturning.
. . . . ... . . ,. . . . . .. . . . . . .. ' .. , . . t
21. For anchoring the posttensioning tendons, it is recommended
that a grout having a three-day compressive strength of 5000 psi be used.
To surround the tendons inside the concrete pier, a cement-based grout
should be used to bond the tendon and protect it against corrosion.
This grouting should be done only after there is negligible additional
loss of prestress with time.
22. The resistance to sliding was evaluated in relation to the
criteria presented in paragraph 7. There were several possible failure
planes and conditions considered for adequacy of the structure against
sliding.
23. The shear resistance was calculated for (a) a clayey seam,
(b) an open bedding plane, and (c) precut, concrete-on-rock to determine
which governed for sliding at or just below the concrete foundation inter-
face. For all cases, the precut, concrete-on-rock governed the sliding
resistance of the pier, as presented in Figure A10.
24. The strut resistance against sliding for both the concrete
and the foundation was computed and compared to determine which offered
the least resistance. For all loadings the foundation strut governed
(see Figure All).
25. Two approaches were used to evaluate sliding factors of
safety for the pier. The first (lower bound value) used the sliding
resistance as the precut, concrete-on-rock under the pier and apron plus
the shear resistance of the foundation strut along an open bedding plane.
In this case the shear resistance of the key was neglected. This ap-
proach required a factor of safety of 1.15 for normal operation with
earthquake and 1.5 for the other load cases.
26. The second approach used the sliding resistance as concrete
cast on foundation rock under the pier and apron, plus the shear resis-
tance of the foundation strut along an open bedding plane, plus the shear
resistance of the key. This required a factor of safety of 2-2/3 for
normal operation plus earthquake and 4.0 for the other load cases.
27. The factor of safety against sliding for all loadings was
adequate. There is significant scour at various locations along the
toe of the stilling basin, therefore, maintenance needs to be performed
10
on this scour to eliminate it and assure that it does not continue to
cause problems in the future. Using shear strengths of precut, concrete-
on-rock, and strut action assuming an open bedding plane and no key re-
sistance, the safety factors against sliding are 2.91 for normal opera-
tion, 2.28 for normal operation with earthquake, and 1.35 for normal
operation with ice. The only condition of concern is when the strut
action is ineffective for normal operation with ice, which produces a
safety factor of 0.85. For this and to eliminate future maintenance
problems, it is desirable to perform corrective maintenance to eliminate
the scour at the downstream end of the stilling basin.
28. The bearing pressures were within allowable values
uc-
ti = 15.48 kst)
111
31. The sliding resistance along a clayey seam and open bedding
plane of the foundation was computed and compared to the residual-shear
resistance of the concrete on rock. For all loadings the residual re-
sistance governed. This comparison is presented in Figure A17. The
sliding factor of safety was computed for both residual-shear resistance
of concrete on rock and shear resistance of the natural joint between
the concrete and the foundation rock. The resistance for each was com-
pared with the allowables presented in paragraph 7 and thereby deter-
mined to be adequate. The shear resistance of the key and strut was
not needed to determine adequacy against sliding and therefore was ne-
glected in these calculations.
32. The bearing pressures at the spillway and foundation inter-
face were well within the allowable. The allowable bearing pressure at
the interface was determined to be 77.8 ksf using the unconfined com-
pressive strength of 311 ksf from laboratory tests and a safety factor
of 4. It was not necessary to check the bearing pressure at interface
between the two different foundation materials as the bearing of the
pier was reater than that of the spillway and it governed.
12
PART III: STRESS ANALYSIS
Pier
All elevations (el) cited herein are in feet referred to mean sea
level (msl).
13
bearing exists in the pier due to the applied posttensioning. For this
location in the pier, the compressive strength of the concrete (fW) is
c
8767 psi with an allowable bearing stress of 3288 psi. This design is
presented in Figure A9. t
Pier Foundation
14
42. Structural loadings are input as nodal and element loads.
The nodal loads are applied as forces and moments. The element loads
include thermal, gravity, and hydrostatic loadings. r"
43. Output. The solution output includes displacements and rota-
tions for each unrestrained node and normal and shearing stresses at se- V
lected points for each element. The output units are the same as the
input units.
Finite-element grid
15
I.
LA 16
REFERENCES
17
t.i
Al
a. ac
a4I
-62
o Ii
CD~
~ in a - I-0
7- 0 .. K
o~f -
C131
_ CD
J-))
0 L
Li -
A2U
u *
V.4 "Z~
w 04
JJ o
L. .
JCI
4-4 4-
0N -
al
4 0.
Ooo
I.. ~ 0 3
F4 0
cr tr . . . .
C'-4-4C
CccC C C C Cl.CCl.( C4rN Ci-4 Mr-C MM
C-
C- I Icr
C1 - . Ul~C%'Cr- M aC -- C
,CNC. MMC c -II n I'
04 P,. oo U-
.
V- r--
C- W C
C'C
I L ( -.C-"C,C -4C C CC C -114 4 Ci
CU
(f. " I - -
L C C :7-CZ
Z-I C
r- nC CI C 7 r , M, L NC CV,esC 17'
rf C C r- L O :
od~
wA
ILI.
4"J
4-
"-4
A5
~' 'A ~ if
'44
A l_, _ _ _ _ _
~-- 4-4
9
4-- Q)
II
I.))
'f Idd
A6
r,: ••n ·••
!:..U_: 11. ~ 14 ,044. 06 ( A6oiiT
(G.ktf~
6\) ::: !> tH.A~ II( I<ETS. tKI P~)
C:E. l'ltt IIlli)
~
Allt1 Hot1Ell1 AR.M o~ bV AlloVT ( C.PIU aA!.f lO: Tl - - - - - ll · ~ - - -- :
( <>,n t•H
~
H<i.E PII.ES.SVR.f s l P=_f_t~)
p. - I r. • ,,4,.,,k
k
H• : - 10 , Ill . , I l ~~ O UT (. (, . Sful I4Sf )
P IE 2. Hf:EL
-~ ~.za'_ CG..,~~ 11. -1 '
>
......, x-
14-1, · 8& - AV ( 1'\1044- Ot, - l!V f Alt\ ](14 .,SJ j
~P->tHL = 1
8< 4-9 · 5) tt ) t '\-~ · Sl /l~ C.C. '-P•T l~t
1~ - S
1-
P t.E il. AT lf Oou.lN'STilfAM OF H HL
A SSUt1E kfH do lfi.) T ~hc c.r o.-J Ttlf Pl f ~ O."".l I> YI LL.I.tJ~ 1 AO AS. II VlfiT r e S,UL 1 I If(, Ill
t(o Oi+fEitEh'TIAL S. E TTL E.tiE.h'T SETIUE.E N' Tt1Ht . TMI ~ WILL t iiiAS.f Tt-11: S.TR. fl l l'( lJ iii' OE il Tr1f. PI£~
~ Plf R. ~ S PIU.IUA'f
E. PIH. = ~ SfiLLIUAT
., l l)
P,.u. t Pill. E. PitA.
<;I tHE. t~ t. r,aL.t. stde o\ 42fU ATioWs. U) M..J ( l.) vH. ~~AI_
p ~
Plea.
\>s.ptu.~o~Ay
ltiEH f ou 1
~ ==
~P· 11HL I>S - IIEEL 41.5' I I
l'l
Inn
w cn
AL Li
w -~ -00
A10
'II
CY 13
I-
LL
-~ -All
- (AAL
T-
r- -
4 4
£ C
~o
.4-
tj:3
0
- 2
ZI I
0 Q) 0)
:ozo
100
It
w cr c
> 0o ' 0 id
It -J~
c-L
,j a: ;J44
Ic .0b-i
L~
+ LA12
9L
U?-
4(n
t .9
jI L 3 L
*> r--
L6 'X 6 -
-a: aO.
-. 0
10 ,-i
, 13
'. i .- . - £ ~.+-
+ +7
m ~
ii
:.'4
-. 1- i -
cr a,1
LO -cd~
6J c
dl 0~p-10 ~
4
- 0 A13
fit
4-r
Q)
-~44
Lii4 I-r~
A1
Q- 0
vlN)
- -
SAI, 5
S~EA~ S~s.
p_,, .D '6l1. Lot.> S lCt48l . ~S- 4!;~ / t 'ltl)[l) -ue.,, •·•& • Hl-111
Ofttllll
ql) .l\ ..,., .. 0
P1AIIo. "lll ( . oUS)[t468· 4 -4~1) 1 1/zlll;>) )!.,) t). 1 s J . t.l 41 - 41
""' .....
Is-. l S. •)
Pwn on (l•>U.H~>"l t ( 1/lJU.Vlt-•· lHJil> Hil ,.... , .., • l4 • . '4
~fT
l 111 0 1~·
>
,_. v 4•1· 4 u,..,r, 0" (tl. 8l1Hl · Sl 4 t</>)<1· 810 -o . &l•l<I·S) •
Pllt. •401 . (,1
....... Ht\ -1, t O· S01)111'1 ~ ( 1/>)li . }St. - • · 5&11 l 4'1 J( ll .,. eo •II 114 • '11
f"IR!OT TII.IAL SOL\l liON To I>Hfiti!WE II' P~~ T OF" TOlE aAH lo'Ol
llfl jfff \Ill f II I I I I I I I I I I U ttl t OHPt~SSIOI(. 1f SCI, T~~lo' F"ULL UPLtn 11\&Sl lH ~ ffllll>
·~
VIIDlt llol( - totHlf.~S!ON" ARt; A\ .
.PJSULlAt{l All1
BSl1 · 1~ IS · 5 &
=
1So1 . , &
Figure A4. Stability analysis, tainter gate monolith pier, normal operation (Sheet 1 of 3)
Appl )' lltC. FULL V/'LIFT Uf(DER.. lfOir-CoHpllfSSIOIV' AiE~.S oF [l.UE
0VEi1Ufi.NU(C.
II.E.,SULIANT ARH
S LIDIN'G>
R'= F~~"t.7•+c.Ao,.~+ ~ Re..a-l.ttce ~[lhw4~
i = l='v ta..-.lo• -+[SJ.et.... tCD~ q...,~"'ce ~~.... A,-, -r SWRar~~ /las.$~ l..lfolde.. Ap""' + s....tf ~.h:....,c.e.]
~
()0 l 'fH . BB -hJ.r"~3o• + C<~s/ . <-8] .:; 13o~.O't k R' •rtfl'f.88 +-.,!-7'+Z.12f8Xoi')+J.s'(t)(r.J,1;;17)a) +fio117~
R' :: 57 S'?.SS" t
rAe TOR OJ: .sArf TT = __!_ 3C(..:.O't_ Z.Cf I ~ I.S
q.s o. so ~ F~<.ToR or SAPtT{ : 5751.$ : IZ.77 > 4 OK
lt$0. 90
IKTEP,C.IlANUL.AB. II.F.UUBf
I.
R= fv ~ 6P = llf.'lf· lll + HtfD. )] r zt>ll · l l ki1S
---e---t
F.
H = hv-ev ~ JP[ l~9 - S-8 . SI f. <q.•.s-o.J]
G::...-1 r _L ~ Re (
II :r
e: =- .zoll · '&
I 4f · fJ I I}
~ lOft. H( <+f·J/z - u .zoj£4f.I"/ 1 J
c 11 r '~-' · sJsj,z
llLUlllOlilliii~
\D Sb II?!N§ AFTER R>:.TTE/ISI~,G
= s. u ~ /.U • 1 · 8& kSF +-. R = F11 ......, JD +(~... ~ C~on Res·--"~ ~ A,_,.. + r~ 1..11.,.,_;
"+ 0
s. ZD81 .C.& "-'" 3o + lfSf.&.8 •
:a ... s.3. ~.,
6:,,, ~ s. Ji, ·· f· 'Z • J . &~ lcs,- 11+ hul
SF ... ll.'63'is* : 3.r.1 "7' 1.6 Q!'
~50·
lli =-,.88+CJ.S'9 .:. 7.'/7 KSF <~ = u.,,-r,..g C.r,..e s~ : 7J! «CF .@.
l ,, ,o.?+" \_ Pwtt 1111 ~0 [u)\1. ~!04)l'l + <•hH1· 8ll- l· lHll41)l8l 'U ·+' 1- l.IS 1 · 240 · '14
1- q ~~··~
> 114 ·~, ~
N Vt"n oo1{ 1\. &ll)<l·S l + <'/•HI· " " - HiliHl· S) i
0 ~~lSk. ,lfR.
I0· ~ i , ll 4•l + 11/1) ll·lH - 0 · 5&1 ll4() 1( 81 -4 ~
o,. 11 I t S. ao 1- """' . 11
' - < FMrf( OJ n n ttlliff
Wl lliOC.l S 'd ., + l o . l) I ~ II ' " l 110 . 1ol I u.,, I ll41 . 11
14s4. st.l- ,o, . z~l 111 1.,!. . s~
I ID
>c t !.l T« l ,_l. ~OlllliOW To O£TEL11111E If PAll T oF T., I 'A Sf IS KO T
liP II "I" Ill~ llllll"
+o, . ~ I Ill c;ottPilE ~S.I <>If . .JF 5.•, T.,ll( rvll. VPO..IFT Ml.lS.T &f APPI..I~O \INOrt
h'Oii - (OHPlE.!.SIO I'f AlE AS .
l1 . H)l~)lluU)
~ "\1- 0l 7.
<+'\ · S
Figure AS. Stability analysis, tainter gate monolith pier, normal operation plus ice (Sheet 1 of 3)
4--
LFI
00
0 C0
'4 4
tsti
CXC
SU-,
InI
10.
L9 ,J .1 4
o4. C.% C.
OLi
A21
O' -'-< -: 0+.
I 2
o - 'J
C-
,0 .,J. .A O .*'
"- rt ,Ut
z;. - - c n,
-4 U-.
fN ',0.
z II.II II I I
V))
do4
-? V0. q 00
... 0.. a
- I-
,-.j, iIII
, 4 ., 1,.
04
I, 1% I
,A2
A2 2
4.4
.4.., ~ 4- -, 44
4. U% 4' - 4-
~aa, 40 4 .4 ~4
.- ,~ a -, .- 4*4,
.4 - .4
r .
________________________________________
~.
'.4
~,
a.---- 4 _____________ --
-a -. 4..
r .0.4 - - .0
- - C 4-4
-C ~*40 ~. C- - 40
4-, _ 4', 0) 0
- 4 4.
.44 r -, La -
- 4J
* 40 -.4
C- - a CO
.4 - a '-*- '.4-..
'ap
.4
-~ a..* '.~..aa..
---
_________ ________
- 'a a.'. LI
0u
C
- .44~ 4 0
0
~j
- - '-4
4- -, ~
.4.40 ~ 4, - ,a 'I
4.-a.-
.4 4" 0 444
4-.-- - ~. 4, 4.444. '.. .4. cli 4
~*0.~4,4" a -
- -Ca 04
4 *, ,- 4. 2.4
,~~ 4, -
4, .~ -, -.4 .. I
.- '4.- -.
-
- .4 4, a.-,. ~ -' ~ '.4 4
- .. 44- 0
4. -;
'-.4 - - ± a..
'.4 '4- .4
9: -a .4 '4 4~J
10
3 ~ ~ ~. .4 ~
.4~
4-I
w
4 10
4,
o .4
a 4.1
40 0
4- 0;
I ".4
rN. a
~ 1,'~'
o I ..=xEflLLLLU.l,
10
'A 10
'~ 40 4-I
-. 4 ~ -
4. .. -'.4
IL 'p.4
~a. 4'
0~ .4 *fl
10
0 " '.4 J~J
CO
04:
IL
;.---irJJj 0J1.4
~T 't!T1TTT1T7T1 ~4a
A2 3
- ', - 4.
cn
~A A
-4- -a
L 1
4-
~LL
II 0
j~- "'C4
IL U)
C LA
1--
'Z
ac -'
a'' t-3rL
U.
Q
1. " m' .1 f ~
L. ccdI
Qe , I
A2 4
+1
u.U
N
La *I
IV 9i
II L] IIii I
-
4k~
-j
jj +
cr2
IM -. 11 of -0
.- .J
£-~ !
N
ID I-CID
'-S .+
-C -
- -A
L-. .0 kc.
cc00
++4
CL-
ss
'~~~ 4-
5' s
+i ,
cc > I
A25
- 30
0- 'A
-100 0
ZO 4
b cn
$4
a)
0~r
L0 C "L
'30
2cN
~. (
- ~ LA'.1
- 'N
A26000~
-C IL
st A'
-h-
zaI I
tn-
+I
<I
+I
LII
I--
0 C0
iti
-CA
CL 'hAr7
+ RID
- d U. I
LIDi
Cd'
t 4 2
La i,
A271
7 t4t
J au
V)
N Le
It
LLL
r-1 42t
In 00- -
14 oo ~ r~. 1
lA 03
4)
N u
n. r
'4.-(,e2
A28
A A
OC ANHO
MENT GROUT
z
z.
0
POIIEACHRSSE
SETIN A-
[CONCRETE
GROUT TUBE
BASE PLATE r
GROUT LEVELING
COURSE
STRAND TRUMPET
""--STRAND
ii FILLER GROUT
DRILLED HOLE
A30
I.4 j
'Co
ww
41
oo 4
IL - 44-
OD'- a
ofi
A31i
7;
OD 00
-- j it
cin
* I
CL 0 L
II- '2
OD
I
U- l
-(A32
R. = Fj . *e,
AT CLAWE' SCAM
R4L +C.A
+
A-rot- aemLFfl4i-m ~
A33
r
IIII L13.4'
020
4-
0 0~
ce w
Ir a 4,I i~
N 4S4
J,-
V. .C
- 2
i 0-
IV ~ 7
LVt In C-
6 yn v; - C
2! 2V-U
De - 0
'~J~ 1 A34
4-
C.-
C4
o 'C'
02 ,
li 0
2..
IL 121
C o In
-J i .
co U-- W0,o
0 -,
fl~a ~-I J~
A35~.
0 -4
1-4k
440
4 +4
4- 0
'-4 14 Q
:5 -i -
00
12
4-i
00
00 0
0
-H
-4
A36V
.rH.M FACT<>LS F., rt1 At-11 I t\011 E"' 1
!>T4 1HLIT'f lllf~L'f~IS OJ: Sl'l Ll\UAT ALOh'E
\01 !.fo>'1 IL ~~~ l. H.11!> ~ .1 , • . IH + . Ol5 ~ . oH +-
.o ~!> + .1 + . ll~ + . 11 ~ · ll + S· 'H +
, .lo +- " ·' " +- 6·'1.3 + , .,~ + , . .,o ~ l·a,
~ l()f( COI(VETYTIOI( t i-b + 6·10 l. 6· 3b + S·~O + 30·41 +- 51 · >
~ 15-ll + IO· 'Il +- H·S'- + H -o J ( "') lza••·o li · Sl I 6o61 I · ~~
roa.tEJ>
lllT tll. •o cd,lS )[ li'LH · ~) ll) l )l . S )ll)
+ 'It
\lAUil or
l ~f"''1 ll/l)(. IH')U) + l'/t)l - oHSH\1 l~l · tl
~~
I+[. +
--.J + - ·h,l l.S· H)+ l+U·l.S- 411'\ ) l~ · 'll)
t'U)(I . l.~1+l o · 1~)ll) ~ (O ·Hlli)+IO•C4.15)ll)
HS)l<\tU·U- i,o .u 1)[6•) ,,,..~ ll! - I! Jl o"' .~s
'~T ,._+--1 3,. 4S I 'I. 3) 'lll · ll.
I a-. ,,...r
Figure Al3. Stability analysis, tainter gate monolith spillway, normal operation (Sheet 1 of 2)
4r.
w -l ll
~-f. 'I
C y
C -
4 de
01
3 0)
14 14
144
1 c -
IA38
2
_______________
A
____________________________
-, ,-~ 4-
~
a
44~
0
a 4-4C~
4-
4
-.
_________
o -
ac- ~-
441 -
44'
a
4~4~
4-
0
.0
-
44~
-~
r
a
444
00
44'
C
Li
- W
U
4-I
'I
________________________________________________
____________________________
- -~ ~- a
-- -- 4444- .1
t -, -'-- 0
________________________
-r
or
-~
I-
14 141
'44 ,.'A ~ 4'
4- 141
'-4 4- 40 44. 0)
4--
-~0- 0
U, =
.44-I *. 4
-' - -. 4-.- 10
4-, ,A -44-4 N.a 4- 444
-~
~ A' a, (44 4-
~-'4 -~
- 000, ,,~ 4-i
- 4 - a
4- 4- - - I- CO
* - -'I--~-' 4
~ 'A 4-~~- 444 444 3
04444..- - 4.444 0.. LA 00 rI
a C'- 4- - -
-- .4-4-N4N--~ ~ - a ri
* N 0 LA
'.0
2~
-~
L~: 4
... ,..,.,:
'i 4 04
-
4- I-~L~
444
4' 0.
,-, - I 4-'
444~4 ~444 ~
~7a a ~4~4441 a 0. 4-
4- (4 4 - "0 - - r
Li -, 4 - a- 0
04' N 0 o
4-, - 4- -~ r-ic4J
- - - - e -
2 '-4 --4 0 -4 '~ 4- 4- .- -~ 'z
4- - - -. ~oj
-~
f W
-
__ U- Oc-. **4 4444
r
4-4-4---'-- ~; tow
44~ ~ Dod LI. 00W
.4 (44
144 .. ,i ~ 94~ 4- 4-44~
4->~- ;~ - -
34 Ad. L - I
14
1L4
2 44
o
4 4-
4- '4-I
V -0
- .1
3 I' to
4 0 44
-' 'V
7
(Li
A
~a i a
~zA .0
4 -'
hi
-~ 'A
44.44
+ ::1
I.4 I.
C-
+I li I
r"r
+ q n Is
lI I p
-. S
If
i I . .
V" II I 'i
S
if
0 - r
U . c"J'
CA 01-d
~i
A40
a .. - - - _ . ,
-
_N . a " ' e-
ar
,.,,
. 0
-,
,- 'N-
N
:, x -, A - N
-: •
10 C, ~ell
I
~~IL
~LL
A uJ
SA42
+-+
V1V
C IL
00
- rr-
A - -4.
Cr <
Lr~ -0i
I* Cf
IS I,
o -c-
I- CO-
A4 4
Ay IjxTLU=C ( PRcur cow~zm - OW- aA
AT cL~vey' sn
5 x 5.30 ksiF
zS* ,C
Is MLsKSF
R= F, iwi +C. A
114- .4 - 5 -
4-q.r (suI-ICI4 -30.4.e ko% (. o.~.4Fhff,1.w
II Iq.-47 0A 2f + 4 ~I))
* 3(,11.4 Ir., &MA-vL 6O4410 -f I=e)
1164-8.3 Un, 200+ (eLS)(&00)s 31.0 KLIip(F.A C&O.1
A46
a w ~ - N r4 a~
-0 n 0 a- N
N C
LA-4
N 0
4-1
1~.1-
~ ~ '4-1
LOJ
-
t~3 I' -4
'a-4
uc -w
00
9 > ca
IL)IV - j--
I 1 0. 'o-*~q
J w
~I.
U)
A4 7
,.,..
'"J -
QQ
0
S II liI
2, .. . . e ii I Iii n I II
A48
n ottEtfT
~T~c'i.SES @ El . HO· H OVE To BIAXIAL SEifl~...!.!lf>, .lTE.M r, r" HM
tt ..
lL lLY ""
1C lOT Pll:.ll ~11 . 1$ I S·'l I 610 -:. o,
.,, . 'll.
rn 4·00 I
I
!
I ~· ··" = Ht· S 't · H -I'IH-az
Totall\l'"".
i:
\0 UJT UIDU 11.0 - I , . 8l l••o. •&
, 41~ ·
'\-l'l · o. l>l l f.fi=OR.E AISTT£,SIO..,ING) •a :: o. ll l Arf£1o, ~~Sia.IING\
ea = 4' -- e3 :: l l &1 · l
68 0 · .;
Figure Al9. Stresses at elevation 480.33, biaxial bending, tainter gate monolitr. pier,
normal operation with ice (Sheet 1 of 3)
0
+ +1
LO H
-3
Il I, ~ , C
2 4-I -
'4lu A
3 ~ -' AA50
0-
9- - V
o 41
~jw ~ 00
- i94
0 *uI, 9
vi.
A51"~ -
to) tr 00
-3 tA (I) -9
N - H
0 r-0
N r: r--
or
0' 0
I C- O
Ln)
-Jl t
C.0 0
'-1
0-7)
-4
10p
to 0
-)
LOO
0) -
-A52
4.)0). H
0.
-j L
Er'
1~*~~r- 0
LOv 0010 -
N
j-I
IDt
V
In o
L-
-s', ~ r;
LaA53
do, 2
~~~1~ ~ ~~-
-~-~- --- ~ L
.*. 4-1
L2
~ ~60
- C:
I' -w~a e Q)
-~' 4.1--
0 44
.W 41".
4- 0
4 9r
A54W
00
LI))
Ii
000
43 03 03S
A5
t.
LA. 0- CV
00
400
~ 00
y - r
A56
I
- - I
xfzz'_~w'4j NjC
01
CD - -~~~ ------
2 *:
0~
A'
.4.....
..... 0
....
I .........
-4---
7 77
-~4-J
rq.
* K I~~ 04
n~ ~(4 Q)
lb~- - -
Jlu'
A58
1-H III IIII I I I IIII I IIIH
ij
POSTTENSIONING FORCE • 100.3 K
POSTTENSIONING FORCE = 148.9 K
;::
.J
+
-·lT~
;rl
;..j";+r;.. ~
;m:lrl+ 71+
>
Vl
1.0
u
a=
~
!w.t!!::
~~
~··· · · ·~
001.......
....
... T..,ilifui
. 0 •• • ,
+iiHin ffl!iit
Fi g ur ~ A2 4 . Ne t foundation s tre s s , tainter gate monolith, normal operation with ice
In accordance vith letter froa DAEN-RDC, DAEN-ASI dated
22 July 1977, Subject: Facsi•ile Cataloa Cards for
Laboratory Technical Publications, a facsi•ile cataloa
card in Library of Conaress MARC for.at is reproduced
belov.