CLAMATION

Managing Water in the Wesr t

PB2006-108499

111 1111111111111111111111111111111

State-of-Practice for the

Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
at the Bureau of Reclamation
Parker Dam

January 2006
 PB2006-108499 -
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 111 1111111111111111111111111111111
The public repo rl rng burden for this coIleclrOfl 01 information IS estma ted 10 a~erage I hour per response mcludlng the IMne for reviewing instructIOns searchmg eXls!lng da ta sources g.illhermg
and mamtalnlng Ihe data needed and completing and reVieWIng the collectIOn of InlOlTT1a tlOfl Send commenls regarding thiS burden estJmate or any olMeI aspec! of Ihls collection of Information,
includlllQ slJ9ges:ions fOf reducmg the burden. to Depanmenl of Defense , Washrngton Headquarters Services. Dlfectorate for InformallO!1 Operal loos and Reporls (0704-0 186). 1215 JaMerson
DaVIS Highway, $uhe 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302 Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law no person shall be subject to any pen,,11y fO/falling to
comply Will) a collection of InformallOfl If it does not dIsplay a currently valid OMB control number
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS .
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM- YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE I 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
January 2006 Fi nal
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Sa. CONTRACT NUMBER
State-of-Practice for the Nonl inea r Analys is ofConcrctc Dams
at the Bureau of Reclamation 5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR (S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Barbara Mi lls-Bria, l3urca u of Reclamat ion. Denver. Co lorado,
D- SI IO 50. TASK NUMBER
Larry Nuss, Burea u of Reclamation, Den ver, Colorado, 0- 8 11 0
Sf. WORK UNIT NUMBER
Dan O'Connel l. Bureau of Reciamaii on, Denver, Colorado_ D-S330
Dave Harri s, Bureau of Rec lamation, Denver. Co lorado, D-8 180
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES ) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
l3urea u of I{ec lamation, Denver Federal Ccnter, NUMBER
P.O. Box 25007, Denver. CO S0225

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENC Y NAME(S) AND ADDRESS (ES ) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

Bureau of Reclamation. Denver Federal Center,
P.O. Box 25007, Denver. CO 80225 11 . SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Ava il able trom National Technica l In formation Service, Operations Division, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfi eld, VA 12 16 1
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Nonlinear structura l analyses whi ch incorporate geometric and material nonl inearities inherent in dams and
fo undations have the potenti al to be more realistic than linear structural ana lyses. or limit equ il ibrium analyses.
which do not account for damage and subsequent loss of load-carrying ca pability. If modeled correctly, nonlinear
analyses can prov ide increased understand ing of the response and fai lure mechanisms of a structure and can show
how load is redistri buted under nonlinear behavior. Because of this. the profession is becoming more recept ive to
nonli nea r analyses and must ensure that nonlinear analysis progresses to the poi nt of be ing a va luable aid in the
dec ision-mak ing process. Th e first step in thi s process is to take stock of current capabil ities, and where
improvements are needed. Thi s document presents the cun'em state-of-practice at the Bureau of Rec lamation.

15. SUBJECT TERM S

Reclamat ion, nonlinear, linear. dynami c, static, material propeJ1ies, finite element, gravi ty dam, arch dam,
buttress dam, concrete, concrete dam , reservo ir. fo undation, structural analysis, seismic. shear wave, compression
\vave, spill way. rad iation dampi ng, damping. uplift, fluid clements. im pedance, mass, contact sllrfnccs

16. SECURITY CLAS SIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES Barbara Mills-B ria
a. REPORT I b. AB STRACT I a. THIS PAGE 140
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (InClude area code)
U U U 303-445 -3229
Stand ard Form 298 (Rev . B/9S )
Prescnbed by ANSI Std Z39 1B
 PB2006-108499

1111111111111111111111111111111111

State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear

Analysis of Concrete Dams
at the Bureau of Reclamation

REPRODUCED BY: Nl§

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161

u.s. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation January 2006
 Mission Statements

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide

access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust
responsibilities to tribes.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and

protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... v

Preface ......................................................................................................................................... vii

1.0 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Dam Construction and Failure Modes ............................................................................. 3

2.1 Gravity Dams ............................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Arch Dams ................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Buttress Dams ............................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Rock Foundation Failure Modes .................................................................................. 6
2.5 Concrete Dam Construction ......................................................................................... 6

3.0 Developing a Structural Analysis Plan ............................................................................. 9

4.0 Material Properties ........................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Concrete Compressive Strength ................................................................................. 12
4.2 Modulus of Elasticity for Concrete ............................................................................ 12
4.2.1 Laboratory Static Verses Dynamic Young's Modulus .................................... 12
4.3 Tensile Strength ......................................................................................................... 14
4.4 Poisson's Ratio for Concrete ..................................................................................... 16
4.5 Concrete and Concrete-Rock Interface Shear Strength ............................................. 16
4.6 Damping ..................................................................................................................... 17
4.6.1 Rayleigh Damping ........................................................................................... 17
4.6.2 Viscous and Hysteretic Damping .................................................................... 18
4.6.3 Damping Inherent in Cracking and Joint Models ........................................... 18
4.7 Variation and Uncertainty in Laboratory Testing ...................................................... 18
4.8 Poisson's Ratio for Rock Mass .................................................................................. 21
4.9 Modulus of Elasticity for Rock Mass ........................................................................ 21
4.10 Material Properties for Fluid Elements ...................................................................... 23
4.11 Material Models in the Various Computer Codes ..................................................... 23
4.12 Coordination with Materials Engineer ....................................................................... 23

5.0 Loads .................................................................................................................................. 25

5.1 Static Loads ................................................................................................................ 25
5.1.1 Weight - Staged Construction for Arch Dams ................................................ 25
5.1.2 Applying Weight in Explicit Codes ................................................................ 25
5.1.3 Massless Foundations Versus Foundations with Mass ................................... 26
5.1.4 Reservoir ......................................................................................................... 26
5.1.5 Temperature ..................................................................................................... 26
5.1.6 Uplift ............................................................................................................... 30
State-at-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis at Concrete Dams

Table of Contents-continued
Page

5.2 Seismic Loads ............................................................................................................ 34

5.2.1 Requirements for Seismic Input ...................................................................... 34
5.2.2 Ground Motion Considerations ....................................................................... 37
5.2.3 Deconvolving Free-field Ground Motions to Depth ....................................... 38
5.2.4 Spatial Variations ............................................................................................ 39
5.2.5 Ground Motion Estimation .............................................................................. 39
5.2.6 Return Periods ................................................................................................. 40
5.3 Hydrodynamic Loads ................................................................................................. 41
5.3.1 Incorporating Dynamic Water Pressure Using Added Mass .......................... .41
5.3.2 Compressible Fluid.......................................................................................... 42
5.3.3 Fluid Elements ................................................................................................. 43
5.4 Load Combinations .................................................................................................... 43

6.0 Finite Element Models and Analyses of Dams ............................................................... 45

6.1 Implicit and Explicit Formulations ............................................................................ 45
6.1.1 Implicit Finite Element Analyses .................................................................... 45
6.1.2 Explicit Finite Element Analyses ......................................................... ;.......... 46
6.2 Modeling the Main Features ...................................................................................... 47
6.2.1 Dam ................................................................................................................. 47
6.2.2 Reservoir ......................................................................................................... 47
6.2.3 Foundation ....................................................................................................... 48
6.2.4 Spillway Gates ................................................................................................. 49
6.3 Modeling Cracking .................................................................................................... 49
6.4 Modeling Joints and Lift Lines .................................................................................. 50
6.4.1 Contraction Joints and Shear Keys .................................................................. 50
6.4.2 Lift Lines ......................................................................................................... 51
6.4.3 Dam/Foundation/Reservoir Contact.. .............................................................. 51
6.4.4 Foundation Discontinuities .............................................................................. 51
6.4.5 Modeling Uplift and Pore Pressure ................................................................. 52
6.5 Infinite Nonreflecting Boundaries ............................................................................. 52
6.6 Incremental Load Application and Step Size ............................................................. 52

7.0 Results ............................................ ~ ................................................................................... 55

7.1 Linear Results ............................................................................................................ 55
7.2 Nonlinear Results ....................................................................................................... 56

8.0 Checking and Accuracy..................................................................................................... 59

8.1 Load Application ....................................................................................................... 59
8.2 Energy and Force Checks .......................................................................................... 59
8.3 Comparison with Model Tests ................................................................................... 59
8.4 Comparison of Finite Element Programs ................................................................... 59

9.0 References .......................................................................................................................... 61

10.0 List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 65

ii
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents-continued
Page

Appendix A - Material Models ............................................................................................... A-l

Appendix A - List of Figures .................................................................................................. A-5

Appendix B - Structural Analysis Plan-example ............................................................... B-1

Index ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1

List of Tables

Table Page

2.1 Summary of worldwide concrete dam failures and incidents ...................................... 3

2.2 Summary of existing Reclamation concrete storage dams .......................................... 4
4.1 Recommended material property values .................................................................... 11
4.2 Concrete dams used for laboratory test comparisons ................................................ 19
4.3 Summary of static compression tests ......................................................................... 20
5.1a Thermal properties for various concretes (Reclamation,
Concrete Laboratory, 1961) ................................................................................... 28
5.1 b Thermal properties for various coarse aggregate ....................................................... 29

iii
 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACI American Concrete Institute

ASI Acceleration spectral intensity

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CPU Computer processor unit

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

FEM Finite element model
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

g Acceleration of gravity
ICOLD International Commission on Large Dams

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

PGA Peak ground acceleration
Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation
SEED Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams
SOD Safety of Dams
USSD United States Society on Dam

v

Preface
Nonlinear structural analyses, which incorporate
geometric and material nonlinearities inherent in
dams and foundations, have the potential to be
more realistic than linear structural analyses or
limit equilibrium analyses, which do not account
for damage and subsequent loss of load-carrying
capability. If modeled correctly, nonlinear
analyses can provide increased understanding of
the response and failure mechanisms of a
structure and can show how load is redistributed
under nonlinear behavior. Because of this, the
profession is becoming more receptive to
nonlinear analyses and must ensure that -
nonlinear analysis progresses to the point of
being a valuable aid in the decisionmaking
process. The first step in this process is to
assess current capabilities and determine where
improvements are needed. This document
presents the current state-of-practice at the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).
At Reclamation, when a concrete dam is
assessed, a linear elastic analysis is performed,
followed by a risk analysis to determine if a
nonlinear analysis is justified. A linear elastic
analysis is performed any time a nonlinear
analysis is performed to aid in interpretation of
the nonlinear results. The linear analysis
process involves the use of several tools that
model different aspects ofthe dam-reservoir- .
foundation system. Because the results of these
linear analyses can indicate the need for a
nonlinear analysis, these tools are described in
this document. Some construction methods are
also discussed because they lead to geometric
nonlinearities in the structure. This document
does not address the risk-based analysis and
decision process. For more information on this
subject, see Guidelines for Achieving Public
Protection in Dam Safety Decision Making,
(Reclamation, 1997) and Estimating Failure
Preface
Probabilities for Concrete Dams, Risk Analysis
Methodology - Appendix K, (Reclamation,
2000).
The goal of the analyst is to model the dam as
realistically as possible and compute as
accurately as possible the response of the dam
so that sound management decisions can be
made concerning the dam's safety. Sensitivity
studies are performed to explore the importance
of uncertainties. Overestimating the dam
response can lead to unnecessary and expensive
modifications. Underestimating the dam
response could put downstream populations at
an unacceptable or unknown level of risk.
All aspects of the analysis process must be
understood to obtain realistic and defensible
results. Finding the elements that contribute to
stability is vital, and key parameters of the
analysis and their level of uncertainty must be
identified, as well as the sensitivity of the results
to these parameters. There must be good
communication between all interested parties,
including the materials engineers, seismologists,
structural engineers, geotechnical engineers,
geologists, and management so that the use of
input from each group and the effect on results
is understood.
In addition, management must have
confidence in results on which decisions are
based. At the conclusion of an analysis, the
analysts and decisionmakers must know how
reliable the analysis really is. They should be
aware of the strengths and limitations of both
linear and nonlinear analyses because, many
times, the "true" answer can only be bounded.
The final outcome is to decide if the dam is
safe and why.
vii
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
The Workshop on Nonlinear Structural
Analysis of Concrete Dams and Concrete
Appurtenances to Dams sponsored by the
Canadian Electric Association and
Reclamation and held in Denver, Colorado,
April, 2002, generated considerable interest in
nonlinear analysis methods. As an outcome of
this workshop, this document has been
developed, describing the current state-of-
practice at Reclamation. Other documents
used by Reclamation were prepared by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1993, 1994, 1995,2000)
and the Federal Energy Regulatory
viii
Commission (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 1999).
In a risk context, nonlinear analyses provide
valuable insights in determining the likelihood
of failure by modeling deformations and dam
behavior. Risk analysis should be used to
determine when specific field and material
testing programs are required to obtain
detailed properties for nonlinear analysis.
The intent is to periodically update this
document as practices evolve.

1.0 Background
Linear analyses can determine levels of stress
and deflection that indicate potential damage
in a structure. However, while linear analyses
can indicate the potential for damage, they
cannot predict failure. High stresses
computed in linear analyses do not take into
account the redistribution of stress when
cracks form or when contraction joints open
and close.
In linear analyses, simplifying assumptions
are often required. These include (1) massless
foundations; (2) monolithic dams (neglecting
contraction joints and weak lift lines);
(3) monolithic foundations (neglecting joints
and discontinuities); (4) added mass for
hydrodynamic interactions; and (5) linear-
elastic material models. Because of these
assumptions, linear analyses have
considerable uncertainties and may not
accurately depict the behavior of the structure.
Nonlinear analyses eliminate many of the
simplifying assumptions and can lead to more
realistic results given that the nonlinear
formulation is understood by the user and that
the input values are appropriate. Potentially
better estimates of the likelihood of failure of
1.0 Background
a structure can be made using nonlinear
analyses. In a risk context, nonlinear analyses
can help in establishing thresholds of failure
and risk levels and provide valuable insights
by modeling deformations and dam behavior.
Risk analysis is also used to determine when
specific field and material testing programs
are required to obtain detailed properties for
nonlinear analysis.
Most Reclamation concrete dams have been
analyzed using linear-elastic dynamic finite
element analysis programs, with a massless
foundation and added mass to represent
hydrodynamic interaction. Some dams have
been analyzed with newer linear elastic finite
element programs that incorporate
hydrodynamic interaction and foundation
interaction using a frequency domain solution.
These analyses have offered insight into the
potential severity of tensile cracking for
various levels of seismic loading. Several
Reclamation concrete dams and spillway piers
have been analyzed using nonlinear methods.
In such cases, indications of the potential for
and extent of cracking have been a direct
output of the analysis.
1

2.0 Dam Construction and Failure Modes
Approximately 100 concrete dams have been
shaken by earthquakes~ but only 12 of these
dams have experienced recorded or estimated
peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.20g or
greater. Overall, the performance has been
satisfactory with no damage or relatively
minor concrete cracking, concrete spalling, or
offsets between concrete blocks. No arch dam
has ever been significantly damaged by an
earthquake, although several such structures
have experienced substantial ground motions
(USSD, 2003; USSD, 2000). Peak
accelerations of 1.76g horizontal and 1.60g
vertical were measured in the upper left
abutment at Pacoima Dam during the
January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
This resulted in a 2-inch maximum opening
between the left abutment and the arch dam,
minor horizontal cracking, and several minor
offsets between concrete blocks.
Only one concrete dam has experienced major
earthquake-related failure. That is the 82-feet-
high concrete gravity dam with radial gate
spillways, Shih-Kang Dam, during the Chi-
Chi Earthquake in Taiwan on September 29,
Arch
Buttress 7 1
Gravity 9 3
Total 19
2.0 Dam Construction and Failure Modes
1999. The dam was 50 km away from the
epicenter and experienced a PGA of 0.50g.
Over two-thirds of the dam was uplifted by
thrust movement measuring 29 feet vertically
and 6.5 feet horizontally. It was the
foundation offset that caused severe damage
in two spillway bays. During this same event,
Chi Chi Dam, also a concrete gravity dam
with radial gated spillways, experienced
0.50 g PGA without thrust movement and
performed without damage.
An International Commission on Large Dams
(ICOLD) publication (ICOLD, 1974)
examined the cause of 56 concrete dam
failures and accidents, as summarized in
table 2.1. The table illustrates that the
majority of concrete dam failures and
accidents (about 50 percent) can be attributed
to geotechnical deficiencies. Five of the
structural deficiencies can be attributed to
poor masonry practice for dams in India.
Overtopping failures can also be attributed to
geotechnical deficiencies, because it is usually
the washout of the abutments or foundation
that leads to failure of the dam.
4 11
7
11
8 29
3
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
Reclamation is responsible for about
60 concrete storage dams constructed between
1906 and 1991. To analyze these concrete
dams correctly the following mustbe
understood: (1) the type of concrete dam,
(2) the original construction methods, (3) the
magnitude of loads and the load path through
the dam and into the foundation, (4) the
Table 2.2.-Summary of existing Reclamation concrete storage dams
¥i;;['t:l~mT,pe " "
< 50 50-100
Gravity 6 10
Buttress 2 1
Arch 2 12
2.1 Gravity Dams
The stability of concrete gravity dams is due to
their own weight and the strength inherent in
the concrete and foundation (see figure 2.2).
Gravity dams, because of their massive size
and weight, depend on competent foundations
to carry the bearing pressure of the dam and to
resist sliding along discontinuities. Most of the
time gravity dams are founded on rock
although some gravity dams are built on soils.
A gravity dam in a wide canyon can be
analyzed as a two-dimensional plane strain
problem. A gravity dam in a narrow canyon is
influenced by the canyon walls and carries load
by vertical cantilever-action and by horizontal
beam action. In this case, the gravity dam can
be analyzed as a two-dimensional plane strain
problem, but is more accurately analyzed as a
three-dimensional structure. Gravity dams are
classified as straight gravity dams or curved
gravity dams (sometimes called arched gravity
dams). The distinction between a curved
gravity dam and an arch dam is that a curved
gravity dam is stable without arching action.
Typically for a gravity dam to be stable, the
4
materials making up the dam and foundation,
and (5) the potential failure modes.
There are three basic types of concrete
dams: gravity dams, arch dams, and buttress
dams (see figure 2.1). Approximately half of
Reclamation's concrete dams are arch dams
(see table 2.2). (All figures follow the text.)
100-250 250-500 >500 Total
5 2 23
2 2 7
11 5 30
slope (horizontal: vertical) of the downstream
face must be greater than 0.67:1.0. The
intersection of the slopes of the upstream and
downstream faces is normally at the dam crest.
Failure can occur within a gravity dam or at
the foundation contact when the driving forces
are larger than the resisting forces (see
figure 2.3). (Foundation failure modes are
listed in section 2.4) Driving forces include
the static reservoir load, hydrodynamic forces
during an earthquake, and the inertia of the
dam during an earthquake. Resisting forces
include the internal forces resisting cracking
generated by the tensile strength, the forces
resisting sliding generated by cohesion, and
the frictional resistance from the effective
weight of the dam and the friction angle of the
potential sliding plane. Dynamic failure is
initiated when failure planes form through the
structure along weak lift lines, along planes
formed by concrete cracking, along planes at
the dam/foundation contact, or along
discontinuities in the foundation. With
sufficient shaking duration, the dam could
potentially slide, displacing downstream along

a failure plane. Uplift in the failure planes
reduces the frictional resistance (by reducing
the effective normal stress) and increases the
potential for sliding. Drains provide a
mechanism to reduce uplift pressures, which
increases the stability of the dam and helps
arrest crack propagation.
2.2 Arch Dams
Concrete arch dams are complex three-
dimensional shell structures, which are thinner
and which have more redundancies than
gravity dams (see figure 2.4). They carry load
both in a vertical plane by cantilever action
into the base foundation, and horizontally by
arch action into the abutments. Therefore,
they must be analyzed in three-dimensions to
capture the true behavior of the structure.
Arch dams require very competent rock
foundations and are built in narrow canyons,
typically limited to a crest length to dam
height ratio of about 7 to 1. Arch dams can be
further classified as thin-arch dams, medium-
arch dams, and thick-arch dams. An arch dam
relies on both cantilever and arch action for
stability and would not be stable considering
two-dimensional cantilever action only, as
opposed to a curved gravity dam, which is
stable considering two-dimensional cantilever
action.
Failure of an arch dam can occur when the
applied forces are greater than the resisting
forces. Reclamation performed shake
table studies on model arch dams using
sinusoidal loads to investigate the dynamic
failure modes of arch dams (Payne, 1999;
Payne, 2001; Payne, 2002), (see figure 2.5).
Five models were tested, with different vertical
contraction jointlhorizontal unbonded lift joint
configurations: (1) a model that was
monolithic; (2) a model with one vertical
contraction joint and no horizontal joints; (3) a
model with no vertical contraction joints and
one horizontal joint; (4) a model with seven
2.0 Dam Construction and Failure Modes
vertical contraction joints and no horizontal
joints; and (5) a model with seven vertical
contraction joints with two horizontal joints.
Each of the models failed in a similar manner.
A horizontal plane formed by cracking through
the dam or along existing unbonded lifts lines.
This was followed by diagonal cracks that
formed from the crest parallel to the abutments.
The diagonal cracks propagated down and
connected with the horizontal plane.
Geometric differences slightly affected the
location of the horizontal plane and the
diagonal cracks. Back analysis showed that the
horizontal cracks started on the upstream side.
Typically the vertical joint along the crown
cantilever opened and closed forming a hinge.
With sufficient shaking duration, the arch dam
failed by blocks rotating downstream similar to
a set of swinging double-doors. In the case of
the model with seven vertical contraction joints
and two horizontal joints, the arch above the
upper horizontal joint failed and then the arch
above the lower joint failed.
In addition to consideration of the structure, the
interaction between the dam and the foundation
and the stability of the foundation and the
bearing capacity of the rock itself must be
addressed. (Scott, 1999) Failure in the
foundation normally occurs by sliding along
discontinuities in the rock (see figure 2.6). The
arch will certainly fail if the foundation fails
because the dam relies on the foundation for
support. (See section 2.4)
2.3 Buttress Dams
For the most part, buttress dams are thin
reinforced concrete structures built when
material was expensive and labor was not.
Arches of a 200-foot high multiple arch
buttress dam have been as thin as 2 feet at the
crest and 7 feet at the base. Unlike arch and
gravity dams, buttress dams are reinforced.
They fall into the categories of slab and
buttress dams, arch and buttress dams, or
5
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
massive-head buttress dams. Arch and buttress
dams are a combination of an arch dam and a
gravity dam (see figure 2.7). The arches
transfer load into the buttresses in arch action.
The buttresses transfer load into the foundation
in compression. Slab and buttress dams are a
combination of a flat slab and a gravity dam.
The slabs carry moment and shear and transfer
load into the buttresses in plate action. The
buttresses again transfer load into the
foundation in compression. Massive head
buttress dams transfer load into the buttresses
by spreading the load in compression through
the large massive head.
Buttress dams are quite efficient under static
loads and carry load very effectively in the
upstream-to-downstream direction. However,
they are very weak in the cross-canyon
direction and vulnerable to ground motions in
that direction. Some slab and buttress dams
lack rigid connections between any of the
components. The slabs, buttresses, and struts
(beams between buttresses) are all simply
supported. Failure of any portion of the dam
can lead to a progressive failure of the entire
structure (see figure 2.8).
2.4 Rock Foundation Failure
Modes
Perhaps the most important step of evaluating
the geotechnical aspects of concrete dams is
the identification of potential foundation
failure modes (Scott, 1999). Potential
foundation failure modes which can be
evaluated by nonlinear analyses are
summarized in the following list:
(1) Irregular deformation of the abutments
and foundation leading to cracking and
possible rupture of the dam structure
6
(2) Sliding along discontinuities in the
foundation under the applied loads and
uplift pressures
Static, earthquake, and flood loads must be
taken into account.
2.5 Concrete Dam Construction
A structural analysis of the dam and foundation
must approximate the construction process so
that the initial stresses in the dam are taken into
account. Before an analysis begins, as-built
drawings, design data, construction data,
laboratory tests, instrumentation, and field
explorations are studied.
Concrete dams are typically built on rock
foundations. Overburden material, weathered
rock, and adversely oriented jointing are
excavated to sound rock. In current day
practice, foundation contacts are smoothed to
minimize any geometrically induced stress
concentrations in the dam. Smoothing is done
by removing any rock outcrops and filling
depressions with concrete. The exposed rock is
cleaned with high-pressure water before
concrete placements to enhance concrete to
rock bond (see figure 2.9). For analysis, it is
important to model the actual dam to
foundation contact to include within reason any
geometric discontinuities and compute any
stress concentrations. These are locations of
potential cracking in the concrete. Forces from
the dam into the foundation can only be
computed accurately if the dam to foundation
contact is modeled as it exists. The actual base
of the dam may be considerably below the
original riverbed. The orientation of an arch
dam contact may not be radial but may be in
some direction adverse to stability. The base of
a gravity dam may not be a smooth, horizontal
plane, but may instead be sloped, have a key
trench, and be rough.

Modem concrete darns, involving mass
concrete, are built using the high-low block
method of construction (see figure 2.10). This
involves manageably sized concrete blocks,
contraction joints, cooling of the concrete
during hydration, and grouting the contraction
joints upon reaching the target temperatures.
Building with manageably sized blocks aids in
the construction process, permitting the
concrete to cool during hydration, and limiting
the amount of thermal-induced cracking in the
concrete. Concrete blocks, typically 5 to
10 feet high, can vary from 30 feet to 90 feet-
horizontally, depending on the temperature
requirements and construction constraints.
Blocks about 50 feet wide are preferred. The
horizontal contact surfaces between concrete
placements are called lift lines or lift joints.
Lift lines are cold joints cleaned with high-
pressure water and sand blasted to enhance
bond with subsequent concrete placements.
The vertical upstream to downstream (radial
for arch dams) contact surfaces between
adjacent blocks are called contraction joints.
Because contraction joints are not bonded,
tensile stresses do not develop in the arch
direction. Contraction joints typically have
shear keys, but dams have been built without
shear keys in the contraction joints (see
figure 2.10). A nonlinear analysis may be used
to take into account the presence of the
contraction joints, the influence of the shear
keys, and the thermal-induced stresses in the
dam.
In modem concrete darns, the concrete is
cooled and grout is injected into the contraction
joints before the reservoir load is applied. This
may not have been the case for older dams.
Metal pipes, or cooling coils, are placed on the
top of the lift lines for circulation of cold water.
Circulating cold water (1) minimizes the peak
2.0 Dam Construction and Failure Modes
temperature reached within the darn from the
heat generated during the concrete hydration,
(2) minimizes thermal gradients between the
inside and outside of the dam to reduce
thermal-induced cracking, and (3) cools the
dam sufficiently to contract the concrete and
open the contraction joints for grouting.
Cooling the dam and grouting the open
contraction joints establishes a stress-free
temperature within the dam and pre-stresses the
dam, minimizing horizontal tensions. The dam
is in compression between the canyon walls
when the average temperature within the dam
is above the stress-free temperature.
Concrete darn construction and materials have
improved over the years. Important data
necessary for structural analyses can be
obtained by knowing when a dam was built.
For example, before 1920, many dams were
built with cyclopean masonry blocks or with
large plum stones placed in the concrete mix
continuously from abutment to abutment
without any contraction joints or cooling (see
figure 2.11). Beginning after 1910, mass
concrete with maximum sized aggregate
between 6 and 9 inches in diameter was
developed, concrete was placed in blocks and
the contraction joints were added. Beginning
in the late 1920s, artificial cooling of concrete
began. By 1940, concrete in some darns
consisting of cement with high alkali content
began showing signs of distress due to
aggregate that reacted with the alkali. This
concrete experienced alkali-aggregate
reaction, which caused expansion and
deterioration of the concrete. Finally, before
1930, some contractors did not realize the
importance of cleaning off lift lines before
subsequent concrete placements, so bond
between concrete layers was often very weak.
7

3.0 Developing a Structural Analysis Plan
Prior to any analysis job, a Structural Analysis
Plan is developed with input from all
interested parties. This document is signed by
people in the following capacities: (1) Team
Leader, (2) Technical Approver, (3) Peer
Reviewer, and (4) Group Manager.
An initial team meeting is held with all the
team members, Team Leader, Checker, and
Peer Reviewer. In preparation for this
meeting, all available and relevant information
is gathered and reviewed. This includes
laboratory testing, seismology studies,
hydrology studies, past structural analysis,
Comprehensive Facility Review documents,
inspection reports, Safety Evaluation of
Existing Dams (SEED) data books, and flood
routings, among other things. Appropriate
3.0 Developing a Structural Analysis Plan
material properties, loads, load combinations,
and analysis methods are determined and
documented in the analysis plan. In addition,
the specific dam safety recommendations that
are to be addressed, as well as the purpose of
the analysis, are stated. The team also makes
sure that the type of analysis and data are
appropriate for the level of study. (For
instance, a screening-level seismic study or
assumed material properties would not be
appropriate for a nonlinear analysis.) Finally,
the analysis plan includes milestones for each
team member and contingency plans. A
thorough and well-thought-out plan with input
from many sources helps ensure that the
analysis process will progress smoothly. An
example of an analysis plan is included in
appendix B.
9
 4.0 Material Properties

4.0 Material Properties

Generally, for the numerical analysis of
critical structures, it is advisable to use
properties established for the structure under
consideration. This is due to the inherent
variation of properties in different structures.
Properties may vary due to the manufacture of
the construction materials, time effects, spatial
differences in the placement of the material, or
for many other reasons. However, in some
cases the analysis results are not sensitive to
the values selected. In such cases, sensitivity
studies can be used to show that the results do
not vary significantly within a reasonable
range of input values. Typical material
properties that can be used in preliminary
analyses are listed in table 4.1.

Table 4.1.-Recommended material property values

Concrete
2
Compressive strength (f c) 4,000 Iblin 1.2 fc
Density 150 Ib/ft3 150 Ib/ft3
Poisson's ratio 0.2 0.2
2
Modulus of elasticity (Ec) 2/3 Ecdynamic 5,000,000Ib/in
Tensile strength
Direct (1/2 splitting tension) 0.85f'c2/3 1.3f'//3
Splitting 1.7f'c2/3 2.6f'c2/3
Diffusivity 0.045 ft 2/hour N/A
Coefficient of thermal expansion 5.0 x 1O-6/°F N/A
Intact shear strength
Cohesion 0.10 f'c
Friction 45°
Bonded lift line shear strength
Cohesion 0.085 f c
Friction 45°
Un bonded lift line shear strength
2
Cohesion 501b/in
Friction 40°
Damping
Hysteretic N/A 10%
Viscous N/A 5% to 10%
Rayleigh:
Alpha o 2.5
Beta o 0.0007
Foundation
2
Modulus of elasticity 2,000,000 Ib/in 0.8 Ec dynamic
3
Density 1651b/ft3 1651b/ft
Poisson's ratio 0.33 0.33
Water
2
Modulus of elasticity 189.71b/in
Density 62.4 Ib/ft3
Poisson's ratio 0.4999
2
Bulk modulus 3,161,666 Ib/in
Speed of sound in water 4720 ftlsec

11
State-ot-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis ot Concrete Dams
The impetus to use nonlinear analysis is
driven by engineering judgment based on the
nature and condition of the structure or by
linear analyses which have shown excessively
high stresses over widespread areas that the
concrete would be unable to withstand without
damage. Figure 4.1 shows a suggested
decision path which would lead to such a
conclusion. Note in this figure that if a linear
elastic analysis shows tension or shear stress
values that greatly exceed the measured or
estimated tension strengths (over large areas),
nonlinear analysis should be considered. At
Reclamation, a risk analysis is performed
following the linear analysis to determine if a
nonlinear analysis is justified. Linear elastic
analysis does not account for damage or stress
redistribution as damage occurs, and gives the
illusion of stress-carrying capability with
stress reversals that may not be available.
4.1 Concrete Compressive
Strength
A generally accepted standard for the
maximum compressive stress at failure (the
compressive strength) is American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) test C39,
Standard Test for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Specimens. The concrete
compressive strength is not as important as
tensile strength for dam stability because the
tensile strength is so much less than the
compressive strength. Concrete dams tend to
crack before the concrete crushes. Concrete
compressive strength is used to:
(1) Determine the relative strength of the
dam and concrete compared to other
dams and concrete.
(2) Determine the tensile strength of the
concrete if there are no tensile strength
test results.
12
(3) Check for localized crushing in the
model analysis results.
(4) Determine consistency of concrete
across the dam.
Laboratory tests at Reclamation have shown
that under cyclic loading the dynamic
compressive and tensile strengths increase.
Under these analysis conditions higher values
can sometimes be assumed. For example, if
during an analysis, there are only a few
excursions in which the static tensile strength
of concrete is exceeded and the duration of
these excursions is less than the time it would
take for a crack to propagate across an
element, it would be assumed that under the
dynamic loads cracking of the concrete would
not occur.
4.2 Modulus of Elasticity for
Concrete
The testing of the isotropic parameters in
compression of Young's modulus and
Poisson's ratio are well established in
standards. ASTM test C469 details the
Standard Test for Modulus of Elasticity and
Poisson's Ratio in Compression for concrete.
At Reclamation laboratories, these values are
currently analyzed using longitudinal and
circumferential strain gage data from the test.
Given two of the isotropic parameters and the
density of the material, other parameters can
be calculated including the bulk modulus,
compressional wave speed, and shear wave
speed. Equations relating the various
quantities are shown in figures 4.2a and b.
4.2.1 Laboratory Static Verses
Dynamic Young's Modulus
Modulus of elasticity is the relationship
between stress and strain of a material.
Concrete is a nonlinear material because the
shape of the modulus relationship is not linear.

Figure 4.3 shows the variability ofthe
modulus curves for a Reclamation dam.
The single numerical value normally given for
static modulus is the slope of the stress-strain
curve for relatively small values of stress and
strain (see figure 4.5). Two separate methods
determine this slope: (1) the chord modulus
and (2) the secant modulus. It is noted that the
ASTM-recommended method to calculate
elastic modulus is the chord method,
discounting lesser slopes typically shown in
the beginning of the data. As noted by other
authors (Bishoff et aI., 1991) and observed in
the 1999 Reclamation study (Harris, et aI.,
1999), there may be a difference with
calculated ratios of dynamic modulus to static
modulus when the secant method of
calculation is used for modulus of elasticity in
dynamic tests. This difference is due to the
more linear nature of dynamic stress-strain
data throughout the entire testing range. The
less stiff behavior observed at low stress
during static testing is not taken into account.
Thus, the difference is particularly
exaggerated when comparing static to
dynamic results. The ASTM chord
calculation uses more consistent data by
offsetting from zero stress in the calculation,
and is the method used at Reclamation.
The speed at which load is applied to the
concrete (the strain rate) changes the secant
modulus. For concrete dams, the loading rate
varies from many years for static loads to a
few hundredths of a second for earthquake
loading. In the laboratory, concrete specimens
tested according to ASTM C469 are loaded
over a few minutes. In the structural analysis,
to compensate for the actual slow loading rate
over the life of the structure, Reclamation
factors the static laboratory tested modulus
down by 33 percent to account for creep
effects. For much faster dynamic loading,
Reclamation used to factor the laboratory
modulus up by 20 percent for dynamic
analyses. However, recent research and
4.0 Material Properties
experience have shown that increasing the
modulus for dynamic loading may not be
justified for all concretes (Reclamation,
Hoover Dynamic Tests, 1997; Harris, et aI.,
1998). Values for static and dynamic modulus
are shown in figures 4.11 and 4.15,
respectively. The ratio of dynamic-to-static
chord modulus can vary from 0.70 to 1.20
with the overall average trending toward 1.0.
Bischoff and Perry indicated that during rapid
loading, the slope has been observed to remain
linear up to higher stress levels, indicating a
delay in the internal cracking process (see
figure 4.4). Also, the dynamic modulus is
influenced by the moisture content of the
concrete specimen. For this reason, whenever
possible, Reclamation performs both static
and dynamic tests at in-situ moisture
conditions to measure the concrete modulus.
If the concrete dynamic modulus is not
known, the static laboratory modulus obtained
from an ASTM C469 test is used for both the
static and the dynamic modulus.
2
E C:Analysis Static =-E
3 C:Lab _ Static
E C:Analysis _Dynamic = E C:Lab _Static
(If no dynamic tests)
EC:AnalysiS_DynamiC = EC:Lab_Dynamic
(If dynamic tests available)
where:
EC:Analysis Static Modulus of elasticity used
for static analysis
(accounts for long term
creep)
EC.-Analysis_Dynamic = Modulus of elasticity used
for dynamic analysis
EC:Lab_Static = Modulus of elasticity from
uniaxial compression tests
on concrete core from
ASTMC469
13
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
Modulus of elasticity from
rapid uniaxial compression
test
Results from static analyses are typically not
very sensitive to the modulus of elasticity
values assumed within the range of normal
concrete properties (3,000,000 Ib/in2 to
2
5,000,000 Ib/in ). However, it is important to
make the best estimates possible with the
given data. Because load is attracted to areas
of higher stiffness, when a higher modulus of
elasticity is used in an arch dam, higher
stresses are calculated in the upper central
portion of the arch and lower stresses are
calculated near the abutments. It should be
noted that, for large arch dams, the static arch
stress in the upper central portion of the dam
can vary by 200 Ib/in2 within this modulus
range.
Generally, Young's modulus on the tension
side can only be measured directly from the
direct tension test in a manner similar to the
compression test. In addition, traditionally it
is assumed that concrete is completely
isotropic and the compressive values for
Young's modulus are used. It is noted that
this assumption can easily be evaluated, and
possibly confirmed, by taking stress-strain
data during a direct tension test. However, it
should be kept in mind that the direct tension
test is a difficult test to perform such that good
results are always obtained. There are few '
data concerning the modulus of elasticity for
concrete in the tension ranges. For this
reason, Reclamation assumes that the modulus
of elasticity in tension is the same as in
compression.
EC:Tension = EC:Compression
4.3 Tensile Strength
Static and dynamic tensile strengths are
important in evaluating the results from
14
analyses. Laboratory test results are used to
arrive at appropriate values. Uniaxial tensile
strengths are more appropriate for stresses in a
dam where the major principal stresses are
tensile and the minor principal stress is small.
Biaxial tensile strengths are more appropriate
for stresses in a dam where the major principal
stresses are compressive and the minor
principal stresses are tensile.
If the average lift line strength is considerably
less than the average parent concrete strength,
lift lines should be modeled with horizontal
contact surfaces. The tensile strength of the
contact surface should be equal to the
measured direct tensile strength of the lift line
adjusted appropriately for dynamic
considerations, if necessary. If the lift lines
are nearly as strong as the parent concrete, a
concrete cracking model should be used that
permits the cracks to form depending upon the
orientation of the principal stresses. In this
case, for earthquake analyses, the tensile
strength of the concrete and lift lines should
be equal to the measured dynamic splitting
tensile strength of the concrete. The tensile
stress-strain curve from a direct tension test,
scaled so the maximum tension matches the
splitting tension results, is used for the
concrete cracking model.' (Also, see
appendix A.)
It is important to note that in addition to
"parent" or intact concrete, weak lift lines can
exist. Seepage along lift lines does not
necessarily imply weak lift lines. It is possible
that a more porous layer formed at the bottom
of the lift will seep, even though bond is still
good. Conversely, dry lift lines do not
necessarily imply bonded lift lines. At one
Reclamation gravity dam, numerous seeping
lift lines drilled through with 6-inch diameter
core were all bonded. At another Reclamation
dam, 16 of the 23 dry lift lines drilled through
with 6-inch diameter core were unbonded.
Tensile strength across lift lines is largely a
function of construction practices. For this

reason, lift line tensile strength is difficult to
determine without extracting core.
Examination of construction documents and
photographs can shed some light on how the
joints were prepared before subsequent
concrete placements. However, there may not
be data for all the lift lines in the dam. It is
preferable to take concrete cores for testing
and inspect and test the lift lines. Coring
should be performed by experienced drillers
with double-barreled drill rods to extract the
lift lines without damage.
If laboratory tests are unavailable,
Reclamation uses work by Raphael (Raphael,
1984) to estimate concrete tensile strengths.
Raphael studied concrete tensile strengths
from almost 12,000 concrete specimens and
showed that there is little basis for assuming a
linear relationship between tensile and
compressive strength (see figure 4.6). He
compared (1) the relationship between direct
tensile strength, splitting tensile strength, and
modulus of rupture, (2) the relationship
between linear and nonlinear assumptions for
concrete strength, and (3) the relationship
between the static and dynamic strengths of
concrete.
Raphael showed that typically the direct
tensile strength is about half the splitting
tensile strength. Raphael and Reclamation
data have shown that drying of cylinders
affects the strength. Reclamation practice is
to test at in-situ moisture content.
In 1999 (Harris et aI., 1999), Reclamation
compared the results of static tension
tests: the direct tension test (figure 4.9) and
the plit cylinder test (figure 4.10). The
resulting average ratio of the two tests was
1. 75. This is an expected result due to the
biaxial stress state at failure for split cylinder
tests and the uniaxial stress state at failure for
direct tension results.
4.0 Material Properties
Raphael suggested methods to estimate
strengths when tests are unavailable, relating
the splitting tensile strength of concrete to the
compressive strength of concrete:
f.st = TlLD
2P = 1.7/ 2/3
C
where:
1st = Splitting tensile strength
= Static tensile strength used by
Reclamation for analysis
P Compressive force applied to the
specimen
7[ 3.14159
L = Length of specimen
D Diameter of specimen
!c Uniaxial static compressive strength
of the concrete
Modulus of rupture tensile strength is obtained
by loading a specimen in bending:
PL 2/3
fmr = bd2 = 1.33fst =2.3fc
where:
fmr = Tensile strength obtained from a
modulus of rupture test
Apparent tensile strength
P Force applied to the specimen
L Length of specimen
b Width of specimen
d Depth of specimen
!c Uniaxial static compressive strength
of the concrete
Raphael showed that the modulus of rupture
test compensates for the nonlinear
characteristics of the concrete stress-strain
curve. That is, the failure strain produces a
higher strength when projected on a straight
line, assuming a constant modulus, than when
a flattening of the stress strain curve near
failure is taken into account. He called this
the apparent tensile strength of concrete. As a
15
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
result, the modulus of rupture test produces
tensile strengths 1.33 times the splitting tensile
test.
Numerous researchers report that the dynamic
tensile strength is higher than the static tensile
strength. Raphael reported that the increase in
dynamic strength over the static strength was
more marked in tensile tests (56 percent) than
in compression tests (31 percent). Raphael
postulated the dynamic tensile strength of
concrete to be the following:
I"
Jdst
= IjJst
I" = 15 x 1 7 I" 2/3 = 2 6 I" 2/3
• . J c • J c
and
fdmr = 1.5fmr = 1.5 x 2.3f//3 =3.4fc2/ 3
where:
fdst Dynamic splitting tensile strength
= Dynamic tensile strength
Dynamic tensile strength used by
Reclamation for analysis
fdmr = Dynamic modulus of rupture
strength
Apparent dynamic tensile strength
Reclamation results for static and dynamic
split cylinder test results are shown in figures
4.10 and 4:14, respectively.
Failure strain values for static and dynamic
compression are shown in figures 4.13 and
4.17 respectively. Note that failure strains
in static conditions are approximately
0.0015 inch/inch or half of the generally
accepted value of 0.003 for conventional
structural concrete. Dynamic values are less
than static. Care must be taken in selecting
input parameters and in reviewing results to
ensure that failure strains are not exceeded.
16
4.4 Poisson's Ratio for
Concrete
Poisson's ratio for concrete is typically in the
range of 0.2 to 0.25. The results of the
structural analyses are not very sensitive to the
values assumed. Therefore, Poisson's ratio is
usually assumed to be 0.2 for concrete unless
test data are available.
4.5 Concrete and Concrete-
Rock Interface Shear Strength
Shear strength is an important parameter for
determining the sliding stability of a dam.
This is particularly true for the stability of a
gravity dam and for the stability of
independent concrete blocks formed in arch
dams during an earthquake. Bonded surfaces
exhibit cohesion and frictional strength.
Unbonded surfaces exhibit "apparent
cohesion" based on a straight-line fit through
nonlinear shear test data points corresponding
to rough surfaces. At low normal stress, the
surfaces ride up over the asperities, effectively
increasing the friction angle. At higher
normal stresses, the asperities are sheared,
resulting in some cohesive component.
Therefore, this apparent cohesion should not
be used unless the normal stress of interest (in
the structure) is in a range where the test data
are accurately represented by the fitted curve.
Otherwise, it may be more appropriate to
increase the friction angle (for low normal
stress) and assume no cohesion. Bi-linear or
nonlinear failure envelopes are also sometimes
used. Mobilized shear strength is a function
of displacement (see figure 4.7a). Therefore,
bonded and unbonded strengths on a given
surface may not be mobilized at the same
time.

Stone and Webster and the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI, 1992) documented
shear tests from numerous dams for bonded
and unbonded specimens (see figure 4.7b and
4.7c). For preliminary kinematic stability
studies without any shear strength test data,
Reclamation assumes a slide plane with a
50 Ib!in2 apparent cohesion and 40° friction
angle. This is a sufficiently conservative, but
reasonable, lower limit for shear strength,
even for questionable or unknown
construction joint cleanup (good clean up and
construction practices should result in
substantially higher strength). If a structure is
stable using these assumed values, one has
reasonable assurance of stability. The
structure should be judged in a risk context
before a coring program would be initiated to
obtain test values.
4.6 Damping
4.6.1 Rayleigh Damping
Damping in a structure is due to nonlinearities
that cause loss of energy. Most nonlinear
codes use Rayleigh damping which combines
a mass damping equation with a stiffness
damping equation to arrive at a percent critical
damping, e. The a term, the mass proportional
damping, introduces damping forces caused
by the absolute velocities of the model, related
to opening or frictional losses in the joints.
The ~ term, the stiffness proportional
damping, introduces damping proportional to
the strain rate and is related to the idea of
damping associated with the material. For a
given frequency and damping percentage, the
two equations are combined to form an
equation of two variables: a and~. For a
given frequency, co:
4.0 Material Properties
One method to determine the Rayleigh
stiffness damping factor (a) and the Rayleigh
mass damping factor (~) for a given structure
is to determine the fundamental frequency of
the structure, fs, and a multiple of the
fundamental frequency of the structure. The
percent critical damping desired, E, and the
two frequencies, fs and n* fs are used to
determine the two equations in the two
variables a and~. These two equations can
be solved simultaneously to fin4 a and ~.
Figure 4.8 shows the result of this method for
10 percent damping using a typical value for
the fundamental frequency of an arch dam
(f=6 cps) and three times that value. The
total Rayleigh damping over a broad
frequency range (f= 6 cps to f= 18 cps) is
between 8 and 10 percent.
When the value of the ~ term is greater than
the time step used in the explicit solution, the
analysis is slowed down considerably. Also,
when selecting values of a and ~, care should
be taken to make certain that stiffness
proportional damping does not eliminate
important high-frequency response and mass
proportional damping does not greatly affect
the response of the structure by causing
external forces to be applied to the model that
reduce base shear for seismic loading (Wilson,
1998).
During analysis of a gravity dam/reservoir!
foundation system, a Rayleigh damping value
should be applied that allows the waves in the
reservoir created during the application of
gravity to decay. If the damping is above a =
2.0, the motion ofthe water elements can be
over-damped resulting in unrealistic behavior
of the water elements. If damping is too low
(below a = 1.0), it can take a long time for the
waves in the water to decay. The best way to
handle the question of damping, given the
current capabilities, is to use the following
procedure in explicit codes:
17
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
(1) Apply gravity loads over 2-4 seconds,
depending on the model size, with no
damping applied. Note: zero velocities
are assumed at the outer faces of the
foundation during the application of
gravity loads.
(2) Allow 4-6 seconds of quiet time with a
damping value 1.0 < a < 2.0.
(3) For the dynamic analysis, the forces
generated where the zero velocities were
applied will now be input as
concentrated nodal forces and ramped on
during 2-4 seconds at the beginning of
the dynamic run along with the base
acceleration used to model the gravity
load with no damping applied. This will
be followed by 4-6 seconds of quiet
time. Following the quiet time, the
dynamic loads can be applied with
appropriate damping.
Recent research indicates that the use of
Rayleigh damping can greatly affect the result
of an analysis (Hall, 2005). In particular, in a
nonlinear analysis with softening nonlinearity
(concrete cracking, for example) the damping
forces can become unrealistically large
compared to the restoring forces. In this case,
the solution would be unconservative. Work
is currently under way to correct this problem
by imposing bounds on the damping forces.
4.6.2 Viscous and Hysteretic Damping
Hysteretic damping is approximately double
the viscous damping. In linear finite element
analyses that use massless foundations,
Reclamation typically uses 10 percent viscous
damping. In formulations that include mass in
the foundation, additional damping
mechanisms are introduced by radiation
damping. Lower material damping is justified
because of these additional damping
mechanisms. In EACD3D96 (Tan et aI., 1996)
andEAGD-slide (Chavez et aI., 1994)
18
analyses, Reclamation uses 10 percent
hysteretic damping, which is equal to
5 percent viscous damping.
4.6.3 Damping Inherent in Cracking
and Joint Models
Because the cracking process provides
sufficient damping mechanisms and energy
dissipation in the analyses, when concrete
cracking is allowed, Rayleigh damping is not
used.
4.7 Variation and Uncertainty in
Laboratory Testing
A series of tests of over 470 mass concrete test
specimens were conducted at Reclamation
(Harris et aI., 1999). The data combined with
other published data served as a resource for
use of material properties for dams. This effort
concentrated exclusively on the conventional
properties of compressive strength, tensile
strength, modulus of elasticity, and failure
strains tested both statically and at a strain rate
of 10-3 incheslinchlsecond (considered a rate
similar to dynamic loadings such as
earthquakes). All tests were conducted in
accordance with ASTM (ASTM, 2005)
C 39 Standard Test for Compressive Strength
of Cylindrical Specimens, ASTM C 469
Standard Test for Modulus of Elasticity and
Poisson's Ratio in Compression, and ASTM
C 496 Splitting Tension Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens. Once combined, the data
set represented tests from a number of dams as
shown in table 4.3. A comprehensive study of
the trends of the data, and a comparison to
other data (Bishoff, 1991; Raphael, 1978) was
published (Harris et aI., 2000). Note that some
data were drawn from previous publications
(Gaeto, 1983; Peabody et al. - Englebright,
1986; Peabody et al. - Folsom, 1986; Ghanaat,
et aI., 1995). In some cases, only one test was
performed. These are noted in the table by the
average value equaling the maximum value.
 4.0 Material Properties

Table 4.2.-Concrete dams used for laboratory test comparisons

~~~~~~~~~~=7.

~i~~~!~
Deadwood Dam, ID Thick Arch 1931 165 6
Elephant Butte, NM Gravity 1916 301 3.5*

Monticello, CA Medium Arch 1957 304 6

Warm Springs, OR Thin Arch 1919 106 6
Hoover, ARiNV Thick Arch 1936 726 9
Stewart Mtn, AR Thin Arch 1930 207

Seminoe, WY Medium Arch 1939 295 6

Folsom, CA Gravity 1956 340 6
Roosevelt(Mod), AZ Thick Arch Mod-1996 356 4
Englebright, CA Variable Arch 1941 280

Pine Flat, CA Gravity 1954 440

*Concrete only, plum stones embedded in dam.

It is worthwhile to note the stress states of the
split cylinder test and the direct tension test.
The split cylinder test is a biaxial stress state.
The split cylinder test is run with a
compressive line load on the side of the
cylinder, but failure is caused in tension in the
orthogonal direction due to the Poisson's ratio
effect in the material. The splitting tension is
caused by the hoop stress, from the radially
applied stress. Because the material element
contains stress components on two faces, the
material is in a biaxial stress-state. The direct
tension test is a uniaxial stress state.
The reported values from these tests are
shown in figures 4.9 through 4.17. Figures 4.9
through 4.13 show data tested at slower, static
rates. Figures 4.14 through 4.17 show data
obtained at the dynamic loading rate. Average
values of the data with maximums and
minimums are shown in table 4.3. All figures
were designed to display all data points so that
the variation in the data and the clustering
towards certain values is readily apparent.
Compressive strength values and modulus of
elasticity values, although there is
considerable range, were generally typical of
other published values. Of particular note
were the strain values at ultimate stress; most
values were below, and in some projects well
below, 2000 micro strain. (ACI-318-02 states
a maximum usable strain at the extreme
concrete compression fiber shall be assumed
equal to 3000 micro strain.) Low values of
strain may control the failure. Nonlinear
analysis codes may allow crushing strain as an
input parameter.

19
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Table 4.3 - Summary of static compression tests

Average Minimum
:;~~'i.W:·: ';~j,>(;~,~,;);: (''3 '~>, ;: .<'%<-~."

:;~~;~.; ,;Stre!'~tP;:;i": .. 2 ',' •

(lbltnJ,'. (lbJJIl:?~f "~~.·:\~~li!::
Deadwood 4,700 3.5 x 106 1,785 6,019 4.3 x 10
6
2,240 3,205 3 x 10
6
1,103
6 6 6
Elephant Butte 2,524 2.77 x 10 1,450 4,511 4.4 x 10 2,055 1,276 1.5 x 10
Englebright 6,527 4.7 x 106 6,527 4.7x 106

Folsom 4,250 2.10x106 4,250 2.1 x 106

6 6
Hoover 6,889 5.6 x 10 9,224 7.5x 10 4,250 2.1 x 106

Monticello 4,424 5.16 x 106 1,183 5,816 7.2 x 10

6
1,400 6,077 3.9 x 10
6

6 6
Pine Flat 3,887 3.9 x 10 3,887 3.9 x 10
Roosevelt 5,410 5.5 x 106 1,175 7,078 8 x 106 1,625 4,090 2.7 x 106
6 6 6
Seminoe 3,495 1.7 x 10 951 5,279 3.25 x 10 2,880 2,263 1 x 10
Stewart Mountain 5,047 3.9 x 106 6,672 5.8 x 106 3,597 2.1 x 10
6

6 6
Warm Springs 2,930 3.39 x 10 6,672 6.7 x 10 1,479 0.8 x 106

All Projects 4,554 3.8 x 106 1,309 9,224 8 x 106 2,880 1,276 0.8 x 10
6
1,103

Variation in test results is inherent due to properties within any given structure is
multiple factors, including method of placement decreased by estimating properties based on
and aging of concrete under field conditions. tests of cores taken from that structure.
Figure 4.3 illustrates typical compressive stress-
strain curves measured from 15 core samples In the test series it was noted that values did
taken from a Reclamation dam and tested at the vary somewhat as a function of the size of the
Reclamation laboratories according to ASTM core sample being tested. Large-diameter core
standards (ASTM, 1998). Concrete cores of generally indicated lower compressive
6-inch diameter were drilled perpendicular to strengths and compressive strain at failure
the top surface of the dam and sealed in plastic values and higher moduli values. Mass
once extracted to preserve the in-situ moisture concrete had lower strains at ultimate
content during shipping. The maximum compressive strengths than conventional
aggregate size of the concrete was concrete. Cores tested at dynamic strain rates
approximately 6 inches. exhibited nearly linear behavior throughout the
compressive stress-strain range to failure, and
From table 4.3 it can be observed that, split cylinder tests (biaxial) produced higher
considering the values from all projects, the tensile strengths than direct tension (uniaxial)
ratio of the maximum to the minimum is tests. Data from different sites produced
approximately 7: 1 for compressive strength, different results. For final or accurate analyses,
10: 1 for modulus of elasticity. The maximum tests on concrete cores from a specific project
range, if taken project by project, is 3.5 times are used.
for compressive strength, and 8 times for
modulus of elasticity. This implies that the The data from these tests were also used to
potential for error based on the variation of compare dynamic to static results at each site.

20

The ratio of dynamic to static compressive
strength was found to be 1.0. The ratio of
dynamic to static tensile strength was found to
be 1.4 and the ratio of dynamic to static
modulus of elasticity was found to be 0.9
(calculated by the ASTM-recommended
method).
Dynamic properties for concrete should be
established based on tests using the correct
equivalent strain rates. For example,
earthquake strain rates are in the range of
10-3 inches/inch/second. Evaluations based on
analytical results should ensure that the
appropriate stress state (biaxial versus
uniaxial) and the appropriate failure condition
(stress versus strain) are used. For instance,
concrete could fail based on a stress limit or
based on a strain limit. Emphasis needs to be
given to producing reliable test protocols and
test data from dam cores to provide input data
into ongoing and planned nonlinear static and
dynamic analyses. These analyses are
becoming more common as techniques are
developed and older structures are being
evaluated for more severe conditions.
Research in this area is ongoing.
To obtain the most accurate material values, it
is best to extract, store, and ship the core in
the least disturbing manner and maintain the
core as close as possible to the in-situ
moisture and temperature condition. The
drilling operation is advanced slowly past lift
lines and the concrete to rock contact to
extract undisturbed samples and maintain any
in-situ bond along these surfaces.
4.8 Poisson's Ratio for Rock
Mass
Poisson's ratio is usually assumed to be in the
range of 0.2 to 0.3 for most foundation rocks,
although Poisson's ratio for intact rock
specimens can range from less than 0.1 to
4.0 Material Properties
more than 0.35. Analysis results are not
generally sensitive to the value selected for
Poisson's ratio within this range of values.
4.9 Modulus of Elasticity for
Rock Mass
Structural analyses of the dam should include
foundation deformation properties to account
for foundation interaction. Estimates of rock
mass modulus values, including their variation
with location and depth, are needed as input
parameters for structural finite element
analyses.
Rock mass deformation modulus is not the
modulus determined in the laboratory on small
specimens of intact rock core, but rather the
effective modulus considering all the joints,
shears, and faults as well as the rock matrix.
The presence of discontinuities (joints, faults,
shears, seams, etc.) within the rock mass
reduces the modulus of the rock mass in
comparison to the intact rock. Assuming a
low foundation modulus in an arch dam
analysis is not necessarily conservative and
may result in more deformation of the
structure and too much radiation damping. A
low foundation modulus causes the load to be
carried in arch action rather than cantilever
action. The resulting dam stress and
foundation load distribution may be less than
the dam stress and foundation load
distribution calculated using stiffer foundation
modulus values (Scott, 1999).
If foundation mass and radiation damping are
used, as the ratio of the foundation modulus to
the concrete modulus decreases, the resulting
calculated stresses decrease. If the decrease in
stresses is very dramatic, it could indicate that
the radiation damping effects have been
overestimated. It is, therefore, important to
carefully select the values used in dynamic
analysis. Geophysical values are typically too
21
State-ot-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis ot Concrete Dams
high due to the high strain rate at which these
tests are conducted, and rapid loading
laboratory values are typically slightly too
high because they don't account for
contraction joints and other discontinuities
that tend to make the structure less stiff.
Near-surface rock will tend to control the
deformations and impedance contrast. At
depth the foundation modulus becomes stiffer
due to closing and disappearance of
discontinuities which have an impact on
foundation stiffness. In the limit, this could
approach the laboratory values. This has the
tendency to reduce the radiation damping
effects. Therefore, especially if foundation
mass and radiation damping are used, the value
for foundation modulus should be carefully
considered. Unless there is a high level of
confidence in the values used (either by
calibration to forced vibration tests, or several
methods producing similar foundation modulus
values which do not vary significantly with
depth), a sensitivity study should be performed
using varying foundation modulus values.
Rapid loading concrete laboratory test values
provide a good starting point for dynamic
concrete modulus values. A foundation
modulus value less than 80 percent of the
concrete modulus value would typically not be
used without good calibration data.
Another phenomenon that should be kept in
mind, is associated with repeated loading
cycles. If a dam fills and empties, permanent
"set" can occur in the joints and
discontinuities, resulting in a stiffer response
upon subsequent re-Ioading. This may be
important when conducting seismic analyses
where the ratio of concrete to foundation
modulus can be a critical parameter.
There are a number of ways to estimate rock
mass deformation modulus values, including
(Scott, 1999):
22
(1) Assumed values based on published
data.
(2) Empirical methods based on correlation
of index properties to in-situ test results.
(3) Methods based on joint stiffuess,joint
spacing, and intact rock modulus.
(4) Back calculations to match observed
response (e.g. matching natural
frequencies measured by in situ forced
vibration tests to those calculated by
finite element methods (see figure 4.18
and more discussion in Nuss, 2001).
(5) In-situ testing using geophysics, forced
vibration tests, and/or jacking tests.
Several methods are available for estimating
in-situ rock mass deformation modulus values
for concrete dam foundations. These modulus
values are typically needed for finite element
structural analyses which include calculations
of foundation loading. The values selected
can be fairly critical, particularly when full
foundation interaction is considered for
dynamic analyses. Foundation load
distribution can also be sensitive to the values
selected for foundation modulus, which can
affect foundation sliding stability calculations.
Therefore, it is important to make good
estimates of the potential range of foundation
modulus values. Several methods should be
used to establish these estimates. Unless the
results are very insensitive to foundation
modulus values, some testing is usually
required. As the stage of analysis increases or
the criticality of the numbers is established,
more sophisticated testing is usually required.
In general:
EF:Analysis_Static E F :RMR or E F :RQD or
EF:Jacking
 4.0 Material Properties

EF:Analysis_Dynamic = EF:Force Vibration Tests or no 4.11 Material Models in the

less than 80 percent
EC:Analysis_Dynamic with
EF:Geophysical Testing as an
upper bound
where:
EF:Analysis Static Foundation modulus used
in static analysis
EF:Analysis_Dynamic = Foundation modulus used
in dynamic analysis
EC:Analysis_Dynamic = Concrete modulus used in
dynamic analysis
EF:RMR Foundation modulus from
Rock Mass Rating
EF:RQD Foundation modulus from
Rock Quality Designation
EF:Jacking Foundation modulus from
jacking tests
EF:Force Vibration
Tests Foundation modulus from
forced vibration tests
EF:Geophysical Testing = Foundation modulus from
down-hole or cross-hole
geophysics
Various Computer Codes
Given that a decision has been made to do an
analysis using nonlinear material properties,
the analyst must understand the capabilities of
a given code, the material models available
and the parameters required for the model
chosen. Material properties should be
obtained through testing. If it is not possible
to test for material properties, sensitivity
studies can be performed to indicate whether
there is a need for specific testing or to bracket
the solution.
Appendix A provides a brief overview of the
finite element material model capabilities
being used by Reclamation and a guide to
requesting sampling and testing based on
models chosen for an analysis, when
necessary. This is not intended to be a
comprehensive list of the computer codes or
material models.

4.10 Material Properties for Fluid 4.12 Coordination with Materials

Elements Engineer

One method of including reservoir loads is to It is extremely important that the Structural
model the reservoir with finite elements and Engineer, Materials Engineer, and field
use material properties which represent the personnel work closely together to obtain
behavior of the water. The following values required values for an analysis. The type of
are used when this method is employed: tests needed and the number of tests should be
discussed. The location, size, and number of
Modulus of elasticity, Ew = 189.71b/in2 core samples for the required tests can be
Poisson's ratio, v 0.4999 determined. The core should be extracted,
Density, Ym = 62.4 Ib/ft3 preserved, and shipped to minimize damage
and maintain in-situ conditions (e.g. moisture
Bulk modulus, K = Ew content, lift line bond). At least three to five
3(1- 2v) samples should be obtained to get an
appropriate statistical representation.
Using the above properties, K =
316,166.71b/in2 , which is approximately
equal to the true bulk modulus for fresh
water (316,100 Ib/in2 ).

23

5.0 Loads
The following section covers loads required
as input for the various analysis programs
used in the Structural Analysis Group of
Reclamation's Technical Service Center.
The weights of the dam and reservoir are
applied as gravity loads during static analysis.
In addition, the effects oftailwater, silt, ice,
and temperature are considered during a static
analysis. The mass effects of the dam,
foundation, and reservoir are incorporated
> once to a monolithic dam causes the dam to
during dynamic analysis.
5.1 Static Loads
5.1.1 Weight - Staged Construction
for Arch Dams
Concrete dams are built in stages with the
high-low block method of construction. The
concrete is allowed to cool and the contraction
joints are grouted typically in 60-foot high
intervals. To accurately compute the weight
of the dam and the secondary stresses induced
in the dam during construction, staged
construction and the grouting process are
modeled.
In linear elastic analysis, gravity loads are
applied to independent cantilevers and then
the results are superimposed. In this method,
cantilevers are numbered consecutively.
Elements in the even-numbered cantilevers are
given weight and stiffness (modulus) and the
elements in the odd-numbered cantilevers are
given zero weight and no stiffness (zero
modulus). A second analysis is performed
reversing the even and odd element material
properties. The results from the second
analysis are superimposed on the results from
the first, producing the gravity load with
secondary stage construction stresses locked
in. Alternatively, some codes allow elements
to be "birthed" or added during the analysis.
5.0 Loads
In the birthing method, the even cantilevers
are modeled first and the element stiffness and
weight is applied. During the subsequent step
the odd cantilevers are "birthed" and their
element stiffness and weight is applied. If the
stage construction process is not included in
the linear analysis and the dam assumed as a
monolithic structure, results from the gravity
load are affected. Gravity load applied all at
"hang" from the abutments, resulting in very
large arch tensile stresses in the dam near the
upper abutments. The presence of contraction
joints in the structure and high/low block
construction method prevent this from
occurring in the actual structure.
In a nonlinear analysis where contact surfaces
are used to model the contraction joints,
gravity can be applied all at once because the
contact surfaces permit the cantilevers to slide
and relieve the hanging effect, provided the
strengths of the contact surfaces are small
enough to allow adjustments along the joints.
This method does not model grout in the
contraction joints. The effect of grout is
usually incorporated by assigning a stress-free
temperature to the elements. Subsequent
analysis consists of applying seasonal
temperatures to the nodes and applying
reservoIr load to close the contraction joints.
Program SCADA (SCADA, 2005) incorporates
grout by adjusting internal strains in the
"smeared crack" formulation of the
contraction joints.
5.1.2 Applying Weight in Explicit
Codes
Application of weight in an explicit analysis
can produce unexpected results. If the load is
applied too quickly, the solution may diverge.
This can often be corrected by reducing the
stable time increment during the application of
25
State-at-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis at Concrete Dams
static loads. The solution can also diverge if
velocity effects on contact surfaces are not
damped. Viscous pressure loading is most
commonly applied in structural problems
when dynamic effects on contact surfaces
must be damped out so that static equilibrium
can be reached in a minimal number of
increments. For typical structural problems,
some energy can be absorbed at the contact
surface by applying viscous normal pressure,
which is equal to the velocity times a
coefficient, Cv (given by PCd; P is the density
of the material at the surface, and Cd is the
value of the dilatational wave speed in the
material). For typical structural problems, it is
recommended that only a small percentage
(perhaps 1 or 2 percent) of the viscous normal
pressure, PCd be used as an effective way of
minimizing ongoing dynamic effects.
(ABAQUSIExplicit (Hibbit et aI., 2004))
Alternatively, the weight can be applied in an
implicit run, and the resulting stress-state and
displaced state can be saved and input as the
initial state of the dynamic explicit analysis.
If this is done, the same element formulation
and material constitutive models must be used
in the implicit and the explicit codes to avoid a
solution instability by forcing the codes to
come to some form of equilibrium.
5.1.3 Massless Foundations Versus
Foundations with Mass
Typically, weight is not applied in the
foundation during static linear analysis
because the foundation has settled from self-
weight long before the construction of the dam
and filling of the reservoir. The dam and
reservoir add additional weight that the
foundation has not had to previously support
causing it to deflect further. Ignoring the
foundation weight is easily done in implicit
codes by assigning zero density to the
foundation elements. However, explicit codes
are required to have density in all elements.
Foundation elements with very small mass are
26
not practical because the stable analysis time
step is a function of element mass and
becomes unrealistically small. The desired
effect, which is to prevent the foundation from
settling under self-weight and unrealistically
pulling on the dam, can be addressed in
several ways: (1) contact surfaces along the
dam/foundation contact can relieve foundation
pulling forces; (2) the foundation can be Pat!:
of the "stage construction" analysis where the
foundation is modeled and allowed to settle
and the dam is "built" by birthing dam
elements into the solution. If the effect on the
dam is small, no change needs to be made.
5.1.4 Reservoir
Reservoir elevations should be selected based
on design considerations, historic operations,
or hydrologic and hydraulic studies. The two
extreme static loads are low reservoir with
high temperature that results in the largest
upstream deflection, and high reservoir with
low temperature that results in the largest
downstream deflection. Risk analysis
considerations may dictate that more than one
reservoir elevation and temperature condition
should be analyzed, including perhaps flood
loading.
Reservoir load is applied to the upstream face
of the dam and the reservoir bottom using
pressure loads or fluid elements. In cases of
high tailwater, this pressure should also be
applied to the downstream face and bottom of
the tailrace area.
5.1.5 Temperature
A thermal analysis of a concrete dam may be
necessary, depending on the type of dam, the
thickness of the dam, the amount of restraint
the foundation imposes on the dam, and the
seasonal variations at the site. Dams develop
thermally-induced stresses when restrained
from expanding and/or contracting with
changes in temperature. If the dam can freely
expand or contract, stresses do not develop.

For an arch darn, thermally induced loads can
be the largest loads on the structure. The
static analysis of an arch darn usually requires
consideration of thermal effects. Arch darns
are curved, normally thinner than gravity
darns, and wedged within a canyon. Because
an arch darn is relatively thin, the internal
temperatures of the darn are close in value to
external temperatures and change rapidly with
external temperature changes. Abutments
restrain the darn from freely expanding and
contracting, resulting in bending in the arch
and cantilever directions and in thermally
induced tensile stresses.
Gravity darns are less affected by seasonal
temperature changes and static analyses may
not need a thermal analysis. Gravity darns are
straight in plan, thicker than arch darns, and
typically in wider canyons. Because gravity
darns are free to expand vertically and
upstream to downstream (except at the dam-
to-foundation contact), thermally induced
stresses are minimized. The internal
temperatures in gravity darns remain fairly
constant due to the thickness of the darn, so
expansions and contractions are minimal.
Buttress darns are relatively unaffected by
thermal changes, since the buttresses are
relatively'thin members, are not exposed to
significant thermal gradients (air on both
sides), and are free to expand and contract
except where restrained at the base. At one of
Reclamation's multiple arch and buttress
darns, the average monthly high temperatures
inside the buttresses were 10 to 15 degrees
less than the ambient air temperatures because
of the shaded, protected area underneath the
arches. The reinforcement in buttress darns
carries any thermally induced stresses.
To perform a thermal analysis of a concrete
darn, the ambient air and reservoir
5.0 Loads
temperatures, the effect of solar radiation, and
the thermal properties and the stress-free
temperature of the concrete are required.
Internal concrete temperatures are then
determined (at Reclamation) either with
(1) computer program DAMTEMP (in-house)
or (2) a finite element thermal analysis (using
TOPAZ3D (Shapiro, 1985), ABAQUS/
Standard (Hibbit et aI., 2004), etc).
Ambient air temperatures can be obtained
from weather service data at website:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edulcl1msum.html
Data that are acquired close to the darn site,
at approximately the same elevation and
recorded over many years, are desired.
Ambient air temperature data can be
decreased 1 OF for every 250 feet increase
in elevation and decreased 1 OF for every
1.4 degrees increase in latitude (Reclamation
EM34, 1981) to match the site location. To
determine reservoir temperature data at a darn
site, data included in Reclamation EM34 for a
darn site with approximately the same mean
annual temperatures and the same mean
annual reservoir discharge rate can be used.
The effect of solar radiation on the surfaces
of the darn is a function of the latitude of the
site, the orientation of the surface relative to
North, the terrain factor, and the slope of the
surface off vertical. The terrain factor varies
from 0 to 1 and is the fraction of the angle
the sun shines on the darn given the
topography of the site to the angle of flat
ground (180 degrees) (see figure 5.la). A
method to determine the effect of solar
radiation is in Reclamation EM34.
Thermal properties of the concrete may be
obtained from laboratory tests or from tests on
concrete with similar aggregates from other
sites (see tables 5.la and 5.lb).
27
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Table 5.1 a.-Thermal properties for various concretes (Reclamation, Concrete Laboratory, 1961)

Hoover limestone, granite, 4.8 156.0 50 1.70 0.212 0.051

basalt, quartzite, 100 ·1.67 0.225 0.047
chalcedony, quartz 150 1.65 0.251 0.042
Grand Coulee basalt, granite, 4.6 158.1 50 1.08 0.219 0.031
rhyolite, feldspar, 100 1.08 0.231 0.029
quartz 150 1.09 0.257 0.027
Friant quartzite, granite, 153.8 50 1.23 0.216 0.037
rhyolite 100 1.23 0.230 0.035
150 1.24 0.243 0.033
Shasta andesite, slate, 4.8 156.6 50 1.32 0.219 0.039
rhyolite, breccias, 100 1.31 0.233 0.036
feldspar 150 1.31 0.247 0.034
Angostura limestone, 151.2 50 1.49 0.221 0.045
sandstone 100 1.48 0.237 0.041
150 1.46 0.252 0.038
Kortes granite, gabbros, 4.5 151.8 50 1.61 0.208 0.050
quartz, sandstone, 100 1.60 0.221 0.047
basalt, feldspar 150 1.59 0.234 0.044
Hungry Horse sandstone, 5.7 150.1 50 1.72 0.217 0.053
limestone, quartzite, 100 1.71 0.232 0.049
gabbros 150 1.69 0.247 0.046
Canyon Ferry sandstone, 5.2 151.3 50 1.63 0.214 0.050
metasi Itstone, 100 1.61 0.224 0.047
quartzite, rhyolite, 150 1.59 0.235 0.045
granite, basalt
Monticello sandstone 153.1 50 1.57 0.225 0.046
(Graywacke), 100 1.55 0.237 0.043
quartz,chert 150 1.53 0.250 0.040
Anchor andesite, limestone 4.5 149.0 50 1.14 0.227 0.034
100 1.14 0.242 0.032
150 1.15 0.258 0.030
Glen Canyon limestone, 150.2 50 2.13 0.217 0.065
chalcedonic chert, 100. 2.05 0.232 0.059
sandstone, 150 1.97 0.247 0.053
quartzite, granite,
andesite
Flaming limestone, 150.4 50 1.78 0.221 0.054
Gorge sandstone 100 1.75 0.234 0.050
150 1.73 0.248 0.046
Yellowtail limestone, andesite, 4.3 152.5 50 1.55 0.226 0.045
granite, sandstone, 100 1.52 0.239 0.042
cherts, basalt 150 1.48 0.252 0.039

Average 4.8 152.6 1.52 0.232 0.043

28
 5.0 Loads

Table 5.1 b.-Thermal properties for various coarse aggregate

Quartzite 151.7 2.052 2.040 2.028 0.209 0.217 0.226 0.065 0.062 0.059
Dolomite 156.2 1.948 1.925 1.903 0.225 0.231 0.238 0.055 0.053 0.051
Limestone 152.8 1.871 1.842 1.815 0.221 0.224 0.230 0.055 0.054 0.052
Granite 150.9 1.515 1.511 1.588 0.220 0.220 0.224 0.046 0.045 0.045
Basalt 157.5 1.213 1.212 1.211 0.226 0.226 0.230 0.034 0.034 0.033
Rhyolite 146.3 1.197 1.203 1.207 0.220 0.226 0.232 0.037 0.036 0.036
Average 152.57 1.633 1.622 1.625 0.22 0.224 0.23 0.049 0.047 0.046

Thermal properties of concrete are largely where

controlled by the aggregate type because
aggregate makes up the largest volume within
the concrete matrix. It is important to
document the source of temperature curves
and summarize all assumptions with respect to
material properties. This includes a
description of the stress-free (grout)
temperature, the coefficient of thermal
expansion, and a plot showing nodal point
temperature differences.
The in-house program, DAMTEMP, uses
(1) the thickness ofthe concrete; (2) the mean
monthly low and mean monthly high
temperatures; (3) the historic maximum and
minimum temperature; and (4) the elevation,
latitude, terrain factors, darn orientation, and
diffusivity of concrete. Because diffusivity
does not vary significantly, a representative
value of 0.045 ft2/hour for mass concrete can
be used. Without testing, a more refined
diffusivity based on aggregate type can be
obtained from tables 5.1 a and 5.1 b or
reference (Reclamation, Concrete Laboratory,
1961). Diffusivity is a measure of the rate at
which concrete undergoes temperature change
and is computed from the following equation:
h2 = diffusivity (fr/hr)
K = conductivity (BTU/ftlhrfOF)
C = specific heat (BTU/lbfOF), and
y = density of concrete (lb/ft3)
Concrete is a very good insulator. As such,
daily air and water temperature variations have
an effect only on the surface of the concrete to
a shallow depth. There can be a steep thermal
gradient at the surface. Interior temperatures
are primarily affected by exterior weekly and
monthly average temperature variations.
Figure 5.1b shows how temperature might vary
through a concrete dam from the upstream face
to the downstream face. Notice the high
thermal gradient at the surfaces and the linear
variation through the thickness. The range of
mean concrete temperatures, computed in
DAMTEMP, represents this linear variation
through the thickness.
In a finite element thermal analysis the mesh
used for the stress analysis should be used in
the thermal analysis. Typical inputs for the
thermal analysis are specific heat, density,
conductivity, ambient air temperatures, and
reservoir temperatures. Initial temperatures in
the analysis are set to the mean annual
temperature. Nodes on exterior surfaces are
assigned the appropriate water or air seasonal

29
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
temperatures. Then, a time stepping transient
thermal analysis representing a few years (or
until internal nodes stabilize to a consistent
cycle) is performed, calculating daily
temperatures and saving monthly temperature
values. Nodal temperatures for a given month
from the results of a thermal analysis can be
imported into the stress analysis. A thermal
finite element analysis, which includes the
steep surface thermal gradients on the faces,
computes the temperature distribution through
the thickness of the dam more accurately than
DAMTEMP. A stress analysis based on nodal
temperatures imported from a thermal finite
element study reflects these surface gradients
and may produce high tensile stresses at the
surface. These tensile stresses reflect potential
surface cracking and not major structural
cracking.
During a stress analysis, the stress-free
temperature is required and is normally input
as a property of the finite elements. The
stress-free temperature of a dam is the
temperature of the dam at the time the
contraction joints were grouted. The mean
annual temperature can be used as the stress-
free temperature if the stress-free temperature
of the dam is not known or if the dam was not
cooled and grouted. The difference between
the stress~free temperature of the elements and
the given temperature of the nodes times the
coefficient of thermal expansion (aD is the
amount of expansion or contraction of the
concrete. Reclamation uses a value of
0.000005 in/in/OF for a concrete dam if the
property is not known. Without testing, a
more refined value for at based on aggregate
type can be obtained from the Reclamation
report, Properties of Mass Concrete in Bureau
ofReclamation Dams, (Reclamation, Concrete
Laboratory, 1961) or table 5.1a.
Application of temperatures loads is the same
for linear and nonlinear analyses. The internal
temperatures are normally a property assigned
to the nodes in a finite element model. The
30
results may be different depending on how
the thermal effects mobilize the nonlinear
features. In a linear analysis, contraction
joints are not modeled so arch stresses
develop as the arch expands and contracts.
In a nonlinear analysis that models
contraction joints, arch stresses are relieved.
The contraction joints will open and close
depending on the response of the dam to
thermal contractions and expansions.
5.1.6 Uplift
5.1.6.1 Gravity Dams
Uplift pressures affect the stability of
gravity dams by reducing the frictional
(shear) resistance along potential slide
planes. This is a result of pore pressures in
the concrete, which reduce the effective
compressive stress normal to cracks or lift
lines. Water pressures are induced normal to
the face of any surface exposed to water.
This includes the reservoir pressure on the
upstream face of the dam, the tailwater
pressure on the downstream face, and
pressure from seepage into cracks, joints,
discontinuities, and open lift lines.
Hydrostatic pressures on external surfaces
are applied as external forces. Seepage
pressures which induce a buoyant force on
the dam are considered to be uplift pressures.
Pore pressures are induced within the material
as water percolates into the voids of the
material. This affects the strength of the
material. Pore pressures can be accounted for
by using the effective stress concept. The
effective stress at a location is obtained by the
algebraic sum of the total stress (stress without
any uplift considerations) and the pore pressure
at that location (assuming compressive stresses
and pore pressures have the opposite sign). In
finite element analyses, the pore pressure
would be added to each of the orthogonal
stress components (o"x, O"y, and O"z).

Reclamation has historically not computed the
effective stress in the concrete when deter-
mining the cracking potential of a structure
when using finite elements. Typically in linear
finite element analyses, Reclamation computes
the total stress without specific consideration of
the effective and uplift components. The uplift
pressures are then applied in a post-processing
phase. Along the plane in question, the uplift
force is computed, the finite element stress
results are converted into forces, and sliding
stability calculations are performed that include
friction and cohesion. In this way the sliding
stability along any plane is computed in the
post-processing phase without having to reapply
uplift forces along different planes and rerun the
finite element analysis.
Reclamation has applied uplift forces in a
geometric nonlinear finite element analysis of a
Reclamation dam using contact surfaces. Uplift
pressures were applied in opposite directions
within the contact surface along the base of the
dam. As the contact surface opened, uplift
pressures were modified and reapplied to the
finite element model.
It is a common construction practice to include
formed drains within the dam and foundation
drains within the foundation. These drains
intercept seepage water from the reservoir and
reduce the uplift pressures. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Reclamation
have measured uplift pressures at the base of
many concrete dams and have developed
approximations to predict pressure distributions
(Ebeling et aI., 2000). The University of
Colorado measured uplift pressures in the
laboratory for various drain configurations
(spacing, diameter, and distance from the
upstream face) and potential sliding plane
surface configurations (roughness, opening), and
developed recommendations for drain
effectiveness when a crack passes the drains
(Amadei et aI.,1991). The equations for
5.0 Loads
predicting uplift at the drains given below are
based on the location of the drains, the elevation
of the gallery, the presence of upstream
cracking, the drain effectiveness, the width of
the dam base, and the elevations of the reservoir
and tailwater. The following nomenclature is
used (see figures 5.2 and 5.3):
hJ reservoir head above the base of
the dam
h2 tailwater head above the base of
the dam
h3 head at the line of drains
114 gallery height above the base of the
dam
XDrn = distance from upstream face to the
line of drains
XCrk distance from upstream face to
crack tip
drain effectiveness (0 :::; DE:::; 1)
o=> no reduction in pressure
1 => full reduction in pressure
0.66 => for drains located at
5 percent hI from the upstream
face, spaced at lO-feet on-centers
cross-canyon, and at least 3-inch-
diameter drain holes
DECola = drain effectiveness based on
research at the University of
Colorado
K 1.0 - DE = Drain efficiency
L = Horizontal length of the base from
upstream to downstream face
The uplift profiles along a horizontal plane are
assumed to vary linearly.
Reclamation Uplift: If it is assumed that
there is no crack present, then the profile
varies from the reservoir head above the base
of the dam at the upstream face, to the head at
the line of drains (h3), to the tailwater head
above the base of the dam at the downstream
face. The head at the line of drains, h 3, is
calculated by one of the following equations:
31
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
when 14 ::; h2, XCrk = 0
when 14 > h2 and XCrk = 0
The maximum value for h3 is:
(3)
If it is assumed that a crack is present on the
upstream face, then the profile is a constant
value equal to the reservoir head above the
base of the dam from the upstream face to the
crack tip. It then varies from this value to the
tailwater head above the base of the dam at the
downstream face. The drain is assumed to be
ineffective as soon as any crack forms. Notice
that h3 is the same regardless of what the
gallery elevation is because the drain is
assumed to be ineffective.
- (~ - hJ(L-xDrn) h the tailwater head above the base of the dam at
(4) h3 - + 2
L -XCrk
for any 14 and 0 < XCrk < XOm
for any 14 and XOm ::; Xcrk
Because Reclamation's criteria are quite
conservative once a crack forms, Corps of
Engineers and University of Colorado
Research-Based Uplift are typically used.
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers Uplift: The
uplift profile along a horizontal plane using
the Corps equations is assumed to vary
linearly.
32
If XCrk < XOm , then the uplift profile is a
constant value equal to the reservoir head
above the base of the dam from the upstream
face to the crack tip. It is h3 at the drain, and
then varies to the tailwater head above the
base of the dam at the downstream face.
Notice that h3 is reduced proportionally as the
crack approaches the drain and causes the
drain to become totally ineffective when the
crack is at the drain.
(6)
when 14 ::; h2 and XCrk < XDm
when 14 > h2 and XCrk < XOm
If XCrk ;;::: XOm , then the uplift profile varies
from the reservoir head above the base of the
dam at the upstream face, to the reservoir head
above the base of the dam at the crack tip, to
the downstream face. The drain is assumed to
be totally ineffective when a crack passes the
drains.
when XCrk ;;::: XOm
University of Colorado Research-Based
Uplift: Equations were developed by
Reclamation describing the uplift profile along
a horizontal plane based on research done at
the University of Colorado. These equations
assume that the uplift varies linearly
depending upon the crack and drain locations
and that the drains remain effective when the
crack extends beyond the drain.

If XCrk < XDrn, the uplift profile is a constant
value equal to the reservoir head above the
base of the dam from the upstream face to the
crack tip. It is h3 at the drain, and then varies
from this value to the tailwater head above the
base of the dam at the downstream face. Full
reservoir head is assumed in the crack if the
crack has not reached the drain. The drain
effectiveness remains constant as the crack
approaches the drain.
when 14 :::; h2 and XCrk < XDm
(10)h =[{(h1-h2)(L-XDrn) +h }-h ]K+h
3 L 2 4 4
when 14 > h2 and XCrk < XDm
If XCrk 2:: XDm, the uplift profile varies from the
reservoir head above the base of the dam at
the upstream face, to h3 at the drain, to the
tailwater head above the base of the dam at the
downstream face. The uplift is not the full
reservoir head in the crack. The drain becomes
very effective when a crack reaches the drain.
The drain effectiveness is then reduced as the
crack approaches the downstream face by the
equation:
D - D (DE(XC>-k - XDrn))
ECoio - E- L
- XDrn
when XCrk 2:: XDm
when 14 :::; h2 and XCrk 2:: XDrn
5.0 Loads
(12)
h = [{ (hI - h2 )( L -
3 L
XDrn)
+ h}
2
_h ]
4 K Coio + h4
when 14 > h2 and XCrk 2:: XDm
. Figure 5.3 shows a comparison of the uplift
profiles based on studies by the Corps,
Reclamation, and the University of Colorado
for various crack lengths. Since the
infonnation from the University of Colorado
is newer and is based on specific research,
Reclamation has given it considerable weight
within a risk framework.
Uplift in Seismically Induced Crack: A
crack that fonns or a lift line that opens on the
upstream face during a seismic event is an
entry point for water and uplift pressures.
Cracks fonn at the speed of sound in the
concrete. At this speed, water does not have
time to enter the crack. However, as the
earthquake continues, water does flow into the
crack as observed during Reclamation's shake
table tests of model arch dams. In these tests,
as the crack extended to the downstream face
and the dam moved upstream, water spurted
from the crack. Uplift pressures are probably
reduced as the crack opens (dam moves
downstream) and increase as the crack closes
(dam moves upstream).
5.1.6.2 Arch Dams
Uplift pressures within thin-arch concrete
dams are usually not considered in the
analyses. Unlike gravity dams, downstream
sliding along lift lines is not a realistic failure
mode for arch dams. Uplift pressures in
cracks and open lift lines tend to lift and rotate
the dam causing larger arch stresses and forces
directed into the abutment.
33
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
5.1.6.3 Buttress Dams
Uplift pressures are generally not considered
in the analysis of buttress dams. The buttress-
to-foundation contact area is relatively small
compared to the length of the dam and any
seepage water is likely to flow out from under
the buttresses.
5.2 Seismic Loads
During an earthquake, the dam, foundation,
and reservoir move and interact with each
other. The most realistic analysis would
incorporate all of these interactions. As of
1999, there was no one code that addressed all
of the necessary factors of a nonlinear dam/
foundation/reservoir system. In 2000,
Reclamation commissioned LLNL to perform
a seismic analysis that incorporated all
interactions. The analysis performed using
NlKE3DIDYNA3D (LLNL, 2000) included a
dam with contraction joints, foundation with
mass, and reservoir with fluid elements.
Currently at Reclamation, analyses of this type
are performed when the situation dictates.
When dynamic linear elastic finite element
analysis was first applied to dam/foundation
systems in the 1960s, it was found that varying
the extent of the foundation modeled changed
the response and the stresses found in the dam.
Because the foundation was given mass and
there were no infinite boundaries being used at
the foundation outer edges, seismic energy was
being trapped and reflected back into the dam.
Changing the extent of the foundation modeled
changed the frequency of the foundation "box."
This, in turn, affected the dam/foundation
interaction. The concept of a massless
foundation, although not realistic, eliminated
these problems by removing the inertia from
the foundation. Only the stiffness of the
foundation was included. Because the inertia
force (force = mass x acceleration) is only
applied to portions of the model that have
mass, the frequencies and response of the dam
34
only are computed and they are independent of
the size of the foundation modeled. Ground
motions applied at the foundation boundaries
do not vary through the massless foundation
mesh and are, therefore, independent of the size
of the foundation modeled. However, when a
massless foundation is used, important inertia
effects and radiation damping are ignored.
Ignoring radiation damping may lead to
unrealistically high stresses in the dam.
There are several ways to incorporate mass in
the foundation in a dynamic analysis. The
most straight forward way is to assign mass to
the foundation material and place infinite non-
reflecting boundaries at the outer edges of the
foundation.
5.2.1 Requirements for Seismic Input
As was discussed previously, Reclamation
uses several analysis programs and methods to
input seismic loads. In implicit linear
analysis, mass is not included in the
foundation and input surface ground motions
can be applied unaltered at the boundaries of
the foundation. In general purpose explicit
codes like ABAQUS-EXPLICIT and DYNA3D,
mass is included in the foundation and ground
motions, which are applied at depth in the
foundation, need to be deconvolved. In
specialty codes like EACD3D96, analysis in
which the dam/foundation interaction is
modeled through the use of specific boundary
elements, ground motions are applied at the
dam/foundation contact and do not have to be
deconvolved.
At Reclamation, ground motions are obtained
from the Seismotectonics Group and the
engineer works closely with the seismologist.
Details of the work done by the seismologist
are described in the sections below. Once the
appropriate motions are obtained, the engineer
should carefully review them and plot the
acceleration, velocity, and displacement time
histories. Ground motions need to be
 5.0 Loads

corrected to have zero displacement at the end
of the earthquake. In addition, the
acceleration response spectra at 5 percent
damping for each motion should be calculated
and plotted. This allows the engineer to
understand the characteristics of the records
being used. The fundamental frequency of the
structure can be plotted on the acceleration
response spectra curves so that the frequency
content of the motion can be compared to the
boundary can be applied at the same location
as the applied nodal forces. For this type of
load application, the ground motions are
defined as incident waves propagating upward
through the foundation mesh. Using
deconvolved ground velocities, force time
histories to be applied to the nodes at the base
of the foundation mesh are calculated using
the following formulas:

F (t)y = [ 2~:i ]ygc(t)

natural frequencies of the structure and the
impact of a particular record on the structure (1)
can be understood. The acceleration spectral
intensity (ASI) is defined as the area under the
For vertical degree of freedom at node i
acceleration response spectrum curve between
the periods of 0.1 and 0.5 and is a measure of
the energy in the record between these two (2) F(t)x = [2~:i ]Xgc(t)
periods. The ASI is indicative of the impact
on the structure of the ground motions record For one horizontal degree of freedom at
because most Reclamation structures have node i
fundamental frequencies that fall in this range.
(3) F(t)z = [2~:i }gc(t)
Ground motions can be applied to finite
For the second horizontal degree of
element models as displacement, velocity,
freedom at node i
acceleration or force (or stress) time history
records, depending on the finite element code
where:
capabilities. Most computer codes accept
F(t)x, F(t)y, F(t)z = Time history force
ground motion input for a time step of any
(pounds)
size, but some specialty codes like 2
= Elastic Modulus (lb/in )
EACD3D96 require a 0.01 or 0.02 second time 2
= Shear Modulus (lblin )
step. Acceleration records should be baseline
= Contributing area around
corrected to remove drift in the velocity and
node (inches2 )
displacement records which are found by
integrating the acceleration record. The Cs = S-wave velocity (inch/sec)
Cp = P-wave velocity (inch/sec)
baseline drift problem can cause computation
xglt), xglt) = Deconvolved horizontal
errors in terms of relative displacement,
ground velocity (in/sec)
stresses and strains, and rigid body translation
= Deconvolved vertical
of the entire model. If the ground motion
ground velocity (in/sec)
record has not been baseline corrected, this
rigid body motion must be removed from the
This method of dynamic load application
post-processing plots.
accounts for topographical effects of the
ground motions. Care must be taken that the
At Reclamation it has been most common to
non-reflective boundary conditions on the sides
apply seismic loads in terms of acceleration
of the foundation mesh do not eliminate too
time history records. However, ground
much energy from the motion as it travels up
motions can be converted to nodal forces with
through the foundation. Time history
the advantage that an infinite reflecting

35
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
accelerations at the surface in the canyon a
short distance downstream of the dam should
be extracted from the analysis and the response
spectra computed. These response spectra
should match the response spectra of the
original surface acceleration at the fIrst several
frequencies of the dam. When using non-
reflecting boundary conditions inDYNA3D, the
force time histories must be modifIed to
account for dampers at the input location. For
vertical motions, the following force must be
added to F(t)y:
For horizontal motions, the following must be
added to Fx and Fz:
F'(I), = x",(I) X A,x px~ 4xp
G
F'(I), = Zg,(t)XA'XPX~ 4xp
G important to understand how the records
where:
K = bulk modulus
p = mass density
As the motion travels vertically up through the
foundation, the Poisson's effect occurs along
the outside edges of the foundation boundary.
To correct for this, forces can be captured and
applied along the foundation boundaries
essentially representing the foundation rock
beyond the boundary which has not been
modeled.
Ground motions in terms of acceleration are
applied at depth in the foundation. The
location of application is determined by the
size of the structure. The horizontal extent of
the foundation is typically 3 times the dam
height in both horizontal directions. The
36
vertical dimension of the foundation should be
approximately one half the horizontal
dimensions. Figure 5.4 shows how to
determine the extent of the foundation based
on the dimensions of the dam. The
effectiveness of the infInite boundary can be
checked by plotting velocity versus time in the
. foundation. This shows how the earthquake
motions changes as it travels through the
foundation. There should be very little change
in the shape of the velocity contour along the
boundary compared to a small distance away
from the boundary. At a minimum, any
disturbance along the boundary should not
reflect back to the dam for the duration of the
analysis. It should be noted that the surface
motions must be deconvolved so that the
desired motions are obtained at the ground
surface when this method is used.
Time-history earthquake ground motions
that represent particular return periods are
typically provided by a seismologist for use
in seismic analysis. Because of the
differences in the analytical models, it is
were derived. At a minimum, the name of
the earthquake, the recording station, and
any scaling that was done should be described.
If synthetic records are used, a basic
description of the assumptions that went into
generating them should be provided.
The structural engineer should provide the
seismologist with the frequencies of the dam-
foundation-reservoir system so appropriate
ground motions can be developed. These
frequencies will be for a linear elastic
monolithic model, noting that cracking or
nonlinear behavior will make the dam less
stiff and reduce the natural frequencies
(increase the period) of the dam.
Structures should be analyzed using a suite of
ground motions with different characteristics
so that the response of the structure to shorter
records with several large acceleration spikes

is determined as well as the response to
records with longer durations. Motions with a
few large acceleration spikes provide large
"punches" and jolts to the dam that might
produce the largest cracks in the dam, but lack
the duration that allows stresses to be
redistributed, resulting in a broader area of
cracking. In addition, ground motions should
include a frequency content broad enough, yet
consistent with the seismologic environment,
to excite different modes of the dam and
produce different stress and displacement
patterns. Asymmetric displacements may be
more critical than symmetric displacements.
Ground motions with long durations,
especially at low frequencies, produce the
most sliding and toppling movements.
5.2.2 Ground Motion Considerations
Development of site-specific earthquake
ground motions is a complex problem and is
discussed in detail in 0' Connell and Ake
(2006). This discussion focuses on the
application of already estimated ground
motions, typically acceleration time histories,
in engineering analyses of concrete dams.
The objective is to provide representative
seismic loads at the structure boundary. The
location of seismic loads applied in various
analysis codes can vary at the dam to
foundation contact, at a horizontal plane at
depth, or at all boundary restraints. This can
be a significant complication because most
strong motion recordings are obtained from .
surface sites and most synthesized ground
motions are produced for surface conditions.
Much of the discussion in this section deals
with the complex issue of providing seismic
loads at depth because there are many
potential pitfalls in the process of converting
surface ground motions to ground motions at
depth. The primary theme is that it is
necessary for the seismologist to work closely
with the engineer to ensure that ground
motions are provided that are consistent with
the engineering analysis approach. This
5.0 Loads
usually requires a couple iterations of
discussion and exchange of information to
arrive at the final suite of seismic loads
appropriate for the engineering analyses.
Since the focus of this document is on
nonlinear engineering analyses, the discussion
of seismic inputs concentrates on the
development of appropriate ground motion
time histories, which are to be applied near the
base of the engineering models.
During an earthquake, strong ground motion
energy will typically arrive from a wide
variety of azimuths and incidence angles and
consist of shear-waves, surface waves, and
compressional waves. The strongest ground
shaking at periods less than approximately
1 second consists primarily of shear waves.
For sites located on high-velocity materials
(e.g., hard-rock sites) most shear-waves are
nearly-vertically incident into the shallow
portion of the foundation. The situation
becomes much more complicated when a site
is located in low-velocity materials, and most
complicated when a site is located in the
lowest-velocity materials relative to its
surroundings. When low-velocity materials
exist in the foundation, the possibility exists
that parasitic resonance can develop between
the foundation and the structure. In such
situations, it is critical to incorporate seismic
loads that reflect foundation and crustal
velocities representative of the site conditions.
Also, as shallow site velocities decrease,
ground motion coherence will decrease for a
fixed frequency and the spatial variation of
ground motion may need to be considered.
Representative seismic loads are easiest to
discuss in the context of concrete dams, where
potentially nonlinear soils are not usually
present in the foundation. An appropriate
input ground motion time history
(acceleration, velocity, displacement, as the
analysis code requires) applied at the base of
an engineering model of the foundation will
produce the intended seismic time histories at
37
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
the free surface in the engineering calculations
at some distance from the structure. For
instance, in a three-dimensional finite element
model (FEM) analysis of a foundation-
structure system, the multi-component seismic
input into the base of the FEM model should
reproduce the intended free-surface responses
at free-surface sites located at downstream
positions greater than one to two times the
structural height, e.g., in the free field. This
comparison should be performed at the bottom
of the canyon downstream of the dam in the
engineering model because topographic and
structural influences on the free-surface
ground motions at these locations will be
minimized. The engineer should provide the
seismologist with the calculated free-surface
ground motion time histories so the
seismologist can confirm that the input
motions are producing free-surface ground
motions consistent with ground motion
expectations. If free-surface motions are
significantly different than target ground
motions, the engineer and seismologist need to
work together to determine what aspect of the
computational model is producing deviations
from intended seismic responses and adjust
the input ground motions as necessary.
5.2.3 Deconvolving Free-field Ground
Motions to Depth
Deconvolution is the process of back-
propagating the seismic wavefield from the
free surface to some target depth, usually the
base of the foundation portion of the
engineering model. The most common
deconvolution approach is to use one-
dimensional shear-wave propagators that
make the assumption that the ground motions
consist of vertically-propagating transverse
shear waves (e.g., the potential coupling
between shear, compressional, and surface
waves is omitted). This approach may be
adequate to deconvolve horizontal
acceleration time histories, but is not well-
suited for deconvolution of vertical
38
acceleration time histories because vertical
component ground motions are dominated by
SV shear-waves at frequencies less thanlO Hz
and by compressional waves at greater
frequencies. Often, vertical-component
ground motions at depth are approximated by
simply dividing free-surface motions by two
to account for free-surface amplification.
Simply applying a scalar reduction of ground
motions is not desirable because resulting
input motions are likely to contain serious
amplitude biases within the frequency band of
engineering interest. For instance, one of the
reasons that deconvolution is preferred over
simple time history scaling is that simple
amplitude scaling can under-predict ground
motion amplitudes if the target depth is less
than a quarter to half the shear wavelength for
frequencies of engineering interest.
The deconvolution process requires a velocity-
density-damping model to propagate surface
ground motions to depth. The analyst supplies
the seismologist with the foundation modulus,
density, depth of foundation extent, and the
damping characteristics of the analysis code.
To ensure maximum consistency with the
intended surface ground motions, these
parameters should be extracted from the
engineering model. The goal is to deconvolve
the engineering model, not necessarily the
actual site conditions, although the
engineering model should closely reflect the
actual site conditions. It is important to
explicitly specify the types of damping used in
the engineering analyses so that the damping
portion of the deconvolution has the proper
frequency dependence. For instance, Rayleigh
damping can consist of two components of
damping, one that is inversely proportional to
frequency, and the second one that is linear
with respect to frequency. It is necessary for
the seismologist to obtain this damping
information to prescribe the appropriate
attenuation law for the deconvolution.

5.2.4 Spatial Variations
Ground motion amplitudes and phasing are
likely to vary spatially with spatial variability
typically increasing with separation distance
and decreasing site shear-wave velocity.
Ground motions vary spatially because of
travel-time delays associated with varying
incident directions of seismic waves, three-
dimensional material heterogeneity, and
topography. Topography is normally handled
explicitly in FEM codes, but site heterogeneity
and proximity to earthquake faults can make
spatially varying ground motions an important
issue that needs explicit treatment in the FEM
material model and associated seismic inputs.
Spatial ground motion amplitude variations
and associated dynamic strains become largest
at sites with large lateral velocity variations.
Spatial variation of ground motions can be a
particularly important issue for heterogeneous
low-velocity sites typical of embankment
dams where coherency may be significantly
less than one even for periods of 2-4 seconds
(Chen and Harichandran, 2001). Broadband
at-site earthquake recordings from several
closely-spaced seismographs and site
geophysics provide the best means to quantify
the spatial variations of ground motions.
When at-site coherency information is
unavailable, the engineering coherency
models summarized in Chen and
Harichandran (Chen and Harichandran, 2001)
appear to provide more realistic spatial ground
motion variations than the seismological
coherency models at longer periods.
Geophysical measurements of at-site shear-
wave velocities provide necessary information
to reliably predict site resonance frequencies
and to deconvolve ground motions to depth.
Complex site conditions produce resonance
peaks within several narrow frequency bands
and it is imperative to provide ground motions
that reflect actual site conditions. Cross-hole
and down-hole shear-wave surveys provide
5.0 Loads
shallow foundations and/or structural
estimates of shear-wave velocities. Multiple
down-hole or cross-hole measurements are
important to delineate lateral variations in site
conditions that can produce large local
dynamic strains (O'Connell, 2001). Cross-
hole and down-hole shear-wave surveys
typically use source frequencies of several
hundred Hz and sonic logging typically uses
source frequencies of several thousand Hz.
While high-frequency sonic-log velocities
may require reduction by 5 percent to
15 percent to represent foundation and/or
structural material velocities in the frequency
band of earthquake ground motions, cross-
hole and down-hole shear-wave velocities are
usually at most a couple percent higher than
1 Hz shear-wave velocities. Comparison of
measured structural modal frequencies with
FEM predictions of modal frequencies
provides a means to determine the appropriate
scaling of geophysical velocity estimates.
5.2.5 Ground Motion Estimation
A common practice is to modify ground
motions to conform to idealized uniform
hazard acceleration response spectra. The use
of ground motions forced to conform to
smooth uniform hazard spectra is discouraged
because resulting ground motions are
guaranteed to be physically unrealistic and
unrepresentative of actual site conditions and
expected ground motions. Instead, a suite of
several ground motions that represent
physically realizable ground motion scenarios
and exercise the expected range of frequency-
dependent responses at the site is
recommended.
Structure and/or foundation nonlinearity may
expand the frequency band of resonant
responses. For example, cracking of concrete
in a structure may shift the resonant
frequencies of the structure to lower
frequencies relative to pre-earthquake
conditions. A slab-and-buttress concrete dam
39
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
may have a fundamental modal frequency of
2 Hz prior to an earthquake, but progressive
loss of support of some structural elements
may decrease the structural stiffness so that
the fundamental frequency of the structure in
the middle of the earthquake becomes 1 Hz.
Ground motion estimation should focus
attention on the entire frequency band relevant
to structural response. Peak accelerations are
highly uncertain relative to peak velocities.
High-frequency ground motion quantities,
particularly peak acceleration associated with
frequencies much greater than the first several
modal frequencies of the structure, are likely
to be the least relevant portion of the ground
motions for nonlinear structural analyses.
Since nonlinear analyses are intended to
quantify the pattern and magnitude of
accumulated damage in a structure, it is
critical to provide ground motions with
realistic peak velocities (peak kinetic energy),
peak accelerations, and durations, particularly
in the resonant frequency band of structural
response. Concrete dams typically have
resonant frequencies greater than 2 Hz.
Accurate estimation of acceleration time
histories for frequencies greater than 2 Hz
greatly benefits from at-site ground motion
recordings of earthquakes. Site-response
recordings of earthquakes produce realistic
frequency and duration responses and
significantly reduce peak acceleration and
velocity uncertainties.
Many sites are located in constrictions that are
the result of active tectonics. Consequently,
nearby faults often are nearly parallel to dam
axes, resulting in larger upstream-downstream
motions than cross-canyon motions. Complex
site and crustal velocity structure can increase
cross-canyon motions associated with
earthquakes on nearby faults so it is important
to swap the orientations and polarities of
horizontal components to ensure engineering
conclusions are not overly sensitive to the
details of ground motion polarization. It is
40
important to run a range of ground motion
intensities and durations to identify failure
modes. The inability to produce a failure
model with extremely large input ground
motions usually suggests an unrealistic
physical model of a structure.
5.2.6 Return Periods
The evaluation of seismic risk is one criterion
under Reclamation guidelines used to assess
the need for dam safety corrective actions.
The number of sets of ground motions and
associated return periods used in the analysis
of the dam are based on the needs of the
project. Return periods typically used at
Reclamation are I: I 0,000 and I :50,000 years.
It may be necessary to analyze the structure
for two to three different return periods using
two to three sets of ground motions with
varying characteristics of frequency content,
amplitude, phasing, and duration, for each
return interval. These structural analyses
provide a suite of results to be used in a risk
analysis. It is also useful in the risk process to
identify threshold events (those which lead to
the initiation of cracking or sliding) and the
associated return periods.
Uniform hazard spectra are used in
conjunction with source d"eaggregation on
magnitude, distance, and focal mechanism to
select appropriate ground motion time
histories. The ground motion time histories
obtained from seismologists may be natural
records or synthetically derived and may be
adjusted for local site conditions. Response
spectra from natural records may not match
the uniform hazard spectra at every frequency.
It is the responsibility of the analyst to make
sure the ground motion selected by the
seismologist is appropriate for the structure in
question. To ensure that the ground motions
used in the analysis represent the level of
excitation appropriate for the desired return
period, the spectral accelerations of the ground
motion at the natural frequencies of the

structure need to be close in value to the
accelerations indicated by the uniform hazard
spectra at those same frequencies.
5.3 Hydrodynamic Loads
Hydrodynamic interaction is the interaction
between the reservoir and the dam during an
earthquake. This interaction can have a
significant effect on the earthquake response
of the dam and must be considered in any
dynamic analysis. Because the inertia force of
a structure is a function of acceleration and
mass, hydrodynamic interaction has a larger
influence on thinner, less massive dams. In
these structures the ratio of the water mass to
the structural mass is higher, indicating that
the structural response will be more
influenced by the water mass. Currently there
are three formulations for modeling
hydrodynamic interaction: (1) use of lumped
mass (determined using Westergaard's
(Westergaard, 1931) theory of added mass,
determined using Zangar's (Zangar, 1952)
theory of added mass or determined using a
modification of Westergaard's added mass
theory to model incompressible fluid),
(2) incorporation of compressible fluid in the
frequency domain and (3) use ofthree-
dimensional solids with a fluid material
model.
5.3.1 Incorporating Dynamic Water
Pressure Using Added Mass
5.3.1.1 Westergaard's Added Mass
Of the three formulations, Westergaard's added
mass is the simplest, the least refined. It
provides only a rough estimate of the
hydrodynamic forces, except for a vertical
upstream face perpendicular to the canyon,
where the formulation is reasonably
appropriate. Westergaard's theory of added
mass was developed in 1931 assuming an
incompressible reservoir acting on a rigid
b=O.5xHxCmx -(2--)+ -(2--) x-xA
5.0 Loads
straight gravity dam with a vertical upstream
face in a wide canyon. For curved surfaces like
arch dams, a Generalized Westergaard Method
accounts for dam curvature and dam flexibility
(Kuo, 1982). This method assumes that the
hydrodynamic pressure at any point on the
upstream face is proportional to the total
acceleration acting normal to the dam at that
point. Westergaard's added mass can be used
for preliminary studies or for very thick dams
in wide canyons, or for studies of straight
gravity dams. Westergaard's added masses are
incorporated into a finite element analysis by
applying a mass to each upstream nodal point
that is determined based on the tributary area
around the node and the depth of water at that
location. The amount of mass at a node is
equal to:
where:
b =Added mass (lb-sec2/feet)
H= Depth of reservoir at the node
location (feet)
y = Depth the node is below the water
surface (feet)
Yw = Density of water (62.4 Ib/ft3)
g Acceleration due to gravity (32.2
2
ft/sec )
A = Contributing area around node (feet2)
resolved in the appropriate
coordinate direction
5.3.1.2 Zangar's Added Mass
Work was done by Zangar at Reclamation in
1952 to modify Westergaard's added mass for
water against a sloping surface. Zangar's
work included surfaces sloped at various
angles and allowed for a reduced value of
water mass. The equation for determining the
added dynamic mass as determined by Zangar
is (see figure 5.5):
y
[H H
y
H H g
H>Y] rw
41
State-ot-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis ot Concrete Dams
where:
Cm = Coefficient based on angle of
incline
b Added mass (lb-sec2/feet)
= approximately modeled with a reservoir of
H = Depth of reservoir at the node
location (feet) -
y = Depth the node is below the water
surface (feet)
Yw = Density of water (62.4lb/fe)
g = Acceleration due to gravity (32.2
ftlsec 2)
A Contributing area around node (feet2)
resolved in the appropriate coordinate
direction
5.3.1.3 Incompressible Fluid
Incompressible fluid formulations ignore the
compressibility of water and compute an
added mass similar to Westergaard's added
mass. The incompressible formulation is
more accurate than Westergaard's added mass
because the reservoir topography and shape of
the upstream face are modeled with finite
elements and included in the calculations.
Incompressible added masses have the
advantage of being computed by stand-alone
programs. The computed nodal added masses
can be applied in any standard finite element
code. The incompressible formulation
assumes the reservoir floor and the upstream
extent of the reservoir are rigid and ignores
accelerations at these locations. Thus, the
pressures induced on the dam from
accelerations applied to the reservoir bottom
are ignored.
Reclamation uses program RSVR2 (Hall,
2002) to compute incompressible added
masses for use with programs in the time
domain. RSVR2 program is an upgrade by
Hall of program RSVR (ADAP-88, 1989).
Reclamation also uses program EACD3D96
analysis which offers the option of
incorporating incompressible water effects in
the frequency domain. The three-dimensional
water mesh does not employ a transmitting
42
boundary or other boundary condition to
represent an infinitely long reservoir.
However, an infinite reservoir can be
finite length as long as the distance between
the dam and the upstream end of the reservoir
is at least one to two times the water depth.
5.3.1.4 Method of Application
Lumped mass can be applied directly to nodes
of the elements modeling the part of the dam
which is against the water. Hydrodynamic
loads may need to be applied to the structure
in a specified direction. For example, when
hydrodynamic loads are applied to the vertical
face of a gravity dam, the load should only be
felt in the upstream Idownstream direction.
The water does not load the dam in the cross-
canyon or vertical direction. In many implicit
finite element packages, lumped mass can be
added in a specified direction. However, in
explicit formulations, any added mass will be
added in all three global directions. To
overcome this shortcoming, instead of
lumping the mass on nodes of the elements
modeling the dam, the mass can be lumped on
a duplicate set of these nodes. Each duplicate
node is constrained to move with the
corresponding element node in the appropriate
direction(s). In the remaining directions, the
nodes are fixed against displacement.
5.3.2 Compressible Fluid
Linear-elastic program EACD3D96 also
incorporates compressible water effects in the
frequency domain. LLNL used a nearly
compressible fluid element in D YNA3D in the
static and dynamic analysis of a thin arch dam.
These compressible formulations, which are
the most realistic of the three idealizations,
model the interaction between dam and
reservoir and the proper transmission of
pressure waves in the upstream/downstream
direction. The dissipation of energy into the
reservoir bottom and sides is incorporated in
EACD3D96 with a reflection coefficient (a).

In DYNA3D the foundation, reservoir, and
dam are explicitly modeled, so the dissipation
of energy into the reservoir bottom and sides
is taken into consideration automatically.
When using compressible fluids, linear-elastic
program EACD3D96 requires a wave
reflection coefficient (a) for the reservoir
bottom and sides. The wave reflection
coefficient is the ratio of the amplitude of the
reflected pressure wave to the amplitude of the
incident pressure wave. A value of 1.0
indicates total reflection and no energy
absorption. A value of 0.0 indicates total
energy absorption. Although a has been
measured at several Reclamation dams
(Ghanaat et aI., 1995), there is still some
controversy as to whether the high frequency
waves generated during the measurements are
representative of lower frequency earthquake
waves. Measured values tend to be low and
produce low stress results which may not be
real. Therefore, measured values should not
be used unless they can be supported with
forced vibration tests. It is always prudent to
perform sensitivity analyses assuming various
a values. If a is unknown, Reclamation uses a
value of 0.8 based on experience gained from
comparison studies of acceleration response
amplitudes measured using eccentric vibration
tests at a thin arch dam (Nuss, 2001).
Linear-elastic programs EACD3D96 (for arch
dams) and EAGD-slide (for gravity dams) are
specifically coded to incorporate compressible
fluid and the reservoir bottom reflection
coefficient. It is difficult to incorporate
compressible fluid and the wave energy
absorption into the foundation in general
purpose programs not specifically coded with
this function. In 2000, Reclamation
participated in a research project with
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL) to model the reservoir at a thin arch
dam explicitly with nearly compressible fluid
finite elements in D YNA3D. It is not known
5.0 Loads
how much reservoir bottom energy absorption
will occur inherently between the fluid
elements and the foundation solid elements.
5.3.3 Fluid Elements
Reclamation analyses using D YNA3D have
included the use of fluid elements to model
the reservoir/dam and reservoir/foundation
interaction. For a typical analysis of this type,
a three-dimensional mesh of fluid elements is
developed to represent the reservoir. This
mesh can be connected to the foundation
through a tied contact surface. The interface
between the reservoir and the dam can either
be a tied contact or a sliding contact surface.
5.4 Load Combinations
Dams should be designed and analyzed for all
appropriate load combinations. Loads that
have remote probabilities of occurring at the
same time should not be combined (e.g. flood
and earthquake). Preferably, loads should be
applied in separate analysis steps. When
approached in this manner, the effect of each
load on the structure in terms of displacement
and/or stress values can be assessed. The load
combinations should be clearly described
along with the reasoning for including each
one.
The following usual load combinations are
typically used:
(1) Gravity only (including staged
construction).
(2) Normal reservoir only. Normal reservoir
is typically the top of active
conservation, the crest of an overflow
spillway, or the level the reservoir has
the highest probability of being at.
(3) Winter temperature only.
43
State-at-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis at Concrete Dams
(4) Summer temperature only.
(5) Gravity + normal reservoir.
(6) Gravity + normal reservoir + winter
temperature.
(7) Gravity + normal reservoir + summer
temperature.
The following unusual conditions may be
analyzed:
(1 ) Low reservoir only.
(2) Gravity + low reservoir + summer
temperature. This load combination
results in the farthest upstream
deflection the dam may experience. For
an arch dam, contraction joints open
along the upstream crown cantilever,
arch tensions increase along the
upstream crown, and cantilever tensions
increase at the toe of the dam.
Unusually low reservoir conditions
associated with remote events, such as
drought, should be combined with an
appropriate temperature condition
reflecting the season during which the
low reservoir is expected and not
necessarily the lowest summer
temperature.
(3) Flood reservoir only.
(4) Gravity + flood reservoir + winter
temperature. This load combination
results in the farthest downstream
deflection the dam may experience. For
an arch dam, contraction joints open
along the downstream crown cantilever,
arch tensions increase along the
downstream crown, and cantilever
44
tensions increase at the heel of the dam.
Remote flood events should be
combined with an appropriate
temperature condition reflecting the
season during which flooding is
expected and not necessarily the lowest
winter temperature.
The following extreme conditions are
typically used:
(1 ) Seismic only.
(2) Gravity + normal reservoir + seismic.
This load combination represents a
seismic event at the dam during a
temperature neutral condition, during the
spring and fall season, or when
temperature does not have much effect
on the dam. This may be in a t'emperate
climate or for a gravity dam in a wide
canyon.
(3) Gravity + normal reservoir + winter
temperature + seismic. This load
combination represents the seismic case
when the contraction joints are likely to
be open during a typical year, when the
dam has cooler internal temperatures and
has contracted, and when the thermal-
induced thrusts from the dam into the
abutments are the lowest during a typical
year.
(4) Gravity + normal reservoir + summer
temperature + seismic. This load
combination represents the seismic case
when the contraction joints are closed,
when the dam has warmer internal
temperatures and has expanded, and
when the thermal-induced thrusts from
the dam into the abutments are the
highest during a typical year.

6.0 Finite Element Models and Analyses of Dams
A finite element model is an approximation of
the physical problem being modeled. The
type of analyses, element type, element
topology (distortion and aspect ratio), mesh
density, load application and rate, boundary
conditions, and material models affect the
results of an analysis. Usually a larger
number of elements and an increased mesh
density produce more accurate results, but at
the cost of more computer time. The
exception may occur with shell elements,
where elements with an edge length much
smaller than the thickness may be too stiff to
incorporate the bending characteristics of the
element formulation.
At Reclamation the most realistic dynamic
linear elastic analyses possible are performed
before moving to nonlinear analysis. Nonlinear
analyses are performed if results from the
linear analysis are in the nonlinear range and
the risks are justifiably high. At Reclamation,
dynamic linear analyses are done using
EACD3D96 for an arch dam or EAGD-slide for
a gravity dam. SAP-IV (Wilson et aI., 1995) is
also used for the application of static loads
where temperature and staged-construction are
important. In nonlinear analysis, as explained
below, stresses and displacements are
dependent on the speed at which the load is
applied and on the sequence in which the loads
are applied (i.e. load path). Stresses and
displacements from separate analyses cannot be
superimposed.
6.1 Implicit and Explicit
Formulations
Reclamation uses either implicit (NIKE3D or
ABAQUSIStandard) or explicit (DYNA3D or
ABAQUSIExplicit) integration methods. Both
methods can solve a wide variety of linear or
6.0 Finite Element Models and Analyses of Dams
nonlinear, static or dynamic problems. The
type of application determines which method
will be used. The difference between the two
methods is the manner in which the equations
. of motions are formulated. In the implicit
procedure, a stiffness matrix and a known
set of forces result in a set of linear equations
that can be solved to find displacements
(force = stiffness x displacement). In the
explicit approach, kinematics of the model is
used to solve for accelerations. An applied
force causes movement in the structure.
Elements in the model strain at certain rates
and resist the load (force = mass x
acceleration).
6.1.1 Implicit Finite Element Analyses
Implicit finite element methods attempt to
satisfy the differential equation at time "t" after
the solution at time "t - ~t" is found. These
methods require the solution of a set of linear
equations at each time step. The solution of the
equilibrium equations provides that the
externally applied forces equal the internally
generated forces. In general, each node carries
an external load applied to the model and an
internal load caused by the stresses in the
elements. For a model to be in static
equilibrium, the net force acting on each node
must be zero. The equilibrium equations are
solved simultaneously to obtain the
displacements of all the nodes. This is best
achieved by matrix techniques. Time steps
that are larger than required for explicit
methods may be used, but also more computer
memory is required to store and solve the
equations. Once the nodal displacements are
known, element strains and stresses can be
computed. In linear analyses, this is straight-
forward because the stress-to-strain
relationship is linear. In nonlinear analyses,
when a nonlinear material model is used, this
is not straightforward. The stress given a
45
State-at-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis at Concrete Dams
certain strain level must be computed at each
step, the stiffness matrix must be recalculated
and the process repeated. In this case, an
iteration must be performed at each time step
and the incremental stiffness matrix must be
formed in order to satisfy equilibrium. Implicit
methods require some form of optimization
(bandwidth or wave front) to minimize matrix
size and required computer storage.
Implicit methods are good for a wide range
oflinear and nonlinear, two-dimensional and
three-dimensional problems involving static,
dynamic, and flow (thermal and seepage)
response. As a problem becomes more
nonlinear (with considerable material
cracking, contact sliding, or large
displacements) or the speed of the load
increases, the explicit method may be more
applicable.
6.1.2 Explicit Finite Element Analyses
Explicit finite element analysis propagates the
solution as a stress wave through the model one
element at a time, and is, therefore, most
suitable for analyses in which stress wave
effects are important. The explicit algorithm
uses a central difference rule to integrate the
equations of motions explicitly through time,
using the kinematics condition at one
increment to calculate the kinematics condition
at the next increment. The term "explicit"
refers to the fact that the state at the end ofthe
increment is based solely on the displacements,
velocities, and accelerations at the beginning of
the increment. The change in velocity is added
to the velocity from the middle of the previous
increment to determine the velocities at the
middle of the current increment. The velocities
are integrated through time and added to the
displacements at the beginning of the
increment to determine the displacements at the
end of the increment. Satisfying dynamic
equilibrium at the beginning of the increment
provides the accelerations.
46
Explicit methods require very small time steps
that depend on the highest natural frequency of
the model and are conditionally stable with
respect to the size of the time step (Wilson,
1998). Analyses take on the order of 10,000 to
1,000,000 time increments. Very little
computer memory is required because large
matrices do not have to be stored. To keep the
computational effort minimal, explicit
formulations typically incorporate lower order
linear fmite elements with only one integration
point in the center of the element as opposed to
higher order quadratic elements. For this
reason, explicit models may need considerably
more finite elements than implicit models. To
accurately model stiffness in arch dams, there
should be at least eight elements through the
dam in the upstream to downstream direction
and between contraction joints.
Explicit methods are best suited for a class of
problems where the load is rapidly applied or
the structure is rapidly changing, such as the
following:
(1) High-speed (very-short duration)
dynamic problems, such as blast
loadings. These types of analyses can be
very expensive if implicit methods are
used.
(2) Contact problems where independent
bodies are affecting each other.
(3) Post-buckling problems where the
stiffness of the structure is dramatically
changing.
(4) Material degradation problems, like
concrete cracking or steel yielding,
where the material stiffness becomes
zero and is removed from the solution.
Explicit methods use a diagonal (lumped)
mass matrix so there are no simultaneous
equations to solve. The acceleration of any
node is determined completely by its mass and

the net force acting on it. This makes the
nodal calculations fast. The change in
velocity is calculated assuming the
acceleration is constant. For the method to
produce accurate results, the time increments
must be quite small so that the accelerations
are nearly constant during an increment. This
time increment is sometimes called the
stable time step or stability limit (see
section 6.6). Fortunately, the thousands of
increments require very little storage.
The computer processor unit (CPU) time for
an explicit analysis is a function of the
stable time step and the number of elements in
the model. Doubling the number of elements
in a mesh doubles the CPU time. Reducing
the element size increases the solution time
proportional to the stable time step.
6.2 Modeling the Main Features
6.2.1 Dam
Gravity dam models are usually simpler than
arch and buttress dam models because they
can be modeled in two dimensions,
particularly if they are long in relation to their
height. Arch dams must be modeled in three
dimensions. Implicit finite element models
can be much coarser than explicit models.
Explicit models typically have two to four
times as many elements as implicit models,
because an element formulation with one
integration point is used.
Typical implicit models of an arch dam and
foundation have about 3,000 nodes and 2,000
elements. The elements used in the dam
typically are 20-noded solids, and elements in
the foundation typically are 8-noded solids.
An explicit model of a thin-arch should have
enough elements through the upstream to
downstream thickness to model bending. An
aspect ratio less than 3 to 1 should be
maintained. Typical explicit models of an
6.0 Finite Element Models and Analyses of Dams
arch dam and foundation may have over
30,000 nodes (see figures 6.1 - 6.7).
Modeling shear keys in contraction joints is
not easy and, in most cases, may not be
necessary. The shear keys should be modeled
if the contraction joints open a significant
amount and significant shear energy is being
transferred between concrete blocks.
Consistency in orientation of the x-y-z axis
system is helpful when the results of an
analysis are being considered. For this reason,
it is recommended that the y-axis be used to
model the vertical direction, the z-axis be used
to model the upstream downstream direction
and the x-axis be used to model the cross-
canyon direction. Elements modeling the
structure should be smaller than elements
modeling the water and/or the foundation.
6.2.2 Reservoir
Reservoir loads are covered in detail in
sections 5.1.4 and 5.3. Some codes allow the
reservoir to be modeled with a finite element
mesh (see section 4.10). For thin arch dams,
reservoir effects are important and the actual
reservoir topography should be modeled. This
may not be necessary for preliminary
assessments and becomes less important for
thicker dams and shorter dams.
If the reservoir is modeled using solid
elements with fluid material properties, the
maximum element size should be determined
by considering the wavelength in water of the
p-wave. Dividing the p-wave speed through
water (approximately 5000 ft/sec) by the
approximate highest frequency of interest of
the structure, 10Hz, results in a wavelength of
500 feet. To ensure correct transmission of
the ground motion through the water, one
must model 10 elements per wavelength. This
means that water elements should be
approximately 50 feet in each direction.
47
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

During the static phase of load application, wave speed is determined and divided by the
boundary conditions applied to the upstream highest frequency of the structure.
edge of the reservoir depend on the solution
method. If the solution is done using explicit Shear wave velocity:
analysis (DYNA3D), prescribed velocities with
zero velocity in all three global directions are
used. If the solution is determined using
implicit analysis (NlKE3D), prescribed
displacements with zero displacement in all Wavelength:
three directions are used. To ensure that
vs
energy is not trapped in the reservoir, but w=-
allowed to be transmitted out of the model, f
non-reflective boundary conditions are applied
at the upstream edge of the reservoir. Maximum element dimension:
The contact surface pair used to model the
interface between reservoir elements and w
lmax=-
structure elements consists of a sliding surface 10
contact with zero friction. The master surface
is on the structure elements and the slave where:
surface is on the water elements. Vs shear wave speed
E Young's modulus
Typically the contact surface pair used to p mass density
model the interface between the reservoir v Poisson's ratio
elements and the foundation elements is a tied w = wavelength
surface, with the master surface on the f = highest fundamental frequency
foundation and the slave surface on the of interest for the structure
reservoir elements. If possible, the foundation lmax maximum element dimension
mesh should be merged to the reservoir mesh,
avoiding the use of the tied contact. While the topography does not have to be
precise away from the dam, near the dam it
6.2.3 Foundation has a bigger impact. For this reason it is
The dimensions of the foundation are, in important to model the topography of the
general, controlled by seismic requirements. abutments at and above the dam accurately.
These requirements are illustrated in figure 5.4 This being said, the dam/foundation contact
and discussed in section 5.2.1. For a relatively should be smooth, and the mesh of the
low gravity dam, the cross-canyon dimension structure should be the same as the mesh of
will control; while for a high arch dam in a the foundation.
narrow canyon, the height will control.
Maximum element size is based on the During the static phase of load application,
stiffness, density, and Poisson's ratio of the boundary conditions applied to the edges and
foundation material and on the frequencies of base of the foundation depend on the solution
the structure. There should be no fewer than method. If the static solution is to be done
10 elements per wavelength and every attempt using explicit analysis (D YNA3D), prescribed
should be made to maintain uniform elements. velocities with zero velocity in all three global
To find the wavelength of interest, the shear directions are used. If the static solution is to

48

be done using implicit analysis (NlKE3D),
prescribed displacements with zero
displacement in all three directions are used.
The forces at the boundary generated during
the static phase of the analysis are used in the
dynamic phase of the analysis. There are
three procedures to incorporate the static
stress state: (1) static loads are obtained from
NlKE3D and the analysis is restarted in the
D YNA3D dynamic phase, using the stress state
and forces at the boundary as the initial
conditions; (2) static loads are obtained from
D YNA3D and the analysis is restarted in the
DYNA3D dynamic phase, using the stress state
and forces at the boundary as the initial
conditions; or (3) static loads are obtained
from NlKE3D or DYNA3D and gravity and the
forces at the boundary are ramped on
simultaneously.
Time history loads are applied following the
application of the static loads. Dynamic loads
in DYNA3D are applied to the foundation
differently depending on the form in which
they are input. If time history forces are used,
these loads are applied at the base of the
model because forces can be applied at
locations where non-reflective boundaries are
also applied. If time history accelerations are
used, they must be applied within the
foundation a distance above the base. This is
because accelerations cannot be applied at
locations where there are non-reflective
boundary conditions. In NIKE3D, application
of boundary conditions (zero displacement
cards) at the same location as contact surfaces
is not allowed. To ensure that energy is not
trapped in the foundation, but allowed to be
transmitted out of the model, non-reflective
boundary conditions are applied at all four
edges and the base of the foundation.
6.2.4 Spillway Gates
Because the stress analysis of spillway gates is
performed by the Mechanical Group, the gate
6.0 Finite Element Models and Analyses of Dams
skin plate and gate arms do not need to be
modeled in detail. Radial gates are often
modeled as stiff, vertical plates with struts
connecting them to the trunnion locations of
the piers or monoliths. The correct stiffuess
and weight of the gate should be maintained
by adjusting the thickness and the density of
the elements modeling the gates. This type of
simple gate configuration restrains the water_
elements and allows loads to be transmitted
from the reservoir to the structure.
6.3 Modeling Cracking
Smeared cracking techniques model material
cracking at the element level. Stresses are
computed and compared to the material
strength (constitutive model) at the integration
points. The stiffuess of the element is reduced
if the principal stress is greater than the
strength. Reclamation has used smeared
cracking techniques to assess the static and
dynamic stability of concrete dams.
In 1994, a material nonlinear dynamic analysis
using program ANA CAP was done at
Reclamation to study Hoover Dam.
Contraction joints could not be modeled
because ANA CAP did not have contact
surfaces. To model the contraction joints, the
integration points in the dam were pre-cracked
in the radial direction. This effectively
modeled the contraction joints, but may not
have modeled subsequent cracking correctly,
because the smeared crack formulation in
ANA CAP required subsequent cracks to form
orthogonal to the original cracks.
In 1997 the smeared concrete cracking
material model from ABAQUS was used to
predict the progression of cracking in the
spillway pier at Pineview Dam under seismic
loads. The same material model was used in
the analysis of the slab-and-buttress dam,
Stony Gorge Dam, for seismic loads. In both
49
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
of these analyses, the effect of tensile
reinforcement was also modeled.
In 2004, comparisons were made between
results of laboratory tests on 6-inch diameter
concrete core and finite element analyses of
the concrete cores using D YNA3D material
model, C45. This material model was also
used by LLNL in work done for Reclamation
(Noble, 2004).
Fracture mechanics methods are used in
several finite element codes that model and
predict crack propagation within a material
and a structure. As the crack propagates, the
finite element mesh is reformulated because
the crack is explicitly modeled. Reclamation
has not extensively used fracture mechanics
techniques, to date, mainly because it is
necessary to apply the technique globally to
three-dimensional problems (i.e., arch dams),
and the requirement to re-mesh three-
dimensional structures during a dynamic
analysis is a daunting task if this capability is
not automatically done by the code. In
addition, fracture mechanics require input
parameters related to fracture energy, which
are difficult to determine in laboratory tests on
extracted core.
6.4 Modeling Joints and Lift
Lines
6.4.1 Contraction Joints and Shear
Keys
Contraction joints are geometrically nonlinear
features in concrete dams that can be analyzed
using nonlinear methods. Depending on the
structure, contraction joints mayor may not
have shear keys. At Reclamation, contraction
joints have been modeled in implicit and
explicit analyses using both smeared cracking
and contact surfaces. Reclamation has had the
most success modeling contraction joints using
contact surfaces in explicit analyses, which
50
have fewer convergence problems and run to
completion even with large displacements. The
use of smeared cracking techniques to model
contraction joints in implicit analyses have the
limitation of not converging with large
displacements. In addition, some cracking
formulations determine the direction of the first
crack and require that subsequent crack
directions be orthogonal to the first crack. For
this reason, cracks are allowed to form normal
to the joints. The results of the analysis may
indicate extensive cracking, but whether or not
the structure has failed is still a matter of
judgment.
ABAQUS has tied, slip, and friction contact
surfaces. Neither the slip nor the friction
contacts truly models the Mohr-Coulomb shear
resistance in a contraction joint because they do
not allow cohesion and friction. Either friction
without cohesion (zero cohesion and friction
only) or a cohesion limit accompanied by no
friction (break and slip) can be specified.
Contact surface formulations without cohesion
do not simulate the energy released when a
contact breaks in shear. In addition to the
friction/cohesion discrepancies in the contract
surfaces, the effect of shear keys and dilatency is
not modeled. Once the contact opens, there is
no shear resistance and the surfaces freely slide
past one another. No shear force is transferred
between surfaces when apart. Finally, because
of the lack of shear resistance, all of the seismic
energy may not be transferred from the base to
the crest of the dam.
At the time of this writing, NIKE3D has six
types of contact surfaces and D YNA3D has
14 types of contact surfaces. Reclamation
typically uses the following four surfaces:
(1) Tied (NIKE3D and D YNA3D type 2).
The tied surface is a method used to
attach two parts of a finite element
model together with differing mesh
refinement.

(2) Sliding with separation and friction
(NlKE3D andDYNA3D type 3). Sliding
with separation and friction is the most
generally applicable option.. This
implementation is a penalty formulation
and allows two parts to be either initially
separate or in contact. Large relative
motions are permitted, and Coulomb
friction is included. Cohesion is not
included. Surfaces may separate or
come together in a completely arbitrary
manner. The choice of master or slave
surface is not important.
(3) Shell edge tied to shell surface
(D YNA3D type 7). The shell edge tied
to shell surface is the same as type 2
only for shells.
(4) Tied with failure (DYNA3D type 9).
Tied with failure is a penalty method
that ties the surfaces together until a
prescribed failure criterion based on
normal and/or shear failure stress is
reached; thereafter, the surface functions
as a type 3.
LLNL has developed a contact surface in
NIKE3D and D YNA3D that models the shear
keys. The geometry of the shear keys is
defined with a sine wave of given amplitude
(depth of the shear key) and length (upstream
to downstream spacing of the shear keys).
The contact can open and close. Sliding along
the contact is governed by the opening of the
joint and the geometry of the shear keys. The
joint slides freely once the height of the shear
key is exceeded by the joint opening.
6.4.2 Lift Lines
Lift lines are another geometric nonlinear
feature in a concrete dam that can be analyzed
using nonlinear methods. Lift lines are often
weaker than the parent concrete. When this is
the case, lift lines should be modeled with
contact surfaces. This will force a horizontal
6.0 Finite Element Models and Analyses of Dams
potential slide plane in the appropriate
location. The contact surface used for the
horizontal lift line should model cohesion and
tensile strength for two reasons. First, when
the lift line is bonded, energy from the seismic
input can be transferred through the structure.
Second, when the bond breaks, there is a
sudden release of energy that must be captured
by the analysis.
If the lift lines are well bonded, the dam can
be modeled as monolithic cantilevers with
linear-elastic materiaL If the tensile stresses
exceed the tensile strength of the concrete, the
analysis should be rerun with a concrete
cracking modeL This will permit concrete
between the contact surfaces to crack in any
direction.
6.4.3 Dam/Foundation/Reservoir
Contact
Typically in an analysis, the dam is assumed
to be bonded to the foundation rock. In most
cases, this is an accurate assumption because
concrete bonds well to rock surfaces that have
been cleaned and are free of dirt. If necessary,
using contact surfaces, the damlfoundation
contact can be modeled to examine the
potential for debonding, or a situation which is
already debonded. When the reservoir is
modeled using finite elements, a contact
surface that allows slippage can be used
between the dam and reservoir, and between
the foundation and reservoir. Tied surfaces or
merged nodes between the reservoir and dam
or the reservoir and foundation produce very
similar results because the water elements
cannot develop shear or tension.
6.4.4 Foundation Discontinuities
The rock mass immediately below the
damlfoundation contact can have numerous
discontinuities that may not be bonded.
Foundation discontinuities typically have not
been modeled in the finite element analyses of
dams, although development work is under
51
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
way to address this problem by modeling
discontinuities with contact surfaces.
Typically, dam analysis and foundation
analysis have been uncoupled assuming
foundations to be monolithic rock masses in
the structural analysis. Forces at the
dam/foundation contact have been computed
from the finite element models and applied to
foundation wedges in a separate analysis using
kinematics limit equilibrium calculations.
6.4.5 Modeling Uplift and Pore
Pressure
In 2000, a geometrically nonlinear static
analysis using program ABA QUSIExplicit was
done to study a Reclamation massive head
buttress dam. The interface between the dam
and foundation was modeled using contact
surfaces (elements). Uplift pressures were
computed independently and applied as
surface pressures to the opposite faces within
the contacts. As the contact opened with
increasing reservoir load, the uplift pressures
were recomputed and reapplied to the model.
This process was repeated until the model
reached equilibrium. This analysis was
similar to the traditional limit-equilibrium
analysis performed for gravity dams, but had
the added benefit of capturing the nonlinear
effects of the deforming dam and foundation
along the contact.
6.5 Infinite Nonreflecting
Boundaries
Infinite boundaries at the outer edges of the
foundation are included whenever inertia
effects (mass) are included in the foundation.
Only a small portion of the foundation is
modeled and must act as if it is infinite. Based
on foundation material properties, some of the
seismic energy is dissipated at the boundaries
and some is reflected back toward the dam.
The infinite boundary at the upstream edge of
the reservoir also allows energy to be
52
'
dissipated. Reclamation currently has a
research project to develop three-dimensional
perfectly matched layers (PML) boundary.
This boundary can be much closer to the dam
than traditional non-reflecting boundaries.
6.6 Incremental Load
Application and Step Size
In an implicit dynamic linear modal
superposition or direct time step integration,
the time step must be sufficiently small to
capture the response of the structure and the
input of the ground motion. General rules-of-
thumb are to use a time step based on a
fraction (about 1/8) of the highest computed
frequency of the structure.
1
IH=---
8fHigheSl
The first 10 natural frequencies for arch dams
range from about f1=3 Hz to flO=10 Hz. For
gravity dams, the first five natural frequencies
range from about f1 =5 Hz to flO=25 Hz.
Because accelerometers measuring actual
ground motions are limited to about 25 Hz, the
time step in an implicit analysis is usually
0.005 or 0.01 seconds.
In a nonlinear implicit analysis, the solution
time step must be less than or equal to the
above equation. When cracking occurs or
contacts open, the solution must slow down to
capture these effects. For the analyses of one
Reclamation arch dam, the solution had to be
slowed to less than 0.0025 seconds resulting
in a lengthy analysis. For this reason, the
analysis was run using an explicit code. Even
though the model had to be re-meshed to
significantly more elements (from 4,000 to
about 30,000), an effective solution was
obtained in a reasonable time.

In an explicit analysis, it is generally not
possible to determine the exact stable time
step, so typically conservative estimates are
used. The stable time step is a function of
many factors such as the finite element shape,
stiffness of the material, the density of the
material, the element size, and the damping.
If the material cracks, causing a change in the
stiffness, the stability limit will change. One
estimate of the stable time step (without
damping) is:
where:
LIt = Estimate for explicit stable time step
re = Finite element length
Cd = Wave speed of the material
E = Modulus of elasticity of the material
p = Mass density of the material
As can be seen, the stable time step
decreases as the element size decreases, the
material stiffness increases, or the mass
6.0 Finite Element Models and Analyses of Dams
density is reduced. For a model with the
smallest element dimension of I foot,
concrete density of 150 Ib/ft3, and a
modulus of 3,000,000 Ib/in2, the wave
speed is 9630 ftlsec and the stable time
step is 0.0001 seconds.
With damping, the stable time step is
approximately:
where:
;: = fraction of critical damping
Introducing damping to the solution reduces
the stable time increment. In ABA QUS/
Explicit a small amount of damping is
introduced in the form of bulk viscosity to
control high frequency oscillations. Physical
forms of damping, such as dashpots or
material, damping can also be introduced.
53

7.0 Results
7.1 Linear Results
Mode shape plots - For linear analysis, mode
shapes of the dam are plotted for the first
several modes (see figure 7.1). Stress and
displacement patterns should match the
calculated modes of the dam.
Dynamic statistics - For each ground motion
analyzed, dynamic statistics are generated.
These include maximum and minimum arch
and cantilever stresses for each element on
upstream and downstream faces (and time of
occurrence); number of excursions above a
threshold stress value for each element on the
upstream and downstream face (selected based
on strength parameters); the number of
elements on the upstream and downstream
face that exceed a threshold stress value at
each time step; and the extent of contraction
joint opening indicated by simultaneous arch
tensions on both faces of the dam. These
statistics quickly show if the concrete is
overstressed, and the extent and duration of
overstressing.
Maximum and minimum stress contours -
In linear analysis, envelopes of maximum and
minimum arch and cantilever stress obtained
at every element location are plotted (vector or
contour) for the upstream and downstream
faces for each ground motion analyzed (see
figure 7.2). This shows the maximum stress
reached at any location in the dam. This does
not show the number of times a location is
overstressed, but does show the magnitude of
overstress and the size of the area being
overstressed at some time during the
earthquake.
Time-history plot of stresses at location of
maximums and minimums - In a linear
analysis, time-history plots of arch and
7.0 Results
cantilever stresses at a particular location in
the dam are used to identify the number of
excursions above a threshold stress value and
the size of each excursion (see figure 7.3).
Triangular or poorly shaped elements near the
abutment are not good locations to plot
results. A large number of excursions
overstressing a location would indicate
considerable damage resulting in stress
redistribution.
Arch-in-tension contour plots - In a linear
analysis, it is very important to consider the
extent of predicted contraction joint .opening,
as indicated by simultaneous arch tensions on
both faces. When the analysis indicates that
the contraction joints are opening, it can be
assumed that cantilever tensions may be
higher than computed near the locations of the
opened joints. The arch-in-tension contour
plots show arch opening and should include
the average arch stress through the dam, the
number of excursions, and the total amount of
time the contraction joints are apart (see
figure 7.4). Contours of average stress
(average of the stresses on the upstream face
and downstream face) at given times are
useful to show when less than half the arch
thickness is in compression. Anytime the
average arch stress is a tensile value, the arch
is open at least halfway through the thickness.
Time-history plot of arch-in-tension
maximums - In a linear analysis, at locations
in the dam where the contraction joints are
predicted to open, the following are plotted
verses time (see figure 7.5):
a. upstream arch stress,
b. downstream arch stress,
55
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
c. average arch stress through the section
[(upstream + downstream)/2],
d. average arch stress only when both
faces are in tension, and
e. the percent surface area in
compression.
Similar to the time history plot discussed
above, the length of time and the degree to
which the contraction joints are open is
indicated.
Stresses at a particular time - Upstream and
downstream arch and cantilever stresses
(vector or contour) are plotted at particular
times, such as the time of maximum upstream
arch stress or the minimum downstream
cantilever compression. Principal stresses are
also plotted. In a linear analysis, principal
stress vector plots help predict the orientation
of potential cracking.
Displacements - For linear analysis, time
histories of nodal displacements including
radial deflections at the crown cantilever crest,
at the quarter points of the dam, and at other
elevations along the crown cantilever are
plotted. The displaced shape of the crown
cantilever- and the displaced shape of several
arches should be plotted at critical times of
maximum displacement. It may also be
possible to adequately portray the
displacements with contour plots.
Velocities and accelerations - Time-
history plots of nodal radial velocities and
accelerations are plotted along the crown
cantilever of the dam. These plots indicate
how fast the dam is vibrating and how much
the ground motion is being amplified along
the height of the dam.
Forces into Foundation - Time-history
records of forces from the dam into the
foundation are extracted for use by
56
Geotechnical Engineers in the analysis of
the foundation stability.
7.2 Nonlinear Results
Mode shape plots - For nonlinear material
models or contact surfaces, extracting modes
is not possible. Material nonlinearities are not
recognized during the eigenvalue solution and
geometric nonlinearities lead to calculation of
modes specific to individual portions of the
structure. For example, a modal extraction of
a model with contraction joints will produce
the frequencies of the free-standing cantilevers
without any arch action. The natural
frequency of the structure in a given direction
can be determined by loading the structure in
that direction, suddenly releasing that load and
observing the free vibration response.
Response amplitudes can be determined by
loading the structure with a sinusoidal
concentrated force of varying frequencies and
computing the response of the structure for
each frequency.
Dynamic statistics - For nonlinear analysis
with contraction joints modeled and linear
concrete material properties, dynamic
statistics are required to determine if the
concrete is still being overstressed. Arch
tensions are relieved but load is redistributed
when the contraction joints open. This will
increase the load in the cantilevers and could
overstress the cantilevers. Depending on the
magnitude of overstressing, the number of
times the concrete is overstressed, and the size
of the area being overstressed, a nonlinear
analysis with material nonlinearity (concrete
cracking modeled or lift lines modeled) along
with geometric nonlinearity (contacts) might
be necessary.
Maximum and minimum stress contours -
In a geometric nonlinear analysis (contraction
joints modeled), these contour plots show the
effect of the contraction joints and indicate if

concrete cracking also needs to be modeled.
In a geometric and material nonlinear analysis,
these contour plots are not necessary because
maximum stresses are limited by the material
model. However, contour plots of maximum
and minimum principal stresses can show
limitations in the concrete cracking model if
there are principal stresses exceeding the
material strength.
Time-history plot of stresses at location of
maximums and minimums - When
contraction joints are modeled using contact
surfaces (geometric nonlinearity),
overstressing can still occur in the material.
Time-history plots of cantilever stresses
versus time at a particular location in the dam
are useful to identify the number of excursions
above a threshold stress value and size of each
excursion. This may indicate the need to
model concrete cracking in addition to the
contraction joints. For a material nonlinear
analysis, stresses in the time-history plot
should not rise above a given maximum value.
These plots can also help verify that the
material model is working properly.
Arch-in-tension contour plots - In a
geometric nonlinear analysis, the contraction
joints are modeled so the actual joint opening
can be determined. In this case, the inside
surface of the contraction joint is shown with
either the amount of opening or the contact
pressure contoured at critical times, such as
maximum opening or maximum contact
pressure.
7.0 Results
Time-history plot of arch-in-tension
maximums - From a nonlinear geometric
analysis, one can obtain the time-history plot
of the amount of joint opening, the amount of
sliding along the contraction joint, and
whether the joint has opened enough to bypass
the shear keys (if present in the structure).
Stresses at a particular time - Upstream and
downstream arch and cantilever stresses
(vector or contour) can be plotted at particular
times. Principal stresses can also be plotted.
In a geometric nonlinear analysis, tensile
stresses can indicate eccentric closure of the
contraction joints (P-delta effect).
Displacements - For nonlinear analysis,
relative movements along discontinuities are
plotted. This shows offset and permanent
displacement (see figure 7.6).
Velocities and accelerations - When
contraction joints are modeled or a nonlinear
material model is used, a response spectrum
analysis of an acceleration, velocity, or
displacement time history indicates the
fundamental frequencies of the structure at
that location. This gives an indication of the
response frequency of the structure.
Forces into Foundation - Time-history
records of forces from the dam into the
foundation are extracted for use by
Geotechnical Engineers in the analysis of the
foundation stability.
57

8.0 Checking and Accuracy
8.1 Load Application
Each finite element analysis should be
checked to ensure that the model is in
equilibrium by making sure that the applied
static loads equal the reaction forces at the
restrained nodes. The model should be
stationary after the static loads are applied.
Movement of the model indicates that the
static load might have been applied too
quickly. Movement of the model at the
conclusion of the static loads can be
determined by running an "empty" load step
with no additional applied load. The relative
displacements in the model should approach
zero during this step.
8.2 Energy and Force Checks
The energy balance for a finite element model
can be written as:
where:
ETotal Sum of the energy components
EJ Internal energy. The internal
energy is the sum of the
recoverable elastic strain
energy, the energy dissipated
through inelastic processes such
as plasticity, energy dissipated
through creep, and the artificial
strain energy.
Ev Viscous energy. Viscous
energy is dissipated through
damping mechanisms.
EFD Frictional energy. Energy
dissipated through friction.
EKE Kinetic energy.
Ew Work done by the externally
applied loads.
B.O Checking and Accuracy
An explicit solution is stable if (1) the total
energy remains relatively constant throughout
the analysis; (2) the kinetic energy is relatively
small compared to the total strain energy
during a static analysis (typically 5 to 10
percent); and (3) the amount of artificial strain
energy, indicating the amount of hourglassing,
is negligible compared to the other "real"
energies, such as kinetic energy and
recoverable strain energy.
8.3 Comparison with Model
Tests
Confidence is gained when results from a
finite element analysis approximate the results
from a model test in the laboratory.
Reclamation has performed back analyses of
scaled shake table models of a typical gravity
dam and a typical arch dam. The shake
table tests on two models of the gravity dam
(Payne, 1999) showed the importance of the
energy release when a crack forms. The arch
dam laboratory tests modeled the presence of
contraction joints and unbounded lift lines
(Payne, 2002) (see section 2.0). In both cases,
the laboratory work and finite element
analyses showed good agreement.
8.4 Comparison of Finite
Element Programs
One way to validate and bound an analysis
solution is to compare the results of more than
one finite element analysis program. Many
different computer codes are available that
numerically model various aspects of concrete
dam, foundation, and reservoir response.
These programs use different formulations for
contact surfaces, concrete cracking, fluid
59
State-ot-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis ot Concrete Dams

dynamics, and infinite boundaries. Some of GDAPIQDAP, LS-DYNA3D, MERLIN,

the available computer codes in alphabetical NASTRAN, NIKE3DIDYNA3D, SAP, SCADA,
order are: ADINA, ALGORE, ANA CAP, and STRUDL. Reclamation makes it a
ANSYS, ABAQUS, CADAMS, CDAMS, practice to compare results from multiple
COSMOS, DIANA, DDA, EACD3D96, programs.
EAGD-slide, FLACIUDEC, FRANC,

60

9.0 References
Amadei, Illangasekare, Chinnaswamy, and
Morris, Estimating Uplift in Cracks in
Concrete Dams, University of Colorado,
Denver, Colorado, Waterpower, 1991.
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), Annual Book ofASTM
Standards, Vol. 4.02, Concrete and
Aggregates, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 2005.
Bishoff, P.H. and Perry, S.H., Compressive
Behavior of Concrete at High Strain
Rates, Materials and Structures, vol. 24
pp.425-450, 1991.
Bureau of Reclamation, Properties of Mass
Concrete in Bureau ofReclamation
Dams, Concrete Laboratory Report No.
C-1009, Denver, Colorado, December 6,
1961.
_ _ _ _, Design of Gravity Dams, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Denver,
Colorado, United States Government
Printing Office, 1976.
_ _ _ _ , Design Criteria for Concrete
Arch and Gravity Dams, Engineering
Monograph No. 19, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Denver, Colorado, 1977.
_ _ _ _, Control of Cracking in Mass
Concrete Structures, Engineering
Monograph No. 34, Revised reprint -
1981.
_ _ _ _, Design ofSmall Dams, Denver,
Colorado, United States Government
Printing Office, 1987.
9.0 References
_ _ _ _, Review ofHoover Dynamic Tests
Relative to Other Published Literature,
Memorandum, Denver, Colorado,
March 20, 1997.
_ _ _ _ , Guidelines for Achieving Public
Protection in Dam Safety Decision
Making, Denver, Colorado, April 4,
1997.
_ _ _ _ , Estimating Failure Probabilities
for Concrete Dams, Risk Analysis
Methodology - Appendix K, Trial
Version, September 2000.
Chen, M.-T., and Harichandran, R.S.,
Response of an Earth Dam to Spatially
Varying Earthquake Ground Motion, J.
Eng. Mech., v. 127, p. 932-939,2001.
Electric Power Research Institute, Uplift
Pressures, Shear Strengths, and Tensile
Strengths for Stability Analysis of
Concrete Gravity Dams, EPRI TR-
100345, prepared by Stone and Webster
Engineering Corporation, Denver,
Colorado, August 1992.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Engineering Guidelines for the
Evaluation ofHydropower Projects,
Division of Dam Safety and Inspections,
Washington, DC, October 1999.
Gaeto, T.A., Stewart Mountain Dam Concrete
Analysis -1983, REC-ERC-84-5,
Division of Research and Laboratory
Services, Engineering and Research
Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
Colorado, 1983, pp. 1-4.
61
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
Hall, John, F., Problems Encounteredfrom the
Use (or Misuse) ofRayleigh Damping,
2005.
Harris, David W., Mohorovic, Caroline E.,
and Dolen, Timothy P, Dynamic
Properties of Mass Concrete Obtained
from Dam Cores, DSO-98-015, Dam
Safety Office, Materials Engineering and
Research Laboratory, Denver, Colorado,
February, 1999.
Harris, David W., Dolen, Timothy P.,
Mohorovic, Caroline E. Dynamic
Properties of Mass Concrete Obtained
from Dam Cores, Title No. 97-M35,
ACI Materials Journal, May-June 2000.
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorenson, ABAQUSI
Standard and Explicit. A standard and
explicit dynamics finite element
program, Inc.,Version 6.5, 2004.
International Commission on Large Dams,
Lessons from Dam Incidents, Complete
Edition, Paris, 1974.
Kuo, J.S.H. Fluid-Structure Interactions:
Added-mass Computations for
Incompressible Fluid, Report No.
UCBIEERC-82/09, University of
California Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Berkeley, California,
August 1982.
Noble, Charles, Report on Morrow Point
Analysis, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories, 2004.
Nuss, Larry K., Comparison of EACD3D96
Computed Response to Shaker Tests on
Morrow Point Dam, Technical
Memorandum No. MP-D8110-IE-2001-
2, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
Colorado, August 2001.
62
O'Connell, D.R.H., Ground Motion Analyses
for Stony Gorge Dam, Orland
Project,California, Bureau of
Reclamation Seismotectonic Report
2001-3, Denver, Colorado, 212 pp.,
one appendix, 2001.
O'Connell, D.R.H, and Ake, J.P. Ground
Motion Estimation in Earthquakes,
Rodrigue, C., Rovai, E. eds., Hazards
and Disasters Series, Routledge, New
York, vol. 1, 2006.
Payne, Terry, Shaking Table Model of a
Concrete Gravity Dam for Computer
Code Validation-Monolithic Model,
Report Number DSO-98-11, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, Colorado,
September 1999.
Payne, Terry, Shaking Table Study to
Investigate Failure Modes ofArch
Dams, Report #DSO-02-0 1, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, Colorado,
March 2002.
Payne, Terry, Shake Table Study to Investigate
Failure Modes ofArch Dams, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, October
2001.
Peabody, M. and Travers, F. Testing of
Englebright Dam Cores Under Rapid
Loading Conditions, Memorandum
Reporting Results, Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 1986.
Peabody, M. and Travers, F., Testing of Cores
from Folsom and Pine Flat Dams under
Rapid Loading Conditions,
Memorandum Reporting Results, Bureau
of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado,
1986.

Raphael, J. M., The Nature of Mass Concrete
in Dams, Douglass McHenry
International Symposium on Concrete
and Concrete Structures, SP-:55, B.
Besler, ed. American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, pp. 133-
159, 1978.
Raphael, J.M., Tensile Strength of Concrete,
Title No. 81-17, ACI Journal, March
1984.
Scott, Greg.g A., Guidelines - Foundation and
Geotechnical Studies for Existing
Concrete Dams, Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver, Colorado, September 1999.
Shapiro, Arthur B., TOPAZ3D, a Three-
dimensional Finite Element Heat
Transfer Code, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, August, 1985.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Arch
Dam Design, EM 1110-2-2201, May 31,
1994.
- - - -,Ghanaat, Yusof, Theoretical
Manual for Analysis ofArch Dams,
Quest Structures, Technical Report
ITL-93-1, July 1993.
_ _ _ _, Gravity Dam Design, EM
1110-2-2200, June 30, 1995.
_ _ _ _ , Ghanaat, Yusof and Redpath,
Bruce B., Measurements ofReservoir-
Bottom Reflection Coefficient at Seven
Concrete Damsites, Report to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation, QS95-0 1,
October 1995.
9.0 References
_ _ _ _ , Ebeling R.M., Nuss L.K., and
Tracy F.T., Evaluation and Comparison
ofStability Analysis and Uplift Criteria
for Concrete Gravity Dams by Three
Federal Agencies, ERDCIITL TR-00-1,
January 2000.
_ _ _ _, Time-History Dynamic Analysis
of Concrete Hydraulic Structures, EC
1110-2-6051, August 31, 2000.
United States Society on Dams (USSD),
Observed Performance ofDams During
Earthquakes - Volume IL October 2000.
_ _ _ _, Guidelines on Design Features of
Dams to Effectively Resist Seismic
Ground Motions, March 2003.
Westergaard, H. M., Water Pressures on
Dams during Earthquakes. ASCE
Transactions, November 1931.
Wilson, Edward L., Three Dimensional Static
and Dynamic Analysis ofStructures,
Computers and Structures, Inc., 2nd ed.,
July 1998.
Zangar, C.N., Hydrodynamic Pressures on
Dams Due to Horizontal Earthquake
Effects, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Rec1amation, May, 1952.
63
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
References - Computer Programs
ABAQUS/Standard and Explicit. A standard
and explicit dynamics finite element
program, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorenson,
Inc.,Version 6.5, 2004.
ADAP-88. A Computer Program for
Nonlinear Earthquake Analysis of
Concrete Arch Dams, Fenves, G. L.,
Mojtahedi, S. and Reimer, R. B., Report
No. UBCIEERC-89/12, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley, California,
November 1989.
ANACAP, Structural Analysis Software by
ANATECH Corp, 5435 Oberline Drive,
San Diego, California.
DAMTEMP Software to Compute the Range
of Mean Concrete Temperatures from
Engineering Monograph No. 34, Nuss,
Larry K., Bureau of Reclamation, 1990.
EACD3D96: A Computer Program for Three-
Dimensional Earthquake Analysis of
Concrete Dams, Tan, H., Chopra, A.K.,
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, California, October 1996.
: . A Computer Program for the Earthquake
Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams
Including Base Sliding; Chavez, Juan,
Fenves, Gregory; Report No.
UCB/SEMM-94/02; Department of Civil
Engineering; University of California at
Berkeley, California, March 1994.
64
NIKE3D/DYNA3D. A Nonlinear, Implicit,
Three-Dimensional Finite Element Code
for Solid and Structural Mechanics,
User's Manual, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, March 2000.
RSVR2 User's Manual, Hall, John, California
Institute of Technology, Research
Funded by the Bureau ofReclamation,_
Denver, Colorado, July 2002.
SAP-IV- A Structural Analysis Program for
the Static and Dynamic Response of
Linear Systems, Bathe, KJ., Wilson,
E.L., Peterson, F.E., College of
Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, California, July 1973, Rev.
1974.
SCADA- Structural Analysis Software for
Smeared Cracking Arch Dam Analysis
Hall, John, California Institute of
Technology, 2005.
TOPAZ3D A three-dimensional finite element
heat transfer code, Shapiro, Arthur B.,
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, August, 1985.
 10.0 List of Figures

10.0 List of Figures

2.1 Arch dam, gravity dam, and buttress 4.10 Static splitting tension from various
dam schematics, dams.
2.2 Aerial views of gravity dams. 4.11 Static modulus of elasticity from
various dams.
2.3 Austin Dam failure photos.
4.12 Static compression tests from various
2.4 Aerial views of arch dams.
dams.
2.5 Shake table test photo and finite
4.13 Static compressive strain from various
element validation.
dams.
2.6 Malpassets Dam failure photos.
4.14 Dynamic splitting tension from various
2.7 Aerial views of buttress dams. dams.
2.8 Vega de Tera Dam failure photos. 4.15 Dynamic modulus of elasticity from
2.9 Photos of cooling coils and foundation various dams.
excavation and cleaning. 4.16 Dynamic compressive strength from
2.10 Photos of high-low block construction, various dams.
cooling, shear keys. 4.17 Dynamic compressive strain from
2.11 Photos of cyclopean masonry and mass various dams.
concrete. 4.18 EACD3D96 computed and eccentric
4.1 Structural analysis process. mass shaker measured response
amplitudes of an arch dam for varying
4.2a Equations relating material properties. elastic modulus and damping values.
4.2b Equations relating material properties. 5.1a Temperature and solar radiation
4.3 Variation of 15 compressive stress- effects.
strain tests at the same dam. 5.1b Typical temperature variation through
4.4 Bishoff and Perry dynamic stress- concrete.
strain relationship. 5.2 Nomenclature for uplift equations.
4.5 Drawing of Secant modulus and Chord 5.3 Comparison of uplift profiles.
modulus.
5.4 Recommended foundation size and
4.6 Raphael compilation of 12,000 application of earthquake motions at
concrete tension tests. depth.
4.7 Shear data: shear vs. displacement, 5.5 Coefficient Cm for use in Zangar's
EPRI bonded and unbonded test determination of dynamic water
results. pressure on sloping surfaces.
4.8 Rayleigh damping curves. 6.1 Model of Parker Dam with
4.9 Static direct tension from various superstructure modeled.
dams.

65
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

6.2 Model of Monticello Darn showing 7.2 Envelope contours of maximum and
contraction joints modeled as contact minimum arch and cantilever stress.
surfaces.
7.3 Time-history plots of arch and
6.3 Model of Canyon Ferry Darn. cantilever stresses.
6.4 Model of Olympus Darn. 7.4 Arch-in-tension contour plots.
6.5 Model of Stony Gorge Darn. 7.5 Time-history plot of arch-in-tension
maXImums.
6.6 Model of Pueblo Darn.
7.1 Example of modes shapes of the
7.6 Relative movements along
discontinuities.
upstream face of an arch darn.

66
 Figures

Gravity dam

,
Arch dam

Multiple-arch and buttress

dam

Figure 2.1 .-Arch dam , gravity dam , and buttress dam schematics .
67
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Grand Coulee

Canyon Ferry

Figure 2.2.-Aerial views of gravity dams.

68
 Figures

Figure 2.3.-Austin Dam failure photos.

69
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

East Canyon Dam

Thin Arch

Hungry Horse Dam

Thick Arch

Monticello Dam
Medium Arch

Figure 2.4. -Aerial views of arch dams.

70
 Figures

Shake table model with single

vertical joint

Finite element model with

single vertical joint

..

Cracking as determined by finite

element model with single vertical joint

Figure 2.5.-Shake table test photo and finite element validation.

71
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Figure 2.6.-Malpassets Dam failure photos .

72
 Figures

Stony Gorge Dam

Slab and Buttress

Multiple Arch and

Buttress

Pueblo Dam
Massive-head
Buttress

Figure 2.7.-Aerial views of buttress dams.

73
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Figure 2.B.-Vega de Tera Dam failure photos.

74
 Figures

- I. -

Figure 2.9.-Photos of cooling coils and foundation excavation and cleaning .

75
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Figure 2.1 D.-Photos of high-low block

construction , cooling , shear keys.

76
 Figures

J "
•

Figure 2.11.-Photos of cyclopean masonry and mass concrete .

77
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

LINEAR-ELASTIC ANALYS IS PROCESS

L2
Determine Materials L3
Determine Loading Levels
Density
Concrete modulus
Reservoir Elevation
Internal Temps
I Create FEM

Foundation Modulus
Ice, Silt. Tailwater
Coef of Thermal Exp
Ground Motions
Reservoir Reflection
Hydrodynamic
LI

L4
Perform Linear FEM
and
Uncoupled Foundation Stability

• L7

L6 Sensitivity LS No Failure
Studies Results Stresses. Shears,

CharaeteriZ~
and Sliding Stability
Below Strength
L8 Stress Beyond Strength -
Uncena inty with Sensitivity Itcrations

NONLINEAR ANALYS IS PROCESS

NL2 :-IL3
Determine Nonlinear Refine Loads Refine FEM
Material Properties Make sure EQ has apprprialc Smaller clcments
Stress-Strain Curve duration and frequency content Add Cds & Shear Keys
Tensile Limit because cracking changes Add reservoir
Shear Propel1ies natural frequcncy of structure Add foundation jointing
NLI Choose an~lysis
I
NL4
Perform Non linear FEM
Couple Dam / Reservo ir / Foundation

~ NL7
.1 No Kinematic Failure I
NL6 Sensitivity
Studies
NU! Y
Kinematic Failure
Delenrune Unccrtainty Range
From Sensitivity Studies

Figure 4.1.-Structural analysis process .

78
 Figures
Modulus, Density, PWave, SWave
DYNA Nodal Forces and Minimum Element Size
Gi\.en: Modulus of Elasticity, Poisson's Ratio, Density, and Horizontal Element Area
Compute: Bulk Modulus, Shear Modulus, P-wa\.e Speed, and S-wa\.e Speed
Minimum element size, and Nodal Forces

GIVEN:
1b
E:= 3700000·- Modulus of elasticity
. 2
m

V := 0.20 Poisson's ratio

1b 1b
Pw:= 165·- Pw = 0.095486- Weight density
ft3 . 3
m
2
A Elem := 3134· ft Element Horizontal Area

CONSTANTS:

ft m m
g = 32.174- g = 386.089- g = 9.807- Acceleration due to gravity
2 2 2
s s s

COMPUTE:

Pw 2
s
Pm :=- Pm = 0.0002471b·- Mass density
g .4
m
E
K .= ---:---"7"
. 3·(1 - 2·v) K= 2055556~ Bulk modulus
. 2
m

G.= ---:-_E_...,... G = 1541667..!!:. Shear modulus (also called f.l, Lame's constant)
. 2.(1 + v) .2
m

Compressional wa\.e \.elocity (P-wa\.e)

~
.G
K+-
3 ft in
Vp := Vp = 10744.14- V = 128930-
Pm s p sec

Shear wa\.e \.elocity (S-wa\.e)

ft in
Vs = 6579.42- V = 78953-
s s sec

Figure 4.2a.-Equations relating material properties.

79
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Given: P-wave Speed, S-wave Speed, and Weight Density
Compute: Modulus of Elasticity, Poisson's Ratio, Bulk Modulus, and Shear Modulus,

ft
Vp := 10744.14·- P-wave speed
s

ft
Vs := 6579.42·- S-wave speed
s

lb lb Weight density
P w := 165·- P w = 0.095486-
ft3 . 3
ill

Compute:

2
Pw s
Pm : = - Pm = 0.000247 lb·- Mass density
g .4
ill

V 2 _ 2.V 2
v
P s
. 2.(Vp 2-V/)
'= - . : . . - - - - Poisson's Ratio
v = 0.200

2 4·Vs
[
K:=P m' Vp - - 3 - 2J K = 2055552 lb Bulk modulus
. 2
ill

E:= 3·K(I - 2·v) lb Modulus of Elasticity

E= 3700002-
.2
ill

Shear modulus
G = 1541668 lb
. 2
ill

Figure 4.2b.-Equations relating material properties.

80
 Figures

'Ul+-----

Figure 4.3.-Variation of 15 compressive stress-strain tests at the same dam.

80

10

50
o· - - O.l/s
a.. so
::L
"0
'" -- ............ \0- 5, s
'"
QI

-II.,.

V 'l
)C

20

'0
0
0 -1 -2 -J -(.

Strain [0, 0O)

Figure 4.4.-Bishoff and Perry dynamic stress-strain relationship.

81
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

CIJ Dynamic
CIJ
~
........
en

Eoyn
Static

OAfc Static

EStatic
Eoyn ::= EStatic

Static Stress
Alignment
T 501-1
ASTM Chord Modulus
Slope between 501-1 Strain and OA fc
Strain

CIJ Dynamic
CIJ
(J.)
'-
........
en

OA5 fc Oyn
Static

OA5 fc Static

EStatic
Eoyn f:. EStatic

Strain
ACI Secant Modulus
Slope between Zero Strain and OA5 fc

Figure 4.5.-Drawing of Secant modulus and Chord modulus.

82
 Figures

..... .!!:.-
'II'1.D
(c) SpIt cyindertfit (f«-O.65f.,>

-
N
E
--
~
C,)
OJ
......... '~[
w 900,
0:::
=>
e.. '.O'~
l-
=> aoo
0:::
u... (SOl
0 700
en
=>
--'
::> 600
(40}
0
0
:2: 500
0:::
0 (301
I 400
I-
C)
Z
W
0:::
~oo
(20) .
I- TE..slOtl ~uPTU'ft

en • GONNERMAN & St'lJMAN

w • WA'-KfR S BLOOM
--' T ,GRIES 8 WERH£f!:
en
z
w
I-
I •
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
HOO} (2001 (!OOI (400) C~) (600"
Z
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-psi (kg/cm )

Figure 4.6.-Raphael compilation of 12,000 concrete tension tests.

83
 State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Peak strength

Bonded specimen

Residual strength

Unbonded specimen

Figure 4.7a Shear displacement

Bonded Specimens

O~~~rr~r.~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
-300 -150 150' suo 450 \) 100 200 SOO 400 500 600 700
Figure 4.7b Normal Stress (psi) Figure 4.7c Normal ~tress (psi)

Figure 4.7.-Shear data: shear vs. displacement, EPRI bonded and unbonded test results.
84
 Figures

Calculations for Rayleigh Damping Coefficients

Input % cri tical damping for the 2 frequencies in the yellow areas:

Uncracked cps Rad/sec Percent Decimal

Freq 1:
600~ 1 3769;1 rI'o Damp 1 1 1 00~1 0100
1 Freq 2: 1 18.000 11 3.097 % Damp 2: 10.00 0100
Alpha + w1l.2· Beta - 2"w' Epsilon
Solve simultaneous equations: Alpha + 1421 22 Beta = 7.5398224
Alpha + 1279 1.01 Beta = 22.619467

Beta :;;: 0.001326 (stiffness) IFreq Increme nt = 11

Alpha = 5.654867 (mass) 1
Stiffness Mass
Freq vs % Damping Damping Damp ing
0.50 90.21 02 1 90.00
1.00 45.42 0.42 4500
2.00 23.33 0.83 22.50
3.00 16.25 1.25 15.00
4.00 12.92 1.67 11.25
5.00 11 .08 2.08 9.00
6.00 10.00 250 7.50
700 9.35 2.92 6.43
8.00 8.96 3.33 5.63
9.00 8.75 375 5.00
10.00 8.67 4.17 4.50
11.00 8.67 4.58 4.09
12.00 8.75 5.00 3.75
13.00 8.88 5.42 3.46
14.00 9.05 5.83 3.21
15 .00 9.25 6.25 3.00
16 .00 9.48 6.67 2.81
17.00 9.73 7.08 2.65
18.00 10.00 7.50 2.50
19.00 10.29 7.92 2.37

Rayleigh Damping

30

• Damping
2S ~--

• Stiffness Damping

•• • Mass Damping

g>
0.
E
20
-+ I
a
m
1S ••
C
•
~ •
• • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
0..
10
•
• •
• : - .- t • • • • .. .f-
S •
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • • •
0 ••
0 2 4 6 a 10 12 16 20
Frequency (cps)
14
"

Figure 4.8.-Rayleigh damping curves .

85
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Static Direct Tension

Average=16 0
1200
1000
800
<II 600
.e:
400
200
0
0
• "- -I o

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.9.-Static direct tension from various dams.

Static Splitting Tension

Average=40B
1200 ---------------------
1000
800 •
·iii 600
.e: • • I• I ••
400
200
0
I• I • I :•
0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.1D.-Static splitting tension from various dams.

Static Modulus of Elasticity

(x10' )
Average=3.67
10.0

••
8.0
I
·iii
.e:
6.0
4.0 0
I •
!
•
•
i •
I•
•
•t•
2.0
0.0
•
•
I• • •
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.11 .- Static modulus of elasticity from va riou s dams.

86
 Figures

Static Compressive Strength

Average = 4100 pSI
10000
•
8000 •• •
• •
•
'iii
a.
6000
4000 ~-Q-~--~• .- - - - - - • :- 1 • 1-1- I 9

2000 -·~iil--
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.12 .- Static compression tests from various dams.

Static Compressive Strain

Average=1 511
3500
_ 3000
.f: 2500 •
'"
•
i
~

IJ) 2000
~

8-1 •
I
0 1500 8

•
~

~
" 1000 • •
500
0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.13 .- Static compressive strain from various dams.

Dynamic Splitting Tension

Averag e=5S2
1200
1000 •
••
800
I
•
:
• •
I •
'iii 600
Eo
400
200
0
• I I I •
•• • i• I• 0

0 •
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.14.- Dynamic splitting tension from various dams.

87
State-or-Practice ror the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity

Average=4 07
8.0
•
.~ 6.0 • ••• • •
0
0
~
0
0
4 .0 0
•
I •
I~
I• •
• •
•
•
I
•
•
I •
• •
• 0

0
.: 2.0
~
0.0
t
••
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.15.-Dynamic modulus of elasticity from various dams.

Dynamic Compressive Strength

Average=S106
10000
8000
• • • •
I ••
I
I I•
••
•*
• I• •
6000
<II
Co
4000
0

I• I• t •
•
0

2000 •
0
*
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.16.- Dynamic compressive strength from various dams.

Dynamic Compressive Strain

r
Averag e=1 357
3000 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ 2500
•
c:
... 2000 ••
:•
~

~ 1500
.~ 1000 - -.-I
o
- •a- I ••• 0
E
- 500 *
o L---~--_+--------------------------._--------------~
t

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dam Number

Figure 4.17.-Dynamic compressive strain from various dams.

88
 Figures

Over-damped Co mputed Response

Ec~6 . 5M , Den=150 , Damp=1 0%

J 1-0.55 Series Ef=O .92M , Den=162.Damp=5%
Alpha=O .55 , Reservo ir=O
015

M M2 / Measured
W 0.10
•a. 04 3 / compUled
~ 0.05
M3

4
0.00 L.._ _= =...-kll-_ _ _ -==--._________________ _
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 140
Frequency (Hz)

Comp uted Response with co rrec ted input to better match measured response

Ec=5 .0M , Den=150 ,Oamp=3%

Reservoir R2 Series Er-l .5M ,Den=162, Da mp=3%
Alpha=O.8 , Reservoir=R2
015

~-U_fi-d ---
Measured response
M
W 0.10
•a. o ________- - - -____
01
~ 0.05
0.00 L-_ _ ==____________________________ 4

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14 .0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4.18.-EACD3D96 computed and eccentric mass shaker measured

response amplitudes of an arch dam for varying elastic modu lus
and damping values .

89
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

TCITain fac tors for this exampl e:

fo r top of da m = 120°/ 180° = 0.66
fo r th e base of th e dam = 92°/ 180°= 0.5 1

Eleva ti on view through dal11

Figure 5.1a.-Temperature and solar radiation effects .

Air temperatu re
Linea r temperature
Tcmperature distributi on
ex posed to water /
on both fa ces Tel11perature ex poscd to air
on both faces

Uni fo rl11 temperature

distribut ion
Water tel11peratu re - - L -_ _- '

Figure 5.1b.-Typical temperature variation through con crete .

90
 Figures

REL = Reservoir elevation

TWEL =Tailwater elevation
GEL = Gallery elevation
BEL =Base of dam elevation
=
Xdrn Distance drain from upstream face
Xcrk =Length of crack from upstream face
H1 = Reservoir head
REL H2 =Tailwater head
H3 = Head at drains
H4 = Height of gallery above base

H1

TWEL
Xdrn

Xcrk H2
BEL

H2

H1 UPLIFT
H3

Figure 5.2.-Nomenclature for uplift equations .

91
State-of-Praclice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

UPLIFT PROFILES USING VARIOUS CRITERIA

University of Colorado

" Drain
=Crack
Corps of Engineers

Bureau of Reclamation

A. No Crack B. Dcrk < Drn C. Dcrk =Drn D. Dcrk > Drn

Figure 5.3.-Comparison of uplift profiles .

92
 Figures

2L

3H C 3H

, ,,
,
~H
,,
NR , ,,
,, NR 2H
L
-
r- .,.-.- --- . ---.-- --- -, . .. ---~ -----;--::------~ ~7---V--;~

C/2

Shallow wide canyon NR

2L
3H C
,,
3H
:
, ,,
,, H
,

NR NR L
2H

C/2

Deep narrow canyon NR

Where:
NR = Non-reflecting boundary
H =Dam height. (Foundation extended 3H from dam)
C =Crest length
L =Length and depth of foundation model (Width is twice depth )
-- = Horizontal plane to apply ground motions

Figure 5.4 .-Recommended foundation size and application of

earthquake motions at depth .

93
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

0 .1 C. 3 0. 4 0 .5 C 6 0 .7 C .B C .9
PIIESSUIIE COEF'ICI[NT C

Figure 5.5.- Coefficient Cm for use in Zangar's determination of

dynam ic water pressure on sloping surfaces .

94
 Figures

Figure 6.1.-Model of Parker Dam with superstructure modeled .

95
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Figure 6.2.-Model of Monticello Dam showing contra cti on joints

modeled as contact surfaces.

96
 Figures

Figure 6.3.-Model of Canyon Ferry Dam .

97
State-ot-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis ot Concrete Dams

Entire model

Embankment Section

Concrete dam and Spillway Piers

Figure 6.4.-Model of Olympus Dam .

98
 Figures

Nodes constrained to move perpendicular to ' \

upstream slab
o

Figure 6.S.-Model of Stony Gorge Dam .

99
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Figure 6.6.-Model of Pueblo Dam .

100
 Figures

OriginaJ Shape Mode 1 - 3.815 Hz Mode 2 - 4.334 Hz

Mode 3 - 6.423 Hz Mode 4 - 7.057 Hz Mode 5 -7.735 Hz

Mode 6 - 8.214 Hz Mode 7 - 8.386 Hz Mode 9-10.149 Hz

Figure 7 .1.-Example of modes shapes of the upstream face of an arch dam.

101
 ...... en
oI\.) ru-
m
....6\J
QJ
C')

@"
0-
...,
S
<1l
284
~§=
<1l
III
...,
):,.
:::J
III
~
Ctj
l'elt Cii"
All\JIrll<!Ill
o.....
~'''1--~·~O·''

;JOO
" 100 200
Max Sla!lc" Oll" VIS Cantilever Stress ipst)
g
C')
cu
m
CJ
III

1312 ~

660

LlIlt
AblO\m~rn

Figure 7.2.-Envelope contours of maximum and minimum arch and cantilever stress.
 Figures

UPSTREAM MAXIMUM ARCH TENSILE STRESS - ELEM 8

6.57 MinY2-1943.4Q at 7.90
A
~o~-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
!Il
Q
~o

UlOr-----i-

E~~~:::_""'_
mlfl
er.
O.~--~~--~~
~,o
'""
j
__ __~~ ~~--~~~~~f_ 14.0

DOWNSTREAM MAXIMUM ARCH TENSILE STFlESS - ELEM 18

oo MaxY" 1312.58 at 6.57 MinY~-1954.51 at. 7.91 B
OAt X~O Yz - 1.3
!!:l
~gr-----r-----r-----r----r-----r-~~r-­
I
;i.....
-0
fi}ol---.......,.-
::;01---'"
L'
;1;151----
~,
o~___r~--~~__~~--~~--~~--~
-
~.O

o
I
3,0

UPSTREAM MAX CANTILEVER TENSILE STRESS

13.'0 14.0

oM;';!xY: 335.55 at 7.75 5.11

gAt )(;0 y""
l:::l
- 4.5
c

STJ:iESS - ELEM 15
MinY~ -391.52 at 6.55 0

Figure 7.3.-Time-history plots of arch and cantilever stresses.

103
..... CJ)
o.j::l.. "7 iii
CD
. . / ' " ".15,.,>If
':/~ ~ vi
"''''.(1' ''OJ!
..,"// ;t::l!' '~~/
,.,6
'"'0
Ql
(")
rLJ . ~ ~
Element 8 0-
...,
s::
CT:l

~ . / ~
~
CT:l
6a(lO.
Q)
tlOOO, ...,
J:,.
alght
\~\....,,"-------,,.I~l
~ <i / left :::l
Abutment . \", 1/ AbullJlllot Q)
ait_llliJflamlk,da! '" ". 1l.\}O/ ~
C/j
S700. .Jr"'--;~' $ ~·'··T, ..~-"~~~~:::::;'--h' ~'..... u _ _, _ _ _ ~ •. _.'. "1"""''''"
400 f! .20D ·100 !) 100
200
-' 300
en'
a
......
1, Ouratlon of Tension When Bolli Faces in TanslO!l(Sec)

•• _ - ~. ._~-::;:::-.,.- ~-. --T

. / , . t : , P~.;,-' "-;7}'
*,/
g
(")
<i3
\~W/ ", -"--_ wo"~ ,)If' • ~ )1// CD
''' " ' ,••.... ,"".
-WI '~_ "'.-.. w· ~ • •••.--// p")fjfo CJ
Q)
710CH "', 'w __ - ••• 400 .J(.fil~J/i/"P'i'"
/.,~~'
~ ~ "-.-•• ,,~'« --' I -4 :3
CI)
' ',,~. ~k~ ./ 18
' \" ".,'fJ'\"'"\ ~"""""''' .400" __v Jl>l! j

7000'1 \ '" \

f ? /
iliJ$l
.... .,..d
! $" \~g /' /'.- .4{lfJ"-,,,,,-_.,,,, " /(<-,
rum· \: • / # ••••• -'~·,w "<1 Lilt!

Rlght '\$P g SI .,,) /

Ablltm~ ',"t?jl (') \ ...,; ,.
mp_srL?!;<I!"
ffip~l1'lv$,da! .. __".!,..../~_J,....
. __ ••. T
<.;.--;:.. -;...
100.. ~ ~ ',. ,._ "-
200 a~o
!';700.aOO- -200 A~~rage Slatle Attn Stres! (1'$1)

Figure 7.4.- Arch-in-tension contour plots.

 Figures

UPSTREAM ARCH STRESS- ELEM S

:13.0 j40

at 13099 0

8,0 EL:O 13.0 14,0

{seconl:ls)
ARCH IN COMPRESSION AT THIS

Figure 7.5.-Time-history plot of arch-in-tension maximums.

105
 te
state-d-practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of concra Dams

<:>
Q

...
!. ., en0)
...... ~
"" Ii
"..
<:>
<:>
~
:.;:::;
05
c.
... ....
il " ~

.. t ....
..,.:> i ~!lI\
~ 8
..
til
~.
.a
<h
oCfl
-0
'"00 .... en
<!4 '", c.
.'" ~
1\
f;; <::>
~
i...., ro
0
.... ....
~ ....... Q
i1
(/)
~
S!p C0)
a ~J t
14 D<
kl;

u
E
0)
%
... Ji
(> tD
'"..., >0
10<
..... ~

~ i ~
it>
E
~ !l (:l ~.... 0)
,~i I>
>
... .:I
Iio< ... ~
t\ .. ~ Q)
'" I. u
oc
~f;;I~
<11

\a~~.~ \
c.o

~
t-
O)
'-
~
02>
u..

106

Appendix A - Material Models
The use of numerical material models
developed for nonlinear material behavior
requires the selection of complex material
phenomena for analyses. Various models are
available in different finite element computer
codes. The fundamental nonlinear behaviors
modeled in the following codes are geometric
nonlinearities from discontinuity planes,
plastic behaviors beyond the proportional limit
and cracking of the material, or discontinuous
behavior beyond the tensile or compressive
strength.
A.1 ABAQUS
The ABAQUS code developed by Hibbitt,
Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., incorporates several
concrete material models in their STANDARD
and EXPLICIT codes. Both codes and all
models withinABAQUSrequire the use of
linear, elastic parameters: Young's modulus
and Poisson's ratio, with options to include
various components of cracking, tension
behavior, and nonlinear compressive behavior.
A.1.1 Concrete Model - Compression
Behavior
The EXPLICIT Code Concrete Model does not
account for nonlinear effects during
compressive behavior. The STANDARD Code
Concrete Model incorporates two different
approaches: a damage approach with
increasing strain and a variation in the
accounting for plasticity.
The STANDARD code requires that data be
input for the plastic strain as a function of
stress. To obtain these data, cyclic unloading
and reloading during testing are required to
find the accumulated offset strain for various
stress levels (see figure A.I). This is not a
standardized test. Note that these data are
Appendix A - Material Models
required beyond the maximum stress point.
Choice of instrumentation is crucial. Strain
gages glued to a cylinder generally cannot be
used for post-failure measurements because in
the failed region the glued bond will be broken.
In areas away from the failed region, the gage
will be measuring elastic effects.
To override the default in the code, failure
ratios may be entered (see figure A.2) to
account for the shape of the compressive
plastic failure surface. These ratios were
determined using plane stress tests (cubes) with
biaxial loading and are as follows:
• Ratio of ultimate biaxial compressive stress
to ultimate uniaxial compressive stress.
• Absolute value of the ratio of uniaxial
tensile stress at failure to the ultimate
uniaxial compressive stress.
• Ratio of magnitude of a principal component
of plastic strain at ultimate stress in biaxial
compression to the plastic strain at ultimate
stress in uniaxial compression.
• Ratio of tensile principal stress at cracking,
in plane stress, when the other principal
stress is at ultimate compressive value, to
the tensile cracking stress under uniaxial
tension.
These parameters are difficult to obtain and
samples are extremely difficult to prepare from
existing structures. The ABAQUS STANDARD
Concrete Model will not be used in future
analyses, because parameters critical to
nonlinear behavior of the analysis cannot be
readily measured from samples obtained from
dams. EXPLICT does not have a material
model for compression failure of concrete.
A-1
State-at-Practice tor the Nonlinear Analysis at Concrete Dams
A.1.2 Concrete Model- Tension
Effects
Nonlinear tension effects in the STANDARD
and EXPLICIT codes are incorporated using
the Tension Stiffening (STANDARD) and
Brittle Cracking (EXPLICIT) options.
Tension stiffening, or brittle cracking, is
defined using one of two basic concepts which
are listed below. The second concept (Tension
behavior based on crack opening behavior) has
two possible options.
• Tension behavior based on post failure
stress-strain behavior
• Tension behavior based on crack opening
behavior:
Stress-crack opening relationship
Fracture energy parameter
The testing of post-tensile failure stress-strain
behavior is straightforward conceptually (refer
to figure A.3), although it is difficult in a
practical sense to test with a machine that can
collect data as a sample fails. A stiff test
machine or approach and appropriate strain
rates are important to ensure proper data
collection.
Tests for stress-crack opening are not
standardized. In particular, tests using cores
obtained in the field have not been established.
Some direct tension tests which have been
done offer a possible method for obtaining
stress-crack opening data. (See figure AA).
Note that the fracture modulus is the parameter
calculated from the area under stress-crack
opening curve. The set-up for this test is
difficult to make using cored material and has
not been reliable, in general, in creating the
failure mechanism desired. If this method is to
be used, tests established for cores from dams
need to be researched or established, and some
A-2
reference values from mass concrete need to
be available for comparison to tested
parameters. To account for reductions in
properties of the cracked concrete, a method
to reduce the shear modulus is incorporated as
Shear Retention (STANDARD) and Brittle
Shear (EXPLICIT) (see figure A.5). The two
codes vary in approach with STANDARD
requiring a scalar input which defines a
proportional slope to zero, while EXPLICIT
requires that the user either input actual
reduction data or specify how the reduction
should be approximated using an input power
to apply a power law. These input values are
difficult to obtain through testing and the user
must rely on values recommended by the
specific code.
In the EXPLICIT code, the user also has an
option to indicate if cracking in one, two, or
three directions has caused failure of the
element. For example, an unreinforced deep
concrete beam where the failure mechanism is
dominated by shear may need to allow two
cracks to form at each material point for the
shear failure mechanism to develop.
A.1.3 Concrete - Damaged Plasticity
The ABAQUS concrete damaged plasticity
model varies from the concrete model
discussed above in the approach to modulus
degradation following failure and the
definition of the plasticity yield surface. Note
that rate effects may be added as an option to
this model. Post-peak tension analysis is the
same as the previous model.
Compression and Plasticity
The post-failure modulus is assumed to be
different from the original elastic modulus. A
scalar parameter is used to correct the original
modulus to a damaged modulus. The scalar is
found from the plastic strain offset (see
figure A.6). A weight factor, or change in
slope, may be used as an input variable for

stress states changing from compression to
tension (see figure A.7). A stress versus
inelastic (crushing) strain curve may be input
rather than a stress versus plastic strain curve
(figure A.8).
The plasticity yield surface is controlled using
the following input parameters:
• The maximum principal effective stress
• The ratio of initial equibiaxial compressive
yield stress to initial uniaxial compressive
yield stress (the default is 1.16)
• Kc - the ratio-which determines the shape
of the yield surface (see figure A.9); (Ke is
in the range from 0.5 to 1.0; default is 2/3)
• The effective tension cohesion
• The effective compression cohesion stress
Tension
Modulus degradation beyond failure and a
weighting factor in stress states from tension to
compression are entered as input variables
similar to the compression parameters.
Tension stiffening and tension failure for this
model require the same input as the ABAQUS
Concrete model.
For nonlinear analysis of concrete using
ABAQUS, this model is recommended with
post-failure stress-strain data for tension
failure.
A.2 NIKE3D
The NlKE3D code (an implicit code) supports
two models readily used for concrete.
However, the concrete compression model
appears to be intended for reinforced concrete
Appendix A - Material Models
because the input of the damage modulus
accounts for shear reinforcement.
A.2.1 Oriented Brittle Damage Model
This model requires the linear, elastic constants
of Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio.
Strength parameters (1) tensile strength,
(2) compressive yield strength, and (3) cracked
shear strength are required. For tensile post-
failure analysis, the fracture toughness and a
shear retention factor are required. A viscosity
term can be used for rate effects.
A.3 DYNA3D
DYNA3D is an explicit 3-D finite element code
for solid and structural mechanics.
A.3.1 Model Type 45 (DTRA Concretel
Geological Material)
The Model Type 45 was specifically developed
to ensure that material response follows
experimental observations of standard uniaxial,
biaxial, and triaxial tests for both tension and
compression. This model depends on four
sources of information for formulation of the
stiffness and failure evaluations:
1. Equation of State: Bulk Modulus versus
Volumetric Strain
2. Nested Plasticity curve fits of stress strain
for:
• Maximum stress
• Yielding stress
• Residual stress
3. Damage curve - function of plastic strain to
move through nested surfaces
4. Rate effects curve of strength ratio versus
strain rate
A-3
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams
Equation of State - The equation state is input
as a table (piecewise linear) of values of
pressure versus volumetric strain (see
figure A 10). Poisson's ratio is input as a
parameter.
Plasticity curves - The plasticity surfaces are
input using three constants generated from a
polynomial fit oflaboratory stress-strain data
(see figure All). The input variable names
are as follows:
1. Maximum surface
A-O Cohesion of maximum failure
surface
A-I Coefficient for curve fit
A-2 Coefficient for curve fit
2. Yielding surface
A -Oy Cohesion for initial yield surface
A-Iy Coefficient for curve fit
A-2y Coefficient for curve fit
3. Residual surface
A-I f Coefficient for curve fit
A-2f Coefficient for curve fit
(Note there is no cohesion - axis offset for
residual strength)
The shape <;If the nested curves is similar to
ABAQUS K=2/3 (see figure A.12).
Uniaxial tension strength is entered as a
parameter. Once the stress reaches the tensile
strength, damage evolution is used in tension.
As a first approximation of multiple effects on
strength, the nested surfaces could be adjusted
incorporating a penalty concept. For example,
freeze-thaw stresses could be subtracted from
the maximum and yielding plasticity surfaces
(see figure A13).
Damage evolution - The evolution of
plasticity in compression and tension cutoff in
tension are controlled through a tabular
A-4
(piecewise linear) entry of the damage
parameter fit as a function of the plastic
volumetric strain (see figure AI4).
Coefficients control the rate of the evolution
for tension and compression as follows:
B-1 Compression damage scaling
coefficient
B-2 Tension damage scaling coefficient
(see figure A.I5)
B-3 Tension damage scaling coefficient
adjusted for triaxial tension
Shear dilation is allowed in the model.
Dilatancy, in this sense, is the effect of sliding
surfaces needing to clear jagged planes created
by aggregate extrusions into the plane (see
figure A. 16). Once the gap is sufficiently open
to clear these jagged peaks, the dilatancy no
longer occurs. A factor, (0, is used to vary this
effect. This parameter can be reasonably
estimated and typical concrete experiments
show it to be between 0.5 and 0.7. The value
ofthe parameter ranges from 0, which implies
no change in volume during plastic flow, to 1,
which implies shear dilation occurs during
flow. The dilatency decay can also be
controlled by the parameter (edrop) which
varies from I, (a linear drop to zero) to a large
number (a rapid drop). Rate effects are also
allowed in the damage effect relationship using
the input parameter, s.
Elements, which exhibit large volumetric
deformation following failure, can be
eliminated from the calculations (i.e., can carry
no stress) using a maximum volumetric strain
as input.
Rate effects - The effect of strain rate is
entered as tabular (piecewise linear) data (see
figure A17) for compression and tension
effects. This model, due to its emphasis on
properties found from standardized testing, is
recommended as a first choice for nonlinear
analysis of concrete.

Appendix A - List of Figures
A.I Cyclic unload-reload test.
A.2 Failure ratios for use inABAQUS
Standard concrete model.
A.3 Testing of post-tensile failure stress-
strain behavior.
A.4 Fracture energy and crack open data.
A.5 Shear retention and brittle shear.
A.6 Response of concrete to uniaxial
loading in tension (top) and
compression (bottom).
A.7 Uniaxial load cycle (tension-
compression-tension) assuming default
values for the stiffness recovery
factors: Wt =0 and We = 1.
A.8 Definition of compressive inelastic
(crushing) strain used for the definition
of compression hardening data.
A.9 Yield surfaces in the deviatoric plane
corresponding to different values of
Ke.
A.IO Pressure versus volumetric strain
curve.
A.ll (a) Concrete deviatoric sections for
increasing pressure.
(b) William and Warnke model.
Appendix A - List of Figures
A.l2 Nested plasticity curves.
A. 13 Freeze-thaw stresses subtracted from
the maximum and yielding plasticity
surfaces.
A.14 The evolution of plasticity in
compression and tension cutoff in
tension, controlled through a tabular
(piecewise linear) entry ofthe damage
parameter fit as a function of the
plastic volumetric strain.
A.15 Effects of parameters b 2 and b 3 on
softening for a single element tensile
test.
A.I6 (a) Graphical representation of shear
dilation.
(b) Yield surface with associated flow
rule.
(c) Description of associative, non-
associative and partial flow rules.
A.17 Strain rate effects on tensile and
compressive strengths.
A-5
 Appendix A - Figures

wy------r------r------r------.------r----~------,-----~

25t------r-----i------t-----~----_4------~~~_b~--~

20 + - - - -

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

. --------- ,I
1400 1600
~ Plasticstrai~,_ __+l.. I~
~ interval
Elastic strain
interval .----------........t..
Strairl (ue)

Figure A.1.-Cyclic unload-reload test.

mnmn
ABAQUS ________________________________________
Plain Concrete Behavior ~

mnrnn

, Biaxial Strength Envelope, Kupfer et a!.

(1969)
"Tension Stiffening" Model
8/96 Analysis of Concrete Structures 12.5

Figure A.2.-Failure ratios for use in ABAQUS Figure A.3.-Testing of post-tensile failure
Standard concrete model. stress-strain behavior.

A-7
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

u.
displacement

20
Crack Opening Data - Direct 1 enslon
18

16

14 ~
12
lr------
7 ~~ -----------
8

6
I-FE-1 1
----
I ·FE-2 1

o
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Crack width (mm)

Figure A.4.-Fracture energy and crack open data.

A-8
 Appendix A - Figures

Post·Cracking Tension
Stress • Strain Relationship

o 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006:

Strain (in/in)

Brittle Shear •• Shear vs crack opening

....
GI
..c
III
til
C

pi • ·c
.;
E
e

o 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006

strain

1.0

._.,---- Wet curve

... ",~"'"

Figure A.S.-Shear retention and brittle shear.

A-9
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

(a)

,
. ~(1-~)Eo

(b)

, ,
,,
, ....
-pi • I ..
e;

Figure A.6.-Response of concrete to uniaxial loading in tension (top)

and compression (bottom).

A-10
 Appendix A - Figures

...
" ...
" " ...
...
" ...
- -- -------
....

---- E
... ...
...
"

Figure A.7.-Uniaxialload cycle (tension-compression-tension) assuming

default values for the stiffness recovery factors: wt =0 and we = 1.

~
~
~
,. I

,
,,>~
I
JEo
....:J(1-CfJEo -/
.I' I
I

.. ~. 01 -. . I
_ f: £00
\ ... ~'PI - \ • -I

Figure A.B.-Definition of compressive inelastic (crushing)

strain used for the definition of compression
hardening data.

A-11
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Figure A.9.-Yield surfaces in the deviatoric plane

corresponding to different values of Kc.

iJ K(e/)

Eve
Pcut

Figure A.1 D.-Pressure versus volumetric strain curve.

A-12
 Three Failure Surfaces Single Element Tensile Test
WSMR-5314 WSMR-5 3/4 Con....le 1_6 in)
10(1000.0 rl--~-"""'-----"'-----"-- ___, ~(}oo.o

1800.0 - dynamic Increase factor 1 =

- - dynamic increase 1aclor '" 2.4
80000.0 1600.0 - - dynamic increase factor'" 4

1400.0

60000.0 lZoo.0
~ 1 1000.0
11
): !
40000.0 VJ
800.0

600.0

20000.0 if" 400.0

200.0

0.0' ! .! ! ·1 0.0
0.0 1000000.0 2000000.0 3000000.0 4000000.0 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.010
PreS$ure (psi) Strain

a) b)
Uniaxial Unconfined Compression Test
WSMR-53/4 Concrete
10000.0 rj- - - - . - - - - - - . - -_ _-.._______- - - . . ,
.Oamage
dynamic increase factor e 1
, ',rigid dYnamic increase factor 1.5
=
material

!
I> J
VJ

2000.0

dsf= 20.
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Simi" ~
:g
c) d) (I)
::J
0..
);('
~
I
:-n
Figure A.11.-(a) Concrete deviatoric sections for increasing pressure. cO'
t> e::
...... Ci3
VJ (b) William and Warnke model. en
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

1 =1'.=-11[",
' -9[",
-7[",
-5[",
-3f',
-1f',

a)
(NOTE: negative stress
represents compression; -<>2
positive stress represents
tension)
i

b)

Figure A.12.-Nested plasticity curves.

Freeze-Thaw effect

Test Data

Strain

Figure A.13.-Freeze-thaw stresses subtracted from the

maximum and yielding plasticity surfaces.

A-14
 Lambda, Nu

WSMR Lambda Nu
o 0 Conversion to Residual Surface
1.00E-OS 0.8S
3.00E-OS 0.96
S.OOE-OS 0.99 1.2
7.00E-OS 1
9.00E-OS 0.99 iii
1.10E-04 0.96 ::s 1
-c
2.70E-04 O.S ·iii I
S.80E-04 O.OS e (
7.80E-04 0.01 .s... 0.8
1.33E-02 0 0 I
S.00E-01 0 u
- - -WSMR
6.00E-01 0 J!!c 06
.
0
-SAC
SAC O.OOE+OO 0
.j!!
1.S0E-04 1 ~ 0.4
2.80E-04 0.24 c
0
(.)
1.20E-03 0
1.00E-01 0 ~ 0.2
2.00E-01 0 z
3.00E-01 0
0
, ---
4.00E-01 0
S.00E-01 0 0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
6.00E-01 0
7.00E-01 0 Lambda(Oamage Parameter) - Functional of Plastic Strain
8.00E-01 0
9.00E-01 0

:b
:g
(l)
Figure A.14.-The evolution of plasticity in compression and tension cutoff in tension, ::J
Q..
S<.
controlled through a tabular (piecewise linear) entry of the damage :b
parameter fit as a function of the plastic volumetric strain. I

=!>
~
c::
...... ~
c.n CI)
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

WSMR-5 3/4 Concrete

500.0 r---.------.----r----:-..-------.
- b2=0.16; 1>3=1.15
• - - bz..O.5; b3-"'1.1S
- - _'.15;1>3=1.15
- b2=-2.1S· 1>3=2.15

~
,
\
\

100.0

Figure A.1S.-Effects of parameters b2 and b3 on softening for a single element

tensile test.

macrocrack
aggregate

a)

Partial
Associative I
Flow e

,,
i
: Associative
0<(0<1

Flow; (0 = 1 I Prandtl-Reuss Model

I S=Sn; (0 = 0
I No shear dilation

T(au' k) = 0
"
p
b) c)

Figure A.16.-(a) Graphical representation of shear dilation.

(b) Yield surface with associated flow rule.
(c) Description of associative, non-associative and partial flow rules.

A-16
 Appendix A - Figures

HQ.AF CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT AGENCY, TYNDALL AFB, FL Strain Rate Strength Factor
oy ,~LOOOE::G02 7.960E-I-;OO iii
N 8r.=============~:-----~--~r---~ . . -LOOO~4:01 .i', 4':040E+00
A • :
OTHER TEN DATA [111 ~'
~
M o -1.000E+O.Q' <1.890E+OO
I 6 .
-
TEN (RACS)
VAA FRACT EAGY [10]
. ........... !... ...•~..-... ?~~tf~~lt. . - ..
C -l;OOO&O 1:' 1.780E+00
I CON FRACT EAGY [101
S -1,QOO&02 1.670£+00>,
X COMP (RACS)
T 4 ..Jl.00QE:"p,3 . ;;!i ·1:560E+OO.;'
A
T 0.000£+00 1.000£+00
I 2 ...................... ~.... . ; ..
C ... T • 1.000E-03 1.119£+00
1.000£-02 1.150£+00
S
'T 1.000E-Ol 1.200£+00
R O~-----+------~----~-------r------~-----1
E 1.000£+00 1.300£+00
N CoNV.
T
G ~~ ____- L_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~~~ _~
_____
WEAPON
~ ____ ~
1.000E+Ol 1.375£+00

H -8 -6- -4 -2 0 2 4
1.000£+02 2.000£+00
LOG(STRAIN-RATE,1/S) 1.000E+03 3.000£+00

Figure A.17.--Strain rate effects on tensile and compressive strengths.

A-17
 Appendix B - Structural Analysis Plan-Example

Appendix B - Structural Analysis Plan-example

Analysis Plan _ _ _ Dam

June 16th , 2005

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to detail the analysis plan for Dam. The following
people met on June 16, 2005 to discuss the analysis requirements and select the most efficient
analysis process: (list of names). A dynamic analysis is required for both the non-overflow
portion of the structure and the spillway section. A model of the non-overflow section and one
bay of the spillway section have been created.

- - - Dam is located in southern Washington on the Snake River, about 2 miles north of the
town of Last Chance. The dam was constructed in 1913. The dam was raised 16 feet to its
present height in 1950. Spillway apron extensions were added in 1965. Dam
establishes a reservoir having a storage capacity of71,600 acre-feet at the normal pool elevation
of34l feet. The top of the dam (parapet) is at elevation 345 feet. Water stored in the reservoir is
used for irrigation purposes.

_ _ _ Dam is an arch dam. The dam has a length of about 1,978 feet and a height of 350 feet.
The spillway at the right side of the dam has a net crest length of 693 feet and crest elevation of
331 feet. Spillway capacity with a reservoir at the top of the gates at elevation 341 feet is
approximately 81,400 ft3/s. Maximum spillway discharge to date was 70,000 ff/s in May 1940.

The structural analysis of _ _ _ Dam is being conducted to address the following Safety of
Dams recommendations:

2002-S0D-B: Evaluate the dynamic stability of the dam and foundation stability due to the PMF
and the 10K and 50K return interval earthquakes.

Models and Analysis to be Performed

Material Properties
Material properties for Dam will be obtained from project records or assumed. No field
exploration analysis is planned as part of the dam safety studies for Dam.

Loads
_ _ _ Dam will be analyzed for static and seismic loads.

8-1
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Structural Analysis
The purpose of the structural analysis is to assess the behavior of _ _ _ Dam under seismic
loads. The preferred analysis package is DYNA3D.

Staff
Team Leader/Analyst: Name (number of staff-days required)
Checker: Name (number of staff-days required)
TAIMentor: Name (number of staff-days required)
Peer Reviewer: Name (number of staff-days required)

Milestones
Technical Memorandum checked by: mm, dd, yyyy
Technical Memorandum peer reviewed by: mm, dd, yyyy
Risk Analysis: mm, dd, yyyy
DSAT: mm, dd, yyyy

Development
Depending on the results of the foundation wedge study and the availability of funds, a block
will be modeled in the foundation. .

B-2
 Appendix B - Structural Analysis Plan-Example

Concurrence

I concur with this analysis plan and I am personally and professionally committed
to meeting the stated requirements.

Assigned Structural Analyst for D-811 0 Date

Assigned Checker for the Analysis and TM Date

Assigned Technical Approver for the Analysis and TM Date

Assigned Peer Reviewer for the Analysis and TM Date

D-8110 Group Manager Date

I understand the scope of the analysis project as detailed in this plan.

Team Leader Date

8-3
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

Scope Change Tracking

The following provides a listing of all changes to the scope of this analysis plan.

8-4

Index
ABAQVS, 26, 27, 34, 45, 49,50,52,53,60,
62,64, A-I, A-2, A-3, A-4
acceleration spectral intensity (ASI), 35
aggregate, 7, 19,20,29,30, A-4
alkali-aggregate, 7
ambient air temperature, 27, 29
ANACAP, 49, 60, 64
analysis, vii, viii, 1,5,6,9, 11, 12, 13, 15,
16,17,18,19,21,22,23,25,26,27,29,
30,31,34,36,37,38,40,41,42,43,45,
46,47,48,49,50,51,52,55,56,57,59,
A-I, A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4
arch action, 5, 6, 21, 56
arch dam, 3, 4,5,6, 7, 14, 16, 17,21,25,
27,33,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,50,
52, 59, 62, 63, 64, B-1
aspect ratio, 45, 47
AST~,v, 12, 13,18,20,21,61
baseline drift, 35
beam action, 4
biaxial stress, 15, 19
bonded, 7, 14, 16, 17,51
boundary condition, 35, 42, 45, 48, 49
bulk modulus, 12,23,36
buttress dam, 4,5,6,27,34,47,49,52
cantilever action, 5, 21
chord modulus, 13
coefficient of thermal expansion, 29, 30
cohesion, 4, 16, 17,31,50,51, A-3, A-4
Index
compressible fluid, 41, 42, 43
compressional wave speed, 12
compressive strength, 12, 15, 18,20,21,
A-I
concrete core, 13, 15,20,50
concrete dams, vii, viii, 1,3,4,6, 7, 13,22,
26,27,29,30,31,33,37,39,49,50,51,
59,61,63,64
conductivity, 29
construction, vii, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17,25,26,
31,45
contact surface, 7, 14,25,26,31,43,48,
49,50,51,52,56,57,59
contraction joints, 1,5, 7, 22, 25, 30, 34,
44,46,47,49,50,55,56,57,59
cooling, 7
crack tip, 31, 32, 33
cracking, 1,3,4,5,6,7,12,13,14,18,30,
31,36,37,39,40,46,49,50,51,52,56,
57,59, A-I, A-2
cracks, 1,5, 14,30,33,37,49,50,53, A-2
cyclopean masonry, 7
damping, 17, 18,21,22,34,35,38,53,59
deconvolved, 34,35,36
deformation modulus, 21, 22
density, 12,26,29,36,38,45,48,49,53
design data, 6
diffusivity, 29
direct tension, 14, 15, 19,20, A-2
1-1
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

drains, 31, 32 grouting, 7, 25

DYNA3D, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49,50,51, hydrodynamic, 1, 4, 41, 42
60, 64, A-3, B-2
hydrology, 9
dynamic modulus, 13
hysteretic damping, 18
dynamic statistics, 55, 56
impedance contrast, 22
EACD3D96, 18,34,35,42,43,45,60,62,
64 implicit, 26, 34, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
52, A-3
EAGD-slide, 18,43,45,60,64
incompressible fluid, 41
element size, 47, 48, 53
inertia, 4, 34, 41, 52
energy dissipation, 18
laboratory tests, 6, 15,27,50,59
explicit analysis, 25, 26, 47, 48, 53
liftline~ 1,4,7, 14,21,30,33,51,56,59
failure modes, 3, 4, 5, 6, 40, 62
linear analysis, vii, 12, 25, 26, 30, 34,45,
finite element, 1, 18,21,22,23,27,29,30, 55,56
31,34,35,38,41,42,43,45,46,47,50,
51,53,59,62,63,64, A-I, A-3 . load combinations, 9, 43

fluid elements, 26, 34, 43 loads, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 18,23,25,26,27,

30,34,35,37,41,42,43,45,47,49,59,
fluid material properties, 47 B-1, B-2
forced vibration tests, 22, 23, 43 mass, 1,7,17,18,21,22,25,26,29,34,36,
41,42,45,46,48,51,52,53,62, A-2
forces, 4, 5, 17, 18,26,30,31,33,35,36,
41,45,49,56,57,59 mass damping, 17.
formed drains, 31 massless foundation, 1, 18,34
foundations, vii, 1,4,22,39,52 material properties, 9, 11, 18,23,25,29,
52,56, B-1
fracture mechanics, 50
mesh density, 45
friction angle, 4, 16, 17
mode shapes, 55
frictional resistance, 4
modulus of elasticity, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19,
fundamental frequency, 17,35,40,48 20,21
geotechnical, vii, 3, 6 modulus of rupture, 15, 16
gravity dam, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 16, 17,27,30, natural frequency, 46,56
33,41,42,43,44,45,48,52,59,61,62,
63,64 NIKE3D, 34, 45, 48, 49,50,51,60,64, A-3
ground motions, 3, 6, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, nonlinear analysis, vii, viii, 1, 7, 9, 12, 18,
39,40,52 25,30,45,56,57, A-3, A-4

1-2

non-reflecting boundaries, 34, 52
normal stress, 5, 16
peak acceleration, 40
percent critical damping, 17
pore pressure, 30, 52
potential failure modes, 4
P-wave velocity, 35
radiation damping, 18, 21, 22, 34
Rayleigh damping, 17, 18,38
reinforcement, 27, 50, A-3
reservoir, vii, 4, 7, 17,23,25,26,27,29,
30,31,32,33,34,36,41,42,43,44,47,
48,49, 51,52, 59, B-1
reservoir temperature, 27, 29
response spectra, 35, 36, 39
return periods, 36, 40
rock foundation, 5, 6
rock mass modulus, 21
RSVR2, 42, 64
secant modulus, 13
seismic, 1,9, 17,22,33,34,35,36,37,38,
39,40,44,48,49, 50, 51, 52, B-1, B-2
seismology, 9
shear keys, 7, 47,50,51,57
shear modulus, 2
shear wave speed, 12,48
smeared crack, 25, 49,50
solar radiation, 27
spatial variation, 37, 39
specific heat, 29
Index
speed of sound, 33
spillway gates, 49
spillway pier, 1,49
splitting tension, 11, 14, 19
stable time step, 47, 53
staged construction, 25, 43
stiffness damping, 17
strain, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,
21,22,45,59, A-I, A-2, A-3, A-4
strain rate, 13, 17, 18,20,21,22, A-2, A-3,
A-4
stress, 1,6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19,20,21,
25,26,27,29,30,31,35,37,43,45,46,
49,51,55,56,57, A-I, A-2, A-3, A-4
stress-free temperature, 7, 25, 27, 30
Structural Analysis Plan, 9, B-1
surface waves, 37, 38
S-wave velocity, 35
synthetic records, 36
tailwater, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33
temperature, 7,21,25,26,27,29,30,43,
44,45
tensile strength, 4, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18,20,
21,51, A-3, A-4
terrain factor, 27, 29
thermal, 7, 11,26,27,29,30,44,46
thermal analysis, 26, 27, 29
thermal properties, 27
threshold, 40, 55, 57
tied surface, 48, 50
1-3
State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams

time step, 17,26,30,35,45,46,47,52, 53, uplift pressures, 5, 6, 30, 31, 33, 52, 61
55
viscous damping, 18
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, v, viii, 31,
32,33,63 wave reflection coefficient, 43

unbonded,5, 14, 16, 17 wavelength, 38, 47, 48

uniform hazard spectra, 39, 40 Westergaard, 41, 42,63

University of Colorado, 31, 32, 33, 61 Zan gar, 41, 63

uplift, 5, 6, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 52, 61, 63

1-4