321 Sta R SP 001a Dam Stability - Main Report

GIBE III
LEVEL 1 DESIGN DAM – STABILITY REPORT - JULY 08 page 1 of 82
SUMMARY
1 FOREWORD..................................................................................................................................3
2 GEOMETRICAL MODEL ..................................................................................................................5
2.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................................................5
2.2 MAIN OVERFLOW ( SPILLWAY ) .................................................................................................6
2.3 MAIN NON OVERFLOW ( GRAVITY ) ...........................................................................................6
2.4 TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT .......................................................................................................7
3 METHODOLOGY AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................11
3.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................11
3.2 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES ..........................................................................................................11
3.3 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS..............................................................................................................12
3.4 WEDGE SLIDING ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................13
4 LOADS .......................................................................................................................................14
4.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................14
4.2 RESERVOIR LOADS .................................................................................................................14
4.3 TAILWATER PRESSURE ...........................................................................................................14
4.4 UPLIFT PRESSURES.................................................................................................................15
4.5 SILT PRESSURE ......................................................................................................................15
4.6 EARTHQUAKE FORCES ............................................................................................................15
5 LOADING CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................21
6 DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................22
6.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................22
6.2 SLIDING SAFETY FACTORS ......................................................................................................22
6.3 RCC JOINTS STRENGHT ..........................................................................................................23
6.4 ROCK MASS STRENGHT...........................................................................................................24
6.5 ROCK MASS – CONCRETE STRENGHT .......................................................................................27
6.6 RCC strenght ..........................................................................................................................28
7 STRESS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................30
7.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................30
7.2 RIGID BODY ANALYSIS............................................................................................................30
7.3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING..................................................................................................34
7.4 DISPLACEMENTS.....................................................................................................................46
8 SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS - DAM...........................................................................................48
8.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................48
8.2 SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................................48
8.3 ADDITIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................51
8.4 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................51
9 SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS - FOUNDATIONS............................................................................53
321 STA R SP 001 A DAM STAB REV 30JUL08.DOC amas, adg, elu, ap, fav - studio pietrangeli, roma
GIBE III
9.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................53
9.2 POTENTIAL SLIDING SURFACE MODEL .....................................................................................53
9.3 SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................................55
9.4 ADDITIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................63
9.5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................64
10 PRELIMINARY THERMAL ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................66
10.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................66
10.2 BASIC ASSUMTPIONS AND METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................66
10.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................67
11 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................78
11.1 GENERAL............................................................................................................................78
11.2 stress analysis.....................................................................................................................78
11.3 DAM – STABILITY ANALYSIS...............................................................................................79
11.4 FOUNDATIONS – STABILITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................80
12 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................82
Enclosed drawings
321 STA D SP 006 OVERFLOW BLOCK LOADS APPLICATION SCHEME
321 STA D SP 003 NON OVERFLOW BLOCK LOADS APPLICATION SCHEME
321 STA D SP 009 TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT LOADS APPLICATION SCHEME
annex Subject
1 CALCULATIONS
GIBE III
1 FOREWORD
This report illustrates the general stability analysis of the gravity dam structure.
The study is based on :

• Dam layout illustrated in the relevant report [ 11 ]
• Foundations characteristics illustrated in the relevant report [ 12 ]
• Methodologies and basic assumptions described in the Design Criteria [ 2 ]
The stability requirement for a gravity dam for all conditions of loading are that :
• it is safe against sliding on any horizontal or near-horizontal plane within the structure, at the base
and within foundations
• the allowable unit stresses in the concrete or in the foundations shall not be exceeded
The analysis has been therefore carried out on the potentially critical failure surfaces within the dam body
(on horizontal planes representative of construction joints), at the dam-rock-contact and within the
foundations on kinematically possible failure surfaces.
This study is carried out with bidimensional analysis using both the classical gravity technique ( rigid body )
and the finite element modelling.
The results of the study allow therefore to complete the general assessment of the dam stability verifying :
• the stability against sliding
• the stresses in the structure
During the dam excavations the detailed geotechnical assessment of the local conditions will be completed.
The present study will therefore be verified and updated as necessary basing on the gathered data, together
with the results of in tests on the RCC trial pads, obtaining the final local stability analysis.
Since the dam is located in a quite narrow valley the three-dimensional effects cannot be neglected on some
of the abutment blocks with steeper slopes. Therefore an additional finite element three dimensional
modelling is also envisaged for the Level 2 design phase.
The results of the seismic analysis illustrated in this report, based on linear pseudo-statical methodology,
shall be considered, following standard codes and best practice, as preliminary only. The final non linear
dynamic analysis, using time-history method, will be illustrated in a specific report of the Level 2 design.
GIBE III
This report includes also a preliminary thermal sensitivity analysis of the dam structure. The results of this
study, based on the currently available tests on the RCC design mix and on the envisaged construction
schedule, will be updated and upgraded following the mix design testing program currently being carried
out.
The methodology, assumptions and main results of the studies are illustrated in the report while the detailed
results are given in the annexes.
GIBE III
2 GEOMETRICAL MODEL
2.1 GENERAL
The analysis have been carried out on the following sections representative of the dam structure :
• Main overflow section ( spillway block ) ch 0+423

• Main non overflow section ( gravity block ) ch 0+311
• Typical right abutment section ch 0+530
These sections have been selected for this bidimensional stability analysis being :
• The main ones ( i.e. highest ) of each type

• The right abutment one modelled with the most critical geotechnical parameters ( i.e. SW-T /SA-T )
The dam body is divided into four zones, with different requirements of strength, carried out using four RCC
mixes having a characteristic strength (cylindrical samples) at 360 days varying from :
• fck > 7 Mpa ( from crest to el 800 m a.s.l. )
• fck > 10 Mpa ( from el 800 to 760 m a.s.l. )
• fck > 12 Mpa ( from el 760 to 730 m a.s.l. )
• fck > 15 Mpa ( from el 730 m a.s.l. to the foundations )
Below the spillway crest a RCC zone with fck =12 Mpa and 20 thick will resist the shear stresses due to the
operation of the spillway.
The stress and sliding stability analysis has therefore been carried out on the potentially critical surfaces :
• within the dam body on horizontal planes representative of construction joints, about every 20 m,
including a plane representative of the first lift modelled at the same elevation of the dam
foundations
• at the dam-rock contact
• within the foundations, on two kinematically potential plane failure surfaces
The geometrical modelling of the sections nearby foundations slightly differ, as illustrated in chapter 9,
where the potential sliding surface is considered within the rock or at dam-rock contact or in the roller
compacted concrete section.
GIBE III
This since, for the purposes of this general study, an extremely conservatively assumption is taken for the
sliding in rock or at dam-rock contact not considering the relevant contribution of the u/s plinth ( see ch. 9 ).
The following paragraphs illustrate the general geometrical modelling of each section.
It is worthwhile mentioning that the detailed design of the upstream toe ( plynth ) and of the bucket with
the relevant stress analysis will be carried out during the Level 2 design phase.
2.2 MAIN OVERFLOW ( SPILLWAY )
The overflow section, illustrated in the figure in the following pages, has the following main geometrical
characteristics :
• H = 243 m max. height above foundations

• s = 0.75 total opening ( 0.1 upstream and 0.65 downstream )
• z = 893.0 m a.s.l. basic triangle vertex el. (same elevation of probable max flood level)
• z = 873.0 m a.s.l. spillway sill level
The stability analysis has been carried out along No. 14 horizontal sections :
• z = 648, 638 m a.s.l. within foundations
• z = 653 m a.s.l. dam-rock contact
• z = 653..850 m a.s.l. within the dam structure, No. 11 sections about every 20 m
2.3 MAIN NON OVERFLOW ( GRAVITY )
The non-overflow section, illustrated in the figure in the following pages, has the following main geometrical
characteristics :

• z = 896.0 m a.s.l. crest level
The stability analysis has been carried out along No. 14 horizontal sections :
GIBE III
2.4 TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT
A typical right abutment section, illustrated in the figure in the following pages, has been selected with the
following main geometrical characteristics :

• z = 896.0 m a.s.l. crest level
The stability analysis has been carried out along No. 8 sections :
The dam rock contact surface shows a horizontal trunk from the u/s toe to about three / fourths of the dam
body and an ending plane inclined 30 degrees. This inclined trunk significantly contributes to the stability
along the foundations.
GIBE III
3 METHODOLOGY AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
3.1 GENERAL
The study is carried out basing on the methodology and basic assumptions given in the following documents
and recalled here in the present chapter :
• Design Criteria [ 2 ]
• USACE, EM 1110-1-2200 Gravity Dam Design [ 1 ]
The following two classical methodologies are adopted for this bidimensional stability analysis :
• gravity method ( rigid body )
• finite element modelling.
The results of the analysis allow the assessment of the :
• Stability against sliding of the structure

• Stresses which should not exceed the allowable maximum and minimum ones
3.2 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
The main characteristic of the calculation methods adopted are as follows :
• The gravity method ( rigid body ) assumes that :

o the dam is a two-dimensional rigid block.
o the pressure distribution along foundations and at the various sections are assumed varying
linearly from the upstream to the downstream slopes
• The bidimensional finite element modelling carried out is based on :

o the assumption of plain strain is used.
o dam and rock are modelled with 4 nodes quadrilateral element (Quad4)
o Both rock and concrete are assumed to be isotropic
o The boundaries of the rock mesh are specified at a distance horizontally of 1,5 H dam from
U/S and D/S toe and a depth equal of dam height
o Linear static analysis is adopted
GIBE III
The finite element method permits to model with better accuracy the structure where the geometry differs
from the basic triangle one.
Moreover it allows a more detailed modelling of the interaction dam – rock foundation particularly where the
ratio concrete / foundations modulus becomes relevant.
3.3 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
The following basic conservative assumptions have been adopted for the current general analysis of the
structure :
• The uplift pressure trend is assumed without considering the favourable effects of the d/s drainages
• The favourable contribution to the sliding resistance of the quoining of the foundations( wedge at
the d/s toe ) has currently not been considered for this analysis. This assumption is extremely
conservative for the right abutment section;
• D/S backfill has not been included in the model.
• Nappe forces conservatively are not considered
• Water pressures on the spillway crest and chute have not been considered
• The favourable tailwater pressures for spillway overflowing sections have been estimated
considering possible unfavourable conditions ( fluctuating pressures ) considering an “effective
tailwater depth” [4].
The rock wedge at the d/s toe should be considered contributing to the sliding resistance following several
international standards [1] [5] [6]. Therefore during the level 2 design, having a detailed knowledge of the
rock characteristics at the d/s toe on the right abutment, the extremely conservative assumption currently
adopted will be abandoned.
The uplift pressure trend adopted should be considered a conservative assumption in the dam body since :
• The two impermeability systems for the dam facing ( PVC membrane + grout enriched layer )
together with the double drainage system ( membrane drainage + drain holes ) allow considering
for the analysis a much lower uplift pressure within the dam
• The downstream drainage curtain and grouting screen allow considering a lower uplift pressure at
the dam-rock contact and within the foundations
The silting loads have been considered assuming Mohr Coulomb behaviour
The mass density of the water has been assumed to be 9.81 kN /m3
The material properties for concrete and base rock are summarized in the table below.
GIBE III
Materials fck Mass density Young’s Modulus Poisson ratio

( Mpa ) ( KN/m3 ) ( MPa )
RCC - lower layer > 15 23.5 18 000 0.20

RCC - medium lower >12 23.5 14 000 0.20
RCC - medium upper >10 23.5 12 000 0.20
RCC - upper >7 23.5 8 400 0.20
SW-T 24.0 10 000 0.15
SW-T 80% + SA-T 20% 24.0 5 000 / 10 000 0.15
Silt has been considered with the following geotechnical characteristics and saturated unit weight [7] :
- φ = 25 deg
- c = 0 KN/m2
- γE = 17 KN/m3
3.4 WEDGE SLIDING ANALYSIS
The analysis are based on failure surfaces that can be any combination of planes and curves, however, for
simplicity, failure surfaces are assumed to be planes.These planes forme the bases of the wedges.
The right abutment foundations have been designed with a non planar surface.
Therefore the potential sliding is calculated dividing the dam structure into two wedges ( both with planar
foundation surfaces ) and applying the classical wedge analysis illustrated in [1] basing on :
FS = Σi { [ ( Wi+Vi ) cos αi + ( HLi - HRi ) * sin αi + ( Pi-1 – Pi ) sin αi +( Qi-1 – Qi ) cos αi – Ui ] tan φi + ci Li
} / Σi [ ( HLi - HRi ) cos αi +( Pi-1 – Pi ) cos αi + ( Qi-1 – Qi ) sen αi - ( Wi+Vi ) sen αi
where
i number of wedge analyzed
Wi total weight of water or concrete in the i wedge
Vi any vertical force applied above the top of i wedge
αi angle between slip plane of i wedge and horizontal. Positive is counterclockwise
Ui uplift force exerted along slip plane of i wedge
HLi any horizontal force applied above top or below bottom of left side adjacent wedge
HRii any horizontal force applied above top or below bottom of right side adjacent wedge
Pi-1 – Pi forces applied horizontally between wedges
Qi-1 – Qi forces applied vertically between wedges
Li length along the slip plane of i wedge
Having obtained the detailed Pi and Qi values from the FEM analysis the wedge equation is promptly applied.
GIBE III
4 LOADS
4.1 GENERAL
The following loads have been considered acting on the structure :
• Dead load ( Gw )
• Headwater pressures ( V; Ww ) ( V horizontal ; Ww vertical )
• Tailwater pressures ( V’ ; W’w ) ( V’ horizontal ; Ww‘ vertically )
• Uplift pressure ( U )
• Silt pressure ( Eh, Ev ) ( Eh horizontal; Ev vertical )
• Earthquake forces (Pe_u/s, Pe_d/s, Pe_E , Sh ) ( Pe reservoir, tail water and Silt; Sh concrete )
The drawings enclosed in the following pages illustrate the loads acting on the three sections :
• 321 STA D SP 003 statical calcs, gravity block
• 321 STA D SP 006 statical calcs, spillway block
• 321 STA D SP 009 statical calcs, right abutment
It is worthwhile mentioning that since some loads ( water pressures, silting pressures ) vary with the loading
condition ( floods, silting level ) several values has been indicated for the relevant forces on the drawings.
4.2 RESERVOIR LOADS
The headwater pressure have been considered varying from the hydrostatic pressure relative to :
• the Normal Operating Condition level 892 m a.s.l.

• the Standard Project Flood Level - SPF = 10 600 m3/ sec 887.5 m a.s.l.
• the Probable Maximum Flood level – PMF = 18 600 m3/sec 893 m a.s.l.
4.3 TAILWATER PRESSURE
Full tailwater pressures have been considered varying the hydrostatic pressure relative to :
• the Normal Operating Condition level 680.5 m a.s.l.
• the Probable Maximum Flood level – PMF = 18 600 m3/sec 701.0 m a.s.l.
Tailwater pressures on the downstream face of the non-overflow ( gravity ) section have been determined
considering the full tailwater depth.
GIBE III
For spillway sections tailwater pressures have been substantially reduced adopting a classical conservative
approach.
The forces acting on the downstream face of the overflow sections due to tailwater level may fluctuate as
energy is dissipated in the plunge basin.
Therefore these stabilizing forces have been estimated reducing the effective tailwater depth to as 60 % of
the full energy grade depth. [1].
Effective tailwater pressures have been considered varying the hydrostatic pressure relative to :
• the Probable Maximum Flood level – PMF = 18 600 m3/sec 690.6 m a.s.l.
4.4 UPLIFT PRESSURES
Uplift pressures have been considered varying from the hydrostatic pressure relative to [1] :
• at u/s toe H1 =the reservoir water level
• at d/s toe H2 = full tailwater level
• at drainages H3= K (H1-H2) * (L-X)/L + H2
where :
K=1–E
E = drain effectiveness expressed as decimal
L = dam base length
X = drain distance from u/s toe
The drain effectiveness E is conservatively set equal to 0,67 as indicated in the design criteria [2]
The full tailwater depth has always been adopted for calculating uplift pressure.
4.5 SILT PRESSURE
The silt elevation in dam section is assumed as 689.0 m a.s.l. corresponding to the elevation reached in the
reservoir after 50 years [7].
The silt pressure has been evaluated using Coulomb earth pressure theory, assuming the at-rest, or Ko,
condition. [8]
In the calculation of the silt pressure the saturated unit weight of soil is reduced by the unit weight of water
to determine the buoyant weight.
4.6 EARTHQUAKE FORCES
The earthquake loads are based on design earthquakes determined from seismological evaluation.
GIBE III
According to the Seismic Hazard Assessment of the area evaluated during the G. Gibe III design [9] the
seismic coefficient considered in design are:
• Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) |a| = 0.06 g ( m / g2 )
• Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) |a| = 0.15 g ( m / g2 ).
This acceleration is applied to the masses being analyzed in the pseudo-static calculations. The analysis are
performed considering the most unfavourable direction of the acceleration.
The value of the increase ( both u/s and d/s ) in water pressure at any elevation due to the horizontal
earthquake is given by the following equation [6] :
• Pe = C αο γw h
where :
C - dimensionless coefficient giving the distribution and magnitude of pressure
αο - earthquake acceleration ratio
γw – unit weight of water
h – total depth of reservoir
The total depth of reservoir (h) is the difference from the maximum retaining level and the minimum natural
river bed elevation in correspondence of the weir upstream face.
The seismic action water inside the granular mix of the u/s backfill is included in the seismic action of the
backfilling itself.
GIBE III
5 LOADING CONDITIONS
The loading conditions are obtained from the design criteria [2] and the USACE gravity dam manual [1]
including the typical :
• Construction
• Normal operating
• Flood discharge
• Construction with operating base earthquake
• Normal operating with operating base earthquake
• Normal operating with maximum credible earthquake
• Probable maximum flood
As indicated in the design criteria an additional analysis is performed with inefficient drainages ( i.e. E=0 ).
This extreme condition is considered in combination with the normal operating conditions.
The tables here below summarizes the characteristics of all the considered loading conditions :
Reservoir Tailwater Effective

Load Condition Description Silt Uplift Earthquake
level level TWL
m a.s.l. m a.s.l. m a.s.l. m a.s.l. E
1 UNUSUAL CONSTRUCTION NO NO NO NO NO NO
2 USUAL NORMAL OPERATING 892.0 680.5 680.5 689.0 0,67 NO
3 UNUSUAL DESIGN FLOOD 887.5 696 687.6 689.0 0,67 NO
CONSTRUCTION
4 EXTREME
+ OBE NO NO NO NO NO OBE
NORMAL OPERATING
5 UNUSUAL
+ OBE 892.0 680.5 680.5 689.0 0,67 OBE
SUPER NORMAL OPERATING

6 EXTREME + MCE 892.0 680.5 680.5 689.0 0,67 MCE
PROBABLE MAXIMUM
7 EXTREME
FLOOD 893.0 701.0 690.6 689.0 0,67 NO
NORMAL OPERATING
Add2 EXTREME
+ INEFF. DRAINAGE 892.0 680.5 680.5 689.0 0 NO
LOADING CONDITIONS
GIBE III
6 DESIGN PARAMETERS
6.1 GENERAL
The stability requirement for a gravity dam for all conditions of loading are that :
• it is safe against sliding on any horizontal or near-horizontal plane within the structure, at the base
and within foundations
• the allowable unit stresses in the concrete or in the foundations shall not be exceeded
The analysis has been therefore carried out on the potentially critical failure surfaces considering sliding and
stresses safety factors varying with the loading conditions illustrated in the present chapter.
The mechanical properties of the rock foundations are illustrated in the relevant report [11] and briefly
recalled here below.
The design strength of the RCC construction joints have been assessed in the relevant report [12] and will
be verified and/or updated following the in situ tests program based on the RCC mix testing currently being
carried out.
6.2 SLIDING SAFETY FACTORS
The sliding stability is assessed by means of a Factor of Safety ( FS ) as a measure of the resistance of the
structure against sliding.
This Factor of Safety is defined as the ratio of the maximum resisting shear ( TF ) and the applied shear ( T )
along the slip surface :
FS =TF / T = (N tan φ cL)/T
Where :
N = resultant of forces normal to the assumed sliding plane

φ = angle of internal friction
c = cohesion intercept
L = length of base in compression for a unit strip of dam
GIBE III
The stability criteria for each of the loading conditions, basing on [1] [2], are listed here below :
Loading Condition Minimum Sliding FS
USUAL 2.0
UNUSUAL 1.7
EXTREME 1.3
SUPER EXTREME 1.1
Sliding safety factors
The Design Criteria [2] envisage also possible additional safety analysis on potential sliding planes materials
in bed rock ( i.e. possible persistant sub-horizontal joints in the river bed or wedges especially in the
abutments ) with variable safety factors not considering the cohesion on the same plane.
However since, as illustrated in the relevant report [ 11 ] no such kinematically failure surfaces have been
currently found in foundations this analysis is not considered in the present report.
6.3 RCC JOINTS STRENGHT
The design strength on the RCC construction joints is assumed variable with the material characteristic
strength as indicated in the table here below :
Zone f'c φ C
Mpa deg kPa
1 > 15 45 1000
2 > 12 45 800
3 > 10 45 600
4 >7 45 400
RCC joints design strength
GIBE III
6.4 ROCK MASS STRENGHT
The RCC gravity dam will have the foundations mainly in trachytic rocks unweathered or slightly weathered.
The structure of the rock mass if generally favourable for the foundations since no weak planes
subhorizontal, or subparallel to the dam excavations, were found.
The most relevant lithological types found along the dam foundations are classified by the following rock
mass units :
• B Basalts
• U-T Unweathered trachyte
• SW-T Slightly Weathered Trachyte
• SA-T Slightly Altered Trachyte
The following typical zones can be considered for the general stability analysis along the dam foundations :
CHAINAGE MAIN ROCK UNIT
From to
0+200 SW-T
LEFT ABUTMENT
0+200 0+300 U-T
RIVER BED 0+300 0+460 SW-T
0+460 0+620 80% SW-T, 20 % SA-T

RIGHT ABUTMENT
0+620 B
DAM FOUNDATIONS : TYPICAL ZONES
This basic scheme derives from the geological sections [ 11 ] with the following observations.
The steep left abutment slope ( approx. below el. 850 m a.s.l. ) exposes the trachyte rock with a shallow
weathered layer on the surface, about 5-10 m thick. Dam excavations will generally expose the sound
unweathered trachyte layer underneath.
The river bed has been investigated mostly from the banks, leaving therefore some uncertainties for the
geo-mechanical characteristics of the bedrock. The slightly weathered unit is therefore adopted for the Level
1 design stability analysis in lieu of the unweathered rock layer generally found.
GIBE III
The steep right abutment slope ( approx. below el. 850 m a.s.l. ) exposes the slightly weathered trachyte
rock investigated by the inspection adits, boreholes and geophysics. The variability of the mechanical
characteristics, related also to a slight hydrothermal alteration locally encountered, is modelled considering
two units : SW-T and SA-T.
The mechanical properties of the rock mass have been assessed basing on the generalized Hoek–Brown
failure criterion. The table below summarizes the obtained Hoek-Brown parameters.
ROCK HOEK – BROWN CLASSIFICATION HOEK – BROWN CRITERION

UCS GSI mi D mb s a
MPa
B 300 65 25 0 7.16 0.0205 0.502

U-T 98 60 14 0 3.355 0.0117 0.503
SW-T 65 55 20 0 4.009 0.0067 0.504
SA-T 40 45 15 0 2.104 0.0022 0.508
ROCK MASS PROPERTIES, UNDISTURBED
The equivalent Mohr-Coulomb parameters for the undisturbed rock are calculated by linear envelopes which
provide a best-fit over given stress ranges obtaining the following table.
σ3max MPa
0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4
c’ MPa
3.5 3.6 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.5 4.9
B
φ’ ° 71 70.1 68.6 67.4 66.4 64.7 63.3
c’ MPa
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.2
U-T
φ’ ° 64.6 62.5 59.5 57.3 55.6 52.9 50.9
c’ MPa
0.5 0.6 0.8 1 1.1 1.4 1.7
SW-T
φ’ ° 66 63 59.2 56.6 54.7 51.7 49.5
c’ MPa
0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1
SA-T
φ’ ° 60.3 56.1 51.2 48.1 45.8 42.5 40.1
ROCK MASS, EQUIVALENT MOHR-COULOMB PROPERTIES
Having always the GSI > 25 and a nearby 0.5 the Mohr-Coulomb parameters can also be derived from the
original Hoek-Brown criterion using Bray’s exact solution with similar results.
GIBE III
ROCK ROCK MASS PARAMETERS

σt σc σcm
tensile strength uniaxial com. strength global strength
MPa MPa MPa
B -0.86 42.6 110.8

U-T -0.34 10.49 24.88
SW-T -0.11 5.23 17.55
SA-T -0.04 1.79 7.62
SW-T, ROCK MASS, D = 0 - UNDISTURBED
The representative main sections are therefore analyzed, conservatively, considering the SW-T rock mass
unit in the foundations.The right abutment typical sections analysis is carried out using the SW-T parameters
for 80% of the sliding plane length together with the SA-T ones along 20 % of the plane length.
Therefore, in order to carry out the sliding analysis using more frequently used and more understandable
approach, the Hoek-Brown parameters are transformed in the equivalent Mohr-Coulomb ones ( n.d.r.
equivalent Mohr-Coulomb friction and equivalent Mohr-Coulomb cohesion ) using the exact Bray’s Solution
[11] for the original Hoek-Brown criteria.
The following tables recall, for better understanding of the analysis, some of the representative equivalent
Mohr-Coulomb parameters obtained.
σn φ’ c’
(MPa) (°) (MPa)
0 72,6 0,5
0,5 63,7 0,7
1 59,7 0,9
1,5 57,0 1,1
2 54,9 1,3
2,5 53,2 1,5
3 51,8 1,7
3,5 50,5 1,9
4 49,4 2,0
4,5 48,4 2,2
5 47,5 2,4
SW-T – ROCK MASS, EQUIVALENT MOHR-COULOMB PARAMETERS

ORIGINAL HOEK-BROWN CRITERION – BRAY EXACT SOLUTION
GIBE III
σn φ c’
(MPa) (°) (MPa)
0 71,9 0,2
0,5 56,7 0,4
1 51,5 0,6
1,5 48,1 0,7
2 45,6 0,9
2,5 43,6 1,1
3 41,9 1,2
3,5 40,4 1,3
4 39,2 1,5
4,5 38,1 1,6
5 37,1 1,8
SA-T – ROCK MASS, D=0, EQUIVALENT MOHR-COULOMB PARAMETERS
ORIGINAL HOEK-BROWN CRITERION – BRAY EXACT SOLUTION
6.5 ROCK MASS – CONCRETE STRENGHT
The strength of the concrete-rock contact is currently assumed, while waiting for in situ tests to be carried
out, using conservative parameters obtained from tests carried out on a quite large number of existing gravity
dams.
The failure surface is conservatively assumed as planar while the undulations and asperities, obtained
following the foundations excavation, will generally guarantee an increase in the shear strength.
The concrete-rock contact strength will derive from the bond resistance , which will be verified by in situ
tests on trial pads, of :
• Leveling / dental concrete – rock

• Roller Compacted Concrete - rock
The tensile strength should be assumed to be zero since it will be controlled by the tensile strength of the
rock mass immediately below the contact.
GIBE III
The following graph ( obtained from [10] ) summarizes the peak shear strength obtained by No. 54 existing
dams in the United States.
CONCRETE - ROCK STRENGHT, DATA FROM 54 EXISTING DAMS [ 10 ]
Therefore the current analysis is conservatively carried out using parameters exceeded in more than 90 % of
the No. 54 considered dams, which include also some old dams with poor foundations treatment or rock
quality.
The adopted design strength parameters for the concrete – rock contact are therefore the following values,
indicated in the above graph by means of the red line :
• c’ = 0.3 MPa
• φ’ = 50°
6.6 RCC STRENGHT
The requirement for the gravity dam stability analysis is that for all conditions of loading the allowable unit
stresses in the concrete shall not be exceeded.
The principal stresses induced by loads are therefore calculated in the current study at various section of the
concrete structure.
GIBE III
The maximum allowable safety factors on concrete stresses, obtained from the design criteria [2] and the
USACE code for gravity dams [1], are indicated on the following table :
LOADING CONDITION COMPRESSIVE STRESS SF TENSILE STRESS SF
USUAL 0.4 f’c 0
UNUSUAL 0.6 f’ c 0.6 f’c2/3
EXTREME 0.9 f’ c 1.5 f’c2/3
STRESSES SAFETY FACTORS
The current design values of the allowable compression and tensile stress for the different types of RCC and
loading conditions are therefore summarized in the table below ( f’c is 1-year unconfined compressive
strength of concrete ) :
USUAL UNUSUAL EXTREME

σ max σ max σ max σ max σ max σ max
f'c
compr. tensile compr. tensile compr. tensile
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
> 15 6 0 9.0 0.36 13.5 0.91
> 12 4.8 0 7.2 0.32 10.8 0.79
>10 4.0 0 6.0 0.28 9.0 0.70
>7 2.8 0 4.2 0.22 6.3 0.55
ALLOWABLE STRESSES IN THE RCC
GIBE III
7 STRESS ANALYSIS
7.1 GENERAL
The stress analysis has been carried out with two methodologies :
• Gravity Method ( rigid body )
• Finite Element Modelling
The gravity method gives the stresses at the upstream and downstream toes of each dam structure
horizontal section, with the stresses along dam foundations varying linearly.
The Finite Element Modelling gives the complete stress field in the dam structure and in the foundations
being, therefore, more detailed where the section varies from the basic triangle.
The detailed results of the analysis are given in the annex including for each typical dam section :
• 1 - RIGID BODY
• 2 - FEM
o FEM MODEL
o DISPLACEMENTS
o STRESSES MAPS
o STRESSES GRAPHS
• 3 - SUMMARY : FEM+RIGID BODY
• 4 - FOUNDATIONS
In the first part are collected the computation of the stresses performed with the Rigid Body analysis. The
second one includes all the results of the Finite Element Modelling with complete mapping of stresses for
each loading condition and graphs with stresses for each potential sliding section. The third part summarizes
the results of the analysis comparing the rigid body and the FEM modelling.
7.2 RIGID BODY ANALYSIS
The table here below briefly summarizes the main results of the stress analysis for the most critical loading
conditions (construction,normal operating, MCE) at :
• dam foundations
• the first section in the dam body :being
o 702 m a.s.l. for main overflow
o 673 m a.s.l. for overflow
o 774 m a.s.l. for the typical right abutment
GIBE III
LOADING EL MAIN NON TYPICAL RIGHT

MAIN OVERFLOW
CONDITION OVERFLOW ABUTMENT
N u/s N d/s N u/s N d/s N u/s N d/s
m a.s.l. Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa
found. -3.9 -1.6 -3.3 -1.3 -2.2* -0.5*

CONSTRUCTION
673/702/774 -4.6 -1.8 -3.8 -1.4 -1.9 -0.7
NORMAL found. -1.6 -4.5 -1.4 -3.8 -1.4* -3.1*

OPERATING 673/702/774 -1.2 -6.0 -1.1 -5.0 -1.1 -2.0
NORMAL OP. + found. 0.3 -6.0 0.17 -5.1 -1.0* -4.1*

MCE 673/702/774 1.1 -8.2 0.8 -6.8 -0.1 -2.8
RIGID BODY – MAIN RESULTS OF STRESS ANALYSIS NEARBY FOUNDATIONS
* obtained from FEM modelling
The envisaged plinth reduces the stresses in the foundations, in the main sections, as results comparing in
the above table the values obtained at foundation level and in the first section in the dam body.
On the right abutment stresses increase on the foundation surface , composed by two planes, because of
the effect of the inclined downstream toe.

f'c
> 15 6 0 9.0 0.36 13.5 0.91
> 12 4.8 0 7.2 0.32 10.8 0.79
>10 4.0 0 6.0 0.28 9.0 0.70
>7 2.8 0 4.2 0.22 6.3 0.55
ALLOWABLE STRESSES IN THE RCC
The table above recalls the maximum and minimum allowable stresses for each RCC layer with the relevant
color code for easier reading.
The main results of the analysis carried out with the rigid body method are indicated in the tables below
which illustrate :
GIBE III
• Three representative dam sections
• Horizontal section every 20 m ( approx )
• The Principal stresses N2 and N1 at the upstream and downstream toe
Load Condition Ref. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2add

Load Condition Unusual Usual Unusual Extreme Unusual Extreme Extreme Extreme
Normal Operating Normal Operating Normal Operating Probable Ineffective

Description Construction Flood Discharge Construction+OBE
Condition Condition+OBE Condition+MCE Maximum Flood Drainage
el (masl) N2 u/s Principal (MPa)

682 -3,291 -1,425 -1,577 -2,963 -0,885 -0,074 -1,391 -1,425
702 -3,856 -1,084 -1,294 -3,475 -0,439 0,527 -1,036 -1,084
718 -3,864 -0,950 -1,179 -3,490 -0,306 0,661 -0,897 -0,950
738 -3,251 -0,935 -1,143 -2,947 -0,398 0,409 -0,888 -0,935
758 -2,848 -0,838 -1,044 -2,580 -0,352 0,375 -0,790 -0,838
778 -2,447 -0,741 -0,946 -2,215 -0,311 0,336 -0,694 -0,741
798 -2,050 -0,649 -0,850 -1,853 -0,274 0,288 -0,601 -0,649
818 -1,657 -0,561 -0,759 -1,494 -0,244 0,232 -0,514 -0,561
838 -1,272 -0,481 -0,672 -1,140 -0,221 0,168 -0,434 -0,481
858 -0,892 -0,406 -0,582 -0,784 -0,201 0,105 -0,359 -0,406
878 -0,308 -0,120 -0,257 -0,199 0,041 0,282 -0,089 -0,120
Non Overflow section – RIGID BODY – PRINCIPAL STRESSES N2 - U/S


el (masl) N1 d/s Principal (MPa)

682 -1,340 -3,814 -3,643 -1,669 -4,354 -5,165 -3,853 -3,814
702 -1,453 -5,014 -4,749 -1,911 -5,788 -6,949 -5,075 -5,014
718 -1,080 -4,670 -4,384 -1,529 -5,443 -6,603 -4,735 -4,670
738 -0,664 -4,189 -3,881 -1,093 -4,946 -6,082 -4,260 -4,189
758 -0,572 -3,632 -3,327 -0,949 -4,316 -5,341 -3,703 -3,632
778 -0,480 -3,077 -2,774 -0,807 -3,684 -4,594 -3,148 -3,077
798 -0,389 -2,522 -2,223 -0,666 -3,050 -3,842 -2,593 -2,522
818 -0,300 -1,969 -1,675 -0,530 -2,416 -3,087 -2,040 -1,969
838 -0,220 -1,426 -1,142 -0,406 -1,791 -2,340 -1,496 -1,426
858 -0,185 -0,928 -0,664 -0,338 -1,215 -1,646 -0,997 -0,928
878 -0,477 -0,678 -0,534 -0,584 -0,837 -1,076 -0,711 -0,678
Non Overflow section – RIGID BODY –PRINCIPAL STRESSES N1 D/S
GIBE III

Normal Operating Construction+ Normal Operating Normal Operating Probable Ineffective

Description Construction Flood Discharge
Condition OBE Condition+ OBE Condition+ MCE Maximum Flood Drainage

653 -3,871 -1,596 -1,763 -3,470 -0,945 0,031 -1,574 -1,596
673 -4,571 -1,221 -1,454 -4,099 -0,443 0,724 -1,196 -1,221
693 -4,598 -1,032 -1,297 -4,133 -0,250 0,923 -1,016 -1,032
713 -3,753 -0,834 -1,247 -3,377 -0,368 0,600 -1,003 -1,013
733 -3,291 -0,849 -1,086 -2,952 -0,258 0,628 -0,844 -0,849
753 -2,795 -0,650 -0,890 -2,497 -0,117 0,683 -0,651 -0,650
773 -2,518 -1,261 -1,428 -2,340 -0,933 -0,440 -1,268 -1,261
793 -2,256 -0,874 -1,095 -2,061 -0,505 0,050 -0,893 -0,874
813 -1,866 -0,618 -0,870 -1,682 -0,264 0,266 -0,657 -0,619
833 -1,504 -0,557 -0,816 -1,350 -0,261 0,182 -0,624 -0,557
850 -1,209 -0,532 -0,803 -1,079 -0,287 0,081 -0,646 -0,532
Overflow section – RIGID BODY – PRINCIPAL STESSES N2 - U/S



653 -1,584 -4,535 -4,366 -1,985 -5,186 -6,162 -4,582 -4,535
673 -1,817 -6,019 -5,675 -2,382 -6,954 -8,355 -5,980 -6,019
693 -1,384 -5,678 -5,343 -1,942 -6,617 -8,025 -5,666 -5,678
713 -1,136 -5,519 -4,925 -1,666 -6,175 -7,538 -5,283 -5,266
733 -1,169 -4,840 -4,496 -1,646 -5,672 -6,921 -4,850 -4,840
753 -1,264 -4,476 -4,129 -1,684 -5,228 -6,355 -4,477 -4,476
773 -0,211 -2,105 -1,863 -0,462 -2,568 -3,262 -2,098 -2,105
793 -0,188 -2,242 -1,923 -0,463 -2,762 -3,543 -2,217 -2,242
813 -0,290 -2,123 -1,761 -0,550 -2,622 -3,369 -2,071 -2,123
833 -0,213 -1,586 -1,214 -0,430 -2,002 -2,627 -1,493 -1,586
850 -0,194 -1,168 -0,780 -0,377 -1,513 -2,031 -1,008 -1,168
Overflow section – RIGID BODY – PRINCIPAL STRESSES N1 - D/S
GIBE III

Condition OBE Condition+OBE Condition+MCE Maximum Flood Drainage

774 -1,906 -0,919 -1,061 -1,720 -0,607 -0,139 -0,886 -0,919
789 -2,187 -0,664 -0,871 -1,966 -0,284 0,287 -0,615 -0,664
804 -1,933 -0,623 -0,825 -1,746 -0,295 0,199 -0,576 -0,623
818 -1,657 -0,561 -0,759 -1,494 -0,269 0,170 -0,514 -0,561
838 -1,273 -0,481 -0,672 -1,141 -0,242 0,118 -0,434 -0,481
858 -0,892 -0,405 -0,582 -0,784 -0,216 0,069 -0,359 -0,405
878 -0,307 -0,132 -0,257 -0,199 0,021 0,250 -0,089 -0,132
Right Abutment section – RIGID BODY – PRINCIPAL STESSES N2 - U/S


Condition OBE Condition+OBE Condition+MCE Maximum Flood Drainage

774 -0,693 -2,014 -1,853 -0,878 -2,326 -2,794 -2,051 -2,014
789 -0,758 -2,701 -2,440 -1,023 -3,158 -3,843 -2,762 -2,701
804 -0,360 -2,353 -2,055 -0,622 -2,817 -3,511 -2,424 -2,353
818 -0,300 -1,969 -1,676 -0,530 -2,381 -2,999 -2,040 -1,969
838 -0,219 -1,425 -1,141 -0,405 -1,763 -2,270 -1,495 -1,425
858 -0,186 -0,928 -0,664 -0,338 -1,195 -1,596 -0,997 -0,928
878 -0,680 -0,948 -0,760 -0,832 -1,163 -1,486 -1,012 -0,948
Right Abutment section – RIGID BODY – PRINCIPAL STRESSES N1 - D/S
The result of the Rigid Body Analysis indicates for the main overflow and non overflow sections that :
• Principal Compressive stresses are below the acceptable limits
The highest stresses are reached around the first section in the dam body
• No tensile stresses appear at the u/s face in normal conditions
• During earthquake loadings, as expected, tensions up to about 1 Mpa are shown
Stresses for the right abutment section are also well within the allowable limits.
7.3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
The detailed analysis of the stresses for the three representative sections and for all the loading conditions
are included in the annexes.
Below are represented typical stress maps for the three sections with the most significant loading conditions:
( Construction,Normal operating, Normal operating with Maximum Credible Earthquake ).
GIBE III
(MPa) Construction Normal Normal+MCE

Non Overflow section - VERTICAL PLATE STRESS (in global system)

Non Overflow section - 22 PRINCIPAL PLATE STRESS (in combined system)

Non Overflow section - 11 PRINCIPAL PLATE STRESS (in combined system)
GIBE III

Overflow section - VERTICAL PLATE STRESS (in global system)

Overflow section - 22 PRINCIPAL PLATE STRESS (in combined system)

Overflow section - 11 PRINCIPAL PLATE STRESS (in combined system)
GIBE III

Right Abutment section - VERTICAL PLATE STRESS (in global system)

Right Abutment section - 22 PRINCIPAL PLATE STRESS (in combined system)

Right Abutment section - 11 PRINCIPAL PLATE STRESS (in combined system)
GIBE III
The graphs below represent a typical distribution ( n.d.r. along the non overflow section at elevation 702 m
a.s.l. ) of the normal and horizontal stresses (in global system) and principal stresses (in combined system)
varying with the loading conditions. All graphs are included in the annexes.
VERTICAL STRESSES, MAIN NON OVERFLOW, elevation 702
HORIZONTAL STRESSES, MAIN NON OVERFLOW, elevation 702
GIBE III
22 PRINCIPAL STRESSES, MAIN NON OVERFLOW, elevation 702
11 PRINCIPAL STRESSES, MAIN NON OVERFLOW, elevation 702
The tables in the following pages summarize the main results of the FEM stress analysis at u/s and d/s toe.
It is necessary to recall that a finite element model linear analysis of a gravity dam frequently indicates
nearby the foundations toes the occurrence of local minor plasticization effects, in the range of some
meters, which might be better modelled with non linear analysis which basically removes the stress peaks
allowing the plasticization to occur.
GIBE III
Load Condition Ref. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Load Condition Unusual Usual Unusual Extreme Unusual Extreme Extreme
Normal Operating Construction+ Normal Operating Normal Operating Probable

Condition OBE Condition+ OBE Condition+ MCE Maximum Flood
el (masl) σ II-II u/s (MPa)

682 -3,340 -2,079 -2,113 -2,987 -1,951 -1,801 -2,068
702 -3,760 -1,835 -1,830 -3,360 -1,826 -1,828 -1,834
718 -4,001 -1,716 -1,677 -3,590 -1,782 -1,883 -1,724
738 -3,988 -1,504 -1,463 -3,584 -1,580 -1,695 -1,513
758 -2,896 -1,310 -1,269 -2,601 -1,384 -1,497 -1,319
778 -2,375 -1,115 -1,073 -2,133 -1,186 -1,293 -1,125
798 -2,026 -0,918 -0,883 -1,810 -0,977 -1,070 -0,927
818 -1,614 -0,726 -0,806 -1,447 -0,781 -0,866 -0,735
838 -1,268 -0,533 -0,720 -1,132 -0,575 -0,644 -0,539
858 -0,882 -0,402 -0,623 -0,768 -0,367 -0,418 -0,359
878 -0,353 -0,208 -0,365 -0,257 -0,161 -0,189 -0,177
MAIN NON OVERFLOW SECTION - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ II-II U/S


el (masl) σ I-I u/s (MPa)

682 -0,683 -0,613 -0,763 -0,597 -0,057 0,819 -0,601
702 -0,406 -0,433 -0,619 -0,370 0,188 1,148 -0,380
718 -0,079 -0,658 -0,906 -0,079 0,029 1,063 -0,589
738 -0,028 -0,592 -0,888 -0,026 0,109 1,161 -0,515
758 -0,008 -0,593 -0,843 -0,008 -0,060 0,741 -0,532
778 -0,006 -0,661 -0,900 -0,007 -0,215 0,453 -0,606
798 -0,009 -0,385 -0,632 -0,009 0,031 0,658 -0,328
818 -0,007 -0,572 -0,680 -0,007 -0,255 0,223 -0,521
838 -0,008 -0,486 -0,485 -0,008 -0,229 0,165 -0,438
858 -0,009 -0,329 -0,291 -0,008 -0,188 0,127 -0,330
878 -0,005 -0,130 -0,095 -0,004 -0,057 0,153 -0,133
MAIN NON OVERFLOW SECTION - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ I-I U/S
GIBE III


el (masl) σ II-II d/s (MPa)

682 -2,270 -6,683 -6,490 -2,783 -7,504 -8,736 -6,765
702 -1,931 -5,433 -5,166 -2,403 -6,215 -7,388 -5,445
718 -1,600 -4,662 -4,424 -1,989 -5,327 -6,326 -4,697
738 -1,133 -3,871 -3,629 -1,489 -4,493 -5,427 -3,907
758 -0,746 -3,360 -3,111 -1,074 -3,945 -4,823 -3,406
778 -0,487 -2,980 -2,716 -0,792 -3,535 -4,369 -3,035
798 -0,327 -2,339 -2,085 -0,579 -2,806 -3,507 -2,395
818 -0,247 -1,952 -1,685 -0,464 -2,368 -2,992 -2,012
838 -0,210 -1,447 -1,175 -0,385 -1,789 -2,304 -1,508
858 -0,168 -0,919 -0,653 -0,305 -1,181 -1,574 -0,980
878 -0,625 -0,930 -0,641 -0,782 -1,168 -1,525 -0,998
MAIN NON OVERFLOW SECTION - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ II-II D/S


el (masl) σ I-I d/s (MPa)

682 -0,371 -0,822 -0,810 -0,418 -0,892 -0,996 -0,848
702 -0,018 -0,034 -0,032 -0,019 -0,037 -0,042 -0,033
718 -0,010 -0,020 -0,019 -0,010 -0,021 -0,023 -0,020
738 -0,007 -0,014 -0,013 -0,008 -0,015 -0,017 -0,014
758 -0,004 -0,013 -0,012 -0,004 -0,014 -0,017 -0,013
778 -0,002 -0,018 -0,017 -0,003 -0,021 -0,025 -0,019
798 0,000 -0,011 -0,009 -0,001 -0,012 -0,014 -0,011
818 0,000 -0,018 -0,015 -0,002 -0,021 -0,026 -0,018
838 -0,001 -0,018 -0,014 -0,003 -0,022 -0,027 -0,019
858 -0,001 -0,016 -0,010 -0,003 -0,021 -0,028 -0,017
878 -0,048 -0,076 -0,052 -0,061 -0,095 -0,124 -0,081
MAIN NON OVERFLOW SECTION - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ I-I D/S
GIBE III


el (masl) σII-II u/s (MPa)

653 -4,118 -2,410 -2,423 -3,648 -2,252 -2,092 -2,392
673 -4,613 -2,154 -2,135 -4,093 -2,151 -2,164 -2,151
693 -4,806 -1,949 -1,920 -4,302 -1,994 -2,071 -1,952
713 -4,425 -1,750 -1,706 -3,963 -1,842 -1,981 -1,759
733 -3,334 -1,558 -1,515 -2,982 -1,632 -1,746 -1,567
753 -2,876 -1,359 -1,316 -2,580 -1,447 -1,580 -1,368
773 -2,487 -1,168 -1,158 -2,237 -1,242 -1,355 -1,177
793 -2,209 -0,966 -0,959 -1,979 -1,040 -1,151 -0,975
813 -1,812 -0,946 -1,045 -1,621 -0,837 -0,926 -0,911
833 -1,494 -0,906 -1,005 -1,337 -0,643 -0,715 -0,912
850 -1,511 -0,907 -1,007 -1,352 -0,647 -0,720 -0,917
OVERFLOW SECTION - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ II-II U/S


el (masl) σI-I u/s (MPa)

653 -0,864 -0,823 -0,925 -0,759 -0,091 1,039 -0,765
673 -0,479 -0,997 -1,136 -0,438 -0,174 1,081 -0,906
693 -0,253 -0,902 -1,062 -0,238 -0,089 1,160 -0,803
713 -0,015 -0,817 -0,994 -0,014 -0,032 1,152 -0,719
733 -0,005 -0,996 -1,135 -0,005 -0,386 0,534 -0,921
753 -0,006 -0,955 -1,085 -0,007 -0,427 0,365 -0,887
773 -0,006 -1,034 -1,117 -0,006 -0,578 0,108 -0,973
793 -0,009 -0,835 -0,918 -0,009 -0,402 0,248 -0,776
813 -0,007 -0,774 -0,731 -0,007 -0,588 -0,054 -0,783
833 -0,008 -0,580 -0,537 -0,008 -0,606 -0,179 -0,589
850 -0,014 -0,580 -0,537 -0,013 -0,610 -0,191 -0,590
OVERFLOW SECTION - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ I-I U/S
GIBE III


el (masl) σII-II d/s (MPa)

653 -2,839 -8,465 -8,212 -3,520 -9,540 -11,142 -8,469
673 -2,192 -6,218 -6,013 -2,766 -7,147 -8,530 -6,270
693 -1,827 -5,161 -4,940 -2,317 -5,980 -7,201 -5,163
713 -1,491 -4,616 -4,419 -1,948 -5,392 -6,550 -4,650
733 -1,193 -4,183 -4,001 -1,625 -4,922 -6,028 -4,240
753 -1,711 -5,719 -5,470 -2,291 -6,725 -8,231 -5,826
773 -0,314 -0,200 -0,206 -0,297 -0,174 -0,139 -0,197
793 -0,023 -1,924 -1,784 -0,161 -2,421 -3,165 -1,996
813 -0,235 -1,890 -1,752 -0,488 -2,367 -3,084 -1,962
833 -0,230 -1,322 -1,196 -0,434 -1,713 -2,300 -1,365
850 -0,238 -1,343 -1,216 -0,440 -1,740 -2,335 -1,389
OVERFLOW SECTION - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ II-II D/S


el (masl) σI-I d/s (MPa)

653 -0,483 -1,227 -1,261 -0,552 -1,330 -1,483 -1,315
673 0,000 -0,060 -0,130 0,000 -0,056 -0,050 -0,160
693 -0,004 -0,004 -0,001 -0,004 -0,006 -0,009 0,001
713 -0,006 -0,012 -0,011 -0,006 -0,014 -0,017 -0,011
733 -0,006 -0,008 -0,008 -0,006 -0,008 -0,008 -0,008
753 -0,027 -0,134 -0,127 -0,042 -0,160 -0,200 -0,137
773 0,013 0,040 0,038 0,017 0,051 0,069 0,041
793 0,131 -0,049 -0,046 0,005 -0,059 -0,074 -0,051
813 0,001 -0,016 -0,014 -0,001 -0,019 -0,025 -0,016
833 0,000 -0,011 -0,009 -0,002 -0,014 -0,019 -0,011
850 -0,012 -0,013 -0,010 -0,010 -0,023 -0,037 -0,015
OVERFLOW SECTION - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ I-I D/S
GIBE III


el (masl) σ II-II u/s (MPa)

754 -1,886 -1,560 -1,566 -1,728 -1,507 -1,450 -1,542
774 -1,876 -1,192 -1,183 -1,684 -1,192 -1,211 -1,189
789 -1,918 -1,024 -0,986 -1,704 -1,063 -1,123 -1,035
804 -2,758 -0,819 -0,807 -2,444 -0,828 -0,844 -0,822
818 -1,654 -0,729 -0,765 -1,480 -0,764 -0,819 -0,738
838 -1,258 -0,538 -0,704 -1,123 -0,560 -0,603 -0,546
858 -0,884 -0,405 -0,595 -0,769 -0,355 -0,377 -0,425
878 -1,615 -0,726 -0,806 -1,448 -0,781 -0,866 -0,735
TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ II-II U/S


el (masl) σ I-I u/s (MPa)

754 -0,410 -0,676 -0,992 -0,374 -0,476 -0,153 -0,925
774 -0,406 -0,433 -0,619 -0,370 0,188 1,148 -0,380
789 -0,041 -0,467 -0,647 -0,044 -0,178 0,258 -0,429
804 -0,182 -0,203 -0,511 -0,162 0,214 0,843 -0,119
818 -0,007 -0,544 -0,676 -0,007 -0,323 0,012 -0,515
838 -0,007 -0,488 -0,486 -0,007 -0,334 -0,095 -0,484
858 -0,008 -0,329 -0,292 -0,008 -0,277 -0,101 -0,339
878 -0,003 -0,133 -0,094 -0,002 -0,093 0,049 -0,146
TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ I-I U/S
GIBE III


el (masl) σ II-II d/s (MPa)

754 -1,566 -2,340 -2,261 -1,641 -2,472 -2,672 -2,344
774 -0,127 -0,691 -0,507 -0,211 -0,811 -0,992 -0,583
789 -0,664 -2,494 -2,237 -0,913 -2,846 -3,376 -2,483
804 -0,494 -2,062 -1,808 -0,703 -2,356 -2,797 -2,047
818 -0,347 -1,870 -1,608 -0,546 -2,146 -2,560 -1,870
838 -0,204 -1,448 -1,189 -0,379 -1,676 -2,017 -1,461
858 -0,159 -0,928 -0,686 -0,297 -1,084 -1,318 -0,923
878 -0,249 -1,956 -1,689 -0,466 -2,373 -2,997 -2,017
TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ II-II D/S


el (masl) σ I-I d/s (MPa)

754 -0,614 -1,222 -1,442 -0,661 -1,263 -1,323 -1,485
774 -0,002 0,024 0,024 0,002 0,030 0,039 0,027
789 -0,003 -0,018 -0,017 -0,004 -0,020 -0,023 -0,018
804 -0,009 -0,007 -0,008 -0,008 -0,006 -0,004 -0,007
818 -0,010 -0,007 -0,007 -0,009 -0,005 -0,003 -0,007
838 -0,006 -0,008 -0,008 -0,005 -0,007 -0,005 -0,008
858 -0,005 -0,008 -0,009 -0,004 -0,007 -0,005 -0,008
878 -0,043 -0,063 -0,049 -0,054 -0,074 -0,090 -0,056
TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT - PRINCIPAL STRESS σ I-I D/S
For this right abutment section the values indicated in the table at el. 754 are taken on a theoretical
horizontal surface.
The result of the Finite Element Analysis while generally confirming the results of the rigid body analysis,
show the following significant variations :
• Stress curves are generally flattened ( i.e. lowering the highest compressive and increasing the
lowest stresses ) nearby the foundations because of the lower modulus of elasticity of the rock
mass;
GIBE III
• Nearby the dam toes some peak stresses appear, typical of the linear gravity dam finite element
modelling, indicating that probably some minor plasticization effects might occur for some meters
nearby the foundation ends. A non linear sensitivity analysis, allowing plasticization to locally occur,
will be carried out in the Level 2 design frame better modelling this local effects returning the
stresses shape to a more linear aspect;
• Local stresses where the section varies substantially from the basic triangle ( i.e. upstream plinth,
typical right abutment foundations, spillway bucket, etc. ) are better assessed with the FEM than
with the rigid body analysis
The result of the FEM confirms therefore that :

• Principal Compressive stresses along potential sliding surfaces are below the acceptable limits
The highest stresses are reached around the first section in the dam body because of the plinth
• No tensile stresses appear at the u/s face in normal conditions
• During earthquake loadings, as expected, tensions up to about 1 Mpa are shown
7.4 DISPLACEMENTS
The detailed results of the displacement analysis obtained with the FEM is given in the annexes.
The table and graph here below summarize the main results of the study showing :
• Horizontal crest-foundation displ. varying with the loading condition
non overflow and overflow sections
• Horizontal displacements varying along the u/s face
overflow section
The table indicates the relative displacements of the crest to the foundations ( n.d.r. Dx_crest - Dx_found )
while the graph indicates the absolute displacements.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.LOADING
Unusual Usual Unusual Extreme Unusual Extreme Extreme
CONDITION
Normal Flood Construction Normal Operating Normal Operating Probable
Construction Operating Discharge +OBE +OBE +MCE Max. Flood
C diti
m m M m m M m
NON OVERFLOW -0.048 0.075 0.580 -0.028 0.110 0.164 0.081
OVERFLOW -0.057 0.083 0.075 -0.032 0.125 0.189 0.089
RIGHT ABUT
E = 5 GPa
-0.028 0.031 0.016 -0.015 0.047 0.073 0.029
RIGHT ABUT
E = 10 GPa
-0.023 0.030 0.018 - 0.014 0.043 0.063 0.029
DAM CREST – FOUNDATIONS DISPLACEMENTS
GIBE III
MAIN OVERFLOW – UPSTREAM FACE HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENTS
The maximum displacements of the highest dam sections in normal conditions are lower than 10 cms.
GIBE III
8 SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS - DAM
8.1 GENERAL
The sliding stability analysis has been carried out basing on two methodologies :
• Gravity Method ( rigid body )
• Finite Element Modelling
The gravity method allows the classical computation of forces acting along the potential sliding surfaces as
illustrated in [1].
The Finite Element Modelling gives the complete stress field in the dam structure and in the foundations
being, therefore, more detailed where the section varies from the basic triangle.
The detailed results of the analysis are given in the annexes.
Comparing the results obtained with two methodologies ( FEM + Rigid Body ) differences between the two
methodologies are practically negligible unless where relevant variation from the basic triangle section is
observed.
8.2 SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS
The following tables summarizes the results of the sliding stability analysis carried out on the three
representative sections at several elevations with FEM and rigid body methodology.
Load Condition Ref. 2 3 4 5 6 7 2add

Load Condition Usual Unusual Extreme Unusual Super - Extreme Extreme Extreme

Description Flood Discharge Construction+OBE
Fsmin 2,00 1,70 1,30 1,70 1,10 1,30 1,30

el (masl) φ (deg) C (kPa) FS (R.B.)
682 45 1000 2,61 2,63 23,86 2,22 1,82 2,47 2,11

702 45 1000 2,60 2,72 24,46 2,21 1,80 2,57 2,11
718 45 1000 2,61 2,75 24,96 2,22 1,81 2,58 2,12
738 45 800 2,46 2,61 23,90 2,08 1,69 2,43 1,99
758 45 800 2,59 2,77 24,94 2,18 1,76 2,55 2,12
778 45 600 2,49 2,70 23,91 2,08 1,67 2,45 2,02
798 45 600 2,68 2,96 25,35 2,23 1,77 2,62 2,22
818 45 400 2,56 2,91 23,87 2,10 1,66 2,49 2,12
838 45 400 2,98 3,56 26,09 2,40 1,87 2,87 2,53
858 45 400 3,98 5,31 29,82 3,11 2,34 3,75 3,53
878 45 400 8,74 19,43 33,73 5,85 3,91 7,57 8,74
NON OVERFLOW SECTION – RIGID BODY
GIBE III


Fsmin 2,00 1,70 1,30 1,70 1,10 1,30 1,30

el (masl) φ (deg) C (kPa) FS (F.E.A.)
682 45 1000 2,71 2,73 24,72 2,31 1,89 2,56 2,19

702 45 1000 2,67 2,80 24,87 2,27 1,86 2,65 2,17
718 45 1000 2,65 2,80 25,35 2,25 1,84 2,62 2,16
738 45 800 2,48 2,64 23,98 2,10 1,70 2,45 2,00
758 45 800 2,58 2,77 24,98 2,17 1,75 2,54 2,11
778 45 600 2,50 2,72 23,92 2,09 1,68 2,45 2,03
798 45 600 2,67 2,96 25,42 2,22 1,77 2,61 2,21
818 45 400 2,57 2,93 23,88 2,11 1,67 2,50 2,13
838 45 400 2,99 3,60 26,11 2,41 1,87 2,88 2,54
858 45 400 4,01 5,47 29,95 3,13 2,35 3,78 3,55
878 45 400 9,23 23,04 41,80 6,41 4,47 8,10 9,23
NON OVERFLOW SECTION – FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS


Fsmin 2,00 1,70 1,30 1,70 1,10 1,30 1,30

653 45 1000 2,41 2,44 22,78 2,04 1,66 2,32 1,96
673 45 1000 2,49 2,53 23,16 2,11 1,72 2,38 2,01
693 45 1000 2,55 2,67 23,53 2,16 1,75 2,50 2,06
713 45 1000 2,62 2,78 24,05 2,21 1,78 2,62 2,13
733 45 800 2,56 2,74 23,20 2,14 1,72 2,56 2,08
753 45 800 2,71 2,94 23,96 2,25 1,80 2,73 2,24
773 45 600 2,72 3,00 24,24 2,25 1,78 2,75 2,15
793 45 600 2,70 3,04 25,12 2,23 1,76 2,75 2,21
813 45 400 2,54 2,98 23,17 2,07 1,63 2,64 2,09
833 45 400 2,94 3,73 24,80 2,36 1,82 3,20 2,49
850 45 400 3,69 5,47 26,67 2,87 2,16 4,48 3,24
OVERFLOW SECTION – RIGID BODY
GIBE III


Fsmin 2,00 1,70 1,30 1,70 1,10 1,30 1,30

653 45 1000 2,54 2,55 23,81 2,15 1,75 2,43 2,07
673 45 1000 2,55 2,56 23,26 2,16 1,76 2,42 2,06
693 45 1000 2,60 2,68 23,56 2,19 1,78 2,52 2,10
713 45 1000 2,68 2,79 24,09 2,25 1,81 2,64 2,18
733 45 800 2,62 2,75 23,19 2,19 1,75 2,58 2,14
753 45 800 2,83 3,00 24,28 2,35 1,87 2,79 2,35
773 45 600 2,86 3,03 24,38 2,35 1,85 2,79 2,27
793 45 600 2,89 3,09 25,25 2,37 1,86 2,80 2,38
813 45 400 2,83 3,05 23,23 2,28 1,76 2,71 2,35
833 45 400 3,56 3,84 24,97 2,76 2,06 3,31 3,03
850 45 400 5,54 6,02 37,25 3,84 2,65 4,89 4,87
OVERFLOW SECTION – FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS


Fsmin 2,00 1,70 1,30 1,70 1,10 1,30 1,30

774 45 600 2,70 2,92 24,36 2,29 1,86 2,66 2,21

789 45 600 2,71 2,97 25,08 2,29 1,85 2,66 2,24
804 45 400 2,41 2,68 22,82 2,02 1,62 2,35 1,95
818 45 400 2,56 2,91 23,87 2,13 1,70 2,49 2,12
838 45 400 2,98 3,56 26,09 2,44 1,92 2,87 2,53
858 45 400 3,98 5,31 29,82 3,16 2,41 3,75 3,53
878 45 400 9,29 20,24 33,73 6,36 4,32 8,09 8,74
RIGHT ABUTMENT SECTION – RIGID BODY
GIBE III

Fsmin 2,00 1,70 1,30 1,70 1,10 1,30 1,30

774 45 600 2,75 2,97 24,65 2,33 1,89 2,71 2,24

789 45 600 2,72 2,97 25,07 2,29 1,85 2,68 2,24
804 45 400 2,42 2,69 22,67 2,02 1,63 2,38 1,96
818 45 400 2,56 2,91 23,82 2,13 1,70 2,51 2,12
838 45 400 2,98 3,56 26,02 2,44 1,92 2,92 2,53
858 45 400 3,98 5,31 29,62 3,15 2,41 3,90 3,52
878 45 400 9,21 20,31 33,61 6,32 4,32 10,21 8,67
RIGHT ABUTMENT SECTION – FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
The results obtained with FEM and RIGID BODY are normally practically identical, as expected.
The result of the study confirm that the required sliding stability safety factors are guaranteed for all loading
conditions examined.
8.3 ADDITIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS
To complete the assessment of the stability an additional sensitivity analysis has been carried out for the
right abutment section with reduced modulus of elasticity , E=5 GPa.
No significant variations are obtained in the sliding analysis from the E=10 Gpa case, being the safety
factors practically hydentical.
The results for a deformability modulus of E=10 Gpa given in the previous paragraph and in the annexes
therefore practically represent also the safety factors obtained for this condition.
8.4 CONCLUSIONS
The sliding stability analysis has been carried out considering the potential sliding surfaces within the dam
structure at about 20 m of distance.
The study indicates that the most critical condition is the normal operating, as expected considering the not
large earthquakes loads, the gated spillway ( n.d.r. which avoids critical sliding conditions while flooding )
The table in the following briefly summarizes the most significant results of the analysis for the most
relevant loading conditions.
GIBE III
LOADING CONDITIONS
POTENTIAL SLIDING NORMAL NORMAL OPERATING NORMAL OPERATING +
SECTION
SURFACE OPERATING + MCE INEFF. DRAINAGES
Descr. - elevation USUAL SUPER-EXTREME EXTREME

m a.s.l. FS > 2.0 FS > 1.1 FS > 1.3
lower - 673 2.5 1.7 2.0
MAIN OVERFLOW
mid-height – 753 2.7 1.8 2.2
MAIN NON lower - 702 2.6 1.8 2.1
OVERFLOW mid-height – 778 2.5 1.7 2.0
lower - 774 2.7 1.8 2.2
RIGHT ABUTMENT
mid-height – 818 2.5 1.7 2.1
DAM BODY, SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS – MAIN RESULTS
The results of the study therefore confirm that the design characteristics of the roller compacted concrete
dam structure are adequate to guarantee the stability against sliding.
GIBE III
9 SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS - FOUNDATIONS
9.1 GENERAL
The present chapter illustrates the results of the stability analysis carried out within the dam foundations and
at the dam-rock contact.
Loads and loading conditions, the basic assumptions for the analysis and the design strength parameters are
illustrated the previous chapters of this report. The dam foundations geological structure is illustrated in the
relevant report [ 9 ]. The following paragraph recalls the assessment of the kinematically feasible modes of
failure.
9.2 POTENTIAL SLIDING SURFACE MODEL
The following typical possible failure modes have been examined :

• Shear along concrete-rock contact
• Shear along discontinuity in the foundations
• Shear through jointed rock mass
The shear along discontinuities ( either planar, combined or wedge ) is not a critical condition for the general
stability analysis of this dam basing on the current knowledge of the geological structure [ 11 ].
This since the geological structure is controlled by two main families of subvertical joints being sub-parallel
and sub-orthogonal to the Omo river, therefore not forming a kinematically feasible mode of failure ( i.e
wedge ). Secondary joint sets have been encountered locally only and with very limited persistence (usually
less than 5 m).
Therefore the two potentially failure surfaces, along concrete-rock contact and through jointed rock mass,
are analyzed in the present chapter.
Three possible planar failure surfaces are considered for each of the three main sections :
• Dam – rock contact
• Foundations ( 5 m below excavations )
• Foundations ( 15 m below excavations )
The potential failure planes has been considered from the intersection of the upstream and downstream
basic triangle faces with the horizontal potential sliding plane.
GIBE III
The following figures indicate the failure surfaces modelled.
MAIN NON OVERFLOW SECTION ( CH 0 + 311 ) : POTENTIAL SLIDING SURFACES
MAIN OVERFLOW SECTION ( CH 0 + 423 ) : POTENTIAL SLIDING SURFACES
Therefore the following trunks of the sliding surfaces, which give a positive contribution to the stability, are
conservatively not considered in the present evaluation of the surface strength :
• foundations below the plinth (which design is currently under study)

• rock wedges downstream and upstream of the dam foundations
GIBE III
The excavation surface has been conservatively considered as planar, unless for the downstream toe of the
right abutment section here below.
TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT SECTION ( CH 0 + 530 )

POTENTIAL SLIDING SURFACES
The irregularities of the foundation surface, which will be obtained at the end of the excavation, will
contribute to the stability against sliding. It can be recalled that a stepped excavation surface is currently
being considered for the left abutment sections.
9.3 SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS
The sliding stability analysis has been carried out for No. 72 potential failure surfaces considering :
• No. 3 representative dam sections
o Main Non overflow ch 0+311
o Main overflow ch 0+423
o Right abutment typical ch 0+530
• No. 3 potential sliding surfaces :
o Dam-rock contact
o Foundations : 5 m below the dam
o Foundations : 15 m below the dam
• No. 8 loading conditions
GIBE III
The results of the analysis for normal operating loading conditions for the dam-rock contact and the first
sliding surface in foundations are illustrated in the following figures.
SLIDING ANALYSIS : MAIN OVERFLOW, DAM-ROCK CONTACT
SLIDING ANALYSIS : MAIN OVERFLOW, FOUNDATIONS
GIBE III
SLIDING ANALYSIS : MAIN NON OVERFLOW, DAM-ROCK CONTACT
SLIDING ANALYSIS : MAIN NON OVERFLOW, FOUNDATIONS
GIBE III
SLIDING ANALYSIS : RIGHT ABUTMENT, DAM-ROCK CONTACT ( HORIZONTAL PLANE + INCLINED TOE )
SLIDING ANALYSIS : TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT, FOUNDATIONS
SLIDING ANALYSIS : RIGHT ABUTMENT, FOUNDATIONS ( HORIZONTAL PLANE )
GIBE III
The graphs indicate the variation along the potential sliding surfaces of the following parameters :
o σn normal stresses ( from FEM modelling )

o τ shear stresses ( from FEM modelling )
o τres shear strength ( Hoek-Brown criteria )
The trend of the τres in the graph indicates that, as reasonable, the sliding strength substantially increases in
the downstream part of the sections together with the increase of the normal stresses. Therefore the
accurate control of the quality of the dam foundations surface will be particularly relevant in the downstream
half of the section.
The shear strength is constantly significantly higher than the shear stress obtained from the modeling.
The stress and strength peak at the downstream toe result from this linear FEM analysis and would be
strongly reduced considering a minor plasticization at the toe.
It is necessary to recall that the dam-rock contact for the typical right abutment section is modeled with a
horizontal section and inclined surface at the downstream toe.
This inclined toe substantially increases the sliding safety increasing also the stresses normal to the dam
rock foundation as observed in the graph.
The upstream plinth for the main sections and the right abutment one also slightly contributes to the sliding
resistance increasing the total length of the dam-rock contact and the generally the compressive stresses at
the toe.
The design of the plinth will be, however, completed during the Level 2 design phase of the project.
The main results of this analysis are summarized in the following tables which indicate for each modeled
sliding surface :
o Total sliding acting forces ( per m.l. )

o Total sliding resisting forces ( per m.l. )
o Safety factor against sliding
This values are given for all the loading conditions of the three dam section on the potential sliding surfaces
modeled.
GIBE III
Failure Plane Failure Plane Failure Plane

Load Condition
682 m a.s.l. 677 m a.s.l. 667 m a.s.l.
1 Unusual Construction
TRES = 505 MN TRES = 764 MN TRES = 805 MN
2 Usual Normal Operating T = 216 MN T = 227 MN T = 248 MN
FS = 2.3 FS = 3.4 FS = 3.3

Standard Project
3 Unusual T = 207 MN T = 217 MN T = 237 MN
Flood
FS = 2.3 FS = 3.4 FS = 3.3

Construction +
4 Extreme T = 24 MN T = 24 MN T = 24 MN
OBE
FS = 19 FS = 29.7 FS = 32.2

Normal Operating
+ OBE
FS = 2 FS = 2.9 FS = 2.9

Normal Operating
+ MCE
FS = 1.7 FS = 2.5 FS = 2.4

Probable Maximum
Flood
FS = 2.2 FS = 3.2 FS = 3.1

Normal Oper. +
8 Add 2 Ineffective T = 216 MN T = 227 MN T = 248 MN
Drainage
FS = 1.8 FS = 2.7 FS = 2.6
SLIDING ANALYSIS RESULTS : MAIN NON OVERFLOW SECTION - CH 0 + 311
GIBE III
Failure Plane Failure Plane Failure Plane

Load Condition
653 m a.s.l. 648 m a.s.l. 638 m a.s.l.
FS = 2.2 FS = 3.2 FS = 3.1

Standard Project
Flood
FS = 2.2 FS = 3.2 FS = 3.2

Construction +
OBE
FS = 19 FS = 28.6 FS = 30.6

Normal Operating
+ OBE
FS = 1.9 FS = 2.7 FS = 2.7

Normal Operating
+ MCE
FS = 1.6 FS = 2.3 FS = 2.3

Probable Maximum
Flood
FS = 2.1 FS = 3.1 FS = 3

Normal Oper. +
Drainage
FS = 1.7 FS = 2.6 FS = 2.5
SLIDING ANALYSIS RESULTS : MAIN OVERFLOW SECTION - CH 0 + 423
GIBE III
Failure Plane
Failure Plane Failure Plane
Load Condition 754 m a.s.l. +
749 m a.s.l. 739 m a.s.l.
incl. to 771 masl
FS = 4.1 FS = 3.7 FS = 3.7

Standard Project
Flood
FS = 4.3 FS = 4.0 FS = 4.0

Normal Operating
+ OBE
FS = 3.5 FS = 3.2 FS = 3.3

Normal Operating
+ MCE
FS = 2.9 FS = 2.7 FS = 2.8

Probable Maximum
Flood
FS = 4.1 FS = 3.7 FS = 3.7

Normal Oper. +
Drainage
FS = 3.4 FS = 3.2 FS = 3.2
SLIDING ANALYSIS RESULTS : TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT - CH 0 + 530
GIBE III
9.4 ADDITIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS
To complete the assessment of the stability in the foundation the following two additional analysis have
been carried out for the right abutment section :
• FEM modelling for sliding on the dam-rock contact
• Sensitivity analysis with reduced modulus of elasticity , E=5 GPa
The FEM analysis is extremely interesting since allows, as not possible with the classical wedge analysis, to
consider all the relevant effects of the downstream toe of rock for the dam stability.
The results from FEM are obtained as shear stresses and normal compressive stresses all along the dam-
rock contact surface.
The following graph shows the comparison of the shear stresses to the shear resistance.
SLIDING ANALYSIS : RIGHT ABUTMENT, DAM-ROCK CONTACT ( HOR. PLANE + INCL. TOE ) - FEM MODEL
Considering the whole contribution from the downstream toe the safety factor on the sliding surface
substantially increase from the FS = 4.1 ( FEM + WEDGE analysis ) up to :
• FS = 6.7
These results cannot be considered conservative and therefore are not currently adopted for this general
stability analysis. However represent of the effective condition encountered along the sliding surface further
confirming the reliability of the more conservative wedge analysis.
GIBE III
A sensitivity analysis is also carried out considering a lower modulus of elasticity in foundations of E=5Gpa.
The graphs included in the annexes shows the stresses obtained for each loading condition.
The sliding safety factors are practically hidenthycal to the ones obtained for the E=10 Gpa condition as
indicated in the following table :
Failure Plane
Foundation modulus Failure Plane Failure Plane
754 m a.s.l. +
Loading Condition 749 m a.s.l. 739 m a.s.l.
incl. to 771 masl
A E = 10 GPa Normal Operating T = 58 MN T = 97 MN T = 110 MN
FS = 4.1 FS = 3.7 FS = 3.7
B E = 5 GPa Normal Operating T = 58 MN T = 98 MN T = 109 MN
FS = 4.1 FS = 3.7 FS = 3.7
SLIDING ANALYSIS : RIGHT ABUTMENT, FOUND MODULUS E = 5Gpa – E = 10 GPa COMPARISON
9.5 CONCLUSIONS
The sliding stability analysis for the dam foundations has been carried out considering the following critical
potential sliding surfaces :
• Shear along concrete-rock contact

• Shear through jointed rock mass in foundations
The study indicates that the most critical condition is the normal operating, as expected considering the not
large earthquakes loads, the gated spillway ( n.d.r. which avoids critical sliding conditions while flooding )
The results of the study confirm that the general characteristics of the foundations are suitable for the RCC
gravity dam.
The following table recalls the main results of the analysis for the most critical loading conditions.
GIBE III
LOADING CONDITIONS
SECTION
USUAL SUPER-EXTREME EXTREME

FS > 2.0 FS > 1.1 FS > 1.3
DAM-ROCK 2.2 1.6 1.7
MAIN OVERFLOW
FOUNDATIONS 3.2 2.3 2.6
MAIN NON DAM-ROCK 2.3 1.7 1.8
OVERFLOW FOUNDATIONS 3.4 2.4 2.7
DAM-ROCK 4.1 2.9 3.4
RIGHT ABUTMENT
FOUNDATIONS, SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS – MAIN RESULTS
GIBE III
10 PRELIMINARY THERMAL ANALYSIS
10.1 INTRODUCTION
A preliminary “mass gradient” thermal sensitivity analysis has been completed for the Gibe III dam as described
in the present chapter.
The detailed analysis will be carried out after mix designs are undertaken and modified material properties are
established for jobsite mixes and materials.
10.2 BASIC ASSUMTPIONS AND METHODOLOGY
Material properties used in the initial basic thermal study were estimated for various mixes, based on the initial
tests using aggregates processed from raw material provided by the Gibe III site, using relationships that have
even established for mass RCC mixes of this type.
The preliminary mass gradient thermal analyses addressed the potential for thermal cracking deep in the mass
of the dam due to long term cooling to long term stable conditions. For this type of initial assessment it is
normal practice to use a one-dimensional model because it takes many years before there is any notable heat
loss from the interior of the dam to the upstream and downstream faces.
The exception is the upper portion of the dam where the distance from the interior to the upstream and
downstream faces is minimal, say less than about 20 meters. The detailed analyses should, however, consider a
two dimensional model for the full height of the dam.
The placing temperature was taken to be equivalent to the ambient temperature at that time for the time of
day, and day of the year, for each layer when it was placed. Site data accumulated to date was used for
ambient temperatures, with the temperature being increased by 0 to 3 degrees depending on the elevation
within the valley. Based on information at the jobsite, 3 degrees was added for RCC at the bottom of the valley,
transitioning to 0 degrees at the top of the dam. This represents the probable natural placing temperatures if
no cooling or temperature controls are enforced.
The basic initial study first considered four mixes, each having 75 kg/m3 of processed ash from the jobsite, with
cement contents of 65, 75, 95, and 115 kg/m3. Each of the four studies used the same mix placed from the
bottom to the top of the dam. Later supplemental mixes can combine various mixes for various portions of the
dam, as required to meet strength criteria for areas of different stresses.
For each of these mixes, a basic construction schedule was used that placed two lifts per day, with one lift
placed at 5 AM and one lift placed at 5 PM. This essentially represents placing 24 hrs per day, 7 days per week,
GIBE III
with one layer placed essentially every 12 hours. For each of these studies the construction start (first layer of
RCC) was taken to be the hotter part of the year, on 1 January. The foundation was exposed to ambient
conditions for five months before RCC, starting RCC.
The FEM model calculated temperatures at every 0.1 day (2.4 hours), with a node spacing of 300 mm. The
model used an adiabatic temperature rise over a time period of 1 year. The exposed lift surface was subjected
to the ambient temperature for that day of the year and time of day that occurred for each 2.4 hour time
increment. A slight breeze was considered at the lift surface.
An analysis was then made for the mix with 75 kg of cement, but the model started RCC six months later in the
cooler part of the year on 1 June.
Another analysis was made for the mix with 75 kg of cement, starting RCC on 1 January, and placing 2 layers
per day, but working 20 hours per day to avoid some of the hottest part of the day. In this case the lifts were
placed at 5 PM and midnight. Another run is being made to evaluate placing 20 hrs per day, but avoiding the
hottest 4 hours of the day (1 PM- 5 PM).
In order to get an idea of how much heat is lost or gained from the environment, two more thermal runs were
made of the basic mix with 75 kg of cement, starting 1 January, but placing all of the RCC from the bottom of
the dam to the top at one time. One run placed the RCC at a hotter time of the day with a mix placing
temperature of 33 C, and the other placed it at the average daily temperature for January of 26 C.
10.3 RESULTS
Results of the different thermal studies are summarized in the charts enclosed in this chapter.
One sheet is used to summarize results for each of the scenarios. The upper portion of each sheet shows the
ambient temperature and the temperature for each of eight selected nodes. As indicated in the table at the
bottom of the sheet, these nodes represent the following heights above the foundation: 0.0 meters, 5.1 meters,
9.9 meters, 15.0 meters, 20.1 meters, 39.9 meters, 60.0 meters, 120.0 meters, and 180.0 meters.
The table shows the internal and foundation restraint factors that apply for each of these heights in both the
longitudinal (parallel to axis of the dam) and transverse (upstream-downstream) directions.
The cooling time from peak temperature until probable long term stable thermal conditions is indicated for each
height, followed by the resulting strain capacity for that mix at that time, with consideration of changes in
modulus with time, plus expected creep relaxation. The table then compares the calculated thermal strain for
that mix and height in the dam (for both the transverse and longitudinal directions) to the maximum strain
GIBE III
capacity at that time. The table indicates “yes” or “no” whether or not the RCC can be expected to crack for
that mix, set of placing conditions, and mix.
A monolith joint spacing of 25 meters was used for this assessment and will be changed for the further detailed
studies. The upstream to downstream distance for longitudinal cracking as taken to be 175 meters at the base
of the dam for these initial studies.
Results show that some degree of cooling will be required for the dam, but not for all of it, if placing starts at
the hotter time of the year, but very little cooling control is required if placing starts at the coldest time of the
year. This applies to mixes with 75 kg of cement or less.Cooling will be required in order to control longitudinal
cracking for RCC placed in the warmer part of the year, and if more than 75 kg of cement is needed in the
central part of the dam at the foundation even if RCC starts in the cooler part of the year. This requires little
cooling if RCC starts in the cold part of the year, to substantial cooling primarily for the lower 25% of the
monolith height if RCC starts in the hot part of the year and uses a mix with 115 kg of cement.
This basic analysis does not allow to accurately develop a precise specification for cooling requirements.
However, based on the studies to date and also of the experience at other projects, a suggested initial
temperature controls assessment can be obtained. The current controls (subject to further revision based on
additional data and studies) are indicated here below.
In general, some cooling (or placement only during cool weather) will probably be necessary for RCC at the
foundation, but the need for cooling will decrease as the level of placement gets higher above the
foundation.
Therefore this study indicates that RCC shall be placed at temperatures conforming to the restrictions below.
If, however, placement in any monolith has stopped, and the top lift surface is exposed for 30 to 90 days,
the weighted average placing temperature for the next 10 meter rise in RCC shall not exceed 20 C-degrees.
If the surface is exposed for more than 90 days, the weighted average placing temperature of the next 10
meter rise shall not exceed 22 C degrees.
Terms are defined as follows:

• Placing temperature: The temperature of the mix after being delivered and spread, but before
compaction, determined by inserting a probe thermometer into the mix from the surface.
• Weighted average placing temperature:

(Volume of RCC placed each hour) x (Mix placing temperature for the hour)
(Total Volume for the time period)
GIBE III
The calculation shall be a moving average based on the previous 24 hours for the monolith block or
placement area.
Maximum Weighted Average Placing Temperature (C-degrees)

100% cement weight in the mix
+ 20% of the pozzolan weight in the mix (Kg/m3)
(h/H) 1 < 80 >80 to 90 >90 to 100 >100 to 110 >110 to 120 >120 to
130
> 30% 31 30 29 28 27 26
25% - 30% 30 29 28 27 26 25
20% - 25% 29 28 27 26 25 24
15% - 20% 27 26 25 24 23 22
10% - 15% 25 24 23 22 21 20
5% - 10% 23 22 21 20 19 18
< 5% 22 21 20 19 18 17
1
Proportional Height
h = height above the foundation
H = final height of the completed monolith block
In addition to the controls for RCC, conventional “leveling” concrete (if used) and any mass conventional
concrete at the foundation or base of any monolith block shall have a placing temperature not to exceed 17
C-degrees. The temperature of conventional concrete shall be measured 20 minutes after mixing or
immediately after vibration, whichever comes last. No leveling or fill concrete shall have a planned
construction joint other than horizontal lift joints. Each lift of leveling or other conventional concrete shall
extend across the entire monolith from one form face to the opposite form face, or within the confines of the
foundation.
Conventional dental fill concrete below any RCC shall be placed at a temperature not to exceed:
Maximum Placing
Temperature (C)
0 to 10 m3 or less than 1 m deep 28
10 to 30 m3 or less than 1.5 m deep 25
3
30 to 200 m 23
*More than 200 m3 22
The charts below summarize the results of the sensitivity analysis carried out.
GIBE III
GIBE III
GIBE III
GIBE III
GIBE III
GIBE III
GIBE III
GIBE III
GIBE III
11 CONCLUSIONS
11.1 GENERAL
This report illustrates the general assessment of the gravity dam stability analyzing :
• the stability against sliding on potential failure surfaces
• the stresses in the dam structure
The following typical sections have been considered representative of the gravity dam :
• Main overflow ( ch 0+423 )
• Main non overflow ( ch 0+311 )
• Typical right abutment ( ch 0+530 )
The sliding analysis has been therefore carried out on the potentially critical failure surfaces within the dam
body (n.d.r construction joints), at the dam-rock-contact and within the foundations on kinematically
possible failure surfaces.
The results of the study confirm that the general characteristics of the foundations are suitable for the RCC
gravity dam as indicated in the following paragraph.
The preliminary thermal sensitivity analysis has also been carried estimating the cooling control requirements
for the RCC.
11.2 STRESS ANALYSIS
The table below shows the maximum and minimum allowable stresses for each RCC layer.

f'c
> 15 6 0 9.0 0.36 13.5 0.91
> 12 4.8 0 7.2 0.32 10.8 0.79
>10 4.0 0 6.0 0.28 9.0 0.70
>7 2.8 0 4.2 0.22 6.3 0.55
RCC ALLOWABLE STRESSES
GIBE III
The main results of the stress analysis are briefly summarized in the following table indicating principal
stresses for :
• the most relevant loading conditions (construction, normal operating, MCE)

• the foundations and a horizontal plane in the dam structure about 20 m above foundations
LOADING EL MAIN NON TYPICAL RIGHT

MAIN OVERFLOW
CONDITION OVERFLOW ABUTMENT
N u/s N d/s N u/s N d/s N u/s N d/s
m a.s.l. Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa
found. -3.9 -1.6 -3.3 -1.3 -2.2* -0.5*

CONSTRUCTION
673/702/774 -4.6 -1.8 -3.8 -1.4 -1.9 -0.7
NORMAL found. -1.6 -4.5 -1.4 -3.8 -1.4* -3.1*

OPERATING 673/702/774 -1.2 -6.0 -1.1 -5.0 -1.1 -2.0
NORMAL OP. + found. 0.3 -6.0 0.17 -5.1 -1.0* -4.1*

MCE 673/702/774 1.1 -8.2 0.8 -6.8 -0.1 -2.8
RIGID BODY – MAIN RESULTS OF STRESS ANALYSIS NEARBY FOUNDATIONS

* obtained from FEM modelling
Along the dam upstream face no tensile stresses are found unless for the earthquake loading conditions.
The highest compressive stresses are lower than the allowable ones.
The comparison between the rigid body and the Finite Element Analysis generally shows quite similar results
with more “flat” stress curves and peaks nearby toes in the FEM.
11.3 DAM – STABILITY ANALYSIS
The sliding stability analysis has been carried out considering the potential sliding surfaces within the dam
structure at about 20 m of distance.
The results of the analysis confirm that the design characteristics of the roller compacted concrete dam
structure are adequate to guarantee the stability against sliding along the RCC dam constructions joints.
GIBE III
The following table recalls the main results of the analysis for the most critical loading conditions :
LOADING CONDITIONS
SECTION
Description-elevat. USUAL SUPER-EXTREME EXTREME

m a.s.l. FS > 2.0 FS > 1.1 FS > 1.3
lower - 673 2.5 1.7 2.0
MAIN OVERFLOW
mid-height – 753 2.7 1.8 2.2
MAIN NON lower - 702 2.6 1.8 2.1
OVERFLOW mid-height – 778 2.5 1.7 2.0
lower - 774 2.7 1.8 2.2
RIGHT ABUTMENT
mid-height – 818 2.5 1.7 2.1
DAM, SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS – MAIN RESULTS
11.4 FOUNDATIONS – STABILITY ANALYSIS
The most relevant lithological types found along the RCC gravity dam foundations are:
• U-T Unweathered trachyte

• SW-T Slightly Weathered Trachyte ( locally with SA-T, Slightly Altered Trachyte )
The river bed, being not yet fully investigated, has been conservatively modelled for this general stability
analysis adopting the SW-T mechanical properties in lieu of the U-T rock layer generally found.
While the left abutment shows a quite homogeneous unweathered trachyte outcropping, the right abutment
slope exposes SW-T with locally variable characteristics, related also to a slight hydrothermal alteration.
The structure of the rock mass if generally favourable for the foundations since no weak planes
subhorizontal, or subparallel to the dam excavations, were found.
The foundations geological structure study [11] indicates that relevant kinematically feasible modes of failure
along discontinuities ( i.e. joints, faults , etc. ) have currently not been found since the main joints sets are
sub-vertical being sub-parallel ( 75 / 280 ) and sub-orthogonal ( 80 / 000 ) to the Omo river.
GIBE III
The strength of the concrete-rock contact is currently assumed analyzing tests results from existing dams.
Particularly conservative design parameters are adopted ( n.d.r. exceeded in more than 90 % of the dams
which include also some old dams with poor foundations treatment or rock quality ) as follows :
• c’ = 0.3 MPa
• φ’ = 50 °
Conservative assumptions are also adopted for this general stability assessment including :
• The dam-rock failure surface is assumed planar neglecting contribution from undulations
• Sliding strength of the surface below the plinth are not considered
• Rock wedges downstream and upstream of the dam foundations are not considered
The results of the sliding stability analysis indicate that the most critical condition is the normal operating, as
expected, because of the not large earthquakes loads and of the gated spillway ( n.d.r. which avoids critical
sliding conditions while flooding ).
The following table summarizes the main results of the analysis :
LOADING CONDITIONS
SECTION
USUAL SUPER-EXTREME EXTREME

FS > 2.0 FS > 1.1 FS > 1.3
DAM-ROCK 2.2 1.6 1.7
MAIN OVERFLOW
MAIN NON DAM-ROCK 2.3 1.7 1.8
OVERFLOW FOUNDATIONS 3.4 2.4 2.7
DAM-ROCK 4.1 2.9 3.4
RIGHT ABUTMENT
FOUNDATIONS, SLIDING STABILITY ANALYSIS – MAIN RESULTS
The results of the study therefore confirms that the general characteristics of the foundations are suitable
for the RCC gravity dam.
GIBE III
12 REFERENCES
[1] US Army Corps of Engineers, “Gravity dam design”, EM 1110-2-2200, 1995
[2] EEPCO “Gibe III EPC Contract Amendment ( RCC DAM ) – Annex 2 - Design Criteria”, April 2008
[3] United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Gravity Dams, 1976
[4] Italian code for dam design : “Norme tecniche per la progettazione e la costruzione delle dighe di
sbarramento”. Italian ministry of public works, March 1982
[5] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Engineering guidelines for the evaluation of the
hydropower project – part 3 : Gravity dams ”, 2002
[6] United states Bureau of reclamation, “Design of small dams”, 2006
[7] EEPCO, Gibe III, Level 1 Design, “300 HYD RSP 002A sedimentation study report – April 2007”,
Studio Pietrangeli, Salini Costruttori
[8] Fell, MacGregor, Stapledon, Bell, “Geotechnical engineering of dams” pg. 693
[9] EEPCO, Gibe III, Level 1 Design, “300 GEN RBR 001A seismic hazard assessment – February
2007”, Salini Costruttori
[10] R. Fell, P Mac Gregor, D. Stapledon, G. Bell, “Geotechnical Engineering of dams”, Balkema, 2005
[11] EEPCO, Gibe III, Level 1 Design, “321 GEN R SP RMK 001 A, Dam foundations geotechnical report –
July 2008”, Studio Pietrangeli, Salini Costruttori
[12] EEPCO, Gibe III, Level 1 Design, “300 GEN RSP 005A RCC dam, Alternative 3 powerhouse on the
river bank– October 2007”, Studio Pietrangeli, Salini Costruttori

321 Sta R SP 001a Dam Stability - Main Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

321 Sta R SP 001a Dam Stability - Main Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

321 Sta R SP 001a Dam Stability - Main Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GIBE III

LEVEL 1 DESIGN DAM – STABILITY REPORT - JULY 08 page 1 of 82

321 STA D SP 006 OVERFLOW BLOCK LOADS APPLICATION SCHEME

321 STA D SP 003 NON OVERFLOW BLOCK LOADS APPLICATION SCHEME

321 STA D SP 009 TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT LOADS APPLICATION SCHEME

The study is based on :

• Main overflow section ( spillway block ) ch 0+423

• The main ones ( i.e. highest ) of each type

• fck > 7 Mpa ( from crest to el 800 m a.s.l. )

• fck > 10 Mpa ( from el 800 to 760 m a.s.l. )

• fck > 12 Mpa ( from el 760 to 730 m a.s.l. )

• fck > 15 Mpa ( from el 730 m a.s.l. to the foundations )

2.2 MAIN OVERFLOW ( SPILLWAY )

• H = 243 m max. height above foundations

2.3 MAIN NON OVERFLOW ( GRAVITY )

• H = 214 m max. height above foundations

2.4 TYPICAL RIGHT ABUTMENT

• H = 142 m max. height above foundations

3 METHODOLOGY AND BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

The results of the analysis allow the assessment of the :

• Stability against sliding of the structure

3.2 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

The main characteristic of the calculation methods adopted are as follows :

• The gravity method ( rigid body ) assumes that :

• The bidimensional finite element modelling carried out is based on :

3.3 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Materials fck Mass density Young’s Modulus Poisson ratio

RCC - lower layer > 15 23.5 18 000 0.20

3.4 WEDGE SLIDING ANALYSIS

The following loads have been considered acting on the structure :

4.2 RESERVOIR LOADS

• the Normal Operating Condition level 892 m a.s.l.

4.3 TAILWATER PRESSURE

4.4 UPLIFT PRESSURES

4.5 SILT PRESSURE

4.6 EARTHQUAKE FORCES

Reservoir Tailwater Effective

m a.s.l. m a.s.l. m a.s.l. m a.s.l. E

2 USUAL NORMAL OPERATING 892.0 680.5 680.5 689.0 0,67 NO

3 UNUSUAL DESIGN FLOOD 887.5 696 687.6 689.0 0,67 NO

SUPER NORMAL OPERATING

6.2 SLIDING SAFETY FACTORS

FS =TF / T = (N tan φ cL)/T

N = resultant of forces normal to the assumed sliding plane

Loading Condition Minimum Sliding FS

SUPER EXTREME 1.1

Sliding safety factors

6.3 RCC JOINTS STRENGHT

Mpa deg kPa

RCC joints design strength

6.4 ROCK MASS STRENGHT

CHAINAGE MAIN ROCK UNIT

RIVER BED 0+300 0+460 SW-T

0+460 0+620 80% SW-T, 20 % SA-T

DAM FOUNDATIONS : TYPICAL ZONES

ROCK HOEK – BROWN CLASSIFICATION HOEK – BROWN CRITERION

B 300 65 25 0 7.16 0.0205 0.502