Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1304–1311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Collapse mechanisms at the foundation interface of geometrically similar

concrete gravity dams
Gabriella Bolzon ∗
Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy

article info abstract

Article history: A computationally effective numerical procedure is introduced to evaluate safety factors and collapse
Received 31 August 2009 mechanisms of geometrically similar structures with dilatant frictional joints like concrete gravity dams.
Received in revised form The envisaged methodology, alternative to the more traditional step-by-step integration of the governing
11 January 2010
rate equations, rests on the solution of a constrained minimization problem endowed with a closed-form
Accepted 14 January 2010
Available online 10 February 2010
algebraic formulation, under the hypothesis that damage evolves along structural joints while the bulk
material remains linear elastic.
Keywords:
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Structural failure
Collapse mechanisms
Concrete gravity dams
Frictional joints
Mathematical programming

1. Introduction some decimeters (for centrifuge experiments) to a few meters, ver-

The overall structural strength of concrete dams is controlled by
the presence of natural or artificial discontinuity surfaces like con-
struction joints, foundation and abutment interfaces, cracks, which
significantly affect the load-carrying capacity and the failure mode
of these large structures. The experimental determination of mean-
ingful mechanical characteristics of the relevant joints is therefore
particular desirable for the purpose of construction, retrofitting or
repair. At the present time, however, the evaluation of these pa-
rameters is rather troublesome and parametric studies are com-
monly carried out in this engineering field to account for large
uncertainties [1–4].
Mechanical parameters like fracture energy, cohesion and fric-
tion along sliding planes play an important role in dam engineering
as well as in geomechanics, soil-structure interaction problems, for
slope stability analysis and landslide control, where local variabil-
ity, hydrometric conditions and climate changes suggest statisti-
cal approaches based on recursive computations; see, e.g. [5–10].
Recursive calculations are also required by parameter identifica-
tion procedures based on laboratory testing and inverse analy-
sis [11–15].
The experimental testing of dam structures with their re-
lated joints, if available, is necessarily performed on scale mod-
els, the main dimensions of laboratory specimens ranging from
∗ Tel.: +39 02 2399 4319; fax: +39 02 2399 4220.
E-mail address: gabriella.bolzon@polimi.it.
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.008
sus full-scale dimensions of dozens of meters; see, e.g. [16–20].
Geometrical similitude can be recovered also in real scale applica-
tions for some dam typology [2]. However, simple energy consid-
erations show that scaling of the structural response is non-linear,
in this context, due to the different spatial dimension of the loca-
tions where reversible and irreversible phenomena take place; in
particular, elastic strain energy is stored in the bulk material while
dissipation occurs along the joint surfaces [21,22].
An effective description of the structural response of concrete
dams rests on the assumption of linear elastic behavior outside the
discontinuity surfaces like joints and cracks, which are endowed
with softening constitutive laws relating tractions to displacement
discontinuities, in the spirit of the discrete cohesive crack approach
introduced by Hillerborg [23,24]. Quite interestingly, the cohesive
crack approach can also be interpreted from micromechanical
perspectives [25].
The discrete crack approach, together with the simplifying but
reasonable, in this context, assumption of proportional loading,
monotonically increasing with the structural degradation up to
failure, leads to a convenient numerical procedure, different to the
step-by-step integration of the governing rate equations, for the
evaluation of safety factors and failure modes of quasi-brittle ge-
ometrically similar structures with dilatant frictional joints at re-
duced costs.
This approach has been exploited in [26] considering pure
opening fracture mode for brittle interfaces, where the actual
shape of the cohesive law is immaterial. In the hypothesis that the
 G. Bolzon / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1304–1311 1305

onset of crack propagation corresponds to structural failure (un-

stable crack propagation), with negligible friction effects, the only
important parameter is the specific fracture energy. These assump-
tions permit one to derive semi-analytical solutions, useful also for
comparison purposes.
In the present paper, the methodology is exploited to under-
stand the role of mixed-mode fracture on the overall response of
concrete gravity dams. No a priori assumption is made about the
failure mode, which is returned by the computations.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Cohesive crack models for dilatant frictional joints

a
Frictional contact and quasi-brittle fracture are peculiar aspects
of the mechanical response of concrete and rock joints that can
be described (both in total terms and in rates) by softening in-
terface laws relating tractions to displacement discontinuities.
The rate problem formulation and time-integration procedures
are required to accurately describe history-dependent irreversible
phenomena. Still, path-independent (holonomic, fictitiously re-
versible) models are admissible under proportional external ac-
tions, leading to failure with monotonically increasing material
degradation, as hypothesized by the classical ‘‘deformation theory’’
of plasticity [27–31]. This is the reference context of the present
work.
The mechanical contribution of the joint to the overall struc-
tural behavior can be described starting from the components tn
and tt of the interface traction vector t, in normal and tangential
direction, respectively. Let tnu and ttu represent the initial strength
of the undamaged joint in pure tensile and pure shear mode. Inter-
facial resistance is supposed to be progressively reduced by damag-
ing phenomena such as wear and cracking, so that t̄n (0 ≤ t̄n ≤ tnu )
and t̄t (0 ≤ t̄t ≤ ttu ), collected by vector t̄, represent the current
strength values, tnu and ttu being their upper limits. Shear strength
t̄t is supposed to be increased or decreased by friction, depending
on the sign of the normal stress tn , here assumed to be positive in
tension. Hence, interface tractions must satisfy the restrictions:

− t̄t − µtn ≤ tt ≤ t̄t − µtn

tn ≤ t̄n ;
where µ represents the friction coefficient, here assumed to be a
constant. This restriction could be removed to account for different
frictional effects occurring under static and kinetic, or dry and wet,
conditions without substantial changes of the mathematical struc-
ture of the present problem; see e.g. [30]. The coefficient µ might
also depend on internal variables, e.g. for cycling loading, consid-
ered in [11,12] but ruled out from the present context, where exter-
nal actions are supposed to increase monotonically up to structural
failure.
The initial strength domain defined by relationships (1) as
t̄n = tnu , t̄t = ttu , is represented by the thick lines of Fig. 1(a). This
domain evolves, with the interface degradation, toward the pure
Coulomb’s frictional limit situation represented by dashed lines;
an intermediate state is visualized by dash-dotted lines.
Interface degradation can be related to the total amount of
unrecoverable opening and sliding displacements wn and wt ,
which can be expressed in terms of the non-negative kinematics
‘‘internal’’ variables λn and λt (or λ−t when reversing the sliding
direction) collected by vector λ, as follows:
wn = λn + µ̃ (λt + λ−t )

wt = λt − λ−t
where µ̃ denotes the dilatancy associated to the joint roughness;
see, e.g., [11] and references therein.
(1)
b
Fig. 1. Graphical representation of an exponential interface model.
The interface degradation is described through some softening
function t̄ (λ), as in [30,31]. Among the possible choices, the
exponential decay illustrated in Fig. 1(b) will be considered in
the following application; functions t̄ (λ) are therefore analytically
defined by:
t̄n = tnu e−αλn −γ (λt +λ−t )

(3)
t̄t = ttu e−δλn −β(λt +λ−t )
where parameters α and β can be related to the specific fracture
energies GI = tnu /α and GII = ttu /β , graphically represented by the
dashed areas in Fig. 1(b). Parameters α and β can be alternatively
related to the strength decay rate; in particular, for uncoupled
(2) degradation (i.e., for γ = δ = 0), the residual strengths t̄n , t̄t equal
5% their original tnu , ttu values when λn = 3/α , λt = 3/β . These
quantities can be derived from specific experiments carried out
on concrete to rock block assemblies; see e.g. [12]. However, real
1306 G. Bolzon / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1304–1311

Relations (1) can be expressed in matrix form, more suited to

computations, as follows:

1 0   1 0  
" # " #
t̄n tn
0 1 − µ 1 = aT t̄ − cT t ≥ 0 (5)
t̄t tt
0 1 µ −1
where, clearly:

µ µ
   
1 0 0 1
a≡ ; c≡ . (6)
0 1 1 0 1 −1
Analogously, relation (2) reads:
 ( λn )
wn µ̃ µ̃
  
1
w≡ = λt = c̃λ (7)
wt 0 1 −1
λ −t
with evident definition of matrix c̃.
Independently of the analytical expression of functions t̄ (λ),
the relationships governing the assumed interface behavior can
be cast in the following compact format of a complementarity
problem (CP), which entails orthogonality between the two sign-
constrained vectors, λ and ϕ:

Fig. 2. Benchmark problem [26,32].
joint conditions are rather difficult to reproduce in laboratory and
large uncertainties are expected. Parametric studies are therefore
of paramount importance in most related applications.
2.2. Structural response
Linear elasticity is assumed to describe the bulk material re-
sponse, outside the joint location, in the hypothesis of small strains
and displacements, well justified in the quasi-brittle context to be
investigated herein. This linear background permits one to exploit
the superposition principle, in particular to express the relation-
ship between traction and displacement discontinuity distribution
at the interface 0 , i.e. between the vector functions t(ξ) and w(ξ0 ),
respectively, by the integral equations:
Z are usually gathered under the assumption of reversibility even if
X
t(ξ) = sk tEk (ξ) + z(ξ, ξ0 )w(ξ0 )dξ0
k 0
where: ξ and ξ0 are coordinate systems spanning the interface 0
(see e.g. Fig. 2); vectors tEk (ξ) denote elastic tractions generated at
the interface by unit external actions in the absence of displace-
ment discontinuities, i.e. in a fictitious elastic regime; scalars sk
indicate the amplification factor of each external action; matrix
z(ξ, ξ0 ) collects the set of the influence functions pertaining to a
distribution of distortions assigned along 0 in the fictitious elastic
body.
Relations (1)–(4) define the dependence of the traction vector t
on the displacement discontinuities w and, hence, on the here as-
sumed internal variables λ. The final aim is to determine the max-
imum amplification factor sk associated to variable loads (e.g., the
maximum water level in the dam reservoir) compatible with the
structural strength, and the corresponding failure mode.
3. Computing issues
The discrete crack approach can be profitably employed in nu-
merical analyses based on finite element (FE) or boundary element
(BE) modeling [33,34], as follows.
ϕ ≡ aT t̄(λ) − cT t ≥ 0 λ ≥ 0 ϕT λ = 0. (8)
The CP (8) implies that relations (1) and, hence, (5) hold true as
strict inequalities as λ = 0 and t̄n = tnu , t̄t = ttu ; correspondingly,
no irreversible displacement wn or wt develops at the interface in
the normal and tangential direction, respectively; see (2) or (7).
As any component λi (i = n, t , −t ) is positive, then the relevant
traction component ti equals the interfacial strength t̄i . Notice also
that CP (8) implies λ−t = 0 if λt 6= 0, and vice-versa, when tt 6= 0.
Relationships (8) return the actual description of the joint be-
haviour when the internal variables λi increase monotonically in
time, so that the structural response to external actions corre-
sponds to progressive damage growth without local unloading.
This holonomy assumption, which implies a fictitiously reversible
system response, represents a reasonable simplification of the real
problem when effectiveness in terms of computing time and cost
is a priority, whereas accuracy can be sacrificed to some extent.
Comparison between the results of previous holonomic and non-
holonomic (rate-dependent) analyses [31,35] showed that reliable
results in terms of overall load carrying capacity and failure mode
local effects are not always well captured.
(4)
3.1. Discretised problem
The primary unknowns of the present problem are the traction
and the displacement discontinuity fields, t(ξ) and w(ξ), defined
over the interface 0 . These fields can be approximated by the in-
terpolation, through the functions collected by matrices Mw (ξ),
Mt (ξ), of the corresponding discretisation (usually nodal) vari-
ables, say T and W, as common in FE and BE approaches [31,33,
36,37,34]:
w(ξ) = Mw (ξ)W, t(ξ) = Mt (ξ)T. (9)
Interpolation functions collected by matrices Mw (ξ) and Mt (ξ)
can be profitably defined over 0 in interrelated way; for instance,
following [37]:
Z
MTw Mt dξ = I (10)
0
where I represents the identity matrix of order (nD · nN )×(nD · nN ),
nD being the spatial dimension of the problem (nD = 1, 2, 3) and nN
the number of the discretisation points (nodes) along the selected
interface.
 G. Bolzon / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1304–1311
Relations (9) and (10) show that variables T coincide with
equivalent nodal forces since:
Z Z
T= MTw (ξ)t(ξ)dξ.
0 0
With these provisions, the discrete (weak) counterparts of the
integral equations (4) read:
X 8 = AT T̄(Λ) − CT ZC̃3 −
T= sk TEk + ZW
k 8T 3 = 0.
where T and TEk are nodal forces, in accordance with (10) and (11),
while the influence matrix Z, symmetric and semi-definite in sign,
is formally obtained as
Z Z
Z= MTw (ξ)z(ξ, ξ0 )Mw (ξ0 )dξdξ0 .
0 0
In a standard displacement-based FE context, matrix Z can be
simply derived from the usual stiffness matrix K by condensation
of all the out-of-0 discretisation variables; see [36,37].
It is worth recalling that:
(i) due to the assumed linear elastic background, matrix K can be
formed, partitioned and inverted once for all at the beginning
of the analysis to derive the corresponding Z matrix;
(ii) matrix K, and therefore Z, are independent of the actual dimen-
sions for self-similar and similarly discretised structures;
(iii) in self-similar structures, vectors TE are proportional to DnL ,
where D represent the characteristic structural dimension; see
e.g. Fig. 2 and nL = 1, 2, 3 for line, surface and volume loads,
respectively.
As local equilibrium equations are replaced by their weak form,
the interface constitutive law can be reformulated in global terms
as well, using the same weight and shape functions introduced
before for static and kinematics variables, as follows:
ϕ(ξ) = MTt (ξ)8, λ(ξ) = MTw (ξ)3.
Then, due to the orthogonality condition (10):
Z Z
8= MTw (ξ)ϕ(ξ)dξ, 3= MTt (ξ)λ(ξ)dξ.
0 0
Therefore, the discretised version of the CP (8) reads:
8 = AT T̄(3) − CT T ≥ 0 3 ≥ 0 8T 3 = 0
where matrices A and C collect constant terms:
Z Z
A= MTt (ξ)aMw (ξ)dξ, C= MTt (ξ)cMw (ξ)dξ.
0 0
A proper ordering of the nodal variables collected by vector 3 may
reduce A and C to block matrices, each block coinciding with the
corresponding local matrix a or c. This characteristic derives also
from the assumed orthogonality between Mw and Mt , relation (10).
Vector T̄(3) collects the discrete counterpart of the current
interface strength functions t̄(λ), weighted according to (11) or,
equivalently, (15), account taken of the interpolation (14):
Z Z
T̄(3) = MTw t̄(λ)dξ = MTw t̄(Mw 3)dξ.
0 0
These integrals can often be given an explicit form; this is for in-
stance the case of exponential decay and linear shape functions
considered for the present application, see [31].
The final formulation of the structural problem in point is ob-
tained by the combination of the finite-dimensional CP (16), gov-
erning the interface response, with the discretised form of the
equilibrium equations (12), relevant to the linear elastic behavior
1307
of the bulk material, account taken of the compatibility relation-
ship (7), which can also be re-written as:
(11) W = C̃3, C̃ = MTt (ξ)c̃Mw (ξ)dξ (19)
to return:
X
sk CT TEk ≥ 0 3 ≥ 0
(12) k (20)
Notice that, generally, matrix CT ZC̃ is neither symmetric nor sign
definite.
3.2. Solution strategies
(13)
The CP (20) can be solved for any given set of load multipli-
ers sk by dedicated software; see, e.g. [29] and references therein.
Usually, some factors sk in relations (20) are fixed (e.g., those rel-
evant to self-weight) while variable loads are amplified by some
common term, say: sk = ηŝk , with given ŝk . The maximum sustain-
able load can then be sought by increasing η in repeated analyses,
with the maximum allowable η multiplier singled out by lack of
solution.
More consistently, the maximum η-value (say ηopt ) and the cor-
responding deformation mode are the result of the following con-
strained optimization problem (OP):
 
ηopt = min −η s.t. : 8(η, 3) ≥ 0, 3 ≥ 0, 8(η, 3)T 3 = 0 (21)


η,3
with the expression of 8(η, 3) derived from (20).
The optimization problem (21) has the format of a so-called
mathematical program with equilibrium (here, complementarity)
constraint (MPEC). Details on MPECs and on the relevant solving
procedures can be found, for example, in [38] and in the references
therein.
(14)
One possible approach consists of transforming the MPEC (21)
into a more standard constrained OP by relaxing the rather nasty
complementarity constraint, namely:
(15)  
ηopt = min −η + κ 8(η, Λ)T 3 s.t. : 8(η, 3) ≥ 0, 3 ≥ 0 . (22)


η,3
Factor κ introduced with (22) represents a penalty coefficient,
(16) iteratively adjusted (usually, progressively increased) to force the
non-negative complementarity term to reduce to zero as the
optimum point is approached [29,35,39].
A multi-criteria optimization problem is defined as two or more
(17)
load factors vary independently one from the other [40]. This situ-
ation is frequently reduced to a standard OP by the combination of
the different objectives into a single scalar fitness function, e.g. by
a sum weighted with positive factors ωi :
nv
X
ηeq = ωi ηi ωi > 0. (23)
i=1
Optimal sets of ηi multipliers are to be considered for various
combinations of the weights ωi . Efficient formulations and opti-
(18) misation solvers are hence quite mandatory for this class of prob-
lems [41].
The first-order sequential quadratic programming (SQP) algo-
rithm available in a widely used optimisation toolbox [42] can be
efficiently exploited in the present context, as shown in the next
section. SQP considers a sequence of quadratic approximation of
the Lagrangian function that incorporates the original function to
be minimised and its non-linear constraints. The solution is then
sought by gradient-based techniques. Gradients are also exploited
1308 G. Bolzon / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1304–1311

to build up some approximation to the Hessian of the Lagrangian a

function (no second-order derivatives are evaluated).
Significant savings and increased computing efficiency can be
gained by the non-conventional approach followed in this paper
since the integral functions 8(η, 3) are given in explicit form and °
derivatives can be evaluated analytically.
The presence of multiple minimum points cannot be ruled
out in the present context. The problem is in fact non-convex by
its very nature, even in its rate formulation; see e.g. [39]. Local
and global minima can however be discerned by the following
procedure. Once one optimum value of the load multiplier, say η̂opt ,
has been obtained, check whether the CP (20) can return a solution
for the augmented load factor η = η̂opt + 1η. This computation
may be performed by the same software used for the OP (21) since
the CP (20) can be reformulated as:

min 8(Λ)T 3 s.t. : 8(η, 3) ≥ 0, 3 ≥ 0 .


(24)
b
3
°
°
If such a solution does not exist, than η̂opt is the sought absolute
maximum. °

4. Case study

The failure mechanism of frictional-cohesive structures can be

rather different depending on a few characteristic parameters, like
cohesion and friction angle, which can be hardly quantified with a
reliable confidence level. The approach considered in this paper is
flexible enough to capture the salient features of each situation at
reduced computing costs. Therefore, parametric studies like those
summarized in this section can be carried out quite easily.
The considered benchmark problem, originally proposed by the
International Committee on Large Dams (ICOLD) [32], analyses a
typical section of a concrete gravity dam; see Fig. 2. Fracture at the
foundation interface is hypothesized, promoted by hydraulic pres-
sure and resisted by the self-weight of the structure and by the
interfacial strength, enhanced by friction. Both the dam concrete
and the foundation rock are considered to be impervious. Uplift
pressure may act on the dam-foundation interface as detaching oc-
curs. Structural safety is quantified by the overtopping water level
sustainable by the structure in the hypothetical case of overflow.
Dynamic effects are not taken into account. This situation has al-
ready been considered in [26], where an initial notch (1/10 of
the interface length) has been introduced to the dam geometry
proposed by ICOLD [32] to allow comparison with linear elastic
fracture mechanics (LEFM) approaches, which cannot predict crack
initiation. Although this limitation is overcome by the cohesive–
crack approach pursued here, the notch is kept in the present study
to permit comparison with already available reference results.
Following [26], uplift forces are either neglected (which would
be possible in engineering practice only in the presence of a perfect
drainage system) or uniformly distributed without any reduction
of the hydrostatic value, as schematized in Fig. 2 for the initial
notch.
Computations are based on a plane strain model (nD = 2, see
Section 3.1), which allows for a simpler representation of the
results. In the model, concrete is assumed linear elastic, charac-
terized by Young’s modulus E = 24 GPa, Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.15
and weight density γc = 24 kN/m3 . The dam body is discretised
by means of about 3000 4-node plane elements but most degrees
of freedom (DOFs) are condensed in a reduced 110 × 110 stiffness
matrix (concerning 55 nodes × 2 DOFs), as explained, for example,
in [36]. Rigid foundation is considered due to the lack of informa-
tion about the soil. However, the overall problem dimension and,
hence, the computational burden would not change by a detailed
representation of an even larger foundation volume, provided it
were linear elastic, as often assumed, since soil stiffness would
°
Fig. 3. The maximum sustainable overtopping water level as a function of the
characteristic structural dimension D in the presence (a) and in the absence (b) of
uplift forces. Continuous lines show predictions obtained from either LEFM (curve
lines) for Mode I crack propagation or limit equilibrium state through rigid body
consideration (straight lines). Numerical results are given for the following interface
properties: maximum shear strength ttu = 0.7 MPa and friction angle φ = 30°
(empty circles ◦), 35° (empty triangles 4) and 45° (empty diamonds ); ttu = 5 MPa
and φ = 45° (filled squares ).
be eventually reflected by the entries of matrix Z only. Possible
discontinuity planes in the foundation rock could be taken into
account as well, although not done in the present demonstrative
example.
Self-similar structures of different characteristic size D are con-
sidered, having in mind some dam typology [2] and scale models
for laboratory testing. In the present approach, D affects the load-
ing vectors TEk , while matrix Z remains unaltered. The intensity of
all applied forces but overtopping water pressure and the corre-
sponding uplift, if any, is fixed. The maximum sustainable overtop-
ping water level is then assumed as a measure of the overall load
carrying capacity of these similar structures.
Mode I fracture characteristics of the foundation joint are those
already considered in [26,31], namely: tensile strength tnu = 1 MPa
and specific fracture energy GI = 90 J/m2 . The influence of the
remaining interface parameters on the overall structural strength
is the subject of a parametric study.
Figs. 3–7 summarize the results of analyses performed by as-
suming shear strength tnu = 0.7 MPa and fracture energy GII =
270 J/m2 (or, equivalently, β = 2 mm−1 ) as in ICOLD bench-
mark [32], characterized by rather brittle interface behavior, or
tnu = 5 MPa and GII = 2500 J/m2 (maintaining β = 2 mm−1 ).
Friction angle φ is given the values 30°, 35° or 45°. The coupling be-
tween interface damaging modes is neglected, setting γ = δ = 0,
to allow for an easier interpretation of the results; analogously,
dilatancy µ̃ = 0.
 G. Bolzon / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1304–1311
Fig. 4. Distribution of opening/sliding interface displacement at failure for
D = 40 m in the presence of uplift forces (ttu = 0.7 MPa).
Fig. 5. Distribution of opening/sliding interface displacement at failure for
D = 80 m in the presence of uplift forces (ttu = 0.7 MPa).
Results are given in terms of the maximum load multiplier η̂opt ,
which affects the overtopping water level, and of the correspond-
ing failure mode described by the distribution of opening/sliding
displacements along the foundation interface 0 . Displacement dis-
continuities are recovered from the 3 vector returned by (21) as
1309
Fig. 6. Distribution of opening/sliding interface displacement at failure for
D = 40 m in the absence of uplift forces (ttu = 0.7 MPa).
Fig. 7. Distribution of opening/sliding interface displacement at failure for
D = 240 m in the absence of uplift forces (ttu = 0.7 MPa).
part of the problem solution, through the compatibility relation-
ships (19). Notice that the graphical representation in Figs. 4–7 in-
cludes the initial notch (node 6 coincides with its tip), although the
relevant DOFs were initially condensed.
Figs. 3(a), 4 and 5 refer to the loading condition that admits
uplift forces along 0 . For small and medium structural sizes, the
1310 G. Bolzon / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1304–1311
present results substantially conform to those calculated in the hy-
pothesis of Mode I fracture, independently of the shear characteris-
tics of the interface, both for the maximum load multiplier and for
the failure mechanism; see [26]. In these situations, failure is met
at the early stage of crack propagation and most relative displace-
ments between the structure and its foundation are confined to the
notch, where opening prevails; see Fig. 4. Then, the collapse load
can be inferred by semi-analytical methods based on LEFM [22],
which actually rests on the implicit assumption of unstable frac-
ture propagation soon after its initiation.
LEFM provides accurate prediction of the safety level of the con-
sidered structures for D ≤ 60 m. Above this characteristic di-
mension range, crack propagation is stabilized by the increasing
self-weight contribution; the water level has to be raised to let
cracks advance, and failure is observed as the foundation interface
is almost completely detached. In such a situation, LEFM leads to
a dramatic underestimation of the maximum overtopping water
level.
The structural response is dominated by opening displacements
also for D > 60 m, but ultimate failure is then associated with
the consumption of local shear strength, with a slight dependence
upon friction. Fig. 5 shows the displacement discontinuity distri-
bution for D = 80 m, the structural size selected for ICOLD bench-
mark [32]: with the assumed input data set, the residual normal
and shear strength are reduced to less than 5% their original val-
ues whenever wn > 0.3 mm and wt > 1.5 mm (see Section 2.1);
therefore, cohesion is almost exhausted at the downstream portion
of the interface. Friction plays a secondary role due to the present
dam geometry, which exerts higher self-weight pressure on the
upstream portion of the foundation interface. The load carrying
capacity is better captured by limit state analysis based on rigid-
body equilibrium conditions (specifically, against rotation around
the downstream toe) as suggested by some national standards, for
instance [43]. However, rigid body predictions become unsafe and
the load carrying capacity sensitive to the shear characteristics of
the foundation interface as the structural dimensions increase; see
Fig. 3(a).
Results are somewhat different when water permeation into
the structure is prevented; see Figs. 3(b), 6 and 7. The role of friction
at the foundation interface is now increased since the compres-
sion state induced by the dam self-weight is not reduced by uplift
pressure. Traditional approaches based on LEFM provide a fair es-
timation of the safety margin as D < 20 m only. Above this
characteristic dimension, rigid body mechanics returns reliable
prediction of the safety level for good shear interface properties.
On the contrary, 5° difference in the friction angle, well compati-
ble with experimental uncertainties [20], can substantially change
the collapse load and the corresponding failure mode of a dam of
40 m height when tnu = 0.7 MPa, see Fig. 6, despite the fact that
opening displacements keep prevailing as D < 60 m. The same ef-
fect, even more pronounced, can be observed also for the reference
ICOLD size D = 80 m; see Fig. 3(b). In this dimension range, a larger
friction coefficient promotes stable crack propagation, with rather
beneficial effects in terms of structural safety.
Failure mode progressively changes with the characteristic
structural dimension. For high D values, opening displacements are
confined to the notch while sliding displacements at the founda-
tion interface dominate the ultimate structural behavior; see Fig. 7.
In this situation, the assumption of Mode I failure mechanisms
would lead to unsafe estimation of the load carrying capacity, as
shown by the graph of Fig. 3(b).
5. Summary and conclusion
The present paper focused on an efficient numerical procedure
for the evaluation of safety factors and failure modes of geometri-
cally similar structures with dilatant frictional joints. The proposed
approach, alternative to the step-by-step integration of the gov-
erning rate equation, allows proper transfer of results from model
dimensions to real scale applications in the hypothesis that dam-
ages are concentrated along some natural or artificial joint while
the remaining structural material behaves as linear elastic. The
method has been illustrated with the aid of some computing ex-
ercises, based on a benchmark problem proposed by ICOLD [32],
focusing on the structural collapse of a concrete gravity dam due
to progressive crack propagation at the foundation interface. The
presence of multiple, possibly simultaneously activated joints can
be accounted for in the same way. Material separation is however
constrained to occur within the a priori defined potential displace-
ment discontinuity surfaces. Crack path bifurcations can be pre-
dicted, if the alternative propagation directions are included in the
modeling, as done, for example, in [44]. The actual failure mode is
then returned as a part of the problem solution.
The total execution time of each performed analysis in Matlab
[42] environment was of the order of a few seconds on a com-
mon personal computer, the convergence rate of the iterative solu-
tion procedure mainly depending on the choice of the initialization
vector. The converged values of the previously performed analysis
(though with different input) was often efficiently exploited to this
purpose.
Peculiar features of the present approach, competitive with
respect to more traditional numerical techniques, can be sum-
marised as follows:
- the bulk material behavior is captured by matrix Z; its size de-
pends on the interface discretisation only and is usually smaller
by at least one order of magnitude than the stiffness matrix di-
mension in classical FE approaches;
- Z is independent of the characteristic dimension for geometri-
cally similar structures;
- holonomic (reversible) interface response is hypothesised, con-
sistently with the assumption of progressive damage increase
without local unloading; the dependence of the loading history
on the structural response can therefore be neglected; this in-
troduces some approximation (see, e.g., [31]) which is largely
compensated by the achieved benefits in terms of computing
costs;
- the formulation is reduced to a small size constrained optimiza-
tion problem; the explicit form given to the non-linear contri-
bution representing the quasi-brittle behavior of the dilatant
frictional joints, permits the analytical evaluation of gradients
in the iterative solution procedures, with obvious computing
savings;
- the envisaged non conventional problem formulation naturally
leads to solution techniques that are simple and robust at the
same time, implemented in easily available software packages;
equivalent results in terms of maximum load carrying capac-
ity and corresponding failure mechanisms would otherwise re-
quire the implementation of sophisticated arc-length methods
for the step-by-step integration of the governing equations in
standard finite element codes.
References
[1] Ghaemmaghami A, Ghaemian M. Large-scale testing on specific fracture
energy determination of dam concrete. Int J Fract 2006;141:247–54.
[2] De Sortis A, Paoliani P. Statistical analysis and structural identification in
concrete dam monitoring. Eng Struct 2007;29:110–20.
[3] Ardito R, Cocchetti G. Statistical approach to damage diagnosis of concrete
dams by radar monitoring: Formulation and a pseudo-experimental test. Eng
Sruct 2006;28:2036–45.
[4] Ardito R, Maier G, Massalongo G. Diagnostics analysis of concrete dams based
on seasonal hydrostatic loading. Eng Struct 2008;30:3176–85.
 G. Bolzon / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1304–1311
[5] Collison A, Wade S, Griffiths J, Dehn M. Modelling the impact of predicted
climate change on landslide frequency and magnitude in SE England. Engng
Geology 2000;55:205–18.
[6] Calvetti F, di Prisco C, Nova R. Experimental and numerical analysis of soil-pipe
interaction. J Geotech Geoenvironm Engng 2004;130:1292–9.
[7] Zhu DY, Lee CF, Jiang HD. Generalised framework of limit equilibrium methods
for slope stability analysis. Géotechnique 2004;53:377–95.
[8] Troncone A. Numerical analysis of a landslide in soils with strain-softening
behaviour. Géotechnique 2005;55:585–96.
[9] Rabczuk C, Areias PMA. A new approach for modelling slip lines in geological
materials with cohesive model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2006;30:
1159–1152.
[10] Sarma SK, Tan D. Determination of critical slip surface in slope analysis.
Géotechnique 2006;56:539–50.
[11] Puntel E, Bolzon G, Saouma V. A fracture mechanics based model for joints
under cyclic loading. ASCE J Engng Mech 2006;132:1151–9.
[12] Puntel E, Saouma V. Experimental behavior of concrete joint interfaces under
reversed cyclic loading. J Engng Mech 2008;134:1558–68.
[13] Bolzon G, Fedele R, Maier G. Parameter identification of a cohesive crack model
by Kalman filter. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2002;191:2847–71.
[14] Maier G, Bocciarelli M, Bolzon G, Fedele R. On inverse analysis in fracture
mechanics. Int J Fract 2006;138:47–73.
[15] Stavroulakis G, Bolzon G, Waszczyszyn Z, Ziemianski L. Inverse Analysis.
In: Karihaloo B, Ritchie RO, Milne I, editors. Comprehensive structural
integrity, vol. 3. Kidlington (Oxfordshire, UK): Elsevier Science Ltd.; 2003.
p. 685–718.
[16] Renzi R, Ferrara G, Mazzà G. Cracking in a concrete gravity dam: A centrifugal
investigation. In: Bourdarot E, Mazars J, Saouma V, editors. Dam fracture and
damage. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1994. p. 103–10.
[17] Plizzari G, Waggoner F, Saouma VE. Centrifuge modeling and analysis of
concrete gravity dams. ASCE J Struct Engng 1995;121:1471–9.
[18] Barpi F, Valente S. Numerical simulation of pre-notched gravity dam models.
ASCE J Engng Mech 2000;126:611–9.
[19] Caron P, Léger P, Tinawi R, Veilleux M. Slot cutting of concrete dams: Field
observations and complementary experimental studies. ACI Struct J 2003;100:
430–9.
[20] Rochon-Cyr M, Léger P. Shake table sliding response of a gravity dam model
including water uplift pressure. Eng Struct 2009;31:1625–33.
[21] Bažant ZP, Planas J. Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle
materials. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1997.
[22] Bažant ZP. Scaling of structural strength. London (UK): Hermes Penton Science;
2002.
[23] Hillerborg A. Application of the fictitious crack model to different types of
materials. Int J Fracture 1991;51:95–102.
[24] Elices M, Guinea GV, Gòmez J, Planas J. The cohesive zone model: Advantages,
limitations and challenges. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:137–63.
[25] Chandra N, Shet C. A micromechanistic perspective of cohesive zone approach
in modeling fracture. CMES Comput Model Engng Sci 2004;6:21–33.
1311
[26] Bolzon G. Size effects in concrete gravity dams: A comparative study. Engng
Fract Mech 2004;41:2957–75.
[27] Maier G. Matrix structural theory of piecewise linear elastoplasticity with
interacting yield planes. Meccanica 1970;5:54–66.
[28] Bolzon G, Maier G, Novati G. Some aspects of quasi-brittle fracture analysis as
a linear complementarity problem. In: Bažant ZP, Bittnar Z, Jirásek M, Mazars J,
editors. Fracture and damage in quasi-brittle structures. London: E&FN Spon;
1994. p. 159–74.
[29] Maier G, Bolzon G, Tin-Loi F. Mathematical programming in engineering
mechanics: Some current problems. In: Ferris MC, Mangasarian OL, Pang J-S,
editors. Applied optimization series, vol. 50. Kluwer Academic Publisher; 2001.
p. 201–32.
[30] Cocchetti G, Maier G, Shen XP. Piecewise linear models for interfaces and
mixed mode cohesive cracks. CMES Comput Model Engng Sci 2002;3:279–98.
[31] Bolzon G, Cocchetti G. Direct assessment of structural resistance against
pressurized fracture. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2003;27:353–78.
[32] ICOLD Theme A2: Imminent failure flood for a concrete gravity dam. Fifth
international benchmark workshop on numerical analysis of dams. 1999.
[33] Maier G, Novati G, Cen ZZ. Symmetric Galerkin boundary element method for
quasi-brittle fracture and frictional contact problems. Comput Mech 1993;13:
74–89.
[34] Maier G, Frangi A. Symmetric boundary element method for discrete crack
modelling of fracture processes. Comput Assist Mech Eng Sci 1998;5:201–26.
[35] Bolzon G, Maier G, Tin-Loi F. Holonomic and non-holonomic simulation of
quasi-brittle fracture: A comparative study of mathematical programming
approaches. In: Wittman FH, editor. Fracture mechanics of concrete structures.
Freiburg: Aedificatio Publishers; 1995. p. 885–98.
[36] Bolzon G. Hybrid finite element approach to quasi-brittle fracture. Comput &
Structures 1996;60:733–41.
[37] Bolzon G, Corigliano A. A discrete formulation for elastic solids with damaging
interfaces. Comput Methods Applied Mech Engrg 1997;140:329–59.
[38] Ferris MC, Tin-Loi F. Limit analysis of frictional block assemblies as a
mathematical problem with complementarity constraints. Int J Mech Science
2001;43:209–24.
[39] Bolzon G, Maier G, Tin-Loi F. On multiplicity of solutions in quasi-brittle
fracture computations. Comput Mech 1997;19:511–6.
[40] Statnikov RB, Matusov JB. Multicriteria optimization and engineering. New
York: Chapman and Hall; 1995.
[41] Zhu ZQ, Liu Z, Wang XL, Yu RX. Construction of integral objective
function/fitness function of multi-objective/multi-disciplinary optimization.
CMES Comput Model Engng Sci 2004;6:567–76.
[42] Matlab. User’s guide and optimization toolbox 3. USA: The Math Works Inc.;
2006.
[43] D.M. 24.03.82. Norme tecniche per la progettazione e la costruzione delle
dighe di sbarramento. G.U. n. 212, 04.08.82.
[44] Bolzon G, Cocchetti G. On a case of crack path bifurcation in cohesive materials.
Arch Appl Mech 1998;68:513–23.