3D FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF DAM

(DIRECT TIMEHISTORY METHOD FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS)

CHETAN AGGARWAL, STRUCTURAL

ENGINEER, AF CONSULT INDIA PVT. LTD
Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 8

2 Dam operating conditions ........................................................................... 10

3 Permissible tensile stresses in unreinforced concrete for static load conditions ... 11

4 Safety criteria for dynamic seismic loads ...................................................... 12

4.1 Demand-capacity Ratios .......................................................................... 12

4.2 Cumulative Inelastic Duration .................................................................. 12

5 Material Properties considered in analysis ..................................................... 13

6 Earthquake ground motion .......................................................................... 14

7 Software Modelling .................................................................................... 17

8 Support Conditions .................................................................................... 19

9 Applied Loads ............................................................................................ 20

9.1 Dead Load / Self Weight of the structure ................................................... 20

9.2 U/S Hydrostatic Loads ............................................................................. 22

9.2.1 Hydrostatic Force -Upstream Face (NOF Block) .......................................... 22

9.2.2 Hydrostatic Force - Upstream Face (OF Block)............................................ 23

9.3 Uplift & Normal Tail Water Level ............................................................... 23

9.4 Hydrodynamic Pressure ........................................................................... 26

9.5 Silt Load................................................................................................ 26

10 Analysis .................................................................................................... 27

11 Time history analysis.................................................................................. 27

11.1 Time history of displacement ................................................................... 28

11.1.1 Time history of displacement for NOF Section ......................................... 28

11.1.2 Time history of displacement for OF Section ........................................... 33

11.2 Time history of maximum acceleration ...................................................... 37

11.2.1 Time history of acceleration for NOF Section........................................... 37

11.2.2 Time history of acceleration for OF Section ............................................. 41

12 NOF Block - Displacement and stress results ................................................. 45

12.1 End of Construction Condition(Load A) ...................................................... 45

.

12.2 Normal Operating Condition(Load B) ......................................................... 48

12.3 Flood Condition(Load C) .......................................................................... 51

12.4 End of Construction Condition + DBE(Load Case D) .................................... 54

12.5 Normal Operating Conditions + DBE(Load Case E) ...................................... 58

12.6 Flood Condition with drains inoperative(Load F) ......................................... 61

12.7 Normal Operating Conditions + DBE + Extreme uplift(Load Case G) ............. 64

12.8 Normal Operating + MCE(Load Case H) ..................................................... 68

13 OF Block - Displacement and stress results ................................................... 71

13.1 End of Construction Condition(Load A) ...................................................... 71

13.2 Normal Operating Condition(Load B) ......................................................... 73

13.3 Flood Condition(Load C) .......................................................................... 74

13.4 End of Construction Condition + DBE(Load Case D) .................................... 76

13.5 Normal Operating Conditions + DBE(Load Case E) ...................................... 78

13.6 Flood Condition with drains inoperative(Load F) ......................................... 79

13.7 Normal Operating Conditions + DBE + Extreme uplift(Load Case G) ............. 81

13.8 Normal Operating + MCE(Load Case H) ..................................................... 86

14 NOF Block – Stability.................................................................................. 87

14.1 Load Case A........................................................................................... 89

14.1.1 Sliding Check ..................................................................................... 89

14.1.2 Base Pressure ..................................................................................... 89

14.2 Load Case B........................................................................................... 90

14.2.1 Sliding Check ..................................................................................... 90

14.2.2 Base Pressure ..................................................................................... 90

14.3 Load Case C .......................................................................................... 91

14.3.1 Sliding Check ..................................................................................... 91

14.3.2 Base Pressure ..................................................................................... 91

14.4 Load Case D .......................................................................................... 92

14.4.1 Sliding Check ..................................................................................... 92

14.4.2 Base Pressure ..................................................................................... 93

14.5 Load Case E ........................................................................................... 94

Page 3(115)
.

14.5.1 Sliding Check ..................................................................................... 94

14.5.2 Base Pressure ..................................................................................... 94

14.6 Load Case F ........................................................................................... 95

14.6.1 Sliding Check ..................................................................................... 95

14.6.2 Base Pressure ..................................................................................... 95

14.7 Load Case G .......................................................................................... 97

14.7.1 Sliding Check ..................................................................................... 97

14.7.2 Base Pressure ..................................................................................... 97

14.8 Load Case H .......................................................................................... 98

14.8.1 Sliding Check ..................................................................................... 98

14.8.2 Base Pressure ..................................................................................... 99

15 Overflow Block – Stability ......................................................................... 100

15.1 Load Case A......................................................................................... 101

15.1.1 Sliding Check ................................................................................... 101

15.1.2 Base Pressure ................................................................................... 101

15.2 Load Case B......................................................................................... 102

15.2.1 Sliding Check ................................................................................... 102

15.2.2 Base Pressure ................................................................................... 102

15.3 Load Case C ........................................................................................ 103

15.3.1 Sliding Check ................................................................................... 103

15.3.2 Base Pressure ................................................................................... 103

15.4 Load Case D ........................................................................................ 104

15.4.1 Sliding Check ................................................................................... 104

15.4.2 Base Pressure ................................................................................... 105

15.5 Load Case E ......................................................................................... 105

15.5.1 Sliding Check ................................................................................... 105

15.5.2 Base Pressure ................................................................................... 106

15.6 Load Case F ......................................................................................... 107

15.6.1 Sliding Check ................................................................................... 107

15.6.2 Base Pressure ................................................................................... 107

Page 4(115)
.

15.7 Load Case G ........................................................................................ 108

15.7.1 Sliding Check ................................................................................... 108

15.7.2 Base Pressure ................................................................................... 108

15.8 Load Case H ........................................................................................ 109

15.8.1 Sliding Check ................................................................................... 109

15.8.2 Base Pressure ................................................................................... 109

16 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................. 110

17 References .............................................................................................. 115

Tables
Table-1: Partial Load Factors for friction angle (phi) and cohesion (c) [2] ................ 88
Table-2: Partial Load Facjtors for friction angle (phi) and cohesion (c) [2] ............. 101

Figures
Figure 1.1: Dam plan ......................................................................................... 8
Figure 1.2: Up-Stream view – Dam Body .............................................................. 9
Figure 1.3: NOF Block-1 L-Section considered in 2D analysis .................................. 9
Figure 1.4: OF Block-3 L-Section ....................................................................... 10
Figure 4.2.1: Illustration of seismic performance and damage criteria .................... 12
Figure 7.1: NOF Block Model ............................................................................. 17
Figure 7.2: NOF Block Finite Element Mesh and coordinate system ........................ 17
Figure 7.3: OF Block Model ............................................................................... 18
Figure 7.4: OF Block Finite element mesh ........................................................... 18
Figure 11.1.1.1: NOF section Maximum relative displacement along river flow (DBE)29
Figure 11.1.1.2: NOF section Maximum relative vertical displacement (DBE) ........... 30
Figure 11.1.1.3: NOF section Maximum relative displacement along river flow (MCE)
...................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 11.1.1.4: NOF section Maximum relative vertical displacement (MCE) .......... 32
Figure 11.1.2.1: OF section Maximum relative displacement along river flow (DBE) . 33
Figure 11.1.2.2: OF section Maximum relative vertical displacement (DBE) ............. 34
Figure 11.1.2.3: OF section Maximum relative displacement along river flow (MCE) . 35
Figure 11.1.2.4: OF section Maximum relative vertical displacement (MCE) ............ 36
Figure 11.2.1.1: NOF section Maximum acceleration along river flow (DBE) ............ 37
Figure 11.2.1.2: NOF section Maximum vertical acceleration (DBE) ........................ 38
Figure 11.2.1.3: NOF section Maximum acceleration along river flow (MCE) ............ 39

Page 5(115)
.

Figure 11.2.1.4: NOF section Maximum vertical acceleration (MCE) ....................... 40

Figure 11.2.2.1: OF section Maximum acceleration along river flow (DBE) .............. 41
Figure 11.2.2.2: OF section Maximum vertical acceleration (DBE) .......................... 42
Figure 11.2.2.3: OF section Maximum acceleration along river flow (MCE) .............. 43
Figure 11.2.2.4: OF section Maximum vertical acceleration (MCE) ......................... 44
Figure 12.1.1:NOF – Total deformation plot for end of construction load case........... 46
Figure 12.1.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for end of construction load case ...... 46
Figure 12.1.3:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for end of construction load case
...................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 12.2.1:NOF – Total deformation plot for load case B ................................... 48
Figure 12.2.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case B ............................... 49
Figure 12.2.3:NOF Rock – Vertical Normal stress plot for load case B ...................... 50
Figure 12.3.1:NOF – Total deformation plot for load case C ................................... 51
Figure 12.3.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case C ............................... 52
Figure 12.3.3:NOF Rock – Vertical Normal stress plot for load case C ...................... 53
Figure 12.4.1:NOF – Maximum deformation plot for load case D ............................. 54
Figure 12.4.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case D ............................... 55
Figure 12.4.3:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for load case D ...................... 57
Figure 12.5.1:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case E ............................... 58
Figure 12.5.2:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for load case E ...................... 61
Figure 12.6.1:NOF – Total deformation plot for load case F .................................... 62
Figure 12.6.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case F ............................... 62
Figure 12.6.3:NOF Rock – Vertical Normal stress plot for load case F ...................... 63
Figure 12.7.1:NOF – Maximum deformation plot for load case G ............................. 64
Figure 12.7.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case G ............................... 65
Figure 12.7.3:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for load case G ...................... 67
Figure 12.8.1:NOF – Maximum deformation plot for load case H ............................. 68
Figure 12.8.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case H ............................... 69
Figure 12.8.3:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for load case H ...................... 71
Figure 13.1.1:OF – Total deformation plot for end of construction load case............. 72
Figure 13.1.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for end of construction load case ........ 72
Figure 13.2.1:OF – Total deformation plot for load case B ...................................... 73
Figure 13.2.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case B ................................. 74
Figure 13.3.1:OF – Total deformation plot for load case C...................................... 75
Figure 13.3.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case C ................................. 75
Figure 13.4.1:OF – Maximum deformation plot for load case D ............................... 76
Figure 13.4.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case D ................................. 77
Figure 13.5.1:OF – Maximum deformation plot for load case E ............................... 78
Figure 13.5.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case E ................................. 79
Figure 13.6.1:OF – Total deformation plot for load case F ...................................... 80

Page 6(115)
.

Figure 13.6.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case F ................................. 80
Figure 13.7.1:OF – Maximum deformation plot for load case G ............................... 81
Figure 13.7.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case G ................................. 82
Figure 13.8.1:OF – Maximum deformation plot for load case H ............................... 86
Figure 13.8.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case H ................................. 87
Figure 14.1:NOF Block – Coordinate axis ............................................................. 87
Figure 14.1.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress............................................. 90
Figure 14.2.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress............................................. 91
Figure 14.3.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress............................................. 92
Figure 14.4.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress............................................. 93
Figure 14.5.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress............................................. 95
Figure 14.6.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress............................................. 96
Figure 14.7.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress............................................. 97
Figure 14.8.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress............................................. 99
Figure 15.1:OF Block – Coordinate axis ............................................................. 100
Figure 15.1.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress........................................... 102
Figure 15.2.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress........................................... 103
Figure 15.3.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress........................................... 104
Figure 15.4.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress........................................... 105
Figure 15.5.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress........................................... 106
Figure 15.6.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress........................................... 107
Figure 15.7.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress........................................... 108
Figure 15.8.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress........................................... 110

Page 7(115)
1 Introduction
Performance of concrete dams is conducted based on stability and stress checks for various
operating conditions including flood and seismic events. This report is an effort to analyse non
overflow and overflow sections of a dam for all operating conditions mentioned in various
national and international standards.

A case study of an under-construction dam in Himalayan region being developed on a tributary

of river Ganga has been considered. Since, the dam has not been constructed yet, the name
of the dam has not been mentioned to avoid any issues related ownership and design changes.
Dam lies in high seismic zone which requires performance-based design and evaluation based
on specified levels of seismic hazard. Traditional design and evaluation procedures may be
used for various components of the project but for critical facilities like dam, should be designed
to prevent sudden collapse (even though the structure may suffer severe damage), to limit
damage to a repairable level, or to maintain functionality immediately after the earthquake.

Various views of dam body are shown as under:

Figure 1.1: Dam plan

Page 8(115)
.

Figure 1.2: Up-Stream view – Dam Body

The analysis has been carried out for non-overflow block-1 and overflow block-3 in this report.

Figure 1.3: NOF Block-1 L-Section considered in 2D analysis

Page 9(115)
.

Figure 1.4: OF Block-3 L-Section

Dam blocks are confined between rock abutments on left and right banks of river. There are
contraction joints without any gap between the blocks. Adequate water seals shall be provided
at the joint locations on the upstream face and at bottom of dam to avoid any seepages through
them. There can be transfer of stresses from one block to another through these joints but
dam shall be stable across the river flow due to the confinement. A separate analysis shall be
carried out for the forces in valley direction(across river flow) to evaluate high stresses zones
in dam. The reinforcement shall be then computed where tensile stresses exceeds permissible
limits. Permissible tensile stresses are mentioned later in the report. This report deals with the
stability of dam blocks for the all the static and dynamic seismic forces along the river flow.
The analysis has been carried out to ensure that certain mandatory requirements mentioned
later in the report are met and that the dam meets its safety requirement and achieves its
performance objectives. The mandatory requirements ensure that the dam is safe against all
imposed loading including the maximum earthquake and that the stresses are within
permissible limits. Finite element analysis software MIDAS FEA NX has been used to carryout
present analysis.

2 Dam operating conditions

Dams in general are designed and evaluated for three basic operating conditions which can
occur during the life span of dam: Usual, Unusual and Extreme. In the present analysis, the
dam-spillway model has been subjected to these load combinations and the corresponding
stress and displacement response of the structure has been obtained.

Page 10(115)
.

Usual static loading conditions refer to all applicable static loads that may exist during the
normal operation of the structure. These loads normally comprise of dead loads, water pressure
corresponding to full reservoir level(FRL) and normal tail water level, normal uplift.

Unusual static loading conditions refer to all applicable static loads that may exist during
the design flood condition with all gates operating. These loads would generally comprise of
dead loads, water pressure corresponding to maximum water level (MWL) during flood and tail
water corresponding to project maximum flood(PMF) condition, uplift pressure and applicable
silt loads. Normal operating conditions along with blocked drainage system (which maximizes
the uplift effects) is also taken as Unusual static loading.

Unusual dynamic loading implies Design basis earthquake(DBE) level earthquake loads
acting on the dam along with Usual static loads.

Extreme dynamic loading implies maximum credible earthquake(MCE) level earthquake

loads acting on the dam along with Usual static loads.

Load combinations corresponding to these conditions are specified in IS:6512 Part-I, 1984 :

1. Combination A– Dam Completed but no reservoir impounding.

2. Combination B– Reservoir at FRL (all gates closed), minimum tail water level, drains
operative.

3. Combination C– Reservoir at MWL, maximum tail water level, drains operative.

4. Combination D- Load Combination A with DBE Earth Quake

5. Combination E- Load Combination B with DBE Earth Quake

6. Combination F– Reservoir at MWL full (all gates open), maximum tail water level, drains in-
operative.

7. Combination G – Load Combination E under Drains Inoperative uplift condition

A separate load case H has also been analysed for extreme dynamic loading.

3 Permissible tensile stresses in unreinforced concrete for

static load conditions
Small values of tension on the downstream face of dam may be permitted since it is very
improbable that a fully constructed dam is kept empty and downstream cracks which are not
extensive and for limited depths from the surface may not be detrimental to the safety of the
structure. It is recommended to limit tension on downstream face to.5MPa. If tension exceeds
this limit, reinforcement shall be provided.

When the induced tensile stresses on the upstream face are less than following permissible
tensile stresses, there is no requirement of reinforcement in concrete:

Load Combination A and B – No tension

Load Combination C - .01fc

Load combinations F - .02fc

Page 11(115)
.

4 Safety criteria for dynamic seismic loads

4.1 Demand-capacity Ratios

The demand-capacity ratio (DCR) for gravity dams is defined as the ratio of the calculated
principal stress to tensile strength of the concrete. The demand-capacity ratio shall be
determined using the allowable tensile strength as 0.324 fck2/3. For M25 concrete it is 2.77
Mpa. The maximum permitted DCR for linear analysis of dams is 1 for DBE condition and 2 for
MCE condition.

4.2 Cumulative Inelastic Duration

The main problem with the traditional stress criterion is that the number of stress cycles
alone(DCR>1) is not adequate to assess damage. Both magnitudes and duration of overstress
cycles in the upper stress history are greater than those of the lower stress history, a factor
that the number of cycles alone cannot show. For this reason, the proposed damage criteria
employ cumulative inelastic or overstress duration, which is a measure of energy and accounts
for the magnitudes, as well as duration of stress excursions.

The cumulative inelastic duration of stress excursions is defined in figure below:

Figure 4.2.1: Illustration of seismic performance and damage criteria

Page 12(115)
.

It refers to the total duration of stress excursions above a stress level associated with a DCR
≥ 1. For example, a cumulative duration of 0.4 sec at DCR = 1 indicates the total duration of
stress excursions above the tensile strength of the concrete. Similarly, a cumulative duration
of 0.2 sec at DCR = 1.5 is the total duration of stress excursions above a stress level 1.5 times
the tensile strength of the concrete. The cumulative inelastic duration may be obtained
approximately by multiplying number of stress points exceeding a certain stress level by the
analysis time-step. The higher the cumulative duration, the higher is the possibilities for more
damage. The cumulative duration for a DCR of 2 is assumed zero. For gravity dams a lower
cumulative duration of 0.3 is assumed, mainly because gravity dams resist loads by cantilever
mechanism only.

5 Material Properties considered in analysis

Properties of concrete considered in analysis are tabulated below:

Material Name Property Value Unit Remarks

Isotropic Grade of M25
Concrete concrete, Fck
Static modulus 2.5e+007 kN/m2 5000 √(Fck)
of Elasticity of
M25 concrete,
Ec
Dynamic 1.2 x kN/m2 For much faster
modulus of 2.5e+007 = dynamic loading,
Elasticity of 3e+007 reclamation used to
M25 concrete, factor the
Ec modulus up by 20
percent
for dynamic
analyses
Poisson's 0.2
Ratio,
Density,conc 24 kN/m3

Based on geological baseline report(GBR), elastic modulus of founding rock has been
considered as 2.7Gpa. Cohesion between rock and concrete is considered as 210 kN/m 2.
Material damping has not been considered to get maximum response during dynamic seismic
cases which shall be on conservative side. Rock has been considered as massless to get
reactions due to weight of concrete only to be considered in stability analysis.

Elastic modulus of rock mentioned in GBR is obtained from plate load test (jacking test).

Foundation load distribution can also be sensitive to the values selected for foundation
modulus, which can affect foundation sliding stability calculations. Therefore, it is important to
make good estimates of the potential range of foundation modulus values. Several methods
should be used to establish these estimates.

Modulus of elasticity values in general are given as:

Page 13(115)
.

where:
EF:Analysis_Static = Foundation modulus used in static analysis

EF:Analysis_Dynamic = Foundation modulus used in dynamic analysis

EC:Analysis_Dynamic = Concrete modulus used in dynamic analysis

EF:RMR = Foundation modulus from Rock Mass Rating

EF:RQD = Foundation modulus from Rock Quality Designation

EF:Jacking = Foundation modulus from jacking tests

EF:Force Vibration Tests = Foundation modulus from forced vibration tests

EF:Geophysical Testing = Foundation modulus from down-hole or cross-hole geophysic

Since we have deformation modulus of rock from Jacking test, 80% of E concrete may be
considered.

EF:Analysis_Dynamic = 80% of Econcrete i.e 20Gpa has been considered in the present analysis.

6 Earthquake ground motion

The site specific acceleration spectra normalised to 1.0 g ZPA are given below:

Page 14(115)
.

Smooth spectra corresponding to the site specific time history for various damping values as
obtained from MIDAS are shown below:

Velocity-time curve for 5% damping

Page 15(115)
.

Acceleration-time curve for 5% damping

Relative displacement-time curve for 5% damping

These normalized spectra have been multiplied by .19 and 0.38 to obtain DBE and MCE spectral
acceleration values respectively. These values are mentioned in site specific seismic report for
horizontal seismic events. For considering vertical effect of this ground motion, 2/3 rd of these
values have been considered in vertical direction.

Page 16(115)
.

7 Software Modelling
MIDAS FEA NX, have been used to model the Left NOF Block structure. The mass concrete
structure and surrounding rock has been modelled using Self-generating solid mesh in MIDAS.
Mesh size of 2m has been used for dam body and coarser for surrounding rock in MIDAS model.

After conducting, various sensitivity studies it was found that mesh size of surround rock has
no major impact on induced stresses of dam block. Hence, coarser mesh size has been adopted
for rock to decreases analysis time. Finite element time history analysis consumes lot of
computer memory and requires more analysis time than static analysis. Hence, reduced
number of elements in model are used without compromising stress values and distribution
pattern. The various views of model have been shown below:

Figure 7.1: NOF Block Model

Figure 7.2: NOF Block Finite Element Mesh and coordinate system

Page 17(115)
.

Figure 7.3: OF Block Model

Figure 7.4: OF Block Finite element mesh

For dynamic analysis, realistic results shall be obtained when mass of foundation is also
considered along with material damping. Modelled depth below dam founding level where the
seismic wave is acting plays an important role in getting close to actual results. However,
getting these parameters precisely is another challenge. To be on safer side, foundation with

Page 18(115)
.

no mass and 0% damping has been considered. It will result in higher induced stresses and
reactions than actual for dynamic seismic loads.

8 Support Conditions
For dynamic analysis, it is recommended to use semi-unbounded foundation and fluid domains
with appropriate radiation conditions at the domain boundaries to allow propagation of outgoing
waves. To simulate it, viscous boundary dampers can be provided in MIDAS. However,
reactions to be used in stability analysis could not be obtained for these viscous restraints.
There is another option in MIDAS i.e. grid forces which gives induced forces in each node of
the model. The summation of these forces will give the total reaction. However, in ground
motion time history analysis , to get reactions for each time step for all the nodes in model is
near to impossible.

A sensitivity study has been carried out considering viscous boundaries and restraint ground
boundaries for load combination D- End of construction + DBE earthquake.

Induced major principal stresses in NOF block with viscous boundary:

Induced major principal stresses in NOF block with restraint ground boundary:

Page 19(115)
.

There is a negligible difference in induced stresses. Hence, restraint ground boundary has been
applied in the current analysis.

All nodes at the base of the model, have been restrained along the vertical direction. Upstream
and downstream face of the rock foundation has been restrained along upstream - downstream
direction and infinite lateral ground also restraint in lateral direction by means of rollers.

9 Applied Loads
The following loads have been considered for 3D finite element analysis of the dam blocks.

9.1 Dead Load / Self Weight of the structure

Self-weight of structure automatically incorporated in MIDAS.

Deformation behaviour of NOF block for selfweight:

Page 20(115)
.

Deformation behaviour of OF block for self-weight:

Page 21(115)
.

9.2 U/S Hydrostatic Loads

A linear distribution of pressure variation has been considered. The hydrostatic pressure is
maximum at the base of the structure and it gradually reduced to zero at the FRL/MWL.

9.2.1 Hydrostatic Force -Upstream Face (NOF Block)

Maximum Reservoir Level(FRL) = El 1267m

Minimum elevation of base = El 1218m

Depth of Water, “y” = 1267 – 1218 = 49m

Maximum pressure ordinate at upstream face, pmax = 10 x 49 = 490 kN/m2

Deformation behaviour of OF block for Hydrostatic pressure(FRL):

Page 22(115)
.

9.2.2 Hydrostatic Force - Upstream Face (OF Block)

Maximum Reservoir Level(FRL) = El 1267m

Minimum elevation of base on upstream end = El 1205m

Depth of Water, “y” = 1267 – 1205 = 62m

Maximum pressure ordinate at upstream face, Pmax =  water  h

= 10 x 62 = 620 kN/m2

Deformation behaviour of OF block for Hydrostatic pressure(FRL) gates closed:

9.3 Uplift & Normal Tail Water Level

Uplift forces are applied on bottom face of raft. It is corresponding to FRL on u/s face For drain
operative condition, uplift has been reduced to 1/3rd of the head difference between the
upstream and downstream water levels at drainage gallery location. The uplift pressure is
considered not affected by earthquake.

Page 23(115)
.

Deformation behaviour of OF block for Hydrostatic pressure(Normal Uplift):

Page 24(115)
.

Deformation behaviour of OF block for Hydrostatic pressure(Normal Uplift):

Page 25(115)
.

9.4 Hydrodynamic Pressure

Hydrodynamic pressure has been computed considering following relation:

9.5 Silt Load

Silt Load corresponds to El 1230m has been applied both in horizontal and vertical directions
in addition to hydrostatic force in upstream face of Overflow and Non-Overflow section of Dam.
The following criteria is recommended for calculating forces due to silt:

• Horizontal ‘ silt and water pressure ’ is assumed to be equivalent to that of a

fluid with a mass of 13.60 kN/m3, and

• Vertical ‘ silt and water pressure ’ is determined” as if silt and water together
have a density of 19.25 kN/m3.

Since water pressure is applied separately, theses densities are subtracted by 10kN/m3 for silt
pressure.

Page 26(115)
.

10 Analysis
The finite element model described earlier has been subjected to various loads mentioned
earlier in the report and a detailed analysis is carried out to determine resulting deformations
and stresses within the dam. While the static loads are applied as one-time loading, the
earthquake loads (both the DBE and the MCE) are applied in the form of appropriate time
histories of horizontal and vertical ground acceleration. Deformation and stress results are
obtained for each time step and maximum values are extracted to be combined with the
corresponding values from the static load cases.

The following general postulates have been considered

1. The stress is proportional to strain and the material follows Hooke's law.

2. Concrete and foundation rock can be modelled as elastic, homogeneous and isotropic
material.

3. Hydrostatic pressure acting on the dam is represented as surface pressure acting on

the water face of the model.

4. The water-dam interaction has been modelled by the added mass concept
recommended by Westergard.

5. The standard approach to account for the effects of foundation interaction has been
adopted to analyse the combined dam-foundation system by including an appropriate
region of the rock in the finite element model.

6. For earthquake loads, a time-history dynamic analysis is performed using

recommended time histories of horizontal and vertical ground acceleration for
appropriate level of seismic event. The time step used in the dynamic analysis is
0.05sec. The selected time step meets the commonly used criterion for such analysis.

7. In case results of linear elastic analysis indicate significant damage to the structure
(stresses significantly exceeding the permissible limits or exceeding in large regions)
decision based upon rational engineering judgment will be taken to provide a
reasonable estimate of the expected inelastic behaviour or damage.

11 Time history analysis

Concrete hydraulic structures behave in a less ductile manner during earthquake as compared
to RCC building. Such behaviour combined with complicated structure foundation and structure
-water interaction requires time history analysis.

Linear time history analysis calculates the solution to the dynamic equilibrium equation for the
structural behavior (displacement, element force etc.) at an arbitrary time using the dynamic
properties of the structure and applied loading when a dynamic load is applied. The Modal
superposition method and Direct method are used for linear time history analysis.

The mode superposition method assumes the structural displacement as a linear

combination of orthogonal displacements. Using this, a more simplified time integral function
can be used to calculate the dynamic response for a selected mode. The mode superposition
method is used in many structural analysis programs and is an effective way to calculate the
dynamic response for the linear dynamic analysis of large structures with little computational
cost. However, the accuracy of the total response depends on the number of used natural
modes and so, the number of modes used in the calculation need to be selected appropriately.

Page 27(115)
.

The direct method is a time history analysis that uses the DOF of the total
analysis area as a variable. The dynamic equilibrium equation for the total DOF can be
integrated gradually with time to find the solution. The solution is found for each time stage
without any form change to the equilibrium equation and various integration methods can be
used. The direct integration method conducts the analysis for all time stages and the number
or time stages is proportional to the analysis time.

The direct method has been adopted for time history analysis in the present report.

Time history analysis has been carried out for load cases D,E G and H.

Ground motion has been defined for 25 seconds with time increment of .05sec.

It infers total 500-time steps are considered in the analysis. Arrival time is considered as 0
seconds as acceleration values in time history curve touches maximum in time period of 0
seconds to 25 seconds.

Primary objective of this report is to observe principal stresses in unreinforced mass concrete
and check the stability at founding level. Reinforcement in piers, breastwall, staircase, control
building and other flexural components shall be evaluated seperately.

11.1 Time history of displacement

To assess the dynamic response of the dam, time histories of displacement and acceleration
response of the structure are obtained for simultaneous application of horizontal and vertical
ground motions corresponding to the DBE and the MCE.

11.1.1 Time history of displacement for NOF Section

The maximum relative displacement distribution in case of DBE for NOF section(control room
not considered) is shown below:

Page 28(115)
.

Figure 11.1.1.1: NOF section Maximum relative displacement along river flow (DBE)

Time history plot of u/s dam top node with maximum deformation of .6312mm:

Max. deformation at 15 sec.

Page 29(115)
.

Figure 11.1.1.2: NOF section Maximum relative vertical displacement (DBE)

Time history plot of node with maximum deformation of .1907mm:

Page 30(115)
.

Figure 11.1.1.3: NOF section Maximum relative displacement along river flow (MCE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum deformation of 1.2623mm:

Page 31(115)
.

Figure 11.1.1.4: NOF section Maximum relative vertical displacement (MCE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum deformation of .3771mm:

Page 32(115)
.

11.1.2 Time history of displacement for OF Section

The maximum relative displacement distribution in case of DBE for OF section is shown below:

Figure 11.1.2.1: OF section Maximum relative displacement along river flow (DBE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum deformation of 5.87mm:

Page 33(115)
.

Figure 11.1.2.2: OF section Maximum relative vertical displacement (DBE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum deformation of 2.576mm:

Page 34(115)
.

Figure 11.1.2.3: OF section Maximum relative displacement along river flow (MCE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum deformation of 11.749mm:

Page 35(115)
.

Figure 11.1.2.4: OF section Maximum relative vertical displacement (MCE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum deformation of 5.15mm:

Page 36(115)
.

11.2 Time history of maximum acceleration

11.2.1 Time history of acceleration for NOF Section

The maximum acceleration in river flow direction (NOF section) corresponding to DBE level of
ground motion is:

Figure 11.2.1.1: NOF section Maximum acceleration along river flow (DBE)

Time history plot of node at dam top with maximum acceleration of 4.25 m/sec2:

Page 37(115)
.

The maximum acceleration in vertical direction corresponding to DBE level of ground motion
is:

Figure 11.2.1.2: NOF section Maximum vertical acceleration (DBE)

Time history plot of node at dam top with maximum acceleration of 1.4542 m/sec2:

Page 38(115)
.

The corresponding PGA values for DBE level of ground motion are .19 x 9.8 = 1.862m/sec² in
the horizontal and 1.24m/sec² in the vertical direction. The horizontal ground motion is thus
amplified 4.25/1.862 = 2.28 times whereas vertical ground motion is amplified 1.4542/1.24 =
1.173times.

The maximum acceleration in river flow direction (NOF section) corresponding to MCE level of
ground motion is:

Figure 11.2.1.3: NOF section Maximum acceleration along river flow (MCE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum acceleration of 8.5003 m/sec2:

Page 39(115)
.

The maximum acceleration in vertical direction corresponding to MCE level of ground motion
is:

Figure 11.2.1.4: NOF section Maximum vertical acceleration (MCE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum acceleration of 2.9085m/sec2:

Page 40(115)
.

The maximum acceleration (NOF section) corresponding to MCE level of ground motion is of
the order of 8.5m/sec² in the horizontal direction and 2.9m/sec² in the vertical direction. The
corresponding PGA values for MCE level of ground motion are .38 x 9.8 = 3.724m/sec² in the
horizontal and 2.48m/sec² in the vertical direction. The horizontal ground motion is thus
amplified 8.5/3.724 = 2.28 times whereas vertical ground motion is amplified 2.9/2.48 =
1.17times.

11.2.2 Time history of acceleration for OF Section

The maximum acceleration in river flow direction (OF section) corresponding to DBE level of
ground motion is:

Figure 11.2.2.1: OF section Maximum acceleration along river flow (DBE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum acceleration of 11.55 m/sec2:

Page 41(115)
.

The maximum acceleration in vertical direction corresponding to DBE level of ground motion
is:

Figure 11.2.2.2: OF section Maximum vertical acceleration (DBE)

Page 42(115)
.

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum acceleration of 4.8 m/sec2:

The corresponding PGA values for DBE level of ground motion are .19 x 9.8 = 1.862m/sec² in
the horizontal and 1.24m/sec² in the vertical direction. The horizontal ground motion is thus
amplified 11.55/1.862 = 6.2 times whereas vertical ground motion is amplified 4.8/1.24 =
3.87times.

The maximum acceleration in river flow direction (OF section) corresponding to MCE level of
ground motion is:

Figure 11.2.2.3: OF section Maximum acceleration along river flow (MCE)

Page 43(115)
.

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum acceleration of 23.1 m/sec2:

The maximum acceleration in vertical direction corresponding to MCE level of ground motion
is:

Figure 11.2.2.4: OF section Maximum vertical acceleration (MCE)

Time history plot of dam top node with maximum acceleration of 9.6m/sec2:

Page 44(115)
.

The maximum acceleration (OF section) corresponding to MCE level of ground motion is of the
order of 23.1m/sec² in the horizontal direction and 9.6m/sec² in the vertical direction. The
corresponding PGA values for MCE level of ground motion are .38 x 9.8 = 3.724m/sec² in the
horizontal and 2.48m/sec² in the vertical direction. The horizontal ground motion is thus
amplified 23.1/3.724 = 6.2 times whereas vertical ground motion is amplified 9.6/2.48 =
3.87times.

12 NOF Block - Displacement and stress results

The results of the analysis are presented in the form of displacements and stresses for
individual loads or load combinations, as applicable. In case of dynamic analysis, the results
are normally presented as envelopes of maximum stresses, time history of displacements, and
time history of factor of safety against sliding. The results for various loadings/load
combinations are discussed below.

+ve induced stresses are tensile and -ve induced stresses are compressive.

The results of the analysis are presented in the form of displacements and stresses for
individual loads or load combinations, as applicable.

12.1 End of Construction Condition(Load A)

Dam completed but no water in the reservoir and no tail water. The following conditions prevail
in this load combination:

• Dam Fully Constructed

• Reservoir Empty

• No Tail Water

• No Uplift

Page 45(115)
.

Figure 12.1.1:NOF – Total deformation plot for end of construction load case

Figure 12.1.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for end of construction load case

Page 46(115)
.

Slight edge tension on abutment side face of dam. After ignoring high concentration of tensile
stresses at top and bottom corner nodes, tensile stresses are less than .5 Mpa.

Reinforcement of 16mm dia. @ 200 c/c both ways in corner 3m region on abutment side face
of dam above EL. 1238 shall be adequate for this load condition.

In other region slight tension < permissible limit of .25Mpa on the upstream face of dam.

Figure 12.1.3:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for end of construction load case

Maximum induced vertical compressive stress is .4589N/mm2.

Page 47(115)
.

12.2 Normal Operating Condition(Load B)

Full reservoir, normal dry weather tail water, normal uplift. The following conditions prevail in
this load combination:

• Dam Fully Constructed

• Gates Closed

• Water at FRL

• Normal Tail Water Level

• Silt Load

Figure 12.2.1:NOF – Total deformation plot for load case B

Page 48(115)
.

Figure 12.2.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case B

Slight edge tension on abutment side face of dam. After ignoring high concentration of tensile
stresses at top, intermediate and bottom corner nodes, tensile stresses are less than .5 Mpa.

Reinforcement of 16mm dia. @ 200 c/c both ways in corner 3m region on abutment side face
of dam above EL. 1238 shall be adequate for this load condition.

Other region is in either compression or negligible tensile stresses near to 0Mpa.

Page 49(115)
.

Figure 12.2.3:NOF Rock – Vertical Normal stress plot for load case B

Maximum induced vertical normal compressive stress is .407N/mm2.

Page 50(115)
.

12.3 Flood Condition(Load C)

Maximum flood level, tail water corresponding to PMF, normal uplift. The following conditions
prevail in this load combination:

• Dam Fully Constructed

• Gates Open

• Water at MWL

• Maximum Tail Water Level

• Silt Load

Figure 12.3.1:NOF – Total deformation plot for load case C

Page 51(115)
.

Figure 12.3.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case C

Slight edge tension on abutment side face of dam. After ignoring high concentration of tensile
stresses at top, intermediate and bottom corner nodes, tensile stresses are less than .5 Mpa.

Reinforcement of 16mm dia. @ 200 c/c both ways in corner 3m region on abutment side face
of dam above EL. 1238 shall be adequate for this load condition.

Other region is in either compression or negligible tensile stresses near to 0Mpa.

Page 52(115)
.

Figure 12.3.3:NOF Rock – Vertical Normal stress plot for load case C

Maximum induced normal vertical compressive stress is .441N/mm2.

Page 53(115)
.

12.4 End of Construction Condition + DBE(Load Case D)

This load combination reflects the condition when the dam has been constructed but is yet to
be impounded when an earthquake (DBE) occurs. A possible failure mode in this condition is
upstream toppling of the dam following crushing of concrete at the heel. Analysis for this load
combination includes the following conditions:

• Dam fully constructed

• Earthquake (DBE)

Time varying static self-weight has been included with each time step of time history.

Figure 12.4.1:NOF – Maximum deformation plot for load case D

Page 54(115)
.

Figure 12.4.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case D

Stress time history of dam top node where maximum tensile stress of 1.77 Mpa is induced:

Page 55(115)
.

DCR Plot for the element where maximum principal tensile stress of 1.7708 Mpa is induced.

For any time step, DCR is less than 1.

There are no overstressed elements in this condition. Cumulative high stressed duration VS
DCR plot is:

Dam is safe.

Page 56(115)
.

Figure 12.4.3:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for load case D

Maximum induced normal vertical compressive stress is .393N/mm2.

Page 57(115)
.

12.5 Normal Operating Conditions + DBE(Load Case E)

The following conditions prevail in this load combination:

• Dam fully Constructed

• Gates Closed

• Water at FRL

• Normal Tail Water Level

• Earthquake (DBE)

• Silt Load

• Normal uplift

Time varying static loads have been included with each time step of time history.

Figure 12.5.1:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case E

Page 58(115)
.

Stress time history of node where maximum tensile stress of 1.65 Mpa is induced:

DCR Plot for the node where maximum principal tensile stress of 1.65Mpa is induced.

Page 59(115)
.

For any time step, DCR is less than 1.

There are no overstressed elements in this condition. Cumulative high stressed duration VS
DCR plot is:

Page 60(115)
.

Figure 12.5.2:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for load case E

The results for this case indicate that normal vertical compressive stresses are induced at
founding rock. Maximum induced compressive stress is .349N/mm2 i.e. 349 kN/m2.

12.6 Flood Condition with drains inoperative(Load F)

Maximum flood level, tail water corresponding to PMF, uplift with drains inoperative. The
following conditions prevail in this load combination:

• Dam Fully Constructed

• Gates Open

• Water at MWL

• Maximum Tail Water Level

• Silt Load

• Uplift with drains inoperative

Page 61(115)
.

Figure 12.6.1:NOF – Total deformation plot for load case F

Figure 12.6.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case F

Page 62(115)
.

Slight edge tension on abutment side face of dam. After ignoring high concentration of tensile
stresses at top, intermediate and bottom corner nodes, tensile stresses are less than .5 Mpa.

Reinforcement of 16mm dia. @ 200 c/c both ways in corner 3m region on abutment side face
of dam above EL. 1238 shall be adequate for this load condition.

Other region is in either compression or negligible tensile stresses near to 0Mpa.

Figure 12.6.3:NOF Rock – Vertical Normal stress plot for load case F

Maximum induced normal vertical compressive stress is .368N/mm2.

Page 63(115)
.

12.7 Normal Operating Conditions + DBE + Extreme

uplift(Load Case G)
The following conditions prevail in this load combination:

• Dam fully Constructed

• Gates Closed

• Water at FRL

• Normal Tail Water Level

• Earthquake (DBE)

• Silt Load

• Uplift drains inoperative

Time varying static loads have been included with each time step of time history.

Figure 12.7.1:NOF – Maximum deformation plot for load case G

Page 64(115)
.

Figure 12.7.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case G

Stress time history of dam top node where maximum tensile stress of 1.65 Mpa is induced:

Page 65(115)
.

DCR Plot for the node where maximum principal tensile stress of 1.65Mpa is induced.

For any time step, DCR is less than 1.

There are no overstressed elements in this condition. Cumulative high stressed duration VS
DCR plot is:

Page 66(115)
 .

Figure 12.7.3:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for load case G

The results for this case indicate that normal vertical compressive stresses are induced at founding rock. Maximum
induced compressive stress is .358N/mm2 i.e. 358 kN/m2.

Page 67(115)
 .

12.8 Normal Operating + MCE(Load Case H)

The following conditions prevail in this load combination:

• Dam fully Constructed

• Gates Closed

• Water at FRL

• Normal Tail Water Level

• Silt Load

• Seismic MCE

Time varying static loads have been included with each time step of time history.

Figure 12.8.1:NOF – Maximum deformation plot for load case H

Page 68(115)
.

Figure 12.8.2:NOF - Major Principal stress plot for load case H

Stress time history of node where maximum tensile stress of 2.553 Mpa is induced:

Page 69(115)
.

DCR Plot for the node where maximum principal tensile stress of 2.553Mpa is induced.

For any time step, DCR is less than 1. Allowable DCR for H condition is 2. There are no
overstressed elements in this condition.

Page 70(115)
.

Figure 12.8.3:NOF Rock – Vertical normal stress plot for load case H

The results for this case indicate that normal vertical compressive stresses are induced at
founding rock. Maximum induced compressive stress is .4099N/mm2 i.e. 409.9 kN/m2.

13 OF Block - Displacement and stress results

The results of the analysis are presented in the form of displacements and stresses for
individual loads or load combinations, as applicable. In case of dynamic analysis, the results
are normally presented as envelopes of maximum stresses, time history of displacements, and
time history of factor of safety against sliding. The results for various loadings/load
combinations are discussed below.

+ve induced stresses are tensile and -ve induced stresses are compressive.

The results of the analysis are presented in the form of displacements and stresses for
individual loads or load combinations, as applicable.

13.1 End of Construction Condition(Load A)

Dam completed but no water in the reservoir and no tail water. The following conditions prevail
in this load combination:

• Dam Fully Constructed

• Reservoir Empty

• No Tail Water

Page 71(115)
.

• No Uplift

Figure 13.1.1:OF – Total deformation plot for end of construction load case

Figure 13.1.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for end of construction load case

Page 72(115)
.

Induced stresses on upstream face below EL. 1230 are less than permissible limit of .25Mpa.
No reinforcement required on upstream face of spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230.
Reinforcement evaluation shall be done in separate report considering loads in valley direction
also.

13.2 Normal Operating Condition(Load B)

Full reservoir, normal dry weather tail water, normal uplift. The following conditions prevail in
this load combination:

• Dam Fully Constructed

• Gates Closed

• Water at FRL

• Normal Tail Water Level

• Silt Load

Figure 13.2.1:OF – Total deformation plot for load case B

Page 73(115)
.

Figure 13.2.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case B

Induced stresses on upstream face below EL. 1230 are either compressive or near to zero. No
reinforcement required on upstream face of spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230.
Reinforcement evaluation shall be done in separate report considering valley direction forces
also.

13.3 Flood Condition(Load C)

Maximum flood level, tail water corresponding to PMF, normal uplift. The following conditions
prevail in this load combination:

• Dam Fully Constructed

• Gates Open

• Water at MWL

• Maximum Tail Water Level

• Silt Load

Page 74(115)
.

Figure 13.3.1:OF – Total deformation plot for load case C

Figure 13.3.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case C

Induced stresses on upstream face below EL. 1230 are either compressive or near to zero. No
reinforcement required on upstream face of spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230.
Reinforcement evaluation shall be done in separate report considering valley direction forces
also.

Page 75(115)
.

13.4 End of Construction Condition + DBE(Load Case D)

This load combination reflects the condition when the dam has been constructed but is yet to
be impounded when an earthquake (DBE) occurs. A possible failure mode in this condition is
upstream toppling of the dam following crushing of concrete at the heel. Analysis for this load
combination includes the following conditions:

• Dam fully constructed

• Earthquake (DBE)

Figure 13.4.1:OF – Maximum deformation plot for load case D

Page 76(115)
.

Figure 13.4.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case D

Page 77(115)
.

Induced stresses on upstream face below EL. 1230 are either compressive or less than .2Mpa.
No reinforcement required on upstream face of spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230.

Since, behaviour of various components of overflow block are flexural in nature, DCR criteria
is not of any significance. Reinforcement evaluation above EL. 1230 and upstream portion of
raft bottom shall be computed in separate report considering loads in across river flow direction
also.

13.5 Normal Operating Conditions + DBE(Load Case E)

The following conditions prevail in this load combination:

• Dam fully Constructed

• Gates Closed

• Water at FRL

• Normal Tail Water Level

• Earthquake (DBE)

• Silt Load

• Normal uplift

Figure 13.5.1:OF – Maximum deformation plot for load case E

Page 78(115)
.

Figure 13.5.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case E

Induced stresses on upstream face below EL. 1230 are either compressive or near to zero.
High tensile stresses are induced on the upstream edge of bottom face of raft. Required
reinforcement in upstream edge of raft shall be evaluated later in the report considering other
load cases also.

No reinforcement required on upstream face of spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230 in other
region.

Reinforcement of 16mm dia. @ 200 c/c shall be provided around the gallery, stair and sump
openings in spillway mass concrete.

Since, behaviour of various components of overflow block are flexural in nature, DCR criteria
is not of any significance. Reinforcement evaluation above EL. 1230, spillway crest, pier
anchorages, piers, breast wall and bridge shall be computed in separate report considering
loads in across river flow direction also.

13.6 Flood Condition with drains inoperative(Load F)

Maximum flood level, tail water corresponding to PMF, uplift with drains inoperative. The
following conditions prevail in this load combination:

• Dam Fully Constructed

• Gates Open

• Water at MWL

• Maximum Tail Water Level

Page 79(115)
.

• Silt Load

• Uplift with drains inoperative

Figure 13.6.1:OF – Total deformation plot for load case F

Figure 13.6.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case F

Page 80(115)
.

Induced stresses on upstream face below EL. 1230 are either compressive or near to zero. No
reinforcement required on upstream face of spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230.
Reinforcement evaluation shall be done in separate report considering valley direction forces
also.

13.7 Normal Operating Conditions + DBE + Extreme

uplift(Load Case G)
The following conditions prevail in this load combination:

• Dam fully Constructed

• Gates Closed

• Water at FRL

• Normal Tail Water Level

• Earthquake (DBE)

• Silt Load

• Uplift drains inoperative

Figure 13.7.1:OF – Maximum deformation plot for load case G

Page 81(115)
.

Figure 13.7.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case G

Induced stresses on upstream face below EL. 1230 are either compressive or near to zero.
High tensile stresses are induced on the upstream edge of bottom face of raft.

Reinforcement in river flow direction:

Tensile stresses along flow:

Page 82(115)
.

Compressive stresses are induced at about 8m from u/s edge.

High tensile stress concentration at u/s bottom edge of spillway mass concrete can be
attributed to element singularity. After ignoring these stresses:

Permissible tensile strength of concrete is considered as 1% of 28-day characteristic

compressive strength of concrete i.e. .25 Mpa. At 1950mm from bottom face, induced stresses
are compressive. Bottom face tensile stresses vary from 3Mpa to 4.0426Mpa and compressive
stresses at 1950mm vary from .9563 Mpa to 1.2 Mpa.

Tensile stress of 3.75 Mpa and compressive stress of 1 Mpa has been considered to evaluate
reinforcement:

Page 83(115)
.

Since, load condition is seismic 33% increase in permissible stress of steel has been considered.

Area of required concrete = .5 x (3.75 + .25) x 1436.842 x 1000 / (1.33 x 275) = 7856.96
mm2 per m

Provide 32mm dia. @ 200 c/c on bottom surface raft in river flow direction from u/s edge to
8m downstream. Provide additional reinforcement of 32mm dia. @ 200 c/c(net spacing 100
c/c) in river flow direction from u/s edge to 3m downstream.

SZZ stress distribution:

All are compressive along the u/s face. No reinforcement required on upstream face of NOF
block.

Ignoring high edge stresses which can be attributed to element singularity:

Page 84(115)
.

Induced compressive stresses are less than permissible i.e. 1.33 x 7 = 7.98 Mpa

SYY stress distribution:

All compressive. No reinforcement required in Y direction. However, provide distribution

reinforcement of 20mm dia. @ 200 c/c with main reinforcement on bottom face of raft.

No reinforcement required on upstream face of spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230 in other
region.

Reinforcement of 16mm dia. @ 200 c/c shall be provided around the gallery, stair and sump
openings in spillway mass concrete.

Page 85(115)
.

Since, behaviour of various components of overflow block are flexural in nature, DCR criteria
is not of any significance. Reinforcement evaluation above EL. 1230, spillway crest, pier
anchorages, piers, breast wall and bridge shall be computed in separate report considering
loads in across river flow direction also.

13.8 Normal Operating + MCE(Load Case H)

• The following conditions prevail in this load combination:

• Dam fully Constructed

• Gates Closed

• Water at FRL

• Normal Tail Water Level

• Silt Load

• Seismic(MCE)

Figure 13.8.1:OF – Maximum deformation plot for load case H

Page 86(115)
.

Figure 13.8.2:OF - Major Principal stress plot for load case H

Induced stresses on upstream face are tensile in nature but less than the permissible limit of
2 x 2.77Mpa for H condition. High tensile stresses are induced on the upstream edge of bottom
face of raft. Being extreme case (MCE condition), these stresses are not considered for
reinforcement evaluation. This load condition is analysed to check that dam do not collapse
though it endure major damages during severest earthquake.

Since, behaviour of various components of overflow block are flexural in nature, DCR criteria
is not of any significance.

14 NOF Block – Stability

Figure 14.1:NOF Block – Coordinate axis

Page 87(115)
.

Table-1: Partial Load Factors for friction angle (phi) and cohesion (c) [2]

Partial factors of safety

F Fc
Loading Condition
For dam and the Contact Plane with
Foundation

A, B, C 1.50 3.60

D, E 1.20 2.40

F, G, 1.00 1.20

H 1.00 1.00

Reactions are obtained from MIDAS analysis:

S.No. Load Reaction Fx Reaction Fy Reaction Fz

(kN) (kN) (kN)
1 Selfweight 0 0 298152.89
2 Uplift 0 0 -42202.061
3 Hydrostatic FRL 0 -109707 11743.156
4 Silt Load 0 -1942.691 4905.6538
5 Hydrodynamic 0 -26724.31 0
6 Normal TWL 0 0 0
7 Hydrostatic MWL 0 -121173.5 11961.025
8 Maximum TWL 0 33550.256 28517.717
9 Uplift drains inoperative 0 0 -89858.381
FOS against sliding is given as:

Page 88(115)
.

For cohesion, base area at EL. 1218 has only been considered.

14.1 Load Case A

14.1.1 Sliding Check

No lateral force, FOS against sliding is infinity.

14.1.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Page 89(115)
.

Figure 14.1.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Maximum induced compressive stress at EL. 1218m is 98.69 kN/ m2 . Tension on founding
levels above EL. 1218 indicates dam block tends to deflect towards across valley direction.
However, maximum induced tension in dam foundation is less than the cohesion between rock
and concrete i.e. 215 kN/m2.

14.2 Load Case B

14.2.1 Sliding Check

Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Sliding Force = 111649.673 kN

Vertical Force = 272599.634 kN
FOS = 2.35 >1, Safe

14.2.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Page 90(115)
.

Figure 14.2.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Maximum induced compressive stress at EL. 1218m is 75.2 kN/m2. Tension on founding levels
above EL. 1218 indicates dam block tends to deflect towards across valley direction. However,
maximum induced tension in dam foundation is less than the cohesion between rock and
concrete i.e. 215 kN/m2.

14.3 Load Case C

14.3.1 Sliding Check

*Tail water corresponding to PMF has been considered in this case. Hence, more weight and
resistance to lateral force.

Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Sliding Force = 89565.9407 kN

Vertical Force = 296429.567 kN
FOS = 3.08275516 >1,Safe

14.3.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Page 91(115)
.

Figure 14.3.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Maximum induced compressive stress at EL. 1218m is 109.355 kN/m2. Tension on founding
levels above EL. 1218 indicates dam block tends to deflect towards across valley direction.
However, maximum induced tension in dam foundation is less than the cohesion between
rock and concrete i.e. 215 kN/m2.

14.4 Load Case D

14.4.1 Sliding Check

Time history of Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Page 92(115)
.

FOS in initial time cycles are extremely high to be housed in graph as seismic lateral force is
negligible.

Minimum FOS is 5.72.

14.4.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Figure 14.4.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Maximum induced compressive stress at EL. 1218m is .091 Mpa i.e. 91 kN/m2. Tension on
founding levels above EL. 1218 indicates dam block tends to deflect towards across valley

Page 93(115)
.

direction. However, maximum induced tension in dam foundation is less than the cohesion
between rock and concrete i.e. 215 kN/m2.

14.5 Load Case E

14.5.1 Sliding Check

Time history of Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Minimum FOS is 1.85.

14.5.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Page 94(115)
.

Figure 14.5.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Maximum induced compressive stress at EL. 1218m is 94.94 kN/m2. Tension in a very small
each has also been observed edge of foundation. Tension on founding levels above EL. 1218
indicates dam block tends to deflect towards across valley direction. However, maximum
induced tension in dam foundation is less than the cohesion between rock and concrete i.e.
215 kN/m2.

14.6 Load Case F

14.6.1 Sliding Check

Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Sliding Force = 89565.9407 kN

Vertical Force = 248773.247 kN
FOS = 2.78375816 >1, safe

14.6.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Page 95(115)
.

Figure 14.6.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Maximum induced compressive stress at EL. 1218m is 89.42 kN/m2. Tension on founding
levels above EL. 1218 indicates dam block tends to deflect towards across valley direction.
However, maximum induced tension in dam foundation is less than the cohesion between
rock and concrete i.e. 215 kN/m2.z

Page 96(115)
.

14.7 Load Case G

14.7.1 Sliding Check

Time history of Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Minimum FOS is 2.62.

14.7.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Figure 14.7.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Page 97(115)
.

Maximum induced compressive stress is 103.06 kN/ m2 . Tension has also been observed
edge of foundation in a small reach at EL. 1218. Tension on founding levels above EL. 1218
indicates dam block tends to deflect towards across valley direction. However, maximum
induced tension in dam foundation is less than the cohesion between rock and concrete i.e.
215 kN/m2 below EL. 1260m.

14.8 Load Case H

14.8.1 Sliding Check

Time history of Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Minimum FOS is 2.37.

Page 98(115)
.

14.8.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Figure 14.8.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Maximum induced compressive stress is 117.38 kN/m2. Tension has also been observed
edge of foundation in a small reach at EL. 1218. Tension on founding levels above EL. 1218
indicates dam block tends to deflect towards across valley direction. However, maximum
induced tension in dam foundation is less than the cohesion between rock and concrete i.e.
215 kN/m2 below EL. 1260m. The slight excess tension above EL. 1260m shall be ignored as
this condition is extreme condition(MCE condition).

Page 99(115)
.

15 Overflow Block – Stability

Figure 15.1:OF Block – Coordinate axis

Reactions are obtained from MIDAS analysis :

Reaction Reaction Reaction

S.No. Load Fx Fy Fz
(kN) (kN) (kN)
1 Selfweight 0 0 1461940
2 Uplift 0 -0.0008 -381907
3 Hydrostatic FRL 0 -7.7241 243225.1
4 Silt Load 0 0 36833.96
5 Hydrodynamic -103867 0.0005 0
6 Normal TWL 14586.05 0 0
7 Hydrostatic MWL 0 -4.7246 166265.4
8 Maximum TWL 0 -0.0768 176018.3
9 Uplift drains inoperative -37875.4 -0.0005 -699914
FOS against sliding is given as:

In FE analysis gate reactions on trunnion not considered as it will have negligible effect on
stresses induced in spillway mass concrete.

However, additional lateral force due to gate reactions added to Hydrostatic FRL reactions to
check factor of safety against sliding.

Additional force of .5 x (180 + 340) x 16 x 7.8 x 2 = 64896kN considered with hydrostatic

force for FRL condition.

For cohesion, base area at EL. 1205 has only been considered.

Page 100(115)
.

Table-2: Partial Load Facjtors for friction angle (phi) and cohesion (c) [2]

Partial factors of safety

F Fc
Loading Condition
For dam and the Contact Plane with
Foundation

A, B, C 1.50 3.60

D, E 1.20 2.40

F, G, 1.00 1.20

H 1.00 1.00

15.1 Load Case A

15.1.1 Sliding Check

No lateral force, FOS against sliding is infinity.

15.1.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Page 101(115)
.

Figure 15.1.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Stresses are compressive in nature and maximum induced compressive stress is less than
250 kN/m2 after ignoring u/s edge stresses which can be attributed to element singularity.

15.2 Load Case B

15.2.1 Sliding Check

Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Sliding 499131.821
Force = kN
Vertical
Force = 1363738.679 kN
FOS = 1.755 >1,safe

15.2.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Page 102(115)
.

Figure 15.2.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

After ignoring corner/edge stresses which can be attributed to element singularity , induced
stresses below dam block are compressive in nature and maximum induced compressive
stress is less than 200 kN/m2.

15.3 Load Case C

15.3.1 Sliding Check

Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Sliding
Force = 246889.976 kN
Vertical
Force = 1422316.754 kN
FOS = 3.681 >1,safe

15.3.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Page 103(115)
.

Figure 15.3.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

After ignoring corner/edge stresses which can be attributed to element singularity , induced
stresses below dam block are compressive in nature and maximum induced compressive
stress is less than 330 kN/m2.

15.4 Load Case D

15.4.1 Sliding Check

Time history of Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

FOS in initial time cycles are extremely high to be accommodated in graph as seismic lateral
force is negligible.

Page 104(115)
.

15.4.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Figure 15.4.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

After ignoring upstream corner/edge stresses which can be attributed to element singularity ,
induced stresses on upstream foundation are less than 500 kN/m2. Slight tension of the order
of 300 kN/m2 (D/S key edge stress ignored) is induced on the downstream edge in about
10% foundation area.

15.5 Load Case E

15.5.1 Sliding Check

Page 105(115)
.

Time history of Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Minimum FOS is 1.01.

15.5.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Figure 15.5.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Page 106(115)
.

Tension is induced on the upstream region about 20% of foundation area. Maximum induced
compression on d/s edge is of the order of 300kN/m2 after ignoring extreme D/S edge
compression.

15.6 Load Case F

15.6.1 Sliding Check

Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Sliding
Force = 246889.976 kN
Vertical
Force = 1104309.568 kN
FOS = 2.957 >1,safe

15.6.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Figure 15.6.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

After ignoring corner/edge stresses which can be attributed to element singularity, induced
stresses below dam block are compressive in nature and maximum induced compressive
stress is less than 200 kN/m2.

Page 107(115)
.

15.7 Load Case G

15.7.1 Sliding Check

Time history of Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Minimum FOS is 1.06.

15.7.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented
here:

Figure 15.7.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

Page 108(115)
.

About 25% of upstream portion of dam foundation is under tension. Maximum induced
compression is less than 400 kN/m2 after ignoring abnormally high edge stresses which can be
attributed to element singularity.

15.8 Load Case H

15.8.1 Sliding Check

Time history of Factor of safety against sliding is given by:

Minimum FOS is .89. Only 6 cycles out of 500 are showing FOS marginally less than 1 which
can be ignored.

15.8.2 Base Pressure

Maximum induced stress in founding rock in terms of major principal stress are presented here:

Page 109(115)
.

Figure 15.8.2.1: Foundation – Major principal Stress

About 75% of upstream portion of dam foundation is under tension. Maximum induced
compression is less than 400 kN/m2.

16 Conclusions and recommendations

The finite element analysis has been carried out on the tallest monolith of the dam and assesses
the structure under static and dynamic load cases for usual, unusual and extreme load
combinations.

Dynamic time-history analyses are used to assess earthquake performance of the highest
monolith of the dam. The step-by-step time history analysis provides important insight into the
dynamic behaviour of the dam, accounts for transitory nature of earthquake ground shaking,
and helps in identifying potential modes of failure.

Static stresses for the usual load combinations are within the acceptable range. The magnitude
of compressive and tensile stresses developing under static and dynamic cases are found to be
within limit. This indicates the dam to be safe against cracking along the base for DBE and MCE
level of ground motion. Based on the analyses performed in these studies the proposed dam
section shows satisfactory behaviour under all applicable static and earthquake loads.

High tensile stress concentrations are observed on the u/s and d/s edges of abutment side face
of NOF block.

Page 110(115)
.

Being extreme case(MCE condition),Load case H is not considered for reinforcement evaluation.
This condition is analyzed such that dam do not collapse though it may undergo severe
damages in case of maximum credible earthquake.

Maximum induced nodal tension is 1.65 Mpa for load case E. It is concentrated at one node at
EL. 1254.25. It can be attributed to element singularity. In general, maximum induced tension
is of the order of 1Mpa. Reinforcement of 16mm dia. @ 200 c/c both ways in corner 3m region
on abutment side face of dam above EL. 1238 shall be adequate for this load condition.

16mm dia. @ 200c/c both ways shall be provided around gallery openings and trash rack
storage opening in mass concrete. No reinforcement is required in other region of mass
concrete in NOF block. Induced compressive stresses are less than permissible in every case.
Reinforcement in control room, lift and staircase shall be evaluated in separate report.

Page 111(115)
.

Summary of stability computations for NOF block are as below:

Maximum
Maximum
stress on
compressive
Load Case Toe side Sliding Factor Remarks
stress at EL.
at EL.
1218 (Mpa)
1218(Mpa)
Almost
entire base at
A .098(C) .0065(T) Infinity EL.1218 is
under
compression
Almost
entire base at
B 0.075(C) .03(C) 2.35 EL.1218 is
under
compression
Almost
entire base at
C 1.1(C) .019(C) 3.08 EL.1218 is
under
compression
Almost
entire base at
D 0.091(C) 0.004(T) 5.72(minimum) EL.1218 is
under
compression
Almost
entire base at
E 0.089(C) 0.019(C) 1.85(minimum) EL.1218 is
under
compression
Almost
entire base at
F 0.1(C) 0.02(C) 2.78 EL.1218 is
under
compression
Almost
entire base at
G 0.103(C) 0.01(C) 2.62(minimum) EL.1218 is
under
compression
Almost
entire base at
H 0.12(C) O(T) 2.37(minimum) EL.1218 is
under
compression
In NOF block, tension has been observed at founding level above EL. 1218. Induced tension is
significantly less than cohesion between rock and concrete. Hence, dam will not leave contact
with the abutment. NOF block is safe in all operating conditions analyzed herein.

In overflow block, spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230m is mostly under compression with
slight induced tension within permissible limits of concrete in Load cases A, B,C,D and F.

There is high edge tension induces on the u/s edge of foundation in load cases E, G and H.
Tension has also been observed in bottom face of founding concrete on u/s side of bottom
foundation gallery.

Page 112(115)
.

Being extreme condition (MCE condition), Load case H has not been considered in
reinforcement evaluation. This condition is analyzed such that dam do not collapse though it
may undergo severe damages in case of maximum credible earthquake.

U/S foundation edge reinforcement has been computed in para. 13.7 above.

Provide 32mm dia. @ 200 c/c on bottom surface raft in river flow direction from u/s edge to
8m downstream. Provide additional reinforcement of 32mm dia. @ 200 c/c(net spacing 100
c/c) in river flow direction from u/s edge to 3m downstream. Provide distribution reinforcement
of 20mm dia. @ 200 c/c .

Provide 16mm dia. @ 200 c/c around the gallery, stair and sump openings in spillway mass
concrete

There is no reinforcement required in spillway mass concrete below EL. 1230 on u/s face.
Induced compressive stresses are less than permissible in every case. Reinforcement
evaluation of spillway crest, piers, breast wall, bridge and for anchorage requirements shall be
carried out in separate report considering forces in valley direction also.

Summary of stability computations for NOF block are as below:

Page 113(115)
.

Maximum
Maximum
stress on
compressive
Toe side
Load Case stress at Sliding Factor Remarks
at
founding
founding
level (Mpa)
level(Mpa)
Almost entire
Infinity
A .45(C) .08(T) base under
compression
Almost entire
2.017
B 0.38(C) .08(T) base under
compression
Almost entire
3.68
C .46(C) .12(T) base under
compression
Almost
2.38(minimum) entire base
D 0.85(C) .9(T)
under
compression
About 20% of
total founding
1.08(minimum)
E .82(C) .82(C) area on u/s
side is in
tension
Almost
2.96 entire base
F 0.26(C) 0.12(T)
under
compression
About 20% of
total founding
1.12(minimum)
G 0.8(C) 0.8(C) area on u/s
side is in
tension
About 50% of
total founding
area on u/s
side is in
tension.
0.89(minimum) Resultant lies
H 0.8(C) 0.8(T)
within base.
FOS is less
than 1 in 6
cycles out of
500. Can be
ignored.

It is seen that in load case involving DBE, induced stresses are less than the allowable stresses
(i.e. DCR<1) and in those load cases involving MCE, the DCR is less than 2. It implies that
linear time history analysis is acceptable.

Based on the present finite element study it can be said that the dam is safe and will behave
in a satisfactory manner with suggested provisions.

Page 114(115)
.

17 References
1) Direct-Finite-Element Method for Nonlinear Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Dams
Including Dam–Water–Foundation Rock Interaction by A K Chopra and Arnkjell Løkke
2) State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams 2013, U.S. Department
of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado
3) USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1995) - Gravity Dam Design Report
EM 1110-2-2200
4) USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003) - Time history Analysis of Concrete
Hydraulic Structure EM 1110-2-6051
5) USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2007) - Time history Analysis of Concrete
Hydraulic Structure EM 1110-2-6053
6) IS 6512 ‘Criteria for Design of Solid Gravity Dams’, IS: 6512 - 2019
7) IS 1893 ‘Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of structures’. IS: 1893:1984.

Page 115(115)