Concrete Thermal Strain 345

CONCRETE THERMAL STRAIN, SHRINKAGE AND CRACKING ANALYSIS

FOR THE PANAMA CANAL THIRD SET OF LOCKS PROJECT

Vik Iso-Ahola, P.E.
1

Bashar Sudah, P.E.
2

Vincent Zipparro, P.E.
3


ABSTRACT

The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) has undertaken the Panama Canal Expansion
Program to increase the Canals capacity in order to meet the continuous growth in the
number of transits and vessel size. The expansion of the Canal involves the construction
of two new lock facilities, one on the Atlantic side and another on the Pacific side each
with three chambers; the excavation of a new Pacific access channel to the new locks,
and widening and deepening of the existing navigational channels and entrances; and
increasing the elevation of Gatun Lakes maximum operating level.

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional incremental finite element thermal analyses
were performed using ANSYS software to estimate the temperature distribution within
the new lock walls, lock heads, crossunders, central connections, and chamber conduits
which consist of reinforced mass concrete structures. The estimated temperatures from
the finite element model were used to estimate the thermal strains and potential for
cracking using procedures outlined in ACI 207. The overall evaluation was used to
determine optimal concrete placement temperatures, contraction joint spacing, and to
comply with the Employers Requirements regarding concrete temperature gradient
limitations. Potential for cracking due to drying shrinkage was also evaluated and crack
depths were estimated based on the anticipated moisture distribution within the concrete
structures.

This paper presents the thermal strain, drying shrinkage strain, and cracking potential
analyses that have been performed for the new lock walls, lock head structures, and
related concrete structures for the Panama Canal Third Set of Locks Project. The results
of these analyses were used as key inputs to concrete mixes and their placement
temperatures which are designed to withstand for 100 years the deleterious effects of
seawater and load cycling of hydrostatic pressures during filling & emptying of lock
chambers.

INTRODUCTION

Completion of the new Pacific and Atlantic Lock Complexes for the Panama Canal
Expansion Project (illustrated in Figure 1) includes construction of several massive
concrete sections that consist of lock walls, lock heads, central connections, and

1
Principal Engineer, MWH Americas Inc., Walnut Creek, California, vik.iso-ahola@mwhglobal.com
2
Structural Engineer, MWH Americas Inc., Walnut Creek, California, bashar.sudah@mwhglobal.com
3
Design Engineer, Panama Canal Third Set of Locks Project, MWH Americas Inc., Chicago, Illinois,
vincent.j.zipparro@mwhglobal.com
346 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
crossunders. These structures are being constructed using two different concrete mix
types, a Structural Marine Concrete (SMC) mix and an Interior Mass Concrete (IMC)
mix. A typical concrete section consists of IMC encapsulated by SMC facing. The SMC
facing is typically 60 cm thick while the IMC varies in thickness based on the geometry
of the structures. A typical lock wall monolith (Figures 2 and 3 in the following section)
is approximately 18 meters wide, 30 meters high and 29 meters long. Each lock wall
monolith contains two 6.5 meter high culverts; the main and secondary culverts are 8.3
and 7 meters wide, respectively. The culvert walls vary in thickness from 1.5 meters
(center wall) to 4 meters. The wall stem thickness ranges from 12 meters at the bottom to
2 meters at the top. The designed lift heights range from 2 meters (culvert) to 3.75 meters
(wall stem), and are constructed with IMC and SMC facing. Another feature of the lock
structures include crossunders that provide utility and personnel access underneath the
lock chambers and are constructed of SMC (Figure 4).


Figure 1. Artistic Rendering of the Panama Canal Third Set of Locks Project

The lock head structures (Figure 5) that house the lock chamber rolling gates are
approximately 38.4 meters high, 67 meters wide, and 20 meters in section length, with
wall thicknesses varying from roughly 6.6 to 14 meters. Similar to the lock wall
structures, the lock head structures are constructed with IMC and SMC facing. The lock
head structures are designed with thick concrete sections that provide housing for the
rolling gates when they are in the open position, and protected dry bays that allow for
maintenance and access to the gates, which are approximately 33 meters high by 58
meters long and either 8 or 10 meters wide.

The culverts within the lock wall sections are part of the filling and emptying system that
routes water from the lock chambers to either the Water Savings Basins (WSB) adjacent
Concrete Thermal Strain 347
to the lock structures (when they are used), or from Gatun Lake and chamber to chamber
and to the Ocean when Lake to Ocean operations are used. Efficient routing of water
requires a complex culvert geometry that includes curved conduits and connections
which result in thick concrete sections (Figures 6 & 7) constructed with IMC and SMC
facing.

Mix designs for the IMC and SMC utilize onsite materials, local cement and pozzolan,
and imported silica fume to produce mixes that meet ACP temperature and durability
requirements, which stipulate a minimum 100-year life for the structures, including, but
not limited to, protection of the reinforcing steel for resistance against corrosion from
chloride (sea water) attack.

THERMAL CRACKING EVALUATION

In order to mitigate concrete cracking potential and meet ACP requirements for
durability, a thermal cracking analysis was performed in order to select the optimal
combination of concrete mixes and placement temperatures. Initially, a finite element
thermal evaluation was performed to consider various temperatures and placement
scenarios. Thereafter, both mass and surface gradient analyses, including estimated strain
computations, were executed to perform the cracking evaluation. By combining the
results from the finite element model with simplified strain computations, estimates of
cracking potential for various combinations of mixes and placement temperatures were
provided as changing geometry (e.g. over-excavation), mix designs, and cooling
constraints were encountered during construction. The thermal studies were performed in
general accordance with ETL 1110-2-542 (USACE, 1997).

Thermal Finite Element Analysis

Finite element thermal analysis was performed to estimate time-dependent temperature
distributions and peak temperatures at specific points in both the Pacific and Atlantic lock
complexes to verify ACP requirements for concrete temperature differentials and
thereafter as input into thermal strain computations.

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional finite element models for the incremental
thermal analyses were created to represent the typical geometry of the Pacific and
Atlantic lock walls, lock heads, crossunders, central connections, and chamber conduits.
Using the computer program ANSYS Version 12.1, these models were developed to
simulate phased construction of the concrete lifts, estimating the maximum temperature
rise at critical locations in the structures. Representative finite element models for each
structure analyzed are presented in Figures 1 to 6 below.

348 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
Figure 2. Pacific Lock Wall Model Figure 3. Atlantic Lock Wall Model


Figure 4. Cross-under Model Figure 5. Lock Head Model





Figure 6. Central Connection Model Figure 7. Chamber Conduit Model

Material properties used in the finite element thermal models were selected from
laboratory test results and typical values published for mass concrete mixes with
pozzolan and basalt aggregates, and are summarized in Table 1 below.


Concrete Thermal Strain 349

Table 1. Summary of Material Properties
Properties Units
Interior
Mass
Concrete
(IMC)
Structural
Marine
Concrete
(SMC)
Specific Heat (C
h
) kJ / kgC 0.83 0.83
Thermal Conductivity (K) kJ / mhC 3.74 3.74
Density () kg / m
3
2508 2523
Diffusivity (h
2
) m
2
/ h x 10
-3
1.79 1.78
Adiabatic Temperature Rise C 26.8 52.3
Ultimate Compressive Strength (F
c
) MPa 30.3 59.2

Ultimate Modulus of Elasticity (E
c
) GPa 38.9 43.3

Coefficient of Thermal
Expansion (CTE)
mil/C 8.0 8.0

Adiabatic temperature rise curves were developed in the laboratory for typical SMC and
IMC mixes used in the lock structures. These curves were used to develop the concrete
heat generation functions used to simulate heat rise within the finite element model
(Figure 8).


Figure 8. Adiabatic Temperature Rise Curves for Concrete

The average daily temperatures at the Pacific and Atlantic sites, including the effects of
the diurnal cycle, were applied as ambient temperatures at the air-exposed boundaries of
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

R
i
s
e

(

C
)
Age (days)
Adiabatic Temperature Rise Curves
Structural Marine Concrete Interior Mass Concrete
350
the F
diurn

Figu
(B

Figu
(

In ad
boun
coeff
ETL




20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
C
)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
C
)
EM models
nal cycles for
ure 9. Averag
Balboa Statio
ure 11. Avera
Gatun Statio
ddition, a con
daries, simu
ficient (film
1110-2-365
Pacific
46.4 kJ/h.
22.9 kJ/h.

Atlantic
45.0 kJ/h.
22.6 kJ/h.
33.1
34.0
34.4
34.2
26.6
27.2
27.5
27.8
22.4
22.7
22.9
23.8
JAN FEB MAR APR
Balboa
Daily Maximum, M
Average M
30.5 30.6
31.2
31.7
23.9
24.2 24.3
24.7
26.5
26.7
27.0
27.4
JAN FEB MAR APR
Gatun
Daily Maximum, M
Average
for every 4-
r both sites a
ge Ambient T
on Pacific

age Ambient
on Atlantic
nvection bou
ulating heat tr
coefficient, h
(USACE, 1
.m
2
C (conc
.m
2
C (usin
.m
2
C (conc
.m
2
C (usin
31.9
31.5 31.6
31
27.1
26.8 26.7
26
24.2
24.0
23.8
23
MAY JUN JUL AU
Station (1985 - 2
Minimum and Average Air
Max Average A
31.7 31.5
31.0
3
24.6
24.3
24.2 2
27.2
27.0
26.7 2
MAY JUN JUL A
Station (1985 - 2
Minimum and Average Ai
Max Average Min
Innova
-hour time st
are plotted in
Temperature
Lock Site)
t Temperatu
c Lock Site)
undary condi
ransfer base
h) for the th
994). The re
crete expose
ng plywood f
crete expose
ng plywood f
1.3
30.9
30.6
31.0
6.5
26.3
26.1 26.1
3.6 23.5 23.4 23.3
UG SEP OCT NOV
2005)
r Temperatures
Average Min
31.2
31.7 31.6
30.9
24.1 24.0 23.9 23.8
26.7 26.6 26.5
26.3
AUG SEP OCT NOV
2005)
ir Temperatures
Average
ative Dam a
tep. The ave
n Figures 8 t
es Figu
(Ba
ures Figu
(G
ition was app
d on average
ermal analys
esulting film
d to air, no f
formwork).
d to air, no f
formwork).
32.0
26.2
22.9
DEC
30.5
23.9
26.4
DEC
and Levee D
erage temper
to 11 below.
ure 10. Diurn
alboa Station
ure 12. Diur
Gatun Station
plied at the c
e wind cond
ses was calc
m coefficients
formwork)
formwork)
Design and C
ratures and n

nal Tempera
n Pacific L

rnal Tempera
n Atlantic L
concrete air-
ditions. The c
culated as de
s were calcu
Constructio
normalized
ture Cycle
Lock Site)
ature Cycle
Lock Site)
-exposed
convection
scribed in
ulated to be:
on
Conc
Lift c
but w
each
was r
snaps
prese

Mass

Once
finite
crack
sectio
Strain
temp
crack
crete Therm
configuration
were generall
subsequent
removed from
shot of peak
ented in Figu
Figure 13. T
s Gradient S
e the estimate
e element mo
king potentia
ons.
ns were com
erature diffe
king. The eq
Tensile st
Strain
therm
Where
K
R
K
f

c
E
c
T
CT
mal Strain
n and lift hei
ly placed in
lift was plac
m each lift o
temperature
ure 13 below
Temperature
Strain Evalu
ed temperatu
odels, mass g
al, both in the
mputed in acc
erentials wer
quations used
tress = f
t
= K
mal
= K
R
K
f
(C
R
= degree of
f
= degree of
c
= contractio
c
= sustained
occurred
T = differen
temper
TE = Coeffic
ights used in
3 meter lifts
ced on the pr
on the 7th da
es generated
w.
e Distribution
uation
ure distributi
gradient stra
e longitudin
cordance wit
re used to ev
d to estimate
K
R
K
f

c
E
c
(Eq
CTE)T
f structural g
f foundation
on if there w
d modulus o
d and for the
nce betwee
rature
cient of The
n the models
s. The model
revious lift a
ay after place
in the lock w
n Within Lo

ions within t
ain evaluation
al and transv
th ACI 207.2
aluate the po
e thermally i
q. 5-2 in sect
geometry res
restraint exp
were no restra
of elasticity
duration inv
n concrete
rmal Expans
varied from
l inputs cons
at 7 day inter
ement. A ty
wall after se
ck Wall Sec
the structure
ns were perf
verse directi
2R, where pe
otential for t
induced strai
tion 5.2 of A
straint expre
pressed as a
aint
of the conc
volved
peak temp
sion
m structure to
servatively a
rvals and tha
ypical heat di
equenced pla

ction (at t=10
es were deter
formed to ch
ions of the an
eak tempera
thermally ind
in are presen
ACI 207.2R)
essed as a rat
ratio
crete at the t
perature and
35
o structure,
assumed that
at formwork
istribution
acement is
00 days)
rmined in th
heck for
nalyzed cros
atures and
duced
nted below.

tio
time when
d final stabl
51
t
e
ss

c
le
352 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
Prior to computing mass gradient strains, age based compressive strength curves based on
laboratory data (Figure 14) were determined, which were then correlated to time
dependent tensile capacity, creep, and modulus of elasticity functions. The correlations
were based on either published relationships or curve fit plots from correlated laboratory
data. Laboratory tested modulus of elasticity vs. compressive strength is presented in
Figure 15.

Figure 14. Estimated Compressive Strength of Concrete


Figure 15. Estimated Youngs Modulus vs. Compressive Strength of Concrete
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 10 100 1000
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,

f
'
c
(
M
P
a
)
Age (days)
Estimated Compressive Strength
Interior Mass Concrete (183+77)
Structural Marine Concrete (300+56+19)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

M
o
d
u
l
u
s
,

E
c
(
G
P
a
)
Compressive Strength, f'
c
(MPa)
Estimated Modulus of Elasticity
Ec @ 25% of Ultimate Load
Ec @ 75% of Ultimate Load
Ec @ 100% of Ultimate Load
Concrete Thermal Strain 353
Using these time dependent properties, the sustained modulus (Schrader, 1985) of the
concrete was computed for the approximate time period that elapsed from peak
temperature to the stable mean annual temperature for select nodes in the FEM model.
The sustained modulus was used to account for the change (increase) in modulus of
elasticity for the evaluated time periods, but also incorporates the effects of stress
relaxation due to creep, generally resulting in a net reduction in the elastic modulus.
Thereafter, strain capacities for each concrete mix were computed using the sustained
modulus (Table 2).

Table 2. Tensile Strain Capacity of Interior Mass and Structural Marine Concrete

From the ANSYS thermal model, temperature time histories were extracted to determine
the maximum temperatures generated in the concrete during construction at critical
locations. Figure 16 shows temperature time histories used to evaluate the Pacific Lock
Wall.

Concrete Age
Range (days)
Interior Mass Concrete Structural Marine Concrete
Initial Final
E
initial

(GPa)
E
final

(GPa)
E
sustained
(GPa)
Strain
Capacity
(10
-6
)
E
initial
(GPa)
E
final

(GPa)
E
sustained

(GPa)
Strain
Capacity
(10
-6
)
0 1 0.0 9.9 4.7 57 0.0 24.7 11.0 92
1 3 9.9 18.3 12.9 50 24.7 37.0 28.2 77
3 7 18.3 25.3 19.3 54 37.0 42.4 35.8 95
7 14 25.3 32.9 25.0 67 42.4 43.6 38.6 119
14 28 32.9 38.9 30.1 82 43.6 43.3 38.7 140
28 90 38.9 41.7 32.0 98 43.3 42.8 37.0 171
90 180 41.7 42.3 33.6 100 42.8 42.8 36.9 174
180 365 42.3 42.5 33.1 104 42.8 42.8 36.1 180
354
Figu
The t
differ
durat
norm
differ
restra
age o
concr
strain
Whil
modi
geom
K
f
fac
interp
strain
Wall.
ure 16. Tem
temperature
rential to the
tion from the
malized to the
rentials were
aint factors a
of concrete (f
rete mixes. T
n to check fo
e maintainin
fication fact
metric proper
ctors were c
polated from
n calculation
.
mperature Tim
time historie
e average ann
e peak tempe
e mean annu
e used to cal
and equation
from temper
The strain li
or thermal cr
ng a constant
tors, K
R
and
rties of each
alculated us
m tables deve
ns is shown in
Innova
me Histories
the Rig
es were used
nual ambien
erature after
ual temperatu
culate the str
ns from ACI
rature peak t
mit of each
racking poten
t coefficient
K
f
were inpu
element wer
ing ACI 207
eloped by AC
n Table 3 for
ative Dam a
for Pacific L
ht Culvert W
d to estimate
nt temperatur
placement t
ure was deter
rains in the c
207.2R. Th
o mean annu
age range w
ntial at each
of thermal e
ut as the onl
re used to de
7.2R, Equatio
CI and refine
r the longitu



and Levee D
Lock Wall w
Wall
e the maximu
re at each loc
to the point w
rmined. The
concrete at e
he allowable
ual) was then
was then com
node.
expansion, th
ly variable p
etermine the
on 5-1, whil
ed by Schrad
udinal directi
Design and C
with Marine
um temperat
cation. Ther
when the sel
e temperature
each location
strains for t
n determined
mpared to the
he ACI 207.
arameters. A
se modificat
le K
R
factors
der. An exam
ion of the Pa
Constructio
Concrete in
ture
reafter, the
lected node
e
n using
the selected
d for the
e calculated
2R
At each node
tion factors.
s were
mple of thes
acific Lock
on

e,

e
Concrete Thermal Strain 355
Table 3. Mass Gradient Cracking Analysis (Pacific Lock Walls)


Surface Gradient Strain Evaluation

In addition to the mass gradient thermal strain evaluation, a surface gradient strain
evaluation was performed. The surface gradient evaluation considered the potential for
development of surface cracks during the critical period in the days immediately after
placement when the surface of the concrete cools and contracts more rapidly than the
warmer interior mass concrete.
Surface gradient strains were evaluated based on the difference between actual
temperatures throughout a given cross section and the concrete placement temperature.
The critical point in surface gradient strain evaluations required determining where stress
in the concrete is zero, or where it switched from tension (at the surface) to compression
(beneath the surface). By plotting balanced temperature differences through a given
cross section (Figure 17), the depth at which this transition occurred was determined.
This depth was subsequently used to calculate the strain modification factor, K
R
. for input
into strain computations as defined in ACI 207.2R. For the surface gradient evaluation,
age ranges during the curing process were used to determine the time dependent material
properties for input into the calculation of strain capacity. A similar process to the mass
gradient evaluation was then used to calculate the strain demand in the concrete and
checked against the computed strain capacity.

Base of Culverts 1.3 1.00 0.93 41.5 14.8 23 - 365 121 110.2 91% No
Left Culvert Wall 4.8 1.00 0.48 59.1 32.4 6 - 180 196 124.3 63% No
Right Culvert Wall 4.8 1.00 0.55 60.1 33.4 7 - 180 192 147.5 77% No
Left Culvert Wall 8.23 1.00 0.55 60.2 33.5 7 - 180 192 147.8 77% No
Right Culvert Wall 8.23 1.00 0.48 58.8 32.1 5 - 90 192 123.3 64% No
Top of Culverts 11.4 1.00 0.89 42.0 15.3 15 - 365 130 108.3 83% No
Lower Part of Stem 18.4 0.41 0.35 45.4 18.7 29 - 365 116 21.8 19% No
Middle of Stem 25.9 0.11 0.35 46.1 19.4 19 - 365 125 6.0 5% No
Top of Stem 34.1 0.01 0.35 58.5 31.8 2 - 49 206 0.9 0% No
Strain Demand (Longitudinal
Direction)
Modification Factors
(Long. Direction)
KR Kf
Strain
(10
-6
)
Percent
Strain
Cracking Location
Rel Elev
(m)
Max T
(C)
T
(C)
Age
Range
(days)
Strain
Limit
(10
-6
)
Representative Nodes
Temperature
Differential
Age Dependent
Strain Capacity
356

The c
Pacif








Initial
Time
(days)
0
1
2
4
7
14
28
56
90
180
(1) Tem
(2) Pos
Figure
calculated su
fic Lock Wal
Table

)
Final
Time
(days)
E
initial
(GPa)
1 0.00
2 17.72
4 23.22
7 28.61
14 31.54
28 32.49
56 31.90
90 30.89
180 30.57
365 30.40
meprature difference
sitive is tension and n
e 17. Surfac
urface gradie
ll are summa
4. Surface G
E
final
(GPa)
Creep
F(k) (
17.72 35.0
23.22 6.9
28.61 5.1
31.54 3.9
32.49 3.1
31.90 2.6
30.89 2.3
30.57 2.1
30.40 2.1
30.23 2.1
e from the balanced t
negative is compress
Innova
e Gradient T
ent strains ac
arized in the
Gradient Ana
E
sus
MPa)
Compressive
Strength
(MPa)
8.2 14.26
19.7 20.84
24.5 30.25
28.3 39.71
29.6 51.34
29.5 59.24
28.6 65.82
28.1 67.57
27.4 68.45
26.8 69.33
temperature (zero st
sion
ative Dam a
Temperature
cross the firs
e table below
alysis (First
Tensile
Strength
(MPa)
H L/
1.01 0.4 4
1.60 0.39 4
2.48 0.48 3
3.41 0.61 3
4.59 0.75 2
5.42 0.78 2
6.12 0.93 1
6.31 1.1 1
6.40 1.33 1
6.50 1.45 1
tress temperature)
and Levee D
es Across Co
st lift of the l
w.
Lift of Left
/H h/H K
r
45 1.00 0.93
46 1.00 0.94
38 1.00 0.92
30 1.00 0.90
24 1.00 0.88
23 1.00 0.88
19 1.00 0.85
16 1.00 0.83
14 1.00 0.79
12 1.00 0.78
Design and C
oncrete Secti
left culvert w
Culvert Wa
T
(1)
(C)
Incrementa
T
(C)
2.52 2.52
9.77 7.25
16.03 6.26
17.71 1.68
16.28 -1.43
9.34 -6.94
5.58 -3.76
3.48 -2.09
2.21 -1.27
0.83 -1.38
Constructio
ion
wall for the
all)
l
% Capacity Crackin
15% No Cra
77% No Cra
95% No Cra
79% No Cra
52% No Cra
18% No Cra
4% No Cra
0% No Cra
1% No Cra
1% No Cra
on


ng
ack
ack
ack
ack
ack
ack
ack
ack
ack
ack
Concrete Thermal Strain 357
DRYING SHRINKAGE CRACKING EVALUATION

As exposed faces of the freshly placed cure and the moisture in the concrete normalizes
with the humidity in the ambient air, shrinkage caused by this loss of moisture produces
differential strains from the concrete surface to the interior mass, which can potentially
produce shrinkage cracks. The surfaces open to air in the lock chambers (exposed up to 1
year prior to filling and operation) were subject to drying shrinkage, requiring a cracking
potential evaluation to determine whether reinforcing steel would be exposed to chloride
attack and loss in durability. Identifying cracking potential and providing mitigations
was critical since exposed and untreated cracks in the lock chambers would be
exacerbated by the continuous filling and emptying of the locks during canal operations.
In order to determine the cracking potential of the designed concrete mixes, drying
shrinkage strain computations required estimation of the relative humidity within the
concrete blocks from the surface to the interior of the concrete, including the change in
humidity within the concrete over time. The relative humidity at depths from the concrete
surface to the interior is shown in Figure 18 for concrete ages ranging from 36 to 365
days for a typical concrete mix tested in the laboratory.


Figure 18. Estimated Relative Humidity vs. Depth in Concrete
The drying shrinkage strains at different relative humidity values were estimated from
actual 28-day drying shrinkage lab data points provided for the SMC mix, which were
derived from two separate moist cure periods of 7 and 28 days. These data points were
used as a basis for developing typical drying shrinkage strain curves for 14 and 28 day
moist cure periods, as shown in Figures 19 and 20, respectively.
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

H
u
m
i
d
i
t
y

(
%
)
Depth from surface(cm)
Relative Humidity Vs. Depth in Concrete
36 Days 72 Days
180 Days 365 Days
358 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

Figure 19. Estimated Drying Shrinkage Strains with 14-Day Moist Cure Period


Figure 20. Estimated Drying Shrinkage Strains with 28-Day Moist Cure Period
In addition, the strain evaluation assumed a concrete splitting tensile strength equal to
11%, and computed a sustained modulus using the modulus vs. compressive strength
curve (Figure 15) in order to determine strain capacity and tensile strength.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
D
r
y
i
n
g

S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
t
h
s
)
Sample Age (days)
Drying Shrinkage Strain (14-Day Moist Cure)
50% RH
60% RH
70% RH
80% RH
90% RH
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
D
r
y
i
n
g

S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
t
h
s
)
Sample Age (days)
Drying Shrinkage Strain (28-Day Moist Cure)
50% RH
60% RH
70% RH
80% RH
90% RH
Concrete Thermal Strain 359
The strain and tensile stress induced by the drying shrinkage was then calculated across
the evaluated section at increasing increments of age and compared against the estimated
strain capacity and tensile strength at the corresponding age. Strains were evaluated in 1
cm intervals from the concrete surface to depths where strain capacity exceeded drying
shrinkage strain (thus no cracking). The drying shrinkage strain evaluation compared
differences in cracking for a 14-day moist cure period (required curing period) versus a
28-day moist cure period. The comparative evaluation showed that, by extending the
curing period by 14 days to a total of 28 days, shrinkage strains and predicted cracking
depth was noticeably reduced. Results of the comparison are summarized in Tables 5
and 6.
Table 5. Drying Shrinkage Cracking Analysis (14-Day Moist Cure)

Depth from
Surface
(cm)
Age Range
(days)
Drying
Duration
(days)
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Strain
(10
-6
)
Incremental
Strain
(10
-6
)
E
sus
(GPa)
Incremental
Stress
(MPa)
Cumulative
Stress
(MPa)
Predicted
Tensile
Strength
(MPa)
% of
Capacity
Crack /
No Crack
14 - 28 0 - 14 79% 154 154 38.7 6.0 6.0 5.4 110% Crack
28 - 56 14 - 42 78% 261 107 38.0 4.1 10.0 6.1 164% Crack
56 - 90 42 - 76 77% 311 50 38.0 1.9 11.9 6.3 189% Crack
90 - 180 76 - 166 77% 331 20 36.9 0.7 12.7 6.4 198% Crack
180 - 365 166 - 351 76% 365 34 36.1 1.2 13.9 6.5 214% Crack
14 - 28 0 - 14 91% 66 66 38.7 2.6 2.6 5.4 47% No Crack
28 - 56 14 - 42 90% 118 52 38.0 2.0 4.5 6.1 74% No Crack
56 - 90 42 - 76 89% 149 31 38.0 1.2 5.7 6.3 91% No Crack
90 - 180 76 - 166 87% 187 38 36.9 1.4 7.1 6.4 111% Crack
180 - 365 166 - 351 85% 228 41 36.1 1.5 8.6 6.5 132% Crack
14 - 28 0 - 14 94% 44 44 38.7 1.7 1.7 5.4 31% No Crack
28 - 56 14 - 42 93% 83 39 38.0 1.5 3.2 6.1 52% No Crack
56 - 90 42 - 76 92% 108 25 38.0 0.9 4.1 6.3 66% No Crack
90 - 180 76 - 166 90% 144 36 36.9 1.3 5.5 6.4 85% No Crack
180 - 365 166 - 351 88% 182 38 36.1 1.4 6.8 6.5 105% Crack
14 - 28 0 - 14 96% 29 29 38.7 1.1 1.1 5.4 21% No Crack
28 - 56 14 - 42 95% 59 30 38.0 1.1 2.3 6.1 37% No Crack
56 - 90 42 - 76 94% 81 22 38.0 0.8 3.1 6.3 49% No Crack
90 - 180 76 - 166 92% 115 34 36.9 1.3 4.4 6.4 68% No Crack
180 - 365 166 - 351 90% 152 37 36.1 1.3 5.7 6.5 88% No Crack
14 - 28 0 - 14 98% 15 15 38.7 0.6 0.6 5.4 11% No Crack
28 - 56 14 - 42 97% 36 21 38.0 0.8 1.4 6.1 23% No Crack
56 - 90 42 - 76 96% 54 18 38.0 0.7 2.1 6.3 33% No Crack
90 - 180 76 - 166 94% 86 32 36.9 1.2 3.2 6.4 51% No Crack
180 - 365 166 - 351 92% 122 36 36.1 1.3 4.5 6.5 70% No Crack
14 - 28 0 - 14 98% 15 15 38.7 0.6 0.6 5.4 11% No Crack
28 - 56 14 - 42 97% 36 21 38.0 0.8 1.4 6.1 23% No Crack
56 - 90 42 - 76 97% 41 5 38.0 0.2 1.6 6.3 25% No Crack
90 - 180 76 - 166 95% 72 31 36.9 1.1 2.7 6.4 42% No Crack
180 - 365 166 - 351 93% 106 65 36.1 2.3 5.1 6.5 78% No Crack
Drying Shrinkage Strain (14-Day Moist Cure, Tensile Strength = 11% of Compressive Strength)
0
1
2
5
3
4
360 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
Table 6. Drying Shrinkage Cracking Analysis (28-Day Moist Cure)



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Lock wall and Lock head structures for the Panama Canal Third Set of Locks project
were analyzed for thermal stresses imposed during early placements of the massive
concrete sections, providing guidance on mix design, placement temperature, and
configuration to produce stress levels that minimized cracking in the critical water-
bearing structures. By combining the finite element thermal analysis with spreadsheet
based strain limit calculations, efficient re-evaluations were performed as additional
concrete mix material property data was produced during construction. This methodology
allowed for quick judgments and changes to be made for concrete placement
temperatures, lift heights, and other recommendations during the fast-paced design-build
construction. Similarly, drying shrinkage cracking potential for air-exposed lock chamber
surfaces was evaluated to determine cracking extent and provide recommendations for
minimization the potential for cracking. The cracking potential evaluations ultimately
provided optimization of mix designs and construction methodology to produce concrete
durable enough to meet stringent criteria for the projects 100 year design life.

REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI) September 2007, ACI 207.2R-07, Report on Thermal
and Volume Change Effects on Cracking of Mass Concrete
Autoridad del Canal de Panama, 2005-2009, Temperatura Horaria Promedio, Estacion
Balboa FAA, Periodo 2005-2009, Departamento de Ambiente, Agua y Energia, Division
de Agua, Seccion de Recursos Hidricos
Depth from
Surface
(cm)
Age Range
(days)
Drying
Duration
(days)
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Strain
(10
-6
)
Incremental
Strain
(10
-6
)
E
sus
(GPa)
Incremental
Stress
(MPa)
Cumulative
Stress
(MPa)
Predicted
Tensile
Strength
(MPa)
% of
Capacity
Crack
28 - 56 0 - 28 79% 150 150 38.0 5.7 5.7 6.1 93% No Crack
56 - 90 28 - 62 78% 186 36 38.0 1.4 7.1 6.3 112% Crack
90 -180 62 - 152 77% 214 28 36.9 1.0 8.1 6.4 127% Crack
180 - 365 152 - 337 76% 237 23 36.1 0.8 8.9 6.5 137% Crack
28 - 56 0 - 28 91% 64 64 38.0 2.4 2.4 6.1 40% No Crack
56 - 90 28 - 62 90% 85 21 38.0 0.8 3.2 6.3 51% No Crack
90 -180 62 - 152 87% 121 36 36.9 1.3 4.6 6.4 71% No Crack
180 - 365 152 - 337 85% 148 27 36.1 1.0 5.5 6.5 85% No Crack
28 - 56 0 - 28 94% 43 43 38.0 1.6 1.6 6.1 27% No Crack
56 - 90 28 - 62 93% 59 16 38.0 0.6 2.2 6.3 36% No Crack
90 -180 62 - 152 91% 84 25 36.9 0.9 3.2 6.4 49% No Crack
180 - 365 152 - 337 88% 118 34 36.1 1.2 4.4 6.5 68% No Crack
28 - 56 0 - 28 96% 29 29 38.0 1.1 1.1 6.1 18% No Crack
56 - 90 28 - 62 95% 42 13 38.0 0.5 1.6 6.3 25% No Crack
90 -180 62 - 152 93% 65 23 36.9 0.8 2.4 6.4 38% No Crack
180 - 365 152 - 337 91% 89 24 36.1 0.9 3.3 6.5 51% No Crack
28 - 56 0 - 28 98% 14 14 38.0 0.5 0.5 6.1 9% No Crack
56 - 90 28 - 62 97% 25 11 38.0 0.4 0.9 6.3 15% No Crack
90 -180 62 - 152 94% 56 31 36.9 1.1 2.1 6.4 33% No Crack
180 - 365 152 - 337 92% 79 23 36.1 0.8 2.9 6.5 45% No Crack
28 - 56 0 - 28 98% 14 14 38.0 0.5 0.5 6.1 9% No Crack
56 - 90 28 - 62 97% 25 11 38.0 0.4 0.9 6.3 15% No Crack
90 -180 62 - 152 95% 47 22 36.9 0.8 1.8 6.4 28% No Crack
180 - 365 152 - 337 93% 69 22 36.1 0.8 2.6 6.5 39% No Crack
4
5
Drying Shrinkage Strain (28-Day Moist Cure, Tensile Strength = 11% of Compressive Strength)
0
1
2
3
Concrete Thermal Strain 361
Autoridad del Canal de Panama, 2008, RFP-76161 - Design and Construction of the
Third Set of Locks, Appendix A, Climatological Data from Balboa FAA, Volume VI-
Reference Documents, Part 7 - Hydrometeorological Report, September 2008
Schn, J.H., 1996, Physical Properties of Rocks: Fundamentals and Principles of
Petrophysics, PermagonPress
Schrader, Tatro, 1985, "Thermal Considerations for Roller-Compacted Concrete", ACI
Journal, March-April 1985
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1994, ETL 1110-2-365, Engineering and
Design Nonlinear, Incremental Structural Analysis of Massive Concrete Structures, 31
December 1994
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1997, ETL 1110-2-542, Thermal Studies of
Mass Concrete Structures, 30 May 1997
USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) 1981, A Water Resources Technical Publication,
Engineering Monograph No.34, Control of Cracking in Mass Concrete Structures,
Revised Reprint 1981
USBR, 1992, Concrete Manual, Pt. 2, A Manual for the Control of Concrete
Construction, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1992.
URS Holdings, Inc., 2007, Table 4-42, Chapter 4, Category III Environmental Impact
Study, Panama Canal Expansion Project, July 2007

Hydromechanical Analysis 363
HYDROMECHANICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF A
GRAVITY DAM

Maria Lusa Braga Farinha
1

Eduardo M. Bretas
2

Jos V. Lemos
3


ABSTRACT

This paper presents a study on seepage in a gravity dam foundation carried out with a
view to evaluating dam stability for the failure scenario of sliding along the
dam/foundation interface. A discontinuous model of the dam foundation was developed,
using the code UDEC, and a fully coupled mechanical-hydraulic analysis of the water
flow through the rock mass discontinuities was carried out. The model was calibrated
taking into account recorded data. Results of the coupled hydromechanical model were
compared with those obtained assuming either that the joint hydraulic aperture remains
constant or that the drainage system is clogged. Water pressures along the
dam/foundation interface obtained with UDEC were compared with those obtained using
the code DEC-DAM, specifically developed for dam analysis, which is also based on the
Discrete Element Method but in which flow is modelled in a different way. Results
confirm that traditional analysis methods, currently prescribed in various guidelines for
dam design, may either underestimate or overestimate the value of uplift pressures. The
method of strength reduction was used to estimate the stability of the dam/foundation
system for different failure scenarios and the results were compared with those obtained
using the simplified limit equilibrium approach. The relevance of using discontinuum
models for the safety assessment of concrete dams is highlighted.

INTRODUCTION

Gravity dams resist the thrust of the reservoir water with their own weight. The flow
through the foundation, in the upstream-downstream direction, gives rise to uplift forces,
which, in turn, reduce the stabilizing effect of the structures weight. Due to the great
influence that uplift forces have on the overall stability of gravity dams, the distribution
of water pressures along the base of the dam should be correctly recorded, in operating
dams, and as accurately predicted as possible, using numerical models, at the design stage
or for dams in which additional foundation treatment is required.

Stability analysis of gravity dams for scenarios of foundation failure is often based on
simplified limit equilibrium procedures. Equivalent continuum models of the rock mass
foundation can be employed to assess the safety of concrete dams, complemented with

1
Research Engineer, Concrete Dams Department, LNEC National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Av.
Brasil 101, 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, lbraga@lnec.pt.
2
PhD, Graduate Student, Universidade do Minho, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, P-4800-058
Guimares, Portugal, eduardombretas@gmail.com.
3
Senior Research Engineer, Concrete Dams Department, LNEC National Laboratory for Civil
Engineering, Av. Brasil 101, 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, vlemos@lnec.pt.
364 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
interface elements to simulate the behaviour of joints, shear zones and faults along which
sliding may occur. More advanced analysis, however, is carried out with discontinuum
models which simulate the hydromechanical interaction, which is particularly important
in this type of structure. These models take into account not only shear displacements and
apertures of the foundation discontinuities, but also water pressures within the dam
foundation. Discrete element techniques, which allow the discontinuous nature of the
rock mass to be properly simulated, are particularly adequate to assess the safety of
concrete dams.

This study was carried out with data obtained from Pedrgo gravity dam (Figure 1), the
first roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam built in Portugal, located on the River
Guadiana. The dam is part of a multipurpose development designed for irrigation, energy
production and water supply (Miranda and Maia 2004). It is a straight gravity dam with a
maximum height of 43 m and a total length of 448 m, of which 125 m are of conventional
concrete and 323 m of RCC. The dam has an uncontrolled spillway with a length of
301 m with the crest at an elevation of 84.8 m, which is the retention water level (RWL).
The maximum water level (MWL) is 91.8 m. The foundation consists of granite with
small to medium-sized grains and is of good quality with the exception of the areas
located near two faults in the main river channel and on the right bank, where the
geomechanical properties at depth are weak. The construction of the dam began in April
2004 and work was concluded in February 2006. The controlled first filling of the
reservoir ended in April 2006.



a
d
b
g
c


Figure 1. Pedrgo dam. Downstream view from the right side of the uncontrolled
spillway and average position of the main sets of rock joints in relation to the dam.

In order to analyse seepage in some foundation areas and to interpret recorded discharges,
a two-dimensional equivalent continuum model was developed, in 2006, in which the
main seepage paths, identified with in situ tests, were represented (Farinha 2010; Farinha
et al. 2007). This model allowed recorded discharges during normal operation to be
accurately interpreted and thus it was used to calibrate the parameters of the
discontinuous hydromechanical model of Pedrgo dam foundation presented in this
paper. Analysis was carried out with the code UDEC (Itasca 2004), in which the medium
is represented as an assemblage of discrete blocks and the discontinuities as boundary
Hydromechanical Analysis 365
conditions between blocks. Water pressures along the dam/foundation interface obtained
with UDEC were compared with those obtained using the code DEC-DAM, which is
being developed as part of a PhD thesis currently being written by the second author, for
the safety assessment of gravity dams. This code is also based on the Discrete Element
Method but the flow is modelled in a different way. Results of the coupled
hydromechanical model were compared with those obtained with a simple hydraulic
model, in which the joint hydraulic aperture remains constant. The method of strength
reduction was used to estimate the stability of the dam/foundation system for different
failure scenarios, and the results were compared with those obtained using the simplified
limit equilibrium approach.

HYDROMECHANICAL DISCONTINUUM MODEL

Fluid flow analysis with both UDEC and DEC-DAM

The code UDEC allows the interaction between the hydraulic and the mechanical
behaviour to be studied in a fully-coupled way. Joint apertures and water pressures are
updated at every timestep, as described in Lemos (1999) and in Lemos (2008). It is
assumed that rock blocks are impervious and that flow takes place only through the set of
interconnecting discontinuities. These are divided into a set of domains, separated by
contact points. Each domain is assumed to be filled with fluid at uniform pressure and
flow is governed by the pressure differential between adjacent domains. Total stresses are
obtained inside the impervious blocks and effective normal stresses at the mechanical
contacts.

Flow is modelled by means of the parallel plate model, and the flow rate per model unit
width is thus expressed by the cubic law. The flow rate through contacts is given by:


l
p
a k q
j

=
3
(1)

where k
j
= a joint permeability factor (also called joint permeability constant), whose
theoretical value is 1/(12 ) being the dynamic viscosity of the fluid; a = contact
hydraulic aperture; p = pressure differential between adjacent domains (corrected for
the elevation difference); l = length assigned to the contact between the domains. The
dynamic viscosity of water at 20C is 1.002 10
-3
N.s/m
2
and thus the joint permeability
factor is 83.3 Pa
-1
s
-1
. The hydraulic aperture to be used in Equation 1 is given by:

a a a + =
0
(2)

where a
0
= aperture at nominal zero normal stress and a = joint normal displacement
taken as positive in opening. A maximum aperture, a
max
, is assumed, and a minimum
value, a
res
, below which mechanical closure does not affect the contact permeability.

The code DEC-DAM allows both static and dynamic analysis by means of the Discrete
Element Method, and has been used to investigate failure mechanisms of reinforced
366 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
gravity dams (Bretas et al. 2010). In both of the above-mentioned codes, the medium is
assumed to be deformable and the flow is dependent on the state of stress within the
foundation. The main difference between both codes relies on the hydraulic-mechanical
data model, mainly on the representation of block interaction. Regarding modelling of the
hydraulic behaviour, DEC-DAM considers flow channels, where the flow rate is
determined, and hydraulic nodes, where water pressures are calculated. The flow
channels correspond to the mechanical face-to-face contacts, while the hydraulic nodes
correspond to the sub-contacts where the mechanical interaction between blocks takes
place. The main advantage of the approach used in DEC-DAM is that the mechanical
actions of the water are obtained from the integration of a trapezoidal diagram of water
pressures (rectangular diagrams are used in UDEC), allowing greater accuracy even when
a coarse mesh is used. Both the above-mentioned codes allow the modelling of grout and
drainage curtains, which is necessary in order to study seepage in concrete dam
foundations.

Model description

The discontinuous model developed to analyse fluid flow through the rock mass
discontinuities is shown in Figure 2. In a simplified way, only two of the five sets of
discontinuities identified at the dam site were simulated: the first joint set is horizontal
and continuous, with a spacing of 5.0 m, and the second set is formed by vertical cross-
joints, with a spacing of 5.0 m normal to joint tracks and standard deviation from the
mean of 2.0 m. The former attempts to simulate the sub-horizontal set of discontinuities
g) and the latter the sub-vertical set b), both of which are shown in Figure 1. An
additional rock mass joint was assumed downstream from the dam dipping 25 towards
upstream, necessary to the stability analysis for failure scenarios of sliding along
foundation discontinuities. The foundation model is 200.0 m wide and 80.0 m deep. The
dam has the crest of the uncontrolled spillway 33.8 m above ground level and the base is
44.4 m long in the upstream-downstream direction. In concrete, a set of horizontal
continuous discontinuities located 2.0 m apart was assumed to simulate dam lift joints.
The UDEC model has 611 deformable blocks divided into 2766 zones, and 3451 nodal
points, and the DEC-DAM model has 611 deformable blocks.

200 m
80 m
33.8 m

Concrete:
unit weight = 2400 kg/m
3

Youngs modulus = 30 GPa
Poissons ratio = 0.2
Foundation blocks:
unit weight = 2650 kg/m
3

Youngs modulus = 10 GPa
Poissons ratio = 0.2
Foundation discontinuities:
k
n
= 1 or 10 or 100 GPa/m
k
s
= 0.5 k
n

= 30

Figure 2. Discontinuum model of Pedrgo dam foundation and material properties.
Hydromechanical Analysis 367
Both dam concrete and rock mass blocks are assumed to follow elastic linear behaviour,
with the properties shown in Figure 2. Discontinuities are assigned a Mohr-Coulomb
constitutive model, complemented with a tensile strength criterion. In a base run, a joint
normal stiffness (k
n
) of 10 GPa/m, a joint shear stiffness (k
s
) of 5 GPa/m, and a friction
angle () of 35 were assumed at the dam lift joints, at the foundation discontinuities and
at the dam/foundation interface. Both at the dam lift joints and at the dam/foundation
interface cohesion and tensile strength were assigned 2.0 MPa. In rock joints, cohesion
and tensile strength were assumed to be zero.



Figure 3. Block deformation (magnified 3000 times) due to dam weight, hydrostatic
loading and flow.

To take into account the uncertainty in joint normal stiffness, new analysis was carried
out assuming rock masses with different deformability (k
n
5 times higher and 5 times
lower than that assumed in the base run). Using the following equation,


s k E E
n R RM
1 1 1
+ = (3)

where E
R
is the modulus of deformation of the rock matrix, k
n
is the fracture normal
stiffness, and s is fracture spacing, the rock mass in which the normal stiffness of
discontinuities is assumed to be 2 GPa/m has an equivalent deformability of 5 GPa, that
with k
n
= 10 GPa/m an equivalent deformability of 8.33 GPa and the stiffest foundation,
with k
n
= 50 GPa/m, an equivalent deformability of 9.6 GPa.

Sequence of analysis

Analysis was carried out in two loading stages. Firstly, the mechanical effect of gravity
loads with the reservoir empty was assessed. In the UDEC model, an in-situ state of
stress with an effective stress ratio
H
/
V
= 0.5 was assumed in the rock mass. The water
table was assumed to be at the same level as the rock mass surface upstream from the
dam. Secondly, the hydrostatic loading corresponding to the full reservoir was applied to
both the upstream face of the dam and reservoir bottom. Hydrostatic loading was also
applied to the rock mass surface downstream from the dam. In this second loading stage,
mechanical pressure was first applied, followed by hydromechanical analysis. In both
368 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
stages, vertical displacements at the base of the model and horizontal displacements
perpendicular to the lateral model boundaries were prevented. Regarding hydraulic
boundary conditions, joint contacts along the bottom and sides of the model were
assumed to have zero permeability. The drainage system was simulated assigning a
hydraulic head along the drains equal to one third of the sum of the hydraulic head
upstream and downstream from the dam. On the rock mass surface, the head was 33.8 m
upstream from the dam, and 5.0 m downstream. Figure 3 shows a detail of dam and
foundation deformation due to the simultaneous effect of dam weight, hydrostatic loading
and flow.

Hydraulic parameters

The model hydraulic parameters (a
0
and a
res
), which correspond to an equivalent
permeability of the rock mass of 5.0 10
-7
m/s, were adjusted from a two-dimensional
equivalent continuum model previously developed, which had been calibrated taking into
account recorded discharges (Farinha et al. 2007). It was assumed that the grout curtain
was 10 times less pervious than the surrounding rock mass. The in situ borehole water-
inflow tests performed (test procedures described in detail in Farinha et al. (2011)), led to
the conclusion that the main seepage paths crossed the drains at between 3.0 and 8.0 m
down from the dam/foundation interface. In order to simulate this area where the majority
of the flow is concentrated, it was assumed that the horizontal discontinuity located 5.0 m
below the dam/foundation interface was 8 times more pervious than the other rock mass
discontinuities, in the area underneath the dam and crossing the grout curtain.

In every run, with different joint stiffnesses, the same a
max
and a
res
were assumed and a
0

was that which, in each analysis, led to the recorded discharge (a
0
= 0.1313 mm for
k
n
= 50 GPa/m, a
0
= 0.17 mm for k
n
= 10 GPa/m, and a
0
= 0.4287 mm for k
n
= 2 GPa/m
and a
res
= 0.05 mm). In this way, the same situation is simulated with different models,
which enables comparison of water pressures and apertures along the base of the dam or
along other rock mass discontinuities.

RESULTS ANALYSIS

Fluid flow analysis

Results of fluid flow analysis carried out with the UDEC model, with the reservoir at the
RWL, both with constant joint hydraulic aperture and taking into account the
hydromechanical interaction are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows the percentage
of hydraulic head contours within the dam foundation (percentage of hydraulic head is
the ratio of the water head measured at a given level, expressed in metres of height of
water, to the height of water in the reservoir above that level). In Figure 5, the line
thickness is proportional to the flow rate in the fracture.When the coupling between stress
and flow is taken into account, the loss of hydraulic head is concentrated at the grout
curtains area, below the heel of the dam, and the maximum water pressure is around
10 % higher (Figure 4 a) and b)). Without drainage, the hydraulic head decreases
gradually below the base of the dam (Figure 4 c)).
Hydromechanical Analysis 369

a) b)

c)



a) constant joint aperture

b) hydromechanical interaction

c) hydromechanical interaction, without drainage
system


Figure 4. Percentage of hydraulic head contours for full reservoir.




a) constant joint aperture
b) hydromechanical interaction
c) hydromechanical interaction, no drainage
system
max flow rate = 2.011E-05
each line thick = 3.000E-06
max flow rate = 2.089E-05
each line thick = 3.000E-06
max flow rate = 4.966E-06
each line thick = 3.000E-06
a) b)
c)


Figure 5. Flow rate for full reservoir (flow rate is proportional to line thickness; flow
rates below 3.0 10
-6
(m
3
/s)/m (0.18 (L/min)/m) are not represented).
370 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
Figure 5 shows that the majority of the flow is concentrated in the first two vertical joints
upstream from the heel of the dam, and that this water flows towards the drain, or
towards downstream in the foundation with no drainage system, along the joint of higher
permeability that crosses the grout curtain, which simulates the main seepage paths.
When the hydromechanical interaction is taken into account, flow rates are higher at
lower levels and a higher quantity of water flows into the model through the second
vertical joint upstream from the heel of the dam, rather than through the first as is the
case in the run where joint aperture remains constant. This depends on the increase in
water pressure in a given vertical joint, which causes the closure of adjacent vertical
joints. The maximum flow rate is slightly higher when the interaction is taken into
account (it varies from around 1.21 to 1.25 (L/min)/m). The quantity of water that flows
through the model in the analysis with no drainage system and constant joint aperture is
0.57 (L/min)/m. This increases by around 248 %, to 1.40 (L/min)/m, in the case of the
most deformable foundation, and decreases by around 26 %, to 0.42 (L/min)/m, in the
case of the stiffest foundation.

Water pressures along the dam/foundation joint

The variation of water pressures along the dam/foundation joint is shown in Figure 6,
along with a comparison of water pressures along the dam/foundation joint with both bi-
linear and linear uplift distribution, usually used in stability analysis of dams with and
without drainage systems, respectively. Results obtained with the foundations of different
deformability are presented. In the hydraulic analysis in which the HM effect is not taken
into account, variations in uplift pressures along both the interface and the foundation
discontinuities are the same regardless of the foundation deformability, because the joint
hydraulic aperture remains constant. Figure 6 shows that variations in water pressures are
highly dependent on the pressure on the drainage line. Upstream from this line, water
pressures are higher for more deformable foundations. Downstream from the drainage
line, on the contrary, water pressures are higher for stiffer rock masses. Along the
dam/foundation joint, if all the drains are clogged, the highest water pressures are
obtained with the stiffest foundation, and the lowest with the most deformable rock mass.

In the case of drained foundations, the water pressure curves are close to the bi-linear
distribution. In this case, computed water pressures between the heel of the dam and the
drainage line are lower than those given by the bi-linear distribution, whereas between
the drainage line and the toe of the dam they are higher, except for the most deformable
foundation. In the case of the stiffest foundations with no drainage system, calculated
uplift pressures are lower than those obtained with the linear distribution, to a distance of
around 8.0 m from the heel of the dam, and downstream from this point they are
considerably higher. At the dam/foundation joint end close to the toe of the dam, UDEC
water pressures are higher than those assumed with the linear distribution of pressures,
due to the presence of the rock wedge downstream from the dam. For the most
deformable foundation, the linear distribution of uplift pressures greatly overestimates
pressures along the base of the dam, with the exception of an area with a length of around
6.0 m, close to the toe of the dam.

Hydromechanical Analysis 371
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Distance from the heel along the base of the dam (m)
D
o
m
a
i
n

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
x

1
0
-
1

M
P
a
)
bi-linear distribution
of uplift pressures
linear distribution
of uplift pressures

constant joint aperture constant joint aperture, no drainage system
HM interaction (kn = 2 GPa/m) HM interaction, no drainage system (kn = 2 GPa/m)
HM interaction (kn = 10 GPa/m) HM interaction, no drainage system (kn = 10 GPa/m)
HM interaction (kn = 50 GPa/m) HM interaction, no drainage system (kn = 50 GPa/m)


Figure 6. Water pressure along the dam/foundation joint and comparison with both bi-
linear and linear distribution of water pressures.

Figure 7 shows the comparison between water pressures along the dam/foundation
interface calculated with both UDEC and DEC-DAM, for the case of joint normal
stiffness (k
n
) of 10 GPa/m and of both operational and non-operational drainage systems.
In the former case, there is an overall good match between the curves, except in the
vicinity of the drain due to the small difference in the location assumed in the numerical
representation.

0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Distance from the heel along the base of the dam (m)
D
o
m
a
i
n

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
x

1
0
-
1

M
P
a
)
DEC-DAM, no drainage system
UDEC
DEC-DAM
UDEC, no drainage system


Figure 7. Water pressure along the dam/foundation joint, calculated with both UDEC and
DEC-DAM.
372 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
STABILITY ANALYSIS

Strength reduction method

The UDEC model developed, with joint normal stiffness of 10 GPa/m, was used to assess
the stability of the dam/foundation system for the four different possible sliding failure
scenarios shown in Figure 8. Scenarios a) and d) concern only the dam/foundation joint.
Sliding along this interface is the most probable failure scenario in dam foundation rock
masses containing widely spaced discontinuities, none of which are unfavourably
oriented. Pedrgo dam is embedded in the foundation, and therefore the resistance to
sliding is high. Scenario d) neglects the resistance of the rock wedge at the toe of the
dam, in order to take into account a possible excavation downstream, close to the toe of
the dam. Scenario b) involves both the dam/foundation joint and the rock mass joint
dipping 25 towards upstream, which was purposely included in the model for stability
analysis. This hypothetical situation may simulate a combined mode of failure, where the
failure path occurs both along the dam/foundation interface and through intact rock, in
geology where the rock is horizontally or near horizontally bedded and the intact rock is
weak (USACE 1994). In scenario c), sliding along the inclined rock mass joint is
prevented, assuming that the behaviour of this joint is elastic.


a) dam/foundation interface b) dam/foundation interface and rock mass joint
downstream from the dam dipping 25 towards
upstream

c) dam/foundation interface, preventing slip on the
rock mass joint downstream from the dam dipping
25 towards upstream
d) dam/foundation interface, neglecting the
resistance of the rock wedge at the toe of the dam

Figure 8. Analysed failure modes.
Hydromechanical Analysis 373
Analysis was carried out with the method of strength reduction, typically applied in
foundation design. An initial friction angle of 35 was assigned to the rock mass
discontinuities, dam foundation interface and dam lift joints, and zero cohesion and zero
tensile strength were assigned to the dam/foundation joint, involved in the failure modes.
The model was first run until equilibrium, then the fluid flow analysis was switched off
and, from this step, water pressures were kept constant. For each failure scenario, the
friction angle of the discontinuities highlighted in Figure 8 was gradually reduced until
failure (the reduction coefficient was applied to tan ). The failure indicator was the
horizontal crest displacement. Analysis was carried out assuming that the reservoir was at
the RWL or at the MWL, and that the drainage system was either operational or non-
operational. Stability analysis results are shown in Figure 9 and in Table 1. In Figure 9,
friction angles in the x-axis are shown in reverse order, for ease of analysis.

a) b)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Friction angle (degrees)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
t

c
r
e
s
t

(
m
m
)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Friction angle (degrees)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
t

c
r
e
s
t

(
m
m
)
c) d)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Friction angle (degrees)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
t

c
r
e
s
t

(
m
m
)
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Friction angle (degrees)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
t

c
r
e
s
t

(
m
m
)
RWL, with drainage RWL, no drainage system RWL, failure MWL, with drainage MWL, failure


Figure 9. Variation in crest horizontal displacement due to reduction of the friction angle
on highlighted joints, for the failures modes shown in Figure 7.

In the four analysed failure modes, the dam foundation system is unstable when the
reservoir is at the MWL and the drainage system is non-operational, and therefore, these
situations are not shown in Figure 9. For the same reservoir level, in both scenarios a) and
c) the dam/foundation system remains stable when the drainage system is working
properly, while in scenario b), as shown in Figure 9, failure occurs for a friction angle of
around 27.5 (safety factor F = 1.4). In scenario d) the dam is unstable for friction angles
lower than 34.5 when the reservoir is at the MWL (F = 1.01).
374 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
Table 1. Comparison of friction angles for which failure occurs calculated with the
hydromechanical model and with the limit equilibrium method.

H
upstream.

(m)
H
downstream

(m)
Drainage
system
River bottom
downstream
from the dam
*
Friction angle
Limit
equilibrium **
UDEC
failure last stable
84.8 60.0 not operative 1) 27.8 34.2 34.5
(RWL) 2) 11.1 - 22.6 18.4 19.3
operative 1) 21.2 21.3 22.4
2) 8.2 - 17.1 14.0 14.5
91.8 67.8 not operative 1) 45.6 unstable
(MWE) 2) 27.8 - 40.6 unstable
operative 1) 32.4 34.5 34.7
2) 18.2 - 28.1 26.6 28.3
* Downstream from the dam the river bottom is: 1) at the same level as the dam/foundation interface
(51.0 m) scenario d)
2) at its actual level (59.5 m) scenario b)
** For failure scenario b), results are shown considering full passive force or only 1/3 of the passive force

Comparison of the UDEC results with those obtained using the limit equilibrium
method

Table 1 shows the comparison between the UDEC results and those from the equilibrium
method, for failure modes b) and d). In the analysis in which the stabilizing effect of the
rock wedge downstream from the dam is taken into account, the study was done
assuming either full development of passive pressure, which is improbable as it requires
large structure displacements, or the development of one-third of the passive pressure,
which is more realistic. Results show that the dam is stable when the reservoir is at the
RWL, even when the drainage system is inoperative. When the reservoir is at the MWL,
the safety factor is lower than 1 when: i) the drainage system is inoperative and the
resistance from the rock wedge downstream from the dam is neglected (F = 0.69); and ii)
the drainage system is inoperative and only one third of the passive force is considered in
the analysis (F = 0.82).

Failure mode d) is the only one which enables UDEC analysis to be verified, as the same
results must be obtained for similar loads with both the UDEC and limit equilibrium
analysis. Indeed, when the reservoir is at the RWL and the drainage system is operative
almost the same friction angles were obtained (21.2 in the limit equilibrium analysis and
between 21.3 and 22.39 in the UDEC analysis). A difference as low as around 2 is
obtained in similar conditions, but with the reservoir at the MWL (32.4 in the limit
equilibrium analysis and between 34.47 and 34.73 in the UDEC analysis). However,
when the drainage system is inoperative, the friction angles obtained in the UDEC
analysis (34.21 - 34.47) are higher than that given by the limit equilibrium method
(27.8). This difference can be explained by the higher uplift pressures obtained in the
UDEC analysis, when compared with those given by the linear distribution of water
pressures between the reservoir and the tailwater, assumed in the limit equilibrium
analysis. This difference in water pressures is shown in Figure 10. A limit equilibrium
analysis carried out assuming a resultant of the uplift pressure 24 % higher than that
Hydromechanical Analysis 375
given by the linear distribution of water pressures would lead to the same friction angle at
failure as the UDEC analysis (assuming that in the UDEC model failure occurs for a
friction angle of 34.3).

In the analysis in which it is assumed that downstream from the dam the reservoir is at its
actual level, the UDEC results are within the range of friction angles given by the limit
equilibrium method, when only part or full passive force is considered, but are closer to
those obtained for one third passive force.

NPA
33.8 m
9.0 m
NPA
33.8 m
9.0 m
34.7 34.5 32.4 operative (NME)
unstable 45,6 not operative 67.8 91.8
22.4 21.3 21.2 operative (NPA)
34.7 34.5 32.4 operative (NME)
unstable 45,6 not operative 67.8 91.8
22.4 21.3 21.2 operative (NPA)
0.09 MPa
0.338 MPa
linear distribution of
uplift pressures
hydromechanical model
RWL


Figure 10. Comparison between the UDEC results and those from the limit equilibrium
method.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents a study on seepage in Pedrgo dam foundation using a discontinuum
model, which was developed taking into account recorded data and information provided
from tests carried out in situ. Analysis of seepage was done using both UDEC and DEC-
DAM codes, which take into account the coupled hydromechanical behaviour of rock
masses. Stability analyses were carried out for different failure scenarios and with
different assumptions about uplift pressures and joint shear strength. Some of the
analyzed scenarios are highly unfavourable hypothetical situations, as in this dam the
resistance to sliding is high. Results allowed us to quantify the influence of water
pressures on the stability of the dam. This result draws attention to the importance of
using recorded water pressures for the sliding safety assessment of existing dams, as
recommended by the European Club of ICOLD (2004).

The uplift water pressure along the dam base is always of concern to the stability of
concrete dams and is usually prescribed in design codes assuming a bi-linear uplift
distribution to account for the relief drains. The study presented here shows that results
depend mainly on the joint normal stiffness and on joint aperture. The comparison
between the results obtained with the codes UDEC and DEC-DAM showed that there is a
good match between water pressures calculated along the dam foundation joint, with both
operational and non-operational drainage systems.

376 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction
Discontinuum models are difficult to apply in most practical cases, because jointing
patterns are very complex and there is usually a lack of data on hydraulic properties of
the discontinuity sets. Among these parameters are the orientation and spacing of
discontinuities, and the hydromechanical characterization data, namely joint normal
stiffness, joint apertures and residual aperture, which is not readily available. However,
such models which simulate the hydromechanical interaction are relevant in stability
analysis, and the uncertainty in the different parameters, can be overcome by performing
stability analysis assuming that each parameter may vary within a credible range.

Flow in fractured rock masses is mainly three-dimensional. However, in dam foundations
the flow is mainly in the upstream-downstream direction, and therefore 2D analysis may
be considered adequate in most cases. For arch dams, 3D analysis is necessary, but
coupled fracture flow modelling of an arch dam foundation would imply representing a
network of joints from various sets, which would be computationally prohibitive. The
alternative is to use 3D mechanical models, in which only the discontinuities involved in
possible failure modes are represented, and the water pressures are obtained from 3D
equivalent continuum models.

In dam stability evaluation, the main advantage of using a 2D hydromechanical
discontinuum code instead of the limit equilibrium method is that it allows the study of a
wider range of failure modes. In addition, this type of code enables displacements to be
calculated in seismic analysis, in contrast to what happens with the limit equilibrium
approach. This type of analysis is particularly useful when the foundation contains more
than one material or is made up of a combination of intact rock, jointed rock and sheared
rock, as, in these cases, the overall strength of the foundation depends on the stress-strain
characteristics and compatibility of the various materials. It is also relevant in those cases
in which controls of maximum displacement, needed to ensure proper function and
safety, may prevail over safety factor requirements. In 3D, discontinuum models are
particularly adequate for scenarios of foundation failure, as limiting equilibrium
procedures, like those proposed by Londe (1973), make basic assumptions about the
forces acting on the independent volumes of rock that may become kinematically
unstable, and are thus much simplified.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to EDIA, Empresa de Desenvolvimento e Infra-Estruturas do Alqueva,
SA for permission to publish data relative to Pedrgo dam.

REFERENCES

Bretas, E.M., Lger, P., Lemos, J.V., and Loureno, P.B. 2010. Analysis of a gravity dam
considering the application of passive reinforcement. In Proceedings of the II
International Congress on Dam Maintenance and Rehabilitation, 23-25 November,
Zaragoza 2010.

European Club of ICOLD 2004. Sliding safety of existing gravity dams Final Report.
Hydromechanical Analysis 377
Farinha, M.L.B. 2010. Hydromechanical behavior of concrete dam foundations. In situ
tests and numerical modelling. Ph.D. thesis. IST, Technical University of Lisbon,
Portugal

Farinha, M.L.B., Lemos, J.V., and Castro, A.T. 2007. Analysis of seepage in the
foundation of Pedrgo dam. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Dam
Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal, 14-16 February 2007. LNEC, Lisbon, pp. 195-202.

Farinha, M.L.B., Lemos, J.V. and Maranha das Neves, E. 2011. Numerical modelling of
borehole water-inflow tests in the foundation of the Alqueva arch dam. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 48(1): 72-88.

Itasca 2004. UDEC Universal Distinct Element Code. Version 4.0. Itasca Consulting
Group, Minneapolis, USA.

Lemos, J.V. 1999. Discrete element analysis of dam foundations. In Distinct Element
Modelling in Geomechanics. Edited by V.M. Sharma, K.R. Saxena and R.D. Woods.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 89-115.

Lemos, J.V. 2008. Block modeling of rock masses. European Journal of Environmental
and Civil Engineering, 12(7-8/2008), pp. 915-949.

Londe. P. 1973. Analysis of the stability of rock slopes. The Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, 6(1), pp. 93-124.

Miranda. M.P., and Maia, M.C. 2004. Main features of the Alqueva and Pedrgo
Projects. The International Journal on Hydropower and Dams 11(Issue Five, 2004): 95-
99.

USACE 1994. Rock foundations. Engineer Manual 1110-1-2908. Washington, DC.