Stability and structural design of a concrete gravity dam

Verónica Ribeiro Gama

[email protected]

Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Instituto Superior Técnico,

University of Lisbon

Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal

October 2022

Abstract

Dams are water storage structures with great importance, in particular in the production of hydroelectric
energy, in the use of water for agriculture and human consumption, in the regulation of flow rates, in
mitigating climate change and in recreational and tourism activities.

Concrete gravity dams have their stability guaranteed by their own weight, with a cross section
approximately triangular with the vertical or subvertical upstream surface.

The main loads to be considered in the structure’s safety checks are the self-weight, the forces due to
the hydrostatic pressures against the upstream and downstream dam faces, the uplift pressures in the
foundation, the lateral earth pressures caused by the sediments deposited in the reservoir and the
earthquake forces.

The structural safety checks are principally aimed at the dams’ safety control, in the most economical
way.

This dissertation presents the criteria for the structural safety checks, the models and methodologies for
the analysis of concrete gravity dams according to the main international technical guidelines,
complemented with Portuguese standards in order to guarantee an adequate level of safety and based
on a case study.

It can be concluded that the most relevant aspects in structural safety are the dam’s profile, the
characteristics of the rock foundation and the waterproofing treatments and drainage systems. The
earthquake scenarios are the most conditioning, along with the verification of sliding stability.

Keywords: Dam; Stability; Design; Structure; Concrete

1
1 Introduction. 2 General work description.

This dissertation presents the structural safety The Caculo Cabaça dam, with a straight axis, is
checks in relation to stability and stresses at the located in the Kwanza River valley and presents
dam base, at a selected plane within the a maximum height of 103 m. The upstream face
structure and in the concrete structure. The load is vertical and the downstream one is sloped at
cases, the stability and stress analysis, 0,85:1 (H:V), as presented in Figure 1. The dam
methodologies, requirements and criteria for will be founded on gneiss rock mass
each of the loading conditions are presented outcropping in the river bed at elevation (530).
within the scope of safety checks and according With full supply water level (FSWL) at elevation
to the main international technical guidelines, (630), the dam impounds a reservoir with a
complemented with Portuguese standards, in capacity of 436 hm3 and maximum flooded area
order to ensure the adequate safety conditions. of 16,6 km2.
The load cases presented correspond to The dam is divided into 33 blocks, separated by
situations in which multiple loads can act 32 contraction joints and defined by vertical
simultaneously.
planes perpendicular to the dam’s axis, which
The concepts presented are applied to a case are 17 m apart, as presented in Figure 2.
study, the concrete gravity dam inserted in the
Caculo Cabaça Hydroelectric Power Plant in
Angola, which is under construction. Its typical
cross section is presented in Figure 1, adapted
from (Costa, Amador, Mateus, Santo, Morgado,
Carlos, Chico, 2022) [2].

Figure 2: Caculo Cabaça 3D drawing, adapted from [2].

The dam is provided with a drainage gallery

(DG) and three horizontal visit galleries (VG1,
VG2 and VG3) at elevations (560), (582) and
(604) (see Figure 1), for the consolidation and
waterproofing treatments, for the drainage
curtain at the foundation and for the monitoring
system’s installation.

The waterproofing treatment (grout curtain) is

estimated with a maximum depth of 50 to 60 m
below the foundation level. It is envisaged to
install, at a later stage, a drainage curtain to
control residual seepage below the foundation
and to promote a substantial reduction of uplift
Figure 1: Caculo Cabaça dam - typical cross pressures at the dam’s base.
section, adapted from [2].

2
3 Materials, loads, load cases 3.2.1 Structure self-weight.

and safety checks criteria. For the weight of the structure, a concrete
density of 24 kN/m³ is considered.
3.1 Materials.
3.2.2 Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
The Caculo Cabaça dam is a roller-compacted
pressures.
concrete (RCC) gravity dam. The vibrated
conventional concrete (CCV) is only used in For the calculation of the hydrostatic pressures
specific zones, as presented in Table 1 and (pw), equation (1) is considered:
Figure 3, to ensure the watertightness of the 𝑝𝑤 (𝑧) = 𝛾𝑤 . 𝑧 (1)
upstream face, to limit the seepage from the
where w is the water density (10 kN/m³) and z
foundation into the dam’s body and to ensure
is the water height in relation to the water
the desired resistance and good surface finish
surface.
of the downstream face and galleries.

Table 1: Concrete characteristics and application For the calculation of the hydrostatic pressure
areas in the dam’s typical cross section. at the dam’s base at the position of the drainage

Designation Application zones fck(1) (2)

fctk gallery (pw.DG), equation (2) is considered:
(MPa) (MPa)
RCC 1
Between elevations 12 1,2 1
(530) and (560) 𝑝𝑤.𝐷𝐺 = 𝛾𝑤 . ℎ + . 𝛾𝑤 . (𝐻 − ℎ) (2)
Between elevations 10 1,0
3
RCC 2 (560) and (590)
RCC 3 Above elevation (590) 8 0,8 where h is the downstream water height and H
1,0 m near the
foundation, upstream
is the upstream water height above the dam’s
CCV 30 2,0
face and galleries;
(C30/37) 0,60 m near the base. According to the NPB, 1993 [4] [5] and
downstream face
(1) – fck: Characteristic compressive strength for cylindrical complemented with the USACE, 1995 [3], a
samples; (2) – fctk: Characteristic tensile strength.
value of 1/3 is considered, which represents a
2/3 reduction of the uplift pressures by the
waterproofing treatments and the drainage
curtain installed from the galleries.

The resultant of the hydrostatic forces is

obtained by the integration of the hydrostatic
pressure diagrams.

For a seismic event and a vertical upstream

face, the hydrodynamic pressure diagram
(pw.sis) has a parabolic shape and it is calculated
according to (Westergaard, 1933) [1] and by
equation (3):
Figure 3: Location of the different concretes [2].
7
3.2 Loads. 𝑝𝑤.𝑠𝑖𝑠 (𝑧) = .𝑘 . 𝛾 . √ℎ𝑤 . 𝑧 (3)
8 𝑠𝑖𝑠.ℎ 𝑤

The considered loads, according to the USACE, where ksis.h is the seismic horizontal coefficient
1995 [3] and complemented with the NPB, 1993 (defined in Table 3) and hw is the water height
[4] [5] are listed in the following subchapters. above the dam’s base.

3
According to (Westergaard, 1933) [1], the studies for the operational basis earthquake
resultant force (Iw.sis) of the hydrodynamic (OBE) and maximum design earthquake (MDE)
pressure diagram and its point of application (COBA, 2016) [9], according to the USACE,
(zw.sis) measured from the base can be 1995 [3] and NPB, 1993 [4] [5].
determined by equations (4) and (5): Table 2: Peak accelerations at ground level.
7 asis.h (1) asis.v (2)
𝐼𝑤.𝑠𝑖𝑠 = .𝑘 .𝛾 .ℎ 2 (4)
12 𝑠𝑖𝑠.ℎ 𝑤 𝑤 OBE 0,10 g ±2/3 asis.h
𝑧𝑤.𝑠𝑖𝑠 = 0.4. ℎ𝑤 (5) MDE 0,15 g ±2/3 asis.h

3.2.3 Static and dynamic earth pressures. (1) – asis.h: Horizontal ground peak acceleration; (2) – asis.v:
Vertical ground peak acceleration.

The static and dynamic earth pressures are not The combination of the seismic action components

expected in the Caculo Cabaça dam as a result in different directions is considered according to

of the situation presented in the case study, in Table 2 and Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1) [6].

which the effect of the sediment retention in the The seismic coefficients presented in Table 3
Capanda and Laúca dams reduce the effluent result from the quotient between peak
sediments to the Caculo Cabaça dam. acceleration values and gravity acceleration.

However, it is noted that the calculation of the Table 3: Horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients.
static earth pressure can be done using the ksis.h ksis.v
(1) (2)
sediment parameters and according to OBE 0,067 ; 0,100 ±2/3 ksis.h (1) (2)
MDE 0,100 (1) ; 0,150 (2) ±2/3 ksis.h (1) (2)
Coulomb’s or Rankine’s theory. The latter’s has
(1) – For safety stability checks; (2) – For safety checks of
the advantage of being simpler. The sediments stresses at the dam base and in the concrete.

are generally sandy materials, so cohesion can A pseudo-static analysis in which the seismic
be not considered in the design. The lateral actions are quantified by the adoption of
earth pressures will be in an active or an at-rest equivalent forces defined for the seismic
state, whether or not there is lateral deformation coefficients presented in Table 3 is considered
of the dam. for the stability and stresses at the dam’s base.

For a seismic event, the additional and dynamic For the concrete stresses, a dynamic analysis
earth pressure diagram, respectively resultant is considered in which the seismic actions are
force and point of application, can be calculated quantified by the definition of response
according to the Mononobe-Okabe method, as spectrums according to EC8 (EN 1998-1) [6] for
presented in Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-5) [7]. intraplate earthquakes (type 2), calibrated for
the peak accelerations presented in Table 2.
3.2.4 Earthquake forces.
3.2.5 Temperature and shrinkage actions.
The seismic action corresponds to an
acceleration of the ground transmitted to the The temperature and shrinkage actions are not
dam, which must be evaluated to identify its considered in this study, taking into account that
impact on the behavior of the structure. the contraction joints are 17 m apart. However,
these actions have to be carefully evaluated at
The peak accelerations at ground level are
a later stage when the construction phasing and
presented in Table 2 and were provided as
process are defined, as well as the
basic elements defined in the seismological
characteristics of the surrounding environment.

4
3.3 Load cases and safety checks 3.3.2 Stability analysis. Overturning,
criteria. sliding and fluctuation safety factors

3.3.1 Load cases.

and stresses at dam’s base. Safety
checks criteria.
The load cases presented in Table 4
correspond to situations in which multiple loads The stability analysis and the safety checks

can act simultaneously and are considered criteria are considered according to [3].

according to the USACE, 1995 [3]. The stability analysis consists of determining

Table 4: Load cases and loading conditions. the overturning, sliding and fluctuation safety

Loading
Head- Tail- (3) factors and the stresses at the dam’s base,
Load cases water water (4)
condition
level (5) level (5) according to Tables 5, 6 and 7. The safety
Scenario 1:
(3)
Construction Unusual - - checks criteria are presented in Tables 8 and 9.
Scenario 2: (3)
Normal operating Usual 630 533,90
Table 5: Formulas for the overturning, sliding and
Scenario 3:
Flood discharge Unusual 630 542,60 (3) fluctuation safety factors.
Scenario 4 : (1) Safety factors Formula
Normal operating Unusual 630 533,90 (4)
with seism OBE Overturning (1) 𝑀𝑅 𝐿𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
𝑒𝑟 = ( ) / ( )
Scenario 5: (er) 𝐹𝑅 2
Maximum Extreme 630 548,30 (3)
Sliding (2) 𝐹𝑅 . 𝑡𝑔() + 𝑐. 𝐴
design flood (MDF) 𝑆𝐹𝑆 =
(SFS) ∑ 𝐹ℎ
Scenario 6 (1):
Normal operating (4) Fluctuation (3) ∑ 𝐹𝑣
Extreme 630 533,90 𝑆𝐹𝐹 =
with seism MDE (SFF) 𝐹𝑈𝑃𝐿𝐼𝐹𝑇
Scenario 7 (2): (1) – er is the relative excentricity of the resultant force (FR)
Probable (3)
maximum flood
Extreme 632 551,20 at the dam’s base, FR is the resultant of the perpendicular
(PMF) forces to the dam’s base, MR is the resultant bending
Scenario 8 (2): moment in relation to the geometric center of the dam’s
Normal operating (3) base, Lbase is the dam’s base length, e=(MR/FR) is the
Unusual 630 533,90
with inoperable excentricity of the resultant force (FR) at the dam’s base; (2)
drains –  is the angle of internal friction, c is the cohesion, A is the
(1) – Uplift at pre-earthquake level; (2) – Additional load dam’s base area in compression and Fh is the resultant of
cases; (3) – See Figure 4; (4) – See Figure 5; (5) – The the horizontal forces parallel to the sliding surface; (3) – Fv
water levels are defined in the hydraulic studies [9]. is the resultant of the vertical forces (with gravitational
sense) and FUPLIFT is the resultant of the uplift forces.
Table 6: Resistance parameters along the
foundation rock/dam interface.
Angle of internal friction () (1) 45
Cohesion (c) (1) 400 kPa
(1) – Resistance parameters defined in the geological and
geotechnical studies [9].
Table 7: Formulas for the stresses at the dam’s
base when e<Lbase/6 and when e>Lbase/6.
Figure 4: Static scenarios 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8.
Formula
e<L/6 𝐹𝑅 6. 𝐹𝑅 . 𝑒
= ±
Stresses at the upstream 𝑏. 𝐿𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑏. 𝐿2𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
and downstream faces (1)
(); Dam’s base length 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 𝐿𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
in compression
2 𝐹𝑅
e>L/6 𝑚𝑎𝑥. = .
Stresses at the upstream 3 (𝐿𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 − 𝑒) . 𝑏
or downstream faces (1) (); 2
Dam’s base length 𝐿𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
in compression 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 3. ( − 𝑒)
2
(1) – b is the width perpendicular to the dam’s base length
and usually of 1 m in this analysis.
Figure 5: Scenarios 4 (OBE) and 6 (MDE).

5
 Table 8: Stability criteria. Safety factors. Limits. 3.3.4 Analysis of concrete stresses. Safety
Loading condition er SFSmin. SFFmin. checks criteria. Safety coefficient (K)
-0,33;+0,33 2,0 1,3
Usual (1/3 middle) (1) and rupture rate (Ir).
-0,50;+0,50 1,7 1,2
Unusual (1/2 middle) (1)
-1,00;+1,00 1,3 1,1 The analysis of concrete stresses is also
Extreme (within base) (1)
(1) – Location of the resultant force at the dam’s base. complemented with Mohr-Coulomb’s criteria
Table 9: Stability criteria. Allowable stresses at the according to the NPB, 1993 [4] [5]. These
dam’s base. requirements are complemented with Rankine’s
Loading condition maximum (MPa) criteria according to [4] [5].
Usual ≤ allowable = 3,50
≤ allowable= 3,50 The rupture of an element occurs if the tensile
Unusual
Extreme ≤ 1,33allowable = 4,66 stresses exceed the tensile stresses’ resistance
of the concrete (Rankine criteria) or if the
3.3.3 Analysis of concrete stresses. Safety
compression stresses are higher than those
checks criteria. Allowable stresses.
defined by the Mohr-Coulomb circle (Mohr-
The analysis of concrete stresses is considered Coulomb’s criteria).
according to the USACE, 1995 [3], with the
The safety coefficient (K) in relation to local
definition of the allowable concrete stresses, as
ruptures in the concrete, defined in the equation
presented in Table 10. These requirements are
(6), corresponds to the lowest of the values
complemented with Rankine’s criteria according
determined for the shear safety coefficient (Ks)
to the NPB, 1993 [4] [5]. The safety checks
(Mohr-Coulomb’s criteria) and for the tensile
criteria are presented in Table 11.
safety coefficient (Kt) (Rankine criteria). For the
Table 10: Concrete allowable stresses. shear safety coefficient (Ks), it was admitted that
Loading Maximum tensile Maximum compressive
condition stress (1) (MPa) stress (1) (MPa) the shear-break is achieved by increasing the
Usual 0 < 0,3 fck
principal compression stress and maintaining
Unusual < 0,1142 fck2/3 < 0,5 fck
Extreme < 0,2855 fck2/3 < 0,9 fck the principal tensile stress fixed (or lower
(1) – The concrete’s characteristics are defined in Table 1.
principal compression stress fixed) until the
Table 11: Concrete stresses criteria. Allowable stresses.
circle of Mohr intersects the Mohr-Coulomb
Maximum
Loading Maximum tensile
conditions stress (MPa)
compressive failure line, as presented in Figure 6.
stress (MPa)
530;560 0 3,6
Usual

560;590 0 3,0

>590 0 2,4
max. (1)
530;560 min.(0,10comp. =0,60 ; 6,0
fctk=1,2 (2); 0,60 (3))
Unusual

560;590 min.(0,10comp.max.=0,50 (1); 5,0

fctk=1,0 (2); 0,53 (3))
>590 min.(0,10comp.max.=0,40 (1); 4,0
fctk=0,8 (2); 0,46 (3))
530;560 min.(0,10comp.max.=1,08 (1); 10,8
fctk=1,2 (2); 1,496 (3))
Extreme

560;590 min.(0,10comp.max.=0,90 (1); 9,0

fctk=1,0 (2); 1,325 (3))
>590 min.(0,10comp.max.=0,72 (1); 7,2
fctk=0,8 (2); 1,142 (3))
(1) – Value limited to 10% of the maximum compressive
stress and based on Rankine’s criteria - conditioning value Figure 6: Mohr-Coulomb’s circle and failure line.
for unusual and extreme scenarios; (2) – fctk defined in Table
1 and according to Rankine’s criteria; (3) – Value defined in 𝑅2 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘
Table 10 according to [3] - conditioning value for usual 𝐾 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛. (𝐾𝑠 ; 𝐾𝑡 ) = 𝑚𝑖𝑛. ( ; ) (6)(1)
scenarios. 𝑅1 𝐼

6
 𝑥 −𝑦 2 𝐼𝐼𝐼 −𝐼 The sliding stability is the most conditioning
𝑅1 = √( ) + 2𝑥𝑦 or 𝑅1 = (7)(2)
2 2
criteria, in which the uplift reduces the tangential
𝑐. cos() + 𝐼 . 𝑠𝑒𝑛()
𝑅2 = (8)(3)(4) resistance forces and the scenario 4 (OBE) is
(1 − 𝑠𝑒𝑛())
(1) – fctk is defined in Table 1 and I is the principal tensile
the most conditioning load case (see Figure 7).
stress; (2) – R1 is the radius of the Mohr-Coulomb circle for
the stresses obtained in the calculation (x, y – normal Table 14: Case study. Stability safety checks at the
stresses in the directions x and y; xy – tangencial stress; I, dam’s base.
III – normal stresses in the principal directions); (3) – R2 is
the radius of the Mohr-Coulomb circle when the shear-break Upstream
is achieved, as presented in Figure 6; (4) –  and c are Load cases er SFS. SFF Downstream
defined in Table 12. (MPa)
Scenario 1 (Un) (2): 2,49
Table 12: Formulas for the failure line of Mohr- 0,34 - -
Construction 0
<0,5 >1,7 >1,2
<3,5
Coulomb’s criteria. 0,57
Scenario 2 (U) (1): 0,14 2,35 4,74
Normal operating 1,36
Parameters Formula (1) Values <0,3 >2,0 >1,3
<3,5
Scenario 3 (Un) (2): 0,52
Angle of internal 1−𝑚 0,14 2,28 3,79
friction ()  = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛 ( ) 54,9 Flood discharge <0,5 >1,7 >1,2
1,29
1+𝑚 <3,5
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘 Scenario 4 (Un) (2): 0,04
m 𝑚= 0,10 Normal operating 0,26 1,90 4,46
𝑓𝑐𝑘 1,85
with seism OBE <0,5 >1,7 >1,2
<3,5
530;560 1,897
Cohesion 1 + 𝑠𝑒𝑛() Scenario 5 (E) (3): 0,49
𝑐= .𝑓 1,581 Maximum 0,15 2,26 3,36
(c) 560;590 2. cos() 𝑐𝑡𝑘 <1,0 >1,3 >1,1
1,26
(MPa) design flood (MDF) <4,66
>590 1,265
Scenario 6 (E) (3): 0
(1) – fck and fctk are defined in Table 1. Normal operating 0,32 1,74 4,33
2,13
with seism MDE <1,0 >1,3 >1,1
<4,66
The rupture rate (Ir) is defined to facilitate the
Scenario 7 (E) (3):
0,38
graphical interpretation of the stress results Probable 0,19 2,15 3,15
1,33
maximum flood <1,0 >1,3 >1,1
<4,66
obtained for the dam’s concrete. It measures (PMF)
Scenario 8 (Un) (2):
0,01
Normal operating 0,33 1,80 2,12
the proximity of the stress state in place and the with inoperable <0,5 >1,7 >1,2
1,28
<3,5
drains
stress state in the rupture. The rupture is (1) – U: Usual; (2) – Un: Unusual; (3) – E: Extreme.
allowed in localized areas.

100
𝐼𝑟 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛. ( ; 100) (9)
𝐾
Table 13: Concrete stresses criteria. Safety
coefficient (K) and rupture rate (Ir).
com.max. K Ir (%) = min. (100/K; 100)

Safety
conditions

stress (MPa)
compressive
Loading

fck./ com.max.
Maximum

factor
Rupture

Safety
not verified,
factor
but rupture
verified
is not
achieved

(U) <0,3 fck 3,33 < 30 30 < Ir <100

(Un) <0,5 fck 2,00 < 50 50 < Ir <100 100 Figure 7: Stability safety check at the dam’s base.
(E) <0,9 fck 1,11 < 90 90 < Ir <100
Conditioning scenario 4 (OBE). Loads, safety

4 Case study. Stability safety factors and stresses at the dam’s base.

checks at the dam’s base. 5 Case study. Stability safety

checks of surfaces within the
The results of the case study’s stability safety
dam at the base.
checks at the dam’s base are presented in
Table 14. The safety factors comply with the
The stability safety checks of surfaces within the
requirements in Tables 8 and 9.
dam at the base must be considered.

7
The safety factors must comply with the
requirements in Tables 8 and 11.

The results of the stability safety checks at

elevation (549) are presented in Figure 8. The
parameters  and c were considered equal to
the values in Table 6, however they must be
confirmed and adjusted when the constructive
phasing and process are defined.

Figure 10: Structural model. Dam’s mesh detail.

In the plan, the vertical displacements were

restrained at the foundation’s base and the
horizontal displacements were restrained at the
nodal points, on both sides of the foundation.

Table 15: Structural model. Characteristics of shell

elements.
Modulus of Poisson’s Density
Shell elements elasticity ratio ()
(E) (GPa) () (kN/m3)
Figure 8: Stability safety check at elevation (549).
Dam concrete 20 0,20 24
Conditioning scenario 4 (OBE). Loads, safety
Rock foundation 15 0,22 0
factors and concrete stresses.
The concrete stresses were determined for the
6 Case study. Concrete stresses load cases and using the presented model. A
safety checks. dynamic analysis was considered, in which the
seismic actions were quantified by the definition
6.1 Structural model.
of the response spectrums according to
The structural model of the concrete gravity dam Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1) [6] for the intraplate
was developed in the program SAP2000, using earthquakes (type 2), calibrated for the peak
the finite element analysis. The bidimensional accelerations presented in Table 2.
model with unitary thickness is presented in
6.2 Safety checks. Concrete allowable
Figures 9 and 10. The dam and the foundation stresses.
were modelled with shell elements and the
The results of the concrete stresses safety
deformation was restrained to the perpendicular
checks are presented in Tables 16, 17 and 18
direction to the dam’s typical cross section.
for the case study.

The concrete stresses comply with the

requirements in Table 11.

The locations of the concrete stresses

presented are indicated as follows: (U),
stresses near the upstream face; (D), stresses
near the downstream face; and (G), stresses

Figure 9: Structural model. Dam and its foundation. near the galleries.

8
 Table 16: Case study. Concrete stresses safety 21 present the results for 2 nodes (2 examples)
checks between elevations (530) to (560). of the total 979 nodes.
Maximum
Maximum tensile
Load cases compressive
stress (MPa)
stress (MPa)
Scenario 1 (Un) (2): 4,20 (M) 0,53 (G)
Construction < 6,00 < 0,60
Scenario 2 (U) (1): 3,40 (J)
Normal operating 0
< 3,60
Scenario 4 (Un) (2):
Normal operating 5,60 (J) 0,45 (M)
with seism OBE < 6,00 < 0,60

Scenario 5 (E) (3) (4):

Maximum 4,10 (J) 0,30 (M)
design flood (MDF) < 6,00 < 0,60

Scenario 6 (E) (3):

Normal operating 6,30 (J) 0,95 (M)
with seism MDE < 10,8 < 1,08 Figure 11: Scenario 2 (Usual). Ir.
(1) – U: Usual; (2) – Un: Unusual; (3) – E: Extreme; (4) –
Scenario 5 is conditioning, when compared to Scenario 3 Table 19: Scenario 2. Ir > 30% (2 examples).
and using the allowable limits for unusual load conditions. max.(1) min.(1) R1 R2 Ir
K
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (%)
Table 17: Case study. Concrete stresses safety
833 -1203 1018 2250 1 69
530;560
checks between elevations (560) and (590). 610 -1349 980 3255 2 51
Maximum (1) –  with a negative value: compression stress;  with a
Maximum tensile
Load cases compressive
stress (MPa)
positive value: tensile stress.
stress (MPa).
Scenario 1 (Un) (2): 1,90 (M) 0,14 (G)
Construction < 5,00 < 0,50
Scenario 2 (U) (1): 1,80 (J)
Normal operating 0
< 3,00
Scenario 4 (Un) (2):
Normal operating 2,65 (J) 0,20 (M)
with seism OBE < 5,00 < 0,50

Scenario 5 (E) (3) (4):

Maximum 1,80 (J) 0
design flood (MDF) < 5,00 < 0,50

Scenario 6 (E) (3):

Normal operating 3,10 (J) 0,60 (M)
with seism MDE < 9,00 < 0,90
Figure 12: Scenario 4 (OBE) (Unusual). Ir.
Table 18: Case study. Concrete stresses safety
checks above elevation (590). Table 20: Scenario 4 (OBE). Ir > 50% (2 examples).
Maximum max.(1) min.(1) R1 R2 Ir
Maximum tensile K
Load cases compressive (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (%)
stress (MPa) 530;560
stress (MPa) 1006 -287 646 1475 1 84
Scenario 1 (Un) (2): 1,20 (M) 0,07 (G) >590 519 -8 264 1663 2 65
Construction < 4,00 < 0,40
Scenario 2 (U) (1): 0,80 (J)
Normal operating 0
< 2,40
Scenario 4 (Un) (2):
Normal operating 1,70 (J) 0,40 (J)
with seism OBE < 4,00 < 0,40

Scenario 5 (E) (3) (4):

Maximum 0,80 (J) 0
design flood (MDF) < 4,00 < 0,40

Scenario 6 (E) (3):

Normal operating 2,15 (J) 0,70 (M)
with seism MDE < 7,20 < 0,72

6.3 Safety checks. Safety coefficient

(K) and rupture rate (Ir).
Figure 13: Scenario 6 (MDE) (Extreme). Ir.
The rupture rate (Ir) was calculated for all the
Table 21: Scenario 6 (MDE). Ir > 90% (2 examples).
nodes of the model. The results are presented
max.(1) min.(1) R1 R2 Ir
K
in Figures 11, 12 and 13 for usual, unusual and (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (%)
805 -8 407 377 1 100
>590
extreme load conditions. The Tables 19, 20 and -1110 -3228 1059 1006 1 100

9
7 Design of reinforced concrete. contribute very positively to the verifications
of safety checks. These systems must have
The adoption of a vibrated conventional an adequate monitoring and maintenance
concrete (CCV) with better characteristics (see program during the construction and normal
Figure 3) allows the safety check of K, Ir and operating phases regarding safety control, to
concrete allowable stresses at the places additionally ensure the assumptions of
presented in Figures 11, 12 and 13, where the calculation and safety check.
safety coefficient (K) was not verified. If the
limits of allowable stresses are respected, no Bibliography
reinforcements are required. However, it is
[1] Westergaard, H.M., Water pressure on
recommended to adopt a minimum
dams during earthquakes, Transactions
reinforcement around the galleries, as they are
American Society of Civil Engineering
opening areas, which presents a stress
(Transactions ASCE), 1933;
concentration. This reinforcement is defined
according to (ACI-305, 2001) [8] and intends to [2] Costa, M.C., Amador, A., Mateus, G.,
indirectly control the concrete cracking. Santo, A., Morgado, A., Carlos, A., Chico,
A., Barragem de Caculo Cabaça no rio
8 Final considerations.
Kwanza em Angola, Construção Magazine,

The safety checks depend essentially on: n. 107, pp 23-27, jan./fev. de 2022;

▪ Dam’s profile and loads; [3] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), EM
1110-2-2200 - Gravity Dam Design, 1995;
▪ Resistance parameters along the foundation
rock/dam interface and along the surfaces [4] Normas de Projecto de Barragens (NPB),
within the dam. These parameters must be Portaria nº 846/93, Lisboa, 1993;
confirmed and adjusted when the constructive [5] Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, I.P. (APA),
phasing and process are defined; Documentos Técnicos de Apoio ao
▪ Implementation and efficiency of the Regulamento de Segurança de Barragens
waterproofing treatment and drainage system; (RSB), Decreto-Lei nº 21/2018, Lisboa, 2018;
▪ Allowable stresses at the dam’s base;
[6] EC8: Design of structures for earthquake
▪ Characteristics of dam’s concrete.
resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic
The results of the safety checks have led to the actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998-1:2004;
following conclusions: [7] EC8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
▪ The earthquakes scenarios are the most - Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and
conditioning scenarios (for the case study); geotechnical aspects, EN 1998-5: 2004;
Thus, seismic actions must have a proper [8] American Concrete Institute Committee 305,
characterization; Code requirements for environmental
▪ The sliding safety check is the most engineering concrete structures (ACI 305-01)
conditioning safety check; and commentary (ACI 305R-01), ACI, 2001;
▪ The implementation and efficiency of
[9] COBA, S.A., Projecto Base – Estudos de
waterproofing treatment and drainage system
Especialidade, 2016.

10