Structural Analysis and Design

Appendix D
Structural Analysis and Design
Major structures of the project include: 1. North embankment retaining structure. 2. Existing powerhouse and downstream retaining walls. 3. Existing Ogee spillway with vertical lift gates. 4. Existing training wall south of Ogee spillway. 5. Service labyrinth spillway south of existing Ogee spillway. 6. Auxiliary labyrinth spillway south of service spillway. 7. South embankment and training/retaining structures. A structural inspection/evaluation of items 1 through 4 above, after the July 2010 flood, was performed on September 23, 2010 by Stanley Consultants. The report is included in Appendix A. Even though these inspected structures remained after the flood, and no noticeable movement or differential settlement were observed during the inspection, significant repair work was recommended before putting the Dam back to service. In this stage of the project, following structural analysis was performed.
D.1
Existing Powerhouse and Spillway Stability
After review of 1997 Ashton Barnes stability analysis of the dam, a new analysis for existing powerhouse and spillway structures was conducted based on these information and assumptions: 1. Design information, previous analysis, and inspection reports available to Stanley Consultants.
Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report
D-1
Stanley Consultants
2. Parameters for the foundation soil and bedrock used in analysis and design were based on the newly obtained boring data, recommended values in USACE Engineering Manuals, and researches on similar projects. 3. Water elevations were obtained from hydrology and hydraulic analysis using latest rainfall data. 4. The structures were checked against both USACE and FERC criteria. 5. Upstream seepage cutoff efficiency for the both structures was assumed to be no less than 50%. Other design parameters used in analysis are listed the following computations. Based on above information and assumptions, existing powerhouse and spillway do not satisfy current USACE or FERC requirements for overall stability. Without considering contributions from downstream soil pressure and north embankment soil friction effect for stability of powerhouse structure, analysis indicated that the powerhouse structure was unstable for overturning stability. Both the existing powerhouse and spillway are required to be anchored to bedrock foundation in order to meets current design criteria.
D.2
Anchorage Design for Existing Powerhouse and Spillway
Existing powerhouse and spillway structure were designed to be anchored to bedrock foundation using pretensioned steel rods. Two options were provided: one is to satisfy USACEs safety criteria, the other is to meet FERCs requirements. The latter option is such that, if Owner of the dam chooses to rehabilitate the hydropower facility to generate electricity at a later time, major structures of the dam would not need significant repair work in order to meet FERC standards for overall stability. Conceptual design and computations are presented in the following pages. Cost estimates for these two options are discussed in Section 7. For the spillway-USACE case, approximately ten (10) rock anchors are required. The anchors would be installed 1) in front of spillway upstream face, or 2) at spillway crest. First option would require excavating at upstream to bottom of dam and new concrete doweled into existing structure. This option would provide relatively easy access for construction. Second option would require drilling anchor holes through existing concrete approximately 30 feet, and accessibility for construction may be more difficult. For the spillway-FERC case, approximately thirty (30) rock anchors would be required. Both anchor options in the USACE case would be required and additional ten (10) anchors would be located in the bridge piers. The powerhouse structure would need approximately ten (10) anchors in order to meet USACE stability requirements. These anchors are proposed to be located at upstream face of the powerhouse. Excavation to bedrock would be required for installation of the anchors.
D-2
Stanley Consultants
Meeting FERC criteria would need about twenty (20) rock anchors. These anchors have higher capacity, due to limited accessibility for installation. Ten (10) anchors would be installed at upstream face of the powerhouse, and the other ten (10) would be installed through the solid concrete walls. Should the dam structures be anchored to meet FERC requirements, installation of some anchors would be performed on the existing bridge, therefore, the bridge and powerhouse roof structures should be investigated for construction equipment loading conditions.
D.3
Design of New Spillways
New spillways were designed to pass 100-year design flood, and have an overall capacity to pass PMF flood. Construction of new structures, including spillway weir, spillway slab, stilling basin, retaining/training walls, would meet both USACE and FERC requirements for stability and structural strength. Seismic analysis for the structures is not necessary, since the dam is located in a low seismic zone. S s = 0.086, S 1 = 0.046. The conceptual structural design computations for new spillway stability are presented in the following.
D-3
Stanley Consultants
Delhi Dam Structural Computations & Reference Material
D-4
Structural Design Criteria
D-5
Stanley Consultants
INC.
Computed by: Y.Ding Checked by: E. Daly Approved by: Filename: Delhi Dam Design Criteria.xmcd
Comp Date: 12/05/11 Print Date: 12/6/2011 Print Time: 9:02 AM
Page No. . Project No. 23601 Delhi Dam Reconstruction Design Criteria Sheet 1 of 4
Delhi Dam Reconstruction- Design Criteria

Reference:K:\Technical_Programs\Structural\ST084 ACI 318-2005 Mathcad Electronic Book.mcd
Units:
k := 1000 lbf kpf := k ft ksf := k ft
2
ksi :=
k in
2
kcf :=
k ft
3
ppf :=
lbf ft
psf :=
lbf ft
2
psi :=
lbf in
2
pcf :=
lbf ft
3
Description
Documentaion of the design criteria, codes and loads used in the design of the existing powerhouse, existing gated spillway, new labyrinth spillways, and earth retaining structures.
References
1. USCOE EM 1110-2-2104, Strength Design for Reinforced Concrete Hydraulic Structures 2. USCOE EM 1110-2-2105 Design of Hydraulic Steel Structures 3. USCOE EM 1110-2-1612 Engineering and Design - Ice Engineering 4. USCOE EM 1110-2-2200 Gravity Dam Design 5. USCOE ETL 1110-2-256 Sliding Stability for Concrete Structures 6. FERC Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects (2005) 7. American Society Of Civil Engineers - Minimum Design Loads (ASCE-7) 8. American Concrete Institute (ACI 318) - See note below 9. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC - ASD Manual 13th ed)
**Note: Although the current edition of ACI 318 will be used for design, the older ACI Load Factors of 1.4 and 1.7 will be used in lieu of the the current recommended ACI Load Factors of 1.2 and 1.6 for "Hydraulic Structures" (as documented in the USCOE design manuals).
Design Criteria
Materials Concrete weight Saturated Soil Weight conc := 150 pcf soil := 115 pcf
Submerged Soil Weight soil_sub := 115 pcf Water Weight Concrete Strength Reinforcing Strength water := 62.4 pcf fc := 4 ksi fy := 60 ksi
D-6
Stanley Consultants
INC.
Steel Framing Strength Fy := 50 ksi Steel Modulus of Elasticity
E := 29000 ksi ko := 0.8 ko := 0.5 for clay fill for granular fill c := 20psi := 35
Lateral Earth Pressure Coeff (use "at-rest")
Existing mass concrete - bed rock interface bonding sliding friction angle Embankment soil cohesion c := 1000psf
Concrete slab - embankment soil sliding friction angle
:= 28
Dead Loads
Dead loads: 1. Self-weight of structure. 2. Soil/pavement Weight Design Dead Loads were computed for each structure. Actual values can be found in the design calculations for the specific structure.
Live Loads
Live Loads: 1. Lateral Earth Pressure 2. Traffic Loads (not applicable) 3. Surcharge 4. Walkway Live Loads, if applicable 5. Hydrostatic Loads 6. Ice Forces. 7. Snow Loads 8. Wind Loads 9. Seismic Loads (not applicable)
Design Live Loads were computed for each structure. Actual values can be found in the design calculations for the specific structure. Lateral Earth Pressures Lateral Earth Pressures vary for each structure, so design values were computed seperately for each. Use an "at-rest" lateral soil pressure coefficient of 0.5 or 0.8, depending on the soil types, for computing lateral soil pressures.
Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report D-7
Stanley Consultants
INC.
Surcharge Assume a 200 psf surcharge to account for compaction equipt or approx 2-ft of soil. Use on earth retaining walls and Spillway walls.
Surcharge Lateral Pressure Assume a 200 psf surcharge to account for compaction equipt or approx 2-ft of soil. Use "at-rest" lateral soil pressure coefficient of 0.5 or 0.8 for computing lateral soil pressures.
Walkway Live Loads (ASCE - 7) Use 100 psf uniform Live load or 1000 lb concentrate load.
Hydrostatic Loads Hydraulic Loads (standing water or ground water) were based on water heights. See individual structure design calcs for specific information.
Ice Loads EM 1110-2-1612 states that a 5,000 psf load be used over the ice contact area. Assume a 1-ft thick layer of ice = 5 klf. Note: Apply ice load to top of applicable walls (in addition to lateral water loads)
Snow Loads (ASCE - 7) Only applies to Walkway and Bridge. Does not control over 100 psf Liveload, so ignore.
Snow loads will accumulate on walkway. Although it is not a "building", use same approach to compute a base snow load. p g := 50 psf Ce := 1.0 Ct := 1.2 Isnow := 1.0 ground snow load from Figure 7-1 Table 7-2 Exposure C, partially exposed Table 7-3 Unheated structures Table 7-4 Category II p f = 42 psf Snow Load is less than Live Load (100 psf). Unlikely that walkway could have full LL and snow load at same time. So LL will govern over Snow Load
D-8
p f := 0.7 Ce C t Isnow p g
Stanley Consultants
INC.
Wind Loads See Wind Loads computed below. Will not be used in actual design as combined 0.75 (LL + WIND) does not control. Kz := 0.9 Kzt := 1.0 Kd := 0.85 Vwind := 90 Iwind := 1.0 q z := 0.00256 ( Kz) ( Kzt) ( Kd) ( Vwind) ( Iwind) psf = 15.863 psf Section 6.5.8 Figure 6-20 for sign with clearance ratio = 0.5, and Aspect Ratio = 10 wind pressure
2
Table 6-3 for 20-ft and Exposure C Section 6.5.7.2 Table 6-4 for "solid sign"
G := 0.85 Cf := 1.7
Fwind := q z ( G) ( Cf ) = 22.922 psf
D-9
Reference Material
D-10
D-11
D-12
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
D-18
D-19
D-20
D-21
D-22
D-23
D-24
TABLE 1 Ultimate Friction Factors and Adhesion for Dissimilar Materials

+)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))0)))))))))), * * * Friction * * * Friction * angle * Interface Materials * factor, * [delta] * * * * tan [delta] * degrees * /)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))))3))))))))))1 * * * Mass concrete on the following foundation materials: * Clean sound rock.................................. * 0.70 * 35 * * Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, coarse sand... * 0.55 to 0.60 * 29 to 31 * * * Clean fine to medium sand, silty medium to coarse * * * * sand, silty or clayey gravel.................... * 0.45 to 0.55 * 24 to 29 * * Clean fine sand, silty or clayey fine to medium * * * * sand............................................ * 0.35 to 0.45 * 19 to 24 * Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt.................. * 0.30 to 0.35 * 17 to 19 * * * Very stiff and hard residual or preconsolidated * * * * clay............................................ * 0.40 to 0.50 * 22 to 26 * Medium stiff and stiff clay and silty clay........ * 0.30 to 0.35 * 17 to 19 * * * (Masonry on foundation materials has same friction * * * * factors.) * * * * Steel sheet piles against the following soils: * * * Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, well-graded * * * * * rock fill with spalls........................... * 0.40 * 22 * * Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture, single size * * * hard rock fill.................................. * 0.30 * 17 * * * Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay * 0.25 * 14 * Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt.................. * 0.20 * 11 * * * Formed concrete or concrete sheet piling against the * * * * * * * following soils: * Clean gravel, gravel-sand mixture, well-graded * * * * rock fill with spalls........................... * 0.40 to 0.50 * 22 to 26 * Clean sand, silty sand-gravel mixture, single size * * * * * hard rock fill.................................. * 0.30 to 0.40 * 17 to 22 * * Silty sand, gravel or sand mixed with silt or clay * 0.30 * 17 * Fine sandy silt, nonplastic silt.................. * 0.25 * 14 * * * * * * Various structural materials: * Masonry on masonry, igneous and metamorphic rocks: * * * * Dressed soft rock on dressed soft rock.......... * 0.70 * 35 * * Dressed hard rock on dressed soft rock.......... * 0.65 * 33 * Dressed hard rock on dressed hard rock.......... * 0.55 * 29 * * * Masonry on wood (cross grain)..................... * 0.50 * 26 * * Steel on steel at sheet pile interlocks........... * 0.30 * 17 * /)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))))2))))))))))1 * * *
Interface Materials (Cohesion)
* * *
Adhesion c+a, (psf)
* * *
/)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))))))))))))1 * Very soft cohesive soil (0 - 250 psf) * 0 - 250 * * Soft cohesive soil (250 - 500 psf) * 250 - 500 * * Medium stiff cohesive soil (500 - 1000 psf) * 500 - 750 * * 750 - 950 * * Stiff cohesive soil (1000 - 2000 psf) * Very stiff cohesive soil (2000 - 4000 psf) * 950 - 1,300 * .)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-
7.2-63
Change 1, September 1986
D-25
D-26
Existing Spillway Stability Check
D-27
EXISTING CONDITION
1 of 3 11_Spillway_Stability_Analysis_LC_1.xls, Spillway_Case_1 12/5/20111:34 PM

Job No. 23601 Page No. Subject: Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Dam / Powerhouse Stability Spillway Stability LC_1 Sheet No. of
Computed by: Y.Ding Checked by: E. Daly Approved by:
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
1. Weight Computations Item Mass concrete Less Placed Stone Tunnel Piers (to bottom) Bridge (thru) Gate Platform (thru) Platform BM (thru) Total Top of Bridge = Total Length of Spillway = Bottom of Dam EL =
Dam / Foundation Friction Angle =
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0

20 psi
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
5.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
Dam / Foundation Bonding= Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL = 2. Case I: Normal Operating Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = Weight of Water
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
Allowable Bearing = Foundation Width =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
896.3 ft 857.0 ft Wt (kips) 521.2 142.4 L (ft) 37.6 2.1 M (k-ft) 19611 300 19912 8.7 39.3 ft ft ft/ft 0.00 ft 29.2
0%
Total Uplift Upstream Downstream 39.3
663.6
Head 1 = 43.0 Head 2 = 8.7
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.854
D-28

Computed by: Checked by: Approved by:
Y.Ding
E. Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:
U (kip) uplift - crack uplift 1 (total rectangular_US) uplift 2 (add back triangular_US) uplift 3 (rectangular_DS) uplift 4 (triangular_DS) Total Driving of Water Upstream 1 Upstream 2 at Step 0.0 -3786.0 639.4 -1081.4 -1274.4 -5502.4 H (kips) 4788.2 756.3
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -123045 18969 -12977 -20390 -137443
L (ft) 19.3 2.5
M (k-ft) -92571 -1891
Downstream Total Silt & Ice Upstream - Silt Upstream - Ice Total Load Summary
-196.0 5348.4 H (kips) 1226.4 415.0 1641.4
2.9
568 -93894
L (ft) 13.8 48.0
M (k-ft) -16965 -19920 -36885
V (kips) Structure Weight Weight of Water Driving of Water Uplift at Efficiency = 0 Silt & Ice Rock Anchor US @ 38.75 ft. Total 0.0 6909.6 -5502.4 11748.3 663.6
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 19912
5348.4 1641.4 6989.8
-93894 -137443 -36885 0 34785.4
D-29

Y.Ding
E. Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
V = H = M = USACE Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS = FERC Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS = Sliding FOS (No Cohesion) =
6909.6 kips 6989.8 kips 34785.4 k-ft
5.03 ft 15.47 ft 11024 psf 0 psf 1.21 2.00 Reqr'd 10000
NG NG
Crack 25.90 ft
For Usual LC, Rock Foundation.
NG
5.03 ft 15.47 ft 11024 psf 0 psf 1.21 0.69 3.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd
For Usual LC, Rock Foundation. No Cohesion.
10000
NG NG NG
D-30
EXISTING CONDITION

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3 Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
0.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
Dam / Foundation Bonding= Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL = 2. Case II: Unusual Flood Discharge Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = Weight of Water
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
900.0 ft 878.9 ft Wt (kips) 3705.0 L (ft) 20.0 M (k-ft) 74100 74100 30.6 21.1 ft ft ft/ft 0.00 ft 41.6
0%
3705.0
Head 1 = 46.7 Head 2 = 30.6
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.459
D-31

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
U (kip) uplift - crack uplift 1 (total rectangular_US) uplift 2 (add back triangular_US) uplift 3 (rectangular_DS) uplift 4 (triangular_DS) Total Driving of Water Upstream on Ogee_Rectangular Upstream on Ogee_Triangular Upstream on Piers_Triangular Upstream 2 at Step Downstream on Ogee_Rectangular
Downstream on Ogee_Triangular
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -133632 10184 -45643 -10947 -180039
0.0 -4111.8 343.3 -3803.6 -684.2 -8256.3 H (kips) 2772.4 1818.5 101.8 1077.5 0.0
-2424.8
L (ft) 18.3 13.8 38.2 2.5 15.8

10.2
M (k-ft) -50597 -25157 -3894 -2694 0

24733
Downstream on Piers_Triangular Total Silt & Ice Upstream - Silt Upstream - Ice Total Load Summary V (kips) Structure Weight Weight of Water Driving of Water Uplift at Efficiency = 0 Silt & Ice Rock Anchor US @ 38.75 ft. Total 0.0 7197.0 -8256.3 11748.3 3705.0
0.0 3345.5 H (kips) 1226.4 0.0 1226.4
31.2
0 -57608
L (ft) 13.8 51.7
M (k-ft) -16965 0 -16965
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 74100
3345.5 1226.4 4571.9
-57608 -180039 -16965 0 102583.6
D-32

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
7197.0 kips 4571.9 kips 102583.6 k-ft
14.25 ft 6.25 ft 4048 psf 182 psf 3.25
41 10000 1.70 Reqr'd
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Unusual LC, Rock Foundation.
14.25 ft 6.25 ft 4048 psf 182 psf 3.25 1.10 2.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd OK NG 10000 OK
For Unusual LC, Rock Foundation. No Cohesion.
D-33
EXISTING CONDITION

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3 Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
0.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
Dam / Foundation Bonding= Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL =
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
2. Case III: Extreme Flood Discharge Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = Weight of Water 906.0 ft 888.7 ft Wt (kips) 5551.0 Total Uplift Upstream Downstream 17.3 5551.0 40.4 17.3 ft ft ft/ft 0.00 ft 49.4 L (ft) 20.0 M (k-ft) 111020 111020
0%
Head 1 = 52.7 Head 2 = 40.4
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.376
D-34

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:
U (kip) uplift - crack uplift 1 (total rectangular_US) uplift 2 (add back triangular_US) uplift 3 (rectangular_DS) uplift 4 (triangular_DS) Total 0.0 -4640.0 281.5 -5021.8 -561.0 -9941.3
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -150801 8350 -60261 -8976 -211688
Driving of Water Upstream on Ogee_Rectangular Upstream on Ogee_Triangular Upstream on Piers_Rectangular

Upstream on Piers_Triangular
H (kips) 3595.9 1818.5 41.6

126.4
L (ft) 18.3 13.8 42.8

39.0
M (k-ft) -65626 -25157 -1777

-4928
Upstream on Gate_Triangular Upstream 2 at Step Downstream on Ogee_Rectangular Downstream on Ogee_Triangular Downstream on Piers_Triangular Total
35.5 1279.9 -1452.0 -2569.5 -19.8 2856.5
55.2 2.5 15.8 10.5 34.5
-1958 -3200 22869 26980 681 -52114
Silt & Ice Upstream - Silt Upstream - Ice Total
H (kips) 1226.4 0.0 1226.4
L (ft) 13.8 57.7
M (k-ft) -16965 0 -16965
D-35

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:
Load Summary V (kips) Structure Weight Weight of Water Driving of Water Uplift at Efficiency = 0 Silt & Ice Rock Anchor US @ 38.75 ft. Total 0.0 7358.0 V = H = M = USACE Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS = FERC Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS = Sliding FOS (No Cohesion) = 15.40 ft 5.10 ft 3774 psf 550 psf 3.66 1.26 2.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd
For Extreme LC, Rock Foundation. No Cohesion.
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 111020
11748.3 5551.0 2856.5 -9941.3 1226.4 4082.8
-52114 -211688 -16965 0 113347.9
7358.0 kips 4082.8 kips 113347.9 k-ft
15.40 ft 5.10 ft 3774 psf 550 psf 3.66
41 13300 1.30 Reqr'd
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Extreme LC, Rock Foundation.
13300
OK OK NG
D-36
Existing Powerhouse Stability Check
D-37
EXISTING CONDITION
1 of 3 21_Powerhouse_Stability_Analysis_LC_1.xls, Powerhouse_Case_1 12/5/20112:11 PM

Job No. 23601 Page No. Subject: Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Dam / Powerhouse Stability Powerhouse Stability LC_1 Sheet No. of
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:
1. Weight Computations Item 1,5,6,7,8,13 2 tunnel 3 stone fill 4 9, 10 11,12 14 Equipments 20 wall + roof 21 tunnel 22 stone fill
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5

12.5
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115
150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2
263.3
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1
135.0
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091
2961
24 side wall Total
1988.4
150
1193.1 8348.5
224.4
22309 193824
Top of Bridge = Total Length of Powerhouse = Bottom of Dam EL = Dam / Foundation Friction Angle = Dam / Foundation Bonding= Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL =
904.8 ft 61.0 ft 846.3 ft 35 degrees 2880 psf 45.2 ft 881.3 ft Ice Load = L1 = L2 = step =
20 psi
5.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
2. Case I: Normal Operating Condition - Dewatered Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = 896.3 ft 857.0 ft
D-38

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:
Weight of Water Water weight 1 Top Water weight 2 Upward pressure Upward pressure at US piers Total Uplift Upstream Downstream
Wt (kips) 119.8 -254.6 -251.6 -386.4 39.3 10.7
L (ft) 43.0 41.0 41.2
M (k-ft) 5152 -10438 -10366 -15652 39.3 ft ft ft/ft 0.00 ft 25.7 M (k-ft) 0 -86969 15798 -6025 -5613 -82809
0%
Head 1 = 42.0 Head 2 = 10.7 U (kip) L (ft) 37 27.2 23.9 8.6 11.5
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.869 uplift - crack uplift 1 (total rectangular_US) uplift 2 (add back triangular_US) uplift 3 (rectangular_DS) uplift 4 (triangular_DS) Total Driving of Water Upstream 1 Upstream 2 at Step 0.0 -3197.4 661.9 -700.5 -489.5 -3725.5 H (kips) 3357.2 781.2 L (ft) 22.0 4.0
M (k-ft) -73859 -3125
Downstream Total Silt & Ice Upstream - Silt Upstream - Ice Total
-217.9 3920.6 H (kips) 935.6 305.0 1240.6
3.6
777 -76207
L (ft) 17.0 50.0
M (k-ft) -15906 -15250 -31156
D-39

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
Load Summary V (kips) Structure Weight Weight of Water Driving of Water Uplift at Efficiency = 0 Silt & Ice Rock Anchor US @ 33.0 ft. Total 0.0 4236.6 V = H = M =
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 -15652
8348.5 -386.4 3920.6 -3725.5 1240.6 5161.2
-76207 -82809 -31156 0 -12000.2
4236.6 kips 5161.2 kips -12000.2 k-ft
Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS = FERC Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS = Sliding FOS (No Cohesion) =
-2.83 ft 21.43 ft -16346 psf 0 psf 0.29 2.00 Reqr'd 10000
NG NG NG
Crack 45.70 ft
-2.83 ft 21.43 ft -16346 psf 0 psf 0.29 0.57 3.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd NG NG 10000 NG
D-40
EXISTING CONDITION

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5

12.5
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115
150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2
263.3
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1
135.0
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091
2961
24 side wall Total
1988.4
150
1193.1 8348.5
224.4
22309 193824
Top of Bridge = Total Length of Powerhouse = Bottom of Dam EL = Dam / Foundation Friction Angle = Dam / Foundation Bonding= Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL = 2. Case II: Unusual Flood Discharge Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL =
0.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
900.0 ft 878.9 ft
D-41

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
Wt (kips) 2028.6 -310.0 -273.8 1444.8 21.1 32.6
L (ft) 22.5 41.0 41.2
M (k-ft) 45555 -12710 -11279 21566 21.1 ft ft ft/ft 0.00 ft 40.6 M (k-ft) 0 -94630
8482
0%
Head 1 = 45.7 Head 2 = 32.6 U (kip) L (ft) 37 27.2

23.9
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.467 uplift - crack uplift 1 (total rectangular_US)

uplift 2 (add back triangular_US)
0.0 -3479.0
355.4
uplift 3 (rectangular_DS) uplift 4 (triangular_DS) Total Driving of Water Upstream 1 Upstream 2 at Step
-2134.3 -262.8 -5520.8 H (kips) 3974.8 1237.2
8.6 11.5
-18355 -3014 -107518
L (ft) 23.2 4.0
M (k-ft) -92348 -4949
-2022.6 3189.4 H (kips) 935.6 0.0 935.6
10.9
21979 -75318
L (ft) 17.0 53.7
M (k-ft) -15906 0 -15906
D-42

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 21566
8348.5 1444.8 3189.4 -5520.8 935.6 4125.0
-75318 -107518 -15906 0 16649.3
4272.5 kips 4125.0 kips 16649.3 k-ft
NG NG
Crack 25.51 ft
NG
3.90 ft 14.70 ft 11982 psf 0 psf 1.22 0.73 2.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd NG NG 10000 NG
D-43
EXISTING CONDITION

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 4
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115 150 150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2 263.3 1193.1 8348.5
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1 135.0 224.4
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091 2961 22309 193824
24 side wall Total
1988.4
0.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
2. Case III: Extreme Flood Discharge Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = 906.0 ft 888.7 ft
D-44

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:
Wt (kips) 2220.3 7.2 -399.9 -309.7 1517.9 17.3 42.4
L (ft) 22.5 44.2 41.0 41.2
M (k-ft) 49860 316 -16394 -12760 21022 17.3 ft ft ft/ft 0.00 ft 49.0 M (k-ft) 0 -107054 6954 -23873 -2471 -126444
0%
Crack input

0.0 -3935.8 291.4 -2775.9 -215.5 -6635.9 H (kips) -159.9 5245.7 1491.6 -3421.5 3155.9 H (kips) 935.6 0.0 935.6
uplift 3 (rectangular_DS) uplift 4 (triangular_DS) Total Driving of Water Upstream_Rectangular Upstream_Triangular Upstream 2 at Step Downstream Total Silt & Ice Upstream - Silt Upstream - Ice Total
L (ft) 34.3 25.5 4.0 14.1
M (k-ft) 5476 -133765 -5966 48357 -85899
L (ft) 17.0 59.7
M (k-ft) -15906 0 -15906
D-45

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/19/11
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 21022
8348.5 1517.9 3155.9 -6635.9 935.6 4091.6
-85899 -126444 -15906 0 -13402.6
3230.5 kips 4091.6 kips -13402.6 k-ft
-4.15 ft 22.75 ft -8510 psf 0 psf 0.02 1.30 Reqr'd 13300
NG NG NG
Crack 49.65 ft
-4.15 ft 22.75 ft -8510 psf 0 psf 0.02 0.55 2.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd NG NG 13300 NG
D-46
Existing Spillway Anchored to USACE Criteria
D-47
ANCHORED TO USACE CRITERIA

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0

20 psi
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
5.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
0%
663.6
Head 1 = 43.0 Head 2 = 8.7
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.854
D-48

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -123045 18969 -12977 -20390 -137443
L (ft) 19.3 2.5
M (k-ft) -92571 -1891
-196.0 5348.4 H (kips) 1226.4 415.0 1641.4
2.9
568 -93894
L (ft) 13.8 48.0
M (k-ft) -16965 -19920 -36885
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 19912
5348.4 1641.4 6989.8
-93894 -137443 -36885 96875 131660.4
D-49

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
9409.6 kips 6989.8 kips 131660.4 k-ft
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
OK
10000
OK NG NG
D-50

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3 Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
0.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
0%
3705.0
Head 1 = 46.7 Head 2 = 30.6
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.459
D-51

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -133632 10184 -45643 -10947 -180039
0.0 -4111.8 343.3 -3803.6 -684.2 -8256.3 H (kips) 2772.4 1818.5 101.8 1077.5 0.0
-2424.8
L (ft) 18.3 13.8 38.2 2.5 15.8

10.2
M (k-ft) -50597 -25157 -3894 -2694 0

24733
0.0 3345.5 H (kips) 1226.4 0.0 1226.4
31.2
0 -57608
L (ft) 13.8 51.7
M (k-ft) -16965 0 -16965
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 74100
3345.5 1226.4 4571.9
-57608 -180039 -16965 96875 199458.6
D-52

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
9697.0 kips 4571.9 kips 199458.6 k-ft
20.57 ft 0.07 ft 2878 psf 2821 psf 3.63
41 10000 1.70 Reqr'd
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
D-53

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3 Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
0.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
0%
Head 1 = 52.7 Head 2 = 40.4
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.376
D-54

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -150801 8350 -60261 -8976 -211688

H (kips) 3595.9 1818.5 41.6

126.4
L (ft) 18.3 13.8 42.8

39.0
M (k-ft) -65626 -25157 -1777

-4928
35.5 1279.9 -1452.0 -2569.5 -19.8 2856.5
55.2 2.5 15.8 10.5 34.5
-1958 -3200 22869 26980 681 -52114
H (kips) 1226.4 0.0 1226.4
L (ft) 13.8 57.7
M (k-ft) -16965 0 -16965
D-55

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 111020
11748.3 5551.0 2856.5 -9941.3 1226.4 4082.8
-52114 -211688 -16965 96875 210222.9
9858.0 kips 4082.8 kips 210222.9 k-ft
21.33 ft 0.83 ft 3247 psf 2547 psf 4.09
41 13300 1.30 Reqr'd
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
13300
OK OK OK
D-56
Computed By: Checked By:
Y.Ding
E.Daly
152.4 pcf
90 pcf
Date: Date:
11/29/2011
12/19/11
Job No. 23601 Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Subject Dam / Powerhouse Stability Spillway Rock Anchor Design - USACE
Rock Unit Weight = Rock Buoyant Unit Weight = Anchor Spacing = Total Required Anchor Force = Total Number of Anchors = Required Effective Anchor Force = Grouted Rock Shear Allowable Strength = Grout Hole Diameter = Anchor to Fractured Rock Bond Ultimate = Anchor Length Unbonded hTotal L Bonding L Alpha (ft) (ft) (ft) (deg) 25 60 35 Cone (ft)
(recommended in Geotechical report) (unfactored required anchor force under normal load condition)
6.0 ft 2500 k 10
250 k
5760 psf 5.5 in. 150 psi
(recommended in Geotechical report) Wt (kips) 1,078 d (ft) 15.8 d/D Overlap Reduction A/Atotal A h (sf) (ft) 0.374 413 27.3 Vol (cf) 7,521 Wt (kips) 677 Net Wt. (kips) 402
Total Cone r Vol (ft) (cf) 18.8 11,983
60
32.5
0.420
EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-2, (9-2). D= EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-3, (9-5). D= EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-3, (9-6a). Grout Hole Perimeter = Bond Surface = Allowable Force by Bonding = Anchorage Steel Bar Ultimate Stress = Initial Prestress = Factor of Safety for Steel Bar = required Garranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS) = Required Steel Bar Area = Minimum Steel Bar Size = At Concrete/Steel Plate Contact Initial Prestress 333 k Assumed Concrete Strength 4000 psi Allowable Concrete Bearing Pressure 2800 psi Minimum Bearing Area 119.0 in2 Minimum Size of Sqare Steel Pate 12.0 in
28.9 ft 26.4 ft 1.44 ft 43.2 sf 466.5 k 150 133% 1.25 417 2.78 1.88 ksi
good good
Bonded Length under dam Unbonded Length under dam Unbonded Length above bott. of Dam
35 15 10
k in2 in
Use 150 ksi All-Thread-Bar (Williams Form Engineering Corp.)
2 1/4
in.
Diameter.
( 70% of fc' )
At Depth of OLD Concrete Initial Prestress 333 k Assumed Concrete Strength 4000 psi Allowable Concrete Bearing Pressure 2800 psi Minimum Bearing Area 119.0 in2 Depth of Old Concrete from Plate 0.0 in Minimum Size of Sqare Steel Pate 12.0 in
( 70% of fc' )
Use of Square Plate 12.0 in. Hole Size for Anchor Pressure on Plate Total Force on One Side Moment Arm Moment Minimum Plate Thickness 2 3/4 in
X 12.0 in. X
4.0 in. Thk 60.1209 11.8791 72 0.57559 0.42441
50ksi Steel Plate

12.0 in.X 12.0 in.X
4.0 in. Thk
2772 psi 167 k 3.36 in 560 k-in 4.00 in ( Use
Drill Hole in Concrete Dia.= 5.5 in. Hole in Steel Plate Dia.= 2 3/4 in.
50
ksi steel )
D-57
Existing Spillway Anchored to FERC Criteria
D-58
ANCHORED TO FERC CRITERIA

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0

20 psi
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
5.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
0%
663.6
Head 1 = 43.0 Head 2 = 8.7
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.854
D-59

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -123045 18969 -12977 -20390 -137443
L (ft) 19.3 2.5
M (k-ft) -92571 -1891
-196.0 5348.4 H (kips) 1226.4 415.0 1641.4
2.9
568 -93894
L (ft) 13.8 48.0
M (k-ft) -16965 -19920 -36885
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 19912
5348.4 1641.4 6989.8
-93894 -137443 -36885 313875 348660.4
D-60

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
15009.6 kips 6989.8 kips 348660.4 k-ft
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
OK
10000
OK NG OK
D-61

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3 Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
0.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
0%
3705.0
Head 1 = 46.7 Head 2 = 30.6
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.459
D-62

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -133632 10184 -45643 -10947 -180039
0.0 -4111.8 343.3 -3803.6 -684.2 -8256.3 H (kips) 2772.4 1818.5 101.8 1077.5 0.0
-2424.8
L (ft) 18.3 13.8 38.2 2.5 15.8

10.2
M (k-ft) -50597 -25157 -3894 -2694 0

24733
0.0 3345.5 H (kips) 1226.4 0.0 1226.4
31.2
0 -57608
L (ft) 13.8 51.7
M (k-ft) -16965 0 -16965
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 74100
3345.5 1226.4 4571.9
-57608 -180039 -16965 313875 416458.6
D-63

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
15297.0 kips 4571.9 kips 416458.6 k-ft
27.22 ft 6.72 ft 8919 psf 71 psf 4.49
41 10000 1.70 Reqr'd
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
27.22 ft 6.72 ft 8919 psf 71 psf 4.49 2.34 2.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd OK OK 10000 OK
D-64

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft
(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150
Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3 Ice Load = L1 =
L2 =
L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0
M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095
0.0 klf 17.0 ft

24.0 ft
35 degrees
2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft
step =
5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft
0%
Head 1 = 52.7 Head 2 = 40.4
Crack input
Seep Grade = 0.376
D-65

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0
M (k-ft) 0 -150801 8350 -60261 -8976 -211688

H (kips) 3595.9 1818.5 41.6

126.4
L (ft) 18.3 13.8 42.8

39.0
M (k-ft) -65626 -25157 -1777

-4928
35.5 1279.9 -1452.0 -2569.5 -19.8 2856.5
55.2 2.5 15.8 10.5 34.5
-1958 -3200 22869 26980 681 -52114
H (kips) 1226.4 0.0 1226.4
L (ft) 13.8 57.7
M (k-ft) -16965 0 -16965
D-66

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 283095 111020
11748.3 5551.0 2856.5 -9941.3 1226.4 4082.8
-52114 -211688 -16965 313875 427222.9
15458.0 kips 4082.8 kips 427222.9 k-ft
27.64 ft 7.14 ft 9292 psf 0 psf 5.00
41 13300 1.30 Reqr'd
OK OK OK
Crack 0.91 ft
13300
OK OK OK
D-67
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: 152.4 pcf 90 pcf 8.0 ft 8100 k
11/29/2011
12/19/2011
Job No. 23601 Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Subject Dam / Powerhouse Stability Spillway Rock Anchor Design - FERC
Rock Unit Weight = Rock Buoyant Unit Weight = Anchor Spacing = Total Required Anchor Force = Total Number of Anchors = Required Effective Anchor Force = Grouted Rock Shear Allowable Strength = Grout Hole Diameter = Anchor to Fractured Rock Bond Ultimate = Anchor Length Unbonded hTotal L Bonding L Alpha (ft) (ft) (ft) (deg) 25 60 35 60 Cone (ft)
30
270 k 5760 psf 5.5 in. 150 psi (recommended in Geotechical report) Wt (kips) 1,078 d (ft) 14.8 d/D Overlap Reduction A/Atotal A h (sf) (ft) 0.365 404 25.6 Vol (cf) 6,890 Wt (kips) 620 Net Wt. (kips) 458
32.5
0.393
EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-2, (9-2). D= EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-3, (9-5). D= EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-3, (9-6a). Grout Hole Perimeter = Bond Surface = Allowable Force by Bonding = Anchorage Steel Bar Ultimate Stress = Initial Prestress = Factor of Safety for Steel Bar = required Garranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS) = Required Steel Bar Area = Minimum Steel Bar Size = At Concrete/Steel Plate Contact Initial Prestress 360 k Assumed Concrete Strength 4000 psi Allowable Concrete Bearing Pressure 2800 psi Minimum Bearing Area 128.6 in2 Minimum Size of Sqare Steel Pate 13.0 in
23.4 ft 23.7 ft 1.44 ft 43.2 sf 466.5 k 150 133% 1.25 450 3.00 1.95 ksi
good good
35 15 10
k in2 in
2 1/4
in.
Diameter.
( 70% of fc' )
At Depth of OLD Concrete Initial Prestress 360 k Assumed Concrete Strength 4000 psi Allowable Concrete Bearing Pressure 2800 psi Minimum Bearing Area 128.57 in2 Depth of Old Concrete from Plate 0 in Minimum Size of Sqare Steel Pate 13.0 in
( 70% of fc' )
X 14.0 in. X
4.0 in. Thk 86.1209 11.8791 98 0.57559 0.42441
50ksi Steel Plate

14.0 in.X 14.0 in.X
4.0 in. Thk
2090 psi 180 k 3.82 in 688 k-in 4.00 in ( Use
50
ksi steel )
D-68
Existing Powerhouse Anchored to USACE Criteria
D-69

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5

12.5
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115
150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2
263.3
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1
135.0
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091
2961
24 side wall Total
1988.4
150
1193.1 8348.5
224.4
22309 193824
20 psi
5.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
D-70

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Wt (kips) 119.8 -254.6 -251.6 -386.4 39.3 10.7
L (ft) 43.0 41.0 41.2
0%
Crack input
M (k-ft) -73859 -3125
-217.9 3920.6 H (kips) 935.6 305.0 1240.6
3.6
777 -76207
L (ft) 17.0 50.0
M (k-ft) -15906 -15250 -31156
D-71

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 -15652
8348.5 -386.4 3920.6 -3725.5 1240.6 5161.2
-76207 -82809 -31156 94300 82299.8
6536.6 kips 5161.2 kips 82299.8 k-ft
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
12.59 ft 6.01 ft 5673 psf 89 psf 2.15 0.89 3.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd NG NG 10000 OK
D-72

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5

12.5
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115
150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2
263.3
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1
135.0
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091
2961
24 side wall Total
1988.4
150
1193.1 8348.5
224.4
22309 193824
0.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
900.0 ft 878.9 ft
D-73

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Wt (kips) 2028.6 -310.0 -273.8 1444.8 21.1 32.6
L (ft) 22.5 41.0 41.2
8482
0%

23.9
Crack input

0.0 -3479.0
355.4
-2134.3 -262.8 -5520.8 H (kips) 3974.8 1237.2
8.6 11.5
-18355 -3014 -107518
L (ft) 23.2 4.0
M (k-ft) -92348 -4949
-2022.6 3189.4 H (kips) 935.6 0.0 935.6
10.9
21979 -75318
L (ft) 17.0 53.7
M (k-ft) -15906 0 -15906
D-74

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 21566
8348.5 1444.8 3189.4 -5520.8 935.6 4125.0
-75318 -107518 -15906 94300 110949.3
6572.5 kips 4125.0 kips 110949.3 k-ft
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
OK
D-75

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 4
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115 150 150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2 263.3 1193.1 8348.5
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1 135.0 224.4
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091 2961 22309 193824
24 side wall Total
1988.4
0.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
D-76

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Wt (kips) 2220.3 7.2 -399.9 -309.7 1517.9 17.3 42.4
L (ft) 22.5 44.2 41.0 41.2
0%
Crack input

0.0 -3935.8 291.4 -2775.9 -215.5 -6635.9 H (kips) -159.9 5245.7 1491.6 -3421.5 3155.9 H (kips) 935.6 0.0 935.6
L (ft) 34.3 25.5 4.0 14.1
M (k-ft) 5476 -133765 -5966 48357 -85899
L (ft) 17.0 59.7
M (k-ft) -15906 0 -15906
D-77

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 21022
8348.5 1517.9 3155.9 -6635.9 935.6 4091.6
-85899 -126444 -15906 94300 80897.4
5530.5 kips 4091.6 kips 80897.4 k-ft
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
D-78
Y.Ding E.Daly 152.4 pcf 90 pcf 6.0 ft 2300 k
Date: Date:
11/29/2011
12/19/2011
Job No. 23601 Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Subject Dam / Powerhouse Stability Powerhouse Rock Anchor Design - USACE
Rock Unit Weight = Rock Buoyant Unit Weight = Anchor Spacing = Total Required Anchor Force = Total Number of Anchors = Required Effective Anchor Force = Grouted Rock Shear Allowable Strength = Grout Hole Diameter = Anchor to Fractured Rock Bond Ultimate = Anchor Length Unbonded hTotal L Bonding L Alpha (ft) (ft) (ft) (deg) 25 60 35 60
10
230 k 5760 psf 5.5 in. 150 psi (recommended in Geotechical report) Wt (kips) 1,078 d (ft) 15.8 d/D Overlap Reduction A/Atotal A h (sf) (ft) 0.374 413 27.3 Vol (cf) 7,521 Wt (kips) 677 Net Wt. (kips) 402
Total Cone Cone r Vol (ft) (ft) (cf) 32.5 18.8 11,983
0.420
EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-2, (9-2). D= EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-3, (9-5). D= EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-3, (9-6a). Grout Hole Perimeter = Bond Surface = Allowable Force by Bonding = Anchorage Steel Bar Ultimate Stress = Initial Prestress = Factor of Safety for Steel Bar = required Garranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS) = Required Steel Bar Area = Minimum Steel Bar Size = At Concrete/Steel Plate Contact Initial Prestress Assumed Concrete Strength Allowable Concrete Bearing Pressure Minimum Bearing Area Minimum Size of Sqare Steel Pate
26.6 ft 25.3 ft 1.44 ft 43.2 sf 466.5 k 150 133% 1.25 383 2.56 1.80 ksi
good good
35 15 10
k
in in
2
Use 150 ksi All-Thread-Bar (Williams Form 1 3/4 Engineering Corp.)
in.
Diameter.
306.67 4000 2800 109.52 12
k psi psi in2 in
0.7 of fc' )
At Depth of OLD Concrete Initial Prestress Assumed Concrete Strength Allowable Concrete Bearing Pressure Minimum Bearing Area Depth of Old Concrete from Plate Minimum Size of Sqare Steel Pate
306.67 4000 2800 109.52 0 12
k psi psi in2 in in
0.7 of fc' )
X 12.0 in. X
3.0 in. Thk 60.1209 11.8791 72 0.57559 0.42441
50ksi Steel Plate

12.0 in.X 12.0 in.X
3.0 in. Thk
2550 psi 153 k 3.36 in 516 k-in 3.00 in ( Use
50
ksi steel )
D-79
Existing Powerhouse Anchored to FERC Criteria
D-80

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5

12.5
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115
150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2
263.3
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1
135.0
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091
2961
24 side wall Total
1988.4
150
1193.1 8348.5
224.4
22309 193824
20 psi
5.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
D-81

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Wt (kips) 119.8 -254.6 -251.6 -386.4 39.3 10.7
L (ft) 43.0 41.0 41.2
0%
Crack input
M (k-ft) -73859 -3125
-217.9 3920.6 H (kips) 935.6 305.0 1240.6
3.6
777 -76207
L (ft) 17.0 50.0
M (k-ft) -15906 -15250 -31156
D-82

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 -15652
8348.5 -386.4 3920.6 -3725.5 1240.6 5161.2
-76207 -82809 -31156 231000 218999.8
11236.6 kips 5161.2 kips 218999.8 k-ft
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
19.49 ft 0.89 ft 5663 psf 4241 psf 2.79 1.52 3.00 Reqr'd 1.50 Reqr'd NG OK 10000 OK
D-83

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5

12.5
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115
150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2
263.3
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1
135.0
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091
2961
24 side wall Total
1988.4
150
1193.1 8348.5
224.4
22309 193824
0.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
900.0 ft 878.9 ft
D-84

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Wt (kips) 2028.6 -310.0 -273.8 1444.8 21.1 32.6
L (ft) 22.5 41.0 41.2
8482
0%

23.9
Crack input

0.0 -3479.0
355.4
-2134.3 -262.8 -5520.8 H (kips) 3974.8 1237.2
8.6 11.5
-18355 -3014 -107518
L (ft) 23.2 4.0
M (k-ft) -92348 -4949
-2022.6 3189.4 H (kips) 935.6 0.0 935.6
10.9
21979 -75318
L (ft) 17.0 53.7
M (k-ft) -15906 0 -15906
D-85

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 21566
8348.5 1444.8 3189.4 -5520.8 935.6 4125.0
-75318 -107518 -15906 231000 247649.3
11272.5 kips 4125.0 kips 247649.3 k-ft
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
OK
D-86

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
23
A1 (ft2) 560.1 28.0 87.7 191.3 30.0 1111.9 481.5 399.6 28.0 350.1
140.4
D2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D3 (ft) 41.5 41.5 32 12 29.5 9.5 3 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 4
(pcf) 150 -150 -35 150 150 150 150 150 -150 115 150 150
Wt (kip) 3486.4 -174.3 -98.2 344.3 132.8 1584.5 216.7 200.0 749.3 -52.5 503.2 263.3 1193.1 8348.5
L (in) 318.8 374.0 276.0 495.6 120.0 269.5 138.8 120.0 361.0 374.0 169.1 135.0 224.4
M (k-ft) 92614 -5432 -2258 14216 1328 35582 2507 2000 22543 -1636 7091 2961 22309 193824
24 side wall Total
1988.4
0.0 klf 20.0 ft 17.2 ft 8.0 ft 10000 psf 37.2 ft
D-87

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Wt (kips) 2220.3 7.2 -399.9 -309.7 1517.9 17.3 42.4
L (ft) 22.5 44.2 41.0 41.2
0%
Crack input

0.0 -3935.8 291.4 -2775.9 -215.5 -6635.9 H (kips) -159.9 5245.7 1491.6 -3421.5 3155.9 H (kips) 935.6 0.0 935.6
L (ft) 34.3 25.5 4.0 14.1
M (k-ft) 5476 -133765 -5966 48357 -85899
L (ft) 17.0 59.7
M (k-ft) -15906 0 -15906
D-88

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
USACE Stability
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 193824 21022
8348.5 1517.9 3155.9 -6635.9 935.6 4091.6
-85899 -126444 -15906 231000 217597.4
10230.5 kips 4091.6 kips 217597.4 k-ft
OK OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
D-89
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: 152.4 pcf 90 pcf 6.0 ft 7000 k
11/29/2011
12/19/2011
Job No. 23601 Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Subject Dam / Powerhouse Stability Powerhouse Rock Anchor Design - FERC
Rock Unit Weight = Rock Buoyant Unit Weight = Anchor Spacing = Total Required Anchor Force = Total Number of Anchors = Required Effective Anchor Force = Grouted Rock Shear Allowable Strength = Grout Hole Diameter = Anchor to Fractured Rock Bond Ultimate = Anchor Length Unbonded hTotal L Bonding L Alpha (ft) (ft) (ft) (deg) 25 70 45 60 Cone (ft)
20
350 k 5760 psf 5.5 in. 150 psi (recommended in Geotechical report) Wt (kips) 1,657 d (ft) 18.7 d/D Overlap Reduction A/Atotal A h (sf) (ft) 0.374 550 32.3 Vol (cf) 11,846 Wt (kips) 1,066 Net Wt. (kips) 591
37.5
0.431
EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-2, (9-2). D= EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-3, (9-5). D= EM 1110-1-2908, Page 9-3, (9-6a). Grout Hole Perimeter = Bond Surface = Allowable Force by Bonding = Anchorage Steel Bar Ultimate Stress = Initial Prestress = Factor of Safety for Steel Bar = required Garranteed Ultimate Tensile Strength (GUTS) = Required Steel Bar Area = Minimum Steel Bar Size = At Concrete/Steel Plate Contact Initial Prestress Assumed Concrete Strength Allowable Concrete Bearing Pressure Minimum Bearing Area Minimum Size of Sqare Steel Pate
40.5 ft 31.2 ft 1.44 ft 57.6 sf 622.0 k 150 133% 1.25 583 3.89 2.23 ksi
good good
45 15 10
k in2 in
2 1/4
in.
Diameter.
466.67 4000 2800 166.67 14
k psi psi in2 in
0.7 of fc' )
At Depth of OLD Concrete Initial Prestress Assumed Concrete Strength Allowable Concrete Bearing Pressure Minimum Bearing Area Depth of Old Concrete from Plate Minimum Size of Sqare Steel Pate
466.67 4000 2800 166.67 0 14
k psi psi in2 in in
0.7 of fc' )
X 14.0 in. X
4.0 in. Thk 86.1209 11.8791 98 0.57559 0.42441
50ksi Steel Plate

14.0 in.X 14.0 in.X
4.0 in. Thk
2709 psi 233 k 3.82 in 892 k-in 4.00 in ( Use
50
ksi steel )
D-90
New Labyrinth Spillway Dual Tiered Service Spillway
D-91
NEW LABYRINTH SPILLWAY
D-92
NEW LABYRINTH SPILLWAY
D-93
NEW PNEUMATIC GATE SPILLWAY
D-94
NEW LABYRINTH SPILLWAY - SERVICE SPILLWAY - DUAL
1 of 3 51_Labyrinth_Spillway_Stability_Analysis_LC_1.xls, Labyrinth_1_Case_1 12/5/20112:29 PM

Job No. 23601 Page No. Subject: Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Labyrinth (1) Spillway Stability - 75ft Stability LC_1 Sheet No. of
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
1. Weight Computations Item Slab concrete Wall concrete Soil under slab Water (used below) Slab width (used below) Total Top of Slab = Total Length of spillway = Bottom of key EL = Foundation Friction Angle =
Foundation Bonding=
D1 171.0 416.0 279.0 5156.6
D2 1 1 1 50.0 75
D3 126 10 126
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 3231.9 624.0 4042.7
L (in) 450.0 381.0 450.0
M (k-ft) 121196 19812 151602
7898.6 886.3 ft 126.0 ft 880.3 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
292610
Ice Load = L1 = L2 =
step =
5.0 klf 75.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL = 2. Case I: Normal Operating Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = Weight of Water Water weight 1 Water weight 2 Total Uplift Upstream Downstream
75 ft 896.3 ft
2000 psf 75.0 ft
896.3 ft 857.0 ft Wt (kips) 3217.7 0.0 3217.7 L (ft) 50.0 50.0 M (k-ft) 160795 0 160795
50%
Head 1 = 8.0 Head 2 = 0
ft ft
D-95

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
U (kip) uplift (rectangular) uplift (triangular) Total Driving of Water Upstream rectangular Upstream triangular Downstream Total Silt & Ice
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 38 50
M (k-ft) 0 -117936 -117936
0.0 -2358.7 -2358.7 H (kips) 0.0 1006.4 0.0 1006.4 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 8.0 5.3 0.0
M (k-ft) 0 -5367 0 -5367
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
Upstream - Ice Total Load Summary V (kips) Structure Weight Weight of Water Driving of Water Uplift at Efficiency = 0.5 Silt & Ice Total 8757.6 V = H = M = -2358.7 7898.6 3217.7
630.0 630.0
16.0
-10080 -10080
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 292610 160795
1006.4 630.0 1636.4
-5367 -117936 -10080 320021.8
8757.6 kips 1636.4 kips 320021.8 k-ft
D-96

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
USACE Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS = FERC Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS (No Cohesion) = 36.54 ft 0.96 ft 998 psf 856 psf 2.85 1.50 Reqr'd OK 2000 OK 36.54 ft 0.96 ft 998 psf 856 psf 2.85 2.00 Reqr'd OK 2000 OK
For Usual LC,
OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Usual LC, No Cohesion.
D-97

Job No. 23601 Page No. Subject: Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Labyrinth (1) Spillway Stability - 75ft

Stability LC_2 Sheet No. of
Foundation Bonding=
D1 171.0 416.0 279.0 5156.6
D2 1 1 1 50.0 75
D3 126 10 126
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 3231.9 624.0 4042.7
L (in) 450.0 381.0 450.0
M (k-ft) 121196 19812 151602
7898.6 886.3 ft 126.0 ft 880.3 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
292610
step =
0.0 klf 75.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL = 2. Case II: 100 Year Flood Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = Weight of Water Water weight 1 Water weight 2 Total Uplift Upstream Downstream
75 ft 896.3 ft
2000 psf 75.0 ft
50%
Head 1 = 9.9 Head 2 = 0
ft ft
D-98

Job No. 23601 Page No. Subject: Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Computed by: Checked by: Approved by:
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Sheet No.

Stability LC_2 of
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 38 50
M (k-ft) 0 -145209 -145209
0.0 -2904.2 -2904.2 H (kips) 465.5 1006.4 0.0 1471.8 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 8.0 5.3 0.0
M (k-ft) -3724 -5367 0 -9091
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
0.0 0.0
19.7
0 0
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 292610 190542
1471.8 0.0 1471.8
-9091 -145209 0 328852.6
8807.4 kips 1471.8 kips 328852.6 k-ft
D-99

Job No. 23601 Page No. Subject: Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Computed by: Checked by: Approved by:
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Sheet No.

Stability LC_2 of
USACE Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS = FERC Stability Force Resultant Location @ Base L = Force Resultant Location Offset e = Foundation Bearing pmax = Foundation Bearing pmin = Sliding FOS (No Cohesion) = 37.34 ft 0.16 ft 944 psf 920 psf 3.18 1.50 Reqr'd
For Unusual LC, No Cohesion.
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Unusual LC,
OK
2000
OK OK
D-100

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Foundation Bonding=
D1 171.0 416.0 279.0 5156.6
D2 1 1 1 50.0 75
D3 126 10 126
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 3231.9 624.0 4042.7
L (in) 450.0 381.0 450.0
M (k-ft) 121196 19812 151602
7898.6 886.3 ft 126.0 ft 880.3 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
292610
step =
0.0 klf 75.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL = 2. Case III: PMF/2 Flood Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = Weight of Water Water weight 1 Water weight 2 Total Uplift Upstream Downstream
75 ft 896.3 ft
2000 psf 75.0 ft
50%
Head 1 = 17.1 Head 2 = 8.4
ft ft
D-101

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 38 50
M (k-ft) -185749 -127518 -313268
-4953.3 -2550.4 -7503.7 H (kips) 1220.2 1006.4 0.0 2226.6 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 8.0 5.3 0.0
M (k-ft) -9762 -5367 0 -15129
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
0.0 0.0
25.7
0 0
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 292610 316767
2226.6 0.0 2226.6
-15129 -313268 0 280979.8
6733.9 kips 2226.6 kips 280979.8 k-ft
D-102

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
For Extremel LC, No Cohesion.
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Extreme LC,
OK
2000
OK OK
D-103
New Labyrinth Spillway Dual Tiered Auxiliary Spillway
D-104
NEW LABYRINTH SPILLWAY - AUXILIARY SPILLWAY - DUAL

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Foundation Bonding=
D1 121.0 536.2 179.0 2874.5
D2 1 1 1 33.4 50
D3 113.5 8 113.5
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 2060.0 643.5 2336.4
L (in) 308.9 261.7 294.0
M (k-ft) 53025 14032 57242
5039.9 892 ft 113.5 ft 886.0 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
124299
step =
5.0 klf 50.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
50 ft 900 ft
2000 psf 50.0 ft
896.3 ft 857.0 ft Wt (kips) 771.3 L (ft) 33.4 33.4 771.3 M (k-ft) 25774 0 25774
50%
Head 1 = 5.1 Head 2 = 0
ft ft
D-105

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 25 33
M (k-ft) 0 -30395 -30395
0.0 -911.9 -911.9 H (kips) 0.0 375.7 0.0 375.7 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 7.0 3.4 0.0
M (k-ft) 0 -1290 0 -1290
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
567.5 567.5
10.3
-5845 -5845
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 124299 25774
375.7 567.5 943.2
-1290 -30395 -5845 112542.2
4899.3 kips 943.2 kips 112542.2 k-ft
D-106

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
For Usual LC,
OK
Crack 0.00 ft
D-107

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Foundation Bonding=
D1 121.0 536.2 179.0 2874.5
D2 1 1 1 33.4 50
D3 113.5 8 113.5
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 2060.0 643.5 2336.4
L (in) 308.9 261.7 294.0
M (k-ft) 53025 14032 57242
5039.9 892 ft 113.5 ft 886.0 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
124299
step =
0.0 klf 50.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
50 ft 900 ft
2000 psf 50.0 ft
50%
Head 1 = 7.0 Head 2 = 0
ft ft
D-108

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 25 33
M (k-ft) 0 -41314 -41314
0.0 -1239.4 -1239.4 H (kips) 0.0 694.1 0.0 694.1 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 7.0 4.7 0.0
M (k-ft) 0 -3239 0 -3239
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
0.0 0.0
14.0
0 0
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 124299 47951
694.1 0.0 694.1
-3239 -41314 0 127697.1
5235.5 kips 694.1 kips 127697.1 k-ft
D-109

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Unusual LC,
OK
2000
OK OK
D-110

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Foundation Bonding=
D1 121.0 536.2 179.0 2874.5
D2 1 1 1 33.4 50
D3 113.5 8 113.5
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 2060.0 643.5 2336.4
L (in) 308.9 261.7 294.0
M (k-ft) 53025 14032 57242
5039.9 892 ft 113.5 ft 886.0 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
124299
step =
0.0 klf 50.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
50 ft 900 ft
2000 psf 50.0 ft
50%
Head 1 = 11.4 Head 2 = 2.7
ft ft
D-111

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 25 33
M (k-ft) -23903 -51052 -74955
-956.1 -1531.6 -2487.7 H (kips) 594.9 694.1 0.0 1289.0 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 7.0 4.7 0.0
M (k-ft) -4164 -3239 0 -7403
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
0.0 0.0
20.0
0 0
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 124299 83915
1289.0 0.0 1289.0
-7403 -74955 0 125854.9
5063.4 kips 1289.0 kips 125854.9 k-ft
D-112

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Extreme LC,
OK
2000
OK OK
D-113
New Labyrinth Spillway Single Service/Auxiliary Spillway
D-114
NEW SINGLE LABYRINTH SPILLWAY

Job No. 23601 Page No. Subject: Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Labrinth (3) Spillway Stability - 70ft Stability LC_1 Sheet No. of
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Foundation Bonding=
D1 161.0 773.4 259.0 7796.9
D2 1 1 1 45.8 70
D3 181 10 181
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 4371.2 1160.0 5391.1
L (in) 429.7 297.5 414.0
M (k-ft) 156505 28763 185992
10922.3 886.3 ft 181.0 ft 880.3 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
371261
step =
5.0 klf 70.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
70 ft 896.3 ft
2000 psf 70.0 ft
50%
Head 1 = 8.0 Head 2 = 0
ft ft
D-115

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 35 47
M (k-ft) 0 -147580 -147580
0.0 -3162.4 -3162.4 H (kips) 0.0 1445.7 0.0 1445.7 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 8.0 5.3 0.0
M (k-ft) 0 -7710 0 -7710
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
Upstream - Ice Total Load Summary V (kips) Structure Weight Weight of Water Driving of Water Uplift at Efficiency = 0.5 Silt & Ice Total -3162.4
905.0 905.0
16.0
-14480 -14480
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 371261 222627
10922.3 4865.3 1445.7 905.0 12625.1 V = H = M = 12625.1 kips 2350.7 kips 424117.3 k-ft 2350.7
-7710 -147580 -14480 424117.3
D-116

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
For Usual LC,
OK
Crack 0.00 ft
D-117

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
1. Weight Computations Item Slab concrete Wall concrete Soil under slab Water (used below) Total Top of Slab = Total Length of spillway = Bottom of key EL = Foundation Friction Angle =
Foundation Bonding=
D1 161.0 773.4 259.0 7796.9
D2 1 1 1 45.8
D3 181 10 181
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 4371.2 1160.0 5391.1
L (in) 429.7 297.5 414.0
M (k-ft) 156505 28763 185992
10922.3 886.3 ft 181.0 ft 880.3 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
371261
step =
0.0 klf 70.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
70 ft 896.3 ft
2000 psf 70.0 ft
50%
Head 1 = 9.9 Head 2 = 0
ft ft
D-118

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 35 47
M (k-ft) 0 -181708 -181708
0.0 -3893.7 -3893.7 H (kips) 668.6 1445.7 0.0 2114.3 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 8.0 5.3 0.0
M (k-ft) -5349 -7710 0 -13059
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
0.0 0.0
19.7
0 0
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 371261 263813
2114.3 0.0 2114.3
-13059 -181708 0 440306.3
12793.9 kips 2114.3 kips 440306.3 k-ft
D-119

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Unusual LC,
OK
2000
OK OK
D-120

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
1. Weight Computations Item Slab concrete Wall concrete Soil under slab Water (used below) Total Top of Slab = Total Length of spillway = Bottom of key EL = Foundation Friction Angle =
Foundation Bonding=
D1 161.0 773.4 259.0 7796.9
D2 1 1 1 45.8
D3 181 10 181
(pcf) 150 150 115
Wt (kip) 4371.2 1160.0 5391.1
L (in) 429.7 297.5 414.0
M (k-ft) 156505 28763 185992
10922.3 886.3 ft 181.0 ft 880.3 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
371261
step =
0.0 klf 70.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
70 ft 896.3 ft
2000 psf 70.0 ft
50%
Head 1 = 17.1 Head 2 = 8.4
ft ft
D-121

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 35 47
M (k-ft) -232439 -159571 -392010
-6641.1 -3419.4 -10060.5 H (kips) 1752.9 1445.7 0.0 3198.6 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 8.0 5.3 0.0
M (k-ft) -14023 -7710 0 -21733
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
0.0 0.0
25.7
0 0
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 371261 438575
3198.6 0.0 3198.6
-21733 -392010 0 396092.6
10446.4 kips 3198.6 kips 396092.6 k-ft
D-122

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
OK OK
Crack 0.00 ft
For Extreme LC,
OK
2000
OK OK
D-123
NEW PNUEMATIC GATE SPILLWAY
New Pneumatic Spillway Service Spillway
D-124
NEW PNUEMATIC GATE SPILLWAY
1 of 3 81_Obermeyer_Gate_Stability_Analysis_LC_1.xls, Obermeyer_Case_1 12/5/20112:44 PM

Job No. 23601 Page No. Subject: Delhi Lake Dam Reconstruction Obermeyer Spillway Stability - 50ft Stability LC_1 Sheet No. of
Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
1. Weight Computations Item Slab concrete Gate Soil under slab Water (used below) Slab width (used below) Total Top of Slab = Total Length of spillway = Bottom of key EL = Foundation Friction Angle =
Foundation Bonding=
D1 166.0 1.0 134.0 292.6
D2 1 1 1 31.7 50
D3 160 160 160
(pcf) 150 350 115
Wt (kip) 3984.0 56.0 2465.6
L (in) 304.8 156.0 294.0
M (k-ft) 101207 728 60407
6505.6 888.3 ft 160.0 ft 882.3 ft 28 degrees

0 psf
0 psi
162342
step =
5.0 klf 50.0 ft 0.0 ft

0.0 ft
Length of Seepage Path = Top Of Crest EL = 2. Case I: Normal Operating Condition Head Water EL = Tail Water EL = Weight of Water Water weight 1
50 ft 896.3 ft
2000 psf 50.0 ft
896.3 ft 857.0 ft Wt (kips) 2921.5 L (ft) 31.7 M (k-ft) 92514
Total Uplift Upstream Downstream
2921.5
92514
50%
Head 1 = 7.0 Head 2 = 0
ft ft
D-125

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: Date: Date:
12/05/11 12/16/11
Upstream - Silt
L (ft) 25 33
M (k-ft) 0 -58240 -58240
0.0 -1747.2 -1747.2 H (kips) 0.0 978.4 0.0 978.4 H (kips)

0.0
L (ft) 7.0 4.7 0.0
M (k-ft) 0 -4566 0 -4566
L (ft)
0.0
M (k-ft)
0
800.0 800.0
14.0
-11200 -11200
H (kips)
M (k-ft) 162342 92514
978.4 800.0 1778.4
-4566 -58240 -11200 180850.2
7679.9 kips 1778.4 kips 180850.2 k-ft
D-126

Y.Ding
E.Daly
Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/16/11 Date:
For Usual LC,
OK
Crack 0.00 ft
D-127

Structural Analysis and Design

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Structural Analysis and Design

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Appendix D

Structural Analysis and Design

Existing Powerhouse and Spillway Stability

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Anchorage Design for Existing Powerhouse and Spillway

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Design of New Spillways

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Delhi Dam Structural Computations & Reference Material

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Structural Design Criteria

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Comp Date: 12/05/11 Print Date: 12/6/2011 Print Time: 9:02 AM

Delhi Dam Reconstruction- Design Criteria

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Comp Date: 12/05/11 Print Date: 12/6/2011 Print Time: 9:02 AM

Lateral Earth Pressure Coeff (use "at-rest")

Concrete slab - embankment soil sliding friction angle

Comp Date: 12/05/11 Print Date: 12/6/2011 Print Time: 9:02 AM

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Comp Date: 12/05/11 Print Date: 12/6/2011 Print Time: 9:02 AM

Fwind := q z ( G) ( Cf ) = 22.922 psf

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

TABLE 1 Ultimate Friction Factors and Adhesion for Dissimilar Materials

Change 1, September 1986

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

Existing Spillway Stability Check

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

1 of 3 11_Spillway_Stability_Analysis_LC_1.xls, Spillway_Case_1 12/5/20111:34 PM

Computed by: Y.Ding Checked by: E. Daly Approved by:

Date: Date: Date:

A1 (ft2) 798.8 299.1 28.0 1966.9 39.9 14.2 5.0

D3 (ft) 75 75 83 11 73.5 73.5 73.5 904.8 ft 83.0 ft 848.3 ft

(pcf) 150 -35 -150 150 150 150 150

Wt (kip) 8985.9 -785.2 -348.6 3245.4 439.5 156.2 55.1 11748.3

L (in) 298.2 271.2 414.0 279.0 193.0 377.0 465.0

M (k-ft) 223301 -17746 -12027 75456 7068 4907 2136 283095

5.0 klf 17.0 ft

2880 psf 46 ft 879.8 ft

5.0 ft 10000 psf 41.0 ft

Total Uplift Upstream Downstream 39.3

Head 1 = 43.0 Head 2 = 8.7

Seep Grade = 0.854

Lake Delhi Dam Design Alternatives Report

2 of 3 11_Spillway_Stability_Analysis_LC_1.xls, Spillway_Case_1 12/5/20111:34 PM

Computed by: Checked by: Approved by:

Date: 12/05/11 Date: 12/19/11 Date:

L (ft) 41 32.5 29.7 12.0 16.0