8 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Ifeanyi Ulasi

jjjj

- Guidelines for Hazard Classification
- 232989638 Simplified Reinforced Concrete Design 2010 NSCP
- TIVAR_1000_PDS_E_31052011
- Hydro Power Generation
- Basic Design Report (Draft Pöyry, 07-Aug-2011)
- UBC Volume 2(1997)RAM 16.pdf
- IS-802_3
- Dam Construction Flow Chart 20060822_45inch
- Advisory Note on Deep Excavation
- Lecture6 Reservoir Intro
- Steel
- Fei Experimental Study on a Geo Mechanical Model of a High Arch Dam 2010
- JeradDLId0362vol003issue002
- Delaware Dam Safety Program Update May 2008
- 36.pdf
- Lecture 1-1
- Untitled
- Table of Contents
- LG_ecc
- Ce6703 Irrgation Question Bank

Anda di halaman 1dari 12

27th Annual USSD Conference

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 5-9, 2007

Hosted by

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

On the Cover

The Corps of Engineers Beltzville Lake in East-Central Pennsylvania. In this south-facing photo, from the bottom

to the top, features include the project office, the emergency spillway, the 4,560-foot long embankment, the intake

tower, and a series of ridges of the Appalachian front. Beltzville Lake is on Pohopoco Creek, which drains into the

Lehigh River. The Lehigh Rivers water gap through Blue Mountain can be seen in the background of the photo.

(Photo by Anthony S. Bley.)

Vision

To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams

for the benefit of society.

Mission USSD is dedicated to:

Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,

performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;

Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water

resources systems;

Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water

resources;

Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and

Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on

Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this report regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for

advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or

from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made

or the opinions expressed in this publication.

Copyright 2007 U.S. Society on Dams

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007921375

ISBN 978-1-884575-40-2

U.S. Society on Dams

1616 Seventeenth Street, #483

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: 303-628-5430

Fax: 303-628-5431

E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org

Internet: www.ussdams.org

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING DESIGN METHODS

Scott L. Jones, P.E.1

ABSTRACT

In the process of designing the intake tower for the Carter Lake Dam No. 1 Outlet Works

Addition, URS performed an extensive review of intake tower design guidelines and

discovered two different design philosophies for seismic design of intake towersload

factor design (as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and working stress

design. The review revealed that the two design approaches employ nearly identical

methods for developing applied loads on the structures to determine the shear and

moment in cross-sections of the tower; however, the two approaches employ different

methods to evaluate the nominal strength and stability of the structure. For example, load

factor design prescribes large reductions to the applied forces relative to the increase in

allowable stresses prescribed by the working stress approach for the earthquake loading

conditions. As a result of the differences between the two approaches, the design of the

intake tower for the Carter Lake Dam No. 1 varies considerably depending on the

approach used. This paper compares and contrasts the two design approaches considered

in the design of the intake tower and presents the tower designs resulting from application

of the two different methods. This paper also presents a discussion on the differences

between the two approaches to moment design and stability evaluation. Specific

attention is given to the methods for evaluating the stability of an intake tower.

INTRODUCTION

Carter Lake Reservoir is located in Larimer County, approximately ten miles southwest

of Loveland, CO. The project is owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation). Reclamation delegated responsibility for this project to the

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD). Carter Lake Dam No. 1 is an

earth embankment dam with a structural height of 214 feet and a crest length of 1235

feet. Figure 1 shows a photograph of Carter Lake Dam No. 1 taken from the right

abutment. The dam has a crest width of 40 feet and a maximum base width of 1320 feet.

The upstream slope varies, with a slope of approximately 2.5 horizontal (H) to 1.0

vertical (V) from El. 5769 to El. 5680, a slope of approximately 3.0 H: 1.0 V from El.

5680 to El. 5615, and a slope of approximately 5.0 H: 1.0 V from EL. 5615 to the base

elevation of 5555 feet. The downstream slope varies, with a slope of approximately 2.0

H: 1.0 V from El. 5769 to El. 5700, a slope of approximately 2.5 H: 1.0 V from El. 5700

to El. 5600 and a slope of approximately 5.0

Senior Structural Engineer, URS, 8181 E. Tufts Ave., Denver, CO 80237; michael_zusi@urscorp.com

3

Senior Consultant, 8181 E. Tufts Ave., Denver, CO 80237, steve_higinbotham@urscorp.com

2

395

Figure 1. Photograph of Carter Lake Dam No. 1 Taken from the Right Abutment.

H: 1.0 V from EL. 5600 to the base elevation of 5555 feet. The reservoir has a total

storage capacity of 112,200 acre-feet with the reservoir surface elevation at El. 5759.

The existing outlet works consists of a tunnel outlet located on the right side of Carter

Lake Dam No. 1. The intake consists of a submerged reinforced concrete structure fitted

with trashracks. The tunnel was mined in the abutment along an alignment perpendicular

to the dam crest. The tunnel consists of a 75-inch diameter, steel lined, concrete encased

pipe. Flow through the outlet works is controlled by two high pressure slide gates located

in a gate chamber below the center of the dam. Access to the gate chamber is gained

through a vertical shaft below an existing shaft house. The outlet conduit discharges into

a reinforced concrete hydraulic jump stilling basin. The inlet for the tunnel is located at

El. 5618 and the outlet into the stilling basin is located at El. 5600. The existing outlet

works has a maximum discharge capacity of 1260 cfs with the reservoir surface at the

maximum expected elevation of 5763 feet.

The NCWCD has asked URS to design the Carter Lake Dam No. 1 Outlet Works

Addition (CLDOWA) to:

Provide an additional outlet works to supplement the existing outlet works so that

the existing outlet works can be taken out of service periodically for repairs or

maintenance without interrupting water deliveries.

Provide an outlet works that meets low release flows (20 cfs) without incurring

cavitation damage.

A critical component of the outlet works addition is a reinforced concrete, 107-foot tall,

freestanding intake tower located on a bench upstream of the right abutment of the dam.

URS initially designed the tower for all loading conditions according to the Load Factor

396

Design (LFD) approach. In performing the design for seismic loading, critical sections of

the tower were identified and designed according to the more conservative Working

Stress Design (WSD) approach to provide for reservoir drawdown capability in a postseismic condition. Both design methods rely on a response spectrum analysis of the

tower for development of the seismic loads. This paper describes the methodology

employed in developing the loading for and designing the tower and compares LFD and

WSD designs for the sections of the tower identified as critical to reservoir operations.

DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA FOR THE INTAKE TOWER

The design of the intake tower was based on assumptions regarding the material

properties and loading conditions for the tower. It was also designed according to criteria

for stress in the concrete and reinforcing steel and for stability against sliding and

overturning. Preliminary design of the reinforced concrete intake tower was performed

using an LFD approach in accordance with USACE EM 1110-2-2104 (1992), USACE

EM 1110-2-2400 (2003), and ACI 318-02 (2004). The load factors for the LFD approach

are consistent with USACE EM 1110-2-2104 and USACE EM 1110-2-2400. This

section describes the assumptions made and the criteria used to design the tower.

Material Properties

The material properties used to design the intake tower are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Material Properties Assumed in the Design of the Intake Tower.

Material

Specified Strength

Structural Concrete

Reinforcing Steel

Fy = 60,000 psi

The loads and forces described in this section were used to design the intake tower. The

load types are summarized in Table 2.

The following load combinations were used to evaluate the structures:

Case I: Intake structure operating at normal maximum operating pool; dead load of

structure; earth loads, if any; full uplift over 100% of the structure base area; Maximum

Design Earthquake (MDE) seismic load in direction to produce most severe loading.

Case II: Intake structure operating at normal maximum operating pool; dead load of

structure; full uplift over 100% of the structure base area; Operational Basis Earthquake

(OBE) seismic load in direction to produce most severe loading.

397

Load

Dead

Description

- For normal weight concrete, a unit weight of 150 lb/ft3 was assumed.

- Equipment, and piping weights will be based on information determined during design.

Live

Hydrostatic

- For calculating lateral loads from water and buoyancy effects, a unit weight of 62.4

lb/ft3 was assumed.

Wind

- Wind effects were determined in accordance with IBC (2003) and local building codes.

- A lateral pressure of 40.8 lb/ft2 was assumed to act on the tower walls and access

bridge.

Ice

- Ice loads were determined according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publication,

Ice Pressure on Engineering Structures.

- A load of 6,000 lb/ft was assumed to act on the intake tower at El. 5759 based on an

assumed initial air temperature of 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

Seismic

- The structures were designed to withstand forces from the MDE and the OBE.

- The MDE was taken from a site-specific study for the Chimney Hollow dam site and

has a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.21 g and a 10,000-year return period.

- The OBE was taken from the 2002 USGS Probabilistic Uniform Hazard Response

Spectra database and has a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.04 g and a 475year return period.

Case III: Reservoir at normal maximum operating pool; dead load of structure; all gates

closed; intake structure dewatered; ice load; and full uplift over 100% of the base area for

that part of the structure that is submerged.

Case IV: Reservoir empty. Wind load applied to full height intake structure and half of

the bridge structure span.

Overstressing Design Criteria

Using the LFD approach, the structures were designed against overstressing by sizing the

sections and reinforcing such that the computed moments and forces acting on the

structure were less than the calculated moment and force capacities for all load cases.

Sliding and Overturning Stability Criteria

In the design of the reinforced concrete structures, the minimum factors of safety required

to satisfy sliding and overturning stability were selected based on discussions with

Reclamation staff. The factors of safety are presented in Table 3.

398

Minimum Allowable

Sliding Stability

Factor of Safety

Minimum Allowable

Overturning Stability

Factor of Safety

1.5

1.5

1.15

1.15

Loading

Sliding stability factors of safety for the reinforced concrete structures were computed

using the following equation:

Q=

FN tan (e )

FD

(1)

where Q is the sliding factor of safety, e is the effective friction angle between the tower

and the foundation, FN is the normal force at the base of the tower, and FD is the driving

(shear) force at the base of the tower. A value of 39 degrees was assumed for e. The

computations for sliding stability neglected the effects of cohesion in the foundation.

Overturning stability factors of safety for the reinforced concrete structures were

computed using the following equation:

FS =

MR

MD

(2)

where FS is the overturning factor of safety, MR is the restoring moment about the toe of

the tower base slab, and MD is the disturbing moment about the toe of the tower base

slab. The intake tower was designed to satisfy a minimum overturning stability factor of

safety of 1.0 for all load cases without considering foundation anchors. Foundation

anchors were added to provide the appropriate factor of safety for the extreme seismic

loading condition.

RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

The intake tower was modeled for load cases I and II with a spreadsheet developed using

the two-mode approximation described in USACE EM 1110-2-2400 and with a twodimensional finite element model using the commercial software package, ANSYS. The

finite element model is shown in Figure 2. The finite element model used to simulate the

structural behavior of the intake tower was comprised of 2-noded beam elements and

single-noded mass elements. The beam elements were used to model the behavior of the

concrete that make up the tower structure. The mass elements were used to model the

structure-water interaction during the seismic loading event. The mass attributed to each

399

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. (a) 2-D and (b) 3-D representations of the 2-D Finite Element Model of the

CLDOWA Intake Tower.

mass element was based on the mass of the water internal or external to the tower

attributable to each node, determined according to the methods described in USACE EM

1110-2-2400. Dead and live loads from the access bridge and the intake tower

superstructure were applied as added mass elements. The dynamic loads were evaluated

by performing a linear elastic response spectrum analysis, using modal superposition.

The dynamic analysis applied the maximum horizontal component of spectral

acceleration from the ground motion record to the base of the structure. The maximum

horizontal component is defined as the component that produces the maximum stress

response in the structure.

400

Performance of the response spectrum analysis in ANSYS included the following steps:

Modal Analysis: ANSYS performed a modal analysis to determine the mode shapes and

natural frequencies of the structure. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine

the number of modes required to insure that the results of interest did not change

significantly with the inclusion of additional modes.

Computation of Mode Coefficient: ANSYS computed the mode coefficient, which

represented the relative contribution a particular natural frequency had on the total

response of the structure to the dynamic loads. If the mode coefficient was small, then

the contribution to the final response was small. For this study, if the mode coefficient

was less than 1/10 of a percent, then the effects of the corresponding mode were

neglected. In the case of the intake tower, three modes were considered to be significant

to the response of the tower.

Modal Superposition: ANSYS determined which of the considered modes were to be

included based on the relative magnitude of the mode coefficient and combined all

included modal responses using a square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) approach.

For the purposes of this study, the response spectrum developed by URS for the Chimney

Hollow Dam, as part of the Windy Gap Firming Project, was used for the dynamic

analysis. The analysis was based on the following assumptions:

The tower base is founded on a mass concrete slab, anchored into foundation

rock.

The effect of the new bridge was included in the analysis.

The results of the response spectrum analyses according to the USACE two-mode

approximation and the finite element analysis are shown in Figure 3.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Comparison of Predicted (a) Shear and (b) Moment in the Intake Tower from

the USACE Two-Mode Approximation and the 2-D Finite Element Analysis

401

responses were analyzed. The responses from two orthogonal horizontal motions were

combined using the following equations:

E = +/- {0.3Ex + Ey}

where E is the total horizontal seismic response, Ex is the seismic response in one

orthogonal horizontal direction, and Ey is the seismic response in the other orthogonal

horizontal direction.

The effects of the vertical ground motions were assumed to be independent of the

horizontal ground motions and, therefore, not to contribute significantly to the structural

response.

INTAKE TOWER DESIGN

The CLDOWA intake tower was designed according to the LFD approach with seven

different sections based on varying geometry (wall thickness and presence of gates) and

reinforcement patterns. The sections are shown in Figure 4. The design utilized #9 bars

in different configurations for each section in the tower. For example, the section

between the base of the tower and El. 5680 required #9 bars spaced at 6 inches on the

exterior and interior faces of the walls and an extra layer of #9 bars spaced at 12 inches

on the exterior face of the tower.

The moment capacity was calculated at several elevations in the tower to determine a

moment envelope and the nominal moment capacity was compared to the factored

applied moment and shear for all elevations in the tower. Figure 5 shows the comparison

of the factored applied moment and the nominal capacity as a function of elevation. Note

that the design of most sections in the tower was controlled by the USACE criteria that

the nominal moment capacity exceed the uncracked moment capacity by at least 20

percent. For all sections between El. 5680 and the top of the intake tower, this criteria

controlled the design, which explains the high moment capacity relative to the demand on

the tower.

The LFD method described by USACE 1110-2-2400 specifically allows cracking to

occur in the intake tower during the MDE loading condition (Load Case I in this study).

Several sections of the tower, especially the base which houses two of the four control

gates on the structure, were deemed critical to reservoir operations. Cracking in this

section of the tower could potentially lead to larger deformations than the slide gates can

withstand while still maintaining operability (a displacement of 1/4 inch would likely

cause the gates to bind).

402

Pattern.

403

Due to the critical nature of the base, the design was checked according to the more

conservative WSD approach, which is based on elastic response of the structure. The

WSD approach requires that the stresses in the steel and the concrete remain below

allowable stresses which are a percentage of the yield strength (the allowable stress for

steel is 40% of the yield strength for grade 60 reinforcing steel). It was determined that

in order for the base section of the tower to satisfy the WSD criteria, the reinforcement

needed to be increased substantially over that required by the LFD approach. Instead of

the reinforcement scheme described above, the recommended reinforcement between the

base of the tower and El. 5680 was two layers of #11 bars spaced at 6 inches on the

exterior face and one layer of #11 bars spaced at 6 inches on the interior face.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper described the design of the intake tower for the Carter Lake Dam No. 1 Outlet

Works Addition. In general, the Load Factor Design approach described in USACE EM

1110-2-2400 was deemed adequate to determine the required reinforcement for the tower.

In fact, the USACE criteria that the nominal moment capacity exceed the uncracked

moment capacity by at least 20 percent, to limit the likelihood of fracture of the

reinforcement, often governed the design. However, in sections of the tower deemed

critical to reservoir operations, the more conservative Working Stress Design approach

was deemed more appropriate to insure the operability of the lower gates under all

considered loading conditions.

REFERENCES

[1.]

Outlet Works, EM 1110-2-2400, Washington, DC.

[2.]

Hydraulic Structures, EM 1110-2-2104 Washington, DC.

[3.]

Practice, Part 1, 2004.

[4.]

Science and Engineering Monograph III-B1b, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.

404

- Guidelines for Hazard ClassificationDiunggah olehDragana Nisic
- 232989638 Simplified Reinforced Concrete Design 2010 NSCPDiunggah olehIrene B. Quiñones
- TIVAR_1000_PDS_E_31052011Diunggah olehJonathan Cruz
- Hydro Power GenerationDiunggah olehM Apriyudi Syafputra
- Basic Design Report (Draft Pöyry, 07-Aug-2011)Diunggah olehabdullah amanullah
- UBC Volume 2(1997)RAM 16.pdfDiunggah olehMichael Powell
- IS-802_3Diunggah olehSourav Hait
- Dam Construction Flow Chart 20060822_45inchDiunggah olehKwaku Solo
- Advisory Note on Deep ExcavationDiunggah olehtun20000
- Lecture6 Reservoir IntroDiunggah olehIsmail A Ismail
- SteelDiunggah olehSour
- Fei Experimental Study on a Geo Mechanical Model of a High Arch Dam 2010Diunggah olehkrainaoz2011
- JeradDLId0362vol003issue002Diunggah olehLevis Gonzales
- Delaware Dam Safety Program Update May 2008Diunggah olehJim Werner
- 36.pdfDiunggah olehGil Edgar
- Lecture 1-1Diunggah olehcantybuoy
- UntitledDiunggah oleheurolex
- Table of ContentsDiunggah olehAndrea Magtuto
- LG_eccDiunggah olehP Allen Samuel Ignatius
- Ce6703 Irrgation Question BankDiunggah olehshahid ali
- 1121_4Diunggah olehSrihariKyatam
- Ret wall-4.5mDiunggah olehMonirul Islam Estiak
- Khadijatusalma_sma Darul Ulum 2 Jombang_purwakarta Economic Activities Excursion and Jatiluhur Dam Observation ResumeDiunggah olehAma Salma
- Tabri Local Impact Strength of Sandwich Panels.pdfDiunggah olehKristjan Tabri
- Op Tim Ization CompositeDiunggah olehmanel_dr
- ANR-1114.pdfDiunggah olehsobodanpatronu
- Mathematical Expression of the CBR RelationsDiunggah olehStacy Johnson
- Risks and Constraints in Rehabilitation of People Displaced: A Case of Tehri DamDiunggah olehHishmi Jamil Husain
- Dam Detailed Design Geotechnical InvestigationDiunggah olehjefe7yu
- Rack Trafo Simulation ReportDiunggah olehSyach Firm

- Chapter 07 Vol IIDiunggah olehMabongie Kunene
- Fence AlignmentDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Book2Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Assignment_Tension MembersDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Portal Frame DesignDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Quantities FeedmillDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- 55Diunggah olehiculasi
- 4Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Design to BS 5950Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- sp592Diunggah olehiculasi
- idm key.txtDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Feedmill Rd_Rearing RdDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- First Layer Points(Plints&Slab)Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- idm keyDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- SiteLayout Cement PlantDiunggah olehKenny Ruiz
- Chapter 07 Vol IIDiunggah olehMabongie Kunene
- Roof Truss ModelDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- 55Diunggah olehiculasi
- BS 5950-2000 Example 002Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Amobi FINAL ModelDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Amobi FINAL ModelDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- 359285Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- Typical Structural DetailsDiunggah olehpicott
- Egg Room Profile Info1Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- 10086Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- SoftwareDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- PlatformClients PC WWEULA-En US-20150407 1357Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- 395-404_2Diunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi
- x20GPS_DatasheetDiunggah olehIfeanyi Ulasi

- NTP RevisedDiunggah olehVikram
- Case Study on Flooding AQA GeograpgyDiunggah olehSandra
- IRRIGATION METHODSDiunggah olehKathir Rath
- 3 Adding Structures to the HD ModelDiunggah olehEmil Salim
- spillwaysDiunggah olehvasu
- Chapter 7_Tarbela Reservoir Sediment Flushing ProjetDiunggah olehMirza Waqar Baig
- Teton DamDiunggah olehEdward
- Managing Reservoir Sediment Release in Dam Removal Projects an Approach Informed by Physical and Numerical Modelling of Non Cohesive SedimentDiunggah olehEddie Burns
- Permaculture in Humid LandscapesDiunggah olehEvan Schoepke
- Hydro-handbook - Penstock, TurbineDiunggah olehjethro_012
- MIIPSI Matrices for Impact IdentificationDiunggah olehSharad Singh
- General Overview of the Infrastructures for a Large Mining Project in Panama - John WhitakerDiunggah olehOliver Amed
- Innovative Solution for Additional Water Resources at the Jordan Valley AreaDiunggah olehSustainable Resources Management Journal
- Silt Trap Calculation=000807Diunggah olehGan Chin Phang
- What is Roof Top Rain Water HarvestingDiunggah olehbhadri rajasai
- Dams Reservoirs Irrigation SpillwayDiunggah olehPaj Magpayo
- Gibe III and Lake Turkana (2-21).pdfDiunggah olehPablo Moñino Lostalé
- New Canton Hydroelectric ProjectDiunggah olehCantonCompass
- Hydraulics Experiment 7Diunggah olehAllen Jesse Alfonso Atanacio
- EPA275 Sediment ControlDiunggah olehRonan O Neill
- Reservori FillingDiunggah olehlimfoohoat
- CE154 - Lecture 3 Reservoirs, Spillways, & Energy DissipatorsDiunggah olehBhaskar Reddy
- Hydraulic Behavior of Piano Key Weir Type B Under Free Flow ConditionsDiunggah olehIJSTR Research Publication
- Damfailure.pdfDiunggah olehArvind Ace
- Final ReportDiunggah olehNoopur Toshniwal Kapoor
- Rajan World Inland FisheriesDiunggah olehRajan Kumar
- 09-19-18 editionDiunggah olehSan Mateo Daily Journal
- ABCDiunggah olehDheeraj Thakur
- eathen damDiunggah olehKamran Khan
- ALizcano_NumericalSimulationofScaleEffect_2016Diunggah olehCristian Villa Siordia