Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Three-dimensional analysis of concrete dams including contraction joint non-linearity

Malika Azmi a, Patrick Paultre b,*
a b

Department of Civil Engineering, Ecole Hassania des Travaux Publics, Casablanca, Morocco Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1

Received 4 April 2001; received in revised form 6 November 2001; accepted 28 December 2001

Abstract In this study, a non-linear joint element was developed to represent the dynamic behaviour of vertical contraction joints in concrete dams. This element can be used to describe partial joint opening and closing as well as tangential displacement. Joint opening and closure are governed by normal stress criteria; tangential displacement is governed by the MohrCoulomb friction criterion. This joint model was incorporated into a non-linear nite element analysis program for concrete dams. Validation of the model was done on the Big Tujunga arch dam. The program was then used to study the effect of joint opening/closing on the behaviour of the Outardes 3 gravity dam where potential joint movement was identied experimentally. The program can carry out energy analyses to evaluate the amount of energy dissipated in contraction joints during seismic events, in addition to dynamic and thermal analyses of concrete dams. 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

1. Introduction Concrete dams are not monolithic structures, but rather have discontinuities inherent to construction phases, such as vertical contraction joints. These joints represent planes of weakness in dams when they are subjected to tensile and/or shear stresses. In spite of these discontinuities, linear dynamic analyses idealise concrete dams as monoliths. Generally speaking, linear analysis engenders tensile stresses that are greater than contraction joints can withstand. In reality, contraction joints open and close during earthquakes, releasing horizontal tensile stress and redistributing forces. A nonlinear dynamic analysis of concrete dams accounting for contraction joints would be more realistic and would make it possible to determine the behaviour of the joints and their effect on dam stability and dynamic response. This is the objective of the nite element program developed in this study [2], which is based on ADAP-88 [7], a computer program specically designed for studying arch dams with vertical contraction joints. This program,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-819-921-7114; fax: +1-819-8217108. E-mail address: patrick.paultre@courrier.usherb.ca (P. Paultre).
0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 5 - 6

however, does not take into account tangential joint movement. A number of studies have been conducted to include contractionjoint behaviour in the dynamic analysis of concrete dams. Dowling and Hall [5] and Hall and Dowling [10] have presented a nonlinear nite-element analysis procedure for arch dams that takes into account the gradual opening and closing of vertical contraction joints and horizontal cold joints. The joints are considered as cracking planes; slip displacement is not authorised since the joints are represented by nonlinear springs acting perpendicular to the plane of the joint. Fenves et al. [7,8] developed a nonlinear three-dimensional joint element and numerical analysis procedure for calculating the nonlinear seismic response of arch dams when the contraction joints open and close, but it only considers movement perpendicular to the joint. Weber et al. [20] studied the nonlinear seismic behaviour of concrete arch dams, including the nonlinearity of vertical contraction joints and the joint at the damfoundation interface. They supposed that the joints were adequately keyed against shear and, as a consequence, tangential displacement would not be introduced into the joints. Fenves et al. [9] describe modications to the ADAP-88 program [7] to take into account tangential displacement relative to contraction joints. The joint

758

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

Nomenclature Di Integration domain on internal degrees of freedom Integration domain on external degrees of freedom De Modulus of elasticity of concrete Eb Kinetic energy Ec Viscous damping energy Ed Elastic energy Ee Modulus of elasticity of foundation rock Ef Dissipated energy in the joints Eh Seismic energy Es Total energy Et f Dynamic forces in linear substructure F Dynamic forces in the non linear substructure (Fr, Fs, Fn) Local components of vector q Sliding force in the joint Fg Shear forces resultant in the joint Ft g Acceleration of gravity k Stiffness matrix of linear substructure Normal stiffness of the joint Kn Tangential stiffness of the joint Kt M Mass matrix of the nonlinear substructure m Mass matrix of the linear substructure P P(U,U) Restoring force vector in the joints q Resistive force vector in the joint; force vector at the boundary of the linear substructure Q Force vector at the boundary of nonlinear substructure t Integration time step u Acceleration vector in the linear substructure u Velocity vector in the linear substructure u Displacement vector in the linear substructure U Acceleration vector in the non-linear substructure U Velocity vector in the non-linear substructure u Displacement vector in the non-linear substructure (vr, vs, vn) Local components of vector v a Angle between the two directions of shear b, g Integration parameters for the Newmark integration method m Friction coefcient f Angle of internal friction

element was modied without changing the behaviour law to provide an approximate representation of the sliding force in the joint. Hohberg [11] developed a joint element for the nonlinear dynamic analysis of arch dams. His work focused on formulating the constitutive model of the joint elements using penalty parameters as elastic moduli. Recently Lau et al. [14] developed a joint element that incorporates opening and sliding of joints as well as nonlinear shear key effects and incorporated it into the ADAP-88 program. The authors applied the program to the analysis of an arch dam. A literature review on the nonlinear seismic analysis of concrete gravity dams [1,15,4,19,6,12] reveals that most of the analyses carried out up to now deal with the problem of the nonlinearity of concrete cracking or dam

reservoirfoundation interaction through two-dimensional analysis. Three-dimensional analysis, however, is required in order to adequately represent the seismic response of concrete gravity dams by including the nonlinearity of vertical contraction joints. Dynamic tests carried out by Proulx and Paultre [17,16] on Outardes 3 gravity dam under summer and severe winter conditions showed evidence of vertical contraction joint movements. This paper describes a parametric study on Outardes 3 gravity dam to study the inuence of contraction joints openingclosing as well as shear sliding on the seismic response of the dam. As part of this research programme, a joint element capable of modelling the openingclosing and shear sliding of vertical contraction joints in concrete dams was developed. Inuence of joint

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

759

shear sliding on the seismic behaviour of an arch dam is rst presented. A parametric study on the seismic behaviour of the Outardes 3 gravity dam is then presented. Effects of cooling and warming of the dam are also presented to study the effects of summer and winter conditions. Effects of Ice cover on the reservoir under winter conditions was not part of this research programme and is covered elsewhere [3]. However, it is noted that this effect, which is part of a current research programme, is signicant and should not be neglected.

3. Nonlinear analysis procedure The substructure method was used to analyse and model concrete arch dams with contraction joints. The monoliths were considered as being linear substructures. A linear substructure can contain a number of adjacent monoliths; each contraction joint is not necessarily included in the nite element model. The joints between the different substructures are modelled as nonlinear elements. The joint elements constitute a single nonlinear substructure in the nite element model. The equations of motion for each linear substructure are formulated separately. A linear substructure is connected to the other linear substructures and the nonlinear substructure to its boundaries. The linear substructures are then combined with the nonlinear substructure using equilibrium and compatibility conditions at the boundaries. Iterations are carried out in each time step to ensure system equilibrium at the end of each time step [7]. 3.1. Linear substructure The equations of motion for a linear substructure are: mu cu ku f q (1)

2. Constitutive joint model

A joint element was developed as part of this research program and consists of a three-dimensional 8-node isoparametric element with zero thickness that relates two opposite nite elements. This nonlinear joint element models the relative normal and tangential movement of contraction joints in concrete dams. This element was incorporated in the computer program Concrete Dam Analysis Program (CDAP-92) which is a modied version of the computer program ADAP-88 developed at the University of California at Berkeley by Fenves et al. [7]. ADAP-88 has the capability of modelling the opening and closing of joints in arch dams. The relative displacement between two adjacent surfaces of the joint v with components (vr, vs, vn) with the local coordinates (r, s, n) attached to joint element, where r is directed according to the horizontal tangent, s according to the vertical tangent, and n is normal to the plane of the joint produces resisting stresses. These resisting stresses q in the joint are nonlinear functions of v and depend on the state of the joint (open or closed). The joint allows tensile strength qn and normal stiffness Kn perpendicular to the joint, shear strength qt and tangential stiffness Kt in the plane tangent to the joint. When the joint is open, the normal component Fn and the tangential component Ft of the resisting force that develops in the joint element are nil. When the joint is closed, the normal component is elastic with a stiffness Kn, while the tangential component is elastic with a stiffness Kt in the direction r and Kt in the direction s only if the resultant of the tangential forces Ft is less than the sliding force Fg. The MohrCoulomb friction coefcient is used to determine the sliding threshold. When the tangential force Ft reaches the value of the sliding force Fg, sliding occurs in the direction of Ft, while the stiffness remains the same Kt in the direction perpendicular to the direction of Ft (Fig. 1). The force displacement relations representing the normal and tangential behaviour of the joint are shown in Fig. 2.

where u is the displacement vector related to the degrees of freedom in the linear substructure; m, c, and k are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices, respectively; f is the time-dependent loading vector; and q is the force vector at the boundary of the substructure. 3.2. Nonlinear substructure The nonlinear substructure comprises the set of contraction joints considered in the model. The equations of motion of the nonlinear substructure are given by: MU P(U,U) F Q (2)

where U is the displacement vector in the nonlinear sub structure; M is the mass matrix, P P(U,U) is the restoring force vector, which is a function of nonlinear velocities and displacements; F is the time-dependent load vector; and Q is the force vector on the boundary of the nonlinear substructure. The equilibrium between the nonlinear substructure and the linear substructures yields the equation that links the boundary forces: Q q 0 (3)

where the summation bears on the set of linear substructures.

760

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

Fig. 1.

Flow chart of force computations at a joint.

Fig. 2.

Normal and tangential forces at a joint.

4. Energy analysis The occurrence of an earthquake imparts a quantity of energy to a structure called seismic energy or absorbed energy (Fig. 3). During an earthquake, part of the absorbed energy is temporarily stored in the structure as kinetic energy and elastic strain energy; the remaining absorbed energy is dissipated throughout the structures components through damping and inelastic deformation. Eventually, all energy absorbed by the structure should dissipate. The equations required to determine the various energy quantities are derived from the relative energy formulation presented by Uang and Bertero [18] and are adapted to the substructure method used in the present study. Based on the equations of motion 1 dened above for linear substructures, we have:
nsub nsub nsub nsub nsub

Combining this equation term-by-term with Eq. (2), while taking into account Eq. (3), gives:
nsub nsub nsub

mjuj
j 1

MU
j nsub 1

cjuj
j 1

kjuj

(5)

P
j 1

fj

Eq. (5) is valid for each time step and the different expressions of incremental energy between the time steps t and t t are derived as follows:
nsub

Ec
D
i

mjujduj
j 1
e

MUdU
D

(6)

nsub

Ed qj (4) Ee
D j 1 D j 1 nsub

cjujduj

(7)

mjuj
j 1 j

cjuj
1 j 1

kjuj
j 1

fj
j

where nsub represents the number of linear substructures in the complete system.

kjujduj

(8)

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

761

Fig. 3. Ground motion for earthquake analysis of (a) Big Tujunga arch dam as scaled from San Fernando 1971 earthquake, Lake Hughes No. 12 records, and (b) Outardes 3 gravity dam as scaled from Imperial Valley 1940 earthquake, El Centro records.

Eh
e

PdU
D nsub

(9)

Lastly, energy at time t t is obtained by adding the quantity of incremental energy to the calculated energy at time t as follows: Ei(t t) Ei(t) Ei (13)

Es
D
i

fjduj
j 1
e

FdU
D

(10)

where stands for an incremental quantity, Ec is the kinetic energy; Ed is the viscous damping energy; Ee is the strain energy; Eh is the hysteretic energy dissipated in the joints; and Es is the seismic input energy. The domain D represents the complete system, which is divided into an internal domain Di, representing all the internal degrees of freedom in the linear substructures, and an external domain De, representing all the external degrees of freedom in the linear substructures forming the degrees of freedom of the nonlinear substructure. Using the above, kinetic and seismic input energy can also be expressed as:
nsub

where i c,d,e,h,s. If the sum of all the quantities of energy stored and dissipated in the structure is referred to as total energy and expressed as Et, then: Et Ec Ee Eh Ed (14)

The error relative to the seismic input energy is calculated at each time step as: e Es Et Es (15)

The kinetic energy and the elastic strain energy are directly given at each time step by the following instantaneous equations: Ec(t) Ee(t) 1 T u (t)mu(t) 2 nsub 1 T u (t)ku(t) 2 nsub (16) (17)

Ec
D j 1 nsub

mjujduj

(11)

Es
D j 1

fjduj

(12)

with the other expressions for energy unchanged.

Consequently, the kinetic and strain energies, at each instant t, depend uniquely and respectively on the velo-

762

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

city and displacement at the same instant, while the seismic input energy Es, damping energy Ed, and hysteretic energy Eh are calculated incrementally and cumulated at the end of each time step. The trapezoid rule is used to determine the value of the incremental quantity of energy between time t and t t.

5. Verication of the Big Tujunga arch dam Big Tujunga is a concrete arch dam located in Big Tujunga Canyon in Los Angeles, California. Its length at the crest is 122 m; the height of the highest monolith is 77 m above the rock foundation. Its thickness varies from 22 m at the base to 2.50 m at the crest. The dam was built in successive lifts 1.50 m in height, between 7 vertical contraction joints spaced approximately every 15 m along the crest, forming a set of 8 monoliths. Three contraction joints were introduced into the model: one in the middle and one to each side of the median section. Part of the rock foundation was introduced into the model using nite elements. The reservoir was assumed to be full. Damreservoir interaction was taken into account by a diagonalised consistent nite element added mass matrix representing the incompressible water impounded in the reservoir. This added mass matrix was generated using the RESVOR computer program [13]. The nite element mesh of the dam model is shown in Fig. 4. The foundation rock is modelled by one layer of 80 three-dimensional solid elements to a depth of 73 m which is approximately equal to the height of the tallest monolith. The massless foundation model is statically condensed to the degree-of-freedom at the damfoundation rock interface. The material properties for the concrete are: modulus of elasticity, 28 GPa, Poissons ratio, 0.20, mass density, 2.46 t/m3; for the foun-

dation rock: modulus of elasticity, 18 GPa, Poissons ratio, 0.32, mass density, 2.58 t/m3; for the water: mass density, 1.0 t/m3. The normal and tangential stiffness values used for the contraction joints in this study are Kn 2 Kt 56 GPa/m. The angle of internal friction used in the MohrCoulomb criterion is 35; the cohesion is 4 MPa; and joint tensile strength is considered to be nil. To simulate monolithic behaviour of the dam, a large value was allocated to joint tensile strength. A viscous damping percentage of 5% is used in the rst and fth modes to represent Rayleigh damping in the dam. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake was used as ground motion in the seismic analysis of the Big Tujunga Dam. Three components were selected: N21E was applied across the canyons; N21W was applied in the stream direction of the dam; and the vertical component of the earthquake was applied vertically. All acceleration components were scaled by the same factor resulting in the N21E component being increased to 0.60 g. Solution for the static response of the damwater foundation is obtained before determining the nonlinear earthquake response. The static loads considered here are the weight of the dam, the temperature changes in the dam and the hydrostatic pressure of the impounded water. To simulate the construction sequence of the cantilever monoliths each monolith is constructed independently and transfers its own weight to the foundation before the contraction joints are effective two static analyses are performed for the gravity load on the dam. In each analysis, gravity loads are applied to alternating cantilevers by setting to zero the modulus of elasticity of the remaining cantilevers. The hydrostatic water pressure is then applied to the complete damfoundation rock model. Temperature change is nally applied to the complete structure. If any joints are opened, a nonlinear analysis is performed to determine the equilibrium sol-

Fig. 4. Finite element mesh of Big Tujunga arch dam, adapted from Fenves et al. [7].

Fig. 5. Stream total displacement at the crest of Big Tujunga arch dam at joint 2 caused by the scaled 1971 San Fernando earthquake with full reservoir.

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

763

Fig. 6. Envelope of openings of joints 1 and 2 of Big Tujunga arch dam in the stream direction caused by the scaled 1971 San Fernando earthquake with full reservoir.

Fig. 7. Horizontal tangential relative displacement at the crest of joints 1, 2 andt 3 of Big Tujunga arch dam in the stream direction caused by the scaled 1971 San Fernando earthquake with full reservoir.

Fig. 8. Vertical tangential relative displacement at the crest of joints 1, 2 and 3 of Big Tujunga arch dam in the stream direction caused by the scaled 1971 San Fernando earthquake with full reservoir.

ution before applying the dynamic earthquake forces. Optimum time step, t, for the numerical integration of the equations of motion was determined considering the following criteria: (i) convergence of the solution measured as a certain tolerance value of the strain energy of the joints under static loads, (ii) optimal number of

iterations in a given time step (2 to 10), (iii) total CPU time for a complete analysis. Preliminary analyses with varying time step indicated that a time step t 0.005 s satised all three criteria and was used in all subsequent analyses.

764

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

Fig. 9. Dynamic response of joint 2 at the crest of Big Tujunga dam caused by the 1971 San Fernando earthquake scaled to 0.30 g and 0.60 g with full reservoir.

5.1. Inuence of the tangential relative displacement of the joints The displacement of the crest at the centre of the dam in the stream direction is depicted in Fig. 5. The maximum displacement generated by the model with joint opening and closing only was 10.8 cm at 1.85 s, compared to 10.6 cm at 2.04 s by the model including shear sliding. These two values are nearly identical, although offset in time by 0.19 s. The model contains three contraction joints labelled 1, 2, and 3 from right to left; joint 2 is located at the middle of the dam. Fig. 6 represents the envelope of maximum opening of the joints according to dam height. The gure also shows the depth of joint opening

depending on dam height on the upstream and downstream faces. The maximum opening of joint 2 is smaller when shear sliding is allowed. The relative tangential displacement of joints 1, 2, and 3 at the crest in the horizontal and vertical directions is illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 respectively. With respect to relative tangential displacement, joint 1 evidenced more sliding than the other two joints: 120 mm in horizontal sliding and 8 mm in vertical sliding. Tangential displacement assumes that the joints are not keyed against shear. When shear keys are used, the maximum sliding value depends on the key geometry. Fig. 9 shows the inuence of the intensity of the earthquake on the dynamic response of the middle joint (joint 2). The maximum opening of joint 2 was 10.5 mm at 0.30 g, compared to 30 mm at 0.60 g.

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

765

5.2. Energy balance and energy dissipated in the joints The strain energy Ee, kinetic energy Ek, viscous damping energy Ed, hysteretic energy dissipated in the joints Eh, and seismic input energy Es were evaluated for a period of 7.0 s at time steps of 0.005 s and are presented in Fig. 10. About 15% of the total energy is dissipated in nonlinear displacements in the contraction joints. This represents a nontrivial quantity compared to the linear case, in which all the energy is dissipated through viscous damping.

6. Application to the Outardes 3 gravity dam Outardes 3 is a concrete gravity dam located on the ` Riviere aux Outardes near Baie Comeau, Quebec. The dam comprises 19 monoliths spaced at about 15 m and 18 vertical contraction joints. All vertical joints are ungrouted. Dam length at the crest is 288 m; the height of the largest monolith is 80 m above the rock foundation. Introducing three vertical contraction joints into the nite element discretisation yields 993 nodes, 546 three-dimensional elements, and 46 joint elements. The reservoir was assumed to be full. Damreservoir interaction was taken into account by a diagonalised consistent nite element added mass matrix as for the Big Tujunga arch dam. Forced vibration tests carried out on Outardes 3 dam and nite element calibration have shown that the foundation rock exibility did not inuence the dynamic characteristics of Outrades 3 gravity dam and that the foundation rock could be assumed to be rigid [17]. Further study with a nonlinear model conrmed this conclusion. This allowed a more rened model of Outardes 3 gravity dam with xed base to be used to study the effects of construction joints. The mesh of the dam is

Fig. 11. Finite element mesh of Outardes 3 gravity dam without foundation rock.

represented in Fig. 11. The material properties for the concrete are: modulus of elasticity, 28 GPa, Poissons ratio, 0.20, mass density, 2.40 t/m3; for the foundation rock: modulus of elasticity, 60 GPa, Poissons ratio, 0.33, mass density, 3.0 t/m3; for the water: mass density, 1.0 t/m3. The penalty parameters for the contraction joints are the same as for the Big Tujunga arch dam. A viscous damping percentage of 5% is used in the rst and fth modes to represent Rayleigh damping in the dam. The 1940 El Centro earthquake was used for ground motion in the seismic analysis of the Outardes 3 Dam. The three components selected were two horizontal components (S00E and S90W) and the vertical component. Again, all acceleration components were scaled by the same factor resulting in the S00E component being increased to obtain 0.60 g. The static loads were applied prior to the earthquake forces. Construction sequence of the cantilever monoliths was taken into account similarly to Big Tujunga arch dam by applying

Fig. 10. Energy dissipation in the Big Tujunga Dam during the 1971 scaled San Fernando earthquake with full reservoir.

Fig. 12. Stream total displacement at crest of Outardes 3 gravity dam near joint 2 under scaled NS component of 1940 El Centro earthquake with full reservoir.

766

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

Fig. 13. Maximum joint openings at the crest of joints 1, 2 and 3 of Outardes 3 gravity dam under scaled NS component of 1940 El Centro earthquake with full reservoir.

gravity loads to alternating cantilevers in two load cases. The hydrostatic water pressure for full reservoir was then applied followed by temperature changes effects on the complete structure. Again, if any joints are opened, a nonlinear analysis is performed to determine the equilibrium solution before applying the dynamic earthquake forces. Four different models of the Outardes 3 Dam were studied: one with three vertical contraction joints, one with ve, one with seven, and a monolithic model based on the three-joint model in which the contractionjoint tensile strength was assigned a large value.

6.1. Effect of the joints on the dynamic response of the dam In order to determine the inuence of the dynamic behaviour of the dams contraction joints, a comparison was made between the three-joint model and the monolithic model. According to Fig. 12, the maximum deection near the middle joint is 33 mm. Joint opening introduces exibility into the model that slightly lengthens the vibration period. The model contains three contraction joints labelled joint 1, 2, and 3 from left to right; joint 2 is located at

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

767

the middle of the dam. The maximum joint opening in the normal direction computed at the crest of the upstream and downstream faces is represented in Fig. 13. The maximum opening, occurring in joint 1, is 2.5 mm at the crest, both upstream and down. The maximum opening of the middle joint is 1 mm; 1.5 mm in joint 3. The horizontal and vertical slip of joints 1, 2, and 3 upstream and down at the crest are represented in Figs. 14 and 15 respectively. The maximum horizontal slip, produced in joint 1, is 30 mm upstream and down. Another comparison was developed with the maximum tensile stress contour in the half of the dam between the monolithic model and the three-joint model. The envelope of maximum horizontal tensile stresses in the

upstream face is shown in Fig. 16. The envelope of maximum vertical tensile stresses in the upstream face is given in Fig. 17. On the upstream face in the monolithic case, tensile stresses varied continuously from 0.2 MPa near the middle joint to 2.6 MPa near the left abutment. Therefore, the contraction joint, which normally does not carry tensile stress, must transfer 0.4 MPa of tensile stress towards the crest and 0.8 MPa towards the foundation. In the unlinked case in which the joints can open, the discontinuity of tensile stresses around joint 1 is apparent. The joint transfers no more than 0.4 MPa towards the foundation. Vertical tensile stresses (Fig. 17) exhibit the same behaviour as in arch dams: vertical stress contributes to the reduction of horizontal tensile

Fig. 14. Tangential relative horizontal displacement at the crest of joints 1, 2 and 3 of Outardes 3 gravity dam under scaled NS component of 1940 El Centro earthquake with full reservoir.

768

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

Fig. 15. Tangential relative vertical displacement at the crest of joints 1, 2 and 3 of Outardes 3 gravity dam under scaled NS component of 1940 El Centro earthquake with full reservoir.

stress through a load transfer that balances internal forces in the contraction joints. 6.2. Effect of temperature on joint behaviour A thermal analysis of the Outardes 3 gravity dam was conducted to demonstrate generally the impact of temperature variation on joint behaviour in the structure. The dam was subjected to two different thermal loads to approximate conditions in winter and summer. One case represents a 15C increase in the structures temperature, simulating the average summer temperature; the other represents a 15C decrease, simulating the average winter temperature. The results from both cases

were compared to a control case in which temperature variation did not gure into the statistical analysis. The three-joint model was used. In the warming scenario, the Outardes 3 Dam behaved monolithically; the joints remained closed due to the compressive forces exerted on them generated by the expansion of the concrete. As indicated in Fig. 18, the maximum horizontal static stress was compressive throughout the dam and joint 1 remained closed because its displacement perpendicular to the crest was negative. In the cooling scenario, the joints opened due to the tensile forces exerted on them generated by contraction of the concrete. Joint 1 opened 10 mm under static loading and 20 mm under dynamic loading. The maximum

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

769

Fig. 16. Envelope of horizontal tensile stresses in MPa on the upstream face of Outardes 3 gravity dam under scaled NS component of 1940 El Centro earthquake with full reservoir.

Fig. 17. Envelope of vertical tensile stresses in MPa on the downstream face of Outardes 3 gravity dam under scaled NS component of 1940 El Centro earthquake with full reservoir.

horizontal static stress increased throughout the dam (Fig. 19). 6.3. Energy balance and energy dissipated in the joints Energy balance were carried out on the three-, ve-, and seven-joint models. The calculations were based on a duration of 7.0 s at time steps of 0.005 s. In all three models, nearly all the energy is dissipated through viscous damping at the end of excitation. The energy dissipated in the contraction joints as a percentage of total energy is 0.38% in the three-joint model, 0.64% in the ve-joint model, and 0.76% in the seven-joint model. Based on these ndings and the energy analysis, it can

be deduced that ve joints are adequate for representing contractionjoint behaviour in the Outardes 3 dam.

7. Conclusions The analysis of the Big Tujunga dam demonstrated that adding degrees of freedom in tangential directions in contraction joints reduces maximum joint opening, especially in the upstream face. Signicant horizontal slip was observed in the joints. The energy analysis of the dam revealed that 15% of the total energy was dissipated in the contraction joints, whereas 85% was dissipated through damping in the structure as elastic and kinetic energy. Further research must be carried out to

770

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

Fig. 18. Envelope of horizontal tensile static stress in MPa on the downstream face and normal displacement dynamic response of joint 1 of Outardes 3 dam with full reservoir and with the effect of warming by 15C.

Fig. 19. Envelope of horizontal tensile static stress in MPa on the downstream face and stream total dynamic displacement response of joint 1 of Outardes 3 dam with full reservoir and with the effect of cooling by 15C.

study shear-key size and impact on joint opening and maximum joint slip, as well as to analyse the possible effects of contractionjoint opening and sliding on monolithic cracking. The Outardes 3 gravity dam was selected to test the model and to verify the dynamic behaviour of vertical contraction joints in concrete gravity dams. In the case of this dam, dynamic analysis revealed that joint opening was not signicant. On the other hand, joint sliding was nontrivial in the up/downstream directions, especially near the shore. When the temperature increased in the dam, the structure behaved monolithically. The expansion of the concrete generated compressive stresses, forcing the joints to stay closed. Cooling, however, produced the opposite effect: the joints opened under static loading due to the tensile stresses on contraction joints generated by concrete contraction. Joint opening increased under dynamic loading, reaching 20 mm in the

joint located on the left of the middle of the dam. The energy analysis of the Outardes 3 dam also showed that seismic energy was mainly dissipated through viscous damping and that the optimal number of joints in this dam is ve. Further research is required to increase knowledge about the behaviour of vertical contraction joints in concrete gravity dams and to determine if this nonlinearity must be a parameter in the analysis of such dams.

References
[1] Ayari ML, Saouma VE. A fracture mechanics based seismic analysis of concrete gravity dams using discrete cracks. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 1990;35(1-3):58798. [2] Azmi M. Tridimensional dynamic analysis of concrete dams including non-linearity of construction joints [in French]. Doc-

M. Azmi, P. Paultre / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 757771

771

[3]

[4]

[5] [6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

toral thesis. Sherbrooke, Quebec: Universite de Sherbrooke; 1994. 165, p. 1. Bouaanani N, Paultre P, Proulx PN. Two-dimensional modeling the ice cover effects for the dynamic analysis of concrete gravity dams. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002;in press. Donlon WP. Experimental investigation of the non-linear seismic response of concrete gravity dams. Doctoral thesis. Berkeley (CA): University of California; 1989. 119 pp. Dowling MJ, Hall JF. Nonlinear seismic analysis of arch dams. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1989;115(4):76889. El-Aidi BM. Nonlinear earthquake response of concrete gravity dam systems. Doctoral thesis. California: California Institute of Technology; 1988. 170 pp. Fenves G, Mojtahedi S, Reimer RB. ADAP-88, A computer program for nonlinear earthquake analysis of concrete arch dams. In: Report No. UCB/EERC-89/12. Berkeley (CA): University of California; 1989. [November, 118 pp]. Fenves G, Mojtahedi S, Reimer RB. Effect of contraction joints on earthquake response of an arch dam. Journal of Structural Engineering 1992;118(4):103955. Fenves GL, Mojtahedi S, Reimer RB. Parameter study of joint opening effects on earthquake response of arch dams. In: Report No. UCB/EERC-92/05. Berkeley (CA): University of California; 1992. [April, 62 pp]. Hall JF, Dowling MJ. In: Analysis of the nonlinear seismic response of arch dams. Oxford (UK): Int Acad Publ; 1989. p. 22746. Hohberg J-M. A joint element for the nonlinear dynamic analysis of arch dams. Doctoral thesis. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology; 1992. 284 pp.

[12] Leger P, Katsouli M. Seismic stability of concrete gravity dams. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1989;18(6):889902. [13] Kuo J. Fluidstructure interactions: added mass computations for incompressible uid. In: Report No. UCB/EERC-82/09. Berkeley (CA): University of California; 1982. 206 pp. [14] Lau DT, Noruziaan B, Razaqpur AG. Modelling of contraction joint and shear sliding effects on earthquake response of arch dams. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998;27:101329. [15] Pal N. Nonlinear earthquake response of concrete gravity dams. Doctoral thesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California; 88 pp. [16] Paultre P, Proulx J, Carbonneau C. An experimental evaluation of ice cover effects on the dynamic behavior of a concrete gravity dam. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002;in press. [17] Proulx J, Paultre P. Experimental and numerical investigation of damreservoirfoundation interaction for a large gravity dam. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1997;24(1):90105. [18] Uang C-M, Bertero VV. Use of energy as a design criterion in earthquake-resistant design. In: Report No. UCB/EERC-88/18. Berkeley (CA): University of California, 1988. [19] Vargas-Loli LM. Nonlinear earthquake response of concrete gravity dams. Doctoral Thesis. Berkeley (CA): University of California; 1988. 204 pp. [20] Weber B, Hohberg J-M, Bachmann H. Earthquake analysis of arch dams including joint nonlinearity and uid/structure interaction. Dam Engineering 1990;1(4):26778.