5.4 Preliminary Stability Assessemnt - 17 June 2008

Mokihinui Dam Preliminary Stability Analysis for Conceptual Design
June 2008 Prepared for Anderson Lloyd On behalf of Meridian Energy Ltd.
Issue 1
Mokihinui Dam Preliminary Stability Analysis for Conceptual Design

June 2008 Prepared for Anderson Lloyd On behalf of Meridian Energy Ltd.
Issue 1
Approved for issue: ...........................................................................................

Peter Amos Date: 18 June 2008
Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 - Issue 1
Meridian Energy Ltd Mokihinui Preliminary Stability Analysis for Conceptual Design Jun-08
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal to develop a hydro power project on the Mokihinui River includes a concrete gravity dam located approximately 11km from the coast. The preliminary layout of the dam is shown on Drawing MLD461/20/5. The dam is proposed to be constructed from RCC (roller compacted concrete). Approximately two-thirds of the dam would be founded on granite rock along the valley bottom and up the steep right abutment, with the remaining one-third founded on greywacke rock on the left abutment. A conceptual design has been developed with spillway crest level at RL100m. For the purposes of developing the concept a dam cross section is shown based on a vertical upstream face, downstream face of 0.8:1 and crest width of approximately 3m. These are dimensions typically used for preliminary design of a concrete dam. Dams with these sectional properties have typically been found to be well proportioned for most design loading conditions. The Dam Safety Guidelines produced by the New Zealand Society of Large Dams (NZSOLD1) and Bulletin 72 of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD2 ) give the following performance criteria under earthquake loading: Following the 150-year Operating Basis Earthquake (the earthquake having a 50% probability of occurring over a period of 100 years), there should either be no damage or minor repairable damage. During and after the Maximum Design Earthquake (the maximum level of ground motion for which the dam is designed), some damage is allowable but it must not lead to catastrophic failure or uncontrolled release of the reservoir. For a concrete dam, the main shaking may lead to cracking and reduced strength. A concrete dam can actually be designed to retain the reservoir contents following any seismic event, provided that sufficient funds for construction are available. The art of dam engineering is to provide an optimised solution which will meet acceptable design standards for all load conditions, but also satisfy economic criteria. Typical practice is to produce a partially optimised design at the feasibility level, the design then being a broad approximation to constraints in project information known at that stage. Further optimisation can be expected at the later detail design level.
New Zealand Society on Large Dams, New Zealand Dam Safety Guidelines, November 2000
International Committee on Large Dams, Bulletin 72, Selecting Seismic Parameters for Large Dams, 1989 Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1
ii
The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary check that the concept dam section is in the right order to meet dam stability criteria considered acceptable in the industry. Dam stability criteria are represented by the Dam Safety Guidelines published by the New Zealand Society of Large Dams (NZSOLD). A well proportioned concrete dam section would be expected to easily meet stability criteria for normal service loads and floods, but can be expected to be well tested by an extreme earthquake. Usual practice for a straight concrete gravity dam at this early stage of the project is to initially analyse the structure as two-dimensional slices for simplicity. However this is often grossly conservative as three dimensional aspects that contribute to safety are not considered. Where the concept design section is close to minimum safety limits under two dimensional analysis, there is scope to assess the three dimensional contributions to safety or enhance the dam section during detailed design. Irrespective, a concrete dam will be designed at Mokihinui to safely retain the reservoir contents following the Maximum Design Earthquake. This report is therefore a preliminary assessment of: The two-dimensional stability of three sections of the dam that are founded on both granite and greywacke rock to determine if the dam meets New Zealand dam safety guidelines for usual, flood, and seismic loads; The likely extent of possible damage to the dam under earthquake loading; and The post-earthquake stability of the dam, taking into account the extent of likely damage to the dam. The analyses carried out include normal (or usual) loading conditions, an extreme flood, and a range of earthquake loads. The extreme flood load is the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). A range of earthquake loads with peak ground accelerations up to 0.91g have been considered. These are intended to represent the range of earthquake loads anticipated as requiring consideration in the final design, with the 0.91g representing fault rupture of the nearby Glasgow Fault (assuming it is an active fault, a detail yet to be determined). The study uses the site geotechnical information obtained to date, and assumes typical properties of RCC concrete. From these, preliminary estimates of the shear strength of the foundation rock and of the dam concrete are used for assessing the dams stability. The sliding stability at the base of three sections of the dam is determined. In addition, finite element analyses of the highest section of the dam (through the spillway) are undertaken to establish probable maximum dynamic stresses within the dam and its foundation.
Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1
iii
The results of static and dynamic two-dimensional analyses for the typical dam sections shown in Drawing MLD461/20/5 show that: The dam meets the NZSOLD sliding stability criteria for usual and extreme flood load cases. The dynamic analyses show the dam should not be damaged, or have only minor repairable damage, if it were subject to 150-year earthquake shaking. For earthquake loading up to and including the 2,500-year event, the analysed sections meet the sliding stability criteria in the NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines. For 10,000-year earthquake loading, the dam meets the 1.3 minimum FOS except at the greywacke foundation of the powerhouse section where the calculated factor is 1.20. If specific tests were performed on the greywacke rock to confirm the shear strength parameters assumed for this study, the powerhouse section would meet the reduced minimum NZSOLD with-test FOS of 1.1. For the Glasgow Fault rupture earthquake, the FOS against sliding on the granite foundation is also less than the minimum value of 1.3. The calculated value is 1.23. Again, if testing of the granite confirms its assumed properties, the spillway section would meet the with-test minimum value of 1.1. If rock tests indicates peak shear strengths less than assumed, widening of the dam footprint by about 15% in the least stable areas would ensure the NZSOLD criteria are met (assuming conservative two-dimensional analysis methods only are used in final design). Alternatively 3-dimensional analyses may prove the existing section proportions satisfactory. For post-MDE loading, when the foundation rock is assumed to be cracked across the entire dam footprint, the granite spillway foundation and the greywacke powerhouse foundation are less than the minimum NZSOLD requirement of FOS of 1.1. The calculated sliding FOS values at these locations are 0.95 and 1.05 respectively. Modest increases in the assumed residual friction angles of the rock would result in compliance, and specific further testing may confirm this. If not, slight widening of the dams footprint in these areas could be employed to improve the post-earthquake stability. The two-dimensional analyses provide conservative results for dam stability calculations. If the three-dimensional effects that will be present for the Mokihinui proposal (lack of smooth transverse joints and rough foundation shape) are taken into account, the overall earthquake and post-earthquake sliding stability is likely to meet acceptable criteria. Significant changes in the current assumed dam geometry would not then be necessary.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... ii 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................1 2.0 Performance Criteria ..............................................................................................3 3.0 Sections Analysed and Foundation Type...............................................................4 4.0 Loading ...................................................................................................................5 4.1 Usual Loads ........................................................................................................5 4.2 Flood Loading .....................................................................................................5 4.3 Earthquake Loading............................................................................................5 4.4 Post-Earthquake Uplift ........................................................................................6 5.0 Shear Strength of Rock and Concrete ...................................................................7 5.1 Rock ....................................................................................................................7 5.2 Concrete..............................................................................................................8 6.0 Methods Of Analysis...............................................................................................9 7.0 Acceptable Sliding Factors for Stability ................................................................10 8.0 Analysis Results ...................................................................................................11 8.1 Sliding Stability for Usual Loading ....................................................................11 8.2 Sliding Stability for Flood Loading ....................................................................12 8.3 Assessment of Seismic Stresses from Modal Response Spectrum Analysis..12 8.4 Sliding Stability for Earthquake Loading...........................................................13 8.5 Post-Earthquake Stability .................................................................................16 9.0 Three-Dimensional Effects on Dam Stability........................................................18 10.0 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................20
Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Drawing of Proposed Mokihinui Dam Rock Strength Analyses Finite Element Analysis Report Sliding Stability at Base of Dam - Calculations
1.0 Introduction
The proposal to develop a hydro power project on the Mokihinui River includes a concrete gravity dam located approximately 11km from the coast. The preliminary layout of the dam is shown on Drawing MLD461/20/5 (refer Appendix A). The dam is proposed to be constructed from RCC (roller compacted concrete). Approximately two-thirds of the dam would be founded on granite rock along the valley bottom and up the steep right abutment, with the remaining one-third founded on greywacke rock on the left abutment. A conceptual design has been developed with spillway crest level at RL100m. For the purposes of developing the concept a dam cross section is shown based on a vertical upstream face, downstream face of 0.8:1 and crest width of approximately 3m. These are dimensions typically used for preliminary design of a concrete dam. Dams with these sectional properties have typically been found to be well proportioned for most design loading conditions. A concrete dam can actually be designed to retain the reservoir contents following any seismic event, provided that sufficient funds for construction are available. The art of dam engineering is to provide an optimised solution which will meet acceptable design standards for all load conditions, but also satisfy economic criteria. Typical practice is to produce a partially optimised design at the feasibility level, the design then being a broad approximation to constraints in project information known at that stage. Further optimisation can be expected at the later detail design level. The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary check that the concept dam section is in the right order to meet dam stability criteria considered acceptable in the industry. Dam stability criteria are represented by the Dam Safety Guidelines published by the New Zealand Society of Large Dams (NZSOLD). A well proportioned concrete dam section would be expected to easily meet stability criteria for normal service loads and floods, but can be expected to be well tested by an extreme earthquake. Usual practice for a straight concrete gravity dam at this early stage of the project is to initially analyse the structure as two-dimensional slices for simplicity. However this is often grossly conservative as three dimensional aspects that contribute to safety are not considered. Where the concept design section is close to minimum safety limits under two dimensional analysis, there is scope to assess the three dimensional contributions to safety or enhance the dam section during detailed design. Irrespective, a concrete dam will be designed at Mokihinui to safely retain the reservoir contents following the Maximum Design Earthquake. This report is therefore a preliminary assessment of:
The two-dimensional stability of three sections of the dam that are founded on both granite and greywacke rock to determine if the dam meets New Zealand dam safety guidelines for usual, flood, and seismic loads;
The likely extent of possible damage to the dam under earthquake loading; and The post-earthquake stability of the dam, taking into account the extent of likely damage to the dam.
The study uses the geotechnical information obtained to date (as outlined above), and assumes typical properties of RCC concrete. Geotechnical investigations undertaken to date indicate: There are no major faults in the foundation requiring significant treatment The contact between the greywacke and granite does not have significant flaws The rock jointing is relatively tight There is no evidence of persistent near-horizontal weak seams in the rock that may form potential critical sliding planes in the foundation There is an apparent fault scarp associated with the Glasgow Fault located approximately 1km from the site, but it is not yet known if the fault is active in engineering terms. No known fault crosses the dam site, so this report does not need to consider direct displacement within the dam foundation. The sliding stability at the base of the three dam sections is determined. The probable maximum flood (PMF) loading condition is included in the analyses. The earthquake loadings considered are events with return periods of 150, 475, 2,500 and 10,000 years, together with 0.91g PGA (peak ground acceleration) loading associated with possible rupture of the nearby Glasgow Fault. In addition, finite element analyses of the highest section are undertaken to establish the dynamic stresses under various earthquake loading scenarios. The dynamic analyses were carried out by Compusoft Engineering Ltd. Their report is provided in Appendix C. The two-dimensional analysis results will be conservative because three-dimensional effects should provide significant benefits for the dams overall performance.
2.0 Performance Criteria

The Dam Safety Guidelines produced by the New Zealand Society of Large Dams (NZSOLD3) and Bulletin 72 of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD4 ) give the following performance criteria under earthquake loading: Following the 150-year Operating Basis Earthquake (the earthquake having a 50% probability of occurring over a period of 100 years), there should either be no damage or minor repairable damage. During and after the Maximum Design Earthquake (the maximum level of ground motion for which the dam is designed), some damage is allowable but it must not lead to catastrophic failure or uncontrolled release of the reservoir. For a concrete dam, the main shaking may lead to cracking and reduced strength. In order to meet the above performance criteria, the dam is analysed to determine whether there are adequate factors of safety present to prevent the relevant modes of failure from occurring. Failure modes considered in this assessment relate to the dam sliding on horizontal planes of weakness in the dam foundation or on cracks in the rock or the dam concrete.
New Zealand Society on Large Dams, New Zealand Dam Safety Guidelines, November 2000
International Committee on Large Dams, Bulletin 72, Selecting Seismic Parameters for Large Dams, 1989 Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1
3.0 Sections Analysed and Foundation Type

To provide a reasonable overall assessment of the dams stability, three sections of the dam as follows are analysed: The maximum 92m high section through the overflow spillway founded on granite, A 67m high powerhouse section on the left abutment founded on both granite and greywacke, and A 40m high section on the left abutment founded on greywacke.
The spillway section will most likely have the greatest seismic demand of the dam and be subject to the highest stresses. It is located within the existing river channel. Under usual river flow conditions the downstream toe of the dam will be submerged under tailwater about 15m deep. The nominal 67m high powerhouse section (the height excludes the 8.5m high flood surcharge wall at the top of the dam) will be about 60m long. At its left side extremity is the contact zone between the granite and greywacke rocks at the site. Hence this will be the highest section of the dam founded on greywacke rock. Investigations to date show that the greywacke will most likely have a lower shear strength than the granite rock. A 40m high left abutment section was analysed on the basis that this would provide a more typical assessment of the stability of the 100m long abutment. The abutment is founded entirely on greywacke rock.
4.0 Loading
4.1 Usual Loads The usual load conditions assumed for the analyses are: Self-weight of the dam corresponding to a concrete density of 2.5tonnes/m3. Hydrostatic reservoir load with lake level at spillway crest. Uplift at the base of the dam assuming foundation drain efficiency of 67% (the usual assumption for the preliminary design of a concrete gravity dam). Silt loading, assuming that silt may eventually reach a mid-height level on the upstream face of the dam. The silt is assumed to be a fluid with a density of 1.36 tonnes/m3. 4.2 Flood Loading The dam is required to pass safely the probable maximum flood (PMF) at the site. The flood surcharge level above the spillway crest for the estimated PMF of 7,200m3/s is 8.5m. This will increase the hydrostatic loading on the dam by about 20%. The sliding stability of the three dam sections has been assessed for this maximum flood condition. 4.3 Earthquake Loading The five levels of earthquake loading used in the analyses are based on a preliminary assessment of available information on the seismic hazards in the Mokihinui River5. Four loadings are probabilistically derived, ranging from an estimated 150-year return period earthquake (the Operating Basis Earthquake) up to a 10,000-year event, and one is deterministically derived assuming rupture of the Glasgow Fault located 1km from the site. Little is currently known about the activity of the Glasgow Fault. The Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) for the dam is likely to be either the 10,000-year event or the Glasgow Fault rupture scenario if further investigations indicate the fault can be classified as being active. At this stage, therefore, Glasgow Fault rupture may be regarded as the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) for the site. The peak ground accelerations for the selected loadings are shown in Table 1.
GNS, Pre-feasibility information relating to Mokihinui River hydro development, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2006/015, February 2006
Table 1 Peak Ground Accelerations Earthquake Event Peak Ground Acceleration (g) 150-year 0.28 475-year 2,500-year 10,000-year Glasgow Fault rupture 0.40 0.62 0.81 0.91
The assumed response spectra for the four probabilistically-derived earthquakes are shown in Figure 4 of Appendix C. 4.4 Post-Earthquake Uplift In keeping with international dam engineering practice, it is assumed that following a large earthquake there will be higher uplift pressures in the dam. This may be the result of increased foundation seepage and the inability of the drains to cope, or because the drains have become blocked from the effects of the ground shaking. For the post-earthquake condition, the uplift is assumed to vary linearly from full reservoir pressure at the upstream heel to tailwater pressure at the downstream toe (for the spillway section) or to zero pressure (for the abutment section).
5.0 Shear Strength of Rock and Concrete

5.1 Rock There are no known persistent sub-horizontal weak seams in the granite and greywacke foundation. Therefore it is assumed that the critical potential foundation failure plane would be through intact rock located at or close to the base of the dam. The assumed Hoek-Brown strength parameters for the granite and greywacke rock, based on information obtained to date6, are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Hoek-Brown Strength Parameters for Granite and Greywacke Rock Property Granite Greywacke Intact Uniaxial Compressive Strength Geological Strength Index (GSI) mi (material constant for intact rock) Disturbance Factor 110MPa 45 20 0 80MPa 35 11 0
The Hoek-Brown parameters were used as input for analysis using the ROCLAB7 program to determine estimated cohesion and friction angle values for the foundation rock. The results of the analyses are shown in Appendix B. When the normal stress is relatively low (less than about 5MPa), the Hoek-Brown method for determining equivalent shear strength parameters can sometimes over-estimate the cohesive strength of the rock. To account for this, the cohesion values obtained from the ROCLAB program and shown in Appendix B have been conservatively reduced by 25%. The peak shear strength parameters for the rock foundation (from Roclab) assumed for this study are shown in Table 3.
GNS, Pre-feasibility information relating to Mokihinui River hydro development, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2006/015, February 2006 Rocscience Inc (2002), Roclab, Rock mass strength analysis using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion
Table 3: Peak Shear Strength Parameters for Rock Location Spillway section Powerhouse section Powerhouse section Left abutment section Normal Stress (KPa) 1100 750 750 500 granite granite greywacke greywacke Rock Type Friction Angle () 60 62 53 56 Cohesion (KPa) 650 550 350 280
Where cracking of the rock may occur as a result of earthquake shaking, it is assumed (on advice from GNS) that the residual friction angle (R) of the rock reduces to: R = 400 for granite, and R = 350 for greywacke.
These are conservative preliminary values that are considered appropriate at this stage. 5.2 Concrete It is probable that the dam will be constructed using RCC with a high cementitious content. This concrete will have a relatively high strength, with properties similar to conventional mass concrete. To establish appropriate shear strength parameters, the published results of the testing of cores extracted from a number of RCC dams have been used8. The critical locations in the dam are at the lift joints between RCC layers. The measured mean cohesion at the lift joints in eight dams constructed from RCC with a high cementitious content is 1.9MPa, with a range from 1MPa to 4MPa. As typically used for preliminary design, the friction angle () of the concrete is assumed to be 450 In summary, the assumed shear strength parameters of the concrete are: c = 1500KPa, and = 450.
For cracked RCC, the residual friction angle is assumed to remain unchanged at = 450.
ICOLD Bulletin 126, 2003, Roller-Compacted Concrete Dams State of the art and case histories
6.0 Methods Of Analysis

The sliding stability of the dam on horizontal planes immediately above and below the concrete/rock interface at the three sections is determined. Horizontal planes within the RCC and within the foundation rock are considered. The safety factor against sliding is defined by the following equation:
FS =
(W U ) tan + cA H
Where:
W = self weight of dam U = uplift = friction angle c = cohesion A = area of sliding plane H = sum of horizontal forces (hydrostatic + silt + seismic inertia + hydrodynamic)
The Seismic Coefficient Method9 is used to determine the earthquake sliding stability of the three selected dam sections. Hence, the earthquake forces are treated simply as static forces equal to the dam weight plus hydrodynamic weight multiplied by a seismic coefficient. As accepted in international dam engineering practice, the seismic coefficient is assumed to be a fraction of the peak ground acceleration. For this study a seismic coefficient of 2/3 times the peak ground acceleration is used. A modal response spectrum analysis has also been performed to determine the likely seismic stresses in the spillway section. Hydrodynamic effects are modelled as an added mass of water moving with the dam. A finite element model is used, with the base rock extending for 100m upstream, downstream and beneath the dam. Details of the model geometry and of the assumed rock and concrete elastic modulus values are provided in Section 3 of Appendix C. Compusoft Engineering has used the SAP2000 finite element package for undertaking the analyses. The estimated response spectra for the four probabilistically-derived levels of earthquake loading are used as input (refer Section 4.3).
US Army Corps of Engineers Earthquake Design and Evaluation of Concrete Hydraulic Structures, May 2007.
7.0
Acceptable Sliding Factors for Stability
The NZSOLD guidelines10 have been used to establish acceptable limits on the sliding stability of the dam. The New Zealand guidelines are based on internationally-accepted dam safely criteria. The minimum factors of safety used for sliding in this preliminary study are shown in Table 4. Table 4: NZSOLD Minimum Factors of Safety for Sliding Stability Load Case Peak Sliding FOS (no tests) Usual PMF Maximum Earthquake* Post-Earthquake 3.0 2.0 1.3 Peak Sliding FOS (with tests) 2.0 1.5 1.1 Residual Sliding FOS 1.1
* As determined by the seismic coefficient (pseudostatic) method of analysis The no-test factors are used for assessing the results in this study, but with acknowledgement that for final design the with-test factors would be used. The residual post-earthquake factor of safety assumes cracked rock or concrete that has no cohesive strength. Therefore, only the friction force associated with the materials residual friction angle is assumed to resist horizontal forces acting on the dam after an earthquake.
10
NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines, November 2000
8.0 Analysis Results

The results of the calculations performed to determine the sliding factors of safety at the base of the three dam sections are provided in Appendix D. The results are summarised in Sections 8.1 to 8.5 below. 8.1 Sliding Stability for Usual Loading The usual load case considers the self weight of the dam, hydrostatic loading, and the uplift at the dam/foundation contact. The results of the usual load analyses are summarised in Table 4. Table 4 : Sliding Factors of Safety for Usual Loading Location of base sliding plane Material Usual Loading FOS Spillway section (92m high) granite rock 3.54 Spillway section (92m high) Powerhouse section (67m high) Powerhouse section (67m high) Powerhouse section (67m high) Abutment section (40m high) Abutment section (40m high) concrete granite rock greywacke rock concrete greywacke rock concrete 3.97 4.98 3.41 5.68 4.99 9.76
The factors meet the recommended minimum NZSOLD value of 3.0 for rock and concrete material that have not been specifically tested to determine their shear strengths. The factors are well above the minimum value of 2.0 for materials that have been tested. The results show that for usual loads: The granite rock at the base of the spillway and the greywacke rock at the base of the 67m high abutment section may have the equally lowest peak sliding factors (about 3.5) for the dam structure. For a given type of rock, the foundation sliding stability improves as the dam section height decreases. The sliding stability on horizontal planes within the concrete body of the dam improves with increasing elevation up the dam section.
8.2 Sliding Stability for Flood Loading The sliding stability at the base of the dam has been checked for PMF flood conditions (an 8.5m increase in the normal lake level). The tailwater under the PMF flow of 7,200m3/s is estimated to rise to RL 38m, which is 14.5m above normal tailwater level and 30m above bed level. It is conservatively assumed that all foundation drainage is overwhelmed during the PMF and that a full uplift condition, linearly varying from reservoir flood level at the upstream toe to tailwater flood level at the downstream toe, develops during the event. The calculated sliding factors of safety are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Sliding Factors of Safety for PMF Loading Location of base Material Flood Loading sliding plane FOS Spillway section granite rock 2.39 Spillway section Powerhouse section Powerhouse section Powerhouse section Left abutment section Left abutment section concrete granite rock greywacke rock concrete greywacke rock concrete 3.05 3.15 2.14 4.11 2.88 6.28
The factors meet the recommended minimum NZSOLD values of 2.0 (without tests) and 1.5 (with tests). As for usual loading, for a given material the factors improve as the dam section height decreases. 8.3 Assessment of Seismic Stresses from Modal Response Spectrum Analysis The peak vertical and horizontal (shear) seismic stresses in the 91m high spillway section for four levels of earthquake loading up to 0.81g PGA are shown in Figures 13 to 20 of Appendix C. These stresses are for seismic loading only. To obtain the total stress distribution, the stresses from self-weight, uplift and hydrostatic loadings on the dam (Figures 5 and 6 of Appendix C) need to be combined with the seismic stresses. Figure 25 of Appendix C shows plots of the peak combined vertical stresses at the base of the dam (tensile and compressive). The concrete is likely to have a dynamic tensile strength of about 4MPa, while the foundation rock is assumed to have zero tensile strength.
Comments on the results shown in Figure 25 of Appendix C are as follows: Under usual load conditions, the foundation is subject to a relatively uniform compressive stress of about 1MPa; Under 150-year earthquake loading (the operating basis earthquake), there should not be any cracking in the concrete dam but the rock near the dams foundation level may crack up to a horizontal depth of about 10m under the dam at the upstream face; Under the 475-year earthquake, there may be limited concrete cracking that penetrates about 3m into the upstream face of the dam. The foundation rock may be cracked to a depth of about 15m at both the upstream and downstream face as the dam responds to the cyclic earthquake loading; Under the 2,500-year and 10,000-year earthquakes, cracks in the conrete may penetrate about 5m into the upstream face of the dam. Within the foundation rock, only about a 10m long central core of rock may remain uncracked. The results show that the dam will significantly exceed a linear-elastic range of behaviour for earthquakes greater than about the 2,500-year event. To estimate the extent of cracking and other damage for these higher levels of earthquake, a 3-D non-linear time-history analysis of the dam would be required (discussed further in Section 9). 8.4 Sliding Stability for Earthquake Loading For determining the horizontal seismic forces acting on the three dam sections, the self weight and hydrodynamic masses shown in Table 6 are used. Table 6: Self-Weight and Hydrodynamic Masses (per metre length of dam) Dam section Spillway Powerhouse Left abutment Self- weight mass (tonnes) 8,950 5,420 2,320 Hydrodynamic mass (tonnes) 4,570 2,420 860 Total mass (tonnes) 13,520 7,840 3,180
In accordance with international practice, usual uplift conditions are assumed to be maintained during the course of the earthquake. Under seismic shaking, the increase in silt loading is assumed to be directly proportional to the peak ground acceleration.
The results of the seismic coefficient analysis results for the three sections are shown in Tables 7, 8, and 9. Table 7: Earthquake Sliding Stability at Base of Spillway Section Seismic Coefficient Analysis Results Earthquake Peak Ground Seismic Peak sliding Peak sliding Event Acceleration Coefficient factor of safety in factor of safety in concrete granite rock 150-year 0.28g 0.19 2.51 2.24 475-year 2,500-year 10,000-year Glasgow Fault Rupture Table 8: Earthquake Sliding Stability at Base of Powerhouse Section Seismic Coefficient Analysis Results Earthquake Peak Seismic Peak sliding Peak sliding Event Ground Coefficient factor of factor of Acceleration safety in safety in concrete granite 150-year 0.28g 0.19 3.45 3.03 475-year 2,500-year 10,000-year Glasgow Fault Rupture Table 9: Earthquake Sliding Stability at Base of Left Abutment Section Seismic Coefficient Analysis Results Earthquake Peak Seismic Peak sliding Peak sliding Event Ground Coefficient factor of factor of Acceleration safety in safety in concrete greywacke 150-year 0.28g 0.19 5.55 2.84 475-year 2,500-year 10,000-year Glasgow Fault Rupture 0.40g 0.62g 0.81g 0.91g 0.27 0.41 0.54 0.61 4.70 3.69 3.09 2.84 2.40 1.89 1.58 1.45 0.40g 0.62g 0.81g 0.91g 0.27 0.41 0.54 0.61 2.95 2.37 2.00 1.84 2.59 2.07 1.75 1.62 0.40g 0.62g 0.81g 0.91g 0.27 0.41 0.54 0.61 2.17 1.76 1.50 1.38 1.94 1.57 1.34 1.23
Peak sliding factor of safety in greywacke 2.08 1.78 1.42 1.20 1.11
For pseudostatic earthquake loading, the NZSOLD minimum recommended sliding factors are 1.3 (without tests) and 1.1 (with tests). The results show that the dam meets the minimum 1.3 requirement, except for 10,000-year or Glasgow Fault generated earthquakes at the following locations: The granite rock at the base of the spillway section for 0.91g Glasgow Fault shaking (FOS = 1.23), and The greywacke rock at the base of the powerhouse section for 0.81g 10,000-year shaking (FOS = 1.20) and for 0.91g Glasgow Fault shaking (FOS = 1.11) During detailed design, measures that could be adopted if necessary to improve the seismic sliding stability would include flattening of the upstream and/or downstream faces of the dam. For example, changing the vertical upstream face of the dam to a 0.1:1 slope, or changing the downstream face from 0.8:1 to 0.9:1
would improve the spillway sliding factor from 1.23 to 1.32 and the powerhouse greywacke sliding factor for 10,000-year loading from 1.20 to 1.32. Also, if testing of the foundation rock materials during the final design process should indicate that they meet or exceed the shear strength parameters assumed for this study, then the minimum 1.1 (with tests) FOS value would be met. Changes to the preliminary dam geometry may not then be required. In addition, as noted in Section 1, the two-dimensional analysis results are conservative. The three-dimensional characteristics of the dam should appreciably improve its seismic performance. This also suggests that the current assumed dam section (vertical upstream face and 0.8:1 downstream face) may have acceptable resistance to seismic loading. The dams probable three-dimensional performance is discussed further in Section 9. The results in Tables 7, 8, and 9 also show that (as for usual and flood loading conditions) the seismic sliding stability of the dam: Is better for a granite foundation than a greywacke foundation for a given dam section height, Is about the same in the spillway granite foundation as in the powerhouse greywacke foundation, Improves in the foundation as the height of the dam structure above decreases, and Improves within the body of the concrete dam with increasing elevation up the dam section.
8.5 Post-Earthquake Stability For assessing the post-earthquake stability of the dam, the extent of damage and cracking to the dam needs to be estimated. The modal spectral analysis results, as discussed in Section 8.2, provide guidance in this regard. These show that the foundation of the spillway section may be fully cracked if the dam is subject to MDE earthquake loading (the 10,000-year event). Following such an earthquake, when the dam is again subject to usual self-weight and hydrostatic loads, there would be uniform compressive stress of about 1.2MPa on the cracked spillway foundation. The maximum uplift pressure from 92m head of water will be 0.9MPa. Therefore foundation cracks, even if penetrated at the upstream face of the dam by water at full lake head pressure, should still remain in compression after the earthquake. The foundation of the higher left abutment sections may also be fully cracked in a large earthquake. But following such an event, as for the spillway section, there will be compressive stress on the cracks. Because of the compressive stress on the cracks, the assumption of a linear variation of postearthquake uplift from full reservoir pressure at the upstream heel to tailwater pressure (or zero pressure in the case of the abutment sections) at the downstream toe is considered appropriate (refer Section 4.4). The rock would have no cohesive strength because of the cracking. As outlined in Section 5.1, the peak friction angles of 62/60 for granite and 56/53 for greywacke are assumed to reduce to estimated residual values of 40 and 35 respectively. If cracking should occur in the concrete, the post-earthquake sliding resistance would be higher than in the rock (the assumed residual friction angle for concrete is 45). The calculated factors of safety for the post-earthquake scenario (that is, following an extreme earthquake greater than the 2,500-year event) are summarised in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Sliding Factors of Safety for Post-MDE Condition Location of base sliding Material Post-MDE plane FOS Spillway section granite rock 0.95 Spillway section Powerhouse section Powerhouse section Powerhouse section Left abutment section Left abutment section concrete granite rock greywacke rock concrete greywacke rock concrete 1.13 1.26 1.05 1.50 1.36 1.95
Both the 0.95 factor for the granite spillway foundation and 1.05 for the greywacke powerhouse foundation are less than the recommended NZSOLD minimum value of 1.1. The calculated factors are entirely dependent on the assumed residual friction angles R of 40 for granite and 35 for greywacke. At this preliminary stage, these values are considered to be conservative (particularly if it is demonstrated that no permanent sliding displacement will occur on the cracked foundation in the course of the earthquake). If the residual angles remain unchanged for the final design, the post-MDE stability could be improved by (for example) flattening either the vertical upstream face of the dam to a slope of about 0.1:1 or the downstream face form 0.8:1 to 0.9:1. In this case the 0.95 factor for the spillway foundation would improve to 1.09, and the 1.05 factor for the greywacke powerhouse foundation would improve to 1.22. The three-dimensional behaviour of the dam could also possibly be relied on to provide the required post-earthquake stability of the spillway section. This is discussed further in Section 9.
9.0 Three-Dimensional Effects on Dam Stability

The analyses show that the dam should meet sliding stability requirements for usual and flood loading conditions. The dam also demonstrates acceptable performance for earthquake loadings up to and including the 2,500-year return period event. The preliminary two-dimensional pseudostatic analyses for MDE 10,000-year or Glasgow Fault rupture earthquake loading indicate sliding factors of safety below the recommended minimum no-test value of 1.3. These occur in the granite foundation of the spillway section and the greywacke foundation of the powerhouse section. Also, the factors of safety for post-MDE sliding in these two areas of the foundation are less than the recommended 1.1 minimum value. The above analysis results do not take into account the three-dimensional behaviour of the dam. The dam is located in a relatively narrow valley, with a particularly steep right abutment (refer dam elevation on Drawing MLD461/20/5, Appendix A). The dam will also be constructed from RCC and will most likely not have fully-formed transverse contraction joints. Considerable side shear from concrete aggregate interlock could be developed on such joint planes through the dam under extreme earthquake loading. Loads on the dam could therefore be distributed laterally over large areas of the foundation. For the narrow less-stable powerhouse section of the dam on greywacke, the peak MDE (0.81g or 0.91g) loading and the post-MDE loading on the foundation could be distributed: To the more stable and broader section to the right founded on granite rock, and To the lesser height and more stable abutment section to the left founded on greywacke. Table 11 shows how the peak MDE and post-MDE factors vary in the foundation. Table 11: Variation of MDE and Post-MDE Factors of Safety in Foundation Load Case Powerhouse Section on Granite Peak 0.81g MDE Peak 0.91g MDE Post-MDE 1.75 1.62 1.26 Powerhouse Section on Greywacke 1.20 1.11 1.05 Abutment Section on Greywacke 1.58 1.45 1.36 NZSOLD Minimum Value (no tests) 1.3 1.3 1.1 NZSOLD Minimum Value (with tests) 1.1 1.1 -
Assuming that the greywacke powerhouse section is likely to be only about 10m long out of a total left abutment/powerhouse length of about 160m, Table 11 indicates that: The overall peak MDE factor of safety for the powerhouse section foundation is likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 1.6. The overall peak MDE factor of safety for the left abutment foundation is likely to be in the range of 1.4 to1.5. The overall post-MDE factor of safety for the powerhouse section foundation is likely to be about 1.2. The overall post-MDE factor of safety for the left abutment foundation is likely to be about 1.25. In this case, the dam would meet the NZSOLD minimum requirements for earthquake sliding stability. Similarly, the post-MDE sliding stability of the spillway foundation (indicated to have a FOS of 0.95) should attain the minimum requirement of 1.1 when support from the following is taken into account: the more stable dam section to the left (where the FOS is 1.26), and the side shear from the right abutment contact zone to the right.
A three-dimensional nonlinear time history analysis of the complete dam would be required to more accurately determine its stability under dynamic earthquake loading. This would determine whether any permanent displacement of the dam may occur during the course of a large earthquake. If this is indicated in the 3-D analyses, refinements to the final design of the dam and defensive design measures could be employed. These could include such measures as the keying-in of the right abutment contact, and/or providing local thickening at the base of the dam (as discussed in Section 7.4). Such measures would also improve the post-earthquake sliding stability of the dam.
10.0
Conclusions
Preliminary estimates of the shear strength for the foundation rock and the dam concrete have been used for assessing the two-dimensional sliding stability of the dam under usual, flood, and earthquake loads. The seismic analyses have used earthquake loads up to a MCE peak ground acceleration of 0.91g. The results of static and dynamic two-dimensional analyses for the typical dam sections shown in Drawing MLD461/20/5 show that: The dam meets the NZSOLD sliding stability criteria for usual and extreme flood load cases. The dynamic analyses show the dam should not be damaged, or have only minor repairable damage, if it were subject to 150-year earthquake shaking. For earthquake loading up to and including the 2,500-year event, the analysed sections meet the sliding stability criteria in the NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines. For 10,000-year earthquake loading, the dam meets the 1.3 minimum FOS except at the greywacke foundation of the powerhouse section where the calculated factor is 1.20. If specific tests were performed on the greywacke rock to confirm the shear strength parameters assumed for this study, the powerhouse section would meet the reduced minimum NZSOLD with-test FOS of 1.1. For the Glasgow Fault rupture earthquake, the FOS against sliding on the granite foundation is also less than the minimum value of 1.3. The calculated value is 1.23. Again, if testing of the granite confirms its assumed properties, the spillway section would meet the with-test minimum value of 1.1. If rock tests indicates peak shear strengths less than assumed, widening of the dam footprint by about 15% in the least stable areas would ensure the NZSOLD criteria are met (assuming conservative two-dimensional analysis methods only are used in final design). Alternatively 3-dimensional analyses may prove the existing section proportions satisfactory. For post-MDE loading, when the foundation rock is assumed to be cracked across the entire dam footprint, the granite spillway foundation and the greywacke powerhouse foundation are less than the minimum NZSOLD requirement of FOS of 1.1. The calculated sliding FOS values at these locations are 0.95 and 1.05 respectively. Modest increases in the assumed residual friction angles of the rock would result in compliance, and specific further testing may confirm this. If not, slight widening of the dams footprint in these areas could be employed to improve the post-earthquake stability.
The two-dimensional analyses provide conservative results for dam stability calculations. If the three-dimensional effects that will be present for the Mokihinui proposal (lack of smooth transverse joints and rough foundation shape) are taken into account, the overall earthquake and post-earthquake sliding stability is likely to meet acceptable criteria. Significant changes in the current assumed dam geometry would not then be necessary.
APPENDIX A Drawing of Proposed Mokihinui Dam
APPENDIX B Rock Strength Analyses
Figure 1: Granite at Spillway Foundation 1.1MPa Normal Stress
Figure 2: Granite at Powerhouse Section Foundation 0.75MPa Normal Stress
Figure 3: Greywacke at Powerhouse Section Foundation 0.75MPa Normal Stress
Figure 4: Greywacke at Abutment Foundation 0.5MPa Normal Stress
APPENDIX C Finite Element Analysis Report
COMPUSOFT
E N G I N E E R I N G
106B Carlton Gore Road. PO Box 9493, Newmarket, Auckland, New Zealand. Telephone: +64 9 522 1456 Facsimile: +64 9 522 3366
Mokihinui Dam Seismic Analysis

Ref: 07052-01
Prepared by: For:
Compusoft Engineering Limited Damwatch P.O. Box 1549 Wellington Ph: +64 4 381 1300 Fax: +64 4 381 1301 REVISION 1 2 DATE 13.12.2007 09.01.2008
REASON FOR ISSUE First Issue Minor format & text changes, Figure 25 revised
COMPUSOFT
E N G I N E E R I N G
106B Carlton Gore Road. PO Box 9493, Newmarket, Auckland, New Zealand. Telephone: +64 9 522 1456 Facsimile: +64 9 522 3366
Table of Contents Page no. 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.0 Introduction Structure Description Analysis Model Loadings Reservoir & Uplift Loading Seismic Loading Results Static Analysis Modal Analysis Response Spectrum Analysis Conclusions 1 1 1 4 4 4 6 6 12 13 25
1.0 Introduction A 2-D finite element analysis of the spillway section of the Mokihinui Dam has been undertaken. The purpose of the analysis is to establish the likely stresses within the dam and to assess what possible damage to the dam would be caused due to seismic loading. 2.0 Structure Description At the maximum spillway section the dam is 92m high and tapers from 77.2m thick at its base to 3.6m thick at the apex. Foundation drains are assumed to be located 18m from the upstream face. The tail water depth is taken to be 15.5m deep. The dam is constructed of RCC concrete and at the spillway section considered in this report is founded on granite rock. 3.0 Analysis Model An analysis model was formed in the finite element package SAP2000 (Version 11). The model considers a typical two dimensional cross section of the dam with geometry as specified by Damwatch. Modelling of the base rock material extends for a distance of 100m upstream and downstream and 100m below the dam. Plain strain elements 1.0m thick were used with meshing undertaken such that the maximum edge dimension of any element was five (5) meters. Material properties were applied per Damwatch instruction and are outlined in Table 1 below. Link (Gap type) elements were modelled at the dam-rock interface to allow for the application of uplift pressures to the base of the dam. The boundaries of the model are considered to be restrained against both horizontal and vertical translation at the base and restrained against horizontal translation only at the upstream & downstream edges. Figure 1 below presents a graphical representation of the analysis model. The hydrodynamic effects of the retained upstream water have been included following the Westergaard method whereby a series of discrete added masses have been applied to the upstream face of the dam. The total hydrodynamic mass added to the upstream face of the dam has been evaluated as 4,589 tonnes with the distribution presented in Figure 2 below. No tail water hydrodynamic effects have been considered in the analysis.
Page 1
Table 1 Material Properties Parameter Density, Youngs Modulus Static, Es (1) Youngs Modulus Dynamic, Ed Poissons Ratio, Dam 2.5 t/m3 20 GPa 30 GPa 0.25 Rock 0 t/m3 10 GPa 20 GPa 0.25
Notes: 1. The Youngs modulus values appropriate for static loading have not been used in the model and have been included in the table for completeness only.
Figure 1 SAP2000 Analysis Model
Page 2
Hydrodynamic Mass
100 90 80 70 Height Up Dam, z (m) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Hydrodynamic Mass, mh (tonnes)
Figure 2 Hydrodynamic Mass
Page 3
4.0 Loadings 4.1 Reservoir & Uplift Loading Reservoir & Uplift loading has been applied to the model per the information supplied by Damwatch. The reservoir loading assumes the lake is at spillway crest level. The uplift loading assumes 67% efficiency of the foundation drains. Figure 3 below presents the loads applied to the analysis model.
Figure 3 Applied Reservoir & Uplift Loads (kN/m2) 4.2 Seismic Loading Response spectrum analyses of the dam were undertaken for four (4) design level seismic events. The design level ground excitations are given as PGA=0.28g, 0.40g, 0.62g, and 0.81g for the four levels of loading. This corresponds to events with a return period equal to 1/150, 1/475, 1/2500, and 1/10000 years. The spectra for the considered seismic cases were supplied by Damwatch and are presented graphically in Figure 4 below.
Page 4
Mokihinui Dam Site Spectral Acceleration

3.0
2.73 2.75 2.57
2.5
2.26
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
2.11
2.11 1.98 1.88
2.0
1.74
1.5
1.20
1.43
1.42
1.12
1.16
1.12 0.90 0.75 0.63 0.51
1.13 0.94 0.84 0.74 0.60 0.52 0.42 0.44 0.36 0.30 0.62 0.57 0.43 0.28 0.19 0.46 0.37 0.20 0.14
1.0
0.81 0.62
0.92 0.78 0.65 0.80 0.84
0.87
0.5
0.40 0.28
0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Period, T (sec) 150yrs 475yrs 2,500yrs 10,000yrs 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 4 Elastic Site Spectra
Page 5
5.0 Analysis Results 5.1 Static Analysis Linear static analyses were undertaken for the usual loading conditions (self weight and reservoir & uplift loading). Figures 5 & 6 below present horizontal and vertical stress contour plots and Figures 7 & 8 present max/min principal stress contour plots
Page 6
Figure 5 Usual Loading Condition: S11 (Horizontal Stress) Contours S11min = -2875 kPa, S11max = 932 kPa
Page 7
Figure 6 Usual Loading Condition: S22 (Vertical Stress) Contours S22min = -2155 kPa, S22max = 72 kPa
Page 8
Figure 7 Usual Loading Condition: SMAX (Max Principal Stress) Contours SMAXmin = -695 kPa, SMAXmax = 935 kPa
Page 9
Figure 8 Usual Loading Condition: SMIN (Min Principal Stress) Contours SMINmin = -4489 kPa, SMINmax = 70 kPa
Page 10
Section cuts have been established whereby the internal stresses within the dam structure are integrated across the section to obtain resultant section forces horizontal shear (FX), vertical load (FZ), and section moment (MY). The resulting section cut forces plotted over the height of the dam are presented in Figures 9 & 10 below.
Dam Section Cut Actions
(REPORTED @ "X" FROM DAM FACE)
Analysis Case: Self Weight of Dam Only Section Moment, MY (kNm) -1,200
SECTION LOCATION DAM X=2.6m X=6.4m X=10.2m X=14.2m X=17.9m X=22.5m X=26.3m X=30.2m X=34.0m X=37.8m
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
Thousands 200 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 -10 0 Thousands FX FZ MY
Height Up Dam, z (m)
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
Section Horizontal Shear, FX & Vertical Load, FZ (kN)
Figure 9 Section Cut Forces: Self Weight of Dam Only
Page 11

Analysis Case: Usual Loading Section Moment, MY (kNm) Thousands 100

-20
20
40 100.0 90.0 80.0
60
80
Height Up Dam, z (m)
70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
FX FZ MY
60 Thousands
Figure 10 Section Cut Actions: Usual Loading 5.2 Modal Analysis Modal analyses were undertaken to assess the vibration characteristics of the dam and for use in the response spectrum analyses. The modal analyses were undertaken using the stiffness state during the usual loading, i.e. considering self weight of the dam and the reservoir and uplift loading. Modal participating mass data for all modes with greater than 1% participating mass in any direction is presented in Table 2 below. Figures 11 & 12 below present graphically mode shapes 1 & 2. Table 2 Modal Participating Mass Ratios Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 Period 0.36 0.15 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.05 UX 0.69 0.24 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00 UZ 0.02 0.29 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.01 (UX) 0.69 0.92 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.99 (UZ) 0.02 0.31 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99
Page 12
Figure 11 Mode 1: UX=69%
Figure 12 Mode 2: UX=24%
5.3 Response Spectrum Analysis Response spectrum analyses have been undertaken for the prescribed levels of earthquake excitation as outlined in Sec 4.2. Presented in Figures 13 - 20 below are horizontal and vertical stress contour plots for each of the four response spectrum analysis cases.
Page 13
Figure 13 RS-150yr: S11 (Horizontal Stress) Contours S11max = 3575 kPa
Page 14
Figure 14 RS-150yr: S22 (Vertical Stress) Contours S22max = 6386 kPa
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Presented in Figures 21 - 24 below are the section cut information plotted over the height of the dam for each of the four response spectrum analysis cases. It should be noted that the values correspond to seismic loading only, i.e. values do not include the effects of concurrent usual loads.
Analysis Case: RS-475yr Section Moment, MY (kNm) Thousands 2,500

0 100.0 90.0 80.0 Height Up Dam, z (m) 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0 5
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
FX FZ MY
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45 50 Thousands
Figure 21 Section Cut Actions: RS-150yr

Analysis Case: RS-475yr Section Moment, MY (kNm) Thousands 3,000

0 100.0 90.0 80.0 Height Up Dam, z (m) 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0 10
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
FX FZ MY
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 Thousands
Figure 22 Section Cut Actions: RS-475yr
Page 22

Analysis Case: RS-2,500yr Section Moment, MY (kNm) Thousands 4,000 4,500

0 100.0 90.0 80.0 Height Up Dam, z (m) 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
FX FZ MY
20
40
60
80
100
120 Thousands
Figure 23 Section Cut Actions: RS-2,500yr

Analysis Case: RS-10,000yr
Section Moment, MY (kNm) 0 100.0 90.0 80.0 Height Up Dam, z (m) 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Thousands 6,000
FX FZ MY
160 Thousands
Figure 24 Section Cut Actions: RS-10,000yr Figure 25 below presents the maximum and minimum vertical stresses at the dam-rock interface by combining the response spectrum cases with the usual loading condition (i.e. dam self weight and
Page 23
reservoir & uplift loading). It should be noted that the values presented represent the stress average over the link spacing (in this case 4.825m).
Dam Section Cut Vertical Stresses
(REPORTED @ Z=0m, i.e. @ DAM-ROCK INTERFACE)
15,000
10,000
5,000 Vertical Stress, v (kPa)
0 0 -5,000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-10,000
-15,000
-20,000 Distance from Upstream Face of Dam, X (m) Hyrdrostatic RS-150yr RS-475yr RS-2500yr RS-10000yr
Figure 25 Dam Section Cut Vertical Stresses: Z=0m (Dam-Rock Interface)
Page 24
5.0 Conclusions With the assumption of a linear response as adopted for this analysis the dam would be required to resist maximum (averaged) tensile stresses of approximately 13MPa at the dam-rock interface when subjected to the levels of ground motion considered. From this it is likely that there will be cracking along the dam-rock interface giving rise to non-linear behaviour. As a result of this the stress plots presented in this document should be considered to be indicative only. In order to get an accurate assessment of the dams behaviour and stress distribution due to seismic loading a time history analysis that considers the effects of this non-linearity is recommended.
Page 25
APPENDIX D Sliding Stability at Base of Dam - Calculations
MOKIHINUI DAM - Analysis of 92m High Spillway Section - Granite Foundation

Usual Loads
Resisting Shear Force Tailwater Hydrostatic Force Kn 314 314 314 Applied Shear Force Hydrostatic Force Kn 41515 41515 41515 Silt Surcharge Force Kn 3700 3700 3700 Maximum resisting shear (Tf) Kn 208457 159960 179314 Applied shear (T) Kn 45215 45215 45215 Factor of Notes Safety Sliding 4.61 3.54 3.97 No uplift 2/3 drain efficiency 2/3 drain efficiency
Load Case
Dead Load Kn 91200 91200 91200
Uplift Kn 0 28000 28000
V Kn 91200 63200 63200
Degrees 60 60 45
C Kpa 650 650 1500
V.Tan Kn 157963 109466 63200
CA Kn 50180 50180 115800
Rock Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Uplift Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Uplift
PMF Load
Resisting Shear Force Tailwater Hydrostatic Force Kn 4400 4400 Applied Shear Force Hydrostatic Force Kn 49300 49300 Silt Surcharge Force Kn 3700 3700 Maximum resisting shear (Tf) Kn 126633 161800 Applied shear (T) Kn 53000 53000 Factor of Notes Safety Sliding 2.39 3.05 Drains ineffective Drains ineffective
Load Case
Dead Load Kn 91200 91200
Uplift Kn 49600 49600
V Kn 41600 41600
Degrees 60 45
C Kpa 650 1500
V.Tan Kn 72053 41600
CA Kn 50180 115800
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Full Flood Uplift Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Full flood Uplift
Earthquake - Seismic Coefficient Method

Resisting Shear Force Tailwater Hydrostatic V.Tan Force CA Kn Kn Kn 109466 63200 50180 115800 314 314 Applied Shear Force Horizontal Earthquake Silt Surcharge Hydrostatic Force Force Force Kn kN Kn 41515 41515 25200 25200 4700 4700 Maximum resisting shear (Tf) Kn 159960 179314 Applied shear (T) Kn 71415 71415 Factor of Notes Safety Sliding 2.24 2.51 2/3 drain efficiency 2/3 drain efficiency
Load Case
Uplift Kn 28000 28000
V Kn 63200 63200
Degrees 60 45
C Kpa 650 1500
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Uplift/ 150 yr EQ PGA = 0.28G/ Seismic Coeffecient = 0.19
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Uplift/ 475 yr EQ PGA = 0.4G/ Seismic Coefficient = 0.27
91,200 91,200
28000 28000
63200 63200
60 45
650 1500
109466 63200
50180 115800
314 314
41515 41515
35800 35800
5200 5200
159960 179314
82515 82515
1.94 2.17
2/3 drain efficiency 2/3 drain efficiency
Rock Concrete
91,200 91,200
28000 28000
63200 63200
60 45
650 1500
109466 63200
50180 115800
314 314
41515 41515
54300 54300
6000 6000
159960 179314
101815 101815
1.57 1.76
Rock Concrete Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Uplift/ 10000 yr EQ PGA = 0.81G/ Seismic Coefficient = 0.54 Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Uplift/ Glasgow Fault PGA = 0.91G/ Seismic Coefficient = 0.61
91,200 91,200 91,200 91,200
28000 28000 28000 28000
63200 63200 63200 63200
60 45 60 45
650 1500 650 1500
109466 63200 109466 63200
50180 115800 50180 115800
314 314 314 314
41515 41515 41515 41515
71,500 71,500 80,800 80,800
6700 6700 7600 7600
159960 179314 159960 179314
119715 119715 129915 129915
1.34 1.50 1.23 1.38
2/3 drain efficiency 2/3 drain efficiency 2/3 drain efficiency 2/3 drain efficiency
Post-Earthquake
Resisting Shear Force Tailwater Hydrostatic V.Tan Force CA Kn Kn Kn 42458 50600 0 0 314 314 Applied Shear Force Silt Hydrostatic Surcharge Hydrodynamic Force Force Force Kn Kn Kn 41515 41515 3700 3700 0 0 Maximum resisting shear (Tf) Kn 42772 50914 Applied shear (T) Kn 45215 45215 Factor of Notes Safety Sliding 0.95 1.13 Drains ineffective, Drains ineffective Base fully cracked - no cohesion Base fully cracked - no cohesion
Load Case
Uplift Kn 40600 40600
V Kn 50600 50600
Degrees 40 45
C Kpa 0 0
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Full Uplift Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Full Uplift
MOKIHINUI DAM - Analysis of 67m High Powerhouse Section - Granite Foundation

Usual Loads
Resisting Shear Force Applied Shear Force Hydrostatic Force Kn 22000 22000 22000 Silt Surcharge Force Kn 800 800 800 Maximum resisting shear (Tf) Kn 131555 113500 129400 Applied shear (T) Kn 22800 22800 22800 Factor of Notes Safety Sliding 5.77 4.98 5.68 No uplift 2/3 drain efficiency 2/3 drain efficiency
Load Case
Dead Load Kn 53200 53200 53200
Uplift Kn 0 9600 9600
V Kn 53200 43600 43600
Degrees 62 62 45
C Kpa 550 550 1500
V.Tan Kn 100055 82000 43600
CA Kn 31500 31500 85800
Rock Rock Concrete
PMF Load
Resisting Shear Force Applied Shear Force Hydrostatic Force Kn 27500 27500 Silt Surcharge Force Kn 800 800 Maximum resisting shear (Tf) Kn 89050 116400 Applied shear (T) Kn 28300 28300 Factor of Notes Safety Sliding 3.15 4.11 Drains ineffective Drains ineffective
Load Case
Uplift Kn 22600 22600
V Kn 30600 30600
Degrees 62 45
C Kpa 550 1500
V.Tan Kn 57550 30600
CA Kn 31500 85800
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Full Flood Uplift Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Full Flood Uplift

Resisting Shear Force Applied Shear Force Horizontal Hydrostatic Earthquake Silt Surcharge Force Force Force Kn kN Kn 22000 22000 14500 14500 1000 1000 Maximum resisting shear (Tf) Kn 113500 129400 Applied shear (T) Kn 37500 37500 Factor of Notes Safety Sliding 3.03 3.45 2/3 drain efficiency 2/3 drain efficiency
Load Case
Uplift Kn 9600 9600
V Kn 43600 43600
Degrees 62 45
C Kpa 550 1500
V.Tan Kn 82000 43600
CA Kn 31500 85800
Rock Concrete
Rock Concrete
53200 53200
9600 9600
43600 43600
62 45
550 1500
82000 43600
31500 85800
22000 22000
20700 20700
1100 1100
113500 129400
43800 43800
2.59 2.95
Rock Concrete
53200 53200
9600 9600
43600 43600
62 45
550 1500
82000 43600
31500 85800
22000 22000
31400 31400
1300 1300
113500 129400
54700 54700
2.07 2.37
Rock Concrete
53200 53200
9600 9600
43600 43600
62 45
550 1500
82000 43600
31500 85800
22000 22000
41,300 41,300
1400 1400
113500 129400
64700 64700
1.75 2.00
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/ Uplift/ Glasgow Fault PGA = 0.91G/ Seismic Coefficient = 0.61
53200 53200
9600 9600
43600 43600
62 45
550 1500
82000 43600
31500 85800
22000 22000
46,700 46700
1500 1500
113500 129400
70200 70200
1.62 1.84
Post-Earthquake
Resisting Shear Force Applied Shear Force Silt Hydrostatic Surcharge Force Force Kn Kn 22000 22000 800 800 Maximum resisting shear (Tf) Kn 28781 34300 Applied shear (T) Kn 22800 22800 Factor of Notes Safety Sliding 1.26 1.50 Drains ineffective Drains ineffective Base fully cracked - no cohesion Base fully cracked - no cohesion
Load Case
Uplift Kn 18900 18900
V Kn 34300 34300
Degrees 40 45
C Kpa 0 0
V.Tan Kn 28781 34300
CA Kn 0 0
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/Full Uplift
MOKIHINUI DAM - Analysis of 67m High Powerhouse Section - Greywacke Foundation

Usual Loads
Load Case
Dead Load Kn 53200 53200 53200
Uplift Kn 0 9600 9600
V Kn 53200 43600 43600
Degrees 53 53 45
C Kpa 350 300 1500
V.Tan Kn 70599 57859 43600
CA Kn 20000 20000 85800
Rock Rock Concrete
PMF Load
Load Case
Uplift Kn 22600 22600
V Kn 30600 30600
Degrees 53 45
C Kpa 350 1500
V.Tan Kn 40608 30600
CA Kn 20000 85800
Rock Concrete

Load Case
Uplift Kn 9600 9600
V Kn 43600 43600
Degrees 53 45
C Kpa 350 1500
V.Tan Kn 57859 43600
CA Kn 20000 85800
Rock Concrete
Rock Concrete
53200 53200
9600 9600
43600 43600
53 45
350 1500
57859 43600
20000 85800
22000 22000
20700 20700
1100 1100
77859 129400
43800 43800
1.78 2.95
Rock Concrete
53200 53200
9600 9600
43600 43600
53 45
350 1500
57859 43600
20000 85800
22000 22000
31400 31400
1300 1300
77859 129400
54700 54700
1.42 2.37
53200 53200 53200 53200
9600 9600 9600 9600
43600 43600 43600 43600
53 45 53 45
350 1500 350 1500
57859 43600 57859 43600
20000 85800 20000 85800
22000 22000 22000 22000
41,300 41,300 46,700 46,700
1400 1400 1500 1500
77859 129400 77859 129400
64700 64700 70200 70200
1.20 2.00 1.11 1.84
Post-Earthquake
Load Case
Uplift Kn 18900 18900
V Kn 34300 34300
Degrees 35 45
C Kpa 0 0
V.Tan Kn 24017 34300
CA Kn 0 0
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/Full Uplift Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/Full Uplift
MOKIHINUI DAM - Analysis of 40m High Abutment Section - Greywacke Foundation

Usual Loads
Load Case
Dead Load Kn 22800 22800 22800
Uplift Kn 0 3700 3700
V Kn 22800 19100 19100
Degrees 56 56 45
C Kpa 280 280 1500
V.Tan Kn 33802 28317 19100
CA Kn 10600 10600 57000
Rock Rock Concrete
PMF Load
Load Case
Uplift Kn 7600 7600
V Kn 15200 15200
Degrees 56 45
C Kpa 280 1500
V.Tan Kn 22535 15200
CA Kn 10600 57000
Rock Concrete

Load Case
Uplift Kn 3700 3700
V Kn 19100 19100
Degrees 56 45
C Kpa 280 1500
V.Tan Kn 28317 19100
CA Kn 10600 57000
Rock Concrete
Rock Concrete
22800 22800
3700 3700
19100 19100
56 45
280 1500
28317 19100
10600 57000
7800 7800
8400 8400
0 0
38917 76100
16200 16200
2.40 4.70
Rock Concrete
22800 22800
3700 3700
19100 19100
56 45
280 1500
28317 19100
10600 57000
7800 7800
12800 12800
0 0
38917 76100
20600 20600
1.89 3.69
22800 22800 22800 22800
3700 3700 3700 3700
19100 19100 19100 19100
56 45 56 45
350 1500 350 1500
28317 19100 28317 19100
10600 57000 10600 57000
7800 7800 7800 7800
16,800 16,800 19,000 19,000
0 0 0 0
38917 76100 38917 76100
24600 24600 26800 26800
1.58 3.09 1.45 2.84
Post-Earthquake
Load Case
Uplift Kn 7600 7600
V Kn 15200 15200
Degrees 35 45
C Kpa 0 0
V.Tan Kn 10643 15200
CA Kn 0 0
Rock Concrete
Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/Full Uplift Dead Load/ Hydrostatic/Full Uplift

5.4 Preliminary Stability Assessemnt - 17 June 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.4 Preliminary Stability Assessemnt - 17 June 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mokihinui Dam Preliminary Stability Analysis for Conceptual Design

Mokihinui Dam Preliminary Stability Analysis for Conceptual Design

Approved for issue: ...........................................................................................

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 - Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

2.0 Performance Criteria

3.0 Sections Analysed and Foundation Type

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

5.0 Shear Strength of Rock and Concrete

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

6.0 Methods Of Analysis

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Acceptable Sliding Factors for Stability

NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines, November 2000

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

8.0 Analysis Results

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

9.0 Three-Dimensional Effects on Dam Stability

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

APPENDIX A Drawing of Proposed Mokihinui Dam

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

APPENDIX B Rock Strength Analyses

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Figure 1: Granite at Spillway Foundation 1.1MPa Normal Stress

Figure 2: Granite at Powerhouse Section Foundation 0.75MPa Normal Stress

Figure 3: Greywacke at Powerhouse Section Foundation 0.75MPa Normal Stress

Figure 4: Greywacke at Abutment Foundation 0.5MPa Normal Stress

APPENDIX C Finite Element Analysis Report

Damwatch Services Ltd Job 586-02 Issue 1

Mokihinui Dam Seismic Analysis

Prepared by: For:

Figure 1 SAP2000 Analysis Model

Figure 2 Hydrodynamic Mass

Mokihinui Dam Site Spectral Acceleration

Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)

2.11 1.98 1.88

1.12 0.90 0.75 0.63 0.51

0.92 0.78 0.65 0.80 0.84

Figure 4 Elastic Site Spectra

Height Up Dam, z (m)

Section Horizontal Shear, FX & Vertical Load, FZ (kN)

Figure 9 Section Cut Forces: Self Weight of Dam Only

Dam Section Cut Actions

Analysis Case: Usual Loading Section Moment, MY (kNm) Thousands 100

40 100.0 90.0 80.0

Height Up Dam, z (m)

Section Horizontal Shear, FX & Vertical Load, FZ (kN)

Figure 11 Mode 1: UX=69%

Figure 12 Mode 2: UX=24%