Dynamic stability analysis of a gravity dam subject to the safety

evaluation earthquake

M. Wieland
1
, S. Ahlehagh
2

1
Chairman, ICOLD Committee on Seismic Aspects of Dam Design, Poyry Energy Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland
2
Poyry Energy Ltd., Tehran, Iran
E-mail: martin.wieland@poyry.com


Summary
The seismic stability analysis of a large concrete gravity dam
is described. The peak ground acceleration on the rock
surface of the horizontal component of the safety evaluation
earthquake was estimated as 0.78 g. A simplified dynamic
stability analysis was carried out, which is based on (i) a
linear-elastic dynamic analysis in time domain followed by
(ii) dynamic sliding stability analyses of different concrete
blocks formed by cracks along horizontal lift joints. The
different concrete blocks can undergo sliding and rocking
movements during an earthquake. The support motion of the
blocks is obtained from analysis (i). The gravity dam and the
foundation are modeled as plane stress plane strain system,
respectively. Full reservoir was considered and the water was
assumed to be incompressible. The hydrodynamic pressure
was modeled using an added mass at the upstream face of
the dam according to Westergaard. A triangular uplift
distribution at the base of the concrete blocks is assumed.
The friction coefficient along the horizontal sliding surface
is varied from 0.75 to 1.0. The results of the dynamic sliding
stability analyses show that the maximum horizontal
downstream movement of the critical block near the crest of
the highest section is about 4.4 m. Different alternatives for
the reduction of block movements are discussed.
Introduction
Under strong earthquake shaking concrete gravity dams may
crack along horizontal lift joints, which have lesser strength
than the parent mass concrete. Moreover, sliding may occur
at the dam-foundation contact. Usually the focus is on the
sliding movement of the rigid dam body at the dam-
foundation contact. However, as the horizontal component of
the ground acceleration is amplified towards the top of the
dam, concrete blocks formed by cracks along the horizontal
lift joints will undergo larger movements than the entire dam
sliding along the dam-foundation contact.
A typical non-overflow section of a large concrete gravity
dam with a maximum height of 195 m is investigated.
Figure 1 shows the highest cross-section of the dam.


Figure 1: Highest cross-section of gravity dam used in
dynamic analysis

The peak ground acceleration on the rock surface of the
horizontal component of the safety evaluation earthquake
(SEE) was estimated as 0.78 g. The peak value of the
vertical acceleration was taken as 0.52 g.
Finite element model and assumptions
The seismic safety evaluation is performed using a two-
dimensional model of the gravity dam. The concrete section
of the dam is modeled with plane stress elements and the
foundation with plane strain elements. The finite element
model of the dam and foundation is shown in Fig. 2.
The boundary conditions at the horizontal base of the rock
are fixed in horizontal and vertical directions, at the vertical
foundation boundaries only the horizontal direction is fixed.

Figure 2: Finite element model of the dam-foundation
system
Figure 2 shows the finite element model with 965 elements
in the dam body and 997 elements in the foundation.
In the dynamic analysis the mass in the foundation was
neglected and only kinematic interaction effects are
considered.
The mass concrete and foundation rock are assumed to be
homogeneous, isotropic, linear-elastic materials.
The moduli of elasticity of mass concrete for static and
dynamic actions are taken as 23 GPa (for static loads) and 30
GPa (for earthquake loads), respectively.
The average dynamic tensile strength of mass concrete is
taken as 1.5 times the static tensile strength of 1.8 MPa, i.e.
2.7 MPa.
The unit weight of mass concrete is assumed as 24 kN/m
3
.
The static and dynamic modulus of elasticity of rock is taken
as 10 GPa. No increase is assumed for earthquake action as
no corresponding information is available for the rock mass.
The residual friction coefficient between dam and foundation
is assumed as 0.75 and cohesion is neglected.
Rayleigh damping of 7% is assumed for the corner
frequencies of 1.5 Hz and 14 Hz.
For the linear-elastic earthquake analysis the direct time
integration method was used.
The added mass concept (incompressible water in the
reservoir) is used to simulate the hydrodynamic effects of the
reservoir on the upstream face of the dam.
Three sets of artificially generated spectrum-compatible
acceleration time histories (Gasparini and Vanmarcke [1])
are used in the seismic analyses of the dam. Each set
includes the acceleration time histories of the horizontal and
the vertical components of the SEE. The earthquake loads
act simultaneously in horizontal and vertical directions.
Eigenfrequency analysis
In the first step of the dynamic analysis the vibration
characteristics of the structure are computed, which, include
the eigenfrequencies and mode shapes. This information is
useful for understanding the dynamic behaviour of the dam.
In Table 1 the results of the eigenfrequency analysis of the
gravity dam for full reservoir condition are given. It can be
noted that the dynamic response of the dam can be
represented by the first three modes of vibration (Fig. 3).
Table 1: Results of eigenfrequency analysis of dam-
foundation system with full reservoir
Mode No. Vibration period (s) Modal Mass Participation Ratio
horizontal
direction
vertical direction
1 0.669 0.777 0.006
2 0.333 0.048 0.878
3 0.280 0.152 0.107
SUM of modal mass: 3 modes 0.977 0.991
SUM of modal mass: 10 modes 1.000 1.000



Figure 3: First three modes of vibration (shown in Table 1)
Linear-elastic response analysis
The linear-elastic dynamic analysis of the dam-foundation
system was carried out using the direct time integration
method. All dynamic analyses were carried out using three
different spectrum-compatible acceleration time histories.
-7.0
-5.0
-3.0
-1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

d
a
m

b
a
s
e

(
m
/
s
2
)
Ti me (s)
SET3

-35
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25
35
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

d
a
m

c
r
e
s
t

(
m
/
s
2
)
Ti me (s)
SET3

Figure 3: Horizontal absolute acceleration time histories at
dam foundation (top) and crest of the dam (bottom)
As a typical result, the horizontal component of the absolute
acceleration at the base and the crest of the dam are shown
in Fig. 4 for one of the three ground motions. The peak crest
acceleration is roughly five times as large as that at the dam
base. Moreover, due to dam-foundation interaction, the input
acceleration at the foundation boundaries (Fig. 2) is slightly
different from the absolute acceleration time history
calculated at the dam base.
For the subsequent dynamic stability analyses the stress
response is of little interest. The dynamic tensile strength of
mass concrete is exceeded at different locations at the
upstream and downstream faces of the dam during the SEE
ground motion; therefore, it can be assumed that horizontal
cracks will develop along selected lift elevations.
The formation of horizontal cracks along lift joints
propagating from the upstream to the downstream dam faces
was observed at the Sefid Rud buttress dam in Iran during
the June 1990 Manjil earthquake. The simplified models
used for the post-cracking analysis of concrete dams have
been discussed by Malla and Wieland [3].
Dynamic stability analysis of concrete blocks
The maximum sliding movement of the dam and critical
blocks shown in Fig. 4 are analyzed with the computer
program RSDAM [2]. The dynamic uplift pressure at the lift
joints of the crest blocks was assumed to follow a triangular
distribution and at the base the grout curtain and drainage
system are taken into account.
Figure 4: Uplift pressure distribution at base and at critical
blocks in crest region used for the dynamic stability analysis
of the dam (all units in m and uplift pressures in kPa)

The crest blocks have been selected based on the large
amplification of the acceleration in the top part of the dam
and the location of the sill of the crest spillway (block 3 in
Fig. 4).
Block 2 was selected because of the large tensile stresses at
the downstream face of the dam at elevation 298 m and the
relatively large accelerations at that elevation.
The three load combinations analyzed, which are denoted by
LC2, LC3 and LC4, include the dead load of the dam, the
hydrostatic pressure for full reservoir and the acceleration
time histories at the base of the blocks calculated from the
three artificial earthquakes.

Sliding movement of whole dam
Time histories of the sliding movement of the dam along the
dam-foundation contact are shown in Fig. 5. The maximum
downstream sliding movement varies from 86 cm to 96 for
the three earthquakes considered. The sliding patterns are
quite similar and the rate of increase is almost constant
during the phase of strong ground shaking. Therefore, if the
duration of strong ground shaking is increased the sliding
movement will increase proportionally.

0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
LC2
LC3
LC4

Figure 5: Sliding displacement of dam along dam-foundation
contact (downstream movement) for three different
earthquakes, and a friction angle of 37 (with uplift)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
friction angle =37 deg
friction angle =40 deg
friction angle =43 deg

Figure 6: Sliding displacement of the dam along the dam-
foundation contact (downstream movement) for three
different friction angles (with uplift)

In Fig. 6 the effect of the friction angle is shown. By
increasing the residual friction angle along the dam-
foundation contact from 37 to 43, the sliding movement is
reduced from 98 cm to about 35 cm. This means that if the
angle of the contact surface is increased towards downstream
by 6 the sliding movement will be reduced substantially.

Sliding movement of block 3
The time histories of the sliding movement of block 3 (Fig.
4) for three different earthquakes are shown in Fig. 7. The
triangular uplift pressure distribution is taken into account.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
LC2
LC3
LC4

Figure 7: Sliding displacement of block 3 (see Fig. 4) for
three different earthquakes, and a friction angle of 37 (with
uplift)
In Fig. 8 the same time histories as those shown in Fig. 7 are
depicted for the case of zero uplift. The comparison shows
that in the worst case (load combination LC2) the maximum
sliding movement reduces from 2.9 m with full uplift to 2.1
m when uplift is omitted. As the uplift force is relatively
small for this block close to the crest, the effect of the uplift
force on the sliding movement is rather small.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
LC2
LC3
LC4

Figure 8: Sliding displacement of block 3 (see Fig. 4) for
three different earthquakes, and a friction angle of 37
(without uplift)
In Fig. 9 the effect of the friction angle is shown. By
increasing the residual friction angle from 37 to 43, the
sliding movement is reduced from 2.1 m to about 1.5 m.
This reduction is less significant than that shown in Fig. 6
for the dam sliding along the dam-foundation contact. This
is due to the fact that a part of the dam-foundation contact
(Fig. 4) is dipping in downstream direction and there is a
downstream component of the uplift pressure acting on this
inclined surface. Moreover, the vertical acceleration at the
base of block 3 is larger than that at the dam-foundation
contact.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
friction angle =37 deg
friction angle =40 deg
friction angle =43 deg

Figure 9: Sliding displacement of block 3 (see Fig. 4) for
different friction angles (without uplift)

Sliding movement of block 2
The time histories of the sliding movement of block 2 (see
Fig. 4) are depicted in Fig. 10 with a triangular uplift
pressure distribution taken into account.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
LC2
LC3
LC4

Figure 10: Sliding displacement of block 2 (see Fig. 4) for
three different earthquakes, and a friction angle of 37 (with
uplift)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
LC2
LC3
LC4

Figure 11: Sliding displacement of block 2 (see Fig. 4) for
three different earthquakes, and a friction angle of 37
(without uplift)
In Fig. 11 the same time histories as those shown in Fig. 10
are depicted for the case of zero uplift. The comparison
shows that in the worst case (load combination LC2) the
maximum sliding movement reduces from 4.4 m with full
uplift to 1.6 m when uplift is omitted. As the uplift pressure
is quite large under block 2 the difference between the
sliding movements with and without uplift is very
significant.
The comparison of the sliding movements of blocks 2 (Fig.
11) and block 3 (Fig. 8) without uplift shows maximum
sliding movements of 1.6 and 2.1 m. The larger movement
of block 3 compared to that of block 2 is due to the higher
horizontal accelerations acting on the base of block 3.
In Fig. 12 the effect of the friction angle is shown. By
increasing the residual friction angle from 37 to 43, the
sliding movement is reduced from 1.6 m to about 0.9 m.
This reduction is roughly the same than that of block 3
(without uplift).
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
friction angle =37 deg
friction angle =40 deg
friction angle =43 deg

Figure 12: Sliding displacement of block 2 (see Fig. 4) for
different friction angles (without uplift)

Summary of stability analyses results for blocks 2 and 3
A summary of the main results of the dynamic sliding
stability analysis results is given in Table 2. In the table the
maximum sliding movements obtained from the three
different earthquakes is given for the case with and without
uplift.
Table 2: Summary of sliding stability analysis results for
blocks 2 and 3
Load
com-
bination
Horizontal displacements (downstream) (m)
With uplift Without uplift
Block 2 Block 3 Block 2 Block 3
LC2 4.4 2.9

1.6

2.1
LC3 4.0 2.6

1.3

1.8
LC4 4.0 2.4

1.4

1.8

The overturning stability of blocks 2 and 3 after the SEE is
checked for the usual load combination. In this stability
check it is assumed that block 2 has displaced by 4.4 m
towards downstream and block 3 has displaced by 3 m
towards downstream. The overturning safety factors for the
detached blocks 2 and 3 are 2.6 and 3.1, respectively, which
are larger than the allowable safety factor against
overturning.


Sensitivity studies
In the previous sections different sensitivity studies were
carried out, i.e.
Three different artificially generated acceleration time
histories;
Variation of residual friction angle from 37 to 43; and
Effect of uplift forces on concrete blocks 2and 3 near
the crest.
A frequently asked question in connection with the
dynamic sliding stability analysis is related to the
earthquake components to be considered. In Figs. 5 to 12
both the horizontal and vertical earthquake components
are taken into account. Often only the horizontal
component is used. Therefore, for the sliding movement
along the dam-foundation contact a comparison is made
between the results obtained from (i) an analysis where
both the horizontal and vertical components are
considered and those from (ii) an analysis with the
horizontal component only. The main results of analysis
(i) are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 and those of (ii) in Figs. 13
and 14.


0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
LC2
LC3
LC4

Figure 13: Sliding displacement of dam along dam-
foundation contact (downstream movement) for three
different earthquakes, a friction angle of 37 (with uplift),
and horizontal earthquake component only.


0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Ti me (s)
friction angle =37 deg
friction angle =40 deg
friction angle =43 deg

Figure 14: Sliding displacement of the dam along the dam-
foundation contact (downstream movement) for three
different friction angles (with uplift) and horizontal
earthquake component only

The maximum sliding movement in case (i) is 96 cm and for
case (ii) where only the horizontal earthquake component is
analysed is 72 cm. also when the residual friction angle is
varied from 37 to 43 the sliding movement varies from 98
cm to about 35 cm in case (i). For case (ii) the variation is
from 72 cm to about 18 cm.
This comparison shows that the effect of the vertical
earthquake component on the sliding movement is very
important. It appears that the vertical component has a more
significant effect on the sliding movement for larger friction
values (43) than for smaller values (37).
Figure 15 shows the downstream movement of block 3 when
only the horizontal earthquake component is taken into
account. The comparison with Fig. 9, where the effects of
both the horizontal and vertical earthquake components are
included shows that, for a residual friction angle of 37, the
maximum displacement is 2.1 m whereas it is only 1.3 m
when only the horizontal earthquake component is included.
This means that for block 3 the sliding movement is about
60% larger when the vertical component is included in the
analysis. Thus the neglect of the vertical earthquake
component in the dynamic sliding stability analysis is not
acceptable.


Figure 15: Sliding displacement of block 3 (downstream
movement) for three different friction angles (with uplift)
and horizontal earthquake component only

Discussion of seismic safety of gravity dam
The results of the dynamic analyses carried out for the
highest sections show that the dam will undergo inelastic
deformations when it is subjected to the SEE ground motions
as the maximum dynamic tensile stresses exceed the
dynamic tensile strength of mass concrete.
Therefore, it is assumed that cracks will develop along the
dam-foundation contact and along the horizontal lift
elevations in the crest region.
For the seismic safety assessment of the dam the sliding
movements of critical concrete blocks are discussed. The
maximum downstream movements are 96 cm when a
friction angle of 37 is assumed. However, when the friction
angle is increased to 43, which can be considered as
justifiable when the surface roughness of the dam-foundation
contact is included, then the corresponding sliding
movement is reduced from 96 cm to about 35 cm. In absolute
terms such movements are acceptable. However they are not
acceptable if there are relative movements between adjacent
blocks of a crest spillway as it may not be possible to
guarantee the proper functioning of the spillway after the
SEE.
As it must be possible to control the reservoir after the SEE
by the bottom outlet and the spillway gates, relative block
movements exceeding say 50 to 100 mm may not be
acceptable. In order to prevent such movements shear keys
are the most economical solution.
The maximum horizontal movement of the critical block
separated by cracks along horizontal lift joints near the crest
is about 4.4 m. As the width of the base of the critical block
2 is 30.3 m a downstream movement of 4.4 m can be
accepted as after the earthquake the overturning stability
safety factor of this block is 2.6, which is larger than the
allowable overturning safety factor of 1.5 for usual
conditions. Thus the reservoir can be retained after the SEE.
However, it is expected that water leakage will occur at the
crack along the lift joint. After such a critical damage the
water level in the reservoir will have to be lowered.
Due to such movements, problems have to be anticipated
with the gates of a crest spillway. Therefore, it is
recommended to provide reinforcement in the top portion of
the non-overflow section of the dam adjacent to the overflow
section, in order to prevent any sliding movements, which
could damage or obstruct operation of the spillway gates.
As in the calculation of the sliding movement of the critical
blocks 2 and 3 conservative assumptions were made, i.e.
residual friction angle of 37, neglect of effect of shear keys
between adjacent blocks, full uplift at the cracked lift joint,
and conservative artificially generated acceleration time
histories, it can be assumed that the block movements will be
considerably less than 4.4 m.
Moreover, at the lift elevations, which form the critical
blocks near the crest water stops or a geotextile can be
provided, which prevents infiltration of water in a crack
formed along a lift surface and thus the uplift force in the
crack can be eliminated which contributes to the shear
resistance and leads to a reduction in the sliding movement
along the cracked lift joint.
The dynamic stability analysis of block 2 shows that by
eliminating the uplift forces, the downstream sliding
movement can be reduced from 4.4 m to 1.6 m, and if the
friction angle is increased from 37 to 43 the displacement
drops to below 1 m. These are deformations, which can be
accepted.
However, the dynamic stability analyses show that
significant movements are possible, which have an
inacceptable effect on the operation of spillway gates after a
strong earthquake; therefore reinforcement of the top part of
the non-overflow section similar to the piers of the crest
spillway will have to be considered.
If such protective measures (shear keys at block joints,
reinforcement of the top part of the non-overflow sections
adjacent to the crest spillway, etc.) are provided then the
performance of the dam subjected to the SEE can be
considered as acceptable.
The global stability of the dam can be improved further by a
very effective drainage to minimize the uplift forces and by
having the grout curtain moved closer to the upstream face
of the dam, which allows a further reduction of the uplift
forces. Moreover the concrete wedge at the upstream heel of
the dam can be increased, which will also contribute to the
improvement of the sliding safety of the dam.
Finally, by changing the slope of the lift joints and/or the
dam-foundation contact the sliding movements can be
reduced further. Such a change in slope is equivalent to an
increase in the residual friction angle, which has a
favourable effect as shown in the previous sections.
Conclusions
The results of the linear-elastic dynamic analysis of a large
gravity dam show that the maximum tensile stresses exceed
the dynamic tensile strength of mass concrete, but
compressive stresses are lower than the compressive strength
of concrete.
The results of the dynamic stability analyses of the two-
dimensional model of the gravity dam show that due to the
safety evaluation earthquake (SEE) ground shaking the
maximum sliding movement along the dam-foundation
contact is about 96 cm. This value is obtained for a friction
angle of 37, which is a conservative assumption.
The maximum downstream movement of the detached
concrete blocks near the crest (block 2) is 4.4 m. After the
SEE the displaced block still satisfies static sliding and
overturning stability criteria and therefore, the water can be
retained safely.
The two-dimensional dynamic sliding stability analyses also
confirm that both the horizontal and vertical earthquake
components have to be taken into account. The vertical
component may increase the sliding movement obtained
from an analysis with the horizontal component only, by up
to 60%.
Relative movements of concrete blocks cause safety problems
for the crest spillway, which must be operable after the SEE.
Therefore, in order to reduce relative block movements the
following measures can be taken:
1. Provision of shear keys between adjacent blocks over
the height of the dam.
2. Construction of grout curtain closer to the upstream
face of the dam to minimize uplift pressures.
3. Improvement and control of efficiency of drainage
system to minimize uplift pressures.
4. Enlargement of wedge at upstream heel of the dam to
increase shear resistance.
5. Reinforcement of crest to minimize relative movements
of blocks.
6. Installation of geotextile at upstream face of the dam
where cracks along horizontal lift joints are possible in
order to eliminate any uplift forces acting on detached
concrete blocks.
7. Increase of slope angle (towards downstream) of lift
joints and/or the dam-foundation contact.
Most of the measures listed above can easily be implemented
and will lead to a significant improvement of the seismic
safety of the dam.
References
[1] D.A. Gasparini, E.H. Vanmarcke, SIMQKE users manual and
documentation, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, USA, November 1976.
[2] M. Leclerc, P. Leger, R.Tinawi, RS-DAM users manual, University of
Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, Canada, November 2002,
(http://www.struc.polymtl.ca/rsdam/ )
[3] S. Malla, M. Wieland: Simple model for safety assessment of cracked
concrete dams subjected to strong ground shaking. Proc. 21st Int.
Congress on Large Dams, ICOLD, Montreal, Canada, June 2003.