Rock Mechanics in the National Interest, Elsworth, Tinucci & Heasley (eds),

2001 Swets & Zeitlinger Lisse, ISBN 90 2651 827 7

Design and analysis of foundation modifications for a buttress dam
G.A.Scott, J.T. Kottenstette & J.ESteighner
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, USA
ABSTRACT: A spillway stilling basin was originally excavated downstream of several buttresses at Pueblo Dam.
Geologic information indicated the presence of weak shale seams in the foundation that daylight in the stilling
basin excavation. The reservoir had not filled completely since original construction, and therefore the foundation
was not fully tested. Analyses indicated the foundation could have a very slim margin of safety if the reservoir
filled to normal levels. Due to the large population at risk downstream from the dam, there was strong
justification to reduce the risk, and modifications were undertaken to improve foundation stability. The
modifications consisted of buttressing the foundation with roller-compacted concrete (RCC) and rock bolts.
Additional drainage was also installed. Although the design was completed using limit equilibrium techniques,
unique aspects of the geometry were investigated using UDEC and DDA analyses. Both confirmed the design
provided adequate resistance. This paper focuses on the design and analysis of the foundation treatment system.
I INTRODUCTION
Pueblo Dam is a composite earthfill and concrete
massive head buttress dam (see figure 1) on the
Arkansas River just upstream of Pueblo, Colorado.
The dam, completed in 1975, is about 53.3 m high. A
spillway stilling basin, 168 m long and 13.7 m deep
was originally excavated at the downstream toe of
Buttresses 8 through 14, which form the uncontrolled
overflow spillway for the dam.
2 GEOLOGY AND POTENTIAL MODES OF
INSTABILITY
The central overflow section of the buttress dam is
founded on Dakota Sandstone, consisting of nearly
horizontally bedded sandstones and shales, with
occasional carbonaceous partings. The excavation for
the spillway stilling basin created a free surface into
which weak foundation shale layers and open bedding
planes could daylight. This was recognized during
original construction, and additional exploration and
excavation was performed to identify and remove the
downstream portion of weak layers found to be
laterally continuous near the foundation contact of
some buttresses. However, the possibility of potential
sliding planes that step along a vertical joint from an
upper treated discontinuity to a lower untreated
discontinuity, or sliding planes formed by shale layers
in combination with open bedding planes, daylighting
in the stilling basin, was not considered.
Figure 1. Concrete section of Pueblo Dam
Geologic information obtained from original
mapping, along with that obtained from exploratory
drilling (both during construction and later dam safety
studies) and geophysical testing, was plotted on
geologic cross sections through each of the seven
exposed buttresses. Figure 2 shows the cross section
developed through Buttresses 8 and 9. A thick shale
layer is present under the upstream portion of
Buttresses 8 and 9, and to a lesser extent under
951
Buttresses 10 and 11. Thinner shale layers are present
under the downstream portion of Buttresses 8 and 9,
and under the upstream portions of Buttresses 10
through 14. An open sandstone bedding plane parting
was mapped across the entire stilling basin excavation.
A potential foundation sliding plane, continuous along
bedding plane discontinuities and daylighting in the
stilling basin excavation, could be identified beneath
each of the seven spillway buttresses. These potential
surfaces daylight fairly low (about elevation 1437.1 m)
in the stilling basin excavation for Buttresses 8 and 9
(see Figure 2), but at a higher elevation (about
elevation 1443.2 m), where the continuous bedding
plane parting was mapped, for Buttresses 10 through
14.
AXIS OF DAM
TOE PLUG
//// !
\
S CONTRACTION
JOINTS
Figure 2. Typical section, Buttresses 8 and 9
The maximum historical reservoir surface prior to
this evaluation was elevation 1489.97 m. This is a
water depth about 1.60 m below normal pool and
3.15m below the spillway crest. Two-dimensional
limit equilibrium analyses indicated that the
foundation would be marginally stable against sliding
if the reservoir rose to these levels (Trojanowski,
2000). A risk analysis concluded there was
justification to reduce the risk to the large population
relatively close to the dam downstream.
3 REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
Conceptual designs were prepared for several
treatment alternatives, including added weight between
the buttresses, tendons, buttress extensions, and
construction of a roller-compacted concrete (RCC)
plug and toe block, anchored with rock bolts, in the
spillway stilling basin to block daylighting bedding
planes, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The least cost
and most efficient risk reduction altemative, consisting
of the RCC plug and toe block, was constructed. The
lower "plug" portion blocks movement of the lower
daylighting planes at Buttresses 8 and 9, and the upper
"toe block" portion supports the foundation where the
higher daylighting planes occur at Buttresses 10
through 14. The design and analysis of this system is
described in the following sections.
SPILLWAY AXIS OF DAM
CREST-L
ROCK BOLTS
OPEN BEDDING PLANE
Figure 3. Typical section, Buttresses 10 through 14
4 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Results from tests on shale samples conducted in 1967
and 1997 are shown in Figure 4. Although the
displacement rates for tests in 1967 were not slow
enough to represent drained conditions, the results are
consistent with the tests performed at slower
displacement rates in 1997. Peak strengths were not
considered appropriate for a potentially softening
material like the shale. Similarly, the residual
strengths from repeated shearing were thought to be
too conservative. Therefore, a post-peak friction angle
(9) of 17 degrees was selected for the stability
analyses. Post-peak strengths remained fairly constant
at shear displacements greater than about 10 to 20
percent of the specimen width.
Samples of sandstone discontinuities were tested in
1968 and 1997. The character of the samples tested in
1968 is not clear. Therefore, the 1997 tests on 102-
; 1967 TESTS 1997 TESTS
Hi i i i J i i i i i i IJ_I_LJ._LI I I 1 Ill IIlll
TIIIIIIIIIlillll/I I I It I illitlllllllll
iiiii]lllllllllllll i111111111111111111ll
IIIII111111 IllIfil Illlllllllllllllllllll
fi" ,'1 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I"1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-J.-&-L IIII
_..ou IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllll[11111111lll
Illll ...... ''''''''''''11111111llllllllll
v MAX. NORM. STRESS II I real II Ill i I I
mF4:4 -] OF INTEREST ...... lm, '1 H-H-m-H-m
_. I I I I I i I I I '. I I l_l I i ) [ ! ! ! 1_]
IIIIIIIIII Illlllllt 111lllllllllll' O
'O IIIIIIIIII I I I I I I II'FI I I I I I I I I[I I I i I L.-I"M17 .
, u.vo I I I I I I I I I I I I ll.--r16t%b'&b,l I II I J,.4>TI . I
, IIIIIIllll .l i i i i i i i i i i I I-'1 I I I il i I
IIIIlllll i i i i i i i i J JJ.-,-l i I I I I &H-ql i I I I
LI LI ] i i i i 1 i i i i L..+'T"ff IIl'lnl iZk/
(/) -F[~F[ I IXl I I :al:;l I I I I I ? I ',' ,,.' , .--;;
I I I I J/I I iJr 1111-It11 I I I I I I I I 11 ] J_L_LL
i i iJl 1114 LJrl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I/ I I I I I EL!
I ts x.-.l--e I IllIll I I I I III Ill 1111 I [Ill !llJ
1111 IIl[1111111111111111111111Illl
I I I I I I I
0.69 1.38 2.07
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 4. Direct shear test results for shale samples
952
mm-diameter core were used to characterize the
strength of open bedding plane partings in sandstone.
These samples consistently produced a friction angle
of about 41 degrees.
The shear strengt, h of the RCC is critical in
supporting the foundation. A high cementitious RCC
mx with bonding mortar between lifts was
recommended for the application. Horizontal joints
between RCC lifts would be the weakest surfaces in
shear for this material. Experience from other projects
indicated that about 85 to 100 percent of the surfaces
would be bonded, with a cohesion (C) of about 2.3 to
2.4 MPa, and friction angles between 40 and 55
degrees. The consultant review board for the project
recommended safety factors of 3 and 1.5 be applied to
the cohesion and tamp (friction angle), respectively,
when used in a passive resistance configuration. The
selected design values were a cohesion of 0.62 MPa
and a friction angle of 30 degrees for RCC lift
surfaces.
5 UPLIFT
Lnes of uplift pressure pipes were originally installed
under the massive head portion of Buttresses 7 and 12.
In addition, several piezometers were installed in 1997
during dam safety explorations. The pressures under
Buttress 7 have been consistently higher than under
Buttress 12, as shown in Figure 5.
*PIEZOMETERS - HISTORIC MAX
=BUTTRESS 12 - HISTORIC MAX
o BUTTRESS 7 - HISTORIC MAX
,, BUTTRESS 7 -TOP OF DAM (estimated)
II11111111 IIIII]
| I111i111
&Ill I IIIIIII I I I I I I ! I [IllILl I 111111
W[[ I 1111 III I I I 11 I I /I I ' I I I Ii Ii III I Ill
IIIl[[Itllll[lik
1493.5-H-IJ-H- I ,,,,i,[[[t i ],"'['[
rlJl j illl IJ [ I Jllllltllll*l Ill IJlJlJ
l I LJllllll I1'111111111
, .JlJlJ [ I I I t J I t I Lt I I I I I I I I I i i
u 1 II -/ I II II1[ JillIll
I[ IJllllll I I J ' Ii11111111
1[[111111 i i i i i i i i jl [ I I I ,I I I I LJ J J J I I I I I I J I
Z J Jl Xll II / I I II IllIll II IIII J J]
O J 11 gllllJ I I [ IIII IlllJllllllJJ lJlJil I J
t J [1 I I Illlllllll11111111l
gE l,]111Jl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ] II111 Illl
I 1111,ffi4JJ I I I III I I I I J I I I I I/ I I J I III I I I LJ
I III I 1 I I I I I I]]qqJJ I I I I I I I I i I I I I I
I III I I1'11 I I I J J I I I I IJJJ J I I I I I I I] 'lq$l I I
I 11--$-4. - - &lllJ[1111111
-- I I I I I I I I I I I I ['l'l'tl't't'r I' l I I
II
[I II I IIIIIIIll IIII II Jill ii
/I I IIIII Illll I I Ill I Ill I I I J Ill
Ill I I Illlllllllllllllll III1
' -.2 ' ' .2 36.
DISTANCE FROM DAM lS (m)
Fgure 5. Uplift pressure distributions
The historic maximum reservoir elevation was
1489.97 m. The top of dam is elevation 1501.14 m.
The pressure distribution under Buttress 7 at the
hstorical maximum reservoir elevation, supplemented
by the new piezometric data, was used for the design
and analysis studies. Piezometric adjustments to other
reservoir elevations were made using the differential
head ratio (DHR), defined in equation 1.
DHR - (1)
where P is the piezometric level, R is the reservoir
level and TW is the tailwater level. Adjustments to
other reservoir elevations are then made according to
equation 2.
NP = DHR( NR- NTW) + NTW (2)
where NP is the new piezometric level, NR is the new
reservoir level, and NTW is the new tailwater level.
6 LIMIT EQUILIBR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Limit equilibrium analyses were used for the initial
design. In working with the consultant review board
for the project, the following factor of safety (FS)
requirements were established to meet the desired risk
reduction:
At reservoir elevation 1493.12 m (spillway crest):
FS 2 2.0 for q0sm, = 17 , q0s^sTo = 41 , q0Rcc = 30,
and Cgc c = 0.62 MPa.;
FS > 1.5 for q0si = 17 , q0s^sTo = 41 , q>gcc = 30,
and Cuc c = 0; and
FS > 1.3 for q0sm, = 17 , q0SAmSTON E = 41 , and using
only the weight of new RCC above the bedding plane
and forces from rock bolts crossing the bedding plane
in computing the resistance offered by the treatment.
The last two requirements only applied to the toe block
portion of the design (Buttresses 10-14), as the plug
portion of the treatment completely blocks movement
from upstream to downstream for daylighting bedding
planes at Buttresses 8 and 9.
At reservoir elevation 1501.14 m (top of dam):
FS 1.0 for q0si = 17 , q)SANDSTONE ---- 41, q0acc = 30,
and CRcc = 0.62 MPa.
Analyses of the existing buttresses were performed
taking into account force and moment resolution. For
Buttresses 10 through 14, the moment induced by the
reservoir acting on the dam increases the normal stress
on the stronger downstream sandstone portion of the
potential sliding planes, and reduces the normal stress
on the weaker upstream shale portions of the planes (at
Buttresses 8 and 9 the entire potential sliding plane is
composed of shale).
953
R + R s + Tsina tan0e + Wee tanCe + Wcr tanCRcc + CRcc A
D - Tcosa (3)
Additional computations were performed to include
the effects of the treatment according to equation 3,
where D is the driving force, R is the resisting force
without treatment, T is the rockbolt force, ct is the
rockbolt installation angle from horizontal (63
upstream), Wc, is the weight of the added RCC
downstream of the bedding plane, and Wcp is the
weight of added RCC above the bedding plane.
R s is a constant equal to the side plane resistance
required to reach a FS = 1.0 for the historical
maximum reservoir elevation. This force is only
applicable to Buttresses 8 and 9 where the calculated
FS at the historical maximum reservoir elevation is
less than 1.0 using a friction angle of 17 for the shale.
Since the dam was adequately stable at this point, the
extra resistance was necessary to make the calculations
reasonable. This force was assumed to be constant for
any reservoir elevation.
Since the treatment was installed downstream of the
buttresses, the friction angle, q%, was assumed to be the
friction angle for the downstream portion of the
potential sliding plane (17 for Buttresses 8 and 9, and
41 for Buttresses 10 through 14). The variable "A" is
the area of RCC offering shearing resistance
downstream of the bedding plane. The resistance from
the original stilling basin concrete lining was
conservatively neglected. The RCC toe block and rock
bolts were sized to meet all the FS criteria previously
described. The requirement for FS _> 1.5 with no RCC
cohesion (CRcc = 0) typically controlled the design.
7 VERIFICATION ANALYSES
It was not clear how the load would be transferred
across the sloping surfaces of the existing stilling
basin lining to the RCC. Concern that sheafing or
tension might occur at the upstream interface was
termed "the snow plow effect", where the wedge
shaped portion of the foundation block may tend to pry
up the RCC. To investigate this effect, detailed
Dynamic Deformation Analysis (DDA) and Universal
Distinct Element Code (UDEC) analyses were
performed. Additional probabilistic studies were also
performed to help ensure that the desired risk reduction
level would be achieved. Studies were also performed
to verify the performance of the treatment design under
earthquake loading. Since the postulated seismic
loading is fairly low in this part of the country, it was
not a controlling consideration, and those studies are
not described here.
7.1 DDA Studies
The geometry associated with Buttresses 8 and 9 was
evaluated using a DDA model. The foundation
bedding planes and formed joints in the RCC were the
boundaries of the modeled blocks. Reclamation's
version of the DDA program is currently incapable of
modeling cohesion along these discontinuities. An
available friction angle of 45 was used for all concrete
joints, and 17 was used for the shale layers. Hence,
the analysis is very conservative for the case of Pueblo
Dam. However, the model provides an indication of
how the system may perform.
Figure 6. Displaced shape of DDA model with low friction
For the analysis, the initial available fiction angle,
q0^, was assigned to each potential sliding plane and
the model was subjected to the loading from the dam
and reservoir, using the uplift profile previously
presented. The strength values (tan q0^) were then
incrementally decreased by a constant safety factor,
and the analysis repeated until the system of blocks
just began to move. This limit analysis defines the
required friction angles for stability, q%. The FS for
the system of blocks is thus defined as tan q0^/tan q0.
Figure 6 shows the model in its displaced shape wth
low friction angles. With the reservoir at the spillway
crest, the required friction angles are 7.2 for the shale
and 22.5 for the RCC, and the calculated FS is 2.4
using this method (Kottenstette, 1999). This indicates
that significant resistance is generated through friction
at the vertical joints in the RCC and the downstream
joint between the RCC and stilling basin lining. These
surfaces were roughened by sand blasting to ensure
high friction angles would be attained.
954
7.2 UDEC Studies
The toe block geometry associated with Buttresses 10
through 14 was investigated using a UDEC model.
Deformable blocks were used for the model shown in
Ftgure 7. The entire dam was not modeled in these
analyses; only a portion of the foundation block and
sttlling basin treatment was modeled.
BLOCK 1
//,.,,/__..C 0 N C R E T E JOINTS
Figure 7. UDEC model
The approach used was to ramp a horizontal load
onto the upstream portion of the foundation block
(Block 1), by applying a constant velocity, until the
treatment failed. This provided the ultimate resistance
of the foundation treatment, which was compared to
the resistance necessary to provide the required factor
of safety from the limit equilibrium analyses. Vertical
movement of the foundation block was suppressed to
smulate the weight of the dam above the block. The
tensile strength across all concrete joints was
conservatively assumed to be zero. However, the
cohesion on these surfaces was assumed 1.97 MPa, a
2 [ NORMAL FORCE ................
-0
-2 .......... SHEAR FORCE
O-4
LL
BOUNDARY FORCE '"-.......",,,,
o ' ' '
X 10E+04 CYCLES (i.e. TIME STEPS)
Figure 8. Toe block predicted behavior from UDEC model
(without rockbolts)
value that more closely resembles their actual strength.
The [fiction angle was conservatively left at 30 .
The model was run with and without rock bolts.
The sum of shear forces and normal forces on the
projected sliding plane (through the RCC), and the
horizontal forces on the upstream side of the
foundation block (Block 1) were tracked through the
analysis, as shown in Figure 8 (without rock bolts).
The sum of the shear forces was typically slightly
lower than the horizontal forces on the upstream face
in all cases. The sum of shear forces was therefore
used to estimate the ultimate resistance. Without the
rock bolts, the ultimate strength of the toe block was
calculated to be only 88 percent of the target value.
However, with the rock bolts, the ultimate strength
exceeded the target value by about 14 percent. The
rock bolts provide an active stabilizing force and
increase the tensile capacity at critical locations. It is
a tribute to the experience of the consulting board that
the simple strength reduction factor for design, based
on an assumed uniform shear stress distribution and
cohesion, closely approximates the strength of the toe
block calculated using UDEC.
7.3 Probabilistic Studies
The limit equilibrium equations were programmed into
a spreadsheet, and Monte-Carlo simulations were
performed using commercially available software.
Buttress 10 was selected for these simulations since it
had some of the lowest deterministic factors of safety,
and the potential sliding plane geometry was simple
(nearly horizontal at a constant elevation) and well
defined. Triangular distributions were assumed for the
input parameters, which included the RCC cohesion,
friction angle, and percent bond; the friction angles for
the shale and sandstone; the drain effectiveness; and
the rock bolt force. The lower bound, upper bound,
and best estimate for each parameter was in some
cases based on test results, and in others based on
judgement and experience from other projects. The
distribution of output FS from the simulations was
evaluated to determine the probability of a FS < 1.0.
In cases where the probability ofFS < 1.0 is remote,
a distribution needs to be assumed to make an estimate
of this likelihood. The distribution assumed can have
a significant effect on the results. The Central Value
Theorem suggests that results tend to follow a
lognormal distribution when they are the result of
multiplying or dividing other variables, and a normal
distribution when they are the result of adding or
subtracting other variables. Since both operations are
involved in computing FS, Chi-Square, Kolmogorov-
Smirnov, and Anderson-Darling goodness of fit tests
955
Distribution for Factor of Safety
0.107 .... -' ....
0.;, .......
0.054 ......
0.027 - -
'l '
,I
18,29 24.18 30.08 35.98 41.87 47.77 53.66
Values in 10A-1
Figure 9. Results of Monte-Carlo simulation
were performed for both distributions using the output
results. The reliability index, [3, is calculated from
equation 4 for a normal distribution, and equation 5 for
a lognormal distribution.
FS 4 - 1.0
fi, = (4)
o'
] LN -'
In FS sI
Jl+ CoV 2 (5)
a]ln(1 + Co V 2
where FS is the mean FS, o is the standard deviation
of the output FS, and CoV is the coefficient of
variation, defined as o/FS. Standard probability
tables can be used to estimate the probability of
FS<I.0 from the reliability index. Figure 9 shows the
output FS distribution for the simulations with the
reservoir at the spillway crest. All goodness of fit tests
indicate the output FS follows a lognormal distribution
better than a normal distribution. Assuming a
lognormal distribution, the probability of a FS < 1.0 is
less than 1.0E-11. For comparison, if a normal
distribution is assumed, the probability of FS < 1.0 is
2.7E-05. These results confirmed that the risk had
been sufficiently reduced.
8 CONSTRUCTION
Once the stilling basin was pumped out, dewatering
(designed by Reclamation) for RCC placement was
accomplished using a vacuum pump attached to
headers, in turn connected to drain holes originally
installed through the concrete stilling basin lining.
The RCC used in constructing the foundation
treatment consisted of about 97.8 kg water, 71.2 kg
cement, 107 kg pozzolan, 763 kg sand, and 1359 kg
coarse aggregate (38-mm maximum size) per cubic
meter. The RCC was spread and compacted into 305
mm-thick lifts (see Figure 10).
A thin layer of bonding mortar was placed on the
surface of all lifts in the toe block, and all lifts over 12
hours old i.n the plug portion of the treatment. A zone
of potentially weaker material was identified near the
top of some RCC lifts during post-construction
explorations. It is believed this resulted from the use
of rounded river aggregates and high construction
traffic on completed lift surfaces. However, testing of
cores from the completed project indicate the
compresslye strength will exceed the design value of
24 MPa at one year, and that the shear strength, even
through the weaker zones, will exceed the value of
1.97 MPa used in the UDEC analyses. Metal plates
were vibrated into the compacted lifts to induce joints
at critical changes in geometry and at periodic
intervals to control the cracking. Following cooling of
the RCC, the contraction joints were drilled and
grouted to ensure load transfer across the joints.
. .
. -
Figure 10. RCC construction in stilling basin
High strength (1030 MPa), 36-mm-diameter,
double corrosion protected (grouted into polyethelene
sheaths) rock bolts were used. Grouting was needed in
some rock bolt holes to improve the water tightness
such that the hole would retain grout. Then, the lower
bond length portions of the bolts were grouted,
followed by tensioning and grouting of the upper
second stage section of the bolt (see Figure 11). The
bolts were tensioned to 80 percent of the ultimate
strength, and the load was locked off at 70 percent of
the ultimate strength (with a design value of 60 percent
of the ultimate strenh). Displacements were
monitored during tensioning to determine effective
bond lengths.
Since spillway flows will now impact the toe block
and plug, reinforced structural concrete was used to
construct a 0.6-m-thick overlay and downstream
impact blocks to improve spillway performance.
Hydraulic model studies indicated the new
956
Figure 11. Tensioning rock bolts
configuration will actually perform better than the
original.
9 CONCLUSIONS
Nearly horizontal shale beds and open bedding planes
were identified in the foundation of the concrete
spillway section of Pueblo Dam. These planes formed
potential "stepped" sliding surfaces that daylight in the
stilling basin excavation at the base of the concrete
dam buttresses. In-depth discussions and analysis of
the risk indicated justification to reduce risk to the
large population immediately downstream of the dam.
The risk evaluation process definitely benefitted and
enriched the project. The design of the modifications
required close coordination between geologists,
geotechnical engineers, structural engineers, hydraulic
engineers, materials engineers, and field construction
staff.
Strengthening of the foundation consisted of filling
the stilling basin with RCC, and constructing an RCC
toe block, anchored with rock bolts. The design was
based on traditional limit equilibrium methods, and
was predicated on reducing the cohesion of the RCC
by a factor of 3, and the friction angle tangent by a
factor of 1.5. The sloping geometry of the existing
stilling basin and resulting block geometry required
more detailed analyses of the treatment behavior.
Both DDA and UDEC analyses were performed to
study the effects of the sloping geometry. Both sets of
studies showed the designed treatment provides the
required resistance. However, since these studies
modeled localized stress distributions and behavior,
unfactored cohesion and/or friction angles were used.
The strength factors used for limit equilibrium design
were shown to be appropriate. Care must be taken
when performing limit equilibrium design to account
for unusual geometry and stress distributions. Special
detailed studies may be warranted to ensure the designs
will perform as intended. Factors used to reduce the
strength of the RCC for design at Pueblo Dam were
intended to account for the following:
1. It is difficult to predict with certainty just how
good RCC construction will be. There may not be
complete 100% bond, and bond may be less in some
places than other.
2. The resistance is passive. The resistance will
not be mobilized until some displacement takes place.
The amount of needed displacement is somewhat
uncertain, as is the strength that may be mobilized on
the potential foundation planes at a given
displacement.
3. The actual shear stresses will likely not be
uniform; however, the design computations may
assume a uniform shear stress distribution. Localized
overstress in an area of high shear stresses can lead to
progressive instability.
4. Some tensile stresses may be generated locally
due to the geometry of the structure that could reduce
the shear strength in those areas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Pueblo Dam modification project was successful
due to the many qualified and talented people who
were involved. Their contribution to design, analysis,
and construction of the project is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Kottenstette, J.T. 1999. DDA analysis of the RCC modification
for Pueblo Dam. Proceedings, 3 'a International Conference
on the Application of Dynamic Deformation Analysis. Vail,
Colorado: 127-132. Alexandria, Virginia: American Rock
Mechanics Association.
Trojanowski, J. 2000. RCC used to stabilize Pueblo Dam.
USCOLD Newsletter: Issue No. 120.
957