Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic behavior of concrete gravity dams with penetrated cracks and

equivalent impact damping
Xueye Zhu, O.A. Pekau
Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 Maisonneuve Boulevard W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8
Received 12 July 2005; received in revised form 1 May 2006; accepted 3 May 2006
Available online 21 June 2006

Abstract
The seismic behavior of concrete gravity dams with cracks that penetrate the monoliths has rarely been studied. The treatment of dynamic
contact conditions at the cracks is the major difficulty. Not only all the sliding, rocking and drifting modes of motion have to be properly handled,
but also specific attention should be focused on impact when the crack is closing. This study employs the FEM and adopts the IDCE (incremental
displacement constraint equations) model to deal with all the modes of motion along the cracks. For impact, equivalent damping is introduced
based on the concept of coefficient of restitution that is used in collision between point masses. After the IDCE damping model is verified in
dynamic contact situations for rigid and flexible bodies, a typical concrete gravity dam with full reservoir water and three cases of crack is
investigated under El Centro 1940 NS earthquake excitation. Calculations reveal very interesting phenomena, such as occurrence of rocking and
jumping, coupling between the direction of residual sliding and the direction of peak rocking, and the large damping effect of multi-cracks on
peak residual sliding, rocking and jumping.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic behavior; Concrete gravity dams; FEM; Cracks; Impact damping

1. Introduction
Due to previous earthquakes or for other reasons, concrete
gravity dams normally have cracks in practical service. Apart
from those cracks with limited depth that exist on both
the upstream and downstream faces and which will possibly
develop under static or dynamic conditions, some cracks may
have developed so much that they almost penetrate, or have
already penetrated, through the monoliths. In all these cases,
the concrete gravity dams will behave non-linearly under
earthquake conditions.
Non-linear response of cracked concrete gravity dams has
been of great interest in engineering. Many studies [15]
focused on the propagation of cracks in the dam, which is
accompanied by opening and closing of the cracks. However,
in the case of penetrated cracks the non-linearity in seismic
response becomes more complex, since the dam is no longer
a structure but a system of blocks separated by one or more
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 848 2424x7809; fax: +1 514 848 7965.

E-mail address: oapekau@civil.concordia.ca (O.A. Pekau).

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.05.002

cracks. Then the seismic stability of the cracked dam becomes a

concern, since the separation of the cracks may cause the whole
dam or part of the dam to slide, rock and impact under severe
earthquake conditions.
The rocking stability of a gravity dam with penetrated crack
was first studied by Saini and Krishna [6], in which the
highest monolith of the Koyna dam was assumed to have a
penetrated crack at the elevation where the downstream slope
changes abruptly. The top profile of the monolith above the
crack was modeled as a rigid block. In this study rocking
was assumed to be the only possible mode of motion. Chopra
and Zhang [7] studied the base sliding of gravity dams under
earthquake conditions, in which the whole dam was modeled as
a one-degree-of-freedom system for frictional sliding. Chavez
and Fenves [8] used the FEM to calculate the base sliding of
the gravity dams excluding the motion of rocking. The smearcracked approach was used by El-Aidi and Hall [3] to model
the non-linear behavior of the dam. Danay and Adeghe [9]
suggested an empirical formula for predicting the seismically
induced base sliding of gravity dams less than 60 m high with
a rigid model and FEM analysis. Tinawi et al. [10] conducted

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

a shake table test on the seismic behavior of cracked gravity

dams. Pekau and Cui [11] studied the dynamic behavior of the
fractured Koyna dam by DEM. All these studies involve only a
single crack.
Fronteddu et al. [12] studied experimentally the friction
model of concrete lift joint interfaces and applied the model
to evaluate the static and dynamic behavior of concrete gravity
dams by use of the FEM. The contact conditions were simulated
with gap-friction elements that are suitable for the case of small
displacement. It was indicated that the sliding displacement is
lessened in multi-crack cases.
Ref. [13] used an incremental displacement constraint
equations (IDCE) model to simulate the contact conditions at
the crack for evaluating the seismic behavior of gravity dams
with a single penetrated crack. All modes of motion, such
as sliding, rocking, rock-sliding and drifting following severe
impact, were included. It was indicated that rocking is not a
negligible mode of motion in the seismic analysis, since it will
on one hand reduce the normal contact force and thus enable
sliding, and on the other hand cause impact which may initiate
the drifting mode of motion. Nevertheless, multi-crack cases
were not evaluated.
In the present study, the damping effect is introduced in the
incremental displacement constraint equations (IDCE) model
to simulate the energy dissipation during impact based on the
concept of the restitution coefficient for collision between two
point masses. The effectiveness of this IDCE damping contact
model is studied in depth for rigid and flexible blocks. Then
a typical concrete gravity dam with different crack cases is
investigated to evaluate the seismic behavior of concrete gravity
dams with penetrated cracks.
2. Impact dampingIDCE contact model
2.1. Energy dissipation
There are three ways to dissipate energy in the seismic
process of cracked concrete gravity dams: (a) viscous damping
representing the interior material friction and exterior friction in
the air; (b) impact damping representing plasticity at the instant
of impact; and (c) friction along the cracks.
Before the relative motion along the cracks occurs, the
whole dam behaves like an integral structure such that only the
viscous damping has effect. However, once sliding or rocking
starts, the structure becomes a mechanism since the cracks may
change their contact status or even separate the structure into
independent free bodies. Compared with friction and impact
damping, the viscous damping elsewhere is negligible [11]
since the velocity is reasonably low even when under a very
strong earthquake.
In the practice of FEM analysis, the non-linearity due to
friction is dealt with through iteration. The friction force that
dissipates part of the energy input by the ground excitation
is considered as a pair of unknown external forces, which
are externally applied on the contact surfaces with equal
values (depending on unknown normal contact force) but
in opposite directions (depending on the unknown relative

337

tangential velocity). Therefore impact damping becomes the

main subject in modeling concrete gravity dams with penetrated
cracks.
2.2. Impact and coefficient of restitution
Impact along the cracks in concrete gravity dams is very
complicated, since elasto-plastic properties of concrete are
involved. To accurately simulate the procedure of the very short
period of impact, the damage of the material near the impact
area and the change of the geometry of the crack surface would
obviously have to be considered. To avoid these difficulties,
the coefficient of restitution r , which is defined as the ratio of
the departing velocity after impact to the approaching velocity
before impact between two point masses [14], was imported to
deal with the impact between flexible bodies by Zhu et al. [15].
According to the definition, the coefficient of restitution has the
range, 1 r 0, representing pure elastic collision (r = 1) to
complete plastic impact (r = 0).
When adopted for considering the impact between flexible
bodies, the coefficient of restitution no longer represents its
original concept, since the statuses of the flexible bodies before
and after impact cannot be simply identified with approaching
velocity or departing velocity. Instead, each flexible body has
rigid motion in translations and rotation as well as elastic
deformation and self vibration due to contact and impact. For
instance, rocking of a gravity dam cracked at the base will
induce impact toward the foundation. The approaching velocity
at every point along the crack is different and a single velocity
is unable to describe the status of the dam either before or after
impact, contrary to the case of point masses. The geometry and
material properties of the dam as well as the hydro-pressure
and the coefficient of friction in the crack will all affect the
post-impact status of the cracked dam.
Hallquist et al. [16] applied the momentum principle to
the pairs of masses on both sides of the contact surfaces.
At the impact moment, the contact zones on each side of
the crack were subdivided into independent masses so as
to determine their post impact velocities by conserving the
momentum before and after impact. Although the terminology
of coefficient of restitution was not explicitly mentioned, it
is conceptually equivalent to the assumption of pure elastic
impact (r = 1). Zhu et al. [15] studied the non-linear seismic
performance of an elevated bridge, in which the impact damper
was introduced to model the pounding of girders. The damping
coefficient was chosen such that the energy dissipated during
the impact between two point masses linked through the damper
is equal to that indicated by the coefficient of restitution [17].
Based on this equivalency, the IDCE damping contact
model is herein intensively studied and then applied along
the penetrated cracks in concrete gravity dams to study their
seismic behavior.
2.3. IDCE damping contact model
For the node-to-surface contact model shown in Fig. 1,
the incremental displacement constraint equations (IDCE)

338

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

Fig. 1. IDCE damping contact model.

model [13] adopts the penalty approach to simulate the contact

conditions at the crack. When a node I on a surface contacts
and sticks to point I 0 on segment J K of the opposite surface
as shown in Fig. 1, the incremental contact forces at nodes I , J
and K due to the corresponding incremental displacements can
be expressed as



 
1F
K
0
1u
= I
(1)
1N I
0
n K I 1v I
where 1F and 1N are the friction and normal force vectors,
respectively; 1u and 1v are the tangential and normal
incremental displacement vectors, respectively; and n
are the penalties in the tangential and normal directions,
respectively; and K I is the representative contact stiffness
matrix which is a function of the relative position of I 0 on the
segment J K .
When the node I is sliding, the MohrCoulomb friction law
is applied and the corresponding relationship becomes



 
F
sign(u I 0 u I )k
0
N
=
(2)
1N I
0
n K I 1v I
where k is the kinetic coefficient of friction, and sign(u I 0 u I )
indicates the sliding direction. Because the connectivity of
IDCE is updated from time to time, this model can be applied
to the case of large displacement.
Since impact in the concrete gravity dam with penetrated
cracks is quite different from the case of point masses, it is
unreasonable to expect that the energy dissipated by the damper
will be the same when the impact occurs anywhere in the crack.
However, it is reasonable to assume that the equivalent damping
is distributed along each crack, of which the resultant damping
coefficient C is determined according to the right-impact of
two blocks M1 and M2 as illustrated in Fig. 1. Neglecting
the flexibility of the blocks will lead to a simplified two-mass
springdashpot collision system. The resultant stiffness and
damping coefficients will then be, respectively,
X
K =
kn,i
(3)
i

C=

ci .

(4)

The resultant equivalent damping coefficient C that represents

the energy dissipation during the impact can be expressed

Fig. 2. Drop of a square steel block.

as [17]
s
C = 2 ln r

M1 M2 K
(M1 + M2 )[ 2 + (ln r )2 ]

(5)

where r is the coefficient of restitution.

A simple and reasonable distribution of the equivalent
impact dampers suggests that the damping coefficient ci at each
of the nodes is determined by its normal contact stiffness given
below:
ci =

kn,i
C.
K

(6)

Therefore, the energy dissipation during the impact is

represented by a series of distributed dampers defined in Eq.
(6) and equivalent to a given coefficient of restitution r .
3. Verification and discussion of the IDCE damping contact
model
3.1. Drop of square rigid block
The steel block in Fig. 2 is examined to verify the equivalent
damping coefficient in (6) representing the energy dissipation
between two point masses. The block 0.1 m 0.1 m is above
the
rigid surface and then is dropped without initial velocity. At
0.4/g
s afterwards, it will impact the surface with velocity
of 0.4g m/s. Then it will rebound with upward velocity
determined by the coefficient of restitution. To simulate this
procedure, a single four-node element with unit thickness is
used to represent the block. Accordingly, two IDCE dampers
are assigned at the two lower corners. To avoid the energy
dissipation by friction during impact so as to dissipate energy
only through dampers, the rigid surface is assumed frictionless.
The normal contact stiffness of each of the IDCE dampers is
kn = 1.0 108 N/m, which is 1/1000 of the vertical stiffness
at each of the lower corners such that the steel block can be
considered as relatively rigid.
The mass of the steel block is M1 = 76 kg, whereas the rigid
surface can be considered as a block of infinite mass. Therefore,

339

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

Fig. 3. Droprebound histories of square steel block for different coefficient of

restitution.

Fig. 5. Drop of a rectangular concrete block.

3.2. Drop of rectangular flexible block

Fig. 4. Energies in square steel block: (a) r = 0.3; (b) r = 0.5; and (c) r = 1.0.

according to Eqs. (5) and (6), each of the dampers will have a
damping coefficient given by

If bodies that come into contact are flexible, the energy of the
system always consists of potential, strain energy and kinetic
energy. Regarding the kinetic energy, part of it will transform
to strain energy during impact, which is stored in the contact
elements and in the flexible bodies. Since the equivalent damper
will only dissipate part of the kinetic energy associated with the
IDCE damping contact elements, it is reasonable to expect that
less energy will be dissipated than in the rigid case.
To examine the effect of the IDCE damping contact model
in the flexible case, the rectangular concrete block in Fig. 5 is
studied. Similar to the steel block, it is also placed 0.2 m above
a frictionless rigid surface and then dropped without initial
velocity. The concrete block is discretized with a 10 40 mesh.
Each of the normal contact stiffnesses of the IDCE dampers
takes the value of the vertical stiffness at the corresponding
node, which is 1.5 1010 N/m at the corners and 3.0
1010 N/m at the interior nodes. Taking M1 = 20,000 kg for the
concrete block and M2 = for the rigid surface, respectively,
the equivalent damping coefficients are
c= p

7746
(/ ln r )2 + 1

kN s/m

(at corners)

(8)

kN s/m

(at other nodes).

(9)

and
c= p

386
(/ ln r )2 + 1

kN s/m.

(7)

With time step 1t = 1 105 s, the droprebound histories of

the bottom of the block with respect to coefficient of restitution
of 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 are illustrated in Fig. 3. Also shown are
the corresponding theoretical solutions derived directly from
the definition of the coefficient of restitution for the block. It
is seen that the droprebound history of the steel block can be
accurately simulated with the IDCE damping contact model.
The only difference is the slightly delayed rebound in the
analysis due to the flexibility of the IDCE dampers during the
impact, whereas it will take no time for impact in the theoretical
solution. The energy components and their variation in the
system as seen in Fig. 4 show that the energy dissipation in
the system is identified by coefficient of restitution r .

c= p

15,492
(/ ln r )2 + 1

Fig. 6 illustrates the displacement histories of the bottom of

the concrete block for different coefficient of restitution. Fig. 7
shows the energy components and their variation for coefficient
of restitution r = 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0. It is obvious that for the
same coefficient of restitution the rebound in this flexible case
is generally much higher than in the rigid case as in Fig. 3. The
energy dissipation, for instance for r = 0.5, in the flexible case
is much less than in the rigid case as in Fig. 4. For the extreme
case r = 0, when the rigid block will not rebound, the flexible
block still rebounds up 106.63 mm high after the first impact,
and only 10.93% of the original potential energy is dissipated.
From Fig. 6 it is noted that the rebound height of the concrete
block is lower and lower, and this generally indicates that the

340

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

Fig. 6. Droprebound histories of concrete block.

Fig. 8. Rocking of rectangular steel block with initial angle of 0.1 rad.

Fig. 9. Vertical displacement of rectangular steel block (r = 0.5).

Fig. 7. Energies in concrete block: (a) r = 0.0; (b) r = 0.5; and (c) r = 1.0.

energy is dissipated during every impact as seen in Fig. 7.

However, for the pure elastic impact of r = 1.0, even if the
overall energy is maintained constant as seen in Fig. 7, the
rebound height is still slightly reduced after each impact as
indicated in Fig. 6, since every impact transforms a portion of
the potential into the kinetic and strain energy in the block in
the form of self vibration.
3.3. Rocking of rigid block
For impact from rocking, it is easy to understand that the
modes of motion after the impact are much more complicated
than the right-impact case. Owing to the fact that the impact is
eccentric, the block may remain in rocking or change to sliderocking or even free flight mode, which follows more complex
impact. To examine the effectiveness of the IDCE damping
model in the case of impact from rocking, the stationary steel

block inclined to the rigid surface with coefficient of friction

1.0 and depicted in Fig. 8 is studied.
After it is released, the block will rock back to the surface
and then impact. The vertical displacements of the two lower
corners are illustrated in Fig. 9, in which is also shown the
result obtained from the authors developed three-degree-offreedom (3DOF) rigid model for analyzing the seismic behavior
of concrete gravity dams. It is seen from Fig. 9 that even if the
mechanism for dissipating energy in the IDCE damping contact
model is different from that in the 3DOF model, the results
are quite similar both in modes of motion and in magnitude
of displacement. Both models indicate that the block will be in
the free flight mode of motion after every impact, since both of
the lower corners have upward displacement for a short period
of time.
3.4. Rocking of flexible block
In reality the flexibility of the block must affect its status
after impact. To examine the effectiveness of the IDCE damping
model, the concrete block in Fig. 5 is placed at an incline to the
rigid surface with angle of 0.1 rad, and then is released. The
rotation of the concrete block is shown in Fig. 10, in which is
also illustrated the result from the 3DOF rigid model. It is seen
that both models show a similar trend of rotation. However,
due to the flexibility of the concrete block, the impact damping
dissipates less energy than is dissipated with the rigid model.

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

341

4.1. Impact damping coefficient

For case A with a crack at the base, the whole dam of
mass 3,276,000 kg per unit width is expected to impact the
foundation of infinite mass. Therefore, with r = 0.5 Eq. (5)
leads to the following equivalent damping coefficient for the
entire base crack:
p
A
Cbase
= 779.93 K base
(10)
Fig. 10. Rocking of rectangular concrete block (r = 0.5).

where K base is the summation of normal contact stiffnesses at

all the nodes along the base crack.
For case B with a crack at 48 m height, the upper portion
of the dam has mass of 252,000 kg. It is supposed to impact
the lower portion of the dam fixed to the foundation of infinite
mass. Therefore the impact damping coefficient equivalent to
r = 0.5 for the upper crack in case B is
p
B
Cup
= 216.31 K up
(11)
where K up is the summation of normal contact stiffnesses at all
the nodes on one side of the crack at the height.
In case C, the masses are 252,000 kg and 3,024,000 kg
for the upper crack. Eq. (5) leads to the damping coefficient
equivalent to r = 0.5 for the entire upper crack in case C as
p
C
Cup
= 207.83 K up .
(12)

Fig. 11. Typical concrete gravity dam cracked at the base.

Regarding the crack at the base in case C, the masses

are 3,024,000 kg and infinity. Therefore the corresponding
damping coefficient equivalent to r = 0.5 for the entire base
crack in case C is
p
C
(13)
Cbase
= 749.33 K base .
4.2. Cracked at the base

The flexible block keeps jumping after the first impact, which
is indicated by straight lines in the Fig. 10. This suggests that it
is more possible for a flexible block than a rigid block to enter
the free flight mode of motion when impact occurs.
4. Seismic behavior of typical cracked concrete gravity dam
To reveal the seismic behavior of cracked concrete gravity
dams, especially with cracks at both the base and a height, a
typical dam 60 m high with full reservoir water is studied for
three cases of crack, i.e., (A) at the base; (B) at 48 m height,
where the cross section of the dam changes abruptly; and (C) at
both the base and the height of 48 m. A 1.0 m thickness of
the dam is considered. The FEM mesh for case A is shown
in Fig. 11, in which the IDCE dampers along the crack are
also depicted. A relatively high coefficient of friction of 1.0
is assumed for all the cases to consider the effective interlock
in the cracks. The El Centro 1940 NS earthquake record is
applied with scaled peak accelerations Pa . Westergaard virtual
mass [18] is employed to include the dynamic effect of the
water. For comparison, both the purely elastic impact (r = 1)
and partially plastic impact (r = 0.5) are calculated. The time
step for all the cases is 1 105 s.

Table 1 illustrates the residual sliding and peak rocking

in both directions of the typical dam cracked at the base.
The maximum downstream residual sliding displacements are
634.1 mm and 351.0 mm for r = 1.0 (purely elastic) and
r = 0.5, respectively.
From Table 1, it is found that the impact damping reduces the
downstream residual sliding and causes larger rocking in both
upstream and downstream directions in all cases, except for
sliding when Pa = 0.5g. For example, the downstream residual
sliding displacements of 114.2 mm, 449.8 mm and 634.1 mm
for Pa = 0.6g, 0.8g and 1.0g change to 66.9 mm, 278.0 mm
and 248.2 mm, respectively, when the coefficient of restitution
changes from 1.0 (purely elastic) to 0.5. The corresponding
reductions are 41.4%, 38.2% and 60.9%, respectively, whereas
the corresponding maximum upstream rocking angles of 2.55
103 , 4.28 103 and 5.75 103 rad become 3.56 103 ,
4.94 103 and 8.11 103 rad, respectively, enlarged by
39.6%, 15.4% and 41.0%, respectively.
The jumping-and-drifting phenomenon is observed for both
r = 1.0 and r = 0.5. The jumping height of the lower
corner ranges from 2.6 mm to 19.1 mm for r = 0.5.
This phenomenon causes obvious non-linearity in the residual

342

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

Table 1
Sliding and rocking of the typical dam cracked at the base
Pa (g)

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

r = 1.0
Residual
sliding (mm)

Peak upstream rocking

(103 rad)

Peak downstream rocking

(103 rad)

r = 0.5
Residual
sliding (mm)

Peak upstream
rocking (103 rad)

Peak downstream rocking

(103 rad)

83.9
114.2
224.3
449.8
489.5
634.1

1.49
2.55
2.70
4.28
4.82
5.75

0.58
1.08
1.49
1.88
1.87
1.69

108.1
66.9
135.0
278.0
351.0
248.2

2.66
3.56
4.63
4.94
7.52
8.11

1.45
1.82
2.33
2.52
3.51
3.25

Note: Positive sliding values denote downstream direction.

Table 2
Sliding and rocking of the typical dam cracked at the height
Pa (g)

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

r = 1.0
Residual
sliding (mm)

Peak upstream rocking

(103 rad)

Peak downstream rocking

(103 rad)

r = 0.5
Residual
sliding (mm)

Peak upstream
rocking (103 rad)

Peak downstream rocking

(103 rad)

220.2
545.1
308.0
339.4
1809.6
574.5

8.49
37.45
17.62
5.12
50.69
14.149

3.83
2.17
13.85
114.89
33.51
135.05

136.7
204.0
787.6
155.6
740.9
1670.1

7.86
9.29
7.93
16.57
42.93
22.01

4.03
13.96
24.42
39.52
48.02
41.95

Note: Positive sliding values denote downstream direction.

Fig. 12. Drifting of the typical dam cracked at the base induced by scaled El
Centro 1940 NS with r = 0.5.

sliding. For instance, with r = 0.5 the residual sliding of

248.2 mm for Pa = 1.0g is less than 278.0 mm for Pa = 0.8g
and 351.0 mm for Pa = 0.9g, because the dam drifts in
the upstream direction for Pa = 1.0g but in the downstream
direction for Pa = 0.8g and 0.9g, as seen in Fig. 12.
It is surprising to notice that, in all cases of Table 1, the dam
rocks more in the upstream direction than in the downstream
direction. This is somewhat unexpected, as the hydro-pressure
on the upstream face helps downstream rocking. However, the
mass center of the dam is closer to the heel than to the toe, with
distances of 13.677 m and 28.323 m, respectively. This leads
to much easier rocking in the upstream direction under seismic
conditions.
Recognizing that the downward acceleration of the center of
the gravity of the dam is associated with accelerating closure of
the crack and reducing normal contact force, it is apparent that

the ground acceleration in a direction that helps the closure will

further reduce the normal contact force and help the dam slide
in the opposite direction. For instance, when the crack is open at
its downstream face, the upstream ground acceleration will help
the closure, causing the dam to be more ready to slide in the
downstream direction. In contrast, when the crack is open on
the upstream face, the upstream ground acceleration will resist
the closure of the crack, causing the dam to be less ready to
slide in the downstream direction. Therefore, rocking in a given
direction is followed by no sliding or sliding in the opposite
direction. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that the direction
of overall residual sliding is coupled to the direction of the
maximum peak rocking. This is consistently observed for all
cases in Table 1.
4.3. Cracked at the height
For the case of a crack at the height of 48 m, the seismic
response of the dam is more complex than for that at the
base. As seen in Table 2, both the residual sliding and
peak rocking are non-linear with respect to the peak ground
acceleration Pa . The non-linearity is so strong for r = 1.0
that the residual sliding oscillates between the upstream and
downstream directions when Pa varies from 0.5g to 1.0g.
The maximum residual sliding displacements are downstream
1809.6 mm and upstream 1670.1 mm for r = 1.0 and r = 0.5,
respectively. Fig. 13 shows the configurations of the dam when
the rocking angle is maximum and after the earthquake.
Comparing the responses for r = 0.5 with those for r =
1.0, Table 2 shows no apparent reduction in residual sliding.

343

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

Table 3
Sliding and rocking of the upper block of the typical dam for multi-crack case
Pa (g)

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

r = 1.0
Residual
sliding (mm)

Peak upstream rocking

(103 rad)

Peak downstream rocking

(103 rad)

r = 0.5
Residual
sliding (mm)

Peak upstream
rocking (103 rad)

Peak downstream rocking

(103 rad)

387.1
689.3
130.4
369.3
1165.4
1867.9

11.86
18.76
33.44
27.88
60.66
37.76

18.72
7.91
62.60
20.10
18.93
28.98

204.2
293.8
398.1
851.5
645.3
47.0

8.50
16.89
19.49
33.73
38.83
34.01

25.74
24.88
14.01
20.49
61.39
68.11

Note: Positive sliding values denote downstream direction.

Fig. 14. Comparison of jumping height between two single crack cases with
r = 0.5.

the crack at the base, is observed again in this case for the crack
at the height. For all cases listed in Table 2, no matter in which
direction the peak rocking is larger, the residual sliding will be
in the opposite direction.
4.4. Cracked at both the base and the height
Fig. 13. Configuration of the typical dam cracked at the height under El Centro
1940 NS with Pa = 1.0g.

However, very large downstream rocking angles of 114.89

103 rad for Pa = 0.8g and 135.05 103 rad for Pa = 1.0g
when r = 1.0 are reduced to 39.52103 and 41.95103 rad,
respectively, when r = 0.5. This indicates that the impact
damping dissipates such amount of energy during impact that
the relative large rocking in the purely elastic case is remarkably
reduced.
The jumping-and-drifting phenomenon noticed for the crack
at the base is also noticed here for the crack at the height.
The jumping height of the lower corner of the upper block
ranges from 3.1 mm to 120.9 mm for r = 0.5, much higher
than the case of the crack at the base as illustrated in Fig. 14.
Due to the feature that the earthquake accumulates downstream
displacement, the upper block has upstream drifting while
jumping when Pa > 0.5g, whereas the amount of upstream
sliding is non-linear with respect to Pa . For instance, Table 2
shows that Pa = 0.8g just induces 155.6 mm (upstream)
residual sliding, which is the smallest upstream sliding.
The coupling between the direction of peak rocking and the
direction of residual sliding, which was observed in the case of

The peak seismic responses of the concrete gravity dam

cracked at both the base and the height are listed in Tables 3
and 4 and show much more complexity due to the existence
of multi-cracks, especially for the upper block of the dam. It
is seen from Table 3 that the upper block possibly slides in
either the upstream or downstream direction for both the purely
elastic case and r = 0.5. Excluding the impact damping, the
maximum residual sliding is 1867.9 mm downstream induced
by Pa = 1.0g. For r = 0.5, the maximum residual sliding of
851.5 mm, also downstream, is caused by Pa = 0.8g. In this
multi-crack case, the coupling between the direction of peak
rocking and the direction of the residual sliding does not hold
for the upper crack according to Table 3.
However, the lower portion in this multi-crack case shows
more consistency, as seen in Table 4. For both the elastic
case and r = 0.5, the peak rocking is always in the
upstream direction as in the case of a single crack at the
base. Correspondingly, the residual sliding is in the downstream
direction, with the exception of Pa = 0.5g and Pa = 0.6g
which induce negligible upstream sliding. As seen in Fig. 15,
the residual sliding at the base generally increases as Pa
increases from 0.5g to 1.0g, but the amount is much smaller
than that in the case of single crack at the base. The maximum

344

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

Table 4
Sliding and rocking of the lower portion of the typical dam for multi-crack case
Pa (g)

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

r = 1.0
Residual
sliding (mm)

Peak upstream rocking

(103 rad)

Peak downstream rocking

(103 rad)

r = 0.5
Residual
sliding (mm)

Peak upstream
rocking (103 rad)

Peak downstream rocking

(103 rad)

8.8
3.0
4.5
33.6
31.89
51.24

1.62
1.58
2.03
1.96
2.97
5.13

0.79
1.12
1.29
1.44
1.59
2.03

1.2
0.8
3.6
27.0
20.4
57.4

0.87
1.65
2.20
2.21
5.15
4.56

0.64
1.08
1.25
1.54
2.70
2.01

Note: Positive sliding values denote downstream direction.

Fig. 15. Comparison of residual base sliding between single crack case at the
base and multi-crack case with r = 0.5.

Fig. 16. Comparison of base jumping between single crack case at the base and
multi-crack case with r = 0.5.

residual base sliding of 351.0 mm induced by Pa = 0.9g for

r = 0.5 in the case of single crack at the base is reduced to
20.4 mm in the multi-crack case for the same Pa . Comparing
values in Tables 1 and 4, it is found that both the residual
sliding and the peak rocking are much reduced at the base
in the multi-crack case. Taking Pa = 1.0g and r = 0.5 for
example, the upstream and downstream peak rocking angles of
8.11 103 rad and 3.25 103 rad in the case of single crack
at the base are reduced to 4.56 103 rad and 2.01 103 rad,
respectively, in the multi-crack case. The jumping height at the
base is also much smaller than in the case of single crack at the
base, as shown in Fig. 16.
4.5. Summary of seismic behavior of typical cracked dam
In all cases of cracking, residual sliding occurs for all values
of Pa varying from 0.5g to 1.0g. Concurrently, rocking and

jumping of the dam above the crack are observed for most of
the studied cases. The residual sliding at the base is generally in
the downstream direction, whereas it could be in the upstream
direction for a crack at the height. The amounts of sliding,
rocking and jumping are non-linear with respect to the peak
acceleration of the earthquake.
The direction of peak rocking is coupled with the direction
of the residual sliding in single crack cases as well as for
base sliding in the multi-crack case. In all these cases, the
downstream residual sliding is associated with larger peak
rocking in the upstream direction, and vice versa. Therefore
rocking motion is of importance for overall sliding when a high
coefficient of friction is adopted, even if the angle may be small,
as seen in many of the studied cases.
Jumping could happen even with low peak acceleration as of
0.5g. For the same Pa , the jumping height at the upper crack is
much higher than at the base crack, being possibly more than
200 mm for elastic impact or 100 mm for r = 0.5. Because
of jumping, the cracked dam may experience drifting in the
upstream or downstream direction, depending on the details of
the earthquake. This enhances the non-linearity of the seismic
response, especially for strong earthquakes.
In the multi-crack case, both the residual sliding and peak
rocking of the dam at the base are much reduced compared
with the case of single crack at the base, owing to the large
damping effect of the upper crack. Regarding the upper crack,
the residual sliding and peak rocking show high non-linearity
and randomness in both the amount and direction. However,
they have the same order of magnitude as in the case of a single
crack at the height.
5. Conclusions
Equivalent damping is introduced through the coefficient
of restitution to consider the plasticity during impact in the
seismic analysis of concrete gravity dams with penetrated
cracks. The verifications show that the impact damping can
properly dissipate energy for rigid and flexible bodies in rightimpact cases as well as under rocking conditions.
The seismic analysis of the typical cracked concrete gravity
dam indicates that the impact damping is important in the
estimation of the seismic response. With impact damping
equivalent to coefficient of restitution of 0.5, the amount of

X. Zhu, O.A. Pekau / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 336345

residual sliding, rocking, as well as the jumping height are

much reduced if compared with elastic impact.
The typical cracked concrete gravity dam is stable in both
sliding and rocking in all crack cases under El Centro 1940 NS
earthquake with scaled peak acceleration from 0.5g to 1.0g.
The rocking angle is usually quite small. However, the residual
sliding could be more than one meter at the upper crack or
several hundreds of millimeters at the base, when the coefficient
of friction is 1.0.
The rocking mode of motion is important in estimation of
residual sliding. It is followed by impact, which usually induces
jumping and drifting. There exists a correlation between the
direction of peak rocking and the direction of residual sliding
in single crack cases, as well as at the base in the multi-crack
case.
The sliding, rocking and jumping of the cracked dam with
multi-cracks are much reduced when compared with the single
crack case, especially at the base.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
for this work, which was provided by the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada under Grant
No. A8258.
References
[1] Bhattacharjee SS, Leger P. Application of NLFM models to predict
cracking in concrete gravity dams. Journal of Structural Engineering
(ASCE) 1994;120:125571.
[2] Ghaemian M, Ghobarah A. Nonlinear seismic response of concrete
gravity dams with dam-reservoir interaction. Engineering Structures
1999;21:30615.
[3] El-Aidi B, Hall J. Non-linear earthquake response of concrete gravity
dams part 2: Behaviour. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1989;18:85365.

345

[4] Bhattacharjee SS, Leger P. Seismic cracking and energy dissipation in

concrete gravity dams. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1993;22:9911007.
[5] Ayari ML, Saouma VE. A fracture mechanics based seismic analysis
of concrete gravity dams using discrete cracks. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 1990;35:58798.
[6] Saini SS, Krishna J. Overturning of top profile of the Koyna Dam during
severe ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1974;2:20717.
[7] Chopra AK, Zhang L. Earthquake-induced base sliding of concrete
gravity dams. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1991;117:
3698719.
[8] Chavez JW, Fenves GL. Earthquake response of concrete gravity dams
including base sliding. Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE) 1995;
121:86575.
[9] Danay A, Adeghe LN. Seismic-induced slip of concrete gravity dams.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE) 1993;119:10829.
[10] Tiniawi R, Leger P, Leclerc M, Cipolla G. Seismic safety of gravity dams:
from shake table experiments to numerical analysis. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 2000;126:51829.
[11] Pekau OA, Cui Y. Failure analysis of fractured dams during earthquakes
by DEM. Engineering Structures 2004;26:1483502.
[12] Fronteddu L, Leger P, Tinawi R. Static and dynamic behavior of concrete
lift joints interfaces. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1998;124:
141830.
[13] Zhu X. Seismic behavior of cracked concrete gravity dams. Ph.D. thesis,
Dept. of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia
University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2004.
[14] Kane TR, Levinson DA. Dynamics: Theory and application. McGrawHill Book Company; 1985. p 23141.
[15] Zhu P, Abe M, Fujino Y. Modeling three-dimensional non-linear seismic
performance of elevated bridges with emphasis on pounding of girders.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002;31:1891913.
[16] Hallquist JO, Goudreau GL, Benson DJ. Sliding interfaces with contactimpact in large-scale Lagrangian computations. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1985;51:10737.
[17] Anagnostopoulos SA. Equivalent viscous damping for modeling inelastic
impacts in earthquake pounding problems. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 2004;33:897902.
[18] Westergaard HM. Water pressures on dams during earthquakes. ASCE
Transactions 1933;98:41833.