21st Century Dam Design

Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference

San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

Hosted by
Black & Veatch Corporation
GEI Consultants, Inc.
Kleinfelder, Inc.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc.
URS Corporation

On the Cover
Artist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide
a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions
imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117
feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the
United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision
To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams
for the benefit of society.
Mission USSD is dedicated to:
Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,
performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;
Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water
resources systems;
Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water
resources;
Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and
Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on
Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for
advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or
from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made
or the opinions expressed in this publication.
Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673
ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5
U.S. Society on Dams
1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org
Internet: www.ussdams.org

THE INVESTIGATION OF A CONCRETE GRAVITY DAM IN A NARROW

CANYON USING 3-D NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
Mike Knarr, P.E., S.E.1
Nicolas von Gersdorff 3
Ziyad Duron, Ph.D.5

Matthew Muto, Ph.D.2

John Dong, Ph.D., P.E.4
John Yen, P.E.6
ABSTRACT

A series of numerical and field analyses were performed on a gravity dam located in a
steep, narrow canyon for the purpose of evaluating performance under extreme flood and
earthquake loading. The dam exhibits both stream and cross-stream behavior which is not
captured in traditional 2-D stability analyses. To accommodate this behavior, a complete
3-D finite element model of the dam was built and analyzed. The model of the dam,
which included the foundation and the reservoir, was validated through the use of lowlevel field testing. This paper discusses the significant aspects and findings of the 3-D
modeling and analysis. This study is part of a larger effort to develop risk-based
performance criteria and fragility analyses for dams to address potential failure modes
that lead to risk-based decisions for resource allocation and remedial action.
INTRODUCTION
Big Creek Dam No. 7 (Dam 7) is located on the San Joaquin River, about 50 miles
northeast of Fresno, California. The dam is owned and operated by the Southern
California Edison Company. The concrete gravity dam was completed in 1951 and is
composed of 19 blocks. It has a maximum height of 250 feet and is 875 feet long. The
dam is located in a steep and narrow canyon as shown in Figure 1. An important aspect of
the dam is that the center and higher blocks of the dam are tied together with keyed and
grouted joints. This interconnection is not continuous over the full height of the blocks,
but extends up from the base of the blocks a part of the block height. This varies from
about a quarter to a third of the block height. This connectivity is sufficient to have the
tied blocks act in unison and provide load transfer capability between the higher blocks of
the dam. The shorter blocks at the ends of the dam are not keyed and grouted, and, thus,
will act more independently. However, another important aspect of the dam is that a large
portion of the toe (downstream bottom edge) of the dam has been reinforced with toe
1

Principal Structural Engineer, Dam Safety, Southern California Edison, San Dimas, CA 917773,
Mike.Knarr@sce.com
2
Technical Specialist, Civil Engineering, Southern California Edison, San Dimas, CA 91773,
Matthew.Muto@sce.com
3
Structural Engineer, Dam Safety, Southern California Edison, San Dimas, CA 91773,
Nicolas.Von@sce.com
4
Structural Engineer, Dam Safety, Southern California Edison, San Dimas, CA 91773,
John.Dong@sce.com
5
Professor, Department of Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711,
Ziyad_Duron@hmc.edu
6
Chief Engineer, Dam Safety, Southern California Edison, San Dimas, CA 91773,
John.Yen@sce.com

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

189

blocks that extend horizontally into the walls of the rock canyon. These concrete toe
blocks were actually pored integral with the dam blocks providing significant restraint to
sliding of the dam. These toe blocks can be seen in Figure 1(b).

(a)

Toe Blocks

(b)
Figure 1. Big Creek Dam No.7, shown in (a) upstream photo
and (b) plan and upstream elevation drawings
190

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

The performance of the dam was previously evaluated using 2-D analysis techniques that
indicated the dam would meet stability criteria under normal loading and during and
following a maximum credible earthquake (MCE). However, the evaluation also
indicated that some blocks at each end of the dam would not meet stability criteria under
probable maximum flood (PMF) conditions. Distinguishing features of these blocks that
contributed to this finding included the absence of grouted or key interfaces between
blocks and the location over low sloping topographic areas in the canyon. These factors
allow these blocks to move independently and predominately in the downstream direction
which is why the stability criteria are not met. This is in contrast to the taller blocks near
the center of the dam, where keyed interfaces and steeper sloping topographic areas
contribute to coupled cross-stream and downstream movements, providing satisfactory
stability margins against sliding.
Further analyses using 3-D analysis techniques have recently been performed for Dam 7.
Features in these analyses that were not previously considered include:

friction between blocks and along the dam-foundation interface,

detailed modeling of existing foundation geometry along the dam-foundation
interface,
detailed modeling of the steep and narrow canyon configuration, and
improved reservoir modeling that captures observed dam-reservoir interactions.

The following discusses the details of the 3-D analyses, which includes a description of
the numerical model, load cases considered, and significant findings.
3-D NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
To address the steep and narrow canyon effects and the interconnectivity of the blocks
with their keyed and grouted joints and to develop a more realistic understanding of the
response of Dam 7 to severe loading, a 3-D finite-element model of the dam-foundationreservoir system was developed using a commercially available computer program
(ABAQUS 2010). The model was developed from a combination of construction
drawings, and model parameters were obtained from field investigations at the dam.
Model Description
The numerical (finite element) model for Dam 7 is shown in Figure 2. It is composed of
84,000 elements and has approximately 217,000 degrees of freedom. Contours of the
dams foundation were recorded on construction drawings, as shown in Figure 3. These
were used to create a detailed model of the interface between the dam and the foundation,
as shown in Figure 4.

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

191

Dam Blocks

Reservoir

Gate

Foundation

Non-Reflecting
Boundary

Non-Reflecting
Boundary

Figure 2. 3-D Finite-element model for Big Creek Dam 7.

Downstream toe

Upstream heel
Figure 3. Contours of the dam foundation assembled from construction drawings. View
is looking down at the top of the rock at the rock-concrete interface.

192

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Downstream toe

Upstream heel
Figure 4. Finite-element mesh for the section of the foundation immediately underlying
the dam.
Dam Blocks: The blocks of the dam were modeled with eight-node brick elements (upper
portion of each block) and with four-node tetrahedral elements (lower portion of each
block) to capture the complex geometry of the dam-foundation interface. Contact
surfaces were used to represent the interfaces at the vertical joints between blocks, and
between the dam and the underlying foundation. Depending upon the parameters
selected for these contact surfaces, fully open or fully closed joints could be represented
between blocks, and where keyed and grouted joints were present in the dam, model
nodes at these interfaces tied the adjacent surfaces together.
Foundation: The portion of the foundation model immediately underlying the dam was
constructed using four-node tetrahedral elements to capture the complex geometry of the
dam-rock interface. Farther from this interface, eight-node brick elements were used, and
the mesh size was increased to reduce the numerical problem size. The foundation model
extends to a distance H (equal to the maximum height of the dam) below, downstream,
and left and right of the dam, and extends upstream 2H from the face of the dam.
The bottom and sides of the foundation were modeled as infinite non-reflecting
boundaries to account for radiation damping present in the dam system. This provided a
mechanism for energy absorption and wave propagation inside the foundation model.
Reservoir: Dam-reservoir interaction effects have traditionally been modeled using
lumped added masses to represent incompressible fluid against the upstream dam face.
3-D modeling of the reservoir allows geometry and compressibility effects to be
accounted for in the model. For the analyses conducted at Dam No. 7, acoustic finite
elements were used to represent the reservoir water, and parameters for the acoustic
element representation were selected based on comparisons against observed
hydrodynamic pressure response behavior.

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

193

Spillway Gates: Flow over the spillway of Dam 7 is controlled by four radial gates. For
analysis of the dam, the gates have been modeled as planar, and the configuration of the
supporting steel beams are simplified, as shown in Figure 5. For normal and earthquake
loading, the gates are resting on the spillway sill. The gates are assumed to be open in the
flood loading analyses. The simplified model for the gates is used to generate loads on
the gate concrete piers at the trunnion locations.

Trunnion location

Figure 5. Radial gate model for simplifying loading on the full dam model.
Numerical Model Considerations
The analysis is performed using an explicit integration solution technique. Explicit
solution techniques allow computation of system behavior subject to sudden, short
duration loading events (as may exist early in the seismic event), where large
deformations are suspected, and for models that incorporate complex contact conditions
requiring small time steps for accurate integration procedures. Another advantage of the
explicit solution approach is the ability to sequentially apply loading to the dam system.
For the analysis at Dam No. 7, the following load sequences were followed:
Flood-type loading
Gravity
Hydrostatic
Hydrostatic - PMF

Earthquake-type loading
Gravity
Hydrostatic
Dynamic MCE Time Histories
Post-seismic

Viscous damping is not used in the model. Energy is dissipated through a combination of
radiation damping from the non-reflecting boundaries of the foundation and frictional
damping from the contact surfaces. Non-reflecting boundaries have been included at the
bottom and sides of the foundation and contact surfaces have been included along the
entire base of the dam at the concrete-rock interface and at all of the block vertical joints.
These modeling aspects can not be represented by a single damping coefficient.

194

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Model Calibration Using Data from Field Testing

Vibration tests were conducted on Dam 7 to capture the dynamic characteristics of the
dam. In June of 2008, both ambient and forced vibration tests were performed on the
dam (Scheulen 2008). During these tests, day-time temperatures at the site averaged
between 100 F and 115 F. To investigate the role of temperature effects in the dynamic
response, additional forced vibration testing was performed in March of 2010 (Jacques),
with average day-time temperatures between 55 F and 65 F. Data obtained for the dam,
the foundation, and the spillway gates during these tests was used to calibrate the finite
element model. The elastic moduli of the concrete and foundation rock were adjusted so
that the first three modes of a linear model provided reasonable agreement with the
natural frequencies identified through field testing. The final model properties are listed
in Table 1.
Table 1. Concrete and Foundation Material Properties
Material
Density Elastic Modulus
Poissons
(pcf)
(psi)
Ratio
Concrete
150
2.5106
0.2
6
Granite Foundation
165
510
0.3
Reservoir: Reservoir modeling considerations were based on comparisons of predicted
hydrodynamic pressure response from reservoir models that used lumped added masses,
fluid elements, and acoustic elements against measured hydrodynamic pressures acquired
during field tests at the site (Scheulen 2010). The results from these studies suggested
the best match with observed behavior at the dam was achieved by modeling the reservoir
with acoustic elements, and a sample comparison is shown in Figure 6 (Scheulen 2010).
The comparison includes model results obtained using direct integration and modal
superposition solution techniques against observed (experimental) behavior.

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

195

Response Magnitude (g/Mlbf)

Response Phase (degrees)

Numerical and Experimental FRF Comparison

Monolith 7

Direct
Modal
Experimental

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10
Frequency (Hz)

15

20

Numerical and Experimental FRF Comparison

Monolith 7

200
150
100

Direct
Modal
Experimental

50
0

10
Frequency (Hz)

15

20

Figure 6. Magnitude (top) and phase (bottom) of the

acceleration frequency response at Block 7.
Enhanced confidence in the ability of acoustic elements to capture dam-reservoir
interaction effects was obtained from a closed-form solution of an accelerating wall into a
reservoir. Developed by Housner (1954), the solution was compared against a numerical
model representation (see Figure 7) of the same configuration in which acoustic elements
were used to model the reservoir. The comparison of hydrodynamic pressure on the face
of the accelerating wall is shown in Figure 8 and includes predicted pressure response
from both an acoustic element and a fluid element representation of the reservoir.
Figure 7 shows contours of dynamic pressure for the acoustic finite elements on a section
cut through the middle of the model. The acoustic element pressure distribution is within
10% of the Housner closed-form solution and within 20% for the fluid solid element.
Figure 9 shows the agreement between the Housner closedform solution and the
response of the acoustic elements for a simple sinusoidal input motion to the damreservoir system.

196

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

The material properties used for the acoustic elements are the density of water and the
bulk modulus, which were 62.4 pcf and 3.12105 psi, respectively, which are standard
values for water.

Rigid boundary at
upstream face of
dam

Rigid boundary at sides

& bottom

Non-reflecting
boundary

Figure 7. Acoustic element pressure from simplified dam-reservoir system.

Figure 8. Comparison of Housner closed-form solution

with acoustic and solid elements.

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

197

Figure 9. Comparison of the Housner (1954) closed-form solution for

pressures on the wall of a tank subjected to sinusoidal motion to the
solution using acoustic elements in the ABAQUS program.
MODEL RESPONSE TO LOADING CONDITIONS
The response of the finite element model was studied under three different loading
conditions: normal, flood, and seismic. These load conditions are described below, and
this is followed by a discussion of the analysis results for each of the load conditions.
Normal Loading
The normal load case represents the typical operating condition of the dam, with reservoir
level approximately 10.5 feet below the crest. Applied loads include gravity and
hydrostatic forces from the impounded water and the tail water, which are applied as
pressure on the submerged upstream and downstream surfaces.
Uplift forces are also applied as pressures acting on the bottom of each dam block. Dam
No. 7 has an extensive network of pressure relief drains, and the influence of these drains
is considered in the application of these loads. The base of each block in the model is
divided into four to five strips and the uplift is varied linearly along the stream
direction from full head (reduced by the drain effectiveness at the upstream heel) to full
tail water pressure at the downstream toe as shown in Figure 10.

198

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 10. Uplift pressure distribution used in 3-D model.

Drain effectiveness for the normal load case is assumed to be 50%, which is conservative
compared to drain effectiveness values estimated from pressure measurements taken over
a ten year period (1998-2008). The measured and assumed drainage effectiveness is
shown in Figure 11.
Measured and Assumed Drainage Effectiveness of Dam 7

Drainage Effectiveness

100%
80%
60%
40%

Measured Drainage Effectiveness

Assumed Drainage Effectiveness

20%

Block 19/No Drain at B19

0%
3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Block Number

Figure 11. Comparison of measured and assumed drain

effectiveness under normal loading.
Flood Loading
Flood loading conditions were based on a probable maximum flood height of 11 ft above
the crest of the dam. Hydrostatic forces associated from impounded water, tail water,
water overtopping the dam, nappe pressures, and uplift were considered.
Uplift is applied with pressure varying linearly in the stream direction from full reservoir
head to tail water pressure, modified by the drain effectiveness as shown in Figure 10
above. Two levels of drain effectiveness were considered - 0% effectiveness
corresponding to maximum uplift conditions under the dam, and 20% effectiveness that
allows some reduction in uplift conditions during PMF loading. Contours of uplift
pressure for these two levels are shown in Figure 8.

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

199

Uplift under PMF condition,

0% drain effectiveness

Units = psf

Uplift under PMF condition,

20% drain effectiveness

Figure 8. Contours of uplift pressures on the base of the dam under PMF loading for 0%
and 20% drain effectiveness.
Friction effects at the interfaces between blocks were evaluated by considering friction
angles of zero and 35 degrees, and set at 35 degrees along the dam-foundation interface.
Four load cases were considered based on the various combinations of drain effectiveness
and contact surface friction parameters and are listed in Table 2.
Case
1
2
3
4

Table 2. Four load cases for analysis

Drain Effectiveness (%)
Friction Angle (Deg)
Normal
PMF
Dam to Rock Block to Block
50
0
35
35
50
0
35
0
50
20
35
35
50
20
35
0

Seismic Loading
Seismic loading for the analysis was based on the maximum credible earthquake (MCE).
The MCE hazard spectrum for Dam 7 is shown in Figure 13. The seismic loading case
includes hydrostatic forces from water impounded to the normal pool, which is at the top
of the radial gates, uplift from normal loading, and dynamic loading represented by
seismic time history records appropriate for the site. The corresponding 3-D time
histories are applied along a section in the foundation above the infinite or radiation
boundary to minimize artificially induced and unwanted boundary effects.

200

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 13. Response spectrum for the Dam 7 MCE event.

Drain effectiveness was assumed the same as under normal loading at 50% to provide
added conservatism during seismic loading.
Similar to flood loading, two conditions for friction between the block to block contact
surfaces were analyzed - the first assumed a zero friction angle and the second a 35
degree friction angle. Contact surfaces between the dam and the foundation incorporated
a friction angle of 35 degrees.
Analysis Results
Predicted Dam Performance under Normal Loading: The application of normal loading
not only causes the blocks to slide and twist in the downstream direction, but also in the
cross-canyon direction. This movement was calculated to be very slight, on the order of a
couple hundredths of an inch. As expected, there is very little movement under normal
loading, which is consistent with observations.
Predicted Dam Performance under Flood Loading: The results of the analyses for all of
the blocks in the dam for the four cases are shown in Figures 9 and 10. Block 14 is most
affected by the flooding.

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

201

Dam Bottom Relative Displacement(U)

with Friction between Blocks
0.30
DE=drainage effectiveness

Deformation (Inches)

0.25

DE=0% / Case 1

0.20

DE=20% / Case 3
0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Block Number

Figure 9. Sliding displacements under PMF loading at the upstream heel of

each block for cases considering friction in the unbonded vertical joints.
Dam Bottom Relative Displacement(U)
No Friction between Blocks

0.30
DE=drainage effectiveness

Deformation (Inches)

0.25
DE=0% / Case 2
0.20
DE=20% / Case 4
0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Block Number

Figure 10. Sliding displacements under PMF loading at the upstream heel of each block
for cases with frictionless behavior in the unbonded vertical joints.

202

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Table 3 summarizes the displacements at Block 14 for the four flood loading cases
analyzed.
Case
1
2
3
4

Table 3. PMF Analysis Results

Drain Effectiveness (%)
Friction Angle (Deg)
Normal
PMF
Dam to Rock Block to Block
50
0
35
35
50
0
35
0
50
20
35
35
50
20
35
0

Max U
(in)
0.26
0.22
0.23
0.

Block
14
14
14
14

Block 14 exhibits the largest sliding displacements in all cases. It is estimated to slide
about -inch downstream under the PMF loading. This particular block is just outside the
keyed and grouted section of the dam and the underlying foundation has an adverse
(downstream) slope. The block also does not have a toe stability block as there are for
many of the other blocks. Under Case 1, where there is friction in the unbonded vertical
joints in the dam, Block 14 is restrained by a combination of shear forces resulting from
frictional contact with the foundation and neighboring blocks and normal forces caused
by contact with the foundation at the downstream toe of the block, as shown in Figures
11(a) and (b).
In Case 2, contacts between unbonded vertical joints are modeled as frictionless. Figure
12(a) shows that there are no longer frictional forces along the sides of the block.
However, Block 14 twists slightly around its vertical axis, bringing the edge of the
upstream face into contact with Blocks 13 and 15, which exerts normal contact forces
that restrain sliding, as shown in Figure 12(b). This shows that the presence of the
adjacent blocks, which are interacting through friction and twisting, is one of the keys to
limiting the movement of the dam blocks during flood loading. The other major
contributor to limiting movement is the horizontal dilatation or movement of the blocks
down the canyon side slopes toward the river bottom.
The steep, narrow canyon allows the blocks to creep in the cross-canyon direction and
down slope toward the river bottom of the canyon if the loading is high enough to cause
the blocks to slide and twist. This movement will tend to compress the vertical joints,
which will increase friction and impact between the joints, and, thus, transfer transverse
forces to the larger and interconnected blocks in the canyon bottom. The vertical joints
between the nine central blocks, Blocks 5 to 13 inclusive, are keyed and grouted over
their lower third, making it possible for these nine blocks to respond together.

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

203

(a) Shear Forces

Reaction forces

(b) Normal Forces

Figure 11. Under PMF loading Case 1, Block 14 (other blocks hidden from view) is
restrained by a combination of (a) frictional shear forces from sliding along the dam-rock
interface and along the unbonded vertical joints with neighboring blocks and (b) normal
forces at the downstream toe. Arrows represent resultant force vectors from contact at
element nodes.

204

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

(a) Shear Forces

Reaction forces

(b) Normal Forces

Figure 12. Under PMF loading Case 2, Block 14 (other blocks hidden from view) is no
longer restrained by frictional contact with other blocks, as shown by (a) the resultant
shear forces, but is restrained by (b) normal contact forces caused by Block 14 rotating to
contact Block 13. Arrows represent resultant force vectors from contact at element
nodes.

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

205

Predicted Dam Performance under Seismic Loading: The results of the analyses for all of
the blocks in the dam for Case 2 in Table 2 are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Sliding displacements under MCE loading for each block.
Block 14 is affected significantly more than the other blocks by the seismic loading. It
exhibits the largest sliding displacements in all cases. Table 4 summarizes the
displacements at Block 14 for the four seismic loading cases analyzed.
Case
1
2
3
4

Table 4. MCE Analysis Results

Drain Effectiveness (%)
Friction Angle (Deg)
Normal
Dam to Rock Block to Block
50
35
35
50
35
0
Measured
35
35
Measured
35
0

Max U
(in)
0.46
0.61
0.39
0.49

Block
14
14
14
14

Block 14 is estimated to slide about 0.6 of an inch downstream under the MCE loading.
As noted for flood loading, this particular block is just outside the keyed and grouted
section of the dam and the underlying foundation has an adverse (downstream) slope, and
the block also does not have a toe stability block as there are for many of the other
blocks.
Under seismic loading the blocks experience motion similar to that for flood loading, i.e.
they interact in frictional contact and twisting and they tend to squeeze together from
movement down slope toward the river bottom. More specifically, the torsional motion of
the blocks provides restraint to neighboring blocks even without friction in the vertical
joints. In addition to movement upstream and downstream during seismic shaking, the
blocks also tend to vibrate and move into and away from one another in the cross-canyon
direction. This motion can have a tendency to allow the blocks to act independently,
depending on the direction of motion for each block. Blocks with adverse slopes would
tend to be the worst affected by this motion. This is the case at Dam 7, where Block 14,

206

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

being on an adverse slope, tends to ratchet its way down slope with a movement of about
0.6 of an inch.
Other blocks of the dam are generally on favorable slopes, i.e. sloped downward toward
the reservoir from the downstream toe to the upstream heel. There is also a large part of
the dam where the blocks are tied together (keyed and grouted) and move together.
Blocks 3 and 4 and 15 through 19 are keyed in and also dont move.
The motion of the blocks was tracked in the seismic dynamic analysis. Plots of the time
histories of displacement of Block 9, which is a spillway block near the center and
highest part of the dam, and Block 17, which is three blocks from the right side of the
dam in a flatter base area, are shown in Figures 15 and 16, respectively. Time histories
are plotted for the center and each end of the block at the heel of the dam. Block 9
exhibits very little torsion, i.e. the time histories track each other as shown in Figure 15,
and Block 17 exhibits considerable torsion as shown in Figure 16, where there is
separation between the time histories.

Figure 15. Time histories of displacement at the right (blue), center (red) and
left (green) of the upstream heel of blocks 9.

Figure 16. Time histories of displacement at the right (blue), center (red) and
left (green) of the upstream heel of blocks 17.
The analyses performed for this study for seismic loading indicate that the dam may
experience some minor movements. These movements are considered minor and not

3-D Nonlinear Analysis

207

capable of causing instability or an uncontrolled rapid release of water in a postearthquake condition.

SUMMARY
The analysis of Dam 7 is an example of the use of advanced computational modeling and
analysis techniques informed by field investigations and engineering judgment to present
a realistic picture of the anticipated behavior of a large concrete dam under severe
loading conditions.
REFERENCES
ABAQUS 2010. ABAQUS manual. Version 6.10. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.
Scheulen, F., Ellis, E., Duron, Z., 2008, Experimental and finite element studies of the
forced vibration response of Big Creek Dam No. 7, Report to Southern California
Edison, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA.
Jacques, C., Lownsbery, K., McAfee, K., Powers, E., Smith, E., Duron, Z., 2010. Big
Creek Dam No.7 supplemental field testing. Report to Southern California Edison,
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA.
Scheulen, F., von Gersdorff, N., Duron, Z., Knarr, M., 2010. Numerical model
validation for large concrete gravity dams, 2010 United States Society on Dams
Conference.
Housner, G.W., 1954. Earthquake pressures on fluid containers. Report EERL-19543, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechEERL:1954.EERL.1954.003

208

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations