WES SPILLWAY STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND STABILITY

Raquel Rosa1
1
Instituto Superior Tcnico, University of Lisbon
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal

Keywords: Spillway, Structural design, Stability, Hydrostatic pressure, Concrete, Finite element
design.
Abstract: Spillways are hydraulic works of large dimensions, in which safety is of utmost importance,
not only due to the high costs associated to this work, but also to the damages caused in case of
accident. The impact of the negative consequences related to this last scenario requires a careful
structural stability evaluation through an appropriate structural design.
This work concerns the structural stability evaluation through the development of a safe and proper
design, at a preliminary level, of a WES spillway type (Waterways Experiment Station), inserted in
an earth dam in Mozambique.
The following data were provided: water levels upstream and downstream the structure; geotechnical
properties; as well as the structures geometry.
The structure is composed by 10 identical modules (19 m length). Each module will be composed by
the spillway body (15 m) and a structural reinforced concrete wall (4 m).
This work is divided in two sections. In the first section, the design of the spillway body is carried out
based in a global stability analysis, using safety factors prescribed by the Normas Portuguesas de
Barragens. The second section concerns the design of the walls and the reinforcement detailing.
1. Introduction

Spillways are hydraulic works made of
concrete inserted in dams, in which the main
goal is the discharge of water in order to
ensure the safety of the dam [1].
Given the high risk that comes with such an
endeavor, and the eventual need to extend its
lifetime when compared to the initially
estimated in the project, dam structural
safety is still a topic of interest.
The presented work, a preliminary draft,
aims to provide the design of a WES
(Waterways Experiment Station) spillway
type, located in Mozambique.
The spillway structural design takes into
account several aspects, amongst which the
type of dam in which the spillway operates,
the topographical and hydraulic conditions,
the foundation conditions, as well as the
mass needed to ensure the stability of the
structure.
Provided good foundation conditions, this
type of spillways, when accurately projected
and built, has a high degree of reliability and
low maintenance costs. However, they
present high economic impacts.
The spillway geometry definition takes into
account the stability analysis and it is based
on the following data:
Downstream and upstream water
levels at full water level and at
maximum flood level;

1
e-mail: raquel.h.rosa@ist.utl.pt

1
 Foundation resistance and the spillway and the road along the full
deformability conditions ; extent of the dam.
Shape of the hydraulic surface of the
face in contact with the flow. The 3d model of the structure is represented
in Figure 2.2.
2. General work description
The dam spillway will be formed by 10
modules with 19,00 m in length each. These
modules are individually composed by the
spillways threshold (hydraulic span of
15,00m), and by pillars (thickness of 4,00m),
for a total extension of 190,00 m. Each
module has an approximate volume of
15530 m3 (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.2- Tridimensional model of the spillway

module..

3. Spillway body
3.1. Threshold geometry
The threshold of the spillway is a WES type,
and the flow is controlled by radial gates.
Figure 3.1 represents the adapted geometry
for the threshold, as well as the relevant
points for the profile definition (Table 3.1)
and for the exponential equation of the
central section of the threshold ( =
0,0551,84 ).

Figure 2.1- Layout of structure

The spillway will be implanted in the area
where the sound rock foundation is
available.
The spillway is a WES spillway, with
adherent water blade, with the surface level
at 97,00m. . It is constituted by 10 modules
each with 19,00m of length, in a total of
190,00m. The flow is controlled by radial Figure 3.1- Profile of the WES threshold
gates.
The pillars that separate the spans of the Table 3.1- Coordinates (X,Y) of the points that
spillway threshold have an elliptic shape, compose the spillway threshold
4,00 m thick, which extend approximately Points X (m) Y (m)
6,25m upstream (Figure 2.2). The P1 -3,7500 1,4275
roadbridge makes the connection between P2 -2,1424 0,3000

2
 P3 0,0000 0,0000
P4 18,5496 11,8603
P5 21,9921 15,9103
P6 39,9946 17,0000
C1 -1,3184 3,1846
C2 0,0000 7,8000
C3 31,5163 7,8147

3.2. Materials and actions

The concrete used is presented in Table 3.2.
Figure 3.2- - Scheme of the actions that the dam
Table 3.2- Concrete used in construction and undergoes
corresponding application zones.
The self-weight is the major stability action.
Concrete
Zone of application The spillway is usually designed and
class
Core of the spillway calculated to solely resist by its self-weight
C16/20 to the several actions that undergoes to [3].
threshold
1,0 m thick after the The hydrodynamic pressures are obtained
C30/37 spillway clime area and in with the integration of the pressure diagram.
the pillars
With the purpose of reducing the value of the
The considered actions, according with the uplift pressure, drainage galleries are
Portaria 846/93, artigo 22., of Normas introduced. The k parameter accounts for the
Portuguesas de Barragens (NPB) [2] were: percentage of pressure that is dissipated with
the drainage system.
Structure self-weight ;
Self-weight of the gate and deck; It was considered a = 1/3, as
Hydrostatic pressures; recommended by the NPB [2], 1993 and [4].
Uplift hydrostatic pressure
The uplift pressure diagram will be done
Earth pressures;
accordingly with the shape of the dam
Seismic actions; foundation, as illustrated in Figure 3.3.
The water levels taken into account in the
design according to the NPB are (Table 3.3)
[2]:
FWL (full water level): regular level of the
reservoir, allowing for its full exploration;
MFL (maximum flood level): maximum
level corresponding to the occurrence of a
major flood.
Table 3.3- Water levels upstream and downstream
of the dam
Upstream Downstream
FWL [m] 112,00 80,50
MFL [m] 113,00 92,00 Figure 3.3- Uplift diagram
Figure 3.2 shows a scheme of the pressure The seismic action was quantified as
diagrams of the several actions taken into indicated in Table 3-4 where:
account, and the resulting actions that the OBE- operating basis earthquake
dam undergoes, considering a 19m module.

3
MDE- maximum design earthquake Guarantee of the safety of the
spillway against fluctuation,
Table 3.4- Base accelerations
aearthquake,h
aearthquake,v overturning and sliding;
[g] [g] Stress and displacement
2/3. verifications.
OBE 0,100 g
aearthquake,h
3.3.1. Load scenarios
2/3.
MDE 0,150 g According to the NPB Portaria n. 846/93,
aearthquake,h
In the presence of a seismic event, the artigo1.[2], it should take into account two
hydrodynamic pressure diagram has a scenarios: usual scenarios (normal
parabolic shape (Figure 3.4), and it is conditions of exploration, to which the
calculated through the expression [3]: construction should not deteriorate) and
extreme scenarios (situations which are less
() = (3.1) likely to occur, for which the construction
should not rupture).

Table 3.6- Load combinations that are considered

in the global stability analysis
Scenario Actions

Static actions (FWL)

Usual
Seismic combination (FWL and
OBE)
Figure 3.4- Hydrodynamic pressure diagram
The action of the fine-grained sediments is Static actions (MFL)
calculated using the Rankines theory, Extreme
Seismic combination (FWL
neglecting the cohesion and using the soil MDE)
parameters of Table 3.5: 3.3.2. Safety verifications to fluctuation,
overturning and sliding
2 (3.2) In the spillway global stability analysis the
= 0 following partial safety coefficients were
2
Table 3.5- Soil parameters considered, presented in Table 3.7 as
Parameters recommended in Artigo 31. da Portaria
Terrain s [kN/m ] c [kPa]
3 846/93 [2] and in [6].
Sandy 18 28 0 Table 3.7- Safety coefficients for the global stability
In the event of a seism, the generated terrain analysis
impulse due to seismic action should be Safety Current Fracture
taken into account, and should be considered factor Scenario Scenario
accordingly to the formulation of S.F.Fluct. 1,3 1,1
Mononobe-Okabe, as presented in S.F.Roll. 1,5 1,2
EN1998:5 [5]. S.F.Slid. 1,5 1,2
The geotechnical parameters used to
Thermal actions were not considered in this
characterize the rock-concrete interface are
preliminary draft, since some requirements
shown in Table 3.8.
to the study of thermal actions related to
construction factors are yet to be defined.
3.3. Global stability analysis
The global stability analysis consists of two
points:

4
 Table 3.8- Adopted geotechnical parameters for the resulting attenuating forces inside the central
rock-concrete interface
core of the dam.
Current Fracture
scenarios scenarios To the concrete with class C15/20
Friction (fcd=10,7MPa e fctm=1,9MPa), and applying
45 45
angle (R-C) the safety factors recommended by the NPB,
100 the maximum admissible tensions at the dam
Cohesion(c) -
[kPa](*) are:
(*)Cohesion was considered null in all scenarios,
except for the maximum seismic action scenario where Table 3-11- Maximum tensions admitted to usual
it was adopted the 100 kPa value. and extreme scenarios
max.comp. max.tensile
The safety factors are defined through the F.S.
[MPa] [MPa]
expressions present in Table 3.9.
Usual S. 2,5 4,28 0,76
Table 3.9- Safety formulas to fluctuation, sliding
and overturning
Extreme S. 1,2 8,92 1,58
Safety
Formula
factor Making sure that the resulting forces are
inside the central core, the following tensile
S.F. Flut t. . =
stress values were obtained (Table 3.12)
.
S.F.Roll . = through the following expression:
.
( ) 6.
. + . /
. = (3.3)
S.F.Slid. . =

2
1.0
. Table 3.12- Transmitted tensions to the foundation
S.F.Slid. . =
massif
The safety factor results are summarized in j
Combinations m [MPa]
Table 3.10. [MPa]
Table 3.10- Safety factors to fluctuation, sliding and PP 0,81 0,04
overturning
0,35 0,30
Usual S.

Scenario S.F. Flut. S.F.Slid. S.F.Roll. FWL

FWL 3,13 1,93 4,25 FWL+OBE(+) 0,21 0,42

FWL+OBE 2,94 1,39 2,96
FWL+OBE(-) 0,50 0,17
MFL 1,78 1,23 3,86
2,86 1,20 2,43 MFL 0,28 0,12
Extreme S.

FWL+MDE
Since the safety check for sliding was not FWL+MDE(+) 0,12 0,51
performed for the current scenario, it was
necessary to calculate the safety factor to the FWL+MDE(-) 0,59 0,09
residual sliding, considering cohesion
3.4. Structural Modeling
(100kPa).
3.4.1. Conception
.
. = 1,1 1,0 The structural model of the spillway was
developed using the finite elements program
Therefore, all safety coefficients established SAP2000 and all elements used in the
by the NPB (Table 3.7) were complied. spillway modeling are shell elements.
3.3.3. Stress verification at the foundation The model is bi-dimensional with the
Tensile stresses are not usually accepted at deformation restrained in a perpendicular
the foundation base, in order to avoid direction to the spillway section and with
cracking. This is equivalent as applying the unitary thickness.

5
The module should take into account proper
boundary conditions. It was restrained the
displacements in x,y and z in the nodal
points located in the foundation periphery,
which reflects into the assignment of simple
supported boundaries, as outlined in Figure
3.5.
tensile stress exceeds the resistant concrete
tensile stress (Rankine criterion) or if the
compression stresses are higher than the
ones defined by the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion. The value of k, is defined as the
least of the values obtained by both these
criteria, should be bigger than 2,5.

Figure 3.5- Finite elements model of the spillway Figure 3.6- Safety check to local failure
section Table 3.13- Safety factor for local fractures on
concrete
The main modes of vibration studied (with
at least 90% of modal mass participation in c t
Comb. El. K
each direction) are: [MPa] [MPa]
C1 (PP) 848 3,41 0,11 2,8
Mo Frequency Main direction
de [Hz] C2 830 2,34 0,48 2,3
(FWL) 773 1,0 0,3 3,7
Translation (x)
1 6,87 830 2,4 0,6 2,0
(longitudinal)
2 8,95
Translation (z) C3 773 1,0 0,3 3,8
(vertical) (OBE)

14,14 Rotation (y) 776 1,1 0,2 5,2

3
The following checks were performed: 4. Spillway pillars
In this case study, the spillway contains 11
Tensile stress check in the spillway pillars, 4,0m thick, spaced apart 19,0m. The
section; pillars contain a trunnion in each face, which
Safety check to local fractures in supports the segment gates (Figure 4.1).
concrete;
Displacement evaluation. In order to design the pillars, a
tridimensional model was developed, in the
The tensile stresses in the spillway body finite elements program SAP2000, which
ranges between 0,5 and 3,5 MPa, therefore aimed to reproduce the structure to be
the safety is assured. executed in construction, where some
simplified design methods to calculate the
With regard to the maximum values of
reinforcement and prestress were used.
displacements obtained, these are in the
range of 3mm. The safety is once again
assured.
Last, the safety check to local failure of
concrete is made with basis in a graphical
representation of tensions (Figure 3.6),
through the recommendations made by the
[2] the cracking of an element occurs if the

6

Figure 4.1- Spillway blueprint- 2 modules
4.1. Loads and Load combination
The actions taken into account in the pillars
design are:
Self-weight of the pillars;
Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
impulse;
Prestress applied forces short and
long term losses;
Seismic action.
order of magnitude significantly lower than
the remaining forces involved.
Regarding the transmitted reactions by the
radial gates, for the scenarios 2 and 4, it was
taken into account the unbalance of impulses
of water when one gate is open, and another
one closed.
The situation of an eventual maintenance to
the radial gates were also taken into account,
considering the existence of stoplog gates
(scenario 4).
The model built (Figure 4.2) considers the
following points:
The spillway body is modelled as a solid
element, 19,00m thick, and the wall as shell
elements, 4,0m thick. The wall consists of a
1 by 1,0m mesh.

The load combination considered,

corresponding to distinct gate positions, are:

Scenario 1: Water level below the

gate (only permanent loads and
prestress, corresponding to the
application of prestress phase);
Scenario 2: One open gate and one
closed with reservoir in FWL; Figure 4.2- Finite elements model performed for
Scenario 3: Two closed gates with the central pillars
reservoir in MFL; The pillars are built-in the body of the
spillway, while the spillway is supported on
Scenario 4: Placement of a
the ground.
cofferdam gate with the FWL;
Scenario 5: MDE earthquake with
two closed gates with the reservoir
in FWL.
4.2. Calculation methodology
The spillway pillars were designed to:

Endure the transmitted reactions by

the radial gates;
Support the pontoon deck over the
spillway.

The transmitted reactions by the pontoon to

the pillars are negligible, since they have an

7
 Table 4.1- Hydrostatic pressure diagram
Action Impulse Diagram
Basin

Figure 4.3- Layout of the prestress tendon

pressure (segment
gate closed)
Headwater

4.3. Structural design

The pillars design required the safety check
to the following limit states:
1. Last limit state of resistance to
bending
(cofferdam gate

2. Limit state of cracking

Headwater
pressure

closed)

3. Limit state of maximum

compression of concrete
4. Limit state of decompression in
the direction of application of the
prestress.
Open gate

The materials used in the elements structural

design of the reinforced prestressed concrete
were the following (Table 4-2):
Table 4-2-Materials used in the structural design
of the wall
Element Material
Hydrodynamic

Wall Concrete C30/37,

pressure

Class XC2
Passive Steel A400 NR
reinforcement
Prestress Steel Y 1860 S7-15,3
reinforcement (de according to the
The seismic tridimensional dynamic (cables) prEN 10138-3)
analysis action was represented by spectral Prestress Steel Y 1030 H
response. reinforcement (according to the prEN
10130-4)
The hydrodynamic effect caused by a A # 20//0,15 (20,94 cm2/m) mesh was
seismic event was considered, admitting that adopted in both faces, following the
the water mass is adherent to the pillars. The recommendations of the American standard
hydrodynamic pressure was determined ACI-350 [7] and, where it was necessary,
through the Westergarrd expressions. reinforcements were made .
In order to support the gates reactions, the The reduced bending moment evaluation
pillars are prestressed with 8 tendons with 19 was made for some areas of the wall, in two
1,4 cm2 wires each. orthogonal directions (Figure 4.4).

8
 Besides the transversal loads, the wall is also 32//0,15 (53,62cm2/m) mesh reinforcement
subjected to axial loads, which concerns to in both directions (Mrd=7358,11 kNm).
an unsymmetrical bending problem. The
The verification of ultimate limit state of
axial loads emerge due to the self-weight of
cracking consists on the cracks opening
the structure, in a vertical direction, and
limitation (EN1992-1-1 [7]).
prestress, in a horizontal direction.
0,3 in the reinforced concrete
zone;
0,2 in the prestressed zones.
Figure 4.5- Wall zones for stress analysis
Mfreq.
Nfreq. sS wk
[kN.
[kN/m] [MPa] [mm]
m/m]
3 (dir. x) 7065 1055 166,8 0,20
5 (dir. x) 1360 -1215 112,9 0,17
Figure 4.4- Wall zones for stress analysis 3 (dir. y) 7775 2631 111,4 0,10
1 (dir. y) 4700 2500 43,5 0,07
Table 4-3- ELU direction x Regarding the limit states of
Direction x
decompression, the prestressed tendons are
Msd Nsd located in an always compressed zone, and
Sce. m u
[kNm/m] [kN/m]
so the decompression is verified.
1 C3 -3200 0,010 -6700 -0,085
2 C5 -980 0,003 -3840 -0,049 According to EN1992-1-1 [7], the
3 C5 -7000 0,022 -1130 -0,014 compression stresses limit in concrete, in a
4 C5 -2700 0,009 147 0,002 way that limits the risk of longitudinal
C4 2000 0,006 440 0,006 cracking, for the rare load combination is:
5
6 C4 125 0,000 -70 -0,001 = 0,6 = 18,0
7 C3 1100 0,004 -380 -0,005
The maximum obtained compression
stresses in concrete occurs in the zone of
Table 4-4- ELU direction y application and prestress, and are in the
Direction y range of 2,0 < 18,0 .
Sce. Msd m Nsd u For the trunnion design, it was adopted a
[kNm/m] [kN/m] compression-tension model presented in
1 C2 -886 0,003 -5000 0,063 Figure 4.5:
2 C5 -890 0,003 -1600 0,020
3 C5 -7400 0,024 -2600 0,033
4 C5 -810 0,003 -1430 0,018
5 C4 -2500 0,008 -2700 0,034
6 C4 650 0,002 -1600 0,020
7 C3 -1030 0,003 -800 0,010
Since the values of are inferior to 0,20, the
adopted resistance classed is appropriate.
Zone 3 is the only zone where the
mechanical percentage of reinforcement was
Figure 4.5- compression-tension model adopted
larger that the minimum reinforcement
required. In this zone, it was adopted #

9
 Table 4-5- - Calculation of the transversal
prestressed needed in the trunnions
,
[] [] [ ] adopted []
10458 8824 294 10 bars 6989
40
Y1030H
The net prestress was calculated taking into
account 20% for instantaneous losses and
10% for longterm losses. 10 rebar 40
Y1030H, (Figure 4.6) pulled at 75% of the
tensile strength.
Figure 4.6- Transversal prestressed reinforcement
disposition in the gate trunnion.
Two additional layers of passive
reinforcement (25//0,15) were adopted, in
order to resist along with the prestress
reinforcement.
4.4. Conclusions
The conception and structural design of a
WES spillway entails a range of significant
aspects that relate to the complexity and
large dimensions of the construction, as well
as its lifespan (superior to 100 years). This
way, the nature of the spillway requires
special maintenance, in order to guarantee
the structural safety and a proper operation,
in a life cycle cost point of view.
The use of simple design methods, along
with the help of the bidimensional and
tridimensional models built with the finite
elements software SAP2000, enables the
construction design, regarding two elements:
the body of the spillway and the pillars.
Regarding the spillway body design, we
highlight the drainage importance that
diminishes the designing efforts and hence
optimizes the adopted solution. We
10
demonstrate that is critical to check the
sliding because through the observation of
safety coefficients that are lower in
comparison with the overturning and
fluctuation safety coefficients.
In respect to the pillars design, special focus
should be given to the reinforcement detail.
Such detailing should be done in the simplest
way possible, and thus large fluctuations
regarding the diameter level and adopted
spacings should not exist.
4.5. References
[1] Pinheiro, A. Nascimento (2007),
Descarregadores de Cheias em Canal de
Encosta Dimensionamento e Implantao,
Instituto Superior Tcnico;
[2] NPB. Normas de Projeto de Barragens.
Anexo portaria n.846/93, Lisboa, 1993;
[3] Quintela, A.C. (1988), Hidrulica
Aplicada II-Barragens, Instituto Superior
Tcnico;
[4] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995
Gravity Dam Design;
[5] Eurocode 8- Design of stuctures for
earthquake resistence, Part 5: Foundations,
retaining structures and geotechnical
aspects, EN 1998-5:2004.
[6] Eletrobrs (2003), Critrio de Projeto
Civil de Usinas Hidroeltricas;
[7] ACI 350-01 Code requirements for
environmental engineering concrete
structures;
[8] Eurocode 2- Design of concrete
structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings, EN 1992-1:2004.