EP 1110-2-12

30 Sep 95
Appendix C
Design Example-Chopras Simplified
Method
C-1. General
a. The design example problem described in
Appendix B will be analyzed using Chopras simpli-
fied design response spectrum method. All hand
calculations are included.
b. Definitions of symbols and notations used in
this appendix can be found in the Glossary. Refer to
Appendix B where the values of several parameters
required for the analysis were derived.
C-2. Fundamental Natural Period (Empty
Reservoir/Rigid Foundation)
T
1
1.4 H
s
/ E
s
1.4 (600) / 3.5910
6
T
1
0.443 sec
C-3. Reservoir Effect on Natural Period

T
r
R
r
T
1
H
s
600 ft R
r
from Figure C 1
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
H 495 ft 270 ft
H/H
s
0.825 0.450
R
r
1.110 1.000
T

r
0.492 sec 0.443 sec
C-4. Ratio of Resonant Period of Dam To
Fundamental Period of the Reservoir
R
w
T
r
1
/

T
r
T
r
1
4H/ C
C 4720 ft/sec
C-5. Foundation Effect On Natural Period
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
H 495 ft 270 ft
T
1
r
0.420 sec 0.229 sec
R
w
0.85 0.52
E
s
/E
f
= 3.59 10
6
/3.50 10
6
= 1.025
R
f
= 1.190 from Figure C-2
T

1
= R
r
R
f
T
1
C-6. Effective Damping Factor
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
R
r
1.110 1.000
R
f
1.190 1.190
T
1
0.443 sec 0.443 sec
T

1
0.585 sec 0.527 sec

1
1
R
r
1
(R
f
)
3

1

r

f

f
0.0701 from Figure C 3

r
values from Figure C 4
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
R
r
1.110 1.000
R
f
1.190 1.190

1
7.00 % 7.00 %
H/H
s
0.825 0.450

r
0.0158 0

1
12.33 % 11.16 %
C-1
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
Figure C-1. Standard values for R
r
, the ratio of fundamental vibration periods of the dam with and without
water. Chopra (1978)
7. Key Dimensions
8. Properties of Concrete Mass
For sections y distance above the foundation,
w
s
= (section width) 0.155 k/ft
3
= value from Figure C-5 (based on y/H
s
)
C-2
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
Figure C-2. Standard values for R
f
, the period
lengthening ratio due to dam-foundation rock inter-
action. Fenves and Chopra (1986)
Figure C-3. Standard values for
f
, the added
damping due to dam-foundation rock interaction.
Fenves and Chopra (1986)
y w
s
(k/ft) w
s
w
s

2
dy
(Segment
Height) w
s
dy w
s

2
dy
600
570
533
495
460
420
345
270
180
90
0
3.10
3.10
8.34
13.70
18.66
24.30
34.92
45.52
58.25
70.97
83.70
1.000
0.829
0.678
0.552
0.459
0.369
0.252
0.162
0.079
0.029
0
3.10
2.56
5.65
7.56
8.56
8.97
8.80
7.37
4.60
2.06
0
3.10
2.13
3.83
4.17
3.93
3.31
2.22
1.19
0.36
0.06
0
30
37
38
35
40
75
75
90
90
90
84.9
151.9
251.0
282.1
350.6
666.4
606.4
538.6
299.7
92.7
78.5
110.3
152.0
141.8
144.8
207.4
127.9
69.8
18.9
2.7
600 ft 3,324.3 1,054.1
C-3
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
C-4
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
Figure C-5. Standard mode shape and fundamen-
tal period for the dam on a rigid foundation and
empty reservoir. Chopra (1978)
C-9. Hydrodynamic Influence
For sections y distance above the foundation,
gp/wH = value from Figure C-6 (based on y/H and
R
w
) interpolate Figure C-6 plots for =
0.75 and = 0.50 for the required = 0.69
as calculated in Appendix B
w = 0.0624 k/ft
3
H
s
= 600 ft
gp = [wH(H/H
s
)
2
] (gp/wH) = CONSTANT
(gp/wH)
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
H 495 270
R
w
0.85 0.52
CONSTANT 21.02 3.41
NORMAL POOL LOW POOL
y
dy (Seg
Ht)
y
H
gp
wH gp
gp
dy
wH
y
H
gp
wH gp
gp
dy
wH
495 1.000 0 0
35 1.75
460 0.929 0.100 2.10
40 4.88
420 0.848 0.144 3.03
75 11.89
345 0.697 0.173 3.64
75 13.24
270 0.545 0.180 3.78 1.000 0 0
90 16.06 6.39
180 0.364 0.177 3.72 0.667 0.142 0.48
90 15.57 11.66
90 0.182 0.169 3.55 0.333 0.117 0.40
90 14.90 9.77
0 0 0.162 3.41 0 0.100 0.34
78.29 27.82
C-5
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
Figure C-6. Standard values for the hydrodynamic pressure function p for full reservoir; i.e., H/H
s
= 1, =
0.75 and 0.50
C-6
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
C-10. Generalized Mass, M

M
1
(R
r
)
2
M
1
M
1
(1/g)

H
s
0
w
s

2
dy (1/32.2) (1,054.1)
32.74 k sec
2
/ft
C-11. Generalized Earthquake Force
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
R
r
1.110 1.000
M
1
40.34 32.74
Coefficient, L

L
1
L
1
(1/g) F
st
(H/H
s
)
2
A
p
L
1
(1/g)

H
s
0
w
s
dy (1/32.2) (3,324.3)
103.2 k sec
2
/ft
F
st
wH
2
/2 (0.0624/2) H
2
0.0312H
2
A
p
2
H

H
0
gp
wH
dy
C-12. Response Spectrum Acceleration, S

a
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
H 495 270
F
st
7,645 2,274

H
gp

0
wH
78.29 27.82
A
p
0.316 0.206
L

1
154.26 106.15
a. As discussed in Appendix B, the conditions
for this example problem require site specific design
response spectra. However, since this is only for the
purpose of demonstrating Chopras simpified method,
the standard design response spectra shown in
Figure 5-2 and Table 5-1 will be assumed to be the
site-specific design response spectra.
b. For both the earthquake load cases, the fun-
damental period T
1
is greater than 0.4 sec; therefore:
S
a
= K
2
S
a(5%)
where
K
2
= 1.466 - 0.2895ln()
S
a(5%)
= value at period T

1
obtained by interpolating
Table 6-1 between the appropriate values
of T.
The spectral ordinates S
a
are for the design response
spectrum normalized to a PGA = 1 g. These values
must be scaled by the PGA factor shown in Table 5-2
for an MCE occurring in seismic Zone 3. The scal-
ing factor is 0.550 g; therefore:
S

a
= 0.550 K
2
S
a(5%)
32.2 ft/sec
2
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
T
1
0.585 sec 0.527 sec
12.33% 11.16%
K
2
0.7388 0.7676
S
a(5%)
1.7094 g 1.8975 g
S

a
22.37 ft/sec2 25.80 ft/sec2
C-13. Equivalent Lateral Earthquake Force
for Fundamental Mode, f
1
f
1

L
1

S
a

M
1
g
(w
s
gp) constant (w
s
gp)
C-7
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
L

1
154.26 106.15
M

1
40.34 32.74
S

a
22.37 ft/sec
2
25.80 ft/sec
2
constant 2.657 2.598
for a section y-distance above the foundation, values
of f
1
in (k/ft) are as follows:
gp f
1
y ws NORMAL LOW NORMAL LOW
600
570
533
495
460
420
345
270
180
90
0
3.10
2.56
5.65
7.56
8.56
8.97
8.80
7.37
4.60
2.06
0
0
2.10
3.30
3.64
3.78
3.72
3.55
3.41
0
0.48
0.40
0.34
8.24
6.80
15.01
20.09
28.32
31.88
33.05
29.63
22.11
14.91
9.06
8.05
6.65
14.68
19.64
22.24
23.30
22.86
19.15
13.20
6.39
0.88
C-14. Equivalent Lateral Earthquake Force
for the Higher Modes, f
sc
f
sc
1
g

1
1
1
]
w
s

,
1
L
1
M
1

,
gp
0
B
1
M
1
w
s
a
g
a
g
/g PGA 0.550 g
f
sc
0.550

1
1
1
]
w
s

,
1
L
1
M
1

,
gp
0
B
1
M
1
w
s

gp
0

,
gp
0
wH
wH

,
H
H
s
2
B
1
0.2
F
st
g

,
H
H
s
2

,
gp
0
wH
value from Figure C 7 (for values of y/H)
POOL ELEVATION
NORMAL LOW
L
1
103.2 103.2
M
1
32.74 32.74
H _
2
H
s
, 0.681 0.202
H _
2
wH H
s
, 21.03 3.40
F
st
7,645 2,274
B
1
32.34 2.85
C-8
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
C-9
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
Figure C-7. Standard mode shape and fundamen-
tal period for the dam on a rigid foundation and
empty reservoir. Chopra (1978)
C-15. Allowable Tensile Stress
Appendix B established the direct tensile strength of
the basic RCC mix to be:
f
t
= 290 psi (for the parent concrete)
f
t
= 205 psi (for the lift joints)
Because of the high strain rates associated with a
seismic event, the dynamic tensile strength is greater
than the direct tensile strength obtained from the lab
tests:
DTS = 1.5 f
t
= 1.5 290 = 435 psi (for the parent
concrete)
DTS = 1.5 f
t
= 1.5 205 = 307 psi (for the lift
joints)
In accordance with paragraph 4-3c, the allowable
tensile stress for a new RCC dam in seismic Zone 3
for the MCE load condition is:
f
t(allowable)
= 1.33 435 = 579 psi (for the parent
concrete)
f
t(allowable)
= 1.33 307 = 408 psi (for the lift joints)
C-16. Determining Stresses for the Earth-
quake Load Cases
a. The response of the dam to the design earth-
quake ground motion is obtained by applying the
equivalent lateral forces f
1
and f
sc
to the dam as static
loads, and performing a static analysis to determine
the tensile tresses. The lateral forces f
1
and f
sc
are
distributed forces in kips/ft. They are treated as
individual loading cases in the static analysis. As
discussed in paragraph 7-7, the stresses produced by
these forces represent maximum modal responses.
Thus, they must be combined by a statistical method.
The square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS)
method is used, and the maximum tensile stresses are
as follows:
f
t

2
1

2
sc
where
f
t
= maximum tensile stress due only to design
earthquake loading in a direction normal to
the lift joints (does not include hydrostatic or
dead load)

1
= tensile stress contribution of the fundamental
mode as produced by the statically applied
load f
1

sc
= tensile stress contribution of the higher modes
as produced by the statically applied load f
sc
b. Two static analysis options are available for
determining the tensile stresses
1
and
sc
. The first
option is to consider the dam as a simple vertical
cantilever fixed at the foundation and loaded laterally
by the loads f
1
and f
sc
. The stresses
1
and
sc
are
simple bending stresses that can be hand calculated
by the beam bending formula Mc/I. The maximum
principal tensile stresses occurring at the downstream
face are then approximated by the following:
f
t(max)

2
1

2
sc
sec
2

st
sec
2

C-10
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
where
f
t(max)
= the maximum principal tensile stress
= the angle of the downstream face measured
from vertical

st
= stress normal to the lift joints caused by
static loads (hydrostatic, dead load of dam,
etc.)
The second option is to apply the lateral loads f
1
and
f
sc
to a finite element model of the dam, fixed at the
dam base, and perform a static analysis to obtain the
tensile stresses normal to the lift joints
1
and
sc
,
and also the corresponding maximum principal tensile
stresses
1(max)
and
sc(max)
. The maximum tensile
stress normal to the lift joints is calculated by the
formula for f
1
described above, and the maximum
principal tensile stress, f
t(max)
, is calculated as follows:
f
t(max)

2
1(max)

2
sc(max)
c. The second option will be used for this
example problem. The same finite element model of
the dam will be used as formulated in Appendix D to
analyze the example problem by the composite finite
element-equivalent mass system method. This will
allow a good comparison of the two different meth-
ods. Node points at the dam base, nodes 56
through 62, will be fully fixed for this analysis since
Chopras simplified method does not include model-
ing of the dam foundation. To load the finite element
model, the distributed lateral forces f
1
and f
sc
were
converted to concentrated lateral joint loads applied to
the appropriate upstream face node points. Note that
y = the distance above the foundation in feet coin-
cides with the node point locations of the finite ele-
ment model shown in Figures D-1 and D-2 of
Appendix D.
d. The static loads accompanying the earthquake
ground motion loading consist of the hydrostatic load
of the forebay on the upstream face and the dead load
weight of the dam. These loads are identical to those
calculated in Table D-2 and discussed in para-
graph D-12 of Appendix D for the composite finite
element analysis. However, since Chopras simpli-
fied method does not account for deformations in the
foundation, the static stresses
st
and
st(max)
for
Chopras method are different than those derived by
the composite finite element analysis.
e. The tabulations on the following pages show
the critical tensile stresses for the MCE load cases.
MCE Normal Pool Load Case:
Critical Tensile Stresses Normal to the Lift Joints at the Upstream Face
Stress Normal to the Lift Joint (ksf, tension is +)
y
1

sc
Dynamic
Response
f
1
Static
Stress

st
Critical Tensile
Stress
(psi)
Percent
Overstressed
590
570
533
495
460
420
345
270
180
90
0
24.96
35.99
34.04
37.21
44.47
50.97
60.14
72.93
90.22
122.20
49.19
-16.16
-23.49
-20.77
-21.16
-25.23
-25.38
-25.69
-26.86
-26.54
-5.22
7.57
29.73
42.98
39.88
42.81
51.13
56.94
65.40
77.72
94.04
122.31
49.76
-1.55
-5.32
-11.39
-15.94
-21.63
-27.61
-35.89
-45.49
-53.62
-51.20
-14.20
196
262
198
187
205
204
205
224
281
494
247
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
21
----
C-11
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
MCE Low Pool Load Case:
Critical Tensile Stresses Normal to the Lift Joints at the Upstream Face
Stress Normal to the Lift Joint (ksf, tension is +)
y
1

sc
Dynamic
Response
f
1
Static
Stress

st
Critical Tensile
Stress
(psi)
Percent
Overstressed
590
570
533
495
460
420
345
270
180
90
0
24.39
35.20
32.93
35.46
43.95
49.12
54.77
63.01
73.96
94.48
36.71
-11.51
-16.78
-14.61
-14.81
-16.85
-16.60
-17.22
-18.85
-18.21
-0.38
6.17
26.97
38.99
36.03
38.43
47.07
51.85
57.41
65.77
76.17
94.48
37.22
-1.55
-5.31
-11.54
-16.47
-22.23
-28.80
-37.81
-49.40
-63.43
-75.90
-26.95
176
234
170
152
172
160
136
114
88
129
71
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
MCE Normal Pool Load Case:
Critical Tensile Stresses Normal to the Lift Joints at the Downstream Face
Stress Normal to the Lift Joint (ksf, tension is +)
y
1

sc
Dynamic
Response
f
1
Static
Stress

st
Critical Tensile
Stress
(psi)
Percent
Overstressed
590
570
533
495
460
420
345
270
180
90
62
-12.57
-66.14
-28.88
-37.32
-48.38
-58.90
-67.59
-69.36
-58.51
-39.08
-12.65
8.22
42.51
18.29
22.07
24.90
22.75
15.47
5.99
-2.58
-5.49
-1.76
15.02
78.62
34.18
43.36
54.41
63.14
69.34
69.62
58.57
39.46
12.77
-1.53
-2.77
0.20
0.55
-0.12
-3.02
-7.89
-12.26
-14.43
-12.46
-6.37
94
527
239
305
377
418
427
398
307
188
44
----
----
----
----
----
2
5
----
----
----
----
C-12
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
MCE Low Pool Load Case:
Critical Tensile Stresses Normal to the Lift Joints at the Downstream Face
Stress Normal to the Lift Joint (ksf, tension is +)
y
1

sc
Dynamic
Response
f
1
Static
Stress

st
Critical Tensile
Stress
(psi)
Percent
Overstressed
590
570
533
495
460
420
345
270
180
90
0
-12.29
-64.53
-28.87
-36.55
-45.13
-51.52
-55.61
-54.69
-44.66
-29.18
-9.45
5.88
30.26
12.50
14.91
16.86
15.28
9.96
3.17
-2.71
-4.43
-1.43
13.62
71.27
31.46
39.47
48.18
53.74
56.49
54.78
44.74
29.51
9.56
-1.53
-2.72
-0.19
0.07
0.36
0.57
0.49
0.03
-1.38
-2.48
-3.14
84
476
217
275
337
377
396
381
301
187
45
----
17
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
MCE Normal Pool Load Case:
Critical Principal Tensile Stresses at the Downstream Face
Principal Tensile Stress (ksf, tension is +)
y
1(max)

sc(max)
Dynamic
Response
f
1(max)
Static
Stress

st(max)
Critical Tensile
Stress
(psi)
Percent
Overstressed
590
570
533
495
460
420
345
270
180
90
0
13.09
76.19
49.78
63.24
79.09
94.33
111.10
112.70
95.51
64.46
16.50
8.56
48.90
31.11
36.74
39.67
35.75
25.71
9.90
7.40
9.96
2.91
15.64
90.53
58.70
73.14
88.48
100.88
114.04
113.13
95.80
65.22
16.75
-1.53
-3.15
-1.73
-2.14
-3.16
-6.48
-13.16
-20.42
-24.02
-21.27
-7.06
98
607
396
493
593
656
701
643
498
305
67
----
5
----
----
2
13
21
11
----
----
----
C-13
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
MCE Low Pool Load Case:
Critical Principal Tensile Stresses at the Downstream Face
Principal Tensile Stress (ksf, tension is +)
y
1(max)

sc(max)
Dynamic
Response
f
1(max)
Static
Stress

st(max)
Critical Tensile
Stress
(psi)
Percent
Overstressed
590
570
533
495
460
420
345
270
180
90
0
-12.80
-74.33
-49.43
-61.73
-73.50
-82.26
-91.19
-88.52
-72.64
-48.07
-12.24
6.12
34.80
21.34
24.79
26.79
24.03
16.71
5.70
-6.29
-7.89
-2.28
14.19
82.07
53.84
66.52
78.23
85.70
92.71
88.70
72.91
48.71
12.45
-1.53
-3.11
-1.82
-1.74
-1.55
-2.04
-3.45
-4.45
-6.12
-6.63
-3.15
88
548
361
450
533
581
620
585
464
292
65
----
----
----
----
----
1
7
1
----
----
----
C-17. Conclusions
The Chopra simplified method is used only for pre-
liminary design of new dams. Preliminary design
progresses to the point where it becomes apparent
that, with limited refinement, the final design will be
satisfactory. Refer to Figure C-8 which shows zones
where the basic RCC mix is overstressed. It appears
that use of superior mixes in these areas will lead to
a satisfactory final design. Final design uses a more
refined method such as the composite finite element
method demonstrated in Appendix D for this example
problem. The more refined methods allow for model-
ing and verifying the zones of superior concrete,
where this is not possible with the simplified method.
C-18. Comparison of Results
Paragraph D-16 compares the results of this analysis
using Chopras simplified method with the results of
the same example problem analyzed by the composite
finite element method.
C-14
EP 1110-2-12
30 Sep 95
Figure C-8. Zones exceeding the allowable tensile stress for the basic RCC mix
C-15