UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (COET)

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING (WRE)
HYDRAULICS ENGINEERING AND MACHINERY (WR 410)
ASSIGNMENT 01.

S/ NAME REGISTRATION NUMBER

NO
01. KIMARO, NICOLAUS A 2020-04-13639
02. BANUYE, SALMON G 2020-04-00621
03. SALUFU, LORAIN C 2020-04-11000
04. MYOVELA, EDSON I 2020-04-09172
05. LUKWI, JOSEPH 2020-04-04871
06. KITUNDU, JOAN JESSE 2020-04-04239
07. RIMOY, MIKE GERALD 2020-04-10718
08. LOSSY, RICHARD ROBERT 2020-04-04278
09. CALYST. WILBARD J 2020-04-00949
10. MREMA, RAPHAEL Y 2020-04-07856

ASSIGNMENT; DESIGN A DAM STRUCTURE AND CHECK FOR STABILITY

UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS USING ANALYTICAL METHODS.

COURSE INSTRUCTOR; Dr. MTAMBA OCHIENG.

Examine the stability of the dam at this section at the base foundation. Earthquake forces
may be taken as 0.4g for vertical and horizontal forces. Maximum tail water depth is 6m is
approximated during floods. Depth of water when reservoir is full is 86 m. The concrete
gravity dam is 90 m high and 69 m wide at its base; section size is shown below. Depth of silt
is 15m. Concrete material elasticity modulus 𝐸 = 3.0×104Mpa, Poisson ratio = 0.2, concrete
density, 𝜌 = 2630 kg/m3. Concrete compressive strength 24.1Mpa, and concrete tensile
strength 2.9 Mpa.. The foundation lies on a sound rock with cohesion = 2 MN/m 2 , friction
tanØ =1.5 and safe bearing capacity of foundation is 1500 tonnes/ m 2

As a Design Engineer check dam stability analysis during normal operating conditions. Your
Analysis should be done Manually and using CADAM2D software. Make assumptions as
necessary for any information required to accomplish the assignment. Submit the report by
20th December, 2023.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
A dam is a barrier constructed across the river to store water on its upstream. There
are various types of dams based on various criteria such as the purpose of the dam,
materials used in the dam’s construction, size and height, and location. However,
most of the dams are man-made and they are classified based on structure and
material, intended purpose, and size/height.
The purpose of this report is to assess the stability of the dam structure along its base
foundation. The dam's stability is crucial for ensuring the safety of downstream
communities and the efficient reservoir operation. This report presents the findings of
the analytical assessment of the dam structure under normal operating conditions and
provides recommendations for maintaining the stability of the dam structure.

1.2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES

i. To determine the magnitude of all the forces acting on the dam.
ii. To determine the positions of the forces acting on the dam.
iii. To determine the effects of these forces on the dam’s stability (Assessing the
stability of the dam)
iv. To determine the foundation stability

2. DATA AND METHODS

2.1 DESIGN DATA
 Earthquake forces = 0.4 g
 Maximum tail water depth = 6 m
 Depth of water when water is full = 86 m
 Depth of dam = 90 m
 Depth of silt soil = 15 m
 Width of dam = 69 m
 Poisson ratio = 0.2
 Density of concrete = 2630 kg/m3
 Cohesion = 2 MN/m3
 Angle of friction = 56.3
 Bearing capacity of foundation = 14175 KN/m3
Assumptions
 Unit weight of silt = 3.6 KN/m3
 Internal angle of friction of silt, Φ =20º
 Silt is cohesionless
 The weight of silt is negligible
 The earthquake forces considered in the design are those for the worst-
case scenario
2.2 LOAD ANALYSIS

Figure 1:Without earthquake forces

Figure 2:With earthquake forces

 i. Self-weight of the dam
The self-weight comprises the weight of the concrete structure of the dam body.
The density of concrete may be considered as 2630 kg/m³. Since the cross-section
of a dam usually would not be simple, the analysis may be carried out by dividing
the section into several triangles and rectangles, and the dead load (self-weight) of
each of these sections (considering unit width or the block width) computed
separately and then added up.
Weight of Concrete =Specific weight of concrete ×Area

ii. Weight of upstream water

This is the weight of the water carried by the partially inclined upstream surface.
The cross-section of the self-weight of water was trapezoidal and thus divided into
rectangular and triangular sections for simplicity in calculations.
Weight of water =Specific weight of water ×Area

iii. Hydrostatic water force on the upstream side

The pressure is due to water in the reservoir acting on a vertical plane on the
upstream side of the dam. It is calculated by the law of hydrostatics.
P=0.5× density of water× Height of water (H2)
= 0.5×9.81KN/m3×862m=36277.38KN per metre run
Point of action of the force (H’)
=1/3×height of the water
=1/3×86m=28.67m
Moment acting on the dam from the Upstream(M)
M=P×H’=36277.38KN×28.67m=1040072.485KNm
iv. Hydrostatic water force on the downstream side
The pressure due to the tailwater acting on the vertical plane on the downstream
side of the dam is calculated by the law of hydrostatics.
P’=0.5× density of water × Height of water, H’2
= 0.5×9.81KN/m3×62=176.58KN per metre run
Point of action of the force(h’)
=1/3×height of the water
=1/3×6m=2.0m
Moment acting on the dam from the downstream (M)
M=P × h’= 176.58KN × 2.0m = 353.16KNm

v. Uplift forces
Uplift forces occur as internal pressure in pores, cracks, and seams within the
body of the dam, at the contact between the dam and its foundation, and within the
foundation.
Uplift force = Specific weight of water× Height of water× Base width
U1=9.81×86 × 69=4061.34KN
 U1=9.81×6 × 69=27075.6KN
vi. Silt horizontal forces
The pressure of the submerged silt is to be considered in addition to the weight
and pressure of water. The pressure of the silt acts horizontally, in a similar
fashion to the corresponding forces due to water. It is recommended that the
submerged density of silt for calculating horizontal pressure may be taken as 3.6
KN/m³.
PS=0.5. γs. Ka. Hs2
Ka=(1−sin ϕ)/(1+ sinϕ)
Ka= (1-sin20o)/ (1+sin20o) =0.49
Ps=0.5×3.6KN/m3×0.49×152m2=133.65KN per metre run.
The above pressure is acted at height of h’=Hs/3=15/3m=5m
Moment caused by the sediments acting upon the gravity dam,
Moment=Ps × h’=133.65 KN×5m=668KNm

vii. Seismic forces (Vertical, Horizontal and Hydrodynamic forces)

Earthquake or seismic activity is associated with complex oscillating patterns of
acceleration and ground motions, which generate transient dynamic loads due to
the inertia of the dam and the retained body of water. The earthquake acceleration
is usually designated as a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity and is
expressed as α⋅g, where α is the Seismic Coefficient. The seismic coefficient
depends on various factors, like the intensity of the earthquake, the part or zone of
the country in which the structure is located, the elasticity of the material of the
dam and its foundation, etc.
As mentioned earlier, the earthquake forces cause both the dam structure as well
as the water stored in the reservoir to vibrate. The force generated in the dam is
called the Inertia Force and that in the water body is the hydrodynamic Force. The
earthquake forces are generated due to the vibration of the earth itself, which may
be shaking horizontally in two directions as well as vibrating vertically. For
design purposes, one has to consider the worst possible scenario, and hence the
combination that is seen to be the least favourable to the stability of the dam has to
be considered.
Vertical Earthquake Force =0.4× sum of dam weight
Horizontal Earthquake Force =0.4× sum of dam weight
Hydrodynamic Force
Using the Zanger Formula for hydrodynamic force, Pe=0.726peH
But, pe=Cm × Kh × γw ×H,
γw taken as the Unit weight of water.
 Cm=0.735(ᵠ/90o), this is only applicable when the slanting height of the gravity wall
exceeds half the overall height of the gravity dam, when it doesn`t exceed the angle ᵠ is
treated as 90o making the value of Cm being 0.735

Slanting angle ᵠ=arc tan (86/6) =86o

Cm=0.735(86o/90o)=0.702
pe= Cm × Kh × γw ×H,
pe=0.702X0.4X9.81KN/m3X86m=236.9KN/m
Pe=0.726peH
Pe=0.726× 236.9KN/m× 86m=14798.26KN
The force acts at 4H/3π

2.3 LOAD COMBINATION

The load combination considered was the usual loading combination, that is during normal
operating conditions. The reservoir elevation is at the normal power pool, as governed by the
crest elevation of an overflow structure, or the top of the closed spillway gates whichever is
greater. Normal tailwater is used. Horizontal silt pressure should also be considered.
 MAGNITUDE MOMENT
NAME OF
DESIGNATION LEVER ARM X 106
FORCES
VERTICAL (KN) HORIZONRAL (KN) (m) (KN.m)
Downward
Forces (Weight
of the dam) W1 4644.05 65.00 0.302
W2 16254.00 59.50 0.967
W3 53941.61 37.33 2.013
ƩM1=
ƩW1 74839.66 3.282
Weight of the
vertical water W4 1530.36 66 0.101
loading W5 1765.8 67 0.118
ƩM2=
ƩW2 3296.16 0.219

Uplift Forces U1 -4061.34 34.5 -0.1401

U2 -27075.6 46.0 -1.245
ƩM=-
ƩU -31136.94 1.3851
Summation of
the vertical
forces 46998.88
Hydrostatic
Forces PH1 -36277.38 28.67 -1.04
PH2 176.58 2 3.53 × 10-4

Silt forces Ps -133.65 5 -668.25

Sum of the
horizontal
forces -36234.45
Horizontal 0.4W1=
earthquake 4644.05×0.4=-
forces = 0.4g 1857.62 20 -0.0371

0.4W2=16254.61×0.4
=-6501.84 45 -0.293

0.4W3=53941.61×0.4
=-21576.644 24.89 -0.0537

Vertical ƩW ƩM=3.282x
earthquake =74839.66x0.4= 0.4=-
forces = 0.4g -29935.86 1.3128

Seismic Force Pe -14798.26 36.5 -0.54

2.4 STABILITY ANALYSIS
The stability analysis of gravity dams may be carried out by various methods, where
the gravity method is used. In this method, the dam is considered to be made up of
several vertical cantilevers which act independently of each other. The resultant of all
horizontal and vertical forces including uplift should be balanced by an equal and
opposite reaction at the foundation consisting of the total vertical reaction the total
horizontal shear and friction at the base and the resisting shear and friction of the
passive wedge, if any. For the dam to be in static equilibrium, the location of this
force is such that the summation of moments is equal to zero. The stability analysis of
a dam section is carried out to check the safety concerning: Rotation and overturning,
translation and sliding and overstress and material failure

2.4.1 STABILITY AGAINST ROTATION AND OVERTURNING

Before a gravity dam can overturn physically, there may be other types of failures,
such as cracking of the upstream material due to tension, increase in uplift, crushing
of the toe material, and sliding. However, the check against overturning is made to be
sure that the total stabilizing moments weigh out the destabilizing moments. The
factor of safety against overturning (F.S.O), may be taken as 1.5 to 2.5. As such, a
gravity dam is considered safe from the point of view of overturning if there is no
tension on the upstream face.

F . O . S=
∑ of resisting moments = ∑ MR >1.5 𝑡𝑜 2.5
∑ of overturning moments ∑ MO
2.4.2 STABILITY AGAINST TRANSLATION AND SLIDING
Many of the loads on the dam act horizontally, like water pressure, horizontal
earthquake forces, etc. These forces have to be resisted by frictional or shearing forces
along horizontal or nearly-horizontal seams in foundation. The stability of a dam
against sliding is evaluated by comparing the minimum total available resistance
along the critical path of sliding (that is, along that plane or combination of plans
which mobilizes the least resistance to sliding) to the total magnitude of the forces
tending to induce sliding. The factor of safety against sliding (F.S.S), may be taken as
4 to 5.

F . O . S=
∑H
∑V
2.4.3 STABILITY AGAINST OVERSTRESS AND MATERIAL FAILURE
A dam may fail if any of its part is overstressed and hence the stresses in any part of
the dam must not exceed the allowable working stress of concrete. In order to ensure
the safety of a concrete gravity dam against this sort of failure, the strength of
concrete shall be such that it is more than the stresses anticipated in the structure by a
safe margin. The maximum compressive stresses occur at heel (mostly during
reservoir empty condition) or at toe (at reservoir full condition) and on planes normal
to the face of the dam. The strength of concrete and masonry varies with age, the kind
of cement and other ingredients and their proportions in the work can be determined
only by experiment.
 δ max , min =
∑ V (1 ± 6 e )
B B

3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
3.1 STABILITY ANALYSIS
CASE I: WITHOUT EARTHQUAKE FORCES

a.Factor of Safety against Overturing (FOS).

FOS =
∑ of Stablizing Moment
∑ of Overturing Moment
Sum of Stabilizing Moment (+) = 3.5013 × 106 KNm
Sum of Overturning Moment (-) =2.4257× 106 KNm
3.5013
FOS = = 1.4434
2.4257
FOS =1.4434 < 1.5 (Not Okay)

b.Factor of Safety against Sliding (FSS).

Data:
Tan Ø = 1.5, ∑ V = 46998.88KN, ∑ H = 36234.45KN, C=2MN/m2, Ah= B×1 = 69
m2

FSS =
∑ H = 36234.45 =0.771
∑ V 46998.88
FSS = 0.771 ˃ 0.9 (Okay)- Overdesigned

c.Factor of Safety against Shear friction Factor (FSF).

S CAS+ ∑ V tan Ø 2× 69+469.98 × 1.5

FSF = = =
∑H ∑H 362.34

FSF =2.326˃ 1 (Okay)

d.Limit Equilibrium Factor (FLE)
FLE =FSF For horizontal Base
FLE = 2.326˃ 3 (extreme) ˃ 2 (Normal) (Okay)

CASE II: WITH EARTHQUAKE FORCES

a.Factor of Safety against Overturing (FOS).

FOS =
∑ of Stablizing Moment
∑ of Overturing Moment
 Sum of Stabilizing Moment (+) = 3.5013 × 106 KNm
Sum of Overturning Moment (-) =4.6623× 106 KNm
3.5013
FOS = = o.75
4.6623
FOS =0.75 < 1.5 (Not Okay)

b.Factor of Safety against Sliding (FSS).

Data:
Tan Ø = 1.5, ∑ V = 17063.02KN, ∑ H = 80968.814KN, C=2MN/m2, Ah= B×1 = 69
m2

FSS =
∑ H = 80968.814 =4.745
∑ V 17063.02
FSS = 4.745˃ 0.9 (Okay)- Overdesigned

c.Factor of Safety against Shear friction Factor (FSF).

S CAS+ ∑ V tan Ø 2× 69+17.063 ×1.5

FSF = = =
∑H ∑H 80.968

FSF =2.020˃ 1 (Okay)

d.Limit Equilibrium Factor (FLE)

FLE =FSF For horizontal Base

FLE = 2.020 ˃ 3 (extreme) ˃ 2 (Normal) (Okay)

3.2 MATERIAL FAILURE ANALYSIS

CASE I: WITHOUT EARTHQUAKE FORCES
a. Compression and Tension.

Net Moment, ∑ M = 1.07558 × 106 KNm

X=
∑ M = 1.07558× 10 6 = 22.885
∑V 46998.88

e = B/2 -X = 69/2- 22.885= 11.615 ˃ B/6

qmax =
∑ V (1+ 6 e ) = 1.369 MN/m2 < 24.1MN/m2 (Okay)
B B

qmin =
∑ V (1− 6 e ) = 0.0068 MN/m2 < 2.9MN/m2 (Okay)
B B
Therefore, the dam is safe against material failure.

CASE II: WITH EARTHQUAKE FORCES

a. Compression and Tension.

Net Moment, ∑ M = 1.16102× 106 KNm

X=
∑ M = 1.16102× 106 = 68.043
∑V 17063.02

e = B/2 -X = 69/2- 68.043= -33.543˃ B/6

qmax =
∑ V (1+ 6 e ) = 0.968 MN/m2 < 24.1MN/m2 (Okay)
B B

qmin =
∑ V (1− 6 e ) = 0.474MN/m2 < 2.9MN/m2 (Okay)
B B
Therefore, the dam is safe against material failure

3.3 FOUNDATION FAILURE ANALYSIS

CASE I: WITHOUT EARTHQUAKE FORCES
Safe bearing pressure = 1500×9.81×10-3 =14.715 MN/m2
qmax = 1.369MN/m2 < 14.715 MN/m2 (Okay)

CASE II: WITH EARTHQUAKE FORCES

Safe bearing pressure = 1500×9.81×10-3 =14.715 MN/m2
qmax = 0.968MN/m2 < 14.715 MN/m2 (Okay)

4. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 STABILITY ANALYSIS
The gravity dam was generally not stable against rotation and overturning and so
the stability can be enhanced by; Increasing the weight of the dam by using
denser materials in the construction of the dam or by increasing the overall size
of the dam. Also, by improving the foundation, incorporating a wider base which
can help distribute the weight over a larger area, reducing the potential for
rotation and overturning and the use of buttresses or counterforts to the
downstream side of the dam can provide additional support and resistance
against rotation and overturning forces.
The dam was stable against sliding and translation which is influenced by the
foundation strength, shear strength of the dam materials and effective drainage
systems to control seepage and pore water pressures within the dam and its
foundation. It is therefore recommended to ensure an adequate foundation
 strength and all the factors that enhance the stability against sliding for a proper
performance of the dam.

4.2 MATERIAL FAILURE ANALYSIS

The dam was stable against material failure as all of the maximum and minimum
stresses applied to the dam were less than the permissible values which are the
respective strengths of concrete, compressive and tensile strengths.
The strength of the dam against material failure is highly favoured by the type of
construction materials such as concrete or masonry of high strength and
durability, structural design including load distributions and reinforcement
detailing, construction quality, monitoring and maintenance. Thus, highly
recommended to adhere to these factors in order to enhance the safety of the dam
against material failure.

4.3 FOUNDATION FAILURE ANALYSIS

The foundation of the gravity dam was stable with an adequate strength to
support all loads imposed on it as the applied loads were less than the safe
bearing pressure of the foundation. A well-established foundation can be
established after a thorough geotechnical investigation to understand the
characteristics of the foundation materials including soil and rock properties,
bearing capacity, shear strength and potential for settlement or instability. A
careful site investigation, foundation design, grouting and sealing of foundation
joints, fissures and potential pathways for seepage, Geotechnical analysis and a
construction quality control can greatly help to ensure and maintain the overall
foundation stability.
 REFERENCES
 Santosh Kumar Garg (1976) Irrigation engineering and hydraulic structures.
Delhi, India.

 P. Novak, A.I.B. Moffat and C. Nalluri (2007) Hydraulic Structures Manchester,

United Kingdom.

 John S. Gulliver, Ph.D., Roger E. A. Arndt, Ph.D. (1991) Hydropower Engineering

Handbook. New York, United States of America.