Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA223' ) [}{J£ffi1~& CJ §liD&\®©@ Susitna J0int Venture DocuJTtent Number Please Return To DOCUMENT C0NTROL ALA5VJ\ PCMER AUlliORilY PfltlJECT SUB.U\SK 6.08 -P?ELIMINARY DEVIL OWfON ALlF.RN.~TIVES #- ,. ·ll ,, 2.57 PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 '1'1. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 f~tNtfiES Cf MEETIN1'1 HELD IN Bu ,~A· " a J o::u r·~.r'LMncr: 'qgo 1 t L..\,.1 .., J • II n .i).;..,I,,'!Di...l~ J...., Acres An1erican Incorporated 1000 Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone (716) 853-7525 S!m:tnn File Copy r:u~ # ."3.-~.,_(1., __ • .. .• •• • o 0 •. 0 '• • • • ·, ; : 0 I 0 0 : • : 0 0 • 0 • \ ~ 0 ' o • • • :0 •. • •o 0 •• , •• : :' 0# • :0:· .: . 0 • 0 ' •• •. o ,':: ALASKL\ POIJER AUTHORilY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PRnJECf SUBTASK 6.08 -PRELIMINARY DEVIL CANYON ALTERNATIVES MINUTES OF MEETING HELD IN BUFFALO 9 )lOTH DECB"lBER 1980 .. • .. DISTRIBUTION: M. Copen D. MacDonald H. Eichenbaum J.D. Lawrence J • vJ. Hayden I.P.G .. Hutchison V. Singh R. Ibbotson L.. Duncan R. Curtis 0. Ugaz D .. Shandalov D .. Curtis E. Skeba D. Carl son P. Joselin G.. Thompson (Buffalo) (N. Falls) (N. Falls) • • • MINUTES OF MEETING held at the offices of Acres American Incorporated on Tuesday and Wednesday, December 9-10, 1980 PRESENT: M. Copen D. ~1acDona 1 d H ... Eichenbaum u.D. Lawrence J. v:. Hayden I.P.G. Hutchison V. Singh R. Ibbotson L. Duncan R .. Curtis 0. Ugaz D. Sh&ndalov D. Curtis E. Skeba Attachments to these minutes: December 19, 1980 1. Presentation on Geotechnical Considerations Made During Meeting. 2. Arch Dam Design Comments (A summary of comments made by M. Copen) 3. Arch Dam Design Criteria (Suggested by M. Copen) 4. Aspects of Construction Techniquef 5. Per·tinent Information 6. Presentation on Stress Analyses Conducted by Acres 7. Summary of Acres Stress Analyses 8. Dam Layouts at Devil Canyon and Watana. 9. Report of Visit to Acres Anerican, :y M.D. Copen Minutes: 1. Overview of Acres Devil Canyon Arch Dam De:,.ign 2. Acres indicated: -the concrete gravity dam proposed at the site by the COE is probably unstable; the thin arch dam proposed by the USBR is a very preliminary design. Acres tabled their arch-gravity alternative and indicated they were still experiencing problems with tensile stresses on the downstream face. Preliminary cost estimates of dam and spillway made by Acres indicated a narrow spread between rockfill, arch gravity and thin arch atternative ($315 to $350 million). However more refinement of these estimates wa~ required and is in progress Some of the rlam layouts discussed are included in Attachment 8. Copen indicated a thin arch dam was more appropriate for the site and questioned the high cantilever tensile stresses on the downstream side obtained by Acres. He indicated the aim should be to design the arch for no tension under normal (hydrostatic, gravity and temperature or H, G&T) loading conditions. He also inCicated that selection of dam ~ype should be based firstly on a safety consideration and secondly on economic considerations. He did agree that comparison of dam safety for various dam types was difficult, particularly comparison of fill versus concrete dams. During discussion it became apparent that a severe and very probable loading case was in the reservoir level drawn down {several hundred feet) and minimum temperature conditions. It was agreed that this loading case should not be taken into account in the early design stages but should be evaluated before the detailed design is finalized. Results of Dam Stress Ana1ys~s ___,.. ftcres briefly presented the stress analyses conducted on both the g·r·avi ty arch and thin arch dams for static and dynamic loading conditions using the ADAP finite element program. Attachments 6 and 7 summarize the information presented by Acres. M. Copen questioned the results which indicated high tensile stresses (H,G&T loading) on the downstream face. He also indicated that the weight distribution used in ADAP, i.e. vertical and horizontal, was not appr0priate. The weight should be distributed vertically as this was closer to accepted ~~orth American construction techniques in which grouting is commenced only after completion of all concrete placement. H· indicated that a weakness of ADAP was poor representation of the abutment stresses due to the coarse mesh used and the lack of printout information on these stresses. Acres indicated that Follow Up Action By: R. Ibbotson • • .. .. the poor stress representation only occurred on the upstream and downstream faces of the dam and that they were planr.ing to improve the orintout of abutment stress information. M. Copen indicated that ADSAS (a cantilever-arch type cf model employing the trial load method) should be used ~s the main design tooi. 3. Results of Geotechnical Analyses Acres outlined the results of some very preliminary abutment stability analyses. These indicated that unless future explbration programs reveal unexpected conditions, there would be no problems vJith abutment stability. Attachment 1 contains some of the details discussed. Acres briefly outlined a program for geotechnical exploration at the Devil Canyon site. This program, which is still subject to budgetary review, includes in priority Ot'der: 10 Drill, from both banks if possible, into the abutments. 2. Drill across and under the river bed. 3. Drill across E-W features located on the left abutment. Additional geologic mapping would also be done this wintey. During discussion, it ~as indicated that at this stage of the study, it was acceptable to locate structures on the left hand abutment. 4. piscussion and Summary of Above Proceedings Acres outlined briefly that the scope of the engineering studies at Devil Canyon was as follows: Phase I -Feasibility study and FERC licensing Step 1 Determine whether there is anything that could rule out an arch dam. Step 2 Conduct a detailed feasibility design of an arch dam. Phase II -Preliminary Engineering and bid documents. To fo~lillow Phase I, schedule ;ts yet u::1detennined. Acres emphasized that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss and finalize Step l studies. M. Cop~n indicated that he had the following suggestions/recommendations to make: 1. Acres should get the 11 ADSAS 11 program up and r·unning as soon as possible. -~ Follow Up Action By: E. Skeba Schedule • By spring 1981 By spring 1982 D. Curtis • • .. ~·:.·;. , .' '• .. •• ·,; ' , , , .• ' ' ·, • ' , , • . , • ~:-, ~ -: • # . , ·,• ' • l •, ' ' I\. , -"' ' • • , ' ' , • 2. Acres should get the "HEATFLOW" program up and running as soon as possible (its methods are thoroughly documented and the USBR find it totally acceptable). This program would be used to evaluate the long term temperatures within the dam. 3. Acres should consider only one concrete dam type at Devil Canyon, i.e. a thin double curvature arch dam. As a starting point the following dimensions would be appl .. opri ate: top.width = 20 l base width = go• Circular arches should be used and the line centers of the up-and downstream faces should be separated sufficiently to give more arch thickness towards the abutments. During the design process whe~/if dam sect~ons are found to be in excessive tension, concrete should be removed and not added. The dam should be reorientated to improve symmetry, central angle at the crest should be between -3 Follow Up Jktion BY: D. Curtis R. Ibbotson 100° and 1100 and abutment shapes should be regular. This design should be based on the best interpretation of the sound rock profile that Acres has at this stage. A sound rock contour map is essentials the confidence limits of which should be goverened by the quality of the curr·ently available data. V. Singh 4. Design Approach Dam foundations and abutments should extend 5 1 into sound rock. M. Copen outlined a design approach which involves basically designing a simple structure for static loading (H,G&T) and checking it for dynamic earthquake loading using a psuedo-dynamic type analysis. If the structure is well designed, it should withstand earthquake loading u~ to 0.4g without much problem. He indicated Acres should use the "HEATFLCW 11 and "ADSAS" programs R. Ibbotson for this and use the finite element program as a final check. Attachment 3 outlines this approach in more detail. 5. Design Criteria Outlined in Attchffient 3, M. Copen indicate~ that Acres should review the latest USGS risk criteria w.r.~. earthquake design of major~ structures. Act"'es should a 1 so 1 oak at Karl Zwanger • s improvement to the Westergaard assumption w.r.t. water mass in dynamic analyses. f. Watana Arch Dam Concept Acres briefly tabled a preliminary arch dam layout for the Watana site (see Attachment 8). M. Copen•s comments were as follows: -Watana is a good site for a 3 cent=red arch; R. Ibbotson • .. .. ' \.;_ 7. -in staging the dam, one should not consider adding concrete to the downstream face because of bonding difficulties which cause adverse temperature stress differentials. The height can be increased by merely adding ,concrete to the top of the dam; -appropriate dam dimensions would be 100'-150' base width and 30 s crest vJi dth. General -M. Copen indicated that to maximize his input to the project he should be continuously updated on analyses results and layouts; -If necessary, arrangements could be made for Acres to use the USBR ADSAS program in Denver (through APA); -Alternatively B.C. Hydro have developed an IBM version of the program which would be compatible with the Acres VAX system; -Good contact man at the USBR is Howard L. Boggs. J/f? Reported by J ~ r---~ I. li{Jtchison IH:vb -4 Fo11ow Up Action By: R. Ibbotson • .. ' , I ' • .. • • ' • , ; • ' ,0 • ' • • , : '• ·, • ~ ~ • , , I , , . • , • ' • , , lb ,. f,• .~-0 a \ ... • , · .. · .. ., ~ 'I ' • •, ' '~ tl • r • ' • ' • ..&, I - I' ' ATIACHMENT 1 Presentation to Mr. M. Copen, December 9, 1980 Geologic & Ge0technica1 Consideration Devil Canyon Arch Dam 1 • Geologic Model of the Site -Beginning to understand 2~dimensional model of the site. -The information is still inadequate to develop a 3-dimension model. -Geologic structure In a broader sense, there are 3 major geologic structures: -bedding plane subparallel to the river and steeply dipping to south; -major joint set roughtly N-S and almost vertically dipping; -minor joint set approximately E-W and almost vertical dip. On the right abutment, bedding planes daylight in a drainage feature d/s. Considering the course of the riverf both present and past, there are some questions whether so called minor joint set is more developed near Devil Canyon site (to be further studied next year). 2. Sliding Stability -preliminary analyses Two cases analyzed for the right abutment. Case 1 -assume the dam is sitting on a hypothetical bedding plane daylighting d/s and could slide. -to develop a S.F. = 4 for this block. -required ~ ~ 55° for c = 0 . d ~ 85 requ1 re c u psi for ~ = 0 as compared to shear strength of rock (10% of qu) i.e. approximately 1700 psi This assumes forces from the dam without consideration of potential hydrostatic pressures within cracks just u/s of dam. • • .. • 3. L, l. f ' "'- Case 2 -Assuming relatively small black isolated from rest of the dam and failure plane 5 ft. below the foundation level (see figure) with additional hydrostatic pressure. For a F.S. = 4 -required 0 = 63° for c = 0 -required c = 130 psi for 0 = 0 Planned Geotechnical Investigations for 1981 -Realizing the limitations on our budget we plan (in order of priority): 1 boring on L.A. and 1 boring on R.it, both close to river level and going into abutments. 1 boring (minimum) crossing the river. 1 boring crossing the suspected shear zone on the left abutment. Geologic mapping at the site and near Portage Creek. 4. The current state-of-knowledge does not disprove the feasibility of an L arch dam. V. Singh ' . ~ . ... .. ~ ~· • • j • ATTACH~1ENT 2 Arch Dam Design Comments (Interesting Points Raised During Discussion) -Generally, in a well designed arch dam the maximum deflection should occur several feet below the crest. -Grout temperatures generally used are aruund 38oF. ~ Note that statements made by K. Hansen (PCA) that thinner arches require thicker crests is incorrect. • .. • ', • • ; ' • -. ' ~" • • .. ' ~.. • ' • (1 • -. \ . . . . . -\ . . . . . . . .-. I . . . I • . I • • . . .. . APPPOACH ATTACHMENT 3 Arch Dam Design Approach and Criteria (Suggested by M. Copen) Basic Approach -Acres should aim for a good and 11 tight" f\ngineering design. This implies making maximum use of the concrete, i.e. under normal loading conditions (H,G&T) compressive stresses should all be near the maximum allowable and tensile stresses should be avoided or minimized. Should 11 political" pressures require a more conservative approach, this should be dealt with at a later stage. Design Loads -The basi approach should involve designing the dam initially for static loads (H,G&T) and checking for dynamic loading. At this early stage, it would be appropriate to do a psuedo dynamic analysis (or a response spectrum analysis if data is available). Before the final design is completed one would have to do a time history dynamic analysis. Tern erature Effects -Placement temperature would probably be as low as 45°F compared to 50-55 Fin the lower 48). One would have to include refrigeration pipes to limit the maximum temperature to 80°F. Cooling would be suspended until grouting commenced. At that stage the structure would be cooled to 39-40°F. The 11 HEATFLOW 11 program ~hould be used to calculate the long term steady state internal temperature (USBR have found that daily and weekly temperature fluctuations only penetrate up to a depth of 5 feet). We may have trouble because the long term mean temperature could be lower than the grouting temperature, a~d joints would not all be in compression. One should~ thus, think of double or triple water stops. Effects of hydration of different types of cement on temperatures should be considered when selecting appropriate cement types. The ADSAS approach, in which a linear temperature distribtuion through the structure is assumed, is adequate. In fact, at this early stage one could use a uniform temperature distribution. Special Loads -These loading cases include earthquake during construction and severe temperature on a partially filled reservoir. The latter is important, but need not be considered at this early stage. Design Guidelines -The basic objective should be to de~ign the structure so that tension is eliminated (or minimized) under normal loading conditions (H,G&T). Generally, when tensions develop, concrete should be removed. We may have problems in the heel of the dam where it would be acceptable to allow tensile stresses of up to 150 psi. Pseudo Dynamic Analysis -When using a pseudo dynamic analysis, maximum stresses generally occurred near the bottom of the dam. With response spectra and time history analyses, these maximum stresses move upward. This has to be considered when using these analyses techniques. • Ill • DESIGN CRITERIA General: Fr0~t resistant concrete Concrete strength (365 day) = 5000 psi Density of concrete ~ 150 lb/ft3 Static Loading: (H,G&T) Factor of safety (in compression) = 4 Tensile strength (for purposes of estimating cracking only) = 250 psi (5% of strength) Deformation modulus of concrete D2formation modulus of rock Poissons ratio -concrete r-ock Dynamic Loading: (earthquake) 3,000,000 psi 2,000,000 psi (1 and 3,000,000 psi fot sensitivity analyses) 0.2 0.2 until better estimate available Factor of safety >1 (Max. credible earthquake) Tensile strength (250 + 2 x50% increase*) Elastic modulus of concrete Psuedo dynamic loading: Water: + =2 (design earthqua~e, -100 year return period) approximately 500 psi (Acres to verify) = 5,000,000 psi (Acres to verify) 50% acting horizontally Concrete: 50% acting horizontally *increase 50% for converting from tensile to flexural strength and further 50% to convert to allowable stresses under dynamic loading. .. • • j: . ATTACHMENT 4 Aspects of Construction Techniques (Some of Which Must Be Taken Into Account When Analyzing Stresses in Arch Dams) General method of construction in the U.S. involves completing the vertical · monoliths to dam crest level in 5' to 10' lifts and then grouting the ~drtical joints in roughly 60ft. lifts (Glen Canyon dam was an exception to this rule. It was built in two stages). This practice is not ideal in terms of stress distribution within the dam, but simplifies construction procedures (and costs). It does mean that in analyzing :~,tresses the dam the weight must be distributed vertically downwards only. If the dam construction is staged (as in Glen Canyon), the second stage weight is distributed vertically down to the crest of stage one and then taken up by what can be considered a monolithic first stage wall (i.e. spread vertically L and horizontally). '·· ADSAS can be used to model any of the above. Rise in temperature of conceret due to hydration should be limited to 35oF, otherwise cracking problems would be encountered. ., .. ATTACHMENT 5 Pertinent Information Auburn dam (thin arch version) maximum deflections were 0.5 ft (H,G&T loading) and 1.5 ft (H,G&T earthquake loading), respectively. The USBR have looked at using fiberglass thermal insulation of the dam wall to improve temper .. lture stresses. They concluded it was feasible, but have never implemented it. • .. • -----~ • • ~ -:l!l' •• , .--_ -.-. . .. ----.---.. ~ ·· .. ----· -- . __ · -·--:~-.:·:~;--"----.. ~_-,_· ________ T' ___ :· ~.--·-·:.-.• .->--~---~----:-. :-----_-__ _:_ ________ ~--~-~-~-.---_- '. t. • ATTACHMENT 6 Presentation on Stress Analyses Conducted By Acres (D. Curtis) .. • .. • .. -.. . .. .. . . ~ 1.J ?../ 3/ 4/ 5/ "/ 7/ . Sl 7 • -· . . Ra~~'--rs o~ c:~Qt:..l'e~ 0~ --r'Wt~ ~~e.~ ~~~ \:) 'I ~~~\C.. • "J . . .. ... 4 ... - R~~-\')~.,.:s • ~I ~')~To 'f!l ~~\c. "r G~~~'--r'-4, (.~~ez) ~ ~. 4~ s.\e.~'~ \~o..~ • q.y~\~..4. \~ o.J. \i.\.'t,'\l. '~so.' - \ -e O.\a\""1. 5' .r '-r-t1. 'cfaQ, .. ~ .. r~ ~ ~ 0.\,) t .l. 'J \c-.~ .. Cl·v "' \-t_ ~ \~ Q.~ 'ac.41 \~c..c\ ~ ~ 1'1:)~ ~,~\, Q.)\.. \,)~~\'1\,\-e s~r~~l~f"~ • ~fl~<.e. ~ Q.t't..~ ~ C.l\~ c.~~ i \-.a \.\e.~~ -f ~ ~. -~""~ ll\~~. ...... ' .~, . ~'1~ r-o 5~-\ ; <>;.. T G-'1"\l-.:~ \ +y "'r T~'l"\~'(t.'M'\\ru;:' (\J.· Jr. ~~-r) : ..... ..... Na tc. ~ 't-Q..~'!)~ +~ aQ,.~. . .. -. 1 -~ .. • AN~\.1-s\~ ~t\.Ctl-.~ ,, . --·---. 8-'1\~~ed '(IA.C:.~~ \\e.~ \l ~ \~ <:. \-tw.t.'t\. ~ • \"i'e.-t.. - . ' . . . -·~ ·~ -. ·,. l: • . . . : .. r . I e.\~i-'1\.~ ~l'"C~l."'-. ~ .. ,. . da."'-. ~ c ~ " d.-. ..l: ·\'a""-t:. \-e.""""-""~ ~ e.~ \-.e'f\d 0.. c-.\ \ ~ \a;~c.e, e.r~t ~ -~ "'-e.~""\ e~ ~ \ '"-~ ~ '$'-lT'f'C. ~n ~"~ "t~~\c.. ClCl"M.,. ' ' Q..\\ ~'i""e't. ~\.,..~·c..-\. i~ '4~ • -\~ ~ .... ·~.f'C~~'Mw ~\\Qw~ ¥~ ~~~~ ~ : ->~~""\~'I \c.cl ~ -w .... ~'r" \~o.~~ (. "'-"'~'o ~h!.it.) .. 1-e.'l\t'\-r•ro..~\1-re. \~~d.~ . -c. ~1\(. e '1\ ~'f~ -t "'~ \ a u. c! '!. , ... ... ..... (o . \1\e~ ~ e \~\l ~ ~ \t:.V.. s -IJ '(\, '!! y '1'1\ '1>'\".t.. ~ 'f' \ t. ~ ~~ ;- -\3CI e\e.m.Q-n..~ ( ,S.c. -'UT<.t*\ ) \ 0 () -\=' <:.·~ N \":) ~.,. t ~ j...-..1 .. • ... -~~~~'tt\e. ~~ dOJYt\... St::~\\~ ~\,)bj e(..~~ . ~0 ~\.l'(" Sic:~.c.e. ~~'fa.~~~ ~~\lotts o.t. ~\tl\ \lo.~\o..~\~1!'-e:.SS. ~~""0.. ~~-~"i.\t... c\~~~ \~. ·~~ ~\\~~~: ... ,.. ........._ ... _ ..... - ~------~--------~------, , ..... jl:' .. ,,' 2. . r , {:a -:;_~ 2c!. T ~~~\l~\~~ Cl. G'lt.~""''tf: ~~\r-•~~~ ;. c<. : 0 • C4 "S ~ J.;. .. ~/ \.. t" F-:o @ 1= "!2. : .. • Ill . -. .. . -. y..:: 0.. "f'" .... T"O\l ~ ~ • . \\.-e. f~~ rc.."" -A~~'? u~e~ T\..f~-e.. ~R\C..~ \ f _!j -~. \> e. \"e'\'l\1l'f\ ~ -\-\.r~:.~~ \.. ~ T r-.\t.\<.. 'N!.~"3 0 "t -t-\..~ da., 'N! o ~ ~~'\'a.\u't.e~ <:.a.'fl.. \le.. :s ~c.l~le d 0'1'.. -¥~ d-.w... ~~-e ~ a..+ +~..~.:)<::~ \'4'\~'f!\"\c,... X\Odes. • 4 .• ,. . .. .A.t:. 'TU'il\ \,. "J:~S~\..\~E1:). 17.1.1 -\l~e..~ \'A. ~~$\~ '3~·. ~ "'!.~ 0 as.~ 2.S.~~ r 10.2. 0 + .. -;o. T -~ 23.\' ~.!l."$' ,~ .. '31 . •. ?'Q~~e.e.. t"\e~r\ '/ t(~ CSct '0\e. · u'-o~~'- <:la\'\.d tt\~rA"~\~ \\~~~ ~ \l S.l'L. ~~r~a.c-e. . ·' 'n\u s.lr ~e. . <.om'?~~ ~'} "'(.VI\~ . ' • -•• _, ' ... 'II .. 4 -.~ .. 'II • .. -• ~ • .. ··..o:~·· ----·~- • • • " Ten~io\'\.s <="1-c.ee c\ \"1'l o.:re, ('e.\ \e\Je.~ ~~e\..... -s\'ec.i:~i.e.l Q,.t\o~A. 'ale ~.J-a. ~ ~ ~ ~-: :·~ . . . -· . .c:. ~c:. \, ~'? ~e. "a.\le. o.\\~~0. \,\e.. -\-~~ i-:o "~ • O.Y\c\ Q,\Q'jl.). ~e. <=. -ra.t.. \<. 'f\0 ~e'1\~iat\' e~\~+" A rP ~o'l( \ tt\(\1.-\ ~ M ·1! • .'-\t..o~ :. . · Sec_ \e. s -1-~e~s e s ~ .e leU>tt et'. t l • 1----A--~~==~·cO fJ ~ w ..., . -.~~ -/oo.f"'~ .. -· .... , \)_c. ~~c. \(E.\) · . ......... --. .. ..... -.... .._~-'t- • - -R~s~a"'-:.e Sy-et.·~"t"um. ~~"'\1\)t:_ -~S<. Ia.~~ eqc-~,..,Q.\<.e -\a.+ co~t~ ~ C.O ~\)OM~-'t {..\\1-'W) c.?'i' \\a~ \~ \,)~~~"tea'fi\. -d.t\ ~"l"eo. ~ a\'f'ec,..l,)o-... ' \.~ -.. O.'NL \ r'e e ~ ~~ ~'1\.·~c\'l\. \e_ ~ • ~t..1\~ .t~'!\S 't \~ o..~ t,;.\.. ~-\ -re~~e' The. O•;l~~a.l .. ~+ d.~e:~ \le'\""''51~~ ~t>Pr"'? "1\~-t \V\.e \~~·~ "" 'i ~\"""0 d. 'f l'\ Q. )"'!\ {. t:.. ~-=~~~ 4-s . b~\ tM ~\"~~ '1 ... ~ vr. .. ~~ ~~i?.V\. n\~ tlt~ \~~ ~ (l (...(., ~ ~ f,(\.;. ~~'f'" "'' o..~6ed (/ VV\.ct. s s • • ' ' ' . .. 1.60 (.!) -1.20 z -_J u u 0.80 <( . ...J <t. ~ 0.40 u w 0.. (I) 0.00 . _,....._ / ' . RESPONSE SPECTRA ··TAFT· 1952 ·NORTHWEST SCALED TO 0.5G PEAK HORIZONTAL / . V'( ~ ' . . r 1'.. . .........,.. ~ . ' ~ . . . LJ ·N . . ~ ~ . 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0:32 0.36 0.40 0.44 9.48 0.52 PERIOD (SEC.) . . .. • . . . I '.' --··· ...... r , , • •' ·: '• , , ·• • • • • • . •. • , .. • • • • • • . •. ~ • • • •, • • r • •• • •' • • • • • • • ~ • • ~ • • ~. ~ • • • • • . • , , , -, . • ~ • •• -• • .--. • .. , ~~ • • • • • : • • • & • ==~==··=··. =--···=-=====:=:::::c::l:~--::;:;:;::;---:::;;::;--=· . = be-ev-- b = 7/a ,fi;y' \:. \~ ~-\~~ ~~ \.'-lC.~~,. • O..t.<:..e \~,~~c:...~ ~ \ \-\"'-;.-\.~ ~C''-.;~~ .. ... .. ... •ii . .......... ··~- .. " " • • \~ . -reo..~~~o.~\e. Ct)'f\.~~\ \~~"'L~ ~\t-e.~~e.s. ~"C.~lf:>l>. ~tr ~ ~-e-e."' cl~\f'\e. ~~~ V\'\.o~ ~ -s\::a?~ • T~1:. hti. s a-\:) . ~\Nt. ~re 'S c. (J';:!..i\1-IJ ~T'/ ..... "' ...... o.; -·· ." ,. .. • . . . . -~--.. . . .. . . . . . ' .:; • • I.;' .., , • '• .,. : • • • ~· f • . . . • .. -A\\ ~ '( "f\0.. "('$'. \. ... Q.. '1\0. \ ~ 'Se ~ \.),) -e "\ e. <:.n -r-r\ "t,A c~~ • ~~\\ ('"e~C:~'\lO \..,-.. a. ~~u~~T\~ a. i) No.~~~o..l E~~~~~ ~e.l:.~~ (. C,?~) t..\...) ~-c. of£ A:~r:.~ . c""t~~~""t''t T~t~ ~~l~ I . /.(.,0 -~ J .. 4?.. z_ t~:-5 . I. SS 3 z..~ \ ~·39 ~~e.. t~\>)"t, ~ no.\~rc-l -t~-er \J ~ .. (l.c..t ~~ . ~~ T".\~ ~'?'(. \.. 0-l\d o..«JS~<:..\c.~e ~ ~Q.~T \S ~~~ ~ ~ \~~~1" ~~l~'t'.ess +~ 'ffiO.SS '\o.~\\0 J"h ~ ) or:. ~ ·nutt. A~et~ ( ve. • ~-= n\b-t ~-\.t..' ~· ... 11'1·-<1"'!""' ' ..... _._...._.,..........,.~··-·lf ... '!" ... _ ... , •• , ···-·---·-.. • ... .. ·-......... -.. ... ~-~ -· ATTACHr~ENT 7 Summary Qf Acres Stress Analyse~, Indications of Where Dam Design Improvements Can be r·1ade and Other Material Presented By D. Shandalov .. • • n ! 1 . 1 1:'S 4S 7])5 t c( /ttUH~ ce:-.JH I lv 1 'f-IUH .. > I b70 993 lo4 o I ·~.3 ~0 z.~ I 52.0 " I j !j-~~I< ~ + G--f<. + TiS~.: • p;t;riClpA-L OD 1MpR..· £T 6Z..4tl 479 l2tz &21" '":" +1-Y:DR.+~. ':".t "•' ·~· \.,•) ·~ n\ t-- .. - : . COnApR. ' TENSioN 1 l 30 512. 3S/ 76Z . -- A-ftC# :P-A-M ~c~ GR. 'DA-M -. . ,... 993 us. c-eow;J -:t.-··-~ -'· q ---1 ~ .~ .. Sz.c. .. . a>. S., /#5~'JM~"1 1o4o -' s~ "-~--•t ~ __..,. I t:;J ::D.s. Clet>~A 2.S9 = t, 7 _IS"?> ur. ~oWN J2l2 -!. ·~~ .............. - • \ I l . I t I I ~ J ( I ~. J ...... -· ·--~ . ... IMpA.oOti'IN~OJ::o Sf14MSTft'/: + -~&lDC/tJi'IOP 0~ C;c,Ni&R..\ N S. • • if -Tlt-f.ttA t.T Bl..~~tt A-r R\.Ett\T 1\-eUT. + ,_ ft~u.."TM erdr PA-Ij} 5 +· J. R.~ttc-r1 t:ttJ 4JF CoMptt,f;.,Stv e.. ST#?.~~~~sSl.SS. A-tJJ> -roRSr a.IJ . ' l . I i ! . ; .. -· · ---f--_ _,!~.~~~-~ t~]:f:ri !.!w?. !t~ ~'~~~~~·h-w-=>.-i:: _ _.._ 0> .±, . .., _...._., .. " ... ....... ~ ......... ......___ - 2. f< ... E3HlCTt otJ e-;-F TeHSI Lt.. SIR.~ . tN c.A..fJnL£..vesa... _ -I 1-JC.ll-GA-C£ OF C£S£.T Ot/&:Rtf..~H lr ( "-) :Pow Nf. 'f1<..S.,JrM ..r=:A-t~ '1-p p t:. R.. p.~,-. -: I Mpotu·l3rHCr-WI'1"H-'niMP(J)AAfJ.V opst~ Jo1~~rt ~,... .C{(...££'1 + -nl--lCI<tsNJN.€(-o~ CR-oWN CtlliJl.E.vriR. .. · + ~A-S~ -PA-P...Tl-4-L t-f-oR. 1 Z»~17\ .. L '""JoiNTS, A-1 ~ ~ viZS~IVl fb ;4--S £_ + -# +· -~LLU'W li.:r ~~Sfi_ ' -t~· -., ..... ......_.. 4CAi 4 il!li4.A4 ...... 'lift .. .-,,.....,,,,,.._, __ ._ __ • ------..... , ...._..~,~~.,. o&A_,..f.-_..........,._,_.....,...,..,~ ... .._..._.~nw:o.,._~.._v.,_,, ____ --1 _____ --t----:..---~. ~S-j)ttC!~o,J OF-TSNSits. -- ST}{..c~b!!i"S /I'/ kR..,C~SS -1-- t. J;_ :~~ ·:;Jqc.·n (f)~~ oF TeNS I La ·r 1 ;:;:,,!.-1+.\ :•1t"'~~ f:~ ~~~:;:.:~~~ s Ti+SR..l·i it~ · I ff.~ o L~,.e C'J 0 f:;~. ::D ~~11\1 :A, I ,. ··~ :r:; Ar-tt.-7? .p A··~C...E: .. _ , ___ ....__ ..._, _____ ,.., .. , ...... ! l I l i' ! ! ' I l I I I ' l· I ' ' ! I. I. ! ·. r ! I r ( f t " • --------·--· .. _ ~-.... ·- ·-· ~ I I . ~ . "' ... .. . ~1 ~ ... ~~ j %} A 1· c{ .c::-o ...... ~~ 1li. a1 f!. f\ -.: . -.... l;; + 4.1 :1 ~ ::;1'-. =£-... ~ g ~ 1) ~ G 0 ~ n a, 'lit- 1 ~ l ~ .. .. ~· l] ~ 1 j L.) l t-1 I cJ ., 1 J ! ! cJ I u I I r:J .. ,. .. .. / ! ~~ f 2 .5 ~ s b G"c.-z.. ·% 1oo . l 105" ·. I HS :;: .,.0 I~S ·~0 <0~ % Joo 95" 5o S'7 f.$' _gi -· ·----~--··----... --------~----.. --,.,......._.....---.,.._ ... - Wt!t!.k NoR. MA-t.. Rt.D Grt :z, V"J!~f .. 't R) ~ 6tJ) E. R (_T/cM':) '3o-7o 7o --•s·o 1So .... 3oo > 3oti (PSI.) ~ro 6 ·. ~ ~ o, 4 -. I. I -2,1 rl,·J ~ 4. '2 .> 4. 2 ............ ...._.. .. _,_. -----------------........... _____ _ • •• -A. 4 ~ 7 ·J~ J I 7 -. -e -R =-,s-z. s T/ cf!t,4 • ·&.«> ;;: ·3s-o))lf ,,;> p.S J • ....:'!. ; t -4 IM I ' I ~ ·I ,_ ~ ---~ •.. '· . --~ --·----... . --·· .. 6 .. .. ATTACHMENT 8 Dam Layouts at Devil Canyon and Watana t. • .. • • I ' o I . . . • 1 : . . . • • (1 ~ • Q I I ~ 2 • ~ g .l.'lMI• ,- r - 0 .:r:' 2" si " ~- !':I 4 • o• • ..... -, Q I ' ;. !~ .. I "" -· '.i• I M -~; " u .: .. .., ' • _"',_.,,. S~IAl!l"';: "b,, ...--- 0 .. I l_ L __ ........,.__ .. _ .. ~ 3 • .. : a " 9 t c &!-... ., • ~ " 0 j " " ~ .. I ' ~ ~ ./ = " 3 .r ' \ u! f ..J i;: .! 0 ~/ Ill a. Ill ;· Ill i= 3 0 \ ~ \ ol Ul 3: ; \ 0 a. ... f _, .. .. ;; I II ~ I ~ I I ~ 0 Q I 0 I l: ~ 8 8 r " L 0 8 tl g '11 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . y ·-: .. !' " ~ w 1 0 Q J 8 ~ 0 ~ .. ~ z 2 8 . y· I j I .; " • ~ : 0 !! • I ... ! \ i:J ~~ u. '• .. 8 ;, " ~ ~ 0 g § ) • ...., Ptt ,..O'J..,Arl'! I ! u u .. ·¥: ~· ·!.". " z 3 § ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ' • .. L ~ L L .. J .I I I ;{.._ ·L l. ' 9 .. ~- .. -' • ~ •• 0 ~ jl ~ ~ l ( ·I I I • - ,.. ~ ,..J ... [ l/'1 > t,J ..: \!) ~ ::: 1.\J "-\) - ~ ... ~ Q. • .. ~ ... _ .. • • .. I 4 ·------- 0 .. . > . , -~ r I n v \ .......... !I ~I _, ~ ' ' ,... '\ ...... ,, ""' \ '\\ I \ I ' I ,..., - ,. .. ~, ... • • f I I I • I • i ! I l \ \ I I I ) ,.# . /' i I / / I ' i I / I ! \ \ \ •, i I l ... r I I \ I I ! ' ' z 0 9 1./) I~, I \ 'i I --_'io ( \ .. . , ' ) ( I .. J I ,· I I I f /.. I ,· I / ! I ; . ' I . I ' • l ( \ \ ·~, loo.,\ ,i"'l J .. ! ; • ·1 ' ' ' . ' ' ' \ . . g i :: • ~ I I IJ • I • -J I ;; L -I I L ! • • c ' 3 e • I l I I ~ ~ • t ;! -J ~ ~ a: ' i .,, • • ~ D I I.U u .. > 6 • a: - .. • 1-z. w .::: I.U ~ <( 0:: a: <( -J <: .. a: w .z UJ ~ (,!) ! / " • ' \ . \ ., • • .. r ·~*''! . ( . ..-' l (' ' .~ ATTACHNENT 9 REPORT OF VISIT TO ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED~ BUFFALO, NoY. SUS I'l,NA PROJECT , ALAS Kl-\ December 8-11, 1980 Merlin D. Copen, P.E. \ During the morning of December 9, I presented a discussion of arch dam analysis and design to members of Acres American staff. Slides and sketches were used to illustrate various t1~es of arch dams and analyses used in the design of arch d~s. I particularly empha- sized the use of the Trial Load Method of Arc;h Dam Analysis and evidence to support the reliability of this method. In the afternoon of December 9, members of Acres ALASKA POW!:!it staff reviewed the work accomplished at the Devil Canyon AIJ"rHOhlrY site for an arch dam design. Two designs, a thick arch SY,,srrN.~-~-~·· and a thin arch, had been analyzed using finite element FIL.~ pfj(OO procedures based on the computer program ADAP. Details :d=:----.- o£ load. ing and the results of stress studies were dis-I S~~Wf:Nci::No. J cussed. The results of these studies indicated stresses 1 which were not consistent with those normally found in · 1.·~/ ...... ~ r,--.-~1 {-oq: ::Q I such structu~es. I discussed my concerns with Messrs i~:~! ~ 1 ~ 1 Lawrence and Hayden and suggested that I study the l~i~l 5 1 ~ f results presented du:ing the evening ~d then suggest 1...:. · '--.. ;-1 j an approach for cont~nued arch dam des~gn.. 1 _ oc2/--.t t~--.~~1--j, on Wednesday morning, December 10, I suggested 1=-J c-.~~}-/yPf{J the following procedures: I ~~ 1. Proceed ir:unediately to. get ADSAS (the c~mputer-. r =i2:~~~J .... _f 1 ized vers~on o£ the Tr~al Load Method', ln operat~ort.__,,: .. ·~4:n~ . r · ~·-Eiln-~ I ----2. Become familiar with the method require(!. to estima~e_ . .J:1"'5 NT 1 .. . temperatures of the concrete in the dam. The f.,_ti.E.~: ~ ...... . ~~ ~ I ' J :;/" ; I --,...----•-'•-'·••· Y< 1 L<Jr.. 1:"':.-"" z: -. vr i u R c ~ D ~ 1 -/ ) , I' ~J:2k<~;z-· . // c .?/r..t:..et 1 1 ... t:, .. 1 ( __2/ ~ ("'d .. ~ . r~t.::...,~,~. _,_;rr77f;...:..r.--. ,.,..../ . , ~" v J t).<." ,tl ·-:-, ' l j(. g;_/..,../,[_ ~_i~'lj _,1--~--~·~~~ ... ,/l k~~·J/ /f -l.. 1 ••~"' ~ (.}_.. /.' ;.G' • /. I ftt;;, . ' # • / II""'t •/ ~ ~~~ l :P /.t:..~ 1 ';"/ ....... _, ....... -.-.. -,~·:----· .... --,. e:.G.... c~~'>'~ ..r-~..,---' I /' ;-. \...,:f ... ;::'!.,_.. c!_:._ p / t .,. .. • .. • • r . .-. I L .. , r L r L [ .. • Susitna Project, Alaska page 2 computer program "Heat Flow" should be used to obtain the necessary temperature loads for the ADSAS computer program. 3. To expedite the design for Devil canyon Dam, concentrate on only one design-This could have a top thickness of 20 feet and a base thickness at the crown cantilever of about 90 feet. The overhang and undercut should be similar to that used in the prese.nt thin arch design. The crown section•should have approximately the same thick- ness from its midpoint to its base. The central angle for the arch at its axis should be between 100° and 110°. Arches should be circular with some thickening toward the abutments. 4. Concrete compressive strength should be 5,000 psi at 365 days. A factor of safety of 4.0 based on compressive stress is suggested. An estimated concrete tensile strength of 250 psi for static loads and 600 psi for dynamic loads is suggested. A sustained modulus for concrete of 3,000,000 psi and a deformation modulus of 2,000,000 psi for abutment rock are suggested. 5. Stress analyses and design changes should be based on normal full reservoir, minimum usual temperature loads, ice and silt loads as appropriate. Temperature loads should be assumed to be uniform throughout each arch. 6. No attempt should be made to apply dynamic loads until a s~tisfactory design has been obtained for the above criteria. This is true also for other loading conditions which should eventually be appl~ed to assess the adequacy of the dam. During Wednesday afternoon the possibility of a.n arch dam design at the Watana site was discussed~ I suggested consideration of a three-centered arch in the • .. ,~ I I I I I I b-. f I I ... Susitna Project, Alaska page 3 top portion of the site, blending into a single centered arch in the lower portion. stage construction, grouting procedures, spillways and plunge pools were discussed in a general way. . ' •