STI Section8

Toledo Bend Project - STI
Section 8
Stability/Stress Analysis of Project Structures
SECTION 8
STABILITY / STRESS ANALYSIS
OF PROJECT STRUCTURES
8.1
GENERAL
8.1.1 Load Cases Analyzed

The load cases analyzed for the various structures over time in various
reports have been grouped by structure, then by report. Tables and
figures have been created to summarize all the data in the following
sections.
8.1.2 Stability Analyses Methodologies
a.
b.
Forrest & Cotton (1962). Serving as SRAs Engineer, Forrest &

Cotton used the following methods for analyzing the stability of the
structures:
1)
Main Embankment and Dikes (as reported in Design

Memorandum No 3). The main embankment and dikes were
analyzed using the circular arc method.
2)
Spillway (as reported in Design Memorandum No. 2). Hand

calculations for sliding and overturning on three sections: the
overflow section, the low-flow section, and the non-overflow
section. Circular arc analysis was also performed on the
overflow section.
3)
Powerhouse. To date, no information has been uncovered

that describes the original powerhouse stability design
methodology.
Rone Engineers (1983). Serving as a geotechnical consultant,

Rone performed a liquefaction and stability analysis using the
following methods:
1)
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Main Embankment. The general subsurface of the main

embankment was tested by performing 16 standard
penetration sample borings. The stability analysis followed
guidelines recognized by FERC. Using conservative
parameters, a maximum design earthquake acceleration of
Page 8-1
Section 8
0.04 g resulted in a factor of safety greater than 1.15. The

liquefaction potential was also analyzed indicating that there
is no possibility for liquefaction.
2)
c.
A stability analysis was performed on Dike No. 2, which

indicated that the embankment was adequately stable.
Recommendations were made for adding a small berm with
an internal drainage system to control seepage areas.
Brown & Roots Toledo Bend Dam Stability Analysis (1988)

1)
Main Embankment. The main embankment was analyzed

on three separate cross sections using PCSTABL4 software
which calculates the factor of safety against slope failure
using two-dimensional limit equilibrium methods. The factor
of safety was calculated using the Simplified Bishop method
of slices.
PCSTABL4 as used by Brown & Root for the 1988 analyses,
was verified for a typical embankment section using
MCAUTO SLOPE ( McDonnell Douglas Automation
Company product), which is a computer subsystem of
Integrated Civil Engineering System (ICES). The run was
performed for the embankment section at Station 116+30.
As reported in Toledo Bend Stability Analysis Verification of
PCSTABL4 Computer Program, dated November 1988 by
Brown & Root USA, Inc., the factor of safety calculated by
the PCSTABL4 program using the Simplified Bishop method
of slices correlated very well with that calculated using
MCAUTO SLOPE.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
2)
Spillway. Hand calculations were used in 1988 to calculate

sliding stability for the spillway. The method of analysis was
a two-dimensional limit equilibrium approach, in accordance
with ETL-1110-2-256. Force equilibrium is satisfied in the
approach. Moment equilibrium was not analyzed. The
analysis was performed on three different sections of the
spillway: the overflow section, the low-flow section, and the
non-overflow section.
3)
Powerhouse. Slipcircle analysis was determined to be more

critical for the powerhouse, and therefore PCSTABL4 was
used to examine the stability of the powerhouse for sliding
block failure, using the simplified Janbu method of slices.
The excavated intake channel slope was analyzed for
Page 8-2
Section 8
sudden drawdown and earthquake conditions, also using the

PCSTABL4 program.
c.
Brown & Roots FERC Inspection Report (1998)

1)
Spillway. Further analyses of the spillway only (overflow and

low-flow sections) were undertaken for this report to examine
the effect of the approach slab and drainage system on the
stability of the structure against sliding and overturning. The
method used was hand calculations using the twodimensional limit equilibrium approach, similar to that used in
the 1988 Stability Analysis.
Note. There is no reference in the above to any analyses on

training/retaining walls. These are less critical in the context
of public safety and are therefore not included in this
Appendix.
8.1.3 Properties of Materials
Material testing reports from the original construction have not been
located. Design properties and assumptions made for the various
calculations have been collected. Concrete compressive and tensile
strength properties for the spillway are summarized in Section 8.2.1,
paragraph h. Soil properties for the powerhouse are summarized in Table
8.2.10. Soil properties for the main embankment are summarized in
Tables 8.3.3, 8.3.5, and 8.3.7 from the various reports. Soil properties for
the minor dikes are summarized in Tables 8.3.8, 8.3.10, and 8.3.12.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-3
8.2
Section 8
GRAVITY STRUCTURES
8.2.1 Spillway
a.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Sections, Loading Cases and Assumptions. Spillway sections are

shown in Figures 8.2-01, 8.2-02, and 8.2-03. Loading conditions
and assumptions are shown in subsequent paragraphs of the
report.
1)
Forrest & Cotton (1962). Stability analyses for the spillway

as given in the Forrest & Cotton Design Memorandum No. 2,
dated August 1962 are summarized in Table 8.2.1. The
stability analysis calculations for the Intermediate Pier
Monolith (Figures 8.2-04 and 8.2-05), Low Flow Release
Pier Monolith (Figure 8.2-06), and the Non-Overflow Section
(Figure 8.2-07), are given in the respective figures. The
spillway chute stability analysis calculations are given in
Figure 8.2-08.
2)
Rone (1983). Stability analyses for the spillway as given in

the Rone Engineers report, Instrumentation and Hydrostatic
Pressure Relief Systems, are summarized in Table 8.2.2 and
shown in Figure 8.2-09.
3)
KBR (1988). Stability analyses for the spillway as given in

the Brown & Root report, Toledo Bend Stability Analysis,
dated November 1988, are summarized in Table 8.2.3. The
stability analysis calculations are given in the following
figures:
Case A Overflow Section (Figure 8.2-10)
Case B1 Overflow Section (Figure 8.2-11)
Case B2 Overflow Section (Figure 8.2-12)
Case C Overflow Section (Figure 8.2-13)
Case B1 Low Flow Section (Figure 8.2-14)
Case D Low Flow Section (Figure 8.2-15)
Case A Non-Overflow Section Hydrostatic Loads
(Figure 8.2-16)
Case A Non-Overflow Section Soil Loads
(Figure 8.2-17)
Case C Non-Overflow Section Hydrostatic Loads
(Figure 8.2-18)
Case C Non-Overflow Section Soil Loads
(Figure 8.2-19)
Main Embankment Showing Stability Sections
(Figure 8.2-20)
Page 8-4
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-5
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-6
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-7
4)
Section 8
KBR (1998). Stability analyses for the spillway as given in

the Brown & Root report, Toledo Bend FERC Stability
Analysis, dated October 1998, are summarized in
Table 8.2.4. Main Embankment Stability Section Locations
are shown in Figure 8.2-20. The stability analysis
calculations are given in the following figures:
Case 1 Overflow Section Sliding Analysis

(Figure 8.2-21)
Case 1 Overflow Section Overturning Analysis
(Figure 8.2-22X)
Case 2 Overflow Section Sliding analysis
(Figure 8.2-23)
(Figure 8.2-24)
(Figure 8.2-25)
(Figure 8.2-26X)
(Figure 8.2-27)
(Figure 8.2-28)
Case 1 Low Flow Section Sliding Analysis
(Figure 8.2-29)
Case 1 Low Flow Section Overturning Analysis
(Figure 8.2-30)
Case 2 Low Flow Section Sliding Analysis
(Figure 8.2-31)
Case 2 Low Flow Section Overturning Analysis
(Figure 8.2-32)
b.
Key Elevations. Table 8.2.5 gives the key elevations of the

spillway.
c.
Key Lateral Dimensions. Table 8.2.6 gives the key lateral

dimensions of the spillway.
d.
Piezometer and Drain Locations. Figure 8.2-33 shows the spillway

piezometer and relief well locations for the spillway.
e.
Foundation Shear Strength Parameters. Table 8.2.7 shows the

shear strength parameters used in the different analyses conducted
to spillway stability.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-8
Section 8
f.
Minimum Cohesion to Meet Stability Criteria. The minimum

cohesion intercept providing acceptable factors of safety has not
been determined, as such. However, due to concerns over the
long term strength parameters of the overconsolidated clays, a 50
percent reduction in cohesion was used in the 1988 analysis as
indicated in Table 8.2.7.
g.
Negative Crest Pressures on Spillway. Negative crest pressures

have not been addressed in any of the spillway stability analyses
undertaken to date.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-9
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-10
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-11
Section 8
h.
Concrete Compressive and Tensile Strength: The following pages

taken from Forrest & Cotton Design Memorandum No. 2, dated
August 1962, provide the concrete design parameters for the
spillway. Actual test results from samples taken during construction
are not available.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-12
Section 8
5-05. Concrete, general. The symbols, nomenclature, and abbreviations used

herein with respect to plain, reinforced, and prestressed concrete are those used by the
American Concrete Institute. For purposes of referencing working stresses as pertaining
to the various concrete components of the spillway, the stresses have been separated
into three groups, as follows:
GROUP I stresses:
Applies to miscellaneous concrete not included

under Group II and III stresses.
GROUP II stresses: Applies to concrete in structures that will be
subjected to submergence, wave action, and spray.
Included will be most of the mass concrete in the
weirs, piers, non-overflow sections and the
retaining walls. Exceptions will be the approach
apron and all prestressed concrete.
GROUP III stresses: Applies to prestressed concrete as proposed for the
bridge girders and the trunnion anchorage.
5-06. Strength of concrete. For design purposes, it was assumed that the
ultimate compressive strength of the concrete in the different components of the
spillway would be as follows:
Spillway component
1. General structural concrete
Ultimate compressive
strength at 28 days in psi
3,000
2. Prestressed trunnion anchorage and bridge girders
5,000
3. Bridge deck
4,000
4. Fill concrete and for other purposes where strength is

not a required property of the material
2,000
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-13
Section 8
5-07. Allowable unit stresses, plain concrete. The allowable flexure (fc) stress for plain
concrete with assumed Group A loading will be as follows:
Nature of Stress
Extreme fiber stress in tension:
Design Strength of Concrete

f 'c
Unit stress for
proportion
3000 lb. concrete in psi,
n = 10
GROUP I
0.03 f 'c
90
GROUP II
0.02 f 'c
60
5-08. Allowable unit stresses, reinforced concrete. The allowable unit stresses
for reinforced concrete with Group A loading will be as is given in the following
paragraphs:
5-08a. Flexure, fc. The allowable flexure stress, fc, for reinforced concrete for
assumed Group A loading will be as follows:
Nature of Stress
Extreme fiber stress in compression:

f 'c
Unit stress for
proportion
n = 10
GROUP I
0.45 f 'c
1,350
GROUP II
0.35 f 'c
1,050
5-08b. Shear, Vc. Allowable shear stresses, Vc, as a measure of diagonal tension,
for assumed Group A loading will be as follows. These stresses are within the GROUP I
stress classification and are all in accordance with the American Concrete Institute
specifications.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-14
Nature of Stress
a. Beams with no web reinf. (1)
b. Beams with longitudinal bars
and stirrups or bent bars
c. Beams with longitudinal bars
and stirrups plus bent bars (2)
d. Punching shear
e. Footings
Section 8

f 'c
Unit stress for
proportion
n = 10
0.03 f 'c
90
0.08 f 'c
240
0.12 f 'c
360
0.075 f 'c
225
0.025 f 'c
75
(1) Where calculations indicate Vc is not exceeded, nominal vertical stirrups will
be provided throughout the full span of the beam. The minimum stirrup will be #3 bars
and the maximum spacing will be one half the beam depth.
(2) The bent bars are to be bent up and suitable to carry at least 0.04fc.
5-08c. Bond, u. The allowable bond, u, for assumed Group A loading will be as
follows. These stresses are all within the GROUP I stress classification.
Nature of Stress
Deformed ASTM A-305 bars (3):
Top bars
In two-way footing except top
bars
All others

f 'c
Unit stress for
proportion
n = 10
0.07 f 'c
210
0.08 f 'c
240
0.10 f 'c
300
0.03 f 'c
90
0.036 f 'c
108
0.045 f 'c
135
Plain bars hook required (4)

Top bars
In two-way footing except top
bars
All others
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-15
Section 8
(3) Allowance for deformed ASTM A-408 bars (#14S and. 18S) will be 80
percent of bond value given for A-305 bars.
(4) Reinforcement which does not conform to the requirement of ASTM A-305
specification.
5-08d. Bearing, fc. The allowable bearing stress, fc, for assumed Group A
loading will be as follows. These stresses are all within the GROUP I stress
classification.
Nature of Stress
On full area

f 'c
Unit stress for
proportion
n = 10
0.25 f 'c
750
On one-third area, or less (5)
0.375 f 'c
1,125
(5) This increase will be permitted only when the least distance between the edges
of the loaded and unloaded area is a minimum of one-fourth of the parallel side dimension
of the loaded area. The allowable bearing stress on a reasonably concentric area greater
than one-third but less than full area will be interpolated between the values given.
5-08e. Axial compression and tension. The allowable axial compression and
tension stresses for assumed Group A loading will be as follows. These stresses are
within the GROUP I stress classification.
Nature of Stress
AXIAL COMPRESSION, fc

f 'c
Unit stress for
proportion
n = 10
In short columns with lateral ties
0.18 f 'c
540
In short columns with continuous

spirals
Pedestals, non-reinf.
0.225 f 'c
675
0.25 f 'c
750
Composite columns
0.225 f 'c
675
0.03 f 'c
90
AXIAL TENSION, fc
Axial Tension, fc
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-16
Section 8
5-08f. Combined bending and direct stresses. The allowable combined axial and
bending stresses for reinforced concrete columns and walls will be determined in
accordance with the American Concrete Institute Code (ACI-3l8-56).
5-08g. Moduli and coefficients. The modulus of elasticity, Ec, and the coefficient
of expansion of 3,000 pound concrete will be as follows:
Modulus of elasticity, Ec.
Coef. of expansion -
3,000,000 psi
0.000006 per F.
5-09. Allowable unit stresses, prestressed concrete. Working stresses for

prestressed concrete used in trunnion anchorage and. bridge girders will be in accordance
with applicable specifications listed. in paragraph 5-01. The allowable unit stresses for
assumed Group A loading will be as follows. These stresses are all within the GROUP III
stress classification.
Nature of Stress
TEMPORARY STRESSES:

f 'c i
Unit stress for
proportion
n=6
Compression in extreme fiber
0.60 f 'c i
2,400
Tension
0.05 f 'c i
200
STRESSES: UNDER DEAD, LIVE AND IMPACT LOADS

Compression in extremefiber
Tension in extreme fiber
0.40 f 'c i
2,000
ANCHORAGE BEARING STRESSES:

Trunnion anchorage
fcp = (0.6 f 'c i) times the cube root of Ac/Ab
The strength of concrete at the time of prestress of trunnion anchorage will be 4,000 psi.
The strength of concrete at the time of cable release will be 4,000 psi.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-17
i.
Section 8
Alkali Aggregate Reactivity (AAR) Potential. AAR has not been

addressed in any of the previous reports.
1)
Cement with high alkaline content can react with the

aggregate in a wet environment. Reactive aggregates are
garnet or silica. The aggregate decomposes into a greater
volume that the original causing the concrete to craze, crack
and spall.
2)
There is no known preventive or remedy when these

characteristics are present.
8.2.2 Powerhouse
a.
Sections, Loading Cases and Assumptions: Powerhouse sections

are shown in Figure 8.2-34. Loading conditions and assumptions
are provided in subsequent paragraphs of the report.
1)
Forrest & Cotton (1962). No data is available for Forrest &

Cottons analyses of the powerhouse. However, a note on
the Power Plant Stability Analysis from the Rone (1983)
report states that data on this plate from the power plant
stability analyses performed by Forrest & Cotton, Inc.,
Consulting Engineers, in 1963.
2)
Rone (1983). Stability analyses for the powerhouse as

given in the Rone Engineers report, Instrumentation and
Hydrostatic Pressure Relief Systems, are summarized in
Table 8.2.8. The stability analysis calculations are given in
Figure 8.2-35.
3)
KBR (1988). Stability analyses for the powerhouse as given

in the Brown & Root report, Toledo Bend Stability Analysis,
dated November 1988 are summarized in Table 8.2.9. Soil
properties used in the stability analysis are given in Table
8.2.10. The powerhouse plan view showing the location of
the stability sections used for calculations is given in Figure
8.2-36. The stability analysis calculations are given in the
following figures:
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Powerhouse Sliding Stability Normal Pool

(Figure 8.2-37)
Powerhouse Stability Normal Pool (Figure 8.2-38)
Powerhouse Seismic (Figure 8.2.39)
Page 8-18
Section 8
Powerhouse Surcharge Pool (Figure 8.2-40)
b.
Key Elevations. (Not available)
c.
Key Lateral Dimensions. (Not available)
d.
Piezometer and Drain Locations. Figure 8.2-41 shows the

powerhouse piezometer and relief well locations for the spillway.
e.
Foundation Shear Strength Parameters. Refer to Table 8.2.10.
f.
Minimum Cohesion to Meet Stability Criteria. Refer to paragraph

8.2.1f.
g.
Negative Crest Pressures on Spillway. (Not applicable)
h.
Concrete Compressive and Tensile Strength. (Not available)
i.
Alkali Aggregate Reactivity (AAR) Potential. Refer to paragraph

8.2.1i.
8.2.3 Intake and Outlet Works

There are no intake or outlet works associated with this project. All
discharges from the reservoir are made through the spillway or the
powerhouse.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-19
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-20
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-21
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-22
Figure 8.2-01
SPILLWAY SLIDDIN STABILITY
TYPICAL PIER SECTIONS
Figure 8.2-02
UPSTREAM ELEVATION
OVERFLOW SECTION
Figure 8.2-03
UPSTREAM ELEVATION
LOW FLOW SECTION
Figure 8.2-04
INTERMEDIATE PIER MONOLITH
STABILITY ANALYSES
Sheet 1 of 2
Figure 8.2-05
INTERMEDIATE PIER MONOLITH
STABILITY ANALYSES
Sheet 2 of 2
Figure 8.2-06
LOW FLOW RELEASE PIER MONOLITH
STABILITY ANALYSES
Figure 8.2-07
NON-OVERFLOW SECTION
STABILITY ANALYSES
Figure 8.2-08
SPILLWAY CHUTE
STABILITY ANALYSES
NOTE:
THE BASE DRAWING INFORMATION ON THIS SHEET WAS TAKEN FROM:
FERC COMMISSION ON INSPECTION OF PROJECT WORKS THAT MIGHT ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY
B&R - 1998, APPENDIX D-65
Figure 8.2-09
SPILLWAY STABILITY ANALYSES
OPERATIONAL PROCEDUURES
Figure 8.2-10
CASE A - OVERFLOW
SECTION
TOLEDO BEND DAM STABILITY

ANALYSIS, B&R - 1988
Figure 8.2-11
CASE B1 - OVERFLOW
SECTION

Figure 8.2-12
CASE B2 - OVERFLOW
SECTION

Figure 8.2-13
CASE C - OVERFLOW
SECTION

Fig 8.2-14
CASE B1 - LOW FLOW
SECTION

Figure 8.2-15
CASE D - LOW FLOW
SECTION

Figure 8.2-16
CASE A - NON OVERFLOW SECTION
HYDROSTATIC LOADS

figure 8.2-17
CASE A - NON-OVERFLOW
SECTION SOIL LOADS

Figure 8.2-18
CASE C - NON-OVERFLOW
SECTION HYDROSTATIC
LOADS

Figure 8.2-19
CASE C - NON-OVERFLOW
SECTION SOIL LOADS

Figure 8.2-20
MAIN EMBANKMENT STABILITY
SECTION LOCATIONS
Figure 8.2-21
CASE1
OVERFLOW SECTION
SLIDING ANALYSIS
CASE 1
OVERFLOW SECTION - SLIDING ANALYSIS
Approach Slab Not Effective
Drain Eff. 100
NOTE:
THE BASE DRAWING
INFORMATION ON THIS
SHEET WAS TAKEN FROM:
FERC COMMISSION ON
INSPECTION OF PROJECT
WORKS THAT MIGHT
ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY
B&R - 1998
APPENDIX D-54
CASE 1
OVERFLOW SECTION - OVERTURNING
ANALYSIS
Drain Eff. 100%
NOTE:
THE BASE DRAWING INFORMATION ON
THIS SHEET WAS TAKEN FROM:
FERC COMMISSION ON INSPECTION
OF PROJECT WORKS THAT MIGHT
Figure 8.2-22
CASE1
OVERFLOW SECTION OVERTURNING ANALYSIS
CASE 2
Approach Slab Effective
Drain Eff. 100%
NOTE:
THE BASE DRAWING INFORMATION
ON THIS SHEET WAS TAKEN FROM:
Figure 8.2-23
CASE 2
OVERFLOW SECTION
SLIDING ANALYSIS
Figure 8.3-06
CASE 2
OVERFLOW SECTION - OVERTURNING ANALYSIS
Drain Eff. 100%
NOTE:
FERC COMMISSION ON INSPECTION OF
PROJECT WORKS THAT MIGHT
Figure 8.2-24
CASE 2
OVERFLOW SECTION
OVERTURNING ANALYSIS
CASE 3
Drain Eff. 0%
NOTE:
Figure 8.2-25
CASE 3
OVERFLOW SECTI)ON
SLIDING ANALYSIS
CASE 3
Drain Eff. 0%
NOTE:
Figure 8.2-26
CASE 3
OVERFLOW SECTION
CASE 4
OOVERFLOW SECTION - SLIDING ANALYSIS
Drain Eff. 0%
NOTE:
Figure 8.2-27
CASE 4
OVERFLOW SECTION
SLIDING ANALYSIS
CASE 4
Drain Eff. 0%
NOTE:
Figure 8.2-28
CASE 4
OVERFLOW SECTION
CASE 1
LOW FLOW SECTION - SLIDING ANALYSIS
Soil Wt = 120 pcf
NOTE:
THE BASE DRAWING INFORMATION ON THIS SHEET
WAS TAKEN FROM:
FERC COMMISSION ON INSPECTION OF PROJECT
WORKS THAT MIGHT ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY
Figure 8.2-29
CASE 1
LOW FLOW SECTION
SLIDING ANALYSIS
Figure 8.3-30
CASE 1 - LOW FLOW SECTION
CASE 1
LOW FLOW SECTION - OVERTURNING ANALYSIS
Soil Wt = 120 pcf
NOTE:
CASE 2
LOW FLOW SECTION - SLIDING ANALYSIS
Soil Wt = 120 pcf
NOTE:
THE BASE DRAWING INFORMATION ON THIS SHEET WAS
TAKEN FROM:
FERC COMMISSION ON INSPECTION OF PROJECT WORKS
THAT MIGHT ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY
Figure 8.2-31
CASE 2
LOW FLOW SECTION
SLIDING ANALYSIS
CASE 2
LOW FLOW SECTION - OVERTURNING ANALYSIS
Soil Wt = 120 pcf
NOTE:
THE BASE DRAWING INFORMATION ON THIS SHEET WAS
TAKEN FROM FERC COMMISSION ON INSPECTION OF
PROJECT WORKS THAT MIGHT ENDANGER PUBLIC
SAFETY, B&R - 1998, APPENDIX D-66
Figure 8.2-32
CASE 2
LOW FLOW SECTION
Figure 8.2-33
PLAN OF
SPILLWAY PIEZOMETERS
Figure 8.2-34
POWRHOUSE PLAN
& SECTIONS
Figure 8.2-35
POWER PLANT STABILITY ANALYSES
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
Source: INSTRUMENTATION AND

HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE RELIEF
SYSTEMS, RONE ENGINEERS, INC., 1983
Figure 8.2-36
POWER HOUSE STABILITY
SECTION LOCATIONS
Figure 8.2-37
POWER HOUSE
SLIDING STABILITY
Figure 8.2-38
POWER HOUSE NORMAL POOL
Figure 8.2-39
POWER HOUSE
SEISMIC
Figure 8.2-40
POWR HOUSE
SURCHARGE POOL
Figure 8.2-41
PLAN OF POWRE HOUSE
PIEZOMETERS
8.3
Section 8
EMBANKMENT STRUCTURES
The Toledo Bend Dam embankment structures are identified in
Table 8.3.1 with their corresponding key dimensions, elevations, and
slopes.
8.3.1 Main Embankment

a.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Sections, Loading Cases and Assumptions: A section of the Main

Embankment is shown in Figure 8.3-01. This section is taken from
Final Design, Volume 2, by Forrest & Cotton (1962).
1)
Forrest & Cotton (1963). Stability analyses for the main

embankment as given in the Forrest & Cotton Design
Memorandum No. 3, dated January 1963, are summarized
in Table 8.3.2. Soil properties used in the stability analysis
are given in Table 8.3.3. The slope stability analysis for the
embankment and dike are shown on Figure 8.3-02. The
embankment stability analysis is given in Figure 8.3-03.
2)
Rone (1983). Stability analyses for the main embankment

as given in the Rone Engineers report, Liquefaction and
Stability Analysis, are summarized in Table 8.3.4. Soil
8.3.5. The stability analysis calculations are given in Figure
8.3-04.
3)
KBR (1988). Stability analyses for the main embankment as

given in the Brown & Root report, Toledo Bend Stability
Analysis, dated November 1988, are summarized in Table
8.3.6. Soil properties used in the stability analysis are given
in Table 8.3.7. The embankment plan view showing the
location of the stability section used for calculations is given
in Figures 8.3-05 and 8.3-06.
Page 8-23
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-24
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-25
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-26
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-27
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-28
Section 8
The stability analysis calculations are given in the following figures:
Main Embankment Stability Steady Seepage

Sta. 116+30 (Figure 8.3-07)
Main Embankment Stability Surcharge Pool Sta.
116+30 (Figure 8.3-08)
Main Embankment Stability Rapid Drawdown
Sta. 116+30 (Figure 8.3-09)
Main Embankment Stability Seismic Sta. 116+30
(Figure 8.3-10)
Sta. 130+50 (Figure 8.3-11)
130+50 (Figure 8.3-12)
Sta. 130+50 Figure 8.3-13)
(Figure 8.3-14)
Sta. 151+70 (Figure 8.3-15)
151+70 (Figure 8.3-16)
Sta. 151+70 (Figure 8.3-17)
(Figure 8.3-18)
Sta. 178+20 (Figure 8.3-19)
(Figure 8.3-20)
b.
Potential for Uncontrolled Seepage at Toe. The embankment is

designed with a pervious drainage blanket to control seepage.
Relief wells have been installed to control the piezometric
pressures of the foundation soils.
c.
Summary of Liquefaction Analysis. The liquefaction potential was

previously evaluated by Rone Engineering, Inc., in their report
titled, Liquefaction and Stability Analysis, Toledo Bend Dam,
dated July 1983. The liquefaction potential was not found to be an
issue.
d.
Summary of Deformation Analysis. Soil deformation analysis due

to stability induced strains has not been performed as the
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-29
Section 8
conventional analysis factors of safety are satisfactory, based on

strength parameters derived by commonly accepted procedures.
e.
Procedures Used to Determine Soil Properties.

The shear strength properties of soils were determined as
described in the following paragraphs. Soil classification tests for
the 1988 investigations included moisture control, dry density, and
plasticity index.
f.
Procedures Used to Determine Soil Strengths.

1)
Soil shear strength parameters used in the 1988 stability

analysis by B&R were obtained from the MRA geotechnical
report prepared by McBride & Ratcliff, titled Geotechnical
Investigation Toledo Bend Dam, dated November 1988.
The tests were performed as consolidated, undrained tiaxial
tests with pore pressure measurements on samples from the
spillway, powerhouse, and embankment areas.
2)
FERC and COE guidelines for steady seepage stability

cases analyzed require use of the shear strength defined by
the S-curve (effective stress envelope) up to the normal
stress where the S-curve and R-curve (total stress envelope)
intersect, which is the point of the mobilized pore pressure.
Thereafter, the shear strength defined by the average of the
R-curve and S-curve was used.
3)
Cohesive embankment zones for the steady seepage cases

were subdivided to delineate the depths below which
strength parameters defined by the average of the total and
effective stress envelopes became effective. This transition
depth was based on the normal stress at which the R-curve
and S-curve presented in the MRA report intersected for
each material type.
4)
The minimum shear strength obtained from the combined Scurve and R-curve was used for the rapid drawdown cases.
The same shear strength was used for the earthquake
analysis as was used for steady seepage cases.
Cohesive foundation strata were assigned appropriate
strength values in a similar manner, depending on normal
stress and material type. The derivation of the angle of
internal friction for granular soils is presented in the report by
MRA. The same angle was used for all stress conditions.
5)
g.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Shear Strength Parameters

Page 8-30
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
1)
All cases analyzed for the 1998 report and in subsequent

evaluations, are based on effective shear strength of 26.3
degrees friction and 510 psf cohesion for the claystone of
the spiliway foundation. As described in the report, previous
stability analyses were based on cohesion of 1020 psf.
2)
The claystone was tested for the stability analysis of the

dam, which was performed in 1988. Strength parameters
were derived from a series of 12 consolidated-undrained
triaxial tests with pore pressure measurements. Of the
individual tests, Mohrs circles for 6 test show strengths
exceeding the envelope of 26.3 degrees friction and 1020
psf cohesion; 4 tests are approximately tangent to that
envelope and 2 tests show lower strength. (Refer to Figure
C-9 of report by Mc-Bride and Ratciiff, dated November 9,
1988).
3)
The 2 test falling below the envelope on the Mohrs diagram

were evaluated by McBride Ratcliff and were found to have
experienced premature slickenside failure, which, according
to the report, is not uncommon for 3-inch samples with
locally fissured fabric. These fissures should not be
confused with more extensive slickensides. (Refer to Pages
33 and 34 of McBride-Racliffs report) The two tests were
not included in the strength envelop interpretation.
4)
The strength parameters derived from the triaxial tests are

also consistent with three direct shear tests, which yielded
an interpreted strength of 26.4 degree friction and 1200 psf
cohesion. There were no indications of weakness due to
horizontal lamination.
5)
Although the derivation of strength parameters in 1988 by

McBride-Ratcliff for homogenous clay samples is consistent
with the test data, a more conservative strength envelope
was used for the 1998 analyses. Maintaining satisfactory
calculated stability based on the assumed lower strength,
indicates that the potential conditions for progressive long
term deterioration of the clay strength, as discussed in the
1998 inspection report, are less likely to occur.
6)
A Corps of Engineers construction of a combined effective

and total strength envelope shows a cross over at 2.4 tsf
normal stress which is substantially higher than the
distributed normal stress under the spillway and foundation
claystone is accordingly within the effective stress range.
Page 8-31
Section 8
8.3.2 Dike Nos. 1, 2 and 3

a.
Sections, Loading Cases and Assumptions. A section of the

Typical Embankment Saddle Area is shown in Figure 8.3-21. This
section is taken from Final Design, Volume 2, by Forrest & Cotton
(1962).
1)
Forrest & Cotton (1963). The analyses that were conducted

by Forrest & Cotton on the dikes are unknown. The
following extract from the Forrest & Cotton Design
Memorandum No. 3, Embankment and General Construction
Schedule, dated January 1963, is the only information
available related to the original dike design. Soil properties
used in the stability analysis are given in Table 8.3.8.
4-21. Dike design. A typical trial section similar to the embankment

section was initially selected for design analysis. The stability analysis of the
typical dike section was made, assuming the strength of the compacted materials
to be the same as adopted for compacted materials in the main embankment
section. The strength of the foundation material was assumed to have a cohesion
of 1400 psf and an angle of internal friction of zero degrees. The analysis for the
maximum section of the dike, height of about 66 feet, indicates that a factor of
safety of 1.33 would be obtained at the end of construction condition. Adopted
dike sections are shown on Plate I-7. The adopted section differs slightly from the
section used in the slope stability analysis. However, the stability of the adopted
section will obviously be equal to, or greater than, the section analyzed.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
2)
Rone (1983). Stability analyses for Dike No. 2 as given in

the Rone Engineers report, Liquefaction and Stability
Analysis, are summarized in Table 8.3.9. Soil properties
used in the stability analysis are given in Table 8.3.10. The
stability analysis calculations are given in Figure 8.3-22.
3)
KBR (1988). Stability analyses for Dike No. 2 as given in the

Brown & Root report, Toledo Bend Stability Analysis, dated
November 1988, are summarized in Table 8.3.11. Soil
8.3.12. Dike No. 2 plan view showing the location of the
stability section used for calculations is given in Figure
8.3-23. The stability analysis calculations are given in the
following figures:
Page 8-32
Section 8
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Dike No. 2 Stability Steady Seepage (Figure 8.3-24)

Dike No. 2 Stability Surcharge Pool (Figure 8.3-25)
Dike No. 2 Stability Rapid Drawdown (Figure 8.3-26)
Dike No. 2 Stability Seismic (Figure 8.3-27)
Page 8-33
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-34
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-35
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Section 8
Page 8-36
Section 8
b.
Potential for Uncontrolled Seepage at Toe. (Not available)
c.
Summary of Liquefaction Analysis. (Not available)
d.
Summary of Deformation Analysis. (Not available)
e.
Procedures Used to Determine Soil Properties. (Not available)
f.
Procedures Used to Determine Soil Strengths. (Not available)
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-37
2004 FERC INSPECTION REPORT

TOLEDO BEND DAM
Figure 8.3-01.dwg
Main Embankment Sections
February 2005
Figure 8.3-02
EMBANKMENT AND DIKE SLOPE
STABILITY ANALYSIS
Figure 8.3-03
EMBANKMENT
STABILITY ANALYSIS
Figure 8.3-04
EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSIS
STATION 177 +00
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Source: Liquefaction
and Stability Analysis,
Rone Engineers, Inc. ,
1983
Figure 8.3-05
MAIN EMBANKMENT STABILITY
SECTION LOCATIONS
Figure 8.2-03
UPSTREAM ELEVATION
C
A
Figure 8.3-06
MAI EMBANKMENT AND
SPILLWAY STABILITY
SECTION LOCATIONS
Figure 8.3-07
MAIN EMBANKMENT
STEADY SEEPAGE
STATION 116+30
Figure 8.3-08
MAIN EMBANKMENT
SURCHARGE POOL
STATION 116+30
Figure 8.3-09
MAI EMBANKMENT RAPID
DRAWDOWN
STATION 116+30
Figure 8.3-10
MAIN EMBANKMENT SEISMIC
STATION 116+30
Figure 8.3-11
MAIN EMBANKMENT STEADY
SEEPAGE
STATION 130+50
Figure 8.3-12
MAIN EMBANKMENT
SURCHARGE POOL
STATION 130+50
Figure 8.3-13
MAIN EMBANKMENT
RAPID DRAWDOWN
STATION 130+50
Figure 8.3-14
MAIN EMBANKMENT SEISMIC
STATION 130+50
Figure 8.3-15
MAIN EMBANKMENT STEADY
SEEPAGE
STATION 151+70
Figure 8.3-16
MAIN EMBANKMENT
SURCHARGE POOL
STATION 151+70
Figure 8.3-17
MAIN EMBANKMENT
RAPID DRWDOWN
STATION 151+70
Figure 8.3-18
MAIN EMBANKMENT
SEISMIC
STATION 151+70
Figure 8.3-19
MAIN EMBANKMENT
STEADY SEEPAGE
STATION 178+20
Figure 8.3-20
MAIN EMBANKMENT
SEISMIC
STATION 178+20
Figure 8.3-21
EMBANKMENT TYPICAL SECTIONS
SADDLE AREA
Figure 8.3-22
DIKE NO. 2
STABILITY ANALYSES
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Source: Liquefaction and

Stability analysis, Rone
Engineers, Inc., 1983
Figure 8.3-23
DIKE NO. 2 STABILITY
SECTION LOCATION
Figure 8.3-24
DIKE NO. 2
STEADY SEEPAGE
Figure 8.3-25
DIKE NO. 2
SURCHARGE POOL
Figure 8.3-26
DIKE NO. 2
RAPID DRAWDOWN
Figure 8.3-27
DIKE NO. 2
SEISMIC
8.4
Section 8
ARCHDAM LOAD CASE

No arch dam structures exist on the Toledo Bend Project.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-38
8.5
Section 8
WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM

No water conveyance systems are associated with the Toledo Bend Dam.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-39
8.6
Section 8
SUMMARY OF FACTORS OF SAFETY ACHIEVED
8.6.1 Gravity Structures

a.
See Section 8.2.1 for the summary of factors of safety, material

properties, and hydrostatic conditions assumed for the spillway.
b.

properties, and hydrostatic conditions assumed for the
powerhouse.
8.6.2 Embankment Structures

a.

properties, and hydrostatic conditions assumed for the main
embankment.
b.

properties, and hydrostatic conditions assumed for the Dikes 1, 2,
and 3.
Rev. 0
12/31/2004
Page 8-40

STI Section8

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

STI Section8

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Toledo Bend Project - STI

8.1.1 Load Cases Analyzed

Forrest & Cotton (1962). Serving as SRAs Engineer, Forrest &

Main Embankment and Dikes (as reported in Design

Spillway (as reported in Design Memorandum No. 2). Hand

Powerhouse. To date, no information has been uncovered

Rone Engineers (1983). Serving as a geotechnical consultant,

Main Embankment. The general subsurface of the main

Toledo Bend Project - STI

0.04 g resulted in a factor of safety greater than 1.15. The

A stability analysis was performed on Dike No. 2, which

Brown & Roots Toledo Bend Dam Stability Analysis (1988)

Main Embankment. The main embankment was analyzed

Spillway. Hand calculations were used in 1988 to calculate

Powerhouse. Slipcircle analysis was determined to be more

Toledo Bend Project - STI

sudden drawdown and earthquake conditions, also using the

Brown & Roots FERC Inspection Report (1998)

Spillway. Further analyses of the spillway only (overflow and

Note. There is no reference in the above to any analyses on

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Sections, Loading Cases and Assumptions. Spillway sections are

Forrest & Cotton (1962). Stability analyses for the spillway

Rone (1983). Stability analyses for the spillway as given in

KBR (1988). Stability analyses for the spillway as given in

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Toledo Bend Project - STI

KBR (1998). Stability analyses for the spillway as given in

Case 1 Overflow Section Sliding Analysis

Key Elevations. Table 8.2.5 gives the key elevations of the

Key Lateral Dimensions. Table 8.2.6 gives the key lateral

Piezometer and Drain Locations. Figure 8.2-33 shows the spillway

Foundation Shear Strength Parameters. Table 8.2.7 shows the

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Minimum Cohesion to Meet Stability Criteria. The minimum

Negative Crest Pressures on Spillway. Negative crest pressures

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Concrete Compressive and Tensile Strength: The following pages

Toledo Bend Project - STI

5-05. Concrete, general. The symbols, nomenclature, and abbreviations used

Applies to miscellaneous concrete not included

2. Prestressed trunnion anchorage and bridge girders

4. Fill concrete and for other purposes where strength is

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Design Strength of Concrete

Design Strength of Concrete

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Design Strength of Concrete

Design Strength of Concrete

Plain bars hook required (4)

Toledo Bend Project - STI

Design Strength of Concrete

On one-third area, or less (5)

Design Strength of Concrete

In short columns with lateral ties

In short columns with continuous

Toledo Bend Project - STI

5-09. Allowable unit stresses, prestressed concrete. Working stresses for

Design Strength of Concrete

Compression in extreme fiber