Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301

H O S T E D BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Water Science and Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.waterjournal.cn

Seismic design of Xiluodu ultra-high arch dam

Ren-kun Wang*, Lin Chen, Chong Zhang
PowerChina Chengdu Engineering Corporation Limited, Chengdu 610072, China
Received 24 November 2017; accepted 6 August 2018
Available online 8 January 2019

Abstract

The 285.5 m-high Xiluodu Arch Dam is located in a seismic region along the Jinsha River in China, where the horizontal components of peak
ground accelerations for design and checking earthquakes have been estimated to be 0.355g and 0.423g, respectively ( g is the gravitational
acceleration). The ground motion parameters of design and checking earthquakes are defined by exceedance probabilities of 2% over 100 years
and 1% over 100 years, respectively. The dam shape was first selected and optimized through static analysis of the basic load combinations, and
then adjusted after taking into account the seismic loads. The dam should be operational during and after the design earthquake with or without
minor repairs, and maintain local and global stabilities during an extreme earthquake. Both linear elastic dynamic analysis and nonlinear dy-
namic analysis considering radiation damping, contraction joints, and material nonlinearity were conducted to assess the stress in the arch dam.
The dynamic analysis shows that the maximum dynamic compressive stresses are less than the allowable levels, while the area with tensile stress
over the limit is less than 15% of the dam surface and the maximum contraction openings range from 10 mm to 25 mm. The arch dam has
sufficient earthquake-resistance capacity and meets the safety requirements. Nevertheless, steel reinforcement has been provided at the dam toe
and in the zones of high tensile stress on the dam surface out of extra precaution.
© 2019 Hohai University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Seismic design; Nonlinear dynamic analysis; Dam shape optimization; Seismic strengthening; Xiluodu arch dam

1. Introduction
The importance of seismic safety for an ultra-high arch dam
cannot be over-emphasized, as any potential failure of such a
dam under extreme loadings, including seismic hazards, may
cause a major disaster, with devastating economic and social
consequences. It is a truly big challenge for dam designers to
model the real behaviors of ultra-high arch dams under oper-
ational and seismic loadings and with realistic consideration of
all the important practical factors and nonlinear features
involved (Zhang et al., 2014).
This work was supported by the Program of Study on the Standard of
Overall Safety Control of High Arch Dam of PowerChina Co., Ltd. (Grant
No. DJ-ZDXM-2014-19)
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wrenkun@chidi.com.cn (Ren-kun Wang).
Peer review under responsibility of Hohai University.
The dam static safety criteria in China include limits for the
allowable stresses and the factors of safety against sliding.
These are similar to those used by the United Sates Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR, 1977), the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE, 1994), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC, 1999), and the Australian National
Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD, 2013). In contrast,
there are no universally applicable codes and regulations for
the seismic design of concrete arch dams; they are instead
evaluated on a case-by-case basis (Jonker and Espandar,
2014).
The effects of fluid-structure interaction on the seismic
behavior of dams have been extensively studied (Ghaemian
and Ghobarah, 1998; Fahjan et al., 2003; Bouaanani and Lu,
2009; Aftabi Sani and Lotfi, 2010; Kalateh and Attarnejad,
2011). The widely accepted approach based on the general-
ized Westergaard theory (Westergaard, 1933; Mays and
Roehm, 1991) was employed in this study, in which the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2019.01.002
1674-2370/© 2019 Hohai University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301
reservoir water was considered an additional concentrated
mass spreading out over the dam.
Various types of foundation models may be considered in
seismic analysis of concrete dams. The foundation can be
considered rigid, massless, or massed. Zhang et al. (2009)
found that stresses, displacements, and contraction joint
openings in arch dams are significantly reduced both in linear
and nonlinear analyses using the viscoelastic boundary model
rather than the massless foundation model. In the seismic
design of the Xiluodu Arch Dam, foundation rocks and faults,
as well as the dam, were considered in the dam-foundation-
reservoir system. The faults were simulated as contact ele-
ments with a certain thickness and a system damping ratio of
0.05.
Contraction joints play an important role in both the static
and seismic analysis of concrete arch dams (Ahmadi et al.,
2001; Wang et al., 2013). In the safety evaluation of the
arch dam, 23 contraction joints were simulated using a joint
model that could simulate the contact between two adjacent
nodes in a three-dimensional (3D) domain.
Saouma et al. (2011) carried out a time-history finite
element analysis of rock-structure interaction considering the
lateral energy dissipation and the interaction between the far-
field and the numerical model itself. Hariri-Ardebili et al.
(2013) studied dynamic stability of a coupled reservoir-dam-
foundation system assuming infinite elements and viscous
boundaries at the far-field of the massed foundation model. In
seismic safety evaluation of the Xiluodu Arch Dam, a 3D
frequency domain and infinite boundary elements were used to
simulate the arch dam foundation and transfer the dynamic
frequency domain stiffness to time domain parameters.
Thermal loads have a significant effect on the structural
behavior of thin concrete arch dams (Leger et al., 1993), and
have been considered in dam seismic design through investi-
gation of the differences between the dam closure temperature
and concrete temperatures in typical seasons during operation.
This paper presents the seismic design of an ultra-high arch
dam and illustrates the evaluation of various safety criteria,
including the allowable stresses, damage control range, and
maximum opening of contraction joints, through linear
response spectrum analysis, linear time-history analysis, and
nonlinear time-history analysis. These analyses took into ac-
count the dam-foundation-reservoir dynamic interaction,
reservoir compressibility effect, non-uniform seismic input,
dissipation of seismic energy in an infinite foundation,
nonlinear response of dam contraction joint opening and
closing, and individual or coupled effects of the factors
mentioned above. As usual for seismic analysis of arch dams
(Moradloo et al., 2008), geometric nonlinearity was not taken
into consideration in this study.
2. Design scheme and approach
2.1. Project overview
Located in the Xiluodu Gorge on the Jinsha River that
demarcates Leibo County in Sichuan Province and Yongshan
289
County in Yunnan Province, the Xiluodu Power Station is a
large project built primarily for electricity generation, as well
as flood control, silt blocking, and navigation improvement.
The height of 285.5 m makes the concrete double-curvature
arch dam one of the world's highest dams. With an installed
capacity of 13860 MW, the power station ranks just behind
the Three Gorges Power Station in China. The power station
lies in the center of the Leibo-Yongshan synclinal land mass,
a relatively intact and steady tectonic unit with a stiff and
integral base. After the great Wenchuan Earthquake of May
12, 2008, according to the China Earthquake Administration,
the horizontal earthquake component of the design peak
ground accelerations (PGA) on the rock surface at the dam
site corresponding to design (exceedance probability of 2%
over 100 years) and checking (exceedance probability of 1%
over 100 years) earthquakes were estimated to be 0.355g and
0.423g, respectively, where g is the gravitational
acceleration.
The dam foundation consists of basalt layers of multiple
eruptions with an integral blocky structure. The basalt layers
have high strength in general, except for the gently sloped
dislocation zones between and within the layers. The con-
crete arch dam is constructed on rocks of different levels
varying in elevation. The top 50-m zone of the foundation is
mainly located on the rocks of level III2 (Wang, 2016),
weakly weathered and unloaded with deformation modulus
ranging from 6 to 8 GPa. The middle 130-m zone of the
foundation is mainly composed of weakly weathered rocks
of level III1, whose deformation modulus ranges from 11 to
12 GPa without unloading. The foundation at lower eleva-
tions and the riverbed is located on rocks of level III1 and,
partly, level II with a deformation modulus higher than
16 GPa.
The symmetric narrow U-shaped dam base is mainly
composed of multistage-erupted basalts, containing 14 flow-
rock layers with a total thickness of 550 m. Although inter-
formational disturbed belts have developed, the rock is
massive and has high strength as a whole, suitable for con-
struction of a high dam with a large reservoir or an under-
ground cavern.
With a height of 285.5 m and a crest length of 681.5 m
(with a length-height ratio of 2.39), this arch dam supports a
hydraulic thrust of 1.4
107 t in total. 25 orifices are used in
four different layers in the dam body, including seven surface
spillways, eight deep orifices, and ten openings for river
diversion, to satisfy large flood discharge requirements. With
most openings embedded, the Xiluodu ultra-high arch dam
body is regarded as the most complicated hydraulic structure
in the world at this time.
2.2. Loads and combinations
2.2.1. Dead load
Dead load includes the weight of both the concrete and
appurtenant structures (gates, bridges, and outlet works). The
weight has been loaded incrementally according to the con-
struction procedures.
290 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301

2.2.2. Temperature load

The temperature load is caused by the differences between
the dam closure temperature and concrete temperatures during
the operation of the dam. It includes summer and winter
temperature loads and is shown in Table 1.

2.2.3. Hydrostatic loads

The hydrostatic loads include reservoir and tailwater loads
as well as silt load. Reservoir and tailwater loads were
considered at the normal, flood, and low (dead) water levels.
The silt load was considered to correspond to the sediment
depth.

2.2.4. Hydrodynamic loads

The dynamic interaction between the reservoir and the dam
during an earthquake was considered a lumped mass as deter-
mined by the generalized Westgaard theory of added mass (the
same method was used throughout the study unless otherwise
specified) to model incompressible fluid. Subsequent calcula-
tions have the same value unless otherwise specified.

2.2.5. Earthquake load

The standard seismic response spectrum, specified in
the Code for Seismic Design of Hydraulic Structures (DL
5073d2000), was used in design and checking earthquakes.
As the dam site belongs to the Class I type, the characteristic
period is 0.2 s, and the maximum response spectrum bmax is
2.5. The normalized acceleration time histories used in the
dynamic analysis of the Xiluodu Arch Dam are shown in Fig. 1. Normalized acceleration time histories of seismic wave.
Fig. 1. The maximum peak value of the vertical components of
ground accelerations for the earthquake was 2/3 of the hori- gravity, silt, and temperature load; and (2) case 0-2: reservoir
zontal components. and tailwater loads at the dead water level, dam gravity, silt,
and temperature load.
2.2.6. Load combinations The dynamic load combinations consisted of (1) case 1-1:
In this study, load combinations included two groups: one case 0-1, together with the design earthquake load; (2) case
combined all the static loads and the other took into account 1-2: case 0-2, together with the design earthquake load; (3)
the effects of earthquakes. case 2-1: case 0-1, together with the checking earthquake
The static load combinations consisted of (1) case 0-1: load; and (4) case 2-2: case 0-2, together with the checking
reservoir and tailwater loads at the normal water level, dam earthquake load.

Table 1
Temperature loads in linear elastic analysis.
Elevation above sea level (m) Closure temperature ( C) Winter temperature load ( C) Summer temperature load ( C) Low reservoir temperature load ( C)
Tm Td Tm Td Tm Td
610 16 2.72 0 8.65 0 8.65 0
590 16 2.38 2.11 5.39 4.97 7.66 0
560 13 2.48 6.37 4.09 11.40 9.11 0
520 13 1.86 8.42 2.93 13.08 5.35 7.65
480 13 2.80 9.06 3.63 13.23 4.13 12.05
440 13 2.83 9.28 3.52 13.23 3.52 13.23
400 13 3.85 9.42 4.50 13.11 4.50 13.11
360 13 3.14 8.57 3.52 10.75 3.52 10.75
332 13 2.25 7.50 2.25 7.50 2.25 7.50
Note: Tm denotes the average temperature, and Td denotes the equivalent linear temperature difference. The reservoir, ambient, and concrete temperatures are
considered according to the detailed and various data in specific circumstance in nonlinear FEM.
 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301 291

3. Static analysis of arch dam
3.1. Dam shape and concrete zoning
As controlled by the allowable compressive stress of 9 MPa
and tensile stresses of 1.2 MPa (upstream surface) and
1.5 MPa (downstream surface) provided by the trial-load
method in accordance with the code, and constrained by the
safety factors (3.5 with the shear friction equation and 1.3 with
the pure-friction equation) against sliding of the base, the
shape of the arch dam is a parabolic double-curvature dam
with optimized design and safety proofing. The characteristic
parameters for the shape are given in Table 2. The dam con-
crete is designed as described in Table 3 and Fig. 2. The dy-
namic modulus of concrete is 1.3 times the static modulus of
elasticity. As there are no standard control standards in the
code, the FEM stress results are comprehensively evaluated
corresponding to the allowable stresses for the trial-load
method.
3.2. Static analysis results
The performance characteristics and overload capacity of
the arch dam subjected to the basic load combinations were
analyzed using the trial-load method, the linear and nonlinear
Table 2
Characteristic parameters of shape of Xiluodu Arch Dam.
Parameter
Elevation of dam crest above sea level (m)
Height (m)
Thickness of top arch (m)
Thickness of bottom arch (m)
Maximum thickness of arch (m)
Crest length (m)
Crest length-height ratio
Thickness-height ratio*
Maximum central angle ( )
Maximum overhang degree (upstream surface)**
Flexibility coefficient***
Concrete amount of dam (106 m3)
Note: * Thickness here refers to that at the bottom of the crown cantilever, **
represents the maximum slope of the upstream curve of cantilevers, and ***
represents the flexibility coefficient index suggested by Lombardi (1991).
finite element method (FEM), and geo-mechanical model
tests.
According to the results of the trial-load method, most of
the area of the dam body is in compression with a small tensile
area distributed close to the foundation. The distributions of
stress and displacement of dam surfaces are subject to general
laws, and the maximum principal compressive stress is
8.96 MPa and tensile stress is 1.09 MPa.
The linear FEM results show dam stress distribution similar
to that obtained from the trial-load method and both methods
demonstrate compressive states on dam surfaces when FEM
takes into consideration rock mass quality classifications,
faults, dam toe reinforcements, and uses thin-layer elements
with Gaussian integral stress around the foundation (an area
within 1/50 dam height) to reduce the impacts of stress con-
centration at dam body edges. On the upstream surface the
maximum principal compressive stress of around 6 MPa ap-
pears in the middle area, and on the downstream surface this
value turns into 17 MPa near the dam heel. The maximum
principal tensile stress on the upstream surface appears near
the arch abutment at low elevation, and is 3 MPa, corre-
sponding to the normal water level, whereas the tensile stress
on the downstream surface appears at the high-elevation arch
abutment, and is about 2 MPa, corresponding to the dead water
level.
The sliding stability analysis of the dam base contains shear
friction calculations for large and stair-stepped blocks, as well
as small ones. The results show that safety factors for all
assumed blocks satisfy the design requirement except that the
Value shear friction safety factor for the block near the bottom faults
610 is lower than 3.5.
285.5 The 3D nonlinear analysis of the arch dam was performed
14 with the FEM program TFINE developed by Tsinghua Uni-
60
64
versity. Like the linear analysis, the nonlinear analysis con-
681.5 tains dam toe reinforcement, concrete replacement at the dam
2.39 foundation, and weak rocks like faults. Under the basic load
0.216 combination corresponding to the normal water level, the
95.58 distributions of stress and displacement agree with results of
0.141
10.88
the linear analysis, and the dam is in a uniform compressive
5.58 state. The maximum principal compressive stress, which is
about 15e16 MPa, appears at the arch abutment on the
downstream surface. The maximum principal tensile stress is

Table 3
Mechanical and thermal parameters of dam concrete used in Xiluodu Arch Dam.
Concrete Location 180-d 180-d axial 180-d 180-d Linear Poisson's Adiabatic Volumetric
zone compressive tensile elasticity ultimate expansion ratio temperature autogenous
strength (MPa) strength modulus (GPa) tension coefficient rise ( C) deformation
(MPa) (104) (106) (micro strain)
A (C18040) Block bottom 52.8 4.0 45.1 1.01 6.5 0.18 26.4 38.0
area and outworks area
B (C18035) Block middle 45.8 3.5 43.6 0.96 6.5 0.18 25.5 20e10
and low area
C (C18030) Upper area of blocks 38.3 3.2 40.0 0.94 6.5 0.18 24.7 20e10
except outlet works
292 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301
Fig. 2. Concrete zones on downstream surface (units: m).
1.13 MPa, appearing at the right side of middle elevation of
the arch crown on the downstream surface.
The geo-mechanical model test (Zhou et al., 2008) of the
arch dam was performed to simulate the rock categories and
faults in excavation and to explore the dam's overload capacity
by increasing the density of water under the condition of
normal water level. The overload capacity could be evaluated
by the following three factors: K1, K2, and K3. K1 is the crack-
initiation overload safety factor. The overload of K1P0, in
which P0 is the basic load combination corresponding to the
normal water level, corresponds to the moment when the first
crack appears in a physical model test or to the moment when
the range of yield zones reaches 1/6 of the arch dam thickness
in the nonlinear FEM analysis. K2 is the quasi-elastic overload
safety factor. As the overload increases further, the crack
propagates in the physical model test, while the yield zones
continue to expand in the nonlinear FEM simulation. The
structure is stable overall, and the dam displacements remain
in linear correlation with the load until the overload exceeds
K2P0. K3 is the ultimate overload safety factor. The overload
of K3P0 corresponds to the occurrence of a large number of
cracks throughout most of the dam or foundation, and the dam
becomes unstable overall in the physical model test. In the
nonlinear FEM calculation, K3P0 coincides with the time when
the nonlinear solution does not converge.
The results show that the safety factor K1 of the Xiluodu
Arch Dam ranges from 2.0 to 2.5, while the nonlinear defor-
mation safety factor K2 is between 5.0 and 6.0.
4. Dynamic design scheme and approach
Considering the fact that the scale of the Xiluodu Arch
Dam exceeds the scope of the current design code (DL
5073d2000) and that the earthquake safety presents a chal-
lenge due to the high seismicity at the site, some key tech-
nological problems in the design procedure of the Xiluodu
project arise: (1) the dynamic performance properties of the
dam, (2) reliable assessment of the seismic safety capacity of
the dam, and (3) the design of earthquake-resistance measures
in order to ensure the dam's long-term safe operation.
For the seismic design of the Xiluodu Arch Dam, based on
conventional static and dynamic analyses, through full use of
sophisticated numerical analysis and physical experimental
methods, a comprehensive design approach for the dam has
been proposed and implemented for the first time. Further-
more, through comparison with other high arch dams, a sys-
tematic evaluation method and design criteria for seismic
strengthening for ultra-high arch dams have been established.
Using these approaches, the Xiluodu Arch Dam aseismic
measures have been designed and completed to further ensure
the seismic safety of the dam, solving the key technical
problems of high dam seismic design.
Through cooperation with the China Institute of Water
Resources and Hydropower Research, Tsinghua University,
and Dalian University of Technology, the following ap-
proaches have been developed:
(1) The dam shape can be designed with static mechanics
and checked with dynamic mechanics (Wang, 2016). The
structural design is first carried out by matching the funda-
mental load combination, then checking the earthquake-
resistance capacity in the case of an earthquake, and finally
adjusting the shape of the dam or adding strengthening
measures.
(2) The seismic design can be implemented through anal-
ysis with multiple methods, verification with multiple ap-
proaches, and evaluation on multiple scales, as well as the
 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301
project analogy analysis, to help comprehensively analyze the
mechanical characteristics of the dam, and properly evaluate
the earthquake-resistance capacity of the dam. This includes
research on code methods and modern simulation approaches.
Code methods mainly refer to the rigid limit equilibrium
method for dynamic stability analysis of the dam base, the
dynamic trial-load method, and the linear elastic dynamic
FEM. Modern simulation approaches mainly include
nonlinear dynamic FEM considering radiation damping,
contraction opening, material nonlinearity, and large-scale
shaking table overload testing.
(3) Feasible earthquake-strengthening measures should be
presented to ensure that the dam will withstand the design
earthquake and not fall in an extreme event. This means that
cracks may appear when the dam encounters the design
earthquake but will not affect the dam's normal function of
water retaining and can be fixed through measures such as
grouting. When the dam suffers an extreme earthquake such
as the checking earthquake, it can still safely hold the water
even with apparent cracks (Chen, 2012). In the latter case,
the numerical calculation should be kept stable and the yield
area should not run through the dam body (Zhang et al.,
2009, 2014).
Combined with the project analogy analysis, the
earthquake-resistance capacity of the dam and potential weak
parts can be comprehensively evaluated and proper strength-
ening measures can be taken.
5. Dynamic analysis for arch dam in codes
In accordance with DL 5073d2000, the controlling
allowable stress of the Xiluodu Arch Dam based on the dy-
namic trial-load method is given in Table 4. The dynamic
Table 4
Dynamic stress control criterion for Xiluodu Arch Dam obtained through trial-
load method.
Concrete zone Compressive strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa)
A (C18040) 18.96 3.52
B (C18035) 16.59 3.08
C (C18030) 14.22 2.64
Fig. 3. Contours of principal stresses during design earthquake obtained through dynamic trial-load method.
293
stability safety factor Kcd obtained through the limit equilib-
rium method using the shear-friction formula is larger than
1.31.
5.1. Dynamic analysis by trial-load method
Responses of the dam structure under four dynamic load
combinations were analyzed with the dynamic trial-load
method, showing that the dynamic stress distributions of
the dam body are similar to one another except for the dif-
ference in magnitudes, corresponding to different water
levels.
Load case 1-1 and case 2-1 are the controlling cases for
the maximum principal compressive stress. The shaking
caused the zones near the crest and arch abutment to be with
the maximum principal compressive stress under earthquake
conditions. The maximum compressive stresses on the up-
stream surface, which appear at the top arch, are 11.23 MPa
and 12.89 MPa for design and checking earthquakes,
respectively. On the downstream surface the values are
11.86 MPa and 12.38 MPa, respectively. During both design
and checking earthquakes the stresses satisfy the criterion of
dynamic allowable compressive stress of concrete. The
maximum radial dynamic displacements of the dam are
10.59 cm and 12.81 cm for design and checking earthquakes,
respectively.
Load case 1-2 and case 2-2 are the controlling cases for
the maximum principal tensile stress. The shaking causes
the zones near the crest and arch abutment at middle el-
evations to be in tension, with a tensile stress as high as
3.0e7.0 MPa. The extreme values at the crest are
6.92 MPa and 8.37 MPa for design and checking earth-
quakes, respectively. Areas where the tensile stresses are
higher than controlling criterions account for 10% and 17%
of the whole dam surface during design and checking
earthquakes, respectively.
Contours of maximum principal dynamic stresses due to
the design earthquake computed by the trial-load method are
shown in Fig. 3. Table 5 shows the locations of extreme
principal stress values in different cases.
294 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301

Table 5
Maximum principal stresses of dam surfaces obtained through dynamic trial-load method.
Case Maximum principal tensile stress Maximum principal compressive stress
Upstream surface Downstream surface Upstream surface Downstream surface
Value Location Value Location Value Location Value Location
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1-1 5.23 Middle area of dam crest 2.85 Right ¼ arch at El. 520 m 11.23 Right area at El. 590 m 11.86 Left end at El. 560 m
1-2 6.92 Left area of dam crest 4.33 Left area at El. 590 m 8.77 Middle area at El. 350 m 9.56 Left area at El. 480 m
2-1 6.88 Middle area of dam crest 3.80 Right ¼ arch at El. 520 m 12.89 Right area at El. 590 m 12.38 Left end at El. 560 m
2-2 8.37 Left area of dam crest 5.52 Left area at El. 590 m 9.63 Middle area at El. 350 m 10.70 Left area at El. 480 m
Note: El. represents elevation.

5.2. Linear elastic finite element analysis of arch dam
The arch dam analysis program (ADAP, Clough et al.,
1973) was used to analyze the linear elastic dynamic re-
sponses of the Xiluodu Arch Dam. Results obtained from
dynamic FEM are consistent with those from the trial-load
method. As affected by the stress concentration, extreme
stress values close to the dam edges obtained through FEM are
higher than those obtained through the trial-load method,
while those in the other areas, especially in the central area,
are significantly lower.
During design and checking earthquakes, most compressive
stresses of the dam can satisfy the design requirements except
for some areas slightly over the limit near the base. The areas
over the limit of tensile stress are mainly distributed close to
the dam heel and the central part of the dam on the down-
stream surface, accounting for 10% and 15% of the total dam
surface area for design and checking earthquakes, respectively.
The maximum radial dynamic displacement of the dam is also
slightly reduced, as compared with that obtained through the
trial-load method.
Above all, results of the FEM and trial-load method show
that the dam is mainly in a pressure-arch state with the largest
compressive stress appearing near the dam toe and foundation
areas. On the other hand, tensile stresses are relatively high in
the upper crown cantilever and arch abutments on the up-
stream surface, and the central part of the dam on the down-
stream surface.
Table 6 gives the maximum values of principal stresses in
different load cases computed by linear elastic FEM and
Fig. 4 shows the principal stress contours during the design
earthquake.
5.3. Rigid limit equilibrium method for dynamic stability
analysis of dam base
The dynamic stability analysis of dam abutments was
performed using the shear rupture formula considering

Table 6
Maximum principal stresses for different load cases obtained through linear elastic FEM.
Case Maximum principal tensile stress Maximum principal compressive stress
Upstream surface Downstream surface Upstream surface Downstream surface
Value Location Value Location Value Location Value Location
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1-1 10.98 Left dam heel 5.73 Left ¼ arch at El. 510 m 12.85 Right area of dam crest 19.32 Right area of dam toe
1-2 6.00 Left area of dam crest 5.85 Left end at El. 575 m 9.13 Right area at El. 430 m 14.10 Right area of dam toe
2-1 12.19 Left dam heel 6.97 Left ¼ arch at El. 510 m 14.45 Right area of dam crest 20.25 Right area of dam toe
2-2 7.38 Left area of dam crest 6.72 Left end at El. 575 m 10.52 Right area at El. 430 m 15.00 Right area of dam toe

Fig. 4. Contours of principal stresses during design earthquake obtained through linear elastic FEM.
 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301 295

different combination coefficients of the earthquake and the

working condition of the grout curtain. The dynamic anti-slide
safety factors of controlling blocks at two abutments under
conditions of design and checking earthquakes are given in
Table 7. All the factors are larger than 1.31, satisfying the
requirements of the code.

6. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of arch dam

6.1. Methods and model

The nonlinear wave propagation analysis program

(NMPAP), developed by the China Institute of Water Re-
sources and Hydropower Research, divides the computation Fig. 5. Finite element mesh of dam-foundation system.
area into the nonlinear near-field domain and the linear arti-
ficial boundary domain by decoupling the near-field wave
propagation equations (Chen, 2011). This program considers
the dam, foundation rock, and reservoir water as an integrated
wave propagation model, with boundary constraints on contact
interfaces, and solves the equations in the time domain using
the explicit FEM. Thus, the numerical stability depends on the
minimum element size, wave speed, and time step in the
calculation. This program can also simulate the sliding surface
of blocks at abutments with the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive
relations in a similar way of simulating joints in the dam body,
using binodal dynamic contact boundaries. Using the gener-
alized Westergaard theory, the reservoir water-added mass is Fig. 6. Contraction joints simulated in FEM (numbers indicate
different joints).
applied to the corresponding nodes after diagonalization.
The nonlinear FEM model of the Xiluodu Arch Dam
contains the dam body and foundation rocks, as well as 23
joints and faults. The faults are simulated with contact ele- safety of the controlling sliding blocks, and to analyze the
ments with a certain thickness. The system damping ratio is possible failure mechanisms and the earthquake-resistance ca-
set to 0.05. The whole model ranges are 1200 m, 1600 m, and pacity of the highly nonlinear dam-foundation system.
900 m along the longitudinal, transversal, and vertical di-
rections, respectively, and the model contains 27727 nodes and 6.2. Results
80000 degrees of freedom. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 illustrate the mesh
and joints, respectively. Load case 1-2 and case 2-2 control the joint opening of the
By taking into account the topographic and geological con- dam, in which the largest openings reach 29.94 mm and
ditions at the dam site and the effects of free-field seismic inputs, 28.75 mm, respectively, near the top of the crown cantilever,
joint opening, and radiation damping, the nonlinear dynamic almost twice as much as in case 1-1 and case 2-1. Due to the
FEM sees the dam-foundation as a whole subject, in order to consideration of various nonlinear factors, the displacement of
study the dynamic strength safety of sliding planes in the the dam body from nonlinear dynamic analysis is less than
foundation and the dam concrete, and the dynamic anti-sliding those from the trial-load method and linear FEM.

Table 7
Dynamic anti-slide safety factors of controlling blocks at abutments.
Earthquake Location of block Dynamic anti-slide safety factor
Curtain functioning Curtain failure
X ¼ 1.0, Y ¼ 1.0 X ¼ 1.0, Y ¼ 0.5 X ¼ 0.5, Y ¼ 1.0 X ¼ 1.0, Y ¼ 1.0 X ¼ 1.0, Y ¼ 0.5 X ¼ 0.5, Y ¼ 1.0
Design earthquake Left abutment 1.55 1.62 1.65 1.49 1.57 1.60
Right abutment 1.58 1.60 1.93 1.55 1.56 1.89
Checking earthquake Left abutment 1.37 1.50 1.62 1.34 1.47 1.59
Right abutment 1.41 1.41 1.77 1.38 1.38 1.73
Note: X and Y denote the transversal and longitudinal components of earthquake combination factors, respectively. Curtain functioning indicates that the seepage
pressure reduction factors are 0.4 and 0.2 at the curtain and drain hole, respectively. Curtain failure indicates that the seepage pressure reduction factors are 0.6 and
0.3 at the curtain and drain hole, respectively.
296 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301

The principal compressive stress distribution from
nonlinear analysis is similar to the linear elastic finite element
analysis result, accompanied by a stress reduction ranging
from 15% to 30%. In case 1-1 and case 2-1, the maximum
compressive stresses are 12.23 MPa and 13.24 MPa, respec-
tively, which means that the dynamic compressive stresses
fully satisfy the controlling criterion.
The difference between tensile stresses of the nonlinear and
linear models is clear when different dam locations and different
working conditions are compared. When the dam is shaken by an
earthquake at the normal water level, the tensile stress magni-
tude and over-the-limit range near the upstream dam toe from
nonlinear analysis both decrease as compared to linear analysis
results, whereas the tensile stress at the arch abutment on the
downstream surface increases slightly. When the dam is shaken
by an earthquake at the dead water level, the tensile stress
magnitude and over-the-limit range at the middle-upper part of
the upstream surface from nonlinear analysis significantly in-
crease as compared to the linear elastic results. As for the
stresses on the downstream surface, the magnitude increases
while the over-the-limit range decreases due to the effects of
faults in the middle-lower arch abutment area.
The maximum values of comprehensive static and dynamic
tensile stresses during design and checking earthquakes are
9.71 MPa and 11.43 MPa, respectively, occurring at the same
position where weak rock of shear-belts can be found at high
elevations nearby. The local slip of the belt during an earthquake
leads to the increase of the stress of the adjacent local dam area.
As the computations indicated, there are displacements
along the simulated dislocation zones between and within the
layers during and after the earthquake, and the displacements
were larger in the load cases of high water level (case 1-1 and
case 2-1). The maximum values occurred in dislocation zones,
23.35 mm during the design earthquake and 27.84 mm during
the checking earthquake. Moreover, the residual displacements
after the earthquake took place in the same area were
17.56 mm (design earthquake) and 18.39 mm (checking
earthquake). Although the displacements or residual slip
occurred in dislocation zones, they did not have significant
effects on the static dynamic response and safety of the dam.
Table 8 provides the maximum stress values, locations, and
joint opening magnitudes in different cases from nonlinear
dynamic analysis. Fig. 7 shows the contours of principal
stresses during the design earthquake.
7. Dynamic analysis for arch dam-foundation interaction
in time domain
7.1. Method and model
The dynamic analysis model (Zhang et al., 1995; Wang
et al., 2013) of dam-foundation interaction in time domain

Table 8
Maximum principal stresses of dam body and contraction joint opening.
Case Maximum Maximum principal tensile stress Maximum principal compressive stress
joint opening (mm) Upstream surface Downstream surface Upstream surface Downstream surface
Value Location Value Location Value Location Value Location
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1-1 9.78 9.71 Right arch abutment 8.05 Right arch abutment 0.33 Right abutment of 12.23 Right arch abutment
at El. 549 m at El. 525 m dam crest at El. 355 m
1-2 24.94 10.40 Right arch abutment 9.07 Right arch abutment 7.65 Left abutment of 0.03 Right arch abutment
at El. 505 m at El. 505 m dam crest at El. 355 m
2-1 12.75 11.43 Right arch abutment 10.27 Right arch abutment 3.24 Right abutment of 2.56 Right arch abutment
at El. 549 m at El. 525 m dam crest at El. 355 m
2-2 28.75 13.03 Right arch abutment 11.02 Right arch abutment 8.80 Left abutment of 0.66 Right arch abutment
at El. 505 m at El. 505 m dam crest at El. 355 m

Fig. 7. Contours of maximum principal stresses during design earthquake.

 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301 297

was introduced by Tsinghua University. This model uses a 3D
frequency domain or an infinite boundary element to simulate
the arch dam-foundation system and transfers the dynamic
frequency domain stiffness to time domain parameters,
through which the finite element dam model is coupled and the
integrated model of finite elements, boundary elements (Shi
et al., 2013), and infinite boundary elements of the arch
dam-foundation in the time domain is formed.
7.2. Analysis results
The time domain arch dam-foundation interaction model
was used to calculate the dynamic responses of the dam body
in cases 1-1 and 1-2. The 27 joints, foundation radiation
damping ratio of 0.05, dynamic water pressure, and uniform
free-field seismic input were applied in this model with the
assumption of equivalent homogenous rock material of bulk
density of 2700 kg/m3. The standard response spectrum in the
code was used as the seismic input load. Table 9 demonstrates
the dynamic response results for different water levels during
the design earthquake.
The stress peak values, including tensile and compressive
values in both the arch and cantilever directions, all satisfy the
controlling criterion for the design earthquake. The maximum
tensile stress is about 3 MPa at the position of 1/4 of the arch
at the middle elevation on the downstream surface along the
cantilever direction (Fig. 8(a)); the maximum compressive
stress is about 10 MPa at the low elevation on the downstream
surface (Fig. 8(b)), also along the cantilever direction. The
maximum radial displacement is 8.54 cm (Fig. 9(a)) and the
joint opening is about 9.36 mm (Fig. 9(b)).
After taking into account the influence of foundation radi-
ation damping and contraction joint opening, the stress level of
the dam, especially the tensile stress on the upstream surface,

Table 9
Maximum values of dynamic responses of arch dam during design earthquake.
Case Maximum upstream Maximum stress on upstream surface (MPa) Maximum stress on downstream surface (MPa) Maximum joint
displacement (cm) opening (mm)
Arch Cantilever Arch Cantilever
T C T C T C T C
1-1 7.89 1.10 9.59 2.75 7.15 0.93 8.04 2.93 9.88 3.06
1-2 8.54 0.93 5.71 1.75 8.86 1.20 4.97 1.55 7.36 9.36
Note: T denotes tensile stress and C denotes compressive stress.

Fig. 8. Non-concurrent envelope of stress along cantilever direction in load case 1-1.

Fig. 9. Dynamic response of arch dam during design earthquake.

298 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301

decreased, most of which were released by using the time Table 10

domain dynamic coupling method. The high tensile stress Dam damage in shaking table test.
zone is mainly located on the left and right sides of 1/4 arch Dynamic load times at base Damage Location
portions at middle elevation of the dam on the downstream of design earthquake
surface, while the tensile stress zone determined through the 1.0 No significant damage
linear FEM is mainly concentrated at the dam crest and in the 1.6 No significant damage
2.1 Crack along lift joint at high Label 8
low dam portions near the foundation. elevation on right
downstream surface created
8. Large-scale shaking table tests by tensile stress along
cantilever direction
The China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower 2.4 Right dam heel at middle- Label 5
high elevations
Research carried out a dynamic model test using a 5 m
5 m 3.2 Dam heel Label 3
shaking table, which included simulations of radiation damping 5.0 Right dam heel at middle- Label 6
using artificial transmitting boundaries, geological structures, high elevations
and topography, as well as sliding blocks at the dam site and Left dam heel at middle- Label 1
vicinal areas, interactions between the dam body and reservoir high elevations
6.1 Crack along lift joint at high Label 7
water, and seven joints in the dam body, with a model scale of elevation on left downstream
1:300 as shown in Fig. 10. Specific research subjects included surface
dynamic responses to different earthquake overloadings, the Crack along lift joint at high Label 10
earthquake level that leads to initial cracks, the development of elevation near foundation
damage, and the stability of blocks. Earthquake-resistance Downstream dam crest of Label 9
crown cantilever
safety and the limit of earthquake-resistance capacity (Wang
et al., 2014) can be deeply examined by precisely controlling
the earthquake input to the shaking table.
Table 10 lists the instances of visible damage to the dam that the dam foundation interface and central zone of the
after vibration in various working conditions. All the instances downstream surface are critical areas for the earthquake-
of damage or cracks are shown in Fig. 11, except some resistance capacity of the dam.
damages whose initial time of occurrence cannot be identified. Model testing and numerical analysis are two important
The results show that, during the design earthquake, no methods of seismic safety research for arch dams. Due to
apparent damage was evident and strains observed at all points differences in simulation conditions, material values, struc-
were in the elastic range; under the acceleration of 1.68 times tural simulations, etc., and a shortage of physical test results,
the design earthquake (1.4 times the checking earthquake), comparison between the results of model testing and numer-
initial cracks appeared along the cantilever direction between ical analysis is difficult. However, the overall pattern of dam
the right two joints, 13 cm to the model dam crest on the dynamic behavior obtained from the two methods is consis-
downstream surface. As the earthquake level was further tent, indicating that the Xiluodu Arch Dam has a high degree
increased, cracks extended in the dam body. Under the con- of seismic resistance. The comparatively weak parts of the
dition of 4.88 times the design earthquake (4.1 times the dam are the foundation confinement zones and the middle-
checking earthquake), multiple instances of damage were high-elevation zones on the downstream surface.
observed in the dam body. Meanwhile, small residual dis-
placements were detected from blocks at two abutments, 9. Earthquake-resistance measures
which could still remain stable without wholly sliding when
the shaking stopped. From all of the above it can be inferred From the static and dynamic analyses described above, it
can be concluded that the dam base is stable and the structural
concrete has a safety margin in dynamic compression and
static tension except for some areas over the limit of tensile
stress in earthquakes. Enveloping all the areas of tensile
stresses with multiple methods, zones including the foundation
vicinity of dam surface, and central and upper parts of the dam
body, especially the surface and central holes, may face the
risk of cracking. Thus, the following earthquake-resistance
measures were implemented:
(1) Concrete zoning was rationally set according to the
magnitudes and distribution patterns of compressive and ten-
sile stresses. Specifically, C18040 concrete was used in the
vicinity of the foundation and central areas with openings,
C18035 concrete was used in the middle-lower dam body and
Fig. 10. Schematic view of model adopted for shaking table tests.
 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301 299

Fig. 11. Locations of dam damage in shaking table test.

outlet works areas, and C18030 concrete was used in the
middle-upper dam body areas near the two abutments.
(2) Fillets, with the thickness ranging from 3 to 6 m and
height ranging from 15 to 25 m, were added at the dam toe on
the downstream surface, in order to reduce the compressive
stress concentration at the dam toe area and enhance the
earthquake-resistance capacity of the structure. Anchor cable
was used near the dam toe area, especially in places where
faults and joint fissures developed, to reinforce the stability of
the foundation (Lin et al., 2009).
(3) Reinforcing mesh was paved on the dam surface at high
tensile stress areas (Pan et al., 2007; Long et al., 2011) to
control the development of cracking of concrete. The surface
reinforcement zones can be seen in Fig. 12, which is
composed of staggered arch reinforcements using HRB335
with the diameter of 28 mm and interval of 500 mm (avoiding
transversal joints) and cantilever reinforcements using
HRB335 with the diameter of 32 mm and interval of 300 mm
(HRB means hot rolled ribbed bars) in Zone II and zone III,
and arch reinforcements with the diameter of 32 mm and in-
terval of 300 mm (avoiding transversal joints) and cantilever
reinforcements with the diameter of 36 mm and interval of
250 mm in Zone I.
(4) Shear keys along contraction joints, even with joint
openings of several centimeters due to the earthquake, can
ensure sufficient shear strength. In addition, copper and rubber
water-stops were utilized to prevent joints from breaking
during an earthquake (Fig. 13).

Fig. 12. Distribution of reinforcement on dam surfaces.

Fig. 13. Shear keys and upstream water-stop (units: m).

300 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301
(5) The reinforcement at outlet works and gate piers is
strengthened. Steel liners are used at openings and spillways to
prevent hydraulic fractures.
10. Conclusions
On the basis of the seismic design of the Xiluodu Arch
Dam, with full use of the modern numerical and experi-
mental analysis methods, a comprehensive scheme of design
and various approaches consisting of analysis with multiple
methods, verification with multiple techniques and evalua-
tion on multiple scales, as well as dam staging dynamic
safety criteria for withstanding the design earthquake and
avoiding failure in extreme situations, have been put forward
for seismic design of an ultra-high arch dam. Using these
means, the mechanical characteristics of a dam during
earthquakes and the earthquake-resistance capacity of the
Xiluodu Arch Dam have been systematically analyzed.
Reasonable and feasible seismic measures have been pro-
posed and implemented. The main conclusions of this study
are as follows:
(1) The dynamic stability of blocks at two abutments of the
arch dam has been ensured.
(2) As both the dynamic trial-load method and linear elastic
FEM indicated, the compressive stresses during design and
checking earthquakes can satisfy the design requirements, and
only in areas at the high arch crown and middle-elevation arch
abutments are the tensile stresses over the limit. These areas
take up less than 15% of the dam surface.
(3) Taking the effects of radiation damping and contraction
joint opening into consideration, the nonlinear analysis shows
that the area in tension and tensile stress both decrease, with
the maximum joint opening of 10e25 mm. According to
large-scale dynamic shaking table tests, the conclusion can be
drawn that the Xiluodu Arch Dam provides adequate
earthquake-resistance capacity.
(4) Based on the comprehensive seismic safety evaluation,
systematic aseismic measures, including steel reinforcement at
the dam toe and in the zones of high tensile stresses at the dam
surface, as well as shear keys, have been put forward and
employed.
References
Aftabi Sani, A., Lotfi, V., 2010. Dynamic analysis of concrete arch dams by
ideal-coupled modal approach. Eng. Struct. 32(5), 1377e1383. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.016.
Ahmadi, M.T., Izadinia, M., Bachmann, H., 2001. A discrete crack joint model
for nonlinear dynamic analysis of concrete arch dam. Comput. Struct.
79(4), 403e420. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(00)00148-6.
Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD), 2013. Guidelines
on Design Criteria for Concrete Gravity Dams. https://www.ancold.org.au/?
product¼guidelines-on-design-criteria-for-concrete-gravity-dams-september-
2013 [Retrieved Nov. 20, 2017].
Bouaanani, N., Lu, F.Y., 2009. Assessment of potential-based fluid finite el-
ements for seismic analysis of dam-reservoir systems. Comput. Struct.
187(3e4), 206e224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2008.10.006.
Chen, H., 2011. High Arch Dam Seismic Safety. China Electric Power Press,
Beijing (in Chinese).
Chen, H., 2012. Study on seismic strengthening standard of hydraulic struc-
tures. China Water Resour. (20), 4e6 (in Chinese).
Clough, R.W., Raphael, J.M., Mojtahedi, S., 1973. ADAP: A Computer Pro-
gram for Static and Dynamic Analysis of Arch Dams, Report No. EERC-
73/14. University of California, Berkeley.
Fahjan, Y.M., Borekci, O.S., Erdik, M., 2003. Earthquake-induced hydrody-
namic pressures on a 3D rigid dam-reservoir system using DRBEM and a
radiation matrix. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 56(10), 1511e1532. https://
doi.org/10.1002/nme.623.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 1999. Engineering Guide-
lines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects, Chapter 11: Arch Dams.
FERC, Washington, D.C. http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/
safety/guidelines/eng-guide.asp [Retrieved Nov. 20, 2017].
Ghaemian, M., Ghobarah, A., 1998. Staggered solution schemes for dam-
reservoir interaction. J. Fluid Struct. 12(7), 933e948. https://doi.org/10.
1006/jfls.1998.0170.
Hariri-Ardebili, M.A., Mirzabozorg, H., 2013. A comparative study of seismic
stability of coupled arch dam-foundation-reservoir systems using infinite
elements and viscous boundary models. Int. J. Struct. Stabil. Dynam.
13.06, 1350032.
Jonker, M., Espandar, R., 2014. Evaluation of Existing Arch Dam Design Criteria
in Lieu of ANCOLD Guidelines. https://www.ghd.com/en/services/resources/
PDF/ANCOLD2014-Evaluation-of-Existing-Arch-Dam-Design-Criteria-in-
Lieu-of-ANCOLD-Guidelines-JONKER-ESPANDAR.pdf [Retrieved Nov.
20, 2017].
Kalateh, F., Attarnejad, R., 2011. Finite element simulation of acoustic cavi-
tation in the reservoir and effects on dynamic response of concrete dams.
Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 47(5), 543e558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.
2010.12.004.
Leger, P., Venturelli, J., Bahattacharjee, S.S., 1993. Seasonal temperature and
stress distributions in concrete gravity dams, Part 1: Modeling. Can. J. Civ.
Eng. 20(6), 999e1017. https://doi.org/10.1139/l93-131.
Lin, P., Wang, R.K., Li, Q.B., Yang, Q., Zhou, W.Y., 2009. Effect analysis of
structural safety of typical large dams in Wenchuan 8.0 Earthquake. Chin.
J. Rock Mech. Eng. 28(6), 1261e1269 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.
3321/j.issn:1000-6915.2009.06.023.
Lombardi, G., 1991. Koelnbrein Dam: An unusual solution for an unusual
problem. Int. Water Power Dam Constr. 43(6), 31e34.
Long, Y., Xu, S., Gao, X., 2011. A study of cantilever reinforcement for high
arch dam to resist strong earthquakes. Eng. Mech. 28(S1), 178e183.
Mays, J.R., Roehm, L.H., 1991. Hydrodynamic pressure in a dam-reservoir
system. Comput. Struct. 40(2), 281e291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-
7949(91)90354-O.
Moradloo, J., Ahmadi, M.T., Vahdani, S., 2008. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of
concrete arch dam considering large displacements. In: Proceedings of the
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing.
Pan, J., Long, Y., Zhang, C., 2007. Seismic cracking of arch dams and
effectiveness of strengthening by reinforcement. J. Hydraul. Eng. 38(8),
926e932 (in Chinese).
Saouma, V., Miura, F., Lebon, G., Yagome, Y., 2011. A simplified 3D
model for soil-structure interaction with radiation damping and free
field input. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 9, 1387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-
011-9261-7.
Shi, M.G., Zhong, H., Ooi, E.T., Zhang, C.H., Song, C.M., 2013. Modelling of
crack propagation of gravity dams by scaled boundary polygons and
cohesive crack model. Int. J. Fract. 183(1), 29e48. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10704-013-9873-9.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1994. Arch Dam Design, Engineering
Manual EM 1110-2-2201. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 1977. Design Criteria for Concrete Arch
and Gravity Dams. US Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.
Wang, H., Li, D., Chen, H., 2014. Challenge in study of ultimate capacity of
high arch dams against earthquakes. J. Hydroelectr. Eng. 33(6),
168e180.
 Ren-kun Wang et al. / Water Science and Engineering 2018, 11(4): 288e301
Wang, J.T., Lü, D.D., Jin, F., Zhang, C.H., 2013. Earthquake damage analysis
of arch dams considering dam-water-foundation interaction. Soil Dynam.
Earthq. Eng. 49, 64e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.02.006.
Wang, R.K., 2016. Key technologies in the design and construction of 300 m
ultra-high arch dams. Engineering 2(3), 350e359. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ENG.2016.03.012.
Westergaard, H.M., 1933. Water pressures on dams during earthquakes. Trans.
ASCE 98(2), 418e433.
Zhang, C.H., Jin, F., Pekau, O.A., 1995. Time domain procedure of FE-BE-IBE
coupling for seismic interaction of arch dams and canyons. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 24(12), 1651e1666. http://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290241208.
301
Zhang, C.H., Pan, J.W., Wang, J.T., 2009. Influence of seismic input mecha-
nisms and radiation damping on arch dam response. Soil Dynam. Earthq.
Eng. 29(9), 1282e1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.03.003.
Zhang, C.H., Feng, J., Wang, J.T., Xu, Y.J., 2014. Seismic Safety Evaluation of
Concrete Dams. Tsinghua University Press, Beijing. https://doi.org/10.
1016/C2012-0-01281-1.
Zhou, W., Lin, P., Yang, R., Yang, Q., 2008. Method and Application of
Geomechanical Model Test on High Arch Dam. China Water Power Press,
Beijing (in Chinese).