Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 709

Assessment of Monar Arch Dam under

extreme seismic and thermal loads
A. Manafpour1, S. Gallocher1, D. Kourepinis1 & A. C. Morison2
1
Special Structures Dept., Halcrow Group Ltd., U.K.
2
Dams and Hydropower Dept., Halcrow Group Ltd., U.K.

Abstract
Monar dam is a double-curvature concrete arch dam in the north west of the UK
constructed in the early 1960s. This paper examines the elastic response of the
dam under seismic and temperature loads using a 3-dimensional finite element
model that takes into account dam-foundation-water interactions. Seismic loads
are applied in three main orthogonal directions using synthetic ground motions,
while temperature load is based on minimum and maximum mean daily ambient
air temperatures at the site. Additionally a temperature gradient exists through
the thickness of the dam between the upstream and downstream faces.
The study shows that temperature has a significant role in determining the
final stress distribution within the dam. The results indicate that for summer
loadcases a band of high tensile stress is developed on the downstream face near
to the dam/rock interface. The addition of the seismic loading increases the
tensile stresses from the normal summer loading by a relatively modest amount.
This might, however, be sufficient to cause the development of significant
cracking.
Keywords: Arch dam, Seismic analysis, thermal loading, Westergaard added
mass, soil-water-structure interaction, temperature gradient.

1 Introduction
The UK has experienced relatively low levels of seismic activity throughout
recorded history and earthquake loading has not been incorporated into the
design of many British dams. In line with developments in earthquake
engineering and taking into account the level of risk associated with many of
existing British dams, which are situated immediately upstream of population

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
710 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

centres, in the 1980s the government funded a research program to study the
seismic risks for dams. This study resulted in an engineering guide, Charles
et al [1], which sets out criteria for analysing the seismic response of dams based
on their hazard category. A Safety Evaluation Earthquake is defined and the
safety of the dam against catastrophic failure is required to be ensured under
such earthquake without loss of life. In 1998 modifications and clarifications of
the engineering guide were presented in the form of an “Application Note”,
ICE [2].
Thermal loading has a significant effect on the design and assessment of arch
dams as compared to gravity dams. The temperature load results from the
differences between the closure (grouting) temperature and concrete
temperatures in the dam during its operation.
Monar Dam is a double-curvature concrete arch dam in the north west of the
UK constructed in early 1960s. Previous studies [3, 4] of this dam have indicated
a satisfactory response for the dam under Safety Evaluation Earthquake,
although also raised a concern on possible high tensile stresses, which may be
produced as a result of the combination of thermal and seismic loads. The
purpose of the current study is primarily to address this concern, though a
complete reassessment of various load cases is also considered.

2 Design background and previous studies

Monar dam was the first double curvature arch dam in the UK and forms a part
of the storage reservoir for the rivers Farrar and Beauly as part of the Strathfarrar
and Kilmorack Hydroelectric Scheme. Loch Monar reservoir is formed by
Monar arch dam and Loichel gravity dam (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location, reservoir and general view of Monar dam.

The dam is 161m long at crest level and rises about 39m from the lowest
ground foundation level to the crest roadway, at 227.7 mOD, with a horizontal
curvature of 67 m. Its thickness varies from 5.8m at the base to 3.8m at crest
level where also 10 tilting floodgates have been installed. Monar dam was
originally designed by hand calculation using the arch-cantilever, and checked
on a cement mortar structural model, Roberts et al [5]. No seismic load was
considered at the time. The dam was constructed using 11 concrete blocks and
the joints between the concrete blocks were subsequently pressure grouted, at

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 711

two stages during the winter months. Foundation pressure relief was effected
through a total of 42 relief holes drilled at 3m intervals from a drainage gallery
located immediately downstream of the spillway channel [5]. General plan and
cross sections of the dam are shown in Figure 2.
During the 1980s seismic and thermal analysis of Monar Dam was
undertaken by Bristol University as part of a more general seismic study of three
dams [3]. The analysis was carried out using a three-dimensional finite element
model of the dam comprising 43 elements under a maximum credible earthquake
with a peak ground acceleration of 0.25g. Thermal loadings were also
investigated with concerns raised over the high tensile stresses produced at low
temperatures.
Further analysis of the Monar Dam has subsequently been undertaken by
Halcrow Group [4] as part of a major risk assessment strategy of the dam owner,
Scottish and Southern Energy Plc. This analysis included only the seismic effects
and based on recommendations of new Engineering Guide [1, 2]. A
recommendation was made from this study to undertake further investigation
into a combined thermal and seismic loadcase to re-assess concerns over the
potentially high tensile stresses under thermal loading.

Figure 2: General plan, elevation and sections of Monar dam.

3 Analytical modelling
3.1 Finite element model

For analytical modelling the dam is assumed to be symmetric about the vertical
plane along the valley at the centre of dam (y-z plane), which is close to the
actual geometry. The model consists of eight-node solid elements for the dam
and the foundation from element library of SAP2000 finite element package [6].
Maximum height of the dam body above the foundation is 35.4m. Four layers of
elements are considered through the thickness of the dam and foundation
elements are consistent with those of the dam at the interface area and extend to
a distance equal to the height of the dam in each direction.
Sliding and separation between the dam/rock interface is not permitted and
the uplift effects on the dam’s stress condition are assumed to be negligible. The
dam’s body and foundation are assumed to be of homogeneous, isotropic and
linear elastic materials. As a result the analytical model does not consider

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
712 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

concrete cracking and opening of contraction joints under the applied loads. All
the floodgates at crest level of the dam are assumed to remain closed.
Fixed boundary conditions are applied for all boundaries of the modelled
foundation with the surrounding rock. The hydrodynamic effects of the reservoir
water are considered as pseudo-static loads using the Westergaard [7] added
mass method while seismic loads are applied at all boundaries of the foundation
in three orthogonal directions. The finite element mesh is shown in Figure 3.

Solid element

Figure 3: Finite element mesh for Monar Dam.

3.2 Material properties

3.2.1 Concrete
Based on construction data the compressive strength of the concrete is
considered to be 32 MPa. Tensile static strength for intact concrete is taken as
5% of the compressive strength, i.e. 1.6 MPa, while for lift joints 80% of this
value is considered, i.e. 1.28 MPa, as consideration of joint stability was well
established at the time of construction of Monar dam. Other concrete properties
include: Mass density of 2400 kg/m3, Young’s modulus of 37 GPa and a
Poisson’s ratio of 0.24. Shear strength is assumed to be 10% of compressive
strength (3.2 MPa) [8]. For the seismic load case, the allowable tensile stress at
lift joints is taken as 1.60 MPa, considering a dynamic/static ratio of 1.25.

Table 1: Allowable stresses for concrete.

Loadcase Allowable stress for concrete (MPa)

type Compressive Tensile (joints)
Usual 32 /3 = 10.6 1.28 /3 =0.43
Unusual 32 /2 = 16.0 1.28 /2 =0.64
Extreme 32 /1 = 32.0 1.25x1.28 /1=1.60

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 713

With regard to allowable stresses for concrete material, the Engineering

Guide [1] recommends a factor of safety, for compressive and tensile stresses,
equal to 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0 for the usual, unusual and extreme load combinations,
respectively. These are based on the recommended values in Design of Small
Dams [9]. For this study the recommended values from reference [9] are adopted
and the resulting allowable stresses are given in Table 1.

3.2.2 Foundation rock

The dam is founded on a rock surface excavated to a depth of 4.5 to 9.1m to
expose sound rock at all points. The rock is schist of the Moine Series traversed
by several minor faults, seams and dykes filled with weathered rock or clay [4].
The mass density of rock is 2680 kg/m3 with a best estimate Young’s
Modulus of 40GPa. Upper and lower bounds of 80GPa and 20GPa, respectively,
are also considered to assess the contribution and significance of the rock
stiffness and bound general uncertainties. An average static compressive strength
of 127.5MPa, Roberts [11], and a tensile strength in the order of 5-10% of this
value (9.6MPa), are assigned to the rock foundation.

4 Loadings
4.1 Hydrostatic and temperature loads

Hydrostatic loads are calculated based on the water levels at normal and flood
conditions. The normal maximum retention level is 225.0 mOD and the flood
level rises about 2.5m higher to the dam crest level of 227.7 mOD. These levels
are about 32.7m and 35.4m above the base of dam at the tallest section,
respectively. In combination with temperature loads no allocation is made for
different normal and flood water levels between the summer and winter months.
The temperature load results from the differences between the closure
(grouting) temperature and concrete temperatures in the dam during its
operation. The closure (reference) temperature is the concrete temperature at the
time of grouting of the contraction joints [12] and represent the stress-free
situation of the dam. Here two bounding loadcases are considered where
temperatures represent the average daily ambient air temperatures for the winter
and summer months of 0.8°C and 17.1°C respectively. These are based on
minimum and maximum of the mean temperatures from 1990 to 2000 for winter
and summer months at the nearby Kiltarlity station, respectively [13].
In addition a temperature gradient of 2.67°C is considered to exist through the
thickness of the dam due to the moderating effects of the water on the maximum
summer and winter conditions. A reference temperature of 1.9°C was estimated
based on an average of recorded means for the downstream face of the dam for
February and March 1962 (second grouting period) [5]. Table 2 shows the final
temperatures applied at the middle of each layer of elements in the dam’s finite
element model, based on a linear variation of temperature through the thickness.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
714 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

Table 2: Final temperatures for each layer of dam elements.

Upstream Downstream
Element layer number 1 2 3 4
Summer (°C) 14.80 15.47 16.13 16.80
Winter (°C) 3.10 2.43 1.77 1.10

4.2 Seismic and hydrodynamic loads

Previous studies [14] have shown that the Monar dam is a category III dam
based on seismic risk classification system of Engineering Guide [1] and
therefore its appropriate return period for Safety Evaluation Earthquake is 10,000
years. Corresponding Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) for the dam
site is considered to be 0.21g [15] with vertical component being 2/3 of the
horizontal one. Three synthetic ground motions (HD37, HD51 & Hd56, see
Figure 4), each with duration of 10 seconds and generated to match standard UK
Hard Site Response Spectra with 5% damping, are applied in three main
orthogonal directions. To take into account the sensitivity of the model to
possible variations in ground motions three rotations of the horizontal and
vertical ground motions are considered as follows:

Direction Cross valley Along valley Vertical

Rotation 1 HD51 HD37 HD56
Rotation 2 HD56 HD51 HD37
Rotation 3 HD37 HD56 HD51

The hydrodynamic effects of the reservoir water are modelled as added

masses on the upstream nodes with the masses calculated using a general form of
the Westergaard added-mass concept, which accounts for the 3D geometry [10].

4.3 Load combinations

Six different load cases are defined considering various combinations of water,
temperature and seismic loads in view of the potential usual, unusual and
extreme conditions. The load combinations are shown in Table 3.
0.30 0.30 0.30

0.20 0.20 0.20

Acceleration (xg)

0.10 0.10 0.10

0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.10 -0.10 -0.10

-0.20 -0.20 -0.20

-0.30 -0.30 -0.30

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (Sec) Time (Sec) Time (Sec)
HD56 HD37 HD51

Figure 4: Acceleration time histories for three ground motions scaled to UK

hard site spectra with PGHA of 0.21g.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 715

Table 3: Definition of load combinations.

Description
Load Case
Dead load Hydrostatic Temperature Seismic
1 Summer Usual Yes Normal Summer No
2 Winter Usual Yes Normal Winter No
3 Summer Unusual Yes Flood Summer No
4 Winter Unusual Yes Flood Winter No
5 Summer Extreme Yes Normal Summer Yes
6 Winter Extreme Yes Normal Winter Yes

5 Analysis results
Validation of the SAP2000 model was made by comparing its results with those
produced by the EACD-3D-96 computer program [16] in an earlier study [4] for
a loadcase consisting of dead load and normal hydrostatic load. The comparison
carried out for a band of elements at the central part of the dam and showed a
reasonably good correlation between two models. Although variations were seen
towards the base of the dam near rock/foundation interface, primarily due to the
increased level of detail implemented in SAP2000 model.
The effects of variation in the rock modulus and use of different combinations
of ground motions were investigated. The results suggest that the maximum
stresses in the dam are not particularly sensitive to the variation of rock modulus
and the maximum stress results for 3 rotations of earthquake ground motions are
reasonably close, while rotation 2 gives slightly more critical results. Therefore
rotation 2 is adopted as the critical rotation in subsequent analyses.
In the following the stresses are considered over the extent of the dam body
and those in the floodgates and roadway are ignored. Tensile (+) and
compressive (-) stresses are only reported in terms of principle stresses (Smax
and Smin), while shear stresses represent the element shear in its local
coordinates. For seismic loadcases the maximum and minimum principal stresses
are taken from a critical time step during the analysis. Table 4 shows summary of
the absolute maximum or minimum value occurring in any node of upstream or
downstream elements. These results are therefore indicative of extreme limits of
the stress distributions.
From Table 4 it is evident that among static loads summer loadcases (1 and 3)
are more critical than winter loadcases (2 and 4) in terms of maximum stresses
within the dam. Under summer loadcases an increase of dam temperature by
about 15oC (16.8-1.9=14.9) causes a general expansion in the upstream direction.
The deformation pattern creates high tensions at the downstream base of the dam
and high compression at the upstream face. These high stresses are concentrated
over a band close to the rock-dam interface. Higher water levels reduce the
adverse effects of the summer temperature load, and hence loadcase 1 is the most
critical static loadcase. For this loadcase, despite the extreme compression stress
of 17.8 MPa reported in Table 4,a close inspection of the contour plots reveals

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
716 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

that the maximum compressive stress is below 14 MPa and therefore within the
allowable compressive stress for concrete (considering to a safety factor of 2).

Table 4: Summary of stresses (in MPa) over Monar Dam for 6 loadcases.

Upstream Downstream
Static Dynamic Static Dynamic
Loadcase 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Principal Compression 17.8 2.2 17.5 2.6 19.5 - 13.6 4.4 16.9 5.2 - -
Principal Tension 4.5 1.8 4.4 2.6 5.0 6.5 6.0 1.6 5.9 2.3 7.8 -
Max. Element Shear 5.8 0.6 5.6 0.8 - - 6.9 1.3 7.3 1.5 - -

The peak tensile stresses for all static analyses occurs under loadcase 1
(summer usual) and is 6.0 MPa as reported in Table 4, which is even well above
the considered characteristic tensile strength of 1.6 MPa for intact concrete. The
distribution of maximum and minimum principle stresses on the upstream and
downstream faces of the dam is shown in Figure 5. A zone of high tensile stress,
less than 5MPa, can be seen in downstream face near the dam/rock interface.
Detailed consideration of the distribution of the maximum (tensile) principle
stresses in all four layers of elements through the thickness of the dam shows
that the tensile stress developed in areas of the downstream face gradually
reduces through the dam in the direction of the upstream face and no tension
above the allowable tensile strength occurs in the two layers towards the
upstream face, except as concentrated tension in very small areas at geometrical
discontinuities. For winter static loadcases maximum stresses are generally
within the allowable limits, with some exceptions at the upstream face. In
contrast to loadcase 1, compression and tension are greater on the downstream
and upstream faces respectively. Maximum crest deflections under static loads
are +11.4, -3.5, +8.8 and -4.5 mm, respectively for loadcases 1 to 4.

Maximum principle stress (Smax) Minimum principle stress (Smin)

Upstream
Downstream

Figure 5: Distribution of maximum and minimum principle stresses on

upstream and downstream faces of dam under loadcase 1 (summer
usual).

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 717

For seismic loadcases (5 and 6) the results of the analysis show that the
distribution of stresses are similar to loadcase 1 & 2 (equivalent loadcase without
seismic effects) and generally their critical values are higher than those in
loadcase 1 and 2. Based on static load results only critical conditions are
examined for seismic loadcases. Compressive stresses on the upstream face and
tensile stresses on the downstream face are considered critical only under
loadcase 5. Peak stress values at critical time steps are reported in Table 4.
Maximum compressive stress for loadcase 5 is about 19.5 MPa (Table 4) and
remains well below the allowable compressive strength of the concrete for this
extreme loadcase, 32 MPa. High tensions, exceeding the allowable tensile
strength of the concrete, are produced on all critical cases considered here. The
average element tensile stress on the downstream face of the dam is less than
7.0MPa with the maximum values occurring close to the abutment and base of
the dam near to the dam/rock interface. The distribution of the high tension area
under loadcase 5 is similar to that observed under loadcase 1 (Figure 5). At the
time of peak tension in the critical area of the downstream face, the
corresponding area on the upstream face is mainly under compression. For
loadcase 6 (winter extreme), tension in the range of 5 to 6 MPa is reported on the
upstream face at the rock/dam interface area near to the river bed.

6 Conclusions
The study examined the response of Monar arch dam under the combined effect
of thermal and seismic loads. The reference and the summer and winter average
daytime temperatures were estimated using site specific data at the Monar dam
location. The results show that temperature has a significant role in determining
the final stress distribution within the dam. In particular, the summer temperature
load combinations appear to be more critical than that associated with the winter
combinations, principally as a consequence of the reference temperature of the
dam being closer to the winter than the summer temperatures.
The differences between the summer loadcases, in relation to the distribution
and extent of stresses, were not significant due to the dominant effect of the
summer temperature load itself. A band of high tensile stress is developed on the
downstream face near to the dam/rock interface, with maximum values varies
from about 5 MPa in loadcase 1 to about 7 MPa in loadcase 5. As a result cracks
in the regions with high tensile stress could potentially be anticipated.
On the basis of the above results the performance under the summer thermal
loads could be considered a cause for concern. However, it should be recognised
that the affected areas are limited and, in practice, tensile stress relief will also be
provided by joints and existing cracks.
The addition of the design seismic loading increases the tensile stresses from
the normal summer loading by a relatively modest amount. This might, however,
be sufficient to cause the development of significant cracking. Seismic loading at
other times of year is unlikely to produce tensile stresses beyond those already
experienced by the dam as thermal loading.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
718 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

It is considered that cracking of the dam concrete with no global instability is

the worst effect that could be envisaged. Nevertheless it is recommended that the
regular visual inspection be carried out during the peak temperature months to
review the presence of the predicted cracking on the downstream face.

Acknowledgments
The results presented are based on work supported by Scottish and Southern
Energy Plc (SSE). The authors are grateful to Mr. K. Dempster from SSE for his
constructive assistance in publishing this paper and Miss C. Downes, from
Halcrow Group, for her contribution in the analytical work.

References
[1] Charles, J.A., Abbiss, C.P., Gosschalk, E.M. & Hinks, J.L., “An
engineering guide to seismic risk to dams in the Unite Kingdom”,
Building Research Establishment, 1991
[2] ICE, An application note to: An engineering guide to seismic risk to dams
in the Unite Kingdom, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1998.
[3] Halcrow Group, Seismic analysis of Quoich, Mullardoch and Monar
Dams, Halcrow Group Ltd, 1989.
[4] Halcrow Group, Seismic evaluation of Dams: Analysis of Monar arch
dam final report”, Halcrow Group Ltd, Jan. 2003.
[5] Roberts, C. M., Wilson, E. B. & Wiltshire, J. G., Design Aspects of the
Starthfarrar and Kilmorack hydroelectric scheme, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Paper No. 6849, Vol. 30, pp 449-487,1965.
[6] CSI, SAP2000 NL V8.3.1, 3-dimensional static and dynamic finite
element analysis & design of structures, Computers and Structures Inc.,
2004.
[7] Westergaard, H. M., Water pressures on dams during earthquakes,
Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, 418-433,
1933.
[8] Halcrow Group, Seismic evaluation of dams: Analysis of key gravity
dams final report, Halcrow Group Ltd, 2003.
[9] USBR, Design of small dams, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S.
government printing office, Denver, Colorado, 1987.
[10] FERC, Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower
Projects, Chapter 11: Arch Dams, Federal Emergency Regulatory
Commission, 1999.
[11] Roberts, C.M., Deformability of Rock & Concrete, a comparison of test
methods at Monar Dam, Civil Engineering Research Association, 1966.
[12] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Arch dam design, Engineering and
Design; Engineering Manual, EM 1110-2-2201, May, Washington, D.C.,
USA. 1994
[13] Halcrow Group, Monar arch dam: Additional loadcase assessment,
Halcrow Group Ltd., August 2004.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 719

[14] Halcrow Group, Seismic and PMF evaluation of dams: Project final
report, Halcrow Group Ltd., March 2003.
[15] EQE, Seismic hazard at Scottish hydro-electric dams, EQE International
Ltd, 1998.
[16] Tan, H. and Chopra, A.K., EACD-3D-96: A Computer Program For
Three-Dimensional Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Dams, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1997.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)