Hubbry Logo
Arch damArch damMain
Open search
Arch dam
Community hub
Arch dam
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Arch dam
Arch dam
Arch dam
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
The Katse Dam, a 185 m high concrete arch dam in Lesotho
The Morrow Point Dam is a double-curvature arch dam.
The Idukki Dam in Kerala, India is a double-curvature arch dam.

An arch dam is a concrete dam that is curved upstream in plan.[1] The arch dam is designed so that the force of the water against it, known as hydrostatic pressure, presses against the arch, causing the arch to straighten slightly and strengthening the structure as it pushes into its foundation or abutments. An arch dam is most suitable for narrow canyons or gorges with steep walls of stable rock to support the structure and stresses.[2] Since they are thinner than any other dam type, they require much less construction material, making them economical and practical in remote areas.

Classification

[edit]

In general, arch dams are classified based on the ratio of the base thickness to the structural height (b/h) as:[1]

  • Thin, for b/h less than 0.2,
  • Medium-thick, for b/h between 0.2 and 0.3, and
  • Thick, for b/h ratio over 0.3.

Arch dams classified with respect to their structural height are:[1]

  • Low dams up to 100 feet (30 m),
  • Medium high dams between 100–300 ft (30–91 m),
  • High dams over 300 ft (91 m).

History

[edit]
Shāh Abbās Arch near Kurit Dam – 14th century

The development of arch dams throughout history began with the Romans in the 1st century BC and after several designs and techniques were developed, relative uniformity was achieved in the 20th century. The first known arch dam, the Glanum Dam, also known as the Vallon de Baume Dam, was built by the Romans in France and it dates back to the 1st century BC.[3][4][5] The dam was about 12 metres (39 ft) high and 18 metres (59 ft) in length. Its radius was about 14 m (46 ft), and it consisted of two masonry walls. The Romans built it to supply nearby Glanum with water.

The Monte Novo Dam in Portugal was another early arch dam built by the Romans in 300 AD. It was 5.7 metres (19 ft) high and 52 m (171 ft) long, with a radius of 19 m (62 ft). The curved ends of the dam met with two winged walls that were later supported by two buttresses. The dam also contained two water outlets to drive mills downstream.[6]

The Dara Dam was another arch dam built by the Romans in which the historian Procopius would write of its design: "This barrier was not built in a straight line, but was bent into the shape of a crescent, so that the curve, by lying against the current of the river, might be able to offer still more resistance to the force of the stream."[3]

The Mongols also built arch dams in modern-day Iran. Their earliest was the Kebar Dam built around 1300, which was 26 m (85 ft) high and 55 m (180 ft) long, and had a radius of 35 m (115 ft). Their second dam was built around 1350 and is called the Kurit Dam. After 4 m (13 ft) was added to the dam in 1850, it became 64 m (210 ft) tall and remained the tallest dam in the world until the early 20th century. The Kurit Dam was of masonry design and built in a very narrow canyon. The canyon was so narrow that its crest length is only 44% of its height. The dam is still erect, even though part of its lower downstream face fell off.[4]

The Tibi Dam in Tibi, Spain was a post-medieval arch dam built between 1579 and 1594 and the first in Europe since the Romans. The dam was 42.7 metres (140 ft) high and 65 metres (213 ft) long. This arch dam rests on the mountains sides.[4]

In the early 20th century, the world's first variable-radius arch dam was built on the Salmon Creek near Juneau, Alaska. The Salmon Creek Dam's upstream face bulged upstream, which relieved pressure on the stronger, curved lower arches near the abutments. The dam also had a larger toe, which off-set pressure on the upstream heel of the dam, which now curved more downstream. The technology and economical benefits of the Salmon Creek Dam allowed for larger and taller dam designs. The dam was, therefore, revolutionary, and similar designs were soon adopted around the world, in particular by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.[4]

In 1920, the Swiss engineer and dam designer Alfred Stucky developed new calculation methods for arch dams,[7] introducing the concept of elasticity during the construction of the Montsalvens arch dam in Switzerland, thereby improving the dam profile in the vertical direction by using a parabolic arch shape instead of a circular arch shape.

The Enguri Dam in the Caucasus of Georgia

Pensacola Dam, completed in the state of Oklahoma in 1940, was considered the longest multiple arch dam in the United States. Designed by W. R. Holway, it has 51 arches. and a maximum height of 150 ft (46 m) above the river bed. The total length of the dam and its sections is 6,565 ft (2,001 m) while the multiple-arch section is 4,284 ft (1,306 m) long and its combination with the spillway sections measure 5,145 ft (1,568 m). Each arch in the dam has a clear span of 60 ft (18 m) and each buttress is 24 ft (7.3 m) wide.[8]

Arch dam designs would continue to test new limits and designs such as the double- and multiple-curve. Alfred Stucky and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation developed a method of weight and stress distribution in the 1960s, and arch dam construction in the United States would see its last surge then with dams like the 143-meter double-curved Morrow Point Dam in Colorado, completed in 1968.[9] By the late 20th century, arch dam design reached a relative uniformity in design around the world.[4] Currently, the tallest arch dam in the world is the 305 metres (1,001 ft) Jingpin-I Dam in China, which was completed in 2013.[10] The longest multiple arch with buttress dam in the world is the Daniel-Johnson Dam in Quebec, Canada. It is 214 meters (702 ft) high and 1,314 meters (4,311 ft) long across its crest. It was completed in 1968 and put in service in 1970.[11]

Pensacola Dam was one of the last multiple arch types built in the United States. Its NRHP application states that this was because three dams of this type failed: (1) Gem Lake Dam, St. Francis Dam (California), Lake Hodges Dam (California). None of these failures were inherently caused by the multiple arch design.[8]

Design

[edit]

The design of an arch dam is a very complex process. It starts with an initial dam layout, that is continually improved until the design objectives are achieved within the design criteria.[1][12]

Loads

[edit]

The main loads for which an arch dam is designed are:[1][12]

  • Dead load
  • Hydrostatic load generated by the reservoir and the tailwater
  • Temperature load
  • Earthquake load

Other miscellaneous loads that affect a dam include: ice and silt loads, and uplift pressure.[1] [12]

The Idukki Dam in Kerala, India

Most often, the arch dam is made of concrete and placed in a V-shaped valley. The foundation or abutments for an arch dam must be very stable and proportionate to the concrete. There are two basic designs for an arch dam: constant-radius dams, which have constant radius of curvature, and variable-radius dams, which have both upstream and downstream curves that systematically decrease in radius below the crest. A dam that is double-curved in both its horizontal and vertical planes may be called a dome dam. Arch dams with more than one contiguous arch or plane are described as multiple-arch dams. Early examples include the Roman Esparragalejo Dam with later examples such as the Daniel-Johnson Dam (1968) and Itaipu Dam (1982). However, as a result of the failure of the Gleno Dam shortly after it was constructed in 1923, the construction of new multiple arch dams has become less popular.[13]

Contraction joints are normally placed every 20 m in the arch dam and are later filled with grout after the control cools and cures.[14]

Types

[edit]
Constant radii arch dam
the upstream face of the dam has a constant radius making it a linear shape face throughout the height of the dam. But the inner curves their radius reduces as we move down from top elevation to bottom and thus in cross-section it makes a shape of the triangle.
Variable arch dam
the radius of both inner and outer faces of the dam arch varies from bottom to top. The radius of the arch is greatest at the top and lowest at lower elevations. The central angle of the arch is also widened as we move upside.
Constant angle arch dam
this is the most economical in construction. However, for the third type of arch dam stronger foundation is required as it involves overhangs at the abutment sections. The constant angle arch dam is that in which the central angles of the horizontal arch rings are of the same magnitude at all elevations.

Examples of arch dams

[edit]
El Atazar Dam, near Madrid

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Arch dam

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An arch dam is a type of or that is curved in plan view facing upstream, designed to primarily transmit the hydrostatic pressure from the impounded to the abutments of the valley rather than relying on the structure's own weight for stability. This curvature allows the dam to act like an inverted arch under compression, efficiently distributing loads to the surrounding rock formations. Arch dams are particularly suited for construction in narrow, steep-sided canyons with competent, unyielding abutments capable of resisting the transferred forces. Most modern arch dams feature a double , meaning they are arched both horizontally in and vertically in , which optimizes stress distribution and reduces the required volume of . principles emphasize empirical formulas based on the dam's structural (H), crest chord (L1), and valley width at the base (L2), with typical base thicknesses ranging from 15% to 25% of the and crest thicknesses around 1% to 5%. Three-dimensional finite element is now standard for evaluating stresses, abutment stability, and seismic performance, ensuring the structure can withstand uplift pressures, effects, and potential foundation weaknesses through features like drainage galleries. While pure arch dams span the full width in a single curve, variants include constant-radius, variable-radius, and multiple-arch designs supported by buttresses for wider sites. The concept of arch dams dates back to ancient civilizations, with Roman engineers constructing early examples in the , such as the dam at Glanum in modern-day , though these were typically small and made of . Modern concrete arch dams emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, pioneered by innovations like John S. Eastwood's multiple-arch designs in the United States, with the first reinforced concrete multiple-arch dam built at Hume Lake, , in 1908. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation advanced the form through projects like the Gibson Dam in , completed in 1929, which demonstrated resilience during a 1964 flood. Globally, arch dams proliferated post-World War II for and , with notable examples including the on the River in Zambia-Zimbabwe (completed 1959, 128 m high) and the Inguri Dam in Georgia (272 m high, one of the tallest). Today, leads in construction, with the in Sichuan Province holding the record as the world's tallest arch dam at 305 m, operational since 2014. Arch dams offer significant advantages in material efficiency, requiring up to 50% less concrete than gravity dams of comparable height due to the load-transfer mechanism, making them economical for suitable narrow sites. They exhibit excellent seismic resistance, with no recorded failures from earthquakes despite events affecting dams like Pacoima in during the 1971 San Fernando quake. However, their success depends on high-quality s free of major faults, and demands precise engineering to avoid issues like abutment yielding or excessive deformation. These structures play a critical role in water resource management, generating —such as at the Xiaowan Dam in (292 m high, 4,200 MW capacity)—while providing flood control and irrigation benefits in mountainous regions worldwide.

Fundamentals

Definition and Key Features

An is a or structure that is curved in plan view, with the convex side facing upstream, designed to transmit the major portion of the hydrostatic load horizontally to the abutments through compressive arch action rather than relying primarily on vertical loading. This configuration allows the dam to function as a series of vertical separated by contraction joints, with the overall stability depending on the interaction between the dam body and its foundation. The hydrostatic is resisted mainly by horizontal arch and vertical cantilever bending, minimizing tensile stresses in the concrete. Key geometric features include a horizontal curvature with an arch angle at the crest typically between 90° and 120°, resulting in a at the crest that is approximately 1 to 2 times the structural height for many designs, though this varies with site-specific adjustments up to several times the height in wider canyons. The crown (central) thickness varies from about 3% to 10% of the height at the crest, increasing to 15% to 25% at the base to accommodate stress distribution. The upstream face is generally vertical or slightly battered for tightness, while the downstream face slopes outward to enhance stability and facilitate ; double-curvature variants add vertical arching for further stress optimization. Due to this slender profile, arch dams use significantly less than equivalent gravity dams—often less than 20% of the base thickness-to-height ratio—making them economical for applications involving high heads. Suitable sites for arch dams are limited to narrow, deep valleys with V-shaped or U-shaped cross-sections, where the crest length-to-height ratio is typically less than 7:1, ensuring efficient load transfer. The abutments must consist of strong, competent rock capable of withstanding high compressive and shear forces without yielding, and the foundation requires a stable, non-deformable rock mass to avoid stress concentrations that could cause cracking. These topographic and geological prerequisites are essential, as deformation in the abutments or foundation would compromise the arch action and lead to structural distress.

Comparison to Gravity and Buttress Dams

Arch dams differ from and dams primarily in their structural efficiency, as they transmit the majority of the water load horizontally to the abutments through compressive arch action, resulting in a thinner profile that utilizes significantly less material—typically 20-50% of the volume required for an equivalent . In contrast, achieve stability through their massive weight alone, necessitating a thicker, triangular cross-section stable on wide floors, while dams employ reinforced triangular supports to bear the load of a sloping upstream face, offering a lighter weight than but requiring more intricate and . This arch action enables arch dams to handle higher loads with reduced mass, making them particularly advantageous in sites where material transport is challenging. Regarding material use, arch dams generally require 0.5-1.5 cubic meters of concrete per meter of height due to their curved, compressive design. Buttress dams fall intermediate in consumption, using reinforced concrete for the buttresses and deck but incorporating steel elements for added strength, which can increase overall material complexity despite reducing total concrete by 25-35% relative to gravity designs. These efficiencies in arch dams stem from optimized shaping, such as double curvature, which minimizes volume while distributing stresses evenly. Site suitability further distinguishes these dam types, with arch dams best suited for narrow gorges less than 200 meters wide featuring steep, competent rock abutments capable of resisting horizontal thrust—ideally with a length-to-height under 3:1. Gravity dams, by comparison, perform well in broad with stable, wide where their base width can provide ample resistance to sliding and overturning. Buttress dams offer versatility for moderate-width sites, particularly those with seismic activity or where costs are high, as their spaced supports adapt to irregular but demand solid anchorage. In terms of cost and height limits, arch dams prove economical for heights exceeding 300 meters in suitable narrow sites, leveraging their material savings to offset complex analysis needs, whereas gravity dams become prohibitively expensive beyond approximately 200 meters due to escalating volumes. dams provide a balanced option up to similar heights with lower initial material costs but potentially higher maintenance from reinforcement exposure, making them preferable in remote or labor-abundant locations. Stability mechanisms underscore these differences: arch dams depend on three-center arch action to channel forces into the abutments, supplemented by vertical cantilever bending, which demands high foundation modulus (at least 500,000 psi) to prevent excessive deformation. Gravity dams resist overturning and sliding through their low center of gravity and wide base friction, prioritizing mass over geometric finesse. Buttress dams achieve equilibrium via multiple vertical elements that counter water pressure on the deck, offering flexibility but vulnerability to differential settlement in weaker soils.

History

Ancient Origins

The earliest known arch dams emerged during the Roman era, marking a significant advancement in by leveraging the compressive strength of curved structures to resist water pressure. The Glanum Dam, constructed in the 1st century BC near in what is now , stands as the first documented true arch dam, built to supply water to the Roman of Glanum via an aqueduct system. Standing approximately 6 meters high with a crest length of about 9 meters, it featured a thin arch with cut stones and rock-cut abutments, demonstrating an early application of arch to transfer loads to the valley sides. Similarly, the Esparragalejo Dam, dating to around the 1st century AD near Mérida in , incorporated a multiple-arch design about 5.6 meters high, with circular arches roughly 2 meters thick at the base, highlighting Roman experimentation with arched forms for and flood control in the . These structures reflected the influence of technology, where arches were already proven for spanning valleys, but adapted here for vertical load resistance in narrow gorges. In the of Italia, the Subiaco Dams, built during the reign of Emperor Nero in the mid-1st century AD, represented ambitious early dam projects up to 43 meters high, though primarily as massive gravity structures rather than pure arches; they created artificial lakes for imperial recreation near Nero's villa along the River. While not strictly arched, their scale—reaching heights unprecedented in the ancient world—and integration of bridge-like crests underscored Roman hydraulic prowess, with remnants showing robust construction that withstood centuries before partial collapses. Another Roman example, the Monte Novo Dam in around 300 AD, was a modest 5.7 meters high and 52 meters long, curved with a 19-meter radius and central angle of about 90 degrees, built from blocks in without formal abutments; it supported local milling and , its submerged remains indicating adaptation of arch principles in peripheral provinces. During the , Persian engineers revived and refined arch dam technology, particularly in arid where water storage was vital for agriculture. The Kebar Dam, constructed around 1300 AD near , is the oldest surviving arched dam, reaching 26 meters in height after later modifications and featuring a thick core bound with lime-ash mortar from local plants for impermeability; its shallow, design exemplified compressive force utilization in a narrow for . The nearby Kurit Dam, built in the mid-14th century during the Il-Khanid period near , originally stood about 60 meters high— the tallest dam globally until the —using irregular stones, bricks, and sarooj mortar in an arch-gravity configuration to regulate the Kurit River for over seven centuries of sustainable . These dams, strategically placed on fringes, highlighted advanced Muslim engineering that built on possible Roman influences, prioritizing durability in seismic-prone areas through simple, thick arches limited by tensile weakness. Post-Roman saw sporadic revival, with the Tibi Dam in , completed between 1580 and 1594 across the Monnegre River near , as the first major arched structure in the region since antiquity at 42 meters high. Constructed of in a curved gravity profile to irrigate arid Alicante farmlands, it endured construction interruptions due to funding but demonstrated enduring design simplicity with shallow arches reliant on valley abutments. Overall, ancient arch dams were characterized by rudimentary builds—often rubble or cut stone in —confined to heights under 60 meters due to material limitations, yet they revealed an intuitive grasp of compressive arch action for water management in water-scarce cultures, from Roman urban supply to Islamic agricultural sustenance.

19th and 20th Century Developments

The late marked the beginning of modern arch dam development with structures that exploited arch action to reduce material use in narrow valleys. The Bear Valley Dam in , completed in 1884, was an early pioneer, standing 52 feet (15.8 m) high as a single-arch granite structure designed by Frank E. Brown to impound water for in the Redlands area. This small-scale experiment demonstrated the potential of curved designs for water storage, influencing subsequent concrete innovations. The world's first concrete arch dam, the 75-Mile Dam near , , was completed in 1880 at a modest height of 5.04 m, designed by Henry Charles Stanley for local water supply. The early 20th century saw the introduction of reinforced concrete, revolutionizing arch dam construction by allowing thinner profiles and greater heights. John S. Eastwood designed the Hume Lake Dam in California, completed in 1908, as the world's first reinforced concrete multiple-arch dam, with a maximum height of 15.2 m (50 ft) to support lumber flume operations in the Sierra Nevada. Technological shifts included variable-radius designs, first implemented in the Salmon Creek Dam in Alaska, completed in 1914 at 51 m high, which used a constant-angle approach with radii varying from 45 m at the base to 101 m at the crest to better distribute stresses. Milestones in height were achieved with the Arrowrock Dam in Idaho, completed in 1915 at 110 m, the first U.S. dam exceeding 100 m and a gravity-arch hybrid built by the Bureau of Reclamation for irrigation on the Boise River. Seismic considerations gained prominence after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, leading to enhanced design standards for arch dams in California, such as the Pacoima Dam (1929, 111 m high), which incorporated provisions for dynamic loads. The mid-20th century brought iconic single-arch projects and global expansion, with the on the , completed in 1936 at 221 m high, exemplifying a constant-angle design by the Bureau of Reclamation for flood control and , impounding with over 37 billion cubic meters capacity. Double-curvature arches for stress optimization appeared in the Morrow Point Dam in , completed in 1971 (construction began 1968) at 143 m high, a thin-arch structure on the that reduced material use through three-dimensional curvature. Multiple-arch variants included the in , , completed in 1968 at 214 m long (though 183 m structural height), a hollow design with 133 arches for the Manicouagan River hydroelectric project. Arch dams spread worldwide during this period, with Europe's Mauvoisin Dam in , completed in 1957 at 250 m high, becoming one of the tallest arch structures of the era on the Dranse d'Entremont River for . In , the in , completed in 1959 at 207 m high on the River, was a major post-independence project generating 1,325 MW and irrigating millions of hectares. The on the River between and , completed in 1959 at 128 m high, represented a post-colonial mega-project producing 2,160 MW across two power stations and creating the world's largest man-made lake by volume.

Post-2000 Ultra-High Dams

The of ultra-high arch dams exceeding 250 meters in height has accelerated since 2000, primarily in , where challenging and demands have driven innovations in thin, double-curved designs to optimize material use and structural efficiency. These dams exemplify advancements in seismic-resistant and real-time monitoring systems, enabling safe operation in tectonically active regions. By 2025, China accounts for the majority of such projects, with over a dozen completed or nearing completion, contributing significantly to global capacity. As of November 2025, the remains the world's tallest arch dam. The , located on the Yalong River in Province, , stands as the world's tallest arch dam at 305 meters, completed in 2013 with a thin double-curvature that minimizes volume while withstanding immense . It features an installed capacity of 3,600 MW, harnessing the river's steep drop for power generation equivalent to several nuclear plants. This feat involved advanced finite element modeling to address ultra-high stress distributions, setting a benchmark for in narrow valleys. The on the , also in , reached a height of 289 meters upon completion in 2022, employing a double-curvature arch configuration with a crest length of 827 meters to distribute loads effectively across the abutments. As the largest-capacity arch dam globally, it boasts 16,000 MW of installed power, utilizing sixteen 1,000 MW turbines to produce over 60 billion kWh annually, supporting 's clean . Its construction highlighted innovations in for rapid placement in seismic-prone areas. Further exemplifying post-2000 achievements, the , completed in 2021 on the in , measures 270 meters in height with a variable-radius double-curvature arch that enhances stability under dynamic loads. Generating 10,200 MW through twelve 850 MW units, it ranks among the top facilities worldwide, demonstrating optimized arch thickening at the base to counter uplift pressures. Outside , the in , operational since 2021 at 270 meters on the Çoruh River, became the third-tallest arch dam globally, requiring the relocation of an entire town due to inundation and incorporating advanced grouting for foundation integrity in a high-seismic zone. A notable trend in these ultra-high arch dams is the adoption of rock-filled concrete (RFC) technology, with over 14 such RFC arch dams completed or under in by 2023, offering reduced cement use and faster build times while maintaining strength in earthquake-vulnerable sites. These projects integrate fiber-optic sensors and satellite-based monitoring for deformation tracking, ensuring long-term safety amid growing environmental scrutiny. As of 2025, ambitious projects like the Shuangjiangkou Dam—under at over 300 meters in —primarily involve embankment types rather than pure arch forms, though they incorporate hybrid elements for enhanced stability.

Types and Classification

Classification by Geometry and Height

Arch dams are classified by the ratio of base thickness to structural (b/h), which indicates their structural and suitability for site conditions. Thin arch dams, with b/h less than 0.2, rely primarily on compression to transfer loads to strong abutments, minimizing material use. Medium-thick arch dams, with b/h between 0.2 and 0.3, offer a balance between and stability for moderately wide valleys. Thick arch dams, with b/h greater than 0.3, provide conservative designs for weaker foundations or sites requiring enhanced resistance to additional loads. Height-based classification categorizes arch dams by structural height, influencing design complexity and analysis requirements. Low arch dams, under 30 m, feature simple geometries suitable for smaller reservoirs with basic arch action. Medium-height dams, ranging from 30 to 100 m, represent standard modern constructions that balance economy and performance in typical canyon sites. High arch dams exceed 100 m, demanding advanced due to increased stresses, while ultra-high dams over 250 m, such as those in , necessitate sophisticated modeling for extreme loads and foundation interactions. Geometric classification focuses on the curvature and profile of the dam. Constant-radius arch dams maintain a uniform curve along the height, resulting in consistent arch rings for symmetric sites. Variable-radius arch dams adjust the radius, often increasing thickness at the base to optimize load distribution in varying canyon widths. Constant-angle arch dams vary the radius while keeping the central angle of horizontal arch rings constant, allowing linear thickness variation for specific hydraulic profiles. Additional criteria include the number of arches and profile type. Single-arch dams form a continuous across the valley, while multiple-arch dams use discrete arches separated by buttresses, common in early designs for material savings. Dome profiles incorporate double in both and for enhanced , contrasting with cylindrical profiles that curve only in . These classifications guide preliminary sizing and site selection: thin arches suit strong, narrow abutments for optimal compression, whereas thick designs are preferred in seismic zones or weak rock to enhance stability.

Specific Arch Dam Variants

Constant-radius arch dams employ a uniform radius of curvature for all horizontal arches from abutment to abutment, typically featuring a vertical upstream face and the same radius for both upstream and downstream faces. This geometric simplicity facilitates straightforward design and construction, making them suitable for narrow, symmetrical canyons where the canyon width to height ratio is less than 3:1. However, their fixed radius limits adaptability to irregular valley shapes, potentially leading to higher tensile stresses and requiring thicker sections in wider sites. Early 20th-century examples include East Canyon Dam in Utah, which exemplifies this variant's use in constrained topographic settings. Variable-radius arch dams incorporate radii that increase with elevation, often featuring separate centers of curvature for the upstream (extrados) and downstream (intrados) faces to create a parabolic profile in plan. This innovation allows for optimized thickness variation across the dam height, improving stress distribution and accommodating wider or U-shaped valleys compared to constant-radius designs. The approach enhances load transfer efficiency but demands more complex analysis and construction sequencing. Hoover Dam in Nevada, with its variable-center arch structure, represents a seminal application of this variant for large-scale water storage. Constant-angle arch dams maintain a fixed of approximately 133° for horizontal arch rings, resulting in a variable radius that adjusts with elevation while thickness varies linearly from crest to base. This configuration promotes uniform thrust distribution and economical material use, particularly in sites requiring rigid foundations, and is prevalent in European designs due to its balance of simplicity and performance. Drawbacks include reduced flexibility for highly irregular canyons, necessitating precise abutment preparation. Notable implementations include on the , which leverages this geometry for efficient hydroelectric generation in a moderate-width canyon. Double-curvature, or dome, arch dams curve in both plan (horizontal arches) and elevation (vertical cantilevers), often with upstream undercutting at the and crest overhangs formed by circular arcs. This three-dimensional minimizes volume by enhancing paths and reducing tensile forces, ideal for high dams in narrow to medium canyons. The design's complexity requires advanced computational tools for validation, but it offers superior material efficiency. Morrow Point Dam in , a 465-foot-high thin-shell completed in 1968, demonstrates this variant's effectiveness in rugged terrain for pumped-storage applications. Multiple-arch dams consist of a series of arches supported by transverse es or piers, spanning wider valleys where a single arch would be impractical. The geometric arrangement combines arch action for horizontal thrust with resistance to vertical loads, significantly reducing overall volume compared to monolithic designs. This variant suits sites with strong but widely spaced abutments, though it demands stable foundations to prevent differential settlement. The in , a 214-meter-high structure with 13 arches extending 1,314 meters in length, stands as the longest of its kind and powers major hydroelectric facilities. Rock-filled concrete (RFC) arch dams integrate large rock aggregates (typically over 30 cm) as a core fill, encased by self-compacting shells to form a composite . This emerging variant, developed post-2000, leverages local rock resources for a lighter, more sustainable profile, accelerating construction by eliminating vibration and cooling needs while reducing use by up to 40%. Applications focus on double-curvature forms in regions with abundant aggregates, though challenges include ensuring void filling and long-term . The Baijia Dam in , a 69-meter-high RFC double-curvature arch impounded in 2015, exemplifies its operational success after over seven years of service.

Design and Analysis

Structural Principles and Mechanics

Arch dams rely on the principle of arch action to transfer the hydrostatic load from the primarily as horizontal thrust to the abutments, while the vertical component of the load is resisted through action extending from the foundation. This dual mechanism enables the to span narrow valleys efficiently, with the curved in plan converting the nearly horizontal into compressive forces along the arch elements. The effectiveness of this load path depends on the rigidity of the abutments and foundation, ensuring that the thrust is adequately resisted without significant deformation. The stress distribution within an arch dam is dominated by compression, as the is optimized to direct forces along the arch path, thereby minimizing secondary moments and shear stresses. In ideal designs, compressive stresses are limited to less than 5 MPa to provide a substantial margin against and cracking under combined loading conditions. This compressive focus leverages the high strength of in compression, typically exceeding 20 MPa, while avoiding tensile stresses that could propagate cracks. A key aspect of the is the of the horizontal arch HH, which can be approximated in a simplified model for a symmetric circular arch as H=γh22sin⁡α,H = \frac{\gamma h^2}{2 \sin \alpha}, where γ\gamma is the of (approximately 9.81 kN/m³), hh is the , and α\alpha is the of the arch. To derive this, consider the hydrostatic distribution, which varies linearly from 0 at the crest to γh\gamma h at the base, yielding an average of γh/2\gamma h / 2 and a total horizontal per unit crest length of F=(1/2)γh2F = (1/2) \gamma h^2. In the thin arch approximation, this is resolved to the abutments based on the arch , with the HH at each end balancing the load adjusted for the projection using the α\alpha. This equation provides a foundational estimate for preliminary , though advanced analyses account for variable and three-dimensional effects. Stability criteria for arch dams emphasize preventing tensile stresses in the , as tension can lead to cracking and loss of integrity; designs ensure that principal stresses remain compressive under normal operating conditions. Additionally, a greater than 1.5 is required against sliding along the base and overturning about the , achieved through adequate foundation and . These criteria are evaluated using equilibrium equations that balance moments and forces from the and self-weight. The interaction between the and s is critical, as excessive rock deformation can induce additional stresses and cracking in the structure. The deformation of the abutment rock must be limited to less than 1% of the dam thickness at any to maintain the assumed rigid support and prevent differential movement that could compromise the arch action. This requires competent rock with a deformation modulus typically exceeding 10 GPa, assessed through geological investigations and monitored during operation.

Loads and Stress Analysis

Arch dams are subjected to a variety of loads that must be carefully evaluated to ensure structural integrity, with primary static loads including hydrostatic pressure from the reservoir, the dead of the dam itself and accumulated , and effects from variations. Hydrostatic pressure acts horizontally on the upstream face, increasing linearly with depth and given by γh\gamma h, where γ\gamma is the unit of (approximately 9.81 kN/m³) and hh is the water depth, reaching maximum values at the base. Dead encompasses the self- of the (typically 23.5 kN/m³ or 150 pcf for preliminary ) and sediment loads, which contribute to downstream and stability. Temperature changes induce expansion and contraction in the , with considerations accounting for ΔT\Delta T up to ±20∘\pm 20^\circC between placement (closure) and operational conditions, potentially causing significant tensile stresses if not mitigated by joint . Dynamic loads, particularly seismic forces, add complexity to the analysis, as arch dams in seismically active regions must withstand accelerations that can amplify stresses through . Seismic loading is characterized by (PGA) up to 0.5g, analyzed using response spectra methods such as the square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) or complete quadratic combination (CQC) for both operating basis earthquake (OBE) and maximum design earthquake (MDE) scenarios. Silt pressure, arising from sediment accumulation in the , is treated as an equivalent hydrostatic load with added dynamic components during s, determined through studies to avoid underestimating downstream forces. Uplift forces and miscellaneous loads further influence effective stability, especially in prone to seepage. Uplift results from hydrostatic beneath the dam base due to foundation seepage, reducing the effective weight by 30-50% and necessitating drainage systems to control pore pressures. In cold climates, loads impose static pressures of about 5 kips per linear foot (approximately 70 kN/m) along the axis, while loads in such environments may include dynamic ice-induced surges, requiring site-specific evaluation. Stress computation in arch dams relies on classical analytical methods to decompose and evaluate these loads, ensuring stresses remain within allowable limits. The trial-load method is the primary approach, involving iterative decomposition into arch and gravity (cantilever) components to simulate load transfer to the abutments, starting with assumed radial stresses and refining through successive approximations until equilibrium is achieved. Allowable stresses are typically limited to a maximum compressive stress of less than 10 MPa and tensile stress of less than 2 MPa to prevent cracking, with analysis confirming no excessive principals in any direction. Total stress is computed via superposition principles, expressed as σ=σhydro+σtemp+σseismic\sigma = \sigma_{\text{hydro}} + \sigma_{\text{temp}} + \sigma_{\text{seismic}}, where individual components are linearly combined using load factors for ultimate or service conditions.

Modern Computational Methods

The (FEM) has become essential for analyzing arch dams, enabling three-dimensional modeling of irregular geometries and simulation of non-linear behaviors such as cracking and material nonlinearity under complex loads. Software packages like and are widely used to perform these analyses, incorporating advanced features for and contact interactions between the dam, foundation, and reservoir. These tools allow engineers to predict stress distributions and deformations more accurately than traditional methods, particularly for curved structures where two-dimensional approximations fall short. Optimization techniques, including genetic algorithms, are employed to refine arch dam shapes by minimizing concrete volume while adhering to stress and stability constraints. These algorithms iteratively evolve dam profiles, evaluating fitness based on criteria like maximum principal stress limits and overall material efficiency, often reducing volume by up to 21% compared to initial designs. Post-2010 advancements have integrated , such as surrogates and , to accelerate layout optimization and handle multi-objective problems like seismic resilience and cost. For instance, soft actor-critic algorithms train agents to explore design spaces, incorporating Gaussian processes for in high-dimensional parameter sets. Monitoring integration enhances FEM reliability through real-time updates using embedded sensors like strain gauges and tiltmeters, which feed data into adaptive models to refine simulations of ongoing structural responses. Non-destructive testing methods, such as , detect microcracks by capturing stress waves from material failures, enabling early identification of potential issues without interrupting operations. This sensor-driven approach allows for dynamic model calibration, improving predictions of deformation under varying environmental conditions. For ultra-high arch dams exceeding 300 meters, coupled hydro-mechanical models are critical to simulate interactions between water pressure, seepage, and structural deformation, accounting for foundation nonlinearity and reservoir-induced effects. In (RCC) variants, aggregate simulation within FEM frameworks models the heterogeneous distribution of large rock fills, predicting internal stresses and thermal cracking during integral pouring. Post-2020 advancements include 3D ground modeling for precise foundation representation, as demonstrated in the project (completed 2022), where Works software integrated geological data to optimize the 275-meter-high structure's stability. Machine learning predictive models now forecast temperature and time-dependent effects, using algorithms like and convolutional neural networks to capture nonlinear spatiotemporal patterns in concrete behavior and displacement. These models, trained on monitoring data, enable proactive adjustments for long-term performance in extreme climates.

Construction Practices

Materials and Mix Design

Arch dams require specialized formulations to withstand high compressive stresses while minimizing effects in their curved, thin structures. The typically achieves high compressive strengths in the range of 40-60 MPa to ensure structural integrity under the arch's load-transfer . To prevent cracking from hydration in mass placements, low-heat Type IV is used, which develops strength more slowly but limits temperature rises to under 20°C in thick sections. Mix design for arch dam concrete emphasizes durability and impermeability, incorporating large aggregates up to 150 mm in size to reduce cement content and improve economy in massive pours. Pozzolanic additives, such as 20-30% fly ash by weight of cementitious materials, enhance long-term strength and reduce permeability by reacting with calcium hydroxide to form additional binding compounds. The water-cement ratio is kept below 0.4 to achieve low porosity and high resistance to seepage, typically resulting in a slump of 75-100 mm for workability without excessive admixtures. A notable variant is rock-filled concrete (RFC), where 55-60% of the volume consists of large rock blocks placed without , with the remainder filled by self-compacting or mortar. This approach lowers material costs and has been applied in more than 14 arch dams completed or under construction as of 2023, primarily in , with the total number of RFC dams exceeding 160 by 2025. Foundation treatment is critical for arch dams to ensure load distribution to competent rock abutments. curtains are installed to achieve permeability below 10^{-6} cm/s, forming a barrier against seepage through joints and fractures in the . Rock bolting reinforces the abutments, with anchors typically 20-50 m long and spaced 2-4 m apart, to stabilize potential sliding planes and enhance shear resistance. Quality control measures focus on verifying material properties for long-term performance. The concrete's modulus of elasticity is targeted at 30-40 GPa to match foundation stiffness and avoid differential deformation. Durability testing includes assessments for alkali-silica reaction (ASR), using accelerated mortar bar methods to ensure expansion remains under 0.1% after 14 days, preventing gel-induced cracking in reactive aggregates.

Building Techniques and Sequencing

Construction of arch dams begins with meticulous site preparation to ensure a stable foundation in narrow, steep-walled canyons. Excavation extends to sound rock, typically assuming a depth of 25 feet (7.6 meters) below the lowest riverbed contour if geological data is limited, comprising 15 feet of common excavation and 10 feet into rock to remove overburden and weathered material. This process is critical for transferring loads to competent abutments, as arch dams rely on the compressive strength of the surrounding rock mass. Diversion tunnels or channels are constructed early to reroute river flow, allowing dry placement of the foundation concrete; for instance, these may include sluices or flumes integrated into initial low monoliths to manage water during staged building. The sequencing of arch dam follows a approach to control stresses and ensure structural integrity, progressing from the foundation upward in vertical monoliths separated by contraction joints. Monoliths are poured as discrete blocks, typically 30 to 80 feet (9 to 24 meters) wide, to accommodate shrinkage and facilitate grouting, with height differences between adjacent blocks limited to 40 feet (12 meters) to minimize differential settlement. advances in a sequence from the abutments toward the center, incorporating partial filling to induce controlled loading; once sufficient height is achieved, river flow is diverted through completed monoliths. Integral to this sequence is the gallery system, a network of internal passageways embedded during pouring for drainage, foundation grouting, and access, often positioned longitudinally or transversely to relieve uplift pressures and monitor seepage. Key building techniques emphasize precision in material placement and environmental control, particularly in constrained high-altitude sites. Cable cranes or overhead systems facilitate heavy lifts for and aggregate transport, enabling efficient vertical progression in narrow canyons where ground-based equipment is limited. Slipforming is employed for continuous pouring of non-structural elements like pads or berms, allowing uninterrupted placement to reduce cold joints, while vertical lifts in monoliths incorporate embedded cooling pipes—thin-wall tubing (e.g., 1-inch ) with circulation at 4 to 15 gallons per minute—to manage hydration heat and limit temperature differentials to less than 20°C (36°F), preventing thermal cracking in . For ultra-high arch dams exceeding 300 meters, construction challenges intensify due to extreme water pressures and seismic risks, necessitating advanced staging with incremental loading tests to verify stability before full impoundment. Rock-filled (RFC) variants incorporate large rock blocks placed without and filled with self-compacting to enhance economy and reduce use while maintaining arch action. Major arch dam projects typically span 5 to 10 years from site preparation to completion, influenced by site logistics and scale; for example, intensive sequencing and curing periods extend timelines for heights over 200 meters. Post-2020 advancements include via drones for real-time inspection, enabling safer aerial monitoring of crack propagation and gallery conditions without , as demonstrated in structural health assessments of dams.

Notable Examples

Early and Iconic Dams

The Glanum Dam, constructed in the near present-day in , represents the earliest known example of an arch dam, pioneering the use of curved to resist water pressure through compressive forces. Standing approximately 12 meters high, this Roman structure supplied water for and public facilities in the ancient city of Glanum, demonstrating early ingenuity in harnessing narrow valleys for hydraulic works. Its simple yet effective design laid foundational principles for later arch dams by relying on the natural strength of surrounding rock formations. Completed in 1936 on the in the Black Canyon between and , the exemplifies mid-20th-century advancements in arch dam , featuring a constant-angle arch profile that optimized load distribution across its 221-meter structural height. The dam incorporated approximately 3.25 million cubic yards (about 2.5 million cubic meters) of , forming a curved structure that transferred forces primarily to the canyon walls. This design not only controlled flooding and enabled for vast arid regions but also powered early large-scale hydroelectric . The , finished in 1959 across the River in between and , showcased refined double-curvature arch elements in a 128-meter-high structure spanning a narrow gorge. Utilizing around 1.03 million cubic meters of , it created , one of the world's largest man-made reservoirs, for power generation and regional water management. During its construction phase, the emerging infrastructure played a critical role in mitigating the severe 1958 floods, averting widespread downstream devastation in populated and agricultural areas. In , , the , dedicated in 1968 on the Manicouagan River, stands as a landmark of multiple-arch design, reaching 214 meters in while extending 1,314 meters in length across 13 arches supported by 14 es. This configuration, employing over 2.2 million cubic meters of concrete, exemplified efficient material use in wide valleys by combining arch action with vertical supports to withstand immense hydrostatic pressures. It powered the vast Manic-Outardes hydroelectric complex, influencing subsequent s for similar topographic challenges. These early icons profoundly influenced arch dam evolution: the established global standards for cooling placements to prevent thermal cracking, using embedded pipes to circulate chilled water during curing. Meanwhile, the Kariba Dam's handling of the floods highlighted the strategic value of interim flood attenuation in dam projects, informing safety protocols for international river basins.

Contemporary and Record-Breaking Dams

The has seen significant advancements in arch dam construction, particularly in and select other regions, with several projects surpassing previous benchmarks in height, power generation capacity, and engineering innovation. Completed since , these dams leverage refined double-curvature designs to optimize structural efficiency in challenging terrains, contributing to global expansion while addressing seismic and environmental demands. The , completed in 2013 on the Yalong River in Province, , stands as the world's tallest arch dam at 305 meters in height, featuring a double-curvature thin arch design with a base thickness of about 63 m (0.2 times the height) and crest thickness of 16 m for enhanced load distribution. It supports a 3,600 MW installed capacity, generating up to 18 TWh annually and playing a key role in regional flood control and supply. Baihetan Dam, operational since 2022 on the in , represents a pinnacle in scale with an effective height of 289 meters and the world's largest capacity among arch dams at 16 GW. This double-curvature structure, with a crest length of 709 meters, incorporates advanced technologies to withstand immense hydraulic pressures, producing over 60 TWh yearly and underscoring China's dominance in mega- projects. It holds records for the largest installed capacity and one of the fastest timelines for such a facility, completed in under five years. Outside China, the in northeastern , completed in 2022 on the River, exemplifies international adoption of arch dam technology with a height of 270 meters and an 810 MW capacity. Designed using 3D geological modeling for precise subsurface analysis, it creates a of 4.4 billion cubic meters, necessitating the relocation of approximately 10,000 residents and highlighting the social dimensions of large-scale . As the fifth-tallest arch dam globally, it demonstrates effective integration of digital tools for in seismically active zones. The Inguri Dam in Georgia (272 m high, completed 1980) is another notable example of a tall arch dam outside China. Since 2010, over 50 new arch dams have been constructed worldwide, with the majority in driving records in ultra-high structures exceeding 200 meters, reflecting accelerated investment in amid global climate goals. Baihetan currently holds the record for the highest-capacity arch dam, while Jinping-I maintains the height supremacy as of 2025.

Performance and Sustainability

Advantages and Challenges

Arch dams offer significant structural advantages due to their curved , which efficiently transfers water pressure to the abutments, requiring less than for suitable sites. The base thickness of an arch dam is typically 15-25% of its , compared to the base width of a conventional , which is approximately 0.7 times the , resulting in substantial savings—often 30-50% less for comparable structures in narrow valleys. This efficiency is particularly beneficial for high-head applications, where arch dams can withstand water heads exceeding 300 meters, as demonstrated by structures like the at 305 meters. Additionally, their slender profile facilitates the integration of large spillways, enabling rapid flood discharge and reducing the risk of overtopping failure. Economically, arch dams provide lower costs per megawatt in narrow, competent rock sites, with estimates ranging from $1,000 to $3,000 per kilowatt for large projects in favorable conditions as of , owing to reduced material and excavation needs. For instance, the New Melones project highlighted potential savings of 552,000 cubic yards of , equating to about $9 million in reduced construction costs compared to alternative designs. Their durability contributes to a long operational lifespan, often exceeding 100 years with proper design, making them a cost-effective choice for long-term generation. Despite these benefits, arch dams are highly site-dependent, performing best in narrow gorges with strong, non-deformable rock ; in deformable or weak rock formations, the arch action fails, leading to structural instability. They require rigorous dynamic analysis for seismic events, as induced cracking and abutment offsets can affect integrity, necessitating careful . cracking during the curing phase, driven by hydration heat in the , is another challenge, often occurring at the dam-foundation interface and requiring careful measures. Key limitations include unsuitability for wide valleys, where the span exceeds the effective arch radius (typically 1-2 times the ), making or designs more appropriate. yielding represents a critical mode, as excessive deformation—such as beyond theoretical limits around 10% of the arch radius—can disrupt load transfer and lead to progressive instability.

Monitoring, Maintenance, and Safety

Monitoring of operational arch dams focuses on detecting changes in key parameters influenced by loads such as hydrostatic pressure, temperature, and seismic activity, ensuring early identification of potential issues. Piezometers are essential instruments installed in the foundation and to measure uplift pressures, which reduce and affect stability; typically, 2-3 piezometers are recommended per transverse line through the maximum section for existing arch dams. Extensometers track and foundation movements by measuring deformations along installed rods or wires, providing on potential sliding or yielding in rock masses. Following advancements post-2020, fiber-optic have been integrated for continuous, distributed monitoring of strain, temperature, and seepage, offering higher resolution and durability compared to traditional point in harsh environments. Additionally, artificial intelligence-based algorithms analyze multivariate streams to identify deviations from normal behavior, enabling predictive alerts for structural distress. Maintenance strategies for arch dams emphasize proactive interventions to address cracks, seepage, and material degradation observed through monitoring. Grout injection, using cement-based or specialized formulations, is a primary method to seal cracks and contraction joints, restoring watertightness and preventing further under cyclic loading. Surface sealing involves applying impermeable coatings or membranes to the upstream face to mitigate water ingress and alkali-aggregate reactions, particularly on aging structures exposed to fluctuations. Periodic recalibration of finite element models (FEM) incorporates field data from instruments to update material properties and validate simulations, ensuring accurate predictions of stress distributions over the dam's lifecycle. Safety assessments for arch dams incorporate risk mitigation through failure scenario modeling and preparedness protocols. Dam break analysis employs hydrodynamic simulations to generate inundation maps, delineating extents, depths, and velocities downstream to inform evacuation zones and protection. Emergency action plans (EAPs) outline detection, notification, and response procedures for credible modes, including predefined inundation mapping and coordination with local authorities, as recommended in federal guidelines. Structural is evaluated using factors of against sliding and overturning, with minimum values exceeding 1.2 required under extreme loading combinations like the probable maximum or maximum credible to prevent distress. A notable case study is the Jinping-I arch dam in , the world's highest at 305 m, where post-construction monitoring since 2013 has utilized extensometers, piezometers, and inclinometers to track deformations and seepage, leading to adjustments in drainage systems and confirming stability during initial impoundment. International regulations, such as those from the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), guide requirements, emphasizing at least one type per approximately 10 m of dam height for comprehensive coverage in high-hazard structures, aligned with practices in bulletins like ICOLD Bulletin 59 on . Arch dams, like other impoundment structures, contribute to sedimentation, where and accumulation can reduce storage capacity by approximately 1% per year on average across global reservoirs. This process alters downstream , affecting river ecosystems and agricultural productivity. is another significant impact, as reservoirs inundate upstream areas and block migratory pathways for aquatic , particularly ; mitigation measures such as fish ladders have been implemented in many projects to facilitate passage and preserve . Additionally, reservoir filling can induce through increased pore pressure in underlying faults, typically resulting in micro-earthquakes below 2.5 on the , though rare larger events have occurred at specific sites. To address these environmental challenges, innovations in materials and design are being adopted. Eco-concrete incorporating recycled aggregates reduces the demand for virgin resources and lowers the overall carbon emissions associated with dam construction by up to 20-30% in some formulations. Run-of-river arch dam configurations, which rely on natural flow with minimal storage, help minimize flooding of habitats and reduce sedimentation rates compared to traditional reservoir-based designs. Looking ahead, future trends in arch dam development emphasize adaptability and . Hybrid arch-gravity designs are gaining traction for sites with wider valleys, combining the structural efficiency of arches with the stability of forms to optimize material use and environmental footprint. Climate-adaptive features, such as flexible and variable load modeling, are being integrated to withstand fluctuating water levels from droughts and , ensuring long-term resilience. Over 20 new ultra-high arch dams exceeding 200 meters are planned for completion by 2030, predominantly in , to meet growing demands while incorporating enhanced environmental safeguards. For instance, the Yebatan arch dam (217 m) in began impoundment in October 2025, highlighting continued advancements. Advancements in construction and monitoring further support eco-friendly evolution. Sustainable roller-compacted concrete (RCC) variants offer reductions in compared to conventional , enabling faster builds with less energy-intensive processes suitable for some applications. Post-2020 implementations of digital twins—virtual replicas of dams—enable predictive modeling of environmental impacts, simulating , , and effects to inform proactive . Globally, more than 1,000 arch dams operate worldwide, representing a key subset of the over 58,000 large dams tracked by international bodies. A notable shift involves integrating arch dams with pumped storage systems to enhance reliability, storing excess and by cycling water between reservoirs and facilitating grid stability with minimal additional ecological disruption.

References

  1. https://www.ussdams.org/types-of-damsv2/
  2. https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/hydraulics_lab/pubs/EM/EM36.pdf
  3. https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/chap11.pdf
  4. http://staff.civil.uq.edu.au/h.chanson/arch_dam.html
  5. https://structurae.net/en/structures/dams/arch-dams
  6. https://www.enr.com/articles/41513-take-a-tour-of-world-record-arch-dams
  7. https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-pdfs/Arch_Dam_EM_36_10-19-2012_Final%20Draft.pdf
  8. https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/em_1110-2-2201.pdf
  9. https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-pdfs/GravityDams.pdf
  10. https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/chap10.pdf
  11. https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/portals/76/publications/engineermanuals/em_1110-2-2201.pdf
  12. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21476
  13. https://www.academia.edu/114462203/The_75_Miles_Dam_in_Warwick_the_Worlds_Oldest_Concrete_Arch_Dam
  14. https://www.asce.org/about-civil-engineering/history-and-heritage/historic-landmarks/salmon-creek-dam
  15. https://nehrpsearch.nist.gov/static/files/NSF/PB89194443.pdf
  16. https://iarjset.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/10.17148.IARJSET.2018.5717.pdf
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350630717301577
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/arch-dams
  19. http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/USBR/ReclamationHistory/ConcreteDamEvolution.pdf
  20. https://civilpddc2013.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/5/5/22556782/27_-_arch_and_buttress_dams.pdf
  21. https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-pdfs/AZ1130.pdf
  22. https://www.engineering.org.cn/engi/EN/1159844540892897779
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376237850_A_Review_of_Rock-Filled_Concrete_Dams_and_Prospects_for_Next-Generation_Concrete_Dam_Construction_Technology
  24. https://damtoolbox.org/images/6/66/Design_Criteria.pdf
  25. https://web.itu.edu.tr/~ozgerme/water_resources/05lecture-ArchDams.pdf
  26. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA269524.pdf
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376684990_Finite_Element_Analysis_of_Arch_Dam
  28. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/7142460
  29. https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/21281/guideline-for-fe-analyses-of-concrete-dams-energiforskrapport-2016-270.pdf
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/20/4366
  31. https://scientiairanica.sharif.edu/article_2094_0d29f6f6a6a900be0659f5f1c7a143f9.pdf
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772991524000410
  33. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1111/mice.70092
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926580522002382
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135063072501012X
  36. https://ggs.openjournals.ge/index.php/GGS/article/view/30/44
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338522367_Coupled_Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical_Analysis_of_Valley_Narrowing_Deformation_of_High_Arch_Dam_A_Case_Study_of_the_Xiluodu_Project_in_China
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045794923000500
  39. https://www.seequent.com/transforming-ground-modelling-designing-the-worlds-third-tallest-arch-dam-in-3d/
  40. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43503-025-00071-9
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965997825001504
  42. https://www.concrete.org/Portals/0/Files/PDF/Previews/207.1-21_preview.pdf
  43. https://www.emccement.com/pdf/207_1r-05-guide-to-mass-concrete.pdf
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809923004769
  45. https://www.usbr.gov/damsafety/risk/BestPractices/Chapters/D7-FoundationRisksForConcreteDams.pdf
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300495058_Arch_Dams
  47. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/damfaqs.html
  48. https://www.usbr.gov/projects/index.php?id=122
  49. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kariba-Dam
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314876864_Understanding_extreme_floods_in_the_Lower_Zambezi_River_Basin
  51. https://www.britannica.com/place/Daniel-Johnson-Dam
  52. https://www.andritz.com/hydro-en/hydronews/hy-hydro-news-30/hy-news-30-13-manic-5-canada-hydro
  53. https://www.hydroquebec.com/learning/hydroelectricite/ouvrages-retenue.html
  54. https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/michigantech-p/13651/
  55. https://ilec.or.jp/cms/wp-content/uploads/pub/14_Kariba_Reservoir_27February2006.pdf
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809916311699
  57. http://www.chincold.org.cn/dams/uploadfile/2022/02/28/20220228102714979.pdf
  58. https://en.powerchina.cn/2016-12/28/c_713902.htm
  59. https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/146573.pdf
  60. https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/analysis/spotlight-on-large-dams/
  61. https://www.engineering.org.cn/engi/EN/10.1016/j.eng.2024.11.004
  62. https://www.hydropower.org/case-study/worlds-largest-turbine
  63. https://ic-group.org/en/magazine/detail/yusufeli-dam-completion
  64. https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/relocation-of-10-000-residents-continue-in-black-sea-province-178132
  65. https://ppp.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Hydroelectric%2520Power%2520-%2520A%2520Guide%2520for%2520Developers%2520and%2520Investors.pdf
  66. https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-125045-095597.pdf
  67. https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-pdfs/SmallDams.pdf
  68. https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/chap9.pdf
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352012424011202
  70. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/17/2387
  71. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24705314.2022.2088070
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187770581733610X
  73. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_dam-safety_inundation-mapping-flood-risks.pdf
  74. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_rm-federal-guidelines-for-dam-safety.pdf
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674775516300154
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290427381_Environmental_Impact_Of_Construction_Materials_And_Practices
  77. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-10/
  78. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202510/1345625.shtml
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.