Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Austin Dam, Pennsylvania: The Sliding Failure of a Concrete Gravity Dam

Authors: D. F. MARTT;

Austin Dam, Pennsylvania: The Sliding Failure of a Concrete Gravity Dam

Abstract

The Austin Dam, a concrete gravity structure, failed catastrophically on September 30, 1911, less than 2 years after its construction. Several engineering evaluations of the failure have been made since immediately following the disaster. Engineers involved in the construction of the dam recognized early on that the dam failed by sliding on its rock foundation. The dam was constructed on interbedded sedimentary rock, and its foundation was taken to a depth of approximately 4 ft (1.2 m). Although studies of the orientation of the failed blocks of the dam and other site evidence pointed to a sliding failure, no detailed quantitative studies have been done. Recent test pit excavations showed that the critical interface for sliding was a sandstone/shale contact located at a shallow depth below the base of the dam. Stability analyses based on shear-strength tests of the different interfaces of the foundation (concrete/sandstone, sandstone/sandstone, sandstone/shale, and shale/shale) showed that the dam was safe against a bearing capacity failure, but unsafe with respect to sliding and overturning. The lowest factor of safety of 0.6 corresponded to the sandstone/shale interface, as stated above. The major factors believed to have contributed to the failure include low shear strength of the foundation materials, inadequate provisions for reducing the uplift pressure, and weak concrete. The project stands as the sixth worst dam failure in U.S. history in terms of loss of life, and this case history provides numerous lessons with regard to dam safety.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    10
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
10
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!