Attachment 2 - Lake Lure Reservoir Drain Design Report_February 2023

RESERVOIR DRAIN SYSTEM
DESIGN REPORT

Lake Lure Dam
Town of Lake Lure
Rutherford County, NC

Schnabel Reference #18C21024.03
February 3, 2023

February 3, 2023

Michael Dydula
Town of Lake Lure
2948 Memorial Highway
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Subject: Lake Lure Reservoir Drain System Design, Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County,
North Carolina
Dear Ms. Stewman:
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C. (Schnabel) is pleased to submit this report presenting our
engineering services for the reservoir drain system design for Lake Lure Dam. This report was prepared
in accordance with our Task Order No. 5 with the Town of Lake Lure (Town) dated May 13, 2021.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service for this project.

Sincerely,

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.

Jonathan M. Pittman, PE
Project Manager

VS:CJ:JP
Distribution:
Town of Lake Lure (via email)
Attn: Michael Dydula, Hank Perkins, Dean Lindsey, and Olivia Stewman

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page i Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
RESERVOIR DRAIN SYSTEM DESIGN REPORT
LAKE LURE DAM
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Project Background
2.2 Purpose of Study
2.3 Elevation Datum and Location Control
2.4 Terminology
2.5 Site Description
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................. 5
3.1 Primary Goals and Objectives
3.2 Underwater Investigation with Remotely Operated Vehicle
3.3 Concrete Coring and Compression Test
4.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSES AND DESIGN .................................................................................... 6
4.1 Baseflow Estimate
4.2 Reservoir Drain System Hydraulic Capacity
5.0 STRUCTURAL ANALYSES AND DESIGN ................................................................................. 7
5.1 Concrete Buttress and Pipe Encasement Design and Analyses
5.2 Steel Bulkhead and Concrete Portal
5.3 Trash Rack
6.0 ADDITIONAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS........................................ 11
6.1 Construction Sequence
6.2 Schedule
6.3 Sewer Line
6.4 Foundation Preparation
6.5 Control of Water
6.6 Concrete Encasement Drain
6.7 Reservoir Drain Valves
6.8 Penetration Through Existing Arch
6.9 Welded Steel Drain Pipe
6.10 Site Access Road
7.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 15
8.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 16

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page ii Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
LIST OF FIGURES

Included in report text:
Figure 2-1. Upstream View of Lake Lure Dam

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Summary of Dam Dimensions

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Field Investigations
Appendix B: Hydraulic Analysis and Design
Appendix C: Structural Analysis and Design
Appendix D: Construction Drawings
Appendix E: Technical Specifications

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lake Lure Dam is a concrete multiple-arch buttress dam with a maximum structural height of about 124
feet. The dam is owned and operated by the Town of Lake Lure, NC. The dam includes a gated concrete
gravity spillway and arch-buttress overflow sections. The Town desires to install a reservoir drain system
as an initial step of the overall dam rehabilitation project to allow the Town to further lower the reservoir
level to support the rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer system and facilitate other maintenance operations
such as lake dredging. The drain is being designed such that it can be extended through the future design
of a replacement dam located adjacent and downstream of this dam. Schnabel prepared this design
report for the reservoir drain system.
The proposed reservoir drain system consists of a steel bulkhead protected by a trash rack on the
upstream face of the arch in Bay 5, a penetration through the concrete arch, a steel liner in a concrete
encasement with an upstream knife gate valve (guard valve) and a jet flow valve at the downstream end.
The jet flow valve discharges water as a “shower” onto the downstream rock and into the downstream
channel.
We conducted field investigations, including an underwater inspection of Bay 5 (the bay selected for the
reservoir drain system installation) and concrete compressive strength testing. A remotely operated
underwater vehicle was used for the underwater inspection on the upstream face of the dam to evaluate
sediment levels and concrete condition between Bays 4 to 6. The concrete arch upstream face was
generally covered with sediment and debris, and sediment levels were similar to the levels indicated in
the 2019 bathymetric survey performed by Ed Holmes & Associates. Six concrete cores were taken, two
from the start er block and two from each buttress in Bay 5, and tested for compressive strength. The
average compressive strength was 2,890 psi with a standard deviation of ± 677 psi. The material
compressive strength results were incorporated into the structural models and analyses.
The reservoir drain system was sized so that the capacity of the system is larger than the winter baseflow
in the watershed. A baseflow of 325 cubic feet per second (cfs) was used as the amount of baseflow the
reservoir drain system is required to pass, which is slightly larger than the largest historic daily median
value of 310 cfs in March from the USGS gage data.
The approximate discharge velocity at the jet flow valve is approximately 57 feet per second through the
orifice at full open during normal pool conditions. The jet flow valve is required to have a minimum
coefficient of discharge of 0.84 to provide a minimum of 1,200 cfs discharge at 80 feet of net head under
full flow conditions. The maximum design fluid velocities through the reservoir drain pipe and knife gate
are 42 feet per second.
A concrete encasement was designed to encapsulate and protect the new reservoir drain pipe. Schnabel
prepared finite element models (FEMs) to evaluate Bay 5 with the penetration through the concrete arch
and the proposed concrete encasement. Load cases such as normal pool and probable maximum flood
(PMF) were applied to the models to evaluate the proposed concrete encasement. The model results
indicate that the additional hydrostatic PMF forces would be transferred to the concrete encasement.
Reinforcing steel dowels are included in the design to resist the shear and uplift forces due to PMF
loading and tie the encasement to the existing starter block and rock foundation due to the governing
loads from the PMF load case. Furthermore, the FEM results show stress concentrations around the drain
opening in the arch. The concrete encasement is designed to support the potentially weakened existing
concrete arch lifts at the location of the arch penetration for the reservoir drain.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Background
Lake Lure Dam and its associated impoundment are owned and operated by the Town of Lake Lure
(Town) and serve as the centerpiece of the community. The dam is a concrete multiple-arch buttress dam
with a maximum height of about 124 feet. The dam also includes a gated concrete gravity spillway and an
intake tower and penstock that supply water to a hydroelectric generating station located within Bay 7 of
the dam. The dam was designed by Mees and Mees of Charlotte, NC, and construction was completed in
September 1926. Lake Lure Dam is regulated by NCDEQ Dam Safety as a very large, high hazard
potential structure.
Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC (Dr. Dan Marks) was hired by the Town in 2016 to perform an inspection
of the dam. The findings and recommendations from Dr. Marks’ work are included in his Phase I Study
dated September 2017, and Phase II Study dated February 2018. In May 2018, NCDEQ Dam Safety
issued a letter to the Town and Dr. Marks requesting additional investigations and engineering analyses
and clarifications on several of Dr. Marks’ recommendations. The primary additional information
requested by NCDEQ Dam Safety included finite element modeling to further evaluate the stability and
anticipated structural performance of the dam, underwater investigations and non-destructive testing of
the upstream face of the dam, hydrology and hydraulic (H&H) modeling of the dam and spillway, and
preparation of an Emergency Action Plan (EAP).
In August 2018, the Town selected Schnabel to address the requests from NCDEQ Dam Safety and
perform an updated condition assessment of the dam. The scope of services included a review of
available information, topographic and bathymetric surveys, a visual inspection of the dam and
appurtenances, an underwater investigation of the dam, geologic mapping, finite element stability
analyses, preliminary scour analyses, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. The condition assessment
results were presented in our Condition Assessment Summary Report provided to the Town on February
28, 2019. Updating the dam’s Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and breach inundation maps and developing
a spillway gate operations plan were also included as additional tasks.
Based on the results of this condition assessment, Lake Lure Dam was determined to be in overall fair
condition considering its age. However, multiple items were identified that warrant repair, monitoring,
and/or additional investigation or assessment. In addition, the dam does not meet NCDEQ Dam Safety
requirements for hydraulic capacity for the design storm and structural stability under seismic loading
conditions. The concrete gravity gated spillway sections also do not meet global stability requirements for
the load cases analyzed, and there is no functional reservoir drain.
Following the condition assessment, the Town requested that Schnabel evaluate alternatives to
rehabilitate the existing dam to address the dam safety deficiencies discussed above to meet NCDEQ
Dam Safety requirements. Schnabel evaluated two alternatives to rehabilitate the existing dam and one
alternative to replace the existing dam with a new roller compacted concrete (RCC) gravity dam
immediately downstream of the existing dam. The results of this assessment are included in Schnabel’s
Alternatives Analysis Report dated May 19, 2020.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
On February 9, 2021, the Town adopted a policy for proceeding towards the design and construction of
the replacement dam as the preferred dam rehabilitation alternative. During the same meeting, the Town
adopted a timeline to construct the replacement dam within about 10 years.
In conjunction with the dam replacement project, the Town is also implementing a plan to upgrade and
replace the subaqueous sanitary sewer system that runs through the lake and the dam, which is
scheduled to occur over the next two to three years. In order to support the sanitary sewer work and
address NCDEQ Dam Safety’s requirement for a functional reservoir drain, the Town requested that
Schnabel proceed with the design of a reservoir drain system in the existing dam as the initial phase of
the dam rehabilitation project.
2.2 Purpose of Study
This report aims to provide the summary of analyses and investigations conducted under the scope of the
Work Order No. 5 and prepare design documents appropriate for permitting, bidding, and constructing the
reservoir drain system. Services for this project were performed under the supervision of Professional
Engineers licensed in the State of North Carolina.
2.3 Elevation Datum and Location Control
Elevations in this report are in feet and reference the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)
based on the 2018 survey by Ed Holmes and Associates. The abbreviation “EL” represents NAVD 88
Elevation in feet unless expressed otherwise. The original 1925 design drawings reference Mean Sea
Level (MSL), which requires a vertical datum shift of -0.46 feet to NAVD 88 (i.e., ELMSL – ELNAVD 88 = 0.46
feet).
2.4 Terminology
Descriptive nomenclature for dams is based upon one looking downstream. The terms “right” and “left”
are referenced in this manner. The reservoir side is known as “upstream” with the opposite side of the
dam referred to as “downstream”.
2.5 Site Description
Lake Lure Dam is a concrete multiple-arch buttress dam with 10 interior bays separated by buttress walls
and three gated spillways with concrete ogee gravity sections. It is located at latitude 35.425119°N and
longitude 82.183167°W, in Rutherford County, NC. Figure 2-1 illustrates the overall view of the dam
(looking downstream). The bays were sequentially numbered from the left to the right side of the dam. As
shown in the figure, a single-lane reinforced concrete bridge bears on the buttresses and left and right-
end abutments (retaining walls). The height and length of the dam are 124 feet and 480 feet, respectively
(USACE, 1981).
The dam also includes an intake tower and penstock that supply water to a hydroelectric generating
station located within Bay 7 on the downstream side of the Bay 7 arch. The hydroelectric generators are
typically run on a continuous basis, and the electricity produced is sold to Duke Energy. Although the dam
produces hydroelectricity, the dam is exempt from regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC).
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

Figure 2-1. Upstream View of Lake Lure Dam
Lake Lure has a surface area of 720 acres with approximately 27 miles of shoreline at the normal
operating pool (normal pool). The reservoir level is normally controlled by the flow of water into the intake
structure for the hydroelectric generators. The intake structure, which is located about 100 feet upstream
of the crest of the dam, is an approximately 120-foot high concrete tower with a concrete base and a
10.5-foot diameter steel penstock. The top of the intake tower contains a metal trash rack surrounding a
cylindrical gate, which can be raised or lowered by an electric hoist to regulate flow into the penstocks.
The control for the hoist and gate is located in the powerhouse. During flood events, reservoir levels are
controlled by opening one or more of the three radial (Tainter) gates located in Bays 1 through 3. The
gates are operated using the hoists located along the small concrete access bridge (hoist platform) above
the gates. A summary of the key existing dam elevations and dimensions obtained from the 2018 survey
are included in the table below.
Table 2-1. Summary of Dam Dimensions
Gate Types: 3 Tainter (Radial) Gates, 1 Trash (Radial) Gate
Spillway Gate Dimensions: Gate Width = 25 feet, Gate Height (closed) = 15.0 feet, Bay Height = 22.2 feet
Spillway Gate Elevations: Ogee Crest = EL 976.5, Top of Gate (closed) = EL 991.5, Bottom of Bridge = EL 998.7
Trash Gate Dimensions: Gate Width = 6 feet, Gate Height (closed) = 7.6 feet, Bay Height = 10.3 feet
Trash Gate Elevations: Weir Crest = EL 988.4, Top of Gate (closed) = EL 996, Bottom of Bridge = EL 998.7
Low-Level Arches (4&5): No. of Arches = 2, Length (each) = 47.6 feet, Crest Elevation = EL 992.6
Mid-Level Arches (9-13)*: No. of Arches = 4, Length (each) = 47.6 feet, Crest Elevation = EL 994.5
High-Level Arches (6-8): No. of Arches = 3, Length (each) = 47.6 feet, Crest Elevation = EL 1000.5
* Arch No. 13 is blocked
Historically, the dam has performed well. Maintenance activities have been confined primarily to the
powerhouse equipment, tower intake gate, and spillway gates. No significant concrete repairs or other
structural modifications have reportedly been made to the structure (DTA, 2006/2007).
A subaqueous sanitary system was also constructed at the same time as the dam was constructed. It
includes a cast iron gravity sewer with an approximate length of fourteen miles (LaBella, 2020). The
sewer lines were installed on concrete collars and wooden cribbing, as indicated in the LaBella report.
The cast iron pipe ranges in size from 8 inches to 12 inches. The sewer line passes through the Bay 5.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
3.1 Primary Goals and Objectives
Additional information on the dam was required to support the reservoir drain design. This task included
the underwater investigation of the upstream face of the dam between Bays 4 to 6 using an underwater
remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and material testing (compression tests) of concrete cores. The
underwater investigation was performed to determine the debris conditions on the upstream face of the
dam and the location of the sediment level.
The condition of the concrete cores and laboratory test results provided additional information on the
engineering properties of the existing concrete for incorporation into the structural analyses and design of
the reservoir drain system.
3.2 Underwater Investigation with Remotely Operated Vehicle
Schnabel and subcontractor Glenn Underwater Services performed an underwater investigation of the
upstream side of the dam in the vicinity of the planned reservoir drain using a remotely operated vehicle
(ROV). The investigation was performed on June 18, 2021, and followed the center of the arch from the
water surface down to the sediment level. There was sediment and some woody debris deposited on the
arch full height of the sloped portion. The sediment level was identified on the lake bottom so that the
new reservoir drain can be located above the lake bottom to reduce the amount of sediment and debris
cleaning required and reduce the impact of ongoing sedimentation. The center of the arches at adjacent
Bays 4 and 6 were also inspected and the sediment levels were within a range of approximate EL 898 to
EL 901, which is similar to the sediment levels indicated on the January 9, 2019 survey by Ed Holmes &
Associates. A summary of observations from the underwater investigation is presented in Appendix A.1.
3.3 Concrete Coring and Compression Test
Under the supervision of Schnabel, a concrete coring subcontractor (Penhall Company) took six cores
from the structural components of Bay 5 on June 6, 2021 (two cores from each of the buttresses, two
cores from the starter block). The concrete cores were sent to S&ME Inc. f or the compression tests. The
results show the average compressive strength of 2,890 psi with the standard deviation of ± 677 psi. The
test report and coring details are presented in Appendix A.2.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
4.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSES AND DESIGN
4.1 Baseflow Estimate
The reservoir drain system was sized so that the capacity of the system is larger than the historic winter
baseflow. The baseflow was estimated based on the historical data recorded from 1927 to 1958 at USGS
stream gage 02148500 Broad River near Chimney Rock, NC. The gage was located immediately
downstream of the dam. The mean monthly flow shows that the highest baseflow occurs during February
and March and the lowest occurs in June and July. The largest daily median value from this data set is
310 cubic feet per second (cfs), which occurred in March. To be conservative, a baseflow of 325 cfs was
used as the baseflow the reservoir drain system is required to pass.
4.2 Reservoir Drain System Hydraulic Capacity
The capacity of the reservoir drain was modeled as a 6-foot diameter, steel pipe. The losses through the
pipe system include the 45-degree bend, 22.5-degree bend, entrance and exit conditions, the knife gate,
and the jet flow valve for a total K loss value of 3.8, which is a constant directly proportional to the
pressure drop across the valve. Below is a summary of the pipe capacity at a range of reservoir
elevations.

Reservoir Elevation (ft) Drain flow (cfs)
990.5 (normal pool) 927
971 819
950 684
935 569
920 423

The capacity of the reservoir drain system is larger than the historic winter baseflow indicating the system
is large enough to drain the lake during non-storm conditions.

The approximate discharge velocity at the jet flow valve is approximately 57 feet per second through the
orifice at full open during normal pool conditions. The jet flow valve is designed to have a minimum
coefficient of discharge of 0.84 to provide a minimum of 1,200 cfs discharge at 80 feet of net head under
full flow conditions, which are expected to provide ample buffer to achieve the site conditions described
above. Hydraulic calculations for the jet flow valve are included in Attachment B. The knife gate has the
same nominal diameter (72 inches) as the drain pipe and has estimated hydraulic losses as shown in
Attachment B. The maximum design fluid velocities through the pipe and knife gate are 42 feet per
second.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
5.0 STRUCTURAL ANALYSES AND DESIGN
This section includes the structural analyses and designs for the concrete encasement, steel bulkhead,
concrete portal, and other structural components of the reservoir drain system. The primary focus of the
structural analysis is the distribution of stresses from the existing concrete arch to the new concrete
encasement for the reservoir drain. This focus is evaluated in the following section for the concrete
encasement.
5.1 Concrete Buttress and Pipe Encasement Design and Analyses
A concrete buttress with a conduit blockout for installing the welded steel pipe is cast in place against the
downstream face of the arch as determined by structural analysis. The buttress is designed to reinforce
the existing arch and allow the pipe penetration to be cut through the existing arch in Bay 5 after buttress
installation. The conduit is sized for inserting the welded steel pipe with minimum clearance for
constructability. The annulus between pipe, collar, dam and buttress will be infilled with grout or concrete
after welded steel pipe installation. The concrete will be placed in multiple horizontal lifts and exposed
faces of each lift, will be reinforced to control cracking due to temperature and shrinkage, and will require
a thermal control plan in accordance with ACI’s mass concrete provisions. The buttress and pipe
encasement concrete mix requirements will include a shrinkage compensating admixture to counteract
volumetric shrinkage that could increase cracking or create separation from the existing arch.
Schnabel performed 3D structural Finite Element (FE) analyses of Lake Lure Dam with the proposed
concrete encasement to evaluate the structural adequacy of the encasement. In addition, the stability of
Bay 5 was evaluated with/without encasement. The FE analyses were performed using LS-DYNA version
R 12.0, a double-precision shared memory parallel processing (SMP) solver. The model geometry and
meshing were developed using TrueGrid software (version 4.01).
The model includes Bay 5 with two similar bays on each side of Bay 5. Bay 5 includes the three lowest lift
lines in the arch to resemble the real condition of the bay and allow the stresses to transfer from the arch
to the encasement. The side bays have the same geometry as Bay 5, except that only the lowest contact
between the arch and starter block was modeled. The side bays were modeled to minimize the boundary
effects on the analysis results of Bay 5.
The models were analyzed under different load cases such as normal pool considering Bay 5 without/with
encasement and during construction, and probable maximum flood (PMF), in accordance with FERC
guidelines. Two types of models were considered for each loading based on the contact types. In the first
type, all contacts in the dam were frictional (mortar contact) except for the contacts between the arch and
buttresses, which were mortar tie. In the second type of models, all contacts were frictional without any
exception.
The analysis results show that the concrete encasement is stable for most load cases but does not satisfy
the minimum stability requirements per FERC guidelines if no anchors into the rock foundation are
provided. The concrete encasement is detached from the arch under the PMF load following the normal
pool hydrostatic load. Therefore, steel dowels were designed to tie the encasement bottom surface to the
starter block and the encasement to the bedrock. The dowels can resist the shear demand force applied
due to the additional PMF hydrostatic loading.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
The stress concentration might be formed around the drain opening in the arch. However, the
encasement provides support for the potentially cracked and weakened sections around the opening
drain in the arch.
To reduce potential seepage between the existing Bay 5 arch and the new concrete encasement, a
hydrophilic waterstop will be installed at the interface between these two blocks of concrete. Also,
waterproof grouting will be placed between encasement and the arch. To reduce the shrinkage of the new
concrete encasement, a shrinkage-compensating admixture is included in the concrete mix specifications
and temperature and shrinkage reinforcement has been designed at all new exposed concrete faces.
Due to the large size of the new concrete encasement, mass concrete provisions are specified in
accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) requirements.
The details of the structural analysis and design of the encasement can be found in Appendix C.1.
5.2 Steel Bulkhead and Concrete Portal
A steel bulkhead was designed to be placed on the upstream face of the dam at the new penetration for
the reservoir drain. The bulkhead is hinged at the top and operated by a hoist mounted to the trash rack
above the bulkhead. The bulkhead will seal with an O-ring against a new precast reinforced concrete
portal placed on the upstream face of the dam prior to creating the new penetration through the Bay 5
arch for the reservoir drain. The precast concrete portal will be anchored and grouted against the
upstream face of the dam. During normal conditions, the bulkhead will be left in the open position, but can
may be closed in case of emergency or need to inspect or service the knife gate or jet flow valve, or
reservoir drain welded steel pipe.
The concrete portal is reinforced with temperature and shrinkage steel reinforcement in accordance with
ACI 350. The portal was provided as a bearing surface for the steel bulkhead. The portal consists of a
precast concrete collar projecting approximately two feet (minimum) perpendicular to the inclined face of
the dam at the centerline of the curved surface conforming to the face of the dam. The collar has a
minimum thickness of approximately two feet and the upstream side is a flat plane parallel matching the
inclined face of the dam. The portal entrance has a radiused lip (5 inches) at the 71-inch diameter
opening to reduce hydraulic entrance losses. For durability, the minimum design concrete compressive
strength is 4,500 psi. Embedded in the upstream face around the portal entrance is a round stainless-
steel bearing plate. Bolted to the face plate is a bulkhead with O-ring seal and hinges on the top edge.
Threaded inserts are located in the face plate for bolting the door. The bulkhead can be unbolted from the
seal plate and lifted upwards to open the portal. A fill valve (pressure relief) is installed in the bulkhead
door.
The concrete face of the portal contacting the dam has a grout bearing pad around the entire perimeter
bearing area. Bent plates are provided around the perimeter of the collar for anchorage to drill holes into
the dam and to install bolts to attach the concrete portal to the face of the dam. Lifting lugs shall be
included so that the concrete portal can be precast, picked by a crane, and lowered into place on the
upstream face of the Bay 5 arch to divers for installation.
Calculations for the steel bulkhead are included in Appendix C.2.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
5.3 Trash Rack
The reservoir drain trash rack structure will consist of a prefabricated structural steel frame
conforming to the curvature of the arch, which will be field verified by the contractor after
cleaning of sediment and debris off the face of arch. The steel trash rack will be mounted to the
upstream face of the dam on the Bay 5 arch. The trash rack will reduce the amount of debris
impacting the reservoir drain system. The structure will be a box shape, having vertical side walls
and a vertical upstream face. The structure will have trash rack bars on part of the side walls and
upstream face. The upstream trash rack will have bars in a panel as a door(s), hinged at one (or
both) side(s) to swing out (upstream) and allow entry into the structure. The trash rack is open on
the upstream face and sides. The top and downstream side of the trash rack are closed to reduce the
amount of settling debris or sediment that would potentially clog the trash rack or reservoir drain. Final
design of the trash rack has been delegated to the contractor’s engineer per the proposed design
documents. The trash rack will contain bar grating backed by steel support framing anchored to the
upstream face of dam.The trash rack design requirements are based on recommendations by the US
Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 6, Hydraulic and Mechanical Equipment, Chapter 12
(USBR, 2016). Design loading per the USBR is to be followed:
“Totally submerged trashracks and trashracks that are submerged more than 20 feet of head should be
designed to fail at approximately 20 feet of differential head; assuming that the trashrack structure is
designed to withstand greater than 20 feet of differential head.” This provision provides a conservative
design for extreme blockage of the bar racks and their failure without total collapse of the surrounding
frame.
The trash rack is to be shop constructed, requiring only bolting together on site. The fabricator/site
contractor who shall be responsible for shipping components can determine how much to pre-connect
based on transportation considerations and prepare shop drawings accordingly. Schnabel has provided
the overall design concept showing dimensions, trash rack areas, proposed connection locations and
panel subdivisions that may or may not be used, together with an accompanying specification. As
required by the specification in Appendix E, the contractor shall provide design, shop drawings and
details conforming to the design concept on the drawings and specification. The entire structure shall be
shop assembled for inspection, disassembled and painted prior to shipping.
The design consists of two outer frames spaced 12.5’ (minimum) apart inside. The frames are in three
pieces with bolted connections -two wide flanges bolted between the frames parallel to the face of the
dam and inset to the frame to clear the curvature of the dam. The purpose of the upper horizontal
member is to allow the trash rack to be set onto the portal and not slide down the dam during bolting to
the dam. Six additional horizontal wide flanges parallel to the face of the dam provide lateral support from
hydrostatic loads on the sides of the structure and provide backing for vertical trash rack bars on the
upstream face. Four wide flanges, horizontal and normal to the face of the dam, provide support for
hydrostatic loads on the face of the structure and backing support for vertical trash racks on the sides.
Two flat bars extend from the upper frame arm to the lower frame arm along the face of the dam and are
tilted slightly to the curvature of the dam. These allow the frame to skid down the face of the dam and to
be attached. Three outside mounting clips will be provided along the flat bars contacting the dam at the
top bottom and middle. These clips shall be used to bolt six, 1-inch diameter anchors into the dam. Clips
will be provided with attachment points for underwater drill equipment. This completes the outer frame.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
Solid panels will be designed to line the roof surfaces and floor. For shipping purposes, the roof panels
can be divided if desired. The panels are proposed to be plate steel with backing ribs spanning between
side frames. The side frames will have clip angles welded on which the panels bear on and bolt to. The
panels are proposed to be 10-gauge (minimum) steel plate over steel angles at 12” O.C. spanning
between frames. No connection between panels is required and the edge against the dam has the last
angle very near contact at centerline of portal and plate edges cantilevered and cut to the radius of the
arch. A tight fit is not required and a 1-inch gap should be provided.
The upstream face shall be two panels with vertical trash rack bars of ½” x 4” at 4” O.C. The panels shall
bear against the three inset horizontal wide flanges. The panels shall have hinges on the outer frames
and a gravity latch to the intermediate beam. Vertical bars shall have intermediate horizontal support
dividing the height into not greater than 30” lengths with diagonal flat bars welded across the inside face
(not interfering with horizontal beam contact) and banding at top and bottom. The side faces shall have
one approximate 9’-6” wide panel of trash rack bars that fits the width of the top horizontal frame. The
bars will bear upon the intermediate inset wide flanges and inset angles welded to the top and bottom
frame members. The bottom of the panel conforms to the sloped leg of the outer frame and face of the
dam with clearance. The remaining side area from the sloped top frame member to the dam is covered
with a solid panel constructed like the roof panels although the span is less due to the intermediate wide
flange frame members and thus may be lighter rib construction.
A boxed in frame opening on the roof shall support a hand operated screw jack actuator that will connect
via a rod to the portal door. The actuator shall pivot to accommodate door and actuator rod swing as the
portal is opened. At full open the door shall be slightly greater than 90 degrees of swing and bear against
stops on each side of the actuator rod to tightly secure the door in the open position and prevent flutter of
the door during flow through the portal.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 11 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
6.0 ADDITIONAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Construction Sequence
The general construction sequence is as follows:
• Drill one 1-1/8” diameter hole from downstream though the arch at center of penstock
• Insert a threaded 1” diameter rod (attached to a backing plate and seal) through the hole and
secure on the downstream face.
• Install the precast portal (without the bulkhead door) on the face of the dam centered on the
projecting rod.
o The portal is equipped with a temporary centering frame through which the rod extends,
and a nut is used to temporarily tension the portal against the face of the dam.
o Secure the portal by installing a drill to provided anchorages and drilling anchors through
the perimeter holes provided and into the face of the dam. Tension and grout the portal
anchor bolts.
o Remove the center tensioning nut and temporary centering frame from the portal.
o Seal the inside and outside perimeter of the portal collar with an underwater epoxy such
as Splash Zone.
o Grout the contact zone of the portal and dam face through the lower portal ports with an
epoxy non-shrink grout until return is consistent at upstream ports.
o Install the bulkhead door and bolt to the seal ring with the small fill valve on the door
open. Cut off a length of the centering rod if needed.
• Construct the reinforced arch buttress.
• Close the bulkhead door fill valve.
• Remove the rod from the downstream side and ensure no leakage of the portal and bulkhead.
o Take remedial measures to stop leakage as appropriate.
• Drill eight perimeter holes for wire sawing the octagonal opening.
• Core drill an access hole in center (or others as approved) for manipulating the diamond wire out
of one perimeter hole into another hole.
• Wire saw the perimeter and remove the concrete block.
o The contractor may choose to wire saw one or more diagonals across the perimeter to
reduce the size of the blocks for removal.
• Install the reservoir drain pipe.
o Joints to be planned and where no exterior access is available use exterior backing plate
on the bottom half of the upstream section with the downstream section set onto the plate
and having a backing plate on the top half. Complete a full penetration weld from interior
of the pipe. The middle miter joint of the 45-degree bend is suggested as a single field
joint.
• Grout or concrete the annulus between penstock, portal collar, dam and reinforced arch buttress.
• Install guard valve, bypass fill valve and downstream expansion/dismantling joint.
• Install reservoir drain pipe, bends and discharge valve.
o Concrete encase where planned.
• Leak test the system by opening the bulkhead fill valve
• Install the prefabricated intake structure
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 12 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
• Open the trash rack doors, connect the actuator rod to the bulkhead door and unbolt the door.
• Raise the bulkhead on its hinges to the stop position.
• Install recessed socket head plug screws in the bolt positions to protect the threads.
• Close trash rack doors.
• Conduct test flows.
6.2 Schedule
The longest lead time products for this project are expected to be the knife gate and the jet flow valves,
which are expected to be about 10 months based on discussions with the valve suppliers. The Town is
procuring the valves directly and providing them to the reservoir drain contractor for installation, testing,
and commissioning. Bidding for the reservoir drain construction is underway with a Notice-to-Proceed
expected in April 2023. The anticipated duration for reservoir drain installation is approximately five
months from site mobilization to demobilization. It is expected that some site mobilization and prep work
will occur prior to delivery of the valves. Delays in delivery of the valves and large reservoir inflows during
construction of the reservoir drain system could result in construction delays.
6.3 Sewer Line
A portion of the existing 18-inch ductile iron sanitary sewer line will be removed and rerouted to cross
below the reservoir drain pipe. A temporary bypass is required from the existing blow-off location to
discharge into the existing wet well of the lift station and keep the sewer line in service at all times.
Outside of the encasement footprint, the sewer line is supported on cast-in-place concrete cradles with
pipe straps, 20 feet on-center maximum. After cleaning the Bay 5 foundation to rock, backfill/leveling
concrete will be placed to provide a level working pad to install the first left of the encasement. Once the
first concrete lift of the encasement is placed, coarse aggregate will be placed either side of the first lift
and subsequent lift of the pipe encasement to provide a permeable walking surface above the normal
water line downstream of Bay 5.
6.4 Foundation Preparation
The foundation below the new reservoir drain pipe encasement will be cleaned to competent rock as
determined in the field by the Engineer. Care shall be taken to avoid undermining the existing Bay 5
buttresses and starter block. As mentioned in 6.3, leveling concrete will be placed to provide a working
platform for the concrete encasement and to protect the cleaned rock surface.
6.5 Control of Water
The contractor will be responsible for diverting reservoir water and surface water runoff from rain events
away from the construction site. This includes construction and diversion sequencing, diversion
structures and facilities, coordination with other affected constructions activities, and the installation and
removal of temporary facilities. The Owner will be responsible for spillway gate operations during
construction. The Contractor is responsible for coordinating with the Owner regarding spillway gate
operations. The tailwater is expected to vary depending on inflows with typical conditions as noted in
Section 6.10 of this report.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 13 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
6.6 Concrete Encasement Drain
A foundation drain will be installed below the new concrete encasement to reduce uplift pressures on the
encasement and control seepage. The drain will be placed immediately downstream of the existing starter
block in Bay 5 and will consist of 6-inch diameter plastic pipe. The pipe will consist of a section of slotted
pipe surrounded by drainfill and a solid wall pipe to convey the seepage out of the concrete encasement.
The drainage may be affected by the extent of the leveling concrete and adjusted to be located above the
leveling concrete. The sizing of the 6-inch pipe was based on the estimated permeability of the underlying
rock and engineering judgement. For the effect on uplift pressure below the concrete thrust block and
concrete encasement, it was assumed that the drain would collect seepage at 50% efficiency. The drain
pipe will be oriented in the cross-canyon direction and outlet either side of the pipe encasement on the
downstream vertical face of the full bay width concrete. The drains outlet into the coarse aggregate
backfill, which will be screened from the drain pipes.
6.7 Reservoir Drain Valves
One knife gate and one jet flow valve will be in line with the reservoir drain system. The upstream valve is
a 72-inch-diameter knife gate valve (guard valve). The guard valve is intended to be normally operated
under balanced head without flow. However, the gate is also suitable for emergency closure under full
flow and head. The downstream side of the gate is bolted to a flanged pipe stub for a Dresser coupling.
The gate is supported on feet that are anchored to a new concrete base, which will be part of the drain
pipe encasement.
The downstream valve is a jet flow valve (discharge valve) 72-inch nominal diameter with a 60-inch orifice
and 84-inch outlet diameter (discharge hood). The discharge valve will be angled upward at 22.5 degrees
from horizontal to project the discharge over the existing sewer pipe and discharge (shower) onto the
boulders and bedrock downstream of the dam before draining into the existing river channel. The
discharge valve is supported on feet that are anchored to a new concrete base and frame braced by
kicker supports to the new concrete encasement.
Both guard valve and jet flow valve are equipped with electric motor operators, requiring power supply
and controls to be provided in the powerhouse. In addition, both gate and valve contain handwheels for
local manual operation. During normal conditions, the guard gate will be left in the open position, and the
discharge valve will be closed (i.e., the encased pipe will be charged). These valves were specified in a
separate design package included in a memo dated December 30, 2021 (Schnabel 2021).
A six-inch bypass pipe with fill valve will be provided around the guard gate to fill the downstream section
of pipe prior to opening the guard gate.
6.8 Penetration Through Existing Arch
The new dam penetration for the reservoir drain through the Bay 5 arch consists of an octagonal diamond
wire cut portal through the dam, 76” across the flat faces and 82-1/4”” across drilled wire access points
contained within the sealed surface of the bulkhead. Access for the wire cutting will be through the 18-
inch diameter hole that will be cut once pressure is relieved on the upstream face of the arch using the
portal and bulkhead.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 14 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
6.9 Welded Steel Drain Pipe
A 72-inch diameter welded steel pipe will be installed perpendicular from the face of the dam at a 45-
degree (2 pipe diameter radius) downward angle turning to horizontal with a 4-piece miter bend (3 miter
joints at 15°) and connecting to a 72-inch guard valve. The pipe will then pass through a
dismantling/expansion joint extended to a downstream discharge valve. A 22.5 degree (2 pipe diameter
radius) 3-piece miter bend (2 miter joints at 11.5°) turns the flow upward just before the discharge valve.
The pipe is concrete encased except at the valves, which remain exposed to potentially allow future
removal and reuse of the gate and valve.
6.10 Site Access Road
A minimum 12-foot wide temporary access road will be constructed in general accordance with NCDOT
standards to cross the river from the right side to the left side . The access will be capable of handling the
anticipated construction loads, including a minimum of a 40-ton articulated dump truck (approximately
80,000 lbs). The top of the river crossing will be above the 10-year storm tailwater elevation, EL 894.5,
and will include culverts designed to pass up to 500 cfs from the hydroelectric operations. Upon
completion of the reservoid drain construction, the river crossing will be left in place for the Owner’s use
for future field investigations for the planned replacement dam.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 15 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the information revealed by our
exploration, comparisons to other projects similar in nature, and to the current economic environment.
Schnabel has attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected
conditions may be encountered during construction.
Schnabel has endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level
of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality
and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or
intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report, or any other instrument of
service.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 16 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
8.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (2006). Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete
Structures and Commentary (ACI 350-06). Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (2000). Service-Life Prediction. ACI 365.1R-00.
DTA (2006). “Lake Lure Dam Independent Consultant Dam Safety Inspection.” Devine Tarbell &
Associates, Inc., Charlotte, NC. November 2006.
DTA (2007). “Lake Lure Dam Independent Consultant Post Earthquake - Dam Safety Inspection.” Devine
Tarbell & Associates, Inc., Charlotte, NC. December 2007.
Ed Holmes & Associates Land Surveyors, P.A. (2019). “Lake Lure Dam – Existing Conditions Survey.”
Asheville, NC. January 9, 2019.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2016). Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects, Chapter 3 – Gravity Dams.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1997). Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects, Chapter X – Other Dams.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2018). Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects, Chapter 11 – Arch Dams.
LaBella (2020). Subaqueous Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum
Final.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2018). LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume I.
Livermore, CA.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2018). LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume II
Material Models. Livermore, CA.
Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC (2017). Phase I Dam Safety Inspection Report, Lake Lure Dam and
Appurtenances.
Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC (2018). Phase II Report, 2017 Dam Safety Inspection, Lake Lure Dam
and Appurtenances. Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC, February 2018.
Mees and Mees (1925). Design Drawings, August 1925.
PTI-DC35.1-14 (2014). Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors.
Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (2018). Review of Available Information, Lake Lure Dam (RUTHE-
003). January 25, 2019
Schnabel (2019). “Lake Lure Dam – Condition Assessment Summary Report.” Schnabel Engineering
South, P.C., Greensboro, NC. February 28, 2019.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain System Design Report

February 3, 2023 Page 17 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (2021). Reservoir Drain Valves Memorandum. December 30, 2021.
Schnabel (2019). “Lake Lure Dam – Stability Analysis Report.” Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.,
Greensboro, NC. February 28, 2019.
Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (2018). Task 3C Lake Lure Dam Visual Inspection Report. December
7, 2018.
Schnabel (2018). “Lake Lure Dam – Rock Core Review and Geology Mapping Memorandum.” Schnabel
Engineering South, P.C., Greensboro, NC. December 6, 2018.
Schnabel (2018). Lake Lure Dam Dr. Marks Report Review Comments. Schnabel Engineering South,
P.C., Greensboro, NC. October 2018.
State of North Carolina (1977). “North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Subchapter 2K: Dam
Safety.” Raleigh, NC. January 22, 1977.
USACE. (2005). Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures. EM 1110-2-2100. Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USACE (1994). Arch Dam Design. EM 1110-2-2201. Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC.
USACE (1990). “Hydraulic Design of Spillways”, Engineering Manual 1110-2-1603. United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USACE (1981). Phase I Inspection Report, National Dam Safety Program. United States Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC. August 1981.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2013). State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2016). Design Standards No. 6, Hydraulic and Mechanical Equipment,
Chapter 12: Trashracks and Trashrack Cleaning Devices, DS-6(12): Phase 4 (Final), December 2016.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, CO.

February 3, 2023 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

A.1 Underwater Investigation Summary
A.2 Concrete Coring and Strength Test Results

SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.
11A Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
T/ 336-274-9456
F/ 336-274-9486
schnabel-eng.com
Date of Observation: 6/18/21 Project: Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain
Schnabel Rep: Sina Khodaie,
Nolen Anderson Project Number: 18C21024.020 Task Number(s): 01
Schnabel PM: Jonathan Pittman
Arrival Time: 10:00 AM Departure Time: 1:00 PM
Contractor: Glenn Underwater
Services
Contractor
Supervisor: Colin Cassano
Air Temp ° F: 80 Weather: Sunny
PURPOSE OF VISIT
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C. representatives above arrived on site to oversee an underwater
investigation using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV). The purpose of this investigation was to determine the
extent of debris of the upstream face of the dam and the sediment level to inform design of the reservoir drain
system. The water surface elevation during investigation was 989.7ft (NAVD 88), as recorded from the lake level
sensor, and is 0.1 feet above the normal lake level. Depths below water surface were displayed on the ROV video
images shown in Attachment 2, except 1.3 feet needs to be added to the displayed values to determine the total
depth including the height of the ROV. For this investigation, the ROV followed a stairstep path down the center
line of Bay 5 to determine the elevation of the top of sediment upstream of Bays 4-6. The approximate path
followed by the ROV is marked on Attachment 1. Approximate locations of the images from the videos included in
Attachment 1.
PERSONS ON-SITE
Sina Khodaie and Nolen Anderson – Schnabel
Colin Cassano and 1 other representative– Glenn Underwater Services
DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATIONS
A piece of woody debris was observed around 940 ft (49.7ft deep) which the ROV was not able to navigate around
to avoid and continue on the path. The ROV was brought to the surface and pulled further away from the dam to
meet the centerline of the intake tower. The sediment at this location was observed at an elevation of approximately
898 ft (91.7 ft deep). The sediment appeared to slightly slope up and increase elevation against the upstream wall
of the dam to 900 ft (89.7 ft deep). The sediment located was easily disturbed by the propellers of the ROV.
CONCLUSIONS
Sediment and some woody debris were observed at a depth of approximately 89-92 feet upstream of Bays 4, 5,
and 6 at the centerline of these bays. This corresponds to approximate elevation 900 ft, which is consistent with
the bathymetric survey prepared by Ed Holmes & Associates on January 9, 2019. The thickness of the debris on
the upstream sloped face of the arches was unclear, but appeared to be fairly regular sediment deposition with
some localized woody debris. The extents of the debris should be considered in the selection of the invert
elevation of the new reservoir drain system to reduce dredging needs and protect against impacts around the drain
trash rack due to additional sedimentation. Localized removal of debris deposited on the arches should be
performed for installation of the new reservoir drain system.
Appendix A.1
SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
April 22, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.
11A Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
T/ 336-274-9456
F/ 336-274-9486
schnabel-eng.com
We have endeavored to prepare this report in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice and make
no warranties, either express or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement
and included herein.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact either of the
undersigned if clarification is needed for any aspect of this report.
Sincerely,
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.
Sina Khodaie, PhD, PE
Senior Engineer
Charles Johnson, PE
Associate
NA:SK:CJ:JP
Distribution:
Client (Town of Lake Lure)
Attn: Olivia Stewman
Attachments
1.Site Plan with Photo Locations
2.Photo Log
G:\2018\GREENSBORO\18C21024_00_LAKE_LURE_DAM\03-SE PRODUCTS\03-REPORTS\01-
DRAFT\00_RESERVOIR_DRAIN_DESIGN\ROV_INSPECTION_REPORT\LL_180621_SITEOBSERVATIONREPORT_ROV.DOCX
DocVerify ID: EBD67602-E69A-4A72-9024-63AA722EF3BA
www.docverify.com
EB
D
6
7
6
0
2
-
E
6
9
A
-
4
A
7
2
-
9
0
2
4
-
6
3
A
A
7
2
2
E
F
3
B
A

-
-
-

2
0
1
9
/
0
1
/
0
9

0
7
:
5
9
:
0
2

-
8
:
0
0
Page 17 of 17 1763AA722EF3BA
6047270957DB
Signed on 2019/01/09 08:15:03 PST
-'DQLHO+HQU\
January 09, 2019
Attachment 1
(room for additional notes)
ATTACHMENT 2
PHOTO LOG
LAKE LURE DAM RESERVOIR DRAIN SYSTEM
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved
PHOTO 1
DATE TAKEN: 06/18/2021
LOCATION:
Dock located to the right of the
reservoir upstream of the dam
COMMENTS:
Glenn boat used to complete
ROV investigation. Approximate
water surface elevation was
elevation 989.7 ft (NAVD 88),
which is 0.1 feet above the
normal lake level.
PHOTO 2
DATE TAKEN: 06/18/2021
LOCATION:
On Glenn boat tied off on Bay 5
of dam
COMMENTS:
ROV used in investigation
Attachment 2

(room for additional notes)

ATTACHMENT 2
PHOTO LOG

LAKE LURE DAM RESERVOIR DRAIN SYSTEM
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved

PHOTO 3
DATE TAKEN: 06/18/2021

LOCATION:

Right of Bay 5 center line
6.0’ below the water surface
COMMENTS:

Note separation between vertical
arch lift (top of photo) and
sloping lift (bottom of photo).
Temperature and date on video
display shown are incorrect.

PHOTO 4
DATE TAKEN: 06/18/2021

LOCATION:

Upstream face of concrete at
Bay 5 centerline at 6.8’ below
the water surface
COMMENTS:

Note separation between vertical
lift and sloping lift

(room for additional notes)

ATTACHMENT 2
PHOTO LOG

LAKE LURE DAM RESERVOIR DRAIN SYSTEM
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved

PHOTO 5
DATE TAKEN: 06/18/2021

LOCATION:

Top of sediment upstream of
Bay 5 centerline at 49.4’ below
the water surface
COMMENTS:

Debris at approximately 49.7’
depth

PHOTO 6
DATE TAKEN: 06/18/2021

LOCATION:

Top of sediment upstream of
Bay 5 centerline at 74.8’ below
the water surface
COMMENTS:

Debris at approximately 75’
depth

(room for additional notes)

ATTACHMENT 2
PHOTO LOG

LAKE LURE DAM RESERVOIR DRAIN SYSTEM
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved

PHOTO 7
DATE TAKEN: 06/18/2021

LOCATION:

Top of sediment upstream of
Bay 5 centerline at 75.7’ below
the water surface
COMMENTS:

Debris at approximately 76’
depth

PHOTO 8
DATE TAKEN: 06/18/2021

LOCATION:

Top of sediment immediately
upstream of Bay 5 centerline at
88.8’ below water surface
COMMENTS:

Sediment level encountered at
approximately 89’-92’ depth

SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.
11A Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
T/ 336-274-9456
F/ 336-274-9486
schnabel-eng.com
Date of Observation: 6/22/21 Project: Lake Lure Dam Reservoir Drain
Schnabel Rep: Sina Khodaie,
Nolen Anderson Project Number: 18C21024.020 Task Number(s): 01
Schnabel PM: Jonathan Pittman Building Permit No.
Arrival Time: 10:00 AM Departure Time: 2:00 PM
Contractor: Penhall Company Superintendent:
Air Temp ° F: 67 Weather: Light Rain/Cloudy
PURPOSE OF VISIT
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C. representatives above arrived on site, to oversee concrete coring of
Bay 5. These cores were collected to be used in compressive strength testing. During site visit, reservoir elevation
was 990 ft (NAVD 88). Six concrete cores were taken in total (2 cores from each of the buttress walls and 2 cores
from the starter block) from Bay 5, which is the second arch bay from the left side of the dam (when looking
downstream). Personnel from Schnabel’s coring subcontractor, Penhall Company, had issues with site access and
unable to grout the holes left by coring process on June 22, 2021. Schnabel representatives were told that a
Penhall representative would return to the site the following day to fill the holes. A Town representative told
Schnabel representatives they would be on site to oversee grouting process and this was reportedly performed on
June 23, 2021.
PERSONS ON-SITE
Dean Lindsey – Town of Lake Lure
Sina Khodaie and Nolen Anderson – Schnabel
2 Representatives – Penhall Company
DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATIONS
Access to the downstream side of Bay 5 was overgrown with vegetation. Dam arch lift lines were leaking during the
site visit, but leakage had apparently decreased since previous wintertime site visits, presumably due to thermal
expansion of the concrete. Vegetation growth and calcium efflorescence were evident and observed at the lift lines
of the dam arch. Orange-red iron ochre was observed on the right buttress wall near the dam arch and on the
sewer pipe. Standing water was observed approximately 1-2 ft deep downstream of the starter block of Bay 5 due
to poor drainage in the bay. A total of six 4-inch diameter cores were taken from the site. These cores ranged from
approximately 10 to 14 inches in length depending on the location of the core break. Small voids were visible in
portions of the concrete cores. The slurry ranged from blue to grey in color. No major cracking within the cores was
observed. Core locations are included in the attached photo log in Attachment 1. Compressive strength tests of the
concrete were performed by S&ME, Inc. and results are included in Attachment 2. The average compressive
strength was 2,890 psi with a standard deviation of ± 677 psi.
Appendix A.2

SITE OBSERVATION REPORT

April 22, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.
11A Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
T/ 336-274-9456
F/ 336-274-9486
schnabel-eng.com
We have endeavored to prepare this report in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice and make
no warranties, either express or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement
and included herein.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact either of the
undersigned if clarification is needed for any aspect of this report.

Sincerely,

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING SOUTH, P.C.

Sina Khodaie, PhD, PE
Senior Engineer

Charles M. Johnson, PE
Associate

NA:SK:CJ:JP

Distribution:
Client (Town of Lake Lure)
Attn: Olivia Stewman

Attachments
1. Bay 5 Concrete Coring Photo Log
2. Concrete Coring Compressive Strength Test Results

G:\2018\GREENSBORO\18C21024_00_LAKE_LURE_DAM\03-SE PRODUCTS\03-REPORTS\01-
DRAFT\00_RESERVOIR_DRAIN_DESIGN\ROV_INSPECTION_REPORT\LL_180621_SITEOBSERVATIONREPORT_ROV.DOCX
(room for additional notes)
LAKE LURE RESERVOIR DRAIN
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
LAKE LURE, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
ATTACHMENT 1
BAY 5 CONCRETE CORING
PHOTO LOG
© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved
PHOTO 1
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21
LOCATION:
Downstream of dam looking
toward the left wall
COMMENTS:
Vegetation growth at the
downstream toe of the dam and
left embankment.
PHOTO 2
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21
LOCATION:
Downstream of dam looking at
12” Ductile Iron Sanitary Sewer
Pipe with wood planks to access
the left bank of the channel
COMMENTS:
Vegetation growth near the
downstream toe of the dam and
around the sewer pipe.
Attachment 1
(room for additional notes)
LAKE LURE RESERVOIR DRAIN
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
LAKE LURE, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
ATTACHMENT 1
BAY 5 CONCRETE CORING
PHOTO LOG
© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved
PHOTO 3
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21
LOCATION:
Right riprap bank of downstream
channel
COMMENTS:
This is the pathway for entry to
the stream crossing shown in
Photo 1. Note the overgrown
vegetation along the channel.
PHOTO 4
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21
LOCATION:
Bay 5 entry looking toward
upper lifts of downstream face of
the arch
COMMENTS:
Note weathering of concrete lift
lines and vegetation growth on
concrete. Leakage and calcium
efflorescence are evident at
most lift lines.
(room for additional notes)
LAKE LURE RESERVOIR DRAIN
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
LAKE LURE, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
ATTACHMENT 1
BAY 5 CONCRETE CORING
PHOTO LOG
© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved
PHOTO 5
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21
LOCATION:
Bay 5 access looking toward
lower lifts of downstream face of
the arch
COMMENTS:
Note weathering of concrete lift
lines and vegetation growth on
concrete. Leakage and calcium
efflorescence are evident in
most lift lines. Standing water
and vegetation were observed
on the ground within the bay.
PHOTO 6
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21
LOCATION:
Facing Bay 5 Starter Block and
sewer pipe
COMMENTS:
Note the concrete efflorescence,
standing water in the bay, and
orange-red iron ochre on the
right buttress wall.

(room for additional notes)
LAKE LURE RESERVOIR DRAIN
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
LAKE LURE, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
ATTACHMENT 1
BAY 5 CONCRETE CORING
PHOTO LOG

© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved

PHOTO 7
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21

LOCATION:

Bay 5 facing left buttress wall
and sanitary sewer line
COMMENTS:
Vegetation growth on ground
and orange-red iron ochre
deposits on sewer pipe.

PHOTO 8
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21

LOCATION:

Bay 5 facing starter block at
downstream face
COMMENTS:

Concrete coring at 5S1
produced grey-blue slurry.

(room for additional notes)
LAKE LURE RESERVOIR DRAIN
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
LAKE LURE, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
ATTACHMENT 1
BAY 5 CONCRETE CORING
PHOTO LOG

© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved

PHOTO 9
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21

LOCATION:

Facing right buttress wall toward
downstream of dam
COMMENTS:
Core location for 5R1 (Left) was
approximately 10 ft downstream
of dam centerline and 5R2
(Right) was approximately 30 ft
upstream of dam centerline.

PHOTO 10
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21

LOCATION:

Facing left buttress wall toward
downstream of dam
COMMENTS:

Coring location of 5L1 was
approximately 20 ft upstream of
dam centerline.

(room for additional notes)
LAKE LURE RESERVOIR DRAIN
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
LAKE LURE, NC
PROJECT NO.: 18C21024.020
ATTACHMENT 1
BAY 5 CONCRETE CORING
PHOTO LOG
© Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. 2022 All Rights Reserved
PHOTO 11
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21
LOCATION:
Facing left buttress wall and
downstream dam wall
COMMENTS:
Coring location for 5L2 was
approximately 60 ft upstream of
dam centerline.
PHOTO 12
DATE TAKEN: 06/22/21
LOCATION:
Bay 5 facing starter block and
downstream wall of dam
COMMENTS:
Coring location for 5S1 (Top)
was approximately 4 ft below
arch and 5S2 (Bottom) was
approximately 8 ft below arch.
Compressive Strength of Concrete Core
Lake Lure Dam Concrete Core Testing
Lake Lure, NC
S&ME Project No. 216284
July 7, 2021 i
Da
t
e
:

7/
7
/
2
0
2
1
Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
e
r
:

Ji
m
m
y

T
h
o
m
a
s
s
o
n
Location / Orientation Click here.
Remarks 5L1 & 5L2
Da
t
e
:

7/
7
/
2
0
2
1
Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
e
r
:

Ji
m
m
y

T
h
o
m
a
s
s
o
n
Location / Orientation Click here.
Remarks 5R1 & 5R2
Compressive Strength of Concrete Core
Lake Lure Dam Concrete Core Testing
Lake Lure, NC
S&ME Project No. 216284
July 7, 2021 ii
Da
t
e
:

7/
7
/
2
0
2
1
Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
e
r
:

Ji
m
m
y

T
h
o
m
a
s
s
o
n
Location / Orientation Click here.
Remarks 5S1 & 5S2
Da
t
e
:

7/
7
/
2
0
2
1
Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
e
r
:

Ji
m
m
y

T
h
o
m
a
s
s
o
n
Location / Orientation Click here.
Remarks 5L1, 5l2, 5R1, 5R2, 5S1, & 5S2 - Broken
N/A
Locaction:
1.009.56
45350
4.21
N/A
3690
35320
13.79
47340
2.00
9.80
2.0113.79
50820144.8
8.19
1.00
8.48 4.20
C-4
8.24
13.92 1.00 24701.99 34450
1.00
13.85
9.43
9.44
2.02
3270
2560
192026560
2.04
Sample
No.Location
C-6 5L2
Core Unit Wt.
2.04
9.44
1.00
Ratio (L/D)
13.85147.3
Area (in2)
13.85
9.19 140.8
psiL/D Corr.Comp. Strength
lbs
C-3 4.195R1
8.13C-1 5S1
8.56C-2 5S2 4.20
8.448.18
8.38
Diameter
Avg. (in)Wt. (pcf)
Average Length (in)
Wt. lbsBefore Cap After Cap
144.1
Form No: TR-C42
Unknown
Lake Lure Dam - Buffalo Shoals Road, Lake Lure, NC
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6
Project:
Client Name:
Client Address:
Revision No. 0
Revision Date: 8/28/17
Compressive Strength of Concrete Core
Sample #:
Test Date(s):
Placement Date:
Report Date:
ASTM C-42
Unknown
Project Name:
Project #: 216284
7/1 - 7/7/21
7/7/2021
S&ME, Inc. Greensboro, 8646 West Market Street, Suite 105, Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
1.00
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
Chace Kahill, E.I.
DatePositionSignatureTechnical Responsibility
7/7/2021Construction Services Group Leader
C-5
2890Average
Lake Lure Dam Concrete Core Testing (Schnabel Project No. 18C21024.02)
Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
11-A Oak Branch Drive, Greensboro, NC 27407
ASTM: C-39
ASTM: C-617
Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete.
Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
Sample Date:
Producer:
Notes / Deviations / References:Cores were tested in general accordance with 7.3.1 to 7.3.3.
ASTM: C-42
Design Strength (psi):N/AMix Design No.:N/A
3420142.9
4.198.398.16
8.30
5R2
4.205L1
145.6
8.55
S&ME, Inc..
3201 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC. 27616 216284_Core Strength Results_2021-07-07.xlsx
Attachment 2

February 3, 2023 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX B

HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

Project Lake Lure Low Level Outlet (18C21024.02)
Subject Low Level Outlet Discharge Rating Curve
Date:
Filename:By: LES Checked: SAB
Data Source:
Notes:
Notes:
Steel 1) If tailwater elevation is set to 0, calculation assumes free
Diameter: 72 inches discharge of flow from the pipe. Otherwise a constant
Length: 126.2 feet tailwater elevation is used in calculation
# of Barrels: 1
Upstream Invert 906.4 feet 2) Friction Factor (f) from Swamee and Jain Equation
Downstream Invert 898.5 feet
Normal Pool: 920 feet 3) Velocity from Bernoulli's equation
Model Increment: 3 feet
Kentrance: 1 4) Re = V*D/v
Kexit: 1.0
Kbend: 0.6
5) Kinematic Viscocity (v) for water at 60o F
Kvalve: 1.2
Roughness, ks: 0.016 feet 6) If check column does not read "OK" replace Trial f with value in column AA
Tailwater: 0 feet
Trial f: 0.015
12/29/2021
G:\2018\Greensboro\18C21024_00_Lake_Lure_Dam\03-SE Products\02-Calcs\02-HH\[Low Level Outlet Discharge.xlsx]Pipe
Pipe Data
Type:
Page 1 of 2
Project Lake Lure Low Level Outlet (18C21024.02)
Subject Low Level Outlet Discharge Rating Curve
Date:
Filename:By: LES Checked: SAB
Data Source:
Notes:
12/29/2021
G:\2018\Greensboro\18C21024_00_Lake_Lure_Dam\03-SE Products\02-Calcs\02-HH\[Low Level Outlet Discharge.xlsx]Pipe
Lake Level Trial f Velocity Re f Velocity Re f Velocity Re Check Area Flow Total Flow
feet fps fps fps sqft cfs cfs
920.0 0.015 15.26 7.51E+06 0.02536 14.95 7.35E+06 0.02536 14.95 7.35E+06 OK 28.27 422.59 422.59
923.0 0.015 16.45 8.09E+06 0.02535 16.11 7.92E+06 0.02535 16.11 7.92E+06 OK 28.27 455.57 455.57
926.0 0.015 17.56 8.64E+06 0.02535 17.20 8.46E+06 0.02535 17.20 8.46E+06 OK 28.27 486.32 486.32
929.0 0.015 18.61 9.15E+06 0.02535 18.22 8.96E+06 0.02535 18.22 8.96E+06 OK 28.27 515.24 515.24
932.0 0.015 19.60 9.64E+06 0.02535 19.19 9.44E+06 0.02535 19.19 9.44E+06 OK 28.27 542.62 542.62
935.0 0.015 20.54 1.01E+07 0.02535 20.11 9.89E+06 0.02535 20.11 9.89E+06 OK 28.27 568.68 568.68
938.0 0.015 21.44 1.05E+07 0.02535 20.99 1.03E+07 0.02535 20.99 1.03E+07 OK 28.27 593.60 593.60
941.0 0.015 22.30 1.10E+07 0.02535 21.84 1.07E+07 0.02535 21.84 1.07E+07 OK 28.27 617.51 617.51
944.0 0.015 23.13 1.14E+07 0.02535 22.65 1.11E+07 0.02535 22.65 1.11E+07 OK 28.27 640.53 640.53
947.0 0.015 23.93 1.18E+07 0.02534 23.44 1.15E+07 0.02534 23.44 1.15E+07 OK 28.27 662.75 662.75
950.0 0.015 24.71 1.22E+07 0.02534 24.20 1.19E+07 0.02534 24.20 1.19E+07 OK 28.27 684.25 684.25
953.0 0.015 25.46 1.25E+07 0.02534 24.94 1.23E+07 0.02534 24.94 1.23E+07 OK 28.27 705.10 705.10
956.0 0.015 26.19 1.29E+07 0.02534 25.65 1.26E+07 0.02534 25.65 1.26E+07 OK 28.27 725.35 725.35
959.0 0.015 26.90 1.32E+07 0.02534 26.35 1.30E+07 0.02534 26.35 1.30E+07 OK 28.27 745.04 745.04
962.0 0.015 27.60 1.36E+07 0.02534 27.03 1.33E+07 0.02534 27.03 1.33E+07 OK 28.27 764.23 764.23
965.0 0.015 28.27 1.39E+07 0.02534 27.69 1.36E+07 0.02534 27.69 1.36E+07 OK 28.27 782.95 782.95
968.0 0.015 28.93 1.42E+07 0.02534 28.34 1.39E+07 0.02534 28.34 1.39E+07 OK 28.27 801.24 801.24
971.0 0.015 29.58 1.45E+07 0.02534 28.97 1.42E+07 0.02534 28.97 1.42E+07 OK 28.27 819.11 819.11
974.0 0.015 30.21 1.49E+07 0.02534 29.59 1.46E+07 0.02534 29.59 1.46E+07 OK 28.27 836.60 836.60
977.0 0.015 30.83 1.52E+07 0.02534 30.19 1.48E+07 0.02534 30.19 1.48E+07 OK 28.27 853.74 853.74
980.0 0.015 31.44 1.55E+07 0.02534 30.79 1.51E+07 0.02534 30.79 1.51E+07 OK 28.27 870.53 870.53
983.0 0.015 32.03 1.58E+07 0.02534 31.37 1.54E+07 0.02534 31.37 1.54E+07 OK 28.27 887.01 887.01
986.0 0.015 32.62 1.60E+07 0.02534 31.94 1.57E+07 0.02534 31.94 1.57E+07 OK 28.27 903.19 903.19
989.0 0.015 33.19 1.63E+07 0.02534 32.51 1.60E+07 0.02534 32.51 1.60E+07 OK 28.27 919.08 919.08
990.5 0.015 33.47 1.65E+07 0.02534 32.78 1.61E+07 0.02534 32.78 1.61E+07 OK 28.27 926.93 926.93
993.0 0.015 33.94 1.67E+07 0.02534 33.24 1.63E+07 0.02534 33.24 1.63E+07 OK 28.27 939.86 939.86
996.0 0.015 34.49 1.70E+07 0.02534 33.78 1.66E+07 0.02534 33.78 1.66E+07 OK 28.27 955.14 955.14
999.0 0.015 35.03 1.72E+07 0.02534 34.31 1.69E+07 0.02534 34.31 1.69E+07 OK 28.27 970.19 970.19
1002.0 0.015 35.57 1.75E+07 0.02534 34.84 1.71E+07 0.02534 34.84 1.71E+07 OK 28.27 985.00 985.00
1005.0 0.015 36.10 1.78E+07 0.02534 35.35 1.74E+07 0.02534 35.35 1.74E+07 OK 28.27 999.59 999.59
1008.0 0.015 36.62 1.80E+07 0.02534 35.86 1.76E+07 0.02534 35.86 1.76E+07 OK 28.27 1013.98 1013.98
Trial FinalInitial Values
Page 2 of 2
Project:Lake Lure Low Level Outlet (18C21024.02)
Subject:Low Level Jet Flow Gate Valve Hydraulics
Date:
                                                                                               By:  SHF           Checked:   LES
Filename:
Notes
Assumed Flow 1122 CFS Insert value to converge on answer below
Area or Length Velocity F/S
Trash Rack Gross Area 200.0 5.6
Trash Rack Net Area 160.0 7.0
72" Diameter 28.3 39.7
Length of 72" spools 130.0 39.7
60" Orifice 19.6 57.1
Loss Coeff Head Loss Ft
Trash Rack Loss 0.4 0.3 Based on net opening
Entrance and bends 0.45 11.0 .25 entrance, .2 bend 1, .1 bend 2
Spool Pipe Loss 0.010 4.4 Estimate
Knife Gate Valve 0.1 2.4
FT FT
Head on JFG 90 71.9 Gross head, less losses to valve
Cd CFS
JFG Calculated Flow 0.84 1122.0 Q=Cd*A*(2gh)^0.5
Lake Lure 1 FLOW CALCULATION ‐ 60" ORIFICE JET FLOW GATE VALVE
12/30/2021
G:\2018\Greensboro\18C21024_00_Lake_Lure_Dam\03-SE Products\02-Calcs\02-HH\[Lake Lure Hydraulics-Valve.xlsx]Jet Flow Gate Valve

February 3, 2023 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX C

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

C.1 Structural Analysis of Dam
C.2 Steel Bulkhead Calculations

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN FOR
RESERVOIR DRAIN

Lake Lure Dam
Town of Lake Lure
Rutherford County
North Carolina

Schnabel Engineering South, PC, License No. C -2599
Schnabel Reference 18C21024.020
April 22, 2022

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page i Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN FOR RESERVOIR DRAIN
LAKE LURE DAM
TOWN OF LAKE LURE
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Background and Site Description
2.2 Purpose
2.3 Scope of Services
2.4 Vertical Datum
2.5 Terminology
3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR STABILITY ANALYSES ................................................. 5
3.1 Review of Historical Data
3.2 Review of Previous Stability Analyses
3.3 Concrete and Rock Laboratory Testing
4.0 STRUCTURAL STABILITY EVALUATION ................................................................................. 7
4.1 Overview and Scope
4.2 Codes and Analysis Standards
4.3 Factors of Safety and Allowable Stresses
4.4 Description of Loads
4.5 Load Cases
4.6 Stability Analysis – Finite Element Method
4.7 Discussion of Stability Analysis Results
4.8 Conclusions
5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 31

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page ii Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Upstream View of Lake Lure Dam .......................................................................................... 3
Figure 2-2. Downstream View of Bay 5 .................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4-1. Normal Pool Load Case: (a) Side Bays; (b) Middle Bay (Bay 5) ............................................ 14
Figure 4-2. Construction Phase Load Case: (a) Side Bays; (b) Middle Bay (Bay 5)................................. 15
Figure 4-3. PMF Additional Hydrostatic Pressure: (a) Side Bays; (b) Middle Bay (Bay 5) ........................ 16
Figure 4-4. TrueGrid Finite Element Mesh ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 4-5. TrueGrid Element Jacobians for Dam Parts ......................................................................... 22
Figure 4-6. Contact Surfaces in Arch Region ......................................................................................... 24

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page iii Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Material Test Results (Marks 2018, Schnabel 2018) ................................................................ 7
Table 3-2. Additional Concrete Compressive Strength Tests (2021) ......................................................... 7
Table 4-1. Elevations of Key Features Included in FE Models .................................................................. 8
Table 4-2. Target Minimum Factors of Safety for Concrete Multiple Arch Buttress Dams .......................... 9
Table 4-3. Allowable Stresses for Concrete Multiple Arch Buttress Dams and Gravity Dams and Rock
Foundation ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4-4. Material Properties Used for Analyses and Assessing Allowable Stress Limits ...................... 11
Table 4-5. Hydrostatic Loading Conditions ............................................................................................. 12
Table 4-6. Summary for Number of Nodes and Elements ....................................................................... 21
Table 4-7. System of Consistent Units Selected for LS-DYNA Input and Output ..................................... 22
Table 4-8. Sliding Factor of Safety Using 45 Degrees Friction Without Dowels, Displacement, and Stress
Results for Load Case 1 and 2 – Bay 5 ............................................................................................. 26
Table 4-9. Sliding Factor of Safety Using 45 Degrees Friction Angle Without Dowels, Displacement, and
Stress Results for Load Case 3 and 4 – Bay 5 ................................................................................. 28

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Drawing for Existing Bay 5
Appendix B: Bridge Weight Calculation
Appendix C: Finite Element Analysis Results
Appendix D: Encasement Dowel Calculation
Appendix E: Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement Calculation

\\gree-fs\projects\2018\Greensboro\18C21024_00_Lake_Lure_Dam\03-SE Products\03-Reports\01-Draft\00_Reservoir_Drain_Design\Structural Design Report\Lake Lure Dam
Reservoir Drain Structural Analysis.docx
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (Schnabel) performed 3-D structural Finite Element (FE) analyses of
Lake Lure Dam with the proposed concrete encasement for the reservoir drain system to evaluate the
structural impacts of the penetration through the arch in Bay 5 and the new encasement. The required
rebar dowels were designed to resist the additional shear and tensile forces transferred to the
encasement due to probable maximum flood (PMF ), which was the governing load case. Furthermore,
the displacements and stress distribution were estimated under different loading scenarios described
below.
The first loading scenario is the normal pool hydraulic loads applied to Bay 5 models without the concrete
encasement (LC1-A and LC1-B). The second loading scenario is the normal pool hydraulic loads applied
to Bay second loading scenario is the normal pool hydraulic loads applied to Bay 5 models with the
concrete encasement (LC2-A and LC2-B). The third loading scenario is the normal pool hydraulic loads
applied to Bay 5 models during the construction phase when only the upstream portion of the
encasement is constructed (LC3-A and LC3-B). The last loading scenario is the PMF hydraulic load
applied to Bay 5 model with the encasement (LC4-A and LC4-B). The suffix A and B indicates the
different contact type sets for the lift lines considered in the models.
The FE analyses were performed using the computer program LS-DYNA, and the analyses and
associated load cases were developed in general accordance with FERC guidelines for concrete dams.
Bay 5 of Lake Lure Dam was modeled, including the penetration through the bottom of the arch for the
new reservoir drain and concrete encasement that will contain the drain valves and liner. Bay 5 was
modeled with the three lowest lift lines and drain opening in the arch of Bay 5 to evaluate the localized
effects of the lifts and new penetration. Two additional bays with dimensions identical to Bay 5, but
without the penetration for the drain and encasement, were included on each side of the middle bay (Bay
5) to reduce boundary effects on the Bay 5 results. The models were analyzed under different load cases
such as normal pool considering the Bay 5 without encasement, with encasement (including PMF
loading), and partial encasement construction. Two types of models were evaluated. In the first model
type (“A”), all contacts between blocks of solid elements were frictional except for the arch contacts to the
buttresses, which were mortar tied contact (LS-DYNA contact type). In the second model type (“B”), all
contacts were frictional (mortar contact), including the arch-to-buttress interfaces.
The material properties used in the models were taken from both previous investigations (2018 Marks,
2018 Schnabel, and 2021 Schnabel), published values, and our experience with similar structures. For
instance, the frictional strengths along the concrete-rock interface and other lift lines were selected based
on published values and our experience with similar structures due to limited subsurface information.
The major conclusions from the FE analyses are summarized in the list below.
 The concrete encasement is stable due to the normal pool hydraulic driving forces without
dowels. However, the encasement in the model with the frictional contact is detached from the
arch due to PMF loading. The encasement in the model resists a portion of normal pool forces in
addition to the PMF since the encasement is built and active from the beginning of loading.
However, the encasement will be constructed in the existing dam, where the normal pool
hydraulic forces were already applied. Therefore, the encasement is only anticipated to carry the
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
additional driving force due to PMF. Although including the normal pool loading on the
encasement may be conservative, it was considered in order to account for potential cracking of
the bottom arch lifts and load redistribution from arch action to arch bearing on the encasement.
 The concrete encasement improves the stability of Bay 5, although the sliding stability of Bay 5
still does not satisfy the FERC criteria. The maximum displacement of Bay 5 model along the
upstream/downstream direction decreased in comparison with the maximum displacement for the
model without encasement.
 Dowels tie the new encasement to the existing starter block and reduce the tensile interface
forces between the encasement and rock. Furthermore, the dowels in the encasement/rock
interface improve the stability of the encasement against shear and uplift forces.
 Creating the new penetration in the arch for the drain pipe creates stress concentrations. The
concrete encasement will extend to the lift line that contains the upper portion of the drain
penetration, and the encasement provides support for the potentially cracked sections in the arch
around the new pipe penetration.

Due to the uncertainties associated with the material strength parameters and the geometry of the dam to
foundation contact, this area will need to be reviewed during construction after the overburden is removed
and the foundation within Bay 5 is cleaned to competent rock without undermining the existing starter
block or buttresses. The Engineer will evaluate the existing conditions and field revisions may be required
to avoid unnecessary rock excavation.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background and Site Description
Lake Lure Dam and its associated impoundment are owned and operated by the Town of Lake Lure
(Town) and serve as the centerpiece of the community. The dam is located at latitude 35.425119°N and
longitude 82.183167°W, in Rutherford County, NC.
Lake Lure Dam is a concrete multiple-arch buttress dam with ten interior bays separated by buttress walls
and three gated spillway bays with concrete ogee gravity sections. The bays are numbered 1 to 13 from
left to right (looking downstream), as labeled in Figure 2-1. A single-lane reinforced concrete bridge spans
across each buttress and bears on concrete abutment/retaining walls at each end. The dam’s overall
length is approximately 505 feet, and its maximum structural height is reportedly 124 feet (USACE, 1981).
The dam also includes an intake tower and penstock that supply water to a hydroelectric generating
station located within one of the arch bays (Bay 7) on the downstream side of the dam. The hydroelectric
generators are typically run on a continuous basis, and the electricity produced is sold to Duke Energy.
Although the dam produces hydroelectricity, the dam is not regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC).
The downstream views of Bay 5 are included in Figure 2-2. The location of prospective drain system
opening is indicated in the figure in addition to the three lowest lift lines in the bay, sewer line, existing
thrust block, starter block, pump station, and junction box.

Figure 2-1. Upstream View of Lake Lure Dam
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 2-2. Downstream View of Bay 5
At full pond (normal pool), Lake Lure has a surface area of 720 acres with approximately 27 miles of
shoreline. The lake level is normally controlled by the flow of water into the intake structure for the
hydroelectric generators. The intake structure, which is located about 100 feet upstream of the crest of
the dam, is an approximately 120-foot high concrete tower with a concrete base and a 10.5-foot diameter
steel penstock. The top of the intake tower contains a metal trash rack surrounding a cylindrical gate,
which can be raised or lowered by an electric hoist to regulate flow into the penstocks. The control for the
hoist and gate is located in the powerhouse. During flood events, lake levels are controlled by opening
one or more of the three Tainter gates located in bays 1 through 3. The gates are operated using the
hoists located along the small concrete access bridge (hoist platform) above the gates.
The dam was designed by Mees and Mees of Charlotte, NC, and construction was completed in
September 1926. Lake Lure Dam is regulated by NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ)
Dam Safety and classified as a Very Large, High Hazard (Class C) dam.
Historically, the dam has performed well. Maintenance activities have been confined primarily to the
powerhouse equipment, intake gate, and spillway gates. No significant concrete repairs or other structural
modifications have reportedly been made to the structure (DTA, 2006/2007).
A subaqueous sanitary system was constructed at the same time as the dam was constructed. It includes
a cast iron gravity sewer with an approximate length of fourteen miles (LaBella, 2020). The sewer lines
were installed on concrete collars and wooden cribbing, as indicated in LaBella report. The cast iron pipe
ranges in size from 8 inches to 12 inches. The sewer line passes through the Bay 5 (See Figure 2-2) and
a portion of the pipe will be relocated for this project.
2.2 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to document the analysis of the effects of the reservoir drain addition in Bay
5 of Lake Lure Dam and provide the results of Finite Element (FE) models to evaluate the structural
aspects of the proposed design. Furthermore, FE models were utilized to evaluate the modifications to
Bay 5 for regulatory criteria for global stability and stresses.
Existing Pump Statio n
Existing Junction Box
(b) Downstream View –Drone Picture
Existing Sewer Line
Location of Drain Opening
Starter Block
Location of Drain Opening
Lift line 1
Lift line 2
Lift line 3
Starter Block
Existing Sewer Line
(a) Close-up View
Existing Thrust Block
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
2.3 Scope of Services
Task Order No. 5 authorized by the Town on May 13, 2021, defines the scope of services for this portion
of the project. The scope of services for this task includes analyses to develop the appropriate size and
configuration for the concrete encasement. FE models of Bay 5 were developed to understand the stress
distribution and load transfer between the dam lower lift lines and concrete encasements. Bay 5 is the
bay chosen for the construction of the reservoir drain.
The FE model consists of five bays, which were modeled with a constant height as a simplification to
mitigate the boundary effect on the analysis for Bay 5. The middle bay (Bay 5) was modeled with the
three lowest lift lines and concrete encasement. Upper lift lines were not considered because there are
no abrupt changes in loading or resistance above the new encasement.
2.4 Vertical Datum
The elevations included in this report are in feet and reference the North American Vertical Datum of
1988 (NAVD 88) and based on the survey by Ed Holmes and Associates (2018). The abbreviation “EL”
represents NAVD 88 Elevation unless expressed otherwise. The original design drawings reference Mean
Sea Level (MSL), which requires a vertical datum shift of -0.46 feet to NAVD 88 (i.e., ELMSL – ELNAVD 88 =
0.46 feet).
2.5 Terminology

Descriptive nomenclature for dams is based upon one looking downstream. The terms “right” and “left”
are referenced in this manner. The reservoir side is known as “upstream” with the opposite side of the
dam referred to as “downstream”.
3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR STABILITY ANALYSES
To support the structural analyses presented herein, Schnabel reviewed historical information, including
construction drawings, photographs, previous reports, lab test data, and previous stability analyses.
3.1 Review of Historical Data
According to FERC Chapter X (1997), multiple arch buttress dams are generally semi-circular with central
angles between 100 and 180 degrees. Lake Lure Dam’s central angle of its arches is approximately 130
degrees based on the recent survey by Ed Holmes and Associates (2018). Arches may be unreinforced
or reinforced, and there are no available construction drawings that indicate whether or not any
reinforcing steel was provided in the arches at Lake Lure Dam. Based on our visual inspection (2018),
which included non-destructive examination using ground penetrating radar (GPR) in select areas, we did
not observe any steel reinforcement in the arches. Steel reinforcement was located in the top 12 feet of
the buttresses using GPR. Our review of available construction photographs and our visual observations
of exposed reinforcing steel indicate that the upstream ends of the buttresses at the corbel are also
reinforced.
We reviewed select original construction drawings prepared by the dam’s design engineer, Mees and
Mees of Charlotte, NC, dated August 1925. The available drawings primarily include details for the bridge
across the dam, the spillway gates, and the hydroelectric powerhouse. Few details regarding the
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
construction (i.e., geometry, reinforcement, etc.) of the arches, buttresses, and structural connections
were included on the available drawings. Therefore, a bathymetric and topographic survey using multi-
beam echo sounding, High-Definition Laser Scanning, and traditional surveying performed by Ed Holmes
and Associates (2018) was used to determine key dimensions required for the stability analyses.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Phase I Inspection Report included a review of available
information, a review of operation and maintenance procedures, a visual inspection, a spillway capacity
assessment, and a qualitative evaluation of the structural stability of Lake Lure Dam. The dam was
determined to be in good structural condition and well-maintained, though concrete spalling, erosion, and
leakage through the arch lift lines were observed in several areas.
3.2 Review of Previous Stability Analyses
A simplified 2-D sectional analysis was performed by Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC (Marks) in
2016/2017. The results of these analyses and recommendations for repairing the dam are summarized in
Marks’ Phase I and Phase II Dam Safety Inspection Reports (2017 and 2018, respectively). Our review
comments on the Phase I and Phase II Dam Safety Inspection Reports were provided in our October 29,
2018 letter to the Town. These analyses did not evaluate the stresses in the arches and included several
unverified or undocumented assumptions.
Schnabel conducted stability analyses for the Lake Lure Dam (both gravity and arch-buttress regions)
and submitted the results as a report to the Town in February 2019. Different load combinations and
scenarios were considered for the stability evaluation. The arch-buttress region of the dam was modeled
according to the geometry of the bay with the highest height (Bay 6), with a total of 7 identical arch bays
to reduce boundary effects on the center bay (Bay 6) which was the bay of interest for these models. The
load cases of the normal pool, flood loading (200-year storm and PMF), and seismic loading were
included in the analyses. For seismic load, the seismic design event with a 10,000-year return was
selected in accordance with International Commission for Large Dams (ICOLD 2010). Furthermore,
seasonal thermal loads were considered in the analyses. The arch-buttress region did not meet the
requirements provided by FERC. The structure had stability issues for the seismic load cases.
3.3 Concrete and Rock Laboratory Testing
Compressive and splitting tensile strength test results of concrete samples were available from Marks’
Phase II Report (Marks, 2018). Additionally, as part of Schnabel’s updated condition assessment,
Advanced Terra Testing performed unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests on selected rock
samples extracted by Marks. A summary of the results of the available concrete and rock laboratory
testing is included in Table 3-1. Refer to the Rock Core Review and Geology Mapping Memo (Schnabel
2018) for more information on the rock testing.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
Table 3-1. Material Test Results (Marks 2018, Schnabel 2018)
Material Value
Total Unit
Weight, γ
(pcf)
Elastic
Modulus,
E (ksi)
Compressive
Strength, f`c
(psi)
Splitting Tensile
Strength, ft
(psi)
Foundation
Rock
Range N/A 4,100 –
20,000 6,500 – 17,250 N/A
Mean ±
Standard
Deviation
N/A 14,000 ±
6,560 12,000 ± 4,390 N/A
Concrete
Range 138 – 150 N/A 1,890 – 4,070 290 – 615
Mean ±
Standard
Deviation
142.6 ± 5.3 N/A 3,316 ± 685 453 ± 96
Furthermore, Schnabel also conducted concrete compressive strength tests on the samples taken from
Bay 5 in July 2021 to evaluate the concrete in Bay 5, where the concrete encasement will be constructed.
The results summary is presented in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Additional Concrete Compressive Strength Tests (2021)
Value Total Unit Weight, γ
(pcf)
Compressive
Strength, f`c
(psi)
Range 140.8 - 147.3 1,920 – 3,690
Mean ± Standard
Deviation 144± 2 2,888 ± 618
Considering these three sets of tests (2018 Marks, 2018 Schnabel, 2021 Schnabel), the mean and
standard deviation for the concrete compressive strength and unit weight are 3,145 ± 692 psi and 143.0 ±
4.7 pcf, respectively. These values, along with the values in Table 3-1 and suggested values included in
Table 4-1 of the USBR’s State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams (2013), were
considered in the selection of material properties for the FE models. The selected material properties are
presented in the next section.
4.0 STRUCTURAL STABILITY EVALUATION
4.1 Overview and Scope
Schnabel conducted FE analyses on Bay 5 of Lake Lure Dam. The models include Bay 5 with two bays
on each side of Bay 5. In Bay 5, three lower lift lines with a lower drain hole with a diameter of 6 feet were
modeled. The encasement concrete was also modeled downstream of the arch. The additional bays were
modeled with the same geometry as Bay 5 except only the lift line between the main arch and starter
block was modeled to reduce boundary effects on the results of Bay 5 (middle bay). According to the
sensitivity analysis conducted by Schnabel in 2018-2019, which incrementally modeled up to seven
arches, modeling a minimum of five arches mitigated the boundary effects. As a modeling approximation
and to reduce the boundary effects, all five bays were modeled with the same base elevation.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
The primary objectives of the analyses were to:
 Evaluate the structural behavior of the dam with the concrete encasement.
 Determine the load path from the arch to the encasement and calculate load demand to design
potential dowels into the existing concrete and rock.
 Estimate the displacements and stress distribution in Bay 5 caused by installing the encasement
and making a hole in the arch.
 Evaluate the stability of Bay 5 with and without encasement.
The 3-D finite element mesh was generated using TrueGrid software (version 4.01), and the FE analyses
were performed using LS-DYNA software (version R12.0). Linear elastic material properties were
selected with the assumption that the materials would not be overstressed beyond the elastic range so
that this analysis type remains valid (i.e., no cracking). Non-linear behavior of the dam was permitted at
select joints near the new encasement by utilizing non-linear contact elements to simulate the behavior of
lift lines (concrete cold joints) that were expected to be most critical and the concrete-to-rock interface.
The finite element models include the existing dam, the concrete encasement, and the surrounding rock
foundation. The geometries of the dam components were obtained from available design drawings (Mees
and Mees (1925)) and the 2018 survey by Ed Holmes and Associates (Appendix A). Elevations of key
features of the selected dam regions are listed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Elevations of Key Features Included in FE Models
Bay Location EL
5 (Middle Arch
Bay)
Assumed Maximum Top of Competent Rock at Base 890.0
Top of Starter Block at Middle of Bay 902.9
Upstream Silt Level 896.0
Arch Vertical-to-Slope Transition (Middle of Arch) 982.5
Arch Vertical-to-Slope Transition (End of Arch) 976.4
Buttress Top 998.7
Top of Arch 992.6
All
Crest of Road Surface (Not Modeled as Finite Elements,
Used for Loading Only) 1002.5
Top of Bridge Railing (Not Modeled as Finite Elements,
Used for Loading Only) 1006.3
Normal Headwater Elevation 990.0
Normal Tailwater Elevation
(Assumes Only Main Turbine in Operation) 889.7
4.2 Codes and Analysis Standards

The dam is under the jurisdiction of NC DEQ Dam Safety. The acceptance criteria per the North Carolina
Administrative Code Title 15A, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Subchapter 2K –
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
Dam Safety include standards developed by major federal dam safety agencies. The acceptance criteria
based on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Engineering Guidelines, Chapter X - Other
Dams (1997) was selected. FERC Engineering Guidelines Chapter X references acceptance limits such
as allowable stresses per FERC Engineering Guidelines Chapter 3 - Gravity Dams (2016).
4.3 Factors of Safety and Allowable Stresses
The performance of the concrete multiple arch buttress dam was evaluated under static and pseudo-
static loading combinations using deflections and stresses. Applicable static loads were considered and
combined according to their probabilities of occurrence in three categories: Usual, Unusual, and Extreme
loading combinations, which are assigned to each load case. The stress results were evaluated for each
load combination and compared to allowable stresses based on the ultimate strength of the concrete
(based on test results) reduced by the applicable factor of safety (per FERC Chapter 3 Table 2A) listed in
Table 4-2. The factors of safety listed are valid for the assumption of friction only with no cohesion.
Table 4-2. Target Minimum Factors of Safety for Concrete Multiple Arch Buttress Dams
Loading
Combination
Compressive
Stress Tensile Stress Internal Shear
Stress
Stresses and
Sliding Stability
Usual 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Unusual
(Construction
Phase1 of
Encasement)
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Extreme (PMF ) 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Notes:
1. The construction phase was also considered as an unusual load case to evaluate the stability
and stress distribution during the construction of the encasement when only the portion of the
encasement upstream of the guard valve is in place.
The allowable stresses considered for the current analysis are listed in Table 4-3. The stress limits are
derived based on the results of the material testing program discussed in Section 3.3. The summary of
the considered material properties is shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-3. Allowable Stresses for Concrete Multiple Arch Buttress Dams and Gravity Dams and
Rock Foundation
Loading Combination
Concrete
Comp.
Stress (psi)1
Concrete
Tensile
Stresses
(psi)2
Concrete
Internal
Shear
Stresses
(psi)3
Tensile
Stress at
Concrete
to Rock
Interface
(psi)
Rock
Comp.
Stress
(psi)4
Usual 2,000 230 200 0 4,300
Unusual 2,000 230 200 0 4,300
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
Loading Combination
Concrete
Comp.
Stress (psi)1
Concrete
Tensile
Stresses
(psi)2
Concrete
Internal
Shear
Stresses
(psi)3
Tensile
Stress at
Concrete
to Rock
Interface
(psi)
Rock
Comp.
Stress
(psi)4
Extreme 2,300 270 230 0 5,000
Notes:
1. Values were calculated by dividing the 3000 psi by the factors in Table 4-2.
2. The tensile strength was calculated using 1.7 f’c2/3 = 354 psi (USBR 2013, Section 4.3). Values in
the table were estimated by dividing the 354 psi by the factors in Table 4-2.
3. The concrete internal shear stress was estimated using an equation recommended (0.10 f’c) in
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2013) over the factors in Table 4-2.
4. Values were calculated by dividing the 6,500 psi (refer to Table 3-1) by the factors in Table 4-2.
Mechanical properties of concrete and rock for the FE analysis were selected based on a review of
available laboratory test results, recommended published values from the USBR (2013), and our
experience with similar materials. The selected concrete compressive strength for the analyses was 3,000
psi based on the average tested compressive strength (Marks, 2018 and Schnabel 2021 test results). As
stated above, there was no evidence of reinforcing steel in the arches and below the top 12 feet of the
buttresses except at the corbels where the arches bear on the buttresses. With no detailed construction
drawings of the buttresses, the concrete was conservatively modeled as unreinforced in the FE analyses.
The summary of selected material properties in the FE analysis is presented in Table 4-4.

The factor of safety against sliding, FOS, was calculated as:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹=(∑𝑁𝑁+∑𝑈𝑈)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡∑𝑉𝑉
where ∑𝑁𝑁= summation of normal forces ∑𝑈𝑈= summation of uplift forces, acting in opposite direction of normal forces (negative if opposite N) 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡= coefficient of internal friction = tan(45°) = 1.0 ∑𝑉𝑉 = summation of shear forces

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 11 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
Table 4-4. Material Properties Used for Analyses and Assessing Allowable Stress Limits
Properties Directly Input in FE Model
Properties Not Used in
Model but Used in Post-
FEA Strength and
Stability Evaluation
(Excludes Factor of
Safety)
Material
Total
Unit
Weight
γ (pcf)
Elastic
Modulus
E (ksi)
Poisson’s
Ratio
ν
Cohesion
c’ (psi)
Friction
Angle
at Joint
φ’ (deg)
Compressive
Strength f`c
(psi)
Tensile
Strength
ft (psi)
Foundation
Rock N/A 4,1001 0.152 0 N/A 6,5003 N/A
Silt 854 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A
Concrete/
Lift Line 1435 3,1006 0.15 0 457 3,0008 0
Concrete-
to-Rock Lift
Joint
N/A N/A N/A 0 457 N/A 0
Notes:
1. Elastic modulus value in FE Model is selected based on deformation modulus of elasticity, which
is a more representative measure of material behavior of in situ conditions as it considers
fractures in rock. Lower bound of rock test data was conservatively selected to create upper
bound stresses in the concrete as it displaces compatible with softer rock.
2. No test data is available for Poisson’s ratio. According to Gere (2001), the typical range is from
0.1 – 0.2, so the median value of 0.15 is selected.
3. The lower bound of rock test data was selected to be conservative.
4. Horizontal pressure exerted by saturated silt was assumed to be equivalent to a fluid weighing 85
pcf in accordance with USACE EM 1110-2-2100 (2005).
5. Average from test data (2018 and 2021).
6. ACI 350 = ~57,000(f’c)1/2 = 3.12 x 106 psi.
7. According to Schnabel's experience with similar materials and recommendations by USBR
(2013).
8. Slightly less than the average from test data (2018 and 2021).

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 12 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
4.4 Description of Loads
This section describes the applied loads on the dam that were used in the analyses of the various load
cases.
4.4.1 Dead Load
The dead load is the self-weight of the dam only. The unit weight of the concrete was selected as 143 pcf
based on our review of available material test results. Furthermore, the self-weight of the concrete bridge
load was estimated and included in the dam model as loads applied to the top of the buttresses
(Appendix B).
4.4.2 Silt Load
Based on the underwater survey performed by Ed Holmes and Associates in 2018, a silt elevation of EL
896.0 was used in the models. Horizontal pressure exerted by saturated silt on the upstream face of the
dam was assumed to be equivalent to a fluid weighing 85 pcf. Vertical silt pressure is determined
assuming silt has a wet density of 120 pcf in accordance with USACE EM 1110-2-2100 (2005).
4.4.3 Hydrostatic Load
Reservoir and tailwater levels during flood events were determined based on the results of the hydraulic
analyses performed by Schnabel (2019). Normal headwater and tailwater elevations were set at EL 990
and EL 889.7, respectively, according to survey drawings (Appendix A). Headwater and tailwater were
not included as finite elements in the model. Water pressure was considered to vary directly with depth
and applied normal to the dam surface using pressure load functions.
The PMF was considered for the Extreme load cases based on the potential for loss of human life and
extensive property damage resulting from a dam failure. Headwater and tailwater elevations used in the
analyses are listed in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5. Hydrostatic Loading Conditions
Loading Description Headwater EL Tailwater EL
Normal Pool 990.0 889.7
PMP 1008.7 917.1
4.4.4 Uplift
4.4.4.1 Arch Region
Based on our visual observations and review of construction photographs, we assumed the buttresses
are founded directly on the foundation bedrock. Therefore, we assumed that the uplift below the
buttresses corresponds to the tailwater level. The tailwater for the normal pool is below the assumed
bottom of buttress and the tailwater pressure on the downstream face of dam is assumed to be zero, as
shown in Figure 4-1.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 13 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
The uplift distribution for the side bays is different from the middle bay. The uplift gradient for the side
bays varies linearly from the headwater pressure at the upstream edge of the starter block to the tailwater
pressure (zero for the normal pool) at the downstream edge of the starter block, as shown in Figure 4-1a.
The uplift distribution under the starter block of Bay 5 (middle bay) is assumed to be constant and equal
to the headwater, assuming a fully-cracked contact under the existing starter block. The uplift value at the
upstream edge of concrete encasement is assumed to be 50% of headwater for the normal pool,
considering a new drainage system with 50% effectiveness, as shown in Figure 4-1b. Furthermore, the
uplift pressure is assumed to be constant and equal to zero (tailwater pressure) for the rest of the
concrete encasement (see Figure 4-1b) for normal pool conditions.
The loads for the construction phase are presented in Figure 4-2. The hydrostatic loads are applied
according to the normal pool elevation. The uplift under the starter block of Bay 5 (middle bay) is
assumed to be constant and equal to the normal pool headwater elevation, assuming a fully-cracked
contact under the existing starter block. The uplift value at the upstream edge of concrete encasement is
assumed to be 50% of headwater for the normal pool, considering a drainage system with 50%
effectiveness, as shown in Figure 4-2b.
According to FERC Engineering Guidelines Chapter X – Subchapter 10-2.5.1, the cracked base type of
analysis is not applicable for buttress unless the dam is built on continuous slabs or has shallow
subhorizontal discontinuities in the foundation. Further subsurface investigations would be needed to
determine if such discontinuities are present to assign a more representative uplift profile under the
buttresses.
For the PMF load cases, additional hydrostatic pressures were added to the normal pressure. The
additional loads are presented in Figure 4-3. Figure 4-3a and Figure 4-3b illustrate the additional
hydrostatic pressure due to PMF on the side bays and the middle bay (Bay 5), respectively. The
additional upstream pressure increases linearly from the top surface of the buttress to the normal pool
level (EL 990) and is constant for the elevations below the normal pool headwater. The tailwater pressure
linearly increases from the tailwater level (EL 917.1) to the rock surface (EL 890), considering 60%
retrogression to the bedrock. The additional uplift pressure distribution (due to PMF) differs from side
bays to the middle bay. The additional uplift pressure (due to PMF) linearly increases from the upstream
edge of the starter block to the downstream edge of the starter block for the side bays (Figure 4-3a) and
then is constant after the starter block. The increase in the tailwater elevation is more than the increase in
the headwater due to PMF as shown in Figure 4-3a. However, the additional uplift pressure (due to PMF)
in Bay 5 is constant under the starter block (assuming a fully-cracked contact between the started block
and rock). The PMF pressure under the upstream edge of the encasement is slightly more than the
pressure under the starter block. The equation to calculate the uplift at the upstream edge of the
encasement is derived from the equations recommended in USACE EM 1110-2-2200 assuming zero
compression zone not extending beyond drains. Then, the PMF pressure slightly increases to the
tailwater pressure due to the PMF. The PMF pressure under the rest of the encasement is constant and
equal to the tailwater pressure due to PMF (Figure 4-3b).
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 14 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 4-1. Normal Pool Load Case: (a) Side Bays; (b) Middle Bay (Bay 5)

HUS
EL 990
γ w HUS
(γ silt-γw)Hsilt
Mdamg
(a)
HUS
EL 990
γ wHUS
(γ silt-γw)Hsilt
Mdamg
(b)
0.5γwHUS
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 15 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 4-2. Construction Phase Load Case: (a) Side Bays; (b) Middle Bay (Bay 5)

HUS
EL 990
γ w HUS
(γ silt-γw)Hsilt
Mdamg
(a)
Mdamg
γ w HUS
0.5γwHUS
EL 990
HUS
(γ silt-γw)Hsilt
(b)
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 16 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 4-3. PMF Additional Hydrostatic Pressure: (a) Side Bays; (b) Middle Bay (Bay 5)

Mdam g
EL 1008.7
EL 906.3
EL 917.1
γ w ΔHUS_PMF
Normal Pool EL 990ΔHUS_PMF
γ w ΔHUS_PMF
Δ HDS_PMF
γ w ΔHDS_PMF
(a)
Mdamg
EL 1008.7
EL 906.3
EL 917.1
γ w ΔHUS_PMF
Normal Pool EL 990ΔHUS_PMF
γ wΔHUS_PMF
Δ HDS_PMF
γ w ΔHDS_PMF
(b)
HUS_PMF
γ w (0.5(HUS_PMF -Δ HDS_PMF ) + Δ HDS_PMF -0.5HUS_NP )
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 17 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
4.4.5 Seismic Load
The seismic loading is not considered for the Bay 5 model with the concrete encasement in this report
since the concrete encasement is expected to have a negligible effect on the overall performance of the
dam against the seismic loading. In the upstream/downstream direction, the concrete encasement is
expected to improve the sliding resistance against the driving forces, including the seismic forces. In the
cross-canyon direction, the seismic effect of the encasement is expected to be negligible, considering the
primary modal shapes for the Bay 6 model in the stability report (Schnabel, 2019).
4.5 Load Cases
Load cases were developed in this section to satisfy NC DEQ Dam Safety criteria. Load cases are
classified as Usual, Unusual, or Extreme according to FERC criteria based on likelihood and shown in
parentheses. Each load case is named by using the suffix “A” or “B”, which indicates the different contact
conditions of models. In the load cases with the suffix “A”, all contacts between blocks of elements (e.g.
lift lines and concrete-to-rock interface) were assumed to be frictional except for contacts between the
arches and buttresses, which were mortar tied (LS-DYNA contact type). In the load cases with the suffix
“B”, all contacts were assumed to be frictional (mortar contact).

Load case 1 (LC1-A and LC1-B) contain the penetration through the arch but no concrete encasement
and were provided to demonstrate the need for the encasement. Load case 2 (LC2-A and LC2-B)
includes the new penetration through the dam and the new encasement. Load case 3 (LC3-A and LC3-B)
considers the encasement during the construction phase. In this loading scenario, the concrete
encasement is not completely constructed (only the portion of the encasement against the arch that will
be in place when the penetration through the arch is made is built in the model). Load case 4 includes the
PMF with the encasement constructed.

The load cases listed below were analyzed:
LC1-A: Normal Operating Condition for Dam with Hole and without Concrete Encasement, with
Mortar Tied Contacts Between the Arches and Buttresses (Usual)
 Normal headwater level EL 990.0
 Dead load
 Silt load EL 896.0
 Tailwater EL 889.7, below the rock surface elevation
 Uplift varying linearly from headwater to tailwater under starter block for side
bays, no uplift pressure under the buttresses
 Uplift pressure is constant and equal to headwater under starter block for Bay 5
(fully-cracked contact between starter block and rock), no uplift pressure in the
downstream of the dam

LC1-B: Normal Operating Condition for Dam with Hole and without Concrete Encasement, with
All Frictional Contacts (Usual)
 Normal headwater level EL 990.0
 Dead load
 Silt load EL 896.0
 Tailwater EL 889.7, below the rock surface elevation
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 18 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
 Uplift varying linearly from headwater to tailwater under starter block for side
bays, no uplift pressure under the buttresses
 Uplift pressure is constant and equal to headwater under starter block for Bay 5
(fully-cracked contact between starter block and rock)

LC2-A: Normal Operating Condition for Dam with Hole and with Concrete Encasement, with
Mortar Tied Contacts between the Arches and Buttresses (Usual)
 Normal headwater level EL 990.0
 Dead load
 Silt load EL 896.0
 Tailwater EL 889.7, below the rock surface elevation
 Uplift varying linearly from headwater to tailwater under starter block for the side
bays, no uplift pressure under the buttresses
 For Bay 5, constant pressure under the starter block and the linear uplift
decrease from 50% of headwater (due to a drainage system) at the upstream
edge of encasement to zero at the beginning of encasement with a constant
section, no uplift pressure under the downstream region of encasement

LC2-B: Normal Operating Condition for Dam with Hole and with Concrete Encasement, with All
Frictional Contacts (Usual)
 Normal headwater level EL 990.0
 Dead load
 Silt load EL 896.0
 Tailwater EL 889.7, below the rock surface elevation
 Uplift varying linearly from headwater to tailwater under starter block for the side
bays, no uplift pressure under the buttresses
 For Bay 5, constant pressure under the starter block and the linear uplift
decrease from 50% of headwater (due to a drainage system) at the upstream
edge of encasement to zero at the beginning of encasement with a constant
section, no uplift pressure under the downstream region of encasement

LC3-A: Construction Phase of Concrete Encasement – Normal Pool, with Mortar Tied Contacts
between the Arches and Buttresses, Upstream Portion of Encasement Constructed (Unusual)
 Normal headwater level EL 990.0
 Dead load
 Silt load EL 896.0
 Tailwater EL 889.7, below the rock surface elevation
 Uplift varying linearly from headwater to tailwater under starter block for the side
bays, no uplift pressure under the buttresses
 For Bay 5, constant pressure under the starter block and the linear uplift
decrease from 50% of headwater (due to a drainage system) at the upstream
edge of encasement to zero at the beginning of encasement with a constant
section, no uplift pressure under the downstream region of encasement

LC3-B: Construction Phase of Concrete Encasement – Normal Pool, with All Frictional Contacts,
Upstream Portion of Encasement Constructed (Unusual)
 Normal headwater level EL 990.0
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 19 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
 Dead load
 Silt load EL 896.0
 Tailwater EL 889.7, below the rock surface elevation
 Uplift varying linearly from headwater to tailwater under starter block for the side
bays, no uplift pressure under the buttresses
 For Bay 5, constant pressure under the starter block and the linear uplift
decrease from 50% of headwater (due to a drainage system) at the upstream
edge of encasement to zero at the beginning of encasement with a constant
section, no uplift pressure under the downstream region of encasement

LC4-A: Probable Maximum Precipitation for Dam with Hole and with Concrete Encasement, with
Mortar Tied Contacts between the Arches and Buttresses (Extreme)
 PMP headwater level EL 1008.7
 Dead load
 Silt load EL 896.0
 Tailwater EL 917.1, considering 60% retrogression for the downstream
hydrostatic pressure
 Uplift varying linearly from headwater to tailwater under starter block for the side
bays, and constant uplift pressure (tailwater pressure) under the buttresses
 For Bay 5, constant pressure under the starter block and the linear uplift
decrease from a value less than headwater (due to a drainage system) at the
upstream edge of encasement to the tailwater pressure at the beginning of
encasement with a constant section; constant uplift pressure (tailwater pressure)
under the buttresses and downstream region of encasement

LC4-B: Probable Maximum Precipitation for Dam with Hole and with Concrete Encasement, with
All Frictional Contacts (Extreme)
 PMP headwater level EL 1008.7
 Dead load
 Silt load EL 896.0
 Tailwater EL 917.1, considering 60% retrogression for the downstream
hydrostatic pressure
 Uplift varying linearly from headwater to tailwater under starter block for the side
bays, and constant uplift pressure (tailwater pressure) under the buttresses and
downstream region of encasement
 For Bay 5, constant pressure under the starter block and the linear uplift
decrease from a value less than headwater (due to a drainage system) at the
upstream edge of encasement to the tailwater pressure at the beginning of
encasement with a constant section; constant uplift pressure (tailwater pressure)
under the buttresses and downstream region of encasement
4.6 Stability Analysis – Finite Element Method
The FE analyses were performed using the program LS-DYNA. LS-DYNA is a finite element analysis
software utilized to perform deformation and stability analysis for various types of structures. The model
was used to simulate the behavior of concrete and the surrounding geologic media. Water and silt levels
are input as nodal loads or element face pressures and are not explicitly modeled as fluid elements in the
finite element mesh.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 20 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
4.6.1 Description of the Finite Element Model Geometry
The FE model geometry was created using hexahedron (6-sided) solid elements. A consistent unit
system is defined for all the input data. The FE mesh of the concrete dam and rock was created using
TrueGrid meshing software. Bay 5 of the arch-buttress region of the dam was modeled, which included
the three lowest lift lines of the arch with the drain system opening and the proposed concrete
encasement. The analysis models consist of the five bays (four side bays and one middle bay) with the
same geometry as Bay 5 (middle bay) to reduce the boundary effect on the analysis results of Bay 5. The
geometry of the encasement is considered minimum extents for the purposes of the structural analysis.
Due to constructability considerations or modeling approximations, slight variations of the modeled
geometry are included on the final design drawings in the Design Report, such as squaring off of the
downstream end of the full bay width encasement rather than tapering as shown in this model. Only the
lift line between the arch and the starter block is modeled in the side bays. The focus of the analyses is
the middle bay (Bay 5). The geometry of the model looking downstream (a) and upstream (b) is
presented in Figure 4-4.
The Z-direction is along the height of dam, the Y-direction is from the upstream towards downstream of
the dam, and the X-direction is along the cross-canyon direction from left to right of the dam (Figure 4-4).
The geometry of the dam and silt elevation was based on the 2018 survey by Ed Holmes and Associates.
According to the limited available design drawings and construction photographs, there is no information
indicating that the dam is keyed into the rock, and consequently, the bottom of the dam was assumed to
be placed directly on top of the rock. In the FE model, a horizontal contact surface was placed at the
concrete-rock interface. Additionally, the critical contraction joints, expansion joints, and lift lines above
the base elevation are considered using contact surfaces. The limits of the foundation model include
approximately 205 ft in the cross-canyon direction. The bottom of the rock is at EL 662.4, and the top of
rock upstream and downstream of the concrete sections is at EL 890 for the FE model. Table 4-1
summarizes the key elevations in the models.

41 ft41 ft41 ft41 ft41 ft
Bay 5
Arch
Starter block
Buttress
Lift line 1 Lift line 2 Lift line 3
Bed rock
(a)
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 21 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 4-4. TrueGrid Finite Element Mesh
The smallest dimension per element size varies from approximately 5.5 inches to 344 inches. The implicit
solver in LS-DYNA (version R12.0) was used, so the element size did not adversely affect the solution
time step. The total number of nodes and elements for the models with the encasement is shown in Table
4-6.
Table 4-6. Summary for Number of Nodes and Elements
Number of Nodes Number of Elements
76771 59230
TrueGrid’s built-in diagnostics indicate that there are no negative Jacobians in the model (reference
Figure 4-5), which is one metric for assessing the quality of the mesh, which was considered acceptable.
The TrueGrid mesh was written to a keyword input file (.k) for LS-DYNA.
Starter block
Buttress
Concrete
encasement
(b)
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 22 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 4-5. TrueGrid Element Jacobians for Dam Parts
LS-DNYA has no built-in unit system, and it is up to the user to select a system of consistent units. Units
selected for input and output are shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7. System of Consistent Units Selected for LS-DYNA Input and Output
Mass Length Time Force Stress Energy Mass
Density
Elastic
Modulus Temperature
lbf-sec2/
in in sec lbf psi lbf-in lbm/in3 psi °F
Rock Starter block Middle arch
Left/Right
arch
Between
Lift 1 and 2
Between
Lift 2 and 3
Buttress Block part 1 Block part 2
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 23 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
The non-linear response of the dam is expected to occur at the location of the lift lines or concrete-rock
interface. The critical lift lines at the locations of abrupt changes in geometry were considered. The lift
lines are incorporated into the model with contact surfaces such that the elements above and below the
lift lines do not have any shared nodes. Figure 4-6 shows the modeled lift lines and contacts. The majority
of concrete-rock and concrete-concrete interfaces were typically modeled through frictional contact
algorithms in LS-DYNA to evaluate the potential sliding of the dam along those planes. The frictional
contacts included the concrete-rock interface downstream of the dam, the lift lines above the starter
block, and slope transition in the arches. The arch-to-buttress contacts (or starter blocks/buttresses) were
modeled as frictional contacts (mortar in LS-DYNA) for load cases with suffix “A” and non-frictional
contacts (mortar tied in LS-DYNA) for load cases with suffix “B”.
Automatic_Surface_to_Surface_Mortar contact from the LS-DYNA library was applied at the lift lines to
allow frictional behavior. This contact algorithm is primarily focused on accuracy and robustness, and it is
recommended for implicit analysis (LS-DYNA Theory Manual). There was no indication of reinforcement
and shear keys along the lift lines in the arch construction. For this reason, zero tensile strength and
cohesion were considered along the lift lines. The sliding resistance is calculated based on standard
Coulomb friction law: 𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠=tan 𝑡𝑡𝜎𝜎𝑛𝑛
where 𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠= Shear (sliding) strength tan 𝑡𝑡= Coefficient of friction = tan (45°) = 1.0 𝜎𝜎𝑛𝑛= Normal (compressive) stress
The contact between the lift lines and concrete encasement upstream was modeled with a very low
friction coefficient (0.01). No surface preparation is planned for the arch surface, there may be relative
movement between the two blocks of concrete (e.g., due to temperature and shrinkage), and the
encasement will not necessarily be fully bonded to the arch surface. Therefore, the low friction angle was
used in the model in the contact.
In the normal direction, Mortar contact utilizes a standard penalty-based stiffness model that allows
separation (i.e., opening or cracking), and in that case, no sliding resistance is provided by the separated
section. The combination of the loads was applied to the dam based on section 4.5.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 24 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 4-6. Contact Surfaces in Arch Region

4.6.2 Implicit Structural Analysis
An implicit structural analysis was run in LS-DYNA version R12.0 using a double-precision SMP solver.
The results were post-processed using LS-PrePost 4.5.18x64 on Windows 10 operating system. Due to
LS-DYNA's inherent dynamic analysis setup, the implicit static analysis was run over a total time of 0.4
seconds for the PMF load case and 0.3 seconds for all other load cases with a variable timestep varying
between 0.0001 and 0.005 seconds. Loads were applied one at a time based on the expected loading
sequence and ramped, one by one, from 0 to 100%, within a timeframe of 0.03 seconds each. Each
subsequent load was applied after 0.02 seconds of static loading to allow the response to stabilize from
the previous load. First , the gravity (dead) loads were applied. Then, the loads associated with normal
pool conditions were applied to the dam. The loads associated with the gravity and normal pool
conditions are shown in Figure 4-1. There are also loads included with equal values and same location,
but in the opposite direction of the uplift loads imparted upon the underneath surface at the lift lines
(dam/rock interfaces) to ensure the equilibrium of the forces. Next, the loads associated with the unusual
and extreme load cases were added to evaluate the stability of the dam. The additional loads for PMF are
shown in Figure 4-3. The analysis continued until the numerical stability of the results was achieved.
The entire model, including the concrete encasement, was built and active from the beginning of loading
(time zero). However, in reality, the concrete encasement will be constructed in the existing dam when the
normal pool hydrostatic driving forces have already been applied to the dam. Therefore, in our model, the
encasement carries a portion of the normal pool driving force and additional PMF hydrostatic loads, which
accounts for load redistribution should the arches crack and fully bear on the encasement.
Bottom of buttresses
concrete-rock interface
First lift line
concrete-concrete interface
Bottom of starter block
concrete-rock interface
Top arch-main arch
interface
Arch to buttress
contraction
joint
Concrete encasement-lift lines
concrete-concrete interface
Concrete encasement-rock interface
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 25 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
4.6.3 Stability and Stress Analysis Results Summary
Sliding stability was calculated using output from LS-DYNA for the applicable load cases. Additionally,
stress and maximum deformation results were calculated directly in LS-DYNA for each load case and are
summarized in this section. The description of load cases is provided in sections 4.4 and 4.5. According
to the acceptance criteria in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3, safety factors shall be a minimum of 1.5 for Usual
and Unusual and 1.3 for Extreme load cases.
The sliding stability factor of safety was calculated for the arch-buttress models using output from LS-
DYNA. The normal nodal forces are defined as the net contact force normal to concrete-to-rock and
concrete-to-concrete interfaces at the lift lines in which uplift forces act away from the interface. Sliding
forces cause global sliding in the downstream (Global +Y) direction. These forces were calculated in each
lift line to assess the potential for local sliding failures at the interfaces. The interface friction angle, 𝑡𝑡,
used to compute the sliding safety factor was 45°. Summaries of the calculated deflections and stresses
for the middle bay (Bay 5, away from boundary effects) are presented in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 for all
load cases. The positive and negative stress signs indicate the tensile and compressive stresses,
respectively. Note that the values in the tables were calculated at the end of the model running time after
the numerical stabilization. The loads were sequentially applied to the dam: first, gravity load; second,
normal pool hydrostatic load; and third, an increase in hydrostatic load to PMF (as applicable).
Furthermore, the concrete encasement was loaded from time zero for the models with encasement.
Detailed results for each load case and visualizations of deflections and stresses are included in
Appendix C.
Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 present the analysis results for the FE models without considering any steel
dowels in the rock/encasement and starter block/encasement interfaces and using 45 degrees interface
friction angle. As shown in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9, Bay 5 and the encasement do not satisfy the stability
requirement per FERC without anchoring the encasement. Therefore, steel dowels were designed to
improve the sliding stability of encasement.
The dowel design forces were taken from an LS-DYNA model for the PMF load (the most critical load
case). The model had tied contacts between the dam/rock interface, encasement/rock interface, and the
interface between the top surface of the starter block and concrete encasement. We assumed that all
driving forces carried in the interfaces were transferred to the dowels, and we neglected the friction in the
interfaces to be conservative, assuming the potential uplift reduced the surface friction. Furthermore,
according to the Condition Assessment Summary Report on February 28, 2019, Section 4.4, the rock
foundation has a GSI value (Geologic Strength Index) of 70 to 75, indicating a good condition of the rock
(GSI ranges from 0 to 100). GSI is a quantitative index to represent the overall discontinuity
characteristics of the rock. In general, the higher GSI value, the better the quality of rock.
The potential failure in the rock/encasement contact is assumed to be shear in the dowels since the rock
is evaluated as a good condition according to the field mapping and boring (Schnabel 2019). Therefore,
all dowels are designed for the shear stresses. The calculation is provided in Appendix D. The dowel
design includes 38 #9 for the encasement/rock interface and 18 #9 for the encasement/starter block
interface. All rebar is grade 60. The final drawing of the drain system is provided in the Design Report.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 26 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
Table 4-8. Sliding Factor of Safety Using 45 Degrees Friction Without Dowels, Displacement, and
Stress Results for Load Case 1 and 2 – Bay 5
Item
LC1-A
(NP-w/o
Encasement)1
LC1-B
(NP-w/o
Encasement-All
Frictional)2
LC2-A
(NP-with
Encasement)
LC2-B
(NP-with
Encasement)
Sliding Factor of Safety /
Required Sliding Factor
of Safety (FOS for Bay
5)
1.37 / 1.5 3 1.39 / 1.5 3 1.43 / 1.5 4 1.45 / 1.5 4
Sliding Factor of Safety /
Required Sliding Factor
of Safety (FOS for
Concrete Encasement)
N/A N/A 1.10 / 1.5 5 1.18 / 1.5 5
Max. Displacement,
Lower Part of Bay 5, in
(Global Y)
0.19 0.26 0.14 0.17
Location of Maximum
Displacement (Global Y)
Upstream face of
Bay 5, between
lift lines 2 and 3
at EL 908.9
Upstream face of Bay
5, between lift lines 2
and 3 at EL 908.9
Upstream face
of Bay 5,
starter block,
EL 902.8
Upstream face
of Bay 5, EL
914.5
Maximum (Most
Tensile/Minor) Principal
Stress in Dam
(1st Principal Stress), psi
155 / 230 166 / 230 177 / 230 366 / 230 6
Location of Maximum
(Most Tensile/Minor)
Principal Stress in Dam
Downstream face
of starter block,
EL 900
Downstream face of
starter block,
EL 900
Above drain
hole in arch,
between lift
lines 2 and 3,
EL 910
Above drain
hole in arch,
between lift
lines 2 and 3,
EL 910
Minimum (Most
Compressive/Major)
Principal Stress in Dam
(3rd Principal Stress), psi
-882 / -2000 -924 / -2000 -302 / -2000 -320 / -2000
Location of Minimum
(Most Compressive/
Major) Principal Stress
in Dam
Drain hole
between lifts 1
and 2, EL 905.8
Drain hole between
lifts 1 and 2, EL 905.8
Mid arch,
above lift line
3, EL 924
Mid arch,
above lift line
3, EL 924
Notes:
1. LC1-A is the normal pool (NP) without (w/o) encasement. The suffix “A” indicates that all contacts
are frictional except for the contacts between the arches and buttresses, which are non-frictional.
2. LC1-B is normal pool (NP) without (w/o) encasement. The suffix “B” indicates that all contacts are
frictional without any exceptions.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 27 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
3. The FOS of dam without encasement does not satisfy the target minimum of 1.5 per FERC
Chapter 3. The FOS for the models with all frictional contacts is less than the models with non-
frictional contacts (up to 1.4%).
4. The FOS increases about 4% for LC2-A and LC2-B (models with the encasement) compared to
LC1-A and LC1-B (models without the encasement), excluding the dowels into the foundation.
The encasement resisted a portion of the driving force due to the normal pool since it was active
from the beginning of loading and so the slightly low factors of safety are considered acceptable.
5. The encasement was modeled from the beginning of loading (gravity and normal pool hydrostatic
loads). The FOS for the encasement was calculated considering the normal pool applied to the
encasement to account for potential cracking of the bottom arch lifts and load distribution from
arch action to arch bearing on the encasement. The FOS of encasement does not satisfy the
FERC sliding requirement, but the encasement is still stable (FOS > 1.0) despite the
conservatism in the loading sequence.
6. There is a tensile stress concentration around the location of the drain hole between lift lines 1 to
3 (refer to Figure 4-4 for the lift line labels).

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 28 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
Table 4-9. Sliding Factor of Safety Using 45 Degrees Friction Angle Without Dowels,
Displacement, and Stress Results for Load Case 3 and 4 – Bay 5
Item
LC3-A
(NP-Construction
Phase)1
LC3-B
(NP-Construction
Phase-All Frictional)2
LC4-A
(PMF-with
Encasement)
LC4-B
(PMF-with
Encasement)
Sliding Factor of Safety /
Required Sliding Factor
of Safety (FOS for Bay 5)
1.36 / 1.5 3 1.37 / 1.5 3 1.14 / 1.3 3 1.14 / 1.3 3
Sliding Factor of Safety /
Required Sliding Factor
of Safety (FOS for
Concrete Encasement)
1.0 / 1.5 4 1.0 / 1.5 4 1.04 / 1.3 4 1.0 / 1.3 4
Max. Displacement,
Lower Part of Bay 5, in
(Global Y)
0.16 0.18 0.28 5 0.35 5
Location of Maximum
Displacement (Global Y)
Upstream face of
Bay 5, starter
block, EL 902.8
Upstream face of Bay
5, EL 914.5
Upstream face
of Bay 5, EL
914.5
Upstream face of
Bay 5, EL 914.5
Maximum (Most
Tensile/Minor) Principal
Stress in Dam
(1st Principal Stress), psi
95 / 230 198 / 230 167 / 270 195 / 270
Location of Maximum
(Most Tensile/Minor)
Principal Stress in Dam
Upstream face of
starter block, EL
897, at corners;
Downstream face
of starter block, EL
891, at corners

Above drain hole
in arch, between lift
lines 2 and 3 6,
EL 910
Downstream
face of Starter
block, EL 892
and 890
Downstream face
of Starter block,
EL 892 and 890
Minimum (Most
Compressive/Major)
Principal Stress in Dam
(3rd Principal Stress), psi
-368 / -2000 -323 / -2000 -819 / -2000 -813 / -2000
Location of Minimum
(Most Compressive/
Major) Principal Stress in
Dam
Bottom surface of
starter block, close
to downstream
face, at corners,
EL 890
Mid arch, above lift
line 3, EL 924
Top surface of
drain hole in
arch, EL 910
Top surface of
drain hole in arch,
EL 910
Notes:
1. LC3-A is the normal pool (NP) with the encasement during the construction phase. The suffix “A”
indicates that all contacts are frictional except for the contacts between the arches and
buttresses, which are non-frictional.
2. LC3-B is the normal pool (NP) with the encasement during the construction phase. The suffix “B”
indicates that all contacts are frictional without any exceptions.
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 29 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
3. FOS does not satisfy FERC requirements for the construction phase and PMF load cases (LC3
and LC4). The encasement carried a portion of the driving force due to the normal pool and PMF
since it was active from the beginning of loading.
4. The FOS for the encasement was calculated considering that about 25% of driving forces for the
normal pool and PMF in Bay 5 was carried by the encasement without dowels into the rock
foundation or existing starter block. The concrete encasement does not independently satisfy the
FERC stability requirements for the construction phase and PMF load cases (LC3 and LC4). The
concrete encasement is detached from the dam under the PMF load cases (LC4-A and LC4-B).
The driving force was redistributed to the buttresses and the starter block at the end of PMF load
cases since the models were numerically stabilized and the encasement resists a small portion of
driving forces at the end.
5. Only buttresses and starter block for Bay 5 (not concrete encasement) are considered in the
reported Y displacements for LC4-A and LC4-B.
6. Lift lines in Bay 5 were labeled from the low elevation to the high elevation (refer to Figure 4-4).

The sliding FOS for the encasement with dowels for the PMF load case equals 1.83 according to the
calculation in Appendix D, which is acceptable per FERC requirements. In the calculation, it is assumed
that all driving forces applied on the two lowest arch sections in Bay 5 (between lift lines 1 and 3) are
transferred to the encasement, and the stress is uniformly distributed in the dowels of the
encasement/starter block and encasement/rock interfaces.
4.7 Discussion of Stability Analysis Results
Lake Lure Dam with the proposed concrete encasement was modeled using LS-DYNA. The behavior of
the dam for different load cases was evaluated based on displacements, compressive and tensile
stresses in the concrete and rock, and global stability. Displacements and stress levels in the rock were
small compared to concrete since we modeled an interface between the rock and the base of the dam.
All models did not satisfy the global stability requirements provided by FERC, as shown in Table 4-8 and
Table 4-9. FOS of Bay 5 models with the concrete encasement for the normal pool load cases is slightly
more than the models without the encasement (1.43 vs 1.37 and 1.45 vs 1.39).
In addition to the entire dam, the concrete encasement without dowels into the existing rock did not
satisfy the stability requirements, as shown in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9. However, the loading sequence in
the FE models was conservative for the concrete encasement. In reality, the encasement will be installed
in the existing Lake Lure dam (Bay 5, downstream) after applying the hydrostatic loads to the existing
dam and transferring the loads to the dam components such as the starter block and buttresses. On the
other hand, the concrete encasement model was built and active from the beginning of loading in the FE
models. Therefore, a portion of the driving force due to the normal pool was resisted by the concrete
encasement, which is not anticipated unless the arch cracks, so the calculated driving forces of the
encasement may be conservative.
The FOS of models with the Mortar Tied contacts between the arches and buttresses (load cases “B”) is
slightly more than the FOS of models with all frictional contacts (load cases “A”). There is a stress
concentration around the reservoir drain hole in the Bay 5 arch (between lift line 1 to 3) for the normal
pool load cases with the encasement (load LC2-A and LC2-B). The maximum principal stress exceeds
the allowable stress for LC2-B. Maximum principal stresses for the PMF load cases also exceeded the
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 30 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
allowable stresses during the loading. However, the stresses were released at the end of the model
running time (numerical stabilization) in the FE models as the encasement was detached from the arch
section (Appendix C). The large stress concentration around the reservoir drain hole in the arch (Bay 5)
might result in concrete cracking. The concrete encasement is designed to support the potential cracked
arch sections at the bottom of Bay 5.
All maximum compressive stresses (minimum principal stresses) are lower than the defined compressive
stress limit for all load cases. The shrinkage and temperature reinforcement in the new encasement is
designed according to ACI 350-06, in Appendix E.
The steel dowels were designed according to a model with tied contacts at the base of the encasement.
The required number of dowels was calculated for the increase of forces (shear and tensile) due to PMF
with respect to the normal pool forces since the encasement will be built downstream of the existing arch
where the normal pool stresses were already transferred. According to the calculations, the sliding FOS
of the encasement with the dowels under the PMF load case is equal to 1.83.
4.8 Conclusions
The design and results in this report are based on FE models, which have the following limitations:
 The subsurface parameters (friction coefficient and cohesion) of the models are based on
published values and our experience with similar structures due to the lack of geological data in
Bay 5.
 The material (concrete and rock) is modeled as intact, and the models do not include specific
cracks and discontinuities, except at lift lines. However, the rock deformation modulus of elasticity
considers the effect of cracks in the stiffness reduction. Considerations for cracking in the lower
arch concrete were considered in the encasement design as indicated in the following bullet.
 The encasement model is active from the beginning of the loading and carries a portion of driving
shear forces from the normal pool hydrostatic load. The encasement will be installed in the
existing dam (Bay 5) while normal pool loads are already applied to dam components such as
starter blocks and buttresses. Therefore, the encasement should not take any driving force from
the normal pool. However, the encasement has been designed to take the hydrostatic load from
the arch lift bearing against the encasement in case these arch lifts crack due to the new
reservoir drain penetration or other distress.
 The bottom of the encasement is assumed to be at the same elevation as the starter block
(assumed at EL 890) in the models. The results might be changed if the bottom elevation of the
starter block in Bay 5 (or rock top elevation) is higher or lower than the assumed elevation and
the results should be reviewed after overburden within Bay 5 is removed and the rock is cleaned
to competent rock as determined by the Engineer.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 31 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
5.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (2006). Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete
Structures and Commentary (ACI 350-06). Farmington Hills, MI.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2017). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings
and Other Structures (ASCE 7-16). Reston, VA.

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (2006). Lake Lure Dam Independent Consultant Dam Safety Inspection.

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (2007). Lake Lure Dam Independent Consultant Post Earthquake -
Dam Safety Inspection.
Ed Holmes and Associates Land Surveyors, P.A. (2019). Existing Conditions Survey. January 9, 2019.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2016). Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects, Chapter 3 – Gravity Dams.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1997). Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects, Chapter X – Other Dams.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2018). Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects, Chapter 11 – Arch Dams.

Gere, J. M. (2001). Mechanics of Materials. 5th Ed.

ICOLD (2010). Selecting Seismic Parameters for Large Dams. Guidelines, Revision of Bulletin 72,
Committee on Seismic Aspects of Dam Design, International Commission on Large Dams, Paris.

LaBella (2020). Subaqueous Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Plant Technical Memorandum
Final.

Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2018). LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume I.
Livermore, CA.

Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2018). LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume II
Material Models. Livermore, CA.

Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC (2017). Phase I Dam Safety Inspection Report, Lake Lure Dam and
Appurtenances.

Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC (2018). Phase II Report, 2017 Dam Safety Inspection, Lake Lure Dam
and Appurtenances. Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC, February 2018.

Mees and Mees (1925). Design Drawings, August 1925.

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain
April 22, 2022 Page 32 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
North Carolina Administrative Code. (1980). Title 15A, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Subchapter 2K – Dam Safety.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2014). North Carolina Dam Inventory
as of December 2, 2014. Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, Raleigh, NC.

Phase I Inspection Report, National Dam Safety Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, August 1981.

PTI-DC35.1-14 (2014). Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors.
Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (2018). Review of Available Information, Lake Lure Dam (RUTHE-
003). January 25, 2019.

Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (2018). Task 3C Lake Lure Dam Visual Inspection Report. December
7, 2018.

Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (2018). Rock Core Review and Geology Mapping Memorandum,
December 6, 2018.

Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (2019). Stability Analysis Report, February 28, 2019.

Silva, W.J. et al. (2002). Development of Regional Hard Rock Attenuation Relations for Central and
Eastern North America, website www.pacificengineering.org, January 16, 2002. pp. 1-24.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2005). Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures. EM 1110-2-2100.
Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1994). Arch Dam Design. EM 1110-2-2201. Department of the Army U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1981). Phase I Inspection Report, Lake Lure Dam. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, August 1981.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2013). State-of-Practice for the Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Dams. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO.

April 22, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX A

DRAWING FOR EXISTING BAY 5

DocVerify ID: EBD67602-E69A-4A72-9024-63AA722EF3BA
www.docverify.com
EB
D
6
7
6
0
2
-
E
6
9
A
-
4
A
7
2
-
9
0
2
4
-
6
3
A
A
7
2
2
E
F
3
B
A

-
-
-

2
0
1
9
/
0
1
/
0
9

0
7
:
5
9
:
0
2

-
8
:
0
0
Page 6 of 17 663AA722EF3BA
6047270957DB
Signed on 2019/01/09 08:15:03 PST
-'DQLHO+HQU\
January 09, 2019

April 22, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX B

BRIDGE WEIGHT CALCULATION
Project Project Number
Title
Computer Programs Used
Version/Release
No.
Purpose and Objective
Summary of Conclusions
Originator
Print Sign Date
Checked
Print Sign Date
Lake Lure Reservoir Drain System
18C21024.020
Weight Estimation of Bridge on Buttress
Mathcad 15
Computing the weight of bridge on the buttresses for Finite Element models.
The weight of bridge was calculated according to the Design Drawings by Mees and Mees,1925.
Vafa Soltangharaei
Jan 21, 2022
Charles M. Johnson Jan 21, 2022
Subject Weight Estimation of Bridge on Buttress
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 1 of 1
Project No. 18C21024.03 By VS Date 09/07/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 09/07/2021 .
Calculation Objective
Compute the weight of bridge on the buttresses at Bay 5.
Assumptions
1-Unit weight of reinforced concrete is assumed to be 150 pcf.
References
1. Ed Holmes and Associates Land Surveyors, P.A. (2019). Existing Conditions Survey. January 9,
2019.
2. Mees and Mees (1925). Design Drawings, August 1925.
Methodology
Weight calculation is based on estimating the volume of concrete.
Cross Section Area of Bridge
The above figure is taken from Design Drawings (Mees and Mees, 1925)
Bridge section area (calculated from the historical drawings)Ab 35.18ft2
Bridge span lengthL41ft
Concrete densityγc150pcf
Weight of bridge per bayWbγcAbL216.357 kip
Mass load for the bridge applied on each buttressMassLoadbridge
Wb
g 560.382 s lbf
s
in
Lake Lure Bridge Weight Calculation.xmcd

April 22, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX C

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Bay 5, LC1-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View
Figure 2. Bay 5, LC1-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 3. Bay 5, LC1-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 4. Bay 5, LC1-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 5. Bay 5, LC1-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 6. Bay 5, LC1-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View
Figure 7. Bay 5, LC1-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 8. Bay 5, LC1-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 9. Bay 5, LC1-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 10. Bay 5, LC1-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 11. Bay 5, LC2-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View
Figure 12. Bay 5, LC2-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View
Figure 13. Bay 5, LC2-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 14. Bay 5, LC2-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 15. Bay 5, LC2-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 16. Bay 5, LC2-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 17. Bay 5, LC2-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View
Figure 18. Bay 5, LC2-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View
Figure 19. Bay 5, LC2-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 20. Bay 5, LC2-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 21. Bay 5, LC2-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 22. Bay 5, LC2-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 23. Bay 5, LC3-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View
Figure 24. Bay 5, LC3-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View
Figure 25. Bay 5, LC3-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 26. Bay 5, LC3-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 27. Bay 5, LC3-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 28. Bay 5, LC3-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
(Encasement Not Shown)
Figure 29. Bay 5, LC3-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View
Figure 30. Bay 5, LC3-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View
Figure 31. Bay 5, LC3-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 32. Bay 5, LC3-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 33. Bay 5, LC3-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 34. Bay 5, LC3-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 35. Bay 5, LC4-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View (Encasement Not Shown)
Figure 36. Bay 5, LC4-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View (Encasement Not Shown)
Figure 37. Bay 5, LC4-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Section View (Deformed Shape)
Figure 38. Bay 5, LC4-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 39. Bay 5, LC4-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 40. Bay 5, LC4-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 41. Bay 5, LC4-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Figure 42. Bay 5, LC4-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View (Encasement Not Shown)
Figure 43. Bay 5, LC4-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View (Encasement Not Shown)
Figure 44. Bay 5, LC4-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Section View (Deformed Shape)
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
Figure 45. Bay 5, LC4-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 46. Bay 5, LC4-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View (Encasement
Not Shown)
Figure 47. Bay 5, LC4-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View
Figure 48. Bay 5, LC4-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 1. Bay 5, LC1-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View

Figure 2. Bay 5, LC1-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 3. Bay 5, LC1-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Figure 4. Bay 5, LC1-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 5. Bay 5, LC1-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Figure 6. Bay 5, LC1-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 7. Bay 5, LC1-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 8. Bay 5, LC1-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 9. Bay 5, LC1-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 10. Bay 5, LC1-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 11. Bay 5, LC2-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View

Figure 12. Bay 5, LC2-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 13. Bay 5, LC2-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 14. Bay 5, LC2-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 15. Bay 5, LC2-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 16. Bay 5, LC2-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 17. Bay 5, LC2-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View

Figure 18. Bay 5, LC2-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 19. Bay 5, LC2-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 20. Bay 5, LC2-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 21. Bay 5, LC2-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 22. Bay 5, LC2-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 23. Bay 5, LC3-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View

Figure 24. Bay 5, LC3-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 25. Bay 5, LC3-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 26. Bay 5, LC3-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 27. Bay 5, LC3-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 28. Bay 5, LC3-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
(Encasement Not Shown)
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 29. Bay 5, LC3-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View

Figure 30. Bay 5, LC3-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 31. Bay 5, LC3-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 32. Bay 5, LC3-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 33. Bay 5, LC3-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Figure 34. Bay 5, LC3-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 35. Bay 5, LC4-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View (Encasement Not Shown)

Figure 36. Bay 5, LC4-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View (Encasement Not
Shown)

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 37. Bay 5, LC4-A – Global Y Displacement (in) – Section View (Deformed Shape)

Figure 38. Bay 5, LC4-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 39. Bay 5, LC4-A – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Figure 40. Bay 5, LC4-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 41. Bay 5, LC4-A – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

Figure 42. Bay 5, LC4-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Upstream View (Encasement Not Shown)

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 43. Bay 5, LC4-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Downstream View (Encasement Not
Shown)

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 44. Bay 5, LC4-B – Global Y Displacement (in) – Section View (Deformed Shape)

Figure 45. Bay 5, LC4-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 46. Bay 5, LC4-B – Maximum (Tensile) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View
(Encasement Not Shown)

Figure 47. Bay 5, LC4-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Upstream View

Town of Lake Lure
Lake Lure Dam Structural Analysis and Design for Reservoir Drain

January 21, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.03 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

Figure 48. Bay 5, LC4-B – Minimum (Compressive) Principal Stress (psi) – Downstream View

April 22, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX D

ENCASEMENT DOWEL CALCULATION

Project Project Number
Title
Computer Programs Used
Version/Release
No.
Purpose and Objective
Summary of Conclusions
Originator
Print Sign Date
Checked
Print Sign Date
Lake Lure Reservoir Drain System
18C21024.020
Dowel Design
Mathcad 15
Designing the required dowels for the concrete encasement using LS-DYNA results.
According to the design, totally 56 #9 are required for the encasement: 38 #9 are between the concrete
encasement and rock; 18 #9 between the starter block and concrete encasement.
Vafa Soltangharaei
Jan 21, 2022
Charles M. Johnson Jan 21, 2022
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 1 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
Calculation Objective
To design the required dowels for the concrete encasement using LS-DYNA results.
Assumptions
1-The assumptions in the FE models govern this calculation.
2-The material properties in the models are according to Marks (2018) and Schnabel (2018 and 2021).
3-The contacts between the lift lines in bay 5 (middle bay in models) are assumed to be frictional (without
cohesion) with the friction angle of 45 degree.
4-The contacts between the arch lift lines and arch/buttress are frictional (friction angle of 45 degree).
5-The contact between the arch and concrete encasement is frictional with the friction angle equals to 0.57
degree.
6-The contact between the starter block top surface and the encasement is assumed to be tie contact due to
the dowels and surface roughening.
7-The contact between the encasement and rock is assumed to be tie contact due to the cleaned, rough
surface.
8-The contact between the starter block and rock was assumed to be cracked for bay 5 based on the
LS-DYNA results. Therefore, a constant hydraulic uplift pressure was assumed under the starter block.
References
1. Ed Holmes and Associates Land Surveyors, P.A. (2019). Existing Conditions Survey. January 9, 2019.
2. Mees and Mees (1925). Design Drawings, August 1925.
3. Marks Enterprises of NC, PLLC (2018). Phase II Report, 2017 Dam Safety Inspection, Lake Lure Dam
and Appurtenances.
4. AISC, 15 edition (2017). American Institute of Steel Construction. Chapter D and G.
5. ACI 350, (2006), Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures and Commentary.
6. PTI DC35.1-14 (2014), Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors.
7. Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (2018). Rock Core Review and Geology Mapping Memorandum,
December 6, 2018.
Methodology
The contacts between the starter block/encasement and encasement/rock were tied in LS-DYNA. Load was
applied to the model sequentially. Normal pool hydraulic load was initially applied after gravity load and then
PMF load was applied after that.
The shear and tensile demands in the interfaces of encasement contacts due to PMF were calculated by
subtracting the forces up to the end of normal pool loading from the total demand forces, since the encasement
was modeled with the dam from the time 0 of loading (in the reality, the encasement will be constructed after
the dam was already under the normal pool hydraulic forces).
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 2 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
Encasement Model
The LS-DYNA model for the concrete encasement is shown in the following:
The encasement was built from two blocks as shown in the figure (Block 1 and Block 2). The two blocks were
connected by a tie contact to act as a single component. Note the encasement extends were modified slightly
on the final design drawings for constructability, extending the full bay width concrete in the downstream
direction.
Dowel Calculation
The shear and normal forces (LS-DYNA) in the contact between the Block 2 and rock are shown in terms of
loading time in the following:
The above figure shows the shear force in the contact between the Block 2 and rock. The shear force due to
PMF is calculated as 572 kips. Considering this value and the load factor of 1.6, the number of dowels is
calculated for the shear capacity:
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 3 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
AISC formulation (section G) for the shear capacity is more conservative than the ACI 350 formulation
(Equation 11-15) for calculating the shear capacity of reinforcement in a cracked section. Therefore, AISC
formulation is used to calculate the shear capacity and estimate the required number of dowels.
ϕ 0.9AISIC strength reduction factor for
shear.
LS-DYNA resultsFshear_block2 572kip
Assumed load factor (ACI 350-06
section 9.2.1, conservatively
assume all load is hydrostatic)
LF 1.6
Fshear_design LF Fshear_block2915.2 kip
Fy 60 ksiUsing rebar grade 60
Nominal area of #9 rebar ANo.9 1in2
Arequired_1
Fshear_design
ϕ 0.6Fy28.247 in2Required area using
AISC specification,
section G4
nrequired_1
Arequired_1
ANo.9
28.24728 #9 required
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 4 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
The above graph shows that the resultant normal force under the Block2 is not tensile. However, there are
some few regions under Block2 with the tensile forces as shown in the following figure, which was taken from
the LS-DYNA model. The resultant of tensile forces is negligible and not governing (see following calculation).
The temporal variation of resultant force in the tension region is shown in the following (positive is compression and
negative in tension in the following graph):
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 5 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
The resultant force is tensile after the numerical equilibrium (at the end of loading). The tensile load is about
22 kips.
Ftensile_end 22 kip
Required rebar area for tensile load in the tension region
shown above Arequired_2
LF Ftensile_end
ϕ Fy0.652 in2
Even 1 #9 is sufficient to resist the tensile force. We will
put more than 1 #9 in the tension region according to the
required reinforcements for shear
nrequired_2
Arequired_2
ANo.9
0.652
The temporal shear force variation between Block1 and the starter block is shown as follows:
The shear demand imposed only due to the PMF in the Block1 starter block interface is about 330 kips according
to the LS-DYNA results. The force region is selected from the end of normal pool loading to the end of PMF
loading.
Fshear_block1 330kip
Required rebar area at the Block1/Starter Block
interface to resist shearArequired_3
LF Fshear_block1
ϕ 0.6Fy16.296 in2
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 6 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
nrequired_3
Arequired_3
ANo.9
16.29618 #9 can be used for the Block1-starter block interface
The temporal variation of normal force in the contact between the Block1 and rock is shown as follows (positive
sign indicates compressive force and negative sign shows tensile force in the following graph):
The design tensile force is assumed to be 121 kips according to the LS-DYNA results (although it is
conservative).
Ftensile_block1 121kip
Required rebar area for the tensile stress at
Block1/Starter Block interface. Arequired_4
LF Ftensile_block1
ϕ Fy3.585 in2
4 #9 is sufficient for the tensile demand. The shear in
the interface between Block1 and starter block is
governing.
nrequired_4
Arequired_4
ANo.9
3.585
Summary of design:
18 #9 dowels needed to connect the encasement (Block1) to the starter block and 28 #9 are required for
the Block2-rock interface.
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 7 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
Using 38 # 9 between Block2 and rock to have a roughly uniform rebar distribution along the length of
encasement (see the following figure):
Using 18 # 9 perpendicular to the starter block surface as shown in the following:
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 8 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
Calculated Sliding FOS after Using Dowels:
The driving force for the encasement is calculated as schematically indicated in the following graph (only upstream
portion of the encasement shown here):
The uplift distribution is constant under the starter block, assuming fully cracked section. The uplift pressure at
the upstream edge of block 2 is assumed to be half of the pressure at the downstream edge of starter block due
to a drain pipe at the location (suggested to be built to reduce the water uplift pressure).
It is assumed that the additional PMF (above normal pool) hydrostatic loads will completely transfer to the
concrete encasement. Therefore, the driving force is calculated by considering the additional hydrostatic
pressure due to PMF on the two lowest arch sections (see following calculation).
HAdd_PMF_Headwater 18.7ftThe additional headwater due to PMF
Inclined height of two lowest arch
sections, which is equal to the
thickness of Block 1
tLift 16.17 ft
WBay5 35 ftInternal span length of Bay 5
(i.e. clear width between
buttresses at base)
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 9 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
Water unit weightγw62.4pcf
PAdd_PMF γw HAdd_PMF_Headwater1.167 10
3lbf
ft2Additional hydrostatic pressure due
to PMF
FDriving P Add_PMF tLiftWBay5660.396 kipDriving force applied to the encasement due
to PMF
n_1 18Number of #9 rebar in Block 1
n_2 38Number of #9 rebar in Block 2
nn_1 n_256Total number of #9 in the encasement
ANo.9 1in2Area of #9 rebar
Ωv 1.67Factor of Safety for shear strength of steel
according to ASD-AISC
Resisting force of dowels against shear
(AISC-ASD), refer to section G of AISC
specification
As mentioned using AISC formulation
is more conservative than using AIC
350 formulation for shear capacity of
rebar.
FResisting
0.6 FynANo.9
Ωv
1.207 10
3kip
Factor of Safety for the encasement with
the designed dowelsFOSwith_Dowels
FResisting
FDriving
1.828
The above FOS is calculated, assuming that the stress due to the driving force in all dowels
in Block 1 and Block 2 is uniformly distributed.
Assuming only dowels in Block 2 carry the driving stress:
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 10 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
FResisting1
0.6 Fyn_2ANo.9
Ωv
819.162 kip
FOSwith_Dowels_Block2
FResisting1
FDriving
1.24Factor of Safety for the encasement with
the designed dowels, assuming Block 2
takes the entire driving shear force
Bond Length Calculation
Design sufficient bond of dowels to the rock such that failures occur within the rock mass.
fc_grout 5000psiDesign compressive strength of grout
fcu 250psiUsing Table C 6.1 of PTI DC35.1-14 for the granite and
basalt rock
Diameter of hole, considering at least 0.5" clear cover for
grout according to PTI section 6.9.2dh2.2in
FS 2According to section 6.6 of PTI
DC35.1-14
γc 143pcfConcrete density according to Marks (2018) and Schnabel
(2021)
γw 62.4pcfWater unit weight
Calculating the anchorage length for the reinforcements between Block 1 and starter block:
Ppull_out
Ftensile_block1
18 6.722 kipAssume the tension is uniform along the contact surface,
the tension force for each rebar is calculated
Bond length assuming the failure between the rock and groutLb
Ppull_out FS
π dhfcu0.648 ft
Using 4 feet bonding length for the dowels, the pull-out force (according to the grout-rock failure) can be
calculated as follows:
Lb 4ft
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 11 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
Ppull_out_4ft
f cu dhπLb
FS 41.469 kip
The required pull-out force is much more than the maximum estimated tensile force.
The dowels in the contact between starter block and encasement will be embedded inside the starter block.
The development of #9 is calculated in the following:
Using 12.2.2 from ACI 350, the development length of reinforcements is calculated:
According to 12.2.4 ACI 350α1
According to 12.2.4 ACI 350 for epoxy coated bars
with cover more than 3db and clear spacing more
than 6db
For the conservative calculation of development
length, it is assumed that the dowels are epoxy
coated. However, the galvanized rebar is
recommended for the dowels.
β 1.2
According to 12.2.4 ACI 350. Normal weight
concreteλ1
db 1.128inNominal diameter of #9
fc 3000psiExisting concrete compression strength according to
the material tests
ld1
Fy αβλ
20 fc psi
db6.178 ftUsing 74 inches development length into
concrete
Using equation 12-1 ACI 350:
Equals to 1 for No. 7 and larger (ACI
350)γ 1
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Designing Required Dowels
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 12 of 12
Project No. 18C21024.02 By VS Date 11/18/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 11/18/2021 .
Design simplification according to ACI 350
Ktr 0
Spacing or cover dimension, use the minimum of the
distance from the center of bar to the nearest
concrete surface or one-half the center to center
spacing of bars
c 3in
Ktr can be zero for the sake of simplification
according to ACI 350. The term (c+Ktr/d b) can not be
more than 2.5
Z min
cKtr
db
2.5

2.5
4 ft development length in the starter block
and rock. ld2
3
40
Fy
fc psi
αβγλ
Z()

db3.707 ft
ACI 350 allows to use equations in sections 12.2.2 or 12.2.3 to calculate development length. The equation
12.2.3 (ld2) results to the lower development length and more economical design. Therefore, it is selected for
the dowels.
Summary of embedment and development length calculation:
1-The rebar in the rock/encasement interface shall be embedded in rock at least 4 feet.
2-The rebar in the starter block/encasement shall be developed 4 feet in the starter block.
The rebar in the starter block/encasement shall not reach to (cross) the concrete to rock interface to avoid
potential increase in water leakage.
3-The rebar Shall be extended 4 feet into the encasement to satisfy the required development length.
Hand Calculation For Encasement Dowels - New 1-19-2022.xmcd

April 22, 2022 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2022 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX E

SHRINKAGE AND TEMPERATURE REINFORCEMENT
CALCULATION

Project Project Number
Title
Computer Programs Used
Version/Release
No.
Purpose and Objective
Summary of Conclusions
Originator
Print Sign Date
Checked
Print Sign Date
Lake Lure Reservoir Drain System
18C21024.020
Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement Design
Mathcad 15
Designing the required shrinkage and temperature reinforcement for the concrete encasement.
According to the design, #6 @ 6 inches (Grade 60), can be used as the shrinkage and temperature reinforcement
along the two dimensions of the exposed surfaces.
Vafa Soltangharaei
Jan 21, 2022
Charles M. Johnson Jan 21, 2022
Subject Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement for Concrete Encasement
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 1 of 2
Project No. 18C21024.03 By VS Date 12/03/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 12/03/2021 .
Calculation Objective
Compute the shrinkage and temperature reinforcement for the concrete encasement.
Assumptions
1- The shrinkage and temperature reinforcements are only calculated in the exposed surfaces, assuming
negligible shrinkage and temperature stresses in the unexposed surfaces of the encasement.
2- It is assumed that no movement joints are provided in the concrete encasement.
References
1- ACI 350-06, Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures and
Commentary.
Methodology
The shrinkage and temperature reinforcements are calculated for each exposed surface of the encasement
in both directions according to section 7.12 of ACI 350-06.
Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement Calculation
In the following graph, the exposed surfaces in the encasement are labeled and shown (A 1 to A 5). The areas A
3F and A 4F are front surfaces. The areas A 3B and A 4B are back surfaces (not shown in the graph), which are
identical to the front surfaces.Note the encasement extends were modified slightly on the final design drawings
for constructability, extending the full bay width concrete in the downstream direction.
According to section 7.12.2.1 ACI 350-06, the minimum shrinkage and temperature is calculated based on
12 in for the sections that are at least 24 in.
The maximum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement are used (see the following Table) for Grade 60,
assuming no movement joints are provided in the encasement.
Lake Lure Encasement Shrinkage Reinforcements-1-19-2022.xmcd
Subject Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement for Concrete Encasement
Project Lake Lure Dam WO No.5-Reservoir Drain Page 2 of 2
Project No. 18C21024.03 By VS Date 12/03/2021
Client Town of Lake Lure, Rutherford County Checked CMJ Date 12/03/2021 .
The above table is taken from ACI 350-06, section 7.12.2.1.
ρ 0.005Maximum shrinkage and temperature reinforcement
for the length between movement joints more than 40
ft
For a foot length in each direction of surfaces,
maximum 0.72 in 2 is required.As ρ 12in 12in 0.72 in2
Using #6 @ 6 inches will provide approximately 0.88 in 2 reinforcement per foot (providing reinforcement ratio of
0.0061).
Lake Lure Encasement Shrinkage Reinforcements-1-19-2022.xmcd
Project Project Number
Title
Computer Programs Used
Version/Release
No.
Purpose and Objective
Summary of Conclusions
Originator
Print Sign Date
Checked
Print Sign Date
Lake Lure Dam Rehabilitation 18C21024.020
Design of New Bulkhead Gate
STAAD Pro
MathCAD
V22 Update 7
Prime 7.0
Design a bulkhead gate to prevent flow through the drain pipe during pipe maintenance and provide support of
the bulkhead gate in its normally open position while the drain pipe is operational.
See files attached. The bulkhead gate is acceptable for the loading conditions considered.
Nathan Smith, PE Mar 31, 2022
Charles Johnson, PE Mar 31, 2022
Appendix C.2
Calculation Objective
The purpose of the following calculation is to evaluate the structural capacity of a new bulkhead
gate over the new low level drain pipe at Lake Lure Dam in North Carolina. The bulkhead gate
is being installed to facilitate installation of the new drain pipe and for use should future repairs
to the downstream components of the drain pipe be required. Upon completion of the new low
level drain pipe, the bulkhead gate will be secured in a normally open position with other gates
down stream and part of the drain pipe regulating the flow of water discharged through the
pipe.
The gate has an expected service life of approximately 10 years, until anticipated replacement
of the existing dam.
Design Basis
The following documents are the design basis for this calculation:
Steel Analysis:
AISC 14th Ed. Steel Construction Manual
Design of Hydraulic Steel Structures, USACE ETL1110-2-584
Lock Gates and Operating Equipment, USACE EM 1120-2-2703
Assumptions
1.Change in pressure due to gate bearing on a slope arch is ignored. Design in based
on a uniform hydrostatic pressure.
References
1.
2.
3.
American Institute of Steel Construction. (2011). Steel Construction Manual,
14th Ed.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2014). ETL 1110-2-584, Design of Hydraulic
Steel Structures
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1994). EM 1110-2-2703, Lock Gates and
Operating Equipment
Methodology
This calculation is a finite element design of the bulkhead gate including the cover plate, the
wide flange reinforcing ribs, and the support hatch bars. These calculations were performed
using STAAD Pro v.22 and MathCAD Prime 7.0.
The cover plate and reinforcing ribs are designed as composite members distributing the water
pressure to a bearing area with a maximum 8 foot diameter to center of bearing. Hydrostatic
pressure in this calculation is based on a maximum head of 108.7 feet during the PMF
(Probable Maximum Flood) event. The design hydrostatic load is applied uniformly over the
entirety of the cover plate. Both the cover plate and wide flange ribs are analyzed as having a
yield strength, Fy = 50 ksi.
The support hatch bars are analyzed acting only to lift the hatch in a balanced pressure
condition. The loading is supporting the full dead load of the bulkhead gate (cover plate and
wide flange ribs) at 4 points of rotation: when the gate is initially opened from the closed
position, when the gate is open approximately 45° and in a horizontal position, when open to an
angle from closed of approximately 70°, representing the tangential point of the gate rotation
when the lifting rod is at a maximum angle from vertical, and in the fully open position, the gate
being open approximately 10° past perpendicular and the lifting rod is vertical. The hinge bars
are analyzed as having a yield strength, Fy = 50 ksi
Prepared By: NS
Reviewed By: CJ
Approved By: CJ
Project: Lake Lure Dam Drain Pipe
Project #: 18C21024.00
Printed:03/31/2022
Bulkhead Design.mcdx
Page 1 of 2
Analysis Results Summary
The wide flange beam ribs on the cover plate have a maximum utilization ratio of 0.6
considering induced axial loading and eccentric bending in the beam due to composite action
with the steel cover plate. a maximum allowable utilization ratio of 0.9 is permitted per
ETL 1110-2-584 therefore the beam as designed to resist the PMF loads is acceptable.
Per EM 1110-2-2703, the maximum allowable Von Mises stress in the cover plate is 0.75*Fy.
For Grade 50 steel, this allowable stress is 37.5 ksi. Overall, the stresses are well below this
allowable stress. The model indicates an increased stress, approximately 12% above
allowable, at the ends of the reinforcing beams. However, at these points, the model does not
consider the width or continuity of the bearing surface which effectively relieves the transverse
stresses. For this reason, the localized overstress in this area is acceptable.
The hinge bars have a maximum utilization ratio of 0.3 considering in plane bending and axial
loads. The maximum loading condition occurred in the bulkhead open position 2. The utilization
ratio is well below the maximum allowable utilization ratio of 0.9 and the hinge bars as designed
are acceptable
Calculate pressure on bulkhead in unbalanced condition:
≔γw ⋅62.4 pcf Density of water
≔h ⋅108.7 ft Maximum water head during PMF event
≔pa =⋅γw h 47 psi Maximum unfactored hydrostatic pressure
uniformly applied to the bulkhead cover plate.
≔pu =⋅1.4 pa 66 psi Maximum factored hydrostatic pressure
uniformly applied to the bulkhead cover plate.
Prepared By: NS
Reviewed By: CJ
Approved By: CJ
Project: Lake Lure Dam Drain Pipe
Project #: 18C21024.00
Printed:03/31/2022
Bulkhead Design.mcdx
Page 2 of 2
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 1
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 1 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Job Information
Engineer Checked Approved
Name:NS CJ CJ
Date:3/29/2022
Project ID
Project Name
Structure Type SPACE FRAME
Number of Nodes 489 Highest Node 741
Number of Elements 104 Highest Beam 1667
Number of Plates 468 Highest Plate 1542
Number of Basic Load Cases 2
Number of Combination Load Cases 0
Included in this printout are data for:
All The Whole Structure
Included in this printout are results for load cases:
Type L/C Name
Primary 1 LC1 - HYDRAULIC
Primary 2 LC2 - 1.4HL
Section Properties
Prop Section Area
(in2)
Iyy
(in4)
Izz
(in4)
J
(in4)
Material
2 W10X33 9.710 171.000 36.600 0.583 STEEL
Plate Thickness
Prop Node A
(in)
Node B
(in)
Node C
(in)
Node D
(in)
Material
1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 STEEL
Primary Load Cases
Number Name Type
1 LC1 - HYDRAULIC None
2 LC2 - 1.4HL None
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 2
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 2 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
3D View of Cover Plate and Reinforcing Beams
0.2430.393
0.2640.4550.42 0.2630.40.521
0.340.445 0.214
0.241
0.3120.38 0.2290.4210.3240.455 0.239
0.393
0.4570.4420.4 0.254
0.486 0.487
0.34 0.2590.5090.5220.312 0.2590.243 0.5230.5510.421 0.2540.264 0.5270.5710.457 0.2390.5270.5830.487 0.2280.241 0.5220.5880.509 0.2140.215 0.5090.5880.523 0.241
0.263
0.229 0.4870.5830.527 0.2630.239 0.4560.5710.527 0.2690.4210.5510.5220.259 0.313 0.224
0.5230.5090.259 0.340.4870.487
0.254
0.254 0.4010.4430.4560.239 0.4570.3240.4210.228 0.3930.380.3130.214 0.4460.340.241 0.5240.4010.263 0.4230.4570.269
0.3930.224
Bending ZLoad 2 :
XYZ
Utilization Ratios of Reinforcing Beams (LC 2)
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 3
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 3 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments
Distances to maxima are given from beam end A.
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
1544 308 5.255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 5.255 6.965 0 0.229
Max -ve 0 -3.436 5.255 -0.634
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 5.255 9.751 0 0.321
Max -ve 0 -4.811 5.255 -0.888
1545 304 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 3.898 0 0.386
Max -ve 0 -1.008 4.000 -0.785
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 5.457 0 0.540
Max -ve 0 -1.411 4.000 -1.099
1546 355 5.255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 5.255 6.965 5.255 0.634
Max -ve 0 -3.436 0 -0.229
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 5.255 9.751 5.255 0.888
Max -ve 0 -4.811 0 -0.321
1547 351 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 3.898 4.000 0.785
Max -ve 0 -1.008 0 -0.386
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 5.457 4.000 1.099
Max -ve 0 -1.411 0 -0.540
1548 1 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 32.634 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 45.687 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
1549 206 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 31.269 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 43.776 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
1550 208 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 28.149 0 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 39.409 0 0.000
Max -ve
1552 212 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 16.556 0 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 23.178 0 0.000
Max -ve
1554 233 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 12.211 0 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 17.096 0 0.000
Max -ve
1556 236 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 25.923 0 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 36.293 0 0.000
Max -ve
1557 237 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.931 0 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 41.903 0 0.000
Max -ve
1559 241 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 17.953 0 0.271
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 25.134 0 0.379
Max -ve
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 4
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 4 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
1560 243 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.178
Max -ve 0 -0.232
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 40.849
Max -ve 0 -0.325
1561 250 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 4.928 0 0.000
Max -ve 4.000 -3.603 4.000 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 6.899 0 0.000
Max -ve 4.000 -5.045 4.000 -0.000
1562 238 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 32.619 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 45.667 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
1563 210 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 23.267 0 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 32.574 0 0.000
Max -ve
1564 235 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 20.180 0 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 28.252 0 0.000
Max -ve
1565 214 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 32.164 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 45.030 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
1566 281 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.178 0 0.232
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 40.849 0 0.325
Max -ve
1567 286 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 17.953
Max -ve 0 -0.271
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 25.134
Max -ve 0 -0.379
1582 310 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 32.640 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 45.696 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
1583 312 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 32.145 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 45.004 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
1584 313 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 31.237 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 43.732 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
1585 314 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 29.887 4.000 0.000
Max -ve 0 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 41.842 4.000 0.000
Max -ve 0 -0.000
1586 315 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 28.092 4.000 0.000
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 5
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 5 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
Max -ve 0 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 39.329 4.000 0.000
Max -ve 0 -0.000
1587 316 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 25.854
Max -ve 0 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 36.196
Max -ve 0 -0.000
1588 317 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 23.186
Max -ve 0 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 32.460
Max -ve 0 -0.000
1589 318 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 20.088
Max -ve 0 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 28.124
Max -ve 0 -0.000
1590 319 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 16.460
Max -ve 0 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 23.043
Max -ve 0 -0.000
1591 322 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 32.613 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 45.658 4.000 0.000
Max -ve
1594 338 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 4.888
Max -ve 0 -3.577 0 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 6.844
Max -ve 0 -5.007 0 -0.000
1595 343 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 12.124
Max -ve 0 -0.000
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 16.974
Max -ve 0 -0.000
1596 393 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 27.730 4.000 0.010
Max -ve 0 -0.083
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 38.822 4.000 0.015
Max -ve 0 -0.117
1597 397 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 16.247
Max -ve 4.000 -0.720
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 22.746
Max -ve 4.000 -1.008
1598 403 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 24.555 4.000 0.103
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 34.377 4.000 0.144
Max -ve
1599 407 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 12.500
Max -ve 4.000 -1.401
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 17.500
Max -ve 4.000 -1.961
1600 412 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 19.665 0 0.050
Max -ve 4.000 -0.219
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 6
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 6 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 27.531 0 0.070
Max -ve 4.000 -0.307
1601 416 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 6.716
Max -ve 0 -1.479
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 9.403
Max -ve 0 -2.071
1602 420 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 12.371
Max -ve 4.000 -0.727
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 17.319
Max -ve 4.000 -1.018
1603 426 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 28.663
Max -ve 0 -0.162
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 40.128
Max -ve 0 -0.227
1604 430 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 17.348 0 0.016258
Max -ve 4.000 -0.330
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 24.287 0 0.023
Max -ve 4.000 -0.461
1605 456 5.255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 6.898 5.255 0.223
Max -ve 5.255 -3.521 0 -0.602
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 9.657 5.255 0.312
Max -ve 5.255 -4.929 0 -0.843
1606 458 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 3.624 4.000 0.392
Max -ve 4.000 -0.897 0 -0.808
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 5.074 4.000 0.549
Max -ve 4.000 -1.256 0 -1.132
1607 460 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 16.417
Max -ve 4.000 -0.555
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 22.984
Max -ve 4.000 -0.777
1608 462 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 9.921
Max -ve 0 -1.445
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 13.890
Max -ve 0 -2.023
1609 464 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 22.336 0 0.129
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 31.271 0 0.181
Max -ve
1610 467 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 14.614
Max -ve 4.000 -1.116
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 20.460
Max -ve 4.000 -1.563
1611 469 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 26.355 4.000 0.082
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 36.897 4.000 0.115
Max -ve
1612 473 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 17.918 0 0.210
Max -ve 4.000 -0.013
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 25.085 0 0.295
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 7
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 7 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
Max -ve 4.000 -0.018
1613 475 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.147
Max -ve 0 -0.214
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 40.805
Max -ve 0 -0.299
1614 481 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 17.918 4.000 0.012719
Max -ve 0 -0.210
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 25.085 4.000 0.018
Max -ve 0 -0.295
1615 485 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.146 0 0.214
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 40.805 0 0.299
Max -ve
1616 492 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 27.730 0 0.083
Max -ve 4.000 -0.010
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 38.821 0 0.117
Max -ve 4.000 -0.01462
1617 496 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 16.247 4.000 0.720
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 22.746 4.000 1.007
Max -ve
1618 501 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 14.615 4.000 1.116
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 20.460 4.000 1.562
Max -ve
1619 505 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 26.355
Max -ve 4.000 -0.082
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 36.897
Max -ve 4.000 -0.115
1620 512 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 24.555
Max -ve 4.000 -0.103
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 34.377
Max -ve 4.000 -0.144
1621 516 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 12.501 4.000 1.400
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 17.501 4.000 1.960
Max -ve
1622 519 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 9.922 0 1.445
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 13.891 0 2.023
Max -ve
1623 523 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 22.336
Max -ve 0 -0.129
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 31.271
Max -ve 0 -0.180
1624 530 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 19.665 4.000 0.219
Max -ve 0 -0.050
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 27.531 4.000 0.307
Max -ve 0 -0.070
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 8
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 8 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
1625 534 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 6.716 0 1.479
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 9.403 0 2.070
Max -ve
1626 535 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 3.624 0 0.808
Max -ve 4.000 -0.897 4.000 -0.392
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 5.074 0 1.132
Max -ve 4.000 -1.256 4.000 -0.549
1627 539 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 16.417 4.000 0.555
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 22.984 4.000 0.777
Max -ve
1628 546 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 12.371 4.000 0.727
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 17.319 4.000 1.018
Max -ve
1629 549 5.255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 6.898 0 0.602
Max -ve 5.255 -3.521 5.255 -0.223
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 9.657 0 0.843
Max -ve 5.255 -4.929 5.255 -0.312
1630 556 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 28.663 0 0.162
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 40.128 0 0.227
Max -ve
1631 560 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 17.348 4.000 0.329
Max -ve 0 -0.016
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 24.287 4.000 0.461
Max -ve 0 -0.023
1632 569 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 17.950 4.000 0.270
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 25.129 4.000 0.378
Max -ve
1633 573 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 29.176
Max -ve 4.000 -0.231
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 40.846
Max -ve 4.000 -0.323
1634 580 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 28.666
Max -ve 4.000 -0.177
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 40.132
Max -ve 4.000 -0.247
1635 584 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 17.359 4.000 0.015
Max -ve 0 -0.330
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 24.303 4.000 0.021048
Max -ve 0 -0.461
1636 589 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 16.266
Max -ve 0 -0.719
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 22.773
Max -ve 0 -1.007
1637 593 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 27.735
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 9
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 9 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
Max -ve 4.000 -0.106
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 38.829
Max -ve 4.000 -0.148
1638 600 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 26.362 0 0.045
Max -ve 4.000 -0.020
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 36.907 0 0.062
Max -ve 4.000 -0.028
1639 604 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 14.642
Max -ve 0 -1.114
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 20.499
Max -ve 0 -1.560
1640 607 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 12.538
Max -ve 0 -1.397
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 17.553
Max -ve 0 -1.955
1641 611 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 24.564 0 0.060
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 34.389 0 0.084
Max -ve
1642 618 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 22.346 4.000 0.085
Max -ve 0 -0.028
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 31.285 4.000 0.118
Max -ve 0 -0.039
1643 622 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 9.972
Max -ve 4.000 -1.442
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 13.961
Max -ve 4.000 -2.019
1644 623 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 6.737
Max -ve 4.000 -1.478
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 9.432
Max -ve 4.000 -2.069
1645 627 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 19.676 4.000 0.003
Max -ve 0 -0.262
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 27.546 4.000 0.004
Max -ve 0 -0.367
1646 634 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 16.433
Max -ve 0 -0.591
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 23.006
Max -ve 0 -0.827
1647 637 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 12.410
Max -ve 0 -0.752
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 17.373
Max -ve 0 -1.053
1648 644 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 29.147
Max -ve 4.000 -0.220
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 40.806
Max -ve 4.000 -0.308
1649 648 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 17.922 4.000 0.209
Max -ve 0 -0.013
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 10
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 10 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 25.091 4.000 0.293
Max -ve 0 -0.018
1650 657 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 17.950
Max -ve 4.000 -0.270
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 25.130
Max -ve 4.000 -0.378
1651 661 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 29.176 4.000 0.231
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 40.846 4.000 0.323
Max -ve
1652 668 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 28.666 4.000 0.177
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 40.132 4.000 0.247
Max -ve
1653 672 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 17.359 0 0.330
Max -ve 4.000 -0.015
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 24.303 0 0.462
Max -ve 4.000 -0.021
1654 677 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 16.266 0 0.719
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 22.773 0 1.007
Max -ve
1655 681 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 27.735 4.000 0.106
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 38.829 4.000 0.148
Max -ve
1656 688 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 26.362 4.000 0.020
Max -ve 0 -0.045
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 36.907 4.000 0.028
Max -ve 0 -0.062
1657 692 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 14.642 0 1.114
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 20.499 0 1.560
Max -ve
1658 695 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 12.538 0 1.397
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 17.553 0 1.956
Max -ve
1659 699 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 24.564
Max -ve 0 -0.060
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 34.389
Max -ve 0 -0.084
1660 706 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 22.346 0 0.028
Max -ve 4.000 -0.085
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 31.285 0 0.039
Max -ve 4.000 -0.118
1661 710 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 9.972 4.000 1.442
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 13.961 4.000 2.019
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 11
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 11 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
Max -ve
1662 711 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 6.737 4.000 1.478
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 9.432 4.000 2.069
Max -ve
1663 715 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 19.676 0 0.262
Max -ve 4.000 -0.003
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 27.546 0 0.367
Max -ve 4.000 -0.004
1664 722 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 16.433 0 0.591
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 23.006 0 0.827
Max -ve
1665 725 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 12.410 0 0.752
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 17.373 0 1.053
Max -ve
1666 732 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 29.147 4.000 0.220
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 40.806 4.000 0.308
Max -ve
1667 736 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 4.000 17.922 0 0.013
Max -ve 4.000 -0.209
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 4.000 25.091 0 0.019
Max -ve 4.000 -0.293
Beam Maximum Axial Forces
Distances to maxima are given from beam end A.
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
1544 308 5.255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 6.387
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 8.942
Max -ve
1545 304 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 2.556
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 3.579
Max -ve
1546 355 5.255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 6.387
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 8.942
Max -ve
1547 351 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 2.556
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 3.579
Max -ve
1548 1 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 81.538
Max -ve
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 12
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 12 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 114.153
Max -ve
1549 206 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 74.962
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 104.946
Max -ve
1550 208 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 64.990
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 90.985
Max -ve
1552 212 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.922
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 41.891
Max -ve
1554 233 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 17.453
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 24.435
Max -ve
1556 236 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 58.275
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 81.585
Max -ve
1557 237 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 70.541
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 98.758
Max -ve
1559 241 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 39.992
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 55.989
Max -ve
1560 243 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 71.911
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 100.675
Max -ve
1561 250 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 5.512
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 7.717
Max -ve
1562 238 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 80.453
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 112.634
Max -ve
1563 210 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 50.306
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 70.428
Max -ve
1564 235 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 40.922
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 57.290
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 13
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 13 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
Max -ve
1565 214 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 78.263
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 109.568
Max -ve
1566 281 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 71.911
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 100.675
Max -ve
1567 286 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 39.993
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 55.990
Max -ve
1582 310 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 81.520
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 114.129
Max -ve
1583 312 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 78.179
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 109.450
Max -ve
1584 313 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 74.847
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 104.785
Max -ve
1585 314 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 70.398
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 98.558
Max -ve
1586 315 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 64.822
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 90.751
Max -ve
1587 316 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 58.090
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 81.325
Max -ve
1588 317 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 50.110
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 70.155
Max -ve
1589 318 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 40.730
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 57.022
Max -ve
1590 319 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.754
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 41.656
Max -ve
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 14
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 14 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
1591 322 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 80.402
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 112.562
Max -ve
1594 338 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 5.475
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 7.665
Max -ve
1595 343 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 17.340
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 24.277
Max -ve
1596 393 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 65.291
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 91.407
Max -ve
1597 397 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 32.371
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 45.319
Max -ve
1598 403 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 55.120
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 77.168
Max -ve
1599 407 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 21.879
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 30.630
Max -ve
1600 412 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 39.713
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 55.598
Max -ve
1601 416 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 9.393
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 13.151
Max -ve
1602 420 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 18.824
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 26.353
Max -ve
1603 426 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 68.611
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 96.055
Max -ve
1604 430 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 36.125
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 50.575
Max -ve
1605 456 5.255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 6.282
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 15
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 15 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 8.795
Max -ve
1606 458 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 2.449
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 3.428
Max -ve
1607 460 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.855
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 41.797
Max -ve
1608 462 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 15.539
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 21.755
Max -ve
1609 464 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 48.118
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 67.365
Max -ve
1610 467 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 27.572
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 38.600
Max -ve
1611 469 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 60.816
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 85.142
Max -ve
1612 473 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 38.690
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 54.165
Max -ve
1613 475 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 70.812
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 99.137
Max -ve
1614 481 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 38.690
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 54.167
Max -ve
1615 485 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 70.812
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 99.136
Max -ve
1616 492 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 65.291
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 91.407
Max -ve
1617 496 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 32.372
Max -ve
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 16
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 16 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 45.320
Max -ve
1618 501 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 27.573
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 38.602
Max -ve
1619 505 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 60.815
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 85.141
Max -ve
1620 512 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 55.120
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 77.167
Max -ve
1621 516 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 21.880
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 30.632
Max -ve
1622 519 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 15.540
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 21.755
Max -ve
1623 523 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 48.117
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 67.364
Max -ve
1624 530 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 39.713
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 55.598
Max -ve
1625 534 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 9.394
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 13.151
Max -ve
1626 535 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 2.449
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 3.428
Max -ve
1627 539 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.855
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 41.796
Max -ve
1628 546 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 18.823
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 26.353
Max -ve
1629 549 5.255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 6.282
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 8.795
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 17
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 17 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
Max -ve
1630 556 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 68.611
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 96.055
Max -ve
1631 560 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 36.126
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 50.577
Max -ve
1632 569 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 40.001
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 56.002
Max -ve
1633 573 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 71.915
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 100.682
Max -ve
1634 580 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 68.633
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 96.086
Max -ve
1635 584 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 36.172
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 50.641
Max -ve
1636 589 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 32.435
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 45.410
Max -ve
1637 593 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 65.321
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 91.449
Max -ve
1638 600 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 60.853
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 85.194
Max -ve
1639 604 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 27.654
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 38.716
Max -ve
1640 607 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 21.975
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 30.766
Max -ve
1641 611 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 55.164
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 77.230
Max -ve
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 18
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 18 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
1642 618 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 48.170
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 67.438
Max -ve
1643 622 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 15.648
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 21.908
Max -ve
1644 623 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 9.500
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 13.300
Max -ve
1645 627 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 39.776
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 55.686
Max -ve
1646 634 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.933
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 41.907
Max -ve
1647 637 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 18.929
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 26.501
Max -ve
1648 644 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 70.825
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 99.155
Max -ve
1649 648 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 38.718
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 54.205
Max -ve
1650 657 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 40.002
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 56.003
Max -ve
1651 661 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 71.915
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 100.681
Max -ve
1652 668 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 68.633
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 96.086
Max -ve
1653 672 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 36.172
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 50.641
Max -ve
1654 677 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 32.436
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 19
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 19 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 45.410
Max -ve
1655 681 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 65.321
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 91.449
Max -ve
1656 688 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 60.853
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 85.194
Max -ve
1657 692 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 27.654
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 38.716
Max -ve
1658 695 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 21.976
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 30.766
Max -ve
1659 699 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 55.164
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 77.230
Max -ve
1660 706 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 48.170
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 67.438
Max -ve
1661 710 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 15.648
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 21.908
Max -ve
1662 711 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 9.500
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 13.300
Max -ve
1663 715 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 39.776
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 55.686
Max -ve
1664 722 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 29.933
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 41.907
Max -ve
1665 725 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 18.929
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 26.501
Max -ve
1666 732 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 70.825
Max -ve
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 20
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 20 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 99.155
Max -ve
1667 736 4.000 1:LC1 - HYDRAULICMax +ve 0 38.718
Max -ve
2:LC2 - 1.4HL Max +ve 0 54.206
Max -ve
8.383 kip
11.315 kip
9.165 kip
15.042 kip
11.114 kip
11.881 kip
7.154 kip
10.236 kip
4.271 kip
12.116 kip
15.900 kip
2.508 kip1.769 kip
10.236 kip
1.489 kip
11.881 kip
1.446 kip
15.042 kip
1.574 kip
11.315 kip
1.355 kip
12.116 kip
1.549 kip
8.383 kip
1.355 kip
9.165 kip
1.573 kip
11.114 kip
1.444 kip
7.154 kip
1.491 kip
4.271 kip
1.771 kip
2.508 kip
2.521 kip
1.769 kip
4.282 kip
1.489 kip
7.270 kip
1.446 kip
11.226 kip
1.574 kip
8.896 kip
1.355 kip
8.372 kip
1.355 kip
11.403 kip
1.574 kip
15.199 kip
1.445 kip
11.596 kip
1.489 kip
10.238 kip
1.767 kip
12.166 kip
2.522 kip
15.993 kip
12.166 kip
4.283 kip
1.549 kip
10.238 kip
7.271 kip
11.596 kip11.226 kip
15.199 kip
8.896 kip
11.403 kip
8.372 kip
Support Reactions - All
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 21
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 21 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
1.355 kip 1.355 kip1.573 kip1.574 kip1.445 kip 1.444 kip1.489 kip 1.491 kip1.767 kip 1.771 kip
2.521 kip2.522 kip
4.283 kip 4.282 kip
7.270 kip7.271 kip
11.226 kip11.226 kip
8.896 kip 8.896 kip
8.372 kip8.372 kip
11.403 kip11.403 kip
15.199 kip 15.199 kip
11.596 kip 11.596 kip
10.238 kip 10.238 kip
12.166 kip12.166 kip
15.993 kip
Load 2XY
Z
Support Reactions on Beam Bearing Sides
12.116 kip
15.993 kip15.900 kip
12.166 kip12.116 kip
10.236 kip 10.238 kip
11.596 kip
11.881 kip
15.199 kip15.042 kip
11.315 kip 11.403 kip
8.372 kip8.383 kip
9.165 kip
8.896 kip
11.114 kip 11.226 kip
7.271 kip7.154 kip
4.283 kip4.271 kip
2.508 kip 2.522 kip
1.769 kip 1.767 kip
1.489 kip 1.489 kip1.446 kip 1.445 kip1.574 kip1.574 kip
12.166 kip
1.355 kip 1.355 kip1.549 kip
Load 2XY
Z
Support Reactions at Plate Bearing Sides
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 22
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 22 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Reactions
Horizontal Vertical Moment
Node L/C FX
(kip)
FY
(kip)
FZ
(kip)
MX
(kip-ft)
MY
(kip-ft)
MZ
(kip-ft)
205 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.031 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.444 0 0 0
207 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.265 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.771 0 0 0
213 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.123 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.573 0 0 0
215 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.283 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.596 0 0 0
217 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.145 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.403 0 0 0
219 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 6.354 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 8.896 0 0 0
221 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 5.193 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 7.270 0 0 0
223 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 7.313 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 10.238 0 0 0
225 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.800 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 2.521 0 0 0
226 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.065 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.491 0 0 0
227 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 3.058 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 4.282 0 0 0
228 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.019 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.226 0 0 0
229 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 5.980 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 8.372 0 0 0
230 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 10.856 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 15.199 0 0 0
231 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 0.968 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.355 0 0 0
232 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.690 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 12.166 0 0 0
245 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 11.424 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 15.993 0 0 0
246 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.106 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.549 0 0 0
251 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.262 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.767 0 0 0
252 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.802 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 2.522 0 0 0
253 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.032 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.445 0 0 0
254 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.064 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.489 0 0 0
255 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 3.059 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 4.283 0 0 0
256 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 5.193 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 7.271 0 0 0
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 23
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 23 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Reactions Cont...
Horizontal Vertical Moment
Node L/C FX
(kip)
FY
(kip)
FZ
(kip)
MX
(kip-ft)
MY
(kip-ft)
MZ
(kip-ft)
258 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.019 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.226 0 0 0
259 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.145 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.403 0 0 0
260 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 5.980 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 8.372 0 0 0
261 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.283 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.596 0 0 0
262 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 10.856 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 15.199 0 0 0
265 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 0.968 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.355 0 0 0
275 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.124 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.574 0 0 0
279 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.690 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 12.166 0 0 0
284 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 6.354 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 8.896 0 0 0
290 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 7.313 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 10.238 0 0 0
297 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.263 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.769 0 0 0
298 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.791 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 2.508 0 0 0
299 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.033 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.446 0 0 0
300 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.063 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.489 0 0 0
301 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 3.051 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 4.271 0 0 0
302 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 5.110 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 7.154 0 0 0
304 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 7.938 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.114 0 0 0
305 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.082 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.315 0 0 0
306 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 5.988 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 8.383 0 0 0
307 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.486 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.881 0 0 0
308 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 10.744 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 15.042 0 0 0
311 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 0.968 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.355 0 0 0
321 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.124 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.574 0 0 0
324 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.654 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 12.116 0 0 0
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 24
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 24 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Reactions Cont...
Horizontal Vertical Moment
Node L/C FX
(kip)
FY
(kip)
FZ
(kip)
MX
(kip-ft)
MY
(kip-ft)
MZ
(kip-ft)
329 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 6.546 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 9.165 0 0 0
335 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 7.311 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 10.236 0 0 0
338 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 11.357 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 15.900 0 0 0
344 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.263 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.769 0 0 0
345 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.791 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 2.508 0 0 0
346 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.033 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.446 0 0 0
347 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.063 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.489 0 0 0
348 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 3.051 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 4.271 0 0 0
349 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 5.110 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 7.154 0 0 0
351 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 7.938 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.114 0 0 0
352 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.082 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.315 0 0 0
353 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 5.988 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 8.383 0 0 0
354 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.486 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 11.881 0 0 0
355 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 10.744 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 15.042 0 0 0
358 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 0.968 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.355 0 0 0
368 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.124 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.574 0 0 0
371 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 8.654 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 12.116 0 0 0
376 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 6.546 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 9.165 0 0 0
382 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 7.311 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 10.236 0 0 0
385 1:LC1 - HYDRAULIC 0 0 1.106 0 0 0
2:LC2 - 1.4HL 0 0 1.549 0 0 0
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 25
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CJ
29-Mar-2022 13:14LL_Bulkhead_Design.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 15:16 Print Run 25 of 25STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Max Von Mis
psi
<= 3803
6205
8607
11 E3
13.4 E3
15.8 E3
18.2 E3
20.6 E3
23 E3
25.4 E3
27.8 E3
30.2 E3
32.6 E3
35 E3
37.4 E3
39.8 E3
>= 42.2 E3
Max Von Mis Plate Stresses
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 1
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 1 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Job Information
Engineer Checked Approved
Name:NS CF CF
Date:3/29/2022
Project ID
Project Name
Structure Type SPACE FRAME
Number of Nodes 32 Highest Node 36
Number of Elements 28 Highest Beam 32
Number of Basic Load Cases 3
Number of Combination Load Cases 0
Included in this printout are data for:
All The Whole Structure
Included in this printout are results for load cases:
Type L/C Name
Primary 1 LC1 - DEAD LOAD
Primary 2 1.4 X D:
Primary 3 1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):
Section Properties
Prop Section Area
(in2)
Iyy
(in4)
Izz
(in4)
J
(in4)
Material
1 Cir 1.00 0.785 0.049 0.049 0.098 STEEL
2 4X1_BAR 4.000 0.333 5.333 1.124 STEEL
Materials
Mat Name E
(kip/in2)
n Density
(kip/in3)
a
(/°F)
1 STEEL 29 E +3 0.300 0.000283 6.5 E -6
Primary Load Cases
Number Name Type
1 LC1 - DEAD LOAD None
2 1.4 X D:None
3 1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):None
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 2
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 2 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
3D View of Bulkhead Hinge Bar
-1.050 kip
-0.833 kip-0.881 kip-0.833 kip
-1.050 kip
-1.050 kip
-0.833 kip-0.881 kip-0.833 kip
-1.050 kip
-1.050 kip
-0.833 kip
-0.833 kip
-1.050 kip
-0.833 kip-0.881 kip
-1.050 kip
-1.050 kip
-0.833 kip-0.838 kip
Load 1
X
Y
Z
Total Unfactored Load on Hinge Bars (LC 1)
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 3
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 3 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
0.193
0.104 0.155 0.157 0.16 0.121
0.161 0.247
0.0305
0.256 0.258
0.188
0.153 0.2220.2560.259
0.0229
0.236
0.248
0.0784
0.3090.309
0.0437
0.29
Load 3
X
Y
Z
Utilization Ratios of Hinge Bar (LC 3)
Beam Maximum Moments
Distances to maxima are given from beam end A.
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
1 1 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -1.959
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 0 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.743
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 0 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -1.371
2 6 13.732 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 13.732 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 0 -1.039
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 13.732 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 0 -1.455
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 13.732 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 0 -0.727
3 1 27.406 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 25.122 0.000
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 4
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 4 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
Max -ve 0 0 27.406 -0.000
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 25.122 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 25.122 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 0 0
4 2 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -3.133
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -4.386
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.193
5 3 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -3.476
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -4.867
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.433
6 4 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -3.476
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -4.867
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -2.433
7 5 22.290 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -3.034
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -4.248
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -2.124
8 9 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 0 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -1.366
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -1.913
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -0.956
9 11 13.732 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 0 0.359
Max -ve 0 0
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 0 0.503
Max -ve 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 0 0.251
Max -ve 0 0
10 9 24.413 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 22.379 -0.000
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 22.379 -0.000
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 22.379 -0.000
15 17 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 0 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.165
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 5
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 5 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -3.031
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -1.516
16 19 13.732 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 0 0.503
Max -ve 0 0
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 0 0.704
Max -ve 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 0 0.352
Max -ve 0 0
17 17 9.861 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 9.039 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 9.861 -0.000
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 9.039 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 9.039 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 0 0
18 18 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -3.326
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -4.657
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.329
19 22 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -3.426
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -4.796
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.398
20 23 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -3.426
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -4.796
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -2.398
21 24 22.290 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 22.290 0.503
Max -ve 0 0 0 -2.521
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 22.290 0.704
Max -ve 0 0 0 -3.529
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 22.290 0.352
Max -ve 0 0 0 -1.765
22 25 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.498
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -3.497
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -1.748
23 27 13.732 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 13.732 -0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -0.191
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 13.732 -0
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 6
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 6 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
Max -ve 0 0 0 -0.267
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 13.732 -0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -0.133
24 25 18.050 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.546 -0.000
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 18.050 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 16.546 -0.000
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 18.050 0.000
Max -ve 0 0 16.546 -0.000
25 26 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -3.885
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -5.438
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.719
26 30 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -4.154
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -5.816
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.908
27 31 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -4.154
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -5.816
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -2.908
28 32 22.290 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -3.313
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -4.638
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -2.319
29 33 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.096
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.934
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -1.467
30 34 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -2.151
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -3.012
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 16.000 -1.506
31 35 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -2.151
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -3.012
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 7
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 7 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Moments Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max My
(kip-ft)
d
(in)
Max Mz
(kip-ft)
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0
Max -ve 0 0 0 -1.506
32 36 22.290 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0 22.290 0.359
Max -ve 0 0 0 -1.570
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0 22.290 0.503
Max -ve 0 0 0 -2.198
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0 22.290 0.251
Max -ve 0 0 0 -1.099
Beam Maximum Axial Forces
Distances to maxima are given from beam end A.
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
1 1 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 2.333
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 3.267
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.633
Max -ve
2 6 13.732 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0.611
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0.855
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0.428
Max -ve
3 1 27.406 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve
Max -ve 0 -3.789
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -5.304
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -2.652
4 2 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.744
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.442
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.221
Max -ve
5 3 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.121
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 1.570
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0.785
Max -ve
6 4 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0.532
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0.745
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0.373
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 8
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 8 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
Max -ve
7 5 22.290 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve
Max -ve 0 -0.210
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -0.294
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -0.147
8 9 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve
Max -ve 0 -1.464
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -2.050
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -1.025
9 11 13.732 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.782
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.495
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.248
Max -ve
10 9 24.413 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve
Max -ve 0 -2.837
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -3.972
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -1.986
15 17 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0.711
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0.996
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0.498
Max -ve
16 19 13.732 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 2.741
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 3.838
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.919
Max -ve
17 17 9.861 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve
Max -ve 0 -2.586
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -3.621
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -1.811
18 18 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.067
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 1.494
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0.747
Max -ve
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 9
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 9 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
19 22 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.444
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.022
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.011
Max -ve
20 23 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.800
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.520
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.260
Max -ve
21 24 22.290 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 2.249
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 3.149
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.574
Max -ve
22 25 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.445
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.023
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.012
Max -ve
23 27 13.732 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 2.211
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 3.095
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.547
Max -ve
24 25 18.050 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve
Max -ve 0 -3.261
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -4.565
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -2.283
25 26 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.445
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.023
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.012
Max -ve
26 30 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.445
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.023
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.012
Max -ve
27 31 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.445
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 10
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 10 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Beam Maximum Axial Forces Cont...
Beam Node A Length
(in)
L/C d
(in)
Max Fx
(kip)
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.023
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.012
Max -ve
28 32 22.290 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.445
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.023
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.012
Max -ve
29 33 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve
Max -ve 0 -0.782
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -1.095
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -0.547
30 34 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve
Max -ve 0 -0.060
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -0.084
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve
Max -ve 0 -0.042
31 35 16.000 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 0.622
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 0.871
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 0.436
Max -ve
32 36 22.290 1:LC1 - DEAD LOADMax +ve 0 1.482
Max -ve
2:1.4 X D:Max +ve 0 2.075
Max -ve
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):Max +ve 0 1.038
Max -ve
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 11
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 11 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
1.012 kip
2.046 kip
-1.038 kip
0.727 kip
0.184 kip
1.801 kip
-1.012 kip
1.177 kip
2.153 kip
1.548 kip
0.147 kip
0.752 kip
-1.574 kip
1.139 kip
-1.627 kip
1.139 kip
Load 3
X
Y
Z
Support Reactions (LC3)
Reactions
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Moment
Node L/C FX
(kip)
FY
(kip)
FZ
(kip)
MX
(kip-ft)
MY
(kip-ft)
MZ
(kip-ft)
7 1:LC1 - DEAD LOAD 0.210 1.074 0 0 0 0
2:1.4 X D: 0.294 1.504 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR): 0.147 0.752 0 0 0 0
8 1:LC1 - DEAD LOAD 3.076 2.212 0 0 0 0
2:1.4 X D: 4.306 3.097 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR): 2.153 1.548 0 0 0 0
12 1:LC1 - DEAD LOAD-1.482 1.038 0 0 0 0
2:1.4 X D:-2.075 1.454 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):-1.038 0.727 0 0 0 0
13 1:LC1 - DEAD LOAD-2.324 1.627 0 0 0 0
2:1.4 X D:-3.254 2.278 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):-1.627 1.139 0 0 0 0
20 1:LC1 - DEAD LOAD-2.249 1.628 0 0 0 0
2:1.4 X D:-3.149 2.279 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):-1.574 1.139 0 0 0 0
Software licensed to Schnabel Engineering, Inc
CONNECTED User: Nathan Smith
Job Title
Client
Job No Sheet No Rev
Part
Ref
By Date Chd
File Date/Time
18C21024.000 12
Lake Lure Dam Bulkhead Design
City of Lake Lure
NS 3/29/2022 CF
29-Mar-2022 16:18support bars.STD
Print Time/Date: 29/03/2022 16:32 Print Run 12 of 12STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition 22.07.00.160
Reactions Cont...
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Moment
Node L/C FX
(kip)
FY
(kip)
FZ
(kip)
MX
(kip-ft)
MY
(kip-ft)
MZ
(kip-ft)
21 1:LC1 - DEAD LOAD 0.262 2.573 0 0 0 0
2:1.4 X D: 0.367 3.602 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR): 0.184 1.801 0 0 0 0
28 1:LC1 - DEAD LOAD-1.445 1.681 0 0 0 0
2:1.4 X D:-2.023 2.353 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR):-1.012 1.177 0 0 0 0
29 1:LC1 - DEAD LOAD 1.445 2.923 0 0 0 0
2:1.4 X D: 2.023 4.092 0 0 0 0
3:1.4 X D X 0.5 (ONE BAR): 1.012 2.046 0 0 0 0

February 3, 2023 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX D

CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS

February 3, 2023 Schnabel Engineering South. P.C.
Project 18C21024.020 ©2023 All Rights Reserved
APPENDIX E

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS