Article

Numerical and Fracture Mechanical Evaluation of Safety

Monitoring Indexes and Crack Resistance in High RCC Gravity
Dams Under Hydraulic Fracture Risk
Mohamed Ramadan 1,2 , Jinsheng Jia 2, *, Lei Zhao 3 , Xu Li 1 and Yangfeng Wu 4

1 Key Laboratory of Urban Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, School of Civil Engineering,
Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China; [email protected] (M.R.); [email protected] (X.L.)
2 State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water
Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR), Beijing 100038, China
3 Huadian Electric Power Research Institute Co., Ltd., XiYuan, Road 1-10, Xihu District,
Hangzhou 310030, China; [email protected]
4 State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University,
Tianjin 300072, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: High concrete gravity dams, particularly Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC)

types, face long-term safety challenges due to weak interlayer formation and crack prop-
agation. This study presented a comprehensive evaluation of safety monitoring indexes
for the Guxian high RCC dam (currently under construction) using both numerical and
mathematical models. A finite element method (FEM) is employed with a strength re-
duction approach to assess dam stability considering weak layers. In parallel, a fracture
mechanical model is used to investigate the safety of the Guxian dam based on failure
assessment diagrams (FADs) for calculating the safety factor and the residual strength
curve for calculating critical crack depth for two different crack locations, single-edge and
center-through crack, to investigate the high possible risk associated with crack location on
the dam safety. Additionally, the Guxian dam’s resistance to hydraulic fracture is assessed
under two fracture mechanic failure modes, Mode I (open type) and Mode II (in-plane
shear), by computing the ultimate overload coefficient using a proposed novel derived
Academic Editor: René de Borst formula. The results show that weak layers reduce the dam’s safety index by approximately
Received: 24 April 2025 20%, especially in lower sections with extensive interfaces. Single-edge cracks pose greater
Revised: 29 May 2025 risk, decreasing the safety factor by 10% and reducing critical crack depth by 40% compared
Accepted: 15 June 2025 to center cracks. Mode II demonstrates higher resistance to hydraulic fracture due to greater
Published: 18 June 2025 shear strength and fracture energy, whereas Mode I represents the most critical failure
Citation: Ramadan, M.; Jia, J.; Zhao, scenario. The findings highlight the urgent need to incorporate weak layer behavior and
L.; Li, X.; Wu, Y. Numerical and hydraulic fracture mechanisms into dam safety monitoring, and to design regulations for
Fracture Mechanical Evaluation of
high RCC gravity dams.
Safety Monitoring Indexes and Crack
Resistance in High RCC Gravity Dams
Under Hydraulic Fracture Risk.
Keywords: high concrete RCC gravity dams; hydraulic fracture; safety monitoring index;
Materials 2025, 18, 2893. https:// FEM; fracture mechanical model; FAD; crack propagation
doi.org/10.3390/ma18122893

Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
1. Introduction
distributed under the terms and Concrete gravity dams are critical infrastructure for water resource management, flood
conditions of the Creative Commons control, and hydropower generation. Ensuring their long-term safety and stability is essen-
Attribution (CC BY) license
tial, as failure can result in catastrophic consequences. However, traditional monitoring
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
methods often fail to capture the complex mechanisms contributing to dam instability,

Materials 2025, 18, 2893 https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18122893

Materials 2025, 18, 2893 2 of 29

particularly under long-term loading conditions. These challenges are more pronounced
in Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) dams, which are prone to the formation of weak
layers due to their layer-by-layer construction process. Over time, these weak interfaces
can compromise the dam’s structural integrity and increase the risk of progressive failure.
In high concrete gravity dams exceeding 200 m in height, another critical risk factor is
hydraulic fracture, which can negatively impact dam safety by inducing crack propagation
under high upstream water pressure [1]. To contextualize these risks, the Guxian high
RCC dam, currently under construction in China, serves as a valuable case study for this
research, as the Guxian dam will stand at a height of 215 m. Given its size and construction
method, the dam faces potential risks from both weak layers and hydraulic fracturing.
Investigating these two key failure mechanisms is crucial for ensuring the long-term safety
and stability of high concrete gravity dams. Historical incidents further highlight the
relevance of this issue. Several cases of concrete dams damaged by hydraulic fracture have
been documented. The Kölnbrein arch dam in Austria, standing at 200 m, experienced a
sudden leak during its third storage period. This was attributed to crack expansion at the
dam heel caused by hydraulic fracture and increased uplift pressure [2,3]. Similarly, the
Zilancolente arch dam, with a height of 182 m, had a bottom joint installed at the foundation
of the upstream surface to mitigate hydraulic fracturing. However, after impoundment,
cracks formed above the bottom joint due to hydraulic fracturing [4,5]. In China, the
Zhexi concrete buttress dam, 104 m tall, suffered upstream face cracks due to high water
pressure. Other incidents include cracks in flood discharge tunnels [6–8], such as at the
Dongfeng Arch Dam [9], and penetrating cracks caused by poor temperature control after
impoundment, as seen in the massive head dam of Tuoxi [10]. In the United States, the
219 m Dworshak gravity dam encountered cracks and leakage due to hydraulic fracture.
These cracks appeared during its seventh year of operation, when the dam reached its
maximum design water level, causing further crack propagation and spreading [11].
In light of these failures, catastrophic dam failures have highlighted the need for
robust monitoring and maintenance strategies. Conventional monitoring methods, in-
cluding periodic visual inspections and sensor-based data collection, provide valuable
insights but may not adequately address the complexities of dam behavior under long-term
loading and environmental stress. Conventional methods, such as visual inspections and
sensors (e.g., piezometers, strain gauges), offer useful data but often fail to detect early-
stage subsurface damage, crack propagation, or complex time-dependent behaviors. These
limitations reduce their effectiveness in capturing long-term degradation and hydraulic
fracture risks in dams. Therefore, continuous monitoring of both the dams and their foun-
dations is essential for detecting abnormalities and analyzing the potential failure modes.
The safety monitoring index (SMI) serves as a key tool to ensure that dams remain within
acceptable operational limits, with the SMI representing the maximum value of monitored
parameters before failure occurs. Various studies have focused on improving dam safety
monitoring. Building on these efforts, Wang et al. [12] emphasized the need for reliable
dam safety monitoring systems that assess the reliability of monitoring facilities, operation,
and maintenance effectiveness. Suwatthikul et al. [13] introduced the Dam Safety Remote
Monitoring System (DS-RMS) to enhance monitoring, aligning with international recom-
mendations. Garcia et al. [14] assessed dam safety using weighted criteria to prioritize risk
analysis. Gu et al. [15] created advanced monitoring techniques for critical areas of concrete
arch dams to improve early-warning effectiveness. Jun et al. [16] introduced ensemble
learning to improve dam safety monitoring, reducing the risk of misjudging abnormal data
points. Wang et al. [17] proposed new safety monitoring indexes for high concrete gravity
dams based on potential failure modes identified through finite element analysis. Their
study addresses the limitations of traditional methods by assessing progressive instability
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 3 of 29

using indicators like dam displacement and concrete yield zones. Monitoring indexes
for dam stress, uplift pressure, and seepage are set according to hydraulic specifications
and are typically established for critical local areas requiring strict control. Particularly
for dam stress, the stress-controllable areas, like the dam heel and the toe, are also stress
concentration areas identified by the finite element method [18]. However, as for crack
opening, it is difficult to determine a monitoring index using hydraulic specifications due to
the complex mechanisms involved. These mechanisms include tensile stress concentration,
microcrack initiation and coalescence, aggregate interlock degradation, and the evolution
of the fracture process zone (FPZ), which are highly nonlinear and sensitive to material
heterogeneity [19,20]. However, like other monitoring items, local damage may occur when
the monitoring index for crack opening is exceeded, and significant abnormalities will be
reflected in dam deformation. Deformation is often the most indicative of overall dam
safety and progressive failure [19]. Given this context, crack formation in concrete dams
is a major concern, particularly as cracks compromise structural integrity and affect dam
behavior. Cracks can develop during both construction and operation, posing a significant
risk to long-term dam stability [21,22]. Additionally, it is important to develop methods
for the timely detection of abnormalities and early warning signs, enabling the effective
and reliable implementation of scientific and reasonable emergency plans to prevent major
accidents [23–25]. To improve index accuracy, some researchers have used mathematical
statistics or structural numerical calculation methods to estimate the monitoring index [26],
while others have combined both methods to determine the monitoring index [27,28].
However, there are few reports on determining the monitoring index for concrete cracks.
Although previous studies have addressed crack cause and stability analyses, and safety
monitoring of hydraulic concrete structures, they often focus on a single perspective as
a reason for crack propagation. Few studies integrate crack cause and stability analysis,
making it difficult for the operation and maintenance personnel to take effective measures.
A more integrated approach was explored by Huang et al. [29], who investigated the struc-
tural safety of a gate storehouse at the Wang Fuzhou Water Conservancy Project. The safety
was evaluated using an integrated approach involving crack cause analysis, stability assess-
ment, and online monitoring. A multi-point anomaly recognition model was developed
by [30] combining an improved local outlier factor (LOF) with mutual validation, consid-
ering spatio-temporal correlations in dam monitoring data. Applied to real displacement
data from concrete and rockfill dams, the model showed high accuracy and robustness,
enhancing dam safety assessment. Future work will focus on handling more complex data
and post-outlier processing. Advances in technology have also contributed to this field.
Another study by [31] presented the development of an intelligent monitoring system
for the Three Gorges Dam, aimed at overcoming key technical challenges through the
integration of AI, IoT, big data, and GIS + BIM technologies. The resulting platform enables
real-time data aggregation, digital twin modeling, online structural analysis, intelligent
hazard prediction, and digital inspection workflows. These innovations significantly im-
prove efficiency in safety management and establish a model for the digital transformation
of large-scale hydraulic infrastructure. In addition, Huang et al. [32] proposed a precision
single-point BeiDou positioning system to enhance the accuracy of dam safety monitoring.
Using data from a dam in Sichuan, comparative tests showed that this system achieved
significantly higher accuracy (up to 94.83%) compared to traditional satellite positioning.
The results demonstrate that the BeiDou-based system offers reliable, long-term monitoring
for dam displacement and overall safety. Further refinement of monitoring techniques was
demonstrated by Zhang et al. [33], who introduced a new method for determining safety
monitoring indices (SMIs) in RCC dams by incorporating seepage–stress coupling and
material anisotropy. Using a finite element model in COMSOL, the results showed that this
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 4 of 29

approach reduced seepage and displacement SMIs by 34.78% and 31.98% compared to tra-
ditional methods. The findings highlight the importance of accounting for coupling effects
and anisotropy in accurate dam safety assessments. Motivated by these developments,
the current study employed both numerical and theoretical models to develop compre-
hensive safety monitoring indexes that account for material properties and operational
conditions. The numerical model, based on the finite element method (FEM) combined
with the strength reduction method, is used to calculate the dam’s safety factor with and
without the presence of weak layers. Meanwhile, the theoretical model utilizes a fracture
mechanical evaluation approach, incorporating the failure assessment diagram (FAD) and
residual strength curves to determine the safety factor and critical crack depth. Together,
these models provide a robust framework for assessing dam stability by quantifying key
indicators of potential failure.
Despite the progress made, the influence of weak layers on the safety of RCC dams has
received limited attention in the literature. Only a few studies have explored their impact,
yet the findings consistently indicate that weak layers pose a serious threat to dam stability
and overall safety. For example, ref. [22] analyzed the combined effects of weak layers and
crack propagation, revealing a significant reduction in the dam’s safety factor due to the
presence of weak layers. Similarly, ref. [34] investigated the seismic response of RCC gravity
dams by modeling weak construction layers using zero-thickness cohesive elements and a
concrete damaged plasticity model. Validated with data from the Koyna Dam, the method
was applied to the Guandi Dam to examine how weak and well-bonded layers at different
elevations influence seismic behavior. The results showed that weak layers substantially
reduce seismic resistance and alter failure modes, while even well-bonded layers contribute
to increased displacement, energy dissipation, and damage under strong earthquakes. As a
response to these concerns, this study introduces a dam safety monitoring index to better
capture and highlight their influence on the overall stability behavior of RCC dams.
Following this analysis, another investigation was presented to study the Guxian dam
resistance to hydraulic fracture under different mechanical failure modes. Few studies have
discussed the behavior of different modes of failure in the fracture mechanical evaluation
model, such as ref. [35], that considered the assumption of equivalent fracture energies for
both modes, while refs. [36,37] have stated that the fracture energy in Mode II is typically
20 to 25 times greater than in Mode I. This includes the energy needed to form the inclined
tensile microcracks within the fracture process zone (FPZ), as well as the energy required to
overcome the shear resistance resulting from aggregate interlock and other asperities on the
rough crack surfaces behind the crack tip. To address this knowledge gap, a comprehensive
comparison between these two modes was carried out to investigate the resistance of the
concrete dam to crack propagation during both modes. Fracture mechanical models are
indispensable for analyzing the structural integrity and failure mechanisms of high concrete
dams. These models predict crack initiation and propagation due to factors like thermal
stress, static loads, and dynamic events such as earthquakes. Dams, including gravity, arch,
and RCC dams, can fail in several modes, including Mode I (opening), Mode II (shear), and
Mode III (tearing). Mode I, involving tensile stress, is the most common, while Mode II
occurs due to shear stress, often during seismic events or foundation movement. Mode
III involves tearing, typically caused by torsional or dynamic loading, leading to potential
misalignment and block rotation. Understanding these failure modes is critical for assessing
dam safety.
In summary, despite extensive research on dam safety monitoring and fracture mechan-
ics, limited investigations have considered the combined influence of construction-induced
weak layers and hydraulic fracture risks on long-term dam stability. This study fills these
gaps by integrating a comprehensive numerical model and a theoretical approach to assess
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 5 of 29

safety monitoring indexes for high RCC gravity dams. The proposed framework uniquely
incorporates the effects of weak layers and provides a comparative assessment of crack
propagation behavior and Guxian dam resistance to hydraulic fracture under both Mode I
and Mode II. This dual-mode evaluation offers a more realistic and robust basis for dam
safety assessment, especially for modern high RCC dams like the Guxian dam. This work
contributes to advancing the state of the art by providing new insights into failure mech-
anisms and supporting the development of more accurate safety monitoring criteria for
design and operational practices.
Based on these motivations and the gaps in the literature, the main goals and objectives
of this research are as follows: to establish a safety monitoring index for the Guxian high
RCC dam, considering the impact of weak layers and crack propagation on dam safety
during long-term operation; to compare the behavior of two different crack locations during
hydraulic fracture; and to evaluate the safety index during crack propagation. Additionally,
this study examined the Guxian dam’s resistance to hydraulic fracture under different
fracture mechanics failure modes (Mode I and Mode II) by evaluating the ultimate overload
coefficient, both with and without considering uplift pressure.

2. Methodology
The sequence of this research is as outlined as follows: (1) evaluating the safety
monitoring index for high RCC gravity dam with the effect of the weak layers using strength
reduction method utilizing numerical modeling (FEM); (2) based on the fracture evaluation
mechanical model, the safety monitoring index was evaluated for the dam comparing two
different crack locations using the safety factor of failure assessment diagram (FAD) and the
critical crack depth from residual strength curve; (3) a comparison between two different
modes of fracture mechanics failure Mode I (open type) and II (in plan shear) of fracture
mechanical model to investigate the dam safety against hydraulic fracture.

2.1. Material Strength

Material degradation and external environmental loads are the primary failure risks
for concrete gravity dams. Among the external loads, the most critical are hydrostatic
pressure from reservoir water, uplift pressure, and seepage forces, followed by thermal
loads (e.g., temperature gradients), seismic loads, and ice pressure in colder regions. To
address these risks, the strength reduction method was used to analyze failure mechanisms
and progressive instability using ABAQUS 6.14 software. This method establishes safety
monitoring indexes based on failure risks and specific dam conditions. The proposed
framework combines FEM analysis with the strength reduction method to simulate loading
scenarios, to evaluate displacement patterns, and to identify potential structural instabilities.
Incorporating weak layers in RCC dams enhances the understanding of dam behavior and
failure mechanisms.

Safety Monitoring Index Calculation Using Strength Reduction Method

The strength reduction method (SRM) is a widely used technique to assess the stability
of concrete dams with complex geometries and material behaviors [17,18]. It progressively
reduces material strength parameters, such as cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (φ),
until failure occurs, thereby determining the safety factor. The reduction factor, known
as the strength reduction factor (SRF) or the safety factor (SF), is calculated based on
displacement limits or the formation of a continuous plastic zone, indicating structural
failure. The strength reduction factor (SRF) is defined as follows:
! !
tan φ′ c′
SRF = = (1)
tan φ′ f c′ f
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 6 of 29

where φ’f and c’f are the effective stress strength parameters at failure (reduced strength).
The strength reduction method accounts for weak layers in RCC dams, arising from con-
struction processes. The ultimate strength reduction ratio, defined as the safety factor, is
reached when a penetrating plastic zone forms, destabilizing the structure through the
gradual reduction of shear strength in the soft interlayers [17,18]. To model material behav-
ior under stress, this method is combined with the Drucker–Prager model, commonly used
for concrete and rocks due to its smooth surface failure and correlation with hydrostatic
stress [18,38]. An isotropic, elasto-plastic model with linear softening characteristics was
used to analyze the dam’s material behavior, with the Drucker–Prager criterion serving as
the primary yield function [17]:
p
F = αI1 + J2 − K (2)

where F is the yield function, and I1 and J2 are the first invariant of stress tensor and
the second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, respectively. Both α and K are positive
constants that depend on the shear strength parameters of the material (cohesion “c” and
friction angle “φ”). Both constraints α and K can be calculated as follows [17]:

sin φ
α= (3)
√
r
3 3 + Sin2 φ)

3 C cos φ
K= (4)
√
r
3 3 + Sin2 φ)

2.2. Fracture Mechanics

To simulate the Guxian dam, different plates dimensions with the same material
properties of the Guxian dam were utilized to assign the safety monitoring index. Fracture
mechanics describes the behavior of solids or structures with geometric discontinuities
at the structural scale, combining crack mechanics and material properties [39]. Various
techniques analytically solve the stress, strain, and displacement fields near a crack in
an elastic solid. The stress function is shown in Figure 1. The stress intensity factor (K)
quantifies the stress at the crack tip, calculated using limit value formulas derived from
stresses or displacements near the crack tip, often through extrapolation [39]. K predicts
the stress state around the crack tip due to remote loads or residual stresses. It depends on
the applied stress, crack size, and geometry, and varies with the crack opening mode, as
demonstrated by Equation (5):
√
K = Y σ πa (5)

The geometry factor (Y) represents the crack system’s geometry relative to the applied
load, and affects the stress intensity factor at the crack tip.
For a center crack in an infinite plate, Y = 1.0. For an edge crack in a finite-width strip,
the correction factor depends on (a/w). This study considers a single edge-through crack in
a semi-infinite body and a center-through crack in an infinite body. Static fracture analysis
assumes a constant applied load and uses linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) to compare
the stress intensity factor (K) with the material’s critical value, typically the plane–strain fracture
toughness (KIC ). The stress intensity factor is calculated as shown in Table 1.
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 7 of 29

Figure 1. A crack of length 2a in an infinite plate [20].

Table 1. Stress intensity factors.

Geometry Stress Intensity Factor

Center crack in an infinite body

√
K I = σ πa

Single edge-through crack in semi-infinite body

√
K I = 1.12σ πa

Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) assumes the elastic material behavior, with a
small plastic zone near the crack tip compared to the overall part. If the plastic zone grows
large and reaches boundaries, the linear elastic assumption becomes invalid, indicating
gross yielding. A plastic zone forms ahead of the crack tip, and the elastic stress field
equations are used to determine the theoretical distance from the crack tip where the stress
equals the material’s yield strength. This involves solving the elastic stress field equation to
find the point where the stresses match the yield strength. The elastic stress field equation
used here is as follows:
Kapp
σy = √ (6)
2πr
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 8 of 29

which is the distance from the crack tip. To determine the theoretical size of the plastic zone
(rt ) near the crack tip, set the stress σ equal to the material’s yield strength σy and solve for
the distance r from the crack tip. Using the stress field equation as follows:
2
Kapp

1
rt = (7)
2π σty

where Kapp represents the stress intensity due to the applied stress, and σty is the material’s
tensile yield strength. For the actual plastic zone size to match the theoretical prediction,
the stresses within the plastic zone must exceed the yield strength. However, because
the material cannot sustain significantly higher stresses, the stress near the crack tip re-
distributes to regions further away. As a result, the actual plastic zone is approximately
twice the theoretical size, or about (2rt ). Figure 2 shows the theoretical elastic stress, plastic
zone size, redistributed stresses, and the realistic estimate of the plastic zone size. When
yielding occurs, stresses redistribute to maintain equilibrium. In the plastic zone, replacing
the elastic stress distribution with the constant yield stress disrupts the equilibrium along
the y-direction.

Figure 2. Illustration of theoretical elastic stress and plastic zone size [20].

The cross-hatched area in Figure 2 shows the forces that the elastic material could
support, but the elastic–plastic material cannot support since the stresses are capped at the
yield. To balance these forces, the plastic zone expands. A simple force balance assumes the
force carried by the elastic stress distribution remains the same before and after yielding,
providing a second-order estimation as follows:
Z rt Z rt
K
σty r p = σyy dr = √ I dr (8)
0 0 2πr

Hence, this results in Equation (9):

 2
1 KI
rp = (9)
π σty

The governing equation based on the fracture mechanics model is used to evaluate
the fracture mechanics variables. The methodology for the following equations and the
sequence of analysis were taken according to the literature [40–47]. The initial parameter
to compute is the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), employing the concept of the
stress intensity factor. Typically, the plane–strain fracture toughness, (KIC ), is chosen as the
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 9 of 29

critical stress intensity value for the design and analysis. Subsequently, the factor of safety
is determined as follows:
K
FS LEFM = IC (10)
Kapp
In a hydraulic fracture assessment, the dam’s behavior is often modeled as a plate,
requiring verification of the LEFM applicability. For the LEFM to be valid, the plastic zone
must be small relative to the structure and the crack geometry. If the plastic zone extends
too close to the boundaries, it can cause significant yielding and deformation. The plastic
zone forms ahead of the crack tip, and the crack tip should be positioned at least a distance
(dLEFM ) from any boundary, which in plane stress conditions is about four times the plastic
zone size. This is demonstrated by Equation (11):
2
Kapp

4
d LEFM = (11)
π σty

If the LEFM is not applicable, an elastic–plastic analysis based on the failure assessment
diagram (FAD) is required to account for the plasticity effects around the crack [42]. The
applicability of the LEFM was assessed based on the relative size of the plastic zone at the
crack tip to the uncracked ligament and plate dimensions. When the calculated plastic zone
rt exceeded approximately 10% of the remaining ligament width, the LEFM was deemed
invalid. A FAD is a graphical method used to evaluate the integrity and safety of structures
with cracks or defects, combining both the fracture and the plastic collapse failure modes.
By plotting the material’s response on the FAD, engineers can assess whether the structure
is safe or at risk. The FAD helps determine design acceptability by comparing the applied
loading conditions with the material properties, like fracture toughness and yield strength.
Both the stress ratio (Sr ) and the stress intensity ratio (Kr ) must be calculated to assess the
design’s safety under specific load cases, as follows:

σapp
Sr = (12)
σty

Kapp
Kr = (13)
K IC
where σapp represents the applied stress, Kapp is the stress intensity factor at the applied
stress, σty is the material’s tensile yield strength, and KIC is the material’s plane–strain
fracture toughness. To determine the factor of safety, a line (referred to as the load line)
is drawn from the origin through the design point, continuing until it intersects the FAD
failure locus, see Figure 3. The factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the length of the
load line between the origin and the failure point to the length of the load line between the
origin and the design point as shown in the following equation. The FAD failure locus is
expressed as follows:
" #−0.5
Eε re f Sr3 σty
Kr. f = + (14)
Sr σty 2E ε re f

where E is the material’s elastic modulus, σty is the material’s tensile yield strength, and Sr
is the stress ratio defined earlier. The value ε re f represents the true strain corresponding to
the stress Sr .σty , which can be calculated using the Ramberg–Osgood equation. One of the
key advantages of the FAD approach is its ability to account for material plasticity while still
utilizing linear elastic stress intensities, offering simplicity compared to other elastic–plastic
methods. A failure assessment diagram was used to assign the safety factor to represent
the safety monitoring index, due to the limited applicability of the LEFM according to the
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 10 of 29

chosen plates’ dimensions. The severity of a cracked component is characterized by the

stress intensity factor K, with failure occurring when K = Kc .

Figure 3. Failure assessment diagram (FAD).

On the other hand, for the calculation of the critical crack length, the residual strength
of a cracked component is given by Equation (15):

K
σc = √c (15)
Y πa

where Y represents a geometry correction factor. The stress σ denotes the gross stress on
the section where the crack length a is defined, with the residual strength referring to a net
section condition. Under plane strain conditions, Kc = KIC , the crack size corresponding
to this stress is known as the critical crack size. Solving the critical crack size analytically
is challenging because Y(a) is typically a complex function of the crack length and the
component geometry [42]. However, this can be determined numerically through iteration.
When Y changes slowly with the crack length, for example, for a small crack in a wide panel,
an approximate value of Y can be used to estimate the critical crack size that a component
can withstand under a given load using the following equation:
 2
1 Kc
ac = (16)
π Y ( ac /W )σ

The two equations above form the foundation of the fracture mechanics-based design
methodologies [42]. It is important to note that Equation (15) is valid only when the linear
elastic fracture mechanics applies specifically, when the net section stress is well below the
material’s yield stress. If the stress level approaches the yield stress, the component may
fail by plastic collapse rather than fracture. For a center-cracked panel with a finite width
W, the maximum load-carrying capacity is limited by the plastic collapse strength, where
the stress across the entire section reaches or exceeds the material’s yield strength or the
ultimate tensile strength. The nominal stress at collapse can be derived straightforwardly
through Equation (17):
W − 2a
σpc = σty (17)
W
When this occurs, fracture will occur regardless of the fracture toughness since the
plastic deformation becomes unbounded. Thus, plastic collapse and brittle fracture are the
two potential failure modes. A collapse will occur if the fracture stress σc is greater than the
stress that causes failure by collapse. Consequently, for σc and σpc , the real residual strength
is the lowest. In the event of a center cracked panel, a plastic collapse failure would occur
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 11 of 29

in three different scenarios: The width W is very small, the crack is very small, and the
toughness is very high. Figure 4 shows a sketch for the potential failure modes. The two
curves’ intersection is given in Equation (18):

W − 2a Kc
σty > √ p (18)
W πa sec(πa/W

Figure 4. Schematic graph for two modes of failure fracture and collapse [20].

A comprehensive investigation of the concrete gravity dam’s resistance to hydraulic

fracture was carried out using a mathematical fracture evaluation model, considering
factors like the ultimate overloading coefficient and the crack depth. The ultimate overload
coefficient was assessed through the fracture mechanics splitting criterion to express the
dam’s resistance and to determine the crack depth. A strength-based criterion was applied,
expecting crack expansion if the tensile stress at the fracture tip exceeded the concrete’s
allowable tensile strength [20]. The three main stress modes include (I) the opening mode,
(II) the in-plane shear mode, and (III) the out-of-plane tearing mode (see Figure 5). The
dam’s resistance was examined under two failure modes: open-type failure and in-plane
shear failure. The Guxian dam’s safety was theoretically assessed using the model, and
the results were compared across different failure modes, with the splitting criterion
considering both uplift pressure and its absence.

Figure 5. The three basic modes of crack extension: (a) opening mode, (b) sliding mode (in plane
shear), and (c) tearing mode (out of plan shear).

3. Analysis Procedures
3.1. Safety Monitoring Index with and Without Considering the Weak Layers
The safety index for the Guxian dam was evaluated using a 2D model with a FEM
analysis conducted in ABAQUS 6.14. The assessment considered both scenarios with and
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 12 of 29

without the weak layers present in the RCC dam. This study investigated the impact
of weak interfaces on the long-term safety of the Guxian high concrete gravity dam. To
track the safety variations during the dam’s progressive failure, the strength reduction
method was applied as an indicator to analyze dam displacement and the connectivity
of yield zones. Material strength deterioration is identified as one of the most critical
factors affecting dam stability. Therefore, the strength reduction method offers an effective
approach to understanding the failure process of high concrete gravity dams under this
adverse condition. The factor of safety is calculated in the normal case of loading. The
material properties used in the FEM simulations are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. The mechanical properties of the main materials used for the Guxian dam.

Elastic Properties Plastic Properties

Material Elastic Modulus Friction Angle Yield Stress
Poisson Ratio ◦
GPa MPa
C15W6 22 0.167 50.7 1.78
BT CONCRETE 39 0.167 59.6 4.49
C20W6 25.5 0.167 51.3 2.48
C25W8 28 0.167 51.7 2.52
Foundation 32 0.2 50.7 1. 8

The boundary condition of the dam model is as follows: the upstream and downstream
limits of the foundation were subjected to level constraints, ensuring that these areas
remained stable and aligned with the expected ground levels. The bottom boundary of
the foundation was fixed to prevent any vertical movement, providing a stable base for
the dam. This fixed constraint effectively modeled the interaction between the dam and
its foundation, allowing for the accurate representation of stress and stability conditions.
On the other hand, the perimeter of the dam body was set as a free boundary, allowing the
dam’s surface to deform naturally without any restrictive constraints.
The distribution of material properties throughout the Guxian dam body is illustrated
in Figure 6a. While Figure 6b presents a 2D model of the Guxian dam. Level constraints
were applied to the upstream and downstream boundaries of the foundation, while the
bottom boundary of the foundation was assigned a fixed constraint. The boundaries of
the dam body were designated as free boundaries. Four monitoring points at the dam
cross section were determined as the fixed points of dam displacement measurements, and
the elevations of these points are 631 m (dam crest), 525 m, 480 m, and 465 m, as shown
in Figure 7. The displacement of the dam body was recorded at these points at different
strength reduction factors. The assessment indicators of the dam displacement and the
connectivity of yield zones were used to express the safety of the Guxian High Dam in the
progressive failure procedure considering the weak layers. In order to simplify the analysis
process and to prevent the complexity of the FEM model, the weak interface between the
layers of the RCC dam was taken every three meters in the current model with a thickness
of 1 m, according to [48].
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 13 of 29

(a) Properties of the Guxian dam material. (b) The 2D model of the Guxian dam, showing mesh generation.

Figure 6. FEM model.

Figure 7. Typical displacement points along the dam cross section.

Usually, the thickness of the RCC dam layers vary from a few centimeters to extend
to some meters, according to the design and construction conditions, based on standard
construction practices and supported by guidelines, such as those from [48], which specify
that individual roller-compacted concrete (RCC) lifts can reach up to 3 m in thickness.
To reasonably simulate the influence of these weak interlayers within a finite element
model (without introducing excessive complexity) a simplified assumption was adopted.
Specifically, a 50 cm thickness was assigned to represent the weakened zone from the lower
surface of an upper lift, and another 50 cm from the upper surface of a lower lift, resulting
in a total weak layer thickness of 1 m at each interface. That assumption was chosen
after some trials (up to seven models) to reach the reasonable simulation representing the
problem through these modeling.

3.2. Comparative Analysis Between Different Crack Locations Influence of Different Crack
Locations on the Dam Safety
The fracture evaluation mechanical model was used to comprehensively study the
hydraulic fracture and crack propagation behavior for high dams in case of different crack
locations. A center-through crack and a single edge-through crack in the plates has been
chosen for the comparison due to their high possibility of occurrence for concrete dams.
In high concrete dams, a semi-infinite surface crack (edge crack) originates at the surface,
typically near the edges or high-stress areas, and extends through the entire thickness of
the dam. A center-through crack is located internally, running symmetrically through the
dam’s thickness. For the comparison completion, two similar plates were used for both
cracks identified with the same material properties for the Guxian dam, for the schematic
sketch of the two cracks see Figure 8, while the material properties are listed in Table 3
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 14 of 29

representing the Guxian dam material properties used for the plates. The full dimensions
for the plates under investigation are listed in Table 4 [49]. The safety factor, evaluated
using the failure assessment diagram (FAD), represents the first safety index related to
crack propagation. The critical crack depth serves as the second safety index evaluated
through the residual strength curve. Together, these two indexes assess the dam instability
and failure risk due to crack propagation.

(a) Center-through crack (b) Single edge-through crack

Figure 8. Different crack locations.

Table 3. Material properties of the chosen plate according to the Guxian dam.

Mechanical Properties Fracture Properties

Fracture
Yield Strength Elastic Modulus Tensile Strength
Toughness
(MPa) (GPa) (MPa)
K1c (MN/m3/2 )
2.1 29.3 3 1.25

Table 4. Dimensions of the plates under investigation.

Plate b (mm) t (mm) a (mm)

1 (I) 500 100 2.5
2 (II) 300 100 2.5
3 (III) 100 100 2.5
4 (IV) 50 25 2.5

3.3. Comprehensive Safety Analysis of the Guxian Dam Safety Resistance to Hydraulic Fracture at
Different Modes Failure Investigation of Guxian Dam Resistance to Hydraulic Fracture
In this part of the research, a comparison between the first and second mode of fracture
mechanics failure is discussed through evaluating the ultimate overloading coefficient in both
modes to determine the dam resistance during these two types of failure. Table 5 represents the
principal stresses for the crack Modes I and II, which are considered in the current analysis.

Table 5. Stress field ahead a crack tip in a polar coordinate system.

Mode I Mode II
= √K I cos α2 1 − sin α2 sin 3α = √K I I sin α2 2 − cos α2 cos 3α









σxx 2 2
2πr 2πr

= √K I cos α2 1 + sin α2 sin 3α = √K I I sin α2 cos α2 cos 3α

σyy 2 2
2πr 2πr

= √K I cos α2 sin α2 cos 3α KI I

cos α2 1 − sin α2 sin 3α









σxy 2 = √
2
2πr 2πr
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 15 of 29

Here (r, α) represent the polar coordinates centered at the crack tip, the variable r
denotes the distance from an arbitrary point to the crack tip, while α is the angle between
the X-axis and this point. See Figure 9 for an illustration. These coordinates describe how
the stresses vary with both the distance from the crack tip and the angular displacement
from the X-axis.

Figure 9. Polar coordinates (r, α) representing the distance and angle from the crack tip to the
calculation point.

Since displacements and stresses are linearly related to the stress intensity factor, the
fracture problems can be addressed using the superposition principle. This approach,
supported by the handbooks, is a key tool for applying fracture mechanics to practical
problems, such as mixed-mode loading, crack interaction analysis, and combined stress
field evaluations. The principle states that the stresses caused by different loads can be
added together, but it is only valid when the structure is subjected to different loads of the
same mode. For example, when a component fails under combined tension and bending,
the crack tip stresses can be calculated using the following equation:

bending
K tension
I, I I K I,I I
σij = √ f ij (α) + √ f ij (α) (19)
2πr 2πr

Because the angular function fij (α) is the same for the same fracture mode, the above
equation can be rewritten as follows:

K total
I,I I
σij = √ f ij (α) (20)
2πr

For Mode I, the stress intensity is as follows:

√
K I = Y σ πa (21)

For Mode II, the stress intensity is as follows:

√
K I I = Y τ πa (22)

In this context, τ represents the applied shear stress along the base of the dam or within
the potential failure planes caused by the horizontal sliding forces from water pressure.
Due to the large volume of high concrete gravity dams, cracks on the upstream surface are
often approximated as semi-infinite surface cracks. Horizontal cracks are assumed to form
at the dam heel, with crack propagation influenced by high water pressure within the crack,
and vertical stress at the heel in the uncracked condition. This results in Mode I (tensile
opening) crack behavior. For Mode II (in-plane shear), shear stresses on the horizontal
planes are considered in the calculation. The stress intensity factor at the crack tip is
determined by superposition of the forces of water pressure and stress. Thus, the stress
intensity factor for a horizontal crack at the dam heel of a high concrete gravity dam can
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 16 of 29

be calculated. The sequence for calculating these stresses, using the gravity method, is
outlined below for both modes, as follows:

τu = ( pw − σzu )tan ∅u (23)

τd = σzd tan ∅d (24)

where σzu is the normal stresses on horizontal planes on the upstream face, and σzd is
the normal stress on the downstream face. According to the requirements in the code for
the design of gravity dams [50], with ∑M counterclockwise as positive and ∑P gravity
direction as positive, the normal stresses can be calculated at the dam heel as follows:

∑ P 6∑ M
σz = + (25)
B B2
Thus, the total stress intensity factor is as follows:

√
 
P a 6M  a 
K= πa fP + 2
fM (26)
BW w BW W

For a ratio a/w = 0.2, the stress intensity factor can be expressed as follows:

√
 
P 6M
K= πa 1.21 + 1.055 (27)
BW BW 2

The forces acting on the dam and the location of the horizontal crack are illustrated in
Figure 10. While P1 is the water pressure at the dam heel plus the vertical tensile stress,
subtract the vertical compressive stress at the same position where it is seamless; P2 is
equal to the water pressure at the dam heel plus the vertical tensile stress, or subtract the
vertical compressive stress at the crack tip. These two forces can be calculated as shown in
Equations (28) and (29).
∑W 6∑ M
 
P1 = γH1 − + (28)
B B2
  
B
∑W ∑ M 2 − a
P2 = α1 γH1 −  +  (29)
B B3
12

Figure 10. Force diagram for the dam body’s horizontal cracks.

Since P2 is located at the crack tip, the reduction in water pressure within the crack
becomes significant. The water pressure at the crack is given by α1 γH1 , where α1 is
the attenuation coefficient of concrete permeability, representing the reduction in water
head from the crack mouth to the crack tip [51]. Consequently, the stress at this location
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 17 of 29

can be calculated using the previously established equations, with the convention that
the resultant force due to gravity is positive, and the counterclockwise movements are
considered positive. For P1 , located at the crack opening, there is no reduction in water
pressure. Therefore, the water pressure at this point is expressed as γH1 . The stress at P1
can be determined using the corresponding equation, again with the assumption that the
resultant force due to gravity is positive, and the counterclockwise movements are treated
as positive.
12.a∑ M
P1 − P2 = (1 − α1 )γw H1 (30)
B3
The fracture toughness (KIC ) of concrete in high concrete gravity dams is determined
using an empirical equation. According to [52,53], the empirical formula for concrete
fracture toughness is expressed as follows:

K IC = 1.9β f t (31)

Here β ranges from 0.2 to 0.3 and is typically taken as 0.22, and ft represents the
axial tensile strength of the concrete material, measured in Pascals (Pa). By taking
Equations (27)–(31) into the K = KIC criterion, the critical crack propagation equation at the
dam heel of the high concrete gravity dam can be obtained as follows:

∑W 6∑ M 7.932 a∑ M √

   
0.66α1 γH1 + 0.439γH1 − 1.1 + + πa = 0.418 f t (32)
B B2 B3

In this analysis, H, B, and a represent the water head at the dam heel, the width of
the dam section, and the equivalent crack depth, respectively, all in meters, ΣW denotes
the vertical component of the resultant force in Mode I and the shear forces in Mode II,
while N and ΣM represent the resultant movement in the absence of a crack, in N·m. The
crack depth and ultimate overloading coefficient were evaluated under two scenarios: with
and without considering uplift pressure. For the uplift pressure case, two approaches were
used: one assuming full uplift and another with reduced uplift (referred to as the first and
second methods). The parameters of the Guxian dam used in the analysis are listed in
Table 6.

Table 6. List of parameters of the calculated section of the Guxian dam.

Parameter Guxian Dam Geometric Dimensions

D1 (m) 15
D2 (m) 20
D3 (m) 165
D4 (m) 50
λ1 (slope ratio) 0.8
λ2 (slope ratio) 0.3
h1 (m) 215
h2 (m) 25
B (m) 172.35
γwat (N/m3 ) 10,000
γcon (N/m3 ) 24,000
f t (MPa) 1.38
α 0.5
Note: the symbols indications are listed on the dam cross section in the same table.

The modeling of the uplift pressure in the dam body was approached in two distinct
ways. In the first approach, the uplift pressure on the cracked section was neglected, and
only the splitting water pressure within the crack was taken into account. In the second
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 18 of 29

approach, the influence of the uplift pressure along the cracked section was explicitly
considered. Two variations of the uplift pressure treatment were adopted. One method
ignored the reduction effect from the anti-seepage curtain and approximated the uplift
distribution using an inclined linear form. The other method incorporated the reduction
effect of the curtain, providing a more realistic representation of the field conditions.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Safety Monitoring Index Considering Weak Layers
Dam displacement and connectivity of the plastic yield zones were used as indicators
of the dam progressive failure with and without considering the weak layers of the RCC
dam. It has been noticed that the mode of failure has changed after considering the weak
interfaces of the RCC dams, and the safety factor has dropped noticeably from 3.8 to
3.4 in the case of considering these weak layers (see Figures 11a and 12a). The ultimate
strength reduction ratio is considered the safety factor (or strength reserve coefficient) and
is obtained when the penetrating plastic zone appears and is fully connected, and the
structure is destabilized through the gradual reduction of the shear strengths of the soft
interlayers. Due to the existence of the stream direction for the horizontal weak interlayer,
the yield zones first appeared at the dam toe. When the reduction parameter reaches values
of more than 3.4, in the case of considering the weak layers (see Figure 12a), the connectivity
of the plastic zones is formed at the dam toe, namely the potential downstream sliding
surface is developed. With the continual increments of the reduction parameter, the yield
zones rapidly extend towards the upstream direction. It can be noticed that, when the
strength reduction parameter is less than 3.4, the displacement of the selected four typical
points remains almost constant (see Figure 12b), with only a slight increase noticed, and the
plastic yield zones only cover a smaller area of the dam cross section. The semi-constant
line in the relationship between the dam displacement and the reduction factor indicates
that the dam is still stable. When dam concrete material deformation takes place in a larger
area, and in parallel, the dam displacement gradually increases. The explanations may
be attributed to the fact that the connectivity of the plastic yield zones in the dam body
was not developed completely before the strength reduction factor reached 3.4. When the
strength reduction exceeds 3.4, the plastic yield zones largely form in the dam body, which
leads to a rapid increase in the deformation at the upper part of the dam that represents
failure. The same trend can be noticed for the case of not considering the weak layers,
but the dam shows more resistance, and the failure happens at the higher value of safety
factor equals 3.8; see Figure 11. That confirms the negative impact of the weak layers on
the dam safety. The results clearly showed that the presence of weak layers significantly
reduces the dam’s safety. Specifically, the safety factor decreased from 3.8 to 3.4 when the
weak layers were considered, corresponding to the point of maximum plastic strain and
full connectivity of the plastic zones in the dam cross section. This reduction highlights
the destabilizing effect of construction-induced interfaces. These findings are consistent
with those reported in [34], which demonstrated that the presence and positioning of weak
layers significantly influence the damage characteristics and failure modes in concrete
dams. The observed agreement further validates the importance of incorporating weak
layer effects into dam safety evaluations.
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 19 of 29

(a) Plastic zone connectivity in the Guxian dam cross section.

(b) The relationship between the dam displacement and the strength reduction factor for the
four points along the dam cross section elevation

Figure 11. Guxian dam in the case of not considering the weak layers.

Table 7 illustrates the safety monitoring index for the Guxian dam in both cases with
and without considering the weak layers.

Table 7. Safety Indexes of Dam Displacement (mm).

Safety Index (In Terms of Displacement) Safety Index (In Terms of Displacement)
Observation Point
Without Considering the Weak Layers (mm) with Considering the Weak Layers (mm)
Point 1 (465 m) 115 88
Point 2 (480 m) 122 112
Point 3 (525 m) 145 140
Point 4 (631 m) 175 173

Including the weak layers of the Guxian RCC dam has decreased the dam safety factor,
therefore the weak layers influence should be highly considered during the stage of design
due to its negative effect on the dam safety during the long-term operation. The safety
index, when considering the presence of the weak layers, is lower compared to the scenario
where these layers are not considered. This indicates an increased safety risk due to the
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 20 of 29

existence of the weak layers, with noticeable variations in the safety index. The results
show that displacement, which signifies progressive failure, was significantly smaller in the
lower part of the dam cross-section reduced by 20% compared to the case where the weak
layers were not accounted for. The influence of the weak layers in the lower cross-section is
evident, as this area contains larger interfaces between the layers than the upper part. This
increased interface area heightens the potential for material deterioration, which may lead
to failure. These findings suggest a heightened risk associated with the weak layers in the
lower cross-section, making it a critical region for potential instability and failure.

(a) Plastic zone connectivity in the Guxian dam cross section.

(b) The relationship between the dam displacement and the strength reduction factor
for the four points along the dam cross section elevation.

Figure 12. Guxian dam in the case of considering the weak layers.

4.2. Comparative Analysis Between Different Crack Locations

In this part of the analysis, the safety monitoring index has been evaluated for the
Guxian dam mathematically using the fracture evaluation mechanical model. A plate
with different dimensions has been used to represent the Guxian dam material properties
and the crack propagation process. Two different safety indexes have been calculated,
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 21 of 29

including the safety factors using the failure assessment diagram and the critical crack
depth using the residual strength diagram. Both safety indexes represent the dam failure
points during crack propagation. The risk due to crack propagation can be explained
through a comparison between two different crack locations and different plate dimensions.
The safety monitoring index has been assigned through calculating the safety factors as
shown in Figures 12 and 13. The failure assessment diagram (FAD) was used to assess the
dam’s resistance to cracks and to determine the safety factor. The FAD, which combines
plastic collapse and brittle fracture failure criteria into a single diagram, helps evaluate
whether a cracked component will fail under a given load. The factor of safety is the ratio
of the length of the load line between the origin and the failure point, and the length of the
load line between the origin and the design point. Figure 13 shows the FAD for the plates
analyzed in the case of a center-through crack.

(a) Plate I (500 × 100 × 2.5) mm (b) Plate II (300 × 100 × 2.5) mm

(c) Plate III (100 × 100 × 2.5) mm (d) Plate IV (50 × 25 × 2.5) mm

Figure 13. Failure assessment diagram (FAD) for the four plates in the case of center-through crack.

For a center-through crack, factors like symmetrical stress distribution around the
crack enhance the structural stability and reduce the influence of boundary proximity,
unless in small plates. It also has more uniform load distribution, lowering local stress
intensity. By contrast, the single-edge crack, shown in Figure 14, has asymmetrical stress
concentration, leading to higher localized stress near the crack tip. This type of crack is
more prone to propagation due to surface loading or environmental factors like water
pressure, making it more susceptible to hydraulic fracture in high concrete dams.
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 22 of 29

(a) Plate I (500 × 100 × 2.5) mm (b) Plate II (300 × 100 × 2.5) mm

(c) Plate III (100 × 100 × 2.5) mm (d) Plate IV (50 × 25 × 2.5) mm

Figure 14. Failure assessment diagram (FAD) for the four plates in the single-edge crack.

Single-edge cracks in high concrete dams pose a greater threat to structural integrity
than center-through cracks due to asymmetric stress, concentration, and sensitivity to
boundary effects. These cracks are more likely to propagate under applied loads or en-
vironmental conditions, especially under tensile or shear forces. Proximity to structural
boundaries, such as dam heels or surfaces, allows for the plastic zone to interact with the
edge, reducing the support and increasing the risk of unstable propagation. Surface cracks
experience direct water pressure and external loads, enhancing crack extension potential,
while center-through cracks are less affected by surface loads. For the critical crack length,
see Figures 15 and 16 for the residual strength curve for both crack locations. The part’s
strength as a function of crack size is indicated on the residual strength curve. To assess
the acceptability of a design, plot the design point (a,σapp ), for instance, where a is the
crack length and σapp is the applied combined stress. From this point, draw a vertical
line upward to the residual strength curve. This intersection indicates the failure point if
the crack size remains constant, while the stress is increased to its critical (failure) value.
Next, draw a horizontal line from the design point to the residual strength curve. This
intersection shows the failure point if the stress is held constant, while the crack size is
increased to its critical (failure) value. The safety monitoring indexes are listed in Table 8.
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 23 of 29

(a) Plate I (500 × 100 × 2.5) mm (b) Plate II (300 × 100 × 2.5) mm

(c) Plate III (100 × 100 × 2.5) mm (d) Plate IV (50 × 25 × 2.5) mm

Figure 15. Residual strength curve for the center-through crack.

(a) Plate I (500 × 100 × 2.5) mm (b) Plate II (300 × 100 × 2.5) mm

(c) Plate III (100 × 100 × 2.5) mm (d) Plate IV (50 × 25 × 2.5) mm

Figure 16. Residual strength curve for the single-edge crack.

Materials 2025, 18, 2893 24 of 29

Table 8. Safety monitoring indexes in case of crack propagation.

Center-Through Crack Single-Edge Crack

Plate/Crack Location FAD Critical Crack FAD Critical Crack
Safety Factor Length (acr ) (m) Safety Factor Length (acr ) (m)
1 (I) 1.71 0.2157 1.66 0.1176
2 (II) 1.71 0.17 1.66 0.08302
3 (III) 1.7 0.08 1.66 0.03372
4 (IV) 1.71 0.04 1.66 0.01795

The safety factors for both center-through and single-edge cracks remain stable across
the different plate’s dimensions, with minor variations between the crack locations. The
safety factors for both cases are safer, while the single-edge crack shows a lower safety factor
compared with the center-through crack. As the crack length increases, the critical crack
depth (acr ) decreases. For both crack types, a clear inverse relationship is observed, with
the critical crack length declining as the safety factor approaches its minimum threshold.
For example, Plate 1 (I) shows a critical crack length of 0.2157 m for the center-through
crack and 0.1176 m for the single-edge crack, while Plate 4 (IV) demonstrates a much
lower critical crack length (0.04 m for center-through cracks and 0.01795 m for single-edge
cracks). In general, the safety factors indicate a higher degree of stability for center-through
cracks, whereas single-edge cracks consistently yield lower safety factors, suggesting a
greater vulnerability to failure. The findings indicated that single-edge cracks impose a
significantly higher risk than center-through cracks, with a 10% lower safety factor and a
40% shorter critical crack length. These findings have shown a good agreement with the
study presented by [54], where the author carried out a comparison between different crack
locations numerically and theoretically including edge and center cracks, and illustrated
that edge cracks have higher SIF.
The results highlight that, as crack propagation progresses (larger crack lengths), the
structural integrity of the plates becomes increasingly compromised, as indicated by both
a reduction in the safety factor and a decrease in the critical crack length, particularly for
single-edge crack. This reinforces the importance of monitoring crack growth to predict
the potential failure and to ensure the continued safety of the structure. However, both
crack locations have a higher risk for the dam safety, and single-edge cracks show higher
potential hazard for the dam and the occurrence of hydraulic fracture phenomena.

4.3. Comprehensive Safety Analysis of the Guxian Dam Safety Resistance to Hydraulic Fracture at
Different Modes Failure
The analysis calculated the crack depth by varying the upstream water level and using
the overload coefficient to quantify the hydraulic fracture resistance. The results showed
that increasing the overload coefficient deteriorated stress conditions at the dam heel,
causing non-linear crack depth reductions. Mode I failure was more critical due to the lower
ultimate overload coefficient, indicating weaker resistance to hydraulic fracturing as tensile
stresses are more sensitive to hydraulic pressure. Mode II showed higher resistance, as shear
stresses are less affected by hydraulic conditions. Including uplift pressure significantly
reduced the ultimate overload coefficient, especially in Mode I, where cracks were initiated
earlier due to the rapid tensile stress concentration at the crack tip. Mode I, driven by
tensile stresses perpendicular to the crack plane, causes faster crack propagation due to
the concrete’s low tensile strength. By contrast, Mode II involves shear stresses parallel
with the crack plane, which are better resisted due to higher shear strength and internal
cohesion. Cracks in Mode II follow an irregular path, dissipating stress concentrations and
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 25 of 29

requiring more energy to propagate. The increased sensitivity of Mode I to uplift pressure
underscores the need for design measures to reduce the uplift pressure and to mitigate
hydraulic fracture risks. Figure 17 compares both failure modes.

(a). Ultimate overload coefficient in the case of considering Mode II

(b). Ultimate overload coefficient in the case of considering Mode I

Figure 17. Guxian dam resistance to hydraulic fracture for the two modes of failure.

The analysis results indicate that Mode I (tensile failure) poses a higher risk to the
Guxian dam compared to Mode II (shear failure). The ultimate overload coefficient without
considering uplift, which represents the dam’s resistance to hydraulic fracture, is lower
in Mode I (1.27) than in Mode II (1.32). This confirms that the dam has more resistance to
hydraulic fracture in Mode II, supporting the theory that tensile stresses, which dominate
Mode I, lead to a weaker overall resistance. The higher fracture energy observed in Mode II
compared to Mode I can be attributed to the fundamental mechanisms of crack propagation
in concrete. Mode I, the tensile opening mode, typically initiates a relatively clean crack
(the crack tends to open directly and smoothly) with minimal resistance once the tensile
strength is exceeded. By contrast, Mode II involves in-plane shear displacement along
the crack surface, which engages a wider fracture process zone. Within this zone, several
energy-absorbing mechanisms become active, including the formation of inclined tensile
microcracks, sliding, and friction between aggregate particles, and the interlock of rough
crack surfaces. These mechanisms significantly increase the energy required for the crack
to propagate in shear. Aggregate interlock plays a particularly crucial role, as the asperities
along the crack faces generate frictional resistance that must be overcome for sliding to occur.
Additionally, the presence of residual cohesion across the crack plane further contributes to
Mode II’s higher fracture toughness. These factors collectively result in fracture energies
for Mode II that are typically 20 to 25 times greater than those for Mode I, as documented
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 26 of 29

in the studies by [36,37]. This theoretical understanding aligns with the current study’s
numerical results, where the ultimate overload coefficient in Mode II was higher, indicating
greater resistance to hydraulic fracture in shear-dominated failure scenarios. The lower
ultimate overload coefficient for Mode I reflects the increased vulnerability of the dam
to crack initiation and propagation under tensile stress, making Mode I the more critical
failure mode. Both modes of failure can happen together, but usually Mode I has the
higher possibility to occur first, and in different locations, and could expose more risk to
the dam safety.

4.4. Limitations
This study uses a simplified representation of the dam structure as a plate to model
the crack behavior defining the plates with the material properties of the real dam. This
assumption may not accurately reflect the complex geometry of real dams, which may have
irregular shapes, varying thicknesses, and additional structural features, such as joints
or reinforcements that affect crack propagation. The choice of plate dimensions (width
and thickness) plays a significant role in the stress intensity factor calculation. Real-world
dams may exhibit variations in these dimensions, leading to different stress distributions
that could affect crack initiation and growth. The limited application of a uniform plate
geometry may reduce the accuracy of the results when applied to actual dam structures.
This study uses a 2D model to analyze dam safety and crack propagation for simplicity
and computational efficiency. While suitable for cross-sectional evaluations, this approach
does not capture 3D effects, such as out-of-plane stresses, or transverse confinement. As
a result, the findings may not fully represent the behavior of the entire dam structure.
Future studies should consider 3D modeling to better capture spatial interactions and to
incorporate dynamic loading for more realistic hydraulic fracture simulations.

5. Conclusions
This study established safety monitoring indexes for the Guxian high concrete RCC
gravity dam, considering weak layers and crack propagation numerically and mathemat-
ically, thereby highlighting the possible risk of hydraulic fracture on the high concrete
gravity dams, and showing the necessity of including these phenomena into the design
regulation for high concrete gravity dams. Additionally, the dam’s resistance to hydraulic
fracture was investigated under two distinct failure modes, Mode I and Mode II. Based on
these investigations, the following conclusions have been drawn:
• A numerical model was used to evaluate the safety monitoring index of the Guxian
RCC dam, considering the impact of weak layers. The results showed a significant
reduction in dam safety, particularly in the lower part of the cross-section, where the
safety index decreased by 20%. These weak layers contributed to the formation of
extensive plastic zones, reducing the dam’s overall stability. By contrast, the dam crest
was less affected, as the weak layers had smaller interface areas in this region, leading
to only a 3% reduction in the safety index.
• Two different crack locations were analyzed to assess the safety index of the Guxian
dam. The findings revealed that a single-edge crack poses a significantly greater
threat to dam safety compared to a center-through crack. Specifically, the safety factor
derived from the FAD decreased by 10% for the single-edge crack compared with the
center-through crack. Additionally, the critical crack length for this crack type was
40% lower than that of the center-through crack, exposing the dam to a substantially
higher risk.
• The resistance of the Guxian dam to hydraulic fracture was assessed using a hydraulic
fracture mechanical model, calculating the ultimate overload coefficient for two failure
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 27 of 29

modes, Mode I (opening mode) and Mode II (in-plane shear mode). The analysis
showed that the dam’s resistance was lower in Mode I due to the concrete’s weaker re-
sistance to tensile stress compared to shear stress. Mode II fracture energy is generally
higher than Mode I, as it accounts for the formation of inclined tensile microcracks
within the fracture process zone and the energy needed to overcome shear resistance
from aggregate interlock and surface asperities behind the crack tip. The ultimate
overload coefficient for Mode I was 5% lower than for Mode II. Although both failure
modes pose a risk of hydraulic fracture, Mode I presents a greater threat and should
be prioritized in safety evaluations.
• Crack propagation and the presence of weak layers in RCC dams are critical engineer-
ing challenges that should be explicitly addressed in design regulations and considered
during the design stages. Both factors significantly impact dam safety, particularly
during long-term operation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.J.; Methodology, L.Z. and X.L.; Software, M.R.; Formal
analysis, M.R.; Resources, X.L.; Data curation, Y.W.; Writing—original draft, M.R. and Y.W.; Writing—
review & editing, M.R. and L.Z.; Visualization, J.J.; Supervision, J.J. and X.L.; Project administration,
J.J. and X.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in this study are included in the
article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest: Author Lei Zhao was employed by the company Huadian Electric Power Research
Institute Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, Y.; Jia, J. Experimental study on the influence of hydraulic fracturing on high concrete gravity dams. Eng. Struct.
2017, 132, 508–517. [CrossRef]
2. Feng, L.M.; Peakau, O.A.; Zhang, C.H. Cracking analysis of arch dams by 3D boundary element method. J. Struct. Eng.
1996, 122, 691–699. [CrossRef]
3. Vallejo, S.A.N. Hydraulic Engineering Failure of Large Dams. Master’s Thesis, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria, 2016.
4. Schöberl, P. Crack sanitation at Zillergrundl arch dam. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Repair and Upgrading of Dams,
Stockholm, Sweden, 5–9 June 1996; COLD: Stockholm, Sweden, 1996.
5. Lin, P.; Guan, J.; Peng, H.; Shi, J. Horizontal cracking and crack repair analysis of a super high arch dam based on fracture
toughness. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 97, 72–90. [CrossRef]
6. Liang, W.H.; Qiao, C.X.; Tu, C.L. A summarized study on cracks in Zhexi concrete buttress dam. Shuili Xuebao/J. Hydraul. Eng.
1982, 6, 1–10. (In Chinese)
7. Zhang, H.; Shen, Z.; Xu, L.; Gan, L.; Ma, Z.; Wu, Q.; Liu, D. Experimental investigation on hydraulic fracturing in cement mortar
with tensile stress. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2022, 259, 108058. [CrossRef]
8. Liu, Z.G.; Zhou, Z.B.; Yuan, L.W. Calculation of vertical crack propagation on the upstream face of the Zhexi single buttress dam.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 1990, 5, 29–36.
9. Wang, L.C.; Wu, S.Y. Self-healing mechanism of concrete cracks induced by splitting tensile loading. J. Hydraul. Eng.
2019, 50, 787–797.
10. Song, Z.P.; Li, N.; Chen, F.X. Three dimensional nonlinear seismic stability analysis of abutment jointed rock mass of high arch
dam. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2004, 26, 361–366.
11. McDonald, J.E.; Curtis, N.F. Repaired and Rehabilitation of Dams; Technical Report, REMR-CS-63; US Army Corps of Engineers,
Engineer Research and Development Center: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
12. Wang, S.J.; Gu, Y.C.; Ge, C.B. Guideline for dam safety monitoring System appraisal. In Proceedings of the ICOLD Symposium on
Sustainable Development of Dams and River Basins, New Delhi, India, 24–27 February 2021.
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 28 of 29

13. Suwatthikul, J.; Vanijjirattikhan, R.; Supakchukul, U.; Suksomboon, K.; Nuntawattanasirichai, R.; Phontip, J.; Lewlomphaisarl, U.;
Tangpimolrut, K.; Samranyoodee, S. Development of Dam Safety Remote Monitoring and Evaluation System. J. Disaster Res.
2021, 16, 607–617. [CrossRef]
14. Garcia, L.C.; Martim, A.L.S.S.; Filho, J.G.D.; Fais, L.M.C.F. Dams Safety Index (Dsi): A Reassessment of The Parameters of
Analysis. Eng. Agrícola Jaboticabal 2019, 39, 715–720. [CrossRef]
15. Gu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Pang, Q.; Wu, Y. Further Understanding of Deformation Safety Monitoring Index of Concrete Arch Dams. In
Proceedings of the International Forum on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (IFEESD 2016), Shenzhen, China,
16–17 April 2016; Atlantis Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016.
16. Zhang, J.; Xie, J.; Kou, P. Abnormal Diagnosis of Dam Safety Monitoring Data Based on Ensemble Learning. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth
Environ. Sci. 2019, 267, 062027. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, S.; Gu, C.; Bao, T. Safety monitoring index of high concrete gravity dam based on failure mechanism of instability.
Math. Probl. Eng. 2013, 2013, 732325. [CrossRef]
18. Fan, S.L.; Chen, J.Y.; Guo, J.Y. Application of finite element equivalent stress method to analyze the strength of gravity dam.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2007, 38, 754–766. (In Chinese)
19. Su, H.Z.; Wu, Z.R.; Gu, Y.C.; Hu, J.; Wen, Z.P. Game model of safety monitoring for arch dam deformation. Sci. China E
2008, 51, 76–81. [CrossRef]
20. Wang, C.H. Introduction to Fracture Mechanics; DSTO-GD-0103; DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory:
Canberra, Australia, 1996.
21. Mehta, P.K.; Monteiro, P.J.M. Concrete Microstructure, Properties and Materials; McGraw-Hill Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
22. Ramadan, M.; Jia, J.; Zhao, L.; Li, X.; Wu, Y. Comprehensive Safety Analysis of Ultimate Bearing Capacity Considering Hydraulic
Fracture for Guxian High RCC Gravity Dam. Water 2024, 16, 1912. [CrossRef]
23. Cao, E.; Bao, T.; Li, H.; Xie, X.; Yuan, R.; Hu, S.; Wang, W. A hybridfeature selection-multidimensional LSTM framework for
deformation prediction of super high arch dams. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 4603–4616. [CrossRef]
24. Huang, Y.Y.; Xie, T.; Xu, Y.; Wang, R.L. Evaluation of the mechanical parameters of a reinforced concrete dam based on multi-source
data. Struct. Concr. 2022, 23, 652–668. [CrossRef]
25. Xiao, Y.X.; Ye, X.F.; Zhou, W.; Chang, X.L.; Ma, G. Cause analysis of cracks in piers of concrete dam based on nonlinear fracture
mechanics model. Eng. J. Wuhan Univ. 2022, 55, 229–237. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
26. Qin, X.N.; Gu, C.S.; Zhao, E.F.; Chen, B.; Yu, Y.L.; Dai, B. Monitoring indexes of concrete dam based on correlation and discreteness
of multi-point displacements. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200679. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Su, H.Z.; Li, J.Y.; Wen, Z.P.; Zhou, F.F. A bi-criteria combined evaluation approach for reinforcement effect of gravity dam with
cracks. Int. J. Solids 2018, 147, 238–253. [CrossRef]
28. Zheng, D.J.; Huo, Z.Y.; Li, B. Arch-dam crack deformation monitoring hybrid model based on XFEM. Sci. China Technol. Sci.
2011, 54, 2611–2617. [CrossRef]
29. Huang, Y.; Li, Z.; Xu, S.; Yu, Z.; Hameed, A. Cause, Stability Analysis, and Monitoring of Cracks in the Gate Storehouse of a Flood
Diversion Sluice. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2024, 28, 1411–1422. [CrossRef]
30. Zhuo, R.; Rui, P.; Bin, X.; Yang, Z. Dam safety monitoring data anomaly recognition using multiple-point model with local outlier
factor. Autom. Constr. 2024, 159, 105290. [CrossRef]
31. Li, S.; Zhang, B.; Tong, G.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z.; Shi, B.; Geng, J.; Liu, D.; Wang, H.; Ai, Q.; et al. Online Intelligent Monitoring System and
Key Technologies for Dam Operation Safety. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2025, 2025, 9983255. [CrossRef]
32. Huang, Y.; Chu, Z.; Tian, J.; Feng, T. Reservoir dam safety monitoring method based on BeiDou positioning. In Proceedings
of the Proceedings Volume 13506, Sixth International Conference on Geoscience and Remote Sensing Mapping (GRSM 2024),
Qingdao, China, 28 January 2025. [CrossRef]
33. Zhang, W.; Li, H.; Shi, D.; Shen, Z.; Zhao, S.; Guo, C. Determination of Safety Monitoring Indices for Roller-Compacted Concrete
Dams Considering Seepage–Stress Coupling Effects. Mathematics 2023, 11, 3224. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, G.; Liu, A.; Lu, W.; Chen, M.; Yan, P. Seismic Response and Damage Characteristics of RCC Gravity Dams Considering
Weak Layers Based on the Cohesive Model. Mathematics 2023, 11, 1567. [CrossRef]
35. Unger, J.F.; Eckardt, S.; Konke, C. Modelling of cohesive crack growth in concrete structures with the extended finite element
method. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2007, 196, 4087–4100. [CrossRef]
36. Reinhardt, H.W.; Xu, S. A practical testing approach to determine mode II fracture energy GI I F for concrete. Int. J. Fract. 2000,
105, 107–125. [CrossRef]
37. Bazant, Z.P.; Pfeiffer, P. Shear fracture tests of concrete. Mater. Struct. 1986, 19, 111–121. [CrossRef]
38. Chen, W.F.; Saleeb, A.F. Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013;
Volume 37.
39. Zhu, B.; Wang, J.; Zhou, H.; Wen, L. An XFEM-based analysis of concrete face cracking in rockfill dams. Math. Probl. Eng.
2021, 2021, 6640668. [CrossRef]
Materials 2025, 18, 2893 29 of 29

40. Wood, H.A.; Engle, R.M., Jr. USAF Damage Tolerant Design Handbook: Guidelines for the Analysis and Design of Damage Tolerant
Aircraft Structures; Revision A, ASIN B00BJSUU9I; PN: Dayton, OH, USA, 1979.
41. Osage, D.A.; Janelle, J.L. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007: A Joint API/ASME Fitness-for-Service Standard for Pressurized Equipment.
In Proceedings of the SME 2008 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 27–31 July 2008; Volume 1: Codes and
Standards. The American Petroleum Institute and The American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2007;
pp. 777–791. [CrossRef]
42. Anderson, T.L. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; Taylor & Francis
Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 410–423.
43. Budynas, R.; Nisbett, K. Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill Science: New York, NY, USA, 2006; p. 1059.
ISBN 10: 0390764876.
44. Callister, W.D.; Rethwisch, D.G. Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 9th ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2013; ISBN 1118476549, 9781118476543.
45. Dowling, N.E. Mechanical Behavior of Materials: Engineering Methods for Deformation, Fracture, and Fatigue, 3rd ed.; Pearson
Education: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 0131395068/9780131395060.
46. Liu, A.F. Structural Life Assessment Methods; ASM International: Almere, The Netherlands, 1998.
47. MIL-HDBK-5J, Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures; Department of Defense Handbook. 2003.
Available online: https://www.milthink.com/detail/49543 (accessed on 23 April 2025).
48. ACI. Report on Roller-Compacted Mass Concrete, ACI 2017.5R-11; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2011.
49. NASA-STD-5009; Non-destructive Evaluation Requirements for Fracture-Critical Metallic Components. NASA Standards:
Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
50. SL 319-2018; Design Specification for Concrete Gravity Dams. China Water and Power Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
51. Heidarnezhad, F.; Toufigh, V.; Ghaemian, M. Analyzing and Predicting Permeability Coefficient of Roller-Compacted Concrete
(RCC). J. Test. Eval. May 2021, 49, 1454–1473. [CrossRef]
52. Yu, X.Z. Fracture Mechanics of Concrete. Waterpower 1988, 2, 49–53.
53. Wu, Z.M.; Zhao, G.F.; Xi, S.L. Fracture toughness of large concrete specimen. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1997, 7, 67–76.
54. Ehab, S.M.M.S. Mode I Stress Intensity Factor With Various Crack Types. Fract. Struct. Integr. 2021, 16, 471–485. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.