3: 3d-Analysis: For the 3d analysis the full layout of the dam was analysed.

This analysis should give a better result than the 2D analysis because it takes into account the curvature of the dam Tet 4 noded (3%) - coarse Tet 10 noded (3%) coarse Tet 10 noded (1%) fine 3.1: Difference between 4-noded tets and 10-noded tets: In the 2d analysis 4-noded quads were not chosen to be used to due to their inability of cope with bending dominated problems. In the 3d analysis the difference between 4-noded tetrahedral elements and 10-noded tetrahedral elements will be looked at by using these 2 different types of elements for the same problem and looking at the difference in the results they provide. For an analysis of the dam with 1911 brick elements the results of using 4 and 10-noded tet elements is shown in table 2. It shows that just like a 2d problem changing the order of the polynominal used will make the problem much more accurate in respect to stresses and deflections. As the deflection with the 4-noded tets is less than the Table 1: Comparison of h-refinment on 3d dam structure 10-noded tets it shows that the solution is converging from a stiffer solution and therefore it can be assumed that the 4-noded tet elements act the same as a 4-noded quad elements and are unable to kinematically reproduce bending so in the 3d analysis where bending will be a main factor in the problem, the preffered element would be the 10-noded tetrahedral elements.
3.2:

Choice of Element

8 noded elements was choosen for the surface mesh as it could represent the geometry of the dam. The maximum edge length was expiermented with to see what gave the best results. Initally a 3% edge length was used and this produced 508 plates over the dam. It was thought that the plate numbering was low for the size of the model so 1% max edge length was tried and gave 3549 quad8 plates. From previously experimenting with tretrahedrons, 10 noded fine solid mesh was applied. This gave 27588 brick elements. Appropriate checks of analysis (boundary conditions, displacement, stress)

The 3D model was verified against the 2D hand calculations. The max delfection of the 3D model was analysed as 0.0611m which is not between the idailzied 2D hand calculations. This was expected due to the geometry of the model. The 2D idealzed calcuation does not take into account the curvature of the dam. The curvature opf the dam causes the model to act similar to a arch bridge where the forces are tranfered to the fully restrained sides and bottom. This shape is a lot stronger and hence deflection would be less.

At the boundaries where the model is fully fixed at its side and bottom, the deflections was zero. So all boundary conditions where satisfied. Discuss observed structural behaviour, justify the appropriateness of your finite element mesh.

The maximum displacement was analysed and gave 0.0611m (see table 2.1). Its location just of the to centre of the dam. Due to the curved nature of the model there was a kink at the centre top which ment the max displacement was just off from it . Appendix XX shows the deflected shape of the dam with an exagerated scaling factor of 20%. As the model is fully fixed at the top and sides, the greatest tension Table 2.1: Comparison of all 3D dam structures stresses were at the these points on the wet side. The tension stress was particullarly large at the bottom where it spreads along the entire length. With height the tension decreased and turned to compression on the wet side near the top. This is due to the dam being held vertically at its side. The hydrstatic pressure is pushing arch shape of the dam into compression at the top half. The entire dry side of the dam was in compression but this force is reduced slightly near the top due to the compression on the wet side. When gravity is applied the values of principal stresses and deflection reduce.

Structural Action of 3D analysis (compared to 2D) Does this explain the shape of the dam. There a some very distinctive but explainable differences between the 2D and 3D model. Deflection of the 2D model gave 31.343cm while the 3D only had a diflection of 6.11cm (Table 2.2). The 2D model does not take into account the curvature of the dam and so is a weaker structure and more susceptible to deflecting. The 3D model is restrained on 3 sides and is a strong structure due to its curvature.
Table 3.2: Comparison of 2D Vrs 3D

Maximum principal stresses are signifcantly higher in the 2D analysis. Stress in its simplest form is (Force / Area) and this can explain the differences. In the 2D model the forces are concentrated down one stripe while in the 3D the forces are spread out over the whole wet side of the model. The 3D model is also better restrained as the stresses are spread over the curvature to the sides where it is fully fixed.

Compare critical values in 3D 2D (displacement, stress, bending moment)