Fluid-structure models for dynamic studies of dam-water systems

B. Tiliouine & A. Seghir

Ecole Nationale Polytechnique, Algiers, ALGERIA

Keywords: Earthquake response, Finite Element Modeling, Dam flexibility, Water compressibility,
Fluid-structure interaction, Hydrodynamic pressures.

ABSTRACT: The performance of four different dam-reservoir finite element models, suitable for
direct time domain analysis of the earthquake response of concrete gravity dams including dynamic
fluid-structure interaction is investigated. Namely, these models, M1 to M4, are respectively: 1) the
standard rigid dam-incompressible water model, 2) the flexible dam-incompressible water model,
3) the rigid dam-compressible water model and 4) the flexible dam-compressible water model.
First, the discrete system of finite element equations resulting from a Galerkin variational
formulation of the governing equations of the pressure and displacement fields are established for
each model. Then, the distribution of the dynamic pressure coefficient at the upstream face of a
typical concrete gravity dam and the hydrodynamic pressure time histories at its base, derived from
the application of the four fluid-structure models have been determined. In addition, conclusions of
engineering significance on the relative performance of the four mathematical models are given.

1 INTRODUCTION

The dramatic consequences on life and property resulting from failure of large dams have led
engineers to consider that these structures should withstand strong ground motions with no or only
minor damage. This has provided a strong impetus for increased research, particularly for the
development of new methods of dynamic analysis in seismic studies of concrete gravity dams.
The evaluation of the import ant hydrodynamic forces that develop on the upstream face of a
large dam during severe transient excitations has been the subject of numerous investigations,
starting with Westergaards (1933) classical work. Since then, several contributions on the subject
have appeared in the literature especially the fundamental works of Chopra and his coworkers (e.g.
Chopra & Gupta 1981, Chopra & Hall 1982). These investigations have been particularly carried
out in the frequency domain using rigid or finite element dam models along with a continuum
approach based on analytical solutions for the wave equation governing the motion of water in
reservoirs having rather simple spatial configurations (e.g. rectangular shapes or semi-infinite
shapes with constant or linearly varying depths). This has contributed greatly to the understanding
of the earthquake response of dam- reservoir systems and to the development of analysis
procedures used to study their seismic behavior (Wylie 1975).
However, the necessity to handle complex and irregular boundaries for which analytical
solutions are not available on the one hand, and to consider the effects of material and geometrical
non-linearities on the dynamic response to earthquake strong ground motions on the other hand,
requires that the solution be expressed directly in the time domain. In this work, the relative
performance of four different fluid-structure models suitable for direct time domain analysis of the
earthquake response of concrete gravity dam-reservoir systems is investigated. These models,
conventionally designated herein by the symbols M1 to M4, are respectively: 1) the standard rigid
dam-incompressible water model, 2) the flexible dam-incompressible water model, 3) the rigid
dam-compressible water model and 4) the flexible dam-compressible water model.
First, the discrete system of finite element equations resulting from a Galerkin variational
formulation of the governing equations of the pressure and displacement fields are established for
each model. Then, the distribution of the dynamic water pressure coefficient at the upstream face of
a typical concrete gravity dam and the hydrodynamic pressure time histories at its base derived
from the application of the four fluid-structure models have been determined. Finally, on the basis
of the numerical results obtained in this work, conclusions of engineering significance on the
relative performance of the four fluid-structure models, suitable for direct time domain studies of
dam-reservoir systems, are given.

2 MODELS FOR DYNAMIC STUDIES OF DAM-RESERVOIR SYSTEMS

The evaluation of hydrodynamic forces and their effects on the response of concrete gravity dams
depends on the numerical models used for the idealization of the dam and the reservoir subsystems.
These models can be broadly categorized as a function of the assumptions retained as to the
physical properties of the dam material and the reservoir fluid.
In this paper, linearly elastic properties are assumed for the material of the dam and the water of
the reservoir. The motion of the dam-reservoir system is considered as two dimensional and
restricted to small amplitudes. The fluid is assumed to be inviscid and extends to infinity in the
upstream direction. However, the effects of surface waves, water compressibility, dam flexibility,
radiation damping at the upstream boundary of the reservoir and the slope of the upstream dam
wall are considered in this work and constitute to some extent a departure from the conventional
assumptions often made in direct time domain analysis of gravity dams including hydrodynamic
interaction.
We conveniently choose to retain a pressure field for the representation of the fluid action and a
displacement field for the description of the dam behavior. The dam and the reservoir domains,
illustrated in Figure 1, are thus modeled separately and it is demonstrated that the dynamic
interaction forces linking the two subsystems at the dam-water interface are caused by
hydrodynamic pressures from the fluid region acting on the upstream face of the dam, and the
structural accelerations at the interface acting in turn on the reservoir.

3 h

s s 1

f
1 4
ij n j = pn i
s i,j = 1,2

s 2
Figure 1. Dam-reservoir domain and distribution of hydrodynamic forces.

In general, the continuum fields equations for a flexible gravity dam fixed at its base, along with
the appropriate boundary conditions can be summarized as follows:
ij, j + f i = s &u& i s (1)

ij n j = pn i 1 (2)

ij n j = 0 s 1s (3)

ui = 0 s (4)
In the above equations, the following notations have been used:
s, s structure domain and its contour at equilibrium
s base of dam structure
1 fluid-structure interface
s mass density of dam structure
ui , i dam displacement and acceleration in the ith direction
p hydrodynamic pressures on the upstream face
ni the ith component of n (the outward unit normal)
fi body forces in the ith direction
ij stress tensor.

Alternatively, it can be easily shown (Tiliouine & Seghir 1998) that a finite element
discretization of the Galerkin variational formulation of the preceding equations yields the
following system of second order differential equations:
M U && + C U
& +K U = F +F (5)
S S S g p

in which MS, CS and KS are the classical finite element mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the
dam structure. The global damping matrix for the dam is most effectively constructed by applying
the concept of Rayleigh damping to the dam and may be computed from the equation:
C S = M S + K S (6)
where and are proportionality constants selected to control the damping ratios of the lowest and
highest modes expected to contribute significantly to the response. The unknown vector of basic
nodal variable U represents the relative displacements at the nodal points of the finite element
model of the dam to be analyzed and the symbol . denotes differentiation with respect to time. The
forcing vector
F = M U && (7)
g S g

contains the driving force components generated by the prescribed ground accelerations vector g
applied at the structure nodal points. The additional forcing vector Fp of hydrodynamic forces
acting on the upstream face of the dam is related to the unknown vector of nodal pressures P, at the
nodal points of the reservoir finite element model through the transformation matrix Q as follows:
Fp = QP (8)
with
Q=
1
N TunN pd (9)

In the latter equation, Nu and Np represent respectively the finite element shape functions used for
the interpolation of the dam displacement and the reservoir pressure field variables.
This being the case, and in order to investigate the incidence of various assumptions on the
response of concrete gravity dams subjected to seismic excitations, the hydrodynamic pressures to
be used in Equation 8, will be computed according to one of the following four dam-reservoir
models.
2.1 Model M1 (rigid dam-incompressible water model)
This is the standard rigid dam-incompressible water model which may be considered as an
extension of Westergaards problem. For this model, the governing equations for the displacement
and hydrodynamic pressure fields are uncoupled. The continuous pressure field satisfies Laplaces
equation and the distribution of hydrodynamic pressures can be obtained from the following
equations:
 2 p = 0 f (10)

p
= f &u& gn 1 (11)
n

p
=0 2+4 (12)
n

p 1
= &p& 3 (13)
n f g
In these equations, the physical parameters f and g represent respectively the fluid mass density
and the gravitational constant. The symbols 2, 3 and 4 correspond respectively to the reservoir
bottom, the mean surface at equilibrium and the finite element truncation boundaries. In Equation
11, the symbol ng designates the outward normal component of the prescribed ground acceleration
vector applied to the wet solid particles at the dam-water interface.
Alternatively, the corresponding discrete system of finite element equations is:
M P && + K P = q (14)
F F

where the assembled finite element mass (introduced by the surface wave effects) and stiffness
matrices for the reservoir water subsystem, are respectively :
1
MF = 3
N Tp N p d
g
(15)

and
KF= f
N TP N p d (16)

The load vector q in Equation 14 is given by the expression:

q= 1
&& gn N Tp d
f u (17)

This model is not expected to give accurate results for large dams as dam flexibility and water
compressibility have been omitted. Since, in general, surface wave effects are of minor importance
and can be ignored for all practical purposes (Tiliouine & Seghir 1998, OConnor & Boot 1988),
the vector of hydrodynamic pressures acting at the nodal points of the water reservoir model can be
directly estimated from:
P = K F1q (18)

2.2 Model M2 (flexible dam-incompressible water model)

This is the flexible dam-incompressible water model. The essential difference with respect to
model M1 is that the flexibility of the dam is now taken into account. The mathematical
formulation is slightly more complicated than that used for model M1 in the sense that the
unknown basic continuous variables p and u are now coupled through the following boundary
condition applied at the dam upstream face:
p
= u
&& n 1 (19)
n
This equation involves the unknown outward normal accelerations n of the wet solid particles
at the fluid-solid interface and should not be confused with Equation 11.
Thus, the problem can now be cast in the following coupled form :
M S 0 U && C 0 U
S
& K Q U Fg
S
+ + = (20)
T && &
f Q M F P 0 0 P 0 K F P 0

It is immediately observed that the form of this global system of finite element equations is not
symmetric. However, a direct step by step integration of the complete system is not necessary. As a
matter of the fact, if surface waves are ignored from a practical point of view (which is a plausible
assumption), the vector of nodal pressures in the water reservoir finite element model can be
written as:
P = f K F1Q T U
&& (21)
which after substitution in Equation 20 yields the uncoupled problem:
[M S
&& +[C ] U
+ QK F1Q T U S ]{ }
& +[K ]{U}= F
S g {} { } (22)
It should be noted that this problem differs from the classical problem of structural dynamics
only by the added mass term. This may prove useful for practical applications since the solution
can be implemented numerically with advantage, using standard commercial finite element
packages.
2.3 Model M3 (rigid dam-compressible water model)
This is the rigid dam-compressible water model. It may be considered as another extension of
Westergaards model which explicitly includes, under certain restrictive assumptions, the effect of
water compressibility.
The mathematical formulation is similar to that presented for model M1 except that the
hydrodynamic pressure field must now satisfy Helmoltzs wave equation
1
2p &p& = 0 (23)
C2
and the boundary condition on 4 has also be modified to take into account the radiation condition:
p 1
= p& 4 (24)
n C
The parameter C being the velocity of sound in water.
Alternatively, the hydrodynamic pressures can be computed from:
M P && + C P& + K P = q (25)
F F F

Here, the global fluid mass matrix must be modified to account for both compressibility and
surface wave effects, which leads to the following expression:
1 1
MF = f
N Tp
C 2
N p d
3
N Tp N p d
g
(26)

It is seen that water compressibility introduces an additional inertial term but the pressure and
the displacement fields are, as for model M1, still uncoupled. Nevertheless, a direct step by step
integration scheme must now be utilized to deal effectively with the non-proportional damped
system of finite element equations.
2.4 Model M4 (flexible dam-compressible water model)
This is the flexible dam-compressible water model. Comparatively to the aforementioned models, it
is the most comprehensive and most realistic fluid-structure model since the dam flexibility, water
compressibility and surface waves effects are directly taken into account. The seismic response in
terms of dam displacements and hydrodynamic pressures in the reservoir should theoretically be
more accurate than those obtained from models M1, M2 and M3.
The mathematical formulation for the solution to the problem of determining the hydrodynamic
pressure distribution within the reservoir is identical to that of model M3, except that the
continuous pressure field equations are now governed by Helmoltzs equation. Moreover the basic
field variable u and p are coupled through Equation 19 that must be satisfied at the dam-water
interface. It can then be shown that a standard Galerkin variational formulation of the coupled
pressure and displacement fields yields the following coupled discrete system of finite elements
equations:
M S 0 U&& C 0 U
S
& K Q U Fg
S
T && + & + = (27)
Q M F P 0 C F P 0 K F P 0

where the mass matrix MF is again given by Equation 26.

It is observed that this global matrix system of coupled second order differential equations is
not symmetric and that a direct step by step integration scheme must again be utilized to deal
effectively with this non-proportionally damped fluid-structure model.

3 PERFORMANCE OF THE FLUID-STRUCTURE MODELS

3.1 System properties and input data

Based on the theoretical developments described in the preceding sections, a case study concerning
the Oued-Fodda dam-water system (north-western Algeria) has been examined. Figure 2 shows the
finite element mesh used to analyze the dynamic behavior of the dam-water reservoir system. Input
data required for the dynamic analysis of this system consists of geometry, material properties of
the dam and the water reservoir subsystems, boundary conditions as well as prescribed dynamic
excitations. A detailed description of the relevant input data is given by Tiliouine & Seghir (1997).

4.6 m
101.0 m

96.4 m

65.5 m 300.0 m

Figure 2. Finite element mesh used for the Oued-Fodda dam-water system (dam upstream slope=10%).

The ground motions selected for this study were the horizontal components of the El-Asnam
1980 and Loma Preita 1989 earthquakes (Fig. 3).
 1.4 a max=1.302 m/s at t=1.60 sec.
0.7
(a)
Accelerations (m/s)

0.0
-0.7
-1.4
6.5 a max=6.177 m/s at t=2.60 sec.
3.3 (b)
0.0
-3.3
-6.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec.)
Figure 3. Ground accelerations used for dynamic analysis of fluid-structure models.
(a) El-Asnam 1980 Earthquake, (b) Loma Preita 1989 Earthquake.

3.2 Numerical results and discussion

For the compressible water models, a direct step by step integration of the finite element system of
differential equations expressed in geometrical coordinates has been used to deal effectively with
the non proportionally damped dam-water systems. The dynamic response of the Oued-Fodda dam-
water system was determined in terms of various response quantities of interest including nodal
displacements, element stresses, and nodal pressures within the reservoir. The distribution of the
dynamic water pressure coefficient at the dam upstream face and the time histories at its base,
derived from the application of the four fluid-structure models have been determined. A summary
of the main numerical results are presented below in order to illustrate the relative performance of
the proposed fluid-structure models.

3.2.1 Distribution of pressure coefficient

Figure 4 shows the distribution of hydrodynamic pressures at the dam-water interface, normalized
by the maximum hydrostatic pressure and resulting from the successive applications of the
horizontal components of the 1980 El-Asnam and 1989 Loma Preita Earthquakes to the Oued-
Fodda concrete gravity dam according to the four proposed fluid-structure models M1 to M4.
In this figure, Cp = p /f g Hr represent the pressure coefficient and y/Hr, the reservoir height
ratio of y, the distance above reservoir bottom, to Hr, the total depth of reservoir. It should be noted
that in this definition of Cp, all p values are computed at a time equal to that of the maximum
hydrodynamic pressure. It is clearly observed that the use of different numerical fluid-structure
models may induce significant differences in hydrodynamic and structural response. In particular,
in the case of an incompressible fluid, the hypothesis of a rigid dam is seen to lead to
hydrodynamic pressures practically similar to those which would result from the assumption of a
flexible structure. However, in the case of a compressible fluid, the rigid dam hypothesis is shown
to lead clearly to lower pressure coefficients than those resulting from the more realistic flexible
dam assumption. It may thus be concluded that dam flexibility does not have an important effect on
hydrodynamic pressures for an incompressible fluid but it does induce a substantial increase of
dynamic water pressures for a compressible fluid. These observations remain essentially valid
regardless of the ground motions used for the dynamic of the dam-water system.
In other words, the results obtained clearly indicate that water compressibility induces a
substantial increase of hydrodynamic pressures for large flexible dams. The errors in neglecting
compressibility in this case, especially under resonant response conditions may become quite large.
The combined effects of fluid compressibility and dam flexibility may lead, because of a beating
behavior in response, to considerably large values of the hydrodynamic forces exerted on the
upstream face of a large dam and hence to high response amplifications of the dam-reservoir
system.
Finally, it is interesting to note that results obtained using model M1 (the analogue of
Westergaards model) significantly underestimate the hydrodynamic forces that would really
results the application of the upper limiting case associated with model M4 (the theoretically more
realistic flexible dam-compressible water model).

Rigid dam-incompressible water model (M1)

Flexible dam-incompressible water model (M2)
Rigid dam-compressible water model (M3)
Flexible dam-compressible
fluide compressible, water model (M4)
barrage flexible
fluide compressible, barrage rigide
1.00 1.00
fluide incompressible, barrage rigide
fluide incompressible, barrage flexible
0.75 0.75

y/Hr
y/Hr
y/H

0.50 0.50
(a) (b)

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.04 0.07 Cp 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.18 0.35 0.52 0.70
Cp Cp

Figure 4. Pressure coefficient distribution using the four fluid-structure models.

(a) El-Asnam 1980 Earthquake, (b) Loma Preita 1989 Earthquake.

3.2.2 Time histories of hydrodynamic pressures

To further illustrate the relative performance of the four proposed fluid-structure models, time
histories of response quantities of interest were performed for the total duration of the specified
base earthquake accelerations represented in Figure 3. For the sake of brevity, only the response
time histories of hydrodynamic pressures acting at the node located at the upstream face base of the
Oued-Fodda dam will be discussed. A summary of the main results derived from the application of
the Loma Preita 1989 earthquake to the dam-water system is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Maximum hydrodynamic pressures Pmax and time of occurrence T, derived from the four fluid-
structure finite element models ( Loma Preita 1989 earthquake).
Models Dam Reservoir water Pmax (MPa) T (sec.) Peak phase lag (sec.)
M1 Rigid Incompressible 0.22 2.60 0.00
M2 Flexible Incompressible 0.27 3.10 0.50
M3 Rigid Compressible 0.49 2.66 0.06
M4 Flexible Compressible 0.66 3.26 0.66

It is clearly seen that the combined effects of dam flexibility and water compressibility are the
most critical in studying the response of a dam-water system. As may be expected, the phase lag
expressed in terms of the difference between the time of maximum hydrodynamic pressure and that
of peak earthquake ground acceleration, is practically insignificant for the rigid dam models.
 The time histories of hydrodynamic pressures computed from the four fluid-structure finite
element models are displayed in Figure 5. It is seen that the first ten (10) seconds appear to be the
most critical for the response of dam-reservoir system. The results given by model M4, the flexible
dam-compressible water model are much larger than those derived from the other models M1-M3.
For the flexible dam models, the frequency contents of the results obtained from models M2 and
M4 are very similar but a large discrepancy is noted in terms of maximum pressure values. The
phase lags become now relatively important for both models. The beating behavior in response
observed in both flexible dam models is greatly amplified in model M4 due to the water
compressibility effects.
For the rigid dam models, no beating behavior is observed. The hydrodynamic pressures derived
from model M3 are larger than those obtained from model M1 (again because of water
compressibility effects). The time of peak hydrodynamic pressures for both models are very close
to the peak ground acceleration of the applied earthquake ground motion. This is because of the
rigid dam assumption used for both models to compute the hydrodynamic pressure field within the
reservoir.

7.0E+5

3.5E+5
P max = 0.22 MPa at t=2.60 (a) Model M1
0.0E+0

-3.5E+5

-7.0E+5
7.0E+5

3.5E+5
(b) Model M2
0.0E+0
pmax = 0.27 MPa at t=3.10 sec.
-3.5E+5
Pressures (Pa)

-7.0E+5
7.0E+5
pmax = 0.49 MPa at t=2.66
3.5E+5
(c) Model M3
0.0E+0

-3.5E+5

-7.0E+5
7.0E+5 pmax = 0.66 MPa at t=3.26

3.5E+5
(d) Model M4
0.0E+0

-3.5E+5

-7.0E+5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec.)
Figure 5. Time histories of hydrodynamic pressures (MPa) derived from the four fluid-structure models.
4 CONCLUSION

An investigation of the relative performance of four different fluid-structure finite element models
suitable for direct time domain evaluation of hydrodynamic pressures in earthquake response
studies of concrete gravity dam-reservoir systems has been presented. Namely, these are the
standard rigid dam-incompressible water model (model M1), the flexible dam-incompressible
water model (model M2), the rigid dam-compressible water model (model M3) and the flexible
dam-compressible water model (model M4). A Galerkin variational formulation of the governing
equations and the boundary conditions as well as the resulting discrete system of finite element
equations have been established for each of the four proposed models.
The results derived from the application of the four proposed dam-reservoir models to the
Oued-Fodda gravity dam-reservoir system have clearly shown that the use of different numerical
models leads to significant differences in hydrodynamic pressures and structural response. The
main conclusions were that: models with incompressible water, M1 and M2, produced practically
similar results and much lower dynamic pressure coefficients than should be expected in real
situations. They should be discarded or utilized with care and only in the preliminary seismic
design stage of concrete gravity dams with moderate heights. Model M3 was shown to yield higher
and more realistic hydrodynamic pressures than models M1 and M2. It can be, because of its
uncoupled mathematical form, used for most practical purposes. The more comprehensive model,
M4, was shown to be capable of capturing the significant dynamic pressure amplifications caused
by the beating behavior in response resulting from the combined effects of dam flexibility and
water compressibility, especially near resonant response conditions of the dam-reservoir system. Its
use is particularly recommended for the analysis of the earthquake response of large dams.

5 REFERENCES

Chopra, A. K. & Gupta, S. 1981. Hydrodynamic and foundation interaction effects in earthquake response of
a concrete gravity dam. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 578: 1899-1412.
Chopra, A. K. & Hall, J. F. 1982. Two-dimensional dynamic analysis of concrete gravity and embankment
dams including hydrodynamic effects. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 10: 305-332.
OConnor, J. P. F. & Boot, J. C. 1988. A solution procedure for the earthquake analysis of arch dam-reservoir
systems with compressible water. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 16: 757-773.
Tiliouine, B. & Seghir, A. 1997. Influence de linteraction fluide-structure sur le comportement sismique du
barrage de Oued-Fodda (Nord-Ouest Algrien). Actes du 1er Congrs Arabe de Mcanique, Damas, Syrie,
1-5 Juin.
Tiliouine, B. & Seghir, A. 1998. Dveloppement dune technique de symtrisation du problme de vibrations
des systmes coupls fluide-structure. 6eme Collogue Magrebin sur les Modles Numeriques de
lIngnieur. Tunis, Tunisie, 24-26 Novembre. (to appear).
Westergaard, H. M. 1933. Water pressures on dams during earthquakes. Transactions, ASCE 98: 418-472.
Wylie, E. B. 1975. Seismic response of reservoir-dam systems. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 101:
403-419.