EFFECTIVE MODELING OF DAM-RESERVOIR INTERACTION EFFECTS

USING ACOUSTIC FINITE ELEMENTS

Matthew Muto, Ph.D.1

Nicolas von Gersdorff, P.E.2
Zee Duron, Ph.D.3
Mike Knarr, P.E., S.E.4

ABSTRACT

Southern California Edison (SCE) is currently evaluating the seismic stability of two
large concrete dams. Extensive finite-element analyses of these two dams are being
performed to evaluate their response to large earthquakes. The earthquake analysis of
these dams requires an accurate representation of dam-reservoir interactions to capture
appropriate hydrodynamic loading and radiation damping effects.

Traditional modeling considerations for the reservoir include the use of lumped added
masses or the use of finite fluid elements to represent a portion of the reservoir domain
that attaches directly to the dam model. However, in a seismic analysis the elements can
become excessively distorted, increasing the computational cost and potentially affecting
the accuracy of the results. SCE has recently completed a series of evaluations that
suggest modeling the reservoir domain as acoustic medium using finite elements that
track only pressure, not deformation, can provide reliable representations of dam-
reservoir interactions. These evaluations included comparisons between computed
hydrodynamic pressure responses from numerical models with acoustic reservoir
elements and measured hydrodynamic pressures acquired during forced vibration tests on
a large concrete dam. Additional and enhanced confidence in the use of acoustic
elements to model dam-reservoir interactions is gained by demonstrating that these
elements can be used to obtain satisfactory comparisons in problems with known closed-
form solutions.

The results presented in this paper show that the use of acoustic finite elements avoids
some of the potential problems with traditional reservoir modeling techniques while
providing comparable accuracy.

INTRODUCTION

Validation of numerical models using observed data can be a valuable aid in determining
the suitability of a given model for predicting the response of a structure. A growing
database of measured hydrodynamic pressure responses acquired during forced vibration
testing of large concrete dams provides observed evidence of dam-reservoir interaction
effects that can be used for this purpose.

1
Southern California Edison, 300 N. Lone Hill Ave., San Dimas, CA 91773. matthew.muto@sce.com
2
Southern California Edison, 300 N. Lone Hill Ave., San Dimas, CA 91773. nicolas.von@sce.com
3
Harvey Mudd College, 1200 Platt Blvd, Claremont, CA 91711, ziyad.duron@hmc.edu
4
Southern California Edison, 300 N. Lone Hill Ave., San Dimas, CA 91773, mike.knarr@sce.com

Modeling of Dam Reservoir Interaction Effects 1161

These interactions are often modeled with lumped added mass on the upstream surface of
the dam (Westegaard 1933), or by using solid elements with fluid material properties in
the reservoir domain. While these methods have been shown to capture overall trends in
pressure response and interaction effects, improved comparisons have been demonstrated
through the use of acoustic elements. The ABAQUS acoustic finite elements are used to
model problems ranging from sound radiation in automobile engineers (Simulia 2007) to
the effects of underwater explosions (Simulia 2007b). Schuelen et al. (2010) showed that
pressures predicted using acoustic finite elements in the ABAQUS program compared
well with hydrophone measurements taken during a forced vibration test at SCE’s Big
Creek No. 7 Dam. Acoustic finite elements have subsequently been used by SCE in
modeling several concrete dams

VALIDATION PROBLEM

Dr. George Housner examined the problem of obtaining closed-form expressions for the
dynamic pressures exerted on a container by impounded fluid (Housner 1954). The
following sample problem and Housner’s analytical solution were used to evaluate the
appropriate application of acoustic elements for modeling dam-reservoir interactions. It
is one of a class of problems in which dynamic fluid pressures are computed for
containers under earthquake loading. The particular problem is of an accelerating tank
into a water domain, and a sketch of the configuration is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Diagram of the simple example problem of an accelerating tank of water. From
Housner (1954).

Analytical solution

Housner developed closed-form solutions by using an approximation of the fluid flow,

which is an approach he considered to be analogous to the Rayleigh-Ritz method used to
solve elastic deformation problems. This method was applied to several types of
containers and the results are comparable to the solutions of Westegaard (1933) and

1162 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

Graham and Rodriguez (1952), with the advantage of having a mathematically
convenient solution form.

Consider a tank of length 2l and height h, filled with a fluid moving with horizontal
velocity u and vertical velocity v, as illustrated in Figure 1. The tank is rigid and moves
with a specified horizontal velocity u0. Housner showed that the pressure pwall on the
wall of the tank is given by

 y 1  y 2  l
p wall = ρhu 0  −    tanh 3 (1)
 h 2 h  h
 

where u 0 is the horizontal acceleration of the tank. If we consider the dam-reservoir

system as a very long tank where l is much greater than h, this simplifies to

 y 1  y 2 
p wall = ρhu 0  −    (2)
h 2h 
 

Numerical Models

We now compare this solution to the results given by two numerical models. In the first
model, a rectangular section of a reservoir measuring 150 feet wide, 200 feet long and 50
ft deep is modeled with a mesh of 8-node acoustic brick elements, as shown in Figure
2(a). As described in the ABAQUS manual (Simulia 2010), these elements model an
acoustic medium as an elastic material in which stress is purely hydrostatic (no shear
stresses) and the pressure is proportional to volumetric strain. Acoustic finite elements
only track pressures, nodal displacements are not calculated.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Finite-element meshes used in the example problem to model (a) the
rectangular reservoir and (b) the rigid dam-foundation system.

Modeling of Dam Reservoir Interaction Effects 1163

In the sample problem, the dam and the sides and floor of the reservoir are modeled with
rigid shell elements, shown in Figure 2(b). At the upstream end of the reservoir, a non-
reflecting boundary condition is applied. Tie constraints are applied between the
reservoir and the dam-foundation model. A 1 Hz sinusoidal ground motion is applied to
the foundation in the stream direction for 6 seconds, with a peak acceleration of
approximately 1.2 g. At the top of the reservoir, a free surface boundary condition is
applied to the nodes of the acoustic elements by constraining the dynamic pressures to be
zero.

This model is very similar to how acoustic elements are utilized by SCE in the analysis of
its dams. The only significant differences are the complexity of the geometry and the use
of deformable solid elements in modeling the dam and foundation.

For the second model, deformable solid elements are used. While these elements are
often used in modeling reservoirs, in a seismic analysis the elements can become
excessively distorted, increasing the computational cost and potentially affecting the
accuracy of the results. For comparison purposes, a finite-element model of the sample
problem using these solid elements was also analyzed. The reservoir mesh geometry is
identical to the acoustic finite-element model shown in Figure 2(a). Rather than model
the dam and foundation separately, the sinusoidal input motion is specified as a boundary
condition on the nodes on the sides and downstream end of the reservoir. At the
upstream end, a layer of infinite solid elements provides a nonreflecting boundary.
Gravity loading is also included in the solid model. An initial stress state is applied such
that the reservoir is in equilibrium under gravity load at the start of the analysis.

Material properties for water are based on the values used by the Bureau of Reclamation
in the nonlinear analysis of their concrete dams (Mills-Bria et al. 2006). The density for
both types of finite elements is 62.4 pcf. For the acoustic finite elements, the bulk
modulus is 4.49×107 psf. For the deformable solid elements, the modulus of elasticity is
2.73×104 psf and Poisson’s ratio is 0.4999. There is no material damping; the only
mechanism for energy dissipation in either finite element model is the nonreflecting
boundary at the upstream end of the reservoir.

Results

Dynamic pressures are calculated directly for the acoustic elements model. Figure 3
shows contours of dynamic pressure for the acoustic finite element on a section cut
through the middle of the model. For the solid elements, dynamic pressure is obtained by
dividing the reaction force on the nodes at the downstream end of the reservoir by the
tributary area of each node, then subtracting the hydrostatic pressure resulting from the
weight of the overlying water.

1164 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

 Figure 3. Cut-away view of the example problem model, showing contours of pressure
for the acoustic finite elements.

Figure 4 shows the first four seconds of the time histories of the dynamic pressures for
the acoustic and solid element models for a node on the center of the downstream face of
the reservoir compared with the dynamic pressure calculated using Equation 2. For the
acoustic elements, the dynamic pressures are relatively close to the closed-form solution
(within 1 psi). For the solid elements, we see transient vibrations (which are to be
expected in any type of spring-mass system) at the start of the record, which decay after
1-2 cycles, and somewhat larger errors compared to the acoustic elements.

Figure 5 shows the maximum dynamic pressure as a function of depth for the analytical
solution and the two finite-element models. The difference in the maximum pressure
between each finite-element model and the analytical solution is shown in Figure 4. The
acoustic finite element models more closely reproduce the behavior predicted by Housner
in this sample problem. Quantitatively, the normalized root-mean-squared error between
the steady-state pressure using acoustic elements and the closed-form solution is 5%,
while the error of the pressures computed with solid elements is about 13%. Note that
“steady-state” was defined as the response of the finite-element models between 3 and 6
seconds to allow for sufficient decay of the transient response of the solid elements.

Modeling of Dam Reservoir Interaction Effects 1165

Figure 4. Comparison of the first four seconds of the time histories of dynamic pressure
computed using Housner’s closed-form solution for a oscillating tank with values
computed by the ABAQUS program using acoustic and solid finite elements.

Figure 5. Maximum dynamic pressure as a function of depth for the closed-form solution
and the ABAQUS finite element results.

1166 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

 CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of measured and computed hydrodynamic pressures for a large concrete

dam indicated good agreement was achieved using acoustic elements. To gain better
understanding of how these elements can be used, and to provide enhanced confidence in
their application to the earthquake analysis of dams, comparisons against the closed-form
solution of a sample problem were also pursued. These comparisons verified the
agreement observed from the previous studies, and improved agreement with the closed-
form solution was obtained using acoustic elements as opposed to fluid elements.

REFERENCES

Graham, W., and Rodriguez, A.M., 1952. “Char acteristics of fuel m otion which affect
airplane dynamics.” Journal of Applied Mechanics, 19.

Housner, G.W., 1954. “Earthquake pressures on fluid containers.” Report EERL-1954-

3, Earthquake Engineering Re search Laboratory, Californi a Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechEERL:1954.EERL.1954.003

Mills-Bria, B., Nuss, L., O’Connel, D., Harris, D., 2006. “State-of-practice for the
nonlinear analysis of concrete dams at the Bureau of Reclamation.” Technical report,
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Schulen, F., von Gersdorff, N., Duron, Z., Knarr, M., 2010. “Numerical model validation
for large concrete gravity dams,” 2010 United States Society on Dams Conference.

Simulia Corp., 2007. “Sound radiation analysis of automobile engine covers”. Abaqus
Technology Brief TB-06-COVER-2. Providence, RI.
http://www.simulia.com/solutions/tb_pdf/TB-06-COVER-2.pdf

Simulia Corp., 2007b. “Shock resonse and acoustic radiation analysis.” Abaqus
Technology Brief TB-04-SUB-2. Providence, RI.
http://www.simulia.com/solutions/tb_pdf/TB-04-SUB-2.pdf

Simulia Corp., 2010. “ABAQUS manual.” Version 6.10. Providence, RI.

Westergaard, M., 1933. “Water pressures on dams during earthquakes.” Transactions of

the American Society of Civil Engineering, 98.

Modeling of Dam Reservoir Interaction Effects 1167