STUDY OF DAM-RESERVOIR DYNAMIC INTERACTION

USING VIBRATION TESTS ON A PHYSICAL MODEL

Paulo Mendes, Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa, Portugal

Sérgio Oliveira, Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Portugal

pmendes@dec.isel.ipl.pt

Abstract
This paper presents the main results of a water-structure dynamic interaction experiment under
ambient excitation and impact-hammer excitation. Experimental tests were conducted on a physical
model of a wall clumped at the base submitted to water pressure. The main dynamic parameters of
this system (natural frequencies, mode shapes and modal damping) were identified for different
water levels. The observed results are compared with those of a numerical model of 2D finite
elements.
The obtained results show that the Young modulus to be used on structural dynamic analysis
should be evaluated by ultrasonic tests. On the other hand the water effect on the dynamic
behaviour of the system could be simulated using added water masses or water finite elements.

1 Introduction
The dynamic behaviour of large concrete dams is out of complex due to the interaction phenomena
involving the three components of the whole system: dam-foundation-reservoir (see Figure 1).
Usually the analysis of these structures is carried out taking into account some simple conservative
hypothesis that allows their safety control. However the true dynamic behaviour of large concrete
dams only can be evaluated after the understanding of the dam-foundation, dam-reservoir and
foundation-reservoir interface coupled problems.

Figure 1 Dam-foundation-reservoir system.

Presently, when we perform a dynamic behaviour analysis of large concrete dams, some doubts
prevail, namely when we compare numerical results (based on the usual structural assumptions)
and experimental results (analysed using modal identification techniques). These doubts are usually
related with the Young modulus considered on numerical models and the reliability of added water
masses in accordance with Westergaard formula. So, in this work, the main objectives are to check
the use of Young modulus value obtained from ultrasonic tests and to verify the reliability of added
water masses or water finite elements. These verifications are based on the comparison of
numerical and experimental results from the physical model presented on Figure 2.
The experimental results are obtained from a set of vibration tests carried out on the physical model
for different water levels to evaluate the influence of water on the main dynamic parameters
(namely the evolution of the 1st natural frequency). A 2D finite element model was developed using
the two hypotheses for water consideration: added water masses and water finite elements.

2 Physical Model
To study the water-structure interaction it was used a physical model of a concrete wall clumped at
the base and submitted to water pressure. With this model we intend to simulate the dam-reservoir
interaction phenomena. Figure 2 shows the geometric characteristics of the model.

1.00
0.50

0.90
0.085

0.25
0.20 1.20

plan view lateral view

3D model

Figure 2 Physical model main characteristics.

This laboratory model was built over a plastic stuff in order to prevent the connection between the
pavement and the concrete model. After that it was verified that the deformability of the model-
pavement joint influences the dynamic behaviour of the cantilever wall (due to undesirable
movements at the model basis). To minimize these movements the model was connected to a
reaction wall as Figures 5 and 6 shows. However due to constructive imperfections it was difficult,
until now, to solve this problem definitely.

3 Numerical Model
A 2D finite element model was developed and implemented as a MatLab routine that allows static
and dynamic analysis. With this routine it is possible to simulate hydrodynamic effect using added
water masses or water finite elements, the main features of these formulations will be described in
this section.
The damping effect was simulated using Rayleigh damping
C = αM +βK

were the damping matrix C is proportional to mass and stiffness matrices (M and K) [1, 2].
The developed algorithm is based on a time domain modal formulation using an analytic
integration technique that is exact for history loads defined by linear branches.
With this routine it is possible to choose some degrees of freedom in order to apply predefined
history loads (e.g. random noise or impact loads). Finally it is also possible to pick up some
acceleration data from some degrees of freedom (defined by the user) and perform a simple modal
identification based on peak picking technique (namely display an average normalized spectrum).
This feature will be used in order to compare numerical and experimental results.

3.1 Finite element mesh

The 2D finite element mesh was developed using isoparametric 2nd degree elements with 8 nodes
as shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the first computed mode shapes and corresponding
frequencies, considering no water. It was used a Young modulus of E = 32.5GPa for the cantilever
wall; this value was obtained experimentally from ultrasonic tests. For the model base it was used
an equivalent value for the Young modulus, E eq = 70.0 GPa , in order to take into account the
stiffness induced by the lateral reservoir walls that can not be considered in a simple 2D model.

E=32.5 GPa

Eeq=70GPa

Figure 3 Plane finite element mesh, using 8 nodes by element.

Young modulus for dynamic analysis: ultrasonic tests
It is assumed that for dynamic analysis the concrete Young’s modulus value should correspond to
the value obtained from ultrasonic tests. So it was carried out an ultrasonic test on a concrete
cylindrical sample and the Young modulus was computed using the next formula from
elastodynamics:
(1 + ν )(1 − 2 ν )
E = v2 ρ
(1 − ν )
were v is the measured velocity of pressure wave propagation on concrete ( v  3800 m / s ),
ρ = 24 kN / m3 is the specific concrete mass and ν = 0.2 is the concrete Poisson’s ratio. As
referred above it was obtained for E a value of about E  32.5 GPa .

The results presented in following sections show that this value is definitely a suitable value for use
in structural dynamic analysis - values obtained from static tests are smaller and not suitable for
this purpose.
Figure 4 Ultrasonic test performed on a concrete cylindrical sample in order to obtain the concrete
Young’s modulus.

3.2 Models for water effect simulation

Added water masses
Using Westergaard added water masses, the hydrodynamic pressure is considered on the boundary
nodes that contact with water, and is given by:
pi = α i 
u iN

were pi and uiN are respectively the hydrodynamic pressure and the normal acceleration on i
node, α i is the pressure coefficient computed according to Westergaard proposal [3]. However, in
the finite element model we build a mass matrix that will be added to elementary mass matrices and
is obtained from:
M inm = α i Li λ n λ m

In previous formula Li is the influence length associated with i node, and finally λ n and λ m
represent the normal direction to the upstream face.
Water finite elements
The hydrodynamic pressure was also simulated using water finite elements that can be easily
formulated writing the constitutive relationship for isotropic materials in terms of the bulk
modulus, K v , and the shear modulus, G [4]:

E E
Kv = G=
3 (1 − 2ν ) 2 (1 + ν )

were E is the Young modulus and ν is the Poisson ratio. In this case, we can write the constitutive
equation for plane strain hypothesis as follows:

⎡ σ11 ⎤ ⎡ K v + 43 G K v − 32 G 0 ⎤ ⎡ ε11 ⎤
⎢σ ⎥ = ⎢ K − 2 G K + 4 G 0 ⎥ ⎢ε ⎥
⎢ 22 ⎥ ⎢ v 3 v 3 ⎥ ⎢ 22 ⎥
⎢⎣ σ12 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 G ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ε12 ⎥⎦

For water finite elements it must be assumed that G  0 and K v  2 GPa (in accordance with the
water pressure wave’s propagation velocity of v = 1440 m / s ). For concrete it was assumed
G = 13.54 GPa and K v = 18.06 GPa .
4 Experimental tests
A set of vibration tests were carried out on a physical model build at ISEL. The collected data was
used in order to perform the modal identification of the physical model (clumped wall) for different
water levels. In order to improve the modal identification results it was used an impact hammer to
better excite the model due to low ambient excitation that occur in lab.

Figure 5 Physical model testing. Figure 6 Connection between model and

reaction wall.
As it can be seen in Figures 5 and 6 the model is connected to a reaction wall in order to guarantee
an adequate restriction to longitudinal movements.
The data acquisition system is composed by an OROS 35 – 8 channel, 8 accelerometers, cables and
a lab top as shown Figure 5. In this paper we only evaluate the results obtained from the 6
accelerometers placed centrally (see Figure 5) that is enough for the analysis of the first 2D
cantilever wall mode shapes. The acceleration measurements were recorded using 2048 Hz of
sampling frequency during 5 minutes.

5 Results
The main results obtained from numerical and experimental tests are shown in this section. Figure
7 shows the first three plane mode shapes obtained numerically with no water.

F1 = 48.81 Hz F2 = 292.69 Hz F3 = 453.82 Hz F4 = 736.95 Hz

Figure 7 First plane mode shapes obtained numerically (without water).

It must be emphasized, as referred above, that the identified frequencies for the first vibration
modes show a good agreement with numerical results obtained considering the dynamic value of
32.5 GPa for the Young modulus (evaluated from ultrasonic tests).
In Figure 8 it is showed a comparison between the average normalized spectrums [5,6,7] obtained
numerically and experimentally for three situations: i) empty reservoir; ii) water level of 0.5m (half
reservoir); and iii) 1.0m of water level (full reservoir).
 Numerical results (water finite elements) Experimental results
Empty reservoir Empty reservoir
-1
Espectro médio normalizado -1
Espect ro médio normalizado
10 10

-2 -2
10 10

-3
-3 10
10
Amplitude((m/s 2)2/Hz)

Amplitude ((m/s2 )2 /Hz)

-4
-4 10
10

-5
-5 10
10

Mode associated to an undesirable base movement

-6
-6 10
10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 f(Hz)
f(Hz)

Water level – 0.50 m Water level – 0.50 m

-1
Espectro médio normalizado -1
Espectro m édio normalizado
10 10

-2 -2
10 10

-3 -3
10 10
Amplitude((m/s 2)2/Hz)

Am plitude ((m /s2)2/Hz)

-4 -4
10 10

-5 -5
10
10

-6
-6 10
10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
f(Hz)
f(Hz)

Water level – 1.00 m Water level – 1.00 m

Espectro médio normalizado -1
Espect ro m édio normalizado
-1 10
10

-2 -2
10 10

-3 -3
10 10
Amplitude((m/s 2)2/Hz)

Amplitude ((m/s2) 2/Hz)

-4 -4
10 10

-5 -5
10 10

-6 -6
10 10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
f(Hz)
f(Hz)

Figure 8 Average normalized power spectrums (0 to 1024Hz).

As we can see there is a good agreement between the power spectrums computed numerically using
the finite element plane model and the power spectrums obtained experimentally. Namely it can be
seen that both, physical and numerical model, present a similar decrease of natural frequencies
when water level increases.
For high frequencies it appears that the experimental values of modal damping are higher than the
corresponding damping values considered in the numerical model (Rayleigh damping formulation).
Because of that the higher frequency modes are difficult to identify from experimental data.
The variation of the 1st mode natural frequency with the water level is presented in the next Figure.
In this case we can see that the water effect really influences the 1st natural frequency values for
water levels greater than 0.50m (half reservoir).
The experimental results obtained for nine different water levels, since the empty reservoir
situation, show a good agreement with the numerical results, obtained considering the referred
dynamic value for the concrete Young’s modulus (32.5 GPa) and the both proposed methodologies
for the water effect simulation: Westergaard formulation (scheme of added water masses) or water
finite elements with null shear modulus.

Numerical results
50 Added water masses
Water F.E.
Experimental results
45
Frequency (Hz)

40

35

30
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water level (m)

Figure 9 Comparison between numerical and test results, for 1st frequency.

It must be noted that for high water levels the numerical values of the first mode frequency are
lightly smaller than the experimental frequency values.

6 Conclusions
The concrete Young’s modulus obtained from ultrasonic tests is a good estimation to consider in
the development of reliable numerical models for dynamic analysis involving water-structure
interaction phenomena.
The two used formulations for the simulation of water effect under dynamic excitation (added
water masses and water F.E.) are similar and both present a good agreement with the experimental
results obtained for the variation of the 1st natural frequency with the water level.
The presented results show that some improvements on numerical and physical model will be
useful. Namely the Rayleigh damping formulation could be improved taking into account a split on
the mass and stiffness matrices in order to separate the damping contribution of concrete and water.
The physical model could also be improved in order to guarantee a rigid connection between the
base model, the floor and the reaction wall. It will be interesting to use a new physical model with a
thinner cantilever wall in order to obtain lower frequencies for the first vibration modes.
7 Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to Eng. João Costa, Eng. Pedro Silva and Mr. António Fernandes for their technical
support. We also thank FCT for providing financial support through the project “Study of Evolutive
Deterioration Processes in Concrete Dams. Safety Control over Time”.

8 References
[1] Chopra A. K.: “Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications
to Earthquake Engineering (2nd Edition)”, Prentice Hall, USA.
[2] Tedesco, J. W., McDougal, W. G., Ross, C. A.: “Structural
Dynamics: Theory and Applications”.
[3] Westergaard, H. M.: “Water Pressures on Dams during
Earthquakes”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Transactions,
vol. 98, pp. 18-433, Discussion, pp. 434-472.
[4] Zienkiewicz, O. C., Taylor, R. L.: “The Finite Element Method”
McGraw Hill, London, UK.
[5] Felber, A. J.: “Development of Hybrid Bridge Evaluation
System”, PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada.
[6] Bendat, J.S., and Piersol A.G.: “Random Data: Analysis and
Measurement Procedures (3rd Edition)”, John Wiley & Sons, USA.
[7] Brincker, R., Zhang, L., and Andersen P.: “Modal Identification
from Ambient Responses using Frequency Domain
Decomposition”, Proc. 18thInternational Modal Analysis