KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2012) 16(1):103-106 DOI 10.

1007/s12205-012-0870-8

Structural Engineering

www.springer.com/12205

Analysis of Dam-Reservoir Interaction by Using Homotopy Analysis Method

M. A. Karaca* and S. Kkarslan**
Received May 12, 2009/Revised December 5, 2010/Accepted April 12, 2011

Abstract
In this paper, dam-reservoir interaction for a vibrating structure in an unbounded and incompressible and inviscid fluid is analyzed by using homotopy analysis method. In the derivation of the hydrodynamic pressure variable, it is assumed that vibration of dam is in the normal direction of dam-reservoir interface and this interface is vertical. Moreover, bottom of fluid is rigid and horizontal. The results are compared with finite element method and analytical ones. It is seen that the results are efficient and gives better values than the previous published results and this method can be extendable for compressible fluid domains. Keywords: dam reservoir interaction, Homotopy Analysis Method (HAM), Finite Element Method (FEM), hydrodynamic pressure

1. Introduction
In the earthquake seismic regions, for the design of dams, the effect of the hydrodynamic pressures exerted on the face of the dam is an important issue as a result of the earthquake ground motions. Zienkiewicz et al. (1965) presented the finite element formulation for analyzing the coupled response of the submerged structures assuming water to be incompressible. Nath (1971) analyzed the problem using the method of finite differences but neglecting radiation damping. Chakrabarti and Chopra (1974) have formulated the reservoir as a continuum of infinite length. Two dimensional problem of the added-mass effect of horizontal acceleration of a rigid dam with an inclined upstream face of constant slope was solved analytically by Chwang and Housner (1978) using a momentum balance approach. In the finite element formulation, unbounded domain of reservoir arise a problem in modeling. To overcome this difficulty, the unbounded domain should be truncated at a certain distance away from the structure. The most commonly used boundary condition along the truncation surface is the Sommerfeld radiation condition (Sommerfeld, 1949). Since this boundary condition takes the form of that for a rigid stationary boundary, the behavior of the reservoir domain is not truly represented. Another boundary condition along the truncating surface for an unbounded and incompressible fluid domain was developed by Sharan (1985). Although this boundary condition is better than the Sommerfeld radiation condition, it does not represent the behavior well when truncation surface is very near to dam surface. Another boundary condition along the truncating surface of an unbounded reservoir domain was developed by approximating the analytical solution

of the hydrodynamic pressure (Kkarslan, 2005). It is obvious that the effective and accurate results are dependent on the far boundary condition due to nature of the unbounded domain of the reservoir for finite element analysis. To avoid this disadvantage that does not consider the far boundary condition, a new and efficient method called Homotopy Analysis Method (HAM) (Liao, 1992, 1999, 2003; Inc, 2007) is used for the first time to get hydrodynamic pressures on the dam face.

2. Formulation of Unbounded Reservoir Domain

2.1 Analytical Formulation of the Hydrodynamic Pressure For incompressible and inviscid fluid, the hydrodynamic pressure p resulting from the ground motion of a rigid dam (Fig. 1) satisfies the Laplace equation in the following form: p=0
2

(1)

The following boundary conditions are defined by assuming the effects of the surface waves and viscosity of the fluid are neglected : At the fluid-solid interface (S1), p ----- = ag n (2)

where ag is the ground acceleration subjected on the dam face. At the bottom of the fluid domain, if the bottom is rigid (S2), one can write the following: p -----=0 n (3)

*Assistant Professor, Dept. of Mathematics, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34469, Turkey (E-mail: karacam@itu.edu.tr) **Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul 34469, Turkey (Corresponding Author, E-mail: kucukarslan@itu. edu.tr) 103

M. A. Karaca and S. Kkarslan

At the far end (S3) where x coordinate is infinite, p=0 (4a)

( x, z ;0 ) = p0 ( x, z ) and ( x, z ;1 ) = p ( x, z )

(9)

The Sommerfelds radiation condition for the truncated surface is given by: p ( x, z ) -----------------=0 n and the Sharans boundary condition is given by p ( x, z ) p ----------------- = -----n 2H (4c) (4b)

respectively. In the HAM (Liao, 1992; Liao, 1999; Liao, 2003; Inc, 2007), the Taylor expansion of (x, z; r) about the embedding parameter is obtained by:

( x, z ;r ) = p0 ( x, z ) + pm ( x, z ) rm
m=1

(10)

where 1 ( x, z ;r ) - -----------------------p m ( x, z ) = ----m ! rm

m

(11)
r=0

At the free surface (S4) when neglecting the surface waves, p=0 (5)

The convergence of the series in equation (10) depends on the auxiliary parameter h . If it converges at r = 1, one gets: p ( x, z ) = p 0 ( x, z ) +

The analytical solution of Eq. (1) with the boundary conditions (4) is:
1 )n + 1 x z - cos n --p ( x, z ) = 2 a g H ( ---------------- exp n --2 H H n=1 n

m=1

p m ( x, z )

(12)

Lets define the vectors: (6) p n = { p0 ( x, z ), p1 ( x, z ), , pn ( x, z ) } (13)

where n = ( ( 2 n 1 ) ) 2 , H is the height of the fluid, ag is the ground acceleration, and is the mass density of the fluid. Solution of the Eq. (6) is obtained by assuming that: 1) the fluid domain extends to infinity and its motions is two dimensional, 2) fluid-structure interface is vertical, 3) the submerged structure is rigid, 4) the bottom of fluid domain is rigid and horizontal. 2.2 Homotopy Analysis Method Equation (1) is considered as: N [ p ( x, z ) ] = 0 (7)

By differentiating the zeroth-order deformation Eq. (8) mtimes with respect to r and then dividing them by m! and at the end setting r = 1, one gets the mth-order deformation equation as: [ p m ( x, z ) m p m 1 ( x, z ) ] = h m ( p m 1 ) where 1 N [ ( x, z ; r ) ] m ( pm 1 ) = ------------------ ------------------------------------m1 ( m 1 )! r and m = 0, m 1 1, m > 1 (15b)
m1

(14)

(15a)
r=0

where N is a linear operator for this problem, and p(x,z) is an unknown function. By means of the HAM (Liao, 1992, 1999, 2003; Inc, 2007), one first constructs the zeroth-order deformation equation as: ( 1 r ) [ ( x, z ;r ) p0 ( x, z ) ] = rhN [ ( x, z ;r ) ] (8)

It should be noted that pm(x,z) for m 1 is governed by the Eq. (14). 2.3 Application of the Homotopy Analysis Method for DamReservoir Interaction Problem In this section, the application of the HAM for the analysed physical dam-reservoir interaction problem will be done and approximate solutions will be obtained for current investigation. One can select the linear operator as: ( x, z ;r ) [ ( x, z ;r ) ] = ----------------------2 x
2

where is a linear operator, p0(x,z)is an initial guess, h 0 is an auxiliary parameter and r [ 0, 1 ] is the embedding parameter. Obviously, when r = 0 and r = 1, it gives:

(16)

with the following property: [ c 1 x + c2 ] = 0 (17)

where c1 and c2 are constants. Also, one can define the following operator as: ( x, z ;r ) ( x, z ;r ) - + ----------------------N [ ( x, z ;r ) ] = ----------------------2 2 x x
2 2

(18)

Fig. 1. Rigid Dam and Fluid

104

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

Analysis of Dam-Reservoir Interaction by Using Homotopy Analysis Method

By using this above definition and Eqs. (8) and (9), one can get the mth-order deformation as: [ p m ( x, z ) m p m 1 ( x, z ) ] = h m ( p m 1 ) pm 1 ( x, z ;r ) m 1 ( x, z ;r ) where m ( pm 1 ) = ------------------------------+ ------------------------------2 2 x z
2 2

Table 1. The Comparison of Bottom Hydrodynamic Pressure (z = 0) with Exact Solution for Different x Locations (H = 5, ag = 0.1, = 1 values are assumed) x 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Exact value for pressure 0.324 0.281 0.243 0.210 0.181 0.155 0.133 0.114 0.098 0.084 HAM Pressure 0.346 0.296 0.253 0.216 0.185 0.158 0.135 0.115 0.099 0.084 Absolute Error % 6.79 5.33 4.11 2.85 2.20 1.93 1.50 0.88 0.10 0.00

(19)

Finally, the solution of the mth-order deformation equations for m 1 becomes: p m ( x, z ) = [ m p m 1 ( x, z ) ] + h [ m ( p m 1 ) ]

1
( x 10 ) 2 2 2

(20)

By selecting p0 ( x, z ) = ( 4 e ( 1 ( z 100 ) ) ) and using H = 5, ag =0.1, =1, one can get the following approximations for the hydrodynamic pressure, ) e h t ( z + 600 p1 ( x, z ) = ------------------------------------------30000
2 2 2
x -----

x ----10

(21) methods in the Table 1. The truncated boundary taken very close to the dam face is the interest of this study, because taking the truncation boundary at a far location can give good results when compared to other available boundary conditions, but one loses the efficiency in terms of number of unknowns. In Figs. 3-5, the distribution of hydrodynamic pressure on dam face is compared with Sommerfeld, Sharan and homotopy

1h 4 6 10 - z + 250 ( 3 h + 2 ) 2 z4 + 300000 ( h + 1 ) z2 e h -6 p2 ( x, z ) = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15000000

(22) The selection of the initial p0(x, z) is very important to obtain the converging results. In the selection of this initial function, the curicial point should be related to the physics of the problem, i.e., it needs to satisfy the boundary conditions and the behaviour of the pressure distribution.

3. Numerical Example
To test the accuracy of the proposed method, a comparison will be done by using analytical and two-dimensional finite elements having 4 nodes rectangular elements. The geometry of rigid dam is shown in Fig. 2, in which dam is subjected to a horizontal uniform acceleration ag. The infinite reservoir was analyzed for four different locations of the truncation boundary, each resulting in a different size l of an equivalent finite reservoir. Typical finite element model is shown in Fig. 2. The results for the hydrodynamic pressures for different locations were obtained by using analytical and homotopy analysis

Fig. 3. Comparison of HAM and Sommerfelds and Sharans Boundary Condition for Hydrodynamic Pressure on Dam for l/H=0.1 and Mesh Size 101

Fig. 2. A Typical Finite Element Mesh for a Ten Row in the Vertical Direction and Two Columns in the Horizontal Direction
Vol. 16, No. 1 / January 2012

Fig. 4. Comparison of HAM and Sommerfelds and Sharans Boundary Condition for Hydrodynamic Pressure on Dam for l/H=0.5 and Mesh Size 105

105

M. A. Karaca and S. Kkarslan

4. Conclusions
Dam-reservoir interaction for a vibrating structure in an unbounded and incompressible and inviscid fluid is analyzed by using the homotopy analysis method. The HAM results were compared with analytical ones and finite element method by using Sommerfelds and Sharans boundary conditions. It is seen that the proposed numerical method (HAM) is an efficient and accurate method for the analyzed problem and this new method can extendable for compressible fluid domains.
Fig. 5. Comparison of HAM and Sommerfelds and Sharans Boundary Condition for Hydrodynamic Pressure on Dam for l/H=1.0 and Mesh Size 1010

References
Chakrabarti, P. and Chopra, A. K. (1974). Hydrodynamic effects in earthquake response of gravity dams. ASCE J. Stuct. Div., Vol. 100, No. 100, pp. 1211-1224. Chwang, A. T. and Hausner, G. W. (1978). Hydrodynamic pressures on sloping dams during earthquakes. Part 1 : Momentum method. J. Fluid Mech,. Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 335-341. n, M. (2007). On exact solution of Laplace Equation with Dirichlet I and Neumann boundary conditions by homotopy analysis method. Physics Letters A, Vol. 365, No. 5, pp. 412-415. Kkarslan, S. (2005). An exact truncation boundary condition for incompressible-unbounded infinite fluid domains. Applied. Mathematics and Computation., Vol. 163, No. 1, pp. 61-69. Liao, S. J. (1992). The proposed homotopy analysis technique for the solution of nonlinear problems1, PhD Thesis, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Liao, S. J. (2003). An explicit, totally analytic approximate solution for Blasius viscous flow problems. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 759-778. Liao, S. J. (2003). Beyond perturbation: Introduction to the homotopy analysis method, Champan & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton. Liao, S. J. (2003) On the analytic solution of magneto hydrodynamic flows of non-Newtonian fluids over a stretching sheet. J. Fluid. Mech. Vol. 488, No. 1, pp. 189-212. Nath, B. (1971). Coupled hydrodynamic response of gravity dam. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engng, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 245-257. Sharan, S. K. (1985). Finite element analysis of unbounded and incompressible fluid domains. Int. J. Numer. Meth, Vol. 21, No. 9, pp. 1659-1669. Sommerfeld, A. (1949). Partial differential equations in physics, Academic Press, New York. Zienkiewicz, O. C., Irons, B., and Nath, B. (1965). Natural frequencies of complex free or submerged structures by the finite element method. Symp. Vibrations Civ. Engng, Butterworths, London.

analysis results for different truncated lengths and for different mesh sizes. In these figures, C0 = p0/agH is used for dimensionless plot in the horizontal direction. In these plots (Figs. 3-5), one can see the convergence of the HAM results to the Sharans result when x coordinates becomes larger as expected (Sharan, 1985). To illustrate the effect of the asymptotic behavior of pm(x, z), three cases are studied in the Table 2. In this table, the case1, case2 and case3 represent p p0 , p p0 + p1 and p p0 + p1 + p2 , respectively.
Table 2. The Comparison of Approximated Hydrodynamic Pressure (x =10) with Exact Solution for Different z Locations (H = 5, ag = 0.1, = 1 values are assumed) z 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Exact value 0.01730 0.01665 0.01560 0.01417 0.01239 0.01030 0.00795 0.00543 0.00274 0. Case1 0.01730 0.01578 0.01362 0.01060 0.00671 0.00196 -0.00366 -0.01014 -0.01749 -0.02570 Case2 0.01730 0.01666 0.01564 0.01428 0.01267 0.01089 0.00906 0.00732 0.00584 0.00479 Case3 0.01730 0.01665 0.01560 0.01417 0.01238 0.01027 0.00791 0.00531 0.00254 0.0004

106

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering