Macedo Ej

Tanta University
Faculty of Engineering
Irrigation and Hydraulics Engineering Department
Static And Dynamic Analysis of Concrete

Gravity Dams
A THESIS
Submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of
Master in Civil Engineering (Irrigation and Hydraulics Engineering)
Prepared by
Mohamed Ragab Elprince Elmenshawy
B.Sc. Civil Engineering, Tanta University, 2009 (Very good with honor)
Demonstrator, Irrigation and Hydraulics Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering– Tanta University
Supervised by
Prof. Dr. / Prof. Dr. /

Bakenaz Abdelazim Zeidan Ayman Ahmed Seleemah
Professor of Water Resources, Head Professor of Structural Engineering,
of Irrigation and Hydraulic Vice Dean for Community Service
Engineering Department, Faculty of and Environmental Affairs,
Engineering, Tanta University Faculty of Engineering,
Tanta University
Prof. Dr. / Ahmed Atef Rashed

Professor of Steel Structures and bridges
Structural Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.
2015
i
The Supervisors Committee
No Name Position
Professor of Water Resources, Head of
Prof. Dr. / Bakenaz Irrigation and Hydraulic Engineering
1 Abdelazim Zeidan Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Tanta University
Professor of Structural Engineering,

Vice Dean for Community Service and
Prof. Dr. / Ayman Ahmed
Environmental Affairs,
2 Seleemah
Faculty of Engineering,
Tanta University
Professor of Steel Structures and

Bridges, Structural Engineering
Prof. Dr. / Ahmed Atef
3 Rashed
Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University.
The Supervisors Committee Signature
No Name Signature
1 Prof. Dr. / Bakenaz
Abdelazim Zeidan

2 Seleemah

3 Rashed
i
The Examining Committee
No Name Position
Bridges, Dean of Faculty of
Prof. Dr. / Sherif Ahmed
Engineering, Structural Engineering
1 Mourad
Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University
Professor of geotechnical
Prof. Dr. / Ashraf Abd Elhai
engineering, Assistant Minister of
2 Elashaal
Irrigation for Infrastructure Affairs
Professor of Water Resources, Head
Prof. Bakenaz Abdelazim of Irrigation and Hydraulic
3 Zeidan Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Tanta University
Professor of Structural Engineering,
Vice Dean for Community Service
and Environmental Affairs,
Seleemah
4 Faculty of Engineering,
Tanta University

Bridges, Structural Engineering
Department, Faculty of
5 Rashed
Engineering, Cairo University.
ii
The Examining Committee Signature
No Name Signature
Prof. Dr. / Sherif Ahmed

1 Mourad
Prof. Dr. / Ashraf Abd Elhai

2 Elashaal
Prof. Bakenaz Abdelazim

3 Zeidan

Seleemah
4

5 Rashed
iii
Acknowledgement
Praise to ALLAH, who gives us the science and the knowledge.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my principle supervisor Prof. Dr.
Bakinaz A. Zeidan, Professor of Water Resources Management, Irrigation
and Hydraulics Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta
University for the patient guidance, encouragement and advice. That she has
provided throughout my time as her student. I have been extremely lucky to
have a supervisor who cared so much about my work, and who responded to
my questions and queries so promptly.
I wish to express my deep thanks to my co-supervisor Prof. Dr. Ayman
Ahmed Seleemah, Professor of Structural Engineering, Structural
Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University. His
professional supervision and patient follow up, his valuable time and
continuous support enriches the value of this work especially in the basics of
structure dynamics.
Moreover, I’m lucky to have Prof. Dr. Ahmed Atef Rashed, Professor of
Structural Engineering, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University as my co-supervisor. I owe to his precious
time innovative comments throughout this work.
My deep gratitude to my colleague Eng. Mohamed Elsharqawy, structural
engineering department for his endless help and advice in ANSYS modeling
and simulation.
Without the endless support and encouragement of my parents and my
brother Eng. Amr Elprince I couldn’t have finished this work.
I have been trying to put my most profound appreciation into words but
found no words to match my gratitude to the encouragement of my wife Eng/
Reem Eldeep.
My thanks to the staff of Irrigation and Hydraulics Department, Faculty of
engineering, Tanta University, for their cooperation, help and advices.
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my beloved Son Ammar who changes
the sense of everything in my life.
iv
ABSTRACT
Concrete dams are vital structures regarding catastrophic impacts in cases of
dam failure. Safety of dams should be investigated quite critically by logical
and precise methods. The fluid-structure-foundation interaction is one of the
main factors that affects dams behavior during earthquake excitations. The
analysis of dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system is a complicated
phenomenon due to interaction among reservoir water, rock foundation and
concrete dam. In order to design earthquake resistant dams it is essential to
have accurate and reliable analysis procedures to predict dam response.
Static and dynamic simulations of concrete gravity dams should cope with
the variation of foundation mass, foundation stiffness, ground motion
excitation and geometry of both dam and reservoir. The objective of the
present study is to assess static and seismic responses of concrete gravity
dams due to key parameters that affect behavior of dams. A 2-D Finite
Element model is employed using ANSYS program to simulate dam-
reservoir-foundation coupled system. KOYNA dam subjected to EL-Centro
earthquake-S00E component excitation is investigated as a typical case of
study. The dam concrete is represented as a finite element system, the
reservoir water domain, as a continuum of infinite length in the upstream
direction and the foundation rock region as a viscoelastic half-plane. Static,
Modal and time history analyses are considered in the present analysis. In
dynamic analysis, the foundation is simulated considering both foundation
mass and flexibility. The mass concrete and foundation rock are assumed to
have homogeneous, isotropic, linear and elastic properties. Reservoir water is
assumed to be incompressible and inviscous fluid. The dam-reservoir-
foundation coupled system is analyzed according to variations in mesh
refinement, foundation mass and flexibility, earthquake severity, dam
v
geometry and reservoir geometry. Seismic dam responses are expressed in
terms of dam deformations, dam stresses, hydrodynamic pressure, natural
frequency and time history. Results confirm the dominant effect of
foundation stiffness on dam response over other parameters.
Keywords: Concrete gravity dams, FEM, seismic analysis, dam-reservoir-
foundation interaction, deformations, hydrodynamic pressure, ANSYS.
vi
Contents
Subject page
The Supervisors Committee ………………………….….…..…………i
The Supervisors Signatures ……………………...……………..………i
The Examining Committee ……………………..……….….……..…...ii
The Examiners Signatures ……………………….….…..…….…...….iii
Acknowledgement ……………………...………….….…..…….……. iv
Abstract ……………………………………...……..….………..….…. v
Contents ………………………………….…………..……………......vii
List of Figures ……………………………..…….………………..……x
List of Tables ……….………………..…..………..…………..….…..xix
List of symbols ……………………………………………..………..xxi
List of abbreviations………………………………………………..xxiii
1 CHAPTER (1) INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................... 2
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY............................................................................ 2
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS ............................................................. 4
2 CHAPTER(2) LITERATURE REVIEW ............................ 6
2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 6

2.2 STATE OF THE ART ........................................................................ 6
2.3 CONCRETE DAMS ........................................................................... 7
2.4 LOADS ACTING ON CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS ............................ 8
2.4.1 Primary Loads ............................................................................. 10
vii
2.4.2 Secondary Loads ......................................................................... 11
2.4.3 Exceptional Loads ....................................................................... 13
2.5 STABILITY CRITERIA OF GRAVITY DAMS ..................................... 14
2.6 METHODS OF SOLUTION............................................................... 16
2.6.1 Finite Element Method ............................................................... 17
2.7 DAM-RESERVOIR-FOUNDATION INTERACTION. ........................... 19
3 CHAPTER(3) THEORETICAL APPROACH AND
NUMERICAL MODELING ................................................. 28
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 28

3.2 GOVERNING EQUATION AND BOUNDARY CONDTIONS ................. 28
3.3 COUPLED DAM-RESERVOIR-FOUNDATION SYSTEM. .................... 31
3.4 CASE OF STUDY ........................................................................... 32
3.4.1 ANSYS Modeling ....................................................................... 35
3.4.2 Material Properties ...................................................................... 35
3.4.3 Seismic Time History ................................................................. 37
3.5 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF MODEL ............................... 40
4 CHAPTER(4) NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND
DISCUSSION 48
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 48

4.2 PARAMETRIC STUDY .................................................................... 48
4.2.1 Effect of Mesh Refinement ......................................................... 50
4.2.2 Effect of Foundation Mass .......................................................... 57
4.2.3 Effect of Foundation Stiffness .................................................... 62
4.2.4 Effect of Ground Motion Excitation ........................................... 96
4.2.5 Effect of Downstream Slope ..................................................... 107
4.2.6 Effect of Reservoir Depth ......................................................... 121
4.2.7 Effect of Reservoir Length........................................................ 130
viii
5 CHAPTER(5) CONCLUSIONS & RECOMINDATIONS
143
5.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 143

5.2 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 143
5.3 FUTURE WORK .......................................................................... 145
6 REFERENCES ................................................................ 146
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Problem idealization of dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system
......................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2-1 Principal variants of concrete dams (Novak et al. 2007). ............. 9
Figure 2-2 Gravity dam loading diagram (Novak et al. 2007) ..................... 10
Figure 2-3 Schematic of principal acting loads on a gravity dam (Novak et al.
2007) ............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2-4 stability criteria of concrete gravity dams ................................... 15
Figure 3-1 Problem Statement and Boundary Conditions of Dam-Reservoir-
Foundation System (Zeidan 2014) ................................................................ 30
Figure 3-2 Aerial view of the KOYNA Dam (Source: “KOYNA Dam,
Maharashatra.” (Huang 2011) ....................................................................... 33
Figure 3-3 Overview of the KOYNA Dam (modified from Committee of
Experts 1968) (Huang 2011) ......................................................................... 34
Figure 3-4 KOYNA dam cross section (Huang 2011). .................................. 33
Figure 3-5 Problem statement idealization ................................................... 36
Figure 3-6 Finite element mesh using ANSYS .............................................. 37
Figure 3-7 Ground acceleration of EL Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-
EW earthquakes ............................................................................................ 39
Figure 3-8 KOYNA dam cross section and meshing using ANSYS. ............ 40
Figure 3-9 Normal stress distribution using ANSYS and Analytical solution.
....................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3-10 First four modes horizontal displacement contour using ANSYS
....................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3-11 Dam-Reservoir-Foundation System (Zeidan 2014) .................. 44
Figure 3-12 ANSYS mesh for dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system ... 44
x
Figure 3-13 Time history for dam crest horizontal displacement ( case of
massless foundation) ..................................................................................... 45
mass foundation) ........................................................................................... 46
Figure 3-15 PINE PLAT dam geometry (Khosravi and Heydari 2013) ....... 47
Figure 3-16 ANSYS model of PINE PLAT dam (Khosravi and Heydari
2013) ............................................................................................................. 47
Figure 4-1 Schematic model for the dam, reservoir and foundation ............ 49
Figure 4-2 Finite Element mesh with ANSYS ............................................. 50
Figure 4-3 ANSYS mesh for number of elements (N) = 460 elements.......... 51
Figure 4-4 ANSYS mesh for number of elements (N) = 1170 elements ...... 51
Figure 4-5 ANSYS mesh for number of elements (N) = 1752 elements........ 52
Figure 4-6 ANSYS mesh for number of elements (N) = 6000 elements........ 52
Figure 4-7 Displacement vector distribution for coarse mesh (460 elements)
and very fine mesh ( 6000 elements) (static analysis) .................................. 55
Figure 4-8 Normal stress distribution for coarse mesh (460 elements) and
very fine mesh ( 6000 elements) (static analysis) ......................................... 56
Figure 4-9 ANSYS mesh for case of fixed base, mass and massless foundation
....................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4-10 Displacement vector distribution for case of fixed base, massless
and mass foundation (static analysis) ........................................................... 59
Figure 4-11 Normal stress distribution for case of fixed base, massless and
mass foundation (static analysis) .................................................................. 60
Figure 4-12 Displacement vector distribution for EF/EC = 0.50, 1.50 and 5.00
(static analysis).............................................................................................. 64
Figure 4-13 Normal stress distribution for EF/EC = 0.50, 1.50 and 5.00 (static
analysis) ........................................................................................................ 65
xi
Figure 4-14 Effect of foundation stiffness on normal stress distribution at
dam base section (static analysis) ................................................................. 66
Figure 4-15 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam horizontal
displacement (static analysis) ....................................................................... 66
Figure 4-16 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam vertical
displacement (static analysis) ....................................................................... 67
Figure 4-17 Displacement vector distribution for EF/EC=0.50,1.50 and 5.00
(static analysis).............................................................................................. 69
Figure 4-18 Normal stress distribution for EF/EC=0.50,1.50 and 5.00 ......... 70
displacement for case of full reservoir (static analysis) ................................ 71
displacement for case of full reservoir (static analysis) ................................ 71
Figure 4-21 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam natural period .. 73
Figure 4-22 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam natural period 73
Figure 4-23 First four mode shapes and there natural periods for EF/EC =
1.50 ( case of empty reservoir) ..................................................................... 74
Figure 4-24 Spectral acceleration for EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component for natural period from 0.0 to 1.0 Sec ........................................ 75
Figure 4-25 Spectral displacement for EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component for natural period from 0.0 to 1.0 Sec ........................................ 75
component for natural period from 0.30 to 0.45 Sec .................................... 76
component for natural period from 0.30 to 0.45 Sec .................................... 76
Figure 4-28 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam crest horizontal
displacement for case of empty reservoir (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................... 78
xii
component) ................................................................................................... 78
component) ................................................................................................... 79
Figure 4-31 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam normal stress for
case of empty reservoir (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ............. 79
Figure 4-32 Time history for dam horizontal displacement at various nodes
in case of empty reservoir, EF/EC = 0.50, 1.50, 5.00 and fixed base case .... 81
Figure 4-33 Time history for KOYNA dam crest vertical displacement,
EFEC= 0.50, 1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................... 82
Figure 4-34 Time history for KOYNA dam heel normal stress, EFEC= 0.50,
1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) .. 83
Figure 4-35 Time history for KOYNA dam toe normal stress, EFEC= 0.50,
1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) .. 84
Figure 4-36 Time history for KOYNA dam base midpoint normal stress,
EFEC= 0.50, 1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................... 85
displacement for case of full reservoir (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................... 88
component) ................................................................................................... 88
case of full reservoir (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ................. 89
xiii
Figure 4-40 Hydrodynamic pressure distribution on .................................... 89
Figure 4-41 Time history for KOYNA dam horizontal displacement at
various nodes for case of full reservoir, EF/EC = 0.50,1.50 ,5.00 and fixed
base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ................................... 90
Figure 4-42 Time history for KOYNA dam crest vertical displacement for
case of full reservoir, EFEC= 0.50,1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro
earthquake-S00E component) ....................................................................... 91
Figure 4-43 Time history for KOYNA dam heel normal stress for case of full
reservoir, EFEC= 0.50, 1.50, 5.00 and fixed base (EL-Centro earthquake-
S00E component) .......................................................................................... 92
Figure 4-44 Time history for KOYNA dam toe normal stress for case of full
reservoir, EFEC= 0.50, 1.50, 5.00 and fixed base (EL-Centro earthquake-
S00E component) .......................................................................................... 93
EFEC= 0.50, 1.50, 5.00 and fixed base (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................... 94
Figure 4-46 Time history for hydrodynamic pressure at reservoir depth for
case of full reservoir, kPa EFEC= 0.50, 1.50 and 5.00 (EL-Centro
earthquake-S00E component) ....................................................................... 95
Figure 4-47 Normalized time history of acceleration of EL-Centro, Taft,
Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes ........................................................ 99
Figure 4-48 Spectral displacement curves for EL-Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS
and Aqaba-EW for natural period ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 Sec ................ 100
and Aqaba-EW for natural period ranges from 0.30 to 0.46 Sec ................ 100
Figure 4-50 Spectral acceleration curves for EL-Centro, Taft , Aqaba-NS and
Aqaba-EW for natural period ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 Sec ...................... 101
xiv
Aqaba-EW for natural period ranges from 0.30 to 0.46 Sec ...................... 101
Figure 4-52 Time history for KOYNA dam horizontal crest displacement for
EL-Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes .......................... 102
Figure 4-53 Time history for KOYNA dam vertical crest displacement for
EL-Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes ......................... 103
Figure 4-54 Time History for KOYNA dam heel normal stress for EL-Centro,
Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes ............................................. 104
Figure 4-55 Time history for KOYNA dam toe normal stress for EL-Centro,
Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes ............................................. 105
Figure 4-56 Time History for KOYNA dam hydrodynamic pressure at
reservoir base for EL-Centro, Taft , Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes
..................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 4-57 ANSYS mesh for dam downstream slope m= 0.60, 0.75 and
0.90.............................................................................................................. 109
Figure 4-58 Dam displacement vector distribution for dam downstream slope
( m )= 0.60 , 0.75 and 0.90 (static analysis) ................................................ 110
Figure 4-59 Normal stress distribution for dam downstream slope ( m ) =
0.60 , 0.75 and 0.90 (static analysis) ........................................................... 111
Figure 4-60 Effect of downstream slope (m) on KOYNA dam displacement
vector (static analysis)................................................................................. 112
Figure 4-61 Effect of downstream slope on KOYNA dam normal stress .... 112
Figure 4-62 Effect of downstream slope on KOYNA dam horizontal
displacement (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ........................... 114
Figure 4-63 Effect of downstream slope on KOYNA dam vertical
Figure 4-64 Effect of downstream slope on KOYNA dam normal stress (EL-
Centro earthquake-S00E component) ......................................................... 115
xv
Figure 4-65 Effect of downstream slope on hydrodynamic pressure at
reservoir base (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) .......................... 115
various nodes for m= 0.60, 0.75 and 0.90 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................. 116
Figure 4-67 Time history for KOYNA dam vertical crest displacement for 117
Figure 4-68 Time history for KOYNA dam heel normal stress for ............. 118
Figure 4-69 Time history for KOYNA dam toe normal stress for ............... 119
Figure 4-70 Time history for KOYNA dam hydrodynamic pressure at
reservoir base for m= 0.60, 0.75 and 0.90 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................. 120
Figure 4-71 ANSYS mesh for h/H = 1.00, 0.75, 0.50, 0.25 and 0.00......... 122
Figure 4-72 Dam displacement vector distribution for h/H= 1.00, 0.50 and
0.00 (static analysis).................................................................................... 124
Figure 4-73 Dam normal stress distribution for h/H= 1.00, 0.50, and 0.00
(static analysis)............................................................................................ 125
Figure 4-74 Effect of reservoir depth on KOYNA dam horizontal
displacement (static analysis) ..................................................................... 126
Figure 4-75 Effect of reservoir depth on KOYNA dam vertical displacement
(static analysis)............................................................................................ 126
Figure 4-76 Effect of reservoir depth on KOYNA dam normal stress......... 127
(EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ................................................. 129
Figure 4-79 Effect of reservoir depth on KOYNA dam normal stress......... 129
Figure 4-80 ANSYS mesh for (L/H =0.50, 1.00, 2.00 and 5.00 ) .............. 131
xvi
Figure 4-81 Displacement vector distribution for (L/H) = 0.50, 1.00, 2.00
and 5.00 (static analysis) ............................................................................. 133
Figure 4-82 Effect of reservoir length on dam displacement vector (static
analysis) ...................................................................................................... 134
Figure 4-83 Effect of reservoir length on dam heel and toe normal stress
(static analysis)............................................................................................ 134
Figure 4-84 Effect of reservoir length on dam horizontal displacements ... 135
Figure 458- Effect of reservoir length on dam vertical displacements ....... 136
(EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ................................................. 136
for (L/H) equals to 0.50,2.00 and 5.00 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................. 137
Figure 4-88 Time history for dam crest vertical displacement at reservoir
base for (L/H) equals to 0.50,2.00 and 5.00 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component) ................................................................................................. 138
Figure 4-89 Time history for dam heel normal stress at reservoir base for
(L/H) equals to 0.50,2.00 and 5.00 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
..................................................................................................................... 139
Figure 4-90 Time history for dam toe normal stress at reservoir base for
..................................................................................................................... 140
Figure 4-91 Time history for hydrodynamic pressure at reservoir base for
..................................................................................................................... 141
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Material Properties (Huang 2011) ................................................ 36
Table 3-2 Dam heel and toe normal stress .................................................... 41
Table 3-3 Previous study Natural frequency (Sun and Bagale 2012) ........... 42
Table 3-4 Comparison between natural frequency (HZ) in previous and
current study.................................................................................................. 42
Table 3-5: Material properties (Zeidan 2014) ............................................... 43
Table 3-6 Comparison between results of Zeidan 2014 and current study
(case of massless foundation). ...................................................................... 45
(case of mass foundation). ............................................................................ 45
Table 3-8 Material properties (Khosravi and Heydari 2013)....................... 46
Table 3-9 Comparison natural frequency in (HZ) for first mode shape. ...... 47
Table 4-1 Main parameters and range of variation ....................................... 49
Table 4-2 Number of elements, nodes and running time for each mesh ...... 50
Table 4-3 Effect of mesh refinement on dam static displacements .............. 53
Table 4-4 Maximum observed displacements for KOYNA dam for different
mesh size (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) .................................. 54
Table 4-5 Effect of mesh refinement on dam normal stress (static analysis) 54
Table 4-6 Maximum observed normal stresses for KOYNA dam for different
mesh size (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ................................... 54
Table 4-7 Effect of foundation mass on displacement vector and normal
stress (static analysis) .................................................................................... 61
Table 4-8 Maximum and minimum observed response for KOYNA dam for
different mesh size (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ................... 61
Table 4-9 Effect of foundation stiffness on dam displacement vector ......... 63
Table 4-10 Effect of foundation stiffness on dam displacement vector (static
analysis) ........................................................................................................ 72
xviii
Table 4-11 Maximum observed response of KOYNA dam for different ratios
of EF/EC (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ..................................... 86
of EF/EC for case of full reservoir (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
....................................................................................................................... 96
Table 4-13 Peak accelerations and normalization factors for each earthquake
with respect to EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component.............................. 98
Table 4-14 Maximum observed response for KOYNA under different
earthquakes (case of full reservoir) ............................................................... 98
Table 4-15 downstream slope values and corresponding dam base width . 107
Table 4-16 Maximum observed response of KOYNA dam for different
values of downstream slope (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) .... 121
Table 4-17 Effect of reservoir depth on KOYNA dam displacements normal
stresses (static analysis) .............................................................................. 127
values of relative water height (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) 130
Table 4-19 Effect of reservoir length on dam displacements and normal
stress (static analysis) .................................................................................. 132
values of reservoir length (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component) ........ 142
xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Pwh Horizontal component of water hydrostatic pressure.
Pwv Vertical component of water hydrostatic pressure.
γw Unit weight of water.
z1 Upstream water depth.
Pm Self weight of concrete gravity dam.
γc Unit weight of concrete.
Ap cross-sectional area of the dam profile.
Pu Resultant vertical loads identified as internal and external uplift.
B Dam base width.
y1 Distance from the heel where uplift pressure resultant affects.
z2 Downstream water depth.
Ps Horizontal resultant force due to sedimentation additional
hydrostatic load.
γs Submerged sediment unit weight.
z3 Sediment depth.
ø internal friction angle of sediment material.
Pemv Vertical inertia forces.
Pemh Horizontal inertia forces.
αv Vertical seismic coefficient.
αh Horizontal seismic coefficient.
Pewh Hydrodynamic pressure.
zmax Maximum depth of water at the section of dam considered.
Ce dimensionless pressure factor.
øu Angle of inclination of the upstream face to the vertical
σmax Maximum or minimum normal stress.
min
e Eccentricity of the resultant force from the center of the base.
xx
∑V Total vertical force.
µ Coefficient of friction between the dam base and foundation.
∑H Total external horizontal forces.
q Average shear strength of the joint.
p Pressure function.
c Acoustic wave speed.
ρ Fluid density.
ü n Structure's acceleration vector in the direction normal to the
common boundary of the fluid and structure.
[𝑀] Mass matrix.
[𝐶] Damping matrix.
[𝐾] Stiffness matrix.
𝑢̅ Displacement vector.
𝑢̇ Velocity vector.
𝑢̈ Acceleration vector.
[S] Pseudo fluid mass matrix.
[Ƈ] Pseudo fluid damping matrix.
[H] Pseudo fluid stiffness matrix.
𝑞 Prescribed flux vector.
Q transformation matrix.
N Number of elements which are used in modeling.
EC Concrete’s modulus of elasticity.
EF Foundation’s modulus of elasticity.
m Dam downstream slope, H is the maximum reservoir depth.
L Reservoir length.
xxi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
DFL Design Flood Level.

NML Normal Maximum Level, i.e. maximum retention level of spill
weir.
TWL Tail Water Level.
F.S.O. Factor of Safety against Overturning.
F.S.S. Factor of Safety against Sliding.
S.F.F Factor of Safety against Sliding which is measured by Shear
Friction Factor.
FDM Finite Difference Method.
FEM Finite Element Method.
xxii
Chapter (1) Introduction
1 CHAPTER (1) INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction
Concrete dams are very important structures, regarding to requirements
for continuous service during their life time, and catastrophic effects in cases
of dam failure. Therefore, the safety of these structures should be
investigated quite critically by logical and precise methods. The basic
objective of seismic design is to provide structures with appropriate safety
margins against failure when subjected to strong earthquakes. The fluid-
structure-foundation interaction is one of the main factors that affects dam
behavior during earthquake excitations. The analysis of dam-reservoir-
foundation coupled system is much more complicated than that of the
structure alone. Difference between the characteristics of fluid, foundation
and concrete dams on one side and the interaction between the dam, fluid
and foundation on the other side is very complicated. In order to design
earthquake resistant dams and evaluate the safety of existing dams that will
be exposed to future earthquakes, it is essential to have accurate and reliable
analysis procedures to predict the stresses and deformations in dams
subjected to ground motion. For a dam-reservoir-foundation system, the
earthquake response is significantly influenced by the interaction of the dam
with the impounded water and with the underlying foundation region, thus
increasing the requirements for the analysis procedure to be used, and
complicating what would otherwise have been considered a routine finite
element analysis of a concrete cross-section.
1
1.2 Problem Statement
The objective of the present study is to assess the impact of key

parameters which affect the static and dynamic behavior of concrete gravity
dams. A 2-D Finite Element model is employed using ANSYS program.
KOYNA dam subjected to EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component excitation
is investigated as a typical case of study. The dam is represented as a finite
element system, the fluid domain, as a continuum of infinite length in the
upstream direction and the foundation rock region as a viscoelastic half-
plane. Static, modal and time history analyses are considered in the dynamic
simulation. In the static and dynamic analyses, the foundation is simulated
considering foundation flexibility. Foundation mass is one of key
parameters, but massless foundation was considered as a general case. The
dam concrete, foundation rock and reservoir water are assumed to have
homogeneous, isotropic, linear and elastic properties. Reservoir water is
assumed to be incompressible and inviscous fluid. The dam-reservoir-
foundation coupled system is idealized as shown in Figure 1-1.
1.3 Scope of Study
Static and dynamic behavior of concrete gravity dam are very important in
dam safety criteria. Taking fluid-structure-foundation interaction into
consideration affects the behavior of concrete gravity dam during earthquake
excitations. Modeling of static and dynamic behavior of concrete gravity
dam is sensitive to variation in many parameters such as: foundation stiffness
and mass, ground motion severity, reservoir depth and dam geometry. This
research aims to:
 Highlight the effect of mesh refinement on accuracy of the results in
static and seismic analyses.
2
 Investigate the effect of foundation mass on static and seismic

behaviors.
 Validate the effect of foundation stiffness on the static, modal and
seismic analyses.
 Diagnose the effect of different ground motions excitation on seismic
behavior.
 Assess the effect of downstream slope on static and seismic
responses.
 Validate the effect of reservoir geometry on static and seismic time
history analyses.
Figure 1-1 Problem idealization of dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system
3
1.4 Organization of Thesis

This chapter includes an introduction to the problem of dam-reservoir-
foundation interaction under ground motion excitation, scope of the study,
problem statement, and organization of thesis.
Chapter (2) Literature Review
This chapter presents the literature review of the previous work that concerns
the scope of the present study of gravity dams, acting loads, safety criteria
and various methods to simulate the problem of dam-reservoir-foundation
interaction.
Chapter (3) Theoretical Approach and Numerical Modeling
This chapter presents the governing equations, boundary conditions, Finite

Element technique, ANSYS modeling, description of KOYNA dam,
assumptions of modeling, verification and validation.
Chapter (4) Numerical Results and Discussion

This chapter discusses the results that demonstrate the affect of foundations
mass and stiffness, reservoir geometry, dam geometry and ground motion
excitation on both static and dynamic behavior of concrete gravity dam.
Chapter (5) Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter introduces the main conclusions drawn from the obtained
results and analysis and recommendations for future work are addressed.
References
A list of handbooks and papers employed in this work are shown in the
references list.
4
Arabic Summery
Arabic summery is written for Arabic readers.
8
Chapter (2) literature review
2 CHAPTER(2) LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
The construction of dams ranks within the earliest and most fundamental of
civil engineering activities. All great civilizations have been identified with
the construction of storage reservoirs appropriate to their needs, in the
earliest instances to satisfy irrigation demands arising through the
development and expansion of organized agriculture. Operating within
constraints imposed by local circumstance, notably climate and terrain, the
economic power of successive civilizations was related to proficiency in
water engineering. Prosperity, health and material progress became
increasingly linked to the ability to store and direct water (Novak et al.
2007). There are many types of dams, the most common being the
embankment dams and concrete dams. Embankment dams has many types
depending on how they utilize the available materials, the primary
classification being into earthfill dams or rockfill dams. Concrete dams has
many types depending on their structural system such as; gravity dams,
buttress dams and arch dams. There are many methods to analyze concrete
gravity dam, using analytical, numerical and experimental techniques.
2.2 State of The Art
In recent decades, the dam-reservoir-foundation interaction has been

highlighted via many authors. Coupled systems with finite element modeling
are mostly employed in simulating the phenomena (Akkose and Simsek.
2010 ; Chopra and Chakrabarti 1981; Bougacha et al. 1993; Bougacha et al.
1993; Proulx and Paultre 1997; Arabshahi and Lotfi 2008; Shariatmadar
2009; Khosravi and Heydari 2013; Yucel 2013; Zeidan 2013; Zeidan 2014;
6
EL.Prince et al. 2015). However, the dam-reservoir-foundation coupled

system is a very complicated phenomena and further studies on foundation
simulation on seismic response of concrete gravity dams including
foundation-structure interaction is required.
2.3 Concrete Dams
Rubble masonry or random masonry was successfully employed for many

early dams. In the latter half of the 19th century masonry was used for high
dams constructed in accordance with the first rational design criteria.
Cyclopean masonry was generally used, with a dressed masonry outer facing
for durability and appearance (Binnie 1973). Mass concrete, initially without
the formed transverse contraction joints shown on Figure 2-1(a), began to
replace masonry for the construction of large non-embankment dams from
about 1900, for economic reasons and also for ease of construction for more
complex dam profiles. Early mass concrete commonly employed large stone.
From about 1950 mass concrete increasingly incorporated bulk mineral
additives, e.g. slags or pulverized fly ash (PFA), in attempts to reduce
thermal problems and cracking and to contain escalating costs. The principal
variants of the modern concrete dam are defined below.
1. Gravity dams. A concrete gravity dam is entirely dependent upon its own
weight for stability. The gravity profile is essentially triangular, with the
outline geometry indicated on Figure 2-1 (a) to ensure stability and to avoid
overstressing of the dam or its foundation. (Novak et al. 2007).
2. Buttress dams. In structural concept the buttress dam consists of a
continuous upstream face supported at regular intervals by down-stream
buttresses. The solid head or massive buttress dam, as illustrated by Figure
2-1 (b and c), is the most prominent modern variant of the type, and may be
considered for conceptual purposes as a lightened version of the gravity dam.
7
3. Arch dams. The arch dam has a considerable upstream curvature.

Structurally it acts primarily as a horizontal arch, transmitting the major
portion of the water load to the abutments or valley sides rather than to the
floor of the valley. A relatively simple arch, i.e. with horizontal curvature
only and a constant upstream radius is shown in Figure 2-1(d). It is
structurally more efficient than the gravity or buttress dam greatly reducing
the volume of concrete required. A particular derivative of the simple arch
dam is the cupola or double-curvature arch dam Figure 2-1(e). The cupola
dam introduces complex curvatures in the vertical as well as the horizontal
plane. It is the most sophisticated of concrete dams, being essentially a dome
or shell structure, and is extremely economical in concrete. Abutment
stability is critical to the structural integrity and safety of both the cupola and
the simple arch(Novak et al. 2007).
2.4 Loads Acting on Concrete Gravity Dams
It is convenient to classify individual loads as primary, secondary, and

exceptional. Classification in this manner assists in the proper selection of
load combinations to be considered in analysis. The classification is made in
terms of the applicability and/or the relative importance of the load.
1. Primary loads are identified as universally applicable and of prime
importance to all dams, irrespective of type, e.g. water and related seepage
loads, and self-weight loads.
2. Secondary loads are generally discretionary and of lesser magnitude (e.g.
sediment load) or, alternatively, are of major importance only to certain
types of dams (e.g. thermal effects within concrete dams).
5
Figure 2-1 Principal variants of concrete dams (Novak et al. 2007).
3. Exceptional loads are so designated on the basis of limited general

applicability or having a low probability of occurrence (e.g. tectonic effects,
or the inertia loads associated with seismic activity). (Novak et al. 2007).
The primary loads and the more important secondary and exceptional
sources of loading are identified schematically in Figure 2-3, A gravity dam
section is being used for this purpose as a matter of illustrative convenience.
Not all the loads identified may be applicable to a specific dam; an element
of discretion is left in formulating combinations of loading for analysis.
9
2.4.1 Primary Loads

1. Water load: This is a hydrostatic distribution of pressure with horizontal
resultant force Pwh. (Note that a vertical component of load will also exist in
the case of an upstream face batter, and that equivalent tail water loads may
operate on the downstream face. Pwh is the horizontal component and Pwv is
the vertical component of water hydrostatic pressure.
Pwh =γw z12 /2 …………………………………….(2.1)
Pwv = γw ( area A1) ………………..…….…….…(2.2)
Where γw is the unit weight of water, 9.81 kN m-3 . Pwh acting at height z1/3
above plane X–X. resultant vertical force Pwv must also be accounted for if
the upstream face has a batter or flare. Where DFL= design flood level;
NML = normal maximum level, i.e. maximum retention level of spill weir;
TWL = tail water level.
Figure 2-2 Gravity dam loading diagram (Novak et al. 2007)
11
2. Self-weight load: This is determined with respect to an appropriate unit

weight for the material. For simple elastic analysis the resultant, P m is
considered to operate through the centroid of the section.
Pm = γc * Ap ……………………………..……….(2.3)
Where γc is the unit weight of concrete, assumed as 23.5 kN m-3 in the
absence of specific data from laboratory trials or from core samples. P m is
considered to act through the centroid of the cross-sectional area Ap of the
dam profile.
3. Seepage loads: Equilibrium seepage patterns will develop within and
under a dam, e.g. in pores and discontinuities, with resultant vertical loads
identified as internal and external uplift Pu. (Note that the seepage process
will generate pore water pressures in pervious materials, and is considered in
this light as a derivative of the water load for the embankment dam. (Novak
al. 2007).
Pu= B ∗ γw ∗ (z1+z2)/2 ………………..…………(2.4)
Where B is the dam base width. Pu acting through the centroid of the
pressure distribution diagram at distance y1 from the heel.
2.4.2 Secondary Loads

1. Sediment load: Accumulated silt etc. generates a horizontal thrust,
considered as an equivalent additional hydrostatic load with horizontal
resultant Ps.
Ps = Ka γs z3/2 ……………………………..……(2.5)
1−sin ø
Ka = 1+sin ø ………………….……………...……(2.6)
Where γs is submerged sediment unit weight (18-20 kN m-3 ), z3 is sediment

depth and ø is the internal friction angle of sediment material.
2. Hydrodynamic wave load: This is a transient and random local load, P6
11
, generated by wave action against the dam (not normally significant).

3. Ice load. Ice thrust, P7: from thermal effects and wind drag, may develop
in more extreme climatic conditions (not normally significant).
Figure 2-3 Schematic of principal acting loads on a gravity dam (Novak et al.
2007)
4. Thermal load (concrete dams): This is an internal load generated by
temperature differentials associated with changes in ambient conditions and
with cement hydration and cooling (not shown).
5. Interactive effects: These are internal, arising from differential
deformations of dam and foundation attributable to local variations in
foundation stiffness and other factors, e.g. tectonic movement (not shown).
6. Abutment hydrostatic load. This is an internal seepage load in the
abutment rock mass, not illustrated. (It is of particular concern to arch or
cupola dams) (Novak al. 2007)
12
2.4.3 Exceptional Loads

1. Seismic load: Oscillatory horizontal and vertical inertia loads are
generated with respect to the dam and the retained water by seismic
disturbance. For the dam they are shown symbolically to act through the
section centroid. For the water inertia forces the simplified equivalent static
thrust. Pseudostatic inertia and hydrodynamic loads are determined from
seismic coefficients αh and αv as detailed below;
Pemh = αh Pm …………………………….………(2.7a)
Pemv = αv Pm ………………………….…………(2.7b)
As with self-weight load, Pm, inertia forces are considered to operate through
the centroid of the dam section. The reversible direction of the forces will be
noted; positive is used here to denote inertia forces operative in an upstream
and/or a downward sense.
An initial estimate of these forces can be obtained using a parabolic
approximation to the theoretical pressure distribution as analyzed in
Westergaard (1933). Relative to any elevation at depth z1 below the water
surface, hydrodynamic pressure Pewh is determined by equation (2.8).
Pewh = Ce αh γw z max …………………...…………(2.8)
In this expression zmax is the maximum depth of water at the section of dam
considered. Ce is a dimensionless pressure factor, and is a function of z 1/zmax
and øu, the angle of inclination of the upstream face to the vertical. Indicative
values of Ce are given in a Table (Novak et al. 2007). The resultant
hydrodynamic load is given by equation (2.9). And acts at elevation 0.40 z1
above X–X. As an initial coarse approximation.
Pewh = 0.66 Ce αh γw (z1/z max)1/2 …………………(2.9)
2. Tectonic effects: Saturation or disturbance following deep excavation
in rock, may generate loading as a result of slow tectonic movements.
(Novak et al. 2007).
13
2.5 Stability criteria of Gravity Dams
A gravity dam may fail due to ; overturning/rotation about the toe, crushing/
over stresses, development of tension, causing ultimate failure by crushing or
shear failure called sliding.
1. Overturning/Rotation about the toe

If the resultant of all the forces acting on a dam at any of its sections passes
outside the toe, the dam shall rotate and overturn about the toe. The factor of
safety against overturning (F.S.O.) generally varies according to case of
loading (Novak et al. 2007)
Mstability
F. S. O = M …………………...……….(2.11)
overturning
2. Compression or Crushing
A dam may fail by the failure of its materials, i.e., the compressive stresses
produced may exceed the allowable stresses, and the dam material may get
crushed. The vertical direct stress distribution at the base is given by
equation (2.12).
∑V 6e
σmax = (1 ± ) .............................................(2.12)
min B B
Where, e is the eccentricity of the resultant force from the center of the base,
the maximum value of which can be permitted on either side of the center of
the base is equal to B/6; ∑V is the total vertical force; and B is the base
width of the dam. (Novak et al. 2007)
14
Figure 2-4 stability criteria of concrete gravity dams
3. Tension
Masonry and concrete gravity dams are usually designed in such a way that
no tension is developed anywhere, because these materials cannot withstand
sustained tensile stresses. For achieving economy in designs of very high
gravity dams, certain amount of tension may be permitted under severe
loading condition. The maximum permissible tensile stress for high concrete
gravity dams, under worst loadings, may be taken as 500 kN/m2 or 10% of
maximum concrete compression stress (Novak et al. 2007).
4. Sliding
Stability against sliding and shearing through a certain section through the
dam across the foundation or along cracks in the foundation is of utmost
importance. That is why it needs to be examined with special attention
18
(Novak et al. 2007). Sliding or shear failure will occur when the net
horizontal force above any plane in the dam or at the base of the dam
exceeds the frictional resistance developed at that level. The factor of safety
against sliding (F.S.S.) is given by.
µ∑V
𝐹. 𝑆. 𝑆 = …………….……………..………(2.13)
∑H
where, µ∑V is the shear resistance in which ∑V is the total vertical forces; µ
is the coefficient of friction between the dam base and foundation, which
varies from 0.65 - 0.75; and ∑H is the total external horizontal forces. In low
dams, the safety against sliding should be checked only for friction, but in
high gravity dams, for economic precise designs, the shear strength of the
joint, which is an additional shear resistance, must also be considered. If this
shear resistance of the joint is considered, then the equation for factor of
safety against sliding which is measured by shear friction factor (S.F.F)
becomes.
µ∑V+Bq
𝑆. 𝐹. 𝐹 = …………….………….….……(2.14)
∑H
where, q is the average shear strength of the joint which varies from about
1400 kN/m2 for poor rocks to about 4000 kN/m2 for good rocks (Novak et al.
2007).
2.6 Methods of Solution.
In solving gravity dam problems, there are mainly three types of techniques:
experimental, analytical, and numerical techniques. Experiments are
expensive, time consuming, and usually do not allow much flexibility in
parameter variation. Analytical methods are the most rigorous ones,
providing exact solutions. They suit for simple geometry and boundary
conditions but they become hard to use for complex geometry and properties.
For dam-reservoir-foundation interaction problem numerical solutions are
16
very powerful and time saving methods. Numerical methods have become
popular with the development of the computing capabilities, and although
they give approximate solutions, they have sufficient accuracy for
engineering purposes. Modeling of foundation-structure interaction
processes is based on a variety of numerical methods (finite difference, finite
element, finite volume, spectral etc.) among which Finite Difference Method
(FDM) and Finite Element Method (FEM) are the most popular. It is often
believed that Finite Element Method is superior compared to other methods
since it can accurately follow material interfaces. This is widely used in
engineering when deformation of complex isolated objects is modeled.
2.6.1 Finite Element Method

Engineering analysis of mechanical systems have been addressed by deriving
differential equations relating the variables of through basic physical
principles such as equilibrium, conservation of energy, conservation of mass,
the laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws of
motion. However, once formulated, solving the resulting mathematical
models is often impossible, especially when the resulting models are non-
linear partial differential equations. Only very simple problems of regular
geometry such as a rectangular of a circle with the simplest boundary
conditions were tractable. The Finite Element Method (FEM) is the
dominant discretization technique in structural mechanics. The basic concept
in the physical interpretation of the FEM is the subdivision of the
mathematical model into disjoint (non-overlapping) components of simple
geometry called finite elements or elements for short. The response of each
element is expressed in terms of a finite number of degrees of freedom
characterized as the value of an unknown function, or functions, at a set of
nodal points. The response of the mathematical model is then considered to
17
be approximated by that of the discrete model obtained by connecting or

assembling the collection of all elements. The disconnection-assembly
concept occurs naturally when examining many artificial and natural
systems. For example, it is easy to visualize an engine, bridge, building,
airplane, or skeleton as fabricated from simpler components. Unlike finite
difference models, finite elements do not overlap in space. A typical finite
element analysis on a software system requires the following information;
nodal point spatial locations (geometry), elements connecting the nodal
points, mass properties, boundary conditions or restraints, loading or forcing
function details and analysis options Because FEM is a discretization
method, the number of degrees of freedom of a FEM model is necessarily
finite. They are collected in a column vector called u. This vector is
generally called the DOF vector or state vector. The term nodal displacement
vector for u is reserved to mechanical applications. FEM Solution Process
Procedures
1. Divide structure into pieces (elements with nodes)
(discretization/meshing)
2. Connect (assemble) the elements at the nodes to form an approximate
system of
3. equations for the whole structure (forming element matrices) Solve the
system of equations involving unknown quantities at the nodes (e.g.,
displacements)
4. Calculate desired quantities (e.g., strains and stresses) at selected
elements
Finite Element methods (FEM) modeling of concrete gravity dams is a
numerical technique with a lot of advantages compared to traditional
structural dynamics and scale modeling. Compared to scale modeling the
time and cost issue is the main factor, it is a lot cheaper to construct a virtual
15
model than a physical one. Also the convenience of computer based models
compared to the location and rarity of scale models provide a significant
advantage. Compared to structural mechanics FEM has a big advantage in
the alteration of both construction and external loads. Once a dam has been
modeled in FEM it is possible to experiment and change details about it
without the need to restart the whole process.
2.7 Dam-Reservoir-Foundation Interaction.

The seismic behavior of concrete gravity dams under strong ground motion
is investigated by numerous researchers in the past. Various assumptions and
simplifications were made to simulate the dynamic behavior of the dam-
reservoir-foundation rock system. Although these assumptions may cause
deviations from the actual seismic behavior of the dam, better estimations of
the seismic response of the dams is achieved in time by the efforts of
researchers. The most critical research available in the literature is the studies
focused on the evaluation of hydrodynamic pressures, dam-reservoir-
foundation rock interactions and reservoir bottom absorption. (Yucel 2013).
The pioneer of the research on the response of the dams under earthquake
acceleration dates back to study presented by Westergaard in 1933. In order
to determine the hydrodynamic pressures resulting from a strong ground
motion, a straight and rigid dam body with a vertical upstream face and an
infinite reservoir was considered. Only the horizontal component of the
ground motion was taken into account and the compressibility of the water
was included. Resulting displacements were assumed to be small and the
effects of the surface waves were ignored. The effects of hydrodynamic
pressures was simplified as an added mass of a virtual water body which
results in inertial forces acting on the upstream face of the dam .This study
made a worldwide impact and various researchers examined the validity of
19
the proposed technique by reconsidering the problem with different

approaches and through experimentation. (Westergaard 1933)
Chopra introduced his findings evaluation of the hydrodynamic pressures in
1966. His work could be considered as one of the most significant
developments since the formulation proposed by Westergaard. An infinitely
long channel and a rigid dam with a vertical upstream face were considered.
Effects of surface waves were not taken into account. Complex valued
frequency response functions were derived for both horizontal and vertical
ground motions. The significance of the effect of water compressibility on
the response was highlighted. Differently from the Westergaard’s study, the
proposed complex frequency response functions were capable of taking
compressibility of water into account for entire frequency range. The
importance of the consideration of vertical ground motion was also found in
that study. However, amplified response was obtained for vertical ground
motion since the response to vertical unit impulse demonstrated no decrease.
Following the major developments in the determination of the
hydrodynamic effects on dams subjected to strong ground motion, another
important development was made in the determination of the effects of
foundation-structure interaction on the seismic response (Chopra 1967).
Dasgupta and Chopra in 1977 presented a procedure to produce a complex
valued, frequency dependent stiffness matrix for the surface of a dam base
which is supporting the structure. The half space foundation was idealized as
homogenous, isotropic, linear and viscoelastic. This idealization eliminated
the misleading assumption of foundation region limited with a horizontal
rigid boundary. The dynamic stiffness matrix was determined by utilizing the
influence coefficients of the surface of a viscoelastic half space in plane
stress or plane strain. The influence coefficients were obtained by solving
two boundary value problems with prescribed harmonically time varying
21
normal and shear stresses which are distributed uniformly over a surface
element. It was shown that the introduced procedure increases the accuracy
of the produced dynamic stiffness matrix. The compatibility of
displacements at nodal points and equilibrium of stresses were also ensured
with the proposed method (Dasgupta and Chopra 1977).
Chopra and Chakrabarti in 1981 gave A general procedure for analysis of
the response of concrete gravity dams ,including the dynamic effects of
impounded water and flexible foundation rock, to the transverse (horizontal)
and vertical components of earthquake ground motion is presented .The
problem is reduced to one in two dimensions, considering the transverse
vibration of a monolith of the dam. The system is analyzed under the
assumption of linear behavior for the concrete, foundation rock and water
(Chopra A.K. and Chakrabarti P 1981).
Fenves and Chopra developed a semi analytical-numerical procedure to
analyze the earthquake response of concrete gravity dams in 1984. The
effects of dam-reservoir-foundation rock interaction and sediments
accumulated at reservoir bottom were included with substructure method in
this study. The effects of the reservoir bottom materials were discussed for a
simplified system at first. The flexibility of foundation rock was investigated
by utilizing the developed general procedure. The response of the dam
subjected to a harmonic ground motion was found for a wide range of design
parameters and the results were presented in the form of frequency response
functions. The obtained frequency response functions proved that the effect
of absorptive reservoir bottom was important. The tallest non-overflow
monolith of Pine Flat concrete gravity dam was analyzed under the Taft
ground motion. Several assumptions for the reservoir and foundation rock
and various ratios of reservoir bottom absorption were considered.
Horizontal and vertical components of the Taft ground motion was taken into
21
account. The analyses results demonstrated that the dam-reservoir and dam-
foundation rock interactions and the reservoir bottom absorption had a
significant influence on the resulting stresses and displacements. The
importance of considering the vertical component of the ground motion was
also observed from the results. Finally a simplified method was developed
for the preliminary design and safety assessment of concrete gravity dams.
The proposed method considered an equivalent single degree of freedom
system for approximate representation of the dam behavior. The results
obtained by the simplified method were independent from the excitation
frequency. Only the fundamental mode response to horizontal ground motion
was taken into account (Fenves and Chopra 1984).
A computer program named as EAGD-84 was prepared by Fenves and

Chopra in 1984. EAGD-84 was developed for the numerical evaluation of
the earthquake response of the dams by utilizing the proposed procedure.
The dam cross section was idealized as a two dimensional finite element
system. Stress and displacement response histories of dams were obtained as
the fundamental result of the analyses. The details of the proposed analytical
procedure and EAGD-84 are described in the following section (Fenves and
Chopra 1984).
Lotfi et al. presented an alternative study to Fenves and Chopra’s work in

1987. The major difference of the developed technique was its approach to
the reservoir water-flexible foundation interaction. The water-foundation
interaction was considered by enforcing stress and displacement continuity
normal to reservoir foundation interface. The developed hyper-element
technique was capable of considering layered foundations. Analysis of an
idealized dam-foundation-reservoir system with the proposed technique was
presented. The results of the conducted analyses were discussed and the
22
efficiency of the developed technique in the consideration of the reservoir-

foundation inter-action was introduced (Lotfi et al. 1987)
Effect of reservoir-foundation interaction was the subject of a study

conducted by Dominguez et al (1990). A boundary integral technique was
proposed for the investigation of the response of dam-reservoir-sediment-
foundation systems subjected to ground acceleration. The boundary element
method was utilized for the development of the proposed technique. The
study took both the viscoelastic half plane and layered foundation
assumptions into consideration. The effects of the foundation flexibility, full
and empty reservoir cases and the existence of the sediment layer were
investigated. The results were compared with the previous studies conducted
by Fenves and Chopra (1984) and Lotfi et al (1987). The results of the
majority of the cases were consistent with the previous studies. The most
significant inconsistency was observed at the full reservoir with viscoelastic
half space foundation case. This inconsistency was introduced as a result of
the exaggerated damping arising from the boundary condition of absorptive
reservoir bottom proposed by Fenves and Chopra. (Domanguez et al. 1997).
Bougacha et al. introduced a technique based on the Finite Element Method

for the analysis of wave generation in a layered, fluid filled poroelastic
media to consider the sediments in 1993. The wave motion was considered
as the combination of the modes which are continuous in horizontal and
vertical directions. The plane strain and antiplane shear deformations were
taken into account. Deformations in both plane and axisymmetric regions
were considered and consistent transmitting boundaries were formulated for
these regions. The application of the developed technique was given in a
companion study. The dynamic stiffness matrices of strip and circular
foundations with a rigid surface were determined. In addition to the
23
application of the developed technique a simplified method for the

determination of the dynamic stiffness matrix was also presented. The
simplified method assumed an equivalent solid for the representation of the
two phase medium. It was demonstrated that the accuracy of the approximate
method is satisfactory especially for the low frequency range(Bougacha et al.
1993).
The studies presented above concentrated on the evaluation of the dynamic

response of dams by taking dam-reservoir-foundation rock interactions and
the effects of reservoir bottom materials into consideration. The focus of the
researchers has been shifted to the nonlinear analysis and assessment of
dams towards the end of 20th century (Bougacha et al. 1993).
Bhattacharjee et al. conducted a study on the two dimensional static fracture

behavior of dams in 1994. Smeared crack models were developed from a
nonlinear fracture mechanics point of view that can simulate the tensile and
shear softening of the plain concrete. A coaxial rotating crack model and a
fixed crack model with a variable shear resistance factor were presented. The
nonlinear analyses of a notched shear beam, a model and a full scale concrete
gravity dams were conducted by the proposed crack models. The results
were compared with the experimental and analytical results presented by the
previous researchers. It was shown that the both models give satisfactory
results for full scale concrete gravity dams (Bhattacharjee and Leger 1994)
The static fracture behavior of a dam subjected to an incremental increase of

the reservoir water level was also investigated by Bhattacharjee et al. in
1995. A rotating smeared crack model was considered in the nonlinear finite
element analyses. The uplift pressure occurring inside the smeared crack
bands was taken into account by effective porosity concept. The analyses
24
results obtained by finite element analyses and conventional no-tension

gravity method were compared. The fracture analysis of dams was
recommended for the safety evaluation of dams since it was observed that
the usage of gravity method might give results on the unsafe side
(Bhattacharjee and Leger 1995).
Ghanaat introduced a method for the seismic performance evaluation of

dams in 2004. The proposed assessment approach utilized linear time history
analyses. The potential failure mechanisms of concrete gravity, buttress and
arch dams were discussed and taken into consideration at the introduced
performance evaluation approach. The performance evaluation procedure
took magnitudes of demand capacity ratios, cumulative duration of inelastic
stresses and magnitude of the cracked area into account. The criteria for the
sufficiency of linear elastic analyses were introduced. The effectiveness of
the proposed performance evaluation approach was demonstrated with linear
and nonlinear analyses (Ghanaat 2004).
Javanmardi et al. developed a theoretical method to determine the water

pressure variations along a tensile crack during dynamic response in 2005.
The results of the proposed model were compared with experimental test
results. It was demonstrated that reservoir water enters the crack and a
certain length of the crack become partially saturated. Finite element
analyses of a 90 meters high gravity dam were conducted. The uplift
pressure inside the crack was decreased with crack opening and increased
with crack closing. It was noted that crack opening does not affect the
downstream sliding safety factor. Since the excessive water pressure mainly
occurs close the crack mouth crack closing mechanism also did not pose a
serious threat to the sliding safety (Javanmardi et al. 2005)
28
Lotfi et al. conducted a study on the natural vibration mechanisms due to

damage at the dam foundation interface in 2008. Dynamic stress distribution
resulting from the nonlinear response of a concrete gravity dam was
investigated with a finite element program developed by the researchers.
Local stress space of the interface elements were modeled by a plasticity
based approach. It was demonstrated that a reasonable amount of base
sliding decreased the tensile stresses occurring at the dam body especially at
the base. The effects of uplifting, joint opening and flexible foundation
idealizations were also discussed. It was underlined that tensile stresses
observed especially at the upper parts of the dam body did not decrease
enough to prevent nonlinear deformation of the dam (Arabshahi and Lotfi
2008).
In 2013 B.A. Zeidan used ANSYS code to investigate the interaction of

reservoir water-dam structure. This system is modeled using Finite Element
Method. The time history of hydrodynamic pressure exerted on the upstream
face of the dam, horizontal crest displacement and stresses at dam heel
assign significant response for the coupled fluid-structure system (Zeidan
2013)
In 2013 B.A. Zeidan simulated The interaction of reservoir water-dam
structure subjected to ground motion excitation is modeled using the Finite
Element modeling utilizing ANSYS code. Numerical results show that the
coupled dam-reservoir interaction effect of gravity dams play an important
role in accurately estimating the dynamic gravity dam response (Zeidan
2013).
In 2014 B.A. Zeidan analyzed the problem of dam-reservoir-foundation
seismic response on concrete gravity dams numerically using ANSYS code.
The main objective was studying the effect of foundation simulation and
foundation mass presence on concrete gravity dam response . results showed
26
that Simulation of foundation in dam-reservoir interaction problems

significantly affects the seismic response of concrete gravity dams especially
in case of mass rock foundation. Crest displacement as well as dam heel
displacement increase significantly by presence of mass rock foundation
more than massless foundation. The presence of foundation in modeling
almost has no significant effect on hydrodynamic (Zeidan 2014).
The effect of foundation flexibility on dam seismic response was analyzed
by B.A. Zeidan in 2014 using ANSYS code. Results indicate that the
foundation flexibility has a significant impact on dam seismic response.
Maximum displacement and stresses are associated with foundation
flexibility ratios EF/EC less than unity, while least responses are obtained for
very rigid foundation with EF/EC =500. Results assure that in simulating
dam-reservoir–foundation interaction problems, the ratio of EF/EC =500 can
be recommended to represent the case of fixed foundation with an acceptable
accuracy. Results assign that flexibility of foundation has almost no
significant effect on hydrodynamic pressure (Zeidan 2014).
Summing up, the dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system is a very
complicated phenomena and further studies on the seismic response of
concrete gravity dams including dam-reservoir-foundation interaction is
required more studying.
27
3 CHAPTER(3) THEORETICAL APPROACH AND

NUMERICAL MODELING
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter the methodology and simulation of the seismic response of
concrete gravity dams are presented. Governing equation with corresponding
boundary and initial conditions are discussed. Finite element modeling,
assumptions, case study and verification are investigated in the following
sections.
3.2 Governing Equation and Boundary Condtions

Governing equation of wave propagation through fluid in both the Eulerian
and Lagrangian methods, The governing fluid-structure system equation is
solved using wave propagation through the fluid by assuming linear
compressibility and inviscousity. The wave propagation equation through
acoustic fluid is as follows (Chopra A.K. and Chakrabarti P 1981):
1 𝜕2 𝑝 𝜌 𝜕2 𝑝
∇𝑝2 = 𝑐 = 𝑘 𝜕𝑡 2 ………………………… (3.1a)
2 𝜕𝑡 2
Where c= (k/ρ) ½ …………………..……..…... (3.1b)

In which p is the pressure function , c is the acoustic wave speed ,ρ is the
fluid density and k is the fluid compressibility. If the fluid would be
incompressible, equation (3.1) would take the following form:
∇𝑝2 = 0 ………………………………………. (3.2)
Therefore, Eq.(3.1a) is the governing equation which used to solve the dam -
reservoir interaction problem. This equation has been solved and studied by
many researchers through different analytic and analytical-numerical
methods. some of simplifying assumptions such as fluid incompressibility
and not considering the nonlinear behavior in extreme earthquakes, the
25
obtained solutions are not that practical. Therefore, Eq. (3.1a) is used to
solve the dam-reservoir interaction problem. Hence, the boundary conditions
of the governing equation are stated below.
Boundary Conditions
Reservoir upstream boundary (ГR)
With the vibration of the dam, volumetric hydrodynamic pressure waves are
created in the reservoir and propagate toward the upstream, if the length of
the reservoir is assumed to be infinity, then these waves would approach to
vanish. It should be noted that the length of reservoir is assumed as a finite
length, L, in numerical modeling. Hence, an artificial boundary is applied to
simulate effect of infinite reservoir. This boundary is modeled based on the
Sommerfeld boundary as
𝜕𝑝 1 𝜕𝑝
(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = − 𝑐 ( 𝜕𝑡 ) (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧)………….………..…. (3.3)
𝜕𝑛
Reservoir bottom (ГB)
According to the rigidity of the reservoir bottom, by assuming the horizontal

movement of the earth, the pressure gradient is neglected.
∂p
(x, y, z) = 0 ………………….……………… (3.4)
∂n
Reservoir free surface (ГF)

By neglecting the effects of surface waves, the governing boundary
condition is as follow:
𝑝(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = 0 ………………………………..… (3.5)
Fluid-structure interface (ГI)
In the common boundary between the reservoir and the dam body, an
interaction between these two occurs which is the result of an inertia force
caused by the movement of the dam wall. Hence, the applied pressure on the
29
reservoir face caused by the inertial force is as follow;

𝜕𝑝
(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = − 𝜌. 𝑢̈ 𝑛 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) ………….……... (3.6)
𝜕𝑛
in which ρ is the density of fluid and ü n is the structure's acceleration vector
in the direction normal to the common boundary of the fluid and structure.
Foundation region boundary conditions
The nodes on edges A and B at the end of the foundation region are assumed
to be constrained in the vertical direction, while it is free in the horizontal
direction. The nodes at the horizontal line at the base (edge C) of the
foundation region are assumed to be constrained in both directions vertical
and horizontal. The nodes at the interface between the dam body and
foundation are coupled in the vertical and horizontal directions. The same
coupling is applied at the interface between the reservoir and foundation.
ГF
ГR ГI
ГB
Edge (A) Edge (B)
Edge (C)
Figure 3-1 Problem Statement and Boundary Conditions of Dam-Reservoir-

Foundation System (Zeidan 2014)
31
3.3 Coupled Dam-Reservoir-Foundation System.

In the present study, the standard finite element technique is adopted
utilizing Galerkin’s method in which the structure displacement vector is
discretized as (Zienkiewicz 1991).
𝑢 = 𝑁𝑢 𝑢̅ ………….…………………….. (3.7 a)
And the fluid is similarly discretized as
𝑝 = 𝑁𝑝 𝑝̅ ………………………….……… (3.7 b)
Where u and p are the nodal parameters of each field and Nu and Np are
appropriate shape functions.
the standard finite element technique is adopted utilizing Galerkin’s method
in which the discrete equation of the concrete dam and the rock foundation
dynamic responses reads.
M𝑢̈ + 𝐶𝑢̇ + 𝐾𝑢̅ − 𝑄𝑝̅ + 𝑓 = 0 ……………...... ( 3.8)
∫Г1 𝑁𝑢𝑇 𝑛𝑝 𝑑Г = (∫Г1 𝑁𝑢𝑇 𝑛𝑁𝑃 𝑑Г) 𝑃̅ = 𝑄 𝑃̅ …..... ( 3.9)
In which [𝑀], [𝐶] 𝑎𝑛𝑑 [𝐾] are mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the
structure respectively. 𝑢̅ , 𝑢̇ and 𝑢̈ are displacement, velocity and
acceleration vectors respectively. In the above n is the direction vector of the
normal to the interface. Standard Galerkin’s discretization applied to the
fluid equation (3.1) and its boundary equations leads to:
S𝑢̈ + Ƈ𝑝̇ + 𝐻𝑝̅ − 𝑄 𝑇 𝑝̈ + 𝑞 = 0 ……..……… ( 3.10a)
in which [S], [Ƈ] ,[H] and 𝒒 are pseudo fluid mass matrix, pseudo fluid
damping matrix, pseudo fluid stiffness matrix and prescribed flux vector
respectively, Q is a transformation matrix which transforms the acceleration
of structure to fluid pressure and also transforms the hydrodynamic pressure
into applied loads on the structure to simulate fluid structure interaction.
1 1
𝑆 = − ∫𝛺 𝑁𝑃𝑇 𝐶2
𝑁𝑃 𝑑𝛺 + ∫Г3 𝑁𝑃𝑇 𝑔
𝑁𝑃 𝑑𝛺 ( 3.10b)
31
1
Ƈ = ∫Г4 𝑁𝑇𝑃 𝑁𝑃 𝑑𝛺……..…………..… ( 3.10c)
𝐶2
H = ∫𝛺 𝛻𝑁 𝑇 𝛻𝑁 𝑑𝛺 ……..……………...… ( 3.10d)
The coupled equation of the dam – reservoir - foundation system based on
equations (3.8) and (3.10) subjected to earthquake ground motion can be
presented as follows (Zeidan 2014):
M O ü C 0 u̇ K −Q u M. I. ü g (t)
[ ] { }+[ ]{ } +[ ] { p} = [ ] ………(3.11)
QT S p̈ 0 C̃ ṗ 0 H − ρQT . I. ü g (t)
3.4 Case of Study

The KOYNA Dam, situated in the Maharashtra State, is part of the
KOYNA Hydroelectric Project, which aims to supply water to western
Maharashtra as well as hydropower to the neighboring areas. It is located on
the KOYNA River, approximately 120 miles SSE of Bombay. The existing
KOYNA Dam, completed in 1963, is a rubble concrete gravity dam of 853
length and 103 m height. The reservoir has a capacity of 2780×106 m3. The
aerial view of the KOYNA Dam is presented in Figure 3-2(Google Earth,
2010). Figure 4-3 shows KOYNA dam cross section and its levels. The
overview of the dam with the numbers of monoliths is presented in Figure
3-4.
32
Figure 3-2 Aerial view of the KOYNA Dam (Source: “KOYNA Dam,
Maharashatra.” (Huang 2011)
Figure 3-3 KOYNA dam cross section (Huang 2011).
33
Figure 3-4 Overview of the KOYNA Dam (modified from Committee of

Experts 1968) (Huang 2011)
34
3.4.1 ANSYS Modeling

The seismic safety evaluation of a concrete gravity dam is performed using a
2-D Finite Element model utilizing ANSYS program. The KOYNA dam,
India, is chosen as the typical case of study. The dimensions of KOYNA dam,
its reservoir and foundation are given in reference (Huang 2011)as shown in
Figure 3-5. KOYNA dam is simulated including dam reservoir foundation
interaction using the Finite Element medium mesh discretization shown in
Figure 3-6. The concrete dam bodies as well as the foundation continuum are
modeled with (plane 42). The water of the reservoir is modeled with a fluid
element (fluid29), which is used for modeling the fluid medium and the
interface in fluid-structure interaction problems. The nodes at the common
interface between the dam body and the reservoir body are constrained to be
coupled in the both directions, normal and tangential to the interface. The
nodes at the common lines of the foundation plane elements and structure
dam elements are constrained to be coupled in the two directions normal and
tangential to the interface (Zeidan 2014). In the present study, the dynamic
analysis and seismic response of concrete gravity dams is considered by
static, modal and time history analyses. The dam concrete and foundation
rock are assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic with linear-elastic behavior.
the foundation is assumed Massless and flexible. Reservoir water is assumed
incompressible and inviscous fluid.
3.4.2 Material Properties

The materials are assumed to be homogenous, isotropic, linear and
elastic. The properties of materials are shown in the Table 3-1. In ANSYS to
model a material we define some properties. For dam concrete and
foundation rock we define young’s modulus, poisson ratio and density. For
water we define density, sonic velocity and boundary admittance.
38
Table 3-1 Material Properties (Huang 2011)

Young’s Density, Sonic
Property
modulus, kPa Kg/m3 Poisson’s ratio velocity,m/s
Dam
3.102*107 2643 0.20 -
Concrete
Reservoir
2.071*109 1000 - 1440
Water
Foundation
1.686*107 2701 0.20 -
Rock
Figure 3-5 Problem statement idealization
36
Figure 3-6 Finite element mesh using ANSYS
3.4.3 Seismic Time History

To study the seismic response of KOYNA dam, four earthquakes were used
in the present study, which are: EL-Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW.
The four earthquakes excitation have different peak accelerations and
behaviors. The principal earthquake in the study is EL-Centro earthquake-
S00E component. The other earthquakes will used in comparison in studying
the effect of earthquake excitation.
1940 EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component: The 1940 EL-Centro
earthquake-S00E component (or 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake) occurred
at 21:35 Pacific Standard Time on May 18 (05:35 UTC on May 19) in the
Imperial Valley in southeastern Southern California near the international
border of the United States and Mexico. It was the first major earthquake to
be recorded by a strong-motion seismograph located next to a fault rupture.
It was the strongest recorded earthquake to hit the Imperial Valley, and
37
caused widespread damage to irrigation systems and led to the deaths of nine
people.
1952 Kern County earthquake (Taft earthquake): The 1952 Kern County
earthquake occurred on July 21 in the southern San Joaquin Valley. It killed
12 people and injured 18, and caused an estimated $60 million in property
damage. The earthquake occurred on the White Wolf Fault near the
community of Wheeler Ridge and was the strongest to occur in California
since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.
The 1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake (also known as Nuweiba earthquake)
occurred on November 22 at 06:15 local time (04:15 UTC). The epicenter
was located in the central segment of the Gulf of Aqaba, the narrow body of
water that separates Egypt's Sinai Peninsula from the western border of
Saudi Arabia. At least 8 people were killed and 30 were injured. Figure 3-7
shows ground acceleration for the four earthquakes.
35
EL Centro-S00E component
Taft-N21E component
Aqaba-NS
Aqaba-EW
Figure 3-7 Ground acceleration of EL Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-

EW earthquakes
39
3.5 Verification and Validation of Model
This section presents the numerical examples that have been developed to
verify different components of the numerical model to be used in static and
dynamic analyses of the dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system in
Chapter 4.
First Verification
Comparison is made between static analysis of concrete gravity dam by

analytical method and ANSYS computer program (FEM). Normal stress at
heel and toe are calculated analytically and compared with ANSYS results.
KOYNA dam with empty reservoir and its mesh using ANSYS is as shown in
Figure 3-8. The material properties are assumed as shown in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-8 KOYNA dam cross section and meshing using ANSYS.
Figure 3-9 show normal stress distribution using ANSYS and analytical
solution. Table 3-2 show the normal stress values at dam heel and toe with
ANSYS and analytical solution and the result is good agreement.
41
Figure 3-9 Normal stress distribution using ANSYS and Analytical solution.
𝑊 6𝑒
𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝐵 (1 ± 𝐵 )
Where W is the Self weight of 1.00 m width of the dam body = 94171 kN, e
is the eccentricity = 13.0 m, and B is the base width = 70.2 m
Heel normal stress = -2832 kPa
Toe normal stress = -149 kPa
Table 3-2 Dam heel and toe normal stress
Normal stress, kPa Heel Toe
ANSYS -3215 -121
Analytical -2832 -149
Modal analysis is one method for analyzing and obtaining the dynamic
response of structures and fluids during excitation. Modal analysis of
KOYNA dam with fixed base and empty reservoir, as shown in Figure 3-8, is
41
employed using ANSYS and the results compared with previous studies. The
natural frequencies for the first four modes are calculated using ANSYS
program. Figure 3-10 shows the first four mode shapes. Table 3-3 shows the
natural frequency for the first four modes for KOYNA dam in previous study
(Sun and Bagale 2012). Table 3-4 shows the comparison of natural
frequency in previous study and present study. The result is in good
agreement.
Table 3-3 Previous study Natural frequency (Sun and Bagale 2012)
Natural frequency Natural frequency
Mode number
(rad / sec ) (HZ)
1 18.86 3
2 49.97 7.95
3 68.16 10.84
4 98.27 15.63
Table 3-4 Comparison between natural frequency (HZ) in previous and
current study
Average
Mode number Previous study Present study
difference %
1 3 3.08 2.66
2 7.95 8.26 3.9
3 10.84 10.89 0.50
4 15.63 16.13 3.20
Figure 3-10 First four modes horizontal displacement contour using ANSYS
42
Second verification
Zeidan (2014) studied the effect of foundation mass on the seismic
response of concrete gravity dams. She modeled a typical case study of dam-
reservoir-foundation coupled system as shown in Figure 3-11 subjected to
EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component acceleration shown in Figure 3-7.
Figure 3-12 shows problem mesh using ANSYS. Material properties used in
the model are shown in Table 3-5. Results of the present study are compared
with Zeidan results as shown in Tables 3-6 and 3-7. Comparison of present
results with Zeidan results show a good agreement.
Table 3-5: Material properties (Zeidan 2014)
Isotropic Elasticity 27.58 Gpa
Mass Concrete Poisson’s Ratio 0.20
Density 2483 Kg / m3
Foundation Rock Poisson’s Ratio 0.33
Density 2643 Kg / m3
Density 1000 Kg m-3
Reservoir Water Wave Velocity 1440 m / s
Wave Reflection 1.0
43
Figure 3-11 Dam-Reservoir-Foundation System (Zeidan 2014)
Figure 3-12 ANSYS mesh for dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system
44
(case of massless foundation).
Average
Zeidan 2014 Present study
difference %
Crest horizontal
27.80 28.30 1.80
displacement, mm
Heel horizontal
3.00 3.4 13.33
displacement, mm
Hydrodynamic
Pressure at dam base, 235 265 12.70
kPa
(case of mass foundation).
Average
Zeidan 2014 Current study
difference %
Crest horizontal
40.8 41.2 1.00
displacement, mm
Heel horizontal
14.6 14.6 0.00
Displacement, mm
Hydrodynamic
Pressure at dam base, 235 265 12.70
kPa
massless foundation)
48
mass foundation)
Third verification
To verify foundation modeling we model PINE PLAT dam. Geometry

and material properties as Khosravi and Heydari in 2013. Figures 3-15 and
3-16 show PINFLATE dam geometry and ANSYS mesh respectively, Table
3-8 shows material properties. Natural frequency value in current and
previous study (Khosravi and Heydari 2013) compared in Table 3-9 and the
results are good agreement.
Table 3-8 Material properties (Khosravi and Heydari 2013).

Isotropic Elasticity 22.40Gpa
Mass Concrete Poisson’s Ratio 0.20
Density 2430 Kg m-3
Foundation Rock Poisson’s Ratio 0.333
Density 0.00 Kg m-3
46
Table 3-9 Comparison natural frequency in (HZ) for first mode shape.
Previous study Current study Difference %
2.93 2.84 3
Figure 3-15 PINE PLAT dam geometry (Khosravi and Heydari 2013)
Figure 3-16 ANSYS model of PINE PLAT dam (Khosravi and Heydari
2013)
47
Chapter (4) Numerical Analysis and Discussion
4 CHAPTER(4) NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND

DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The basic objective of seismic design is to provide structures with
appropriate safety margins against failure when subjected to strong
earthquakes. The fluid-structure-foundation interaction is one of the main
factors that affects dam behavior during earthquake excitations. The analysis
of dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system is a complicated mathematical
problem. Difference between the characteristics of fluid, foundation and
dam's concrete on one side and the interaction between the dam, fluid and
foundation on the other side is very complicated phenomena. In this chapter
static analysis and dynamic behaviors of KOYNA dam, as a typical case
study of concrete gravity dams are presented. In this chapter numerical
results are obtained and discussed for different parameters such as mesh
refinement, both of foundation mass and stiffness, earthquake severity and
the geometry of dam and reservoir. The effects of these parameters on static
and seismic behavior of concrete gravity dam are evaluated.
4.2 Parametric Study

Many key parameters such as foundation mass representation, foundation
stiffness, dam geometry, reservoir geometry and earthquake excitations are
considered and discussed to assess dam-reservoir-foundation interaction.
Moreover, the effect of mesh refinement on the accuracy of the obtained
results of the Finite Element analysis is also investigated. Figure 4-1 shows
problem idealization while Figure 4-2 shows the Finite Element mesh using
ANSYS. Table 4-1 shows the ranges for all variables in the parametric study.
N is the Number of elements which are used in modeling, 𝐸𝐶 is concrete’s
45
modulus of elasticity and 𝐸𝐹 is foundation’s modulus of elasticity, m is dam
downstream slope, H is the maximum reservoir depth and B is the dam base
width.
Table 4-1 Main parameters and range of variation
parameter Variation range
Mesh size N=460, 1170, 1752 and 6000
Foundation mass Mass , massless foundation and fixed base
Foundation stiffness EF/EC= 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 5
Earthquake excitation EL-Centro, Taft, Aqaba-EW and Aqaba-NS
Downstream slope m= 0.6, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8 and 0.9
Reservoir depth h/H = (0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.0)
Reservoir length L/H = (0.50, 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0)
Figure 4-1 Schematic model for the dam, reservoir and foundation
49
Figure 4-2 Finite Element mesh with ANSYS
4.2.1 Effect of Mesh Refinement

In order to proceed with analysis cases, it was important to study the
effect of mesh refinement on the accuracy of obtained results. For this, four
different meshes were tested. There are meshes containing 460, 1170, 1752
and 6000 elements representing coarse, medium, fine and very fine meshes.
Figures 4-3 to 4-6 show the four meshes. Table 4-2 shows the number of
elements, nodes and the running time for each mesh. Table 3-5 shows
materials properties which are used in modeling.
Table 4-2 Number of elements, nodes and running time for each mesh
Mesh size No. of elements No. of nodes Running time, min
Coarse 460 530 12
Medium 1170 1260 30
Fine 1752 1870 45
Very fine 6000 6240 280
81
Figure 4-3 ANSYS mesh for number of elements (N) = 460 elements
81
Comparison of the results for The effect of number of elements on

static and seismic responses of KOYNA dam for case of full reservoir is
presented in Figures 4-7 and 4-8 and in Tables 4-3 to 4-6. Figure 4-7 shows
the effect of number of elements on dam displacement vector distribution.
The results show that number of elements has no significant effect on
displacements. Figure 4-8 shows the effect of number of elements on dam
normal stress distribution. The results show that mesh refinement has a
significant effect on normal stress distribution specially at dam base. Tables
82
4-3 and 4-4 show the effect of mesh refinement on horizontal and vertical
displacements at crest, heel and toe. It’s clear that the mesh refinement has
essentially no effect on static or seismic dam displacements. Tables 4-5 and
4-6 show the effect of mesh refinement on normal stress at heel and toe in
static and seismic analysis. Results show that the stress values are affected
by variation in the number of elements. As number of elements increases
compression stress increases at the heel and the toe while decreases at base
midpoint. Table 4-5 shows that normal stress at dam heel, toe and base
midpoint is approximately constant in case of very fine mesh size, this
means that the normal stress distribution at dam base is approximately
uniform in case of very fine mesh size. The results assure that the mesh
refinement has a significant effect on stresses responses. As shown from the
obtained results, mesh refinement has a significant effect on results accuracy,
thus a fine mesh of 1752 elements will be used in all the analysis cases that
will be conducted henceforth.
Table 4-3 Effect of mesh refinement on dam static displacements

(static analysis)
Mesh size Very fine Fine Medium Coarse
Crest 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4

displacement
Horizontal
(mm)
Heel 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Toe 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Crest -3 -3 -3 -3
displacement
Vertical
(mm)
Heel -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6
Toe -1.9 -1.9 -1.9 -1.9
83
Table 4-4 Maximum observed displacements for KOYNA dam for different
mesh size (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
Crest 28.2 28 27.9 27.6

displacement
Horizontal
(mm)
Heel 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Toe 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Crest -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7

displacement
Vertical
(mm)
Heel -3.3 -3.3 -3.3 -3.3
Toe -3 -3 -3 -2.9
Table 4-5 Effect of mesh refinement on dam normal stress (static analysis)
Mesh size Very fine Fine Medium Coarse analytical
Heel -1676 -1439 -1367 -1254 -1297

Normal stress
(kPa)
Toe -1765 -1594 -1560 -1512 -1386
Base midpoint -1520 -1750 -1820 -1900 -1341
Table 4-6 Maximum observed normal stresses for KOYNA dam for different
mesh size (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
Min -4578 -3568 -3247 -2810

Normal stress
Heel Max 1826 1177 982 717

(kPa)
Min -2299 -1988 -1898 -1416

Toe
Max -42 -95 -119 -30
84
Coarse mesh
(460 elements)
Very fine mesh

(6000 elements)
Figure 4-7 Displacement vector distribution for coarse mesh (460 elements)
and very fine mesh ( 6000 elements) (static analysis)
88
Coarse mesh
(460 elements)
Very fine mesh

(6000 elements)
Figure 4-8 Normal stress distribution for coarse mesh (460 elements) and
very fine mesh ( 6000 elements) (static analysis)
86
4.2.2 Effect of Foundation Mass

To study the effect of taking the foundation mass into consideration, three
cases for foundation presentation are considered. Dam foundation is
presented as fixed base, massless foundation and mass rock foundation. We
assumed EF/EC =1.50 in this case. Figure 4-9 shows ANSYS mesh which was
used for foundation mass analysis. Static and time history analysis for each
case are conducted. Figure 4-10 shows displacement vector distribution for
the three cases. Results show that the displacement vector distribution are
different with maximum values in the case of mass foundation. It is clear
from this figure that in case of mass foundation nearly all foundation moves
with the dam with large values. And the crest region has the maximum
displacement values in mass foundation case. This because of taking the
foundation mass into consideration. Foundation mass increases the stresses
and the settlement under the dam. and Figure 4-11 shows normal stress
distribution for each case, from this figure we observed that normal stress is
similar in dam body in the three cases, but the distribution of normal stress in
foundation is completely different. In case of mass foundation, normal stress
at the most of foundation region is greater than 2000 kPa while in the other
two cases normal stress never reaches this value. This different behavior and
the large stresses values are because of taking foundation mass into
consideration. Table 4-7 shows the displacements vector at crest, heel and
toe and the stress at heel and toe in static analysis. Results show that the case
of mass foundation gives maximum values and the case of fixed base gives
minimum values. And the case of massless foundation gives intermediate
values that lie between the previous two cases. Table 4-8 shows that the case
of mass rock foundation gives the maximum displacements and stresses
when subjected to EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component. In the seismic
analysis this case gives very large values because the mass of the foundation
87
is affected by the seismic acceleration. This case is more realistic than the
fixed base case but the volume of foundation which moves with the dam
during earthquake is not evaluated. The results show that taking the mass of
foundation into consideration has a significant effect on the dam responses.
However, obtaining the volume of the foundation that moves with the dam
during a specific earthquake is beyond the scope of the present study. Hence
the case of massless foundation was assumed in the next part of this study.
This assumption was also used in the studies conducted by (naudi et al,
2005), (Akkose et al, 2010) and (Khosravi et al, 2013)
Fixed base
Mass or massless
foundation
Figure 4-9 ANSYS mesh for case of fixed base, mass and massless foundation
85
Fixed base
Massless
foundation
Mass
foundation
Figure 4-10 Displacement vector distribution for case of fixed base, massless
and mass foundation (static analysis)
89
Fixed base
Massless
foundation
Mass
foundation
Figure 4-11 Normal stress distribution for case of fixed base, massless and
mass foundation (static analysis)
61
Table 4-7 Effect of foundation mass on displacement vector and normal
stress (static analysis)
Case Fixed base Massless foundation Mass foundation
Displacement
Crest 8.3 10.8 11.8

vector
(mm)
Heel 0 2.0 7.1
Toe 0 2.0 6.5

Normal stress
Heel -254 -1439 -1900

(kPa)
Toe -734 -1594 -2065
Midpoint -1752 -1443 -1340

Table 4-8 Maximum and minimum observed response for KOYNA dam for
different mesh size (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
Case Fixed Base Massless foundation Mass foundation
Min -6.5 -11.2 -27.7

Crest
Max 18.6 28 46
displacement
Horizontal
(mm)
Min 0 0 -8.3
Heel
Max 0 2.4 12.8
Min 0 -0.7 -10
Toe
Max 0 1.8 11
Min -5 -8.7 -19.3
Crest
Max 1.9 2.1 4
displacement
Vertical
(mm)
Min 0 -3.3 -14.1

Heel
Max 0 -0.2 -0.2
Min 0 -3 -12.2
Toe
Max 0 -0.5 -1
Normal stress
Min -2828 -3568 -6445

Heel
(kPa)
Max 1423 1177 3920

Min -1167 -1988 -3653
Toe
Max -71 -95 220
61
4.2.3 Effect of Foundation Stiffness

Concrete gravity dam behavior in static and seismic conditions is impacted
by many factors. Foundation stiffness is one of these factors. In this section
the effect of foundation stiffness on the static and seismic behavior of the
concrete gravity dams are analyzed and discussed. The medium mesh with
1752 elements together with the assumption of massless foundation model
are used to simulate dam-reservoir-foundation interaction. To study the
effect of foundation stiffness, different ratios of elastic modulus of
foundation rock to elastic modulus of dam concrete were taken into
consideration. The effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam is
performed for five values 𝐸𝐹 ⁄𝐸𝐶 ratios;0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 5, where 𝐸𝐶 is the
concrete’s modulus of elasticity and 𝐸𝐹 is the foundation’s modulus of
elasticity. This rang of variation was selected to simulate the actual values of
relative stiffness for some natural rock types. For example 𝐸𝐹 ⁄𝐸𝐶 ratios was
reported by Paul (2000) to equal 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 for sandstone,
limestone, Colorado red granite, quartzite and basalt respectively. To
investigate the effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam static and
seismic behavior five cases are considered:
 Case 1 : static loads with empty reservoir.
 Case 2 : static loads with full reservoir.
 Case 3 : modal analysis with empty reservoir.
 Case 4 : seismic loads with empty reservoir.
 Case 5 : seismic loads with full reservoir.
4.2.3.1 Static Analysis ( Case of Empty Reservoir)

The effect of foundation stiffness on static behavior of KOYNA dam response
for case of empty reservoir is presented in Figures 4-12 to 4-16. Figure 4-12
shows the effect of foundation stiffness on dam displacement vector
62
distribution. Results show that the maximum dam displacement occurs at the
free dam crest while the minimum displacement occurs at the dam base. For
low foundation stiffness, the rock beneath the dam exhibit large
deformations and a considerable volume of the dam foundation undergo
large deformation and hence participate in the carrying capacity of the
foundation. On the other hand, for high foundation stiffness, only a limited
volume at the middle of the dam base undergoes limited deformations. This
indicates the importance of extending the rock investigation studies in both
the upstream and downstream directions if the dam has to be constructed
over a low stiffness foundation. Table 4-9 shows dam displacements vector
for different values of EF/EC. In particular as the ratio EF/EC increases the
displacement decreases and vise versa.
Table 4-9 Effect of foundation stiffness on dam displacement vector

(static analysis)
EF/EC 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 5.00 Fixed base
Displacement vector
Crest 20.80 15.03 13.00 12.03 10.22 9.60

(mm)
Heel 8.40 4.10 2.71 2.00 0.81 0.00
Toe 3.71 1.88 1.17 0.95 0.37 0.00
Figure 4-13 shows the effect of foundation stiffness on dam normal stress
distribution. In general the maximum normal stress occurs at the dam heel
while the minimum value is at the dam toe. Figure 4-14 shows the effect of
foundation stiffness on dam base normal stress distribution. This figure
shows that the normal stress distribution is very sensitive to variation in
foundation stiffness. When the foundation stiffness increases compression
stress decreases at heel and toe and increases at the middle third, and normal
63
stress distribution tends to be linear. In case of fixed foundation the normal
stress distribution at the base section is perfect linear distribution.
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Figure 4-12 Displacement vector distribution for EF/EC = 0.50, 1.50 and 5.00
(static analysis)
64
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Figure 4-13 Normal stress distribution for EF/EC = 0.50, 1.50 and 5.00 (static
analysis)
68
EF/EC values 0.5 1 1.5 2 5 fixed base
0
-500
-1000
Normal stress, kPa
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
-4500 Dam base section
-5000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance from heel ,m
Dam heel Dam toe
Figure 4-14 Effect of foundation stiffness on normal stress distribution at

dam base section (static analysis)
crest heel toe
2.00
Horizontal displacement, mm
0.00
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
-12.00
-14.00
-16.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios

displacement (static analysis)
66
crest heel toe

Vertical displacement, mm 0.00
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
-12.00
-14.00
-16.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios

Figures 4-15 and 4-16 show the effect of foundation stiffness on horizontal
and vertical displacements in case of empty reservoir. Results show that the
displacement decreases as EF/EC increases. Dam displacement is very
sensitive to variation in EF/EC ranges from 0.50 to 2.0 while it has no
significant effect for values of EF/EC greater than 2.00. Results also
highlighted that the dam vertical displacements are more sensitive to
foundation stiffness variation than the horizontal displacements.
4.2.3.2 Static Analysis ( Case of Full Reservoir)

The effect of foundation stiffness on static behavior of KOYNA dam for case
of full reservoir is presented in Figures 4-17 to 4-20. Figure 4-17 shows the
effect of foundation stiffness on dam displacements vector distribution.
Results show that the maximum dam displacement occurs at the free dam
crest while the minimum displacement occurs at the dam base, For low
foundation stiffness, the rock beneath the dam exhibit large deformations and
a considerable volume of the dam foundation undergo large deformation and
67
hence participate in the carrying capacity of the foundation. On the other
hand, for high foundation stiffness, only a limited volume at the middle of
the dam base undergoes limited deformations. This indicates the importance
of extending the rock investigation studies in both the upstream and
downstream directions if the dam has to be constructed over a low stiffness
foundation. Table 4-10shows the effect of foundation stiffness on dam
displacement vector and normal stress at heel, toe and midpoint. In particular
as the ratio of EF/EC increases the displacement decreases and vise versa.
Figure 4-18 shows the effect of foundation stiffness on dam normal stress
distribution. Maximum normal stress occurs at toe while the minimum stress
occurs is at the heel. Due to the large deformations associated with the case
of low foundation stiffness, the stresses increase at the dam heel and toe and
decrease at the center of the dam base. On the other hand for stiff foundation,
the stresses tend to increase at the center of the dam base and decrease at
dam heel and toe. Such variation of the stress distribution should be taken
into consideration during the design process of the dam body. This means
that foundation stiffness has significant effect on normal stress distribution at
dam base. When EF/EC equals about 1.50 or 2.00, the stress at the three point
is approximately the same. Then the stress distribution is uniform at these
cases. There is no tensile stress in dam body and its foundation in static
condition in both cases, empty and full reservoir. Figures 4-19 and 4-20
show the effect of foundation stiffness on horizontal and vertical
displacements in case of full reservoir. Results show that the displacement
decreases as foundation stiffness increases. Dam displacement is very
sensitive to variation in EF/EC in the range from 0.50 to 2.0 while it has no
significant effect for values of EF/EC greater than 2.00. Results also
highlighted that dam vertical displacements are more sensitive to foundation
stiffness variation than horizontal displacements.
65
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Figure 4-17 Displacement vector distribution for EF/EC=0.50,1.50 and 5.00

(static analysis)
69
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Figure 4-18 Normal stress distribution for EF/EC=0.50,1.50 and 5.00

(static analysis)
71
crest heel toe

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios

displacement for case of full reservoir (static analysis)
crest heel toe
0
Vertical displacement (mm)
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios

displacement for case of full reservoir (static analysis)
71
Table 4-10 Effect of foundation stiffness on dam displacement vector (static
analysis)
EF/EC 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 5.00 Fixed base
Crest 15.70 12.05 10.80 10.21 9.14 8.36

Displacement
vector
(mm)
Heel 6.13 3.16 2.06 1.49 0.59 0.00
Toe 6.45 3.10 2.02 1.47 0.57 0.00
Heel -2423 -1778 -1439 -1226 -724 -254

Normal stress
(kPa)
Toe -2373 -1858 -1600 -1431 -1062 -732
Midpoint -1260 -1377 -1443 -1486 -1597 -1752
4.2.3.3 Modal Analysis

The dynamic characteristics of the dam is very important to get more insight
into the seismic behavior of the dam. For case of empty reservoir, natural
periods for the first five modes for different ratios of EF/EC are shown in
Figure 4-21. Clearly the natural periods of the first few modes of vibration is
significantly affected by the variation of the foundation stiffness. This
highlights an important observation that the foundation stiffness not only
changes the displacement and stress distribution within the rock and the dam
body, but also affects the time period of the first few modes of vibration.
This, together with the frequency content of the striking earthquake will
control the resulting behavior of the dam during the seismic event.
According to Figure 4-21 responses diverge at the first mode and converge at
the fifth mode. This indicates that the lower modes of vibration of the dam
are more sensitive to the frequency content of the ground motion than the
higher modes. From Figure 4-22 it is clear that the first mode of vibration is
72
more sensitive to the variation of foundation stiffness than the third and the
fifth modes of vibration.
Ef⁄EC =0.5 Ef⁄EC =1.0 Ef⁄EC =1.5
Ef⁄EC =2.0 Ef⁄EC =5.0 fixed base

0.5
0.45
0.4
Natural period, Sec
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5
Mode Number
Figure 4-21 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam natural period
first mode third mode fifth mode
0.5
0.45
0.4
Natural period, Sec
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios
Figure 4-22 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam natural period
73
First mode Second mode

T=0.37 sec T=0.15 sec
Third mode Fourth mode

T=0.13 sec T=0.08 sec
Figure 4-23 First four mode shapes and there natural periods for EF/EC =
1.50 ( case of empty reservoir)
Figure 4-23 shows the first four modes of vibration for EF/EC=1.50. Spectral
displacements and accelerations for EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component
are shown in Figures 4-24 and 4-25 for full range of natural period (0 to 1
Sec). The first mode natural period for EF/EC in range from 0.50 to 5.00 is
between 0.34 Sec to 0.45 Sec. Figures 4-26 and 4-27 show spectral
acceleration and displacement for natural period in range from 0.30 sec to
0.45 sec. It can be noticed that the displacement and the acceleration has
significant difference. For natural period from 0.30 sec to 0.42 sec spectral
displacement gradually increases, while spectral acceleration decreases.
Then from 0.42 sec to 0.45 sec, spectral acceleration and displacement
increase and the curves becomes more steep. Due to this significant
difference of spectral acceleration and displacement, we can predict that the
74
variation of foundation stiffness will have significant effect on KOYNA dam
behavior when subjected to EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component.
1
0.9
0.8
Spectral acceleration, g
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Natural period, Sec

component for natural period from 0.0 to 1.0 Sec
140
120
Spectral displacement, mm
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Natural period, Sec

78
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.3 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.45
Natural period, Sec

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.3 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.45
Natural period, Sec

76
4.2.3.4 Seismic Analysis (Case of Empty Reservoir)

The effect of foundation stiffness on seismic responses for case of empty
reservoir is presented. Figure 4-28 shows the horizontal crest displacement
due to static loads, maximum and minimum displacement when KOYNA dam
subjected to EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component. Figures 4-29 and 4-30
show the effect of foundation stiffness on dam horizontal and vertical
displacements respectively at dam crest, heel and toe. Obtained results show
that dam displacements are very sensitive to variation in foundation stiffness
for EF ⁄EC ratios less than 2.0. This sensitivity is less pronounced for EF ⁄EC
ratio between 2.0 to 5.0. Figure 4-31 shows effect of foundation stiffness on
dam normal stress at heel and toe. From this figure we note that tensile
stresses occurred at the toe which may lead to separation between the dam
body and the rock beneath it. This is critical since it may result in damage
intention at the dam toe if an earthquake accurse while the reservoir is
empty. In operation case however, the reservoir is expected to be full. This
case will be studied in the next section to investigate the dam safety when
subjected to a real earthquake. From the results we noticed that When
foundation stiffness increases compression stress at heel decreases and
tensile stress at toe decreases. This variation in stresses is a result of the
effect of foundation stiffness on dam base normal stress distribution as
shown in Figure 4-14.
77
max crest min crest static crest

30
Horizontal Displacement, mm 20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios
Figure 4-28 Effect of foundation stiffness on KOYNA dam crest horizontal

component)
max crest max heel max toe

min crest min heel min toe
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios

component)
75

5
Vertical displacement, mm
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios
component)
min toe max toe min heel max heel

2000
1000
0
Normal stress, kpa
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
-7000
-8000
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios
case of empty reservoir (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
Figure 4-32 shows the time history for horizontal displacement for ratios of
EF ⁄EC equal 0.5, 1.5, 5.0 and fixed base case at different heights on
upstream face; at crest, 0.75H, 0.50H and 0.25H where H is the dam height.
79
It is clear that all points move in phase indicating that the first mode
dominates the response while no higher mode contribution is observed.
Figures 4-33 to 4-36 show time history for dam displacements and stresses
for ratios of EF ⁄EC equal 0.5, 1.5, 5.0 and fixed base case. Obtained results
of time history indicate that the seismic behavior of the dam for E F/EC =5.00
matches the case of fixed base. Figure 4-34 show that there are no tensile
stresses at the heel at any time in case of empty reservoir. Figure 4-35 shows
that there are tensile stresses at the toe which is critical. Figure 4-36 shows
that the normal stress time history at the midpoint of the dam base slightly
affected by variation of foundation stiffness. We noticed that the time history
approximately the same but with larger values. As the foundation stiffness
increases the compression stresses at midpoint increases but the behavior of
the time history curve is still approximately constant. From time history
figures, as EF/EC ratio increase from 0.50 to 2.00 there is a significant
difference in time history behavior, while over this value no significant
difference was observed. Table 4-11 shows the maximum observed
displacements and stresses for KOYNA dam when subjected to EL-Centro
earthquake-S00E component for different ratios of EF/EC.
51
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
in case of empty reservoir, EF/EC = 0.50, 1.50, 5.00 and fixed base case
(EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
51
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
Figure 4-33 Time history for KOYNA dam crest vertical displacement,
EF ⁄EC = 0.50, 1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component)
52
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
Figure 4-34 Time history for KOYNA dam heel normal stress, EF ⁄EC = 0.50,
1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
53
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
Figure 4-35 Time history for KOYNA dam toe normal stress, EF ⁄EC = 0.50,
1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
54
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
EF ⁄EC = 0.50, 1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component)
58
of EF/EC (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
EF/EC 0.5 1 1.5 2 5 fixed base
Crest -52 -36 -31.7 -29.4 -25.2 -22.2

displacement
Horizontal
(mm)
Heel -4.6 -1.9 -1.1 -0.8 -0.3 0
Toe -5.9 -2.8 -1.8 -1.3 -0.5 0
Crest -23 -16.4 -14.1 -12.9 -10.7 -9.2

displacement
Vertical
(mm)
Heel -13.6 -6.4 -4 -3 -1.1 0
Toe -7.6 -3.5 -2.3 -1.9 -0.6 0
Heel -7104 -6402 -5969 -5665 -4893 -4320

Normal
stress
(kPa)
Toe -1948 -1389 -1110 -963 -628 -580
4.2.3.5 Seismic Analysis (Case of Full Reservoir)

The effect of foundation stiffness on time history responses for case of full
reservoir is presented in Figures 4-37 to 4-39 and in Table 4-12. Figures 4-37
to 4-39 show effect of foundation stiffness on dam horizontal displacements,
vertical displacements and normal stress respectively. Obtained results show
that dam displacements and stresses are very sensitive to variation in
foundation stiffness up to EF ⁄EC ratio equals 2.0. For ratios of EF ⁄EC greater
than 2.0, no significant effect on dam displacements and stresses is noticed.
Figure 4-40 shows hydrodynamic pressure distribution on dam upstream face
at various times during El-Centro earthquake. The figure shows that the
hydrodynamic pressure distribution is almost linear at the top 25% of
reservoir depth. For the lower 75% of reservoir depth it shows nonlinear
56
trend. Moreover, the shape of the nonlinear part of the hydrodynamic
pressure distribution at different times has no specific trend. Furthermore, the
maximum observed hydrodynamic pressure occurs at T=0.02 sec. If it is
approximated as linear trend it might be about 6% to 9% of the hydrostatic
pressure. From the design point of view, the observed hydrodynamic
pressure can be accounted for by increasing the hydrostatic pressure by say
10% over the entire height of the dam. Figures 4-41 to 4-46 show time
history for dam displacement, stresses and hydrodynamic pressure for ratios
of EF ⁄EC equal 0.5, 1.5, 5 and fixed base case. Obtained results of time
history indicates that the maximum horizontal dam crest displacement
decreases as the foundation stiffness increases. The time history for
horizontal displacement at different heights on upstream face was plotted on
Figure 4-41. Selected points were at crest, 0.75H, 0.50H and 0.25H where H
is the dam height. Again, it is clear that all points move in phase indicating
essentially that the first mode dominates the response. Figure 4-43 shows
that in case of full reservoir there are tensile stresses at the heel. This already
happened in 1967 when KOYNA dam subjected to KOYNA earthquake and a
damage was observed in the actual dam. KOYNA earthquake resulted in
tensile stresses at KOYNA dam heel. This tensile stresses leaded to a cracks
between the dam body at heel and the rock foundation (hunjie,2011). Figure
4-44 shows that the normal stresses at the toe are compression stresses at all
times. Figure 4-45 shows the normal stress time history at the midpoint. It is
clear that the behavior of the time history not affected by foundation stiffness
variation. But the compression stresses increase as the foundation stiffness
increases. Figure 4-46 shows that the foundation stiffness has no significant
effect on hydrodynamic pressure at reservoir base. The time history of
displacements and stresses show that when the foundation stiffness is five
time that the dam concrete, the assumption of fixed base is acceptable. This
57
simplified is important for the designer. Table 4-12 shows the maximum
displacements and stresses which observed for different values of EF/EC .

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios

component)

10
Vertical Displacement ,mm
-5
-10
-15
-20
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios

component)
55
max heel max toe min heel min toe
3000
2000
Vertical stress ( kpa)
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
0 1 2 3 4 5
EF/EC Ratios
case of full reservoir (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
Hydrodynamic pressure, kPa

0 20 40 60 80 100 T=0.02 sec
0
T= 0.80 sec
10
T=1.00 sec
20
Ddepth from surface, m
T=1.20 sec
30
T=2.00 sec
40
50 T=3.00 sec
60 T=4.00 sec
70 T=5.00 sec
80 T=6.00 sec
90 T=7.00 sec
Figure 4-40 Hydrodynamic pressure distribution on

upstream face at different times
59
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base

various nodes for case of full reservoir, EF/EC = 0.50,1.50 ,5.00 and fixed
base case (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
91
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
Figure 4-42 Time history for KOYNA dam crest vertical displacement for
case of full reservoir, EF ⁄EC = 0.50,1.50 ,5.00 and fixed base case (EL-
Centro earthquake-S00E component)
91
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
Figure 4-43 Time history for KOYNA dam heel normal stress for case of full
reservoir, EF ⁄EC = 0.50, 1.50, 5.00 and fixed base (EL-Centro earthquake-
S00E component)
92
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
Figure 4-44 Time history for KOYNA dam toe normal stress for case of full
reservoir, EF ⁄EC = 0.50, 1.50, 5.00 and fixed base (EL-Centro earthquake-
S00E component)
93
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Fixed base
EF ⁄EC = 0.50, 1.50, 5.00 and fixed base (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component)
94
EF/EC = 0.50
EF/EC = 1.50
EF/EC = 5.00
Figure 4-46 Time history for hydrodynamic pressure at reservoir depth for
case of full reservoir, kPa EF ⁄EC = 0.50, 1.50 and 5.00 (EL-Centro
earthquake-S00E component)
98
of EF/EC for case of full reservoir (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
Fixed
EF/EC 0.5 1 1.5 2 5
base
Crest 52 34 28 25 21 18.6
displacement
Horizontal
(mm)
Heel 7.4 3.7 2.4 1.8 0.7 0
Toe 7.1 3.1 1.8 1.3 0.4 0
Crest -16 -10.5 -8.7 -7.9 -6.2 -5

displacement
Vertical
(mm)
Heel -11 -5 -3.3 -2.4 -0.8 0
Toe -10 -4.7 -3 -2.3 -0.8 0

Normal stress
Heel -4630 -3952 -3568 -3306 -2669 -2828

(kPa)
Toe -3167 -2388 -1988 -1765 -1251 -1167
4.2.4 Effect of Ground Motion Excitation

To study the effect of different ground motion excitations on the seismic
behavior of dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system, four earthquakes are
utilized. These are EL-Centro-S00E components, Taft-N21E component,
Aqaba-NS component and Aqaba-EW component. While EL-Centro and
taft earthquakes occurred in California, USA, and represent severe and
moderate earthquakes, respectively, Aqaba earthquake occurred in the gulf
of Aqaba, Egypt, and represent a minor to moderate earthquake. The gain
obtained from using Aqaba earthquake is to represent a type of earthquake
that occurred in Egypt with its specific frequency content that may
significant differ from EL-Centro or Taft earthquakes. To have a common
96
bases for comparison of the dam behavior under different earthquakes, it was
decided to normalize all ground motions to have the same peak acceleration
of EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component. Table 4-13 shows values of peak
accelerations and the factor of normalization for each earthquake. Figure 3-7
shows the time history of acceleration for the four earthquakes before
normalization while Figure 4-47 shows the acceleration for the four
earthquakes after normalization. Table 4-14 shows the effect of four
earthquakes; EL-Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba- EW earthquakes on
KOYNA dam displacements and stresses. Obtained results show that EL-
Centro earthquake-S00E component caused the minimum displacements and
stresses, while Aqaba-EW earthquake resulted in maximum displacements
and stresses. Figures 4-48 to 4-51 show spectral displacements and
acceleration for the four earthquakes. From Figures 4-48 and 4-51 it is clear
that dam natural period has significant effect on dam seismic behavior.
Natural period for KOYNA dam for first mode of vibration equals 0.38 sec. at
this value we notice that Aqaba-EW earthquake has the maximum spectral
displacement and EL-Centro has the minimum displacement as shown in
Figure 4-49. The same observation for the spectral acceleration as shown in
Figure 4-51. If natural period was 0.34 sec instead of 0.38, the earthquake
which has the maximum effect would be Taft earthquake not Aqaba EW.
This mean that any change in dynamic characteristics leads to significant
difference in structure behavior when subjected to different ground motions.
Figure 4-52 to figure 4-56 show time history for displacements, stresses and
hydrodynamic pressure. Obtained results show that the variation of
frequency and behavior of the earthquake have a significant effect on dam
seismic behavior, even that they have the same peak acceleration. Table 4-14
show the maximum observed displacements and stresses. From this table it is
clear that Aqaba-EW earthquake resulted in maximum stresses and
97
displacements, while EL-Centro earthquake resulted in minimum stresses
and displacements.
Table 4-13 Peak accelerations and normalization factors for each
earthquake with respect to EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component
Peak Normalization
Earthquake
acceleration, g factor
EL-Centro-S00E component 0.348 1.00
Taft-N21E component 0.156 2.235
Aqaba-NS 0.08 4.35
Aqaba-EW 0.093 3.74
Table 4-14 Maximum observed response for KOYNA under different

earthquakes (case of full reservoir)
Earthquake Aqaba-EW Aqaba-NS Taft EL-Centro
displacement
crest 36.1 31.4 32 28

Horizontal
(mm)
heel 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4

toe 2.2 2.2 2 1.8
displacement
crest -9.8 -9.8 -9.5 -8.7

Vertical
(mm)
heel -3.5 -3.6 -3.3 -3.3

toe -3.1 -3.1 -3 -3
Normal
heel -3995 -3975 -3846 -3568

stress
(kPa)
toe -2278 -2204 -2120 -1988

Hydrodynamic pressure
Reservoir base (kPa) -100 -100 -85 -85
95
EL Centro-S00E component
Taft-N21E component
Aqaba-NS
Aqaba-EW
Figure 4-47 Normalized time history of acceleration of EL-Centro, Taft,

Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes
99
Aqaba WE Aqaba NS Taft EL Centro

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Natural period, Sec

and Aqaba-EW for natural period ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 Sec

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46
Natural period, Sec

and Aqaba-EW for natural period ranges from 0.30 to 0.46 Sec
111

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Natural period, Sec
Aqaba-EW for natural period ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 Sec

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46
Natural period, Sec
Aqaba-EW for natural period ranges from 0.30 to 0.46 Sec
111
EL-Centro earthquake
earthquake
Taft earthquake
Aqaba-NS earthquake
Aqaba-EW earthquake
Figure 4-52 Time history for KOYNA dam horizontal crest displacement for
EL-Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes
112
earthquake
Taft earthquake
Aqaba-NS earthquake
Aqaba-EW earthquake
EL-Centro, Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes
113
earthquake
Taft earthquake
Aqaba-NS earthquake
Aqaba-NS earthquake
Figure 4-54 Time History for KOYNA dam heel normal stress for EL-Centro,
Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes
114
earthquake
Taft earthquake
Aqaba-NS earthquake
Aqaba-EW earthquake
Figure 4-55 Time history for KOYNA dam toe normal stress for EL-Centro,
Taft, Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes
118
earthquake
Taft earthquake
Aqaba-NS earthquake
Aqaba-EW earthquake
Figure 4-56 Time History for KOYNA dam hydrodynamic pressure at

reservoir base for EL-Centro, Taft , Aqaba-NS and Aqaba-EW earthquakes
116
4.2.5 Effect of Downstream Slope

To examine the effect of dam geometry on dam response, several
values of downstream slope were assumed for KOYNA dam. The assumed
values of downstream slope (m) are 0.60, 0.70, 0.75, 0.80 and 0.90 as shown
in Figure 4-1. The value of dam base width (B) depends on dam downstream
slope (m). Table 4-15 shows dam downstream slope values (m) and
corresponding dam base width (B). Figure 4-57 shows ANSYS mesh for each
slope.
Table 4-15 downstream slope values and corresponding dam base width
m values 0.60 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.90
B values 60.20 66.90 70.20 73.50 80.20
4.2.5.1 Static Analysis (Case of Full Reservoir)

The effect of downstream slope on static behavior of KOYNA dam for case
of full reservoir is presented in Figures 4-58 to 4-61. Results show that dam
geometry especially dam slope has a significant effect on displacements and
stresses under static loading condition. Figure 4-58 shows the effect of the
downstream slope on displacement vector distribution. It is clear that the
displacement vector distribution in the dam body and its foundation affected
by downstream slope variation. As dam downstream slope increases
displacement decreases in general. Figure 4-60 shows that dam downstream
slope has significant effect on crest displacement, and there is no effect was
noticed on displacement vector at dam heel and toe. Figure 4-58 shows the
effect of downstream slope on normal stress distribution. This figure shows
that as downstream slope (m) increases the compression stresses decreases at
the toe and increases at the heel while still constant at the midpoint. Figure
4-61 shows the effect of downstream on normal stresses at the heel and the
117
toe. There is an important point on this curve, as compression stresses
decrease at the toe and increases at the hell and when downstream slope (m)
approximately equals to 0.75, the normal stress at the heel and the toe equals
normal stress at the midpoint. This means that the stress distribution under
the dam base is approximately uniform when (m) = 0.75 and it is an
optimum case and it is the actual value of KOYNA dam downstream slope.
115
m = 0.60
B = 60.20 m
m = 0.75
B = 70.20 m
m = 0.90
B = 80.20 m
Figure 4-57 ANSYS mesh for dam downstream slope m= 0.60, 0.75 and
0.90
119
m = 0.60
m = 0.75
m = 0.90
Figure 4-58 Dam displacement vector distribution for dam downstream slope
( m )= 0.60 , 0.75 and 0.90 (static analysis)
111
m = 0.60
m = 0.75
m = 0.90
Figure 4-59 Normal stress distribution for dam downstream slope ( m ) =

0.60 , 0.75 and 0.90 (static analysis)
111
crest heel toe

16
14
Displacement vector, mm
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
m Values
Figure 4-60 Effect of downstream slope (m) on KOYNA dam displacement

vector (static analysis)
heel toe midpoint
0
-500
Normal stress, Kpa
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
m Values
Figure 4-61 Effect of downstream slope on KOYNA dam normal stress

(static analysis)
112
4.2.5.2 Seismic Analysis ( Case of Full Reservoir)

The effect of downstream slope on time history responses for case of
full reservoir is presented in Figures 4-62 to 4-65. These figures show the
effect of downstream slope on horizontal displacement, vertical
displacement, normal stress and hydrodynamic pressure. Obtained results
show that dam crest displacement is very sensitive to variation in
downstream slope. As shown in Figure 4-62 and Figure 4-63, as downstream
slope increases the crest displacements decrease. While no significant effect
is noticed in heel and toe displacements. Figure 4-64 shows the effect of
downstream slope on normal stresses. It is clear that as downstream slope
increases compression stress increases at the heel an decreases at dam toe.
That because as downstream increase resultant eccentricity increases toward
the dam heel. This make compression stress increases at dam heel and also
avoid occurrence tensile stress at dam heel in case of full reservoir. Figure
4-65 shows the effect of downstream slope on hydrodynamic pressure. The
results show that the downstream slope has a slight effect on the
hydrodynamic pressure and can be neglected. Figures 4-66 to 4-70 show
time history for displacement, stresses and hydrodynamic pressure. From the
figures it is clear that the downstream slope has significant effect on the time
history for displacements and stresses. As downstream slope increases the
crest displacements decrease, compression stresses at heel increase and
compression stress at the toe decreases. To get more insight into the variation
of the horizontal displacements over the dam height, the time history for
horizontal displacement at different locations on upstream face was plotted
on Figure 4-66. Selected points were at crest, 0.75 H, 0.50 H and 0.25 H
where H is the dam height. It is clear that all points move in phase indicating
that the first mode dominates the response while no higher mode
contribution is observed. Table 4-16 shows the displacements, stresses and
113
hydrodynamic pressure for different values of downstream slope. The table
confirm our previous observations.

40
30
20
10
-10
-20
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
m Values
Figure 4-62 Effect of downstream slope on KOYNA dam horizontal

displacement (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)

6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
m Values
Figure 4-63 Effect of downstream slope on KOYNA dam vertical

114
min toe max toe min heel max heel
3000
2000
Normal stress, kPa
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
m Values
Figure 4-64 Effect of downstream slope on KOYNA dam normal stress (EL-
Centro earthquake-S00E component)
min at base max at base
100
80
Hydrodynamic pressure, kPa
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
m Values
Figure 4-65 Effect of downstream slope on hydrodynamic pressure at

reservoir base (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
118
m = 0.60
m = 0.75
m = 0.90

various nodes for m= 0.60, 0.75 and 0.90 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component)
116
m = 0.60
m = 0.75
m = 0.90
m= 0.60, 0.75 and 0.90 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
117
m = 0.60
m = 0.75
m = 0.90
Figure 4-68 Time history for KOYNA dam heel normal stress for
115
m = 0.60
m = 0.75
m = 0.90
Figure 4-69 Time history for KOYNA dam toe normal stress for
119
m = 0.60
m = 0.75
m = 0.90
Figure 4-70 Time history for KOYNA dam hydrodynamic pressure at

reservoir base for m= 0.60, 0.75 and 0.90 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component)
121
values of downstream slope (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
Downstream slope values (m)
0.6 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.9
crest 35.3 29.8 28 26.7 24.3

displacement
Horizontal
(mm)
heel 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4
toe 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8
crest -8.5 -8.7 -8.7 -8.8 -8.8

displacement
Vertical
(mm)
heel -2.8 -3.2 -3.3 -3.3 -3.5
toe -2.9 -3 -3 -3 -2.8

Normal stress
heel -3602 -3545 -3568 -3590 -3549

(kPa)
toe -2954 -2224 -1988 -1774 -1416
77 85 85 85 92
at reservoir base (kPa)
4.2.6 Effect of Reservoir Depth

To investigate the effect of reservoir geometry both reservoir depth
and length are considered, different values of reservoir depth are assumed for
KOYNA dam reservoir. The analysis of the reservoir depth aims to
investigate the effect of reservoir depth of KOYNA dam on static and seismic
behavior of KOYNA dam. The effect of the reservoir depth on KOYNA dam
behavior is performed for five values of relative reservoir depth(h/H) =0.00,
0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00 where H is the maximum reservoir depth at case of
full reservoir and h is the assumed reservoir depth at any time. h/H equals 0.0
presents the case of empty reservoir and h/H equals 1.0 presents the case of
121
full reservoir. Figure 4-1 shows the relative reservoir water height. Figure
4-71 shows ANSYS mesh for the different cases.
h/H = 1.00
h/H = 0.75 h/H = 0.50
h/H = 0.25 h/H = 0.00
Figure 4-71 ANSYS mesh for h/H = 1.00, 0.75, 0.50, 0.25 and 0.00
122
4.2.6.1 Static Analysis

The effect of reservoir depth on static behavior of KOYNA dam is presented
in Figures 4-72 to 4-76. Figure 4-72 shows the effect of reservoir depth on
dam displacement vector distribution, results show that the reservoir depth
has a significant effect on displacement distribution. Results of crest
displacement in Figure 4-74 shows the shift of displacement from positive
displacement in case of full reservoir (h/H= 1.00) to negative displacement
in case of empty reservoir (h/H = 0.0) which is logical understood by the
center of load resultant changes during each case of reservoir depth. Normal
stress distribution shown in Figure 4-73. It is clear that reservoir depth has
significant effect on normal stress distribution. As reservoir depth increases
compression stress increases at dam toe and decreases at dam heel. But still
no tensile stresses in KOYNA dam under static loading condition. Figures 4-
74 and 4-75 show the effect of reservoir depth on horizontal and vertical
displacement. Results of horizontal and vertical dam displacements address
that crest displacement is very sensitive to variation in reservoir depth. As
reservoir depth increases vertical displacement decreases and horizontal
displacement varies from negative values to positive values. Normal stress
results shown in Figure 4-76 confirm that normal stress at heel is very
sensitive to variation in reservoir depth than normal stress at dam toe. As
reservoir depth increases normal stress at dam heel decreases significantly.
123
h/H = 1.00
h/H = 0.50
h/H = 0.00
Figure 4-72 Dam displacement vector distribution for h/H= 1.00, 0.50 and
0.00 (static analysis)
124
h/H = 1.00
h/H = 0.50
h/H = 0.00
Figure 4-73 Dam normal stress distribution for h/H= 1.00, 0.50, and 0.00
(static analysis)
128
crest heel toe
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
-5.00
-10.00
-15.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Relative water height (h/H)

crest heel toe
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
-6.00
-7.00
-8.00
-9.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

(static analysis)
126
heel toe midpoint
-1000
Normal stress, kPa
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Figure 4-76 Effect of reservoir depth on KOYNA dam normal stress

(static analysis)
Table 4-17 Effect of reservoir depth on KOYNA dam displacements normal

stresses (static analysis)
h/H Ratios 0.00 .025 0.50 0.75 1.00
Crest -10.00 -8 -4.5 1 10.4

Displacement
Horizontal
(mm)
Heel 0.17 0.25 0.4 0.75 1.3
Toe -0.40 -0.3 -0.1 0.2 0.7
Crest -8.30 -8 -7.2 -5.5 -2.9

Displacement
Vertical
(mm)
Heel -2.70 -2.6 -2.4 -2.1 -1.6
Toe -1.10 -1.2 -1.35 -1.55 -1.9

Normal
Heel -4800 -4300 -3800 -2800 -1436

Stress
(kPa)
Toe -336 -420 -600 -1000 -1596
127
4.2.6.2 Seismic Analysis .

The effect of reservoir depth on time history responses for case of full
reservoir is presented in Figures 4-77 to 4-79. These figures show the effect
of reservoir depth on displacements and stresses. Obtained results show that
dam crest displacement is very sensitive to variation in reservoir depth, while
a slight effect was noticed in heel and toe displacement. Figure 4-79 shows
the effect of reservoir depth on dam heel and toe normal stress. It is clear
from the figure that reservoir depth has a significant effect on normal stress
especially at dam heel. There are tensile stresses at dam toe at any reservoir
depth when subjected to EL-Centro earthquake. Normal stress at dam heel
changed from compression stress to tensile stress when the reservoir nearly
semi full. Table 4-18 shows effect of reservoir depth on dam displacements
and stresses.

40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

125

4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

max heel min heel max toe min toe
2000
1000
0
Vertical stress, kPa
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
-7000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 4-79 Effect of reservoir depth on KOYNA dam normal stress

129
values of relative water height (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
(h/H) Values
Displacement 0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Crest 7.5 8.5 12.5 19 28

Horizontal
(mm)
Heel 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.4

Toe 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.8
Displacement
Crest -14.1 -13.8 -12.8 -11.2 -8.7

Vertical
(mm)
Heel -4 -3.9 -3.7 -3.5 -3.3
Toe -2.3 -2.4 -2.6 -2.8 -3

Normal
Heel -5969 -5700 -5200 -4500 -3568

Stress
(kPa)
Toe -1110 -1200 -1400 -1650 -1988
0 15 35 58 87
at reservoir base (kPa)
4.2.7 Effect of Reservoir Length

To investigate the effect of reservoir length on dam-reservoir-
foundation coupled system responses, different values of reservoir length are
assumed for KOYNA dam reservoir. the analysis of the reservoir length aims
to investigate the effect of reservoir length of KOYNA dam reservoir on static
and seismic behavior of KOYNA dam. The effect of the reservoir length on
KOYNA dam behavior is performed for four values of reservoir length (L/H)
=0.50, 1.00, 2.00 and 5.00 where H is the maximum reservoir depth at case
of full reservoir and L is the assumed reservoir length. Figure 4-1 shows the
problem idealization. Figure 4-80 shows ANSYS mesh for the four cases.
131
Figure 4-80 ANSYS mesh for (L/H =0.50, 1.00, 2.00 and 5.00 )
131
4.2.7.1 Static Analysis (Case of Full Reservoir)

The effect of reservoir length on static behavior of KOYNA dam for case of
full reservoir is presented in Figures 4-82 to 4-84 and in table 4-19. Figure 4-
82 shows the effect of reservoir length on dam displacements vector
distribution. Results show that the reservoir length has no significant effect
on dam displacement vector distribution, while Figure 4-82 and Figure 4-83
show the effect of reservoir length on dam displacements and stresses. It is
clear from these figures that the reservoir length has significant effect on
dam displacements and stresses up to (L/H) equals to 1.00. over this value no
significant effect was noticed on stresses and displacements. Table 4-19
shows dam displacement vector and stress for different values of reservoir
length.
Table 4-19 Effect of reservoir length on dam displacements and normal

stress (static analysis)
(L/H) Ratios 0.50 1.00 2.00 5.00
Crest 11.30 10.90 10.80 10.80

Displacement
vector (mm)
Heel 2.20 2.10 2.00 2.00
toe 3.10 3.10 3.00 3.00

Stress (kPa)
Heel -1503 -1446 -1431 -1429

Normal
Toe -1638 -1603 -1590 -1589
132
L/H = 0.50
L/H = 1.00
L/H = 2.00
L/H = 5.00
Figure 4-81 Displacement vector distribution for (L/H) = 0.50, 1.00, 2.00
and 5.00 (static analysis)
133
Crest Heel Toe
12
Displacement vector, mm
10
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
( L/ H) Ratio
Figure 4-82 Effect of reservoir length on dam displacement vector (static

analysis)
Heel Toe
0
-200
-400
Normal stress, kPa
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
( L/ H) Ratio
(static analysis)
134
4.2.7.2 Seismic Analysis

The effect of reservoir length on seismic behavior of KOYNA dam for case of
full reservoir is presented in figures 4-85 to 4-92 and in Table 4-20. Figure
4-84 and Figure 4-85show the effect of reservoir length on dam
displacements. Figure 4-86 shows the effect of reservoir length on normal
stresses. It is clear from these figures that the reservoir length has significant
effect on dam displacements and stresses up to (L/H) equals to 1.00. after
this value reservoir length has no significant effect on dam displacements
and stresses. Figures 4-87 to 4-91 show the time history for displacements
and stress for KOYNA dam for (L/H)= 0.50, 2.00 and 5.00. from time history
figures it is clear that (L/H) over 1.00 there is no significant effect on time
history analysis. Note that the time history for horizontal displacement at
different heights on upstream face was plotted on Figure 4-87 at crest, 0.75
H, 0.50 H and 0.25 H where H is the dam height. Again, motions of all
points in phase confirms that the first mode dominates the response.
Crest Heel Toe

35
Hrizontal displacement, mm
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
( L/ H) Ratio
Figure 4-84 Effect of reservoir length on dam horizontal displacements
138
Crest Heel Toe
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
( L/ H) Ratio
Figure 4-85 Effect of reservoir length on dam vertical displacements

Heel Toe
-1800
-2050
Normal stress, kPa
-2300
-2550
-2800
-3050
-3300
-3550
-3800
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
( L/ H) Ratio
136
(L/H) = 0.50
(L/H) = 2.00
(L/H) = 5.00
for (L/H) equals to 0.50,2.00 and 5.00 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component)
137
(L/H) = 0.50
(L/H) = 2.00
(L/H) = 5.00
Figure 4-88 Time history for dam crest vertical displacement at reservoir
base for (L/H) equals to 0.50,2.00 and 5.00 (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E
component)
135
(L/H) = 0.50
(L/H) = 2.00
(L/H) = 5.00
Figure 4-89 Time history for dam heel normal stress at reservoir base for
139
(L/H) = 0.50
(L/H) = 2.00
(L/H) = 5.00
Figure 4-90 Time history for dam toe normal stress at reservoir base for
141
(L/H) = 0.50
(L/H) = 200
(L/H) = 5.00
Figure 4-91 Time history for hydrodynamic pressure at reservoir base for
141
values of reservoir length (EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component)
(L/H) Ratios 0.50 1.00 2.00 5.00

Horizontal displacement
crest 28.90 28.30 27.90 27.80

(mm)
heel 3.10 2.60 2.30 2.20
toe 2.40 2.00 1.80 1.70

Vertical displacement
crest -8.60 -8.80 -8.80 -8.80

(mm)
heel -3.20 -3.30 -3.30 -3.30
toe -2.90 -3.00 -3.00 -3.00

Normal stress
heel -3703 -3651 -3632 -3629

(kPa)
toe -2029 -2001 -1984 -1979
142
Chapter (5) Conclusions & Recommendations
5 CHAPTER(5) CONCLUSIONS & RECOMINDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
The seismic safety evaluation of a concrete gravity dam is performed
using a 2-D Finite Element model utilizing ANSYS program. KOYNA dam,
India, is chosen as the typical case of study. The mass concrete and
foundation rock are assumed to be homogeneous, isotropic with linear-elastic
behavior. Foundation is assumed to be massless and flexible. Reservoir water
is assumed to be incompressible and inviscous fluid. Both modal analysis
and linear seismic analysis were performed using ANSYS code. The
parametric study includes mesh refinement, foundation mass and stiffness,
dam geometry, reservoir geometry and earthquake severity. Static, modal
and dynamic analyses were conducted.
5.2 Conclusions
Based on the results presented in this study, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. Foundation stiffness affects modal properties and an increase from

EF/EC = 0.50 to 5 leads to significant decrease in natural period. For
EL-Centro earthquake-S00E component, when EF/EC ratio changed
from 0.50 to 5.0 a significant difference in displacement and
acceleration occurred. This difference explain the effect of
foundation stiffness on seismic behavior of the dam.
2. For static and seismic analysis, foundation stiffness has a
pronounced effect on dam displacements and normal stresses up to
EF/EC = 2.00 for cases of empty and full reservoir. When EF/EC
equals 5.00, it is recommend to assume fixed base to simplify the
problem. Up to this value foundation stiffness shouldn’t be ignored in
143
dam simulation and analysis especially if foundation stiffness less

than two times dam concrete stiffness.
3. Displacements and stresses in case of mass foundation are larger than

in case of massless foundation and fixed foundation case. In dam
modeling the case of Massless foundation is more realistic and logic
assumption.
4. Mesh refinement have slight effect on dam displacements results
accuracy, but it has significant effect on dam stresses distribution and
values accuracy.
5. Ground motion variation affects dam seismic response, although the
different ground motions have the same peak acceleration. This
difference is dependent on the frequency content of earthquake and
the dynamic characteristics of the dam.
6. Downstream slope has significant effect on dam static and seismic
response. As downstream slope increases compression stress at heel
increases and decreases at toe. When downstream slope equals to
0.75 the normal stress distribution under dam base is approximately
uniform, this is the optimum case.
7. Reservoir depth has significant effect on dam static and seismic
response. When the reservoir becomes semi full the stress at heel
changes from compression to tensile stress in seismic analysis.
8. Reservoir length has slight effect on dam behavior up to (L/H) equals
to 1.00 in static and seismic analysis. Over this value there is no
noticeable effect on displacements and stresses. In dam modeling, it
is recommended to take the reservoir length in the range of 1.5 to 2.0
reservoir maximum depth.
144
5.3 Future Work
In future studies for seismic responses of concrete gravity dam the following
recommendations can be proposed:
1. Analyze the tensile stresses using crack analysis.
2. Consider the case of material nonlinearity.
3. Consider the case of compressible reservoir water.
4. Consider the sedimentation wave reflection.
148
6 References
Akkose, M. and E. Simsek (2010) "Non-linear seismic response of concrete
gravity dams to near-fault ground motions including dam-water-
sediment-foundation interaction." Applied Mathematical Modeling
34(11): 3685-3700.
ANSYS software manual, version 14.
Arabshahi, H. and V. Lotfi (2008). "Earthquake response of concrete gravity
dams including dam-foundation interface nonlinearities."
Engineering Structures 30(11): 3065-3073.
Bhattacharjee, S. S. and P. Leger (1994). "Application of NLFM models to
predict cracking in concrete gravity dams." Journal of Structural
Engineering 120(4): 1255-1271.
Bhattacharjee, S. S. and P. Leger (1995). "Fracture response of gravity dams
due to rise of reservoir elevation." Journal of Structural Engineering
121(9): 1298-1305.
Binnie, A. (1973). "The theory of flexible dams inflated by water pressure."
Journal of Hydraulic Research 11(1): 61-68.
Bougacha, S., J. M. Roesset and L. Tassoulas (1993). "Dynamic stiffness of
foundations on fluid-filled poroelastic stratum." Journal of
engineering mechanics 119(8): 1649-1662.
Bougacha, S., J. L. Tassoulas and J. M. Roesset. (1993). "Analysis of
foundations on fluid-filled poroelastic stratum." Journal of
Chopra, A. K. (1967). "Hydrodynamic pressures on dams during
earthquakes." Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division 93(6):
205-224.
146
Chopra, A. K. and P. Chakrabarti (1981). "Earthquake analysis of concrete
gravity dams including dam-water-foundation rock interaction"
Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics 9(4): 363-383.
Dasgupta, G. and A. K. Chopra (1977). Dynamic stiffness matrices for
homogeneous viscoelastic halfplanes.
Domanguez, J., R. Gallego and Bernardo. R (1997). "Effects of porous
sediments on seismic response of concrete gravity dams." Journal of
Fenves, G. and A. K. Chopra (1984). EAGD-84: A computer program for
earthquake analysis of concrete gravity dams, , Report No.
UCB/EERC-84/11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, 78 pp.
Fenves, G. and A. K. Chopra (1984). Earthquake analysis and response of
concrete gravity dams, Report No. UCB/EERC-84/10 , Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 213
pp.
Ghanaat, Y. (2004). Failure modes approach to safety evaluation of dams.
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on earthquake
engineering.
Huang, J. (2011). Seismic Response Evaluation of Concrete Gravity Dams
Subjected to Spatially Varying Earthquake Ground Motions, Doctor
of Philosophy thesis, Drexel University.
Javanmardi, F., P. Leger, and Tinawi. R (2005). "Seismic structural stability
of concrete gravity dams considering transient uplift pressures in
cracks." Engineering Structures 27(4): 616-628.
Khosravi, S. and M. Heydari (2013). "Modeling of Concrete Gravity Dam
Including Dam-Water-Foundation Rock Interaction." World Applied
Sciences Journal 22(4): 538-546.
147
Lotfi, V., J. M. Roesset and L. Tassoulas (1987). "A technique for the
analysis of the response of dams to earthquakes." Earthquake
engineering & structural dynamics 15(4): 463-489.
Naudi, J. A., E. E. Matheu, Peoppleman. R and Matusevich. A (2005).
Foundation flexibility effects on the seismic response of concrete
gravity dams. 37th Joint Meeting UJNR Panel on Wind and Seismic
Effects, Tsukuba, Japan, May.
Novak, P., A. Moffat, Nalluri. C and Narayanan. R (2007). Hydraulic
structures, CRC Press, Fourth edition.
Paul M. Santi, Jason E. Holschen and Richard W. Stephenson “ Improving
Elastic Modulus Measurements for Rock Based on Geology”
Environmental and Engineering Geosciences, Vol. No 4 November
2000, pp. 333-346
Proulx, J. and P. Paultre (1997). "Experimental and numerical investigation
of dam-reservoir-foundation interaction for a large gravity dam."
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 24(1): 90-105.
Shariatmadar, H. and Mirhaj, A. (2009). "Modal Response of Dam-
Reservoir-Foundation Interaction." 8th International Congress on
Civil Engineering, May 11-13, 2009, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
Sun, K. M. and M. R. Bagale (2012). "The study of seismic response and
crack dynamic extension rule of the concrete dam under the fluid-
solid coupling action." Mathematical Theory and Modeling 2(5): 14-
26.
Westergaard, H. M. (1933). "Water pressures on dams during earthquakes."
Trans. ASCE 98: 418-432.
Yucel, A. R. (2013). “Seismic Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams Including
Dam-Foundation-Reservoir Interaction”, Doctor of Philosophy thesis.
Middle East Technical University,
145
Zeidan, B. A. (2013). Hydrodynamic Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams
Subjected to Ground Motion. 9th Symposium of ICOLD European
club IECS2013,10-12 April, Italy.
Zeidan, B. A. (2013). Seismic Dam-Reservoir Interaction of Concrete
Gravity Dams. 9th Symposium of ICOLD European club
IECS2013,10-12 April, Italy.
Zeidan, B. A. (2014). Finite Element Modeling for Acoustic Reservoir-Dam-
Foundation Coupled System. International Symposium on Dams In
A Global Environmental Challenges, ICOLD 2014, Bali, Indonesia,
1-6 June, 2014.
Zeidan, B. A. (2014). Seismic Analysis of Dam-Reservoir-Foundation
Interaction For Concrete Gravity Dams. International Symposium on
Dams In A Global Environmental Challenges, ICOLD 2014, Bali,
Indonesia, 1-6 June, 2014.
Zeidan, B. A. (2015). Seismic Finite Element Analysis of Dam-Reservoir-
Foundation Interaction. International Conference on Advances in
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering. Hurghada, Egypt, 6-9
April, 2015
Zienkiewicz, 0.C. And Taylor, R.L. (1991). The Finite Element Method;
Volume II. Fourth Edition First Published In I967 By McGraw-
HillPp.407- 419.
149
‫الملخص العربي‬
‫مقدمة‬
‫تعتبر السدود الخرسانية منشآت هامة و حيوية نظراً لضرورة عملها بكفاءة خالل عمرها اإلفتراضى‬
‫وكذلك آلثارها السلبية المدمرة فى حالة إنهيارها‪ .‬لذلك يجب تصميم السدود الخرسانية بمعامالت‬
‫أمان عالية وطرق تحليل منطقية‪ .‬والهدف من التصميم الديناميكى للسدود الخرسانية هو تجنب حدوث‬
‫إنهيار السد عند تعرضه لزلزال قوى‪ .‬إن التأثير المتبادل للسد والخزان واألساسات هو أحد أهم‬
‫العوامل المؤثرة على سلوك السد أثناء حدوث الزالزل‪ .‬وتحليل هذا النظام ذو التأثير المتبادل معقد‬
‫أكثر من تحليل السد بمفرده‪ .‬ويرجع هنا التعقيد إلي إختالف الخواص الهندسية بين الخرسانة‬
‫واألساسات ومياه الخزان‪ .‬ولتصميم السدود لمقاومة الزالزل وتحديد مدى أمان السد عند تعرضه‬
‫لزلزال يجب إستخدام طرق دقيقة لحساب اإلجهادات واإلزاحات الحادثة لجسم السد‪ .‬إن سلوك السد‬
‫أثناء الزالزل يتغير بوجود األساسات وكذلك المياه لذلك تزيد متطلبات التحليل لهذا النظام وذلك‬
‫لتحديد ما يجب أخذه فى اإلعتبار وما يمكن إهماله‪.‬‬
‫الخالصة‬
‫السلوك اإلستاتيكى والديناميكى للسدود الخرسانية التثاقلية هام جداً فى عملية التصميم‪ .‬التأثير المتبادل‬
‫للسد والخزان واألساسات هو أحد أهم العوامل المؤثرة على سلوك السد أثناء الزالزل‪ .‬عند نمذجة‬
‫السدود الخرسانية التثاقلية فإن السلوك اإلستاتيكى والديناميكى للسد يتأثر ببعض المعامالت مثل كثافة‬
‫تقسيم العناصر وكتلة األساسات وجساءة األساسات والزلزال المؤثر والخواص الهندسية للسد‬
‫كل من كثافة شبكة العناصر المحددة و كتلة وجساءة‬
‫والخزان والهدف من الدراسة هو دراسة تأثير ٍ‬
‫األساسات وقوة الزلزال المؤثر والخواص الهندسية لكل من للسد والخزان على السلوك اإلستاتيكى‬
‫والدينامكى للسدود الخرسانية التثاقلية‪ .‬وفى النهاية تم الوصول إلى خالصة عن أى من هذه‬
‫المع امالت لها تأثير ملحوظ ومؤثر على سلوك السد وأي منها يمكن إهمال تأثيره‪ .‬وكان من أهم‬
‫العوامل المؤثرة جساءة األساسات حيث أثرت جساءة األساسات بشكل ملحوظ على قيم االزاحة‬
‫واإلجهاد لذلك كان البد من التأكيد على ضرورة أخذ األساسات فى اإلعتبار عند عمل نمذجة للسدود‬
‫الخرسانية و عند تصميمها‪.‬‬
‫الهدف من البحث‬
‫الهدف من الدراسة الحالية هو دراسة تأثير بعض العوامل على سلوك السد اإلستاتيكى والديناميكي‪.‬‬
‫حيث تم عمل نموذج ثنائى األبعاد بإستخدام برنامج ‪ ANSYS‬وتم إختيار سد ‪ KOYNA‬وهو سد‬
‫‪181‬‬
‫كل‬
‫خرسانى يقع فى الهند كحالة دراسة‪ .‬تم إستخدام طريقة العناصر المحددة كأسلوب للحل وتم تمثيل ٍ‬
‫من السد والخزان واألساسات‪ .‬تم عمل تحليل إستاتيكى وديناميكى للسد عند تعرضه لزلزال ‪EL‬‬
‫‪ CENTRO‬وكذلك تم تحديد خواص المنشأ الديناميكية‪ .‬الفروض االساسية فى هذه الدراسة أخذ‬
‫جساءة األساسات فى اإلعتبار مع إهمال كتلتها وإعتبار كل المواد متجانسة ومتماثلة وخواصها مرنة‬
‫ذات سلوك خطى‪ .‬وكانت المتغيرات األساسية هي كثافة شبكة تقسيم العناصر وكالً من كتلة وجساءة‬
‫األساسات وشدة الزلزال المؤثر والخواص الهندسية لكالً من السد والخزان مثل الميل الخلفى للسد‬
‫وعمق المياه بالخزان وطوله‪.‬‬
‫ملخص البحث‬
‫لتحقيق أهداف البحث تم عمل تحليل إستاتيكى وديناميكى للسد المشار اليه سابقاً تحت تأثير الزلزال‬
‫سابق ذكره لعدة حاالت من المتغيرات‪ .‬تم مراعاة المدى المستخدم لدراسة تأثير كل متغير ليكون فى‬
‫الحدود المنطقية‪.‬وعند دراسة تأثير قوة الزلزال تم اختيار أربعة زالزل مختلفة األماكن والسلوك‪.‬‬
‫وفى النهاية تم الخلوص إلى أن طول الخزان المستخدم فى النمذجة تأثيره طفيف على النتائج وكثافة‬
‫شبكة تقسيم العناصر لها تأثير طفيف على اإلزاحات إال ان لها تأثير ملحوظ على توزيع وقيم‬
‫اإلجهادات‪ .‬أما باقي المتغيرات فأكدت النتائج وجود تأثير كبير لها على سلوك السد وكان اكثرها‬
‫تأثيراً جساءة األساسات‪ .‬وتم تبويب الرسالة على النحو التالى‪-:‬‬
‫الباب االول (مقدمة)‬
‫ويشمل الباب األول تعريف بأهمية السدود وخطورة إنهيارها وأهمية تصميمها بطرق منطقية دقيقة‪.‬‬
‫كذلك تم توضيح مشكلة التأثير المتبادل بين السد والخزان واألساسات على سلوك السد وأهمية أخذ‬
‫هذا التأثير فى اإلعتبار‪.‬‬
‫الباب الثاني ( الدراسات السابقة )‬
‫فى هذا الباب تم توضيح أنواع السدود والتركيز على السدود الخرسانية‪ .‬كذلك تلخيص األحمال‬
‫المؤثرة على السدود الخرسانية التثاقلية وأهم الطرق المستخدمة لحل النظام المتبادل للسد والخزان‬
‫واألساسات‪ .‬وتم توضيح طريقة العناصر المحددة لحل المشكلة وأخيراً تم تلخيص الدراسات السابقة‬
‫التى تم إجراءها فى مجال البحث‪.‬‬
‫الباب الثالث (منهجية الدراسة والنمذجة العددية)‬
‫ويحتوى هذا الباب على األسس النظرية للنمذجة العددية بطريقة العناصر المحددة‪ .‬كذلك يشمل‬
‫المعادالت الحاكمة والشروط الحدية للنظام المتكامل للسد والخزان واألساسات‪ .‬ويشتمل أيضاً على‬
‫الزالزل التى ستستخدم فى الرسالة وقراءتها المسجلة‪ .‬وفى نهاية الباب يوجد تأكيد لدقة النمذجة‬
‫‪181‬‬
‫بإستخدام برنامج ‪ ANSYS‬حيث تم تمثيل ونمذجة بعض السدود التى سبق تحليلها فى أبحاث سابقة‬
‫والمقارنة بين النتائج فى الحالتين وكانت المقارنة مقبولة‪ .‬وأخيراً تم التأكد من صالحية البرنامج‬
‫والنموذج إلجراء البحث واإلطمئنان لدقة وصحة النتائج‪.‬‬
‫الباب الرابع ( التحليل والمناقشة)‬
‫ويحتوى هذا الباب على النتائج والرسومات التوضيحية والعالقات بين المتغيرات وسلوك السد‪.‬‬
‫وكانت المتغيرات كاألتي كثافة شبكة التقسيم ووجد أن تأثيرها محدود على اإلزاحة ولكن لها تأثير‬
‫ملحوظ على قيم وتوزيع اإلجهادات أسفل جسم السد‪ .‬كتلة األساسات وكان لها تأثير كبير على سلوك‬
‫السد وخصوصا ً أثناء الزالزل‪ .‬جساءة األساسات وكانت المالحظة أن لها تأثير كبير على سلوك السد‬
‫وال يمكن تجاهلها فى النمذجة‪ .‬الزلزال المؤثر وكان له تأثير على سلوك السد بالرغم من تطابق‬
‫أقصي عجلة للزالزل إال أن إختالف الخواص الديناميكية أدى إلى إختالف التأثير على السد‪.‬‬
‫الخواص الهندسية للسد وتم إختيار الميل الخلفى للسد ووجد أن له تأثير كبير‪ .‬الخواص الهندسية‬
‫للخزان ممثلة فى عمق المياه الخزان وكان له أثر كبير على سلوك السد‪ .‬وطول الخزان الممثل فى‬
‫النمذجة وكان تأثيره طفيف‪.‬‬
‫الباب الخامس (االستنتاجات والدراسات المستقبلية)‬
‫بعد عمل التحليل اإلستاتيكى والديناميكى للسد تحت الدراسة واإلنتهاء من دراسة المتغيرات التي سبق‬
‫ذكرها تم إستخالص النتائج التالية‪.‬‬
‫‪ .1‬جساءة األساسات تؤثر بشدة على سلوك السد وال يجوز تجاهل تأثيرها عند نمذجة السد الخرسانى‬
‫التثاقلى‪.‬‬
‫‪ .2‬جساءة األساسات لها تأثير واضح على الخواص الديناميكية للسد وزيادة جساءة األساسات تؤدى‬
‫إلى زيادة التردد الطبيعي للسد‪ .‬وعند التحليل اإلستاتيكى والديناميكى للسد فإن التأثير يكون واضح‬
‫عندما تكون نسبة جساءة األساسات إلى جساءة السد أقل من ‪ 2.22‬وعندما تزيد عن هذه القيمة فإن‬
‫التأثير يكاد ينعدم‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬قيم اإلجهاد واإلزاحة فى حالة تمثيل كتلة األساسات أكبر منها فى حالة إهمال كتلة األساسات وذلك‬
‫لتأثير كتلة األساسات فى سلوك السد أثناء تأثره بعجلة الزلزال‪.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬كثافة شبكة العناصر المحددة لها تأثير محدود على قيم اإلزاحة للسد ولكن تأثيرها على توزيع‬
‫اإلجهادات وتوزيعها ملحوظ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .5‬عند تعرض السد لمجموعة من الزالزل المتساوية فى قيمة العجلة القصوى والمختلفة فى التردد‬
‫فإن سلوك السد يتأثر بإختالف تردد الزلزال‪.‬‬
‫‪182‬‬
‫‪ .6‬الميل الخلفى للسد له تأثير بسيط على اإلزاحة ولكن تأثيره على اإلجهادات وخصوصا ً عند القاعدة‬
‫يكون ملحوظاً‪.‬‬
‫‪ .7‬عمق المياه بالخزان له تأثير كبير على سلوك السد اإلستاتيكى والديناميكى‪.‬‬
‫‪ .8‬طول الخزان له تأثير بسيط على سلوك السد ويمكن إهمال تأثيره‪.‬‬
‫وفى نهاية الباب تم تحديد الدراسات المستقبلية لتعميق فهم المشكلة وكان أهمها‪:‬‬
‫‪ .1‬تحليل إجهادات الشد والشروخ الناتجة عن أحمال الزالزل‪.‬‬
‫‪ .2‬إعتبار أن خواص المواد لها سلوك غير خطى‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬دراسة تأثير قدرة المياه على اإلنضغاط على السلوك الديناميكى للخزان والسد‪.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬دراسة تأثير الرواسب فى قاع الخزان على السلوك الديناميكى للسدود‪.‬‬
‫‪183‬‬
‫توقيع لجنة الحكم‬
‫التوقيع‬ ‫االسم‬ ‫م‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬شريف أحمد مراد‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬أشرف عبد الحي األشعل‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬باكيناز عبد العظيم زيدان‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬أيمن أحمد سليمه‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬أحمد عاطف راشد‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪184‬‬
‫لجنة الحكم‬
‫الوظيفة‬ ‫االسم‬ ‫م‬
‫أستاذ المنشآت و الكباري‬
‫المعدنية و عميد كلية الهندسة‬
‫جامعة القاهرة – قسم الهندسة‬ ‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬شريف أحمد مراد‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫اإلنشائية كليه الهندسة‬
‫جامعة القاهرة‬
‫أستاذ الهندسة الجيوتقنية بالمركز‬
‫القومي لبحوث المياه ومساعد‬ ‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬أشرف عبد الحي األشعل‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫وزير الري لشئون البنية األساسية‬
‫أستاذ الموارد المائية ورئيس قسم‬
‫هندسة الرى والهيدروليكا – كليه‬ ‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬باكيناز عبد العظيم زيدان‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫الهندسة ‪ -‬جامعه طنطا‬
‫أستاذ هندسة اإلنشاءات وكيل‬
‫الكلية لخدمة المجتمع و شئون‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪/‬أيمن أحمد سليمه‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫البيئة ‪ -‬قسم الهندسة اإلنشائية‬
‫كليه الهندسة ‪ -‬جامعه طنطا‬
‫المعدنية – قسم الهندسة‬
‫اإلنشائية كليه الهندسة ‪ -‬جامعه‬
‫القاهرة‬
‫‪188‬‬
‫لجنة االشراف‬
‫الوظيفة‬ ‫االسم‬ ‫م‬
‫أستاذ الموارد المائية ‪ -‬قسم هندسة‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬باكيناز عبد العظيم زيدان الرى والهيدروليكا – كليه الهندسة‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫‪ -‬جامعه طنطا‬
‫أستاذ هندسة اإلنشاءات و وكيل‬
‫الكلية لخدمة المجتمع و شئون‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪/‬أيمن أحمد سليمه‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫البيئة ‪ -‬قسم الهندسة اإلنشائية‬
‫كليه الهندسة ‪ -‬جامعه طنطا‬
‫المعدنية – قسم الهندسة‬
‫اإلنشائية ‪ -‬كليه الهندسة‬
‫جامعه القاهرة‬
‫توقيع لجنة االشراف‬
‫التوقيع‬ ‫االسم‬ ‫م‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬باكيناز عبد العظيم زيدان‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ /‬أيمن أحمد سليمه‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫‪186‬‬
‫جامعة طنطا‬
‫كلية الهندسة‬
‫قسم هندسة الرى والهيدروليكا‬
‫التحليل اإلستاتيكى والديناميكى للسدود الخرسانية التثاقلية‬

‫رسالة علمية مقدمة لكلية الهندسة جامعة طنطا كجزء من متطلبات الحصول علي‬
‫درجة ماجستير العلوم في الهندسة (هندسة الرى والهيدروليكا )‬
‫اعداد المهندس‬
‫محمد رجب البرنس المنشاوي‬
‫بكالوريوس الهندسة المدنية‪ -‬كلية الهندسة‪ -‬جامعة طنطا (جيد جدا مع مرتبة الشرف)‬
‫معيد بقسم هندسة الرى والهيدروليكا ‪ -‬كلية الهندسة‪ -‬جامعة طنطا‬
‫تحت اشراف‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور‪/‬‬ ‫األستاذ الدكتور‪/‬‬
‫أيمن أحمد سليمه‬ ‫باكيناز عبد العظيم زيدان‬
‫أستاذ هندسة اإلنشاءات ووكيل الكلية‬ ‫أستاذ الموارد المائية‬
‫لخدمة المجتمع و شئون البيئة ‪ -‬قسم‬ ‫و رئيس قسم هندسة الرى والهيدروليكا‬
‫الهندسة اإلنشائية ‪ -‬كليه الهندسة‬ ‫كليه الهندسة‬
‫جامعه طنطا‬ ‫جامعه طنطا‬
‫األستاذ الدكتور ‪ /‬أحمد عاطف راشد‬

‫أستاذ المنشآت والكباري المعدنية‬
‫قسم الهندسة اإلنشائية‬
‫كليه الهندسة‬
‫جامعه القاهرة‬
‫‪5102‬‬
‫‪187‬‬

Macedo Ej

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Macedo Ej

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tanta University

Static And Dynamic Analysis of Concrete

Prof. Dr. / Prof. Dr. /

Prof. Dr. / Ahmed Atef Rashed

Professor of Structural Engineering,

Professor of Steel Structures and

The Supervisors Committee Signature

Prof. Dr. / Ayman Ahmed

Prof. Dr. / Ahmed Atef

Professor of Steel Structures and

Prof. Dr. / Sherif Ahmed

Prof. Dr. / Ashraf Abd Elhai

Prof. Bakenaz Abdelazim

Prof. Dr. / Ayman Ahmed

Prof. Dr. / Ahmed Atef

1 CHAPTER (1) INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1

2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 6

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 28

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 48

5.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 143

e Eccentricity of the resultant force from the center of the base.

DFL Design Flood Level.

1 CHAPTER (1) INTRODUCTION

1.2 Problem Statement

The objective of the present study is to assess the impact of key

1.3 Scope of Study

 Investigate the effect of foundation mass on static and seismic

Figure 1-1 Problem idealization of dam-reservoir-foundation coupled system

1.4 Organization of Thesis

Chapter (1) Introduction

Chapter (3) Theoretical Approach and Numerical Modeling

This chapter presents the governing equations, boundary conditions, Finite

Chapter (4) Numerical Results and Discussion

Chapter (5) Conclusions and Recommendations

2 CHAPTER(2) LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2 State of The Art

In recent decades, the dam-reservoir-foundation interaction has been

EL.Prince et al. 2015). However, the dam-reservoir-foundation coupled

2.3 Concrete Dams

Rubble masonry or random masonry was successfully employed for many

3. Arch dams. The arch dam has a considerable upstream curvature.

2.4 Loads Acting on Concrete Gravity Dams

It is convenient to classify individual loads as primary, secondary, and

Figure 2-1 Principal variants of concrete dams (Novak et al. 2007).

3. Exceptional loads are so designated on the basis of limited general

2.4.1 Primary Loads

Figure 2-2 Gravity dam loading diagram (Novak et al. 2007)

2. Self-weight load: This is determined with respect to an appropriate unit

2.4.2 Secondary Loads

Where γs is submerged sediment unit weight (18-20 kN m-3 ), z3 is sediment

, generated by wave action against the dam (not normally significant).

2.4.3 Exceptional Loads

2.5 Stability criteria of Gravity Dams

1. Overturning/Rotation about the toe

Figure 2-4 stability criteria of concrete gravity dams

2.6 Methods of Solution.

2.6.1 Finite Element Method

be approximated by that of the discrete model obtained by connecting or

2.7 Dam-Reservoir-Foundation Interaction.

the proposed technique by reconsidering the problem with different

A computer program named as EAGD-84 was prepared by Fenves and

Lotfi et al. presented an alternative study to Fenves and Chopra’s work in