Download - Numerical model…..graviry dams
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
1/16
Numerical Model Validation 233
NUMERICAL MODEL VALIDATION FOR LARGE CONCRETE
GRAVITY DAMS
Florian Scheulen1
Nicolas Von Gersdorff2
Ziyad Duron,
3
Ph.D.Mike Knarr,4
P.E., S.E.
ABSTRACT
The interaction effects between a large concrete gravity dam, its foundation, and
impounded reservoir have been investigated using 2-D and 3-D finite element
representations validated against field measurements. Field tests conducted on the damprovided acceleration profiles across the dam crest and along the dam-foundation
interface, and were used to assess material properties in the dam and in the foundation.
Field measurements of hydrodynamic pressures acquired along the upstream dam face
were used to evaluate the relative accuracy of various techniques for representing thereservoir water in the numerical model of the dam-foundation-reservoir system.
Techniques for representing the reservoir water included the Westergaard added massapproach, the RSVR2 approach, fluid elements modeled as plane strain elements with the
properties of water and acoustic elements. Comparisons of measured and computed
acceleration and hydrodynamic pressure frequency responses were obtained that illustrate
the advantages and limitations associated with each modeling approach. The paperprovides relevant details associated with the field tests on the dam, presents an overview
of the numerical models, and discusses the assumptions used in developing the reservoir
representations. Frequency responses are compared to highlight model performance.These results will be used to validate numerical models of the dam-foundation-reservoir
system in support of an ongoing risk-based performance evaluation for this dam.
INTRODUCTION
An accurate finite element model is crucial for most risk-based dam analyses. This paperdemonstrates how field data can be used to validate the accuracy of a model. Various
methods of modeling the reservoir were applied to 2-D and 3-D models of a large
concrete gravity dam, Big Creek Dam No. 7, and compared to hydrodynamic pressurevalues acquired using hydrophones. Acceleration profiles along the crest and at the dam-
foundation interface were used to enhance the models ability to accurately reproduce
observed behavior, and the models ability to predict observed hydrodynamic pressureresponse was ultimately used as the basis for validating model response behavior. An
1 De Pietro Research Fellow, Department of Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711,
[email protected] Structural Engineer, Southern California Edison Company, San Dimas, CA 91773, [email protected] Professor of Engineering, Department of Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711,
[email protected] Principal Structural Engineer, Southern California Edison Company, San Dimas, CA 91773,
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
2/16
Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds234
overview of the field investigation is presented.
Big Creek Dam No. 7 was completed in 1951. It is located on the San Joaquin River in
Fresno County, California and impounds Redinger Lake which has a surface area of 465
acres. Figure 1 shows an upstream view of the dam. The dam is 250 feet high, with a
compound downstream slope of 0.75 horizontal to 1.0 vertical on the upper portion,flattening to 0.83 horizontal to 1.0 vertical near the bottom. The dam is 875 feet long and
consists of 19 monoliths.
Figure 1. Big Creek Dam No.7 profile
EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
Forced vibration tests were conducted on Big Creek Dam No. 7 in the summer of 2008. A
large eccentric mass vibrator, or shaker, was employed to induce steady-state responses
in the dam over a 20 Hz range at force levels approaching 20,000 lbf. The frequency
spacing was selected to be 0.05 Hz. The mass vibrator and the associated force curves are
shown in Figure 2. The blue line indicates the force curve for the large weights and thered line for the small weights.
4 8 12 16 200
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
Frequency (Hz)
Force(lbf)
Shaker Force Curves
Figure 2. The shaker system and force curves used for vibration testing.
Hydrodynamic pressure responses in the reservoir along the upstream face of Monolith 6were acquired using a hydrophone instrument array. The array consists of 8 solid-state
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
3/16
Numerical Model Validation 235
hydrophones spaced 50 ft apart along an 800 ft long Kevlar reinforced cable. The
hydrophones are Halliburton Geophysical Services Model 12 and contain a piezoelectriccrystal which produces a voltage proportional to hydrodynamic pressure. Hydrophone
sensitivity averaged 0.7 V/psi. The reservoir depth at the measurement location was less
than 150 ft, so the hydrophones were looped such that the spacing was reduced to 25 ft,
allowing for a total of 6 pressure measurements to be made.
Accelerations on the crest of the dam and along the foundation interface were acquiredusing Q-Flex Model QA-700 and QA-750 accelerometers manufactured by Honeywell.
These accelerometers incorporate a servo-force-balance design to produce a current
output which is proportional to surface acceleration, which allows extended cable lengths
to be used throughout the dam without loss of signal quality. Accelerometer sensitivitiesranged from 10.7 V/g to 12.3V/g for the tests at Dam No.7.
Analog signals were band-pass filtered using a 2-pole high-pass Butterworth with cutoffat 1 Hz and a 4-pole low-pass Butterworth with cutoff at 30 Hz. Amplification gains
were varied depending upon signal strength between 10 and 1000 to fill the dynamicrange of the A/D converter. These signals were digitized at a rate of 1000 samples persecond to achieve satisfactory signal quality while guarding against unwanted aliasing
effects. A sample steady-state time history of hydrodynamic pressure data is shown in
Figure 3. This is representative of the signal quality observed during testing, for bothhydrodynamic and acceleration measurements.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
Time (sec)
Pressure(psi)
Sample Steady-State Time HistoryDepth 67.5 ft
Figure 3. Sample steady-state time history of hydrodynamic pressure at 67.5 ft below thewater surface.
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
4/16
Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds236
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
2-D Single Monolith Finite Element Model
A 2-D finite element model of the 7
th
monolith, the tallest non-spillway monolith, whichis representative of non-spillway blocks 5 to 7 and 11 to 13, was developed. It was
modeled using SAP2000, which is a commercially available general purpose finite
element package (Ref 1).
The model includes the dam and portions of the impounded reservoir and underlying
foundation. A 2-D mesh is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Mesh of 2-D model of the 7th
monolith.
The model of the gravity dam consists of four-node plane strain elements, which are
restrained out-of-plane, thus supporting two translational degrees of freedom and one
rotational degree of freedom.
The foundation model consists of the same elements and extends approximately one dam
height upstream, downstream, and below the dam. The bottom and side boundaries of the
foundation were modeled using a fixed condition at the base and translations fixed
laterally but free to move vertically at the sides. The foundation model was assumed asmassless.
The reservoir was modeled using various methods as will be detailed in later sections.
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
5/16
Numerical Model Validation 237
3D Full Dam Finite Element Model
A 3-D model of the dam-foundation-reservoir system was constructed and analyzed using
Abaqus (Ref 2), a commercially available general purpose finite element package. The
model was constructed for the purpose of evaluating its ability to reproduce observed
behavior. It incorporates some major features of the dam system while others, such as thespillway gates, are accounted for by lumped masses or parameter variation. Features not
modeled include the spillway radial gates, the deck over the spillway section, thepenstocks or outlets, and the gallery in the dam. The model of the dam consists of eight-
node brick elements whose material properties were based on previous core test results.
The model of the foundation was contoured and shaped using the outline of the dam to
extend away from the dam in the stream direction a distance equal to the dam height.The model of the reservoir was placed at an elevation 15 ft below the crest, the
approximate level of the reservoir during the actual forced vibration test period.
The dam model incorporates 17 monoliths which are separated by vertical joints. The
joints are not keyed, but lower portions of the tallest monoliths are grouted. To accountfor the condition of the joints in the dam, and to provide capability within the model toevaluate the influence of joint closure or opening on dam response, the joints in the dam
were modeled as a thin (1 in wide) column of elements between monoliths. The column
allowed material property parameters to be adjusted so that fully closed (high modulus,nominal concrete mass density) or open (low modulus, low mass density) effects of joint
behavior on dam response could be evaluated. Modeling actual joint behavior in a large
dam, particularly under strong motion loading conditions typically requires sophisticated,
non-linear modeling techniques. However, for the studies and comparisons of the low-level response behavior of Dam No. 7, a linear elastic model capable of adjusting relative
joint stiffness and mass to account for open or closed joint behavior was deemedsatisfactory.
The reservoir geometry included in the model is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Reservoir model geometry (images not drawn to scale).
The reservoir model includes a sediment layer along the floor, known to be present in thereservoir at Dam No. 7, and indicated in brown (left image, Figure 5). The sediment
layer begins 40 ft upstream from the dam and slopes upward to the measured elevation
within 15 feet of the bottom of the original reservoir. This sedimentation profile was
Water only:
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
6/16
Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds238
determined to give the best results. Sediment thickness varies from 4 ft to 27 ft within
the reservoir.
A complete mesh of the model is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Meshed 3-D finite element model of Dam No. 7.
The dam and foundation elements are eight-node linear solid bricks, and the reservoirelements are eight-node linear acoustic elements. Interactions along the dam-reservoir
and foundation-reservoir interfaces are selected to ensure that only normal motions of the
dam and foundation result in pressure changes in the reservoir. The acoustic element waschosen to facilitate comparisons against measured steady-state hydrodynamic pressures,
and incorporates the assumption of compressible, inviscid fluid flow.
The foundation boundaries are fixed everywhere except along the foundation surface atthe dam crest elevation. Reservoir water boundary conditions consist of setting the
surface acoustic element nodes to zero pressure, consistent with actual atmospheric
conditions in the reservoir. The boundary at the far upstream face of the reservoir modelwas evaluated under both prescribed and unprescribed conditions. Using the acoustic
element formulation, a nonreflecting boundary can be specified in terms of an acoustic
impedance to define a termination. The impedance can be user defined or associatedwith a range of geometries available in Abaqus. For the comparisons shown here, an
acoustic termination associated with a planar geometry was selected.
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
7/16
Numerical Model Validation 239
PARAMETER STUDY
A parameter study was conducted on the 3-D model. Material property values included in
the dam-foundation-reservoir model are listed in Table 1. Included are values for the
concrete in the dam, the rock in the foundation, and the water and sediment in the
reservoir. The joint properties listed in Table 1 were arrived at after a series ofeigenanalyses in which model behavior, characterized in terms of resonant frequencies
and response shapes, was compared against measured behavior from the forced vibration
tests.
Table 1. Material properties used to evaluate dynamic response behavior of Dam No. 7.
Property Measured Model
Concrete (Dam)
Density 150 pcf 150 pcf
Youngs Modulus 3.3 Mpsi 4.2 Mpsi
Poissons Ratio 0.2 0.2
Foundation (Rock)Density 150 pcf 0.150 pcf
Youngs Modulus 3 Mpsi 2.5 Mpsi
Poissons Ratio 0.25 0.25
Monolith Joints
Density N/A 0.15 pcf
Youngs Modulus N/A 7.3 Kpsi
Poissons Ratio N/A 0.2
Water (Reservoir)
Density 62.4 pcf 62.4 pcf
Bulk Modulus 315 Kpsi 181 Kpsi
Water (Sediment)
Density 125 pcf 125 pcf
Bulk Modulus N/A 218 Kpsi
To arrive at these values, an iterative approach was used in which the material properties
were varied and the numerical frequency response computed and compared to theexperimental data. The two aspects that were targeted for this comparison were the
location and magnitude of the resonant peaks along the dam.
Computed frequency response functions were obtained from a steady-state harmonic
analysis using the model in which both a direct integration and modal solution approach
were evaluated. The direct integration approach is assumed to provide added accuracy in
terms of evaluating the full response model behavior, as compared to results from amodal approach which truncates the models frequency characteristics included in the
response calculations. To assess the relative accuracy of the direct integration and modal
solutions for Dam No. 7, analyses using both approaches were completed and resultsfrom each are included in the comparisons of acceleration responses. Damping
associated with each approach differed slightly Rayleigh damping was used to ensure
5% of critical at the 1st
and 3rd
modes, and damping in the amount of 5% of critical was
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
8/16
Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds240
used for all modes included in the modal solution. Fifty modes were used in the modal
solution approach representing behavior between 3-20 Hz, chosen to match the frequencyrange during test. The magnitude and phase of the frequency response function for
Monolith 7 is shown in Figure 7.
0 5 10 15 200
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Frequency (Hz)
Resp
onseMagnitude(g/Mlbf)
Numerical and Experimental FRF ComparisonMonolith 7
Direct
Modal
Experimental
0 5 10 15 200
50
100
150
200
Frequency (Hz)
ResponsePhase(
degrees)
Numerical and Experimental FRF ComparisonMonolith 7
Direct
Modal
Experimental
Figure 7. Magnitude (top) and phase (bottom) of the Acceleration Frequency Response at
Monolith 7.
The comparison shown is considered to be quite good. The models frequency behaviorbelow 6 Hz compares well against observed behavior even though the character of the
response is pseudo-dynamic at best, and the agreement suggests that the stiffness-mass
ratio of the model in this frequency range is reasonable. The models behavior in the 9-14 Hz frequency range is characterized by single and closely coupled peak response. The
modal solution provides a better match with the experimental result based on the apparent
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
9/16
Numerical Model Validation 241
modal coupling between 10-13 Hz. The direct solution response does not indicate the
same degree of coupled behavior. Nonetheless, the overall magnitudes in these responsesin this frequency range are consistent. Between 14-20 Hz, the comparisons remain fairly
consistent in terms of magnitudes and trends, but details associated with individual
resonant peaks vary throughout this frequency range.
The agreement in the phase response curves is also considered to be quite good,
especially when the complex nature of the interaction effects between the dam-foundation, dam-reservoir, and foundation-reservoir are considered.
Foundation flexibility was measured during the forced vibration tests at Dam No. 7 by
measuring vertical acceleration response at the heel and toe of the 7th
and 11th
monoliths.This test is similar to those previously conducted on large concrete gravity dams
including Folsom Dam and San Vicente Dam, where flexibility was characterized by the
ratio of heel-to-toe response (magnitude) that exhibited a 180 degree (phase) difference.For those dams, foundation flexibility was reported using a single ratio at the particular
frequency where 180 degree response was indicated.
The numerical model studies of Dam No. 7 have allowed a broader study of foundation
flexibility. Shown in Figure 8 is a comparison of measured and predicted (model)
frequency response function defined as the ratio of vertical heel-to-toe response atMonolith 7.
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 90
1
2
3
4
Frequency (Hz)
RelativeAccelerationR
esponse
Numerical and Experimental FRF ComparisonHeel-to-Toe Monolith 7
Direct
ModalExperimental
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
10/16
Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds242
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
Frequency (Hz)
RelativePhase(de
grees)
Numerical and Experimental FRF ComparisonHeel-to-Toe Monolith 7
Direct
Modal
Experimental
Figure 8. Relative acceleration magnitude (top) and phase (bottom) of the heel-to-toe at
Monolith 7.
The best match between model and observed relative behavior, where magnitudes are ofthe same order and phase is near 180 degrees (denoted by a dashed line in Figure 8) ,
occurs in the vicinity of 8 Hz. Outside this narrow range, however, the comparison of
relative magnitude is poor, even though the phase comparison appears to be slightly
better (below 8 Hz).
A comparison of magnitude and phase heel-to-toe rocking behavior defined at 7.75 Hz,
where phase is at or near 180 degrees, is provided in Table 2. These values are takendirectly from the predicted and measured vertical responses in 7
thand 11
thmonoliths
where near out-of-phase motion (rocking) at each base is observed.
Table 2. Foundation flexibility indicative of near out-of phase rocking base response.
Monolith 7 Monolith 11
Method Phase(degrees) Magnitude Phase (degrees) Magnitude
Model/Direct -205 1.357 -134 1.158
Model/Modal -193 0.842 -146 1.051
Experimental -192 0.467 -173 3.226
These foundation flexibility studies have been used to adjust the elastic modulus used in
the foundation finite element models.
RESERVOIR MODELING METHODS
Westergaard
Westergaard added mass was incorporated into the finite element analysis by applying amass to each upstream node, scaled by the tributary area around that node. The added
mass is equal to:
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
11/16
Numerical Model Validation 243
(1)where b is added mass, H is the depth of the reservoir at the node, y is the depth of the
node below the water, is the density of the water, g is the acceleration due to gravity,and A is the tributary area.
John Halls RSVR2
RSVR2 is John Halls upgraded version of RSVR. It calculates added mass similar to the
Westergaard method as well as additional hydrodynamic forces on the dam which arisefrom accelerations of the floor and sides of reservoir. The output of the program was
applied to the 2-D model as added mass and force multiplied by earthquake acceleration.
Fluid Elements
The water was modeled as a fluid using four-node plane strain elements in the 2-D
model. For a 3-D model eight-node brick elements can be used in a similar way. Thewater mass is included to capture hydrodynamic effects, but the weight of the water was
not included because the hydrostatic pressure was modeled using pore pressure.
Essentially, the gravitational pull of the water was set to zero. The properties assigned tothe fluid elements were:
Table 3. Fluid element properties
Density 62.4 pcf
Shear modulus 63.24 psi
Modulus of elasticity 189.7 psi
Wave speed 4720 ft/sec
Poissons ratio 0.4999
Bulk modulus 3.16 Mpsi
Using plane strain elements to represent the water adds a large number of extraneous
modes to the analysis. To minimize this effect, Ritz vectors were used in lieu of thestandard eigenvectors. The first mode of the dam was found to be at the calculated 43
rd
mode of the analysis. All preceding modes were found to be water modes with no
significance to the analysis.
Boundary Conditions: The upstream boundary of the water was restrained laterally but
free to move vertically. Gap elements were introduced between the foundation and water
and between the dam and the water to keep the water in contact with the dam andfoundation. The gap elements allowed only compression to be transmitted from the water
to the dam and foundation.
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
12/16
Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds244
Acoustic Elements
The following governing relationships apply to acoustic elements, whose single degree of
freedom is pressure:
(2)where is the dynamic pressure, is the spatial position of the fluid particle, is the
fluid particle velocity, is the fluid particle acceleration, is the volumetric drag, and
is the density.
The constitutive relationship for the acoustic fluid is given by:
(3)where is the dynamic pressure, is the bulk modulus, and is the volumetric strain.Additional details concerning the formulation of the acoustic finite element in Abaqus arefound in the Abaqus/Standard Users Manual (Ref 2).
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
Resonance Frequency Comparison
The eccentric mass shaker forces were applied at the crest of the 2-D and 3-D models.
Figure 9 - Figure 12 below show a comparison of Westergaard, fluid element, and
acoustic element generated resonances to the hydrophone data. Comparisons are made atsix different reservoir depths along the upstream face of Monolith 6, where thehydrophones were located. Distances are from the top of the reservoir surface.
Using the equation:
(4)where C is the wave speed of water and H is the height of the reservoir, produces a rough
estimate of the resonance frequency of the reservoir. At the 7th
monolith of Big CreekDam No. 7 the height of the reservoir is 182 feet, making the reservoir resonance
estimate 6.5 Hz. The hydrophone data shows reservoir resonances around 5 and 6.8 Hz.Westergaard is close to the first resonance at 4.6 Hz, but completely misses the secondresonance. The results of the RSVR2 output are almost identical to Westergaard and have
been omitted. The fluid element resonances are at 4.7 and 6.8 Hz. The first and second
resonances of the acoustic elements are at 4.8 and 6.9 Hz. The magnitude of the first
resonance is around 0.2 (psi/million lbf), which is close to the hydrophone data. The fluidelement and Westergaard magnitudes are significantly higher because the shaker forces
are being applied to a single monolith instead of being distributed across the entire dam.
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
13/16
Numerical Model Validation 245
3 4 5 6 70
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Frequency (Hz)
Hydrophone Data
Pressure/Force(psi/millionlbf)
17.5 ft
42.5 ft
67.5 ft
92.5 ft
117.5 ft
142.5 ft
Figure 9. Hydrophone pressure results.
3 4 5 6 70
5
10
15
Frequency (Hz)
Westergaard (added mass)
Pressure
/Force(psi/millionlbf)
17.5 ft
42.5 ft
67.5 ft
92.5 ft
117.5 ft
142.5 ft
Figure 10. Westergaard pressure results.
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
14/16
Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds246
3 4 5 6 70
2
4
6
8
10
12
Frequency (Hz)
Fluid Elements
Pressure/Force(psi/millionlbf)
17.5 ft
42.5 ft
67.5 ft
92.5 ft
117.5 ft
142.5 ft
Figure 11. Fluid element pressure results.
3 4 5 6 70
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Frequency (Hz)
Acoustic Elements
Pressure
/Force(psi/millionlbf)
17.5 ft
42.5 ft
67.5 ft
92.5 ft
117.5 ft
142.5 ft
Figure 12. Acoustic element pressure results from modal solution approach.
Stress Comparison
The stress results of the 2-D model were used to compare Westergaard, RSVR2, fluid
elements, and output from a program developed by Chopra (Ref 3). The time history usedin finite element analysis was from the Imperial Valley record. All stress results weretaken at the heel of the monolith, where stresses are generally highest in an earthquake.
Heel cracking due to high stresses can increase uplift pressures significantly,
undermining the structures stability.
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
15/16
Numerical Model Validation 247
As seen in Table 4, Westergaard was found to be very conservative with results 15%
greater than Chopra, while the fluid element results were within 6% of the Chopra results.RSVR2 results were nearly identical to Westergaard.
Table 4. Stress results from the 2-D model.
Chopra Westergaard Fluid Elements(psi) Time History (psi) Time History (psi) Response Spectrum (psi)
187 215 177 137
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER STUDY
Experimental results can be used to calibrate the parameters of a numerical model to
achieve desired performance. Model performance based on the comparisons presented in
this paper suggests that the models constructed of Dam No. 7 achieve a good measure ofcorrelation with observed behavior below 16 Hz. This is particularly the case in the
modes that correspond to the crest and upper portions in the dam, where reasonably goodagreement is achieved.
Various reservoir modeling methods have been compared:
The Westergaard approach is quick and easy to implement. With fewer elements it also
requires the least amount of computing power. It generally produces overly conservative
stress results and does not match all the resonances seen in the hydrophone data, but it isstill sufficient for a preliminary analysis.
The RSVR2 method includes additional forces that may make it more accurate than the
Westergaard method but still has the same shortcomings. It also takes considerably moretime to implement.
The model incorporating fluid elements matches the hydrophone data well and producesgood stress results. A large number of water sloshing modes were generated that made
it more difficult to analyze the reservoir-dam system since they would crowd out modes
with large participation ratios.
The acoustic element method produces results that are an excellent match with the
hydrophone data. Matching the resonances seen in the hydrophone data is of great benefit
in developing confidence in the models accuracy to represent the real behavior of the
dam in response to ground motion.Water sloshing modes are not generated becauseacoustic elements do not translate.
More sophisticated reservoir modeling techniques such as coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian
systems could yield even better results, but are more difficult to implement and
necessitate considerably more computing power.
-
8/2/2019 Numerical model..graviry dams
16/16
Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds248
REFERENCES
1. SAP2000, Version 12.0.2, Computers and Structures, Inc., 2009.2. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp. Section 21.3.1 Abaqus/Standard Users
Manual. Version 6.8, 2008.
3. Simplified Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams, Fenves and Chopra,Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987, pp. 1688-1708.