12

th
INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK
WORKSHOP ON NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF
DAMS
2.-4. OCTOBER, 2013, GRAZ AUSTRIA

Organized by
ICOLD
Ad Hoc Committee on Computational Aspects of
Analysis and Design of Dams

THEME A
Fluid Structure Interaction
Arch Dam Reservoir at Seismic loading

Formulator:
Graz University of Technology
Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Management


Introduction
1. Introduction
Advanced numerical tools with user friendly interfaces are available for structural
analyses. Such numerical analyses require a solid theoretical background of the
applicability of methods to be used. On the other hand, the results gained need a careful
interpretation with respect to the underlying assumptions and their practical relevance.
ICOLD Benchmark examples of generalized engineering problems are devoted to
bridge the gap between numerical analyses, the interpretation of results and their
theoretical as well as practical relevance. Challenges of the analyses of concrete dams
are always the definition of material parameters, the spatial discretization and the
appropriate simulation of loading sequences. Additionally, specific attention is paid on
the structural integrity and entire safety under seismic loading conditions. To account
for this problem, the interaction of the dam and the reservoir is topic of this theme A.

By means of the Finite Element Method linear and nonlinear analyses under dynamic
excitation are carried out. However, for the required and appropriate simulation of the
dam reservoir interaction different approaches are used. With respect to future nonlinear
dynamic analyses, these simulations herein shall be in the time domain only.
A common approach to take the dynamic water interaction into account is to use an
added mass approach. A more sophisticated possibility is the use of Acoustic or Fluid
Elements. The simulations of earthquake excitation of arch dams have shown that the
analyzed stresses in the structure could vary significantly based on the interaction
modeling. The added mass approach is still a widely used technique but tends to
overestimate the stresses and therefore it is conservative in contrary to other techniques.
This benchmark now intends to compare different modeling techniques and will show
the amount of deviations. All investigations are carried out for an artificially generated
symmetric arch dam and simplified loading and boundary conditions.

Universities, engineering companies and regulatory bodies are invited to contribute to
the benchmark and take part in the discussion of results gained.

Introduction
1.1 Focus of this benchmark example
The focus of this benchmark is to carry out the Dynamic Fluid Structure Interaction for
a large arch dam. Every participant may choose his own order of details in modeling.
The main goal of this example is the application of different approaches like:
Added mass technique (Westergaard, Zangar,)
Acoustic Elements (compressible, incompressible)
Fluid Elements (compressible, incompressible)
Further on, the usage of different Boundary Conditions is possible for:
Reservoir - Foundation
- Reflecting (on the bottom and the sides)
- Non-reflecting (at the end of the reservoir)
The modeling of the block joint opening due to tensile stresses and nonlinear effects -
is not focus of this benchmark example. However, to carry out this analysis in the time
domain will provide the opportunity for further non-linear analyses.
1.2 General basic assumptions
The following general basic assumptions and boundary conditions for the investigations
should be used:
Same spatial discretization (Model/Mesh) of the Structure, Foundation and
Reservoir
Same Material Parameters
Acceleration-Time-History in X-,Y-,Z-Direction
Reservoir is infinite in length (non-reflecting)
Rayleigh Damping
Results to be compared - Visualization
Based on these basic assumptions and results gained the contributors are encouraged to
intensify and focus their effort to achieve results with higher profound physical
justification and explain the differences. (E.g.: different spatial discretization, more
appropriate modeling of the interaction; different length of the reservoir; need for
nonlinear effects).
An interpretation of the evaluated results from an engineering point of view should be
given.
Modell and Geometry
2. Modell and Geometry
An Arch Dam, Foundation and Reservoir Model layout for the benchmark has been
generated and is available for downloading.
2.1 Arch Dam Model
Symmetric Geometry
Total Height: 220 Meters
Valley width (crest): ~ 430 Meters
Valley width (bottom): ~ 80 Meters
2.1.1 Arch Dam Geometry
The Arch Dam Geometry has been generated with the Program Arch Dam Design,
which was developed as part of the Master-Thesis by DI Manuel Pagitsch.
Arch Dam Model

Plan View

View from the upstream

Main Section
Modell and Geometry
2.2 Foundation Model
Symmetry is used for the foundation too.

Height: 500 Meters
Length: 1000 Meters
Width 1000 Meters


2.3 Reservoir Model
Length: assumed minimum of 460 Meters (> 2x Height of the Dam)
Modeling the interaction with Acoustic- or Fluid Elements

500m
1000m
1000m
Material Parameters
2.4 Acceleration Time History
Transient Acceleration (a
max
0.1g)
X-,Y-,Z- Direction
Artificially generated time history

3. Material Parameters
The Material properties are defined for isotropic and homogenous conditions.
Rock mass
Density: 0 kg/m
3

Poisson - ratio: 0,2
Youngs - modulus: 25000 MPa
Water
Density: 1000 kg/m
3

Bulk - modulus: 2200 MPa
Dam
Density: 2400 kg/m
3

Poisson - ratio: 0,167
Youngs - modulus: 27000 MPa
Mesh Properties
4. Mesh Properties
Two different Meshes of the entire system are provided for investigations, as these are a
coarse and a fine mesh. If desired, the parts can also be provided as ABAQUS/CAE
Model File, ACIS- or IGES-Files, if a specific mesh is intended to be discretized.
4.1 Coarse Mesh
Arch Dam
Total number of nodes: 2083
Total number of elements: 356
312 quadratic hexahedral elements of type C3D20R (ABAQUS CAE)
44 quadratic wedge elements of type C3D15 (ABAQUS CAE)
Foundation
Total number of nodes: 11608
Total number of elements: 2340
quadratic hexahedral elements of type C3D20R (ABAQUS CAE)
Reservoir
Total number of nodes: 12493
Total number of elements: 2640
quadratic hexahedral elements of type C3D20R (ABAQUS CAE)


Mesh Properties
4.2 Fine Mesh
Arch Dam
Total number of nodes: 13733
Total number of elements: 2736
quadratic hexahedral elements of type C3D20R (ABAQUS CAE)
Foundation
Total number of nodes: 13298
Total number of elements: 2700
quadratic hexahedral elements of type C3D20R (ABAQUS CAE)
Reservoir
Total number of nodes: 12493
Total number of elements: 2640
quadratic hexahedral elements of type C3D20R (ABAQUS CAE)




Mesh Properties
4.3 Elements and Node Numbering in ABAQUS/CAE
The provided input-files are containing a list of the nodes and elements of the mesh and
also predefined node sets for the different sections which should be investigated. The
Node numbering of ABAQUS/CAE is plotted in the following figures.

These figures are showing the node numbering for the two different element types
which are used in the provided input-files.
Loading
5. Loading
The following loading sequence is intended to be used.

Gravity
Hydrostatic Water Pressure (full supply water level = Crest Height)
Seismic Loading
Modal Superposition or
Direct time integration (Implicit/Explicit)
6. Results
6.1 Eigenfrequencies (1 10)
The evaluation of the first 10 Eigenfrequencies of the structure, including the interaction
with the reservoir, should be provided.
6.2 Mode Shapes (1 10)
The evaluation and plotting of the first 10 Mode-Shapes of the structure, including the
interaction with the reservoir.

Results
6.3 Hoop Stresses, Vertical Stresses and Min./Max. Principal Stresses
Evaluation of the different stresses should be done for
Static Loads
Seismic Loads (Min., Max.)
3 different sections (Main Section and ~45 degrees on the left and right hand
side)


6.3.1 Evaluation Examples for the Stresses




Left Section
Main Section
Right Section

6.4 Radial Deformation
Evaluation of the Radial Deformation should be done for
Static Loads
Seismic Loads (Min., Max.)
Main sections


6.4.1 Evaluation Example for the Radial Deformation


Left Section
Main Section
Right Section