Coupled systems mechanics

  • 제10권5호
  • /
  • Pages.371-392
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2234-2184(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-2192(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Coupled arch dam-reservoir-massed foundation problem under different earthquake input mechanisms

  • Varmazyari, M. (Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology) ;
  • Sabbagh-Yazdi, S.R. (Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology) ;
  • Mirzabozorg, H. (Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology)
  • 투고 : 2019.04.29
  • 심사 : 2021.07.09
  • 발행 : 2021.10.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The aim of the present study is to investigate a coupled arch dam-reservoir-massed foundation problem under two earthquake input mechanisms. The problem nonlinearity originates from opening/slipping of the vertical contraction joints of the dam body. The reservoir-structure interaction is taken into account assuming compressible reservoir. Also, the meshing approach (structured mesh vs. unstructured one) in the foundation medium is investigated. The Karoun-I double curvature arch dam is selected as a case study. Three components of the 1994 Northridge earthquake are selected as the free-field ground motion. A deconvolution analysis in 3D space is conducted to adjust the amplitude and frequency contents of the earthquake ground motion applied to the bottom of the massed foundation to determine the desired acceleration response at various points on the dam-foundation interface taking into account the coupling between the foundation and the structure. It is found that in the deconvolved earthquake input models, the maximum tensile and the compressive stresses increase by 19% and 12%, respectively in comparison with those of the free-field input models. In addition, modeling foundation using the unstructured mesh decreases the maximum compressive stresses within the dam body by about 20% in comparison with that obtained using the structured mesh model. In the same way, the maximum crest displacements in the horizontal direction decreases by about 30%.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Andonov, A., Iliev, A. and Andreev, S. (2012), "Applicability of non-linear static procedures for seismic assessment of concrete dams", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, September.
  2. ANSYS Version 11.0.1. (2007), Reference Manual, ANSYS Inc, Canonsburg, USA.
  3. Benzley, S.E., Perry, E., Merkley, K., Clark, B. and Sjaardama, G. (1995), "A comparison of all hexagonal and all tetrahedral finite element meshes for elastic and elasto-plastic analysis", Proceedings of the 4th International Meshing Roundtable, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, October.
  4. Buffi, G., Manciola, P., De Lorenzis, L., Cavalagli, N., Comodini, F., Gambi, A., ... & Tamagnini, C. (2017), "Calibration of finite element models of concrete arch-gravity dams using dynamical measures: The case of Ridracoli", Procedia Eng., 199, 110-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.169.
  5. Carl, J., Muller-Hoeppe, D. and Meadows, M. (2006), "Comparison of tetrahedral and brick elements for linear elastic analysis", University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA.
  6. Chandrupatla, T.R., Belegundu, A.D., Ramesh, T. and Ray, C. (2002), Introduction to Finite Elements in Engineering, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  7. Chuhan, Z., Jianwen, P. and Jinting, W. (2009). "Influence of seismic input mechanisms and radiation damping on arch dam response", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 29(9), 1282-1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.03.003.
  8. Cifuentes, A.O. and Kalbaug, A. (1992), "A performance study of tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3d finite element structural analysis", Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 12(3-4), 313-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-874X(92)90040-J.
  9. Diwan, A.G. and Mahajan, Y.S. (2017), "Study of the effect of various parameters on the result of stress analysis obtained using tetrahedral and hexahedral mesh elements", J. Chin. Inst. Eng., 40(2), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2017.1287596.
  10. FERC (1999), Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects: Chapter 11-Arch Dams, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. USA.
  11. Gracia Llinares, L. (2016), "Development of a computational tool for structural verification of dams", Master's Thesis, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain.
  12. Hadzalic, E., Ibrahimbegovic, A. and Dolarevic, S. (2018), "Failure mechanisms in coupled soil-foundation systems", Coupl. Syst. Mech., 7(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.12989/csm.2018.7.1.027.
  13. Hall, J.F. (2006), "Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(5), 525-545. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.541.
  14. Hariri-Ardebili, M.A. and Mirzabozorg, H. (2012), "Seismic performance evaluation and analysis of major arch dams considering material and joint nonlinearity effects", Int. Scholar. Res. Notice., 2012, 1-10. http://doi.org/10.5402/2012/681350.
  15. Hariri-Ardebili, M.A., Mirzabozorg, H. and Ghasemi, A. (2013), "Strain-based seismic failure evaluation of coupled dam-reservoir-foundation system", Coupl. Syst. Mech., 2(1), 85-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/csm.2013.2.1.085.
  16. Hariri Ardebili, M.A. and Saouma, V. (2013), "Impact of near-fault vs. far-field ground motions on the seismic response of an arch dam with respect to foundation type", Dam Eng. J., 24(1), 19-52.
  17. Huang, J. and Zerva, A. (2014), "Earthquake performance assessment of concrete gravity dams subjected to spatially varying seismic ground motions", Struct. Infrastr. Eng., 10(8), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.782323.
  18. Javidinejad, A. (2012), "FEA practical illustration of mesh-quality-results differences between structured mesh and unstructured mesh", ISRN Mech. Eng., 2012, 1-7. https://doi:10.5402/2012/168941.
  19. Jin, A.Y., Pan, J.W., Wang, J.T. and Zhang, C. (2019), "Effect of foundation models on seismic response of arch dams", Eng. Struct., 188(1), 578-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.048.
  20. Leger, P. and Boughoufalah, M. (1989), "Earthquake input mechanisms for time-domain analysis of damfoundation systems", Eng. Struct., 11(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(89)90031-X.
  21. Lemos, J.V. (2012), Modelling the Failure Modes of Dams'Rock Foundations, Chapter 14, Italy.
  22. Mirzabozorg H. (2014), Final Report on Structural Study of Heightening Normal Level of Shahid Abbaspour Arch Dam, 2nd Edition, Power Ministry, Tehran, Iran. (in Persian)
  23. Mirzabozorg, H., Ghaemian, M., Noorzad, A. and Abbasi Zoghi, M. (2007), "Dam-reservoir-foundation interaction effects on nonlinear seismic behavior of concrete gravity dams using damage mechanics approach", Int. J. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Seismol. (EEE), 3, 52-60.
  24. Owen, S.J. (1998), "A survey of unstructured mesh generation technology", Proceedings of the 7th International Meshing Roundtable, Dearborn, Michigan, USA, May.
  25. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEER) (2016), PEER Ground Motion Database, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
  26. Pan, J., Zhang, C., Wang, J. and Xu, Y. (2009), "Seismic damage-cracking analysis of arch dams using different earthquake input mechanisms", Sci. China Ser. E: Technol. Sci., 52(2), 518-529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-008-0303-6.
  27. Ramezani, O., Mirzabozorg, H., Roohezamin, A.H. and Alimohammadi, M. (2017), "Critical time determination and solar radiation effect investigation of arch dams through mathematical and experimental thermal analysis", Dam Eng. J., XXVII(4), 1-38.
  28. Ramos, A. and Simoes, J.A. (2006), "Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modeling of the proximal femur", Med. Eng. Phys., 28(9), 916-924. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.12.006.
  29. Saouma, V., Hansen, E. and Rajagopalan, B. (2001), "Statistical and 3D nonlinear finite element analysis of Schlegeis dam", Proceedings of the Sixth ICOLD Benchmark Workshop on Rumerical Analysis of Dams, Austria, October.
  30. Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J. and Seed, H.B. (1972), SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites, UCB/EERC-72/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center , University of California, Berkeley.
  31. Sevim, B., Altunisik, A.C. and Bayraktar, A. (2014), "Construction stages analyses using time dependent material properties of concrete arch dams", Comput. Concrete, 14(5), 599-612. http://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2014.14.5.599.
  32. Sooch, G.S. and Bagchi, A. (2012), "Effect of seismic wave scattering on the response of dam-reservoir-foundation systems", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, September.
  33. USACE (2007), Earthquake Design and Evaluation of Concrete Hydraulic Structures, Report No: EM 1110-2-6053, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
  34. USBR (2002), Static and Dynamic Linear Elastic Structural Analysis, (EACD3D96), Morrow Point Dam, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.
  35. Vezi, M. (2014), "Dynamic modelling of arch dams in the ambient state", PhD Dissertation, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
  36. Wang, E., Nelson, T. and Rauch, R. (2004), "Back to elements - tetrahedral vs. hexahedral", Proceedings of the International ANSYS Conference, ANSYS Pennsylvania.
  37. Weingarten, V.I. (1994), "The controversy over hex or tet meshing", Mach. Des., 66(8), 74-77.
  38. Ziaolhagh, S.H., Goudarzi, M. and Sani, A.A. (2016), "Free vibration analysis of gravity dam-reservoir system utilizing 21 node-33 Gauss point triangular elements", Coupl. Syst. Mech., 5(1), 59-86. http://doi.org/10.12989/csm.2016.5.1.059.