Transcript
State of Art in
Design and Analysis of
Concrete Gravity Dams
Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan Faculty of Engineering
Tanta University, Egypt
drbakenaz@yahoo.com
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
1
Faculty of Engineering – Tanta University
2014
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
2
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE
GRAVITY DAMS
Presentation Outline
Introduction to Gravity Dams
About Concrete Gravity Dams
Cases of Loading on Gravity Dams
Theoretical Approach Gravity Dams
Modeling of Gravity Dam
Analysis of Gravity Dams
Safety Criteria for Gravity Dams
Recent Trends in Gravity Dams
Summing up
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
3
INTRODUCTION
Many concrete gravity dams have been in service for over 50
years.
Older existing dams may fail to meet revised safety criteria
and structural rehabilitation.
The identified causes of failure, based on a study of over 1600
dams [1] are: foundation problems (40%), inadequate spillway
(23%), poor construction (12%), uneven settlement (10%),
and high pore pressure (5%), acts of war (3%), embankment
slips (2%), defective materials (2%), incorrect operation (2%),
and earthquakes (1%).
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
4
INTRODUCTION
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
5
Classification of Dams Worldwide
INTRODUCTION
STAGE I: PLANNING STUDIES
• Geography, geology, hydrology, construction materials,
STAGE II: Design
• Dam profile, loads determination, stability analysis, stress analysis, safety criteria
STAGE III:
Construction, operation, and maintenance
•Channel diversion, foundation treatment, concrete curing, construction joints, instrumentation, operation, maintenance
PLANNING STUDIES
5/13/2013
12
DR. BAKENAZ ZEDAN
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS
FOUNDATION STUDIES
MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
FACILITIES
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES
RESERVOIR OPERAION
STUDY
INTRODUCTION
Choice of Dam Geometry &
Material Properties
• H, B, hu, hd, hs, γc, γw, γs, α ….
Determination of Acting
Loads
• W , P , P , c u d
W Ps, Ws H, w
V, Phd , …….
Stability & Stress Analysis
• FSo, FSs, σheel, σtoe ,
σ1. σ2, σmax.
σmin, qmax ,…
DESIGN
STAGES
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
STABILITY ANALYSIS
Allowable F.O.S. against overturning
Allowable F.O.S. against forward
sliding
STRESS ANALYSIS
σmax ≤ max. allowable compression stress
for dam concrete
σmax ≤ max. allowable bearing stress for
dam foundation
σmin ≥ 0 .0 no tension is allowed
qmax ≤ max. allowable shear stress for dam
concrete
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
9
SAFETY CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
Channel diversion,
Foundation Treatment
Concrete Curing,
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
10
INTRODUCTION C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
Instrumentation
Operation
Maintenance
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
11
CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
12
CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
13
Figure 1: Different types of concrete dams (2).
Types of gravity dams: Gravity dams
Buttress dams Arch dams
CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
Basic Definitions
Length of the dam
Structural height of the dam
Max. base width of the dam
Toe and Heel
Hydraulic height of the dam
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
14
CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
Dam Concrete Static Properties (USBR)
• Strength
• Elastic Properties
• Thermal Properties
Dam Concrete Dynamic Properties
• Strength
• Elastic Properties
• Average Properties
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
15
CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
Average Properties (USBR)
Compressive strength- 3,000 to 5,000 Ibs/in2 (20.7 to 34.5 MPa)
Tensile strength- 5 to 6 % of the compressive strength
Shear strength: Cohesion-about 10% of the compressive strength
Coefficient of internal friction- 1.0
Poisson’s ratio- 0.2
Instantaneous modulus of elasticity- 5.0 x 106 lbs/in2 (34.5 GPa)
Sustained modulus of elasticity- 3.0 x 106 lbs/in2 (20.7 GPa)
Coefficient of thermal expansion- 5.0 x 10-6/“F (9.0 x l0-6PC)
Unit weight- 150 Ibs/ft3 (2402.8 kg/m3)
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
16
CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
Foundation Properties
• Deformation Modulus
• Shear Strength
• Pore Pressure and Permeability
• Treatment
• Compressive and Tensile Strength
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
17
CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS Criteria- Foundation data required for the analysis of a gravity dam (4):
The deformation modulus of each type of material
within the loaded area of the foundation.
The effects of joints, shears, and faults obtained by
direct (testing) or indirect (reduction factor) methods.
An effective deformation modulus.
The effective deformation moduli.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
18
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
Factors to be considered as contributing to the loading combinations for a gravity dam are: Reservoir & tail water loads Temperature Internal hydrostatic pressure Dead weight Wind Wave Ice Silt Earthquake
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
19
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
Static Loads:
Dead weight
Reservoir hydrostatic pressure
Tail water hydrostatic pressure
Uplift pressure
Sand and silt
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
20
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
21
Reduced Uplift Extreme Uplift
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
22
Seismic Loads
Dam Body
Horizontal Inertia/ Seismic Forces
Vertical Inertia/ Seismic Forces
Reservoir Body
Hydrodynamic Pressures
in Excess to Hydrostatic Pressures
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
Earthquake Excitation
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
23
TAFT GROUND MOTION, 1952
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
Seismic Loads
Horizontal and vertical accelerations are generated due to earthquake excitations which are not equal, horizontal being of greater intensity than vertical.
Earthquake acceleration ϋg is usually designated as a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity g and is expressed as:
• ϋg = α⋅g
• where α is called the Seismic Coefficient and
αh :Horizontal seismic coefficient = 1.5 α
αv : Vertical seismic coefficient = 0.75 α
Seismic force = M. ϋg = M. α⋅g = W. α
Horizontal inertia force H= W. αh
Vertical inertia force V = W. αv
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
24
GRAVITY DAM LOADS • Seismic Loads (Chopra 2012)
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
25
Nonlinear α
Constant α
Linear α
Spectrum
approximate
simplified
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
26
Seismic Loads
H
V
W
H
Inertia forces due to earthquakes
Horizontal inertia force H= W. αh
Vertical inertia force V = W. αv
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
27
Hydrodynamic Pressure Westergard Equation (1933)
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
Hydrodynamic Pressure Westergard Equation (1933)
The hydrodynamic pressure generated due to the horizontal movement of the water body in the
reservoir during earthquakes may to be calculated by:
P= Cs. γw.α.h
where:
P: Hydrodynamic Pressure
in KN/m2 depth y below reservoir surface
Cs : is a shape factor
γw : unit weight of reservoir water in KN/m3
α : seismic coefficient
h: reservoir depth (m)
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
28
GRAVITY DAM LOADS Load Combinations
1-Usual (Normal) 2-Unusual (Maximum) 3- Extreme ( Earthquake)
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
29
Stresses in Koyna Dam (Thailand) due to
Earthquake
Principal Stresses in a concrete gravity Dam
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
▫ Stability Criteria Accounts for :
Sliding stability
Tension stress
Compressive stress
Displacement
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
30
Figure 10: Simple dam model showing critical areas for compressive (blue), tensile (green) and sliding (red).
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
• Factors of Safety (USBR)
(1) Compressive stress.-
The maximum allowable compressive stress should in no case exceed:
” 1,500 lbs/in2 (10.3 MPa for “Usual Loading Combinations”.
“2,250 lbs/in2 (15.5 MPa) for “Unusual Loading Combinations”.
A safety factor greater than 1 for “Extreme Loading Combinations”.
Safety factors of 4.0, 2.7, and 1.3 should be used in determining
allowable compressive stresses in the foundation for “Usual,”
“Unusual,” and “Extreme Loading Combinations,”
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
31
GRAVITY DAM LOADS
• Factors of Safety (USBR)
(2) Tensile stress
The minimum allowable compressive stress computed without internal
hydrostatic pressure should
σz = p. γ. h – (ft/s)
where:
σz = minimum allowable stress at the face
p = a reduction factor to account for drains
γ = unit weight of water
h = depth below water surface
ft = tensile strength of concrete at lift surfaces
s = safety factor.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
32
THEORETICAL APPROACH
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
33
THEORETICAL APPROACH
Governing Equations The well-known Helmholtz equation governing the pressure p Zienkiewicz (2000) , Chopra (1967):
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
34
Ω (1)
where P is the acoustic hydrodynamic pressure; t is time and ∂ is the two-dimensional Laplace operator and C is the speed of pressure wave given by:
where
THEORETICAL APPROACH Boundary Conditions Dam-Reservoir Boundary
Reservoir-Foundation Boundary
Reservoir-Far-End Boundary
Free-Surface Boundary
P(x, y, z, t) = 0
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
35
MODELING OF CONCETE GRAVITY DAMS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
36
GRAVITY DAM MODELING
Mathematical Modeling
Analytical Modeling
Physical Modeling
Experimental setup
Numerical Modeling
Deterministic Modeling
Stochastic Modeling
MODELING OF CONCETE GRAVITY DAMS
ALALYTICAL MODELING
EXIMENTAL MODELING
NUMERICAL MODELING
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
37
MODELING OF CONCETE GRAVITY DAMS
• FEM Deterministic Modeling
• Monte Carlo Simulation
Probabilistic Modeling
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
38
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
39
FE Mesh
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.
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING FEM Formulation: Zienkiewicz (2000)
The standard Galerkin’s Finite Element technique in which the structure displacement vector is discretized as:
u= Nu 𝒖 , …………………….p= Np 𝒑
where 𝒖 and 𝒑 are the nodal parameters of each field and Nu and Np are appropriate shape functions. The discrete equations of the structure dynamic response following Galerkin method reads
M 𝒖 + C 𝒖 +K 𝒖 – Q 𝒑 + f =0 (7) In which M, C, K and f refer to mass matrix, damping matrix, stiffness matrix of the structure and prescribed
force vector respectively, where 𝒖 , 𝒖 and 𝒖 are displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors respectively. Standard Galerkin’s discretization applied to the fluid Equation (1) and its boundary conditions leads to [7]
S 𝒑 + ξ 𝒑 + H 𝒑 + QT 𝒖 + q = 0 (9)
in which S, ξ, H and q are pseudo fluid mass matrix, pseudo fluid damping matrix, pseudo fluid stiffness matrix and prescribed flux vector respectively . Q is a transform matrix and 𝒑 , 𝒑 and 𝒑 are nodal pressure vector, the first and second order derivatives of nodal pressure vector with respect to time, respectively.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
40
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
FEM Formulation: Zienkiewicz (2000)
The coupled equation of the fluid-structure-foundation system based on Equations (7) and (9) subjected to earthquake ground motion can be presented as follows:
In which represents the nodal ground acceleration vector.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
41
+
(11)
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
• Dam - Reservoir –Foundation Coupling System
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
42
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
Dam-Reservoir Coupling System
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
43
Interface Elements
• Imposing Line elements between fluid and concrete elements
Coincide nodes
• Coupling coincide nodes on the interface
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
Dam - Foundation Coupling System
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
44
Fixed Soil Foundation
Massless Soil Foundation
Mass soil Foundation
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
Assumptions:
Only the displacements in the direction normal to the interface are assumed to be compatible in the structure as well as the fluid.
The fluid is generally assumed to be linear-elastic, incompressible, irrotational and nonviscous.
2-D finite element model is implemented.
Absorption is considered at reservoir bottom.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
45
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
Assumptions:
A length of 2 to 3 times reservoir depth is recommended along with Summerfield boundary conditions.
The depth of foundation is taken about 1.5 the dam base width into account in the calculations.
The dam and foundation materials are assumed to be linear-elastic, homogeneous and isotropic.
The effect of foundation flexibility is considered as ratios i.e. modulus of elasticity of foundation to modulus of elasticity of dam Ef/Ec.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
46
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
47
Material Properties Sample
ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS Gravity Method 2-D rigid block dam. Linear base pressure distribution Simple dam geometry
FEM Method • 2-D, 3-D analysis • Complex dam geometry • Complex boundary conditions • linear/Nonlinear behaviour • Dam –reservoir interaction • Dam –foundation interaction • Crack analysis
Can be analyzed
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
48
ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
Modal Analysis and Natural Response
• The structural response of a material to different loads determines how it will be economically utilized in the design process.
• Earthquake is a major source of seismic forces that impinge on structures
• This necessitates the seismic analysis of concrete gravity dam
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
49
ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
50
Modal Analysis and Natural Response
Mode shapes for a gravity dam with empty reservoir
Mode shapes for a gravity dam with full reservoir
ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
Dynamic Analysis
• Dynamic analysis refers to analysis of loads whose duration is short with the first period of vibration of the structure.
• Dynamic methods are appropriate to seismic loading
because of the oscillatory nature of earthquakes, and the subsequent structural responses.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
51
ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
• Dynamic Analysis
The purpose of dynamic analysis is not to determine dam stability in a conventional sense, but rather to determine what damage will be caused during the earthquake, and then to determine if the dam can continue to resist the applied static loads in a damaged condition with possible loading changes due to increased uplift or silt liquefaction.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
52
ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
53
TAFT GROUND MOTION, 1952
Dynamic Analysis
Dynamic Analysis
Factors to Be Considered in Dynamic Analysis:
1. Hydrodynamic and reservoir bottom absorption
effects upstream ground motion.
2. Hydrodynamic effects upstream ground motion.
3. Reservoir bottom absorption effects upstream ground
motion.
4. Hydrodynamic and reservoir bottom absorption effects
vertical ground motion.
5. Water compressibility effects upstream ground
motion.
6. Foundation interaction effects upstream ground motion.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
54
Dynamic Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
55
Pseudo Dynamic Method (Quasi-static)
This procedure was developed by Pro. Anil Chopra as a hand calculated alternative to the more general analytical procedures which require computer programs
PINE FLAT DAM
Dynamic Analysis
• Pseudo Dynamic Method (Quasi-static)
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
56
Stress distribution in Pin Plate Dam after Chopra (2010)
Dynamic Analysis
• Response Spectrum Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
57
Dynamic Analysis Time History Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
58
Dynamic Analysis
Time History Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
59
DESIGN AND SAFETY CRITERIA
International Safety Regulation Codes United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)
“Design Of Gravity Dams Design” Design Manual For Concrete Gravity
Dams, 1976
Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety-Earthquake Analyses and Design of
Dams-May 2005
US Army Corps of Engineers -Engineering And Design – Gravity Dam
Design – 2000
Dam Safety Code – 2008 -Australian Capital Territory
Egyptian Code for Hydraulic Structures (Part 7)
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
60
DESIGN AND SAFETY CRITERIA
STABILITY ANALYSIS
Allowable F.O.S. against overturning
Allowable F.O.S. against forward
sliding
STRESS ANALYSIS
σmax ≤ max. allowable compression stress for
dam concrete
σmax ≤ max. allowable bearing stress for dam
foundation
σmin ≥ 0 .0 no tension is allowed
qmax ≤ max. allowable shear stress for dam
concrete
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
61
DESIGN AND SAFETY CRITERIA Recommended Minimum Sliding Stability Safety Factors
Dams having a high or significant hazard potential.
Loading Condition Factor of Safety Usual 3.0 Unusual 2.0 Post Earthquake 1.3
Dams having a low hazard potential.
Loading Condition Factor of Safety Usual 2.0 Unusual 1.25 Post Earthquake Greater than 1.0
Alternate Recommended Minimum Factors of Safety
Loading Condition Factor of Safety
Worst Static 1.5 Flood if Flood is PMF 1.3 Post Earthquake 1.3
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
62
DESIGN AND SAFETY CRITERIA
Sliding Stability Safety Factors
Overturning Stability Safety Factors
Cracked Base Criteria
Safety Factor Evaluation
Foundation Stability
Construction Materials
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
63
Recent Analysis Aspects
Fracture Analysis
Thermal Stress Analysis
Breach Analysis
Risk Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
64
Recent Analysis Trends
Fracture Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
65
Recent Analysis Trends
Thermal Stress Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
66
Recent Analysis Trends
Breach Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
67
Recent Analysis Trends
Risk Analysis
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
68
RISK ANALYSIS OF CONCRETE GRAVITY DAMS
Risks under Normal Operations
Risks under Flood Loading
Risks under Earthquake Loading
Accounting for Uncertainty
Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment
•
•
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
69
Relevant Case History
Austin (Bayless) Dam: 1911
Bouzey Dam: 1895
Koyna Dam: 1967
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
70
SUMMING UP Gravity dams are very important structures.
The collapse of a gravity dam due to earthquake ground motion may cause an
extensive damage to property and life losses.
Therefore, the proper design of gravity dams is an important issue in dam
engineering.
An integral part of this procedure is to accurately estimate the dam earthquake
response.
The prediction of the actual response of a gravity dam subjected to earthquake is a
very complicated problem.
It depends on several factors such as dam-foundation interaction, dam-water
interaction, material model used and the analytical model employed.
In fluid-structure interaction one of the main problems is the identification of the
hydrodynamic pressure applied on the dam body during earthquake excitation.
The analysis of dam-reservoir system is complicated more than that of the dam
itself due to the difference between the characteristics of fluid and dam's concrete
on one side and the interaction between reservoir and dam on the other side.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
71
Main References USBR (1976) “Design Criteria For Concrete Arch And Gravity Dams”.
Westergard, H. M. (1933). Water pressure on dams during earthquakes.
TRANSACTIONS ASCE Vol.98.
Chopra A.K. (1967). Hydrodynamic Pressure on dams during earthquakes”
Proc .ASCE , EM6.
Chopra A.K . (1970). Earthquake response Analysis of concrete gravity dams.
Proc. ASCE, EM4.
Zienkiewicz, 0.C. and Taylor, R.L. (2000) “The Finite Element Method”; 5th Edition
McGraw-Hill.
Zeidan, B. A. (2014) "Seismic Analysis of Dam-Reservoir-Foundation
Interaction for Concrete Gravity Dams", International Symposium on Dams in
Environmental Global Challenges" ICOLD2014, Bali, Indonesia, June 1ST - 6TH, 2014
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
72
Main References Fenves, G., And Chopra, A. K., (1985) “Effects Of Reservoir Bottom
Absorption And Dam-Water-Foundation Rock Interaction On
Frequency Response Functions For Concrete Gravity Dams”
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 13, 1985, Pp. 13-31.
Gaun F., Moore I.D. & Lin G. (1994) “Seismic Analysis of Reservoir-Dam-
Soil Systems in the Time Domain”, The 8th international conference on
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Siriwardane & Zaman
(Eds), Vol. 2, 917-922.
Ghaemian M., Noorzad A. & Moghaddam R.M. (2005) “Foundation Effect
on Seismic Response of Arch Dams Including Dam-Reservoir
Interaction”, Europe Earthquake Engineering, 3, 49-57.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
73
Main References US. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), (2003) “Time-History Dynamic Analysis of
Concrete Hydraulic Structures;” Chapter 2- Analytical Modeling of Concrete
Hydraulic Structures, Chapter 3-Time-History Numerical Solution Techniques”, EM 1110-
2-6051.
Lysmer J. & Kuhlemeyer R.L. (1969) “Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media”,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 95 (EM4), 859-877.
Wilson E.L. (2000) “Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of
Structures, A Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake
Engineering”, 4th Ed., Computers and Structures Inc.
Wolf J. P. (1985) “Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction”, Prentice Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Bakenaz A. Zeidan (2014) “Finite Element Modeling For Acoustic Reservoir-
Dam-Foundation Coupled System”, International Symposium on Dams in a Global
Environmental Challenges, ICOLD2014, Bali, Indonesia, 1-6 June, 2014.
1/24/2015 Dr. Bakenaz A. Zeidan
74
top related