torul dam

8/6/2019 torul dam

1/19

Nonlinear Dyn (2009) 58: 655673DOI 10.1007/s11071-009-9508-x

O R I G I N A L PA P E R

Comparison of near- and far-fault ground motion effect

on the nonlinear response of damreservoirfoundationsystems

Alemdar Bayraktar Ahmet Can Altunisik

Bars Sevim Murat Emre Kartal Temel Trker

Yasemin Bilici

Received: 27 October 2007 / Accepted: 3 April 2009 / Published online: 17 April 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract In this paper, it is aimed to compare thenear- and far-fault ground motion effects on the non-linear dynamic response of dams including damreservoirfoundation interaction. Two different typesof dams, which are concrete arch and concrete facedrockfill dams, are selected to investigate the near- andfar-fault ground motion effects on the dam responses.The behavior of reservoir water is taken into accountusing Lagrangian approach. The DruckerPrager ma-terial model is employed in nonlinear analyses. Near

and far-fault strong ground motion records, whichhave approximately identical peak ground accelera-

A. Bayraktar () A.C. Altunisik B. Sevim T. Trker Y. BiliciDepartment of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz TechnicalUniversity, 61080, Trabzon, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

A.C. Altunisike-mail: [email protected]

B. Sevime-mail: [email protected]

T. Trkere-mail: [email protected]

Y. Bilicie-mail: [email protected]

M.E. KartalDepartment of Civil Engineering, Zonguldak KaraelmasUniversity, 67100, Zonguldak, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

tions, of Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake are selectedfor the analyses. Displacements, maximum and min-imum principal stresses are determined using the fi-nite element method. The displacements and principalstresses obtained from the analyses of dams subjectedto each fault effect are compared with each other. Itis clearly seen that there is more seismic demand ondisplacements and stresses when the dam is subjectedto near-fault ground motion.

Keywords Concrete arch dam Concrete facedrockfill dam Damreservoirfoundation interaction DruckerPrager model Far fault ground motion Finite element method Near fault ground motion

1 Introduction

Near fault ground motions recorded in recent majorearthquakes (1999 Taiwan Chi-Chi, 1989 Loma Pri-

eta, 1994 US Northridge and 1995 Japan Hyogoken-Nanbu) are characterized by a ground motion withlarge velocity pulse. It produces high input energy onstructures in the beginning of the earthquake. Com-parison of the near-fault strong ground motion veloc-ities with far-fault strong ground motions is shown inFig. 1. These pulses are strongly influenced by the ori-entation of the fault, the direction of slip on the faultand the location of the recording station relative tothe fault which is termed as directivity effect due
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/6/2019 torul dam

2/19

8/6/2019 torul dam

3/19

Comparison of near- and far-fault ground motion effect on the nonlinear response 657

Table 1 Properties of selected near-fault and far-fault ground motion records

Ground Motion Earthquake Station PGA PGV PGV/PGA Mw Distance to fault

1989 (m/s2) (cm/s) (s) (km)

Near-fault Loma Prieta CLS090 0.48 g 45.2 0.10 7.1 5.1

Far-fault Loma Prieta CYC285 0.48 g 39.7 0.08 7.1 21.8

Fig. 2 The time-historiesof near-fault ground motionacceleration, velocity andresponse spectra for 1989Loma Prieta earthquake

and PGV/PGA values are depicted in Table 1. The

ground motion records are obtained from the PEERStrong Motion Database [38]. The databases have in-formation on the site conditions and the soil type forthe instrument locations.

The acceleration and velocity time-histories andalso the acceleration response spectra of the eastwestcomponent of the near-fault ground motion recordedat station CLS090 are shown in Fig. 2. The far-fault ground motion acceleration, velocity and spec-tra recorded at station CYC285 are shown in Fig. 3

for comparison. The velocity pulse of the near-fault

ground motion seems significantly different as com-pared to the far-fault ground motion. The near-fault

ground motion possesses significantly long period ve-

locity pulse. The long period response of the near-fault

ground motion is more excessive than the one of the

far-fault ground motion.

In order to investigate the near- and far-fault effects

on the response of damreservoirfoundation systems,

the earthquake analyses of the dams are performed.

8/6/2019 torul dam

4/19

658 A. Bayraktar et al.

Fig. 3 The time-historiesof far-fault ground motionacceleration, velocity andresponse spectra for 1989Loma Prieta earthquake

Fig. 4 The sight ofmagnitudedistancedistribution

The Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake was recordedwith the magnitude of 7.1 and this magnitude is thesame for both records considered in this study. Thedistance of the recording site from the source is rangedfrom 5.10 to 21.8 km. A scatter plot of the magnitudedistance pair for the records of strong ground mo-

tions is shown in Fig. 4. The record characterizingnear-fault ground motion is obtained from the dis-tance less than 10 km to epicenter and the otherrecord characterizing far-fault ground motion is ob-tained from the distance more than 10 km to epicen-ter.

8/6/2019 torul dam

5/19


4 Numerical examples

This paper is focused on comparison of near- andfar-fault strong ground motion effects on the earth-quake response of dams including damreservoirfoundation interaction. This is achieved by perform-ing nonlinear transient analyses considering the La-

grangian (displacement-based) approach. For this pur-pose, two finite element models belong to Type-5 archdam and Torul CFR dam are used in numerical analy-ses.

The finite element method is used to investigatethe nonlinear dynamic response of the dams and tocompare the near- and far-fault effect on dam be-havior. The dam and foundation are represented bysolid elements and the reservoir water is representedby fluid elements in all finite element models usingANSYS software [39] which includes solid and 2D

and 3D contained fluid elements, fluidstructure in-teractions, material nonlinearity and transient analy-sis. Plane42 element is used for dam and foundationand Fluid79 element is used to define reservoir wa-ter in the finite element model of Torul CFR dam.In addition, Solid45 element is used to represent thedam and foundation, and Fluid80 element is used for

reservoir water in the finite element model of Type-5arch dam. In the selection of the finite elements, it isconsidered that stressstrain relationship of the fluidelements was suitable with the Lagrangian approachgiven in the literature [30, 3337]. In this study, ma-terial nonlinearity based on DruckerPrager model isconsidered for dam and foundation soil in finite ele-ment analyses. The DruckerPrager model is widelyused for frictional materials such as rock and con-crete. The cohesion and the angle of internal frictionof dam and foundation soil materials form the mate-rial constants of the convenient yield function of theDruckerPrager model. These parameters are definedin the finite element analyses. Also, in the time do-main analyses, Newmark Algorithm is used to ob-tain nonlinear response of damfoundationreservoirsystems. The DruckerPrager model is considered fordam and foundation soil. Massless foundation is usedin all finite element models. At the reservoirdamand reservoirfoundation interfaces, coupling lengthis chosen as 0.001 m. The main objective of the cou-plings is to hold equal the displacements between tworeciprocal nodes in direction normal to the interface.The length of the reservoir and foundation in the up-stream direction is taken three times that of the dam

Fig. 5 The plan view and vertical crown cross section of Type-5 arch dam

8/6/2019 torul dam

6/19


height in all finite element models. Reservoir depth is

assumed to be constant. In addition, the depth of the

foundation of the models is taken into account as the

dam height. In the downstream direction, the length of

the foundation is considered as the dam height. Ele-ment matrices are computed using the Gauss numeri-

cal integration technique [30]. Damping ratios of up to10% should generally be allowed only in dams show-

Fig. 6 3D finite element mesh model of Type-5 arch dam

ing energy dissipation through joint opening and ten-

sion cracking. In concrete dams constructed on com-

petent rock, where cracking of the concrete does not

occur, the viscous damping ratio is usually assumed to

be 5% of the critical value [40]. The Rayleigh dampingin the analyses is considered to be 5%.

4.1 Earthquake response of Type-5 arch dam

In this part of the study, a double curvature Type-5

arch dam suggested in Arch Dams symposium in

England in 1968 is selected [41]. Type-5 arch dam

model is developed considering reservoir and foun-

dation. The geometric properties and 3-D model of

Type-5 arch dam are given in Fig. 5.

The height of the dam is 120 m and the computed

thickness of the dam at the crest and base is 5.35 m and

23.35 m, respectively. 3D and 2D finite element mesh

models of Type-5 arch dam are given in Figs. 67.

There are three unknown displacements at each nodal

point in the dam, foundation and reservoir finite ele-

ment model. The values of the material properties used

for the dam model are presented in Table 2.

Fig. 7 2D finite elementmesh model of Type-5 arch

dam

Table 2 The material properties of Type-5 arch dam

Material Material Properties

Modulus of Poissons Mass per Cohesion Friction

Elasticity Ratio Unit Vol. MPa Angle

MPa kg/m3

Dam (Concrete) 3.310E4 0.152 2476 2.0 35

Foundation 2.100E4 0.3 2.0 35

Reservoir Water 0.207E4 1000

8/6/2019 torul dam

7/19


Fig. 8 The time-historiesof the horizontaldisplacements at the crest ofType-5 arch dam

4.1.1 Displacements

The time-histories of the horizontal displacements(upstreamdownstream direction) at the crest pointof Type-5 arch dam obtained from nonlinear analy-sis for both ground motions are presented in Fig. 8.The maximum displacements at this point for LomaPrieta near- and far-fault ground motions occurred as11.1 cm and 9.71 cm, respectively. As it is seen fromFig. 8 the displacements that resulted from near-faultground motion are higher than the ones resulted fromfar-fault ground motion.

The variation of displacements by the height ofType-5 arch dam subjected to Loma Prieta 1989 earth-quake ground motions is shown in Fig. 9. It can be eas-ily seen from Fig. 9 that the horizontal displacementsincrease along the height of the dam and those corre-sponding to near-fault ground motion are the highest.

Figure 10 points out the contours of maximum hori-zontal displacement corresponding to both earthquakeground motions. These displacement contours repre-

sent the distribution of the peak values reached by themaximum displacement at each point within the sec-tion. It can be seen that maximum displacements takeplace at the crest of the arch dam for each record ofthese earthquakes.

4.1.2 Principal stresses

The maximum and minimum principal stresses at sec-tions II, IIII and IIIIII in Fig. 7 are respectively

Fig. 9 Maximum horizontal displacements along the height ofType-5 arch dam

given for both ground motions in Figs. 1113. Themaximum and minimum principal stresses resultedfrom Loma Prieta earthquake are yielded in Table 3.

At all sections, it can be seen that maximum and min-imum principal stresses are generally higher for near-fault ground motion.

The time-histories of the maximum and minimumprincipal stresses of Type-5 arch dam subjected tonear- and far-fault ground motions of Loma Prieta1989 earthquake, respectively, are demonstrated inFig. 14. It is clear that the highest maximum and min-imum principal stresses occur under near-fault groundmotion effects.

8/6/2019 torul dam

8/19


Fig. 10 Maximumdisplacement contours ofType-5 arch dam

Fig. 11 The maximum andminimum principal stressesat section II of Type-5 archdam subjected to near- andfar-fault ground motions

8/6/2019 torul dam

9/19


Fig. 12 The maximum andminimum principal stressesat section IIII of Type-5arch dam subjected to near-and far-fault groundmotions

Fig. 13 The maximum andminimum principal stressesat section IIIIII of Type-5

arch dam subjected to near-and far-fault groundmotions

Table 3 The max. compression and tensile principal stresses obtain from Type-5 arch dam

Earthquake II IIII IIIIII

(Loma Prieta 1989) MCPS* MTPS** MCPS MTPS MCPS MTPS

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

Near-fault 7.33 7.44 11.19 9.84 7.82 6.31

Far-fault 4.92 6.18 7.07 9.99 4.37 6.76

*MCPS: Maximum Compression Principal Stress**MTPS: Maximum Tensile Principal Stress

Figures 15 and 16 show the contours of maxi-

mum and minimum principal stresses corresponding

to near- and far-fault ground motions, respectively.

These stress contours represent the distribution of the

peak values reached by the maximum principal stress

at each point within the section. It is obvious that max-

imum and minimum principal stresses appear at thecrest of the dam for both ground motions.

4.2 Earthquake response of Torul Concrete FacedRockfill dam

Torul CFR dam, located approximately 14 km north-west of Torul, Gmshane, is constructed in 2008

8/6/2019 torul dam

10/19


Fig. 14 The time-historiesof maximum and minimumprincipal stresses of Type-5arch dam subjected to near-and far-fault groundmotions

by General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works

(Fig. 17) [42]. It is established on the Harsit River.

This dam was projected as a concrete faced rockfill

dam. The dam crest is 320 m in length and 12 m wide,

and the maximum height and base width are 142 m

and 420 m, respectively. The dam consists of a con-

crete face slab, 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D zones from

upstream to downstream. The 2D largest cross section

and some dimensions of the dam are shown in Fig. 18.In this study, the contact allowing slippage is consid-

ered in concrete slabrockfill interface using interface

elements.

The finite element model including damreservoir

foundation interaction of Torul CFR dam is shown in

Fig. 19.

The material properties used in the finite element

model of Torul CFR dam are shown in Table 4 [42].

4.2.1 Displacements

The time-histories of horizontal displacements at thecrest point of Torul CFR dam obtained from nonlin-ear analyses for both ground motions are presented inFig. 20. The maximum displacements at this point forLoma Prieta near- and far-fault ground motions occuras 18.5 cm and 10.6 cm, respectively. It is clear thatmaximum displacements occurred as a redult of near-

fault ground motion.The variation of the horizontal displacements along

the height of Torul CFR dam for near- and far-faultground motions of 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake isshown in Fig. 21. It can be seen that the horizon-tal component of the displacements increases by theheight of the dam, and maximum displacement occursat the top of the dam. It should also be indicated thatthere is more seismic demand on displacements whenthe dam is subjected to near-fault ground motion.

8/6/2019 torul dam

11/19


Fig. 15 Maximum andminimum principal stresscontours of Type-5 archdam subjected to near-faultground motion

Figure 22 shows the contours of maximum horizon-tal displacements corresponding to both ground mo-tions. These displacement contours represent the dis-tribution of the peak values reached by the maximumdisplacement at each point within the section.

4.2.2 Principal stresses

The maximum and minimum principal stresses at thesections II, IIII, and IIIIII in Fig. 18 for each recordof the earthquake are shown respectively in Figs. 2325. The maximum and minimum principal stresses at-tained from near- and far-fault ground motion of 1989Loma Prieta earthquake are given in Table 5. It is seenthat maximum and minimum principal stresses are re-

vealed by the near-fault ground motion, and their val-

ues are higher on concrete slab at the section II. At all

sections, maximum and minimum principal stresses

are higher for near-fault ground motion than far-fault.

The time-histories of the maximum and minimum

principal stresses of Torul CFR dam are plotted inFig. 26. It is clear that near-fault ground motion is

more influential on both principal stress components,

particularly in the middle region of the selected time

interval.

It can be seen that the maximum and minimum

principal stresses occur at the foundation of the con-

crete slab for each record of the earthquake. Also, prin-

cipal stress contours point out that there are more seis-

8/6/2019 torul dam

12/19


Fig. 16 Maximum andminimum principal stresscontours of Type-5 archdam subjected to far-faultground motion

Fig. 17 The pictures of Torul CFR dam [53]

8/6/2019 torul dam

13/19


Fig. 18 2 D largest crosssection of Torul CFRdam [53]

Fig. 19 2D finite elementmodel of Torul CFR dam

Table 4 The material properties of Torul CFR dam

Material *Dmax Material Properties

(mm) Modulus of Poissons Mass per Cohesion Friction

Elasticity Ratio unit Vol. MPa Angle

MPa kg/m3

Concrete 3.420E4 0.18 2395.5 2.5 45

2A (filling with sifted rock or alluvium) 150 1.400E4 0.26 2905.2 2.4 45

3A (filling with selected rock) 300 1.350E4 0.26 2854.2 2.4 45

3B (filling with quarry rock) 600 1.250E4 0.26 2833.8 2.4 45

3C (filling with quarry rock) 1000 1.150E4 0.26 2803.3 2.4 45

3D (selected rock) 2000 1.100E4 0.26 2752.3 2.4 45

Foundation (volcanic tufa) 1.050E4 0.40 2.4 45

Foundation (limestone) 1.250E4 0.40 2.4 45

Reservoir Water 0.207E4 1000

*Maximum particle size

8/6/2019 torul dam

14/19


Fig. 20 The time-historiesof horizontal displacementsat the crest of Torul CFRdam

Fig. 21 Maximum horizontal displacements along the height ofTorul CFR dam

mic demand on stresses when the dam is subjected tonear-fault ground motion.

Contours of maximum and minimum principalstresses corresponding to near- and far-fault earth-quake ground motions are given in Figs. 27 and 28,respectively. These stress contours represent the dis-tribution of the peak values reached by the maximumprincipal stress at each point within the section. It isobvious from these figures that the maximum and min-imum principal stresses occur at the base of the con-crete slab for each record of the earthquake. Also, the

principal stress contours point out that there is moreseismic demand on minimum principal stresses whenthe dam is subjected to near-fault ground motion.

5 Conclusion

The comparison of near- and far-fault ground motion

effects on the nonlinear dynamic behavior of dams in-volving damreservoirfoundation interaction is stud-ied in this paper. Nonlinear transient analyses are per-formed according to DruckerPrager material modelfor Type-5 arch dam and Torul CFR dam. Reservoireffects are also considered using Lagrangian approach.

It is concluded from the study that the displace-ments increase along the height of each dam type forboth ground motions. The maximum and minimumprincipal stresses have a decreasing trend along theheight from bottom to top of Torul CFR dam. How-

ever, the maximum and minimum values of principalstresses are obtained at 30 m above the base of thedams. The maximum and minimum principal stresseshave an increasing trend by height from bottom to topof Type-5 arch dam, and peak values are obtained attop of the dam.

Performed nonlinear analyses refer that there ismore seismic demand on displacements when the damis subjected to near-fault ground motion. The horizon-tal displacements, which resulted as maximum at the

8/6/2019 torul dam

15/19


Fig. 22 Maximumdisplacement contours ofTorul CFR dam

Fig. 23 The maximum andminimum principal stressesat the section II of TorulCFR dam subjected to near-and far-fault groundmotions

Fig. 24 The maximum andminimum principal stressesat the section IIII of TorulCFR dam subjected to near-and far-fault groundmotions

8/6/2019 torul dam

16/19


Fig. 25 The maximum andminimum principal stressesat the section IIIIII ofTorul CFR dam subjected tonear- and far-fault groundmotions

Fig. 26 The time-historiesof maximum and minimumprincipal stresses of TorulCFR dam subjected to near-

and far-fault groundmotions

crest of the dams, are greater for near-fault ground mo-

tion effects. Moreover, the near-fault ground motion is

generally influential on principal stress components as

well. It should be clarified that the near-fault ground

motion effects appear for the duration of the earth-

quake. It is also seen that the maximum displacements

and principal stresses do not occur at any time when

the near-fault earthquake has peak acceleration value.

8/6/2019 torul dam

17/19


Fig. 27 Maximum andminimum principal stresscontours of Torul CFR damsubjected to near-faultground motion

Fig. 28 Maximum and

minimum principal stresscontours of Torul CFR damsubjected to far-faultground motion

8/6/2019 torul dam

18/19


Table 5 The max principal compression and tensile stresses obtained from Torul CFR dam

Earthquake II IIII IIIIII

(Loma Prieta 1989) MCPS* MTPS** MCPS MTPS MCPS MTPS

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

Near-fault 31.34 2.44 19.67 2.39 31.67 2.44

Far-fault 17.08 2.35 10.01 2.35 17.32 2.35

*MCPS: Maximum Compressive Principal Stress

**MTPS: Maximum Tensile Principal Stress

According to this study, the earthquake record ofthe near-fault ground motion, forming of the combina-tion of numerous waves, has remarkable effect on thenonlinear earthquake response of the dams. In the fol-lowing studies related to the earthquake responses ofengineering structures such as dams, bridges, tunnels

and buildings, in order to obtain more realistic results,the near-fault ground motion records should be takeninto account.

References

1. Agrawal, A.K., He, W.-L.: A closed-form approximation ofnear-fault ground motion pulses for flexible structures. In:15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, New York(2002)

2. Bray, J.D., Marek, A.R.: Characterization of forward-

directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. SoilDyn. Earthq. Eng. 24, 815828 (2004)

3. Somerville, P.G.: Magnitude scaling of the near-fault rup-ture directivity pulse. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 137, 201212 (2003)

4. Megawati, K., Higashihara, H., Koketsu, K.: Derivation ofnear-source ground motions of the 1995 Kobe (Hyogo-kenNanbu) earthquake from vibration records of the AkashiKaikyo Bridge, and its implications. Eng. Struct. 23, 12561268 (2001)

5. Wang, G.-Q., Zhou, X.-Y., Zhang, P.-Z., Igel, H.: Char-acteristics of amplitude and duration for near-fault strongground motion from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake.Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 22, 7396 (2002)

6. Pulido, N., Kubo, T.: Near-fault strong motion complex-ity of the 2000 Tottori earthquake (Japan) from a broad-band source asperity model. Tectonophysics 390, 177192(2004)

7. Makris, N.: Rigidity-plasticity-viscosity: can electrorheo-logical dampers protect base-isolated structures from near-source ground motions? Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26, 571591 (1997)

8. Chopra, A.K., Chintanapakdee, C.: Comparing response ofSDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motionsin the context of spectral regions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.30, 17691789 (2001)

9. Bertero, V.V., Mahin, S.A., Herrera, R.A.: A seismic de-sign implications of near-fault San Fernando earthquakerecords. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 6, 3142 (1978)

10. Hall, J.F., Heaton, T.H., Halling, M.W., Wald, D.J.: Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings.Earthq. Spectra 11, 569605 (1995)

11. Corigliano, M., Lai, C.G., Barla, G.: Seismic response of

rock tunnels in near-fault conditions. In: First EuropeanConference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,Geneva, Switzerland, 38 September, 2006

12. zturk, B.: A simple procedure for the assessment of seis-mic drift response of building structures located in seis-mically active and near-fault regions. In: First EuropeanConference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,Geneva, Switzerland, 38 September, 2006

13. Ghahari, F., Jahankhah, H., Ghannad, M.A.: The effectof background record on response of structures subjectedto near-fault ground motions. In: First European Confer-ence on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva,Switzerland, 38 September, 2006

14. Galal, K., Ghobarah, A.: Effect of near-fault earthquakes

on North American nuclear design spectra. Nucl. Eng. Des.236, 19281936 (2006)

15. Dicleli, M., Buddaram, S.: Equivalent linear analysis ofseismic-isolated bridges subjected to near-fault ground mo-tions with forward rupture directivity effect. Eng. Struct.29, 2132 (2007)

16. Liao, W.-I., Loh, C.-H., Lee, B.-H.: Comparison of dy-namic response of isolated and non-isolated continuousgirder bridges subjected to near-fault ground motions. Eng.Struct. 26, 21732183 (2004)

17. Liao, W.-I., Loh, C.-H., Wan, S.: Earthquake responsesof moment frames subjected to near-fault ground motions.Struct. Des. Tall Build. 10, 219229 (2001)

18. Malhotra, P.K.: Response of buildings to near-fault pulse-

like ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28, 13091326 (1999)

19. Chandler, A.M., Lam, N.T.K.: Scenario predictions for po-tential near-fault and far-fault earthquakes affecting HongKong. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 22, 2946 (2002)

20. Bhasker Rao, P., Jangid, R.S.: Performance of sliding sys-tems under near-fault motions. Nucl. Eng. Des. 203, 259272 (2001)

21. Sarkar, I., Hamzehloo, H., Khattri, K.N.: Estimation ofcausative fault parameters of the Rudbar earthquake of June20, 1990 from near-fault SH-wave data. Tectonophysics364, 5570 (2003)

8/6/2019 torul dam

19/19


22. Bayraktar, A., Hancer, E., Dumanoglu, A.A.: Comparisonof stochastic and deterministic dynamic responses of grav-ity damreservoir systems using fluid finite elements. FiniteElem. Anal. Des. 41, 13651376 (2005)

23. Bayraktar, A., Haner, E., Akkse, M.: Influence of base-rock characteristics on the stochastic dynamic response ofdamreservoirfoundation systems. Eng. Struct. 27, 14981508 (2005)

24. Zienkiewicz, O.C., Nath, B.: Earthquake hydrodynamicpressures on arch damsan electric analogue solution.Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 25, 165176 (1963)

25. Chopra, A.K., Chakrabarti, P.: Earthquake analysis of con-crete gravity dams including damwaterfoundation rockinteraction. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 9, 363383 (1981)

26. Fenves, G., Chopra, A.K.: Earthquake analysis of con-crete gravity dams including reservoir bottom absorptionand damwaterfoundation rock interaction. Earthq. Eng.Struct. Dyn. 12, 663680 (1984)

27. Greeves, E.J., Dumanoglu, A.A.: The implementation of anefficient computer analysis for fluidstructure interactionusing the Eulerian approach within SAP-IV. Department ofCivil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol (1989)

28. Singhal, A.C.: Comparison of computer codes for seismicanalysis of dams. Comput. Struct. 38, 107112 (1991)

29. Greeves, E.J.: The modeling and analysis of linear and non-linear fluidstructure systems with particular reference toconcrete dams. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engi-neering, University of Bristol, Bristol (1991)

30. Calayr, Y., Dumanoglu, A.A., Bayraktar, A.: Earth-quake analysis of gravity damreservoir systems using theEulerian and Lagrangian approaches. Comput. Struct. 59,877890 (1996)

31. Bayraktar, A., Dumanoglu, A.A., Calayr, Y.: Asynchro-nous dynamic analysis of damreservoirfoundation sys-tems by the Lagrangian approach. Comput. Struct. 58, 925935 (1996)

32. Fenves, G., Chopra, A.K.: Earthquake analysis of con-crete gravity dams including reservoir bottom absorptionand damwaterfoundation rock interaction. Earthq. Eng.Struct. Dyn. 12, 663680 (1984)

33. Wilson, E.L., Khalvati, M.: Finite elements for the dynamicanalysis of fluidsolid systems. Int. J. Numer. MethodsEng. 19, 16571668 (1983)

34. Calayr, Y.: Dynamic Analysis of Concrete Gravity Damsusing the Eulerian and Lagrangian Approaches. Ph.D.Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey(1994) (in Turkish)

35. Bathe, K.J.: Finite Element Procedures in EngineeringAnalysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)

36. Clough, R.W., Penzien, J.: Dynamics of Structures.McGraw-Hill, New York (1975)

37. Akkas, N., Akay, H.U., Ylmaz, C.: Applicability ofgeneral-purpose finite element programs in solidfluid in-teraction problems. Comput. Struct. 10, 773783 (1979)

38. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre),http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/data (2006)

39. ANSYS, Swanson Analysis System, US (2003)40. FEMA, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Earthquake

Analyses and Design of Dams, May (2005)41. Dams, A.: A review of British research and development.

In: Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Institutionof Civil Engineers, London, England (1968)

42. DSI, General Directorate of State Hydraulic, Ankara,Turkey, http://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/ (2006)
http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/datahttp://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/http://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/data

Documents

torul dam