INELASTIC DYNAMIC ANALYSIS FOR A CONCRETE FRAMED INTAKE TOWER SUBJECT TO EARTHQUAKE LOADINGS 1(*)

Nihal VITHARANA Principal Engineer, BSc(Eng)Hons, PhD(Struct.), MBA, PG-Dip(Geotech.) GHD Pty Ltd, Perth Priyan MENDIS Associate Professor, BSc(Eng)Hons, PhD (Struct.), MIE(Aust) University of Melbourne Jayanta SINHA Project Engineer, BSc(Eng), MTech, PhD (Geotech.), MIE(Aust) NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation AUSTRALIA

1. INTRODUCTION Burrendong Dam is located on the upper reaches of the Macquarie River approximately 450km west of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The Macquarie River rises in the Great Dividing Range west of Sydney. The dam was constructed in 1967. The dam has a water conservation storage of 1,188 GL and a flood mitigation storage of 490 GL controlled by seven 17m wide x 6m high spillway radial gates. The main embankment is 76m high and has a crest length of 1,116m. It is a zoned earth and rockfill type dam with a central impervious core and shoulders of different materials. The intake works comprise of a reinforced concrete tower connected to a 3.0m diameter steel penstock installed in a 8.2m diameter tunnel. The system is a bottom-outlet (single-level) offtake. Emergency closure is provided by a fixed wheel gate in the intake tower. The intake tower consists of 10-vertical reinforced concrete columns forming an internal diameter of 9m and an external diameter of 14m (Fig. 1a). These columns are inter-connected by circumferential ring beams acting as bracing members. The tower is 43m high from its foundation to the maintenance floor level. A cylindrical concrete tower of 14m height exists above the

Analyse de la dynamique inlastique dune prise deau en structures de bton assembls sujet des tremblements de terre dus aux chargements

(*)

maintenance floor level up to the hoist house floor level. Access to the tower is by an access bridge. The full-supply level is 37m above the tower foundation. 2. BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT STUDY Department of Land and Water Conservation has undertaken a program for assessing the seismic resistance ability of dams and associated structures. The ANCOLD Guidelines for Design of Dams for Earthquake [1] provides recommendations for all types of existing and new dams. Based on a screening level of analysis on a portfolio of intake structures, it was decided to carry out a detailed seismic assessment of the Burrendong intake tower. An inelastic dynamic analysis was recommended by the consultant, GHD Pty Ltd, to capture the energy dissipation due to the structures inelastic hysteresis behaviour resulting in reduced inertia forces. As the Burrendong Tower is a concrete framed structure, its behaviour is quite different from that of a cylindrical tower [2,3]. In particular, under extreme loadings, plastic hinges and yielding occur in different members at different times resulting in energy dissipation and reduced inertia loads. This beneficial effect is being recognised in some of the modern building standards, based on pioneering work by Park and Paulay [4]. This approach was adopted in the current study. 3. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA In the case of seismic loadings for intake towers [1], there is no specified annual probability of exceedence and this is to be determined by each dam owner considering the level of damage or consequence which is acceptable. In building design practice [8], the ultimate limit state earthquake loading is defined as the event with an Annual Exceedence Probability (AEP) of 1:452 years. An important facility at the dam is to release water in a controlled manner. If there has been an earthquake and the dam is damaged to the extent that the dam is not serviceable then it may be necessary to lower the storage so that remedial works can be undertaken. The appurtenant structures such as intake tower associated with the dams operation should maintain their normal operating condition after an Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE). For a more extreme earthquake up to the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE), these structures should not experience any damage to the extent where they could allow sudden or uncontrolled loss of water from the storage. A discussion of the selection of appropriate AEPs is beyond the scope of this paper. It was agreed to adopt an AEP of 1:500 for the Operating Basis Earthquake and an AEP of 1:10,000 for the Maximum Design Earthquake for the seismic assessment of the intake tower. The performance criteria adopted are: OBE: Under combined static and earthquake loads to induce maximum concrete and steel stresses to allowable values to avoid permanent deformations (ie, steel reinforcements not yielded) and the tower to remain stable.

MDE: Steel reinforcement can yield, concrete compression zone to be confined by well-detailed hoop reinforcement at high strain levels, and longitudinal bars to be prevented from buckling by hoop reinforcement. 4. INELASTIC DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES The important feature with inelastic behaviour is that the lateral inertia loads generated in the structure by the earthquake are much less than those given by an elastic dynamic analysis. This reduction has been attributed mainly to the ability of ductile structures to dissipate energy by postelastic deformations. To avoid collapse during severe earthquakes such as MDE, members must be ductile enough to absorb and dissipate energy by postelastic deformations. This philosophy is being introduced in modern concrete design standards and some details of these aspects can be found in [4]. The load reduction factor R is related to the displacement ductility factor of the structure :
R= Elastic response load = Re duced design load = u y

(1)

where u is the ultimate lateral deflection at the end of the postelastic range and y is the lateral deflection when yielding is first reached or the beginning of the inelastic behaviour. In the case of a reinforced concrete member, u may correspond to the crushing strain of concrete in compression (or a specified lower value) and y to the yielding of reinforcing steel. Eq. 1 indicates that the reduction in load is inversely proportional to the displacement ductility factor of the inelastic system and this was shown to be valid for structures with natural periods more than 0.40 secs. In other words, if a structure is designed for a reduced design load compared with the values given by an elastic analysis, the structure should be provided with a displacement ductility capacity greater than or equal to the load reduction factor R. 5. INELASTIC ANALYSIS APPROACH 5.1 STRUCTURAL MODEL

The structure was modelled as a 3-dimensional moment resisting frame consisting primarily of vertical columns and ring (circumferential) beams up to the maintenance floor level at 43m (Fig. 1). Cylindrical wall elements were used to model the upper portion above this level. A plan view showing the location of 10 vertical columns is also shown with typical section details.

The 3-dimensional non-linear analysis was performed using Program RUAUMOKO [10] which is one of the most popular programs for earthquake analysis. This is capable of carrying out inelastic time-history analysis of framed structures. For the current study, several purpose-written programs and spreadsheets were used to pre and post-process data. The stiffness of each member was modified at each time interval depending on displacement, x, and the direction of change in x (loading or unloading). The load-displacement relationship of structural elements is represented by their hysteresis loops which could be bilinear (elastic-perfectly plastic) or a much more complex one. 5.2 CONCRETE AND STEEL BEHAVIOURS

In particular, the inelastic behaviour under MDE requires a detailed estimate of the section capacity considering the stress-strain behaviour of longitudinal and hoop steel, confined (inner) concrete and unconfined (cover) concrete. In routine design of concrete members subject to gravity loads, concrete is assumed to be unconfined (ie, uniaxial compression) and maximum compressive strength is taken as the unconfined compressive strength [5] with corresponding strain of 0.003. Under seismic loadings, the other important parameter for ductility calculation is the ultimate compressive strain. It has been shown that even unconfined concrete can sustain strains as high as 0.008 before spalling [6]. When adequate transverse steel (ie, hoop steel) is provided, both compressive strength and ultimate compressive strains are enhanced due to the passive confinement provided by transverse steel to the core concrete. Therefore, structural elements subjected to high seismic loads should be provided with well-detailed transverse steel to achieve sustainable ductility under cyclic loading. They also prevent the buckling of longitudinal bars. Fig. 2 shows the stress-strain relationship for both confined and unconfined (cover) concrete. In the current analysis, the model proposed by Mander [7], based on strain energy principles, was used.

Fig 2 Confined and unconfined model for concrete in compression Model forces-contraintes pour bton coffr et non coffr sous compression

A strain-hardening model [4] was used to represents the actual behaviour of normal strength steel. The yield strength fy of reinforcing steel used in Burrendong Tower is 230 MPa. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT OF SECTION RESPONSES

With the above knowledge of individual stress-strength relationships of unconfined cover concrete, confined core concrete and steel, the section responses can be determined for a given concrete element. The concrete section was divided into a number of elements. Then the concrete and steel stresses were calculated for a given strain, direction of loading (loading or unloading). This enabled hysteresis loops to be developed for a given section. In the current study, the maximum allowable concrete strain was limited to 0.004 for both unconfined (cover) and confined (core) concrete. This is a very conservative approach as concrete softening would only commence at this strain level [6]. The cross sectional details of the critical members are given in Fig. 1. The concrete compressive strength fc = 25 MPa, Modulus of elasticity of concrete Ec = 25,000 MPa, Yield strength of steel fy = 230 MPa, Modulus of elasticity of steel = 200,000 MPa. 6. LOADING CONDITIONS 6.1. STRUCTURAL LOADS As the structure is submerged in water, the buoyant weight of structural members and trash screens were used for calculating the static loadings. For dynamic analysis, actual masses were used. 6.2. HYDRODYNAMIC MASS Hydrodynamic pressures were represented by an equivalent hydrodynamic mass. For enclosed structures such as cylindrical/rectangular towers, it is possible to calculate the hydrodynamic mass based on Chopras guidelines [9]. For a framed tower, the conventional practice, although conservative, would be to assume the frame tower to be an enclosed tower circumscribed by the trash screen slots and then use Chopras charts for inside and surrounding water, Fig. 3. The circumferential distribution of the hydro mass was assumed to be sinusoidal with the maximum mass on columns oriented in the earthquake direction. Analysis results presented in this paper are for the hydro mass with the assumption of an enclosed cylindrical tower (see Section 7.4 for a comparison with a refined hydrodynamic mass).

1.0 0.8 Height ratio (Z/H) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 Hydrodynamic mass (kg/m)

Surrounding water (Eau priphrique) Inside water (Eau intrieure)

Fig. 3 Distribution of hydrodynamic mass Distribution des masses hydrodynamiques

6.3. SEISMIC LOADING A site-specific seismic assessment was undertaken by an experienced seismologist for 100, 500 (OBE), 1,000 and 10,000 (MDE) return periods. For each return period, three accelerograms were specified to cover a range of seismic parameters with the recommendation to select the critical one based on the structural analysis. The analysis results from only the critical accelerogram are reported in this paper. Initial analyses were carried out with concurrent horizontal and vertical accelerograms and the results showed that the difference from the horizontal acceleration alone is insignificant for practical purposes. This is due to the difference in natural periods for flexural and axial responses resulting in a wide separation of vertical and lateral response peaks. 7. ANALYSIS RESULTS The natural periods of the structure for first five nodes were calculated and are 1.70, 0.95, 0.50, 0.47 and 0.45 secs. For the calculation of periods, elastic member properties were used in line with the conventional practice. The modal shapes did not show any unfavourable torsional deformations of the structure. 7.1 7.1.1. ACCELERATIONS AND DISPLACEMENTS Operating Basis Earthquake

The time-history of the ground accelerations associated with the critical accelerogram is shown in Fig. 4 with its Single-Degree-Of-Freedom (SDOF) acceleration and displacement spectra. The peak ground acceleration is .087g. As can be seen from the displacement spectra, the fundamental period (1.70 secs) is not in a peak region of the spectral displacement. The time-history of the tower top displacement is shown in Fig. 4d with the maximum value of 50mm occurring at 12.5 secs. The corresponding displacement at the bridge level is 30mm. The analysis showed no yielding of the structural members and the tower and its foundation is stable. Therefore, the

tower would return to its original static position after the earthquake (ie, no permanent deformation). 7.1.2. Maximum Design Earthquake

The time-history of the ground acceleration associated with the critical accelerogram is shown in Fig. 5 with the (SDOF) acceleration and displacement spectra. The peak ground acceleration is 0.18g. The time-history of the tower top displacement from the inelastic dynamic analysis is shown in Fig. 5d with a maximum displacement of 190mmm at 18.5 secs. In order to highlight the significance of the inelastic behaviour on the predictions, the tower was analysed as an elastic structure with the same earthquake. The maximum tower top displacement is 300mm which is a value much higher than that given by the inelastic analysis. This can be simply explained by looking at the displacement spectrum in Fig. 5a which shows a peak at the structure period (=1.70 secs) followed by a trough. The increase of period during the inelastic cycles would reduce the displacement. 7.2. SECTION CAPACITIES AND DUCTLITIES The moment-axial force interaction diagrams for the base column bending about its major principal axis is shown in Fig. 6a. These values were calculated at a maximum concrete strain equal to 0.004. (Section 5.3). In order to understand the ductile behaviour of the structural members with different axial loads, Fig. 6b shows two curvature ductility ratios: (1) Allowable curvature ratio = curvature at the allowable concrete strain of 0.004 divided by the yield curvature and (2) Ultimate curvature ratio = ultimate failure curvature the section can sustain divided by the yield curvature. These were calculated using the Manders model for confined concrete columns (Sections 5.2 and 5.3). For example, the maximum curvature demand (equal to .0021) was obtained at 18.3 secs for an axial load of 4,000 kN for Column 1 in the bottom most level in the direction of the earthquake. The allowable curvature is equal to 0.0095 and the section is therefore satisfactory. In order to show the improvement in the ductility with the existence of transverse steel (ratio = 0.003 for the columns), Fig. 6c shows the momentcurvature relationships with and without considering the confinement by the transverse steel for an axial compressive force of 10,000 kN. As can be seen, the transverse steel has increased the ultimate curvature (or strain) of the columns significantly with limited degradation of the peak ultimate moment. This highlights the need for considering the confinement from the transverse steel in predicting the behaviour of reinforced concrete structures subject to severe earthquakes.

7.3. MEMBER FORCES FROM ANALYSIS Fig. 7 shows the critical axial force and flexural moment values on columns in the earthquake direction (note that these values would not occur at the same time). Column 1 at the base has a maximum axial compressive force of 8,000 kN from the inelastic analysis. The corresponding axial force values from the elastic analysis are 14,000 kN (compressive) and 8,000 kN (tensile). If an

elastic analysis was carried out, it would have erroneously shown that the tower is unsafe.

7.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF HYDRODYNAMIC MASS Section 6.2 described the conventional assumptions behind the evaluation of the hydrodynamic mass. Hydrodynamic mass was also calculated for each frame member considering the orientation of each member. A significant difference of the mass was the result (60% reduction from the above cylinder assumption) with the columns in the earthquake direction carry less hydrodynamic mass due to their longitudinal orientation. The maximum displacement at the top of the tower with the MDE earthquake is only 115mm compared with 190mm from the inelastic analysis. Therefore, the conventional assumptions would be conservative in the case of concrete framed towers. 7.5. NEED FOR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS As a part of this study, three earthquake records were studied as recommended by the seismologist. The critical one was found to be the one with a peak ground acceleration (pga) =0.18g (note all the above results are presented for this accelerogram). One of the other earthquakes recommended has a pga of 0.45g. This gave a maximum tower top deflection of 60mm only compared with 190m. Member forces were also reduced in a similar proportion. This is due to the fact that 0.45g is a large pulse only. This comparison highlighted: (1) the need to move away from the myth that pga alone is always critical, (2) generic accelerograms should not be used and (3) several earthquakes should be considered to identify the critical earthquake due to uncertainty in earthquake data, typically for events exceeding AEPs of 1:1000. 8. CLOSURE This study showed that inelastic time-history analysis would help understanding the behaviour of intake towers subject to extreme earthquakes. The energy dissipation due to the ductile hysteresis behaviour reduces the inertia forces significantly. To estimate member responses accurately, a confined concrete model such as that developed in this study should be used. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Authors would like to acknowledge the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation for their permission to publish the paper. Thanks are also due to Mr Gideon Kusuma for carrying out the dynamic analyses and Ms Glennys Hebenton for formatting the text and figures. REFERENCES [1] [2] Australian National Committee on Large Dams, ANCOLD, (1998): Guidelines for Design of Dams for Earthquakes. Chopra, A.K. and Liaw, C.Y. (1974): Earthquake Resistant Design of Intake-Outlet Towers, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. ST7, pp.1349-1366.

[3]

American Concrete Institute, ACI 307-88 (1988): Standard Practice for the Design and Construction of Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Chimneys. [4] Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1974): Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 769. [5] AS3600 (1994): Concrete Structures, Standards Association of Australia. [6] Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988): Observed StressStrain Behaviour of Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, Aug 1988, pp. 1827-1849. [7] Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988): Theoretical StressStrain Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 8, Aug 1988, pp. 1804-1826. [8] AS 1170.4 (1993): Minimum Design Loads on Structures-Earthquake Loads, Standards Association of Australia. [9] Goyal, A. and Chopra, A.K. (1989): Simplified Evaluation of Hydrodynamic Mass for Intake Towers, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 115, No. 7, July 1989, pp. 1393-1412. [10] RUAUMOKO (2001): Computer Program to Derive Time-History Responses of Non-Linear 3-D Framed Structures, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.