See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279910939

Comparison of 2D and 3D Finite Element Analysis of Dams with

Foundation- Structure Interaction

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 2,585

6 authors, including:

M J Mahesh Ashok D. Pandey

CSIR Structural Engineering Research Centre Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
19 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rajarshi Das Seelam Anvesh

Hasselt University National Institute of Technology, Warangal
26 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lasteicon View project

INTERLINKING OF RIVERS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Seelam Anvesh on 05 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison of 2D and 3D Finite Element Analysis of
Dams with Foundation-Structure Interaction
M.J.Mahesh, A.D.Pandey, R. Das, S. Anvesh, Soumya and P. Saini
Department of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Uttarakhand

Abstract
Monolith of a concrete gravity dam inclusive of foundation are normally idealized as 2D structures for
analysis. However, for dams situated on a V-shaped valley or a canyon with stepped or tapered monolith,
the 2D idealization may not always be justified. The variation of stiffness along the length of the monolith
results in a differential displacement resulting in greater stress on the stiffer side of the monolith. A 3D
model of such a gravity dam monolith is compared with the corresponding 2D model using ANSYS.
Further, a modal analysis indicates the presence of out of plane modes in the case of 3D model, which
the 2D model could not represent. As a consequence, the 3D model shows higher stress than the 2D
for response spectrum analysis. It is recommended that, in such cases a judicious approach be adopted
and a parametric study be conducted to address the shortcomings.
Keywords: Finite element method, Gravity dam, Foundation-structure interaction, 3D analysis.

Introduction produced 11,305 nodes and 3,666 elements. The finite

element model of the dam-foundation system is shown
Dams are complex 3D structures. But mostly, simplifying
in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
assumptions that reduce it to a 2D entity is used. In the
case of a gravity dam of non-uniform area of cross-
section (e.g. Dams that are made in V-shaped valleys
or canyons), a 2D analysis of the tallest section is
normally considered to be a conservative approach. In
the present study, the results are compared between a
3D model of a monolith of varying area of cross-section
and a 2D model of the tallest section of that monolith[1].
Foundation-structure interaction is considered for the 2D
and 3D models. The aim being to compare the values
obtained from the two models, only gravity, hydrostatic,
modal and response spectrum analysis are considered.
Uplift and hydrodynamic loads whose effects being almost
Fig.1: 2D model of dam with foundation
similar to gravity and hydrostatic loads are neglected in
the present study.

Mathematical Model
2-Dimensional Model
The tallest section of the monolith was used for the 2D
analysis. A mass-less foundation of size equal to 1.5 times
the base width on either side and a depth of 1.5 times
the height of the dam was used[2-4]. Roller supports were
given on the three sides of the foundation. In a gravity
dam, all the loads and displacements being confined to
the same plane, a plain stress element with thickness
equal to the length of the monolith was used for 2D
modeling [3]. Element size of 2.5m and 7.5m was used for
meshing the dam and the foundation respectively which Fig. 2 : 2D model of dam

Volume 4 v No. 1 v January 2015 14

 Comparison of 2D and 3D Finite Element Analysis of Dams with Foundation-Structure Interaction 15

3-Dimensional Model participation factors and the modal mass in X, Y and Z

directions a modal analysis was performed. Response
A monolith of 60m length with varying cross-sectional area
spectra analysis was carried with acceleration applied in
was modelled using the 'solid95' element in ANSYS[4-7],
both the X (along base width) and Y (vertical) direction.
the length being along the Z-axis. Foundation size similar
The acceleration response spectrum shown in Fig. 5 was
to the 2D case was adopted. Element size of 4m for dam
used for analysis[9]. Square-Root of-Sum of-Squares
and 10m for foundation was used for meshing which
(SRSS) method[10] was used to combine the 30 modes
produced 2,50,217 nodes and 61,132 elements. The finite
used in the spectral analysis. Vertical stress, being one
element model of the dam-foundation system is shown
of the critical parameter was computed for all the above
in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
load cases for comparison of the two models.

Fig. 5 : Acceleration response spectra

Results and Discussions

Fig. 3 : 3D model of dam with foundation
Gravity Analysis
Maximum vertical stress was found to occur at the base
of the dam. Hence, the variation of the vertical stress
along the base of the dam are plotted for both the 2D
and 3D models in Fig. 6 (dist=0 in graph being the heel
of the dam). Maximum values of vertical stresses and
displacements along with their location are shown in Table
1. For both the displacements and vertical stresses, the
2D model gives higher value than 3D. This may be due
to the higher self weight of 2D model. Maximum stress
occurs in the tallest section in 3D as it is found to have
the maximum weight near to it.
Hydrostatic Analysis
Maximum values of tensile and compressive stress occur
at the heel and toe respectively. The shortest section
being more stiff, is subjected to higher stresses in the case
of 3D model. Variation of vertical stress along the base
of the dam are shown for both the 2D and 3D models in
Fig. 4 : 3D model of dam
Fig. 7 (dist=0 in graph is the heel of the dam). Maximum
Loads and Analysis values of the vertical stresses, horizontal displacements
and their locations are given in Table 2.The 2D model
Gravity (dead load), hydrostatic, modal and response gives higher values of displacements as it is less stiff than
spectra analysis were carried out separately on both the 3D. Higher value of compressive stress is obtained
the 2D and the 3D model[6-8]. Hydrostatic pressure was from 2D model, while 3D model gives a higher value
applied perpendicular to the upstream face of the dam of tensile stress (at the shorter section). This may be
with a magnitude equal to 1000×9.81×h N/m2, where h because, in the shorter section, the vertical component of
is the depth of the point considered from the free surface hydrostatic force is acting on a smaller area as compared
level in metres. To get the first 30 modal frequencies, to the 2D model.

Volume 4 v No. 1 v January 2015

16 incold Journal

(a) (a)

(b)
Fig. 6 : Variation of vertical stress in N/m2 at base due to
gravity; (a) For 2D model and (b) For 3D model at the taller
section
Table 1 : Maximum vertical stress and displacement
and their location for gravity analysis
(b)
Fig. 7 : Variation of vertical stress in N/m2 at Base due to
hydrostatic load; a) For 2D model and b) For 3D model at the
shortest section
Table 2 : Maximum vertical stress and horizontal
displacement and their location for hydrostatic analysis

2D Model 3D Model
2D Model 3D Model
Y Displacement (m) 0.059908 0.02968
Crest Crest X Displacement 0.08709 Crest 0.043454 Crest
(m) of taller section
Compressive stress (N/ 1.15E+07 1.12E+07 Compressive 6.68E+06 Crest 5.64E+06 Toe of
m2) Heel Heel stress in Y (N/ shorter section
Tensile Stress (N/m2) 4.25E+05 3.26E+05 m2)
Foundation Foundation Tensile Stress in 6.04E+06 Crest 8.61E+06
Y (N/m2) Heel of shorter
section

Volume 4 v No. 1 v January 2015

 Comparison of 2D and 3D Finite Element Analysis of Dams with Foundation-Structure Interaction 17

Modal Analysis direction while for 3D it was in Z direction. This may be

because, for 3D model base width varies from 130.53 to
The first three mode shapes for the 2D and the 3D model
88.649m while length of monolith (in Z direction) was only
are shown in Fig.8. The frequencies of the first 5 modes
60m. Hence the dam was less stiff along the Z direction,
are given in Table 3. Table 4 and Table 5 shows the modal
making it to be the first mode. Also for the 3D model,
participation factors for the 2D and 3D model respectively.
mode-5 was pure torsion.
First mode in case of 2D model was the deflection in X

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Fig. 8 : Mode shapes; (a) 2D mode-1, (b) 3D mode-1, (c) 2D mode-2, (d) 3D mode-2, (e) 2D mode-3, (f) 3D mode-3

Volume 4 v No. 1 v January 2015

18 incold Journal

Table 3 : Modal frequencies maximum stress, deflections in the direction of excitation

and their locations for the two models. For excitation in X
Mode 2D Model 3D and Y directions, 2D model gives only 53.6% and 68%
No. Model respectively of that obtained from the 3D model. This
Freq. (Hz) Time (s) Freq. Time (s) may be due to the significant out of plane modes present
(Hz) in the 3D model.
1 1.404986 0.711751 1.833575 0.545383 Table 4 : Modal participation factors for 2D model
2 2.2256489 0.449307 2.118048 0.472133 Mode Along X Along Y
3 3.3757817 0.296228 3.535991 0.282806 No.

4 5.8040643 0.172293 4.348996 0.229938 Participation Ratio Participation Ratio

factor factor
5 9.7285398 0.102790 4.897743 0.204176
1 32097 1 4162.2 0.1191
Response Spectra Analysis 2 -5140.2 0.16015 34948 1
The variation of vertical stress along the base for spectral 3 -13309 0.41465 -3204.5 0.09169
acceleration along X and Y directions are shown in Fig.9 4 4103.9 0.12786 797.46 0.02282
and Fig.10 respectively. Table-6 shows the values of 5 -846.96 0.02639 -912.11 0.0261

Table 5 : Modal participation factors for 3D model

Mode No. Along X Along Y Along Z

Participation Ratio Participation Ratio Participation Ratio
Factor Factor Factor
1 1617.5 0.06 3529.5 0.12 23800 1
2 25908 1 3545.1 0.12 -1808.4 0.08
3 -5665.5 0.22 30408 1 -907.61 0.04
4 -14705 0.57 -3962.9 0.13 -1624.6 0.07
5 -2823.5 0.11 -2981.7 0.1 12717 0.53

(a) (b)
Fig. 9 : Variation of vertical stress in N/m2 at base for response spectra analysis in X direction; (a) 2D model,
(b) 3D model at the shortest section

Volume 4 v No. 1 v January 2015

 Comparison of 2D and 3D Finite Element Analysis of Dams with Foundation-Structure Interaction 19

Table 6 : Maximum vertical stress and their location for response spectra analysis

X Direction Y Direction
2D Model 3D Model 2D Model 3D Model
Displacement in 0.060836 0.047883 0.021327 0.013305
the direction of Crest Crest Crest Crest
excitation (m)
Maximum stress in Y 5.52E+06 1.03E+07 3.45E+06 5.07E+06
(N/m2) Heel Heel of shorter Heel Heel of shorter
section section

(a)
Fig. 10 : Variation of vertical stress in N/m2 at base for response spectra analysis in Y direction; a)2D model, b)3D model at
the shortest section
Conclusion
A comparison of 2D and 3D analysis of a monolith
of varying cross-sectional area shows that for gravity
analysis the 2D model gives higher values of stresses
and displacements than 3D. For hydrostatic loads, higher
value of tensile stresses are developed for 3D model, at
the heel of the shorter section. There are significant out
of plane modes which the 2D model could not represent.
Higher stresses are obtained in the 3D model for the
response spectra analysis. 2D model could show only
53.6% and 68% of that obtained from the 3D model for
spectral analysis along the X and Y directions respectively.
Therefore, for a monolith of varying area of cross-section
a 3D model should be preferred to a 2D model.
References
1. Lelio, H., M. and Ethan, M., D., "Analysis of Seismic
Response of Seven Oaks Dam", Seminar on Utilization of
Strong-Motion Data, SMIP07 Seminar Proceedings, pp.
21-40
2. Haibo, W., et al., "Seismic Nonlinear Analysis of a
Concrete Gravity Dam with 3D Full Dam Model", Bulletin
of Earthquake Engineering, Volume 10, No. 6, pp. 1959-
1977, doi:10.1007/s10518-012-9377-4
b)
3. Ashok, D., P., "Dynamic Analysis of Concrete Gravity
Dam At Devasari HEP.", Dept. of Earthquake Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, P.No.-EQD-
1031/2011-2012, Dec.2012
4. Abhilash, K., R., "Three Dimensional Finite Element
Analysis of Jamrani Dam", M. Tech. Dissertation, Dept. of
Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee, June 2009
5. "ANSYS Elements Reference", ANSYS Inc.
6. Sema, M., Y., "Three Dimensional Dynamic Response of
a Concrete Gravity Dam", MS. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Graduate School of Natural and Applied
Sciences, Middle East Technical Univ., Jan. 2013
7. Mike, K., et al., "The Investigation of a Concrete Gravity
Dam in a Narrow Canyon using 3-D Nonlinear Analysis",
21st Century Dam Design-Advances and Adaptations,
31st Annual USSD Conference San Diego, California, pp.
189-208, April 2011
8. "Gravity Dam Design", Engineer Manual No. 1110-2-2200,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USA, June
1995
9. IS 1893-1984: Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures
10. Clough, R. W. and Penzien, J., Dynamics of Structures,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.

Volume 4 v No. 1 v January 2015

View publication stats