19

* SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF EARTH WALL GRAVITY DAMS USING

DECOUPLED MODAL APPROACH

Adedeji, A. A.
Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Ilorin,
PMB 1515, Ilorin,
Nigeria.
E-mail: amadeji@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
This study aimed at the assessment of the effects of seismic loads on the earth dam for design
purposes. The Unilorin concrete gravity dam is used in comparison with the earth wall gravity
dam in seismic zone 1 with a peak ground acceleration of 0.05g. Finite element (FE) method of
analysis was used by employing Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation of 4-node plain quadrilateral
elements, with modal analysis used to decouple system dynamic equations, thereby saving
computational time. The loadings were determined based on EM 1110-2-22000(1995), while the
FE model is being implemented using the MATLAB programming tool. Though, the collapse
and response of the earth gravity dam is higher than that of concrete gravity dam, the dam
satisfies the stability and stress requirements in design.

Keywords: Seismic analysis, earth wall, gravity dam, finite element method

1. INTRODUCTION
The structural response of a material to different loads determines how it will be economically
utilized in the design process. The loads that structures are subjected to are either static or
dynamic, or a combination of both. Static loads are time-independent while dynamic loads vary
with time. Dynamic loads can be classified as cyclic, impact or moving but can occur
simultaneously. Earthquake is a natural disaster that has claimed so many lives and destroyed
lots of property. Earthquake hazards had caused the collapse and damage to continual
functioning of essential services such as communication and transportation facilities, buildings,
dams, electric installations, ports, pipelines, water and waste water systems, electric and nuclear
power plants with severe economic losses. Earthquake is a major source of seismic forces that
impinge on structures others are Tsunami, seethe etc. Earth wall is chosen as a material for the
dam since its major constituent- earth is abundantly available and provides a sustainable solution.
This necessitates the seismic analysis of concrete gravity dam. Finite element has been widely
used in seismic analysis of concrete gravity dams (Waltz 1997, Lotfi 2003) with a defined
approach as presented in this programme, using the most natural method based on the
LagrangianEulerian formulation.


*appeared in International Egyptian e-journal of Engineering and Mathematics
http://www.ieems.net/iejemta.htm, vol.5, 19-34
20

Smith (1985) claimed that dams are critical structures that should be made earthquake-resistant,
since earthquakes cause severe damages, consequent huge economic and life losses. Hence, the
need to prevent the occurrence of these earthquake hazards by carrying out seismic analysis of
dams (Polyakov, 1985). Over the years, a lot of work has been done in making earth-fill and
concrete dams earthquake-resistant, with advances in structural vibration and finite element
method which have aid in the seismic analysis of theses dams. However, not much attention has
been paid to the seismic analysis of an earth wall dam. More importantly, most recent methods in
seismic analysis of concrete gravity dams have not been employed for the seismic analysis of the
earth wall dams. Therefore, the purpose of this is to apply the decoupled modal approach in the
seismic analysis of Earth wall dams. Earthquakes had caused severe damages and consequently
huge economic losses including losses of lives. On 27th December, 2004, The Punch newspaper
reported that Tsunami, a seismic sea wave claimed a lot of lives, rendered many homeless and
destitute, and destroyed essential services with Sri Lanka,, Indonesia, Somalia, India, etc been
the major casualty countries. Nigeria is not left out from the occurrence of ground motions
caused by earth movement as earth tremors had been recorded to occur some recent years back in
Abeokuta and Ibadan. Most structures and infrastructure in the country are not earth-resistant.
Also, earth wall, as a sustainable material is quite economical in construction of dams since there
is abundant availability of good earth or soil, especially in localities closed to road construction
and excavation sites.This study involved the use of finite element method for the dynamic
analysis of both the dam and reservoir bodies, using a modal approach as the Lagrangian-
Eulerian formulation forming the basis. Also, static loads (weights, hydrostatic pressures) are
each visualized as being applied in one separate increment of time. The analytical computation
of the modal approach procedure has been carried out and implemented using MATLAB
programming tool. The pseudo-static seismic coefficient method was adopted in computing the
seismic loads on the dam. The dam used as a case study was assumed to be in seismic zone 1
with seismic coefficient ranging between 0.0 and 0.05. The dam was analysed seismically using
the decoupled modal approach and the results were compared with that of the concrete gravity
dam.

2. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF EARTH AND CONCRETE GRAVITY
DAMS
In earth dams, seismic forces or shaking can induce destabilising deformation or outright
failure if not made earthquake resistant. A permanent simplified procedure can be adopted to
estimate permanent horizontal displacements of the dams using finite element method that
account for non-linear material behaviour and strength reduction due to liquefaction or strain
softening. It has been shown ((Hatami, 2001) that the seismic performance of earth dams has
been related to the nature and state of compaction of the fill material. Concrete dams structural
safety and stability are jeopardized due to the hydrodynamic load of the reservoir that is
subjected to ground motion

2.1 FLUID STRUCTURE SYSTEM

During earthquake occurrence, the dam and reservoir body respond differently, as a result of
hydrodynamic forces impinging on the fluid body and solid structure. As a result of this,
interaction will occur between the fluidsolid structure interfaces as particles move relatively to
the mesh points whereas, the meshes moves with the material particles (Bathe, 1996, Qixiang et
21

al. 2000). Much research work has been carried out for the dynamic response of the fluid-solid
structure systems. Several methods of analysis for the fluid-structure systems use finite element
idealization in the non-linear dynamic response of the system (Fenves and Vargas- Loli, 1988).





























In Fig.1(a, b) the following terms are defined as:
FP'
=Fluid boundary at reservoir end
FP
=Free surface of the fluid
=Portion of structure boundary along an earthquake
ground motion path
SU
FU
=Portion of structure boundary along an earthquake
ground motion path
=Fluid-structure common interface
SF
N =Normal to the fluid boundary
F S =Fluid domain =Structure domain

3. LOADINGS
3.1 STATIC LOADS.
The static loads are due to
(i) The weight of the dam: the unit weight is assumed to be 19.62kN/m
3
until an exact unit
weight is determined from materials investigation.,


FP

FP
F

SF N
F





FU

SU


Fig. 1.(a) Domains and boundaries of the fluid-structure system



F S
F S
F
S
F S

Fig. 1(b): Degrees of freedom of the fluid-structure system
22

(ii) Hydrostatic pressure of the water in the reservoir
and (iii) The uplift forces caused by hydrostatic pressure on the foundation at the interface of the
dam and the foundation. Uplift forces are usually considered in stability and stress analysis to
ensure structural adequacy and are assumed to be unchanged by earthquake forces.

3.2 DYNAMIC LOADS
Earthquake or seismic loads are the major dynamic loads (Major 1980, Schoeber 1981,
Polyakov 1985, Wyatt (1989). being considered in the analysis and design of dams especially in
earthquake prone areas. They are of kinematic origin and owe their existence to vibration caused
in the structure by the movement of the earths surface during an earthquake. They have random
characteristics and are regarded as deterministic in practical calculations to simplify the design
model. According to EM1110- 2-2200(1995), the earthquake loading used in the design of
concrete gravity dams are based on design earthquakes and site specific motions determined
from seismological evaluation. The seismic coefficient method is used in determining the
resultant location and sliding stability of dams. Seismic analysis of dams is performed for the
most unfavourable direction, despite the fact that earthquake acceleration might take place in any
direction. Seismic coefficient method of analysis is commonly known, as pseudostatic analysis,
and is the ratio of the earthquake acceleration to the acceleration due to gravity. Fig. 2 shows
the dynamic loads on a gravity dam. There are different ways of computing earthquake loads on
dams. The deterministic approach will be employed where the ground acceleration in terms of g
(acceleration due to gravity) is specified for the region where the dam will be constructed.
Hence, the exciting force on the structure is,
P
(t)
= Ma
x
(1)
and
a
x
= g (2)
where a
x
, , g are the ground acceleration, seismic coefficient and acceleration due to gravity
respectively.












Fig. 2: Seismically loaded gravity dam

From Fig. 2 and equation ( ) therefore, the equilibrium system is expressed as:
Pe
x
= Ma
x
=W

g /g =W

(3a)
In which a
x
= g and W =Mg (3b)
along vertical direction Pe
w
=(2 * C
e
* * y * (h *y)) / 3 (4a)
and C
e
=51 / (1 0.72 * (h / (1000t
e
))
2
) (4b)



y



h P
ew
P
ew


0.4h

23


where Pe
x
, M, a
x
, W, , g are the horizontal earthquake force on the dam, mass horizontal
earthquake acceleration, weight, acceleration due to gravity and seismic coefficient respectively.
Also Pe
w
, h, t
e
are the additional total water load down to depth y, total height of reservoir, and
period of vibration respectively.

3.3 FORCED DAMPED VIBRATION
Forced vibration is the vibration caused by a time- dependent disturbing forced. The governing
equation for forced-damped vibration is
M + C + KU =P
(t)
(5)
where M, C, K, , , U, and P
(t)
are the mass, damping , stiffness, acceleration, velocity,
displacement and exciting force on the body.

4. FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (FEM)
The finite element method is the best method used in analysing the internal forces of element(s)
by solving differential equation obtained through their discretisation in space dimensions
(Adedeji, 2004). Lotfi (2003) and Iroko (2001) stated that finite element method has been the
most widely used method for seismic analysis of concrete gravity dams. Finite element (FE)
models are used for linear static and dynamic analyses and for non-linear analyses that account
for interaction of the dam and foundation. The FEM provides the capability of modeling
complex geometries and wide vibrations in material properties. Two-dimensional finite element
analysis is generally appropriate for concrete gravity dams. Lotfi (2003) argued that the
Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation is the most natural method, and employs nodal displacements
and pressure degrees of freedom for the dam and reservoir region respectively. Bathe (1996) had
previously put down this idea stating that in this type of formulation, the mesh points move but
not necessarily with the material particles, due to fluid-solid coupling and interaction (Fenves
and Vargas-Looli, 1988) that allows the approach to be used in modelling the fluid flow-
structures interaction. The direct integration methods are used to solve the linear dynamic
response of a system of finite elements There are different methods used in the direct integration
process and are the Central difference, the Houbolt, the Wilson, the coupling of different
integration operators and Newmark methods (Bathe, 1996). Lotfi (2003) claimed, that the direct
integration process is usually carried out by applying Newmarks algorithm or method, with the
following assumptions used by (Bathe, 1996), are
t +t
=
t
+ [(1-)
t
+
t +t
] t (6)
t +t
U =
t
U +
t
t + [(0.5-)
t
+
t +t
] t
2
(7)
where t, t,
t
,
t
,
t
U, , are time, time step of integration, acceleration at time t, velocity at
time t, displacement at time t, and integration parameters respectively. However, Lotfi (2001)
reported that a non- symmetric system of equations to be solved at each time step will be
encountered and not direct method by Newmarks algorithm will not be computationally
efficient.

4.1 DECOUPLED MODAL TECHNIQUE
Bathe (1996) stated that if the integration will be carried out for many time steps, it will be more
effective to first transform the equilibrium equations of equation (8) into a form in which the
step-by-step solution is less costly. Based on this, Lotfi (2003) applied the modal approach to

24

obtain the natural frequencies and mode shape of the fluidstructure system by rewriting the
equilibrium equation (5) as:
K =
2
M (8)
where , , K, M are theeigenvalues, eigenvectors, stiffness and mass of the system. The above
equation is the generalised eigenproblem from which (mode shapes or eigenvectors) and
(frequencies or eigenvalues) are determined (Bathe, 1996). Thereafter, the solution at different
time steps can be estimated based on the combination of the modes at the different time steps
(Lotfi, 2003).

4.2 STRUCTURAL VIBRATION
It is well known that, the linear dynamic equation for the solid structure (dam), is given as in
equal and are reproduced here.
M + C + KU = P
(t)
(9)
Therefore, the linear dynamic equation for the fluid region (reservoir) is written as,
G + L + HU =R
(t)
(10)
where M, C, K, , , U, and P
(t)
are the mass, damping , stiffness, acceleration, velocity,
displacement and exciting force on the dam. G, L, H, , , U, and P
(t)
are the mass, damping ,
stiffness, acceleration, velocity, displacement and exciting force on the reservoir.

4.3 LAGRANGIAN-EULERIAN FORMULATION
For the Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation for the fluid-structure system, both the Lagrangian and
Eulerian formulations are coupled together. The Lagrangian formulation as stated before is used
for formulating the solid domain as given in equation (11)
o
V

t
S
ij

t

ij
d
0
V =
t
R (11)
and the Eulerian formulation is employed for the fluid domain,

t

ij
=-
t
p*
ij
+2*
t
e
ij
(12a)
t
e
ij
= (
t

i,j
+
t

j,i
)/2 (12b)
where
t
S
ij
,
t
e
ij
,
0
V,
t
R,
t

ij
,
t
p,
ij
, are the Piola-Kirchoff stress tensor at time t, Green-Lagrange
strain tensor at time t, volume at time t =0, Cauchy stress tensor at time t, pressure displacement
at time t, Kronecker delta and dynamic viscosity respectively.

4.4 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF A DAM-RESERVOIR SYSTEM
Discretisation of the dam-reservoir system has two-dimensional plane solid and fluid
quadrilateral continuum elements used in the discretisation of the coupled dam-reservoir system.
Linear Dynamic Analysis for the Coupled Dam-Reservoir System are shown in details by Lotfi
(2003), while the damping matrix is totally symmetric and the following relation holds.
K
u
=-M
u
T

(13)
It will be computationally inefficient to use the direct integration process (usually carried out by
Newmarks algorithm) since a non-symmetric system of equations to be solved at each time step
will be encountered. On the other hand, the modal approach depends on obtaining the natural
frequencies and mode shapes of the system.

4.5 DECOUPLED MODAL APPROACH
The eigenvalue problem corresponding to equation (13) is
K X
j
=
j
M X
j
(14)
where
j
=eigenvalue of the system and eigenvector matrix
25


It is clear that the eigenvalues of this system are real and free vibration modes exist. However, it
is noted from the form of matrices K and M that the system is not symmetric and standard
eigenvalue computation method are not directly applicable. It would be computationally costly
since additional variables are required in using the available techniques to arrive at a symmetric
form and reduce the problem to a standard eigenvalue one. On the contrary, eigenvalues and
vectors extracted from the following eigenproblem will be used as:
K
s
X
j
=
j
M
s
X
j
(15)
The eigenvectors of the (15) are not the true mode shapes of the coupled system but can be
presumed as Ritzs vectors and be combined to estimate the true solution. Standard methods are
used to obtain the solutions of this substitute eigenproblem. Using the orthogonal condition and
normalizing the modal matrix with respect to mass matrix, one could have:
X
T
M
s
X =I (16a)
X
T
K
s
X = (16b)
where I is the identity matrix and is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues of the
symmetric substitute system. The following relations are derived from relations in equations (15)
and (16).
X
T
MX =I +X
T
M
u
X (17a)
X
T
KX = X
T
M
u
T
X (17b)
As in modal techniques, the solution is written as a combination of different modes.
U = XY (18)
The vector Y contains participation factors of the modes. Applying the Newmarks technique for
each new time step,
KY
n+1
=F
n+1
(19)
K and F
n+1
are denoted as the generalized effective stiffness matrix and the generalized effective
force vector of the system at Time step n+1 respectively. They are defined as:
K =a
0
(I + X
T
M
u
X) + a
1
C* + ( - X
T
M
u
T
X) (20)
And,
F
n+1
+F*
n+1
+( I +X
T
M
u
X)(a
0
Y
n
+a
2
Y
n
+a
3
Y
n
) +C*(a
1
Y
n
+a
4
Y
n
+a
5
Y
n
) (21)
In general, the vector of participation factors can be solved through relation in equation (19).
Thereafter, the unknown vector is obtained by equation (15) as usual in the modal procedure, it
must be also mentioned that the generalized effective stiffness matrix employed in equation (19)
is inherently unsymmetrical. However, it may be easily transformed to a symmetric matrix by
multiplying certain rows of the matrix in equation (19) by an appropriate factor. The symmetric
matrices were utilized in the substitute eigenproblem that corresponds to the decoupled dam-
reservoir system. Therefore, the natural frequencies and eigenvectors are actually related to this
decoupled system. In actual programming, one can modify the usual subspace iteration routines
to converge to the desired lowest modes of the dam first, and similarly for the finite reservoir
region afterwards by an appropriate selection of initial vectors. Meanwhile, they can also be
obtained as two separate problems. Assuming for simplicity, without loss of generality that the
mode shapes for the dam are ordered first and the ones for the finite reservoir considered
subsequently in the modal matrix. All similar arrangements for the eigenvalues in the diagonal
matrix and the relative matrix formations are expressed by Lotfi (2003). It is assumed that the
damping matrix of the dam is of viscous type for the analysis carried out by modal approach in
time domain. Therefore, this leads to to following relationship, so that the structural damping
matrix for the stress-strain relationship.
26

C
1
* =2
d

1/2
(22)

where
d
is the equivalent damping factor, which is assumed constant for all modes. Substituting
equation (21) into equation (20) and (21), the expanded form of equation (19) is now concluded
as ,
a
0
I
1
+ a
1
C
1
* +
1
-X
T
B
T
X
2
Y
1
F
1

= (23)
a
0
X
2
T
BX
1
a
0
I
2
+ a
1
X
2
T
LX
2
+
2
Y
2

n+1
F
2 n+1

The vector of the participation factors is also assumed to be partitioned into two parts in this
relation, and as before the indices 1, 2 correspond to dam and reservoir modes respectively.
Equation (23) is equivalent to (19), which is initially an unsymmetrical system of equation. This
matrix relation could become symmetric by multiplying the lower matrix equation by a factor of
a
0
-1
, which yields the following equation.

a
0
I
1
+ a
1
C
1
*+
1
-X
T
B
T
X
2
Y
1
F
1

= (24)
- X
2
T
BX
1
a
0
-1
(a
0
I
2
+ a
1
X
2
T
LX
2
+
2
) Y
2n+1
F
2 n+1

The above equation (24) can now be readily solved for the vector of participation factors at each
time step, and the original unknown vector is obtained from equation (15).

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
5.1 CASE STUDY: A TYPICAL ANALYTICAL EXAMPLE
To verify the capability of this numerical procedure, the on-going construction of University of
Ilorin (Unilorin) dam is considered. And since the country is generally less prone to earthquakes
or tremors, the seismic zone of this area is taken as Zone 1 whose seismic coefficient ranges
from 0 to 0.05g. The dam was previously designed as a concrete gravity dam whose data is
utilized in this study. Fig. 3 shows the dam geometry which is to retain 1.8 million cubic meters
of water with a reservoir length and height of 200m and 8m respectively.
















2.5m


2.5m




8m 7.6m




200m 9.2m

Fig. 3: The Unilorin concrete gravity dam geometry.
27


5. 2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND BASIC DATA
The concrete and earth wall is assumed to be homogenous and isotropic with the following basic
properties in Table 1.

Table 1.
Properties of materials
Property of material Concrete Earth
Elastic modulus,E
c
(GPa)
Poisson ratio,
c

Unit weight,
c
(kN/m
3
)
Dry density
d

Damping coefficient
d

22.75
0.20
24.80
-
0.05
21.2
0.15
19.62
18.20
0.05


5.3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND FORMULATION FOR THE
SYSTEM
In Fig. 4 a typical numbering of the dam system indicates the fluid- and structural wall domain,
while an isoparameter of an element showing fluid-structural members domain is shown in Fig.
5.
Fig.4. Numbering of the elements in both the fluid and structure domains


b
a
s
r
3 4
1 2

Fig. 5 Isoperimetric element definition

28

For the reservoir, the two element types are:
0.765m
1m
s
r
3 4
1 2
1m
2 1
0.35m r
Element type I Element type II
3
s
4

Fig. 6 Element types in the fluid domain

For the dam body, the element types are
0.50m
0.625m
s
r
3 4
1 2
0.625m
2 1
0.35m
r
Element type VI
Element type V
3
s
4
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
4 3 3 4
4 3 4 3
r r
r r
s
s
s s
L1
L2
L2
L1
L2
L1
L2
L1
Element type I Element type II
Element type III Element type IV
0.765m
0.765m 0.765m
0.765m

Fig.7 Element types of the dam domain


29

5.4. PROGRAMMING THE FEM MODEL
The steps carried out above are followed in the programming process. The Figs 8 and 9 below
shows the MATLAB environment in which all the steps were performed.


Fig. 8 Function M-file for implementing the fluid domain model


Fig. 9 Function M-file for implementing the solid domain model

5.5 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF THE EARTH WALL AND CONCRETE
GRAVITY DAMS
The analysis is carried out by modal approach. The eigen-problem is solved in the first step
based on the symmetric parts of the coupled equation of the system. The first two mode-numbers
30

were considered to obtain the first two natural frequencies of both the earth wall and concrete
gravity dam as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.
Natural frequencies of both the Earth wall and concrete gravity dams
Mode Number
Natural Frequency (Hz)
Earthwall
Concrete
0.7421 0.9876 1
2 0.8126 0.9997

It was noticed that the natural frequencies of the Earth wall gravity dam is greater than the that of
the concrete gravity dam in first two modes being used. The first mode shapes of the Earth wall
and concrete gravity dams are shown in Figs 10 and 11 respectively.


Fig. 10 The first mode shape of the Earth wall gravity dam


Fig. 11. The first mode shape of the concrete gravity dam
31

Similarly, the mode shapes show that the Earth wall gravity dam is more affected than the
concrete dam by the seismic load. The first mode shapes of both dams depict that the Earth wall
gravity is more deflected than the concrete gravity dam at the same seismic load of peak ground
acceleration of 0.05g.

6. STABILITY AND STRESS ANALYSES
The following assumptions are made for the Earth wall gravity dam
Freeboard =30% of the reservoir height. Crest width =0.23 times dams height. This is used to
allow the passage of small vehicles, Base width =0.87 times dams height. This is used to avoid
tension in the base. Using similar triangles, = 48.8
0
and =41.2
0
. See Fig. 12.




















Vertical force:
Vertical force =W
1
(=hl) + W
2
(=0.5hl) + uplift (U = 0.5hl) =583.16kN
Horizontal force P
w
:
P
w
(= 0.5h
2
) =313.92kN
Sliding Criteria:
F.S. = Net vertical force =1.86
Horizontal force
1.86 >1.6. Hence, sliding criteria is favourably satisfied.
Overturning Criteria:
Sum of Overturning moment = 3051.16kNm
Sum of stabilizing moment = 5883.02kNm
So that F.S.=1.93 >1.6. Hence, overturning criteria is favourably satisfied.
Stress Analysis:
Normal Stress at the toe considering the limiting case at e =9.2/6 =1.53m,
Then, P
n
=0.127N/mm
2

Principal Stress at the toe,
1

=0.072N/mm
2

2.5m


2.5m

W
1



8m W
2
7.6m
H
k






U

Fig. 12: Stability analysis diagram for the Earth wall gravity dam
32

Shear Stress at the toe, = 0.111N/mm
2

The stresses obtained are less than the allowable values, therefore safe against overstressing.

CONCLUSION
Earth wall as a material has shown adequate resistance against seismic forces, as there are a lot
of referenced evidences in this case. In the same vein, the comparison of the results between that
of earth wall and concrete shows that the earth wall is much more affected than the concrete in
the same seismic zone. This implies that in higher seismic zones such as zones 2 to 4, the
collapse or response of the earth wall gravity dam will be significantly higher compared to that
of concrete gravity dam. However, this work has shown that earth wall gravity dams could be
constructed in areas of yet a low seismic activity, especially in rural areas of a country like
Nigeria, so as to support and provide more electric and water supply to people without fear of
sever structural damages to the dam.

RECOMMENDATION
Instead of using 4-node plain quadrilateral elements, as done in this work, for the system
discretisation and idealization, 8-node plain quadrilateral elements should be employed in order
to refine the solution parameters with convergence criteria put into consideration. In the same
vein, the number of modes of the analysis should be increased to further depict the response of
the dams. Moreover, this work shows that as a result of engineering and environmental
sustainability, earth wall can be used in building small dams in rural areas in order to provide
more hydro-electric power (HEP) and water supply, especially in developing nations of low
seismic activity .

AKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to appreciate the thorough work of Mr. .S. T Owolabi for the programming of this
research work.

REFERENCES
(1) Adedeji, A. A. (2004); Finite Element Method, CVE 567 Lecture Notes, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin.
(2) Bathe, K. J . (1996); Finite Element Procedures, Seventh Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc, New
J ersey.
(3) CIWAT ENGINEERS (1996); Design Report of the University of Ilorin Dam, CIWAT
ENGINEERS, Ilorin, pp 14 25.
(4) EM 1110-2-2200 (1995); Design of Concrete Gravity Dams, Engineer Manual of the US
Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Corps Publications Depot, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA, www.us.armycorps.engineers.com/engineers manual.
(5) Fenves, G. L. and Vargas-Loli, M. (1988); Non-Linear Analysis of Fluid-Structure Systems,
J ournal Of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE Vol. 114, pp 219 240.
(6) Hatami, K. (2001); Seismic Analysis of Concrete Dams, National Defence, Royal Military
College of Canada, www.zworks.com/seismic analysis/concrete dams/ Seismic Analysis of
Concrete Dams.
(7) Iroko, A. O. (2001); Hysterical Analysis of Strawbale as an Infill Material Subjected to
Seismic Loadings (Vibration), B. Eng. Project, Submitted to the Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of Ilorin, Ilorin.
33

(8) Lotfi, V. (2001); Seismic Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams using Decoupled Modal
Approach in Time Domain, Electronic J ournal Of Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, www.ejse.org,
pp 102 116.
(9) Major, A. (1980); Dynamics in Civil Engineering, Vol. I - IV, Second Edition, Collets
Holdings Ltd, London.
(10) Polyakov, S. V. (1985); Design of Earthquake-Resistant Structures, Second Edition, Mir
Publishers.
(11) Qixiang Y., Zhong W. and Haowu L. (2000); Hydrodynamic Pressures for Dam-
Reservoir Interaction Analysis in the Time Domain, www. zworks.com/seismic analysis of
concrete dams.
(12) Schoeber, W. (1981); Regarding the Load Bearing Behaviour of Large Dams, Die
Wasserwirstchaft, Vol. 71, No.4, April, 1981, ICE Abstracts, September, 1981, Part 8, No.
81/1287 81/1467, ICE, London, pp 81/1343.
(13) Smith, J . (1985); Vibration of Structures: Application in Civil Engineering, Third
Edition, J ohn Wiley and Sons, New York.
(14) The Punch Newspaper, 27
th
December, 2004, vol.51, no. 315, pp. 23.
(15) Walz, A. H. J r (1997); Dams, McGrawHill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology,
Vol. 5, Eight Edition, McGrawHill Inc. New York, pp 11 19.
(16) Wyatt, T. A. (1989); Earthquake Effects, Loadings, Civil Engineers Reference Book, L.
S Blake (Ed.), Fourth Edition, Butterworth, London, pp 19/14 19/ 15.

LIST OF SYMBOLS
a
x
,

a
g
=ground accelerations;
B =interaction matrix, strain displacement matrix;
0
B
L0
,
0
B
L1
=linear strain displacement transformation matrices;
0
B
NL
=nonlinear strain displacement transformation matrix;
C =structures damping matrix; stress-strain material property;
t
C =incremental stress-strain material property;
c
p
=fluids specific heat capacity
e
ij
=components of velocity strain tensor;
F*
(t)
=matrix is defined in equation ;
F
n+1
=generalized effective force vector;
G =fluid mass matrix;
g =acceleration due to gravity;
H =fluid stiffness matrix; coordinates interpolation matrix;
h =interpolation or shape functions;
I =matrix is defined in equation ;
J =jacobian operator;
K =stiffness matrix;
K =generalized effective stiffness matrix;
0
K
L
=linear stiffness matrix at configuration time t =0;
0
K
NL
=non linear stiffness matrix at configuration time t =0;
L =fluid damping matrix;
M =structure mass matrix;
Pe
x
=resultant seismic load on the structure;
Pe
w
=resultant seismic load on the fluid;
34

p =nodal pressures degrees of freedom;
t
R = total external load at configuration time t;
0
S,
t
S,
t+t
S =Piola-Kirchoff stress tensor at configuration time t = 0, t, t+t;
t
ij
=thickness of the element;
t
e
=period of integration;
U =nodal displacements;
0
V =volume of integation at configuration time t =0;
W =weight of the structure;
X =eigenvectors matrix;
Y =participation factors matrix;
= seismic coefficient; Newmarks integration parameter;

ij
=weighting factors;

d
=damping coefficient;
= boundary of fluid or structures domain;
t = time step of integration;
= Newmarks integration parameter;

ij
=kroneckers delta;
=matrix is defined in equation ( );
= eigenvalues of the system;
=fluid dynamic viscosity;
= poissons ratio;

i
=velocity of fluid flow in direction x
i
;
= fluids density;

ij
=Cauchys stress tensor;
=eigenvectors;
= fluid or solid domain;
= eigenvalues;
Superscripts
F =fluid quantity;
S =structure quantity;
T =matrix transposition;
t =configuration t;
Subscripts
F =fluid domain;