Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 7 – uploaded by Engr Imran Arshad

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 3b. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 339 ft).

Figure 3 b. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 339 ft).

Related Figures (28)

Fig. 1. Cross-section of Non-Homogeneous Section of Hub dam.
Fig. 1. Cross-section of Non-Homogeneous Section of Hub dam.
Fig. 2a. The SEEP/W Mesh for a non-homogeneous section of a Hub Dam (original design). For numerical analysis, three geometric models of a non-homogenous earth dam (Hub dam) depict along with three different scenarios i.e. (i) original design, (ii). Dam with a partial cutoff wall, (iii). Dam with a full cutoff wall respectively. The numerical model was created using Geo- Slope (SEEP/W) software and the steady state analysis was selected to simulate the hydraulic conditions beneath the dam foundation (Arshad, 2018). The geometry of the dam in the SEEP/W model is presented in (Figure 2a — 2c). The model’s sections were divided into segments
Fig. 2a. The SEEP/W Mesh for a non-homogeneous section of a Hub Dam (original design). For numerical analysis, three geometric models of a non-homogenous earth dam (Hub dam) depict along with three different scenarios i.e. (i) original design, (ii). Dam with a partial cutoff wall, (iii). Dam with a full cutoff wall respectively. The numerical model was created using Geo- Slope (SEEP/W) software and the steady state analysis was selected to simulate the hydraulic conditions beneath the dam foundation (Arshad, 2018). The geometry of the dam in the SEEP/W model is presented in (Figure 2a — 2c). The model’s sections were divided into segments
Fig. 2b. The SEEP/W Mesh for a non-homogeneous section with Partial Cutoff Wall
Fig. 2b. The SEEP/W Mesh for a non-homogeneous section with Partial Cutoff Wall
Fig. 2c. The Seep/W Mesh for a Non-Homogeneous Section with Full Cut-Off Wall
Fig. 2c. The Seep/W Mesh for a Non-Homogeneous Section with Full Cut-Off Wall
Table 1. Hydraulic Conductivities used for Modeling. 2. Basic Finite Element Equation Governing Equations used by SEEP/W Software
Table 1. Hydraulic Conductivities used for Modeling. 2. Basic Finite Element Equation Governing Equations used by SEEP/W Software
Fig. 3a. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 270 ft). The obtained results were consistent with the studies of (Aasma, 2016) [22]. At all points in the downstream slope, the exit hydraulic gradient was less than unity therefore; the dam is safe against piping. The different color contours represent that the total head will be same at any node. The flow paths (green colour lines) are an imaginary droplet of water which follows from the entrance to exit accordingly (Arshad ef al., 2019). In a flow net, the amount of flow between each flow line was observed the same; i.e. the amount of flow is the same in each flow channel. Figure (8a—3f), describes the SEEP/W simulated results for the case (l) at different reservoir levels. Figure (3a—3f), describes the SEEP/W simulated
Fig. 3a. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 270 ft). The obtained results were consistent with the studies of (Aasma, 2016) [22]. At all points in the downstream slope, the exit hydraulic gradient was less than unity therefore; the dam is safe against piping. The different color contours represent that the total head will be same at any node. The flow paths (green colour lines) are an imaginary droplet of water which follows from the entrance to exit accordingly (Arshad ef al., 2019). In a flow net, the amount of flow between each flow line was observed the same; i.e. the amount of flow is the same in each flow channel. Figure (8a—3f), describes the SEEP/W simulated results for the case (l) at different reservoir levels. Figure (3a—3f), describes the SEEP/W simulated
Fig. 3d. Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 270 ft).
Fig. 3d. Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 270 ft).
Fig. 3c. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 346ft).
Fig. 3c. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 346ft).
Fig. 3e. Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 3e. Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 3f. Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 346ft).
Fig. 3f. Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section (Reservoir level = 346ft).
Likewise, the seepage analysis was performed for a non-homogeneous section with a partial cutoff wall under steady-state condition for a different water reservoir levels. The results showed that for each water reservoir level (270 ft., 339 ft., and 346 ft.) the seepage flux of order 1.5441 x 10% (ft?/sec/ft), 3.8143 x 10° (ft*/sec/ft), Fig. 4a. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with Partial cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 270 ft). and 3.9105 x 10° (ft*/sec/ft) with an exit gradient (0.089), (0.157), and (0.299) was observed respectively. Likewise, the maximum seepage velocity at various reservoir levels i.e. 270 ft., 339 ft., and 346 ft. was found 0.911 x 10° (ft/sec), 2.251 x 10° (ft/sec), and 2.899 x 10° (ft/sec) respectively (Jamel, 2016). Figure (4a— 4f), describes the SEEP/W simulated results for the case (Ill) at different reservoir levels.
Likewise, the seepage analysis was performed for a non-homogeneous section with a partial cutoff wall under steady-state condition for a different water reservoir levels. The results showed that for each water reservoir level (270 ft., 339 ft., and 346 ft.) the seepage flux of order 1.5441 x 10% (ft?/sec/ft), 3.8143 x 10° (ft*/sec/ft), Fig. 4a. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with Partial cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 270 ft). and 3.9105 x 10° (ft*/sec/ft) with an exit gradient (0.089), (0.157), and (0.299) was observed respectively. Likewise, the maximum seepage velocity at various reservoir levels i.e. 270 ft., 339 ft., and 346 ft. was found 0.911 x 10° (ft/sec), 2.251 x 10° (ft/sec), and 2.899 x 10° (ft/sec) respectively (Jamel, 2016). Figure (4a— 4f), describes the SEEP/W simulated results for the case (Ill) at different reservoir levels.
Fig. 4b. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with Partial cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 4b. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with Partial cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 4c. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with Partial cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 346ft).
Fig. 4c. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with Partial cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 346ft).
Fig. 4d: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without partial Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 270 ft).
Fig. 4d: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without partial Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 270 ft).
Fig. 4e: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without partial Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 4e: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without partial Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 4f: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without partial Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 346 ft).
Fig. 4f: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without partial Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 346 ft).
Similarly, the seepage analysis was performed for a non-homogeneous section without cutoff wall and a filter drain under steady-state condition for a different water reservoir levels. The results showed that for each water reservoir level (270 ft., 339 ft., and 346 ft.) the seepage Fig. 5a. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with full cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 270 ft). lux of order 0.20689 x 107 (ft?/sec/ with an exit gradient (0.081), 0.285) was observed respectively. evels i.e. 270 ft., 339 ft., and 346 0.7899 x 10° (ft/sec), 1.859 x 10° 2.353 x 10° (ft/sec) respectively. t), 0.49549 x 10% (ft?/sec/ft), and 0.50798 x 10% (ft*/sec/ft) 0.141), and Likewise, the maximum seepage velocity at various reservoir t. was found (ft/sec), and
Similarly, the seepage analysis was performed for a non-homogeneous section without cutoff wall and a filter drain under steady-state condition for a different water reservoir levels. The results showed that for each water reservoir level (270 ft., 339 ft., and 346 ft.) the seepage Fig. 5a. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with full cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 270 ft). lux of order 0.20689 x 107 (ft?/sec/ with an exit gradient (0.081), 0.285) was observed respectively. evels i.e. 270 ft., 339 ft., and 346 0.7899 x 10° (ft/sec), 1.859 x 10° 2.353 x 10° (ft/sec) respectively. t), 0.49549 x 10% (ft?/sec/ft), and 0.50798 x 10% (ft*/sec/ft) 0.141), and Likewise, the maximum seepage velocity at various reservoir t. was found (ft/sec), and
Fig. 5b. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with full cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 5b. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with full cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 5c. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with full cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 346ft).
Fig. 5c. SEEP/W model results for Non-Homogeneous Section with full cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 346ft).
Fig. 5d. Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without full Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 270 ft).
Fig. 5d. Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without full Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 270 ft).
Fig. 5e: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without full Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 5e: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without full Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 339 ft).
Fig. 5f: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without full Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 346 ft).
Fig. 5f: Phreatic Line behaviour for Non-Homogeneous Section without full Cut-off wall (Reservoir level = 346 ft).
Table 2. The SEEP/W model results of Hub dam for different water levels in reservoir. For the current case it seems that partial cutoff
Table 2. The SEEP/W model results of Hub dam for different water levels in reservoir. For the current case it seems that partial cutoff
For the current case it seems that partial cutof wall and full cutoff wall doesn’t make much difference in lowering the seepage and exi gradient as the same trend was observed for al the scenarios. Figure (6a — 6c) explains a graphical relationship for seepage flux, exi gradient and maximum seepage velocity as a function of elevations, respectively (Arshad et al., 2020). Fig. 6a. Relationship between water level in reservoir vs. seepage flux for various scenarios.
For the current case it seems that partial cutof wall and full cutoff wall doesn’t make much difference in lowering the seepage and exi gradient as the same trend was observed for al the scenarios. Figure (6a — 6c) explains a graphical relationship for seepage flux, exi gradient and maximum seepage velocity as a function of elevations, respectively (Arshad et al., 2020). Fig. 6a. Relationship between water level in reservoir vs. seepage flux for various scenarios.
Fig. 6b. Relationship between water level in reservoir vs. exit gradient for various scenarios.
Fig. 6b. Relationship between water level in reservoir vs. exit gradient for various scenarios.
Fig. 6c. Relationship between water level in reservoir vs. Maximum Seepage Velocity for various scenarios.
Fig. 6c. Relationship between water level in reservoir vs. Maximum Seepage Velocity for various scenarios.
Related topics:
Finite Element Analysis (Engineering)Dam - Seepage AnalysisSeepage analysis
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved