Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 12 – uploaded by Engr Imran Arshad

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 4d. SEEP/W model results for a weir without sheet plies (Reservoir level = 27.7 m) Fig. 4e. SEEP/W model results for a weir without sheet plies (Reservoir level = 28.7 m).

Figure 4 d. SEEP/W model results for a weir without sheet plies (Reservoir level = 27.7 m) Fig. 4e. SEEP/W model results for a weir without sheet plies (Reservoir level = 28.7 m).

Related Figures (14)

(sandstone, siltstone, and claystone) (SIDA, 2016).
(sandstone, siltstone, and claystone) (SIDA, 2016).
Fig. 2a. The SEEP/W Mesh for a weir with sheet plies.
Fig. 2a. The SEEP/W Mesh for a weir with sheet plies.
Fig. 2b. The SEEP/W Mesh for a weir without sheet plies.
Fig. 2b. The SEEP/W Mesh for a weir without sheet plies.
Fig. 3a. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 25 m).
Fig. 3a. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 25 m).
Fig. 3b. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 25.7 m).
Fig. 3b. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 25.7 m).
Fig. 3c. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 26.7 m).
Fig. 3c. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 26.7 m).
Fig. 3d. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 27.7 m).
Fig. 3d. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 27.7 m).
Fig. 3e. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 28.7 m). 4e), describes the SEEP/W simulated results for the case (ii) at different reservoir levels. The numerical results of seepage flux (q) and exi gradient (Ge) for both cases have the same trend. Also, the presence of sheet piles leads to decrease of seepage flux (q) and exit gradien (Ge). These results are according to the findings of (Nassralla et a/., 2015, and Saleh et a/., 2009 who reported that the results obtained for exi gradient (Ge) clear that, when the hydraulic structure supported using the sheet pile oundation at any position under foundation floor he result uplift pressure increase with increasing he effective hydraulic head. The exit gradient Ge) increase when there was no sheet pile provided to the hydraulic structure. The seepage lux (q) decreased by decreasing the hydraulic head and decrease with the sheet pile installation. Likewise, seepage analysis was performed for a weir without sheet piles under steady-state condition for a different water reservoir levels. The overall maximum resultant seepage quantity (q) and exit gradient (Ge) was found 78.20x10° m*/sec/m and 2.27 when the total head was 28.7m_ respectively. For the five various hydraulic heads scenarios the velocity vector showed an abnormal behavior and comes out from the river bed at the downstream of the weir section.
Fig. 3e. SEEP/W model results for a weir with sheet plies (Reservoir level = 28.7 m). 4e), describes the SEEP/W simulated results for the case (ii) at different reservoir levels. The numerical results of seepage flux (q) and exi gradient (Ge) for both cases have the same trend. Also, the presence of sheet piles leads to decrease of seepage flux (q) and exit gradien (Ge). These results are according to the findings of (Nassralla et a/., 2015, and Saleh et a/., 2009 who reported that the results obtained for exi gradient (Ge) clear that, when the hydraulic structure supported using the sheet pile oundation at any position under foundation floor he result uplift pressure increase with increasing he effective hydraulic head. The exit gradient Ge) increase when there was no sheet pile provided to the hydraulic structure. The seepage lux (q) decreased by decreasing the hydraulic head and decrease with the sheet pile installation. Likewise, seepage analysis was performed for a weir without sheet piles under steady-state condition for a different water reservoir levels. The overall maximum resultant seepage quantity (q) and exit gradient (Ge) was found 78.20x10° m*/sec/m and 2.27 when the total head was 28.7m_ respectively. For the five various hydraulic heads scenarios the velocity vector showed an abnormal behavior and comes out from the river bed at the downstream of the weir section.
Fig. 4a. SEEP/W model results for a weir without sheet plies (Reservoir level = 25 m).
Fig. 4a. SEEP/W model results for a weir without sheet plies (Reservoir level = 25 m).
Table 2.The SEEP/W model results of Ranpur Bund Weir for different water levels in reservoir.
Table 2.The SEEP/W model results of Ranpur Bund Weir for different water levels in reservoir.
Fig. 5. Relationship between different hydraulic head vs. seepage flux. For the case of weir section of the Ranpur bund when sheet piles are not provided water can escape from any part of the downstream area,
Fig. 5. Relationship between different hydraulic head vs. seepage flux. For the case of weir section of the Ranpur bund when sheet piles are not provided water can escape from any part of the downstream area,
Fig. 6. Relationship between different hydraulic head vs. exit gradient.
Fig. 6. Relationship between different hydraulic head vs. exit gradient.
Related topics:
Finite Element Analysis (Engineering)Dam - Seepage Analysis
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved