Dam With Concrete Cutoff

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
www.geo-slope.com
Steady state flux under a cutoff wall

1 Introduction
The objective of this illustration is look at steady state flow under a cutoff and to compare it with a published solution. In particular, the objectives of this illustration are to: Compare a SEEP/W solution with a published flow net solution Show how an interface element can be used to model a no-flow thin barrier See how the uplift pressure beneath the dam and exit gradients can be obtained
Feature highlights
GeoStudio feature highlights include: Head and pressure boundary conditions Interface elements on a line Exit gradients Uplift pressures
Geometry and boundary conditions
Figure 1 presents the SEEP/W model definition of a cutoff example published by Lambe and Whitman (1969). The original flow net solution for seepage flow in the foundation of a concrete dam with a cutoff wall as presented by Lambe and Whitman, is given in Figure 2.
70
60
50
Elevation (feet)
40
Cutoff Wall
30
20
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Distance (feet)
Figure 1 SEEP/W model definition
The boundary condition on the upstream side of the dam is a total head value equal to the elevation of the water in the reservoir. On the downstream side, the boundary condition is set to a value of pressure equal to zero which indicates full saturation downstream with no tail water elevation.
SEEP/W Example File: Dam with concrete cutoff.docx (pdf) (gsz)
Page 1 of 5
www.geo-slope.com
The cutoff is installed to a depth of 15 feet beneath the dam foundation and is modeled using interface elements along a line. In the past, the cutoff had to be modeled as a no-soil region, which required a hole to be made in the mesh. The interface element approach is much more intuitive.
Figure 2 Seepage problem definition and flow net solution
Material properties
The hydraulic conductivity of the homogeneous foundation material is 1x10-3 feet/min. Because the soil always remains saturated, the Saturated Only soil model type was assigned to the region. It is not necessary to create functions for the soil properties, as all values are constant for all pressures. The interface model in this case must be a no-flow model, and this is achieved by setting the tangential and normal conductivity along the interface elements to have a value of zero. The material set-up for the soil and interface elements are given in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.
Page 2 of 5
www.geo-slope.com
Figure 3 Saturated Only soil seepage model
Figure 4 Interface element "no flow" model
Results and discussion
The SEEP/W solution with drawn flow paths and head contours is shown in Error! Reference source not found..
70
Dam with a concrete cutoff
60
50
Elevation (feet)
40
60
Cutoff Wall
30
0.0056344 ft/sec
42
20
58
50
44
56
48
52
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
54
Distance (feet)
Figure 5 Seepage problem definition and computed heads and flow lines
Page 3 of 5
www.geo-slope.com
Based on the flow net solution computed by hand and illustrated above, the seepage under the dam is 5.76x10-3 ft3/min/ft, the uplift pressure at the downstream toe is 7.1 feet, and the exit gradient is 0.34. The SEEP/W results are summarized in Table 1 with data obtained from Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively. There is very good agreement with the flow net solution.
Table 1 Comparison of flow net and SEEP/W results
Item Total Seepage (ft /min/ft) Uplift Pressure Head at toe base (ft) Exit Gradient at Downstream Toe
3
Flow Net 5.76 x 10 7.1 0.34

-3
SEEP/W 5.62 x 10 6.93 0.32

-3
Uplift pressure (pore-water pressure)

20
Pressure Head (ft)
10
0 0 20 40 60 X (ft) 80 100 120 140 160
Figure 6 Pressures along ground surface and beneath dam
Note the light blue shading above the seepage domain in Figure 5. It is a reflection of the positive pressure along the green ground surface line in GeoStudio.
Page 4 of 5
www.geo-slope.com
Vertical gradients
0.4
0.3
0.2
Y-Gradient
0.1
-0.1
-0.2 0 20 40 60 X (ft) 80 100 120 140 160
Figure 7 Vertical gradients along ground surface and beneath dam
Page 5 of 5

Dam With Concrete Cutoff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dam With Concrete Cutoff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Steady state flux under a cutoff wall

Geometry and boundary conditions

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Figure 1 SEEP/W model definition

SEEP/W Example File: Dam with concrete cutoff.docx (pdf) (gsz)

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Figure 2 Seepage problem definition and flow net solution

SEEP/W Example File: Dam with concrete cutoff.docx (pdf) (gsz)

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Figure 3 Saturated Only soil seepage model

Figure 4 Interface element "no flow" model

Results and discussion

Dam with a concrete cutoff

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

SEEP/W Example File: Dam with concrete cutoff.docx (pdf) (gsz)

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Flow Net 5.76 x 10 7.1 0.34

SEEP/W 5.62 x 10 6.93 0.32

Uplift pressure (pore-water pressure)

Pressure Head (ft)

0 0 20 40 60 X (ft) 80 100 120 140 160

Figure 6 Pressures along ground surface and beneath dam

SEEP/W Example File: Dam with concrete cutoff.docx (pdf) (gsz)

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

-0.2 0 20 40 60 X (ft) 80 100 120 140 160

Figure 7 Vertical gradients along ground surface and beneath dam

SEEP/W Example File: Dam with concrete cutoff.docx (pdf) (gsz)

You might also like