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

net/publication/326045577

SEEPAGE AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EARTH DAMS

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 8,751

4 authors, including:

Bakenaz A. Zeidan Marawan Shahien

Tanta University Tanta University
124 PUBLICATIONS   250 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   255 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohamed Elshemy
Tanta University
46 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Egyptian Coastal Lakes and Wetlands - I and II - Contributed book - published by Springer International Publishing during late 2018 or early 2019 View project

The Nile Delta - Contributed Book Project published by Springer International Publishing in 2017 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bakenaz A. Zeidan on 11 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis of Earth Dams
Bakenaz. A. Zeidan, M. Shahien, M. Elshemy
Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Egypt
Email: b.zeidan@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg

ABSTRACT

Earth dams’ failure may occur due to different reasons such as structural instability conditions,
hydraulic conditions, seepage through the dam body and/or rapid drawdown. The determination of
factor of safety for the dam slope stability, under different cases of operations, is vital to ascertain the
dam overall safety. In this work, Finite Element modeling is employed for simulating seepage and stress
analysis of earth dam problems via GeoStudio software. Thus, phreatic seepage surface, pore water
pressure distribution and total hydraulic head variation of an earth dam are analyzed. The model is
verified, then it is employed to analyze seepage and stability of Mandali Dam (Iraq). For three different
cases of operation, four major analytical methods are used to verify the stability of the dam side slopes.
Benchmark safety regulation criteria (USACE and BDS) are obeyed. The results confirm the safety of
Mandali dam against combined seepage and slope instability under all cases of operation. The case of
rapid drawdown is the most critical operating case; compared to other cases of operation.

Keywords: Earth dams, Seepage, Stability of slopes, Finite element modeling, Mandali Dam.

1. Introduction
Dams are built for specific functions such as water supply, irrigation, flood control and hydroelectric
power generation. Most of the large dams in the world were built during the middle decades of the twentieth
century. There are two types of modern dams, namely: embankment dam and concrete dam. Embankment dams
can be classified into two main categories earth-fill dams and rock-fill dams. Embankment dams represent about
85% of dams all over the world. There are several factors to be considered in selecting an earth dam type such
as: topography; foundation conditions; environmental impacts, construction facilities and socio-economic
studies. A feasible dam should be; built from locally available materials; stable under all operating and loading
conditions; watertight enough to control seepage; have appropriate outlet works to crest dam overtopping [1-
3].

2. Literature Review
Seepage and slope stability failures are addressed via many authors since Henry Darcy, 1856 [4], who
gave the basic law of flow through porous media. Darcy’s law was based on series of experiments conducted in
a vertical pipe filled with sand. Fellenius (1936) [5], developed the Ordinary Method of Slices (OMS) known as
Felonious or Swedish method. It is assumed that the forces acting on sides of any slice are neglected. Zienkiewiez
and Chung, 1967 [6], published the first finite element simulation to solve the Laplace equation for steady
ground water seepage., Taylor and Chow, 1976 [7], recorded that the Finite Element Method was used to assess
the potential seepage flows and uplift pressure in the foundation rock for Bannett Dam in Canada. Kratutich,
2004 [8], used thermal mode at ANSYS computer code to simulate numerically the case of no stationary free
surface in earth dams. Karjani, 2009 [9] used Geostudio computer software to analyze Maroon dam, estimate
flow net at passing condition and slope stability factor at overall stability for different operating conditions has
been calculated. Zomorodian and Abodollahzadeh, 2010 [10], used Geostudio software to investigate the effect
of horizontal drains on upstream slope of earth fill dams during rapid drawdown. Tatewar and Laxman N.
Pawade, 2012 [11], used Geostudio software to investigate the slope stability of the 21m high Bhimdi earth dam,
by changing different parameters such as changing berm width and changing position of filter drains. Hasani et
al., 2013 [12], studied the seepage analysis in Ilam earth dam for four mesh size in order to assess the effect of
meshing on results accuracy.
3. Seepage flow through Earth Dams
Seepage flow of water through porous media depends on the soil media, type of flow, properties of
liquid and hydraulic gradient. Seepage piping account for approximately 40% of all earth dam failures. Different
methods have been developed to solve seepage problems, these methods can be classified as analytical,
experimental and a numerical methods. Ground water flows in the direction of decreasing potential energy
caused by differences in pressure and elevation. A common measure of this potential energy is the total head, 𝛟
which is simply the sum of pressure head and elevation head. The volume rate of flow per unit area is directly
proportional to the rate of change of head as given by the differential form of Darcy's Law. The following general
governing equation for seepage through earth dams can be considered as [1, 3]:

𝛛 𝛛𝐇 𝛛 𝛛𝐇 𝛛 𝛛𝐇 𝝏𝒉
[𝐊 𝐱 ]+ [𝐊 𝐲 ]+ [ 𝐤𝐳 ]=𝐒 In Ω ……………. (1)
𝛛𝐱 𝛛𝐱 𝛛𝐲 𝛛𝐲 𝛛𝐳 𝛛𝐳 𝝏𝒕

where, Kx, Ky and Kz are the coefficient of permeability in x, y, z directions, respectively, S is specific yield and 𝐇 =
p/γw + z = total fluid head, P = pressure, γw = unit weight of water and z = elevation head. Equation (1) is known
as Laplace’s equation which is considered as the governing equation for groundwater there dimensions flow
through aquifers. For an isotropic, homogeneous aquifer under steady state conditions, Equation (2) can be
simplified to the following equation:
𝝏𝟐 𝐇 𝝏𝟐 𝐇
+ =𝟎 In Ω ………………………………………………….. (2)
𝝏𝒙𝟐 𝝏𝒛𝟐

It is assumed that; the soil media is homogeneous, isotropic, and physically stable; the pressure is atmospheric
everywhere on the water table (phreatic surface); the flow of ground water through the flow domain is steady
and the hydraulic conductivity through the dam body is constant everywhere.

3.1 Boundary Conditions

Figure (1) shows a schematic representation for the problem statement and boundary conditions for a typical
earth dam. These boundary conditions can be briefly summarized as follows:
3.1.1 Entrance Surface (Γ1)
The upstream boundary surface (Γ1) is the entrance surface at which the percolation of reservoir water through
the media starts. This surface is considered as an equipotential line which is known as Dirchlet Condition for a
prescribed head as:
𝐇 (x, y) = H1 ……………………………………………………………….. (3)
3.1.2 Phreatic Surface (Γ2)
The boundary surface (Γ2) is the phreatic surface of the flow through the dam. This boundary is considered as a
stream line. The phreatic surface, although it is considered as a boundary condition, its location and its profile
are unknown a priori. For the unknown phreatic surface the boundary condition is:
𝐇 (x, y) = y ……………………………………………………………….... (4. a)
∂𝐇
=0 …………………………………………………………............ (4. b)
∂n
where n is the normal directions to the boundary (Γ2).
3.1.3 Exit Surface (Seepage surface) (Γ3)
The boundary surface (Γ3) is the exit surface or seepage surface. This boundary is considered as an isobar at
which the pressure along it is atmospheric, hence, the boundary condition along such a surface is:
𝐇 (x, y) = y ………………………………………...................................... (5)
The geometry of the seepage surface is known, except its upper limit the exit point, which is laying on the
unknown phreatic surface. The location of this point is a part of the required solution.
3.1.4 Dam Foundation Boundary (Γ4)
The boundary surface (Γ4) is the dam foundation boundary, which is also known as Neumann Condition. In the
present study, this boundary is assumed to be impervious i.e. this surface prevents the flow of water across it
such that:
∂𝐇
= 0 ………………………………………………………………………… (6)
∂n
where n is the normal directions to the boundary (Γ4).
4. Stability of Earth Dam Slopes
Every soil mass which has a slope at its end is subjected to shear stresses on internal surfaces or
failure plans in the soil mass near the slope. This is due to the gravitational forces that try to pull down parts of
the soil mass adjoining the slope. Several models and analytical techniques have been developed to determine
the critical slip surface and the associated factor of safety such as method of slices. The factor of safety is:
𝝉𝒇
F.S. = ………………………………………………………………… (7)
𝝉
where, F.S. factor of safety, τf failure shear strength of the soil, and τ shear stress of the soil. The stability of earth
fill dam depends on its geometry, components, materials, properties of each component and the forces to which
it is subjected. There are some analytical tools for assessing the stability of a slope by using simple failure models.
These techniques are limited to slopes of homogenous material, soils, fractured rocks which are behaving like
soils and for plain strain (2-D) problems only. Some of these tools are listed by [13]. For steady state seepage
condition the factor of safety using Fellenius method is [5, 14]:

𝐢=𝐧
∑𝐢=𝟏(𝐜𝐋𝐢 +(𝐖𝐢 𝐜𝐨𝐬 𝛂𝐢 −𝐮𝐢 𝐋𝐢)𝐭𝐚𝐧𝛗)
F.S. = ∑𝐢=𝐧
…………………………….. (8)
𝐢=𝟏 𝐖𝐢 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛂𝐢

For steady state seepage condition the factor of safety using Bishop Method is:

𝐢=𝐧 𝟏
∑ (𝐜𝐛𝐢 +(𝐖𝐢 −𝐮𝐢 𝐛𝒊 )𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝛗)
𝐢=𝟏 𝒎𝜶𝒊
FS = ∑𝐢=𝐧
………………….……………………….. (9)
𝐢=𝟏 𝐖𝐢 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝛂𝐢

𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒏𝝋 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝜶
where, 𝒎𝜶𝒊 = 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝜶𝒊 +
𝑭𝑺
c = effective soil cohesion, L = length of the bottom of the slice, b = width of the slice and equal to (L cos𝜶 ), u =
pore water pressure, W= weight of the slice, 𝛂 =inclination of the bottom of the slice and 𝛗 = effective internal
friction angle.

5. Finite Element Formulation

The basic concept of the finite element method is to divide the problem region into
subdomains (finite elements) connected at their common nodal points and that the unknown
function of the field variable is defined approximately within each element. The approximate
solution of each element expressed by continuous function is as follows [3]:
e 𝐞
𝐇 = ∑noe
e=1 [Ni ] {𝐇𝐢 } …………………………………………… (11)
where, 𝐇𝐢𝐞 = nodal value of (H) for ith node in element (e), noe = total number of elements and Nie = shape
function of element (e).
There are more different approaches to formulate the approximate solution of the problem. In the present
study, the standard weighted residual method with Galerkin’s criterion [6] is used to approximate the solution
of the unknown variable (H). Thus, equation (2) can be written in a matrix form as [3]:

[𝐊]. {𝐇} = {𝐅} ……………………….………………………… (12)

in which {𝐇} is the unknown nodal potential head vector, {𝐅} is the nodal external flux vector and [𝐊] is the
conductivity matrix given by:

∂Nj ∂Ni ∂Nj ∂Ni

𝐊 ij = ∫Ve ( 𝐊x + 𝐊x ) dx dy………………….. (13)
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y

where, V e = the domain of element (e) and Ni = interpolation or shape function. Derivations of the above
functions are given in detail by [3].
The solution of seepage problem with phreatic surface require a successive adjustment for the location of the
phreatic surface and the finite element mesh size till the desired degree of convergence for the head H is
achieved. In all iterative methods, the solution is started by using initial guess for the unknown values and the
solution is obtained by repeating the solution of the system of equations successively through recurrence
relations to update the old values until the solution converges closely enough to the true values within some
prescribed tolerance of error [3].

6. Safety Criteria and Verification of Model

Design and safety evaluation of embankment dams should satisfy the recommended criterion of the
experienced agencies in the design of embankment dams. Among the numerous dam safety regulation [13, 15,
16, 17], both USACE (2003) [18] and BDS (1994) [19] criterion are considered as the benchmark for their broad
area of validation in the present study. Geostudio computer code [20] is employed in the present study to
simulate seepage and stability analysis of atypical earth dam. The model is verified with reference [21] for a
solved example with a zoned embankment dam for slope stability analysis. The verification is done for three
cases of operation using Bishop's method. Figures (2- 4) and Table (1) show the factor of safety (F.S.) simulation
of upstream and downstream slope for all cases of operations. For upstream slope, the absolute mean error
(AME) is about 0.16 and the average absolute percentage difference (AAPD) is about 8.8%. For downstream
slope, (AME) is about 0.075 and (AAPD) is about 4.1% which are all within the acceptable accuracy.

Table (1): Minimum calculation results of factor of safety

F.S upstream slope F.S downstream slope
Methods of calculation Rapid End of End of Steady state
drawdown construction construction
Present study 1.618 2.25 1.911 1.90
GeoStudio software (Bishop's)
Referance [21] 1.515 2.03 1.86 1.80
Analatical solution (Bishop's)
Absolute percent difference 6.79% 10.83% 2.47% 5.56%

7. Application of Geostudio on Mandali Dam

Mandali dam is an earth fill dam which is located on Harran Wadi, in the governorate of Diyala which is
extends to the northeast of Baghdad, Iraq (Fig.5). The dam has been designed by Directorate General of Dam
and Reservoirs, Iraq. The Wadi bed is gravely and permeable to some depths as it is clear from the geological
investigations Mandali dam has a central core and the dam total length is about 1316 m. The maximum height
of the dam is about 14m [Ministry of water Resources, Iraq] [22]. Figure (6) shows the dam cross-section, while
Table (2) gives the material properties of the dam components. The dam geometrical properties can be seen in
Table (3).

Table (2): Material properties of Mandali dam, Iraq [22, 23].

Layer (soil type) Shell Clay core Foundation Filter
Physical and (Sandy soil) (Very stiff clay) (Stiff clay) (Sandy gravel
mechanical properties soil)
Bulk density (γ) [KPa] 21 19.2 22 21
Angle of internal friction (ϕ) [degree] 40 15 30 37
Cohesion (c) [KPa] 0.0 40 5 0.0
Permeability (k) [m/sec] 1.37*10−5 9.88*10−9 10−8 10−2
Poisonʹs ratio (ν) 0.3 0.36 0.32 0.4
The elastic Modulus (E) [KPa] 35000 19000 100000 30000

7.1 Safety Criteria of Mandali Dam

The Geometric properties of Mandali dam were checked using BDS (1994) [19]. Table (3) gives the
results of the comparison. It can be noticed that the geometric design of the dam is acceptable based on the
recommendations of The British Dam Society (1994) [19].
 Table (3): Comparison between original section of Mandali dam and (BDS) safety limits
Parameter Mandali (BDS) Safety limits Safety of dam status
Dam
Crest width 8.0 m Not less than 2.0 m Acceptable
Upstream slope 2.7:1 2.5:1 Acceptable
Downstream slope 2.4:1 2:1 Acceptable
Free board 1.50 m Min. free board = 1.50 m at Max. Acceptable (Maximum head over
Fitch = 4 km. spillway = 2.5 m)
𝐻
Bed width of core 58 m Not less than = (4.67 m) Acceptable
3
Core slope 1:1.77 1:12 Acceptable

7.2 Seepage Analysis of Mandali Dam

The Finite Element Mesh of the model can be seen in Figure (7). While figures (8) and (9) present the
water head variation and pore water pressure through the dam body, respectively. Figure (7) shows that the
phreatic line has been lowered down effectively by the central clay core. Figure (8) confirms that the pore water
pressure in the internal surface of downstream are far away from downstream which ensures stability of the
downstream against seepage failure. Figures (7) and (8) show that the variations of pore water pressure as well
as energy lines follow (BDS) safety regulations. Moreover, the flow lines are diverge from the downstream toe
of the dam and the drainage filter minimize excess developed pore water pressure, which ensures the stability
of the downstream slope.

8. Analysis of Mandali Dam and Results

To investigate the stability of dam slopes, the dam was simulated, using Geostudio software, three
different cases of operation are considered, as follows:
Case (1): Just after construction; where reservoir is empty and significant pore pressure development is expected
either in the embankment or foundation during construction of the embankment.
Case (2): Steady-state seepage; where reservoir is full and the long-term phreatic surface within the
embankment has been established.
Case (3): Rapid drawdown; in the reservoir is drawn down faster than the pore pressures can dissipate within
the embankment after the establishment of steady-state seepage conditions.
The considered analytical methods in the present study are Ordinary, Bishop’s Simplified, and Janbu’s Simplified
and Morgenstern-Price methods. The obtained factors of safety (F.S.) are compared to the Limits of USACE
(2003) [18] and BDS (1994) [19].
Figures (10 - 14) present F.S. for the dam slopes under different cases of operation using the four analytical tools.
Table (4) summarizes the determined upstream and downstream factor of safety (F.S.) for all cases of operation
and used analytical tools.

Table (4): Results of Mandali dam stability analysis by Geostudio with Limit of USACE (2003) and BDS (1994).
Critical Stability End of construction Steady state Rapid drawdown
Condition
Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream
USACE (2003)
1.3 1.5 1.2
BDS (1994) (1.5-1.3) (1.5-1.3) (1.3-1.2)
Ordinary 1.985 2.394 2.343 2.008 1.958 2.008
Bishop's 2.082 2.427 2.488 2.154 2.061 2.154
Janbu's 1.922 2.357 2.205 1.962 1.895 1.962
Morgenstern-Price 2.12 2.444 2.543 2.187 2.103 2.187
Remark Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable
For steady state condition, the maximum water level was 182.5 m [AMSL], where the dam crest level is 184 m
[AMSL] (1.50 m free board). While for rapid drawdown case, the water level was lowered from the estimated
maximum flood level of 182.5 m [AMSL] to the minimum operating level of 170 m [AMSL]. As can be seen in the
presented figures and table, the factor of safety (F.S.) values ranges from 1.895 to 2.543 which satisfies the
minimum limits of factor of safety (F.S.) in USACE (2003) and BDS (1994). The factor of safety (F.S.) values reflects
stable slopes of the dam for all operating cases. The least values of factor of safety (F.S.) are given by Janbu
method. This is mainly due to the moment equilibrium equations that are not satisfied by Janbu’s method. While
the largest factor of safety (F.S.) values are given by Morgenstern-price method, as Morgenstern-price method
relates the shear and normal force [13].

9. Conclusions
Finite element modeling was employed in this study to analyze the combined seepage and slope
stability of Mandali earth dam (Iraq). Three different cases of operation were considered, and four different
analytical tools were used to analyze the slope stability. The dam safety check was based on the minimum
required F.S stated in USACE and BDS. The results showed that the geometric design of the dam is acceptable
according to BDS criteria and the seepage through the dam is within the code recommendations. The factor of
safety (F.S.) values of upstream and downstream slopes stability satisfy the minimum limits for all cases of
operation. Rapid drawdown case is the most critical case compared to other operating cases. It can be concluded
that Mandali dam is safe against seepage failure and slope failure under the different cases of operation. As a
conclusion, developing of software for earth dam safety is essential.

REFERENCES
[1] M. Elshemy, R.I. Nasr, M.M. Bahloul and I.M. Rashwan, The effect of blockages through earth dams on the
Seepage characteristics, Faculty of engineering, Tanta University, Egypt, (2002).
[2] M. A. M. Ismail, S. Min Ng and K. Gey, Stability Analysis of Kelau Earth-Fill Dam Design under Main
Critical Conditions, Malaysia, the Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE), (2012).
[3] Zeidan, B.A., A Numerical (FEM) Study of the Effect of Anisotropy on Phreatic Seepage Flows, PhD Thesis,
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology IIT, Powai, Bombay, India, (1993).
[4] M. E. Harr, Groundwater and Seepage, McGraw-Hill, New York, (1962).
[5] Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V., Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., SI Version, New York, U.
S. A, (1979).
[6] Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R.L., the Finite Element Method; Volumes I, II”, 5th Edition, First
Published In (I967) By McGraw-Hill.
[7] National Water and Climate Center, Watershed Science Institute, EM 1110-2-1901, Sep., (1986).
www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/watershed/piedmont/a-a.pdf/
[8] Kratochvil, J., Numerical modeling of Non stationary Free Surface Flow in Embankment Dams, Brno
University of Technology CZ, (2004).
[9] A. Kamanbedast and A. Delvari, Analysis of Earth Dam: Seepage and Stability Using Ansys and Geo-Studio
Software, Iran, World Applied Sciences Journal 17 (9): 1087- 1094, (2012).
[10] S.M. Zomorodian and S.M. Abodollahzadeh, Effect of Horizontal Drains on Upstream Slope Stability
During Rapid Drawdown Condition, Shiraz University, Iran, International Journal of Geology, Issue 4,
Volume 4, (2010).
[11] S.P. Tatewar and Laxman N. Pawade, Stability Analysis of Earth Dam by Geostudio Software, India,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, July- December
(2012).
[12] H. Hasani, J. Mamizadeh and H. Karimi, Stability of Slope and Seepage Analysis in Earth Fills Dams
Using Numerical Models (Case Study: Ilam Dam), Iran, World Applied Sciences Journal 21 (9): 1398-
1402,
(2013).
[13] FERC, (1991), Chapter IV, Embankment Dams, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission available at:
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide/chap4.PDF
[14] Ismael, KHz. S., Seepage and Stability Evaluation of Duhok Dam, M. Sc. Thesis, College of Engineering,
University of Duhok, Iraq, (2006).
[15] USBR, United State Department of interior Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standard DS-13(4),
Embankment Dams, Static Stability Analysis, Chapter (4), October (2011).
[16] NRCS, Technical Release No. 60, Earth Dams and Reservoirs, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
(2005); available at www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/TR_210_60_Second_Edition.pdf
[17] ULDC, Urban Levee Design Criteria, Engineering criteria and guidance for the design, California
Department of Water Resources, May (2012).
[18] USACE, Slope Stability, Engineering Manual 1110-2-1902, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
Washington DC, United States of America, (2003); available at
www.usace.army.mil/inet/usacoe-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-2-1902/entire.pdf
[19] BDS, the British Dam Society at the Institution of Civil engineers, Great George Street, London, SW1P
3AA, (1994). http://britishdams.org/conferences
[20] GEO-SLOPE INTERNATIONAL. Ltd, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2p 2Y5, (2004).
http:// www. Geo-Slope. com
[21] MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Design of Hydraulic Structures, Earth Dams Design,
Chapter (5). www.most.gov.mm/techuni/media/CE 05016 ch5.pdf
[22] Directorate General of Dams and Reservoirs, Mandali Dam Project- Geological Report, Ministry of water
Resources, (2004).
[23] Taylor & Francis / Balkema, Look, B. G. Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables,
London, UK, pp. 91, (2007).

35
Reservoir
30

25

20
Γ2
Γ1
elev

15
H1 Γ3
10
Ω Dam
5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130

dist
Γ4 Γ4
Foundation

Γ4
Fig. (1) Problem statement and boundary conditions accuracy.
1.908

Fig. (2) F.S of downstream slope for steady state case

1.911

Fig. (3) F.S of downstream slope for End of construction case

1.618

Figure (4) F.S of upstream slope for Rapid drawdown case

 Fig. (5) Mandali Dam location [22]

Shell Clay core Filter Foundation

40

38

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
Elevation

20

18

16

14

12

10

4
Mandali dam (case study)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Distance

Fig. (6) Cross section of Mandali Dam, Iraq

40

38

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
Elevation

20

18

16

14

12

10

4
Mandali dam (case study)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Distance

Figure (7) Finite element mesh of Mandali dam

40

38
Flow lines
36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
Elevation

20
24

18
32

22

16
30

28

14
26

12

10

4
Mandali dam (case study)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Distance

Figure (8) Water head variation and flow line through the dam body
 40

38

36

34

32

30

28

0
26
4

2
6
24

22 10
8
Elevation

20
12
18 14

16 16

14 18

12 20

10 22

4
Mandali dam (case study)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Distance

Figure (9) Pore water pressure through the dam body

40

38 1.962

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
elev

20

18

16

14

12

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

dist

40
Figure (10) F.S for downstream slope by Janbu's method for case of steady state
38 2.343

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
elev

20

18

16

14

12

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

dist

Figure (11) F.S for upstream slope by Ordinary method for case of steady state.
40

38 2.008

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
elev

20

18

16

14

12

10

6
ordinary method
4

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

dist

Figure (12) F.S for downstream slope by Ordinary method for case of Rapid drawdown.

40

38 2.061

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
elev

20

18

16

14

12

10

6
bishop method
4

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

dist

Figure (13) F.S for upstream slope by Bishop's method for case of Rapid drawdown.
 40

38 2.103

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
elev

20

18

16

14

12

10

6
morgenstern-price method
4

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

dist

Figure (14) F.S for upstream slope by Morgenstern-Price method for case of Just after
construction.

View publication stats