TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ANG TECHOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

TARLAC CITY

A SEEPAGE MODEL OF A GRAVITY DAM

PROPONETS:

ANDRADE, RENALYN S.

CONCEPCION, JOHN PATRICK M.

DAILEG, JUSTIN M.

GRAGASIN, GABRIEL A.

LAGRIMAS, MAVERICK S
 INTRODUCTION

Dams are engineering structures built for retaining water for the purpose of water supply,

irrigation, flood control and hydroelectric power generation. A dam can also be used to collect

water or for storage of water which can be evenly distributed between locations. Most of large

dams in the world were built during the middle decades of the twentieth century. There are two

types of modern dams, namely: embankment and concrete. Dams have individually unique

structures. Regardless of the size and type, they demonstrate great complexity in their load

response and in their interactive relationship with site hydrology and geology. Due to the

complexity of the design of dams, some engineers in the past has overlooked one important

element of the design of a dam which is seepage. Seepage in engineering is defined as, the

movement of water in soils, often a critical problem in foundations.

Seepage depends on several factors, including permeability of the soil and the pressure

gradient, essentially the combination of forces acting on water through gravity and other factors.

Permeability can vary over a wide range, depending on soil structure and composition, making

possible the safe design of such structures as earth dams and reservoirs with negligible leakage

loss, and other structures such as roadbeds and filtration beds in which rapid drainage is

desirable.

Seepage has very important, as seepage affects the stability of the dam. Because of its

importance, which the determination of the seepage through an earth dam has received a great

deal of attention. To ensure the static resistance and dynamic stability of dams, it is very
important to quantify the seepage, i.e. to analyze the flow field beneath the dam. The above

mentioned is important for several reasons especially in the design of dams. Seepage should be

studied for the following reasons: (i) to quantify the pressure load, i.e. buoyancy on the dam

foundation, (ii) to reduce the buoyancy under some predefined magnitude by identifying the

necessary depth of the hydraulic barrier below the foundation, (iii) to identify the total pressure

load on the hydraulic barrier and (iv) to quantify the discharge Q beneath the hydraulic barrier.

Hydraulic analysis is to be conducted to reveal if there exists a danger of attaining flow

conditions that will lead to local erosion. Namely, the difference in water depth at the upstream

and downstream part of the dam induces a flow around the foundation. Particularly, at the

downstream part of the dam, i.e. at the tip of the dam foundation, the velocity vectors can be

oriented upward If in this region the velocity magnitude exceeds the value at which the induced

hydrodynamic force on soil particles become equal or greater than the gravity force, the soil

particles will be lifted apart and dispersed. As a consequence, the soil bearing capacity could be

vanished. To prevent such a scenario the flow field should be adequately manipulated by

embedding hydraulic barriers.

The mentioned flow can be investigated by performing laboratory measurements on

physical models i.e. hydraulic models which are attenuate replications of original dams

(prototypes).

It is well known in geotechnical engineering that groundwater seepage often plays a

significant role in slope stability and deformation of geotechnical structures. In order to grasp
how groundwater seepage behaves in a particular soil mass, geotechnical engineers conduct

various types of seepage analyses. To conduct a seepage analysis, it often requires a

fundamental understanding of seepage theory, engineering principals/concepts, soil mass

properties, soil geometry, and subsurface soil conditions.

It is nearly impossible to immediately become effective at conducting a successful

seepage analysis without prior experience and understanding of seepage behavior. However, all

experienced geotechnical engineers started somewhere in order to learn how to conduct a

successful seepage analysis. The difficulty in conducting actual seepage analysis in actual dams

is both costly and time consuming. The development of a scale seepage model serves as an

alternative that would determine seepage behavior without actually conducting physical on site

observation and experimentation on large dams. In this light, the researchers shall develop a

seepage model that would determine flow nets and seepage behavior in a more controlled and

safe environment. The following modules outlined in this thesis will attempt to provide a primer

to learning conducting a steady-state seepage analysis using the seepage model to be developed

by the researchers.

OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

These objectives are formulated to determine answers of the things that this research aims to

provide. To be achieved through experimentation. To classify and evaluate, and to make

recommendations to improve the operation of these experimentations.

 To provide a model of a gravity dam which can be used in water seepage analyses
  To identify the amount of seepage in terms of flow nets

 To develop a laboratory manual about seepage that can be used in laboratory

experiment

 To help students visualize the concept of flow nets and seepage and providing

knowledge though experimentation

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

For Engineering Students. This research will benefit the students of the college in terms

of providing a lab experiment which will be use in the elaboration of the effects of seepage on

soil especially on super-structures (i.e., gravity dams).

For Engineering Professors. For the professors to be eased with the complex

computation & explanation of the subject manner.

For Environmental and Urban Planners. The results of this research can be used by

urban and environmental planners to check danger areas who have high probability of water

seepage which can often lead to landslide.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

This research shall be limited to the analysis of seepage on a scaled gravity dam model

with an experimental ratio of a mixture of sand and clay. The primary focus of this research is to
conduct experimentations and observe how water seeps into the grounds in terms of flow nets, it

will also look at the utilization of a scaled dam model and its future use as a laboratory

instrument in the college

DEFINITION OF TERMS

SEEPAGE - in soil engineering, movement of water in soils, often a critical problem in building

foundations. 

PERMEABILITY -  in fluid mechanics and the earth sciences (commonly symbolized as κ,

or k) is a measure of the ability of a porous material (often, a rock or an unconsolidated material)

to allow fluids to pass through it.

DAM - a barrier constructed to hold back water and raise its level, the resulting reservoir being

used in the generation of electricity or as a water supply.

GRAVITY DAM -  is a dam constructed from concrete or stone masonry and designed to hold

back water by primarily using the weight of the material alone to resist the horizontal pressure of

water pushing against it.

DARCY'S LAW - is an equation that describes the flow of a fluid through a porous medium.

The law was formulated by Henry Darcy based on the results of experiments on the flow of

water through beds of sand, forming the basis of hydrogeology, a branch of earth sciences.

LAPLACE - is a second-order partial differential equation named after Pierre-

Simon Laplace who first studied its properties. This is often written as: where ∆ = ∇2 is

the Laplace operator (see below) and is a scalar function.

FLOW NETS – A flow net is both a convenient pictorial device for visualizing ground water

flow and a powerful tool with which to perform graphic calculation of specific discharge and

seepage velocity.

FLOW LINES - flow lines, which show the direction of groundwater flow

EQUIPOTENTIAL LINES - which show the distribution of potential energy.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter summarizes previous research work conducted in areas related to seepage in

dams. Relatively little has been published regarding the performance of concrete dams in

seepage, however, the few references that are directly associated with this topic are discussed

below. Summaries of previous research on several additional topics are presented herein

because of their relevance to this study. The following research topics are discussed in this

chapter:

 The performance of seepage barriers in dams,

 Theoretical seepage barrier analyses,

 Construction techniques and material properties, and

 Piping development in dams.

Much of the research presented in this study is based on the review of unpublished data and

reports regarding the design, construction, and performance of the dams and seepage barriers that

are a part of this study.

 FOSTER, FELL AND SPANAGEL (1998, 2000A AND 2000B).

In this research report (Foster et al. 1998) and two papers (Foster et al. 2000a, 2000b) the

authors have reviewed performance data on a large number of dams and have statistically

analyzed the characteristics of the dams versus the incidence of dam accidents and failure. In

the research report (Foster et al. 1998) and first paper (Foster et al. 2000a) statistical analyses

are presented comparing the characteristics of dams (zoning, filters, core soil type,

compaction, foundation conditions, and foundation cutoff) with the incidence of failures and

accidents. In the second paper (Foster et al. 2000b) a method is presented (termed the

University of New South Wales or UNSW method) for assessing the relative likelihood of

dam failure by piping based on the results of the statistical analyses presented in the first

paper.

The UNSW method starts by assessing the average annual probability of failure by piping,

Pp, based solely on construction method, embankment materials and zoning of the dam and

whether the dam has been in operation for more than or less than 5 years. This probability is

taken as the sum of the average annual probabilities of three modes of piping failure: piping

through the embankment, Pe, piping through the foundation, Pf, and piping from the

embankment into the foundation, Pef. Weighting factors are then calculated for each of the

three modes. The weighting factors consider design, construction, monitoring and performance
factors to modify the modal probabilities. Thus, the probability of piping failure for a dam is

expressed by the equation:

Pf = wEPe + wFPf + wEFPef, 2-1

Where wE, wF, and wEF are the weighting factors for the three modes of piping failure.

The results of the statistical analyses indicate that dams with seepage barriers have a

higher probability of failure or accident than dams that don’t. For dams on soil foundations,

Foster et al. (2000b) recommend weighting factors of 1.0 for dams with sheet pile wall cutoffs

or poorly constructed slurry trench walls, 0.8 for dams with well-constructed slurry trench walls

and 0.7 for dams with deep cutoff trenches. For dams with rock foundations the recommended

weighting factors are 3.0 for sheet pile walls or poorly constructed diaphragm walls, 1.5 for

well-constructed diaphragm walls and 1.0 for cutoff trenches. For both foundation types the

weighting factors are higher for dams with the types of seepage barriers that are the topic of

this study (deep, thin barriers). Thus, statistically the presence of a seepage barrier in a dam

increases the probability of failure or accidents. It should be noted that this statistic may be

misleading due to the fact that seepage barriers are generally constructed in dams with less than

ideal foundation conditions or preexisting seepage problems.

It was also reported that dams with high depth to width ratios in a cutoff trench have a

higher incidence of failure than do those with wider seepage barriers (Foster et al. 1998). This

statistic is attributed to the potential for developing low stress conditions in the trench backfill

that could result in the initiation of hydraulic fracturing. While these thinner cutoff trenches do

not classify as seepage barriers as defined in this study, this statistic is relevant to this study
because it illustrates how the seepage-related failure mechanisms in dams change as the seepage

retarding structures get thinner and become more like seepage barriers.

 TELLING, MENZIES AND SIMONS (1978A, 1978B, 1978C)

These papers present methods for assessing the effectiveness of seepage barriers that

contain joints or that partially penetrate a permeable layer. The first paper (Telling et al 1978a)

presents a summary of methods for assessing and predicting seepage barrier efficiency.

Efficiency is defined in two ways, the head efficiency and the flow efficiency. The head

efficiency, EH, is defined as the ratio of the head drop across the barrier, h, to the total head

drop across the dam, H, or:

EH = h/H 2-1

The flow efficiency, EQ, relates the flow with the barrier in place, Q, with the flow

without the barrier, Q0, and is defined as the ratio of the change in flow with the barrier in

place to the flow without the barrier or:

EQ = (Q0 - Q)/Q0 2-2

Several theoretical expressions are presented for estimating head efficiency in terms of

the ratio of the dam foundation permeability to the barrier permeability, the length of the dam,

the thickness of the barrier and the thickness of the permeable layer. These equations assume

that the dam itself is impermeable.

In the first paper, Telling et al. (1978a) also present case histories of dams with seepage

barriers in place and assesses their efficiency. Fort Peck and Garrison Dams have steel sheet

pile seepage barriers installed across sands and gravels. Both Fort Peck and Garrison

Dams showed increased measured head efficiencies over time (12 percent to 30 percent over
17 years for Fort Peck and 18 percent to 38 percent over 5 years for Garrison). The increase in

efficiency is attributed to filling of the sheet pile interlocks with fines and the effects of

corrosion along the interlocks. A concrete diaphragm wall at Allegheny Reservoir Dam was

reported to have a very high efficiency (reported as 100 percent with no data provided).

However, concrete seepage barriers at Selset, Balderhead, Limoeiro, and Selevir Dams all

were reported to have very low head efficiencies. All four of the poorly performing barriers

were partially embedded into permeable bedrock (shale, fractured gneiss, or schist) and

extended with single-line grout curtains. The ineffectiveness of the barriers is attributed to

ineffectiveness of the grout curtains.

In the second paper (Telling et al. 1978b) theoretical expressions are derived to calculate

the head efficiency of seepage barriers containing uniformly spaced joints. Expressions are

derived for barriers with open joints and joints with entrapped soil infill. The expressions are

in terms of the wall geometry (barrier thickness, joint spacing, and flow distance along the

joint), the permeability of the surrounding soil, and the permeability of the entrapped soil

infill.

Small scale tests were performed to assess the affect of perforations in a barrier by using a

perforated metal barrier in a 100 mm by 250 mm by 1 meter sand-filled box. The results of

these tests indicated that once the perforation area to total area ratio reached about 1 percent,

the barrier had the same effectiveness as a partially penetrating barrier with all of the

penetrations concentrated at the base of the barrier. Thus, based on the theoretical expressions

and the results of the small scale tests, walls with closely spaced joints, such as sheet pile

walls, can be as ineffective as a partially penetrating wall with no imperfections.

 The paper concludes that, due to the close spacing of joints (interlocks) in sheet pile cut-

off walls, the head efficiency of these walls is expected to vary from 30 to 90 percent with the

higher efficiencies coming in walls where there is fine-grained soil entrapped within the

joints. On the other hand, concrete diaphragm walls are expected to have efficiencies of 90

percent or better. Case histories are presented supporting these conclusions. In cases where the

efficiency of concrete diaphragm walls was observed to be lower than 90 percent, the

inefficiencies were attributed to under seepage beneath the barrier.

The third paper (Telling et al 1978c) presents the results of a study on the efficiency of

partially penetrating cutoff walls. A series of graphs are presented for calculating the

efficiency of partially penetrating seepage barriers from three dimensionless ratios: the ratio of

the thickness of the barrier to the depth of the permeable layer, the ratio of the depth of the

seepage barrier to the depth of the permeable layer, and the ratio of the permeabilities of the

permeable layer to the seepage barrier. Two main conclusions are drawn:

1. For set value of the percentage of the permeable layer thickness that the barrier

penetrates and the thickness of barrier there is a limiting permeability ratio

(permeability of the surrounding soil to the permeability of the barrier) beyond which

there is negligible increase in effectiveness of the barrier. This value varies between

2 4
10 and 10 depending on the percentage of penetration and barrier thickness.

2. The depth of penetration has a marked influence on the efficiency of the seepage

barrier.
  FELL AND WAN (2005)

This report parallels the report presented above (Fell et al. 2004) and presents methods for

estimating the probability of failure of embankment dams by internal erosion, piping within

the foundation, and piping from the embankment to the foundation. A similar four-phased

model of the process is presented. Schematic illustrations of these models are presented in

Figure.

INITIATION  CONTINUATI  PROGRESSI  BREACH/FAILURE

ON ON
 Leakage exits Continuation of Backward Breach mechanism forms

from the erosion erosion in

foundation and progresses to

backward erosion form a pipe

initiations

(A) PIPING IN THE FOUNDATION INITIATED BY BACKWARD EROSION

INITIATION  CONTINUATI  PROGRESSION  BREACH/FAILU

ON RE

Leakage exits the core Continuation Backward erosion Breach

into the foundation and of erosion progresses to form a mechanism

backward erosion initiates pipe. Eroded soil is forms

as core erodes into the transported in the

foundation foundation

(B) PIPING FROM THE EMBANKMENT TO FOUNDATION INITIATED BY

BACKWARD EROSION
 The authors discuss the ways that internal erosion is initiated in the foundation or from

the embankment to the foundation. For internal erosion in the foundation three main categories

of initiating mechanism are presented: backward erosion, suffusion, and erosion in a

concentrated leak. The triggering conditions for these mechanisms are discussed. For

piping from the embankment to the foundation to initiate there must be defects or concentrated

seepage paths into which the embankment soil can erode. These seepage paths may be bedrock

joints, open graded soils, or other defects.

The report discusses an event tree-based method for assessing the risk of failure of

embankment dams due to seepage or internal erosion through the foundation or from the

embankment into the foundation, and provides guidance for developing failure modes and

event trees for individual dams. The subsequent chapter present discussion and guidance to

assist in assigning probabilities to the nodes of the event trees. Specifically, the chapter deal

with the four phases of seepage failure development: initiation, continuation, progression and

breach.

The first of these chapters provides discussion on the initiation of the various modes of

internal erosion and presents a recommended methodology for assessing the probability of

these modes initiating. The methods of Sellmeijer and his co-workers (de Wit et al. 1981,

Sellmeijer and Koenders 1991) and those of Schmertmann (2000) for assessing the potential

for initiation of backward erosion are discussed and a proposed method for assessing the
probability of initiation based on exit gradients is proposed. A method for assessing the

probability for initiating internal erosion by suffusion is proposed that considers the gradation

of the soil and the hydraulic gradient imposed on the soil. A method for assessing the

probability for initiating internal erosion along a concentrated leak is proposed that takes into

account the erosion rate index developed by Wan and Fell (2002, 2004a, 2004b), the width of

the concentrated leak, and the hydraulic gradient in the leak. Finally, the historic data approach

to assessing the likelihood of initiation of internal erosion is proposed as a starting point from

which the quantifying procedures discussed above can be used to further refine estimates of

initiation probability.

The chapter that addresses the continuation phase deals predominantly with filtering

behavior. Guidance is provided to assist in the assessment of the filtering effectiveness of

soils based on gradation, the ability of bedrock joints to filter soil particles, and the fraction of

the soils gradation that may be eroded by suffusion.

The chapter that addresses the progression provides guidance for assessing the

likelihood of eroding soil maintaining a pipe without collapse, the likelihood of crack filling

action and the likelihood of upstream flow limitation preventing progression. In assessing the

progression phase each of the modes previously considered for the initiation and continuation

phases; backward erosion, suffusion, concentrated leak in foundation, and internal erosion

from embankment to foundation; are treated separately due to the unique nature of the

mechanisms associated with each mode. Aids to judgment are provided to assist in assessing

the likelihood of eroding soil holding a roof, crack filling action, and upstream flow limitation.
 The chapter addressing the breach phase provides guidance and judgment aids for

assessing the probability of various beach modes. The final chapter of the report aids in the

assessment of the probability that a failure mode will be detected and intervention and repair

will be possible before dam breach occurs. The guidance involves assessing the rate at which

the internal erosion and piping will develop and progress, and the possible means for

intervention.

METHODOLOGY

This chapter summarizes the methodology to be conducted in the study. Included here

are; (a.) the research design, which includes the step by step procedure of the experimentation

to be done in the research, (b.) research instruments, which has information on how the study

will be conducted and analyzed, and (c.) data analysis, which tackles the presentation of the

results to be gathered in this research.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The researchers shall use Experimental Research Design to determine seepage behavior.

The researchers also consulted books regarding hydraulics and soil mechanics to develop the

design of the experiment. The procedures to be taken is as follows:

 1. Fabricate a scaled gravity dam model.

Model dimensions:

Depth = 24 inches

Length = 24 inches

Width = 8 inches

2. Conduct experimentations using different soil types in varying proportion.

This mixture has a ratio of 20 (scope of clay) x 12 (scope of

sand) where 1 scope weighed with the equivalent of 1.5 kg
per scope.

This clay is from an ant house gathered from near the

riverside.
 3. Gather

data/results of experimentations regarding seepage behavior.

Step by step procedures:

a) Prepare all materials (sieve, the weigh)

b.) Mix (sand and clay) with an instrumental ratio like;

c.) Moisture content (using an instrument like Speedy Moisture Tester)

d.) Pour the mixture into the tank, and then compact.
 e.) continue the experiment by observing the flow nets and record the data.

4.

Analyze seepage behavior from recorded

numerical results.

5.

Develop a manual in conducting seepage

behavior experiment.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The main research instrument used was the seepage model developed by the researchers.

To determine the impact of seepage on different soil types. The researchers used different

types of soil in different amount to determine the impact of seepage on these soil types. The

researchers video recorded the seepage flow and collected data based on the flow nets on

different kind of soil combination.

DATA ANALYSIS

The researchers shall record and compute for flow nets to determine seepage behavior
 on different soil type combination. As part of its documentation, the flow nets behavior was

video recorded using time lapse system. The recorded flow nets shall be compared to

determine the best soil combination. The recorded data will then also be used to create a

module on how to conduct a seepage experiment.

FUNDAMENTALS OF GROUNDWATER FLOW

BERNOULLI’S EQUATION

Bernoulli’s Equation quantifies energy potential in a fluid system in terms of the fluid column

height, most commonly referred to as “head.” According to Bernoulli’s Equation, the total head

is derived from the following equation.

Equation 1: Bernoulli’s Equation

Where h is the total head, z is the elevation head, P is pressure, γw is the unit weight of water, v

is the flow velocity and g is gravitational acceleration.

Using Bernoulli’s Equation, the head loss between two points for steady-state flow

through a system can be expressed by the following equation. Equation 2: Steady-State

Head Loss Equation

∆ℎ = ℎ𝑎 − ℎ𝑏
Where Δh is the head loss, or change in head between Point A and Point B, ha is the total head at

Point A, and hb is the total head at Point B. Using the head loss and Darcy’s Law, the hydraulic

conductivity of a soil sample can be determined. This is discussed in the next sub-section.

DARCY’S LAW

Darcy’s Law is an equation that relates flow velocity to hydraulic gradient under laminar flow

conditions.2

Equation 3: Darcy’s Law

𝑄 = 𝐾𝑖𝐴

Where, Q is the flow rate (flow volume over time), K is the hydraulic conductivity, 𝐾̅ is the

intrinsic permeability, γw is the unit weight of water, µ is the viscosity of water, i is the hydraulic

gradient, Δh is the head loss, ΔL is the change in length, and A is the crosssectional area. Based

on the equation above it is demonstrated that hydraulic conductivity is in fact a property of both

the soil and the permeating fluid. In most geotechnical applications, water is the permeating

fluid. Although the viscosity of water varies with temperature, in geotechnical engineering, the

variations are often small enough that changes in hydraulic conductivity can be neglected. 3
 Internal Erosion (Piping)

The potential for piping through dam or levee is directly related to hydraulic conductivity. If

foundation soils underneath a dam have high hydraulic conductivity and fluid velocity is

uncontrolled, internal erosion can develop and transport fines within the embankment.

Piping and heaving account for over 50 percent of dam and levee failures today.i This fact alone

represents how important it is to consider hydraulic conductivity during the design of

impoundment structures. Determining factors of safety against piping is further discussed in

Module 4 and Module 5.

Stability Applications

Understanding hydraulic conductivity is critical in geotechnical stability applications. When a

load is applied to a soil mass with low hydraulic conductivity, total stress, undrained conditions

can occur where pore-water pressure is unable to dissipate. The total stress, undrained conditions

results in reduction of shear strength. If hydraulic conductivity is ignored, global instability and

failure can occur.

FLOW NETS

According to Humboldt State University, “A flow net is a graphical solution to the equation of

steady groundwater flow. A flow net consists of two sets of lines which must always be

orthogonal (perpendicular to each other): flow lines, which show the direction of groundwater

flow, and equipotential lines (lines of constant head), which show the distribution of potential
energy.”ii Flow nets can be used to determine the quantity of seepage and upward lift pressure

below hydraulic structures.

Equation 4: Flow Rates using Flow Nets

Where Q is the flow rate, ΔH is the change in head, K is the hydraulic conductivity, nf is the

number of flow lines and nd is the number of drops. The figure below demonstrates a

constructed flow net and how to solve for flow rate.

i

ii