Sustainability 12 06667 v2

sustainability
Article
Optimized Design of Earth Dams: Analysis of Zoning
and Heterogeneous Material in Its Core
José Sánchez-Martín 1 , Rubén Galindo 1, *, Carlos Arévalo 1 , Ignacio Menéndez-Pidal 1 ,
Liliya Kazanskaya 2 and Olga Smirnova 3
1 Departament of Geotechnical Engineering, Escuela Técnica Superior de Caminos, Canales y Puertos,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; jsanchezmartin@alumnos.upm.es (J.S.-M.);
carlos.arevalo@upm.es (C.A.); ignacio.menendezpidal@upm.es (I.M.-P.)
2 Russia Department of Building materials and technologies, Emperor Alexander I Petersburg State Transport
University, 190031 Saint-Petersburg, Russia; yalifa@inbox.ru
3 Department of Constructing Mining Enterprises and Underground Structures, Saint-Petersburg Mining
University, 199106 Saint-Petersburg, Russia; smirnovaolgam@rambler.ru
* Correspondence: rubenangel.galindo@upm.es

Received: 20 July 2020; Accepted: 13 August 2020; Published: 18 August 2020
Abstract: To control the seepage in the design of an earth dam, guidelines prescribe a high proportion
of fines and high homogeneity of geotechnical characteristics in the material used for the dam core.
However, on many occasions there is no material of this nature near the dam placement and, from an
economic or environmental point of view, it is not possible to locate and transport material with good
geotechnical characteristics close to the dam. This research demonstrated the possibility of using
impermeable materials in earth dam cores, as well as soils considered unsuitable according to the
classic recommendations and guidelines. For an optimized design, two situations are analyzed here.
First, we examined the possibility of using soil with a marked difference in grain size as the core of
the dam, each with homogeneous geotechnical properties. In this case, the optimal zoning of up
to three types of materials was studied to ensure adequate seepage control. Second, we examined
the use of soil with great geotechnical heterogeneity, which presents high permeability dispersion.
In such a case, the conditions that would allow its use were studied via the of Montecarlo analysis.
By maintaining the soil’s global heterogeneity, it was possible to study an unlimited disposition
of layers of different permeability. In the first situation, the results showed that the most effective
zoning for decreasing seepage flow corresponded with three vertically set materials. In this design,
the most optimized zoning (minimal seepage flow rates) corresponded to the most impermeable soil
situated downstream when water heights were under 90% of the height of the dam core. However,
for maximum water height, more optimized cases corresponded to the intermediate permeability
material located downstream. In the second situation, when heterogeneous materials were used to
construct the impervious element of the dams, the Montecarlo analysis indicated that the seepage
flow rates were limited to sufficiently low values despite the large dispersion of material permeability.
In addition, the highest maximum hydraulic gradients were observed in the lowest lifts of the dam
core and for situations in which the seepage flow rates were moderate and low.
Keywords: heterogeneous material; earth dam; seepage; Darcy’s law; optimization
1. Introduction
The construction of earth dams requires prior identification and availability of materials in areas
close to dam sites, including a zoning study of the materials used for different parts of the dam,
e.g., core, upstream/downstream shells, filters, drains, transitions, protections, etc.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 6667; doi:10.3390/su12166667 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 6667 2 of 30
By having a zoned dam body, earth dams can allow for a better use of nearby available materials.
The most resistant, heavy, and permeable materials are used in the construction of upstream and
downstream shells, whereas the most impervious materials are used for the core and the most
granular materials are used to constitute the layers of filters, drains, and transitions. Despite this,
on many occasions there are insufficient volumes of low-permeability materials in the dam site
to cover the construction needs of the dam core. In these cases, resorting to distant quarries to
transport low-permeability materials would be economically impractical and would also generate an
environmentally unsustainable construction effort. Thus, a zoning of the dam core could be strategically
carried out by placing materials with low available permeabilities to optimize dam safety [1].
Frequently, in other situations, the material available at the dam site does not have the optimal and
desirable geotechnical characteristics for regular core material, and it is presented as a heterogeneous
material. This material shows highly variable properties at its source and its characterization presents
significant uncertainties. These materials have a very extensive granulometry, with the presence of
particles of very different sizes, with permeabilities that vary over a wide range. In these situations, it is
doubtful that these heterogeneous materials could be used safely for the construction of the dam core.
The positive and negative socioeconomic impacts of dam construction were analyzed by
Aladelokun [2]. It is a well-known fact that dam construction impacts are multidisciplinary—e.g.,
climatology, geology, biodiversity, etc.—with each having feedback effects. Environmental managers
and planners must, therefore, seek to mitigate negative impacts of dam construction with the use
of cognate environmental management plans. In particular, a key aspect is the use of materials in
the vicinity of the dam location. Since all soils are pervious to a smaller or larger extent, however,
many earth-filled dams are vulnerable to internal erosion and piping due to seepage problems that
take place in the core.
Internal erosion is a major cause of failure in embankment dams; specifically, it is the second
common cause after overtopping [3]. This phenomenon is strongly influenced by the behavior of clays,
which are used as seepage control material because of its low permeability [4–6]. Some types of clay,
by their physicochemical properties, have unstable behavior in contact with water. Clay particles
separate from each other, thus becoming suspended in the aqueous medium. The main problem is that
once in suspension, cracks can propagate, facilitating filtration and consequently failures of piping,
concentrated leaks, etc.
As a safety measure, filters are usually available. Granular filters are required to perform two
basic functions in embankment dams: prevent the migration of base soil particles and allow drainage
of seepage water. Traditionally, retention function is evaluated by using particle size distribution
and drainage function is evaluated by using permeability. Only a few authors [7] have used filter
permeability for the assessment of retention function and there is no general agreement among them,
but permeability should be an important variable because it takes into account other important
characteristics such as compaction, porosity, density, and particle shape.
Although the study of seepage through earth-fill dam needs an onsite investigation of hydrological
and geological conditions, numerous studies have been conducted using physical models [6,8],
because physical models give a general picture of seepage behavior through earth-fill dams,
including the phreatic line and the flow rate. However, as physical modeling has many limitations and
constraints, numerical modeling, which is based on the mathematical solutions, is the other way used
in many studies [9–11] to solve the most complex engineering problems, including seepage research.
One of the ways to control the seepage problem in earth dams is by using proper materials
for the core section since the core section of earth dams provides an impermeable barrier within
the body of the dam. Thus, Kanchana and Prasanna [12] analyzed the use of various materials
with different combinations to zone-type earth dams with a central impervious vertical core, and to
study the behavior of the phreatic line at the downstream phase by varying the effective length
of the horizontal drainage filter. Al-Janabi et al. [13] investigated the seepage through earth-filled
dams using physical, mathematical, and numerical models. The results from the three methods
revealed that both mathematical calculations using analytical solutions and the numerical model
resulted in a plotted seepage line compatible with the observed seepage line in the physical model.
Seepage analysis revealed that if a sufficient quantity of silty sand soil is available around the proposed
dam location, a homogenous earth-fill dam with a medium drain length of 0.5 m thickness is a good
design configuration.
Khassaf [14] argued that seepage can cause weakening in the earth dam structure, followed
by a sudden failure due to piping or sloughing, and presented a study to determine the quantity
of seepage, exit gradient, hydraulic gradient, and pressure head of zoned earth dams under the
effect of changing core permeability and core thickness. Zahedi and Aghajani [15] investigated the
seepage behavior through the body of an earth-filled dam with different core shapes using a 2D
finite element seepage analysis. For this end, a model of an earth-filled dam with different heights
and three core types of vertical, inclined, and diaphragm was considered. Within this same type of
investigation, Majeed [16] presented a study to simulate the seepage flow through a zoned earth-fill
dam. Hassan Al [17] presented an application of finite element analysis to predict the two-dimensional
steady-state water seepage through an earth dam with two soil zones resting on an impervious base.
Choi [18] presented an evaluation of seepage quantity of an earth dam using 3D finite element analysis.
In addition, Jamel [19] presented an investigation of the amount of seepage through an homogenous
earth dam core by finite element software. Continuing with this type of study, Fattah et al. [20] made a
seepage analysis of a zoned earth dam by finite elements, studying the effect of several parameters,
including the permeability of the embankment materials and the presence of an impervious core,
together with its location and thickness.
Hellström et al. [21] presented a study of fluid mechanics of internal erosion in embankment dams.
This study was divided into two parts. Part one dealt with homogenous materials, which included a
general background to porous media flow, continuum models for flow through embankment dams,
and methods to numerically model the flow. Part two included models to obtain forces on individual
particles, starting from dilute (single particle) systems and ending with very dense and periodic
systems of particles.
The present paper provides an analysis to evaluate the seepage behavior of cored earth-filled
dams. The first approach describes construction with different types of materials, zoning the core
to control the seepage flows according to the height of the core, the inclination of the upstream and
downstream faces of the core, the value of the coefficient of permeability of the materials, and the
height of water in the reservoir. The second approach examines the use of heterogeneous material in
the context of seepage flow through the core and the gradients developed as a consequence of the flow
of water, which indicates the behavior of the core against undesirable internal erosion problems that
could occur.
The main advance of this research is to demonstrate that it is possible to use soils that are
considered unsuitable according to classic recommendations and guidelines as an impervious material
in earth dam cores. In this way, for locations where the ideal impermeable material is scarce, it can be
economized in some cases and permit the construction of dams in others by using the material from
the dam site or nearby areas.
2. Analysis Methodology
2.1. Theoretical Bases

The phenomenon of water seepage through a soil was established, under certain conditions, by the
Laplace equation [22]. To undertake the study of seepage flow through the dam core, the following
starting hypotheses were considered to be valid:
• Plain deformation. The two-dimensional problem with water flow in the directions defined within
the dam cross section was considered (Figure 1). Therefore, the seepage flow per linear meter of
the dam was studied and the total flow defined by the total length of the dam constructed in the
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 31
core, without freeboard. As indicated later in Section 3.2, different calculations were made to
account for different situations of the reservoir and to be able to see the sensitivity of the
filtration flow results with the increase in water heights.
Sustainability
• 2020, 12, 6667
The filtration calculation was considered decoupled with the stress-strain analysis. Therefore, 4 of 30
its compactness did not vary throughout the filtration process.

• dam Darcy’s
site.law was considered
In Figure 1, the watervalid [23]
level and, therefore,
is represented thetop
at the speed of dam
of the the water flow in each
core, without point
freeboard.
of the soil was proportional to the permeability of the soil and to the variation of the
As indicated later in Section 3.2, different calculations were made to account for different situations hydraulic
potential
of with and
the reservoir respect
to betoable
its to
trajectory. It should of
see the sensitivity bethe
pointed outflow
filtration thatresults
due towith
the the
dam’s own
increase
construction
in water heights. process, which was carried out by compacted layers of 20 to 40 cm thick. The
• permeability was considered not be isotropic.
The filtration calculation was considered decoupled with the stress-strain analysis. Therefore,
its compactness
Therefore, in thedid not of
plane vary throughout
seepage, the filtration
two different process. can be defined in perpendicular
permeabilities
•directions.
Darcy’sGenerally, the vertical
law was considered direction
valid follows
[23] and, the the
therefore, compaction direction
speed of the of the
water flow in layers andof
each point has
thea
considerably lower permeability
soil was proportional than the horizontal
to the permeability of the soildirection.
and to theDespite
variationthis
of and although potential
the hydraulic the flow
that with
crosses the dam
respect to itsbody from upstream
trajectory. It shouldtobedownstream
pointed outmay that be
dueaffected, the seepage
to the dam’s is generally
own construction
controlled
process,bywhich
the permeability
was carried of outthe
by soil in the horizontal
compacted layers of 20direction
to 40 cmsince
thick.this
Theispermeability
the predominant
was
direction of the not
considered streamlines.
be isotropic.
Figure 1. Two-dimensional problem with water flow within the dam cross section.
Figure 1. Two-dimensional problem with water flow within the dam cross section.
Therefore, in the plane of seepage, two different permeabilities can be defined in perpendicular
From Generally,
directions. these hypotheses and direction
the vertical considering the the
follows boundary conditions,
compaction theofLaplace
direction formula
the layers and has that
a
solves the problem
considerably of seepage through
lower permeability to horizontal
than the a dam is formulated
direction. in position
Despite thiscoordinates
and although(x, y)
thebyflow
the
following
that crossesdifferential equation:
the dam body from upstream to downstream may be affected, the seepage is generally
controlled by the permeability of the soil in the horizontal direction since this is the predominant (1)
direction of the streamlines. 𝜕  𝜕 
𝑘 +𝑘 =0
From these hypotheses and considering 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑧 conditions, the Laplace formula that solves
the boundary
the problem of seepage through to a dam is formulated in position coordinates (x, y) by the following
differential equation:
∂2 φ ∂2 φ
kx 2 + kz 2 = 0 (1)
∂x ∂z
wherekxkxand
where andkzkzarearethe
thepermeabilities
permeabilities in the x and z direction,
direction, respectively,
respectively, and andφφisisthe
thehydraulic
hydraulic
potentialatateach
potential eachpoint
pointononthe
theground.
ground. From
From this equation
equation andand its
its boundary
boundaryconditions,
conditions,its itshydraulic
hydraulic
potential and, therefore, its pore pressure can be obtained at each point of the filtering
potential and, therefore, its pore pressure can be obtained at each point of the filtering ground. This ground. Thisis
is how the equipotential lines on the ground are defined, so that the flow
how the equipotential lines on the ground are defined, so that the flow takes place in the direction takes place in theof
direction
the maximum of the maximum
potential potential
gradient gradient the
and, therefore, and,current
therefore,
linestheare current lines are
orthogonally orthogonally
defined (Figure 2).
defined (Figure 2). With the routes of the flow lines, the area of soil that each
With the routes of the flow lines, the area of soil that each equipotential line passes through can equipotential linebe
passes through can be determined and, together with the difference in value between
determined and, together with the difference in value between equipotential lines (∆φ), it is easy to equipotential
lines (Δφ
obtain, ), it is
using easy tolaw,
Darcy’s obtain, using Darcy’s
the filtration speedlaw,
andthe filtration
seepage flow.speed and seepage flow.
Figure 2. Equipotential lines and streamlines.

Figure 2. Equipotential lines and streamlines.
2.2. Finite Difference Method
2.2. Finite Difference Method
2.2.1. Basis
2.2.1. Basis
Due to the assumed hypothesis of incompressibility during the filtration phenomenon, the flow
Duemay
modeling to the assumed
be done on itshypothesis of incompressibility
own, independent during thecalculation.
of the usual mechanical filtration phenomenon,
Thus, Equation the
(1),
flow modeling may be done on its own, independent of the usual mechanical calculation.
along with those that define its boundary conditions, are solved using a finite-difference approach Thus,
equation (1), along with those that define its boundary conditions, are solved using a finite-
based on a discretization of the medium into zones of two overlays of triangles.
difference approach based on a discretization of the medium into zones of two overlays of triangles.
In the finite difference method, every derivative in the set of governing equations is replaced
In the finite difference method, every derivative in the set of governing equations is replaced
directly by an algebraic expression written in terms of the field variables at discrete points in space;
directly by an algebraic expression written in terms of the field variables at discrete points in space;
these variables are undefined within elements. Using the approach by Wilkins [24], boundaries can be
these variables are undefined within elements. Using the approach by Wilkins [24], boundaries can
any shape and any element can have any property value.
be any shape and any element can have any property value.
An explicit, time marching method to solve the algebraic equations was used in the present study.
An explicit, time marching method to solve the algebraic equations was used in the present
Although a static solution to the problem has to be solved, the dynamic equations of motion were
study. Although a static solution to the problem has to be solved, the dynamic equations of motion
included in the formulation. One reason for doing this was to ensure that the numerical scheme was
were included in the formulation. One reason for doing this was to ensure that the numerical
stable
schemewhenwasthestable
physical
whensystem being modelled
the physical system was
beingunstable.
modelledIn was
contrast, schemes
unstable. that do not
In contrast, include
schemes
inertial terms must use some numerical procedure to treat physical instabilities.
that do not include inertial terms must use some numerical procedure to treat physical instabilities.
2.2.2. Finite Difference Model
2.2.2. Finite Difference Model
The study was carried out by developing computer numerical models, using a two-dimensional
The study was carried out by developing computer numerical models, using a two-
analysis of a dam
dimensional coreofwith
analysis a dam trapezoidal geometry. geometry.
core with trapezoidal These numerical models, applying
These numerical different
models, applying
calculation
different calculation hypotheses, were used to know the various water seepage paths that takethe
hypotheses, were used to know the various water seepage paths that take place in dam
place
core as adam
in the consequence of the flow of
core as a consequence ofwater circulating
the flow of water through it. through it.
circulating
The calculations used to determine the water seepage
The calculations used to determine the water seepage flow rates flow rates were
werecarried
carriedout
outusing
usingthethe
commercial software of finite differences FLAC 2D (fast Lagrangian analysis
commercial software of finite differences FLAC 2D (fast Lagrangian analysis of continua) [25],of continua) [25],
which
whichwas wasdeveloped
developed by by
thethe
Itasca company
Itasca company (Minneapolis, Minnesota,
(Minneapolis, USA).
Minnesota, This program
USA). is widely
This program is
used in the study of geotechnical problems.
widely used in the study of geotechnical problems.

The FLAC numerical calculation software with the hypotheses set above can model fluid flow
throughThe permeable solids, such
FLAC numerical as soils.software
calculation For the resolution of these flow
with the hypotheses problems,
set above as indicated
can model above,
fluid flow
through permeable
an uncoupled resolutionsolids, such as soils.
was followed For studying
by only the resolution of these flowofproblems,
the phenomenon water seepageas indicated
regardless
above,
of the an uncoupled resolution
tensile-deformational state.was followed
Hence, by only
it is not studying
necessary the phenomenon
to enter the resistantofparameters
water seepage of the
regardless
materials of the tensile-deformational
or deformational characteristics. state. Hence, it is not necessary to enter the resistant
parameters of the materials
The calculations or deformational
were carried out using acharacteristics.
simplified model of the dam (Figure 3), where only its
The calculations were carried
core was modelled. This simplification outwas
using a simplified
based model of
on the starting the dam (Figure
hypothesis that the3),dam’s
whereupstream
only
its core was modelled. This simplification was based on the starting hypothesis that the dam’s
and downstream shells are absolutely permeable and only the core is the impervious element of the
upstream and downstream shells are absolutely permeable and only the core is the impervious
dam. Likewise, it was taken into consideration that the foundation of the core base is horizontal
element of the dam. Likewise, it was taken into consideration that the foundation of the core base is
and behaves as an impervious element, which implies in practice that the foundation is much more
horizontal and behaves as an impervious element, which implies in practice that the foundation is
impervious
much more than the dam body.
impervious Therefore,
than the dam body.the water flowthe
Therefore, only has the
water flowpossibility of crossing
only has the possibilitytheofdam
corecrossing
from the upstream side to the downstream side.
the dam core from the upstream side to the downstream side.
Figure
Figure 3. Numerical
3. Numerical model
model of finite
of finite differences
differences usingusing
FLACFLAC 2DLagrangian
2D (fast (fast Lagrangian analysis
analysis of
of continua).
continua).
In every calculation, the mechanical boundary conditions (Figure 3) were set for level 0 (base of
the core)Inand everythecalculation,
foundation theground
mechanical
of theboundary
core wasconditions (Figure 3)
non-deformable were set for
(restriction oflevel
movement0 (base in
of the
the core) and the foundation ground of the core was non-deformable (restriction
horizontal and vertical directions in all the nodes located at level 0), while, for the rest of the nodes of movement in in
the horizontal and vertical directions in all the nodes located at level
the model, there were no imposed movement restrictions, which allowed them to move freely. 0), while, for the rest of the
nodes
It was inalso
the model, there
necessary to were
definenotheimposed
hydraulic movement
boundaryrestrictions,
conditions which allowed
(Figure themthe
3), with to upstream
move
freely.
face of the core being permeable and the water level located. This is detailed in the following sections
It was also necessary to define the hydraulic boundary conditions (Figure 3), with the
depending on the calculation hypothesis being considered, between the level H (top of the core) and the
upstream face of the core being permeable and the water level located. This is detailed in the
level 0.6H, where H is the height of the dam core. As an additional hypothesis, it was also considered
following sections depending on the calculation hypothesis being considered, between the level H
that(top
the ofdownstream
the core) andfacethe
of the core
level waswhere
0.6H, permeable
H is and that, inof
the height addition,
the damthere
core.was
As noan tailwater
additionallevel.
As mentioned in the introduction, two different types of analysis were carried
hypothesis, it was also considered that the downstream face of the core was permeable and that, in out: (1) the effect
of the zoning
addition, of the
there wasdam core by level.
no tailwater varying the height of the core, the inclination of its upstream and
downstream faces, the in
As mentioned value
the of the coefficient
introduction, twoofdifferent
permeability
types ofof the materials,
analysis were and the height
carried out: (1)ofthe
water
in the reservoir
effect to study
of the zoning howdam
of the theycore
influence
by varyingthe seepage flow,
the height as core,
of the shown theininclination
Section 3;of(2)itsthe possibility
upstream
and downstream
of using as the corefaces, the value
material of the
a single coefficient of permeability
heterogeneous soil with great of the materials, and
granulometric the heightand
variability
of water
therefore in the reservoir
permeability, to studyinhow
as shown they 4.
Section influence the seepage flow, as shown in Section 3; (2) the
possibility of using as the core material a single heterogeneous soil with great granulometric
Sustainability and12,therefore
variability2020, 6667
permeability, as shown in Section 4. 7 of 30
2.2.3. Model Validation

2.2.3. Model Validation
The validation of the numerical model can be contrasted by checking the predictive capacity of
The validation of the numerical model can be contrasted by checking the predictive capacity of
the seepage flow in a dam where field measurements are available.
the seepage flow in a dam where field measurements are available.
In particular, the Guadalcacín dam, located on the Majaceite river (Cádiz, Spain), was studied.
TheIndam
particular, the Guadalcacín
has a maximum heightdam,
abovelocated on the of
foundations Majaceite
79 m, ariver
crest(Cádiz,
lengthSpain),
of 267 was studied.
m, and a
The dam has a maximum height above foundations of 79 m, a crest length of 267 m,
maximum reservoir capacity of 836 Hm . It is an earth dam with a straight plant and a central clay
3 and a maximum
reservoir
core withcapacity
an estimated Hm3 . It is an
of 836permeability earth dam
coefficient with
of 10 a straight
−5 cm/s. plant
The crest and
of the a central
core clay core
is at a height with
of 109
anmestimated −5
and has apermeability
width of 7 m.coefficient
The core of
has10been
cm/s.
builtThe crest
with of the
1H:4V coreand
slopes is atisa supported
height of 109
on m
rockand
has
made up of alternating limestone and marl, according to an impervious Jurassic outcrop in this of
a width of 7 m. The core has been built with 1H:4V slopes and is supported on rock made up
alternating
area. limestone and marl, according to an impervious Jurassic outcrop in this area.
The
Thestandard
standardsection
sectionof
ofthe
thedam
dam and
and a general photo
photo are
are shown
shownin inFigure
Figure4.4.
(a)
(b)
Figure4. Guadalcacín
Figure 4. Guadalcacín dam: section;
dam: (a) standard (a) standard section;
(b) general photo (b) general photo
(https://www.google.com/earth/
(https://www.google.com/earth/index.html).
index.html).
The Guadalcacín dam is equipped with an extensive monitoring system, which was installed
during its construction. The available data on the seepage flow covers periods from 1997 to 2008 [26]
[26] and are represented in Figure 5. As can be seen, the reality is always more complex than the
theoretical models and there is a great dispersion of field measurements at the highest levels of the
reservoir and between different years of measurement, mainly due to water seepage through the
foundation. In fact, there have been subsequent actions to waterproof the foundation.
However, good results can be observed by comparing the field measurements with the results
of the flow rate obtained in the numerical finite difference model using the FLAC 2D integrated
over the entire length of the dam, which is also shown in Figure 5, and allows a reasonable
validation of the calculation
and are represented in Figuremethod used.
5. As can For low
be seen, reservoir
the reality levels more
is always (70 and 80 m) than
complex wheretheno seepage
theoretical
through
models and the there
foundation is expected,
is a great dispersiona of
very
fieldgood fit was observed.
measurements However,
at the highest forofhigh
levels water levels
the reservoir and
(90 and 100 m), the numerical results showed average flow values over the wide dispersion
between different years of measurement, mainly due to water seepage through the foundation. In fact, range
of fieldhave
there flowbeenmeasurements.
subsequent actions to waterproof the foundation.
110
100
90
Reservoir level (m)
80
70
Field data: 1997 - 2000
60
Field data: 2001 - 2004
50 Field data: 2005 - 2008

Numerical model
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Flow rate (l/min)
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Flow
Flowrate
rateresults
results as
as aa function
function of
of the
the reservoir
reservoir level
level for
for the
the numerical
numerical model
model and
and field
field
measurements
measurements atat the
the Guadalcacín
Guadalcacín dam.
3. CoreHowever,
Zoning good
Studyresults can be observed by comparing the field measurements with the results of
the flow rate obtained in the numerical finite difference model using the FLAC 2D integrated over
the Core
3.1. entire length of the dam, which is also shown in Figure 5, and allows a reasonable validation
Geometry
of the calculation method used. For low reservoir levels (70 and 80 m) where no seepage through
In every tested model, the core was assumed to be symmetrical and some variable parameters
the foundation is expected, a very good fit was observed. However, for high water levels (90 and
were set, regarding its geometry, core height, H, and the inclination of its faces, i.
100 m), the numerical results showed average flow values over the wide dispersion range of field
Following the engineering practice for large dams, the height of the core was varied for H = 20
flow measurements.
m, H = 50 m, and H = 100 m. Furthermore, the top width (C) of these modelled cores were
established
3. Core Zoningat C =Study
6 m, C = 8 m, and C = 10 m, respectively. Likewise, the inclination of the upstream
and downstream faces of the core, expressed as the ratio of horizontal to vertical distance, varied at
i3.1. Core
= 1:3, i = Geometry
1:4, and i = 1:5.
In every tested model, the core was assumed to be symmetrical and some variable parameters
3.2. Water Height
were set, regarding its geometry, core height, H, and the inclination of its faces, i.
To accountthe
Following forengineering
different operational
practice forsituations of the height
large dams, reservoir, various
of the water
core was for Hh,= were
heights,
varied 20 m,
H = 50 m, and H = 100 m. Furthermore, the top width (C) of these modelled cores were established at
modelled in the different calculations of the study. Five possible water heights were as follows: h =C
= 6h m,
H, C =H,8 hm,
= 0.9 = 0.8
andH,C h= =100.7
m,H,respectively.
and h = 0.6 H.
Likewise, the inclination of the upstream and downstream
Figure 6 is a scheme of the core geometries
faces of the core, expressed as the ratio of horizontal and water heights distance,
to vertical considered i = 1:3, i = 1:4,
in theatcalculations.
varied
and i = 1:5.
3.2. Water Height

To account for different operational situations of the reservoir, various water heights, h,
were modelled in the different calculations of the study. Five possible water heights were as follows:
h = H, h = 0.9 H, h = 0.8 H, h = 0.7 H, and h = 0.6 H.
Figure 6 is a scheme of the core geometries and water heights considered in the calculations.
Figure
Figure6.6.Cases
Casesstudies
studiesanalyzed
analyzedfor
fordifferent
differentcores
coresand
andwater
waterheights.
heights.
3.3.Material
3.3. MaterialPermeability
Permeability
The material
material considered
considered desirable
desirable asas aa dam
dam core
core must
must have −5
The have aa maximum
maximum permeability
permeability of of 10
10−5
cm/s, since
cm/s, since above
above these
these values
values the
the material
material is is considered
considered semi-pervious
semi-pervious (Hatanaka
(Hatanaka et et al.
al. [27]
[27] and
and
Murray [28]). Therefore, with this mean reference value, other materials
Murray [28]). Therefore, with this mean reference value, other materials of lower and higher of lower and higher
permeability are
permeability are considered
consideredtoto be be
combined,
combined, according to different
according zonings,
to different togethertogether
zonings, with a filtration
with a
flow equal to or less than that corresponding to a single material of 10 −5 cm/s. To −5have a wide range
filtration flow equal to or less than that corresponding to a single material of 10 cm/s. To have a
of variation
wide range ofofvariation
the permeability coefficientscoefficients
of the permeability for this study, we study,
for this considered five different
we considered five values
different of
the horizontal
values permeability
of the horizontal (k = kx ) for
permeability (k =thekx)materials: k = 10−3kcm/s,
for the materials: = 10−4k =cm/s,
= 10−3k cm/s, = 10k−5=cm/s,
10−4 kcm/s, 10−5
k = 10 −6 cm/s, and k = 10 −7
cm/s, k = 10 cm/s, and k = 10 cm/s.
−6 cm/s.
−7
Likewise,two
Likewise, twodifferent
differenthypotheses
hypotheses were
were considered
considered on onthe the permeability
permeability of materials,
of the the materials,
i.e.,
i.e., calculations
calculations performed
performed with an with an isotropic
isotropic permeability
permeability distribution
distribution (horizontal(horizontal permeability
permeability equal to
equal
the to the vertical
vertical permeability, kx = kzkx= =k)kz and
permeability, = k) and calculations
calculations carried
carried outout consideringan
considering ananisotropic
anisotropic
permeabilitydistribution
permeability distribution(horizontal
(horizontalpermeability
permeabilitycoefficient
coefficient1010times
timesgreater
greaterthan
thanthe
thevalue
valueof ofthe
the
vertical permeability coefficient k =
vertical permeability coefficient kxx = 10kz).z10k ).
3.4.Materials
3.4. MaterialsZoning
Zoning
Thecore
The core of
of the
the dam
dam was
was zoned
zoned in
in different
different regions
regions based
based on
on the
the different
different permeability
permeability values
values
adopted for the materials in each calculation carried out. The various core zoning hypotheses
adopted for the materials in each calculation carried out. The various core zoning hypotheses that that
were adopted
were adopted are
are shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 7.
7.
Figure 7. Different
Figure 7. Differentzoning
zoning core
core cases
cases studies
studies werewere analyzed
analyzed according
according to the permeability
to the permeability of the
of the material.
material.
As can be seen, four different cases were taken for the core zoning: case 0, case I, case II, and case
As can be on
III, depending seen,
how fourthedifferent
materialscases withwere taken permeability
horizontal for the core zoning: casek30,were
k1 , k2 , and case set
I, case II, dam
in the and
case
core,III, depending
where on how
for all cases > k2 > k3 .with horizontal permeability k1, k2, and k3 were set in the
thek1materials
it was
dam core, where for all cases it was k1 > k2 > k3.
• Case 0 corresponded to a homogeneous core, without zoning, made up of a single material with
• Case 0 corresponded to a homogeneous core, without zoning, made up of a single material
horizontal permeability k = k1 .
with horizontal permeability k = k1.
• Case I showed a core dividing the height in half, i.e., 2 zones. Two sub-cases (I-A and I-B) were
• Case I showed a core dividing the height in half, i.e., 2 zones. Two sub-cases (I-A and I-B) were
analyzed depending on whether the greater horizontal permeability and k1 , was considered in the
analyzed depending on whether the greater horizontal permeability and k1, was considered in
upper half or in the lower half.
the upper half or in the lower half.
• Case II was similar to the previous one, but dividing the core height into three zones of identical
• Case II was similar to the previous one, but dividing the core height into three zones of
sub-heights. Six subcases (II-A to II-F) were studied based on the distribution of horizontal
identical sub-heights. Six subcases (II-A to II-F) were studied based on the distribution of
permeabilities k1 , k2 and k3 .
horizontal permeabilities k1, k2 and k3.
•
• Case III
Case III showed
showedthe thezoning
zoning of of
thethe
core in three
core parts,
in three all ofall
parts, equal height.height.
of equal To carry Toout thisout
carry zoning,
this
a width of 1 m was taken in the central area of the top of the core
zoning, a width of 1 m was taken in the central area of the top of the core and the central and the central region was
delimited
region waswith inclinations
delimited that were doubly
with inclinations inclined
that were regarding
doubly inclinedtheregarding
inclinations theofinclinations
the upstream of
andupstream
the downstream andfaces of the core,
downstream as of
faces previously
the core, defined and indicated
as previously defined and in Figure 7. In in
indicated theFigure
same
way
7. Inasthe
forsame
case II,waysix subcases
as for case (III-A
II,tosix
III-F) were analyzed
subcases (III-A tobased
III-F)onwere
the distribution
analyzed based of horizontal
on the
permeabilities k 1 , k 2 and k 3 .
distribution of horizontal permeabilities k1, k2 and k3.
The different horizontal permeabilities
The permeabilities that that were
were considered
considered in ineach
eachzone werek1k1== k,
zonewere k, kk22 =
= k/10
and k33==k/100
k/100and thus:k k==k1k∈1[10
andthus: ∈ [10
−3 ,10 , ],10k2∈],[10
−3−7 −7 [10], k,3∈
k2 ∈,10
−4 −8 −4 −8 −5 −5 −9
k3 ∈].[10 , 10 ].
10[10],,10 −9
For each
eachofofthe
thecases
casesstudied,
studied, thethecalculation
calculationprogram mademade
program it possible to obtain
it possible to the water
obtain theseepage
water
paths in paths
seepage the core
in and, from
the core it, the
and, from different values ofvalues
it, the different the seepage
of the flow wereflow
seepage obtained.
were obtained.
3.5. Results
3.5. Results
The combination of the different variations of the different parameters that were considered
Thein
resulted combination of the In
6750 calculations. different variations
particular, of the different
these parameters were parameters that inclination
the core height, were considered
of the
resulted in 6750 calculations.
upstream/downstream faces ofIntheparticular, theseofparameters
core, height were thevalues
water considered, core height,
of the inclination
permeabilityof
the upstream/downstream
coefficients for the materials, faces
andof the core,
zoning height
of the core.of water considered, values of the permeability
coefficients for theflow
The seepage materials,
through andthe
zoning
core of
wastheobtained
core. for all that enabled a sensitivity study to be
Theout,
carried seepage flowhow
analyzing through the core was
the variation of theobtained for all
parameters that enabled
affected a sensitivity
the values study
of the water to be
seepage
carried out, analyzing how the variation of the parameters affected the values of the water seepage flow.
flow.
As stated above, the computer simulations were two dimensional calculations, so the resulting
seepage flow was given per linear meter of the dam.
The obtained
obtainedvalues
valuesof the seepage
of the flowsflows
seepage were within a very wide
were within range,
a very fundamentally
wide depending
range, fundamentally
depending on the
on the different different
values of thevalues of theofcoefficients
coefficients permeabilityof permeability that were
that were adopted adopted
(Figure 8). The(Figure
values8).
of
The values of
the seepage thethrough
flow seepagetheflow
corethrough the were
of the dam core of the dam
variable were
in the variable
range in the(maximum
100 L/min range 100 value)
l/min
and 10−5 L/min
(maximum value) and 10−5 l/min
(minimum value)(minimum
per meter ofvalue)
dam.per meter of dam.
8. Values
Figure 8. Valuesofofthe
theseepage flows
seepage through
flows the the
through corecore
of the
ofdam
the for
dam allfor
theall
calculation cases incases
the calculation relation
in
to the value of the highest horizontal permeability.
relation to the value of the highest horizontal permeability.
In Figure
In Figure9, 9,
thethe
different seepage
different flow values
seepage flow (normalized for the higher
values (normalized for horizontal
the higherpermeability
horizontal
k) obtained in k)
permeability theobtained
calculations
in are
the presented. Thus,
calculations are the followingThus,
presented. considerations regarding
the following zoning the
considerations
core were deduced:
regarding zoning the core were deduced:
•• The highest seepage flows were obtained obtained when when no no zoning
zoning of of the
the core
core was
was carried
carried out
out (case
(case 0).
0).
Then, the
thehighest
highestseepage
seepageflow were
flow were obtained
obtained for case I-A (lower
for case half ofhalf
I-A (lower the of
core
thewith
corethewith
highest
the
permeability, k1 , and upper
highest permeability, k1, andhalf of the
upper halfcore withcore
of the the with
lowest
thepermeability, k2 = k1 /10)
lowest permeability, k2 and caseand
= k1/10) I-B
(distribution of permeabilities
case I-B (distribution at contrary
of permeabilities to those adopted
at contrary for case I-A),
to those adopted in that
for case I-A),order.
in that order.
•• Case IIII obtained
obtainedlower
lowerseepage
seepage flows
flows thanthan those
those obtained
obtained for cases
for cases 0 and0I,and I, resulting
resulting in the
in the lowest
lowest
seepage flows in cases II-D and II-F. Case studies in which the upper third of the core hadcore
seepage flows in cases II-D and II-F. Case studies in which the upper third of the the
had thepermeability
highest highest permeability
coefficient,coefficient, k1, were
k1 , were assigned, and assigned, and lower permeabilities
lower permeabilities were assigned to were
the
assigned
lower twotothirds, k2 = two
the lower k1 /10thirds,
and k3k2==kk11/100.
/10 and k3 = k1/100.
• Finally, the lowest seepage flow was obtained for calculation cases III and, more specifically, in
cases III-A, III-B, III-C y III-E; the lowest permeability soil was not located in the downstream
zone of the core.
• Finally, the lowest seepage flow was obtained for calculation cases III and, more specifically,
in cases III-A, III-B, III-C y III-E; the lowest permeability soil was not located in the downstream
zone of the core.
180
Isotropic permeability
160
Anisotropic permeability
140
120
100
Q/k (m2/m)
80
60
40
20
CASE III-F
CASE III-C
CASE III-D
CASE III-A
CASE III-B
CASE III-E
CASE II-C
CASE II-D
CASE II-A
CASE II-B
CASE II-E
CASE II-F
CASE I-A
CASE 0
CASE I-B
Figure 9.9.Seepage
Seepageflow
flowvalues normalized
values withwith
normalized respect to the highest
respect horizontal
to the highest permeability,
horizontal identified
permeability,
by the analyzed
identified by thecases studies.
analyzed cases studies.
Regarding the
Regarding the different
different dependency
dependency parameters
parameters considered
considered in
in the
the models,
models,ititcan
canbe
bestated
statedthat:
that:
•• In general,
general,similar
similarflowflowrates were
rates observed
were observedpractically in all in
practically cases
all studied, regardless
cases studied, of whether
regardless of
an isotropic
whether an or anisotropic
isotropic permeability
or anisotropic distributiondistribution
permeability was considered. In Figure 10,Inthe
was considered. variation
Figure of
10, the
the flow seepage
variation is represented
of the flow seepage is for the particular
represented for thecase of a 50 mcase
particular height
of adam
50 mcore verifying
height the
dam core
little influence
verifying of the
the little anisotropy
influence in the
of the variation
anisotropy inrange. Greaterrange.
the variation differences
Greaterwere only obtained
differences were
in
onlythe obtained
calculationincasesthe III-D and III-F,
calculation i.e., those
cases III-D inandwhich the i.e.,
III-F, lowest permeability
those in whichmaterial was
the lowest
placed in the downstream
permeability material wasface of the
placed coredownstream
in the (more detail facegiven ofinthe
thecore
next(more
section).
detail given in the
• next section).
Variations in the registered seepage flows were also observed depending on the geometry of the
• Variations
core. in the registered
The seepage flow rates wereseepage flows
higher were also
for greater observedofdepending
inclinations the upstream on and
the geometry
downstream of
the core.
core faces.The seepage
Figure flow the
10 shows ratesseepage
were higher for greater
flow variation as ainclinations
function of of thethe upstreamofand
inclination the
downstream
upstream andcore faces. Figure
downstream 10the
faces of shows
core forthethe
seepage flow
particular case of H = 50
variation asma dam
function
core. of the
• inclination
The height ofofthetheupstream
water was andalso
downstream
a factor takenfaces of theaccount
into core for for the the
particular caseflow
resulting of Hrates,
= 50
m dam core.
logically obtaining higher seepage flow rates through the core for higher water heights.
• height offor
The influence the water waswater
a maximum also height
a factor andtaken intowater
a 0.60H account
height foristhe resulting
shown flow
in Figure 10.rates,
logically obtaining higher seepage flow rates through the core for higher water heights. The
influence for a maximum water height and a 0.60H water height is shown in Figure 10.
70
h=H
60
h = 0.6·H
50
40
Q/k (m2/m)
30
20
10
0
i=1H:3V i=1H:3V i=1H:4V i=1H:4V i=1H:5V i=1H:5V
Isotropic Anisotropic Isotropic Anisotropic Isotropic Anisotropic
Figure 10. Values of the seepage flows normalized with respect to the highest horizontal permeability,
Figure 10. Values of the seepage flows normalized with respect to the highest horizontal
as a function of the inclination of the upstream and downstream core faces for H = 50 m and maximum
permeability, as a0.6H.
water heights and function of the inclination of the upstream and downstream core faces for H = 50
m and maximum water heights and 0.6H.
3.6. Discussion of Results
3.6. Discussion of Results
3.6.1. Case 0: Only One Material
3.6.1.For
Case 0: Only
a proper One Materialof the results and to determine the influence different parameters have
interpretation
on theFor seepage
a proper flow, a representation
interpretation of thewas madeand
results for each case where
to determine thethe abscissadifferent
influence axis is the height of
parameters
the
havewater in the
on the reservoir
seepage flow,anda the ordinate axiswas
representation is themade
normalized
for each flow
caserelative
wheretothe what we callaxis
abscissa modified
is the
maximum flow (Q
height of the watermax,m ). Logically, the maximum seepage
in the reservoir and the ordinate axis is the normalizedflow (Q max ) corresponds to the case
flow relative to what we of
maximum
call modified reservoir
maximum waterflow
height(Qand the
max,m). modifiedthe
Logically, maximum
maximum flow is defined
seepage flow as:(QQmax = Qmax ·(h/H).
) corresponds
max,m to
In
theFigure
case of11,maximum
this representation
reservoir is shown
water for case
height and0,the
which incorporates
modified maximum every flowcalculation,
is definedvarying the=
as: Qmax,m
height of theIn
Qmax·(h/H). dam core, the
Figure 11, height of water, the inclination
this representation is shown of the
for upstream
case 0, whichand downstream
incorporatescore every
faces
and the permeabilities,
calculation, varying the and in both
height of isotropic
the dam andcore,anisotropic
the heightcases. In this
of water, thecase 0, the maximum
inclination seepage
of the upstream
flow was Q
and downstream max = 1.59 L/s and corresponds to h = H = 100 m, i = 1: 5 and anisotropic
core faces and the permeabilities, and in both isotropic and anisotropic cases. In permeability.
The following
this case 0, the maximum interpretation
seepageofflow
the results
was Qmaxcan= be made
1.59 l/s andfrom Figure 11: to h = H = 100 m, i = 1: 5
corresponds
and anisotropic permeability.
• The anisotropy of the permeability hardly exerts an influence because the flow is preferably
The following interpretation of the results can be made from Figure 11:
horizontal, with the value of the horizontal permeability the one that controls the seepage. It can
• be The anisotropy
seen that the of the permeability
adjustment curves are hardly
veryexerts
close an
to influence
each otherbecause
and have theaflow
highiscorrelation,
preferably
horizontal,ofwith
regardless the value of the horizontal permeability the one that controls the seepage. It
the anisotropy.
• can higher
The be seenthe thatwater
the adjustment
level in thecurves are very
reservoir, close to
the more each other
seepage flow and have a obtaining
is filtered, high correlation,
in the
regardless of
normalized the anisotropy.
representation of Figure 11 a practically linear trend.
•• All Thethehigher
resultstheof water level in the representation
the normalized reservoir, the more seepage flow isaligned
are approximately filtered,inobtaining in the
a single curve
normalized representation of Figure 11 a practically linear trend.
regardless of the height of the dam core, the inclination of the upstream and downstream faces of
• the All core,
the results of the normalized
the anisotropy representation
and the permeability value.are approximately aligned in a single curve
regardless of the height of the dam core, the inclination of the upstream and downstream faces
Therefore,
of the core,the the seepage flow corresponds
anisotropy to the casevalue.
and the permeability of maximum reservoir water height (Qmax ) and
thus it is possible, in general, to obtain the flow through an earth dam core with a homogeneous material
for any dam height (H), water level (h), slope inclination, permeability coefficient, and anisotropy
between horizontal and vertical permeability. First, the modified maximum flow is calculated as:
Qmax,m = Qmax ·(h/H) and the seepage flow (Q) is obtained using Figure 11.
Figure 11. Normalized seepage flow with respect to the modified maximum seepage flow (Qmax,m ) of
the parametric study as a function of the water height in the reservoir for case 0.
3.6.2. Case I: Two Materials Set Horizontally

A similar representation can be made for case I (Figure 12). In this case, the more water height is in
contact with the permeable material (k1 ) in relation to the impermeable one (k2 ), the more seepage flow.
In particular, when the water height is equal to the dam core height, the two subcases I-A and I-B have
the same height in contact with water for the two types of soil and, therefore, the same normalized
seepage flow is obtained. (Q/Qmax,m ) in both subcases (zones “1”, “2”, and “3” in Figure 12). For water
heights under the height of the dam core, the normalized seepage flow (Q/Qmax,m ) is greater in subcase
I-A than in I-B because the decrease in the water height affects to the most impermeable soil. Moreover,
as can be seen in Figure 12, for the full reservoir (“1”, “2” and “3”), the same results were obtained in
case I and in case 0 in relative terms (in relation to Qmax,m ), but obviously in absolute terms in case 0
the seepage flow will be greater than in case I for any situation.
A representation adapted to two different types of soil can be made, with different permeability.
In this case, we introduced the factor αI = hk2 /hk1 that takes into account the proportion of the soil
heights in contact with the water in the reservoir, between the material with the lowest permeability
(k2 ) and the one with the highest permeability (k1 ). This factor must always be less than or equal to 1.
The subscript “I” indicates that the factor corresponds to case study I. Therefore, to generalize, a factor
for the homogeneous case α0 = 1 could be defined:

 Case 0 : α0 = 1
α=


 Case I : αI = hhk2 = 2h

H − 1, αI ≤ 1
k1
Figure12.
Figure Normalizedseepage
12.Normalized seepageflow
flow with
with respect
respect to the modified maximum
maximum seepage
seepage flow
flow (Q max,m))of
(Qmax,m of
theparametric
the parametricstudy
studyas
asaafunction
functionof
ofthe
thewater
waterheight
height for
for case
case I.I.
AIn representation
this way, the so-called
adapted normalized general types
to two different seepage
of flow
soil (Q*)
can affected
be made, by with
coefficient α is
different
represented, so that Q* = Q·α/Q , with respect to the height of water in Figure 13, where
permeability. In this case, we introduced the factor αI = hk2/hk1 that takes into account the proportion
max,m the
following assessments can be done:
of the soil heights in contact with the water in the reservoir, between the material with the lowest
permeability
• (k2) and theofone
The anisotropy thewith the highest permeability
permeability hardly has (kany 1). This factor must
influence alwaysthe
because be less
flowthanis
or equal to 1. The subscript
preferably horizontal. “I” indicates that the factor corresponds to case study I. Therefore, to
generalize,
• a factor for the homogeneous case α 0 = 1 could be defined:
The higher the water height, the more seepage flow is produced, thus obtaining a practically
𝑪𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝟎: 𝛼 = 1
linear trend in the normalized representation of Figure 13.
𝛼= ℎ 2ℎ
• The incorporation of the coefficient 𝑪𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝐈: 𝛼 =
α allows = − 1, 𝛼 ≤I-A
the subcases 1 and I-B to be aligned in the same 3
ℎ 𝐻
curves, corresponding to the dam core heights of 20 m, 50 m, and 100 m.
In this way, the so-called normalized general seepage flow (Q*) affected by coefficient α is
• Following the evolution of the curves in case I, points “a” and “b” can be extrapolated to correspond
represented, so that Q* = Q·α/Qmax,m, with respect to the height of water in Figure 13, where the
to a water height h = 20 m for the dam core of H = 50 m, and to a water height of h = 50 m for
following assessments can be done:
the H = 100 m dam core, respectively. In these cases, it can be observed that the evolution of the
• The
curvesanisotropy
moves away of the permeability
from the normalized hardlygeneral
has any influence
seepage flowbecause
predicted theinflow is preferably
the homogeneous
horizontal.
case as the height of the water in the dam decreases. Specifically, points “a” and “b” correspond
• The
to allhigher the water
the material thatheight, the more seepage
is homogeneously flow is produced,
more impermeable thustherefore,
(k2 ) and, obtainingregarding
a practically
case
linear trend in the normalized representation of Figure 13.
0 (of normalized general seepage flow Q0 *), where the soil has homogeneous permeability k1 ,
• The incorporation
a seepage flow (Q1of *) the
in the ratio k2 /kα1 =
coefficient allows
0.1, asthecansubcases
easily beI-A and I-Bin
observed toFigure
be aligned
13. in the same
• 3The curves,
zoningcorresponding
corresponding totothe dam core
subcase I-B isheights of 20 m,as
more efficient, 50itm, and 100
reduces them.
seepage flow, although it
• Following the evolution of the curves in case I,
requires about twice as much low permeability material as in subcase I-A. points “a” and “b” can be extrapolated to
• correspond to a water height
The values represented h = 20
in Figures 12mandfor13thecorrespond
dam core of H = 50 m, and
to normalized to a water
seepage flows.height
To makeof han
=
50 m for the H = 100 m dam core, respectively. In these cases, it
analysis of absolute seepage flows, it is necessary to refer the values to maximum flows. In case I, can be observed that the
evolution
the maximum of theseepage
curves flowmoves is Qaway=from1 L/s the normalized
for subcase general
I-A and Qmaxseepage
= 0.75 L/sflow forpredicted
subcase I-B,in
max
the
andhomogeneous
they correspond casetoas h=theH height
= 100 m,of ithe water
= 1:5 andin the dam decreases.
anisotropic permeability. Specifically, points “a”
and “b” correspond to all the material that is homogeneously more impermeable (k2) and,
Therefore,regarding
therefore, the seepage flow
case 0 corresponds
(of normalized to the case ofseepage
general maximum flow reservoir water height
Q0*), where the soil(Qhas
max )
and homogeneous
it is possible, in permeability k1, a seepage flow (Q1*) in the ratio k2/k1 = 0.1, as can easily “1”
general, to obtain the flow through an earth dam core with two materials be
and observed
“2” set horizontally
in Figure 13. for horizontal permeabilities k1 and k2 = k1 /10, for any dam height (H), water
•levelThe
(h), zoning
slope inclination,
correspondingpermeability
to subcase coefficient,
I-B is more and anisotropy
efficient, asbetween
it reduces horizontal and vertical
the seepage flow,
although it requires about twice as much low permeability material as in subcase I-A.
• The values represented in Figures 12 and 13 correspond to normalized seepage flows. To make
an analysis of absolute seepage flows, it is necessary to refer the values to maximum flows. In
permeability.
case I, theFirst, the modified
maximum seepagemaximum flow
flow is Qmax = 1(Q for )subcase
l/smax,m and theI-A andαQare
factor calculated as: Qmax,m I-
max = 0.75 l/s for subcase
=
·(h/H)
QmaxB, and α = 2h/H − 1 (with α ≤ 1), and, finally, the seepage flow (Q) is
and they correspond to h = H = 100 m, i = 1:5 and anisotropic permeability. obtained using Figure 13.
1.0
0.9
Case I -A. Isotropic
CASE I
Case I -A. Anisotropic
0.8
Case I -B. Isotropic
Case I -B. Anisotropic
0.7 Polynomical (H=100 m)
Polynomical (H=50 m)
0.6 Polynomical (H=20 m)
Case 0
0.5
/Q
0.4
Q*=Q·
0.3
Q*0/Q*I=k1/k2=10
0.2
Q*0/Q*I=
0.1 k1/k2=10
a b
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Water height, h (m)
Figure 13. Normalized general seepage flow Q* = Q·α/Qmax,m of the parametric study as a function of
Figure 13. height
the water Normalized general
for case I. seepage flow Q* = Q·α/Qmax,m of the parametric study as a function of
the water height for case I.
3.6.3. Case II: Three Materials Set Horizontally
Therefore, the seepage flow corresponds to the case of maximum reservoir water height (Qmax)
After carrying out the normalized representation regarding the previously defined modified
and it is possible, in general, to obtain the flow through an earth dam core with two materials “1”
maximum seepage flow (Q/Qmax,m ) for case II and three horizontal soil layers of different permeabilities
and “2” set horizontally for horizontal permeabilities k1 and k2=k1/10, for any dam height (H), water
(Figure 14), we can make the following considerations:
level (h), slope inclination, permeability coefficient, and anisotropy between horizontal and vertical
permeability.
• First, the
The anisotropy modified
of the maximum
permeability hardlyflowhas(Qany
max,minfluence factor α the
) and the because are seepage
calculated
flowas:tends
Qmax,mto
=
Qmax·(h/H) and α = 2h/H − 1 (with 𝛼 ≤ 1), and, finally, the seepage flow (Q) is obtained using Figure
be horizontal.
13.
• The higher water height is than the more seepage flow is produced, resulting in the normalized
representation of Figure 14. Thus, there is a practically linear trend in subcases II-A, II-B, II-C,
3.6.3.and
CaseII-E,
II: Three
as wellMaterials Set Horizontally
as an exponential trend in the II-D and II-F subcases.
• After
The permeable
carrying out the normalized the
layer of soil controls seepage paths,
representation so that ifthe
regarding thispreviously
more permeable
definedsoilmodified
is below,
the order
maximum of the two
seepage flowmaterials
(Q/Qmax,mabove
) for hardly
case IIhave andany influence.
three Thus, soil
horizontal in subcases
layers II-A and II-B,
of different
similar results were obtained.
permeabilities (Figure 14), we can make the following considerations:
• When the flow stream lines are controlled by the lower soil because it is the most permeable, as in
• The anisotropy of the permeability hardly has any influence because the seepage flow tends to
case I, a factor α can be applied to transfer these subcases (II-A and II-B) to that corresponding to a
be horizontal.
lower impermeable soil, where the upper seepage paths are controlled by the intermediate soil
• The higher water height is than the more seepage flow is produced, resulting in the
when it is more permeable than the upper soil (corresponding to sub-cases II-C and II-E). In case
normalized representation of Figure 14. Thus, there is a practically linear trend in subcases II-
II, the factor can be defined by αII for the case of three materials, so that in general:
A, II-B, II-C, and II-E, as well as an exponential trend in the II-D and II-F subcases.
• The permeable layer of soil controls the seepage paths, so that if this more permeable soil is
0 : α0 =

below, the order of the two materials


 Case hardly
above 1 any influence. Thus, in subcases II-A
have
Case I : αI = H
α = obtained. − 1, αI ≤ 1
2h


and II-B, similar results were 

• α 1 3h
, αIIbecause

Case
When the flow stream lines are controlled by

 II : =
II the H − 1 soil
2 lower ≤1 it is the most permeable, as
in case I, a factor α can be applied to transfer these subcases (II-A and II-B) to that
In this way, as in case I, the normalized general flow (Q*) affected by the coefficient α, regarding the
corresponding to a lower impermeable soil, where the upper seepage paths are controlled by
water height, is represented in Figure 15.
• Once again, attention is drawn to the fact that the values represented in Figures 14 and 15
correspond to normalized seepage flows. To make an analysis of absolute seepage flows it is
necessary to refer to the values of maximum seepage flows. In case II, the maximum seepage
flow is Qmax = 0.7l/s for subcase II-A, Qmax = 0.69l/s for subcase II-B, Qmax = 0.64 l/s for subcase II-
C, Qmax = 0.46 l/s for subcase II-D, Qmax = 0.62 l/s for subcase II-E, and Qmax = 0.44 l/s for subcase
II-F. All of them correspond to h = H = 100 m, i = 1: 5, and anisotropic permeability.
Case II-A. Isotropic Case II-A. Anisotropic

Case II-B. Isotropic Case II-B. Anisotropic
Case II-C. Isotropic Case II-C. Anisotropic
Case II-E. Isotropic Case II-E. Anisotropic
Case II-D. Isotropic Case II-D. Anisotropic
Case II-F. Isotropic Case II-F. Anisotropic
Exponential (Case II-D, II-F) Linear (Case II-C, II-E)
Linear (Case II-A, II-B)
1.0
0.9
0.8 CASE II
0.7
0.6
0.5
Q/Q
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water height, h (m)
Figure 14. Normalized seepage flow with respect to the maximum modified seepage flow (Qmax,m ) of
Figure
Sustainability 14. Normalized
2020,
the parametric12, x FOR asseepage
PEER
study aREVIEW flow
function of with respect
the water to the
height formaximum
case II. modified seepage flow (Qmax,m) 18
of of 31
the parametric study as a function of the water height for case II.
Case II-A. Isotropic Case II-A. Anisotropic Case II-B. Isotropic
Case II-B. Anisotropic Case II-C. Isotropic Case II-C. Anisotropic
Case II-E. Isotropic Case II-E. Anisotropic Case II-D. Isotropic
Case II-D. Anisotropic Case II-F. Isotropic Case II-F. Anisotropic
Exponential (Case II-D, II-F) Linear (Case II-A, II-B, II-C, II-E) Case 0
1.0
0.9
0.8 CASE II
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Q*=Q·
0.3
0.2
0,1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water height, h (m)
Figure 15. Normalized general seepage flow Q* = Q·α/Qmax,m of the parametric study as a function of
Figure 15. Normalized
the water general
height for case II. seepage flow Q* = Q·α/Qmax,m of the parametric study as a function of
the water height for case II.
Therefore, the seepage flow corresponds to the case of maximum reservoir water height (Qmax)
and thus it is possible to obtain the flow through an earth dam core with three materials: “1”, “2”,
and “3”, which are set as horizontal permeabilities k1, k2=k1/10, and k3=k1/100 for any dam height (H),
water level (h), slope inclination, permeability coefficient, and anisotropy between horizontal and
vertical permeability. First, the modified maximum flow (Qmax,m) and factor α are calculated as:
Qmax,m = Qmax·(h/H) and α = 1.5h/H−0.5 (with 𝛼 ≤ 1), and, finally, the seepage flow (Q) is obtained
• The seepage flow corresponding to the parametric study of case 0 is represented in Figure 15,
which clearly shows that it corresponds to an upper envelope of all the results of case II.
• As shown in Figures 14 and 15, the most effective zoning of the core corresponds to subcases
II-D and II-F, where the most permeable soil is set at the top. This configuration greatly reduces
seepage flow rates.
• Once again, attention is drawn to the fact that the values represented in Figures 14 and 15
correspond to normalized seepage flows. To make an analysis of absolute seepage flows it is
necessary to refer to the values of maximum seepage flows. In case II, the maximum seepage flow
is Qmax = 0.7L/s for subcase II-A, Qmax = 0.69L/s for subcase II-B, Qmax = 0.64 L/s for subcase II-C,
Qmax = 0.46 L/s for subcase II-D, Qmax = 0.62 L/s for subcase II-E, and Qmax = 0.44 L/s for subcase
II-F. All of them correspond to h = H = 100 m, i = 1: 5, and anisotropic permeability.
Therefore, the seepage flow corresponds to the case of maximum reservoir water height (Qmax )
and thus it is possible to obtain the flow through an earth dam core with three materials: “1”, “2”,
and “3”, which are set as horizontal permeabilities k1 , k2 = k1 /10, and k3 = k1 /100 for any dam height
(H), water level (h), slope inclination, permeability coefficient, and anisotropy between horizontal
and vertical permeability. First, the modified maximum flow (Qmax,m ) and factor α are calculated as:
Qmax,m = Qmax ·(h/H) and α = 1.5h/H − 0.5 (with α ≤ 1), and, finally, the seepage flow (Q) is obtained
using Figure 15.
3.6.4. Case III: Three Materials Set Vertically

To interpret the results, the representation of the normalized seepage flow regarding the maximum
modified flow (Q/Qmax,m ) was also made for case III, as presented in Figure 16. In this figure,
three different zones are distinguished corresponding to the different analyzed sub-cases, where the
most effective zoning that minimizes seepage flow corresponds, for water height of 90% or less,
to sub-cases III-A and III-C, in which the most impervious material was in the last position. However,
in these subcases, the seepage flow increased exponentially for a maximum water height situation and
its seepage flow rates were comparable, and even higher, than those obtained in subcases III-B and
III-E. This has been shaded and marked with a dashed line in Figure 16. In addition, the following
considerations can be made:
• The effect of anisotropy is clearly appreciated in cases where the intermediate permeability
material (k2 ) is in the last position, since flows with a greater vertical component are generated in
the transitions between materials.
• The efficiency of the core zoning is directly related to the permeability of the last vertical layer since,
in case III, the entire seepage flow passes through all the materials, but the greatest loss of water
head always corresponds to the last layer that cancels the hydraulic potential. Therefore, the more
effective the flow in this last stratum than the lower the seepage flow rate. The most favorable
situation corresponds, as mentioned, to subcases III-A and III-C, with the most impervious material
at the end. However, this situation changes abruptly for maximum water height, where the
seepage flows exceed those corresponding to intermediate subcases III-B and III-E with the
intermediate permeability soil (k2 ) positioned at the end. In the event that the soil with the highest
permeability (k1 ) is located in the last position, it corresponds to the situation of maximum seepage
flow (subcases III-D and III-F), as is shown in Figure 16.
• The values represented in Figure 16 correspond to normalized seepage flows. To make an
analysis of absolute seepage flows it is necessary to refer to the values of maximum seepage
flows. In case III, the maximum flow is Qmax = 0.1 L/s for subcase III-A, Qmax = 0.09 L/s for
subcase III-B, and Qmax = 0.05 L/s for subcase III-E. All of them correspond to h = H = 100 m,
i = 1:5, and isotropic permeability; Qmax = 0.13 L/s for sub-case III-C of h = H = 100 m, i = 1:5,
and anisotropic permeability. Qmax = 0.25 L/s for subcase III-D and Qmax = 0.22 L/s for subcase
III-F corresponds to h = H = 100 m and i = 1:4 and isotropic permeability, respectively.
case II and case I, a higher proportion of the more impervious material was always needed to
optimize the seepage flow.
• For case III, with water heights under 90% of the dam core height, the most effective zoning
was obtained for subcases III-A and III-C. However, for maximum water height, the seepage
flow increased exponentially in these two subcases, and the zoning that presents cases III-B
and III-E was more effective for the maximum water height situation.
Figure 16. Normalized seepage flow with respect to the modified maximum seepage flow (Qmax,m ) of
the parametric study as a function of the water height for case III.
As indicated above, for maximum water heights of 90% or less, the seepage flow rate is drastically
reduced in subcases III-A and III-C, with the smallest seepage flow, 0.033 L/s, corresponding to subcase
III-A for h = 90%.
When carrying out a comparative analysis of the zoning of cases 0, I, II, and III, it can be
appreciated that:
• The maximum seepage flow rates are progressively smaller from case 0, case I, case II, and case III.
In case III, minimum values were obtained with Qmax ∈ (0.05 L/s, 0.25 L/s); in case II the values were
Qmax ∈ (0.44 L/s, 0.70 L/s); in case I the values were Qmax ∈ (0.75 L/s, 1 L/s); and finally, the highest
values of maximum seepage flow corresponded to case 0 with values that reach 159 L/s.
• Attention should be drawn to the fact that the volume of all materials in case III were approximately
the same, thus minimizing the environmental and economic impact. Whereas in case II and
case I, a higher proportion of the more impervious material was always needed to optimize the
seepage flow.
• For case III, with water heights under 90% of the dam core height, the most effective zoning was
obtained for subcases III-A and III-C. However, for maximum water height, the seepage flow
increased exponentially in these two subcases, and the zoning that presents cases III-B and III-E
was more effective for the maximum water height situation.
Therefore, the seepage flow corresponds to the case of maximum reservoir water height (Qmax ),
where it is possible to obtain the flow through an earth dam core with three materials “1”, “2”, and “3”,
which are set vertically for horizontal permeabilities k1 , k2 = k1 /10, and k3 = k1 /100 for any dam height
(H), water level (h), slope inclination, permeability coefficient and anisotropy between horizontal,
and vertical permeability. First, the modified maximum flow is calculated as: Qmax,m = Qmax ·(h/H) and,
finally, the seepage flow (Q) is obtained using Figure 16.
height (H), water level (h), slope inclination, permeability coefficient and anisotropy between
horizontal, and vertical permeability. First, the modified maximum flow is calculated as: Qmax,m =
Qmax·(h/H) and, finally, the seepage flow (Q) is obtained using Figure 16.
4. Study of 2020,
Sustainability Heterogeneous
12, 6667 Material for the Dam Core 20 of 30
4.1. Dam Core Geometry

4. Study of Heterogeneous Material for the Dam Core
The dam core was assumed to be symmetrical, with inclinations of both upstream and
4.1. Dam Corefaces
downstream Geometry
1H:4V (usual value of the inclination for dam cores built with heterogeneous
materials), and a core height of 50 m was considered. The top width of the core was established at 8
The dam core was assumed to be symmetrical, with inclinations of both upstream and downstream
m and, therefore, the width of the base was 33 m.
faces 1H:4V (usual value of the inclination for dam cores built with heterogeneous materials), and a
Figure 17 presented below shows the geometry that served as the basis for the elaboration of
core height of 50 m was considered. The top width of the core was established at 8 m and, therefore,
the calculation model that was prepared.
the width of the base was 33 m.
The origin of coordinates (X = 0, Y = 0) was arbitrarily taken at the heel of the core for all the
Figure 17 presented below shows the geometry that served as the basis for the elaboration of the
calculations that were carried out.
calculation model that was prepared.
Figure 17. Calculation geometry of the core adopted for numerical modelling with
Figure 17. Calculation
heterogeneous material.geometry of the core adopted for numerical modelling with heterogeneous
material.
The origin of coordinates (X = 0, Y = 0) was arbitrarily taken at the heel of the core for all the
calculations that were carried out.
4.2. Water Height

Regarding the hydraulic boundary conditions, it was considered that the upstream face of the
core was permeable and that the water level was located at elevation 50 (top of the core). It was also
considered that the downstream face of the core was permeable and, in addition, there was no tailwater
level. The base of the core was considered as a waterproof level.
In Figure 17, in which the geometry of the model was shown, the adopted hydraulic boundary
conditions were also included.
4.3. Permeability of the Material

In general, a heterogeneous material shows highly variable properties and its characterization
presents significant uncertainties. These materials have a very extensive granulometry, with the
presence of particles of very different sizes and permeabilities that vary over a wide range. In this
research, heterogeneous material for seepage analysis is defined as soil that presents a great dispersion
of permeability. Specifically, in this section, for the calculations carried out in this investigation,
an average permeability value of 10−6 cm / s and a variation of the permeability of the material between
6.15·10−14 cm/s of minimum value and 5·10−3 cm/s maximum value is considered, as explained later.
The simulation of the construction of the core was carried out by means of a lift measured 4 m
wide and 0.33 m high. In this way, the prepared numerical model had a total of 768 lifts. Each lift was
made up of four elements of numerical discretization.
The assigned permeabilities were considered anisotropic. For each lift, it took a horizontal
permeability coefficient value that was 10 times greater than the value of the vertical permeability
coefficient (kh = 10kv ).
Since the dam core was built with a heterogeneous material in order to lift the model, we assigned
a different permeability provided that the set of 768 adopted permeability coefficients adjusted to a
lognormal distribution function. To define this permeability distribution function, its two characteristic
parameters must be known: its mean value and its standard deviation. To do this, we proceeded
as follows:
The value of the horizontal mean permeability was set to kh = 10−6 cm/s, a value considered as
characteristic for a soil with which to build the dam core.
The standard deviation of the distribution function was obtained, indirectly, by fixing the dispersion
of the permeability variable. For the same mean permeability value, the lognormal distribution function
may be more “open” (greater permeability dispersion) or more “closed” (less permeability dispersion)
depending on the standard deviation of the adopted value. The dispersion of the permeability will be
given, therefore,
Sustainability by12,the
2020, values
x FOR PEER Yf and Yi , the adopted extremes of the distribution function (Figure
REVIEW 22 of 31 18).
Figure Maximum
18. 18.
Figure (Y(Y
Maximum f )f)and
andminimum (Yi)i )ends
minimum (Y endsofof
thethe distribution
distribution function.
function.
To fixTothe
fixextreme
the extremevalues Yf and
values Yi ofYthe
Yf and i of lognormal distribution
the lognormal function,
distribution thethe
function, concept of of
concept failure
probability was introduced. Brown [29] indicated that the probability of failure for dams
failure probability was introduced. Brown [29] indicated that the probability of failure for dams waswas around
p = 10 −5 . Thus,
around as−5a. Thus,
p = 10 starting
as point, onepoint,
a starting of theoneextremes of the distribution
of the extremes function
of the distribution (the maximum,
function (the
maximum, Yf = 5·10−3 cm/s) was fixed, then proceeded to calculate the minimum extreme, Yi,
applying the condition that the lognormal distribution function between Yf and Yi contains a
probability of (1-p), with p = 10−5 as indicated above. In other words, it was stipulated that the
defined distribution function must contain a probability between Yf and Yi of 99.999%. In
accordance with these working hypotheses, Yi was fixed at 6.15·10−14 cm/s.
Yf = 5·10−3 cm/s) was fixed, then proceeded to calculate the minimum extreme, Yi , applying the
condition that the lognormal distribution function between Yf and Yi contains a probability of (1-p),
with p = 10−5 as indicated above. In other words, it was stipulated that the defined distribution
function must contain a probability between Yf and Yi of 99.999%. In accordance with these working
hypotheses, Yi was fixed at 6.15·10−14 cm/s.
4.4. Seepage Path and Streamlines

The seepage path was obtained for each distribution of permeabilities in the lifts of the dam core.
From this, the seepage flowed through the core and the value of the maximum gradient occurred as
a consequence of the circulating water flow. In normal practice, it is usually recommended that the
seepage flow rates be limited below reference threshold values, usually set by the dam technicians.
The study of the gradient has the objective to show that the seepages running through the dam
core do not produce an internal erosion phenomena. References like the dam project recommendations
in Russia [30] indicate that the critical gradient may be around 5, which is why it is usual to recommend
the construction of waterproof elements in dams with thicknesses greater than 20% of the water height.
For this reason, in the calculations, the maximum gradient was determined by identifying the
area of the core (lift, height within the core of the dam, etc.) where it should be placed, following the
hypotheses of work. It was assumed that the gradient could determine the design of the core and
could be the one that occurs in some of the lifts that form the downstream face of the core. Moreover,
it could be evaluated according to what is indicated in the diagram and in the expression shown in
Figure 19, where hpi is the hydraulic potential in element “i”, d1-i is the distance from the center of
element 1 to the2020,
Sustainability center
12, xof
FORelement “i”, and grad(Ti ) represents the value of the gradient in the
PEER REVIEW 23 lift
of 31“i”.
ℎ𝑝 − ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑝 − ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑝 − ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑝 − ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑝 − ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑝 − ℎ𝑝 ℎ𝑝 − ℎ𝑝
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝑇 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 , , , , , ,
𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑 𝑑
19. Determination
FigureFigure of the
19. Determination maximum
of the maximumgradient
gradient in
in calculations witha anumerical
calculations with numerical model
model for for
a a
heterogeneous
heterogeneous core. core.
Once Once the values

the values of the
of the 150150 gradients
gradients (onefor
(one foreach
each of
of the
the 150
150lifts
liftslocated
located inin
thethe
final 4 m4of
final mthe
of the
downstream face of the dam core) were calculated, the maximum value of this gradient
downstream face of the dam core) were calculated, the maximum value of this gradient can be obtained, can be
obtained, thus determining at what height of the dam core (in what lift) is produced.
thus determining at what height of the dam core (in what lift) is produced.
4.5. Results and Discussion
A calculation routine introduced in the FLAC program was generated that can assign different
permeability coefficients to the 768 lifts that constitute the core model. A condition was that the set
of all these permeability coefficients adjust to a lognormal distribution function with mean
horizontal permeability value of kh = 10−6 cm/s and dispersion of the horizontal permeability
4.5. Results and Discussion

A calculation routine introduced in the FLAC program was generated that can assign different
permeability coefficients to the 768 lifts that constitute the core model. A condition was that the set of
all these permeability coefficients adjust to a lognormal distribution function with mean horizontal
permeability value of kh = 10−6 cm/s and dispersion of the horizontal permeability coefficients in the
range Yf = 5·10−3 cm/s and Yi = 6.15·10−14 cm/s.
A Montecarlo analysis was thus generated with a total of 10,000 calculations carried out,
obtaining in each of them the seepage path in the dam core, the seepage flow through the core
and the maximum gradient produced in the core as a consequence of the circulating water flow.
The results of the 10,000 calculations are represented in various graphs for analysis. These graphs
include the distribution of seepage flows through the core, the distribution of maximum gradients,
the distribution of the height of the core where the gradients are at a maximum, the relationship
between the seepage flow rates and the maximum gradients, etc. These graphs are shown below in
Figure 20.
200 1800
Gradient statistical data, i 1600
Number of cases
175 Flow statistical data, Q(l/h)
Number of cases
Number of cases ……. 10000 1400

150
Average value ………….. 3.553 1200 Number of cases…..…. 10000
125 Maximum value ………… 9.530 Average value ………….. 0.227 l/h
1000
Minimum value …………. 1.320 Maximum value ………… 3.506 l/h
100 800
Standard deviation … 1.143 Minimum value …………. 0.029 l/h
75 600 Standard deviation … 0.179 l/h
50 400
200
25
0
0
0.00-0.02
0.20-0.22
0.40-0.42
0.60-0.62
0.80-0.82
1.00-1.02
1.20-1.22
1.40-1.42
1.60-1.62
1.80-1.82
2.00-2.02
2.20-2.22
2.40-2.42
2.60-2.62
2.80-2.82
3.00-3.02
3.20-3.22
3.40-3.42
3.60-3.62
3.80-3.82
0.00-0.05
0.50-0.55
1.00-1.05
1.50-1.55
2.00-2.05
2.50-2.55
3.00-3.05
3.50-3.55
4.00-4.05
4.50-4.55
5.00-5.05
5.50-5.55
6.00-6.05
6.50-6.55
7.00-7.05
7.50-7.55
8.00-8.05
8.50-8.55
9.00-9.05
9.50-9.55
Flow (l/h)
Gradient
10000 10000
9000 Flow statistical data, Q(l/h) Gradient statistical data, i
9000
Number of cases
Number of cases
8000
Number of cases…..…. 10000 8000
7000 Average value ………….. 0.227 l/h Number of cases ……. 10000
6000 Maximum value ………… 3.506 l/h
7000 Average value ………….. 3.553
5000 Minimum value …………. 0.029 l/h 6000 Maximum value ………… 9.530
Standard deviation … 0.179 l/h 5000 Minimum value …………. 1.320
4000
Standard deviation … 1.143
3000 4000
2000 3000
1000
2000
0
1000
0.00-0.01
0.20-0.21
0.40-0.41
0.60-0.61
0.80-0.81
1.00-1.01
1.20-1.21
1.40-1.41
1.60-1.61
1.80-1.81
2.00-2.01
2.20-2.21
2.40-2.41
2.60-2.61
2.80-2.81
3.00-3.01
3.20-3.21
3.40-3.41
3.60-3.61
3.80-3.81
0
0.00-0.05
0.50-0.55
1.00-1.05
1.50-1.55
2.00-2.05
2.50-2.55
3.00-3.05
3.50-3.55
4.00-4.05
4.50-4.55
5.00-5.05
5.50-5.55
6.00-6.05
6.50-6.55
7.00-7.05
7.50-7.55
8.00-8.05
8.50-8.55
9.00-9.05
9.50-9.55
Flow greater than (l/h)
Gradient greater than
Statistical data of the position (core height, H)

500 at which the maximum gradient is obtained
450 Number of cases ……. 10000

Number of cases
Average value ………….. 20.150 m

400 Maximum value ………… 46.833 m
Minimum value …………. 0.167 m
350 Standard deviation … 11.435 m
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0-1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40-41
42-43
44-45
46-47
48-49
Height of the core (m)
Figure Results
20.20.
Figure Resultsobtained
obtainedwith
with aa numerical
numericalmodel
modelforfor heterogeneous
heterogeneous material.
material.
Seepage flows are given per linear meter of dam (two dimensional calculations). The average
value of the seepage flow obtained was around 0.23 l/h, with a maximum value of 3.51 l/h and a
minimum value of 0.03 l/h, respectively. For approximately 90% of the calculations, the seepage
flow through the core was under 0.30 l/h.
The maximum gradient was variable in the range 1.32 to 9.53, with an average value of 3.55.
Seepage flows are given per linear meter of dam (two dimensional calculations). The average
value of the seepage flow obtained was around 0.23 L/h, with a maximum value of 3.51 L/h and a
minimum value of 0.03 L/h, respectively. For approximately 90% of the calculations, the seepage flow
through the core was under 0.30 L/h.
The maximum gradient was variable in the range 1.32 to 9.53, with an average value of 3.55.
For approximately 90% of the calculations, the value of the maximum gradient in the core was under 5.
Regarding the position at which the maximum gradients were detected, it can be indicated that they
were observed at low heights, within the first few meters of the dam core height. These values were
detected for moderate or low seepage flow rates, below 0.5–0.6 L/h.
Contrary
Sustainability tox FOR
2020, 12, what one
PEER might initially think, it was observed that the values 25ofof the
REVIEW 31 highest
maximum gradients were not necessarily associated with the values of the highest seepage flow rates.
rates. gradients
High High gradients werewere obtained
obtained for situations
for situations in which
in which thethe seepageflow
seepage flowrates
rateswere
were moderate
moderate and low.
and low.
As the calculations were carried out and the maximum seepage flow rates and gradients were
As the calculations were carried out and the maximum seepage flow rates and gradients were
obtained, their mean values were found for the first 20, 50, 100, 200, . . . , 1000, 2000, . . . etc. calculations.
obtained, their mean values were found for the first 20, 50, 100, 200, ..., 1000, 2000, ... etc.
This information
calculations. is presented
This information in Figure in
is presented 21.Figure 21.
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Number of cases
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Number of cases
Figure 21. Cont.
3.80
3.75
3.70
3.65
3.60
3.55
3.50
3.45
3.40
3.35
3.30
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Number of cases
1.40
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Number of cases
Figure 21. Partial average seepage flow rates and mean gradients in Montecarlo analysis for
heterogeneous
Figure 21. Partial material.
average seepage flow rates and mean gradients in Montecarlo analysis for
It can be seen how, from a number of calculations greater than or equal to 3000, the average
seepage
It can flow was
be seen quite
how, fromstable (0.22–0.23
a number L/h). However,
of calculations we observed
greater than or equal toa 3000,
slightthe
tendency
average to increase.
seepage flow was quite stable (0.22–0.23 l/h). However, we observed a slight tendency to increase.
Regarding the value of the mean maximum gradient, it was quite stable for a number of calculations
Regarding
above 1000.theThe
value of of
value thethis
mean
meanmaximum
maximum gradient,
gradientit was
wasmaintained
quite stablewith
for slight
a number of
variations between
calculations above 1000. The value of this mean maximum gradient was maintained with slight
3.55–3.56. Therefore, from the Montecarlo study, the appropriate possibility of using heterogeneous
variations between 3.55–3.56. Therefore, from the Montecarlo study, the appropriate possibility of
material as a dam core can be concluded since:
using heterogeneous material as a dam core can be concluded since:
• • The
The seepage
seepage flowflow
ratesrates are limited
are limited to sufficiently
to sufficiently low when
low values values
thewhen
averagethevalue
average value of the
of the
permeability is 10 −6 , despite the great dispersion of the material. In this regard, it can be compared
permeability is 10 , despite the great dispersion of the material. In this regard, it can be
−6
with the seepage flow rates obtained for the analysis with homogeneous materials indicated
in Section 3. In this case, permeabilities between 10−3 and 10−7 were used. If we compare
the result for the homogeneous material with permeability k = 10−6 , a value of 2.06 L/h was
obtained, which was much higher than the average value of 0.23 L/h. This resulted in the case of
heterogeneous material. It should be noted that the maximum value for the 10,000 Montecarlo
calculation cases was 3.51 L/h, resulting in a low probability (19/10,000 = 0.19%) of obtaining
values higher than the homogeneous calculation value of 2.06 L/h.
• In addition, since there is a great dispersion, there is the possibility of finding great variability
of permeability
Sustainability between
2020, 12, x FOR lifts, thus being able to raise the gradient and cause internal erosion
PEER REVIEW 27 of 31
problems. In this case, the average value stood at 3.55, which is below the risk limits. It should
compared
be noted that withmaximum
the seepage flowclose
values rates to
obtained
10 wereforreached
the analysis
with anwith homogeneous
occurrence materials
probability of
indicated in =Section
(1134/10,000 11.34%)3.ofInvalues
this case,
greaterpermeabilities between
than 5. Therefore, 10 is and
there −3 10 werelow
a moderately
−7 used.
riskIfthat
we
compare
the the result for
core potentially hasthe homogeneous
internal material with
erosion problems. permeability
Moreover, k = 10−6did
the situation , a value of 2.06the
not degrade l/h
was obtained,ofwhich
construction was much
core dams higher than the
with homogeneous averagewhere
material, valuein ofany0.23case
l/h. the
Thistransition
resulted toin the
case of heterogeneous
shoulders must be madematerial. It should
using filters be noted
that cancel any riskthat
of the maximum value for the 10,000
erosion.
Montecarlo calculation cases was 3.51 l/h, resulting in a low probability (19/10,000 = 0.19%) of
The probabilistic calculation can be extended with an adequate distribution law of adjustment
obtaining values higher than the homogeneous calculation value of 2.06 l/h.
of results. For these purposes and for possible safety and reliability studies, an adjustment of the
• In addition, since there is a great dispersion, there is the possibility of finding great variability
distribution functions of the maximum seepage flows and gradients obtained in the 10,000 calculations
of permeability between lifts, thus being able to raise the gradient and cause internal erosion
that were performed are shown in Figure 22.
problems. In this case, the average value stood at 3.55, which is below the risk limits. It should
The adjustments were made by means of sigmoid curves, using the expression below:
be noted that maximum values close to 10 were reached with an occurrence probability of
(1134/10,000 = 11.34%) of values greater than 5.a Therefore, there is a moderately low risk that
N=
the core potentially has internal erosion problems. 1 + eb+cXMoreover, the situation did not degrade the
construction of core dams with homogeneous material, where in any case the transition to the
N is the number
whereshoulders must beofmadecalculations, X is the
using filters thatvariable thatrisk
cancel any is calculated
of erosion.in each case (the seepage flow
or the maximum gradient), and a, b, c are adjustment parameters.
The probabilistic
According calculation can
to the adjustments be extended
made, the seepage with anwas
flow adequate distribution
adjusted by means law of parameters:
of the adjustment
of results. For these purposes
a = 10,000; b = −5.38; c = 26.74. and for possible safety and reliability studies, an adjustment of the
distribution functions of the maximum seepage flows and gradients
For the maximum gradient, the sigmoid adjustment function was defined by the parameters: obtained in the 10,000
acalculations
= 10,000; b that werec performed
= −5.32; = 1.52. are shown in Figure 22.
10000
9000 Flow statistical data, Q(l/h)
8000
Number of cases…..…. 10000
Number of cases
7000 Average value ………….. 0.227 l/h

6000 Maximum value ………… 3.506 l/h
5000 Minimum value …………. 0.029 l/h
Standard deviation … 0.179 l/h
4000
3000 Flow distribution
2000
Flow adjustment
1000
0
0.00-0.01
0.20-0.21
0.40-0.41
0.60-0.61
0.80-0.81
1.00-1.01
1.20-1.21
1.40-1.41
1.60-1.61
1.80-1.81
2.00-2.01
2.20-2.21
2.40-2.41
2.60-2.61
2.80-2.81
3.00-3.01
3.20-3.21
3.40-3.41
3.60-3.61
3.80-3.81
Flow greater than (l/h)

Figure 22. Cont.
10000
9000 Gradient statistical data, i
Number of cases ……. 10000
8000 Average value …….….. 3.553
Number of cases
7000 Maximum value ………… 9.530

6000 Minimum value …………. 1.320
Standard deviation … 1.143
5000
4000
3000 Distribution of the maximum gradient
Gradient adjustment
2000
1000
0
0.00-0.05
0.40-0.45
0.80-0.85
1.20-1.25
1.60-1.65
2.00-2.05
2.40-2.45
2.80-2.85
3.20-3.25
3.60-3.65
4.00-4.05
4.40-4.45
4.80-4.85
5.20-5.25
5.60-5.65
6.00-6.05
6.40-6.45
6.80-6.85
7.20-7.25
7.60-7.65
8.00-8.05
8.40-8.45
8.80-8.85
9.20-9.25
9.60-9.65
Gradient greater than
Figure 22. Distribution functions adjustments of the maximum seepage flows and gradients obtained
Figure 22. Distribution functions adjustments of the maximum seepage flows and gradients
for heterogeneous nucleus.
obtained for heterogeneous nucleus.
Analogous studies with different mean permeability values and the distribution range of
The adjustments were made by means of sigmoid curves, using the expression below:
permeabilities could provide evidence to evaluate 𝑎 the probability of failure risk when using this
type of heterogeneous materials in the 𝑁 construction
= of embankment dam cores. For this purpose,
1+𝑒
a criterion of internal erosion (analysis of maximum gradients) and maximum expected seepage flow
rates should be established by comparing the threshold values set with the results obtained from the
where N is the number of calculations, X is the variable that is calculated in each case (the seepage
different calculations.
flow or the maximum gradient), and a, b, c are adjustment parameters.
According to the adjustments made, the seepage flow was adjusted by means of the
5. Conclusions
parameters: a = 10,000; b = −5.38; c = 26.74.
To control
For the maximumthe seepage, geotechnical
gradient, recommendations
the sigmoid prescribe
adjustment function wasa high proportion
defined of fines andaa
by the parameters:
=high homogeneity
10,000; b = −5.32; c of geomechanical characteristics for the material used in the dam core. However,
= 1.52.
on many occasions,
Analogous studies it is not
withpossible
differentto find
mean material of this nature
permeability valuesatand
the dam site or in nearby
the distribution rangeareas.
of
Unfortunately, using and transporting soil with good geotechnical characteristics
permeabilities could provide evidence to evaluate the probability of failure risk when using this to construct the core
in a faraway
type location ismaterials
of heterogeneous economically
in theand environmentally
construction unsustainable.
of embankment dam Therefore,
cores. For itthis
is necessary
purpose, ato
minimize the amount of material obtained far from the dam location. To this
criterion of internal erosion (analysis of maximum gradients) and maximum expected seepage flow end, the possibility of
using the less suitable material at the dam site as part of the core can be studied
rates should be established by comparing the threshold values set with the results obtained from with a different core
dam
the design.calculations.
different
In the present research an optimized core dam design was proposed by analyzing two situations
5.that can usually occur: (1) the possibility of using various soil with a marked difference in grain size
Conclusions
as the core of the dam, each with homogeneous geotechnical properties; (2) the use of a soil of great
To control the seepage, geotechnical recommendations prescribe a high proportion of fines and
heterogeneity in its geotechnical properties, so that it presents a great dispersion of permeability.
a high homogeneity of geomechanical characteristics for the material used in the dam core.
In the first case, the sensitivity study of seepage flows for different designs of dam cores, could serve
However, on many occasions, it is not possible to find material of this nature at the dam site or in
as a reference to establish the requirements for minimal seepage flow rates during the operation of the
nearby areas. Unfortunately, using and transporting soil with good geotechnical characteristics to
dam (optimized core dam design). Different designs could take into account the geometry of the core,
construct the core in a faraway location is economically and environmentally unsustainable.
the height of water in the reservoir, or the permeabilities of the materials. The following conclusions
Therefore, it is necessary to minimize the amount of material obtained far from the dam location. To
regarding the adequate zoning of the core can be established:
this end, the possibility of using the less suitable material at the dam site as part of the core can be
studied
• Thewith a different
maximum core dam
seepage flowdesign.
rates are progressively smaller from case 0 (a single material with
In the present
horizontal research kan
permeability optimized
1 ), case core damsetdesign
I (two materials was proposed
horizontally by analyzing
with horizontal two
permeability
situations
k1 andthat can
k2 ), usually
case occur:
II (three (1) the set
materials possibility of using
horizontally various
with soil with
horizontal a markedkdifference
permeability ,
1 2k , and kin
3 ),
and case III (three materials set vertically with horizontal permeability k1 , k2 , and k3 ), with this last
zoning being the most effective in decreasing the seepage flow, where for all cases: k1 > k2 > k3 .
• Attention should also be drawn to the fact that the volume of all the materials in case III is
approximately the same, thus minimizing the environmental and the economic impact. Whereas in
case II and case I, a higher proportion of the more impermeable material is needed to optimize the
seepage flow.
• For each case, different sub-cases were also studied by varying the materials in the dam core.
In the most effective case, case III, with water heights under 90% of the height of the dam core,
the most optimized zoning (minimal seepage flow rates) was obtained for subcases III-A and III-C
corresponding to the most impermeable soil situated downstream. However, for the maximum
water height, the seepage flow increased exponentially in these two subcases, and zoning III-B
and III-E for maximum water height was more optimized, which corresponds to the intermediate
permeability material located downstream.
In the second situation (2), seepage flow rates and maximum hydraulics gradients in the
core are essential when heterogeneous materials are used to construct the impervious element of
dams, especially when using poorly known materials that present uncertainties in their geotechnical
characterization, with very extended granulometries and wide ranges of variation of their permeabilities.
In this case, the conditions that make these materials possible to use are studied by means of a Montecarlo
analysis that, maintaining the global heterogeneity, can study the unlimited dispositions of lifts of
different permeability in the core. The main conclusions obtained in this study are as follows:
• Both mean values of the seepage flows and mean values of the maximum hydraulics gradients
had a tendency to stabilize, as the number of results of the available calculations increased.
• The seepage flow rates were limited to sufficiently low values when the average value of
the permeability was 10−6 , despite the large dispersion of the permeability of the material.
Comparing the result for the homogeneous material with permeability k = 10−6 , a value of
2.06 L/h was obtained, which was much higher than the average value of 0.23 L/h in the case of
• It was possible to verify how the values of the highest maximum hydraulic gradients were not
necessarily associated with the values of the highest seepage flow rates. High gradients were
obtained for situations in which the seepage flow rates were moderate and low.
• The highest maximum gradients were observed in the lowest lifts of the dam core (near the
foundation, height below 1–2 m). In other words, the probability of obtaining the maximum
gradient increased when the core height was low.
• Given the wide dispersion, there was the possibility of finding great variability of permeability
between lifts, thus being able to raise the gradient and cause internal erosion problems.
In the calculations, the average value of the maximum hydraulic gradient was around 3.55,
obtaining values below the risk limits and the situation does not worsen for dams with core of
homogeneous material, where in any case must be made filters that minimize any risk of erosion.
• The probabilistic calculation can be extended with an adequate distribution law of adjustment
of the results. For these purposes, and for possible safety and reliability studies, an adjustment
was made to the distribution functions of the maximum flows and gradients obtained in the
10,000 calculations.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.S.-M., R.G.; methodology, J.S.-M., R.G.; validation, J.S.-M., R.G., C.A.;
writing—original draft preparation, J.S.-M., R.G.; writing—review and editing, I.M.-P.; supervision, L.K., O.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by ARPO, Empresa Constructora S.A.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Alonso, M.; Yague, J. Earth materials for cores and homogeneous earth fill dams; singularities. In Proceedings
of the 19th International Congress on Large Dams, Florence, Italy, 19–31 May 1997; pp. 381–401.
2. Aladelokun, A.O. The Sustainability of Dam Construction through Environmental Management. IOSR J.
Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 2012, 1, 1–5. [CrossRef]
3. ICOLD. Dam Failures Statistical Analysis; Bulletin 99; International Commission on Large Dams: Paris,
France, 1995.
4. Chahar, B. Determination of Length of a Horizontal Drain in Homogeneous Earth Dams. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
2004, 130, 530–536. [CrossRef]
5. Fell, R.; Wan, C.F.; Cyganiewicz, J.; Foster, M. Time for Development of Internal Erosion and Piping in
Embankment Dams. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2003, 129, 307–314. [CrossRef]
6. Al-Janabi, A.M.S. Study of Seepage through Earth-Fill Dam Using Physical and Numerical Models.
Master’s Thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia, July 2013.
7. Delgado-Ramos, F.; Escudero-Merino, D.; Olalla, C. The importance of permeability in granular filter design
and control. Scour Erosion 2016, 979–985.
8. Malekpour, A.; Farsadizadeh, D.; Hosseinzadeh Dalir, A.; Sadrekarimi, J. Effect of horizontal drain size on
the stability of an embankment dam in steady and transient seepage conditions. Turk. J. Eng. Environ. Sci.
2012, 36, 139–152.
9. Chahar, B.; Graillot, D.; Gaur, S. Storm-Water Management through Infiltration Trenches. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
2012, 138, 274–281. [CrossRef]
10. Jamel, A.A.J.; Ali, M.I. Influence of Cavity Under Hydraulic Structures on Seepage Characteristics. Int. J.
Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 461–471. [CrossRef]
11. Ullah, A.; Kassim, A.; Alam, I.; Junaid, M.; Ahmad, I.S. Efficiency analysis of seepage of Baz Ali small dam,
Kurram Agency using clay blanket and cut-off wall with sand filter. Bull. Geol. Soc. Malays. 2019, 67, 113–118.
[CrossRef]
12. Kanchana, H.; Prasanna, H. Adequacy of Seepage Analysis in Core Section of the Earthen Dam with Different
Mix Proportions. Aquat. Procedia 2015, 4, 868–875. [CrossRef]
13. Al-Janabi, A.M.S.; Ghazali, A.H.; Ghazaw, Y.M.; Afan, H.A.; Al-Ansari, N.; Yaseen, Z.M. Experimental and
Numerical Analysis for Earth-Fill Dam Seepage. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2490. [CrossRef]
14. Khassaf, S.I. Effect of impervious core on seepage through earth dam (case study: Khassa chai dam). Int. J.
Sci. Eng. Res. 2017, 8, 1053–1064.
15. Zahedi, P.; Aghajani, H.F. The effect of clay core specifications on the seepage behaviour of an earthfill
dam. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Dam Safety and Exhibition, Istanbul, Turkey,
27–31 October 2018.
16. Majeed, Q.G. Flow and Deformation Analysis of Zoned Earth Dam by the Finite Element Method. Diyala J.
Eng. Sci. 2015, 8, 38–62. [CrossRef]
17. Hassan Al, J. 2D-Flow Analysis Through Zoned Earth Dam Using Finite Element Approach. Eng. Technol. J.
2000, 28, 6316–6324.
18. Choi, B.-I.; Shin, N.-H.; Kim, K.-Y.; Kang, C.-K. Evaluation of seepage quantity of fill dam using 3D FEM
analysis. Jpn. Geotech. Soc. Spéc. Publ. 2016, 2, 1703–1707. [CrossRef]
19. Jamel, A.A.J. Investigation and Estimation of Seepage Discharge Through Homogenous Earth Dam with
Core by Using SEEP/W Model and Artificial Neural Network. Diyala J. Eng. Sci. 2018, 11, 54–61. [CrossRef]
20. Fattah, M.Y.; Al-Labban, S.; Salman, F.A. Seepage Analysis of a Zoned Earth Dam by Finite Elements. Int. J.
Civ. Eng. Technol. 2014, 5, 128–139.
21. Hellström, J.G.; Ljung, A.; Lundström, T.S. Forces on grains located in model geometry with application
to internal erosion in embankment dams. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Modern
Technology of Dams: The 4th EADC Symposium, Chengdu, China, 30 September 2007.
22. Sherard, J.L.; Woodward, R.J.; Gizienski, S.J. Earth and Earth Rock Dams: Engineering Problems of Design and
Construction; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1963.
23. Hofmann, J.R.; Hofmann, P.A. Darcy’ s Law and Structural Explanation in Hydrology. In PSA: Proceedings
of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association; Hull, D., Forbes, M., Okruhlik, K., Eds.;
The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992; Volume 1, pp. 23–35.
24. Wilkins, M.L. Fundamental Methods in Hydrodynamics. Methods Comput. Phys. 1964, 3, 211–263.
25. FLAC. Manuals, Complete Set; Itasca: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2011.
26. Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge, Government of Spain.
Available online: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/agua/temas/seguridad-de-presas-y-embalses/inventario-
presas-y-embalses/ (accessed on 18 August 2020).
27. Hatanaka, M.; Uchida, A.; Takehara, N. Permeability Characteristics of High-Quality Undisturbed Sands
Measured in A Triaxial Cell. Soils Found. 1997, 37, 129–135. [CrossRef]
28. Murray, E.J. Procedure for the Determination of the Permeability of Clayey Soils in a Triaxial Cell Using the Accelerated
Permeability Test; Technical Report P1-398/TR; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2003.
29. Brown, E. Reducing risks in the investigation, design and construction of large concrete dams. J. Rock Mech.
Geotech. Eng. 2017, 9, 197–209. [CrossRef]
30. Radchenko, V.; Belkova, I.; Rumyantsev, O. The Russian practice of earth dam seepage strength. In Proceedings
of the ICSE-6 (6th International Conference on Scour and Erosion), Paris, France, 27–31 August 2012;
pp. 577–584.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 12 06667 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sustainability 12 06667 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: heterogeneous material; earth dam; seepage; Darcy’s law; optimization

Sustainability 2020, 12, 6667; doi:10.3390/su12166667 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. Theoretical Bases

its compactness did not vary throughout the filtration process.

Figure 2. Equipotential lines and streamlines.

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 31

2.2.3. Model Validation

50 Field data: 2005 - 2008

3.2. Water Height

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 31

3.6.2. Case I: Two Materials Set Horizontally

Case II-A. Isotropic Case II-A. Anisotropic

3.6.4. Case III: Three Materials Set Vertically

4.1. Dam Core Geometry

4.2. Water Height

4.3. Permeability of the Material

4.4. Seepage Path and Streamlines

Once Once the values

4.5. Results and Discussion

Number of cases ……. 10000 1400

Flow greater than (l/h)

Gradient greater than

Statistical data of the position (core height, H)

450 Number of cases ……. 10000

Average value ………….. 20.150 m

Height of the core (m)

7000 Average value ………….. 0.227 l/h

Flow greater than (l/h)

7000 Maximum value ………… 9.530

You might also like