Design Methods for Confined Flows

Chandra S. Brahma, F. ASCE California State University - Fresno

Abstract
Most seepage problems of interest are highly complex, leading to solutions using approximate methods such as finite-difference or finite-element method and graphical flow-net analyses. The designer's ingenuity lies in the choice of a computational method that most reasonably approximates real life but still permits a solution to be obtained. The graphical trial and error procedures are, at present, the most widely applied method of solving seepage problems. However, to solve a complex these problem involving investigations of the influence of a range of characteristic dimensions by means of flow nets would certainly require prodigious amounts of labor. The paper, therefore, outlines computer-aided analyses based on the method of fragments originally developed by Pavlovsky [4] in 1956 and was later extended by Harr [3]. Since computational capabilities with digital computers have, for all practical purposes, surpassed engineers' ability to investigate parameters with which they have to deal, the key to improving educational effectiveness with geotechnical courses dealing with the design of confined seepage certainly rests on multiplying the time the student actually spends learning basic design skills through working out a comprehensive range of problems. The main objective of the paper is to illustrate with the software "SEEPAGE" to both practitioners and students the advantage of using a computer to perform a design process that is otherwise lengthy and tedious. The "SEEPAGE" software package is an interactive program developed for predicting the effects of flowing water upon the design of structures on, in, or of the earth. The program uses the most recent design practices, computerizes manual methods of design to improv speed as well as reliability of calculations, and runs on IBM-PC or compatible microcomputer using DOS operating system. The program follows a minimum learning curve strategy and achieves a high degree of user friendliness through an easy format and explicit data prompts.

parts of the flow region are vertical straight lines and they divide the flow region into fragments, as shown in Figure 1. For a steady state flow, the rate of discharge q through each fragment must be the same. Therefore, the rate of discharge qI through ith fragment is given by q = qi = khi / i where, k = coefficient of permeability hi = head loss through fragment i and i = dimensionless form factor for fragment i q = kh / n i=1 (i) and hi = h (fi) / n i=1 (i) where h = total head loss through the section A catalog of form factors, including six general types and their characteristics are summarized in tabular form by Harr [3]. The exit gradient Ie through fragment i is calculated, using the relationship

Ie = hi / (2KTm) where, m = modulus = cos (s/2T) [ tanh2 (b/2T) + tan2 (s/2T) ]0.5 K = complete elliptic integral of first kind of modulus m s = embedment depth of impervious wall T = thickness of aquifer for each fragment b = length of impervious surface or blanket Three separate problems due to seepage under the base of weir shown in Figure 1 may arise. 1) The exit gradient at point e must be limited to prevent erosion of soil and formation of a pipe which may undermine the weir by providing an adequate factor of safety against piping. 2) The excess hydrostatic head in the neighborhood of point c must not be allowed to lift the soil above it, causing a general boiling condition. The design must incorporate an adequate factor of safety against the failure by heave of the toe. And 3)

Analytical Method
The fundamental assumption of the method of fragments is that the equipotential lines at chosen critical

DAM e a Permeable Soil b c

Pile h2 h1

Impervious Soil

FIGURE - 1
the upward hydrostatic forces between points a and b along the base of the weir must not exceed the downward weight of the weir in order to prevent a failure by uplift.

Factor of safety against piping = Ic / Ie where, Ic = submerged / w = (G - 1)/(1 + e) G = Specific gravity of solids e = Void ratio Factor of safety against boiling = Ic / Iaverage where, Iaverage = Excess hydrostatic head at c / length of flow distance ce Factor of safety against uplift = W / Fu where, Fu = Upward hydrostatic force along the base of weir from a to b W = weight of weir

Software "SEEPAGE"
The finding of the unique solution of a certain specific problem often involves mathematical complexities which are beyond the powers of most engineers. Discovery of the unique solution appropriate to a given geometrical configuration of the boundaries is in most cases a formidable task and known solutions for specific cases are usually obtained by inverse methods. It is for this reason that engineers resort to approximate methods. While it is easy to construct plausible flow lines and equipotentials which form a pattern of squares in any portion of the flow field pertaining to any particular set of boundary conditions, this pattern represents an accurate solution for some definite set of boundary conditions, but only when it occupies the entire field is the particular problem solved. The preliminary flow net cannot be expected to do this, and must therefore be adjusted by redrawing with slightly altered stream lines and equipotentials. A number of such adjustments will ordinarily be required before a highly accurate result is secured. Many

flow nets are needed for properly investigating the effects of various parameters, such as number, depth and location of impervious walls beneath the dam (Figure 1), on design. Primary emphasis in developing the software is, therefore, placed on assessment of the effect of complex design requirements as well as soil conditions in order to achieve the safest and most economical design. Input data for the software include upstream and downstream water levels, location and depth of each vertical impervious wall, width of each horizontal impervious blankets, and width as well as weight of the dam. Other input related to subsurface profile include types (cohesive or cohesionless) of soil layers beneath the dam, thickness of the aquifer, buoyant unit weight (or void ratio and specific gravity of solids), and coefficient of permeability in each direction. For anisotropic soils, the geometric dimensions are transformed and the problem is analyzed with the transformed section, using an equivalent permeability. Based on the properties of soil, depth of aquifer, head difference causing the flow, and location as well as length of cut-off walls or impervious blankets, the software, using the above-mentioned relationships, ascertains the critical and exit gradients and factor of safety against piping, average hydraulic gradients and factor of safety against boiling, rate of seepage, and distribution of hydrostatic pressures and factor of safety against uplift, It provides several alternative designs consistent with the requirements of the project at hand.

Distance of the pile on the downstream side of the dam X2 = 20.0 m Weight of the dam W = 1200.0 KN/m2 Coefficient of permeability k= 0.000030 m/sec Specific gravity of solids G = 2.65 Void ratio of soil VR = 0.65 Output Parameter Rate of Flow (q) Exit Gradient (IE) Upward Force (FU) Uplift Pressure at a Uplift pressure at b F. S. against piping F. S. against uplift F. S. against boiling From Software 0.0000531 m3/sec/m 0.21 983.2 KN/m 65.3 KN/m2 33.0 KN/m2 4.85 1.22 2.925

These parameters are also determined from the flow net and the results are tabulated herein: Parameters Rate of flow (q) Exit gradient (IE) Upward Force (FU) Uplift pressure at a Uplift pressure at b F. S. against piping F. S. against uplift F. S. against boiling From Flownet 0.0000525 m3/sec/m 0.23 1004.0 KN/m 66.3 KN/m2 34.1 KN/m2 4.34 1.19 2.857

Computer-Aided Design Example

Among the various feasible systems analyzed, details of a particular design system and the subsurface conditions shown in Figure 1 are as follows: Input Height of water on the upstream side of the dam H = 6.5 m Height of water on the downstream side of the dam h = 0 m Width of the dam B = 20.0 m Thickness of the aquifer on the upstream side of the dam T1 (= h1 + h2) = 10.5 m Thickness of the aquifer under the dam T2 (=T1 - d1) = 9.5 m Thickness of the aquifer on the downstream side of the dam T3 (= h1 + h2) = 10.5 m Depth of dam below the top of aquifer on the upstream side d1= 1.0 m Depth of dam below the top of aquifer on the downstream side d2 = 1.0 m Length of pile on the downstream side of the dam SP2 (= h1-d2) = 4.0 m

The close agreement between the values of rate of flow, exit gradient, upward hydrostatic force, uplift pressures at points a and b beneath the dam, and factors of safety against piping, boiling, and uplift as determined by the two different procedures, supports the adequacy of the software SEEPAGE.

Conclusion
Both the danger of instability and the volume of seepage can be reduced by driving the sheeting deeper, driving multiple sheeting, and installing wide impervious blankets. Naturally, this will entail greater initial expense and will eliminate satisfactorily any instability of the material. Then the consequent seepage will require a definite outlay for pumping equipment and a definite daily pumping expense. An increase in number and depth of the sheeting or the width of the impervious blanket will reduce the pumping costs but increase the cost of the project. Hence, economic

considerations can, in many such situations, determine the details of field procedure [ 1, 2]. The software SEEPAGE described above will afford engineers an opportunity to readily evaluate various schemes and to perform economic analyses of numerous plausible alternative designs. The example well illustrates how powerful the software SEEPAGE is for developing a design.

Link: Example Problem References

1. Brahma, C. S. On Solution of Seepage Problems without the Flownets, Proceedings, 17th Annual Central California Research Symposium, Fresno, California, May, 1996 2. Brahma, C. S. Computer-Aided Design of Braced Excavations, Proceedings, Third Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Anaheim, California, June, 1996 3. Harr, M. E. Groundwater and Seepage, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1962 4. Pavlovski, N. N. Collected Works, Akad. Nauk USSR, Leningrad, 1960