CONCRETE DAM WITH CONFINED GROUNDWATER FLOW

CONCRETE DAM WITH CONFINED GROUNDWATER FLOW

This document describes an example that has been used to verify the groundwater ow
capabilities of PLAXIS. Concrete dams with three different underground construction
strategies are considered: one without an impermeable screen, one with an impermeable
screen at the upstream side and one with an impermeable screen at the downstream
side.
Used version:
PLAXIS 2D - Version 2011
PLAXIS 3D - Version 2012
Input: The dams are founded on a imprevious isotropic soil (Figure 1). The coefcient of
permeability of the soil is 5.0 10
6
m/sec. Seepage under the dams and the uplift water
pressure head at point A (the toe of the dam) are calculated for the three cases: one
using the ow net method presented by (Lambe & Whitman, 1979), and one using
PLAXIS. Note that the model is extended by 1 m in the y-direction in PLAXIS 3D.
The potential heads determined by the ow net are shown in Figures 1 to 3:
A
18 m
1.5 m
10.5 m
H = 6 m
Dam I
Impervious
Figure 1 Geometry and the potential heads in dam I without a screen, (Lambe & Whitman, 1979)
Impervious
4.5 m
Dam II
Figure 2 Geometry and the potential heads in dam II, with a screen at the upstream side, (Lambe &
Whitman, 1979)
The geometry and mesh are shown in Figures 4 and 5 for PLAXIS 2D. The concrete dam
is simulated simply by considering its interaction with the soil as a closed boundary,
which is impermeable.
Output: The potential heads for the three cases as computed by PLAXIS 2D are shown
in Figures 6 to 8.
PLAXIS 2012 | Validation & Verication 1
VALIDATION & VERIFICATION
Impervious
4.5 m
Dam III
Figure 3 Geometry and the potential heads in damIII, with a screen at the downstreamside, (Lambe
& Whitman, 1979)
Figure 4 Geometry and boundary conditions (dam II)
Figure 5 Generated mesh composed of 15-node elements
Figure 6 Potential heads under Dam I (PLAXIS 2D)
Figure 7 Potential heads under Dam II (PLAXIS 2D)
The potential heads for the three cases as computed by PLAXIS 3D are shown in Figures
9 to 11.
It can be seen that potential heads obtained from the ow net and from PLAXIS are in
good agreement.
Verication: Comparison of the results obtained from the ow net method and from
2 Validation & Verication | PLAXIS 2012
CONCRETE DAM WITH CONFINED GROUNDWATER FLOW
Figure 8 Potential heads under Dam III (PLAXIS 2D)
Figure 9 Potential heads under Dam I (PLAXIS 3D)
Figure 10 Potential heads under Dam II (PLAXIS 3D)
Figure 11 Potential heads under Dam III (PLAXIS 3D)
PLAXIS are presented in Table 1. It can be seen that the results are also in good
agreement.
Dam
Total discharge under the dam (m
3
/sec/m) Uplift water pressure head at point A (m)
Lambe and Whitman PLAXIS 2D PLAXIS 3D Lambe and Whitman PLAXIS 2D PLAXIS 3D
I 1.029 10
-5
1.03010
-5
1.026 10
-5
2.25 2.18
II 8.84 10
-6
8.70 10
-6
8.700 10
-6
2.13 2.08
III 8.84 10
-6
8.70 10
-6
8.663 10
-6
3.87 4.00
Table 1 Calculation results from PLAXIS and the Flow net method
Hint: In Dam III, the point A is located just on the upstream side of the screen.
PLAXIS 2012 | Validation & Verication 3
VALIDATION & VERIFICATION
REFERENCES
[1] Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V. (1979). Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons.
4 Validation & Verication | PLAXIS 2012