behavior of partial seepage barriers in …€¦ · · 2018-03-01head across the diversion dam...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 286 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 2, February 2018, pp. 286–298, Article ID: IJCIET_09_02_028

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=2

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

BEHAVIOR OF PARTIAL SEEPAGE BARRIERS

IN HIGHLY PERMEABLE SOILS

S. Sivakumar

Tamilnadu Public Works Department, Trichy, Tamilnadu, India

Prist Deemed University, Vallam-613403, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India

N. Almas Begum

Tamilnadu Public Works Department, Trichy, Tamilnadu, India

P.V. Premalatha

CARE Groups of Institutions, Trichy, Tamilnadu, India

ABSTRACT

Numerical analysis is carried out to study the deformation of partial seepage

barriers in highly permeable soil. Plaxis 2D software is used to analyze the chosen

numerical model of a diversion dam with suspended type diaphragm cut off walls

formed in sandy soil. The depth of downstream cutoff wall and differential pressure

head across the diversion dam are kept constant. The depth of upstream cutoff wall is

made to vary from 0m to 15m and consequent effect on deformation pattern of

downstream cutoff wall is studied. On increasing the depth of upstream cut off wall,

the deformation at top end of downstream cutoff wall reduces at decreasing rate up to

9m depth and beyond that it increases at increasing rate. However, the bottom end

deformation reduces almost uniformly throughout. On increasing the depth of

upstream cutoff wall, the pressure head acting on downstream cutoff wall decreases

but deformation increases. This increase is due to the seepage dynamic force acting

on the seepage barriers despite the reduction in pressure head acting on them. On

increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall, the direction of stream flow gets mostly

oriented from downward to horizontal direction, thereby increasing the magnitude of

horizontal component of seepage forces acting on the downstream cutoff wall and

exerts dynamic force which is more predominant than the pressure head acting on

seepage barrier.

Keywords: Diaphragm cutoff wall, Numerical modeling, Partial seepage barrier,

Seepage force, Suspended type cutoff wall.

Cite this Article: S. Sivakumar, N. Almas Begum and P.V. Premalatha, Behavior of

Partial Seepage Barriers in Highly Permeable Soils, International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology, 9(2), 2018, pp. 286–298.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=2

Behavior of Partial Seepage Barriers in Highly Permeable Soils


1. INTRODUCTION

Regulating structures and Diversion structure are constructed across rivers and drains over

sandy stratum with cutoff walls extending to certain depth of the stratum. These sandy soil

stratums normally have high permeability, which allows water to percolate below the

foundation of these regulating structures. As these regulating/diversion structures hold water

on their upstream side, a differential pressure head is created between upstream and

downstream. The worst condition for creation of high differential pressure is full level in

upstream side and empty in the downstream side. This differential pressure head drives the

water to seep into the foundation soil under the structure. This seepage flow creates uplift

pressure on the above structures and also tends to take away the soil particles from

foundation, leading to piping. Hence, uplift pressure and soil erosion are potential

destabilizing parameters which lead to total failure of the structure.

It is required to effectively deal with the uplift pressure and soil erosion to avert any

failure. The soil erosion phenomenon which may lead to full blown piping is handled with the

measure of exit gradient; the residual pressure at which the water exit at downstream end. The

uplift pressure reduces the effective weight of structure and hence reduces the stability. These

destabilizing forces can be taken care of, to ensure the safety of the structure. Increasing the

weight of the structures and providing cutoff wall at suitable depth and location would reduce

both uplift pressure and exit gradient.

Bligh [1] proposed his creep length theory that seepage flows along the surface of the

structure which is in contact with the foundation. According to his theory, the total energy

loss is uniform along the path of creep. It means the uplift pressure is distributed linearly

along the entire creep length. However, Lane [2] has brought some improvement to Bligh‟s

theory by proposing different weightage for horizontal and vertical creeping paths. He

proposed the weightage of 0.33 for horizontal and 1.0 for vertical percolation lengths. The

equivalent creep length is, according to Lane [2], Leq = 1/3ƩLH+ƩLV, where ƩLH = Total

horizontal percolation length and ƩLV = Total vertical percolation length. Even though Lane‟s

theory[2] was better than the Bligh‟s theory[1]; this too had more short comings.

Khosala et al. [3] proposed a seepage theory based on the concept of flow net consists of

Stream lines and Equipotential lines crossing each other orthogonally. According to Khosala

et al. [3], the seepage flow pass in stream lines from upstream to downstream, not along the

surface of the structure. This steady seepage in a vertical plan can be expressed by Laplacion

equation as below.

(1)

Where ϕ – flow potential, equivalent to „Kh‟ in which K represents the co-efficient of

percolation and “h” represents residual head at any point. The resultant flow diagram

comprising both stream lines and equipotential lines are together form the Flow net.

S. Sivakumar, N. Almas Begum and P.V. Premalatha


Figure 1 Stream line flow of seepage under cutoff wall

The seepage water exerts dynamic force in the direction of flow on every point on

the stream lines. When the stream lines travels downward, the force exerted by the

seepage flow acts downwards and when the stream line turns upwards, this force acts

upwards. When the stream line flow turns upwards at the downstream side of the

structure, the entire force of seepage acts upwards and this may cause boiling and

consequent destabilizing effect on the structure. This destabilizing force at any point is

proportional to pressure gradient at that point. The stream line flow is represented in

Figure 1.

Figure 2 Model section of diversion structures

Khosala et al. [3] study contemplates that the loss of head along the stream line does not

occurs uniformly and proportional to their length, as stated by Bligh[1]. In other hand, the loss

of head depends on the foundation shape, depth of impervious boundary, bed levels of

upstream and downstream sides. The model section of diversion dam with critical points is

shown in the Figure 2. Khosala et al. [3] proposed the method of independent variable for

ascertaining the uplift pressure and exit gradient on pervious foundation. This method is very

simple, quick and accurate, rather than solving complicated Laplacian equations. In this

method, the complex profile of the structure is broken into simple profiles which can be

solved analytically at ease. Pressures at various critical points, as referred in Figure 3 are

obtained in terms of percentage of differential pressure head by using the equations 2 to 5.



The obtained pressure heads are corrected for mutual interference of piles, floor thickness and

slope of floor to make the calculated pressure valid for complex profile.

Figure 3 Method of independent variables

Pressure head in % of Total Head difference:

At E

{

} (2)

At D

{

} (3)

At C1 (4)

At D1 (5)

Where √

and

(respective)

The corrected pressures head at critical points, after incorporating the required corrections,

are used to work out the elevation of hydraulic gradient line above datum line. Normally the

datum line is downstream water level. From the hydraulic gradient plotted, the uplift pressure

is worked out. The pressure arrived at the critical points at bottom of cutoff walls and cutoff

wall-floor joints, pressure head acting on the faces of cutoff walls are calculated.

Various studies have been conducted to study the uplift pressure, exit gradient and

seepage for various configuration of cutoff wall, floor length and pressure heads. Monsuri B

et al. [4] studied the effect of locations of cutoff wall on uplift pressure in diversion dam. In

their study it is concluded that when the cutoff wall is positioned at upstream end, the uplift

pressure gets decreased and at same time, the exit gradient gets increased. The maximum

discharge occurs when the cutoff wall is placed in the middle of the dam. When the cutoff

wall placed on the downstream end, the uplift pressure got increased and the exits gradient got

reduced. Shayan H K and Takaldany A [5] also conducted both experimental and numerical

studies. They observed that best position of cutoff wall to reduce the seepage flow is at

downstream end and to reduce the uplift is at upstream end. Ahmed A A [6] investigated

various configurations of sheet pile and their effect on seepage flow, uplift force and exit

gradient.

Rice et al. [7, 8] have studied the defects in seepage barriers and their consequent low

resistance seepage pathways. Rice and Duncan [9] observed that high differential hydraulic

pressure around the cutoff wall would lead to cracking of seepage barriers. Wang .S et al. [10]

investigated the stress state in the suspended type cutoff wall in pervious soil. The study

concluded that the deviatoric stress decreases the critical hydraulic gradient.

Kalkani and Michali [11] investigated in embankment dams, the effects on steady seepage

flow for various depths of sheet pile cutoff walls. Alghazali N O S et al. [12] analyzed, using

FE method, the flow through soil foundation, uplift pressure and exit gradient for various

location and inclination of cutoff walls. Zainal [13] investigated the angle of cutoff walls to

reduce the seepage, uplift pressure and exit gradient. He found that about 60 ° the seepage is



minimum, from 120° to 135°; the uplift pressure is minimum and from 45° to 75° exit

gradient is minimum. Muthukumaran et al. [14] and Premalatha P V et al. [15] studied soil

structure interaction under lateral loadings.

There are numerous experimental and numerical studies which have been conducted to

study the effect on seepage flow, exit gradient and uplift pressure for various configurations

of cutoff walls. But, the effects of seepage forces on structural deformation of cutoff wall

have not been studied adequately, which is needed to be studied in detail to have a clear

insight in understanding the structural requirement of cutoff walls. Hence, this study is

primarily focused on carrying out the numerical study on the behavior of suspended type

cutoff wall (partial seepage barrier) in sandy soil.

2. NUMERICAL MODEL

The numerical model of Regulating/diversion structure chosen for study is given in Figure 4.

Plaxis 2D software is used to analyze the model with appropriate and relevant soil and

structural parameters. Structural elements like Body wall/crest wall, diaphragm cutoff wall

and apron are created using the plate elements in Plaxis geometry tool. Appropriate Axial

stiffness (EA) and Flexural stiffness (EI) of structural elements based on the recently

constructed barrage structure in Cauvery River are adopted. The interface elements are

created on the surfaces of structural elements, which are in contact with the soil. The standard

fixities boundary condition is applied. The bottom boundary of the model is made impervious

to represent the real condition. Mohr-Coulomb model is adopted for this analysis.

Figure 4 Numerical Model of Diversion Dam

The pressure head at the critical points D, E, C1 and D1 are obtained both from the

numerical model and Khosala et al analytical study. It is observed that the pressure heads

obtained from numerical study are closely following the pressure heads obtained from the

Khosala et al analytical study. Figure 5 shows the plot of pressure head at various critical

points of diversion structure for 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m and 5m differential pressure head with both

analytical solutions of Khosala et al and Numerical modeling results of Plaxis



Figure 5 Pressure head at various critical points of diversion structure

Soil data obtained from barrage site on the Cauvery River is used to represent the real

conditions. The soil parameters are arrived based on the obtained N values, using the SPT

correlations prescribed by Joseph. E Bowles [16]. It is assumed that the soil stratum is

homogeneous for entire depth with the choosen parameters. The structural parameters of the

diaphragm cutoff walls in the barrage structures are used for this study. The chosen

parameters of structural elements are given in Table 1. The soil parameters chosen for this

study are given in the Table 2.

Table 1 Properties of structural elements

Structure Elements EA in kN EI in kNm2 d in m ν

Diaphragm Cutoff Wall 1.50E+07 4.50E+05 0.6 0

Apron 2.90E+10 5.45E+06 1.5 0.15

Body Wall/ Crest Wall 4.84E+07 2.52E+07 2.5 0.15

Table 2 Soil Parameters.

Sl

No N

Rel

ati

ve

Den

sity

in

% D

r

Un

it w

eig

ht

sub

mer

ged

kN

/ m

3 γ

sub

Un

it w

eig

ht

in

kN

/ m

3 γ

sat

Un

it w

eig

ht

in

kN

/ m

3 γ

un

sat

An

gle

of

inte

rnal

fric

tio

n i

n d

egre

e -

φ

Yo

un

gs

Mo

du

lus

kN

/m2 E

ref

Dil

ata

ncy

An

gle

in

deg

ree

ψ

Co

hes

ion

in

kN

/m2

Cref

Po

issi

on

Rati

o ν

Per

mea

bil

ity

m/d

ay

K

1 31 65.0 11.20 21.20 17.00 36.00 11500 14.00 1.00 0.30 7.30

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

0 1 2 3 4 5

Analytical @ 5m Numerical @ 5m



Analytical @ 2m Numerical@ 2m


Critical Points D1 C1 E D

Pre

ssu

re H

ead

in m



3. STUDY AND DISCUSSION

The depth of downstream cutoff wall is kept constant at 13m depth, while the depth of

upstream cutoff wall is varied. The depth of upstream cutoff wall is varied as 0m (no

upstream cutoff wall), 3m, 5m, 7m, 9m, 11m, 13m and 15m. The effects on the downstream

cutoff wall due to the change in depth of upstream cutoff wall are analyzed. All soil and

structural parameters are kept constant and a constant differential pressure of 5m water head

is applied on the upstream side. Deformation and bending moments on downstream cutoff

wall for varying the depth of upstream cutoff wall are studied.

3.1. Deformation of Downstream Cutoff Wall

By varying the depth of upstream cutoff wall from 0m to 15m, deformation of downstream

cutoff wall varies. Changes in deformation pattern of downstream cutoff wall are observed.

Figure 6 gives the displacement of downstream cutoff wall under various depth of upstream

cutoff wall at constant differential pressure head of 5m. On increasing depth the upstream

cutoff wall, the magnitude of maximum deflection on the downstream cutoff wall reduces.

However, the point of occurrence of maximum deflection shifts towards top on increasing the

depth of upstream cutoff wall.

Figure 6 Displacement in downstream cutoff wall

The displacement of downstream cutoff wall are given in Table 3. It is observed that, on

increase of depth of upstream cutoff wall, the displacement at bottom end of downstream

cutoff wall reduces almost uniformly. However the top end of the downstream cutoff wall

behaves differently. The displacement on top end of downstream cutoff wall reduces at

decreasing rate for uniform increase of depth of upstream cutoff wall. Up to 9m depth of

upstream cutoff wall, the displacement at top of downstream cutoff wall reduces at decreasing

rate and beyond that depth the displacement on the top of downstream cutoff wall increases,

at increasing rate. On studying the relative positions of top and bottom displacement of

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

30 32 34 36 38 40

0m Depth 3m Depth

5m Depth 7m Depth

9m Depth 11m Depth

13m Depth 15m Depth

Displacement in mm

Dep

th in

m



downstream cutoff wall for increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall, up to the depth of

5m, the relative differences of both ends reduces at decreasing rate and beyond that depth, the

relative differences increases with increasing rate subjecting the wall under higher stresses.

Table 3 Displacement of top and bottom ends of downstream cutoff walls

Displacement in

Downstream

Cutoff wall

Displacement (in mm) for depth of upstream cutoff wall

0m 3m 5m 7m 9m 11m 13m 15m

At top 35.52 34.02 33.3 32.97 32.91 33.01 33.23 33.53

bottom 33.80 33.38 33.09 32.70 32.29 31.93 31.41 30.87

Relative difference

between both ends 1.72 0.64 0.21 0.26 0.62 1.09 1.82 2.66

3.2. Bending Moment in Downstream Cutoff Wall

Bending moment on the downstream cutoff wall varies with the changes in the depth of the

upstream cutoff wall. It is observed that on increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall the

magnitude of maximum bending moment increases and it is also observed that the point of

occurrence of maximum bending moment also shifts towards top. Figure 7 shows the bending

moment plot and Figure 8 shows the shear force plot of downstream cutoff wall for various

depths of upstream cutoff wall.

Figure 7 Bending Moment in downstream cutoff for various depth of upstream cutoff wall

The interesting phenomenon observed here is, the maximum bending moment in

downstream cutoff wall increases on increasing the depth of the upstream cutoff wall. On

analyzing the pressure head acting on the faces of downstream cutoff wall, the net pressure

acting on the downstream cutoff wall reduces on increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall.

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

0m Depth 3m Depth

5m Depth 7m Depth

9m Depth 11m Depth

13m Depth 15m Depth

Bending Momet in kNm

Dep

th in

m



Figure 8 Shear force in downstream cutoff wall for various depth of upstream cutoff wall

Table 4 shows the net pressure on the downstream cutoff wall for various depths of

upstream cutoff wall. It is noted that the net pressure acting on the downstream cutoff wall

reduces on increase of depth of upstream cutoff wall. While increasing the depth of upstream

cutoff wall, the stream lines are required to trace a longer path to reach the downstream

cutoff, therefore, reduction in pressure potential occurs and resulting in lower pressure on the

downstream cutoff wall.

Table 4 Total Pressure acting on the downstream cutoff wall.

Total pressure acting

on the downstream

cutoff wall

Total pressure (in kN) acting on downstream cutoff wall for the

depth of upstream cutoff wall

3m 5m 7 m 9m 11m 13m 15m

Inner face 275.60 268.10 250.30 243.10 233.80 222.10 200.80

Outer face 72.40 69.60 67.20 65.30 62.00 58.40 56.80

Net pressure 203.20 198.50 183.10 177.80 171.90 163.70 144.00

It is obvious that, these reduced net pressures acting on the downstream cutoff wall for

increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall, would result in lower deformation and

consequent lower bending moment. But the observed results are otherwise. Bending moment

on the downstream cutoff wall for various depth of upstream cutoff wall, shows increased

deformations and increased bending moments on downstream cut of wall for higher depths of

upstream cutoff wall. This peculiar behavior can be understood by studying the flow field

around the cutoff walls. Figure 9 shows the flow field of seepage obtained from numerical

modeling. The flow pattern in flow field can be simplified and be drawn as in Figure.10

-14.0

-12.0

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

-30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

0m Depth 3m Depth

5m Depth 7m Depth

9m Depth 11m Depth

13m Depth 15m Depth

Shear in kN

Dep

th in

m



Figure 9 Flow field in Numerical Modeling – Relatively lower depth of upstream cutoff wall

Figure 10 Simplified flow field - Relatively lower depth upstream cutoff wall

Take the case of shallow depth of upstream cutoff wall. The stream lines of seepage flow

can be drawn as shown in Figure 10. As explained by Khosala et al. [3], the stream line flow

exerts dynamic force (F) on the flow direction tangential to the stream lines. This dynamic

force F can be resolved into horizontal and vertical components as FV and FH. When the depth

of upstream cutoff wall is relatively less, the direction of stream flow orient downward

direction as it has to circumvent the higher depth of downstream cutoff wall. As the general

orientation of the seepage flow is downward, the vertical component Fv is more and the

horizontal component FH is less. While increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall, the

stream lines are required to circumvent relatively lower depth of downstream cutoff wall,

there by relatively orienting themselves towards horizontal directions. Figure.11 shows the

flow field for relatively higher depth of upstream cutoff wall, obtained from Numerical

Modeling. This flow pattern in flow field can also be simplified and be drawn as in Figure 12.



Figure 11 Flow field of Numerical Modeling – Relatively higher depth upstream cutoff wall

Figure 12 Simplified flow field - Relatively higher depth upstream cutoff wall

Therefore, on increase of depth of upstream cutoff wall, the direction of stream flow gets

mostly oriented from downward to horizontal direction, thereby increasing the magnitude of

horizontal component - FH of seepage forces acting on the downstream cutoff wall. This

higher magnitude of FH increases the deformation and bending moment on the downstream

cutoff wall. So, it can be concluded that higher depth of upstream cutoff wall increases the

deformation and bending moment in downstream cutoff wall, due to general orientation of

seepage flow towards horizontal direction and exerting dynamic force on downstream cutoff

wall.

The increase in deformation and bending moment is due to the dynamic force exerted by

seepage flow on the downstream cutoff wall and this force is more predominant than the

pressure head. It is a preconceived notion that, the forces acting on the downstream cutoff

wall would be less when the system is provided with upstream cutoff wall, compared with a

system provided with downstream cutoff wall alone. Considering the nee of reduction of

uplift pressure, it is essential to provide with cutoff wall at upstream end in addition to the

downstream cutoff wall and hence, it is in practice to provide with both upstream and

downstream cutoff walls. Therefore, it is essential to account the increase in deformation and

bending moment due to seepage force acting on the downstream cutoff wall while providing

the upstream cutoff walls.



4. CONCLUSION

Numerical study of the choosen model is conducted by varying the depth of upstream cutoff

wall while keeping constant the differential pressure head and depth of downstream cutoff

wall. The deformation pattern and bending moment on the downstream cutoff is studied for

various depth of upstream cutoff wall. The changes in pressure regime acting on the cutoff

walls are also studied. The following conclusion are drawn based on the study.

On increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall, the displacement at bottom end of

downstream cutoff wall reduces almost at uniform rate.

On increasing depth of upstream cutoff wall up to 9m, the displacement at top of

downstream cutoff wall reduces at decreasing rate and then beyond that depth, the

displacement on the top of downstream cutoff wall increases at increasing rate.

On studying the relative positions of top and bottom displacements of downstream

cutoff wall for increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall, up to 5m depth of

upstream cutoff wall, the relative differences of both ends reduces at very high

decreasing rate and beyond that, the relative differences increases at increasing rate,

subjecting the cutoff wall under higher stresses.

On increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall the magnitude of maximum bending

moment increases and it is also observed that the point of occurrence of maximum

bending moment also shifts towards top.

On increasing the depth of upstream cutoff wall, the direction of stream flow gets

mostly oriented from downward to horizontal direction, thereby increasing the

magnitude of horizontal component FH of seepage forces acting on the downstream

cutoff wall.

Higher depths of upstream cutoff wall increases the displacement and bending

moment in downstream cutoff wall.

Seepage dynamic force is predominant than the ground water pressure head acting on

the partial seepage barriers.

Further studies can be carried out to quantify the seepage dynamic force excerted on the

seepage barriers. There are avenues to study deformation pattern of partial seepage barriers

for parameteric changes.

REFERENCES

[1] W.G. Bligh, Dams barrages and weirs on porous foundations, Engineering News, 1910,

Vol. 64, 708.

[2] E.W. Lane, Security from under seepage: Massonry Dams on Earth Foundations, Trans,

ASCE, 1935, pp. 1235-1272.

[3] A.N. Khosla, N.K. Bose and E.T. Mckenzie, Design of weirs on pervious foundation,

Publication number 12 of the central Board of Irrigation, Simla, India, 1936.

[4] B. Mansuri, F. Salmasi and B. Oghati, Effect of Location and Angle of Cutoff Wall on

Uplift Pressure in Diversion Dam, Geotechnical and Geological engineering, 2014, DOI

10.1007/s10706-014-1174-3.

[5] H.K. Shayan and A. Tokaldany, Effects of blanket, drains and cutoff wall on reducing

uplift pressure, seepage and exist gradient under hydraulic structure, International journal

of Civil Engineering, Vol.13, No.4, December 2015

[6] A.A. Ahmed, Design of hydraulic structures considering different sheet pile

configurations and flow through canal banks, Computers and Geotechnics, No.4, Vol.38,

2011, pp.559-565.



[7] J.D. Rice and J.M. Duncan, Findings of case histories on the long-Term performance of

seepage barriers in dams, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,

vol.136, No.1, 2010, PP 2-15, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) GT.1943 – 5606.0000175.

[8] J.D. Rice and J.M. Duncan, Deformation and cracking of seepage barriers in dams due to

changes in the pore pressure regime, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, Vol.136, No.1, 2010, PP. 16-25, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) GT.1943- 5606

0000241.

[9] J.D. Rice and R.G. Van Leuven, Assessing the potential for seepage barrier defects to

propagate in to seepage errosion mechanism. 31st Annual USSD Conference: 21 Century

Dam Design – Advances and Adaptations, 2014, San Diego, California.

[10] S.Wang, J.S. Chen, Y.L. Luo, and J.C. Sheng, Experiment on internal erosion in sandy

gravel foundation containing a suspended cutoff wall under complex stress states. Natural

Hazards, Vol.74, No.2, 2014, PP. 1163-1178, DOI: 10.1007/ S.11069-014-1243-Z.

[11] F.C. Kalkani and A.J. Michali, Steady Flow Calculations for Cutoff Wall Depth

Variations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1984, (ASCE) 117(7): 899-907.

[12] N.O.S. Alghazali and H.K.T. Alnealy, Analysis of Seepage Under Hydraulic Structures

Using Slide Program, American Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 3, No.4, 2015, pp.116-

124. DOI: 10.11648/j.ajce.2015 – 0304-14.

[13] E.A.K. Zainal, The effect of cutoff angle on seepage under dams, Journal of Engineering,

2011, No.5, Vol. 17, pp.1109-1131.

[14] K. Muthukumaran and N. Almas Begum, Experimental Investigation of Single Model Pile

Subjected to Lateral Load in Sloping Ground, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,

2015, DOI 10.1007/s10706-015-9875-7.

[15] P.V. Premalath, K. Muthukumaran and Jayabalan, Experimental Study on Behaviour of

Piles in Berthing structures, Proccedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Maritime

Engineering, ICE Publications, UK – Vol I, Issue 4, 2015, ISBN: 1741-7597.

[16] Joseph.E Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed, The McGraw- Hill

Companies, Inc., 1997, ISBN- 0-07-118844-4.

[17] Anatoly Beshtauovich Kudzaev, Taimuraz Aslanbekovich Urtaev, Alan Elbrusovich

Tsgoev, Ivan Anatolyevich Korobeynik and David Valeryanovich Tsgoev, Adaptive

Energy-Saving Cultivator Equipped with the Simultaneous Adjuster of Sections for

Working Stony Soils, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology

8(11), 2017, pp. 714–720.

[18] K. Vasudhar and Ch.R.K. Afshan sheikh Analysis of Structure With The Pile Foundation

on Low Safe Bearing Capacity of Soils, International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 1677-1686.

behavior of partial seepage barriers in …€¦ · · 2018-03-01head across the diversion dam...

Documents