Abstract
This study is focused on a numerical method to investigate the performance of cutoff walls system against uplift pressure and piping phenomenon. The parametric study has been conducted on the variation of cutoff wall parameters such as inclination angle of one cutoff wall in upstream and downstream side of the hydraulic structure, their length in upstream side, their spacing and number of cutoff walls under hydraulic structure. The results showed that using inclined upstream cutoff wall θ = 70° and θ = 90° was beneficial in increasing the safety the hydraulic structure against piping phenomenon and uplift pressure, respectively. Using downstream cutoff wall with any inclination angle decreased the safety against uplift pressure, and the best inclination angle of the cutoff wall at the toe of the hydraulic structure in increasing the safety against piping phenomenon was θ = 130°. Increasing the length of the upstream cutoff wall increased the safety against uplift pressure and piping phenomenon. The use of the larger spacing between two vertical cutoff walls decreased the safety against uplift pressure and increased the safety against piping phenomenon. Finally, the best number of cutoff walls in increasing the safety against uplift pressure was three and also increasing the number of cutoff walls increased the safety against piping phenomenon.
We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.
Abbreviations
- θ:
-
Inclination angle between base of hydraulic structure and one cutoff wall
- L:
-
Length of one vertical cutoff wall in upstream side of hydraulic structure
- S:
-
Spacing between two vertical cutoff wall
- N:
-
Number of cutoff walls under hydraulic structure
References
Feng Z, Wu JTH (2006) The epsilon method: analysis of seepage beneath an impervious dam with sheet pile on a layered soil. Can Geotech J 43:59–69
Geo-Slope (2007) SEEP/W Version 7.1.0 User’s manual. GEOSLOPE international. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Griffiths DV, Fenton GA (1993) Seepage beneath water retaining structures founded on spatially random soil. Geotech Geo-Environ Eng ASCE 43:577–587
Harr ME (1962) Groundwater and seepage. McGraw-Hill, New York
Kalkaniand EC, Michali AJ (1984) Steady flow calculations for cutoff wall depth variation. J Geotech Eng ASCE 110(7):899–907
Khosla AN, Bose NK, Taylor EM (1936) Design of weirs on permeable foundations. Central Board of Irrigation, India
King GJW, Collins P (1968) On the design of a rectangular dam with a central cut-off wall. Geotechnique 18:489–498
Kumar A, Singh B, Chawla A (1986) Design of structures with intermediate filters. J Hydraul Eng Div ASCE 102:206–219
Leliavsky S (1965) Design of dams for percolation and erosion. Chapman and Hall Ltd, London
Manna MC, Bhattacharya AK, Choudhury S, Maji SC (2003) Groundwater flow beneath a sheet pile analyzed using six-noded triangular finite elements. IE (I) J 84:121–129
Mao CX (2003) Seepage computation analysis and control. China Hydraulic and Hydropower, Beijing
Rushton KR, Redshaw SC (1978) Seepage and groundwater flow. Wiley, New York
Sedghi-Asl M, Rehmani H, Khaleghi H (2010) Laboratory investigation of the seepage control measure under coastal dikes. Exp Tech 36(1):61–71
Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moharrami, A., Moradi, G., Bonab, M.H. et al. Performance of Cutoff Walls Under Hydraulic Structures Against Uplift Pressure and Piping Phenomenon. Geotech Geol Eng 33, 95–103 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9827-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9827-7