CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND IT’S BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

Dams are engineering structures built for retaining water for the purpose of water supply,

irrigation, flood control and hydroelectric power generation. A dam can also be used to collect

water or for storage of water which can be evenly distributed between locations. Most of large

dams in the world were built during the middle decades of the twentieth century. There are two

types of modern dams, namely: embankment and concrete. Dams have individually unique

structures. Regardless of the size and type, they demonstrate great complexity in their load

response and in their interactive relationship with site hydrology and geology. Due to the

complexity of the design of dams, some engineers in the past has overlooked one important

element of the design of a dam which is seepage. Seepage in engineering is defined as, the

movement of water in soils, often a critical problem in foundations.

Seepage depends on several factors, including permeability of the soil and the pressure

gradient, essentially the combination of forces acting on water through gravity and other factors.

Permeability can vary over a wide range, depending on soil structure and composition, making

possible the safe design of such structures as earth dams and reservoirs with negligible leakage

loss, and other structures such as roadbeds and filtration beds in which rapid drainage is desirable.

1
 Seepage has very important role in the design of dams, as seepage affects the stability of

the dam. Because of its importance, which the determination of the seepage through an earth dam

has received a great deal of attention. To ensure the static resistance and dynamic stability of dams,

it is very important to quantify the seepage, (i.e. to analyze the flow field beneath the dam). The

above mentioned is important for several reasons especially in the design of dams. Seepage should

be studied for the following reasons: (i) to quantify the pressure load, i.e. buoyancy on the dam

foundation, (ii) to reduce the buoyancy under some predefined magnitude by identifying the

necessary depth of the hydraulic barrier below the foundation, (iii) to identify the total pressure

load on the hydraulic barrier and (iv) to quantify the discharge Q beneath the hydraulic barrier.

Hydraulic analysis is to be conducted to reveal if there exists a danger of attaining flow

conditions that will lead to local erosion. Namely, the difference in water depth at the upstream

and downstream part of the dam induces a flow around the foundation. Particularly, at the

downstream part of the dam, i.e. at the tip of the dam foundation, the velocity vectors can be

oriented upward If in this region the velocity magnitude exceeds the value at which the induced

hydrodynamic force on soil particles become equal or greater than the gravity force, the soil

particles will be lifted apart and dispersed. As a consequence, the soil bearing capacity could be

vanished. To prevent such a scenario the flow field should be adequately manipulated by

embedding hydraulic barriers.

The mentioned flow can be investigated by performing laboratory measurements on

physical models i.e. hydraulic models which are attenuate replications of original dams

(prototypes).

2
 It is well known in geotechnical engineering that groundwater seepage often plays a

significant role in slope stability and deformation of geotechnical structures. In order to grasp how

groundwater seepage behaves in a particular soil mass, geotechnical engineers conduct various

types of seepage analyses. To conduct a seepage analysis, it often requires a fundamental

understanding of seepage theory, engineering principals/concepts, soil mass properties, soil

geometry, and subsurface soil conditions.

It is nearly impossible to immediately become effective at conducting a successful seepage

analysis without prior experience and understanding of seepage behavior. However, all

experienced geotechnical engineers started somewhere in order to learn how to conduct a

successful seepage analysis. The difficulty in conducting actual seepage analysis in actual dams is

both costly and time consuming. The development of a scale seepage model serves as an alternative

that would determine seepage behavior without actually conducting physical on-site observation

and experimentation on large dams. In this light, the researchers shall develop a seepage model

that would determine flow nets and seepage behavior in a more controlled and safer environment.

The following modules outlined in this thesis will attempt to provide a primer to learning

conducting a steady-state seepage analysis using the seepage model to be developed by the

researchers.

We first come up with an idea about this research because we were inspired during our

discussion on our previous subject, Soil Mechanics, by Engr. Camilo River. He would always tell

us about seepage but, there’s no apparatus to show one.

3
OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

These objectives are formulated to determine answers of the things that this research aims to

provide. To be achieved through experimentation. To classify and evaluate, and to make

recommendations to improve the operation of these experimentations.

 To provide a model of a gravity dam which can be used in water seepage analyses

 To identify the amount of seepage in terms of flow nets

 To develop a laboratory manual about seepage that can be used in laboratory

experiment

 To help students visualize the concept of flow nets and seepage and providing

knowledge though experimentation

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

 For Engineering Students. This research will benefit the students of the college

in terms of providing a lab experiment which will be use in the elaboration of the

effects of seepage on soil especially on super-structures (i.e., gravity dams).

 For Engineering Professors. For the professors to be eased with the complex

computation & explanation of the subject manner.

 For Environmental and Urban Planners. The results of this research can be used

by urban and environmental planners to check danger areas who have high

probability of water seepage which can often lead to landslide.

4
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

This research shall be limited to the analysis of seepage on a dam model with an

experimental ratio of a mixture of sand and clay. The primary focus of this research is to conduct

experimentations and observe how water seeps into the grounds in terms of flow nets, it will also

look at the utilization of a dam model and its future use as a laboratory instrument in the college.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

 SEEPAGE - in soil engineering, movement of water in soils, often a critical problem in

building foundations.

 PERMEABILITY - in fluid mechanics and the earth sciences (commonly symbolized

as κ, or k) is a measure of the ability of a porous material (often, a rock or an

unconsolidated material) to allow fluids to pass through it.

 DAM - a barrier constructed to hold back water and raise its level; the resulting reservoir

being used in the generation of electricity or as a water supply.

 GRAVITY DAM - is a dam constructed from concrete or stone masonry and designed to

hold back water by primarily using the weight of the material alone to resist the horizontal

pressure of water pushing against it.

 DARCY'S LAW - is an equation that describes the flow of a fluid through a porous

medium. The law was formulated by Henry Darcy based on the results of experiments on
5
 the flow of water through beds of sand, forming the basis of hydrogeology, a branch of

earth sciences.

 LAPLACE - is a second-order partial differential equation named after Pierre-

Simon Laplace who first studied its properties. This is often written as: where ∆ = ∇2 is

the Laplace operator (see below) and is a scalar function.

 FLOW NETS – A flow net is both a convenient pictorial device for visualizing ground

water flow and a powerful tool with which to perform graphic calculation of specific

discharge and seepage velocity.

 FLOW LINES - flow lines, which show the direction of groundwater flow

 EQUIPOTENTIAL LINES - which show the distribution of potential energy.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

6
 This chapter summarizes previous research work conducted in areas related to seepage in dams.

Relatively little has been published regarding the performance of concrete dams in seepage,

however, the few references that are directly associated with this topic are discussed below.

Summaries of previous research on several additional topics are presented herein because of

their relevance to this study. The following research topics are discussed in this chapter:

 The performance of seepage barriers in dams,

 Theoretical seepage barrier analyses,

 Construction techniques and material properties, and

 Piping development in dams.

Much of the research presented in this study is based on the review of unpublished data and reports

regarding the design, construction, and performance of the dams and seepage barriers that are a

part of this study.

 FOSTER, FELL AND SPANAGEL (1998, 2000A AND 2000B).

In this research report (Foster et al. 1998) and two papers (Foster et al. 2000a, 2000b) the
7
 authors have reviewed performance data on a large number of dams and have statistically

analyzed the characteristics of the dams versus the incidence of dam accidents and failure. In

the research report (Foster et al. 1998) and first paper (Foster et al. 2000a) statistical analyses

are presented comparing the characteristics of dams (zoning, filters, core soil type, compaction,

foundation conditions, and foundation cutoff) with the incidence of failures and accidents. In

the second paper (Foster et al. 2000b) a method is presented (termed the University of New

South Wales or UNSW method) for assessing the relative likelihood of dam failure by piping

based on the results of the statistical analyses presented in the first paper.

The UNSW method starts by assessing the average annual probability of failure by piping,

Pp, based solely on construction method, embankment materials and zoning of the dam and

whether the dam has been in operation for more than or less than 5 years. This probability is taken

as the sum of the average annual probabilities of three modes of piping failure: piping through

the embankment, Pe, piping through the foundation, Pf, and piping from the embankment into

the foundation, Pef. Weighting factors are then calculated for each of the three modes. The

weighting factors consider design, construction, monitoring and performance factors to modify

the modal probabilities. Thus, the probability of piping failure for a dam is expressed by the

equation:

Pf = wEPe + wFPf + wEFPef, 2-1

Where wE, wF, and wEF are the weighting factors for the three modes of piping failure.

The results of the statistical analyses indicate that dams with seepage barriers have a

8
higher probability of failure or accident than dams that don’t. For dams on soil foundations, Foster

et al. (2000b) recommend weighting factors of 1.0 for dams with sheet pile wall cutoffs or poorly

constructed slurry trench walls, 0.8 for dams with well-constructed slurry trench walls and 0.7

for dams with deep cutoff trenches. For dams with rock foundations the recommended weighting

factors are 3.0 for sheet pile walls or poorly constructed diaphragm walls, 1.5 for well-constructed

diaphragm walls and 1.0 for cutoff trenches. For both foundation types the weighting factors are

higher for dams with the types of seepage barriers that are the topic of this study (deep, thin

barriers). Thus, statistically the presence of a seepage barrier in a dam increases the probability

of failure or accidents. It should be noted that this statistic may be misleading due to the fact that

seepage barriers are generally constructed in dams with less than ideal foundation conditions or

preexisting seepage problems.

It was also reported that dams with high depth to width ratios in a cutoff trench have a

higher incidence of failure than do those with wider seepage barriers (Foster et al. 1998). This

statistic is attributed to the potential for developing low stress conditions in the trench backfill

that could result in the initiation of hydraulic fracturing. While these thinner cutoff trenches do

not classify as seepage barriers as defined in this study, this statistic is relevant to this study

because it illustrates how the seepage-related failure mechanisms in dams change as the seepage

retarding structures get thinner and become more like seepage barriers.

 TELLING, MENZIES AND SIMONS (1978A, 1978B, 1978C)

9
 These papers present methods for assessing the effectiveness of seepage barriers that

contain joints or that partially penetrate a permeable layer. The first paper (Telling et al 1978a)

presents a summary of methods for assessing and predicting seepage barrier efficiency.

Efficiency is defined in two ways, the head efficiency and the flow efficiency. The head

efficiency, EH, is defined as the ratio of the head drop across the barrier, h, to the total head drop

across the dam, H, or:

EH = h/H 2-1

The flow efficiency, EQ, relates the flow with the barrier in place, Q, with the flow

without the barrier, Q0, and is defined as the ratio of the change in flow with the barrier in place

to the flow without the barrier or:

EQ = (Q0 - Q)/Q0 2-2

Several theoretical expressions are presented for estimating head efficiency in terms of

the ratio of the dam foundation permeability to the barrier permeability, the length of the dam,

the thickness of the barrier and the thickness of the permeable layer. These equations assume

that the dam itself is impermeable.

In the first paper, Telling et al. (1978a) also present case histories of dams with seepage barriers

in place and assesses their efficiency. Fort Peck and Garrison Dams have steel sheet pile seepage

barriers installed across sands and gravels. Both Fort Peck and Garrison Dams showed

increased measured head efficiencies over time (12 percent to 30 percent over 17 years for Fort

Peck and 18 percent to 38 percent over 5 years for Garrison). The increase in efficiency is

attributed to filling of the sheet pile interlocks with fines and the effects of corrosion along the

interlocks. A concrete diaphragm wall at Allegheny Reservoir Dam was reported to have a very

10
high efficiency (reported as 100 percent with no data provided)…3 However, concrete seepage

barriers at Selset, Balderhead, Limoeiro, and Selevir Dams all were reported to have very low

head efficiencies. All four of the poorly performing barriers were partially embedded into

permeable bedrock (shale, fractured gneiss, or schist) and extended with single-line grout

curtains. The ineffectiveness of the barriers is attributed to ineffectiveness of the grout curtains.

In the second paper (Telling et al. 1978b) theoretical expressions are derived to calculate

the head efficiency of seepage barriers containing uniformly spaced joints. Expressions are

derived for barriers with open joints and joints with entrapped soil infill. The expressions are in

terms of the wall geometry (barrier thickness, joint spacing, and flow distance along the joint),

the permeability of the surrounding soil, and the permeability of the entrapped soil infill.

Small scale tests were performed to assess the effect of perforations in a barrier by using

a perforated metal barrier in a 100 mm by 250 mm by 1-meter sand-filled box. The results of

these tests indicated that once the perforation area to total area ratio reached about 1 percent, the

barrier had the same effectiveness as a partially penetrating barrier with all of the penetrations

concentrated at the base of the barrier. Thus, based on the theoretical expressions and the results

of the small-scale tests, walls with closely spaced joints, such as sheet pile walls, can be as

ineffective as a partially penetrating wall with no imperfections.

The paper concludes that, due to the close spacing of joints (interlocks) in sheet pile cut-
11
off walls, the head efficiency of these walls is expected to vary from 30 to 90 percent with the

higher efficiencies coming in walls where there is fine-grained soil entrapped within the

joints. On the other hand, concrete diaphragm walls are expected to have efficiencies of 90

percent or better. Case histories are presented supporting these conclusions. In cases where the

efficiency of concrete diaphragm walls was observed to be lower than 90 percent, the

inefficiencies were attributed to under seepage beneath the barrier.

The third paper (Telling et al 1978c) presents the results of a study on the efficiency of

partially penetrating cutoff walls. A series of graphs are presented for calculating the efficiency

of partially penetrating seepage barriers from three dimensionless ratios: the ratio of the

thickness of the barrier to the depth of the permeable layer, the ratio of the depth of the seepage

barrier to the depth of the permeable layer, and the ratio of the permeabilities of the permeable

layer to the seepage barrier. Two main conclusions are drawn:

1. For set value of the percentage of the permeable layer thickness that the barrier

penetrates and the thickness of barrier there is a limiting permeability ratio (permeability

of the surrounding soil to the permeability of the barrier) beyond which there is

negligible increase in effectiveness of the barrier. This value varies between 102 and 104

depending on the percentage of penetration and barrier thickness.

The depth of penetration has a marked influence on the efficiency of the seepage barrier.

 FELL AND WAN (2005)

12
 This report parallels the report presented above (Fell et al. 2004) and presents methods for

estimating the probability of failure of embankment dams by internal erosion, piping within

the foundation, and piping from the embankment to the foundation. A similar four-phased

model of the process is presented. Schematic illustrations of these models are presented in

Figure.

INITIATION CONTINUATION PROGRESSION BREACH/FAILURE

Leakage exits from Continuation of Backward Breach mechanism

the foundation and erosion erosion in forms

backward erosion progress to form

initiations a pipe

(A) PIPING IN THE FOUNDATION INITIATED BY BACKWARD EROSION

13
 INITIATION CONTINUATION PROGRESSION BREACH/FAILURE

Leakage exits the Continuation of Backward erosion Breach mechanism

core into the erosion progresses to form forms

foundation and a pipe. Eroded soil

backward erosion is transported in

initiates as core the foundation

erodes into the

foundation

(B) PIPING FROM THE EMBANKMENT TO FOUNDATION INITIATED BY

BACKWARD EROSION

The authors discuss the ways that internal erosion is initiated in the foundation or from

the embankment to the foundation. For internal erosion in the foundation three main categories

of initiating mechanism are presented: backward erosion, suffusion, and erosion in a

concentrated leak. The triggering conditions for these mechanisms are discussed. For piping

from the embankment to the foundation to initiate there must be defects or concentrated seepage

paths into which the embankment soil can erode. These seepage paths may be bedrock joints,

open graded soils, or other defects.

The report discusses an event tree-based method for assessing the risk of failure of

embankment dams due to seepage or internal erosion through the foundation or from the

embankment into the foundation, and provides guidance for developing failure modes and event

14
trees for individual dams. The subsequent chapter present discussion and guidance to assist in

assigning probabilities to the nodes of the event trees. Specifically, the chapter deal with the

four phases of seepage failure development: initiation, continuation, progression and breach.

The first of these chapters provides discussion on the initiation of the various modes of

internal erosion and presents a recommended methodology for assessing the probability of these

modes initiating. The methods of Sellmeijer and his co-workers (de Wit et al. 1981, Sellmeijer

and Koenders 1991) and those of Schmertmann (2000) for assessing the potential for initiation

of backward erosion are discussed and a proposed method for assessing the probability of

initiation based on exit gradients is proposed. A method for assessing the probability for

initiating internal erosion by suffusion is proposed that considers the gradation of the soil and

the hydraulic gradient imposed on the soil. A method for assessing the probability for initiating

internal erosion along a concentrated leak is proposed that takes into account the erosion rate

index developed by Wan and Fell (2002, 2004a, 2004b), the width of the concentrated leak, and

the hydraulic gradient in the leak. Finally, the historic data approach to assessing the likelihood

of initiation of internal erosion is proposed as a starting point from which the quantifying

procedures discussed above can be used to further refine estimates of initiation probability.

The chapter that addresses the continuation phase deals predominantly with filtering

behavior. Guidance is provided to assist in the assessment of the filtering effectiveness of soils

based on gradation, the ability of bedrock joints to filter soil particles, and the fraction of the

soils gradation that may be eroded by suffusion.

15
 The chapter that addresses the progression provides guidance for assessing the likelihood

of eroding soil maintaining a pipe without collapse, the likelihood of crack filling action and the

likelihood of upstream flow limitation preventing progression. In assessing the progression

phase each of the modes previously considered for the initiation and continuation phases;

backward erosion, suffusion, concentrated leak in foundation, and internal erosion from

embankment to foundation; are treated separately due to the unique nature of the mechanisms

associated with each mode. Aids to judgment are provided to assist in assessing the likelihood

of eroding soil holding a roof, crack filling action, and upstream flow limitation.

The chapter addressing the breach phase provides guidance and judgment aids for

assessing the probability of various beach modes. The final chapter of the report aids in the

assessment of the probability that a failure mode will be detected and intervention and repair

will be possible before dam breach occurs. The guidance involves assessing the rate at which

the internal erosion and piping will develop and progress, and the possible means for

intervention.

16
  DETERMINATION THE FLOW NET THROUGH MULTI LAYERS SOIL BY

USING THE HYDRAULIC MODELING METHOD

In this research the experimental method by using Hydraulic modeling used to determination

the flow net in order to analyses seepage flow through multi- layer soil foundation underneath

hydraulic structure.as well as steady the consequence of the cut-off inclination angle on exit

gradient, factor of safety, uplift pressure and quantity of seepage by using seepage tank were

designed in the laboratory with proper dimensions with two cutoffs. The physical

model (seepage tank) was designed in two downstream cutoff angles, which are (90, and 120°)

and upstream cutoff angles (90, 45, 120°). After steady state flow the flow line is constructed

by dye injection in the soil from the upstream side in front view of the seepage tank, and the

equipotential line can be constructed by piezometer fixed to measure the total head. From the

result It is concluded that using downstream cut-off inclined towards the downstream side with

Ө equal 90º that given value of redaction (25%) is beneficial in increasing the safety factor

against the piping phenomenon using upstream cut-off inclined towards the downstream side

with Ө equal 90º that given value of redaction (31%) is beneficial in decreasing uplift pressure

and quantity of seepage.

Various theories and investigations were put forward to predict seepage phenomenon

and determination flow net by experimental and numerical methods. Abourohim (1992)

investigate the effect of seepage underneath the structures that generated uplift pressure acting

on structures with: i) simple floor and ii) floor having an intermediate sheet pile by using a

sand model. He concluded that such an effect becomes negligible when the canal width

exceeds 2.6 times the length of the floor of the structure. Desai and Christian, (1977): studied

the seepage through a two layered foundation of a dam, within each layer the soil was assumed

17
homogenous, they used the finite element method. The computed values from the finite

element method were compared with those from graphical solutions. Zheng-yi and Jonathan,

(2006): used the finite element method to analyze seepage through a two-layer soil system.

The program SEEP was employed to analyze flow characteristics of an impervious dam with

sheet pile on a layered soil. The results were reduced to simple charts, the chart curves allow

a designer to obtain solutions to the seepage problem. and can be extended to a soil system

comprising more than two layers. Arslan and Mohammad, (2011) measured the pizometric

head distribution under hydraulic structures and studied the effect of upstream, intermediate

and downstream sheet piles inclination. using experimental method. The study consisted 12

separated case of these inclined sheet piles with changing the direction of this inclination. they

found the optimum case of the uplift pressure reduction.

The results obtained by the present hydraulic model using the seepage tank that

designed and carried out at the hydraulic laboratory of the Engineering College at Babylon

University. The major purpose of the physical model adopted in the present research is to study

the flow net and calculate the values of uplift pressure underneath the hydraulic structure,

distribution of exit gradient, quantity of seepage for different types of soil at different position

under the hydraulic structure foundation.

18
 CHAPTER III

METHODS OF STUDY AND SOURCES OF DATA

This chapter summarizes the methodology to be conducted in the study. Included here

are; (a.) the research design, which includes the step by step procedure of the experimentation to

be done in the research, (b.) research instruments, which has information on how the study will

be conducted and analyzed, and (c.) data analysis, which tackles the presentation of the results to

be gathered in this research.

The concept is to construct a scaled model of a dam and to fully show the theory of

seepage on dams. The model consists of an upstream, downstream and sheet pile which will give

us the passage for the excess water. Also, the drainage at bottom helps us to clean the tank after

using it. For the continuous usage of water, the submersible pump helps to distribute water

throughout the experiment.

Upon putting together this research, the thing to do first is to conduct a series of trial to

know if the results of the experimentations satisfies the objectives of the research. We have

gathered various type of soil; sand and clay, which were utilized in this research. These soils

undergo a process of sieving and then compaction. Continuous water supply was necessary to

satisfy the steady state steady flow to satisfy the conditions for the research. An attentive

observation is needed for the data to be accurate. After gathering all the data, it is subjected to

series of computation.

19
RESEARCH DESIGN

The researchers shall use Experimental Research Design to determine seepage behavior. The

researchers also consulted books regarding hydraulics and soil mechanics to develop the design

of the experiment. The procedures to be taken is as follows:

1. Fabricate a scaled gravity dam model.

Model dimensions:

Depth = 24 inches

Length = 24 inches

Width = 8 inches

20
2. PREPARATION OF MATERIALS:

ANY TYPE OF SAND

ANY TYPE OF CLAY

21
MIXTURE OF SAND AND CLAY

SPEEDY MOISTURE TESTER

22
 3. Gather data/results of experimentations regarding seepage behavior.

EXPERIMENTATION:

Step by step procedures:

a) Gather all the materials needed in the experiment.

There are two major type of soil (sand and clay) used in the experiments. The sand was

acquired in Tarlac River situated in Tarlac City proper and the clay was from mounds found

near the irrigation in Brgy. Dalayap, Tarlac City.

SAND CLAY

23
b) Sieve all the sand and clay, then weigh them based on the experimental ratio needed.

c) Pour the mixture in the tank, compact it using the given compactor by the researchers.

24
d) Add the water in the upstream part of the tank until it satisfies the required water level.

Using the submersible pump, the water should undergo a cycle.

e) Wait until the mixture is fully

saturated, then inject the dye.

25
f) Observe the flow and record the data to be gathered during the experiment. Get the height

based on the time interval given.

g) After the last dye disappeared, compute all the data gathered and clean the tank for the

next experiment to be conduct.

26
 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The main research instrument used was the seepage model developed by the researchers.

To determine the impact of seepage on different soil types. The researchers used different types

of soil in different amount to determine the impact of seepage on these soil types. The

researchers video recorded the seepage flow and collected data based on the flow nets on

different kind of soil combination.

DATA ANALYSIS

The researchers shall record and compute for flow nets to determine seepage behavior on

different soil type combination. As part of its documentation, the flow nets behavior was video

recorded using time lapse system. The recorded flow nets shall be compared to determine the

best soil combination. The recorded data will then also be used to create a module on how to

conduct a seepage experiment.

FUNDAMENTALS OF GROUNDWATER FLOW

BERNOULLI’S EQUATION

Bernoulli’s Equation quantifies energy potential in a fluid system in terms of the fluid column

height, most commonly referred to as “head.” According to Bernoulli’s Equation, the total head is

derived from the following equation.

Equation 1: Bernoulli’s Equation

27
Where h is the total head, z is the elevation head, P is pressure, γw is the unit weight of water, v is

the flow velocity and g are gravitational acceleration.

Using Bernoulli’s Equation, the head loss between two points for steady-state flow through

a system can be expressed by the following equation. Equation 2: Steady-State Head Loss

Equation

∆ℎ = ℎ𝑎 − ℎ𝑏

Where Δh is the head loss, or change in head between Point A and Point B, ha is the total head at

Point A, and hb is the total head at Point B. Using the head loss and Darcy’s Law, the hydraulic

conductivity of a soil sample can be determined. This is discussed in the next sub-section.

DARCY’S LAW

Darcy’s Law is an equation that relates flow velocity to hydraulic gradient laminar flow conditions.

Equation 3: Darcy’s Law

𝑄 = 𝐾𝑖𝐴

28
 Where Q is the flow rate (flow volume over time), K is the hydraulic conductivity, K is the

intrinsic permeability, γw is the unit weight of water, µ is the viscosity of water, is the hydraulic

gradient, Δh is the head loss, ΔL is the change in length, and A is the cross-sectional area. Based

on the equation above it is demonstrated that hydraulic conductivity is in fact a property of both

the soil and the permeating fluid. In most geotechnical applications, water is the permeating fluid.

Although the viscosity of water varies with temperature, in geotechnical engineering, the

variations are often small enough that changes in hydraulic conductivity can be neglected.

INTERNAL EROSION (PIPING)

The potential for piping through dam or levee is directly related to hydraulic conductivity. Is

foundations soils underneath a dam have high hydraulic conductivity and fluid velocity is

uncontrolled, internal erosions can develop and transport fines within the embankment. Piping and

heaving account for over 50% of dam and levee failures today. This fact alone represents how

important it is to consider hydraulic conductivity during the design of impoundment structures.

Stability Applications

Understanding hydraulic conductivity is critical in geotechnical stability applications. When a load

is applied to a soil mass with low hydraulic conductivity, total stress, undrained conditions can

occur where pore-water pressure is unable to dissipate. The total stress, undrained conditions

results in reduction of shear strength. If hydraulic conductivity is ignored, global instability and

failure can occur.

29
 According to Humboldt State University, “A flow net is a graphical solution to the

equation of steady groundwater flow. A flow net consists of two sets of lines which must always

be orthogonal (perpendicular to each other): flow lines, which show the direction of groundwater

flow, and equipotential lines (lines of constant head), which show the distribution of potential

energy.” Flow nets can be used to determine the quantity of seepage and upward lift pressure

below hydraulic structures.

Equation 4: Flow Rates using Flow Nets

Where Q is the flow rate, ΔH is the change in head, K is the hydraulic conductivity, nf is the

number of flow lines and nd is the number of drops. The figure below demonstrates a constructed

flow net and how to solve for flow rate

FLOW NETS

According to Hamboldt University

Where Q is the flow rate, ΔH is the change in head, K is the hydraulic conductivity, n f is the

number of flow lines and nd is the number of drops. The figure below demonstrates a constructed

flow net and how to solve for flow rate

30
DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT BY MEANS OF A SPEEDY MOISTURE

TESTER

Learning outcomes

 Perform a speedy moisture test

 Identify and use the proper conversion chart

Purpose and Use

The Speedy Moisture test is a proven, efficient method of determining the moisture content

of materials in the field. The results of the Speedy test, combined with the nulclear density gauge

are standard acceptance practice for determining in-place material density (verification of

compaction effort) in the field.

CONTAINER

STEEL
BALLS

SCOOP

REAGENT SCALE

31
 SPEEDY
MOISTURE
TESTER

DIAL AT THE BOTTOM

OF THE TESTER

1. Level and Stabilize the scale

 Select protected area

 Level the scale

 Ensure scale stabilized

 Protect from wind, sun, etc.

2. Add Reagent to the body of tester: for 20-gram testers add 2 scoops, and for 26-gram tester

add 3 scoops. Put the 2 steel balls into body of the tester, using caution not to damage body

and/or gauge of the tester.

3. The steel balls are used to assist in breaking down some of the more course grained

materials or clayey types of material to ensure proper reaction with the calcium carbide

reagent.

32
4. Obtain a representative sample of material using an appropriate tool to obtain

the sample. A representative sample shall contain material from throughout the

test depth. Place in a moisture-proof container. The sample should be thoroughly

mixed, either by shaking the container or by stirring with an appropriate tool.

Chopping and stirring may be necessary for some materials in order to assure a

properly mixed sample.

5. Weigh Sample: Correct weight is shown when red arrow on beam coincides with

mark on the scale. For electronic scales, the correct weight is accomplished when

the scale reads 20 grams or 26

grams, according to the type

tester being utilized. The

scale should be protected

from the wind. The scale pan

and tester cap should be

protected from the sun.

6. After using cloth to clean cap, making sure that all traces of material from

previous tests are removed, put sample into cap of tester using a small brush to

remove all material from the balance scoop.

33
 7. Hold the tester body horizontally to
prevent test material and reagent

from mixing before instrument is

sealed. Insert cap, swing stirrup

above cap, and tighten top screw.

Note: Never shake the tester in such a

manner that will cause the steel balls to

strike the base of the tester dial.

8. When the needle stops moving read dial, holding the tester horizontally.

9. Convert to Dry Weight: Using dial reading, refer to conversion chart for I or 3-

minute readings with steel ball pulverizers to get correct dry-weight percentage.

10. The dial reading is based upon the

total wet weight of the tested material.

The Conversion Table is based upon

the Dry Weight of the sample.

Therefore, the Conversion table

converts the dial reading of %

moisture of wet weight to % moisture

of dry weight.

34
 11. Release pressure slowly away from you, empty contents, and examine for

lumps. If not completely broken down, increase mixing time with balls by one

minute and rerun test. Clean the tester cap and neoprene ring seal with cloth

and the tester body with a large brush to ensure that a clean tester is available

for the next test. NOTE: Do not use brush to clean the tester cap and when

removing the cap.

Point the instrument away from the operator to avoid breathing the fumes, and

away from any potential source of ignition for the acetylene gas.

A. High Moisture Content

o Some test materials may contain a higher percentage of moisture than

allowed for by the maximum 20% wet-weight (25% dry-weight) figure on

the gauge dial. For these materials use the following procedure:

o Use only half the standard sample weight. For this purpose, use a small brass

weight (half the standard weight) included with the balance. Hook this weight

through the link holding the balance pan cradle - or hang weight on edge of

balance pan - and weigh as usual. For electronic scales, weigh 10 grams or 13

grams, according to the type tester being utilized. Perform test in normal

manner.

B. Low Moisture Content

o Some test materials may have low moisture content. For these materials use the

following procedure:

35
 o Increase the sample size from the standard amount. For example, double the

sample size. Perform test in normal manner.

12. After testing, empty the contents of the tester into a disposable container or bag and when

convenient, empty the container onto open ground. When the test is performed in the field,

the contents may be emptied directly onto open ground.

13. Spread the residue thinly and allow any unreacted reagent to decompose on exposure to

air. This must be done well away from buildings, or flammable substances

14. Do not empty contents into a waste bin. Keep away from sparks or flame.

36
37
38
 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

DATA ANALYSIS

For SAMPLE #1:

TRIAL I:

A. DARCY’S LAW

Using the formula:

𝑸
𝒗= = 𝒌. 𝒊
𝑨

𝑸 = 𝒌𝒊𝑨

Where, the value of the coefficient of permeability k depends on the average size of the pores

and is related to the distribution of particle sizes, particle shape and soil structure.

Coefficient of Permeability

The notation for coefficient of permeability is k.

• It is sometimes called hydraulic conductivity.

Typical Values

K k

Soil Type cm/sec ft/min

Clean Gravel 1.0 to 100 2.0 to 200

39
 K k

Coarse Sand 0.01 to 1.0 0.02 to 2.0

Fine Sand 0.001 to 0.01 0.002 to 0.02

Silty Clay 0.00001 to 0.001 0.00002 to 0.002

Clay Less Than 0.000001 Less Than 0.000002

A. BERNOULLI’S EQUATION

𝑷 𝒗𝟐
𝒉=𝒛+ +
ᵞ𝑾 𝟐𝒈

101.325 𝑣2
29 = 20 + +
9 2(9810)

𝑐𝑚
𝑣 = 1.07
𝑠

∆𝒉 = 𝒉𝒂 − 𝒉𝒃

∆ℎ = 29 − 9

∆ℎ = 20

40
B. DARCY’S EQUATION

𝑸 = 𝒌𝒊𝑨

SAMPLE 1 - TRIAL #1:

FOR THE WATER: (VERTICAL)

*TIME (4:20 PM – 4:30 PM)

( 0.001 + 0.01 )
𝐾=
2

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

𝚫𝒉 𝟐𝟎
𝑯𝒚𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝑮𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 = 𝒊 = = = 𝟐. 𝟔𝟑
𝚫𝑳 𝟕. 𝟓

𝑸 = 𝑲𝒊𝑨

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.63)(1238.71) = 17.92
𝑠

*TIME (4:30 PM – 4:40 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.41
8.3

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.41)(1238.71) = 16.42
𝑠

41
*TIME (4:40 PM – 4:50 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.7
7.4

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.7)(1238.71) = 18.4
𝑠

*TIME (4:50 PM – 5:00 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 3.23
6.2

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(3.23)(1238.71) = 21.99 ≈ 22
𝑠

FOR THE WATER: (HORIZONTAL)

*TIME (5:00 PM – 5:10 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.86
7

42
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.86)(1238.71) = 19.48
𝑠

* TIME (5:10 PM – 5:20 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 11.11
1.8

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(11.11)(1238.71) = 75.69
𝑠

* TIME (5:20 PM – 5:30 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 6.9
2.9

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(6.9)(1238.71) = 47
𝑠

* TIME (5:30 PM – 5:40 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 6.9
2.89

43
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(6.9)(1238.71) = 47
𝑠

* TIME (5:40 PM – 5:50 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 7.14
2.8

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(7.14)(1238.71) = 48.64
𝑠

* TIME (5:50 PM – 6:00 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 6.06
3.3

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(6.06)(1238.71) = 41.29
𝑠

* TIME (6:00 PM – 6:10 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 5.26
3.8

44
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(5.26)(1238.71) = 35.84
𝑠

* TIME (6:10 PM – 6:20 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 3.33
6

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(3.33)(1238.71) = 22.69
𝑠

𝑸𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 = 17.92 + 16.42 + 18.40 + 22 + 19.48 + 75.69 + 47 + 47 + 48.64 + 41.29

+ 35.84 + 22.69

𝑐𝑚3
𝑸𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 = 412.37
𝑠

SAMPLE 2 - TRIAL #1:

FOR THE DYE:

*TIME (6:19 PM – 6:29 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.67
7.5

45
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.67)(1238.71) = 18.19
𝑠

* TIME (6:29 PM – 6:39 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.11
9.5

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.11)(1238.71) = 14.38
𝑠

* TIME (6:39 PM – 6:49 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.22
9

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.22)(1238.71) = 15.12 ( dye pass through other side of the dam )
𝑠

𝑐𝑚3
𝑸𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 = 47.69
𝑠

46
SAMPLE 2 - TRIAL #2:

* TIME (6:21 PM – 6:31 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 3.33
6

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(3.33)(1238.71) = 22.68
𝑠

* TIME (6:31 PM – 6:41 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.74
7.3

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.74)(1238.71) = 18.67
𝑠

* TIME (6:41 PM – 6:51PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.27
8.8

47
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.27)(1238.71) = 15.47
𝑠

* TIME (6:51 PM – 7:01 PM)

NO FLOW RATE

* TIME (7:01 PM – 7:11 PM)

NO FLOW RATE

* TIME (7:11 PM – 7:21 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.15
9.3

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.15)(1238.71) = 14.65
𝑠

* TIME (7:21 PM – 7:31 PM)

NO FLOW RATE

48
* TIME (7:31 PM – 7:41PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 1.83
10.9

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(1.83)(1238.71) = 12.47
𝑠

* TIME (7:41 PM – 7:51 PM)

NO FLOW RATE

* TIME (7:41 PM – 8:01PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 1.82
11

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(1.82)(1238.71) = 12.4
𝑠

* TIME (08:01 PM – 08:11PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 1.74
11.3
49
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(1.74)(1238.71) = 11.85
𝑠

* TIME (08:11 PM – 08:21PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 1.64
12.2

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(1.64)(1238.71) = 11.17
𝑠

* TIME (8:21 PM – 8:31PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 1.6
12.6

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(1.6)(1238.71) = 10.9
𝑠

* TIME (8:31 PM – 8:41PM)

NO FLOW RATE
50
* TIME (8:31 PM – 9:52PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 8.0
2.3

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(8.0)(1238.71) = 54.5
𝑠

* TIME (9:52 PM – 10:17 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 10
2.0

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(10)(1238.71) = 68.13
𝑠

* TIME (10:17 PM – 10:39 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 8.7
2.3

51
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(8.7)(1238.71) = 59.27
𝑠

* TIME (10:39PM – 11:33PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.38
8.4

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.38)(1238.71) = 16.21
𝑠

𝑐𝑚3
𝑸𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 = 328.37
𝑠

SAMPLE 2 - TRIAL #3:

* TIME (6:22 PM – 6:32 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 3.33
6

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(3.33)(1238.71) = 22.69
𝑠

52
* TIME (6:32 PM – 6:42 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.67
7.5

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.67)(1238.71) = 18.19
𝑠

* TIME (6:42 PM – 6:52PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.35
8.3

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.35)(1238.71) = 16.01
𝑠

* TIME (6:52 PM – 7:02 PM)

NO FLOW RATE

* TIME (6:52 PM – 7:12 PM)

NO FLOW RATE

53
* TIME (6:52 PM – 7:22 PM)

NO FLOW RATE

* TIME (6:52 PM – 8:22 PM)

STILL, NO FLOW RATE

* TIME (6:52 PM – 9:12PM)

NO FLOW RATE

* TIME (9:12 PM – 9:42)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 28.57
0.7

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(28.57)(1238.71) = 194.64
𝑠

* TIME (9:42 PM – 11:13 PM)

NO FLOW RATE

54
* TIME (11:13 PM – 12:20AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 40
0.5

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(40)(1238.71) = 272.52
𝑠

( END OF EXPERIMENT )

SAMPLE 3 - TRIAL #1:

FOR THE WATER: (VERTICAL)

*TIME (11:20 PM – 11:30 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 1.90
10.5

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(1.90)(1238.71) = 12.94
𝑠

55
* TIME (11:30 PM – 11:40 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.98
6.7

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.98)(1238.71) = 20.30
𝑠

* TIME (11:40 PM – 11:50 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 2.15
9.3

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(2.15)(1238.71) = 14.65
𝑠

* TIME (11:50 PM – 12:00 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 5.71
3.5

56
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(5.71)(1238.71) = 38.90
𝑠

FOR THE WATER: (HORIZONTAL)

* TIME (11:40 PM – 11:50 PM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 0.28
36

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(0.28)(1238.71) = 1.91
𝑠

* TIME (11:50 PM – 12:00 MN)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 5.71
3.5

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(5.71)(1238.71) = 38.90
𝑠

* TIME (12:00 MN – 12:10 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 5.0
4

57
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(5)(1238.71) = 34.06
𝑠

* TIME (12:10 AM – 12:20 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 3.44
5.8

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(3.44)(1238.71) = 23.44
𝑠

* TIME (12:20 AM – 12:30 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 4.0
5

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(4)(1238.71) = 27.25
𝑠

* TIME (12:30 AM – 12:40 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 4.65
4.3

58
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(4.65)(1238.71) = 31.68
𝑠

( AT 1:15 AM, WATER PENETRATED )

SAMPLE 3 - TRIAL #1:

FOR THE DYE:

*TIME (1:40 AM – 2:00 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 5.0
4

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(5)(1238.71) = 34.06
𝑠

* TIME (2:00 AM – 2:14 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 1.28
15.6

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(1.28)(1238.71) = 8.72 ( 𝑃𝐸𝑁𝐸𝑇𝑅𝐴𝑇𝐸𝐷 )
𝑠

59
SAMPLE 3 - TRIAL #2:

* TIME (1:52 AM – 2:12 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 5.71
3.5

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(5.71)(1238.71) = 38.9
𝑠

* TIME (2:12 AM – 2:32 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 14.29
1.4

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(14.29)(1238.71) = 97.36
𝑠

* TIME (2:32 AM – 02:52 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 25
0.8

60
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(25)(1238.71) = 170.32
𝑠

* TIME (02:52 – 3:12)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 50
0.4

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(50)(1238.71) = 340.65
𝑠

* TIME (3:12 AM – 3:32 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 4.65
15.6

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(4.65)(1238.71) = 31.68
𝑠

* TIME (3:32 AM – 3:52 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 3.70
5.4

61
 𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(3.70)(1238.71) = 25.21
𝑠

* TIME (3:52 AM – 4:07 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 4.35
4.6

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(4.35)(1238.71) = 29.64 (PENETRATED)
𝑠

SAMPLE 3 - TRIAL #3:

* TIME (02:00 AM – 02:20 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 4.55
4.4

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(4.55)(1238.71) = 30.99 ≈ 31
𝑠

* TIME (02:20 AM – 02:40 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 10
2

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(10)(1238.71) = 68.13
𝑠
62
* TIME (02:40 AM – 03:00 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 11.11
1.8

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(11.11)(1238.71) = 75.70
𝑠

* TIME (03:00 AM – 03:20 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 15.38
1.3

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(15.38)(1238.71) = 104.78
𝑠

* TIME (03:20 AM – 03:40 AM)

NO FLOW RATE

63
* TIME (03:20 AM – 04:00 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 12.5
1.6

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(12.5)(1238.71) = 85.16
𝑠

* TIME (04:00 AM – 04:20 AM)

𝑐𝑚
𝐾 = 0.0055
𝑠

20
𝑖= = 16.67
1.2

𝑐𝑚3
𝑄 = (0.0055)(16.67)(1238.71) = 113.57
𝑠

* TIME (04:20 AM – 04:40 AM)

NO FLOW RATE

* TIME (04:40 AM – 05:00 AM)

NO FLOW RATE

64
C. LAPLACE EQUATION:

𝑯 ( 0.29 − 0.09 )
𝑷𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑫𝒓𝒐𝒑 = = = 0.02 𝑚
𝑵𝒅 10

𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒆𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒈𝒆:
𝑯
∆𝒒 = 𝒌
𝑵𝒅
∆𝑞 = (0.0055𝑚/𝑠𝑒𝑐)(0.02𝑚)
𝑚3
∆𝑞 = 1.1𝑥10−4 𝑠𝑒𝑐
𝑚

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒆𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒈𝒆:

𝑯𝑵𝒇
𝒒=𝒌 = ∆𝒒𝑵𝒇
𝑵𝒅

𝑚3
𝑞 = (1.1𝑥10−4 𝑠𝑒𝑐 ) (4)
𝑚

𝑚3
𝑞 = 4.4𝑥10−4 𝑠𝑒𝑐
𝑚
65
 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

PROPORTION
SAMPLE TRIAL (1PART=1.5 KG) ELEVATION HEAD (cm)
NO.: NO.:
CLAY SAND UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM
1 20 12 29 9
1 2 15 17 29 9
3 16 16 29 9
1 12 20 29 9
2 2 17 15 29 9
3 16 16 29 9
1 20 12 29 9
3 2 15 17 29 9
3 16 16 29 9

SAMPL SOIL TIME INTERVAL SEEP

E NO.: DEPTH WATER DYE WATER DYE
30.48 115 10
1 30.48 109 10
30.48 112 10
30.48 93 10
2 30.48 97 10
30.48 95 10
30.48 111 20
3 30.48 103 20
30.48 107 20

66
 CONDUCTIVITY FLOW
SAMPLE TRIAL LIQUID GRADIENT (K) RATE
TIME (i)
NO.: NO.: TYPE (Q)
INTERVAL cm/sec
4:20 - 4:30 PM 2.63 0.0055 17.92
WATER - 4:30 - 4:40 PM 2.41 0.0055 16.42
VERTICAL 4:40 - 4:50 PM 2.7 0.0055 18.4
4:50 - 5:00 PM 3.23 0.0055 22
5:00 - 5:10 PM 2.86 0.0055 19.48
5:10 - 5:20 PM 11.11 0.0055 75.69
1
5:20 - 5:30 PM 6.9 0.0055 47
WATER - 5:30 - 5:40 PM 6.9 0.0055 47
HORIZONTAL 5:40 - 5:50 PM 7.14 0.0055 48.64
5:50 - 6:00 PM 6.06 0.0055 41.29
6:00 - 6:10 PM 5.26 0.0055 35.84
6:10 - 6:20 PM 3.33 0.0055 22.69
6:19 - 6:29 PM 2.67 0.0055 18.19
1 DYE 6:29 - 6:39 PM 2.11 0.0055 14.38
6:39 - 6:49 PM 2.22 0.0055 15.12
6:21 - 6:31 PM 3.33 0.0055 22.68
6:31 - 6:41 PM 2.74 0.0055 18.67
6:41 - 6:51 PM 2.27 0.0055 15.47
6:51 - 7:01 PM 0 0.0055 0
7:01 - 7:11 PM 0 0.0055 0
7:11 - 7:21 PM 2.15 0.0055 14.65
7:21 - 7:31 PM 0 0.0055 0
7:31 - 7:41 PM 1.83 0.0055 12.47
2 7:41 - 7:51 PM 0 0.0055 0
2 DYE
7:41 - 8:01 PM 1.82 0.0055 12.4
8:01 - 8:11 PM 1.74 0.0055 11.85
8:11 - 8:21 PM 1.64 0.0055 11.17
8:21 - 8:31 PM 1.6 0.0055 10.9
8:31 - 8:41 PM 0 0.0055 0
8:31 - 9:52 PM 8 0.0055 54.5
9:52 - 10:17 PM 10 0.0055 68.13
10:17 - 10:39 PM 8.7 0.0055 35.84
10:39 - 11:33 PM 2.38 0.0055 22.69
6:22 - 6:32 PM 3.33 0.0055 22.69
3 DYE
6:32 - 6:42 PM 2.67 0.0055 18.19

67
 6:42 - 6:52 PM 2.35 0.0055 16.01
6:52 - 7:02 PM 0 0.0055 0
6:52 - 7:12 PM 0 0.0055 0
6:52 - 7:22 PM 0 0.0055 0
6:52 - 8:22 PM 0 0.0055 0
6:52 - 9:12 PM 0 0.0055 0
9:12 - 9:42 PM 28.57 0.0055 194.64
9:42 - 11:13 PM 0 0.0055 0
11:13 - 12:00 AM 40 0.0055 272.52
11:20 - 11:30 PM 1.9 0.0055 12.94
WATER - 11:30 - 11:40 PM 2.98 0.0055 20.3
VERTICAL 11:40 - 11:50 PM 2.15 0.0055 14.65
11:50 - 12:00 AM 5.17 0.0055 38.9
11:40 - 11:50 PM 0.28 0.0055 1.91
11:20 - 12:00 AM 5.17 0.0055 38.9
WATER - 12:00 - 12:10 AM 5 0.0055 34.06
HORIZONTAL 12:10 - 12:20 PM 3.44 0.0055 23.44
12:20 - 12:30 AM 4 0.0055 27.25
12:30 - 12:40 AM 4.65 0.0055 31.68
1:40 - 2:00 AM 5 0.0055 34.06
1 DYE
2:00 - 2:14 AM 1.28 0.0055 8.72
1:52 - 2:12 AM 5.71 0.0055 38.9
2:12 - 2:32 AM 14.29 0.0055 97.36
3
2:32 - 2:52 AM 25 0.0055 170.32
2 DYE 2:52 - 3:12 AM 50 0.0055 340.65
3:12 - 3:32 AM 4.65 0.0055 31.68
3:32 - 3:52 AM 3.7 0.0055 25.21
3:52 - 4:07 PM 4.35 0.0055 29.64
2:00 - 2:20 AM 4.55 0.0055 31
2:20 - 2:40 AM 10 0.0055 68.13
2:40 - 3:00 AM 11.11 0.0055 75.7
3:00 - 3:20 AM 15.38 0.0055 104.78
3 DYE 3:20 - 3:40 AM 0 0.0055 0
3:20 - 4:00 AM 12.5 0.0055 85.16
4:00 - 4:20 AM 16.67 0.0055 113.57
4:20 - 4:40 AM 0 0.0055 0
4:00 - 5:00 AM 0 0.0055 0

68
CONCLUSIONS

Soil mechanics is crucial to understanding how seepage occurs in dams and the factors that

catalyze this process. Presented in this research paper is the analysis and estimation of seepage

discharge. The first step is identifying the equations to be used in the analyses; second, be able

to identify the qualities unknown and lastly, be able to provide accurate and enough data to be

used in the computations. The continuity Laplace equation together with Darcy’s and

Bernoulli’s Laws are then used in solving and quantifying the amount of seepage discharge

rate for dams and piezometric head are computed under the dam. Based on the readings of the

head data values of seepage discharge of the scaled model of a dam are obtained for different

conditions. After that a procedure for estimation of seepage discharge under a scaled model of

a dam, values are entered into a software to produce a graphical representation of the seepage

quantity using 2-dimensional graph of flow nets. Finally, it is observed that estimated seepage

discharges are in good agreement with actual results. All in all, it is shown that analysis and

estimation of seepage discharge which is very important parameters in designing dams using

proposed procedure of this study are accurate yet time consuming.

69