Ethiopian Institute of Technology- Mekelle

School of Civil Engineering

Post Graduate Study in Hydraulic and Geotechnical Engineering

Year –I, Semester -II

Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams (CENG 6210)

Semester Project

Submitted to: BizunehAsfaw (PhD.) and

Abdulaziz Osman (Ass. Professor)

Group Members – Group 2

Name Id. No.
1) Felege-selam Hagos EITM/PR190/09
2) Haftu Yemane EITM/PR069/09
3) Helina Taddesse EITM/PR194/09
4) Iyasu Zewde EITM/PR074/09
5) Mhreteab Aregawi EITM/PR076/09
6) Timnit Kidane EiTM/PR207/09

Submission Date: July 10, 2017

 Abstract

In this project, hydraulic and geotechnical concepts were used to check the stability and
seepage potential of a zoned embankment dam using finite element and limit equilibrium
analysis methods for a proposed dam site.

From the hydraulic analysis, the dam height and spillway crest levels were fixed. In addition,
normal water level, fetch length and dead storages of the dam were computed.

On the other hand, from the geotechnical data of the foundation on the dam axis and
embankment materials, preliminary dimensions of the dam were selected and checked for
stability for upstream and downstream slopes under various loading conditions (during
construction, steady state seepage and sudden drawdown).

Finally, the save summarized results (factor of safety and seepage) of both the limit
equilibrium and finite element methods are tabulated and compared to each other.

i
 Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................v

List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... vi

1. General Introduction .................................................................................................................1

2. Hydraulic Analysis ...................................................................................................................2

2.1 Selection of the Earth Dam Location ................................................................................2

2.2 Area- Elevation- Volume curve ........................................................................................2

2.3 Maximum Height of the proposed dam.............................................................................4

2.4 Spillway Location and its Crest level ................................................................................4

2.4.1 Routing of the Inflow Hydrograph ............................................................................5

2.5 Components of Reservoir ..................................................................................................7

3. Analysis and Design of Zoned Embankment Dam ..................................................................9

3.1 Check Liquefaction Potential of the soils .........................................................................9

3.2 Stability Analysis using Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods ......................11

3.2.1 LEM stability analysis using Slope /W ....................................................................13

3.2.2 FEM Method (Using the software PLAXIS 8.2) .....................................................15

3.3 The Quantity of water lost from the seepage analysis ....................................................16

3.4 Comparison of the Results from LEM and FEM Method ...............................................17

4 Conclusion and Recommendation ..........................................................................................18

4.2 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................18

4.3 Recommendation .............................................................................................................18

References ......................................................................................................................................19

ii
Appendix –A ..................................................................................................................................20

A-1. Test Results on Foundation Part (Along dam axis) ...........................................................20

A-2. Summery Atterberg Limits and Shear Strength .................................................................20

A-3. The Test Results on Construction Materials of the Dam (Core, Shell and Foundation) ...21

Appendix –B ..................................................................................................................................21

B-1. Report for SLOPE/W Analysis downstream ......................................................................21

B-2. Report for SLOPE/W Analysis upstream ...........................................................................26

B-3. Report for SLOPE/W Analysis reservoir full ....................................................................32

B-4. Report for SLOPE/W Analysis sudden drawdown ............................................................37

iii
 List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Spillway Location and Reservoir Area ................................................................... 2

Figure 2.2: Elevation - Area- Volume Curve............................................................................. 3

Figure 2.3: Spillway Location.................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.4. Inflow and Outflow Hydrograph ............................................................................. 7

Figure 3.1: Limits in the gradation curves separating liquefiable and non- liquefiable soils .... 9

Figure 3.2: Particle size gradation of soils susceptible to flow liquefaction under static and
earthquake loading ................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3.3: Preliminary Dam Cross section ............................................................................. 12

Figure 3.4: Critical face of Downstream Slope at the end of construction .............................. 13

Figure 3.5: Critical face of Upstream Slope at the end of construction ................................... 13

Figure 3.6: Downstream slope for full reservoir condition...................................................... 14

Figure 3.7: Critical face of Upstream Slope under sudden drawdown condition .................... 14

Figure 3.9: Seepage intensity under Steady state..................................................................... 16

iv
 List of Tables
Table 2-1: Elevation - Area- Volume ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

Table 2-2: Inflow Flood Hydrograph to the Reservoir ----------------------------------------------- 5

Table 2-3: Flood Routing using Reservoir Routing (Storage Indication Method) --------------- 6

Table 3-1: Foundation and Embankment Properties ------------------------------------------------12

Table 3-2: Table 3 2: Summarized factor of Safety using FEM -----------------------------------15

Table 3-3: Velocity and Seepage intensity under steady state -------------------------------------16

v
 List of Abbreviations
FEM - Finite Element Method

ft - Feet

km - kilo meter

LEM - Limit Equilibrium Method

m - Meter

m/s - meter per second

m2 - Square meter

m3 - Cubic meter

Mm2 - Million square meter

Mm3 - Million cubic meters

vi
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

1. General Introduction
The purpose of this semester project is to analyze and design a zoned embankment dam on a
proposed site. The feasibility study results show that the site is suitable for the proposed
embankment dam. Detail studies carried on the proposed site and surrounding show that zoned
embankment dams are preferred due to the availability of sufficient construction materials in the
vicinity at reasonable cost of hauling. Moreover, the suitability of the site for the intent project
with adequate reservoir capacity, stable geological formations and other technical requirements
made it empirical for its selection. The dam site is assumed to be in seismic zone-III. And the
geotechnical investigation results comprising both field and laboratory results collected during
the feasibility studies are set in Appendix.

Further this project is classified in to two parts: the hydraulic part (Analysis) and analysis and
design of zoned embankment dam. Under the hydraulic part the following are cared out:
1. Selection of Dam Location
2. The Elevation-Area-Volume curve
3. The Components of reservoir (NPL, dead storage, fetch length)
4. Proposing spillway crest level
5. The Maximum height of the proposed dam

On the other hand, the geotechnical part comprises the following tasks:
1. Checking the liquefaction potential of the soils
2. Using static and pseudo-static analyses, the downstream and upstream slopes are
fixed under variety loading conditions (during construction, steady state seepage
and sudden drawdown). By using LEM and FEM methods
3. From the seepage analysis, the quantity of water lost through the dam body is
estimated
4. Comparison between all results from LEM and FEM Method and comment.

Semester Project 1
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

2. Hydraulic Analysis

2.1 Selection of the Earth Dam Location

Fetch
length

Figure 2.1: Spillway Location and Reservoir Area

2.2 Area- Elevation- Volume curve

Area-elevation curve is obtained by measuring the area enclosed within each contour in the
reservoir site using a planimeter.
 Usually a 1/5000 scaled topographic map

Elevation-storage curve:
 is the integration of an area-elevation curve.

The storage between any two elevations can be obtained by the product of average surface area at
two elevations multiplied by the difference in elevation

Semester Project 2
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Area- Elevation curve is obtained by measuring the area enclosed within each contour in the
reservoir site. Elevation- Volume/storage curve is the integration of an area-elevation curve which
can be obtained by the product of average surface area at two elevations multiplied by the
difference in elevation between the contours.

Table 2-1: Elevation - Area- Volume

Area Volume between Total Volume Bounded
Elevation (m) 2
Area (Mm2)
(mile ) Contours (Mm3) by a contour (Mm3)
880 1.717 4.447 0.827 3.178
875 1.477 3.825 0.698 2.350
870 1.2175 3.153 0.563 1.652
865 0.958 2.481 0.439 1.089
860 0.738 1.911 0.324 0.650
855 0.514 1.331 0.193 0.325
850 0.2307 0.598 0.088 0.133
845 0.11 0.285 0.036 0.044
840 0.03058 0.079 0.008 0.008

885
880
875
870
Elvation (m)

865
860
Area
855
Volume
850
845
840
835
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Area (Mm2)/ Volume(Mm3)

Figure 2.2: Elevation - Area- Volume Curve

Semester Project 3
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

2.3 Maximum Height of the proposed dam

The Maximum Height of the proposed Dam 885-845 = 40m

Components of reservoir

Maximum pool level = 38m

2.4 Spillway Location and its Crest level

A spillway is a structure constructed at a dam site, for effective disposing of the surplus water
from upstream to downstream. Just after the reservoir gets filled up, up to the normal pool level,
water starts flowing over the top of the spillway crest (which is generally kept at normal pool
level). Depending up on the inflow rate, water will start rising above the normal pool level, and at
the same time, it will be let off over the spillway. The water can rise over the spillway crest, up to
the maximum reservoir level, which can be estimated from the inflow flood hydrograph and the
spillway characteristics, by the process of flood routing, explained in chapter two. Therefore, it is
only the spillway, which will dispose of the surplus water and will not let the water rise above the
maximum reservoir level.

A spillway can be located either within the body of the dam, or at one end of it, independently in
a saddle. If a deep narrow gorge with steep banks, separated from a flank by a hillock with its
level above the top of the dam (such as shown in Error! Reference source not found.), is
available, the spillway can be best built independently of the dam.

In addition to the space availability, soil conditions of the site shall be taken in account while
fixing the position of a specific spillway. Moreover, soil type together with other factors, like dam
type, head restriction, downstream topography, overall cost, etc., govern selection of spillway
type.

Figure 2.3: Spillway Location

Semester Project 4
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

For the stated dam type and reservoir site, chute type spillway with broad crested entrance is
selected. Besides, its location relative to the dam axis is indicated in Figure 2.1.

2.4.1 Routing of the Inflow Hydrograph

Routing is the process of predicting temporal and spatial variation of a flood wave as it travels
through a river or channel reach or reservoir.

For our case, the routing process is to be done using reservoir routing applying continuity
(mass conservation). Equa. (1)

S S S I I O O
 I  O  2 1  2 1  2 1 .......... .......... .......... .... Equa. (1)
t t 2 2
S
Where, I = Inflow rate, O = Outflow rate and = Rate of change of storage
t

Rearranged Equa. (1),

 2S2   2S1 
  Q2   I1  I 2    ..........Equa. (2)
 Q1 ..........
 t   t 

Table 2-2: Inflow Flood Hydrograph to the Reservoir

Time Inflow Time Inflow Time Inflow Time Inflow

(Hr) (m3/s) (Hr) (m3/s) (Hr) (m3/s) (Hr) (m3/s)

0.00 0.00 6.75 332.99 12.75 85.66 18.75 23.53

0.75 10.93 7.50 235.84 13.50 74.47 19.50 15.57

1.50 39.18 8.25 203.55 14.25 64.86 20.25 9.32

2.25 72.73 9.00 175.80 15.00 56.59 21.00 7.81

3.00 117.58 9.75 151.95 15.75 49.48 21.75 1.15

3.75 173.75 10.50 131.45 16.50 38.12 22.50 0.99

4.50 241.22 11.25 113.83 17.25 33.61 23.25 0.50

5.25 296.57 12.00 98.68 18.00 26.40 24.00 0.00

6.00 327.12

Semester Project 5
 Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Using Equa. (2) and Table 2.3 above, the Reservoir routing is done using Goal seek as shown in Table
2.4 below. For the routing process, 0.75 hour time interval is considered. Additionally, initial out flow
and storage are assumed to be zero. Finally, the outflow and inflow hydrographs are plotted, as shown
Figure 2.3 below.

From Table 2.4 or Figure 2.3 below, we can see that the maximum outflow over the short ogee control
weir is 121.699 m3/sec. Besides, the corresponding height, H above the spillway crest is 2.34m.

Table 2-3: Flood Routing using Reservoir Routing (Storage Indication Method)

Reservoir Routing (Broad Crested weir of width 20m)

1.5
Q = 34*H 2S1/dt - Q1 2S2/dt + Q2
Time (Hr) Inflow (m3/s) I1+I2 (m3/s) S = 2.01*10 6*H (m3) Head, H(m) 2S/dt - Q1 = (2S/dt+Q) - 2Q Target Cell = 6-9
(m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000
0.75 10.93 10.93 0.021 14728.01 10.89 10.93 0.007 10.888 0.001
1.50 39.18 50.11 0.278 81972.71 60.44 61.00 0.041 60.443 0.000
2.25 72.73 111.91 1.314 230902.05 169.72 172.35 0.114 169.725 0.000
3.00 117.58 190.31 3.947 480717.79 352.14 360.03 0.238 352.140 0.000
3.75 173.75 291.33 9.379 856021.78 624.71 643.47 0.424 624.711 0.000
4.50 241.22 414.97 19.151 1377714.01 1001.38 1039.68 0.682 1001.379 -0.001
5.25 296.57 537.79 34.293 2031581.41 1470.58 1539.17 1.006 1470.582 0.000
6.00 327.12 623.69 54.131 2754191.27 1986.01 2094.27 1.363 1986.011 0.000
6.75 332.99 660.11 76.516 3468966.87 2493.09 2646.12 1.717 2493.089 0.000
7.50 235.84 568.83 94.935 4005428.84 2872.05 3061.92 1.983 2872.050 0.000
8.25 203.55 439.39 106.578 4326563.44 3098.28 3311.44 2.142 3098.284 0.000
9.00 175.80 379.35 114.566 4540141.81 3248.50 3477.63 2.248 3248.502 0.000
9.75 151.95 327.75 119.392 4666760.18 3337.47 3576.25 2.310 3337.468 -0.001
10.50 131.45 283.40 121.596 4724016.36 3377.68 3620.87 2.339 3377.676 0.000
11.25 113.83 245.28 121.699 4726695.739 3379.56 3622.955474 2.340 3379.556732 0.000
12.00 98.68 212.51 120.172 4687058.226 3351.72 3592.066732 2.320 3351.723232 0.000
12.75 85.66 184.34 117.418 4615171.449 3301.23 3536.063232 2.285 3301.227803 0.000
13.50 74.47 160.13 113.776 4519235.888 3233.81 3461.357803 2.237 3233.806475 0.000
14.25 64.86 139.33 109.522 4405879.728 3154.09 3373.136475 2.181 3154.092751 0.000
15.00 56.59 121.45 104.877 4280399.4 3065.79 3275.542751 2.119 3065.789693 0.000
15.75 49.48 106.07 100.012 4146993.499 2971.84 3171.859693 2.053 2971.835794 -0.001
16.50 38.12 87.6 94.821 4002228.616 2869.79 3059.435086 1.981 2869.793012 0.000
17.25 33.61 71.73 89.472 3850268.122 2762.58 2941.522752 1.906 2762.578267 0.000
18.00 26.40 60.01 84.178 3696853.376 2654.23 2822.588218 1.830 2654.231598 0.000
18.75 23.53 49.93 79.010 3543954.179 2546.14 2704.161598 1.754 2546.140889 0.000
19.50 15.57 39.1 73.927 3390272.798 2437.39 2585.240889 1.678 2437.386635 -0.001
20.25 9.32 24.89 68.786 3231211.287 2324.70 2462.276056 1.600 2324.704106 0.000
21.00 7.81 17.13 63.867 3075255.733 2214.10 2341.833867 1.522 2214.10069 0.000
21.75 1.15 8.96 59.131 2921304.629 2104.80 2223.060621 1.446 2104.798101 0.000
22.50 0.99 2.14 54.616 2770634.541 1997.71 2106.938095 1.372 1997.705884 0.000
23.25 0.50 1.49 50.531 2630697.363 1898.13 1999.195776 1.302 1898.133706 0.000
24.00 0.00 0.5 46.811 2499960.094 1805.01 1898.633678 1.238 1805.010911 0.000

Semester Project 6
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Figure 2.4. Inflow and Outflow Hydrograph

From the specified spillway location, the Spillway crest elevation (Normal reservoir level
elevation) and spillway length are 876.46m and 645m, respectively.

2.5 Components of Reservoir

There are a number of factors that determine what the capacity of a reservoir or system of
reservoirs must be in order to meet the anticipated future demand from the system. These include:

a. Demand requirement – purpose and quantity of water required to be supplied

b. Catchment yield- maximum flow to be stored from the catchment
c. Reservoir elevation – maximum contour level to which water can be stored without
spillage

Total reservoir storage components

a) Normal pool level: is the maximum elevation to which the reservoir surface will rise for
ordinary reservoir operations.

Semester Project 7
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

 By considering the settlement allowance(3% of the dam height) and the head over the
spillway crest (2.34m, see table 2.4)
Settlement allowance = 40*3% = 1.2m
Head over the spillway crest = 2.34
 Normal pool level = dam height - (Settlement allowance + head over the spillway crest
= 40 - (1.2 +3.34) = 35.46m
b) Dead storage is located below minimum pool level. The top elevation is dictated by amount of
sediment accumulation at the end of the life time of reservoir.

 Considering the lower level of the counter for sediment collection 845m-835m = 10m

c) Active storage is the storage between minimum and normal pool levels

Active storage = 35.46 -10 = 25.46m

d) Fetch length is the length of water over which a given wind has blown. Fetch is used in
geography and meteorology and its effects are usually associated with sea state and when it
reaches shore it is the main factor that creates storm surge which leads to coastal erosion and
flooding.

For our case, the fetch length is measured from the given topographical map on the top of the
selected reservoir level Figure 2.1. And it is estimated to be 1.01mil or 1.625km.

Semester Project 8
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

3. Analysis and Design of Zoned Embankment Dam

3.1 Check Liquefaction Potential of the soils

To check the liquefaction of the soils, mainly the susceptibility of the soil has to be identified via
tracing the sieve analysis result from laboratory results of the different soils. These soil test results
are not included in our results and it has to be carried out and be traced or checked with the
following table.

Figure 3.1: Limits in the gradation curves separating liquefiable and non- liquefiable soils

(Source: Tsuchida, 1970)

The information indicating the dam site is found in seismic zone III is very important in that the
dam material has to be checked for susceptibility to liquefaction. Proper treatment methodologies
have to be recommended for every appropriate size and type of liquefaction of the different
materials.

Semester Project 9
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Figure 3.2: Particle size gradation of soils susceptible to flow liquefaction under static and
earthquake loading
(Source: Hunter and Fell, 2003a,b).

Hence as per to the given data, the effective diameter D10 of shell and core soils, the sizes are
given 0.27mm and 0.15mm respectively and when these are traced in the distribution curves
given for both static and earthquake loading, it indicates the soils are susceptible to liquefaction.

As the site of the dam is located in Seismic zone III, and it is with in the region ‘most liquefiable’
liquefaction is inevitable. And therefore damage will occur if earthquake happens.

Hence as per to the given data, the effective diameter D10 of shell and core soils, the sizes are
given 0.27mm and 0.15mm respectively and when these are traced in the distribution curves
given for both static and earthquake loading, it indicates the soils are susceptible to liquefaction.

As the site of the dam is located in Seismic zone III, and it is within the region ‘most liquefiable’
liquefaction is inevitable. And therefore damage will occur if earthquake happens.

The following treatments had to be done to minimize or control liquefaction.

i. Replacing with better material that have distribution out of the liquefiable range
ii. Using technologies like in-situ densification and cementing
iii. Using drains
iv. Adding free board.

Semester Project 10
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

3.2 Stability Analysis using Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods

For this project we use GeoStudio and Plaxis software for stability and seepage Analysis of the
embankment dam the main difference between both software is, GeoStudio use limit equilibrium
Approach and Plaxis use Finite element method to determine the factor of safety.

There are two broad approaches to the determination of stability of embankment dams. One
approach is to determine the distribution of stresses and strains inside the embankment and its
foundations. These present a complete picture of the behavior of the dam and also enable
computation of the factor of safety on the most vulnerable surface by comparison with the shear
resistance that can be mobilized on that surface. This approach requires the application of theories
of elasticity or plasticity and solution of the equations based on those theories. General solutions
based on this approach have required gross simplifications due to the geometrically complex
nature of the boundaries, non-homogeneity of materials and their properties, and non-linearity
of the stress strain curves, particularly for cohesive soils. However, in the past twenty-five years
or so, developments in the finite-element method Together with availability of increasingly
powerful digital computers, has enabled geotechnical Designers to carry out detailed analyses of
stresses and strains with realistic assumptions. In fact, the accuracy of the results is only limited
by the reliability of input data for soil properties. This Approach has greatly enhanced the
confidence of designers in the design of dams of unprecedented heights or, under special
situations, e.g. steep abutment slopes.

However, the stress-distribution approach does not supplant the second ‘limit equilibrium’
approach in which a potential surface of sliding is assumed and the forces tending to cause slides,
or actuating forces, are compared with the resisting forces on that surface under incipient
failure conditions. The actuating forces consist of gravity forces due to the weight of the slip mass
and adverse seepage forces. During earthquakes transient inertial forces will come into play and in
certain soils a spurt in pore pressures may also occur. The resisting force is provided by the shear
strength of the soil. The ratio of actuating to resisting forces on an assumed slip surface is
considered the factor of safety on that surface. The least factor of safety is obtained by trial on a
number of assumed surfaces. The surface on which the factor of safety is the least is called the
'critical surface'. It may be noted that the distribution of shear stress on the surface is not uniform
and locally at some points the shear stress may even exceed the shear strength. The concept of
limit-equilibrium analysis is that unless the total resistance mobilized on the surface is exceeded

Semester Project 11
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

by the total shear stress, movement on the surface will not take place. The limit-
equilibrium approach is discussed in this chapter, while stress-distribution methods are taken up in
the next.

The limit-equilibrium approach is the one most commonly used by designers; the stress
distribution approach, now almost exclusively by F.E.M., is used on sections first checked by
limit equilibrium, to gain additional information and to refine the design.

The material properties of the shell, core and foundation part are determined from the soil
investigation results provided in the APPENDIX (A to C).

Using the following information, Material property and Geometry of the dam, the analysis will be as
follows.

Table 3-1: Foundation and Embankment Properties

Material property
Material
C (KN/m3) Φ (degrees) γsat (KN/m3) γdry (KN/m3)

Core 47.44 23.94 20.87 17.53

Shell 27.24 23.91 20.88 19.12
Foundation 44.96 25.63 17.25 16.19

Figure 3.3: Preliminary Dam Cross section

Semester Project 12
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

3.2.1 LEM stability analysis using Slope /W

 Factor of safety for down stream slope at the end of construction is 1.760

Figure 3.4: Critical face of Downstream Slope at the end of construction

 Factor of safety for upstream slope at the end of construction is 2.153

Figure 3.5: Critical face of Upstream Slope at the end of construction

Semester Project 13
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

 Factor of safety for down stream slope for full reservior condition (Steady

state Seepage) is 2.814

Figure 3.6: Downstream slope for full reservoir condition

 Factor of safety for upstream under sudden drawdown condition is 1.332

Figure 3.7: Critical face of Upstream Slope under sudden drawdown condition

Semester Project 14
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

3.2.2 FEM Method (Using the software PLAXIS 8.2)

The construction is assumed to be constructed in four stages, for simplicity and to speed up the
work, because similar steps are to be carried out even though number of the construction stages
should be based on maximum depth of fill for effective compaction using the type of compacting
machine. And filling the reservoir with water, the stability is checked it will be carried out parallel
step by step along with the staged construction.

And hence, the 1st calculation with base typical cross sections is at which the soil failed at 3rd
filling stage.

And later the slope of the embankment was made gentler than the previous one. i.e. U/S 1V:3.5V
and D/S is 1V: 2.5 H. And this time the construction stage and the step by step filling was within
the allowed safety factors required by the standard we found from the book ADVANCED DAM
ENGINEERING FOR DESIGN CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION, edited by Robert
B. Janson, Consulting Civil Engineer.

Hence, after the slope of the embankment and the core was made gentler, the factor of safety is
found are summarized in the following table.

Table 3-2: Table 3 2: Summarized factor of Safety using FEM

Factor of safety Standard Factor of
List of activities steps Remark
obtained safety
Excavation 3.421 1.25 Ok!
Cut off Construction 18.066 >> Ok!
1st stage Construction 2.928 >> Ok!
1st phase Filling 2.936 >> Ok!
2nd stage Construction 2.143 >> Ok!
2nd phase Filling 2.13 >> Ok!
3rd stage Construction 1.837 >> Ok!
3rd phase Filling 1.867 >> Ok!
4th stage Construction 1.72 >> Ok!
4th phase Filling (steady state) 1.556 1.5 Ok!
Sudden drawdown 1.245 1.2 Ok!

Therefore, the dimension later selected that resulted with safety factor above the standard is fixed
to be the cross section of the earth fill dam.

Semester Project 15
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

3.3 The Quantity of water lost from the seepage analysis

Figure 3.8: Seepage intensity under Steady state

When the reservoir is full, the discharge (seepage) through the dam material at selected section at
the center and at around the downstream are summarized under.

Table 3-3: Velocity and Seepage intensity under steady state

External velocity
Location Total Discharge (m3/s/m), q
(m/sec)

Around center of the dam section 79.89E-06 1.7655E-03

Around D/S of the dam cross section 82.96E-06 2.47E-03

This is going to be used to calculate for how long the water reserved in the reservoir stays will,
and to compare it whether there is rain every year or in two years.

 The allowable maximum seepage must be greater than this discharge too.

Length of the dam cross section, m (L) = 2117.3ft = 645.35m

Total discharge per m3/sec (Q) = q*L= 2.47E-03* 2117.3ft

Q =1.594m3/sec

Semester Project 16
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

3.4 Comparison of the Results from LEM and FEM Method

Summary of factor of safety from both analyses

Factor of Factor of safety Allowed Factor

List of activities steps Remark
safety U/S D/S of safety

End of construction 2.153 1.76 1.25 Ok!

Reservoir Full - 2.814 1.5 Ok!

Sudden drawdown 1.332 - 1.2 Ok!

Factor of safety Standard Factor of

List of activities steps Remark
obtained safety
Excavation 3.421 1.25 Ok!
Cut off construction 18.066 >> Ok!
1st stage construction 2.928 >> Ok!
1st phase filling 2.936 >> Ok!
2nd stage construction 2.143 >> Ok!
2nd phase filling 2.13 >> Ok!
3rd stage construction 1.837 >> Ok!
3rd phase filling 1.867 >> Ok!
4th stage construction 1.72 >> Ok!
4th phase filling (steady state) 1.556 1.5 Ok!
Sudden drawdown 1.245 1.2 Ok!

Referring to the above summery table the factor of safety we get from both software analyses is different; it
is safe in both cases though. The factor of safety obtained from PLAXIS software is less than
obtained from GEOSTUDIO software because finite equilibrium method is relatively more
accurate than limit equilibrium. It gives more reasonable factor of safety.

Semester Project 17
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

4 Conclusion and Recommendation

4.2 Conclusion

Permeability of the core material is larger than that of the required specific for the core 1.06*10 -
4
m/s (according to the book, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OF DAMS, Robin Fell, Patrick
MacGregor, David Slapeledon & Graeme Bell), the permeability of most compacted earth fill core
materials is less than 10-8 or 10-9m/sec.

In embankment dams due to the nature of the soil materials and the statically indeterminate nature
of the problem, the factor of safety is not considered a precise measure of the margin of safety. Its
value can vary appreciably with the method of analysis adopted. The FS is to be interpreted in the
light of previous experience and used as a measure of comparison between alternative designs.

4.3 Recommendation

Because the core could be susceptible to seepage appropriate filter has to be provided to protect
the core material and hinder seepage of water. PLAXIS software gives more critical factor of
safety due to the method it uses so it is better to use PLAXIS rather than GEO STUDIO.

Semester Project 18
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

References
1. Coarse grained coal mine waste (Dawson et al., 1998; Taylor, 1984; Bishop et al., 1969;
2. DVANCED DAM ENGINEERING FOR DESIGN CONSTRUCTION AND
REHABILITATION, edited by Robert B. Janson, Consulting Civil Engineer.
3. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OF DAMS, Robin Fell, Patrick MacGregor, David
Slapeledon & Graeme Bell) Hutchinson, 1986)
4. Hydraulically placed mine tailings and fills in dam embankments (various published
sources)
5. Loose silty sand fills, Hong Kong (upper and lower quartile of pre 1977 fills (HKIE, 1998)
6. Sensitive clays (indicative limits from: Lefebvre, 1996; Bentley & Smalley, 1984; Mitchell
& Markell, 1974; Hutchinson, 1961,1965)
7. Sub-aqueous slopes, natural and fill slopes (Koppejan et al., 1948; Kramer, 1988; Sladen&
Hewitt 1989; Comforth et al., 1974)

Semester Project 19
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Appendix –A
A-1. Test Results on Foundation Part (Along dam axis)

Material Units Result

FIELD DENSITY BY CONE PENETRATION METHOD

Description TP1 TP2 TP3

Moisture content % 23.34 21.45 20.07

Dry density of soil g/cm3 1.41 1.36 1.29

Wet density of soil g/cm3 1.74 1.65 1.56

A-2. Summery Atterberg Limits and Shear Strength

Type of test Test result

Unit
Description TP1 TP2 TP3

Angle of internal friction, Φ Degrees 26.63 30.71 19.54

Cohesion, C Kpa 55.01 21.58 58.30

Liquid limit, LL % 29.47 24.89 40.61

Plastic limit, PL % - - 20.36

Plastic Index, PI % 29.74 24.89

Semester Project 20
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

A-3. The Test Results on Construction Materials of the Dam (Core, Shell and
Foundation)

Type of test unit Test result

Description Shell Core

Shear strength tests

Angle of internal friction, Φ degrees 23.91 23.94

Cohesion, c KPa 27.24 47.44

Permeability tests

Effective diameter, D-10 mm 0.27 0.12

Coefficient of permeability, K m/sec 3.93E-04 1.06E-04

Compaction tests

Maximum dry density, MDD Kg/m3 1,631.40 1,448.10

Optimum moisture content, OMC % 19.50 23.40

Appendix –B
B-1. Report for SLOPE/W Analysis downstream

File Information Project Settings

Revision Number: 22 Length (L) Units: meters

Date: 7/4/2017 Time (t) Units: Seconds

Time: 9:39:46 PM Force (F) Units: kN

File Name: material stagegsz Pressure (p) Units: kPa

Directory: E:\PG DOcS\last project Strength Units: kPa

embankment\ Unit Weight of Water: 9.807 kN/m³
Last Solved Date: 7/4/2017 View: 2D
Last Solved Time: 9:39:55 PM

Semester Project 21
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Analysis Settings

SLOPE/W Analysis

Kind: SLOPE/W

Method: Morgenstern-Price

Settings

Apply Phreatic Correction: No

Side Function

Interstice force function option: Half-Sine

PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line

Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No

Slip Surface

Direction of movement: Left to Right

Use Passive Mode: No

Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit

Critical slip surfaces saved: 1

Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No

Tension Crack

Tension Crack Option: (none)

FOS Distribution

FOS Calculation Option: Constant

Advanced

Number of Slices: 30

Optimization Tolerance: 0.01

Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m

Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000

Semester Project 22
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007

Starting Optimization Points: 8

Ending Optimization Points: 16

Complete Passes per Insertion: 1

Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 °

Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °

Materials

Foundation Shell Core

Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model: Mohr-Coulomb

Unit Weight: 16.19 kN/m³ Unit Weight: 19.12 kN/m³ Unit Weight: 17.53 kN/m³

Cohesion: 44.96 kPa Cohesion: 27.24 kPa Cohesion: 47.44 kPa

Phi: 25.63 ° Phi: 23.91 ° Phi: 23.94 °

Phi-B: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 °

Pore Water Pressure Pore Water Pressure

Piezometric Line: 1 Piezometric Line: 1

Slip Surface Entry and Exit

Left Projection: Range

Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (158.32, 55) m

Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (173.5, 50) m

Left-Zone Increment: 4

Right Projection: Range

Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (249.24828, 19.700688) m

Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (273.5, 15) m

Right-Zone Increment: 4

Radius Increments: 4

Semester Project 23
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Slip Surface Limits

Left Coordinate: (0, 15) m

Right Coordinate: (276, 15) m

Coordinates Regions

X (m) Y (m) Material Points Area (m²)

0 15 Region 1 foundation 1,13,9,2,3,4 2216.25

276 15 Region 2 foundation 5,6,10,16,7,8 1620

Region 3 core 9,2,3,5,6,10,11,12 1980.75

Points
Region 4 shell 13,14,15,16,10,11,12,9 3353

X (m) Y (m)

Point 1 0 15

Point 2 140.5 15

Point 3 155 0

Point 4 0 0

Point 5 160.5 0

Point 6 175.5 15

Point 7 276 15

Point 8 276 0

Point 9 117 15

Point 10 199 15

Point 11 160 54

Point 12 156 54

Point 13 15.5 15

Point 14 155 55

Point 15 161 55

Point 16 261 15

Semester Project 24
 Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Critical Slip Surface

Slip Surface FOS Center (m) Radius (m) Entry (m) Exit (m)

1 12 1.760 (260.897, 166.636) 151.607 (158.32, 55) (260.927, 15.0292)

Slice of Slip Surface: 12

Slip Base Normal Frictional Cohesive

X (m) Y (m) PWP (kPa)
Surface Stress (kPa) Strength (kPa) Strength (kPa)

1 12 158.86955 54.5 -387.37513 -3.486181 -1.5455908 27.24

2 12 159.70955 53.739665 -379.92054 0.25164384 0.11172344 47.44

3 12 160.5 53.037435 -373.03373 11.475598 5.0948726 47.44

4 12 162.3931 51.404655 -357.03198 29.6058 13.14422 47.44

5 12 165.52085 48.80963 -331.58007 58.449948 25.913658 27.24

6 12 168.9902 46.083025 -304.82207 78.988297 35.01929 27.24

7 12 172.45955 43.514565 -279.64049 97.027875 43.017097 27.24

8 12 175.92885 41.09453 -255.91815 112.97303 50.086347 27.24

9 12 179.39815 38.814475 -233.54868 127.14251 56.368353 27.24

10 12 182.86745 36.66702 -212.48739 139.78094 61.971575 27.24

11 12 186.3368 34.645685 -192.66489 151.07212 66.977495 27.24

12 12 189.80615 32.74476 -174.02384 161.13441 71.438591 27.24

13 12 193.27545 30.95917 -156.51112 170.03419 75.384289 27.24

14 12 196.74475 29.28441 -140.08844 177.79984 78.827174 27.24

15 12 200.21405 27.716475 -124.7111 184.40147 81.753992 27.24

16 12 203.68335 26.25178 -110.34661 189.77535 84.136488 27.24

17 12 207.1527 24.88712 -96.962118 193.82721 85.932872 27.24

Semester Project 25
 Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

18 12 210.62205 23.61963 -84.5317 196.42213 87.083323 27.24

19 12 214.09135 22.44675 -73.030302 197.40772 87.520285 27.24

20 12 217.56065 21.36618 -62.432328 196.6164 87.169452 27.24

21 12 221.02995 20.375875 -52.721301 193.86856 85.951203 27.24

22 12 224.49925 19.474015 -43.876978 188.99474 83.790409 27.24

23 12 227.9686 18.65898 -35.884558 181.84811 80.621963 27.24

24 12 231.43795 17.92934 -28.727036 172.30567 76.391343 27.24

25 12 234.90725 17.28384 -22.397566 160.29742 71.067514 27.24

26 12 238.37655 16.721395 -16.88166 145.8051 64.642372 27.24

27 12 241.84585 16.241075 -12.171143 128.87463 57.136288 27.24

28 12 245.31515 15.842095 -8.2585247 109.61669 48.598322 27.24

29 12 248.7845 15.523805 -5.1369868 88.204238 39.105157 27.24

30 12 252.25385 15.2857 -2.8018371 64.863869 28.757255 27.24

31 12 255.72315 15.1274 -1.2494311 39.857807 17.670872 27.24

-
32 12 259.19245 15.048655 13.47125 5.9724494 27.24
0.47718183

B-2. Report for SLOPE/W Analysis upstream

File Information

Revision Number: 23

Date: 7/4/2017

Time: 9:58:23 PM

File Name: dwn stream during construction.gsz

Directory: E:\PG DOcS\last project embankment\

Semester Project 26
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Last Solved Date: 7/4/2017

Last Solved Time: 9:58:27 PM

Project Settings
Length (L) Units: meters

Time (t) Units: Seconds

Force (F) Units: kN

Pressure (p) Units: kPa

Strength Units: kPa

Unit Weight of Water: 9.807 kN/m³

View: 2D

Analysis Settings

SLOPE/W Analysis

Kind: SLOPE/W

Method: Morgenstern-Price

Settings

Apply Phreatic Correction: No

Side Function

Interslice force function option: Half-Sine

PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line

Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No

Slip Surface
Direction of movement: Right to Left

Use Passive Mode: No

Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit

Critical slip surfaces saved: 1

Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No

Semester Project 27
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Tension Crack

Tension Crack Option: (none)

FOS Distribution

FOS Calculation Option: Constant

Advanced

Number of Slices: 30

Optimization Tolerance: 0.01

Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m

Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000

Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007

Starting Optimization Points: 8

Ending Optimization Points: 16

Complete Passes per Insertion: 1

Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 °

Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °

Materials

Foundation Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 17.53 kN/m³

Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 19.12 kN/m³ Cohesion: 47.44 kPa

Unit Weight: 16.19 kN/m³ Cohesion: 27.24 kPa Phi: 23.94 °

Cohesion: 44.96 kPa Phi: 23.91 ° Phi-B: 0 °

Phi: 25.63 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure

Phi-B: 0 ° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1

Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1

Piezometric Line: 1 Core

Shell Model: Mohr-Coulomb

Semester Project 28
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Slip Surface Entry and Exit

Left Projection: Range

Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (4, 15) m

Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (29.45705, 19.002022) m

Left-Zone Increment: 4

Right Projection: Range

Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (144.5375, 52) m

Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (158.68, 55) m

Right-Zone Increment: 4

Radius Increments: 4

Slip Surface Limits

Left Coordinate: (0, 15) m

Right Coordinate: (276, 15) m

Coordinates Regions

X (m) Y (m) Material Points Area (m²)

0 15 Region 1 foundation 1,13,9,2,3,4 2216.25

276 15 Region 2 foundation 5,6,10,16,7,8 1620

Points Region 3 core 9,2,3,5,6,10,11,12 1980.75

X (m) Y (m) Region 4 shell 13,14,15,16,10,11,12,9 3353

Point 1 0 15

Point 2 140.5 15

Point 3 155 0

Point 4 0 0

Semester Project 29
 Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Point 5 160.5 0

Point 6 175.5 15

Point 7 276 15

Point 8 276 0

Point 9 117 15

Point 10 199 15

Point 11 160 54

Point 12 156 54

Point 13 15.5 15

Point 14 155 55

Point 15 161 55

Point 16 261 15

Critical Slip Surfaces

Slip Surface FOS Center (m) Radius (m) Entry (m) Exit (m)

1 13 2.153 (56.193, 116.111) 113.787 (151.537, 54.0072) (4, 15)

Slices of Slip Surface: 13

Slip Base Normal Frictional Cohesive

X (m) Y (m) PWP (kPa)
Surface Stress (kPa) Strength (kPa) Strength (kPa)

1 13 6.875 13.616615 13.56678 36.608521 11.054591 44.96

2 13 12.625 11.041092 38.825774 83.28874 21.331716 44.96

3 13 17.94436 8.976285 59.074204 137.53415 37.642231 44.96

4 13 22.833075 7.353841 74.985382 199.68593 59.826794 44.96

Semester Project 30
 Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

5 13 27.72179 5.972195 88.535026 257.11894 80.880441 44.96

6 13 32.610505 4.822358 99.812518 309.06881 100.39357 44.96

7 13 37.49922 3.8971875 108.88429 354.91709 118.0376 44.96

8 13 42.387935 3.1911505 115.80851 394.28537 133.60308 44.96

9 13 47.27665 2.7001465 120.62482 426.975 146.97569 44.96

10 13 52.165365 2.421384 123.35791 453.06598 158.18196 44.96

11 13 57.05408 2.3533 124.02697 472.74863 167.30399 44.96

12 13 61.942795 2.4955145 122.63196 486.43792 174.54089 44.96

13 13 66.83151 2.848821 119.16744 494.62001 180.12851 44.96

14 13 71.72023 3.4152095 113.6112 497.78101 184.31072 44.96

15 13 76.608945 4.197921 105.93635 496.49867 187.37761 44.96

16 13 81.49766 5.201544 96.094286 491.27045 189.59117 44.96

17 13 86.386375 6.4321565 84.023918 482.54835 191.19755 44.96

18 13 91.27509 7.89752 69.654702 470.67564 192.39528 44.96

19 13 96.163805 9.607346 52.885369 455.92685 193.36466 44.96

20 13 101.05253 11.57366 33.60254 438.39697 194.20567 44.96

21 13 105.94125 13.8113 11.657551 418.09132 194.99216 44.96

22 13 110.7829 16.311335 -12.860196 396.81029 175.92498 27.24

23 13 115.57755 19.090035 -40.110234 367.60599 162.97732 27.24

24 13 120.37225 22.19568 -70.56826 335.42352 148.70929 27.24

25 13 125.1669 25.66211 -104.56416 299.70007 132.87137 27.24

26 13 129.96155 29.53291 -142.52412 259.62546 115.10438 27.24

27 13 134.7562 33.86557 -185.02001 214.11226 94.926203 27.24

Semester Project 31
 Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

28 13 139.55085 38.73837 -232.80915 161.58158 71.636843 27.24

29 13 144.3455 44.262515 -286.97605 99.83483 44.261555 27.24

30 13 149.14015 50.605515 -349.18618 25.681639 11.385899 27.24

B-3. Report for SLOPE/W Analysis reservoir full

File Information
Revision Number: 2
Date: 7/4/2017
Time: 10:09:14 PM
File Name: down streamreserviorfull.gsz
Directory: E:\PG DOcS\last project embankment\
Last Solved Date: 7/4/2017
Last Solved Time: 10:09:17 PM
Project Settings
Length (L) Units: meters
Time (t) Units: Seconds
Force (F) Units: kN
Pressure (p) Units: kPa
Strength Units: kPa
Unit Weight of Water: 9.807 kN/m³
View: 2D
Analysis Settings
SLOPE/W Analysis reservoir full
Kind: SLOPE/W
Method: Morgenstern-Price
Settings
Apply Phreatic Correction: No
Side Function
Interslice force function option: Half-Sine

Semester Project 32
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line

Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No
Slip Surface
Direction of movement: Right to Left
Use Passive Mode: No
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Critical slip surfaces saved: 1
Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No
Tension Crack
Tension Crack Option: (none)
FOS Distribution
FOS Calculation Option: Constant
Advanced
Number of Slices: 30
Optimization Tolerance: 0.01
Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m
Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000
Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007
Starting Optimization Points: 8
Ending Optimization Points: 16

Complete Passes per Insertion: 1

Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 °

Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °

Materials

Foundation Shell Core

Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model: Mohr-Coulomb

Unit Weight: 16.19 kN/m³ Unit Weight: 19.12 kN/m³ Unit Weight: 17.53 kN/m³

Cohesion: 44.96 kPa Cohesion: 27.24 kPa Cohesion: 47.44 kPa

Phi: 25.63 ° Phi: 23.91 ° Phi: 23.94 °

Phi-B: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 °

Semester Project 33
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Slip Surface Entry and Exit

Left Projection: Range

Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (7, 15) m

Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (30.23324, 19.224585) m

Left-Zone Increment: 4

Right Projection: Range

Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (142.5, 51.415771) m

Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (158.32, 55) m

Right-Zone Increment: 4

Radius Increments: 4

Slip Surface Limits

Left Coordinate: (0, 15) m

Right Coordinate: (276, 15) m

Piezometric Lines

Coordinates Regions

X (m) Y (m) Area

Material Points
(m²)
0 15
Region 1 foundation 1,13,9,2,3,4 2216.25
0 53
Region 2 foundation 5,6,10,16,7,8 1620
148.025 53
Region 3 core 9,2,3,5,6,10,11,12 1980.75
199 15
Region 4 shell 13,14,15,16,10,11,12,9 3353
276 15

Semester Project 34
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Points

X (m) Y (m)

Point 1 0 15

Point 2 140.5 15

Point 3 155 0

Point 4 0 0

Point 5 160.5 0

Point 6 175.5 15

Point 7 276 15

Point 8 276 0

Point 9 117 15

Point 10 199 15

Point 11 160 54

Point 12 156 54

Point 13 15.5 15

Point 14 155 55

Point 15 161 55

Point 16 261 15

Critical Slip Surfaces

Slip Surface FOS Center (m) Radius (m) Entry (m) Exit (m)

1 97 2.814 (48.533, 189.641) 173.728 (158.32, 55) (24.5072, 17.5827)

Semester Project 35
 Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Slices of Slip Surface: 97

Slip Base Normal Frictional Cohesive
X (m) Y (m) PWP (kPa)
Surface Stress (kPa) Strength (kPa) Strength (kPa)
1 97 26.71292 17.30345 350.06782 360.88515 4.7958415 27.24
2 97 31.124265 16.80202 354.98816 383.88071 12.809449 27.24
3 97 35.535615 16.41436 358.7907 404.3403 20.194316 27.24
4 97 39.946965 16.139705 361.48776 422.23383 26.931636 27.24
5 97 44.358315 15.977525 363.07203 437.54021 33.015305 27.24
6 97 48.769665 15.9275 363.56201 450.27012 38.441853 27.24
7 97 53.18101 15.989535 362.9563 460.39727 43.200244 27.24
8 97 57.592355 16.16375 361.25658 467.97193 47.312017 27.24
9 97 62.003705 16.450485 358.44473 473.02952 50.800918 27.24
10 97 66.415055 16.8503 354.52821 475.56793 53.662694 27.24
11 97 70.826405 17.36398 349.47278 475.66067 55.945125 27.24
12 97 75.237755 17.99255 343.31486 473.34309 57.647735 27.24
13 97 79.6491 18.73728 336.00469 468.65807 58.81159 27.24
14 97 84.060445 19.599695 327.56373 461.67802 59.459279 27.24
15 97 88.471795 20.581595 317.92893 452.41611 59.6246 27.24

16 97 92.883145 21.685085 307.10903 440.91581 59.322946 27.24

17 97 97.294495 22.912575 295.07408 427.22862 58.59043 27.24

18 97 101.70584 24.266825 281.7795 411.32858 57.435304 27.24

19 97 106.1172 25.75099 267.23157 393.22286 55.857965 27.24

20 97 110.52855 27.368635 251.35939 372.90977 53.889094 27.24

21 97 114.9399 29.123795 234.14583 350.33896 51.513975 27.24

22 97 119.35125 31.02104 215.54374 325.41661 48.711897 27.24

Semester Project 36
 Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

23 97 123.7626 33.06554 195.49634 298.0932 45.486094 27.24

24 97 128.17395 35.263155 173.94468 268.24413 41.807454 27.24

25 97 132.5853 37.620535 150.82571 235.68066 37.620261 27.24

26 97 136.99665 40.14524 126.06741 200.2798 32.9019 27.24

27 97 141.408 42.84592 99.580258 161.79158 27.581254 27.24

28 97 145.81935 45.732505 71.272254 119.98025 21.594584 27.24

29 97 149.9964 48.642205 28.325352 80.687829 23.21479 27.24

30 97 152.14885 50.19536 -2.6432991 61.611965 27.315531 27.24

31 97 153.66495 51.3448 -24.999925 43.929505 19.50358 47.44

32 97 155.5 52.75039 -52.199649 25.5317 11.335424 47.44

33 97 156.54105 53.570545 -67.853855 11.828208 5.2514224 47.44

34 97 157.70105 54.5 -85.448495 1.5565853 0.6901087 27.24

B-4. Report for SLOPE/W Analysis sudden drawdown

File Information

Revision Number: 33

Date: 7/4/2017

Time: 10:22:45 PM

File Name: down streamreserviorfull.gsz

Directory: E:\PG DOcS\last project embankment\

Last Solved Date: 7/4/2017

Last Solved Time: 10:22:55 PM

Semester Project 37
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Project Settings

Length (L) Units: meters

Time (t) Units: Seconds

Force (F) Units: kN

Pressure (p) Units: kPa

Strength Units: kPa

Unit Weight of Water: 9.807 kN/m³

View: 2D

Analysis Settings

SLOPE/W Analysis sudden drawdown

Kind: SLOPE/W

Method: Morgenstern-Price

Settings

Apply Phreatic Correction: No

Side Function

Interslice force function option: Half-Sine

PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line

Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No

Slip Surface

Direction of movement: Right to Left

Use Passive Mode: No

Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit

Critical slip surfaces saved: 1

Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No

Tension Crack

Semester Project 38
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Tension Crack Option: (none)

FOS Distribution

FOS Calculation Option: Constant

Advanced

Number of Slices: 30

Optimization Tolerance: 0.01

Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m

Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000

Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007

Starting Optimization Points: 8

Ending Optimization Points: 16

Complete Passes per Insertion: 1

Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 °

Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °

Materials
Foundation Shell Core
Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 16.19kN/m³ Unit Weight: 19.12kN/m³ Unit Weight: 17.53kN/m³
Cohesion: 44.96 kPa Cohesion: 27.24 kPa Cohesion: 47.44 kPa
Phi: 25.63 ° Phi: 23.91 ° Phi: 23.94 °
Phi-B: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Phi-B: 0 °
Pore Water Pressure Pore Water Pressure Pore Water Pressure
Piezometric Line: 1 Piezometric Line: 1 Piezometric Line: 1

Slip Surface Entry and Exit

Left Projection: Range

Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (3.5, 15) m

Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (25.81261, 17.957021) m

Semester Project 39
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Left-Zone Increment: 4

Right Projection: Range

Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (146, 52.419355) m
Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (158.16667, 55) m
Right-Zone Increment: 4
Radius Increments: 4
Slip Surface Limits
Left Coordinate: (0, 15) m
Right Coordinate: (276, 15) m
Piezometric Lines
Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates Regions

X (m) Y (m) Material Points Area (m²)

0 15
Region 1 foundation 1,13,9,2,3,4 2216.25
15.5 15
Region 2 foundation 5,6,10,16,7,8 1620
148.025 53
Region 3 core 9,2,3,5,6,10,11,12 1980.75
155 53
Region 4 shell 13,14,15,16,10,11,12,9 3353
199 15

276 15

Point
X (m) Y (m)
Point 1 0 15
Point 2 140.5 15
Point 3 155 0
Point 4 0 0
Point 5 160.5 0
Point 6 175.5 15
Point 7 276 15
Point 8 276 0
Point 9 117 15
Point 10 199 15

Semester Project 40
 X (m) Y (m)

Point
Design1 and
0 Analysis
15 of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Point 11 160 54
Point 12 156 54
Point 13 15.5 15
Point 14 155 55
Point 15 161 55
Point 16 261 15
Critical Slip Surfaces

Slip Surface FOS Center (m) Radius (m) Entry (m) Exit (m)

1 122 1.332 (49.527, 188.197) 171.884 (158.167, 55) (25.8126, 17.957)

Slices of Slip Surface: 122

Base Frictional Cohesive

Slip PWP
X (m) Y (m) Normal Strength Strength
Surface (kPa)
Stress (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)

1 122 27.994975 17.68144 8.8394093 21.116569 5.4430519 27.24

2 122 32.359705 17.18678 25.96505 56.557759 13.563211 27.24

3 122 36.72443 16.804685 41.986452 90.038859 21.30393 27.24

4 122 41.089155 16.5344 56.910781 121.27237 28.534569 27.24

5 122 45.453885 16.375395 70.742843 149.98784 35.133096 27.24

6 122 49.818615 16.327365 83.487333 175.94887 40.99262 27.24

7 122 54.183345 16.390215 95.146245 198.97484 46.032181 27.24

8 122 58.548075 16.56407 105.71405 218.9371 50.197195 27.24

9 122 62.9128 16.849265 115.19116 235.7683 53.457615 27.24

10 122 67.277525 17.246355 123.57017 249.51033 55.835298 27.24

11 122 71.642255 17.75613 130.84493 260.17213 57.336933 27.24

Semester Project 41
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

12 122 76.006985 18.3796 137.00367 267.93599 58.048561 27.24

13 122 80.371715 19.118025 142.03598 272.90166 58.019014 27.24

14 122 84.736445 19.972925 145.92629 275.28947 57.352884 27.24

15 122 89.10117 20.94608 148.65622 275.3025 56.148355 27.24

16 122 93.465895 22.039565 150.20729 273.08201 54.476241 27.24

17 122 97.83063 23.255785 150.5526 268.86278 52.452559 27.24

18 122 102.19535 24.59748 149.66839 262.75059 50.134748 27.24

19 122 106.56005 26.06776 147.52388 254.87842 47.595401 27.24

20 122 110.9248 27.670165 144.0824 245.31948 44.883241 27.24

21 122 115.28955 29.4087 139.30692 234.11148 42.031399 27.24

22 122 119.65425 31.287895 133.15099 221.19669 39.034867 27.24

23 122 124.019 33.31287 125.56506 206.53248 35.89673 27.24

24 122 128.38375 35.489435 116.49476 189.9549 32.568393 27.24

25 122 132.74845 37.824185 105.87183 171.28124 28.999119 27.24

26 122 137.11315 40.32461 93.622719 150.24501 25.103369 27.24

27 122 141.4779 42.99929 79.665667 126.51314 20.769724 27.24

28 122 145.84265 45.858065 63.904165 99.683515 15.862697 27.24

29 122 150.40685 49.06176 38.622677 66.46377 12.343288 27.24

30 122 153.89435 51.6337 13.399437 28.195876 6.5692416 47.44

31 122 155.1587 52.60229 2.5562752 15.107229 5.5723031 47.44

32 122 155.6587 52.993835 5.5183803 8.2160375 3.647711 47.44

33 122 156.4645 53.63088 18.591151 -1.5764555 -0.69990601 47.44

Semester Project 42
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

B-5. Report for Steady-State Seepage

File Information
Revision Number: 28
Date: 7/5/2017
Time: 12:21:53 AM
File Name: seep w2.gsz
Directory: E:\PG DOcS\last project embankment\
Last Solved Date: 7/5/2017
Last Solved Time: 12:23:10 AM
Project Settings
Length (L) Units: meters
Time (t) Units: Seconds
Force (F) Units: kN
Pressure (p) Units: kPa
Mass (M) Units: g
Mass Flux Units: g/sec
Unit Weight of Water: 9.807 kN/m³
View: 2D
Analysis Settings
Steady-State Seepage
Kind: SEEP/W
Parent: SLOPE/W Analysis
Method: Steady-State
Settings
Include Air Flow: No
Control
Apply Runoff: Yes
Convergence
Convergence Type: Gauss Point K
Convergence Settings
Maximum Number of Iterations: 500
Tolerance: 0.01

Semester Project 43
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Maximum Change in K: 0.1

Rate of Change in K: 1.02
Minimum Change in K: 0.0001
Equation Solver: Direct
Potential Seepage Max # of Reviews: 10
Time
Starting Time: 0 sec
Duration: 0 sec
Ending Time: 0 sec
Materials
Foundation Shell Core
Model: Saturated / Model: Saturated / Model: Saturated /
Unsaturated Unsaturated Unsaturated
Hydraulic Hydraulic Hydraulic
K Function: foundation K-Function: shelll K-Function: core
Vol.WC.Function: Vol. WC. Function: shell Vol. WC. Function: core
Foundation K-Ratio: 1 K-Ratio: 1
K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° K-Direction: 0 °
K-Direction: 0 °
Boundary Conditions
Zero Pressure
Type: Pressure Head 0
Potential Seepage Face
Review: true
Type: Total Flux (Q) 0
Reservoir head- 53m
Type: Head (H) 53
Flux Sections
Flux Section 1
Coordinates
Coordinate: (156.95876, -15.515464) m
Coordinate: (158.81443, 66.340206) m

Semester Project 44
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

K Functions
Foundation
Model: Data Point Function
Function: X-Conductivity vs. Pore-Water Pressure
Curve Fit to Data: 100 %
Segment Curvature: 100 %
K-Saturation: 0.0001412
Data Points: Matric Suction (kPa), X-Conductivity (m/sec)
Data Point: (0.01, 0.0001412)
Data Point: (0.018329807, 0.00014111341)
Data Point: (0.033598183, 0.0001409345)
Data Point: (0.061584821, 0.00014064611)
Data Point: (0.11288379, 0.0001401765)
Data Point: (0.20691381, 0.00013939451) 0.37
Data Point: (926902, 0.00013808092)
Data Point: (0.6951928, 0.00013587243)
Data Point: (1.274275, 0.00013215006)
Data Point: (2.3357215, 0.00012598435)
Data Point: (4.2813324, 0.00011598917)
Data Point: (7.8475997, 0.00010048689)
Data Point: (14.384499, 7.8372335e-005)
Data Point: (26.366509, 5.101068e-005)
Data Point: (48.329302, 2.4754592e-005)
Data Point: (88.586679, 8.0092223e-006)
Data Point: (162.37767, 1.7203132e-006)
Data Point: (297.63514, 2.8338338e-007)
Data Point: (545.55948, 4.0109106e-008)
Data Point: (1000, 3.6893249e-009)
Estimation Properties
Volume Water Content Function: foundation
Hydraulic K Sat: 0.0001412 m/sec
Hyd. K-Function Estimation Method: Fredlund-Xing Function
Maximum: 1000
Semester Project 46
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Minimum: 0.01
Num. Points: 20
Residual Water Content: 0.3 m³/m³
Core
Model: Data Point Function
Function: X-Conductivity vs. Pore-Water Pressure
Curve Fit to Data: 100 %
Segment Curvature: 100 %
K-Saturation: 0.000106
Data Points: Matric Suction (kPa), X-Conductivity (m/sec)
Data Point: (0.01, 0.000106)
Data Point: (0.018329807, 0.000105935)
Data Point: (0.033598183, 0.00010580068)
Data Point: (0.061584821, 0.00010558418)
Data Point: (0.11288379, 0.00010523164)
Data Point: (0.20691381, 0.00010464459)
Data Point: (0.37926902, 0.00010365847)
Data Point: (0.6951928, 0.00010200055)
Data Point: (1.274275, 9.9206135e-005)
Data Point: (2.3357215, 9.4577487e-005)
Data Point: (4.2813324, 8.707402e-005)
Date point: (26.366509, 3.8294137e-005)
Data Point: (48.329302, 1.8583474e-005)
Data Point: (88.586679, 6.0125883e-006)
Data Point: (162.37767, 1.291453e-006)
Data Point: (297.63514, 2.1273816e-007)
Data Point: (545.55948, 3.0110227e-008)
Data Point: (7.8475997, 7.5436334e-005)
Data Point: (14.384499, 5.8834758e-005)
Data Point
Data Point: (1000, 2.769606e-009)
Estimation Properties
Volume Water Content Function: core

Semester Project 47
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Hydraulic K Sat: 0.000106 m/sec

Hyd. K-Function Estimation Method: Fredlund-Xing Function
Maximum: 1000
Minimum: 0.01
Num. Points: 20
Residual Water Content: 0.4 m³/m³
Shell
Model: Data Point Function
Function: X-Conductivity vs. Pore-Water Pressure
Curve Fit to Data: 100 %
Segment Curvature: 100 %
K-Saturation: 0.000393
Data Points: Matric Suction (kPa), X-Conductivity (m/sec)
Data Point: (0.01, 0.000393)
Data Point: (0.018329807, 0.00039252564)
Data Point: (0.033598183, 0.00039133697)
Data Point: (0.061584821, 0.0003890127)
Data Point: (0.11288379, 0.00038457249)
Data Point: (0.20691381, 0.00037614671)
Data Point: (0.37926902, 0.00036054293)
Data Point: (0.6951928, 0.00033276639)
Data Point: (1.274275, 0.00028593024)
Data Point: (2.3357215, 0.00021522493)
Data Point: (4.2813324, 0.00012719883)
Data Point: (7.8475997, 4.9851411e-005)
Data Point: 1(4.384499, 1.1158818e-005)
Data Point: (26.366509, 1.5005855e-006)
Data Point: (48.329302, 1.5778544e-007)
Data Point: (88.586679, 1.6751087e-008)
Data Point: (162.37767, 1.9921173e-009)
Data Point: (297.63514, 2.6622867e-010)
Data Point: (545.55948, 3.6046857e-011)
Data Point: (1000, 3.0037548e-012)

Semester Project 48
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Estimation Properties
Volume Water Content Function: shell
Hydraulic K Sat: 0.000393 m/sec
Hyd. K-Function Estimation Method: Fredlund-Xing Function
Maximum: 1000
Minimum: 0.01
Num. Points: 20
Residual Water Content: 0.3 m³/m³
Vol. Water Content Functions
Foundation
Model: Data Point Function
Function: Vol. Water Content vs. Pore-Water Pressure
Curve Fit to Data: 100 %
Segment Curvature: 100 %
Mv: 0 /kPa
Porosity: 0.29999961
Data Points: Matric Suction (kPa), Vol. Water Content (m³/m³)
Data Point: (0.01, 0.29999961)
Data Point: (0.018329807, 0.29999916)
Data Point: (0.033598183, 0.29999812)
Data Point: (0.061584821, 0.29999573)
Data Point: (0.11288379, 0.29999014)
Data Point: (0.20691381, 0.2999769)
Data Point: (0.37926902, 0.29994529)
Data Point: (0.6951928, 0.29986923)
Data Point: (1.274275, 0.29968531)
Data Point: (2.3357215, 0.2992395)
Data Point: (4.2813324, 0.29816048)
Data Point: (7.8475997, 0.29557379)
Data Point: (14.384499, 0.28953871)
Data Point: (26.366509, 0.27634231)
Data Point: (48.329302, 0.25115239)
Data Point: (88.586679, 0.21310733)
Semester Project 49
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Data Point: (162.37767, 0.17060408)

Data Point: (297.63514, 0.13415717)
Data Point: (545.55948, 0.10701196)
Data Point: (1000, 0.087233461)
Estimation Properties
Vol. WC Estimation Method: Sample functions
Sample Material: Clay
Saturated Water Content: 0.3 m³/m³
Liquid Limit: 0 %
Diameter at 10% passing: 0
Diameter at 60% passing: 0
Maximum: 1000
Minimum: 0.01
Num. Points: 20
Core
Model: Data Point Function
Function: Vol. Water Content vs. Pore-Water Pressure
Curve Fit to Data: 100 %
Segment Curvature: 100 %
Mv: 0 /kPa
Porosity: 0.39999949
Data Points: Matric Suction (kPa), Vol. Water Content (m³/m³)
Data Point: (0.01, 0.39999949)
Data Point: (0.018329807, 0.39999888)
Data Point: (0.033598183, 0.39999749)
Data Point: (0.061584821, 0.3999943)
Data Point: (0.11288379, 0.39998685)
Data Point: (0.20691381, 0.3999692)
Data Point: (0.37926902, 0.39992705)
Data Point: (0.6951928, 0.39982564)
Data Point: (1.274275, 0.39958042)
Data Point: (2.3357215, 0.398986)
Data Point: (4.2813324, 0.39754731)

Semester Project 50
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Data Point: (7.8475997, 0.39409838)

Data Point: (14.384499, 0.38605161)
Data Point: (26.366509, 0.36845642)
Data Point: (48.329302, 0.33486985)
Data Point: (88.586679, 0.2841431)
Data Point: (162.37767, 0.22747211)
Data Point: (297.63514, 0.17887623)
Data Point: (545.55948, 0.14268261)
Data Point: (1000, 0.11631128)
Estimation Properties
Vol. WC Estimation Method: Sample functions
Sample Material: Clay
Saturated Water Content: 0.4 m³/m³
Liquid Limit: 0 %
Diameter at 10% passing: 0
Diameter at 60% passing: 0
Maximum: 1000
Minimum: 0.01
Num. Points: 20
Shell
Model: Data Point Function
Function: Vol. Water Content vs. Pore-Water Pressure
Curve Fit to Data: 100 %
Segment Curvature: 100 %
Mv: 0 /kPa
Porosity: 0.29999621
Data Points: Matric Suction (kPa), Vol. Water Content (m³/m³)
Data Point: (0.01, 0.29999621)
Data Point: (0.018329807, 0.29999025)
Data Point: (0.033598183, 0.29997486)
Data Point: (0.061584821, 0.29993496)
Data Point: (0.11288379, 0.29983146)
Data Point: (0.20691381, 0.29956292)

Semester Project 51
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Data Point: (0.37926902, 0.29886732)

Data Point: (0.6951928, 0.29707538)
Data Point: (1.274275, 0.29252873)
Data Point: (2.3357215, 0.28143152)
Data Point: (4.2813324, 0.25674265)
Data Point: (7.8475997, 0.21156936)
Data Point: (14.384499, 0.15208505)
Data Point: (26.366509, 0.099183781)
Data Point: (48.329302, 0.06424964)
Data Point: (88.586679, 0.043755901)
Data Point: (162.37767, 0.031610992)
Data Point: (297.63514, 0.023966697)
Data Point: (545.55948, 0.018806995)
Data Point: (1000, 0.015081481)
Estimation Properties
Vol. WC Estimation Method: Sample functions
Sample Material: Silty Sand
Saturated Water Content: 0.3 m³/m³
Liquid Limit: 0 %
Diameter at 10% passing: 0
Diameter at 60% passing: 0
Maximum: 1000
Minimum: 0.01
Num. Points: 20
Regions
Material Points Area (m²)
Region 1 foundation 1,13,9,2,3,4 2216.25
Region 2 foundation 5,6,10,16,7,8 1620
Region 3 core 9,2,3,5,6,10,11,12 1980.75
Region 4 shell 13,17,14,15,16,10,11,12,9 3353
Lines
Start Point End Point Hydraulic Boundary

Semester Project 52
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Line 1 2 3
Line 2 3 4
Line 3 4 1
Line 4 5 6
Line 5 7 8
Line 6 8 5
Line 7 9 2
Line 8 6 10
Line 9 3 5
Line 10 10 11
Line 11 11 12
Line 12 12 9
Line 13 1 13
Line 14 13 9
Line 15 10 16
Line 16 16 7
Line 17 14 15
Line 18 15 16 Potential Seepage Face
Line 19 13 17 reserviour head- 53m
Line 20 17 14
Points
X (m) Y (m) Hydraulic Boundary
Point 1 0 15
Point 2 140.5 15
Point 3 155 0
Point 4 0 0
Point 5 160.5 0
Point 6 175.5 15
Point 7 276 15

Semester Project 53
Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams CENG 6210 2009 E.C

Point 8 276 0
Point 9 117 15
Point 10 199 15
Point 11 160 54
Point 12 156 54
Point 13 15.5 15
Point 14 155 55
Point 15 161 55
Point 16 261 15 Zero Pressure
Point 17 147.5 52.849462

Semester Project 54