4.6 Article

Experimental and Theoretical Explanations for the Initial Difference in the Hydraulic Head in Aquitards

Journal

WATER
Volume 14, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w14193042

Keywords

model test; groundwater buoyancy; initial head difference; initial hydraulic gradient; aquitard

Funding

  1. Open Research Fund Program the Beijing Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Engineering for Deep Foundation Pit of Urban Rail Transit [202103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study discovered an initial difference in hydraulic head in aquitards, causing seepage beyond a certain threshold. Analysis of test data revealed a deviation from Darcy's law as the theoretical basis for this phenomenon. The experimental results validated the theoretical explanation for the observed behavior.
Accurate estimation of the buoyancy forces exerted on underground structures is a problem in geotechnical engineering that directly impacts the construction safety and cost of these structures. Therefore, studying the buoyancy resistance of underground structures has great scientific and practical value. In this study, an initial difference in the hydraulic head, Delta h(0), was discovered to be present in aquitards through analysis of water-level data collected from the observation of real-world structures and in laboratory control tests. That is, seepage occurs beyond a threshold Delta h(0). Analysis of test data reveals that a deviation from Darcy's law is the theoretical basis for Delta h(0) and that Delta h(0) equals the initial hydraulic gradient multiplied by the length of the seepage path. The general consistency between the experimentally measured and theoretically calculated values of Delta h(0) validates the theoretical explanation for Delta h(0). The results of this study provide a basis for scientifically calculating the buoyancy resistance required for the construction of underground structures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available