4.6 Article

Prediction of Earth Dam Seepage Using a Transient Thermal Finite Element Model

期刊

WATER
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w15071423

关键词

seepage; earth dam; Darcy flow; finite element

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With many USDA-NRCS-sponsored earthen dams exceeding their service life, seepage has become a common concern due to its potential to cause internal erosion or stability issues. Existing numerical models for estimating seepage are either computationally expensive or assume steady-state conditions. This study proposes the use of a transient thermal finite element analysis (FEA) model as an analogy to predict transient seepage, and its accuracy is verified by comparing it with a transient analytical model. A sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the time aspect of seepage flow is dependent on the medium (soil) rather than the fluid properties.
With the majority of the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS)-sponsored earthen dams exceeding their planned service life, seepage is a concern since it is a common failure mechanism among earthen dams as a whole. Seepage occurs when water penetrates a hydraulic barrier to create open pathways, channels, or piping leading to internal erosion or stability issues due to increased effective stress. Due to the complex geometries of these hydraulic structures, time-dependent boundary conditions, and complicated failure analyses, numerical approaches have been used to estimate seepage. However, the existing numerical models are either computationally expensive or assume steady-state conditions. This work develops the framework for using a transient thermal finite element analysis (FEA) model as an analogy to predict transient seepage. The FEA model is compared to a transient analytical model to verify the approach. A sensitivity analysis of the FEA model shows that the time aspect of seepage flow is dependent on the medium, i.e., soil, and not on the fluid properties.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据