See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316633653

Effect of Intermediate Sheet Piles in Non-Homogenous Soil on Seepage

Properties Under Hydraulic Structure Using SEEP/W Program

Article in Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences · January 2016

DOI: 10.25130/tjes.v23i3.646

CITATIONS READS

10 769

1 author:

Asmaa Abdul Jabbar Jamel

Tikrit University
23 PUBLICATIONS 85 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Asmaa Abdul Jabbar Jamel on 06 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90 79

ISSN: 1813-162X
Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences
available online at: http://www.tj-es.com

Effect of Intermediate Sheet Piles in Non-Homogenous Soil on Seepage

Properties Under Hydraulic Structure Using SEEP/W Program

Asmaa Abdul Jabbar Jamel

Civil Engineering Department, Tikrit University, Salahaldeen, Iraq
E-Mail: [email protected]

Abstract
The seepage through a permeable soil under hydraulic structure exerts uplift pressure and
may carry soil particles there by leads to piping. This paper concerns to study the effect of using
intermediate sheet pile under the apron of hydraulic structure besides the upstream and
downstream piles rest on non-homogeneous soil layer. This configuration aim to show how it affect
the uplift pressure, exit gradient and seepage discharge at toe of hydraulic structure by using
computer program SEEP/W Package.
From the software test carried out two cases, first case using two sheet pile one at the
upstream and the other at the downstream, then compare its results with the second case when the
sheet pile at upstream, downstream and intermediate pile introduced Also for each run the quantity
of uplift pressure, exit gradient and discharge at toe of hydraulic structure were determined to
develop an empirical equations. Also, the results have been verify with artificial neural network
(ANN), this verification shown good agreement between them.
Keywords: Uplift pressure, Exit gradient, Discharge, SEEP/W, ANN, Non-homogenous soil.

‫تأثير استخدام ركيزة وسطية في تربة غير متجانسة على خصائص التسرب تحت المنشأ الهيدروليكي باستخدام‬
SEEP/W ‫البرنامج الحاسوبي‬
‫الخالصة‬
‫تسرب المٌاه فً التربة النفاذة تحت المنشأ الهٌدرولٌكً ٌولد ضغط اصعاد والذي ٌؤدي الى حمل دقائق التربة والذي ٌؤدي‬
ً‫ هذا البحث ٌهدف لدراسة تأثٌر استخدام ركٌزة فً المنتصف باإلضافة الى الركٌزتٌن اللتٌن هما ف‬.‫الى حدوث ظاهرة االنبوبٌة‬
‫مقدم ومؤخر المنشأ وذلك فً تربة غٌر متجانسة على قٌم ضغط االصعاد وتدرج المخرج والتصرٌف الخارج عند مؤخر المنشأ‬
.SEEP/W ‫الهٌدرولٌكً باستخدام برنامج‬
ً‫ الحالة االولى كانت باستخدام ركٌزتٌن احدهما فً المقدم واالخرى ف‬،‫باستخدام البرنامج تم اجراء حالتٌن من التحلٌل‬
‫ ثم مقارنتها مع الحالة الثانٌة الناتجة عن استخدام ثالث ركائز (فً مقدم ومؤخر ووسط) المنشأ على خصائص‬،‫مؤخر المنشأ‬
‫ لكل تجربة تم قٌاس مقدار ضغط االصعاد وتدرج المخرج والتصرٌف عند مؤخر المنشأ الهٌدرولٌكً وبذلك تم‬.‫التسرب‬
‫ ومن خاللها‬،‫ كذلك تم التحقق من نتائج البرنامج باستخدام الشبكة العصبٌة الصناعٌة‬.‫استخراج معادالت رٌاضٌة إلٌجاد هذه القٌم‬
.‫اوجد ان مقدار التقارب بالنتائج كان بشكل كبٌر‬

.‫ تربة غٌر متجانسة‬،‫ الشبكة العصبٌة االصطناعٌة‬،SEEP/W ،‫ التصرٌف‬،‫ تدرج المخرج‬،‫ ضغط االصعاد‬:‫الدالة الكلمات‬
Nomenclature B = Distance between two sheet pile (L).
= Angle of last sheet pile. d1 = Depth of first sheet pile (L).
= Angle of intermediate sheet pile. d2 = Depth of second sheet pile (L).
80 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90

d3 = Depth of intermediate sheet pile (L). Baghalian and Nazari predicted the uplift
H = Upstream head (L). pressure under the diversion dam using
i= Exit gradient (L/L). artificial neural network[7].
kx = Hydraulic conductivity of soil in X Jain studied the finite depth seepage
direction (L/T). below flat overall with end cutoffs and a
ky = Hydraulic conductivity of soil in Y downstream step by way of design curves for
direction (L/T). uplift pressure at key points[8].
P= Uplift pressure head (L). Ijam obtained an analytical solution for
3
q = Discharge (L /T/L). seepage flow below a dam with inclined cutoff
= Angle of first sheet pile. set anywhere along the base of the dam. The
derivative equations have been used for
Introduction calculation of hydraulic gradient along the
The stability of earth structures and downstream bed and for the pressure at key
natural deposits is dependent not only upon points[9].
the static properties of the soil but also the Azizi et al. studied the Weep Hole and
forces produced by water as it seeps through Cut-off Effect in Decreasing of Uplift Pressure
the pores. As an aid to engineer judgment in (Case Study: Yusefk and Mahabad Diversion
the design of earth structures or the Dam) by simulation it in SEEP/W
stabilization of earth deposits, the engineer software[01].
should be talented to estimate through Mansuri et al. studied the effect of
analyses, the magnitude of seepage forces location and angle of cutoff Wall on uplift
and pressures and the quantities of water pressure in change dam by compares the
flowing through the soil. adeptness of cutoff wall for some design
Farouk and Smith, studied the design of parameters in an supposed diversion dam
hydraulic structures with two intermediate cross-section[00].
filters located anywhere between two end Khalili and Amiri studied the effects of
cutoffs of a flat floor[1]. blanket, drains and cutoff wall on reducing
Mohsen, studied seepage with nonlinear uplift pressure, exit gradient, and seepage
permeability by least square FEM[2]. under hydraulic structures for different
Al-Delewy et al., studied the optimum inclined angles of cutoff walls[02].
design of control devices for safe seepage Kramer studied piping in transient
under hydraulic structures by finite-element conditions analysis of time-dependent erosion
method which used to evaluate seepage under dikes[01].
through porous media below hydraulic Abbood et al. studied the optimum
structures with blanket, filter trench as dimensions of hydraulic structures foundation
seepage control devices[3]. and protections using combined genetic
Arslan and Mohammad used algorithm using artificial Neural Network, also
investigational for pizometric head under the Geo-studios software used to analyze
hydraulic structures for upstream, 1200 different cases[04].
intermediate and downstream sheet piles Alnealy and Alghazali, (2015), studied
inclination[4]. seepage under hydraulic structures using
Alsenousi and Mohamed studied the slide program then they had present a
effects of soil foundation features and inclined distribution curves of uplift pressure along the
cutoffs on seepage beneath hydraulic floor as well as the distribution of exit gradient
structures Using conformal analysis, electrical at downstream[15].
analog models empirical formulas, In this study and in order to provide the
experimental works using physical as well as required safety for both piping and uplift
numerical models[5]. pressure due to exit gradient, the designers
Kumar studied experimentally different usually provide sheet pile at the upstream
forms of seepage stream under the sheet pile and the downstream sides of the hydraulic
through model perform seepage analysis of structures foundation for non-homogenously
bulkheads[6]. the intermediate sheet pile being necessary.
By using SEEP/W, and depends on software
program SPSS-19 Statistics, equations will
 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90 81

provide information on the amount uplift Design Variables

pressure head, exit gradient and seepage The variation of uplift pressure, exit
discharge at toe of hydraulics structure then gradient and discharge under the hydraulic
verify these results by using an artificial structure, depends on the same parameter
neural network (ANN). influences these are:

Procedure of Design Setup

For the purpose of running SEEP/W ( ) ( )………..(1)
model tests, the two cases carried out, the
first case using two sheet pile one on the
upstream and the other on downstream, while In order to develop an empirical
in the second case using three sheet pile at equations to determine the uplift pressure,
upstream, downstream and intermediate, for exit gradient and discharge at the toe of
each case four different values for each hydraulic structure the above equations
variable, were used these are angle of simplest as shown below without taking the
Upstream sheet pile ( = ), effect of some variables that was widely
angel of downstream sheet pile studied by pervious researcher:
( = ), angel of
intermediate sheet pile ( =
( ) ( )……………………….. (2)
, soil permeability ratio
(Kx/Ky= 0.1, 0.5, 2 and 5), with constant
upstream head 5m and distance between Figure (2) illustrates the possible
sheet piles 25m, depth of first, last and variables that can be affect the uplift
intermediate sheet piles are (d1=3.5m), pressure, exit gradient and discharge at toe
(d2=2.5m), (d3=3m) respectively. so the of hydraulic structure.
overall runs were carried out for the first case
64 runs, and for second case 255 runs. For
each run determine the amount of the uplift
pressure head, exit gradient and discharge at
toe of hydraulic structure. Figure (1) shows
designation for first and second cases.

Fig. 2a. The general section study

.
Fig. 1. Tests for first and second group
82 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90

Fig. 2b. The general section of three sheet pile in non-homogenous soil layer

Results and Discussion angle ( ) at (kx/ky=5), while the

minimum uplift pressure head when used
Relationship Between the Variables intermediate sheet pile with angle ( ) at
without Using Intermediate Sheet Pile (kx/ky=0.1).
Using SEEP/W data, the following Beta =0 Beta=90 Beta=10
relations between the variables for cases Beta=20 Beta=30
without intermediate sheet pile comparing
with cases having three sheet piles as shown R² = 1
Uplift Pressure Head (m)

in the left side of the Equation (2) with the

variables in the right side of the above
equations were obtained.
Figure (3) shows the relationship
between the angle of last sheet pile with the R² = 0.9983
R² = 0.9981
uplift pressure head (P) at toe of hydraulic R² = 0.9983
with boundary conditions of constant angle of
first sheet pile (θ), constant depth of all piles R² = 0.9978
under taken, with constant permeability ratio
(Kx/Ky). From this figure it can be shown the
0 20 40 60 80 100
high effect of using intermediate sheet pile on α
the magnitude of the uplift pressure head.
Also it shown that (P) decreases with Fig.3. Relationship between ( ) and uplift
increasing (α) but when reach to (α=90°) the pressure head at ( , Kx/Ky=0.1
uplift pressure increase. Also by using
intermediate sheet pile with ( ) Figure (4) shows the relationship between
beside the first and last sheet piles the uplift the angle of last sheet pile with the exit
pressure head decreases by approximately gradient at toe of hydraulic structure (i) with
8%, 5%, 2.8% and 2.2% for permeability ratio boundary conditions of constant angle of first
(Kx/Ky) 0.1, 0.5, 2 and 5 respectively. But sheet pile (θ), constant depth of all piles
when use intermediate sheet pile with under taken, with constant permeability ratio
( ) the uplift pressure head decreases (Kx/Ky). From this figure it can be shown that
by approximately 7.5%, 4.8%, 3% and 2.3% (i) increases with increasing (α) but when
for permeability ratio (Kx/Ky) 0.1, 0.5, 2 and 5 reach to (α=90°) the exit gradient decrease,
respectively, and when use intermediate also when use intermediate sheet pile with
sheet pile with ( ) the uplift pressure ( ) beside the first and last
head decreases by approximately 7%, 4.7%, sheet piles the exit gradient decreases by
3.1% and 2.5% for permeability ratio (Kx/Ky) approximately 4.7% for permeability ratio
0.1, 0.5, 2 and 5 respectively. So from above (Kx/Ky=0.1, but for permeability ratio
results the maximum uplift pressure head (Kx/Ky=0.5) decreases about 3%, 5%, 7%
when used intermediate sheet pile with and 9% when (
respectively, also for permeability ratio
 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90 83

(Kx/Ky=2) was decreases about 3%, 7%, maximum discharge when used last sheet
11% and 13% when ( pile with angle ( ) at (kx/ky=5), while
respectively, and for permeability ratio the minimum discharge when used last sheet
(Kx/Ky=5) decreases about 2%, 10%, 11% pile with angle ( ) at (kx/ky=0.5) with
and 17% when ( . So any intermediate sheet pile angle.
from above the maximum exit gradient is by
Beta =0 Beta=90 Beta=10
using any intermediate angle with last sheet Beta=20 Beta=30
pile at angle ( ) for (kx/ky=5), while the
minimum exit gradient when use any
intermediate angle with last sheet pile at R² = 1

Discharge q(m3/sec/m)
angle ( ) for (kx/ky=5).
R² = 1

Beta =0 Beta=90 Beta=10 R² = 1

Beta=20 Beta=30

R² = 1
R² = 1R² = 1
R² = 1
Exit Gradient

R² = 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
α

Fig. 5. Relationship between ( ) and

discharge at ( , Kx/Ky=0.1
R² = 1
R² = 1
Relationship Between the Variables with
0 20 40 60 80 100
α Using Intermediate Sheet Pile
From the results SEEP/W, the following
Fig. 4. Relationship between ( ) and exit
relations between (P, q, i) were obtained.
gradient at ( , Kx/Ky=0.1
Figure (6) shows the relationship between the
Figure (5) shows the relationship between angle of last sheet pile with the uplift pressure
the angle of last sheet pile with the discharge head (P) at toe of hydraulic structure for
exit at toe of hydraulic structure (q) with some models of three sheet piles in non-
boundary conditions of constant angle of first homogenous soil layer. The boundary
sheet pile (θ), depth of first, intermediate conditions are constant angle of first and
constant depth of all piles under taken, with intermediate sheet pile ( ), constant depth
constant permeability ratio (Kx/Ky). From this of all sheet piles under taken, four different
figure it can be shown that (q) increases with ratio of permeability (Kx/Ky) above used.
increasing (α) but when reach to (α=90°) the From this figure it can be shown that the uplift
discharge decrease, so when use pressure head increases with increasing ( )
intermediate sheet pile with but when reach to ( ) the uplift
( ) beside the first and last pressure decrease. The uplift pressure head
sheet piles, the discharge decreases by decreases by approximately 0.95% when
approximately 4.8% for permeability ratio decreases the angle ( ) to ( ),
(Kx/Ky=0.1), also for permeability ratio and decreases by approximately 0.92% when
(Kx/Ky=0.5) decreases about 5%, 6%, 9% decreases the angle ( ) to ( ),
and 3% when ( decreases by approximately 0.85% when
respectively, for permeability ratio (Kx/Ky=2) decreases the angle ( ) to ( ).
decreases about 4% when ( and Also, the figure show that the uplift pressure
increases 2.5% when ( for head decreases with increasing the soil
permeability ratio (Kx/Ky=5) decreases about permeability ratio which decrease
2.2% when ( , and increases 2.2%, approximate about 20.5% when increases the
6.7% and 1.5% at ( permeability ratio from 0.1 to 0.5, decrease
respectively. So from above results the approximate about 30% when increases the
84 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90

permeability ratio from 0.5 to 2, decrease decreases the angle ( ) to ( ),

approximate about 25% when increases the and increases by approximately 0.35% when
permeability ratio from 2 to 5. decreases the angle ( ) to (β ),
increases by approximately 0.4% when
Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5 decreases the angle ( ) to ( ).
Kx/Ky=2 Kx/Ky=5
Also, the figure show that the uplift pressure
head decreases with increasing the soil
permeability ratio.
Uplift Pressure Head (m)

R² = 1

Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5
R² = 0.9326

Uplift Pressure Head (m)

R² = 0.9863
R² = 0.9651

R² = 0.9707 R² = 0.9839

0 20 40 60 80 100
α R² = 0.9841

Fig. 6. Relationship between ( ) and uplift R² = 0.9866

pressure head at (
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure (7) shows the relationship θ
between the angle of first sheet pile with the
uplift pressure head (P) at toe of hydraulic Fig. 7. Relationship between ( ) and uplift
structure. The boundary conditions of pressure head at (
constant angle of last and intermediate sheet
pile ( ), constant depth of all piles under
taken, with four different ratio of permeability Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5
(Kx/Ky) have used. From this figure it can be
shown that the uplift pressure head
Uplift Pressure Head (m)

decreases with increasing ( ) but when reach R² = 0.993

to ( ) the uplift pressure increase. The
uplift pressure head decreases by
R² = 0.9999
approximately 2% when decreases the angle
( ) to ( ), and decreases by
approximately 2.3% when decreases the R² = 0.9419
angle ( ) to ( ), decreases by R² = 0.9632
approximately 3% when decreases the angle
( ) to ( ).
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure (8) shows the relationship β
between the angle of intermediate sheet pile
with the uplift pressure head (P) at toe of Fig. 8. Relationship between ( ) and uplift
hydraulic structure for some models of three pressure head at (
sheet piles in non-homogenous soil layer with
boundary conditions of constant angle of first Figure (9) shows the relationship
and last sheet pile ( ) constant depth of all between the angle of last sheet pile with the
piles under taken, four different ratio of exit gradient at toe of hydraulic structure (i).
permeability (Kx/Ky) have used. From this The boundary conditions are constant angle
figure it can be shown the low effect of ( ), of first and intermediate sheet pile ( ),
and the uplift pressure head increases with constant depth of all piles under taken, four
increasing ( ), The uplift pressure head different ratio of permeability (Kx/Ky) have
increases by approximately 0.38% when used. From this figure it can be shown that
 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90 85

the exit gradient increases with increasing ( ) Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5

but when reach to ( ) the exit gradient
decrease. The exit gradient increases by
approximately 7.9% when decreases the

Exit Gradient
R² = 0.9867
angle ( ) to ( ), and increases by
approximately 6.8% when decreases the
R² = 0.9841
angle ( ) to ( ), increases by
approximately 8.2% when decreases the R² = 0.984
R² = 0.9863
angle ( ) to ( ). Also, the figure
show that the exit gradient decreases with
increasing the soil permeability ratio which 0 20 40 60 80 100
θ
decrease approximate about 30% when
increases the permeability ratio from 0.1 to Fig. 10. Relationship between ( ) and exit
0.5, decrease approximate about 34% when gradient at (
increases the permeability ratio from 0.5 to 2,
decrease approximate about 26% when Figure (11) shows the relationship
increases the permeability ratio from 2 to 5. between the angle of intermediate sheet pile
with the exit gradient at toe of hydraulic
Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5 structure (i). The boundary conditions are
constant angle of first and last sheet pile
R² = 1
( ), constant depth of all piles under taken,
four different ratio of permeability (Kx/Ky).
Exit Gradient

R² = 0.9814 From this figure it can be shown the low

effect of ( ). The exit gradient decreases with
R² = 0.9766 increasing ( ), exit gradient increases by
approximately 0.05% when decreases the
R² = 0.9824 angle ( ) to ( ), and increases by
approximately 0.047% when decreases the
angle ( ) to ( ), increases by
0 20 40 60 80 100 approximately 0.067% when decreases the
α
angle ( ) to ( ). Also, the figure
Fig. 9. Relationship between ( ) and exit show that the exit gradient decreases with
gradient at ( increasing the soil permeability ratio.

Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5
Figure (10) shows the relationship
between the angle of first sheet pile with the
exit gradient at toe of hydraulic structure (i).
Exit Gradient

The boundary conditions are constant angle

R² = 0.9774
of last and intermediate sheet pile ( ),
constant depth of all sheet piles under taken,
four different ratio of permeability (Kx/Ky) R² = 0.9932
R² = 0.9734
have used. From this figure it can be shown R² = 0.9818
that the exit gradient decreases with
increasing ( ) but when reach to ( ) the
exit gradient increase. The exit gradient 0 20 40 60 80 100
β
decreases by approximately 2% when
decreases the angle ( ) to ( ), Fig. 11. Relationship between ( ) and exit
and decreases by approximately 2.4% when gradient at (
decreases the angle ( ) to ( ),
decreases by approximately 3.1% when Figure (12) shows the relationship
decreases the angle ( ) to ( ). between the angle of last sheet pile with the
discharge seepage at toe of hydraulic
structure (q). The boundary conditions are
86 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90

constant angle of first and intermediate sheet ( ) to ( ). Also shown that the
pile ( ), constant depth of all piles under discharge decreases with decreasing soil
taken, four different ratio permeability (Kx/Ky) permeability ratio.
have used. From this figure it can be shown
that the discharge increases with increasing Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5
( ) but when reach to ( ) the discharge
decrease. Discharge increases by

Discharge q (m3/sec/m)
approximately 7.4% when decreases the R² = 0.9861
angle ( ) to ( ), and increases by
approximately 7.7% when decreases the
angle ( ) to ( ), increases by R² = 0.9838
approximately 5.2% when decreases the
angle ( ) to ( ). Also, the figure R² = 0.984
show that the seepage discharge decreases R² = 0.9867
with decreasing the soil permeability ratio
0 20 40 60 80 100
which increase approximate about 72% when θ
increases the permeability ratio from 0.1 to
0.5, increase approximate about 62% when Fig. 13. Relationship between ( ) and
increases the permeability ratio from 0.5 to 2, discharge at (
increase approximate about 42% when
increases the permeability ratio from 2 to 5. Figure (14) shows the relationship
between the angle of intermediate sheet pile
Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5 with the seepage discharge at toe of
hydraulic structure (q). The boundary
R² = 0.9803 conditions are constant angle of first and last
Discharge q (m3/sec/m)

sheet pile ( ), constant depth of all piles

under taken, four different ratio of
permeability (Kx/Ky) have used. From this
R² = 0.9935
figure it can be shown the low effect of ( ),
and the discharge increases with increasing
R² = 0.9875 ( ). Discharge increases by approximately
R² = 1 0.05% when decreases the angle ( ) to
( ), and increases by approximately
0 20 40
α
60 80 100 0.046% when decreases the angle ( )
to ( ), increases by approximately
Fig. 12. Relationship between ( ) and 0.058% when decreases the angle ( )
discharge at ( to ( ).

Figure (13) shows the relationship between Kx/Ky=0.1 Kx/Ky=0.5 Kx/Ky=2 Kx/Ky=5
the angle of first sheet pile with the seepage
discharge at toe of hydraulic structure (q).
Discharge q (m3/sec/m)

The boundary conditions of constant angle of R² = 0.9717

last and intermediate sheet pile ( ),
constant depth of all piles under taken, four
different ratio of permeability (Kx/Ky) have R² = 0.9631
used. From this figure it can be shown that
the discharge decreases with increasing ( ) R² = 0.9807
but when reach to ( ) the discharge R² = 0.9715
increase. Discharge decreases by 0 20 40 60 80 100
approximately 2% when decreases the angle β
( ) to ( ), and decreases by
Fig. 14. Relationship between (β) and
approximately 2.4% when decreases the
discharge at (θ=90°,α=90°)
angle ( ) to ( ), decreases by
approximately 3% when decreases the angle
 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90 87

Exit gradient calculated from SEEP/W

Equations for the Uplift Pressure
Head, Exit Gradient and Discharge at
Toe of the structure
By substituting approximately two
thirds of the SEEP/W results for the cases
using three sheet piles in software program
SPSS-19 Statistics, it will be get the following
equations which used to determine the
quantity of uplift pressure head, exit gradient
and discharge at toe of hydraulic structure in
non-homogenous soil. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Exit grdient calculated from equation (4)
2
(R =0.95),
( )
Fig. 16. Comparison between the calculated
(Pearson correlation=0.938) …………... (3) exit gradient from the equation (4) and
measuring from SEEP/W model
2
(R =0.879),
( )

(Pearson correlation=0.975) …………….(4)

( ) Discharge calculated from SEEP/W

2
(R =0.94), (Pearson correlation=0.970) ...(5)

Figures 15, 16, 17 show the comparison

between the remaining one third results of the
uplift pressure, exit gradient and discharge
respectively by SEEP/W runs and the results
by suggested equations (3, 4 and 5) using the
0.00E+005.00E-071.00E-061.50E-062.00E-06
same characteristics and geometry boundary
Discharge calculated from equation (5)
conditions. The figures above show good
agreement between the results.
Fig. 17. Comparison between the calculated
discharge from the equation (5) and
Uplift pressure calculated from

measuring from SEEP/W model

Verification SEEP/W Results by ANN

SEEP/W

Artificial Neural Network (ANN) operates

by creating connections between many
different processing elements, each
analogous to a single neuron in a biological
brain. These neurons may be physically
constructed or simulated by a digital
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 computer. Each neuron takes many input
Uplift pressure calculated from equation (3) signals, then, based on an internal weighting
system, produces a single output signal that's
typically sent as input to another neuron.
Fig. 15. Comparison between the calculated After trials with several ANN
uplift pressure from the equation (3) and architectures were made a Multilayer
measuring from SEEP/W model Perceptron (MLP), ANN model with one
88 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90

hidden layers was used due to its accurate

results compared to others.

Discharge calculated from SEEP/W

Figures 18, 19, 20 shows good agreement
between SEEP/W and ANN (MLP) results.
Uplift pressure calculated from
SEEP/W

0.00E+005.00E-071.00E-061.50E-062.00E-06
Dischrge calculated from ANN

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 Fig. 20. Comparison between the calculated
Uplift pressure calculated from ANN discharge by SEEP/W model and ANN
results

Fig. 18. Comparison between the calculated

uplift pressure by SEEP/W model and ANN Tables (1), (2) and (3) show depended on
results ANN results for uplift pressure, exit gradient
and seepage under hydraulic structure the
importance of each variable in equation (2)
on behave of the magnitude uplift pressure,
exit gradient and discharge respectively. Also
Exit gradient calculated from SEEP/W

it was show the high effect of permeability

ratio on these results and the lower effect
was at intermediate sheet pile angle for the
case of using three sheet piles.

Table 1. Independent variable importance for

uplift pressure head using three sheet piles
variable Importance Normalized Importance

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 .016 1.9%

Exit gradient calculated from ANN .072 8.5%
.071 8.4%
Fig. 19. Comparison between the calculated Kx/Ky .842 100.0%
exit gradient by SEEP/W model and ANN
results Table 2. Independent variable importance for
exit gradient using three sheet piles

variable Importance Normalized Importance

.027 4.0%
.053 7.8%
.234 34.2%
Kx/Ky .685 100.0%
 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90 89

Table 3. Independent variable importance for 4- The maximum increasing in exit gradient
discharge using three sheet piles approximately 8.2% when decreases the
angle ( ) to ( ). Also exit
variable Importance Normalized Importance gradient decreases with increasing the soil
permeability ratio.
.018 2.3% 5- The maximum decreasing in exit gradient
.033 4.2% was approximately 3.1% when decreases
the angle ( ) to ( ).
.166 21.2% 6- The maximum increasing in exit gradient
Kx/Ky .784 100.0% was approximately 0.067% when decreases
the angle ( ) to ( ).
7- The maximum discharge increasing
Conclusions approximately 7.7% when decreases the
In this paper, the SEEP/W model was angle ( ) to ( ).
used to simulate the uplift pressure head, exit 8- The maximum decreasing in discharge
gradient and discharge at toe of hydraulic was approximately 3% when decreases the
structure in non-homogenous soil in to case: angle ( ) to ( ).
first case by using two sheet piles, which 9- The maximum increasing in discharge
shown: was approximately 0.058% when decreases
the angle ( ) to ( ).
1- The high effect of using intermediate
Depended on the SEEP/W results
sheet pile on the magnitude of the uplift
developed equations to determine the uplift
pressure head, and (P) decreases with
pressure head, exit gradient and discharge at
increasing (α) but when reach to (α=90°)
toe of hydraulic structure.
the uplift pressure increase. The maximum
When verify the SEEP/W and ANN
uplift pressure head was used intermediate
results it was shown good agreement. Also
sheet pile with angle ( ) at (kx/ky=5),
show the high effect of permeability ratio on
while the minimum uplift pressure head
these results and the lower effect was at
when used intermediate sheet pile with
intermediate sheet pile angle.
angle ( ) at (kx/ky=0.1).
2- (i) increases with increasing (α) but when
References
reach to (α=90°) the exit gradient decrease.
1- Farouk, M. I. and Smith, I. M., “Design of
The maximum exit gradient was when used
last sheet pile with angle ( ) at hydraulic structures with two intermediate
(kx/ky=5), while the minimum exit gradient filters”, Applied Mathematical Modeling, pp.
when used last sheet pile with angle 779-794, 2000.
( ) at (kx/ky=5). 2- Mohsen, M., “Seepage With Nonlinear
3- (q) increases with increasing (α) but when Permeability by Least Square FEM”, IJE
reach to (α=90°). The maximum discharge Transactions A: Basics, Vol. 15, No. 2,
when used last sheet pile with angle
2000.
( ) at (kx/ky=5), while the minimum
discharge when used last sheet pile with 3- Al-Delewy, A. A., Shukur, A. K. and AL-
angle ( ) at (kx/ky=0.5). Musawi, W. H., ”Optimum Design of Control
The second case by using three sheet Devices for Safe Seepage under Hydraulic
piles, which shown: Structures”, Journal of Engineering and
1- The maximum decreases in uplift pressure Development, Vol. 10, No.1, 2006.
head by approximately 0.95% when 4- Arslan, C. A. and Mohammad, S. A ,
decreases the angle ( ) to ( ). “Experimental and Theoretical Study for
2- The maximum decreases in uplift pressure Pizometric Head Distribution under
head was approximately 3% when Hydraulic Structures”, Kirkuk University
decreases the angle ( ) to ( ). Journal - Scientific Studies, vol.6,
3- The maximum increasing in uplift pressure No.1,2007.
head approximately 0.4% when decreases 5- Alsenousi, K. F. and Mohamed H. G.,
the angle ( ) to ( ). ”Effects Of Inclined Cutoffs And Soil
 90 Jamel /Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences 23 (3) (2016) 79-90

Foundation Characteristics on Seepage 11- Mansuri, B., Salmasi, F. and Oghati, B.,
Beneath Hydraulic Structures”, Twelfth “Effect of Location and Angle of Cutoff Wall
International Water Technology on Uplift Pressure in Diversion Dam”,
Conference, pp. 1597 -1617, 2008. Geotech. Geol. Eng, 32:1165–1173, 2014.
6- Kumar, S., “Experimental Study on 12- Khalili Shayan H., Amiri-Tokaldany E.,
Different Types of Seepage Flow Under the “Effects of Blanket, Drains, and Cutoff Wall
Sheet Pile Through Indigenous Model”, on Reducing Uplift Pressure, Seepage, and
Thesis, Msc. Jadavpur University, Kolkata, Exit Gradient under Hydraulic Structures”,
2010. International Journal of Civil Engineering,
7- Baghalian, S. and Nazari, F., ”Prediction Vol. 13, No. 4, 2014.
of Uplift Pressure Under the Diversion Dam 13- Kramer, R., “Piping Under Transient
Using Artificial Neural Network and Genetic Conditions Investigation of Time-Dependent
Algorithm”, International Journal of Erosion under Dikes”, Thesis Msc.
Engineering & Applied Sciences, Vol.3, University of Twente, Enschede, 2014.
pp.23-32, 2011. 14- Abbood, D. W., AL-Suhaili, R. H. and
8- Jain, A. K., ” Finite Depth Seepage Below Saleh, M. S., “Optimum Dimensions of
Flat Apron with End Cutoffs and A Hydraulic Structures Foundation and
Downstream Step”, thesis, Phd, University Protections Using Coupled Genetic
of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, 2011. Algorithm with Artificial Neural Network
9- Ijam. A. Z., “Dams with an Inclined Cutoff”, Model”, International Journal of Civil and
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Environmental Engineering, Vol:2, No:6,
Engineering, Vol. 16 pp.1429-1440, 2011. 2015.
10- Azizi, S., Salmasi, F., Abbaspour, A. and 15- Alnealy, H. K. T. and Alghazali, N. O. S.,
Arvanaghi, H., ” Weep Hole and Cut-off “Analysis of Seepage Under Hydraulic
Effect in Decreasing of Uplift Pressure Structures Using Slide Program”, American
(Case Study: Yusefkand Mahabad Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4,
Diversion Dam)”, Journal of Civil pp. 116-124, 2015.
Engineering and Urbanism, pp.97-101,
2012.

View publication stats