Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Parametric study of the earth dam's behaviour subjected to earthquake Cover

Parametric study of the earth dam's behaviour subjected to earthquake

By: H. Ayeche,  Z. Zitouni,  A. Limam and  A. Bouafia  
Open Access
|Nov 2022

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Earth dam.
Earth dam.

Figure 2

Model geometry and finite element mesh of the embankment with sloping core zone.
Model geometry and finite element mesh of the embankment with sloping core zone.

Figure 3

Effect of the internal friction angle.
Effect of the internal friction angle.

Figure 4

Effect of the internal friction angle with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.
Effect of the internal friction angle with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.

Figure 5

Effect of the seismic coefficient.
Effect of the seismic coefficient.

Figure 6

Effect of the seismic coefficient with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.
Effect of the seismic coefficient with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.

Figure 7

Effect of the core cohesion.
Effect of the core cohesion.

Figure 8

Effect of the core cohesion with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.
Effect of the core cohesion with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.

Figure 9

Effect of the slope angle.
Effect of the slope angle.

Figure 10

Effect of the slope angle with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.
Effect of the slope angle with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.

Figure 11

Effect of the upstream sloping core.
Effect of the upstream sloping core.

Figure 12

Effect of the upstream sloping core with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.
Effect of the upstream sloping core with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.

Figure 13

Effect of dam's height.
Effect of dam's height.

Figure 14

Effect of dam's height with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.
Effect of dam's height with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.

Figure 15

Effect of the upstream unit's weight.
Effect of the upstream unit's weight.

Figure 16

Effect of the upstream unit's weight with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.
Effect of the upstream unit's weight with PLAXIS and GEOSTAB.

Figure 17

Kc critical state values according to the different variations.
Kc critical state values according to the different variations.

Values of different parameters of the problem_

ParametersReferences valuesVariations in studied values
Upstream friction angle (φ)25°25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Core cohesion (CN)30 kPa5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 70
Upstream unit weight (γ)20 kN/m317, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Dam height (H)10 m10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50
Slope angle (β)21°21, 30, 40, 60, 70, 75
Upstream sloping core (α1)31.5°31.5, 40, 45, 60, 70, 80
Water level height is taken in the worst case8 m
Seismic coefficient spreads in the range [0, 0.3]

Comparison of Kc at critical state of the different methods_

DYNANSTAPLAXISABAQUSGEOSTAB

φ(°)γ (kN/m3)CN(kPa)K cFdK cFdΔKcFdΔKcFdΔ
50.0631-------< 1-
100.0751------0.051.024−2.5
200.08910.151.2026.080.1911.13910.180.31.04221.08
300.09210.151.2025.800.2521.165160.4011.1230.90
500.11110.181.0946.940.3171.24720.640.551.05143.94
700.11.050.181.14180.3821.3128.20.5581.05645.8
25 0.09210.151.2025.800.2521.165160.4011.1230.90
26 0.1150.9530.151.1813.50.2551.169140.451.03933.5
27 0.1250.9380.151.1922.50.2571.17313.20.5211.01439.6
28 0.1491.10.151.4750.10.2611.17911.20.5320.97238.3
29 0.151.150.181.1083.010.2691.18311.90.50.99435
30 0.151.20.191.07140.2731.18812.30.51.02535
17 [0, 0.3]< 10.151.198----0.11.063-
18 [0, 0.3]< 10.21.073----0.1081.07-
19 [0, 0.3]< 10.21.044----0.1211.009-
20 0.09210.151.2025.800.2521.165160.4011.1230.90
21 0.08710.151.1946.280.2531.18216.580.4451.10935.78
22 0.11710.21.0728.350.2551.1913.850.4731.1135.65
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0017 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Language: English
Page range: 267 - 281
Submitted on: Jan 14, 2022
Accepted on: Jul 3, 2022
Published on: Nov 18, 2022
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2022 H. Ayeche, Z. Zitouni, A. Limam, A. Bouafia, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.