Research ArticleSeepage Behavior of Earth Dams Considering Rainfall Effects

Jong-Wook Lee1 Jiseong Kim2 and Gi-Chun Kang 3

1Infrastructure Research Center K-Water Institute 200 Sintanjin-ro Daedeok-gu Daejeon 306-711 Republic of Korea2Department of Cadastre and Civil Engineering Vision College of Jeonju 235 Cheonjam-ro Wansan-guJeonju Jeollabuk-do 55069 Republic of Korea3Department of Civil Engineering Engineering Research Institute Gyeongsang National University501 Jinjudero Jinju Gyeongsangnam-do 52828 Republic of Korea

Correspondence should be addressed to Gi-Chun Kang gkanggnuackr

Received 30 March 2018 Accepted 2 May 2018 Published 15 July 2018

Academic Editor Hailing Kong

Copyright copy 2018 Jong-Wook Lee et al +is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work isproperly cited

More than 60 of annual rainfall in Korea is concentrated during the monsoon season from June to August because of the climatecharacteristics of East Asia In general reservoir water levels sharply rise during this period and rock-fill dams are exposed tovarious types of damages such as soil erosion and piping related to seepage problems However the detection of seepage problemsis generally more difficult because rainfall directly flows into a V-notch weir according to a downstream shell in which seepagerates can be measured downstream In this paper rainfall is filtered out from the measured seepage rates to evaluate the effects ofrainfall by using a digital filtering method for two large rock-fill dams (Dams A and B) Seepage behavior for these two large rock-fill dams was estimated as a steady-state condition It has been proven that with the application of a digital filter which filters outrainfall-induced infiltration into a downstream shell from a measured seepage flow would make analyzing the seepage behavior ofdams more effective +is also shows that consideration for any rainfall effect on the seepage behavior of earth dams is veryimportant +e seepage rate of Dam A was not significantly affected by rainfall because the seepage water was collected inside thedam body and was transferred to a V-notch weir located downstream from the dam through a steel pipe On the contrary theseepage rate of Dam B was greatly influenced by rainfall in the rainy season Also the permeability of the core zones for Dams Aand B was estimated at 85times10minus5 cmsec and 27times10minus5 cmsec respectively by a simplified method

1 Introduction

+e seepage through an earth dam or a rock-fill dam gen-erally correlates with the reservoir water level of the damAbnormal seepage problems such as piping in the core zoneof the dam can be detected by carefully analyzing the re-lationship between the reservoir water level and the seepagerate According to the design standards of a dam in Korea[1] seepage barriers and V-notch weirs should be installeddownstream from dams +e seepage rate through a damshould be measured and used as a basis of a seepage stabilityevaluation Seepage barriers in various forms have been usedto control seepage and to mitigate seepage problems indams Since the 1970s rigid barriers consisting of un-reinforced concrete plastic concrete deep-mixed soil ce-ment and jetted grout have been used extensively in new

dam construction and for mitigation of seepage problems inexisting dams [2 3] Seepage-induced piping is the mostcommon cause of dam failures In previous case studies 46of the failures of large dams can be attributed to piping [4ndash7]ASTM [8] defines piping as the progressive removal of soilparticles from a soil mass by percolating water leading to thedevelopment of channels Seepage erosion occurs when thewater flowing through a crack or defect erodes the soil fromthe walls of the crack or defect [9ndash12] +erefore seepagemonitoring is the most important approach to preventingdamage due to seepage problems [13ndash15]

Seepage that flows out of a rock-fill dam is typicallymonitored at the downstream toe and the measured seepageflow inevitably includes rainfall-induced infiltration into thedownstream shell as well as reservoir-specific seepagethrough a core zone Subsequently the rainfall should be

HindawiAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2018 Article ID 8727126 9 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520188727126

excluded from the seepage rate to increase the accuracy ofthe measurement Additionally base flow estimations can beused to investigate the effects of rainfall on the relationshipbetween the seepage rate and the reservoir water levels It haslong been a topic of interest in hydrology because of itsimportance in understanding hydrologic processes whichplay a crucial role in water resources management [16ndash18]In recent years it has increasingly been used as tracers toinvestigate groundwater-surface water interaction [19 20]and a separate base flow from storm runoff or annual streamflows [21] Figure 1 shows the components of the measuredseepage flow out of a rock-fill dam considering the rainfall[18] During the dry season water stored in the dam isremoved by soil water drainage +ese processes proceed atdifferent rates in time and space as well as not being readilyquantified +e gradual depletion of discharge during pe-riods with little or no precipitation constitutes the drainageor recession rate which can be graphically presented as therecession curve [18]

To carry out dam safety analysis based on relationshipsbetween reservoir-specific seepage and reservoir waterlevels the seepage flow measured at a V-notch weir of thedownstream toe is adjusted to filter out rainfall-inducedinfiltration into the downstream shell To address thisproblem this study applied a method to filtering out rainfall-induced infiltration into the downstream shell by usingdigital filtering at two rock-fill dams in Korea After whichthe seepage behavior and permeability of the core zones wereanalyzed to determine the relationship between reservoirwater levels and adjusted seepage flows +e hydraulicconductivities of the core zones were also inversely analyzedthrough a conventional seepage analysis

2 Digital Filtering for CalibratingRainfall Effects

21 Digital Filtering Process Although there is an effort [22]to reduce the subjectivity associated with traditionalgraphical methods of base flow separation in hydrologytheir application is restricted to well-defined single-peakedand isolated hydrographs [23] However the hydrographsmeasured in humid regions are generally continuous andconsist of multiple peaks In recent years recursive digitalfilters have been developed and applied for base flow sep-arations +e recursive digital filters are based on theprinciple used in signal processing by regarding the baseflow and direct runoff as low- and high-frequency signalsrespectively

+e digital filters provide an effective alternative to thegraphical methods as digital filters can be easily automatedand are capable of providing reproducible results Manyresearchers have proposed digital filters [24ndash28] Tan et al[29] compared the hydrograph separation characteristicsbetween Nathan and McMahon [24] and Chapman andMaxwell [26] for a partially urbanized watershed Nathanand McMahonrsquos method which provided the more reliableseparation result was adopted to separate the base flow fromthe total runoff hydrograph

In this study the digital filter proposed by Nathan andMcMahon [24] was utilized for the separating of rainfall-induced infiltration from measured seepage through a rock-fill damMugo and Sharma [30] showed that the algorithm iscapable of producing promising separation results for threehumid tropical forested catchments with area from 036 to065 km2

Qdi βd middot Qdiminus1 +1 + βd2

Qi minusQiminus1( 1113857 (1)

Qbi 1minus k

2Qi + Qiminus1( 1113857 + k middot Qbiminus1 (2)

where Qb base flow Qd direct runoff i time intervalk recession constant during periods where there is nodirect runoff βd filter parameter (k) d direct runofffilter parameter and Q measured seepage

22 Recession Constant To filter out the measured hydro-graphs using a digital filter the recession constant k of thestudy site needs to be estimated Base flow recession isrepresented as follows

Qt Q0eminustτ

Q0eminusαt

Q0kt (3)

where Q0 and Qt base flows at time 0 and t andτ turnover time of the groundwater storage during a pe-riod when there is no recharge In the following equationa linear relationship between the groundwater discharge andgroundwater storage S was assumed as follows

Q αS (4)

Taking the natural log on both sides of (4) yields

ln Qt ln Q0 minusαt (5)

+e traditional approach which uses the semilogarithmicplot of a single recession segment is widely applied in

Rainfall

I

Q

Time

Starting point

Intersection point

Risinglimb

Infiltrated waterinto downstream

shell due torainfall

Measured seepage

Seepage through the core zone

Fallinglimb

Recession curve

Figure 1 Components of seepage flow of rock-fill dams consid-ering rainfall

2 Advances in Civil Engineering

estimating the recession constant +is approach plots thenatural log of the measured runoff according to elapsed timeand takes α as the minimum slope corresponding to the baseflow portion of the hydrograph (ie the linear portion of theln Qt plot) Vogel and Kroll [31] found that the traditionalapproach is able to provide a reliable α estimate by averagingthe recession constant values obtained from an ensemble ofindividual hydrograph recessions Sujono et al [32] foundthat the semilogarithmic approach produces reasonable andcomparable estimates with those obtained from morecomplicated methods such as the master recession curvemethod [24] and the wavelet transform method [33 34] Asshown in Figure 2 once the α value is determined therecession constant k can then be estimated as follows [35]

k eminusα

(6)

3 Seepage Flow Monitoring

In this study the relationships among rainfall water leveland seepage measured from two rock-fill dams (Dam A andDam B) were investigated Dam A is a hybrid-type damcombined with a concrete section on the right side anda rock-fill section on the left side as shown in Figure 3 +edam is 53m height and 496m length in total and the

rock-fill section is 1316m long +e general information ofthe dam is given in Table 1

31 Dam A +e seepage monitoring device was installeddownstream from the dam as shown in Figure 3 +e col-lected seepage water behind the core zone is transported bysteel pipe (300mm diameter) to a seepage monitoring de-vice It consists of a V-notch weir and an ultrasonic-typesensor to measure the overflow height +e measuredseepage flow of Dam A during 1981 to 1985 is shown inFigure 4 It indicates that the seepage flow is strongly inagreement with the reservoir water level and that there are

Q

Time

Q

Time

α

Figure 2 Determination of α

V-notch weir

Steel pipe(ϕ 300)

Automated sensor (ultrasonic type) Concrete section

Rock-fill section

V-notch weir

Figure 3 Aerial photo and seepage flow monitoring for Dam A

Table 1 Summary of investigated dams

Dam A Dam BCompletion year 1981 1992Height (m) 530 580

Length of crest (m) Total 4960 3300Rock-fill 1316Crest level (EL m) 830 1150Flood water level (EL m) 800 1105Normal high water level (EL m) 765 1085Low water level (EL m) 600 850Foundation level (EL m) 310 565

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

no effects due to rainfall +e maximum seepage flow is328 lmin at the reservoir water level 788m which is morethan normal high water levels (765m) and less than floodwater level (800m)

32DamB Dam B is a rock-fill dam with a central core It is58m in height and 330m in crest length +e general in-formation of the dam is given in Table 1 +e seepagemonitoring device for Dam B was also installed downstreamfrom the dam as shown in Figure 5 It consists of a V-notchweir and an ultrasonic-type sensor to measure the overflowheight Dam B has a problem with direct runoff due torainfall flowing into the seepage monitoring system throughthe downstream of the rock-filled zone Figure 6 shows themeasured seepage flow from 2002 to 2007 +e seepagefollowed the reservoir water level during the dry season butit increased sharply during the wet season (June to September)+e maximum seepage flow is 2465 lmin with a reservoirwater level of 1037m In this case it is difficult to know theseepage flow through the core zone

4 Analysis of Monitoring Results

41 Determination of Recession Constant Two cases whichinclude the big rainfall events were selected to determinaterecession constant α for Dam A during the study periodFigure 7(a) shows an event on August 29 1981 in which therainfall and seepage rate were recorded at 933mmday andat 193 lmin respectively Figure 7(b) shows an event on

August 17 1985 in which the rainfall and seepage rate wererecorded at 69mmday and at 313 lmin respectively Even ifthe rainfall of the event in 1981 was larger than that in 1985the seepage rate of the 1981 event was smaller than that of the1985 event +e reason for this discrepancy was that thereservoir water level in the event of 1985 (7806 EL m) waslarger than that of 1981 (7498 EL m) According to thedigital filter [24] the recession constant k 0843 is de-termined as summarized in Table 2

In the case of Dam B rainfall events of twelves cases wereselected to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration into thedownstream shell Figure 8 shows representative seepage

0

100

200

300

400

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Date (YYMMDD)

(a)

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

50

100

150

200

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Rain

fall

(mm

day

)

Date (YYMMDD)

RainfallReservoir water level

(b)

Figure 4 Time histories of (a) rainfall and reservoir water level and (b) measured seepage flow of Dam A

Automated sensor (ultrasonic type)

V-notch weir

V-notch weir

Leakage collecting wall

Figure 5 Aerial photo and seepage flow monitoring for Dam B

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

0

1000

2000

3000

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231Date (YYMMDD)

(a)

40

60

80

100

120

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Rain

fall

(mm

day

)

Date (YYMMDD)

RainfallReservoir water level

(b)

Figure 6 Time histories of (a) rainfall and reservoir water level and (b) measured seepage flow of Dam B

150

200

81827 81828 81829 81830 81831 8191 8192

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

48

5

52

54

56

0 1 2 3

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

ln Q = ndash01751t + 54378

(a)

150

200

250

300

350

85815 85817 85819 85821 85823 85825

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

5

52

54

56

58

6

0 2 4 6

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

ln Q = ndash01665t + 59127

(b)

Figure 7 Measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam A Event on (a) August 29 1981 and (b) August 17 1985

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Table 2 Recession constant values of Dam A

Event date α k eminusα

1981-08-29 01751 083941985-08-17 01665 08466Average mdash 08430

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

02913 02927 021011 021025 02118

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00073t + 57277R2 = 07838

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(a)

100

200

300

400

04119 041114 041119 041124 041129

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00074t + 51427R2 = 09386

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

0 10 20

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(b)

120

160

200

240

280

320

06916 06924 06102 061010 061018

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash001t + 52118R2 = 09285

48

50

52

54

56

58

0 10 20 30

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(c)

ln Q

100

200

300

400

071023 07116 071120 07124 071218

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00081t + 52669R2 = 09728

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elapsed time (day)

(d)

Figure 8 Representative measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam B Event on (a) September 15 2002 (b) November 10 2004(c) November 17 2006 and (d) October 25 2007

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

rate-time curves As shown in Figure 8(a) the seepage rate of1206 lmin was recorded when rainfall was 634mmdayand the reservoir water level was 1061 EL m On thecontrary in the case of October 25th 2007 a seepage rate of188 lmin with a rainfall of 331mmday occurred eventhough the reservoir water level was almost the same(1061 EL m) +is indicates that Dam B was largely affectedby the rainfall into seepage rate compared to Dam A +erecession constant was estimated for each event as shown inFigure 8 and Table 3 It was then determined that k 09925

42 Calibrating Seepage Flow +e measured seepage flowsof Dams A and B were adjusted against rainfall-inducedinfiltration using (1) and (2) proposed by Nathan andMcMahon [24] Figure 9 shows the comparisons betweenthe measured and adjusted seepage flows for Dam A +eresults are strongly in good agreement which indicates thatthe rainfall effects are very minor and the seepage flow thatoccurred through the core zone was also found to be cor-related with reservoir water level On the contrary thecomparisons of Dam B in Figure 10 show that the measuredseepage flows were filtered out and the peak values wereremoved by the digital filters +is indicates that the seepageflow of Dam Bwas strongly affected by rainfall Although themaximum measured seepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin onAugust 14 2007 the adjusted seepage rate was 1525 lminwhen rainfall effect was excluded at the same period

43 Prediction of Permeability Chapuis and Aubertin [36]had studied seepage through various earth dams with theheights of 5 10 20 and 50m under steady-state conditions+ese studies have been numerically analyzed with a two-dimensional finite element method and they suggesteda simplified method to predict the seepage flow rate asfollows

Q

k α1 +

α2Δh2

L+ α3Δh2

L1113888 1113889

2

L 05 Lmax + Lmin( 1113857

(7)

where Q total seepage flow rate k permeability of corezone Δh the total head difference between the pond(constant head reservoir) and the toe of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket Lmax the core width (horizon-tally measured) at the bottom elevation of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket and corresponds to the largestcore width Lmin the core width (horizontally measured) atthe elevation of the pond surface and corresponds to thesmallest core width below the pond surface and α1simα3 areconstant coefficients

+e values of parameters α1 and α2 depend on the rangeof Δh2L as shown in Table 4 +erefore the predictiveequation (7) and α1simα2 values in Table 4 were used to es-timate permeability of core zones for Dams A and B

Figure 11 shows the relationship between seepage flowand reservoir water level for Dam A+e permeability of thecore zone for Dam A was calculated from (7) As shown in

Figure 11 it was estimated at 85times10minus5 cmsec and thewatertightness of the core zone is judged to be fully securedso that they may serve as a seepage barrier +e relationshipbetween seepage flow and reservoir water level for Dam B isshown in Figure 12 In the case of Dam B adjusted seepageflow conducted in this study was used for predicting per-meability of a core zone because seepage flow of Dam B waslargely affected by rainfall and the permeability of the corezone was predicted as 27times10minus5 cmsec It indicates that thecore zone is also judged to be fully secured

5 Conclusions

In this study a method to filter out rainfall-induced in-filtration into the downstream shell using a digital filteringmethod was applied to two rock-fill dams +e seepage

Table 3 Recession constant values of Dam B

Event date α k eminusα

2002-09-15 00073 099272004-11-10 00074 099262005-04-18 00128 098732005-09-19 00096 099042005-11-05 00048 099522006-11-17 00100 099002007-05-23 00102 098992007-10-25 00081 099192008-01-11 00039 099612008-08-12 00012 09988Average mdash 09925

50

150

250

350

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Se

epag

e (L

min

)Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 9 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam A

0500

1000150020002500

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 10 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam B

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

behavior and watertightness of the core zones were analyzedby determining relationships between reservoir water leveland adjusted seepage flow Moreover the permeability of thecore zones for each dam was predicted through the con-ventional seepage analysis [36] +e following shows thesummary of the consequent findings

+e differences between measured and adjusted seepageflow of Dam A was very small and the effect of rainfall wasfound to be very minor +e seepage flow of Dam B wasstrongly affected by rainfall +e maximum measuredseepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin and the adjusted seepagewas 1525 lmin when the rainfall effect was excluded at thesame date

From the comparisons with measured and adjustedseepage flow a digital filtering method to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration was used for the purpose of effectivelyanalyzing the seepage behavior of dams

+e seepage flow through the core zones of Dams A andB was found to be correlated with the reservoir water level+is suggests that the seepage behavior of the core zone ofboth dams is in a stable state condition Also the perme-ability of the core zones for each dam was predicted as85times10minus5 cmsec and 27times10minus5 cmsec respectively Alsothe watertightness of the core zone of both dams is judged tobe fully secured and so they may serve as a seepage barrier

Finally a catchment for a dam should be constructed inthe inner body of a dam such as in Dam A because this willexclude rainfall effects to improve the accuracy monitoringof seepage flow

Data Availability

+e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

+e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

+is work was supported by the fund of Research PromotionProgram Gyeongsang National University 2017 +e au-thors acknowledge K-water for providing the valuable data

References

[1] Korea Water Resources Association Design Standard ofDams Korea Water Resources Association Seoul Republic ofKorea 2005

[2] J D Rice and M Duncan ldquoDeformation and cracking ofseepage barriers in dams due to changes in the pore pressureregimerdquo Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-gineering vol 136 no 1 pp 16ndash25 2010

[3] D P Stare G Filz and D A Bruce ldquo+e remediation ofBuckeye Lake Dam Ohio deep mixing as an interim riskreduction measure and key component of final designrdquo inGeotechnical Special Publication (289 GSP) ASCE pp 395ndash404 Reston VA USA 2017

[4] M Foster R Fell and M Spannagle ldquo+e statistics of em-bankment dam failures and accidentsrdquo Canadian Geo-technical Journal vol 37 no 5 pp 1000ndash1024 2000

[5] Y Xu and L Zhang ldquoBreaching parameters of earth androckfill damsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering vol 135 no 12 pp 1957ndash1970 2009

[6] L M Zhang Y Xu and J S Jia ldquoAnalysis of earth damfailures-A database approachrdquo Georisk vol 3 pp 184ndash1892009

[7] S Chi S Ni and Z Liu ldquoBack analysis of the permeabilitycoefficient of a high core Rockfill Dam based on a RBF neuralnetwork optimized using the PSO algorithmrdquo MathematicalProblems in Engineering vol 2015 Article ID 12404215 pages 2015

80

90

100

110

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 27 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

AdjustedPredicted [36]

Figure 12 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam B

Table 4 Parameters α1 and α2 for a rock-fill dam with core zone asa function of Δh2L0 [36]

Range of Δh2L α1 α2 α3lt10 0191 0480 010sim45 0264 0462 045sim180 0450 0447 0

50

60

70

80

90

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 85 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

MeasuredPredicted [36]

Figure 11 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam A

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Ter-minology Relating to Soil Rock and Contained Fluids ASTMWest Conshohocken PA USA 2002

[9] D K McCook ldquoA comprehensive discussion of piping andinternal erosion failure mechanismsrdquo in Proceedings of the2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials pp 1ndash6Phoenix AZ USA September 2004

[10] N J Jiang K Soga and M Kuo ldquoMicrobially induced car-bonate precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosioncontrol in sandndashclay mixturesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 143 no 3 article04016100 2017

[11] L Wang Z Chen and H Kong ldquoAn experimental in-vestigation for seepage-induced instability of confined brokenmudstones with consideration of mass lossrdquo Geofluidsvol 2017 Article ID 3057910 12 pages 2017

[12] Q Lin P Cao H Wang and R Cao ldquoAn experimental studyon cracking behavior of precracked sandstone specimensunder seepage pressurerdquo Advances in Civil Engineeringvol 2018 Article ID 4068918 10 pages 2018

[13] J Qiu D Zheng and K Zhu ldquoSeepage monitoring modelsstudy of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstormsrdquo Math-ematical Problems in Engineering vol 2016 Article ID1656738 11 pages 2016

[14] A N Alekseevich and A A Sergeevich ldquoNumerical mod-elling of tailings dam thermal-seepage regime consideringphase transitionsrdquo Modelling and Simulation in Engineeringvol 2017 Article ID 7245413 10 pages 2017

[15] Z Jiang and J He ldquoDetection model for seepage behavior ofearth dams based on data miningrdquoMathematical Problems inEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 8191802 11 pages 2018

[16] B F +omas R M Vogel and J S Famiglietti ldquoObjectivehydrograph baseflow recession analysisrdquo Journal of Hydrol-ogy vol 525 pp 102ndash112 2015

[17] F R Hall ldquoBase flow recessionsmdasha reviewrdquo Water ResourcesResearch vol 4 no 5 pp 973ndash983 1968

[18] L M Tallaksen ldquoA review of baseflow recession analysisrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 165 no 1ndash4 pp 349ndash370 1995

[19] P A Jaime and K N Oxtobee ldquoA field investigation ofgroundwatersurface water interaction in a fractured bedrockenvironmentrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 269 no 3-4pp 169ndash193 2002

[20] S M Wondzell ldquoGroundwater-surface-water interactionsperspectives on the development of the science over the last 20yearsrdquo Freshwater Science vol 34 no 1 pp 368ndash376 2015

[21] Y K Zhang and K E Schilling ldquoIncreasing streamflow andbaseflow inMississippi River since the 1940s effect of land usechangerdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 324 no 1ndash4 pp 412ndash4222006

[22] J Szilagyi and M B Parlange ldquoBaseflow separation based onanalytical solutions of the Boussinesq equationrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 204 no 1ndash4 pp 251ndash260 1998

[23] V T Chow D Maidment and L W Mays ldquoApplied hy-drologyrdquo in Water Resources amp Environmental EngineeringMcGraw Hill New York NY USA 1st edition 1988

[24] R J Nathan and T A McMahon ldquoEvaluation of automatedtechniques for base flow and recession analysisrdquo Water Re-sources Research vol 26 no 7 pp 1465ndash1473 1990

[25] W C Boughton ldquoA hydrograph-based model for estimatingthe water yield of ungauged catchmentsrdquo in Proceedings of theHydrological and Water Resources Symposium pp 317ndash324Institution of Engineers Australia Newcastle Australia 1993

[26] T G Chapman and A I Maxwell ldquoBaseflow separationcomparison separation comparison of numerical methods

with tracer experimentsrdquo in Proceedings of the Hydrologicaland Water Resources Symposium pp 539ndash545 Institution ofEngineers Hobart Australia 1996

[27] T G Chapman ldquoA comparison of algorithms for stream flowrecession and baseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processesvol 13 no 5 pp 701ndash714 1999

[28] K Eckhardt ldquoHow to construct recursive digital filters forbaseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 19 no 2pp 507ndash515 2005

[29] S B K Tan E Y Lo E B Shuy L H C Chua andWH LimldquoHydrograph separation and development of empirical re-lationships using single-parameter digital filtersrdquo Journal ofHydrologic Engineering vol 14 no 3 pp 271ndash279 2009

[30] J M Mugo and T C Sharma ldquoApplication of a conceptualmethod for separating runoff components in daily hydro-graphs in Kimakia Forest Catchments Kenyardquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 13 no 17 pp 2931ndash2939 1999

[31] R M Vogel and C N Kroll ldquoEstimation of baseflow recessionconstantsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 10 no 4pp 303ndash320 1996

[32] J Sujono S Shikasho and K Hiramatsu ldquoA comparison oftechniques for hydrograph recession analysisrdquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 18 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2004

[33] A Grossmann and J Morlet ldquoDecomposition of Hardyfunctions into square integrable wavelets of constant shaperdquoSIAM Journal of Mathematics vol 15 no 4 pp 732ndash7361984

[34] G A Morlet I Fourgeau and D Giard ldquoWave propagationand sampling theoryrdquo Geophysics vol 47 no 2 pp 203ndash2361982

[35] L Chen H Zheng Y D Chen and C Liu ldquoBase-Flowseparation in the source region of the Yellow Riverrdquo Jour-nal of Hydrological Engineering vol 13 no 7 pp 541ndash5482008

[36] R P Chapuis and M Aubertin ldquoA simplified method toestimate saturated and unsaturated seepage through dikesunder steadystate conditionsrdquo Canadian Geotechnical Jour-nal vol 38 no 6 pp 1321ndash1328 2001

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

estimating the recession constant +is approach plots thenatural log of the measured runoff according to elapsed timeand takes α as the minimum slope corresponding to the baseflow portion of the hydrograph (ie the linear portion of theln Qt plot) Vogel and Kroll [31] found that the traditionalapproach is able to provide a reliable α estimate by averagingthe recession constant values obtained from an ensemble ofindividual hydrograph recessions Sujono et al [32] foundthat the semilogarithmic approach produces reasonable andcomparable estimates with those obtained from morecomplicated methods such as the master recession curvemethod [24] and the wavelet transform method [33 34] Asshown in Figure 2 once the α value is determined therecession constant k can then be estimated as follows [35]

k eminusα

(6)

3 Seepage Flow Monitoring

In this study the relationships among rainfall water leveland seepage measured from two rock-fill dams (Dam A andDam B) were investigated Dam A is a hybrid-type damcombined with a concrete section on the right side anda rock-fill section on the left side as shown in Figure 3 +edam is 53m height and 496m length in total and the

rock-fill section is 1316m long +e general information ofthe dam is given in Table 1

31 Dam A +e seepage monitoring device was installeddownstream from the dam as shown in Figure 3 +e col-lected seepage water behind the core zone is transported bysteel pipe (300mm diameter) to a seepage monitoring de-vice It consists of a V-notch weir and an ultrasonic-typesensor to measure the overflow height +e measuredseepage flow of Dam A during 1981 to 1985 is shown inFigure 4 It indicates that the seepage flow is strongly inagreement with the reservoir water level and that there are

Q

Time

Q

Time

α

Figure 2 Determination of α

V-notch weir

Steel pipe(ϕ 300)

Automated sensor (ultrasonic type) Concrete section

Rock-fill section

V-notch weir

Figure 3 Aerial photo and seepage flow monitoring for Dam A

Table 1 Summary of investigated dams

Dam A Dam BCompletion year 1981 1992Height (m) 530 580

Length of crest (m) Total 4960 3300Rock-fill 1316Crest level (EL m) 830 1150Flood water level (EL m) 800 1105Normal high water level (EL m) 765 1085Low water level (EL m) 600 850Foundation level (EL m) 310 565

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

no effects due to rainfall +e maximum seepage flow is328 lmin at the reservoir water level 788m which is morethan normal high water levels (765m) and less than floodwater level (800m)

32DamB Dam B is a rock-fill dam with a central core It is58m in height and 330m in crest length +e general in-formation of the dam is given in Table 1 +e seepagemonitoring device for Dam B was also installed downstreamfrom the dam as shown in Figure 5 It consists of a V-notchweir and an ultrasonic-type sensor to measure the overflowheight Dam B has a problem with direct runoff due torainfall flowing into the seepage monitoring system throughthe downstream of the rock-filled zone Figure 6 shows themeasured seepage flow from 2002 to 2007 +e seepagefollowed the reservoir water level during the dry season butit increased sharply during the wet season (June to September)+e maximum seepage flow is 2465 lmin with a reservoirwater level of 1037m In this case it is difficult to know theseepage flow through the core zone

4 Analysis of Monitoring Results

41 Determination of Recession Constant Two cases whichinclude the big rainfall events were selected to determinaterecession constant α for Dam A during the study periodFigure 7(a) shows an event on August 29 1981 in which therainfall and seepage rate were recorded at 933mmday andat 193 lmin respectively Figure 7(b) shows an event on

August 17 1985 in which the rainfall and seepage rate wererecorded at 69mmday and at 313 lmin respectively Even ifthe rainfall of the event in 1981 was larger than that in 1985the seepage rate of the 1981 event was smaller than that of the1985 event +e reason for this discrepancy was that thereservoir water level in the event of 1985 (7806 EL m) waslarger than that of 1981 (7498 EL m) According to thedigital filter [24] the recession constant k 0843 is de-termined as summarized in Table 2

In the case of Dam B rainfall events of twelves cases wereselected to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration into thedownstream shell Figure 8 shows representative seepage

0

100

200

300

400

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Date (YYMMDD)

(a)

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

50

100

150

200

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Rain

fall

(mm

day

)

Date (YYMMDD)

RainfallReservoir water level

(b)

Figure 4 Time histories of (a) rainfall and reservoir water level and (b) measured seepage flow of Dam A

Automated sensor (ultrasonic type)

V-notch weir

V-notch weir

Leakage collecting wall

Figure 5 Aerial photo and seepage flow monitoring for Dam B

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

0

1000

2000

3000

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231Date (YYMMDD)

(a)

40

60

80

100

120

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Rain

fall

(mm

day

)

Date (YYMMDD)

RainfallReservoir water level

(b)

Figure 6 Time histories of (a) rainfall and reservoir water level and (b) measured seepage flow of Dam B

150

200

81827 81828 81829 81830 81831 8191 8192

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

48

5

52

54

56

0 1 2 3

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

ln Q = ndash01751t + 54378

(a)

150

200

250

300

350

85815 85817 85819 85821 85823 85825

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

5

52

54

56

58

6

0 2 4 6

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

ln Q = ndash01665t + 59127

(b)

Figure 7 Measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam A Event on (a) August 29 1981 and (b) August 17 1985

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Table 2 Recession constant values of Dam A

Event date α k eminusα

1981-08-29 01751 083941985-08-17 01665 08466Average mdash 08430

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

02913 02927 021011 021025 02118

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00073t + 57277R2 = 07838

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(a)

100

200

300

400

04119 041114 041119 041124 041129

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00074t + 51427R2 = 09386

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

0 10 20

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(b)

120

160

200

240

280

320

06916 06924 06102 061010 061018

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash001t + 52118R2 = 09285

48

50

52

54

56

58

0 10 20 30

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(c)

ln Q

100

200

300

400

071023 07116 071120 07124 071218

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00081t + 52669R2 = 09728

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elapsed time (day)

(d)

Figure 8 Representative measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam B Event on (a) September 15 2002 (b) November 10 2004(c) November 17 2006 and (d) October 25 2007

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

rate-time curves As shown in Figure 8(a) the seepage rate of1206 lmin was recorded when rainfall was 634mmdayand the reservoir water level was 1061 EL m On thecontrary in the case of October 25th 2007 a seepage rate of188 lmin with a rainfall of 331mmday occurred eventhough the reservoir water level was almost the same(1061 EL m) +is indicates that Dam B was largely affectedby the rainfall into seepage rate compared to Dam A +erecession constant was estimated for each event as shown inFigure 8 and Table 3 It was then determined that k 09925

42 Calibrating Seepage Flow +e measured seepage flowsof Dams A and B were adjusted against rainfall-inducedinfiltration using (1) and (2) proposed by Nathan andMcMahon [24] Figure 9 shows the comparisons betweenthe measured and adjusted seepage flows for Dam A +eresults are strongly in good agreement which indicates thatthe rainfall effects are very minor and the seepage flow thatoccurred through the core zone was also found to be cor-related with reservoir water level On the contrary thecomparisons of Dam B in Figure 10 show that the measuredseepage flows were filtered out and the peak values wereremoved by the digital filters +is indicates that the seepageflow of Dam Bwas strongly affected by rainfall Although themaximum measured seepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin onAugust 14 2007 the adjusted seepage rate was 1525 lminwhen rainfall effect was excluded at the same period

43 Prediction of Permeability Chapuis and Aubertin [36]had studied seepage through various earth dams with theheights of 5 10 20 and 50m under steady-state conditions+ese studies have been numerically analyzed with a two-dimensional finite element method and they suggesteda simplified method to predict the seepage flow rate asfollows

Q

k α1 +

α2Δh2

L+ α3Δh2

L1113888 1113889

2

L 05 Lmax + Lmin( 1113857

(7)

where Q total seepage flow rate k permeability of corezone Δh the total head difference between the pond(constant head reservoir) and the toe of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket Lmax the core width (horizon-tally measured) at the bottom elevation of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket and corresponds to the largestcore width Lmin the core width (horizontally measured) atthe elevation of the pond surface and corresponds to thesmallest core width below the pond surface and α1simα3 areconstant coefficients

+e values of parameters α1 and α2 depend on the rangeof Δh2L as shown in Table 4 +erefore the predictiveequation (7) and α1simα2 values in Table 4 were used to es-timate permeability of core zones for Dams A and B

Figure 11 shows the relationship between seepage flowand reservoir water level for Dam A+e permeability of thecore zone for Dam A was calculated from (7) As shown in

Figure 11 it was estimated at 85times10minus5 cmsec and thewatertightness of the core zone is judged to be fully securedso that they may serve as a seepage barrier +e relationshipbetween seepage flow and reservoir water level for Dam B isshown in Figure 12 In the case of Dam B adjusted seepageflow conducted in this study was used for predicting per-meability of a core zone because seepage flow of Dam B waslargely affected by rainfall and the permeability of the corezone was predicted as 27times10minus5 cmsec It indicates that thecore zone is also judged to be fully secured

5 Conclusions

In this study a method to filter out rainfall-induced in-filtration into the downstream shell using a digital filteringmethod was applied to two rock-fill dams +e seepage

Table 3 Recession constant values of Dam B

Event date α k eminusα

2002-09-15 00073 099272004-11-10 00074 099262005-04-18 00128 098732005-09-19 00096 099042005-11-05 00048 099522006-11-17 00100 099002007-05-23 00102 098992007-10-25 00081 099192008-01-11 00039 099612008-08-12 00012 09988Average mdash 09925

50

150

250

350

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Se

epag

e (L

min

)Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 9 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam A

0500

1000150020002500

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 10 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam B

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

behavior and watertightness of the core zones were analyzedby determining relationships between reservoir water leveland adjusted seepage flow Moreover the permeability of thecore zones for each dam was predicted through the con-ventional seepage analysis [36] +e following shows thesummary of the consequent findings

+e differences between measured and adjusted seepageflow of Dam A was very small and the effect of rainfall wasfound to be very minor +e seepage flow of Dam B wasstrongly affected by rainfall +e maximum measuredseepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin and the adjusted seepagewas 1525 lmin when the rainfall effect was excluded at thesame date

From the comparisons with measured and adjustedseepage flow a digital filtering method to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration was used for the purpose of effectivelyanalyzing the seepage behavior of dams

+e seepage flow through the core zones of Dams A andB was found to be correlated with the reservoir water level+is suggests that the seepage behavior of the core zone ofboth dams is in a stable state condition Also the perme-ability of the core zones for each dam was predicted as85times10minus5 cmsec and 27times10minus5 cmsec respectively Alsothe watertightness of the core zone of both dams is judged tobe fully secured and so they may serve as a seepage barrier

Finally a catchment for a dam should be constructed inthe inner body of a dam such as in Dam A because this willexclude rainfall effects to improve the accuracy monitoringof seepage flow

Data Availability

+e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

+e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

+is work was supported by the fund of Research PromotionProgram Gyeongsang National University 2017 +e au-thors acknowledge K-water for providing the valuable data

References

[1] Korea Water Resources Association Design Standard ofDams Korea Water Resources Association Seoul Republic ofKorea 2005

[2] J D Rice and M Duncan ldquoDeformation and cracking ofseepage barriers in dams due to changes in the pore pressureregimerdquo Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-gineering vol 136 no 1 pp 16ndash25 2010

[3] D P Stare G Filz and D A Bruce ldquo+e remediation ofBuckeye Lake Dam Ohio deep mixing as an interim riskreduction measure and key component of final designrdquo inGeotechnical Special Publication (289 GSP) ASCE pp 395ndash404 Reston VA USA 2017

[4] M Foster R Fell and M Spannagle ldquo+e statistics of em-bankment dam failures and accidentsrdquo Canadian Geo-technical Journal vol 37 no 5 pp 1000ndash1024 2000

[5] Y Xu and L Zhang ldquoBreaching parameters of earth androckfill damsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering vol 135 no 12 pp 1957ndash1970 2009

[6] L M Zhang Y Xu and J S Jia ldquoAnalysis of earth damfailures-A database approachrdquo Georisk vol 3 pp 184ndash1892009

[7] S Chi S Ni and Z Liu ldquoBack analysis of the permeabilitycoefficient of a high core Rockfill Dam based on a RBF neuralnetwork optimized using the PSO algorithmrdquo MathematicalProblems in Engineering vol 2015 Article ID 12404215 pages 2015

80

90

100

110

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 27 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

AdjustedPredicted [36]

Figure 12 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam B

Table 4 Parameters α1 and α2 for a rock-fill dam with core zone asa function of Δh2L0 [36]

Range of Δh2L α1 α2 α3lt10 0191 0480 010sim45 0264 0462 045sim180 0450 0447 0

50

60

70

80

90

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 85 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

MeasuredPredicted [36]

Figure 11 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam A

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Ter-minology Relating to Soil Rock and Contained Fluids ASTMWest Conshohocken PA USA 2002

[9] D K McCook ldquoA comprehensive discussion of piping andinternal erosion failure mechanismsrdquo in Proceedings of the2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials pp 1ndash6Phoenix AZ USA September 2004

[10] N J Jiang K Soga and M Kuo ldquoMicrobially induced car-bonate precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosioncontrol in sandndashclay mixturesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 143 no 3 article04016100 2017

[11] L Wang Z Chen and H Kong ldquoAn experimental in-vestigation for seepage-induced instability of confined brokenmudstones with consideration of mass lossrdquo Geofluidsvol 2017 Article ID 3057910 12 pages 2017

[12] Q Lin P Cao H Wang and R Cao ldquoAn experimental studyon cracking behavior of precracked sandstone specimensunder seepage pressurerdquo Advances in Civil Engineeringvol 2018 Article ID 4068918 10 pages 2018

[13] J Qiu D Zheng and K Zhu ldquoSeepage monitoring modelsstudy of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstormsrdquo Math-ematical Problems in Engineering vol 2016 Article ID1656738 11 pages 2016

[14] A N Alekseevich and A A Sergeevich ldquoNumerical mod-elling of tailings dam thermal-seepage regime consideringphase transitionsrdquo Modelling and Simulation in Engineeringvol 2017 Article ID 7245413 10 pages 2017

[15] Z Jiang and J He ldquoDetection model for seepage behavior ofearth dams based on data miningrdquoMathematical Problems inEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 8191802 11 pages 2018

[16] B F +omas R M Vogel and J S Famiglietti ldquoObjectivehydrograph baseflow recession analysisrdquo Journal of Hydrol-ogy vol 525 pp 102ndash112 2015

[17] F R Hall ldquoBase flow recessionsmdasha reviewrdquo Water ResourcesResearch vol 4 no 5 pp 973ndash983 1968

[18] L M Tallaksen ldquoA review of baseflow recession analysisrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 165 no 1ndash4 pp 349ndash370 1995

[19] P A Jaime and K N Oxtobee ldquoA field investigation ofgroundwatersurface water interaction in a fractured bedrockenvironmentrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 269 no 3-4pp 169ndash193 2002

[20] S M Wondzell ldquoGroundwater-surface-water interactionsperspectives on the development of the science over the last 20yearsrdquo Freshwater Science vol 34 no 1 pp 368ndash376 2015

[21] Y K Zhang and K E Schilling ldquoIncreasing streamflow andbaseflow inMississippi River since the 1940s effect of land usechangerdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 324 no 1ndash4 pp 412ndash4222006

[22] J Szilagyi and M B Parlange ldquoBaseflow separation based onanalytical solutions of the Boussinesq equationrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 204 no 1ndash4 pp 251ndash260 1998

[23] V T Chow D Maidment and L W Mays ldquoApplied hy-drologyrdquo in Water Resources amp Environmental EngineeringMcGraw Hill New York NY USA 1st edition 1988

[24] R J Nathan and T A McMahon ldquoEvaluation of automatedtechniques for base flow and recession analysisrdquo Water Re-sources Research vol 26 no 7 pp 1465ndash1473 1990

[25] W C Boughton ldquoA hydrograph-based model for estimatingthe water yield of ungauged catchmentsrdquo in Proceedings of theHydrological and Water Resources Symposium pp 317ndash324Institution of Engineers Australia Newcastle Australia 1993

[26] T G Chapman and A I Maxwell ldquoBaseflow separationcomparison separation comparison of numerical methods

with tracer experimentsrdquo in Proceedings of the Hydrologicaland Water Resources Symposium pp 539ndash545 Institution ofEngineers Hobart Australia 1996

[27] T G Chapman ldquoA comparison of algorithms for stream flowrecession and baseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processesvol 13 no 5 pp 701ndash714 1999

[28] K Eckhardt ldquoHow to construct recursive digital filters forbaseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 19 no 2pp 507ndash515 2005

[29] S B K Tan E Y Lo E B Shuy L H C Chua andWH LimldquoHydrograph separation and development of empirical re-lationships using single-parameter digital filtersrdquo Journal ofHydrologic Engineering vol 14 no 3 pp 271ndash279 2009

[30] J M Mugo and T C Sharma ldquoApplication of a conceptualmethod for separating runoff components in daily hydro-graphs in Kimakia Forest Catchments Kenyardquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 13 no 17 pp 2931ndash2939 1999

[31] R M Vogel and C N Kroll ldquoEstimation of baseflow recessionconstantsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 10 no 4pp 303ndash320 1996

[32] J Sujono S Shikasho and K Hiramatsu ldquoA comparison oftechniques for hydrograph recession analysisrdquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 18 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2004

[33] A Grossmann and J Morlet ldquoDecomposition of Hardyfunctions into square integrable wavelets of constant shaperdquoSIAM Journal of Mathematics vol 15 no 4 pp 732ndash7361984

[34] G A Morlet I Fourgeau and D Giard ldquoWave propagationand sampling theoryrdquo Geophysics vol 47 no 2 pp 203ndash2361982

[35] L Chen H Zheng Y D Chen and C Liu ldquoBase-Flowseparation in the source region of the Yellow Riverrdquo Jour-nal of Hydrological Engineering vol 13 no 7 pp 541ndash5482008

[36] R P Chapuis and M Aubertin ldquoA simplified method toestimate saturated and unsaturated seepage through dikesunder steadystate conditionsrdquo Canadian Geotechnical Jour-nal vol 38 no 6 pp 1321ndash1328 2001

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

no effects due to rainfall +e maximum seepage flow is328 lmin at the reservoir water level 788m which is morethan normal high water levels (765m) and less than floodwater level (800m)

32DamB Dam B is a rock-fill dam with a central core It is58m in height and 330m in crest length +e general in-formation of the dam is given in Table 1 +e seepagemonitoring device for Dam B was also installed downstreamfrom the dam as shown in Figure 5 It consists of a V-notchweir and an ultrasonic-type sensor to measure the overflowheight Dam B has a problem with direct runoff due torainfall flowing into the seepage monitoring system throughthe downstream of the rock-filled zone Figure 6 shows themeasured seepage flow from 2002 to 2007 +e seepagefollowed the reservoir water level during the dry season butit increased sharply during the wet season (June to September)+e maximum seepage flow is 2465 lmin with a reservoirwater level of 1037m In this case it is difficult to know theseepage flow through the core zone

4 Analysis of Monitoring Results

41 Determination of Recession Constant Two cases whichinclude the big rainfall events were selected to determinaterecession constant α for Dam A during the study periodFigure 7(a) shows an event on August 29 1981 in which therainfall and seepage rate were recorded at 933mmday andat 193 lmin respectively Figure 7(b) shows an event on

August 17 1985 in which the rainfall and seepage rate wererecorded at 69mmday and at 313 lmin respectively Even ifthe rainfall of the event in 1981 was larger than that in 1985the seepage rate of the 1981 event was smaller than that of the1985 event +e reason for this discrepancy was that thereservoir water level in the event of 1985 (7806 EL m) waslarger than that of 1981 (7498 EL m) According to thedigital filter [24] the recession constant k 0843 is de-termined as summarized in Table 2

In the case of Dam B rainfall events of twelves cases wereselected to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration into thedownstream shell Figure 8 shows representative seepage

0

100

200

300

400

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Date (YYMMDD)

(a)

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

50

100

150

200

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Rain

fall

(mm

day

)

Date (YYMMDD)

RainfallReservoir water level

(b)

Figure 4 Time histories of (a) rainfall and reservoir water level and (b) measured seepage flow of Dam A

Automated sensor (ultrasonic type)

V-notch weir

V-notch weir

Leakage collecting wall

Figure 5 Aerial photo and seepage flow monitoring for Dam B

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

0

1000

2000

3000

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231Date (YYMMDD)

(a)

40

60

80

100

120

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Rain

fall

(mm

day

)

Date (YYMMDD)

RainfallReservoir water level

(b)

Figure 6 Time histories of (a) rainfall and reservoir water level and (b) measured seepage flow of Dam B

150

200

81827 81828 81829 81830 81831 8191 8192

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

48

5

52

54

56

0 1 2 3

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

ln Q = ndash01751t + 54378

(a)

150

200

250

300

350

85815 85817 85819 85821 85823 85825

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

5

52

54

56

58

6

0 2 4 6

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

ln Q = ndash01665t + 59127

(b)

Figure 7 Measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam A Event on (a) August 29 1981 and (b) August 17 1985

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Table 2 Recession constant values of Dam A

Event date α k eminusα

1981-08-29 01751 083941985-08-17 01665 08466Average mdash 08430

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

02913 02927 021011 021025 02118

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00073t + 57277R2 = 07838

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(a)

100

200

300

400

04119 041114 041119 041124 041129

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00074t + 51427R2 = 09386

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

0 10 20

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(b)

120

160

200

240

280

320

06916 06924 06102 061010 061018

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash001t + 52118R2 = 09285

48

50

52

54

56

58

0 10 20 30

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(c)

ln Q

100

200

300

400

071023 07116 071120 07124 071218

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00081t + 52669R2 = 09728

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elapsed time (day)

(d)

Figure 8 Representative measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam B Event on (a) September 15 2002 (b) November 10 2004(c) November 17 2006 and (d) October 25 2007

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

rate-time curves As shown in Figure 8(a) the seepage rate of1206 lmin was recorded when rainfall was 634mmdayand the reservoir water level was 1061 EL m On thecontrary in the case of October 25th 2007 a seepage rate of188 lmin with a rainfall of 331mmday occurred eventhough the reservoir water level was almost the same(1061 EL m) +is indicates that Dam B was largely affectedby the rainfall into seepage rate compared to Dam A +erecession constant was estimated for each event as shown inFigure 8 and Table 3 It was then determined that k 09925

42 Calibrating Seepage Flow +e measured seepage flowsof Dams A and B were adjusted against rainfall-inducedinfiltration using (1) and (2) proposed by Nathan andMcMahon [24] Figure 9 shows the comparisons betweenthe measured and adjusted seepage flows for Dam A +eresults are strongly in good agreement which indicates thatthe rainfall effects are very minor and the seepage flow thatoccurred through the core zone was also found to be cor-related with reservoir water level On the contrary thecomparisons of Dam B in Figure 10 show that the measuredseepage flows were filtered out and the peak values wereremoved by the digital filters +is indicates that the seepageflow of Dam Bwas strongly affected by rainfall Although themaximum measured seepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin onAugust 14 2007 the adjusted seepage rate was 1525 lminwhen rainfall effect was excluded at the same period

43 Prediction of Permeability Chapuis and Aubertin [36]had studied seepage through various earth dams with theheights of 5 10 20 and 50m under steady-state conditions+ese studies have been numerically analyzed with a two-dimensional finite element method and they suggesteda simplified method to predict the seepage flow rate asfollows

Q

k α1 +

α2Δh2

L+ α3Δh2

L1113888 1113889

2

L 05 Lmax + Lmin( 1113857

(7)

where Q total seepage flow rate k permeability of corezone Δh the total head difference between the pond(constant head reservoir) and the toe of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket Lmax the core width (horizon-tally measured) at the bottom elevation of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket and corresponds to the largestcore width Lmin the core width (horizontally measured) atthe elevation of the pond surface and corresponds to thesmallest core width below the pond surface and α1simα3 areconstant coefficients

+e values of parameters α1 and α2 depend on the rangeof Δh2L as shown in Table 4 +erefore the predictiveequation (7) and α1simα2 values in Table 4 were used to es-timate permeability of core zones for Dams A and B

Figure 11 shows the relationship between seepage flowand reservoir water level for Dam A+e permeability of thecore zone for Dam A was calculated from (7) As shown in

Figure 11 it was estimated at 85times10minus5 cmsec and thewatertightness of the core zone is judged to be fully securedso that they may serve as a seepage barrier +e relationshipbetween seepage flow and reservoir water level for Dam B isshown in Figure 12 In the case of Dam B adjusted seepageflow conducted in this study was used for predicting per-meability of a core zone because seepage flow of Dam B waslargely affected by rainfall and the permeability of the corezone was predicted as 27times10minus5 cmsec It indicates that thecore zone is also judged to be fully secured

5 Conclusions

In this study a method to filter out rainfall-induced in-filtration into the downstream shell using a digital filteringmethod was applied to two rock-fill dams +e seepage

Table 3 Recession constant values of Dam B

Event date α k eminusα

2002-09-15 00073 099272004-11-10 00074 099262005-04-18 00128 098732005-09-19 00096 099042005-11-05 00048 099522006-11-17 00100 099002007-05-23 00102 098992007-10-25 00081 099192008-01-11 00039 099612008-08-12 00012 09988Average mdash 09925

50

150

250

350

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Se

epag

e (L

min

)Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 9 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam A

0500

1000150020002500

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 10 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam B

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

behavior and watertightness of the core zones were analyzedby determining relationships between reservoir water leveland adjusted seepage flow Moreover the permeability of thecore zones for each dam was predicted through the con-ventional seepage analysis [36] +e following shows thesummary of the consequent findings

+e differences between measured and adjusted seepageflow of Dam A was very small and the effect of rainfall wasfound to be very minor +e seepage flow of Dam B wasstrongly affected by rainfall +e maximum measuredseepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin and the adjusted seepagewas 1525 lmin when the rainfall effect was excluded at thesame date

From the comparisons with measured and adjustedseepage flow a digital filtering method to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration was used for the purpose of effectivelyanalyzing the seepage behavior of dams

+e seepage flow through the core zones of Dams A andB was found to be correlated with the reservoir water level+is suggests that the seepage behavior of the core zone ofboth dams is in a stable state condition Also the perme-ability of the core zones for each dam was predicted as85times10minus5 cmsec and 27times10minus5 cmsec respectively Alsothe watertightness of the core zone of both dams is judged tobe fully secured and so they may serve as a seepage barrier

Finally a catchment for a dam should be constructed inthe inner body of a dam such as in Dam A because this willexclude rainfall effects to improve the accuracy monitoringof seepage flow

Data Availability

+e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

+e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

+is work was supported by the fund of Research PromotionProgram Gyeongsang National University 2017 +e au-thors acknowledge K-water for providing the valuable data

References

[1] Korea Water Resources Association Design Standard ofDams Korea Water Resources Association Seoul Republic ofKorea 2005

[2] J D Rice and M Duncan ldquoDeformation and cracking ofseepage barriers in dams due to changes in the pore pressureregimerdquo Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-gineering vol 136 no 1 pp 16ndash25 2010

[3] D P Stare G Filz and D A Bruce ldquo+e remediation ofBuckeye Lake Dam Ohio deep mixing as an interim riskreduction measure and key component of final designrdquo inGeotechnical Special Publication (289 GSP) ASCE pp 395ndash404 Reston VA USA 2017

[4] M Foster R Fell and M Spannagle ldquo+e statistics of em-bankment dam failures and accidentsrdquo Canadian Geo-technical Journal vol 37 no 5 pp 1000ndash1024 2000

[5] Y Xu and L Zhang ldquoBreaching parameters of earth androckfill damsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering vol 135 no 12 pp 1957ndash1970 2009

[6] L M Zhang Y Xu and J S Jia ldquoAnalysis of earth damfailures-A database approachrdquo Georisk vol 3 pp 184ndash1892009

[7] S Chi S Ni and Z Liu ldquoBack analysis of the permeabilitycoefficient of a high core Rockfill Dam based on a RBF neuralnetwork optimized using the PSO algorithmrdquo MathematicalProblems in Engineering vol 2015 Article ID 12404215 pages 2015

80

90

100

110

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 27 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

AdjustedPredicted [36]

Figure 12 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam B

Table 4 Parameters α1 and α2 for a rock-fill dam with core zone asa function of Δh2L0 [36]

Range of Δh2L α1 α2 α3lt10 0191 0480 010sim45 0264 0462 045sim180 0450 0447 0

50

60

70

80

90

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 85 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

MeasuredPredicted [36]

Figure 11 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam A

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Ter-minology Relating to Soil Rock and Contained Fluids ASTMWest Conshohocken PA USA 2002

[9] D K McCook ldquoA comprehensive discussion of piping andinternal erosion failure mechanismsrdquo in Proceedings of the2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials pp 1ndash6Phoenix AZ USA September 2004

[10] N J Jiang K Soga and M Kuo ldquoMicrobially induced car-bonate precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosioncontrol in sandndashclay mixturesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 143 no 3 article04016100 2017

[11] L Wang Z Chen and H Kong ldquoAn experimental in-vestigation for seepage-induced instability of confined brokenmudstones with consideration of mass lossrdquo Geofluidsvol 2017 Article ID 3057910 12 pages 2017

[12] Q Lin P Cao H Wang and R Cao ldquoAn experimental studyon cracking behavior of precracked sandstone specimensunder seepage pressurerdquo Advances in Civil Engineeringvol 2018 Article ID 4068918 10 pages 2018

[13] J Qiu D Zheng and K Zhu ldquoSeepage monitoring modelsstudy of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstormsrdquo Math-ematical Problems in Engineering vol 2016 Article ID1656738 11 pages 2016

[14] A N Alekseevich and A A Sergeevich ldquoNumerical mod-elling of tailings dam thermal-seepage regime consideringphase transitionsrdquo Modelling and Simulation in Engineeringvol 2017 Article ID 7245413 10 pages 2017

[15] Z Jiang and J He ldquoDetection model for seepage behavior ofearth dams based on data miningrdquoMathematical Problems inEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 8191802 11 pages 2018

[16] B F +omas R M Vogel and J S Famiglietti ldquoObjectivehydrograph baseflow recession analysisrdquo Journal of Hydrol-ogy vol 525 pp 102ndash112 2015

[17] F R Hall ldquoBase flow recessionsmdasha reviewrdquo Water ResourcesResearch vol 4 no 5 pp 973ndash983 1968

[18] L M Tallaksen ldquoA review of baseflow recession analysisrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 165 no 1ndash4 pp 349ndash370 1995

[19] P A Jaime and K N Oxtobee ldquoA field investigation ofgroundwatersurface water interaction in a fractured bedrockenvironmentrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 269 no 3-4pp 169ndash193 2002

[20] S M Wondzell ldquoGroundwater-surface-water interactionsperspectives on the development of the science over the last 20yearsrdquo Freshwater Science vol 34 no 1 pp 368ndash376 2015

[21] Y K Zhang and K E Schilling ldquoIncreasing streamflow andbaseflow inMississippi River since the 1940s effect of land usechangerdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 324 no 1ndash4 pp 412ndash4222006

[22] J Szilagyi and M B Parlange ldquoBaseflow separation based onanalytical solutions of the Boussinesq equationrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 204 no 1ndash4 pp 251ndash260 1998

[23] V T Chow D Maidment and L W Mays ldquoApplied hy-drologyrdquo in Water Resources amp Environmental EngineeringMcGraw Hill New York NY USA 1st edition 1988

[24] R J Nathan and T A McMahon ldquoEvaluation of automatedtechniques for base flow and recession analysisrdquo Water Re-sources Research vol 26 no 7 pp 1465ndash1473 1990

[25] W C Boughton ldquoA hydrograph-based model for estimatingthe water yield of ungauged catchmentsrdquo in Proceedings of theHydrological and Water Resources Symposium pp 317ndash324Institution of Engineers Australia Newcastle Australia 1993

[26] T G Chapman and A I Maxwell ldquoBaseflow separationcomparison separation comparison of numerical methods

with tracer experimentsrdquo in Proceedings of the Hydrologicaland Water Resources Symposium pp 539ndash545 Institution ofEngineers Hobart Australia 1996

[27] T G Chapman ldquoA comparison of algorithms for stream flowrecession and baseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processesvol 13 no 5 pp 701ndash714 1999

[28] K Eckhardt ldquoHow to construct recursive digital filters forbaseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 19 no 2pp 507ndash515 2005

[29] S B K Tan E Y Lo E B Shuy L H C Chua andWH LimldquoHydrograph separation and development of empirical re-lationships using single-parameter digital filtersrdquo Journal ofHydrologic Engineering vol 14 no 3 pp 271ndash279 2009

[30] J M Mugo and T C Sharma ldquoApplication of a conceptualmethod for separating runoff components in daily hydro-graphs in Kimakia Forest Catchments Kenyardquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 13 no 17 pp 2931ndash2939 1999

[31] R M Vogel and C N Kroll ldquoEstimation of baseflow recessionconstantsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 10 no 4pp 303ndash320 1996

[32] J Sujono S Shikasho and K Hiramatsu ldquoA comparison oftechniques for hydrograph recession analysisrdquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 18 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2004

[33] A Grossmann and J Morlet ldquoDecomposition of Hardyfunctions into square integrable wavelets of constant shaperdquoSIAM Journal of Mathematics vol 15 no 4 pp 732ndash7361984

[34] G A Morlet I Fourgeau and D Giard ldquoWave propagationand sampling theoryrdquo Geophysics vol 47 no 2 pp 203ndash2361982

[35] L Chen H Zheng Y D Chen and C Liu ldquoBase-Flowseparation in the source region of the Yellow Riverrdquo Jour-nal of Hydrological Engineering vol 13 no 7 pp 541ndash5482008

[36] R P Chapuis and M Aubertin ldquoA simplified method toestimate saturated and unsaturated seepage through dikesunder steadystate conditionsrdquo Canadian Geotechnical Jour-nal vol 38 no 6 pp 1321ndash1328 2001

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

0

1000

2000

3000

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231Date (YYMMDD)

(a)

40

60

80

100

120

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Rain

fall

(mm

day

)

Date (YYMMDD)

RainfallReservoir water level

(b)

Figure 6 Time histories of (a) rainfall and reservoir water level and (b) measured seepage flow of Dam B

150

200

81827 81828 81829 81830 81831 8191 8192

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

48

5

52

54

56

0 1 2 3

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

ln Q = ndash01751t + 54378

(a)

150

200

250

300

350

85815 85817 85819 85821 85823 85825

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

5

52

54

56

58

6

0 2 4 6

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

ln Q = ndash01665t + 59127

(b)

Figure 7 Measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam A Event on (a) August 29 1981 and (b) August 17 1985

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Table 2 Recession constant values of Dam A

Event date α k eminusα

1981-08-29 01751 083941985-08-17 01665 08466Average mdash 08430

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

02913 02927 021011 021025 02118

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00073t + 57277R2 = 07838

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(a)

100

200

300

400

04119 041114 041119 041124 041129

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00074t + 51427R2 = 09386

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

0 10 20

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(b)

120

160

200

240

280

320

06916 06924 06102 061010 061018

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash001t + 52118R2 = 09285

48

50

52

54

56

58

0 10 20 30

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(c)

ln Q

100

200

300

400

071023 07116 071120 07124 071218

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00081t + 52669R2 = 09728

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elapsed time (day)

(d)

Figure 8 Representative measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam B Event on (a) September 15 2002 (b) November 10 2004(c) November 17 2006 and (d) October 25 2007

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

rate-time curves As shown in Figure 8(a) the seepage rate of1206 lmin was recorded when rainfall was 634mmdayand the reservoir water level was 1061 EL m On thecontrary in the case of October 25th 2007 a seepage rate of188 lmin with a rainfall of 331mmday occurred eventhough the reservoir water level was almost the same(1061 EL m) +is indicates that Dam B was largely affectedby the rainfall into seepage rate compared to Dam A +erecession constant was estimated for each event as shown inFigure 8 and Table 3 It was then determined that k 09925

42 Calibrating Seepage Flow +e measured seepage flowsof Dams A and B were adjusted against rainfall-inducedinfiltration using (1) and (2) proposed by Nathan andMcMahon [24] Figure 9 shows the comparisons betweenthe measured and adjusted seepage flows for Dam A +eresults are strongly in good agreement which indicates thatthe rainfall effects are very minor and the seepage flow thatoccurred through the core zone was also found to be cor-related with reservoir water level On the contrary thecomparisons of Dam B in Figure 10 show that the measuredseepage flows were filtered out and the peak values wereremoved by the digital filters +is indicates that the seepageflow of Dam Bwas strongly affected by rainfall Although themaximum measured seepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin onAugust 14 2007 the adjusted seepage rate was 1525 lminwhen rainfall effect was excluded at the same period

43 Prediction of Permeability Chapuis and Aubertin [36]had studied seepage through various earth dams with theheights of 5 10 20 and 50m under steady-state conditions+ese studies have been numerically analyzed with a two-dimensional finite element method and they suggesteda simplified method to predict the seepage flow rate asfollows

Q

k α1 +

α2Δh2

L+ α3Δh2

L1113888 1113889

2

L 05 Lmax + Lmin( 1113857

(7)

where Q total seepage flow rate k permeability of corezone Δh the total head difference between the pond(constant head reservoir) and the toe of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket Lmax the core width (horizon-tally measured) at the bottom elevation of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket and corresponds to the largestcore width Lmin the core width (horizontally measured) atthe elevation of the pond surface and corresponds to thesmallest core width below the pond surface and α1simα3 areconstant coefficients

+e values of parameters α1 and α2 depend on the rangeof Δh2L as shown in Table 4 +erefore the predictiveequation (7) and α1simα2 values in Table 4 were used to es-timate permeability of core zones for Dams A and B

Figure 11 shows the relationship between seepage flowand reservoir water level for Dam A+e permeability of thecore zone for Dam A was calculated from (7) As shown in

Figure 11 it was estimated at 85times10minus5 cmsec and thewatertightness of the core zone is judged to be fully securedso that they may serve as a seepage barrier +e relationshipbetween seepage flow and reservoir water level for Dam B isshown in Figure 12 In the case of Dam B adjusted seepageflow conducted in this study was used for predicting per-meability of a core zone because seepage flow of Dam B waslargely affected by rainfall and the permeability of the corezone was predicted as 27times10minus5 cmsec It indicates that thecore zone is also judged to be fully secured

5 Conclusions

In this study a method to filter out rainfall-induced in-filtration into the downstream shell using a digital filteringmethod was applied to two rock-fill dams +e seepage

Table 3 Recession constant values of Dam B

Event date α k eminusα

2002-09-15 00073 099272004-11-10 00074 099262005-04-18 00128 098732005-09-19 00096 099042005-11-05 00048 099522006-11-17 00100 099002007-05-23 00102 098992007-10-25 00081 099192008-01-11 00039 099612008-08-12 00012 09988Average mdash 09925

50

150

250

350

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Se

epag

e (L

min

)Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 9 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam A

0500

1000150020002500

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 10 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam B

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

behavior and watertightness of the core zones were analyzedby determining relationships between reservoir water leveland adjusted seepage flow Moreover the permeability of thecore zones for each dam was predicted through the con-ventional seepage analysis [36] +e following shows thesummary of the consequent findings

+e differences between measured and adjusted seepageflow of Dam A was very small and the effect of rainfall wasfound to be very minor +e seepage flow of Dam B wasstrongly affected by rainfall +e maximum measuredseepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin and the adjusted seepagewas 1525 lmin when the rainfall effect was excluded at thesame date

From the comparisons with measured and adjustedseepage flow a digital filtering method to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration was used for the purpose of effectivelyanalyzing the seepage behavior of dams

+e seepage flow through the core zones of Dams A andB was found to be correlated with the reservoir water level+is suggests that the seepage behavior of the core zone ofboth dams is in a stable state condition Also the perme-ability of the core zones for each dam was predicted as85times10minus5 cmsec and 27times10minus5 cmsec respectively Alsothe watertightness of the core zone of both dams is judged tobe fully secured and so they may serve as a seepage barrier

Finally a catchment for a dam should be constructed inthe inner body of a dam such as in Dam A because this willexclude rainfall effects to improve the accuracy monitoringof seepage flow

Data Availability

+e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

+e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

+is work was supported by the fund of Research PromotionProgram Gyeongsang National University 2017 +e au-thors acknowledge K-water for providing the valuable data

References

[1] Korea Water Resources Association Design Standard ofDams Korea Water Resources Association Seoul Republic ofKorea 2005

[2] J D Rice and M Duncan ldquoDeformation and cracking ofseepage barriers in dams due to changes in the pore pressureregimerdquo Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-gineering vol 136 no 1 pp 16ndash25 2010

[3] D P Stare G Filz and D A Bruce ldquo+e remediation ofBuckeye Lake Dam Ohio deep mixing as an interim riskreduction measure and key component of final designrdquo inGeotechnical Special Publication (289 GSP) ASCE pp 395ndash404 Reston VA USA 2017

[4] M Foster R Fell and M Spannagle ldquo+e statistics of em-bankment dam failures and accidentsrdquo Canadian Geo-technical Journal vol 37 no 5 pp 1000ndash1024 2000

[5] Y Xu and L Zhang ldquoBreaching parameters of earth androckfill damsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering vol 135 no 12 pp 1957ndash1970 2009

[6] L M Zhang Y Xu and J S Jia ldquoAnalysis of earth damfailures-A database approachrdquo Georisk vol 3 pp 184ndash1892009

[7] S Chi S Ni and Z Liu ldquoBack analysis of the permeabilitycoefficient of a high core Rockfill Dam based on a RBF neuralnetwork optimized using the PSO algorithmrdquo MathematicalProblems in Engineering vol 2015 Article ID 12404215 pages 2015

80

90

100

110

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 27 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

AdjustedPredicted [36]

Figure 12 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam B

Table 4 Parameters α1 and α2 for a rock-fill dam with core zone asa function of Δh2L0 [36]

Range of Δh2L α1 α2 α3lt10 0191 0480 010sim45 0264 0462 045sim180 0450 0447 0

50

60

70

80

90

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 85 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

MeasuredPredicted [36]

Figure 11 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam A

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Ter-minology Relating to Soil Rock and Contained Fluids ASTMWest Conshohocken PA USA 2002

[9] D K McCook ldquoA comprehensive discussion of piping andinternal erosion failure mechanismsrdquo in Proceedings of the2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials pp 1ndash6Phoenix AZ USA September 2004

[10] N J Jiang K Soga and M Kuo ldquoMicrobially induced car-bonate precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosioncontrol in sandndashclay mixturesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 143 no 3 article04016100 2017

[11] L Wang Z Chen and H Kong ldquoAn experimental in-vestigation for seepage-induced instability of confined brokenmudstones with consideration of mass lossrdquo Geofluidsvol 2017 Article ID 3057910 12 pages 2017

[12] Q Lin P Cao H Wang and R Cao ldquoAn experimental studyon cracking behavior of precracked sandstone specimensunder seepage pressurerdquo Advances in Civil Engineeringvol 2018 Article ID 4068918 10 pages 2018

[13] J Qiu D Zheng and K Zhu ldquoSeepage monitoring modelsstudy of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstormsrdquo Math-ematical Problems in Engineering vol 2016 Article ID1656738 11 pages 2016

[14] A N Alekseevich and A A Sergeevich ldquoNumerical mod-elling of tailings dam thermal-seepage regime consideringphase transitionsrdquo Modelling and Simulation in Engineeringvol 2017 Article ID 7245413 10 pages 2017

[15] Z Jiang and J He ldquoDetection model for seepage behavior ofearth dams based on data miningrdquoMathematical Problems inEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 8191802 11 pages 2018

[16] B F +omas R M Vogel and J S Famiglietti ldquoObjectivehydrograph baseflow recession analysisrdquo Journal of Hydrol-ogy vol 525 pp 102ndash112 2015

[17] F R Hall ldquoBase flow recessionsmdasha reviewrdquo Water ResourcesResearch vol 4 no 5 pp 973ndash983 1968

[18] L M Tallaksen ldquoA review of baseflow recession analysisrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 165 no 1ndash4 pp 349ndash370 1995

[19] P A Jaime and K N Oxtobee ldquoA field investigation ofgroundwatersurface water interaction in a fractured bedrockenvironmentrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 269 no 3-4pp 169ndash193 2002

[20] S M Wondzell ldquoGroundwater-surface-water interactionsperspectives on the development of the science over the last 20yearsrdquo Freshwater Science vol 34 no 1 pp 368ndash376 2015

[21] Y K Zhang and K E Schilling ldquoIncreasing streamflow andbaseflow inMississippi River since the 1940s effect of land usechangerdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 324 no 1ndash4 pp 412ndash4222006

[22] J Szilagyi and M B Parlange ldquoBaseflow separation based onanalytical solutions of the Boussinesq equationrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 204 no 1ndash4 pp 251ndash260 1998

[23] V T Chow D Maidment and L W Mays ldquoApplied hy-drologyrdquo in Water Resources amp Environmental EngineeringMcGraw Hill New York NY USA 1st edition 1988

[24] R J Nathan and T A McMahon ldquoEvaluation of automatedtechniques for base flow and recession analysisrdquo Water Re-sources Research vol 26 no 7 pp 1465ndash1473 1990

[25] W C Boughton ldquoA hydrograph-based model for estimatingthe water yield of ungauged catchmentsrdquo in Proceedings of theHydrological and Water Resources Symposium pp 317ndash324Institution of Engineers Australia Newcastle Australia 1993

[26] T G Chapman and A I Maxwell ldquoBaseflow separationcomparison separation comparison of numerical methods

with tracer experimentsrdquo in Proceedings of the Hydrologicaland Water Resources Symposium pp 539ndash545 Institution ofEngineers Hobart Australia 1996

[27] T G Chapman ldquoA comparison of algorithms for stream flowrecession and baseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processesvol 13 no 5 pp 701ndash714 1999

[28] K Eckhardt ldquoHow to construct recursive digital filters forbaseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 19 no 2pp 507ndash515 2005

[29] S B K Tan E Y Lo E B Shuy L H C Chua andWH LimldquoHydrograph separation and development of empirical re-lationships using single-parameter digital filtersrdquo Journal ofHydrologic Engineering vol 14 no 3 pp 271ndash279 2009

[30] J M Mugo and T C Sharma ldquoApplication of a conceptualmethod for separating runoff components in daily hydro-graphs in Kimakia Forest Catchments Kenyardquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 13 no 17 pp 2931ndash2939 1999

[31] R M Vogel and C N Kroll ldquoEstimation of baseflow recessionconstantsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 10 no 4pp 303ndash320 1996

[32] J Sujono S Shikasho and K Hiramatsu ldquoA comparison oftechniques for hydrograph recession analysisrdquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 18 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2004

[33] A Grossmann and J Morlet ldquoDecomposition of Hardyfunctions into square integrable wavelets of constant shaperdquoSIAM Journal of Mathematics vol 15 no 4 pp 732ndash7361984

[34] G A Morlet I Fourgeau and D Giard ldquoWave propagationand sampling theoryrdquo Geophysics vol 47 no 2 pp 203ndash2361982

[35] L Chen H Zheng Y D Chen and C Liu ldquoBase-Flowseparation in the source region of the Yellow Riverrdquo Jour-nal of Hydrological Engineering vol 13 no 7 pp 541ndash5482008

[36] R P Chapuis and M Aubertin ldquoA simplified method toestimate saturated and unsaturated seepage through dikesunder steadystate conditionsrdquo Canadian Geotechnical Jour-nal vol 38 no 6 pp 1321ndash1328 2001

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

Table 2 Recession constant values of Dam A

Event date α k eminusα

1981-08-29 01751 083941985-08-17 01665 08466Average mdash 08430

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

02913 02927 021011 021025 02118

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00073t + 57277R2 = 07838

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(a)

100

200

300

400

04119 041114 041119 041124 041129

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00074t + 51427R2 = 09386

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

0 10 20

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(b)

120

160

200

240

280

320

06916 06924 06102 061010 061018

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash001t + 52118R2 = 09285

48

50

52

54

56

58

0 10 20 30

ln Q

Elapsed time (day)

(c)

ln Q

100

200

300

400

071023 07116 071120 07124 071218

Q (L

min

)

Date (YYMMDD)

ln Q = ndash00081t + 52669R2 = 09728

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elapsed time (day)

(d)

Figure 8 Representative measured seepage rate and determined α for Dam B Event on (a) September 15 2002 (b) November 10 2004(c) November 17 2006 and (d) October 25 2007

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

rate-time curves As shown in Figure 8(a) the seepage rate of1206 lmin was recorded when rainfall was 634mmdayand the reservoir water level was 1061 EL m On thecontrary in the case of October 25th 2007 a seepage rate of188 lmin with a rainfall of 331mmday occurred eventhough the reservoir water level was almost the same(1061 EL m) +is indicates that Dam B was largely affectedby the rainfall into seepage rate compared to Dam A +erecession constant was estimated for each event as shown inFigure 8 and Table 3 It was then determined that k 09925

42 Calibrating Seepage Flow +e measured seepage flowsof Dams A and B were adjusted against rainfall-inducedinfiltration using (1) and (2) proposed by Nathan andMcMahon [24] Figure 9 shows the comparisons betweenthe measured and adjusted seepage flows for Dam A +eresults are strongly in good agreement which indicates thatthe rainfall effects are very minor and the seepage flow thatoccurred through the core zone was also found to be cor-related with reservoir water level On the contrary thecomparisons of Dam B in Figure 10 show that the measuredseepage flows were filtered out and the peak values wereremoved by the digital filters +is indicates that the seepageflow of Dam Bwas strongly affected by rainfall Although themaximum measured seepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin onAugust 14 2007 the adjusted seepage rate was 1525 lminwhen rainfall effect was excluded at the same period

43 Prediction of Permeability Chapuis and Aubertin [36]had studied seepage through various earth dams with theheights of 5 10 20 and 50m under steady-state conditions+ese studies have been numerically analyzed with a two-dimensional finite element method and they suggesteda simplified method to predict the seepage flow rate asfollows

Q

k α1 +

α2Δh2

L+ α3Δh2

L1113888 1113889

2

L 05 Lmax + Lmin( 1113857

(7)

where Q total seepage flow rate k permeability of corezone Δh the total head difference between the pond(constant head reservoir) and the toe of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket Lmax the core width (horizon-tally measured) at the bottom elevation of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket and corresponds to the largestcore width Lmin the core width (horizontally measured) atthe elevation of the pond surface and corresponds to thesmallest core width below the pond surface and α1simα3 areconstant coefficients

+e values of parameters α1 and α2 depend on the rangeof Δh2L as shown in Table 4 +erefore the predictiveequation (7) and α1simα2 values in Table 4 were used to es-timate permeability of core zones for Dams A and B

Figure 11 shows the relationship between seepage flowand reservoir water level for Dam A+e permeability of thecore zone for Dam A was calculated from (7) As shown in

Figure 11 it was estimated at 85times10minus5 cmsec and thewatertightness of the core zone is judged to be fully securedso that they may serve as a seepage barrier +e relationshipbetween seepage flow and reservoir water level for Dam B isshown in Figure 12 In the case of Dam B adjusted seepageflow conducted in this study was used for predicting per-meability of a core zone because seepage flow of Dam B waslargely affected by rainfall and the permeability of the corezone was predicted as 27times10minus5 cmsec It indicates that thecore zone is also judged to be fully secured

5 Conclusions

In this study a method to filter out rainfall-induced in-filtration into the downstream shell using a digital filteringmethod was applied to two rock-fill dams +e seepage

Table 3 Recession constant values of Dam B

Event date α k eminusα

2002-09-15 00073 099272004-11-10 00074 099262005-04-18 00128 098732005-09-19 00096 099042005-11-05 00048 099522006-11-17 00100 099002007-05-23 00102 098992007-10-25 00081 099192008-01-11 00039 099612008-08-12 00012 09988Average mdash 09925

50

150

250

350

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Se

epag

e (L

min

)Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 9 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam A

0500

1000150020002500

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 10 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam B

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

behavior and watertightness of the core zones were analyzedby determining relationships between reservoir water leveland adjusted seepage flow Moreover the permeability of thecore zones for each dam was predicted through the con-ventional seepage analysis [36] +e following shows thesummary of the consequent findings

+e differences between measured and adjusted seepageflow of Dam A was very small and the effect of rainfall wasfound to be very minor +e seepage flow of Dam B wasstrongly affected by rainfall +e maximum measuredseepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin and the adjusted seepagewas 1525 lmin when the rainfall effect was excluded at thesame date

From the comparisons with measured and adjustedseepage flow a digital filtering method to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration was used for the purpose of effectivelyanalyzing the seepage behavior of dams

+e seepage flow through the core zones of Dams A andB was found to be correlated with the reservoir water level+is suggests that the seepage behavior of the core zone ofboth dams is in a stable state condition Also the perme-ability of the core zones for each dam was predicted as85times10minus5 cmsec and 27times10minus5 cmsec respectively Alsothe watertightness of the core zone of both dams is judged tobe fully secured and so they may serve as a seepage barrier

Finally a catchment for a dam should be constructed inthe inner body of a dam such as in Dam A because this willexclude rainfall effects to improve the accuracy monitoringof seepage flow

Data Availability

+e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

+e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

+is work was supported by the fund of Research PromotionProgram Gyeongsang National University 2017 +e au-thors acknowledge K-water for providing the valuable data

References

[1] Korea Water Resources Association Design Standard ofDams Korea Water Resources Association Seoul Republic ofKorea 2005

[2] J D Rice and M Duncan ldquoDeformation and cracking ofseepage barriers in dams due to changes in the pore pressureregimerdquo Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-gineering vol 136 no 1 pp 16ndash25 2010

[3] D P Stare G Filz and D A Bruce ldquo+e remediation ofBuckeye Lake Dam Ohio deep mixing as an interim riskreduction measure and key component of final designrdquo inGeotechnical Special Publication (289 GSP) ASCE pp 395ndash404 Reston VA USA 2017

[4] M Foster R Fell and M Spannagle ldquo+e statistics of em-bankment dam failures and accidentsrdquo Canadian Geo-technical Journal vol 37 no 5 pp 1000ndash1024 2000

[5] Y Xu and L Zhang ldquoBreaching parameters of earth androckfill damsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering vol 135 no 12 pp 1957ndash1970 2009

[6] L M Zhang Y Xu and J S Jia ldquoAnalysis of earth damfailures-A database approachrdquo Georisk vol 3 pp 184ndash1892009

[7] S Chi S Ni and Z Liu ldquoBack analysis of the permeabilitycoefficient of a high core Rockfill Dam based on a RBF neuralnetwork optimized using the PSO algorithmrdquo MathematicalProblems in Engineering vol 2015 Article ID 12404215 pages 2015

80

90

100

110

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 27 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

AdjustedPredicted [36]

Figure 12 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam B

Table 4 Parameters α1 and α2 for a rock-fill dam with core zone asa function of Δh2L0 [36]

Range of Δh2L α1 α2 α3lt10 0191 0480 010sim45 0264 0462 045sim180 0450 0447 0

50

60

70

80

90

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 85 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

MeasuredPredicted [36]

Figure 11 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam A

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Ter-minology Relating to Soil Rock and Contained Fluids ASTMWest Conshohocken PA USA 2002

[9] D K McCook ldquoA comprehensive discussion of piping andinternal erosion failure mechanismsrdquo in Proceedings of the2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials pp 1ndash6Phoenix AZ USA September 2004

[10] N J Jiang K Soga and M Kuo ldquoMicrobially induced car-bonate precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosioncontrol in sandndashclay mixturesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 143 no 3 article04016100 2017

[11] L Wang Z Chen and H Kong ldquoAn experimental in-vestigation for seepage-induced instability of confined brokenmudstones with consideration of mass lossrdquo Geofluidsvol 2017 Article ID 3057910 12 pages 2017

[12] Q Lin P Cao H Wang and R Cao ldquoAn experimental studyon cracking behavior of precracked sandstone specimensunder seepage pressurerdquo Advances in Civil Engineeringvol 2018 Article ID 4068918 10 pages 2018

[13] J Qiu D Zheng and K Zhu ldquoSeepage monitoring modelsstudy of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstormsrdquo Math-ematical Problems in Engineering vol 2016 Article ID1656738 11 pages 2016

[14] A N Alekseevich and A A Sergeevich ldquoNumerical mod-elling of tailings dam thermal-seepage regime consideringphase transitionsrdquo Modelling and Simulation in Engineeringvol 2017 Article ID 7245413 10 pages 2017

[15] Z Jiang and J He ldquoDetection model for seepage behavior ofearth dams based on data miningrdquoMathematical Problems inEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 8191802 11 pages 2018

[16] B F +omas R M Vogel and J S Famiglietti ldquoObjectivehydrograph baseflow recession analysisrdquo Journal of Hydrol-ogy vol 525 pp 102ndash112 2015

[17] F R Hall ldquoBase flow recessionsmdasha reviewrdquo Water ResourcesResearch vol 4 no 5 pp 973ndash983 1968

[18] L M Tallaksen ldquoA review of baseflow recession analysisrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 165 no 1ndash4 pp 349ndash370 1995

[19] P A Jaime and K N Oxtobee ldquoA field investigation ofgroundwatersurface water interaction in a fractured bedrockenvironmentrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 269 no 3-4pp 169ndash193 2002

[20] S M Wondzell ldquoGroundwater-surface-water interactionsperspectives on the development of the science over the last 20yearsrdquo Freshwater Science vol 34 no 1 pp 368ndash376 2015

[21] Y K Zhang and K E Schilling ldquoIncreasing streamflow andbaseflow inMississippi River since the 1940s effect of land usechangerdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 324 no 1ndash4 pp 412ndash4222006

[22] J Szilagyi and M B Parlange ldquoBaseflow separation based onanalytical solutions of the Boussinesq equationrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 204 no 1ndash4 pp 251ndash260 1998

[23] V T Chow D Maidment and L W Mays ldquoApplied hy-drologyrdquo in Water Resources amp Environmental EngineeringMcGraw Hill New York NY USA 1st edition 1988

[24] R J Nathan and T A McMahon ldquoEvaluation of automatedtechniques for base flow and recession analysisrdquo Water Re-sources Research vol 26 no 7 pp 1465ndash1473 1990

[25] W C Boughton ldquoA hydrograph-based model for estimatingthe water yield of ungauged catchmentsrdquo in Proceedings of theHydrological and Water Resources Symposium pp 317ndash324Institution of Engineers Australia Newcastle Australia 1993

[26] T G Chapman and A I Maxwell ldquoBaseflow separationcomparison separation comparison of numerical methods

with tracer experimentsrdquo in Proceedings of the Hydrologicaland Water Resources Symposium pp 539ndash545 Institution ofEngineers Hobart Australia 1996

[27] T G Chapman ldquoA comparison of algorithms for stream flowrecession and baseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processesvol 13 no 5 pp 701ndash714 1999

[28] K Eckhardt ldquoHow to construct recursive digital filters forbaseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 19 no 2pp 507ndash515 2005

[29] S B K Tan E Y Lo E B Shuy L H C Chua andWH LimldquoHydrograph separation and development of empirical re-lationships using single-parameter digital filtersrdquo Journal ofHydrologic Engineering vol 14 no 3 pp 271ndash279 2009

[30] J M Mugo and T C Sharma ldquoApplication of a conceptualmethod for separating runoff components in daily hydro-graphs in Kimakia Forest Catchments Kenyardquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 13 no 17 pp 2931ndash2939 1999

[31] R M Vogel and C N Kroll ldquoEstimation of baseflow recessionconstantsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 10 no 4pp 303ndash320 1996

[32] J Sujono S Shikasho and K Hiramatsu ldquoA comparison oftechniques for hydrograph recession analysisrdquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 18 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2004

[33] A Grossmann and J Morlet ldquoDecomposition of Hardyfunctions into square integrable wavelets of constant shaperdquoSIAM Journal of Mathematics vol 15 no 4 pp 732ndash7361984

[34] G A Morlet I Fourgeau and D Giard ldquoWave propagationand sampling theoryrdquo Geophysics vol 47 no 2 pp 203ndash2361982

[35] L Chen H Zheng Y D Chen and C Liu ldquoBase-Flowseparation in the source region of the Yellow Riverrdquo Jour-nal of Hydrological Engineering vol 13 no 7 pp 541ndash5482008

[36] R P Chapuis and M Aubertin ldquoA simplified method toestimate saturated and unsaturated seepage through dikesunder steadystate conditionsrdquo Canadian Geotechnical Jour-nal vol 38 no 6 pp 1321ndash1328 2001

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

rate-time curves As shown in Figure 8(a) the seepage rate of1206 lmin was recorded when rainfall was 634mmdayand the reservoir water level was 1061 EL m On thecontrary in the case of October 25th 2007 a seepage rate of188 lmin with a rainfall of 331mmday occurred eventhough the reservoir water level was almost the same(1061 EL m) +is indicates that Dam B was largely affectedby the rainfall into seepage rate compared to Dam A +erecession constant was estimated for each event as shown inFigure 8 and Table 3 It was then determined that k 09925

42 Calibrating Seepage Flow +e measured seepage flowsof Dams A and B were adjusted against rainfall-inducedinfiltration using (1) and (2) proposed by Nathan andMcMahon [24] Figure 9 shows the comparisons betweenthe measured and adjusted seepage flows for Dam A +eresults are strongly in good agreement which indicates thatthe rainfall effects are very minor and the seepage flow thatoccurred through the core zone was also found to be cor-related with reservoir water level On the contrary thecomparisons of Dam B in Figure 10 show that the measuredseepage flows were filtered out and the peak values wereremoved by the digital filters +is indicates that the seepageflow of Dam Bwas strongly affected by rainfall Although themaximum measured seepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin onAugust 14 2007 the adjusted seepage rate was 1525 lminwhen rainfall effect was excluded at the same period

43 Prediction of Permeability Chapuis and Aubertin [36]had studied seepage through various earth dams with theheights of 5 10 20 and 50m under steady-state conditions+ese studies have been numerically analyzed with a two-dimensional finite element method and they suggesteda simplified method to predict the seepage flow rate asfollows

Q

k α1 +

α2Δh2

L+ α3Δh2

L1113888 1113889

2

L 05 Lmax + Lmin( 1113857

(7)

where Q total seepage flow rate k permeability of corezone Δh the total head difference between the pond(constant head reservoir) and the toe of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket Lmax the core width (horizon-tally measured) at the bottom elevation of the downstreamdrainingndashfiltering blanket and corresponds to the largestcore width Lmin the core width (horizontally measured) atthe elevation of the pond surface and corresponds to thesmallest core width below the pond surface and α1simα3 areconstant coefficients

+e values of parameters α1 and α2 depend on the rangeof Δh2L as shown in Table 4 +erefore the predictiveequation (7) and α1simα2 values in Table 4 were used to es-timate permeability of core zones for Dams A and B

Figure 11 shows the relationship between seepage flowand reservoir water level for Dam A+e permeability of thecore zone for Dam A was calculated from (7) As shown in

Figure 11 it was estimated at 85times10minus5 cmsec and thewatertightness of the core zone is judged to be fully securedso that they may serve as a seepage barrier +e relationshipbetween seepage flow and reservoir water level for Dam B isshown in Figure 12 In the case of Dam B adjusted seepageflow conducted in this study was used for predicting per-meability of a core zone because seepage flow of Dam B waslargely affected by rainfall and the permeability of the corezone was predicted as 27times10minus5 cmsec It indicates that thecore zone is also judged to be fully secured

5 Conclusions

In this study a method to filter out rainfall-induced in-filtration into the downstream shell using a digital filteringmethod was applied to two rock-fill dams +e seepage

Table 3 Recession constant values of Dam B

Event date α k eminusα

2002-09-15 00073 099272004-11-10 00074 099262005-04-18 00128 098732005-09-19 00096 099042005-11-05 00048 099522006-11-17 00100 099002007-05-23 00102 098992007-10-25 00081 099192008-01-11 00039 099612008-08-12 00012 09988Average mdash 09925

50

150

250

350

8111 8211 8311 8411 841231 851231Se

epag

e (L

min

)Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 9 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam A

0500

1000150020002500

0211 0311 0411 041231 051231 061231 071231

Seep

age (

Lm

in)

Date (YYMMDD)

MeasuredAdjusted

Figure 10 Comparisons between measured and calibrated seepageflow rate for Dam B

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

behavior and watertightness of the core zones were analyzedby determining relationships between reservoir water leveland adjusted seepage flow Moreover the permeability of thecore zones for each dam was predicted through the con-ventional seepage analysis [36] +e following shows thesummary of the consequent findings

+e differences between measured and adjusted seepageflow of Dam A was very small and the effect of rainfall wasfound to be very minor +e seepage flow of Dam B wasstrongly affected by rainfall +e maximum measuredseepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin and the adjusted seepagewas 1525 lmin when the rainfall effect was excluded at thesame date

From the comparisons with measured and adjustedseepage flow a digital filtering method to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration was used for the purpose of effectivelyanalyzing the seepage behavior of dams

+e seepage flow through the core zones of Dams A andB was found to be correlated with the reservoir water level+is suggests that the seepage behavior of the core zone ofboth dams is in a stable state condition Also the perme-ability of the core zones for each dam was predicted as85times10minus5 cmsec and 27times10minus5 cmsec respectively Alsothe watertightness of the core zone of both dams is judged tobe fully secured and so they may serve as a seepage barrier

Finally a catchment for a dam should be constructed inthe inner body of a dam such as in Dam A because this willexclude rainfall effects to improve the accuracy monitoringof seepage flow

Data Availability

+e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

+e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

+is work was supported by the fund of Research PromotionProgram Gyeongsang National University 2017 +e au-thors acknowledge K-water for providing the valuable data

References

[1] Korea Water Resources Association Design Standard ofDams Korea Water Resources Association Seoul Republic ofKorea 2005

[2] J D Rice and M Duncan ldquoDeformation and cracking ofseepage barriers in dams due to changes in the pore pressureregimerdquo Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-gineering vol 136 no 1 pp 16ndash25 2010

[3] D P Stare G Filz and D A Bruce ldquo+e remediation ofBuckeye Lake Dam Ohio deep mixing as an interim riskreduction measure and key component of final designrdquo inGeotechnical Special Publication (289 GSP) ASCE pp 395ndash404 Reston VA USA 2017

[4] M Foster R Fell and M Spannagle ldquo+e statistics of em-bankment dam failures and accidentsrdquo Canadian Geo-technical Journal vol 37 no 5 pp 1000ndash1024 2000

[5] Y Xu and L Zhang ldquoBreaching parameters of earth androckfill damsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering vol 135 no 12 pp 1957ndash1970 2009

[6] L M Zhang Y Xu and J S Jia ldquoAnalysis of earth damfailures-A database approachrdquo Georisk vol 3 pp 184ndash1892009

[7] S Chi S Ni and Z Liu ldquoBack analysis of the permeabilitycoefficient of a high core Rockfill Dam based on a RBF neuralnetwork optimized using the PSO algorithmrdquo MathematicalProblems in Engineering vol 2015 Article ID 12404215 pages 2015

80

90

100

110

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 27 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

AdjustedPredicted [36]

Figure 12 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam B

Table 4 Parameters α1 and α2 for a rock-fill dam with core zone asa function of Δh2L0 [36]

Range of Δh2L α1 α2 α3lt10 0191 0480 010sim45 0264 0462 045sim180 0450 0447 0

50

60

70

80

90

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 85 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

MeasuredPredicted [36]

Figure 11 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam A

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Ter-minology Relating to Soil Rock and Contained Fluids ASTMWest Conshohocken PA USA 2002

[9] D K McCook ldquoA comprehensive discussion of piping andinternal erosion failure mechanismsrdquo in Proceedings of the2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials pp 1ndash6Phoenix AZ USA September 2004

[10] N J Jiang K Soga and M Kuo ldquoMicrobially induced car-bonate precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosioncontrol in sandndashclay mixturesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 143 no 3 article04016100 2017

[11] L Wang Z Chen and H Kong ldquoAn experimental in-vestigation for seepage-induced instability of confined brokenmudstones with consideration of mass lossrdquo Geofluidsvol 2017 Article ID 3057910 12 pages 2017

[12] Q Lin P Cao H Wang and R Cao ldquoAn experimental studyon cracking behavior of precracked sandstone specimensunder seepage pressurerdquo Advances in Civil Engineeringvol 2018 Article ID 4068918 10 pages 2018

[13] J Qiu D Zheng and K Zhu ldquoSeepage monitoring modelsstudy of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstormsrdquo Math-ematical Problems in Engineering vol 2016 Article ID1656738 11 pages 2016

[14] A N Alekseevich and A A Sergeevich ldquoNumerical mod-elling of tailings dam thermal-seepage regime consideringphase transitionsrdquo Modelling and Simulation in Engineeringvol 2017 Article ID 7245413 10 pages 2017

[15] Z Jiang and J He ldquoDetection model for seepage behavior ofearth dams based on data miningrdquoMathematical Problems inEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 8191802 11 pages 2018

[16] B F +omas R M Vogel and J S Famiglietti ldquoObjectivehydrograph baseflow recession analysisrdquo Journal of Hydrol-ogy vol 525 pp 102ndash112 2015

[17] F R Hall ldquoBase flow recessionsmdasha reviewrdquo Water ResourcesResearch vol 4 no 5 pp 973ndash983 1968

[18] L M Tallaksen ldquoA review of baseflow recession analysisrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 165 no 1ndash4 pp 349ndash370 1995

[19] P A Jaime and K N Oxtobee ldquoA field investigation ofgroundwatersurface water interaction in a fractured bedrockenvironmentrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 269 no 3-4pp 169ndash193 2002

[20] S M Wondzell ldquoGroundwater-surface-water interactionsperspectives on the development of the science over the last 20yearsrdquo Freshwater Science vol 34 no 1 pp 368ndash376 2015

[21] Y K Zhang and K E Schilling ldquoIncreasing streamflow andbaseflow inMississippi River since the 1940s effect of land usechangerdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 324 no 1ndash4 pp 412ndash4222006

[22] J Szilagyi and M B Parlange ldquoBaseflow separation based onanalytical solutions of the Boussinesq equationrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 204 no 1ndash4 pp 251ndash260 1998

[23] V T Chow D Maidment and L W Mays ldquoApplied hy-drologyrdquo in Water Resources amp Environmental EngineeringMcGraw Hill New York NY USA 1st edition 1988

[24] R J Nathan and T A McMahon ldquoEvaluation of automatedtechniques for base flow and recession analysisrdquo Water Re-sources Research vol 26 no 7 pp 1465ndash1473 1990

[25] W C Boughton ldquoA hydrograph-based model for estimatingthe water yield of ungauged catchmentsrdquo in Proceedings of theHydrological and Water Resources Symposium pp 317ndash324Institution of Engineers Australia Newcastle Australia 1993

[26] T G Chapman and A I Maxwell ldquoBaseflow separationcomparison separation comparison of numerical methods

with tracer experimentsrdquo in Proceedings of the Hydrologicaland Water Resources Symposium pp 539ndash545 Institution ofEngineers Hobart Australia 1996

[27] T G Chapman ldquoA comparison of algorithms for stream flowrecession and baseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processesvol 13 no 5 pp 701ndash714 1999

[28] K Eckhardt ldquoHow to construct recursive digital filters forbaseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 19 no 2pp 507ndash515 2005

[29] S B K Tan E Y Lo E B Shuy L H C Chua andWH LimldquoHydrograph separation and development of empirical re-lationships using single-parameter digital filtersrdquo Journal ofHydrologic Engineering vol 14 no 3 pp 271ndash279 2009

[30] J M Mugo and T C Sharma ldquoApplication of a conceptualmethod for separating runoff components in daily hydro-graphs in Kimakia Forest Catchments Kenyardquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 13 no 17 pp 2931ndash2939 1999

[31] R M Vogel and C N Kroll ldquoEstimation of baseflow recessionconstantsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 10 no 4pp 303ndash320 1996

[32] J Sujono S Shikasho and K Hiramatsu ldquoA comparison oftechniques for hydrograph recession analysisrdquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 18 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2004

[33] A Grossmann and J Morlet ldquoDecomposition of Hardyfunctions into square integrable wavelets of constant shaperdquoSIAM Journal of Mathematics vol 15 no 4 pp 732ndash7361984

[34] G A Morlet I Fourgeau and D Giard ldquoWave propagationand sampling theoryrdquo Geophysics vol 47 no 2 pp 203ndash2361982

[35] L Chen H Zheng Y D Chen and C Liu ldquoBase-Flowseparation in the source region of the Yellow Riverrdquo Jour-nal of Hydrological Engineering vol 13 no 7 pp 541ndash5482008

[36] R P Chapuis and M Aubertin ldquoA simplified method toestimate saturated and unsaturated seepage through dikesunder steadystate conditionsrdquo Canadian Geotechnical Jour-nal vol 38 no 6 pp 1321ndash1328 2001

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

behavior and watertightness of the core zones were analyzedby determining relationships between reservoir water leveland adjusted seepage flow Moreover the permeability of thecore zones for each dam was predicted through the con-ventional seepage analysis [36] +e following shows thesummary of the consequent findings

+e differences between measured and adjusted seepageflow of Dam A was very small and the effect of rainfall wasfound to be very minor +e seepage flow of Dam B wasstrongly affected by rainfall +e maximum measuredseepage of Dam B was 2455 lmin and the adjusted seepagewas 1525 lmin when the rainfall effect was excluded at thesame date

From the comparisons with measured and adjustedseepage flow a digital filtering method to filter out rainfall-induced infiltration was used for the purpose of effectivelyanalyzing the seepage behavior of dams

+e seepage flow through the core zones of Dams A andB was found to be correlated with the reservoir water level+is suggests that the seepage behavior of the core zone ofboth dams is in a stable state condition Also the perme-ability of the core zones for each dam was predicted as85times10minus5 cmsec and 27times10minus5 cmsec respectively Alsothe watertightness of the core zone of both dams is judged tobe fully secured and so they may serve as a seepage barrier

Finally a catchment for a dam should be constructed inthe inner body of a dam such as in Dam A because this willexclude rainfall effects to improve the accuracy monitoringof seepage flow

Data Availability

+e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

+e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

+is work was supported by the fund of Research PromotionProgram Gyeongsang National University 2017 +e au-thors acknowledge K-water for providing the valuable data

References

[1] Korea Water Resources Association Design Standard ofDams Korea Water Resources Association Seoul Republic ofKorea 2005

[2] J D Rice and M Duncan ldquoDeformation and cracking ofseepage barriers in dams due to changes in the pore pressureregimerdquo Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-gineering vol 136 no 1 pp 16ndash25 2010

[3] D P Stare G Filz and D A Bruce ldquo+e remediation ofBuckeye Lake Dam Ohio deep mixing as an interim riskreduction measure and key component of final designrdquo inGeotechnical Special Publication (289 GSP) ASCE pp 395ndash404 Reston VA USA 2017

[4] M Foster R Fell and M Spannagle ldquo+e statistics of em-bankment dam failures and accidentsrdquo Canadian Geo-technical Journal vol 37 no 5 pp 1000ndash1024 2000

[5] Y Xu and L Zhang ldquoBreaching parameters of earth androckfill damsrdquo Journal of Geotechnical and GeoenvironmentalEngineering vol 135 no 12 pp 1957ndash1970 2009

[6] L M Zhang Y Xu and J S Jia ldquoAnalysis of earth damfailures-A database approachrdquo Georisk vol 3 pp 184ndash1892009

[7] S Chi S Ni and Z Liu ldquoBack analysis of the permeabilitycoefficient of a high core Rockfill Dam based on a RBF neuralnetwork optimized using the PSO algorithmrdquo MathematicalProblems in Engineering vol 2015 Article ID 12404215 pages 2015

80

90

100

110

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 27 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

AdjustedPredicted [36]

Figure 12 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam B

Table 4 Parameters α1 and α2 for a rock-fill dam with core zone asa function of Δh2L0 [36]

Range of Δh2L α1 α2 α3lt10 0191 0480 010sim45 0264 0462 045sim180 0450 0447 0

50

60

70

80

90

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rese

rvoi

r wat

er le

vel (

EL m

)

Seepage (Lmin)

(k = 85 times 10ndash5 cmsec)

MeasuredPredicted [36]

Figure 11 Predicted permeability of the core zone for Dam A

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Ter-minology Relating to Soil Rock and Contained Fluids ASTMWest Conshohocken PA USA 2002

[9] D K McCook ldquoA comprehensive discussion of piping andinternal erosion failure mechanismsrdquo in Proceedings of the2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials pp 1ndash6Phoenix AZ USA September 2004

[10] N J Jiang K Soga and M Kuo ldquoMicrobially induced car-bonate precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosioncontrol in sandndashclay mixturesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 143 no 3 article04016100 2017

[11] L Wang Z Chen and H Kong ldquoAn experimental in-vestigation for seepage-induced instability of confined brokenmudstones with consideration of mass lossrdquo Geofluidsvol 2017 Article ID 3057910 12 pages 2017

[12] Q Lin P Cao H Wang and R Cao ldquoAn experimental studyon cracking behavior of precracked sandstone specimensunder seepage pressurerdquo Advances in Civil Engineeringvol 2018 Article ID 4068918 10 pages 2018

[13] J Qiu D Zheng and K Zhu ldquoSeepage monitoring modelsstudy of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstormsrdquo Math-ematical Problems in Engineering vol 2016 Article ID1656738 11 pages 2016

[14] A N Alekseevich and A A Sergeevich ldquoNumerical mod-elling of tailings dam thermal-seepage regime consideringphase transitionsrdquo Modelling and Simulation in Engineeringvol 2017 Article ID 7245413 10 pages 2017

[15] Z Jiang and J He ldquoDetection model for seepage behavior ofearth dams based on data miningrdquoMathematical Problems inEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 8191802 11 pages 2018

[16] B F +omas R M Vogel and J S Famiglietti ldquoObjectivehydrograph baseflow recession analysisrdquo Journal of Hydrol-ogy vol 525 pp 102ndash112 2015

[17] F R Hall ldquoBase flow recessionsmdasha reviewrdquo Water ResourcesResearch vol 4 no 5 pp 973ndash983 1968

[18] L M Tallaksen ldquoA review of baseflow recession analysisrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 165 no 1ndash4 pp 349ndash370 1995

[19] P A Jaime and K N Oxtobee ldquoA field investigation ofgroundwatersurface water interaction in a fractured bedrockenvironmentrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 269 no 3-4pp 169ndash193 2002

[20] S M Wondzell ldquoGroundwater-surface-water interactionsperspectives on the development of the science over the last 20yearsrdquo Freshwater Science vol 34 no 1 pp 368ndash376 2015

[21] Y K Zhang and K E Schilling ldquoIncreasing streamflow andbaseflow inMississippi River since the 1940s effect of land usechangerdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 324 no 1ndash4 pp 412ndash4222006

[22] J Szilagyi and M B Parlange ldquoBaseflow separation based onanalytical solutions of the Boussinesq equationrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 204 no 1ndash4 pp 251ndash260 1998

[23] V T Chow D Maidment and L W Mays ldquoApplied hy-drologyrdquo in Water Resources amp Environmental EngineeringMcGraw Hill New York NY USA 1st edition 1988

[24] R J Nathan and T A McMahon ldquoEvaluation of automatedtechniques for base flow and recession analysisrdquo Water Re-sources Research vol 26 no 7 pp 1465ndash1473 1990

[25] W C Boughton ldquoA hydrograph-based model for estimatingthe water yield of ungauged catchmentsrdquo in Proceedings of theHydrological and Water Resources Symposium pp 317ndash324Institution of Engineers Australia Newcastle Australia 1993

[26] T G Chapman and A I Maxwell ldquoBaseflow separationcomparison separation comparison of numerical methods

with tracer experimentsrdquo in Proceedings of the Hydrologicaland Water Resources Symposium pp 539ndash545 Institution ofEngineers Hobart Australia 1996

[27] T G Chapman ldquoA comparison of algorithms for stream flowrecession and baseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processesvol 13 no 5 pp 701ndash714 1999

[28] K Eckhardt ldquoHow to construct recursive digital filters forbaseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 19 no 2pp 507ndash515 2005

[29] S B K Tan E Y Lo E B Shuy L H C Chua andWH LimldquoHydrograph separation and development of empirical re-lationships using single-parameter digital filtersrdquo Journal ofHydrologic Engineering vol 14 no 3 pp 271ndash279 2009

[30] J M Mugo and T C Sharma ldquoApplication of a conceptualmethod for separating runoff components in daily hydro-graphs in Kimakia Forest Catchments Kenyardquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 13 no 17 pp 2931ndash2939 1999

[31] R M Vogel and C N Kroll ldquoEstimation of baseflow recessionconstantsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 10 no 4pp 303ndash320 1996

[32] J Sujono S Shikasho and K Hiramatsu ldquoA comparison oftechniques for hydrograph recession analysisrdquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 18 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2004

[33] A Grossmann and J Morlet ldquoDecomposition of Hardyfunctions into square integrable wavelets of constant shaperdquoSIAM Journal of Mathematics vol 15 no 4 pp 732ndash7361984

[34] G A Morlet I Fourgeau and D Giard ldquoWave propagationand sampling theoryrdquo Geophysics vol 47 no 2 pp 203ndash2361982

[35] L Chen H Zheng Y D Chen and C Liu ldquoBase-Flowseparation in the source region of the Yellow Riverrdquo Jour-nal of Hydrological Engineering vol 13 no 7 pp 541ndash5482008

[36] R P Chapuis and M Aubertin ldquoA simplified method toestimate saturated and unsaturated seepage through dikesunder steadystate conditionsrdquo Canadian Geotechnical Jour-nal vol 38 no 6 pp 1321ndash1328 2001

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Ter-minology Relating to Soil Rock and Contained Fluids ASTMWest Conshohocken PA USA 2002

[9] D K McCook ldquoA comprehensive discussion of piping andinternal erosion failure mechanismsrdquo in Proceedings of the2004 Annual Association of State Dam Safety Officials pp 1ndash6Phoenix AZ USA September 2004

[10] N J Jiang K Soga and M Kuo ldquoMicrobially induced car-bonate precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosioncontrol in sandndashclay mixturesrdquo Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering vol 143 no 3 article04016100 2017

[11] L Wang Z Chen and H Kong ldquoAn experimental in-vestigation for seepage-induced instability of confined brokenmudstones with consideration of mass lossrdquo Geofluidsvol 2017 Article ID 3057910 12 pages 2017

[12] Q Lin P Cao H Wang and R Cao ldquoAn experimental studyon cracking behavior of precracked sandstone specimensunder seepage pressurerdquo Advances in Civil Engineeringvol 2018 Article ID 4068918 10 pages 2018

[13] J Qiu D Zheng and K Zhu ldquoSeepage monitoring modelsstudy of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstormsrdquo Math-ematical Problems in Engineering vol 2016 Article ID1656738 11 pages 2016

[14] A N Alekseevich and A A Sergeevich ldquoNumerical mod-elling of tailings dam thermal-seepage regime consideringphase transitionsrdquo Modelling and Simulation in Engineeringvol 2017 Article ID 7245413 10 pages 2017

[15] Z Jiang and J He ldquoDetection model for seepage behavior ofearth dams based on data miningrdquoMathematical Problems inEngineering vol 2018 Article ID 8191802 11 pages 2018

[16] B F +omas R M Vogel and J S Famiglietti ldquoObjectivehydrograph baseflow recession analysisrdquo Journal of Hydrol-ogy vol 525 pp 102ndash112 2015

[17] F R Hall ldquoBase flow recessionsmdasha reviewrdquo Water ResourcesResearch vol 4 no 5 pp 973ndash983 1968

[18] L M Tallaksen ldquoA review of baseflow recession analysisrdquoJournal of Hydrology vol 165 no 1ndash4 pp 349ndash370 1995

[19] P A Jaime and K N Oxtobee ldquoA field investigation ofgroundwatersurface water interaction in a fractured bedrockenvironmentrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 269 no 3-4pp 169ndash193 2002

[20] S M Wondzell ldquoGroundwater-surface-water interactionsperspectives on the development of the science over the last 20yearsrdquo Freshwater Science vol 34 no 1 pp 368ndash376 2015

[21] Y K Zhang and K E Schilling ldquoIncreasing streamflow andbaseflow inMississippi River since the 1940s effect of land usechangerdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 324 no 1ndash4 pp 412ndash4222006

[22] J Szilagyi and M B Parlange ldquoBaseflow separation based onanalytical solutions of the Boussinesq equationrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 204 no 1ndash4 pp 251ndash260 1998

[23] V T Chow D Maidment and L W Mays ldquoApplied hy-drologyrdquo in Water Resources amp Environmental EngineeringMcGraw Hill New York NY USA 1st edition 1988

[24] R J Nathan and T A McMahon ldquoEvaluation of automatedtechniques for base flow and recession analysisrdquo Water Re-sources Research vol 26 no 7 pp 1465ndash1473 1990

[25] W C Boughton ldquoA hydrograph-based model for estimatingthe water yield of ungauged catchmentsrdquo in Proceedings of theHydrological and Water Resources Symposium pp 317ndash324Institution of Engineers Australia Newcastle Australia 1993

[26] T G Chapman and A I Maxwell ldquoBaseflow separationcomparison separation comparison of numerical methods

with tracer experimentsrdquo in Proceedings of the Hydrologicaland Water Resources Symposium pp 539ndash545 Institution ofEngineers Hobart Australia 1996

[27] T G Chapman ldquoA comparison of algorithms for stream flowrecession and baseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processesvol 13 no 5 pp 701ndash714 1999

[28] K Eckhardt ldquoHow to construct recursive digital filters forbaseflow separationrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 19 no 2pp 507ndash515 2005

[29] S B K Tan E Y Lo E B Shuy L H C Chua andWH LimldquoHydrograph separation and development of empirical re-lationships using single-parameter digital filtersrdquo Journal ofHydrologic Engineering vol 14 no 3 pp 271ndash279 2009

[30] J M Mugo and T C Sharma ldquoApplication of a conceptualmethod for separating runoff components in daily hydro-graphs in Kimakia Forest Catchments Kenyardquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 13 no 17 pp 2931ndash2939 1999

[31] R M Vogel and C N Kroll ldquoEstimation of baseflow recessionconstantsrdquo Water Resources Management vol 10 no 4pp 303ndash320 1996

[32] J Sujono S Shikasho and K Hiramatsu ldquoA comparison oftechniques for hydrograph recession analysisrdquo HydrologicalProcesses vol 18 no 3 pp 403ndash413 2004

[33] A Grossmann and J Morlet ldquoDecomposition of Hardyfunctions into square integrable wavelets of constant shaperdquoSIAM Journal of Mathematics vol 15 no 4 pp 732ndash7361984

[34] G A Morlet I Fourgeau and D Giard ldquoWave propagationand sampling theoryrdquo Geophysics vol 47 no 2 pp 203ndash2361982

[35] L Chen H Zheng Y D Chen and C Liu ldquoBase-Flowseparation in the source region of the Yellow Riverrdquo Jour-nal of Hydrological Engineering vol 13 no 7 pp 541ndash5482008

[36] R P Chapuis and M Aubertin ldquoA simplified method toestimate saturated and unsaturated seepage through dikesunder steadystate conditionsrdquo Canadian Geotechnical Jour-nal vol 38 no 6 pp 1321ndash1328 2001

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Modelling ampSimulationin EngineeringHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

wwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom