processes

Article
Critical Hydraulic Gradient of Internal Erosion at the
Soil–Structure Interface
Quanyi Xie ID
, Jian Liu *, Bo Han *, Hongtao Li, Yuying Li and Xuanzheng Li
School of Civil Engineering, Shandong University, 17922, Jingshi Road, Jinan 250061, China;
quanyixiesdu@163.com (Q.X.); 17865131577@163.com or lihongtaosdu@163.com (H.L.);
liyuyingsdu@163.com (Y.L.); lixuanzheng1992@163.com (X.L.)
* Correspondence: liujianshanda@163.com (J.L.); bo.han@sdu.edu.cn (B.H.); Tel.: +86-136-1641-9012 (J.L.)




Received: 25 June 2018; Accepted: 16 July 2018; Published: 18 July 2018


Abstract: Internal erosion at soil–structure interfaces is a dangerous failure pattern in earth-fill

water-retaining structures. However, existing studies concentrate on the investigations of internal
erosion by assuming homogeneous materials, while ignoring the vulnerable soil–structure-interface
internal erosion in realistic cases. Therefore, orthogonal and single-factor tests are carried out with
a newly designed apparatus to investigate the critical hydraulic gradient of internal erosion on
soil–structure interfaces. The main conclusions can be draw as follows: (1) the impact order of the
three factors is: degree of compaction > roughness > clay content; (2) the critical hydraulic gradient
increases as the degree of compaction and clay content increases. This effect is found to be more
obvious in the higher range of the degree of soil compaction and clay content. However, there exists
an optimum interface roughness making the antiseepage strength at the interface reach a maximum;
(3) the evolution of the interface internal erosion develops from inside to outside along the interface,
and the soil particles at the interface flow as a whole; and (4) the critical hydraulic gradient of interface
internal erosion is related to the shear strength at the interface and the severity and porosity of the soil.

Keywords: soil–structure interface; internal erosion; critical hydraulic gradient; orthogonal tests

1. Introduction
Internal erosion is the transportation of soil particles induced by internal seepage [1,2]. The current
studies broadly categorize internal erosion into four groups: (a) concentrated leak erosion; (b) backward
erosion; (c) contact erosion; (d) suffusion. Concentrated leak erosion is the process of sweeping particles
away from the side of the crack due to the effect of the seepage [3–5]. Backward erosion refers to the
process of generating permeating channels from downstream to upstream due to the action of water
flow in strong permeable layers [6–8]. Contact erosion occurs in the interface between particles with
different diameters, and the small particles erode into the framework of large particles [9]. Suffusion
refers to the phenomenon that small particles in the soil are flowed away from the pore between large
particles [10,11]. However, internal erosion between soil and structure is not included in the four types
of internal erosion discussed above.
Soil–structure interfaces widely exist in hydraulic structures and the associated interface internal
erosion failures significantly threaten engineering safety. In particular, seepage channels can be easily
developed through the weak interfaces due to the differential mechanical properties between soil and
the structure [12]. This can eventually lead to the formation of pipes/conduits, cavities and unstable
zones in earth-fill structures [13]. For instance, the Teton dam in US, with a height of 91.5 m, collapsed
in June, 1976. After the accident investigation, the main reason of the dam failure was attributed to the
internal erosion at the interface between the clay core wall and rock [14,15].

Processes 2018, 6, 92; doi:10.3390/pr6070092 www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2018, 6, 92 2 of 15

Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

Although the phenomenon of soil–structure-interface internal erosion has been noticed, existing
studies Although
have concentrated
the phenomenon on the investigations of internal
of soil–structure-interface internalerosion
erosionbyhasassuming
been noticed,homogeneous
existing
materials,
studies while ignoring theonmore
have concentrated vulnerable soil–structure-interface
the investigations of internal erosion by internal
assumingerosion in realistic
homogeneous
cases. [16–19].while
materials, The failure
ignoring mechanism
the more of interface soil–structure-interface
vulnerable internal erosion can beinternal
more complex
erosionand dangerous
in realistic
duecases.
to the[16–19]. The with
interaction failurethemechanism of interface
internal affiliated internal
structures erosion
[20,21]. Thecan be more interface
associated complex internal
and
dangerous due to the interaction with the internal affiliated structures [20,21].
erosions have been frequently observed, such as at the interfaces between cut-off walls and earth-fill The associated
interface
materials in internal erosions
dams [22–26], have been
between frequently
cut-off walls andobserved, such
earth-fill as at theininterfaces
materials between
levees [27–29], and cut-off
between
walls and earth-fill materials in dams [22–26], between cut-off walls and earth-fill
retaining walls and backfill materials [30–32]. In these works, some empirical criteria are proposed materials in levees
and[27–29], and between
developed retaining
for evaluating thewalls and stability
internal backfill materials
potential[30–32]. In these works,interface.
at the soil–structure some empirical
However,
criteria are proposed and developed for evaluating the internal stability potential at the soil–structure
there are few studies on the effects and mechanism of internal erosion at the soil–structure interface.
interface. However, there are few studies on the effects and mechanism of internal erosion at the soil–
Therefore, in this paper, a newly designed seepage apparatus is employed to investigate the failure
structure interface.
mechanism of internal erosion at soil–structure interfaces. Both orthogonal tests and single-factor tests
Therefore, in this paper, a newly designed seepage apparatus is employed to investigate the
are failure
designed to investigate
mechanism the sensitivity
of internal erosion atof the critical hydraulic
soil–structure interfaces.gradient of internal
Both orthogonal erosion
tests subjected
and single-
to three
factorcritical soildesigned
tests are properties, that is, degree
to investigate of compaction,
the sensitivity of the clay content
critical and roughness.
hydraulic The failure
gradient of internal
mechanism
erosion subjected to three critical soil properties, that is, degree of compaction, clay content andand
of interface internal erosion is studied by analyzing the observed failure phenomena
theroughness.
variation of seepage
The failure behavior.
mechanism Furthermore, the relationship
of interface internal erosion is between
studied by interface
analyzing shear
the strength
observed and
critical hydraulic
failure phenomena gradient
and theis obtained
variation by analyzing
of seepage the forces
behavior. on the soil–structure
Furthermore, interface
the relationship betweenfor the
interface shear
investigated strength and critical hydraulic gradient is obtained by analyzing the forces on the soil–
cases.
structure interface for the investigated cases.
2. Soil–Structure-Interface Internal Erosion Tests
2. Soil–Structure-Interface Internal Erosion Tests
2.1. Soil–Structure Interface Seepage Failure Apparatus
2.1. Soil–Structure Interface Seepage Failure Apparatus
Figure 1 shows the designed soil–structure interface seepage failure apparatus. The dimensions
Figure 1 shows
of the apparatus are 600the×designed soil–structure
300 × 1000 mm (length interface
× widthseepage failureThe
× height). apparatus. The dimensions
dimensions of the sample
container are 500 × 300 × 800 mm. The sample container is made of acrylic plates, and it sample
of the apparatus are 600 × 300 × 1000 mm (length × width × height). The dimensions of the consists of
twocontainer
parts, theare 500 ×sample
upper 300 × 800 mm. The
chamber andsample container
the lower is made
seepage of acrylic
transition plates,The
chamber. andsoil
it consists of
and concrete
two parts, the upper sample chamber and the lower seepage transition chamber. The soil and concrete
blocks are placed in the upper chamber with the concrete blocks at the two sides and a soil specimen
blocks are placed in the upper chamber with the concrete blocks at the two sides and a soil specimen
in the middle. The porous boards are divided into two parts, that is, an inclined porous board and a
in the middle. The porous boards are divided into two parts, that is, an inclined porous board and a
horizontal porous board. The slope of the inclined porous board is 1:1 and it can effectively filter any
horizontal porous board. The slope of the inclined porous board is 1:1 and it can effectively filter any
gasgas
bubbles in the filled water. The inlet and outlet are set into the lower and upper parts of the sample
bubbles in the filled water. The inlet and outlet are set into the lower and upper parts of the
container, respectively
sample container, (as shown
respectively (asinshown
Figurein1). When
Figure 1).the
Whenteststhe
are conducted,
tests waterwater
are conducted, flowsflows
upward.
Theupward.
testing apparatus is equipped with a constant-head water supply system and
The testing apparatus is equipped with a constant-head water supply system and a data a data acquisition
system (seepage
acquisition discharge
system (seepageand hydraulic
discharge andhead are recorded).
hydraulic head are recorded).

(a)

Figure 1. Cont.
Processes 2018, 6,
Processes 2018, 6, 92
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 15
15
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

(b)
Figure 1.
1. Testing (b) of interface internal erosion testing system; (b)
Figure Testingapparatus.
apparatus.(a)(a)
Schematic graph
Schematic graph of interface internal erosion testing system;
physical
(b)
Figure 1.testing
physical apparatus.
testing
Testing apparatus.(a) Schematic graph of interface internal erosion testing system; (b)
apparatus.
physical testing apparatus.
2.2. Testing
2.2. Materials
Testing Materials
2.2. Testing Materials filling soil around concrete buildings, soil of high liquid-plastic limits and high
In reality,
In reality, when
when filling soil around concrete buildings, soil of high liquid-plastic limits and
clay particle
In reality,content
when
high clay particle content is usually
filling soil
is used. Therefore,
around
usually concrete
used. the selection
buildings,
Therefore, thesoil ofofsoil
high
selection samples in the present
ofliquid-plastic
soil samples limits
in theandwork
high
present is
based
clay on
workparticle these
is based two
content factors.
is usually
on these The samples for this
used. Therefore,
two factors. The samples study
thefor are obtained
selection of soil
this study by mixing
aresamples two
obtainedinby soils:
themixing silt
presenttwo and
workclay
is
soils:
fromand
based
silt the Yellow
onclay
these two
from River
the alluvial
factors. plain.alluvial
TheRiver
Yellow samples The
forgrain-size
this distribution
studyThe
plain. obtainedcurves
are grain-size by of the
mixing
distribution twofour tested
soils:
curves silt soilsfour
of and
the are
clay
shown
from
tested theinYellow
soilsFigure 2. The alluvial
River
are shown ranges
in Figureofplain.
clay content
Theranges
2. The and of liquid
grain-size limit ofand
distribution
clay content the soil
curves
liquidsamples
of limit arethe
the four
of 21.8–29.8%
tested
soil soils and
are
samples
31.84–33.78%,
shown
are 21.8–29.8% respectively,
in Figureand2. The
31.84–33.78%,and
ranges of clay these cover
content and
respectively, the
and concerned
liquid
theselimit
cover soil
of the property
the soil ranges
samplessoil
concerned for
areproperty hydraulic
21.8–29.8% and
ranges
engineering
31.84–33.78%, structures defined
respectively, and in the
theseChinese
cover Embankment
the concerned Dam
soil Constructions
property
for hydraulic engineering structures defined in the Chinese Embankment Dam Constructions Code rangesCode for (DL/T 5395
hydraulic
2007). The
(DL/T 5395material
engineering properties
structures
2007). The definedand
material particle
in the compositions
Chinese
properties and Embankment
particle of theDam
four Constructions
compositions tested
of the soils areCode
four tested listed inare
Table
(DL/T
soils 53951.
listed
2007). The
in Table 1. material properties and particle compositions of the four tested soils are listed in Table 1.

Figure 2. Grain-size distribution curves.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Grain-size
Grain-size distribution
distribution curves.
curves.
Processes 2018, 6, 92 4 of 15

Table 1. Material properties for the tested soils.

Material Properties Soil Sample-1 Soil Sample-2 Soil Sample-3 Soil Sample-4
Clay content (<0.005 mm) (%) 29.8 27.9 26.8 21.8
Liquid limit (%) 33.78 33.51 33.07 31.84
Plastic limit (%) 18.90 18.42 18.36 17.14
Specific gravity 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74
Optimal water content (%) 20.3 18.7 18.3 18.1
Maximum dry density (g/cm3 ) 1.660 1.672 1.678 1.683

2.3. Soil Sample Preparation

Silt and clay are first crushed and mixed in a certain proportion. The mass ratio of silt and clay of
samples 1, 2, 3 and 4 are 3:7, 3.5:6.5, 4:6 and 5:5, respectively. In order to ensure full water absorption,
optimum water content is maintained when producing the soil samples for 24 h. At the same time, in
order to reduce the influence of moisture content in the test, the difference of moisture content between
the two sets of soil samples for repeated tests is controlled within 1%.
In order to ensure uniformity of the tested soil samples, the obtained samples are subsequently
filled into the upper chamber by controlling a certain degree of compaction. The thickness of each
layer is 4 cm. The degree of compaction of soil samples is controlled by controlling the compaction
quality of each layer.
The roughness of the soil–structure interface is defined by the height of the salient of the structure.
The height of the salient varies by changing the diameter of sand particles that are attached to the
structure. For instance, a roughness of 0.3 cm means that the diameter of the sand particles attached to
the structure is 0.3 cm.
The hydraulic head in the constant-head water supply system is raised to saturate the soil samples
before the tests. The hydraulic head is raised by 1 cm every 1 h. This relatively slow saturation process
can reduce the seepage scouring effect on soil samples.

2.4. Testing Program

When the tests start, the inlet hydraulic head is gradually raised to the designed values.
The piezometric levels of the outflow are recorded, and the outflow seepage discharge is measured
every 5 min. When the outflow hydraulic heads and seepage discharge subjected to two sequent
hydraulic head raises are sufficiently close, that is, the differences of two results are within 5%, it is
considered to reach the steady state. Furthermore, typical failure phenomena, such as water turbidity
and slight bulging, are also monitored as the failure criteria during the experiments. When any of
the mentioned failure phenomena appear at the soil–structure interface, the tests are continuously
observed for 1 to 2 h. Internal erosion is recognized when the hydraulic head cannot be further raised.

2.5. Testing Schemes

Orthogonal tests are carried out to analyze the sensitivity of failure mechanisms of interface
internal erosion subjected to three critical soil properties (degree of compaction, clay content and
roughness). Regardless of the interplay of the factors, the orthogonal table L9 (34 ) is used. The designed
tables of the influence factor level and the orthogonal tests are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
On the basis of the orthogonal tests, the single-factor tests are also carried out to investigate in
detail the influence of the three factors on interface internal erosion. The designed testing scheme of
the single-factor tests is shown in Table 4. In order to ensure the reproducibility and accuracy of the
test data, three independent tests are carried out for each test condition. The mean values of the data
from the three tests are firstly calculated (that is, the hydraulic gradient-flow velocity curve). If all
the data lie in the ±10% deviation range of the mean curve, they are considered to be reliable and
the mean curve is used to represent the soil behavior under this specific test condition. Furthermore,
Processes 2018, 6, 92 5 of 15

a series of measures are also employed to enhance the reproducibility of the data. In particular, firstly,
the deviations of water content and clay content are controlled within 0.5%; secondly, quality control is
adopted when reconstituting the sample and the deviation of compactness is controlled within 1%;
thirdly, the accuracy of the water supply system is 1 mm and the error is only 2%; last but not least,
the accuracy of the seepage discharge measure unit is 0.01 cm3 and the error is 1%.

Table 2. Level of influence factors.

A B C
Factor Level
Degree of Compaction (%) Clay Content (%) Roughness (cm)
1 80 21.8 0
2 85 26.8 0.3
3 90 29.8 0.6

Table 3. Testing scheme of orthogonal tests.

A B C
Factor Test Number
Degree of Compaction (%) Clay Content (%) Roughness (cm)
I-1 80 21.8 0.6
I-2 80 26.8 0.3
I-3 80 29.8 0
I-4 85 21.8 0.3
I-5 85 26.8 0
I-6 85 29.8 0.6
I-7 90 21.8 0
I-8 90 26.8 0.6
I-9 90 29.8 0.3

Table 4. Testing scheme of single-factor tests.

Test Number Degree of Compaction (%) Clay Content (%) Roughness (cm)
II-1 90 29.8 0
II-2 87 29.8 0
II-3 85 29.8 0
II-4 80 29.8 0
II-5 85 27.9 0
II-6 85 26.8 0
II-7 85 21.8 0
II-8 85 29.8 0.6
II-9 85 29.8 0.4
II-10 85 29.8 0.3

3. Testing Results

3.1. Observed Test Phenomena

The observed phenomena of the soil–structure-interface internal erosion are shown in Figure 3
(soil sample on left, concrete block on right). The presented results show a three-stage failure evolution
of interface internal erosion, that is, the stable, transition and failure stages. At the stable and transition
stages, no particles flow from the surface of the soil–concrete interface, but the soil at the interface
shows a slight bulging (uplift of soil) in the transition stage. At the failure stage, a large number of fine
particles are transported along the interface. After the interface internal erosion, a crack is formed at
the soil–structure interface (see Figure 3d).
Processes 2018, 6, 92 6 of 15
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Phenomena
Phenomena of of soil–structure-interface
soil–structure-interface internal
internal erosion.
erosion. (a)
(a) Stable
Stable stage;
stage; (b)
(b) transition
transition stage;
stage;
(c) failure stage; (d) interface internal erosion.
(c) failure stage; (d) interface internal erosion.

3.2. Mechanism
3.2. Mechanism of Interface Internal
of Interface Internal Erosion
Erosion
The relationships
The relationships of of the
the seepage
seepage velocity,
velocity, hydraulic
hydraulic gradient,
gradient, permeability
permeability coefficient,
coefficient, and
and the
the
eroded soil mass against time of II-1 (degree of compaction =
eroded soil mass against time of II-1 (degree of compaction = 90%, clay content = 29.8%, 90%, clay content = 29.8%, interface
roughnessroughness
interface = 0) are shown in Figures
= 0) are shown 4inand 5. In 4the
Figures experiment,
and the hydraulicthe
5. In the experiment, gradient is applied
hydraulic gradientby
a certain
is appliedincrement.
by a certain With the increase
increment. Withof hydraulic
the increase gradient, it can be
of hydraulic seen that
gradient, the seepage
it can velocity
be seen that the
starts to increase, but the average hydraulic coefficient does not change,
seepage velocity starts to increase, but the average hydraulic coefficient does not change, and no soil and no soil particles are
flowing from the interface. When the hydraulic gradient increases to
particles are flowing from the interface. When the hydraulic gradient increases to 1.63, the average 1.63, the average hydraulic
coefficientcoefficient
hydraulic starts to increase, but the soil
starts to increase, but particles have not
the soil particles been
have noteroded from the
been eroded from interface. This
the interface.
indicates that the soil particles at the interface start to move due to seepage
This indicates that the soil particles at the interface start to move due to seepage but have not been but have not been totally
erodederoded
totally from the from interface. When When
the interface. the hydraulic gradient
the hydraulic increases
gradient to 1.99,
increases a large
to 1.99, number
a large of soil
number of
particles are rushed out from the interface. At this stage, the interface
soil particles are rushed out from the interface. At this stage, the interface has been penetrated and has been penetrated and
destroyed. From
destroyed. From Figure
Figure 3d,3d, it
it can
can bebe seen
seen that
that the
the interface internal erosion
interface internal erosion isis observed
observed as as the
the overall
overall
flow of
flow of soil
soilparticles
particlesatatthetheinterface.
interface.InInparticular,
particular, thethe infiltration
infiltration at the
at the interface
interface is developed
is developed fromfrom
the
the inside to the outside, and a crack is formed at the soil–structure
inside to the outside, and a crack is formed at the soil–structure interface. interface.
The critical hydraulic gradient is used to characterize the seepage stability of soil samples,
related to soil porosity and density. Critical hydraulic gradient is defined by the hydraulic gradient
where particles start to outflow from soil samples. The determination of the critical hydraulic
gradient of internal erosion is based on the occurrence of “sand boil” or other indicating phenomena
Processes 2018, 6, 92 7 of 15

The critical hydraulic gradient is used to characterize the seepage stability of soil samples,
Processes
related 2018,
to 6, xxporosity
soil
Processes 2018, 6, FOR PEER
FOR PEERand
REVIEW
density. Critical hydraulic gradient is defined by the hydraulic gradient
REVIEW 77 of
of 15
15
where particles start to outflow from soil samples. The determination of the critical hydraulic gradient
of internal
of seepageerosion
seepage failure.isTherefore,
failure. Therefore, the occurrence
based on the threshold hydraulic
threshold hydraulic gradient,
gradient,
of “sand boil” when
when
or other soil particles
soil particles
indicating outflow
outflow
phenomena from
offrom
seepagethe
the
interface,
interface,
failure. is defined
is definedthe
Therefore, as threshold
as the critical
the criticalhydraulic
hydraulicgradient,
hydraulic gradient for
gradient for interface
wheninterface internaloutflow
internal
soil particles erosion.from the interface,
erosion.
is defined as the critical hydraulic gradient for interface internal erosion.

Figure
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Hydraulic gradient
4. Hydraulic gradient and
gradient and seepage
and seepage velocity-t
seepage velocity-t curve
velocity-t curve of
curve of II-1.
of II-1.
II-1.

Figure
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Hydraulic conductivity
5. Hydraulic conductivity and
conductivity and eroded
and eroded soil-t
eroded soil-t curve
soil-t curve of
curve of II-1.
of II-1.
II-1.

3.3. Orthogonal
3.3.
3.3. TestResults
Orthogonal Test
Test Results
Results
The results
The
The results from
results from the
from the orthogonal
the orthogonal tests
orthogonal tests are
tests are analyzed
are analyzed and
analyzed and discussed
and discussed in
discussed in this
in this section.
this section. It
section. It is
It is noted
is noted that
noted that
that
the
the error
error analysis,
analysis, range
range analysis
analysis and variance
variance analysis are carried out to analyze the effect
the error analysis, range analysis and variance analysis are carried out to analyze the effect of error of
of error
error
and three
and
and three critical
three critical soil
critical soil property
soil property factors.
property factors.
factors.

3.3.1. Error
3.3.1. Error Analysis
Analysis
The critical
The critical hydraulic
hydraulic gradients
gradients from
from orthogonal
orthogonal test
test results
results are
are listed
listed in
in Table
Table 5. 5. SSj
SSj is
is the
the sum
sum
of squares of each factor and SSE is the error sum of squares. In the orthogonal
of squares of each factor and SSE is the error sum of squares. In the orthogonal tests, the average tests, the average
critical hydraulic
critical hydraulic gradient
gradient isis 1.48.
1.48. The
The sum
sum square
square ofof degree
degree ofof compaction
compaction is is 1.83.
1.83. The
The sum
sum square
square of
of
clay content
clay content isis 0.23.
0.23. The
The sum
sum square
square ofof roughness
roughness isis 0.45.
0.45. The
The error
error sum
sum square
square of of the
the orthogonal
orthogonal test
test
is 0.04. The error sum square of the orthogonal experiment is much smaller than
is 0.04. The error sum square of the orthogonal experiment is much smaller than the sum of squares the sum of squares
of the
of the factors.
factors. Therefore,
Therefore, the
the degree
degree ofof the
the influence
influence ofof error
error in in the
the orthogonal
orthogonal experiment
experiment can can be
be
neglected.
neglected.
Processes 2018, 6, 92 8 of 15

3.3.1. Error Analysis

The critical hydraulic gradients from orthogonal test results are listed in Table 5. SSj is the sum of
squares of each factor and SSE is the error sum of squares. In the orthogonal tests, the average critical
hydraulic gradient is 1.48. The sum square of degree of compaction is 1.83. The sum square of clay
content is 0.23. The sum square of roughness is 0.45. The error sum square of the orthogonal test is 0.04.
The error sum square of the orthogonal experiment is much smaller than the sum of squares of the
factors. Therefore, the degree of the influence of error in the orthogonal experiment can be neglected.

Table 5. Critical hydraulic gradient of orthogonal test results.

A B C E Critical Hydraulic
Degree of Compaction (%) Clay Content (%) Roughness (cm) Empty Column Gradient
I-1 1(80) 1(21.8) 3(0.6) 1 0.98
I-2 1(80) 2(26.8) 2(0.3) 2 1.24
I-3 1(80) 3(29.8) 1(0) 3 1.06
I-4 2(85) 1(21.8) 2(0.3) 3 1.40
I-5 2(85) 2(26.8) 1(0) 1 1.00
I-6 2(85) 3(29.8) 3(0.6) 2 1.31
I-7 3(90) 1(21.8) 1(0) 2 1.81
I-8 3(90) 2(26.8) 3(0.6) 3 1.79
I-9 3(90) 3(29.8) 2(0.3) 1 2.74
SSj 1.83 0.23 0.45 0.04

3.3.2. Range Analysis

The range analysis results are shown in Table 6. K1 , K2 and K3 are the average values of critical
hydraulic gradient under the same test condition of different factors. The results from the range
analysis show that RA = 1.02 > RC = 0.50 > RB = 0.36, where RA, RB and RC are the ranges of degree of
compaction, clay content and roughness, respectively. This demonstrates that the investigated interface
internal erosion is most significantly affected by degree of compaction. The influence of the roughness
is relatively less profound, while the clay content shows the least impact.

Table 6. Range analysis results of interface internal erosion.

A B C
Degree of Compaction (%) Clay Content (%) Roughness (cm)
K1 1.09 1.40 1.36
K2 1.24 1.34 1.79
K3 2.11 1.70 1.29
Range Ri 1.02 0.36 0.5

3.3.3. Variance Analysis

The data of the variance analysis of orthogonal test results is shown in Table 7. The variance
analysis results of orthogonal tests show that the F of degree of compaction is 42, which is greater
than F0.025 (2,2), and its effect on the critical hydraulic gradient is significant. The F of clay content is 6,
which is greater than F0.25 (2,2), and its effect on the critical hydraulic gradient is relevant. The F of
roughness is greater than F0.10 (2,2), and its effect on the critical hydraulic gradient is significant.
This is also in agreement with the results from the variance analysis. In particular, the results
from the variance analysis show that the significance level of degree of compaction is the highest,
followed by roughness and clay content. Therefore, the impact order of the three factors is: degree of
compaction > roughness > clay content.
Processes 2018, 6, 92 9 of 15

Table 7. Variance analysis results of interface internal erosion.

A B C E
Degree of Compaction (%) Fine Content (%) Roughness (cm) Empty Column
K1j 2 3.28 4.19 4.08 4.72
K2j 2 3.71 4.03 5.38 4.36
K3j 2 6.34 5.11 3.87 4.25
Free degree 2 2 2 2
SS 1.83 0.23 0.45 0.04
MS 0.92 0.12 0.23 0.02
F 42 6 11.50
F0.01 (2,2) 99 99 99
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
F0.025 (2,2) 39 39 39
F0.05 (2,2) 19 19 19
F0.01(2,2) 99 99 99
F0.10 (2,2) 9 9 9
F0.025(2,2) 39 39 39
F0.25 (2,2) 3 3 3
F0.05(2,2) 19 19 19
Significance level ** (Greatly significant) - (Relevant) * (Significant)
F0.10(2,2) 9 9 9
F0.25(2,2) 3 3 3
Significance level ** (Greatly significant) - (Relevant) * (Significant)
3.4. Effect of Degree of Compaction
3.4.6Effect
Figure showsof Degree
theofhydraulic
Compaction gradient–seepage velocity curves under different degrees of
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
compaction. Figure 6 shows of
The degrees thecompaction
hydraulic gradient–seepage
of the tests II-1, velocity II-2,curves
II-3 under
and II-4 different
are 80%, degrees of 88% and
85%,
compaction. The degrees
90%, respectively. The relationship
F (2,2)
0.01 of compaction
between
99 of the tests II-1,99 II-2,
hydraulic39gradient and II-3 and II-4
99 are 80%, 85%, 88% and 90%,
seepage velocity of three degrees
F (2,2)0.025 39 39
respectively. The relationship
F (2,2) between 19 hydraulic gradient 19 and seepage 19 velocity of three degrees of
of compaction is characterized
compaction is characterized
F (2,2)
0.05

0.10
by three stages. Figure 7
by three 9stages. Figure 7 9plots the variations
plots the 9
variations of the critical hydraulic
of the critical hydraulic
F (2,2) 3 3 3
gradient against degree of
gradient againstSignificancecompaction.
0.25
degreelevel of compaction. When the
When the soil
** (Greatly significant)
soil degree of compaction increases fromfrom
compaction
degree of* (Significant)
- (Relevant)
increases 80% to80% to 85%,
85%, the
the hydraulic hydraulic
gradient gradient increases
increases by 10.47%. by 10.47%.
However, However, when when thethedegree
degree of ofcompaction
compaction increases
increases from
3.4. Effect of Degree of Compaction
from 85% to 90%, the hydraulic gradient increases by 70.86%. It indicates the strengthening effects of
85% to 90%, the hydraulic gradient increases by 70.86%. It indicates the strengthening effects of soil
soil compaction Figureagainst 6 shows the hydraulic gradient–seepage
seepage-induced velocity curves This
interface deformation. under effect
differentisdegrees
foundofto be more
compaction against seepage-induced
compaction.
obvious in therespectively.
higher range
The degrees of interface
compaction
of the degree
of deformation.that
the
ofhydraulic
tests II-1,
soil compaction,
II-2, II-3 This
and II-4 effect
are 80%,
is,velocity
a higher
isincrease
85%, found rate.
88% and to be more obvious in
90%,
The relationship between gradient and seepage of three degrees of
the higher range of the degree
compaction of soil compaction,
is characterized by three stages. Figure that is, athehigher
7 plots variations increase
of the critical rate.
hydraulic
gradient against degree of compaction. When the soil degree of compaction increases from 80% to
85%, the hydraulic gradient increases by 10.47%. However, when the degree of compaction increases
from 85% to 90%, the hydraulic gradient increases by 70.86%. It indicates the strengthening effects of
soil compaction against seepage-induced interface deformation. This effect is found to be more
obvious in the higher range of the degree of soil compaction, that is, a higher increase rate.

Hydraulic
Figure 6.Figure gradient–seepage
6. Hydraulic gradient–seepagevelocity curves
velocity curves under
under different
different degrees
degrees of compaction.
of compaction.
Figure 6. Hydraulic gradient–seepage velocity curves under different degrees of compaction.

Figure 7. Critical hydraulic gradients for different degrees of compaction.

Figure 7. Critical hydraulic gradients for different degrees of compaction.

Figure 7. Critical hydraulic gradients for different degrees of compaction.

 Processes2018,
Processes 2018,6,6,x92
FOR PEER REVIEW 1010ofof1515

3.5. Effect of Interface Roughness

3.5. Effect of Interface Roughness
The hydraulic
Processes 2018, 6, x FORgradient–seepage
PEER REVIEW velocity behavior under different roughness conditions 10 of 15 is
shownThe in hydraulic
Figure 8. The gradient–seepage
results reflectvelocitythe impact behavior under different
of interface roughness roughness
(bonding conditions
between is theshown
soil
in Figure
and 8. The
3.5. Effect
structure) ofon results
Interface
interface reflect
Roughness
internal theerosion.
impactThe of interface
interface roughness
roughnesses (bonding
of the tests between the II-9
II-3, II-8, soilandand
structure)
II-10 are 0,Theon interface
0.3, 0.4 and 0.6 internal erosion. The It
mm, respectively. interface
can roughnesses
be seen that as of the tests
interface II-3, II-8,increases,
roughness II-9 and II-10
hydraulic gradient–seepage velocity behavior under different roughness conditions is the
are 0, 0.3,
criticalshown 0.4
hydraulic and 0.6 mm,
gradient respectively. It can be seen that as interface roughness increases, the critical
in Figure 8. Thefirst increases,
results reflect the reaches
impactthe peak at 0.3
of interface mm roughness
roughness (bonding and between thenthedecreases.
soil
hydraulic
and gradient
structure) first
on increases,
interface reaches
internal erosion.the peak
The at
interface0.3 mm roughness
roughnesses
This is also reflected by the critical hydraulic gradient–interface roughness relation in Figure 9. of theand then
tests II-3, decreases.
II-8, II-9 andThis
Theis
also reflected
II-10 are
presented 0,by
results the
0.3, 0.4critical
indicate anhydraulic
and 0.6 mm,
optimum gradient–interface
respectively.
interfaceIt can be seen
roughness roughness
that relation
as interface
where in Figure
roughness
the highest 9. The presented
increases,
antiseepage the
strength
results indicate
critical an
hydraulic optimum
gradient interface
first roughness
increases, reacheswherethe the
peak highest
at 0.3 mm
can be obtained against interface internal erosion. The reason for the optimum interface roughness is antiseepage
roughness strength
and then can be obtained
decreases.
against
that Thisinterface
when internal
is also reflected
the soil–structure byerosion.
the critical
interface The is reason
hydraulic for smooth,
the optimum
gradient–interface
relatively interface
roughness
soil particles canroughness
be easily is
relation in Figure that9.when
The the
transported by
presented
soil–structure results indicate an optimum interface roughness where the highest antiseepage strength
seepage water interface
and therefore is relatively smooth,
the critical soil particles
hydraulic can be
gradient easilyWhen
is low. transported
interface by seepage
roughness water
is
can be obtained
and therefore against
the critical interface gradient
hydraulic internal erosion.
is low. The
When reason for theroughness
interface optimum interface
is as
higher, roughness is
the antiseepage
higher, the
that when
antiseepage strength
the soil–structure
and
interface
the critical
is relatively
hydraulic
smooth,
gradient
soil
are larger
particles can beofeasily
a consequence
transported
of
byat the
a
strength
biggerseepageand
frictionwaterthe critical
at theand hydraulic
interface. However, gradient
after are larger
reaching as a consequence
a threshold value, a bigger friction
therefore the critical hydraulic gradient is low. Whenthe voids between
interface roughness soil
is and
interface.are
structure However, after reaching asignificant
threshold watervalue, flowthe voids between soil and structure areaso large
higher, the antiseepage strength and the critical hydraulic gradient are larger as a consequence of lower
so large that a more generates and therefore leads to a
that a more
criticalbigger significant
hydraulic water flow generates and therefore leads to a lower critical hydraulic gradient,
friction gradient, as illustrated
at the interface. However, after in Figure
reaching10. The optimum
a threshold value, theroughness
voids between is found
soil and to be
as illustrated
structure are
approximately in
0.3Figure
so
mm for10.
large theThe
that optimum
ainvestigated
more roughness
significant
cases.water flow is found
generates to be
andapproximately
therefore leads 0.3 to ammlower for the
investigated cases. gradient, as illustrated in Figure 10. The optimum roughness is found to be
critical hydraulic
approximately 0.3 mm for the investigated cases.

Figure
Figure
Figure Hydraulic
8.8.Hydraulic gradient–seepage
gradient–seepage
8. Hydraulic velocitycurves
gradient–seepagevelocity
velocity curvesunder
curves under
under different
different
different roughnesses.
roughnesses.
roughnesses.

Figure
Figure 9. 9. Criticalhydraulic
Critical hydraulic gradients
gradientsfor
fordifferent
differentroughnesses.
roughnesses.

Figure 9. Critical hydraulic gradients for different roughnesses.

Processes
Processes2018,
2018,6,6,x92
FOR PEER REVIEW 1111ofof1515
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure 10. Schematic graph for different interface roughnesses. (a) Schematic graph for the interface
Figure
roughness10.of
Figure 10. Schematic graph
0 mm; (b)
Schematic for different
different
schematic
graph for interface
graph interface roughnesses.
for interface roughness(a)
roughnesses. Schematic
3 mm; (c)graph
(a)ofSchematic for
schematic
graph the interface
graph
for the for
interface
roughness
roughness of 0 mm; (b) schematic graph for interface roughness of 3 mm; (c) schematic graph for
interface of 0 mm;
roughness of (b)
6 schematic
mm. graph for interface roughness of 3 mm; (c) schematic graph for
interface roughness of
interface roughness of 66 mm.
mm.
3.6. Effect of Clay Content
3.6. Effect
3.6. The of
of Clay
Clay Content
Effecthydraulic Content
gradient–seepage velocity behavior plots under different clay contents are shown
The
The hydraulic gradient–seepage
in Figure hydraulic
11. It can be seen that the difference
gradient–seepage velocity behavior
velocitybetween
behavior theplots under
results
plots underfromdifferent
II-6 andclay
different II-7contents
clay are
are shown
tests is negligible,
contents shown
in
in Figure
Figure 11.
indicating theIt
11. can
can be be seen
insignificant
It that
that the
seeneffect of difference
the clay content
difference between
in its low
between the results
therange. from
from II-6
resultsHowever, II-6 and
by II-7
II-7 tests
tests is
andcomparing negligible,
isthe results
negligible,
indicating
from
indicating theand
II-3, II-5
the insignificant
II-6, it shows
insignificant effect ofinclay
thatof
effect clay
thecontent in
in its
higher range
content its low range.
of clay
low However,
content,
range. by
by comparing
the critical
However, hydraulicthe
comparing results
gradient
the results
from II-3,
increases II-5
more and II-6, it
significantly showsas that
the in the
clay higher
content range of
increases,clay content,
and the the critical
stable
from II-3, II-5 and II-6, it shows that in the higher range of clay content, the critical hydraulic gradient seepagehydraulic
stage gradient
is also
increases
obviously more
prolonged. significantly
Figure 12as the
further clay
plots content
the increases,
variations of and
critical the stable
hydraulic
increases more significantly as the clay content increases, and the stable seepage stage is also obviously seepage
gradients stage
against is also
clay
obviously
contents.
prolonged. prolonged.
When Figurethe 12clayFigure
content
further 12
plotsfurther
of soil plots
the increasesthe
variationsfromvariations of critical
21.8%hydraulic
of critical hydraulic
to 26.8%, gradients gradients
the criticalagainst
hydraulic against
claygradient clay
contents.
contents.
increment When
is the
negligible. clay content
However, of soil
when increases
the clay from
content 21.8%
of to
soil 26.8%,
increases
When the clay content of soil increases from 21.8% to 26.8%, the critical hydraulic gradient incrementthe critical
from hydraulic
26.8% to gradient
29.8%, theis
increment
critical is
hydraulic
negligible. negligible.
However, gradient However,
when increases when the
by 18%.
the clay content clay content
It isincreases
of soil of
obviousfrom soil increases
that26.8%
the critical from
to 29.8%, 26.8%
hydraulic to 29.8%,
gradient
the critical the
of
hydraulic
critical
interface hydraulic
internal gradient
erosion increases
presents a by 18%.
piecewise It is obvious
functional that the
relationship critical
with
gradient increases by 18%. It is obvious that the critical hydraulic gradient of interface internal erosion hydraulic
the increase gradient
of of
clay
interfaceWhen
content.
presents ainternal
the clay
piecewise erosion
contentpresents
functional increases a piecewise
to 26.8%,
relationship with thefunctional
the increaserelationship
increase of
ofclay
claycontent with
content. the can
ofWhen
soil increase of clay
thesignificantly
clay content
content.
improve When
increasesthe the
to critical clay
26.8%, hydraulic content
the increase increases
gradient to
of clay under 26.8%,
content the the increase
ofexperimental of clay content
conditions.
soil can significantly of soil can significantly
improve the critical hydraulic
improve the critical hydraulic
gradient under the experimental conditions. gradient under the experimental conditions.

Figure11.
Figure Hydraulicgradient–seepage
11.Hydraulic gradient–seepagevelocity
velocitycurves
curvesunder
underdifferent
differentclay
claycontents.
contents.
Figure 11. Hydraulic gradient–seepage velocity curves under different clay contents.
Processes 2018, 6, 92 12 of 15
Processes 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

Figure 12. Critical hydraulic gradients for different clay contents.

Figure 12. Critical hydraulic gradients for different clay contents.

4. Discussion of Critical Hydraulic Gradient

4. Discussion of Critical Hydraulic Gradient
The critical hydraulic gradient of internal erosion is mostly calculated by limit balance
The criticalofhydraulic
equilibrium gradient
forces in soil of this
units. In internal erosion
section, is mostly
the critical calculated
hydraulic by limit
gradient balance
of interface equilibrium
internal
of forces
erosioninissoil units.
studied by In this section,
analyzing the critical
the forces imposedhydraulic gradient
on soil particles. of interface
Furthermore, internal
a section erosion is
of soil
and concrete is selected as the control body (height: dz, thickness: da). The soil–structure
studied by analyzing the forces imposed on soil particles. Furthermore, a section of soil and concrete is shear
strength
selected is expressed
as the by the(height:
control body maximum dz,shear stress. da).
thickness: The forces acting on soil particles
The soil–structure in the control
shear strength is expressed
body are shown in Figure 13. They are discussed as follows:
by the maximum shear stress. The forces acting on soil particles in the control body are shown in
The volume force acting on the soil particles can be expressed as:
Figure 13. They are discussed as follows:
The volume force acting on the soil particles can dh be expressed as:
f z = rω . (1)
dz
dh
The shear force between soil and concretef zin=the
rωcontrol
. body is defined as: (1)
dz
2τ dadz . (2)
The shear force between soil and concrete in the control body is defined as:
The submerged unit weight of the soil particles at the interface is expressed as:
2τdadz.
γ ′ = γ ω (Gs − 1)(1 − n) . (2)
(3)

TheWhen
submerged unit
interface weight
internal of theoccurs,
erosion soil particles
the soilatparticles
the interface is expressed
on the as:in the limit
interface are
equilibrium state, where the submerged unit weight of soil particles plus the shear force between soil
γ0 =
and concrete is equal to the volume force loaded on −
γω ( Gs the1)( 1−
soil particles
n). by water. (3)
After substituting Equations (2) and (3) into Equation (1), the critical hydraulic gradient of
interface
When internal erosion
interface can be
internal writtenoccurs,
erosion as Equation
the(4):
soil particles on the interface are in the limit
equilibrium state, where the submerged τ da
dhunit weight of soil 2particles plus the shear force between soil
and concrete is equal to the volume i = = (Gs − 1)(1 − n ) − .
cr force loaded on the soil particles by water. (4)
dz Aγ ω
After substituting Equations (2) and (3) into Equation (1), the critical hydraulic gradient of
interfaceThe definition
internal of symbols
erosion can beinwritten
the Equation (4) are (4):
as Equation shown in Table 8. According to Equation (4),
critical hydraulic gradient is related to the shear strength of the interface and the severity and porosity
of soil. The degree of compaction and clay dh content of soil affect the2τda
impermeability of soil–structure-
icr = = ( Gs − 1)(1 − n) − (4)
interface internal erosion through changing dz the porosity and severity Aγof
ω soil. The interface roughness
mainly affects the shear strength of the soil–structure interface. In order to improve the critical
The definition
hydraulic gradientofofsymbols in the
soil–structure Equation
internal (4) are
erosion, shownaiming
measures in Table 8. According
to enhance to Equation (4),
the soil–structure
critical
shearhydraulic
stress or thegradient is related
impermeability toshould
of soil the shear strength of the interface and the severity and
be adopted.
porosity of soil. The degree of compaction and clay content of soil affect the impermeability
of soil–structure-interface internal erosion through changing the porosity and severity of soil.
The interface roughness mainly affects the shear strength of the soil–structure interface. In order
Processes 2018, 6, 92 13 of 15

Processes
to improve 2018, the
6, x FOR PEERhydraulic
critical REVIEW 13 ofto
gradient of soil–structure internal erosion, measures aiming 15

enhance the soil–structure shear stress or the impermeability of soil should be adopted.
Table 8. Definition of symbols.

Symbol Table 8. Definition of symbols.

Definition
dh the hydraulic head differentials between the two ends of the control body
Symbol Definition
dp the water pressure differentials between the two ends of the control body
n dh the hydraulic head differentials betweenof
the porosity the two ends of the control body
soil
dp the water pressure differentials between the two ends of the control body
A cross-sectional area of soil
n the porosity of soil
dz A the height of control
cross-sectional area ofbody
soil
γω dz unit
the weight
height of water
of control body
fz γω the volume force acting unit weight
on theof water
soil particles’ unit volume
τ fz the volume force acting on the soil particles’ unit volume
the shear stress between soil and concrete
τ the shear stress between soil and concrete
da da the
thethickness
thickness of
of control body
control body
GsGs specific gravity of soil particles
specific gravity of soil particles

Figure 13. Forces acting on soil particles in the control body.

Figure 13. Forces acting on soil particles in the control body.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
This paper employed a newly designed seepage apparatus to investigate the failure mechanism
This paper
of internal erosion employed a newly designed
at the soil–structure seepage
interface. apparatus
Orthogonal and to investigatetests
single-factor the failure mechanism
were designed to
of internal the
investigate erosion at the of
sensitivity soil–structure interface.gradient
the critical hydraulic Orthogonal and single-factor
of internal tests were
erosion subjected designed
to three to
critical
investigate the sensitivity of the critical hydraulic gradient of internal erosion
soil properties, that is, degree of compaction, clay content and roughness. Furthermore, the limit subjected to three
critical soil properties,
equilibrium state method thatwas
is, degree
used toofanalyze
compaction, clay content
the critical hydraulicandgradient
roughness. Furthermore,
of interface the
internal
limit equilibrium
erosion. Based on thestateexperimental
method wasresults,
used to theanalyze the critical
following hydraulic
conclusions cangradient
be drawn: of interface internal
erosion. Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The impact order of the three factors on the critical hydraulic gradient of interface internal erosion
(1) The impact order of the three factors on the critical hydraulic gradient of interface internal
is: degree of compaction > roughness > clay content.
erosion is: degree of compaction > roughness > clay content.
(2) The critical hydraulic gradient increases as the levels of degree of compaction and clay content
(2) The critical hydraulic gradient increases as the levels of degree of compaction and clay content
increase. This effect is found to be more obvious in the higher range of the degree of soil
increase. This effect is found to be more obvious in the higher range of the degree of soil
compaction and clay content. However, there exists an optimum interface roughness where the
compaction and clay content. However, there exists an optimum interface roughness where the
highest anti seepage strength can be obtained against interface internal erosion. This optimum
highest anti seepage strength can be obtained against interface internal erosion. This optimum
roughness is found to be approximately 0.3 mm for the investigated cases.
roughness is found to be approximately 0.3 mm for the investigated cases.
(3)
(3) Theevolution
The evolutionofof thethe
interface internal
interface erosion
internal develops
erosion from inside
develops from to outside
inside to along
outsidethe along
interface,
the
and the soil particles on the interface flow as a whole.
interface, and the soil particles on the interface flow as a whole.
(4) The critical hydraulic gradient of interface internal erosion is related to the shear strength of the
interface and the severity and porosity of the soil. The degree of compaction and clay content of
soil affect the impermeability of the soil–structure-interface internal erosion through changing
Processes 2018, 6, 92 14 of 15

(4) The critical hydraulic gradient of interface internal erosion is related to the shear strength of the
interface and the severity and porosity of the soil. The degree of compaction and clay content of
soil affect the impermeability of the soil–structure-interface internal erosion through changing
the porosity and severity of soil. The interface roughness mainly affects the shear strength of the
soil–structure interface.

Author Contributions: Q.X., J.L. and B.H. conceived of and designed the study. Q.X., Y.L., X.L. and H.L. performed
the experiments. Q.X., J.L., B.H., Y.L., X.L. and H.L. wrote and modified the paper.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Science and Technology Support Program of China, grand
number is 2015BAB07B05; National Natural Science Foundation of China, grand number is 41172267; and National
Natural Science Foundation of China, grand number is 51508310.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Sato, M.; Kuwano, R. Suffusion and clogging by one-dimensional seepage tests on cohesive soil. Soils Found.
2015, 55, 1427–1440. [CrossRef]
2. Horikoshi, K.; Takahashi, A. Suffusion-induced change in spatial distribution of fine fractions in embankment
subjected to seepage flow. Soils Found. 2015, 55, 1293–1304. [CrossRef]
3. Poesen, J.; Luna, E.D.; Franca, A.; Nachtergaele, J.; Govers, G. Concentrated flow erosion rates as affected by
rock fragment cover and initial soil moisture content. Catena 1999, 36, 315–329. [CrossRef]
4. Marot, D.; Bendahmane, F.; Rosquoet, F.; Alexis, A. Internal flow effects on isotropic confined sand-clay
mixtures. J. Soil Contam. 2009, 18, 294–306. [CrossRef]
5. Mercier, F.; Bonelli, S.; Golay, F.; Anselmet, F.; Philippe, P.; Borghi, R. Numerical modelling of concentrated
leak erosion during hole erosion tests. Acta Geotech. 2015, 10, 1–14. [CrossRef]
6. Beek, V.M.V.; Sellmeijer, J.B.; Barends, F.B.J.; Bezuijen, A. Initiation of backward erosion piping in uniform
sands. Géotechnique 2014, 64, 927–941. [CrossRef]
7. Bendahmane, F.; Marot, D.; Alexis, A. Experimental parametric study of suffusion and backward erosion.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008, 134, 57–67. [CrossRef]
8. Richards, K.S.; Reddy, K.R. Experimental investigation of initiation of backward erosion piping in soils.
Géotechnique 2012, 62, 933–942. [CrossRef]
9. Germer, L.H. Physical processes in contact erosion. J. Appl. Phys. 1958, 29, 1067–1082. [CrossRef]
10. Ke, L.; Takahashi, A. Experimental investigations on suffusion characteristics and its mechanical
consequences on saturated cohesionless soil. Soils Found. 2014, 54, 713–730. [CrossRef]
11. Yacine, S.; Didier, M.; Luc, S.; Alain, A. Suffusion tests on cohesionless granular matter. Eur. J. Environ.
Civ. Eng. 2011, 15, 799–817. [CrossRef]
12. Luo, Y.L.; Zhan, M.L.; Sheng, J.C.; Qiang, W. Hydro-mechanical coupling mechanism on joint of clay
core-wall and concrete cut-off wall. J. Cent. South. Univ. 2013, 20, 2578–2585. [CrossRef]
13. Kaoser, S.; Barrington, S.; Elektorowicz, M.; Ayadat, T. The influence of hydraulic gradient and rate of erosion
on hydraulic conductivity of sand-bentonite mixtures. Soil Sediment Contam. An Int. J. 2006, 15, 481–496.
[CrossRef]
14. Armando, B.; Scheffler, M.L. Numerical analysis of the teton dam failure flood. J. Hydraul. Res. 1982, 20,
317–328. [CrossRef]
15. Muhunthan, B.; Pillai, S. Teton dam, USA: Uncovering the crucial aspect of its failure. Civ. Eng. 2008, 161,
35–40. [CrossRef]
16. Boulon, M.; Nova, R. Modelling of soil–structure interface behaviour a comparison between elastoplastic
and rate type laws. Comput. Geotech. 1990, 9, 21–46. [CrossRef]
17. Shahrour, I.; Rezaie, F. An elastoplastic constitutive relation for the soil–structure interface under cyclic
loading. Comput. Geotech. 1997, 21, 21–39. [CrossRef]
18. Hu, L.; Pu, J. Testing and modeling of soil–structure interface. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004, 130, 851–860.
[CrossRef]
19. Zhang, G.; Zhang, J.M. Large-scale apparatus for monotonic and cyclic soil–structure interface test.
ASTM Geotech. Test. J. 2006, 29, 401–408. [CrossRef]
Processes 2018, 6, 92 15 of 15

20. Ferdos, F.; Wörman, A.; Ekström, I. Hydraulic conductivity of coarse rockfill used in hydraulic structures.
Transp. Porous Media 2015, 108, 1–25. [CrossRef]
21. Kim, H.; Park, J.; Shin, J. Flow behaviour and piping potential at the soil–structure interface. Géotechnique
2018, 1–6. [CrossRef]
22. Luo, Y.L.; Wu, Q.; Zhan, M.L.; Sheng, J.C. Study of critical piping hydraulic gradient of suspended cut-off
wall and sand gravel foundation under different stress states. Rock Soil Mech. 2012, 36, 73–78. [CrossRef]
23. Maeda, K.; Sakai, H.; Sakai, M. Development of seepage failure analysis method of ground with smoothed
particle hydrodynamics. Struct. Eng. 2006, 23, 307–319. [CrossRef]
24. Maeda, K.; Sakai, H. Seepage failure and erosion of ground with air bubble dynamics. Geotech. Spec. Publ.
2010, 204, 261–266. [CrossRef]
25. Liu, R.; Li, B.; Jiang, Y. Critical hydraulic gradient for nonlinear flow through rock fracture networks:
The roles of aperture, surface roughness, and number of intersections. Adv. Water Resour. 2016, 88, 53–65.
[CrossRef]
26. Liu, R.; Jiang, Y.; Li, B.; Wang, X. A fractal model for characterizing fluid flow in fractured rock masses based
on randomly distributed rock fracture networks. Comput. Geotech. 2015, 65, 45–55. [CrossRef]
27. Ervin, M.C.; Benson, N.D.; Morgan, J.R.; Pavlovic, N. Melbourne’s southbank interchange: A permanent
excavation in compressible clay. Can. Geotech. J. 2004, 41, 861–876. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, B.T.; Chen, X.A. Research on effect of suspended cut-off wall with simulation test. Chin. J. Rock
Mech. Eng. 2008, 27, 2766–2771.
29. Shao, S.J.; Yang, C.M. Research on the impermeability design method of the slurry protection diaphragm
wall in the coarse-grained soil foundation. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2015, 46, 46–53.
30. Barrospérsio, L.A.; Santospetrucio, J. Coefficients of active earth pressure with seepage effect. Can. Geotech. J.
2012, 49, 651–658. [CrossRef]
31. Wang, S.; Chen, J.S.; Luo, Y.L.; Sheng, J.C. Experiments on internal erosion in sandy gravel foundations
containing a suspended cut-off wall under complex stress states. Nat. Hazards 2014, 74, 1163–1178. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Liu, M.; Chen, Y. Seismic passive earth pressure with seepage for cohesionless soil.
Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 2012, 30, 86–101. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).