×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

I should know this dam principle...

I should know this dam principle...

I should know this dam principle...

(OP)
So you have a dam that is say 10 feet high and 1 foot wide that is retaining water over the full height.

Integrating the water pressure over the height of the dam gives a horizontal force component of 3120 pounds acting on the back of the dam.

So far so good.

Now suppose you construct an identical dam 1 foot behind the first dam so that they are oriented back to back and supporting a column of water that is 1 square foot by 10 feet high. Without thinking too much about it I would say that the calculation of pressure and force on the back of the first dam is unchanged. But I am thinking too much about it. And after thinking about it I realized that I couldn't explain intuitively how a column of water weighting 624 pounds would exert 3120 pounds of force on the first dam.

I'm embarrassed to be drawing a blank here but it has been too long since I thought about this. Can someone point out the blind spot in my thought experiment?

Thanks in advance.



RE: I should know this dam principle...

Accept the mathematics. If you work the other way, hydraulics would disappear.

Michael.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." ~ Tim Minchin

RE: I should know this dam principle...

The 624 pounds is acting on the one sq.ft. under the column. There are ten sq.ft. of wall being exposed to pressure. Also, realize that if the wall moved one inch the column of water would fall 10 inches.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

pressure is rho*g*h = p
weight is rho*g*h*A = P*l*b
hydrostatic load on the wall is 1/2*(rho*g*h)*Adam = 1/2*p*(h*b)

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: I should know this dam principle...

I`ll take a crack at this... though hydraulics was a long time ago.
Water weigh 62.4 pcf.
The retained width doesn't matter (1' in your example), so it exerts 62.4 psf.
We`ll look at a strip 1' wide, so we have 62.4 plf.
I`m going to look at 1' depth increments, so we have 62.4 lb. Obviously this creates some significant rounding errors, but let's ignore those.

The first cubic foot of water weighs 62.4lb, and exerts 62.4lb lb on each face.

The second cubic foot of water is pushed down with 62.4lb on the top, from the first cubic foot of water. This weight transfers out to each face. Thus, horizontally on this face we have 62.4lb (from above) and 62.4lb (from this cube). We have 124.8lb on this face, plus the 62.4lb on the face above gives 187.2lb total

The third foot has 124.8lb from above (on each face) + 62.4 lb from this cube. We have 187.2 lb outward on this face. Total, we have 187.2 lb on this face + 187.2 lb above, 374.4 lb.

Keep going for the next 7 feet and you`ll have 3432lb - Itegrate better than my 10 cubes, and I bet that will head down to 3120lb.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

Shoot, I was hoping this is what you were referring to:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
Reply to: GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR
350 OTTAWA NW GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341
JOHN ENGLER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973
INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.mi
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director

December 17, 1997

CERTIFIED

Mr. Ryan DeVries 2088 Dagget Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files show that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative Land and Water Management Division

________________________________________

Dear Mr. Price:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan — I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize, their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris." I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

My first concern is — aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern

that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition — contact the dam beavers — but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter-being unable to read English) — be sure you read them their dam Miranda rights first.

As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers — be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State — I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy, or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green, and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem: bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tvedten

RE: I should know this dam principle...

Not sure I understand the second part of the thought exercise with the second dam. But just to add to the answers in this thread, I believe one critical concept to remember is that pressure acts in all directions normal to the surface. The 624lbs of water is only acting in the downwards direction which is what causes the conceptual dissonance between the 624lbs and 3120lbs. The water column is pushing downwards with 624lbs of force, but it is also pushing horizontally with 624lbs at the base only. Like composite pro said, 624lbs is on one square foot which could be the bottom of the lake or the one square foot at the base of the dam (assuming 1ft intervals).

Archie264, is that a real letter or a piece of creative writing? Either way thanks for the laugh! Beaver dams can cause a lot of serious problems, but a governing authority should be able to tell the difference between a man-made and beaver-made dam!

RE: I should know this dam principle...

I believe the OP is referring to load transfer between two concrete walls cast against each other.

If this is the case and assuming the walls are not doweled together, the second wall is designed for the full load of the retained water, there are no issues with the footing design, and there is no compressible material, soil or water between the two walls, then I believe the load on the original wall will be a result of the deflection of the second wall; creating a new pressure diagram.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

DamsInc,

That letter is supposed to be real. I first read it back in the 90's in the Wall Street Journal, which isn't generally known for passing around hoaxes. Snopes says it's true, but I don't trust Snopes so that doesn't hold (wait for it) water with me.bigsmile

RE: I should know this dam principle...

If, instead of the column being the same width, consider only a one foot cube at the bottom with a small pipe column up to ten feet above, all filled with water. The pressures in the pipe and the void at the bottom would be the same as in your example.

Michael.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." ~ Tim Minchin

RE: I should know this dam principle...

(OP)
Well I think PG has put me on the right track. My thought experiment is basically an application of Pascal's law. I guess I just never thought of how bizarre and non-intuitive it seems in the extreme case.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

Dam good story, Archie.

BA

RE: I should know this dam principle...

archie,
perhaps my all time fav
I read also that it's a true story.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

I want to know if the bears were arrested.

Richard A. Cornelius, P.E.
WWW.amlinereast.com

RE: I should know this dam principle...

Not only will water exert 3120 lbs of force on the first dam,it will also exert 3120lbs of force on the "mirror" dam when water is trapped between the two dams.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

I hate thinking about this problem, it is very counterintuitive to me for some reason.

I like the explanation by Once20036 but lets say you have 3" between the walls...
wait does the force decrease then, damnit I confused myself again spineyes

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: I should know this dam principle...

It definitely is counter intuitive. Take a look at this video. It is similar to concrete formwork pressures, pressure is the same regardless of whether you are pouring a 36" thick wall or a 6" thick wall.

http://www.gatesconcreteforms.com/water.html

RE: I should know this dam principle...

Let's look at two interpretations of your problem statement.

First, if you build as described and assume you have only trapped a column of water between the two dams and there is no water outside either dam boundary then the pressure is the same on either dam.

If; however, you build the 2nd dam and it traps a column of water between the two dams but there is still the water behind dam 2 that was originally retained by dam 1, you now have equal and opposite pressure on dam 2 and the original pressure on dam 1.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

I remember seeing a case study where water penetrated between an existing structure and some form work. The space was less than a 1/4" wide...but it was 20+ feet tall. Needless to say, the pressure blew out the formwork. 20' of head is 20' of head, regardless of the width!

"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." -WSC

RE: I should know this dam principle...

What about if you have soil between the dams?

Structural timber engineering

RE: I should know this dam principle...

It is conter intuitive. But that is the law of nature. Nagging little problems that develop sfter many years of engineering practice.

Doesn't work for soil because soil have shear resistance in the failure plane and the failure plane does not develop because of the narrow column of soil.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

It does work for soil. Soil will exert lateral pressure on the wall similar to water, just reduced by internal friction in the soil.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

Ron
Fair enough. But how much do you reduce the fricton angle by ?

RE: I should know this dam principle...

The earth pressure resulting from a narrow space between 2 retaining walls has been discussed a few times, here's one: thread255-349221: 2 retaining walls close to each other
I'd say it's not similar to water, but not sure what space is "narrow".

RE: I should know this dam principle...

civeng80...you don't reduce the angle of internal friction, but the lateral pressure is constrained by it. Lets suppose we have a soil with a unit weight of 100 pcf. Assume we have a 10' wall height. If the soil were "liquid", then the lateral pressure would be 10 x 100 or 1000 psf. The soil; however, is not liquid and internal friction in the soil prevents some of the pressure from extending past the soil boundary. While it can get complicated with geometry and soil types, let's further assume that we have a granular soil with an internal friction angle of 30 degrees. In its simplest form, the lateral pressure relationship is 1/2 tan phi, so now the lateral pressure is 10 x 100 x (1/2 tan 30) or about 290 psf. As I noted, it can get a lot more complex, but you get the idea.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

If you apply Ron's formula in a bin, the pressure builds up until the internal friction prevents flow. Of course, material does flow, so Janssen developed some alternatives. However, material sometimes "bridges" within the bin. It ties in with the difference in behavior in narrow gaps, material bridges preventing the full weight reaching the bottom.

Michael.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." ~ Tim Minchin

RE: I should know this dam principle...

Hi charliealphabravo,

Picture it this way ...

You will need to exert the same amount of force to submerge a plate into a shallow water or a deep ocean; now if you rotate this analog by 90 deg and visualize the water trying to move instead of the plate you will see why it doesn't mater how wide the gape is between the two dams.

If you are asking why the water particles push the wall i don't think we know, but we have a name called gravity and many theories which include, string, multiverse and a uni-corn

:)

RE: I should know this dam principle...

taking MJB's example...say the gap was 1/32"..the numbers say the same press which is definitely counter-intuitive...how many existing retainin walls have a gap of say 1/32" between it and the soil from soil shrinkage/settlement and if not for good drainage @ the bottom would experience this head of water.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

It would only matter if you had an actual water column. The water needs to be supported by the water below it. If the water's working through adhesion, surface tension or capiliary action there won't be pressure at the bottom.

You aren't going to get a 1/32" water column behind a retaining wall in real life because that kind of pressure would push the water back through the soil.

Once you get down to the scale of capiliary action, there is certainly a point where the pressure relation to depth won't hold. That scale is a couple of orders of magnitude below a foot, though.

RE: I should know this dam principle...


Original Poster is puzzled about "how a column of water weighting 624 pounds would exert 3120 pounds of force on the first dam".

I think it can be put in this way: pressure is not always in direct proportion to the weight of the media. you can imagine that weightless air in a closed tube can exert huge amount of pressure/force on its surrounding wall. this example can partly explain "why a column of water weighting 624 pounds would exert 3120 pounds of force on the first dam".

RE: I should know this dam principle...

I think one thing getting in the way from the OP is the use of a very small distance between his walls and the same with respect to the soil issue. For instance what if the distance between your walls wasn't 1 foot, but 100 feet? Then you would have 62,400 lbs of water exerting a force of 3,120 lbs on the wall of your dam. All of a sudden it doesn't seem like such a silly answer.

The other issue is the force is based on no movement whatsoever. In reality for a fixed volume, any slight movement of the walls would result in a drop in level and the amount of work done by the water column for a very small column, or total potential energy is very small. Hence although the force is certainly there and correct, the distance it could move anything is very limited unless you kept topping up your column of water.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: I should know this dam principle...

Triangled, thanks for the link.thumbsup2

RE: I should know this dam principle...

hetgen - nice comparison.

Littleinch - very good point as well.

I mind will just not except this for some reason, it just wants to know why/how....

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: I should know this dam principle...

(OP)
It's just that the formula is so maddeningly simple. Just density times depth. On the macro scale the phenomenon is just a property of a fluid's classical inertia basically. There are no coefficients or pressure/volume/temperature/velocity dependancies like you have in the gas law. On the micro scale I am trying to imagine what is happening when you stack molecules of an incompressible fluid. Perhaps it is some type of wedging/prying action or brownian motion pushing on the wall.

On second thought no I still can't imagine it. If the distance between the walls is only 1/4-inch then the volume of water weighs 13 lbs and the force on the back of the first wall is still 3120 lbs. I'm afraid to calculate the weight of the water at 1/8-inch else I will probably lose my feeble grip on reality ;]

Great thoughts all. Thanks.

RE: I should know this dam principle...

You seem to be going round and round linking together two things that are not related.

You live in an environment where you feel the same 14.7 lbs/sqin atmospheric pressure from all directions, regardless of whether you are out in the open or in a sealed tank with only a small hole in the top. Do some thought experiments with that.

Michael.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." ~ Tim Minchin

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources