Seepage Analysis by FEM (20 SEP 2011)

AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
CE5101 Lecture 4
Seepage and FEM
by
Prof Harryy Tan
SEP 2011
1
Outline
Seepage and 1D Slope Stability

Seepage in FEM (Steady State Analysis)
Case History of SICC Slope Failure
FEM Seepage in Excavations
Case History of One North Excavation with
GWT lowering
Transient Seepage in Excavations
2
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Seepage Analysis
Simple Flow nets
Laplace
L l
E
Equation
ti
q x k x
x
p
Darcys Law
Groundwater Head or Potential
2
q
k x 2 0
x
x
Steady State Laplace Eqn

3
Seepage in Drained Slope Failure (long-term)
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Equipotentials are
perpendicular to slope;so
piezometer will only rise by
hcosb
tan '
u
F 1
2
tan
cos
(a) Dry Sand

(b) GWT coincide with slip plane
w h cos 2 tan '
F 1
2
cos
tan
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
(c) GWT below Slip Plane with Suction Pressures

(d) Waterlogged Slope with Steady Parallel Seepage
h cos 2 tan '
F 1 w
z cos 2 tan
h cos 2 tan '
F 1 w
z cos 2 tan
(Like DRY Soil)
h cos 2 tan '
F 1 w
z cos 2 tan
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
c'z w h tan '
F
z
tan
(With c=0)
h
tan c 1 w tan '
z
10
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Seepage in FEM
2D Formulation in FEM
Material Model and Darcy Law
Validation with Standard Problems
Application to SICC slope failure
Application to excavation
11
2D Seepage Analysis (FEM)
12
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
13
Log_10 scale
Why do we need a
permeability function?
Can the problem be
solved
l d without
ith t ititerations?
ti
?
Normal scale
14
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
TRANSITION SATURATED/UNSATURATED
qy K r k y
y
qx K r k x
Kr 1
saturated zone
K 10
r
unsaturated zone
K r 104 h hk
log( K r )
4h
hk
hk 0.7m (PLAXIS)
15
TYPES OF FLOW PROBLEMS
Confined flow
Domain defined
Unconfined flow
For Unconfined Flow:

Total head, H=hz+hp = 0
Therefore, hp=-hz
So, Pressure head difference on
phreatic surface = Elevation head drop
Domain undefined
16
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
PERMEABILITY
PLAXIS allows consideration of change of permeability with void

ratio
e
k e
log
Ck
k0 ck
Default value for ck is 1015
log(k/ko)
There may be large contrasts of permeability between different

materials in the same problem
Too much permeability contrast may cause numerical
difficulties
The
Th ratio
ti b
between
t
th
the hi
highest
h t and
d llowestt permeability
bilit value
l
should not exceed 105
To simulate an almost impermeable material (e.g. concrete),
a value lower by a factor 1000 is sufficient
17
Flow vector
Permeability Matrix
18
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
19
Interfaces
ON means Seepage Cutoff
OFF means Seepage allowed through Interface
Drains Zero pore pressure condition
Wells Prescribed flow condition; Inflow ((Recharge)
g ) or
Outflow (Discharge-Well Pumps) Q
Boundary Conditions
Prescribed Heads
Closed BC No Flow Allowed
20
10
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Unconfined Flow in Sand
21
Equi-potential Plot of Groundwater

Head
22
11
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
PLAXIS Results
Dupuits Theory = 0.150 m3/day/m
23
Confined Flow Seepage
24
12
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Confined Flow Seepage
H=15m
H=13m
Closed flow boundary
25
Groundwater
Head
H=15m
H 13
H=13m
26
13
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
27
Case History of Slope Failure in Residual Soil

Cut at SICC
28
14
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
CIU or CID Test Should Give Same Strength

Parameters
29
Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years
30
15
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010

5 m Ht
Slip Failure ?
10 m Ht
No Failure ?
31
32
16
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Soil Profile of Cut Slope
33
Stress History of Cut Slope
34
17
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
35
36
18
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Summary of Lab Test Results
37
Elevation (m)
SLOPE/W Analysis: FS After CUT

150
148
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
118
116
114
112
110
1.714
Description: Reddish Brown Clayey Silt

Soil Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
Unit Weight: 19
Cohesion: 35
Description: Yellowish Brown Clayey Silt
Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 20
Cohesion: 20
Phi: 34
Unit Wt. above WT: 18
10
20
30
40
50
60
Distance (m)
38
19
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
SLOPE/W Analysis: FS After 2 Years

150
148
146
1.022
144
142
140
138
Elevation (m)
136
Description: Reddish Brown Clayey Silt

Unit Weight: 20
Cohesion: 8
Phi: 27
134
132
130
128
126
124
Description: Yellowish Brown Clayey Silt

U it W
Unit
Weight:
i ht 20
Cohesion: 20
Phi: 34
122
120
118
116
114
112
110
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Distance (m)
39
PLAXIS UnDrained Analysis: FS=1.51

Incremental Displacements Pattern
Soil Unloaded no sign of failure mechanism
40
20
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
PLAXIS UnDrained Analysis: FS=1.51

Suction Excess Pore Pressures due
to Soil Unloaded
41
PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.02

Incremental Displacement Vectors
indicate start of shallow slip failure
42
21
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
43

GWT Heads showed seepage front
exiting
g on slope
p face; this is bad
situation for slope
Phreatic surface
44
22
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
PLAXIS c/phi method FS Estimation

Chart 1
FS
1.6
5m CUT Draine...
5m Cut Undrained FS=1.51
5m CUT Undra...
1.5
10m CUT Drain

Drain...
1.4
10m Cut Drained FS=1.34
1.3
1.2
1.1
5m Cut Drained FS=1

FS 1.02
02
1
0
Displacement [m]
5m Cut Undrained, FS=1.51

5m CUT Drained, FS=1.02
10m CUT Drained, FS=1.34
45
PLAXIS Drained 10m CUT

Incremental Displacements Pattern indicate
stable slope no failure mechanism
46
23
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Drained 5m CUT with Internal Drains

GWT drawndown to below slope face, stable
situation
47
Drained 5m CUT with Internal Drains

Chart 1
FS
1.6
5m CUT Draine...
5m CUT Undra...
1.5
10m CUT Drain...

1.4
5m CUT with In...
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0
Displacement [m]
GWT drawn down to below slope face, stable

situation, and FS increased to 1.5 (with internal
drains) cf to 1.02 (without internal drains)
48
24
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Modeling of
Ground Water in Excavation
Analysis
49
Effects of GWT on Excavation Analysis

For PLAXIS FEM Program:
Steady State GWT Calculation is a separate program from
Excess Pore Pressure and Consolidation Calculation
This can lead to many different ways to include Effects of GWT
on Excavation Analysis
The GWT or Phreatic Surface can be determined by either
Method A Steady State Flow calculation (Prefered
Method)
Method B User Defined Phreatic Surface, ie head is
constant on a vertical section (to model hydrostatic
pressure on both sides of excavation)
50
25
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Possible GWT
Conditions in
Excavations
2ba
b
w
uC
2b a
uG
(2b c)a
w
2b c a
51
PLAXIS Model of Full GWT

Modeling flood conditions with
heavy rainfall recharge
h=Ha (const)
h=Hb(const)
Ha
Hb
CLOSED FLOW Boundary

52
26
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
PLAXIS Model of GWT Drawdown

Phreatic surface, PWP=0
GWT drawdown
Modeling Steady Seepage with GWT

drawdown in Sandy Soils k>1E-6 m/s
h H (
h=Ha(const)
)
h=Hb(const)
Ha
Hb
CLOSED FLOW Boundary

53
PLAXIS Model of Hydrostatic GWT

Over-estimate
pwp
p
active p
h=Ha(const)
Ha
h=Hb(const)
Suppress uplift
pressures
Hb
Hydrostatic both sides but PWP not in Equilibrium

This may give problems as there are incorrect effective
54
stresses in the mesh
27
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
One North Excavation in

30m Depth of Jurong Formation
By:A/ProfHarryTan,NationalUniversityof
Singapore
At:ER201024Aug2010(SeattleUSA)
55
Use of Sub-soil Drains to Lower GWT

for Deep Excavation
56
28
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Full Anchors not possible due to

site access
57
Seepage of GWT through wall
58
29
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
GW Seepage by WSP dataDrained/Undrained Conditions

GWT drawdown lags behind excavation and drains installation by 1-2 weeks
Steady-state seepage appears to be reached in about 2 weeks
G W(S)17, 18 & 19
WSP showed relatively fast GW drawdown suggests Drained Soil response

120.000
8m
110.000
GW(S)18
105.000
GW(S)19
16m
GW(S)17
100.000
10-Jan-06
10-Feb-06
10-Dec-05
10-Oct-05
10-Nov-05
10-Sep-05
10-Jul-05
10-Aug-05
10-Jun-05
10-Apr-05
10-May-05
10-Mar-05
10-Jan-05
10-Feb-05
10-Dec-04
10-Oct-04
10-Nov-04
10-Jul-04
10-Jun-04
10-Apr-04
10-May-04
10-Mar-04
10-Jan-04
10-Feb-04
10-Dec-03
10-Oct-03
10-Nov-03
90.000
16-Feb-04 Excavate to RL110.5m and Install 1st row Drains at

RL112.5m
29-Mar-04 Excavate to RL102.5m and Install Drains at RL108.5, 106.5
and 104.5m
12-Jul-04 Excavate to RL98.0m and Install Drains at RL100.5m, then
Excavate to berm top level at RL96.0m
10-Sep-04
95.000
10-Aug-04
Ground Water Level (m)
115.000
59
Date
Drained / Undrained Conditions

Section
2 - Stage
One North
- WT78I19
after cast base slab and remove lowest anchor
0
20
Wall Deflection (mm)

40
60
80
100
120
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
Depth (m)
undrained analysis
50 mm
drained analysis
97 mm
actual 85 mm
20.00
25.00
Drained Analysis
30.00
Drained
Undrained
I19
35.00
40.00
60
30
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Drained / Undrained Conditions

Simple 1D Consolidation theory: Drained requires T=1.0
(U=93%)
2
T
cv t
kE
h w
andd cv oed so, t
2
h
w
kEoed
Assume average values for stiff Jurong soils:

k=1E-7 m/s or 8.64E-3 m/day
Eoed =50,000 kPa
Drainage path length h=20m and
Unit weight of water, w=10 kN/m3
Therefore, Drained condition requires period of about
9.5 days (about 1 to 2 weeks per Stage of excavation,
consistent with rate of Seepage observations)
61
FEM Mesh and Parameters and Stages
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
Date
15-Nov-03
27-Nov-03
15-Jan-04
16-Feb-04
29-Mar-04
12 J l 04
12-Jul-04
7
8
13-Sep-04
18-Dec-04
9 & 10 18-Dec-04
11
12
13
14
3-Mar-05
26-Apr-05
1-Jun-05
1-Jun-05
125 T anchor
75 T anchor
150 T anchor
Construction Activity
Install 1.8m diameter CBP wall GL at RL117.0m
Excavate trench toRL115.0m to cast capping beam
Install Raker Anchor with 80% of 150T preload
Excavate to RL110.5m and install 1st row drain at RL112.5m
Excavate to RL102.5m and
Install drains at RL108.5, 106.5 and 104.5m
F S
For
Sectt 1 andd 22, excavate
t tto RL 96.5m
96 5
Install drains at RL102.5m and 75 T anchors at RL96.5m
For Sect 3, excavate to RL98.5m
Install drains at RL102.5m and 100T anchors at RL100.5m
Excavate to formation level at RL95.9m
Cut small rock berms to RL86.0m; gunnite exposed rock slope
Cast basement wall to RL95.9m and CD slab at RL86.0m
For Sect 1 and 2, remove 75T anchors
Cast basement wall to RL102.5m and slab at RL98.05m
For Sect 3, remove 100T anchors
Cast basement wall and slab at RL105.0m
Cast basement wall and slab at RL115.0m
Excavate to capping beam and remove raker anchors
Backfill to GL at RL117.0m
62
31
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
1. Influence of Preloading Force

Increasing preload force leads to more bending of
wall
Section 1 - Stage 7
(after cut berm)
150 ton raker anchor on

site is more effective than
stipulated
Measured
112.5
Soil 100% - Rock 20%

107.5
Reduce
ed Level (m)
Preloading force
multiplier of 1.4 best
reflects the actual
deflected shape
117.5

(1.2 x Preload)
(1.4 x Preload)
(1.6 x Preload)
(1.8 x Preload)
(2.0 Preload)
102.5
97.5
92.5
87.5
82.5
77.5
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
Deflection (mm)
63
2a. Influence of Horizontal

Drainage System
no drains
4 drains
2 drains
6 drains
64
32
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
2b. Influence of Horizontal

Drainage System
no drains
117.5m
4 drains
103m
2 drains
6 drains
108m
100m
65
2c. Influence of Horizontal

Drainage System
When no drains
installed, max. wall
deflection is greater
300mm
Collapse of wall
Influence of Horizontal Drainage System

117.5
112.5
107.5
Reduced Level (m)
Wall deformation
increase with level of
drains which determine
height of water level
behind the wall
102.5
no drains
6 drains
97.5
4 drains
2 drains
92.5
87.5
82 5
82.5
77.5
0
100
200
300
400
Deflection (mm)
66
33
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
3a. NO Drains (switch off ) - Wall Collapsed
Drains in Active Zone

NOT Activated
Sum M-Stage
S
M St
<1
1
Anchor Force = 180 Ton >150 Ton (design)
GWT
Wall deflect > 300 mm
67
3b. WITH Drains (switch on ) Wall OK
Drains in Active Zone

Activated
M-Stage =1
Anchor Force = 110 Ton <150 Ton (design)
GWT
Wall deflect = 83 mm
68
34
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
4a. Global FOS by c/phi Reduction
CBP Elastic,
Elastic
Failure with no
Plastic Hinge,
FOS=1.75
CBP Elasto
ElastoPlastic Failure
with Plastic
Hinge, FOS=1.40
Elastic wall excludes possibility of wall plastic hinge; and over-estimate

FOS=1.75
Allowing for wall plastic hinge (Elasto-plastic wall) gave lower FOS=1.40 and
smaller soil yielded zone behind the wall
69
4b. Wall is Stable with GWT lowered; but FOS by

c/phi reduction must account for wall plastic moments
El ti DWall
Elastic
DW ll FOS=1.75
FOS 1 75
Plastic DWall FOS=1.40
70
35
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
5. Wall Deflection Predictions

Section 1 - Stage 3 & 4
(after installing / preloading of raker anchor)

(after installation of CBP wall)
117.500
117.500
112.500
112.500
107.500
107.500
Section 1 - Stage 5
(after excavate to RL102.5m and installation of
first 2 drains)
117.500
112.500
97.500
Calculated
92.500
102.500
Measured
97.500
Calculated
92.500
87.500
87.500
82.500
82.500
Reduced Level (m)
Measured
Reduced Lev
vel (m)
Reduced Level (m)
107.500
102.500
102.500
Measured
97.500
Calculated
92.500
87.500
77.500
-50.00
0.00
77.500
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00 150.00 200.00
82.500
50.00
100.00
150.00
77.500
0.00
200.00
50.00
Deflection (mm)
Deflection (mm)
150.00
200.00

(after removal of contingency and raker anchor)
S e c tio n 1 - S ta g e 7
(a fte r c u t b e rm )
Section 1 - Stage 6
(after excavate to berm top and installing of last
2 drains and anchors)
100.00
Deflection (mm)
1 1 7.5
117.5
117.5
1 1 2.5
112.5
112.5
1 0 7.5
107.5
107.5
Calculated
Me a s u re d
9 7.5
C a lc u l a te d
9 2.5
Reduced Level (m)
Measured
97.5
Reduced Level (m)
Reduced Level (m)
1 0 2.5
102.5
102.5
Measured
97.5
Calculated
92.5
92.5
8 7.5
87.5
87.5
8 2.5
82.5
82.5
7 7.5
0.00
77.5
0.00
50.00
100.00
Deflection (m m)
150.00
200.00
5 0.00
1 0 0.00
1 50 .0 0
D e fle c tio n (m m )
20 0 .0 0
77.5
0
50
100
150
200
Deflection (mm)
71
Seepage and Excavations

GWT lowering by Steady State Seepage
GWT lowering by Transient Seepage
72
36
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
GWT lowering SS Seepage

Excavate 5m, k=1e-5 m/s
Lower 1.3m

Lower 5.6m

Lower 3.0m
GWT is
i nearly
l
proportional to
excavation depth
73
GWT lowering SS Seepage

Lower 5.6m
Lower 5.6m

Lower 5.6m
For SS case, GWT is not

dependent on k alone.
alone
Pattern of GW heads is
function of geometry only and
soil layer arrangements of
relative permeabilities.
74
37
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
SS Model of Excavation in MC Site
Soft MC k=1E-9 m/s:

Prevents GWT from
falling towards wall
75
SS Model of Excavation in MC Site

H=-4.0m
PWP on the Wall
H=-12.0m
Closed
Closed
Run SS Seepage analysis with Head settings and closed
flow BCs as in the figure
76
38
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Simplified Hydrostatic Model of Excavation in MC Site

General phreatic level H=-4.0m
PWP on the Wall
cluster
DRY
H=-12.0m
Interpolate
Run Phreatic level analysis with General Phreatic level, Cluster Dry in
Excavated Zone, Interpolate below excavated zone, results as above
77
GWT and Transient Seepage

Lower 1.3m

Lower 0.8m
Excavate 5m in 30 days.
Lower 0.3m
Sands, k=1e-5 m/s is like SS

case
Clays, k=1e-9 m/s very little
GWT lowered
78
39
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010

Lower 3.0m
Lower 1.8m
Excavate next 5m in 30 days.

Lower 0.3m

case
GWT lowered
79

Lower 5.6m

Lower 3.6m
Excavate next 5m in 30 days.

Lower 0.3m

case
GWT lowered
80
40
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Science of Transient Seepage

Governing Equations
Hydraulic Material Models
Boundary Conditions
81
Governing Equations
Steady-state
continuity condition
82
41
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Governing Equations
Need to define two soil properties functions:

K as f(S) and Ksat - k function
c as f(csat, n, S(p)) - SWCC
83
Governing Equations (FEM)

at element by element level
84
42
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Governing Equations (FEM)
85
Hydraulic Material ModelVan Genuchten Model
86
43
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
AEV defines the suction value that must be exceeded before air enters the soil pore
Clays have very high AEV compared to Sands
ga is inversely related to AEV
87
88
44
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
89
90
45
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
91
Boundary Conditions
1
1. Water Table
Pw hp w
h y
Pw
2. Inflow
qx nx q y n y qexternal
4. Close boundary
q x nx q y n y 0
3. Outflow
qx nx q y n y qexternal
92
46
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Boundary Conditions
5. Prescribed heads
h h1 , h h2
6. Well/Drain
Q Q
6
7. Free Seepage
h y
8. Screen
q x nx q y n y 0
93
Boundary Conditions
Precipitation
h y hmax
if
Ponding
q x nx q y n y qrain
i
if
h y hmax and h y hmin

i
h y hmin
if
No infiltration
94
47
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Boundary Conditions
95
Boundary Conditions
Eg Zone A and B
Eg. Zone C
96
48
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
Rapid Drawdown Example

Time Dependent Boundary Conditions
A and B are Head BC drawdown from H=25m to H=5m in 50

days
C is Free Seepage BC drawdown from H=25m to H=5m in 50
days
h(t)
B
9
h(t)
h(t)
h(t)
97

F
From
H=25m
H 25 tto H
H=5m
5 iin 50 d
days
H=25m
H=5m
98
49
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010

F
From
H=25m
H 25 tto H
H=5m
5 iin 50 d
days
H=25m
H=5m
99

y
From H=25m to H=5m in 50 days
Potential Slip Surface by c/phi reduction for the
Case of Slow DD in 50 days
100
50
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010

Sum-Msf
1.8
WL at 25m FOS=1.74
WL at 5m Very Slow DD FOS=1.63
1.6
WL at 5m Slow DD in 50 days FOS=1.47

1.4
1.2
WL at 5m rapid DD in 5 days FOS=1.01

1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
|U| [m]
101
102
51
AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
103
Beware of unwanted suction; better to

switch off suction in design (safer)
104
52

Seepage Analysis by FEM (20 SEP 2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seepage Analysis by FEM (20 SEP 2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seepage Analysis by FEM (20 SEP 2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP Harry Tan

CE5101 Seepage FEM

Seepage and 1D Slope Stability

Steady State Laplace Eqn

Seepage in Drained Slope Failure (long-term)

(a) Dry Sand

w h cos 2 tan '

(c) GWT below Slip Plane with Suction Pressures

h cos 2 tan '

h cos 2 tan '

(Like DRY Soil)

h cos 2 tan '

c'z w h tan '

2D Seepage Analysis (FEM)

TYPES OF FLOW PROBLEMS

For Unconfined Flow:

PLAXIS allows consideration of change of permeability with void

Default value for ck is 1015

There may be large contrasts of permeability between different

Unconfined Flow in Sand

Equi-potential Plot of Groundwater

Dupuits Theory = 0.150 m3/day/m

Confined Flow Seepage

Confined Flow Seepage

Closed flow boundary

Case History of Slope Failure in Residual Soil

CIU or CID Test Should Give Same Strength

Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years

Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years

Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years

Soil Profile of Cut Slope

Stress History of Cut Slope

Summary of Lab Test Results

SLOPE/W Analysis: FS After CUT

Description: Reddish Brown Clayey Silt

SLOPE/W Analysis: FS After 2 Years

Description: Reddish Brown Clayey Silt

Description: Yellowish Brown Clayey Silt

PLAXIS UnDrained Analysis: FS=1.51

PLAXIS UnDrained Analysis: FS=1.51

PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.02

PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.02

PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.02

PLAXIS c/phi method FS Estimation

5m Cut Undrained FS=1.51

10m CUT Drain

10m Cut Drained FS=1.34

5m Cut Drained FS=1

5m Cut Undrained, FS=1.51

PLAXIS Drained 10m CUT

Drained 5m CUT with Internal Drains

Drained 5m CUT with Internal Drains

10m CUT Drain...

GWT drawn down to below slope face, stable

Effects of GWT on Excavation Analysis

PLAXIS Model of Full GWT

CLOSED FLOW Boundary

PLAXIS Model of GWT Drawdown

Modeling Steady Seepage with GWT