You are on page 1of 93

CE5101 Lecture 1 Introduction

14 Aug 2013 Prof Harry Tan

8/14/2013

Outline
Scope and Objectives Seepage
FEM analysis of Seepage

Consolidation
FEM analysis of Consolidation

Summary

8/14/2013

CE5101

SEEPAGE AND CONSOLIDATION OF SOILS

1. Basic Concepts Pore pressure and effective stress, continuity equation, Darcys law and its limitations, seepage forces and general flow equations 2. Steady State Ground Water Flow through Soils Seepage theory, flow net, flow to wells, Dupuitss assumption, idealized solutions and determination of permeability of soils in laboratory and field pumping tests 3. Seepage and Stability Analysis Use of FEM in seepage modelling, slope stability including seepage analysis EC7 on Hydraulic Issues Uplift, heave, erosion and piping 4. Consolidation of Soils I- One dimensional Review of Terzaghis theory, laboratory tests for compression and consolidation parameters, application to settlement analysis 5. Consolidation of Soils II- Two and three dimensional Biots consolidation theory, Cryer-Mandel effects, secondary consolidation 6. Numerical Modelling of Consolidation Consolidation analysis in FEM, embankment loading, excavations 7. Methods of Accelerating Consolidation Preloading, surcharge, vertical drains, influence of method of installation, smear well resistance, FEM modelling of vertical drains, hyperbolic and Asaoka method of field consolidation monitoring 8. Transient Seepage Analysis Concepts of partially saturated soils, soil characteristic water content and 8/14/2013 permeability curves, Van Genuthen soil characteristic functions

Literature
Arnold Verruijt Basic Soil Mecahnics Lectures 2010 Cedergren, H.R., "Seepage, Drainage and Flow Nets", 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1989. Craig RF, Craigs Soil Mechanics, 7th Edition, Spoon Press 2004. Fredlund, D.G., and Rahardjo, H., "Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils", John Wiley & Sons, 1993. Hausmann, MR. Engineering Principles of Ground Modification, McGraw Hill, 1990. PLAXIS Version 8 Users Manual, by PLAXIS BV, 2002. Plaxis Course Notes on Seepage and Consolidation Whitlow R, Basic Soil Mechanics, 3rd Edition, Longman 1996. Yong, R.N., and Towsend, F.C., "Sedimentation/Consolidation Models, Prediction and Validation ", ASCE, 1984.
4

8/14/2013

Module Learning Objectives


Attain correct understanding of seepage and consolidation processes in soils Apply concepts to practical geotechnical problems Able to do some basic FEM analysis of common seepage and consolidation problems

8/14/2013

Part 1 - SEEPAGE of SOILS


1. 1D and 2D Seepage Analysis 2. Steady State Seepage (FEM) PLAXIS and PLAXFLOW Combined SEEP/W with SLOPE/W or Slope Stability 3. Transient Seepage PLAXFLOW SEEP/W

8/14/2013

Part 2 CONSOLIDATION of SOILS


1D Consolidation Terzaghi theory (Plaxis simulation) Finite Strain theory 2D, 3D and Radial Consolidation (Plaxis) Pseudo 2D and 3D - Uncoupled theory of Terzaghi-Rendulic Biots theory of coupled consolidation Barron's radial theory (for PVD)
8/14/2013 7

SETTLEMENTS AND CONSOLIDATION


Foundation Requirements Elastic Stress Distribution Methods Concept of Effective Stress Settlements of Soils - Immediate, Delayed, and Creep Compression Hand Calculations SPREADSHEET Calculations (UNISETTLE) GGU-Settle Finite Element Analysis (PLAXIS)
8/14/2013 8

SETTLEMENTS AND CONSOLIDATION


Determination of Compression Properties Laboratory tests and interpretation Standard Oedometer Insitu tests correlations SPT CPTu

8/14/2013

SETTLEMENTS AND CONSOLIDATION


Measurements and Interpretation Asaokas method Tans Hyperbolic method

8/14/2013

10

When is Settlement Analysis Required?


Land Reclamation Large Storage Tanks Shallow Foundations Highway and Airfield Pavements Large Fills Large Embankments Houses Damage by Settlements

8/14/2013

11

Changi South Bay Reclamation

8/14/2013

12

Changi South Bay Reclamation

8/14/2013

13

Extent of Soft Marine Clay/Silty Clay


N

TRUE NORTH

PLANT NORTH

Marine CLAY
BH -4 BH -9

BH -16

T-1
BH -3 BH -2 BH -1 BH -5 BH -6 BH -7 BH -8

T-3
BH -10 BH -11

T-2

BH -13 BH -12

T -4
Silty CLAY

BH -14

BH -15

8/14/2013

14

Layout of Tanks and Instruments


N
LEGEND:
Settlement Profiler ( SPT - ) Inclinometer ( I - ) Piezometer ( P - )

TRUE NORTH

PLANT NORTH

Settlement Point ( s - ) S-1

S-13 S-1

S-5

I-3 P-1
S-13 S-5

S-1

I-2

I-1
S-1

T-1
S-9 S-3

SPT-2

I-4

S-13

T-2

S-5 S-7

T-3

T -4
S-5

S-9

S-9

8/14/2013

15

Time-Settlement (edge) Curves of Tank No. 3


25 Water Level (m) 20 15 10 5 0 0
Settlem ent (m m )
T a nk N o . 3

50 100 150 200 250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


16

S-1 S-5 S-9

8/14/2013

Time (Day)

Profiles of Soil Settlement recorded beneath Tank Pad


N A B
PLANT NORTH TRUE NORTH

TANK NO. 3
Settlement Profiler Tank Pad B

0 50 S ettlem en t, m m 100 150 200 250 300


8/14/2013
Tank Pad Shell Erection Water Level = 5m Water Level = 10m Water Level = 15m Water Level = 20m Water Level = 10m Water Level = 0m

30

20

10

0 -10 Distance, m

-20

-30

17

Settlement Contours of Tank Base Plate measured after Hydro-test


25

Unit : mm
20 15 10 5 Y (m) 0 PLANT NORTH

170
-5 -10 -15 -20

190 170 90 70

Tank No. 3
-25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 X (m) 5 10 15 20 25

8/14/2013

18

Houses damage by settlement

8/14/2013

19

Houses damage by settlement

8/14/2013

20

Site Plan of Sembawang Runway

8/14/2013

21

Sembawang airfield fill site

8/14/2013

22

Sembawang airfield fill site

8/14/2013

23

Sembawang airfield fill site

8/14/2013

24

Settlement Failure in Condo

8/14/2013

25

Settlement Failure in Condo

8/14/2013

26

Settlement Failure in Condo

8/14/2013

27

Causes of Settlement Failure

8/14/2013

28

Causes of Settlement Failure

8/14/2013

29

Can we predict and prevent problem?


Predict YES; prevent may be difficult and costly Need Consolidation Tests Need to understand Stress History of Site Need to predict how much and how long settlements will occur Need Ground Improvement to accelerate consolidation before Condo is built

8/14/2013

30

Table 2 Summary of New Lab Tests on Peaty Clay


Undraine d BH Pe aty clay range Plastic Water Liquidity she ar strength, Compression Sample SPT N Liquid No. bgl Thk (m) No. values Limit (LL) Limit (PL) content (%) Inde x (LI) Cu (kPa) Inde x (Cc) Pe rmeability, k (m/s)

BH-1 -2.5mRL~4.0mRL 1.5 m

UD1

N=1

51%

35%

66%

1.9

21 kPa

0.65

5.5E-11~1.4E-9 m/s

BH-2 -1.5mRL~4.5mRL 3.0 m

UD2

N=1

139%

75%

127%

0.8

16 kPa

1.28

2.2E-11~8.0E-10 m/s

UD2

N=2

172%

18 kPa

1.62

3.4E-11~5.5E-10 m/s

BH-3 -1.5mL~4.5mRL

3.0 m UD3 N=2 197% 113% 162% 0.6 25 kPa -

UD4

N=2

175%

19 kPa

1.48

2.9E-11~6.8E-10 m/s

8/14/2013

31

3D FEM mesh is based on the idealized 4 boreholes to create and interpolate the subsurface soil profiles in 3D FEM mesh
Driveway Carpark slab on piles Building
Top fill Soft peaty clay

Open-cut trench

Firm soil (N=10~30)

Existing canal
8/14/2013

Underlying hard soil (N>30)32

The trench was retained by soldier piles (UC300x300x84.5kg/m) at 5m c/c spacing and steel plate to retain the soil in-between. Excavate to 1.2~1.5m bgl and install the top strut (300x300x84.5kg/m) before excavating to formation level of about 4.1m~4.6m bgl

8/14/2013

33

It should be noted that the excavation and laying of pipelines are conducted in segments. However, in the present 3D FEM analysis, a whole stretch of trench excavation was conducted in one shot. Thus, the analysis results will maximize its impact on the adjacent ground and is thus on the conservative side. Similar to the observation of the water drawdown adjacent to the launching shaft as revealed by the water standpipe data, the trench excavation work is expected to cause certain water drawdown which will cause increase of effective stress on the very soft peaty clay layers and cause additional ground settlements. In the 3D FEM analysis, the General Water Table is set to 3m below the Tradehub21 ground surface, while the water elevation was set to the base of excavated trench, and Ground Water Flow analysis was selected to derive the steady-state ground water condition (worst case of GW drawdown possible). However, it should be noted that actual trench excavation work with duration of about 3 months will not cause the ground water condition to reach steady state condition. As such, the current analysis is thus on the conservative side.
8/14/2013 34

As expected, the trench excavation coupled with ground water drawdown cause quite some ground settlement both adjacent to the trench and along the driveway, with a Max value of about 80mm.

8/14/2013

35

Along the drive way: Initial water condition set at 3m below ground surface

Initial water table at 3m bgl

8/14/2013

36

Along the drive way: water drawdown of about 1m after trench excavation

Initial water water table at table at 3m bgl about 4m~4.5m bgl, with a water level drawdown of about 1~1.5m

8/14/2013

37

Cut a cross section A-A cut along the centerline of the driveway

8/14/2013

38

The induced ground settlement along the driveway at the Tradehub21 side of about 30~70mm:

70mm 30mm 45mm

8/14/2013

39

Without water drawdown, the induced ground settlement will be very small due to trench excavation (Max = 15mm)

70mm 30m m 45mm

8/14/2013

40

Another 3D FEM mesh for 1 segment of excavation with a excavation length of 8m only as shown (Cross section along A-A).

70mm 30m m 45mm

8/14/2013

41

The induced ground settlement along the driveway will be mainly concentrated at the opposite side of the segmental excavation with comparable but slightly smaller magnitude.

65mm 15mm 25mm

8/14/2013

42

Concluding remarks for effect of trench excavation and the accompanied water drawdown on the driveway settlement: Using the Ground Flow analysis in 3D FEM, the calculated water drawdown at the driveway is estimated to be about 1m~1.5m with accompanied increase of vertical effective stress. The caused ground settlement along the driveway at the Tradehub21 side of is calculated to be about 30~70mm.

8/14/2013

43

Seepage Induced Slope Failures


Cut Slopes Long-term FS governs, use Drained Analysis Seepage condition is critical Need FEM Seepage analysis coupled with Stress analysis (PLAXIS) Or combined with Stability analysis eg SEEP/W with SLOPE/W or

8/14/2013

44

Performance of Repaired Slope using a GEONET Drain to lower GroundWater Table under Very Heavy Rainfall Condition
Tan S.A., Chew S.H., G P Karunaratne, Wong S.F., The National University of Singapore
8/14/2013 45

Order of Presentation
Introduction Possible causes of failure Site investigation of failed slope Failure analysis

8/14/2013

46

Order of Presentation (contd)


Design of permanent stable slopes Parametric study of influence of GEONET installation depth Construction of repaired slope Conclusions
8/14/2013 47

Introduction
70m long slope with gradient of 1(V):2(H) was cut in medium stiff residual soil After period of intense rainfall, slip failure
slip about 1 to 1.5m deep over slope of 30m length

Slope repaired using dry cut fill soil obtained from same site failed again without use of subsurface drains 8/14/2013

48

Possible causes of failure


Large overburden stress relief due to slope cut Rise in ground water table level Inadequate sub-soil drainage
water absorption in residual soil increased seepage force from infiltration rise of water table within slope mass
8/14/2013 49

Site investigation
110

Slope Failure Profile and GWT Data


108
P2 P3 106.3 Probable Ground Water Table 104.6

Elevation (mRL)

106
P1

1V:2H 104.5 103.8

104

Observed Slip Plane

102

100

98 0 2 4 6 8 Distance (m) 10 12

8/14/2013 50 Ground water has risen close to failed ground surface

Failure analysis
c' (1 ( w h)/( H)) tan ' FS= + H sin cos tan
GWT h

H
Parallel Seepage

= slope angle (degrees)


H = depth to slip surface (m) 8/14/2013 h = height of GWT from slip surface (m)
51

Failure analysis (contd)


Table 1: Results of infinite slope stability analysis
Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8/14/2013 c kPa 10 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 deg 22 21 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 kN/m3 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 deg 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 H m 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 h m 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 FS 1.74 1.23 1.01 1.20 1.18 1.12 1.06 1.00 0.98 State of Soil Dry Softened Soaked Seepage Seepage Seepage Seepage Seepage Seepage

52

Design for permanent stable slope


Seepage analysis by SEEP/W Flow rate of about 1.89 x10-3 m3/s per m expected to be conducted safely out re-compacted soil on repaired slope

8/14/2013

53

Design for permanent stable slope (contd)


114 112 110 108 106
P o n d le ve l a t 1 0 4 .6 m RL

NO DRAIN
GW T R e co m p acte d R e s id u a l So il

0 .5 m Sa n d Tra ck

1 5 0 m m /h R a in fa ll

3.2 60 1e -00 4

008 03e3.30 - 00 8 4e 8 00 -00 3.345e 9 1.8

104 102 100 98 96 94 92 90 0

023 Co n cr e te L in e r e

1 .2

-0 1

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Distance (m)
8/14/2013

Steady seepage without internal drain

54

Design for permanent stable slope (contd)


2.5

1.5

1. 3

1 14 1 12 1 10 1 08 1 06 1 04 1 02 1 00 98 96 94 92 90 0 5 10
D e sc r i p t io n: P o n d W a t e r U n i t W e ig h t : 9 . 8 0 7

0.9 2 3
1 5 0 m m /h R a i n fa l l
GW T

1.9

D e s c r ip t io n : In s itu R e s id u a l S o il U n it W e ig h t : 1 8 C o h es i on : 1 0 P h i: 2 7

8/14/2013

Slope analysis without internal drain

1.1

0 .5 m S a n d - tr a c k
D e s c r ip t io n : R ec o m p a c t e d R e s id u a l S o il U n it W eig ht : 1 8 C o h e s io n : 3 Ph i: 2 0

N O D R A IN

15

20

25

30

35

40

D ista n c e ( m )
55

Design for permanent stable slope (contd)


114 112 110 108 106
P on d le vel a t 1 0 4 .6 m R L

G E O N E T 4m D ept h
R e co m p a cte d R e s id u a l S o il GW T G EO N E T

15 0 m m /h R a in fa ll

3.0 99 4e -00 4

0 .5 m Sa n d Tra ck

2.1
8 e-00 22 8 2 5.21 -01 -00 9e 2e 82 5.212

104 102 100 98 96 94 92 90 0

C o n cre te L in e 0 r 0 9e

1.4

-0 1

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Distance (m)
8/14/2013

Slope analysis with 4m deep GEONET

56

Design for permanent stable slope (contd)


2.4

G E O N E T 4 m D e p th
1.8
2

114 112

2. 2

1.8

1.269
1 5 0 m m /h R ain fa ll
GW T

110 108 106 104 102 100 98 96 94 92 90 0 5


D e s c r i p t io n : P o n d W a t e r U n i t W e igh t : 9 . 8 0 7

0 .5 m S a nd Tr ac k
D e s c r ip tio n : R e c o m p a c te d R e s id u a l S o il U n it W e ig h t : 1 8 C o he s io n : 3 P h i: 2 0

GEONET

D e s c r ip t io n : In s itu R e s id u a l S o il U n it W e ig h t: 1 8 C o h e s io n : 1 0 P h i: 2 7

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

D is ta n c e (m )
8/14/2013

Slope analysis with 4m deep GEONET

57

Design for permanent stable slope (contd)


114 112 110 108 106
Pon d le vel a t 1 0 4 .6 m R L

G E O N E T 8 m D epth
GWT
R e co m p a cte d R e s id u a l S o il G E ON E T

1 5 0 m m /h R ain fa ll

3.10 82 e-00 4

0 .5 m S a n d tra ck

-008 58e 7.01 08 e -0 160 7.0

104 102 100 98 96 94 92 90 0 5

C o n c re te L in e r

7 .6 6

99 e

-0 1

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Distance (m)
8/14/2013

Slope analysis with 8m deep GEONET

58

Design for permanent stable slope (contd)


G E O N E T 8 m D e p th
1.7
1.8
2.2

1 14 1 12 1 10 1 08 1 06 1 04 1 02 1 00 98 96 94 92 90 0 5
D e s c r i p t io n : P o n d W a t e r U n it W e i g h t : 9 . 8 0 7

2.2 1.9

1.617
1 50 m m / h R a in f a ll

G EO NET
G WT

0 .5 m S a n d T r a c k

De s c ri p t io n : In s it u R e s id u a l S o il U n it W e ig h t : 1 8 C o h e s io n : 1 0 P h i: 2 7

D e s c r ip t io n : R e c o m p a c t e d R e s id u a l S o il U n it W e ig h t : 1 8 C o h e s io n : 5 P h i: 2 1

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

D is ta n c e ( m )
8/14/2013

Slope analysis with 8m deep GEONET

59

Parametric Study of influence of GEONET installation depth


Table 2: Influence of GEONET depth on GWT and FS of repaired slope
GEONET Depth (m) GWT at Slope Crest (m RL) GWT at MidSlope (m RL) Seepage into Slope (m3/s /m) Soil State in Slope Drained cohesion c (kPa) Drained friction angle, deg Drained FS 0 1 2 4 8 12 15

108.1 107.1 1.89 x 10-8 Fully Soak 3 20 0.923

108.0 106.9 1.72 x 10-9 Fully Soak 3 20 0.968

107.9 106.4 9.80 x 10-12 Fully Soak 3 20 1.137

107.6 105.7 2.18 x 10-12 Fully Soak 3 20 1.269

106.8 104.7 < 1.0 x 10-12 Soften 5 21 1.617

104.7 104.7 < 1.0 x 10-12 Compacted 10 22 1.780

104.7 104.7 < 1.0 x 10-12 Compacted 10 22 1.808


60

8/14/2013

Parametric Study of influence of GEONET installation depth (contd)


Modified Mannings Eqn. for discharge of equivalent pipe drain in-place of GEONET drain Q = 1.137A RH0.66 S0.5 (m3/s) A=flow cross-section area (sq-m) RH=hydraulic radius (m) =R/2 for full flow S=slope (m/m)
8/14/2013 61

Construction of repair slope


Repair job to be done panel by panel Fully soaked residual soil that has slid was removed completely Exposed soil was re-compacted to produce firm stable base for GEONET or pipe drain to be installed after compaction Residual soil fill re-compacted to 8/14/2013 achieve slope height
62

Conclusions
Installation of geosynthetic internal drain proved be to cost effective GEONET or equivalent longitudinal geopipe provide effective interceptor drain to high GWT and conduct water safely out of slope below re-compacted soil zone 8/14/2013 63

Excavation for Effluent Pond

8/14/2013

64

Tension crack forming on slope

8/14/2013

65

Close-up on tension crack zone

8/14/2013

66

Collapse of kaolinitic soil formation

8/14/2013

67

Collapse of residual soil and high GWT exit

8/14/2013

68

Initial repair without drains and failure again

8/14/2013

69

Install geotextile-wrap 15m long, 75-mm diameter pipe drains at 1.5 m intervals

8/14/2013

70

GW discharge from internal geopipe subsurface pipe drains

8/14/2013

71

Use of geotextile seperator/filter layer for subgrade soil protection

8/14/2013

72

Use of 150-mm geopipes as interceptor subsurface drains

8/14/2013

73

Filter details at outlet discharge point

8/14/2013

74

Subsurface drain failure without geotextile filters

8/14/2013

75

Clear discharge water from geopipe drain

8/14/2013

76

Clear discharge water from weepholes

8/14/2013

77

Long-term Settlements on Soft Clays

8/14/2013

78

Long-term Settlements on Soft Clays

8/14/2013

79

Fundamental Knowledge Quiz

8/14/2013

80

Pisa Leaning Tower 20 Sep 2007

8/14/2013

81

Pisa Leaning Tower 20 Sep 2007

8/14/2013

82

3D FEM Seepage Analysis Drainage System for Mediapolis Complex July 2013

Visualization of the ground water flow around the SBP toe to enter the basement area

Ground water flow arrows around the SPB toe

Exit of the ground water from the drainage pipe alignments

Exit of ground water from the drainage pipe alignments

Some visualization of the ground water flow around the basement

Slightly above the basement slab level

Slightly below the basement slab level

Cut a cross section at the elevation of 3rd basement base (about 100.5mRL), the calculated total discharge rate is 0.21510-3 m3/s, or about 0.21510-3243600 = 19m3 per day, namely about 3 m3 for each pump sump per day due to drainage

Final pore pressure at the central portion of the basement slab is essentially eliminated to zero, while the pore pressure along the 10m offset fringe area is about 30kPa (about 90kPa around the narrow corner), thus minimize the water uplift pressure on the basement base slab

Value probe window

There will be a ground water drawdown of about 5m near the short basement short sides/corners, and about 10m water drawdown along the long basement sides
Max of about 10m water drawdown at basement long sides About 5m water drawdown at basement short sides/corners

There will be an accompanying general ground subsidence of 15~17mm around the SBP wall as there are all competent residual soils (Some local Max 27mm ground subsidence may due to localized soil condition)

Localized Max 27mm subsidence

General 15~17mm ground subsidence around the SBP wall boundary

Raft settlement of no more than 25mm under the column loadings

In the case that No ground water drawdown measure is provided, the full uplift pressure at the base of basement will cause heaving of the basement (column loads have been applied which are insufficient to ballast the uplift force)

Extensive Tension plastic points appears around the base of the basement slab due to uplift pressure and program can only proceed to about 20% progress before prematurely terminated.