You are on page 1of 51

AP Harry Tan

CE5101 Seepage FEM

SEP 2011

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

1

AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM

SEP 2011

Seepage Analysis
• Simple Flow nets
• Laplace
L l
E
Equation
ti

q x  k x

  y


x
p

w

Darcy’s Law
Groundwater Head or Potential

 2
q
 k x 2  0
x
x

Steady State Laplace Eqn
3

Seepage in Drained Slope Failure

4

2

AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM

SEP 2011

5

(a) Dry Sand
(b) GWT coincide with slip plane

6

3

AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM

SEP 2011

(c) GWT below Slip Plane with suction
(d) Waterlogged Slope with Steady Parallel Seepage

7

8

4

AP Harry Tan
CE5101 Seepage FEM

SEP 2011

9

10

5

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 6 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 13 Why do we need a permeability function? Can the problem be solved l d without ith t ititerations? ti ? 14 7 .

7m (PLAXIS) 15 TYPES OF FLOW PROBLEMS  Confined flow Domain defined  Unconfined flow Domain undefined 16 8 .AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 TRANSITION SATURATED/UNSATURATED  x  qy  K r k y y qx   K r k x Kr 1 saturated zone K  10 r 4 unsaturated zone K r  104 h hk log( K r )   4h hk hk  0.

a value lower by a factor 1000 is sufficient 17 18 9 .AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 PERMEABILITY  PLAXIS allows consideration of change of permeability with void ratio  k  e log     k0  ck Default value for ck is 1015  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. concrete).g.

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 SEP 2011 Unconfined Flow in Sand 21 Equi-potential Plot of Groundwater Head 22 11 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 PLAXIS Results Dupuit’s Theory = 0.150 m3/day/m 23 Confined Flow Seepage 24 12 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 SEP 2011 27 Case History of Slope Failure in Residual Soil Cut at SICC 28 14 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 SEP 2011 Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years 5 m Ht Slip Failure ? 10 m Ht No Failure ? 31 Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years 32 16 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Soil Profile of Cut Slope 33 Stress History of Cut Slope 34 17 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 35 36 18 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Distance (m) 38 19 .

above WT: 18 122 120 118 116 114 112 110 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 .022 144 142 140 138 Elevation (m) 136 Description: Reddish Brown Clayey Silt Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 20 Cohesion: 8 Phi: 27 Unit Wt. above WT: 18 134 132 130 128 126 124 Description: Yellowish Brown Clayey Silt Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb U it W Unit Weight: i ht 20 Cohesion: 20 Phi: 34 Unit Wt.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 SLOPE/W Analysis: FS After 2 Years 150 148 146 1.

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 PLAXIS UnDrained Analysis: FS=1.02 Incremental Displacement Vectors indicate start of shallow slip failure 42 21 .51 Suction Excess Pore Pressures due to Soil Unloaded 41 PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.02 43 PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.02 GWT Heads showed seepage front exiting g on slope p face. this is bad situation for slope Phreatic surface 44 22 .

.02 5m CUT Drained.3 1.51 10m CUT Drained. 1. FS=1. FS=1.1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Displacement [m] 5m Cut Undrained. 1.2 1....6 5m CUT Draine..34 45 PLAXIS Drained 10m CUT Incremental Displacements Pattern indicate stable slope – no failure mechanism 46 23 . FS=1.4 1. 5m CUT Undra.5 10m CUT Drain Drain.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 PLAXIS c/phi method FS Estimation Chart 1 FS 1..

.5 cf to 1.4 5m CUT with In. stable situation. stable situation 47 Drained 5m CUT with Internal Drains Chart 1 FS 1.3 1. 1..1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Displacement [m] GWT drawn down to below slope face. and FS increased to 1..6 5m CUT Draine... 1. 5m CUT Undra... 1.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Drained 5m CUT with Internal Drains GWT drawndown to below slope face.5 10m CUT Drain.2 1..02 without internal drains 48 24 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 SEP 2011 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 h=Ha (const) h=Hb(const) Ha Hb CLOSED FLOW Boundary 52 26 .

PP=0 GWT drawdown h H ( h=Ha(const) ) h=Hb(const) Ha Hb CLOSED FLOW Boundary 53 PLAXIS Model of Hydrostatic GWT h=Ha(const) Ha h=Hb(const) Hb Hydrostatic both sides but PP not in Equilibrium This may give problems as there are incorrect 54 effective stresses in the mesh 27 .AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 PLAXIS Model of GWT Drawdown Phreatic surface.

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 One North Excavation in 30m Depth of Jurong Formation •By: A/Prof Harry Tan. National University of  Singapore •At: ER2010 2‐4 Aug 2010 (Seattle USA) 55 Use of Sub-soil Drains to Lower GWT for Deep Excavation 56 28 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Full Anchors not possible due to site access 57 Seepage of GWT through wall 58 29 .

000 59 Date Drained / Undrained Conditions Section 2 .00 10. then Excavate to berm top level at RL96.000 • 16-Feb-04 Excavate to RL110.000 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 90.00 40.00 Drained Undrained I19 35.5. 106.000 10-Aug-04 Ground Water Level (m) 115.00 Depth (m) • undrained analysis • – 50 mm • drained analysis • – 97 mm • actual – 85 mm 20.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 120.5m.0m 10-Sep-04 95.5 and 104.Stage One North .000 GW(S)18 105.5m • 29-Mar-04 Excavate to RL102.WT78I19 after cast base slab and remove lowest anchor 0 20 Wall Deflection (mm) 40 60 80 100 120 0.5m and Install 1st row Drains at RL112.00 15.000 8m 110.00 25.5m and Install Drains at RL108.000 GW(S)19 16m GW(S)17 100.00 5.00 • Drained Analysis 30.00 60 30 .5m • 12-Jul-04 Excavate to RL98.0m and Install Drains at RL100.

106.5 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 6 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. γw=10 kN/m3 • Therefore.05m For Sect 3.5m For Sect 3.0m to cast capping beam Install Raker Anchor with 80% of 150T preload Excavate to RL110. remove 100T anchors Cast basement wall and slab at RL105.0m Cast basement wall and slab at RL115.64E-3 m/day • Eoed =50.000 kPa • Drainage path length h=20m and • Unit weight of water.0m Excavate trench toRL115.0m Excavate to capping beam and remove raker anchors Backfill to GL at RL117.5m and 75 T anchors at RL96.0m 62 31 .0m For Sect 1 and 2. Drained condition requires period of about 9.5 and 104.5m F S For Sectt 1 andd 22.9m Cut small rock berms to RL86.5m and slab at RL98.5m and 100T anchors at RL100.0m.0 (U=93%) 2 T cv t kE h w andd cv  oed so.5m Install drains at RL102.5m Excavate to RL102.9m and CD slab at RL86. gunnite exposed rock slope Cast basement wall to RL95.5m 96 5 Install drains at RL102. remove 75T anchors Cast basement wall to RL102. excavate to RL98.5.5m and Install drains at RL108.5m and install 1st row drain at RL112.5m Excavate to formation level at RL95.8m diameter CBP wall GL at RL117. t  2 h w kEoed • Assume average values for stiff Jurong soils: • k=1E-7 m/s or 8. excavate t tto RL 96.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Drained / Undrained Conditions • Simple 1D Consolidation theory: Drained requires T=1.

00 Deflection (mm) 63 2a.5 77.Rock 20% (1.4 best reflects the actual deflected shape 117.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 1.00 100.6 x Preload) Soil 100% .0 Preload) 102.Rock 20% (1.5 92.5 Soil 100% .00 50.5 82.Rock 20% (1.2 x Preload) Soil 100% .5 Reduce ed Level (m) • Preloading force multiplier of 1.Rock 20% 107.00 150.8 x Preload) Soil 100% .5 97.5 87.5 0.Rock 20% (1.4 x Preload) Soil 100% . Influence of Preloading Force Increasing preload force leads to more bending of wall Section 1 .5 Soil 100% .Stage 7 (after cut berm) • 150 ton raker anchor on site is more effective than stipulated Measured 112. Influence of Horizontal Drainage System no drains 4 drains 2 drains 6 drains 64 32 .Rock 20% (2.

Influence of Horizontal Drainage System no drains 117.5 87.5 no drains 6 drains 97.5 4 drains 2 drains 92.5 77.5 0 100 200 300 400 Deflection (mm) 66 33 .5 112. wall deflection is greater 300mm  Collapse of wall Influence of Horizontal Drainage System 117.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 2b.5 Reduced Level (m) • Wall deformation increase with level of drains which determine height of water level behind the wall 102.5m 4 drains 103m 2 drains 6 drains 108m 100m 65 2c.5 82 5 82.5 107. max. Influence of Horizontal Drainage System • When no drains installed.

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 .

40 70 35 . Wall is Stable with GWT lowered. FOS=1.75 • Allowing for wall plastic hinge (Elasto-plastic wall) gave lower FOS=1.75 CBP Elasto ElastoPlastic Failure with Plastic Hinge. Global FOS by c/phi Reduction CBP Elastic. FOS=1.75 FOS 1 75 Plastic DWall FOS=1.40 and smaller soil yielded zone behind the wall 69 4b. and over-estimate FOS=1. but FOS by c/phi reduction must account for wall plastic moments El ti DWall Elastic DW ll FOS=1.40 • Elastic wall excludes possibility of wall plastic hinge. Elastic Failure with no Plastic Hinge.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 4a.

00 200.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 5.5 102.00 50.00 200.5 0.500 Section 1 .500 Reduced Level (m) Measured Reduced Lev vel (m) Reduced Level (m) 107.00 100.5 107.5 102.500 Calculated 92.500 Measured 97.500 107.00 50.500 82.00 1 50 .5 87.00 Section 1 .500 112.00 Deflection (mm) 1 1 7.5 8 7.500 87.5 0.500 97. Wall Deflection Predictions Section 1 .00 77.500 -50.5 Reduced Level (m) Reduced Level (m) 1 0 2.00 82.5 C a lc u l a te d 9 2.500 87.0 0 D e fle c tio n (m m ) 20 0 .00 100.00 0.Stage 3 & 4 (after installing / preloading of raker anchor) Section 1 .500 50.5 Calculated 92.00 50.5 Measured 97.5 87.500 102.0 0 77.00 150.00 100.00 150.500 87.500 102.5 8 2.5 82.5 82.5 107.500 Calculated 92.500 Calculated 92.500 117.00 5 0.5 1 0 7.500 102.5 92.500 107.00 Deflection (m m) 150.Stage 1 & 2 (after installation of CBP wall) 117.5 Calculated Me a s u re d 9 7.S ta g e 7 (a fte r c u t b e rm ) Section 1 .5 117.00 0.Stage 6 (after excavate to berm top and installing of last 2 drains and anchors) 100.500 112.5 112.5 0 50 100 150 200 Deflection (mm) 71 Seepage and Excavations • GWT lowering by Steady State Seepage • GWT lowering by Transient Seepage 72 36 .500 77.00 Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) 150.5 117.5 7 7.00 200.500 0.Stage 5 (after excavate to RL102.5 112.00 200.00 77.Stage 13 & 14 (after removal of contingency and raker anchor) S e c tio n 1 .5 Reduced Level (m) Measured 97.500 Measured 97.00 77.500 112.500 82.00 1 0 0.5m and installation of first 2 drains) 117.5 1 1 2.500 -50.

6m Lower 5.0m GWT is i nearly l proportional to excavation depth 73 GWT lowering SS Seepage Excavate 15m. k=1e-9 m/s Lower 5. k=1e-5 m/s Lower 1. k=1e-7 m/s Lower 5.6m Excavate 15m. Pattern of GW heads is function of geometry only and soil layer arrangements 74 37 .AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 GWT lowering SS Seepage Excavate 5m.6m Excavate 10m.3m Excavate 15m. k=1e-5 m/s Excavate 15m. k=1e-5 m/s Lower 5. GWT is not dependent on kk.6m For SS case. k=1e-5 m/s Lower 3.

8m Excavate 5m in 30 days. k=1e-7 m/s Lower 0. k=1e-9 m/s very little GWT lowered 76 38 . Excavate 5m.0m Lower 1. k=1e-5 m/s is like SS case Clays. k=1e-5 m/s Lower 1. k=1e-5 m/s is like SS case Clays.3m Excavate 5m. k=1e-9 m/s very little GWT lowered 75 GWT and Transient Seepage Excavate 10m. k=1e-7 m/s Lower 3. k=1e-9 m/s Lower 0. k=1e-5 m/s Excavate 10m.8m Excavate next 5m in 30 days.3m Sands.3m Sands. Excavate 10m. k=1e-9 m/s Lower 0.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 GWT and Transient Seepage Excavate 5m.

k=1e-5 m/s Excavate 5m.6m Lower 3. k=1e-9 m/s very little GWT lowered 77 Science of Transient Seepage • Governing Equations • Hydraulic Material Models • Boundary Conditions 78 39 . k=1e-5 m/s is like SS case Clays. k=1e-7 m/s Lower 5.6m Excavate next 5m in 30 days.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 GWT and Transient Seepage Excavate 5m.3m Sands. Excavate 15m. k=1e-9 m/s Lower 0.

k function • c as f(csat.SWCC 80 40 .AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Governing Equations Steady-state continuity condition 79 Governing Equations • Need to define two soil properties functions: • K as f(S) and Ksat . n. S(p)) .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Governing Equations (FEM) at element by element level 81 Governing Equations (FEM) 82 41 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Hydraulic Material ModelVan Genuchten Model 83 Hydraulic Material ModelVan Genuchten Model • 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 84 42 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Hydraulic Material ModelVan Genuchten Model 85 Hydraulic Material ModelVan Genuchten Model 86 43 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Hydraulic Material ModelVan Genuchten Model 87 Hydraulic Material ModelVan Genuchten Model 88 44 .

Water Table Pw  hp  w h  y Pw w 1 2 3 2. Well/Drain 5 8 7 Q  Q 6 7. Outflow qx nx  q y n y   qexternal 89 Boundary Conditions 5. h  h2 6.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Boundary Conditions 1 1. Free Seepage h y 8. Close boundary q x nx  q y n y  0 3. Prescribed heads h  h1 . Inflow 4 qx nx  q y n y  qexternal 4. Screen q x nx  q y n y  0 90 45 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 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 91 Boundary Conditions 92 46 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Boundary Conditions Eg Zone A and B Eg. Zone C 93 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 3 h(t) C B 9 A h(t) 0 h(t) 2 y 4 x 5 1 8 h(t) 6 7 94 47 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Rapid Drawdown Example – Time Dependent Boundary Conditions F From H=25m H 25 tto H H=5m 5 iin 50 d days H=25m H=5m 95 Rapid Drawdown Example – Time Dependent Boundary Conditions F From H=25m H 25 tto H H=5m 5 iin 50 d days H=25m H=5m 96 48 .

8 WL at 25m FOS=1.6 WL at 5m Slow DD in 50 days FOS=1.74 WL at 5m Very Slow DD FOS=1.01 1 0 0.2 0.4 1.63 1.47 1.8 1 |U| [m] 98 49 .2 WL at 5m rapid DD in 5 days FOS=1.4 0.6 0.AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 Rapid Drawdown Example – Time Dependent Boundary Conditions From H=25m to H=5m in 50 days y Potential Slip Surface by c/phi reduction for the Case of Slow DD in 50 days 97 Rapid Drawdown Example – Time Dependent Boundary Conditions Sum-Msf 1.

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 99 100 50 .

AP Harry Tan CE5101 Seepage FEM SEP 2011 101 51 .