AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
1
CE5101 Lecture 4
Seepage and FEM
by
Prof Harry Tan
1
y
SEP 2011
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
2
GWT lowering
• Transient Seepage in Excavations
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
2
Seepage Analysis
• Simple Flow nets
L l E ti• Laplace Equation
py
xkq xx
Darcy’s Law
Groundwater Head or Potential
3
02
2
xk
x
q
y
x
w
Groundwater Head or Potential
Steady State Laplace Eqn
Seepage in Drained Slope Failure (long-term)
4
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
3
Equipotentials are perpendicular to slope;so piezometer will only rise by hcosb
5
tan
'tan
cos1
2
z
uF
(a) Dry Sand(b) GWT coincide with slip plane
tan
'tan
cos
cos1
2
2
z
hF w
6
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
4
(c) GWT below Slip Plane with Suction Pressures(d) Waterlogged Slope with Steady Parallel Seepage
tan
'tan
cos
cos1
2
2
z
hF w
7
tan
'tan
cos
cos1
2
2
z
hF w
tan
'tan
cos
cos1
2
2
z
hF w(Like DRY Soil)
tancos z
8
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
5
tan
'tan'
z
hzcF w
h
(With c’=0)
F
9
'tan1tan
z
hwc
10
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
6
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 TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
7
13
Why do we need a permeability function?
Can the problem be l d ith t it ti ?
14
solved without iterations?
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
8
TRANSITION SATURATED/UNSATURATED
rx xq K k
x
rq K k
y yq K k
y
4
4
1 saturated zone
10 unsaturated zone
410 log( )k
r
r
h hr r
K
K
hK K
15
10 log( )
0.7m (PLAXIS)k
k
K Kh
h
TYPES OF FLOW PROBLEMS
Confined flow Unconfined flow
Total head H=hz+hp = 0
16
Domain defined Domain undefined
Total head, H hz+hp 0Therefore, hp=-hzSo, Pressure head difference on phreatic surface = Elevation head drop
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
9
PERMEABILITY
PLAXIS allows consideration of change of permeability with void ratio
0
logk
k e
k c
There may be large contrasts of permeability between different materials in the same problem
Too much permeability contrast may cause numerical difficulties
Th ti b t th hi h t d l t bilit l
0
15Default value for is 10
k
k
k c
c
17
The ratio between the highest and lowest permeability value should not exceed 105
To simulate an almost impermeable material (e.g. concrete), a value lower by a factor 1000 is sufficient
18
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
10
19
• InterfacesInterfaces
• ON means Seepage Cutoff
• OFF means Seepage allowed through Interface
• Drains – Zero pore pressure condition
• Wells – Prescribed flow condition; Inflow (Recharge) or
20
( g )Outflow (Discharge-Well Pumps) Q
• Boundary Conditions
• Prescribed Heads
• Closed BC – No Flow Allowed
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
11
Unconfined Flow in Sand
21
Equi-potential Plot of Groundwater Head
22
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
12
PLAXIS Results
Dupuit’s Theory = 0.150 m3/day/m
23
Confined Flow Seepage
24
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
13
Confined Flow Seepage
H=15m H=13m
25
Closed flow boundary
Groundwater Head
H=15m H 13
26
H=15m H=13m
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
14
27
Case History of Slope Failure in Residual Soil Cut at SICC
28
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
15
CIU or CID Test Should Give Same Strength Parameters
29
Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years
30
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
16
Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years
5 m Ht
Slip Failure ?
10 m Ht
No Failure ?
Slip Failure ?
31
Slip in Cut Soil After 2 Years
32
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
17
Soil Profile of Cut Slope
33
Stress History of Cut Slope
34
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
18
35
36
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
19
37Summary of Lab Test Results
SLOPE/W Analysis: FS After CUT
1.714
140
142
144
146
148
150
Description: Reddish Brown Clayey SiltSoil Model: Undrained (Phi=0)Unit Weight: 19Cohesion: 35
Description: Yellowish Brown Clayey SiltSoil Model: Mohr-CoulombUnit Weight: 20Cohesion: 20
Ele
vatio
n (m
)
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
38
Cohesion: 20Phi: 34Unit Wt. above WT: 18
Distance (m)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60110
112
114
116
118
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
20
SLOPE/W Analysis: FS After 2 Years
1.022
140
142
144
146
148
150
Description: Reddish Brown Clayey SiltSoil Model: Mohr-CoulombUnit Weight: 20Cohesion: 8Phi: 27Unit Wt. above WT: 18
Description: Yellowish Brown Clayey SiltSoil Model: Mohr-CoulombU it W i ht 20
Ele
vatio
n (m
)
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
39
Unit Weight: 20Cohesion: 20Phi: 34Unit Wt. above WT: 18
Distance (m)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60110
112
114
116
118
120
PLAXIS UnDrained Analysis: FS=1.51
Incremental Displacements Pattern
Soil Unloaded – no sign of failure mechanism
40
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
21
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
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
22
PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.02
43
PLAXIS Drained Analysis: FS=1.02
GWT Heads showed seepage front exiting on slope face; this is bad g psituation for slope Phreatic surface
44
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
23
1.5
1.6
FS
Chart 1
5m CUT Draine...
5m CUT Undra...
10m CUT Drain
PLAXIS c/phi method FS Estimation
5m Cut Undrained FS=1.51
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
10m CUT Drain...
10m Cut Drained FS=1.34
5m Cut Drained FS=1 02
45
0 1 2 3 4 51
Displacement [m]
5m Cut Undrained, FS=1.51
5m CUT Drained, FS=1.02
10m CUT Drained, FS=1.34
5m Cut Drained FS 1.02
PLAXIS Drained 10m CUT
Incremental Displacements Pattern indicate stable slope – no failure mechanism
46
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
24
Drained 5m CUT with Internal Drains
GWT drawndown to below slope face, stable situation
47
1.5
1.6
FS
Chart 1
5m CUT Draine...
5m CUT Undra...
Drained 5m CUT with Internal Drains
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
10m CUT Drain...
5m CUT with In...
48
0 1 2 3 4 51
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)
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
25
Modeling ofModeling 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)
50
Method)
• Method B – User Defined Phreatic Surface, ie head is constant on a vertical section (to model hydrostatic pressure on both sides of excavation)
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
26
b2
Possible GWT Conditions in Excavations
wC ab
bau
2
2
b )2(
51
wG acb
acbu
2
)2(
PLAXIS Model of Full GWT
h=Ha (const)
Modeling flood conditions with heavy rainfall recharge
h=Hb(const)
Hb
Ha
52
CLOSED FLOW Boundary
Hb
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
27
PLAXIS Model of GWT Drawdown
h H ( )
GWT drawdownPhreatic surface, PWP=0 Modeling Steady Seepage with GWT
drawdown in Sandy Soils k>1E-6 m/s
h=Hb(const)
h=Ha(const)
HbHa
53
CLOSED FLOW Boundary
Hb
PLAXIS Model of Hydrostatic GWT
Over-estimate active pwp
h=Hb(const)
h=Ha(const)
Ha
Hb
Suppress uplift pressures
p p
54
Hb
Hydrostatic both sides but PWP not in Equilibrium
This may give problems as there are incorrect effective stresses in the mesh
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
28
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
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
29
Full Anchors not possible due to site access
57
Seepage of GWT through wall
58
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
30
GW Seepage by WSP data-Drained/Undrained Conditions
GW(S)17, 18 & 19
• GWT drawdown lags behind excavation and drains installation by 1-2 weeks• Steady-state seepage appears to be reached in about 2 weeks
• WSP showed relatively fast GW drawdown suggests Drained Soil response
105.000
110.000
115.000
120.000
nd
Wat
er L
evel
(m
)
GW(S)18
GW(S)19
GW(S)17
8m
16m
• WSP showed relatively fast GW drawdown suggests Drained Soil response
90.000
95.000
100.000
10
-Oct
-03
10
-No
v-0
3
10
-De
c-0
3
10
-Ja
n-0
4
10
-Fe
b-0
4
10
-Ma
r-0
4
10
-Ap
r-0
4
10
-Ma
y-0
4
10
-Ju
n-0
4
10
-Ju
l-0
4
10
-Au
g-0
4
10
-Se
p-0
4
10
-Oct
-04
10
-No
v-0
4
10
-De
c-0
4
10
-Ja
n-0
5
10
-Fe
b-0
5
10
-Ma
r-0
5
10
-Ap
r-0
5
10
-Ma
y-0
5
10
-Ju
n-0
5
10
-Ju
l-0
5
10
-Au
g-0
5
10
-Se
p-0
5
10
-Oct
-05
10
-No
v-0
5
10
-De
c-0
5
10
-Ja
n-0
6
10
-Fe
b-0
6
Date
Gro
u
• 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
59
Drained / Undrained Conditions
• undrained analysis
50
One North - WT7 I19after cast base slab and remove lowest anchor
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Wall Deflection (mm)
Section 2 - Stage 8
• – 50 mm
• drained analysis
• – 97 mm
• actual – 85 mm
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
De
pth
(m
)
• Drained Analysis
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
Drained
Undrained
I19
60
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
31
Drained / Undrained Conditions
• Simple 1D Consolidation theory: Drained requires T=1.0 (U=93%)
woedv ht
kEd
tcT
2
oed
w
w
oedv
v
kEtsocand
hT
2
,
• 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, γw=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
125 T anchor
150 T anchor75 T anchorStage Date Construction Activity
1 15-Nov-03 Install 1.8m diameter CBP wall GL at RL117.0m2 27-Nov-03 Excavate trench toRL115.0m to cast capping beam3 15-Jan-04 Install Raker Anchor with 80% of 150T preload4 16-Feb-04 Excavate to RL110.5m and install 1st row drain at RL112.5m5 29-Mar-04 Excavate to RL102.5m and
Install drains at RL108.5, 106.5 and 104.5m6 12 J l 04 F S t 1 d 2 t t RL 96 56 12-Jul-04 For Sect 1 and 2, excavate to RL 96.5m
Install drains at RL102.5m and 75 T anchors at RL96.5mFor Sect 3, excavate to RL98.5mInstall drains at RL102.5m and 100T anchors at RL100.5mExcavate to formation level at RL95.9m
7 13-Sep-04 Cut small rock berms to RL86.0m; gunnite exposed rock slope8 18-Dec-04 Cast basement wall to RL95.9m and CD slab at RL86.0m
For Sect 1 and 2, remove 75T anchors9 & 10 18-Dec-04 Cast basement wall to RL102.5m and slab at RL98.05m
For Sect 3, remove 100T anchors11 3-Mar-05 Cast basement wall and slab at RL105.0m12 26-Apr-05 Cast basement wall and slab at RL115.0m13 1-Jun-05 Excavate to capping beam and remove raker anchors14 1-Jun-05 Backfill to GL at RL117.0m
62
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
32
1. Influence of Preloading Force
Increasing preload force leads to more bending of wall
Section 1 - Stage 7(after cut berm)
97.5
102.5
107.5
112.5
117.5
ed L
evel
(m
)
Measured
Soil 100% - Rock 20%
Soil 100% - Rock 20%(1.2 x Preload)Soil 100% - Rock 20%(1.4 x Preload)
• 150 ton raker anchor on site is more effective than stipulated
• Preloading force
77.5
82.5
87.5
92.5
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00
Deflection (mm)
Red
uce Soil 100% - Rock 20%
(1.6 x Preload)Soil 100% - Rock 20%(1.8 x Preload)
Soil 100% - Rock 20%(2.0 Preload)
Preloading force multiplier of 1.4 best reflects the actual deflected shape
63
2a. Influence of Horizontal Drainage System
no drains 4 drains
2 drains 6 drains2 drains 6 drains
64
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
33
2b. Influence of Horizontal Drainage System
no drains 4 drains117.5m
103m
6 drains2 drains
103m
108m
100m
65
2c. Influence of Horizontal Drainage System
Influence of Horizontal Drainage System• Wall deformation increase with level of
82 5
87.5
92.5
97.5
102.5
107.5
112.5
117.5
Red
uce
d L
evel
(m
)
no drains
6 drains
4 drains
2 drains
increase with level of drains which determine height of water level behind the wall
• When no drains
77.5
82.5
0 100 200 300 400
Deflection (mm)
installed, max. wall deflection is greater 300mm
Collapse of wall66
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
34
3a. NO Drains (switch off ) - Wall Collapsed
S M St 1
Drains in Active Zone NOT Activated
Sum M-Stage <1Anchor Force = 180 Ton >150 Ton (design)
GWT
Wall deflect > 300 mm
67
3b. WITH Drains (switch on ) – Wall OK
Drains in Active Zone Activated
GWT
M-Stage =1Anchor Force = 110 Ton <150 Ton (design)
Wall deflect = 83 mm
68
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
35
CBP Elastic CBP Elasto
4a. Global FOS by c/phi Reduction
CBP Elastic, Failure with no Plastic Hinge, FOS=1.75
CBP Elasto-Plastic 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 DW ll FOS 1 75
70
Elastic DWall FOS=1.75
Plastic DWall FOS=1.40
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
36
Section 1 - Stage 3 & 4(after installing / preloading of raker anchor)
102.500
107.500
112.500
117.500
ve
l (m
)
Section 1 - Stage 1 & 2(after installation of CBP wall)
102.500
107.500
112.500
117.500
el (
m)
Measured
Section 1 - Stage 5(after excavate to RL102.5m and installation of
first 2 drains)
102.500
107.500
112.500
117.500
(m)
5. Wall Deflection Predictions
77.500
82.500
87.500
92.500
97.500
-50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Deflection (mm)
Re
du
ce
d L
ev
Measured
Calculated
77.500
82.500
87.500
92.500
97.500
-50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Deflection (mm)
Red
uce
d L
ev
Measured
Calculated
77.500
82.500
87.500
92.500
97.500
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Deflection (mm)
Re
du
ce
d L
ev
el
Measured
Calculated
Section 1 - Stage 6(after excavate to berm top and installing of last
2 drains and anchors)
112.5
117.5
S ectio n 1 - S tag e 7(after cu t berm )
112.5
117.5
Section 1 - Stage 13 & 14(after removal of contingency and raker anchor)
112.5
117.5
77.5
82.5
87.5
92.5
97.5
102.5
107.5
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Deflection (mm)
Re
du
ce
d L
ev
el (
m)
Measured
Calculated
77.5
82.5
87.5
92.5
97.5
102.5
107.5
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
D e fle ctio n (mm )
Red
uce
d L
evel
(m
)
Me as ure d
C a lcu la te d
77.5
82.5
87.5
92.5
97.5
102.5
107.5
0 50 100 150 200
Deflection (mm)
Red
uce
d L
evel
(m
)
Measured
Calculated
71
Seepage and Excavations
• GWT lowering by Steady State Seepage
• GWT lowering by Transient Seepage
72
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
37
GWT lowering SS Seepage
Excavate 5m, k=1e-5 m/s Excavate 10m, k=1e-5 m/s
Lower 1.3m Lower 3.0m
GWT i l
73
Excavate 15m, k=1e-5 m/s
Lower 5.6m
GWT is nearly proportional to excavation depth
GWT lowering SS Seepage
Excavate 15m, k=1e-5 m/s Excavate 15m, k=1e-7 m/s
Lower 5.6m Lower 5.6m
For SS case, GWT is not dependent on k
74
Excavate 15m, k=1e-9 m/s
Lower 5.6m
dependent on k.
Pattern of GW heads is function of geometry only and soil layer arrangements
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
38
GWT and Transient Seepage
Excavate 5m, k=1e-5 m/s Excavate 5m, k=1e-7 m/s
Lower 1.3m Lower 0.8m
Excavate 5m in 30 days.
75
Excavate 5m, k=1e-9 m/s
Lower 0.3m
Sands, k=1e-5 m/s is like SS case
Clays, k=1e-9 m/s very little GWT lowered
GWT and Transient Seepage
Excavate 10m, k=1e-5 m/s Excavate 10m, k=1e-7 m/s
Lower 3.0m Lower 1.8m
Excavate next 5m in 30 days.
76
Excavate 10m, k=1e-9 m/s
Lower 0.3m
Sands, k=1e-5 m/s is like SS case
Clays, k=1e-9 m/s very little GWT lowered
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
39
GWT and Transient Seepage
Excavate 5m, k=1e-5 m/s Excavate 5m, k=1e-7 m/s
Lower 5.6m Lower 3.6m
Excavate next 5m in 30 days.
77
Excavate 15m, k=1e-9 m/s
Lower 0.3m
Sands, k=1e-5 m/s is like SS case
Clays, k=1e-9 m/s very little GWT lowered
Science of Transient Seepage
• Governing Equations
• Hydraulic Material Models
• Boundary Conditions
78
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
40
Governing Equations
Steady-state continuity condition
79
Governing Equations
80
• Need to define two soil properties functions:• K as f(S) and Ksat - k function• c as f(csat, n, S(p)) - SWCC
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
41
Governing Equations (FEM)at element by element level
81
Governing Equations (FEM)
82
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
42
Hydraulic Material Model-Van Genuchten Model
83
Hydraulic Material Model-Van Genuchten Model
84
• 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
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
43
Hydraulic Material Model-Van Genuchten Model
85
Hydraulic Material Model-Van Genuchten Model
86
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
44
Hydraulic Material Model-Van Genuchten Model
87
Hydraulic Material Model-Van Genuchten Model
88
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
45
1. Water Table
P h
Boundary Conditions
1
1
w
w
Ph y
w p wP h
2. Inflow
externalx x y yq n q n q 4. Close boundary
1
2 3
4
89
3. Outflow
externalx x y yq n q n q
0x x y yq n q n
5. Prescribed heads
1 2,h h h h
Boundary Conditions
6. Well/Drain
7. Free Seepage
Q Q
h y
5
6
78
90
8. Screen
h y
0x x y yq n q n
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
46
Precipitation
max
i i
if Ponding
if and
h y h
q n q n q h y h h y h
Boundary Conditions
rain max min
min
if and
if No infiltration
x x y yq n q n q h y h h y h
h y h
91
Boundary Conditions
92
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
47
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
x
y h(t)
h(t)
h(t)
0 1
23
4 5 89
B C
days• C is Free Seepage BC drawdown from H=25m to H=5m in 50 days
x
h(t)
0 14 5
6 7
89
94
A
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
48
Rapid Drawdown Example –Time Dependent Boundary Conditions
F H 25 t H 5 i 50 dFrom H=25m to H=5m in 50 days
H=25mH=5m
95
Rapid Drawdown Example –Time Dependent Boundary Conditions
F H 25 t H 5 i 50 dFrom H=25m to H=5m in 50 days
H=25mH=5m
96
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
49
Rapid Drawdown Example –Time Dependent Boundary Conditions
From H=25m to H=5m in 50 daysy
Potential Slip Surface by c/phi reduction for the Case of Slow DD in 50 days
97
1.8
Sum-Msf
Rapid Drawdown Example –Time Dependent Boundary Conditions
WL at 25m FOS=1.74
1.4
1.6
WL at 5m Very Slow DD FOS=1.63
WL at 5m Slow DD in 50 days FOS=1.47
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 11
1.2
|U| [m]
98
WL at 5m rapid DD in 5 days FOS=1.01
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
50
99
100
AP Harry TanCE5101 Seepage FEM
Aug 2010
51
101
Beware of unwanted suction; better to switch off suction in design (safer)