Professional Documents
Culture Documents
8/14/2013
Outline
Scope and Objectives Seepage
FEM analysis of Seepage
Consolidation
FEM analysis of Consolidation
Summary
8/14/2013
CE5101
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
8/14/2013
8/14/2013
8/14/2013
8/14/2013
10
8/14/2013
11
8/14/2013
12
8/14/2013
13
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
TRUE NORTH
PLANT NORTH
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
8/14/2013
Time (Day)
TANK NO. 3
Settlement Profiler Tank Pad B
30
20
10
0 -10 Distance, m
-20
-30
17
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
8/14/2013
19
8/14/2013
20
8/14/2013
21
8/14/2013
22
8/14/2013
23
8/14/2013
24
8/14/2013
25
8/14/2013
26
8/14/2013
27
8/14/2013
28
8/14/2013
29
8/14/2013
30
UD1
N=1
51%
35%
66%
1.9
21 kPa
0.65
5.5E-11~1.4E-9 m/s
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
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
Existing canal
8/14/2013
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
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:
8/14/2013
39
Without water drawdown, the induced ground settlement will be very small due to trench excavation (Max = 15mm)
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).
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.
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
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
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
Site investigation
110
Elevation (mRL)
106
P1
104
102
100
98 0 2 4 6 8 Distance (m) 10 12
Failure analysis
c' (1 ( w h)/( H)) tan ' FS= + H sin cos tan
GWT h
H
Parallel Seepage
52
8/14/2013
53
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
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
54
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
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
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
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
56
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
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
57
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
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
58
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
59
8/14/2013
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
8/14/2013
64
8/14/2013
65
8/14/2013
66
8/14/2013
67
8/14/2013
68
8/14/2013
69
Install geotextile-wrap 15m long, 75-mm diameter pipe drains at 1.5 m intervals
8/14/2013
70
8/14/2013
71
8/14/2013
72
8/14/2013
73
8/14/2013
74
8/14/2013
75
8/14/2013
76
8/14/2013
77
8/14/2013
78
8/14/2013
79
8/14/2013
80
8/14/2013
81
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
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
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)
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.