CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

CE5101 Lecture 1
Introduction
16 Aug 2011
Prof Harry Tan

Outline
Scope and Objectives
Seepage
FEM analysis of Seepage

Consolidation
FEM analysis of Consolidation

Summary
S

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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
3
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
permeability curves, Van Genuthen soil characteristic functions

Literature

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

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Module Learning Objectives

Attain correct understanding of seepage
and
d consolidation
lid ti processes iin soils
il
Apply concepts to practical geotechnical
problems
Able to do some basic FEM analysis of
common seepage and consolidation
problems

Part 1 - SEEPAGE of SOILS

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

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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)
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

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

SETTLEMENTS AND CONSOLIDATION

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

SETTLEMENTS AND CONSOLIDATION

Measurements and Interpretation
Asaokas method
Tans Hyperbolic method

10

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

When is Settlement Analysis Required?

Land Reclamation
Large Storage Tanks
Shallow Foundations
Highway and Airfield Pavements
Large Fills
Large
L
Embankments
E b k
t
Houses Damage by Settlements

11

Changi South Bay Reclamation

12

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Changi South Bay Reclamation

13

Extent of Soft Marine Clay/Silty Clay

N

TRUE
NORTH

Marine CLAY

PLANT
NORTH

BH -4
BH -9

BH -16

T-1
BH -3
BH -2
BH -1

BH -10

BH -8
BH -5

BH -6

T-3

T-2

BH -7

BH -13

T-4

BH -14

Silty CLAY
BH -11

BH -12
BH -15

14

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Layout of Tanks and Instruments

N
LEGEND:
Settlement Profiler ( SPT - )

TRUE
NORTH

Inclinometer ( I - )

PLANT
NORTH

Piezometer ( P - )

Settlement Point ( s - )
S-1

S-5

S-13

I-3
P-1
P
1
S-13

T-1
S1
S-1

S-5 S-13

T-3

I-1

I-2

S-1

SPT-2

S-1

T-2

I-4

S-9

S-5
S-7

T-4

S-3

S-5
S-9

S-9

15

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

Water Level (m)

25
T a nk N o . 3

20
15
10
5
0

Settlem e nt (m m )

0
50
100
150

S-1
S-5
S-9

200
250
0

10

20

30

40

Time (Day)

50

60

70
16

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Profiles of Soil Settlement recorded beneath Tank Pad

A

PLANT
NORTH
TRUE
NORTH

TANK NO. 3

Settlement Profiler

Tank Pad

100
150
200

Tank Pad
Shell Erection
Water Level = 5m
Water Level = 10m
Water Level = 15m
Water Level = 20m
Water Level = 10m
Water Level = 0m

250
300
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

PLANT
NORTH

10
5
Y (m)

S ettleem en t, m m

50

170
-5

190
170

-10
10

90
-15
-20
-25
-25

70

Tank No. 3
-20

-15

-10

-5

0
X (m)

10

15

20

25

18

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Houses damage by settlement

19

Houses damage by settlement

20

10

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Site Plan of Sembawang

Runway

21

Sembawang airfield fill site

22

11

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Sembawang airfield fill site

23

Sembawang airfield fill site

24

12

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Settlement Failure in Condo

25

Settlement Failure in Condo

26

13

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Settlement Failure in Condo

27

Causes of Settlement Failure

28

14

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Causes of Settlement Failure

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

30

15

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Table 2 Summary of New Lab Tests on Peaty

Clay
Undrained
BH Peaty clay range
Sample SPT N Liquid
Plastic
Water
Liquidity shear strength, Compression
No.
bgl
Thk (m) No. values Limit (LL) Limit (PL) content (%) Index (LI)
Cu (kPa)
Index (Cc) Permeability, 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

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

BH-3 -1.5mL~4.5mRL

3.0 m

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
il

Open-cut
trench

Building
Top fill
Soft peaty clay

Firm soil
(N=10~30)

Existing
canal
Underlying hard
soil (N>30)32

16

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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

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)
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.
34

17

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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.

35

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

Initial water
table at 3m bgl

36

18

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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

37

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

19

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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

70mm
30mm
45mm

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

70mm
30m
m
45mm

20

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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

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
65
15mm
25mm

21

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Concluding remarks for effect of trench excavation and the

accompanied water drawdown on the driveway settlement:
Using the Ground Flow analysis in 3D FEM
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.

Seepage Induced Slope Failures

Cut Slopes
Long term FS governs
Long-term
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

44

22

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Performance of Repaired
Slope
p using
g 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
45

Order of Presentation

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

46

23

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Order of Presentation
(contd)
Design of permanent stable slopes
Parametric study of influence of
GEONET installation depth
Construction of repaired slope
Conclusions
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

48

24

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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
49

Site investigation
110

Slope Failure Profile and GWT Data

108

P3

Elevation (mRL)

P2

106

1V:2H
104.6

P1

104

104.5
103.8

106.3
Probable Ground Water Table

Observed Slip Plane

102

100

98
0

6
8
Distance (m)

10

12

50
Ground water has risen close to failed ground surface

25

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Failure analysis
FS

c'
(1 ( w h)/( H)) tan '

H sin cos
tan
GWT
h
H
Parallel Seepage

= slope angle (degrees)

H = depth to slip surface (m)
h = height of GWT from slip surface (m)

51

Failure analysis (contd)

Table 1: Results of infinite slope stability
analysis

deg
22
21
20

kN/m3
18
18
18

deg
26.5
26.5
26.5

H
m
1.5
1.5
1.5

h
m
0
0
0

FS

State of Soil

1
2
3

c
kPa
10
5
3

1.74
1.23
1.01

Dry
Softened
Soaked

4
5
6
7
8
9

5
5
5
5
5
5

21
21
21
21
21
21

18
18
18
18
18
18

26 5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5

15
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

0.1
0
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9

1.20
1
20
1.18
1.12
1.06
1.00
0.98

Seepage
S
Seepage
Seepage
Seepage
Seepage
Seepage

Case

52

26

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Design for permanent

stable slope
p
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

53

Design for permanent stable slope

(contd)
114
112

NO DRAIN

110

0 .5 m Sa n d Tra ck

108

008
03e3.30 - 00 8
e 8
004-00
3.345e
9
1.8

106
Po n d le ve l a t 1 0 4 .6 m RL

104

1 .2

Co n cr e te L in e r0 2 3 e

102

-0 1

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

3 60 1e -004
3.2

GW T
R e co m p acte d R e s id u a l So il

100
98
96
94
92
90
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Distance (m)

Steady seepage without internal drain

54

27

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Design for permanent stable slope

(contd)
1.
3

1.9
9

1.5

2.5

0.9 23

1.1

114
112

1 5 0 m m /h R a i n fa l l

110

GW T

0 .5 m S a n d - tr a c k

108
106
104

N O D R A IN

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

102
100

D e s c r ip tio n : R ec o m p a c te 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

D e s c r ip tio 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
Ph i: 2 7

98
96
94
92
90

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

D ista n c e ( m )

Slope analysis without internal drain

55

Design for permanent stable slope

(contd)
114
112

G E O N E T 4m D ept h

110

15 0 m m / h R a in fa ll

3.09 94e -004

108

008
22e5.21012 -008
9e 2e
82 12
2.1 5.2

R e co m p a cte d R e s id u a l S o il
GW T
GE ON ET

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

104

1 .4

C o n cre te L in e r0 0 9 e

102

-0 1

0 .5 m S a n d Tra ck

100
98
96
94
92
90
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Distance (m)

Slope analysis with 4m deep GEONET

56

28

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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

1.8

1.269

1.8

114

2.4

Design for permanent stable slope

(contd)

2.
2

112
110

1 5 0 m m /h R ai n fa l l
GW T

108

0 .5 m S a nd Tr ac k

GEON ET

106
104

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 he s io n : 3
P h i: 2 0

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

102
100

D e s c r ip 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

98
96
94
92
90
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

D is ta n c e (m )

Slope analysis with 4m deep GEONET

57

Design for permanent stable slope

(contd)
114
112

G E O N E T 8m D epth

1 5 0 m m /h R ain fa ll

GWT

110

3.10 82e -00 4

R e co m p a cte d R e s id u a l S o il

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

104

7 .6 6

C o n cre te L in e r

102

99e

-0 1

0 .5 m S a n d tra ck

-008
58e
8
7.01
-00
0e
16
7.0

GE ON E T

100
98
96
94
92
90
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Distance (m)

Slope analysis with 8m deep GEONET

58

29

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Design for permanent stable slope

(contd)
2

1.617

2.2
1.9

1 14
1 12

2..2

1.8

1.7

G E O NE T 8 m D e p th

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

1 10

G EO NET

1 08

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

1 06
1 04

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 eig ht : 1 8
C o h e s io n : 5
P h i: 2 1

D e s c r i p t io n : P o n d W a t e r
U n it W e ig h t : 9 . 8 07

1 02
1 00

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

98
96
94
92
90

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

D is ta n c e ( m )

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)

12

15

GWT at Slope
Crest (m RL)
GWT at MidSlope (m RL)
Seepage into
Slope (m3/s /m)
S il State
Soil
S
in
i Slope
Sl

108.1

108.0

107.9

107.6

106.8

104.7

104.7

107.1

106.9

106.4

105.7

104.7

104.7

104.7

1.89
x 10-8
F ll
Fully
Soak
3

1.72
x 10-9
F ll
Fully
Soak
3

9.80
x 10-12
F ll
Fully
Soak
3

2.18
x 10-12
F ll
Fully
Soak
3

< 1.0
x 10-12
S f
Soften
5

< 1.0
x 10-12
C
Compacted
10

< 1.0
x 10-12
C
Compacted
10

20

20

20

20

21

22

22

0.923

0.968

1.137

1.269

1.617

1.780

1.808

Drained cohesion
c (kPa)
Drained friction
angle, deg
Drained FS

60

30

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Parametric Study of influence of

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

Construction of repair slope

Repair job to be done panel by panel
Fully
y 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
achieve slope height

62

31

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

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

Excavation for Effluent Pond

64

32

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Tension crack forming on slope

65

Close-up on tension crack zone

66

33

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Collapse of kaolinitic soil formation

67

Collapse of residual soil and high GWT exit

68

34

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Initial repair without drains and failure again

69

Install geotextile-wrap 15m long, 75-mm

diameter pipe drains at 1.5 m intervals

70

35

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

GW discharge from internal geopipe

subsurface pipe drains

71

Use of geotextile seperator/filter layer for

subgrade soil protection

72

36

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Use of 150-mm geopipes as interceptor

subsurface drains

73

Filter details at outlet discharge point

74

37

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Subsurface drain failure without

geotextile filters

75

Clear discharge water from geopipe drain

76

38

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Clear discharge water from

weepholes

77

Long-term Settlements on Soft Clays

78

39

CE5101 AUG 2010

Prof Harry Tan

Long-term Settlements on Soft Clays

79

Fundamental Knowledge Quiz

80

40