CE5101 2D and 3D Consolidation Lecture10861:2 Cut420051015202530354045505560Distance (m

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation
Lecture 7- 2D and 3D Consolidation
Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
CE 5101 Lecture 7 2D and

3D Consolidation
OCT 2011
Prof Harry Tan
Outline
Biot Theory (2D and 3D Coupled
Consolidation))
FEM compare with Schiffman et. al. 1967
(Mandel-Cryer Effect in 2D)
Undrained, Consolidation and Drained
Response
Case 1 WCRS Excavation
Compare CRISP with Plaxis
Case 2 Barcelona Breakwater
2

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Biot Theory (2D and 3D Coupled

Consolidation)
Equilibrium Equations
Compatibility Equations
Strain/Displacements
Constitutive Equations
Continuity Equations
Boundary Conditions
Assume infinitesimal strain conditions
3
Equilibrium Equations

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
10

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Cryer-Mandel Problem
11
Comments on True 3D
Consolidation
True 3D consolidation couples total stresses and
continuity of soil
soil-water
water (excess PP)
Psuedo 3D uncouples these two phenomena
When total stress distribution is constant at all
time, the rate of change of excess PP = rate of
change of volume at all points in the soil
This
Thi is
i true
t
only
l for
f 1D consolidation
lid ti where
h
there is a direct relationship between excess PP
and volume change
12

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Schiffman Strip Footing 1967

Plane-strain consolidation in 2D
Stresses
St
ffrom elastic
l ti theory
th
are
independent of elastic constants
Total stresses are same at start and end
of consolidation
However they vary with time; they exceed
initial value during consolidation
So excess PP first increases before it
starts to dissipate with consolidation
13
FEM compare with Schiffman et. al.

1967 (Mandel-Cryer Effect in 2D)
Mean total stress
Excess pore pressures
Mean effective stress
14

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Plaxis Biot Consolidation

Schiffman, Chen and Jordan 1967
ExcPP at x/a=1
All round closed boundary

condition
Strip Footing on Elastic Half-space
15

Schiffman, Chen and Jordan 1967
St re ss at x /a = 1
Stre ss [kN/m2 ]
0.6
Mea n Tota l Stre ss
Mean total stress
Me an Ef f ectiv e Stre ss
Ex cess Pore Pressure
0.5
Mean excess PP
0.4
Input:
k=0.001 m/day
0.3
Eoed=10000 kPa
cv=k*Eoed/
cv=k
Eoed/w
0.2
0.1
0
1 e -3
cv=1 m2/day
Mean effective stress
1 e -2
0.1
10
1 00
1 e3
Time [da y ]
Strip Footing on Elastic Half-space
16

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011

Ramp Loading Schiffman 1960
Chart 1
Excess PP [kN/m2]
1
Ver 8.2
To
Ver 7.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1e-5
1e-4
1e-3
1e-2
0.1
10
Time [day]
ExcPP at Base Closed consolidation boundary

Ramp Loading with To=0.1
17

Chart 2
Displacement [m]
0
Ver 8.2
V 7.2
Ver
72
-2e-3
-4e-3
-6e-3
-8e-3
8 3
-0.01
1e-5
1e-4
1e-3
1e-2
0.1
10
Time [day]
Settlement at Top Closed consolidation boundary

Ramp Loading with To=0.1
18

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011

At Base
Excess PP [kN/m2]
1
Point B
To
Point B
0.8
0.6
To=0.1
To=0.5
0.4
0.2
0
1e-5
1e-4
1e-3
1e-2
0.1
10
Time [day]
Excess PP at Base Closed consolidation boundary

Ramp Loading with To=0.1 and 0.5
19
TYPES OF ANALYSIS
Drained
Undrained
Loading/Construction/
g
excavation: very
y slow ((in relation to the
soil permeability)
Loading/Construction/ excavation: very fast (in relation to the

soil permeability)
Intermediate cases: consolidation analysis
Both
B
th mechanical
h i l and
dh
hydraulic
d li (fl
(flow)) problems
bl
iinteract
t
t
More complex computations: coupled analysis
20
10

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Undrained, Consolidation and

Drained Response
Definition drained / undrained
Modeling undrained behaviour with Plaxis
In terms of effective stresses with drained strength

parameters
In terms of effective stresses with undrained strength

parameters
In terms of total stresses with undrained strength

parameters
Example of Underwater Cut Slope

Example of Clay Embankment
Summary
21
DRAINED / UNDRAINED
Drained analysis appropriate when
permeability is high
rate of loading is low
short term behaviour is not of interest for problem considered
Undrained analysis appropriate when
permeability is low and rate of loading is high
short term behaviour has to be assessed
Suggestion by Vermeer & Meier (1998) for deep excavations:

T < 0.1 (U=35%)
use undrained conditions
T > 0.40 (U=70%)
use drained conditions
k E oed
T
t
w D2
k
Eoed
w
D
t
Tv
=
=
=
=
=
=
permeability
oedometer modulus
unit weight of water
drainage length
construction time
dimensionless time factor
22
11

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH PLAXIS

PLAXIS automatically adds stiffness of water when undrained
material type is chosen using the following approximation
K total K'
K total
Kw
Eu
2 G 1 u
n
31 2 u
31 2 u
E' 1 u
31 2 u 1 '
assuming u = 0.495
Note:
- this procedure gives reasonable B-values only for < 0.35 !
- real value of Kw/n ~ 1.106 kPa (for = 0.5)
- NB: in Version 8, B-value can be entered explicitly
23
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH

Example 1:
PLAXIS
E = 3 000 kPa,
= 0.3,
K = 2 500 kPa,
with
u = 0.495
Ktotal = 115 000 kPa
1
nK '
1
Kw
Kw/n = 112 500 kPa
= 0.978 is reasonable value for saturated soil
Example 2:
E = 3 000 kPa,
= 0.45,
K = 10 000 kPa,
u = 0.495
Ktotal = 103 103 kPa Kw/n = 93 103 kPa
B = 0.903 is poor value for saturated soil

24
12

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH

PLAXIS
Method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
type of material behaviour: undrained
effective strength parameters c, ,
effective
ff ti stiffness
tiff
parameters
t
E50,
Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):

undrained strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
effective stiffness parameters E50,
Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):

type of material behaviour: drained
total strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
undrained stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495
25
Notes on different methods:

Method A:
recommended
soil behaviour is always governed by effective stresses
g during
g consolidation included
increase of shear strength
essential for exploiting features of advanced models such as the
Hardening Soil model, the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil
Creep model
Method B:
only when no information on effective strength parameters is
available
cannot be used with the Soft Soil model and the Soft Soil Creep
model
d l
Method C:
NOT recommended
no information on excess pore pressure distribution (total stress
analysis)
26
13

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Consider fully undrained isotropic elastic behaviour

(Mohr Coulomb in elastic range)
pw = p > p = 0
centre of Mohr Circle remains at the same point
cu
1 'o
'yo sin ' c' cos '
2 x
Fig.6 Mohr Circle for evaluating undrained shear strength (plane strain)
27
28
14

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Undrained strengths of MC vs Real

NC Soils
29
Factor of Safety of Cuts/Excavations

Critical FS is Longterm unloading
condition,
For permanent cuts
drained strength is
key parameter for
safe design
For temporary cuts,
need to consider if
undrained or partially
drained condition
30
15

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Factor of Safety of Embankments

Critical FS is Shortterm loading condition,
undrained strength is
key parameter for safe
design
31
Example of Underwater CUT Slope

(Unloading Problem)
LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS OF CUT SLOPES
The figures below show the results of SLOPE/W calculations
of FS for a underwater cut slope in the undrained and
drained condition
condition, by Bishop's
Bishop s Simplified method.
method
Drained and Undrained Parameters
The drained parameters are c'=2 kPa, '=240, =16 kN/m3
The equivalent undrained parameters are obtained from:
,
c u c' coso m
sin '
At top of clay; c u 2 cos 24 0 1.83kPa

K 0 1 sin
i ' 1 - sin
i 24 0 0.59
0 59
,v
1 K 0 6/21 0.59 4.77 kPa/m
2
,
m
sin ' 4.77 sin 24 0 1.94 kPa/m
,
m
32
16

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Bishops FS for Drained CUT

Cut Slope in Clay (Drained)
1.403
26
24
22
Water Level
Eleva
ation (m)
20
18
16
14
Water
Description: Clay
Soil Model:
Model Mohr
Mohr-Coulomb
Co lomb
Unit Weight: 16
Cohesion: 2
Phi: 24
12
10
8
6
1:2 Cut
4
2
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Distance (m)
33
Bishops FS for UnDrained CUT

Cut Slope in Clay (UnDrained)
2.085
26
24
22
Water Level
Elevattion (m)
20
18
16
14
Water
12
Description: Clay
Soil Model: S=f(datum)
Unit Weight: 16
C - Datum: 1.83
Rate of Increase: 1.94
Datum (elevation): 20
10
8
6
4
2
1:2 Cut
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Distance (m)
34
17

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
PLAXIS Analysis Cases

Drained Analysis with c=2 kPa and =24o
Method A (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
effective strength parameters c, ,
Method B (analysis in terms of effective stresses):
undrained strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
E50 ,
Method C (analysis in terms of total stresses):

type of material behaviour: drained
total strength parameters c = cu, = 0, = 0
undrained stiffness parameters Eu, u = 0.495
35
Drained CUT, Plaxis FS=1.39 cf LE=1.40

Drained Analysis with
Effective strength parameters c=2 kPa, =24, =0
Effective stiffness p
parameters E50=15000 kPa,, =0.2
ONLY ONE POSSIBLE METHOD IN DRAINED

ANALYSIS ie Drained Strength and Stiffness parameters
Solutions by FEM and LE will agree very well
36
18

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Method A - UnDrained CUT plus Full Consolidation

Plaxis c/phi FS=1.37 cf LEM=1.40
Method A (undrained)
Effective strength parameters c=2 kPa, =24o, =0o
Effective stiffness parameters E50=15000
=15000 kPa,
kPa =0
=0.2
2
Slip circle same as Drained Case
37
Method A - UnDrained CUT,

Plaxis FS=2.26 cf LE=2.09
Method A (in terms of effective stresses, undrained)
Effective strength parameters c=2 kPa, =24o, =0o
Effective stiffness parameters E50
E50=15000
=15000 kPa
kPa, =0
=0.2
2
Deeper slip surface than Drained Case

FEM (A) and LE not identical because undrained strength
profile in the two cases are slightly different
But slip surface of FEM (A) and LE are nearly identical
38
19

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Method B - UnDrained CUT,

Method B (in terms of effective stresses, undrained)
Undrained strength parameters c=1.83 kPa, c=1.94 kPa,
=0,
=0
0,
0
Effective stiffness parameters E50=15000 kPa, =0.2

FEM (A and B) and LE not identical because undrained
strength profile in all three cases are slightly different
But slip surface of FEM (A and B) and LE are nearly identical
39
Method C - UnDrained CUT,

Method C (in terms of total stresses, Drained)
Total strength parameters c=1.83 kPa, c=1.94 kPa,
=0
=0
0,
0
Undrained stiffness parameters E50=18625 kPa, =0.49

FEM (A,B,C) and LE not identical because undrained strength
profile in all 4 cases are slightly different; but B and C are
nearly identical
But slip surface of FEM (A,B,C) and LE are nearly identical
40
20

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
SUMMARY OF FS FOR CUT SLOPES

Analysis Condition
PLAXIS
SLOPE/W
Drained (Method A) 1.39

1 39
1 40
1.40
A+Consolidation
1.37
1.40
Undrained (A)
2.26
2.09
Undrained (B)
2.13
2.09
Undrained ((C))
2.14
2.09
Only Drained analysis is FEM and LE identical

In Undrained analysis there are differences in strength profiles
Undrained plus Consolidation is close to Drained Case
41
Embankment Undrained Analysis

(Loading Problem)
Slope/W FS=1.029
Embankment on Clay
(Total Undrained Condition)
PLAXIS Method
M th d A
FS=1.019
1.029
12
10
8
Description: fill
Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 20
Cohesion: 0
Phi: 33
Piezometric Line #: 1
Height (m)
4
2
Water Table
Description: Clay
Soil Model: S=f(datum)
Unit Weight: 16
C - Datum: 1.83
Rate of Increase: 1.94
Datum (elevation): 0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
10
20
30
40
Distance (m)
For the same Undrained Strength profile,

Slip surface in FEM and LE are nearly identical
42
21

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Embankment Drained Analysis

Drained FS = 2.52
Embankment on Clay
(Drained Condition)
2.592
10
8
Description: fill
Unit Weight: 20
Cohesion: 0
Phi: 33
6
4
2
0
-2
Water Level
Description: Clay
Unit Weight: 16
Cohesion: 2
Phi: 24
-4
-6
-8
-10
0
10
Undrained Method A+
Consolidation FS=2.11
20
30
40
Drained Analysis: FEM and LE nearly

identical results
Consolidation Analysis is not the
exactly same as Drained response
43
SUMMARY
Undrained analysis should be performed in effective stresses

and with effective stiffness and strength parameters
y
with Full Consolidation may
y not agree
g
with
Undrained Analysis
Drained Analysis due to different end state stress states
Note that for NC-soils in general
factor of safety against failure is lower for short term
(undrained)
conditions for loading problems (e.g.
embankments)
factor of safety against failure is lower for long term (drained)
conditions for unloading problems (e.g. excavations)
44
22

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Case 1 - WCRS Excavation

Example of Deep Excavation
45
1D Closed Box Swelling
46
23

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Effects of Permeability
Heave at A (0.5m below Fmn Level)
Uy-A(0.5...
Heave at A [m]
0.03
k=1e-9
0.025
UND
DRN
0.02
k=1e-7
0.015
k=1e-8
0.01
5e-3
-5e-3
0
50
100
150
200
Time [day]
47
Exc PP at D (1.5m below Fmn Level)
EPP-D(1...
Excess PP at D(1.5m) [kN/m2]
250
k=1e 9
k=1e-9
UND
200
DRN
k=1e-7
150
k=1e-8
100
50
0
0
50
100
Time [day]
150
200
48
24

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Exc PP at E (6.1m below Fmn Level)
EPP-E(6...
Excess PP at E(6.1m) [kN/m2]
250
k 1 9
k=1e-9
UND
200
DRN
k=1e-7
150
k=1e-8
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time [day]
49
Excavate to Formation Level

k=1e-7 m/s
k=1e-8 m/s
k=1e-9 m/s
50
25

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
WCRS CPG Design Mesh

Compare Drained and Undrained Case
Cases at k=1e-7m/s, 1e-8m/s, 1e-9m/s
51
WCS Soil Undrained Strength Profile in Plaxis

105
100
Cu=Method B or C
95
Cu-Method
Cu
Method A
Depth (m)
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Cu (kPa)
1
Method A, Cu is: Cu c' cos ' ( Ko 1) v' sin '
2
52
26

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Drained and Undrained (Method A)

Displacements at Formation Level
Undrained
Drained
53
Drained and Undrained

BMs at Formation Level
Undrained
Drained
54
27

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Consolidation Analysis
assume: k=1e-7, 1e-8 and 1e-9 m/s
55
Cases of k=1e-7 to 1e-9 m/s

Displacements at Formation Level
k = 1e-7 m/s
k = 1e-8 m/s
k = 1e-9 m/s
56
28

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011

BMs at Formation Level
k = 1e-7 m/s
k = 1e-8 m/s
k = 1e-9 m/s
57

Excess PP at Formation Level
k = 1e-7 m/s
k = 1e-8 m/s
k = 1e-9 m/s
58
29

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Wall Deflection at B (15/83.85 1.65m above FL)

Ux at B
Ux at B [m]
0.2
DRN
UND
0.15
k=1e-7
k=1e-8
0.1
k=1e-9
0.05
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Time [day]
59
Heave at C(0/78.7 3.5m below FL)

Uy at C
Heave at C [m]
0.035
DRN
0.03
UND
0.025
k=1e-7
0.02
k=1e-8
0.015
k=1e-9
0.01
5e-3
5e
3
-5e-3
0
30
60
90
120
Time [day]
60
30

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
One North Station

WT& Excavation
E
ti
next to INSEAD
Is it Drained or Undrained?
61
Field Permeability Tests Data from One North/Fusionpolis Site

(Jurong Formation Residual Soils)
Depth Vs. Log (Permeability, m/s) (One North and Fusionpolis Site)
Log (Permeability, m/s)
-9.00E+00
- 8.00E+00
-7.00E+00
- 6.00E+00
-5.00E+00
- 4.00E+00
-3.00E+00
- 2.00E+00
-1.00E+00
0.00E+00
0
10
15
20
Single Packer Test
Depth, m
- 1.00E+01
25
Falling Head Test

Variable Head
Permeability Test
30
35
62
31

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
WT-7 next to INSEAD D1.8m CBP Wall with 30m deep cut,
20m soils, 10m rock excavation
Sandy Clay G/Sa/SC=0/25/75

Sandy Silt G/Sa/SC=0/32/68
Sandy Clayey Silt G/Sa/SC=1/17/82
63
One North - WT7 I19

after cast base slab and remove lowest anchor
0
20
Wall Deflection (mm)

40
60
80
100
0.00
120
Wall Response is much closer to

Drained Behavior at One North
Wall Type 7
5.00
10.00
Depth (m)
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Drained
Undrained
I19
35.00
40.00
64
32

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
CONCLUSIONS
From the above study, the following conclusions can be made:
The site at WCS showed fairly consistent thick layers of sandy soils with
GSD consisting of more than 60% sands and gravels.
Limited field permeability tests showed k-values in these soils ranging from
1e-5
1e
5 to 1e-7
1e 7 m/s.
These soils are likely to have k-values > 1e-6 m/s, therefore, they should be
modeled as drained materials.
The consolidation parametric studies showed that with soils of stiffnesses
greater than 20,000 kPa, k=1e-7 m/s will result in drained response over
any reasonable construction period of 1.5 to 2 years.
Experience from the recent One North excavation supports this observation.
Undrained analysis cannot apply to this site.
y
must be done veryy carefullyy to reflect the true
Consolidation analysis
stiffnesses and permeabilities of the site soils, and this will show results
very close to fully drained behavior.
It is more prudent to design the excavation system using fully drained
analysis for this site
65
Compare CRISP with Plaxis 1D

swelling box experiment
Lower GWT to each top level
Excavate 2m in 30 days
Excavate 3.5m in 30 days
Set PP=0 at
each top level

Excavate 4m in 30 days
Track PP at 1m and 6m
below last excavated
level
66
33

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Swell at 1m below FML
67
Swell at 6m below FML
68
34

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
PP in CRISP and Plaxis

CRISP and Abacus are formulated in terms of
p
p
pressures i.e.
active ((total)) pore
U = Uss + Uexcess
Plaxis is formulated in terms of Excess Pore

Pressures: U = Uexcess
Uexcess is produced by Undrained loading or
unloading of soil clusters specified as
Undrained type
Steady PP is obtained from phreatic GWT or
Seepage computation by Plaxis or Plaxflow
program
Active PP = Uss + Uexcess
69
PP in CRISP and Plaxis

In Sage Crisp, the EXCESS pore pressure always refer to the
original in-situ definition of PWP, regardless of changes of
phreatic levels. Thus, it is not the conventional definition of
EXCESS pore pressure in typical soil mechanics sense.
Rather, it is a reflection of the incremental variation of PWP in
reference to the original in-situ PWP.
While in Plaxis, the EXCESS is exactly the same definition of
conventional definition in typical soil mechanics sense with the
EXCESS PWP referring to the PWP in excess of the phreatic
line.
Thus, there is some subtle difference between the two
EXCESS PWP from the two software and can not be
EXCESS
compared directly. As such, the total PWP at a same point was
compared instead which expected to give roughly the same
values, and it is a indicator of variation of PWP during various
stages of constructions and accompanying consolidations.
70
35

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Active (Total) PP at 1m below FML
71
Active (Total) PP at 6m below FML
72
36

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Case 2 - Barcelona Breakwater
73
Barcelona breakwater
Caisson
Rubble
20m
3
50m
10
x
11
12
6
13
Soft silty clay
Gravel
74
37

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Barcelona breakwater: stages (1)
D d i
Dredging
Bench
construction
Consolidation
75
Barcelona breakwater stages (2)
Caisson
construction
Consolidation
Storm loading
76
38

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Initial pore pressures
Active pore pressures
Groundwater head
77
Pore pressures after placing the bench
Active pore pressures
Excess pore pressures
78
39

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Excess pore pressures during consolidation
Initial
After 30 days
Final
79
Displacements during construction and consolidation
Bench construction
Consolidation
80
40

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Caisson construction
Displacements
Incremental shear strains
81
Excess pore pressures during consolidation (caisson)
Initial
After 30 days
Final
82
41

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2011
Failure (factor of safety)
Incremental displacements
Factors of safety
After construction
FS=1.06
After 30 days
FS=1.60
End of consolidation
F=1.74
Incremental shear strains
83
42

CE5101 2D and 3D Consolidation Lecture10861:2 Cut420051015202530354045505560Distance (m

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CE5101 2D and 3D Consolidation Lecture10861:2 Cut420051015202530354045505560Distance (m

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Lecture 7- 2D and 3D Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

CE 5101 Lecture 7 2D and

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

Biot Theory (2D and 3D Coupled

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

Schiffman Strip Footing 1967

FEM compare with Schiffman et. al.

Excess pore pressures

Mean effective stress

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

Plaxis Biot Consolidation

All round closed boundary

Plaxis Biot Consolidation

Mean total stress

Mean effective stress

Strip Footing on Elastic Half-space

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

Plaxis Biot Consolidation

ExcPP at Base Closed consolidation boundary

Plaxis Biot Consolidation

Settlement at Top Closed consolidation boundary

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

Plaxis Biot Consolidation

Excess PP at Base Closed consolidation boundary

Loading/Construction/ excavation: very fast (in relation to the

Intermediate cases: consolidation analysis

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

Undrained, Consolidation and

Modeling undrained behaviour with Plaxis

In terms of effective stresses with drained strength

In terms of effective stresses with undrained strength

In terms of total stresses with undrained strength

Example of Underwater Cut Slope

Drained analysis appropriate when

Undrained analysis appropriate when

permeability is low and rate of loading is high

short term behaviour has to be assessed

Suggestion by Vermeer & Meier (1998) for deep excavations:

CE5101 Seepage and Consolidation

Prof Harry Tan

UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH PLAXIS

UNDRAINED BEHAVIOUR WITH

Ktotal = 115 000 kPa

Kw/n = 112 500 kPa

= 0.978 is reasonable value for saturated soil

Ktotal = 103 103 kPa Kw/n = 93 103 kPa