Galavi Groundwater Flow and Coupled Analysis

Internal Report
Groundwater flow, fully coupled flow deformation

and undrained analyses in PLAXIS 2D and 3D
Vahid Galavi
Research department
Plaxis BV 2010
Preface
The main goal of this research was to implement groundwater flow and fully
coupled flow-deformation analysis in PLAXIS 2D and 3D to enhance the code to
simulate flow and deformation in saturated and partially saturated soils. The existing undrained analysis of PLAXIS has also been modified for partially saturated soils. The mechanical behaviour of unsaturated soil is described by the
well-known Barcelona Basic Model (developed for PLAXIS 3D via user defined
soil model option by Nubia Gonzalez), Gonzalez & Gens (2008).
It is acknowledged that the scientific part of the fully coupled flow-deformation
analysis is mainly based on the report written by Radu Schwab (2008).
The outline of the work presented in this study is the following:
Chapter 1 presents basic equations and definitions.
Chapter 2 presents the governing equations of flow and deformation. Fist of all
Darcys law is described and then the continuity equation and deformation equations are derived.
The finite element formulation of the flow and the deformation equations derived
in Chapter 2 is presented in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 presents available boundary conditions for groundwater flow calculation.
Hydraulic models, implemented in PLAXIS 2D and 3D, are discussed in Chapter
5.
Barcelona Basic Model is briefly described in chapter 6. This chapter gives the
basic features of the model which is written by Gonzalez & Gens (2008).
Chapters 7 to 10 present numerical verification of the code. Verification of onedimensional groundwater flow problems is given chapter 7, while the two problems are discussed in Chapter 8. Fully coupled-flow deformation analysis and
unsaturated soil model are verified in Chapter 9 and 10 respectively.
In chapter undrained analysis of PLAXIS is reviewed and the bulk modulus of
water used in different types of calculation is summarised. At the end of this
chapter some examples are given.
Table of contents
List of symbols
Introduction
Governing equations
Finite element formulations
15
Boundary conditions
21
Hydraulic models
27
Barcelona Basic model
33
Groundwater flow verification: 1D
47
Groundwater flow verification: 2D & 3D
117
Coupled analysis verification
175
10 Unsaturated soil model verifications
235
11 Undrained analysis in PLAXIS
247
12 Bibliography
273
Appendices
277
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
To analyse mechanical behaviour of saturated or partially saturated soils by
means of numerical methods (e.g. finite element method) in proper manner, it is
necessary to take into account both deformation and groundwater flow. For time
dependent behaviour, this leads to mixed equations of displacement and pore
pressure, called coupled hydro-mechanical approach, which have to be solved
simultaneously. For applications which involve a horizontal phreatic surface, the
equations can be simplified by decomposing the total pore pressure into a
constant component (steady state pore pressure) and a time dependent component
(excess pore pressure). But in many practical cases the distribution of stationary
pore pressure is unknown in the beginning of the calculation stage (undrained
excavations with dewatering or simulation of wave loading in off-shore
conditions). Therefore a more general formulation according to Biots theory of
consolidation is needed which enables the user to simultaneously calculate
deformation and groundwater flow with time-dependent boundary conditions in
saturated and partially saturated soils, as presented here. The main challenge in
this case is the need to use the consolidation theory for unsaturated soil
conditions at least due to the need to simulate the phreatic line. Due to
elastoplastic behaviour of soil skeleton and suction dependency of degree of
saturation and relative permeability, all coefficients of the global stiffness matrix
in the finite element formulations of Biot theory are non-linear. This case is
completely different from the equations of saturated soils where only the
elastoplastic stiffness matrix is non-linear. Therefore efficient numerical
procedures are required, as implemented in PLAXIS. Accuracy, robustness and
efficiency of the calculation depend on the method that selects the time
increments. PLAXIS 2D and 3D utilise a fully implicit scheme which is
unconditionally stable (Booker & Small, 1975).
Another essential issue for modelling the mechanical behaviour of unsaturated
soils is the constitutive model implemented in a coupled flow-deformation
analysis. A conceptually similar model to the well-known Barcelona Basic
Model (BBM) (Alonso et al., 1990), developed by Gonzalez & Gens (2008), has
been implemented in PLAXIS via user defined soil model option. The main
features of the implemented model is that it utilises Bishop stress and suction as
state variables (Sheng et al., 2003; Gallipoli et al., 2003) instead of net stress and
suction as utilised in the original BBM. In addition to an implicit stress
integration scheme based on backward Euler algorithm, a sub-stepping scheme
proposed by Prez et al. (2001) is used to integrate the strain-stress relations. The
input variables of the constitutive model are the increment of total strain and
increment of suction.
1 Introduction
Two types of calculations, namely steady state and transient groundwater flow
calculations for saturated and unsaturated soils have been fully implemented in
PLAXIS kernels. According to the type of element used for deformation analysis,
the new kernel uses the same type of element for groundwater flow calculation.
Usually higher order elements do not behave as well as lower order elements for
groundwater flow calculation. But additional procedures are utilised in the kernel
to overcome the problems related to higher order elements. It is shown that the
model is capable of calculating groundwater flow with a good accuracy.
Five types of hydraulic models have been implemented in PLAXIS kernels,
namely Van Genuchten, Mualem (simplified Van Genuchten which has been
called Van Genuchten in PlaxFlow kernel developed by GeoDelft), linearized
Van Genuchten, spline and fully saturated.
In the following all features of the new implementations are presented.
1.1 Basic equations

Representation of formulations is based on the mechanical sign conventions, in
which compressive stresses and strains are negative. In the same manner, pore
water pressure pw and pore air pressure pa are considered to be negative in
compression. Water discharge is assumed to be positive for inflow.
The porosity n is the ratio of the volume of voids to the total volume, and the
saturation S is the ratio of free water volume to void volume:
n=
dVv
dV
S=
dVw
dVv
(1.1)
The volumetric moisture content is:

= dVw dV = S n
(1.2)
The water content is the ratio of the weight (or mass) of the water and the solids:
w=
dWw
n w
=S
dWs
1 n s
(1.3)
The density of the multiphase medium is:

= (1 n) s + n S w
(1.4)
where s stands for the density of the solid particles and w is the water density.
1 Introduction
The stress state of the groundwater can be expressed in terms of groundwater

heads as well. The hydraulic head can be decomposed in the elevation head z
and the pressure head p:
=z
pw
= z + p
(1.5)
The equations are presented in a three-dimensional space with a vertical and
upwards oriented z-axis. For two dimensional problems the y-axis is vertical and
the range of the vectors and matrices is correspondingly reduced.
The vector format of the gradient operator is:
T
(1.6)
The differential operator corresponding to the definitions of engineering strains

L is defined as:
x
L =
T
x
0
z
0
(1.7)
1.2 Unsaturated soil behaviour

Granular matrix, such as soil, is a mixture of solid particles in which pore spaces
can be filled with liquids and gas. In geotechnical engineering the common fluids
are air and water. The mechanical behaviour of soil is simplified in classical soil
mechanics, by considering only two states where soil is fully dry, i.e. all pores
are filled with air, or soil is fully saturated, i.e. all pores are filled with water. In
the dry case, it is often assumed that the pores are empty and the compressibility
of fluid and the degree of saturation are neglected. In contrast, in unsaturated soil
mechanics the pores are considered to be filled with both liquid (water) and gas
(air) and the relative proportion of liquid and gas plays a significant role in the
mechanical behaviour of unsaturated soils. If degree of saturation of liquid is less
than 1, the soil is called unsaturated or partially saturated which generally
appears above the phreatic level and the pore water pressure is positive with
respect to the atmospheric pressure. Below the phreatic level, the pore water
pressures are negative and the soil is usually saturated. The position of phreatic
level and the distribution of pore water pressure governed by climate conditions
1 Introduction
(groundwater flow boundary conditions). In the areas where the upward flux (i.e.
evaporation and evapotranspiration) exists, suction above phreatic level increases
(and degree of saturation decreases) and the water level is lowered with time
while in the case of downward flux (i.e. precipitation) suction decreases (and
degree of saturation increases) and the water level rises with time. In the case of
zero net surface flux, the pore water pressure profile become in equilibrium at a
hydrostatic condition (Figure 1.1).
Fig. 1.1: A visualisation of soil mechanics showing the role of the surface flux
boundary conditions (Fredlund, 1996)
1.3 Suction
Water potential is the potential work of pure water relative to a reference. This
causes to flow water in porous media from an area with higher water potential to
an area with lower water potential. The total water potential can be considered as
the summation of water potential due to matric, osmotic, gas pressures and
gravity. Flow in unsaturated zones relates to total suction which summation of
matric S and osmotic suction :
St = S +
(1.8)
In most practical applications, osmotic suction does not exist, therefore:

St = S
(1.9)
Matric suction is related to soil matrix (adsorption and capillarity due to soil
matrix) and it is the difference between soil water pressure and gas pressure:
S = pa pw
(1.10)
1 Introduction
where, pw and pa are the pore water pressure and the pore air pressure,
respectively. In most cases, the pore air pressure is constant and small enough to
be neglected. Therefore the matric suction is negative of the pore water pressure:
S = pw
(1.11)
1.4 Bishop effective stress

The governing equations of consolidation based on total pore pressure approach
as used in PLAXIS follow Biots theory (Biot, 1941). The formulation is based
on small strain theory and Darcys law for fluid flow is assumed. Bishops
effective stress (Bishop & Blight, 1963) is utilised in this formulation defined by
Eq. (1.8). Note that the mechanical sign convention is used, i.e. compressive
stresses are considered to be negative.
= + m( p w + (1 ) p a )
(1.12)
where:
= ( xx yy zz xy yz zx )
(1.13a)
m = (1 1 1 0 0 0 )
(1.13b)
is the vector with total stresses, contains the effective stresses, pw and pa are
the pore water pressure and the pore air pressure, respectively, and m is a vector
containing unity terms for normal stress components and zero terms for the shear
stress components. is an effective stress parameter called matric suction
coefficient and varies from 0 to 1 covering the range from dry to fully saturated
conditions. Considering these two special cases shows that for a fully saturated
soil ( = 1), the classical effective stress equation for compressive pore pressure
is obtained as:
= + m p w
(1.14)
and for a fully dry soil ( = 0) the effective stress is

= + m pa
(1.15)
This concept can be simplified for practical application assuming that the pore air
pressure is constant and is small enough to be neglected (i.e. pa 0). Therefore
for a completely dry soil, effective and total stresses are essentially equal. The
matric suction coefficient is generally determined experimentally. This
parameter depends on the degree of saturation, porosity and on the matric suction
1 Introduction
(pa pw) (e.g. Bolzon et al., 1996; Bishop & Blight, 1963). The experimental
evidences on the matric suction coefficient are quite sparse and therefore this
parameter is often assumed to be equal to the effective saturation in PLAXIS.
Now the effective stress formulation can be simplified to
= + m (S e p w )
(1.16)
in which Se is the effective saturation which is a function of the suction pore

pressure.
2 Governing equations
2.1 Darcys law
The flow of water in a saturated soil is commonly described using Darcys law
(1856). He postulated that the rate of water flow through a soil mass is
proportional to the hydraulic head gradient. The equations of equilibrium for
groundwater flow are:
pw + w g + = 0
(2.1)
where g = (0, -g, 0)T is the vector of gravitational acceleration and the vector
of the friction force, per unit volume, between the flowing fluid and the soil
skeleton. This force is linearly dependent on the fluid velocity and acts in
opposite direction. The relations are:
= mint q
(2.2)
where q is the specific discharge (fluid velocity), and mint is:
mint =
0
0
(2.3)
with the dynamic viscosity of the fluid and i the intrinsic permeability of the
porous medium. From (2.1) and (2.2) results:
pw w g + m q = 0
int
(2.4)
which can be also written as:

q=k
int
( pw + w g )
(2.5)
where kint is:

x
k int =
0
0
0
0
(2.6)
In soil mechanics the coefficient of permeability kisat (or hydraulic conductivity)

is used instead of both intrinsic permeability and viscosity:
ki
sat
= w g
i = x, y , z
(2.7)
In an unsaturated state the coefficient of permeability depends on the soil

saturation. The relative permeability krel(S) is defined as the ratio of the
permeability at a given saturation to the permeability in saturated state. The
coefficients of permeability defined in (2.7) represent the full saturation, for an
unsaturated state the permeability is:
ki = k rel kisat
i = x, y , z
(2.8)
The basic form of Darcys law is:

q=
k rel sat
k ( p w + w g )
w g
(2.9)
where ksat is the saturated permeability matrix.

kx
k
sat
sat
0
0
0
sat
ky
0
0
0
kz
(2.10)
sat
2.2 Compressibility of water

The compression modulus of the air-water mixture is the inverse of the
compressibility:
(Kw = 1 )
(2.11)
where
=
dVw Vw
dp
(2.12)
where dVw and Vw are volume of the water and volume variation due to the
variation of the pressure.
For unsaturated groundwater flow the compressibility of water can be expressed
as follows (Bishop & Eldin, 1950; Fredlund & Rahardjo, 1993).
= S w +
1 S + hS
K air
9
(2.13)
where S = degree of saturation; w = compressibility of pure water (4.5810-7

kPa-1); h = volumetric coefficient of air solubility (0.02); Kair = Bulk modulus of
air (100 kPa at atmospheric pressure). The equation can be simplified by
neglecting the air solubility (Verruijt 2001):
= S w +
1 S
K air
(2.14)
2.3 Continuity equation

The mass concentration of water (residual water) in each elemental volume of the
medium is equal to wnS. The mass continuity equation of the water states that
the water outflow from the volume is equal to the changes in the mass
concentration. While the water outflow is the divergence of the mass flux density
of the residual water ( T w q ). Therefore the continuity equation has the form
(Song 1990):
sat
T w rel k ( p w + w g ) = ( w n S )
t
w g
(2.15)
The right hand side of equation (2.15) can be written as:
( w n S ) = n S w w n S w S n
t
t
t
t
(2.16)
These three terms represent the changes in water density, saturation and soil
porosity, respectively.
According to the principle of mass conservation, for different corresponding
values of pressure and volume, the mass is constant, i.e.:
m w = wVw = c
(2.17)
Thus:
dm w = w dVw + d wVw = 0
or
(2.18)
10
dVw d w
=
Vw
w
(2.19)
Introducing the definition of water compressibility, we have

d w
= dp
(2.20)
The time derivative of the equation is

1 w
p
1 p
=
=
w t
t
K w t
(2.21)
Now, the term containing the derivative of w with respect to time can be
expressed as:
nS
w
p
n w p w
= nS w w =
S
t
p w t
Kw
t
(2.22)
The second term of the right hand side of Eq. (2.16) has the form:
w n
S
S p w
= n w
t
p w t
(2.23)
The term representing the changes in porosity is composed of:

The overall compression of the soil structure due to effective stresses and
pore pressure:
v
T
= m
t
t
(2.24)
The compression of the solid particles due to the changes of the pore
pressure:
(1 n) pw
S
Ks
t
(2.25)
where Ks is the bulk modulus of the solid particles forming the soil skeleton and
The compression of the solid particles due to the changes in effective
stresses:
1 T
1
p
m M
S w m
3K s
t 3K s t
(2.26)
11
Substituting all the factors in Eq. (2.15) and neglecting the second order
infinitesimal terms the continuity equation is obtained as:
w S mT
k
(1 n ) p w
S p w
sat
w S
+
+ n w
+ T w rel k ( p w + w g ) = 0
t
K s t
p w t
Kw
wg
(2.27)
Equation (2.27) can be reformulated for the flow problem by neglecting the
deformations of the solid particles and the density gradients of water
(Boussinesqs approximation):
Sm
S
n
t
K w p w
p w
k
sat
+ T rel k ( p w + w g ) = 0
t
w g
(2.28)
2.4 Steady state and transient groundwater flow

Steady state is defined as an analysis, in which the hydraulic head and the
coefficient of permeability at any point in the soil mass remain constant with
respect to time which can be consider as a situation of groundwater flow when
time tends to infinity. In contrast, in transient analyses, the hydraulic head (and
possibly the coefficient of permeability) change with respect to time. Changes
are usually in respect to a change in the boundary conditions with respect to time.
Equation (2.28) can be simplified for transient analysis by neglecting the
displacements of solid particles, i.e.:
S
S
n
K w p w
p w
k
sat
+ T rel k ( p w + w g ) = 0
t
w g
(2.29)
The above equation is a form of the well-known Richards equation which

describes saturated-unsaturated groundwater flow. The Richards equation has the
following form (e.g. Dogan & Motz (2005)):

h
h
h
h
K x (h ) + K y (h ) + K z (h ) + 1 = [C (h) + S S s ]
x y
y z
t
z

x
(2.30)
where Kx, Ky and Kz are permeability coefficients in x, y and z directions,

respectively. C(h)=(/h) is the specific moisture capacity (L-1) and Ss is the
12
specific storage (L-1). The specific storage Ss is a material property which can be
expressed as:
1 n
n
S s = w g
+
K
K
w
s
(2.31)
The compressibility of soil particles can be neglected, therefore:

Ss =
n w g
Kw
(2.32)
The term C(h) in the Richards equation can be expanded as:

C ( h) =
=
(nS ) = n S
h h
h
(2.33)
By substituting equations (2.32) and (2.33) in the Richards equation (Eq. 2.30)
and changing from head based equation to pore water pressure based equation,
equation (2.29) is obtained.
For steady state groundwater flow, in which variation of pore water pressure with
respect to time is zero, the continuity condition applies:
k
sat
T rel k ( p w + w g ) = 0
w g
(2.34)
This equation expresses that there is no net inflow or outflow in an elementary

area, as illustrated in Figure (2.1).
Fig. 2.1: Illustration of the continuity condition
13
2.5 Deformation equations

For a representative elemental volume of the soil the linear momentum balance is
given by:
L ( + S e p w m) + g = 0
T
(2.35)
where
= (1 n) s + n S w
(2.36)
is the density of the multiphase medium, g is a vector containing the gravity

acceleration gT = (0, -g, 0)T in the 3D space and LT is the transpose of the
differential operator L (Eq. 1.7).
Assuming infinitesimal strain theory, the relationship between strain and
displacements can be formulated as:
d = L du
(2.37)
Rewriting the effective stress equation (1.12) in incremental form as:

d = d + S e dp w m
(2.38)
The constitutive relation using effective stresses is written as:

d = M d
(2.39)
M represents the material stress-strain matrix. The governing equation for the
deformation model is obtained:
L M ( L d u ) + S e dp w m] + d ( g ) = 0
T
(2.40)
14
3 Finite element formulation
15

3.1 Deformation problem
In finite element method the displacement field in an element u results from the
nodal values of the displacements v using interpolation (shape) functions
assembled in a matrix N:
u = Nv
(3.1)
Substitution of (3.1) in (2.33) gives:

= L N v = Bv
(3.2)
where B is a matrix containing the spatial derivatives of the shape functions. The
virtual work equation is:
dV = u T b dV + u T t d
(3.3)
where b is the body force vector in the volume V and t is the traction on the
boundary . The stresses can be computed incrementally:
=
i
i 1
+ =
i 1
ti
+ & dt
t
(3.4)
i 1
If Eq. (3.3) is considered for the actual state i, the unknown i can be eliminated
using Eq. (3.4), therefore:
dV = u b i dV + u t d
T
T i
i 1
dV
(3.5)
Equation (3.5) can be reformulated in discretised form as:
dV = N b i dV + N t d B
T
T i
i 1
dV
(3.6)
By writing the body forces and the boundary tractions in incremental form the
following equation is obtained:
B
V
dV = N b dV + N t d + rv
T
with the residual force vector r i 1 :
i 1
(3.7)
16

r
i 1
T i 1
= N b i1 dV + N t
T
d B
T
i 1
(3.8)
dV
The residual force vector should be equal zero if the solution of step i is accurate.
Plaxis uses in the consolidation analyses the same shape functions for
displacements1 and for pore pressures, i.e.:
pw = N pn
(3.9)
The principle of effective stresses Eq. (1.12) can be written in the following
form:
i 1 = i 1 + S e i 1 p w i 1 m
= + S e
i 1
(3.10)
pw m
(3.11)
By substituting Eq. (3.11) in Eq. (3.7) one obtains:
( + S e p w m) dV = N b dV + N t d + rv
i
i 1
(3.12)
Substitution of the stress-strain relationship (Eq. 2.35) in Eq. (3.12), we have:
M B v dV +
T
T
T
i
B m p w dV = N b dV + N t d + rv (3.13)
or in matrix form:
K v + Q pw = f u + r
i
v
(3.14)
where K, Q and fu are the stiffness matrix, the coupling matrix and the
increment of the load vector, respectively.
T
K = B M B dV
(3.15)
For generality, different sets of shape functions may be used to describe the variation of the
displacements and the pore pressure rates. This implies that the nodes in the finite element mesh may
have varying degrees of freedom, with some being associated with displacements, some being associated
with pore pressure, and some being associated with both. In order for the pore pressure rates to be
consistent with the stress rates, one can choose the polynomial describing the pore pressure rates to be
one order lower than the polynomial describing the displacements. This approach leads to less accurate
estimates of the displacements but smaller oscillations in the pore pressures (see Abbo, 1997)
17
Q = S e B m N dV
(3.16)
V
T
f u = N b dV + N t dS
(3.17)
The actual changes of the degree of saturation are included in the increments of
the body forces (Eq. 3.17).
3.2 Flow problem

Galerkin approach with the same shape functions for pore pressure and for
displacements is applied to Eq. (2.27). By using the Green's theorem the
differential order of the equation is reduced and the discretised mass conservation
equation results in the form of:
S m LN
( N ) T
V
k rel
k
dv
S dp w
T S
sat
N
dV N n
dV ( N ) T rel k N p w dV
dt
K
p
dt
w
w
w
V
V
k
sat
w g dV N qdS = 0
(3.18)
and in matrix form:
H pw S
d pw
dt
+C
dv
= G +qp
dt
(3.19)
where H, Q, C and S are the permeability matrix, the coupling matrix and the
compressibility matrix. qp is the flux on boundaries. G is a vector in which effect
of gravity on flow in vertical direction is considered. This vector is a part of
external flux.
H = ( N ) T
V
k rel
sat
( N ) dV
T nS
dS
N dV
S = N
n
dpw
Kw
V
C = N S L N dV
(3.20)
(3.21)
(3.22)
G = ( N ) T
V
k rel
sat
w g dV
(3.23)
18
q p = N q w dS
(3.24)
For transient calculation displacements of particles can be neglected. Therefore

the coupling matrix is zero. Now Eq. (3.19) can be simplified to the following
form:
H pw S
d pw
dt
= G +qp
(3.25)
For steady state calculation, time derivative of pore pressure is zero, therefore:
H pw = G + q p
(3.26)
3.3 Coupled problem

The formulation of Biot's equation presented above contains a coupled behaviour
which is represented by both the equilibrium equation and the continuity
equation of the water-soil mixture. The displacements of the solid skeleton and
the pore water pressure are chosen as basic variables of the problem. The spatial
discretisation yields the following system of equations, which is non symmetric:
K
0
Q v 0
+
H p w C
dv
0 dt f u
S d p w G + q p
dt
(3.27)
The symmetry of the system (Eq. 3.27) can be restored by the time differentiation
of the first equation:
K
C
dv
Q dt
0 0 v
=
0 H p +
S d p w
w
dt
df u
dt
G + q p
(3.28)
3.4 Solving procedure

Equation (3.28) can be integrated in time, using a first order finite difference
method. The equations are written in a more concise form:
19
dX
+CX =F
dt
where X T = v
(3.29)
p w . The matrices B, C and F are dependent on X. The
discretisation is carried out by the generalised midpoint rule which approximates

dX
dt
i +
i +1
X X X
=
=
t
t
i +
= (1 ) X + X
i
i +1
(3.30)
Eq. (3.29) at time t i + becomes:
[B + t C ]
i +
i +1
= B (1 ) t C
i +
X + t F
i
i +
(3.31)
where t is the time step and is a parameter 0 1. In Plaxis a full implicit

procedure is utilised with = 1. Application of this procedure to Eq. (3.28)
yields:
K
S *
i +
0
v
0
p =
0 t H
w
i +
fu
vi
i + t G + t (q i + q ) (3.32)
p
p
p w
with
S = ( S + t H )
*
H = ( N ) T
V
k rel
(3.33)
k
sat
( N ) dV
T nS
dS
N dV
S = N
n
dpw
Kw
V
G = ( N ) T
V
k rel
q p = N q w dS
sat
w g dV
(3.34)
(3.35)
(3.36)
(3.37)
K = B M B dV
(3.38)
V
T
Q = S B m N dV
V
(3.39)
20

C = N S L N dV
(3.40)
V
T
V
(3.41)
In the case of consolidation of unsaturated soils all matrices and the external flux
(right hand vector) are nonlinear. In this respect the following issues should be
taken into account:
The stiffness matrix K is usually stress-dependent.
The permeability in the permeability matrix H and in the vector G is
pressure dependent, due to suction dependency of relative permeability
krel.
The coupling matrices Q and C as well as the compressibility matrix S are
suction dependent. The latter is also depends on the derivative of
saturation
In addition, the boundary conditions for the seepage line and drains are
also nonlinear.
The right hand side of both equilibrium and mass conservation equations
are nonlinear terms for unsaturated soils. The nonlinearity of the first
equation is due to the weight of the soil which is a function of the degree
of saturation and the nonlinearity of the right side of the second equation
is due to the suction dependency of the relative permeability and the
variable Neumann boundary conditions.
For both equations the Cauchy BC are imposed directly in the equation system.
4 Boundary conditions
21
The following boundary conditions are available in PLAXIS:
4.1 Closed
This type of boundary conditions specifies a zero Darcy flux over the boundary
as
q n = q x nx + q y n y + q z nz = 0
(4.1)
where nx, ny and ny are the outward pointing normal vector components on the
boundary.
4.2 Inflow
A non-zero Darcy flux over a boundary is set by a prescribed recharge value q
and reads
q n = qx nx + q y n y + qz nz = q
(4.2)
This indicates that the Darcy flux vector and the normal vector on the boundary
are pointing in opposite directions.
4.3 Outflow
For outflow boundary conditions the direction of the prescribed Darcy flux, q ,
should equal the direction of the normal on the boundary, i.e.:
q n = qx nx + q y n y + qz nz = q
(4.3)
4.4 Head
For prescribed head boundaries the value of the head is imposed as
=
(4.4)
Alternatively prescribed pressure conditions can be given. Overtopping

conditions for example can be formulated as prescribed pressure boundaries.
p=0
(4.5)
These conditions directly relate to a prescribed head boundary condition and are
implemented as such.
22
4.5 Infiltration/evaporation
This type of boundary conditions poses a more complex mixed boundary
condition. An inflow value q may depend on time and as in nature the amount of
inflow is limited by the capacity of the soil. If the precipitation rate exceeds this
capacity, ponding takes place at a depth max and the boundary condition
switches from inflow to prescribed head. As soon as the soil capacity meets the
infiltration rate the condition switches back.
This boundary condition simulates evaporation for negative values of q . The
outflow boundary condition takes place, when the groundwater head is higher
than the minimum head specified by the user min .
These boundary conditions are expressed as
if
= y + max
q n = q x n x + q y n y + q z n z = q if
= y + min
if
y + min
ponding
< y + < y + max (4.6)
drying
4.6 Seepage
Flow problems with a free water level may involve a seepage surface on the
downstream boundary, as shown in Figure 4.1. A seepage surface will always
occur when the water level touches an open downstream boundary. The seepage
surface is not a streamline (in contrast to the water level) or an equi-potential
line. It is a line on which the groundwater head, h, equals the elevation head y (=
vertical position). This condition arises from the fact that the water pressure is
zero on the seepage surface, which is the same condition as that exists at the
water level.
It is not necessary to know the exact length of the seepage surface before the
calculation begins, since the same boundary conditions (h = y) may be used along
the whole boundary line where seepage is expected to occur. Free boundaries
with h = y may therefore be specified for all boundaries where the hydraulic head
is unknown. Alternatively, for boundaries well above the water level where it is
obvious that a seepage surface does not occur, it may also be appropriate to
prescribe those boundaries as closed flow boundaries.
23
Fig. 4.1: Seepage surface

The water line option generates phreatic/seepage conditions by default. An
external head is prescribed on the part of the boundary beneath the water line,
seepage or free conditions are applied to the rest of the line. The phreatic/seepage
condition reads
if
=
=z
if
q n = q n + q n + q n = 0 if
x x
y y
z z
below phreatic level

above phreatic level and outflow (4.7)
above phreatic level and suction
The seepage condition only allows for outflow of groundwater at atmospheric

pressure. For unsaturated conditions at the boundary the boundary is closed. The
external head may vary in a time dependent way.
4.7 Infiltration well

Inside the domain wells are modelled as source terms, Q where specifies the
inflowing flux per meter.
Q= Q
(4.8)
As the source term in the governing equation simulates water flowing in the
system, the source term is positive for a recharge well.
4.8 Extraction well

A discharge rate Q simulates an amount of water leaving the domain
Q = Q
(4.9)
The source term in the governing equation is negative for a discharge well.
4.9 Drain
Drains are handled as seepage boundaries. However, drains are located inside the
domain. In reality drains cannot work perfectly and do not permit water leaving
24
the domain at atmospheric pressure, therefore a prescribed head should be

considered for the part of the drain below the water level. The condition is
written as
=
if
q n = q x n x + q y n y + q z n z = 0 if
outflow
suction
(4.10)
The drain itself does not generate a resistance against flow.
4.10 Interfaces
Interface elements are used to simulate impermeable structural elements. In such
an element there is no connection between both sides of the element and
therefore a zero Darcy flux over internal boundary is obtained.
Initial conditions are generated as a steady state solution for a problem with a
given set of boundary conditions.
4.11 Time dependent conditions

PLAXIS provides several features for analysis of transient groundwater flow and
fully coupled flow-deformation problems with varying conditions in time (timedependent conditions). Time-dependent conditions can only be applied in a
transient or in a fully coupled flow-deformation analysis.
Seasonal or irregular variations in water levels can be modelled using linear,
harmonic or user-defined time distributions. Four different functions can be
assigned for this purpose, namely constant, linear, harmonic and user-defined
functions.
Linear (function 1): This option can be used to describe the increase or decrease
of a condition linearly in time. For a linear variation of groundwater head, the
inputs of the following parameters are required:
t:
This parameter represents the time interval for the calculation phase,
expressed in unit of time. Its value is equal to the Time interval parameter
as specified in the Parameters tab sheet of the Phase list window. The
value is fixed and cannot be changed in the Time-dependent head
window.
H0 :
This parameter represents the actual height of the water level, expressed
in unit of length. Its value is automatically calculated in the kernel based
on the initial pore pressures.
Hult:
This parameter, specified in unit of length, represents the ultimate value
25
of head for the current calculation phase. Hence, together with the time
interval this parameter determines the rate of the water level increase or
decrease.
For a linear variation of infiltration, inflow or outflow the inputs of the following
parameters are required:
Q0 :
This parameter is the initial specific discharge through the geometry line
under consideration, expressed in unit of length per unit of time.
Qult: This parameter, specified in unit of length per unit of time, represents the
ultimate specific discharge in the time interval of the current calculation
phase.
Harmonic (function 2): This option can be used when a condition varies
harmonically in time. The harmonic variation of the water level is described as:
y (t ) = y0 + 0.5 H sin(0t + 0 )
(4.11)
with
0 = 2 / T
in which H, T and 0 are the wave height in the unit of length, the wave period in
the unit of time and the initial phase angle, respectively.
In case of infiltration, inflow or outflow, the parameter QA needs to be entered
instead of H. QA represents the amplitude of the specific discharge and is
specified in unit of length per unit of time.
Table (function 3): In addition to the pre-defined functions for variations with
time, PLAXIS provides the possibility to enter user-defined time series. This
option can be useful for a back-analysis when measurements are available. In the
table, time always starts from zero which is related to the beginning of the
calculation phase.
26
5 Hydraulic models
27
5 Hydraulic models
5.1 Van Genuchten model
There are many material models which describe the hydraulic behaviour of
unsaturated soils. The most common in the groundwater literature is the model of
Van Genuchten (1980) relationship, which is used in PlaxFlow. This relationship
is a more general case of Mualem (1976) function. Van Genuchten function is a
three-parameter equation and relates the saturation to the suction pore pressure
head p:
S ( p ) = S residu + ( S sat S residu ) 1 + g a p
gn gc
(5.1)
where
p = pw g
w
Sresidu is the residual saturation which describes the part of water that remains in
soil even at high suction heads. Ssat is the saturation when the pores are filled with
water. In general, the pores at saturated conditions the pores cannot be

completely filled with water and some air bubbles can be present in water
therefore in this case Ssat will be less than 1. ga, gn and gc are empirical
parameters. If the following assumption is made, as used in Plaxis, Eq. (5.1)
converts to Mualem (1976) function which is a two-parameter equation.
gc =
1 gn
gn
(5.2)
Figure 5.1 shows the effect of the parameter ga on the shape of retention curve.
This parameter is related to the air entry value (AEV) of the soil.
The effect of the parameter gn, which is a function of the rate of water extraction
from the soil once the AEV has been exceeded, is plotted in Figure 5.2.
The parameter gc is a function of the residual water content (related to the
curvature in the high suction range), Figure 5.3.
28
5 Hydraulic models
1.2
ga = 1.0
ga = 10
ga = 100
Saturation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
10
100
1000
Suction (kPa)
Fig. 5.1: Effect of the parameter ga on the retention curve, (gn = 2.0 and
gc = -1.0)
1.2
gn = 0.5
gn = 1.0
gn = 2.0
Saturation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
10
100
1000
Suction (kPa)
Fig. 5.2: Effect of the parameter gn on the retention curve, (ga = 1.0 and
gc = -1.0)
5 Hydraulic models
29
1.2
gc = -1.0
gc = -2.0
gc = -4.0
Saturation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1
10
100
1000
Suction (kPa)
Fig. 5.3: Effect of the parameter gc on the retention curve, (ga = 1.0 and gn = 2.0)
The effective saturation is defined as:
Se =
S S residu
S sat S residu
(5.3)
The relative permeability according to Mualem - Van Genuchten is:

gn 1
gn
gn
gl
k rel ( S ) = ( S e ) 1 1 S e gn 1

(5.4)
gl is an empirical parameter. ga, gl and gn have to be measured. In Plaxis 2D the
parameters can be directly specified or can be chosen using a database of soil

properties.
The derivative of saturation in respect to pore pressure reads:
0
S ( pw )
=
1 2 gn
pw
gn
gn g
g
g
p
g
1
n
a
w
n
(S S
g
p
1
g
residu
w
n
a
sat

w
g n w
if
( pw 0 )
if
( pw > 0 )
(5.5)
30
5 Hydraulic models
Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 present the Mualem - Van Genuchten relations for a
sandy material with parameters Ssat = 1.0, Sres = 0.027, ga = 2.24 m-1, gl = 0:0 and
gn = 2.286 graphically.
Fig. 5.4: Mualem Van Genuchten: head degree of saturation
Fig. 5.5: Mualem Van Genuchten: head relative permeability
5.2 Linearized Van Genuchten model

A linearised form of the Van Genuchtens model is also used as alternative in
Plaxis 2D. The saturation is defined as:
S ( p ) = 1 + p
ps
p 0
1
if
( p w 0)
1 pw if ps pw > 0)
pws
0
if
p pws )
and its derivative in respect to pore pressure is:
(5.6)
5 Hydraulic models
31
S ( pw )
=
pw
if
0
1
pws
0
p 0
( p w 0)
if ps pw > 0)

if
p pws )
The variable ps represents the threshold of the unsaturated condition and can be
derived from Van Genuchten model:
ps =
(5.8)
S p = 1, 0 m S sat
The relative permeability is approximate as:

1
4p

k rel ( p ) = 10 pk
10 4
if
if
if
p 0
( p w 0)
pk pw > 0)

p < pk
( pw > pwk )
(5.9)
where pk is the pressure head at which the relative permeability is reduced to

10-4, but is limited to a value between 0.5 and 0.7 m.
Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 present the linearized Van Genuchten relations for a
sandy material with parameters ps = 1.48 m, pk = 1.15 m graphically.
Fig. 5.6: Linearized Van Genuchten: head degree of saturation
32
5 Hydraulic models
Fig. 5.7: Linearized Van Genuchten: head relative permeability
6 Barcelona Basic Model
33

6.1 Introduction
The unsaturated soil model implemented to account for effects of suction follows
the well-known Barcelona Basic Model (Alonso et al., 1990) which is an
extension of the Modified Cam Clay model (Roscoe & Burland, 1968) by
introducing suction to its formulation. Bishop stress and suction are used as state
variables in this model. The model switches from fully saturated constitutive
model to partially saturated soil model, as suction increases.
The main features of the model are:
To follow the Barcelona Basic Model (BBM) characteristics to account
the behaviour of unsaturated soils (Alonso et al., 1990)
To work with Bishop stress (Sheng, et al., 2003, Gallipoli et al., 2003) and
suction as the state variables a difference of the BBM which use the net
stress and suction
To consider an independent elastic strain component associated to suction
(the elastic strain increment is then split into the elastic strain increment
due to Bishop stress changes and the elastic strain increment due to
suction changes.
In the following the model is described briefly. Stress invariants and derivatives
are given in Appendix A.
6.2 Yield function

To define the yield function it assumes that:
The behaviour of saturated soil is represented by the Modified Cam Clay
model (MCC).
The yield surface of the MCC model is valid for suction s>0.
The preconsolidation pressure Pc is a function of suction like to BBM
model
The yield function is defined as:
g ( )
2
F = 3J
M ( p + ps )( Pc p )
30
g
(
)
(6.1)
34
Where, p is the mean effective stress, J is the square root of the second stress
1
invariant of deviatoric stress tensor, J = trace ij p ' ij
2
1/2
. The function
g ( ) is defined as:
g ( ) =
sin '
sin sin '
cos +
3
(6.2)
where is Lode angle. Pc' is assumed to vary with suction according to

o* *
Po s* *
Pc = Pr
Pr
(6.3)
where P0' is the yield surface location at zero suction and is also the hardening
parameter, Pr is a reference mean stress, o* is the modified compression index
for saturated soil, s* is the slope modified of the NCL for unsaturated soil and
* is the modified swelling index which is assumed to be independent of suction.
The increase in cohesion follows a linear relationship with suction, i.e.:

ps = ks s
(6.4)
where, s describe the increase in cohesion with suction. The slope s* is assumed
to vary with the suction according to:
s* = o (1 r ) exp ( s ) + r
(6.5)
Where r and are two additional material constants that can be determined
experimentally. The first is a constant related to the maximum stiffness of the
soil (for an infinite suction), r = s ( s )/ o , and the second controls the rate of
increase of soil stiffness with suction.
6.3 Elastic response

The mechanical elastic behaviour is the same as in the Cam clay models with
the tangent modulus (K) and shear modulus (G) being defined by the following
expressions (a constant Poissons ratio () is assumed):
35
K=
G=
p'
(6.6)
*
3 (1 2 ) K
2 (1 + )
(6.7)
In the model a change in suction produces a volumetric elastic strain given by:
d ije,s =
s
3( s + patm )
ds ij =
1
ds ij
3K s
(6.8)
s , is the elastic stiffness for changes in suction.
6.4 Flow rule and hardening parameters

The yield surface location at zero suction P0' , defines the hardening parameter (as
in the BBM model) and the hardening law is described as:
Po'
dP = *
d vp
*
o
'
o
(6.9)
The plastic flow rule is defined as,

g ( )
2
G = 3J
M ( p + ps )( Pc p )
g ( 30 )
2
(6.10)
where can be chosen to obtain Jakys formula for one dimensional

consolidation for normally consolidated materials. Following the procedure used
by Alonso et al., 1990, the expression for is:
=
M ( M 9 )( M 3)
9(6 M )
1/ 1 * / *o
(6.11)
6.5 Implicit integration of unsaturated soil model

The implementation is based on Backward Euler algorithm following the
application to three invariants isotropic hardening models developed by Jeremic
36
and Sture (1997) and Prez et al., (2001). The solution is sough by using the
flow direction mij = G ij at the final stress state.
The variables given as input of the mechanical constitutive subroutine are the
increment of total strain and increment of suction.
6.6 Constitutive relations for infinitesimal plasticity

The constitutive equations which characterize the elastoplastic material can be
briefly stated as follow,
d ij = d ije + d ijp + d ije , s
(6.12)
d ij = Dijkl d kle = Dijkl ( d kl d klp d kle , s )
(6.13)
d ijp = d
d =
G ij , , s
ij
d ijp
ijp
(6.14)
(6.15)
where, d ij , d ije and d ijp are increments of the total elastic and plastic strain
tensors respectively and d ije, s is the contribution of suction to increment of elastic
strain tensor. d represents the increment of hardening parameters (in this case of
P0 ) and d is the plastic multiplier to be determined with the aid of the loading-
unloading criterion, which can be expressed in terms of the Kuhn Tucker

conditions as,
F ij , , s 0
d 0
(6.16)
F d = 0
During any process of loading, conditions (Eq. 6.16) must hold simultaneously.
6.7 Backward Euler algorithm

Fully implicit, Backward Euler schemes are given in the following form:
37
(ijn+1) = ij( n ) + ij( n+1)

klp ( n+1) = klp ( n ) + klp ( n+1)
(6.17)
( n+1) = ( n ) + ( n+1)
F
( n+1)
=0
where,
(ijn+1) = Dijkl kl klp kle,s
(6.18)
(n+1)
p ( n+1)
ij
G
= (n+1)
ij
(6.19)
(n+1)
( n+1)

= p
ij
ijp (n+1)
(6.20)
Where (n+1) is the actual load step and (n) is the converged step.
Time-integration of equation (6.17) with backward Euler scheme yields the
following nonlinear local problem (in compact notation),
(n+1) = (n) + D: ( n+1) D:m ( n+1) D: se
(n+1)

= + p

( n+1)
(n)
m ( n+1) ( n+1)
(6.21)
F ( (n+1) , (n+1) , s ) = 0
In equation (6.21), the state at time t(n) (i.e., quantities (n) and (n) ), the
increment of total strains from time t(n) to time t(n+1), , and the suction, s, are
known. The unknowns of this local problem are the stresses (n+1) and the
hardening parameters (n+1) at time t(n+1), and the plastic multiplier .
Formulating the residual of the three non-linear equations (6.21), the local
Newton-Raphson solver may be stated as follows:
( n+1) + D:m (n+1) + D: e ( n) D: = 0
s
n+1)
(

R { (n+1) , (n+1) , } = ( n+1) p
m ( n+1) ( n) = 0

F (k ) , ( k ) , s = 0
n+1
n+1
(6.22)
38
The non-linear system of eight equations is solved by linearizing the residual and
expanding it into a Taylor series:

R { , , }
R { + , + , + } = R { , , } +
+ O 2
( , , )

The gradient expression
(6.23)
R { , , }
renders the Jacobian of the residual R :
( , , )
m
m
D:
+ D:
m
m
J { , , } = - p
1 - p

F
F
D:m
-
m
p
(6.24)
Truncation after the first order terms, O 2 0 , and letting the residual equation
(6.23) go to zero, it obtains a set of linear equations for the corresponding
increments of [ , , ] , that simultaneously reduces all three residuals to zero:
k+1
0 = R { k , k , k } + J { k , k , k } k+1
k+1
(6.25)
Indices k and k+1 denote the iteration cycle. Solving the linearized system of
equations the new iterative update of the eight variables is obtained:
k+1
= J , , 1 R , ,
{ k k k}
k }
{ k k
k+1
k+1
(6.26)
Addition of the iterative corrector to the old values of the independent variables
yields the eight updates:
k+1 k k+1
= +
k+1 k k+1
k+1 k k+1
(6.27)
39
For starting the iteration, an initial solution is required. This solution is chosen to
be the elastic solution at the contact point with the yield surface given by:
0 = c = h + (1 ) D:
0 = h
(6.28)
s0 = s c
0 = 0
( Trial )
The trial stress state n+1
= D: and the elastic strain vector due to suction
se are maintained fixed during the iteration process.
6.8 Consistent tangent stiffness matrix

To solve the global problem with quadratic convergence it is necessary to use a
consistent tangent matrix. To compute this matrix, the consistent moduli
n + 1 s n + 1D e
at each Gauss point are needed. They are obtained by linearizing
equation (6.21), the linearization is represented in a compact form as (Prez et

al., 2001):
- 1
n+1s
= PT (Jn + 1 ) PD
n+1
De
where
PT = (In s 0n s , n c + 1 )
note that
0n s , n c + 1 is
(6.29)
is the projection matrix on stress space (Prez et al., 2001);
a null rectangular matrix with
is the number of stresses and
nc
ns
rows and
n c + 1 columns, n s
is the number of hardening parameters.
Additionally, the above process will be combined with sub-incrementation of the

prescribed strain (substepping) according to the recursive scheme proposed by
Prez-Foguet et al., (2001), this implementation is in progress.
6.9 Description of the subroutine: unsat_model

The subroutine Unsat_Model has the same structure for input/output variables of
the subroutine User_Mod of Plaxis to implement user-defined soil models. In the
subroutine are expected as input variables (in addition to the standard input
variables in User-defined soil models) the following:
40
Suction0: Previous or historical suction value of the current stress point

Suction: Suction value to be applied in the current stress point
Sig0: Bishops effective stress at start of step
As output variables are expected (in addition to the standard input variables in
User-defined soil models):
Sig: Bishops effective stress computed in the subroutine
Ierror_code:
process.
Code assigned to the possible errors during the calculation
Input/output variables:
iMod = 1 : Number model
nProps = 18 : Model parameters
ParamName (1): Poisson ratio ()
ParamName (2): Slope of the unload/reload line () of saturated soil
ParamName (3): Slope of the normal compression line (0) of saturated
soil
ParamName (4): Elastic stiffness due to suction (s)
ParamName (5): Parameter to control the tensile strength due to suction
(k)
ParamName (6): Slope of the Critical state line (M)
ParamName (7): Friction angle at CS ( cs [degrees])
ParamName (8): Initial void ratio (e0)
ParamName (9): Preconsolidation pressure of saturated soil (Po [kPa])
ParamName (10): Reference mean stress ( Pr [kPa])
ParamName (11): Parameter to control infinite suction (r)
ParamName (12): Parameter to control soil stiffness with suction ( [kPa1
])
ParamName (13): Van Genuchten Parameter (a [kPa])
ParamName (14): Van Genuchten Parameter (b)
ParamName (15): Van Genuchten Parameter (c)
ParamName (16): Parameter of non associated flow rule (g)
ParamName (17): Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (Ko)
ParamName (18): Overconsolidation ratio (OCR)
nStat = 6 : Number of state variables

stVar0 (1) = Po (Preconsolidation pressure of the saturated soil)
stVar0 (2) = Suction (Actual suction value)
stVar0 (3) = Sr (Acutal degree of saturation)
41
stVar0 (4) = Pc (Preconsolidation pressure of Unsaturated soil)

stVar0 (5) = pt (Tensile strength due to suction)
stVar0 (6) = F_result (Value of yield function)
Ierror_code (Scalar Integer): Code assigned to the possible errors
Contains the code assigned to the possible errors that can occur during the
calculation process. If ierror_code is greater than zero, this parameter will force
the calculation to stop. The possible errors and their codes are
Code
Description
Subroutine
101
Does not converge during elastic integration
Subroutine Elastic integration
102
Can not find crossing point with yield surface
Function exit F_1
103
Does not converge during plastic integration
Subroutine Plastic integration
Note: Internally the subroutine Unsat_Model groups some input data into a
derived data type named Prop_model which has the follow fields:
Prop_model%Imod
Prop_model%npar
Prop_model%n
Prop_model%nhv
Prop_model%par
= Imod
= Nprops
= Nstress
= Nstat
= Props()
Nstress is the number of stress components (6) plus the number of the hardening
parameters in order to build a vector of generalized stress.
6.10 Proposition for determination of the unsaturated

soil parameters
Table 6.1 describes the determination the unsaturated soil model and Table 6.2
gives parameters of Barcelona Basic Model for some soil types.
42
Tab. 6.1: User-defined soil model local property variables

No
10
Model
parameters
Pr [F/L2]
Definition
Reference
mean stress
at which
one may
reach the
saturated
virgin state,
starting at a
partially
saturated
condition,
through a
wetting
path which
involves
only
(elastic)
swelling.
Proposition for estimation

Upscaled from Isotropic
compression tests or eodometric
tests at different constant suctions.
Fig 1. Relationships between

preconsolidation stress (Po, Pc) and the
reference stress (Pr)
Typical
values
When Pr = Po
(saturated
condition) the
LC yield curve
becomes a
straight line.
In this case,
changes in s
do not result in
plastic
deformations.
Reference
Alonso et
al (1990).
See Table 1:
Some values
from literature.
- Fit of the Load-Collapse curve

(LC):
Fig 2. Isotropic stress path at constant

suction to determine the LC curve
Suction, s
Influence of Pr on LC:
r* :
Constants
Pr = 0.2 * Po
Pr = 0.4 * Po
Pr = 0.6 * Po
Pr = 0.8 * Po
Pr = Po
Po
Mean net stress, p
Fig 3. Influence of Pr in the shape of LC

curve
Pr should be significantly lower

than the lowest value of Po likely to
occur in a given application to
avoid illogical yield curve shapes.
11
Parameter
defining
the
maximum
soil
stiffness
(for an
infinite
suction)

Fit of the Load-Collapse curve
(LC).
See Table 1:
Some values
from literature.
Alonso, et
al (1990).
Barrera, et
al (2002)

Model
parameters
r (cont.)
Definition
Proposition for estimation
Typical
values
Reference
Influence of r on LC:
Suction, s
No
43
P r , :
Constants
r = 0.75
r = 0.80
r = 0.85
r = 0.90
r = 0.95
r=1
Po
Mean net stress, p
Fig 4. Influence of r* in the shape of LC

curve
Example of the influence of suction

increase on the compressibility:
Geiser et al
(2000).
Sion Silt (Geiser et al., 2000):

s = o (1 r * ) exp ( s ) + r *
Fig 5. Variation of the compressibility index

with the suction
[F/L2]-1
Parameter
controlling
the rate of
increase of
soil
stiffness
with
suction

Fit of the Load-Collapse curve
(LC).
Influence of on LC:
Suction, s
12
P r , r*:
Constants
[MPa-1]
= 2.5
=5
= 10
= 15
= 20
Po
Mean net stress, p'
Fig 6. Influence of in the shape of LC

curve
See Table 1:
Some values
from literature.
Alonso, et
al (1990)
Barrera, et
al (2002).
44
Tab. 6.2: Parameters for the Barcelona Basic Model for different soil types
Soil type
BCN Silt
0.3
3
pr
(0)
1.155
0.005
0.073
0.782
155
0.65
0.02
(MPa)
-1
(MPa)
Reference
7.0 E-
Barrera
05
(2002)
0.032:
p:100
Sion silt
0.4
0
1.33
0.007
400 kPa
0.047:
Geiser et al
(2001)
p>400
kPa
G=
Compacted
3.3
kaolin, ML
MP
0.821
0.015
0.14
0.26
16.4
0.043
0.011
0.065
0.75
20
0.01
Josa
(1988)
a
Compacted kaolin
[w = 6% ,
Sr= 0.627]
Karube
(1986)
Variab
le
Compacted kaolin
0.027
0.063
0.32
Thu, et al.
10
(2007)
0.58
0.972
Sandy Clay
(Lower Cromer
till)
Lower Cromer till
Lambeth Sand
(London City)
G=
7
1.2
0.0077
0.066
0.25
20
0.012
0.2
1.2
0.0077
0.066
0.35
16.4
0.012
0.2
0.9
0.005
0.06
0.25
20
MP
Sand
45
MP
Georgiadis
(2003)
Georgiadis
(2003)
Variab
le
1.54
0.0056
0.022
0.68
Rampino
24
0.001
0.91
et al
(2000)
0.978
Boom Clay
Pellets
0.015
0.16
0.57
0.05
0.080
0.90
0.50
0.11
0.29
18.1
FEBEX Bentonite
1.24
0.005
Silty sand from
1.32
0.009
the Riverside
(1985)
G
Metramo silty
Maswoswe
0.041
Snchez
(2004)
Lloret et al
(2003)
Mun B-J
(2004)
Soil type
45
pr
(0)
0.008
0.25
0.85
0.05
0.0085
0.18
0.95
8.0
0.004
0.052
0.17
1.8
0.05
0.15
0.75
0.05
0.1
0.26
0.564
0.544
0.06
0.37
0.27
10
(MPa)
-1
(MPa)
Reference
Campus
Bentonite Sand
mixtures
Lixhe chalk
0.2
8.0E-
Alonso et
06
al (2005)
0.003
Collin et al
(2002)
Compacted silt.
(clayey, slightly
sandy Silt)
[w = 23.1%,
Vasallo et
al (2007)
d = 15.6 kN/m3]
Serrate bentonite
Boom Clay
0.4
0.3
33
1.5
1.0
Reconstituid
0.0026
5
0.014
Kaolin
Zhang et al
(2003)
Zhang et al
(2003)
Slatter et al
(2006)
Earth fill
Cordao
compacted with a
soil with a lower
0.005
0.085
and Farias
than optimum
(2006)
water content
Jossigny's Silt
(silt of low
0.3
1.0
0.015
0.108
0.911
5.75
0.895
0.14
0.29
0.24
19.69
plasticity)
6.55E-
Vaunat et
06
al (2000)
G=
Residual granite
8.9
soil (CH)
MP
a
0.045
Mofiz et al
(2005)
46
7 Verification of groundwater flow: 1D
47
7 Verification of groundwater flow: OneDimensional

In this section verification of the groundwater flow codes implemented in
PLAXIS 2D and 3D kernels is given. As it is hard to derive an analytical solution
for the examples given in this section, the results are compared with the existing
Plaxflow code developed by GeoDelft. The examples are chosen from the first
part of the report provided by GeoDelft, report co710201.101 v1, December
2002.
This chapter presents the results of 13 column tests, for which a flow problem
has been solved. The column has a height of 2.0 m and a width of 0.05 m,
vertical boundaries are closed and flow is strictly one-dimensional. The Van
Genuchten and spline models are used. Most of available types of boundary
conditions are imposed separately including constant head, constant pressure,
inflow, outflow and seepage conditions. Precipitation conditions automatically
apply the inflow and outflow conditions according to the function used for the
prescribed flux. Right now, four functions can be used for varying prescribed
flux in time, namely constant, linear, harmonic and the user defined function
(table). The same functions can also be applied for water level varying. In the
case of steady state calculation, only constant function is utilised, i.e. no
variation. To have proper results, fine mesh used in both 2D and 3D, Figure 7.1.
Fig. 7.1: finite element meshes used in 2D and 3D calculations; Left: 2D; Right
3D
48
7.1 Case A1: pressure head

Case A1 involves an infiltration situation and is shown in Figure A1.1. The left
picture presents the initial boundary conditions from which a steady state flow
situation is calculated. Imposing a head of -1.0 m at the bottom of the model and
1.0 m at the top generates unsaturated starting conditions. The right hand side
picture shows the boundary conditions for the later time period. Boundary
conditions change to 2.0 m at the top of the model, the bottom condition is not
changed. Staring series O1 sand model describes hydraulic behaviour of material
for which Van Genuchten relationship is applied. The properties of the soil are
given in Table A1.1.
The following steps are performed in this case:
1. Steady state: Steady state groundwater flow calculation to generate initial
pore pressure, (suction pore pressure of 10 kPa in the entire column).
2. Transient: The top boundary head is set. Infiltration takes place and the
model gets more saturated in time. The infiltration front move downward
in time until a new steady state situation is reached. Figure A1.2 and A1.3
show a vertical cross section of the calculated pore pressures and degree
of saturation in time. The infiltration profiles are shown for steps given in
Table A1.2.
3. Steady state: Steady state groundwater flow calculation to generate
ultimate pore pressure.
Fig. A1.1: Geometry of case A1
49
Tab. A1.1: Input data for case A1

Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Saturated saturation
Residual saturation
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Ssat
Sres
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]

Step
2
20
32
44
56
68
80
126
156
194
Time (day)
Steady state
0.232
0.463
0.694
0.926
1.16
1.39
2.31
3.47
Steady state
Value
0.1521
0.5625
4.875105
1.0
0.06203
2.286
2.24
0
50
Fig. A1.2: Active pore pressure in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
Fig. A1.3: Degree of saturation in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
51

Cross-section
1E1
Time 0
Time 0.232
Time 0.463
Time 0.695
Time 0.926
Time 1.16
Time 1.39
Time 2.31
Time 3.47
Time 3.47
9.04E0
8.04E0
7.04E0
Pore pressure [kN/m^2]
6.04E0
5.04E0
4.04E0
3.04E0
2.04E0
1.04E0
4.37E-2
0
1
[m]
Fig. A1.6:
Active pore pressure in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Cross-section
1E2
9.83E1
Time 0
Time 0.232
Time 0.463
Time 0.695
Time 0.926
Time 1.16
Time 1.39
Time 2.31
Time 3.47
Time 3.47
9.63E1
9.43E1
9.23E1
9.03E1
8.83E1
8.63E1
8.43E1
8.23E1
8.03E1
7.83E1
7.63E1
Degree of saturation [%]
7.43E1
7.23E1
7.03E1
6.83E1
6.63E1
6.43E1
6.23E1
6.03E1
5.83E1
5.63E1
5.43E1
5.23E1
5.03E1
4.83E1
4.63E1
4.43E1
4.23E1
4.03E1
3.83E1
3.63E1
3.43E1
0
1
[m]
Fig. A1.7:
Degree of saturation in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)
52
Summary:
As seen the results from PLAXIS 2D, PLAXIS 3D and PlaxFlow are similar.
53
7.2 Case A3: Inflow boundary

Case A3 involves an infiltration situation and is shown in Figure A3.1. In this
example the influx is constant in time and given as an prescribed boundary flux.
The left picture presents the initial boundary conditions from which a steady state
flow situation is calculated. Imposing a head of -1.0 m at the bottom of the model
and 1.0 m at the top generates unsaturated starting conditions. The right hand
side picture shows the boundary conditions for the later time period. Boundary
conditions change to 0.152 m/day inflow at the top of the model, the bottom
condition is not changed. Staring series O1 sand model describes hydraulic
behaviour of material for which Van Genuchten relationship is applied. The
properties of the soil are given in Table A3.1.
2. Transient: The boundary prescribed flux is imposed. Infiltration takes
place and the model gets more saturated in time. The infiltration front
move downward in time until a new steady state situation is reached.
Figure A3.2 and A3.3 show a vertical cross section of the calculated pore
pressures and degree of saturation in time. The infiltration profiles are
shown for steps given in Table A3.2.
Fig. A3.1: Geometry of case A3
54

Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Residual saturation
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Ssat
Sres
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]

Step
2
39
76
113
150
187
224
372
557
643
Time (day)
Steady state
0.232
0.463
0.694
0.926
1.16
1.39
2.31
3.47
Steady state
Value
0.1521
0.5625
4.875105
1.0
0.06203
2.286
2.24
0
55
56

Cross-section
1E1
Time 0
Time 0.232
Time 0.463
Time 0.695
Time 0.926
Time 1.16
Time 1.39
Time 2.31
Time 3.47
9.04E0
8.04E0
7.04E0
6.04E0
5.04E0
4.04E0
3.04E0
2.04E0
1.04E0
4.35E-2
0
1
[m]
Fig. A3.6: Active pore pressure in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Cross-section
1E2
9.83E1
Time 0
Time 0.232
Time 0.463
Time 0.695
Time 0.926
Time 1.16
Time 1.39
Time 2.31
Time 3.47
9.63E1
9.43E1
9.23E1
9.03E1
8.83E1
8.63E1
8.43E1
8.23E1
8.03E1
7.83E1
7.63E1
7.43E1
7.23E1
7.03E1
6.83E1
6.63E1
6.43E1
6.23E1
6.03E1
5.83E1
5.63E1
5.43E1
5.23E1
5.03E1
4.83E1
4.63E1
4.43E1
4.23E1
4.03E1
3.83E1
3.63E1
3.43E1
0
1
[m]
Fig. A3.7: Degree of saturation in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Summary:
57
58
7.3 Case B1: Fixed head boundary

Case B1 involves a recharge situation and is shown in Figure B1.1. In this
example the column is filled from the bottom in opposite direction of the
gravitational force. The left picture presents the initial boundary conditions from
which a steady state hydrostatic situation is calculated. Imposing a head of 0 m at
the bottom of the model and seepage boundary condition (or closed) at the top
generates unsaturated starting conditions. The right hand side picture shows the
boundary conditions for the later time period. Boundary conditions change to 1.5
m at the bottom of the model, the top condition is not changed. Staring series O1
sand model describes hydraulic behaviour of material for which Van Genuchten
relationship is applied. The properties of the soil are given in Table B1.1.
pore pressure, (hydrostatic condition: suction pore pressure of 20 kPa at
the top of the column).
2. Transient: The fixed boundary head of 1.5 m at the bottom is imposed.
Recharge takes place and the model gets more saturated in time. The
infiltration front move upward in time until a new steady state situation is
reached. Figure B1.2 and B1.3 show a vertical cross section of the
calculated pore pressures and degree of saturation in time. The infiltration
profiles are shown for steps given in Table B1.2.
ultimate pore pressure, (hydrostatic condition: suction pore pressure of 5
kPa at the top of the column).
Fig. B1.1: Geometry of case B1
59
Tab. B1.1: Input data for case B1

Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Residual saturation
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Ssat
Sres
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]

Step
2
3
4
7
10
34
53
147
244
246
Time (day)
Steady state
0.00579
0.0116
0.0694
0.127
0.706
1.28
7.07
12.9
Steady state
Value
0.1521
0.5625
4.875105
1.0
0.06203
2.286
2.24
0
60
Fig. B1.2: Active pore pressure in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
Fig. B1.3: Degree of saturation in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
61

Cross-section
2.02E1
1.92E1
1.82E1
Time 0
Time 0.00579
Time 0.0116
Time 0.0694
Time 0.127
Time 0.706
Time 1.28
Time 7.07
Time 12.9
Time 12.9
1.72E1
1.62E1
1.52E1
1.42E1
1.32E1
1.22E1
1.12E1
1.02E1
9.15E0
8.15E0
7.15E0
6.15E0
5.15E0
4.15E0
3.15E0
2.15E0
1.15E0
1.53E-1
-8.47E-1
-1.85E0
-2.85E0
-3.85E0
-4.85E0
-5.85E0
-6.85E0
-7.85E0
-8.85E0
-9.85E0
-1.08E1
-1.18E1
-1.28E1
-1.38E1
-1.48E1
0
1
[m]
Fig. B1.6:

Cross-section
1E2
Time 0
Time 0.00579
Time 0.0116
Time 0.0694
Time 0.127
Time 0.706
Time 1.28
Time 7.07
Time 12.9
Time 12.9
9.54E1
9.04E1
8.54E1
8.04E1
7.54E1
7.04E1
6.54E1
6.04E1
5.54E1
5.04E1
4.54E1
4.04E1
3.54E1
3.04E1
2.54E1
2.04E1
1
[m]
Fig. B1.7: Degree of saturation in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)
62
Summary:
63
7.4 Case B3: Fixed head boundary

Case B3 involves a drainage situation and is shown in Figure B3.1. In this
example the column is dried from the bottom in opposite direction of the
which a constant suction of 0 kPa is generated in entire column. Imposing a head
of 0 m at the bottom of the model and a head of 2.0 m at the top of the column
generates the unsaturated starting conditions. The right hand side picture shows
the boundary conditions for the later time period. Boundary conditions change to
seepage (or closed) at the bottom of the model, the top condition is not changed.
Staring series O1 sand model describes hydraulic behaviour of material for which
Van Genuchten relationship is applied. The properties of the soil are given in
Table B3.1.
pore pressure, (constant suction pore pressure of 0 kPa in whole of the
column).
2. Transient: The seepage boundary condition (or closed boundary
condition) at the top is imposed. Drainage takes place and the model gets
more unsaturated in time. Figure B3.2 and B3.3 show a vertical cross
section of the calculated pore pressures and degree of saturation in time.
The results are shown for steps given in Table B3.2.
ultimate pore pressure, (hydrostatic condition: suction pore pressure of 20
kPa at the top of the column).
64

Description
Permeability
Initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Residual saturation
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Ssat
Sres
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]
Value
0.1521
0.5625
4.875105
1.0
0.06203
2.286
2.24
0

Step
4
58
101
174
311
575
1096
2129
2131
Time (day)
Steady state
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
Steady state
65
66

Cross-section
2.01E1
1.91E1
Time 0
Time 2
Time 4
Time 8
Time 16
Time 32
Time 64
Time 128
Time 128
1.81E1
1.71E1
1.61E1
1.51E1
1.41E1
1.31E1
1.21E1
1.11E1
1.01E1
9.09E0
8.09E0
7.09E0
6.09E0
5.09E0
4.09E0
3.09E0
2.09E0
1.09E0
8.75E-2
0
1
[m]
Fig. B3.4: Active pore pressure in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)
Cross-section
1E2
Time 0
Time 2
Time 4
Time 8
Time 16
Time 32
Time 64
Time 128
Time 128
9.54E1
9.04E1
8.54E1
8.04E1
7.54E1
7.04E1
6.54E1
6.04E1
5.54E1
5.04E1
4.54E1
4.04E1
3.54E1
3.04E1
2.54E1
2.04E1
1
[m]
Fig. B3.5: Degree of saturation in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Summary:
67
7.5 Case B4: Outflow boundary

Case B4 involves a drainage situation and is shown in Figure B4.1. In this
example the column is dried from the bottom in opposite direction of the
gravitational force by means of prescribed outflow boundary conditions. The left
picture presents the initial boundary conditions from which a hydrostatic water
pore pressure is generated in column. Imposing heads of 2 m at the bottom and at
the top of the column generates the saturated starting conditions. The right hand
side picture shows the boundary conditions for the later time period. Boundary
conditions change to constant outflow of 0.152 m/day at the bottom of the model,
the top condition is not changed. Staring series O1 sand model describes
hydraulic behaviour of material for which Van Genuchten relationship is applied.
The properties of the soil are given in Table B4.1.
hydrostatic pore pressure.
5. Transient: The outflow boundary condition at the bottom is imposed.
Drainage takes place in time. Figure B4.2 and B4.3 show a vertical cross
section of the calculated pore pressures from the PLAXIS 2D and
Plaxflow kernels, respectively. The results of PLAXIS 2D are shown for
steps given in Table B4.2.
68

Description
Permeability
Initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Residual saturation
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Ssat
Sres
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]
Value
0.1521
0.5625
10.84
1.0
0.06203
2.286
2.24
0

Step
2
23
41
60
81
105
135
177
187
Time (day)
Steady state
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
Steady state
69
Cross-section
8.71E-2
-9.13E-1
Time 0
Time 2
Time 4
Time 8
Time 16
Time 32
Time 64
Time 128
Time 128
-1.91E0
-2.91E0
-3.91E0
-4.91E0
-5.91E0
-6.91E0
-7.91E0
-8.91E0
-9.91E0
-1.09E1
-1.19E1
-1.29E1
-1.39E1
-1.49E1
-1.59E1
-1.69E1
-1.79E1
-1.89E1
-1.99E1
0
1
[m]
Fig. B4.4: Active pore pressure in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Summary:
70
7.6 Case C1: pressure head (spline model: sand)

Case C1 involves an infiltration situation and is shown in Figure C1.1. The left
changed. Haverkamp sand model describes hydraulic behaviour of material for
which cubic Hermit spline interpolation is applied. The properties of the soil are
given in Table C1.1 and Table C1.2.
in time until a new steady state situation is reached. Figure C1.2 to C1.4
show a vertical cross section of the calculated pore pressures, degree of
saturation and relative permeability in time. The infiltration profiles are
shown for steps given in Table C1.3.
Fig. C1.1: Geometry of case C1
71
Tab. C1.1: Input data for case C1

Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
Value
8.156
0.403
4.875105
Tab. C1.2: Haverkamp sand data

- H (m)
kr
0.00E+00
1.0
1.0
2.00E-01
0.44448
0.94019
4.00E-01
2.91E-02
0.57286
6.00E-01
4.36E-03
0.35567
8.00E-01
1.12E-03
0.29439
1.00E+00
3.89E-04
0.27536
1.20E+00
1.64E-04
0.26821
1.40E+00
7.90E-05
0.26508
1.60E+00
4.19E-05
0.26354
1.80E+00
2.40E-05
0.26272
2.00E+00
1.46E-05
0.26224
2.20E+00
9.27E-06
0.26195
2.40E+00
6.14E-06
0.26177
2.60E+00
4.20E-06
0.26165
2.80E+00
2.95E-06
0.26157
3.00E+00
2.13E-06
0.26151
3.20E+00
1.57E-06
0.26147
3.40E+00
1.18E-06
0.26144
3.60E+00
8.98E-07
0.26141
3.80E+00
6.95E-07
0.2614
72

Step
2
Time (day)
Steady state
188
0.00463
312
0.00926
436
0.0139
560
0.0185
684
0.0232
808
0.0278
932
0.0324
1259
0.0463
1393
Steady state
Fig. C1.2: Active pore pressure in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
Fig. C1.3: Degree of saturation in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
Fig. C1.4: Relative permeability in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
73
74

Cross-section
1E1
Time 0
Time 0.00463
Time 0.00926
Time 0.0139
Time 0.0185
Time 0.0232
Time 0.0278
Time 0.0324
Time 0.0463
Time 0.0463
9.04E0
8.04E0
7.04E0
6.04E0
5.04E0
4.04E0
3.04E0
2.04E0
1.04E0
4.37E-2
0
1
[m]
Fig. C1.8: Active pore pressure in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)
75
Cross-section
1E2
Time 0
Time 0.00463
Time 0.00926
Time 0.0139
Time 0.0185
Time 0.0232
Time 0.0278
Time 0.0324
Time 0.0463
Time 0.0463
9.53E1
9.03E1
8.53E1
8.03E1
7.53E1
7.03E1
6.53E1
6.03E1
5.53E1
5.03E1
4.53E1
4.03E1
3.53E1
3.03E1
0
1
[m]
Fig. C1.9: Degree of saturation in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Summary:
As seen the results from PLAXIS 2D, PLAXIS 3D and PlaxFlow are similar. The
maximum suction pore pressure is 10 kPa (H=-1.0 m), therefore the minimum
degree of saturation for all curves plotted in Figure C1.3 must be 27.5 % (Table
C1.2). As seen the degrees of saturation for step 1259 and 1393 show lower
values at distance 2 m which is a visualization problem due to extrapolation
method used in the output program and this is not a serious problem.
76
7.7 Case C2: pressure head (spline model: clay)

Case C2 involves an infiltration situation and is shown in Figure C2.1. The left
changed. Haverkamp clay model describes hydraulic behaviour of material for
which cubic Hermit spline interpolation is applied. The properties of the soil are
given in Table C2.1 and Table C2.2.
77

Description
Permeability
Initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
Value
0.0106
0.98
4.875105
Tab. C2.2: Haverkamp clay data

- H (m)
kr
0.00E+00
1.0
1.0
2.00E-01
0.3829
0.9263
4.00E-01
0.1539
0.8498
6.00E-01
8.15E-02
0.7935
8.00E-01
0.05064
0.7505
1.00E+00
0.03469
0.7164
1.20E+00
0.02536
0.6886
1.40E+00
0.01942
0.6653
1.60E+00
0.0154
0.6454
1.80E+00
0.01254
0.6283
2.00E+00
0.01043
0.6132
2.20E+00
0.008822
0.5999
2.40E+00
0.004573
0.588
2.60E+00
0.006579
0.5773
2.80E+00
0.005775
0.5675
3.00E+00
0.005114
0.5587
3.20E+00
0.004565
0.5505
3.40E+00
0.004102
0.543
3.60E+00
0.003709
0.5361
3.80E+00
0.003372
0.5297
78

Step
2
Time (day)
Steady state
107
2.32
150
4.63
193
6.95
236
9.26
279
11.58
322
13.89
365
16.21
623
32.41
655
Steady state
79
80

Cross-section
1E1
Time 0
Time 2.31
Time 4.62
Time 6.93
Time 9.24
Time 11.6
Time 13.9
Time 16.2
Time 32.4
Time 32.4
9.04E0
8.04E0
7.04E0
6.04E0
5.04E0
4.04E0
3.04E0
2.04E0
1.04E0
4.37E-2
0
1
[m]
Fig. C2.8:

Cross-section
1E2
9.91E1
Time 0
Time 2.31
Time 4.62
Time 6.93
Time 9.24
Time 11.6
Time 13.9
Time 16.2
Time 32.4
Time 32.4
9.81E1
9.71E1
9.61E1
9.51E1
9.41E1
9.31E1
9.21E1
9.11E1
9.01E1
8.91E1
8.81E1
8.71E1
8.61E1
8.51E1
8.41E1
8.31E1
8.21E1
8.11E1
8.01E1
7.91E1
7.81E1
7.71E1
7.61E1
7.51E1
7.41E1
7.31E1
7.21E1
0
1
[m]

Summary:
81
82
7.8 Case C3: material contrast high-low permeability

Case C3 involves an infiltration problem through a column composed of a sand
layer on top of a clay layer as shown in Figure C3.1. The left picture presents the
initial boundary conditions from which a steady state flow situation is calculated.
Imposing a head of -1.0 m at the bottom of the model and 1.0 m at the top
m at the top of the model, the bottom condition is not changed. Haverkamp clay
and Haverkamp sand models describe hydraulic behaviour of clay and sand
materials for which cubic Hermit spline interpolation are applied. The properties
of the layers are given in Table C1.1, Table C1.2, Table C2.1 and Table C2.2.
pore pressure.
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
83

Step
Time (day)
14
Steady state
40
0.00463
58
0.00926
76
0.0139
94
0.0185
107
0.0232
141
1.07
177
2.22
240
4.54
261
Steady state
84
85
86

Cross-section
1.01E1
Time 0
Time 0.00463
Time 0.00926
Time 0.0139
Time 0.0185
Time 0.0232
Time 1.06
Time 2.22
Time 4.54
Time 4.54
9.09E0
8.09E0
7.09E0
6.09E0
5.09E0
4.09E0
3.09E0
2.09E0
1.09E0
8.73E-2
-9.13E-1
-1.91E0
-2.91E0
-3.91E0
-4.91E0
-5.91E0
-6.91E0
-7.91E0
-8.91E0
-9.91E0
0
1
[m]
Fig. C3.8:

Cross-section
1E2
Time 0
Time 0.00463
Time 0.00926
Time 0.0139
Time 0.0185
Time 0.0232
Time 1.06
Time 2.22
Time 4.54
Time 4.54
9.53E1
9.03E1
8.53E1
8.03E1
7.53E1
7.03E1
6.53E1
6.03E1
5.53E1
5.03E1
4.53E1
4.03E1
3.53E1
3.03E1
0
1
[m]

Summary:
87
88
7.9 Case C4: material contrast low- high permeability

Case C4 involves an infiltration problem through a column composed of a clay
layer on top of a sand layer as shown in Figure C4.1. The left picture presents the
initial boundary conditions from which a steady state flow situation is calculated.
Imposing a head of -1.0 m at the bottom of the model and 1.0 m at the top
m at the top of the model, the bottom condition is not changed. Haverkamp clay
and Haverkamp sand models describe hydraulic behaviour of clay and sand
materials for which cubic Hermit spline interpolation are applied. The properties
of the layers are given in Table C1.1, Table C1.2, Table C2.1 and Table C2.2.
pore pressure.
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
89

Step
9
Time (day)
Steady state
174
1.157
207
2.314
240
3.471
273
4.628
306
5.785
339
6.942
372
8.099
439
11.571
476
Steady state
90
91

Cross-section
1.58E1
Time 0
Time 1.16
Time 2.31
Time 3.47
Time 4.63
Time 5.79
Time 6.94
Time 8.1
Time 11.6
Time 11.6
1.48E1
1.38E1
1.28E1
1.18E1
1.08E1
9.83E0
8.83E0
7.83E0
6.83E0
5.83E0
4.83E0
3.83E0
2.83E0
1.83E0
8.33E-1
1
[m]
Fig. C4.8:

Cross-section
1E2
Time 0
Time 1.16
Time 2.31
Time 3.47
Time 4.63
Time 5.79
Time 6.94
Time 8.1
Time 11.6
Time 11.6
9.53E1
9.03E1
8.53E1
8.03E1
7.53E1
7.03E1
6.53E1
6.03E1
5.53E1
5.03E1
4.53E1
4.03E1
3.53E1
3.03E1
1
[m]
92
Summary:
93
7.10 Case D1: Seepage face boundary

Case D1 involves a seepage problem and is shown in Figure D1.1. In this
example the column is wetted from the bottom in opposite direction of the
which suction pore pressure of 0 kPa at the bottom and 20 kPa at the top are
generated. This is performed by imposing a head of 0 m at the bottom of the
model and a seepage boundary condition at the top of the column. The middle
and the right hand side pictures show the boundary condition used for later
stages. For t=0 to 4.053 day the middle model is applied, in which a head of 3.0
m is imposed for the head of the bottom boundary, and then the head boundary at
the bottom is changed to 0 m. The seepage boundary condition prescribes a
closed boundary condition as long as the condition remains unsaturated, the
condition changes to a pressure 0 Pa condition when the boundary starts to
become saturated. For this condition, outflow may occur. Staring series O1 sand
model describes hydraulic behaviour of material for which Van Genuchten
relationship is applied. The properties of the soil are given in Table D1.1.
pore pressure.
2. Transient: The bottom head boundary is changed to 3.0 for time until
4.053 day and then is changed to 0. Wetting and drying takes place. Figure
D1.2 and D1.3 show a vertical cross section of the calculated pore
pressures and degree of saturation in time. The results are shown for steps
given in Table D1.2.
Fig. D1.1: Geometry of case D1
94
Tab. D1.1: Input data for case D1

Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Residual saturation
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Ssat
Sres
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]
Value
0.1521
0.5625
98.39
1.0
0.06203
2.286
2.24
0

Step
1
271
360
425
477
523
555
592
670
698
726
Time (day)
Steady state
0.579
1.158
1.737
2.316
2.895
3.474
4.053
4.632
5.211
5.790
Fig. D1.2: Active pore pressure in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
Fig. D1.3: Degree of saturation in time vs height in PLAXIS 2D
Fig. D1.4: Pore pressure at the Gauss point at the top of the column in time in
PLAXIS 2D
95
96
Fig. D1.7: Pore pressure at the Gauss point at the top of the column in time in
PLAXIS 3D
97
Cross-section
2.02E1
1.82E1
Time 0
Time 0.579
Time 1.16
Time 2.31
Time 2.9
Time 3.48
Time 4.06
Time 4.64
Time 5.22
Time 5.79
1.62E1
1.42E1
1.22E1
1.02E1
8.22E0
6.22E0
4.22E0
2.22E0
2.18E-1
-1.78E0
-3.78E0
-5.78E0
-7.78E0
-9.78E0
-1.18E1
-1.38E1
-1.58E1
-1.78E1
-1.98E1
-2.18E1
-2.38E1
-2.58E1
-2.78E1
-2.98E1
0
1
[m]
Fig. D1.8: Active pore pressure in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Cross-section
1E2
Time 0
Time 0.579
Time 1.16
Time 2.31
Time 2.9
Time 3.48
Time 4.06
Time 4.64
Time 5.22
Time 5.79
9.54E1
9.04E1
8.54E1
8.04E1
7.54E1
7.04E1
6.54E1
6.04E1
5.54E1
5.04E1
4.54E1
4.04E1
3.54E1
3.04E1
2.54E1
2.04E1
1
[m]
Fig. D1.9:
Degree of saturation in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Pore pressure
20.072
Point K
19.072
18.072
17.072
16.072
15.072
14.072
13.072
Pressure [kN/m^2]
12.072
11.072
10.072
9.072
8.072
7.072
6.072
5.072
4.072
3.072
2.072
1.072
.072
0
[day]
Fig. D1.10: Pore pressure at the Gauss point at the top of the column in time
(existing PlaxFlow)
98
Summary:
99
7.11 Case D2: Generalised seepage face boundary

Case D2 involves a generalised seepage problem and is shown in Figure D2.1. In
this example the column is wetted from the bottom in opposite direction of the
gravitational force. When the column is fully saturated, the top boundary is
imposed to a harmonic head variation and simultaneously the column is imposed
drainage from the bottom boundary. The left picture presents the initial boundary
conditions from which suction pore pressure of 0 kPa at the bottom and 20 kPa at
the top are generated. This is performed by imposing a head of 0 m at the bottom
of the model and a seepage boundary condition at the top of the column. The
middle and the right hand side pictures show the boundary condition used for
later stages. For t=0 to 4.053 day the middle model is applied, in which a head of
3.0 m is imposed for the head of the bottom boundary and a seepage boundary
condition with constant head is applied to the top boundary. The seepage
boundary condition prescribes a closed boundary condition as long as the
condition remains unsaturated, the condition changes to a pressure 0 Pa condition
when the boundary starts to become saturated. For this condition, outflow may
occur. After this stage (t>4.053 day) the right boundary conditions are plied, i.e.
the bottom head is set to 0 and a seepage boundary condition with harmonic head
is applied to the top boundary. As long as the top boundary is wet, the harmonic
head is applied and when suction occurs the boundary becomes closed. For the
harmonic function, H=0.4 m, 0 = 4.52 rad/day (T=1.39 day) and 0=0. Staring
series O1 sand model describes hydraulic behaviour of material for which Van
Genuchten relationship is applied. The properties of the soil are given in Table
D2.1.
pore pressure.
2. Transient: The bottom head boundary is changed to 3.0 for time until
4.053 day and a seepage boundary condition is applied to the top.
3. Transient: The bottom head boundary is changed to 0.0 for time greater
than 4.053 day and a seepage boundary condition with harmonic head is
applied to the top.
100

Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Residual saturation
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Ssat
Sres
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]

Step
1
163
279
291
331
354
357
360
432
451
470
Time (day)
Steady state
0.579
1.158
1.737
2.316
2.895
3.474
4.053
4.632
5.211
5.790
Value
0.1521
0.5625
98.39
1.0
0.06203
2.286
2.24
0
Fig. D2.4: Pore pressure the top of the column in time in PLAXIS 2D
101
102
Fig. D2.7: Pore pressure the top of the column in time in PLAXIS 3D
103
Summary:
For this case, the existing PlaxFlow does not generate proper results and its
results are different from the results of PlaxFlow verification report. However, it
seems that PLAXIS 2D and PLAXIS 3D are capable of simulating this example
and provide similar results to the above-mentioned report. In the case of PLAXIS
3D results at 4.632 day and 5.211 day are not shown because the harmonic phase
is simulated in one phase.
104
7.12 Case D3: Infiltration boundary, ponding condition

Case D3 involves an infiltration problem driven by a constant influx restricted by
a ponding condition as is shown in Figure D3.1. As long as the soil is able to
handle the inflowing water the boundary flux will equal to the prescribed flux.
As the column becomes more saturated the column capacity will decrease and
depressions in the terrain get filled with water. Under these conditions the
ponding depth gives the driving force. The left picture presents the initial
boundary conditions from which a steady state flow situation is calculated. This
condition generates suction pore pressure of 10 kPa in entire column. The right
hand side picture shows the boundary condition used for later stages. Boundary
conditions change to a time dependent influx given in Table D3.1 (and Figure
D3.2) and restricted by a ponding depth of 0.1 m at the top of the model. The
bottom condition is not altered during the simulation. Staring series O1 sand
model describes hydraulic behaviour of material for which Van Genuchten
relationship is applied. The properties of the soil are given in Table D3.2.
pore pressure.
2. Transient: The top boundary is changed to prescribed flux. Figure D3.3
and D3.4 show a vertical cross section of the calculated pore pressures and
degree of saturation in time. The results are shown for steps given in Table
D3.3.

Tab. D3.1: Prescribed flux
Time (day)
105
Q (m/day)
0.0432
0.2315
0.0432
0.2315
0.0864
0.463
0.0864
0.463
0.1296
0.6944
0.1296
0.6944
0.1728
0.9259
0.1728
0.9259
0.216
1.1574
0.216
1.1574
0.1728
2.3148
0.1728
2.3148
0.1296
3.4722
0.1296
0.25
Q (m/Day)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Time (day)
Fig. D3.2: Prescribed flux

Description
Permeability
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
Unit
[m/day]
Value
0.1521
initial void ratio
einit
[-]
0.5625
Elastic storage
Kw,ref/n
[kN/m2]
487.5e3
Ssat
[-]
1.0
Residual saturation
Sres
[-]
0.06203
Van Genuchten
gn
[-]
2.286
Van Genuchten
ga
-1
[m ]
2.24
Van Genuchten
gl
[-]
106

Step
2
48
95
141
187
234
280
464
692
701
Time (day)
Steady state
0.23
0.465
0.695
0.925
1.16
1.39
2.31
3.45
3.494
107
Fig. D3.5: Pore pressure at node and Gauss point at the top of the column in time
in PLAXIS 2D
108
in PLAXIS 3D
Cross-section
1E1
Time 0
Time 0.232
Time 0.463
Time 0.695
Time 0.926
Time 1.16
Time 1.39
Time 2.31
Time 3.47
9.05E0
8.05E0
7.05E0
6.05E0
5.05E0
4.05E0
3.05E0
2.05E0
1.05E0
4.81E-2
-9.52E-1
0
1
[m]
Fig. D3.9:
109
Cross-section
1E2
9.83E1
Time 0
Time 0.232
Time 0.463
Time 0.695
Time 0.926
Time 1.16
Time 1.39
Time 2.31
Time 3.47
9.63E1
9.43E1
9.23E1
9.03E1
8.83E1
8.63E1
8.43E1
8.23E1
8.03E1
7.83E1
7.63E1
7.43E1
7.23E1
7.03E1
6.83E1
6.63E1
6.43E1
6.23E1
6.03E1
5.83E1
5.63E1
5.43E1
5.23E1
5.03E1
4.83E1
4.63E1
4.43E1
4.23E1
4.03E1
3.83E1
3.63E1
3.43E1
0
1
[m]
Fig. D3.10: Degree of saturation in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Pore pressure
9.597
Point K
8.597
7.597
6.597
Pressure [kN/m^2]
5.597
4.597
3.597
2.597
1.597
.597
-.403
[day]
(existing PlaxFlow)
Summary:
110
7.13 Case D4: (evapo)transpiration boundary, ultimate

condition
Case D4 involves a drying problem driven by a time dependent outflux restricted
by a ponding condition as is shown in Figure D4.1. As long as the soil is able to
handle the outflowing water the boundary flux will equal to the prescribed flux.
As the column becomes more unsaturated the column capacity will decrease.
Under these conditions the evapotranspiration depth gives the driving force. The
left picture presents the initial boundary conditions from which a steady state
flow situation is calculated. This condition generates suction pore pressure of 10
kPa in entire column. The right hand side picture shows the boundary condition
used for later stages. Boundary conditions change to a time dependent outfluxes
given in Table D4.1 (and Figure D4.2) and restricted by an evapotranspiration
depth of -10. m at the top of the model. The bottom condition is not altered
during the simulation. Staring series O1 sand model describes hydraulic
behaviour of material for which Van Genuchten relationship is applied. The
properties of the soil are given in Table D4.2.
pore pressure.
2. Transient: The top boundary is changed to prescribed flux. Figure D4.3
and D4.4 show a vertical cross section of the calculated pore pressures and
degree of saturation in time. The results are shown for steps given in Table
D3.3.

Tab. D4.1: Prescribed flux
Time (day)
111
Q (m/day)
-0.0432
0.6944
-0.0432
0.6944
-0.00043
1.1574
-0.00043
-0.05
Q (m/day)
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Time (day)
Fig. D4.2: Prescribed flux

Description
Symbol
Permeability
kx , ky , kz
initial void ratio
einit
Elastic storage
Kw,ref/n
Ssat
Residual saturation
Sres
Van Genuchten
gn
Van Genuchten
ga
Van Genuchten
gl
Step
2
48
95
141
187
234
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]
Time (day)
Steady state
0.23
0.465
0.695
0.925
1.16
Value
0.1521
0.5625
487.5e3
1.0
0.06203
2.286
2.24
0
112
in PLAXIS 2D
113
in PLAXIS 3D
114

Cross-section
1E2
Time 0
Time 0.232
Time 0.463
Time 0.695
Time 0.926
Time 1.16
9.54E1
9.04E1
8.54E1
8.04E1
7.54E1
7.04E1
6.54E1
6.04E1
5.54E1
5.04E1
4.54E1
4.04E1
3.54E1
3.04E1
2.54E1
2.04E1
1.54E1
1.04E1
0
1
[m]
Fig. D4.9:

Cross-section
3.41E1
3.31E1
Time 0
Time 0.232
Time 0.463
Time 0.695
Time 0.926
Time 1.16
3.21E1
3.11E1
3.01E1
2.91E1
2.81E1
2.71E1
2.61E1
2.51E1
2.41E1
2.31E1
2.21E1
2.11E1
2.01E1
1.91E1
1.81E1
1.71E1
1.61E1
1.51E1
1.41E1
1.31E1
1.21E1
1.11E1
1.01E1
9.06E0
8.06E0
7.06E0
6.06E0
5.06E0
4.06E0
0
1
[m]
Fig. D4.10: Degree of saturation in time vs height (existing PlaxFlow)

Pore pressure
99.635
Point K
94.635
89.635
84.635
79.635
74.635
69.635
64.635
Pressure [kN/m^2]
59.635
54.635
49.635
44.635
39.635
34.635
29.635
24.635
19.635
14.635
9.635
4.635
-.365
0
1
[day]
(existing PlaxFlow)
115
Summary:
The example given in this section is not a practical problem. In this example, it is
intended to extract water from a very dry zone. By imposing a prescribed outflow
boundary conditions, soil in the near of the boundary gets more unsaturated and
the relative permeability becomes smaller and consequently extracting water
becomes more difficult.
116
7.14 Conclusions
Results of 13 one dimensional flow problems, solved by the new PLAXIS 2D
and 3D kernels, are shown in this chapter and most of them are compared with
PlaxFlow results. As seen, results are in agreement in most cases with the results
from PlaxFlow kernel.
For all examples very fine meshes with 15 noded elements in 2D and 10-noded
tetrahedral elements in 3D are used.
The following features have been tested:
1. Hydraulic models. Van Genuchten and spline models have been tested.
It has been found that the predefined parameters of linearised Van
Genuchten relationship do not produce similar results to Van
Genuchten relationship. Therefore, it is suggested to use Van
Genuchten model and not the approximated one.
2. Different material set. The capability of the code to simulate hydraulic
behaviour of soils has been shown for two types of material, namely
sands and clay. It has been found that the models usually need finer
mesh for sands compared to clays, as variation of relative permeability
is higher for sands.
3. Boundary conditions. Almost all boundary conditions have been tested
in this chapter, namely prescribed boundary head, seepage boundary
condition, varying head (in PLAXIS 2D and 3D codes, this is a part of
seepage boundary condition), inflow, outflow, precipitation and
evaporation. The rest boundary conditions, namely wells and drains
are tested in chapter 10 where groundwater flow analyses are verified
against two and three dimensional problems.
4. Automatic time stepping. PLAXIS 2D and 3D kernels use an automatic
time stepping. The kernel calculates the first (critical) time, maximum
and minimum time steps in the beginning of calculation based on
elements size and material parameters.
5. Steady state and transient calculation. Both steady state and transient
types of calculations have been tested.
6. Permeability contrasts. Results of two cases, namely low-high and
high-low permeability contrasts have been shown.
8 Verification of groundwater flow: 2D & 3D
117
8 Verification of groundwater flow: Two

and three dimensional problems
This chapter presents the results of 10 groundwater flow calculations for which a
specific feature of flow problem has been solved. All examples have been
analysed by both two and three dimensional codes (i.e. PLAXIS 2D and PLAXIS
3D). It is intended here to present the most important features of the code and to
verify them against analytical solutions. In some case for which an analytical
solution does not exist the results are compared with the results from the old 2D
groundwater flow code developed by GeoDelft (PlaxFlow). In all cases the Van
Genuchten model is used.
118
8.1 Case G1: Potato field moisture

This lesson demonstrates the applicability of PLAXIS to agricultural problems.
The potato field lesson involves a loam layer on top of a sandy base. Regional
conditions prescribe a water level at the position of the material interface. The
water level in the ditches remains unchanged. The precipitation may vary on a
daily basis due to weather conditions. The calculation aims to predict the
variation of the water content in the loam layer in time as a result of timedependent boundary conditions.
15
15
precipitation
precipitation
0.75
0.50
0.75
loam
sand
Fig. G1.1: Potato field geometry

Staring series B9 and O2 represent the top and the bottom layers. The parameters
are given in Table G1.1 and G1.2, respectively.
Tab. G1.1: Input data for loam layer (B9)
Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]
Value
0.0154
0.754
4.875105
1.325
0.650
-2.161
119
Tab. G1.1: Input data for sand layer (O2)

Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
gn
ga
gl
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]
Value
0.1270
0.62
4.875105
1.951
2.13
0.168
The precipitation fluxes are given in Table G1.3. The threshold values for
ponding and precipitation (evapotranspiration) are chosen as 1 m and 0 at the top
of the boundary, respectively.
Tab. G1.3: Prescribed flux (min = 0 and max= 1 m)
Time (day)
Q (m/day)
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
120
0.035
0.03
Q (m/day)
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
10
Time (day)
Fig. G1.2: Prescribed flux

Due to the symmetry of the problem, it is sufficient to simulate a strip with a
width of 15.0 m, as indicated in Figure G1.3. The thickness of the loam layer is
2.0 m and the sand layer is 3.0 m deep.
The finite element mesh used for the calculation is depicted in Figure G1.3. The
2D and 3D meshes consists of 1032 15-noded elements and 20648 10 noded
tetrahedral elements, respectively.
pore pressure, (the bottom head is imposed to 3 m).
2. Transient: The top boundary head is set to influx.
Active pore pressure and degree of saturation are shown in Figures G1.4 to G1.9
for steady state, after 4.5 and after 9 days.
Fig. G1.3.2D: Finite element mesh (PLAXIS 2D - 15 noded elements)
121
Fig. G1.4.2D: Active pore pressure after steady state calculation (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G1.5.2D: Degree of saturation after steady state calculation (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G1.6.2D: Active pore pressure after 4.5 days (PLAXIS 2D)
122
Fig. G1.7.2D: Degree of saturation after 4.5 days (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G1.8.2D: Active pore pressure after 9 days (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G1.9.2D: Degree of saturation after 9 days (PLAXIS 2D)
123
Fig. G1.4.3D: Active pore pressure after steady state calculation (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. G1.5.3D: Degree of saturation after steady state calculation (PLAXIS 3D)
124
Fig. G1.6.3D: Active pore pressure after 4.5 days (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. G1.7.3D: Degree of saturation after 4.5 days (PLAXIS 3D)
125
Fig. G1.8.3D: Active pore pressure after 9 days (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. G1.9.3D: Degree of saturation after 9 days (PLAXIS 3D)

Summary:
This example has been chosen from the PlaxFlow manual. By comparing the
results, it can be observed that the results from PLAXIS 2D, PLAXIS 3D and
PlaxFlow (see the PlaxFlow manual) are similar.
126
8.2 Case G2: Triangular Earth dam

This exercise illustrates groundwater flow in a triangular earth dam underlain by
an impervious base. On the left side of the dam the water table is at the crest
level and on the right side the water table is at the surface level. The base angles
are 45 and the top angle is 90, Figure G2.1.
Fig. G2.1: Triangular earth dam with a constant head on the left side and seepage
on the right side
In this case the entire slope CB is a seepage surface and no free surface exist,
leading to a confined groundwater flow. Such a geometry and boundary
conditions allow for solving the problem analytically. The solution of the
problem was first introduced by Davison (see Harr, 1962). Here, the total
discharge calculated by the analytical solution will be compared with that
computed by PLAXIS. The total flow through the dam can be calculated as
follows:
Boundary conditions:
Side AC : Constant pressure head (h = constant)
Side AB : No normal flow, specific discharge qy = 0
Side CB : Seepage h = y
A(x,y) = (0,0), B(x,y) = (2L,0), C(x,y) = (L,L)
In ns-system:
h=L
ns
2L
q n = k
dh
s
=k
dn
2L
q s = k
dh
n
=k
ds
2L
127
n = ( x y) / 2
s = ( x + y) / 2
In xy-system:
h=L
x2 y2
4L
q x = k
dh
x
=k
dx
2L
q y = k
y
dh
=k
dy
2L
dq x dq y dq n dq s
+
=
+
=0
dx
dy
dn
ds
Line AB: n = s and q n = q s , q y = 0

Line CD: q x =
k
2
k
2
total discharge Q x = L
Line AC: q n = k
s
2L
total discharge Qn =
Line BC: q s = k
1 kL 2
k
L 2= L
2 2L
2
n
2L
total discharge Qs =
1 kL 2
k
L 2= L
2 2L
2
To compare results obtained from the analytical solution with that obtained from
PLAXIS, a triangular dam, 2 m wide and 1 m high is considered. The head at the
left side is assumed to be 1 m and the coefficient of permeability is 1 m/day. The
geometry of the problem and the finite element mesh are presented in Figure
G2.2. The width of the model is 1 m in the 3D calculations.
Following the analytical solution, the total discharge through the dam at sides CD
and BC is:
Q = 0.50 m3/day/m
128
Fig. G2.2.2D: FE mesh, 15-noded elements (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G2.2.3D: FE mesh, 10-noded tetrahedral elements (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. G2.3.2D: Groundwater head (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G2.4.2D: Groundwater flow field (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G2.5.2D: Total discharge at cross section A-A: Q=0.5000 m3/day/m

(PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G2.6.2D: Total discharge at cross section B-B: Q=0.5010 m3/day/m

(PLAXIS 2D)
129
130
Fig. G2.4.3D: Groundwater flow field (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. G2.5.3D: Total discharge at cross section A-A: Q=0.5001 m3/day/m

(PLAXIS 3D)
131
Fig. G2.6.3D: Total discharge at cross section B-B: Q=0.4982 m3/day/m

(PLAXIS 3D)
To determine the total discharge in PLAXIS, two cross sections have been made
(see Figure G2.1). The cross sections A-A and B-B are along CD and BC
respectively. The total discharges in the cross sections A-A and B-B are given in
Table G2.1 (see Figures G2.5 and G2.6):
Tab. G2.1: Total discharge
Analytical
discharge
error
0.5000
0
PLAXIS
2D
(A-A)
PLAXIS
2D
(B-B)
0.5000
0%
0.5010
0.2 %
PLAXIS
3D
PLAXIS
3D
(A-A)
0.5001
0.02 %
(B-B)
0.4982
0.36 %
Summary:
Apparently the results of both analytical and PLAXIS calculations are similar. It
should be noted that some error may occur during numerical integration in output
program.
132
8.3 Case G3: Confined Flow around a cutoff wall

The following example illustrates the problem of confined flow around an
impermeable wall
Figure G3.1 shows the geometry and boundary conditions of the problem. As
indicated in the figure there is a 10 m wide impermeable dam founded on a soil
layer of 10m thick. The bottom of the soil layer is considered to be impermeable.
A 5.0 m wall is placed under the dam. At the left side of the dam (as shown in
figure) the water level is 15.0 m while at the right side the water level is 13.0 m.
The wall is simulated by means of an impermeable interface. The element mesh
is locally refined around the wall particularly at the tip of the wall. 6 noded and
15 noded elements are alternately used. The problem is also simulated with
PlaxFlow to compare outputs. Permeability of soil is 1.0 m/day.
Fig. G3.1: Geometry of the problem
Fig. G3.2.2D: Finite element mesh (PLAXIS 2D)
133

Analytical solution: A closed form solution has been given for the discharge of
the problem of confined flow around a wall for different geometrical ratios by
Harr (1962). Figure G3.1 shows the closed form solution. In this situation (s/T
=0.5 and b/T=0.5) the solution is:
Q
0.4
k
h
which gives a total discharge of roughly 0.8 m3/day/m.
Fig. G3.3: Closed form solution
134
Fig. G3.5.2D: Flow filed (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G3.5.3D: Flow filed (PLAXIS 3D)
135
136

Analytical
discharge
error
0.800
0
PlaxFlow
PLAXIS
2D
15 noded
PLAXIS
2D
6 noded
PLAXIS
3D
10 noded
0.818
2.25 %
0.815
1.87 %
0.822
2.75 %
0.819
2.32 %
Summary:
PLAXIS 2D with 15 noded elements produces the most accurate result. However,
the accuracy can be improved by refining the mesh.
137
8.4 Case G4: Flow through a sand layer

This example illustrates leakage from a canal into a nearby river through a sand
structure.
Figure G4.1 shows the geometry and finite element mesh for the problem. The
thickness of the layer is 3.0 m and the length is 10.0 m. The bottom of the layer is
impermeable. On the left hand side the groundwater head is prescribed 2.0 m and
at the right hand side 1.0 m. The permeability is 1.0 m/day.
138

Analytical solution: Under the assumption of a hydrostatic pore pressure
distribution for each vertical cross-section the total discharge, Q, through the
layer can be approximated with Dupuits formula for unconfined flow:
Q=k
12 22
2L
where k is the permeability, L is the length of the layer and 1 and 2 are the
ground water head at the left and right boundary, respectively. For the current
situation this results in a theoretical solution of 0.150 m3/day/m.
Fig. G4.4.2D: Flow field (PLAXIS 2D - 15 noded elements)
Fig. G4.5.2D: Total discharge Q=0.1497 m3/day/m (PLAXIS 2D - 15 noded

elements)
139
140
Fig. G4.4.3D: Flow field (PLAXIS 3D - 10 noded tetrahedral elements)
Fig. G4.5.3D: Total discharge Q=0.1531 m3/day/m (PLAXIS 3D - 10 noded

tetrahedral elements)
141

Analytical PlaxFlow
discharge 0.150
error
0
0.152
1.3 %
PLAXIS 2D
15 noded
PLAXIS 2D
6 noded
PLAXIS 3D
10 noded
0.1497
0.2 %
0.1546
3.0 %
0.1531
2.06 %
Summary:
Since the total discharge is calculated in the output program which uses linear
interpolation, the accuracy strongly depends on the size of elements. Therefore
the results can be improved by refining the mesh.
142
8.5 Case G5: Seepage length

The purpose of this example is to determine the length of the seepage face, l, in
an inclined river bank, knowing the location of a point P on the phreatic surface.
The slope of the river bank is at an angle . The location of point P is defined by
the distances L and H, Fig G5.1.

Analytical solution: A closed form solution of this problem is given by Strack
and Asgain (1978) with the following assumptions:
1. The river bank is presented as an infinite slope at an angle
2. Unconfined ground water flows from far away towards the river
bank.
3. The flow is two dimensional, i.e., no flow occurs in the direction
parallel to the river.
4. The permeability is homogeneous and isotropic.
5. Flow is steady
6. The soil is saturated bellow the phreatic surface and is dry above it.
The solution is presented in the form of a chart. This chart plots l/L as a function
of H/L for different values of . For this particular problem, H/L = 0.5 and
=45. Therefore l/L = 0.255.
The Finite element mesh and geometry of the problem is shown in Fig. G5.2. It is
assumed that L =100 m. Therefore the analytical length of seepage face is
l=25.5m.
Fig. G5.2.3D: Finite element mesh (PLAXIS 3D - 10 noded tetrahedral

elements)
143
144
Fig. G5.3.2D: Active pore pressure (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G5.4.2D: Flow field (PLAXIS 2D)
145
146
Tab. G5.1: Seepage length

Analytical
Seepage length
error
25.5 m
0
PLAXIS 2D
15 noded
25.73 m
0.9 %
PLAXIS 3D
10 noded
25.74 m
0.94 %
Summary:
PLAXIS 2D with 15 noded elements produces the most accurate result.
However, the accuracy can be improved by refining the mesh.
147
8.6 Case G6: Muskat problem (Dam with vertical

faces)
In this example a vertical cross section of an unconfined groundwater flow
system in a homogeneous earth dam underlain by an impervious base is
considered (Fig. G6.1). Such a problem is commonly known as the Muskat
problem where the free phreatic surface and the seepage face are unknown,
leading thus to a set of nonlinear equations. Permeability of soil is 1.00 m/day.
3.22 m
hupstream
s
0.48 m
hdownstream
1.62 m

In this section the solution of the Muskat equation for the seepage face (s) has
been compared with the non-linear solution of PLAXIS.
Analytical solution: For Muskat equations, monographs which describe the
relationship between the geometry of the structure, the heads and the length of
the seepage face have been presented by many researchers. Here, the monograph
presented by Kang-Kun Lee and Darrell I. Leap, 1997 (Figure G6.2) has been
used.
The geometry and boundary conditions of the problem illustrated in Figure G6.1
are simulated by PLAXIS as shown in Figure G6.3. The Finite element mesh
consists of 699 15 noded elements with a fourth order of integration. The
groundwater flow field and the active pore pressures and seepage surface are
shown in Figure G6.4 and Figure G6.5, respectively.
148
Fig. G6.2: Monograph for Muskat problem (KangKun Lee and Darrell I. Leap,
1997)
Fig. G6.3.3D: Finite element mesh (PLAXIS 3D - 10 noded tetrahedral

elements)
149
150
Phreatic line
Fig. G6.4.3D: Flow field and phreatic surface (PLAXIS 3D)
151
Tab. G5.1: Seepage length

Analytical
Seepage length
error
1.54 m
0
PlaxFlow
1.68 m
9.1 %
PLAXIS 2D
PLAXIS 3D
15 noded
10 noded
1.63 m
4.6 %
1.69 m
9.7 %
Summary:
As seen the deviation from the analytical solution is pretty high in all cases.
Calculation of seepage face is usually affected by the element size of seepage
boundaries. In this example, where the seepage boundary is vertical, the effect of
the element size is higher.
152
8.7 Case G7: Well

In this example a column of soil with a well inside is simulated. Geometry of the
problem and the finite element mesh is shown in Figure G7.1. Phreatic line is at
the top boundary to generate fully saturated soil. The side and the bottom
boundaries are closed for flow, therefore inflow or outflow can only occur
through the top boundary. The total discharge of well is consider 1 m3/day. This
example is calculated in PLAXIS 2D (plane strain and axi-symmetric) and in
PLAXIS 3D.
Fig. G7.1.2D: Geometry and FE mesh (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G7.2.2D.1: Flow field (PLAXIS 2D plane strain)
Fig. G7.2.2D.2: Flow field (PLAXIS 2D axi-symmetric)
153
154
Fig. G7.3.2D.1: Total discharge leaving the domain; Q=1.0 m3/day/m (PLAXIS
2D plane strain)
Fig. G7.3.2D.2: Total discharge leaving the domain; Q=1.0 m3/day/rad (PLAXIS
2D axi-symmetric)
155
Fig. G7.3.3D: Total discharge leaving the domain; Q=1.0 m3/day (PLAXIS 3D)
Summary:
Figure G7.2 and Figure G7.3 show flow filed and total discharge after activation
of the well. As seen the total discharge is exactly the same as total discharge
imposed in the well.
156
8.8 Case G8: Drain

In this example a block of soil with a drain inside is simulated with PLAXIS 2D
and PLAXIS 3D. Geometry of the problem and the finite element mesh is shown
in Figure G8.1. The block is 50 m long, 20 m high (and 10 m wide in case of 3D)
and the drain is exactly in the middle. The initial water level is at 18 m.
Permeability of soil is 1 m/day and coarse material (from standard data set) is
used for retention curve. Steady state type of calculation is used. The minimum
head of drain is 10 m.
Fig. G8.1.2D:
Geometry and FE mesh (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G8.1.3D:
Geometry and FE mesh (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. G8.3.2D: Degree of saturation (PLAXIS 2D)
157
158
Fig. G8.5.2D: Total discharge in soil; Q=4.473 m3/day/m (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. G8.3.3D: Degree of saturation (PLAXIS 3D)
159
160
Fig. G8.5.3D: Total discharge in soil; Q=4.476 m3/day/m (PLAXIS 3D)

Analytical solution: Under the assumption of a hydrostatic pore pressure
distribution for each vertical cross-section the total discharge, Q, through the
layer can be approximated with Dupuits formula for unconfined flow:
Q=k
12 22
2L
where k is the permeability, L is the distance between the left boundary (or the
right boundary) and the drain and 1 and 2 are the ground water head at the left
(or right) and at the drain boundary, respectively. For the current situation this
161
results in a theoretical solution of 4.48 m3/day/m. Therefore the total amount of

water leaving from the drain is 8.96 m3/day/m. The comparison between the total
discharges simulated with PLAXIS 2D and 3D and the analytical solution are
given in Table G8.1.
Analytical
In soil
drain
4.48
8.96
PLAXIS 2D
15 noded
4.473 (0.16 % error)
8.975 (0.17 % error)
PLAXIS 3D
10 noded
4.476 (0.09 % error)
8.966 (0.07 % error)
Summary:
It can be seen that both PLAXIS 2D and PLAXIS 3D are capable of simulating
drains with a given head. The errors in the total discharge leaving the domain are
quite low in both 2D and 3D simulations.
162
8.9 Case G9: Flow through an earth dam

The following problem illustrates water seepage through an earth dam with a toe
drain. Due to the unknown phreatic level and the unknown size of the seepage
surface the flow is an unconfined flow. The flow net technique can be used to
solve this problem.
The water level on the upstream side is at a level of 12.2 m while on the down
stream side the water level is at the surface level. The coefficient of permeability
of the soil is 1.5210-5 m/sec. Figure G9.1 shows the geometry of the problem.
The material for drainage at the toe is simulated by a relatively high coefficient
of permeability, 0.3048 m/sec. The saturated model is used to describe the
hydraulic behavior of the soil.

Analytical solution: The total discharge as calculated by the flow net is
Q = 4.708 m3/day/m.
The geometry and finite element mesh used for the calculation in PLAXIS is
shown in Figure G9.2. The model is 10 m wide in the 3D simulations. In 2D
calculations both 6 noded and 15 noded elements are used. Figures G9.3 to G9.4
show the active pore pressures and the total discharge at the middle of the dam
for 2D (6-noded and 15 noded elements) and 3D simulations.
163
164
Fig. G9.3.2D6: Active pore pressures (6-noded elements)
Fig. G9.4.2D6: Total discharge at the middle of the earth dam for 6-noded
elements mesh (Q = 4.787 m3/day/m)
Fig. G9.3.2D15: Active pore pressures (15-noded elements)
Fig. G9.4.2D15: Total discharge at the middle of the earth dam for 15-noded
elements mesh (Q = 4.749 m3/day/m)
165
166
Fig. G9.3.3D: Active pore pressures (15-noded elements)
Fig. G9.4.3D: Total discharge at the middle of the earth dam; Q = 4.773
m3/day/m (PLAXIS 3D)
167
Fig. G9.5.3D: Flow field and calculated phreatic surface (PLAXIS 3D)
Analytical
Total discharge
error
4.708
m /day/m
0
3
PLAXIS
2D
6 noded
4.787
3
m /day/m
1.68 %
PLAXIS
2D
15 noded
4.749
3
m /day/m
0.87 %
PLAXIS
3D
10 noded
4.773
3
m /day/m
1.38 %
Summary:
Apparently the results of both analytical and PLAXIS calculations are similar.
168
8.10 Case G10: Non-homogeneous rectangular dam

This is an example used by different researchers to show the capability of the
groundwater flow codes to solve unconfined problems (e.g. Oden and Kikuchi
(1980); Lacy and Prevost (1987); Borja and Kishnani (1991); Bardet and Tobita
(2002)). Figure G10.1 shows the geometry of the problem which is 5 m wide and
10 m high (and 2.5 m thick in 3D). This dam consists of two blocks with
different saturated permeability. Permeability of soil is 1.0 m/day for the left
block and 10.0 m/day for the right block. The left, top and the right boundaries
are considered as seepage boundary and the bottom is closed for flow.
To investigate the effect of retention curve on the results, four cases have been
considered, namely fully saturated, staring set (sand O1), Hypres coarse top soil
and USDA sand, see the PlaxFlow manual. The Van Genuchten parameters are
given in Table G10.1.
2.5 m
2.5 m
K1
K2=10K1
10 m
2m
Fig. G10.1.2D: Geometry, boundary conditions and FE mesh (6 noded elements)
169
Fig. G10.1.3D: FE mesh (PLAXIS 3D 10 noded elements)

Tab. G10.1: Van Genuchten parameters
Data set
Staring (O1)
Hypres (coarse-top soil)
USDA (sand)
Ssat
Sres
ga
-1
gl
gn
[-]
[-]
[m ]
[-]
[-]
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.02
0.02
0.02
2.240
3.830
14.500
0.000
1.250
0.500
2.286
1.3774
2.680
Figure G10.2 shows a comparison of the calculated phreatic levels for the
problem from different codes (Bardet & Tobita, 2002).
The location of phreatic level calculated with PLAXIS 2D is shown in Figure
G10.3 and G10.4 for different types of material. As seen the shape of the phreatic
line (or surface) is affected by the type of material used for the soils. The phreatic
levels in Figure G10.3b and G10.3d are similar to the results of Bradet & Tobita
(2002) and Oden and Kikuchi (1980) while by using Staring sand (O1) material,
PLAXIS 2D provides results similar to the results of Borja & Kishnani (1991).
170
Fig. G10.2: Comparison of phreatic level for non-homogeneous rectangular

dam made by Bardet & Tobita (2002)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. G10.3.2D: Active pore pressures calculated with PLAXIS 2D. In all cases
line L is the phreatic line; (a) fully saturated; (b) Hypres coarse top
soil; (c) Staring sand (O1); (d) USDA sand
171
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. G10.3.3D: Active pore pressures calculated with PLAXIS 3D; (a) fully
saturated; (b) Hypres coarse top soil; (c) Staring sand (O1); (d) USDA
sand
172
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. G10.4.3D: Phreatic surface calculated with PLAXIS 3D; (a) fully saturated;
(b) Hypres coarse top soil; (c) Staring sand (O1); (d) USDA sand
173
8.11 Conclusions
Results of 10 two and three dimensional flow problems, solved by the new
PLAXIS 2D and 3D kernels, are shown in this chapter and most of them are
compared with analytical solutions or PlaxFlow results.
1. Boundary conditions. Almost all boundary conditions have been tested
in the chapter of one dimensional groundwater flow. However,
seepage boundary condition, inflow, precipitation and well are tested
here.
2. Steady state and transient calculation. Both steady state and transient
types of calculations have been tested.
3. Confined and unconfined groundwater flow calculations. Confined
groundwater flow calculations are linear and unconfined groundwater
flow calculations are usually nonlinear. It has been shown that
PLAXIS is capable of calculating both types of calculations.
4. Seepage face calculation. Calculation of seepage face is highly
nonlinear and needs additional procedures. In the case of higher order
elements, as used in PLAXIS, the problem is more difficult due to
irregular distribution of discharge at nodes. As shown in several
problems, PLAXIS is capable of calculating seepage face with a
reasonable accuracy.
5. Drain. The kind of boundary condition has been tested and validated
with PLAXIS 2D and 3D.
6. Element types. Both types of elements, namely 15 noded with a fourth
order of integration for pore pressure and 6-noded with a second order
of integration for pore pressure can be used for groundwater flow
calculation.
174
9 Verification of coupled analysis
175
9 Verification of coupled flow

deformation analysis
This chapter presents the results of 5 two dimensional and three dimensional
coupled flow - deformation calculations and one calculation of gravity loading
based on Bishop stress. In the case of one dimensional consolidation, the results
are compared with analytical solutions but for the rest the results are compared
with other codes like combination of PLAXIS with PlaxFlow (semi-coupled) and
PLAXIS 3D Foundation (recently developed for fully saturated consolidation
based on total pore pressure approach by John Van Esch from Deltares). As the
same flow boundary conditions are used for the groundwater flow and coupled
calculations, here it is not necessary to test all boundary conditions for flow. It is
intended to demonstrate that the coupled flow-deformation analysis is stable and
accurate.
176
9.1 Case CA1: Bishop effective stress

As Bishop effective stress is used in PLAXIS when unsaturated behaviour of soil
is simulated, this example shows the capability of the code to calculate Bishop
effective stress. Figure CA1.1 shows the geometry of the problem. This picture
presents the initial boundary conditions from which a steady state flow situation
is calculated. Imposing a head of -1.0 m at the bottom of the model and 1.0 m at
the top generates unsaturated starting conditions. This condition leads to have a
constant suction of 10 kPa in entire the domain. The corresponding degree of
saturation is 0.3398.
Table CA1.1 gives the input parameters used for the calculation.
2. Gravity loading: To generate initial stress
Fig. CA1.1: Geometry of case CA1
Verfication:
Bishop stress reads:
= + m (S p w )
(1.12)
The vertical total stress at the bottom is:

= h = 2 20 = 40 kPa
As the degree of saturation is constant in entire the model and is equal to 0.3398,
Bishop effective stresses at the top and bottom are:
177
= top S p w = 0 0.3398 10 = 3.398 kPa

top
bottom
= bottom S p w = 40 0.3398 10 = 43.398 kPa
Figure CA1.2 shows the effective stresses calculated by PLAXIS 2D and 3D. As
seen the maximum and minimum effective stresses are -3.398 kPa and -43.40
kPa which are very close to the analytical solution.
Tab. CA1.1: Input data (Linear elastic model)
Description
Elastic modulus
Poissons ratio
initial void ratio
Residual saturation
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Water weight
Soil weight (sat)
Soil weight (dry)
Symbol
Eref
einit
Ssat
Sres
gn
ga
gl
w
sat
unsat
Unit
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[-]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
Fig. CA1.2.2D: Vertical effective stresses (PLAXIS 2D)
Value
10000
0.2
0.5625
1.0
0.02
2.286
2.24
0
10.0
20.0
20.0
178
Fig. CA1.2.3D: Vertical effective stresses (PLAXIS 3D)

The horizontal effective stresses are shown in Figure CA1.3. As linear elastic
model is used, the lateral stresses can be obtained from:

yy
1
xx =
which provides -0.8495 kPa for the top and -10.85 for the bottom.
Fig. CA1.3.2D: Horizontal effective stresses (PLAXIS 2D)
179
Fig. CA1.3.3D: Horizontal effective stresses (PLAXIS 3D)

Figure CA1.4 shows the vertical total stresses calculated by the output program
of PLAXIS. The minimum and maximum vertical total stresses should be 0 kPa
and -40 kPa. As seen the results are very close to the analytical solution. The
horizontal total stresses are plotted in Figure CA1.5.
Fig. CA1.4.2D: Vertical total stresses (PLAXIS 2D)
180
Fig. CA1.4.3D: Vertical total stresses (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. CA1.4.2D: Horizontal total stresses (PLAXIS 2D)
181
Fig. CA1.4.3D: Horizontal total stresses (PLAXIS 3D)
Summary:
As seen the results from PLAXIS 2D and 3D kernels and the output (total
stresses) are correct.
182
9.2 Case CA2: One dimensional consolidation in

saturated soil
Input: Figure CA2.1 shows PLAXIS finite element mesh for one dimensional
consolidation problem. The side and the bottom are kept undrained by applying
closed boundary condition while the top surface is allowed to drain. Initial
effective stresses and initial pore pressures are not generated. To generate an
excess pore pressure, po, an external load Po is applied on the upper surface in
the first phase (plastic calculation) followed by seven consolidation analyses of
ultimate times 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0 and 50 days respectively which were
performed with the coupled flow deformation formulation in PLAXIS 2D and 3D
(based on Total Pore Pressure). Note: Phreatic line is on the top of the model to
generate fully saturated soil.
1. Gravity loading: To generate initial active pore pressure and Bishop
effective stresses.
2. Plastic calculation: 10 kPa is applied on the top of the model to generate
additional pore pressure in the model.
3. Consolidation: Consolidation phases with different time intervals are
performed (ultimate times 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0 and 50 days).
Fig. CA2.1: Geometry and finite element mesh of case CA2
183
Verification: The problem of one dimensional consolidation can be formulated

by a differential equation (Terzaghi, 1923):
p
2 p
= cv 2
t
t
cv =
kEoed
(9.1)
; Eoed =
(1 v) E
; z = h y
(1 + v)(1 2v)
(9.2)
cv t
p
4 (1) j 1
y
2
( z, t ) =
cos (2 j 1)
exp
(2
j
1)
(9.3)
p0
2H
4 H2
j =1 2 j 1
T=
cv t
H2
(9.4)
The consolidation phenomenon will be practically finished when the argument of

the exponential function is about 4 or 5 (Verruijt, 1993). This will be the case
when T 2 .
This analytical solution is indicated along with the PLAXIS finite element
calculation results in Figures CA2.3. As seen, the results from consolidation
based on total pore pressure are more accurate compared to the EPP results. For
saturated soils, the formulations of both types of calculations are the same. The
reason is only due to selecting smaller time steps in the TPP analysis which leads
to calculate pore pressure more accurate.
active pore pressure (kPa)
-5
t= 0.5 day
-10
t= 50 day
t= 0.1 day
t= 10 day
-15
t= 5.0 day
EPP analysis
TPP analysis
t= 2.0 day
Analytical
t= 1.0 day
-20
0
0.25
0.5
distance (m)
Fig. A1.2: Active pore pressure vs height
0.75
184
9.3 Case CA3: One dimensional varying mechanical

loading
This example involves two cases, in which on the top of a column, the
mechanical loads are varying. Different situations have been considered. Figure
CA3.1 shows the geometry and boundary conditions for the problem. The
column is 1 m high. In case 1a, the top boundary is open for flow and in case 1b
the top boundary is closed for flow. In both cases the side boundaries are closed
for flow. The material data are given in Table CA3.1.
1m
Fig. CA3.1: Geometry boundary conditions for problem CA3
Tab. CA3.1: Input data

Description
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Soil weight (sat)
Soil weight (dry)
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Symbol
E
sat
unsat
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Unit
[kN/m2]
[-]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
Value
10000
0
10
0
0.001
0.5
4.95105
The mechanical loading is applied according to the following function (Figure

CA3.F):
185
0 + ( 1 0 )t / t 1 if
c =
1
if
t < t1
t t1
(9.5)
-60
load (kPa)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0
time (day)
Fig. CA3.F: Applied load vs time in problem CA3

Case 1a:
t 1 = 1 day
0 = 0 kPa
1
= -50 kPa
top boundary open
Case 1b:
t 1 = 1 day
0 = 0 kPa
1 = -50 kPa
top boundary closed
This example has also been calculated with PLAXIS 3D Foundation by John Van
Esch. Here the results of all calculations are given.
186
Results of case 1a:
0
-2
-4
0 day
0.49 day
1.00 day
1.30 day
1.52 day
1.91 day
2.60 day
3.10 day
3.76 day
5.00 day
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
elevation height (m)
Fig. CA3.2: Active pore pressure for case 1a (PLAXIS 2D)
- vertical displacement (m)
0.001
0 day
0.49 day
1.00 day
1.30 day
1.52 day
1.91 day
2.60 day
3.10 day
3.76 day
5.00 day
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Height (m)
Fig. CA3.3: Vertical displacement for case 1a (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA3.4: Active pore pressure for case 1a (PLAXIS 3D Foundation)
Fig. CA3.5: Vertical displacement for case 1a (PLAXIS 3D Foundation)
187
188

0
-2
t=0.0 day
t=0.5 day
t=1.0 day
t=1.5 day
t=2.0 day
t=2.5 day
t=3.0 day
t=4.0 day
t=5.0 day
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

0
Uy (m)
-0.001
t=0.0 day
t=0.5 day
t=1.0 day
t=1.5 day
t=2.0 day
t=2.5 day
t=3.0 day
t=4.0 day
t=5.0 day
-0.002
-0.003
-0.004
-0.005
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
189
Results of case 1b:

0
Pore pressure (kPa)
-5
0 day
0.66 day
1.00 day
1.27 day
1.42 day
1.99 day
2.75 day
5.00 day
-10
-15
-20
-25
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. CA3.8: Active pore pressure for case 1b (PLAXIS 2D)
- vertical displacement (m)
0.001
0 day
0.66 day
1.0 day
1.27 day
1.99 day
2.75 day
5.00 day
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. CA3.9: Vertical displacement for case 1b (PLAXIS 2D)
190
Fig. CA3.10: Active pore pressure for case 1b (PLAXIS 3D Foundation)
Fig. CA3.11: Vertical displacement for case 1b (PLAXIS 3D Foundation)
191
-5
t=0.0 day
t=0.5 day
t=1.0 day
t=1.5 day
t=2.0 day
t=2.5 day
t=3.0 day
t=4.0 day
t=5.0 day
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

0
Uy (m)
-0.001
t=0.0 day
t=0.5 day
t=1.0 day
t=1.5 day
t=2.0 day
t=2.5 day
t=3.0 day
t=4.0 day
t=5.0 day
-0.002
-0.003
-0.004
-0.005
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

Summary:
As seen the results from PLAXIS 2D kernel and PLAXIS 3D are similar. The
differences are due to the different time steps used during the calculations.
192
9.4 Case CA4: One dimensional varying hydraulic

loading
This example involves two cases, in which on the top of a column, the hydraulic
loads are varying. Different situations have been considered. Figure CA4.1
shows the geometry and boundary conditions for the problem. The column is 1 m
high. In case 1a, the top boundary is open for flow and in case 1b the top
boundary is closed. In both cases the side boundaries are closed for flow. The
material data are given in Table CA4.1.
1m
Fig. CA4.1: Geometry boundary conditions for problem CA4

Tab. G1.1: Input data
Description
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Soil weight (sat)
Soil weight (dry)
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Symbol
E
sat
unsat
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Unit
[kN/m2]
[-]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
Value
10000
0
10
0
0.001
0.5
4.95105
The hydraulic loading is applied according to the following function. It should be

noted that the following loading is applied after 0.1 day (see Figure CA4.F):
p 0 + p1 p 0 t / t 1
pc =
p1
193
if
if
t < t1
t t1
(9.6)
increase of water head (m)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
time (day)
Fig. CA4.F: Increase of water head as a function of time in problem CA4

Case 2a: Increase of water head on the top and bottom boundary.
t 1 = 0.2 day
0
ptop
= 2.0 kPa
0
pbottom
= 12.0 kPa
1
ptop
= 52.0 kPa
1
pbottom
= 62.0 kPa
Case 2b: Increase of water head on the top boundary.

t 1 = 0.2 day
0
ptop
= 2.0 kPa
0
pbottom
= 12.0 kPa
194

1
ptop
= 52.0 kPa
This example has also been calculated with PLAXIS 3D by John Van Esch. Here
the results of both calculations are given.
Results of case 2a:
0
-10
t=0.000 day
t=0.100 day
t=0.105 day
t=0.110 day
t=0.150 day
t=0.200 day
t=0.300 day
t=0.500 day
t=1.000 day
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

0
-0.00001
t=0.000 day
t=0.100 day
t=0.105 day
t=0.110 day
t=0.150 day
t=0.200 day
t=0.300 day
t=0.500 day
t=1.000 day
Uy (m)
-0.00002
-0.00003
-0.00004
-0.00005
-0.00006
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. CA4.4: Active pore pressure for case 2a (PLAXIS 3D Foundation)
195
196

0
-10
t=0.000 day
t=0.100 day
t=0.105 day
t=0.110 day
t=0.150 day
t=0.200 day
t=0.300 day
t=0.500 day
t=1.000 day
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

0
-0.00001
-0.00002
t=0.000 day
t=0.100 day
t=0.105 day
t=0.110 day
t=0.150 day
t=0.200 day
t=0.300 day
t=0.500 day
t=1.000 day
Uy (m)
-0.00003
-0.00004
-0.00005
-0.00006
-0.00007
-0.00008
-0.00009
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
197
Results of case 2b:
-10
t=0.000 day
t=0.100 day
t=0.105 day
t=0.110 day
t=0.150 day
t=0.200 day
t=0.300 day
t=0.500 day
t=1.000 day
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

0
-0.0005
t=0.000 day
t=0.100 day
t=0.105 day
t=0.110 day
t=0.150 day
t=0.200 day
t=0.300 day
t=0.500 day
t=1.000 day
Uy (m)
-0.001
-0.0015
-0.002
-0.0025
-0.003
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
198
Fig. CA4.10: Active pore pressure for case 2b (PLAXIS 3D Foundation)
Fig. CA4.11: Vertical displacement for case 2b (PLAXIS 3D Foundation)
199
-10
t=0.000 day
t=0.100 day
t=0.105 day
t=0.110 day
t=0.150 day
t=0.200 day
t=0.300 day
t=0.500 day
t=1.000 day
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

0
-0.0005
t=0.000 day
t=0.100 day
t=0.105 day
t=0.110 day
t=0.150 day
t=0.200 day
t=0.300 day
t=0.500 day
t=1.000 day
Uy (m)
-0.001
-0.0015
-0.002
-0.0025
-0.003
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Summary:
As seen the results from PLAXIS 2D and 3D kernels are similar. The differences
are due to different time steps used during the calculations.
200
9.5 Case CA5: Potato field moisture

The example of Potato filed which is calculated by transient calculation, is
chosen for fully coupled flow-deformation analysis (example G1). This lesson
demonstrates the applicability of PLAXIS to agricultural problems. The potato
field lesson involves a loam layer on top of a sandy base. Regional conditions
prescribe a water level at the position of the material interface. The water level in
the ditches remains unchanged. The precipitation may vary on a daily basis due
to weather conditions. The calculation aims to predict the variation of the water
content in the loam layer in time as a result of time-dependent boundary
conditions.
15
15
precipitation
precipitation
0.75
0.50
loam
0.75
sand
Fig. CA5.1: Potato field geometry

Staring series B9 and O2 represent the top and the bottom layers. The parameters
are given in Table CA5.1 and CA5.2, respectively.
Tab. CA5.1: Input data for loam layer (B9)
Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
Value
0.0154
0.754
4.875105
Saturation (saturated)
Ssat
[-]
1.0
Saturation (residual)
Sres
[-]
0.06831
Van Genuchten
gn
[-]
1.325
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Soil weight (sat)
Soil weight (dry)
ga
gl
E
[m-1]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
0.650
-2.161
20000
0.2
19
17
sat
unsat
201
Tab. CA5.1: Input data for sand layer (O2)

Description
Permeability
initial void ratio
Elastic storage
Symbol
kx , ky , kz
einit
Kw,ref/n
Unit
[m/day]
[-]
[kN/m2]
Value
0.1270
0.62
4.875105
Saturation (saturated)
Ssat
[-]
1.0
Saturation (residual)
Sres
[-]
0.06203
Van Genuchten
gn
[-]
1.951
ga
gl
E
-1
2.13
0.168
13000
0.2
19
17
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Soil weight (sat)
Soil weight (dry)
[m ]
[-]
[kN/m2]
[-]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
sat
unsat
The precipitation fluxes are given in Table CA5.3. The threshold values for
ponding and precipitation (evapotranspiration) are chosen as 1 m and 0 at the top
of the boundary, respectively.
Tab. CA5.3: Prescribed flux (min = 0 and max = 1 m)
Time (day)
Q (m/day)
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
202

0.035
0.03
Q (m/day)
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
10
Time (day)
Fig. CA5.2: Prescribed flux

Due to the symmetry of the problem, it is sufficient to simulate a strip with a
width of 15.0 m, as indicated in Figure CA5.3. The thickness of the loam layer is
2.0 m and the sand layer is 3.0 m deep.
The finite element mesh used for the calculation is depicted in Figure CA5.3. The
mesh consists of 735 15-noded elements in case of 2D and 20648 10 noded
tetrahedral elements in case of 3D.
1. Gravity loading: Gravity loading is performed to generate initial stresses.
2. Steady state + Plastic drained: a Steady sate calculation followed by a
plastic drained to obtain equilibrium (the bottom head is imposed to 3 m).
The initial displacement is set to zero.
3. Coupled analysis: The top boundary head is set to influx. The initial
displacement is set to zero.
Active pore pressure, degree of saturation and flow fields are shown in the
following for steady state, after 5 and after 9 days.
203
Fig. CA5.3.2D: Finite element mesh (15 noded elements)
Fig. CA5.4.2D: Active pore pressure after steady state phase (imposing head)
204
Fig. CA5.5.2D: Degree of saturation after steady state phase (imposing head)
Fig. CA5.6.2D: Flow field after steady state phase (imposing head)
Fig. CA5.7.2D: Active pore pressure and external water load after 5 days
Fig. CA5.8.2D: Degree of saturation after 5 days
205
206
Fig. CA5.9.2D: Deformed mesh after 5 days
Fig. CA5.10.2D: Flow field after 5 days
Fig. CA5.11.2D: Active pore pressure after 9 days
207
208
209
Fig. CA5.3.3D: Finite element mesh (10 noded elements)
Fig. CA5.4.3D: Active pore pressure after steady state phase (imposing head)
210
Fig. CA5.5.3D: Degree of saturation after steady state phase (imposing head)
Fig. CA5.6.3D: Flow field after steady state phase (imposing head)
Fig. CA5.7.3D: Active pore pressure and external water load after 5 days
211
212
Fig. CA5.11.3D: Active pore pressure after 9 days
213
214

Summary:
This example cannot be verified. However by comparing the flow results, it can
be seen that the flow response is similar to what calculated with transient
calculation. As displacements are set to zero in the beginning of each phase, the
deformation is only due to change in water pore pressure in the phase. In the
third phase, heave can be seen which is because of raining that leads to decrease
suction and consequently to decrease Bishop effective stress. Results from
PLAXIS 2D and 3D are similar.
215
9.6 Case CA6: Rapid draw down

This example concerns the stability of a reservoir dam under conditions of drawn
down. Fast reduction of the reservoir level may lead to instability of the dam due
to high pore water pressures that remain inside the dam. To analyse such a
situation using the finite element method, a coupled flow deformation
calculation is required. This example demonstrates how coupled flow
deformation analysis and stability analysis can interactively be performed in
PLAXIS.
Input:
The dam to be considered is 30 m high and the width is 167.5 m at the base and 5
m at the top. The dam consists of a clay core with a well graded fill to both sides.
The geometry of the dam is depicted in Fig. CA6. The normal water level behind
the dam is 25 m high. A situation is considered where the water level drops to
only 5 m. The normal phreatic level at the right hand side of the dam is 10 m
below ground surface.
77.5 m
25-5
m
5m
fill core fill
90 m
30
m
40 m
Fig. CA6.1: Geometry of the dam
The sub-soil consists of overconsolidated silty sand. The data of the dam
materials and the sub-soil are given in Table CA6.1
Geometry Model:
The situation can be modelled with a geometry model in which the sub-soil is
modelled to a depth of 30 m. The left hand boundary can be taken 50 m left of
the dam toe and the right hand boundary can be taken 37.5 m right of the other
dam toe. The proposed geometry model is presented in Figure CA6.2 for both 2D
and 3D calculations. For 3D calculations the width of the geometry is taken 50
m.
216
Fig. CA6.2.2D: Geometry and finite element mesh of the dam and sub-soil
(PLAXIS 2D 6 noded elements)
Fig. CA6.2.3D: Geometry and finite element mesh of the dam and sub-soil
(PLAXIS 3D)
The calculation consists of nine phases. In the first phase the dam is constructed.
In the second phase the reservoir is filled up, bringing the water level to the
standard level of 25m. For this situation the water pressure distribution is
calculated using a steady-state groundwater flow calculation. The third and
fourth phase both start from this standard situation (i.e. a dam with a reservoir
level at 25 m) and the water level is lowered to 5 m. A distinction is made in the
time interval at which this is done (i.e. different speeds of water level reduction;
rapid drawdown and slow drawdown). In both cases the water pressure
distribution is calculated using a coupled flow deformation calculation. The
fifth calculation phase also starts from the second phase and considers the longterm behaviour of the dam at the low reservoir level of 5 m, which involves a
steady-state groundwater flow calculation to calculate the water pressure
distribution.
217
Finally, for all four water pressure situations the safety factor of the dam is
calculated by means of phi-c reduction. This leads to the following cases being
considered:
water level remains at 25m.
water level drops quickly from 25 to 5m.
water level drops slowly from 25 to 5m.
water level drops extremely slowly to 5m and remains there.
Material properties:
The material data sets of the clay core, the fill material and the sub-soil are
shown in table CA6.1.
Tab. CA6.1: Dam and soil properties (Mohr-Coulomb model)
Parameter
Symbol
Core
Fill
Sub-soil
Unit
Material model
Model
Mohr-Coulomb
Mohr-Coulomb
Mohr-Coulomb
Type of behaviour
Type
Undrained
Undrained
Undrained
Unsaturated weight
unsat
16.0
16.0
17.0
kN/m3
sat
20.0
20.0
21.0
kN/m3
kx , ky , kz
1.010-4
0.25
0.02
m/d
Young's modulus
8000
20000
50000
kN/m2
Poisson's ratio
0.35
0.33
0.3
Cohesion
5.0
5.0
10.0
kN/m2
Friction angle
25.0
30.0
32.0
Dilatancy angle
0.0
0.0
0.0
einit
0.5
0.5
0.5
Standard
Standard
Standard
(very fine)
(coarse)
(Medium)
n/a
n/a
0.47
Saturated weight
Permeability
Void ratio
Flow data set
Lateral earth pressure
K0
Calculation phases:
Phase 1: Steady state groundwater flow calculation.
Create a closed flow boundary at the bottom of the model
Generate groundwater head conditions at the other model boundaries by
creating a general water level. The left head must be at a level of 25 m
above the ground surface and the right boundary at a level of 10 m below
the ground surface.
Phase 2: Gravity loading
218
Fig. CA6.3.2D: Steady-state pore pressure for high reservoir level (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.4.2D: Degree of saturation for high reservoir level (PLAXIS 2D)
219
Fig. CA6.5.2D: Flow field for high reservoir level (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.3.3D: Steady-state pore pressure for high reservoir level (PLAXIS 3D)
220
Fig. CA6.4.3D: Degree of saturation for high reservoir level (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. CA6.5.3D: Flow field for high reservoir level (PLAXIS 2D)
Phase 3: Rapid drawdown:
In this phase rapid drawdown of the reservoir level is considered.
In the Parameters tab, select Reset displacements to zero and set the Loading
input to Stage construction. Enter a value of 5 days for the Time interval.
Figure CA6.4 shows active pore pressures. It can be seen that, although the
reservoir level has dropped down to 5 m, there are still high pore pressures in the
dam, especially in the clay core. Other output options may be used to view the
groundwater head, the degree of saturation and the flow field. The development
221
of various quantities in time may be viewed using the Animation option or the
Curves option in the view menu.
Fig. CA6.6.2D: Active pore pressure after rapid drawdown (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.7.2D: Degree of saturation after rapid drawdown (PLAXIS 2D)
222
Fig. CA6.8.2D: Flow field after rapid drawdown (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.6.3D: Active pore pressure after rapid drawdown (PLAXIS 3D)
223
Fig. CA6.7.3D: Degree of saturation after rapid drawdown (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. CA6.8.3D: Flow field after rapid drawdown (PLAXIS 3D)

Phase 3: Slow drawdown:
In this phase slow draw down of the reservoir level is considered.
Set the Start from phase parameter to Phase 1.
In the Parameters tab, select Reset displacements to zero and set the Loading
input to Stage construction. Enter a value of 50 days for the Time interval.
Figure CA6.5 shows active pore pressures.
224
Fig. CA6.9.2D: Active pore pressure after slow drawdown (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.10.2D: Degree of saturation after slow drawdown (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.11.2D: Flow field after slow drawdown (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.9.3D: Active pore pressure after slow drawdown (PLAXIS 3D)
225
226
Fig. CA6.10.3D: Degree of saturation after slow drawdown (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. CA6.11.3D: Flow field after slow drawdown (PLAXIS 3D)

Phase 4: Steady state calculation:
This phase considers the steady-state situation of a low reservoir level.
Set the Start from phase parameter to Phase 1.
In the staged construction mode, switch to the water conditions mode.
Generate proper boundary conditions for a steady-state groundwater flow
calculation in the following way:
Make sure that the bottom of the model is still closed.
227
Generate groundwater head conditions at the other model boundaries by

creating a new general water level. The very left side at a level of 5 m above
the ground surface and the right boundary at a level of 10 m below the ground
surface.
Fig. CA6.12.2D: Steady-state pore pressure for low reservoir level (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.13.2D: Degree of saturation for low reservoir level (PLAXIS 2D)
228
Fig. CA6.14.2D: Flow field for low reservoir level (PLAXIS 2D)
Fig. CA6.12.3D: Steady-state pore pressure for low reservoir level (PLAXIS 3D)
229
Fig. CA6.13.3D: Degree of saturation for low reservoir level (PLAXIS 3D)
Fig. CA6.14.3D: Flow field for low reservoir level (PLAXIS 3D)
Phase 5 to 8: Stability calculations:
In Phases 5 to 8 stability calculations are defined for the phases 1 to 4
respectively. Therefore, select the corresponding phase in the Start from phase
parameter and set the Calculation type to Phi-c reduction. In the Parameter tab
set the number of additional steps to 50 and select Reset displacement to zero.
230
Output:
The results of the four groundwater flow calculations in terms of pore pressure
distribution have been shown in previous figures. Four different situations were
considered:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The steady-state situation with a high (standard) reservoir level.

The coupled analysis after rapid drawdown of the reservoir level.
The coupled analysis after slow drawdown of the reservoir level.
The steady-state situation with a low reservoir level.
When the change of pore pressure is taken into account in a deformation

analysis, some additional deformation of the dam will occur. These deformations
and the effective stress distribution can be viewed on the basis of the results of
phases 1 to 4. Here, attention is focused on the variation of the safety factor of
the dam for the different situations. Therefore, the development of Msf is
plotted for the phases 5 to 8 as a function of the displacement of the dam crest
point (see Fig. CA6.15.2D and CA6.15.3D).
Fig. CA6.15.2D: Safety factors for different situations (PLAXIS 2D)
231
Fig. CA6.15.3D: Safety factors for different situations (PLAXIS 3D)

Summary:
Rapid drawdown of a reservoir level can reduce the stability of a dam
significantly. It follows from Figure CA6.6 that using suction and Bishop stress
may increase factor of safety significantly. It has been shown that if Terzaghi
stress without suction is used, factor of safety in case of reservoir at low level is
around 1.6 while this factor is 2.0 if Bishop stress is utilised. It should be noted
that the difference between these two factors of safety is mainly dependent on the
soil water characteristic curve used for the soil layers. As seen in Figures CA6.12
and CA6.13 (both 2D and 3D) the minimum degree of saturation in the core is
around 60% and the maximum suction is around 300 kPa which means that in
case of Bishop stress, the effective stress in this layer is about 180 kPa
(300kPa0.60) more than the corresponding Terzaghi stress. This additional
stress makes the embankment more stable. It follows from the formulation of
Bishop stress (degree of saturation is used in the formulation) that the factor of
safety might be significantly dependent on the SWCC utilised for the unsaturated
soil layers.
In the following groundwater flow results of PlaxFlow are given:
232
Fig. CA6.16.PF: Steady-state pore pressure distribution for high reservoir level
(PlaxFlow)
Fig. CA6.17.PF: Pore pressure distribution after rapid draw down (PlaxFlow)
Fig. CA6.18.PF: Pore pressure distribution after slower draw down (PlaxFlow)
Fig. CA6.19.PF: Steady-state pore pressure distribution for low reservoir level
(PlaxFlow)
233
9.7 Conclusions
Results of 5 coupled flow deformation analyses and one gravity loading with
Bishop stress, solved by the new PLAXIS 2D and 3D kernels, are shown in this
chapter. Some of them have been verified against analytical solution.
1. Boundary conditions. All boundary conditions have been tested in the
chapters of groundwater flow. However, seepage boundary condition,
inflow, precipitation are tested here.
2. Bishop stress: Bishop effective stress has been tested in this chapter
and it has been shown that PLAXIS is capable of calculating Bishop
effective stress.
3. One dimensional consolidation. Results of one-dimensional
consolidation are very close to the analytical ones
4. Safety factor with suction. It has been shown that if Bishop stress is
used, the factor of safety might be higher than the factor of safety if
Terzaghi stress without suction is used. For practical application,
this should be changed and suction should not be considered in
phi/c reduction! For transient from Bishop to Terzaghi, a nil phase
may be needed because of the out of balance force.
234
10 Verification of unsaturated soil model
235

In this chapter two examples are presented to show the capability of the proposed
formulations, which consists of the fully coupled flow-deformation analysis and
the unsaturated soil model. At first some uncoupled numerical element tests
using the Barcelona Basic Model are performed and then the capability of the
coupled analysis and its algorithm is shown by numerical simulation of a footing
problem.
236
10.1 Case USM1: Drained compression triaxial tests at

different suctions
An example presented by Sheng et al. (2003) is used to show the capability of the
constitutive soil model to simulate mechanical behaviour of unsaturated soils. As
the unsaturated model used in the calculation is not the same as the model used
by Sheng et al. (2003), the material data are calibrated. The material data are
given in Table USM1.
To perform the test, the initially saturated soil is isotropically compressed to -24
kPa and unloaded to -20 kPa to produce an overconsolidated soil with OCR of
1.2, (point A in Figure USM1.1). Then suction is slowly increased such that the
total axial and radial stresses are kept at 20 kPa, (point B in Figure USM1.1).
Three different values are applied for suction, namely 0, 100 and 200 kPa. After
applying the suction, the axial stress is increased under undrained conditions
(point C in Figure USM1.1). At this stage, the total confining stress and the
suction are kept constant.
Results:
Figures USM1.2 to USM1.5 show the predicted curves for different amount of
suction calculated with Plaxis 2D. The corresponding results provided by
Gonzalez & Gens (2008) and Sheng et al. (2003) show in Figures USM1.6 To
USM1.11.
Tab. USM1.1: Material properties used for triaxial tests (After Sheng et al.,
2003)
Parameter
Unit
Value
0
s
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa-1]
[m-1]
[-]
[-]
0.3
0.05
0.25
0
0
0.772
1.21
1.0
24
0.75
0.012
1.0
0.5
-1.0
ks
e0
Pr
P0
r
ga
gn
gc
237
Fig. USM1.1: Stress path in triaxial compression test (After Sheng et al, 2003)
70
0 Kpa
60
100 Kpa
200 Kpa
q[Kpa]
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Axial strain
Fig. USM1.2: Shear stress versus axial strain for different suction (Plaxis)
250
200 Kpa
0 kpa
100 kpa
s [kpa]
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
q [kpa]
Fig. USM1.3: Suction versus deviatoric stress q (Plaxis)
80
238

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
p ' [ kp a]
200 kpa
100 kpa
0 kpa
f _line
Fig. USM1.4: Stress path in p-q space (Plaxis)

2.25
2.2
2.15
2.1
2.05
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
p'[ kpa]
200 kpa
100 kpa
0 kpa
Fig. USM1.5: Specific volume versus mean effective stress p (Plaxis)

70
s=0 kPa
s=100 kPa
s=200 kPa
60
q (kPa)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Axial strain
Fig. USM1.6: Shear stress versus axial strain for different suction (Gonzalez &
Gens, 2008)
239
250
B3
s (kPa)
200
C3
s=0 kPa
150
s=100 kPa
B2
100
s=200 kPa
C2
50
A
C1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
q (kPa)
Fig. USM1.7: Suction versus deviatoric stress q (Gonzalez & Gens, 2008)
60
s=0 kPa
s=100 kPa
C2
40
q (kPa)
C3
s=200 kPa
50
CSL
30
C1
20
10
A
0
0
B2
20
B3
40
60
80
p' (kPa)
Fig. USM1.8: Stress path in p-q space (Gonzalez & Gens, 2008)
2.3
s=0 kPa
s=100 kPa
s=200 kPa
2.25
A
=1+e
2.2
B2
B3
2.15
2.1
2.05
C3
C2
C1
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
p' (kPa)
Fig. USM1.9: Specific volume versus mean effective stress p (Gonzalez &
Gens, 2008)
240
Fig. USM1.10: Shear stress versus axial strain for different suction (Sheng et al.,
2003)
Fig. USM1.11: a) Suction versus mean effective stress p; b) suction versus

deviatoric stress q; c) stress path in p-q space; d) specific volume
versus mean effective stress p (Sheng et al., 2003)
It follows from the figures that by increasing the suction, the deviatoric stress
increases. The corresponding stress paths in the space p-q are shown in Figure
241
USM1.2b. It follows from the figure that the stress paths reach the critical state
line at the axial strain 50%.
Summary:
As seen, results from Plaxis are in agreement with the results provided by
Gonzalez & Gens (2008) and Sheng et al. (2003).
242
10.2 Case USM2: Footing problem

In this section numerical simulation of a flexible footing on a partially saturated
soil which collapses on wetting is presented. The fully coupled flow-deformation
analysis is applied. Figure 3 shows the FE mesh and the boundary conditions
used for the analysis. The mesh consists of 575 15-noded triangular elements
with a fourth order interpolation for displacements and for pore pressures and 12
Gauss points (stress points) for each element. The width and height of the model
are 10 m and a distributed load with width of 1 m is applied on top of the model.
The initial position of phreatic line is at 5 m high. This level will be changed
during drying and wetting processes.
In this example, soil is dried so that the suction reaches 100 kPa at the surface
nodes and then the footing is vertically loaded to 100 kPa. After this loading
phase, the soil is imposed to wetting. The top, left and right boundaries are closed
for flow, and drying and wetting are only applied through the bottom boundary
by linearly changing the water head in time (in drying phase, the head reduces
from 5 m to 0 and in wetting phase the head increases to 5 m). All phases are
performed slowly in order to maintain drained conditions (in 1000 days).
The material data of the soil is given in Table 2. For initialisation 100 kPa is
assumed for preoverburden pressure (POP).
Fig. USM2.1: Geometry and FE mesh used for footing problem
243
The results of the fully coupled flow-deformation analysis are shown in Figure 4.
The predicted settlements of the ground surface are plotted in Figure 4a. Figure
4b shows the amount of suction at the centre of the footing. During drying phase
the ground surface settles roughly 9 cm. Applying the flexible footing (the
distributed load) causes the centre of the footing settles 13.6 cm. Wetting of the
soil leads to significantly increase the displacements of the nodes below the
footing while the ground surface at x=10 m settles and rises a little. The
maximum displacement occurs at the centre of the footing, 17 cm. Figure 5
shows the deformed mesh after the loading and wetting phases.
Tab. USM2.: Material properties used for triaxial tests (After Sheng et al.,
2003)
Parameter
sat
dry
kx & ky
0
s
ks
e0
Pr
P0
r
ga
gn
gc
gl
Unit
Value
3
[kN/m ]
[kN/m3]
[m/day]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa-1]
[m-1]
[-]
[-]
[-]
18.0
16.0
0.086
0.3
0.02
0.20
0
0
0.984
1.17
1.0
1.0
0.70
0.012
1.0
0.5
-1.0
0.0
Fig. USM2.2: Footing problem: a) Settlement of the ground surface in time; b)

Variation of suction at the centre of the footing
244
Fig. USM2.3: Deformed mesh; a) after loading phase; b) after wetting phase
245
10.3 Conclusions
Results of one plastic calculation and one coupled flow deformation analysis
using unsaturated soil model (Barcelona Basic Model), solved by the new Plaxis
2D kernel are shown in this chapter. The former one has been verified against
numerical results provided by Gonzalez & Gens (2008) and Sheng et al. (2003).
1. Effect of suction. The effect of suction has been investigated by
numerical modelling of drained triaxial tests. As shown, results are
very similar to the results of Gonzalez & Gens (2008) and Sheng et al.
(2003).
2. Drying and wetting: Drying and wetting have been tested in the
footing problem. It can be seen that the model is capable of simulating
collapse upon wetting.
3. Different calculation types. The model has been tested with both
plastic and fully coupled flow-deformation analyses.
246
247

Numerical modelling of undrained response of soils as used in PLAXIS is
described here. New features have been added to PLAXIS that may affect
undrained analysis of soil, such as the new feature considered for unsaturated
soil modelling. The main difference between the new and the previous versions
of PLAXIS is using Bishop stress in the advanced mode (to describe partially
saturated behaviour of soils) and changing water conditions (as groundwater flow
calculation has been integrated in the calculation kernel the resulting pore
pressures might be input pore pressures for the next phase).
Before describing the numerical modelling of undrained behaviour, the
calculation modes in the new version of PLAXIS should be defined.
11.1 Calculation modes

Three modes have been implemented in PLAXIS which enables the user to
perform particular types of calculations. The calculations modes are as follows:
1. Classical mode: This mode uses Terzaghis stress and is very similar to
the old PLAXIS. The idea is to offer a mode in which old projects can be
modelled. Pore pressures are divided into steady state and excess pore
pressures. Steady state pore pressures are input data, i.e. generated based
on phreatic levels or groundwater flow. Excess pore pressures are
generated during plastic or consolidation calculations. The weight of soil
is calculated according to the position of the phreatic level. Saturated
weight of soil wet is utilised for below the phreatic level and unsaturated
weight of soil unsat for above the phreatic level.
The types of calculations which can be done in this mode are:
Plastic undrained
Plastic drained
Consolidation based on Excess Pore Pressure (EPP)
Dynamics
Free vibration
Phi/C reduction
2. Advanced mode: This mode uses Bishops stress and is suitable for
calculating unsaturated response of soils and for performing fully coupled
hydro-mechanical behaviour of soils. Bishops stress is defined by:
= + m ( p w )
(1)
is an effective stress parameter called matric suction coefficient and

varies from 0 to 1 covering the range from dry to fully saturated
248

conditions. The matric suction coefficient is generally determined
experimentally. This parameter depends on the degree of saturation,
porosity and on the matric suction (pa pw). In the current version of
PLAXIS, this parameter is assumed to be equal to the effective saturation,
i.e.:
= + m(S e p w )
(2)
in which Se is the effective saturation which is a function of the suction

pore pressure. This relationship (i.e. relation between degree of saturation
and suction) is known as Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC).
PLAXIS uses, Van Genuchten, simplified Van Genuchten and user
defined relationships. It follows from the above statements that in the
partially saturated zone, effective stresses may change by changing
SWCC parameters. This causes that the results from the advanced mode
are different from the classical mode, if the user calculates the same
example in the above mentioned modes.
To calculate the weight of soil, the following formula is utilised to
calculate the weight of soil:
= (1 S e ) unsat + S e wet
(3)
The types of calculations which can be done in this mode are as follows:
Plastic undrained
Plastic drained
Consolidation based on Total Pore Pressure (TPP)
Dynamics
Free vibration
Phi/C reduction
3. Flow mode: This mode is for calculating pure groundwater flow
calculations.
The types of calculations in this mode are:
Steady state groundwater flow
Transient groundwater flow
11.2 Undrained and drained behaviour

To generate proper excess pore water pressure in the advanced mode of PLAXIS,
different bulk moduli of water are used depending on the type of material and on
the type of calculation. In the following those cases are discussed.
During the undrained analysis, the changes in pore water pressure, dpw is
calculated based on the equivalent bulk modulus of pore fluid according to:

dp w = K e d vol
249
(4)
Ke is the equivalent bulk modulus of pore fluid and is derived from:

Ke =
Kw
2 G 1 + u
1 +
= Ku K =
n
3 1 2 u 1 2
(5)
where Ku and K denote the undrained and drained bulk moduli of the soil
respectively. G is the elastic shear modulus, is the drained Poissons ratio and
u is the undrained Poissons. n is porosity of the soil.
In PLAXIS, it is possible to use effective parameters for undrained calculations.
The undrained elastic moduli of soil can be related to the effective parameters
according to
E u = 2G (1 + u )
(6.1)
Eu
3(1 2 u )
(6.2)
Ku =
E oed ,u =
(1 u )Eu
(1 2 u )(1 + u )
(6.3)
in which
u =
+ (1 + )
1 + 2 (1 + )
(7)
with
1 Kw
3 n K
E
K =
3(1 2 )
(8)
(9)
Eq. (7) shows the relationship between the undrained Poissons ratio, the
effective Poissons ratio, the bulk modulus of water, the bulk modulus of soil
skeleton and porosity of the soil. It follows form Eq. (7) that if water is assumed
to be incompressible (Kw), then (u0.5) which leads to singularity of
stiffness matrix. Therefore it is assumed u to be 0.495 for fully saturated. In
reality, the bulk modulus of water is very large, but not infinite. The bulk
modulus of pure water (without bubbles of air) is K0w =2106 kPa).
The generation of excess pore water pressure can be studied by means of the
Skempton B-parameter which is defined as the ratio of excess pore water pore
pressure increment to the mean total stress increment:
250

B=
dp w
dp
(10)
By substituting (4) into (10), we have

B=
K w d vol
n dp
(11)
and the mean total stress is

dp = K u d vol
(12)
where Ku is the undrained bulk modulus of soil which can be obtained from
Ku =
2G (1 + u )
3(1 2 u )
(13)
By substituting (13) and (5) in (11) the Skempton B-parameter as a function of

the undrained Poissons ratio (or the undrained Poissons ratio as a function of
the Skempton B-parameter) can be obtained:
B=
(1 + )(1 2 u )
Kw
= 1
(1 + u )(1 2 )
nK u
(14)
u =
3 + B(1 2 )
3 B(1 2 )
(15)
or
As seen, B varies between 1 (for fully saturated conditions) and 0 (for fully dry
condition) when u=0.5 and u= , respectively. Experimental data show that the
parameter B decreases by decreasing the degree of saturation (Figure 1).
In the advanced mode of PLAXIS, the value of Skemptons B-parameter is
unknown but the degree of saturation is known. Therefore the bulk modulus of
water is estimated from:
K wunsat =
K wsat K air
SK air + (1 S ) K wsat
(16)
in which Kair is the bulk modulus of air which is about 100 kPa under
atmospheric pressure. In PLAXIS, it is assumed that pa (air pore pressure) is
equal to 0 for practical application and therefore an artificial and small value (1
kPa) is used for the bulk modulus of air. Kwsat and Kwunsat are bulk moduli of
water in saturated and unsaturated conditions, respectively. Kwsat is calculated
251
based on u which is equal to 0.495 when the standard setting is being used.
PLAXIS always checks the value of Kwsat to ensure that Kwsat is less than the bulk
modulus of pure water (Kw0 =2106).
Fig. 1: Skemptons B-parameter versus degree of saturation

In the following the above mentioned relationships are reviewed in different
modes.
11.3 Classical mode

In the classical mode of PLAXIS, it is assumed that the degree of saturation is 1
when soil is undrained and is 0 when soil is drained in all types of calculation
excepting in the consolidation type of calculation, therefore Ke is either Kw/n or 0.
Thus when the material is undrained, Ke is Kw/n for plastic undrained and Ke is 0
for plastic drained. In consolidation type of calculation, all materials are assumed
to be fully saturated and the bulk modulus of water is calculated according to Eq.
(5) for drained and undrained types of materials. In this case, the mechanical
behaviour of soil is mainly governed by the permeability of layers. Therefore, if
the user needs to reduce the bulk modulus of water in a layer, which is the case
for considering partially saturated soils (degree of saturation less than 1), the user
needs to lower Skemptons B-parameter (Eq 15) in the respective layer. This is
one of the main differences between the new kernel and the previous one (version
9.0). Because in the old kernel, the bulk modulus of water for drained materials is
assumed to be 10% of the bulk modulus of water of the undrained material.
For the newly activated cluster, due to the fact that the soil is not fully saturated,
the bulk modulus of water is neglected to avoid generation of excess water pore
pressure.
252
Tables 1 shows the summary of the bulk moduli of water used in the classical
mode of PLAXIS. As seen, in this mode, the same Kw is utilised for below and
above the phreatic level. This means that, in this mode, it is possible to generate
high excess pore water pressure in the area where lower amount of water exists.
11.4 Advanced mode

In the advanced mode, Kw is reduced in partially saturated zones according to Eq.
(16). This reduction is done for undrained materials in the undrained calculations.
However, it is possible to reduce the bulk modulus of water by reducing
Skempton B-parameter in the material database according to Eq. (15). Therefore
Kwsat is not always based on u=0.495.
Since the degree of saturation depends on the amount of active pore pressures, all
undrained calculations are suction dependent and therefore the global stiffness
matrix has to be updated in the beginning of each load step.
Eq. (17) shows the finite element formulation of the consolidation used in the
advanced mode.
K
S *
i +
0
v
0
p =
0 t H
w
i +
fu
vi
i + t G + t (q i + q ) (17)
p
p
p w
with
S = ( S + t H )
*
H = ( N ) T
V
k rel
(17.1)
k
sat
( N ) dV
T nS
dS
N dV
S = N
n
dpw
Kw
V
G = ( N ) T
V
k rel
q p = N q w dS
sat
w g dV
(17.2)
(17.3)
(17.4)
(17.5)
K = B M B dV
(17.6)
V
T
Q = S B m N dV
(17.7)
C = N S L N dV
V
(17.8)
V
253
(17.9)
The bulk modulus of water appears in Eq (17.3). Here, the bulk modulus of water
is not reduced because the saturation is involved in the matrix S. Therefore, for
partially saturated zones, the storage is reduced according to the degree of
saturation.
Similar to the classical mode, the bulk modulus of water is decreased in all types
of calculations for materials which are just switched on to decrease the generation
of excess water pore pressure.
Tables 2 shows the summary of the bulk moduli of water used in the advanced
mode of PLAXIS.
11.5 Flow mode

In the flow mode, Kw is only reduced in the transient type of calculation for the
materials just switched on to prevent flow in the material which is almost dry.
Similar to the other modes the bulk modulus of water can be modified by
changing Skempton B-parameter in the material database according to Eq. (15).
Therefore Kwsat is not always based on u=0.495.
Tables 3 shows the summary of the bulk moduli of water used in the flow mode
of PLAXIS.
254
Tab. 1: Bulk modulus of water in the classical mode

Classical mode
Type of
material
Undrained
(below and
above
phreatic
level)
Drained
(below and
above
phreatic
level)
Material
just
switched
on
(below and
above
phreatic
level)
Nonporous or
dry cluster
Plastic
(drained)
Kw = 0
Plastic (undrained)
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Consolidation
Safety or
dynamics
(drained)
Safety or dynamics (undrained)
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Kw = 0
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
2 G 1 + u
1 +
1 10 8
3 1 2 u 1 2
Not relevant.
Not relevant.
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw =
Kw = 0
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
255
Tab. 2: Bulk modulus of water in the advanced mode

Advanced mode
Type of
material
Plastic
(drained)
Undrained
(pw<=0)
Kw = 0
Undrained
(pw>0)
Kw = 0
Drained
(pw<=0)
Kw = 0
Drained
(pw>0)
Kw = 0
Plastic (undrained)
K wsat =
Consolidation
Safety or
dynamics
(drained)
Safety or dynamics (undrained)
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Kw = 0
K wsat K air
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
K wunsat =
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
K wunsat =
K wsat K air
256
Material
just
switched
on
(below
and
above
phreatic
level)
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
K w = K wsat 1 10 8
Not
relevant.
Not relevant.
Nonporous or
dry
cluster
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
Kw = 0
257
Tab. 3: Bulk modulus of water in flow mode

Flow mode
Steady state
Type of material
Transient
Undrained
(pw<=0)
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Undrained
(pw>0)
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Drained
(pw<=0)
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Drained
(pw>0)
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
K wsat =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Material just switched on

(below and above phreatic level)
Kw =
2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
Non-porous or dry cluster
Kw = 0
K w = K wsat 1 10 8
Kw = 0
258
11.6 Examples
In this section one example has been chosen to show effects of the new
formulation in generating excess water pore pressures in the advanced mode. It is
attempted to show how the Soil Water Characteristic Curve affects the undrained
behaviour of soil.
Figure 2 shows the geometry of the problem which is 1 m wide and 2 m high.
The initial phreatic level is at 1 m high. This example is performed in two phases
as follows:
1. Phase 0: Gravity loading
2. Phase 1: Activating a distributed load of 10 kPa on top of the model and
doing plastic analysis
Phreatic level
Fig. 2: Geometry and finite element model of the problem

Three cases are studied here, namely fully saturated behaviour, partially saturated
behaviour by using coarse material and partially saturated behaviour by using
fine material. The terms coarse and fine are defined according to the similar
names used in the upper soils of Hypres series, Table 3.1, PlaxFlow manual.
The mechanical and hydraulic properties of the materials are given in Tables 4 to
6. As the Van Genuchten parameter gl is not used in these calculations, because
this parameter is related to the relative permeability kr which is not the case in
this example, it is not reported in the tables.
Tab. 4:
Input data (fully saturated behaviour)
Description
Elastic modulus
Poissons ratio
initial void ratio
Water weight
Soil weight (sat)
Soil weight (dry)
Tab. 5:
Symbol
Eref
einit
w
sat
unsat
Unit
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
Value
1000
0
0.50
10.0
20.0
20.0
Input data (partially saturated behaviour-coarse material)

Description
Elastic modulus
Poissons ratio
initial void ratio
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Water weight
Soil weight (sat)
Soil weight (dry)
Tab. 6:
259
Symbol
Eref
einit
gn
ga
w
sat
unsat
Unit
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
Value
1000
0
0.50
1.3774
3.830
10.0
20.0
20.0
Input data (partially saturated behaviour-fine material)

Description
Elastic modulus
Poissons ratio
initial void ratio
Van Genuchten
Van Genuchten
Water weight
Soil weight (sat)
Soil weight (dry)
Symbol
Eref
einit
gn
ga
w
sat
unsat
Unit
[kN/m2]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[m-1]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
Value
1000
0
0.50
1.1012
3.670
10.0
20.0
20.0
11.7 Case 1: Fully saturated behaviour

Figure 3 shows the results of the initial phase. As this example is done in the
advanced mode, Bishops stress is used (Eq. 2). It can be seen, the results are in
260
agreement with Eq. (2). It should be noted that in this example, everywhere is
fully saturated (S=1.0).
Fig. 3: Results after the initial phase for fully saturated soil: left) vertical total
stress; middle) vertical effective stress; right) active pore pressure
The external load is applied in phase 1 which is a distributed load of 10 kPa on
top of the model. As the material is defined as undrained, this causes to generate
excess pore pressure. Eq. 16 is used for calculating the bulk modulus of water. It
follows from this equation when S=1 the Kwusat = Kwsat. Therefore, there is no
distinction between below and above the phreatic level. The bulk modulus of
water in this example is Kesat=Kwsat/n = 49.5e3 kPa (Eq. 5).
Figure 4 shows the results of phase 1. By applying 10 kPa on top of the model,
the vertical total stress increases by 10 kPa as expected. From the undrained
elastic moduli (Eqs. 6), it can be found that the Eoed,u=50499.99 kPa and therefore
y=v=0.19810-3 and Pexcess=9.802 kPa (Figure 5). The difference between the
total stress and the excess pore pressure is added to the effective stress (10 -9.802
= 0.2 kPa). As seen, the results are the same as analytical solution.
261
Fig. 4: Results after the phase 1 for fully saturated soil: left) vertical total stress;
middle) vertical effective stress; right) active pore pressure
Fig. 5: Excess water pore pressure after the phase 1 for fully saturated soil
262
11.8 Case 2 and 3: Unsaturated behaviour - coarse and

fine materials
In case of unsaturated behaviour, as the behaviour is governed by the SWCC
parameters, here two different types of material are analysed, namely coarse and
fine materials. The mechanical and hydraulic properties can be found in Tables 5
and 6. Usually, the degree of saturation is degraded faster with increasing suction
in coarse material and therefore less excess pore pressure is expected in
unsaturated area.
First of all, results of each case are provided and then the results are compared
with each other. Figure 6 shows the stresses and active water pore pressures at
the end of the initial phase (gravity loading). As Bishop stress is used, to explain
how the effective stresses are calculated, degree of saturation is needed (Eq. 2)
which is plotted in Figure 7.
Fig. 6: Results after the initial phase for coarse material: left) vertical total stress;
Verification:
Bishop stress reads:
= + m (S p w )
As the same weight for dry and saturated soil is used, the vertical total stress at
the bottom can be simply calculated by:
= h = 2 20 = 40 kPa
(2)
263
The degree of saturation is 1 at the bottom and 0.6049 at the top. Therefore
Bishops effective stresses at the top and bottom are:
= top S p w = 0 0.6049 10 = 6.049 kPa
top
bottom
= bottom S pw = 40 1 10 = 30.0 kPa
It can be seen that the calculated results from PLAXIS are the same as the
analytical solution.
It should be noted that the degree of saturation is not linear in the unsaturated
area and consequently the resulting effective stress is not linear in this area
(Figure 6).
Fig. 7: Results after the initial phase for coarse material: Degree of saturation
Figure 8 and 9 show the results of the fine material after the initial phase. In the
same manner done for the coarse material, the results can be verified. As seen in
this case, higher degree of saturation and higher effective stresses are generated
in the unsaturated area.
264
Fig. 8: Results after the initial phase for fine material: left) vertical total stress;
Fig. 9: Results after the initial phase for fine material: Degree of saturation
In phase 1, undrained behaviour is assumed and consequently excess water pore
pressure is generated. As the bulk modulus of water, weight of soil, degree of
saturation and the effective stress are suction dependent, the undrained
calculations are always non-linear in the advanced mode even for linear elastic
materials as used in this example.
The total and effective stresses as well as the active pore pressures of phase 1 in
coarse material are plotted in Figure 10.
265
Fig. 10: Results after the phase 1 for coarse material: left) vertical total stress;
Fig. 11: Excess water pore pressure in coarse material at the end of phase 1.
In the same way done in for phase 0, the stresses can be verified in this phase.
Due to the highly non-linearity behaviour, it is difficult to verify water excess
pore pressure analytically as done for the saturated case.
In Figure 10, it can be observed that the vertical total stress on top of the model is
9.968 kPa which slightly less than the analytical solution, 10 kPa (error = 0.32%).
This difference is due to the non-linearity mentioned above.
266
Fig. 12: Results after phase 1 for coarse material: Degree of saturation
Results of the fine material at the end of phase 1 are plotted in Figures 13-15. By
comparing the results from the coarse and fine materials, it can be seen that more
excess pore pressure (and consequently less effective stress) is developed in the
fine material which is in agreement with reality.
Fig. 13: Results after the phase 1 for fine material: left) vertical total stress;
267
Fig. 14: Excess water pore pressure in fine material at the end of phase 1.
Fig. 15: Results after phase 1 for fine material: Degree of saturation
The results of the coarse material (effective stress, total stress, degree of
saturation, active and excess pore pressures versus depth) are plotted in Figures
16-20 and the results of the fine material in Figures 21-25. It can be seen that,
according to the SWCC used in the calculation, different effective stresses are
developed in the model. As the degradation of the degree of saturation increases
with increasing suction, effective stress in the unsaturated zone are increases and
the problem becomes more non-linear (because the properties of the soil changes
more by changing the suction).
268
Fig. 16: Effective stresses at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step 104) in
coarse material
Fig. 17: Vertical total stress at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step 104)
in coarse material
269
Fig. 18: Degree of saturation at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step 104)
in coarse material
Fig. 19: Active pore pressure at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step 104)
in coarse material
270
Fig. 20: Excess pore pressure at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step
104) in coarse material
Fig. 21: Effective stresses at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step 113) in
fine material
271
Fig. 22: Vertical total stress at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step 113)
in fine material
Fig. 23: Degree of saturation at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step 113)
in fine material
272
Fig. 24: Active pore pressure at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step 113)
in fine material
Fig. 25: Excess pore pressure at the end of phase 0 (step 1) and phase 1 (step
113) in fine material
12 Bibliography
273
12 Bibliography
Alonso, E.E., Gens, A. & Josa, A. (1990), A constitutive model for partially
saturated soils. Gotechnique, 40: 405-430.
Barrera, M., Romero, E., Snchez, M. & Lloret, A. (2002). Laboratory tests to
validate and determine parameters of an elastoplastic model for unsaturated
soils. International Symposium on identification and determination of soil
and rock parameters for geotechnical design. Jean-Pierre MAGNAN.
LCPC.
Bardet, J-P & Tobita, T. (2002). A practical method for solving free-surface
seepage problems. Computer and Geotechnics, 29: 451-475.
Biot, M.A. (1941). General theory of three dimensional consolidation. Journal
of Applied Physics, 12, 155-164.
Bishop, A.W. & Blight, A.K.G. (1963). Some aspects of effective stress in
saturated and partially saturated soils. Gotechnique, 13: 177-197.
Bishop, A. W. & Eldin, A. K. G. (1950). Undrained triaxial tests on saturated
sands and their significance in the general theory of shear strength.
Gotechnique, 2: 13-32.
Bolzon, G., Screfler, B.A. & Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1996). Elastoplastic soil
constitutive laws generalised to partially saturated states. Gotechnique,
46(2), 279-289.
Booker, J.R. & Small, J.C. (1975). An investigation of the stability of numerical
solutions of Biots equations of consolidation. Int. J. Solids Struct., 11,
907-917.
Borja, R.I., Kishnani, S.S. (1991). On the solution of elliptic free-boundary
problems via Newtons method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, 88: 341-361.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J, Broere, W. & Waterman, D. (2006), Plaxis, Finite element
code for soil and rock analyses, users manual. The Netherlands.
Darcy, H. (1856). Histoire Des Foundataines Publique de Dijon. Paris, Dalmont,
pp. 590594.
Dogan, A. & Motz, L. H. (2005). Saturated-unsaturated 3D groundwater model.
I: Development. Journal of Hydrological Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 10, No.
6, 492-504.
274
12 Bibliography
Fredlund, D.G. (1996). The Emergence of Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. The

Fourth Spencer J. Buchanan Lecture, College Station, Texas, A & M
University Press, p. 39.
Fredlund, D.G. & Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils.
New York: Wiley.
Gallipoli, D., Gens, A., Sharma, R. & Vaunat, J. (2003). An elasto-plastic model
unsaturated soil incorporating the effects of suction and degree of saturation
on mechanical behaviour. Gotechnique, 53: 123-135.
Geiser, F., Laloui L & Vulliet L (2000). Modelling the behaviour of unsaturated
silt. Experimental evidence and theoretical approaches in unsaturated soils.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 155175.
Gonzalez, N.A. & Gens, A. (2008). Report: Implementation of unsaturated soil
model in Plaxis.
Harr, M.E. (1962). Groundwater and Seepage. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Jeremic, B. & Sture, S. (1997). Implicit integration in elastoplastic
geotechnics. Mech. Cohes.-Frict. Mater., 2: 165-183.
Kang-Kun Lee & Darrell I. Leap (1997). Simulation of a free-surface and
seepage face using boundary-fitted coordinate system method. Journal of
Hydrology, 196: 297-309.
Lacy, S.J. & Prevost, J.H. (1987). Flow through porous media: a procedure for
locating the free surface. International Journal for numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics. 11: 585-601.
Mualem, Y. (1976). A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated porous media. Water Resour. Res., 12: 513522.
Muskat, M. (1937). Flow of Homogeneous Fluids through Porous Media.
McGraw-Hill.
Oden, J.T. & Kikuchi, N. (1980). Recent advances: theory of variational
inequalities with applications to problems of flow through porous media.
International Journal of Engineering Science. 18, 1173-1284.
Prez A., Rodrguez A. & Huerta, A. (2001). Consistent tangent matrices for
substepping schemes. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 190: 4627
4647.
12 Bibliography
275
Roscoe, K.H. & Burland, J.B. (1968). On the generalised stress-strain behaviour
of wet clay. Engineering Plasticity. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, MA, 535-609.
Schwab, R. (2008). Report: Implementation of total pore pressure approach in
Plaxis.
Sheng, D., Sloan, S.W., Gens, A., & Smith, D.W. (2003). Finite element
formulation and algorithms for unsaturated soils. Part II: Verification and
application. Int. J. for Numerical and Analytical Meth. in Geomech., 27:
767- 790.
Song, E.X. (1990). Elasto-plastic consolidation under steady state and cyclic
loads. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Strack, O.D. & Asgian, M.I. (1978). A new function for use in the hodograph
method. Water Resource Research, No. 14(6), 1045-1058.
Van Genuchten, M.T. (1980). A closed-form equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soil. Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 44: 892-898.
Verruijt, A. (2001). Soil mechanics, Delft University of Technology.
Zhang, C.-L., Krhn, K.-P., & Rothfuchs, T. (2003). Applications of CODEBRIGHT to thermal-hydromechanical experiments on clays. Proceedings of
the International Conference from Experimental Evidence towards
Numerical Modelling. Numerical and Theoretical Approaches Unsaturated.
Volume II. T. Schanz (Ed.). pp: 341-358.
276
12 Bibliography
Appendix A
277
Appendix A
In the following definitions of invariants and first and second derivatives of yield
function and plastic potential used in Barcelona Basic Model are given.
Definitions of invariants
Stress tensor:
ij = p ij + s ij
Volumetric stress tensor:

p = ij
ij
3
kk
3
Deviatoric stress tensor:

s i j = i j p ij
Second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor:

1
1
2
2
2
s ij s ij = ( 11 22 ) + ( 11 33 ) + ( 22 33 ) + 122 + 132 + 232
2
6
1
2
2
2
J 2 = ( 1 2 ) + ( 1 3 ) + ( 2 3 )
6
J2 =
Square root of second invariant of deviatoric stress tensor:

Third invariant of deviatoric stress tensor:
s11
1
J 3 = s ij s jk s ki = s 21
3
s 31
J3 =
s12
s13
s 22
s 32
s 23
s 33
1 3 3 3
( s 1 + s 2 + s 3 ) = s1 s 2 s 3
3
Lode angle:
1
3
3 3 J 3
3
2 J
= sin 1
Derivatives of invariants
First derivatives of invariants:
J = J2
278
Appendix A
p 1
r =
j 3
1
3
J s1
r =
j 2 J
0 0 0
3
s2
2J
s3
2J
s4
J
s5
J
s6
J 3 J J
3 r3 3 r
j
J j
1 J 3 1 J
r = tan ( 3 )
r
r =
j
4 J 6 27 J 33
3 J 3 j J j
1 2
1 2
2 2
2
2
2
3 ( s11 s23 ) 3 ( s22 s13 ) 3 ( s33 s12 )
2 ( s 2 s 2 ) 1 ( s 2 s 2 ) 1 ( s 2 s 2 )
3 22 13 3 11 23 3 33 12
J 3 2 2
1 2
1 2
2
2
2
r = ( s33 s12 ) ( s11 s23 ) ( s22 s13 )
j 3
3
3
2 s12 ( s11 + s22 ) + s13 s23
2 s13 ( s11 + s33 ) + s12 s23
2 s23 ( s22 + s33 ) + s12 s13
Derivatives of gradients to the plastic potential:
mij kl
a) Derivatives of gradients to the plastic potential Qi with respect to stress

vector j
2Q
r r
1 1
2Q
r r
2 1
2Q
r r
3 1
Qi
2Q
r = r r = 2
j
i j Q
r r
4 1
2
Q
r r
52 1
Q
r r
6 1
2Q
r r
1 2
2Q
r r
1 3
2Q
r r
1 4
2Q
r r
1 5
2Q
r r
2 2
2Q
r r
2 3
2Q
r r
2 4
2Q
r r
2 5
2Q
r r
3 2
2Q
r r
3 3
2Q
r r
3 4
2Q
r r
3 5
2Q
r r
4 2
2Q
r r
4 3
2Q
r r
4 4
2Q
r r
4 5
2Q
r r
5 2
2Q
r r
5 3
2Q
r r
5 4
2Q
r r
5 5
2Q
r r
6 2
2Q
r r
6 3
2Q
r r
6 4
2Q
r r
6 5
2Q
r r
1 6
2Q
r r
2 6
2Q
r r
3 6
2Q
r r
4 6
2Q
r r
5 6
2Q
r r
6 6
Appendix A
279
where:
Qi
2Q
Q 2 p p
2Q Q 2 J J
2Q Q 2
2Q
r = r r =
r2 + r
r +
r2 + r
r +
r2 + r
r
j
i j p j i p j J j i J j j i j
1
424
3
0
1
s12
3
3J 4 J
2J
=
i j
1 s1 s 2
6J 4 J 3
1
s2
23
3J 4 J
1 s1 s 3
6J 4 J 3
1 s 2 s3
6J 4 J 3
s2
1
33
3J 4 J
s1s12
2J 3
s s
2 123
2J
ss
3 123
2J
1 s122
J J3
SYM
s1s13
2J 3
ss
2 133
2J
ss
3 133
2J
s s
12 13
2J 3
1 s132
J J3
s1s 23
2J 3
ss
2 233
2J
s 3 s 23
2J 3
s12 s 23
2J 3
s13 s 23
2J 3
2
1 s 23
3
J J
sin 2 J 3 J 3 1 + cos 2 J J
2
2
= tan 2
+
r =
2
j2 ij kl
cos 2 ij kl
J 3 cos ij kl
J J 3 J 3 J
+
2
cos JJ 3 ij kl ij kl
1
1 2 J3
1 2 J
+
J 3 ij kl J ij kl
1 J 3 1 J
r
r
2
3 J 3 j J j 1 J 3 1 J tan 3
+
r = tan 3
r
r
r
r
j
j
j2
3 J 3 j J j
144424443 14442444
424
3
3 1
A66
B61
where:
1
1
2
3J3 1 J
1 J 3 J 3
J
J
=
r2 + r r
r2 r2 r
3 J 3 j j
j
J j j
j
2
A66
C61
280
Appendix A
2
3 s1
2s
3 3
2
s
2J3 3 2
r =
j2 2
s12
3
2
3 s13
4 s
23
3
2
s3
3
2
s2
3
2
s1
3
2
s12
3
4
s13
3
2
s 23
3
2
s2
3
2
s1
3
2
s3
3
4
s12
3
2
s13
3
2
s 23
3
2
s12
3
2
s12
3
4
s12
3
2
s13
3
4
s13
3
2
s13
3
2 s 3
2 s 23
2 s 23
2 s 2
2 s13
2 s12
4 T
s 23
3
2
s 23
2
s 23
3
2 s13
2 s12
2 s1
J 3
J 3
1
r
r
1
j
j
3J 3 ( 3J 3 )
= 3
= 2
r =
r
3J3
j
j
( 3 J 3 )2
tan 3
2
r = 3 (1 + tan 3 ) r
j
j
b) Derivatives of gradients to the plastic potential Qi with respect to

hardening parameters j
2Q
r
11
2Q
r
2 1
2Q
r
31
Qi
2Q
= r
=
j
i j 2Q
r
4 1
2
Q
r5 1
2
Q
r
6 1
where,
2Q
Q 2 p
p
2Q Q 2 J
J
2Q Q 2
2Q
=
+ r
+
+ r
+
+ r
r
r
r
r
i j p i j i p j J i j i J j i j i j
123
123
123
0
Appendix A
281
First and second derivatives of yield function and

plastic potential
First derivatives:
F G g ( )
2
=
=
M ( 2 p + ps Pc )
p p g ( 30 )
2
F
= 6J ;
J
G
= 6 J
J
2 g ( ) M 2 ( p + ps )( Pc p )
F
G
=
=
2
g ( ) g ( )
g ( 30 )
cos sin
sin sin +
g ( )
3
=
2
sin sin
cos +
g ( )
F G
=
=
M 2 ( p + ps )
2
Pc Pc
g ( 30 )
o* *
P s* * *
Pr o
o * )
(
P
Pc
= r *
Po
( s * ) Po
P
Pc ( o* * ) o* (1 r ) exp ( s ) ln o
Pc
Pr
=
2
s
( s* * )
g ( )
F G
2
=
=
M ( Pc p )
ps ps
g ( 30 )
2
ps
= s
s
Second derivatives:
g ( )
2 F
2
= 2
M
2
p
g ( 30 )
2
a) p:
2 F
=0
pJ
282
Appendix A
g ( )
F
= 2
p
g ( 30 )
2
cos sin
M 2 ( Pc 2 p ps ) sin +
sin sin
cos +
g ( )
2 F
2 Pc
=
M
pPo
Po
g ( 30 )
2
b) J
2 F
=0
J p
2 F
2G
=
6;
= 6
J 2
J 2
2 F
=0
J
2 F
=0
J Pc
c)
2 F
2 F
=
p p
2 F
=0
J
g ( )
F
= 6
g ( 30 )
2
g ( )
2
g ( 30 )
cos sin
M 2 ( p + ps )( Pc p ) sin +
+
2
sin sin
cos
+
sin sin
M 2 ( p + ps )( Pc p ) cos
sin sin
cos +
cos sin
M 2 ( p + ps ) sin +
g ( )
F
3
Pc
= 2
sin sin
Pc
Po
g ( 30 )
cos +
Appendix B
283
Appendix B
Here it is shown how Skempton B-parameter, the undrained Poissons ratio u
and the equivalent bulk modulus of pore fluid Kw/n can be derived if one of them
is known.
Note: In all cases, the effective Poissons ratio ' and shear stiffness G are
known.
Case 1:
Parameters
Conditions
Known
B
0 B 0.995
Unknown
u, Kw/n
' u 0.4988
Step 1: Calculate the undrained Poissons ratio u

u =
3 + B(1 2 )
3 B(1 2 )
(15)
Step 2: the equivalent bulk modulus of pore fluid Kw/n

K w 2 G 1 + u
1 +
n
3 1 2 u 1 2
(5)
Case 2:
Known
Parameters
Conditions
' u 0.4988
Unknown
B, Kw/n
0 B 0.995
Step 1: Calculate Skempton B-parameter

B = 1
(1 + )(1 2 u )
(1 + u )(1 2 )
(14)
Step 2: the equivalent bulk modulus of pore fluid Kw/n

K w 2 G 1 + u
1 +
3 1 2 u 1 2
n
(5)
284
Appendix B
Case 3:
Parameters
Conditions
Known
Unknown
Kw/n
B, u
Kw 2 G
1 +
624.5
n
3
1 2
0 B 0.995
' u 0.4988
Step 1: Calculate the undrained Poissons ratio u

u =
1
2 + 1
where
=
2 G K w 1 +
+
3
n 1 2
Step 2: Calculate Skempton B-parameter

B = 1
(1 + )(1 2 u )
(1 + u )(1 2 )
(14)
Appendix C
Here it is shown how to convert old PlaxFlow material data set to the new one. In
the new material data set, Csat is removed because it can simply be derived from
the equivalent bulk modulus of water Kw/n and water weight w:
C sat =
n w
Kw
(1)
and
K w 2 G 1 + u
1 +
n
3 1 2 u 1 2
(2)
or
Kw
E 1 + u
1 +
n
3(1 + ) 1 2 u 1 2
(3)
Therefore:
E =
(4)
C sat
in which
=
1 + u
1
1 +
3(1 + ) 1 2 u 1 2
(5)
How to convert:
Step 1: Choose linear elastic material.
Step 2: Choose Undrained (A) as type of drainage.
Step 3: Set =0.3 and u=0.495 (standard setting of undrained behaviour).
Step 4: Calculate :
=
1 + u
1
1 +
3(1 + ) 1 2 u 1 2
Step 5: Calculate E:
E =
C sat

Galavi Groundwater Flow and Coupled Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Galavi Groundwater Flow and Coupled Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Galavi Groundwater Flow and Coupled Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Internal Report

Groundwater flow, fully coupled flow deformation

Finite element formulations

Barcelona Basic model

Groundwater flow verification: 1D

Groundwater flow verification: 2D & 3D

Coupled analysis verification

10 Unsaturated soil model verifications

11 Undrained analysis in PLAXIS

1.1 Basic equations

The volumetric moisture content is:

The density of the multiphase medium is:

The stress state of the groundwater can be expressed in terms of groundwater

The differential operator corresponding to the definitions of engineering strains

1.2 Unsaturated soil behaviour

In most practical applications, osmotic suction does not exist, therefore:

1.4 Bishop effective stress

and for a fully dry soil ( = 0) the effective stress is

in which Se is the effective saturation which is a function of the suction pore

where q is the specific discharge (fluid velocity), and mint is:

which can be also written as:

where kint is:

In soil mechanics the coefficient of permeability kisat (or hydraulic conductivity)

In an unsaturated state the coefficient of permeability depends on the soil

The basic form of Darcys law is:

where ksat is the saturated permeability matrix.

2.2 Compressibility of water

where S = degree of saturation; w = compressibility of pure water (4.5810-7

2.3 Continuity equation

The right hand side of equation (2.15) can be written as:

Introducing the definition of water compressibility, we have

The time derivative of the equation is

The term representing the changes in porosity is composed of:

2.4 Steady state and transient groundwater flow

The above equation is a form of the well-known Richards equation which

where Kx, Ky and Kz are permeability coefficients in x, y and z directions,

The compressibility of soil particles can be neglected, therefore:

The term C(h) in the Richards equation can be expanded as:

This equation expresses that there is no net inflow or outflow in an elementary

Fig. 2.1: Illustration of the continuity condition

2.5 Deformation equations

is the density of the multiphase medium, g is a vector containing the gravity

Rewriting the effective stress equation (1.12) in incremental form as:

The constitutive relation using effective stresses is written as:

3 Finite element formulation

3 Finite element formulation

Substitution of (3.1) in (2.33) gives:

Equation (3.5) can be reformulated in discretised form as:

with the residual force vector r i 1 :

3 Finite element formulation

By substituting Eq. (3.11) in Eq. (3.7) one obtains:

Substitution of the stress-strain relationship (Eq. 2.35) in Eq. (3.12), we have:

3 Finite element formulation

3.2 Flow problem

3 Finite element formulation

For transient calculation displacements of particles can be neglected. Therefore

3.3 Coupled problem

3.4 Solving procedure

3 Finite element formulation