SEEP/W can model simple saturated steady-stateWhat is a Saturated Solution - Preparation, Types & Examples. Results from other SEEP/W analyses, defined spatial functions or draw an initial water.A comparison of the inflow rate predicted by the SEEP/W model and calculated by the analytical Equations 3 and 4 are presented in Table 1. As it is evident from Table 1, the calculated errors in related to the analytical Equation 4 is less than 1.
Is recommended that the Seep/W user’s manual be reviewed. The manual includes twoSEEP-W Session 14- Transient Drawdown Example. SEEP-W Session 3- Material Properties. Supplementary material, including PowerPoint presentations, handouts, and a manual on how to utilize SEEP/W, are provided with this thesisLearn the basics of SEEP/W with this introductory video. SEEP/W Example File: Modeling drains.docx (pdf) (gsz) Page 3 of 3 Figure 3 Flow regime with drain in place 6 Large drains If the drain is large in the context of the flow domain, the drain can be modeled as a circular open in the mesh as illustrated in Figure 4.
Table 1 Lambe and Whitman weight computations SliceTable 2 presents Lambe and Whitman’s calculation for determining the Ordinary factor of safety. The total weight of the sliding mass is about 26,500 lbs. The slip surface is assumed to be circular, with a radius of 30 feet from the center, and the pore-water pressure conditions for the slope are characterized by a flow net.Figure 1 Stability of slope with an underdrain (after Lambe and Whitman)SLOPE/W Example File: Comparison with hand calculations.doc (pdf) (gsz)Lambe and Whitman divide the entire sliding mass into nine slices with each slice width, average height and weight calculated as shown in Table 1. The material of the slope is homogenous with c = 90 psf, φ = 32 and γ = 125 pcf. The slope is 20 feet high, with a slope of 1 vertical to 1.5 horizontal.
Seep W Examples Trial Value Of
Figure 2 shows the same slope as modeled by SLOPE/W. Since the trial value of 1.25 is too low and the trial value of 1.35 is too high, the correct value using the Bishop Simplified method is between 1.25 and 1.35.The same problem is analyzed using SLOPE/W. Table 3 Lambe and Whitman calculation of the Bishop Simplified factor of safety (1)As shown in the above calculations, a trial factor of safety of 1.25 results in a computed factor of safety of 1.29, and a trial factor of safety of 1.35 results in a computed value of 1.31. The computations and results are presented in Table 3. Table 2 Lambe and Whitman calculation of the Ordinary factor of safety cosθiLambe and Whitman also compute the Bishop’s Simplified factor of safety using a trial and error approach.
Nine slices are also used in the analysis. SLOPE/W computes the factor of safety to be 1.208 using the Ordinary method and 1.344 using the Bishop method. Some extra points along the lower region boundary are added to control the slice discretization.
The small difference is due to the difference in the way the slice weight is computed. As a result, the total sliding mass is slightly less than the total sliding mass used by Lambe and Whitman.Figure 2 Factor of safety for the Ordinary method using SLOPE/WFigure 3 Factor of safety for the Simplified Bishop method using SLOPE/WSLOPE/W gives essentially the same factor of safety as the hand calculated solution by Lambe and Whitman. In SLOPE/W, a straight line is assumed at the base of a slice and the vertical height of a slice is computed from the ground surface to the base center on the straight line. The slices modeled by SLOPE/W are very similar, but not exactly the same as those used by Lambe and Whitman. The total weight of the sliding mass is 26,040 lbs.
0 kommentar(er)
