SEEPW 2007 Engineering Book

Seepage Modeling with
SEEP/W 2007
An Engineering Methodology
Fourth Edition, February 2010
GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
Copyright 2010 by GEO-SLOPE International, Ltd.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of GEO-SLOPE International, Ltd.
Printed in Canada.
GEO-SLOPE International Ltd

1400, 633 6th Ave SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 2Y5
E-mail: info@geo-slope.com
Web: http://www.geo-slope.com
SEEP/W
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ............................................................. 1
Numerical Modeling: What, Why and How ............. 5

2.1
Introduction .................................................................................. 5
2.2
What is a numerical model? ........................................................ 6
2.3
Modeling in geotechnical engineering ......................................... 8
2.4
Why model? ............................................................................... 11

Quantitative predictions ....................................................... 11
Compare alternatives .......................................................... 14
Identify governing parameters............................................. 15
Discover & understand physical process - train our thinking16
2.5
How to model ............................................................................. 21

Make a guess ...................................................................... 21
Simplify geometry ................................................................ 24
Start simple ......................................................................... 25
Do numerical experiments .................................................. 26
Model only essential components ....................................... 27
Start with estimated material properties .............................. 30
Interrogate the results ......................................................... 30
Evaluate results in the context of expected results ............. 31
Remember the real world .................................................... 31
2.6
How not to model ....................................................................... 32
2.7
Closing remarks ......................................................................... 33
Geometry and Meshing......................................... 35

3.1
Introduction ................................................................................ 35
3.2
Geometry objects in GeoStudio ................................................. 37
Page i
Table of Contents
SEEP/W
Soil regions, points and lines .............................................. 38

Free points .......................................................................... 40
Free lines ............................................................................. 41
Interface elements on lines ................................................. 43
Circular openings ................................................................ 45
3.3
Mesh generation ........................................................................ 46

Structured mesh .................................................................. 47
Unstructured quad and triangle mesh ................................. 47
Unstructured triangular mesh .............................................. 48
Triangular grid regions ........................................................ 49
Rectangular grid of quads ................................................... 50
3.4
Surface layers ............................................................................ 50
3.5
Joining regions ........................................................................... 55
3.6
Meshing for transient analyses .................................................. 57
3.7
Finite elements........................................................................... 57
3.8
Element fundamentals ............................................................... 58

Element nodes .................................................................... 58
Field variable distribution .................................................... 59
Element and mesh compatibility ......................................... 61
Numerical integration .......................................................... 63
Secondary variables ............................................................ 64
3.9
Infinite regions............................................................................ 65
3.10
General guidelines for meshing ................................................. 68

Number of elements ............................................................ 68
Effect of drawing scale ........................................................ 69
Mesh purpose...................................................................... 70
Simplified geometry ............................................................. 72
Page ii
SEEP/W
Table of Contents
Material Models and Properties ............................ 75

4.1
Soil behavior models ................................................................. 75

Material models in SEEP/W ................................................ 75
4.1
Soil water storage water content function............................... 76

Factors affecting the volumetric water content ................... 79
4.2
Storage function types and estimation methods........................ 80

Estimation method 1 (grain size - Modified Kovacs) ........... 80
Estimation method 2 (sample functions) ............................. 84
Closed form option 1 (Fredlund and Xing, 1994) ................ 85
Closed form option 2 (Van Genuchten, 1980) .................... 86
4.3
Soil material function measurement .......................................... 87

Direct measurement of water content function ................... 88
mv ) .............................. 89
4.4
Coefficient of volume compressibility (
4.5
Hydraulic conductivity ................................................................ 90
4.6
Frozen ground hydraulic conductivity ........................................ 94
4.7
Conductivity function estimation methods ................................. 96

Method 1 (Fredlund et al, 1994) .......................................... 97
Method 2 (Green and Corey, 1971) .................................... 98
Method 3 (Van Genuchten, 1980) ..................................... 100
4.8
Interface model parameters ..................................................... 102
4.9
Storativity and transmissivity ................................................... 102
4.10
Sensitivity of hydraulic results to material properties............... 104

Changes to the air-entry value (AEV) ............................... 104
Changes to the saturated hydraulic conductivity .............. 107
Changes to the slope of the VWC function ....................... 110
Changes to the residual volumetric water content ............ 112
Page iii
Table of Contents
SEEP/W
Boundary Conditions........................................... 115

5.1
Introduction .............................................................................. 115
5.2
Fundamentals .......................................................................... 116
5.3
Boundary condition locations ................................................... 118

Region face boundary conditions ...................................... 120
5.4
Head boundary conditions ....................................................... 120

Definition of total head ...................................................... 120
Head boundary conditions on a dam ................................ 123
Constant pressure conditions............................................ 125
Far field head conditions ................................................... 126
5.5
Specified boundary flows ......................................................... 128
5.6
Sources and sinks ................................................................... 132
5.7
Seepage faces ......................................................................... 133
5.8
Free drainage (unit gradient) ................................................... 136
5.9
Ground surface infiltration and evaporation............................. 138
5.10
Far field boundary conditions................................................... 140
5.11
Boundary functions .................................................................. 142

General .............................................................................. 143
Head versus time .............................................................. 143
Head versus volume.......................................................... 146
Nodal flux Q versus time ................................................... 148
Unit flow rate versus time .................................................. 149
Modifier function ................................................................ 150
Analysis Types .................................................... 153

6.1
Steady state ............................................................................. 153

Boundary condition types in steady state ......................... 154
6.2
Transient .................................................................................. 155

Initial conditions ................................................................. 155
Page iv
SEEP/W
Table of Contents
Drawing the initial water table ........................................... 157

Activation values ............................................................... 158
Spatial function for the initial conditions ............................ 158
No initial condition ............................................................. 159
6.3
Time stepping - temporal integration ....................................... 159

Finite element temporal integration formulation ................ 159
Problems with time step sizes ........................................... 160
General rules for setting time steps .................................. 161
Adaptive time stepping ...................................................... 162
6.4
Staged / multiple analyses ....................................................... 163
6.5
Axisymmetric............................................................................ 164
6.6
Plan view (confined aquifer only) ............................................. 166
Functions in GeoStudio....................................... 169

7.1
Spline functions ....................................................................... 169

Slopes of spline functions ................................................. 170
7.2
Linear functions ....................................................................... 171
7.3
Step functions .......................................................................... 172
7.4
Closed form curve fits for water content functions................... 174
7.5
Add-in functions ....................................................................... 174
7.6
Spatial functions ...................................................................... 177
Numerical Issues ................................................ 179

8.1
Convergence............................................................................ 180
Option 1: Vector norm of nodal heads .............................. 180
Option 2: Gauss point conductivity difference ................... 181
Viewing convergence process .......................................... 182
8.2
Water balance error in a transient analysis ............................. 186
8.3
Steep material property functions ............................................ 188
Page v
Table of Contents
8.4
SEEP/W
Improving convergence ........................................................... 190

Conductivity function control parameters .......................... 190
Slope of water content function ......................................... 191
8.5
Gauss integration order ........................................................... 192
8.6
Equation solvers (direct or parallel direct) ............................... 194
8.7
Time stepping .......................................................................... 194

Automatic adaptive time stepping ..................................... 195
Flow nets, seepage forces, and exit gradients .... 199

9.1
Flow nets.................................................................................. 199

Equipotential lines ............................................................. 200
Flow paths ......................................................................... 201
Flow channels ................................................................... 202
Flow quantities .................................................................. 205
Uplift pressures ................................................................. 206
Limitations ......................................................................... 207
9.2
Seepage forces ........................................................................ 208

Forces on a soil element ................................................... 209
9.3
Exit gradients ........................................................................... 210

Gradients ........................................................................... 210
Critical gradients................................................................ 210
Geometry considerations .................................................. 211
Effective stress and soil strength ...................................... 215
Flow velocity ...................................................................... 216
9.4
10
Concluding remarks ................................................................. 217
Visualization of Results ....................................... 219

10.1
Transient versus steady state results ...................................... 219
10.2
Node and element information................................................. 220
Page vi
SEEP/W
Table of Contents
10.3
Graphing node and gauss Data ............................................... 223
10.4
None values........................................................................... 225
10.5
Water table............................................................................... 226
10.6
Isolines ..................................................................................... 226
10.7
Projecting Gauss point values to nodes .................................. 226
10.8
Contours .................................................................................. 228
10.9
Animation in GeoStudio 2007 .................................................. 229
10.10 Velocity vectors and flow paths ............................................... 229

Calculating gradients and velocities .................................. 229
Velocity vectors ................................................................. 231
Flow paths ......................................................................... 231
10.11 Flux sections ............................................................................ 233
Flux section theory ............................................................ 233
Flux section application ..................................................... 236
11
12
Modeling Tips and Tricks .................................... 239

11.1
Introduction .............................................................................. 239
11.2
Problem engineering units ....................................................... 239
11.3
Flux section location ................................................................ 240
11.4
Drain flux values ...................................................................... 241
11.5
Unit flux versus total flux? ........................................................ 242
11.6
Flow above phreatic line .......................................................... 243
11.7
Pressure boundary with depth ................................................. 244
11.8
Summing graphed data ........................................................... 245
Illustrative Examples ........................................... 249

12.1
Homogeneous dam with toe drain ........................................... 250
12.2
Steady state flow under a cutoff wall ....................................... 251
12.3
Steady state flow under a cutoff wall with anisotropy .............. 252
Page vii
Table of Contents
SEEP/W
12.4
Seepage through a dam core with varying Ksat values .......... 253
12.5
SEEP/W generated pore-water pressures in SLOPE/W stability

analysis .................................................................................... 254
12.6
Kisch Infiltration through liners and caps .............................. 255
12.7
Sand box verification ............................................................... 256
12.8
Rapid filling and drawdown of reservoir ................................... 257
12.9
2D Pond Infiltration and water table mounding........................ 258
12.10 Filling pond (H vs V functions) ................................................. 259

12.11 Road ditch ponding during rainfall ........................................... 260
12.12 Drains....................................................................................... 261
12.13 Radial flow to a well ................................................................. 262
12.14 Dissipation of excess pore water pressure .............................. 263
12.15 Lysimeter study ........................................................................ 264
13
14
Theory ................................................................. 265

13.1
Darcys law............................................................................... 265
13.2
Partial differential water flow equations ................................... 266
13.3
Finite element water flow equations ........................................ 268
13.4
Temporal integration ................................................................ 270
13.5
Numerical integration ............................................................... 271
13.6
Hydraulic conductivity matrix ................................................... 274
13.7
Mass matrix.............................................................................. 275
13.8
Flux boundary vector ............................................................... 277
13.9
Density-dependent flow ........................................................... 280
Appendix A: Interpolating Functions ................... 283

14.1
Coordinate systems ................................................................. 283
14.2
Interpolating functions.............................................................. 285

Field variable model .......................................................... 286
Interpolation function derivatives....................................... 287
Page viii
SEEP/W
14.3
Table of Contents
Infinite elements ....................................................................... 292

Mapping functions ............................................................. 292
Pole definition .................................................................... 296
References ................................................................... 299

Index 304
Page ix
SEEP/W
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction
The flow of water through soil is one of the fundamental processes in geotechnical
and geo-environmental engineering. In fact, there would little need for
geotechnical engineering if water were not present in the soil. This is a nonsensical
statement: if there were no water in the soil, there would be no way to sustain an
ecosystem, no humans on earth and no need for geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering. However, the statement does highlight the importance
of water in working with soil and rock.
Flow quantity is a key parameter in quantifying seepage losses from a reservoir or
indentifying a potential water supply for domestic or industrial use. Pore-pressures
associated with groundwater flow are of particular concern in geotechnical
engineering. The pore-water pressure, whether positive or negative, is an integral
component of the stress state within the soil and consequently has a direct bearing
on the shear strength and volume change behavior of soil. Research in the last few
decades has highlighted the importance of moisture flow dynamics in unsaturated
surficial soils as it relates to the design of soil covers.
Historically, analyses of groundwater flow have focused on flow in saturated soils
and flow problems were typically categorized as being confined or unconfined
situations. Flow beneath a structure would be a confined flow problem, while flow
through a homogeneous embankment would be an unconfined flow problem.
Unconfined flow problems were often considered more difficult to analyze because
the determination of the location of the phreatic surface (i.e., the transition from
positive to negative pore water pressures) was integral to the analyses. The
phreatic surface was considered an upper boundary and any flow that may have
existed in the capillary zone above the phreatic line was ignored.
It is no longer acceptable to simply ignore the movement of water in unsaturated
soils above the phreatic surface. Not only does it ignore an important component of
moisture flow in soils, but it greatly limits the types of problems that can be
analyzed. It is central to the analysis of problems involving infiltration and
moisture redistribution in the vadose zone. Transient flow problems such as the
advance of a wetting front within an earth structure after rapid filling are typical
examples of situations in which it is impossible to simulate field behavior without
correctly considering the physics of flow through unsaturated soils. Fortunately, it
is no longer necessary to ignore the unsaturated zone. With the help of this
document and the associated software, flow through unsaturated soils can be
Page 1
SEEP/W
incorporated into numerical models so that almost any kind of seepage problem
can be analyzed.
In general, all water flow is driven by energy gradients associated with the total
head of water as represented by the components of pressure head (or pore water
pressure) and elevation. The term seepage often is used to describe flow problems
in which the dominant driving energy is gravity, such as a case in which seepage
losses occur from a reservoir to a downstream exit point. In other situations such
as consolidation, the primary driving energy may be associated with the creation of
excess pore-water pressures as a result of external loading. However, both of these
situations can all be described by a common set of mathematical equations
describing the water movement. As a result, the formulation used to analyze
seepage problems can also be used to analyze the dissipation of excess pore-water
pressures resulting from changes in stress conditions. In the context of the
discussions and examples in this document and in using the SEEP/W software, the
term seepage is used to describe all movement of water through soil regardless of
the creation or source of the driving energy or whether the flow is through
saturated or unsaturated soils.
Simulating the flow of water through soil with a numerical model can be very
complex. Natural soil deposits are generally highly heterogeneous and nonisotropic. In addition, boundary conditions often change with time and cannot
always be defined with certainty at the beginning of an analysis. In some cases the
correct boundary conditions themselves are part of the outcome from the solution.
Furthermore, when a soil becomes unsaturated, the coefficient of permeability or
hydraulic conductivity becomes a function of the negative pore-water pressure in
the soil. Since the pore-water pressure is related to the primary unknown (total
head) and must be computed, iterative numerical techniques are required to
compute the appropriate combination of pore-water pressure and the material
property. This is referred to as a non-linear problem. These complexities make it
necessary to use some form of numerical analysis to analyze seepage problems for
all but the simplest cases.
While part of this document is about using SEEP/W to do seepage analyses, it is
also about general numerical modeling techniques. Numerical modeling, like most
things in life, is a skill that needs to be acquired. It is nearly impossible to pick up
a tool like SEEP/W and immediately become an effective modeler. Effective
numerical modeling requires some careful thought and planning and it requires a
good understanding of the underlying fundamental theory and concepts. Steps in
the analyses such as creating the finite element mesh and applying boundary
Page 2
SEEP/W
conditions are not entirely intuitive at first. Time and practice are required to
become comfortable with these aspects of numerical modeling.
A large portion of this book focuses on general guidelines for conducting effective
analyses using a numerical model. Chapter 2, Numerical Modeling: What, Why
and How, is devoted exclusively to discussions on this topic. The general
principles discussed apply to all numerical modeling situations, but are used in the
context of seepage analyses in this document.
Broadly speaking, there are three main parts to a finite element analysis. The first
is creating the numerical domain, including the selection of an appropriate
geometry and creating the discretized mesh. The second part requires the
specification of material properties to the various sub-regions of the domain. The
third is the specification of the appropriate boundary conditions. Separate chapters
have been devoted to each of these three key components within this document.
The analysis of flow through saturated and unsaturated soils using numerical
models is a highly non-linear problem that requires iterative techniques to obtain
solutions. Numerical convergence is consequently a key issue. Also, the temporal
integration scheme, which is required for a transient analysis, is affected by time
step size relative to element size and material properties. These and other
numerical considerations are discussed in Chapter 8, Numerical Issues.
Chapter 11, Modeling Tips and Tricks, should be consulted to see if there are
simple techniques that can be used to improve your general modeling method. You
will also gain more confidence and develop a deeper understanding of finite
element methods, SEEP/W conventions and data results.
Chapter 12 has been dedicated to presenting examples in a brief, introductory
format. The details of all examples along with the actual project files are available
on a separate DVD or by download from our web site. You should scan over this
chapter and see the many verification examples and case study examples to
understand the capabilities of the software.
Chapter 13, Theory, is dedicated to theoretical issues associated with the finite
element solution of the partial differential flow equation for saturated and
unsaturated soils. Additional finite element numerical details regarding
interpolating functions and infinite elements are given in Appendix A,
Interpolating Functions.
Page 3
SEEP/W
In general, this book is not a how to use SEEP/W manual. It is a book about how
to model. It also describes how to engineer seepage problems using a powerful
calculator; SEEP/W. Details of how to use the various program commands and
features of SEEP/W are given in the online help inside the software.
Page 4
SEEP/W
Chapter 2: Numerical Modeling
Numerical Modeling: What, Why and How
2.1
Introduction
The unprecedented computing power now available has resulted in advanced

software products for engineering and scientific analysis. The ready availability
and ease-of-use of these products makes it possible to use powerful techniques
such as a finite element analysis in engineering practice. These analytical methods
have now moved from being research tools to application tools. This has opened a
whole new world of numerical modeling.
Software tools such as SEEP/W do not inherently lead to good results. While the
software is an extremely powerful calculator, obtaining useful and meaningful
results from this useful tool depends on the guidance provided by the user. It is the
users understanding of the input and their ability to interpret the results that make
it such a powerful tool. In summary, the software does not do the modeling, the
user does the modeling. The software only provides the ability to do highly
complex computations that are not otherwise humanly possible. In a similar
manner, modern day spreadsheet software programs can be immensely powerful as
well, but obtaining useful results from a spreadsheet depends on the user. It is the
users ability to guide the analysis process that makes it a powerful tool. The
spreadsheet can do all the mathematics, but it is the users ability to take advantage
of the computing capability that leads to something meaningful and useful. The
same is true with finite element analysis software such as SEEP/W.
Numerical modeling is a skill that is acquired with time and experience. Simply
acquiring a software product does not immediately make a person a proficient
modeler. Time and practice are required to understand the techniques involved and
learn how to interpret the results.
Numerical modeling as a field of practice is relatively new in geotechnical
engineering and, consequently, there is a lack of understanding about what
numerical modeling is, how modeling should be approached and what to expect
from it. A good understanding of these basic issues is fundamental to conducting
effective modeling. Basic questions such as, What is the main objective of the
analysis?, What is the main engineering question that needs to answered? and,
What is the anticipated result?, need to be decided before starting to use the
software. Using the software is only part of the modeling exercise. The associated
mental analysis is as important as clicking the buttons in the software.
Page 5
SEEP/W
This chapter discusses the what, why and how of the numerical modeling
process and presents guidelines on the procedures that should be followed in good
numerical modeling practice.
2.2
What is a numerical model?
A numerical model is a mathematical simulation of a real physical process.

SEEP/W is a numerical model that can mathematically simulate the real physical
process of water flowing through a particulate medium. Numerical modeling is
purely mathematical and in this sense is very different than scaled physical
modeling in the laboratory or full-scaled field modeling.
Rulon (1985) constructed a scale model of a soil slope with a less permeable layer
embedded within the slope and then sprinkled water on the crest to simulate
infiltration or precipitation. Instruments were inserted into the soil through the side
walls to measure the pore-water pressures at various points. The results of her
experiment are shown in Figure 2-1. Modeling Rulons laboratory experiment with
SEEP/W gives the results presented in Figure 2-2, which are almost identical to the
original laboratory measurements. The positions of the equipotential lines are
somewhat different, but the position of the water table is the same. In both cases
there are two seepage exit areas on the slope, which is the main important
observation in this case. (Details of the SEEP/W analysis of this case are presented
in Chapter 12, Illustrative Examples).
Figure 2-1 Rulons laboratory scaled model results
Page 6
SEEP/W
1.0
0.9
0.8
Z (m)
0.7
Fine Sand
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
X (m)
Figure 2-2 SEEP/W analysis of Rulons laboratory model

The fact that mathematics can be used to simulate real physical processes is one of
the great wonders of the universe. Perhaps physical processes follow mathematical
rules, or mathematics has evolved to describe physical processes. Obviously, we
do not know which came first, nor does it really matter. Regardless of how the
relationship developed, the fact that we can use mathematics to simulate physical
processes leads to developing a deeper understanding of physical processes. It may
even allow for understanding or discovering previously unknown physical
processes.
Numerical modeling has many advantages over physical modeling. The following
are some of the more obvious advantages.
Numerical models can be set up very quickly relative to physical models.
Physical models may take months to construct while a numerical
model can be constructed in minutes, hours or days.
A physical model is usually limited to a narrow set of conditions. A
numerical model can be used to investigate a wide variety of different
scenarios.
Numerical models have no difficulty accounting for gravity. Gravity
cannot be scaled, which is a limitation with laboratory modeling. A
centrifuge is often required to overcome this limitation.
With numerical modeling, there is no danger of physical harm to
personnel. Physical modeling sometimes involves heavy equipment
and worker safety is consequently a concern.
Page 7
SEEP/W
Numerical modeling provides information and results at any location

within the cross-section. Physical modeling only provides external
visual responses and data at discrete instrumented points.
Numerical models can accommodate a wide variety of boundary
conditions, whereas physical models are often limited in the types of
boundary conditions possible.
It would be wrong to think that numerical models do not have limitations.
Associated with seepage flow there may also be temperature changes, volume
changes and perhaps chemical changes. Including all these processes in the same
formulation is not possible, as the mathematics involved simply become too
complex. In addition, it is not possible to mathematically describe a constitutive
relationship, due to its complexity. Some of these difficulties can and will be
overcome with greater and faster computer processing power. It is important to
understand that numerical modeling products like SEEP/W will have limitations
that are related to the current capability of hardware or integral to the formulation
of the software, since it was developed to consider specific conditions. SEEP/W is
formulated only for flow that follows Darcys Law. Near the ground surface
moisture may leave the ground as vapor. This component is not included in the
SEEP/W formulation, like it is in another product called VADOSE/W.
Consequently, SEEP/W has limitations when it comes to modeling moisture
leaving the system at the ground surface. A real physical model would not have
this type of limitation.
The important point to remember is that the mathematical formulations
implemented in software like SEEP/W result in a very powerful and versatile
means of simulating real physical processes.
A mathematical model is a replica of some real-world object or system. It is an attempt to
take our understanding of the process (conceptual model) and translate it into mathematical
terms. National Research Council Report (1990).
2.3
Modeling in geotechnical engineering
The role and significance of analysis and numerical modeling in geotechnical

engineering has been vividly illustrated by Professor John Burland, Imperial
College, London (UK). In 1987 Professor Burland presented what is known as the
Nash Lecture. The title of the lecture was The Teaching of Soil Mechanics a
Page 8
SEEP/W
Personal View. In this lecture he advocated that geotechnical engineering consists

of three fundamental components: the ground profile, the soil behavior and
modeling. He represented these components as the apexes of a triangle, as
illustrated in Figure 2-3. This has come to be known as the Burland triangle
(Burland, 1987; Burland, 1996).
Ground
profile
Empiricism,
Precedent
Soil
behaviour
Modeling
The soil mechanics triangle
Figure 2-3 The Burland triangle (after Burland 1996)

The soil behavior component includes laboratory tests, in situ tests and field
measurements. The ground profile component basically involves site
characterization: defining and describing the site conditions. Modeling may be
conceptual, analytical or physical.
Of great significance is that, in Burlands view, all three components need to be
tied together by empiricism and precedent. This is the part inside the triangle.
The Burland triangle idea has been widely discussed and referred to by others
since it was first presented. An article on this topic was presented in an issue of
Ground Engineering (Anon. 1999). Morgenstern (2000) discussed this at some
length in his keynote address titled Common Ground at the GeoEng2000
Conference in Melbourne Australia in 2000. With all the discussion, the triangle
has been enhanced and broadened somewhat, as shown in Figure 2-4.
One important additional feature has been to consider all the connecting arrows
between the components as pointing in both directions. This simple addition
highlights the fact that each part is distinct yet related to all the other parts.
The Burland triangle vividly illustrates the importance of modeling in geotechnical
engineering. Characterizing the field conditions and making measurements of
Page 9
SEEP/W
behavior is not sufficient. Ultimately, it is necessary to do some analysis of the

field information and soil properties to complete the triangle.
As Burland pointed out, modeling may be conceptual, analytical or physical.
However, with the computing power and software tools now available, modeling
often refers to numerical modeling. Accepting that modeling primarily refers to
numerical modeling, the Burland triangle shows the importance that numerical
modeling has in geotechnical engineering.
Genesis / geology
Ground
Profile
Site investigation,
ground description
Empiricism,
precedent,
experience,
risk management
Soil
Behaviour
Modeling
Idealization followed by
evaluation. Conceptual
or physical modeling,
analytical modeling
Lab / field testing,

observation,
measurement
Figure 2-4 The enhanced Burland triangle (after Anon. 1999)

Making measurements and characterizing site conditions is often time consuming
and expensive. This is also true with modeling, if done correctly. A common
assumption is that the numerical modeling component is only a small component
that should be undertaken at the end of a project, and that it can be done simply
and quickly. This is somewhat erroneous. Good numerical modeling, as we will
see later in the section in more detail, takes time and requires careful planning in
the same manner that it takes time and planning to collect field measurements and
adequately characterize site conditions.
Considering the importance of modeling that the Burland triangle suggests for
geotechnical engineering, it is prudent that we do the modeling carefully and with
Page 10
SEEP/W
a complete understanding of the modeling processes. This is particularly true with

numerical modeling. The purpose of this book is to assist with this aspect of
geotechnical engineering.
2.4
Why model?
The first reaction to the question, why model? seems rather obvious. The
objective is to analyze the problem. Upon more thought, the answer becomes
increasingly complex. Without a clear understanding of the reason for modeling or
identifying what the modeling objectives are, numerical modeling can lead to a
frustrating experience and uncertain results. As we will see in more detail in the
next section, it is wrong to set up the model, calculate a solution and then try to
decide what the results mean. It is important to decide at the outset the reason for
doing the modeling. What is the main objective and what is the question that needs
to be answered?
The following points are some of the main reasons for modeling, from a broad,
high level perspective. We model to:
make quantitative predictions,
compare alternatives,
identify governing parameters, and
understand processes and train our thinking.
Quantitative predictions
Most engineers, when asked why they want to do some modeling, will say that
they want to make a prediction. They want to predict the seepage quantity, for
example, or the time for a contaminant to travel from the source to a seepage
discharge point, or the time required from first filling a reservoir until steady-state
seepage conditions have been established in the embankment dam. The desire is to
say something about future behavior or performance.
Making quantitative predictions is a legitimate reason for doing modeling.
Unfortunately, it is also the most difficult part of modeling, since quantitative
values are often directly related to the material properties. The quantity of seepage,
for example, is in large part controlled by the hydraulic conductivity and, as a
result, changing the hydraulic conductivity by an order of magnitude will usually
change the computed seepage quantity by an order of magnitude. The accuracy of
Page 11
SEEP/W
quantitative prediction is directly related to the accuracy of the hydraulic

conductivity specified. Unfortunately, for a heterogeneous profile, there is not a
large amount of confidence about how precisely the hydraulic conductivity can be
specified. Sometimes defining the hydraulic conductivity within an order of
magnitude is considered reasonable. The confidence you have defining the
hydraulic conductivity depends on many factors, but the general difficulty of
defining this soil parameter highlights the difficulty of undertaking modeling to
make quantitative predictions.
Carter et al. (2000) presented the results of a competition conducted by the German
Society for Geotechnics. Packages of information were distributed to consulting
engineers and university research groups. The participants were asked to predict
the lateral deflection of a tie-back shoring wall for a deep excavation in Berlin.
During construction, the actual deflection was measured with inclinometers. Later
the predictions were compared with the actual measurements. Figure 2-5 shows the
best eleven submitted predictions. Other predictions were submitted, but were
considered unreasonable and consequently not included in the summary.
There are two heavy dark lines superimposed on Figure 2-5. The dashed line on
the right represents the inclinometer measurements uncorrected for any possible
base movement. It is likely the base of the inclinometer moved together with the
base of the wall. Assuming the inclinometer base moved about 10 mm, the solid
heavy line in Figure 2-5 has been shifted to reflect the inclinometer base
movement.
At first glance one might quickly conclude that the agreement between prediction
and actual lateral movement is very poor, especially since there appears to be a
wide scatter in the predictions. This exercise might be considered as an example of
our inability to make accurate quantitative predictions.
However, a closer look at the results reveals a picture that is not so bleak. The
depth of the excavation is 32 m. The maximum predicted lateral movement is just
over 50 mm or 5 cm. This is an extremely small amount of movement over the
length of the wall certainly not big enough to be visually noticeable.
Furthermore, the actual measurements, when corrected for base movement fall
more or less in the middle of the predictions. Most important to consider are the
trends presented by many of the predicted results. Many of them predict a
deflected shape similar to the actual measurements. In other words, the predictions
simulated the correct relative response of the wall.
Page 12
SEEP/W
Consequently, we can argue that our ability to make accurate predictions is poor,
but we can also argue that the predictions are amazingly good. The predictions fall
on either side of the measurements and the deflected shapes are correct. In the end,
the modeling provided a correct understanding of the wall behavior, which is more
than enough justification for doing the modeling, and may be the greatest benefit
of numerical modeling, as we will see in more detail later.
Deflection (mm)
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
1
0
16
20
Depth below surface (m)
12
24
computed
28
measured
32
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Figure 2-5 Comparison of predicted and measured lateral movements

of a shoring wall (after Carter et al, 2000)
Numerical modeling is sometimes dismissed as being useless due to the difficulty
with defining material properties. There are, however, other reasons for doing
numerical modeling. If some of the other objectives of numerical modeling are
completed first, then quantitative predictions often have more value and meaning.
Once the physics and mechanisms are completely understood, quantitative
Page 13
SEEP/W
predictions can be made with a great deal more confidence and are not nearly as
useless as first thought, regardless of our inability to accurately define material
properties.
Compare alternatives
Numerical modeling is useful for comparing alternatives. Keeping everything else
the same and changing a single parameter makes it a powerful tool to evaluate the
significance of individual parameters. For modeling alternatives and conducting
sensitivity studies it is not all that important to accurately define some material
properties. All that is of interest is the change between simulations.
Consider the example of a cut-off wall beneath a structure. With SEEP/W it is easy
to examine the benefits obtained by changing the length of the cut-off. Consider
two cases with different cut-off depths to assess the difference in uplift pressures
underneath the structure. Figure 2-6 shows the analysis when the cutoff is 10 feet
deep. The pressure drop and uplift pressure along the base are shown in the left
graph in Figure 2-7. The drop across the cutoff is from 24 to 18 feet of pressure
head. The results for a 20-foot cutoff are shown in Figure 2-7 on the right side.
Now the drop across the cutoff is from 24 to about 15 feet of pressure head. The
uplift pressures at the downstream toe are about the same.
The actual computed values are not of significance in the context of this
discussion. It is an example of how a model such as SEEP/W can be used to
quickly compare alternatives. Secondly, this type of analysis can be done with a
rough estimate of the conductivity, since in this case the pressure distributions will
be unaffected by the conductivity assumed. There would be no value in carefully
defining the conductivity to compare the base pressure distributions.
We can also look at the change in flow quantities. The absolute flow quantity may
not be all that accurate, but the change resulting from various cut-off depths will be
of value. The total flux is 6.26 x 10-3 ft3/s for the 10-foot cutoff and 5.30 x 10-3 ft3/s
for the 20-foot cutoff, only about a 15 percent difference.
Page 14
SEEP/W
6.2592e-003
Figure 2-6 Seepage analysis with a cutoff

Cutoff - 20 feet
25
25
20
20
Pressure Head - feet
Pressure Head - feet
Cutoff 10 feet
15
10
5
0
30
15
10
5
50
70
90
110
0
30
Distance - feet
50
70
90
110
Distance - feet
Figure 2-7 Uplift pressure distributions along base of structure

Identify governing parameters
Numerical models are useful for identifying critical parameters in a design.
Consider the performance of a soil cover over waste material. What is the most
important parameter governing the behavior of the cover? Is it the precipitation,
the wind speed, the net solar radiation, plant type, root depth or soil type? Running
a series of VADOSE/W simulations, keeping all variables constant except for one
makes it possible to identify the governing parameter. The results can be presented
as a tornado plot such as shown in Figure 2-8.
Page 15
SEEP/W
Once the key issues have been identified, further modeling to refine a design can
concentrate on the main issues. If, for example, the vegetative growth is the main
issue then efforts can be concentrated on what needs to be done to foster the plant
growth.
Base Case
thinner
high
low
Thickness
of Growth Medium
bare surface
Transpiration
low
high
deep
Hydraulic Conductivity
of Compacted Layer
shallow
Root Depth
low
Decreasing
Net Percolation
high
of Growth Medium
Increasing
Net Percolation
Figure 2-8 Example of a tornado plot (OKane, 2004)

Discover & understand physical process - train our thinking
One of the most powerful aspects of numerical modeling is that it can help us to
understand physical processes in that it helps to train our thinking. A numerical
model can either confirm our thinking or help us to adjust our thinking if
necessary.
To illustrate this aspect of numerical modeling, consider the case of a multilayered
earth cover system such as the two possible cases shown in Figure 2-9. The
purpose of the cover is to reduce the infiltration into the underlying waste material.
The intention is to use the earth cover layers to channel any infiltration downslope
into a collection system. It is known that both a fine and a coarse soil are required
to achieve this. The question is, should the coarse soil lie on top of the fine soil or
should the fine soil overlay the coarse soil? Intuitively it would seem that the
coarse material should be on top; after all, it has the higher conductivity. Modeling
Page 16
SEEP/W
this situation with SEEP/W, which handles unsaturated flow, can answer this
question and verify if our thinking is correct.
For unsaturated flow, it is necessary to define a hydraulic conductivity function: a
function that describes how the hydraulic conductivity varies with changes in
suction (negative pore-water pressure = suction). Chapter 4, Material Properties,
describes in detail the nature of the hydraulic conductivity (or permeability)
functions. For this example, relative conductivity functions such as those presented
in Figure 2-10 are sufficient. At low suctions (i.e., near saturation), the coarse
material has a higher hydraulic conductivity than the fine material, which is
intuitive. At high suctions, the coarse material has the lower conductivity, which
often appears counterintuitive. For a full explanation of this relationship, refer to
Chapter 4, Materials Properties. For this example, accept that at high suctions the
coarse material is less conductive than the fine material.
Fine
Coarse
Coarse
Fine
OR
Material to be
protected
Material to be
protected
Figure 2-9 Two possible earth cover configurations
Page 17
SEEP/W
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
Conductivity
Coarse
Fine
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1
10
100
1000
Suction
Figure 2-10 Hydraulic conductivity functions

After conducting various analyses and trial runs with varying rates of surface
infiltration, it becomes evident that the behavior of the cover system is dependent
on the infiltration rate. At low infiltration rates, the effect of placing the fine
material over the coarse material results in infiltration being drained laterally
through the fine layer, as shown in Figure 2-11. This accomplishes the design
objective of the cover. If the precipitation rate becomes fairly intensive, then the
infiltration drops through the fine material and drains laterally within the lower
coarse material as shown in Figure 2-12. The design of fine soil over coarse soil
may work, but only in arid environments. The occasional cloud burst may result in
significant water infiltrating into the underlying coarse material, which may result
in increased seepage into the waste. This may be a tolerable situation for short
periods of time. If most of the time precipitation is modest, the infiltration will be
drained laterally through the upper fine layer into a collection system.
So, for an arid site the best solution is to place the fine soil on top of the coarse
soil. This is contrary to what one might expect at first. The first reaction may be
that something is wrong with the software, but it may be that our understanding of
the process and our general thinking is flawed.
A closer examination of the conductivity functions provides a logical explanation.
The software is correct and provides the correct response given the input
parameters. Consider the functions in Figure 2-13. When the infiltration rate is
Page 18
SEEP/W
large, the negative water pressures or suctions will be small. As a result, the
conductivity of the coarse material is higher than the finer material. If the
infiltration rates become small, the suctions will increase (water pressure becomes
more negative) and the unsaturated conductivity of the finer material becomes
higher than the coarse material. Consequently, under low infiltration rates it is
easier for the water to flow through the fine, upper layer soil than through the
lower more coarse soil.
Low to modest rainfall rates
Fine
Coarse
Figure 2-11 Flow diversion under low infiltration
Fine
Intense rainfall rates
Coarse
Figure 2-12 Flow diversion under high infiltration

This type of analysis is a good example where the ability to utilize a numerical
model greatly assists our understanding of the physical process. The key is to think
in terms of unsaturated conductivity as opposed to saturated conductivities.
Page 19
SEEP/W
Numerical modeling can be crucial in leading us to the discovery and

understanding of real physical processes. In the end the model either has to
conform to our mental image and understanding or our understanding has to be
adjusted.
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
Coarse
Conductivity
Fine
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
Intense
Rainfall
1.00E-08
Low to Modest
Rainfall
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
1
10
100
1000
Suction
Figure 2-13 Conductivities under low and intense infiltration

This is a critical lesson in modeling and the use of numerical models in particular.
The key advantage of modeling, and in particular the use of computer modeling
tools, is the capability it has to enhance engineering judgment, not the ability to
enhance our predictive capabilities. While it is true that sophisticated computer
tools greatly elevated our predictive capabilities relative to hand calculations,
graphical techniques, and closed-form analytical solutions, still, prediction is not
the most important advantage these modern tools provide. Numerical modeling is
primarily about process - not about prediction.
The attraction of ... modeling is that it combines the subtlety of human judgment with the
power of the digital computer. Anderson and Woessner (1992).
Page 20
SEEP/W
2.5
How to model
Numerical modeling involves more than just acquiring a software product.

Running and using the software is an essential ingredient, but it is a small part of
numerical modeling. This section talks about important concepts in numerical
modeling and highlights important components in good modeling practice.
Make a guess
Generally, careful planning is involved when undertaking a site characterization or
making measurements of observed behavior. The same careful planning is required
for modeling. It is inappropriate to acquire a software product, input some
parameters, obtain some results, and then decide what to do with the results or
struggle to decide what the results mean. This approach usually leads to an
unhappy experience and is often a meaningless exercise.
Good modeling practice starts with some planning. If at all possible, you should
form a mental picture of what you think the results will look like. Stated another
way, we should make a rough guess at the solution before starting to use the
software. Figure 2-14 shows a very quick hand sketch of a flow net. It is very
rough, but it gives us an idea of what the solution should look like.
From the rough sketch of a flow net, we can also get an estimate of the flow
quantity. The amount of flow can be approximated by the ratio of flow channels to
equipotential drops multiplied by the conductivity and the total head drop. For the
sketch in Figure 2-14 the number of flow channels is 3, the number of
equipotential drops is 9 and the total head drop is 5 m. Assume a hydraulic
conductivity of K = 0.1 m/day. A rough estimate of the flow quantity then is (5 x
0.1 x 3)/ 9, which is between 0.1 and 0.2 m3 / day. The SEEP/W computed flow is
0.1427 m3/day and the equipotential lines are as shown in Figure 2-15.
Page 21
SEEP/W
1.4272e-001
Figure 2-14 Hand sketch of flow net for cutoff below dam
Figure 2-15 SEEP/W results compared to hand sketch estimate

The rough flow net together with the estimated flow quantity can now be used to
judge the SEEP/W results. If there is no resemblance between what is expected and
what is computed with SEEP/W then either the preliminary mental picture of the
situation was not right or something has been inappropriately specified in the
numerical model. Perhaps the boundary conditions are not correct or the material
properties specified are different than intended. The difference ultimately needs to
be resolved in order for you to have any confidence in your modeling. If you had
never made a preliminary guess at the solution then it would be very difficult to
judge the validity the numerical modeling results.
Page 22
SEEP/W
Another extremely important part of modeling is to clearly define at the outset, the
primary question to be answered by the modeling process. Is the main question the
pore-water pressure distribution or is the quantity of flow. If your main objective is
to determine the pressure distribution, there is no need to spend a lot of time on
establishing the hydraulic conductivity any reasonable estimate of conductivity is
adequate. If on the other hand your main objective is to estimate flow quantities,
then a greater effort is needed in determining the conductivity.
Sometimes modelers say I have no idea what the solution should look like - that is
why I am doing the modeling. The question then arises, why can you not form a
mental picture of what the solution should resemble? Maybe it is a lack of
understanding of the fundamental processes or physics, maybe it is a lack of
experience, or maybe the system is too complex. A lack of understanding of the
fundamentals can possibly be overcome by discussing the problem with more
experienced engineers or scientists, or by conducting a study of published
literature. If the system is too complex to make a preliminary estimate then it is
good practice to simplify the problem so you can make a guess and then add
complexity in stages so that at each modeling interval you can understand the
significance of the increased complexity. If you were dealing with a very
heterogenic system, you could start by defining a homogenous cross-section,
obtaining a reasonable solution and then adding heterogeneity in stages. This
approach is discussed in further detail in a subsequent section.
If you cannot form a mental picture of what the solution should look like prior to
using the software, then you may need to discover or learn about a new physical
process as discussed in the previous section.
Effective numerical modeling starts with making a guess of what the solution should look
like.
Other prominent engineers support this concept. Carter (2000) in his keynote
address at the GeoEng2000 Conference in Melbourne, Australia, when talking
about rules for modeling, stated verbally that modeling should start with an
estimate. Prof. John Burland made a presentation at the same conference on his
work with righting the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Part of the presentation was on the
modeling that was done to evaluate alternatives and while talking about modeling
he too stressed the need to start with a guess.
Page 23
SEEP/W
Simplify geometry
Numerical models need to be a simplified abstraction of the actual field conditions.
In the field the stratigraphy may be fairly complex and boundaries may be
irregular. In a numerical model the boundaries need to become straight lines and
the stratigraphy needs to be simplified so that it is possible to obtain an
understandable solution. Remember, it is a model, not the actual conditions.
Generally, a numerical model cannot and should not include all the details that
exist in the field. If attempts are made at including all the minute details, the model
can become so complex that it is difficult and sometimes even impossible to
interpret or even obtain results.
Figure 2-16 shows a stratigraphic cross section (National Research Council Report
1990). A suitable numerical model for simulating the flow regime between the
groundwater divides is something like the one shown in Figure 2-17. The
stratigraphic boundaries are considerably simplified for the finite element analysis.
As a general rule, a model should be designed to answer specific questions. You
need to constantly ask yourself while designing a model, if this feature will
significantly affects the results. If you have doubts, you should not include it in the
model, at least not in the early stages of analysis. Always start with the simplest
model.
Figure 2-16 Example of a stratigraphic cross section

(from National Research Report 1990)
Page 24
SEEP/W
Figure 2-17 Finite element model of stratigraphic section

The tendency of novice modelers is to make the geometry too complex. The
thinking is that everything needs to be included to get the best answer possible. In
numerical modeling this is not always true. Increased complexity does not always
lead to a better and more accurate solution. Geometric details can, for example,
even create numerical difficulties that can mask the real solution.
Start simple
One of the most common mistakes in numerical modeling is to start with a model
that is too complex. When a model is too complex, it is very difficult to judge and
interpret the results. Often the result may look totally unreasonable. Then the next
question asked is - what is causing the problem? Is it the geometry, is it the
material properties, is it the boundary conditions, or is it the time step size or
something else? The only way to resolve the issue is to make the model simpler
and simpler until the difficulty can be isolated. This happens on almost all projects.
It is much more efficient to start simple and build complexity into the model in
stages, than to start complex, then take the model apart and have to rebuild it back
up again.
A good start may be to take a homogeneous section and then add geometric
complexity in stages. For the homogeneous section it is likely easier to judge the
validity of the results. This allows you to gain confidence in the boundary
conditions and material properties specified. Once you have reached a point where
the results make sense, you can add different materials and increase the complexity
of your geometry.
Page 25
SEEP/W
Another approach may be to start with a steady-state analysis even though you are
ultimately interested in a transient process. A steady-state analysis gives you an
idea as to where the transient analysis should end up: to define the end point. Using
this approach you can then answer the question of how does the process migrate
with time until a steady-state system has been achieved.
It is unrealistic to dump all your information into a numerical model at the start of
an analysis project and magically obtain beautiful, logical and reasonable
solutions. It is vitally important to not start with this expectation. You will likely
have a very unhappy modeling experience if you follow this approach.
Do numerical experiments
Interpreting the results of numerical models sometimes requires doing numerical
experiments. This is particularly true if you are uncertain as to whether the results
are reasonable. This approach also helps with understanding and learning how a
particular feature operates. The idea is to set up a simple problem for which you
can create a hand calculated solution.
Consider the following example. You are uncertain about the results from a flux
section or the meaning of a computed boundary flux. To help satisfy this lack of
understanding, you could do a numerical experiment on a simple 1D case as shown
in Figure 2-18. The total head difference is 1 m and the conductivity is 1 m/day.
The gradient under steady state conditions is the head difference divided by the
length, making the gradient 0.1. The resulting total flow through the system is the
cross sectional area times the gradient which should be 0.3 m3/day. The flux
section that goes through the entire section confirms this result. There are flux
sections through Elements 16 and 18. The flow through each element is
0.1 m3/day, which is correct since each element represents one-third of the area.
Another way to check the computed results is to look at the node information.
When a head is specified, SEEP/W computes the corresponding nodal flux. In
SEEP/W these are referred to as boundary flux values. The computed boundary
nodal flux for the same experiment shown in Figure 2-18 on the left at the top and
bottom nodes is 0.05. For the two intermediate nodes, the nodal boundary flux is
0.1 per node. The total is 0.3, the same as computed by the flux section. Also, the
quantities are positive, indicating flow into the system. The nodal boundary values
on the right are the same as on the left, but negative. The negative sign means flow
out of the system.
Page 26
12
15
11
14
10
13
18
21
24
27
30
17
20
23
26
29
16
19
22
25
28
1.0000e-001
3.0000e-001
1.0000e-001
SEEP/W
Figure 2-18 Horizontal flow through three element section

A simple numerical experiment takes only minutes to set up and run, but can be
invaluable in confirming to you how the software works and in helping you
interpret the results. There are many benefits: the most obvious is that it
demonstrates the software is functioning properly. You can also see the difference
between a flux section that goes through the entire problem versus a flux section
that goes through a single element. You can see how the boundary nodal fluxes are
related to the flux sections. It verifies for you the meaning of the sign on the
boundary nodal fluxes. Fully understanding and comprehending the results of a
simple example like this greatly helps increase your confidence in the
interpretation of results from more complex problems.
Conducting simple numerical experiments is a useful exercise for both novice and
experienced modelers. For novice modelers it is an effective way to understand
fundamental principles, learn how the software functions, and gain confidence in
interpreting results. For the experienced modeler it is an effective means of
refreshing and confirming ideas. It is sometimes faster and more effective than
trying to find appropriate documentation and then having to rely on the
documentation. At the very least it may enhance and clarify the intent of the
documentation.
Model only essential components
One of the powerful and attractive features of numerical modeling is the ability to
simplify the geometry and not to have to include the entire physical structure in the
model. A very common problem is the seepage flow under a concrete structure
with a cut-off as shown in Figure 2-19. To analyze the seepage through the
Page 27
SEEP/W
foundation it is not necessary to include the dam itself or the cut-off as these
features are constructed of concrete and assumed impermeable.
Figure 2-19 Simple flow beneath a cutoff

Another common example is the downstream toe-drain or horizontal under drain in
an embankment (Figure 2-20). The drain is so permeable relative to the
embankment material that the drain does not contribute to the dissipation of the
head (potential energy) loss through the structure. Physically, the drain needs to
exist in the embankment, but it does not need to be present in a numerical model. If
the drain becomes clogged with fines so that it begins to impede the seepage flow,
then the situation is different and the drain would need to be included in the
numerical model. With any material, the need to include it in the analysis should
be decided in the context of whether it contributes to the head loss.
Another example is the downstream shell of a zoned dam as illustrated in Figure
2-21. Often the core is constructed of fine-grained soil while the shells are highly
permeable coarse granular material. If there is a significant difference between
core and shell conductivities then seepage that flows through the core will drip
along the downstream side of the core (usually in granular transition zones) down
to an under drain. If this is the case, the downstream shell does not need to be
included in the seepage analysis, since the shell is not physically involved in the
dissipation of the head loss. Once again the shell needs to exist physically, but
does not need to be included in the numerical seepage model.
Page 28
SEEP/W
20
10
15
25
30
35
40
Figure 2-20 Flow through a dam with coarse toe drain
Figure 2-21 Head loss through dam core with downstream shell
Including unnecessary features and trying to model adjacent materials with
extreme contrasts in material properties create numerical difficulties. The
conductivity difference between the core and shell of a dam may be many, many
orders of magnitude. The situation may be further complicated if unsaturated flow
is present and the conductivity function is very steep, making the solution highly
non-linear. In this type of situation it can be extremely difficult if not impossible to
obtain a good solution with the current technology.
The numerical difficulties can be eased by eliminating non-essential segments
from the numerical model. If the primary interest is the seepage through the core,
then why include the downstream shell and complicate the analysis? Omitting nonessential features from the analysis is a very useful technique, particularly during
the early stages of an analysis. During the early stages, you are simply trying to
gain an understanding of the flow regime and trying to decide what is important
and what is not important.
While deliberately leaving components out of the analysis may at first seem like a
rather strange concept, it is a very important concept to accept if you want to be an
effective numerical modeler.
Page 29
SEEP/W
Start with estimated material properties

In the early stages of a numerical modeling project it is often good practice to start
with estimates of material properties. Simple estimates of material properties and
simple property functions are more than adequate for gaining an understanding of
the flow regime for checking that the model has been set up properly or to verify
that the boundary conditions have been properly defined. Estimated properties are
usually more than adequate for determining the importance of the various
properties for the situation being modeled.
The temptation exists when you have laboratory data in hand that the data needs to
be used in its entirety and cannot be manipulated in any way. There seems to be an
inflexible view of laboratory data which can sometimes create difficulties when
using the data in a numerical model. A common statement is; I measured it in the
lab and I have full confidence in my numbers. There can be a large reality gap
that exists between laboratory determined results and actual insitu soil behavior.
Some of the limitations arise because of how the material was collected, how it
was sampled and ultimately quantified in the lab. Was the sample collected by the
shovelful, by collecting cuttings or by utilizing a core sampler? What was the size
and number of samples collected and can they be considered representative of the
entire profile? Was the sample oven-dried, sieved and then slurried prior to the test
being performed? Were the large particles removed so the sample could be
trimmed into the measuring device? Some of these common laboratory techniques
can result in unrealistic property functions. Perhaps the amount of data collected in
the laboratory is more than is actually required in the model. Because money has
been spent collecting and measuring the data, it makes modelers reticent to
experiment with making changes to the data to see what effect it has on the
analysis.
It is good modeling practice to first obtain understandable and reasonable solutions
using estimate material properties and then later refine the analysis once you know
what the critical properties are going to be. It can even be more cost effective to
determine ahead of time what material properties control the analysis and decide
where it is appropriate to spend money obtaining laboratory data.
Interrogate the results
Powerful numerical models such as SEEP/W need very careful guidance from the
user. It is easy to inadvertently and unintentionally specify inappropriate boundary
conditions or incorrect material properties. Consequently, it is vitally important to
conduct spot checks on the results to ensure the constraints and material properties
Page 30
SEEP/W
are consistent with what you intended to define and the results make sense. It is
important to check, for example that the boundary condition that appears in the
results is the same as what you thought was specified defining the model. Is the
intended property function being applied to the correct soil? Or, are the initial
conditions as you assumed?
SEEP/W has many tools to inspect or interrogate the results. You can view node or
element details and there are a wide range of parameters that can be graphed for
the purpose of spot checking the results.
Inspecting and spot checking your results is an important and vital component in
numerical modeling. It greatly helps to increase your confidence in a solution that
is understandable and definable.
Evaluate results in the context of expected results
The fundamental question that should be asked during modeling is; Do the results
conform to the initial mental picture? If they do not, then your mental picture
needs to be fixed, there is something wrong with the model or both the model and
your concept of the problem need to be adjusted until they agree. The numerical
modeling process needs to be repeated over and over until the solution makes
perfect sense and you are able to look at the results and feel confident that you
understand the processes involved.
Remember the real world
While doing numerical modeling it is important to occasionally ask yourself how
much you really know about the input compared to the complexity of the analysis.
The following cartoon portrays an extreme situation, but underscores a problem
that exists when uneducated or inexperienced users try to use powerful software
tools.
Page 31
SEEP/W
If we can incorporate boundary

elements rather than simple finite
elephants, enhance the statistical
evaluation of parameter generation
and stick with the fuzzy sets, I am
confident that accuracy will be
increased to at least the fourth
decimal place.
Put another shovel

full in Pat! It is fullcores theyre wanting!
Note: origins of this figure are unknown at time of printing.
2.6
How not to model
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, it is completely unrealistic to expect to set up

a complex model at the start of a project and immediately obtain realistic,
understandable and meaningful results. There are far too many parameters and
issues which can influence the results, so if this is your expectation, then modeling
is going to lead to major disappointments.
For novice modelers; the initial reaction when faced with incomprehensible results
is that something must be wrong with the software. It must be a limitation of the
software that the solution is inappropriate or completely senseless. It is important
to remember that the software is very powerful; it can keep track of millions of
pieces of information and do repetitive computations which are far beyond the
capability of the human mind. Without the software it would not be possible to
make these types of analyses. The software by itself is extremely powerful
Page 32
SEEP/W
numerically speaking, but essentially unintelligent. Conversely, the human mind

has the capability of logic and reasoning, but has significant limitations retaining
large amounts of digital data. It is the combination of the human mind together
with the capability of a computer that makes numerical modeling so immensely
powerful. Neither can do the task in isolation. The software can only be used
effectively under the careful guidance and direction of the modeler.
Sometimes it is suggested that due to a time limitation, it is not possible to start
simple and then progress slowly to a more complex analysis. A solution is needed
quickly and since the budget is limited, it is necessary to immediately start with the
ultimate simulation. This approach is seldom, if ever, successful. Usually this leads
to a lot of frustration and the need to retreat to a simpler model until the solution is
understandable and then build it up again in stages. Not following the above how
to modeling procedures generally leads to requiring more time and financial
resources than if you follow the recommended modeling concepts.
Remember, the software is only as good as your ability to guide and direct it. The
intention of this document is to assist you in providing this guidance and direction
so that you can take full advantages of the power the software can offer.
2.7
Closing remarks
As noted in the introduction, numerical modeling is a relatively new area of

practice. Most university educational curricula do not include courses on how to
approach numerical modeling and, consequently, the skill is often self-taught. As
software tools such as SEEP/W become increasingly available at educational
institutions and educators become comfortable with these types of tools, classes
and instruction should improve with respect to numerical modeling.
When the numerical analysis software tool, SEEP/W 2007, is effectively utilized
as it was intended to be used, it becomes an immensely powerful tool, making it
possible to do highly complex analyses. It can even lead to new understandings
about actual physical process.
The process of modeling is a journey of discovery, a way of learning something
new about the complex behavior of our physical world. It is a process that can help
us understand highly complex, real physical process so that we can exercise our
engineering judgment with increased confidence.
Page 33
SEEP/W
Page 34
SEEP/W
Chapter 3: Geometry and Meshing
Geometry and Meshing
3.1
Introduction
Finite element numerical methods are based on the concept of subdividing a

continuum into small pieces, describing the behavior or actions of the individual
pieces and then reconnecting all the pieces to represent the behavior of the
continuum as a whole. This process of subdividing the continuum into smaller
pieces is known as discretization or meshing. The pieces are known as finite
elements.
In GeoStudio, the geometry of a model is defined in its entirety prior to
consideration of the discretization or meshing. This is an approach that is new in
GeoStudio 2007. Furthermore, automatic mesh generation algorithms have now
advanced sufficiently to enable a well behaved, numerically robust default
discretization often with no additional effort required by the user. Of course, it is
still wise to view the default generated mesh but any required changes can easily
be made by changing a single global element size parameter, by changing the
number of mesh divisions along a geometry line object, or by setting a required
mesh element edge size.
Figure 3-1 shows the fully defined model for a soil excavation project. The entire
model was built using various geometry items.
Soil regions were specified;
Geometry lines were drawn at the locations of tie-back anchors and cutoff
wall;
Soil material models were created and assigned onto the geometry objects
and
Pre-defined boundary conditions were drawn on the region edges.
As a final step before solving, the mesh properties were viewed and adjustments
made. In this case, the global element size was specified as 1.0 meter. In addition,
the geometry line representing the grouted section of the anchors was discretized.
The pre-stressed length of the anchors was intentionally left non-discretized. The
final model is shown in Figure 3-2.
Page 35
SEEP/W
Now that you have a basic introduction to the concept of building your model
using geometry objects, we can discuss each type of object in more detail. We
must also have a discussion about the finite elements themselves, as these are the
backbone to the entire finite element method.
20
18
16
Elevation - m
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Distance - m
Figure 3-1 Fully defined geometry for soil excavation model

20
18
16
Elevation - m
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Distance - m
Figure 3-2 Default element discretization for model using 1m global

element size constraint
Page 36
SEEP/W
3.2
Geometry objects in GeoStudio
New to GeoStudio in 2007 is the concept that the entire model is defined as a
series of geometry objects. These objects can be soil regions, circular openings
line objects, surface regions, and point objects. These objects are shown in the
images below as defined and then with the mesh applied.
Free line in space
Surface layers
Circular region
Region points
Soil region
Free line
Free point
Region lines
Figure 3-3 Available geometry objects
Figure 3-4 Mesh pattern for example model
Page 37
SEEP/W
Each of these geometry objects can have additional objects assigned to them such
as material or boundary conditions objects. They can also have special properties,
such as mesh element type, size and integration order.
Let us consider each in turn.
Soil regions, points and lines
GeoStudio uses the concept of regions and points to define the geometry of a
problem and to facilitate discretization of the problem. The attraction of using
regions is that they replicate what we intuitively do as engineers and scientists to
illustrate concepts and draw components of a system. To draw a stratigraphic
section, for example, we intuitively draw the different soil types as individual
regions.
The use of regions offers all the advantages of dividing a large domain into smaller
pieces, working and analyzing the smaller pieces, and then connecting the smaller
pieces together to obtain the behavior of the whole domain, exactly like the
concept of finite elements. Generally, all physical systems have to be broken down
into pieces to create, manage and control the whole body.
A collection of highly adaptive individual pieces that can be joined together makes
it possible to describe and define almost any complex domain or physical system.
Such an approach is more powerful and can be applied to a wider range of
problems than any system that attempts to describe the whole domain as a single
object.
Regions may be simple straight-sided shapes like quadrilaterals or triangles or a
free form, multi-sided polygon. Figure 3-5 illustrates a domain constructed using
one quadrilateral and two triangular regions. Also shown in this figure are the
region points and the region lines. Each segment of a region edge between any
two adjacent points is called a line. Both points and lines can have special
properties as discussed in the next sections. In this figure the lines and points are
not free as they belong to a region. They do, however have similar behavior to
free points and lines.
Figure 3-6 shows a multi-sided polygonal region defined using 10 points. There is
no restriction on the number of points in a region. However, the rule of thumb to
keep things simple is always encouraged.
Page 38
SEEP/W
Points
Lines
Figure 3-5 Illustration of a regions lines and points

10
Figure 3-6 A multi-side polygonal region

Points can be selected and moved to modify the shape and position of regions,
which provides for great flexibility in making adjustments and alterations to a
problem definition.
Page 39
15
16
14
17
SEEP/W
13
11
12
Figure 3-7 Regions of different size

Points are also required in order to join regions of different sizes and to control the
meshing for specific purposes. Figure 3-7 shows a homogeneous soil region with a
concrete footing region. The foundation region is made up of Points 11, 12, 13, 17
and 14. The footing region is made up of Points 14, 17, 16, and 15. Points 14 and
17 are common to both regions and therefore the two regions are properly joined
and connected along this edge. In addition, Point 17 ensures that an element node
will be created and will exist at the edge of the footing, which is required for
proper meshing. It also breaks up the region edge between points 13 and 14 so that
a unique boundary condition may be placed along the edge sub-section.
When a region is defined, it is restricted to having:
One type of material,
One type of element meshing pattern (or no mesh),
One order of elements; either first- or second-order, and
One integration order.
More information on finite elements is provided later in this chapter.
Free points
As seen in the illustrations above, regions are made up of a series of points. It is
also possible for a point to exist within a region or outside of a region on its own.
By default, a finite element node must exist at the location of all points, whether
region corner points or free points. The advantage of this is that by placing a free
point you can ensure that a boundary condition is applied at the desired location.
Page 40
SEEP/W
In past versions of GEO-SLOPE software, all boundary conditions were applied

directly to mesh nodes or mesh element edges. This is no longer the approach to
use. Now, all boundary conditions must be applied directly to region lines, region
(or free) points or geometry lines. The power in this new approach will be readily
evident to the user who decides to change the default generated mesh. In the past,
changing the mesh required that all boundary conditions and soil properties (in
some cases) were lost or attempted to be re-applied. Now, because properties and
boundary condition exist as objects on geometry items, the mesh can be changed
with no threat of having to re-do parts of the model set up.
Free lines
A free line is a line object that does not make up any part of a region edge. They
can be very useful for applying anchors to a model or for specifying a geo-fabric or
insulation layer. They can also be used for creating structural components that are
partially in the soil and partially outside the soil. Here are some examples
50
37
23
38
24
25
Figure 3-8 Truss loading model

In Figure 3-8 structural bar properties have been applied to a pattern of free lines in
order to determine displacements under loading for the truss system.
Page 41
SEEP/W
18
17
Figure 3-9 Anchors on lines (line is partially meshed)

Figure 3-9 shows two key aspects of free lines. A free line in two segments has
been drawn to model a tie back anchor. The upper length of the free line was left
un-discretized (i.e., independent of the finite element mesh) while the lower length
is incorporated into the mesh. The lower end represents a beam structural member
which requires that it is aligned with the surrounding soil elements. The upper
length represents a structural bar element which only acts in tension or
compression and only has an active force and stiffness at its end points which do
coincide with nodal locations. It does not interact with the soil so does not need to
share a mesh with the soil except at its end points.
Figure 3-10 Lines with material model none (no flow) assigned to
simulate lysimeter collection basin in waste beneath an engineered
soil cover
Page 42
SEEP/W
Figure 3-10 shows the use of free lines to construct a lysimeter collection basin
beneath an engineered soil cover system. The line was assigned a material model
of none to simulate a no flow condition (i.e., a null material). This is a key point
to understand, that the line was assigned a material model. When this is done, the
line inherits the behavioral properties of the material assigned and a special
interface element is added to the line mesh. The interface behavior depends on the
application being solved. In this example, the interface has no flow across it. In
a stress-deformation model, the interface on the line may be assigned soil
structure friction/slippage properties. Interface elements are discussed in more
detail in the next section.
Interface elements on lines
In the previous section the concept of applying a material model to a single line
was introduced. The actual material models that can be used are dependent on the
analysis being solved. For example, in SEEP/W an interface model may be used to
represent a geo-fabric or a null material to represent a barrier to flow. In TEMP/W
it may be a thin insulation layer. In SIGMA/W, the material model may describe
the friction properties between soils, or a soil and a structure such as a cutoff wall.
You can read about all of these models in the respective engineering books.
Interface material on lines

Figure 3-11 Illustration of "interface elements" on geometry lines
Page 43
SEEP/W
The discussion now will focus on how to apply an interface region to a line object.
There are two ways to do this. There is a Draw Line Material Properties command
in which you can choose a material model you have defined and apply it to a line
by clicking just next to a line as shown in Figure 3-12. You can assign a different
property to either side of a line. If you use this option, you are specifying the
material as well as creating special thin interface elements. You can then go
back and change the element thickness from its default value using the Draw Mesh
Properties command and choosing the line.
Figure 3-12 Using the Draw Line Material command to assign an

interface model to a line
The second option for specifying an interface model on a line is to first create the
thin elements and then assign the material to the line. You can use the Draw Mesh
Properties command, select the line, choose the Generate Interface Elements
option and specify an interface element thickness. This process is illustrated in
Figure 3-13.
The actual thickness of the interface elements may or may not have physical
meaning but the material model assigned to them will hold some meaning. If, for
example, the interface represents an insulation layer in TEMP/W, then the
thickness is relevant. However, if the interface describes the frictional behavior
between two sliding blocks, then the thickness specified is not factored in the
solution and it can be specified only to satisfy your presentation needs.
Page 44
SEEP/W
Figure 3-13 Using Draw Mesh Properties to create interface elements

on selected line
Circular openings
A circular opening is a type of region that floats over top of another soil region.
It is created using a Draw command and is defined by its center point and one
point on its circumference. The region can be dragged to a different location or its
circumference point can be moved to change the size of the opening. Like all other
regions, it can have a mesh assigned to it; it can have material properties assigned
to its edge (such as a tunnel liner interface material); and it can have boundary
conditions assigned to its edge or center point.
Figure 3-14 shows a circular opening region that was placed on top of an existing
soil region. The circular region was applied by clicking on the desired center point
and then dragging the radius point to a desired location. Once defined, the region
can be designated to be a mesh opening or an un-meshed opening or hole. A mesh
may be necessary to obtain in-situ stresses prior to excavation. A hole may be
necessary to simulate a pipe or culvert. In the opening presented in the figure,
interface elements have been added to the tunnel face. This will make it possible
to apply a structural beam to the face with a soil-structure interaction model
applied between the beam and soil.
Page 45
SEEP/W
Figure 3-14 Circular region with defined center point, radius point and
interface elements
3.3
Mesh generation
In GeoStudio all meshing is now fully automatic. There is no longer the ability to
draw individual finite elements. In addition, there is no worry whether the mesh
will be compatible across different regions or whether your material properties or
boundary conditions will disappear if you change the mesh.
When a geometry region or line is initially drawn it is by default un-meshed. A
default mesh is generated for the soil regions when you first use the Draw Mesh
Properties command, which you may accept or modify. You may alter the size of
the elements at a global level for the entire mesh, within any one or more regions,
or along a line or around a point. You may specify mesh density as a real length
unit, as a ratio of the global mesh size, or as the number of divisions along a line
edge. Generally, however, it is recommended that you limit altering the mesh to
changing the global density and then, if necessary, at a few limited locations where
finer or coarser density is needed.
Meshing options and available patterns are shown in the image below.
Page 46
SEEP/W
Figure 3-15 Draw Mesh Properties options

Structured mesh
Figure 3-16 presents what is known as a structured mesh because the elements are
ordered in a consistent pattern and are of only two shapes and sizes. A structured
mesh for a non-symmetrical geometry shape requires that several soil regions are
created and the meshing is controlled within each region. This is likely more work
to accomplish and will not yield a significant improvement in results. More
efficient, automatic meshing options with good numerical performance are
available and will be discussed in the next section. A structured mesh is created
using either a rectangular grid of quads or a triangular grid of quads/triangles.
Unstructured quad and triangle mesh
The fully structured mesh shown in Figure 3-16 may require several regions to be
defined so that you can control the meshing at a detailed level in order to maintain
structure. A new meshing pattern is available that will automatically generate a
well behaved unstructured pattern of quadrilateral and triangular elements as
shown in Figure 3-17. In our opinion, this mesh option should be the first one you
choose as it will meet your needs in most cases.
Page 47
SEEP/W
10
Figure 3-16 Structured mesh

32
33
34
31
35
36
Figure 3-17 Mixed quad and triangle unstructured mesh

Unstructured triangular mesh
The diagram in Figure 3-18 shows the same section as in Figure 3-16, but this time
with an unstructured triangular mesh. In this case the mesh is automatically created
using Delaunay triangulation techniques. One of the great attractions of
unstructured meshing is that almost any odd-shaped region can be meshed. This
meshing simplicity however has some numerical and interpretation consequences
as discussed in more detail in the Structured versus Unstructured Section below.
Page 48
SEEP/W
32
33
34
35
31
36
Figure 3-18 Unstructured triangular mesh

Triangular grid regions
GeoStudio has a special structured pattern for triangular regions called a triangular
grid of quads/triangles. The next figure (Figure 3-19) shows a typical triangular
region with the resulting structured mesh. The elements are a mixture of squares,
rectangles, trapezoids and triangles. The use of this pattern is fairly general, but it
does have some limitations and restrictions.
2
Figure 3-19 Triangular grid region
It is useful to think of the region as having three sides: a short side, an intermediate
length side and a long side. The algorithm attempts to sort the edges so that the
sides go from the shortest to the longest in a counter-clockwise direction. In this
example, the shortest side is 3-1, the intermediate 1-2 and the longest 2-3.
The meshing algorithm works best when the number of divisions is controlled on
the shortest and intermediate sides. To retain the even pattern shown in Figure
3-19, the number of divisions should be defined on the shortest side first and then
Page 49
SEEP/W
on the intermediate side. The number of divisions on the intermediate side can be
an even multiple of the number on the shortest side. In the above example, the
shortest side has 5 divisions and the intermediate side can have 10, or 2 times that
of the shortest side. The algorithm works best and gives the best structured mesh if
the numbers of divisions on the longest side are left undefined allowing the
algorithm to compute the appropriate number of divisions.
If a triangular region is mixed in with other more general regions, GeoStudio will
attempt to ensure mesh compatibility. Sometimes however it may not be possible
to adhere to the requirements for generating a structured mesh in a triangular
region and then GeoStudio will substitute an unstructured mesh.
Rectangular grid of quads
Figure 3-20 shows the same region geometry meshed with the rectangular grid of
quads pattern. This is a structured mesh but has the potential to be more difficult
to control. The mesh pattern on the left side is very nice but near the base of the
slope the quad shape is starting to distort. This distortion could be controlled by
adding more region points along the bottom edge but this will still result in a mesh
with large elements on the left and thinner elements on the right. This mesh
pattern is ideally suited for four sided regions only.
32
33
34
31
35
36
Figure 3-20 Rectangular grid of quad elements
3.4
Surface layers
At the ground surface conditions change in response to the climate and climatic
conditions can change dramatically over short periods of time. For example, the
ground maybe highly desiccated near the surface on a hot day before a
thunderstorm. In a short period of time, the soil changes from being very dry to
Page 50
SEEP/W
being saturated. Another example may be penetration of frost from the ground
surface. To numerically deal with rapid and dramatic boundary changes it is
necessary to have fine discretization near the ground surface. GeoStudio has a
special procedure for constructing a surface layer that can be finely discretized.
Figure 3-21 illustrates a surface layer placed over the surface of a larger region.
The surface layer capability is also invaluable for discretizing features such as
engineered soil covers over waste material, which may consist of several relatively
thin layers of soil which also require fine discretization.
The ability to construct a surface layer is available in VADOSE/W, SEEP/W and
TEMP/W. In SEEP/W the surface layer is used to tell the solver that it should track
seepage face flows and infiltration events for any unit flux boundary condition. As
a result, water that does not immediately infiltrate the ground is not considered lost
from the analysis, but is allowed to pond and build up a positive pressure head in
any user-defined low points along the surface. The other GeoStudio modules
cannot be used to construct a surface layer, but once the surface mesh has been
created it will exist in all the other modules. Consequently, if a layer has been
created for a SEEP/W analysis, the surface layer will also be part of a SLOPE/W
analysis, since GeoStudio uses only one geometry definition within a single data
file.
Once the main soil profile has been meshed, a special Draw Surface Layer
command can be used to build up a single or multi layer region along all or part of
a ground surface. Parameters such as the soil type and individual layer geometry
are defined and a quadrilateral element mesh with vertically oriented nodes is
automatically built on top of the existing ground region. The structure of the mesh
will ensure optimum numerical stability during the solution.
Quadrilateral elements are much better for modeling ground surface processes
because the primary unknown gradients are usually steeper in a direction
perpendicular to the surface. The presence of triangular elements in thin layers
near the surface causes excessive fluctuation in the computed results relative to the
orientation of the triangular elements. Also, dealing with plant root zones in the
VADOSE/W model necessitates that element nodes in the surface layer all fall on
vertical lines. Moreover, using quadrilaterals greatly reduces the number of
elements required, an important consideration when dealing with situations that
will be very computationally intensive.
Page 51
SEEP/W
Figure 3-21 Illustration of a surface layer mesh

Surface layers have special viewing options. Consider the two meshes illustrated in
Figure 3-22. The left diagram shows a surface layer without all the cluttering
details as illustrated on the right. When many thin elements are located in a close
proximity to each other, they can appear indistinguishable when viewed from a far
away scale. By optionally turning off the surface mesh details a clearer image of
the structure of the near surface soil layers can be viewed.
Figure 3-23 is another illustration of this optional viewing concept. The left
diagram in the figure shows the detailed mesh and soil layers across the 0.75m
thick surface region and the right diagram leaves the details out, but still shows the
layer colors. A couple of additional key points can be made in regards to the
figure. Notice that bottom two elements of the left diagram are the same soil type
as the main underlying soil. This is a good mesh design strategy that being to
have the bottom most layer of the surface mesh be made of the same soil as the
existing ground. Consider if the bottom layer of the surface soil was VERY
different from the underlying soil. If a finely spaced mesh was placed directly on
top of the different underlying soil then the numerical integration of material
properties at the common mesh node between the two soils would be less accurate
because of the influence of the large element area from the material below the
common nodal point. By having the bottom layer of the surface layer be the same
as the underlying soil, the element shapes are very similar in size and aspect at the
common nodal point between the two very contrasting soils.
The second point to node from Figure 3-23 is that in the right diagram the nodes
that are located at the interface between two soils are still viewable even though
the main mesh details are not. This is intentional so that you can easily see and
Page 52
SEEP/W
graph data at nodes that are used for automatic tracking of interlayer fluxes in the
VADOSE/W model.
Figure 3-22 Surface region mesh with details off (left) and on (right)
Figure 3-23 Close up of surface details on and off (note inter-layer

nodes still visible in figure on right)
Boundary flux modeling with rainfall infiltration, runoff, snow melt etc. can be
very numerically demanding from a convergence perspective. Potential problems
can be made worse if the shape of the surface mesh is not realistic. Consider the
two meshes illustrated in Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25. In the first figure, the
ground profile has rounded corners which are much more natural and much more
numerically friendly. In the second figure, changes in slope angle are represented
by a sharp break. This sharp break is not only un-natural, but the shape of the
individual elements right at the transition points creates numerical problems if
there are large changes in boundary condition type at different nodes within the
same element. This would be the case when the corner node at the bottom of the
slope becomes a seepage face point while the next node up slope is still an
infiltration node. Basically, it is better to build the mesh to look somewhat natural.
Page 53
SEEP/W
Figure 3-24 Mesh showing rounded surface slope breaks
Figure 3-25 Mesh showing angular surface slope breaks

In order to create a surface mesh with more rounded features it is necessary to
build the underlying soil mesh with the same rounded profile. This is easily
accomplished in GeoStudio by adding additional region points near a slope break
such that the region points can be moved slightly to create a rounded profile. This
is the case in Figure 3-26 below where three region points are used at both the toe
and crest of the slope. Also notice that three region points are used on the bottom
of the mesh beneath the toe and crest location. This is a useful tip to remember.
Page 54
SEEP/W
When you want to have more control over the trans-finite element mesh you
should add region points on opposite sides of the mesh from where you need the
detail. As a final note, adding region points can be done at any time even after
the surface layer is created. When the region beneath a surface layer is changed,
the surface layer above it will be automatically regenerated to ensure mesh
compatibility with the region below.
Figure 3-26 Region mesh with region corner points viewed and
surface details not viewed
3.5
Joining regions
Compatibility must be maintained between regions to ensure the regions are

connected. Regions must be joined at the region points and points must be
common to adjoining regions for the regions to be properly connected. GeoStudio
has a number of features to assist in achieving region compatibility.
The following are some of the main characteristics:
If the cross-hair symbol moves close to an existing point, the symbol will
snap to the existing point.
A new point will be created if the cursor is on the perimeter of an existing
region. The new point will then be common to the new region and to
the existing region.
Page 55
SEEP/W
Points in between selected points are automatically selected along an

existing region edge unless the Ctrl key is held down.
Consider the diagram in Figure 3-27. Region 1 is drawn first and Region 2 can be
drawn by clicking on Points 7, 3, 8 and 9. Points 4, 5 and 6 are automatically
added to Region 2.
9
2
7
3
5
6
4
1
Figure 3-27 Regions joined along jagged line

9
7
5
6
4
1
1
Figure 3-28 Adjoining regions with an open space

Sometimes it may be desirable to create an open area in a mesh and then it is
necessary to hold down the Ctrl key when going from Point 7 to 3 or 3 to 7. Doing
this results in a mesh as shown in Figure 3-28. In this case the Ctrl key was held
down after clicking on Point 7, but before clicking on Point 3.
Additional details on joining regions are presented in the on-line help.
Page 56
SEEP/W
3.6
Meshing for transient analyses
Modeling transient processes requires a procedure to march forward in time

increments. The time increments are referred to in GeoStudio as time steps.
Selecting and controlling the time step sequence is a topic in itself and will be dealt
with later. Obtaining acceptable transient solutions is not only influenced by the
time steps, but also by the element size. In a contaminant transport advectiondispersion analysis (CTRAN/W) it is necessary to have a time step sufficiently
large to allow an imaginary contaminant particle to move a significant distance
relative to the element size, while at the same time not have the time step size be so
large as to allow the particle to jump across several elements. The particle should,
so to speak, make at least one stop in each element. In CTRAN/W this is
controlled by the Peclet and Courant criteria.
In a simulation of consolidation, the time step size for the first time step needs to
be sufficiently large so that the element next to the drainage face consolidates by at
least 50 percent. Achieving this is related to the element size; the larger the
element the greater the required initial time step. If the time step size is too small,
the computed pore-water pressures may be unrealistic.
The important point in this section on meshing is to realize that meshing, more
particularly element sizes, comes into play in a transient analysis. Rules and
guidelines for selecting appropriate time stepping are discussed elsewhere with
reference to particular types of analysis.
3.7
Finite elements
Discretization or meshing is one of the three fundamental aspects of finite element

modeling. The other two are defining material properties and boundary conditions.
Discretization involves defining geometry, distance, area, and volume. It is the
component that deals with the physical dimensions of the domain.
A numerical book-keeping scheme is required to keep track of all the elements and
to know how all the elements are interconnected. This requires an ordered
numbering scheme. When finite element methods were first developed, creating
the mesh numbering was very laborious. However, many computer algorithms are
now available to develop the mesh and assign the element numbering. Developing
these algorithms is in some respects more complex than solving the main finite
element equations. GeoStudio has its own system and algorithms for meshing,
Page 57
SEEP/W
which are designed specifically for the analysis of geotechnical and geoenvironmental problems.
Some human guidance is required to develop a good finite element mesh in
addition to using the powerful automatic meshing algorithms available. One of the
issues, for example, is mesh size. Computers, particularly desktop or personal
computers, have limited processing capability and therefore the size of the mesh
needs to be limited. Variable mesh density is sometimes required to obtain a
balance between computer processing time and solution requirements. Ensuring
that all the elements are connected properly is another issue. Much of this can be
done with the meshing algorithm, but it is necessary for the user to follow some
fundamental principles. In finite element terminology this is referred to as ensuring
mesh compatibility. GeoStudio ensures mesh compatibility within a region and for
the most part ensures mesh compatibility across adjacent regions, but it is still
possible to create a situation whereby mesh incompatibility exists. The user needs
to provide some guidance in ensuring compatibility between regions.
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce some of the basic concepts inherent in
meshing and outline some procedures which must be followed when developing a
mesh. An understanding of these fundamentals is vital to proper discretization.
Much of this chapter is devoted to describing the meshing systems and the features
and capabilities available in GeoStudio. In addition, there are also discussions on
the selection, behavior and use of various element types, sizes, shapes and patterns.
A summary of practical guidelines for good meshing practice are also outlined.
3.8
Element fundamentals
Element nodes
One of the main features of a finite element are the nodes. Nodes exist at the
corners of the elements or along the edges of the elements. Figure 3-29 and Figure
3-30 show the nodes, represented as black dots.
The nodes are required and used for the following purposes:
The positions of the nodes in a coordinate system are used to compute the
geometric characteristics of the element such as length, area or
volume.
Page 58
SEEP/W
The nodes are used to describe the distribution of the primary unknowns
within the element. In the SEEP/W formulation, the primary field
variable is the hydraulic head or pore-water pressure.
The nodes are used to connect or join all the elements within a domain. All
elements with a common node are connected at that node. It is the
common nodes between elements that ensure compatibility, which is
discussed in further detail below.
All finite element equations are formed at the nodes. All elements common
to a single node contribute to the characteristics and coefficients that
exist in the equation at that node, but it is the equation at the node that
is used to compute the primary unknown at that node. In other words,
the seepage equation is developed for each node and the material
properties which are used within the equations are contributed from
the surrounding elements.
There can be multiple finite element equations developed at each node depending
on the degrees of freedom. In seepage analysis there is only one degree of freedom
at each node, which is the head or pore-water pressure. The number of finite
element equations to be solved is equal to the number of nodes used to define the
mesh. In a 2D stress-deformation analysis, there are two degrees of freedom at
each node displacement x and displacement y. Consequently, the number of
equations for the whole domain is equal to two times the number of nodes. In a
coupled consolidation analysis there are three degrees of freedom at each node
displacement x, displacement y and pore-water pressure. For a coupled
consolidation analysis the total number of equations required to solve the problem
is three times the number of nodes.
Since the number of finite element equations is related to the number of nodes, the
number of nodes in a problem is one of the main factors in the computing time
required to solve for the primary unknowns.
Field variable distribution
In a finite element formulation it is necessary to adopt a model describing the
distribution of the primary variable within the element (e.g., total head). The
distribution could be linear or curved.
For a linear distribution of the primary unknown, nodes are required only at the
element corners. The two nodes (points) along an edge are sufficient to form a
Page 59
SEEP/W
linear equation. Figure 3-29 illustrates this situation. Elements with nodes existing
at the corners are referred to as first-order elements.
Figure 3-29 Primary field variable distribution in first-order elements

The derivative of the primary unknown with respect to distance is the gradient. For
a linear distribution the gradient is consequently a constant. In the context of a
seepage formulation the primary unknown is the hydraulic head. The derivative of
head with respect to distance is the seepage gradient and the gradient is therefore
constant within a first order element.
With three nodes defined along an edge, we can write a quadratic equation
describing the distribution of the primary unknown within the element.
Consequently the distribution of the primary unknown can be curved as shown in
Figure 3-30. The derivative of the quadratic head distribution results in a linear
gradient distribution. Elements with three or more nodes along an edge are referred
to as higher order elements. More specifically, an element with three nodes along
an edge is known as a second-order element.
Figure 3-30 Primary field variable distribution in higher-order

elements
Higher order elements are more suited to problems where the primary unknowns
are vectors as in a stress-deformation analysis (deformation x and y). When the
primary unknown is a scalar value as in a seepage formulation, there is often little
Page 60
SEEP/W
to be gained by using higher-order elements. Smaller first-order elements can be as

effective as larger higher-order elements. This is discussed in more detail in the
meshing guidelines at the end of this chapter.
Element and mesh compatibility
Element and mesh compatibility are fundamental to proper meshing. Elements
must have common nodes in order to be considered connected, and the distribution
of the primary unknown along an element edge must be the same for an edge
common to two elements.
Consider the illustration in Figure 3-31. Element numbers are shown in the middle
of the element and node numbers are presented beside the nodes. Even though
elements 4, 5 and 6 appear to be connected to elements 7, 8 and 9, they are actually
not connected. Physically, the elements would behave the same as the two element
groups shown with a physical separation on the right side of Figure 3-31. Common
nodes are required to connect the elements as shown in Figure 3-32. Node 11, for
example, is common to Elements 5, 6, 8 and 9.
Mixing elements of a different order can also create incompatibility. Figure 3-33
shows 4-noded quadrilateral elements connected to 8-noded elements. Elements 1
and 2 are 8-noded elements while Elements 3 to 10 are 4-noded first-order
elements. The field variable distribution in Element 1 along edge 9 to 11 could be
curved. In Elements 3 and 4 the field variable distribution between 9 and 10 and
between 10 and 11 will be linear. This means the field variable distributions
between Elements 1 and 2 are incompatible with the field variable distributions in
Elements 3 to 6.
The meshing algorithms in GeoStudio ensure element compatibility within
regions. A special integer-based algorithm is also included to check the
compatibility between regions. This algorithm ensures that common edges between
regions have the same number of elements and nodes. Even though the software is
very powerful and seeks to ensure mesh compatibility, the user nonetheless needs
to careful about creating adjoining regions. The illustration in Figure 3-31 can also
potentially exist at the region level. At the region level, region points need to be
common to adjoining regions to ensure compatibility.
Page 61
16
15
20
14
13
19
23
18
31
18
39
14
26
17
30
17
43
38
23
42
19
13
21
25
47
46
34
10
10
9
24
20
22
48
35
11
12
11
44
36
21
15
27
7
1
40
32
12
8
2
24
28
9
3
SEEP/W
16
29
37
22
41
33
Figure 3-31 Disconnected elements lack of compatibility
8
3
6
7
2
2
11
20
12
15
8
10
4
16
9
1
1
12
19
11
14
7
18
10
13
17
Figure 3-32 Connected elements compatibility satisfied
Page 62
45
SEEP/W
13
12
11
10
9
18
6
5
4
3
17
16
15
14
23
10
9
8
7
22
21
20
19
Figure 3-33 Element incompatibility

The integer programming algorithm in GeoStudio seeks to ensure that the same
number of element divisions exist between points along a region edge. The number
of element divisions are automatically adjusted in each region until this condition
is satisfied. It is for this reason that you will often notice that the number of
divisions along a region edge is higher than what was specified. The algorithm
computes the number of divisions required to achieve region compatibility.
Numerical integration
In a finite element formulation there are many integrals to be determined, as shown
in the Theory chapter. For example, the integral to form the element characteristic
matrix is:
B C B dv
t
For simple element shapes like 3-noded or 4-noded brick (rectangular) elements, it
is possible to develop closed-formed solutions to obtain the integrals, but for
higher-order and more complex shapes it is necessary to use numerical integration.
GeoStudio uses the Gauss quadrature scheme. Basically, this scheme involves
sampling the element characteristics at specific points known as Gauss points and
then adding up the sampled information. Specific details of the numerical
integration in GeoStudio are presented in the Theory Chapter.
Generally, it is not necessary for most users to have a comprehensive
understanding of the Gauss integration method, but it is necessary to understand
some of the fundamentals since there are several options in the software related to
this issue and some results are presented at the Gauss sampling points.
Page 63
SEEP/W
The following table shows the options available. Use of the defaults is
recommended except for users who are intimately familiar with numerical
integration and understand the significance of the various options. The integration
point options are part of the meshing operations in GeoStudio.
Element Type
Integration Points
Comments
4-noded quadrilateral
Default
8-noded quadrilateral
4 or 9
4 is the default
3-noded triangle
1 or 3
3 is the default
6-noded triangle
Default
Some finite element results are computed at the Gauss sampling points. GeoStudio
presents the results for a Gauss region, but the associated data is actually computed
at the exact Gauss integration sampling point. Even though a Gauss region is
displayed, the data is not necessarily constant within the region.
With the View Object Information command, you can click inside a region and the
geometry and material information is displayed together. By expanding the mesh
folder, you can review the mesh information that has been assigned to the region.
The number of Gauss regions within an element is equal to the number of Gauss
integration points used in the analysis.
It is important to be cognizant of the impact of Gauss points on computing time
and data storage. Nine-point integration in a quadrilateral element, for example,
means that the element properties need to be sampled nine times to form the
element characteristic matrix and element data is computed and stored at nine
points. This requires more than twice the computing time and disk storage than for
four-point integration. Sometimes nine-point integration is necessary, but the
option needs to be used selectively.
Secondary variables
Earlier it was noted that finite element equations are formed at the nodes and the
primary unknowns are computed at the nodes. Again, in a seepage formulation the
primary unknowns are the total heads at the nodes. Once the primary unknowns
have been computed, other variables of interest can be computed such as the
seepage gradients within the element. Since these parameters are computed after
the primary values are known, they are called secondary variables.
Page 64
SEEP/W
Secondary quantities are computed at the Gauss integration points. GeoStudio

displays a Gauss region, but the associated values are strictly correct only at the
Gauss integration point.
For contouring and graphing, the secondary values are projected and then averaged
at the nodes. This can sometimes result in unrealistic values if the parameter
variations are excessive between Gauss points. The procedure and consequence of
the projection from Gauss points to the nodes is discussed further in the
Visualization of Results Chapter. The important point is to be aware of the fact that
secondary parameters are computed at Gauss integration points.
3.9
Infinite regions
There are many problems in geotechnical engineering where there is no distinct

boundary within a reasonable distance from the main area of interest. An example
might be modeling a dam embankment on top of a flat topography that extends
laterally over a significant distance. In a numerical model it is necessary to define a
boundary at some practical distance from the dam. Ideally, the boundary should be
far enough away from the main area of interest so as to not significantly influence
the results. One solution is to make a mesh that extends over a large distance, but
this can lead to a mesh that is awkward to work with. Another solution is to use
what are called infinite regions. These regions contain elements that make it
possible to greatly extend the position at which the boundary conditions are
effective without actually extending the mesh. The conditions far from the main
area of interest are referred to as far field boundary conditions.
The details of the infinite element formulation are presented in the appendix
chapter on interpolating functions. Only a conceptual overview and some
guidelines for using these elements are presented here.
Infinite regions are applied to an existing region edge line using the Draw Regions,
Infinite Regions command. When you select this command you can draw an
additional thin region adjacent to an existing region as shown in Figure 3-34. The
program will know from the orientation of the region you draw what the direction
to infinity will be.
The infinite elements are formed on the basis of a decay shape function. Three
points are required to describe this decay function. The formulation in GeoStudio
uses some of the element nodes together with what is known as the pole point to
create the three points. Figure 3-35 illustrates the concept.
Page 65
SEEP/W
Figure 3-34 Infinite region applied to right edge of model
X2
X1
Pole
Far field nodes
Figure 3-35 Pole position relative to an infinite element

When infinite elements are used, the x-coordinates of Nodes 6 and 8 are modified
so that the distance between Node 1 and 8 is the same as between Node 1 and the
pole. That is, the x-coordinates of Nodes 6 and 8 are modified so that X2 in Figure
3-35 is equal to X1. Next the decay function is created using the x-coordinate of
the pole, the x-coordinate of Node 1 (or 2 or 5) and the modified x-coordinate of
Node 8 (or 6). Nodes 3, 4 and 7 are considered to be at infinity and are not used in
creating the shape functions.
Page 66
SEEP/W
Infinite elements need to be 8-noded quadrilaterals. The secondary nodes (6 and 8)

are required to form the decay function. Triangular elements cannot be used for
this purpose.
Infinite regions are a convenient way of extending the far field of a problem, but
they need to be used with some caution. The infinite regions work best if the
specified boundary conditions at the far field are the primary unknowns in the
analysis; that is, head, displacement, temperature, and so forth. Specifying
gradients (for example, unit rates of flow or stress) along the element edge
representing the far field will work, but the effect is less certain than specifying
primary field variables.
Boundary conditions should not under any conditions be specified on the element
edges that are parallel to the infinity direction. In the element in Figure 3-35,
boundary conditions should not be applied along edge 1-8-4 and edge 2-6-3. You
cannot apply a boundary condition that is a function of edge length when the edge
length is considered to be infinite.
The distance between the pole and the inner edge of the infinite element obviously
influences the coefficients of the decay function and the modification of the
secondary node x-coordinates. The pole position consequently does have some
influence on the behavior of the elements. Fortunately, the results are not all that
sensitive to the pole position. Generally, the objective is to make the distance
between the pole and the inner edge of the element as large as conveniently
possible, but not beyond the extents of the over all mesh.
We recommend that you always complete an analysis without infinite regions first.
Then after you have obtained an acceptable solution, save the problem to a new
file and then add the infinite regions to refine your analysis. Having solutions with
and without infinite regions is a useful way of understanding the effect of
extending the far field boundary and understanding the computed response of these
elements.
We recommend that you always complete an analysis without infinite elements first.
Having solutions with and without infinite elements is a useful way of understanding the
effect of extending the far field boundary and understanding the computed response of
these elements.
Page 67
3.10
SEEP/W
General guidelines for meshing
Meshing, like numerical modeling, is an acquired skill. It takes practice and

experience to create the ideal mesh. Experience leads to an understanding as to
how the mesh is related to the solution and vise versa. It is when you can anticipate
an approximation of the solution that you will be more proficient at meshing.
The attraction of the GeoStudio system is that a mesh can quickly be created with
relative ease and later modified with relative ease. This makes it convenient to try
various configurations and observe how the meshing influences the results.
An appropriate finite element mesh is problem-dependent and, consequently, there
are no hard and fast rules for how to create a mesh. In addition, the type of mesh
created for a particular problem will depend on the experience and creativity of the
user. However, there are some broad guidelines that are useful to follow. They are
as follows:
Use as few elements as possible at the start of an analysis. Seldom is it
necessary to use more than 1000 elements to verify concepts and get a
first approximate solution.
All elements should be visible to the naked eye when the mesh is printed at
a zoom factor of 100 % and when the horizontal and vertical scales are
the same. The exception to this guideline are the elements found in a
surface layer.
The mesh should be designed to answer a specific question, and it should
do not include features that do not significantly influence the system
behavior.
The mesh should represent a simplified abstraction of the actual complex
geometric field configuration.
Number of elements
Based on many years of responding to GEO-SLOPE user support questions, most
users start with a mesh that is too complex, containing too many elements for the
objective of the analysis. The thinking when users first start doing finite element
analyses seems to be the more elements, the better; that a large number of elements
will somehow improve the accuracy of the solution. This is not necessarily true. If
the mesh is too large, the time required to obtain a solution can become
unattainable. Sometimes it also becomes very difficult to interpret the results,
Page 68
SEEP/W
particularly if the solutions appear to be unreasonable. The effort required to

determine the reason for an unreasonable solution increases dramatically with
mesh size.
We highly recommend that you try and create a mesh with less than 1000
elements, particularly at the start of an analysis. Our experience is that most
geotechnical problems can be modeled with 1000 elements or less. Obviously there
are exceptions, but this number is a good goal to strive for. Later, once you have a
good first understanding of the critical mechanisms in your problem, you can
increase the mesh density to refine the analysis.
Effect of drawing scale
Another good guideline is that all elements should be visible to the naked eye
when the mesh is printed or viewed at a 100% zoom factor. Groups of elements
that appear as a solid or nearly solid black smudge on the drawing are too small.
This means a suitable element size is related to the drawing scale. A drawing at a
scale of 1:100 can have much smaller elements than a drawing at a scale of 1:2000.
In other words, if it is necessary to zoom in on an area of the drawing to
distinguish the elements, the elements may be unnecessarily small.
All elements should be readily distinguishable when a drawing is viewed when the
vertical scale is equal to the horizontal scale. It is possible to draw a nice looking
mesh at a vertical exaggerated scale, but when viewed at a true vertical scale the
mesh appears as a wide black line. This effect is illustrated in Figure 3-36. The top
part of the figure shows a nice mesh at 10V:100H, a 10 times vertical
exaggeration. The same mesh at a scale of 100V:100H appears at the bottom of
Figure 3-36. At an exaggerated scale the elements appear suitable, but at a true
scale they are not appropriate.
It is important to remember that the main processor which solves the finite element
equations sees the elements only at the true scale. The vertical exaggeration is used
only in DEFINE and CONTOUR for presentation purposes.
A good rule to follow is to always view the mesh at a true scale before solving the
problem to check that the mesh is reasonable for the purpose of the analysis.
Page 69
SEEP/W
Figure 3-36 Mesh at an exaggerated scale (upper) and at a true scale

(lower)
Mesh purpose
The How To modeling chapter notes that in good numerical modeling practice it
is important to form a mental imagine of what the solution may possibly look like
and to clearly define the purpose of the model before trying to create a model.
Meshing is closely tied to this guideline. The mesh should be designed to answer
specific questions. Trying to include all possible details in a mesh makes meshing
unnecessarily time consuming and can sometimes make it difficult to interpret the
results.
Let us assume that we are interested in estimating the seepage though the clay core
of a zoned dam with rock shells. Figure 3-37 shows a typical case. The rock shells
are considered to be many orders of magnitude more permeable than the core. In
addition, the granular drain filter layers between the clay and the rock are clean
and can easily handle any seepage though the core without impeding the drainage.
In other words, the granular filter layers and rock shells make no contribution to
dissipating the hydraulic head on the upstream side of the core. If this
consideration is true, then there is nothing to be gained by including the highly
permeable materials in the analysis. A mesh such as in Figure 3-37 is adequate to
analyze the seepage though the core.
Page 70
SEEP/W
Figure 3-37 Modeling core of zoned dam

Figure 3-38 shows the total head contours (equipotential lines) in the core. From
this the seepage quantities through the core can be computed.
Figure 3-38 Equipotential lines in core of dam

Sometimes a mesh may be required to include the shells in the analysis for other
reasons, such as a stress-deformation analysis. In such a case, the mesh can exist,
but does not need to be included in the analysis. This is accomplished using null
elements as shown in Figure 3-39. Elements in GeoStudio can be null (not active)
by leaving a key material property undefined. In SEEP/W the elements are null if
there is no specified conductivity function for the material. In the example in
Figure 3-39 the rock shells have no conductivity function assigned to the material.
1
Figure 3-39 Mesh with null elements in shells of dam

One of the attractions inherent to numerical modeling is that the geometry and
finite element mesh do not necessarily have to conform strictly to the physical
Page 71
SEEP/W
conditions. As in Figure 3-37, the core can be analyzed in isolation. This would not
be possible in physical modeling. The dam with a toe drain in Figure 3-40 is
another good example. The toe drain does not have to be included in the numerical
analysis. This, of course, would not be possible in a physical model.
8
10
11
Figure 3-40 Dam with a toe drain

Simplified geometry
A numerical model needs to be a simplified abstraction of the actual field
conditions. This is particularly true when it comes to the geometry. Including all
surface irregularities is unnecessary in most situations. Geometric irregularities can
cause numerical irregularities in the results, which distract from the main overall
solution. The main message can be lost in the numerical noise.
Simplifying the geometry as much as possible is particularly important at the start
of an analysis. Later, once the main processes involved are clear, the geometry can
be altered to determine if the geometric details are important to the main
conclusions.
The situation is different if the main objective of the analysis is to study the effects
of surface irregularities. Then the irregularities of course need to be included. So,
once again, the degree of geometric complexity depends on the objectives of the
analysis.
Also, the level of geometric detail that needs to be included in the problem must be
evaluated in light of the certainty with which other factors such as the boundary
conditions and material properties are known. There is little to be gained by
defining a very detailed geometry if the material properties are just a rough
estimate. A simplified geometry is more than adequate if the material properties
are rough estimates. There needs to be a balance in complexity between all the
aspects of a finite element analysis, including the geometry.
Page 72
SEEP/W
Over-complicating the geometry is a tendency when users first get into numerical
modeling. Then as modelers gain more experience they tend to use more simple
geometries. This obviously comes from understanding how the mesh can influence
the results and what level of complexity is required. The situation should be the
reverse. It is the modelers with limited experience who should use simplified
geometries.
The main message to remember when starting to model is to keep the problem as
simple as possible until the main engineering issues are well understood.
Page 73
SEEP/W
Page 74
SEEP/W
Chapter 4: Material Models and Properties
Material Models and Properties
This chapter describes the various soil hydraulic properties that are required in the
solution of the seepage partial differential equation. It is important to have a clear
understanding of what the soil properties mean and what influence they have on
the type of results generated. This chapter is not meant to be an all-inclusive
discussion of these issues, but to highlight the importance of various parameters
and the implications associated with not defining them adequately.
Well defined soil properties can be critical to obtaining an efficient solution of the
finite element equations. When is it sufficient to guess at a function and when must
you very carefully define one? This chapter will address these issues.
4.1
Soil behavior models
There are four different material models to choose from when using SEEP/W. A
summary of these models and the required soil properties are given below and a
discussion of the individual parameters and functions are provided in the next
section.
Material models in SEEP/W
1) None (used to removed part of a model in an analysis)
2) Saturated / Unsaturated model
Hydraulic conductivity function, ratio and direction
Water content function
Air conductivity function (only if AIR/W added)
3) Saturated only model
Hydraulic saturated conductivity (Ksat), ratio and direction
Saturated water content
Coefficient of volume compressibility (Mv)
Air conductivity set to zero (only if AIR/W added)
4) Interface model
Hydraulic normal and tangent conductivity
Page 75
SEEP/W
Air conductivity (only if AIR/W added)

The Saturated Only soil model is very useful for quickly defining a soil region that
will always remain below the phreatic surface, but it should not be used for soils
that will at some point during the analysis become partially saturated. If this
happens, the model will continue to solve but you will be saying, in effect, that the
unsaturated zone can transmit the water at the same rate as for the saturated soil.
This will result in an over estimate of flow quantity and can result in an unrealistic
water table.
If there is any doubt about which model to choose for a soil region (as opposed to
an interface region), you should select the Saturated / Unsaturated model. Also, if
you intend to do a coupled analysis with CTRAN/W you MUST use the fully
specified soil property functions.
The Interface soil model is to be used in conjunction with interface elements that
are added to the mesh to represent geo-membranes, wick drains, or cut off walls.
In these cases, you can specify a different tangent and normal conductivity which
would be the case in a wick drain where the smearing effect caused during
installation results in a lower conductivity in the normal flow direction than in the
tangential direction.
4.1
Soil water storage water content function
It is important to understand the relationship between pore-water pressure and

water content in seepage analyses. Soil consists of a collection of solid particles
and interstitial voids. The pore spaces or voids can be filled either with water or
air, or with a combination of both. In a saturated soil, all the voids are filled with
water and the volumetric water content of the soil is equal to the porosity of the
soil according to:
w nS
where:
the volumetric water content,
the porosity of the soil, and
the degree of saturation (in saturated soil equal to 1.0 or 100%).
The porosity, n, is related to the void ratio, e, by:
Page 76
SEEP/W
wGs
n
1 n
S
where:
the gravimetric water content, and
Gs
the particle specific gravity.
In an unsaturated soil, the volume of water stored within the voids will vary
depending on the matric suction within the pore-water, where matric suction is
defined as the difference between the air (Ua) and water pressure (Uw) as follows:
Ua-Uw.
There is no fixed water content in time and space and so a function is required to
describe how the water contents change with different pressures in the soil.
The volumetric water content function describes the capability of the soil to store
water under changes in matric pressures. A typical function for a drying soil is
shown in Figure 4-1 where the function was measured for an air pressure of zero.
Figure 4-1 Volumetric water content (storage) function

The volumetric water content function describes what portion or volume of the
voids remains water-filled as the soil drains. The three main features that
Page 77
SEEP/W
characterize the volumetric water content function are the air-entry value, (AEV),
the slope of the function for both the positive and negative pore-water pressure
ranges (designated as mw), and the residual water content or saturation, ( r or

Sr). The air-entry value (AEV) corresponds to the value of negative pore-water
pressure when the largest voids or pores begin to drain freely. It is a function of the
maximum pore size in a soil and is also influenced by the pore-size distribution
within a soil. Soils with large, uniformly shaped pores have relatively low AEVs.
Adequately representing the slope of the water content function, in both the
positive and negative pore-water pressure regions, can be very important in a
seepage analysis, since water can be released from the soil in two ways. Water can
be released by draining the water-filled voids thus desaturating the soil profile by
gravitation forces, or by compressing the soil skeleton and reducing the size of the
voids, effectively squeezing water out of a saturated system. In the positive porewater pressure region, mw becomes equivalent to mv, the coefficient of volume
compressibility for one-dimensional consolidation. The slope of the volumetric
water content function in the negative pore-water pressure range represents the rate
at which the volume of water stored within the soil changes as the pressure
changes, over a range of values from the AEV to the pressure at the residual water
content.
Another key feature of the volumetric water content function is the residual
volumetric water content, which represents the volumetric water content of a soil
where a further increase in negative pore-water pressure does not produce
significant changes in water content. This point can also be expressed in terms of
the degree of saturation by dividing the residual volumetric water content by the
porosity of the soil. It is possible to remove water to a state less than the residual
water content value, but this process is controlled by evaporation and / or osmotic
forces. Evaporative drying is excluded from SEEP/W, but is included in
VADOSE/W by considering simultaneous coupled heat, mass and vapor flow.
Water can be released by draining the water-filled voids and de-saturating the soil profile
by gravitation force; by compressing the soil skeleton and reducing the size of the voids,
effectively squeezing water out of a saturated system; or by applying evaporative demand.
Page 78
SEEP/W
Factors affecting the volumetric water content

The three main features of the volumetric water content function as described
above are most strongly influenced by the size of the individual soil particles and
the distribution of particle sizes in the soil. By way of example, consider the
differences between the volumetric water content functions for sand, silt and clay
shown in Figure 4-2
There are several factors that influence the shape of the volumetric water content
function. As mentioned earlier, the air-entry value (AEV) reflects how much
negative pore-water pressure can be applied to the pore-water before the largest
pores or voids start to drain.
Consider the uniform sand function. Since the particles are relatively large and
approximately the same size, water can easily be removed under relatively small
negative pore-water pressures and the resulting air entry value is smaller than that
for the silt or clay. The uniform nature of the pores means that all the pores drain
over a small range of negative pore-water pressures, which makes the slope of the
function steeper than the others.
Figure 4-2 Typical storage functions for 3 soil types

The silt has a wider distribution of pore sizes. Some of the pores between the larger
sand particles are filled with silt particles, making the largest pores sizes smaller
Page 79
SEEP/W
than those of uniform sand. Consequently, a more negative pore-water pressure

must be applied before drainage begins, thereby increasing the AEV. In addition,
the pore sizes are not as uniform and the slope of the function is less steep.
The pores between the individual clay particles in the clay are small. It is often
difficult to identify a specific air-entry value for clay, as consolidation and changes
to the structure of the clay can release water from the system over a significant
range before air actually enters the pores. Since clay tends to be compressible, the
slope of the function in the positive pore-water pressure region tends to be steeper
and becomes a significant parameter to consider in saturated seepage analyses.
4.2
Storage function types and estimation methods
It is not especially difficult to obtain a direct measurement of a volumetric water

content function in a laboratory, but it does require time and it requires finding a
geotechnical laboratory that performs the service. It is, however, standard practice
to obtain a grain-size distribution curve and many companies have the capability
and facilities to develop their own curves. The development of the grain-size
distribution curve is inexpensive and can be quickly accomplished.
One of the required input parameters for a transient analysis is the volumetric
water content function. Since it can sometimes be difficult or time consuming to
obtain a volumetric water content function, it may be of benefit to be able to
develop an estimation of the volumetric water content function using either a
closed-form solution that requires user-specified curve-fitting parameters, or to use
a predictive method that uses a measured grain-size distribution curve. SEEP/W
has four methods available to develop a volumetric water content function. One is
to estimate a data point function using a predictive method based on grain size, one
is to base your function of a sample set of functions built into the software, and
two are closed form equations based on known curve fit parameters.
Estimation method 1 (grain size - Modified Kovacs)
Aubertin et al (2003) presented a method to predict the volumetric water content
function which is modified from the method proposed by Kovacs (1981). The
modifications were made to Kovac's method to better represent materials such as
tailings from hard-rock mines. A further modification extended the method for clay
type soils. The Aubertin et al. method predicts the volumetric water content
function using basic material properties which can be useful, particularly for
preliminary analysis. It should be cautioned that, especially for clay type materials,
Page 80
SEEP/W
it is critical to base a final design on measured material properties as opposed to

estimated ones.
The function is initially determined as a degree of saturation function and then is
later converted to a volumetric water content function. The function is developed
by defining the degree of saturation for two main components. The first component
contributes to the amount of water that is stored in a soil by capillary forces that
exist at relatively small negative pore-water pressures. The second component
contributes to the volumetric water content function at large negative pore-water
pressures where the amount of water that exists in the soil is primarily a function
of adhesion. Both of these components can be evaluated from the negative porewater pressure and material property information such as particle-size, the shape of
the particles and the porosity.
The degree of saturation as determined based on the capillary and adhesive
components is as follows:
Sr
w
Sc S a* (1 Sc )
n
where:
Sr
the degree of saturation,
the porosity,
Sc
the degree of saturation due to capillary forces, and
S a*
the bounded degree of saturation due to adhesion ( S a ).
where:
S a* 1 S a 1
The adhesive component is a bounded value since it is possible at low suctions for
the value Sa to be greater than 1. The bounded value ensures that for a Sa greater
or equal to 1, Sa* = 1 and if Sa is less than 1, then Sa* = Sa.
The adhesion component is associated with the thin film of water that covers the
surface of the soil grain and depends on basic material properties such as the
Page 81
SEEP/W
negative pore-water pressure in the soil and the particle-size, shape coefficient and
porosity of the soil. It is determined by the following equation:
2/3
hco
S a aC
1/ 6
1/ 3
e
n
where:
=
a curve fitting parameter,
the suction,
a suction term introduced to ensure dimensionless component,
the void ratio,
hco
the mean capillary rise (cm) determined for capillary soils by:
b(cm 2 )
eD10 (cm)
hco
or
w1.75
L
hco
for cohesion type soils where:

=
D10
the particle diameter (cm) corresponding to 10% passing on a grain-size

curve,
b(cm ) =
b(cm 2 )
is given by:
0.75
1.17 log Cu 1
where:
Cu
the coefficient of uniformity,
Page 82
SEEP/W
wL
the liquid limit (%),
a constant approximately equal to 402.2 cm ,
a correction coefficient that allows a progressive decrease in water
content at high suctions, forcing the function through a water content of

zero at one million kPa suction as initially proposed by Fredlund and
Xing (1994) and described by:

ln 1
C 1

ln 1 o
r
where:
the suction corresponding to the residual water content at which point an

increase in suction will not effectively remove more liquid water from
the soil and given by:
1.2

r 0.86 w1.74
L
e
The capillary saturation, which depends essentially on the pore diameter and the
pore size distribution, is given by:
m
hco 2
hco 2
S c 1
1 exp m

where:
m
a fitting parameter that takes into account the pore size distribution and
controls the shape and position of the volumetric water content function
in the capillary zone.
Page 83
SEEP/W
For plastic-cohesive soils considered here, both the value of parameters m and a
can be taken as constants with m=3x10-5 and a=7x10-4 in the predictive
applications. For the capillary based soils, m and a can be taken as 1 and 0.01
respectively.
Estimation method 2 (sample functions)
In previous versions of GeoStudio a list of over 20 fully defined water content
functions were provided. Based on experience and user feedback, we no longer
provide this list. Instead, we provide several typical water content functions for
different types of soils. In using these sample functions, it is up to you to specify
the saturated water content and the residual water content (if any) based on your
understanding of field conditions. These functions are provided as a means to
letting you set up some test models quickly, change functions easily, decide how
sensitive your results are to function shape, and ultimately to have you decide if
you need to spend more time and money obtaining more accurate data. In the past,
our list of real functions ended up being used as final design material properties
with little thought about their relevance. This is not good modeling practice.
Figure 4-3 Sample Functions in GeoStudio
Page 84
SEEP/W
Closed form option 1 (Fredlund and Xing, 1994)

The Fredlund and Xing (1994) method is a closed-form solution that can be used
to develop the volumetric water content function for all possible negative pressures
between zero and minus one million kPa based on the user's knowledge of a group
of three parameters. The governing equation is as follows:
w C
s
n
ln e
a
where:
the correction function described above,
the saturated volumetric water content,
the natural number (2.71828),
the negative pore-water pressure, and
a, n, m =
curve fitting parameters.
The 'a' parameter, which has units of kPa, is the inflection point of the volumetric
water content function. It is generally slightly larger than the air-entry value. The
parameter n controls the slope of the volumetric water content function and the m
parameter controls the residual water content. The three parameters a, n, and m are
determined as follows:
a i

m 3.67 ln s
i
m 1
1.31
3.72s i
n
m s
where:
Page 85
SEEP/W
the suction pressure corresponding to the water content occurring at the

inflection point of the curve, and
the slope of the line tangent to the function that passes through the
inflection point.
The Fredlund and Xing, 1994 method is only functional if you know values of a, n
and m. In general, the a, n and m values can be determined using a fitting
algorithm and applying it to measured data points. SEEP/W has this ability.
It is important to understand that this method is not intended to predict a
volumetric water content function from grain-size curves, but was developed to
obtain a smooth function over the complete range of negative pore-water pressure
values (0 to 1.000,000 kPa).
Closed form option 2 (Van Genuchten, 1980)
In 1980, Van Genuchten proposed a four-parameter equation as a closed form
solution for predicting the volumetric water content function. The governing
equation is as follows:
w r
s r
n
1
a
where:
the saturated volumetric water content,
the negative pore-water pressure, and
a, n, m =
curve fitting parameters (note: a has units of pressure, not 1/pressure

head as in some formulations of this equation)
Although the terminology of the a, n and m parameters are similar to those of

Fredlund and Xing (1994), the definitions are slightly different. The a parameter in
particular cannot be estimated by the air-entry value, but instead is a pivot point
about which the n parameter changes the slope of the function. The parameter m
Page 86
SEEP/W
affects the sharpness of the sloping portion of the curve as it enters the lower
plateau. The Van Genuchten closed form method can only be used then the curve
fit parameters are known, but there are some references to these values in the
literature that can be applied in the model.
CAUTION: the units of the a value should be checked to make sure they are
consistent between your data source and SEEP/W, which requires the units be in
terms of pressure and not 1/pressure.
4.3
Soil material function measurement
Obtaining the saturated conductivity value of a soil is a fairly simple process that
involves measuring a fixed head gradient across a saturated soil sample and then
measuring the quantity of water that passes through at steady state conditions. For
coarse grained soils this can be as simple as setting up a column of soil and using a
pump or tap water to force water through. A standpipe manometer can be used at
two fixed locations in the column to obtain the total head values needed to backcalculate the saturated conductivity value. For more fine grained soils, the rate of
water expelled during an Odometer test can be related to its saturated conductivity
value. This is a useful approach as the saturated conductivity versus void ratio data
can be plotted and used in subsequent sensitivity analysis relating to as built field
conditions.
The hydraulic conductivity versus pore-water pressure relationship can be
established directly from laboratory measurements. This involves measuring the
hydraulic conductivity of soil samples at various negative pore-water pressure
levels, but the process can often take very long due to the low conductivity values
that can be present in partially saturated soil, which affects the time it takes to
reach equilibrium conditions.
Making measurements of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is a fairly complex
and involved task. Difficulties associated with the measurements have been
discussed by Brooks and Corey, 1966, and Green and Corey, 1971. In addition to
the time for testing, the difficulties are generally related to problems with air
diffusion and measuring small flow quantities.
The techniques for measuring unsaturated hydraulic conductivity have been
documented by Klute, 1965. This document describes the fundamentals of the
equipment and procedures involved. Another paper on the subject has been
Page 87
SEEP/W
presented by Corey, 1957. Hillel, 1990, discusses the measurement of unsaturated

hydraulic conductivity in situ.
Direct measurement of water content function
The water content of soil at a particular negative pore-water pressure can be
measured with a commercially available apparatus known as a pressure plate cell.
Figure 4-4 shows a schematic diagram of the cell.
It is important that the soil sample is placed in direct contact with a porous ceramic
plate located on the bottom of the inner chamber. The ceramic plate acts like a
semi-permeable membrane between the soil sample and the water filled reservoir
at the bottom of the cell. Positive air pressure is applied to the top of the cell and
increases the air pressure in the chamber. The increase in air-pressure causes porewater from the soil sample to be pushed out through the ceramic plate and air
enters the previously water-filled pores in the soil sample. It is very important that
the air entering the soil is only from the air chamber and not a result of diffusion
through the ceramic plate at the bottom of the cell. This is achieved by using a high
air-entry plate, which will allow water to readily flow through the plate, but restrict
the flow of air up to a certain maximum pressure.
Each incremental increase in air pressure results in an incremental decrease in
water content within the soil sample. Equilibrium conditions must be established
following each incremental increase in air pressure, then the entire cell is weighed
and the change in weight is recorded. At the end of the test, the changes in cell
weight are used together with the final dry weight of the sample to compute the
water content of the sample that existed at each of the various applied pressures. In
this manner, the volumetric water content versus negative pore-air pressure
relationship can be developed.
Page 88
SEEP/W
Air Pressure Line (ua = +ve)

Spring
High
Air-Entry
Disk
SOIL SPECIMEN
Outlet Line
(uw = 0)
Inlet Line
Figure 4-4 Schematic cross-section view of a pressure plate cell

apparatus
Coefficient of volume compressibility ( mv )
4.4
The coefficient of volume compressibility is the slope of the volumetric water

content function in the positive pore pressure range and in physical terms it
describes how much a saturated soil volume will swell or shrink for a given change
in pore pressure. This coefficient can be back-calculated from consolidation test
data according to:
1
M
mv
where:
mv
the modulus of elasticity in confined compression. It is also given by:
av
1 e0
where:
av
the coefficient of compressibility, and
Page 89
e0
SEEP/W
the initial void ratio.
The coefficient of volume compressibility does not need to be accurately defined

for most unsaturated soil seepage problems unless it is expected that a significant
amount of water can be generated or lost through soil matrix volume change in
saturated regions of the problem geometry. In most cases, the user can simply
specify a small value such as 1.0e-5 1/kPa (or equivalent in other units). If a
coupled or uncoupled consolidation / seepage analysis is carried out, this value
should be carefully applied.
4.5
Hydraulic conductivity
The ability of a soil to transport or conduct water under both saturated and
unsaturated conditions is reflected by the hydraulic conductivity function. In a
saturated soil, all the pore spaces between the solid particles are filled with water.
Once the air-entry value is exceeded, air enters the largest pores and the air-filled
pores become non-conductive conduits to flow and increase the tortuosity of the
flow path as shown schematically in Figure 4-5. As a result, the ability of the soil
to transport water (the hydraulic conductivity) decreases. As pore-water pressures
become increasingly more negative, more pores become air-filled and the
hydraulic conductivity decreases further. By this description, it is clear that the
ability of water to flow through a soil profile depends on how much water is
present in the soil, which is represented by the volumetric water content function.
Actually measuring the hydraulic conductivity function is a time-consuming and
expensive procedure, but the function can be readily developed using one of
several predictive methods that utilize either a grain-size distribution curve or a
measured volumetric water content function and the saturated hydraulic
conductivity. SEEP/W has built-in predictive methods that can be used to estimate
the hydraulic conductivity function once the volumetric water content function and
a Ksat value have been specified.
Page 90
SEEP/W
Air bubbles
Soil particles
=n
n < < r
= r
Figure 4-5 Availability of water filled flow paths from saturation to

residual
A hydraulic conductivity function should be specified for all materials in a
problem that will have an unsaturated zone. Even if the hydraulic conductivity
function is an estimate, the results will be more realistic than if the function is
entered as a flat horizontal line. In a unsaturated seepage analysis with negative
surface fluxes (such as evaporation) where negative pressures can become
extreme, the conductivity function should be defined over a pressure range that
exceeds several hundred thousand kPa (or equivalent) of negative pressure. If the
function is not defined over the full range, the lowest specified value will be used
for any increasingly negative pressures.
Adopting a perfectly flat hydraulic conductivity function (i.e., a constant
conductivity) for an unsaturated soil can lead to unrealistic results. The phreatic
surface may end up at an unrealistic position, and the proportion of flow through
the unsaturated zone may be too high. This occurs because with a horizontal
conductivity function, water can flow through the unsaturated zone with the same
ease as through the saturated zone. In other words, for a given constant head
differential, the volume of flow is the same in the unsaturated zone as in the
saturated zone when the hydraulic conductivities in the two zones are the same. In
general, water cannot flow through unsaturated soil with the same ease as through
saturated soil, because the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is lower than that of
a saturated soil.
Page 91
SEEP/W
To illustrate the effect of assuming that hydraulic conductivity is independent of

negative pore-water pressure (i.e., a perfectly flat conductivity function), consider
the example of seepage flow through a rectangular screened box, as shown in
Figure 4-6. Initially, the box is filled with clay. The phreatic surface will have the
form of a hyperbolic curve (top of figure). In the bottom of the figure, the box is
enlarged, the upstream half is filled with clay, and the downstream half is filled
with sand. The sand is assigned a perfectly flat hydraulic conductivity function. In
this case, the phreatic surface in the clay will be at a lower position. The reason for
this is that a significant portion of the flow passes through the unsaturated sand.
Since the resistance to flow is the same in the unsaturated sand as in the saturated
sand, there is no reason for the sand to be saturated in order to conduct the water.
Intuition alone suggests that this is not the case. The phreatic surface in the clay
should be approximately the same in both configurations, and the seepage that
arrives at the clay-sand contact should flow vertically down the contact and then
horizontally along the bottom of the box to the exit point at the lower right corner.
To model the clay-sand configuration, the sand needs to be assigned a very steep
function, so that as soon as the sand desaturates, the hydraulic conductivity drops
dramatically. This ensures that there is no significant flow in the unsaturated sand.
However, a nearly vertical function may cause convergence difficulties. A
compromise would be to use a moderately steep hydraulic conductivity function,
which would eliminate the majority of the flow in the unsaturated sand and yet
produce a reasonable result. It would certainly be closer to the correct solution than
for the first case where the sand has a perfectly flat hydraulic conductivity
function.
Page 92
SEEP/W
Figure 4-6 Comparison of flow with and without a K function

Coarse granular materials essentially have an infinitely steep (vertical) hydraulic
conductivity function when unsaturated. The soil de-saturates completely when the
pore-water pressure is zero or negative; consequently, no flow passes through such
a soil when it is unsaturated. As a result, the hydraulic conductivity in the
unsaturated zone should be infinitely low.
Whenever a problem contains a coarse granular soil that ideally has a near vertical
hydraulic conductivity function when unsaturated, it is necessary to ask the
question, "Does the material contribute to the dissipation of the head?" If it does
not, then consideration should be given to excluding the material from the analysis.
In the clay-sand box example, the sand may not contribute to dissipating the head.
Consequently, a reasonable solution might be obtained by excluding the sand from
the analysis and treating the vertical contact between the two materials as a
boundary. The decision as to whether the sand should be included in the analysis
must also be made in light of the question, "Does the negative pore-water pressure
Page 93
SEEP/W
in the sand contribute to increasing the gradient in the clay?" If it does, the sand
must be included in the analysis.
The accuracy with which the hydraulic conductivity needs to be specified depends
to some extent on the objective of the analysis. If the primary objective is to
compute the distribution of pore-water pressure, then an approximate function may
be adequate. On the other hand, if the objective of the analysis is to make reliable
time predictions, then it may be necessary to define the storage and hydraulic
conductivity with the assistance of laboratory tests.
The level of effort required to define the material functions can be evaluated by
performing several analyses with different assumed functions. Performing such a
sensitivity analysis can greatly increase the confidence level of the computed
results.
In summary, a hydraulic conductivity function must be specified for each material
included in an analysis, even if the function is only an approximation.
An approximated curved conductivity relationship in the unsaturated zone results
in a much better solution than using a straight, horizontal line.
4.6
Frozen ground hydraulic conductivity
SEEP/W can be used in conjunction with TEMP/W to model transient seepage

behavior in frozen, partially frozen, or actively freezing ground. An example of
seepage flow being diverted around an active freezing region is illustrated in
Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8. This type of analysis is controlled by the TEMP/W
program, but information is passed back and forth between the two solvers as the
solution progresses. TEMP/W requires knowledge of the water content in the soil
as well as seepage velocities, so that it can compute the convective heat transfer
associated with flowing water. SEEP/W on the other hand requires knowledge of
the soil temperature so that it can estimate the reduction in hydraulic conductivity
associated with pore-water becoming pore-ice. This estimate is based on
knowledge of the soils unfrozen water content function.
Page 94
SEEP/W
6
4
2
0
-4
-10
1
1
Figure 4-7 Seepage diversion around actively freezing soil region

(Temperature contours from TEMP/W displayed)
2.8
2.6
2.2
2.4
0
0
Figure 4-8 Seepage diversion around actively freezing soil region

(Head contours from SEEP/W displayed)
The unfrozen water content function relates the amount of unfrozen water to a
temperature below freezing and its curve is very similar in appearance to a soil
water characteristic curve when plotted on a semi-log scale. The unfrozen water
content curve can serve three purposes. It can be used to determine the freezing
point depression for pore-water in soils at a given water content below saturation;
it can be used to determine the amount of water that remains unfrozen at any given
temperature below freezing; and the slope of the curve determines how much latent
heat is added to the system by the phase change during the heat and mass transfer
analysis.
Ideally, a soil freezing curve should be measured, but this is difficult to do. It is
possible to estimate the curve using a measured soil water characteristic (storage)
curve and the Clapeyron equation, which relates changes in suction to change in
temperature based on equilibrium thermodynamics. Analysis of the Gibbs free
energy for any two phases in equilibrium can be used to derive the Clapeyron
Page 95
SEEP/W
equation, which relates how the equilibrium pressure changes with a change in
temperature. The reduced form of the Clapeyron equation as applied to the soil
freezing scenario is given by Black and Tice (1989) as follows:
Equation 4-1
1110T
where:
the soil matric suction (kPa), and
the soil temperature below zero Celsius.
The constant value equal to 1110 kPa/oC combines the latent heat of fusion value,
specific volume, and the conversion between the freezing temperature of water in
Kelvin and degrees Celsius.
If the soil temperature below zero Celsius is passed to SEEP/W from TEMP/W,
then the seepage program can use Equation 4-1 to estimate what the approximate
frozen condition suction would be such that this suction is used to determine the
hydraulic conductivity at each gauss point with freezing temperatures (Newman,
1996).
Seepage analysis in freezing ground can be very complicated, especially in the
direct vicinity of the phase change region. At this location it is possible for certain
types of soil to experience cryogenic suction which results in very steep pressure
gradients that can draw water towards the freezing front where it can accumulate
and cause frost heave. In the SEEP/W model, this phenomenon is not accounted
for. While the suctions are estimated based on temperature and used to determine
frozen ground hydraulic conductivity, they are not directly coupled with the
thermal equation and therefore only change due to the solution of the seepage
partial differential equation.
4.7
Conductivity function estimation methods
The difficult task of measuring the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function

directly is often overcome by predicting the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
from either a measured or predicted volumetric water content function, such as the
one illustrated in Figure 4-1. Consequently, this is the preferred approach if a
suitable predictive model is available. These estimation methods generally predict
the shape of the function relative to the saturated conductivity value which is easily
obtained.
Page 96
SEEP/W
SEEP/W has three separate methods built into the model that can be used to predict
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity functions using either a measured or estimated
volumetric water content function or a saturated hydraulic conductivity function.
Method 1 (Fredlund et al, 1994)
This method consists of developing the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
function by integrating along the entire curve of the volumetric water content
function. The governing equation of this method is:
(e y ) ( ) ' yi
(e )
e yi
i j
kw ks N
(e y ) s ' yi
(e )
e yi
i 1
N
where:
kw
the calculated conductivity for a specified water content or negative porewater pressure (m/s),
ks
the measured saturated conductivity (m/s),
the natural number 2.71828,
a dummy variable of integration representing the logarithm of negative

pore-water pressure,
the interval between the range of j to N,
the least negative pore-water pressure to be described by the final

function,
the maximum negative pore-water pressure to be described by the final

function,
the suction corresponding to the jth interval, and
'
the first derivative of the equation
Page 97
C ( )
SEEP/W
s
n
ln e
a
where:
a
approximately the air-entry value of the soil,
a parameter that controls the slope at the inflection point in the

volumetric water content function,
C =
Equation 4-2
a parameter that is related to the residual water content, and

a correcting function defined as
ln 1
Cr
C ( ) 1
1, 000, 000
ln 1
Cr
where:
Cr
a constant related to the matric suction corresponding to the residual

water content.
A typical value is about 1500 kPa. The value 1,000,000 in the above equation
corresponds to the matric suction (in kPa) at which there is zero moisture
remaining in the soil in a liquid or vapor phase.
Method 2 (Green and Corey, 1971)
The Green and Corey equation is:
Equation 4-3
k ( ) i
p
ks
30 T 2
2
g
ksc
n
where:
Page 98
2 j
j i
-2
1 - 2i hi
SEEP/W
K () i =
the calculated conductivity for a specified water content or negative porewater pressure (cm/min),
ks
ksc
the matching factor (measured saturated conductivity / calculated

saturated conductivity),
the last water content class on the wet end (e.g. i=1 identifies the pore
class corresponding to the lowest water content, and i = m identifies the
pore class corresponding to the saturated water content),
hi
the negative pore-water pressure head for a given class of water-filled

pores (cm of water),
the total number of pore classes between i and m,
volumetric water content (cm3/cm3),
surface tension of water (Dyn/cm),
the water-saturated porosity,
the viscosity of water (g/cm s-1),
the gravitational constant (cm/s-1),
the density of water (g/cm3), and
a parameter that accounts for the interaction of pore classes.
The following are some suggested values of p given by various authors: Marshall
(1958): 2.0; Millington and Quirk (1961): 1.3; and Kunze, Vehara and Graham
(1968): 1.0.
The shape of the conductivity function is controlled by the term:
m
2 j
j i
-2
1 - 2i hi
in Eq. 4.3.
The term:
Page 99
SEEP/W
p
30 T 2
2
n
g
is a constant for a particular function and can be taken to be 1.0 when determining
the shape of the hydraulic conductivity function. This is the assumption made in
SEEP/W.
SEEP /W first computes the hydraulic conductivity at the zero pressure value using
the equation,
m
-2
ksc 2j + 1 - 2i hi
j =i
The saturated conductivity ks is a user-defined value in SEEP /W. When ks is

specified, the entire conductivity function is moved up or down by a constant ratio
of ks /ksc.
In summary, SEEP /W uses the Green and Corey equation to estimate the shape of
the conductivity function and then moves the curve up or down so that the function
passes through the user-specified value of ks.
Method 3 (Van Genuchten, 1980)
Van Genuchten (1980) proposed the following closed form equation to describe
the hydraulic conductivity of a soil as a function of matric suction:
1 a ( n 1) 1 a n
kw ks
m
n 2
1 a
where:
ks
saturated hydraulic conductivity,
a,n,m
curve fitting parameters,
1/(1-m), and
required suction range.
Page 100
SEEP/W
From the above equations, the hydraulic conductivity function of a soil can be
estimated once the saturated conductivity and the two curve fitting parameters, a
and m are known.
Van Genuchten (1980) showed that the curve fitting parameters can be estimated
graphically based on the volumetric water content function of the soil. According
to van Genuchten, the best point to evaluate the curve fitting parameters is the
halfway point between the residual and saturated water content of the volumetric
water content function.
The slope of the function can be calculated as:
Sp
dp
1
s r d log p
where:
the saturated and residual volumetric water contents respectively,
the volumetric water content at the halfway point of the volumetric water
content function, and
the matric suction at the same point.
Van Genuchten (1980) proposed the following formula to estimate the parameters
m and a when Sp is calculated:
m 1 exp 0.8S p
for Sp between 0 and 1;
m 1
0.5755 0.1 0.025

2 3
Sp
Sp
Sp
for Sp > 1; and

1
1 m
a 2 1
(1 m )
Page 101
4.8
SEEP/W
Interface model parameters
The interface model allows you to assign a material model to a line and to give that
line a thickness. In a seepage application, you may want to use an interface model
to simulate a thin liner or a wick drain. When you assign an interface model to a
line you must give it hydraulic conductivity values that are both normal and
tangent to the direction of the line as shown in Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-9 Illustration of interface model assigned to a line
4.9
Storativity and transmissivity
Storativity, specific storage, and transmissivity are terms commonly used to

describe the characteristics of groundwater aquifers. These terms have a
comparable parameter in SEEP/W which makes it possible to use SEEP/W to
analyze the behavior of groundwater aquifers.
The storativity, (storage coefficient), S, is defined as:
S Ssb
where:
Ss
the specific storage, and
the thickness of a confined aquifer.
Page 102
SEEP/W
The specific storage is defined as:
S s g n
where:
the water density,
the gravitational constant,
the compressibility of the aquifer,
the soil porosity, and
the compressibility of the water.
Specific storage is identical to the w mw term in SEEP/W terminology where:
w g
and
mw n
Therefore,
mw
Ss
In SEEP/W, the term mw is the parameter that represents the compressibility of

the system due to a change in pore-water pressure. In this application, it is the
slope of the volumetric water content function in the positive pore pressure range
and is often referred to as mv , the coefficient of volume compressibility from a
standard consolidation test.
The transmissivity, T, of a confined aquifer is defined as:
T Kb
where:
b
the aquifer thickness, and
Page 103

=
SEEP/W
the saturated hydraulic conductivity.
If the transmissivity and the thickness are known, the appropriate hydraulic
conductivity value (K) can be established for a SEEP/W analysis. Sensitivity of
hydraulic results to material properties
4.10
Sensitivity of hydraulic results to material properties
How sensitive is a model to changes to the air-entry value, the slope of the
function, the residual volumetric water content and the saturated hydraulic
conductivity? The effect of altering each of the four material property functions is
highlighted below, through a series of steady-state and transient analyses where
only one parameter is changed at a time to clearly evaluate the influence of each
parameter. Figure 4-10 shows a cross-section of a system where both saturated and
unsaturated conditions exist. This cross-section represents a two-dimensional view
of a flow system in which water from a canal passes through an unconfined,
homogeneous, fine sand aquifer and is collected in a series of collection wells
located along the right edge of the cross-section.
Surface flux boundary 300 mm/year = 9.5 x 10-9 m/s

1.00 m
1.25 m
0.75 m
Homogeneous
Fine Sand
4.00 m
5.25 m
22.00 m
H(P=0)
Over length of
slotted screen
in the well
Figure 4-10 Diagram of system used in sensitivity analysis

Changes to the air-entry value (AEV)
To show how sensitive the model is to changes in air-entry value, a steady-state
simulation was conducted where the AEV of a function was increased from 3 to 10
kPa. A volumetric water content function is not required for a steady-state analysis,
however it is good practice to always make changes to the volumetric water
content function when conducting a sensitivity analysis, and then let the changes
be reflected in the hydraulic conductivity function by recalculating the function
Page 104
SEEP/W
from the value of the saturated hydraulic conductivity and the newly specified
volumetric water content function. Figure 4-11 shows the adjusted volumetric
water content function and the predicted hydraulic conductivity functions used in
the simulations. It is important to note that if the K-function was presented on a
log-log plot (hydraulic conductivity functions are usually presented in the literature
on a log-log scale), the effect of increasing the air-entry value and adjusting the
rest of the curve accordingly would appear to also steepen the slope of the
function. In VADOSE/W however, the functions are always presented on a logarithmetic scale and the AEV can be increased while the slope of both functions
remain similar in shape. Figure 4-12 and Figure 4-13 show the VADOSE /W
modeling results for both the 3 kPa and 10 kPa AEV simulations respectively.
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
1.E-02
10 kPa
1.E-03
3 kPa
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
Negative Pore-Water Pressure (kPa)
Hyd. Cond.
(m/s)
1.E-08
1.E-09
1.E-10
1.E-11
-60
50
1.E-12
-40
-30
-20
-10
Negative Pore-water Pressure (kPa)
Figure 4-11 Material property functions used in the AEV sensitivity

analyses
To compare the results in Figure 4-12 and Figure 4-13, it is probably easiest to
consider the height of the capillary fringe that is emphasized in the magnified
sections. A dimension arrow has been superimposed to show the extent of capillary
rise that develops for both simulations. The capillary rise is the height above the
water table where negative pore-water pressures exist, but the soil remains
saturated due to capillary tension. The air-entry value, when converted from
pressure (kPa) to a pressure head (m), is approximately equal to the height of the
capillary fringe. In the capillary fringe, water is transported through the soil at a
rate equal to the saturated hydraulic conductivity, so more water can be transported
in a larger capillary fringe than in a smaller one. As an interesting aside, note how
the structure of the model (i.e., the downstream side of the berm) controls the
Page 105
SEEP/W
shape of the unsaturated flow system. Even though saturated flow occurs in the
berm, the water table is still at depth and negative pore-water pressures exist on the
downstream face so a seepage face never develops.
-10
Figure 4-12 Pressure contours and flow vectors for a 3 kPa AEV
material
-10
-10
-15
Figure 4-13 Pressure contours and flow vectors for a 10 kPa AEV
material
Page 106
SEEP/W
Changes to the saturated hydraulic conductivity

Six steady state simulations were conducted to evaluate the effect of changing the
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Table 4-1). Basically, the first three simulations
compared the effect of both increasing and decreasing the saturated hydraulic
conductivity and the last three showed the effect of conducting a saturated
hydraulic conductivity sensitivity analysis with the added influence of an applied
surface flux boundary condition.
Table 4-1 Summary of simulations for Ksat sensitivity analyses
Simulation
Ksat
(m/s)
7.5 x 10-4
none
7.5 x 10
-6
none
7.5 x 10
-8
7.5 x 10-4
9.5 x 10-9
7.5 x 10-6
9.5 x 10-9
7.5 x 10-8
9.5 x 10-9
Surface Flux
(m/s)
none
The three hydraulic conductivity functions that were used in the simulations are
presented in Figure 4-14. The general shape of the function remained unchanged
while the saturated hydraulic conductivity was adjusted.
Figure 4-15 to Figure 4-17 show the results obtained from simulations 1 to 3 (see
Table 4-1). A surface flux was not applied and the Ksat was varied by two orders
of magnitude between each simulation. The resulting total head contours and total
flux values that were determined near the well screen are included in the figures.
One of the most significant comparisons to make is with respect to the total head
contours. Altering the saturated hydraulic conductivity does not alter the shape of
the flow net, so the total head contours should be and are the same. The only
obvious difference between the results can be found in the value associated with
the flux section near the well. The flux varies along the same order of magnitude
that the Ksat was varied, so increasing the saturated hydraulic conductivity results
in a greater flow rate to the well and decreasing it reduces the amount of flow to
the well.
Page 107
SEEP/W
1.E-02
1.E-04
1.E-06
-4
Ksat = 7.5 x 10
m/s
1.E-08
Ksat = 7.5 x 10-6 m/s
Hyd. Cond.
(m/s)
1.E-10
-8
Ksat = 7.5 x 10 m/s
-60
-50
-40
1.E-12
30
1.E-14
-20
-10
Negative Pore-water Pressure (kPa)
Figure 4-14 Hydraulic conductivity functions used for Ksat sensitivity

analyses
4.2291e-004
Figure 4-15 Simulation #1 total head contours (Ksat 7.5x10-4 m/s)
4.3756e-006
Figure 4-16 Simulation #2 total head contours (Ksat = 7.5x10-6 m/s)
Page 108
SEEP/W
4.2290e-008
Figure 4-17 Simulation #3 total head contours (Ksat = 7.5x10-8 m/s)

The results presented in the above figures did not include a surface flux boundary
condition. Results obtained from sensitivity analyses (regarding Ksat) where
surface fluxes are applied, are not nearly as easy to compare. The next three figures
show the results from simulations 4 to 6 from Table 4-1. In these cases, a surface
flux boundary condition of 9.5 x 10-9 m/s (equivalent to 300 mm/year net
infiltration ) was applied over the surface and the Ksat was once again varied by
two orders of magnitude between simulations.
-10
0
-25
4.3767e-004
Figure 4-18 Simulation #4 pressure head contours (Ksat = 7.5x10-4

m/s)
-10
-5
0
-10
0
4.4789e-006

m/s)
Page 109
SEEP/W
-5
0
-5
1.2922e-007

m/s)
The pressure head contours (and consequently the total head contours) are very
different between the three simulations where a surface flux was applied. This time
the system has two water sources to contribute to the total flow; the upstream
ponded water and the applied surface flux. The effect on the flow system is
minimal in Figure 4-18 because the Ksat is much greater than the applied surface
flux (10-4 compared to 10-9 m/s). As the difference between the Ksat and the
applied flux gets smaller, the effect on the pressure profiles becomes more
significant. In Figure 4-20, the system is close to becoming fully saturated and a
seepage face develops on the downstream side of the berm. The rate at which the
water can leave the system (i.e., the well), is still controlled by the saturated
hydraulic conductivity, but in the case of analysis with a surface flux applied, the
total flux value leaving the profile is greater.
Changes to the slope of the VWC function
In a steady-state analysis, the amount of flow into the system corresponds to the
flow rate out of the system. However, in a transient seepage analysis the flow into
the system may differ from the flow out of the system because the system stores or
releases water. It therefore becomes necessary to account for the change of water
stored within a soil profile with time. The amount of water stored or retained is a
function of the pore-water pressures and the characteristics of the soil structure and
is described by the volumetric water content function. A transient analysis can be
used to evaluate the effect of altering the slope of the volumetric water content
function (mw). In any transient analysis there are two main considerations; how
fast the water is flowing (a function of the hydraulic conductivity) and how much
water is flowing (a function of the change in storage and the amount of water in the
system). As a result, both material property functions must be defined. Storage is
the amount of water that remains in the pores of a soil under negative pore-water
Page 110
SEEP/W
pressures. If the slope of the VWC function is flat, the change in volumetric water
content for increasingly negative pore-water pressures would be less than for a soil
with a steeper function. Figure 4-21 shows the volumetric water content and
hydraulic conductivity functions used for the sensitivity analysis regarding the
slope of the VWC function. Creating a function with a flatter slope represents a
soil which is non-uniform and has a larger distribution of pore sizes. The air-entry
value (a function of the largest pore size) has not been changed, nor has the
residual water content (a function of the smallest pore size). The modifications
were made to the VWC function and the changes were then reflected in the
hydraulic conductivity function through the use of predictive methods.
In order to obtain initial head conditions, steady-state analyses were conducted
using both the modified and unmodified material property functions. A pond depth
of 0.75m was included for the steady-state analyses and was then removed for the
start of the transient analyses, allowing the system to drain into the well for 40
days. The results from both transient analyses are presented in Figure 4-22.
1.E-02
1.E-03
1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08
0.50
k
(m/s)
0.45
1.E-09
0.40
1.E-10
0.35
1.E-11
0.30
1.E-12
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0.25
0.20
Vol.
Water
Cont.
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
Figure 4-21 Material property functions used in the sensitivity

analyses for changes to the slope of the storage function
One way to evaluate the effect of altering the slope of the VWC function is to
compare how long it takes each simulation to lower the water table to the same
Page 111
SEEP/W
elevation. As can be seen in Figure 4-22, it only took 22 days of drainage, using
the modified function, to lower the P=0 contour (water table) to the same elevation
as that of the unmodified function after 40 days of drainage. The time difference
can be explained in part by comparing water content profiles taken at the same
location. Figure 4-22 shows the initial water content for both simulations as a
vertical, solid black line. The red line indicates the water content profile after 22
days of drainage using the modified function and the blue line indicates the water
content profile after 40 days of drainage using the unmodified function (the one
with the steeper slope). The amount of water removed from the system for each
soil type can be estimated as the area between the black line and the red or blue
line respectively. The water content profile of the modified soil (red) shows that
the soil is wetter, having stored more water in the unsaturated zone than the
unmodified soil (blue). As a result, the amount of water released from the system is
less than that of the unmodified VWC function. The majority of the water removed
for both soils was through the saturated flow system, and since the Ksat remained
unaltered between the simulations, it took less time to drain less water.
Location of water content profile data
Initial 0 kPa
Unmodified 0 kPa - Day 40

Modified 0 kPa - Day 22
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Volumetric Water Content
Figure 4-22 Location of P=0 kPa contour and water content profiles
for the modified function (day 22) and unmodified function (day 40)
Changes to the residual volumetric water content
The last feature of the volumetric water content function to evaluate in the
sensitivity analysis is the residual water content. The effect of changing the
residual volumetric water content does not alter the hydraulic conductivity
function, so only the VWC function was adjusted such that the residual water
content for the modified function was much greater than the unmodified function
as shown in Figure 4-23.
Page 112
SEEP/W
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
Vol.
Water
Cont.
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Figure 4-23 Modified and unmodified residual water contents used in

analyses
Both steady state and transient analyses were conducted in a manner similar those
described in the last section in terms of having the pond in place for the steadystate simulation and then letting the system drain over a 40 day period. Intuitively,
altering the volumetric water content to have higher volumetric water content at
residual should result in a wetter unsaturated profile. To confirm this thinking, the
length of time that it took to lower the P=0 pressure contour (water table) to the
same level as in Figure 4-22 was determined. The results are presented in Figure
4-24.
Location of water content profile data
Initial 0 kPa
Unmodified 0 kPa - Day 40

Modified Slope - Day 22
Modified Residual - Day 30
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Volumetric Water Content
Figure 4-24 Location of P=0 kPa contours and water content profiles
for the modified slope function (day 22), the modified residual (day
30) and the unmodified function (day 40)
Page 113
SEEP/W
With the completely unmodified function, it took 40 days to lower the P=0 contour
(water table) to the location represented in Figure 4-24. It took the function with
the shallower slope 22 days to have the P=0 contour lower to the same elevation.
Increasing the residual water content of the unmodified function resulted in the
P=0 contour reaching the same elevation after 30 days.
Therefore, increasing the residual water content of the volumetric water content
function resulted in a wetter profile above the P=0 contour (as shown by the pink
water content profile) than that of the unmodified function (as shown by the blue
water content profile). Less water was released from the system and so it took less
time to release the water. The greatest amount of water storage results in the least
amount of water being released from the system. This occurred using the
volumetric water content function with the shallow slope.
Page 114
SEEP/W
Chapter 5: Boundary Conditions
Boundary Conditions
5.1
Introduction
Specifying conditions on the boundaries of a problem is one of the key

components of a numerical analysis. This is why these types of problems are often
referred to as boundary-valued problems. Being able to control the conditions on
the boundaries is also what makes numerical analyses so powerful.
Solutions to numerical problems are a direct response to the boundary conditions.
Without boundary conditions it is not possible to obtain a solution. The boundary
conditions are, in essence, the driving force. What causes seepage flow? It is the
hydraulic total head difference between two points or some specified rate of flow
into or out of the system. The solution is the response inside the problem domain
to the specified conditions on the boundary.
Sometimes specifying conditions is fairly straightforward, such as defining the
conditions that exist along the bottom of a reservoir. It is simply the elevation head
at the top of the reservoir. Many times, however, specifying boundary conditions is
complex and requires some careful thought and planning. Sometimes the correct
boundary conditions may even have to be determined through an iterative process,
since the boundary conditions themselves are part of the solution, as for instance
along a seepage face. The size of the seepage face is not known and needs to be
determined from the solution. Furthermore, the conditions on the boundaries may
change with time during a transient analysis, which can also add to the complexity.
Due to the extreme importance of boundary conditions, it is essential to have a
thorough understanding of this aspect of numerical modeling in order to obtain
meaningful results. Most importantly, it is essential to have a clear understanding
of the physical significance of the various boundary condition types. Without a
good understanding it can sometimes be difficult to interpret the analysis results.
To assist the user with this aspect of an analysis, SEEP/W has tools that make it
possible verify that the results match the specified conditions. In other words, do
the results reflect the specified or anticipated conditions on the boundary?
Verifying that this is the case is fundamental to confidence in the solution.
This Chapter is completely devoted to discussions on boundary conditions.
Included are explanations on some fundamentals, comments on techniques for
applying boundary conditions and illustrations of boundary condition types
applicable for various conditions.
Page 115
5.2
SEEP/W
Fundamentals
All finite element equations just prior to solving for the unknowns ultimately
simplify down to:
K X A
where:
[K]
a matrix of coefficients related to geometry and materials properties,
{X}
a vector of unknowns which are often called the field variables, and
{A}
a vector of actions at the nodes.
For a seepage analysis the equation is:

Equation 5-1
K H Q
where:
{H}
a vector of the total hydraulic heads at the nodes, and
{Q}
a vector of the flow quantities at the node.
The prime objective is to solve for the primary unknowns, which in a seepage
analysis is the total hydraulic head at each node. The unknowns will be computed
relative to the H values specified at some nodes and/or the specified Q values at
some other nodes. Without specifying either H or Q at some nodes, a solution
cannot be obtained for the finite element equation. In a steady-state analysis, at
least one node in the entire mesh must have a specified H condition. The specified
H or Q values are the boundary conditions.
A very important point to note is that boundary conditions can only be one of two
options. We can only specify either the H or the Q at a node. It is very useful to
keep this in mind when specifying boundary conditions. You should always ask
yourself the question: What do I know? Is it the head H or the flow, Q?
Realizing that it can be only one or the other and how these two variables fit into
the basic finite element equation is a useful concept to keep in mind when you
specify boundary conditions.
As we will see later in this Chapter, flow across a boundary can also be specified
as a gradient or a rate per unit area. Such specified flow boundary conditions are
Page 116
SEEP/W
actually converted into nodal Q values. So, even when we specify a gradient, the
ultimate boundary condition options still are either H or Q.
There are cases where we may not know either H or Q. A seepage face is a
boundary condition where this is the case. We actually know that the pore-water
pressure is zero (H equals elevation) at the location where the seepage face
develops, but we do not know the size of the seepage face that will exist. In such a
situation, it is necessary to use an iterative procedure to try either H or Q boundary
conditions until the correct solution is obtained. A complete section is devoted to
this special case later in this Chapter. The point here is that in the end we can still
only specify H or Q - which one is to be specified needs to be guided by the
solution itself.
Remember! When specifying seepage boundary conditions, you only have one of two
fundamental options you can specify H or Q. These are the only options available, but
they can be applied in various ways.
Another very important concept you need to fully understand is that when you
specify H, the solution to the finite element Equation 5-1 will provide Q.
Alternatively, when you specify Q, the solution will provide H. The equation
always needs to be in balance. So when an H is specified at a node, the computed
flux, Q, is the amount that is required to maintain the specified H, you cannot
control the Q as it is computed. When Q is specified, the computed head, H, is the
value that is required to maintain the specified flow Q.
Recognizing the relationship between a specified nodal value and the
corresponding computed value is useful when interpreting results. Lets say you
know the specified flow across a surface boundary. Later when you check the
corresponding computed head at that node, you may find that a significant depth of
water impoundment is required to provide the computed head. Then you can judge
whether that is reasonable or not.
SEEP/W always provides the corresponding alternative when conditions are
specified at a node. When H is specified, Q is provided, and when Q is specified, H
is provided. The computed Q values at nodes where a head is specified are referred
to as Boundary Flux values with units of volume per time. These Boundary Flux
values are listed with all the other information provided at nodes.
Page 117
SEEP/W
A third important fundamental behavior that you need to fully understood is that
when neither H nor Q is specified at a node, then the computed Q is zero.
Physically, what it means is that the flow coming towards a node is the same as the
flow leaving the node. Another way to look at this is that no flow is entering or
leaving the system at these nodes. Water leaves or enters the system only at nodes
where H or a non-zero Q has been specified. At all nodes without a specified
condition, Q is always zero. This, as we will see later in this chapter, has important
implications when simulating features such as drains.
The heads in a seepage analysis are the primary unknowns or field variables. A
boundary condition that specifies the field variable (H) at a node is sometimes
referred to as a Type One or a Dirichlet boundary condition. Flow gradient (flux)
boundary conditions are often referred to as Type Two or Neumann boundary
conditions. You will encounter these alternate names in the literature, but they are
not used here. This document on seepage modeling simply refers to boundary
conditions as head (H) or flux (Q) boundary conditions. Later we will differentiate
between nodal flux Q and specified gradients (rates of flow per unit area) across an
element edge.
5.3
Boundary condition locations
In GeoStudio 2007 all boundary conditions must be applied directly on geometry

items such as region faces, region lines, free lines or free points. There is no way
to apply a BC directly on an element edge or node. The advantage of connecting
the BC with the geometry is that they become independent of the mesh and the
mesh can be changed without losing the boundary condition specification. If you
keep the concept of BCs on geometry in mind, you will find that you can specify
any location for a BC quite easily. Consider the following examples which show
the desired location of boundary conditions, the boundary condition applied to the
geometry, and finally the underlying mesh with boundary conditions visible.
If you look carefully at Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3 you will see that the BC symbols
along the slope edge are spaced differently. In the view with no mesh visible, the
BCs are displayed at a spacing that depends on the scale and zoom factor of the
page. In the image with the mesh visible, the BCs are drawn exactly where they
will appear. They are always at a node for this type of BC. Notice also that the
free point location forces a mesh node to be at the exact location. This way, you
can always define a BC anywhere you want and when the mesh changes, the BC
location will remain fixed.
Page 118
SEEP/W
At a free point
Along a region edge sub-division
Figure 5-1 Desired BC locations

At a free point
Figure 5-2 BC's attached to geometry

At a free point
Figure 5-3 BC's with underlying mesh visible
Page 119
SEEP/W
Region face boundary conditions

In GeoStudio 2007 version 7.1 there is a new region face boundary condition.
This BC is a special type of q unit flux condition in which the area applied to
the q action value is not an element edge length but the contributing facial area
that surrounds a node. In this way, the face BC can be used to apply a volume
based mass load to the soil. For example, if the q value is 1 m3/m3/day then the
program will compute the contributing nodal area and if it is assume the model is
of unit thickness, then the applied flow rate is based on the nodal contributing
volume. The face BC is activated if a q BC type is applied on a region. If it is
applied to a line, then the q is the traditional unit flux boundary.
5.4
Head boundary conditions
Definition of total head

In SEEP/W the primary unknown or field variable is the total hydraulic head,
which is made up of pressure head and elevation. The elevation represents the
gravitational component. In equation form the total head is defined as:
where:
H
u
the total head (meters or feet),
the pore-water pressure (kPa or psf),
the unit weight of water (kN/m3 or pcf), and
the elevation (meters or feet).
The term u / w is referred to as the pressure head represented in units of length.

When specifying head boundary conditions, it is necessary to always think of both
the pressure and elevation components. The significance of these components is
illustrated with the following series of examples of flow through a pipe filled with
sand.
Page 120
SEEP/W
Figure 5-4 shows a situation where the pipe is horizontal. The elevation is the same
at both ends, but the pressure head is higher on the left than on the right. The total
head on the left is 20 while on the right the total head is 10. There is a total head
difference, and consequently, there will be flow from the left to the right. In
equation form, the total difference is:
H 20 5 10 5 10
10
9
8
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
3
2
1
0
0
10
Figure 5-4 Flow in horizontal pipe due to head gradient only

Now consider the case where the left end of the pipe is higher than the right end as
in Figure 5-5. In this case, the pressure head is the same at both ends. There is,
however, a total head difference between the two ends due to the elevation
difference and, consequently, once again there will flow from the left to the right.
Now the total head difference is:
H 0 10 0 0 10
Page 121
10
9
SEEP/W
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
Figure 5-5 Flow in inclined pipe due to elevation head gradient only
In Figure 5-6 the pipe is again inclined as was the previous case, but the water
pressures are different at each end. The total head difference now is zero and,
consequently, there is no flow.
H (5 10) (15 0) 0
10
9
8
7
P=5
Z=10
6
5
4
P=15
Z=0
3
2
1
0
0
10
Figure 5-6 No flow in inclined pipe if zero total head change

Now consider the case where the total head is higher on the right than on the left,
as in Figure 5-7, even though the pipe slopes from left to right. The total head
difference is:
H (5 10) (20 0) 5
The negative value indicates the flow is from right to left.
Page 122
10
9
15
SEEP/W
16
7
6
17
18
4
3
19
20
1
0
0
10
Figure 5-7 Upward flow due to pressure head and lower elevation
head gradient
These simple examples all illustrate that the flow is in response to a total head
difference between two points and, when defining head boundary conditions, it is
necessary to always consider the pressures head together with the elevation.
At least one node in a steady-state analysis needs to have a head-type boundary condition
in order to obtain a solution.
Head boundary conditions on a dam

Now let us specify the head boundary condition for a seepage analysis through the
dam shown in Figure 5-8. The full supply level of the reservoir is 20 m. The
ground elevation at the bottom of the reservoir is 10 m. Downstream of the dam
the water table is at the ground surface and at the downstream end there is an
under-drain. The granular material in the under-drain is highly permeable, making
it reasonable to assume that the water level in the drain is the same as the water
table downstream of the dam. This implies that the permeability is high enough
that there is no head loss in the drain relative to the small amount of seepage that
will come through the low permeability embankment and foundation material.
Page 123
SEEP/W
22
20
18
Q=0 with seepage face
H = 20m
16
14
12
H = 20m
H = 10m
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 5-8 Head and seepage face boundary for flow through a dam
On the upstream side, where the reservoir contacts the embankment dam and the
original ground surface, the total head is equal to the full supply level. On the
upstream face of the dam at the reservoir level, the water pressure is zero, but the
elevation is 20 m. The total head at this point then is 20 m. At the bottom of the
reservoir, the pressure head is 10 m of water and the elevation is 10 m, making the
total head also 20 m. The upstream boundary condition is therefore a constant total
head equal to 20 m. This shows the convenience of using total head as a boundary
condition. Even though the water pressures are different at every node on the
upstream sloping face under the reservoir, the total head is nonetheless a constant.
Without using total head as a boundary condition a different pressure would have
to be specified at each node on the upstream dam face. Specifying this condition as
a constant total head is more convenient.
Downstream of the dam toe, the water table is at the ground surface; that is, the
water pressure is zero at the ground surface. The total head, therefore, is the
elevation of the ground surface, which in Figure 5-8 is 10 m.
The water level in the drain is the same as the water table beyond the downstream
toe as reasoned earlier. Therefore, the conditions around the perimeter of the drain
are known. The total head around the drain perimeter in this case is 10 m.
The total head difference between the upstream and downstream conditions is
10 m, resulting in the flow shown in Figure 5-9.
Page 124
SEEP/W
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
18
19
20
Constant H=20m
10
14
15
16
13
17
20
12
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Figure 5-9 through reservoir dam with toe under-drain

Constant pressure conditions
Sometimes it is the pressure head that is constant on sloping ground and the total
head varies at every node. Figure 5-10 illustrates a case like this. The natural
ground surface beyond the embankment toe slopes away from the embankment.
The water table is considered to be at the ground surface. From a seepage analysis
point of view, the water pressure is zero at the ground surface. The elevation of
each node in this area is different and therefore the total head is different at each
node.
SEEP/W has a special feature to handle this condition. You can specify the head
with a special condition that makes the pressure zero. When you select this option,
SEEP/W finds the y-coordinate of each node and sets the total head equal to the ycoordinate. You will notice that the boundary condition is specified as a head-type
with the action equal to the y-coordinate of the node.
Page 125
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SEEP/W
Q=0 with seepage face
20
H = 20m
H = 20m
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
9
27
28
8.5
10
9.5
12
14
16
18
P=0
29
30
Figure 5-10 Sloping down-stream face with P=0 boundary (non

constant heads)
Far field head conditions
There are many situations where it is necessary to specify the boundary conditions
at the far extents of a problem. Figure 5-11 shows an example where the main
interest is the seepage into an excavation. The excavation is below the initial water
table. In a case like this it is necessary to specify the condition on the vertical
boundary some distance away from the excavation. This is often referred to as the
far field boundary.
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12
14
16 18
20
22 24
26
28 30
Figure 5-11 Excavation region with initial water table shown

In reality, the boundary conditions at the far field are unknown. It is common,
however, to approximate the boundary condition by specifying a head condition
reflective of the initial water table. In other words, the boundary condition is
specified as a total head equal to the elevation of the water table. This is a
reasonable thing to do, but it is important to understand the physical significance of
this type of a boundary condition.
Page 126
SEEP/W
15
21
19
20
13
18
11
12
17
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
16
Specifying a constant total head as a far field boundary condition implies that
sufficient water is somehow going to come to that location so that the head remains
a constant. Physically this is the same as if there was a water reservoir up against
the far field end of the problem, as illustrated in Figure 5-12, and that the reservoir
remains at a constant level. This is not reality, but specifying the constant head has
the same physical significance.
14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Figure 5-12 Far field boundary with head equal to water table
elevation
Specifying a constant head far field boundary condition is legitimate in a transient
analysis until the point in time when the water table would naturally start to drop at
the far field. For further time steps, it is only an approximation of reality the same
as it would be if used in a steady-state analysis. A steady-state analysis is
physically a transient analysis run to infinity, and during this long time water
somehow arrives at the far field to maintain the constant head.
The objective in a finite element analysis is to extend the far field boundary far
enough away from the point of engineering interest that the head approximation
does not significantly influence the engineering results. Extending the far field
boundary can sometimes be conveniently accomplished with infinite elements,
which are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, the Meshing chapter, and
Appendix A.
Once again as discussed in Section 5.2, it is important to remember that when you
specify a head, the software will always compute a flux Q into or out of the flow
system at that node.
Page 127
5.5
SEEP/W
Specified boundary flows
The second of two options for specifying boundary conditions is to specify a rate
of flow across the edge of an element. An example may be the rate of infiltration
or application of precipitation. This is often referred to as a flux boundary.
Thinking back to the discussion on fundamentals in Section 5.2, when it comes to
solving the unknowns in the finite element equations, it is necessary to specify or
compute the flow at the nodes. Consequently, when specifying a unit rate of flow
across the edge of an element, it is necessary to integrate along the edge of the
element and convert the unit rate of flow (q) into nodal flows (Q). Even though
SEEP/W automatically does the integration, it is nonetheless useful to have an
understanding of how the integration is done. Understanding the relationship
between unit rates of flow across an element edge and nodal flows can be useful in
understanding and verifying results. Sometimes in unusual situations, it can also be
useful to know how to manually compute the nodal Q flows from unit rates of flow
(q) and then specify Q at the node instead of q on the edge of the element.
First of all, SEEP/W only handles uniform rates of flow across the edge of an
element. The uniform rate of flow can be set to vary with time, but not with
distance across an edge of any individual element. Formulations for non-uniform
rates of flow across an edge are available, but these have not been implemented in
SEEP/W.
Since the flow across the edge of an element is uniform, the total flow across the
edge is simply the flow rate (q) times the length of the element edge. The manner
in which the total flow across the edge gets distributed to the nodes depends on the
number of nodes on the edge. In SEEP/W the edge can have either 2 or 3 nodes.
When the edge of an element has only two nodes, the total specified flow across
the edge is evenly divided between the end nodes. Half goes to one end node, the
other half goes to the other end node. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 5-13.
When two or more edges have a common node, the contributions from each edge
accumulate at the common node as illustrated in Figure 5-13.
Higher-order elements with three nodes along the edge of an element are usually
not required in a seepage analysis. Sometimes, however, it is desirable to do a
SIGMA/W or QUAKE/W analysis on the same mesh, and for these types of
analyses, higher order elements are required. Consequently, sometimes higher
order elements are used in a seepage analysis not because they improve the
Page 128
SEEP/W
seepage analysis results, but because mesh consistency is required when

integrating with other types of analyses.
Seepage boundary with
water table initially at s urface
1.00
0.75
2.0000e+000
0.50
q = 1 m ^3 / tim e / meter edge length

unit flux boundary
5.0
-00
00
0e
1.0000e+000
e
00
0.00
-0
0
0
5.0
0.25
Figure 5-13 Unit and total nodal flux boundary condition relationships
When there are three nodes along the edge of an element, the total flow across the
edge is distributed as 1/6 to each corner node and 4/6 to the middle node. This is
graphically illustrated in Figure 5-14. Once again, when one node is common to
more than one edge the 1/6 end contribution from each edge is accumulated at the
common node. The distributions of the nodal fluxes come directly from the
numerical integration of a variable, such as a gradient along the edge of an
element. Further details on this are presented later in the Theory Chapter and the
Visualization of Results Chapter.
For an axisymmetric case the Q boundary flux values are a function of the radial
distance from the vertical symmetric axis. For elements with nodes located only at
the corners as shown in Figure 5-15, the nodal boundary flux, Q, is the
contributing area from each element multiplied by the radial distance from the
symmetric axis times the element thickness which is expressed in terms of radians.
The nodes further away from the axis of symmetry have more contributing area so
their flux values are greater. In the case of the middle node, it has a total flux value
of 1.0, but this is comprised of two flux quantities of 0.5, each contributed by the
element edges on either side of it. The node on the right has a total flux of
0.833333, but only half the contributing area as the middle node. Consequently, as
the distance from the axis of symmetry increases so does the flux quantity.
Page 129
SEEP/W

water table initially at s urface
1.00
0.75
2.0000e+000
0.50
Nodal flux: 0.66667
66
7e
-00
1
q = 1 m ^3 / tim e / meter edge length

unit flux boundary
1.6
3.3333e-001
e
67
0.00
-0
0
6
1.6
0.25
Figure 5-14 Distribution of unit flux in element with secondary nodes

water table initially at surface
1.00
0.75
2.0000e+000
0.50
q = 1 m^3 / time / meter edge length

unit flux boundary
3e
-0
01
1.0000e+000
0.00
8.
33
3
01
-0
7e
66
1.6
0.25
Figure 5-15 Distribution of unit flux in axisymmetric analysis without

secondary nodes
The situation is not quite as straightforward for higher order elements where three
nodes exist along the element edge, as illustrated in Figure 5-16. The detailed
formulas for these cases are provided in the Theory Chapter. The case described in
Figure 5-15 is fairly straightforward and easy to remember for quick spot-checking
the computed nodal boundary flux values.
Page 130
SEEP/W
Conversion of specified flow rates (gradients) across element edges is dependent

on the specified element thickness. For a two-dimensional vertical section the
thickness, by default, is one unit, although the thickness can be some other
specified value. For axisymmetric cases, the thickness is in terms of radians. The
default is 1 radian. Sometimes it is useful and convenient to specify the thickness
as 2*Pi radian so that the computed nodal boundary flux values are for the entire
circumferential area. Specifying the thickness is simply a user preference. It is
important to remember the element thickness when interpreting the computed Q
values.
1.00
0.75
2.0000e+000
0.50
Nodal flux: 1.0000
5e
78
1.3
3.3333e-001
0.00
5
01

unit flux boundary
3.
33
33
e00
1
Nodal flux: 0.3333
0.25
Figure 5-16 Distribution of unit flux in axisymmetric analysis with

secondary nodes
In SEEP/W, the specified in-flow or out-flow rates (gradients) are always deemed
to be normal to the element edges.
In SEEP/W, flow into the system is positive. Flow out of the system is negative.
Another important concept to keep in mind when specifying and interpreting flow
quantities is that nodal boundary flux values Q are scalar values. Nodal Q values
have no specified or computed direction. The direction of flow can only be inferred
from the computed gradients or unit flow vectors inside the elements. SEEP/W can
Page 131
SEEP/W
display velocity vectors in each element, which are a graphical representation of

flow rates and direction.
5.6
Sources and sinks
There is another type of boundary condition called a source or a sink. These

boundary conditions are sometimes referred to as a Type 3 boundary condition. A
typical sink might represent a drain at some point inside a mesh. A source could be
an injection well. The important concept about sinks and sources is that they
represent flow into or out of the system.
Consider the situation in Figure 5-17, which and simulates the effect of an underdrain on the down stream face of a dam; in particular at nodes 415, 416, and 417.
The simplest way of including the effect of a drain at that location is to specify a
sink type boundary condition at those nodes. We assume that the drain will be
capable of removing all the seepage that arrives at the drain. In other words, the
drain will not be under positive pressures at any time; the water pressure in the
drain will be zero. We can specify this boundary condition by specifying a head
(H) at the desired drain nodes equal to the elevation (y-coordinate) of those nodes.
This is equivalent to specifying the pressure to be zero at those nodes (P=0). By
specifying the H condition, SEEP/W will compute the boundary flux (Q) that must
exist to ensure the pressure is always 0 at each node.
Figure 5-17 Under-drain nodes beneath toe of down stream dam face
In this example the specified H is a sink, since water leaves or disappears from the
flow system as a result.
Page 132
SEEP/W
From a behavioral point of view, any specified H or Q on the perimeter of a

problem has the same action as a specified H or Q inside the mesh. The difference
is only in terminology. Along the problem perimeter the specified H and Q are
usually referred to as boundary conditions. Inside the mesh, a specified nodal H or
Q is often referred to as a sink or source type of boundary condition.
It is often tempting to specify piezometric measurements at certain nodes inside a
mesh. This leads to erroneous results. The physical consequence of including
piezometric measurements in a seepage analysis is that water needs to enter or
escape from the flow system in order to achieve the specified water pressure at the
point where the piezometer is located. Remember that when we specify H
(piezometric measurement), SEEP/W will compute Q. Piezometers are not a sink
or a source and therefore it is not appropriate to specify the field measurements as
a boundary condition. A useful way of thinking about this situation is that the flow
regime was created before the piezometer was installed and the installation of the
piezometer does not change the flow regime. Specifying the piezometric
measurements may alter the flow regime since the specified conditions may act
like a sink or a source, which is not the intention.
5.7
Seepage faces
It has been noted several times earlier that in seepage analyses only the head (H) or
flow (Q or q) can be specified as a boundary condition. There are, however,
situations where neither H nor Q are known. A typical situation is the development
of a downstream seepage face such as illustrated in Figure 5-18. Another common
situation is the seepage face that develops on the upstream face after rapid
drawdown of a reservoir. Other examples may include the drain/soil interface
inside a lysimeter where water accumulates until pressures build sufficiently to
form a drip surface. For this type of situation, there are periods of time where there
is no flow across the drain boundary.
The pore pressure on a seepage face is zero, but this cannot be specified for all
times because a P=0 situation also reflects the location of the phreatic surface and
it may inadvertently become a source for water. Another problem with seepage
faces is that the size of the seepage face may not be known and consequently needs
to be determined as part of the solution through an iterative process.
In SEEP/W a potential seepage face needs to be flagged as a boundary condition
type. At the end of each iteration, the conditions along the specified potential
Page 133
SEEP/W
seepage face are reviewed to see if they meet the correct criteria. This is why it
is called a potential seepage face review
Consider the simplest case where the boundary flux is zero along a seepage face.
In this situation, the boundary conditions along the entire potential seepage face
are set to Q = 0 (flux-type), indicating that no additional flux is going to be added
or removed at these nodes, and with the specification that the conditions will be
reviewed and adjusted as necessary. At the end of the first iteration after the heads
are computed for all nodes along the potential seepage face, SEEP/W checks to see
if any of the nodes have a positive pressure (H greater than elevation). Nodes with
computed pressures greater than zero are not allowed, as positive pressure on the
surface indicates ponding, which cannot happen along the sloping boundary. The
water would run off, not pond. The specified boundary condition of Q equal to
zero is therefore not correct. Physically, it means water wants to exit the system,
but the Q equal zero condition does not allow the water to exit. To allow water to
leave, SEEP/W converts the boundary condition to a head-type with H equal to the
y-coordinate (zero water pressure) at each node with a computed positive pressure,
and a new solution is computed.
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Q=0 with s eepage face
H = 20m
H = 20m
P=0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Figure 5-18 Seepage on down slope dam face (no toe under drain in
this case)
At the end of the repeated solution step, water can now leave or enter the system at
the nodes that were converted from a Q-type to an H-type. Now the program
checks to see whether the computed Q is negative (out of the system) or positive
(into the system). Computed flow out (negative) of the system is acceptable a
computed flow into (positive) the system is not acceptable. At nodes along the
potential seepage face with a positive flux, SEEP/W then converts the H-type
Page 134
SEEP/W
boundary back to the original specified Q-type and then repeats the analysis. The
process is repeated until all nodes on the potential seepage face have either a
computed zero water pressure (H = y) or a nodal Q equal to zero, the original
specified boundary condition. In a steady state analysis, once the seepage face is
determined, the solution solves to completion. In a transient analysis, the seepage
face is determined for every transient time step as necessary.
The initially specified flux on a potential seepage face does not have to be zero.
The initially-specified flux can be some other positive or negative value. A
positive value could represent infiltration and a negative value could represent
evaporation. Nodes that are not converted to an H-type along a potential seepage
face in the end must have the specified flux.
During a transient analysis, potential seepage face review nodes are set to a fluxtype boundary condition at the start of each time step. This includes all nodes that
were converted to a head type boundary condition during the previous time step.
The applied flux is set to the initial action specified at the review nodes. If the
review nodes follow a flux-type boundary function, the flux at the review nodes is
computed from the function for the start of each time step. The size of the required
seepage face must be determined separately for each time step in a transient
analysis.
Review nodes can be located anywhere along a boundary. For example, the nodes
may be located on the downstream seepage face and on the upstream drawdown
face at the same time. All review boundary nodes are considered in each review
procedure. Consequently, depending on the solution, the modification of boundary
conditions may jump from one area to another with each successive iteration.
Sometimes conditions may follow a head-type boundary function; such as the
upstream face of an embankment dam experiencing drawdown. The head changes
as the reservoir is lowered. Above the changing surface of the reservoir, there is
potential for a seepage face to develop as the pore-water pressures within the
embankment redistribute. In this case, a function that describes the changing head
boundary with time can be developed and a secondary condition that will change
the head boundary to a flux boundary if the total head becomes less than the
elevation head at any node is automatically inferred. When the head boundary is
assigned to the reservoir nodes, the potential seepage face review option can then
be selected. The boundary review procedure is then followed to determine the
required seepage for that particular time step. This is required to ensure that all
Page 135
SEEP/W
nodes with a y-coordinate greater than the boundary function head (pool elevation)
have a condition of flux equal to zero at the start of each time step.
It is important to remember that the node along a potential seepage face must have
a flux type boundary at the start of the time step. Nodes with a specified constant
head boundary condition cannot be reviewed.
Care must taken to not specify potential seepage boundary conditions that are
unrealistic or unnecessarily too large. The computing time and associated potential
convergence difficulties increase significantly as the number of nodes along all
potential seepage faces increases. A little preliminary planning and guessing as to
where seepage face may develop and specifying the boundary conditions
accordingly helps to mitigate these issues.
5.8
Free drainage (unit gradient)
A free drainage boundary condition can be useful in certain circumstances, but it

can also be easily misused. Consider the pressure profile of the Kisch problem for
steady state infiltration through a clay barrier over a coarse sandy soil as illustrated
in Figure 5-19. In this figure, both the surface and base boundary conditions are
specified as head boundaries. There is in effect a pressure equal to zero at the
surface and a water table at the base. Consider now what the bottom boundary
condition would be if the water table was not 2.5 meters below the surface, but was
30 meters below the surface. While technically it would be possible to construct a
mesh to represent this situation, it would likely not be practical.
We know from the illustrated Kisch pressure profiles that at some point beneath
the clay (near surface) layer, the water contents and pressures in the sand become
constant with depth. When this is the case, the total head gradient within the sand
is equal to unity and the downward flux is equal to the hydraulic conductivity at
that point. Closer inspection of the pressures in Figure 5-19 indicate that the unit
gradient condition could exist under the clay soil until a specific depth, which is
dependent on the infiltration rate and the hydraulic properties of the underlying
soil, when the pressures have to transition towards P=0 near the water table. If we
do not want to model the entire profile and we are certain that for our real field
conditions there is a fairly constant water content and pressure with depth, we can
use the free drainage or unit gradient boundary condition option for the base of our
geometry and apply it at some fixed distance AWAY from our prime area of
interest in the model. Figure 5-20 shows the correct pressure profile for the Kisch
Page 136
SEEP/W
problem with a free drainage base boundary condition applied one meter beneath
the clay cover.
Use of the free drainage boundary condition should ideally be applied in transient
analysis and only specified on bottom mesh boundaries that are relatively far away
from your main area of focus. They will work for a steady state analysis, but the
solution can be hard to obtain from a convergence perspective, as you are in effect
applying an unknown Q boundary with unknown conductivity values at the base of
the problem and the solution can tend to oscillate if not carefully controlled.
In a transient analysis, however, the unit gradient boundary condition is obtained
by setting the Q flux boundary to be equal to the actual hydraulic conductivity
value present at the nearest gauss point from the previous iteration multiplied by
the contributing edge boundary length. Therefore, the solution of the correct Q to
apply is closely controlled by the initial or previous time step and actual pressure
and conductivity conditions in the finite element at the point of application. In a
transient analysis the solved Q drainage is free to increase or decrease with time,
depending on the small changes in pressures in the elements above the free
drainage boundary. In turn, the water content at the bottom can, with time, slowly
increase or decrease in response to the free drainage or infiltration from above.
Figure 5-19 Kisch pressure profile with head top and head base
boundary condition
Page 137
SEEP/W
Figure 5-20 Kisch pressure profile with head top and free drainage
base boundary condition
5.9
Ground surface infiltration and evaporation
SEEP/W is formulated for saturated-unsaturated flow, making it possible to model

infiltration or evaporation at the ground surface. Figure 5-21 shows a situation
where surface infiltration is considered. The infiltration in this example is specified
as a positive surface flux.
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Road cros s s ection

Small positive surface flux
Small positive surface flux
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Figure 5-21 Cross section of paved road with infiltration flux

boundary
Page 138
SEEP/W
While SEEP/W can readily accommodate flux boundary conditions representing

infiltration and evaporation, relating the specified rate of surface flux to
environmental conditions is not trivial. There are many factors involved, as
depicted in Figure 5-22. On the surface there is rainfall, snow melt, wind speed,
solar radiation, air temperature, and run off. If the ground experiences high
temperatures, water in the ground may turn to vapor and evaporate. Additionally,
water may leave the ground through plant transpiration. The amount of water
leaving the ground surface is related to the tension in the water. A special
formulation which has been implemented in VADOSE/W is required to correctly
simulate the ground surface flux and relate the flux to environmental conditions.
The decision as to when it is appropriate to estimate the ground surface flux and
simply specify the flux as a boundary condition in SEEP/W and when it is
necessary to more rigorously correlate the ground surface flux with the
environmental conditions has to be made in the context of the objectives and
significance of each particular project. The important point here is that SEEP/W
can accommodate flux boundary conditions, but to correctly and rigorously
correlate the ground surface flux with environmental conditions it is necessary to
use VADOSE/W. Further discussions are presented in the VADOSE/W
documentation.
Figure 5-22 Summary of near ground surface flow processes

One response worth remembering when specifying flux boundary conditions is that
the solution is related to the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). If the
specified per unit area flux rate (q) is higher than Ksat, the solution will usually
Page 139
SEEP/W
indicate positive water pressures developing on the surface. In other words, water
would need to pond on the surface in order for the specified flux to enter the
ground. Also, in a steady-state analysis, it may completely saturate the system. The
specified surface flux in Figure 5-21 is less than Ksat and, consequently, there is an
unsaturated zone that exists within the ground above the water table. Once again,
when a flow rate is specified, a head will be computed, and it is possible that if the
specified flow rate is too high then unrealistic heads will be computed. In
summary, it is always useful to be thinking about Ksat when specifying ground
surface flux rates.
5.10
Far field boundary conditions
In many cases the boundary conditions far away from the main point of interest are
undefined, such as the boundary conditions far away from a pumping well or from
an excavation. These are referred to as far field boundary conditions.
One approach to dealing with far field boundary conditions is simply to extend the
problem boundaries; that is, make the mesh bigger and longer away from the point
of main interest. The disadvantage of this approach is that it requires more
elements and therefore more computing time, and sometimes a very big, long mesh
can make it awkward to draw and define the problem and to interpret and present
the results.
An alternative to extending the mesh is to use what are called infinite regions.
These are very convenient and powerful elements, but they need to be used with
care and only under certain circumstances. The interpolating shape functions and
detailed element characteristic are presented in the Theory Chapter. The discussion
here concentrates on the behavior of infinite regions and on guidelines for using
infinite elements.
The fundamental concept of the infinite element formulation is that the far field
edge of the problem is extended away from the problem on the basis of an
exponential decay function or hyperbolic function. A minimum of three points are
required to describe such a function. The SEEP/W formulation uses the interior
corner nodes, the intermediate nodes and a pole point to make up the three points,
as illustrated in Figure 5-23. The nodes on the right perimeter are deemed to be at
infinity. For computation purposes the intermediate nodes are displaced in the
direction of infinity by an amount equal to the distance between the pole point and
the interior corner nodes. The pole point, interior corner node and the extended
Page 140
SEEP/W
position of the intermediate node are then used to form the exponential decay
function, which in turn is used to develop the element shape functions.
9
6
3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure 5-23 Axisymmetric pumping well with far field elements

The infinite regions are very useful and function well when heads (H) are specified
at the far field. More specifically, they function very well when the primary
unknown variable, which in SEEP/W is the total head, is specified at the far field.
The infinite elements do not always function well when flow rates are specified at
the far field. The results can be acceptable if the boundary condition is a Q-type
and the action is zero. Non-zero specified flux conditions can be troublesome and
using infinite elements is not recommended when it is necessary to specify a nonzero flux boundary condition, particularly when specifying gradients or unit rates
of flow.
Boundary conditions should not be applied on infinite regions perpendicular to the
direction of infinity. Specifying for example surface infiltration at the ground
surface on an element that extents horizontally to infinity can lead to unrealistic
results. If it is deemed absolutely necessary to specify such a surface flux, then the
mesh should be extended using ordinary elements instead of using infinite
elements.
The pole position can have some effect on the solution. Earlier it was explained
that three points are required to form the exponential decay function, and the
distance between these points affects the decay function. The larger the distance
between the pole point and the interior corner nodes of the infinite elements, the
further the outside edge will be projected to infinity. So to extend the outer edge as
far as possible the distance between the pole and the interior corner nodes should
be as large as conveniently possible. Fortunately, the results are usually not very
sensitive to the pole position, provided the pole position is a reasonable distance
from the interior corner nodes.
Page 141
SEEP/W
Sometimes results can appear unreasonable when using infinite regions,

particularly for a steady-state analysis. Consider the case of axisymmetric flow to a
pumping well. For this situation, the vertical dimension is small relative to the
horizontal, as illustrated in Figure 5-23. When infinite elements are added at the far
left side of the mesh, away from the well, the results may indicate that there is very
little drawdown within the ordinary element portion of the mesh. The interface
between the ordinary elements and the finite elements contains a sharp curve in the
phreatic line. For this situation, if the infinite edge could be displayed at its actual
horizontal position, the solution would appear reasonable, but it is not practical or
even possible to draw the edge at infinity and consequently the majority of
drawdown that occurs inside the infinite elements appears unreasonable as
illustrated in Figure 5-24. Numerically, the flux values and pressure contours in the
ordinary elements are correct, but the solution looks suspect, as it is not usually an
anticipated solution.
9
6
3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Figure 5-24 Draw down cone phreatic line using far field elements
It is always good practice at the start of the analysis to NOT use infinite regions. It
is highly recommended that you obtain a reasonable result using ordinary elements
before proceeding with infinite elements. Once you are satisfied with the results,
you can then add the infinite elements and evaluate whether they provide any
advantage for your particular analysis.
In summary, the infinite regions can be convenient and powerful, but they need to
be used with caution and care.
5.11
Boundary functions
SEEP/W is formulated to accommodate a very wide range of boundary conditions.

In a steady state analysis, all of the boundary conditions are either fixed heads (or
pressure) or fixed flux values. In a transient analysis however, the boundary
conditions can also be functions of time or in response to flow amounts exiting or
Page 142
SEEP/W
entering the flow regime. SEEP/W accommodates a series of different boundary

functions. Each one is discussed in this section.
General
A non-fixed boundary condition must be entered as a user-defined function. In
SEEP/W all functions are defined using a combination of manually entered or cut
and paste data points, and all functions can be customized to suite your exact
needs. In certain cases, it may be desirable to have a stepped function. The
additional functionality of automatically fitting the data with a step function has
been added to the program. There is also an option to have a cyclic function repeat
itself over time, which saves you the task of defining it repeatedly. Additional
information regarding all function types are described in the Chapter called
Functions in GeoStudio.
In general, functions are comprised of a series of x and y data points that are fit by
a spline curve. A spline curve is a mathematical trick to fit a curved shape between
a series of points. The simplest way to fit a series of data points is to draw a
straight line between the points. This is often a very poor way to represent a nonlinear function. The advantage of the spline is that is joins all data points with a
continuous smooth curve.
During the solution process, the solver uses the y value along the spline curve
for any required x value. It is therefore important to make sure the spline fit, not
your original data, portrays how you want the boundary condition applied.
Head versus time
A very useful boundary function is user-specified Head versus Time. Consider the
example in Figure 5-26 where the drawdown in the reservoir is to be applied as a
boundary condition so that the dissipation or pore-water pressures in the dam can
be modeled. A Head versus Time function (Figure 5-25) with the Q=0 if H <
elevation option has been specified on the reservoir side of the dam.
The advantage of using a Head versus Time function on the reservoir side of the
dam is that it avoids a shock unloading of the water pressure on the dam if the
water level in the reservoir were instantly drawn down to the 11 meter elevation.
Whenever possible, it is a good idea to apply changing boundary conditions as
realistically as possible, to avoid shocking the system.
Page 143
SEEP/W
In the drawdown example, the boundary function has an added criteria imposed on
it that requires the boundary flux on the head nodes to be zero if the head at the
node becomes less than the elevation of the node. This means that seepage cannot
flow out of the upstream face of the dam above the water table. This may not be
desired in some cases, such as if there were a higher water table on the right side of
the dam that caused reverse flow through the dam, or if there were some surface
infiltration that could cause water to flow back into the reservoir through the
upstream face.
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
0
10
Time
Figure 5-25 Head versus time function for reservoir draw down
There are occasions where the boundary function may cycle, or repeat itself over
time. This may be the case if the reservoir water level rises and drops on an
approximately constant cycle. Instead of defining the cyclic nature of the function
from start to finish, you have the option to define it over the first period of time
and then have it repeat itself for as long as you defined time steps to solve. An
example of a cyclic function is given in Figure 5-27 where the data represents the
water level in the reservoir fluctuating between 20 and 16 meters over a 100 day
period.
Page 144
SEEP/W
22
20
18
16
10 day draw down
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 5-26 Phreatic surface in dam over time after reservoir draw
down
20
19
18
17
16
0
100
200
Time
Figure 5-27 Cyclic head versus time function

In any time function, make sure the units of time you specify in the function match those
used to define the conductivity function (e.g. seconds, hours, days etc.) For long transient
solutions, it is often useful to define the conductivity in terms of m/day so that all time
steps and functions can be set up with day units. This avoids having to input time values
of 864000 seconds to represent 10 days.
Page 145
SEEP/W
Head versus volume

In certain circumstances you may want to determine the amount of seepage that
exists and how deep a pond may be as a result of the outflow. Consider that you
have a rising river level and you need to determine the depth of ponded water that
develops in a depression adjacent to the river.
SEEP/W is formulated to automatically track and accumulate the volume of water
from a user-specified area, such that the volume of water can be compared with a
user input function to determine the actual head value at that point. Consider the
simple illustration in Figure 5-28. In this example, a river level is rising according
to a user input Head versus Time function. The objective is to determine how deep
the seepage pond will get when the river reaches its peak.
To carry out this analysis, you must create a Head versus Volume function for the
area being filled by seepage water. A schematic of this function is given in the
figure below. As the analysis solves, the total outflow from each Head versus
Volume boundary node is obtained and summed. The total summation of these
nodal volumes is equal to the total volume of ponded water. Prior to the next time
step, the program will consider the total volume of ponded water and use the Head
versus Volume function to determine the head boundary to apply at each node.
It is important to consider the ponded water head in this case, because the total
outflow into the pond is a result of the difference in the driving head from below
AND from above.
Page 146
SEEP/W
Volume is 14.6m^3 with a depth of

3m of water (so a head = 23)
User Head versus time

to simulate rising water
level
26
25
24
Unknown Head boundary.

Depends on depth of ponded
outflow water.
23
22
21
20
User inputs a Volume outflow

versus Head function. Model
accumulates outflow at nodes
and get Head from user function.
19
18
17
16
15
23
14
13
12
Head
11
21
10
9
20
-14.6
7
2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
-4
Volume
24
Figure 5-28 Simple illustration of head versus volume boundary

function
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Figure 5-29 Seepage into ponded volume
Page 147
24
SEEP/W
The illustration in Figure 5-29 shows the position of the phreatic line at the end of
the analysis when the river level is at its peak. You can see that the flow vectors
indicate there is still some seepage out of the soil and into the pond at this stage.
Had the analysis been carried out for slightly longer with the river level remaining
at its peak, then the ponded depth would rise to match that of the river. However,
in a real life application, it is likely that the river level would peak and then
subside. This analysis method could be used to determine the full transient nature
of the rise and decline of the ponded water in response to the rivers rise and drop.
Nodal flux Q versus time
As discussed previously, there are only two fundamental types of boundary
conditions: either a head or flux boundary. Head boundaries can be applied as total
head, pressure head, or a time/volume function of head. Likewise, flux boundaries
can be applied as fixed values of total or unit flux or a time dependent function of
either.
In many cases it is useful to apply a total nodal flux (Q) boundary that is a function
of time such as the function illustrated in Figure 5-30. In this case, a total nodal
flux is being applied at one or more nodes such that the flux represents a decaying
source of water at those nodes. If the function y value is positive, this indicates a
water source at the node and if the y value is negative, this would indicate a
nodal sink flux. When you apply a total nodal flux at a node, you are not taking
into account any mesh geometry in the flux quantity. You are simply stating that
you are introducing a set volume of water at a single point in the mesh, and the
amount that you are introducing changes with time.
During the solver process, the solver will take the elapsed time of the solution and
look up from the defined function what the total flux rate of water should be at that
time. It will then multiply the function value by the current time step duration to
obtain a total volume of water to add at that time step. Be careful when using
functions like this. It is very important to make sure the time steps you set up in the
solver are small enough to follow the desired shape of the function. For example,
for the function shown in the figure below, if the elapsed time was 3 days and the
time step being solved was 3 days, then a water volume of 0.05 m3/day * 3 days =
0.15 m3 would be applied between day 3 and day 6. The specified function
amounts over these three days would be 0.05m3/day between day 3 and day 4, 0.04
m3 between day 4 and day 5, and 0.025 m3 between day 5 and day 6. Therefore, the
correct total for these three days would be 0.05 + 0.04 + 0.025 = 0.115 m3. Using
too large a time step in this case would in effect introduce more water than
Page 148
SEEP/W
indicated by the function for the same time period. As a rule, make the time steps
small enough to follow the shape of the function.
250
Q (x 0.001)
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
Time
Figure 5-30 Nodal flux (Q) versus time function

Unit flow rate versus time
The previous section discussed application of a total nodal flux boundary function.
In this section, a unit flux boundary function is discussed. A unit flux is a flux
value applied along a mesh edge such that the length of the mesh edge determines
how much flux is applied at the nodes adjacent to the edge. While a unit flux can
be applied as a fixed action value, it is very useful to be able to apply it as a
function.
A very simple example of a unit flux boundary function applied to an element edge
is that of a ground surface daily rainfall minus potential evaporation rate that is
known per square meter of surface area. Consider one such function as illustrated
in Figure 5-31. In this function, the daily rainfall minus potential evaporation is
entered as a step function. If the solver time steps are set up to be less than or equal
to a day, they will follow the shape of the function and include data from each step.
The data for this type of function can easily be set up in a spreadsheet program and
cut and pasted into the function edit box.
Page 149
SEEP/W
10
8
6
q (x 0.001)
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
1
Time
Figure 5-31 Unit flux function showing net rainfall minus evaporation
Modifier function
The previous two types of functions allow you to apply a set total or unit flux at
element edges or mesh nodes. They are functions that will let the solver apply the
appropriate action value for the stated elapsed time.
A modifier function is a powerful way of having the applied flux be dependent on
the pore-water pressures in the soil. Consider the process of evaporation from a
soil surface. As the soil dries out at the surface, the amount of actual water that is
evaporated is reduced from the potential amount. Wilson (1990) showed that the
rate of actual evaporation to potential evaporation is a function of the soil surface
temperature and relative humidity. Ideally, the relationship is a result of coupled
heat and mass flow processes in the soil (e.g. VADOSE/W); however, the process
can be represented in simplified terms by having knowledge of the soil water
pressure. It is possible to use SEEP/W to compute an approximate actual
evaporation rate from the soil surface by combining a unit flux boundary condition
(such as that specified above) with a modifier function such as the one illustrated
in Figure 5-32. In this figure, the ratio of actual to potential evaporation is shown
as a function of the negative pore-water pressure. As the soil dries out (the pressure
becomes more negative), the percentage of the daily potential evaporation as
specified by the unit flux versus time function is reduced. At each time step, the
Page 150
SEEP/W
solve will look up the appropriate potential evaporation rate and then multiply that
value by the percentage value obtained from the modifier function for any given
soil pressure state.
1.0
Percentage (0-1)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
Pressure (x 1000)
Figure 5-32 Modifier function showing possible ratio of actual to

potential evaporation
Page 151
SEEP/W
Page 152
SEEP/W
Chapter 6: Analysis Types
Analysis Types
There are two fundamental types of finite element seepage analyses, steady-state
and transient. Numerous additional constraints and conditions can be applied
within each fundamental type. A description of each type and the implications
associated with each type are discussed in this chapter.
6.1
Steady state
Think about the meaning of the words steady state. They describe a situation
where the state of the model is steady and not changing. In a seepage analysis for
example, the state means the water pressures and water flow rates. If they have
reached a steady value, it means that they will be in that state forever. In many
cases where the geotechnical problem is exposed to nature with its cyclical
conditions, it is possible that a steady state will never be reached. Flow beneath a
cutoff wall may come close to steady state if the upstream conditions are held
fairly constant over time. Net surface infiltration and evaporation will never reach
a steady long term constant value. When simulating a constantly changing
boundary condition such as surface infiltration and evaporation, the model does not
know what the steady-state reality might be, it only knows how the initial input
parameters change in response to the boundary conditions applied over the length
of time being modeled. If you make the assumption that the boundary conditions
are constant over time, then the model can compute the long term ground
conditions in response to your assumption.
This type of analysis does not consider how long it takes to achieve a steady
condition and that is something you need must understand. The model will reach a
solved set of pressure and flow conditions for the given set of unique boundary
conditions applied to it and that is the extent of the analysis.
Its very important to understand that when you are doing a steady state analysis
you are not making any estimation of how long it takes the final condition to
develop, nor how long it will last. You are only predicting what the ground will
look like for a given set of boundary values, and it is implied that you are
pretending the boundary values have been in place forever and will be in place
forever.
Because steady state analyses are taking out the time component of the problem
it greatly simplifies the equations being solved. However, at the same time it can
make convergence harder to achieve depending on the degree of non-linearity of
Page 153
SEEP/W
your soil property functions. The steady state seepage equation leaves out the
actual time variable and omits the entire volumetric water content function. They
are not needed in the solution. The volumetric water content is used for telling how
much water is gained or lost in the soil if there is a change in pressure. In a steady
state analysis, there is no starting pressure, and so there is no change in pressure to
worry about. Remember, it is only looking to find out what the pressures will be
throughout the problem geometry, given the fact you know what they are at only a
few known locations and for all points in time.
Unfortunately, simplifying the equations does not mean that there is a reduced set
of numerical issues associated with solving them. Recall that the soil hydraulic
conductivity can and usually does change several orders of magnitude between the
wet and dry states of the soil. Because the solution is not starting from a known
water content or pressure state at all points in the finite element mesh, it does not
have the numerical luxury of letting the solution march forward in time from a start
condition to its end condition. Since there is no start condition, the solver also has
no idea what the soil hydraulic conductivity value is at all points in the soil. The
objective, therefore, is to be able to get the pressures and hydraulic conductivities
to match throughout the mesh domain by only giving the solver a known
condition at a very small part of the domain when the solve process begins. The
way the solver gets the final answers is by iterating that is, trying different things
and moving slowly towards the singular answer. The answer is singular because
for the fixed set of boundary conditions (whether pressures or fluxes) there is only
ONE unique perfectly converged solution. The objective is to get as close to the
unique solution as possible without driving yourself crazy!
Boundary condition types in steady state
In a steady state analysis there are two choices of boundary conditions: a constant
pressure (or head) and a constant flux rate. For convenience the flux rate can be
specified as a total nodal flux or a unit flux applied to an element edge, but the end
result applied to the equations is identical. It is either a known pressure at this
point, or there is a continuous inflow or outflow of water.
A few other boundary condition features have been added to the analysis to help
model different real life scenarios such as seepage faces, but these are just different
ways of telling the model how to come up with an H or Q boundary value to put
into the equation solver. A more detailed discussion of boundary condition options
is given the dedicated chapter dedicated to Boundary Conditions.
Page 154
SEEP/W
6.2
Transient
A transient analysis by definition means one that is always changing. It is changing

because it considers how long the soil takes to respond to the user boundary
conditions. Examples of transient analyses include predicting the time it takes the
core of a dam to wet up when the reservoir is filled quickly; or predicting where
the seepage will exit the face of a dam if a heavy rainfall event is applied over the
ground surface.
In order to move forward in time during a transient analysis, you must tell the
solver what the soil pressure conditions are at the start of the time period in
question. In other words, you must provide initial conditions as well as current or
future boundary conditions.
Initial conditions
For a transient analysis, it is essential to define the initial (starting) total head at all
nodes. SEEP/W allows you to specify the initial conditions by either reading the
data from an initial conditions file created in a separate analysis, or by drawing the
initial water table position. It is important to recognize that the initial conditions
for a transient analysis can have a significant effect on the solution. Unrealistic
initial conditions will lead to unrealistic solutions that may be difficult to interpret,
especially in the early stage of the transient analysis.
You can specify initial conditions by instructing the solver to use data from a
previously completed analysis. The initial conditions file must be identical in
geometry to the current file and can be from one of the following sources:
A file created by a steady-state seepage analysis,
A file created by a transient seepage analysis at a specific time step,
A file created by the current analysis at a previously saved time step to that
which the current analysis is starting,
A file created by a SIGMA/W stress/deformation analysis, or
A file created by a QUAKE/W earthquake dynamic analysis.
In most cases, the initial conditions are established by running a steady-state
analysis. Figure 6-1 illustrates two examples of steady-state flow problems that can
be used to define the initial conditions for a transient analysis. The initial
conditions for seepage from a pond (part a in figure) might be the steady-state
Page 155
SEEP/W
regional groundwater flow defined by the water table elevation underneath the
pond. The initial conditions for seepage through a dam (part b in figure) might
be the steady-state flow condition of the dam due to the small water impoundment
upstream from the dam.
Figure 6-1 Establishing initial conditions

In a steady-state analysis, the pore-water pressure in the unsaturated zone above
the water table will vary in a linear manner when the surface flux is specified as
zero, as shown in Figure 6-2 part a. This means that the negative pore-water
pressure near the surface may become too high. A more realistic estimate of the
initial negative pore-water pressure can be established by specifying a small
infiltration along the ground surface. The small surface flux has the effect of
changing the pore-water pressure profile as illustrated in Figure 6-2 part b.
The magnitude of the maximum negative pore-water pressure is dependent on the
shape of the hydraulic conductivity function and, to a lesser extent, on the rate of
infiltration. The infiltration rate must be less than the saturated conductivity. In
Page 156
SEEP/W
general, applying a small non-zero surface flux tends to give a more realistic initial
pore-water pressure estimate than a zero surface flux.
Figure 6-2 Effect of surface flux on negative pore-water pressures

under steady state conditions
Drawing the initial water table
With this option, you specify initial conditions directly by using the Draw Initial
Water Table command in SEEP/W. This is particularly useful when the location of
the initial water table is known in advance. When you define an initial water table,
the initial total head at each node is computed proportionally to the vertical
distance between the node and the defined water table. The effect is that the porewater pressure varies hydrostatically with distance above and below the water
table. Above the water table, the negative pore-water pressure can be set to a limit
Page 157
SEEP/W
to produce a pressure distribution such as shown in Figure 6-2 part b. Below the
water table, the pressures increase hydrostatically with depth.
The definition of an initial water table gives an accurate pore-water pressure
distribution when the water table is perfectly horizontal. If the water table is
curved, this option gives an approximation of the actual initial conditions. Whether
this approximation is or is not acceptable will depend on the nature of the problem.
If this approximation is not considered adequate, then you will have to perform a
SEEP/W analysis to establish the initial conditions.
Activation values
If you have new soil region becoming active and you know it has a certain initial
pressure or air pressure (AIR/W), you can use the material property activation
value to initialize the parameter in that region. This value is only applied the first
time a new region is active in the analysis. This approach can be used to set initial
value at the start of any analysis, not just a construction sequence analysis.
Spatial function for the initial conditions
A third option is to specify directly what you think the starting values conditions
will be by applying a spatial function. You can define a spatial function for
pressure and have the solver point to this function result. An example of a spatial
function is shown below.
Figure 6-3 Spatial function assigned for initial pressures
Page 158
SEEP/W
No initial condition
In the event no initial condition is specified, SEEP/W will not proceed with the
transient analysis. The solver will bring up an error message informing you that no
initial data is available and no water table has been defined.
In summary, a reasonable initial condition must be specified in a transient analysis.
6.3
Time stepping - temporal integration
An incremental time sequence is required for all transient analyses and the
appropriate time sequence is problem-dependent. In most cases it will likely be
necessary to try a reasonable sequence and then adjust the sequence as necessary in
response to the computed results. For example, if the migration of the wetting front
is too rapid, the time steps need to be decreased; if the migration is too slow, the
time steps need to be increased.
The accuracy of the computed results depends to some extent on the size of the
time step. Over the period of one time increment, the process is considered to be
linear. Each time step analysis is equivalent to a mini steady-state analysis. The
incremental stepping forward in time is, in reality, an approximation of the
nonlinear process. For the same rate of change, large time steps lead to more of an
approximation than small time steps. It follows that when the rate of change is
high, the time steps should be small, and when the rate of change is low, the time
steps should be large.
Many seepage processes related to the dissipation of excess pore-water pressures
and infiltration follow an exponential form. The dissipation or infiltration is rapid
at first and then decreases with time. A typical example is the consolidation of a
soil. To model this situation, the time step sequence should approximately follow
an exponential form. The time steps should be small at first and then progressively
increase.
Finite element temporal integration formulation
The following discussion is presented here and again in more detail in the Theory
chapter, where the full development of the equations is given. At this point, it is
important now to simply show the equation to highlight a key point that will
enhance your understanding of the transient finite element method.
Page 159
SEEP/W
The finite element solution for a transient analysis has total head changes being a
function of time as indicated by the {H} term in the finite element equation below.
In order to solve for the total heads at some point in the future, time integration can
be performed by a finite difference approximation scheme.
Writing the finite element equation in terms of a Backward Difference finite
difference form leads to the following equation (see Segerlind, 1984, pp. 183-185):
t K M H t Q M H
1
or
H1
t Q1 M H 0
t K M
where:
t
the time increment,
H1
the head at end of time increment,
H0
the head at start of time increment,
Q1
the nodal flux at end of time increment,
the element hydraulic conductivity matrix, and
the element water storage matrix.
Look at this equation carefully for a moment. You can ignore the braces and
brackets, as they just indicate a grouping of node and element information with
some geometry tied in. The thing to focus on is that in order to solve for the new
heads at the end of the time increment, it is necessary to know the heads at the start
of the increment, along with the average material properties calculated at the
average of the new and old heads. If you do not have reasonable values for starting
heads, then you make the equation difficult to solve because you use these starting
heads directly in the equation AND also in the calculation of the average material
properties.
Problems with time step sizes
The detailed discussion of how to compute optimum time steps is very advanced
and is left to those with advanced understanding of finite element mathematics (see
Page 160
SEEP/W
Segerlind, 1984, pp 190-199). For our purposes, let us just point out some key
issues and make some safe conclusions.
As discussed directly above, the shape and size of an element is tied into the
assembly of the [K] and [M] matrices. It is also plain to see that changing the time
step magnitude can change the solution of the computed heads. Small time steps
can cause overshoot in the calculation of the new heads and time steps that are too
large can result in poor averaging of material properties at the mid point of the
time step. Elements that are too large can also result in poor material property
averaging, while elements that are too small can lead to overshoot problems as
well.
The mathematical formulations for time step sizes generally take into account the
soils water storage capability, its hydraulic conductivity, and the size of the
element. In a homogeneous, fully-saturated soil sample, the optimum time step can
be readily estimated. However, the problem in a 2D analysis with multiple soil
types quickly becomes apparent. What may be an optimum time step for one
region of the problem can also be a very poor choice of time step for another
region; and, unfortunately, the entire problem must be solved with the same time
step.
Some programs have attempted to use adaptive meshing and adaptive time
stepping to deal with these issues, but the bottom line is that they cannot be
applicable to all points in a mesh at all times. So, you are going to have to try some
different things and use some common sense.
General rules for setting time steps
So, now that we have made the issue of time steps somewhat unclear, what do we
recommend are some methods to deal with it? Some of the following points have a
strong theoretical basis and some are just common sense based on years of
experience.
The finite element shape is important. Triangular elements should not have
any interior angles greater than 900. Square elements can have double
the time step size as triangular elements.
Since the element size is directly proportional to time step size, doubling
the element size means you can double the time step. The corollary of
this is that decreasing the element size and not decreasing the time
steps accordingly will not improve the calculated results.
Page 161
SEEP/W
If you have a instantaneous loading of the system, such as instantaneous

pore pressure increases due to external loading, you should set the
initial time step size to be approximately equal in order of magnitude
to the mv value divided by the saturated conductivity value of the soil
that is instantaneously loaded.
If you are modeling a rapid filling of a reservoir, you can instantaneous
load the model by having it be filled instantaneously, or you can use a
Head versus Time boundary function to more accurately simulate the
filling of the reservoir over a short, finite time period.
If you are using a detailed surface boundary flux versus time function with
many different values (such as simulating the on / off nature of
rainfall) make sure your time steps are small enough to allow the
solver to follow the shape of the function. For example, 2 week long
time steps dont work if rain falls on day 3, 8 and 17. The program
would make its first flux value be that at day 14 (2 weeks), but you
have no value on day 14 in your function. Also, note that if the rainfall
on day 8 is 5 mm/day, and if you have solver time steps of 4 days,
your function will get a value from the function on day 8, but the
actual applied flux in the model would be 5 mm/day applied over 4
days for a total of 20mm of rainfall. Make sure you use 1 day time
steps in this case.
To get started, take the total time you need to model and divide it by 5. Set the model to
have 5 equal time steps and run it. Watch how long it takes to converge and if it even does
converge. If it does not converge and you suspect it is a time step issue, choose 10 smaller
time steps. Once the model solves all right, as a test, decrease the time steps some and see
if the converged results change at all. The bottom line is the ONLY way to do time steps
properly is by trial and error.
Adaptive time stepping

SEEP/W will permit you to activate an adaptive time stepping routine that will
insert extra time steps between your specified time steps in the event the solution is
not meeting your specified time stepping or convergence criteria. Full details of the
adaptive time stepping options are discussed in the Numerical Issues chapter.
Page 162
SEEP/W
6.4
Staged / multiple analyses
New in GeoStudio is the ability to carry out staged analyses. Fundamentally,

multiple analyses in a single project allow you to specify different material
properties and different boundary conditions across time and space. This means
you can model construction sequences where soil is added or removed over time
and where boundary conditions change as the geometry changes. This was not
possible at this level of complexity prior to GeoStudio 2007.
Multiple analyses in a single file can mean different things. It can simply be a
series of independent steady state analyses within a single project file with
different material properties or boundary conditions applied to the same geometry,
or, it can be a linked time sequence analysis where results of a new stage depend
on the solution of a previous stage.
In the past, it was necessary to first carry out a steady state analyses in a unique
project file that would subsequently be used as the starting condition of a new,
transient analysis. Now, you can set up Stage 1 as a steady state model and then
create a second stage within the same project as a transient analysis. You can
create as many stages as you need where each stage is a modifiable copy of the one
prior. When you create a new stage, you can make a change to the soil properties
or boundary conditions and solve it as a new analysis. At the end of the entire
solution process, you can use the Contour features and view data across all stages
and all times or at any saved time step within any given stage.
One very powerful option to consider when using stages is to link different
analysis types to various stages within the same project file. Consider the stage
flow diagram below. In this example, a steady state SEEP/W seepage analysis is
carried out for flow through a dam core in stage 1. A base case SLOPE/W stability
analysis is also carried out at this point. In stage 2, the time sequencing starts and
a transient seepage model is solved to determine the change in pore pressure
during a rise in water reservoir elevation. At the end of this period, stage 3 is set
up with a very short time sequence to investigate the excess pore-water pressures
that may be generated by an earthquake event using QUAKE/W. A second
SLOPE/W stability analysis is carried out for stage 3. Finally, in stage 4, the
excess pressures are dissipated within a SEEP/W model and the post earthquake
deformation is estimated with a SIGMA/W model.
Page 163
SEEP/W
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Steady state
seepage through
dam
Transient rise
in reservoir
level
Earth quake
generation of
excess pore
pressures in
dam
Slope stability on
steady state case
Stability
analysis for
new condition
Stage 4
Dissipation of
excess pore
pressures
Post
earthquake
deformation
Time increasing
Time 0
Figure 6-4 Example of staged work flow
6.5
Axisymmetric
An axisymmetric analysis can be used to simulate three-dimensional problems

with symmetry about a vertical axis of rotation. The problem is defined in two
dimensions, but for analysis it is as if the section is rotated about a vertical central
axis. A typical example of an axisymmetric analysis is the flow into a single
pumping well or flow out of a single recharge well into a uniform aquifer.
Page 164
SEEP/W
In SEEP/W the vertical symmetric axis of rotation is always at x-coordinate equal

to zero. The x-coordinates in an axisymmetric finite element mesh must, therefore,
all be greater or equal to zero. A typical case for an axisymmetric analysis is the
drawdown cone formed by a single pumping well, as illustrated in Figure 6-5. In
this figure, the pressure head contours are plotted for a steady state condition of
continual pumping from the well at a rate of 0.22 cubic meters per day per radian
about the x-axis.
For an axisymmetric analysis, the computed flux is per unit radian if the element
thickness is specified as 1.0. If you want the computed flux value for the entire
circumferential area, you must either specify the element thickness as 6.2832 (i.e.,
2 pi radians) before you do the analysis, or simply multiply the above value by 2 pi
after the solution is finished. You can change the element thickness for the entire
mesh with the Draw Mesh Properties command.
16
14
12
2.2000e-001
10
8
6
4
2
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
40
Figure 6-5 Well drawdown for an axisymmetric case (note zero xcoordinate axis)
Infinite elements may be used for the outside far field edge of the axisymmetric
mesh (right side away from the axis of symmetry). However, the application of
non-zero q (unit flux) boundary conditions along the infinite element edges is not
allowed. This is because the nodal contributing area is dependent on the distance of
the node from the rotation axis, and since the far nodes of the infinite elements are
Page 165
SEEP/W
at infinity, the nodal contributing area becomes undefined. Even though SEEP/W
may still compute a solution to the problem in some simple cases, the solution
becomes suspect and the use of q-type boundary conditions in this case is therefore
not recommended.
It is also not relevant to apply a small q unit flux boundary to the left edge of the
mesh if it is at an x coordinate of zero because then there is no area (no radius) to
compute an area over which the flux should be applied. You can, however, apply a
big Q flux, because when you do this you are including the area of flow inside
the Q value you specify.
6.6
Plan view (confined aquifer only)
A plan view analysis views the finite element mesh as lying on its side instead of
standing upright in a vertical plane. This makes it possible to model the
piezometric surface changes that result from extracting or injecting fluid into an
aquifer. However, the analysis is limited to a perfectly flat hydraulic conductivity
function because the ground must always be saturated inside an aquifer (that is, the
hydraulic conductivity cannot be a function of the pore-water pressure). The
limitation is not serious in the case of confined aquifers where the water pressure
remains positive at all locations and at all times. However, it may be a serious
limitation in the case of an unconfined aquifer. Therefore, the plan view analysis
type is intended for confined aquifer only, and application to unconfined problems
must be conducted with caution. The position of the piezometric surface as
computed for unconfined aquifers should be viewed only as a rough
approximation.
For a plan view analysis, you can define the z-coordinate (elevation) for each node
and the thickness of the elements. If the z-coordinate is not specifically specified, it
is taken to be zero by default. Similarly, if the thickness is not specifically
specified, the thickness of the element is set to 1.0. The plan view elevation and
thickness can be set after you have defined the x- and y-coordinates of the plan
view problem with the Key In Generate Plan View command. The elevation (zcoordinate) and thickness are generated on a planar basis by defining the x-, y- and
z-coordinates as well as the thickness at three points.
The thickness of the elements influences the computed flux quantity across a flux
section. Therefore, when you are interpreting the flow across a flux section you
must take into account the aquifer thickness at the location of the flux section.
Page 166
SEEP/W
Again, if you have not specified the element thickness, then the thickness is by
default unity (1.0).
The z-coordinate can be thought of as the depth down to the top of the aquifer.
Adopting this definition helps with interpreting the results. The pore-water
pressure in a plan view analysis is computed as total head (H) minus the elevation
(Z). This means that when the water pressure is positive, the water table is above
the top of the aquifer and the aquifer remains saturated. When the water pressure is
negative, the water table is below the top of the aquifer and the aquifer in part has
de-saturated. To maintain a positive water pressure in the aquifer, the specified and
computed head must be greater than the z-coordinate.
You can specify a rate of infiltration or evaporation on the ground surface of a plan
view analysis using the q (unit flux) boundary condition. SEEP/W computes the
contributing surface area for each node to get the nodal flux required for solving
the finite element equations.
You can use infinite elements in a Plan View analysis. However, the application of
a non-zero q (unit flux) to infinite elements is not recommended. The outer edge of
infinite elements is theoretically projected to infinity and consequently the
contributing areas for the outer edge nodes are not well-defined. The resulting
heads may or may not be reasonable. If you are going to apply a surface flux to
infinite elements, you will have to make a careful assessment of the results to make
sure they are reasonable. You can apply H and Q type boundaries without
difficulty.
Page 167
SEEP/W
Page 168
SEEP/W
Chapter 7: Functions in GeoStudio
Functions in GeoStudio
User specified functions are used throughout GeoStudio to specify soil material
properties, to specify modifier parameters for constants or other functions, or to
specify boundary conditions that change over time. It is important to have an
understanding of how the functions are specified and used by the solver and also to
know what your options are for inputting these functions. A functional
relationship between x and y data can be defined using:
Natural and weighted splines between data points
Linear lines between data points
A step function between data points
A closed form equation that is based on parameters and does not require
data points
A user written externally complied code (dll library) that connects with
GeoStudio data or data from another process (eg, Excel)
New in GeoStudio 7.1 are spatial functions which return a different value based on
both x and y coordinate within any given soil material. This option is available for
strength parameters in SLOPE/W and for activation values in the other finite
element codes. Activation values are starting pressures or temperatures, for
example, that are present in the ground when the model first starts a transient
process.
The type of function you choose to use will depend on what your needs are.
In many cases a function you need can be estimated from other data you have
input. An example is the hydraulic conductivity function for soils that is based on
a user input water content function. Several GeoStudio material models require
functions that may be estimated if you do not already have a full set of data.
7.1
Spline functions
A spline function is a mathematical technique to fill in the gaps between adjacent

data points with curved line segments. Unfortunately, all our data points do not
always fit nicely along a path with a predictable curvature such as a logarithmic or
exponential decay. Many of the functions in geo-technical engineering have
double curvature with an inflection point between. Consider the water content
Page 169
SEEP/W
function that is initially concave downwards, and then at higher suctions is

concave upwards. Splining is an advantageous technique to fit lines through these
data points because the spline settings can be altered to fit almost any set of data.
In GeoStudio you can control the look of a spline function by adjusting its degree
of curvature and its level of fit with the input data points. Consider the two images
below.
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.94
0.94
0.93
0.93
0
10
10
Figure 7-1 Spline functions with different settings

The left image has the spline fit almost exactly through the data points with fairly
curved segments. The right image has more linear segments that only fit the data
approximately. The range of fit and curvature is controlled by two slider
controls and can range between values of zero and 100%. The important thing to
note is that the solver will use the data represented by the splined fit. What you see
in the function set up is EXACTLY what the solver will use when needed.
Slopes of spline functions
Sometimes, the solver does not require the Y value of a function at a given X
value but the slope of the function at a given X value. This is the case for the
water content function where the slope is used directly in the solution of the
transient seepage and air flow equations. You must be careful when setting spline
values because while a spline may look smooth, its slope may not be so.
Page 170
SEEP/W
The two images below are the slopes of the two functions shown above. You can
see that the more natural curved function (left side images) with 100% curvature
and exactness in the spline settings produces a much smoother slope function than
the approximated function. While not usually critical, you should know if the
function you are using is dependent on its slope being well behaved.
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.02
-0.01
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
10
-0.05
10
Figure 7-2 Slope of spline functions
7.2
Linear functions
A linear function is a spline function with the curvature setting to 0% and the fit set
to 100% exact as shown below.
Page 171
SEEP/W
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
Linear
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
10
Figure 7-3 Linear fit spline
7.3
Step functions
GeoStudio 2007 has an option for functions that result in steps between data
points. This can be useful if your data changes abruptly over time, for example,
rainfall on different days. When you use a step function, you need to be careful of
the location of the blue data point. You can see that the functions will assume the
starting time of the step is at the data point and that its duration extends just up to
but not reaching the next data point.
Page 172
SEEP/W
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
Step
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
10
Figure 7-4 Step function

A comparison of all four data point functions is shown below on one image. When
multiple functions are viewed simultaneously in GeoStudio, the data points are
hidden and just the computed functions are displayed.
Page 173
SEEP/W
1.00
0.99
0.98
Step
0.97
Linear
0.96
Spline
100%
Spline
approx.
0.95
0.94
0.93
10
Figure 7-5 Comparison of all data point functions
7.4
Closed form curve fits for water content functions
The storage function is defaulted to be represented by a spline function; however,

it is possible to have the function represented by a closed form equation that is fit
to the data. Two common methods exist in the literature for water content
functions: the Fredlund and Xing method, and the Van Genuchten method. Each
of these curve fits require that you enter fitting parameters that are usually
published or provided by soil laboratories. The only advantage to using these
techniques in GeoStudio 2007 is that you do not have to enter a series of data
points. If you know the fit parameters, you may enter them directly to obtain the
function. More information about these two fit equations are provided in the
chapter on Material Models and Soil Properties in this book.
7.5
Add-in functions
New to GeoStudio 2007 is the ability for the user to create their own add in
function. At any point in GeoStudio where you must enter a function, you have
the option to bypass Geo-Slope default functions that relate Y to a X value in
lieu of your own function that can relate Y to any number of parameters - either
Page 174
SEEP/W
internal parameters passed to your function by the solver, or external parameters

you obtain from another process.
Add in functions can be very simple or very complex. Consider the simple
example shown below in which the returned Y value of the function is the
sinusoid of the passed in X value.
// sample function takes the x value of the function type and returns the sin(x)
public class MySineCurve
{
// this is the main function calculator
public double Calculate( double x )
{
// declare the variable to return to the solver
double y;
// calculate the value to return
y = Math.Sin(x);
// return the function Y value
return(y);
}
}
The add in function will actually be displayed in GeoStudio if it is based on
available data. If data is unavailable until the solving time, no function will show.
In the case of the above code, the displayed function is a sinusoid over a range of
zero to 10 as seen in Figure 7-6.
By default, all add in functions are passed the pre-assigned X parameter based
on the function type. For example, if your function is for water content, then the
passed in X value will always be suction. It is up to you if you use this passed in X
value or if you base the returned value on other data.
The possibilities for use of add in functions are endless. Because you can choose
the computer language you write your function in (eg, C-sharp, .NET, Visual
Basic, C++, Fortran) you can virtually ask your function to do anything you desire.
It can simply return a Y value to the solver or it can run an entire other process
Page 175
SEEP/W
on your computer, read or write a report based on current solving data, or even
launch a second Geo-Studio analysis.
1.0
Returned Y value
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0
10
Input X value
Figure 7-6 Simple user written function

Within your function you can ask the solver to pass you any live data it has in
memory. So, for example, you could ask for the current solver time, the current air
velocity, air content or density. Your function could keep track of data at the
current and previous time step and you could account for hysteretic effects.
Your function is created and a copy is applied at every node or gauss point it is
assigned to. This means it can know its position and you can create a function
that returns a parameter based on some randomness or standard deviation from a
normal value.
If you want to be very crafty, you can have your function read tabular data from a
previously solved GeoStudio file so that, for example, you can base your ground
strength in a SIGMA/W analysis on temperatures previously computed in a
TEMP/W analysis.
You can have several functions inside the same library and a list of available
functions and the required input will appear in GeoStudio dialogue boxes asking
for user data.
Page 176
SEEP/W
As a final thought, once you create your add in function, you can compile it as a
library file and pass it around to colleagues or sell it on e-Bay.
Again, the possibilities are unlimited.
For full details on Add In functions, please consult the Add In Developers Kit
(SDK) available on the GEO-SLOPE website at www.geo-slope.com/downloads
7.6
Spatial functions
A spatial function in SEEP/W can be used to establish starting pressure profile

over a two-dimensional domain. When you first create a spatial function you will
not see its contoured colors appear on the geometry. However, once you assign the
function as the initial condition in Key In Analysis Settings, you can return to the
Key In Spatial Function command, make changes and edits to the function data,
and see instantly what the new function will look like when applied to your model.
An example of this is shown below for initial pore-water pressures which would be
applied in the seepage part of the analysis.
Figure 7-7 Example of spatial function assigned to model
Page 177
SEEP/W
Page 178
SEEP/W
Chapter 8: Numerical Issues
Numerical Issues
Entire textbooks are written on numerical issues related to finite element analysis.
While modern computers and powerful graphics can make defining an analysis
relatively fast and easy, they cannot necessarily deal with all of the challenges of
taking a complex, non-linear, transient physical process and trying to replicate it in
terms of discretized time and space.
A variety of approaches have been used to deal with many of the numerical issues,
but unfortunately there is no single method for dealing with all problems. Some
numerical issues relate to restrictions in computer hardware such as rounding off of
non-integer variables during mathematical operations. Some issues relate to highly
non-linear soil properties or that the equations do not apply to all cases (for
example, flow through unsaturated coarse gravel is not likely Darcian flow). Other
issues relate to our spatial discretization being too course, or our temporal
discretization being too small.
There are numerical solvers that make use of adaptive meshing or adaptive time
stepping or both in an attempt to be more suited to a wider range of problems. All
of these, however, have mathematical limitations regardless of the claims of the
software developer. It becomes somewhat risky to rely on a solver that handles it
all if you do not know what the limitations.
Some finite element solutions attempt to march forward in time by evaluating soil
properties at the previous, the current or a mid-time step average. Some solvers
simply make assumptions that limit the ability of the software to handle real world
problems. Finally, some solvers may only work if the user provides an initial guess
of the solution that is close to the desired solution. In other words, the solution is
started by pointing the solver in the right direction.
Fortunately, sound judgment and common sense can usually overcome most of
these challenges and result in meaningful interpretations of soil behavior.
It is not always possible to get an exact solution for particularly challenging cases,
so you should not necessarily be seeking an exact solution. If the problem is so
difficult that it is not solving reasonably, then it is very likely that either mistakes
have been made in the input, or, that you are pushing the envelope of the physical
theory applied in the model. This chapter looks at some of these issues as they
pertain to SEEP/W.
Page 179
8.1
SEEP/W
Convergence
The objective of solving the finite element equations is to compute the total head at
each node. For linear analyses, the material properties are constant and the nodal
total head can be computed directly. The same is not true for nonlinear analyses
because the hydraulic conductivity is a function of total head. Accordingly, the
correct material properties are not known at the start of the analysis and an iterative
scheme is required to solve the equations.
SEEP/W uses a repeated substitution technique with under-relaxation in the
iterative process. In the first iteration, default pressures or the user-specified initial
heads in the case of a transient analysis, are used to define the material properties.
The material properties are updated after each iteration using the computed head
from the previous iteration. The iterative process continues until the iteration
number reaches the maximum number specified, or until the results satisfy the
convergence criteria.
Convergence means that the computed solution does not change by more than a
specified amount between successive iterations. Obtaining the same solution in a
repeated analysis implies that the soil property values used in the solution are
consistent with the computed head values at each position in the mesh.
There are various mathematical methods of evaluating whether convergence has
been attained, but not all of the methods are suited to saturated-unsaturated
seepage analysis. SEEP/W allows the user to select from two different criteria by
which convergence can be evaluated:
1. The vector norm of nodal heads; or,
2. The hydraulic conductivity at individual Gauss points.
Option 1: Vector norm of nodal heads
This option relies upon a global measurement of the absolute value of the mean
pressure head through the domain between successive iterations. The vector norm
is computed as the square root of the sum of each nodal head value squared, or in
equation form:
h
i 1
Page 180
SEEP/W
where:
=
the vector norm,
a counter,
the total number of nodes, and
hi
the individual nodal pressure heads.
The percent change in the vector norm is simply the change in the system between
two successive iterations. If the change in the system were exactly zero, then there
would be no change in solution on successive iterations. In general, there are
always very small differences between iterations so it is not reasonable to expect a
change in vector norm of zero.
The vector norm approach is a powerful way of judging convergence by
considering the entire problem domain. Such an approach is necessary to prevent
small changes at one node from failing the convergence test. For example,
consider an absolute change in the pressure head vector of 0.01 m between
successive iterations at a node that had a pressure head of 0.01 m at the previous
iteration. This is equivalent to a change of 100%. Although it appears significant,
it is likely physically and mathematically irrelevant when considered in the context
of the entire problem domain.
One potential alternative is to make convergence based on an absolute difference,
such as 0.1 meters of pressure head between two iterations. However, this logic
also breaks down for the case in which the heads are very negative (e.g. during
evaporation). If the pressure head value is -5000 meters, then it is not realistic to
require a change in pressure head between two iterations of 0.1 meters or less.
Option 2: Gauss point conductivity difference
The second option available in SEEP/W is the gauss point hydraulic conductivity
convergence method. In this case, SEEP/W computes the percentage of gauss
points that have a hydraulic conductivity within a specified tolerance (plus or
minus) of the actual hydraulic conductivity. In equation form, the solution
difference (%) is expressed as:
# G.P.C.
Sol.Dif .(%) 1
100
# G.P.
Page 181
SEEP/W
where:
Sol.Dif. =
solution difference (%),
#G.P.C =
number of gauss points converged; and,
#G.P.
total number of gauss points.
The solution difference will range from 0% to 100%. A value of 100% implies
that none of the gauss points have converged, while a value of 0% implies that all
of the gauss points are within the tolerance.
In keeping with the vector norm method, the user must specify the maximum
number of iterations and tolerance. However, the tolerance in this case implies a
maximum difference in hydraulic conductivity (in orders of magnitude) between
successive iterations.
Let us assume for example that the tolerance is set to 0.01 orders of magnitude and
the solver is on the 10th iteration. At a specific gauss point, assume that the nodal
pore water pressure is 30 kPa and the hydraulic conductivity is 110-7 m/s. The
finite element equations are then re-solved with this value of hydraulic
conductivity, yielding a new pore water pressure of 28 kPa at the node. SEEP/W
then determines the hydraulic conductivity associated with the pore water pressure
(using the K-function). If the new K for the gauss point was 310-7 m/s, the gauss
point would be considered not converged because the change in K is 0.48 orders of
magnitude (i.e. log(310-7/110-7)).
The gauss point conductivity convergence method is particularly useful for
problems involving only unsaturated soil (e.g. infiltration into a dry column). The
non-linearity of the hydraulic conductivity function can cause the solution to
oscillate. In this case, the vector norm of total head may fluctuate within a very
small range instead of continuing to diminish towards the required tolerance.
Despite the small fluctuations in nodal total heads from iteration to iteration, the
hydraulic conductivity change between successive iterations may be small, and for
all intents and purposes, the solution is converged. As such, the gauss point Kdifference problem will terminate at a correct solution while the vector norm based
problem may continue to iterate without reaching convergence.
Viewing convergence process
It is good practice to view the convergence graph during the solution process for
highly nonlinear problems. By default, SEEP/W displays the K verses suction plot,
Page 182
SEEP/W
although you can select to view the percent difference versus iteration plot. The K
versus suction plot provides the most intuitive and useful picture of convergence.
The K versus suction graph shows two series of hydraulic conductivity data points
obtained for two subsequent iterations, i.e., i and i+1. The first series of points
corresponds to the hydraulic conductivity values determined for each Gauss region
at the end of iteration i given the computed negative pore-water pressures (i.e.,
suctions) and the user-defined hydraulic conductivity function. The second series
of points represents the hydraulic conductivity values determined for each Gauss
point at the end of iteration i+1 given the newly determined negative pore-water
pressures and the user-defined hydraulic conductivity function. Consequently, a
difference in pressure between the two successive iterations will be indicated if the
graphs of the two series do not coincide. Conversely, the two series of points will
overly if the pressures do not change between successive iterations. The later
scenario will result in convergence regardless of the method used to judge
convergence.
Figure 8-1 illustrates the case in which there is a major difference between the
current computed suctions and hydraulic conductivity values (red dots) and the
previous iteration suctions and hydraulic conductivity (blue squares). Figure 8-2
illustrates the case of a converged solution; when pressures (and therefore
hydraulic conductivity values) have not changed between two iterations for all
Gauss points.
Page 183
SEEP/W
K vs Suction
1.0e-06
1.0e-07
1.0e-08
1.0e-09
1.0e-10
1
10
100
1000
Suction
Figure 8-1 Non converging conductivity function illustration

K vs Suction
1.0e-04
1.0e-05
1.0e-06
1.0e-07
1.0e-08
0.01
0.1
10
Suction
Figure 8-2 Converging conductivity function illustration

Figure 8-3 presents a typical percent difference versus iteration plot of a
converging process when the vector norm option is selected. The solution is not
converged after 20 iterations. The percent difference is converging, but the
Page 184
SEEP/W
magnitude is still quite high. Figure 8-4 shows the convergence plot when the
same problem is run for 125 iterations and the solution converges.
As a broad guideline for acceptable convergence, the percent difference may
oscillate as long as it is decreasing in magnitude. The problem is not converging if
the percent difference oscillates without decreasing in magnitude. In this case, you
must change the model, for example, by refining the mesh or reducing the
steepness of the material K functions. Other suggestions for improving
convergence are discussed below.
Steady-State Analysis
Solution Difference %
10000
1000
100
10
0.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 8-3 Percent change versus iteration count prior to

convergence point
Page 185
SEEP/W
1000
Solution Difference %
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figure 8-4 Converging percent change graph to convergence point

In summary, two convergence graphs are available in the SOLVE Graph window;
both are useful for judging convergence. You can stop the solution process at any
point and view the graphs for a specific time step. Conversely, you can generate
the graphs in contour mode after the problem has been solved. Visually
monitoring the convergence is particularly useful during the early stages of an
analysis if you are uncertain about the convergence parameters. Once you have
found a suitable set of parameters, you can do further analysis without continuing
to visually monitor the convergence process. In general, the default convergence
parameters work well for most problems.
8.2
Water balance error in a transient analysis
A useful tool for evaluating the integrity of a transient seepage analysis is to

monitor the overall cumulative water balance error for the entire mesh. SEEP/W
continually updates and reports this value in the solver window at the end of each
time step, regardless of whether or not convergence is reached. The cumulative
water balance error is simply the sum of all external boundary fluxes minus the
sum of the computed change in storage within all elements. Ideally, this value
should equal zero, which would mean all water entering or leaving the problem
domain is accounted for as a gain or loss within the domain.
Page 186
SEEP/W
Figure 8-5 is an example of a cumulative water balance error plot generated by the
SEEP/W Contour Draw Graph command. In this plot, the units of error are volume
(e.g. m3 of ft3 depending on users set of units). It is clear there is an increase in
error during the initial time steps, but it tapers out towards the end of the analysis.
This type of chart can give some indication as to whether an appropriate time step
has been selected for various stages of the analysis and the point at which
numerical difficulties may be occurring as reflected by sudden changes in
cumulative water balance error.
As a rule, water balance errors are more likely to accumulate at elements where
there are abrupt changes in boundary conditions as opposed to elements well
within the domain and away from any edges. This is because it is quite easy to
apply a boundary condition that is unrealistic (such as instant draw down of a
reservoir) or that is too extreme given the time step applied or the element size.
In SEEP/W the water balance error is reported as a cumulative volume of water,
which means its magnitude must be considered relative to the size of the domain
being modeled. For example, if you have a nearly saturated soil in a mesh that
represents 100 meters across and 30 meters depth, it could have stored water equal
to 1500 cubic meters (assuming a soil porosity of 50%: 100m * 30m * 1m unit
depth 8 0.5 = 1500 m3). If the water balance error is reported as 2 cubic meters,
this is a very small amount relative to the 1500 cubic meters in the system. On the
other hand, for the same example if the error is 2 cubic meters and you only
applied 2 cubic meters of water as a boundary flux, then the error is very
significant.
Page 187
SEEP/W
0.0
-0.1
: Cumulative
Water
Balance
(m )
-0.2
-0.3
: Cumulative
Boundary
Fluxes
-0.4
: Cumulative
Storage
-0.5
-0.6
375
380
385
390
395
400
405
Time (day)
Figure 8-5 Water balance versus time results from SEEP/W solver
SEEP/W does not convert the water balance error to a percent error because the
magnitude of the error depends on the volume (domain or boundary flux) to which
it is being compared. In the previous example, the error would either be negligible
or extreme. It is up to the user to determine if the error is significant given what
they know about your problem and the boundary conditions that have been
applied.
In general, if the cumulative water balance error is low, the solution has proceeded
quite well. It is useful, as a check, to see how the water balance error changes with
time. There are cases where a large negative error on one time step can be reversed
by a large positive error on another time step. If you do not see this pattern when
you plot the error for all time steps, then you can increase your confidence in the
overall solution.
8.3
Steep material property functions
The numerical solution to a problem of seepage through unsaturated soils can often
be often be highly nonlinear due to the steepness of the hydraulic conductivity and
volumetric water content functions. Difficulties with convergence can be
Page 188
SEEP/W
encountered when either of these material property functions are highly non-linear
as represented by abrupt curvature and steep slopes.
How steep is steep? There is no single answer. In general, you can think of
steepness in terms of two factors: how much does the water content or hydraulic
conductivity change for a given incremental change in pressure? and, how fast will
that pressure continue to change? A steep soil property function can be used quite
readily, but generally this requires smaller time steps in a transient analysis and
smaller mesh element sizes. In an extreme case in which it is very difficult to
obtain a converged solution for a steady state analyses, you can try to use a longterm transient analysis to slowly approach the final steady state condition. The
transient analysis has the advantage of being able to specify initial conditions (an
initial guess of the material properties) and the fact that the solution can then
marched forward in time towards the steady state solution.
Coarse-grained materials can have limited capillarity and tend to de-saturate
rapidly under even small negative pore-water pressures. This behavior manifests
itself in a very steep hydraulic conductivity function; that is, a function where the
hydraulic conductivity varies greatly with small changes in negative pore-water
pressure. A typical steep hydraulic conductivity function is shown in Figure 8-6.
Theoretically, the hydraulic conductivity function approaches a vertical line
(infinitely steep) near the zero pressure axis when the material is very coarse. This
is the case for very coarse soils with virtually no capillarity.
Page 189
SEEP/W
Figure 8-6 A typical steep hydraulic conductivity function
8.4
Improving convergence
The first consideration for deal with convergence problems is to re-evaluate the
relevance of coarse grained materials. If a coarse material does not contribute to
the dissipation of head, then you should try excluding the coarse material from the
analysis. You can specify it to be a NULL material region by giving it the material
model of NONE. The element will remain in the mesh, but will not be used in the
solution. Not removing the element from the domain means you can try different
things with the properties without having to use a unique mesh in each case.
Removing coarse materials that do not contribute to head losses may simplify the
problem and assist you in overcoming the convergence difficulties.
Conductivity function control parameters
In order to obtain a converged solution for steep hydraulic conductivity functions,
the change in hydraulic conductivity between successive iterations must be
controlled. This type of constraint is known as under-relaxation. SEEP/W
controls this change with three parameters: Max_Change, Rate_of_Change, and
Min_Change. Max_Change represents the maximum allowable change in
hydraulic conductivity between iterations, Min_Change represents the minimum
allowable change in hydraulic conductivity between iterations, and the
Rate_of_Change parameter controls the rate at which the value of Max_Change is
Page 190
SEEP/W
reduced if the convergence pattern begins to oscillate rather than progressing

towards convergence. These controls force the solution to continue to conform
towards the shape of the input functions as successive iterations move from one
pressure condition to another. The disadvantage of this approach is that a large
number of iterations are often required for convergence; however the benefit of
actually reaching a converged solution greatly outweighs the cost.
Very steep hydraulic conductivity functions can create difficulties with
convergence. In fact, it may not be possible to obtain convergence if the hydraulic
conductivity function approximates a vertical line. The solution will tend to
diverge instead of converge and oscillate between two extreme solutions
represented by the extremities of the hydraulic conductivity function.
Consider the function illustrated in Figure 8-6. Assume that for the first iteration
all elements are assigned a saturated hydraulic conductivity (ka) corresponding to
zero pressure. This hydraulic conductivity may allow flow to occur without the
buildup of pressure and consequently may result in regions of highly negative
pore-water pressure (Point kf). For the next iteration, the hydraulic conductivity
will be kf. This value actually overly restricts flow and results in the computed
pressures become quite positive once again. Based on repeated substitution, this
will result in the hydraulic conductivity being set once again to a value that is too
high, and the solution will continue to oscillate between the extremities of the
function. By limiting the amount by which K can change we can force the K value
to march down the curve on successive iterations until it reaches a point where the
K or pressure estimated in sequential iterations are similar. In this way, the underrelaxation process can avoid the oscillations that produce a non-convergence
situation.
Slope of water content function
The Max_Change, Rate_of_Change, and Min_Change parameters all control the
changes in hydraulic conductivity. Variation in the slope of the volumetric water
content function, however, can also cause convergence problems. If you make
changes to the convergence parameters, but notice no changes in the convergence
behavior, then the convergence problem may be caused by the volumetric water
content function.
It is important to recognize that problems with convergence due to the volumetric
water content function will occur only in a transient analysis and never in a steadystate analysis. There are several things that you can do if you determine that
convergence problems arise due to the volumetric water content function. Some
Page 191
SEEP/W
analyses may have convergence problems in a few isolated time steps with most of
the other time steps converging properly. It is often most difficult to get
convergence in the first or second time steps when there are rapid changes
occurring in response to abrupt changes in boundary conditions. In this case, the
overall solution may be acceptable even though convergence has not been
achieved for all time steps. As long as there is a consistent trend in the migration of
the wetting front, the solution is likely reasonable and acceptable. Lack of
convergence in one or two time steps does not necessarily mean that the entire
solution is unacceptable.
Another thing that can be done when the volumetric water content function is
causing the convergence problem is to alter the time steps. Smaller time steps can
sometimes help to bring about convergence. Refinement of the finite element mesh
in areas of steep hydraulic gradients can also help to reduce convergence problems.
Unnatural boundary conditions can also lead to convergence problems. For
example, consider the case of filling a reservoir. Often, the reservoir is assumed to
have been filled instantaneously. By modeling it this way, the initial flow gradients
are so high that it can be difficult to get a solution. Applying a more realistic
boundary condition that fills the reservoir over time can reduce convergence
problems. Another comparable situation is when a flux boundary condition, such
as rainfall on the ground surface, is applied suddenly at high intensity. Allowing
even a short period in which the flux rates increases from zero to the desired
intensity will dramatically reduce difficulties with convergence.
Having unrealistic initial conditions in a transient analysis may also lead to
convergence problems. In general, you should not try to model situations that
cannot occur in reality.
8.5
Gauss integration order
The details of numerical integration are provided in the appendices, along with a
discussion of how different integration orders can affect results for various types of
elements. Part of this discussion is repeated here as it pertains to improving
solution convergence.
The appropriate integration order is a function of the presence of secondary nodes.
When secondary nodes are present, the interpolating functions are nonlinear and
consequently a higher integration order is required. Table 8-1 gives the acceptable
integration orders.
Page 192
SEEP/W
Table 8-1 Acceptable element integration orders

Element Type
Secondary Nodes
Integration Order
Quadrilateral
no
Quadrilateral
yes
Triangular
no
Triangular
yes
It is also acceptable to use four-point integration for quadrilateral elements that

have secondary nodes. This is called a reduced integration order (see Bathe, 1982).
Acceptable results can be obtained with reduced integration. For example, reduced
integration is useful in saturated zones where the hydraulic gradient is low and the
hydraulic conductivity is constant. Selective use of reduced integration can greatly
reduce the required number of computations.
It is also possible to use three-point and nine-point integration with elements that
have no secondary nodes. However, the benefits of this are marginal, particularly
for quadrilateral elements. Nine point integration for a quadrilateral element
involves substantially more computing than four point integration, and there is
little to be gained from the additional computations. As a general rule, quadrilateral
elements should have secondary nodes to achieve significant benefits from the nine
point integration.
The situation is slightly different for triangular elements. One-point integration
means the material properties and flow gradients are constant within the element.
This can lead to poor performance of the element, particularly if the element is in
an unsaturated zone where the hydraulic conductivity varies sharply with changes
in pore-water pressure. Using three point integration, even without using secondary
nodes, can improve the performance, since material properties and gradients within
the elements are distributed in a more realistic manner. The use of three point
integration in triangular elements with no secondary nodes is considered
acceptable for triangular elements in a mesh that has predominantly quadrilateral
elements. This approach is not recommended if the mesh consists primarily of
triangular elements with no secondary nodes.
In general, it is sufficient to use three-point integration for triangular elements and
four-point integration for quadrilateral elements. In situations where there is an
unsaturated zone with hydraulic conductivity that varies sharply within an element,
it is best to use quadrilateral elements with secondary nodes together with ninepoint integration.
Page 193
8.6
SEEP/W
Equation solvers (direct or parallel direct)
SEEP/W has two types of equation solvers built into it; a direct equation solver
and a parallel direct equation solver. Both offer certain advantages.
Select the direct equation solver option if you want the system equations to be
solved using a Gauss elimination skyline direct solver. The processing speed of the
direct solver is bandwidth (the maximum node number difference of all the
elements in a domain) dependent. In other words, the direct solver is very fast
when solving simple problems with small bandwidth, but it can be quite slow
when solving more complex problems with a large bandwidth. SIGMA/W
automatically sorts the nodes so that the bandwidth is the smallest possible value,
which helps the solution solve faster using the direct solver. By default, the direct
equation solver is selected.
Select the parallel direct equation solver option if you have a larger mesh. The
parallel solver will save the matrices in a compressed format to eliminate zeros
and it has many advanced schemes to solve large systems of equations more
efficiently. It also offers the ability to make use of multiple processors on a
computer if they are available. The disadvantage of this solver is that it is a bit
slower when the models are smaller in size.
If in doubt, try each solver and choose the one that offers the best performance.
8.7
Time stepping
An incremental time sequence is required for all transient analyses and the
appropriate time sequence is problem-dependent. In most cases, it will likely be
necessary to try a reasonable sequence and then adjust the sequence as necessary in
response to the computed results. For example, if the migration of the wetting front
is too rapid, the time steps need to be decreased; if the migration is too slow, the
time steps need to be increased.
The accuracy of the computed results is dependent to some extent on the size of
the time step. Over the period of one time increment, the process is considered to
be linear. Each time step analysis is equivalent to a mini steady-state analysis. The
incremental stepping forward in time is, in reality, an approximation of the
nonlinear process. For the same rate of change, large time steps lead to more of an
approximation than small time steps. It follows that when the rate of change is
Page 194
SEEP/W
high, the time steps should be small, and when the rate of change is low, the time
steps should be large.
Many seepage processes related to the dissipation of excess pore-water pressures
and infiltration follow an exponential form. The dissipation or infiltration is rapid
at first and then decreases with time. A typical example is the consolidation of a
soil. To model this situation, the time step sequence should approximately follow
an exponential form. The time steps should be small at first and then progressively
increase.
Automatic adaptive time stepping
SEEP/W will permit you to activate an adaptive time stepping routine that will
insert extra time steps between the users specified time steps. There are three
methods of calculating adaptive time steps, plus a fourth scenario should the
solution reach its maximum allowable iteration count without reaching
convergence.
In the first two methods, the change in total nodal heads is used to determine an
increase or decrease in time step between the allowable ranges specified. The first
method checks each node to see if the heads between successive time steps are
changing by more than the user-specified percentage. If the allowable percentage
head change at any given node is too high, then the time steps will be reduced such
that the percent change is upheld. In the second option, the vector norm of nodal
heads is used as the criteria. The vector norm considers all heads simultaneously.
Experience should show that the vector norm approach is faster for a large mesh
with two-dimensional water flows. Analysis of a column study or a mesh with
water flow primarily in one direction is better solved with the individual nodal
head comparison. The time stepping scheme that compares head changes as
adopted in SEEP/W is that proposed by Milly (1982). As a general rule, nodal
heads should not be allowed to vary more than 5 or 10 percent over any given time
step. Keep in mind that this criterion depends somewhat on the actual heads being
solved. For example, 5% of 1 meter is 0.05 meters. 5% of 100 meters is 5 meters.
A tighter tolerance may be necessary for problems with an overall higher head
range.
Regardless of the option to choose nodal heads or vector norm of nodal heads, the
equation used to adjust the time step up or down is:
Page 195
MinMultFactor
SEEP/W
Max Step
Last Step
tolerance H 0
MultFactor abs
H1 H 0
The actual time step multiplication factor used to modify the existing time step is
the lesser of the two values calculated in the above equation.
The third adaptive time stepping control routine does not consider nodal head
change percentage. It continually tracks the total iteration count required to achieve
convergence. If the iteration count exceeds 5, then time step adjustments are
assessed. If the iteration count is less than 5, then no time step adjustment is made
for the next solve step. When deciding how much to increase or decrease time
steps, the solver compares the last converged iteration count with the current
average iteration count. So, if the average number of iterations to converge is 8 and
the last time step took 10 iterations, then the solver will reduce the time step by
8/10. Likewise, if the average count is 8 and the most recent count is 6, then the
time steps will increase by 8/6.
In the adaptive scheme, the time steps are reduced for the first 2 iterations and are
then held constant until convergence is reached. If the maximum number of
iterations is reached without convergence, then the solver checks to see if the
current time step is larger than the user-specified minimum allowable step. If the
current step is larger, then the solver will reduce the current step by half and repeat
the time step. If there is no room to reduce the step by half without reducing it
below the users minimum value, then the minimum value will be applied and the
step repeated.
This multi-faceted time stepping logic can be quite powerful. Often you will find it
quite useful to specify a lower number of allowable iterations to reach convergence
rather than a higher number, because if the solver gets stuck on any given time
step, it will reach the maximum allowable iterations more quickly and then try
reducing the time step in half. The trade-off becomes repeating a time step or
allowing more iterations. It is worth a simple trial and error test early on in a more
lengthy analysis to see which option is better in the long run.
The adaptive scheme will always insert just enough time steps to return to the
increments established by you. This way, no write out data steps are missed and
Page 196
SEEP/W
you still have control over the general time stepping of the solution. In order to
activate adaptive time stepping you must set up your time steps with preferred
"save" time steps. Then you check the adaptive time stepping box and time step
criteria as well as the maximum allowable change in nodal head per time step, the
maximum adaptive step, and the minimum allowable time step. The time steps are
entered in the same time units as the hydraulic conductivity.
Page 197
SEEP/W
Chapter 9: Flow nets, seepage forces and exit gradients
Flow nets, seepage forces, and exit

gradients
This chapter discusses three aspects of pre-finite element seepage analyses that
often cause users some concern. The concern usually arises because the user is
trying to fit finite element output into the context of more traditional, and often
approximate, analysis techniques and ideas. Issues discussed include flow nets,
seepage forces and exit gradients. This chapter is, in some ways, about helping
you to change your thinking.
9.1
Flow nets
Seepage flow through a homogeneous isotropic medium under steady state

conditions is described by the Laplacian equation. The form of the equation is,
2h 2h 2h
0
x 2 y 2 z 2
This is one of the most basic partial differential equations known in mathematics.
A graphical solution to this equation is what is known as a flow net. A flow net is
in essence is map of contours of equal potential crossed with flow lines. For the
flow net to represent a correct solution to the Laplacian equation, the equipotential
lines and flow lines must follow certain rules. The flow lines must for example
cross the equipotential lines at right angles. Also, the area between two adjacent
flow lines is called a flow channel and the flow in each channel has to carry the
same amount of flow. A correctly constructed flow net is a graphical solution to
the Laplacian equation.
Prior to the availability of computers and numerical methods such as finite element
analyses, flow nets were often the only available solution to solving seepage
analysis problems. Consequently, over the years, flow nets have become deeply
entrenched in any published discussion and presentation on the subject of seepage.
Most textbooks that have a section on seepage talk about how to construct and
interpret flow nets. In spite of the apparent simplicity, constructing a good flow net
that meets all the criteria is not a trivial task. Anybody who has ever tried to
construct a flow net can attest to the difficulties.
Fortunately, now that computers and numerical software tools are so readily
available, it is no long necessary to rely on graphical solutions to the Laplacian
Page 199
SEEP/W
equation. Numerical solutions can now be obtained more quickly and easily than
constructing a flow net. Moreover, a numerical solution provides all the
information obtainable from a flow net plus much more. Furthermore, numerical
analyses can provide solutions for highly complex situations for which it is not
possible to construct a flow net. Flow nets, for example, are nearly impossible to
construct for a complex stratigraphy or when there is both saturated and
unsaturated flow, or when the flow is transient. With a software tool like SEEP/W
these types of situations can be readily considered in a seepage analysis.
SEEP/W does not create a true flow net because flow nets can only be created for a
few special situations. SEEP/W, however, does compute and display many
elements of a flow net which are useful for interpreting results in the context of
flow net principles. For example, flow lines must be approximately perpendicular
to equipotential lines. Features like this provide a reference point for judging the
SEEP/W results.
This chapter describes the SEEP/W features which make it possible to view the
results in the context of a flow net and outlines the simple cases for which an
approximate flow net can be created. Also, examples are presented for which it is
not possible to construct a flow net.
Equipotential lines
SEEP/W is formulated in terms of total hydraulic head. Contours of total head are
the equivalent of equipotential lines. So equipotential lines can be drawn and
displayed by creating a plot of total head contours. Figure 9-1 shows total head
contours. They are identical to equipotential lines in a flow net. In this example
there are eight equipotential drops from 20 to 12, each 1 meter.
Page 200
SEEP/W
20
12
13
16
17
14
15
18
19
Figure 9-1 Plot of total head contours or equipotential lines

Flow paths
In SEEP/W you can draw paths as illustrated in Figure 9-2. These are lines that an
imaginary droplet of water would follow from entrance to exit; they are not flow
lines in the true context of a flow nets.
It is very important to recognize that flow paths drawn on top of total head
contours are not flow channels. In flow net terminology, the area between two flow
paths is called a flow channel. In a flow net, the amount of flow between each flow
line must be the same; that is, the amount of flow is the same in each flow channel.
Drawing flow paths in SEEP/W does not guarantee this. When visually the
combination of total head contours and flow paths in SEEP/W look very much like
a flow net as in Figure 9-2, the amount of flow in each channel will be
approximately the same. This is true only by implication. SEEP/W makes no
calculation to this effect.
Page 201
20
SEEP/W
12
13
16
17
14
15
18
19
Figure 9-2 Flow net approximation

Note in Figure 9-2 that the flow paths cross the equipotential lines at right angles,
as they rightly must for a homogenous section. This is useful information when
judging SEEP/W results. If the paths do not cross the total head contours at right
angles (or at least close to right angles) for a homogenous section, there is reason
to believe something is wrong perhaps with the input data. This is a useful visual
tool to mentally check the validity of your analysis.
As is evident in Figure 9-2, a very good approximation of a flow net can be created
with SEEP/W by visually placing flow paths on top of total head contours at
strategic points. The fact that you can so quickly draw flow paths and then delete
and replace them makes it possible with a little experimenting to make a nicelooking flow net.
Flow channels
It is possible for simple cases to compute flow lines so that they create exact true
flow channels. SEEP/W can be tricked into make this calculation by reversing
boundary conditions. Head boundaries become flow boundaries and flow
boundaries become head boundaries.
Say that in the above example of seepage under a structure with two cutoffs, we
want to create six flow channels. This can be done by specifying a total head of
zero along the vertical ends of the problems and along the bottom, by specifying a
Page 202
SEEP/W
total of 6 along the perimeter of the structure and by specifying a Q (flux) of zero
along the flow entrance and exit areas. The blue triangles in Figure 9-3 indicate a
flow boundary and the red circles represent a head boundary.
Q=0
Q=0
H=6
H=0
H=0
H=0
Figure 9-3 Boundary condition for computing flow channels

The resulting computed flow channels and true flow lines are shown in Figure 9-3.
In SEEP/W the flow lines are plotted as contours of total head, but they actually
represent flow lines (Figure 9-4). The SEEP/W drawn flow lines are now actually
equipotential lines. Again, by visually placing the flow lines you can create a
good-looking approximation of a flow net as pictured in Figure 9-5. Now the drop
in head between equipotential lines is only approximate, not like in Figure 9-1
where the drop is exactly the same between equipotential lines.
Page 203
SEEP/W
Figure 9-4 Computed flow lines and flow channels

Creating a picture of flow channels in practice is not all that useful. Usually the
main objectives of a seepage analysis are to obtain a plot of pore-water pressure
distribution and to determine the quantity of seepage. This information is
obtainable from a conventional seepage analysis; a flow channel analysis is not
required for this propose.
A flow channel analysis is primarily of interest to show that SEEP/W can be
tricked into doing this type of analysis and that the results are reasonable which in
a sense validates the SEEP/W formulation.
Also, if a reasonably good flow net is required for discussion and communication
purposes, this is a technique that can be useful.
The technique is also good for teaching students flow net principles.
Page 204
SEEP/W
Figure 9-5 SEEP/W flow paths represent equipotential lines in a flow

channel analysis
Flow quantities
Computing flow quantities is usually of primary interest in a seepage analysis.
With SEEP/W this is done by defining a flux section. Figure 9-6 shows the
example under discussion here with a flux section. The total seepage under the
structure is 2.5 x 10-4 m3 per second, as indicated on the flux section. The
conductivity was specified as 1 x 10-4 m/sec.
Flow quantities can be estimated from a flow net as the total head drop times the
conductivity times a ratio of the number of flow channels to the number of
equipotential drops. The ratio in Figure 9-6 is 3 divided by 8. The total head drop
is 8. In equation form,
Q (H ) K
nf
nd
Q (8)(1 104 )
3
8
Q 3 104
Page 205
SEEP/W
This approximation from the flow net equation is reasonably close to the SEEP/W
computed flux. The difference between the two values is confirmation that the
estimated flow paths are only approximate. To get the same value from the flow
net, 2.5 flow channels are required for the 8 equipotential drops.
2.5026e-004
The SEEP/W computed value is the correct Q, since flow nets are at best always an
approximation.
Figure 9-6 Analysis with a flux section

Uplift pressures
Almost any soil mechanics text book that has a section on seepage includes an
example on how a flow net can be used to estimate the uplift pressure on a
hydraulic structure such as discussed here. Producing such a plot is easy and
straight forward with the SEEP/W graph function. Figure 9-7 shows the pressure
from a point just outside the structure on the upstream side to a point downstream
of the structure at the base of the structure. Note the pressure drops across the
cutoff walls at both ends of the structure.
Page 206
SEEP/W
10
Pressure Head
2
10
15
20
25
30
Horizontal distance
Figure 9-7 Distribution of uplift pressure on base of structure

Limitations
Flow nets can be approximated with SEEP/W provided the seepage domain is
completely saturated and the there are no extreme contrasts in hydraulic
conductivity. However, when a section has an unsaturated zone, it is not possible
to create even an approximate flow net. In the unsaturated zone there is a large
variation in conductivity. Each Gauss integration point has its own conductivity
depending on the pore-water pressure. In some parts of the unsaturated zone the
conductivity may get so low that there is essentially no flow. This is illustrated in
Figure 9-8. There is one flow path that stops in the section. Physically this means it
has reached a dead zone; that is, the conductivity is so low the path cannot be
drawn beyond this point.
Flow path
Figure 9-8 Flow paths in unconfined flow
Page 207
SEEP/W
Flow paths can be drawn below the phreatic surface and in the capillary rise zone
above the phreatic surface, but not above the capillary rise. If flow paths are drawn
high up in the unsaturated zone, they usually have a jagged irregular shape and as
result have no meaning. They certainly do not adhere to flow net principles.
The equipotential lines shown in Figure 9-8 are valid in both the saturated and
unsaturated, but the flow paths are not.
Worth noting here as well is that in a saturated-unsaturated seepage formulation
such as SEEP/W, the phreatic surface is not a true flow line as in the context of a
flow net. The phreatic surface is merely a line of zero pressure. A flow path can
actually cross the line of zero pressure as illustrated in Figure 9-8.
In traditional flow nets for unconfined flow as in embankments, the phreatic
surface is a no-flow boundary and a line of zero pressure. When finite element
methods were first applied to unconfined seepage problems, it was necessary to
adjust the mesh until the pressure along the top of the mesh was zero. Numerically
this was awkward and difficult to achieve, and greatly limited the types of
problems that could be modeled. So while this made it possible to construct flow
nets in the saturated zone, it was suitable only for a few simple cases. The SEEP/W
formulation and approach is applicable to a much wider range of problems and
more accurately represents the real physical conditions. Moreover, SEEP/W
provides a more complete picture of pressure distributions and flow quantities than
what is available from a traditional flow net for unconfined flow.
9.2
Seepage forces
Soil Mechanics by Lambe and Whitman (1969, John Wiley and Sons Inc.) has a
detailed discussion on seepage forces and when they are or are not relevant. The
discussion that follows is based on their work.
If you have concern regarding seepage forces then you should read this section. If
you are not concerned or aware of seepage forces, then please skip over this
section you dont need to know about seepage forces in GeoStudio because it is
important to understand that a rigorous seepage analysis can be done without any
reference to seepage force if the analysis formulation uses a consistent approach
which considers total unit weight and boundary forces as do all GeoStudio
models.
Page 208
SEEP/W
Forces on a soil element

In the image below we can see different ways of considering forces acting on a soil
element.
y = 24m
h=4
y = 20m
z=5
F = z(g)A = 5(10)A
y = 15m
L=10
y = 5m
F = 19(10)A
Boundary Forces
F = (h+z+L)(g)A
F = 15(10)A
Bouyancy Forces
F = (z+L)(g)A
F = 4(10)A
Seepage Forces
F = h(g)A
Figure 9-9 Forces on a soil element

In the left case, we look at the boundary forces at the top and bottom of the
element. The force acting on the top is the depth of water above multiplied by the
water weight (assumed 10 KN/m3) and by the cross-sectional area of the element,
A. Likewise, the boundary force acting at the base is the depth of bottom
boundary below the surface multiplied by the water weight and area.
In the right two figures the forces are broken down into two parts, a buoyancy
force and a seepage force. The buoyancy forces act on the bottom and top based
on the static pressure as if there were no flow (e.g., the water acting down from
Page 209
SEEP/W
above). The seepage force is the force that is all spent due to moving the water
through the resisting soil.
In both cases, the same force equilibrium will apply to the soil element. However,
it is often more clear to consider the boundary force approach because there is only
one equation to consider and it applies to any point on the soil element. The
boundary force approach is used in all GeoStudio models.
9.3
Exit gradients
Gradients
The hydraulic gradient in the soil is computed as the total head loss divided by
distance of flow between the two measured head locations, or
In a finite element formulation, the gradient matrix is termed the [B] matrix and it
is computed for all points within a single element based on the coordinates of the
element nodes and a shape function which determines how the total head is
distributed within the element. There is a discussion in the chapter on meshing
about element shapes and how the primary variable is distributed throughout the
element. Details of the [B] matrix itself are provided in the appendices.
It is important to know that in a finite element formulation the gradients within
elements on either side of a shared element edge are not necessarily going to be the
same. This is because the shape functions we use to know how parameters are
distributed within an element are not continuous to adjacent elements across a
common edge. The finite element method ensures we have flow continuity at the
nodes (e.g., mass balance) but it does not ensure we have energy (or gradient)
continuity at element edges. If you make the mesh finer, you may improve the
apparent gradient continuity across an element edge but you will likely not
improve the nodal mass balance that significantly assuming that you had a
converged solution before and after you fine-tuned the element size.
Critical gradients
A quick condition exits when the upward force on a soil particle equals the total
particle weight. Said another way, it is when the seepage force equals the
submerged weight of the soil. Since in GeoStudio we choose not use the seepage
Page 210
SEEP/W
force approach (as discussed in the previous section) we will stick to total unit
weights and pore-water pressures in our discussion in other words, we will deal
with effective stresses.
The effective stress is computed as the total stress minus the pore-water pressure;
where the total stress is computed in the y-direction as the total unit weight of the
soil multiplied by the depth from the surface. If the pore-water pressure is high
enough such that the effective stress is reduced to zero or less, then it is possible a
quick condition exists.
The concept of critical gradient = 1 was developed using hand calculated flow nets
for upward vertical flow in one direction. It has traditionally been computed by
considering the state when the buoyant weight divided by the unit weigh of water
is equal to 1.0 but this is only true for forces in the vertical direction. The value of
critical gradient = 1 does not necessarily apply in two dimensional flow as we will
show below.
Geometry considerations
Consider the images in Figure 9-10 below. There are four meshes in one analysis.
The left two are vertical flow only because the ground surface is exactly flat. The
right two have a very slight curvature to the ground surface. In both cases, the
head difference is equal to the elevation difference so the hand calculated
gradient should be 1. In the vertical flow cases only, regardless of course or fine
mesh, the vertical gradient is computed to be exactly 1.0. In the curved surface
cases, there is a gradient concentration at the point of maximum curvature because
there are gradients in both the X and Y directions that create an overall higher
hydraulic energy state in the element. The maximum Y gradient is now about
1.15. It is even higher in the mesh with secondary nodes because the gradients are
better defined over the element when there are secondary nodes.
It is now obvious that if this were a real life soil, we would expect no difference in
the stability of all four cases because our engineering judgment lets us know they
are the same. Numerically, and physically, there is a higher gradient for the
curved surface soils but we are trying to interpret that higher gradient (1.15) in the
context of what we think should be happening for one dimensional, vertical flow
only. It is not the software that is wrong; it is our frame of reference that is wrong.
Page 211
SEEP/W
Figure 9-10 Four column meshes - left to flat on top, right two slightly
curved
It is possible to look at the gradients across all profiles at one time as shown in
Figure 9-11 below. You can see that for the perfectly flat cases the gradient in the
y-direction is 1.0 at all elevations. However, for the sloping ground cases, the
gradients vary across the profiles at all depths. In this case, the ground surface is
even flatter than shown above. The left and right sides of each curved surface
column shown here are 1cm higher than the center point over a 10m high column.
In comparing the more curved case above with this case, it is very clear that the
sharper the break in slope, the more effect the 2D flow has on increasing gradients
at the break location. It is also clear that the phenomenon is not just localized to
the surface where there is a break in slope angle. The phenomenon extends
throughout the entire column where there is 2 dimensional flow.
The real issue we have to deal with when considering seepage is: what is a critical
gradient for two dimensional exit flow? It is NOT 1.0. One can appreciate that it
is hard to say to a client we dont want to design to your 1.0 criterion but you
may have to. If you want to do more detailed analysis, then you need to perhaps
consider a SIGMA/W coupled stress/pore-water pressure analysis to consider
effective stress. This is done below.
Page 212
SEEP/W
Figure 9-11 Y gradients at different depths in a column
Now let us consider the case of exit flow on a sloping ground with a break in the
slope. Figure 9-12 shows two slope geometries for essentially the same model.
The left image has a sharp break in the slope while the right image has several
regions points added such that a smooth or rounded break in the slope is accounted
for. Both images show contours of x-y gradients and you can see that there is a
gradient concentration at the location of the break in the slope where water is
seeping out.
Page 213
SEEP/W
Figure 9-12 Comparison of gradients with sharp and rounded corners

Figure 9-13shows a plot of gradient versus distance into the slope on a line drawn
normal to the break in the slope. You can see that for both the rounded and
angular case there is an x-y gradient greater than zero right at the surface but that at
a short distance into the slope, say 1m, the gradients are less than 1.0. If this were
a flow net solution, it is not likely that the flow net would be drawn to incorporate
a grid size of less than 1m (given that the model is 30m in width) which means the
hand computed gradient at the exit location would be the average gradient over 1
or more meters distance.
We recommend that when you consider exit gradients and you want to compare them with
the traditional flow net critical gradient concept of 1.0, you take an average gradient over a
1 to 2 meter distance in the vicinity of the exit location.
1.4
1.3
XY-Gradient
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0
Distance (m)
Figure 9-13 Gradients on a line normal to the slope from the break
location
Page 214
SEEP/W
Effective stress and soil strength

A key issue to consider when thinking about critical gradients is the strength of the
soil. If a soil has zero effective stress and has no cohesional strength, then it is in a
serious state from a stability and quick or piping perspective. However, if there is
any cohesional strength under zero effective stress, then the concept of critical
gradient being equal to 1.0 is not valid. The gradient may be 1 or more, but the
soil has shear strength to resist a piping effect.
Figure 9-14 shows the effective stresses in a coupled SIGMA/W stress/pore-water
pressure analysis for the column with a curved surface case. You can see that there
is a small section of soil just below the ground surface at the point of maximum
curvature where there are very small negative y-effective stresses. A negative
effective stress signifies a quick condition. This first analysis assumed a soil
unit weight of 20 KN/m3.
Figure 9-14 Gauss point stresses using unit weight of 20 KN/m3

The second image below shows the result with an assumed unit weight of 21
KN/m3. You can see in the second analysis that there are now positive effective
stresses at all points just below the surface. A seepage analysis alone considers
none of this. In both cases below, the hydraulic gradients are greater than 1.0 but
depending on soil weight and the effective stress and associated strength, there
Page 215
SEEP/W
may or may not be quick conditions. Even in a soil with frictional strength only,
the presence of a positive effective stress near the ground surface may resist piping
conditions.
Figure 9-15 Gauss point stresses using unit weight of 21 KN/m3

A seepage analysis alone, when used for determining gradients, must be done with
some understanding that the critical gradient approach of 1.0 was based on very
simplified assumptions developed using hand drawn flow nets under vertical flow
scenarios.
Flow velocity
One final issue to consider is the fact a high gradient may exist at the ground
surface but if there is not sufficient exit flow velocity, any loose particles of soil
cannot be lifted and transported. Consider a vacuum cleaner it has a very high
suction gradient but if you block off the flow of air, no particles are moved. The
gradient remains but there is insufficient flow to transport dirt. A detailed
discussion of overland flow and transport is beyond the scope of this book and
there are experts in industry who can be consulted. One approach is to determine
the exit flow volumes from a seepage analysis and use them in a transport analysis.
Page 216
SEEP/W
9.4
Concluding remarks
With a software tool like SEEP/W, it is no longer necessary to construct traditional

flow nets. SEEP/W can provide all the information obtainable from a flow net plus
much more, and SEEP/W makes it possible to analyze a much wider range of
problems. Furthermore, doing a SEEP/W analysis is much simpler and faster than
trying to create a flow net.
There is still value in being able to approximate flow nets, since so much of the
textbook literature still presents flow nets and discusses techniques for constructing
flow nets. Consequently, flow nets are sort of a historical reference point. Having
the ability to view SEEP/W results in the context of past methods is useful, but
attempting to use flow nets in practice is no longer practical nor necessary.
Seepage forces are used in the literature and are taught in some classes on groundwater but they are not necessary to consider if the analysis approach uses total soil
weight and boundary forces as opposed to buoyant and seepage forces. This is the
approach used throughout GeoStudio.
Finally, exit gradients and critical gradients must be considered in terms of
geometry, effective stress and associated soil shear strength, and flow velocity. A
computed gradient of 1.0 does not necessarily mean there will be stability issues or
quick or piping conditions. We recommend you consider an average gradient over
a reasonable depth of soil near the exit location, not just the exit gradient right at
the ground surface where it is affected by model geometry, two dimensional flow,
low effective stresses etc.
Page 217
Page 218
SEEP/W
SEEP/W
10
Chapter 10: Visualization of Results
Visualization of Results
When you get to the visualization of results stage of a finite element analysis you
can congratulate yourself for having completed the hardest parts setting up the
geometry, defining meaningful soil property functions, and applying appropriate
boundary conditions to the model.
This chapter describes the various types of output data that are computed by the
solver and it attempts to get you thinking about what the data is trying to tell you.
For example, did the solution solve properly? Did the boundary conditions you
applied get reflected in the actual solution? Did the soil respond how you thought it
would respond? If not, how to you methodically determine what to check next?
The chapter is structured to explain what type of data is available for visualization.
In the various sections, comments are provided that relate the type of result data in
question to how it should be used in the overall thought process. Its a good idea to
read this entire chapter.
10.1
Transient versus steady state results
The type of data you can view is somewhat dependent on the type of analysis you
have completed. For example, if you have done a steady state analysis, you cannot
interpret any data related to changes in time. You can view instantaneous flux
values that have units of volume per time; however, you cannot see how these
values may change with time because steady state, by nature, means things do not
change with time.
In a steady state analysis you are not required to define a volumetric water content
function, because it is the slope of this function that is needed in the solution of the
transient, not steady state, finite element equation. If you do not define a water
content function, then it stands to reason that you cannot view water contents.
Water contents can only be viewed in a steady state solution if you have defined a
water content function that the solver can access to report water contents based on
solved pressures. No water content function no reported water contents!
In a transient analysis, you can look at how all of the various output data values
change with respect to time and/or position, whereas in steady state analysis, you
can only graph how the data changes with position.
Page 219
SEEP/W
Finally, in a transient analysis you cannot plot the flow path of a particle of water
across the entire geometry. This is because there are no single flow lines in a
transient process. Sure, water is flowing somewhere, but a single particle of water
at one point in a mesh has an infinite number of possible places to flow with time,
and so it is not known what the path of the particle will be. You can plot the flow
vector within any element at any point in time because by the simple nature of the
finite element we are assuming the flow within any single element is known at
all points in time. In a steady state analysis, the flow line is useful to follow the
path of a particle of water from its entrance into the geometry to its exit. The entire
path is known, because once the flow is established, it is at a steady value and
therefore is fixed at that position. There is a more detailed discussion on flow lines
and flow vectors later in this chapter.
10.2
Node and element information
In order to understand what type of information can be viewed as results output, it

helps a bit to know how the data is obtained. So, to recap, you set up the problem
geometry, define material properties, and apply boundary conditions of either
known head (or pressure) or flux. The solver assembles the soil property and
geometry information for every Gauss point in every element and applies it to the
flow equation that is written for every node. Therefore, at each node we have
applied boundary data, interpolated soil property data and geometry data. The
solver then computes the unknown value in the equation for each node the
unknown value being either head or flux. It is the Gauss point data that is used to
set up the nodal equations, so the Gauss point data written to the output file is the
actual data used in the solver.
In GeoStudio, all output data for nodes and gauss points anywhere in the model is
accessible using the View Results Information command. With the command
selected, you can click the mouse on any single node to view the output at the
node. You can also hold down the shift key to multi-select many points. If you
click beside a node and within the element itself, you will get the Gauss point data
at that location. You can multi-select Gauss point to see a table of data.
Figure 10-1 is an illustration of the type of information that can be viewed for each
node in the finite element mesh. You can view the types of data in the list to see
that there is a combination of heads, pressures, fluxes, velocities, gradients,
conductivities and water contents. There is also a summary of the position of the
node within the problem domain. In effect, the node information is a summary of
the problem geometry, the soil material properties, and the boundary conditions
Page 220
SEEP/W
the three main parts of any finite element analysis. If your model included an air
flow analysis, the list would contain all the related air flow parameters too.
One key point to note in the figure below is that the nodal Boundary Flux quantity
is None. This is an important point to understand because it can help with your
overall interpretation of results. This boundary flux is computed by summing the
contributing fluxes from each of the four Gauss points that surround this node. So,
if water is flowing out of one Gauss region, it HAS TO be flowing into an adjacent
Gauss region. For all internal nodes with no user boundary applied to them, the
sum of all the fluxes at a node should equal zero and is reported as None
meaning there is no data at this point in time or space.
If the node being viewed is a boundary condition node (not necessarily at the edge
of the geometry, but with an allowed influx or outflux) then the summation of all
the fluxes at that node will not be zero, because water is either gained or lost at that
point.
Figure 10-1 Visualization of node information
Page 221
SEEP/W
Figure 10-2 is the corresponding Gauss point information for two adjacent Gauss
points. Because the element is rectangular, each Gauss area is equal to one quarter
of the total area of the element. The inset in the figure below shows the type of
data that can be viewed at each Gauss point. If you consider the water content
value of 0.10262%, for example, you should realize that this water content is
assumed to exist throughout the Gauss point area displayed; and you should next
realize that if the element size is increased, the estimate of the water content
becomes less accurate, as we are averaging it over a larger area. The real trick to
getting good finite element analysis results is to create a finite element mesh with
just the right sized elements that are not too big or too small, that can represent the
highly non-linear soil properties within them, and that can handle the potentially
extreme boundary conditions you apply. It is not always easy and there is no sure
quick or automatic method to make that happen.
Figure 10-2 Visualization of element Gauss point information
Page 222
SEEP/W
10.3
Graphing node and gauss Data
The Draw Graph command allows you to plot a graph of any computed value as a
function of time, position or both time and position. In past versions of GeoStudio,
all graphing was based on user selected nodes. Moving forward, GeoStudio now
requires the user to select graph data locations based on one or more points, a cut
line, or a region of points. It is possible to select all three types of data locations
within a single graph. Figure 10-3 shows a combination of all three graph data
objects in a single dam cross section.
The advantage of using this type of data selection is that the location and type of
data used in any graph can be named and saved. Each time you return to the
graphing command, you can choose from your saved list of graphs and you do not
have to re-define them. Even if you change the mesh, the model will know the
new nodes nearest to your graph selections and it will draw the graph using the
most recent solution for those nodes.
Figure 10-3 Graph data selection options (points, lines, planes)

In the previous image, the graph points were selected at any point in the domain.
Sometimes it is easier to select all points along a given geometry object such as a
region line or point. Consider Figure 10-4 where the entire up stream region edge
line has been selected for graphing. In this case, it was easier to just select one
point along the entire edge and have the model capture all nodes along that edge.
The option of selecting custom points or geometry points is totally a user
preference.
Once the graph is visible there are many options to change the font, apply a legend,
rotate the image, copy the image to paste it into a report, copy the data to paste to
Excel or another program, or export it as a comma separated text file.
Page 223
SEEP/W
You can even hover the mouse directly on a graphed point to see the actual data as
shown in Figure 10-5 below.
Figure 10-4 Graph selections based on geometry item (upstream

region edge line)
Figure 10-5 Upstream total head as a function of position for each

time
Page 224
SEEP/W
10.4
None values
In GeoStudio, an attempt is made to distinguish between data values that have a

true value of zero, and those that are missing. A missing value is labeled as none
in a data list or is not printed to file when you save the data for export or pasting
into another program such as Excel. A missing value is simply a data type that is
not relevant to the current set of analysis parameters. For example, in Figure 10-1
above, the node boundary flux values are set to none. This is because there are
no nodal flows at internal, non boundary condition nodes.
None or missing values, are simply a way for GeoStudio to not erroneously
report data values as zero (which has meaning) when they really just do not exist.
Consider the following graph generated by GeoStudio of pore-water pressures in a
soil as it is placed during a construction sequence. At the 0 second time, the soil
surface is at 10m. At 10 seconds, 2 meters of more soil is added. At 8010
seconds, another 2 meters is added. Notice that for the two added lifts of soil, the
pressure values are not graphed as zero prior to their placement time. The data is
missing in the program so is not reported or graphed.
Figure 10-6 Graph showing how missing data is excluded and not
printed as zero
Page 225
10.5
SEEP/W
Water table
In SEEP/W, the location of the water table is drawn in Contour along an isoline
where the water pressure is zero. This is technically correct for the case where the
air pressure is assumed to be zero but it is not correct when air pressures are
considered. The location of the water table is actually where the matric pressure
(Ua Uw) is zero.
5
25
da
ys
82
da
y
37 da
ys
Figure 10-7 Water table (isolines) over time
10.6
Isolines
You can use the Draw Isolines command to choose which parameter you want the
water table calculation based on. It can be water pressure or matric suction. You
can also choose to draw an isoline contour of any other parameter at an instance in
time or over multiple times. If you draw an isoline at multiple time steps then you
can not also view contour shading as it only exists for any instance in time. The
isolines are a way to track a single value of a parameter as it changes over time
such as a water table.
10.7
Projecting Gauss point values to nodes
SEEP/W performs contouring calculations based on parameter values at the nodes.

Since the primary parameters, (total head, pressure, and pressure head), are
computed at the nodes, these parameters can be contoured directly. However,
secondary parameters, (velocity, gradient, conductivity, and volumetric water
content), are computed at the element Gauss points and must therefore be projected
to the nodes for contouring purposes.
In triangular elements, the Gauss point values are projected on the basis of a plane
that passes through the three Gauss points. For one-point integration, the value at
Page 226
SEEP/W
the Gauss point is also taken to be the value at the nodes (i.e., the Gauss point
value is constant within the element).
In quadrilateral elements, the Gauss point values are projected using the
interpolating functions. (For more information about interpolating functions, see
the appendix). In equation form,
x N
where:
x
the projected value outside the Gauss points at a local coordinate greater
than 1.0,
<N>
a matrix of interpolating functions, and
{X}
the value of Gauss point variable.
The local coordinates at the element nodes are the reciprocal of the Gauss point
local coordinates when forming the element characteristic matrix. Figure 10-8 is an
example of the local coordinates at the element corner nodes when projecting
outwards from the four Gauss points in the element. The value of 1.7320 is the
reciprocal of the Gauss point coordinate 0.57735.
This projection technique can result in some over-shoot at the corner nodes when
variation in the parameter values at the Gauss points is large. For example,
consider that we wish to contour volumetric water content and that in some
elements the water content at the Gauss points varies over the complete range of
the volumetric water content function. Projecting such a large variation to the
nodes can result in projected nodal water contents beyond the range of the
volumetric water content function.
Extreme changes in the parameter values at the Gauss points within an element
often indicate numerical difficulties (the over-shoot at the nodes being just a
symptom of the problem). This over-shoot can potentially be reduced by a finer
mesh discretization. Smaller elements within the same region will result in a
smaller variation of parameter values within each element, therefore lowering the
potential for encountering unrealistic projections.
Page 227
SEEP/W
Figure 10-8 Local coordinates at the corner nodes of an element with

four integration points
10.8
Contours
The power of using advanced graphical interfaces with finite element analysis is
that the computer can quickly convert thousands of pieces of data into meaningful
pictures. In a section above we introduced isolines and showed how their relative
positions give an indication of the change in a parameter over time and space. In
this section, we show that it is quite simple, and much more meaningful, to
interpret parameters over space if we can view all values for a model at one time
over the entire domain. GeoStudio 2007 has the power to let you contour any of
the output data over your problem domain.
In GeoStudio 2007 version 7.1 you have the ability to set up a contour profile, give
it a name, and save it in a list. You can then easily change contour views using a
drop down list on the toolbar of any saved contours without having to re-set the
viewing parameters.
Page 228
SEEP/W
-4
Figure 10-9 Contour of pressures at a fixed time
10.9
Animation in GeoStudio 2007
New to GeoStudio 2007 is the option to create an *.avi movie file to illustrate how
your model changes over time. Once you have set up the contour view with data
you want displayed over time, you can use the View Animation command to set up
and save an *.avi file format movie that will play in your compute video program.
You can specify the size and duration of the movie.
When you create an animation, the program will loop over all the time steps you
choose and it will, in memory, create a snapshot of the results at that time. It
sequences them and saves them in movie format.
10.10 Velocity vectors and flow paths

Calculating gradients and velocities
Once the solution has converged and the nodal heads are known, SEEP/W
computes the hydraulic gradients and Darcian flow velocities at each of the
integration points within each element. The gradient at each Gauss or integration
point is computed from the equation:
ix
B H
iy
where:
ix
the gradient in x direction,
Page 229
SEEP/W
iy
the gradient in y direction,
[B]
the gradient matrix as defined in the theory chapter, and
{H}
the vector of total head at the nodes.
The Darcian velocities at each Gauss point are computed from the equation:
vx
C B H
v y
where:
vx
the velocity in x direction,
vy
the velocity in y direction, and
[C]
the hydraulic conductivity matrix.
SEEP/W stores the hydraulic conductivity at each Gauss point used in the
formulation of the finite element equations in an array. The same hydraulic
conductivity values are later used to compute the velocities.
The SEEP/W velocity is actually the specific discharge, q, which is the total flux Q
divided by the full cross-sectional area (voids and solids alike); it is not the actual
speed with which the water moves between the soil particles. The actual
microscopic velocity is:
q
n
where:
v
the average linear velocity,
the specific discharge, and
the soil porosity.
SEEP/W does not compute the actual pore-channel velocity. Once the velocities
and gradients are calculated, they are saved to a data file for later use in visualizing
the node or Gauss point information, or for generating flow vectors and flow lines.
Page 230
SEEP/W
Velocity vectors
Velocity vectors are a useful way of seeing not only where the flow is occurring,
but how much flow there is relative to other regions of the domain. SEEP/W uses
the magnitude of the actual velocity in its calculation of how large to display the
vector so that you have a visual representation of where the velocities are high or
low. For each element, the average x-velocity and average y-velocity from the
Gauss point velocity values are computed and then vectorally summed to obtain an
average velocity vector for the element. This average velocity vector is plotted
with the tail of the vector at the center of the element.
When displaying vectors, SEEP/W finds the maximum velocity vector and draws
it at the length specified in the Draw Vectors dialog box. All other vectors are
drawn in proportion to the element velocity relative to the maximum velocity. For
example, if the element velocity is one quarter of the maximum velocity, then the
length of the velocity vector is one-quarter of the length specified in the Draw
Vectors dialog box.
You have the option of controlling the size of the vectors as they are displayed by
controlling the magnification scale when you issue the command to create the
vectors. Specifying a magnification value allows you to control the scale at which
all vectors are drawn. When you type a value in the magnification edit box, the
maximum length edit box is updated to display the length at which the maximum
vector will be drawn. You can control the vector length either by specifying a
magnification value or by specifying a maximum display length value. If you
specify a length, the magnification value is computed by dividing the maximum
length by the maximum velocity and adjusting the value for the scale of the page
and engineering units.
Vectors are only drawn in element regions being viewed. Choose View Element
Regions if you wish to view different materials or to not view infinite elements. If
no elements are viewed, an error message appears when you choose Draw Vectors.
Flow paths
The SEEP/W flow paths are not flow lines or stream lines as in a traditional flow
net. In many cases the flow paths are a very good approximation of stream lines,
but they are not the same. The flow paths are simply a line based on velocity
vectors in an element that a drop of water would follow under steady-state
conditions; and slight variations between a flow path and a flow line should not be
of concern because they are computed in entirely different ways. At best, the
Page 231
SEEP/W
SEEP/W flow path should be viewed as a reasonable approximation of the flow

lines within a flow net.
The flow paths will always be the most realistic in saturated zones where there is
significant velocity. In zones where there is little or no flow, the SEEP/W flow
paths may not be realistic. Several cases are illustrated in Figure 10-10. In the
upstream toe area where there is little flow, the flow path ends along the bottom
boundary. This is not physically correct and therefore is not a realistic flow path.
Within the unsaturated zone in the figure there is a flow path that ends within the
dam section. The reason for this is that the path has reached an area where there is
essentially no flow. Once again, such a flow path has no meaning. Since it is
possible to click in an area with relatively no seepage and create an unrealistic flow
path, some judgment is required by you when drawing flow paths. You should
discard flow paths that you judge to be unrealistic.
When you create a flow path, a message will be displayed if you attempt to draw it
in an area where there is little or no flow. After accepting the message, the flow
path will be drawn, but it may not be complete; that is, the path will end inside the
flow regime and not at an external mesh boundary. This message will also be
displayed if the flow path encounters a no flow perimeter boundary.
Another important point is that in a saturated / unsaturated flow system, the
phreatic line is not a flow line. It is simply a line of zero water pressure. Since
water can flow from the saturated to the unsaturated zone, and vice versa, flow can
take place across the phreatic surface. Consequently, a flow path may cross the
phreatic surface as illustrated Figure 10-10. This is acceptable and realistic.
You can select any point to draw a flow path by clicking on a point within the flow
domain. The path is drawn strictly on the basis of the velocity vectors within each
element. The path is projected forward and backward incrementally within each
element until the path encounters a boundary. The flow path is simply a graphical
representation of the route a molecule of water would have traveled under steadystate conditions from the entrance to exit point within the flow regime.
Flow paths can only be drawn for steady-state conditions. Flow paths based on velocity
vectors at an instant in time during a transient process have no physical meaning. For this
reason, SEEP/W does not permit you to draw flow paths for transient conditions
Page 232
SEEP/W
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Incomplete path ends in area

of little or no flow
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
metre
Figure 10-10 Illustration of flow lines in a steady state analysis before

reservoir drained
10.11 Flux sections

SEEP/W has the ability to compute the instantaneous seepage volume rate that
flows across a user-defined section for either a steady state or transient analysis.
This is a very useful tool for isolating flow volumes to specific regions of interest
and it can save you manually adding up individual nodal flows in the case of a
drain or seepage face that is comprised of many nodes.
Flux section theory
This value can be computed from the nodal heads and the coefficients of the finite
element equation. For example, consider a mesh with only one element, as
illustrated in Figure 10-11. The objective is to compute the total flow across a
vertical section of the element.
In the Theory chapter, the finite element form of the mass flow equation is
presented. It can be re-written with the flux value isolated on one side as follows:
[ K ]{H } [ M ]
In a steady-state analysis, the storage term [ M ]

equation can be reduced to:
Page 233
H
becomes zero, and the
t
SEEP/W
[ K ]{H } Q
Figure 10-11 Illustration of a flux section across a single element

The global set of finite equations for one element is as follows:
Equation 10-1
c11 c12
c21 c22
c31 c32
c41 c42
c13
c23
c33
c43
c14 H1 Q1
c24 H 2 Q2

c34 H 3 Q3
c44 H 4 Q4
From Darcys Law , the total flow between two points is:
Equation 10-2
Q=k A
H
l
The coefficients, c, in Equation 10-1 are a representation of

Therefore, the flow from Node i to Node j is:
Qij = cij H i H j
Page 234
KA
in Equation 10-2
l
SEEP/W
In a transient analysis, because of material storage, the calculation of the total flow
quantity must include the storage effect. The change in flow quantity due to the
storage term can be expressed as:
m11
m
1 21
t m31
m41
m12
m22
m13
m23
m32
m33
m42
m43
m14 H1 Q1
m24 H 2 Q2

m34 H 3 Q3
m44 H 4 Q4
where H1,2,3,4 etc. are the changes of total head at the various nodes between the
start and the end of a time step. In general, the average change of total head from
Node i to Node j can be expressed as:
H ij =
H i H j
2
Therefore, the change in flow quantity from Node i to Node j due to a change in
storage is:
Qij = mij
H ij
t
The total flow quantity from Node i to Node j for a transient analysis then
becomes:
Qij = cij H i H j + mij
H ij
t
The total flow quantity through the flux section shown in Figure 10-11 is:
Q = Q21 Q24 Q31 Q34

The imaginary flow lines from one side of the section to the other side are known
as subsections. SEEP/W identifies all subsections across a user-defined flux
section, computes the flow for each subsection, and then sums the subsection flows
to obtain the total flow across the flux section.
Page 235
SEEP/W
Flux section application

Flux sections can be used in many ways, because they can be drawn any place
across which you want to know the flux. You many want to check that an influx is
equal to an out flux such as illustrated in Figure 10-12; or you may want to know
the total drain flux as illustrated in Figure 10-13.
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
002
7e0
.00
2.0007e-002
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
metre
Figure 10-12 Flux section used to check balance of inflow and outflow
Flux sections do not have to be drawn as single straight lines. They can be made of
continuous attached segments as illustrated in both figures above. When a multiple
segmented flux section is drawn, the value of flux reported for the section applies
to the entire section, not any individual segment.
The key point to note when defining a flux section is to make the flux section
completely cross through an element if you want the value associated with that
element to be included in the flux summation. Also, if you want to check the flux
around a closed loop as illustrated for the drain nodes in Figure 10-13, make sure
the end of the flux section crosses over the tail of the first segment of the flux
section.
Two words of caution: flux sections MUST be defined before you solve the
problem, because the program needs to calculate the values during the solution
sequence, not afterward. In addition, all flux values are reported as positive, which
means direction is not taken into account. This is required because the sign of the
flux value will depend on which way you draw the section. To avoid any
misinterpretation, all flux section values are reported as positive, and then you can
plot flux vectors in order to determine the direction of flow, if it is not obvious
based on your problem definition.
Page 236
SEEP/W
No flow boundary with

1.00
Sum of each nodal Q:

(3 x 0) = 0 plus
(2 x 0.15522) = 0.31044 plus
(2 x 0.3919) = 1.09424 plus
(1 x 0.40576) = 1.50000
0.75
0.50
Seepage
boundary
1.5000e+000
0.25
0.00
Q=0.5 m^3/time nodal flux boundary
Figure 10-13 Flux section used around series of drain nodes to check
flow
Page 237
SEEP/W
Page 238
SEEP/W
Chapter 11: Modeling Tips and Tricks
11
Modeling Tips and Tricks
11.1
Introduction
This chapter contains many useful hints about using the software and
understanding what it does.
There have been many occasions where GEO-SLOPE has been contacted by
clients with questions about how the model behaves in response to changes in
various parameters. If we do not know the answer, we conduct a numerical
experiment to test what will happen. The first few sections of this chapter illustrate
a few common examples of numerical experiments. You are strongly encouraged
to learn why these types of simple tests are so powerful in testing how the program
computes results but they will also enhance your understanding of how the
physical mechanisms of flow through porous medium occurs.
A numerical experiment is carried out by making a very simple finite element
problem. It is useful to use a mesh that is one distance unit wide and one distance
unit high. This makes hand-calculating flux values very simple and they can easily
be checked against the computed flux values. The following discussion illustrates
how some simple numerical experiments have been carried out to test some
simple, yet valid, questions.
When setting up these experiments, it is a good idea to input simple soil property
functions. In most cases, two data points are sufficient to define the conductivity
and storage function. Just as a reminder, give both functions some slope dont
make them horizontal!
11.2
Problem engineering units
New in GeoStudio is the addition of units to all data input and output. The
displayed units will be based on the set of units specified in the Set menu and any
changes to units do not change the actual data. The units are present as an aide
when setting up the model and considering output results.
Any system of units can be used for a seepage analysis; the only requirement is
that you must be consistent. Fundamentally, you must select the units for length
(geometry), time, and force. Once you have selected units for these parameters, all
Page 239
SEEP/W
other units must be consistent. Table 11-1 presents some typical sets of consistent
units.
Table 11-1 Consistent SI and Imperial units
Parameter
Symbol
SI Units
Imperial Units
Length
metres
feet
Time
seconds
hours
Force
kN
lbs
Pressure
kN/m
psf
pcf
ft/hr
F/L
Unit Weight of Water
F/L
kN/m3
Hydraulic conductivity
L/t
m/sec
Total / Pressure head
Nodal Flux (Q)
L /t
m /sec
ft /hr
Boundary Flux (q)
L/t
m/sec
ft/hr
m
3
Flux Section
L /t
Volume
ft
3
m /sec
ft3/hr
m3
ft3
The units of time are established once you select the units for hydraulic
conductivity. The units of pressure are established once you select the unit weight
of water. Generally, all units are defined by selecting the units of length for the
problem geometry, units for hydraulic conductivity, and the units for the unit
weight of water.
In summary, the key requirement is that the system of units be consistent.
11.3
Flux section location
Question: Does the location of a flux section within an element have any influence
on the computed flux value?
Answer: No. The flux section value will be the same regardless of whether the
section is drawn near the element edge or element middle.
Page 240
SEEP/W
1.00

6.9055e-022
0.75
0.50
6.9055e-022
0.25
Seepage boundary
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Figure 11-1 Test to check flux section locations
11.4
Drain flux values
Question: What is the best way to compute a total drain flux?

Answer: You can sum each individual nodal flux, or, draw a flux section around
the nodes.
The figure below shows a total flux into the system through the three bottom nodes
of 1.5 m3 per time unit (each node contributing a total nodal flux of 0.5 m3). This
example also shows that with no other place for the water to flow except the drain,
the flux into the base equals the flux out of the drain nodes.
Page 241
SEEP/W

1.00
Sum of each nodal Q:

(3 x 0) = 0 plus
(2 x 0.15522) = 0.31044 plus
(2 x 0.3919) = 1.09424 plus
(1 x 0.40576) = 1.50000
0.75
0.50
Seepage
boundary
1.5000e+000
0.25
0.00
Q=0.5 m^3/time nodal flux boundary
Figure 11-2 Test to see best method for observing drain flux
11.5
Unit flux versus total flux?
There are many people who are unsure of the difference between a unit flux and a
total nodal flux. Do a simple test if you are unsure.
Question: How is a unit flux related to a total nodal flux in a 2D analysis?
Answer: The total nodal flux should be exactly equal to the unit flux multiplied by
the total length of the element edges that contribute to that node.
In the figure below, a unit flux of 1 m3/ time / meter edge length has been applied
to the bottom of the element. The top is a seepage face which will let the water out.
The flux sections drawn in the element confirm that the total edge flux of 1 m3 /
time has been converted by the solver into two equal total nodal fluxes of 0.5 m3 /
time each.
Page 242
SEEP/W

1.00
0.75
1.0000e+000
0.50
0.25
00
00
0e
-0
01
5.0
-00
5.
0
0e
1
0.00

unit flux boundary
Figure 11-3 Test to compare unit flux and total flux
11.6
Flow above phreatic line
Question: Is there really flow above a water table?

Answer: The amount of flow through the unsaturated zone depends on its
conductivity value as a function of how saturated the ground is. If the conductivity
is quite high in a partially saturated state, the flow can be quite high.
In the numerical test below, there is a head gradient from right to left and the water
table sits at the mid point of the mesh. You can see from the flux section values
that 45% of the total flow passes through the soil ABOVE the phreatic surface in
the unsaturated zone.
Page 243
1.00
SEEP/W
4.1575e-002
-0.4
0.75
-0.2
Head of 0.6m
9.1845e-002
0.25
5.0269e-002
0.50
Head of 0.5m
0.2
0.4
0.00
Figure 11-4 Test to see flow above phreatic line with pressure head
contours shown.
11.7
Pressure boundary with depth
Question: If I know the pressure boundary with depth, do I have to put a different
pressure value at each node?
Answer: If the pressure change is hydrostatic, simply specify a total head of a
constant value along the entire edge and let the solver figure out the pressure at
each node. The total constant head value should be equal to the elevation of the
water table along that edge.
Page 244
SEEP/W
1.00
Head of 0.6m
at each node
on this face
Head of 0.5m at
each node on this
face
0.75
Computed Pressure Heads:

0.1 m
0.50
0.26667 m
0.25
0.43333 m
0.6000 m
0.00
Figure 11-5 Test to see how pressure boundary can be applied as

constant total head value along entire edge
11.8
Summing graphed data
In some cases you may want to know the total flow that crosses a boundary or the
total change in stored water within the system. There is a trick you can do with the
graphing feature to aid in this task.
The graphing feature has a check box that will Sum(y) vs Average(x) values.
This option will result in all the y data points being added together and plotted
versus the average of the x value each data point. If the x category is time,
then there is no averaging and the resulting graph is a sum of all y values versus
time.
Figure 11-6 shows the nodes selected for graphing on the upstream face of a
reservoir during the filling stage. The objective is to know how much water
crossed this boundary over time. One option is to draw a flux section but this is
not the most accurate way in a transient analysis because the flux section is drawn
through the elements and there is change in storage within the element. The most
accurate way is to plot cumulative flow at each boundary node.
Page 245
SEEP/W
Elevation (m)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
Distance (m)
Figure 11-6 Graphing nodes selected on upstream dam face

The figure below shows the individual nodal flows at each selected node. You can
see that each node has a different flow value. The second figure is much easier to
interpret. In that graph, the check box for Sum(y) vs Average(x) was selected.
This second graph is the cumulative total flow across the entire face.
Upstream face inflow

0.7
Cumulative Water Flux (m)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Time (days)
Figure 11-7 Individual nodal flow on upstream face
Page 246
SEEP/W
Upstream face inflow

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Time (days)
Figure 11-8 Sum of all nodal flow on upstream face
Suppose now we wanted to look at the change in stored water in the dam
throughout a filling and draining cycle. We could select ALL the nodes in the
mesh and use the Sum option as shown next.
Page 247
SEEP/W
Figure 11-9 Selected the region geometry to graph data at all nodes
The resulting graph would be
Change in storage in dam
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Time (days)
Figure 11-10 Change in stored water within dam over time
Page 248
SEEP/W
12
Chapter 12: Illustrative Examples
Illustrative Examples
This chapter presents a variety of verification and typical real life example
problems analyzed with SEEP/W. The real life examples are not case studies as
you would find them in a journal, but they can be used as a starting point for
setting up your own models.
Some of these examples are verification of the software theoretical and numerical
formulation; some illustrate application of unique boundary conditions or
scenarios; and some illustrate the power of integrating different types of analysis
within GeoStudio.
The verification examples compare SEEP/W solutions with benchmark references
that show that the software is functioning properly. The real life examples help to
illustrate how some of the unique features in SEEP/W are applied to practical
situations.
A point to keep in mind while reviewing these examples is that they are set up and
solved using techniques and parameters that help illustrate the use of the software
in applying the theory. It is possible, likely, and recommended, that you will need
to adjust your unique parameters in order to fine tune your own analysis and gain
confidence in the results and your understanding of the processes being modeled.
The list of examples presented in this book may not be complete as we add more
examples over time. Please check the web site for the most recent example
resources (www.geo-slope.com)
Page 249
12.1
SEEP/W
Homogeneous dam with toe drain
Summary
The objective of this illustration is look at steady state flow through a
homogeneous dam and to compare results with a published solution.
Feature Highlights
Head and pressure boundary conditions
Flow lines
Unsaturated flow above a phreatic line
Toe drain
Seepage faces.
60
55
50
Elevation (feet)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Toe Drain
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Distance (feet)
Figure 12-1 Seepage problem definition, head contours, flow lines
Filename - Dam.gsz
Page 250
SEEP/W
12.2
Steady state flow under a cutoff wall
Summary
The objective of this illustration is look at steady state flow under a cutoff and to
compare it with a published solution.
Feature Highlights
Head and pressure boundary conditions
Infinite regions
Interface elements on a line
Exit gradients and uplift pressures
70
60
Elevation (feet)
50
Cutoff Wall
60
40
30
42
58
56
20
46
50
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Distance (feet)
Figure 12-2 Seepage problem definition and computed heads and flow
lines
Filename - Cutoff_interface.gsz
Page 251
12.3
SEEP/W
Steady state flow under a cutoff wall with anisotropy
Summary
The objective of this illustration is look at steady state flow under a cutoff when
the soil exhibits anisotropic behavior.
Feature Highlights
Anisotropic flow beneath a cutoff wall for two cases
Multiple analyses within a single project file
90
80
70
Cutoff Wall
62
50
66
70
40
74
30
0.0064905 ft/sec
78
Elevation (feet)
60
20
10
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Distance (feet)
Figure 12-3 Seepage problem definition and computed heads and flow
lines
Filename - Cutoff_interface_anisotropic.gsz
Page 252
SEEP/W
12.4
Seepage through a dam core with varying Ksat values
Summary
The objective of this illustration is look at steady state flow through a dam core for
different values of Ksat in the core.
Feature Highlights
Multiple analysis in one project file
Dynamic sketch text auto updating
Seepage through an earth dam core with a toe blanket drain
60
55
core 100x reduction in Ksat
50
45
40
Elevation (feet)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Blanket drain
-10
-15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Distance (feet)
Figure 12-4 Seepage problem definition showing flux section, phreatic

surface, head losses and dynamic sketch text
Filename - Dam with core.gsz
Page 253
12.5
SEEP/W
SEEP/W generated pore-water pressures in SLOPE/W

stability analysis
Summary
The objective of this illustration is to observe how to use finite element pore-water
pressure results in a stability analysis. Including or deliberately ignoring negative
pore-water pressures can be critical to understanding and interpreting a slope
stability analysis.
Feature Highlights
Unit flux boundary conditions, potential multiple seepage faces, integrating
SEEP/W and SLOPE/W, effect of suction on stability
Infiltration 3.0e-5 m/day
20
Ksat 1e-3 m/day

15
Seepage face
Elevation
Ksat 1e-5 m/day
10
Pressure zero
Ksat 1e-3 m/day
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Distance
Figure 12-5 Seepage problem definition and solution of water tables
Filename - Seepage and Stability.gsz
Page 254
SEEP/W
12.6
Kisch Infiltration through liners and caps
Summary
The objective of this illustration is to compare a computed solution for fully
unsaturated flow with a known solution. In addition, it will be shown that flow
across a capillary break (whether a cap or pond liner) depends on the pressure
profile established below the break location.
Feature Highlights
Non-linear unsaturated flow
Verification with closed form solution
Capillary breaks
Unit gradient boundary condition
2.50
2.25
2.00
Elevation (m)
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
Figure 12-6 Kisch 1-D column model

Filename - Kisch liners and caps.gsz
Page 255
12.7
SEEP/W
Sand box verification
Summary
The objective of this illustration is to compare a computed solution for saturated /
unsaturated flow with a known solution. In this example there are multiple
unknown seepage faces that develop on the slope and there is a perched water
table.
Feature Highlights
Non-linear unsaturated flow
Verification with closed form solution
Multiple seepage faces
Unit flux boundary conditions
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
Elevation
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Distance
Figure 12-7 Sand box verification model
Filename - Sandbox.gsz
Page 256
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
SEEP/W
12.8
Rapid filling and drawdown of reservoir
Summary
The objective of this illustration is show how to model the rapid filling and
drawdown of a reservoir. The boundary conditions are transient for both the filling
and drawdown processes.
Feature Highlights
Transient boundary conditions
Animation of processes (making a movie)
Flow across the phreatic surface
Seepage face toe drain
20
18
16
Elevation (m)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Distance (m)
Figure 12-8 Wetting up of filling reservoir
Filename - Rapid fill and drain.gsz
Page 257
42
44
46
48
50
52
12.9
SEEP/W
2D Pond Infiltration and water table mounding
Summary
The objective of this illustration is show how to model the filling of a pond with a
liner. The zone below the liner remains unsaturated and the water table deep in the
profile mounds due to percolation from the base of the pond.
Feature Highlights
Water table viewing over time
Unit flux boundary conditions
Unsaturated flow
12
11
10
Elevation (m)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Distance (m)
Figure 12-9 Mounding water table due to pond liner percolation

Filename - Pond infiltration.gsz
Page 258
SEEP/W
12.10 Filling pond (H vs V functions)

Summary
The objective of this illustration is show how to model the filling of a pond where
the water is seeping into the pond from the soil. The head in the pond is not
known and depends on the volume of water seeping out of the soil. A special head
boundary function can be used in this case.
Feature Highlights
Rising water level in a river
Seepage through a levee into a pond
Head vs Volume boundary function
River with rising
Head vs time function
12
11
Pond with seepage from levee
10
The head in this pond depends
on the volume of water seeping
out of the soil. A Head vs Volume
function boundary condition can
set the head based on the volume
flow of water into the pond.
Elevation (m)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Distance (m)
Figure 12-10 Seepage into pond from rising river

Filename - Filling pond (H vs V functions).gsz
Page 259
20
SEEP/W
12.11 Road ditch ponding during rainfall

Summary
The objective of this illustration is show how to model the filling of road side
ditches due to both surface rainfall and seepage face water. Unlike the previous
example, rainfall is adding water directly to the ditches along with any seepage
water and surface runoff from the road above.
Feature Highlights
Transient analysis with rainfall
Asphalt surface
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-2
Elevation (m)
Surface region mesh so rainfall runoff can be accounted for
10
20
30
40
Distance (m)
Figure 12-11 Rainfall runoff causing ditch ponding

Filename - Road ditch ponding during rainfall.gsz
Page 260
SEEP/W
12.12 Drains
Summary
The objective of this illustration is show how to model a drain using different types
of boundary conditions or mesh configurations.
Feature Highlights
Steady state flow
Drains as point BCs
Edge BCs
P=0 or seepage faces
Flux sections.
BC modeled as
a Potential Seepage Face
Drain modeled as a hole with

seepage face.
Figure 12-12 Drawdown to a drain

Filename - Drain.gsz
Page 261
SEEP/W
12.13 Radial flow to a well

Summary
The objective of this illustration is show how to model radial flow to a well in a
confined aquifer. The model is an axisymmetric view which accounts for 3
dimensional flow to the well. This result is compared with a known solution.
Feature Highlights
Axisymmetric analysis
Confined aquifer
Comparison with closed form Thies solution
Radial flow to a well
10
20
30
Distance (m)
Figure 12-13 Pumping from a well

Filename - Radial flow to a well.gsz
Page 262
40
SEEP/W
12.14 Dissipation of excess pore water pressure

Summary
The objective of this illustration is show how a seepage solution can be used to
model dissipation of excess pore water pressures i.e., consolidation. In SEEP/W
alone, no deformation is computed but the dissipation of the pressure is correct.
Feature Highlights
Steady state and transient file in one project
Comparison with known solution
Figure 12-14 Dissipation of pressures in column

Filename - Consolidation.gsz
Page 263
SEEP/W
12.15 Lysimeter study

Summary
The objective of this illustration is to show how to model a lysimeter. A lysimeter
is a collection device installed in the soil to collect percolation. Once water is
trapped in the device it should not be free to flow again and can be removed and
measured.
Feature Highlights
Interface elements for no flow boundaries
Unsaturated flow
Multiple analyses in a single project file
7
Elevation
0
0
Distance
Figure 12-15 Pressure profile around lysimeter

Filename Lysimeters.gsz
Page 264
10
SEEP/W
13
Chapter 13: Theory
Theory
This chapter describes the theoretical engineering basis for the SEEP/W program.
More specifically, it deals with the fundamental flow laws for steady state and
transient flow, and it shows how these laws are represented in numerical form.
This chapter is not a study of groundwater and flow in porous media. For advanced
discussion of these topics the reader is referred to the textbooks Groundwater, by
Alan Freeze and John Cherry (Prentice Hall, 1979); and Unsaturated Soil
Mechanics, by Del Fredlund and Harianto Rahardjo (John Wiley & Sons, 1995).
13.1
Darcys law
SEEP/W is formulated on the basis that the flow of water through both saturated
and unsaturated soil follows Darcy's Law which states that:
q ki
where:
the specific discharge,
the hydraulic conductivity, and
the gradient of total hydraulic head.
Darcy's Law was originally derived for saturated soil, but later research has shown
that it can also be applied to the flow of water through unsaturated soil (see
Richards, 1931 and Childs & Collins-George, 1950). The only difference is that
under conditions of unsaturated flow, the hydraulic conductivity is no longer a
constant, but varies with changes in water content and indirectly varies with
changes in pore-water pressure.
Darcy's Law is often written as:
v ki
where:
the Darcian velocity.
Note that the actual average velocity at which water moves through the soil is the
linear velocity, which is equal to Darcian velocity divided by the porosity of the
Page 265
Chapter 13: Theory
SEEP/W
soil. In unsaturated soil, it is equal to Darcian velocity divided by the volumetric

water content of the soil. SEEP/W computes and presents only the Darcian
velocity.
13.2
Partial differential water flow equations
The general governing differential equation for two-dimensional seepage can be

expressed as:
Equation 13-1
H
H
ky
+Q=
kx
+
x
x y
y
t
where:
the total head,
kx
the hydraulic conductivity in the x-direction,
ky
the hydraulic conductivity in the y-direction,
the applied boundary flux,
the volumetric water content, and
time.
This equation states that the difference between the flow (flux) entering and
leaving an elemental volume at a point in time is equal to the change in storage of
the soil systems. More fundamentally, it states that the sum of the rates of change
of flows in the x- and y-directions plus the external applied flux is equal to the rate
of change of the volumetric water content with respect to time.
Under steady-state conditions, the flux entering and leaving an elemental volume is
the same at all times. The right side of the equation consequently vanishes and the
equation reduces to:
H
H
k
+Q=0
kx
+
x
x y y y
Changes in volumetric water content are dependent on changes in the stress state
and the properties of the soil. The stress state for both saturated and unsaturated
Page 266
SEEP/W
Chapter 13: Theory
conditions can be described by two state variables (see Fredlund and Morgenstern,
1976 and Fredlund and Morgenstern, 1977). These stress state variables are
( ua ) and (ua uw ) where is the total stress, ua is the pore-air pressure,
and u w is the pore-water pressure.
SEEP/W is formulated for conditions of constant total stress; that is, there is no
loading or unloading of the soil mass. SEEP/W also assumes that the pore-air
pressure remains constant at atmospheric pressure during transient processes. This
means that ( ua ) remains constant and has no effect on the change in
volumetric water content. Changes in volumetric water content are consequently
dependent only on changes in the (ua uw ) stress state variable, and with ua
remaining constant, the change in volumetric water content is a function only of
pore-water pressure changes. As a result, the change in volumetric water content
can be related to a change in pore-water pressure by the following equation:
Equation 13-2
mw uw
where:
mw
the slope of the storage curve.
The total hydraulic head, H , is defined as:

Equation 13-3
H =
uw
+y
where:
uw
the pore-water pressure,
the unit weight of water, and
the elevation.
Equation 13-3 can be rearranged as:
uw w H y
Page 267
Chapter 13: Theory
SEEP/W
Substituting Equation 13-3 into Equation 13-2 gives the following equation:
mw w H y
which now can be substituted into Equation 13-1, leading to the following
expression:
H -y
H
H
ky
+ Q = mw w
kx
+
x
x y
y
t
Since the elevation is a constant, the derivative of y with respect to time
disappears, leaving the following governing differential equation used in SEEP/W
finite element formulation:
H
H
H
ky
+ Q =mw w
kx
+
x
x y
y
t
13.3
Finite element water flow equations
Applying the Galerkin method of weighed residual to the governing differential

equation, the finite element for two-dimensional seepage equation can be derived
as:
Equation 13-4
[B] [C ] [B] dA {H } + <N >

= q <N > dL
<N > dA {H },t
where:
[ B]
the gradient matrix,
[C ]
the element hydraulic conductivity matrix,
{H }
the vector of nodal heads,
N =
=
q
the vector of interpolating function,

the unit flux across the edge of an element,
Page 268
SEEP/W
Chapter 13: Theory
the thickness of an element,
time,
storage term for a transient seepage equals to
a designation for summation over the area of an element, and
a designation for summation over the edge of an element.
mw w ,
In an axisymmetric analysis, the equivalent element thickness is the

circumferential distance at different radius, R about the symmetric axis. The
complete circumferential distance is 2 radian times R , since SEEP/W is
formulated for one radian, the equivalent thickness is R . Therefore, the finite
element equation for the axisymmetric case is:
[B] [C ] [B]R dA {H } + <N >

= q <N > R dL
T
<N >R dA {H },t
Note that the radial distance R is not a constant within an element as in the case of
the thickness in the two-dimensional analysis; consequently, R is a variable
inside the integral.
In an abbreviated form, the finite element seepage equation can be expressed as:
Equation 13-5 [ K ]{H } [ M ]{H }, t {Q}
where:
[K ]
the element characteristic matrix
[M ]
the element mass matrix
{Q}
the element applied flux vector
Equation 13-5 is the general finite element equation for a transient seepage
analysis. For a steady-state analysis, the head is not a function of time and,
consequently, the term {H }, t vanishes, reducing the finite element equation to:
[ K ]{H } {Q}
Page 269
Chapter 13: Theory
SEEP/W
which is the abbreviated finite element form of the fundamental seepage equation,
Darcys Law.
13.4
Temporal integration
The finite element solution for a transient analysis is a function of time as indicated
by the {H }, t term in the finite element equation. The time integration can be
performed by a finite difference approximation scheme. Writing the finite element
equation in terms of finite differences leads to the following equation (see
Segerlind, 1984, pp. 183-185):
t K M H
t 1 Q Q M 1 t K H
1
where:
the time increment,
a ratio between 0 and 1,
H1
the head at end of time increment,
H0
the head at start of time increment,
Q1
the nodal flux at end of time increment, and
Q0
the nodal flux at start of time increment.
SEEP/W uses the Backward Difference Method, a method that sets to 1.0, the
finite element equation is then simplified to:
Equation 13-6
t K M H t Q M H
1
As indicated by Equation 13-6, in order to solve for the new head at the end of the
time increment, it is necessary to know the head at the start of the increment.
Stated in general terms, the initial conditions must be known in order to perform a
transient analysis.
Page 270
SEEP/W
13.5
Chapter 13: Theory
Numerical integration
SEEP/W uses Gaussian numerical integration to evaluate the element characteristic

matrix [ K ] and the mass matrix [ M ] . The integrals are evaluated by sampling the
element properties at specifically defined points and then summed together for the
entire element.
Using the characteristic matrix [ K ] as an example, the following integral (from
Equation 13-4):
[K ]
[B]
[C ] [B] dA
can be replaced by:

n
[ K ] [B j ]T [C j ] det |J j | W1 jW2 j
j =1
where:
an integration point,
the number of integration points,
[C j ]
the element hydraulic conductivity matrix at the integration point,
[B j ]
the element matrix at the integration point,
det |J j | =
the determinant of the Jacobian matrix, and
W1 jW2 j =
a weighting factors.
The number of sample (integration) points required in an element depends on the

number of nodes and the shape of the elements. The tables below contain the
number and location of sampling points that are used by SEEP/W.
Page 271
Chapter 13: Theory
SEEP/W
Table 13-1 Sample point locations and weightings for four point quadrilateral
element
Point
w1
w2
+0.57735
+0.57735
1.0
1.0
-0.57735
+0.57735
1.0
1.0
-0.57735
-0.57735
1.0
1.0
+0.57735
-0.57735
1.0
1.0
Table 13-2 Sample point locations and weightings for nine point quadrilateral
elements
Point
w1
w2
+0.77459
+0.77459
5/9
5/9
-0.77459
+0.77459
5/9
5/9
-0.77459
-0.77459
5/9
5/9
+0.77459
-0.77459
5/9
5/9
0.00000
+0.77459
8/9
5/9
-0.77459
0.00000
5/9
8/9
0.00000
-0.77459
8/9
5/9
+0.77459
0.00000
5/9
8/9
0.00000
0.00000
8/9
8/9
Table 13-3 Sample point locations and weighting for one point triangular
element
Point
w1
w2
0.33333
0.33333
1.0
0.5
Page 272
SEEP/W
Chapter 13: Theory
Table 13-4 Sample point locations and weightings for three point triangular
element
Point
w1
w2
0.16666
0.16666
1/3
1/2
0.66666
0.16666
1/3
1/2
0.16666
0.66666
1/3
1/2
One-point integration for a triangular element results in a constant gradient

throughout the element. The number of integration points is denoted as the
integration order. The appropriate integration order is a function of the presence of
secondary nodes. When secondary nodes are present, the interpolating functions
are nonlinear and consequently a higher integration order is required. Table 13-5
gives the acceptable integration orders.
Table 13-5 Acceptable element integration orders
Element Type
Secondary Nodes
Integration Order
Quadrilateral
no
Quadrilateral
yes
4 or 9
Triangular
no
1 or 3
Triangular
yes
It is also acceptable to use four-point integration for quadrilateral elements that

have secondary nodes. This is called a reduced integration order (see Bathe, 1982,
p. 282). Acceptable results can be obtained with reduced integration. For example,
reduced integration is useful in saturated zones where the hydraulic gradient is low
and the hydraulic conductivity is constant. Selective use of reduced integration can
greatly reduce the required number of computations.
It is also possible to use three-point and nine-point integration with elements that
have no secondary nodes. However, the benefits of this are marginal, particularly
for quadrilateral elements. Nine point integration for a quadrilateral element
involves substantially more computing than four point integration, and there is
little to be gained from the additional computations. As a general rule, quadrilateral
elements should have secondary nodes to achieve significant benefits from the nine
point integration.
The situation is slightly different for triangular elements. One-point integration
means the material properties and flow gradients are constant within the element.
Page 273
Chapter 13: Theory
SEEP/W
This can lead to poor performance of the element, particularly if the element is in
an unsaturated zone where the hydraulic conductivity varies sharply with changes
in pore-water pressure. Using three point integration, even without using secondary
nodes, can improve the performance, since material properties and gradients within
the elements are distributed in a more realistic manner. The use of one point
integration in triangular elements with secondary nodes is not acceptable.
In general, it is sufficient to use three-point integration for triangular elements and
four-point integration for quadrilateral elements. In situations where there is
unsaturated zone with hydraulic conductivity varies sharply within an element, it is
best to use quadrilateral elements with secondary nodes together with nine-point
integration.
13.6
Hydraulic conductivity matrix
The general form of the SEEP/W element hydraulic conductivity matrix is:
C12
C
[C ] = 11
C21 C22
where:
C11
kx cos 2 ky sin 2
C22
kx sin 2 ky cos 2
C12
kx sin cos ky sin cos
C21
C12
The parameters k x , k y and are defined in Figure 13-1.
Page 274
SEEP/W
Chapter 13: Theory
Figure 13-1 Definition of hydraulic conductivity matrix parameters

When is zero, [C ] is reduced to:
kx
[C ] =
0
0
k y
The parametric k x is always determined from the hydraulic conductivity function.

Parameter k y is then computed as k x multiplied by k Ratio . In equation form,
k y =k x k Ratio
13.7
Mass matrix
As first presented in Equation 13-4 the element mass (or storage) matrix for a twodimensional analysis is defined as:
[M ]
A
N dA
Similar to the element characteristic matrix, the mass matrix is also evaluated by
numerical integration as shown below:
Page 275
Chapter 13: Theory
SEEP/W
[ M ] j <N>T <N> det |J j | W1 jW2 j

j =1
When the mass matrix is evaluated, SEEP/W uses a lumped formulation to lump
the off-diagonal coefficients in the mass matrix to the diagonal terms. For higher
order elements, diagonal scaling is also used. The lumped formulation, together
with diagonal scaling, is adopted to improve stability in transient analysis. The
detail of the lumped formulation is given by Segerlind, 1984, pp. 178-182.
To evaluate , SEEP/W obtains a mw value from the volumetric water content
function (the storage function) for each integration point in one of two ways. In
most cases it computes mw from the slope of a straight line between the old and
new pore-water pressures at a Gauss point, as illustrated in Figure 13-2. The slope
of this straight line can be viewed as the average rate of change during one
increment of time. This is considered to be a more realistic value than taking the
derivative of the function at a specific point. An exception to this procedure is
when the old and new pore-water pressures are nearly identical. In this case,
SEEP/W computes mw by calculating the slope of the function at the average of
the old and new pore-water pressures.
Figure 13-2 Computation of storage term, mw
Page 276
SEEP/W
13.8
Chapter 13: Theory
Flux boundary vector
The nodal flux boundary vector {Q} for a two-dimensional analysis is defined as:
{Q} q
<N > dL
T
or for an axisymmetric analysis as:
{Q} q
<N > R dL
T
and for a plan view analysis as:
{Q} q
<N >
A
N dA
where:
the unit flux across the side of an element,
the element thickness,
the area of the element in plan view, and
the radial distance from the symmetric axis to the element corner nodes.
Solutions to the integrals are dependent on the analysis type and on the presence of
secondary nodes. For two-dimensional (i.e., vertical section) and axisymmetric
analyses, the integrals are solved by closed form solutions as illustrated in Figure
13-3 and Figure 13-4. However, for plan view analysis, the contributing area of a
node is computed by numerical integration in the same way as forming the mass
matrix. In other words, the contributing area per node in a plan view depends on
the partial contributing areas of all elements surrounding that node, and this must
be computed using the Gauss region area integration scheme for each element, not
standard shape relationships as discussed here.
Two types of flux boundaries may be specified in SEEP/W namely: a nodal flux
boundary (Q) and a unit flux boundary (q). A nodal flux boundary (Q) can be
specified directly on the boundary nodes. A unit flux boundary (q) must be
specified along the boundary edges of the elements, except for a plan view analysis
where the unit flux is applied per unit area on the plan view. When you set up a
boundary condition, you identify the edges of the elements across which a q
boundary should be applied. Based on this specific element edge information, the
Page 277
Chapter 13: Theory
SEEP/W
solver performs the integration and determines the applied flux Q at the nodes. The
solver needs Q, not q, to solve the finite element equations.
For two-dimensional (i.e., vertical section) and axisymmetric analyses, the nodal
flux Q computed by the solver is dependent on the specified element thickness. For
plan view analysis, since the surface area is independent of the element thickness,
the nodal flux Q is also independent of the element thickness.
Figure 13-3 Contributing area for section view elements with unit
thickness
Page 278
SEEP/W
Chapter 13: Theory
Figure 13-4 Contributing area for axisymmetric elements over unit

Radian thickness
Page 279
Chapter 13: Theory
13.9
SEEP/W
Density-dependent flow
SEEP/W may be used together with CTRAN/W to perform density-dependent

contaminant transport analyses. For density-dependent analyses, an instance of
SEEP/W SOLVE is started and controlled by CTRAN/W SOLVE, so that the
groundwater flow equation can be solved simultaneously with the contaminant
transport equation at each time step. The simultaneous solution of the groundwater
flow equation and the contaminant transport equation is required for densitydependent flow problems, because the groundwater flow velocities are dependent
on the contaminant densities, which in turn are dependent on the contaminant
concentrations.
The formulation used in SEEP/W for density-dependent flow was proposed by
Frind, (1982). To accommodate density-dependent flow analyses, a density body
force term is added to the governing groundwater flow equation. After discretizing
the problem domain into finite elements, the density body force term results in a
body force vector, [G ] , which is added to the element flow equation in SEEP/W.
In matrix form, the body force vector can be expressed as:
Equation 13-7
[G ] K y C [ By ]dA
A
where:
[G ]
element density body force vector,
Ky
element average hydraulic conductivity in the y-direction,
element average contaminant concentration,
contaminant density contrast equals to
contaminant relative density at reference concentration, and
[ By ]
element gradient matrix in the y-direction
( r 1)
Equation 13-7 shows that the body force vector is a function of the element
average contaminant concentration, hydraulic conductivity of the material and the
density contrast between contaminated water and freshwater. Note that if the
contaminant relative density at the reference concentration is 1.0, the contaminant
density contrast ( r 1) is zero. In other words, the density body force vector
Page 280
SEEP/W
Chapter 13: Theory
[G ] becomes zero when there is no density contrast between the contaminated

water and the freshwater.
Page 281
Chapter 13: Theory
SEEP/W
Page 282
SEEP/W
Appendix A: Interpolating Functions
14
14.1
Coordinate systems
The global coordinate system used in the formulation of SEEP/W is the first
quadrant of a conventional x y Cartesian system.
The local coordinate system used in the formulation of element matrices is
presented in Figure 14-1. Presented as well in Figure 14-1 is the local element
node numbering system. The local coordinates for each of the nodes are given in
Table 14-1.
Table 14-1 Local element node numbering system
Element Type
Quadrilateral
Triangular
Node
+1
+1
-1
+1
-1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
-1
SEEP/W uses the fourth node to distinguish between triangular and quadrilateral
elements. If the fourth node number is zero, the element is triangular. If the fourth
node number is not zero, the element is quadrilateral.
Page 283
SEEP/W
In the case of quadrilateral elements, Nodes 5, 6, 7, and 8 are secondary nodes. In

the case of triangular elements, Nodes 5, 6, and 7 are secondary nodes.
The local and global coordinate systems are related by a set of interpolation
functions. SEEP/W uses the same functions for relating the coordinate systems as
for describing the variation of the field variable (head) within the element. The
elements are consequently isoperimetric elements.
Figure 14-1 Global and local coordinate system
Page 284
SEEP/W
The x- and y-coordinates anywhere in the element are related to the local
coordinates and to the x- and y-coordinates of the nodes by the following
equations:
Equation 14-1
x N
y N
X
Y
where:
<N>
is a vector of interpolating shape functions,
{X}
the global x-coordinates of the element nodes, and
{Y}
the global y-coordinates of the element node.
The interpolating functions are expressed in terms of local coordinates. Therefore,

once a set of local coordinates (r,s) have been specified, the corresponding global
coordinates can be determined by Equation 14-1.
14.2
Interpolating functions
SEEP/W uses a general set of interpolating functions presented by Bathe (1982).

These general functions are suitable for elements which have none, some, or all of
the secondary nodes defined. This allows for considerable versatility in the types
of elements that can be used.
The interpolating functions in terms of local coordinates r and s for quadrilateral
and triangular elements are given in Table 14-2 and Table 14-3, respectively.
The functions represent a linear equation when the secondary nodes are missing,
and a quadratic (nonlinear) equation when the secondary nodes are included.
Page 285
SEEP/W
Table 14-2 Interpolation functions for quadrilateral elements

Function
Include in function if node is present

5
N1 = (1+r)(1+s)
-N5
-N8
N2 = (1-r)(1+s)
-N5
-N6
N3 = (1-r)(1-s)
-N6
-N7
N4 = (1+r)(1-s)
-N7
-N8
N5 = (1-r2)(1+s)
N6 = (1-s2)(1-r)
N6 = (1-s2)(1-r)
N7 = (1-r2)(1-s)
Table 14-3 Interpolation functions for triangular elements

Function
Include in function if node is present

5
N1= 1-r-s
-N5
N2 = r
-N5
7
-N7
-N6
N3 = s
-N6
-N7
N5 = 4r (1-s)
N6 = 4rs
N7 = 4s(1-r-s)
Field variable model

To formulate a finite element analysis, it is necessary to adopt a model for the
distribution of the field variable within the element. Since the field variable in the
seepage analysis is the total head (H), it is necessary to adopt a model for the
distribution of H within the element.
SEEP/W assumes that the head distribution within the element follows the adopted
interpolating functions. This means that the head distribution is linear when the
Page 286
SEEP/W
secondary nodes are missing, and the head distribution is nonlinear when the
secondary nodes are present.
In equation form, the head distribution model is:
Equation 14-2
h N
where:
=
the head at any local coordinate,
a vector of interpolation function, and
a vector of heads at the nodes.
Interpolation function derivatives

The constitutive relationship for a seepage analysis is Darcy's Law. The equation
is:
q ki
The gradient i is one of the key parameters required in the finite element
formulation. The following presents the procedure used by SEEP/W to compute
the gradient.
From the adopted head distribution model, the head at any point within the element
in terms of the nodal heads is obtained from Equation 14-2
The gradients in the x and y directions are then known by:
h N
x
x
h N
iy
y
y
ix
Equation 14-3
H
H
The interpolating functions are written in terms of r and s and not in terms of x and
y. The derivatives must consequently be determined by the chain rule of
differentiation, as follows:
Page 287
N
s
SEEP/W
N x N y
x s
y s
This can be written as:
N
s
N
y
where [J] is the Jacobian matrix and is defined as:
Equation 14-4
J xr
y
r
y
The derivatives of the interpolation function with respect to x and y is called the B
matrix and can be determined by inverting the Jacobian matrix and rewriting the
equations as:
B Nx
1 r
N
s
Recalling Equation 14-1 and taking their derivative with respect to s and r as
follows:
Page 288
SEEP/W
x
r
x
s
y
r
x
s
N
r
N
s
N
r
N
s
X
X
Y
Y
then substituting these values into Equation 14-4, the Jacobian matrix becomes:
X
( N1 , N 2 ...N8 ) 1
X
J ( N , Nr ...N ) 2
1
2
8
X 8
Y1
Y2
Y8
The derivatives of the interpolation functions with respect to r and s are required to
compute the Jacobian matrix and to compute the flow gradients (Equation 14-3).
The derivatives of the interpolation functions with respect to r and s used by
SEEP/W for quadrilateral and triangular elements are given in Table 14-4 and
Table 14-5 respectively.
Page 289
SEEP/W
Table 14-4 Interpolation function derivatives for quadrilateral elements

Include in derivative if node is present
Derivative of
Function
5
N1,r = (1+s)
-(N5,r)
N2,r = -(1+s)
-(N5,r)
-(N6,r)
N3,r = -(1-s)
-(N6,r)
-(N7,r)
N4,r = (1-s)
-(N7,r)
-(N8,r)
N5,r = -(2r+2sr)
N6,r = -(1-s2)
N7,r = -(2r-2sr)
N8,r = (1-s2)
N1,s = (1+r)
- (N5,s)
-(N8,s)
N2,s = (1-r)
-(N5,s)
-(N6,s)
N3,s = -(1-r)
-(N6,s)
-(N7,s)
N4,s = -(1+r)
-(N7,s)
-(N8,s)
N5,s = (1-r2)
N6,s = -(2s-2sr)
N7,s = -(1-r2)
N8,s = -(2s+2sr)
Page 290
SEEP/W
Table 14-5 Interpolation function derivatives for triangular elements

Derivative of Function
Include in derivative if node is present

5
N1,r = -1.0
-(N5,r)
N2,r = 1.0
-(N5,r)
-(N6,r)
N3,r = 0.0
-(N6,r)
-(N7,r)
N5,r = (4-8r-4s)
N6,r = 4s
N7,r = -4s
N1,s = -1.0
-(N5,s)
N2,s = 0.0
-(N5,s)
-(N6,s)
N3,s = 1.0
-(N6,s)
-(N7,s)
N5,s = -4r
N6,s = 4r
N7,s = (4-4r-8s)
The following notation is used in the preceding tables:
N i
r
N
Ni , s i
s
Ni , r
The Jacobian matrix is a 2x2 matrix:
J J11
21
J12
J 22
The inverse of [J] is:
J
22
J 21
J12
J11
Page 291
SEEP/W
The determinant of [J] is:
det J J11 J 22 J 21 J12

14.3
Infinite elements
Many seepage problems can be classified as unbounded. Consider the case

illustrated in Figure 14-2. The condition along the right vertical boundary cannot
be correctly defined as a head boundary or as a flux boundary. The problem is said
to be unbounded on the right. The correct boundary condition is only known at
some large (i.e., infinite) distance to the right of the problem. These types of
unbounded problems can be analyzed with infinite elements.
SEEP/W follows the infinite element formulation presented by Bettess, 1992, pp.
53-85 and is formulated only for eight-noded quadrilateral elements.
Figure 14-2 An unbounded flow problem

Mapping functions
For standard elements, SEEP/W uses the same interpolating functions both to
describe the distribution of the field variable within an element and to relate the
local and global coordinate system (i.e., the elements are isoperimetric). For
infinite elements, the relationship between the local and global coordinate system
must be described by a special set of shape functions. The interpolating functions
for describing the field variable distribution is the same for all elements, but the
geometric shape functions are different.
SEEP/W uses the serendipity family of mapping functions presented by Bettess,
1992, pp. 53-85, to relate the local and global coordinate systems for infinite
Page 292
SEEP/W
elements. The unique feature about these functions is that they are zero at the
nodes deemed to be at infinity.
Figure 14-3 Node numbering scheme for infinite elements

Figure 14-3 presents the different types of elements which extend to infinity. The
mapping or shape functions for one-directional and two-directional (corner)
infinite elements are given in Table 14-6. In the table, r and s are the local
coordinates within the element and M1 through M8 are the mapping functions for
infinite elements shown Figure 14-3.
The derivatives of the mapping functions are required to compute the Jacobian
matrix and the flow gradients for infinite elements. The derivatives of the mapping
functions for one-directional and two-directional infinite elements with respect to r
and s are given in Table 14-7 and Table 14-8 respectively.
Page 293
SEEP/W
Table 14-6 Mapping functions for infinite elements

1-D Infinite Elements
M1 =
2-D Infinite Elements
1 r rs s
M1 =
M2 =
M2 =
1 r
1 r rs s
2
M3 =
1 r
M3 =
4 1 r s
1 r 1 s
M4 =
M4 =
M5 =
1 r 1 s
2 1 r
M5 =
1 r
1 r 1 s
2 1 r
M6 =
21 s
1 r 1 s
M7 =
2 1 r
1 r 1 s
M8 =
M6 =
M7 =
M8 =
2 1 s 2
Page 294
SEEP/W
Table 14-7 Derivatives of mapping functions for one-directional infinite

elements
Derivative in r-Directions
M1,r = 0
Derivative in s-Direction
M1,s = 0
2 s s
M2,s =
r 2s
1 r
M3,s =
r 2s
1 r
M2,r =
1 r
2 s s
2
M3,r =
1 r
M4,r = 0
M5,r =
M6,r =
M7,r =
M4,s = 0
1 s
2
1 r
2 1 s 2
1 r
M5,s =
1 r
2 1 r
M6,s =
4s
1 r
M7,s =
1 r
2 1 r
1 s
2
1 r
M8,r = 0
M8,s = 0
Page 295
SEEP/W
Table 14-8 Derivatives of mapping functions for two-directional elements

Derivative in r-Direction
Derivative in s-Direction
M1,r = 0
M1,s = 0
M2,r = 0
M2,s = 0
M3,r =
4 s 2
1 r 1 s
2
M3,s =
4 r 2
1 r 1 s
M4,r = 0
M4,s = 0
M5,r = 0
M5,s = 0
M6,r =
M7,r =
2 1 s
1 r 1 s
2
M6,s =
1 r 1 s
1 r 1 s
M8,r = 0
M7,s =
2 1 r
4
2
1 r 1 s
M8,s = 0
Once these shape functions and derivatives have been defined, the numerical
integration scheme used to form the element characteristic matrix for the infinite
elements is the same as for the standard elements. These special shape functions
must also be used when formulating the mass matrix and nodal action (i.e., flux)
vector for axisymmetric cases.
Pole definition
In order to project the outer edge of the infinite element to infinity, it is necessary
to define a pole position. This is simply a point at some position on the opposite
side of the infinite edge of the element. Figure 14-3 shows the infinite element pole
at the center of the finite element mesh.
For a one-directional infinite element, the nodes on the infinite edge are taken to be
at infinity. Secondary Nodes 5 and 7 must be extended out towards infinity.
SEEP/W does this according to the equations below.
For infinity in the x-direction only:
x5 = x2 + (x2 - xp)
Page 296
SEEP/W
x7 = x3 + (x3 - xp)
For infinity in the y-direction only:

y5 = y2 + (y2 - yp)
y7 = y3 + (y3 - yp)
If the x- and y-directions of infinity are both positive or both negative, there is no
adjustment to x6 and y7. However,
x7 = x3 + (x3 - xp)
y6 = y3 + (y3 - yp)
If one direction of infinity is positive and the other is negative, there is no

adjustment to x7 and y6. However,
x6 = x3 + (x3 - xp)
y7 = y3 + (y3 - yp)
Generally, the SEEP/W solutions are not sensitive to the position of the pole,
provided the pole is in a reasonable position. As a broad guideline, the pole must
either be positioned at the origin of the flow as it migrates towards infinity or
positioned at the exit point of the flow if the flow originates at infinity. Further
discussion on infinite elements and their application is given in the Meshing
chapter.
Page 297
SEEP/W
Page 298
SEEP/W
References
References
Anonymous. 1999. Definition of Geotechnical Engineering, Ground Engineering
Magazine, Vol. 32, No. 11, p. 39.
Arya, L.M., and Paris, J.F. 1981. A Physico-empirical Model to Predict the Soil
Moisture Characteristic from Particle-size Distribution and Bulk Density
Data. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 45:1023-1030.
Aubertin, M., Mbonimpa, M., Bussire, B. and Chapuis, R.P. 2003. A model to
predict the water retention curve from basic geotechnical properties.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(6): 1104-1122 (2003)
Bathe, K-J. 1982. Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis. PrenticeHall.
Bettess, P. 1992. Infinite Elements. Penshaw Press.
Black, P., and Tice, A. 1989. Comparison of Soil Freezing Curve and Soil Water
Curve Data for Windsor Sandy Loam. Water Resources Research
25(10):2205-2210.
Brooks, R.H., and Corey, J.C. 1966. Properties of Porous Media Affecting Fluid
Flow. ASCE Journal, Irrigating and Drainage Division.
Bruch, P.G. 1993. A laboratory study of evaporative fluxes in homogeneous and
layered soils. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Burland, J.B. 1987. Nash Lecture: The Teaching of Soil Mechanics a Personal
View. Proceedings, 9th ECSMFE, Dublin, Vol. 3, pp 1427-1447.
Burland J.B. 1996. Closing Session Discussions, Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Unsaturated Soils Conference, Paris, Vol. 3,
p. 1562. (Proceedings published by A.A. Balkema; Editors, E.E, Alonso
and P. Delage).
Page 299
References
SEEP/W
Carter, J.P., Desai, C.S, Potts, D.M., Schweiger, H.F, and Sloan, S.W. 2000.
Computing and Computer Modeling in Geotechnical Engineering, Invited
Paper, Conference Proceedings, GeoEng2000, Melbourne, Australia.
Childs, E.C., and Collis-George, N., 1950. The Permeability of Porous Materials.
Proceedings of the Royal Society, pp. 392-405.
Corey, J.C., 1957. Measurement of Water and Air Permeability in Unsaturated
Soil. Soil Science of America, Vol. 21.
Croucher and OSullivan, 1985 CTRAN Henry example reference
Elzeftawy, A., and Cartwright, K., 1981. Evaluating the Saturated and Unsaturated
Hydraulic Conductivity of Soils. Permeability and Groundwater
Contaminant Transport, ASTM STP, T.F. Zimmie and C.D. Riggs Editors,
pp. 168-181.
Fredlund, D.G., and Morgenstern , N.R., 1976. Constitutive Relations for Volume
Change in Unsaturated Soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 13, pp.
261-276.
Fredlund, D.G. and Morgenstern , N.R., 1977. Stress State Variables for
Unsaturated Soils. ASCE, Vol. 103, pp. 447-464.
Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H., 1993. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fredlund, D. G., and Anqing Xing. 1994. Equations for the soil-water
characteristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 31, pp: 521532.
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall.
Frind, E.O., 1982. Simulation of Long-Term Transient Density-Dependent
Transport in Groundwater. Advance Water Resources, 5, pp.73-88.
Gonzalez, P.A,. and Adams, B.J., 1980. Mine tailings disposal: I. laboratory
characterization of tailings. Publication 80-05, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Page 300
SEEP/W
References
Green, R.E. and Corey, J.C., 1971. Calculation of Hydraulic Conductivity: A

Further Evaluation of Some Predictive Methods. Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings, Vol. 35, pp. 3-8.
Hillel, D., 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics, Academic Press, New York.
Ho, P.G., 1979. The Prediction of Hydraulic Conductivity from Soil Moisture
Suction Relationship. B.Sc. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Canada.
Huang, S.Y., 1994. Measurement and Prediction of the Coefficient of Permeability
in Unsaturated Soils. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Kisch, M., 1959. The Theory of Seepage From Clay-Blanketed Reservoirs.
Geotechnique, Vol. 9.
Klute, A., 1965. Laboratory Measurements of Hydraulic Conductivity of
Unsaturated Soil. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Agronomy 9, C.A.
Black Edition, pp. 253 261.
Kunze, R.J., Vehara, G., and Graham, K., 1968. Factors Important in the
Calculation of Hydraulic Conductivity. Soil Science of America
Proceedings, Soil Physics, Vol. 32.
Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons.
Lancaster, P. and Salkauskas, K., 1986. Curve and Surface Fitting: An
Introduction. Academic Press.
Massmann, J.W., Applying groundwater flow models in vapor extraction system
design, J. Environ. Engr., 115(1), 129-49, 1989.
Marshall, T.J., 1958. A Relation Between Permeability and Size Distribution of
Pores. Soil Science of America Journal, Vol. 9.
Mercer, J.W. and C.R. Faust. 1981. Ground-Water Modeling. National Water
Well Association
Page 301
References
SEEP/W
Milly, P.C.D, 1982. Moisture and heat transport in hysteretic, inhomogeneous

porous media: A matric head based formulation and a numerical model.
Water Resources Research, 18(3): 489-498.
Millington, R.J., and Quirk, J.P., 1961. Permeability of Porous Solids. Transaction
of the Faraday Society, Vol. 57, pp. 1200 1207.
Morgenstern , N.R. 2000. Common Ground, Invited Paper, Conference
Proceedings, GeoEng2000, Melbourne, Australia.
National Research Council, 1990. Groundwater Models: Scientific and regulatory
applications. Water Science and Technology Board, Committee on
Ground Water Modelling Assessment. Commission on Physical Sciences,
Mathematics and Resources. National Research Council, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Newman, G. P. 1995. Heat and Mass Transfer of Unsaturated Soils During
Freezing. M.Sc., Thesis, Univ. of Sask.
OKane Consultants, 2004. Personal communication.
Richards, L.A., 1931. Capillary Conduction of Liquids Through Porous Mediums.
Physics, Vol. 1.
Rulon, J.J, and Freeze, R.A., 1985. Multiple Seepage Faces on Layered Slopes and
their Implications for Slope Stability Analysis. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 22.
Rulon, J.J., 1984. The Development of Multiple Seepage Faces along
Heterogeneous Hillsides. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada.
Salkauskas, K. 1974. C' Splines For Interpolation of Rapidly Varying Data.
Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 14(1):239-250.
Segerlind, L.J. 1984. Applied Finite Element Analysis. John Wiley and Sons.
Spitz, K., and Moreno, J. 1996. A Practical Guide to Groundwater and Solute
Transport Modelling. John Wiley, New York.
Page 302
SEEP/W
References
Swanson, D. 1991. The Effects of Loading on the Moisture Characteristic and

Permeability-Suction Relationships for Unsaturated Soils. B.Sc. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
Canada.
van Genuchten, M. Th. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal
44:892-898.
Wilson, G.W. 1990. Soil Evaporative Fluxes for Geotechnical Engineering
Problems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Page 303
SEEP/W
Index
Adaptive time stepping ................ 162
Drain flux..................................... 241
Add-in .......................................... 174
Effective stress ............................. 215
air-entry value .............................. 104
Element and mesh compatibility ... 61
Analysis Types ............................ 153
Element fundamentals ................... 58
Axisymmetric .............................. 164
Element nodes................................ 58
Boundary Conditions ................... 115
Equipotential lines ............... 200, 226
boundary flows ............................ 128
Evaluate results in the context of

expected results .......................... 31
Boundary functions...................... 142

Burland ............................................ 9
Burland triangle ............................... 9
Circular openings ........................... 45
evaporation .................................. 138

Far field head ............................... 126
Field variable distribution .............. 59
Closed form curve fits ................. 174
Finite element water flow equations

................................................. 268
Coefficient of volume
compressibility ........................... 89
Flow channels .............................. 202
Compare alternatives ..................... 14

Constant pressure conditions ....... 125
Contours....................................... 228
Convergence ................................ 180
Critical gradients.......................... 210
Darcys law .................................. 265
Density-dependent flow ............... 280
Do numerical experiments ............. 26
Flow Nets..................................... 199

Flow paths.................................... 201
Flux boundary vector ................... 277
Flux sections ................................ 233
Fredlund and Xing, 1994 ............... 85
Fredlund et al, 1994 ....................... 97
Free drainage ............................... 136
Frozen ground hydraulic
conductivity................................ 94
Page 304
SEEP/W
Functions ..................................... 169
lines................................................ 38
Gauss integration ......................... 192
Mass matrix ................................. 275
Gauss point values ....................... 226
Material Properties ........................ 75
General guidelines for meshing ..... 68
Meshing ......................................... 35
Geometry objects ........................... 37
Meshing for transient analyses ...... 57
Gradients ...................................... 210
Model only essential components .. 27
Graphing ...................................... 223
Modeling Tips & Tricks .............. 239
Green and Corey, 1971 .................. 98
Modified Kovacs ........................... 80
Head boundary conditions ........... 120
Modifier function ......................... 150
Head versus volume..................... 146
Nodal flux Q versus time ............. 148
How not to model .......................... 32
Node and element information .... 220
How to model ................................ 21
Numerical integration ............ 63, 271
Hydraulic conductivity .................. 90
Numerical Issues.......................... 179
Hydraulic conductivity matrix ..... 274
Numerical modeling ........................ 5
Identify governing parameters ....... 15
phreatic line ................................. 243
infiltration .................................... 138
Plan view ..................................... 166
Infinite elements .................... 65, 292
points ............................................. 38
Initial conditions .......................... 155
Pole definition.............................. 296
initial water table ......................... 157
Product integration illustrations... 249
Interface elements .......................... 43
Quantitative predictions ................. 11
Interpolating functions ................. 283
regions ........................................... 38
Interrogate the results .................... 30
residual volumetric water content 112
Joining regions ............................... 55
saturated hydraulic conductivity .. 107
Page 305
SEEP/W
Secondary variables ....................... 64
Surface mesh.................................. 50
Seepage faces ............................... 133
Theory .......................................... 265
Seepage forces ............................. 208
Time stepping ...................... 159, 194
Sensitivity of results to material

properties.................................. 104
Transient ...................................... 155
Simplify geometry ......................... 24

slope of the VWC function .......... 110
Soil water storage .......................... 76
Sources and sinks......................... 132
Spatial functions .......................... 177
Spline ........................................... 169
Start simple .................................... 25
Triangular regions.......................... 49
understand physical process .......... 16
Unit flow rate versus time............ 149
Unit flux versus total flux ............ 242
unit gradient ................................. 136
Unstructured mesh ......................... 48
Uplift pressures ............................ 206
van Genuchten, 1980 ................... 100
Start with estimated material

properties.................................... 30
Vector norms ............................... 180
Steady state .................................. 153
Velocity vectors and flow paths .. 229
Steep material property functions 188
Visualization of Results ............... 219
Storativity and Transmissivity ..... 102
volumetric water content ............... 79
Structured mesh ............................. 47
Water balance error ..................... 186

Why model? ................................... 11
Page 306
SEEP/W
A consistent set of units

Parameter
Symbol
SI Units
Imperial Units
Length
meters
feet
Time
seconds
hours
Force
kN
Ibs
Pressure
F/L2
kN/m2
psf
Unit weight water
F/L3
kN/m3
pcf
Hydraulic
conductivity
L/t
m/sec
ft/hr
Total/pressure
head
ft
Nodal flux (Q)
L3/t
m3/sec
ft3/hr
Boundary flux (q)
L3/t
m/sec
ft/hr
Flux section
L3/ft
m3/sec
ft/hr
Volume
L3
m3
ft3
Note: it is also possible to use time units of days.
Page 307

SEEPW 2007 Engineering Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEEPW 2007 Engineering Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

SEEPW 2007 Engineering Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seepage Modeling with

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.

Copyright 2010 by GEO-SLOPE International, Ltd.

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd

Numerical Modeling: What, Why and How ............. 5

What is a numerical model? ........................................................ 6

Modeling in geotechnical engineering ......................................... 8

Why model? ............................................................................... 11

How to model ............................................................................. 21

How not to model ....................................................................... 32

Closing remarks ......................................................................... 33

Geometry and Meshing......................................... 35

Geometry objects in GeoStudio ................................................. 37

Soil regions, points and lines .............................................. 38

Mesh generation ........................................................................ 46

Surface layers ............................................................................ 50

Joining regions ........................................................................... 55

Meshing for transient analyses .................................................. 57

Element fundamentals ............................................................... 58

General guidelines for meshing ................................................. 68

Material Models and Properties ............................ 75

Soil behavior models ................................................................. 75

Soil water storage water content function............................... 76

Storage function types and estimation methods........................ 80

Soil material function measurement .......................................... 87

Coefficient of volume compressibility (

Hydraulic conductivity ................................................................ 90

Frozen ground hydraulic conductivity ........................................ 94

Conductivity function estimation methods ................................. 96

Interface model parameters ..................................................... 102

Storativity and transmissivity ................................................... 102

Sensitivity of hydraulic results to material properties............... 104

Boundary Conditions........................................... 115

Introduction .............................................................................. 115

Fundamentals .......................................................................... 116

Boundary condition locations ................................................... 118

Head boundary conditions ....................................................... 120

Specified boundary flows ......................................................... 128

Sources and sinks ................................................................... 132

Seepage faces ......................................................................... 133

Free drainage (unit gradient) ................................................... 136

Ground surface infiltration and evaporation............................. 138

Far field boundary conditions................................................... 140

Boundary functions .................................................................. 142

Analysis Types .................................................... 153

Steady state ............................................................................. 153

Transient .................................................................................. 155

Drawing the initial water table ........................................... 157

Time stepping - temporal integration ....................................... 159

Staged / multiple analyses ....................................................... 163

Plan view (confined aquifer only) ............................................. 166

Functions in GeoStudio....................................... 169

Spline functions ....................................................................... 169

Linear functions ....................................................................... 171

Step functions .......................................................................... 172

Closed form curve fits for water content functions................... 174

Add-in functions ....................................................................... 174

Spatial functions ...................................................................... 177

Numerical Issues ................................................ 179

Water balance error in a transient analysis ............................. 186