See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308097586

MPM Modelling of Seepage Flow through Embankments

Conference Paper · June 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33519.23208

CITATIONS READS
3 451

2 authors:

Xuanyu Zhao Dongfang Liang

University of Cambridge University of Cambridge
12 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    128 PUBLICATIONS   1,255 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban Non-point source pollution View project

Sediment transport modeling in natural catchments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xuanyu Zhao on 14 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth (2016) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.org
Rhodes, Greece, June 26-July 1, 2016
Copyright © 2016 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-88-3; ISSN 1098-6189

MPM Modelling of Seepage Flow through Embankments

Xuanyu Zhao and Dongfang Liang

Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT
An accurate knowledge of seepage flows through embankments is
necessary for the stability analysis and drainage computation. In this
paper, a particle-based MPM model with two sets of material points is
used to study the phenomenon. Before simulating the seepage flow
through an embankment, the proposed numerical model is first applied
to a flow through porous dam problem as model validation.
Subsequently, the numerical method is employed to simulate the
seepage flow through an embankment with different permeability.
Taking the analytical solution under the Dupuit’s approximation as the
reference, the MPM model gives good predictions of the shape of the
seepage water table.
KEY WORDS: Material Point Method; seepage flow; Dupuit’s
parabola; numerical modelling
INTRODUCTION
The seepage through embankment is not only important for minimizing
the water loss, but also critical to ensuring the safety of the
embankments. When the embankment is wide and the seepage flow
discharge is small, Dupuit derived that the water table roughly follows
a parabolic shape (Keady 1990).
Recently, the particle-based Material Point Method (MPM) has drawn
more and more attentions due to the capability of modelling large
deformations. The MPM can be categorized as a more general class of
particle-in-cell methods. The method was developed by Harlow in the
1950s for applications in fluid mechanics (Mackenzie-Helnwein et al.
2010). However, not until Brackbill et al. (1988) addressed the energy
dissipation problem, the MPM implementation was developed at a quite
moderate pace. Later the MPM was applied to solid mechanics (Sulsky
et al. 1995) and dry granular materials (Wieckowski 1998; Wieckowski
et al. 1999; Wieckowski 2003). Later on, this method was extended to
handle saturated soils (Jassim et al. 2013) with a numerical approach
following the so called v-w formulation (Zienkiewicz et al. 1999). This
formulation, which uses the velocity of both solid and liquid
constituents as the primary unknowns, was applied to several small and
large deformation problems and is able to capture the physical response
of saturated soil under dynamic loading. However, only one set of
material points was used for the solid and liquid mixture; therefore
groundwater flow and the transition between free water and ground
water could not be captured, as well as fluid-like behavior of the soil.
Recently, a formulation with two sets of material points (so called two-
layer formulation) was proposed to overcome such difficulties.
With two-set material points, the soil-water interaction can be modelled
through a drag force, which can be very convenient and insightful for
seepage flow modelling. The existing MPM multi-phase numerical
techniques can fall into two general categories: with single layer of
material points and with two layers of material points. In a recent
publication, Bandara & Soga (2015) gave a detailed literature review
about the two different numerical techniques. It is also pointed out that
the approach of single-layer material points may suffer from some
difficulties like conserving energy.
This study focuses on the study of the seepage flow through
embankments using the two-layer material-point formulation. For this
problem, the following two aspects are considered to be important: (1)
the shape of the water surface inside the soil body and (2) the different
behaviours of seepage flow with different soil permeability. It is found
that the proposed MPM formulation can simulate them well.
BASICS OF MPM
Introduction
The MPM makes use of both Lagrangian material points and Eulerian
grid. Since the motion of Lagrangian material points are traced
throughout the computation and are not attached to any predefined
mesh, the MPM is often regarded as a mesh-free particle method. It is
based on the finite element method with moving integration points
(Moresi et al. 2003).
According to Abe et al. (2013), MPM has many attractive advantages
over traditional numerical methods. First, it is convenient to use with
history-dependent constitutive models because information such as
strain, stress, and history-dependent variables can be carried by
material points, which enables the spatial and temporal tracking of
history-dependent variables. Furthermore, the use of a background
mesh allows for the implementation of boundary conditions in a
manner similar to that in FEM (Finite Element Method). Compared
with other mesh-free methods, MPM is computationally efficient. In
addition, it also avoids the tensile instability that is evident in SPH
(Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics), as mentioned in (Liang 2010; Ma
et al. 2009).

1161
MPM can be deemed as one of the latest developments of the Particle
in cell (PIC) method which was mainly used to model highly distorted
fluid flows. In particular, it is an extension of the Fluid Implicit Particle
(FLIP) method which was developed from PIC in order to alleviate
many of its inherent numerical problems in the early implementations
(Kularathna 2014). According to Sulsky et al. (1994, 1995), the
extension of FLIP to MPM was initially motivated by the problems of
solid mechanics with history dependent variables. The key difference of
the two methods is that in MPM the governing equations are presented
in the format of weak formulation, making the MPM similar to the
FEM. Therefore, the MPM can be presented within an FEM
framework. In addition, the constitutive equations are invoked at the
material points in MPM whereas in FLIP, they are solved at the grid
nodes (Sulsky et al. 1994).

MPM Formulation
Fig. 1: Movement of solid skeleton and water phases (Bandara & Soga
Numerous references about its formulation and the discretized form can
2015)
be found in the literature (Sulsky et al. 1994; Sulsky et al. 1995;
Bardenhagen et al. 2000; Al-Kafaji 2013; Yerro et al. 2015; Bandara &
Martinelli & Rohe (2015) gave a very detailed description of the two-
Soga 2015), where the mathematical background and derivation are
layer formulation which is consistent with the formulation adopted in
addressed. Only the two-layer MPM formulation is described in the
the current study. For the convenience of readers in understanding the
next section.
two-layer formulation, some of the basic equations solved are quoted
here.
MPM Modelling of Liquid/ Soil Interactions
The motion of both sets of material points is described by the system of
The pore water can have relative movement to the soil skeleton, thus
momentum conservation equations, using separate velocity fields, v S
the true water velocity can be different from water velocity of the soil
material point computed from the formulation with single layer of and v L , for solid and liquid constituent respectively:
material points. It is necessary to consider the motion of water phase by

  nS    S g  fd   S
examining either the true velocity field or relative water velocity with
respect to soil skeleton (Li et al. 2004). The idea of using two layers of ' DS vS (1)
S L
Lagrangian material points in MPM to represent solid and fluid Dt
particles in solid-fluid modelling can be found in the following studies

nL   Lg  f d   L
(Shin 2009; Mackenzie-Helnwein et al. 2010; Abe et al. 2013; Bandara DLvL (2)
& Soga 2015; Martinelli & Rohe 2015). L
Dt

In Bandara & Soga (2015), two sets of Lagrangian material points were
used to represent soil and water respectively. The Lagrangian
description conserves mass automatically and allows history dependent
material models to be used. In addition, the discrete equations for the
momentum balances are obtained on the background grid similar to the
finite element method with an updated Lagrangian formulation. The
proposed MPM formulation was used to model the progressive river
levee failure and showed good robustness with regard to the large
deformations and the rapid failure mechanisms.
Where  S and  L represent the partial densities of the solid and liquid
constituents defined as the ratio of the mass with respect to the
reference volume; nS and nL are the concentration ratios for the
corresponding solid and liquid constituents, defined as the ratio of the

partial density with respect to the corresponding mass density. D v 
Dt
indicates the material derivative of v  with respect of the movement of

the constituent of  .In case of pure liquid, nL equals 1; in case of

The sketch of the movement of solid skeleton and water phases used in
Bandara & Soga (2015) is shown in Fig. 1 to illustrate the two-layer
formulation. Saturated soil is assumed as a multi-phase medium and the
governing equations are implemented in the current configuration. It
consists of two constituents: solid skeleton and water phase, and they
can occupy the same position at the same time. Lagrangian coordinates
are used to describe the kinematics of each constituent and material
points record their individual motions. The conservation law is applied
fully saturated soil, nS  1  nL . The stress tensors are stated as
'
S
for solid (effective stress) and L for liquid. The vector of
gravity is g , and f d represents the drag force vector exerted by
the liquid on the solid part. The drag force is calculated with the
Darcy equation as


v  v 
for each constituent separately (i.e. solid skeleton, water phase). The
fd  nL2
 L S
solid skeleton and water material points that are located at the current (3)
configuration ( XK ) might have located at different locations in the

reference configuration ( X0 ). The soil is viewed as the superposition
of two continuous constituents (i.e. solid and water phase) in the
current configuration.
Where  and  are the liquid dynamic viscosity and the soil
intrinsic permeability respectively. The Kozeny-Carman
formula is used to update the soil intrinsic permeability as
follows:

1162

0.3

A 1  n 2
Dp2 n3 (4)
MPM
Experiment
0.2

0.1

Where D p is the grain size diameter, n is the soil porosity and the 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
constant A is set to 150 according to (Ergun 1952). Only the most basic (c) 1.0s
equations are repeated herein, and for detailed description of the 0.3
MPM

algorithms, readers are referred to (Martinelli & Rohe 2015). Experiment

0.2

VALIDATION OF MPM 0.1

In order to validate the MPM algorithm, the numerical results obtained
from the flow passing through a porous dam were compared with the
experimental data obtained by Liu et al. (1999).
As sketched in Fig. 2, the water tank used in the experiment is 89.2 cm
long, 44 cm wide, and 58 cm high. A 29 cm long porous dam was
placed in the section between x = 30.0 – 59.0 cm, and it is 37 cm high.
A gate was built 2 cm away from the front (left) side of the porous dam
to create a water reservoir with a water depth of 25 cm. The porous
dam is confined in the initial region to ensure that the porous media is
not allowed to move.
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 the seepage. The parameters used for the two constituents are shown in
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fig. 2: Sketch of the experiment setup
The dimensions of the simulation are the same as that in the experiment
above, except that the width of the simulation is 5 cm instead of 44 cm
to save the computational effort. Because the problem is 2D, the width
does not actually matter anything.
The flow passing through a porous dam of crushed rocks is
investigated. The equivalent mean grain diameter is 1.59 cm and the
initial porosity is 0.49. Fig. 3 shows the comparisons between the
numerical results and experimental data for free surface profiles during
the period when the flow is passing through the porous dam.
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(d) 1.4s
Fig. 3: Comparison of free surface profile for flow passing through
porous dam using MPM and experimental data in (Liu et al. 1999)
It can be seen from the comparisons that the predictions of the proposed
MPM model agree with the experimental data very well.
EMBANKMENT SEEPAGE FLOW SIMULATION
Computational Domain and Computation Parameters
The geometry of the computation is shown in Fig. 4(a) (in 2D view).
The water domain is 15m long and 0.9m high, while the soil domain is
3m long and 1m high. The dimension in the transverse direction is 0.2m
in order to save computational effort. A very large upstream water body
is constructed in order to minimize the effect of water head loss due to
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Table 1, with a linear elastic model for the solid constituent and a
Newtonian compressible model for water. The 2D view of the mesh is
shown in Fig. 4(b) (only 1/6 of the total length is shown here). The 3D
simulation consists of 10800 four-node tetrahedral elements, 4 material
points per element are assigned to the water domain while 1 material
point per element is assigned to the soil domain. Different
computational parameters are used in the following section for
evaluating the effect of the mesh size and number of material points per
element on the results.
(a) The geometry of the computational domain

0.3
MPM
Experiment
0.2
(b) computational mesh (1/6 of the total length)
0.1
Fig. 4: Computational domain and mesh (vertical view)

0
The simulation is assumed to be quasi plane strain condition so that it is
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
essentially a two-dimensional problem. Water is constrained in the
(a) 0.2s
0.3
MPM
transverse direction and is free to move in the longitudinal direction.
Experiment However, it is restricted inside the whole computational domain
0.2
meaning that no water particles can come in or leave the computational
domain. Solid grains are totally confined in the soil region shown in
0.1
Fig. 4(a), since the movement of the solid grains is not the focus of the
0 current study.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

(b) 0.6s

1163
Table 1. Parameters for constitutive models of soil and water 4.0
0.2m, 8 MPsPE
3.5

S
Material parameter Symbol Value Unit 0.2m, 10MPsPE
Density of soil grains 2700 kg / m3 3.0

Front Position (m)

0.2m, 4MPsPE


Young’s modulus E 1000 kPa 2.5 0.1m, 4MPsPE
Poisson ratio of soil 0.3 -
n 2.0
Initial porosity 0.473 -
Maximum porosity nmax 0.7 - 1.5
Solid grain diameter Dp 2,3,5 mm

L
1.0
Water density 1000 kg / m3
0.5
Water bulk modulus KL 21280 kPa

L
0.0
Water dynamic viscosity 8.905×10-7 kPa·s 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
Fig. 6: The Flow front positions at different times
Time Evolution of the Seepage Surface

The time evolution of the water table from the beginning to quasi-
equilibrium stage is shown in Fig. 5. It can be found that the seepage
line gradually reaches stable along with time, as the seepage lines are
getting closer and closer. And for this condition (grain size D p = 5
mm), the seepage flow reaches quasi-equilibrium at about 25s after the
simulation.
1
5mm_5s
0.9
The Quasi-Equilibrium Seepage Line Profiles
The simulation results of the quasi-equilibrium stages are shown in Fig.
7(a), (b) & (c). For different grain sizes, the quasi-equilibrium stages
are reached at different times. The finer the grain size is, the more time
it requires to reach a quasi-equilibrium stage, because the soil
permeability reduces with the reduction of the soil grain size D p . The
5mm_10s 5mm_15s time required for quasi-equilibrium is about 56s, 40s and 25s for grain

0.8
5mm_20s 5mm_25s 5mm_30s size of 2mm, 3mm and 5 mm respectively.
5mm_35s
0.7

0.6

H (m) 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
x (m)
2 2.5 3
(a) D p = 5mm
Fig. 5: Time evolution of the seepage line inside the embankment ( D p
= 5mm)

Effect of Mesh Size and Number of Material Points Per

(b) D p = 3mm
Element

The sensitivity of the seepage flow simulation to the computational

mesh size and the number of material points per element is investigated
through the simulations of seepage flow with two different mesh sizes:
coarse (0.2m) and fine (0.1m) and three different numbers of material (c) D p = 2mm
points per element (MPsPE): 4, 8 and 10 respectively. The seepage
flow front positions at different times are shown in Fig. 6. The grain 1.0
2mm_60s
size adopted here is 3mm. 3mm_50s
0.8
5mm_30s
It can be seen that the mesh size and the number of material points per 0.6
H (m)

element do not play an important role in the simulation in terms of the 0.4
seepage flow front prediction. Hence, from the perspective of saving
0.2
the computational effort, comparatively coarse meshes are chosen and
the number of material points per element is chosen to be 4. In addition, 0.0
the bulk modulus of water is reduced by a factor of 100 in order to 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
X (m)
increase the computational time step due to the fact that an explicit
integration scheme is employed. (d) Superposed seepage lines

Fig. 7: The quasi-equilibrium seepage lines

1164
The shapes of the three quasi-equilibrium seepage lines are compiled in
Fig. 7(d). They can be approximated very well with parabolic equations
with R-squared value over 0.995, meaning that the predictions of the
seepage line shapes are consistent with Dupuit’s parabola.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a MPM model with two sets of material points is used to
study the seepage flow phenomena through a broad embankment. By
representing the solid and water constituents with two sets of material
points, the present model enables the simulation of large deformation
and detailed soil-water interactions. In order to examine the accuracy of
the MPM model, the rapid flow through a porous dam is modelled and
the simulation result shows good agreement with experimental data.
Then, the MPM model is applied for simulating slow seepage flow
phenomena. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study.
Firstly, the selection of mesh sizes and numbers of material points per
element in this study shows negligible effect on the seepage flow
simulations. Secondly, compared with the Dupuit’s solution, the MPM
model reproduces the shapes of the water table very well. Furthermore,
by changing the size of the soil grains, the model shows the capability
of accurately simulating the behaviour of seepage flow through
different soils with various permeability values.
By including two sets of material points, the present MPM model can
be seen as a promising tool for seepage flow simulations. In the near
future, the current MPM formulation will be improved and calibrated to
capture more details of the seepage flow through embankments, which
will facilitate their design and maintenance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research is supported by the European Union Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. PIAG-GA-
2012-324522”MPM-DREDGE”.
REFERENCES
Abe, K., Soga, K. & Bandara, S., 2013. Material Point Method for
Coupled Hydromechanical Problems. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140(3), pp.1–16.
Al-Kafaji, I.K.J., 2013. Formulation of a Dynamic Material Point
Method (MPM) for Geomechanical Problems.
Bandara, S. & Soga, K., 2015. Coupling of soil deformation and pore
fluid flow using Material Point Method. Computers and
Geotechnics, 63, pp.199–214.
Bardenhagen, S.G., Brackbill, J.U. & Sulsky, D., 2000. The material-
point method for granular materials. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 187(99), pp.529–541.
Brackbill, J.U., Kothe, D.B. & Ruppel, H.M., 1988. Flip: A low-
dissipation, particle-in-cell method for fluid flow. Computer
Physics Communications, 48, pp.25–38.
Ergun, S., 1952. Fluid flow through packed columns. Chen. Engng
1165
View publication stats
Prog., 48, pp.89–94.
Jassim, I., Stolle, D. & Vermeer, P., 2013. Two-phase dynamic analysis
by material point method. International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 37, pp.2502–2522.
Keady, G., 1990. The Dupuit Approximation for the Rectangular Dam
Problem. IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics, 44, pp.243–260.
Kularathna, S., 2014. Simulation of primary cement placement during
well completion using material point method,
Li, C., Borja, R.I. & Regueiro, R.A., 2004. Dynamics of porous media
at finite strain. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 193, pp.3837–3870.
Liang, D., 2010. Evaluating shallow water assumptions in dam-break
flows. Proceedings of the ICE - Water Management, 163(May),
pp.227–237.
Liu, P.L.-F. et al., 1999. Numerical Modelling of Wave Interaction with
Porous Structures. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and
Ocean Engineering, 125(6), pp.322–330.
Ma, S., Zhang, X. & Qiu, X.M., 2009. Comparison study of MPM and
SPH in modeling hypervelocity impact problems. International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 36(2009), pp.272–282.
Mackenzie-Helnwein, P. et al., 2010. Modeling strategies for
multiphase drag interactions using the material point method.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
83(3), pp.295–322.
Martinelli, M. & Rohe, A., 2015. Modelling fluidisation and
sedimentation using material point method. In 1st Pan-American
Congress on Computational Mechanics.
Moresi, L., Dufour, F. & Mühlhaus, H.B., 2003. A Lagrangian
integration point finite element method for large deformation
modeling of viscoelastic geomaterials. Journal of Computational
Physics, 184, pp.476–497.
Shin, W.K., 2009. Numerical Simulations of Landslides and Debris
Flows Using an Enhanced Material Point Method. University of
Washington.
Sulsky, D., Chen, Z. & Schreyer, H.L., 1994. A particle method for
history-dependent materials. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 118(1994), pp.179–196.
Sulsky, D., Zhou, S.-J. & Schreyer, H.L., 1995. Application of a
particle-in-cell method to solid mechanics. Computer Physics
Communications, 87(1995), pp.236–252.
Wieckowski, Z., 1998. A particle-in-cell method in analysis of motion
of a granular material in a silo. In Computational Mechanics:
New Trends and Applications, CIMNE. Barcelona.
Wieckowski, Z., 2003. Modelling of the silo discharge and filling
problem by the material point method. Task Quarterly, (4),
pp.701–721.
Wieckowski, Z., Youn, S.-K. & Yeon, J.-H., 1999. A particle-in-cell
solution to the silo discharging problem. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 45(9), pp.1203–1225.
Yerro, A., Alonso, E.E. & Pinyol, N.M., 2015. The material point
method for unsaturated soils. Géotechnique, 65(3), pp.201–217.
Zienkiewicz, O. et al., 1999. Computational geomechanics with special
reference to earthquake engineering, New York: John Wiley &
Sons.