So welcome to lecture number 18 of the course advanced geotechnical engineering module 2 the permeability and seepage 7. So in this lecture we are going to discuss about some case study based on whatever we have discussed in the previous lectures and also I would like to present to you some assignment problems so that which can which can be used for you know addressing the topics we have discussed in this particular module. So this lecture is titled permeability and seepage 7. So in order to you know address that case study which we are going to discuss let us try to recollect what we discussed in the previous lecture in order to check against the piping failure for a single row of sheet pile wall then Terjiki actually has given a method for checking the stability of a soil prism in front of the row of a sheet pile wall. So if you consider in this diagram if you have got a row of sheet pile wall having you know head of water H1 here and H2 is the water and the downstream level so the differential water level is H1 minus H2. So this particular portion of the prism of soil will be subjected to instability. So one of the methods you know to prevent this failure is to provide an apron or nowadays in with modern applications involving the geosynthetics can also be explored. So by considering a soil prism on the downstream side of the you know of having unit thickness and having a section D is the depth of penetration and D by 2. So this particular you know deliberation of D by 2 was actually arrived based on the model test carried out and then reported in this subject area. So that is the possible failure zone and we knew that as the water flows from this side from left hand side to right hand side the water flows in the vertical direction. So the uplift force of uplift pressure uplift force exerted on the prism of this soil having D by 2 into 1 that is the perimeter length of the you know prism is being considered that is the area over which the uplift pressure is acted is D by 2 into 1 and the D is the you know the depth of penetration. So this is the self weight of the prism and this we are actually considering the self weight that is the submerged unit weight in order to do that the head which is actually you know considered is the total head not the pore water pressure at the base of the prism. So using the flow net the hydraulic uplift pressure can be obtained. So as you know the you know from the flow net the equipotential lines and then within that prism area over a distance of D by 2 the average head can be estimated. So which can be given as h m is equal to h a is the head at this point h a is the head at this point and h p is the head at this point the average of this is can be obtained. So this is the uplift force that is nothing but of gamma w into D into h m h m is the average hydraulic head at the average hydraulic head at the base of the soil prism. So the self weight the submerged unit weight of the self weight of the soil is given by W dash is equal to half gamma dash D square. So from for the factor of safety to in order to obtain the factor of safety against heave or piping is nothing but the resisting force is nothing but the self weight of the prism and disturbing force is nothing but the uplift acted by the actor on at the base of the soil prism. So this is obtained as factor of safety is equal to W dash by U where W dash is equal to half gamma dash D square divided by half gamma w D into h m by simplification of that we get D by h m into gamma dash by gamma w. But however we knew that the critical hydraulic gradient is defined as gs minus 1 by 1 plus e is equal to gamma dash by gamma w. So by substituting for gamma dash by gamma w I c and writing h m by D as I m then we can write the factor of safety against the heave or piping is nothing but I c by I m which should be generally more than 4 or so. So what is required to be noted is that from the flow net diagram to find the average mean hydraulic head find the total head within the D by 2 zone horizontally. So this is required to be noted. Then according to Hasra method Hasra has given in 1935 the safety of hydraulic structures against piping. So this I exit was defined here this is the maximum hydraulic gradient which is nothing but factor of safety is equal to I c by I exit. The I exit can be done with two methods one is that the penultimate portion of the flow net in the downstream direction that is delta h is the head drop let us say the last two equipotential lines that the potential drop between the two equipotential lines in the downstream direction over a length of that along that flow direction. So that is one is that this can be obtained from flow net according to Haar 1962 I exit can also be estimated by 1 by pi into h by d where h is the maximum hydraulic head which is nothing but whatever the difference which is actually there between upstream water level and downstream water level and d is the depth of penetration of the sheet pile wall which is actually taken as d is the depth of the penetration that is the penetration of the sheet pile wall. So for structures other than the single row of sheet pile walls that means that if you have got a concrete dam then in order to increase against the safety against the uplift and all it is practice to provide it is a practice to provide cut off walls in the particularly in the downstream direction as well as if required in the upstream direction if required if the condition persist in the middle of the concrete dam also. And one of the other measures also in order to divert the equipotential here to prevent the flow close to the dam here a provision of impervious blanket is also another alternative. But if you have got a structures other than row of sheet pile walls it has been recommended that the soil which actually occurs between d dash and d where this over a length of d by 2 that remains same but here it will not be completely d but it is actually a depth of d dash. So this particular portion is actually subjected to instability and the rest of it will remain same that is the self weight of the soil which and uplift was exerted in the horizontal direction by the water and this can be determined from the flow net from the total head. So for the structures other than single row of sheet pile walls Terzaghi 1943 recommended that the stability of several soil presence have to be taken that means that of the sizes of d by 2 and d dash into 1 and can be investigated to find out the minimum factor of safety. So the according to Terzaghi's method it is that you have to one has to take several soil presence and then determine the one which actually gives the minimum factor of safety. So for 1962 suggested that a factor of safety of 4 to 5 with d dash is equal to d should be sufficient for the safe performance of the structure again going back with d dash is equal to d that is equivalent to the depth of penetration is sufficient for the safe performance of the structure. So with that background let us look into a case study on the seepage analysis of a cofferdam. So this particular cofferdam is located on the bank of a river and the real soil conditions are that it actually has got stratified soil deposits being close to the river. And the cofferdam is generally constructed to facilitate the construction of the foundation for the a bridge which is being constructed. So in this particular case the cofferdam is intended to be constructed on the river bank where there is no flow of water but if the cofferdam is intended to be constructed within the river where the flow of river happens then the issues relevant to the velocity of the flow and then seepage analysis and the stability against the wave forces all those things need to be considered in designing a cofferdam. So this particular cofferdam section is having a typical status like this and this is the river bed which is at minus 0.81 meters and the entire stata from the river bed to the minus 8.31 meters about 7.5 meters it is with a clay stata below that there is a sand it is named as sand 1. So about 3 meters there is a sand layer and then from minus 11.31 to minus 18 meters there is a sand 2 layer that is two types of sand layers are there and the one of the you know row of a sheet pile wall of a cofferdam is shown here where in what is actually shown here is that this sheet pile wall penetration from is from plus 5.5 to minus 14.5 meters and above this there is a backfill was placed and the upstream water level that is high tide level is plus 5.25 and the soil backfill is actually up to plus 5 meters. So plus 5 meters and then plus 5.25 meters is the high tide level and the top of the sheet pile wall is plus 5.5 tip of the sheet pile wall is minus 14.5 meters it is penetrated into the sand layer then here there is so you can look into this is the you know source for the water this is the river bed and then water actually tries to enter into this thing into the cofferdam. So basically this area is being created to make to enable the installation of foundations for example for this particular bridge pier foundation is founded on piles. So you know to enable to construct the piles in the middle of the river or the close of the bank of the river what it is intended is that to create a land area that is achieved through a cofferdam with ensuring all the stability is again structural stability as well as stability from the seepage point of view and the question here is that in this particular type of sequences there is a need for providing a PCC plug that is called precast this is nothing but plain cement concrete layer is provided. The question here involved is that whether the intended thickness of 1 meter of PCC concrete plug is adequate or not this is basically done to prevent any piping and piping failure and second thing also the resistance offered by the PCC plug onto the stability is not considered. So here one interesting thing to be noted here is that there is a clay layer which is actually having very low permeability and then it is followed by two sand layers. So if the clay layer would not have been there there is a possibility that you know the situation of the likelihood failure for the against piping but let us look for the given data here what would have been the what would be the you know how the you know failure factor of safety is against Terzaghi's method and Hazra's method will arrive. So here the bottom of the you know the minus 4.50 meters is the downstream water level so this is the intended water level which is to be maintained and then minus so 1 meter is the thickness of the you know concrete plate and this is the bottom of the pile. So above this the pile cap will come and then the bridge pier foundation will come. So once this foundation is actually constructed and once the foundation is in place then what happens is that the cofferdam is removed and so that the foundation can be commissioned. So the below the sand layer that is below minus 18.1 meters again the clay layer is there so this is actually assumed to be an impervious stratum so water actually flows in this direction. So this particular problem the seepage analysis has been carried out by using the finite element based software CW 2012 version and the cross section adopted for the seepage analysis shown in this slide as I have told you that this is actually having a length of about 50 meters about 40 meters in this direction and the different soil layers have been represented here this is the clay layer this is the sand 1 and sand 2 and then this is a clay layer. So and here this is the PCC plug which is actually considered here the plain cement concrete clay. So based on this the flow vectors can be obtained but before that let us look into material properties especially the clay permeability though the permeability can be of the order of 10 to the power of minus 9 meter per second but however here it has been considered about 10 to the power of minus 7 phi into 10 to the power of minus 7 meter per second and sand is having high permeability that is 10 to the power of minus 3 meter per second and sand 2 is around 10 to the power of minus 3 meter per second and clay bottom which is at the bottom most clay layer that has been considered as 1 into 10 to the power of minus 9 meter per second which is practically an impervious layer. So these are the flow vectors which are actually obtained from CW wherein you can see that the trend of flow which is a flow line which is actually coming from this direction to this direction. So in order to do the factor of safety against the stability like piping then we require to know the consider a particularly a prism of soil having horizontal distance d by 2 and d depth of penetration and then we have to see the factor of safety against the stability without and with the PCC flag. So here the close view of cofferdam section is shown here wherein you can see the cluster of flow vectors and as the movement of the flow vectors towards the downstream side of the sheet pile wall structure can be seen. So here in this diagram a check again is the piping failure for that to enable to that a block diagram of a prism of d depth of penetration from the PCC plug to the tip of the sheet pile wall and d by 2 distance from the tip of this sheet pile wall horizontally was considered. So this is the soil prism which is actually having you know gamma 1 H1, gamma 2 H2, gamma 3 H3 and then gamma 4 H4 or this particular layer this is actually required to be considered. Then once we know the total head from the flow net diagram we can actually calculate what is the average head here and determine the factor of safety against the piping. So this is the total head variation at the bottom of the soil wedge with horizontal distance from the tip of the sheet pile wall. So total head variation at the bottom of the soil wedge with horizontal distance from the tip of the sheet pile wall I can be seen here the this is the x ordinate which starts from the tip of the sheet pile wall horizontally. So it can be seen that the total head variation in the range of 2.217 meters to 2.213 so the average will be about 2.2 meters. So the check against piping one is the check one Terzaghi's method. Let us consider a case of without a PCC slab of 1 meter thickness then factor of safety what we have defined is that d into d is the depth of penetration into gamma dash divided by HA into gamma w HA is the average hydraulic head at the base of the soil prism. So based on that the factor of safety can be obtained with the d1 into gamma 1 dash d2 into gamma 2 dash and d3 into gamma 3. So based on the unit weights respective unit weights and by taking the submerged unit weights we can actually get the factor of safety without a PCC slab here the PCC slab of 1.1 meter thickness is not provided. So the factor of safety is found to be just more than 4 that is 4.74 and hence the section is safe again is the piping as far as the Terzaghi's method is concerned. Now consider the same case with the PCC slab of 1 meter thickness once we consider the PCC slab of 1 meter thickness we can see that here the gamma of PCC is taken as 23 kilo Newton per meter cube of thickness 1 meter with that the average head 2.214 meters even in the previous case also the average head HA is equal to 2.214 meters with that the factor of safety increased to from 4.75 to 5.71 because of the thickness of the because of the provision of PCC. But in addition to the you know preventing against the instability due to piping the provision of PCC also helps in preventing giving a work fat form for placement of the rigs and enabling the construction at the site. So the factor of safety greater than 4 hence the section is found to be safe against piping. Now let us look by check by Azra's method the same problem. So here we can actually obtain from the flow net IH that is the delta H the head loss between two equipotential lines in the penultimate portion of the you know flow net in the downstream side that is can be obtained by delta H is equal to 0.5 meters and L is equal to 0.96 that is the flow element length with that I exit can be obtained as 0.52. So then we can determine I critical I critical as nothing but gamma dash by gamma w where gamma dash is nothing but the sand unit weight which is actually taken as 20 kilometer per meter cube 20 minus 9.81 divided by 9.81 the critical hydraulic gradient is 1.03. So the factor of safety is nothing but I critical by I exit it is 1.03 by 0.52. So the what we obtained is about 1.98 is actually close to 2. So the remarks on the case study what we discussed is that the presence of clay layer from about a 4.5 meters from minus 4 meters base of the PCC plug 2 minus 8.3 meter helps in preventing the pumping failure towards the downstream side and this observation is based on the coefficient of permeability of 1 into 10 to the power of minus 9 meter per second 10 to the power of minus 7 meter per second or 1 into 10 to the power of minus 9 meter per second clay and if you look into this the adoption of 1 meter thick PCC plug and the downstream side was found to be adequate and with the provision of the PCC plug the factor of safety against the piping increases and the second thing is that it also enables the construction and installation of the pines can be done with ease. So having discussed the problems you know the case study relevant to the seepage analysis of a cofferdam problem and having introduced two different problems and different concepts in module 2 pertaining to permeability and seepage. So in this particular lecture where assignment problems for the module 2 are presented and some selected problems are given so that the concepts can be revised. The problem one goes like this for the test setup shown in the figure below we need to determine the following one is that the flow rate that is per unit width through the soil seepage velocity if there is a 50% of the head causing the flow at A determine 3 is that pore water pressure at A and 4 is the seepage force per unit volume at A assume that the flow takes place in the vertical direction only and the soil is fully saturated. So the problem one the for the test setup which is shown determine the flow rate determine the seepage velocity and determine the if there is a 50% of the head causing the flow at A determine the pore water pressure at A and 4 the seepage force per unit volume at A assuming that the flow takes place in the vertical direction only and the soil is fully saturated. The setup is actually shown here where in you actually have the soil which is k having 2 into 10 to power of minus 7 meter per second the void ratio is actually given as E is equal to 0.68 and here this particular horizontal distance is 3 meters and this height is about 3 meters and this width is about 1 meters and here at the point A is that at the midpoint of this height of 3 meters and in the given problem the datum is actually shown here. So this is that this water level is actually shown as the datum. So this this site of water above this level is about 0.6 meters. So the difference in height of water is 3 meters plus 0.6 meters that 3.6 meters. So this is the you know as far as the problem 2 is problem one is concerned. In problem 2 the test setup is actually shown here which is actually having two layers of soils upper soil and lower soil and this limb is actually having a certain horizontal distance and it is actually at a height of 0.3 meter you know 0.3 meter a constant water flow is actually maintained here. Upper soil layer is having the thickness of 0.25 meter and lower soil layer having a thickness of about 0.2 meter and this is level A this is level B. The level B is interface between soil lower soil and upper soil and here there is that is the level C at the top surface of the upper soil. So the problem statement runs like this in the test setup shown in the figure below or figure which is on the right side of this slide two different granular soils are placed in perimeter and flow is allowed to take place under a constant head of 30 centimeters.  So water flows vertically up in this direction because this level of this limb is actually maintained at this level. So if the permeability of the lower soil layer is 3 into 10 to the power of minus 4 meter per second calculate the quantity of water per second flowing to the unit area of the soil and what is the coefficient of the permeability of the upper soil layer. So we need to calculate what is the coefficient of the permeability of the upper soil layer. Bottom lower soil layer permeability is given and so this problem is very interesting and you can attempt based on the concepts we discussed in the this module. And the problem three statement wherein a sand aquifer is present at the depth of 5 meter below the lake in which water depth is 1 meter. Two less pervious soil overlie the sand aquifer as shown in the figure. The soil two is twice as pervious as soil one that means that soil two is more pervious having more permeability than soil one. The aquifer is under artisan pressure and it is observed that this pressure is gradually increasing. So in which soil particularly either soil one or soil two will be the effective weight stress first falls to 0 that is where the quick sand condition can come and what at what value of piezometric head measured at the point B will this occur. So the cross section of the figure is like this you have got a sand aquifer which is actually having a artisan pressure and here this is this level is 1 meter this is zero. So this soil one is having 2 meter thickness soil two is having a 3 meter thickness and this is point P is 1 meter below the soil two bottom of the soil two and here is actually having hydraulic gradient I1 I2 gamma 18 kilo Newton per meter cube gamma 20 kilo Newton per meter cube. So soil one is actually having a permeability K1 and I1 soil two is having a permeability K2 and I2. So wherein we can actually calculate what is the you know which soil will actually first undergo quick sand condition or the effective weight stress first falls to 0 and what value of the piezometric head measured at point P will this occur. So this is you know based on the concepts we discussed can be attempted. Problem 4 figure A which is actually shown in the next slide shows a reservoir and a sheet pile wall cut off where figure B shows the corresponding flow net for this problem. So in figure A and figure B a cross section as well as the flow net is also given utilizing the information given in these figures compute the following one is the rate of seepage loss for reservoir per unit width of the sheet pile wall to pore water pressure at A, B and C as shown in the figure which we are going to see and the factor of safety against boiling in the heave zone immediately to the right of the sheet pile wall. This is just what we discussed in this lecture and draw schematically the flow net and identify the lines in the given figure keeping in view of the boundary conditions. So here you are required to this is the cross section which is given impervious sand a fine sand layer having isotropic permeability Kx is equal to Kz is equal to 4 beta per day and gamma C at is equal to 20 kilo per meter cube the thickness of the stratum is 5 meters and here the tip of the sheet pile wall is at this point and this is 4 meter below this upstream soil level and this 2 meter below the downstream soil level and this is water level at the downstream side is 1.5 meter upstream side is 2 meter above the upstream soil level. So the difference is about 2.5 meters and this is the end which is P P P dash and this is the end of Q Q dash and we need to determine the points A is here point B is shown here and point C is here we need to determine from the flow net the flow the pore water pressures from the flow net diagram and so based on the datum can be selected accordingly and then pressures at A B and C can be determined. So this is the flow net which is given so this is the point A and this is the point B which is actually marked and this is the point C. So the tentative flow net which actually shown here so with that based on this the problem 4 can be attempted and by considering both Terzaghi's method and Hazara's method one can actually calculate what is the factor of safety against piping failure and with that the safety of a stability hydraulic stability of a structure can be estimated. And in the problem 5 which we have discussed in the previous lecture the similar problem and here in this section an earthen dam section is shown below we need to draw the flow net and calculate the C page. So here the 2 layers of soils are given and this earthen dam is constructed with a soil having low permeability k1 2 into 10 to the power of minus 9 meter per second and the soil on the right hand side is k2 is equal to 2 times k1 that is it is 2 times more permeable than 2 into 10 to the power of minus 9 meter per second that is k2 and the slopes are actually having one vertical to horizontal and the upstream water level is 30 meters a free board of 4 meter is actually maintained and the crest width is about 6 meters so from here to here is 3 meters from here to here is 3 meters from here to here the downstream end upstream tow to the this end is 90 meters horizontal distance. So with this the entire configuration can be constructed and this can be solved by using the concepts we discussed like flow net for the C page through a zone depth dam and we said that the soil for the upstream half of the dam has a permeability k1 and the soil for the downstream has a permeability of here it should be k2 in this example it is shown as 5k1 but here it is 2k1 so with that by using k1 by k2 is equal to k1 by k2 is equal to 1 by 2 we can actually get by putting b1 by even l1 is equal to 1 we can get k1 by k2 is equal to 1 by 2 b2 by l2 is equal to 1 by 2. So what will happen is that the breadth to the length ratios will be of ratio 1 by 2 that is on the downstream side here you will have a rectangles we are having the breadth to length ratios 1 is to 2. So this by using this concept the flow net for the C page through a zone depth dam having two different permeabilities can be constructed. So in the problem 6 a levee section is shown so here a levee section is constructed levee is generally constructed is an embankment which is constructed along the river to prevent you know the river water entering into the downstream side of the land. So for that a 12 meter about 25 meters high embankment has been constructed or a levee section has been constructed for 1 is to 2 slopes both upstream side and downstream side a free board of 2 meter was actually maintained and 23 meters is the upstream water level here it is required to indicate what is a b whether it is a equipotential line or flow line and e d whether it is a equipotential line or flow line and b d whether it is a equipotential line or flow line need to be identified and once there is identified with the permeability of k is equal to 0.3 meter per day because this can be achieved when we are actually having isotropic permeability can be achieved once we actually get a material from the single baropit area and here the drainage layer is actually placed and then this length is about 2.7 meters and then the thickness generally is provided about 0.7 meters or 0.6 meters of the order and then this will prevent the you know the prevent the periodic surface coming into the downstream side and causing the piping failure and also enhances the stability. So this length is given as 112 meters and this height is about 25 meters and the crest width of 12 meters and the downstream height is about 50 meter the downstream horizontal distance is 50 meters. So what we need to do is that what is the volume of the water lost through the levee along each kilometer in meter cube per day that means that because as we know that we do so if water loss is actually observed more than the permissible one then it can actually have an impact on the stability. So here a kilometer length of these levee sections run kilometers length so per kilometer length what is the permeability what is the seepage lost or water lost can be determined and in the problem 7 wherein we are actually having a situation that we need to draw the seepage under the structure which is the figure which is shown below. So draw the flow net for the seepage under the structure detailed in the figure below and determine the quantity of seepage. So the coefficient of permeability of the soil is 5 into 10 to the power of minus 5 meter of second that is the soil which is actually here this is the soil portion and this is an impervious zone which is not horizontal which is actually having a certain inclination and with the configuration of that is given here this is the tip of this hydraulic structure is 7.2 meters 7.25 meters here and here it is 9 meters. So what is the uplift force on the base of the structure so that is required to be determined and this horizontal distance of the hydraulic structure is given as 8 meters and this length is about 9 meters and this distance is about 2.5 meters the head of water which is nothing but it causes the flow is about 3 meters. So this is according to Craig 2004. So in the slide where a typical flow net diagram is actually given here for your convenience and the scale is also shown here and this is the impervious stratum and this being impervious stratum this becomes the flow line. So as you can see that a flow net is drawn where the head of water where here the head of the water which is available for this equipotential line is about 3 meters by the time it actually comes out it is actually 0. So equipotential line this is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 equipotential lines are there and then by considering the orthogonal principle one can actually calculate draw the curvilinear squares which involves which gives the flow net. So this is a flow channel 1 and flow channel 2 and this can be approximated as a flow channel about of a 50% of its distance. So it can be total number of flow channels can be around 2.5. So we can actually calculate the seepage and then by knowing the pore water pressure along the horizontal distance one can actually determine what is the pore water pressure distribution. So if the structure will say is empty or under construction there is a possibility of the uplift against the stability. So in during all stages of the construction on all stages of the life of the structure the safety against the uplift is required to be ensured particularly when the hydraulic structure is empty there is a susceptibility of the uplift failure that can be observed from this particular problem. So in this particular module we actually discussed about various concepts about the permeability and seepage issues and we have actually have discussed about the types of flows that is one dimensional flow and two dimensional flow and three dimensional flow. Though the three dimensional flow is not very common but the with the three dimensional flow particularly the conditions or examples are that wherein we actually have radial flow nets which can come particularly if you are having a drain which is actually having provided to drain the water. So in a given plane it can actually come the radial flow nets can come. So wherein the at the surface of the where the water source is there the highest equipotential line will be there the close to the drain surface where it is feeding water away from the particular location where that will be having the permeability equipotential line and the flow lines perpendicular to that so that causes some sort of a net of radial flow nets for the a pipeline or a drain running into the soil. And then we also have considered like the theory behind these seepage and we actually have said that for a three dimensional flow the Laplace equation for three dimensional flow having kx not equal to ky not equal to kz is not equal to 0.  As kx k y kz not equal to 0 in that case the three dimensional Laplace equation is that for the flow is that dou square u by dou x square plus dou square u by dou y square plus dou square u by dou z square is equal to 0. But as we have discussed with that many of our structures like we have levees, atten dams and sheet pile walls they actually can be idealized and analyzed by using two dimensional flow conditions. In that case the governing Laplace equation is dou square u by dou x square plus dou square u by dou z square is equal to 0 that is x is the horizontal distance ordinate and z is the vertical distance ordinate. And once in order to satisfy this condition the solution for this can be worked out by using the finite difference method or finite dimensional method and then we have discussed the finite element based method analysis by using construction of the flow nets manually or by using a program seepage analysis based program called Cfw 2012 and that constructs the flow nets as for the as this satisfied for different conditions. Suppose if you are having the non isotropic that is axisymmetric the permeability is asymmetric permeability that is having different permeability is an x and z direction. In that case we said that when kx is not equal to kz then need to convert that into a transformed case this condition is called transformed condition and where in kt the transformed permeability is given as root over kx kz and then once the section is transformed then the analysis is done in a similar way as was done from the isotropic case. And then further we discussed that if you are actually having a non homogeneous soils that means that soils having different permeabilities like k1, k2, k3 suppose if the flow net is intended to be constructed by using Cfw the particular software takes automatically but otherwise for different conditions like entry conditions and exit conditions need to be understood. So for that we have studied with two homogeneous soils when you are actually having two different permeabilities when k1, k1 is soil 1 and k2 is the soil to permeability when k1 is less than k2 and when what will happen when the k1 greater than k2 then subsequently we actually have done some problems and thereafter we actually have introduced like how to introduce the based on the flow net diagrams how to calculate the factor of safety against the hydraulic stability of the structures from the piping point of view. Then we have two methods one is the Terzaghi's method and we also have discussed about the Hazra's method and based on this once it is done then the stability can be against piping can be ensured and in the finally we actually have discussed about a case study which is in one of the cofferdam construction for a bridge pier foundation was discussed. And basically here the idea is that the adequacy of the intended the PCC plug which is actually planned whether that 1 meter thick is adequate or 1.5 meters in fact which I have not presented but if you have a case situation of say 1.5 meter the factor of safety against stability in wages that makes you know the more conservative but however it is found that because of the presence of the clay layer and clay layer it is adequate to actually have a thickness of about 1 meter for the downstream side and this actually has two purposes one is to prevent failure against the piping the other one is also to enable construction for the installing foundations for the pier and second further we actually have discussed about some assignment problems for you so based on this you know in this module we try to look into the all aspects which are actually framed.


Fawr gweithio i gwybod i'r ffordd o gymorthymaeth ygafetaeth Cymru Oreig yn effeithio llwyddo ag yr oedd iawn gwybod i'ch gweithiau arall ac i gyda'r hollwyryd cynlluniaeth. Fawr y byd ymddir whallu cysyllt yma, mae cyfnod i i'r hollwch gweithio'r cyflosydd o hyn sy'n sgwrdd gellaeth ymddir mewn gwyrddion yn deckiwyr gweithio. A wnaeth i chi, pwysig, Siam Halechri Johnston. A fawr o'r Cysylltio Cymru? atweud registerd o ddiolch yn ddweud, yn gyfliadau o'r cyflawn eu cyd-19. Y First Minister i mewn ffun, pan wnaeth i ddechrau LHS i gael o'ch chi'n gweld â'r ddweud o gweld â'r ddweud sydd o gweld â'r ddweud ar gyfer LHS i gael o'r pandemac. Mae gael i'r ddweud i gael o'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud a'i lleol iawn i ddweud a'i ddweud a'i ddweud i'r ddweud.bekaw years pwysig policy biadig iawn o g tutn Germany in this financial year alone, has already been invested in supporting NHS boards to target the backlog of treatment and care. Although it is important to stress that recovery and reducing waiting times for patients with conditions other than Covid is the immediate task, the plan is fundamentally about ensuring that the recovery process delivers long term sustainability and alternative pathways care that allow people to be treated more quickly but crucially closer to home. Cabinet Secretary points to the NHS recovery plan, a plan that the BMA warned on its release contained worrying gaps and one that little progress was made towards in the months before the Omicron variant was a significant concern. In many areas, the pandemic has not created new problems but exacerbated pre-existing issues. Weekly A&E figures are the worst on record. We are seeing continued poor performance for the 62 days standard for emergent suspicion of cancer referrals of first treatment and almost 60,000 people have been waiting on treatment or diagnostic tests for over 12 months. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how long it will take before the delays and backlogs are meaningfully tackled and does he accept that while there may be more NHS staff than before demand is also higher, how will the Scottish Government tackle these backlogs without piling considerable additional pressure on existing staff? Cabinet secretary, did you make Halcro Johnston look? He is in danger genuinely of denying the impact that Covid has had. I am not saying to him that there wasn't issues or challenges or problems pre-pandemic, of course there were, but it would equally be ridiculous if somebody suggested that the pandemic hasn't had a major impact, not just a slight or marginal, but a major impact on the NHS and the services that it provides. On our NHS recovery plan, I won't rehearse all of the targets and ambitions in that plan, but crucially we intend to increase the NHS capacity by at least 10 per cent in order to address the backlog of care. We will increase our funding to the NHS and, of course, for the next financial year there will be a record settlement of above £18 billion. We will continue to ensure that we have record staffing within our NHS and we will continue to make sure that the best-paid staff in the entire UK—and crucially, as I said in my opening answer—we want to ensure that there are appropriate alternative pathways that allow people to be treated as close to home as possible. Neil Gray Thank you, Presiding Officer. Getting access to treatment, obviously primary care, is of fundamental importance and the health secretary will be well aware of the challenges currently being faced in NHS Lanarkshire, driven by demand and staffing pressures that have resulted in NHS Lanarkshire scaling back. Some of the service has been provided by GP practices. I am reassured that that has been reviewed on a weekly basis, and the conversations that I have had with the health secretary about the situation. I wonder whether the health secretary would be able to update me on any action that the Scottish Government has taken to try to support NHS Lanarkshire, the GP practices in particular, to allow the services to be returned as quickly as possible. I thank him for raising the issue with me directly, and I am hosting a meeting with Lanarkshire MSPs from across political parties on Monday, alongside the health board. I spoke to Dr Andrew Beust from the BMA today on that issue in relation to access to GPs. It is fundamental and crucial. We have—where we can, we will absolutely support staff across the NHS. For example, he will be aware that there is an exemption that allows staff to return after close contacts of somebody who has tested positive. That required a PCR or negative PCR test. I have removed that requirement upon clinical advice, and that again should help with that staffing issue. So there is not one single thing that can be done, but lots of things that we are doing that is helping with that staffing issue. I can give him an absolute assurance that NHS Lanarkshire in particular is a health board that we have very regular engagement with. Jackie Baillie Waiting times were already a significant problem before the pandemic hit. Indeed, before the pandemic, 450,000 people were waiting. Now it has gone up to 650,000. One of the royal colleges told me that one significant barrier to catching up on those waiting lists, certainly for operations, is that there simply is not the space within our hospital settings. In addition to creating capacity, what consideration has the cabinet secretary given to utilising spare theatres such as those at the Vale of Leven hospital? I think that it is a very good question and an important point by Jackie Baillie. Some work we are doing centrally within government to see where we possibly have theatre space, where we potentially have nursing and medical and clinical staff, and how do we marry them all together. Some of that work has been done, absolutely. The Golden Jubilee plays a crucial role in talking to the Golden Jubilee on a regular basis about how we maximise their capacity, but she is absolutely right. There are other acute sites there where they may have a theatre space but not quite the clinical staff, so that work is absolutely on-going and I am happy to continue to keep Ms Baillie and members updated on that. To ask the Scottish Government when it will release its plans for the reopening of minor injury units. To be clear, there is not any national policy of closing minor injury units throughout the pandemic. The majority of MIUs have remained open, but I know that some health boards at NHS Grampian, for example, units have closed temporarily to allow staffing to be allocated to areas with the greatest needs, such as Covid assessment centres. I should also say that we do not have a specific policy in the provision of minor injury units in communities where we leave local health boards to make those decisions at a local level and advise my clinical advice to ensure that everyone can continue to get the right care at the right time this year. We have invested £23 million towards the redesign of urgent care under this new approach. NHS 24 is now available 24-7 for those who think that they need A&E services, but their illness is not life-threatening. Through this service, people may be offered a virtual consultation, receive care closer to home or indeed receive a scheduled appointment during a safe time at A&E. The TIRF minor injuries unit provided an essential service to the local community. Indeed, without it, TIRF residents have to travel long journeys to already crowded A&E departments. Constituents have raised fears to me about the long-term future of the TIRF minor injuries unit, which was shut temporarily 20 months ago. Can the cabinet secretary commit to the reopening of the TIRF minor injuries unit and give a timescale for my constituents, who have been deprived of easy access to healthcare? Cabinet secretary, can I say to Douglas Lums? Obviously, I will leave the decisions to be made locally, but I will raise them, of course, with the health board. His central point is absolutely correct. If we do not have minor injury units open, people will, one, have to potentially travel further. Secondly, they will go to acute sites that are already under pressure and are already busy. I can completely understand and agree with his rationale and his reasoning that minor injury units should remain open where possible. In the vast majority of health board areas, they are, but he is right to raise this specific issue. I will raise it in turn with the health board and I will update the member on those conversations. Figures published yesterday showed that, for the week ending 9 January, only 60.4 per cent of patients attending A&E in NHS Forth Valley were seen within four hours. I want to give my thanks to all staff who continue to work immensely hard to try to improve that. Given the pressure being placed on A&Es, has consideration been given to reopening a minor injury unit within Forth Valley health board? Cabinet secretary? I am sure that consideration has been given and, again, I speak to Forth Valley on a very regular basis. I know that Gillian Mackay does, and she and I had a conversation before Christmas around the specific challenges in relation to Forth Valley. Although Forth Valley is absolutely challenged, I should say that I would expect improvement to be made, while I obviously would not comment on next week's figures until they were published. We know that the week ending 9 January was particularly pressured because of high staff absences because of Covid occupancy and, indeed, because of the cumulative effect of the pandemic over the last 22 odd months. However, I can give her an absolute assurance that A&E is leaving no stone unturned to better that performance. I would expect them to continue to ensure that local members are kept updated on that improvement plan. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the Care Inspectorate in its role of inspecting and assessing care homes. My apologies, minister. Kevin Stewart. My officials and I are in regular contact with Care Inspectorate discuss a range of strategic issues, including inspections and resources. Under the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010, Scottish ministers are also required to approve the Care Inspectorate's annual scrutiny and assurance plan, which underpins its activity and is reviewed regularly. In 2021-22, the Scottish Government provided the Care Inspectorate with an additional and recurring budget of £4 million to meet resource pressures. I thank the minister for that answer. The number of inspections to care homes has decreased by 41 per cent from 1,372 inspections in 2016-17 to just 812 in 2021. That decline was happening even before the pandemic. Following Storm Arwyn, it has come to light that a number of care homes and assisted living sites did not have adequate resilience planning, something that would have been picked up by inspections. Does the minister agree that the reduced resilience is a direct result of a decrease in the number of inspections and what actions will he take to rectify that? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am keen to hear from Mr Burn at the detail of those resilience matters. If he wishes to write to me, I will respond accordingly. During the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak, the Care Inspectorate with the agreement from Scottish ministers took the decision to scale down inspections, recognising that inspections may put an unnecessary burden on the care sector, could have also contributed to the spreading of Covid-19 and put their inspectors at risk. That reflected the position of other UK and Irish regulators. However, that decision has been criticised, but it was the right thing to do at on-site care home inspections resumed in May 2020. During the pandemic, it has not been possible for the Care Inspectorate to inspect all adult care home services in the conventional way. Instead, the Care Inspectorate has adopted a more targeted, intelligence-led and risk-based approach to service inspections. That approach has prioritised on-site inspections of care homes for other people and services where immediate risk is identified. It was reported last week that a third of Scottish care homes are now restricting visits due to high prevalence of infections in communities and the interpretation of a managed outbreak by public health authorities. Relatives, however, feel that, with a correct testing regime and protective measures in place, the visiting should be maintained in line with guidance. Some indeed have called for the Care Inspectorate to take on a key role of checking that testing is robust, comprehensive, timious and publicly reported on in inspection reports to provide confidence and keep homes open to visitors. As we move forward, will the minister look at that role for the Care Inspectorate in monitoring and reporting and ensuring that homes remain open to visitors? The Care Inspectorate is already looking at homes where visiting is not what it should be. I thank the Care Inspectorate for the help that it has given Government in those regards. I am very hopeful that changes to the PHS guidance that will be issued today will make some differences in ensuring that relatives have access to their loved ones in care homes. As always, I am keen to hear from members where there may be difficulties so that we can follow up that, along with colleagues in the Care Inspectorate, in order to get it right for relatives and the residents of care homes. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to extend financial support for PPE in the social care sector. Social care providers can claim back PPE costs over and above their usual amount. In 2021-22, £862 million has been allocated to help with costs arising from Covid-19 and has demonstrated our commitment to supporting the sustainability and resilience of the sector. A decision will be taken in due course about all financial support measures for social care providers post-March. Support is also available to social care providers, including unpaid carers and personal assistance through local PPE hubs for emergency PPE supply. We are working with NHS National Services Scotland on how best to supply PPE over the longer term. Russell Findlay. That is only one of the increased costs facing the sector. Will the minister he concerns and ensure that it is fully funded for the true costs of care through the renegotiations on the national care home contract? The Government is not involved in the negotiation of the national care home contract. That is a matter for COSLA and the care providers. It is they who make the decisions around that, not the Government. I want to ask about access to FFP3 masks in social care. Have risk assessments been carried out by employers if FFP3 masks are not routinely provided? Are those dynamic assessments and reflect increases in the levels of Covid transmission and are individual assessments available for those staff who consider themselves at risk? Winter respite guidance was published in November, which sets out the appropriate PPE to use in different circumstances. All of that is in line with the WHO guidance. PPE guidance is developed by infection prevention and control experts on a four-nation basis. The UK IPC cell is responsible for providing advice and guidance in relation to PPE requirements and IPC measures more generally. If Ms Bailey requires further detail, I am quite happy to respond accordingly, but we are following and have updated that guidance. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions on social care provision in Fife. We are in daily contact with health and social care partnerships and continue to closely monitor the ongoing impact of the pandemic and the challenges that that brings to the social care sector nationwide. Health boards and health and social care partnerships have provided assurances that people in need of the most urgent care and support will continue to receive it and that its delivery will be prioritised. The Scottish Government's adult social care winter preparedness plan sets out measures to address social care provision in all local authorities, including Fife, and outlines how we will support those who use services, the workforce and unpaid carers. I thank the minister for his reply and, although I understand that responsibility for the delivery of social care services lies with Fife Council, NHS Fife and, of course, the health and social care partnership. Given the great challenges in Fife at this time, notwithstanding the tremendous efforts of our front-line social care staff, can the cabinet secretary advise as to what help the Scottish Government can offer so that all those who need social care get the services that they are entitled to and that on a timely basis? I thank Ms Ewing for her question. I know that she has been vigorously pursuing that. She asked cabinet secretary the last question at the time whether we thought that folk in Fife were straining every sinew to deliver for people locally. I think that that is the case having talked to the chief officer of the health and social care partnership on Monday, who has said that this has been the most strenuous three weeks in her career. I believe that staff are doing all that they can. In terms of Government support, NHS Fife was allocated £7 million from the additional £300 million of winter funding that was announced on 5 October. That included £2.7 million for interim care and £4.2 million to expand care-at-home capacity. Fife are ensuring that that money is spent wisely and that they are doing their level best. We fully appreciate the problems that local partnerships are having in providing social care at this time. The Deputy First Minister convened a special meeting yesterday with local council leaders, health boards and local authority chief executives along with representatives from the third sector to identify further ways that we can support the social care sector, including the social care sector in Fife. We will continue to have those discussions, we will continue to monitor and we as a Government will continue to do all that we can to support the social care sector across Scotland. Willie Rennie The minister should not be satisfied with the assurance that those with the most urgent needs are getting addressed, because there are many people every single day in Fife who are not getting important and essential visits. They are missing out on meals, tuckins and medicines. Is he going to realise that this is an issue that has been building up for years and that we should no longer take carers for granted? We need them, we need them now and we should start paying them properly. Presiding Officer, we recognise that there needs to be support in the social care sector. In terms of the issue of pay, we have announced two pay increases funded by the Government over the past few months. We have a way to go in terms of pay and conditions. One of the reasons why I am so keen to say a national care service is so that we can have the national pay bargaining and set the right conditions for folk in the sector. I agree with Mr Rennie that there are folks out there who are not getting the levels of care that they had previously. However, we are at the most precarious stage in the pandemic with Covid cases. I am glad to see them reducing, but there are still a number of Covid cases, with folk-off, with winter pressures, and it would be fair to say that staff are tired too. I know that Fife is doing their level best. We will continue to support them in any way that we possibly can. The discussions between Government and health and social care partnerships continue on a daily basis. We will do our level best to ensure that we support them to the utmost. I know that they will do all that they can to support the folks in their communities to get the right care. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the support that it is providing to the reported increasing number of people with long Covid. We continue to implement the 16 commitments contained in our approach paper that is backed by £10 million of a long Covid support fund. We have launched a long Covid information platform on NHS Inform that will help people to manage their symptoms. We continue to support clinicians to access evidence-based information and advice to inform assessments, investigations and referrals. Lastly, the NHS national services division is establishing a strategic network bringing together clinical experts, NHS boards and, most crucially, those with lived experience to support the on-going development, resourcing and implementation of services for people with long Covid. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. In September 2021, the Scottish Government earmarked £10 million to a long Covid support fund. Four months on, what improved or better co-ordinated services are now in place to care and support for the 100,000 Scots suffering with long Covid? Why has the Government decided not to invest in dedicated long Covid clinics? I thank Pam Goswell for recognising the investment that the Scottish Government has made. It is crucial, it is important and it is going to help when it comes to the development of our long Covid response. That is developing because we are continuing to learn more and more about long Covid as time goes on. That is why we have also taken the decision to invest in research, which is important as well as the practical action that I have outlined in our framework outlines. What I would say to Pam Goswell is that there is nothing stopping NHS boards from developing long Covid clinics such as, for example, the Hertfordshire model, which she and other colleagues have referenced before. There is no barrier to doing that, but to suggest or to allude to the fact that long Covid clinics are the solution for those who are suffering from long Covid would be misguided. We let health boards take the approach that works for them locally and, of course, we are proud to have invested or pleased that we have invested £10 million, and I will continue to take a personal close eye and close attention to this issue. If there is further resourcing that is required, we will continue to explore that. Question 8, Liam McArthur. I thank you to ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the date by which self-referral for over 70s to the breast screening programme will resume. While programme capacity remains challenging due to Covid-19, the pause on self-referrals allows appointments to be prioritised for women aged 50 to 70. However, I recognise the anxiety that the pause is causing, and I have asked officials to accelerate consideration of restart options, which would not unduly impact appointment times for the eligible screening population. That will not be easy. Any decision will be informed by clinical advice and the on-going pandemic. In the meantime, if anyone of any age is concerned, they may have symptoms of breast cancer, they should immediately make an appointment with their GP practice. Liam McArthur. I thank the minister for that response with cancer diagnosis rates down during Covid and an overall rising trend in the incidence of cancer. Many women in my constituency have been concerned about their inability to self-refer for breast screening. As the minister knows, Orkney is one of the areas reliant on mobile screening units turning up every three years. Does she accept that, as the screening service returns to pre-pandemic arrangements, there is a case for looking at what more might be done in places like Orkney to ensure those who need and wish to have an opportunity to be screened? Can she also confirm that there are no plans to move from a three-year to a five-year cycle for screening? I fully understand the concern of the women in Orkney, and I assure everyone that women who live on islands will not be forgotten. Working options to restart will consider impacts on those who rely on mobile screening solutions, whether on the islands or on the main land. On the review of screening frequency and screening age, all those decisions are guided by the UK screening committee, so they will be looking at evidence. I am not aware of a change to five-year screening, but should it come forward with that recommendation, we would be inclined to accept it because it would be based on clinical evidence. The UK screening committee will look at all the evidence relating to the screening programmes and give guidance on a four-nations basis, and all four nations tend to follow that guidance. I regret that, as we are over time. I cannot take any further questions. There will be a small short pause before we move on to the next portfolio. The next portfolio is social justice, housing and local government. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press the request to speak button during the relevant question, or indicate so in the chat function by entering the letter r. 1. Willie Coffey Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government how it is tackling inequalities and child poverty in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. Thank you. Tackling child poverty is a national mission for this Government, and we are making considerable investment to increase family incomes and reduce household costs. In 2021, we spent £2.5 billion in targeted support for low-income households, including nearly £1 billion to support low-income families with children. This year, through our Scottish child payment and bridging payments, we will put around £130 million directly into the pockets of low-income families across Scotland, including in the member's constituency to those who need it most. We will further increase the support available to families by doubling the Scottish child payment to £20 per week from April this year. Willie Coffey I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer. At the local government committee on 11 January, we heard unison joining with the Tories to claim that the Scottish budget would do nothing to reduce inequalities in Scotland. Can you confirm that the Scottish Government has spent £594 million mitigating the budget cuts imposed by the Tory Government on the poorest people in Scotland with £83 million paying for the bedroom tax alone, and that we will continue to fund child support payments, expanding the school clothing grants and free school meals in my constituency, and that those measures are just a few examples of how the SNP Government is directly tackling child poverty and inequality in Scotland? Thank you. I can confirm that. I can also confirm that the 2022-23 Scottish budget continues significant investment to tackle poverty and inequality and strengthen public services, including more than £3.9 billion towards benefit expenditure, providing sport to over 1 million people in Scotland. We are also investing £831.5 million towards the delivery of affordable housing, as well as £65 million for employability support, and the first £50 million of the whole family wellbeing fund. We will continue to fund the expansion of free lunches and provide meals during school holidays to the children who need them most. I will take a supplementary. I note that the question relates to Traboverton, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. However, I also note that both the questioner and the cabinet secretary have widened out the subject matter of supplementary Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Only one in four eligible children will get the £20 rate of Scottish child payment. 170,000 of those children will not get the new rate of £20 because they are on bridging payments and 125,000 children will not get anything at all. Those children also need the extra money, too. Can the cabinet secretary set out whether she will double the bridging payments for those families? As Pam Duncan-Glancy knows, we had this exchange at the committee that I attended last week. I said to her that we are fully committed to rolling out the Scottish child payment to under-16s by the end of 2022, and until full roll-out, we will continue to deliver the innovative £520 a year bridging payments that make use of local authority data to deliver immediate support to around 150,000 children at a cost of £78 million a year. We have gone as far as we can with the doubling of the Scottish child payment to £20 from April 2022. Of course, if Pam Duncan-Glancy or anyone else wants to discuss amendments to the budget, I am sure that that is something that we can discuss, but, of course, we would have to show where any additional money would come from elsewhere in the budget. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to help residents in flats that have unsafe cladding. We are committed to ensuring the safety of people in homes with unsafe cladding. We are progressing with our single building assessment and cladding remediation programme, which, of course, is free to home owners. 25 high-priority residential blocks of flats have already been selected for the initial phase of the programme. Inspections are under way and we expect the first completed report soon. We expect that the majority of buildings will be shown to be safe. Where issues are found, we will seek appropriate solutions to remediation and urge other parties such as developers to play their part. We have been pressing the Scottish Government to take action on this for years and it failed to do so. Thousands of Scots are trapped in unsafe flats with little hope of ever selling them. Last week, Michael Gove put developers on notice in England that they have two months to agree to a funding scheme or measures could be put into law. What is happening here? Closes in the building safety bill will allow the UK Government to introduce a levy on developers of high-rise buildings. What is happening here? Finally, why is it that flammable cladding has still not been banned in Scotland? It hasn't, so when will it be? That is quite a misrepresentation of the position of the single building assessment process. Excuse me, cabinet secretary. I do not want all that shouting from a 70 position. We want to hear the answer of the cabinet secretary. The single building assessment has been an innovative approach that is being looked at by other parts of the UK. Our assessments will help to understand the scope and scale of the cladding issues across Scotland. As I said to reassure people, the majority of buildings will be shown to be safe but where issues are found, we will seek the most appropriate solutions to remediation. Of course, we want other parties, such as developers, to continue to play their part where construction is found to be unsafe. The member mentioned Michael Gove. I have written to Michael Gove, the secretary of state, for levelling up, but I have yet to receive any detail on consequentials in addition to the £97.1 million. I will continue to press the secretary of state for details in relation to the original £3.5 billion announcement that was made in the UK budget in February last year and in relation to the additional £4 billion announcement on 10 January, which we were only notified about on the day of the announcement itself. We welcome the announcement about making developers pay, but we need to see the detail of what that means for the Scottish budget because we need to go beyond the £97 million, but we need to know what those resources are that will be coming forward. We will continue to make the progress that we are making through the innovative single-building assessment. I would have thought that that was something that members across the chamber would welcome. The cabinet secretary has just answered the question that I was going to ask, but I am going to repeat it. Can you advise us what updates the Scottish Government has had from the UK Government with regard to the consequentials that it has promised that we are expecting to take this work forward? I think that that is a very brief answer if you feel that you have already answered that question. As I said, I am happy to keep Parliament appraised of any response that we get from Michael Gove and the UK Government, but it is important that we can give certainty for the remediation programme beyond the £97 million that we have already committed. I can say to people that we are absolutely determined to progress with the single-building assessment, get the works under way and done, but we need the UK Government to give us clarity on the funding that will be available beyond the £97 million. I am supplementary, Willie Rennie. This is a Scottish Government responsibility, and the minister must understand that flat owners across the country are deeply anxious at the snail's pace that this Government is moving at when we will actually get some progress on this so that we can give the flat owners the assurance. What is the date by which this is going to be done and what funding is going to be forthcoming from the Government? I do not know if Willie Rennie heard my first answer, but I told him that there is already under way the 25 high-priority residential blocks of flats, which were the pilot for the single-building assessment, so that we can see what the scale of remediation is likely to be across Scotland. As I said in my initial answer, those inspections are under way and we expect the first completed report soon. I would have thought when we are actually getting on and doing something that other parts of the UK are looking at because it is a good model that that would be welcomed. I am as keen as anyone else in this chamber to make that progress, but there are very specific and complex engineering projects that are having to be taken forward. When we get those completed reports, I will be happy to keep Parliament updated about those. To ask the Scottish Government how it is well for policies of supporting people in employment who have been impacted by Covid-19. We have a wide range of support available for people in employment and on low incomes. That includes the majority of our social security benefits, our five family payments, discretionary housing payments and the £500 self-isolation support grant. Local authorities have awarded 56,317 self-isolation support grants totaling £28.2 million between October 2020 and November 2021. Our Scottish welfare fund has also provided almost £63 million to around 60,000 households since March 2020 to help those on low incomes. By October 2021, around 530,000 households have received our £130 low-income pandemic payment, an investment of nearly £70 million to assist people in need. Does the minister agree that the level of statutory sick pay set by the UK Government at one of the lowest rates in Europe has been found wanting during the pandemic? Will the minister join me, the STC and anti-poverty groups in calling for that increase in statutory sick pay that ensures that it gives the necessary financial support to those who are unable to work due to Covid-19 and other health conditions? I absolutely agree. Because employment law is reserved, we will continue to call on the UK Government to increase statutory sick pay to match the real living wage. Earlier in the pandemic, the then cabinet secretary for social security wrote to the secretary of state for work and pensions asking for the UK Government to make statutory sick pay more responsive. In September last year, the cabinet secretary for finance and economy wrote to the chancellor asking for him to consider the closure of the statutory sick pay rebate scheme to reconsider it. We are in agreement that the current level is not fit for purpose, and we will continue to make this point to the UK Government at appropriate opportunities. One of the few positives to come out of a pandemic is the flexible working from home that has become more mainstream, which suits many disabled people. Will the minister commit to engaging with employers and reporting back to Parliament on how we can continue to foster this inclusive working style post-pandemic, while taking into account issues of isolation, loneliness and social participation? I thank Jeremy Balfour for raising those important points, and I agree with the sentiment that was behind his question. If I may, I would like to take that suggestion away and engage further with Mr Balfour and finance and economy ministers to consider the points that he raises. To ask the Scottish Government how it will support local authorities to make decisions on local services based on local priorities. Local authorities are independent corporate bodies with their own powers and responsibilities. The Scottish Government has committed to supporting councils with a finance settlement of over £12.5 billion in 2022-23. That represents a cash increase of £917.9 million, or 7.9 per cent, which is the equivalent of a real-terms increase of 5.1 per cent. Analysis by Spice shows that almost 18 per cent of budgets for local councils are ring-fenced for Scottish Government initiatives. A steep rise from just 4 per cent in 2018-19. Can the minister confirm why ring-fencing has increased by over four times in recent years and that it reduces the ability of councils to deliver services based on local needs? While ring-fencing funding is for increased investment in services such as our schools, nurseries and local authorities, it also has autonomy to allocate 93 per cent—that is £11.6 billion—of the funding that we provide, plus all locally raised income. However, the Scottish Government recognises that local government has repeatedly called for the removal of ring-fencing in the settlement and a greater focus on trust and partnership working. On that basis, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy, Kate Forbes, has committed to reviewing all ring-fenced funding as part of the forthcoming resource spending and review. We would welcome constructive engagement from local government in that process to ensure that the removal of any ring-fencing goes hand-in-hand with our shared priorities and outcomes, while also ensuring maximum value for money. The Social Justice and Fairness Commission that I had the pleasure of being deputy convener of reported last year and recommended an increased use of participatory budgeting in local government to ensure that local people had a greater say in their local communities, had greater local accountability and felt that their communities reflected their needs. Is that something that the Scottish Government would support and expansion of? The Scottish Government certainly supports participatory budgeting as one mechanism to evolve people in decision making. From a constituency perspective, I have seen the significant success of participatory budgeting in the Leith Tuesdays initiative. Our national participatory budgeting support programme has enabled more than 122,000 voters to have a direct say on the dispersal of more than £6.6 million. We will work with the national participatory budgeting strategic group that has produced the framework for the future of participatory budgeting in Scotland, with a particular focus on health and wellbeing, education, housing and climate change, and we will continue to work with them in that regard. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to build 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. Scotland has led the way in the delivery of affordable housing across the UK, and I am proud of our record of delivering over 105,000 affordable homes since 2007. We remain committed to our target of delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. To support that aim, our draft budget increase of £174 million for affordable housing brings investment in 2022-23 to £831 million and total investment across this Parliament to £3.6 billion, meaning that we can continue the important work that started in 2007 of ensuring that everyone in Scotland has a warm, safe and affordable place to live. Sue Weber. I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Affordable housing is particularly important in Edinburgh, where the average house price has now surpassed £300,000 for the first time. But affordable housing statistics published last week show that only 822 affordable homes were completed in Edinburgh in 2020-21, a drop of over 35 per cent on the previous year. Homes for Scotland have warned of flaws in the City of Edinburgh's city plan 2030 and say that it will not be able to meet the housing demand in the coming years. Can I therefore ask the cabinet secretary whether the Government will step up investment in affordable housing and can she guarantee that councils such as Edinburgh will be able to access the grant funding that they need in order to meet local housing demand? Let me say a couple of things about that. Edinburgh will benefit from investment of £233.8 million towards the delivery of more good-quality affordable homes, an increase of over £32.4 million on the previous five years. The member talked about the progress under over 2020-21. During that time, the affordable housing programme was hit by the pause in non-essential construction during 23 March to 10 June. Clearly, construction then resumed in a safer, slower way in line with social distancing guidelines. However, that will have had an impact on the pace of the delivery of affordable homes, whether it is in Edinburgh or anywhere else. I am sure that the member and most reasonable people listening to this would understand that. However, the progress is picking up again. As I said in my initial answer, we are determined to make the progress on the delivery of affordable homes in Edinburgh and elsewhere. I would make the point that the Government's per capita spending on affordable housing is more than three times higher than the UK Government's, so we will continue to prioritise the delivery of affordable homes, which is in stark contrast to the Government's south of the border. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what work is under way with local partners regarding the 11,000 of those homes that are secured for remote, rural and island communities? With £3.6 billion of funding in place in this Parliament, we are working closely with partners to plan the delivery of affordable homes in rural, remote and island communities. Although our demand-led rural and island housing fund is supporting community groups and others not able to access the main affordable housing supply programme, we have committed to develop a remote, rural and island housing action plan, informed by a wide range of stakeholders, including community representatives, as that will be vital to ensure that it delivers for more remote, rural and island communities. Rent payments are the single biggest cost for many households. Year-on-year rent increases from social landlords squeeze already stretched family budgets. Can I ask what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that affordable housing is truly affordable? I will give my personal welcome back to Ruth Maguire and to the Parliament. We have a clear interest in housing association rent affordability and even more so given the pandemic, which we know has caused hardship for many and has increased living costs. Individual social landlords are legally required to consult their tenants on any rent increases and strike the best balance between rent levels and meeting the housing needs of local communities. The social housing charter requires landlords to take account of what current and prospective tenants are likely to be able to afford and the Scottish housing regulator monitors rent levels and rent affordability. We are considering how to build on the strong work that is already put in place around rent setting in the social rented sector as part of the rented sector strategy currently being consulted upon. Lastly, we have committed to develop a shared understanding of housing affordability, which is fit for the future and takes account of the real costs of housing. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to provide homeless accommodation in rural communities. Providing a suitable home for everyone is at the heart of our housing to 2040 strategy, and we are providing local authorities with investment of £53.5 million over 2018 to 2024 to tackle homelessness and move people as quickly as possible into settled accommodation with the right support. Communities will also be supported by the continuation of the Rural and Island Housing Fund, backed by £30 million of investment in this parliamentary period. We are committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which 70 per cent will be for social rent and 10 per cent will be in remote rural and island communities. Evelyn Tweed. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Many constituents in my constituency cannot access homeless accommodation in rural areas at all and are having to move into the city of Stirling remote from work and family support. How will the Scottish Government support councils to provide homeless accommodation where it is needed? As I said, more than £53.3 million of resource planning assumptions has been allocated for Stirling councils affordable housing supply programme for five years up to 2025-26, and we are providing up to £30 million this Parliament for the Demand-led Rural and Island Housing Fund. As I said earlier, we are developing an action plan for remote rural and island housing, and Stirling council has received more than £430,000 to develop and implement its rapid rehousing transition plan between 2019-20 and 2021-22, and we will receive an allocation of £132,000 for 2022-23. The funding helps to prevent homelessness and provide settled accommodation to homeless households. Last year, there were over 27,000 households assessed as being homeless in Scotland, while 47,000 homes, valued at £8 billion, lay empty, including in rural areas. Compulsory purchase powers are no use to councils without fair funding by welcoming the Scottish Government's housing to 2040 proposal to establish a new fund for local authorities to bring empty homes back into residential use. Can the minister confirm by what date the fund will be ready to receive applications from councils and how much the fund will make available in its first year of operation? We are determined to bring as many empty homes back into operation as possible. Of course, the empty homes officers who have been working in local authorities to identify empty homes have been doing a really good job. I am happy to keep the member informed once they are in a position to announce the beginning of the empty homes fund and the timeframe that it will be working to and the amount of money that will be in it. I will keep the member updated. I have two more questions on the business bulletin. I would be keen to take both. I would appreciate succinct questions and answers. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on whether all homes are on track to comply with the new fire safety regulations by February. The regulations were introduced to protect lives and property and to bring owner-occupied and social rent properties into line with the private rented sector and new-build homes. We would encourage everyone to install them. As the regulations are not yet enforced, information will be collected in the next Scottish house conditions survey. As we have constantly said, the legislation says that work should then be done within a reasonable period, which takes into account individual circumstances and no home owner will be penalised if they are unable to do the work. I thank the minister for her answer, but I think that it is pretty shocking, given that the regulations were delayed by a year because of a lack of publicity about the regulations and the pandemic. If the minister cannot tell me how many homes are now compliant, could she at least tell us how many people have received financial support from the fund that was allocated, given the cost of installing fire alarms and the fact that the Scottish Government underestimated the cost of installation to meet the regulations in people's homes? I will go on in my statement that I will come on to shortly to outline the publicity that has gone on around the issue and the awareness that is out there. I will go into some detail around that in my statement. In terms of the support to people, we have put out £1.5 million to the care and repair and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to support those who might have struggled or home owners who might have struggled to put those appliances in place. I think that, from the most recent figures, around 2,000 people have been supported in one way or another through the care and repair service, but I will go into more details of that when I come to my statement. To ask the Scottish Government how many families in the Cercodi constituency have received a new Scottish child payment. We do not publish statistics on Scottish child payment by constituency, however we have data at local authority level that shows that just over 8,700 applications from clients in Fife had been approved for Scottish child payment between the opening for applications in November 2020 and September 2021. Those figures are based on the most recently available official statistics that cover the period up to the end of September 2021 and are published quarterly. Doubling the payment to £20 from April 2022 underlines our commitment to deliver it on the national mission to tackle child poverty. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The Scottish child payment has made a huge impact already on doubling of payments so that the Scottish Government is committed to using the limited powers that it has to tackle child poverty. As we look ahead into 2022, can the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government will provide further financial support to people with a roll-out of new devolved benefits? I can tell the member that we are committing over £3.9 billion for benefit expenditure in 2022-23, providing to support to more than 1 million people in Scotland by March of next year. That includes doubling and extending the Scottish child payment, which was forecast to benefit 334,000 children by the end of 2022, and our new low-income winter heating assistance, which will guarantee a £50 payment to around 400,000 low-income households from next winter. Replacing the UK Government's personal independence payment with a new adult disability payment from next summer, benefiting around 20,000 people in 2022-23, rising to over 400,000 in 2024-25. That concludes the portfolio questions. Before we move on to the next item of business, I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face covering should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.


So here we have one more interview question, so in this video we will be talking about how comparator can be used in Java 8, so there can be questions like sought, the given list of employees based on first name or last name or any other field, but we are making use of comparator, so we will see how can we do that or how the code got reduced So I have one class here, I have already created the employee list, I have six employees, as you can see we have Arun, Dinesh, Chaitanya, Lakshman, Bhargav, Raghed, Arun, Paan, I have created, so let me sort this list based on the name, there is field called name, so I will be sorting that using the name, so here in our course we can see, so this need to have the list, employee list based on what we want to obtain, using method reference, name, that's it, so this will sort based on the first name, to display it, let us have few search, how can we print the list easily, by using for each method So we can have, just I want to print the city as well as the employee, this is my first sort and let me print after the sort, so just I want to copy this list, as sorting logic is already in my list, so save this and I will run this, what is the issue, result compilation Ok, this is sort, six types of column is there, now let us run, so this is the list, firstly if you see the order, before sorting it is not sorted, if you see, however, how we have added the names, Arun, Dinesh, Chaitanya, the same way it got sorted, now see it got sorted with the first name, the card for medical noise I have added to demonstrate it, A, B, C, D, L, so this is how, just write one line of column, now here actually amount of millions of amount of data which is there in the list can be sorted using method reference, now if you want to sort this into the reverse order, that is easy, how, firstly we already have this, just have compare to dot, reverse, see now I will just copy paste this, copy this, turn as reverse, so how, just where you are comparing using first name, just have reverse, save this, this should run now, you can play after reverse sorting, you see your Lakshman was the last guy, your Lakshman is the first guy, Dinesh was last second, he was second, Chaitanya, Chaitanya, Bhargav, Bhargav then Arun, you delay, ok, so this was about sorting and reverse sorting, so now let us discuss about one more thing, like we based on multiple files, we can sort, how we can sort that, now I will demonstrate, firstly we need a comparator of, this is called compile, how we are going to create that, similarly comparator dot, firstly I want to sort based on the first name, so I will sort it based on the first name, dot, then again I want to compare, let me bring this down, so again based on what I want to sort, want to sort, suppose based on city, so here I just, we have one comparator, this is similar to compile function, so let me simply have one, see sort, to differentiate the line, then I will sort, similarly how we have sorted earlier, using same thing we can sort, just have this comparator name here, so see now the magic happens, ok let me print this, now we have print by sorting, so now let us see one, see if we observe this output, so firstly it got sorted based on the name, then it got sorted based on the city, so here we are not able to clearly, what is the difference really, so what I will do, I will change the sorting order, firstly I will change it to city, then I will, here I will make it with name, so that the difference will be clear now, yes see, now first it sorted based on city, so this is how we can do, so this is one of the top interview questions from Java 8, I hope this might be helpful to someone, so it is just logic here is comparator not comparing the method, so we can make use of it and we can sort the things, earlier we used to have a difference comparator class, there we need to, we used to write the comparator method, so now we do not need that, we can directly, this just show lines of code, we can sort the whole amount of data, so that is it with this video, I hope you people like this video and if you haven't subscribed us, you can subscribe us, thank you for watching.