See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237299756

A design method for soft subsoil improvement

with prefabricated vertical drain

Article · January 2000

CITATIONS READS

6 96

2 authors, including:

Jinchun Chai
Saga University
147 PUBLICATIONS 2,024 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Ariake Sea Research Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinchun Chai on 01 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A design method for soft subsoil improvement with prefabricated vertical drain
J. C. Chai & N. Miura
Saga University, 1 Honjo, Saga, Japan

ABSTRACT: A method for designing the soft subsoil improvement using prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) is presented.
It mainly consists of two parts: (1) the way of determining the design parameters and (2) the method of determining the
spacing and suitable improvement depth. Methods proposed by Chai and Miura (1999) for determining the design
parameters are recommended and discussed. Normally, the natural soft deposit is layered and there is no hand-calculable
close-form solution for determining the spacing and suitable installation depth of PVD improvement. A multi-layer
one-dimensional (1D) finite element program has been developed to aid the design. The application of the proposed design
method to two case histories is presented.

1 INTRODUCTION Chai and Miura (1999). Followings are the brief summary
of the methods.
Installing the prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) into soft
subsoil combined with preloading provides an efficient
2 .1 Horizontal coefficient of consolidation of subsoil
and economic way of improving the soft subsoil. It has
been used for highway, airport and port construction on At present, there is no satisfactory laboratory test method
soft clay deposit. For designing a PVD improvement, the to determine the field coefficient of consolidation in
first thing is to determine the values of parameters horizontal direction of subsoil (C h ). Normally, laboratory
affecting the behavior of PVD. The next thing is to decide test under-estimates the field C h value. Back-analysis from
the spacing between PVDs and improvement depth. The field measurements or field test has been recommended for
parameters affecting the behavior of PVD include (1) evaluating the design C h value. Some reported ratios of
coefficient of consolidation in horizontal direction of field coefficient of consolidation in vertical direction (C v ) f
subsoil, (2) discharge capacity of PVD and (3) smear zone over the laboratory values (C v ) l are listed in Table 1.
parameters (diameter, d s , and horizontal hydraulic
conductivity ratio, k h /k s ). There are still uncertainties on
determining these parameters, which make a precise Table 1. Ratio of field over laboratory coefficient of
design difficult. Chai and Miura (1999) discussed the consolidation
effect of these parameters on the behavior of PVD Site (C v ) f /(C v )l Reference
improved subsoil and the methods for determining the Oxford (1) 4-57 Lewis et al. (1975)
parameters have been proposed. The methods are briefly Oxford (2) 3-36 Lewis et al. (1975)
described and discussed. Donnington 4-7 Lewis et al. (1975)
Determining the spacing and suitable installation Avonmouth 6-47 Lewis et al. (1975)
depth of PVD improvement, unit cell (a single PVD Tickton 7-47 Lewis et al. (1975)
surrounded by a soil cylinder) solutions by Barron (1948) Over Causeway 3-12 Lewis et al. (1975)
or Hansbo (1981) are widely used. The solutions assumed Melbourne 200 Walker and Morgan
a uniform subsoil condition. However, most natural clay (1977)
deposit is not uniform, and normally has a crust at surface Penang 70 Adachi and Todo (1979)
and sometimes sandwiches thin sand layers. For
multi-layer subsoil condition, there is no hand-calculable
solution available. Using the uniform subsoil assumption 2 .2 Discharge Capacity of PVD
does not represent the actual case. An easy-to-use design The most reported data on discharge capacity of PVD were
tool considering multi-layer subsoil condition design tool from the test of confining PVD by rubber membrane.
is desirable. A multi-layer one-dimensional (1D) finite However, in field, the PVD is confined by clay. Based on
element program for PVD improved subsoil (PVD-CON) the laboratory test results of 4 types commercially used
is developed. The features of the program as well as the PVDs, Chai and Miura (1999) and Miura and Chai (2000)
theoretical background are described. Application of the found that confined in-clay discharge capacity (Q C ) was
proposed design method is demonstrated by analyzing two lower than corresponding confined in-rubber membrane
case histories of embankment on PVD improved subsoil, value (Q R ), and Q C reduced significantly with elapsed time.
one in Saga, Japan and one in Zhejiang, China. The main reasons for the reduction are (a) clogging caused
by soil particles entered the drainage channel and some
bio-films formed during the test, and (b) the creep
2 DETERMINING THE DESIGN PARAMETERS deformation of the filter of PVD. It is recommended to use
the long-term confined in-clay value (Q C ) for design.
Based on laboratory test data and back-calculated results Considering the long-term confined in-clay test is not a
from field measurements, the methods for determining the routine test, an empirical equation has been proposed to
design parameters of PVD improvement are suggested by estimate the long-term Q C value from Q R value (Miura and
Chai, 2000).
i
QC = QR (1)
0.01t / t o + i
where i is hydraulic gradient within PVD, t is elapsed time,
and t o is a time constant of 1 day to make the unit balance.
It is suggested to use i=0.1 in Eq. (1) for determining the
design Q C value. Also, in the case that there are no test
data (Q R ) available, as a rough estimation, a design
discharge capacity of 100 m3 /year is recommended.
2.3 Smear Effect
Installing PVDs into the ground creates a completely
disturbed zone around PVDs, which is called smear zone.
The hydraulic conductivity in the smear zone will be
reduced significantly. Two parameters are needed to
characterize the smear effect, namely, the diameter of
smear zone (d s ) and horizontal hydraulic conductivity ratio
(k h /k s ), i.e. the value in undisturbed zone (k h ) over that in
smear zone (k s ). It has been proposed that, d s can be
estimated as follows (Chai and Miura, 1999).
ds = 3⋅ dm (2)
where d m is the equivalent diameter of the cross-sectional
area of mandrel for installing PVD. Considering the factor
that the laboratory test may properly estimate the k s value
but under-estimate field k h value, field (k h /k s ) f value can be
calculated as (Chai and Miura, 1999):
deposit improved by PVDs. The program is developed
under Windows environment and has well-designed pre-
and post- analysis processes. The program can consider
followings.
(1) Multi-layer improved subsoil.
(2) The effects of both vertical hydraulic
conductivity of natural subsoil and horizontal drainage of
PVDs.
(3) Both full and partial penetration condition of
PVDs.
(4) Effect of surface vacuum pressure.
(5) Either one-way or two-way drainage.
The program has following main options.
(1) Find spacing (S) for a given time and required
average degree of consolidation.
(2) Find time (t) for reaching a required average
degree of consolidation for fixed spacing.
(3) Check the effect of penetration depth by repeated
analyses.
(4) For given (or designed) condition calculate: (a)
settlement variation with time at different depth, and (b)
undrained shear strength profile and its variation.
3 .2 Theoretical background
Hansbo’s unit cell solution (Hansbo, 1981) is used to
model the consolidation due to PVD. In finite element
formulation, the effect of PVDs is considered by
modifying 1D continuity equation of consolidation as
follows.
kv ∂ 2u 8k h u ∂ε
− + v =0 (4)
γ w ∂z 2
γ w D μ ∂t
2

kh k kh 2l 2 k h
( ) f = C f ⋅ ( h )l (3) μ = ln +
n 3
ln s − + π (5)
ks ks s ks 4 3q w
where (k h /k s ) l is the ratio determined by laboratory test, where: γ w is the unit weight of water, z is depth, t is time,
and C f is the ratio of field horizontal hydraulic ε v is volumetric strain, u is excess pore pressure, k v is
conductivity over corresponding laboratory value. The C f hydraulic conductivities in vertical directions, l is drainage
values for few natural clay deposits are given in Table 2. length, D is the diameter of unit cell, q w is discharge
capacity of PVD, n=D/d w (d w is the equivalent diameter of
Table 2. C f values for few clay deposits PVD), and s=d s /d w . k h , k s and d s are defined previously.
Site C f Method for Reference Two ways have been incorporated in the program for
evaluating (k)f calculating the undrained shear strength (S u ) of subsoil.
Bangkok clay at 25 Back-analysis Chai et al. One is using Modified Cam clay theory (Roscoe and
AIT campus (1995) Burland, 1968), in which S u can be expressed as:
Bangkok clay at 4 Back-analysis Chai et al.
Nong Ngu Hao (1996)
p' M 2 +η2 Λ
Malaysia Muar 2 Back-analysis Chai and Su = M( ) (6)
clay deposit Bergado (1993) 21+ Λ M2
Ariake clay 4 Back-analysis Chai and Miura
(Japan) (1999) where p’ is mean effective stress, M is the slope of critical
Louiseville 1 Self-boring Tavenas et al. state line in p’-q plot (q is deviator stress), η =q/p’, and
(Canada) permeameter (1986) Λ =1- κ/ λ ( κ and λ are slopes of unloading-reloading and
St-Alban 3 Self-boring Tavenas et al. virgin loading curves in void ratio, e, versus ln(p’) plot).
(Canada) permeameter (1986) In the program, κ is fixed as λ/10.
Soft mucky clay 6 Back-analysis Shen et al. Another way is to use an empirical equation (Ladd,
(eastern China) (2000) 1991), which relates the S u with effective vertical stress
σ’ v and overconsolidation ratio (OCR).
3 A 1D FEM PROGRAM
S u = S ⋅ σ ' v ⋅(OCR ) m (7)
3.1 Features of the program

A 1D finite element program named PVD-CON has been where S and m are constants. In the program, m is fixed as
developed for calculating the consolidation of soft clay 1.0.
 T.P 71.0 (U nit:m)
2.0 2.0
5.0 21.0 25.0 21.0
Sand M at
1 :7 .0

3.0
Em bankm ent
(t=0.5)
± 0.0 Top crust
A riake clay (A c1)
-5.0 A s1

-10.0

PV D
-15.0
A riake clay (A c2)
Piezom eter
-20.0
A s2 Inclinom eter casing
A riake clay (A c3)
-25.0
Length of PV D :L=25.5m
D ense sand £ Sub-surface settlem ent system
-30.0

Fig. 1 Cross section of test embankment in Saga airport

Table 3 Soil parameters for Saga Airport test embankment

Soil Layer Thickness Ch Cv γt Cc eo M OCR
(m) (m 2 /day) (m 2 /day) (kN/m 3 )
1(clay) 1.0 0.1 0.067 15.0 0.58 2.0 1.3 5
2(clay) 3.0 0.08 0.053 14.5 1.0 2.0 1.2 2
3(sand) 1.5 54 54.0 15.5 0.1 1.8 1.5 1.2
4(clay) 5.0 0.045 0.03 14.5 2.0 2.5 1.2 1.2
5(clay) 5.0 0.065 0.043 14.5 2.0 2.5 1.2 1.2
6(clay) 5.5 0.087 0.058 14.5 2.0 2.5 1.2 1.2
7(sand) 2.5 178 178.0 16.0 0.1 1.7 1.5 1.2
8(clay) 1.5 0.26 0.173 16.0 0.7 1.75 1.3 1.2

4 ANALYZING TWO CASE HISTORIES Table 4 Parameters related to PVD improvement

Item Symbol Unit Values
4 .1 Test Embankment in Saga Airport (Case 1) Case 1 Case 2
Saga Airport is located 13 km south of Saga city on a Drain diameter dw mm 48.3 53.0
reclamation land close to Ariake Sea. The deposit mainly Unit cell diameter De m 1.7 1.58
D e /d w n - 35.2 29.7
consists of soft and highly compressible Ariake clay. For
Smear zone ds mm 300 355
verifying the effect of vertical drain improvement, 3 test
diameter
embankments were constructed on natural, PVD improved d s /d w S - 6.2 6.7
and sand drain (SD) improved subsoil (Bergado et al., Hydraulic k h /k s - 10 15
1996). At the test site, the soft layer is about 25 m deep conductivity ratio
consisting of 3 clay layers (Ac1, Ac2, and Ac3) and 2 thin Discharge capacity qw m3 /yr 85 100
sand layers (As1 and As2) underlying a thick dense sand
layer. The embankments had the same geometry with a fill
thickness of 3.5 m, base width of 71 m by 71 m, and top The calculated surface settlements on embankment
width of 25 m by 25 m. The PVDs were installed to centerline with different PVD penetration depth are
around 25 m deep with an improved area of 45 m by 45 m. compared in Fig. 2. The measured data are included in the
figure also. It can be seen that reducing the PVD length
PVDs were installed in a square pattern with a spacing
from 25 m to 21 m (just penetrate through the second clay
S=1.5 m. Fig. 1 shows the geometry of the embankments
layer, Ac2) not influences the consolidation rate much.
and main instrumentation points. However, if reducing the PVD length to 15.5 m, it reduces
The soil parameters needed for performing the consolidation rate of the deposit considerably.
PVD-CON analysis are listed in Table 3 and the drain The further calculations were conducted on finding
properties are given in Table 4. These parameters are the spacing and time for given condition. At 1 year after
same as those reported by Chai and Miura (1999) for plane starting construction, the corresponding spacings for
strain finite element analysis. The coefficient of average degree of consolidation of 90%, 95% and 99% are
consolidation was calculated from the values of hydraulic 2.0 m, 1.6 m, and 1.22 m, respectively. With actual
conductivity, stress state and corresponding deformation designed condition (S=1.5 m), the calculation showed that
parameters. Other necessary data are the groundwater the average degree of consolidation at the end of
level of 1.0 m below ground surface and the embankment construction was about 80%. The time for reaching 90%
construction time of about 200 days. Surcharge load was degree of consolidation was about 265 days and 340 days
70 kPa (3.5 m fill thickness). for 95% degree of consolidation.
 Fill height (m) 0
3
Field
Analysis

Depth (m)
End of construction
10
1 Initial
0
PVD length 25 m (actual) 20
PVD length 21 m
Settlement (m)

PVD length 15.5 m

1 Measured
0 20 40 60 80
Undrained shear strength (kPa)
2
Fig. 3 Undrained shear strength variation (case 1)

3 4.2 Test embankment at Hongzhou-Ningbo expressway

0 200 400 600
Elapsed time (days)
Fig. 2 Comparing the surface settlement (case 1)
For actual designed case, the predicted undrained
shear strength variation of subsoil is given in Fig. 3, which
can be used for checking the stability of the embankment
and in return to adjust the construction speed of the
embankment.
These calculations demonstrated that with the aid of
PVD-CON program, an efficient and economical design of
PVD improvement could be easily achieved.
(case 2)
Hongzhou-Ningbo expressway passed the eastern coastal
region of China, where soft clay (mucky clay in China) is
widely deposited. To find an efficient subsoil improvement
method, serious test embankments were constructed with a
total length of 3.15 km. One of the test embankments was
constructed on PVD improved subsoil. At the test site, the
thickness of soft layer is about 23 m. The soil profile
consists a thin top crust underlying soft to very soft clay
layers. Below the soft layers, there is a thin clay sand
layer followed by bedrock. The embankment cross-section
together with subsoil profile is shown in Fig. 4. The soil
parameters for PVD-CON analysis are listed in Table 5
(Shen et al., 2000).

10
26m Surface settlement
.5 gauges
1:1 Embankment
H

0
TC Sand mat t=0.5m
SC1 PVD Drain Inclinometers
-10 MC Piezometers
Sub-surface
MSC settlement gauges
-20 SC2
CS
Cross section
PVD spacing
TC:top crust,SC:silty clay
1.5m

PVD MSC:mucky silty clay

MC:mucky clay
1.5m

Fig. 4 Embankment cross-section of Case 2

Table 5 Soil parameters for test embankment at Hongzhou-Ningbo expressway, China

Soil Layer Thickness C h Cv γt Cc eo M OCR
(m) (m 2 /day) (m 2 /day) (kN/m 3 )
1(clay) 1.2 0.079 0.079 19.3 0.19 0.81 1.0 5
2(silty clay) 3.6 0.028 0.011 18.5 0.37 1.07 1.0 1.5
3(mucky clay) 4.5 0.14 0.093 14.3 0.69 1.36 0.8 1.0
4(mucky clay) 5.0 0.227 0.152 14.3 0.64 1.36 0.8 1.0
5(soft silty clay) 4.0 0.324 0.169 17.9 0.42 1.1 0.8 1.0
6(silty clay) 4.7 0.132 0.061 19.3 0.23 0.81 1.0 1.0
 Parameters related to PVD behavior are given in
Table 4 also. The groundwater level is about 1.5 m below
ground surface. The total construction time was about 260
days. The surcharge load was 117 kPa (5.88 m fill
thickness).
The calculated surface settlements on embankment
centerline are compared with measured data in Fig. 5. The
1D analysis predicted the surface settlement reasonably
well. The analysis results by assuming PVD length of 10
m and 14.3 m are also indicated in Fig. 5. For the subsoil
condition considered, it seems that using an improved
depth of 14.3 m (penetrate the soft mucky clay layer only)
is an economic option. The analyses were also conducted
to find spacing and time for given condition. At 1 year
after starting the construction, the spacings for resulting in
average degree of consolidations of 90%, 95%, and 99%
are 2.0 m, 1.58 m, and 1.29 m respectively. Under actual
designed condition (S=1.5 m), the average degree of
consolidation at the end of construction was about 83%.
The time for 90% average degree of consolidation was 290
days and 338 days for 95% degree of consolidation.
The calculated undrained shear strength distributions
corresponding to initial and at the end of construction
conditions, respectively, are plotted in Fig. 6. Within the
very soft mucky clay layer (around 5 to 15 m depth), the
undrained shear strength increase is more than 50% during
the construction period.
6
Height (m)
4 of soft clay in Penang. Proc. 6 th Asian Regional Conf.
Analyzed
Measured
2
0 Bergado, D.T., Anderson, L.R., Miura, N., and
Measured
0.5 PVD length 18.3 m (actual)
Settlement (cm)
PVD length 14.3 m
1 PVD length 10.0 m
1.5
2 Behavior of vertical drain improved subsoil under
2.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Elapsed time (day)
Fig. 5 Comparing the surface settlement (Case 2)
0 Hansbo, S. 1981. Consolidation of fine-grained soils by
End of construction
Depth (m)
10
Initial
20
0 20 40 60
Undrained shear strength (kPa)
Fig. 6 Predicted undrained shear strength (Case 2)
Above two cases demonstrated that PVD-CON is a
useful and powerful design tool for soft subsoil
improvement with PVDs. The figures of settlement curves
and undrained shear strength distributions can be
automatically plotted by PVD-CON. Good agreement
between calculated and measured data shows that the
recommended methods for determining the design
parameters are adequate.
5 CONCLUSIONS
(1) Based on the laboratory and field evidences, the
methods for determining the design parameters of soft
subsoil improvement with prefabricated vertical drain
(PVD) are recommended and discussed.
(2) The theoretical background and the features of a 1D
finite element program (PVD-CON) for consolidation
analysis of PVD improved subsoil are described. The
program can consider the multi-layer subsoil
condition and it has well defined pre- and post-
analysis processes.
(3) Two case histories of embankment on PVD improved
subsoil were analyzed by the procedures described in
this paper. It has been demonstrated that the proposed
method is a powerful tool for designing soft subsoil
improvement with PVD.
6 REFERENCES
Adachi, K. and Todo, H. 1979. A case study on settlement
On Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg, 1: 117-120.
Barron, R. A. 1948. Consolidation of fine-grained soils by
drain wells. Trans. ASCE, No. 113:. 718- 742.
Balasubramaniam, A.S. 1996. Soft ground improvement,
in lowland and other environments. ASCE Press, New
York, p. 427.
Chai, J. C. and Bergado, D. T. 1993. Performance of
reinforced embankment on Muar clay deposit. Soils and
Foundations, 33(4): 1-17.
Chai, J.C., Miura, N., Sakajo, S., and Bergado, D. T. 1995.
embankment loading. Soils and Foundations, 35(4):
49-61.
Chai, J.C., Bergado, D.T., Miura, N., and Sakajo, S. 1996.
Back calculated field effect of vertical drain. Proc.
Second Int. Conf. Soft Soil Engrg., Nanjing, China, 1:
270-275.
Chai, J. C. and Miura, N. 1999. Investigation of factors
affecting vertical drain behavior. J. of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, 125(3): 216-226.
prefabricated drains. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
and Found. Engrg., Stockholm, 3: 677-682.
Ladd, C. C. 1991. Stability evaluation during staged
construction. J. of Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(4):
541-615.
Lewis, W. A., Murray, R. T. and Symons, I. F. 1975.
Settlement and stability of embankments constructed on
soft alluvial soils. Proc. the Institute of Civil Engineers,
59: 571-593.
Miura, N. and Chai, J. C. 2000. Discharge capacity of
prefabricated vertical drain confined in-clay.
80 Geosynthetics International, International,
Geosynthetics Society, 7(3).
Roscoe, K. H. and Burland, J. B. 1968. On the generalized
stress-strain behavior of wet clays. Proc. of Engrg.
Plasticity, Cambridge Univ. Press, 535-609.
 Shen, S. L. Yang, C. W., Miura, N. and Chai, J. C. 2000.
Field performance of PVD improved soft clay under
embankment. Proc. of Inter. Symp. on Coastal Geotech.
Engrg. in Practice, IS-Yokohama 2000.
Tavenas, F., Tremblay, M., Larouche, G., and Leroueil, S.
1986. In situ measurement of permeability in soft clays.
View publication stats
ASCE Special Conf. on Use of in Situ Tests in Geotech.
Engrg., Blacksburg, 1034-1048.
Walker, L. K. and Morgan, J. R. 1977. Field performance
of a firm silty clay. 9 th Inter. Conf. on Soil Meh. and
Found. Engrg, Tokyo, 1: 341-346.