2/26/2014

Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, 2014

Hotel Park, Kolkata

Arindam Dey
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Division
IIT Guwahati

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 2

Outline of the Presentation

Introduction and background

PVD related issues

Problem statement for the case study

PLAXIS 2D FE modeling

Salient results and discussions

Closing remarks

Relevant references

Acknowledgments

1
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 4

Background

Rapid increase of population and accompanying demands

Development of infrastructures
 Housing, recreation areas, industrial parks, harbors, airport development

Coastal reclamation and Marshy soils

Construction on compressible soft soils
 Excessive settlement, high compressibility and low bearing strength

Ground improvement

Avoid excessive settlement

Prevent stability and bearing failures

Various ground improvement techniques
 Mechanical, Chemical and/or Hydraulic stabilization
 Inclusion of confining materials such as geosynthetics in the soil

2
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 5

Ground Improvement by Consolidation

Consolidation settlement in soft
clay subsoil

Time-rate of long-term primary
consolidation
 Degree of permeability of the soft layer
 Rate of dissipation of pore-water
pressure
 Distance between the drainage layers

Decrement in consolidation time

Decrease the distance between the
drainage layer
 Installation of vertical drains aided by
surcharge embankment

Geo-strata Brochure (2004)

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 6

Preloading / Precompression

Compression of underlying soil

Application of vertical stress prior to the
placement of permanent construction load

Preload/Surcharge

Earth fill/Sandbags applied in stages

Purpose

Increases bearing capacity of soft deposits

Reduces post-constructional compressibility
/ settlements of weak ground
 Densification of high-permeable deposits
 Consolidation of low-permeable deposits
Hausmann (1990)

3
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 7

Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs)

Artificial drainage paths

Shortening of drainage length
 Initial horizontal flow of water towards the drain
 Vertical flow follows through the drain
 Final drainage into the free-flowing drainage
blanket

Purpose

Accelerating the rate of primary consolidation
settlement

Increase in stability
 Rise of pore-pressure under applied load
 Drains allow for quick dissipation of pore-water
pressure
Hausmann (1990)

4
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 9

PVDs: Getup and Equivalent Diameter

Plastic Core

Getup

Plastic core consisting series of drainage channels
 Allows passage of water

Filter sleeve encasement
 Preventing migration of fine soil particles into the
drain
Filter Sleeve

Equivalent drain diameter Global Synthetics (2010)

To satisfy theories of radial consolidation and
radial drainage
 Hansbo (1979) dw = 2 ( a + b ) / π

 Atkinson and Eldred (1981)

dw = ( a + b) / 2

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 10

PVD: Influence Zone

Arrangement of vertical drains

Rectangular or Triangular grid
 Equivalent diameter (De)

Bergado (1994)

5
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 11

PVD: Smear Effect

Formation of smear zone (Barron, 1948)

Varieties of installation equipments

Mandrel is pushed into the ground statically or
dynamically
 Mandrel protects the drain during installation

Surrounding soil gets displaced and pushed Undisturbed
during installation Zone
 Development of shear strains
 Increase in total stress and pore-pressure

Smear zone

Zone of reduced permeability in the soil
adjacent to drain periphery

Installation in varved soils
 Dragging of more finer impervious layers over
the pervious layers Hansbo (1981), Wood (1982)

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 12

Extent and Pereability of Smear Zone: Summary
Source Extent Permeability Remarks

Barron (1948) rs = 1.6 rm kh / ks = 3 Assumed

Hansbo (1979) rs = 1.5 ~ 2 rm Not mentioned Based on available literature at that time

Hansbo (1981) rs = 1.5 rm kh / ks = 3 Assumed in case study

Bergado et al.,(1991) rs = 2 rm k h / kv = 1 Laboratory investigation and back analyses for

Bangkok Soft clay

Onoue (1991) rs = 1.6 rm kh / ks = 3 From test interpretation

Almeida et al. (1998) rs = 1.5 ~ 3rm kh / k s = 3 ~ 6 Based on experiences

Indraratna et al. (1998) rs = 4 ~ 5 rm k h / k s = 1.15 Laboratory investigation (For Sydney clay)

Chai and Miura (1999) rs = 2 ~ 3rm kh / ks = Cf (kh / ks ) The ratio between lab and field values

Hird et al. (2000) rs = 1.6 rm kh / ks = 3 Recommend for design

Xiao (2000) rs = 4 rm k h / k s = 1.3 Laboratory investigation (For Kaolin clay)

6
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 13

PVD: Well Resistance

Retardation of radial consolidation process

Discharge capacity of the vertical drain (qw) reaches to its maximum

Governing factors

Maximum drain discharge capacity

Radial permeability of the soil (kh)

Discharge length of the drain (lm)

Probable geometric defects on the drain
 Deterioration of drain filter, Siltation and Drain folding during installation

Well resistance factor R = qw / kh lm2

Mesri and Lo (1981), Sathananthan (2005)
 R > 5  Negligible well resistance

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 14

Floating PVDs

Partially penetrating PVDs

Influence zone of loaded areas is significantly less than the thickness of
the soft soil layer
 Vertical stress increase is noted only in the shallower depths
 No necessity of improving the entire soft soil stratum

Typical cases of railway track embankments on soft soils

Penetration depth can be decreased up to 20-30%

7
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 15

PVDs: Radial Consolidation Theories

Consolidation theory in radial co-ordinates (Terzaghi, 1943)
1 ∂u ∂ 2u ∂ 2u ∂u
ch ( + 2 ) + cv ( 2 ) = ( )
r ∂r ∂r ∂z ∂t

cv, ch  Coefficient of vertical and horizontal consolidation

r  Radial distance from the centre of the well

u  Pore-pressure ratio

Solution for pore-pressure ratio and radial consolidation

(Barron, 1948)
 −8Th  cht n2 3n 2 − 1
U r = 1 − exp   , Th = 2 F ( n) = ln( n ) −
 F ( n)  De n2 − 1 4n 2

n Spacing ratio n = De d w

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 16

PVDs: Radial Consolidation Theories

Consideration of smear effect and well resistance in the radial
consolidation theories (Hird, 1981)

For perfect drain condition 3
F ( n) = ln(n) −
4

Considering only smear effect n k  3

F = F (n) + Fs = ln   +  h  ln( s ) −
 s   ks  4

Considering both smear effects and well resistance

n k  3 2 kh s=
re
F = F (n) + Fs + Fr = ln   +  h  ln( s ) − + π z (2lm − z ) rw
 s   ks  4 qw

 F(n)  Drain spacing factor, Fs  Smear effect factor, Fr  Well resistance

factor, kh  Horizontal permeability, ks  Reduced permeability in the smear
zone, lm  length of drainage, z distance to the point of flow

8
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 17

PVDs: Radial Consolidation Theories

Notations used

Cheng et al. (1995)

9
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 19

KUMPP, Nellore, India

The project

Krishnapatnam Ultra Mega Power Project, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh
 Constructed by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.

Construction of three trial embankments
 Ground improvement, band drain installation, soil instruments and preloading

Trial embankment (TA2)

Max. height – 4m

Side slopes – 1V:2H

Base dimension – 50m x 50m

Drain length – 20m

Drain spacing – 2.5m @ Triangular grid

Mandrel – Rectangular (150mm x 40mm)

PVD – 100mm x 4mm Radhakrishnan (2011)

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 20

KUMPP, Nellore, India

Subsoil stratification and
typical borehole profile at
the test-site

Medium dense to dense
silty-sand of thickness 6-7m
 SPT N-value: 10-30

Soft compressible silty-clay
of thickness 14m
 Vane shear tests

Stiff- to very stiff clay as a
competent foundation
material

Radhakrishnan (2011)

10
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 21

KUMPP, Nellore, India

Construction and staged preloading

Layers of 300mm thickness and compacted to desired design
requirement

Radhakrishnan (2011)

11
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 23

Modeling in PLAXIS 2D v2012

General features

FE package
 Provides distribution of stress and deformations in the entire model domain

Automatic unstructured 2D FE mesh generation
 Robust triangulation technique
 Associated feature of local and global mesh refinement

Realistic simulation of staged construction process
 Activation and deactivation of clusters/elements
 Load applications
 In-situ geostatic stress generation

2D FE analysis
 Plane strain – Constant longitudinal stress/strain models
 Axisymmetric – Radial stress/strain analysis

Analysis features PLAXIS 2D Reference
 In-situ, Plastic, Consolidation, Safety, and Dynamic Manual (2012)

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 24

Constitutive Behavior of Soils

Constitutive models used for the case study

Mohr-Coulomb (MC): Elastic-Perfectly plastic model
 Stiffness parameters: E and υ
 Strength parameters: c, φ and ψ

Hardening Soil (HS): Non-viscous Stress-dependent model
 Triaxial loading and unloading stiffness: E50 and Eur (≈3E50)
 Oedometer loading stiffness: Eoed (≈E50)
 Strength parameters: c, φ and ψ

Soft Soil Creep (SSC): Viscous model
 Takes into account compression, swelling and secondary compression indices
 Normalized forms

Cc 2Cr 2Cα
λ* = , κ* = , µ* =
2.3 (1 + e ) 2.3 (1 + e ) 2.3 (1 + e )

12
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 25

Drainage Types

Drained

High permeability material or Low rate of loading

Undrained

Low permeability material or high rate of loading

Undrained (A)
 Effective stiffness and strength parameters
 Correct prediction of pore-pressures
 Incorrect estimation of undrained shear strength (su)

Undrained (B) PLAXIS 2D Reference
 Effective stiffness and undrained strength parameter Manual (2012)

Undrained (C)
 Undrained total stress analysis with all undrained
parameters
 No pore-water prediction

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 26

Modeling of PVDs

Drain elements in PLAXIS

Activated for the consolidation analysis
 Prescribing zero-excess pore-pressure in
all the nodes that belong to drain

Selective activation in a particular
analysis phase
 Account for delayed installation of
vertical drains
Rujikiatkamjorn

Drains in plane-strain condition et al. (2007)

Radial consolidation theories consider
drains as axisymmetric elements

Drains are modeled as plane strain
elements
 Satisfy compatibility with the plane strain
modeling of the embankment

13
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 27

PVD: Axisymmetric-to-Plane Strain Condition

Conversion based on unit-cell concept

Geometrical compatibility approach
 Drain spacing is adjusted while permeability
is maintained constant

Permeability compatibility approach
 Permeability is adjusted while drain spacing
is kept constant

Hybrid compatibility approach
 Plane strain compatibility is achieved for
convenient drain spacing Indraratna et al. (1997)

Indraratna et al. (1997)  k 
kh α + ( β ) hp' + (θ )(2lz − z 2 ) 

Geometrical compatibility approach  k hp 
k hp =
 Estimation of plane strain horizontal   n   kh  2 kh

 ln   +  '  ln( s) − 0.75 + π (2lz − z ) 
permeability (khp)   s  k
 h q w

Considers smear and well resistance

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 28

PVD: Axisymmetric-to-Plane Strain Condition

Hird et al. (1997)

Permeability compatibility approach
 Estimation of plane strain horizontal
permeability (kpl) in relation axisymmetric
horizontal permeability (kax)
k pl 2
=
kax  k  3
3 ln ( n ) +  ax  ln ( s ) − 
  ks  4

Chai et al. (2001) Indraratna et al. (1997)

Estimating equivalent vertical permeability
 Horizontal undisturbed and smear permeabilities

 2.26l 2 kh   De   k h   d s  3  2 2  kh
kve = 1 + k µ = ln   +  − 1 ln   − + π  l 
 µ De2 kv  v  d w   ks   dw  4  3  qw

14
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 29

Modeling of Subsurface

Three different substrata models

Model I:
 All strata are modeled by MC model

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 30

Modeling of Subsurface

Three different substrata models

Model II:
 Clay stratum is modeled as SSC while the remaining strata are modeled by
MC model

15
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 31

Modeling of Subsurface

Three different substrata models

Model III:
 Clay stratum is modeled as HS while the remaining strata are modeled by
MC model

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 32

Modeling Construction Sequence

Construction sequence

In-situ and water pressure generation

Installation of vertical drains

Staged filling

16
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 34

Meshing

Medium meshing for the entire domain

Half-analysis due to symmetric section

17
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 35

Deformed Shape

Deformed shape obtained after a consolidation period of 195
days

Exhibits bending of the vertical drains

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 36

Efficacy of PVDs: No Smear Effect

Settlement profiles

Settlement recorded beneath the centre of the embankment

Rate of settlement without PVD is very slow
 No ready-made drainage paths for escape of pore-water

Time required for ultimate settlement

 With PVD: 1157 days
 Ultimate settlement: 530mm

Settlement achieved by 1157 days

without PVD
 142mm

18
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 37

Efficacy of PVDs: No Smear Effect

Excess pore-pressure profiles

Pore-pressure recorded at 5m from centre
and 15m from ground surface

Without PVD
 Maximum pore-pressure reached at the end of
preloading period: 67kPa
 Rate of dissipation of excess pore-pressure is
extremely low

Excess pore-pressure at the end of 186 days:
65kPa

With PVD
 Maximum pore-pressure reached at the end of
preloading period: 30kPa

Ensure proper functioning of PVDs

Excess pore-pressure at the end of 186 days:
5kPa

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 38

Efficacy of PVDs: No Smear Effect

Comparative excess pore-pressure profiles

Without PVD, After Preloading Without PVD, After Consolidation

Pore-pressure: ~60-100 kPa Pore-pressure: ~48-72 kPa

With PVD, After Preloading With PVD, After Consolidation

Pore-pressure: ~ 60-70 kPa Pore-pressure: ~32-66 kPa

19
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 39

Smear Effect of PVDs

Settlement profiles

Low smear zone permeability and lower kh/ks ratio

kh/ks ratio 1-3: No significant effect on the settlement profile

Field settlement hints to kh/ks ratio in the range of 3-4

Ultimate settlement gets drastically affected beyond kh/ks ratio of 4

Field settlement

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 40

Smear Effect of PVDs

Pore-pressure profiles

Large variation between field measurements and A A

numerical results (at the point of 5,15)

 Large variation of pore-pressure between drains
 The point is marked on the ground surface

Records of tilting of many pore-pressure transducers
 Possibility of different measuring point within the
substrata

Estimated
pore-pr

Field pore-pr

20
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 41

Effect of PVD Spacing

Spacing models

I: Uniform spacing 1m c/c

II: Uniform spacing 2.5m c/c

III: 2.5m c/c at centre and 4m c/c at periphery
 Higher dissipation due to closer spacing of
drains results in more settlement
 Lower pore-pressure generated at the periphery
of embankment

Lower peripheral drain spacing does not affect
the response

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 42

Effect of Constitutive Models

Soil constitutive models to
represent clay stratum

MC, HS and SSC

SSC model should have
provided the best
representation and estimate
 Anomaly: Result similar to
the HS model
 Reasons for this anomaly

Inadequate field data
available

Assumed empirical material
parameter relationships and
estimates

21
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 43

Effect of Floating PVDs

Main concept

Thick soft stratum with respect to the
influence zone of load

Degree of consolidation should not
be significantly different than a fully
penetrating drain
 Till L/H = 0.7-0.8

May result in significant loss of shear
strength beyond the drains if the clay
layer is not thick enough

22
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 45

Salient Conclusions

FE simulations
 Some agreeable and some arguable match with the field measurements

Efficacy of PVDs
 Ultimate settlement in shorter span of time
 Accelerated pore-pressure dissipation

Smear phenomenon
 Significantly affects the settlement and pore-pressure dissipation for kh/ks > 4

Spacing of PVDs
 Spacing can be reduced at periphery without significantly affecting the
settlement and pore-pressure response at the centre

Choice of soil constitutive model
 Proper representation depends on the accuracy of the estimation of model
parameters from field estimates

Floating PVDs
 Reduction in length (~15-20%) can be cost effective for thicker soft stratum

23
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 47

Atkinson, M. S., and Eldred, P. J. L. (1981). Consolidation of soil using vertical drains. Geotechnique, 31(1), 33-43.

Barron A. (1948).Consolidation of fine grained soils by drain wells. American Society of Civil Engineers, 113, 718-728

Bergado, D. T. (1994). Improving Techniques of Soft Ground in Subsiding and Lowland Environment. Taylor and
Francis Group.

Chai, J. C., Shen, S. L., Miura, N., and Bergado, D. T. (2001). Simple method of modeling PVD-improved
subsoil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(11), 965-972.

Hansbo S. (1981).Consolidation of fine-grained soils by prefabricated vertical drains. Proceedings of the 10th
International conference on Soil Mechanics, Stockholm, 3, 677-682.

Hansbo, S. (1979). Consolidation of clay by band shaped prefabricated drains. Ground Engineering, 12(5), 21-25.

Hausmann, M. R. (1990). Engineering principles of ground modification. McGraw-Hill., McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company.

Hird, C. C., Pyrah, I. C., Russell, D., and Cinicioglu, F. (1995). Modelling the effect of vertical drains in two-dimensional
finite element analyses of embankments on soft ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32(5), 795-807.

Indraratna, B., and Redana, I. W. (1997). Plane-strain modeling of smear effects associated with vertical drains. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(5), 474-478.

Mesri, G., and Lo, D. O. K. (1991). Field performance of prefabricated vertical drains. Proceedings of GEO-COAST ‘91,
Yokohama, 231-236.

Plaxis (2012) Plaxis Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses: Reference Manual 2D-Version 12. Delft, The
Netherlands.

Radhakrishnan R., (2011).Performance of Prefabricated Vertical Drains and Pre-loading for a Major Construction Project.
Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conforence, kochi December 15-17, 2011.

Sathananthan, I. (2005). Modelling of vertical drains with smear installed in soft clay., University of Wollongong,
Australia.

Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley and sons, New York.

Wood I.R (1982).Vertical Drains. Thomas Telford LTD.

24
 2/26/2014

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 49

Mr. R. Radhakrishnan

Managing Director, Bharat Geosystems

Mr. Giridhar Rajesh Bande

Former Masters Student (2011-2013)

M. Tech. Thesis
 Embankments resting on PVD incorporated soft soils: Modeling issues,
analysis and interpretation (2013) Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Guwahati

PLAXIS

2/26/2014 Indian PLAXIS Users Meeting, Kolkata, 2014 50

Thank You for Patient Hearing

25
2/26/2014

26