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

net/publication/306467669

Ground Improvement by Preloading and Vertical Drain

Chapter · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 7,489

2 authors, including:

Nurly Gofar
Universitas Bina Darma
49 PUBLICATIONS   222 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Intelligent prediction for evaluation of single pile bearing cpaacity using Pile Dricving Analyzer (PDA) datas View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nurly Gofar on 25 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHAPTER 3
 

GROUND IMPROVEMENT BY
PRELOADING AND VERTICAL DRAIN
 
Nurly Gofar
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Rosdi Mohamed
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
 
 
3.1 Introduction

In Malaysia, soft soil deposits are widespread all over the country
and mostly found in the coastal area. In general, soft soil posses
low strength and high compressibility and thus having low bearing
capacity. The soil needs to be improved to avoid excessive
settlement and prevent stability failure that affecting the safety of
the infrastructure.
Preloading is one of the most effective and economical
methods to reduce settlement and improve the bearing capacity of
the soft soil. The application of preloading does help in applying
stress to the existing soil, thus increasing the pore water pressure.
Consolidation happens when the water in soil is squeezed out from
the soil matrix. With the elimination of water from the soil, the soil
strength is increased. However, this method does not have the
advantages of speeding up the process of pore water pressure
dissipation hence settlement might takes years to complete.
The preloading method is usually combined with vertical drain.
The use of prefabricated vertical drain in a soft soil layer can
shorten the treatment time of ground by increasing the rate of

53 
 
54 
 

consolidation. The consolidation time depends on the travelling

distance of the water to flow out from the soil matrix. The
installation of vertical drain shortens the drainage path by allowing
the water to flow horizontally towards the drain, and drain out to
the soil surface through the vertical drain.
Generally, the installation of vertical drain is carried out in an
extensive area. The behavior of vertical drain can be expressed as
axisymmetric unit cell. There are studies carried out by researchers
on vertical drain using linear model, e.g. embankment on soft
Bangkok clay (Bergado 1993). Besides, analytical methods are
also used by designers assuming that consolidation happens in
uniform soil column with linear compressibility characteristics
without any lateral movement.

3.2 Basic Concept

 
The benefits of using preloading and vertical drain as ground
improvement are shown in figure 3.2. Consolidation settlement
analysis is usually carried out based on 1-Dimensional
consolidation theory as proposed by Terzaghi. Since the soft soil is
usually in Normally Consolidated condition, the primary
consolidation settlement given as:
H σ' + Δσ'
S c = Cc log o (3.1)
1 + eo σ' o
where Cc/1 + e0 is the compression ratio (CR), σ’0, and Δσ are initial
effective stress and the stress increment respectively and H is the
thickness of the compressible layer.
There are three types of preloading i.e. simple preloading, surcharge
preloading and stage loading. Fore surcharge preloading, a temporary fill
(Δq) was applied to the permanent fill (Δp) so that the anticipated
settlement under Δp alone can be achieved in less time. The temporary
surcharge should be removed after the 90% of anticipated settlement was
achieved and no excess pore water pressure was left in the soil. In
practice, the time for surcharge removal was determined based on the
 55 
 

construction schedule and the height of the extra surcharge could be

calculated.

Figure 3.1 The beneficial effect of preloading and vertical drain (after
Haussmann, (1990)

The time to reach a certain percentage of the expected settlement

is:
2
H T
t= d v (3.2)
Cv
where Hd is the length of drainage, Tv is the time factor and Cv is
the coefficient of consolidation. Figure 3.2 shows the curve used
for time factor Tv.
56 
 

1.2
1.0
Time Factor, Tv

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent consolidation (%)

Figure 3.2 Time factor for vertical consolidation

When vertical drain is used to speed up consolidation, the

overall consolidation process consists of horizontal and vertical
components. The combined effect is given by Carillo (1942) as:

U vh = 1 − (1 − U h )(1 − U v ) (3.3)

where Uh and Uv = average degrees of consolidation in the

horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. The equation for Uv
is given by Terzaghi and available in many literatures (e.g. Bardet,
1997; Whitlow, 1995). The modified general expression for
average degree of consolidation in horizontal direction is given by
Hansbo (1979, 1981) as:
⎛ − 8c t ⎞
U h = 1 − exp⎜⎜ 2 h ⎟⎟ (3.4)
⎝ De F ⎠
where De is the equivalent diameter of the soil cyclinder; t is the
time required to achieve Uh and F is the factor influencing the
consolidation which is a combination of F(n), Fs and Fr known as
the drain spacing factor, the smear factor and the well-resistance
factor, respectively:

F = F (n) + Fs + Fr (3.5)
 57 
 

⎛D ⎞
F (n) = ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0.75 (3.6)
⎝ dw ⎠
⎡⎛ k ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ d ⎞
Fs = ⎢⎜⎜ h ⎟⎟ − 1⎥ ln⎜⎜ s ⎟⎟ (3.7)
⎣⎢⎝ k s ⎠ ⎦⎥ ⎝ d w ⎠
⎛k ⎞
Fr = πz ( L − z )⎜⎜ h ⎟⎟ (3.8)
⎝ qw ⎠

In equations 3.6 to 3.8, dw is the equivalent drain diameter; kh is

the horizontal permeability of the undisturbed soil; ks is the
horizontal permeability of the smear zone; ds is the diameter of the
smear zone; L is the effective drain length; z is the distance below
the top surface of the compressible soil layer; and qw is the vertical
discharge capacity of the PVD at an hydraulic gradient of unity.
Yee (2000) suggested that the influence of Fr with discharge
capacity above 100m3/year could be neglected unless the drains
exceeds 20m long. Yee (2000) also recommended that smear factor
for the PVD design can be assumed to be zero for soils with
sensitivity less than 4. However the smear effect is also affected by
many other factors, such as the shape, the spacing of the drain, the
size of the mandrel for installation and the type of soil (Chu et al.,
2004). When the drains are installed too close to each other, the
smear effect may become too large to be ignored.
Determination of ch requires advanced laboratory tests such as
Rowe cell or other consolidometers. ch can be assumed as a
proportion of the cv, based on the following relationship (Bergado
et al. 1996):
⎛k ⎞
c h = ⎜⎜ h ⎟⎟cv                     (3.9)
⎝ kv ⎠
In practice, the general assumption to use ch/cv ranging between
1.5 and 2.
58 
 

3.3 Case Study

The pre-compression and vertical drain method were implemented

as ground improvement in the earthwork package of the
development of permanent campus for Universiti Malaysia
Pahang (UMP) in Kuala Pahang, Pekan, Pahang (Figure 3.3) to
improve the subsoil and to reduce the time required for soil
stabilization. Thus, relevant data such as the properties of soil both
before and after ground improvement work was collected from the
results of soil investigation performed prior to ground
improvement (2002) and after the ground improvement (2007).
Data on settlement monitoring of an observational embankment
(December 2003 to March 2004) was used for the achievement of
acceptance criteria.
The performance of this ground improvement method can be
evaluated by comparing the engineering properties of the subsoil
before and after stabilization. In addition, the achievement of
ground improvement criteria can be evaluated by observing the
time required to reach the predetermined criteria of the ground
improvement project through settlement monitoring. Settlement
analysis was performed for backfilling on original soil without and
with surcharge preloading and with surcharge preloading and
vertical drain following method suggested in Hausmann (1990).
Analysis of the performance of preloading and vertical drain was
done based on monitoring data and Asaoka procedure (Asaoka,
1978).
 59 
 

Figure 3.3: Site of UMP’s permanent campus

3.3.1 Soil Profile

A total of fourteen boreholes had been carried out at the proposed

site before the implementation of ground improvement project.
The subsoil information gathered from the boreholes carried out at
the proposed site showed that, in general, the soil profile comprises
of four layers.
Layer 1 is classified as very loose to medium dense silty sand.
This layer mainly consists of sand, silty sand and gravelly sand
with thickness of about 6 to 12 m. The Standard Penetration Test
results (SPT-N) was in the range of 5 to 15. Occasionally, there
were very loose sand having SPT-N below 3 near the ground
surface and medium to dense lenses of SPT-N value of 20 to 26.
From laboratory test result, the organic contents were in the range
of 3% to 5% within the depth of 6 m.
60 
 

Layer 2 consists of very soft to medium stiff clayey silt or silty

clay with some sand. The thickness varies from about 6 m to 14
m. The SPT-N values were generally less than 4. From the
laboratory test results, the moisture contents were in the range of
26 to 55%. The liquid limit (LL) and plastic index (PI) were about
29% to 66% and 8% to 31% respectively.
Layer 3 mainly consists of medium stiff to very stiff clayey slit
or silty clay with some sand. The SPT-N values generally were in
the range of 5 to 15 and increases with depth. The thickness varies
from about 12 to 20 m.
Layer 4 is hard or very dense soil layer. This layer generally
could be encountered at depth of about 35 to 42 m. The SPT-N
values were more than 50. In BH1, the depth was 30m whilst in
BH5, BH11 and BH13, the hard layer was not encountered within
borehole termination depth of 40m. In a few boreholes, namely
BH4, BH5, BH6 and BH14, dense lenses of sandy material of 2 to
6 m thick were encountered before the borehole was terminated
upon reaching SPT-N value greater than 50. The groundwater level
fluctuates from the ground surface to about 4 m below the existing
ground surface.
Based on site investigation, it can be summarized that loose
sandy soil was found below the existing ground surface followed
by a layer of soft clayey silt. Underlying the soft clayey silt layer
was medium stiff to stiff clayey silt inter-bedded with dense sandy
lenses before encountering hard soil layer. Figure 3.4 shows the
typical soil profile based on borehole log.
 61 
 

Figure 3.4: Typical soil profile based on borehole log

For the purpose of settlement analysis, the soil profile and soil
properties can be simplified as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Simplified Soil profile

Soil layer Unit Thickness
Weight
Without With PVD
(kN/m3)
PVD
Sandy soil 18 8 6
Soft Silty soil 17 10 14
Sandy soil 18 3.5 8
Medium stiff soil 18 14.5 12
62 
 

3.3.2 Soil Properties

From the results of site investigation, the undrained shear strength

properties of the compressible layer (Su) as obtained by field vane
shear tests was about 6 to 30kPa. The compressible layers were
normally consolidated to slightly over-consolidated with OCR of
about 1.0 to 2.0. The compression index cc was about 0.2 to 0.6
while the compression ratio (CR) was between 0.1 and 0.3. The
average recompression index (cr) was 0.02 giving a recompression
ratio (RR) of 0.01. The coefficient of consolidation (cv) of the soft
soil layer as obtained from laboratory test was about 6 to 21m2/yr.

3.3.3 Preloading and Vertical Drain

The designed platform level approved by Jabatan Pengairan dan

Saliran (JPS) was at RL 5.5m while the existing ground level
varies from R.L. 3.7m to 5.7m. Therefore, backfilling of 1 to 2m
was required to reach the required level. The backfilling would
cause the soft soil layer to experience consolidation settlement and
the settlement would continue for years. Since time was of
concern in the project, surcharging was recommended. The
thickness of surcharge fill was about 1 to 2m.
There were areas where soft soil layer was very thick (up to
14m) that vertical drain was required to further speed up the
consolidation process. The prefabricated vertical drains were
installed with the average depth of 20m at 1.4m spacing in a square
pattern (Figure 3.5). The width and thickness of the PVD’s strip
used in this project were 100mm and 4mm respectively.
 63 
 

Figure 3.5: Installation of PVD at site

3.3.4 Acceptance Criteria

The construction of the buildings was scheduled to start at least

after 90% of the anticipated settlement has been achieved. The
post construction settlement should also be less than 50 mm.
To monitor the achievement of the settlement, instrumented
embankments were constructed at the site. The typical cross-
section of the observation embankments is shown in Figure 3.6.
The designated differential settlement across the embankment was
not to exceed 1% within 7 years.
64 
 

Settleme
nt gauge
Observation  Top 
embankment platform  
Water 
  Sand    level 
 

PVD   piezometer

Figure 3.6 Typical cross-section of the observation embankment

3.4 Results and Discussion

Settlement analysis was made for the anticipated settlement under

backfilling to the design platform and compensation fill. The
settlement under backfill and surcharge fill of 1 to 2 m was
evaluated to observe the effect of pre-compression. Effect of
vertical drain in speeding up the consolidation process was also
evaluated.
As mentioned above, the level of ground surface and the
thickness of compressible layer vary with the location of the
borehole.
The compressible layer is in normally consolidated condition
with CR of 0.21. A moderately cv value of 14m2/yr was used.
Calculation presented herein is the analysis for the worst case
where the platform fill was 2 m and the surcharge fill was also 2
m. Settlement analysis shows that for backfilling of about 2 m,
the estimated consolidation and immediate settlements due to
backfill only was 355 and 54 mm respectively. The time to reach
90% of consolidation (320 mm consolidation settlement) was 1.5
yrs. When surcharge of 2 m and compensation settlement height
was applied on top of the fill, the immediate and consolidation
settlement became 126 and 551 mm respectively giving a total
 65 
 

settlement of 677mm. Resting period of about 6 months was

required to reach the prescribed consolidation settlement of
320mm before the surcharge could be removed. Figure 3.7 shows
the typical settlement plot for the above case.

Figure 3.7 Settlement plot for embankment with and without surcharge
preloading

For platform fill of 1m, the total settlement was 261mm. When
surcharge pre-load of 1m and 2m high were used, the 90%
consolidation settlement was reached after 5.3 months and 3
months respectively. Table 3.2 shows the estimated time required
for various backfill and surcharge heights.
Vertical drain was installed in the swampy area where the
depth of compressible layer reaches 14m. For the worst case
analyzed above and with the installation of vertical drain, the
consolidation time was further reduced to one month. Figure 3.8
shows the achievement of settlement criteria when vertical drain
was used.
66 
 

Table 3.2 Surcharge Design for Platform without PVD

Platform Surcharge Total Consolidation Surcharge Time
Height Height Settlement with (month)
(m) Surcharge Load
(mm)
1.0 320 5.3
1.0 m Platform
2.0 427 3.0
2.0 m Platform
2.0 551 5.7

Figure 3.8 Settlement plot with and without vertical drain

The performance of ground improvement can be identified by

the achievement of the prescribed performance criteria and the
improvement in terms of engineering properties.
In order to verify the design analysis, an instrumented
embankment was constructed prior to the commencement of
earthwork. The achievement of the performance criteria was
evaluated by settlement measurement and the achievement of the
predicted settlement in terms of time. The settlement measurement
 67 
 

shows that in general, the embankment had reached the targeted

90% consolidation in less than 5 months after the construction. In
this case, the final settlement was predicted based on Asaoka
(1978) method. Figure 3.9 shows the typical data obtained from
settlement monitoring.
In 2006, soil investigation was carried out to collect detailed
subsoil information after the ground improvement. Results
gathered from laboratory tests on samples retrieved from ten
boreholes showed that the undrained shear strength (su) increased
to 67 kpa. The compression index (cc) based from the laboratory
test result was about 0.3 - 0.36 while the void ratio was about 1.04.
The coefficient of consolidation (cv) of the soft soil layer was
reduced to about 2.11m2/yr to 3.64m2/yr.

Table 3.3 summarizes the comparison of engineering properties of

the soil prior to and after the implementation of the ground
improvement project by pre-compression and vertical drain. The
comparison was made in terms of shear strength of the soil and its
compressibility characteristics such as cc, eo and cv.

Table 3.3 Comparison of soil properties prior to and after improvement

Prior to After improvement

Soil Properties
improvement
Su (6 – 30 kPa) 67 kPa
Average 10 kPa
cc 0.2 – 0.6 0.3 – 0.36
Average 0.5
e0 0.5 – 1.5 1.04
cv 6 - 21m2/yr 2.11 - 3.64m2/yr
68 
 

Figure 3.9 Typical data obtained by settlement monitoring

 69 
 

3.5 Conclusions

The case study proved that pre-compression has the beneficial

effect on increasing the bearing capacity and reducing the
compressibility of soil by forcing the compressible layer to
consolidate. Significant improvement was gained in terms of shear
strength and compressibility characteristics.
Based on the site investigation performed prior to construction,
ground treatment might not be required if sufficient time (12 to 18
months) were available for most of the settlement to be completed.
However as time was of concern, ground improvement by using
surcharging method was recommended to expedite the settlement.
It was achieved by placing a temporary surcharge on the top of
platform level prior to the construction of building works. The
surcharge time varies from 3 to 5.7 months for various conditions
encountered in the field. Vertical drain with surcharge was used
especially at swampy area to further expedite the settlement.
Calculation shows that the installation of vertical drain in the worst
soil profile further reduced the settlement to only one month.

References
Asaoka, A (1978). Observational Procedure of Settlement
Prediction. Soils and Foundation. 18 (4): 87-101.
Bardet, J.P. (1997). Experimental Soil Mechanics. New Jersey.
Prentice Hall.
Bergado D.T., Alfaro, M.C., and Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1993).
Improvement of soft Bangkok clay using vertical drains.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes , 12 (7): 615-664
Bumimetro Engineering Corporation Sdn Bhd. (2002). Factual
Report on SI Works for Cadangan Merekabentuk, Membina dan
Menyiapkan Kolej Universiti Kejuruteraan & Teknologi
Malaysia (KUKTEM) di Pekan, Pahang Darul Makmur
Carillo,N. (1942).Simple Two and Three Dimensional Cases in the
Theory of Consolidation. Journal of Mathematics s,21(1):1-5.
 70 
 

Chu, J.,Bo, M.W., Chang, M.F. and Choa, V. (2002).

Consolidation and Permeability Properties of Singapore Marine
Clay. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
Engineering. 128(9):724-732.
Gofar, N and Kassim, KA. (2005) Introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering-Part I, Prentice Hall. Chapter 4
Goughnour, R. R. (1997). Lateral Drainage for Vertical Drain
Systems. Ground Improvement Ground Reinforcement Ground
Treatment Development 1987-1997 ASCE.
Green Effect Sdn. Bhd. (2002). Geotechnical Assessment Report
for the proposed design and build for Kolej Universiti
Kejuruteraan dan Teknologi Malaysia (Kuktem) Pekan,
Pahang. September
Green Effect Sdn Bhd. (2004). Preliminary Settlement Review on
Observation Embankments for the proposed design and build
for Kolej Universiti Kejuruteraan dan Teknologi Malaysia
(Kuktem) Pekan, Pahang. April
Hansbo, S. (1979). Consolidation of Clay by Band Shaped
Prefabricated Drains. Ground Engineering, 16-25.
Hansbo, S. (1981). Consolidation of Fine-Grained Soils by
Prefabricated Drains. Proc.10th Intl Conf on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 3:12-22, Balkema, Netherlands.
Hausmann, M. R. (1990). Engineering Principles of Ground
Modification, McGraw-Hill
Liu, C. and Evett, J. C. (2005). Soils and Foundations,
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Progress Drilling Sdn Bhd. (2007). Soil Investigation Report for
Cadangan Pembangunan Kampus Tetap Fasa 1B Universiti
Malaysia Pahang di Mukim Kuala Pahang, Daerah Pekan,
Pahang Darul Makmur
Whitlow, R. (1995). Basic Soil Mechanics. United Kingdom.
Addison Weslet Longman Limited.
Yee, K. (2000). Consolidation of Soft Clay by Vertical Drainage
Method. Seminar on Ground Improvement - Soft Clay
(SOGISC). August 23-24. Dewan Jumaah UTM, Kuala Lumpur,
64-84.

View publication stats