Soft Soil Improvement Through Consolidation - Chu Et Al

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/268467860
Soft Soil Improvement Through Consolidation: An Overview
Conference Paper · January 2012

DOI: 10.3850/978-981-07-3559-3_103-0007
CITATIONS READS
6 898
4 authors, including:
Jian Chu B. Indraratna

Nanyang Technological University University of Wollongong
305 PUBLICATIONS 5,194 CITATIONS 677 PUBLICATIONS 11,106 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Cholachat Rujikiatkamjorn
University of Wollongong
258 PUBLICATIONS 3,499 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Internal stability of granular filters under cyclic loading View project
Biocementation of sand View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jian Chu on 13 August 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SOFT SOIL IMPROVEMENT THROUGH
CONSOLIDATION: AN OVERVIEW
Jian Chu1 , Buddhima Indraratna2,a , Shuwang Yan3 and Cholachat Rujikiatkamjorn2

1 Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-3232, USA (Formerly Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore). E-mail: jchu@iastate.edu
2 Centrefor Geomechanics and Railway Engineering, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong City, NSW 2522, Australia, Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical
Science and Engineering, Australia. E-mail: a indra@uow.edu.au
3 GeotechnicalResearch Institute, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China.
E-mail: yanshuwang@tju.edu.cn
A review of recent developments in soft soil improvement through consolidation is

presented in this paper. The salient aspects described here range from fundamen-
tal analysis to methods of implementation. The methods and processes covered
here include vertical drains; vacuum preloading or combined vacuum and fill sur-
charge; and dynamic consolidation with enhanced drainage or vacuum. Discus-
sions on methods to evaluate the degree of consolidation using field data are also
made, including various limitations and comparison between the processes where
warranted. New types of prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) and new applications
such as thermal or electric PVDs are also introduced.
Keywords: Consolidation, Soft soil, Soil improvement, Vertical drains, Vacuum

preloading.
1. INTRODUCTION
It is well known that the compressibility and shear strength of soil can be greatly improved
if the water content in the soil can be significantly reduced. One common method for
improving soft soil is to reduce the water content of the soil through consolidation. For
consolidation to occur there must be an increase in effective stress. This can be achieved by
increasing the total stress or reducing the pore water pressure. The former is the so-called
fill surcharge preloading method. The latter can be achieved through vacuum preloading.
When a surcharge pressure is applied, the increase in the effective stress is dependent on
the dissipation of excess pore water pressures generated as a response to the application of
this surcharge. To accelerate the dissipation of pore water pressure, prefabricated vertical
drains (PVDs) are normally used. PVDs are also used together with the vacuum preloading
method to distribute vacuum pressure and facilitate the dissipation of pore water. There-
fore, PVD techniques become part of the core technologies in the fill surcharge or vacuum
preloading methods. PVDs have been used successfully in many soil improvement and
land reclamation projects in the world (Hansbo 1981, 2005; Holtz et al., 1991; Akagi 1994;
Balasubraniam et al., 1995; Bergado et al., 1993, 1996, 1998, 2002; Li and Rowe 2001; Chu
Proceedings of the International Conference on Ground Improvement and Ground Control

Edited by Buddhima Indraratna, Cholachat Rujikiatkamjorn and Jayan S. Vinod
Copyright © 2012 by Research Publishing Services. All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-981-07-3559-3 :: doi:10.3850/978-981-07-3559-3 103-0007 251
252 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ground Improvement and Ground Control
et al., 2000, 2006, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Choa et al., 1979, 2001; Bo et al., 2003, 2004, 2005;
Arulrajah et al., 2009; Indraratna et al., 2005a; 2011; Seah 2006; Kitazume 2007; Varaksin and
Yee 2007; Indraratna, 2009; Yan et al., 2009). Therefore, the theories, design and construc-
tion methods for PVDs become the core technical issues in the preloading or consolidation
methods for soft soil improvement.
Depending on how a preload is applied, the preloading methods can be subdivided into
preloading using fill, preloading using vacuum pressure and combined fill and vacuum
preloading methods, as described in Table 1. In addition to preloading, PVDs have also
been used for some other relatively new methods such as dynamic consolidation for clays
which are also listed in Table 1. In both cases, the main purpose of using PVDs is to reduce
the drainage path so that the time taken for the consolidation of soft soil or the dissipation
of excess pore water pressure can be substantially reduced.
In this report, some recent developments on soft soil consolidation and soft soil improve-
ment are reviewed. According to the soil classification system adopted by TC211 (Chu
et al., 2009c), soil improvement through consolidation belongs to the category of “ground
Improvement without admixtures in cohesive soils”. This category is further divided into
the following 7 subcategories: (1) Replacement/displacement (including load reduction
using lightweight materials); (2) Preloading using fill (including the use of vertical drains);
(3) Preloading using vacuum (including combined fill and vacuum); (4) Dynamic con-
solidation with enhanced drainage (including the use of vacuum); (5) Electro-osmosis or
electro-kinetic consolidation; (6) Thermal stabilization using heating or freezing; and (7)
Hydro-blasting compaction. Not all the topics above, but the following selected topics will
be discussed in the following: (1) Vertical drains; (2) Preloading using vacuum including
combined fill and vacuum; and (3) Dynamic consolidation with enhanced drainage includ-
ing the use of vacuum. Some discussions on performance evaluation will be made. A few
recent innovations will also be introduced.
2. PREFABRICATED VERTICAL DRAINS (PVDS)
2.1. Vertical Drain Theories
A number of analytical solutions have been developed in the past for consolidation of
ground improved with vertical drains (Carrillo 1942; Barron 1948; Yoshikuni and Nakan-
ode 1974; Hansbo 1981; Onoue 1988; and Zeng and Xie 1989). Most of the theories adopted
a “unit cell” model as shown in Figure 1. Here, the band shaped drain is idealized into
a circular drain with an equivalent diameter of dw = 2(a+b)/π as proposed by Hansbo
(1979). A few other methods were proposed to calculate the equivalent diameter of PVD
as reviewed by Indraratna et al. (2005a). However the differences in different methods are
small and Hansbo’s method is commonly adopted.
Radial consolidation theories such as those proposed by Carillo (1942) formed the basic
equations for the analysis of radial consolidation of soil. When PVDs are used, other factors
need to be taken into consideration. Two of the major factors are the smear effect and well
resistance. When PVDs are installed in the soil, the penetration of the steel mandrel dis-
turbs the soil surrounding the PVD. This smear effect causes a reduction in the permeabil-
ity and coefficient of consolidation of the soil within the smear zone. When the discharge
capacity of PVDs is limited, head loss will occur when water flows along the drain and
Soft Soil Improvement Through Consolidation: An Overview 253
Table 1. Ground improvement methods using PVDs (modified from Chu et al., 2009c).
Method Description / Typical Advantages Limitations
Mechanisms Applications
Preloading methods
A. A process to apply Applicable to Rate of consolidation The method may not
Preloading surcharge load prior to soils having can be greatly be applicable when the
using fill placement of structure or low accelerated. The construction schedule
with vertical external loads to permeability or construction time can is very tight or when
drains consolidate the soil until when the be controlled by the ground is so soft
most of the primary compressible adjusting the spacing that vertical drains can-
settlement has occurred. soil layer is of the drain. not be installed.
PVDs are used to thick.
provide radial drainage
and accelerate the rate of
consolidation by
reducing the drainage
paths.
B. Vacuum Same as A, except the Same as A, 1). The method does 1). This method causes
preloading surcharge is applied except this not require fill inward lateral move-
with vertical using vacuum pressure. method is material; 2). The ment and cracks on the
drains PVDs are used to particularly construction period ground surface which
distribute vacuum useful when can be shorter, as no may affect surround-
pressure and provide there is a stage loading is ing buildings or struc-
drainage. This method stability required; 3). It may be tures; 2). The vacuum
enables load of up to 90 problem with more economical than pressure is limited to
kPa to be applied fill surcharge. using fill surcharge; 4). 50–90 kPa, depending
immediately without This method The vacuum brings on the system adopted.
stability problem. can also be immediate stability to
used to extract the system.
polluted
ground pore
water, if
required.
Dynamic consolidation methods
C. Combined A combination of A and The same as 1).] Construction time 1). It is technically
fill and B when a surcharge more for A and B. can be much reduced more demanding than
vacuum than the limit of vacuum as compared to staged A and B; 2). Data inter-
preloading pressure (normally 80 loading using fill pretation is also more
with vertical kPa) is required. surcharge alone; 2). complicated.
drains The lateral movement
of soil can be
controlled by
balancing the amount
of vacuum and fill
surcharge used. 3). The
vacuum brings
immediate stability to
the system.
D. Drainage A combination of DC This method 1). This method makes 1). The method may
enhanced with PVDs which can be used to the application of DC only work for cohesive
dynamic facilitates the dissipation improve the possible to soil with relatively
consolidation of pore water pressure bearing fine-grained soil; 2). low plasticity index;
(DC) generated during DC. capacity of soft The duration of soil 2). The compaction
soil with low improvement can be energy applied has to
permeability reduced. be within a certain
limit, so that the depth
of improvement is
limited; 3). The
technique has not
been fully developed.
Thus, the success of the
method cannot always
be guaranteed.
E. Dynamic This method improves This method 1). The soil 1). The method has not
consolidation the soil properties by can be used to improvement time can been fully established.
(DC) conducting DC and improve soft be reduced; 2). Can be Thus, the success of the
combined applying vacuum or clay or soft applicable to most method cannot always
with vacuum de-watering alternately ground with types of soil. be guaranteed; 2). The
or for a number of times. mixed soil. depth of improvement
de-watering The vacuum facilitates a is normally limited to
quick dissipation of 8 m.
water pressure
generated by DC.
de/2
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Unit cell model of (a) a perfect drain and (b) a drain with smear zone.
delay the consolidation process. This unfavorable effect has been called the well resistance.
Taking the smear effect and well resistance into account, the well-known Barron (1948) and
Hansbo (1981) equations have been proposed and used for PVD design.
As an example to illustrate the parameters that affect the consolidation of soil using
PVDs, Hansbo’s equation (1981) is written as follows

−8Th
Uh = 1 − exp (1)
F (n)

kh k
F (n) ≈ ln(n) − 0.75 + ln(s) − 1 + πz(2l − z) h (2)
ks qw
c t de ds
Th = h2 n= s= (3)
de dw dw
where ch is the coefficient of consolidation of soil in the horizontal direction, t is time, de
is the diameter of soil cylinder dewatered by a drain which is related to the drain spac-
ing: de = 1.128s for a square grid and d = 1.05s for a triangle grid, F (n) is a function of
de , dw , the diameter of the smear zone, ds , the horizontal permeability of the soil, k h , the
permeability of the smeared zone, k s , the discharge capacity of the drain, qw , the length
of the drain, l, and the depth z. The last term in Eq. (2) represents the well resistance. It
can be seen from Eqs. (1) and (2) that the factors affecting the consolidation of soil around
PVDs are the soil parameters, ch and k h , the properties of the smear zone, ds and k s , and
the properties of PVD, qw . The effects of those factors will be discussed separately in the
next section.
Equations (1) and (2) were derived based on Darcy flow, i.e., by assuming Darcy’s Law is
valid. Consolidation theories based on non-Darcy flow have also been proposed by Hansbo
(2001). Using several case studies, Hansbo (2005) demonstrated that the consolidation pro-
cess based on non-Darcian flow yields better agreement with the pore pressure observa-
tions than the theory based on the assumed effect of creep. For the Test Area IV of the
well-known Skå-Edeby Test Field Case in Sweden (Hansbo 1960), the consolidation based
on Darcian flow over-predicted the excess pore water pressure distribution in the ground
in 14 years, whereas the prediction based on non-Darcian flow matches the field monitor-
ing data better as shown in Figure 2. However, the predictions of the pore water pressure
Drain
z kwp
l kw
kh Smear zone
khp
ks k'hp
rw bw
rs bs
R B
l
a) Axisymmetric b) Plane Strain

Figure 2. Comparison between observed
excess pore pressure dissipation in Test Area IV,
Skå-Edeby, and analytical dissipation according Figure 3. Conversion of an axisymmetric unit
to Darcian flow (broken lines) and non-Darcian cell into plane strain condition (adapted from,
flow (unbroken lines) after 1.5 and 14 years of Hird et al., 1992. and Indraratna and Redana
consolidation (After Hansbo 2005). 1997).
distribution in the ground in 1.5 years by the two theories are nearly the same, as shown
in Figure 2. This is probably due to the fact that the hydraulic gradient at the beginning of
consolidation is relatively higher.
Most of the practical consolidation problems are three-dimensional (3-D). Therefore, the
“unit cell” theory needs to be modified to be used for numerical modeling of practical
problems. For simplicity, 2-D plane strain solutions are commonly adopted. To employ a
realistic 2-D plane strain analysis for vertical drains, the appropriate equivalence between
the plane strain and axisymmetric analysis needs to be established in terms of consolida-
tion settlement. Figure 3 shows the conversion of an axisymmetric vertical drain into an
equivalent drain wall. This can be achieved in several ways (Hird et al., 1992, Indraratna
and Redana 1997, Rujikiatkamjorn et al 2008): (i) Geometric matching – the drain spacing
is matched while maintaining the same permeability coefficient; (ii) Permeability match-
ing –coefficient of permeability is matched while keeping the same drain spacing; and (iii)
Combination of (i) and (ii), with the plane strain permeability calculated for a convenient
drain spacing. Examples of these approached by Shinsha et al. (1982), Hird et al. (1992),
Bergado and Long (1994), Chai et al. (1995), and Indraratna and Redana (1997) are reviewed
and further advanced by Indraratna et al. (2005a).
The method by Indraratna and Redana (1997) is based on the conversion of the vertical
drain system shown in Figure 3 into an equivalent parallel drain wall using an equivalent
coefficient of soil permeability, k hp . They assumed that the half width of unit cell B; the
half width of drains bw ; and the half width of smear zone bs are the same as their axisym-
metric radii R, rw and rs , respectively. The equivalent permeability of the model is then
determined by:

k
k h α + ( β) khp + (θ ) 2lz − z2
hp
k hp =
(4)
kh kh
In s + k In (s) − 0.75 + π (2lz − z2 )
n
qw
h
The associated geometric parameters α , β and the flow term θ are given by:
2 ( n − s )3
α= (5a)
3 ( n − 1) n2
2 ( s − 1)

β= 3n ( n − s − I ) + s 2
+ s + 1 (5b)
3 ( n − 1) n2
and

2k np 1
θ= 1− (5c)
Bqz n
where, qz = 2qw /πB is the equivalent plane strain discharge capacity.
It should be pointed out that the equivalent coefficient of permeability k hp appears in
both sides of Eq. (4). The solution thus has to be obtained by iteration with an initially
assumed k hp /k hp ’ ratio, where k hp is the equivalent coefficient of permeability in the
smeared zone.
2.2. Factors Affecting the Consolidation of Soil Around PVDs
As discussed above the main factors affecting the consolidation of soil around PVDs are
the soil parameters, ch and k h , the properties of the smear zone, ds and k s , and the properties
of PVD, qw . The influences of these factors are discussed as follows.
2.2.1. Soil Parameters ch and k h
Once we have the consolidation theories in place, the next design step appears to be as
straight forward as putting in the soil parameters and get the answer. However, the deter-
mination of soil parameters is still one of the most challenging tasks facing geotechnical
engineers. On one hand, we need to obtain a value for each soil parameter. On the other
hand, few soil parameters are constant. For example, the coefficient of consolidation, cv or
ch , is assumed to be a constant in either Terzaghi’s or Barron’s consolidation theory. How-
ever, in practice, neither cv nor ch for soft soil is a constant. Its value is affected by many
factors, such as the overconsolidation ratio, the stress state, the fabric of the soil, and even
the method of determination (Holtz and Kovacs 1981; Chu et al. 2002). As such, the selec-
tion of cv or ch has to be based on its in-situ stress conditions and the anticipated stress
changes. Therefore, it is also necessary to establish relationships between the coefficient of
permeability and void ratio, and relationships between the coefficient of consolidation and
the stress state. A proper site investigation should be planned not only to determine the soil
parameters but also to understand how the soil parameters vary with stress and loading
conditions. The coefficient of permeability is another key parameter required for vertical
drain design. However, it happens that the coefficient of permeability of soil is one of the
most difficult soil parameters to be determined. This is partially because the coefficient of
permeability of the soil has the widest range of variation among all the soil parameters. Its
value can vary from 10−11 m/s for soft clay to 10−3 m/s for sand and gravel, a change of
108 times. Although the permeability of the soil that has to be treated with vertical drains
is normally low, the error involved in the permeability estimation can still range from 10
to 100 times. This is not unusual as the permeability of the same soil can change 10 to 100
times during the process of consolidation. An error of one order of magnitude in perme-
ability can result in an error of the same order of magnitude in the time taken to achieve a
specific degree of consolidation based on Terzaghi’s consolidation theory as shown by Bo
et al. (2003). Therefore, it makes sense economically to conduct some proper site investiga-
tion work and determine the soil parameters as accurately as possible.
Generally the consolidation parameters of soil can be determined using laboratory tests,
in-situ tests, back calculation from field measurements, or a combination of them. In lab-
oratory tests, the stress states and drainage conditions can be defined precisely and the
variation of soil parameter with stress and consolidation process can be evaluated. How-
ever, the results are usually affected by sample disturbance. It is also time consuming to
conduct laboratory consolidation tests. In-situ tests are normally relatively quick to con-
duct and therefore are more useful than laboratory tests in identifying the soil profile and
characterizing the soil behavior over a large extent. However, in in-situ tests, the stress and
drainage conditions are generally not well defined. The data interpretation from physical
measurements to soil parameters are sometimes based on arbitrary assumptions or corre-
lations which are established for a specific type of soil only. Therefore, when in-situ tests
are adopted, laboratory tests may still be required to verify the assumptions and check
the correlation relationships. The back-calculation from field measurements can provide a
good check on the selection of design parameters. However, the back calculated value is
only a factored parameter. It reflects not only the soil property, but also other factors, such
as the disturbance to the soil during construction.
The types of laboratory and in-situ tests that are suitable to the determination of consol-
idation properties are summarized in Table 2. The settlement prediction for projects using
vertical drains is the same as those without the use of vertical drains. Those
methods are covered in many textbooks (e.g., Holtz and Kovacs 1981). As far as land recla-
mation or other types of geotechnical problems where the extent of load is much greater
than the thickness of the compressible layer are concerned, the settlement predicted using
one-dimensional analysis and parameters determined by laboratory tests is reasonable
although it is not always reliable. Ground settlement should always be monitored as part
of the soil improvement works.
2.2.2. Smear Zone
Consolidation of soil around PVDs is affected by smear effect. However, it is not an easy
task to determine the diameter of smear zone, ds , and the permeability in the smear zone,
k s , because the smear effect is affected by the many factors including the type of mandrel
used, the method used to penetrate the mandrel, and the type of soil. The smear effect
is due to not only the disturbance to the soil, but also the compressibility of the soil. To
reduce the smear effect, the cross-section of the mandrel should be as small as possible.
On the other hand, mandrel is a slender tube and it has to have a certain stiffness to be
structurally stable. The influence of different types of mandrel and anchor shoes has been
evaluated by Bo et al. (2003) and Basu and Prezzi (2007). In terms of method used to pen-
etrate the mandrel, static pushing is better than vibration. Soil type is probably one of
the most important factors. The smear effect in sensitive or cemented soil can be much
greater than that in recent deposited soil (for example, clay fill used for land reclamation).
A number of studies on smear effect have been carried out in the past (Hansbo 1979; 1981;
Table 2. Types of test for measurement of consolidation properties.

Type of test Name of test Parameter determined Remarks
Laboratory Oedometer test cv , kv (indirect Need good quality

tests measurementi), ’undisturbed’ samples
Cc , Cr , σp , and Cαi i
Rowe cell test ch and k h (directi ii or
indirect measurement)
Other consolidometers ch and k h (direct or
indirect measurement)
Piezocone dissipation ch and k h (indirect Based on pore water
test (CPTU) measurement) pressure dissipation
Pressuremeter or ch and k h (indirect Based on lateral
self-boring measurement) pressure change or pore
pressuremeter (SBPM) water pressure
test dissipation
Flat dilatometer test ch and k h (indirect Based on lateral stress
(DMT) measurement) change
In-situ tests Field permeability test k h (direct measurement) Using a piezometer
(e.g., BAT permemeter)
Based on pore water ch (factored value) Using piezometers
pressure measurements
Back-analysis Based on settlement ch (factored value) Using settlement
measurements gauges
Notes: i. In this case, kv is calculated based on the value of cv.
ii. When secondary consolidation is measured.
iii. kh is measured directly as part of the consolidation test.
Bergado et al., 1991; Onoue 1991; Madhav et al., 1993; Almeida et al., 1993; Indraratna and
Redana 1998; Chai and Miura 1999; Hird and Moseley 2000, Xiao 2002, Bo et al., 2003;
Sathananthan and Indraratna 2006; Basu and Prezzi 2007; Abuel-Naga and Bouazza 2009;
Chai and Carter 2011; Abuel-Naga et al., 2012). A summary of different studies is given in
Table 2. The values given in Table 3 are proposed for the smear model shown in Figure 1(b).
It should be pointed out that when soil is disturbed in the smear zone, there is a remold-
ing zone and transition zone as shown in Figure 4. The remolding zone is caused by the
displacement of mandrel as the soil within this zone is completely remolded. The transi-
tion zone is the zone outside of the mandrel which is disturbed by the penetration of the
mandrel. Ghandeharioon et al. (2010) postulated that installing PVDs with a rectangular
(conventional) steel mandrel would cause an elliptical cavity expansion with a concen-
tric progression in the horizontal plane (Figure 5). The trend of excess pore pressure was
verified by laboratory results obtained using a fully instrumented large-scale consolidome-
ter. The smear zone propagates outwards where the normalised plastic shear strain in the
smear zone varied from 0.10% to 0.17%. At the boundary of the marginally disturbed zone,
p √
the magnitude of γq /Ir , where Ir = 3( G/q f ), was about 0.01%–0.05% (Figure 5).
The degree of disturbance should be transitional or change with the distance away from
the mandrel - the further away from the drain, the smaller the disturbance. This is what
has been observed from the model tests. The results of 4 different studies are as shown in
Figure 6, where the normalized void ratio is plotted against the distance from the center of
Table 3. Proposed smear zone parameters (modified from Indraratna et al., 2005).
Source Extent Permeability Remarks
Barron (1948) ds = 1.6dm k h /k s = 3 Assumed

Hansbo (1979) ds = 1.5∼3dm Open Based on available literature at that time
Hansbo (1981) ds = 1.5dm k h /k s = 3 Assumed in case study
Bergado et al. (1991) ds = 2dm k h /k v = 1 Laboratory investigation and back
analysis for soft Bangkok clay
Onoue (1991) ds = 1.6dm k h /k s = 3 From test interpretation
Almeida et al. (1993) ds = 1.5 2dm k h /k s = 3–6 Based on experience
Indraratna et al. (1998) ds = 4–5dm k h /k v =1.15 Laboratory investigation
(For Sydney clay)
Chai & Miura (1999) ds = 2∼3dm k h /k s = C f (k h /k s ) C f the ratio between lab and field values
Hird and Moseley (2000) ds = 1.6dm k h /k s = 3 Recommend for design
Xiao (2002) ds = 4∼6dm k h /k s = 1.3 Laboratory investigation
(For Kaolin clay)
Bo et al. (2003) ds = 11dm k h /k s = 2∼10 Based on field tests in marine clay
ds : diameter of smear zone; dm : equivalent diameter of mandrel; k h : permeability of intact soil;
k s permeability of the smeared soil.
ne
Zo
stic
Ela
n e
Zo
s tic
Pla
Cavity Failed Smear Marginally Undisturbed Zone

Zone Zone Disturbed
Zone
γ qp
Ir
0.86% - 1.05%
0.10% - 0.17%
0.01% - 0.05%
r / rm (θ )
Figure 5. The variation of the ratio of plastic

shear strain to the rigidity with radial distance
normalized by the equivalent radius of the man-
Figure 4. Unit cell with smear and transition drel characterizing the smear zone around a
zone for PVD (after Abuel-Naga et al., 2012). PVD (Ghandeharioon et al., 2010).
Figure 6. Change in void ratio at different radial

Figure 7. Parabolic permeability distribution
distance as a result of smear effect (Modified from
(Walker and Indraratna 2006).
Xiao 2002).
the drain, r, normalized by the radius of the equivalent drain, rw . The normalized void
ratio is defined as the void ratio of the soil measured at different positions in the soil over
the initial void ratio of the soil, e/e0 . The smear effect causes the void ratio to reduce.
However, this effect is getting less significant when the distance to the drain is getting
larger as can be seen from Figure 6. The change in the permeability of soil in this transition
zone follows the same trend (Sathananthan and Indraratna 2006; Abuel-Naga et al., 2012).
For this reason, it has been proposed by Abuel-Naga et al. (2012) to model the smear effect
using both a smear and transition zone as shown in Figure 4. In this case, the change in the
permeability in the smear zone and the transitional zone can be modeled as:
⎧
⎪ k s , for rw < r < rs
⎪
⎨
k (r ) = k s + k h − k s (r − rs ), for rs ≥ r < rt (6)
⎪
⎪ rt − rs
⎩
k h , for rt < r < re
where, k (r ) is the permeability function, k s and k h are permeability of smeared soil and
intact soil respectively. rw , rs , rt and re are radius of PVD, smear zone, transition zone and
no flow boundary, respectively, as shown in Figure 4.
However, laboratory testing conducted using large-scale consolidometer by Onoue
(1991), Indraratna and Redana (1998) and Sharma and Xiao (2000) suggests that the dis-
turbance in the ‘smear zone’ continuously intensifies towards the drain, and a linear or
piecewise assumption is not realistic. To obtain more accurate predictions, Walker and
Indraratna (2006) employed a parabolic decay in horizontal permeability towards the drain
representing the actual variation of soil permeability in the smear zone. The parabolic
curve that satisfies the above conditions, shown schematically in Figure 7, is given by:
kh (r ) = k0 (κ − 1)( A − B + Cr/rw )( A + B − Cr/rw ) (7)

where κ = k h /k0 ,A = κ/(κ − 1), B = s/(s − 1), and C = 1/(s − 1).
The F (n) parameter can be given by:
√ √
n
3 κ ( s − 1)2 s S ( s − 1) κ (κ − 1) κ+ κ−1
F (n) = ln − + 2 ln √ − ln √ √
s 4 (s − 2KS + κ ) κ 2(s2 − 2KS + κ κ− κ−1
(8)
It is not convenient to use a variable, k s , for vertical drain design unless finite element
is adopted. For this reason, the equivalent unit cell method proposed by Abuel-Naga et al.
(2012) is useful. Nevertheless, the smear zone plus transitional zone idea does provide
some limiting values for the selection of the diameter of the smear zone. It will have to
be greater than the equivalent mandrel diameter. The dimension of a typical rectangular
mandrel is 120 mm long by 60 mm wide (Bo et al., 2003). Using the same method for PVD,
the equivalent diameter of the mandrel, dm , can be calculated as 115 mm. If the equivalent
diameter of the PVD, dw , is 66 mm (by taking the width and thickness of PVD as 100 mm
and 4 mm respectively), then the diameter of the smear zone, ds , will be at least 1.7dw . If we
take the transition zone into consideration, the diameter of the smear zone will be at least
(2∼3)dw . It should be pointed out that most of the studies mentioned in Table 3 were based
on laboratory tests using reconstituted soil. However, the use of laboratory reconstituted or
remolded soil samples tends to underestimate the smear effect as the effect of destruction
of soil structure or fabric cannot be reflected. Therefore, the smear effect should also be
assessed by field measurements which unfortunately were rare.
One field study was carried out by Bo et al.
(2003) at a reclaimed site in Singapore. Before the
installation of PVD, piezometers were installed
in marine clay in the vicinity of the drain. The
pore pressures measured by the piezometers PP-
240 and PP-239 installed at the same elevation,
but 1.27 and 2.85 m radial distances, respectively,
from the drain are shown in Figure 8. The time
in Figure 8 was taken from the beginning of PVD
installation. The change in the excess pore water
pressure was a sign of disturbance due to smear.
It can be seen that a large amount of pore pressure
was measured by PP-240 which was 1.27 m away
from the drain. The drain used had a width of 100
mm and a thickness of 4‘mm. Thus the equivalent
diameter dw is 66 mm. However, a point 1.27 m
away from the drain is 32dw . One may argue that Figure 8. Change in pore water pressure
due to penetration of mandrel (after Bo
this is an indication of the transition zone, not the
et al., 2003).
smear zone. If this is the case, the boundary of the
transition zone can be as far as 2.85 m away from
the drain. This is because there was still pore water pressure generation at this distance as
shown in Figure 8.
In the field tests reported by Bo et al. (2003), the change in the field permeability of soil
was also measured in-situ using BAT permeameter with a tip of 30 mm in diameter and 40
mm in length. The tests were carried out at a radial distance of 0.3 m and 0.5 m and 1.0 m
away from the PVD. It was concluded from the study that reduction in permeability ranges
from 1.8 to 11.0 times. Hence for intact soil in-situ, the real reduction in permeability can
be much greater than those suggested by the methods shown in Table 3.
Because of smear effect, it may not always be beneficial to use a close drain spacing to
reduce the consolidation time unless the soil to be consolidated is deposited recently. For
one project reported by Chu et al. (2002), the back calculated ch based on field monitoring
data was even smaller than the cv determined by laboratory oedometer tests. This could
be because of smear effect as discussed by Chu et al. (2002).
2.2.3. Well Resistance
Well resistance refers to the finite permeability of the vertical drain with respect to the
soil. Head loss occurs when water flows along the drain and delays radial consolidation.
A number of studies have been made in the past on the modeling of well resistance as
summarized by Indraratna et al. (2005a). Theoretically, the well effect is modeled by the
last term of Eq. (2): πz(2l − z)k h /qw . Therefore, the well resistance is controlled by the
length of the drain, the discharge capacity of the drain qw , and the permeability of the soil
k h . However, if qw is sufficiently large, then this term πz(2l − z)k h /qw can be small enough
to be ignored. The good news is there are PVD products that can provide enough qw to
make the well effect insignificant. The required value of qw for well resistance to be ignored
will be discussed in the next section.
It should be pointed out that the discharge capacity can be significantly reduced when
PVDs experience kinking under large deformation and thus lead to well resistance. In this
respect, circular PVDs have shown to be more favorable in comparison to band or wick
type PVDs, especially when vacuum pressure is employed.
2.3. Selection of PVDs
The quality and suitability of the drains play a key role in the whole soil improvement
scheme involving PVDs. Different design situations require different types of PVDs. For
example, it is not necessary to use a vertical drain with a high discharge capacity value if
the drain is short. The drain filter should also match the soil type. The unit price of vertical
drain is another important consideration besides meeting the design requirements. A con-
siderable saving can be achieved without sacrificing the performance of the drain, if the
control factors for a vertical drain can be identified and the design requirements are spec-
ified accordingly. The other factors that control the selection of vertical drain, apart from
the cost, include discharge capacity, compatibility of the filter with the soil to be improved,
and the tensile strength of drain.
As discussed in Section 2.2.3, the well resistance may be ignored if the discharge capac-
ity of PVD, qw , is adequate. The discharge capacity of drain, qw , required is affected by
the permeability of soil, k s , and the discharge length or the depth of PVD installation, lm .
Studies have shown that for well resistance to be ignored, the required discharge capacity,
qreq , has to meet the following requirement (Chu et al., 2004):
qreq ≥ 7.85Fs k h lm
2
(9)
where: qreq = the required discharge capacity, Fs = factor of safety to take account the fac-
tors influencing the discharge capacity such as kinking. Normally Fs = 4 ∼ 6 is suggested.
Inequality (9) reflects the fact that the larger the k h or the longer of the drain, the larger
the discharge capacity is required.
In addition to having sufficient discharge capacity, the filter of PVDs should have ade-
quate apparent opening size (AOS). On one hand, the AOS has to be small enough to
prevent the fine particles of the soil from entering the filter and the drain. On the other
hand, the AOS cannot be too small as the filter has to provide sufficient permeability. A
commonly used criterion is given by Carroll (1983):
O95 ≤ (2 ∼ 3) D85 and O50 ≤ (10 to 12) D50 (10)
where O95 is the AOS of filter, O50 is the size which is larger than 50% of the fabric pores,
D85 and D50 refer to the sizes for 85% and 50% of passing of soil particle by weight. O95 ≤
0.075 mm, or 75 μm, is often specified for prefabricated vertical drains. A more relaxed
criterion:
O95 ≤ (4 ∼ 7.5) D85 (11)
may be applicable to soft clay in Singapore (Chu et a. 2004) and Bangkok (Bergado et al.,
1993). Past experience also indicates that the mass to area ratio should be generally larger
than 90 g/m2 (Bo et al., 2003).
PVDs should have adequate tensile strength so that it can sustain the tensile load applied
to it during installation. Therefore the strength of the core, the strength of the filter, the
strength of the entire drain, and the strength of the joint need to be specified, normally
at both wet and dry conditions. According to Kremer et al. (1983), a drain must be able to
withstand at least 0.5 kN of tensile force along the longitudinal direction without exceeding
10% in elongation. It is quite common nowadays to specify the tensile strength of the whole
drain at both dry and wet conditions to be larger than 1 kN at a tensile strain of 10%.
Some examples of design specifications and testing methods to measure discharge
capacity, AOS and tensile strength of PVDs have been discussed in Bo et al. (2003). It is
worthwhile to mention that a few design codes have also been put in use in different coun-
tries. Examples are the European Standard on Execution of Special Geotechnical Works —
Vertical Drainage (BS EN 15237, 2007), Australian Standards AS8700: Execution of Prefab-
ricated Vertical Drains (2011), and the Chinese design codes JTJ/T256-96 (1996) to control
the practice for installation of PVDs and JTJ/T257-96 (1996) to set the quality inspection
standard for PVDs. The use of these codes and standards are important in maintaining
the quality standards of soil improvement works. In the past, a number of ASTM D-series
standards were often used as the standards for vertical drain testing. However, some of
those ASTM standards are not specifically written for vertical drains. Therefore, the testing
procedures stipulated in these standards may not be the most suitable methods.
3. VACUUM PRELOADING
3.1. Vacuum Consolidation Systems
When the ground is very soft or when the fill surcharge has to be applied in stages to
maintain the stability of the fill embankment, the vacuum preloading method becomes a
good alternative. Vacuum preloading is also used when there is no fill or the use of fill
is costly, when there is no space on site to place the fill and when slurry or soft soil is
used as fill for reclamation. The idea of vacuum preloading was proposed by Kjellman in
1952. Since then, the vacuum preloading method has evolved into a mature and efficient
technique for the treatment of soft clay. This method has been successfully used for many
soil improvement or land reclamation projects all over the world (Holtz 1975; Chen and
1, drains; 2, filter piping; 3, revetment; 4, water outlet; 5, valve; 6, vacuum gauge; 7, jet
pump; 8, centrifugal pump; 9, trench;10, horizontal piping; 11, sealing membrane.
Figure 9. Vacuum preloading system used in China (after Chu et al., 2000).
Bao 1983; Cognon 1991; Bergado et al., 1998; Chu et al., 2000; Yee et al., 2004; Chu and Yan,
2005b, Indraratna et al., 2005; Yan and Chu, 2003, 2005).
The schematic arrangement of the vacuum preloading system adopted in China is shown
in Figure 9. PVDs are normally used to distribute vacuum load and discharge pore water.
The soil improvement work using the vacuum preloading method is normally carried out
as follows. A 0.3 m sand blanket is first placed on the ground surface. PVDs are then
installed on a square grid at a spacing of 1.0 m in the soft clay layer. Corrugated flexible
pipes (50 to 100 mm diameter) are laid horizontally in the sand blanket to link the PVDs
to the main vacuum pressure line. The pipes are perforated and wrapped with a nonwo-
ven geotextile to act as a filter layer. Three layers of thin PVC membranes are laid to seal
each section. Vacuum pressure is then applied using jet pumps. The size of each section
is usually controlled in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 m2 . Field instrumentation is an impor-
tant part of the vacuum preloading technique, as the effectiveness of vacuum preloading
can only be evaluated using fielding monitoring data. Normally piezometers, settlement
gauges and inclinometers are used to measure the pore water pressure changes, the settle-
ment at ground surface and/or different depths in the soil and the lateral displacement.
More details are presented in Chu et al. (2000) and Yan and Chu (2003).
In Europe, the Menard Vacuum Consolidation system has been developed in France by
Cognon (1991). The details of this system can be found in Varaksin and Yee (2007). The gen-
eral principle following this method is presented in Figure 10. The uniqueness of this sys-
tem is the dewatering below the membrane which permanently keeps a gas phase between
the membrane and the lowered water level. Therefore, the Menard Vacuum Consolidation
system adopts a combined dewatering and vacuum preloading methods to maintain an
unsaturated pervious layer below the membrane. The vacuum preloading method may
not work well when the subsoil is inter-bedded with sand lenses or permeable layers that
ISOTROPIC
CONSOLIDATION
Soft clay
(k < 10-9 m/sec)
Figure 10. The Menard vacuum consolidation system (After Varaksin and Yee 2007).
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 11. BeauDrain vacuum preloading system (a) Concept (Courtesy of Cofra, Holland);
(b) Direct connection of PVD with plastic pipe for vacuum application; and (c) Connection of plas-
tic pipes to a vacuum pump.
extend beyond the boundary of the area to be improved, such as the improvement of soft
soil below sand fill for reclaimed land. In this case, a cut-off wall is required to be installed
around the boundary of the entire area to be treated. One example is given by Tang and
Shang (2000), in which a 120 cm wide and 4.5 m deep clay slurry wall was used as a cut-off
wall in order to improve the soft clay below a silty sand layer. However, installation of
cut-off walls is expensive when the total area to be treated is large. One solution to this
problem is to connect the vacuum channel directly to each individual drain. This so-called
BeauDrain system has been developed in the Netherlands (Kolff et al., 2004). This method
has evolved in the past few years and the one of the later version is shown in Figure 11.
In this method, the top of each vertical drain is connected to a plastic pipe as shown in
Figures 11a and 11b. In this way, the channel from the top of the PVD to the vacuum line
is sealed using the plastic pipe and thus go through a sand layer without causing leak in
vacuum. A special connector as shown in Figure 11b is used for this purpose. The plas-
tic pipes are connected directly with the vacuum line at the ground surface as shown in
Figure 11c. Thus, a sand blanket and membranes as used in the conventional vacuum
methods as shown in Figures 9 and 10 are not required. This method has been used for the
construction of the new Bangkok Suvarnabhum International Airport (Seah 2006;
Saowapakpiboon et al., 2008) and other projects (Chai et al., 2008). One shortcoming of
Figure 12. Membraneless vacuum preloading method (After Chu et al., 2009).
this method is that it is difficult to achieve a high vacuum pressure in soil. This could be
caused by two factors. The first is the difficulty to ensure every drain is completely sealed.
The second is the head loss in the sealed plastic pipe (see Figure 11a). This method also
requires a more detailed soil profile as the length of each PVD has to be predetermined to
match the depth of the clay layer at each PVD location. The production rate is also thus
lower.
Another method to do away with the membrane is to use the so-called low level vac-
uum preloading method (Yan and Cao 2005). This method is schematically illustrated in
Figure 12. When clay slurry is used as fill for land reclamation, the vacuum pipes can be
installed at the seabed or a level a few meters below the ground surface. In this way, clay
slurry fill can be placed on top of the vacuum pipes. As clay has a low permeability, the fill
material will provide a good sealing cap and membranes will not be required. However,
this method is not problem-free. Tension cracks can develop on the surface when the top
layer is dried. The vacuum pressure may not be distributed properly unless a drainage
blanket is used at the level where the drainage pipes are installed or the individual drains
are connected to the vacuum pipes directly. It is also difficult to install drainage pipes or
panels underwater. Nevertheless, this method does not require the construction of inner
dikes for subdivision and thus cuts down the project costs and duration substantially.
3.2. Comparison of Membrane and Membraneless Vacuum Preloading Systems
Numerical and analytical modeling of vacuum preloading considering membrane and

membraneless systems has been described earlier by Indraratna and Chu (2005), and more
elaborately by Geng et al., (2012) very recently, where both vertical and horizontal drainage
were captured to reflect in-situ conditions. The placing of the surface sand blanket and the
installation of a completely air tight membrane is imperative for the membrane type vac-
uum system in order to create and sustain a desired uniform vacuum pressure on the soil
surface, and thereby ensure the speedy propagation of this vacuum head down the PVDs
to consolidate the clay layer. While a surface sand blanket has no real advantage (except
for trafficability) for the membraneless system where the vacuum is applied directly to the
PVDs through a network of tubing, not having a membrane eliminates an obvious con-
struction detail and cost factor. The permeability of the sand layer plays an important role
in this process as governs the effectiveness of vacuum pressure propagation from the upper
soil boundary to the PVD’s to consolidate the clay layer. The roles of permeability of the
sand blanket in a membrane system and the adverse effect of vacuum loss with depth in a
membraneless system have been analyzed by Geng et al. (2012).
0.0 0.0
0.2 Hclay = 40m

0.2 Hclay = 10m
4 5 4 5
Normalized settlement (St/S)
6 0.4
Normalized settlement (St/S)

0.4 6
0.6
0.6 k h1 K2 =
kh1
K2 = kw
kw 0.8
0.8 3 kh1: Permeability of the sand blanket 3
kh1: Permeability of the sand blanket
1.0 k : Permeability of the PVD
kw: Permeability of the PVD w
1.0
1) Membrane system with K 2 = 10-1 1.2 1) Membrane system with K 2 = 10-1
1.2 2) Membrane system with K2 = 10-2 2) Membrane system with K 2 = 10-2

2 1.4 2
3) Membrane system with K2 = 10-3 3) Membrane system with K 2 = 10-3
1.4 4) Membrane system with K2 = 10 -4 4) Membrane system with K 2 = 10-4
1.6
5) Membrane system with K2 = 10-5 5) Membrane system with K 2 = 10-5
1 7
1.6 6) Membrane system with K2 = 10-6 1.8 6) Membrane system with K 2 = 10-6
7) Membraneless system with no vacuum loss 1 8
7) Membraneless system with no vacuum loss
1.8 9 2.0
8) Membraneless system with 25% vacuum loss 8 8) Membraneless system with 25% vacuum loss 9
9) Membraneless system with 50% vacuum loss
7
(a) 9) Membraneless system with 50% vacuum loss
2.0 2.2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10
10 10 10
T10 10 10 10 Th10 10 10 10
h
Figure 13. Normalized settlement-time factor curves for varying the permeability of the sand blanket
(for membrane system) and the vacuum loss (for membraneless system): (a) the thickness of the clay
is 10 m; (b) the thickness of the clay is 40 m (after Geng et al., 2012).
Figure 13 illustrates the effect of the sand blanket permeability in a membrane system.
As expected, when permeability decreases, the time for consolidation increases. For rela-
tively short PVDs (less than 10 m), Fig.13a shows that the permeability of the sand blanket
should not be less than 0.01 times the permeability of the PVD and at least 104 times the
permeability of the clay to maintain an acceptable consolidation time for a degree of con-
solidation (DOC) of 90%. With longer drains (Figure 13b), the permeability ratio of the
sand blanket to PVD should be greater than 0.1, and the permeability ratio of the sand
blanket to the clay layer should be at least 105. For a membraneless system, the possible
reduction in vacuum along the length of long PVDs increases the consolidation time for a
given DOC. Where there is no vacuum loss with depth, the membraneless system has the
same efficiency as the membrane-type system as shown in Figure 13 for relatively shallow
(10 m) and very thick (40 m) clay layers.
3.3. Combined Vacuum and Fill Surcharge Consolidation
One limitation of the vacuum preloading method is that the nominal vacuum pressure can
only be 80 kPa. When higher surcharge is required, a combined vacuum and fill surcharge
method can be adopted in which a fill surcharge can be applied after the soil has gained
adequate strength under the vacuum load. One example is given in Figure 14 where 3.5
m of fill was placed after 80 kPa of vacuum pressure was applied for 1.5 months. The
ground settlement versus time curve is also shown in Figure 14. For a detail description
of the project, see Yan and Chu (2005). In this project, the pore water pressures at different
depths were also measured and the pore water pressure distribution profiles are shown in
Figure 15. It should be noted that with respect to the initial pore water pressure profile,
there was an almost uniform reduction in the pore water pressure over the entire depth of
16 m at the end of consolidation. It is an indication that the well resistance was insignificant
in this case. Within the first 30 days, there was a pore water pressure reduction of about
20 and 47 kPa at 3 and 16.5 m deep respectively. When the fill surcharge of about 60 kPa
was applied at 45 days, the pore water pressure should have increased by 60 kPa. The
pore water pressures measured at 60 days indicate a reduction of pore water pressure of
70 and 65 kPa at 3 and 16.5 m deep respectively. This is more than the pore water pressure
Figure 14. Loading sequence and ground settlement mea-

sured at Section II (after Yan and Chu 2005). Figure 15. Pore water pressure dis-
tributions with depth at Section II (after
Yan and Chu 2005).
reduction in the first 30 days! It implies that the consolidation under a combined load is
more efficient than that under vacuum load alone. This could be partially attributed to the
increase in hydraulic gradient after a positive increase in pore water pressure.
The combined vacuum and fill surcharge method offers several other advantages over
either the vacuum or fill surcharge method alone. Firstly, it cuts down the construction time
as the vacuum pressure can be applied relatively quickly and the subsequent fill surcharge
can be applied much quicker too as the soil has been adequately consolidated under the
vacuum load. Secondly, it provides a way to control the lateral displacement. Under vac-
uum pressure, an inward lateral displacement is created. On the other hand, under fill sur-
charge, the soil will move laterally outward. Lateral displacements are undesirable most
of the time. If a loading program is designed properly, the vacuum and fill surcharge can
be applied in a way to control the lateral displacement within a certain limit (Yan and Chu
2005b; Indraratna 2009). For this reason, this method is particularly suitable to be used
when preloading has to be carried out near a retaining wall, an embankment or a dike. In
situations such as the conditions shown in Figure 12, it also helps to reduce the construc-
tion cost as a smaller safety margin can be adopted for the dike. A comparison of the lateral
displacements measured at the embankment toe between an area improvement by vacuum
using the Menard system and a non-vacuum area after 400 days is made in Figure 16 for the
Port of Brisbane project (Indraratna et al., 2011). In Figure 16, the measured lateral displace-
ments are normalized to the total change in applied stress (vacuum plus surcharge load). It
can be seen that the lateral displacement for the vacuum case (VC1/MS28) is much smaller.
Thirdly, some laboratory tests have indicated that a combined vacuum and fill surcharge
loading will be faster than the use of vacuum and fill alone (Liu et al., 2004). This is also
confirmed by recent test results obtained from modified Rowe cells at University of Wol-
longong where coefficient of consolidation was determined based on both pore water pres-
sure dissipation and settlement. The coefficient of consolidation increases with the ratio of
vacuum pressure to surcharge fill. The strain (settlement) based coefficient of consolidation
was always higher than that based on pore water pressure dissipation. This is possible as
10
8
Platform
6 Platform
4
2 Dredged mud Dredged mud
0 HS Holocene sand
-2 Upper Holocene Clay
UHC
-4
-6
Depth (m)
-8 LHC
-10
-12
-14
-16
Lower Holocene Clay
-18
-20
-22
-24 Section/Plate No.
-26 VC1/MS28
WD3/MS27
-28
-30
0 1 2
Lateral displacement/Total change in applied stress
(mm/kPa)
Figure 16. Comparison of lateral displacements at the embankment toe in vacuum (membrane
system) and non-vacuum area after 400 days (after Indraratna et al., 2011).
vacuum creates an isotropic consolidation state and fill surcharge an anisotropic state. In
theory, the soil will have a different stress-strain behavior when different stress paths are
applied. This in fact helps to reduce some of the distortion deformation or settlement that
would have incurred when working loads are applied to ground improved under vacuum
preloading during the consolidation stage.
4. DYNAMIC CONSOLIDATION WITH ENHANCED DRAINAGE OR VACUUM
When the term “dynamic consolidation” was coined by Menard (Menard and Broise 1975),
he envisaged the method would be used for fine-grained soils as well. However, it is now
generally believed that the dynamic compaction (DC) method using heavy tamping is not
suitable to fine-grained soils, particularly for soils with a plasticity index larger than 10
(Mitchell 1981). The main reasons for the failure of DC to be used for clay are (1) it is diffi-
cult for pore water pressure to dissipate and (2) the impact load damages the structure and
fabric of soil. To overcome this problem, a combined DC with PVD method has been pro-
posed by Zheng et al. (2004). In this method, a proper drainage system is installed before
compaction. For compaction, it is suggested to begin with low compaction energy for the
first pass and then increases the energy gradually for the subsequent passes. The rationale
is to consolidate the top soil to form a “hard crust” first. Once a “hard crust” is formed,
larger compaction energy can be applied and soil at a deeper depth can be compacted.
A case study was presented by Zheng et al. (2004) in which the drainage enhanced dynamic
consolidation method was used to treat a site consisting of soft silty clay of 2 to 7 m
deep and a sandy clay below. The PVD spacing was 1.7 to 2 m in a square grid. The
sand blanket was 1.5 m thick. The CPT tip resistance has increased 2 to 3 time up to 5.5
m after dynamic compaction. Similar techniques have also been used in other countries
(Perucho and Olalla 2006; Lee and Karunaratne 2007). A similar effect of using vibration
on top of the fill used for a combined vacuum and fill surcharge project has also been
adopted by Varaksin and Yee. (2007).
A variation of the above technique is to use deep dewater wells together with dynamic
compaction for soft clay (Xu et al., 2003). In this method, the soil is compacted using sur-
face compaction or small energy dynamic compaction first to generate excess pore-water
pressures. Deep well points are then installed to dissipate the excess pore-water pressures.
After the excess pore-water pressures are reduced, the deep well points are removed and
the second round of dynamic compaction and dewatering are carried out. This method is
more effective than the use of PVDs alone as suction creates a much higher hydraulic gra-
dient to speed up the dissipation of excess pore water pressure. The well points can also
be installed at the points where the excess pore water pressure is the highest. The holes
left after the withdrawal of the pipes for dewatering also helps in the dissipation of excess
pore-water pressure generated in the subsequent compaction. This method has been used
for a number of projects in China. However, the method may only be effective when the
depth of soil to be improved is less than 8 m which is inherently the limitation of dynamic
compaction with the common level of compaction energy. It may also be less effective for
soils with high plasticity index (probably higher than 20). Another method that combines
deep blasting with shallow compaction with deep dewater well has also been patented by
Liu and Xu (2007). However, those methods have yet to be applied in practice on a large
scale. More field studies with proper instrumentations are required.
5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
A soil improvement project using preloading is usually carried out until the required
degree of consolidation is obtained. Assessment of the degree of consolidation of the soil
therefore becomes one of the most important tasks for construction control. One of the most
commonly adopted methods for assessing the degree of consolidation of soil is by means
of field instrumentation using settlement or pore water pressure data. For this reason, field
instrumentation is normally required to monitor settlements and pore water pressures at
different elevations as well as ground water tables, lateral displacement, and earth pres-
sure etc. Some of the commonly used instruments are described in Bo et al (2003). Case
studies and other instrumentation issues are discussed by many researchers (e.g., Bo et al.,
2003, Indratnatna et al., 2005, Arulrajah et al., 2009). For projects using PVDs, in particular
those use vacuum preloading, it is important to measure the pore water pressures at sev-
eral depths in the soil to obtain a pore water distribution profile as shown in Figure 15 as
this is the most effective way to visualize whether consolidation is progressing.
The degree of consolidation is normally calculated as the ratio of the current settlement
to the ultimate settlement. However, for a soil improvement project, the ultimate settlement
is unknown and has to be predicted. Although consolidation settlement can be estimated
based on laboratory oedometer tests, the prediction by this method is normally not very
reliable. Methods to estimate the ultimate settlement based on field settlement monitoring
data are also proposed. Among them, the Asaoka’s (1978) and hyperbolic (Sridharan and
Rao 1981) methods are commonly used. Once the pore water pressures at different depths
are measured during preloading, the initial and final pore water pressure distributions
with depth can be plotted as shown in Figure 16 as an example. The typical pore water
Figure 17. Schematic illustration of pore water pressure distributions versus depth under combined
surcharge and vacuum load (After Chu and Yan 2003).
pressure distribution profiles for a combined vacuum and fill surcharge preloading case
are shown schematically in Figure 17. Using Figure 17, the average degree of consolidation,
Uavg , can be calculated as:

[u1 (z) − us (z)] dz
Uavg = 1 − (12)
[u0 (z) − us (z)] dz
and
us (z) = γw z − σ, kPa
In Eq. 12, u0 (z) = the initial pore water pressure at depth z; ut (z) = the pore water
pressure at depth z at time t; us (z) is the suction line, z = depth, γw = unit weight of
water, and s = suction applied. The value of s is normally assumed to be 80 kPa. The
integral in the numerator in Eq. (12) is the area between the curve ut (z) and the suction
line us (z), and the integral in the denominator the area between the curve u0 (z) and the
suction line us (z).
As an example, the settlement and pore water pressure data presented in Figures 14 and
15 are used to estimate the degree of consolidation at the end of the preloading. Asaoka’s
method was applied to predict the ultimate settlements, S∞ , using the ground settlement
data shown in Figure 14. The results are given in Table 4. Using the pore water pressure
distribution profile shown in Figure 15 and Eq. (12), the average degree of consolidation
was estimated and the value is given in Table 4. The degree of consolidation measured
using the pore water pressure data is smaller than those by displacements. This is typical
for the reasons explained by Chu and Yan (2005a).
Table 4. Ultimate settlement and Degree of consoli-
dation estimated by different methods.
Asaoka’s method Based on Pore pressure
Section S∞ (m) U f (%) U f (%)
II 1.84 87 82
One concern of the method depicted in Figure 17 is that the random uncertainties in the
pore water pressure measurements as the distance between the pore pressure transducers
and the PVDs can affect the pore pressure distribution profile. This is true only when the
depth of PVD is relatively short, say less than 5 m. This is because when a random vari-
able varies over a long distance, the overall effect of the random variation over the entire
distance reduced greatly due to a statistical property called spatial variance reduction
(Vanmarcke 1977). This explains why the method illustrated in Eq. (8) has worked well
for a number of projects (Chu et al., 2000; Chu and Yan 2005; Yan and Chu 2003; 2007; Chu
et al., 2009).
5.1. Strain-based and Pore Pressure-based Degree of

Consolidation and Practical Implications
Coefficients of consolidation based on pore water pressure dissipation (chv ) and settlement
(chs ) can be determined by:
F (n)d2s
chv = In(1 − Uv ) (13)
8t
F (n)d2s
chs = In(1 − Us ) (14)
8t
Figure 18. Typical vacuum consolidation site: (a) Predicted and measured DOC based on the
settlement data, (b) Predicted.
(a) Integrated PVDs (b) Circular PVDs
Figure 19. New types of PVDs (after Liu and Chu 2009).
in which, Uv and Us are the DOC based on the pore water pressure dissipation and settle-
ment, respectively.
Figure 18 shows the settlement based degree of consolidation (DOC) and the pore water
pressure dissipation during the above stated periods, and the back calculated chs and chv
values for a typical vacuum section VC1 at the Port of Brisbane site. The back calculated chs
was found to be 1.09 m2 /year while chs was found to be 0.74 m2 /year. Due to the difference
in DOC based on settlement and excess pore water pressure dissipation, one must analyze
both the measured settlement and excess pore pressure to evaluate the performance of a
soft soil foundation subjected to radial consolidation with surcharge and vacuum applica-
tion. It is suggested that to evaluate the shear strength gain during consolidation, the DOC
obtained based on chv or field excess pore pressure measurement should be employed to
avoid the overestimation of shear strength.
6. RECENT INNOVATIONS
6.1. New PVDs
A PVD normally consists of a core and filter made of different types of materials. The core
and filter are fitted loosely together and are separable. Recently, a new type of PVD, the so-
called integrated PVD has been developed (Liu and Chu 2009). For this type of PVD, the
core is adhered to the filter, as shown in Figure 19. This new type of PVD offers a number
of advantages over the ordinary type of PVDs. For examples, the discharge capacity and
tensile strength are higher than those conventional drains as shown by Liu and Chu (2009).
Sometimes, for vacuum preloading projects, circular PVD, as shown in Figure 19, may also
be used in increase the efficiency for vacuum consolidation. PVDs made of biodegradable
polymer have also been developed (Park et al., 2010).
In order to increase the stiffness of the PVD as well as to increase the contact area for
quicker pore pressure dissipation, the models of (a) cross-shaped PVD and (b) hollow
cylindrical PVD were developed at University of Wollongong (Figure 20). The prelimi-
nary analysis has shown that the cross-shaped PVDs provide a larger drain influence zone
by 10% (Indraratna et al., 2006). In rail track environments where the installation of band
drains only requires a line pattern along the longitudinal direction (rather than a conven-
tional triangular or square pattern), these relatively large diameter hollow cylindrical and
the cross-shaped PVDs can be adopted such that each drain can be ideally located beneath
the position of concrete sleepers/ties for the track to benefit optimally from the increased
shear strength of the consolidated subgrade (Rujikiatkamjorn and Indraratna 2012).
Plastic core
Hollow Cylindrical drain
Filter
(a) (b)
Figure 20. (a) Cross-shape PVD and (b) Hollow cylindrical drain developed at Uni. of Wollongong.
6.2. New Applications: Thermal PVD and Electric PVD
One recent development is to enhance PVD with ability to allow the temperature of the
ground to rise to accelerate the consolidation of soil. This so-called thermal PVD has been
developed and studied by Abuel-Naga et al. (2006) and Diogo (2009). One of the benefits as
discussed by Abuel-Naga et al. (2006) is to use the thermal effect to counterbalance the neg-
ative effect of smear effect. This technique may be promising in reducing the construction
time particularly in cold regions. One field trial of combing thermal effect with vacuum
preloading has also been carried out (Marques and Leroueil 2005). However this develop-
ment is still confined within the experimental stage and further study and field verification
is required.
The idea of electric PVD has been there for a number of years (Shang 1998; Bergado et al.,
2000). Some field trials have been carried out (Karunaratne 2011). However, whether the
benefit will weigh the additional cost is still yet to be verified. Nevertheless, the electric
PVD may be applied for geo-environmental problems such as removal of contaminates in
the ground (Shang and Mohamedelhassan 2001).
7. CONCLUSIONS
An overview on some recent developments in the areas of preloading using PVDs, vac-
uum consolidation and dynamic consolidation with enhanced drainage is presented in
this paper. The main points discussed are summarized as follows:
(1) Theories for consolidation of soil using PVDs based on both Darcian and non-Darcian
flow have been proposed. The theories based on non-Darcian flow seem to give a better
prediction of the excess pore water pressure after a high value of degree of consolida-
tion has achieved.
(2) Factors affecting the consolidation of soil around PVDs include the soil parameters,
ch and kh , the properties of smear zone, and the properties of PVD. Both ch and kh
are stress history or stress state dependent parameters and thus have to be selected
based on the stress conditions. The smear zone properties are difficult to determine
as it is affected by the mandrel used, the method used to penetrate the mandrel and
the type of soil. Ideally the smear zone model should include a fully remolded zone
and a transition zone. The diameter of the smear zone measured by field methods can
be much greater than that determined by model tests in the laboratory. The difference
reflects the effect of soil structure or fabric.
(3) Well resistance effects may be ignored if the discharge capacity, qw , is sufficiently large.
The required qw value may be calculated as qreq ≥ 7.85Fs kh l2m , where Fs is a factor of
safety to consider effect of buckling and large deformation of PVD on qw .
(4) The selection of PVD should be based on qw , tensile strength of PVD, and the AOS of
the filter.
(5) The vacuum preloading system normally requires membrane to be used to seal the
soil to be consolidated, such as the China and Menard systems. Membraneless vacuum
systems have also been developed. This includes the BeauDrain system in which each
PVD is connected directly to the vacuum pump through plastic pipes and the low level
vacuum preloading method.
(6) The combined vacuum and fill surcharge method offers several advantages over either
the vacuum or fill surcharge method alone: (a) it cuts down the construction time, (2)
it provides an effective way to control the lateral displacement, (3) the rate of consol-
idation under a combined load may be faster than that under either vacuum and fill
surcharge alone.
(7) It is possible to use dynamic compaction for the improvement of fine grained soil if
PVDs and drainage blanket are used to facilitate the dissipation of excess pore water
pressure. Pumping well dewatering can be adopted to accelerate the dissipation of pore
water.
(8) To evaluate the degree of consolidation, both settlement and pore water pressure should
be used. Pore water pressures at a few depths in the clay should be measured to plot
the pore water pressure versus depth profile which enables the effectiveness of vacuum
consolidation to be evaluated.
(9) New types of PVDs, thermal PVDs and electric PVDs have been developed, apart from
trials still being conducted for different shapes of PVDs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Some of the findings presented here have been supported in the past and present by the
Australian Research Council (ARC). Much of the contents in this paper are elaborated
in numerous issues of the Canadian Geotechnical Journal, ASCE Journal of Geotechni-
cal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Geotechnique, ASCE J. of Geomechanics, Ground
Improvement Case Histories, Elsevier (editors: by Indraratna and Chu) and several
Keynote papers at international conferences.
REFERENCES
1. Abuel-Naga, H.M., Bergado, D.T. and Chaiprakaikeow, S. (2006). Innovative thermal technique
for enhancing the performance of prefabricated vertical drain system. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes 24(6), 59–70
2. Abuel-Naga, H.M. and Bouazza, A. (2009). On the equivalent diameter of prefabricated vertical
drain: numerical study. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27(1), 227–231.
3. Abuel-Naga, H.M., Pender, M.J. and Bergado, D.T. (2012). Design curves of prefabricated ver-
tical drains including smear and transition zones effects. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 32(1),
1–9.
4. Akagi, T. (1994). Hydraulic application of geosynthetics to filtration and drainage problems –
with special reference to prefabricated band-shaped drains. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, Special Lecture, 4, Singapore, pp. 97–119.
5. Almeida, M.S.S. and Ferreira, C.A.M. (1993). Field in situ and laboratory consolidation param-
eters of a very soft clay. Predictive Soil Mechanics, Proc. Of the Worth Memorial Symposium, Thomas
Telford, London, pp. 73–93.
6. Arulrajah, A., Bo, M.W. and Chu, J. (2009). Instrumentation at the Changi land reclamation
project, Singapore. Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 162(1),
33–40.
7. Asaoka, A. (1978). Observational procedure of settlement prediction. Soils and Foundations 18(4),
87–101.
8. Australian Standards, AS8700 (2011). Execution of prefabricated vertical drains, Standards
Australia.
9. Balasubraniam, A.S., Bergado, D.I., Long, P.V. and Thayalan (1995). Experiences with sand
drains and prefabricated vertical drains in ground improvement of soft clays, Seminar on
Engineering for Coastal Development, Singapore.
10. Barron, R.A. (1948). Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells. Trans ASCE, Vol. 113,
Paper 2346, pp. 718–54.
11. Basu, D. and Prezzi, M. (2007). Effect of the Smear and Transition Zones around Prefabricated
Vertical Drains Installed in a Triangular Pattern on the Rate of Soil Consolidation. International
Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, 7(1), 34–43.
12. Bergado, D. T., Asakami, H., Alfaro, M. C. and Balasubramaniam, A. S. (1991). Smear effects of
vertical drains on soft Bangkok clay. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 10, pp. 1509–1530.
13. Bergado, D.T., Alfaro, M.C. and Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1993). Improvement of soft Bangkok
clay using vertical drains, Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12(5), pp. 615–663.
14. Bergado, D.T. and Long, P.V. (1994). Numerical analysis of embankment on subsiding
ground improved by vertical drains and granular piles. Proc. 13th ICSMFE, New Delhi, India,
pp. 1361–1366.
15. Bergado, D.T., Anderson, L.R., Miura, N. and Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1996). Soft Ground
Improvement in Lowland and Other Environments, ASCE Press, ASCE, NY.
16. Bergado, D.T., Chai, J.C., Miura, N. and Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1998). PVD improvement of
soft Bangkok clay with combined vacuum and reduced sand embankment preloading. J. Geot.
Eng., Southeast Asian Geot. Soc., 29(1): 95–122.
17. Bergado, D.T., Balasubramaniam, A.S., Patawaran, M.A.B. and Kwuenpreuk, W. (2000).
Electro-osmotic consolidation of soft Bangkok Clay with prefabricated vertical drains. Ground
Improvement 4, 153–163.
18. Bergado, D.T., Balasubramaniam, A.S., Fannin, R.J. and Holtz, R.D. (2002). Prefabricated verti-
cal drains (PVDs) in soft Bangkok clay: a case study of the New Bangkok International Airport
project, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39, 304–315.
19. Bo, M.W. (2004). Discharge capacity of prefabricated vertical drain and their field measure-
ments, Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22(1–2), 37–48.
20. Bo, M.W., Chu, J. and Choa, V. (2005). Changi East Reclamation and Soil Improvement Project.
In: Chapter 9, Ground Improvement—Case Histories. Indraratna, B., Chu, J. (Eds.), Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 247–276
21. Bo, M.W., Chu, J., Low, B.K. and Choa, V. (2003). Soil Improvement: Prefabricated Vertical Drain
Technique, Thomson Learning, Singapore.
22. BS EN 15237. (2007). European Standard on Execution of Special Geotechnical Works — Vertical
Drainage. European Standard.
23. Carillo, N. (1942). Simple two - and three - dimensional cases in the theory of consolidation of
soils. Journal of Mathematics and Physics, 21(1), 1–5.
24. Carroll, R.G. (1983). Geotextile filter criteria. Transportation Research Record, 916, 46–53.
25. Chai, J. C., Miura, N., and Bergado, D. T. (2008). Preloading clayey deposit by vacuum pressure
with cap-drain: Analyses versus performance. Geotext. Geomembranes, 26(1): 220–230.
26. Chai, J.C. and Miura, N. (1999). Investigation of factors affecting vertical drain behavior. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 125(1): 216–226
27. Chai, J.C., Miura, N., Sakajo, S. and Bergado, D.T. (1995). Behaviour of vertical drain improved
subsoil under embankment loading, Soils and Foundations, 35(2), 49–61.
28. Chen, H., and Bao, X.C. (1983). Analysis of soil consolidation stress under the action of negative
pressure. Proceedings of the European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2:
591–596.
29. Choa, V., Bo, M.W. and Chu, J. (2001). Soil improvement works for Changi East reclamation
project. Ground Improvement, 5(2), 141–153.
30. Choa, V., Vijiaratnam, A. Karunaratne, G.P., Ramaswamy, S.D. and Lee, S.L. (1979). Pilot Test for
Soil Stabilization at Changi Airport, Proceedings 7th European Regional Conference on Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundation Engineering, Brighton, Vol. 3, pp. 29–36.
31. Chu, J., Yan, S.W. and Yang, H. (2000). Soil improvement by the vacuum preloading method for
an oil storage station. Geotechnique, 50(6), 625–632.
32. Chu, J., Bo, M.W., Chang, M.F. and Choa, V. (2002). Consolidation and permeability properties
of Singapore marine clay, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 128(7), 724–
732.
33. Chu, J., Bo, M.W. and Choa, V. (2004). Practical consideration for using vertical drains in soil
improvement projects, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 22, 101–117.
34. Chu, J. and Yan, S.W. (2005a). Estimation of degree of consolidation for vacuum preloading
projects, International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, 5(2), 158–165.
35. Chu, J. and Yan, S.W. (2005b). Application of the vacuum preloading method in land reclama-
tion and soil improvement projects. Chapter 3, In Ground Improvement – Case Histories, Eds. B.
Indraratna and J. Chu, Elsevier, pp. 91–118.
36. Chu, J., Bo, M.W. and Choa, V. (2006). Improvement of ultra-soft soil using prefabricated vertical
drains, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24(6), 339–348.
37. Chu, J., Bo, M.W. and Arulrajah, A. (2009a). Soil improvement works for an offshore land recla-
mation. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Geotechnical Engineering, 162(1), 21–32.
38. Chu, J., Bo, M.W. and Arulrajah, A. (2009b). Reclamation of a slurry pond in Singapore, Geotech-
nical Engineering, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 162(1), 13–20.
39. Chu, J., Varaksin, S., Klotz, U. and Mengé, P. (2009c). Construction processes. State-of-the-Art-
Report, Proc. 17th International Conf on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria,
Egypt, 5-9 Oct., Vol. 4, pp. 3006–3135.
40. Chu, J. and Yan, S.W. (2005). Application of vacuum preloading method in soil improvement
project. . In: Indraratna, B., Chu, J. (Eds.), Ground Improvement—Case Histories. Elsevier, Amster-
dam, 91–118.
41. Cognon, J.M. (1991). Vaccum consolidation. Révue Française Géotechnique, 57, 37–47.
42. Collazos, O.M., Bowders, J.J. and Bouazza, A. (2002). Prefabricated vertical drains for use in soil
vapor extraction applications. Transportation Research Record, No. 1786, 104–111.
43. Geng, X. Y., Indraratna, B. and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2012). Analytical solutions for a single
vertical drain with vacuum and time-dependent surcharge preloading in membrane and mem-
braneless systems. International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE, 12(1): 27–42.
44. Ghandeharioon, A., Indraratna, B. and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2010). Analysis of soil disturbance
associated with mandrel-driven prefabricated vertical drains using an elliptical cavity expan-
sion theory. International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE. 10(2), 53–64.
45. Hansbo, S. (1960). Consolidation of clay, with special reference to influence of vertical sand
drains, Proc. Swedish Geotechnical Institute 18, Linkoping.
46. Hansbo, S. (1979). Consolidation of clay by band-shaped prefabricated drains, Ground

Engineering, 12(5), 16–25.
47. Hansbo, S. (1981). Consolidation of fine-grained soils by prefabricated drains, Proc. 10th Inter-
national Conference Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering., Stockholm, Vol. 3, pp. 677–682.
48. Hansbo, S. (1997). Aspects of vertical drain design: Darcian or non-Darcian flow, Geotechnique,
47, 983–992.
49. Hansbo, S. (2001). Consolidation equation valid for both Darcian or non-Darcian flow,
Geotechnique, 51(1), 51–54.
50. Hansbo, S. (2005). Experience of consolidation process from test areas with and without verti-
cal drains. In B. Indraratna and J. Chu (Eds.), Chapter 1, Ground Improvement - Case Histories,
Elsevier, pp. 3–50.
51. Hird C.C., Pyrah I.C. and Russel D. (1992). Finite element modeling of vertical drains beneath
embankments on soft ground. Geotechnique, 42(1): 499–511.
52. Hird, C.C. and Moseley, V.J. (2000). Model study of seepage in smear zones around vertical
drains in layered soil. Geotechnique 50 (1), 89–97.
53. Holtz, R.D. (1975). Preloading by vacuum: current prospects. Transportation Research Record,
48(5), 26–79.
54. Holtz, R.D. (1987). Preloading with prefabricated vertical strip drains, Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, Vol. 6, No. 1–3, pp. 109–131.
55. Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-Hall.
56. Holtz, R.D., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R. and Pedroni, R. (1991). Prefabricated Vertical
Drains: Design and Performance, CIRIA Ground Engineering Report, Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd., London.
57. Indraratna, B. and Redana, I.W. (1997). Plane strain modelling of smear effects associated with
vertical drains, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123(5), 474–478.
58. Indraratna, B. and Redana, I.W. (1998). Laboratory determination of smear zone due to vertical
drain installation, Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 124(2), 180–184.
59. Indraratna, B. and Redana, I.W. (2000). Numerical modelling of vertical drains with smear and
well resistance installed in soft clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37, 132–145.
60. Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn C. and Sathananthan, I. (2005a). Analytical and numerical solu-
tions for a single vertical drain including the effects of vacuum preloading. Can. Geotech. J.,
42(2): 994–1014.
61. Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn C. and Attya, A. (2006). Prefabricated vertical cross drain. Trail-
blazer Competition, Wollongong.
62. Indraratna, B., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2008). Effects of partially penetrating prefabricated ver-
tical drains and loading patterns on vacuum consolidation. In: K. R. Reddy, M. V. Khire and
A. N. Alshawabkeh (Eds.), GeoCongress, ASCE, USA: 596–603.
63. Indraratna, B., Attya, A., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2009a). Experimental investigation on effec-
tiveness of a vertical drain under cyclic loads. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(6): 835–839.
64. Indraratna, B., Balasubramaniam, A. S. and Balachandran, S. (1992). Performance of test
embankment constructed to failure on soft marine clay. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, No. 118,
pp. 12–33.
65. Indraratna, B., Balasubramaniam, A. S. and Ratnayake, P. (1994). Performance of embankment
stabilized with vertical drains on soft clay. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 2, pp. 257–273.
66. Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., Balasubramaniam, A.S., and Wijeyakulasuriya, V. (2005a).
Predictions and observations of soft clay foundations stabilised with geosynthetic drains
and vacuum surcharge. In: Indraratna, B., Chu, J. (Eds.), Ground Improvement—Case Histories.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 199–229.
67. Indraratna, B., Sathananthan, I., Rujikiatkamjorn C. and Balasubramaniam, A. S. (2005b).
Analytical and numerical modelling of soft soil stabilized by PVD incorporating vacuum
preloading. Int. J. Geomech. 5(2): 114–124.
68. Indraratna, B. (2009). Recent advances in the application of vertical drains and vacuum preload-
ing in soft soil stabilization. E.H. Davis Lecture, Australian Geomechanics Society.
69. Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., Ameratunga, J. and Boyle, P. (2011). Performance and
Prediction of Vacuum Combined Surcharge Consolidation at Port of Brisbane. J. of Geotechni-
cal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 137 (11), 1009–1018.
70. JTJ/T256-96. (1996). Code of Practice for Installation of Prefabricated Drains. Ministry of
Communications, China.
71. JTJ/T257-96. (1996). Quality Inspection Standard for Prefabricated Drains. Ministry of Communi-
cations, China.
72. Karunaratne, G.P. (2011). Prefabricated and electrical vertical drains for consolidation of soft
clay, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, online on 03 Feb.
73. Kitazume, M. (2007). Design, execution and quality control of ground improvement in Land
reclamation, Proc. of the 13th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Keynote Lecture.
74. Kjellman W. (1952). Consolidation of clayey soils by atmospheric pressure. Proceedings of a
Conference on Soil Stabilisation, MIT, Boston: 258–263.
75. Kolff, A.H.N., Spierenburg, S.E.J. and Mathijssen, F.A.J.M. (2004). BeauDrain: a new consolida-
tion system based on the old concept of vacuum consolidation, Proc. 5th International Conference
on Ground Improvement Techniques, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
76. Kremer, R.R.H.J., Oostven, J.P., Van Weele, A.F., Dejager, W.F.J. and Meyvogel, I.J. (1983). The
quality of vertical drainage, Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Vol. 2, Helsinki, pp. 721–726.
77. Lee, S.L. and Karunaratne, G.P. (2007). Treatment of soft ground by Fibredrain and high-energy
impact in highway embankment construction. Ground improvement, 11(2): 181–194.
78. Li, A.L. and Rowe, R.K. (2001). Combined effects of reinforcement and prefabricated ver-
tical drains on embankment performance, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp.
1266–1282.
79. Liu, H.L. and Chu, J. (2009). A new type of prefabricated vertical drain with improved proper-
ties, Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27(2), 152–155.
80. Liu, H-L. and Xu, S.L. (2007). Combined shallow compaction, deep blasting and vacuum dewa-
ter method for ground improvement, Patent No. CN200710024872.1, Chinese Patent Bureau.
81. Liu, H-L., Li, H., Peng, J. and Gao, Y.F. (2004). Laboratory tests on vacuum preloading combined
with surcharge. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 26(1), 145–149.
82. Madhav, M.R., Park, Y.M. and Miura, N. (1993). Modelling and study of smear zones around
band shaped drains, Soils and Foundations, 33(2), 135–147.
83. Marques, M.E.S., and Leroueil, S. (2005). Preconsolidating clay deposit by vacuum and heating
in cold environment. Chapter 36, In Ground Improvement - Case Histories, In B. Indraratna and
J. Chu (Eds.), Elsevier,1045–1063.
84. Mitchell, J.K. (1981). State of the Art – Soil Improvement. Proc 10th ICSMFE. Stockholm, 4,
509–565.
85. Onoue, A. (1988). Consolidation by vertical drains taking well resistance and smear into con-
sideration. Soils and Foundations 28(2), 165–174.
86. Park, J.H., Yuu, J. and Jeon, H.Y. (2010). Green Geosynthetics Applications to Sustainable
Environmental Fields from the Viewpoint of Degradability, Proceedings International Symposium
and Exhibition on Geotechnical and Geosynthetics Engineering: Challenges and Opportunities on Cli-
mate Change, 7-8 Dec Bangkok, pp. 43–50.
87. Perucho, A. and Olalla, C. (2006). Dynamic consolidation of a saturated plastic clayey fill.
Ground Improvement. 10(2): 55–68.
88. Rujikiatkamjorn, C., Indraratna, B. N. and Chu, J. (2008). 2D and 3D numerical modeling
of combined surcharge and vacuum preloading with vertical drains. Int. J. Geomech., 8(2):
144–156.
89. Rujikiatkamjorn, C. and Indraratna, B. (2012). Performance of different shapes of vertical drains.
Géotechnique letters (submitted).
90. Saowapakbiboon, J., Bergado, D.T., Chai, J.C., Kovittayanon, N., and de Zwart, T.P. (2008).
Vacuum-PVD combination with embankment loading consolidation in soft Bangkok Clay:
A Case study of Suvarnabhumi Airport project, Proc. 4th Asian Regional Geosynthetics Confer-
ence, Shanghai, China, pp. 440–449.
91. Sathananthan, I. and Indraratna, B. (2006). Laboratory evaluation of smear zone and correlation
between permeability and moisture content. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(5): 1090–0241.
92. Sathananthan, I., Indraratna, B. N. and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2008). Evaluation of smear zone
extent surrounding mandrel driven vertical drains using the cavity expansion theory. Int. J.
Geomech., 8(6): 355–365.
93. Seah, T.H. (2006). Design and construction of ground improvement works at Suvarnabhumi
Airport. Geotechnical Engineering Journal of Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, 37, 171–188.
94. Shang, J.Q. (1998). Electroosmosis-enhanced preloading consolidation via vertical drains. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, 35, 491–499.
95. Sharma, J. S. and Xiao, D. (2000). Characterization of a smear zone around vertical drains by
large-scale laboratory tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(6): 1265–1271.
96. Shang, J.Q., Mohamedelhassan, E., and Ismail, M. (2004). Electrochemical cementation of
offshore calcareous soil. Can. Geotech. J., 41(5): 877–893.
97. Sridharan, A. and Sreepada Rao, A. (1981). Rectangular Hyperbola Fitting Method for
One-dimensional Consolidation, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 161–168.
98. Tang, M. and Shang J.Q. (2000). Vacuum Preloading Consolidation of Yaoqiang Airport Run-
way. Geotechnique. 50(6), 613–623.
99. Vanmarcke, E.H. (1977). Probabilistic modelling of soil profiles, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Vol. 103, No. 11, November 1977, pp. 1227–1246
100. Varaksin, S. and Yee, K. (2007). Challenges in ground improvement techniques for extreme con-
ditions: Concept and Performance, Proc.16th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Confeence, 8-11 May:
Kuala Lumpur, pp. 101–115.
101. Wang, T-R. and Chen, W-H. (1996). Development in application of prefabricated drains in treat-
ment of soft soils, General Report, Proc. 3rd Symp. On Weak ground Improvement using PVDs, Oct.
Lianyuangang, China, pp. 13–40.
102. Walker, R. and Indraratna, B. (2006). Vertical drain consolidation with parabolic distribution of
permeability in smear zone. J. of Geot. & Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 132(5), 937–941.
103. Xiao, D.P. (2002). Consolidation of soft clay using vertical drains, PhD thesis, Nanyang Tech.
Univ., Singapore.
104. Xie, K.H. (1987). Consolidation theories and optimisation design for vertical drains, PhD Thesis,
Zhejiang University, China.
105. Xu, S.L., Lu, X.M., Liu, C.M. and Liu, Y.Y. (2003). Field trials of the vacuum compaction method
for soil improvement, Proc. 9th National Geot. Conf. 2: 736–739. Beijing, China
106. Yan, S.W. and Chu, J. (2005). Soil improvement for a storage year using the combined vacuum
and fill preloading method. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(2), 2094–1104.
107. Yan, S.W. and Chu, J. (2003). Soil Improvement for a road using the vacuum preloading method,
Ground Improvement, 7(2), 165–172.
108. Yan, S.W., Chu, J., Fan, Q.J. and Yan, Y. (2009). Building a breakwater with prefabricated caissons
on soft clay. Proceedings of ICE, Geotechnical Engineering, 162(1), 3–12.
109. Yan, H.S. and Cao, D.Z. (2005). Application of low-level vacuum preloading technique in off-
shore projects. Ocean and River Hydraulics (1): 41–43 (in Chinese).
110. Yoshikuni, H. and Nakanodo, H. (1974). Consolidation of Fine-Grained Soils by Drain Wells
with Finite Permeability. Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 35–46.
111. Zeng, G.X. and Xie, K.H. (1989). New development of the vertical drain theories. Proce. of the
12th Inter. Conference on Soil Mech. and Foundation Eng. Rotterdam 2: 1435–1438.
112. Zheng, Y.R., Chu, J., Lu, X. and Feng, Y.X. (2004). Improvement of soft ground by dynamic
compaction. Geotechnical Engineering, Journal of Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, 35(1):
39–46.
View publication stats

Soft Soil Improvement Through Consolidation - Chu Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soft Soil Improvement Through Consolidation - Chu Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Soft Soil Improvement Through Consolidation: An Overview

Conference Paper · January 2012

Jian Chu B. Indraratna

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Internal stability of granular filters under cyclic loading View project

Biocementation of sand View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jian Chu1 , Buddhima Indraratna2,a , Shuwang Yan3 and Cholachat Rujikiatkamjorn2

A review of recent developments in soft soil improvement through consolidation is

Keywords: Consolidation, Soft soil, Soil improvement, Vertical drains, Vacuum

Proceedings of the International Conference on Ground Improvement and Ground Control

2. PREFABRICATED VERTICAL DRAINS (PVDS)

2.1. Vertical Drain Theories

a) Axisymmetric b) Plane Strain

2.2. Factors Affecting the Consolidation of Soil Around PVDs

2.2.1. Soil Parameters ch and k h

2.2.2. Smear Zone

Table 2. Types of test for measurement of consolidation properties.

Laboratory Oedometer test cv , kv (indirect Need good quality

Barron (1948) ds = 1.6dm k h /k s = 3 Assumed

Cavity Failed Smear Marginally Undisturbed Zone

Figure 5. The variation of the ratio of plastic

Figure 6. Change in void ratio at different radial

kh (r ) = k0 (κ − 1)( A − B + Cr/rw )( A + B − Cr/rw ) (7)

2.2.3. Well Resistance

2.3. Selection of PVDs

3.1. Vacuum Consolidation Systems

(a) (b) (c)

3.2. Comparison of Membrane and Membraneless Vacuum Preloading Systems

Numerical and analytical modeling of vacuum preloading considering membrane and

0.2 Hclay = 40m

Normalized settlement (St/S)

1.2 2) Membrane system with K2 = 10-2 2) Membrane system with K 2 = 10-2

3.3. Combined Vacuum and Fill Surcharge Consolidation

Figure 14. Loading sequence and ground settlement mea-

4. DYNAMIC CONSOLIDATION WITH ENHANCED DRAINAGE OR VACUUM

5.1. Strain-based and Pore Pressure-based Degree of

(a) Integrated PVDs (b) Circular PVDs

6.1. New PVDs

6.2. New Applications: Thermal PVD and Electric PVD

46. Hansbo, S. (1979). Consolidation of clay by band-shaped prefabricated drains, Ground

View publication stats

You might also like