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

net/publication/294878816

Settlement of Sewer Pipes in Consolidating Soft Clays

Conference Paper · December 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 1,616

1 author:

Agus Setianto Samingan

Noma Consulting Pte Ltd
35 PUBLICATIONS   617 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Application of Hardening Soil Model with Small Strain Stiffness in Deep Excavation and Tunnel Support Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Agus Setianto Samingan on 18 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Underground Singapore 2011

Settlement of Sewer Pipes in Consolidating Soft Clays

S.S. Agus, N. Mace
Mott MacDonald Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore

ABSTRACT: A section of 2.5m diameter trunk link sewer pipe of about 800m long will be con-
structed in conjunction with and alongside a cut-and-cover tunnel road tunnel in consolidating soft
soils at a depth of about 15m below ground. In this paper, a method to calculate the sewer settlement
considering soil-structure interaction is presented. Back-analyses of cone penetration (CPT) data were
carried out to determine the coefficient of permeability of the consolidating soils. Consolidation set-
tlement of the soft soils was further computed using a large strain soft soil model. A separate soil-
structure interaction analysis was then performed in order to determine the longitudinal response of
the sewer. In order to reduce the magnitude of differential settlement, a soil zone around the sewer
will be improved by means of prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) installed locally to accelerate the
consolidation process of the soft soils such that the remaining settlement after the sewer is constructed
can be limited. Discussion on the results is given to provide an understanding on the effects of local-
ized PVD ground improvement and soil-structure interaction between the sewer pipe and the consoli-
dating soft clays.

1 INTRODUCTION

A cut-and-cover road tunnel is to be constructed in the Marina East area in Singapore, where thick
layers of Kallang formation soils can be found. Alongside this development, a 2.5m diameter trunk
link sewer pipe of about 800m long will also be constructed at a depth of about 15m below ground,
i.e. in the Upper Marine Clay (UMC) layer. A typical cross section showing the cut-and-cover tunnel
and the sewer pipe is given in Figure 1. The area had been reclaimed in the past (from 1979 to 1985)
and the soft soils in this area are still undergoing consolidation settlement. Hence, the sewer pipe will
settle along with the soft soils except at manhole locations, where no settlement is expected as the
manholes will be supported on piles. The requirements stem from the fact that connections to the
manholes are made by sewers, which undercross the road tunnel. No settlement is expected for these
connections due to the presence of ground improvement for the cut-and-cover tunnel excavation. Thus
the piling for the manholes is required to prevent large differential settlements. Since the thickness of
the Kallang formation soft soils varies along the sewer alignment, non-uniform sewer pipe settlement
is also expected in the long term. Since the sewer pipe is constructed by jointed reinforced concrete
segments, the non-uniform long term settlement will affect its serviceability as the joints can normally
only tolerate a joint rotation of 1 in 120.

This paper elaborates a methodology, which has been used to compute settlement of sewer pipe
constructed in the Marina East area. Cone penetration tests (CPT) using piezocones were carried out,
which can provide some indications of the degree of consolidation of the soft soils in this area. Back-
analyses were carried out to derive parameters required for the consolidation analysis using large
strain soft soil model finite element method. Results that have been obtained in terms of soil consoli-
dation settlement, sewer pipe long-term settlement and its comparison with Mohr-Coulomb and clas-
sical one-dimensional Terzaghi consolidation analysis are also presented and discussed.

1
 ~60m (typical) 8m (typical)

PVD-improved zone
Cut-and-cover road tunnel
Trunk link sewer

Figure 1 Typical cross section

2 GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

The site is located in a generally “green field” area at Marina East. The proposed route continues from
the one end near the Marina Bay Channel and terminates in the Marina East area. Geological profile
for the project has been determined through extensive soil investigation works and is shown in Figure
2. The soils consist of an about 10m up to 15m thick reclamation fill layer underlain by Kallang for-
mation layers with varying thickness from about 20 to more than 40m. The Kallang formation soils in
this area include Upper Marine Clay (UMC), Lower Marine Clay (LMC) sandwiching Fluvial Clay
(F2) and/or Fluvial Sand (F1) and Estuarine (E) layers. The reclamation history in this area has been
described in the earlier section. As described, the Kallang formation soils are generally still undergo-
ing consolidation and thus excess pore-water pressures exist. Old Alluvium (OA) is encountered be-
neath the Kallang formation soils across the entire site between approximately 30m and 55m below
the existing ground level.

Manhole B Manhole C
Manhole A

Distance from Manhole A (m)

Figure 2 Geological profiles along sewer alignment

3 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

For predicting the long-term settlement of the soils and thus the trunk link sewer, two-dimensional fi-
nite element (FE) method using Plaxis was adopted. Since the soil settlements in the area of concern
are mainly attributed to consolidation settlements, accuracy and reasonability of the consolidation pa-
rameters used in the computation play an important role. The most important consolidation parameter
for predicting the remaining long-term settlements is the coefficient of consolidation (cv), which is
strongly related to the coefficient of permeability (k) of the soils. The values can be back-calculated
from the insitu test data that have been obtained. Once the consolidation parameters are determined,
the current degree of consolidation can then be evaluated so that the remaining settlement magnitude
can be estimated.

2
3.1 Back-analyses of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Data
Since the consolidation process is basically a densification process, for soft clays the shear strength of
the consolidating layers increases with the degree of consolidation. The shear strength profile there-
fore gives an indication of the degree of consolidation of the soils. The CPT data that have been ob-
tained from tests along the trunk sewer alignment can be related to the field vane shear test (FVST)
data and the laboratory shear strength data to provide the shear strength profiles of the soils along the
sewer alignment.

The analysis commenced with calibration of CPT cu-p’ relationship and the cone bearing factor
(Nkt) for the soils encountered, where p’ is the effective overburden pressure. Subsequently, the cu
profile for each CPT location was back-analysed to obtain k values of the Kallang formation soils. In
the FE analyses, the following factors were considered:
1. Old reclamation took place over 6 years from 1979 to 1985 (t = 0 day started in 1979).
2. Shear strength data were obtained in 2008 (i.e. 29 years after 1979).
3. The maximum k value for marine clays as reported by Buttling et al (1987) (i.e. 2x10-9m/s)
was adopted as an initial value of k (i.e. ko). Buttling et al (1987) reported k value of Singa-
pore marine clays between 10-10m/s and 2x10-9m/s.
4. The E layer was assumed to have a similar k value to the LMC.
5. The F2 layer was assumed to be a consolidating layer as well with an initial value of k of
10-9m/s.
6. Large strain analyses were adopted. The FE geometry (or the FE mesh) was updated from
time to time in the FE analyses to account for the large strains that occur. Wong and Choa
(1987) indicated that ignoring the large settlement effect (or the updated mesh) under-
predicts the rate of settlement.
7. The k value was assumed to vary with void ratio (e) following: log (k/ko) = ∆e/ck, with ck
taken to be in the order of the compression index (Cc) (Plaxis, 2008).
8. The anisotropy factor for the k value was assumed to be equal to 2 or kh/kv = 2. This value
was also reported by Buttling et al (1987) for Singapore marine clays.

3.2 Results of Back-analyses

At the 29th year (i.e. at the time of site investigation), the shear strength profiles were checked. It was
found that the FE analyses predict the shear strength profiles quite closely with the above factors
taken into consideration. Figure 3 shows the predicted cu profiles for one of the CPT points.

The measured cu profile from the CPT data was obtained from the relationship cu = (qt – σv)/Nkt.
The Nkt value adopted was based on the formula proposed by Bo et al (2002). The value of Nkt was
considered to follow the relationship Nkt = 23.8 – (0.263 Ip) where Ip is the plasticity index. Table 1
summarises the Nkt values for different soft soils in the area. The adopted values are seen to give a
good fit to the measured cu profile.

The theoretical line for the UMC and LMC shown in the above figure was calculated as cu/p’ =
0.22 (p’ is the effective overburden pressure). This is within the range given by Buttling et al. (1987).
For the other soft clays, cu/p’ = 0.11 + 0.0037 Ip (Skempton, 1957) was adopted. For the E and F2 lay-
ers, the value of cu/p’ can be taken to be equal to 0.25 and 0.295, respectively based on the range of Ip
of these soils (Table 1).

The initial k values (ko values) obtained from the back-analyses are shown in Table 2. The k values
reduce as the soils consolidate following the relationship given in the earlier section. The ko values
were adjusted in the calculation until the cu profiles gave a good match. Table 2 summarises ko values
obtained from the back-analyses compared with the measured and original estimated values.

Table 2 reveals that the k values obtained from the back-analyses generally agree well with the es-
timated values with less than one order of magnitude variation, which indicates the accuracy of the
back-analyses carried out. Buttling et al. (1987) also reported k values ranging from 10-10 to 2x10-9m/s
for Singapore Marine Clays.

3
 110
Computed from CPT
Laboratory data
Field vane shear data
Theoretical at t=infinity
Simulated at t=29years
100
Reclamation Fill

90
UMC
Elevation (mRL)

F2
80

LMC

70

E
60

50
0 50 100 150 200
Cu (kPa)

Figure 3 Comparison of undrained shear strength (cu) profiles for one of CPT points

Table 1 Nkt and cu/p’ ranges as a function of Ip for soft soils in the area
Layer Ip range Nkt range cu/p’
Upper Marine Clay (UMC) 38 – 55 9.3 – 13.8 0.22
Lower Marine Clay (LMC) 28 – 59 8.3 – 16.4 0.22
Estuarine (E) 15 – 52 8.0 – 19.3 0.25 – 0.295
Fluvial Clay (F2) 17 – 60 10.1 – 19.9 0.25 – 0.295

Table 2 ko values obtained from the back-analyses

Layer ko value used k at the time of SI works Original estimated k (m/s)
(m/s) (t=29 years) (m/s)
Upper Marine Clay (UMC) 2x10-9 1.1x10-9 10-9
Lower Marine Clay (LMC) 2x10-9 1.7x10-9 10-9
Estuarine (E) 2x10-9 1.6x10-9 10-9
Fluvial Clay (F2) 2x10-9 7.8x10-10 10-9

4 ESTIMATE OF REMAINING CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT

4.1 Finite Element Modeling

Once the coefficient of permeability values had been back-calculated, the analyses were subsequently
continued to consider construction stages for the trunk link sewer construction. It was envisaged that
ground improvement by means of prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) would be required to accelerate
the consolidation process such that the remaining consolidation settlement affecting the sewer pipe is
minimized. It was also foreseen that only localized areas would require PVD treatment near to the
manholes where differential settlement would be high as an economical solution to the settlement
problem.

4
 The following factors were considered in the analyses:
1. Conditions at the project commencement (i.e. in 2009), i.e. 30 years after the old reclama-
tion works commencement in 1979.
2. New reclamation was planned to be carried out (with PVD) along parts of the alignment,
which was in this case was assumed to be done in 1 year duration. The PVDs for the new
reclamation were assumed to be installed in January 2010.
3. The PVD for sewer construction was assumed to be installed in June 2010.
4. The cut-and-cover tunnel basic structure was assumed to be completed in June 2012, after
which the trunk link sewer is to be constructed.
5. The excavation works for the cut-and-cover tunnel construction were not modeled.

Several sections were modelled for a good representation of geological profile variation on site.
The following typical section (Figure 4) was adopted with the toe level of the PVDs limited by the
equipment used for the installation (maximum depth = 50m from the ground level). The width of PVD
improved zone ranges from 8 to 20m for the area where the new reclamation works are carried out and
is typically 8m for the area without new reclamation works.

It is expected that the consolidation settlement is accelerated in the PVD improved zone. In the area
without PVDs, the consolidation settlement will proceed slowly (delayed consolidation) as the perme-
ability of the soft clays is low.

Figure 4 Typical cross section analysed for the area with new reclamation works

4.2 Geotechnical Parameters Adopted

The geotechnical parameters for the analysis are given in Table 3 with the coefficients of permeabil-
ity, which were taken from the values obtained from the back-analyses (see Table 2). The soils were
modeled using the soft soil model in Plaxis.

The reclamation fill, Old Alluvium (OA), and F1 soils were modeled as drained Mohr-Coulomb
soils. The armor rock was modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb soil with γ = 22kN/m3; c’ = 3kPa; φ’ = 35o; E’
= 10,000kPa; and ν = 0.25. The cut-and-cover tunnel (solid element) was modeled as an elastic non-
porous material with a reduced density of 17kN/m3 and a reduced stiffness of 25% that of concrete to
allow for ageing. The interface layer was conservatively considered to be a soft soil similar to UMC
with a lower effective friction angle of 15o. The interface layer was used to represent the soil distur-
bance due to the construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel temporary wall and excavation works.

5
 Table 3 Soft soil parameters adopted in the analyses
Effective stress parameters Compression parameters
Soil type Bulk den- Effective Effective Initial Compres- Recom- λ∗ κ∗
sity, γ cohesion, friction void ra- sion in- pression (Cc/2.3(1+ (Cr/2.3(1+
(kN/m3) c’ (kPa) angle, φ’ tio (eo) dex,Cc index, Cr eo)) eo))
( o)
UMC 16 0 22 2.0 0.90 0.1500 0.130 0.043
LMC 17 0 22 1.4 0.60 0.100 0.109 0.036
E 17 0 17 1.6 0.70 0.1167 0.117 0.039
F2 20 10 23 0.5 0.25 0.0417 0.072 0.024

4.3 PVD-Treated Soil

The PVD-treated zones were modeled by means of zones with equivalent k values. The method as de-
scribed in Chai et al (2001) was adopted. The equivalent vertical coefficient of permeability of the
PVD-improved soil (kve) is formulated as:
 2.5l 2 k h 
k ve = 1 + k (1)
 µDe2 k v  v
Where kv and kh is the coefficient of permeability of the soil in the vertical and horizontal direction,
respectively; ℓ is the drainage length; and De is the diameter of a unit cell. De is equal to 1.13S and
1.05S for the square (or rectangular) and triangular pattern, respectively (S = PVD spacing). The
value of µ can be expressed as:
 n  kh 3 2l 2 k h
µ = ln  + ln(s ) − + π (2)
 s  ks 4 3q w
Where n = De/dw (dw = diameter of drain = 2(a+b)/π); a and b is the dimensions of the PVD; s = ds/dw
(ds = diameter of smear zone); ks is the smear zone coefficient of permeability; and qw is the discharge
capacity of PVD.

The ds value can be taken as 5dm (FHWA, 1986) with dm is the equivalent diameter of mandrel cal-
culated from the largest mandrel cross sectional area (dm = (4wm lm/π)0.5); wm and lm are the mandrel
dimensions (mandrel area is normally in between 60cm2 and 70cm2). The qw value can be taken up to
100m3/year. The ratio of kh/ks ranges from 1 to 5.

In the computation, the PVD parameters shown in Table 4 were adopted.

Table 4 PVD parameters adopted

Parameters Value
PVD width (a) 100mm
PVD thickness (b) 3.3mm
Spacing 1 to 2m (triangular pattern)
PVD discharge capacity (qw) 100m3/year
Mandel width (wm) 444mm
Mandrel thickness (lm) 14.6mm
Ratio kh/ks 2.5

In the model, only the hydraulic properties (or the k values) of the PVD-improved soils are modi-
fied using kve. The strength and deformation properties of the soils follow those of the original soils.
Iterative procedures were adopted to determine the most optimum PVD scheme (spacing, pattern and
depth), which also satisfies the requirement of a maximum differential settlement of less than 1 in
120.

6
4.4 Results of modeling
Figure 5 shows the typical time-settlement curve of the soil at the sewer position for the cross sections
taken through one of the CPT points. The plots indicate that for this particular section 450mm con-
solidation settlement has been accelerated approximately 11.5years earlier that it should occur when
no PVDs are used. However, the total consolidation settlement remains almost similar to that without
PVDs. The ratio of settlement, which occurs during the PVD treatment period to the total settlement,
is related to the width of the PVD-treated zone and the treatment period. Hence, the proportion of the
remaining settlement can be reduced by widening the PVD-treated zone and/or lengthening the PVD
treatment period.

Elapsed time (days)

1000 10000 100000
0
End of 120years
Start of PVD treatment Construction of sewer design life
(June 2012) (June 2012) (2132)
Settlement prior to PVD
installation
500

new reclamation
(with PVDs)
Settlement with PVDs
1000
Settlement at sewer (mm)

installed (~450mm)

Settlement after sewer construction

1500 (remaining settlement) (~620mm)

Elapsed time (days)

10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
0
2000
Settlement at sewer (mm)

200 Start of PVD treatment Construction of sewer

(June 2012) (June 2012)
400
600 No PVD
800 With PVD
2500
1000 Start of PVD treatment
1200 End of PVD (~2 years)
1400 120yrs dsg life

3000

Figure 5 Typical time-settlement curves at the sewer location

The excess pore-water pressure versus time plot (Figure 6) indicates that during the PVD treatment
period the excess pore-water pressure at the sewer location drops from approximately 100kPa to about
10kPa suggesting that the consolidation process under that particular overburden pressure has almost
ceased. However, the excess pore-water pressure rebounds to approximately 45kPa once the PVD
treatment is stopped before it reduces again to zero at the end of the 120-year sewer design life. On
contrary the soils continue to settle regardless the increase or decrease in the excess pore-water pres-
sure. Further assessment of the modelling results indicates that when the PVD treatment is terminated
volumetric strain of the soil element at the sewer location reduces signifying a volumetric expansion
due to the excess pore-water pressure outside the PVD-treated zone being higher than that inside the
treatment area. This volumetric expansion is predominantly caused by lateral strain reduction while
settlement still takes place.

7
 160
120 No PVD

Excess pore-water pressure (kPa)

100 With PVD
140 Start of PVD treatment
80
End of PVD (~2 years)
60
120yrs dsg life
120 40
Excess pore-water pressure (kPa)

20 Start of PVD treatment Construction of sewer

(June 2012) (June 2012)

0
100
10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Elapsed time (days)

80

60
Construction of sewer
(June 2012)

40

End of 120years
20
Start of PVD treatment design life
(June 2012) (2132)

0
1000 10000 100000
Elapsed time (days)

Figure 6 Typical time-excess pore-water pressure curves at the sewer location

The soil settlements at the sewer level at several distances from the sewer position have been ex-
tracted from the analysis results and are plotted as time-settlement curves in Figure 7. The plot pro-
vides information on the zone of influence of PVD treatment effects. The curves plotted in Figure 7
have been generated for one section without new reclamation works. Hence, the time-settlement
curves for the points, where the PVD treatment effects are not prevalent follow the common S-curve
in semi-logarithmic scale. The figure appears to show that the PVD treatment effects diminish at a dis-
tance of 50m away from the sewer.
Elapsed time (days)
1000 10000 100000
0
At sewer location
4m away
500
Affected by 10m away
PVDs 20m away
30m away
1000
Soil settlement (mm)

40m away
50m away
Unaffected 60m away
1500
by PVDs 80m away
100m away

2000 PVD effects

2500

3000

Figure 7 Time-settlement curves extracted at various points at sewer level several distances away from sewer

8
 It is also revealed from the figure that the points located close to the cut-and-cover tunnel (i.e. up to
10m away from the tunnel) exhibit lesser total consolidation settlements compared with those located
away from the cut-and-cover tunnel. This fact indicates the influence of tunnel, which reduces the
consolidation settlements since it acts as a stiff reinforcing element.

5 COMPARISON WITH MOHR-COULOMB MODEL AND TERZAGHI ONE-DIMENSIONAL

CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS

Analyses were carried out in attempt to compare the FE analyses performed using the soft soil model
for the consolidating clays with that when the Mohr-Coulomb model is adopted. A further comparison
was also made with the analysis using the classical Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation formula.

In these analyses, a section from the area without new reclamation works was considered. Since the
PVD ground improvement used was a localized improvement, the one-dimensional Terzaghi’s con-
solidation formula is unable to compute the settlement correctly due to two-dimensional nature of the
problem. Thus, the comparison was only made for the time-settlement curve of the soil without PVD
treatment. Table 5 provides a summary of comparisons of various modelling approaches. Comparison
was also made for small and large strain models.

Table 5 Various modeling carried out for comparison

Model Analysis type Soil model for con- Permeability of con- Large/small strain model +
solidating clays solidating clays
Model 1 * 2-dimensional FE Soft soil model Varies with void ratio Large strain model
analysis
Model 2 2-dimensional FE Soft soil model Varies with void ratio Small strain model
analysis
Model 3 2-dimensional FE Mohr-Coulomb Constant Small strain model
analysis model
Model 4 1-dimensional Terzaghi’s theory Constant Small strain model
analysis
Note: * the model adopted in this project; + in large strain model, mesh and pore-water pressure is updated as
calculation proceeds

Figure 8 shows the time-settlement curves obtained from the computation using the models given in
Table 5. Lines of the 50-year, 100-year and 120-year design lives are also plotted. The time-settlement
curve obtained form the one-dimensional Terzaghi’s consolidation analysis (further refered to as Ter-
zaghi’s model) is denoted as “Manual 1D” in the plot.

Elapsed time (days)

0
1000 10000 100000

-500
Settlement at sewer level (mm)

-1000 Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Manual 1D
-1500
50yrs
100yrs
120yrs
-2000

-2500

-3000

Figure 8 Time-settlement curves obtained from various modeling

9
 The figure reveals that the modeling using the Mohr-Coulomb soil model for the consolidating soils
(Model 3) greatly underestimates the total consolidation settlement of the soil at the sewer location as
no volumetric plastic strain is produced. The Mohr-Coulomb model may still be used to estimate soft
soil consolidation settlement provided adjusted soil modulus of elasticity is used in the analysis.

The other three models yield a comparable total consolidation settlement with a variation of less
than 10%. In general, Terzaghi’s model (Manual 1D) estimates total settlement almost similar to the
soft soil model (i.e. Model 1 and Model 2) but with a lesser rate of settlement. The model without the
large-strain effect consideration (Model 2) underestimates the consolidation settlement by about 20%
(maximum) compared to that of Model 1 at elapsed times before the end of 120-year design life.
However, the total consolidation settlement at the end of 120-year design life agrees well with that of
Model 1.

The above discussion suggests that Terzaghi’s model can be adopted for computing the total con-
solidation settlement of layered soft soils with sufficient accuracy (within 10% variation). It is also
true for the FE consolidation analysis using soft soil model, but without large-strain considerations (in
this case represented by Model 2). However, the latter is not recommended for computation of short-
term consolidation settlement of soft soils as it gives a significant underprediction.

6 COMPUTATION OF SEWER SETTLEMENT

The trunk link sewer settlement and differential settlement can be computed from the input soil set-
tlement obtained at each CPT point. Settlement of a flexible sewer pipe will generally follow the set-
tlement profile of the surrounding soil. Due to the manhole local effects, the sewer settlement at the
manhole locations can be assumed to be zero as the manholes will be founded on piles. The sewer
pipe also has a certain bending stiffness in the longitudinal direction. These two factors provide some
restraints to the sewer pipe to settle with the surrounding soil.

In terms of the bending stiffness, another factor, which has to be taken into account in the computa-
tion of sewer differential settlement, is the fact that the sewer is not continuous and monolithic, but
will be constructed by jointing segmental reinforced concrete (RC) pipe segments of a certain length.
The presence of joints reduces the longitudinal bending stiffness of the sewer pipe. Chen and Wen
(2003) presented a method to account for joints in the calculation of axial and bending stiffness of
shield tunnel due to uneven ground settlements. Although the method was developed for bored tunnels
where tunnel lining segments are bolt connected longitudinally, a similar concept can also be used in
the case of circular RC sewer pipe.

Computation of sewer pipe settlement from the soil settlement was carried out using a soil-structure
interaction software, LPile. This software is designed for the analysis of the lateral response of piles
using p-y curves. However, the software does allow for the imposition of a lateral displacement field
onto a pile to determine the effects by making appropriate allowances for the manhole locations, the
sewer is treated as a horizontal pile. A reduced axial stiffness (EAred) and bending stiffness (EIred) of
75% and 50% respective segment stiffness was adopted to allow for the presence of joints. Figure 9
shows the comparison of long-term soil and sewer settlements (i.e. at the end of 120-year design life)
obtained from the analyses. The long-term sewer settlements for 50-year and 100-year design lives are
also provided for comparison. The sewer settlement was computed based on the PVD treatment
scheme obtained through optimization. PVD is mainly required near the manhole where maximum
differential settlement is likely to occur.

Figure 9 shows that the settlement of the sewer pipe at its mid span between two manholes gener-
ally follows that of the soil. This indicates that the flexibility of the sewer pipe significantly controls
the behavior of the sewer pipe. However, the reverse is true near the manhole locations, where the
sewer pipe settlement is restrained by the piled manholes. Figure 10 indicates that the maximum dif-
ferential settlement occurs near the manholes, where transition from sagging to hogging sewer settle-
ment profiles occurs. The figure also reveals that the PVD ground improvement scheme adopted is ef-
fective in limiting the sewer pipe differential settlement to below the maximum allowable value of 1
in 120.

10
 Manhole A Manhole B Manhole C
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
PVD Distance from contract
Distance from
Settlement at sewer level (mm)

100 years PVD PVD start edge (m)

200 50 years Manhole A (m)

400

additional section
additional section
soil (50years)
600 soil (100years)

additional section

5th CPT point

soil (120years)

additional section

additional section
point
3rd CPT point

4th CPT point

6th CPT point

2nd CPT
1st CPT point

120 years
800 sewer (50years)

7th CPT
sewer (100years)
1000 sewer (120years)

Input soil movement (120 years)

1200

Figure 9 Soil and sewer settlements obtained from the analyses

Manhole A Manhole B Manhole C

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
10
Sewer differential settlement (1 in

5th CPT point

PVD PVD PVD Distance fromcontract
Distance from
start edge
Manhole A (m)(m)

6th CPT point

3rd CPT point

123
1 in 120 122
4th CPT point

100 172
100 years 120 years
134
ve)

sewer (50years)
sewer (100years)

7th CPT point

1000 sewer (120years)
1st CPT

2nd CPT

allow. diff sett

50 years

10000

Figure 10 Differential settlement of the sewer

7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

Sensitivity analyses were carried out to investigate the effects of sewer pipe span length (manhole to
manhole) and bending stiffness. The ratio of sewer pipe reduced to full bending stiffness (EIred/EIfull)
was varied for various sewer span lengths. The results obtained are shown in Figure 11. It is seen from
the figure that the effect of sewer reduced bending stiffness becomes obvious for the sewer pipe span
of less than 200m. This suggests that sewer behaves more like a flexible material as its span length in-
creases. In this project, the maximum span length of the sewer pipe is about 450m and thus the sewer
pipe behaves as a flexible material and its settlement at the mid span follows closely that of the soil.
14
EIred / EIfull :
Soil settlement / sewer settlement

12 1.00
0.75
0.50
10
0.25
0.10
8 Series6

Soil settlem ent = sew er settlem ent

2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Sewer pipe span length (m)

Figure 11 Effect of sewer pipe bending stiffness

11
 7 CONCLUSIONS

An analysis of sewer settlement in consolidating soft clays has been presented. The following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
1. Back-analyses of CPT data using finite element method with consolidating soils modeled us-
ing soft soil model provide reasonable match with the field and laboratory shear strength
data. The coefficient of permeability of the consolidating soils from the back-analyses repre-
sents the true value based on the analyses.
2. The use of Mohr-Coulomb model for analyzing consolidation of soft clays greatly underpre-
dicts the consolidation settlement and thus is not recommended. The Mohr-Coulomb model
may still be used to estimate soft soil consolidation settlement provided correctly adjusted
modulus of elasticity of the soils is used in the analysis. Terzaghi’s model estimates almost
similar magnitude of total consolidation settlement compared to the soft soil model but with
lesser rate of settlement. It is recommended to use the soft soil model for modeling consoli-
dating clay layers with the large-strain consideration.
3. The effect of reduced sewer pipe bending stiffness becomes significant for sewer pipes with a
span length of less than 200m. The use of 50% reduction in the sewer pipe bending stiffness
is reasonable.
4. The PVD ground improvement scheme adopted is effective in limiting the maximum differ-
ential settlement to below the allowable value of 1 in 120.
5. Since this is only a prediction of sewer settlement, it is important to instrument the soils after
the PVDs are installed to get a more realistic picture of the behavior of the consolidating
soils. Back-analyses will be required to re-estimate the long-term behavior of the sewer pipe.

8 REFERENCES

Bo, M.W., Tint, S.M. & Choa, V. 2002. Correlation of physical properties to strength and compression parame-
ters of Singapore marine clay at Changi. In Proceedings of the 9th Cong. Engineering Geology for Developing
Countries, Durban, South Africa.
Buttling, S., Shirlaw, J.N., and James, J. 1987. The shear strength of Singapore marine clays. In Proceedings of
the 5th International Geotechnical Seminar on Case Histories of Soft Clay, Singapore, 1987: 251-260.
Chai, J.C., Shen, S.L., Miura, N., and Bergado, T. 2001. Simple method of modelling PVD-improved subsoil.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 11: 965-972.
Chen, B. and Wen, Z. 2003. Elasto-plastic analysis for the effect of longitudinal uneven settlement on shield tun-
nel. (Re)Claiming the Underground Space, Saveur (ed.), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse: 969-973.
FHWA. 1986. Prefabricated vertical drains. Vollume 1: Engineering Guidelines. Federal Highway Administra-
tion (FHWA), US Department of Transportation. Report No. FHWA/RD-86/168, August 1986.
Plaxis (2008) Plaxis 2D-Version 9.0 Reference Manual. Plaxis BV, The Netherlands.
Skempton, A.W. 1957. Discussion on the planning and design of the new Hongkong airport. Proceedings of Insti-
tution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 7: 305-307.
Wong, K.S. and Choa, V. 1987. Settlement analysis of soft clay by finite difference method. In Proceedings of
the 5th International Geotechnical Seminar, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore, 1987: 283-289.

12
View publication stats