SINGH, G. & HA~AB, T. N. (1979). Gkotechnique 29, No.

4, 395-422

A laboratory study of efficiency of sand drains

in relation to methods of installation and spacing

G. SINGH* and T. N. HATTAB?

This Paper is concerned with an experimental study
of the inward radial drainage of remoulded kaolin&e
clay to a central model sand drain and has been
undertaken primarily to assess the effects of the
various methods of installation and spacing on the
consolidation characteristics of the soil. An experi-
mental programme has been designed and imple-
mented using three sizes of Rowe consolidation cells
(76, 152 and 254 mm dia.). Geometrical models of
various methods of forming the drains were used for
the three sample sizes consolidated under three levels
of loading. A development incorporating the concept
of non-circular cross-section for the drain former has
been similarly assessed. Vertical flow consolidation
tests were also conducted to compare the results with
those from the radial drainage. These were done to
assess the reliability of the commonly used method of
deployment of vertical flow consolidation coefficient
in the sand drain design procedure. The results
indicate that there are marked differences in the per-
formance of the methods, and that the effects of the
method of installation of sand drains on the in situ
characteristics of the soil are critically important in
evaluating the design assumptions and cost of con-
struction for any given project.
Cet article se rapporte SSune Etude expbrimentale du
drainage radial vers l’inttrieur argile g kaolinite
remaniCe, en direction d’un drain de sable modele
central; cette Ctude a BtBentreprise principalement en
vue d’tvaluer les effets de diffkrentes mBthodes
d’installation et d’espacement sur les caracttristiques
de consolidation du sol. Un programme expkrimental
faisant appel g des cellules de consolidation Rowe de
3 tailles diffkrentes (76 mm, 152 mm et 254 mm de
diam&e) a CtCconcu et mis en oeuvre. Des modeles
geom&riques de diffirentes methodes de formation de
formation de drains ont Bte utilis6s pour les trois
tailles d’tchantillons consolid& sous trois phases de
chargement. Le concept d’une forme de drain ?I
section non-circulaire a fait I’objet d’une Ctude
analogue. Des essais de consolidation du type &
Ccoulement vertical ont Cgalement ttC me& en vue
de comparer les resultats avec ceux fournis par le
drainage radial. Ces essais avaient pour but d’CvaIuer
la fiabilitt de la m&thode trts courante de deploiement
des coefficients de consolidation par Ccoulement ver-
tical dans les projets de drains de sable. Les r&uItats
font apparaitre des diff&ences t&s nettes de per-
formance entre les mtthodes, et montrent que les
effets de la mkthode d’installation des drains de sable
sur les caract&istiques in situ du sol jouent un rBle
important pour I’Cvaluation des hypothtses de calcul
et du coiit de construction de tout projet don&.

INTRODUCTION
The theory and practice of vertical sand drains is governed by a number of factors. The suc-
cessful performance depends on a judicious choice and application of these factors in the
design. In spite of numerous projects that have been executed, no unique approach has been
finally agreed upon in the choice of these factors. This is largely due to the limitations of
experimental and theoretical procedures that cannot duplicate exactly all the variabilities of
an actual foundation soil, and its performance, and to some extent it is due to the limited
research in evaluating the variations in the design coefficients. In general, the shortcomings of
sand drains appear to be due to the use of the drains, in unsuitable conditions or due to faulty
construction techniques, namely using the inappropriate method of installation for a particular
soil to the extent of rendering the drain ineffective, and even causing instability or being
counterproductive.
When considering various installation techniques, an underlying fact is that it is virtually

Discussion on this Paper closes 1 March, 1980. For further details se;e inside hack cover.
* Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department, University of Leeds.
t Ministry of Oil, Baghdad, Iraq.
396 G. SINGH AND T. N. HATTAB

NOTATION

C’ coefficient of consolidation S standard deviation

C, with radial flow of pore water I elapsed time
C” with vertical flow of pore water T dimensionless factor
K coefficient of permeability in the radial T, for radial flow of pore water, C,tfR’
direction ur degree of consolidation at a radius r
KY coefficient of permeability in the verti- with inward flow
cal direction iJ, average degree of consolidation at a
n ratio of effective diameter of drainage radius r with inward radial flow
to the diameter of the drain 2 arithmetic mean
R maximum length of drainage path APIP pressure increment ratio, P being the
with radial flow; sample radius previous pressure

impossible to install sand drains by any method without causing some disturbance in the
surrounding soil. It is obvious therefore that primary interest must be focused upon assessing
the severity of these effects on results obtained, rather than upon the question of whether
disturbance does or does not exist. Despite the importance of installation methods on both
the soil and the attitude of engineers regarding the feasibility of this particular method of
stabilization, and despite its potential significance in terms of economic savings, adequate
research in the laboratory and field comparing installation methods has not been performed.
The views on the relative merits of various methods are still largely speculative.
Therefore, it was decided to embark on a study to contribute to the understanding of the
behaviour of sand drains formed by the various methods and the effects of smear and distur-
bance due to these on the design factors. The primary objective was the determination of the
efficiencies of the various methods of installation, defined by their respective consolidation
parameters, through a detailed experimental investigation.
The achievement of such an aim will undoubtedly result in the selection of the appropriate
method and affect substantial savings in construction and, in some cases, maintenance costs.
The influence of drain spacing and loading increment on the consolidation parameters was
also investigated so as to develop a possible practical design guide.

INSTALLATION METHODS

A range of techniques is available for forming the boreholes for vertical sand drains. These
may be classified, in similarity to piles, according to their effect on the soil during installation.
This method of classification divides the drains into two categories; those which displace the
soil to accommodate the volume of the filter material, and those in which the soil is removed
and the void formed is occupied by the filter material. These are best called displacement and
non-displacement drains, respectively.
Displacement methods include closed-end mandrel which is also called the driven mandrel,
although the actual method of installation might be by the blows of a hammer, vibration,
hydraulic jack pressure, loading or screwing; the choice being determined by the ground
conditions and the circumstances of the situation (Whitaker, 1976).
Non-displacement methods admit a number of variations in the way the soil is removed,
e.g. by grab, auger, compressed air or water injection.
Current interest, however, is centred on the following methods: (a) closed-end mandrel-
driven; (b) closed-end mandrel-jetted; (c) open mandrel-driven; (d) open mandrel-jetted;
(e) auger; (f) jetted drains-Dutch method.
EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 397

From a comprehensive study of case histories conducted by Moran et al. (1958) it was shown
that of these initial five installation methods, the driven closed-end mandrel has been the most
common, being used in about 60 % of the cases, with the remaining four methods having been
equally used. Another fairly recently developed method in Holland invokes a ‘jetting’
principle and is being used increasingly (News Report, 1965).
It is generally accepted that there is some disturbance when sand drain holes are made, no
matter what method is used. The relative significance of disturbance depends on the nature
and history of the soil. Augers remould the sides of the hole, driven casing smears it and wash
boring creates high pore pressure (Hughes and Chalmers, 1972). Displacement methods cause
most disturbance but they are faster and therefore cheaper than other drains, despite the
possibility of being less efficient drain for drain. Advantages of each method ultimately mean
minimum total cost, which is the product of the number of drains and the cost per drain.
While disturbance effects from the closed mandrel are relatively obvious, other installation
methods may cause other types of disturbance that are less apparent and yet may have more
or less the same significance on the efficiency of the installation.

Testing apparatus
The Rowe consolidation cells of 76, 152 and 254 mm diameters were used. The basic
features are almost common to all. Improvement was sought by adopting clear Perspex for
the construction of the 254 mm diameter cell reinforced by a steel ring. This produced the
desired transparent qualities without violating the basic criterion of lateral confinement of the
sample (k, condition) assumed in the solution of the Terzaghi Consolidation theory (Fig. 1).
Laboratory scaled models for forming the sand drains, as shown in Figs 2 to 5 were deve-
loped for various methods of installation. A nominal size of 25.4 mm dia. drain was adopted,
giving the ratio n a value of 10 for the 254 mm cell.

Preparation of samples
In order to minimize bias in the comparative study of the methods of installation, this
experimental programme required a number of samples which were as nearly identical as
possible and for which the stress history was known. These requirements could be achieved
only by using artificially prepared specimens in the saturated remoulded state. The soil used
for this investigation was clay mineral kaolinite obtained commercially in the form of powder
under the trade name Supreme English China Clay, with the following properties: liquid limit
76 %, plastic limit 31% and specific gravity 2.61. To ensure full saturation of the sample the
clay was mixed to form a slurry with twice the liquid limit (I 50 % of its weight) with de-aired
distilled water in a rotary laboratory mixer for a period of 2 h to a uniform consistency. The
viscosity was sufficiently low to allow the removal of entrapped air when a vacuum was applied
to the surface of the slurry in the consolidation cell.
The slurry was transferred into the oedometer to a height of 30 mm after the cell body had
been lightly coated with a thin layer of silicon grease to minimize side friction. The oedometer
was covered with a desiccator lid placed on the flange and vacuum was applied for approxi-
mately an hour, after which only occasional air bubbles could be seen on the surface. Monitor-
ing of this process was rendered more convenient by the clarity of the perspex cell. Successive
30 mm thick layers of slurry were then added and vacuumed to the required height.
The clay was then scribed level and a filter paper followed by a 4 mm thick flexible disc of
sintered bronze, already boiled to saturation, was place on the top.
De-aired distilled water was poured onto the sintered bronze drain a.nd the rubber jack,
EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 399

b a

(254 mm)

Open mandrel Auger Front view

Fig. 3. Laboratory models of sand drain farmers

already filled with de-aired distilled water, was lowered into position through the water to
exclude trapped air pockets. The cell cover was next sealed into position and an initial con-
solidation pressure of 14 kN/m’ was applied from the air-water cylinder, then built gradually
to 55 kN/m2 over a period of an hour to avoid passage of slurry around the drainage disc.
When the sample was fully consolidated, as indicated by the zero excess pore pressure on the
transducer, the cell cover was removed and the sample scribed level to the required thickness.
The original height of each specimen was approximately the same.
For vertical flow tests, a filter paper was placed on the sample followed by the saturated
sintered bronze drain, and the sample reconsolidated to the initial pressure (55 kN/m2).
In the case of inward radial flow tests, a sand drain was formed down the centre of the sample
with the aid of a guiding template fixed to the cell body.
For the case of open mandrel a thin-walled hollow tube with a cutting edge at its base was
advanced slowly into the sample. The core of the clay was then extracted and the former
removed gently. For the closed mandrel the former was pushed into the sample and removed.
In the initial tests, it was found that vacuum developed in the cavity on removal of the closed
mandrel causing the clay adjacent to the bore to be drawn inward and thus reducing the drain
diameter (Fig. 6a). This was rectified at later stages by drilling a hole in the former so as to
relieve the suction (Fig. 6b).
In the jetting methods the formers were rested on the surface of the clay and water jetting
pressure was applied increasing slowly until the formers started to penetrate the sample under
their own weight. To minimize disturbance due to the auger, the advance was controlled to
less than one pitch length per revolution.
400 G. SINGH AND T. N. HATTAB

a b

r@ -px Je’;ggJyT;ings
Water jetted -
Waterconnection _ Water jetted
at pressure
I ‘t

5.4 mm) 254 mm)

Double-walled Jetted Drains

jetted mandrel (Dutch method)

Fig. 4. Laboratory models of sand drain formers

Medium size sand graded between 150 urn and 212 urn British standard test sieves, previ-
ously de-aired by boiling, was placed under water into the drain by a pipette. The sand was
allowed to fall about 1 cm through the water to the sand previously deposited. The drain
material was thus placed in a loose state so as to reduce its effects of disturbance during testing.
Drain continuity was checked by allowing water to drain down through the sand.
The cell was then resealed and the sample reconsolidated to 55 kN/m’ ready for testing.

Testing procedure
The first pressure increment was applied through the flexible convoluted jack after closing
the drainage control valve and recording the settlement gauge reading.
The pore pressure transducers always gave an instantaneous 100 % response and the imme-
diate settlement was negligible indicating the full saturation of the sample. Nevertheless, a
period of 2 h was allowed for the sample to come to full internal uniformity.
Consolidation was begun by opening the drainage control valve and readings of settlement,
pore water emission and pore pressure were taken at suitable intervals of time. When the
primary consolidation time was complete, after the complete dissipation of pore pressure, the
settlement was allowed to continue for 24 h in order to define the slope of the secondary
consolidation. The drainage control valve was then closed, the next increment of load applied
and the process repeated for a series of three increments in the range of O-440 kN/m*.
At the conclusion of the test, the sample was unloaded and the size of the drain was measured
and moisture content determined.
 EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 403

0 Open mandrel
n Closed mandrel
fcircular)
o jetted rriandrel
x Auger

Sample dia. = 76 mm Pressure increment = 11O-220 kN/m2

Pressure increment = 55-110 kN/m2
AP/P = 1
n=3
,, Pore water emission at time t

ii&LLy4
n 7 q’ Pore water emission at t 100

i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
d/t: min” d/t: minx
(a) (b)

Pressure increment =220- 440 kN/m2

d/t min’
(c)

Fig. 7. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: percentage consolidation against the square root of time for various
methods of installation

EFFECTS OF METHODS OF INSTALLATION

Results of the experimental programme carried out are summarized in Tables 2 to 6. Table 2
is concerned with the vertical flow consolidation tests, while Tables 3, 4 and 5 present the
inward radial flow consolidation tests for 76 mm, 152 mm and 254 mm dia. samples for the
various methods of boring, respectively. Graphs have been plotted for each pressure increment
of the percentage average degree of consolidation and percentage dissipation of excess pore
water pressure at a certain radius against time for the various methods of boring.
Figure 7 shows curves of the percentage average degree of consolidation plotted against
the square root of time for all increments of pressures for the 76 mm dia. samples. Four
methods of installation were used at the early stages of the programme, namely, the auger,
jetted mandrel, closed mandrel (circular) and open mandrel. Ranking of the various methods
is shown in column A on Table 6. The patterns seem to be similar in the three loading incre-
ments with the auger and jetted mandrel appearing to be the best and showing no significant
differences in their rates of consolidation. The closed mandrel comes third with a higher rate
Table 2. Vertical flow consolidation tests, Rowe cell

Coefficient of Coefficient of
Time to 90 % consolidation Coefficient of permeability
consolidation C, 90 (vertical) consolidation (vertical),
Initial Initial Final Final from central from central CVSOfrom Coefficient K,: mm/min
Sample sample moisture moisture sample Load settlement settlement pore pressure of volume
dia. : thickness content : content: AP thickness: increment : measurements : measurements : measurement : decrease, from from
mm mm % % P mm kN/mZ min mm2/min mm’/min M, : mZ/kN C“90 C Y50

76 33.02 64.93 57.50 1 55-l 10 60.84 15.20 OWO912 135 x 1o-6

31.14 11O-220 46.24 17.78 owO55o 95x10-6
29.07 2764 2204lo 27.04 26.50 OWO266 69x 1O-6
152 36.37 75.47 59.5 1 55-l 10 67.24 16.68 0.00069 1 113 x10-6
34.74 11O-220 59.29 17.26 oGDl47 76 x 1O-6
32.89 31.91 220440 39.69 23.11 owO21o 48 x 1O-6
254 39.00 78.25 57.17 1 55-l 10 81.0 15.59 14.41 OGO1192 182 x 10-e 168 x 10-e
38.67 1lo-220 43.56 29.11 25.76 OGOO605 173x10-6 154x 10-6
38.41 38.23 22o-440 33.6 37.23 47.22 OWO234 85~10-~ 109 x 1o-6
-
Table 3. Inward radial flow consolidation tests, 76 mm dia. sample
-
Coefficient of
Time to 90% consolidation
consolidation C, 90 from
Initial Final Initial Final Load by pore water pore water Coefficient Coefficient of
Method of Sample moisture moisture sample sample Stiffness incre- emission emission of volume permeability
installation dia. : content: content: LIP thickness, thickness, of drain, ment : measurements: measurements : decrease, (horizontal),
of drain mm % % P Hi: mm Hf: mm H~IHI: % kN/m2 min mmZ/min M,: m2/kN K, : mm/min
----- ---- ---- ---- ---__ -__
Open 76 65.54 52.0 1 33.70 31.61 93.8 55-110 244 3.1 oWO443 13.47 x 10-h
mandrel 11O-220 196 3.86 OGOO18O 6.8x10-6
22cH40 228 3.32 0030172 5.6 x 1O-6
Closed 76 68.70 55.05 1 33.04 30.17 91.36 55-110 92 8.22 0~001086 87.6 x 1O-6
mandrel 11O-220 77 9.77 oGOO4O9 39.2 x 1O-6
(circular) 2204W 54.76 13.81 OG_W280 37.8 x 1O-6
Auger 76 70.69 56.14 1 33.19 30.22 91.05 55-110 20.25 37.37 OWO638 233.9 x lO-6
11O-220 32.5 23.28 o+-KK)442 100.9 x 10-e
220-440 27.0 28.02 OWlO192 52.8 x 1O-6
Jetted 76 70.52 55.57 1 33.07 30.28 91.57 55-l 10 23.04 32.84 0030616 198.4x 1O-6
mandrel 11O-220 24.01 31.51 0.000261 80.6 x 1o-6
22040 27.0 28.02 0~000200 54.9 x 10-e
Table 4. Inward flow consolidation tests, 152 mm dim.sample

Coefficient of
Time to 90 % consolidation
consolidation C, go from
Initial Final Initial Final Load by pore water pore water Coefficient Coefficient of
Method of Sample moisture moisture sample sample Stiffness incre- emission emission of volume permeability
installation dia. : content: content : AP thickness, thickness, of drain ment : measurements: measurements : decrease, (horizontal),
of drain mm % % P H,: mm H,: mm H,IH,: % kN/m3 min mm2/min M, : m*/kN K, : mm/min

Open 1.52 68.59 59.0 1 33.32 28.72 86.2 55-l 10 123.21 60.19 0.000865 510 x 10-e
mandrel 1lo-220 246.49 3009 0.000502 148 x 10-e
220-440 144.0 51.50 OWO237 119x1o-6
Closed 152 70.24 56.75 36.32 34.15 94.0 55-l 10 116.64 63.58 OGlO823 513 x10-6
mandrel 1 lo-220 lOO+lO 74.16 0.000394 286~10-~
(circular) 220-440 7744 95.77 oWO3OO 281 x 1O-6
Auger 152 72.7 52.94 35.56 32.77 92.18 55-l 10 67.24 110.30 oWO6O7 657~10-~
1 lo-220 62.41 118.83 0.000463 539x1o-6
220-440 44.89 165.21 OGOO216 350 x 10-e
Jetted 152 66.39 54.20 35.61 32.13 9024 55-l 10 102.01 72.70 0.000725 517 x 10-6
mandrel 110-220 67.24 110.30 OWO466 504x 1o-6
220-440 39.69 186.86 0~000220 403 x 1o-6
Table 5. Inward radial flow consolidation tests, 254 mm dia. sample
- -
Stiff- Coefficient of Coefficient of Coefficient of
Initial Final ness consolidation consolidation permeability,
Methods Initial Final sample sample of Load c r 90 from c ,50 from Coefficient K, : mmlmin
of Sample moisture moisture thick- thick- drain incre- pore water pore water of volume
installation dia. : content: content: AP ness, ness, HfIH, : ment : emission: pressure: decrease, from from
of drain mm % % -F n H,: mm HI: mm % kN/mZ mm2/min mm2/min &4,: mZ/kN Cr90 Cr50

Open 254 76.90 56.54 1 lo 35.68 30.25 84.8 55-l 10 47.97 38.17 o+lO1133 533 x10-6 424x 1O-6
mandrel 110-220 48.75 32.72 OGOO628 300x 1o-6 201 x10-6
220440 96.72 67.90 0.000273 259 x 1O-6 182~10-~
Closed 254 81.49 5436 1 10 36.86 32.39 87.9 55-l 10 86.65 70.47 0~001097 932 x 1O-6 758x 10-h
mandrel 110-220 117.12 87.25 oxtOO 613 x 1O-6 457 x10-6
(circular) 220-440 146.20 105.30 OGOO242 347x10-6 249 x 1O-6
Closed 254 80.51 56.76 1 10 37.46 30.27 80.8 55-l 10 81.34 54.20 0031085 865 x 1O-6 577 x10-6
mandrel 11O-220 117.12 75.71 oWO511 587 x 1O-6 379x 10-6
(star- 220440 142.61 91.61 OGOO247 345 x lo-6 221 x10-6
shaped)
Auger 254 80.50 55.45 1 10 37.77 33.78 89-4 55-l 10 99.28 52.35 00J1256 1223 x 1O-6 645~10-~
1lo-220 119.93 91.61 0030615 723~10-~ 552x 1O-6
220440 158.64 150.20 OWO255 396 x 1O-6 375 x10-6
Jetted 254 8144 56.01 1 10 37.84 32.77 86.6 55-l 10 136.20 79.70 0+lO1106 1477 x 10-S 864~10-~
drains 1lo-220 152.97 98.50 oWO594 891 x10-6 573 x 10-6
(Dutch 220440 177.50 166.60 0+-@0268 466x 1O-6 438x10-6
method)
Jetted 254 79.82 56.27 1 10 37.17 30.48 82.0 55-l 10 119.93 101.80 0+)01191 1401 x10-6 1189x 1O-6
mandrel 110-220 219.00 21303 OWO602 1293 x 1O-6 1257~10-~
220-440 222.90 215.50 OWO240 524 x 1O-6 507 x 10-C
Closed 254 78.25 55.39 1 10 36.15 29.88 82.7 55-l 10 201.23 172.85 00J1063 2098 x 1O-6 1802x 1O-6
mandrel 1lo-220 252.00 199.16 OWO609 1505 x 10-e 1189x 1O-6
(cross- 220440 257.00 234.90 OWO265 668 x 10-e 610 x 1O-6
shaped)
- -
Table 6. Ranking order of methods
-
Ranking
order
I _-
Size of specimen

beginning A:76mm B: 152 mm C: 254 mm

with most
efficient Load increment : kN/m2 Load increment: kN/m* Load increment: kN/m2
installation -__
method 55-110 11O-220 2204 55-l 10 1 lo-220 220440 55-l 10 11O-220 220-440

1 Auger Jetted Auger/ Auger Auger Jetted Closed mandrel Closed mandrel Closed mandrel
mandrel jetted mandrel (cross-shaped) (cross-shaped) (cross-shaped)
mandrel
2 Jetted Auger Closed Jetted Jetted Auger Jetted drains Jetted mandrel Jetted mandrel
mandrel mandrel mandrel mandrel (Dutch method)
3 Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Jetted mandrel Jetted drains Jetted drains
mandrel mandrel mandrel mandrel mandrel mandrel (Dutch method) (Dutch method)
(circular)
4 Open Open Open Open Open Auger Auger Auger
mandrel mandrel mandrel mandrel mandrel
5 Closed mandrel Closed mandrel Closed mandrel
(circular) circular/star circular/star
shaped shaped
6 Closed mandrel Open mandrel Open mandrel
(star shaped)
7 Open mandrel
EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 409

0 Open mandrel
l Closed mandrel
(circular)
v Jetted mandrel Pressure increment = 110-220 kN/m*
x Auger

Sample dia. = 152 mm

Pressure increment = 55-110 kN/m’
At’//’ = 1
.n=6

Pore water emission at time t

%
= Pore water emission at t 100

100
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
fi minM fimin”

(a) (U
0

Pressure Increment =220-440 kN/m’

’ 60
%
b
S
g 80
m
?
Q
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
\% min”

(c)

Fig. 8. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: percentage consolidation against the square root of time for various
methods of consolidation

of consolidation than the open mandrel. An observation worth noting is the fact that the final
cavity dimensions of the closed mandrel represent an average reduction in the drain dia. of
10%. This is due to the rebound of the particles of the material. This occurrence would
increase the drainage path accordingly and might reduce the effectiveness of the drain. Work
by Hansbo (1960) has indicated that the radial coefficient of consolidation C, was higher for
the open mandrel than the closed mandrel at the lower values of effective pressures, in the
immediate vicinity of the preconsolidation pressure, becoming almost similar at higher values.
He conducted his tests in the consolidometer (60.5 mm dia.) with a sample height of 40 mm
and drain dia. of 10 mm (n-6) on sensitive Swedish clay. Simons (1965) also conducted tests
on sensitive Norwegian clay in the triaxial apparatus (n N 8) and concluded that C, for the open
mandrel was higher than the closed mandrel by 20%.
These anomalies could be due to the sensitivity of the soils used in the previous experiments.
The explanation that might be advanced relevant to the research in this Paper is that the cracks
that develop due to the closed mandrel insertion serve as open channels for accelerating
consolidation, thus offsetting the disturbances caused to the remoulded kaolinite sample.
16
410 SINGH AND N. HATTAB

majority of prefer the mandrel in various experiments, the

belief the thin of the will cause disturbance with regard for
effect of
The ranking observed from mm dia. (Fig. 8) shown in B of
6. It apparent here although the is considered cause little
its performance 220-440 kN/m’ does show remoulding than The
closed open mandrels behaviour similar that observed the 76 dia. cell.
9 shows results of on 254 dia. samples the ranking in
this is shown Column C Table 6.
performance of various methods the 254 dia. samples assessed by pore
water dissipation is in Fig. The relative i.e. ranking
of the is the as found the pore emission criterion. it can
established that cross-shaped (Singh Hattab, 1979a) mandrel reflects highest
consolidation The jetted is inferior the lower pressure and
at the loading pressures the jetted
It also evident that jetted mandrel better than auger as diameter
of sample increased, that although disturbance is similar at
smaller diameter even more the jetted the effect remoulding becomes
localized as sample diameter This may to the of a
existence of indiscernible smear the auger is believed be retarding rate of

EFFECTS OF OF DRAINS
influence of of drains the percentage degree of for the
sample diameters mm, 152 and 254 is illustrated Fig. 11 various
methods installation.
Graphs percentage average of consolidation, due to water emission
the same increment 110-220 were plotted the basis t/R2 (i.e. T/C, from
the equation T = C,/R’) in order to eliminate the theoretical scale effect for various methods
of installation. Although the graphs are similar in shape, a slight scale effect is still apparent.
In the open mandrel (Fig. 11(a)), it can be seen that the 152 mm and 254 mm dia. samples are
almost coincident between 30 and 90% consolidation. The 76 mm dia. sample presents large
variations due to the factors stated before. The difference at 50 and 90% consolidation is 50
and 67 % respectively.
Therefore, since the open mandrel disturbs the sample slightly and smears the surface of
the bore (Singh and Hattab, 1979b), it seems logical to assume that the effect on the 76 mm,
in addition to the other inherent effects, is due to the disturbance effect prominent in the small
diameter sample. While for the 152 mm and 254 mm dia. samples, the disturbance effect is
limited, in comparison with the dia. of the cells, and only the smear is predominant. These
results suggest little difference between sand drain spacings having n values of 6 and 10 and
installed by the o$en mandrel.
The closed mandrel exhibits the same pattern as the open mandrel with the exception of the
initial consolidation for the 76 and 152 mm dia. samples being faster than the 254 mm sample
(Fig. I l(b)). This could be due to surface cracks caused by the closed mandrel assisting in the
consolidation by acting as open channels until closure due to compression. The magnitude of

1 Explanation to the causes of smear is given in Singh and Hattab (1979b).

EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 411

0 Open mandrel
. Closed mandrel
(circular)
l Closed mandrel
(cross-shaped)
0 Closed mandrel
(star-shaped)
v Jetted mandrel
v Jetted Drams
(Dutch method)
I Auger

;3,, ,\~h
‘I= Porewaterem~ssionattlOO .a

(4
0
s..
aL
; 20
.g
m
0
5
u) 40 Pressure increment = 1IO- 220 kN/m*
E
5
8 60
b
$
0 80
t
2
100

(b)
0
8
..
a&
c’ 20
.s
m
0
0 Pressure increment = 220-440 kN/m*
g 40
8
;5
: 60
b
%
a,
p 80
z
k
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1618 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
\/t: min”

(c)

Fig. 9. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: percentage consolidation against the square root of time for various
methods of consolidation
 0 Open mandrel
n Closed mandrel

l Closed mandrel
(cross-shaped)
0 Closed mandrel
.s 40 (star-shaped
Sample dia. = 254 mm o Jetted mandrel
2 t
v Jetted Drains
Pressure Increment = 55-l 10 kN/m’ (Dutch method)
I Auger

Time: min

(a) W

& 0

G 0

; 20
3-
5
.z 40
x
vl
j 60 Pressure increment = 220- 440 kN/m’

3
z
g 80
3
2
~ 100
k 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000
E
Time: min

cc)

Fig. 10. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: rate of dissipation of pore pressure against time for various methods of consolidation
 EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 413

(a)

!.I “osedf:
, i
Loadmg mcrement= 11 O-220 kN/m’ (

(b)

Jetted mandrel

,jO _ Pressure increment = 1 lo-220 kN/m*

.&P/P = 1

80 -

100 I
(C)

Pressure mcrement = 1lo-220 kN/m’

Fig. 11. Inward radial Row consolidation tests: scale effects for various method of boring
414 G. SINGH AND T. N. HATTAB

this effect is dependent on the diameter of the sample. In this case, the smear is also the con-
ducive factor.
Figure 1 l(c) shows the jetted mandrel scale effects. The 254 mm dia. cell is the most efficient
followed by the 152 and 76 mm, signifying that if the mandrel only disturbs the sample, then
the effect is transmitted according to the size of the sample with the smaller dia. being affected
more. The effects at 90% consolidation between the 254 and 152 mm are about 27 and about
37 % between 152 and 76 mm.
Similar effects to those discussed for the jetted mandrel are also apparent in the auger (Fig.
1 l(d)), except for the 152 and 254 mm curves which are closer together. The effects at 90%
consolidation of about 15 % seem to confirm the previous interpretation of the possibility that
the auger might induce slight indiscernible smear that will impede drainage.
It might be concluded, therefore, that forming sand drains can disturb and smear the
sample. For disturbed samples only, the remoulding effect recedes with the increasing dia.
of sample, while for disturbance and smear, the effects of smear dominate. Hence, the increase
in dia. or loading pressure can only improve the consolidation partially.
An interesting behaviour worth mentioning in this section is the stiffness’ of the sand drain.
This seems to vary according to the spacing of the drain. It has been found that the average
stiffness for the various methods of installation is 91.94% for the 76 mm dia. cell (n = 3),
90.65 % for the 152 mm dia. cell (n = 6) and 86.03 % for the 254 mm dia. cell (n = 10). These
results show a decrease in the stiffness with an increase in spacing confirming the finding of
Shields (1963). Although the expected effect is greatly reduced due to the use of free strain
conditions, nevertheless, it must be arged that a stiff drain acting as a column could create a
zone of concentrated stresses that may damage the supported structure.

EFFECTS ON CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS

The values of the coefficient of consolidation for vertical drainage measured by the Rowe
consolidation cells (76, 152 and 254 mm dia.), are within the scatter of the coefficient of varia-
tion of 21% obtained by the tests conducted on the Casagrande oedometer for vertical flow for
the three load increments. The values of the coefficient of permeability for the 254 mm dia.
are higher by about 39 % than those of the Casagrande oedometer. The values of C, determined
from the pore water emission readings are generally higher than those from the pore water
pressure readings at low effective stress.
The values of the coefficients of consolidation, volume decrease and permeability for inward
radial flow for various methods of installation are shown in Tables 3 to 5.
It is apparent that the trend favours the increase of the coefficient of consolidation C, with
load increment and the decrease of coefficient of volume decrease and permeability.
Figures 12 to 17 show graphs of the coefficients of consolidation and permeability for various
methods of installation plotted against loading increments. The coefficients of consolidation
and permeability are highest for the cross-shaped closed mandrel and lowest for the open
mandrel.
The average ratios of (CJC,) for the three loading increments, taken for various methods of
loading, range from 8.08 for the cross-shaped closed mandrel to 2.2 for the open mandrel in
the 254 mm dia. cell (ratio n = 10). The ratio is 6.91 for the auger and 2.48 for the open
mandrel in the I52 mm dia. cell (n = 6). In the 76 mm dia. cell (n = 3), the ratio is 1.55 for the
jetted mandrel and 0.17 for the open mandrel.

height of sand drain after compression (Hr)

2 Stiffness of drain = %.
height of sand drain before compression (Hi)
EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 415
40

JM

.=76mm
=l
=3

100, 200 300 400 500

Loading pressure: kN/m’

Fig. 12. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: coefficient of consolidation versus loading for various methods of
installation. A = auger, JM = jetted mandrel, CM = closed mandrel, OM = open mandrel

180

160

.c 140
E
cc’
: 120
0’

JM 152 mm
CM
OM 6

20

I- 1 I I , I
O 100 200 300 400 500
Loading pressure: kN/m’

Fig. 13. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: coefficient of consolidation against loading pressure for various
methods of installation
416 G. SINGH AND T. N. HATTAB

CM.

Sample dia. = 254 mm

A/=/P = 1
n= 10
JD-

OMO

l CM = Closed mandrel
(cross-shaped)
. JD = Jetted Drain
(Dutch method)
o JM = Jetted mandrel
*A = Auger
l CM = Closed mandrel
(circular)
0 CM = Closed mandrel
(star-shaped)
, =aOM = Open mandrel
0 100 200 300 400 500
Loading pressure: kN/m2

Fig. 14. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: coefficient of consolidation against loading pressure for various
methods of installation

This should give a clear indication to the erroneous practice of measuring and applying the
coefficient of consolidation for vertical flow to the design of sand drains.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION
It is difficult to make a comparison of costs as a result of the variation in unit costs associated
with site location, accessibility, size of job and the availability of the required facilities for each
of the methods.
The establishment costs of the closed mandrel are generally much higher than for the other
methods as the plant require to perform the installation is much heavier and therefore costlier
to bring onto the site. The jetting methods require the provision on site of an adequate water
supply, thus costs of these methods are dependent on its procurement.
The results of the economic evaluation of the various methods of installation are shown in
Fig. 18. The cost of some of the methods included in this Paper are not available and therefore
a complete assessment cannot be affected. The data were obtained from the following
(a) Personal communication with sand drain specialists.
(b) Stanton (1948), utilized as a comparative cost assuming that all the methods inflated
equally.
(c) Margarson (1966).
(d) Settlement and stability of embankments constructed on soft alluvial soils by Lewis,
Murray and Symons (1975).
(e) Cross (1977).
EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 417

I
g 110
t I Sample dia. = 76 mm
AP/P = 1
” I n=3
2
.a,
2 70 -
$
JM
v 50- A

t? CM

30 - 1 I
10 - OM
tOM
I I
0 100 200 300 400 500

Loading pressure: kN/m”

Fig. 15. Inward radial How consolidation tests: coefficient of permeability against pressure for various methods
of installation

152 mm

200 300 400 500

Loading pressure: kN/m’

Fig. 16. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: coefficient of consolidation against loading pressure for various
methods of installation
 418 G. SINGH AND T. N. HATTAB
2200

0 CM = Closed mandrel
2000 (cross-shaped)
. JD = Jetted Drain
(Dutch method)
o JM = Jetted mandrel
1800
5 *A = Auger
E . CM = Closed mandrel
2 (circular)
E 1600 q CM = Closed mandrel
d’ (star-shaped)
*JD
b 0 OM = Open mandrel
; 1400 oJM
Y-

g 1200
D
:
E Sample dia. = 254 mm
& 1000
a n CM AP/P =
75 qCM “= 10
E 800
0
%
$ 600
oOM

400

200

I I I I 1
0 100 200 300 400 500

Loading pressure: kN/m*

Fig. 17. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: coefficient of permeability against loading pressure for various
methods of installation

The bulk of the cost data was obtained from prices acquired by the Transport and Road
Research Laboratory (TRRL) from six civil engineering contractors who quoted for the cost
of treating a hypothetical case of a road embankment constructed on homogeneous alluvium
assuming equal efficiencies of the methods of installations. It was the major objective of this
research to establish the effectiveness of the methods of installation as defined by the co-
efficient of consolidation. Table 7 shows that the most efficient method of installation is the
method that has a maximum area under the graph in Fig. 18. Taking the cost of the available
methods, it can be seen that the jetted drain is the most economic, provided the availability of
water is secured. The jetted mandrel comes into second place followed by the closed mandrel
of circular cross-section. If the cost of boring by the closed mandrel (cross-shaped) can be
expected to be the same or slightly higher than the circular section, because of the higher
surface area requiring more energy for driving, then it will be, by far, the most economical
method. According to the TRRL data the auger seems to be the worst method in the economi-
cal sense. The whole issue may change if, for instance, the cost of installation of IFG (the Inter-
national Foundation Company of Holland) is considered regarding the auger and jetted drains.
Although the jetted drains seem to be more economical than the jetted mandrel, the risk of
the possibility of requiring a casing to keep the sides of the hole from collapse could make the
jetted mandrel method far more attractive. An additional thought in this context is that the
auger and closed mandrel (circular) are economically comparable methods and their preference
should be decided by the circumstances prevailing at the job. However, they are inferior to
the other two jetting methods if water is available.
Table 7. Cost effectiveness comparison

Cost per Reciprocal of Average

m2 per Comparative comparative coefficient of
length, Comparative Comparative cost ratio, Comparative cost ratio consolidation,2 Comparative
(Cross, cost ratio cost ratio (Margason, cost ratio, (Cross and Cr efficiency
Method of 1975): (Cross, 1975) : (Stanton, 1948): 1966): (IFG, 1978): Stanton’) efficiency : (Hattab) : Cost
installation f f E f. f % mm’/min % effectiveness3

Closed mandrel - - - - 237 100 -

(cross-shaped)
Closed mandrel 1.00 1.4 1.0 1.75 - 71 117 49.4 35
(circular)
Jetted mandrel - - 1.1 - 66 187 79 52
Jetted drains 0.70 1.0 - 1.0 1.3 100 155 65.4 65
(Dutch method)
uncased
Open mandrel - 65 27.4 -
Auger 1.25 1.8 I.0 55 126 53 29
uncased

1 Stanton comparative cost ratios interpolated with comparative cost ratios of Cross.
’ Average coefficient of consolidation for three ranges of loading increments, using 254 mm diameter samples. It is designated in this concept as the ‘Efficiency’ of the method.
3 Cost effectiveness is the area under the graph of reciprocal of comparative cost ratio and efficiency.
420 G. SINGH AND T. N. HATTAB

However, it may be unwise to predict the absolute effectiveness of the methods of installation
from the result given here. In fact, it is not the purpose of this study to make definite economi-
cal assessments, due to the difficulty in securing comprehensive costs, and/or the variability of
the costs secured from the various contracts. Further, local site conditions largely govern
which method is likely to provide the most economic solution.
This study is, therefore, only intended to provide some details of the various techniques
available and aid in the selection of the treatment most appropriate to any situation.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Consolidation characteristics, studied by using inward radial drainage to a central model

sand drain on homogeneous remoulded kaolinite clay, reflect distinct differences in per-
formance among the various methods of installation.
*Theranking of the methods of installation according to their rate of consolidation (efficiency)
for cell ratio it = 10 is as follows
(a) For loading increment 55-110 kN/m’
(i) Closed mandrel (cross-shape)
(ii) Jetted drains (Dutch method)
(iii) Jetted mandrel
(iv) Auger
(v) Closed mandrel (circular)
(vi) Closed mandrel (star-shape)
(vii) Open mandrel
(b) For loading increments 110-220 kN/m2 and 220440 kN/m2
(i) Closed mandrel (cross-shape)
(ii) Jetted mandrel
(iii) Jetted drains (Dutch method)
(iv) Auger
(v) Closed mandrel (circular)
(vi) Closed mandrel (star-shape)
(vii) Open mandrel
A new development on the closed mandrel former has been introduced involving the con-
sideration of shape factor criterion. This recognizes the geometrical concept of non-circular
shape : fixation of the cross-sectional area of the drain former and increase in the length of the
lobes lead to a decrease in drainage path and an increase in surface area. Out of the two new
shapes investigated the star-shaped mandrel gave the highest perimeter and effective diameter
but because of its highly angular shape it produced the greatest detrimental effects of smear
and disturbance. The cross-shaped mandrel, on the other hand, appears to produce an optimal
balance between the desired consolidation improvement and detrimental effects.
Investigation of the effects of spacing of drains, conducted through the use of three sample
sizes for various methods of installation, shows a pattern tending to indicate that drains in
large samples (254 mm dia., n = 10) behave most efficiently. However, the performance of the
methods of installation that cause smear as well as disturbance (open and closed mandrel) are
similar for diameters 254 mm (n = 10) and 152 mm (n = 6).
 EFFICIENCY OF SAND DRAINS 421

Jetted Drains (Dutch method)

100
%
ij
.z
p fio-
Closed mandrel (circular)
I
--_----------I Jetfedman?!

1
8

F
m
.z_._____..___..................~...
60-
I!
Auger
L..

x
E 40-
i I ;
8
5 I : j
jj 20-
2 I i
.a I j
$ I I I I,. I I
[r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 130 90 100
Comparative coefficient of consolldaGon (effuency): %

Fig. 18. Inward radial flow consolidation tests: reciprocal of comparative cost ratio against percentage compara-
tive efficiency for various methods of installation

Hence, it may be stated that the disturbance effects decrease with increasing diameter of
sample, while the smearing effect does seem to remain constant irrespective of varied spacing
of drains.
The cost effectiveness study indicates that local site conditions largely govern which method
is likely to provide the most economic solution. The assessment suggests that the overall costs
for the methods of installation differ considerably. Considering the available costs of the
methods, the jetted drains appear to be the most economic of the techniques, provided the
availability of water is secured, with the jetted mandrel falling into second place. Consequently,
the jetted mandrel may be a more attractive option to the jetted drain as the sides of the hole
are less liable to collapse. If the cost of installation of the cross-shaped closed mandrel could
be expected to be similar to the circular section, it might be the most economic technique.
Considerable care must be taken in interpreting the significance of the economic assessment
due to the uncertainty of the numerous cost factors involved. The study is only intended to
indicate general trends.
The coefficient of consolidation due to radial flow C, is significantly higher than that due to
vertical flow C, for all methods of installation. Thus, it would be unwise to use C, for the
design of sand drains. More acceptable values could be obtained by inward radial flow to a
model sand drain in a large sample simulating spacing ratios of n> 10 and the method of
installation intended to be used in the field. In the case of large projects various methods may
be tried to choose the most efficient one for the type of soil prevailing at the site.
Due attention must be paid in the field to the possibility of causing a state of vacuum while
withdrawing the closed mandrel because this may cause constriction in the profile of the drain.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Authors are grateful to Professor A. M. Neville for making available the facilities of
the department of Civil Engineering at the University of Leeds to carry out this work and to
Dr J. B. Burland of the Building Research Establishment for valuable comments.

REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (1975). Standard recommended practice for choice of sample size
to estimate the average quality of a lot or process. ASTM D:E, 122-172.
422 G. SINGH AND T. N. HATTAB

Barden, L. & Berry, P. L. (1965). Consolidation of normally consolidated clay. Proc. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 91,
No. SM5, 15-35.
Barron, R. A. (1948). Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells. Trans. Am. Sec. Ciu. Engrs 113, 71%
754.
Berry, P. L. & Wilkinson, W. (1969). The radial consolidation of clay soils. Geotechnique 19, No. 2, 253-284.
Boutsma, K. & Horvat, E. (1967). The advantages and disadvantages of the application of sand drains and
preloading at an excavation in Rotterdam. Proc. Geotech Conf. Shear Strength Properties of Natural Soils
and Rocks. Norwegian Geotech. Inst.
Cross, J. E. (1977). An economic assessment of methods of accelerating the consolidation of natural soils.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Supplementary Report 203.
George, P. (1978). Personal communication.
Hansbo, S. (1960). Consolidation of clay with special reference to influence of vertical sand drains. Swedish
Geotech. Inst. Proc. No. 18.
Hattab, T. N. (1978). A relative study of methods of sand drain installation. PhD thesis, University of Leeds.
Hughes, F. H. & Chalmers, A. (1972). Small diameter sand drains. Civ. Engng publ. Wks Rev.
International foundation company of Holland (1978). Personal communication.
Landau, R. E. (1958). The post hole digger comes of age in sand drain work. Construction Methods and Equip-
ment, 154-158.
Lewis, W. A., Murray, R. T. & Symons, I. F. (1975). Settlement and stability of embankments constructed on
soft alluvial soils. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs, Part 2, 59, 571-593.
Margason, G. (1966). A comparison of the vertical sand drain and cardboard wick drain methods of vertical
subsoil drainage. Road Research Laboratory Technical Note, No. 79. Unpublished.
Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge (1958). Study of deep soil stabilization by vertical sand drains. Report for
US Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks.
News report (1965). Jetting procedure for vertical sand drains. Civ. Engng Pub/. Wks Rev. 60, 217.
Rowe, P. W. & Barden, L. (1966). A new consolidation cell. Geotechnique 16, No. 2, 162-170.
Shields, D. H. (1963). The inj?uence of vertical sand drains and natural stratification on consolidation. PhD thesis,
University of Manchester.
Simons, N. E. (1965). Consolidation investigation on undisturbed Fornebu clay. Norwegian Geotech. Inst.
Publ., Oslo, No. 62, 1-9.
Singh, G. & Hattab, T. N. (1979a). Development of a new method of installation of sand drains. Civ. Engr.
Singh, G. & Hattab, T. N. (1979b). The influence of methods of installation of sand drains on soil structure.
Unoublished.
Stanton, T. E. (1948). Vertical sand drains as a means of foundation consolidation and accelerating settlement
of embankments over marshland. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Fdn Engng, Rotterdam, No. 1.5, 273-279.
Whitaker, T. (1976). The design ofpiledfoundations (2nd edition), Pergamon Press, Oxford.