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

net/publication/269083919

The Characteristics of PVD Smear Zone

Conference Paper  in  Geotechnical Special Publication · March 2011

DOI: 10.1061/41165(397)77

CITATIONS READS
11 1,257

2 authors:

Hoang-Hung Tran-Nguyen Tuncer B. Edil

Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology Vietnam National University: Ho Chi Mi… University of Wisconsin–Madison
39 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS    356 PUBLICATIONS   6,957 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

A construction method of bridge approach embankments on soft ground using EPS Geofoam in Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam View project

sustainability of highway construction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hoang-Hung Tran-Nguyen on 23 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Table of Contents
Foundations and Ground Improvement
Deep Foundations I

Prediction of the Dynamic Soil-Pile Interaction under Coupled Vibration Using 1

Artificial Neural Network Approach
Sarat Kumar Das, B. Manna, and D. K. Baidya

Predicting Pile Setup (Freeze): A New Approach Considering Soil Aging and 11
Pore Pressure Dissipation
E. J. Steward and X. Wang

High-Strain Dynamic Load Testing at the Bahia-San Vicente Bridge: Evaluation 20

of Results against Design Values
V. M. Bastidas and N. A. Caicedo

A Reusable Instrumented Test Pile for Improved Pile Design 27

Aravinthan Thurairajah, Jason T. DeJong, and Tom Shantz

Improving Prediction of the Load-Displacement Response of Axially Loaded 36

Friction Piles
Muhannad T. Suleiman, Sherif S. AbdelSalam, and Sri Sritharan

Investigation of LRFD Resistance Factors with Consideration to Soil Variability 46

along the Pile Length
Sherif S. AbdelSalam, Sri Sritharan, and Muhannad T. Suleiman

Deep Foundations II
Geotechnical Aspects for Design and Performance of Floating Foundations 56
S. Mohsenian, A. Eslami, and A. Kasaee

Osterberg Cell Load Testing on Helical Piles 66

Mehmet Aydin, Thomas D. Bradka, and Denton A. Kort

Multi-Objective Foundation Optimization and Its Application to Pile Reuse 75

Y. F. Leung, K. Soga, and A. Klar

Subsurface Conditions and Foundation Solutions for the New Yankee Stadium 85
R. T. Wisniewski, M. Weckler, and A. H. Brand

Helical Pile Acceptance Criteria, Design Guidelines, and Load Test Verification 94
Michael Perlow, Jr.

Steel Fibers Reinforced Grouted and Fiber Reinforced Polymer Helical Screw 103
Piles—A New Dimension for Deep Foundations Seismic Performance
Y. Abdelghany and H. El Naggar

Quantitative Support for a Qualitative Foundation Reuse Assessment Tool 113

D. F. Laefer

Deep Foundations III

 The Effect of Freezing-Thawing Cycles on Performance of Fly Ash Stabilized 697
Expansive Soil Subbases
Sazzad Bin-Shafique, K. Rahman, and Ireen Azfar

Ground Improvement IV: Soft or Clayey Soil Treatment

Effect of Polypropylene Fibre on the Strength Characteristics of Lightly 707
Cemented Clayey Soil Mixtures
Y. Yilmaz and K. Karatas

Geogrids Enable Site Access at Large Wind Farm—Technical Details and Case 717
Study
J. Klompmaker, C. Quirk, and T. Tanner

New Jersey Turnpike, Interchange 16W: Embankments over Deep Soft 728
Compressible Clays in the Meadowlands
R. D. Bunting and A. S. Crincoli

Numerical Modeling of Dynamic Compaction in Cohesive Soils 738

K. F. Mostafa and Robert Y. Liang

The Characteristics of PVD Smear Zone 748

H.-H. Tran-Nguyen and T. B. Edil

Mass Stabilization for Settlement Control of Shallow Foundations on Soft 758

Organic Clayey Soils
Edward J. Garbin, Jr., Joseph Mann, Kirk A. McIntosh, and Karishma R. Desai

Ground Improvement V: Design and Applications

Design and Construction of a Lightweight Material Embankment Supported 768
on Timber Piles through a Load Transfer Platform
Mihail E. Popescu, Frank Williams, Nadir Shah, and Michael Sterr

Stabilization of Soils with Portland Cement and CKD and Application of CKD 778
on Slope Erosion Control
Farid Sariosseiri, Mehrdad Razavi, Kolleen Carlson, and Bahareh Ghazvinian

The Arching Phenomena Observed in Experimental Trap Door Model Tests 788
E. J. Britton and P. J. Naughton

A Generalized Formulation of the Adapted Terzaghi Method of Arching in 798

Column-Supported Embankments
Joel Sloan, George Filz, and James Collin

Ground Improvement with Mechanically Stabilized Earth and Steep 806

Surcharge Slopes near Existing Structures
H. J. Shah, M. B. VanRensler, and H. S. Lacy

Introduction to the Development of an Information Management System for 816

Soil Mix Technology Using Artificial Neural Networks
Rakshya Shrestha and Abir Al-Tabbaa

Numerical Simulations and Parametric Study of SDCM and DCM Piles under 826
Full Scale Axial and Lateral Loads
D. T. Bergado, T. Suksawat, and P. Jamsawang
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 748

The Characteristics of PVD Smear Zone

H.-H. Tran-Nguyen1, and T. B. Edil2, F. ASCE

1
Assistant professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh city University
of Technology, 268 Ly Thuong Kiet street, district 10, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam,
PH (+84)91-390-0663; FAX (+84)8-3-863-7251; email: tnhhung@hcmut.edu.vn
2
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 2226 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI
53706, PH (608) 262-3225; FAX: (608) 262-5199; email: edil@engr.wisc.edu

ABSTRACT

A smear zone, i.e., a disturbed zone is considered to form during installation

of a prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) using a mandrel and this zone retards the
horizontal consolidation of soft clays in the vicinity of PVD. The characteristics of
the smear zone, such as its extent and hydraulic conductivity remain discrepant
among investigators. This study attempts to determine the extent of the smear zone
and to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the smear zone directly by laboratory
tests. For this purpose, a Smear Zone Model (SZM) test is described. The tests
indicate that two soil zones are identifiable in the soil mass surrounding the PVD
after the PVD installation using the mandrel. The extent of the smear zone is about 3
to 4 times the equivalent radius of the mandrel depending on soil type. The smear
zone permeability ratio was measured to be about 1.03 to 1.25 for the soils tested.
However, the test conditions employed were least conducive to generating a highly
disturbed zone.

INTRODUCTION

A smear zone, i.e., a disturbed zone is considered to form during installation

of a prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) using a mandrel. The smear zone, which is
reported to have a hydraulic conductivity lower than that of undisturbed soil away
from the PVD installation zone, impedes the horizontal consolidation of soft clays.
The smear zone also alters typically anisotropic initial hydraulic conductivity of
clays. The reduction of the rate of consolidation in the radial direction at the smear
zone is defined as the smear effect. The smear effect, which is expected to be
dictated by a number of factors such as the sensitivity of soil, installation process, and
the size and shape of the mandrel, is not fully comprehended, particularly the extent
of the smear zone and its hydraulic conductivity, even though many investigations
have focused on it. A smear ratio, m, which is the ratio of the equivalent diameter of
the smear zone, ds, to the equivalent diameter of the mandrel, dm, is defined to express
the extent of the smear zone and it is reported to vary from 1.2 to 7 based on both
theoretical and experimental studies (Bo et al. 2003). A smear permeability ratio, η,
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 749

the ratio of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of undisturbed soil (kh) to that of
smear zone (ks), kh/ks, describes the degree of disturbance due to the mandrel
penetration on hydraulic conductivity (Hansbo 1979). The reports of η, which affects
the horizontal consolidation of soft clays, are not consistent among researchers and it
is mostly indirectly determined by back analyses. A number of researchers had
reported that η is about 1.2 to 11.1 based on field test data and hydraulic conductivity
test data on the samples taken in the field tests (Bo et al. 2003).
In summary, the extent and hydraulic conductivity of PVD smear zone have
received significant attention; however, there is still uncertainty. There is limited or
no smear zone hydraulic conductivity data that is directly produced by laboratory or
field tests. In this study, a laboratory Smear Zone Model (SZM) experiment was
developed as a performance test for determining the extent of the smear zone and
measuring its hydraulic conductivity directly and experiments were conducted
successfully.

TEST PROGRAM

Test apparatus

The first generation SZM apparatus developed is a rectangular aluminum box

with one side made of Plexiglas (inside dimensions of 530 x 350 x 130 mm) (Fig.1)
(Tran-Nguyen 2009). The SZM device represents an element of soil adjacent to a
PVD rotated 90 degrees so that the longitudinal axis of the PVD is now in the
horizontal direction. It also can be used to investigate the effect of lateral stress on
PVD discharge capacity as a secondary function. Additionally, the SZM can be used
to examine the effect of the size and shape of mandrels on the characteristics of the
smear zone, with minor modifications such as adjusting the height and mandrel slits.
e
Piston
Top fixed plate
Top reservoir
Rectangular Top movable
box plate and
drainage
Soil
specimen
The box
3@40

330

rotated in 90o Piezometers

530

(a)
5@20

PVD
Smear
zone
Side
150

Reservoir Drainage
system
Influence
boundary 350 130

Figure 1. Smear Zone Model (SZM) Device, dimensions in millimeter

(a) Simulated soil zones surrounding the PVD after installation
(b) Physical dimensions of the SZM (simulated soil zone rotated 90o)
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 750

To simulate in situ lateral stress, a movable perforated plate is placed on top

of the soil to apply a vertical pressure. The plate is also designed as a filtered drain
that allows water in the soil specimen to drain through. The space above this plate
provides a reservoir that collects drained water during consolidation. A solid plate
can be attached to the top of the box creating a permeameter reservoir during
hydraulic conductivity measurements. A drainage system designed for the fixed
bottom plate allows for collection of the discharge water during the initial
consolidation and hydraulic conductivity measurements before the insertion of the
PVD creating, essentially, a rigid wall permeameter. Two additional side reservoirs
are attached laterally to the box where the PVD is located (150 mm above the bottom
of the box) that can collect drainage from the PVD for the hydraulic conductivity
tests after the insertion of the PVD (when the bottom drainage is blocked from the
box). They also can be used if a PVD discharge capacity test is desired. A PVD is
installed through the slits cut in the walls of the box 150 mm above the bottom. The
two reservoirs are attached after the insertion of the PVD with the PVD ends
terminating in these two reservoirs. After the PVD installation, there is a 320 – 340
mm-thick layer of soil above the PVD, which is 10 times more than the equivalent
radius of the mandrel used in this study. In the soil zone above the PVD, a set of six
to eight piezometers along a line normal to the center of the PVD are installed to
capture the change in pore water pressure (PWP) during the PVD installation by
pushing and pulling of the mandrel. These piezometers also allow determination of
the pressure head, which is used to calculate the total head distribution during
hydraulic conductivity measurements.
The pressure applied on the soil vertically corresponds to the in situ lateral
pressure and is maintained during the PVD installation (typically in the range of 12.5
to 100 kPa). The current SZM is only compatible with a rectangular mandrel, and a
mandrel inserted horizontally instead of vertically. The SZM device is a one-
dimensional specimen testing apparatus simulating a PVD-soil element. In principle,
the smear is often considered a cylindrical zone surrounding the PVD. If a narrow
rectangular box is placed in the center of the cylindrical zone that contains the PVD
in the center of the box, the smear zone and its effect are now observed only in one
dimension (1-D), which is in the direction normal to the PVD to the boundary of the
influence zone (Fig. 1a). The width of the box is nearly the same as the width of the
mandrel used to install the PVD. The box used in this study has a width of 130 mm,
slightly larger than the width of the mandrel (120 mm).

Test Procedure

A soil sample is prepared at the anticipated in situ water content and placed in
the box. The soil is placed in layers and compacted by a vibrator to minimize air
bubbles in the specimen. The soil is then consolidated under a pressure that simulates
lateral pressure at depth under field conditions and can be varied. In this study, a
pressure of 25 kPa was used. This pressure was maintained after the soil
consolidated, during the mandrel penetration, and during the hydraulic conductivity
measurements. PWP data, measured from the piezometers on the cell wall, are used
for three purposes: 1. to verify completion of primary consolidation (supplemented by
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 751

the settlement-time data), 2. collect excess PWP data during the PVD installation, and
3. calculate the total head distribution during the hydraulic conductivity
measurements.
The PVD was installed when the excess PWP induced due to the
consolidation pressure was completely dissipated and an optional initial hydraulic
conductivity measurement made. Prior to installation of the PVD, the bottom
drainage was blocked. The mandrel, with a cross-section of 15 x 120 mm, was
pushed in horizontally through the side slits provided and pulled out at a speed of 1.0
to 2.5 mm/s. This speed is much lower than that of a rig in the field; i.e., 150 – 600
mm/s (Rixner et al. 1986). The mandrel speed in the laboratory is slower due to the
manual installation and soil stiffness. The excess PWP is continuously recorded
during the installation.

Test Materials

Two soils were used: Hydrite R Kaolinite clay and Craney Island dredgings.
Hydrite R Kaolinite is commercial kaolin in powder form and was prepared as slurry
at approximate water content of 60%, which is more than its liquid limit. Craney
Island dredgings was sampled in Craney Island, Virginia from an island of stored
dredgings. Craney Island dredging material is described in detail in a paper by Stark
et al. (1999). The testing described in Stark et al. (1999) was performed in the south-
central portion of the North containment area. The Craney Island samples studied in
this test series were collected from the upper meter of sediment from the southwest
corner of the South containment area. A single homogenized sample was prepared by
mixing seven buckets of soil sample. The compositional properties of the soils are
given in Table 1. The PVD used was a grooved-core PVD with a width of 100 mm
and thickness of 3.2 mm and its filter geotextile has a permittivity of 0.7 s-1.

Table 1. Properties of the soils tested

% Clay Liquid Plasticity cv

Soil type Gs φ’
Finer fraction limit index @100 kPa k

Sieve %
% % m2/s m/s Deg.
#200 (< 2 μm)

Kaolinite 100 80 49 25 2.59 6x10-8 9.9x10-10 25

Craney
80 73 80 55-60 2.71 4x10-9 5.0x10-10 30
Island

Supplementary Tests

Supplementary tests such as oedometer and permeability tests were also

conducted on the soil. Oedometer tests on reconstituted specimens were performed
to verify the consolidation behavior of the soil tested. A series of hydraulic
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 752

conductivity tests using both rigid and flexible wall permeameters (standard ASTM
D5856 & D5084) was carried out on both reconstituted samples and tube
(undisturbed) samples of the soils taken after the experiments were completed. Void
ratio was measured on undisturbed samples taken in the SZM device after the
termination of the experiment.

RESULTS

Pore Water Pressure Variation during PVD Installation

Pore water pressure (PWP) variations during the mandrel penetrations are
shown in Fig. 2. Also shown in Fig. 2 is the top surface displacement of the soil as
measured from a displacement sensor (LVTD). The excess PWP reached the
maximum value when the tip of the mandrel just passed the location of the
piezometers. The piezometer closest to the PVD recorded the highest PWP. The
excess PWP rapidly dissipates when the mandrel tip moves away from the plane of
the piezometers. The excess PWP decreased quickly and, at some piezometers close
to the PVD, became negative during the mandrel withdrawal as the soil mass was
unloaded. During the mandrel insertion, the top of the soil specimen displaced
upward (expansion is designated negative) but was mostly recovered after the
removal of the mandrel as shown also in Figure 2.
Pushing (2.5 mm/s)

80 80
P1 (20 mm)
Excess Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

P1 (20 mm)
Excess Pore Water Pressure

P2 (40 mm) P2 (40 mm)

P3 (60 mm)
P4 (80 mm) 60 P3 (60 mm)
60
P5 (100 mm) Pushing (1 mm/s) P4 (80 mm)
P6 (140 mm) P5 (100 mm)
P7 (180 mm) P6 (140 mm)
(kPa)

P8 (220 mm) 40
40
Displacement Displacement
Pulling (2.5 mm/s)
Pulling (2.5 mm/s)
20 20

0
Displacement

0
(mm) (x -1)
Displacement

0 25 50 75 100 125
(mm) (x -1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-20 -20
(a) Kaolinite (b) Craney Island
Time (min)
Time (min)

Figure 2. Variation of pore water pressure during PVD installation

(a) Pore-water pressure variation in Kaolinite
(b) Pore-water pressure variation in Craney Island dredgings

Variation of Total Head before and after PVD Installation

The total head distribution calculated from the PWP data measurements from
the piezometers installed along the soil profile during an initial hydraulic flow
established in the two soils tested showed that the hydraulic properties of the soil
specimens were uniform after consolidation. The total head distributions of the soils
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 753

tested during the hydraulic conductivity test performed after the PVD installation and
dissipation of excess PWP are shown in Fig. 3. The total head distributions suggest
that two soil zones were generated in the soil mass in the direction normal to the
PVD. First, a disturbed zone, about 100 to 140 mm thick and close to the PVD where
hydraulic head distribution deviates somewhat from the overall linear head
distribution, is identifiable for the two soils tested. Second, an outer undisturbed zone
where the head distribution aligns with the linear head distribution consistent with the
boundary heads induced by the reservoir levels. The disturbed zone corresponds to a
smear zone with m = 3.0 to 4.2 for Kaolinite and Craney Island dredgings,
respectively.
(a) (b)
12 12
Disturbed Undisturbed Zone
Zone
10 10 Disturbed Zone Undisturbed Zone
H = 100 mm
H = 140 mm

8 8

Total Head (m)

Total Head (m)

kavg = 4.0 x 10-10 m/s

6 -10
6
kavg = 9.6 x 10 m/s
-10
kavg = 9.9 x 10 m/s
4 4 kavg = 5.0 x 10-10 m/s

2 2
Kaolinite Craney Island dredgings
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Distance from the PVD (mm) Distance from the PVD (mm)

Figure 3. Total head distributions during the hydraulic conductivity tests after
the PVD installation: (a) in Kaolinite and (b) in Craney Island dredgings

The hydraulic conductivity of the smear zone and the undisturbed zone was
computed using the average hydraulic gradient calculated from the total head
distributions and is summarized in Table 2. The smear zone permeability ratio, η,
which is the ratio of the hydraulic conductivity of Zone 1 to the hydraulic
conductivity of the undisturbed zone, was 1.03 and 1.25 for Kaolinite and Craney
Island dredgings, respectively. The smear zone permeability ratios found in this
study agree well with the lower values given in recent studies based on indirect
methods. Various field and laboratory studies reported that η is in a range of 1 to 3
based on back analyses or measured from the samples taken in a test cell (e.g.,
Indraratna and Redna 1998, Bergado et al. 1991, Hansbo 1979). However, larger
ratios were also suggested (e.g., Bo et al. 2003).
The ratios measured in this study are in the lower end for several reasons.
The test conditions were least conducive to generating a highly disturbed zone. First,
the soils were totally reconstituted and lacked structure and thus less prone to
disturbance. The mandrel used had the smallest dimensions needed to hold the PVD
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 754

Table 2. Characteristics of the Smear Zone

Smear Smear Smear Zone
Zone Zone Hydraulic Hydraulic Permeability
Diameter
Soil Type Ratio Ratio Gradient Conductivity Ratio
m s η
(2) (3)
mm m/s kh/ks(1)
Smear
Kaolinite 200 3.0 3.9 37.39 9.6 x 10-10 1.03
Zone
Craney Smear
280 4.2 5.4 37.27 4.0 x 10-10 1.25
Island Zone
(1)
- The hydraulic conductivity of undisturbed Kaolinite and Craney Island dredgings,
kh = 9.9 x 10-10 m/s, and kh = 5.0 x 10-10 m/s, respectively.
(2)
- The ratio of the thickness of zone 1 or zone 2 to the equivalent diameter of the
mandrel, dm = 67.5 mm.
(3)
- The ratio of the thickness of zone 1 or zone 2 to the equivalent diameter of the
PVD, dm = 52 mm using the PVD equivalent diameter of a PVD suggested by Rixner
et al. (1986)

(dm = 68 mm). Typical mandrels used in the field have larger dm of 95 to 133 mm
(Bo et al. 2003). Finally, a constant stress was maintained on the surface of the soil
during PVD installation. The expansion due to mandrel insertion is expected to be in
a constant volume environment in the field. However, the SZM device can be used to
investigate these effects. Table 2 indicates that soil type affected the extent of the
smear zone slightly even though the excess PWP was significantly different during
the PVD installations (Fig. 2) for the two soils. The mandrel size and shape may be
more important factors that dictate the smear zone dimensions. In this study, only
one mandrel was used.

Variation of Other Properties Measured

Void ratio and hydraulic conductivity of Craney Island dredgings measured

on retrieved samples using the flexible wall permeameter (ASTM D5084) are shown
in Fig. 4 as a function of distance from the PVD. The change in void ratio and
hydraulic conductivity trend at an approximate distance of 100 mm from the PVD is
supportive of the delineation of the smear zone indicated in the SZM experiment.

EFFECT OF SMEAR ZONE ON CONSOLIDATION RATE

The effect of smear zone on the rate of consolidation can be evaluated using
the available analytical solutions. PVDs are used for accelerating consolidation by
inducing predominantly radial drainage in thick soft deposits. Barron (1948) first
solved the radial consolidation equation for vertical drain system, which is modified
by Hansbo (1979) incorporating a smear zone of different hydraulic conductivity.
Accordingly, the average degree of consolidation is determined by
−8T
μ
U = 1− e (1)
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 755

ch t
where T – time factor (non-unit), T = , De – diameter of influence zone (function
De2
of PVD spacing), t – time, μ - non-unit factor that takes soil disturbance into account,
k
ch - horizontal coefficient of consolidation, ch = h , kh – horizontal hydraulic
γ w mv
conductivity of soil, γw – unit weight of water, mv – coefficient of soil
compressibility.
-8
2 10
ks - Flex. wall (ASTM D5084)
ks - SZM
kh - SZM

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

1.8
Void Ratio

1.6
Void Ratio

-9
10
1.4

1.2
Disturbed Zone

-10
1 10
0 50 100 150 200
Distance normal to the PVD (mm)
Figure 4. Two soil zones distinguished by Void ratio, and hydraulic conductivity
variance with distance from the PVD after PVD installation for Craney Island
dredgings

As some investigators indicated later that a transition zone between the smear
zone and undisturbed soil may exist and Basu and Prezzi (2006) derived μ
analytically as given in Equation (2) for a system with a smear zone plus a transition
zone. Basu & Prezzi assumed that the hydraulic conductivity of the smear zone (ks)
and the undisturbed zone (kh) are constant. The hydraulic conductivity of the
transition zone (kst) varies linearly from the boundary of the smear zone to the outside
boundary of the transition zone (ks ≤ kst ≤ kh).

⎛n⎞ 3 1 ( st − s ) ⎛ st ⎞
μ = ln ⎜
⎟ − + ln( s ) + ln ⎜ β ⎟ (2)
⎝ st ⎠ 4 β ( β st − s ) ⎝ s ⎠
D a+b
where n = e , dw – equivalent diameter of PVD, d w = (Rixner et al. 1986), a
dw 2
d
– thickness of PVD, b – width of PVD. s = s , ds – equivalent diameter of smear
dw
d k 1
zone. st = tr , dtr – equivalent diameter of transition zone, β = s = , η - smear
dw kh η
zone permeability ratio. The first two terms in Eq. 2 corresponds to no smear zone
case and first three terms corresponds to a smear zone case without a transition.
Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 756

The effect of soil disturbance adjacent to PVD on the rate of consolidation is

investigated for a hypothetical field application with the assumptions of no smear
zone and a smear zone. The consolidation properties (ch = 4 x 10-9 m2/s and kh = 5 x
10-10 m/s) of Craney Island dredgings as determined from the oedometer and
hydraulic conductivity tests are used in the analysis. The smear zone thickness and
hydraulic conductivity are set at the values measured in the experimental program as
given in Table 2. It is assumed that the consolidation to be accelerated with a typical
PVD having dw = 52 mm installed at a spacing of 1 m in a triangular pattern.
The average degree of consolidation versus time factor plots for the two cases
of disturbance (i.e., no smear zone and smear zone similar to the one displayed in the
SZM experiment) is shown in Fig. 5. The soil disturbance adjacent to the PVD
impacts the time for a given degree of consolidation. For Craney Island dredgings,
time factor needed to achieve 90% consolidation is 0.65 and 0.75 for no smear zone
(Th) and with smear zone (Ts), respectively. This is relatively a minor impacts;
however, for larger rhomboidal mandrels it may be more significant.
100%
No Smear Zone
Smear Zone, s = 5.4
Average Consolidation, U (%)

80%
De = 1.05 m

60%

40%

20%

0%
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time factor, T

Figure 5. Effect of soil disturbance on the rate of consolidation for a PVD

(spacing 1-m, triangular pattern, smear and transition zone characteristics as
given in Table 2 for Craney Island dredgings

SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS

Experiments were conducted on two soils using a specially developed Smear

Zone Model (SZM) device to determine the characteristics of the smear zone by
direct measurement of hydraulic conductivity.
After initial consolidation of the soil, a pre-fabricated vertical drain (PVD)
was installed using a small mandrel with a cross-section of 15 x 120 mm. The excess
pore water pressure generated in the soil due to PVD installation reached the highest
during PVD insertion and reduced to almost zero upon withdrawal of the mandrel in a
setup that allowed soil displacement against a constant stress.
It appears that a disturbed zone was produced in the soil mass adjacent to the
PVD after the PVD installation based on the total head distribution measured during
the hydraulic conductivity test performed after PVD insertion. The extent of the
smear zone is about 3 to 4 times the equivalent diameter of the mandrel used
 Geo-Frontiers 2011 © ASCE 2011 757

depending on the soil. The smear permeability ratio, i.e., the ratio of the hydraulic
conductivity of the undisturbed soil to that of the smear zone, is 1.03 and 1.25
depending on the soil in these particular experiments. Void ratio and hydraulic
conductivity distributions with distance normal to the PVD measured on the retrieved
samples after the experiment are consistent with each other in delineating the extent
of the smear zone supporting the findings based on the measurement of hydraulic
conductivity.
It is noted that the smear effects measured in this study are in the lower end of
the effects reported in the literature. The test conditions employed were least
conducive to generating a highly disturbed zone. Overall, the SZM test device
developed provide a direct delineation of the zone of maximum influence due to PVD
installation and can be used to study other factors such as size and shape of mandrel,
mandrel insertion/withdrawal speed, soil type and initial fabric. One drawback is use
of remolded samples, which may reduce the actual impact of PVD installation.
Considering the fact that PVDs are used typically with soft materials that are not
highly structured, this drawback may not be very significant.

REFERENCES

Barron R. A. (1948). “Consolidation of fine-drained soils by drain wells.” Trans.

ASCE, 113, paper 2346, 718-754.
Basu, D. and Prezzi, M. (2006). “Analytical solutions for consolidation aided by
vertical drains.” Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An international
Journal, 1:1, 63-71.
Bergado, D.T., Asakami, H., Alfaro, M.C., and Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1991).
“Smear effects of vertical drains on soft Bangkok clay.” J. Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 117:10, 1509 – 1529.
Bo, M.W., Chu, J., and Choa, V. (2003). Soil improvement: prefabricated vertical
drain techniques, Thompson, Singapore, 341p.
Hansbo S. (1979). “Consolidation by band-shaped prefabricated drains.” J. Ground
Engineering, 12:5, 16-25.
Indraratna B. and Redna, I. W. (1998). “Laboratory determination of smear zone due
to vertical drain installation.” J. Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 124:2,180 – 184.
Rixner, J.J., Kraemer, S.R., and Smith, A.D. (1986). Prefabricated vertical drains,
Technical report, Vol. I: Engineering Guidelines, Federal Highway
Administration Report FHWA/RD-86/168.
Stark, T. D., Williamson, T. A., Fowler, J., Pezza, D., and Gibbons, Y. (1999).
“Prefabricated vertical-drain test section in Craney Island dredged material
management area”, J. Perform. of Constr. Facilities, ASCE, 13:1, 8-16.
Tran-Nguyen, H. H. (2009). Effect of deformation of prefabricated vertical drains
(PVD) on discharge capacity and characteristics of smear zone, Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

View publication stats