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

net/publication/244750844

Ground Improvement Using Vacuum Loading Together with Vertical Drains

Article in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · June 2012

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000640

CITATIONS READS
86 1,627

2 authors, including:

Abdul Qudoos Khan

National University of Sciences and Technology
10 PUBLICATIONS 128 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdul Qudoos Khan on 20 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ground Improvement Using Vacuum Loading
Together with Vertical Drains
G. Mesri, M.ASCE1; and A. Q. Khan, A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: The use of vacuum as a preload together with vertical drains to reduce postconstruction settlement and increase the shear strength
of soft ground is increasingly popular. However, conflicting views concerning preloading by vacuum consolidation continue to be dissemi-
nated. A review and interpretation of case histories of vacuum loading together with vertical drains indicates that (1) with a novel definition of
excess pore-water pressure, existing theories of consolidation, solutions, and associated computer programs that have been developed for fill
loading can be applied without any modification to vacuum loading; (2) vacuum that is available in the drainage blanket remains constant with
depth within the vertical drains; (3) for vacuum loading as for fill loading, vertical drains may display well resistance; (4) there is no difference
in magnitude and rate of settlement for a vacuum load and an equivalent fill load; (5) all empirical concepts of undrained shear strength that
have originated from fill loading of soft ground are equally applicable for vacuum loading; (6) a correlation between vertical settlement and
horizontal displacement for vacuum loading is expected because both result from consolidation; and (7) preloading by vacuum is
accomplished in a shorter period because there is no possibility of undrained failure during vacuum loading, whereas fill loading may require
construction in stages to avoid undrained bearing-capacity failure. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000640. © 2012 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Vacuum; Soil consolidation; Drainage; Soil stabilization; Preloading.
Author keywords: Vacuum consolidation; Vertical drains; Ground improvement; Preloading; Precompression; Soft clay and silt deposits.

Introduction loading, further implying that computer programs for prediction of

The use of vacuum as a preload together with vertical drains to
reduce postconstruction settlement and increase the shear strength
of soft soils is increasingly popular (Choa 1990; Thevanayagam
1997; Shang et al. 1998; Chu et al. 2000; Tang and Shang
2000; Yee et al. 2002; Zhu and Miao 2002; Yan and Chu 2005;
Kelly and Wong 2009). Although the concept of vacuum loading
together with vertical drains was introduced and successfully illus-
trated by Kjellman (1952), it did not become popular until the
1980s, when materials and technology became available to seal soft
ground and apply and maintain a substantial magnitude of vacuum
load in the surface drainage blanket and vertical drains over a sig-
nificant period (Holtz and Wager 1975; Qian et al. 1992; Cognon
et al. 1994; Masse et al. 2001). A vacuum load may be preferred
over fill load because the impossibility of undrained failure during
vacuum loading indicates that the vacuum load can be applied rap-
idly even to very soft ground, making the process more economical.
Nevertheless, conflicting views continue to be disseminated
concerning preloading by vacuum consolidation. It has been explic-
itly or implicitly claimed that (1) solutions of theories of consoli-
dation that differ from those for fill loading are required for vacuum
1
Ralph B. Peck Professor of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 (corresponding author). E-mail:
gmesri@uiuc.edu
2
Assistant Professor, National Univ. of Sciences and Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan; formerly, Research Assistant, Univ. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 25, 2011; approved
on September 27, 2011; published online on May 15, 2012. Discussion
period open until November 1, 2012; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 6, June 1, 2012.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2012/6-680–689/$25.00.
settlement and pore-water pressure for fill loading require modifi-
cation before they are applied to vacuum loading; (2) the magnitude
of vacuum available in the drainage blanket decreases with depth
within vertical drains; (3) for vacuum loading and consolidation,
vertical drains function without well resistance; (4) the magnitude
of settlement resulting from a vacuum load is different from the
magnitude of settlement resulting from an equivalent fill load;
(5) the rate of consolidation resulting from a vacuum load is faster
than the rate of consolidation resulting from an equivalent fill load;
(6) the undrained shear-strength increase in both magnitude and
variation with depth below ground surface is different for a vacuum
load than for an equivalent fill load; and (7) a simple method is not
available for predicting horizontal ground displacement resulting
from vacuum loading and consolidation at the boundaries of a
vacuum-treated area.
Field data for subsurface conditions and measurements of set-
tlement, pore-water pressure, and horizontal displacement for 40
case histories of vacuum, vacuum plus fill, and fill loading were
examined; of these, 11 cases (Woo et al. 1989; Choa 1989,
1990; Yixiong 1996a, b; Bergado et al. 1997, 1998, 2002; Shang
et al. 1998; Yan and Chu 2003, 2005; Chai et al. 2006) together
with 7 laboratory studies (Leong et al. 2000; Mohamedelhassan
and Shang 2002; Bamunawita 2004; Rujikiatkamjorn 2005;
Mahfouz 2005; Chai et al. 2005) were analyzed in detail with
the ILLICON methodology to explain and clarify ground improve-
ment using vacuum loading together with vertical drains.
Theory of Consolidation for Vacuum Loading
Existing theories of consolidation and solutions developed for fill
loading can be used without any modification for vacuum
loading to predict settlement and pore-water pressure. Fill loading

680 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 100
for one-dimensional compression develops at any depth and at any
time an increment of total vertical stress, Δσv , which in saturated
80
soils generates excess pore-water pressure equal to Δσv . Excess
pore-water pressure then dissipates with time, resulting at the
60

u", kPa
end-of-primary (EOP) consolidation in effective vertical stress in-
crease Δσ0v ¼ Δσv . Vacuum loading develops at any time there is a
40
negative pore-water pressure with magnitude jpv j at the drainage
blanket and vertical drains. With time, vacuum penetrates into
20
the soil, resulting at EOP consolidation in an increase in effective
vertical stress, Δσ0v ¼ jpv j.
0
To apply for vacuum loading a theory of consolidation and 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
computer program that were developed to predict settlement and (a) Radial distance r, m
pore-water pressure for fill loading, a positive excess pore-water 100
pressure, u″ , is defined with an initial value at any depth and time
75
u″i ¼ jpv j þ Δσv ð1Þ 50
Time (days)
1 25
and thus the solution for settlement and pore-water pressure is ob-

u', kPa
10 0
tained as if the soil had been subjected to a fill load of magnitude 43
jpv j þ Δσv . The actual pore-water pressure at any depth and any 154 -25
time is 320 -50
700
u ¼ uo
j pv j þ u″ ð2Þ -75
-100
where uo is = initial preconstruction ground water pressure (e.g., hy- 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
drostatic, steady state; reference pore-water pressure is assumed to (b) Radial distance r, m
remain constant throughout the consolidation process). The actual 100
excess pore-water pressure at any depth and any time is
75
u0 ¼
jpv j þ u″ ð3Þ 50
25
The proposed approach, obtained by ILLICON analysis, is illus-

u, kPa
trated in Fig. 1 with the pore-water pressures u″ , u0 , and u at depth 0
z ¼ 5 m for a 10-m-thick normally consolidated young clay, freely -25
draining from the top and impermeable at the bottom, treated with -50
1 m spaced, fully penetrating vertical drains with no well resistance
-75
and no smear zone and subjected instantaneously to 80-kPa vac-
uum load and 20-kPa fill load. For example, at r ¼ 0:3 m and 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
-100
t ¼ 10 days, u″ ¼ 83 kPa in Fig. 1(a); u0 ¼ 3 kPa from Eq. (3) (c) Radial distance r, m
and Fig. 1(b); and u ¼ 53 kPa from Eq. (2) and Fig. 1(c). Similarly,
at r ¼ 0:4 m and t ¼ 320 days, u″ ¼ 32 kPa in Fig. 1(a);
Fig. 1. Pore-water pressure during consolidation: (a) novel excess
u0 ¼
48 kPa from Eq. (3) and Fig. 1(b); and u ¼ 2 kPa from
pore-water pressure; (b) excess pore-water pressure, (c) actual pore-
Eq. (2) and Fig. 1(c).
water pressure
This approach, which considers vacuum load and fill load as
equivalent, assumes no decrease in vacuum with depth within
the vertical drains, and considers the possibility of well resistance
within the vertical drains, was tested using pore-water pressure and relationship independent of the duration of primary consolida-
surface and subsurface settlement measurements for 11 case histor- tion is assumed (Mesri and Choi 1985b; Mesri et al. 1995), and
ies of vacuum, vacuum plus fill, and fill loading together with the required input is C α ∕C c ;
ILLICON program for one-dimensional compression (Mesri and 6. Any variation with depth of vertical stress increase, Δσv , com-
Choi 1985a; Mesri and Lo 1989; Mesri et al. 1994b; Terzaghi et al. puted using elastic stress distribution; Δσv is corrected for ef-
1996, pp. 234–238). The current version of ILLICON takes into fects such as settlement of fill below the water table or rise of
account (Lo 1991): water table into fill;
1. Any variation with depth of the preconstruction values of void 7. The excess pore-water pressure response for each increment of
ratio, coefficient of permeability, and effective vertical stress; Δσv is computed as Δu0 ¼ Δσv ; for any geometry of
2. For each layer, any shape of the void ratio—effective vertical loading for which one-dimensional compression is justified,
stress relationship, including a recompression to compression final effective vertical stress is computed according
with a preconsolidation pressure; the EOP e- log σ0v relation- to σ0vf ¼ σ0vo þ Δσ0v ;
ship is entered into the computer program; 8. Time-dependent loading or unloading including multistage
3. For each layer, any relationship between void ratio and perme- construction;
ability is entered into the computer program, e.g., C k ¼ 0:5eo 9. Vertical drains that may fully or partially penetrate the com-
(Mesri et al. 1994a); pressible ground;
4. For each layer, the ratio of horizontal permeability to vertical 10. The vertical drains have a discharge capacity that may be less
permeability, in terms of k ho ∕k vo ; than (well resistance) or equal to or more than (freely draining)
5. Compressibility with time at any effective vertical stress during minimum discharge capacity;
primary and secondary consolidation; a unique EOP e- log σ0v 11. The vertical drains may be installed at any time during loading;

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 681

Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
12. A smear zone of any size and compressibility and permeability
different from those of the undisturbed soil is used;
13. Water flows within the soil horizontally into the vertical drains
and vertically into the top and bottom drainage boundaries; and
14. At the EOP consolidation, vacuum develops uniformly in the
soil profile within the entire length of the vertical drain, linearly
decreasing from the vertical drain tip to zero at the bottom drai-
nage boundary of the compressible soil.
The conclusions based on the ILLICON analyses are that
(1) vacuum load and fill load may be considered as equivalent
in terms of the pore-water pressure change leading to an increase
in effective vertical stress and settlement; (2) within the vertical
drains, the vacuum does not decrease with depth; however, in dis-
tinctly stratified soil profiles, the vacuum in some soil layers may
not reach the pvm available in the vertical drains; and (3) in most
cases of vacuum loading, the vertical drains may display a qw (mob)
less than the qw (min) required for negligible well resistance (Mesri
and Lo 1991; Khan 2010).
Settlement Analysis of Vacuum Loading
Settlement analysis of vacuum loading using the ILLICON pro-
cedure is illustrated with a case history of vacuum plus fill loading
of a 22-m-thick soft ground.
Construction of a new pier for expansion of the Tianjin Port
included a storage yard on a 3–4 m thick, recently reclaimed clay
layer underlain by 16- to 19-m-thick very soft seabed clay. Tianjin
Port is located in the western section of the Bohai Gulf and on the
northern bank of the estuary of the Haihe River, about 170 km
southeast of Beijing (Yixiong 1996a; Yan and Chu 2005). The area
to be preloaded (7;433 m2 ) was divided into three sections, and a
preload of 120–140 kPa was assessed to induce desired precom-
pression in different sections. A combination of vacuum and fill
loading was selected to apply the required preload. A vacuum in-
tensity of 80–87 kPa was maintained without any leakage for the
entire 6-month period of treatment. The only interruption in vac-
uum loading was attributable to a power failure in section I during
the eighth or ninth week of vacuum load application. Section II
(119 × 30 m), which was well instrumented, was analyzed using
1.8
Sublayer
1.6
1
2
3
1.4 4 1.4
5
6
Void Ratio, e
1.2 7 1.2
8
9
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
1e-11 1e-10 1e-9
(a) Vertical Permeability, m/s
Fig. 2. Data for ILLICON analysis: (a) e- log k v of sublayers; (b) EOP e- log σ0v relations of sublayers
682 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012
Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
the ILLICON computer program (Khan 2010; Mesri and
Khan 2010).
The 22-m-thick compressible ground was described as 3.5 m of
clay dredged from the seabed, 5.0 m of seabed muddy clay, 7.5 m
of soft silt and silty clay, and 6.0 m of stiff silty clay (Yan and Chu
2005). On the basis of the vertical profiles of the initial void ratio
and the undrained vane shear strength, the compressible ground
was divided into nine sublayers for the ILLICON analyses. The
groundwater table was located at a depth of 0.5 m; however, mea-
surements of excess pore-water pressure suggest that at the time of
preloading, the seabed layers from a depth of approximately 5 m to
17 m were still undergoing primary consolidation as a result of the
placement of dredged material. For settlement analyses, these ex-
cess pore-water pressures were added to the imposed vacuum plus
fill load.
The most typically reported soil properties either were directly
used in the ILLICON analyses or were used to estimate other prop-
erties that are required for the analysis but were not available in the
reports that present the case history. ILLICON analysis requires an
EOP e- log σ0v relation for each sublayer. These were constructed
starting from the initial void ratio eo and initial effective vertical
stress σ0vo , a recompression defined with the assumed value of
C r ∕C c ¼ 0:1 up to preconsolidation pressure, σ0p , followed by com-
pression in terms of a compression index, C c , determined by using
the natural water content, wo , and empirical correlation in Terzaghi
et al. (1996, Fig. 16.3). The preconsolidation pressure, σ0p , of each
sublayer was computed using field vane shear strength suo (FV) to-
gether with suo ðFVÞ∕σ0p , determined by using plasticity index I p
and the empirical correlation in Terzaghi et al. (1996, Fig. 20.20),
supplemented with σ0p ∕σ0vo reported by Rujikiatkamjorn et al.
(2007). The EOP e- log σ0v relations of the sublayers are shown
in Fig. 2(b).
An ILLICON analysis also requires the relationship between
the coefficients of permeability (both kv and k h ) and the void
ratio. A value of kh ∕k v ¼ 1:0 was used together with an initial
permeability, k vo , and a decrease in permeability during consolida-
tion defined by Ck ¼ Δe∕Δ log k. The value of kvo for each sub-
layer was estimated from the coefficient of consolidation, cv ,
obtained by using liquid limit wl (Terzaghi et al. 1996, Fig. 25.7)
together with mv estimated from the EOP compression and
(σ0vf
σ0p ). These values of kvo were compared with those reported
1.8
1.6
Void Ratio, e
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
1e-8 10 100 1000
(b) Effective Vertical Stress, kPa
 160
140
120
100

Load, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
(a) Time, Days
0.0

0.5
Settlement, m

1.0

1.5

3.8
2.0 7.0
10.5
12.5
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250
(b) Time, Days

Fig. 3. Ground treatment program: (a) loading schedule; (b) observed and predicted settlements

by Rujikiatkamjorn et al. (2007). The value of C k for each sublayer
was determined from C k ¼ 0:5eo (Tavenas et al. 1983; Mesri et al.
1994a). The e- log k v relations of the sublayers are shown in
Fig. 2(a).
The ground treatment program (Yan and Chu 2005) started with
placement of a 0.3-m-thick sand blanket to contain 100-mm-
diameter corrugated and perforated flexible pipes wrapped in filter
fabric for uniform distribution of the vacuum load and discharge of
water. Prefabricated vertical drains (100 mm × 3 mm) at a spacing
of 1 m were installed to a depth of 20 m. Three layers of PVC
membrane (thickness not specified) were used to cover and seal
the area.
The placement of 0.3-m-thick sand blanket subjected the ground
surface to 6 kPa [lightweight machines to install prefabricated ver-
tical drains (PVDs) temporarily increased it to 16 kPa]. A vacuum
jpv j = positive vacuum load in the drainage blanket and ver-
tical drains acting at time t; and Δσv = positive fill load acting
at time t.
The predicted surface and subsurface settlements are compared
with observations in Fig. 3(b). The predicted actual pore-water
pressures computed using Eq. (2) are compared with observations
in Fig. 4. In general, the agreement between prediction and obser-
vation of both settlement and pore-water pressure is acceptable.
The settlement analysis was carried out with no distinction between
the vacuum load and the fill load.
200
150
Pore-water Pressure, kPa

load in excess of 80 kPa (i.e., 87 kPa) was established within 6

3–4 days in the drainage blanket by using jet pumps. After about 100
8 weeks of vacuum application, a fill with a unit weight of
17:1 kN∕m3 and a final height of 3.5 m was placed on the sealing 50
membrane in stages. The loading schedule resulting from the
preparation of the site, the application of vacuum load to the drain- 0
age blanket, and the vertical drains, as well as the application of fill
load in stages is shown in Fig. 3(a). The time-dependent loading -50
9
was entered in terms of excess pore-water pressure at any depth 16.5
-100
½u″i t ¼ u0i þ ½jpv jt þ ½Δσv t ð4Þ 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time, Days
where ui ″ = positive excess pore-water pressure generated at time t
Fig. 4. Actual pore-water pressure observed and predicted at four
in soil; u0i = preconstruction excess pore-water pressure in the
depths
subsoil of area II remaining from the dredged clay loading;

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 683

Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Increase in Undrained Shear Strength due to Eqs. (7a) and (7b) show that the increase in undrained shear
Vacuum Loading strength (su
suo ) of soft clay and silt deposits subjected to a con-
stant increase in effective vertical stress with depth, resulting from
Eq. (5) is based on experience with the undrained shear strength of either a fill load or a vacuum load, is expected to remain constant
soft clay and silt deposits subjected to fill loading during an in- with depth for soil profiles with σ0p ∕σ0vo ¼ 1 or (σ0p
σ0vo ) = con-
crease in effective vertical stress and primary consolidation in stant with depth. In contrast, the increase in undrained shear
the compression range, i.e., σ0v greater than σ0p (Terzaghi et al. 1996) strength (su
suo ) of soft clay and silt deposits subjected to a con-
suo 0 stant increase in effective vertical stress with depth, resulting from
su ¼ σ ð5Þ either a vacuum load or a fill load, is expected to decrease with σ0vo
σ0p v
(i.e., depth) for soil profiles with σ0p ∕σ0vo greater than 1. A constant
(σ0p
σ0vo ) with depth may result from ground-surface loading and
Undrained shear strength su remains constant and equal to suo in unloading or groundwater table fluctuations, whereas a
the recompression range from σ0vo to σ0p and then increases with σ0v constant σ0p ∕σ0vo with depth often results from aging (e.g., secondary
greater than σ0p at the rate of suo ∕σ0p , where σ0vo = initial effective compression).
vertical stress; suo = initial undrained shear strength; and σ0p = pre- For land reclamation at the East Pier of the Xingang Port
consolidation pressure, and at the end-of-primary consolidation, in Tianjin, China, reported by Choa (1989, 1990), Yixiong
σ0v ¼ σ0vo þ Δσ0v for fill loading and σ0v ¼ σ0vo þ jpvm j for vacuum (1996a, b), and Shang et al. (1998), data are available as a function
loading. of depth for plasticity index I p , preground treatment σ0vo and
For a soft clay layer with constant σ0p ∕σ0vo and suo ∕σ0p with depth suo (FV), and postground treatment su (FV). These data together
and subjected to a constant Δσ0v with depth, according to Eq. (5), with the suo ðFVÞ∕σ0p versus I p relationship (Terzaghi et al. 1996,
the expression for su ∕suo is Fig. 20.20) were used to determine σ0p ∕σ0vo with depth. Then
su 1 1 Δσ0 Eq. (6a) together with σ0p ∕σ0vo and Δσ0v ∕σ0vo was used to predict
¼ 0 0 þ 0 0 0v ð6a Þ su (FV) for subdivision 12–13 subjected to a vacuum load of
suo σp ∕σvo σp ∕σvo σvo 80–90 kPa, subdivision 44 subjected to a vacuum load of
80–90 kPa plus a fill load of 17 kPa, and subdivision S-2 subjected
or to a fill load of 97 kPa, as shown in Figs. 6(a)–6(c), respectively.
su 1 s Δσ0v There is acceptable agreement between the predictions and mea-
¼ 0 0 þ uo0 ð6b Þ surements for all three cases of vacuum loading, vacuum plus fill
suo σp ∕σvo σp suo loading, and fill loading.
Eqs. (6a) and (6b) show that for any σ0p ∕σ0vo, suo ∕σ0p , and Δσ0v , Horizontal Displacement Resulting from Vacuum
the su ∕suo decreases with the increase in σ0vo (which increases with Loading
depth) or with the increase in suo (which often increases with
depth). This is true whether the increase in effective vertical stress Fill loading generates shear stresses and shear strains near the boun-
Δσ0v is by fill loading or it is a jpvm j by vacuum loading, as shown in daries of the loaded area, leading to deformation of soil outward
Fig. 5 (Mesri and Khan 2011). from the fill loaded area. The magnitude of shear stresses, deter-
Eq. (6) may be also written as mined by the magnitude of fill load in comparison to the undrained
shear strength profile (i.e., factor of safety against undrained failure),
suo
su
suo ¼ ½Δσ0v
ðσ0p
σ0vo Þ ð7a Þ determines the magnitude of the horizontal deformation profile at the
σ0p boundaries of the fill loaded area, generally with a finite value at
ground surface, increasing with depth to a maximum and then de-
or creasing to zero at about 1∕3 of the thickness and near the bottom of
   the soft ground, respectively. The horizontal displacement resulting
1 σ0p suo
su
suo ¼ Δσ0v
0
1 ð7b Þ from lateral deformation of the soil is significant for fill loading, cor-
σvo σ0vo σ0p responding to a factor of safety less than 1.4 against undrained

100
’p/ ’vo
Vacuum
160 1.0 Vacuum-Fill
1.4 Fill
su(FV)/suo(FV)

10

suo p
= 0.25
1
1 10 100
suo(FV), kPa

Fig. 5. su (FV)/suo (FV) as a function of suo (FV)

684 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 su, kPa su, kPa
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 0

5 5

Depth, m

Depth, m
10 10

15 15

(a) 20 (b) 20
su, kPa
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0

5
Depth, m

suo(FV)
10

su(FV) - Measured

15
su(FV) - Predicted

(c) 20

Fig. 6. Measurement and prediction of su (FV): (a) vacuum load; (b) vacuum plus fill load; and (c) fill load

bearing-capacity failure (Poulos 1972a, b; Tavenas et al. 1974, 1979;
Ladd et al. 1994; Smadi 2001).
The horizontal displacement at the boundaries of soft ground
subjected to vacuum loading results from consolidation of the soil,
and it is inward to the vacuum-loaded area. For typical uniform soft
ground condition requiring precompression, horizontal displace-
ment resulting from vacuum loading has its maximum at the ground
surface because generally ðσ0vo þ jpvm jÞ∕σ0p for soils displaying a σ0p
greater than σ0vo maximizes at the ground surface, and then horizon-
tal displacement gradually decreases to zero near the bottom of the
soft ground treated with vertical drains.
Because both vertical settlement and horizontal displacement for
vacuum loading result from the consolidation of soil, an empirical
correlation is expected between horizontal displacement and vertical
settlement. Such a correlation between ground-surface horizontal
displacement and ground-surface settlement is shown in Fig. 7 on
the basis of field observations for nine case histories of vacuum load-
ing. The most typical value of δ s ∕Ss ¼ 0:36 together with the com-
puted value of Ss can be used to estimate ground-surface horizontal
displacement at the boundary of the vacuum-treated area. Fig. 8
shows observed data on the vertical profile of horizontal displace-
ment for jpvm j values in the range of 50–85 kPa normalized with
ground-surface horizontal displacement. The significant range in
Fig. 8 corresponds to different soil profiles in terms of compressibil-
ity, preconsolidation pressure, pvm , and even degree of consolidation
if the horizontal displacements were observed before the EOP
consolidation.
The average empirical relations in Figs. 7 and 8 can be used to
obtain an estimate of horizontal displacement at the boundary of the
vacuum-treated areas. The computed ground-surface settlement Ss
together with average δ s ∕Ss is used to estimate ground-surface hori-
zontal displacement δs , and then δ s together with average profile
δ∕δ s is used to estimate vertical profile δ. The lower and upper
bounds in Figs. 7 and 8 can be used to obtain a range for horizontal
displacement.
As horizontal displacement at the boundary of a vacuum-loaded
area results from consolidation of soil, inward horizontal displace-
ment following the application of vacuum develops with time ac-
cording to the rate of consolidation. In contrast, outward horizontal
displacement at the boundary of a fill-loaded area results from un-
drained plastic flow of soil and develops with time according to the
rate of fill loading. Therefore, it should be possible to significantly
arrest horizontal displacement at the boundary of a vacuum-loaded
plus fill-loaded area by calculating the rate of inward displacement

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 685

Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 10000
Rate of Ground Improvement Using Vacuum
mm
Loading

For all practical purposes, there is no difference in rates of consoli-

s,

0.36 dation resulting from vacuum loading and an equivalent fill

Ground Surface Lateral Displacemnt,

loading. However, because there is no possibility of undrained

1000 0.20
bearing-capacity failure during a vacuum-loading operation, the
vacuum load can be applied to the drainage blanket and vertical
drains as rapidly as the vacuum pumping system and the compli-
ance of connections to the drainage blanket and vertical drains
allow; in contrast, in most cases fill load must be applied in stages
to avoid excessive undrained deformation and failure. Field expe-
100 rience suggests that a typical vacuum-loading operation (i.e., pore-
water pressure decrease in the drainage blanket and vertical drains
reaches pvm ) takes about 1 to 3 weeks.
Fig. 9 compares loading of soft ground using vacuum plus fill
and fill alone for a highway construction project near Ballina, New
South Wales, Australia. The soft ground of up to 40-m thickness
10 consisted of highly compressible marine clays over residual soil
10 100 1000 10000 and bedrock (Kelly and Wong 2009; Indraratna et al. 2009).
Ground Surface Settlement, Ss, mm Because the compressible layer had a thickness of 1–25 m at
the project site, different preloading efforts were required in differ-
Fig. 7. Ground-surface horizontal displacement at the boundary of the ent sections of the preloaded area. In some sections, in addition to a
vacuum-treated area versus ground-surface settlement at the center for vacuum load of 70–75 kPa, a fill load of 80–180 kPa was required.
nine case histories of vacuum loading of soft clay and silt deposits At the section adjacent to inclinometer I4, Menard vertical trans-
mission pipes with a diameter of 34 mm and spacing of 1 m were
installed to a depth of 23 m.
Fig. 9(a) shows the application of a 70-kPa vacuum load to the
drainage blanket and vertical drains in about 20 days, after
/ s placement of the drainage blanket, followed by the application
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 of a 130-kPa fill load in about 110 days (I-4), compared with a fill
0.0 load alone of 80 kPa placed in 230 days (I-1). With a calculated
selection of the magnitude and rate of application of the vacuum
load followed by the fill load, horizontal displacement at the boun-
daries of improved ground can be substantially arrested (e.g., Song
0.2
and Kim 2004; Masse et al. 2001). However, the measured hori-
zontal displacements shown in Figs. 9(b) and 9(c) are, in fact, rather
significant for both vacuum plus fill loading and fill loading alone.
This observed behavior during construction was examined with a
0.4
consolidation analysis using ILLICON and stability analyses. The
agreement between predicted and observed ground-surface settle-
z/Ho

ment for the vacuum plus fill load, shown in Fig. 10(c), corresponds
to a mobilized discharge capacity of vertical drains of
0.6
2–3 m3 ∕year. For the fill load alone, a much smaller increase in
effective vertical stress (and therefore effective horizontal stress)
and possibly the absence of vacuum resulted in a back-calculated
mobilized discharge capacity of 10 m3 ∕year. When the increase in
0.8
effective vertical stress resulting from the ILLICON consolidation
analysis was used with su ðmobÞ ¼ 0:22 σ0v (Terzaghi et al. 1996), a
rate of fill loading was calculated corresponding to a factor of safety
equal to or greater than 1 against undrained bearing-capacity failure
1.0
during the preloading operation. The computed values of the factor
Fig. 8. Vertical profile of horizontal displacement at the boundary of a of safety during the proposed construction in stages are shown in
vacuum-treated area normalized with surface horizontal displacement Fig. 10(a). The calculated loading rate shown in Fig. 10(a) suggests
that the actual placement of the fill was probably carried out too
rapidly, thus resulting in the rather significant observed horizontal
displacements shown in Figs. 9(b) and 9(c).
according to a theory of consolidation and counteracting it by a rate In summary, this field example and others (Khan 2010) illustrate
of fill loading to produce similar outward displacement. that although there is no difference in the rates of consolidation
The horizontal extent of both vertical settlement and horizontal produced by a vacuum load and an equivalent fill load, ground im-
displacement outside the vacuum-treated area, which may damage provement using vacuum is accomplished in a shorter time because
adjacent structures, strongly depends on highly-permeable-layer the vacuum load can be applied rapidly without concern for un-
stratification of the treated ground. This topic is beyond the scope drained failure, whereas the fill load may require application in
of this paper. stages to avoid excessive horizontal deformation and undrained

686 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 250

200
Vacuum Start
2 Mar 2007

Load, kPa
150
28 May 2007
Vacuum End
100 3 Dec 2007
PVD
Vacuum-Fill (I-4)
50 Vacuum-Fill (I-3)
Fill (I - 1)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(a) Time, Days

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

Elevation, m
Elevation, m

-10 -10

-15 -15

I3
-20 26 Feb 2007 -20
6 Mar 2007 I 1 (10 - 12m thick)
14 Mar 2007 I 4 (23 - 25m thick)
28 May 2007
-25 -25
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
(b) Lateral Displacement, mm (c) Lateral Displacement, mm

Fig. 9. Loading of soft ground using vacuum plus fill and fill alone for a highway construction project near Ballina, Australia: (a) time line comparing
applications; (b) vacuum plus fill loading and associated horizontal displacement; (c) fill loading alone, vacuum plus fill, and associated horizontal
displacement

failure. However, a calculated selection of magnitude and rate of
vacuum plus fill application is required to substantially arrest
horizontal displacements at the boundaries of the loaded area.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on data, analyses, and inter-
pretation presented in this paper.
1. By means of a novel definition of excess pore-water pressure
introduced in this paper, existing theories of consolidation and
solutions and associated computer programs that have been
developed for fill loading of soft ground can be used without
any modification to predict settlement and pore-water pressure
for vacuum loading.
2. Interpretation of field measurements and predictions of settle-
ment and pore-water pressure for vacuum or vacuum plus fill
loading of soft clay and silt deposits suggest that there is no
systematic decrease in magnitude of vacuum with depth within
vertical drains. In other words, the vacuum that is available in
the drainage blanket is uniformly available within the entire
depth of penetration of vertical drains. However, evidence sug-
gests that in highly stratified soil profiles, the total magnitude
of vacuum that is available within the vertical drains may not
be reached in some soil layers.
3. For vacuum loading as for fill loading, vertical drains may
function with well resistance. In other words, for some subsoil
conditions, vertical drain installations, and imposed loads, the
mobilized discharge capacity of vertical drains may be less
than the minimum discharge capacity required for a freely
draining condition.
4. There is no difference in the magnitude and rate of settlement
resulting from a vacuum load and an equivalent fill load. Set-
tlement analysis for vacuum or vacuum plus fill loading can be

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 687

Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 300
I4, Actual Vacuum-Fill 9. Although there is no difference in rate of consolidation
250 1.08
I1, Actual Fill between vacuum loading and an equivalent fill loading,
200 1.08 preloading using vacuum or vacuum plus fill may be accom-
Load, kPa

1.43
150 1.02 1.64 plished in a shorter period of time, as there is no possibility of
1.08
100 2.52 bearing-capacity failure during vacuum loading; thus, the
50 1.02 vacuum load can be applied to the drainage blanket and ver-
1.08 tical drains as rapidly as the vacuum pumping system and com-
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 pliance of vacuum connections allow. In contrast, a fill load is
(a)
Time, Days often applied in stages to increase undrained shear strength and
0 to avoid bearing-capacity failure.
Degree of Consolidation, %

10. For vacuum plus fill loading of soft ground, horizontal dis-
20
Stage placement at the boundaries of the preloaded ground can be
40 1 substantially arrested with a calculated selection of the
2
3
duration of vacuum load and rate of application of fill load.
60 4
5

80
I 4 Location Acknowledgments
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Abdul Qudoos Khan was partly supported by the National
(b) Time, Days University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan, during his grad-
uate study at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign.
0

1 Stage
1
References
Settlement, m

2 2
3

Bamunawita, C. (2004). “Soft clay foundation improvement via prefabri-

4
3 5
Actual Loading
4 Observed
5 Bergado, D. T., Balasubramaniam, A. S., Fannin, R. J., Anderson, L. R.,
I 4 Location
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
(c) Time, Days
Fig. 10. An examination of fill load application rates resulting in a
factor of safety equal to or greater than 1 against excessive undrained
deformation and failure: (a) calculated loading rate; (b) degree of con-
solidation at I4 location; and (c) settlement at I4 location
carried out using the procedures that are available for fill
loading.
5. All empirical concepts concerning undrained shear strength of
soft clay and silt deposits that have been developed on the basis
of fill loading are equally applicable to vacuum loading. In
other words, the increase in undrained shear strength of soft
clay and silt deposits resulting from consolidation under a va-
cuum load and an equivalent fill load are, for all practical pur-
poses, identical.
6. The increase in undrained shear strength (su
suo ) of soft clay
and silt deposits subjected to a constant increase in effective
vertical stress with depth, resulting from either vacuum load
or fill load, is expected to remain constant with depth for soil
profiles with either σ0p ∕σ0vo ¼ 1 or (σ0p
σ0vo ) = constant
with depth.
7. The increase in undrained shear strength (su
suo ) of soft clay
and silt deposits subjected to a constant increase in effective
vertical stress with depth, resulting from either vacuum load
or fill load, is expected to decrease with depth for soil profiles
with σ0p ∕σ0vo greater than 1.
8. For vacuum loading, both vertical settlement and horizontal
displacement toward the loaded area result from consolidation
of soil; thus, a correlation is expected between vertical settle-
ment and horizontal displacement. A tentative empirical pro-
cedure is proposed for estimating the horizontal displacement
profile from the magnitude of ground-surface settlement.
cated vertical drains and vacuum preloading.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of
Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
and Holtz, R. D. (1997). “Full scale test of prefabricated vertical drain
700 (PVD) on soft Bangkok clay and subsiding environment.” Ground
improvement, ground reinforcement, ground treatment: Developments
1987–1997, V. R. Schaefer, ed., ASCE, New York, 372–393.
Bergado, D. T., Balasubramaniam, A. S., Fannin, R. J., and Holtz, R. D.
(2002). “PVD in soft Bangkok clay: A case study of new Bangkok
International Airport project.” Can. Geotech. J., 39, 304–315.
Bergado, D. T., Chai, J. C., Miura, N., and Balasubramaniam, A. S. (1998).
“PVD improvement of soft Bangkok clay with combined vacuum and
reduced sand embankment preloading.” Geotech. Eng., 29(1), 95–122.
Chai, J. C., Carter, J. P., and Hayashi, S. (2005). “Ground deformation in-
duced by vacuum consolidation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
131(12), 1552–1561.
Chai, J. C., Carter, J. P., and Hayashi, S. (2006). “Vacuum consolidation
and its combination with embankment loading.” Can. Geotech. J.,
43(10), 985–996.
Choa, V. (1989). “Drains and vacuum preloading pilot test.” Proc., 12th
ICSMFE, Vol. 2, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1347–1350.
Choa, V. (1990). “Soil improvement works at Tianjin East Pier project.”
Proc., 10th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf., Taipei, Vol. 1, 47–52.
Chu, J., Yan, S. W., and Yang, H. (2000). “Soil improvement by the vacuum
preloading method for an oil storage station.” Géotechnique, 50(6),
625–632.
Cognon, J. M., Juran, I., and Thevanayagam, S. (1994). “Vacuum consoli-
dation technology—principles and field experience.” Int. Workshop on
Technology Transfer for Vacuum Induced Consolidation: Engineering
and Practice, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1237–1248.
Holtz, R. D., and Wager, O. (1975). “Preloading by vacuum: Current pros-
pects.” Transportation Research Record 548, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Indraratna, B., Rujiakiatkamjorn, C., Kelly, R., and Buys, N. (2009). “Soft
soil foundation improved by vacuum and surcharge preloading at
Ballina Bypass, Australia.” Int. Symp. on Ground Improvement Tech-
nologies and Case Histories, Geotechnical Society of Singapore,
Singapore, 95–105.
Kelly, R. B., and Wong, P. K. (2009). “An embankment constructed using
vacuum consolidation.” Aust. Geomech. J., 44(2), 55–64.
Khan, A. Q. (2010). “Ground improvement using vacuum preloading to-
gether with prefabricated vertical drains.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.

688 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Kjellman, W. (1952). “Consolidation of clay soil by means of atmospheric
pressure.” Proc., Conf. on Soil Stabilization, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA, 258–263.
Ladd, C. C., Whittle, A. J., and Legaspi, D. E. (1994). “Stress-deformation
behavior of an embankment on Boston blue clay.” Vertical and hori-
zontal deformations of foundations and embankments (Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 40), ASCE, New York, 1730–1759.
Leong, E. C., Soemitro, R. A. A., and Rahardjo, H. (2000). “Soil improve-
ment by surcharge and vacuum preloading.” Géotechnique, 50(5),
601–605.
Lo, D. O. K. (1991). “Soil improvement by vertical drains.” Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Mahfouz, A. H. A. (2005). “Study of combined vacuum-surcharge preload-
ing mechanism for ground improvement.” Ph.D. thesis, Ho Hai Univ.,
Qingliang Hill, Nanjing, China.
Masse, F., Spaulding, C. A., Wong, I. C., and Varaksin, S. (2001). “Vacuum
consolidation: A review of 12 years of successful development.” ASCE
Geo-Odyssey, Menard Ground Improvement Specialists, Bridgeville,
PA, 1–23.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y. K. (1985a). “Settlements analysis of embankments
on soft clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,, 111(4), 441–464.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y. K. (1985b). “The uniqueness of the end-of-primary
(EOP) void ratio effective stress relationship.” Proc., 11th ICSMFE,
A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 587–590.
Mesri, G., Feng, T. W., Ali, S., and Hayat, T. M. (1994a). “Permeability
characteristics of soft soils.” Proc., 13th ICSMFE, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 187–192.
Mesri, G., Feng, T. W., and Shahien, M. (1995). “Compressibility param-
eters during primary consolidation.” Int. Symp. on Compression and
Consolidation of Clayey Soils, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 201–217.
Mesri, G., and Khan, A. Q. (2010). “Interpretation of vacuum preloading
using ILLICON methodology.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Geotechnical
Engineering, Pakistan Geotechnical Engineering Society, Lahore,
Pakistan, 27–34.
Mesri, G., and Khan, A. Q. (2011). “Increase in shear strength due to
vacuum preloading.” Proc. of 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotech. Conf.,
Canadian Geotechnical Society, Toronto, Canada.
Mesri, G., and Lo, D. O. K. (1989). “Subsoil investigation: The weakest link
in the analysis of test fills.” Proc., Symp. on the Art and Science of
Geotechnical Engineering at the Dawn of the 21st Century: A Volume
Honoring Ralph B. Peck, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Mesri, G., and Lo, D. O. K. (1991). “Field performance of prefabricated
vertical drains.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Geotechnical Engineering for
Coastal Development: Theory and Practice on Soft Ground, Coastal
Development Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 231–236.
Mesri, G., Lo, D. O. K., and Feng, T. W. (1994b). “Settlement of embank-
ments on soft clays.” Proc., Settlement ‘94, ASCE Specialty Conf.
(Geotechnical Special Publication 40), ASCE, New York, 8–76.
Mohamedelhassan, E., and Shang, J. Q. (2002). “Vacuum and surcharge
combined one-dimensional consolidation of clay soils.” Géotechnique,
39(5), 1126–1138.
Poulos, H. G. (1972a). “Difficulties in prediction of horizontal deforma-
tions of foundations.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 98(SM8), 843–848.
Poulos, H. G. (1972b). “Observed and predicted behavior of two embank-
ments on clay.” Geotech. Eng., 3(1), 1–20.
Qian, J. H., Zhao, W. B., Cheung, Y. K., and Lee, P. K. K. (1992). “The
theory and practice of vacuum preloading.” Comput. Geotech., 13,
103–118.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 689
View publication stats Downloaded 06 Jun 2012 to 111.68.97.17. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2005). “Analytical and numerical modeling of soft
clay foundation improvement via prefabricated vertical drains and
vacuum preloading.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Wollongong, Wollongong,
New South Wales, Australia.
Rujikiatkamjorn, C., Indraratna, B., and Chu, J. (2007). “Numerical mod-
eling of soft soil stabilized by vertical drains combining surcharge and
vacuum preloading for a storage yard.” Can. Geotech. J., 44(3),
326–342.
Shang, J. Q., Tang, M., and Miao, Z. (1998). “Vacuum preloading consoli-
dation of reclaimed land: A case study.” Can. Geotech. J., 35(5),
740–749.
Smadi, M. M. (2001). “Lateral deformation and associated settlement re-
sulting from embankment loading of soft clay and silt deposits.” Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Song, Y. S., and Kim, T. H. (2004). “Improvement of estuarine marine clays
for coastal reclamation using vacuum-applied consolidation method.”
Ocean Eng., 31, 1999–2010.
Tang, M., and Shang, J. Q. (2000). “Vacuum preloading consolidation of
Yaoqiang Airport runway.” Géotechnique, 50(6), 613–623.
Tavenas, F., Chapeau, C., La Rochelle, P., and Roy, M. (1974). “Immediate
settlements of three test embankments on Champlain clay.” Can.
Geotech. J., 11, 109–141.
Tavenas, F., Jean, P., Leblond, P., and Leroueil, S. (1983). “The permeabil-
ity of natural soft clays. Part II: Permeability characteristics.” Can.
Geotech. J., 20, 645–660.
Tavenas, F., Mieussens, C., and Bourges, F. (1979). “Lateral displacements
in clay foundations under embankments.” Can. Geotech. J., 16(3),
532–550.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in engi-
neering practice, 3rd Ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Thevanayagam, S. (1997). “Vacuum-assisted consolidation of coastal and
offshore dredge fills.” Dredging and management of dredged material
(GSP 65), Soil Properties Committee of the GEO Institute of ASCE,
New York, 67–85.
Woo, S. M., Van Moh, Z. C., Weele, A. F., Chotivittayathanin, R., and
Trangkarahart, T. (1989). “Preconsolidation of soft Bangkok clay by
vacuum loading combined with non-displacement sand drains.”
Proc., 12th ICSMFE, Vol. 2, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands,
1431–1434.
Yan, S. W., and Chu, J. (2003). “Soil improvement for a road using the
vacuum preloading method.” Ground Improv., 7(4), 165–172.
Yan, S. W., and Chu, J. (2005). “Soil improvement for a storage yard using
the combined vacuum and fill preloading method.” Can. Geotech. J.,
42, 1094–1104.
Yee, K., Jullienne, D., Masse, F., and Varaksin, S. (2002). “Performance
of road embankment on vacuum consolidated soft clay in Bangkok.”
4th Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Techniques, CI-Premier PTE,
Singapore, 1–10.
Yixiong, L. (1996a). “Application and experience of vacuum
preloading method.” Int. Workshop on Technology Transfer for
Vacuum-Induced Consolidation: Engineering and Practice, National
Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 47–69.
Yixiong, L. (1996b). “Vacuum preloading method to improve soft soils and
case histories.” Int. Workshop on Technology Transfer for Vacuum-
Induced Consolidation: Engineering and Practice, National Science
Foundation, Washington, DC, 71–135.
Zhu, S. L., and Miao, Z. H. (2002). “Recent development and improvement
of vacuum preloading method for improving soft soil.” Ground Improv.,
6(2), 79–93.