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

net/publication/282967663

Design chart for prefabricated vertical drains improved ground

Article in Geotextiles and Geomembranes · August 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.021

CITATIONS READS

16 5,928

3 authors, including:

Hossam Abuel-Naga D.T Bergado

La Trobe University Asian Institute of Technology
133 PUBLICATIONS 2,393 CITATIONS 289 PUBLICATIONS 9,110 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hossam Abuel-Naga on 31 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design Chart for Prefabricated Vertical Drains Improved Ground

by

Hossam M. Abuel-Naga1, Dennis T. Bergado2, and Joel Gniel3

1
Assoc Professor, Civil Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic. 3086, Austalia,
Email: h.naga@latrobe.edu.au
2
Professor of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering,
Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand, 12120, Email: bergado@ait.ac.th

3
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Golder Associates Pty Ltd, Victoria 3121, Australia, Email:
jgniel@golder.com.au

1
Abstract

In this study, an interconnected design-chart is developed to design prefabricated vertical

drain (PVD) improved ground taking into account the effect of the following factors on the

radial consolidation rate where the case of uniform subsoil is assumed: (i) soil permeability

and compressibility changes during the consolidation process, (ii) transition smear zone with

hydraulic conductivity varying linearly, (iii) time dependent loading. The Finite Element

Method (FEM) was used to solve the general governing radial consolidation equation where

the above mentioned factors are included. The obtained FEM solution was validated using

laboratory test results and analytical solutions for certain cases in the literature. Then FEM

solution was used to develop PVD design charts that incorporate the effect of the above

mentioned factors.

Keywords: Consolidation; Preloading; Design; PVD; Numerical

2
Introduction

Preloading combined with prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) is one of the simplest and

most effective ground improvement methods available for soft soils. PVDs significantly

speed up the consolidation rate as they allow for radial drainage over short drainage paths.

Design of the PVD-system generally involves selecting PVD spacing which satisfies the

required degree of consolidation within the allowed project time. The PVD spacing is a

function of intact radial hydraulic properties of the soil, PVD size, drain hydraulic resistance

(well resistance), and size and hydraulic properties of the smear zone around the PVD that

exists as a result of the PVD installation process. As discharge capacities of most PVDs

available in the market are relatively high, the well resistance effect can be ignored in most

practical cases (Yeung 1997; Chu et al. 2004; Rujikiatkamjorn and Indraratna, 2007).

Several analytical solutions are available for radial consolidation problems where most of

the above effects are considered in their mathematical derivation. However, as listed in Table

1, some of these models assume that the full consolidation load is applied instantaneously on

the ground; the hydraulic conductivity and compressibility of soils remain constant during the

consolidation process; and/or smear/transition smear zone does not exist. In reality, these

three assumptions are simplifications for the real case to ease the mathematical solution.

Buildings or embankment loads are rarely placed on the ground instantaneously. In

general, they are applied gradually over a certain time period which can be referred to as the

construction time. It is also known that the hydraulic conductivity and compressibility

coefficient of soils are a function of the void ratio. Consequently, as the void ratio decreases

during the consolidation process, both hydraulic conductivity and compressibility coefficients

of soils are expected to change (Rowe, 1968; Berry and Wilkinson 1969; Tavenas et al.,

1983; Indraratna et al. 2005; Hsu and Liu 2013). Several studies have also suggested that the

disturbed region around a PVD comprises two distinct zones: the smeared and the transition

3
zones (Onoue et al. 1991; Madhav et al. 1993; Gabr et al. 1996; Chai et al. 1996; Indraratna

and Redana 1998; Sharma and Xiao 2000; Sathananthan and Indraratna 2006; Ghandeharioon

et al. 2012). Therefore, to accurately design an economical preloading system for soft clays

using PVDs, the radial consolidation theory used in the design process should incorporate in

its mathematical formulation the effect of time dependent loading, stress dependent hydraulic

conductivity and compressibility, and existence of smear and transition zones. The aim of this

study is to develop a solution for the radial consolidation problem that considers all of these

effects as listed in Table 1 but the well resistance effect is not considered. To aid the use of

this solution in PVD design practice, a design chart is also developed.

Problem Configuration

The geometry of the radial consolidation problem can be simplified using a “unit cell” of

PVD-improved soil as shown in Fig. 1(right side), where the oblong cross-section of PVD is

usually converted to an equivalent circular cross-section with a radius of rw. Several

equations are available in the literature to describe this as listed in Table 2. However, based

on a numerical assessment of these equations by Abuel-Naga et al. (2012a), the equation by

Long and Covo (1994) is recommended. The soil surrounding the PVD is divided into three

concentric cylinders. The innermost cylinder of radius, rs, represents the smear zone, which is

surrounded by a transition zone of external radius, rt. Then, an undisturbed zone of an

external radius, re, which is considered as the radius of influence of the drain. The ratios re/rw,

rt/rw, and rs/rw expressed by the drain spacing ratio, n, transition zone ratio, m, and smear

zone ratio, ms, respectively. The smeared zone (rw≤ r ≤rs) is completely remoulded, whereas

the soil disturbance in the transition zone (rs≤ r ≤rt) decreases gradually as the distance from

the drain increases. Therefore, the smeared zone has a constant hydraulic conductivity, ks,

whereas the hydraulic conductivity in the transition zone gradually changes from ks to the

4
hydraulic conductivity of undisturbed zone, kh, as the distance from the drain increases as

shown in Fig. 1. It should be mentioned that several other configurations for variation of the

hydraulic conductivity with distance from the centre of the drain are proposed in the literature

(Chai et al. 1996; Basu et al. 2006). However, for simplicity a linear transition of hydraulic

conductivity in the transition zone is adopted in this study.

Based on laboratory and field studies and back-analysis approaches, several researches

(Holtz and Holm 1973; Akagi 1976; Jamiolkowski et al. 1983; Hansbo 1986, 1987, 1997;

Bergado et al. 1991,1993a; Chai and Miura 1999; Hird and Moseley 2000; Eriksson et al.

2000; Sathananthan and Indraratna 2006) have recommended that the diameter of smear

zone, ds= 2rs, to vary between 2 to 3 dm and kh/ks= 2 to 10; where dm is the mandrel

equivalent diameter (𝑑𝑚 = √4𝐴𝑚 /𝜋 ; Am is cross-section area of the mandrel). Moreover,

the extent of the transition zone diameter, dt=2rt, was recommended to vary between 4 to 6 dm

(Onoue et al. 1991; Indraratna and Redana 1998; Sharma and Xiao 2000)

Governing Equations

The basic partial differential equation of radial consolidation problem as described in Fig.

1(right side) under the equal strain condition and a constant rate of loading is as follows:

𝜕𝑢 𝑘(𝑟) 1 𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢 𝑑𝑝
= 𝑐ℎ ( )( + )+ (1)
𝜕𝑡 𝑘ℎ 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕2 𝑟 2 𝑑𝑡

where u, ch, t, and r are the excess pore water pressure, the coefficient of consolidation for

horizontal flow, time, and radial coordinate, respectively. The term dp/dt is the constant rate

of loading where p is the applied load and it is assumed to vary linearly with time and

remains unchanged after time tc as shown in Fig. 2 where tc represents the embankment

construction time.

The ratio k(r)/kh is to account for the disturbed zone around the drain where k(r) is the

hydraulic conductivity function that describes the change of hydraulic conductivity with

5
respect to r whereas kh is the undisturbed hydraulic conductivity. Abuel-Naga et al. (2012b)

proposed a method to consider the transition zone effect in the radial consolidation theory.

The method involves replacing the smear and transition zones around the vertical drain with

one zone having a size equal to the combined size of the smeared and transition zones as

shown in Fig. 1 (left side). The equivalent horizontal hydraulic conductivity of this combined

zone is denoted with the symbol: ks+t. Therefore,

For rw≤ r <rt

𝑘 (𝑟) = 𝑘𝑠+𝑡 = 𝑘ℎ /𝜂𝑡 (2)

For rt≤ r ≤re

k(r)=kh (3)

where
𝑙𝑛(𝑚𝑠 ) 𝑚−𝑚𝑠 𝑚
𝜂𝑡 = 𝜂 + 𝑚 𝑙𝑛( ) (4)
𝑙𝑛(𝑚) ( −𝑚𝑠 )𝑙𝑛(𝑚) 𝜂𝑚𝑠
𝜂

η= kh/ks (5)

Equation 4 can be represented graphically as shown in Fig. 3. It should be mentioned that the

proposed equivalent hydraulic conductivity, 𝑘𝑠+𝑡 , by Abuel-Naga et al. (2012b) satisfies the

following two conditions at any time, t, during the consolidation period:

i) qi=qe

where qi and qe are the radial flow rate through the idealized and the proposed

equivalent consolidation unit cells, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1.

𝑟𝑒 𝑟
𝑒
ii) ∫𝑟𝑤 𝑢𝑖𝑑 (𝑟, 𝑡)𝑟𝑑𝑟 = ∫𝑟𝑤 𝑢𝑒𝑞 (𝑟, 𝑡)𝑟𝑑𝑟

where uid and ueq are the excess pore water pressure in the idealized and the proposed

equivalent consolidation unit cells, respectively. In fact, this condition is crucial to guarantee

that the consolidation rate of the equivalent cell is equal to that of the idealized cell.

6
 The radial consolidation theory defines ch as a composite parameter depending on both

coefficient of horizontal permeability, kh, and coefficient of volume compressibility, mv, as

follows:

𝑘ℎ
𝑐ℎ = (6)
𝑚𝑣 𝛾𝑤

where w is unit weight of water. As effective stress, v′, increases during the consolidation

process both kh and mv decrease. Therefore, the possible changes of ch as ′v increases can be

classified into three cases as follows (Fig. 4):

𝜕𝑘 𝑘 𝜕𝑚𝑣
case 1: |𝜕𝜎́ℎ | = |𝑚ℎ |
𝑣 𝑣 𝜕𝜎́𝑣

Therefore, ch remains constant as v′ increases (Barron 1948; Hansbo 1981).

𝜕𝑘ℎ 𝑘ℎ 𝜕𝑚𝑣
case 2: | |>| |
𝜕𝜎́𝑣 𝑚𝑣 𝜕𝜎́𝑣

Therefore, ch decreases as v′ increases.

𝜕𝑘 𝑘 𝜕𝑚𝑣
case 3: |𝜕𝜎́ℎ | < |𝑚ℎ |
𝑣 𝑣 𝜕𝜎́𝑣

Therefore, ch increases as v′ increases.

A literature review of the published ch-v′ relationship for different soil types indicates that

the soils could show ch increase or decrease as v′ increases (Sridharan et al., 1996; Seah et

al., 2004; Hsu and Liu 2013). Furthermore, a nonlinear ch-v′ relationship could be proposed

over a very large effective stress range whereas a linear ch-v′ relationship could be

considered for the practical effective stress change as shown in Fig. 4. It should be mentioned

that ch can either decrease or increase as v′ increases based on whether the soil consolidation

process is controlled by a mechanical or a physicochemical mechanism (Olson and Mesri

1970; Sridharan and Rao 1976; Robinson and Allam 1998; Karunaratne et al. 2001). For soils

where its consolidation behaviour is mainly governed by mechanical factors (such as

kaolinite), ch is found to increase as v′ increases whereas an opposite behaviour can be

7
observed for montmorillonite as its consolidation behaviour is primarily governed by

physicochemical factors (Karunaratne et al. 2001).

Following Abuel-Naga and Pender (2012c) a dimensionless parameter, ich, could be used to

describe the linear change in ch within the consolidation stress increment as follows:

𝐶ℎ𝑓 −𝐶ℎ𝑖
𝑖𝑐ℎ= (7)
𝐶ℎ𝑖

where chi and chf are the coefficient of consolidation at the initial effective stress, vi′, and

final effective stress, vf′, respectively, as shown in Fig. 4. To satisfy the equal strain

condition, the ch change during the radial consolidation process is linked to the average

degree of radial consolidation, Ur, as follows:

𝑈𝑟
𝑐ℎ = 𝑐ℎ𝑖 [1 + 𝑖𝑐ℎ ( )] (8)
100

The assumption of a linear relationship ch-Ur in Eq. 8 is supported by the experimental results

of different clay types by Hsu and Lui (2013) that show to reasonable extent a linear ch-v′

relationship.

It should also be mentioned that the method by Hsu and Liu (2013) only applied ch change

during the loading time as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, Hsu and Liu (2013) assumed that the

soil will consolidate under a constant ch value beyond the loading time. Berry and Wilkinson

(1969), Lo (1991), and Indraratna et al. (2005) used a different approach to consider ch

change during the consolidation process where the slope of e-log (v′) and e-log (kh)

relationships were embedded into the governing radial consolidation equation and a solution

was obtained for that. It is believed that the approach by Berry and Wilkinson (1969), Lo

(1991), and Indraratna et al. (2005) is not overly effective in PVD design practice because it

requires information about void ratio-log (kh) relationship which is could only obtained from

the relatively costly and time consuming hydraulic conductivity tests.

8
Numerical Solution, Verification, and Validation

An analytical solution for Eq. 1 is difficult to obtain when the effect of time dependent

loading, smeared and transition zones, a stress dependent ch is considered. Therefore, a finite

element solver, FlexPDE, with an automatic adaptive mesh approach was used to solve Eq. 1

for a uniform clay layer where the following boundary conditions were applied:

 Initial excess pore water pressure, uo, is uniform throughout the soil mass when t = 0.

 Excess pore water pressure, u, at the drain well surface, r = rw, is zero when t > 0.

 At the external radius, r = re, no flow occurs across this boundary; that is,

∂u/ ∂r = 0

The average radial degree of consolidation, Ur, is expressed as follows:

𝑟
𝜋(𝑟𝑒2−𝑟𝑤
2 )𝑞−2𝜋
∫𝑟 𝑒 𝑢∙𝑟𝑑𝑟
𝑈𝑟 (%) = 𝑤
× 100 (9)
𝜋(𝑟𝑒2−𝑟𝑤
2 )𝑝

where, for t ≤ tc, q=(dp/dt)tc; and for t > tc, q=p.

To verify the finite element solutions for Eq. 1, the numerical results were compared with

the analytical solution by Olson (1977) for the radial consolidation problem where time

dependent loading was considered but the stress dependent ch and the smear effect were

ignored. Figure 6 shows good agreement between the results of the two solutions for n= 10 at

different construction time factor, TRC, values. Olson (1977) expressed TRC as follows:

𝑐ℎ 𝑡𝑐
𝑇𝑅𝐶 = (10)
𝑟𝑒2
The radial consolidation test results under time dependent loading by Hsu and Liu (2013)

were also used to validate the numerical solution of Eq. 1 using FlexPDE. Hsu and Liu

(2013) conducted radial consolidation test at different loading rates where the vertical stress

was linearly applied starting from 0 to 1.569 MPa, and then held constant for 6 hrs thereafter.

Hsu and Liu (2013) also determined experimentally the stress dependent ch relationship for

the tested soil. Table 3 lists the test configuration and the soil properties of the tests

9
conducted by Hsu and Liu (2013). According to the testing specimen preparation by Hsu and

Liu (2013), no smeared or transition zones are expected. Consequently, ms = m = 1.0 and ηt

= η =1.0. Figure 7 shows a comparison between the test results by Hsu and Liu (2013) and

the numerical predictions with different loading rates. Again a reasonable consensus is

achieved between the test results and the numerical solution.

The radial consolidation test results by Indraratna et al. (2005) on reconstituted Moruya

clay from New South Wales, Australia are also used to validate the numerical solution of Eq.

1 using FlexPDE. Testing undertaken by Indraratna et al. (2005) comprised a large-scale

consolidation apparatus of 450 mm diameter and a height of 950 mm filled with reconstituted

clay. A band drain of 100 mm x 4 mm was installed vertically in the centre of the clay using

a steel mandrel. The reconstituted clay specimen was initially consolidated under a vertical

pressure of 20 kPa. A pressure increment of 30 kPa was then applied to give the final vertical

pressure of 50 kPa where dp/dt =0.0. The consolidation test results for the stress range of 20-

50 kPa are shown in Fig. 8. According to Indraratna et al. (2005), the radial coefficient of

consolidation, ch, at the initial vertical stress (20 kPa) is 1.58 x 10 -3 m2/day, m= 3.02, η=1.5.

The consolidation results predicted by the approach proposed in this study fit well with the

laboratory results at ich= 0.25 as shown in Fig. 8. This ich value suggests that ch of Moruya

clay increases during the consolidation process. This conclusion agrees with the ch-v′

relationship reported by Robinson (2009) for Moruya clay. Consequently, the prediction of

the consolidation rate by Hansbo’s theory, where ich=0.0, is slightly slower than the

laboratory results as shown in Fig. 8.

Developing of PVD-design chart

Abuel-Naga et al. (2012b) used the unique relationship between Ur and the modified

normalized time factor, (𝑇𝑟′ )1 , proposed by Yeung (1997) to develop their PVD-design chart

10
where the effects of time dependent loading and stress dependent ch were not considered. The

term (𝑇𝑟′ )1 is expressed as follows;

𝑇𝑟′
(𝑇𝑟′ )1 = (11)
𝛼
𝑐ℎ𝑖 𝑡
𝑇𝑟′ = 2 (12)
𝑑𝑤

𝛼 = 𝐹𝑛′ /𝛺 (13)

𝐹𝑛′ = 𝑛2 (𝐿𝑛(𝑛) − 0.75) (14)

𝑙𝑛(𝑛)−0.75
𝛺= 𝑛 (15)
𝑙𝑛(𝑚)+𝜂 𝑙𝑛(𝑚)−0.75

An extensive numerical experimental program was conducted in this study to assess the

effect of the time dependent loading and stress dependent ch on (𝑇𝑟′ )1 − 𝑈𝑟 relationship. The

different stress dependent ch conditions can be expressed using ich whereas a modified

construction time factor, Tc, is used to define the different loading rates where:

𝑐ℎ𝑖 𝑡𝑐
𝑇𝑐 = 2 (16)
𝑑𝑤

where chi is the coefficient of consolidation at the initial effective stress, vi′, as shown in Fig.

4, and tc represents the embankment construction time as shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 9 shows (𝑇𝑟′ )1 − 𝑈𝑟 relationships obtained numerically for different ich values (-0.75, -

0.50, -0.25, 0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0, 1.50, 2.0, 4.0) and Tc (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320)

which cover most of the practical design cases. The results show that for Tc>320, the effect of

ich change can be ignored considering the expected uncertainty in determining the hydraulic

and smear properties of the soil. Figure 10 shows (𝑇𝑟′ )1 − 𝑈𝑟 relationships for different Tc

values (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1300) where ich=0.0. The relationships of (𝑇𝑟′ )1 −

𝑈𝑟 in Figs 9, and 10 could be used to extend the PVD-Design charts proposed by Abuel-Naga

et al. (2012b) to include the cases where Tc and ich are not equal to zero. The extended PVD-

design chart proposed in this study includes interconnected charts where n, m, ηt, and the

11
suitable (𝑇𝑟′ )1 − 𝑈𝑟 relationship based on ich and Tc value, are linked graphically and through

simple equations as shown in Fig. 11. According to Abuel-Naga et al. (2012b):

𝑇𝑟′
𝐹𝑛′ = 𝛺 (17)
(𝑇𝑟′ )1

𝑛 = 1.4174 × (𝐹𝑛′ )0.3935 (18)

Figure 12 shows a flow chart that describes the steps that should be followed to determine the

PVD spacing ratio n which satisfies the required degree of consolidation, Ur, within the

allowed project time, t. As an illustrative design example, the above design procedure was

used to the determine PVD spacing ratio n for a site where dw, m, ms, and η are equal to 0.06

m, 8, 5, and 3, respectively. The horizontal coefficient of consolidation, ch = 0.02 m2/day, and

ich=1.0. The basic design requirement is to achieve a radial degree of consolidation Ur= 90%

within a time t90 = 360 days where the embankment construction time, tc, is 30 days. Table 4,

and 5 show the calculated parameters based on the given data and the iteration process to

determine n, respectively. The design process shows that n=21.24 is required for this project.

The design was then repeated but for tc= 45 days. The required n for this condition was 18.38

showing that such a change in tc would increase the number of PVD points by about 33%.

On Determination of Coefficient of Consolidation

The coefficient of consolidation, ch, can be determined either experimentally or by

utilizing back-calculating/curve-fitting approaches. According to Eq. 6, the experimental

approach involves measuring both of kh and mv from the hydraulic conductivity and

consolidation tests, respectively, to get ch. The back-calculating/curve-fitting approaches

utilize the settlement-time test results of a radial consolidometer test, and Barron’s

consolidation theory to get ch. As the experimental approach is usually seen as a relatively

costly and time consuming option, the back-calculating/curve-fitting approach is preferable in

geotechnical engineering practice. Under the framework of Barron’s theory, several methods

12
are available in the literature for this purpose (Sridharan et al., 1996; Robinson, 2009; Vinod

et al., 2010). However, it should be noted that the value of ch obtained by these methods

could vary by more than 250% (Kianfar et al., 2013). As finding the most accurate ch-′v

relationship is crucial to obtaining a reliable PVD consolidation design using the approach

proposed in this study, a logical interpretation should be introduced for the difference in ch

values obtained by different methods.

In principle, all methods available in the literature used to determine ch from radial

consolidation test results use some characteristic features of Baron’s consolidation curve and

compare it with settlement-time results of the radial consolidation test, then, identifying

consolidation time at a certain Ur and using it to calculate ch. Table 6 lists the different Ur

values used by different methods to determine c h. Figure 13 shows schematically a series of

Barron consolidation curves (dotted lines, ich=0) at different coefficients of consolidation, and

consolidation curves of two clay specimens with different cv-v′ behaviour for cases 2 and 3

shown in Fig. 4. During the consolidation process of the two clay specimens, as Ur increases

their ch profile gradually changes and their consolidation curves pass through different Barron

consolidation curves as shown in Fig. 13. In other words, for a soil with stress dependent ch,

the settlement-time curve is composed of an infinite number of small segments of Barron’s

curves at different coefficients of consolidation.

Based on the proposed conceptual consolidation behaviour presented in Fig. 13, the ch of

soils could be a function of Ur. Consequently, different values of ch are expected from these

methods listed in Table 6 as they used different Ur values to determine ch. For example, for

case 3, the ch value obtained using the √t method (Sridharan et al., 1996) is expected to be

greater than the value obtained by other methods listed in Table 1. The ch results presented by

Sridharan et al. (1996) for red earth soil, as shown in Fig. 14, agree with the proposed

conceptual consolidation behaviour in Fig. 13. The ch-′v relationship obtained for this soil by

13
using the √t method and one point method follows case 3, where ch values obtained by the

one point method are less than the values by √t method.

As the method proposed in this study requires information about the initial and final ch for

each consolidation stress interval, the ch-′v relationship should be developed. Common

practice is to plot the obtained ch, using one of the back-calculating/curve-fitting methods,

against the final effective stress of the consolidation stress interval under consideration.

Therefore, the final and initial ch of the consolidation stress interval ( ′vi to ′vf), as shown in

Fig. 4, could be obtained from the settlement-time consolidation test results of the

consolidation stress interval ( ′vi to ′vf), and its preceding consolidation stress interval,

respectively. To comply with the above method of developing a ch-′v relationship, ch should

be determined at the end of each consolidation stress interval where Ur is almost 100%.

Consequently, the proposed √t method by Sridharan et al. (1996) is highly recommended

since it determines ch at Ur=90 % which is close to the fully consolidated condition

(Ur=100%).

Conclusion

In this study, a numerical solution is obtained for the radial consolidation theory where the

following effects were incorporated: (i) effective stress dependent ch, (ii) transition smear

zone with hydraulic conductivity varying linearly, (iii) time dependent loading. To aid the use

of this numerical solution in PVD design practice a set of dimensionless consolidation curves

which cover most of the practical design cases are developed and a simple PVD design chart

is proposed. Based on interpretation of settlement-time consolidation behaviour, the proposed

√t method by Sridharan et al. (1996) is recommended to determine the cv-v′ relationship.

14
References

Abuel-Naga, H.M., Bouazza, A. (2009). On the equivalent diameter of prefabricated vertical

drain: numerical study. Geotextile and Geomembranes 27(3), 227-231

Abuel-Naga, H.M., Bouazza, A., and Bergado, D.T. (2012a). Numerical Assessment of

Equivalent Diameter Equations for Prefabricated Vertical Drains. Canadian Geotechnical

Journal, 49(12): 1427-1433

Abuel-Naga, H.M., Pender, M.J., and Bergado, D.T. (2012b). Design curves of prefabricated

vertical drains including smear and transition zones effects. Geotextiles and

Geomembranes, 32(5), 1-9

Abuel-Naga, H.M., Pender, M.J. (2012c). Modified Terzaghi consolidation curves with

effective stress dependent coefficient of consolidation, Geotechnique Letters 2, 43–48

Akagi T., 1977. Effect of mandrel-driven sand drains on strength. Proceedings of the 9th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan,

vol.1, pp. 3–6.

Atkinson, M.S., Eldred, P.J.L., (1981). Consolidation of soil using vertical drains.

Geotechnique 31(1), 33-43

Barron, R. A. (1948). Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drains wells. Trans., ASCE, Vol.

113, Paper No. 2346 pp. 718-754

Basu, D., Basu, P., and Prezzi, M.(2006). Analytical solutions for consolidation aided by

vertical drains. Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 1: 1, 63 — 71

Basu, D., Prezzi, M., (2009). Design of prefabricated vertical drains considering soil

disturbance. Geosynthetics International 16(3), 147–157

Bellezza, I., Fentini, R., (2008). Prefabricated vertical drains: a simplified design procedure.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Ground Improvement 16(GI4), 173–178.

15
Bergado, D.T., Alfaro, M.C., Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1993a). Improvement of soft Bangkok

clay using vertical drains. Geotextile and Geomembranes 12, 615–663.

Bergado, D.T., Asakami, H., Alfaro, M.C., Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1991). Smear effects of

vertical drains on soft Bangkok clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE

117(10),1509– 1530.

Berry, P.L., and Wilkinson, W.B. (1969). The radial consolidation of clay soils.

Géotechnique, 19(2): 253–284.

Chai, J.C., Miura, N. and Sakajo, S. (1996). A theoretical study on smear effect around

vertical drain. Proc. of 14th Inter. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Hamburg,

Germany, Vol. 3, pp. 1581-1584.

Chai, J-C, Miura, N. (1999). Investigation of factors affecting vertical drain behavior. Journal

of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 125(3),216–226.

Chu, J., Bo, M. W., and Choa, V. (2004). Practical considerations for using vertical drains in

soil improvement projects. Geotext Geomembr 22:101–117

Eriksson, U., Hansbo, S., Torstenson, B.A. (2000). Soil improvement at Stockholm-Arlanda

airport. Ground Improvement 4(5), 73-80.

Fellenius, B.H., Castonguay, N.G. (1985). The efficiency of band shaped drains a full scale

laboratory study. Report to National Research Council of Canada and the Industrial

Research Assistance Programme.

Gabr, M.A., Bowders, J., Wang, J., Quaranta, J. (1996). In situ soil flushing using

prefabricated vertical drains. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 33, 97–105.

Ghandeharioon, A., Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2012). Laboratory and finite element

investigation of soil disturbance associated with the installation of mandrel‐driven

prefabricated vertical drains. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering

ASCE 138(3), 295–308.

16
Hansbo, S. (1979). Consolidation of clay by band shaped prefabricated drains. Ground

Engineering 12(5), 16-25.

Hansbo, S. (1981). Consolidation of fine-grained soils by prefabricated drains. 10th ICSMFE,

Stockholm, Vol. 3, Paper 12/22, pp. 677-682.

Hansbo, S. (1986). Preconsolidation of soft compressible subsoil by the use of prefabricated

vertical drains. Annales des travaux publics de Belgique 6, 553–563.

Hansbo, S. (1987). Design aspects of vertical drains and lime column installations.

Proceedings of the 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, pp.

1–12.

Hansbo, S. (1997). Practical aspects of vertical drain design. Proceedings of the 14th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, vol.

3, pp. 1749–1752.

Hird, C.C., Moseley, V.J. (2000). Model study of seepage in smear zones around vertical

drains in layered soil. Geotechnique 50(1), 89–97.

Holtz, R.D., Holm, B.G. (1973). Excavation and sampling around some sand drains in Ska°-

Edeby, Sweden. Sartryck och preliminara rapporter 51,79–85.

Hsu, T-W., and Liu, H-J. (2013). Consolidation for Radial Drainage under Time-Dependent

Loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE, Vol. 139,

No. 12: 2096-2103.

Indraratna B., Redana, I.W. (1998). Laboratory determination of smear zone due to vertical

drain installation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE

124(2),1 80–184.

Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C. & Sathananthan, I. (2005). Radial consolidation of clay

using compressibility indices and varying horizontal permeability. Can. Geotech. J. 42,

No. 5, 1330–1341.

17
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., Wolski, W. (1983). Precompression and speeding up

consolidation. Improvement of Ground: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, vol. 3, pp. 1201–

1226.

Karunaratne, G. P., Chew, S. H., Lee, S. L., & Sinha, A. N. (2001). Bentonite: Kaolinite Clay

Liner, Geosynthetics International 8, No. 2,113-133.

Kianfar, K., Indraratna, B., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2013). Radial consolidation model

incorporating the effects of vacuum preloading and non-Darcian flow. Ge´otechnique 63,

No. 12, 1060–1073.

Leo, C.J., (2004). Equal strain consolidation by vertical drains. Journal of Geotechnical and

Environmental Engineering ASCE 130(3), 316–327.

Lo, D.O.K., (1991). Soil improvement by vertical drains. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign, USA.

Long, R.P., Covo, A., (1994). Equivalent diameter of vertical drains with an oblong cross

section. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 120(9), 1625-1630.

Madhav, M.R., Park, Y-M., Miura, N., (1993). Modelling and study of smear zones around

band shaped drains. Soils and Foundations 33(4), 135–147.

Olson, R. E. & Mesri, G. (1970). Mechanisms controlling the compressibility of clays.

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE 96, No. 6, 1853-1878.

Olson, R. E. (1977). Consolidation under time-dependent loading, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 103,

(1), 55–60

Onoue A., Ting N-H., Germaine J.T., Whitman, R.V. (1991). Permeability of disturbed zone

around vertical drains. Proc. ASCE Geotechnical Congress, Boulder, vol. 2, pp. 879–890.

Robinson, R. G. & Allam, M. M. (1998). Effect of Clay Mineralogy on Coefficient of

Consolidation, Clays and Clay Minerals 46, No. 5, 596–600.

18
Robinson, R. G. (2009). Analysis of radial consolidation test data using log-log method.

Geotech Test J 32(2):1–7.

Rowe, P. W. (1968). The influence of geological features of clay deposits on the design and

performance of sand drains. Proc. Instn civ. Engrs 39, 465-466.

Rujikiatkamjorn, C., and Indraratna, B. (2007). Analytical solutions and design curves for

vacuum-assisted consolidation with both vertical and horizontal drainage. Can. Geotech.

J., 44(2): 188-200.

Sathananthan I., Indraratna B., (2006). Laboratory evaluation of smear zone and correlation

between permeability and moisture content. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE

132(7), 942–945.

Seah, T. H., Tangthansup, B., and Wongsatian, P. (2004). Horizontal Coefficient of

Consolidation of Soft Bangkok Clay, Geotech. Testing J., Vol. 27, No. 5, 1-11.

Sharma, J.S., Xiao, D., (2000). Characterization of a smear zone around vertical drains by

large-scale laboratory tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37, 1265–1271.

Sridharan, A. & Rao, G. V. (1976). Mechanisms controlling volume change of saturated

clays and the role of effective stress concept, Geotechnique 32, 249-260.

Sridharan, A., Prakash, K., and Asha, S. R. (1996). Consolidation Behavior of Clayey Soils

Under Radial Drainage, Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 421–431.

Tang, X-W, Onitsuka, K. (2000). Consolidation by vertical drains under time-dependent

loading. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 24:739-751

Tavenas, P., Jean, P., Leblond, P., and Leroueil, S. (1983). The permeability of natural soft

clays. Part II: Permeability characteristics. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20: 645–659.

Vinod, J. S., Sridharan, A. & Indraratna, B. (2010). Determination of coefficient of radial

consolidation using steepest tangent method. Geotech. Geol. Engng 28, No. 4, 533–536.

19
Yeung, A. T. (1997). Design curves for prefabricated vertical drains. Journal of Geotechnical

and Environmental Engineering ASCE, 123, No. 8, 755–759.

Zhou, W., Hong, H.P., Shang, J.Q. (1999). Probabilistic design method of prefabricated

vertical drains for soil improvement. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental

Engineering ASCE 125(8), 659–664.

Zhu, G., and Yin, J-H (2004). Consolidation analysis of soil with vertical and horizontal

drainage under ramp loading considering smear effects 22 (1), 63-74.

20
List of Tables:

Table 1: The available radial consolidation solutions (N: effect is not included; Y:

effect is included)

Table 2: PVD equivalent diameter, dw.

Table 3: Test configuration and soil properties (Hsu and Liu (2013)

Table 4: Parameters calculated using the given parameters of the illustrative example

(Grey cell: given parameter is not used in the calculation).

Table 5: Iteration process to determine n of the illustrative example

Table 6: Ur values used by different methods to determine ch

21
List of figures

Fig. 1 Radial consolidation unit cell of PVD-improved soil

Fig. 2 Time dependent loading

Fig. 3 Graph for determining ηt as function of m, ms, and η

Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of ch-′v relationship

Fig. 5. The difference between the approach used in this study and Hsu and Liu (2013) to
include the change of ch during the consolidation process

Fig. 6. Comparison between the analytical solution by Olsen (1977) and the numerical
solution in this study at different TRC values for n=10.

Fig. 7. Comparison between the laboratory consolidation test results by Hsu and Liu (2013)
and the numerical predictions in this study at different Tc values.

Fig. 8. Comparison between the consolidation test results by Indraratna et al. (2005) and the
predicted results using the method proposed in this study and Hansbo (1981)

Fig. 9 Ur -(T’r)1 at different Tc and ich values

Fig. 10 Ur -(T’r)1 at different Tc values for ich=0.0

Fig.11 Interconnected design chart (Abuel-Naga et al. 2012b)

Fig. 12 Flow chart describes the steps to determine n where a certain degree of consolidation,
Ur, is required to be achieved within a certain time, t

Fig. 13 Schematic conceptual understanding of consolidation behaviour of an effective stress

dependent ch soil

Fig. 14 ch-′v relationship of red earth soil (Sridharan et al. 1996)

22
List of Notations

Am: cross-section area of the mandrel

ch : coefficient of consolidation

ch,: coefficient of consolidation for horizontal flow

chf : coefficient of consolidation at the final effective stress

chi : coefficient of consolidation at the initial effective stress

dm : mandrel equivalent diameter

dp/dt constant rate of loading

e: void ratio

𝐹𝑛′ : design parameter function of n

ich : dimensionless parameter describes change in c h within the consolidation stress increment

k(r) : hydraulic conductivity function

kh : hydraulic conductivity of undisturbed zone

ks : hydraulic conductivity of smeared zone

ks+t : equivalent horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the combined smear and transition zone

m : ratio between rt and rw

ms : ratio between r s and rw

mv : coefficient of volume compressibility

n : ratio between re and rw

p : applied load

r : radial coordinate

re : radius of influence of the drain

rs radius of smear zone

rt : external radius of transition zone

rw : equivalent radius of PVD

v′ : effective stress

t : time

23
Tc : construction time factor

tc : embankment construction time

TRC : construction time factor (Olson 1977)

𝑇𝑟′ : time factor (Yeung 1997)

u : excess pore water pressure

Ur : average degree of radial consolidation

η : ratio between kh and ks

Ω : design parameter function of n, and m

w : unit weight of water

24
Table 1: The available radial consolidation solutions (N: effect is not included;

Y: effect is included)

Stress dependent *

Design chart for

Time dependent

Transition zone

drains spacing
Smear zone
loading

kh, mv
Radial consolidation solution

Barron (1948) N N Y N N
Berry and Wilkinson (1969) N Y N N N
Olson (1977) Y N N N N
Hansbo (1981) N N Y N N
Lo (1991) Y Y Y N N
Yeung (1997) N N Y N Y
Zhou et al. (1999) N N Y N Y
Tang and Onitsuka (2000) Y N Y N N
Leo (2004) Y N Y N N
Zhu and Yin (2004) Y N Y N N
Indraratna et al. (2005) N Y Y N N
Bellezza and Fentini (2008) N N Y N Y
Basu and Prezzi (2009) N N Y Y Y
Abuel-Naga et al. (2012b) N N Y Y Y
Hsu and Liu (2013) Y Y N N N
This study Y Y Y Y Y
*kh: hydraulic conductivity; mv: coefficient of volume compressibility

25
 Table 2: PVD equivalent diameter, dw

Reference Equation

2( w  th )
Hansbo (1979) dw 


Atkinson and Eldred ( w  th )

dw 
(1981) 2

 4( w  th ) 
0.5
Fellenius and Castonguay
dw   
(1985)   

Long and Covo (1994) d w  0.5w  0.7th

Abuel-Naga and Bouazza

dw=0.45w
(2009)

th and w are the thickness and width of PVD, respectively.

Table 3: Test configuration and soil properties (Hsu and Liu (2013)

re (mm) 31.75
rw (mm) 8.75
% passing sieve no. 200 80
Plasticity index (%) 75.1
chi (m2/day) 8.64E-04
ich 12

26
Table 4: Parameters calculated using the given parameters of the illustrative example (Grey
cell: given parameter is not used in the calculation)
ηt Tr'
TC (T'r)1
Given parameters (Eq. 4, or
(Eq. 16) (Figs.9,10) (Eq. 12)
Fig. 3)
m 8
ms 5 2.711
η 3
ich 1
tc (day) 30
2 0.760
chi(m /day) 0.02 166.667
dw (m) 0.06 2000
t90 (day) 360

Table 5: Iteration process to determine n of the illustrative example

n
Ω Fn' (Fig. 11,
ni
Iteration (Eq. 15) (Eq. 17) or
no. Eq.18)
1 30.00 0.40 1058.70 21.97
2 21.97 0.37 980.61 21.31
3 21.31 0.37 972.64 21.24
4 21.24 0.37 971.79 21.24

Table 6: Ur values used by different methods to determine ch

Method Ur (%) Reference

√t 90 Sridharan et al. (1996)

One point 40 to 60 Sridharan et al. (1996)

Log-log 66 Robinson (2007)

Inflection point 63.2 Robinson (1997)

27
 transition zones

Transition zone
k

Undisturbed

Undisturbed
Smear zone
Smear &
zone

zone
kh kh
ks+t
ks
r r

rw

rs
rt
Drain
re

No flow
boundary
The proposed The idealized
equivalent unit cell unit cell
Abuel-Naga et al.
(2012b)

Fig. 1 Radial consolidation unit cell of PVD-improved soil

Vertical total stress, p

tc
Time, t
Fig. 2 Time dependent loading

28
 m
12 η 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 η = kh/ks
10
9
8
η t=kh/ks+t
7
6
5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
ms ηt

Fig. 3 Graph for determining ηt as function of m, ms, and η

ch
𝐶ℎ𝑓 − 𝐶ℎ𝑖
𝑖𝑐ℎ=
𝐶ℎ𝑖

case 3 (ich> 0.0)

chf
chi
case 1 (ich = 0.0,
Hansbo and
Barron theory)

case 2 (ich< 0.0)

`vi `vf `v

Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of ch-′v relationship

29
 Vertical total stress, p
p

ch ch2 ch1 Time, t

tc t100
Hsu and Liu
(2013)

This study

Ur =100%

Ur [%]

Fig. 5. The difference between the approach used in this study and Hsu and Liu (2013) to
include the change of ch during the consolidation process

30
 0

10

20
TRC
30 5
40 2
Ur [%]

50 0.5

60 Numerical
solution
70

80

90

100
0.01 0.1 1 10
Radial time factor, TR

Fig. 6. Comparison between the analytical solution by Olsen (1977) and the numerical
solution in this study at different TRC values for n=10.

Time [sec]
3000 30000 300000
0

10

20

30

40 24.52 kPa/hr
Ur [%]

50 49.04 kPa/hr

60 73.55 kPa/hr

70 98.07 kPa/hr

80

90

100

Fig. 7. Comparison between the laboratory consolidation test results by Hsu and Liu (2013)
and the numerical predictions in this study at different Tc values.

31
 Time (day)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
10 Laboratory results (Indraratna et al. 2005)
ich=0.25
20
Hansbo (1981); ich=0.0
30
40
Ur (%)

50
60
70
80
90
100

Fig. 8. Comparison between the consolidation test results by Indraratna et al. (2005) and the
predicted results using the method proposed in this study and Hansbo (1981)

32
 0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40

Ur [%]
50 50
Ur{%]

60 60
70 70
80 80
90 90
Tc=0.0 Tc= 5
100 100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1
(T'r)1 (T'r)1
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
40 40
Ur [%]

Ur [%]

50 50
60 60
70 70
80 80
90 90
Tc = 10 Tc = 20
100 100
0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1
(T'r)1 (T'r)1
0 0
10 10 ich=4.00
ich=2.00
20 20
ich=1.00
30 30
ich=0.75
40 40 ich=0.50
Ur [%]
Ur [%]

50 50 ich=0.25
60 60 ich=0.00
ich=-0.25
70 70
ich=-0.50
80 80
ich=-0.75
90 90
Tc = 40
100 100 Tc = 80
0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1
(T'r)1 (T'r)1

33
 0 0
ich=4.00
10 10
ich=2.00
20 20 ich=1.00
30 30 ich=0.75
40 40 ich=0.50
Ur [%]

Ur [%]
50 50 ich=0.25
60 60 ich=0.00
70 70 ich=-0.25
80 80 ich=-0.50
ich=-0.75
90 90
Tc = 160 Tc = 320
100 100
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
(T'r)1 (T'r)1

Fig. 9 Ur -(T’r)1 at different Tc and ich values

10
Tc=0.0
20 Tc=5.0
Tc=10
30 Tc=20
Tc=40
40 Tc=80
Tc=160
Ur [%]

50 Tc=320
Tc=640
60 Tc=1300

70

80

90

100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

(T'r)1

Fig. 10 Ur -(T’r)1 at different Tc values for ich=0.0

34
 n

70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20
0
2000
𝑐ℎ𝑖 𝑡
4000 𝑇́𝑟 = 2
𝑑𝑤
6000
8000 ′
T′r
FFn'
n = Ω
′
n = 1.4174 (F'n)0.3935 10000 (Tr )
R² = 0.9983 1 Based on ich and Tc, get
12000 the suitable value from
14000 Figs 9, and 10
16000
Use Eq. 4 or Fig. 3 to get ηt
18000

𝐿𝑛 𝑛 − 0.75
m 𝛺= 𝑛
𝐿𝑛 𝑚 + η 𝑙𝑛 𝑚 − 0.75 ηt 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Ω

Fig.11 Interconnected design chart (Abuel-Naga et al. 2012b)

35
 Start

Inputs:
rw, rs, rt, η, ch, ich, tc, t, Ur

Using Eq. 4, or Fig. 3, determine ηt

Using Eq. 16, determine Tc
Using Eq. 12, determine 𝑇𝑟′

Based on ich and Tc choose the suitable

(𝑇𝑟′ )1 − 𝑈𝑟 relationship from Figs 9, or 10.
Then determine (𝑇𝑟′ )1 at the required Ur

Assume n=ni

Using Fig. 11 or Eq. 15, determine Ω

Using Fig. 11 or Eq. 17, determine F'n
Using Fig. 11 or Eq. 18, determine n

No Is
ni =n n=ni ?

Yes

n=ni

End

Fig. 12 Flow chart describes the steps to determine n where a certain degree of consolidation,
Ur, is required to be achieved within a certain time, t

36
 0.1 1 log time
10 100 1000
0
10
20 case 2 case 3

30
40
Ur (%)

50
ch1
60
ch2
70 ch3
ch4
80 ch5
90 ch5>ch4>ch3>ch2>ch1
100

Fig. 13 Schematic conceptual understanding of consolidation behaviour of an effective stress

dependent ch soil

30
(t)0.5 method
Series1
25
Series2
One point method

20
ch x 10-8 (m2/s)

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Vertical stress (kPa)

Fig. 14 ch-′v relationship of red earth soil (Sridharan et al. 1996)

37

View publication stats