Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Large-strain consolidation model considering radial transfer attenuation of T

vacuum pressure
Jianhua Wang , Jianwen Ding, Heng Wang, Cong Mou
⁎

Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, PR China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper proposes a large-strain consolidation model that can consider radial transfer attenuation of vacuum
Large-strain consolidation pressure. In order to facilitate the solution, this proposed model is rewritten to take hydraulic head as the
Radial transfer attenuation independent variable that can reduce the computational complexity. The universality of the proposed model is
Vacuum pressure discussed based on the comparisons with several existing typical models. It is found that the proposed large-
Hydraulic head
strain consolidation model has better applicability and can incorporate the attenuation of vacuum pressure.
That’s to say, the model is more universal and can be simplified to typical models under restrictive conditions. In
addition, the comparisons between numerical results and laboratory measurements indicate that the proposed
model considering radial attenuation of vacuum pressure can better describe the dissipation law of excess pore-
water pressure. Meanwhile, the proposed model can be utilized for the different combinations of surcharge
pressure and vacuum pressure.

1. Introduction radial vacuum pressure attenuation phenomenon in the process of

The dredged slurry with high water content is produced in large
amount annually in China and it is often stored in storage yards [1–3].
Vacuum preloading technology combined with Prefabricated Vertical
Drains (PVDs) has been commonly adopted to improve the engineering
properties and to realize the sustainable utilization of land resources
[4–6]. During vacuum preloading, the vacuum pressure transfer and
distribution are the great important factors. Researches on the vacuum
pressure transfer mainly involve the vertical attenuation of vacuum
pressure, which meets linear attenuation [7–8]. And the linear at-
tenuation along the depth of PVD is introduced into the numerical
analysis as the boundary condition [9–11].
However, when vacuum preloading is applied to reinforce dredged
slurry, irregular “soil piles” with PVD as the central axis and different
diameters from top to bottom will appear [12,13], which indicates the
radial nonuniform settlement and the inapplicability of radial equal
strain assumption. The applied vacuum pressure is the primary cause of
excess pore-water pressure produced in dredged slurry. During the
transfer of vacuum pressure, pore-water gradually flows into the PVD to
be discharged, resulting in the settlement of dredged slurry. Therefore,
there is an inevitable relationship between radial nonuniform settle-
ment and radial vacuum pressure transfer. The large-strain consolida-
tion model tests of vacuum preloading on dredged slurry indicate the
forming “soil pile” [14]. The proposed vacuum pressure radial transfer
attenuation law can improve the theory of vacuum pressure distribu-
tion, clarify the mechanism of vacuum preloading of dredged slurry,
and guide the establishment of large strain consolidation model.
In this paper, on the basis of Gibson et al.’s one dimension large-
strain theory [15–16] and Barron’s consolidation theory for drain wells
[17], a large-strain consolidation model considering radial transfer at-
tenuation of vacuum pressure is proposed, and the universality of the
proposed model are investigated by comparison with the three typical
consolidation models. Then the validity of the proposed model is ver-
ified by the comparisons between predicted results and laboratory
measurements.
2. Brief review of radial consolidation model
The axisymmetric model is shown in Fig. 1, H is the initial thickness
of the dredged slurry, r and ξ(z) are radial coordinates and vertical
Eulerian coordinates, respectively; rw, re are the radii of the vertical
drain and the effect zone, respectively; kr and kv are the radial and
vertical permeable coefficient, respectively; and -p0 is the negative
vacuum pressure.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wangjianhua1991@seu.edu.cn (J. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103498
Received 20 August 2019; Received in revised form 15 February 2020; Accepted 15 February 2020
Available online 25 February 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Wang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

Nomenclature mv volume compression coefficient

n spacing ratio
List of symbols p0 applied vacuum pressure at top of drain
r radial coordinate
av coefficient of compressibility re radius of influence zone
ch coefficient of horizontal consolidation rw PVD equivalent radius
Cc compression index Th time factor
Cc intrinsic compression index u excess pore-water pressure
dqr volume change in radial direction u' novel excess pore-water pressure
dqξ volume change in vertical direction u0 initial excess pore-water pressure
dV volume change of soil element average excess pore-water pressure
e void ratio ū 0 initial average excess pore-water pressure
e0 initial void ratio Up degree of consolidation
e100 void ratio of reconstituted clays at '= 100 kPa uvac applied vacuum pressure
eL void ratio at liquid limit vr apparent velocity of flow in radial direction
es void ratio of reconstituted clays at ' = s' vrw actual velocity of water in radial direction
Gs specific gravity vξ apparent velocity of flow in vertical direction
h hydraulic head vw actual velocity of water in vertical direction
h0 initial hydraulic head vw actual velocity of water in vertical direction
H0 initial thickness of soil layer wL liquid limit
ir radial hydraulic gradient w0 initial water content
iv vertical hydraulic gradient γw unit weight of water
k1 vertical vacuum residual factor
'
effective vertical stress
k2 radial vacuum residual factor
'
0 initial effective vertical stress
ks2 vacuum attenuation factor εv volume strain of soil mass
kr radial hydraulic conductivity ξ vertical Eulerian coordinate
kv vertical hydraulic conductivity

2.1. Radial consolidation model The average excess pore-water pressure under equal strain condition
can be expressed as follows:
Based on classical Terzaghi’s consolidation theory, Barron deduced 8Th
the radial consolidation model only considering radial flow under the u¯ = u0 exp[ ]
F (n ) (3)
assumptions of equal strain and free strain respectively [17], as shown
n2 3n2 1
in Eqs. (1) and (2). Meanwhile, the solutions were given which can where F (n) = ln(n) ( 4n2 ) ; Th =
ch t
.
(n2 1) 4re2
provide the theoretical basis and calculation method for radial con-
solidation design. 2.2. Radial vacuum-assisted consolidation model
1 u 2u u¯
ch ( + )= With the development of vacuum preloading technology, many
r r r2 t (1)
scholars extended the radial consolidation theory under surcharge
1 u 2u u loading to vacuum preloading by changing initial and boundary con-
ch ( + )= ditions. Indraratna et al. introduced the vacuum pressure distribution
r r r2 t (2)
mode into the axisymmetric consolidation, and proposed the con-
where u is the excess pore-water pressure; ū is the average excess pore- solidation modeling of soft soil stabilized by PVDs incorporating va-
water pressure. cuum preloading [18]. The expression is shown in Eq. (4).
u v re 2 r2 (1 k2 ) z
= w ( ) + P0 [1 (1 k1) ]
r 2kr t r (re rw ) H0 (4)
The solution under the equal strain assumption, without considering
the smear effect, is given as
u¯ p G (n) 8Th p0 G (n)
= (1 + 0 ) exp( )
u¯ 0 u¯ 0 µ u¯ 0 (5)
(1 + k1)[n (1 + 2k2 ) + (2 + k2)] 3
where G (n) = 6(n + 1)
, µ = ln(n) 4
.

2.3. Large-strain radial vacuum-assisted consolidation model

On the basis of Gibson et al.’s one-dimensional large-strain theory

and Barron’s free strain theory, a large-strain radial consolidation
model that abandons the equal strain assumption is proposed by Geng
et al. [19], the expression is shown as

1 u 1 + e0 u 1 + e0 1 e
(rkr ) + k =
rw r r (1 + e ) w a a (1 + e) 1+e t (6)
Fig. 1. Schematic plot of axisymmetric model. Geng’s large-strain consolidation model hardly involves the transfer

2
J. Wang, et al.
attenuation of vacuum pressure. Whether Geng’s model can be applied
considering vacuum pressure transfer needs further exploration.
Meanwhile, a large-strain vacuum-assisted consolidation model that
can abandon the traditional equal strain hypothesis and incorporate the
radial transfer of vacuum pressure needs to be presented.
3. Proposed model
3.1. Description of vacuum pressure radial transfer
In the process of vacuum preloading of dredged slurry, there is a loss
phenomenon when the vacuum pressure transfers radially from PVD to
dredged slurry, and vacuum pressure decreases with the radial distance
from PVD. However, the attenuation rate ( vac ) is different in the radial
u
r
direction, and the vacuum pressure near the PVD decays obviously. The
vacuum pressure far from PVD decreases to a smaller level and the
attenuation rate tends to be stable. Therefore, the attenuation form of
vacuum pressure conforms to the exponential function, as shown in
Fig. 2.
It is considered that the vacuum pressure is applied instantaneously
in the process of vacuum preloading. The radial transfer of vacuum
pressure is defined as shown in Eq. (7).
u vac = p0 1 (1 k1) exp( k 2s r )
H0 (7)
where P0 is the applied vacuum pressure at top of drain, k1 is the va-
cuum residual factor in vertical direction, k 2s is the vacuum residual
factor in radial direction.
3.2. Description of consolidation process under vacuum preloading
In fact, the influences of vacuum pressure can be analyzed from two
aspects. On the one hand, when vacuum pressure is applied in-
stantaneously, it can cause the difference of pressure inside and outside
the dredged slurry, as if the soil had been subjected to a fill loading of
magnitude uvac. Accordingly, a positive excess pore-water pressure
(novel excess pore-water pressure) u' is defined with an initial value at
any depth and time
u (t = 0) = u vac (8)
According to the existing theories of consolidation and solutions
Fig. 2. Vacuum pressure distribution.
3
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498
developed for surcharge loading, the novel excess pore-water pressure
instantaneously reaches the vacuum pressure uvac and then gradually
dissipates to 0.
On the other hand, the applied negative vacuum pressure (-uvac) can
change the drainage boundary and initial conditions of the treatment
area, and then reduce the hydrostatic pressure. The actual pore-water
pressure at any depth and any time is [20]
up = ui0 u vac + u (9)
where ui0 is initial preconstruction ground water pressure, up is pore-
water pressure.
Thus, the actual excess pore-water pressure at any depth and any
time is [20]
u= u vac + u (10)
It can be seen from the Eqs. (8) and (10) that excess pore-water
pressure u is negative and ultimately approaches the negative vacuum
pressure (−uvac) [21–24]. When novel excess pore-water pressure (the
sum of vacuum pressure uvac and excess pore-water pressure u) is 0, it
means that vacuum consolidation is completed.
In conclusion, in order to better describe the consolidation process
of vacuum preloading, schematic illustrations of excess pore-water
pressure and effective stress vary with time under vacuum preloading
have been presented, as shown in Fig. 3.
3.3. Governing equation with hydraulic head as independent variable
To obtain the governing equation for the large-strain consolidation
of dredged slurry with vertical drains, the following assumptions are
made:
(1) The soil is completely homogeneous and saturated
(2) Solid particles and water are incompressible, and the soil de-
formation is completely caused by the discharge of pore-water. The
smear effect is not concerned in this paper
(3) In this model, both radial and vertical flow in the dredged slurry are
considered. Darcy’s law is valid, and the coefficient of permeability
changes with the void ratio during the consolidation.
(4) All compressive strains within the soil mass occur in a vertical di-
rection. The soil particles do not move along the radial and vertical
directions, and no creep is considered.
(5) Vacuum pressure is applied instantaneously, and vacuum pressure
attenuation exists along the length of PVD and across the dredged
slurry.
Fig. 4 shows the soil element in Eulerian Coordinate System. The
soil element exists at a depth ξ above the bottom of the compressible
layer; it has a thickness δξ and volume rdθdrdξ.
Considering radial attenuation of vacuum pressure, the hydraulic
gradient consists of two parts: due to the difference of excess pore-water
pressure u and the difference of vacuum pressure uvac (equivalent to
hydrostatic pressure). The difference caused by uvac does not vary with
time. In order to illustrate the radial attenuation and differential dis-
tribution of vacuum pressure during vacuum preloading, the hydraulic
gradient in the vertical direction can be given as [18]
1 u 1 (u + u vac )
i = =
w w (11a)
e
v = (v w vs ) = k i
1+e (12a)
Accordingly, the hydraulic gradient in a radial direction is
1 (u + u vac )
ir =
w r (11b)
J. Wang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

(a) Vacuum pressure (b) Excess pore-water pressure (c) Effective stress
Fig. 3. Consolidation process under vacuum preloading.

Considering the radial attenuation of vacuum pressure, vacuum

pressure uvac need to be introduced into the governing equation, which
increases the complexity of solving the governing equation, as shown in
Eq. (18). In order to simplify the governing equation and improve the
efficiency of solution, an independent variable hydraulic head h is in-
troduced to transform the governing equation. By this means, the two
variables of excess pore-water pressure u and vacuum pressure uvac can
be combined as a whole, and the variable h has clear physical meaning.
At any time, the hydraulic head (static pressure head) can be found
by [18]:

1
h= (u + u vac )
w (19)

The relationship between hydraulic gradient i and excess pore-water

pressure u is as follows
Fig. 4. Soil element in Eulerian Coordinate System.
1 (u + u vac ) h
e i = =
vr = vrw = kr ir (20)
1+e (12b) w

Volume changes within the soil element are equal to the net de-
1 (u + u vac ) h
crease in volume of water, therefore ir = =
w r r (21)
v
dV = dqr + dq = r d d dr
t (13) By substituting Eqs. (20), (21) into Eq. (17), the governing equation
in which dV is the volume change of the soil element, dqr is the volume can be expressed:
change in the radial direction and dqξ is the volume change in the radial
kr h h h 1 e
direction. + (kr ) + (k )=
The quantity of flow
r r r r 1+e t (22)

dq =
e
(v vs ) d r dr d Accordingly, the governing equation in the reduced coordinates
1+e (14) (solid-phase coordinates) can be written as [15]
In the radial direction k
kr h h 1 h 1 e
+ (kr ) + ( )=
e e r r r r 1+e z 1+e z 1+e t (23)
dqr = ( ) vr d dr d + (v vs )
1+e 1+e (15)
It should be emphasized that, the proposed governing equation with
The relationship between volumetric strain and void ratio is as hydraulic head h as independent variable can couple vacuum pressure
follows transfer and reduce the computational complexity by comparing Eq.
v 1 e (18) with Eq. (23). This provides a new modeling idea for the devel-
=
t 1+e t (16) opment of large-strain consolidation theory.
Therefore, the equation for the continuity of pore-water flow is
vrw e e e 1 e 3.4. Boundary conditions and initial conditions
+ ( vrw ) + (v w vs ) =
r 1+e r 1+e 1+e 1+e t (17)
Considering the radial attenuation of vacuum pressure, hydraulic
Substituting Eqs. (11a), (11b), (12a), (12b) into Eq. (17) yields
head h can better define the boundary conditions. The boundary and
1
(
k (u + uvac )
)
kr (u + uvac )
(kr
(u + uvac )
)=
1 e initial conditions are represented by hydraulic head h as follows:
1+e 1+e r r r r 1+e t (18)

4
J. Wang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

z = 0 h (rw r re ) =0 Table 1
h (rw r re ) Primary physical index properties of representative soil samples.
z=H z
=0
No. of soil Gs wL(%) PL(%) w0/wL w0 e0 Reference
r = rw h (0 z H) = 0 samples
h (0 z H)
r = re =0
r Sample A 2.72 100 38.8 0.8 80 2.18 Zeng et al. [27]
uvac
t = 0 h0 = Sample B 2.72 100 38.8 1.8 180 4.9
w (24) Sample C 2.71 46.7 23.2 1.6 74.7 2.02

When vacuum pressure is applied instantaneously, the boundary

and initial conditions are represented by excess pore-water pressure u
representative soil samples are selected for setting model parameters, as
as follows:
shown in Table 1, Note that lower initial water content
(w0 = wL = 46.7%) is not taken into account. In order to improve the
z = 0 u (rw r re ) = p0 1 (1 k1) H exp( k 2s r )
0 calculation efficiency, the size of the calculation model is set as follows:
z=H
u (rw r re )
=0 model height H0 = 0.4 m, PVD equivalent size rw = 0.009 m, model
groove radius re = 0.14 m, analysis point A choosing the center posi-
r = rw u (0 z H) = p0 (1 (1 k1)(z / H )) tion, namely rA = 0.07 m, HA = 0.2 m.
r = re
u (0 z H)
=0 Eq. (22) is highly non-linear and does not have a general solution
r
for the corresponding boundary conditions and initial conditions.
t = 0 u0 = 0 (25) Therefore, the finite-element (FE) solver in the PDE module of COMSOL
According to Eq. (10), the boundary and initial conditions are re- Multiphysics, a commercial FE software, was used to solve Eq. (22) in
presented by novel excess pore-water pressure u' as follows: the reduced coordinates (solid-phase coordinates). The two-dimen-
sional axisymmetric numerical finite-element configurations are shown
z = 0 u (rw r re ) = 0 in Fig. 5. In the solid-phase coordinates, Sample A has 1008 triangular
z=H
u (rw r re )
=0 elements, Sample B has 572 triangular elements and Sample C has 1021
triangular elements.
r = rw u (0 z H) = 0
r = re
u (0
r
z H)
=0 4.2. Contrastive analysis with Geng’s model

t = 0 u0 = p0 1 (1 k1) H exp( k2s r ) When the attenuation of vacuum pressure is not considered, vacuum
0 (26)
pressure in dredged slurry can be expressed in Eq. (30).
Note that, in order to maintain the continuity of vacuum pressure in
u vac = p0 (30)
the dredged slurry, the radial attenuation of vacuum pressure in the
upper boundary needs to be taken into account. It is considered that where p0 is applied vacuum pressure at top of drain.
excess pore-water pressure dissipates instantaneously to the final state The vertical hydraulic gradient is expressed as
at the start of vacuum-assisted consolidation [25].
h 1 u
iv = =
4. Results and discussion
z w z (31a)
Correspondingly, the radial hydraulic gradient is expressed as
4.1. Model parameters
h 1 u
ir = =
When solving the proposed large-strain vacuum-assisted con-
r w r (31b)
solidation model, two types of material nonlinearity need to be taken By substituting Eqs. (31a) and (31b) into Eq. (17), Geng’s model in
into account: (1) compression nonlinearity, i.e., the elastic–plastic the reduced coordinates (solid-phase coordinate) expressed by excess
nonlinearity that all deformation cannot be completely restored after pore-water pressure u can be obtained by Eq. (32). The governing
unloading [26–28]; (2) permeability nonlinearity, i.e., the permeability equation established by novel excess pore-water pressure u' has the
coefficient is not constant and varies with void ratio during the con- same form as Eq. (32).
solidation of dredged slurry, and the variation range can even exceed
several orders of magnitude [29,30]. The non-linear compression re- 1 u 1 kv u 1 e
(rkr ) + =
lationship during vacuum preloading is introduced into the proposed rw r r (1 + e ) w z (1 + e ) z 1+e t (32)
model [26,27], as shown in Eq. (27).
Note that, the semi logarithmic compression and permeability re-
e0 (e0 es ) × / s s lationships are introduced into Geng’s model, as shown in Eqs. (33),
e= (34) and (35). The new nonlinear compression and permeability re-
Cc × (3.0 1.87 log + 0.179(log ) 2) + e100 > s (27)
lationships are introduced into the proposed model, which are only
s = 5.66/(e0 /eL ) 2 (28) related to the initial water content and liquid limit, as shown in Eqs.
(27) and (29). The effectiveness of the new nonlinear relationships
where e100 = 0.357 + 0.171e0 + 0.223eL , Cc = 0.069 + 0.109e0 + 0.152e L .
during the consolidation process of three soil samples have been ver-
It is assumed that hydraulic conductivity is isotropic, and vertical
ified [27,29].
hydraulic conductivity is equal to radial hydraulic conductivity.
Therefore, the non-linear permeability relationship is shown as [29] e = e0 Cc log10 ( / 0 ) (33)
log(kr ) = log(k v) = 7.4 + 8.4 log(1 + e) 7.2 log(1 + eL ) (29) kr = kr 0 × 10e e0 / Ckr (34)
According to Eqs. (27) and (29), this proposed model is mainly re-
k v = k v 0 × 10e e0 / Ckv (35)
lated to two parameters: liquid limit and initial water content. In order
to study the universality of the proposed model, the values of the two where Ckr is a radial permeability change index, the slope of the
parameters are selected according to the cross-analysis theory to make e–log10kr relationship, and Ckv is a vertical permeability change index,
the value range of two parameters larger. Therefore, the following three the slope of the e − log10kv relationship.

5
J. Wang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

Fig. 5. Finite-element configurations.

Taking the nonlinear permeability relationship of Sample A as an given. As shown in Fig. 7, u’ agrees well with u + p0. It indicates that
example, when Ckr = 1.1, the prediction of the new nonlinear perme- the proposed model can be simplified as the representative Geng’s
ability relationship is almost consistent with the semi logarithmic per- model without considering the attenuation of vacuum pressure.
meability relationship within the variation range of void ratio during On the other hand, the solutions of proposed model considering the
vacuum preloading, as shown in Fig. 6. It should be emphasized that the attenuation of vacuum pressure is also shown in Fig. 8 for comparisons.
new nonlinear compression and permeability relationships are in-
troduced into the proposed model and Geng’s model only to in-
vestigated the applicability of the proposed model without considering
the attenuation of vacuum pressure.
The comparison between Geng’s model and the proposed model is
only investigated without considering the attenuation of vacuum
pressure k1 = 1, k 2s = 0 (uvac = p0 = 100 kPa). The boundary condi-
tions and initial conditions of the two models are shown in Eqs. (24)
and (26) respectively. Three representative soil samples are selected for
comparative analysis of the proposed model (hydraulic head h as in-
dependent variable) and Geng’s model (novel excess pore-water pres-
sure u' as independent variable) and the results are shown in Fig. 7. It is
considered that soil sample is subjected to surcharge loading of mag-
nitude 100 kPa. The novel excess pore-water pressure instantaneously
reaches the applied vacuum pressure (100 kPa) and then gradually
dissipates to 0 in Geng’s model. For the proposed model, excess pore-
water pressure u dissipates gradually from 0 to the negative vacuum
pressure (−100 kpa). Therefore, it can directly reflect the dissipation
law of excess pore-water pressure. In addition, the results of u + p0 are Fig. 6. Comparison of kr–e relationship from Eqs. (29) and (34) (Ckr = 1.1).

6
J. Wang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

4.3. Contrastive analysis with Indraratna’s model

The proposed large-strain consolidation model only considers the

radial flow without vertical flow kv = 0, then it can be simplified as

kr h h v
+ (kr ) =
r r r r t (37)

z (r rw )
u vac = p0 [1 (1 k1) ] 1 (1 k2)
l (R rw ) (38)

Meanwhile, trapezoidal vacuum pressure distribution mode is in-

troduced into the axisymmetric consolidation model [18]. In the ver-
tical direction along the drain boundary, the vacuum pressure varies
from −p0 to −k1p0, while it varies from −p(z, rw) to −k2 p(z, rw) across
the soil, and the expression is shown in Eq. (38). Note that, k 2s is the
vacuum residual factor in radial direction. k 2s represents the vacuum
attenuation factor in this paper.
By substituting Eqs. (19) and (37) into Eq. (36), the governing
equation can be expressed by excess pore-water pressure u in Eq. (4)
(called simplified model I). Meanwhile, the solution can be obtained
without considering the smear effect under the assumption of equal
strain [18]:

(r 2 2)
rw
1 8Th r
u= (u¯ 0 + p0 G (n)) exp( )[re 2 ln( r ) ]
µR2 µ w 2
z (r rw )
P0 [1 (1 k1) H ][1 (1 k2 ) (r rw )
] (39)
0 e

Note that simplified model I and Indraratna’s model only consider

radial flow, no permeability nonlinearity. However, Indraratna’s model
belongs to the small-strain consolidation model and is based on the
equal strain assumption. Fig. 9 shows the comparisons between sim-
plified model I and Indraratna’s model. It can be seen that the simplified
model I is almost consistent with Indraratna’s model in terms of excess
pore-water pressure dissipation, indicating the universality of the pro-
posed model.
On the other hand, the solutions of the proposed large-strain con-
solidation model is also shown in Fig. 9 for comparisons. It can be seen
that the rate of excess pore-water pressure dissipation in the proposed
model is greatly slower than that in Indraratna’s model. Hydraulic
conductivity variation ratio (δ) is defined to reflect the influence of
permeability nonlinearity, the expression is shown in Eq. (40). As
shown in Fig. 10, the maximum hydraulic conductivity variation ratio is
0.996. That further shows permeability nonlinearity significant influ-
ence on the consolidation behavior during vacuum preloading (Fill
areas represent errors).

Fig. 7. Excess pore-water pressure dissipation without considering the at-

tenuation of vacuum pressure.

It can be seen that whether the attenuation of vacuum pressure is taken

into account has a significant effect on the dissipation rate of excess
pore-water pressure. Degree of consolidation (DOC) based on pore-
water pressure is proposed by Chu et al. [31], which can reflect the
dissipation rate of excess pore-water pressure under vacuum pre-
loading, the expression is shown in Eq. (36). As shown in Fig. 8, when
the attenuation of vacuum pressure is considered, the degree of con-
solidation (DOC) is about 48%, which is which is far less than that
without considering the attenuation of vacuum pressure.

(u + p0 )dr dz
Up = 1 -
(u0 + p0 )dr dz (36) Fig. 8. Degree of consolidation for varying vacuum pressure attenuation factor.

7
J. Wang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

Fig. 10. Hydraulic conductivity variations under vacuum preloading.

kself - consolidation k vacuum

=
kself - consolidation (40)
Fig. 9. Excess pore-water pressure dissipation under vacuum preloading com-
pared with Indraratna’s model (applied vacuum load 100 kPa, k1 = 0.75,
where is the hydraulic conductivity variation ratio, k self - consolidation is
k2 = 0.75).
the hydraulic conductivity after self-weight consolidation, k vacuum is the
hydraulic conductivity during vacuum preloading.

8
J. Wang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

4.4. Contrastive analysis with Barron’s model

If the proposed model only considers the radial flow, while per-
meability nonlinearity and the attenuation of vacuum pressure in the
PVD and dredged slurry are not taken into account (called simplified
model II). The proposed model can be described as simplified model II,
as shown in Eq. (41).

1 u 2u u
ch ( + )=
r r r2 t (41)

where ch =
kh
, .
av
mv =
mv w 1 + e0
The solution of average excess pore-water pressure can be obtained
in Eq. (3) under the assumption of equal strain, and the excess pore-
water pressure can be expressed as

u¯ r r2 rw 2
u= re 2 ln( )
2F
re (n) rw 2 (42)

Barron's consolidation theory belongs to surcharge consolidation

theory. The excess pore-water pressure dissipation of the proposed
model, simplified model II and Barron’s model are analyzed under the
initial surcharge loading of 100 kPa. As shown in Fig. 11, when con-
sidering both permeability nonlinearity and radial-vertical flows for
three representative soil samples, the excess pore-water pressure dis-
sipation of the proposed model and Barron’s model are quite different.
The rate of excess pore-water pressure dissipation of the proposed
model is greatly slower than that of Barron’s model. Furthermore, when
permeability nonlinearity is not considered and only radial flow is
considered, the simplified model II is approximately consistent with
Barron’s model for the dissipation of excess pore-water pressure. In
other words, the proposed model can be simplified to the classical
Barron’s consolidation model. It is also further demonstrated that per-
meability nonlinearity has a significant influence on the prediction of
consolidation behavior. At the same time, the proposed model can be
applied to the surcharge consolidation by changing the initial condi-
tions.

5. Validity of proposed model

Modified Rowe consolidation cells were employed to investigate the

behavior of soft clays during radial vacuum-assisted consolidation
[23,32]. In this paper, two laboratory measurements were used to va-
lidate the proposed model [32]. In Indraratna’s laboratory tests, Kaolin
was used as the model soft soil, and its properties are summarized in
Table 2. Kaolin slurry was prepared with a water content of at least 1.5
times its liquid limit.
The two tests were performed with different combinations of sur-
charge and vacuum pressure and the details are summarized in Table 3.
The measured excess pore-water pressure at the bottom of soil sample
with a distance of r = 60 mm from the center is analyzed.
As shown in the Fig. 12, under the different combinations of sur-
charge pressure and vacuum pressure, the proposed model with radial
attenuation coefficient k 2s can describe the dissipation law of excess
pore-water pressure compared with the traditional models without
considering radial attenuation of vacuum pressure (k 2s = 0 ). However,
compression and permeability nonlinearity involved in the proposed
model have some prediction errors at low effective stress levels
[26–29], and hence there are some limits in the predictions of excess
Fig. 11. Excess pore-water pressure dissipation under surcharge loading com-
pore-water pressure at the initial stage of vacuum preloading. In ad-
pared with Barron’s model (surcharge load 100 kPa).
dition, the predicted results of Indraratna’s model that does not involve
permeability nonlinearity are also shown in the figure. Results reveal
that Indraratna’s model gives better results at the initial stage of va- predicting the consolidation behavior under vacuum preloading.
cuum preloading when radial vacuum residual factor k2 = 0.85. Note Future work will focus on the study of the compression and per-
that, the proposed model is more universal that can be simplified to meability characteristics at low stress levels to further improve the
Indraratna’s model. In conclusion, the validity of the proposed model is proposed model and achieve more accurate prediction results.
verified, and radial attenuation of vacuum pressure is important for

9
J. Wang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498

Table 2 theory and Barron’s (1948) consolidation theory for drain wells, a
Properties of Kaolin in Indraratna’s laboratory tests [32]. large-strain vacuum-assisted consolidation model considering the
Name Gs wL(%) PL(%) w0/wL w0 e0 radial transfer attenuation of vacuum pressure was proposed.
(2) In order to facilitate the solution of large-strain consolidation model
Kaolin 2.7 55 27 1.5 82.5 2.23 considering radial transfer attenuation of vacuum pressure, the
proposed model was rewritten to take hydraulic head as h in-
dependent variable, which can reduce the computational com-
Table 3 plexity and provide a promising method for the modeling im-
Details of Indraratna’s tests using the modified Rowe cell [32].
provement in the large-strain consolidation theory.
Test No. Sample Drain diameter Surcharge Vacuum (3) The large-strain consolidation model proposed in this paper is more
diameter (mm) (mm) pressure (kPa) pressure (kPa) universal. Taking no account of the attenuation of vacuum pressure
1 151 14.5 20 80
k1 = 1, k 2s = 0 , the proposed model can be described as Geng’s
2 151 14.5 0 80 model. Only considering the radial flow and no vertical flow, the
proposed model can be simplified to Indraratna’s model. Further,
that can be transformed into the classical Barron’s consolidation
model under the condition of small-strain without considering the
attenuation of vacuum pressure, and vertical flow.
(4) The validity of the proposed model is verified by comparing with
laboratory measurements under the different combinations of sur-
charge pressure and vacuum pressure conditions. Results reveal
that the proposed model with radial attenuation coefficient k 2s can
better describe the dissipation law of excess pore-water pressure.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jianhua Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,

Validation, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Jianwen Ding:
Resources, Supervision, Project administration. Heng Wang: Formal
analysis, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Cong Mou: Formal
analysis.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation

of China (Grant No. 51678157) and Postgraduate Research & Practice
Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (KYCX18_0123).

References

Fig. 12. Comparisons between the predicted and measured excess pore-water
pressure.
6. Conclusions
In view of the difficulty in the prediction of the consolidation be-
havior of dredged slurry under vacuum preloading, a large-strain con-
solidation model considering radial transfer attenuation of vacuum
pressure is proposed in this paper. The main conclusions are summar-
ized as:
(1) On the basis of Gibson et al.’s (1981) one-dimensional large-strain
[1] Zhu W, Yan J, Yu G. Vacuum preloading method for land reclamation using hy-
draulic filled slurry from the sea: A case study in coastal China. Ocean Eng
2018;152:286–99.
[2] Yan SW, Chu J. Soil improvement for a storage yard using the combined vacuum
and fill preloading method. Can Geotech J 2005;42(4):1094–104.
[3] Rujikiatkamjorn C, Indraratna B, Chu J. Numerical modelling of soft soil stabilized
by vertical drains, combining surcharge and vacuum preloading for a storage yard.
Can Geotech J 2007;44(3):326–42.
[4] Cai YQ, Xie ZW, Wang J, Wang J, Geng XY. New approach of vacuum preloading
with booster prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) to improve deep marine clay
strata. Can Geotech J 2018;55(10):1359–71.
[5] Wang J, Cai YQ, Ma JJ, Chu J, Fu HT, Wang P, et al. Improved vacuum preloading
method for consolidation of dredged clay-slurry fill. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 2016;142(1):0601601211.
[6] Wang J, Ni JF, Cai YQ, Fu HT, Wang P. Combination of vacuum preloading and lime
treatment for improvement of dredged fill. Eng Geol 2017;227:149–58.
[7] Qiu QC, Mo HH, Dong ZL. Vacuum pressure distribution and pore pressure variation
in ground improved by vacuum preloading. Can Geotech J 2007;44(12):1433–45.
[8] Hu YY, Qian JL, Zhang CJ. Distribution pattern of final negative pressure in vacuum
preloading. Chin J Geotech Eng 2019;41(6):1139–48.
[9] Indraratna B, Bamunawita C, Khabbaz H. Numerical modeling of vacuum pre-
loading and field applications. Can Geotech J 2004;41(6):1098–110.
[10] Tran TA, Mitachi T. Equivalent plane strain modeling of vertical drains in soft
ground under embankment combined with vacuum preloading. Comput Geotech
2008;35:655–72.
[11] Indraratna B, Kan ME, Potts D, Rujikiatkamjorn C, Sloan SW. Analytical solution
and numerical simulation of vaccum consolidation by vertical drains beneath

10
J. Wang, et al.
circular embankments. Comput Geotech 2016;80:83–96.
[12] Tang TZ, Huang JQ, Guan YF, Chen HB, Cheng WZ. Experimental study on dredged
fill sludge improved by vacuum preloading. Port Waterway Eng 2010;4:115–22. [in
Chinese].
[13] Yan YG, Dong ZL, Yang CB, Chen PS, Qiu QC. Experimental study on effect of grain
size distribution on improvement of dredger fill. Chin J Geotech Eng
2011;33(11):1175–9. [in Chinese].
[14] Shen J. Laboratory model test of vacuum preloading on dredged clays at high initial
water contents. Southeast University; 2015. [in Chinese].
[15] Gibson RE, Schiffman RL, Cargill KW. The Theory of one-dimensional consolidation
of saturated clays. II. Finite nonlinear consolidation of thick homogeneous layers.
Can Geotech J 1981;18(2):280–93.
[16] Gibson RE, England GL, Hussey MJL. The Theory of one-dimensional consolidation
of saturated clays. I. Finite non-linear consolidation of thin homogeneous layers.
Géotechnique 1967;17(3):261–73.
[17] Barron RA. Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells. Trans of Asce
1948;113(118):324–60.
[18] Indraratna B, Sathananthan I, Rujikiatkamjorn C, Balasubramaniam AS. Analytical
and numerical modeling of soft soil stabilized by prefabricated vertical drains in-
corporating vacuum reloading. Int J Geomech 2005;5(2):114–24.
[19] Geng X, Yu HS. A large-strain radial consolidation theory for soft clays improved by
vertical drains. Géotechnique 2017;67(11):1020–8.
[20] Mesri G, Khan A. Ground improvement using vacuum loading together with vertical
drains. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;138(6):680–9.
[21] Mohamedelhassan E, Shang JQ. Vacuum and surcharge combined onedimensional
consolidation of clay soils. Can Geotech J 2002;39:1126–38.
[22] Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C, Balasubramaniam AS, McIntosh G. Soft ground
improvement via vertical drains and vacuum assisted preloading. Geotext
11
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103498
Geomembr 2012;30:16–23.
[23] Kianfar K, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C. Radial consolidation model in-
corporating the effects of vacuum preloading and non-Darcian flow. Géotechnique
2013;63(12):1060–73.
[24] Indraratna B, Zhong R, Fox P, Rujikiatkamjorn C. Large strain vacuum-assisted
consolidation with non-Darcian radial flow incorporating varying permeability and
compressibility. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2017;143(1):04016088.
[25] Kumarage PI, Gnanendran CT. Long-term performance predictions in ground im-
provements with vacuum assisted Prefabricated Vertical Drains. Geotext Geomembr
2019;47:95–103.
[26] Hong ZS, Yin J, Cui YJ. Compression behaviour of reconstituted soils at high initial
water contents. Géotechnique 2010;60(9):691–700.
[27] Zeng LL, Hong ZS, Cui YJ. Determining the virgin compression lines of reconstituted
clays at different initial water contents. Can Geotech J 2015;52(9):1408–15.
[28] Shi XS, Nie J, Zhao J, Gao Y. A homogenization equation for the small strain
stiffness of gap-graded granular materials. Comput Geotech 2020;121:103440.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103440.
[29] Zeng LL, Cai YQ, Cui YJ, Hong ZS. Hydraulic conductivity of reconstituted clays
based on intrinsic compression. Géotechnique 2020;70(3):268–75.
[30] Shi XS, Yin J, Zhao J. Elastic Visco-Plastic model for binary sand-clay mixtures with
applications to one-dimensional finite strain consolidation analysis. J Eng Mech
2019;145(8):04019059.
[31] Chu J, Yan SW. Estimation of degree of consolidation for vacuum preloading pro-
jects. Int J Geomech 2005;5(2):158–65.
[32] Indraratna B, Kianfar K, Rujikiatkamjorn C. Laboratory evaluation of coefficient of
radial consolidation based on pore-water pressure dissipation and settlement.
Geotech Test J 2013;36(1):1–12.