FEM Modeling of PVD and

Embankments
Harry Tan Siew Ann
Director Centre for Soft Ground Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
The National University of Singapore
 FEM Modeling of
Embankments on Soft Ground
with PVD
1. Model of single PVD – Axi-symmetric
2. Model of PVD in Plane Strain
3. Case Histories
• Second Bangkok International Airport
• Muar Test Embankments
 Analysis of Single Drain
BARRON (1948) - Equal strain solution


uo  2  r  r 2  rw2  
u 2 re ln     exp  
re .F n    rw  2 

where
n2
F (n)  2  ln n 

3n 2  1

n 1  4n 2

   8Th F (n)

Th  c h t  d 2
e
BARRON (1948)

Average degree of consolidation with respect

to radial flow:
 8Th 
U h  1  exp  
 F n  
ZENG ET AL. (1989)
For fully and partially penetrating drains

2  Br t
U h  1  2 e
m 0 M
SMEAR EFFECT

n  kh 
Fs n  ln    0.75    ln s 
s  kr 

WELL RESISTANCE

 kh 
Fw n  ln n  0.75  z 2l  z  
 qw 
Method 1 – Using Interface Element for
Vertical Drain

Interface element in PLAXIS used

Impose specified cross-sectional area and
vertical permeability of vertical drain to
simulate well resistance
Effect of smear considered by the
equivalent permeability of surrounding
soils
AXISYMMETRIC
z z z
r r r
r

Soil Soil
Interface Soil
qw element qw
PVD
H H H
Pore water flow
kh
Closed
consolidation qw
boundary

ti
rw re rw rw re
re

(a) (b) (c)

 Model of Single Drain
0
10 Interface Element
Open Consolidation Boundary
20
Barron's Theory
30
40
Uh (%)

50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Th
CONVERSION FROM AXISYMMETRIC TO
PLANE STRAIN

x
s s s s
s s s s  Q  Q
s m P A
P
m
2ti r
2B
dw 2ti
(a) (b) de 2B or S

(c) (d)
EQUIVALENT HORIZONTAL
PERMEABILITY OF SOILS


k hpl  k hax
6ln n s   k hax k sax  ln s   0.75

Obtained by equating the average

consolidation rate of plane strain and axi-
symmetric cases
 Equivalent Plane Strain Model

0
10 Axi-Symmetric (Zeng and Xie, 1989)

20 Axi-Symmetric (FEM)
Plane Strain (FEM)
30
40
Uh (%)

50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 Time (day) 10 100 1000
LIMITATION:
May exceed the maximum number of
elements or geometry points allowed in
the program

ALTERNATIVE:
Need to use a simpler method where
interface element is not used
METHODOLOGY

METHOD 2 – USING AN
EQUIVALENT VERTICAL
PERMEABILITY
Vertical permeability of part of the soil
with vertical drains is replaced by an
equivalent permeability, kve
kve is based on an approximation of
Terzaghi’s solution for the average
degree of vertical consolidation
Equivalent vertical permeability, kve

 2.5l 2 k h 
k ve  1  k v
 De k v 
2

where

  h
2
  ln    ln s    
n k 3 2l kh
 s  ks 4 3qw
 FEM models investigated:

Axisymmetric model
 no drainage (reference)

 drainage with drain element

(sets zero pore pressure conditions)

 drainage with boundary condition

(check on performance of “drain element”)

Plane strain model

 equivalent vertical permeability after CUR 191

 equivalent horizontal permeability after CUR 191

 equivalent horizontal permeability after Indraratna (2000)

unit cell for vertical drains placed in pattern of 2x2 m, 5 m high

drain diameter 25 cm

applied load
10 kN/m²

axisymmetric plane strain

model model
CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability
H2
kv ´ kv  2 
32
 kh k h´ kh
 D 2

n2  3 1  1  D
  2  lnn   2  1  2 
n
n 1  4 n  4  n  d

kv , kh “true“ permeability
kv´ , kh´ equivalent permeability
H drainage length
D equivalent distance of drains
d diameter of drains
CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability

k h ´  
B2
 kh kv ´ kv
 D 2

n2  3 1  1 
  2  lnn   2  1 
D
2 
n
n 1  4 n  4  n  d

U 0,5 0,75 0,9 0,95 0,99

 2,26 2,75 2,94 3,01 3,09

kv , kh “true“ permeability
kv´ , kh´ equivalent permeability
H ½ the distance of drains in plane strain
D equivalent distance of drains
d diameter of drains
 Indraratna equivalent horizontal
permeability

k hp 0,67 B2 R
  2 n
k h ln n   0,75  R rw

khp equivalent horizontal permeability for plane strain

kh “true“ horizontal permeability

B ½ distance of drains in plane strain
R equivalent distance of drains
rw diameter of drains
Influence of constitutive model

Excess Pore Pressure after 60% consolidation

Linear Elastic - Model HS - Model

 degree of consolidation for different
1.0
models (linear-elastic)

0.8
degree of consolidation U [ - ]

0.6

0.4

AXI: no drainage
AXI: drainage boundary condition
0.2 AXI: drainage drain-element
PS: equivalent vertical CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal Indraratna
0.0
1e+3 1e+4 1e+5 1e+6 1e+7 1e+8 1e+9
time [sec]
 degree of consolidation for different
models (Hardening Soil model)
1.0

0.8
degree of consolidation U [ - ]

0.6

0.4
AXI: no drainage
AXI: drainage boundary condition
AXI: drainage drain-element
0.2
PS: equivalent vertical CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal Indraratna
0.0
1e+3 1e+4 1e+5 1e+6 1e+7 1e+8 1e+9 1e+10
time [sec]
Case 1 – 2nd Bangkok Intl Located at Nong
Airport Ngu Hao in the
Central Plain of
Thailand
Project area 8
km by 4 km
situated 25 km
east of Bangkok
Metropolis
Soft clay strata
with low strength
and high
compressibility
Weathered Clay

Very Soft Clay

Soft Clay

Medium Clay

Stiff Clay

Dense Sand
TEST EMBANKMENT TS3
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
Conditions for analysis

Vertical closed consolidation boundary

conditions were set at centre of
embankment and 60.0 m from centre of
embankment
Open consolidation boundary conditions
were set at ground surface and sand
layer at 22 m below stiff clay layer
Conditions for analysis

Soft soil model is used for clay layers

Mohr-Coulomb model is used for
embankment
PVD installation effects not modeled,
PVD “wished-in-place”, followed by
stage construction of embankment
Method 1 – Using interface element
Equivalent horizontal permeability of
soils, khpl, calculated
Different kh/ks ratio determined by the
permeabilities of different soil layers to
match instrumentation data
Method 2 – Using an equivalent vertical
permeability
Treated as one-way drainage
Drainage length taken to be the length
of the vertical drain
FINITE ELEMENT MESH (METHOD 1)

Analysis
Number of elements used for method 1
was 1268 and 1117 for method 2
Each element has 6 nodes and 3 stress
points
Line refinement used at improved zone
by vertical drains to increase the
accuracy of solution
 SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 1 - Using Interface Element as Vertical Drains
Consider Smear Effects Only
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-0.2

-0.4
Method 1
-0.6
Settlement (m)

-0.8

-1

-1.2 FEM (0-8m)

FEM (0-12m)
-1.4 FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
-1.6 Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)
-1.8
Time (day)
 SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 1 - Using Interface Element as Vertical Drains
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-0.2

-0.4
Method 1
-0.6
Settlement (m)

-0.8

-1
FEM (0-8m)
-1.2 FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
-1.4
Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
-1.6
Measured (0-16m)
-1.8
Time (day)
SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 2 - Using Equivalent Vertical Permeability
Consider Smear Effects Only

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-0.2
-0.4
Method 2
-0.6
Settlement (m)

-0.8
-1
-1.2
FEM (0-8m)
-1.4 FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
-1.6 Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
-1.8
Measured (0-16m)
-2
Time (day)
 SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 2 - Using Equivalent Vertical Permeability
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-0.2
-0.4
Method 2
-0.6
Settlement (m)

-0.8

-1
-1.2 FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
-1.4 FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
-1.6 Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)
-1.8

-2
Time (day)
 SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Consider Smear Effects Only

0
0 100 200 300 400 500

-0.4
Settlement (m)

-0.8

-1.2 0-8 m (Method 1)

0-12 m (Method 1)
0-16 m (Method 1)
-1.6 0-8 m (Method 2)
0-12 m (Method 2)
0-16 m (Method 2)
-2
Time (day)
 SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

-0.4
Settlement (m)

-0.8

-1.2 0-8 m (Method 1)

0-12 m (Method 1)
0-16 m (Method 1)
-1.6 0-8 m (Method 2)
0-12 m (Method 2)
0-16 m (Method 2)
-2
Time (day)
 From the comparisons of settlements
predictions:

 Difference in the 2 methods is large

when consider smear effects only, but for
realistic conditions of drain smearing
and well resistance , difference is smaller
 Difference between the two methods gets
larger with increasing depths of
settlement measurements
 EXCESS PORE PRESSURE
40

35
Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

Method 1 (center of embankment, 8 m)

30 Method 2 (center of embankment, 8 m)

25

20

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (day)
From the comparison of excess
pore pressure:

Method 1 showed larger pore

pressures, and a faster rate of excess
pore pressure dissipation.
It is likely that method 1 would give
better pore pressures predictions
Case 2 Muar Test Embankments
 Typical Soil Profile
Depth, m
Soil Description ρc (kPa) kh (m/sec)
+2.5m RL
Yellowish brown mottled red CLAY with
Crust 110 -
+0.5 roots, root holes and laterite concretions

Light greenish grey CLAY with a few shells,

Upper very thin discontinuous sand partings,
occasional near vertical roots and some
40 4x10-9
Clay
-5.6 decaying organic matter (<2%)

Grey CLAY with some shells, very thin

Lower
discontinuous sand partings and some 60 1x10-9
Clay decaying organic matter (<2%)
-15.2

Peat Dark brown PEAT with no smell

-15.9 Sandy Greyish brown sandy CLAY with a little

decaying organic matter
60 2x10-9
-19.9 Clay
Dark grey, very silty medium to coarse
Sand SAND (SPT>20)
- -
Typical Soil Properties
 PVD Properties
Drainage Drain Equivalent Influence Zone Smeared Zone
Length, l Spacing, s Diameter, dw Diameter, de Diameter, ds
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

18.0 1.3 0.07 1.365 0.4

Triangular Layout
 Loading Characteristics for
Embankment Constructed
to Failure
• Embankment constructed directly on the
subsoil
• Fill compacted in 0.2m layers at a nominal
rate of 0.4m per week until failure occurred
• Coupled consolidation analysis was
performed
 FEM Model of Embankment
Constructed to Failure
GWT at 1.75m below
Fill
ground surface
(15 Layers)
Crust 2m
20 m
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2) 6.4 m

Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2) 10 m

Sandy Clay 4.1 m

80 m
 Instrumentation Plan of
Embankment Constructed
to Failure

Plan View Elevation View

 Soil Properties Used In
FEM Analysis
References include A.S. Balasubramaniam (1994) & B. Indraratna (2000)

γsat c’ Ø’ kh kv
Material RL (m) λ* κ* ν
(kN/m3) (kPa) (o) (m/day) (m/day)

Upper +0.5 –
15.5 1 20 0.13 0.05 1.3E-4 6.9E-5 0.15
Clay -6.0

Lower -6.0 –
15.5 5 22 0.11 0.08 9.5E-5 6.0E-5 0.15
Clay -15.9

Soft Soil Model

 Soil Properties Used In
FEM Analysis
References include A.S. Balasubramaniam (1994) & B. Indraratna (2000)

γsat γunsat c’ Ø’ E kh kv
Material RL (m) ν
(kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa) (o) (kPa) (m/day) (m/day)

Fill - 20.5 20.5 19 26 5200 1.0 1.0 0.3

+2.5 –
Crust 16.5 14.5 20 26 14000 1.3E-4 6.9E-5 0.3
+0.5

Sandy -15.9 –
16.0 16.0 10 22 2500 9.5E-5 6.0E-5 0.3
Clay -20.0

Mohr Coulomb Model

 Excess Pore Pressure
Variation
10
3

PiezometerP7
Piezometer P2
8
(m)
Pressure(m)
PorewaterPressure

2
6
ExcessPorewater

4
Excess

Field Measurement
2 Field Measurement

FEM Prediction
FEM Prediction

00
00 11 22 33 44 55 66
ThicknessofofFill
Thickness Fill(m)
(m)
 Excess Pore Pressure Variation
333

111

-1000
-1
-1
2 2 2 4 4 6
4 6 8 6 8 10 128
10
(m)

-3
-3
Level (m)

-3
Level (m)

FillHeight
Fill Height = 3m
Fill Height= =5m
Reduced Level

-5
-5
-5
4m
Reduced
Reduced

-7
-7
-7

-9
-9 Field Measurement
-9
Field Measurement

-11
-11 FEM Prediction
-11 FEM Prediction

-13
-13
-13
Excess Porewater Pressure (m)
Excess
ExcessPorewater
PorewaterPressure
Pressure(m)
(m)
 Lateral Displacement (I3)
3
0.6
At Failure Height
1 Field Measurement

0 0.1 Prediction
FEM 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
-1
Level (m) (m)

0.4
-3
Displacement

-5 Inclinometer I3
Reduced
Lateral

-7
0.2

-9
Field Measurement

-11 FEM Prediction

0
-13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thickness
Lateral of Fill (m)
Movement (m)
 Surface Settlement Profile
0.2
0.2
0.2

FillHeight
Fill Height==5m
3m
4m
00
0
00
0 55
5
10
10
10
15
15
15
20
20
20
25
25
25
30
30
30
35
35
35
Movement (m)
(m)
(m)

-0.2
-0.2
Movement
Movement

-0.2
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical

-0.4
-0.4

-0.4 Field Measurement

Field Measurement
Field Measurement
-0.6
-0.6
FEM Prediction
FEM
FEM Prediction
Prediction

-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)
Actual Failure Mode of
Embankment

30m from
toe
FEM Predicted Failure Mode
of Embankment

Upper Clay

30 m
Effects of Creep on Failure
Use Soft Soil Creep Model, and c/phi reduction
for Embankment at 4m height

Case Creep Parameter FS at 4m ht

1 *= 0.001* 1.335
2 *= 0.01* 1.318
3 *= 0.05* 1.185

Typically, *= 0.02 to 0.05* for

Singapore/Malaysian marine clays
Case 3 Muar Embankment on PVD
Stabilized Foundation Soil
Construction Sequence of
Embankment on PVD
Stabilized Foundation Soil
Fill Periods Fill Thickness Rate of Filling Rest Period
Stage
(Days) (m) (m/day) (days)

1 1 - 14 0.0 – 2.57 0.18 14 – 105

2 105 - 129 2.57 – 4.74 0.09 129 - present

Coupled Consolidation Analysis was performed

 FEM Model
Soil Parameters were the same as
that of the embankment constructed
43 m
to failure. GWT at 1.75m below
20 m
ground surface

Fill
Crust 2m
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2) 6.4 m
PVD Stabilized
Zone Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2) 10 m

Sandy Clay 4.1 m

36 m
135 m
 PVD Modeling Technique
(Equivalent Vertical Permeability)

n kh 3 2l 2 kh 2.5l 2 k h
  ln( )  ln( s)    k ve  (1  )k v
s kr 4 3qw De k v
2

where l = Drainage length

n = de
dw
de = Diameter of unit cell
dw = Diameter of drain
s = ds
dw
ds = Diameter of smear zone
kh = Horizontal permeability of natural soil
kr = Horizontal permeability of smear zone
qw = Discharge capacity of PVD
kv = Vertical permeability of natural soil
 PVD Modeling Technique
kh / kr
kh 5 12 12
kr
Spacing (m) 1.3
General
H(m) 18
Configuration Triangular
Material Crust Upper Clay Lower Clay
kv (m/day) 6.9E-5 6.9E-5 6.0E-5
qw (m3/yr) 100
dw (m) 0.07
Axisymmetric
de (m) 1.365
Radial Flow
n 19.5
dm (m) 0.2
ds (m) 0.4
s 5.714
Material Crust Upper Clay Lower Clay
Equivalent
kve (m/day) 5.99E-3 2.66E-3 1.97E-3
Flow
qw (m3/yr) 100
Instrumentation Plan
Ground Settlement at 23m From Centerline of
Embankment (SD1)

00
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250 300
300 350
350 400
400 450
450

-0.2
-0.2

-0.4
(m)
Movement (m)

-0.4
Verical Movement

-0.6

Ground Surface
-0.8
Vertical

-0.6

-1
Field Measurement
Field Measurement
-0.8
FEMPrediction
FEM Prediction(PVD)
(PVD)
-1.2

FEMPrediction
FEM Prediction(W/O
(W/OPVD)
PVD) 5.5m Below Ground Surface
-1.4
-1
Time
Time(days)
(days)
 Excess Pore Pressure
Variation
88
9

78
7
Piezometer P2
67
6
(m)
Pressure (m)
Porewater Pressure

6
55

5
Excess Porewater

44
4
33
Excess

22
Piezometer P6 Field Measurement
FieldMeasurement
Field Measurement
2 FEM Prediction (PVD)
Piezometer P3 FEMPrediction
FEM Prediction(PVD)
(PVD)
11
1 FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
FEM Prediction
PFEM Prediction(W/O
(W/OPVD)
PVD)

00
0
00
0 50
50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200
200 250
250
250 300
300
300 350
350
350 400
400
400 450
450
450
Time(days)
Time
Time (days)
(days)
 Surface Settlement Profile
0.2
0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Verical Movement (m)
Vertical Movement (m)

-0.4
-0.2

-0.2
-0.6

-0.4
-0.8
Field Measurement
-0.4 Field
Field Measurement
Measurement
-1
FEM Prediction (PVD)
-0.6
413 Days FEM Prediction
FEM Prediction (PVD)
(PVD)
-1.2 45 Days FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
105 Days FEM Prediction
FEM Prediction (W/O
(W/O PVD)
PVD)

-0.6
-0.8
-1.4
Distance from centerline (m)
Distance
Distancefrom
fromcenterline
centerline(m)
(m)
 Factor of Safety
2.2

2.1 With PVD Installation

Height of Fill
2 = 2.57 m Without PVD Installation

1.9
Factor of Safety

1.8

1.7
Height of Fill
1.6 = 4.74 m
1.5

1.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time Elapsed (days)
 Conclusions
 Coupled consolidation can reasonably
predict the excess pore pressure and
settlement variation with time
 PVD stabilized foundation soil showed
good drainage and better stability
 Loading rate of embankment on PVD
stabilized foundation can be much faster
for cost effective embankment construction