CE 5101 Lecture 8 Radial

Consolidation and PVD

October 2013
Prof Harry Tan
Outline
Radial Consolidation Barron Theory
Carillo Theory Combined vertical and radial Flow
PVD Design
Preload Surcharge Design
FEM Model of PVD and Surcharge
Some Cases
Radial Consolidation - Barrons Theory (1948)
w
v
w
h
c c
where
z
u
r
u
r r
u
t
u
Governing

v
v
v
h
2
2
v
2
2
h
m
k
,
m
k
c
1
c
: coords radial in Equation D - 3
= =

+
|
|

\
|

symmetry) to due s (imperviou 0

r
) u(r
3.
0 for t 0 ) u(r 2.
0 at t u u 1.
: Conditions
1
c
: Only Flow adial
e
w
0
2
2
h
=

> =
= =
|
|

\
|

Boundary
r
u
r r
u
t
u
R
( )
( ) ( ) [ ]
Functions Bessel are ; :
1
4
1
: Drain) (Ideal Condition for
1 0
2
2
1
2
0
2 2 2
4 2
1
0 0
2 2
U and U
d
t c
T and
d
d
n where
U n U n ) (n
e U
u
u
;
u
u
U
Strain Free Solution
e
h
h
w
e
T n
r r
r
h
= =

= =

only
U
strain Free
Note
r
h
T and n of
function a is
fastest settle
drain closest to
soil as settlement
uniform - non
means
:

U Like
r
The average degree of radial consolidation coincides with
the local degree of consolidation U
r
at (D-d) point of soil
cylinder, best place for piezometer to monitor progress of
consolidation
U
r
2
2
2
2
) (
8
0
) (
8
4
1 3
) ln(
1
) ( :
; 1
: Drain) (Ideal Condition qual for
n
n
n
n
n
n f where
e
u
u
e U
Strain E Solution
n f
T
r
n f
T
r
h h

=
= =

Comparison
show very small
differences
between free-
strain and equal-
strain, esp for
n>10
For n=5,
significant
difference in
first 50% of
consolidation
What is size of Influence Diameter d
e
or D
s D
D
Square
13 . 1
4
s
: spacing
2
2
=
=

( )
s D
D
T
05 . 1
4
3 2/ * s/2 * s/2 * 1/2 * 6
: spacing raingular
2
=
=

( )
2
2
2
2
2
r
4
1 3
) ln(
1
:
;
8
exp 1 U
: Drain Vertical ) 1981 (
n
n
n
n
n
where
D
t c
T
T
Ideal Hansbo
h
h
h

=
=

( )
w
c
c
c
s
h
h
s
h
q
k
z L z m
k
k
m
n
where
D
t c
T
T
E
+ + =
=

=
2
4
3
) ln(
'
ln :
;
8
exp 1 U
: Resistance Drain and Smear of ffect
2
rz

Effects of Smear and Drain Resistance

Carillo Theory Combined vertical and
radial Flow
Combined Flow - Carillos Theorem (1942)
( )
( )
problem flow combined the solutionof a is u u
u
o solution t a is , u
1 u
o solution t a is , u
2 1
2
2
2 2
2
2
1 1
then
z
u
c
t
t z f and
r
u
r r
u
c
t
t r f If
v
h

=
|
|

\
|

=
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
QED
z
c
t
and
r r r
c
t
This
z
c
r r r
c
t t
z
c
r r r
c
t
t
oof
v h
v h
v h
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2 1 1 2
2
2 1
2
2 1
2
2 1
2
2 1
2 1
u u
u 1 u u
: that means
u
u
u 1 u
u
u u u u
u u u u
1
u u u u
u
into u u u Substitute : Pr

|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

=
( ) ( )( )
theory s Hansbo' or s Barron'
theory s Terzaghi'
1 1 U - 1
: means hat
u
u
u
u
u
u
: to lead discussion previous The
0
v
0
h
0
from U
from U
U U
T
h
v
v h
=
=
Combined Flow - Carillos Theorem (1942)
Practical Vertical Drain
Design with Plaxis 2D-
FEM
Outline
Terzaghi 1D Vertical Flow Consolidation
Barron 1D Radial Flow Consolidation
Carillo Combined Flow Consolidation
Equivalent Plane Strain Consolidation for 2D-FEM
Terzaghi 1D Vertical Flow Consolidation
5 . 0 . . , 2 . 0
v v
U e i T
|
|

\
|
+

21 . 0
4
4
2
2
2
1
8
1
v
v
T
T
v
e e U

v
v
T
U 2
For
Then
For
Then
5 . 0 . . , 2 . 0 > >
v v
U e i T
T
v
is Time factor
c
v
is Coeficient of
Consolidation
w v
v
v
v
v
m
k
c
H
t c
T

=
=
2
Barron 1D Radial Flow Consolidation
( )
(

\
|
+

=
2 2 2
2
4
1
1
1
4
3
ln
1 n n
n
n
n

h
T
h
e U
8
1

=
4
3
) ln( = n
w
h
r
h
s
q
k
z L z s
k
k
s
n
) 2 (
4
3
) ln( ) ln( + + =
T
h
is Time factor
c
h
is Coeficient of
Consolidation
w v
h
h
h
h
m
k
c
D
t c
T

=
=
2
Equal Vertical Strain Condition
For n=D/d > 10
To include smear and drain
discharge
Where z = L for single drainage at top,
and z = L/2 for double drainage at top and bottom
( )
2
2
2
2
2
r
4
1 3
) ln(
1
:
;
8
exp 1 U
: Drain Vertical ) 1981 (
n
n
n
n
n
where
D
t c
T
T
Ideal Hansbo
h
h
h

=
=

( )
w
c
c
c
s
h
h
s
h
q
k
z L z m
k
k
m
n
where
D
t c
T
T
E
+ + =
=

=
2
4
3
) ln(
'
ln :
;
8
exp 1 U
: Resistance Drain and Smear of ffect
2
rz

For single drainage at

top,
z=L
For double drainage at
top and bottom, z=L/2
Carillo Combined Flow
) 1 )( 1 ( 1
h v vh
U U U =

h
v
T
h
T
v
e U
e U
8
21 . 0
4
1
1
2

|
|

\
|
+


|
|

\
|
+ +

h
v
T
T
vh
e U
8
21 . 0
4
2
1
For T
v
> 0.2
U
v
> 50%
For T
v
0.2
U
v
50%
( )

h
T
v vh
e T U
8
/ 2 1 1

From linear superposition
Equivalent Vertical Permeability for Plane Strain
FEM Model CUR 191 or Tan 1981
|
|

\
|
+ +

h
v
T
T
vh
e U
8
21 . 0
4
2
1
|
|

\
|
+

21 . 0
4
'
'
2
1
v
T
v
e U

vh v
U U =
'
Interested only in solution > 50% consolidation
For Axisymmetric Unit Cell
For Equivalent FEM Model
To obtain equivalent vertical consolidation rate
|
|

\
|
+ +
|
|

\
|
+
= =


h
v v
T
T T
v
e e U
8
21 . 0
4
21 . 0
4
'
2
'
2
1 1
h v v
h
v v
k
D
H
k k
T
T T
2
2
2
'
2
'
32
32


+ =
+ =
w v
v
v
v
v
m
k
c and
H
t c
T

= =
2
w v
h
h
h
h
m
k
c and
D
t c
T

= =
2
In 2D-FEM only need to replace PVD soil
cluster with enhanced vertical kv model
Practical PVD Design
Practical Vertical Drain Design (by Prof Harry Tan SEP 2008)
Terzaghi 1D Vertical Consolidation
H=L single drainage and H=L/2 double drainage
INPUT
Case cv(m2/y) H(m) t(y) Tv Uv
1 2 5 0.25 0.02 0.16
2 2 5 0.25 0.02 0.16
Hansbo/Barron 1D Radial Consolidation
INPUT z=L single drainage and z=L/2 double drainage
Case ch(m2/y) S (m) D(m) t(y) Th d(m) ds(m) kh (m/y) ks (m/y) qw (m3/y) L(m) z(m) n s mu Uh
1 5 1.30 1.365 0.25 0.67 0.050 0.100 0.0050 0.0020 100 10 5 27.3 2 3.61 0.77
2 5 1.50 1.575 0.25 0.50 0.050 0.100 0.0050 0.0020 100 10 5 31.5 2 3.75 0.66
Carillo Combined Flow Consolidation
Case Uv Uh Uvh
1 0.16 0.77 0.81
2 0.16 0.66 0.71
Johnson Surcharge Design
Case Po (kPa) Pf (kPa) Usr=Uvh log[(Po+Pf)/Po] (Po+Pf+Ps/Po) Ps (kPa) Hs (m)
1 100 60 0.81 0.204 1.786 18.6 1.0
2 100 60 0.71 0.204 1.933 33.3 1.9
|
|

\
| + +
|
|

\
| +
= =
+
0
0
0
0
log
log
P
P P P
P
P P
S
S
U
s f
f
s f
f
sr
( )
w
h
s
h
s
h
h
s
h
q
k
z L z s
k
k
s
n
where
D
t c
T
T
+ + =
=

=
2
4
3
) ln( ln :
;
8
exp 1 U
: Resistance Drain and Smear of Effect Eqn with Hansbo
2 h

) 1 ( ) 1 ( 1
h v vh
U U U =
20
Use Excel spreadsheet to determine: Uv, Uh and Uvh for design inputs
If Uvh meets or exceeds requirements, design is adequate
Note: D=1.05s for triangular grid or 1.13s for square grid pattern
and z=L drain at top; or z=L/2 drain top and bottom of PVD
Preload Surcharge Design Johnson
ASCE 1970
Assumptions:
a. Primary and secondary compression are separate
b. Instant load applied at end of load period
c. Time rate of settlement determine by Terzaghi theory
21
Preload Surcharge Design Johnson
ASCE 1970
'
v

22
Objective: To determine amount of surcharge needed to achieve desired
degree of consolidation?
Clay: Ho, Po and Cc
Design Permanent Fill Pf
Surcharge Ps
Pf
Ps
t
S
tsr
Sf
Sf+s
If surcharge is left in place for tsr
(time to removal), then clay will
have compressed by amount
equal to Sf expected under fill
weight alone, ie achieved
U=100% under Pf load alone
Preload Design
(4) 0 . 1
log
log
) (
: is surcharge and fill under ion consolidat of degree required Therefore,
(3) 0 . 1
log
log
) (
: is ion consolidat of degree average tsr, At time
(2) log
1
: surcharge and Fill
(1) log
1
: only Fill
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<
|
|

\
| + +
|
|

\
| +
= = =
=
|
|

\
| + +
|
|

\
| +
= =
|
|

\
| + +
+
=
|
|

\
| +
+
=
+
+
+
+
P
P P P
P
P P
S
S
U U
P
P P P
U
P
P P
S U
S
U
P
P P P
H
e
C
S
P
P P
H
e
C
S
s f
f
s f
f
sr s f
s f
sr
f
s f sr
f
f
s f
c
s f
f
c
f
23
For Normally Consolidated Clay (NC) of thickness Ho:
Preload Design Example
large) (very surcharge of m 5.2 94/18 kPa 94 160 254
54 . 2 10
100
160
404 . 0
505 . 0
204 . 0
100
160
log
100
160
log
100
160
log
log
log
505 . 0
then yr, 1 after tsr surcharge remove To
ion) consolidat 50% (about 505 . 0
2 . 0
2 2
0.2
5
1 * 5

c
: theory Terzaghi
0.408m
100
60 100
log * 10
1.5 1
0.5
log
1
: only Fill
404 . 0
0
0
0
0
2 2
v
0
0
0
0
= = = =
= = |

\
| +
= = |

\
| +
|

\
| +
|

\
|
=
|
|

\
| + +
|
|

\
| +
= = =
=
= = =
= = =
=
|

\
| +
+
=
|
|

\
| +
+
=
+
s
s
s
s s f
f
s f
f
sr
v
v
v
f
c
f
P
P
P
P
P
P P P
P
P P
S
S
U
T
U
H
t
T
P
P P
H
e
C
S

24
Clay: Ho, Po and Cc
Design Permanent Fill Pf
Surcharge Ps
Clay 10m thick drained both top and bottom: eo=1.5, Po=100 kPa, Cc=0.5,
cv=5 m2/yr
Fill: Height = 3m with Pf = 60 kPa
Aim: To get 100% consolidation in 1 year, what is Ps needed?
So surcharge alone is not effective
and we need PVD to reduce
surcharge time as well as amount of
surcharge needed
Preload Design Example
Practical Vertical Drain Design (by Prof Harry Tan SEP 2008)
Terzaghi 1D Vertical Consolidation
H=L single drainage and H=L/2 double drainage
INPUT
Case cv(m2/y) H(m) t(y) Tv Uv
1 2 5 0.25 0.02 0.16
2 2 5 0.25 0.02 0.16
Hansbo/Barron 1D Radial Consolidation
INPUT z=L single drainage and z=L/2 double drainage
Case ch(m2/y) S (m) D(m) t(y) Th d(m) ds(m) kh (m/y) ks (m/y) qw (m3/y) L(m) z(m) n s mu Uh
1 5 1.30 1.365 0.25 0.67 0.050 0.100 0.0050 0.0020 100 10 5 27.3 2 3.61 0.77
2 5 1.50 1.575 0.25 0.50 0.050 0.100 0.0050 0.0020 100 10 5 31.5 2 3.75 0.66
Carillo Combined Flow Consolidation
Case Uv Uh Uvh
1 0.16 0.77 0.81
2 0.16 0.66 0.71
Johnson Surcharge Design
Case Po (kPa) Pf (kPa) Usr=Uvh log[(Po+Pf)/Po] (Po+Pf+Ps/Po) Ps (kPa) Hs (m)
1 100 60 0.81 0.204 1.786 18.6 1.0
2 100 60 0.71 0.204 1.933 33.3 1.9
|
|

\
| + +
|
|

\
| +
= =
+
0
0
0
0
log
log
P
P P P
P
P P
S
S
U
s f
f
s f
f
sr
( )
w
h
s
h
s
h
h
s
h
q
k
z L z s
k
k
s
n
where
D
t c
T
T
+ + =
=

=
2
4
3
) ln( ln :
;
8
exp 1 U
: Resistance Drain and Smear of Effect Eqn with Hansbo
2 h

) 1 ( ) 1 ( 1
h v vh
U U U =
25
Clay: Ho, Po and Cc
Design Permanent Fill Pf
Surcharge Ps
Clay 10m thick drained both top and bottom: eo=1.5, Po=100 kPa, Cc=0.5,
cv=2 m2/yr, ch= 5 m2/yr
PVD parameters: d=0.05m, ds=0.1m, kh=0.005 m/yr, ks=0.002 m/yr, qw=100
m3/yr
Fill: Height = 3m with Pf = 60 kPa
Aim: To get 100% improvement in 3 months, what is Ps needed?
Design requires PVD triangle spacing with 1.3m grid and 1m surcharge or 1.5m grid with 1.9m surcharge
FEM Modeling of
Embankments on Soft Ground
with PVD
1. Model of single PVD Axi-symmetric
2. Model of PVD in Plane Strain
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
Method 1 Using Interface Element for
Vertical Drain
AXISYMMETRIC
Pore water flow
q
w
Soil
r
w
r
e
PVD
H
Interface
element
z
r
k
h
q
w
Soil
r
w
r
e
H
z
r
Closed
consolidation
boundary
t
i
H
z
r
Soil
q
w
r
w r
e
(a) (b) (c)
r
Open Boundary Interface element Drain element
FEM Axi-Symmetric Model of Single PVD
FEM Model Barron Theory
30
Boundary
conditions
E_oed=1000 kPa
Cv_soil = 0.01*1000/10 = 1
m2/day
Cv_drain=1*1000/10=100 m2/day
FEM Model Barron Theory
31
T=0.1day
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
T
h
U
h

(
%
)
Interf ace Element
Open Consolidation Boundary
Barron's Theory
Radial Consolidation Theory
s s
s s
s
m
m
s s s s
2t
i
2B

Q
P
r
d
w
d
e
Q
AP
x

2t
i
2B or S
CONVERSION FROM AXISYMMETRIC TO
PLANE STRAIN
(c)
(d)
(b) (a)
no drainage (reference) no drainage (reference) no drainage (reference) no drainage (reference)
drainage with drain element drainage with drain element drainage with drain element drainage with drain element
(sets zero pore pressure conditions) (sets zero pore pressure conditions) (sets zero pore pressure conditions) (sets zero pore pressure conditions)
drainage with boundary condition drainage with boundary condition drainage with boundary condition drainage with boundary condition
(check on performance of drain element) (check on performance of drain element) (check on performance of drain element) (check on performance of drain element)
FEM models investigated: FEM models investigated: FEM models investigated: FEM models investigated:
Axisymmetric model Axisymmetric model Axisymmetric model Axisymmetric model
Plane strain model Plane strain model Plane strain model Plane strain model
equivalent vertical permeability after CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability after CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability after CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability after CUR 191
equivalent horizontal permeability after CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability after CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability after CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability after CUR 191
equivalent horizontal permeability after Indraratna (2000) equivalent horizontal permeability after Indraratna (2000) equivalent horizontal permeability after Indraratna (2000) equivalent horizontal permeability after Indraratna (2000)
AAA A A AA A
axisymmetric axisymmetric axisymmetric axisymmetric
model model model model
plane strain plane strain plane strain plane strain
model model model model
unit cell for vertical drains placed in pattern of 2x2 m, 5 unit cell for vertical drains placed in pattern of 2x2 m, 5 unit cell for vertical drains placed in pattern of 2x2 m, 5 unit cell for vertical drains placed in pattern of 2x2 m, 5
m high m high m high m high
drain diameter 25 cm drain diameter 25 cm drain diameter 25 cm drain diameter 25 cm
applied load applied load applied load applied load
10 kN/m 10 kN/m 10 kN/m 10 kN/m
h v v
k
D
H
k k

+ =
2
2
2
32

h h
k k =
( )
(

\
|

=
2 2 2
2
4
1
1
1
4
3
ln
1 n n
n
n
n

d
D
n =
CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability CUR 191 equivalent vertical permeability
k
v
, k
h
true permeability
k
v
, k
h
equivalent permeability
H drainage length
D equivalent distance of drains
d diameter of drains
CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability CUR 191 equivalent horizontal permeability
h h
k
D
B
k

=
2
2

v v
k k =
( )
(

\
|

=
2 2 2
2
4
1
1
1
4
3
ln
1 n n
n
n
n

d
D
n =

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

2,26 2,75 2,94 3,01 3,09
k
v
, k
h
true permeability
k
v
, k
h
equivalent permeability
H the distance of drains in plane strain
D equivalent distance of drains
d diameter of drains
( ) [ ]
2
2
75 , 0 ln
67 , 0
R
B
n k
k
h
hp

=
w
r
R
n =
Indraratna equivalent Indraratna equivalent Indraratna equivalent Indraratna equivalent
horizontal permeability horizontal permeability horizontal permeability horizontal permeability
k
hp
equivalent horizontal permeability for plane strain
k
h
true horizontal permeability
B distance of drains in plane strain
R equivalent distance of drains
r
w
diameter of drains
Excess Pore Pressure after 60% consolidation Excess Pore Pressure after 60% consolidation Excess Pore Pressure after 60% consolidation Excess Pore Pressure after 60% consolidation
Influence of constitutive model Influence of constitutive model Influence of constitutive model Influence of constitutive model
HS HS HS HS - -- - Model Model Model Model
Linear Elastic Linear Elastic Linear Elastic Linear Elastic - -- - Model Model Model Model
time [sec]
1e+3 1e+4 1e+5 1e+6 1e+7 1e+8 1e+9
d
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

U

[

-

]
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
AXI: no drainage
AXI: drainage boundary condition
AXI: drainage drain-element
PS: equivalent vertical CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal Indraratna
degree of consolidation for different degree of consolidation for different degree of consolidation for different degree of consolidation for different
models (linear models (linear models (linear models (linear- -- -elastic) elastic) elastic) elastic)
This image cannot currently be displayed.
time [sec]
1e+3 1e+4 1e+5 1e+6 1e+7 1e+8 1e+9 1e+10
d
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

U

[

-

]
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
AXI: no drainage
AXI: drainage boundary condition
AXI: drainage drain-element
PS: equivalent vertical CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal Indraratna
This image cannot currently be displayed.
degree of consolidation for different degree of consolidation for different degree of consolidation for different degree of consolidation for different
models (Hardening Soil model) models (Hardening Soil model) models (Hardening Soil model) models (Hardening Soil model)
Austrian Case
A
A
B
C
D
E
5.0
uerer Schutzstreif en
W
A
S
S
E
R
K
A
N
A
L
5.0
C
D
E
B
E1
E2
PW1
A1/1
A1/2 A1/3 A1/4
A1/5
A1/6
A2/1
A2/2
A2/3 A2/4
A2/5
A2/6
A2/7
A2/8
A3/1
A3/2
A3/3
A3/4
A3/5 A3/6
A3/7
A3/9
A4/1
A4/2
A4/3 A4/4
A4/5
A4/6
A4/9 A4/8
A4/7
A5/9
A5/1
A6/1
A7/1
A8/1
R/ 1
A5/2
A5/3
A5/4
A5/5
A5/6
A5/8
A6/2
A6/3
A6/4
A6/6
A6/7
A7/2 A7/3
A8/2
A1/9
A5/7
A6/5
A8/3
A1/8
PW3
A1/7
PW4
A2/9
Z3/8
Z4/8
A3/8
RS2/1
RS2/2
RS2/3
RS2/4
A7/4
RS2/5
RS2/6
RS2/7
RS2/8
RS2/9
RS1/3
X
X
Y
Y
Scht tabschnitt 1
Scht tabschnitt 2
Scht tabschnitt 3
LOGISTIK
HALLE
UMSCHLAGHALLE
B

R
O
D
D
soil profile:
1
1
1
peat - undrained
kx = ky = 0,005 m/day ; kx = 6,6e-4 m/day
silt, clay - undrained
kx = ky = 0,0001 m/day ; kx = 1,3e-5 m/day
silt / silt-clay - undrained
kx = ky = 0,0001 m/day ; kx = 1,3e-5 m/day
man made material - drained
= 19,5 kN/m
3
pre-load - drained
= 18 kN/m
3
3 m
2,5 m
4,5 m
2 m
14 m
This image cannot currently be displayed. This image cannot currently be displayed.
FE-MODEL
section D-D
A2/4 A4/4 A6/4
Results for section D-D
comparison measurement - Plaxis point A2/4
time [days]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

[
c
m
]
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
Plaxis
measurement
calculated final
settlement
139 cm
Results for section D-D
comparison measurement - Plaxis - point A6/4
time [days]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

[
c
m
]
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Plaxis
measurements
calculated final
settlement
78 cm
EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE - -- - EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION
influence of consolidation on stability
influence of construction speed is investigated
"fast" construction: 2 days of consolidation per placement of 1 m embankment
"slow" construction: 3 days of consolidation per placement of 1 m layer embankment
influence of consolidation on stability
"fast": max. excess pore
pressure: 100 kPa
"slow": max. excess pore
pressure: 86 kPa
influence of consolidation on stability
"slow": stable
"fast": failure
influence of consolidation on stability
0 4 8 12 16
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Time [day]
excess pore pressure [kN/m2]
Chart 1
slow
fast
time [days]
excess pore pressure [kPa]
fast
slow
influence of consolidation on stability
vertical displacements [m]
fast
slow
0 30 60 90 120
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Time [day]
Displacement [m]
Chart 1
Point C
Point C
time [days]
Practical Considerations
Lateral spreading
Settlement with risk
for downdrag
The Problem Bridge Foundations
These photos of bridge
foundations illustrate a common
problem affecting maintenance
($$$!), as well as, on occasions,
one compromising safety
Photos from in-situ excavation of a pile
The problem of lateral spreading can be avoided by not installing the piles until the
consolidation is mostly completed, which also would eliminate the risk for excessive
downdrag.
However, the project can rarely wait for the consolidation to develop, and the solution
would be impractical, unless the consolidation can be accelerated by means of vertical
drains. Apart from saving time, accelerating the consolidation also reduces the magnitude
of the lateral spreading and increases soil strength.
In the past, sand drains were used. Since about 25 years, the sand drains have been
replaced with wick drains, which are pre-manufactured bandshaped drains.
2H
Drainage Layer
Clay Layer
(consolidating)
Drainage Layer
0
1
u
u
S
S
U
t
f
t
AVG
= =
v
v
c
H
T t
2
=
) 1 ( lg 1 . 0 U T
v
=
where U
AVG
= average degree of consolidation (U)
S
t
= settlement at Time t
S
f
= final settlement at full consolidation
u
t
= average pore pressure at Time t
u
0
= initial average pore pressure (on application of the load at Time t = 0)
where t = time to obtain a certain degree of consolidation
T
v
= a dimensionless time coefficient:
c
v
= coefficient of consolidation
H = length of the longest drainage path
U
AVG
(%) 25 50 70 80 90 100
T
v
0.05 0.20 0.40 0.57 0.85 1.00
Basic Relations for Consolidation
c/c
d
"Square" spacing: D =

4/ c/c = 1.13 c/c

"Triangular" spacing: D = (23)/ c/c = 1.05 c/c
c/c

h
h
c
D
T t
2
=
Basic principle of consolidation process in
the presence of vertical drains
h
h
U d
D
T

=
1
1
ln ] 75 . 0 [ln
8
1

h
h
U d
D
c
D
t

=
1
1
ln ] 75 . 0 [ln
8
2
and
The Kjellman-Barron Formula
Important Points

Flow in a soil containing pervious lenses, bands, or layers
The consolidation process can be
halted if back-pressure is let to
build-up below the embankment,
falsely implying that the process is
completed
Theoretically, vertical drains operate
by facilitating horizontal drainage.
However, where pervious lenses
and/or horizontal seams or bands
exist, the water will drain vertically
to the pervious soil and then to the
drain. When this is at hand, the drain
spacing can be increased
significantly.
The Kjellman wick, 1942 The Geodrain, 1972
The Geodrain, 1976
Wick drain types