You are on page 1of 30

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

CE 5101 Lecture 8 Radial


Consolidation and PVD

October 2011
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

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Radial Consolidation - Barrons Theory (1948)


3 - D Governing Equation in radial coords :
2u 1 u
u
2u
c v 2
c h 2
t
r r
z
r
where
ch

kh
kv
, cv
m v w
m v w

Radial Flow Only :


2u 1 u
u

c h 2
t
r r
r
Boundary Conditions :
1. u u 0 at t 0
2. u(rw ) 0 for t 0
3.

u(re )
0 (impervious due to symmetry)
r

Solution for Free Strain Condition (Ideal Drain) :


u u
4U12 e 4 n Th
Ur 1 r ; r 2 2
u 0 u0
(n 1 ) n 2U 02 n U12
2 2

where : n

de
ct
and Th h2 ; U 0 and U1 are Bessel Functions
dw
de
Note :
Free strain means
non - uniform
settlement as soil
closest to drain
settle fastest
U r is a function
of n and Th only

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

The average degree of radial consolidation Ucoincides


with
r
the local degree of consolidation Ur at (D-d) point of soil
cylinder, best place for piezometer to monitor progress of
consolidation
Like Ur

Solution for Equal Strain Condition (Ideal Drain) :


Ur 1 e

8Th
f (n)

8T

where : f (n)

h
ur
e f (n)
u0

n2
3n 2 1
ln(
n
)

n2 1
4n 2

Comparison
p
show very small
differences
between freestrain and equalstrain, esp for
n>10
For n=5,
significant
difference in
first 50% of
consolidation

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

What is size of Influence Diameter de or D

Square spacing :
s2

4
D 1.13s

Traingular spacing :

6 *1/2 * s/2 * s/2 * 2/ 3

D 2
4

D 1.05s

Hansbo(1981) Ideal Vertical Drain :


8Th
ct
U r 1 exp
; Th h 2

D
n2
3n 2 1
where : 2 ln(n)
n 1
4n 2

Effect of Smear and Drain Resistance :


ct
8Th
U rz 1 exp
; Th h 2
D
s
where : s ln

k
n kc
3

ln(m) z 2 L z c
m k 'c
qw
4

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Effects of Smear and Drain Resistance

Carillo Theory Combined vertical


and radial Flow

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Combined Flow - Carillos Theorem (1942)


If u1 f1 r , t is a solution to

2u 1 u
u

ch 2
t
r r
r

u
2u
cv 2
t
z
then u1u 2 is a solutionof the combined flow problem
and u 2 f 2 z , t is a solution to

u
t
2 u1u 2 1 u1u 2
u1u 2
2 u1u 2
cv
ch

r 2
t
z 2
r r

u 2 u1 u1 u 2
2 u 2
2 u1 1 u1
u1cv

u 2 ch

2
r r
t
t
z 2
r
This means that :
Pr oof : Substitute u u1u 2 into

u 2
2 u 2
2 u1 1 u1
u1

ch

and
c
QED

v
2
t
r r
t
z 2
r

Combined Flow - Carillos Theorem (1942)


The previous discussion lead to :
u uh uv

u0 u0 u0
That means :

1 - U 1 U 1 U
h

U v from Terzaghi' s theory


U h from Barron' s or Hansbo' s theory

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

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

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Terzaghi 1D Vertical Flow


Consolidation
For

T v 0.2, i.e. U v 0.5

Then

For

Then

Uv 2

Tv is Time factor
cv is
i Coeficient
C fi i t off
Consolidation

Tv

cv t
H2
k
cv v
mv w
Tv

T v 0.2, i.e. U v 0.5

Uv 1

2
Tv
4

1 e

Tv 0.21
4

Barron 1D Radial Flow


Consolidation
Equal Vertical Strain Condition
8Th

U h 1
1 e

ch is Coeficient of
Consolidation

n2
3 1
1
ln n 2 1 2
2
n 1
4 n 4n

For n=D/d > 10

Th is Time factor

ln(n)

3
4

To include smear and drain


discharge
di
h
k
n k
3
s ln( ) h ln(s) z ( 2 L z ) h
s kr
qw
4

ch t
D2
k
ch h
mv w
Th

Where z = L for single drainage at top,


and z = L/2 for double drainage at top and bottom

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Hansbo (1981) Ideal Vertical Drain :


ct
8Th
U r 1 exp
; Th h 2
D

where :

n2
3n 2 1
ln(n)
n 1
4n 2
2

Effect of Smear and Drain Resistance :


8Th
ct
U rz 1 exp
; Th h 2
s
D
where : s ln

k
n kc
3

ln(m) z 2 L z c
m k 'c
4
qw

For single drainage at


top,
top
z=L
For double drainage at
top and bottom, z=L/2

Carillo Combined Flow


U vh 1 (1 U v )(1 U h )
For Tv > 0.2
Uv > 50%

1Uv e
1Uh e

Tv 0.21
4

8Th

U vh 1 e
For Tv 0.2
Uv 50%

From linear superposition

2
8T
Tv 0.21 h

U vh 1 1 2 Tv / e

8Th

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Equivalent Vertical Permeability for


Plane Strain FEM Model CUR 191 or Tan 1981
Interested only in solution > 50% consolidation
For Axisymmetric Unit Cell

For Equivalent FEM Model

U vh 1 e

U v' 1 e

2
8T
Tv 0.21 h

2
Tv ' 0.21
4

U v ' U vh

To obtain equivalent vertical consolidation rate

U v' 1 e
Tv ' Tv
kv ' kv

Tv ' 0.21
4

32 Th

1 e
Tv

32 H 2
kh
2 D 2

2
8T
Tv 0.21 h

cv t
k
and cv v
H2
mv w

Th

ch t
k
and ch h
D2
mv w

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

Hansbo Eqn with Effect of Smear and Drain Resistance :

H=L single drainage and H=L/2 double drainage


INPUT
cv(m2/y)
2
2

Case
1
2

H(m)
5
5

t(y)
0.25
0.25

Tv
0.02
0.02

U h 1 exp

Uv
0.16
0.16

where
h : s ln
l

Hansbo/Barron 1D Radial Consolidation


INPUT
ch(m2/y) S (m)
5
1.30
5
1.50

Case
1
2

D(m)
1.365
1.575

t(y)
0.25
0.25

Th
0.67
0.50

8Th

d(m)
0.050
0.050

ds(m)
0.100
0.100

kh (m/y)
0.0050
0.0050

ks (m/y)
0.0020
0.0020

qw (m3/y)
100
100

; Th

ch t
D2

k
3
n kh
lln(( s ) z 2 L z h
s ks
4
qw
z=L single drainage and z=L/2 double drainage
L(m)
z(m)
n
s
mu
10
5
27.3
2
3.61
10
5
31.5
2
3.75

Uh
0.77
0.66

Carillo Combined Flow Consolidation


Case
1
2

Uv
0.16
0.16

Uh
0.77
0.66

Uvh
0.81
0.71

Uvh 1 (1Uv ) (1Uh )

Johnson Surcharge Design


Case
1
2

Po (kPa) Pf (kPa) Usr=Uvh log[(Po+Pf)/Po] (Po+Pf+Ps/Po) Ps (kPa) Hs (m)


100
60
0.81
0.204
1.786
18.6
1.0
100
60
0.71
0.204
1.933
33.3
1.9

U sr

Sf
S f s

P Pf

log 0
P0
P0 Pf Ps
log
P0

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

Use Excel spreadsheet to determine: Uv, Uh and Uvh for design inputs
If Uvh meets or exceeds requirements, design is adequate
20

10

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

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
Ti rate
r t off settlement
ttl
t determine
d t r i bby
Terzaghi theory
21

Preload Surcharge Design


Johnson ASCE 1970
Objective: To determine amount of surcharge needed to achieve desired
degree of consolidation?
'
v

Ps
Surcharge Ps
Pf

Design Permanent Fill Pf


Clay: Ho, Po and Cc

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

22

11

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Preload Design
For Normally Consolidated Clay (NC) of thickness Ho:
P Pf
Cc
H 0 log 0
1 e0
P0

(1)

P0 Pf Ps
C
(2)
Fill and surcharge : S f s c H 0 log
P0
1 e0

At time tsr, average degree of consolidation is :


Sf

Fill only :

P Pf

log 0
P0
Uf
1.0

U sr ( S f s )
P Pf Ps

U sr log 0
P0

Sf

(3)

Therefore, required degree of consolidation under fill and surcharge is :

U f s

P Pf

log 0
P0
1.0
U sr

(S f s )
P Pf Ps

log 0
P0

Sf

(4)

23

Preload Design Example


Surcharge Ps
Design Permanent Fill Pf
Clay: Ho, Po and Cc

Fill only : S f

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?

P0 Pf
Cc
H 0 log
1 e0
P0

0.5
100 60

10 * log
0.408m
100
1 1.5

c vt
5 *1
2 0.2
5
H2
T
0 .2
0.505 (about 50% consolidation)
Uv 2 v 2

Terzaghi theory : Tv

To remove surcharge after tsr 1 yr, then


P Pf
160

log 0
log

P0
100
S f s
160 Ps
P Pf Ps
log

log 0
100
P0

160 Ps 0.204
log
0.404

100 0.505
160 Ps
0.404
2.54
10

100
Ps 254 160 94 kPa 94/18 5.2 m of surcharge (very large)

U sr 0.505

Sf

So surcharge alone is not effective


and we need PVD to reduce
surcharge time as well as amount of
surcharge needed
24

12

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Preload Design Example


Surcharge Ps
Design Permanent Fill Pf
Clay: Ho, Po and Cc

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?

Practical Vertical Drain Design (by Prof Harry Tan SEP 2008)
Terzaghi 1D Vertical Consolidation

Hansbo Eqn with Effect of Smear and Drain Resistance :

H=L single drainage and H=L/2 double drainage


INPUT
cv(m2/y)
2
2

Case
1
2

H(m)
5
5

t(y)
0.25
0.25

Tv
0.02
0.02

U h 1 exp

Uv
0.16
0.16

INPUT
ch(m2/y) S (m)
5
1 30
1.30
5
1.50

D(m)
1 365
1.365
1.575

t(y)
0 25
0.25
0.25

Th
0 67
0.67
0.50

where : s ln

Hansbo/Barron 1D Radial Consolidation


Case
1
2

8Th

d(m)
0 050
0.050
0.050

ds(m)
0 100
0.100
0.100

kh (m/y)
0 0050
0.0050
0.0050

ks (m/y)
0 0020
0.0020
0.0020

qw (m3/y)
100
100

; Th

ch t
D2

k
3
n kh
ln( s ) z 2 L z h
4
s ks
qw
z=L single drainage and z=L/2 double drainage
L(m)
z(m)
n
s
mu
10
5
27 3
27.3
2
3.61
3
61
10
5
31.5
2
3.75

Uh
0 77
0.77
0.66

Carillo Combined Flow Consolidation


Case
1
2

Uv
0.16
0.16

Uh
0.77
0.66

Uvh
0.81
0.71

Uvh 1 (1Uv ) (1Uh )

Johnson Surcharge Design


Case
1
2

Po (kPa) Pf (kPa) Usr=Uvh log[(Po+Pf)/Po] (Po+Pf+Ps/Po) Ps (kPa) Hs (m)


100
60
0.81
0.204
1.786
18.6
1.0
100
60
0.71
0.204
1.933
33.3
1.9

U sr

Sf
S f s

P Pf

log 0
P0
P0 Pf Ps

log
P0

Design requires PVD triangle spacing with 1.3m grid and 1m surcharge or 1.5m grid with 1.9m surcharge 25

FEM Modeling of
Embankments on Soft Ground
with PVD
1. Model of single PVD Axi-symmetric
2. Model of PVD in Plane Strain

13

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

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 byy the
equivalent permeability of surrounding
soils

AXISYMMETRIC
z

z
r

Soil
qw

Soil

Interface
element

Soil

qw

PVD
Pore water flow

H
kh

Closed
consolidation
boundary

rw

re

(a)

Open Boundary

ti
rw

qw

re

(b)

Interface element

rw

re

(c)

Drain element

14

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

FEM Axi-Symmetric Model of Single PVD

FEM Model Barron Theory

E_oed=1000 kPa
Boundary
conditions

Cv_soil = 0.01*1000/10 = 1
m2/day
Cv_drain=1*1000/10=100 m2/day

30

15

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

FEM Model Barron Theory

T=0.1day

31

Radial Consolidation Theory


Interface Element
Open Consolidation Boundary
Barron's Theory

Uh (%)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

Th

16

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

CONVERSION FROM AXISYMMETRIC TO


PLANE STRAIN

x
s

s
m

A
P

m
2ti

(a)

2B

(b)

dw

2ti

de

2B or S

(c)

(d)

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)

17

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

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


m high
drain diameter 25 cm

applied load
10 kN/m

axisymmetric
model

CUR 191

plane strain
model

equivalent vertical permeability

H2
kv kv 2
k
D2 h
32

kh kh

3 1
1
n2
2 lnn 2 1

4 n 4 n 2
n 1

D
d

kv , kh true permeability
kv , kh equivalent permeability
H

drainage length

equivalent distance of drains

diameter of drains

18

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

CUR 191

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

equivalent horizontal permeability


k v k v

B2
k h
kh
D2

n2
3 1
lnn 2
2
n 1
4 n
U

0,5
2,26

1
2
4 n

0,75
2,75

0,9
2,94

0,95
3,01

D
d
0,99
3,09

kv , kh true permeability
kv , kh equivalent permeability
H

the distance of drains in plane strain

equivalent distance of drains

diameter of drains

Indraratna equivalent
horizontal permeability
k hpp

0,67
B2

k h ln n 0,75 R 2

khp
kh

R
rw

equivalent horizontal permeability for plane strain


true horizontal permeability

distance of drains in plane strain

equivalent distance of drains

rw

diameter of drains

19

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Influence of constitutive model


Excess Pore Pressure after 60% consolidation

Linear Elastic - Model

degree of consolidation U [ - ]
d

1.0

HS - Model

degree of consolidation for different


models (linear-elastic)

0.8

0.6

0.4

AXI: no drainage
AXI: drainage boundary condition
AXI drainage
AXI:
d i
d
drain-element
i l
t
PS: equivalent vertical CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal Indraratna

02
0.2

0.0
1e+3

1e+4

1e+5

1e+6

1e+7

1e+8

1e+9

time [sec]

20

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

degree of consolidation U [ - ]
d

1.0

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

degree of consolidation for different


models (Hardening Soil model)

0.8

0.6

0.4

AXI: no drainage
AXI: drainage boundary condition
AXI: drainage
g drain-element
PS: equivalent vertical CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal CUR 191
PS: equivalent horizontal Indraratna

02
0.2

0.0
1e+3

1e+4

1e+5

1e+6

1e+7

1e+8

1e+9

1e+10

time [sec]

Austrian Case
B

WASSER
KANAL

A1/1

A1/9

A2/9

A1/8

PW3

A1/7

A1/6

A2/7

A2/6

PW4

A1/5

A1/3

A1/2

A2/4

A2/3

A2/1
A2/2

A3/4

A3/3

A3/2

E1

A2/5

A2/8

A1/4

A3/1
A3/7

A4/9
RS1/3

A4/8

A4/7

A5/8

A5/7

A5/5

A5/4

A5/3

A5/1
A5/2

A6/5

A6/4

A6/3

A6/1
A6/2

RS2/9

A5/9

RS2/8

A5/6

PW1
RS2/7

Z3/8

A6/7

E2

A6/6

RS2/6

A4/1
A4/2

A4/6

R/1
Z4/8

RS2/5

A7/4
RS2/4

A7/1
A7/2

A7/3

uerer Schutzstreifen

RS2/3

A8/3
5.0
5.0

A8/2
RS2/2

A8/1

RS2/1

Schttabschnitt 1
Schttabschnitt 2

LOGISTIK UMSC HLAGHALLE


HALLE
A4/3
A4/4
A4/5

BRO

A3/8

A3/5

Schttabschnitt 3

A3/9
X

A3/6

21

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

soil profile:
pre-load - drained
= 18 kN/m3

3m
2,5 m

man made material - drained


= 19,5 kN/m3

4,5 m

2m

silt / silt-clay - undrained


kx = ky = 0,0001 m/day ; kx = 1,3e-5 m/day
peat - undrained
kx = ky = 0,005 m/day ; kx = 6,6e-4 m/day

14 m

silt, clay - undrained


kx = ky = 0,0001 m/day ; kx = 1,3e-5 m/day

FE-MODEL

section D
D-D
D
A2/4

A4/4

A6/4

22

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Results for section D-D


comparison measurement - Plaxis point A2/4

ssettlement [cm]

-20

calculated final
settlement
139 cm

-40

-60

-80
Plaxis
measurement

-100

-120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

time [days]

Results for section D-D


comparison measurement - Plaxis - point A6/4

ssettlements [cm]

-10

calculated final
settlement
78 cm

-20

30
-30

Plaxis
measurements

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

time [days]

23

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

EXAMPLE - 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


"slow": max. excess pore
pressure: 86 kPa

"fast": max. excess pore


pressure: 100 kPa

24

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

influence of consolidation on stability


"slow": stable

"fast": failure

influence of consolidation on stability


excess pore pressure [kPa]

Chart 1

excess pore pressure [kN/m2]


-50

slow

fast

fast

-40

-30

-20

slow

-10

0
0

12

16

Time [day]

time [days]

25

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

influence of consolidation on stability


vertical displacements [m]
Chart 1
Displacement [m]
0.06
Point C

Point C

fast

0.05

0.04

slow

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0

30

60

90

120

Time [day]

time [days]

Practical Considerations

26

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

The Problem Bridge Foundations

Lateral spreading
Settlement with risk
for downdrag

These photos of bridge


foundations illustrate a common
problem
bl affecting
ff ti maintenance
i t
($$$!), as well as, on occasions,
one compromising safety

27

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

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.

28

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Basic Relations for Consolidation


Drainage Layer

St
u
1 t
Sf
u0

U AVG

UAVG
St
Sf
ut
u0

where

=
=
=
=
=

Clay Layer
(consolidating)

2H

average degree of consolidation (U)


settlement
l
at Time
Ti t
final settlement at full consolidation
average pore pressure at Time t
initial average pore pressure (on application of the load at Time t = 0)

Drainage Layer

H2
cv

t Tv

t = time to obtain a certain degree of consolidation

where

Tv = a dimensionless time coefficient:


cv = coefficient of consolidation
H = length of the longest drainage path
UAVG (%)
Tv

Tv 0.1 lg (1 U )

25

50

70

80

90

100

0.05

0.20

0.40

0.57

0.85

1.00

"Square" spacing: D = 4/ c/c = 1.13 c/c


c/c

"Triangular" spacing: D = c/c = 1.05 c/c

Basic principle of consolidation process in


the presence of vertical drains

t Th

D2
ch

and

Th

c/c

1
D
1
[ln 0.75] ln
d
8
1 U h

D2
D
1
[ln 0.75] ln
8 ch
d
1U h

The Kjellman-Barron Formula

29

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage


Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan


OCT 2010

Important Points
Build-up of Back Pressure

The consolidation process can be


halted if back-pressure is let to
build-up below the embankment
embankment,
falsely implying that the process is
completed

Flow in a soil containing pervious lenses, bands, or layers

The Kjellman wick, 1942

Theoretically, vertical drains operate


by facilitating horizontal drainage.
H
However,
where
h pervious
i
llenses
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 Geodrain, 1972

The Geodrain, 1976

Wick drain types

30