Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 50

CIV405 Final Report Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, 2005

Optimal Design of Vertical Drains in Soft Ground


Sam Clarke

The University of Sheffield Department of Civil and Structural Engineering CIV405 Final Report Submitted: 06/05/2006

Candidate: MEng. Structural Engineering and Architecture Supervisor: Dr C. C. Hird

Declaration statement
The author certifies that all material contained within this report is his own work except where it is clearly referenced to others.

Signed: Date: 06/05/2006

Acknowledgements
Mike Drew of Cofra UK Limited, for his guidelines on the costing of prefabricated vertical drains and their installation in practice.

Abstract
This project is concerned with the design of a program to calculate the optimal solution for geotechnical problems involving the consolidation of soft ground by the use of prefabricated vertical drains. The effects being taken into account include smear, well resistance, ramped loading and multiple layers. The program has allowed the author to complete a series of parametric studies into the effects of the factors which contribute to the rate of consolidation using vertical drains. The final solution is a distributable program that uses an intuitive graphical user interface. This allows the user to input soil parameters and assumptions and then run the program to find the optimal spacing of drains to achieve a given consolidation in a given time. An element of probabilistic analysis has also been incorporated into the program to allow the creation of risk to cost curves for any parameters. This allows the user to make an educated decision based on the allowable cost and the degree of certainty in the soil parameters.

ii

CONTENTS
Contents.....................................................................................................................................iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ v List of Tables............................................................................................................................. vi List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................vii 1 2 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 1 History of the Methods............................................................................................... 1 The Basic Method .............................................................................................. 1 Well Resistance .................................................................................................. 1 Smear.................................................................................................................. 2 Ramped Loading ................................................................................................ 2 Multi-Layered Systems ...................................................................................... 2 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2

Assumptions and Values ............................................................................................ 3 Factors affecting Performance ................................................................................... 4 Practical Data ............................................................................................................. 4 Program Design .............................................................................................................. 4 Assumptions of the Program ...................................................................................... 4 Development of the Model......................................................................................... 5 Well resistance and smear integration................................................................ 5 Ramped loading application............................................................................... 8 Multiple Layers ................................................................................................ 11 Vertical Drainage ............................................................................................. 13

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3 3.4

Program Validation .................................................................................................. 15 Program Optimisation .............................................................................................. 17 Cost analysis of the problem ............................................................................ 17 Probabilistic analysis........................................................................................ 18

3.4.1 3.4.2 4 5 5.1 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 7

Parametric Studies ........................................................................................................ 22 Program Distribution .................................................................................................... 25 Worked Example using the Verticalc Program........................................................ 27 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 28 Theoretical vs. Practical ........................................................................................... 28 Further Geotechnical Developments........................................................................ 29 Further Computing Developments ........................................................................... 29 References .................................................................................................................... 30 iii

8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 9 9.1 9.2

Appendix 1: Program Users Guide ............................................................................. 32 Installation of Verticalc............................................................................................ 32 The Graphical User Interface Explained.................................................................. 33 Entering Values ........................................................................................................ 34 Using the Probabilistic Analysis Tools .................................................................... 35 Using the Calculate Function ................................................................................... 36 Accounting for multiple layers................................................................................. 37 Advanced Features ................................................................................................... 38 Troubleshooting ....................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 2: Useful data............................................................................................... 40 Mebradrain Specifications: 28-05-2005................................................................... 40 Equations.................................................................................................................. 41 Hansbo (1981):................................................................................................. 41 Olson (1977)..................................................................................................... 41 Carrillo (1942).................................................................................................. 42

9.2.1 9.2.2 9.2.3

iv

List of Figures
Figure 1: Consolidation curves as described by Hansbo (1981). n=25...................................... 5 Figure 2: Plot of the effect of Smear for varying depth and time .............................................. 6 Figure 3: Plot of the effect of Well Resistance for varying depth and time............................... 6 Figure 4: Effect of Smear in relation to depth and spacing of drains......................................... 7 Figure 5: Plot of variation of U with depth - double vs. single drained conditions. .................. 7 Figure 6: Comparison of the effect of ramped loading on the consolidation process................ 8 Figure 7: Internal workings of the matlab ramped loading script .............................................. 9 Figure 8: Comparison of ramped loading methods.................................................................. 10 Figure 9: Input matrix for the matlab working script............................................................... 10 Figure 10: Matlab script modification for multiple layers ....................................................... 10 Figure 11: Variation of the effect of Well Resistance in a multilayered soil........................... 13 Figure 12: Contribution to the consolidation process by vertical drainage.............................. 14 Figure 13: Relative Effect of Vertical Drainage ...................................................................... 15 Figure 14: Graphical comparison between Leo (2004) and the present paper......................... 17 Figure 15: Example of a Beta Distribution .............................................................................. 19 Figure 16: The updated matlab script for variable input values............................................... 20 Figure 17: PERT analysis matlab script................................................................................... 21 Figure 18: Risk versus Cost curve from PERT analysis .......................................................... 22 Figure 19: The effects of well resistance on the consolidation process ................................... 23 Figure 20: The effects of smear on the consolidation process ................................................. 23 Figure 21: The effects of spacing on the consolidation process .............................................. 24 Figure 22: Principle of the Graphical User interface ............................................................... 25 Figure 23: GUI Initial Screen - Generic Version ..................................................................... 26 Figure 24: GUI Initial Screen - Cofra UK Version.................................................................. 27 Figure 25: GUI output showing Leo (2004) model.................................................................. 28

List of Tables
Table 1: Values for the initial analyses ...................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Comparison of the superposition method to Olson (1977) ........................................ 11 Table 3: Assumptions and Values used in the Leo (2004) analysis......................................... 16 Table 4: Comparison of the Leo (2004) results to those of the author..................................... 16 Table 5: Installation Costs........................................................................................................ 18 Table 6: Z - values for beta distribution................................................................................... 19 Table 7: Converted parameters from the Leo (2004) Analysis................................................ 27

vi

List of Symbols
Symbol
ch D d H kc M mv qw S s t Th U z w

description
Coefficient of consolidation Drainage boundary (m) Equivalent diameter of the drain (m) Total depth of the clay layer (m) Horizontal permeability of the soil (m2/year) Oedometer compression modulus (MN/m2) Compressibility coefficient of the soil (1/M) Discharge capacity of the drain (m3/year) Drain spacing (m) Zone of smear = ds / d Time (years) Time factor in radial consolidation Degree of consolidation Depth into the clay layer (m) Unit weight of water (KPa) Pore water pressure (KPa)

vii

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this project is to provide a valuable tool for the design of vertical drains in practice, with the emphasis being on the combination of an accurate prediction of consolidation settlement and the ease and speed of use. In practice currently there are two feasible approaches to the design of vertical drains. Firstly to use simple design tools and methods based on basic assumptions (such as a single homogenous layer) to calculate the consolidation then interpolating between different methods to gain a more informed estimate of the settlements. The second option is reserved for projects that have little tolerance (such as nuclear power plants), which involves using a finite element or difference program to calculate the settlements. This second method is much more time consuming, and many more of the soil parameters are required. In practice generally the first option is used. The aim of this project is to fill the void between the two methods to give a quick estimate of the settlements with the minimal amount of required information and time. The factors that are going to be taken into account in this project are Ramped Loading, Smear, Well Resistance and Multiple Layers. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 History of the Methods 2.1.1 The Basic Method One of the key principles in geotechnics is that of excess pore water pressure. When a load is applied to a soil it induces an excess pore water pressure within the soil. As the soil dissipates these pressures the amount of water within the soil body decreases and the volume of the soil decreases. This process is called consolidation. The length of time required for a specific soil to consolidate is dictated by the soil parameters and the drainage distance. The installation of vertical drains effectively reduces the drainage distance and thus decreases the amount of time required for consolidation. One of the best known studies of Vertical Drains was conducted by Barron (1948.) He assumed two types of vertical strain that might occur in the clay. Firstly free strain, resulting from a uniform distribution of surface load and secondly equal strain, resulting from imposing the same vertical deformation on the surface for uniform soil. 2.1.2 Well Resistance As the application of vertical drains became more widespread and deeper layers of clay were involved other factors became apparent in the design. Originally the drains were created from 1

sand and had large diameters, 0.4 0.6m, but as the technology developed methods of decreasing the construction costs led to the development of the band drain that have a comparatively small diameter. This led to the problem of well resistance, where by the drain no longer has sufficient discharge capacity to cope with the volume of water drained from the clay. The problem was first addressed from a design aspect by Yoshikuni & Nakanado (1974) who arrived at a rigorous solution. Work since then has been carried out by Hansbo (1981) who arrived at a simplified solution for the same case, which from testing provides a strong correlation with the more rigorous Yoshikuni & Nakanado (1974) solution. 2.1.3 Smear During the installation of vertical drains a mandrel is used to force the drain into the clay layer. Although there are many ways of installing drains such as auger drilling, water-jetting, the most common method is by the closed end mandrel. The mandrel causes disturbance to the surrounding soil, and leads to a change in horizontal permeability in this area. The disturbed area is known as the smear zone. Again Yoshikuni & Nakanado (1974) calculated a rigorous solution and Hansbo (1981) the simplified version. 2.1.4 Ramped Loading For all the solutions mentioned above the load is assumed to be placed instantaneously, in practice this is impossible, and ramped loading needs to be accounted for. Olson (1977) introduced a solution for a single ramped load, for both vertical and radial drainage separately without account for the influence of Smear and Well Resistance. When used in conjunction with Carrillo (1942) formula for combining vertical and radial flow, average flow for a whole homogenous layer can be calculated. Through a process of superposition of the ramps, variation in ramping can be taken into account using Olsons (1977) solution. Zhu & Yin (2004) also developed a solution for ramped loading for combined radial and vertical flow independent of Carrillo (1942). The authors also extended their solution to cover the effects of smear as well Zhu & Yin (2004), although well resistance is still not accounted for. 2.1.5 Multi-Layered Systems Most solutions for problems based on the simplification that the clay layer is homogenous. In practice this is never the case as even homogenous soils have varying values with depth (such as the coefficient of compressibility). Very little research has been done to create a single formula to take into account these variations. The layering of the soil dramatically reduces the vertical permeability of the soil and means that assumptions such as those of Zhu & Yin (2001, 2004) and Olson (1977) that combine vertical and radial drainage are void. Zhu & Yin (1999) also formulated a solution for double soil layers under ramped loading, but again the 2

solution disregards the effects of smear and well resistance. Onoue (1988) developed a finite difference solution that was able to take into account the vertical and horizontal flow from each layer independently. These were combined with the effects of smear and well resistance, although the actual formulae are not present in the paper. Onoue (1988) also developed a method by which the effects of layering can be taken into account for simple analyses; this method is recommended in Moseley and Kirsch (2004) for the practical design of drains. 2.2 Assumptions and Values From the review above of the main work on calculating the settlements it can be seen that only a select few have combined all of the major contributing factors into one solution, and no author has created a way of calculating the solution quickly. (Finite difference programs do take time to set up.) The authors program will be based on the Hansbo (1981) method of calculating consolidation settlements as this is a relatively quick and accurate method that lends itself to manipulation for taking account of ramped loading. I will use Olson (1977) to check my results for the case of ramped loading as this is an accepted standard for the calculation of the ramped load. Other than the actual formulae used for the calculations, thought also has to be given to the values used within such formulae. Well resistance is dictated by the discharge capacity of the drain, the length of the drain itself and whether the drain is single or double drained. The drainage length is fixed for any given test as are the drainage conditions, but the discharge capacity is a function of the lateral earth pressure at depth. The discharge capacity is a known variable and the data is provided by the drain manufacturer following laboratory tests. In the case of smear one can not be certain of the parameters for the diameter of the smear zone and the reduction in permeability caused in such a zone, without experimental data to back up such values. Hird & Moseley (2000) suggest values of s = 1.6 and kc kc' = 3 for heavily stratified clay this is backed up by small scale ( = 254mm) test models and pore water pressure measurements. Hansbo (1981) also suggested similar values of s = 1.5 and
kc kc' = 3 but without any experimental data to back up the values. Sharma & Xiao (2000)

conducted a series of tests on a large scale ( = 1m) in a single homogenous clay layer with values of kc kc' = 1.3 and the zone of smear being about 4 times the size of the mandrel. Note this is not the same as stating s = 4 , in reality s is now a function of the depth as the depth increases so does the size of the mandrel required to penetrate to that depth. Indraratna & Redana (2000) suggest a value of s = 3 4 , but give no numerical value to the reduction in horizontal permeability apart from stating that the relationship is linear. Although some authors Hansbo (2001), argue that the conditions for darcian flow are not 3

always valid, for the purposes of this project darcian flow is assumed as in Hansbo (1981) and Yoshikuni & Nakanado (1974). 2.3 Factors affecting performance As with all geotechnics there is an inherent uncertainty in the soil parameters used for design. This includes such vital information as the horizontal permeability of the soil, to which the whole radial consolidation process is linked. Chu et al. (2004) investigated the effects of different factors on drainage, including guidance on the selection of PVDs and soil parameters. Chai and Miura (1999) investigated the effects of the rectangular band drain compared with circular wells in relation to the effects of smear, concluding that a circular analysis agrees very closely with that of a rectangular analysis. The analytical model used has an effect on the accuracy of the final solution Hawlader et al. (2002) compared Barron (1948) with a finite difference analysis, showing a very high degree of agreement between the two. Chu et al. (2004) also compared the Hansbo (1981) equation to a finite element analysis concluding that for most cases Hansbo (1981) is good estimation for design purposes. There is no real necessity to use a finite difference or element analysis to create an overly accurate prediction based on uncertain parameters, when simple equations Hansbo (1981) can be used to calculate equally valid predictions. 2.4 Practical Data From contact with Cofra UK Ltd, the specifications for various drains were supplied giving the analysis a realistic basis. The specifications for the Mebradrain series of drains are contained within appendix 2. Chu et al. (2004) describe how the soil parameters can affect the possible choice of drain by factors such as clogging and buckling of the drain. 3 PROGRAM DESIGN

3.1 Assumptions of the Program From previous comparisons between analytical models (Hansbo (1981), Hawlader (2002)) it has been decided to use the Hansbo (1981) method for the calculation of the consolidation. Hansbo (1981) was chosen over Yoshikuni & Nakanado (1974) due to the shear simplicity of the Hansbo (1981) equation given its close agreement with that of Yoshikuni & Nakanado (1974). The program will be designed to take into account the effects of ramped loads, multiple layers, well resistance and smear. For the values of smear zone and coefficient of horizontal permeability the values from Hird & Moseley (2000) will be used: s = 1.6 and 4

kc kc' = 3 . For the purposes of this paper the values below have been used for all analyses

unless otherwise stated. Table 1: Values for the initial analyses. kc mv D d Tc 5.5 0.25 1.5 0.06557 0.5 m2/year m2/MN m m years H l z qw 20 10 10 1736 m m m m3/year

3.2 Development of the model 3.2.1 Well resistance and smear integration. The program was initiated by the use of the Hansbo (1981) equation to model the consolidation curve for a given soil. This was quickly extended to encompass the effects of smear and well as described by Hansbo (1981). Figure 1: Consolidation curves as described by Hansbo (1981). n=25.
Horizontal Tim e Factor (Th)

0.01 0 0.1 0.2


Average Consolidation (U)

0.1

10

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1


Simple Smear and Well Well

From figure 1 the effect of smear and well resistance can be clearly seen as having a considerable effect on the rate of consolidation of the soil. From the equations a series of studies were completed into the effects of each of the factors direct contribution to the retardation of the consolidation process with relation to depth. It can be seen from the relative maximum magnitude of the graphs in figure 3 that well resistance can have a very considerable effect on the process with up to a 0.37 reduction in average 5

consolidation, with the effect increasing with depth. As well resistance is depth dependant and the effects of smear are related to the spacing of the drains rather than the depth, smear is the predominant factor in shallow layers- this can be seen in figures 2 and 3, with the effect of smear having a 0.095 influence compared with the 0.01 influence of well resistance in the same 5m deep case. Figure 2: Plot of the effect of Smear for varying depth and time
0.1 0.09 0.08
Change in Degree of Consolidation

0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.01

5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m

0.1

1
Time (years)

10

100

Figure 3: Plot of the effect of Well Resistance for varying depth and time
0.4 0.35
Change in Degree of Consolidation

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.01 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m

0.1

1
Time (years)

10

100

A study was completed to see the effects of smear when varying the drain spacing. The results prove interesting as the relative effect of smear varies only a little with increasing spacing, but once again smear has the greatest effect in shallow soils, or more accurately well resistance becomes the dominating factor in deeper soils. Figure 4: Effect of Smear in relation to depth and spacing of drains
0.14

0.12
Difference in consolidation ratio

0.1 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Spacing D (m)

3.5

4.5

One thing to note is that the values for the average degree of consolidation used so far are for
Degree of Consolidation U 0 0 2 4 6 Depth D (m) 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Double Drained U Well Single Drained U Well Simple Consolidation U U Smear + Well U Smear + Well 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

mid-depth in the soil body. As Hansbos (1981) equation is depth dependant the end drainage conditions of the drain itself have a large influence on the degree of consolidation, as it doubles the drainage distance within the drain body, thus increasing the effect of well resistance. Figure 5: Plot of variation of U with depth double vs. single drained conditions. As can be seen from figure 5 the effects of well resistance are greatest at mid depth, where the largest excess of pore water pressures exist. The simple analysis 7

shown in blue is independent of depth. Smear in also relatively independent of depth showing an almost direct relationship with well resistance. The figure also shows the massive effect of the drainage condition on the drain itself, with the dashed lines denoting a single (top) drained well. This has implications for the practical applications of vertical drains which will be discussed later. 3.2.2 Ramped loading application The next step was to introduce the idea of a ramped loading factor into the calculations. Traditionally in practice this was done by applying the load half way through the construction period, as this gives a reasonable degree of accuracy for long periods of time but in the short term it is only a very rough estimate. To compare the effects of ramped loading the Olson (1977) equation was plotted on the same axes as the Hansbo (1981) equations. From figure 6 it can be seen that the effects of ramped loading far outweigh those of well resistance and smear combined. Also the method of placing the full load half way through the construction period is shown to be inaccurate for short times (although it does provide a more informed view than Hansbos (1981) simple equation alone.) Figure 6: Comparison of the effect of ramped loading on the consolidation process.
0.01 0 0.1 0.2
Average Consolidation

0.1

Time (Years)

10

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1


Simple Well Well + Smear Ramping Half Time Ramp

The author then used Hansbos (1981) simple consolidation equation to model the Olson (1977) curve, thus creating a link between the ramped loading consolidation and that of smear and well resistance. This allows the combined analysis of smear, well resistance and ramped loading in one program without the need for finite difference or element formulations. The 8

ramped loading was accounted for by the superposition of many small steps of loading at equal time intervals, the smaller the step the more accurate the solution. Figure 7: Internal workings of the matlab ramped loading script

consol.m program call

tim Initial Values layer drain tc s kckcd Step 1: Set Limits of Accuracy qw D d

Time of Interest (years) Matrix of Soil Parameters End Conditions of Drain Construction Period Effect of Smear Zone Reduction in permeability of Smear Zone Discharge Capacity of Drain (m3/yr) Radius of effect of the drain (m) Drain diameter (m)

This makes sure the program runs quickly tmax Based on tim value acc

L=H

If 'drain' = single

Step 2: Set Boundary Conditions

If 'drain' = double

L=H/2

Step 3: Calculate Consolidation without Ramping

For All Times For All Depths

Steps of Depth dictated by H / accuracy

tmax is set in step 1 tmin = 1 / accuracy step length = 1 / accuracy

CALCULATE CONSOLIDATION Hansbo Formula Store U Values for all calculated Depths

Hansbo Accounts for Smear and Well Resistance

Time is also stored in Uavg to allow the plot of a consolidation curve

Store average U for all times in matrix 'Uavg' average U

Uavg is divided by accuracy to account for the superposition

Uavg If the degree of consolidation cannot be found the program interpolates between the nearest values to obtain the value (when input is a fraction)

Step 4: Uavg is superimposed onto its self to account for ramped loading

The ramp load is applied in very small steps giving a very close approximation to a linear loading pattern

Step 5: Output Calculated Values and Curves

The degree of consolidation associated with the input 'tim' is found within the Uavg matrix

The Consolidation curve is plotted from the data within the Uavg matrix

Average U

Uavg

The program then was written as a matlab script, as represented in figure 7 to allow a more flexible interface, smaller step sizes and the ability to easily change variables. Figure 7 represents the basic version of the script, taking into account well resistance, smear and ramped loading. By changing the version of the Hansbo (1981) formula used within step 3, the effects of smear and well resistance can be removed to allow a direct comparison with the Olson (1977) consolidation curve. In figure 8 the consolidations were plotted against time; it is obvious from this comparison that the values are very similar, as little distinction can be made visually. The values were analysed numerically to assess the accuracy of the superposition method for changing step sizes. Figure 8: Comparison of ramped loading methods
0.01 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Olson (1977) Matlab Simple Matlab Smear and Well

0.1

Time (years)

10

It can be seen from table 2 that the superposition model agrees very closely with the results directly given by Olson (1977), especially in the case of the 10,000 step model. Even in the case of the 100 step model the prediction may start out with a large relative error but in absolute terms the difference is insignificant. The superposition method allows the effects of smear and well resistance to be accounted for at the same time as the ramped loading. This can be seen in figure 8, showing how the effects of smear and well resistance influence the emulation of the Olson (1977) curve. As the method is in script form it becomes much simpler to perform parametric studies on the influence of individual factors.

Average Consolidation

10

Table 2: Comparison of the superposition method to Olson (1977)


Time 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 Olson 0.000165 0.000654 0.001454 0.002558 0.003953 0.005631 0.007583 0.009799 0.012271 0.014990 0.017949 0.021139 0.024553 0.028183 0.032022 0.036064 0.040301 0.044728 0.049338 0.054126 Matlab superposition model 100 Steps 1000 Steps 10000 Steps 0.000329 -49.72% 0.000182 -9.04% 0.000166 -0.69% 0.000975 -32.96% 0.000686 -4.71% 0.000655 -0.29% 0.001929 -24.59% 0.001502 -3.17% 0.001457 -0.19% 0.003180 -19.56% 0.002620 -2.39% 0.002562 -0.17% 0.004718 -16.21% 0.004030 -1.91% 0.003959 -0.15% 0.006535 -13.82% 0.005722 -1.59% 0.005639 -0.13% 0.008291 -8.54% 0.007687 -1.36% 0.007592 -0.11% 0.010648 -7.97% 0.009917 -1.18% 0.009809 -0.10% 0.013255 -7.42% 0.012401 -1.05% 0.012283 -0.10% 0.015777 -4.98% 0.015132 -0.94% 0.015003 -0.08% 0.018873 -4.90% 0.018103 -0.85% 0.017963 -0.08% 0.022196 -4.76% 0.021304 -0.77% 0.021154 -0.07% 0.025738 -4.61% 0.024729 -0.71% 0.024568 -0.06% 0.029493 -4.44% 0.028369 -0.66% 0.028198 -0.05% 0.033452 -4.28% 0.032219 -0.61% 0.032037 -0.05% 0.037611 -4.11% 0.036271 -0.57% 0.036079 -0.04% 0.041961 -3.95% 0.040518 -0.53% 0.040316 -0.04% 0.046497 -3.80% 0.044954 -0.50% 0.044743 -0.03% 0.051212 -3.66% 0.049573 -0.47% 0.049353 -0.03% 0.056101 -3.52% 0.054369 -0.45% 0.054140 -0.03%

3.2.3 Multiple Layers Taking into account the changing parameters with depth was done using the guidelines given by Onoue (1988). This is done by calculating the consolidation at all depths within each layer independently, but using the overall depth to calculate the effect of well resistance. This method is valid for all combinations of layer depths and values but the degree of accuracy becomes lower when the individual layers have greatly different properties. Figure 9: Input matrix for the matlab working script.
layer=[0 1 2 3 0 6 12 20 0 5.5 5.0 2.0 0 0.20 0.22 0.25]

Figure 9 shows an example of how the soil parameters are entered into the matlab script. The 1st column denotes the layer number, the 2nd column the depth the layer extends

to, the 3rd the associated kc value (m2/year) and the 4th the mv value (m2/MN). This allows the script to process the different values as it moves down through the depth of the soil. In the later versions of the script, step 3 was modified to account for the changes in soil parameters with depth; the details of this change in step 3 have been demonstrated in figure 10. This modification allows multiple layers to be taken into account quickly and easily with just a simple adjustment to the layer matrix seen in figure 9. The program assumes that the assumptions made in the Hansbo (1981) model for well resistance are still valid for a multiple layer analysis. This was investigated and proven by Onoue (1988) with the testing of a rigorous finite difference model for multiple layers when compared with Hansbo (1981). 11

Figure 10: Matlab script modification for multiple layers

layer=[0 1 2 3

0 6 12 20

0 5.5 5.0 2.0

0 0.20 0.22 0.25]

The Layer input matrix now has values associated to more than one layer to facilitate a multi layer analysis

Step 3: Calculate Consolidation without Ramping

For All Times

Steps of Depth dictated by H / accuracy Counts up to the number of layers in the system Layer Monitor Layer Data mv kc Changes soil parameters dependant on depth / layer in soil Hansbo Accounts for Smear and Well Resistance CALCULATE CONSOLIDATION Hansbo Formula

For All Depths

tmax is set in step 1 tmin = 1 / accuracy step length = 1 / accuracy

layer

Store U Values for all calculated Depths

Time is also stored in Uavg to allow the plot of a consolidation curve Uavg is divided by accuracy to account for the superposition

Store average U for all times in matrix 'Uavg'

average U

Uavg

Step 4

This assumption for well resistance holds well for small differences between the properties of the layers (as can be seen in figure 11), but starts to become less accurate when the differences become larger in the region kc layer 1 / kc layer 2 = 400. The inaccuracies created by the well resistance assumption lead to a more conservative result than that given by the Onoue (1988) model. Figure 11 shows the variation in the degree of consolidation according to depth, comparing the Hansbo (1981) models for smear and well resistance and smear alone. In reality the pore water pressures created within the drain would show a continuous distribution throughout the length of the drain, rather than the stepped distribution 12

shown in figure 11. For the purposes of the program, the degree of consolidation is calculated at all depths, accounting for the variation in soil parameters as shown in figure 11. This distribution is then averaged and stored in the matrix Uavg with the corresponding time of interest, to allow for the superposition influence of the ramped loading. Figure 11: Variation of the effect of Well Resistance in a multilayered soil.
Degree of Consolidation U
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Calculation assumptions: Layer 1: Kc = 5.5 m2/yr mv = 0.20 m2/MN Layer 2: Kc = 4.5 m2/yr mv = 0.22 m2/MN Layer 3: Kc = 3.0 m2/yr mv = 0.25 m2/MN Time of interest 0.1 years

Depth (m)

10

12

14

16

18

20 Well Resistance Without Well Average

3.2.4 Vertical Drainage One of the assumptions that has been made for the multiple layer case is that any vertical drainage is ignored. This is due to the uncertainty of the coefficient of vertical consolidation over the entire soil body, as it cannot simply be combined into a single average value for the soil. Also there is no method of easily combining the effects of vertical and radial drainage for multilayered soils as the Carrillo (1942) method can only be applied to homogenous cases. Another reason is the minimal effect that vertical drainage has in most drained cases- the 13

radial drainage distance is massively shorter than the vertical drainage distance for 99% of PVD problems. Again this assumption leads to a conservative solution, as any vertical drainage will only add to the safety factor of the design. This is not the case however for a homogenous soil where due to the nature of the soil, the coefficient of vertical consolidation can be obtained with relative accuracy. The contribution made by vertical drainage can therefore be calculated much more accurately, and thus its effect on the overall consolidation can be taken into account with the aid of the Carrillo (1942) formula. As there are no effects of smear and well resistance in the case of vertical drainage there is no need to apply a version of the superposition method to this case. Instead, Olsons (1977) formula for ramped vertical drainage can be used to calculate directly the contribution to the overall consolidation. Figure 12 shows an example of the contributions of both radial and vertical drainage to the consolidation process. Figure 12: Contribution to the consolidation process by vertical drainage.
Average Consolidation Curve 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Radial Drainage Vertical Drainage Combined Drainage 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Time (Years) 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 12 shows the contribution of vertical drainage when the spacing of the wells is much shorter than the vertical drainage distance. (Spacing (D) =1.5m, Depth (H) =10m). If the spacing becomes greater then the effect of vertical drainage is much more pronounced, to the point where the vertical drainage can have more of an effect than the radial drainage. In reality this would never occur as there would be no realistic benefit from installing the drains at such great centres. Figure 13 shows the effects of increasing the spacing of the drains and 14

Degree of Consolidation (U)

the effect this has on the relationship between the vertical and horizontal drainage. So long as the Uv/Uh value is less than 1 the effect of Radial Consolidation outweighs that of Vertical Consolidation, and it is worth while implementing a drainage scheme. This equates to a maximum viable spacing for a 10m deep soil of 5.2m and 6.4m in the case of the 20m deep soil. Bearing in mind that these spacings correspond to n values of 79 and 98 respectively they are way outside the normal constructional limits (for Cofra, the maximum viable installation n value is 38). In the lower regions of figure 13 there is little difference between the different depth plots; this adds weight to the argument that if the spacing can be minimised the effects of vertical drainage can also be minimised. Figure 13: Relative Effect of Vertical Drainage
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Depth = 20m Depth = 10m

Uv/Uh at T=0.75 years

4 5 6 Drain Spacing - D (m)

10

3.3 Program Validation To make the program a valuable tool for use in practice it must be tested against current models to check the validity of the analysis. To some extent individual sections have already had to be validated to allow for the program to progress. In the initial stages to eliminate any discrepancies within the Matlab script, the results output were verified by hand to check accuracy and to prove the script was functioning as it was meant to. The modelling of Olsons (1977) equations allowed the testing of the superposition method for ramped loading; this proved that the accuracy of the model was very high indeed with an average 1.5% error. This can be seen in figure 8 and table 2. The next step in the validation process was to check the 15

finished model was accurate. Unfortunately there are few authors who have published work in the same area; that of writing programs to model all the associated factors along with multiple layers. Onoue (1988) published graphical outputs from a finite difference program, modelling all the factors and more (such as vertical drainage in the individual layers), but these are impossible to emulate as the input parameters and assumptions are unknown. Leo (2004) wrote a spreadsheet program to model all the factors except for the consideration of multiple layers. The input values and assumptions for the results calculated were given in the paper and this allowed the direct comparison of the Leo (2004) model to that of the author. Table 3: Assumptions and Values used in the Leo (2004) analysis ch = 2.25 m2/year kh / ks = 3 ch / cv = 3 rw = 0.033 m h = 4.5 m re = 0.4725 m rs = 0.075 m s = 1.6

With the values in table 3 the author used the matlab script created for a single layer analysis to model the results generated by Leo (2004). One thing to note is that as the soil is relatively shallow (4.5m) Leo (2004) has not included the effects of well resistance in the analysis. To this effect the author has used the ideal drain model (infinite drain permeability) to more accurately compare the models. Table 4: Comparison of the Leo (2004) results to those of the author Time (yrs) 0.167 0.250 0.458 0.708 0.958 tc = 0.167 0.083 0.292 0.542 0.792 tc = .083 Ramp Leo (2004) 0.389 0.632 0.893 0.975 0.994 Ramp No Well Present Relative Error 0.394 1.269% 0.634 0.284% 0.894 0.078% 0.976 0.062% 0.994 0.040% Ramp Inc Well Present % Difference 0.386 -2.125% 0.623 -1.734% 0.886 -0.858% 0.973 -0.308% 0.993 -0.111%

0.236 0.783 0.950 0.989

0.237 0.784 0.951 0.989

0.590% 0.166% 0.095% -0.030%

0.232 0.775 0.946 0.987

-2.239% -1.265% -0.518% -0.182%

0.083 0.292 0.542 tc = .208

0.448 0.876 0.972

0.454 0.878 0.972 Averages

1.300% 0.182% -0.010% 0.335%

0.445 0.870 0.969

-1.977% -0.920% -0.341% -1.048%

Table 4 demonstrates the accuracy of the program, with the maximum relative error being 16

1.3% and the average error for all results being only 0.335%. The graphical check in figure 14 shows without a doubt the high degree of correlation between the models. Figure 14 also demonstrates the validity of Leo (2001) in disregarding the effect of well resistance for the analysis as it had a maximum influence of 2.1% and an average influence of only 1%. If the soil in the analysis was deeper or the resistance of the drain very low then well resistance would have a much more influential part to play. Figure 14: Graphical comparison between Leo (2004) and the present paper
Time (years)

0.15 0.3

0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

0.65

0.75

0.85

0.95

0.4
Degree of Consolidation (%)

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 Leo 2004 Present Paper Present with Well

From the program checks done above it can be concluded that the single homogenous layer soil analysis, taking into account well resistance, smear, ramped loading and vertical drainage, is 99% accurate in testing. The expansion of the model for multiple layers is valid (Onoue 1988) and although it cannot claim the same degree of accuracy due to inherent errors in the assumptions and the loss of the vertical drainage, it can claim to always give a conservative result for the cases analysed. There are no precedents to test the multiple layer model against to ascertain its exact accuracy. 3.4 Program Optimisation

3.4.1 Cost analysis of the problem The brief for this project is to design a program that optimises the use of vertical drains in a practical installation. For this to work from a design point of view some extra data about the installation is required, such as the area, target cost of the project and maximum time 17

allowable for the required degree of consolidation. The values for the installation costs in table 5 were provided by Mike Drew of Cofra UK Ltd. Table 5: Installation Costs N value Material Cost Installation Cost 17 20 0.20 / m 0.34 / m 20 - 30 0.20 / m 0.38 / m 30 - 38 0.20 / m 0.48 / m Deep Layers of soil that require pre-drilling 0.95 / m Mobilisation of Equipment to site 8000 Knowing the area of the installation, the depth of the soil, the time allowed and the degree of consolidation required, it is possible to calculate the spacing required to achieve the associated degree of consolidation. From the spacing the number of drains required in the installation can be calculated and using the installation costs in table 5 this can be turned into a cost for the project. This approach enables the program to find the optimal spacing to achieve the requirements provided, and thus the lowest cost solution to the problem. The only problem with this approach is the variance in the soil parameters, as a small difference from the calculated solution to those in practice would throw out the answers and not necessarily lead to the project completing on time. For example a small decrease in Kc due to variation across the site would lead to the required degree of consolidation not being reached in the allotted time. The choice of the values for the soil parameters is left at the discretion of the Geotechnical Engineer based upon the results of a ground investigation. Using a method of probabilistic analysis the variation in soil parameter could be automatically accounted for, thus giving the Engineer a method of backing up his instincts. 3.4.2 Probabilistic analysis What was needed was a method of taking into account the variation in the values of the soil parameters quickly and easily without needing any more data about the soil conditions surrounding the installation. As the aim is to provide a design tool it was deemed by the author unrealistic to expect the user to have to provide any amount of input data extra to that required by the usual methods of ground investigation, as this would make the program more complicated and require additional cost to implement at a design stage. The Programme Evaluation and Review Technique or PERT is one such method. PERT was originally devised to provide a time estimate based on best, expected and worst case scenarios with no other inputs into the method, where a = minimum possible time, m = expected time and b = maximum time. The PERT analysis assumes that the distribution of variables corresponds to a beta distribution. 18

Expected mean duration (central tendency), t e =

a + 4m + b 6

Standard deviation (spread),

te =

(b a) 6

Variance,
Figure 15: Example of a Beta Distribution

2 v = te

Figure 15 shows the standard form of the beta distribution given the values of a, b and m. This is unlike the standard normal distribution as it does not have to be symmetric about the mean, this allows it to take better account of skewed input values. To fully allow a probabilistic analysis a way of transforming the input values into a probability is required, in the case of the PERT analysis this is the Z value, where:
Z= TS TE

and TS = Time required, TE = Time expected. P is the probability that the time taken for completion of the consolidation will

te

be less than or equal to TS , these values are given in table 6.


Table 6: Z-values for beta distribution

Z 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

P 0.50 0.62 0.73 0.82 0.90 0.93 0.98 0.99 1.00

This data allows the user to predict the spacing of the drains required to be probabilistically sure that the consolidation will complete in the allotted time. A probability of 0.5 would mean that the installation would be equally likely to over run as it would to be on time, for this analysis the Z value is 0, therefore TS = TE. This is the equivalent of the standard analysis, with no probabilistic

element, as no direct account of the spread of the results is taken into account. To allow the PERT analysis to be performed three estimates for the possible duration need to be calculated - the best, expected and worst case scenarios. These can be calculated by allowing the user to enter a spread of values for the soil parameter Kc - a maximum, minimum and average value. When the consolidations are calculated using the different values of Kc it will give a spread of U values corresponding to the best, expected and worst case scenarios.
19

Figure 16: The updated matlab script for variable input values
consolsimple_fast.m program call Initial Values supplied by risk.m tim layer drain tc s kckcd Based on tim value acc Step 1: Set Limits of Accuracy qw D d
Time of Interest (years) Matrix of Soil Parameters End Conditions of Drain Construction Period Effect of Smear Zone Reduction in permeability of Smear Zone Discharge Capacity of Drain (m3/yr) Radius of effect of the drain (m) Drain diameter (m)

This makes sure the program runs quickly tmax

L=H

If 'drain' = single

Step 2: Set Boundary Conditions

If 'drain' = double

L=H/2

Step 3: Set upper, lower and average kc values

layer

Layer contains new values relating to the maximum, minimum and average kc values

Step 4: Calculate Consolidation without Ramping

consolmulti_fast.m includes an extra loop to account for the changing kc an mv values with depth. Steps 6 and 7 are also removed.

For All Times For All Depths

Steps of Depth dictated by H / accuracy

tmax is set in step 1 tmin = 1 / accuracy step length = 1 / accuracy

CALCULATE CONSOLIDATION Hansbo Formula Store U Values for all calculated Depths

Hansbo Accounts for Smear and Well Resistance

Time is also stored in Uavg to allow the plot of a consolidation curve

Store average U for all times in matrix 'Uavg' average U

Uavg is divided by accuracy to account for the superposition

Uavg

If the degree of consolidation cannot be found the program interpolates between the nearest values to obtain the value (when input is a fraction)

Step 5: Uavg is superimposed onto its self to account for ramped loading

The ramp load is applied in very small steps giving a very close approximation to a linear loading pattern

The degrees of consolidation associated with the input 'tim' are found within the Uavg matrix for each case.

Step 6: Olson's ramped equation for vertical drainage is used for single layer

Step 7: Carrillo's formula is applied to combine the effects for vertical and radial drainage a

avgUmin

averageU

avgUmax

m b

Ouput returned to risk.m to allow PERT analysis of soil data

20

This was written as an extension to the matlab script to allow for the variation in the soil parameters, which can be seen in figure 16. These values can then be entered into the PERT analysis to give a degree of confidence in the end consolidation completing on time- fig 17.
Figure 17: PERT analysis matlab script
Arbitrary D value risk.m program call tim Initial Values layer drain tc 'layers'==1 SINGLE LAYER consolsingle_fast.m program call 'layers'==2+ MULTI LAYER consolmulti_fast.m program call s kckcd qw target U d
Time for Completion (years) Matrix of Soil Parameters End Conditions of Drain Construction Period Effect of Smear Zone Reduction in permeability of Smear Zone Discharge Capacity of Drain (m3/yr) Required Degree of Consolidation Drain diameter (m)

Step1: Run scripts with Arbitrary D value to establish base points

New D value

avgUmin

averageU

avgUmax No

Iteration Loop where New D value is calculated from the difference between expected U and target U

For Step 2 PERT analysis P=0.5, Z=0 therefore expected U = target U

Step 2: Use PERT analysis to calculate the expected U

expected U

Check: expected U = target U Yes

Not Possible

Warning Message Displayed

Last D value calculated frovides excellent start point for further analysis

For All P Values

Step4: Run scripts with Arbitrary D value to establish base points

target U

probable.m program call

Step 3: Use PERT P and Z table combined with formula to change target U to account for variable data

'layers'==1 SINGLE LAYER consolsingle_fast.m program call

'layers'==2+ MULTI LAYER consolmulti_fast.m program call

No

Warning Message Displayed

Degree stores average U, avgUmax and avgUmin

Degree

Not possible Step 5: Use PERT analysis to calculate associated U Check: associated U = target U Yes Step 6: U value is stored along with spacing in a matrix

Output stores target U, spacing (D) and Probability Output

Step 7: Cost analysis is run using Spacing

Plot of Cost versus Risk (Probability) is produced

21

The higher the probability of a timely completion, the closer the spacing needs to be and the closer the spacing, the more drains are needed to cover the installation area. As the number of drains goes up so does the cost associated. This link allows the plot of a risk (probability) versus cost curve (figure 18) to demonstrate how much extra would need to be spent on a project to greaten the chances of a timely completion.
Figure 18: Risk versus Cost curve from PERT analysis
1.8 x 10
5

1.75 Target U = 0.95 Completion Time = 1 year Area of Project = 30000m2 Kc (m2/yr) min= 4, avg= 5.5, max= 6 Calculated Necessary Spacing = 1.20 m

1.7

1.65 Cost ()

1.6

1.55

1.5

1.45

1.4 0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75 Probability

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

PARAMETRIC STUDIES

To some degree during the writing of the program some parametric studies have been completed to assess the individual effects of factors affecting the consolidation process. The full possibilities of using parametric studies could not be fully investigated until the matlab script for the program was fully completed. Here the author has used parametric studies to further explore the factors affecting the consolidation process. Figure 19 shows the effects of well resistance with increasing depth by comparing the time to reach 90% consolidation between an ideal drain (no resistance) and one with well resistance. The figure demonstrates the massive effect that well resistance can have on the consolidation process with a maximum of a 600% increase in the time required (this is the most extreme case with the drain being 60m in length). What is interesting is the exponential behaviour the curve demonstrates with the effects being much less noticeable with drains up to a length of 10m (effect at 10m = 15% increase). 22

Figure 19: The effects of well resistance on the consolidation process


7

Many authors choose to disregard well


n = 25

resistance for shallow soils. Figure 19 demonstrates the significance of this, for example in the Leo (2004) paper well resistance was ignored in a soil of depth 4.5m. The effects of the well resistance in a soil so shallow are minimal as demonstrated by figure 19 and by the

6 Th90 (finite drain permeability) / Th90 (ideal drain)

n = 50

author again in table 4. While the influence of smear is

universally accepted, the magnitude of its defining factors S and Kc/Kc are not. Figure 20 shows the effect that changing

2 qw/kh = 400 m2 1

the smear parameters has on the overall rate


60

of

consolidation.

visual

comparison has been drawn between the


0 10 20 30 40 Drain Length (m) 50

parameters recommended by Hansbo (1981) and Hird & Moseley (2000).

Figure 20: The effects of smear on the consolidation process


2.4

2.2 Kc/Kc' = 2 Th90(smear) / Th90(no smear) 2 Kc/Kc' = 3 Kc/Kc' = 4 1.8


Hird & Moseley (2000)

1.6

1.4

1.2

Hansbo (1981)

1 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 Smear Ratio (rs/rw)

23

Figure 20 demonstrates the point that a small change in the parameters can have a large effect on the rate of consolidation, with a 7% difference between the Hansbo (1981) and Hird & Moseley (2000) factors. Vertical drains rely on the principle that if you decrease the spacing of the drains then the consolidation process will accelerate. This said there is a limit to how many drains can be installed into a soil before it becomes the horizontal permeability of the soil itself that becomes the limiting factor and not the spacing of the drains. The author conducted a parametric study into the spacing (n value) of drains and its effect on the rate of consolidation.
Figure 21: Effect of spacing on the consolidation process
20 18 16 Effect on Consolidation (U/Un) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

n (d/D)

Figure 21 shows a flat section in the curve between n=1 and n=17. In this area any decrease in the spacing has a minimal effect on the rate of consolidation, and thus is uneconomical to install. Of course figure 21 is only valid for a specific set of initial conditions set in table 1, although the general trend will always be the same. Although technically it would be possible to do parametric studies into the effect of ramping and multiple layers the outcomes are much more dependant on the input parameters provided. For example we know the effect of ramped loading is directly proportional to the construction period as they are intrinsically linked. This makes their value as an educational tool much less than the parametric studies in figures 1921.

24

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION

Previously the matlab scripts that have been used to model the problem have been command line based, that is there is no visualisation to the script. This approach is used for the development stages of the program as it allows the author to rapidly change the scenarios and calculation methods utilised within the scripts. Users other than the author may have problems in understanding the notation and methodology of this approach, which is where a Graphical User Interface (GUI) comes in. The GUI allows the input to have a visual element to it, making the use of the program much simpler and more intuitive. As the task is to create a design tool the GUI plays an important part in the ease and speed of the use of the program. To accompany the program a manual would also be written to aid in the rapid use of the builtin features.
Figure 22: Principle of the Graphical User interface
verticalc.m program call Initial Values

Values input Graphical User Interface Assumptions input

Switches: 'Drainage' 'Spacing' 'Layers'

Optimum Solution Creation "OPTIMISE" button 'layers'==1 SINGLE LAYER risk.m program call 'layers'==2+ MULTI LAYER

In depth Analysis "CALCULATE" button

Input Value Check DIFFERENT SAME 'layers'==2+ MULTI LAYER

consolsingle_fast.m program call 'acc'=100 probable.m program call olsonvert.m program call

consolmulti_fast.m program call

'layers'==1 SINGLE LAYER

consolsingle.m program call

consolmulti.m program call

OPTIMUM SPACING + ASSOCIATED U VALUES FOR PROBABILITIES 'spacing'=='tri' costing.m program call TRI SQUARE 'spacing'==0

olsonvert.m program call

speedcalc.m program call

OPTIMAL VALUES FOR ANALYSIS chosen by probability Cost vs Risk Plot

OUTPUT CURVES AND VALUES

Consolidation Curve Plot

25

Figure 22 demonstrates the role that the GUI plays in the interaction with the programmed matlab scripts. The two main functions can be seen clearly, with the optimise function on the left which acts to calculate the most suitable calculation parameters for the in-depth calculate function on the right of the diagram. The calculate function can also be used separately to analyse predictions and other case histories. Figure 23 shows a screenshot of how the GUI looks when run under Windows XP, with the main area for the generated plots to the top right, and the area for input parameters around to the bottom and left of the screen.
Figure 23: GUI Initial Screen Generic Version

Two versions of the GUI were created. Figure 23 is the generic version, which has no assumed values within its programming, so can be used to analyse any combination of parameters. Figure 24 is designed for use by Cofra UK, with the values for the drain parameters pre-programmed into the software, along with Cofras own costing data from table 5. From a design point of view customised versions of the software can be created specifically for a company with their own values inserted into the program, as this makes the program easier to use for employees as the parameters for the companies products do not need to be looked up. The differences between figure 23 and 24 occur in the Drain Properties box with the installation costs being removed from figure 23 and the drop down menu for drain choice being inserted into figure 24. 26

Figure 24: GUI Initial Screen Cofra UK Version

5.1 Worked Example using the Verticalc Program

For the purposes of this paper the author has decided to insert a worked example showing the capabilities of the program at modelling case histories. In this case the author has decided to verify the results for the Leo (2004) case, shown in table 4.
Table 6: Converted parameters from the Leo (2004) Analysis

Kc = 5.0 m2/year Mv = 0.22652 m2/MN ch / cv = 3 d = 0.066 m t = 0.25 years S = 0.9m Drainage = Single

Depth = 4.5 m D = 0.945 m kh / ks = 3 s = 2.273 Tc = 0.167 years Arrangement = Triangular qw = inf

As the Leo (2004) analysis does not account for well resistance, putting in an infinite value into the drain permeability (qw) accounts for this. To model this analysis the Calculate function will have to be used, as the parameters are already defined and are in no need of optimising.

27

Figure 25: GUI output showing Leo (2004) model

The program returns an average consolidation of 0.634 which is the same as the value in table 4, column 3, row 4. For the full details of how to use the program please consult the program users guide in the appendix. For the purposes of program users guide, the working of the generic version will be described as this involves more steps than the Cofra UK version.
6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Theoretical vs. Practical

The aim of this project was to create a design tool to speed up the calculation of vertical drain installations in practice. In this requirement it was a complete success, as the program has developed its own intuitive interface (the GUI) rather than using the usual confines of an excel spreadsheet. While the theory behind the model is relatively simple, it uses Hansbo (1981) and Olson (1977) methods, which are well known and well used benchmarks for the industry. Cofras own in-house software for calculating vertical drains solely depends on these same equations, but without any attempt to manipulate them to account for more than one factor at any one time, i.e. it uses Olson (1977) for ramped loading and Hansbo (1981) for 28

the effects of smear and well resistance. What makes the authors program different to any before it is its ability to combine the effects of many different factors into a quick and easy to use analysis, with the added feature of being able to calculate the probability of a timely completion of the consolidation process. The method does have theoretical drawbacks, for example the uneven distribution of well resistance pressures through multiple layers. However the author has backed up the assumptions used with results from more rigorous models such as Onoue (1988), who has modelled these assumptions and compared them with the more basic solutions (Hansbo, 1981) used in the authors model.
6.2 Further Geotechnical Developments

The author has taken into account the main factors in the designing of a vertical drain installation. This said there are many other factors that can affect the consolidation process, such as creep and the inclusion of vertical drainage in multiple layers. With time these could be included into the program to allow a more in-depth analysis of the soil, although these were seen as being outside of the scope of the current project. Another possibility would be for the program to predict the increase in strength in the soil from the associated consolidation, although this would require many more input parameters to predict accurately. To allow for a degree of confidence to be placed in the program, a series of tests could be run on case histories to compare the results predicted by the program to those in practice.
6.3 Further Computing Developments

The author can see a near infinite amount of scope for enhancements to the user interface and possibilities associated with it. For example a second GUI could be implemented to deal with the data directly from the ground investigation positions of the samples across the site and their associated values. This would allow the model to begin to appreciate the three dimensional nature of the problem and be able to suggest different schemes for different areas on the site where the parameters vastly differ. The ramped loading could also be expanded to a number of smaller ramps, rather than a single one, with options for small steps or a linear approach to the load increments.

29

REFERENCES

Almeida, M. S. S., Santa Maria, P. E. L., Martins, I. S. M., Spotti, A. P., Coelho, L. B. M. (2000). Consolidation of a very soft clay with vertical drains. Geotechnique 50, No. 6, 633-643. Barron, R. A. (1948). Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells. Trans. ASCE, Vol.
113, Paper No. 2346.

Bergado, D. T., Balasubramaniam, A. S., Fannin, R. J., Holtz, R. D. (2002). Prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) in soft Bangkok clay: a case study of the new Bangkok International Airport project. Can. Geotech. J. 39. 304-315. Borges, J. L., (2004). Three-dimensional analysis of embankments on soft soils incorporating vertical drains by finite element method. Computers and Geotechnics 31, 665-676. Chai, J. C., Miura, N. (1999). Investigation of Factors Affecting Vertical Drain Behaviour. J.

Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, March, 216-226


Chu, J., Bo, M. W., Choa, V. (2004). Practical considerations for using vertical drains in soil improvement projects. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 22, 101-117. Hansbo, S. (1981). Consolidation of Fine-Grained Soils by Prefabricated Drains. Proc. 10th

Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics Found. Engng, Stockholm 3, 677-682.


Hansbo, S. (2001) Consolidation equation valid for both Darcian and non-Darcian flow.

Geotechnique 51, No. 1, 51-54.


Hawlader, B. C., Imai, G., Muhunthan, B. (2002). Numerical study of the factors affecting the consolidation of clay with vertical drains. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20, 213-239. Hird, C. C., Sangtian, N. (2002). Model study of seepage in smear zones around vertical drains in layered soil: further results. Geotechnique 52, No. 5, 375-378. Hird, C.C., Moseley, V. J. (2000). Model study of seepage in smear zones around vertical drains in layered soil. Geotechnique 50, No1, 89-97. Holtz, R. D., Jamiolkowski, M. B., Lancellotta, R., Pedroni, R. (1991). Perfabricated vertical drains - design and performance. Construction Industry Research ad Information Association Ground Engineering Report. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Hong, H. P., Shang, J. Q. (1998). Probabilistic analysis of consolidation with prefabricated vertical drains for soil improvement. Can. Geotech. J. 35, 666-677. Horn, R. (2005). CIV 371 Construction Management Course Notes - Construction Administration and Planning Handout 2, 1. Indraratna, B., Redana, I. W. (2000) Numerical modelling of vertical drains with smear and well resistance installed in soft clay. Can. Geotech. J. 37, 132-145. 30

Leo, C. J. (2004) Equal Strain Consolidation by Vertical Drains. J. Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, March, 316-327.


Moseley, M. P., Kirsch, K. (2004) Ground Improvement 2nd Edition. Spoon Press. Chapter 1, 4-56. (Contributed by Hansbo, S.) Nash, D. F. T., Ryde, S. J. (2001). Modelling consolidation accelerated by vertical drains in soils subject to creep. Geotechnique 51, No 3, 257-273. Olson, R. E. (1977). Consolidation under Time Dependant Loading. J. Geotechnical

Engineering Division, GT1, 55-60.


Onoue, A. (1988). Consolidation of multilayered anisotropic soils by vertical drains with well resistance. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 28, No. 3, 75-90. Seah, T. H., Tangthansup, B., Wongsatian, P. (2004). Horizontal Coefficient of Consolidation of Soft Bangkok Clay. Geotechnical testing Journal, Vol. 27, No. 5, 1-11. Sharma, J. S., Xiao, D. (2000). Characterisation of smear zone around vertical drains by large scale laboratory tests. Can. Geotech. J. 37, 1265-1271. Tang, M., Shang, J. Q., et al., Almeida, M. S. S., et al. (2002) Discussion Vacuum preloading consolidation of Yaoqiang Airport runway. Geotechnique 52, No. 2, 148-154. Yeung, A. T. (1997). Design Curves for Prefabricated Vertical Drains. J. Geotechnical and

Environmental Engineering, August, 755-759.


Yoshikuni, H., Nakanado, H. (1974). Consolidation of soils by vertical drain wells with finite permeability. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 14, No. 2, 35-46. Zhu, G., Yin, J. H. (2001). Consolidation of with vertical and horizontal drainage under ramp load. Geotechnique 51, No. 4, 361-367 Zhu, G., Yin, J. H. (2001). Design charts for vertical drains considering construction time.

Can. Geotech. J. 38, 1142-1148.


Zhu, G., Yin, J. H. (2004). Consolidation analysis of soil with vertical and horizontal drainage under ramp loading considering smear effects. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22, 63-74.

31

APPENDIX 1: PROGRAM USERS GUIDE

8.1 Installation of Verticalc

This guide will demonstrate how to run the program under Windows XP, please contact the author if you require a version of the program to run under any other operating system. Step 1: Run MCRinstaller.exe This installs the matlab component runtimes which allows you to run the Verticalc program. Step 2: Run verticalc_genericm.exe This runs the Verticalc program on your system. During future uses of the program only Step 2 needs to be followed. Once the install has completed you are now ready to use the Verticalc program.
Figure 8.1: Start-up Screen

Once the program has run successfully you should be looking at a screen that looks like that in figure 8.1. This is the main screen from where all the facilities within the Verticalc program are available.

32

8.2 The Graphical User Interface Explained.

The Graphical User Interface or GUI is the heart of the use of the program. This section of the manual will hopefully explain the basic capabilities and how to go about using Verticalc.
Figure 8.2: The GUI breakdown

Radio Button

Input Boxes

Chart Plot Area Execute Buttons

Option Panel

Drop Down Menu

Figure 8.2 shows the different components of the GUI:


Radio Buttons allow exclusive choices of variables- an either, or scenario. Input Boxes allow the input of data through selecting the box and typing in the new value. Option Panel refers to the sections of the GUI, this allows for better referencing of the individual components within the GUI. Chart Plot Area is where the program generates its visual plots of the consolidation curves and the cost versus risk curve, more on these later. Drop Down Menus allow the choice of many different factors from within the programmed choice, but only one may be selected at any one time. Execute Buttons click on these to run sections of the analysis suite of the program.

The program itself has two main functions accessed by the Execute Buttons in the Output Option Panel: Optimise and Calculate.

33

The Optimise Function. This function allows the user to find the optimal spacing for the arrangement of vertical drains, given the soil parameters are input into the program. The Optimise function is capable of generating parameters to allow the Calculate function to run and incorporates an element of Probabilistic analysis. The Calculate Function. This function allows the user to plot the consolidation curve for a given set of soil parameters, these can be manually input, or the user can use the Optimise function to find the best parameters for the soil.
8.3 Entering Values

By selecting any white textbox with the mouse the initial values of the program can be changed. All the parameters are self explanatory, although it should be noted that the reason for the 3 values for Kc is for use in the probabilistic analysis. The maximum, minimum and average values from the site investigation should be input.
Figure 8.3: Optimisation Output

For users who wish to disregard the probabilistic element of the program, input the same value in all three boxes, and the probabilistic analysis will be disabled. 34

Once all the values are in place press the Optimise button to generate an output, as seen in figure 8.3. By comparing the Spacing Option Panels of figures 8.2 and 8.3 you can see that the optimise function has created a new set of values for the drain spacing, now based on the soil parameters and the probabilistic analysis.
8.4 Using the Probabilistic Analysis Tools

The values created in the Spacing Option Panel are only valid for a specific Probability, which is defined in the Risk Option Panel; the default setting is a 50% probability. The plot of probability versus cost allows you to decide on the correct balance between financial cost and the element of risk. To be 100% sure of the consolidation occurring in the stated amount of time you will need to spend more capital than if you only needed to be 62% sure. By changing the probability in the Risk Option Panel, the spacing details are updated accordingly, as is the cost and degree of consolidation in the Output Option Panel.
Figure 8.4: Using the Probabilistic Analysis

Figure 8.4 shows the Probability options in the drop down menu, here we can see by selecting the 93% probablilty the Spacing values have changed, as has the information in the Output Option Panel. If any of the details are changed in the input parameters the Optimise function needs to be re-run to take into account the changes. 35

Once the Probability has been chosen, the Calculate function can be run to give the consolidation curve for given soil parameters and generated drain spacing.
8.5 Using the Calculate Function

The Calculate function can be used in two different ways: The Stand-Alone Method: When you have a pre-defined spacing and know the soil parameters. This method can be used to compare results from different approaches with those of the program. The Optimised Method: After the Optimise function has been run you can use the Calculate function to run an in depth analysis on the solution giving the consolidation curves and a higher degree of accuracy. Once the input parameters have been decided, run the calculate function to give an output like that in figure 8.5.
Figure 8.5: The Calculate Function Output

36

A common mistake is to forget to select the drain arrangement; in this case the program will pop up a warning like the one in figure 8.6 to ask you for the additional data.
Figure 8.6: Error Message

Pressing OK then selecting a drain spacing will solve the problem. Once the Calculate function has run you can see the consolidation curve in the plot area of the program as in figure 8.5.
8.6 Accounting for multiple layers

The program easily accounts for layered soils, by just inputting the values for the different layers into the layers option panel, the program will automatically take the different values into account. The resulting output is much the same as figure 8.5 but as the program no longer accounts for vertical drainage there is only a single plot in the chart plot area.
Figure 8.7: Multiple Layer Output

As you can see in figure 8.7 the Layers Input Panel now has an extra set of data for the 2nd soil layer, extending down from 10-15m depth. The Optimise function also works for multiple layers using the same method as mentioned here. 37

8.7 Advanced Features

The advanced features are contained within the Plot View input panel. The Cost and Consol buttons allow you to switch between the consolidation plot and the cost versus probability plot, this is very useful if you need to change the probability used once a calculation has been run without having to re-run the Optimise function. The other feature in the Plot View input panel is the Comparison drop down menu. This allows you to compare the effects of changing the input parameters or the probability visually in the chart plot area. To compare two sets of Parameters: Run the Calculate function on the first set of soil parameters, then change the parameters and re-run the Calculate function taking care to make sure the drop down menu is set to Comparison.
Figure 8.8: Comparison Feature

Figure 8.8 is comparing the effects of changing the drainage conditions from single drainage conditions to double, this has the effect of speeding up the consolidation as the vertical drainage has much more of an effect in the double drainage conditions.

38

To compare two Probabilities: Run the Optimise function to generate the cost versus probability curve and choose a probability of the initial calculation. Run the Calculate function then switch back to the probability curve by pressing the Cost button. Select a new probability and then switch again to the Consolidation plot by pressing the Consol button. Run the Calculate function again, ensuring that Comparison is displayed in the drop down menu window. This will generate a plot much like that in figure 8.8. To generate a clean plot without comparing result to the previous plot, ensure that the Individual option is selected from the drop down menu in the Plot View option panel.
8.8 Troubleshooting

The only real problems can arise in the Optimise function where there is no solution for the set of parameters chosen. Or the wrong kind of inputs are used in the program. Examples of the error messages are shown in figures 8.9 and 8.10.
Figure 8.9 Optimisation Error Message

For example, if you accidentally set the ramped loading for a longer period than the target completion time. In such cases the program will pop up an error message like that in figure 8.9.

Figure 8.10: Alphanumeric Error

If

you

accidentally

input

non-numeric

character into an input box that cannot handle it a error message like that in figure 8.10 will appear. The title Construction Period refers to the input box that needs its value retyping.

39

APPENDIX 2: USEFUL DATA

9.1 Mebradrain Specifications: 28-05-2005


Physical Properties Configuration Channels Material Weight Width Thickness Mechanical properties Tensile Strength Elongation Elongation at 0.5 kN Grab strength Bursting Strength Tear Strength Hydraulic properties drain In-plane flow cap. qp(10/1.0) In-plane flow cap. qp(100/1.0) In-plane flow cap. qp(350/1.0) Discharge cap. qw(300/0.1) Discharge cap. qw(500/0.1) D.C. buckled qwb(200/0.1) Transmissivity (10/0.1) Transmissivity (200/0.1) Discharge cap. qw(200/0.1) Discharge cap. qw(300/0.1) Discharge cap. qw(500/0.1) D.C. buckled Hydraulic properties filter Velocity Index vh50 Permittivity Permeability k Pore Size O95 Transport Details Roll length Roll diameter Inside diameter Weight Roll 40 ft container 38 PP 75 100 3.0 2.2 60 2 970 1000 270 1.1 0.75 0.59 49 1 60 1.2 0.7 87 55 14 37 16 0.3 1.3 75 300 1.1 0.15 22 160 44 PP 70 100 3.0 1.8 40 2 580 900 180 44 PP 85 100 3.5 2.2 60 2 970 1000 270 0.8 0.68 0.57 70 20 82 0.94 0.9 94 76 42 18 16 0.3 1.3 75 250 1.2 0.23 25 130 44 PP 110 100 5 4.2 60 1.5 970 1000 270 2.7 2.5 1.8 155 25 130 2.5 2.2 175 80 28 16 0.3 1.3 75 200 1.2 0.23 25 80 Standard Unit MD7007 MD88M MD88H MD88HD

g/m mm mm EN 10319 EN 10319 EN 10319 ASTM D4632 ASTM D3785 ASTM D4533 EN 12958 EN 12958 EN 12958 EN 12958 EN 12958 EN 12958 ASTM D4716 ASTM D4716 ASTM D4716 ASTM D4716 ASTM D4716 ASTM D6918 EN 11058 ASTM D4491 ASTM D4491 ASTM D4751 kN % % N kPa N l/m.s l/m.s l/m.s 10-6 m3/s 10-6 m3/s 10-6 m3/s 10-3 m2/s 10-3 m2/s 10-6 m3/s 10-6 m3/s 10-6 m3/s %
mm/s

50 14 55 0.6 0.5 55 25 22 5 0.3 0.3 75 300 1.1 0.15 22 160

s-1 10-4 m/s m m m m kg km

All mechanical Properties are average values. Standard variations in mechanical strength of 10% and in hydraulic flow and pore size of 20% have to be allowed for.

All EN/ISO 12958 tests are made with apparatus 2 (sample in pressure cell wrapped in latex membrane) ASTM D4716 test is equal to EN/ISO 12958 (apparatus 1)

40

9.2 Equations

9.2.1 Hansbo (1981):


Average degree of consolidation U h = 1 e In which,
kM D , ch = c d w ch t D2
8Th u

n=

and Th =

For simple analysis,


3 1 1 n2 u = 2 ln n + 2 4 4 n 4n n 1

Including the effects of well resistance,


(n 2 1)k c ( 2 ) ur = u + z l z 2 n q w

For the combined effects of smear and well resistance,


us = k n 2 n kc 3 s2 s 2 kc 1 s 4 1 2 1 + + z (2l z ) c 1 2 ln ln 1 s s + 1 + + 2 2 2 2 2 4 n 1 4n k ' c n 1 4n qw n n 1 s k 'c

9.2.2 Olson (1977)

9.2.2.1 Horizontal Equations


r ln N 3N 2 1 2 Fn = ( N ) 2 , N = e and A = 2 N 1 4N rw Fn
2

For Tr Trc , Ur = Tr 1 [1 exp( ATr )] A Trc

And when Tr Trc , U r = 1

1 [exp( ATrc ) 1]exp( ATr ) Trc

9.2.2.2 Vertical Equations For Tr Trc ,


Uv = T 2 1 2 1 4 1 exp( M T ) Tc T M

41

And when Tr Trc ,


Uv = 1

2 Tc

1 M [exp(M
4

Tc ) 1 exp( M 2T )

9.2.3 Carrillo (1942)

For the combination of vertical and horizontal consolidation in homogenous soils.


U = 1 (1 U r )(1 U v )

42

Вам также может понравиться