Radial Consolidation - PVD and Surcharge (Oct 2011 Color)

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

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

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

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

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2010
Effects of Smear and Drain Resistance
Carillo Theory Combined vertical

and radial Flow

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2010

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

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

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
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

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2010
Preload Design Example

Surcharge Ps
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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
rw
diameter of drains
19

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

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

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
14 m
silt, clay - undrained

FE-MODEL
section D
D-D
D
A2/4
A4/4
A6/4
22

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

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

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

pressure: 100 kPa
24

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2010

"slow": stable
"fast": failure

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

Prof Harry Tan

OCT 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Radial Consolidation - PVD and Surcharge (Oct 2011 Color)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Radial Consolidation - PVD and Surcharge (Oct 2011 Color)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Lecture 8 PVD and Surcharge

Prof Harry Tan

CE 5101 Lecture 8 Radial

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Radial Consolidation - Barrons Theory (1948)

Radial Flow Only :

Solution for Free Strain Condition (Ideal Drain) :

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

The average degree of radial consolidation Ucoincides

Solution for Equal Strain Condition (Ideal Drain) :

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

What is size of Influence Diameter de or D

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

Hansbo(1981) Ideal Vertical Drain :

Effect of Smear and Drain Resistance :

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Effects of Smear and Drain Resistance

Carillo Theory Combined vertical

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Combined Flow - Carillos Theorem (1942)

Combined Flow - Carillos Theorem (1942)

U v from Terzaghi' s theory

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Practical Vertical Drain Design

Terzaghi 1D Vertical Flow Consolidation

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Terzaghi 1D Vertical Flow

T v 0.2, i.e. U v 0.5

T v 0.2, i.e. U v 0.5

Barron 1D Radial Flow

For n=D/d > 10

To include smear and drain

Where z = L for single drainage at top,

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Hansbo (1981) Ideal Vertical Drain :

Effect of Smear and Drain Resistance :

For single drainage at

Carillo Combined Flow

From linear superposition

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

Prof Harry Tan

Equivalent Vertical Permeability for

For Equivalent FEM Model

To obtain equivalent vertical consolidation rate

In 2D-FEM only need to replace PVD soil

Practical PVD Design

Hansbo Eqn with Effect of Smear and Drain Resistance :

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

Hansbo/Barron 1D Radial Consolidation

Carillo Combined Flow Consolidation

Uvh 1 (1Uv ) (1Uh )

Johnson Surcharge Design

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

CE5101 Consolidation and Seepage

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