Optimal Design of Vertical Drains in Soft Ground PDF

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.
i
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 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 1
2.1 History of the Methods............................................................................................... 1
2.1.1 The Basic Method .............................................................................................. 1
2.1.2 Well Resistance .................................................................................................. 1
2.1.3 Smear.................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.4 Ramped Loading ................................................................................................ 2
2.1.5 Multi-Layered Systems ...................................................................................... 2
2.2 Assumptions and Values ............................................................................................ 3
2.3 Factors affecting Performance ................................................................................... 4
2.4 Practical Data ............................................................................................................. 4
3 Program Design .............................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Assumptions of the Program ...................................................................................... 4
3.2 Development of the Model......................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Well resistance and smear integration................................................................ 5
3.2.2 Ramped loading application............................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Multiple Layers ................................................................................................ 11
3.2.4 Vertical Drainage ............................................................................................. 13
3.3 Program Validation .................................................................................................. 15
3.4 Program Optimisation .............................................................................................. 17
3.4.1 Cost analysis of the problem ............................................................................ 17
3.4.2 Probabilistic analysis........................................................................................ 18
4 Parametric Studies ........................................................................................................ 22
5 Program Distribution .................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Worked Example using the Verticalc Program........................................................ 27
6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 28
6.1 Theoretical vs. Practical ........................................................................................... 28
6.2 Further Geotechnical Developments........................................................................ 29
6.3 Further Computing Developments ........................................................................... 29
7 References .................................................................................................................... 30
iii
8 Appendix 1: Program User’s Guide ............................................................................. 32
8.1 Installation of Verticalc............................................................................................ 32
8.2 The Graphical User Interface Explained.................................................................. 33
8.3 Entering Values ........................................................................................................ 34
8.4 Using the Probabilistic Analysis Tools .................................................................... 35
8.5 Using the Calculate Function ................................................................................... 36
8.6 Accounting for multiple layers................................................................................. 37
8.7 Advanced Features ................................................................................................... 38
8.8 Troubleshooting ....................................................................................................... 39
9 Appendix 2: Useful data............................................................................................... 40
9.1 Mebradrain Specifications: 28-05-2005................................................................... 40
9.2 Equations.................................................................................................................. 41
9.2.1 Hansbo (1981):................................................................................................. 41
9.2.2 Olson (1977)..................................................................................................... 41
9.2.3 Carrillo (1942).................................................................................................. 42
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
v
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 description
ch Coefficient of consolidation
D Drainage boundary (m)
d Equivalent diameter of the drain (m)
H Total depth of the clay layer (m)
kc Horizontal permeability of the soil (m2/year)
M Oedometer compression modulus (MN/m2)
mv Compressibility coefficient of the soil (1/M)
qw Discharge capacity of the drain (m3/year)
S Drain spacing (m)
s Zone of smear = ds / d
t Time (years)
Th Time factor in radial consolidation
U Degree of consolidation
z Depth into the clay layer (m)
γw Unit weight of water (KPa)
μ Pore water pressure (KPa)
vii
1 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 Olson’s (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 author’s 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 (Ø = 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 (Ø = 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 5.5 m2/year H 20 m
mv 0.25 m2/MN l 10 m
D 1.5 m z 10 m
d 0.06557 m qw 1736 m3/year
Tc 0.5 years
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 0.1 1 10
0
0.1
0.2
Average Consolidation (U)
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 5m
10m
0.06 15m
20m
0.05
25m
30m
0.04
35m
0.03 40m
0.02
0.01
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (years)
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
5m
0.25 10m
15m
20m
0.2
25m
30m
0.15 35m
40m
0.1
0.05
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (years)
6
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
0.08
15m
20m
0.06 25m
30m
35m
0.04 40m
0.02
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Spacing D (m)
One thing to note is that the values for the average degree of consolidation used so far are for
Degree of Consolidation U mid-depth in the soil body. As Hansbo’s
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(1981) equation is depth dependant the
0
end drainage conditions of the drain itself
2
have a large influence on the degree of
4
consolidation, as it doubles the drainage
6
distance within the drain body, thus
8
Depth D (m)
increasing the effect of well resistance.

10
12 Figure 5: Plot of variation of U with

14 depth - double vs. single drained
16 conditions.
18 As can be seen from figure 5 the effects of
20 well resistance are greatest at mid depth,

Double Drained U Well U Smear + Well where the largest excess of pore water
Single Drained U Well U Smear + Well
Simple Consolidation U 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 Hansbo’s (1981) simple equation alone.)
Figure 6: Comparison of the effect of ramped loading on the consolidation process.
Time (Years)
0.01 0.1 1 10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Average Consolidation
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 Hansbo’s (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
tim Time of Interest (years)

consol.m
program call Initial layer Matrix of Soil Parameters
Values drain End Conditions of Drain
tc Construction Period
This makes sure the
program runs quickly s Effect of Smear Zone
kckcd Reduction in permeability of Smear Zone

tmax Step 1:
Based on tim qw Discharge Capacity of Drain (m3/yr)
Set Limits of
value D Radius of effect of the drain (m)
acc Accuracy
d Drain diameter (m)
Step 2:
If 'drain' = If 'drain' =
L=H Set Boundary L=H/2
single double
Conditions
Step 3:
Calculate
Consolidation For All Steps of Depth dictated
without Ramping Times by H / accuracy
For All
tmax is set in step 1 Depths
tmin = 1 / accuracy
step length = 1 / accuracy Hansbo
CALCULATE
Accounts for
CONSOLIDATION
Smear and Well
Hansbo Formula
Resistance
Store U Values for

Time is also stored all calculated
in Uavg to allow the Depths U
plot of a Store average U for
consolidation curve all times in matrix
'Uavg'
average U
Uavg is divided by
accuracy to
account for the Uavg
superposition
If the degree of consolidation cannot
The ramp load is be found the program interpolates
applied in very small between the nearest values to obtain
Step 4: steps giving a very the value (when input is a fraction)
Uavg is close approximation to
superimposed onto a linear loading pattern
its self to account
for ramped loading
The degree of
Step 5: The Consolidation curve
consolidation associated
Output Calculated is plotted from the data
with the input 'tim' is found
Values and Curves within the Uavg matrix
within the Uavg matrix
Average U Uavg
9
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 0.1 Time (years) 1 10

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Average Consolidation
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Olson (1977) Matlab Simple Matlab Smear and Well
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.
10
Table 2: Comparison of the superposition method to Olson (1977)
Time Olson Matlab superposition model
100 Steps 1000 Steps 10000 Steps
0.01 0.000165 0.000329 -49.72% 0.000182 -9.04% 0.000166 -0.69%
0.02 0.000654 0.000975 -32.96% 0.000686 -4.71% 0.000655 -0.29%
0.03 0.001454 0.001929 -24.59% 0.001502 -3.17% 0.001457 -0.19%
0.04 0.002558 0.003180 -19.56% 0.002620 -2.39% 0.002562 -0.17%
0.05 0.003953 0.004718 -16.21% 0.004030 -1.91% 0.003959 -0.15%
0.06 0.005631 0.006535 -13.82% 0.005722 -1.59% 0.005639 -0.13%
0.07 0.007583 0.008291 -8.54% 0.007687 -1.36% 0.007592 -0.11%
0.08 0.009799 0.010648 -7.97% 0.009917 -1.18% 0.009809 -0.10%
0.09 0.012271 0.013255 -7.42% 0.012401 -1.05% 0.012283 -0.10%
0.10 0.014990 0.015777 -4.98% 0.015132 -0.94% 0.015003 -0.08%
0.11 0.017949 0.018873 -4.90% 0.018103 -0.85% 0.017963 -0.08%
0.12 0.021139 0.022196 -4.76% 0.021304 -0.77% 0.021154 -0.07%
0.13 0.024553 0.025738 -4.61% 0.024729 -0.71% 0.024568 -0.06%
0.14 0.028183 0.029493 -4.44% 0.028369 -0.66% 0.028198 -0.05%
0.15 0.032022 0.033452 -4.28% 0.032219 -0.61% 0.032037 -0.05%
0.16 0.036064 0.037611 -4.11% 0.036271 -0.57% 0.036079 -0.04%
0.17 0.040301 0.041961 -3.95% 0.040518 -0.53% 0.040316 -0.04%
0.18 0.044728 0.046497 -3.80% 0.044954 -0.50% 0.044743 -0.03%
0.19 0.049338 0.051212 -3.66% 0.049573 -0.47% 0.049353 -0.03%
0.20 0.054126 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 0 0 0
Figure 9 shows an example of how the soil parameters are
1
2
6
12
5.5
5.0
0.20
0.22 entered into the matlab script. The 1st column denotes the
3 20 2.0 0.25]
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 0 0 0 The Layer input matrix now

1 6 5.5 0.20
2 12 5.0 0.22 has values associated to more
3 20 2.0 0.25] than one layer to facilitate a
multi layer analysis
Step 3:
Calculate Steps of Depth dictated
Consolidation by H / accuracy
without Ramping For All
Times Counts up to
the number of
For All layers in the
Depths system
Layer
tmax is set in step 1 Monitor
tmin = 1 / accuracy
step length = 1 / accuracy Layer
Data
layer
mv
kc
Changes soil
parameters dependant
on depth / layer in soil
CALCULATE
CONSOLIDATION
Hansbo
Hansbo Formula
Accounts for
Smear and Well
Store U Values for Resistance
all calculated
Depths
U
Time is also stored Store average U

in Uavg to allow the for all times in average U
plot of a matrix 'Uavg'
consolidation curve
Uavg is divided
by accuracy to
Uavg
account for the
superposition
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 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0
2
Calculation assumptions:
Layer 1: Kc = 5.5 m2/yr
mv = 0.20 m2/MN
4 Layer 2: Kc = 4.5 m2/yr
mv = 0.22 m2/MN
Layer 3: Kc = 3.0 m2/yr
mv = 0.25 m2/MN
6 Time of interest 0.1 years
8
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, Olson’s (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
Degree of Consolidation (U)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Radial Drainage
0.9 Vertical Drainage
Combined Drainage
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (Years)
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
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
3.5
Depth = 20m
3
Uv/Uh at T=0.75 years
Depth = 10m
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Drain Spacing - D (m)
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 Olson’s
(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 h = 4.5 m
kh / ks = 3 re = 0.4725 m
ch / cv = 3 rs = 0.075 m
rw = 0.033 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

Ramp Ramp No Well Ramp Inc Well
Time (yrs) Leo (2004) Present Relative Error Present % Difference
0.167 0.389 0.394 1.269% 0.386 -2.125%
0.250 0.632 0.634 0.284% 0.623 -1.734%
0.458 0.893 0.894 0.078% 0.886 -0.858%
0.708 0.975 0.976 0.062% 0.973 -0.308%
0.958 0.994 0.994 0.040% 0.993 -0.111%
tc = 0.167
0.083 0.236 0.237 0.590% 0.232 -2.239%

0.292 0.783 0.784 0.166% 0.775 -1.265%
0.542 0.950 0.951 0.095% 0.946 -0.518%
0.792 0.989 0.989 -0.030% 0.987 -0.182%
tc = .083
0.083 0.448 0.454 1.300% 0.445 -1.977%

0.292 0.876 0.878 0.182% 0.870 -0.920%
0.542 0.972 0.972 -0.010% 0.969 -0.341%
tc = .208
Averages 0.335% -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 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95
0.3
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
a + 4m + b
Expected mean duration (central tendency), t e =
6
(b − a)
Standard deviation (spread), σ te =
6
Variance, v = σ te2
Figure 15: Example of a Beta Distribution
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:
TS − TE and TS = Time required, TE = Time expected.
Z=
σ te P is the probability that the time taken for completion of the consolidation will
be less than or equal to TS , these values are given in table 6.
Table 6: Z-values for beta distribution

Z P This data allows the user to predict the spacing of
0.0 0.50 the drains required to be probabilistically sure that
0.3 0.62
0.6 0.73 the consolidation will complete in the allotted
0.9 0.82 time. A probability of 0.5 would mean that the
1.3 0.90
1.5 0.93 installation would be equally likely to over run as
2.0 0.98 it would to be on time, for this analysis the Z
2.5 0.99
3.0 1.00 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
Initial tim Time of Interest (years)

consolsimple_fast.m
Values layer Matrix of Soil Parameters
program call
supplied by
risk.m drain End Conditions of Drain
This makes sure the
program runs quickly s Effect of Smear Zone

tmax Step 1:
Based on tim qw Discharge Capacity of Drain (m3/yr)
Set Limits of
value D Radius of effect of the drain (m)
acc Accuracy
d Drain diameter (m)
Step 2:
If 'drain' = If 'drain' =
L=H Set Boundary L=H/2
single double
Conditions
Step 3: Layer contains new

Set upper, lower values relating to the consolmulti_fast.m
layer
and average kc maximum, minimum and includes an extra loop to
values average kc values account for the changing
kc an mv values with
depth. Steps 6 and 7 are
Step 4: also removed.
Calculate
Consolidation For All Steps of Depth dictated
without Ramping Times by H / accuracy
For All
tmax is set in step 1 Depths
tmin = 1 / accuracy
step length = 1 / accuracy Hansbo
CALCULATE
Accounts for
CONSOLIDATION
Smear and Well
Hansbo Formula
Resistance
Store U Values for

Time is also stored all calculated
in Uavg to allow the Depths U
plot of a
Store average U for
consolidation curve all times in matrix
'Uavg'
average U
Uavg is divided by
accuracy to If the degree of consolidation cannot
account for the Uavg be found the program interpolates
superposition between the nearest values to obtain
the value (when input is a fraction)
The ramp load is
Step 5: applied in very small
Uavg is steps giving a very
close approximation to The degrees of
superimposed onto
a linear loading pattern consolidation associated
its self to account
with the input 'tim' are
for ramped loading
found within the Uavg
matrix for each case.
Step 6: Step 7:
Olson's ramped Carrillo's formula is
equation for vertical applied to combine the
drainage is used for effects for vertical and avgUmin averageU avgUmax
single layer radial drainage
a Ouput returned to
risk.m to allow
m
PERT analysis of
b
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
tim Time for Completion (years)

Arbitrary D risk.m
value program call Initial layer Matrix of Soil Parameters
Values drain End Conditions of Drain
s Effect of Smear Zone

'layers'==1 'layers'==2+
SINGLE LAYER MULTI LAYER
qw Discharge Capacity of Drain (m3/yr)
target U Required Degree of Consolidation

consolsingle_fast.m consolmulti_fast.m
program call program call d Drain diameter (m)
Step1:
Run scripts with
Arbitrary D value to
New D value Iteration Loop where
establish base points
New D value is
calculated from the
difference between
avgUmin averageU avgUmax expected U and
No target U
Step 2:
Check: Warning
For Step 2 PERT Use PERT analysis Not
expected U expected U = Message
analysis P=0.5, Z=0 to calculate the Possible
target U Displayed
therefore expected U expected U
= target U
Yes
Last D value
D
calculated frovides For All P
excellent start point Values Step 3:
for further analysis Use PERT P and Z
table combined with
formula to change
Step4:
target U to account
Run scripts with probable.m
target U for variable data
Arbitrary D value to program call
establish base points
Degree stores
Warning average U, avgUmax
No and avgUmin
'layers'==1 'layers'==2+ Message
SINGLE LAYER Displayed
MULTI LAYER
Degree
program call program call
Output stores target
Not possible U, spacing (D) and
Probability
Step 5:
Check:
Use PERT analysis Output
associated U =
to calculate
target U
associated U
Yes Step 7:
Cost analysis is
Step 6: run using Spacing
U value is stored
along with spacing in
a matrix
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
5
x 10
1.8
1.75
Target U = 0.95
1.7 Completion Time = 1 year
Area of Project = 30000m2
Kc (m2/yr) min= 4, avg= 5.5, max= 6
1.65 Calculated Necessary Spacing = 1.20 m
Cost (£)
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Probability
4 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
n = 50 demonstrates the significance of this, for
6
example in the Leo (2004) paper well
Th90 (finite drain permeability) / Th90 (ideal drain)
resistance was ignored in a soil of depth

5 4.5m. The effects of the well resistance
in a soil so shallow are minimal as
demonstrated by figure 19 and by the
4 author again in table 4.
While the influence of smear is

3
universally accepted, the magnitude of
its defining factors S and Kc/Kc’ are not.
Figure 20 shows the effect that changing
2
the smear parameters has on the overall
qw/kh = 400 m2 rate of consolidation. A visual
1
comparison has been drawn between the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Drain Length (m)
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
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 19-
21.
24
5 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 built-
in features.
Figure 22: Principle of the Graphical User interface

verticalc.m
program call Initial
Values
Values
input
Switches:
Graphical User 'Drainage'
Interface 'Spacing'
Assumptions 'Layers'
input
Optimum Solution In depth Analysis

Creation
"OPTIMISE" "CALCULATE"
button button
'layers'==1 'layers'==2+
SINGLE LAYER MULTI LAYER Input Value
risk.m Check
program call
DIFFERENT SAME
program call program call 'layers'==1 'layers'==2+
SINGLE LAYER MULTI LAYER
'acc'=100
probable.m
consolsingle.m consolmulti.m
program call
program call program call
olsonvert.m
program call
OPTIMUM SPACING + olsonvert.m

ASSOCIATED U VALUES FOR program call speedcalc.m
PROBABILITIES
program call
'spacing'=='tri' 'spacing'==0
costing.m
program call
TRI SQUARE
OUTPUT CURVES AND

VALUES
OPTIMAL VALUES FOR
ANALYSIS
chosen by probability
Cost vs Risk Consolidation

Plot 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 Cofra’s 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 Depth = 4.5 m
Mv = 0.22652 m2/MN D = 0.945 m
ch / cv = 3 kh / ks = 3
d = 0.066 m s = 2.273
t = 0.25 years Tc = 0.167 years
S = 0.9m Arrangement = Triangular
Drainage = Single 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 user’s guide in the
appendix. For the purposes of program user’s 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. Cofra’s 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 author’s 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 author’s 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
7 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
8 APPENDIX 1: PROGRAM USER’S 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
Option Drop Down Buttons
Panel 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 a 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
9 APPENDIX 2: USEFUL DATA
9.1 Mebradrain Specifications: 28-05-2005
Physical Properties Standard Unit MD7007 MD88M MD88H MD88HD

Configuration
Channels 38 44 44 44
Material PP PP PP PP
Weight g/m 75 70 85 110
Width mm 100 100 100 100
Thickness mm 3.0 3.0 3.5 5
Mechanical properties
Tensile Strength EN 10319 kN 2.2 1.8 2.2 4.2
Elongation EN 10319 % 60 40 60 60
Elongation at 0.5 kN EN 10319 % 2 2 2 1.5
Grab strength ASTM D4632 N 970 580 970 970
Bursting Strength ASTM D3785 kPa 1000 900 1000 1000
Tear Strength ASTM D4533 N 270 180 270 270
Hydraulic properties drain
In-plane flow cap. qp(10/1.0) EN 12958 l/m.s 1.1 0.8 2.7
Discharge cap. qw(300/0.1) EN 12958 10-6 m3/s 49 50 70 155
Discharge cap. qw(500/0.1) EN 12958 10-6 m3/s 1 14 20 25
D.C. buckled qwb(200/0.1) EN 12958 10-6 m3/s 60 55 82 130
Transmissivity θ(10/0.1) ASTM D4716 10-3 m2/s 1.2 0.6 0.94 2.5
Transmissivity θ(200/0.1) ASTM D4716 10-3 m2/s 0.7 0.5 0.9 2.2
Discharge cap. qw(200/0.1) ASTM D4716 10-6 m3/s 87 94
Discharge cap. qw(300/0.1) ASTM D4716 10-6 m3/s 55 55 76 175
Discharge cap. qw(500/0.1) ASTM D4716 10-6 m3/s 14 25 42 80
D.C. buckled θ ASTM D6918 % 37 22 18 28
Hydraulic properties filter
mm/s
Velocity Index vh50 EN 11058 16 5 16 16
Permittivity ψ ASTM D4491 s-1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Permeability k ASTM D4491 10-4 m/s 1.3 0.3 1.3 1.3
Pore Size O95 ASTM D4751 µm 75 75 75 75
Transport Details
Roll length m 300 300 250 200
Roll diameter m 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Inside diameter m 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.23
Weight Roll kg 22 22 25 25
40 ft container km 160 160 130 80
All mechanical Properties are average values. All EN/ISO 12958 tests are made with apparatus 2
Standard variations in mechanical strength of 10% and (sample in pressure cell wrapped in latex membrane)
in hydraulic flow and pore size of 20% have to be ASTM D4716 test is equal to EN/ISO 12958
allowed for. (apparatus 1)
40
9.2 Equations
9.2.1 Hansbo (1981):

−8Th u
Average degree of consolidation U h = 1 − e
In which,
D kM ch t
n= , ch = c and Th =
d γw D2
For simple analysis,
n2 ⎛ 3 1 1 ⎞
u = 2 ⎜ ln n − + 2 − 4 ⎟
n −1 ⎝ 4 n 4n ⎠
Including the effects of well resistance,
⎛ (n 2 − 1)k c ⎞
u r = u + ⎜⎜ 2
πz (2l − z ) ⎟⎟
⎝ n qw ⎠
For the combined effects of smear and well resistance,
n 2 ⎛ n kc 3⎞ s2 ⎛ s 2 ⎞ kc 1 ⎛ s 4 − 1 2 ⎞ k ⎛ 1 ⎞
us = ⎜
⎜ ln + ln s − ⎟
⎟ + ⎜
⎜ 1 − ⎟+
2 ⎟
⎜⎜ − s + 1⎟⎟ + πz (2l − z ) c ⎜1 − 2 ⎟
n − 1 ⎝ s k 'c
2
4 ⎠ n − 1 ⎝ 4n ⎠ k ' c n − 1 ⎝ 4n
2 2 2
⎠ qw ⎝ n ⎠
9.2.2 Olson (1977)
9.2.2.1 Horizontal Equations

ln N 3N 2 − 1 r 2
Fn = ( N ) 2
2
− , N = e and A =
N −1 4N 2
rw Fn
For Tr ≤ Trc ,
1
Tr − [1 − exp(− ATr )]
Ur = A
Trc
And when Tr ≥ Trc ,
1
U r = 1− [exp( ATrc ) − 1]exp(− ATr )
Trc
9.2.2.2 Vertical Equations

For Tr ≤ Trc ,
Uv =
T ⎧ 2 1
[ ⎫
⎨1 − ∑ 4 1 − exp(− M T ) ⎬
Tc ⎩ T M
2
]
⎭
41
And when Tr ≥ Trc ,
∑ M [exp(M ]
2 1
Uv = 1− 4
2
Tc ) − 1 exp(− M 2T )
Tc
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

Optimal Design of Vertical Drains in Soft Ground PDF

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

Optimal Design of Vertical Drains in Soft Ground PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CIV405 Final Report

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, 2005

Optimal Design of Vertical

The University of Sheffield

Candidate: MEng. Structural Engineering and Architecture

Table 1: Values for the initial analyses ...................................................................................... 5

2.1 History of the Methods

2.1.1 The Basic Method

2.1.2 Well Resistance

2.1.4 Ramped Loading

2.1.5 Multi-Layered Systems

2.2 Assumptions and Values

2.3 Factors affecting performance

2.4 Practical Data

3.1 Assumptions of the Program

Table 1: Values for the initial analyses.

3.2 Development of the model

3.2.1 Well resistance and smear integration.

Figure 1: Consolidation curves as described by Hansbo (1981). n=25.

Horizontal Tim e Factor (Th)

Figure 4: Effect of Smear in relation to depth and spacing of drains

increasing the effect of well resistance.

12 Figure 5: Plot of variation of U with

20 well resistance are greatest at mid depth,

3.2.2 Ramped loading application

Figure 6: Comparison of the effect of ramped loading on the consolidation process.

Figure 7: Internal workings of the matlab ramped loading script

tim Time of Interest (years)

kckcd Reduction in permeability of Smear Zone

Store U Values for

Figure 8: Comparison of ramped loading methods

0.01 0.1 Time (years) 1 10

3.2.3 Multiple Layers

Figure 9: Input matrix for the matlab working script.

layer=[0 0 0 0 The Layer input matrix now

Time is also stored Store average U

Figure 11: Variation of the effect of Well Resistance in a multilayered soil.

3.2.4 Vertical Drainage

Figure 12: Contribution to the consolidation process by vertical drainage.

Figure 13: Relative Effect of Vertical Drainage

3.3 Program Validation

Table 3: Assumptions and Values used in the Leo (2004) analysis

Table 4: Comparison of the Leo (2004) results to those of the author

0.083 0.236 0.237 0.590% 0.232 -2.239%

0.083 0.448 0.454 1.300% 0.445 -1.977%

3.4 Program Optimisation

3.4.1 Cost analysis of the problem

Table 5: Installation Costs

3.4.2 Probabilistic analysis

Figure 15: Example of a Beta Distribution

Figure 15 shows the standard form of the beta

Table 6: Z-values for beta distribution

Initial tim Time of Interest (years)

kckcd Reduction in permeability of Smear Zone

Step 3: Layer contains new

Store U Values for

Figure 17: PERT analysis matlab script

tim Time for Completion (years)

s Effect of Smear Zone

target U Required Degree of Consolidation

Plot of Cost versus Risk

Figure 18: Risk versus Cost curve from PERT

resistance was ignored in a soil of depth