GeotextilesandGeomembranes13 (1994) 669~577

Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Ireland.
0266-1144/94/$7.00
ELSEVIER

An Experimental Study of the Performance of Geosynthetic

Band Drains

Y. Wasti & T. Hergtil

Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara,
Turkey

(Received 10 March 1994; accepted 5 April 1994)

ABSTRACT

The performance of two basic types of geosynthetic band-shaped/strip

drains - - a composite drain (core surrounded by a geotextile filter) and a
monolithic drain (without a geotextile filter) - - has been compared by
means of radial consolidation tests. Tests were repeated employing the
monolithic drain wrapped in the same filter fabric as the composite drain, a
cylindrical porous stone and a sand drain. Two fine-grained soils of varying
plasticity and gradation were used, initially at a water content equal to
their respective liquid limits. The results were evaluated to compare the rate
and amount of consolidation in each case and to assess the possible effect of
clogging on the performance of geosynthetic drains. It was observed that
the composite drain performed better than the monolithic drain, especially
in the case of finer soil. Wrapping the monolithic drain with the geotextile
filter significantly increased its performance.

INTRODUCTION

Preloading used together with vertical drains is an effective ground

improvement technique, accelerating settlement and gain in strength of
soft cohesive soils. Geosynthetic strip or band-shaped vertical drains have
now largely replaced sand drains due to ease and speed of installation, less
soil disturbance, low cost, etc. Most synthetic drains have a composite

669
670 Y. Wasti, T. Hergfil

construction: a corrugated or studded inner core surrounded by a geotex-

tile filter sleeve or jacket. The type which may be called 'monolithic' has a
plastic fluted core without a filter sleeve, flow into the core taking place
through the perforations on the outer surfaces of the vertical channels or
tubes of the drain. The monolithic drain is claimed to be less expensive,
lighter in weight and more constant in quality; being in one piece, it
cannot be broken into any components and is considered to work even
when folded at right angles (Anon., 1983).
There are several records of field and laboratory experiments to assess the
relative performance of sand drains and geosynthetic strip drains (Hansbo &
Torstensson, 1977; Davies & Humpheson, 1981; Eriksson & Ekstr6m, 1983;
Cheikhismailzada, 1991; Bergado et al., 1993) or various types of strip
drains, filter sleeves and cores (den Hoedt, 1981; Guido & Ludewig, 1986;
Faisal, 1991a). However there are only a few studies which include both
composite and monolithic drains (Lawrance & Koerner, 1988; Faisal,
1991b). An investigation of these studies indicates poorer performance of
monolithic drains, and it was suggested that the geotextile filter sleeve is
essential to prevent the clogging of drainage paths (Faisal & Yong, 1988).
This paper reports the findings of an experimental study carried out
specifically to compare the efficiency of composite and monolithic
geosynthetic drains by means of radial consolidation tests.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The radial, equal-strain condition consolidation test apparatus consists of

a cylindrical mould with dimensions to accommodate a sample diameter
of 100 m m and height of 150 mm, top caps, a base plate, a loading frame
and attachments for measuring the amount of water drained from the
central drain. The load was applied by means of dead weights to exert
selected pressure increments of 50, 100, 150 and 200 kPa. A schematic of
the test apparatus is given in Fig. 1.
Strip samples, 13 mm wide, were cut lengthwise from Amerdrain 407
composite and Desol monolithic drains for use as a central drain in the
test. Tests were repeated employing the monolithic drain wrapped in the
same nonwoven geotextile flter as the composite drain. A cylindrical
porous stone and a sand drain (of circumference equal to the perimeter
length of the strip drains in accordance with the commonly adopted
equivalent diameter concept) were also tested in order to contrast the
efficiency of various types of drains. A test was also performed using a
sand drain with the same size and shape as the strip drains and results very
close to those of the cylindrical sand drain were obtained.
 Performance of geosynthetic band drains 671

,7
CLIP
\ TOP CAP

RUBBER
MEMBRANE -11 ! ~ In O-RING
! ..uu ~ |

LOADING
FRAME
STANI

CENTRAL SOIL
i
DRAIN SAMPLE
I
• ~ ,,~--MOULD

/ - BASE
! PLATE
/ ~ / O-R ~ . ~ STE EL
SEALANT~

/ \
.jt.I
ADAPTER

RUBBER
TUBE

I-1
d uI
,5

I////, ~///A~...~ DEAD WEIGHTS

K\\\"~ k\ \\",r"
r////////A rJ//,/////A
k\X\\\\\\ ~ld ",~\ \ \ \ " \ \ ~r"----- Ol SC

Fig. 1. Test a p p a r a t u s .

Table 1
P r o p e r t i e s o f the Soils U s e d

G~ Dso % Clay Liquid Plastic Plasticity

(mm) size limit (%) limit (%) index (%)
Soil 1 2.738 0.007 28 46 17 29
Soil 2 2.735 0.03 17 32 19 13
672 Y. Wasti, T. Hergfil

Two fine-grained soils of different plasticity and gradation were used in the
experiments. The properties of the soils are given in Table 1. Suitability of the
geotextile filter sleeve of the composite drain for the soils was checked,
referring to the filter criteria adopted in American (Anon., 1990) and
German practice (John, 1987), and found to be appropriate (Hergiil, 1994).
The first step in the testing procedure was to fix the central drain on the
base plate (Fig. 1). Then the inside of the mould was greased to reduce the
side friction and mounted on the base plate. Dry soil was mixed with water
into a homogeneous mass at a water content equal to its liquid limit and then
placed in the mould. Care was taken not to entrap air and provisions were
made to maintain the vertical position of the drain during the sample
preparation and testing. Sand drains were formed inside a plastic netting and
filter paper was put both around the sand drain and porous stone. Applied
pressures were kept on the sample until measurable water release had ceased,
which was 1 to 7 days depending on the type of soil and central drain.
It was observed that at the start of the tests under the first loading
increment of 50 kN/m 2 the discharged water was turbid for the first 10-15
minutes in tests with geosynthetic strip drains. This indicated a temporary
piping situation which is also reported by den Hoedt (1981) and attributed
to the relatively large discharge flow at initial stages that forced fines to
enter the core. Both the core of the composite drain and vertical channels
of the monolithic drain were checked at the end of the tests and no clog-
ging or blocking was observed.
Duplicate tests verified repeatability. The details of the experimental
work are presented elsewhere (Hergiil, 1994).

E X P E R I M E N T A L RESULTS

The results of consolidation tests performed are presented by plotting the

amount of water drained through the central drain (volume change of the
sample) against the logarithm of time. As an example, plots for the first
and the last applied pressures in the case of Soil 1 are given for sand drain
(SD), geosynthetic composite drain (CD), monolithic drain (MD) and
monolithic drain wrapped with geotextile (GMD) (Figs 2(a) and (b)). On
these plots 'theoretical curves' are also drawn by assuming the coefficient
of radial consolidation Ch equal to the coefficient of vertical consolidation
Cv (as often resorted to in the absence of radial consolidation test results)
to illustrate the deviation due to this assumption.
An examination of Fig. 2 and plots for other pressures and also for Soil 2,
reveals that the greater proportion of the volume change takes place under
the first pressure increment of 50 kN/m 2. For both soils, the sand drain
 Performance of geosynthetic band drains 673

Time (rain)
a 1 i llllll
Jo I 1 1111111
,oo I I I II
,,o,po I I I I II
,opo

3o.
i¢
E
(3
6O
O8
f~
0
~.
E

15o-
(o) Vertical Pressure=50 kPo
Time ~rnin)
I0 I00 I000 I0000
o, I I I Illlll / I i lllllJ i I I I I IIAI I I I T M i I

so \
"~ 15-
~> CD \\

20
(b) Vertical Pressure = 2 0 0 kPa

Fig. 2. Volumechange versus log time (Soil I): (a) vertical pressure = 50 kPa; (b) vertical
pressure = 200 kPa.

discharges the largest amount of water at the fastest rate. The monolithic
drain diverges notably indicating the worst performance; that is, the least and
the slowest compression. The composite and geotextile-wrapped monolithic
drains perform equally well and are comparable to the sand drain. At larger
applied pressures the monolithic drain continues to exhibit the worst perfor-
mance, with the per cent compression under a given pressure becoming
increasingly smaller, while the other drains perform equally efficiently. The
poorer performance of the monolithic drain is attributed to the reduction in
the amount of water drained due to the increased clogging of the holes of the
drain as consolidation progresses under increased applied pressures.
The above-mentioned observations are quantified in Fig. 3, where per
cent volume change (defined as the volume change at the end of each
674 Y. Wasti, T. Hergfil

I00

80-

c
o
", o - - o Vol. Ch. (SD)/Finol VoL Ch. (SD}
o 40- A - - A VoI. Ch.(GMD)/Final Vol. Ch. (SD)
E O- -O VoLCh.(CD)/Finol Vol. Ch. (SD)
x...--.x VoLCh.(MO)/Final Vol. Ch.(SD)
0
> 20

O'
0 so a6o 25O
Applied Verticol Pressure ( k N / m 2 )

Fig. 3. Volume change for different drains (Soil 1).

pressure increment for any drain divided by the final volume change for
the sand drain test at the end of the last pressure increment of 200 kPa) is
plotted against applied pressure increments. This shows that the sample
with the monolithic drain compresses 17% less than the sand drain sample
for Soil 1 which is more plastic and has a higher per cent clay size: The
corresponding value for Soil 2 is 14%.
The performance of composite and monolithic drains as consolidation
progresses is illustrated in Figs 4(a)-(d). The ordinate represents the ratio of
the time intervals (At) required by other drains to those required by the
sand drain for successive chosen increments of compression: 1% (i.e. for a
compression change of 0-1%, 1-2% and so on) for the case of 50 kPa
loading, 0-25% for 100 kPa and 0.2% for subsequent loadings. The
abscissa represents individual compression increments. As seen from the
figures, this incremental time ratio remains around 1 for the composite and
the geotextile-wrapped monolithic drain throughout consolidation for both
soils indicating as efficient drainage as the sand drain and a steady filtration
situation. On the other hand, for the monolithic drain and especially for the
finer soil (Soil 1) this ratio is very large, asymptotically approaching infinity
indicating clogging at the final stages of consolidation at each pressure
increment. The curves for the monolithic drain are also erratic; occasionally
the rate of flow is higher when the load is first applied and hydraulic
gradients higher, followed by intermittently increased clogging.
The rate of consolidation has also been compared by determining t90
values for each loading using the curve-fitting method due to Wharton
(1966; after Berry & Wilkinson, 1969). The ratio of t90 of the geotextile-
wrapped monolithic drain and composite drain to that of sand drain
 Performance of geosynthetic band drains 675

30
i

O3
25-
1
_-" 20-
MD (SoiJ i ) I_ Y_
15-

o x CD(Soil I)
,o- MD (Soil 2) ~ o CD(Soil 2)
.... /'-- " ,,7 ~ G M O ( S o i l I)
o O GMD(Soil2)

G
o', I z-'3 I +'-5 I 6'-7 I s'-s 1 ~'_, I
J-z 3-4 ~ 7-s 9-=o .~2
Compression Increment(%)
(o)Verficol Pressure=5OkPo
3 .=
Z
30-
3oo
~'zs.

~zo. MD (Soil I) / ~
6
15 ¸
l-
~o-
(3

~ ~ ~ ,. m m., =° ~,
o-b.z5 1 a~.arnt ,-,~zs I ts'~n I z3.zn
0.~5 0.'~- I LIS-15 t'/~- 2
Compreslion (~
Incremnt
(b) Vertical Pressure = IO0 kPo

Fig. 4. Comparison of rate of consolidation for different drains: (a) vertical pressure =
50 kPa; (b) vertical pressure = 100 kPa;

varies between 1 and 2 for Soil 1 and between about 1 and 1.5 for Soil 2;
the larger values are associated with smaller applied pressures. On the
other hand, the ratio for the monolithic drain to that of the sand drain is
about 8 to 13.5 for Soil 1 and from 3 to 6.5 for Soil 2.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of tl~e results presented in the previous sections, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
676 Y. Wasti, T. Hergfil

35.
l

M
~') 25-

.E
QlZ ~s-
x CD ( S o i l I)
= o CD ( S o i l 2 )
o MD (Soil 2) GMD(SoilI)
0 GMD (Soil 2 )

m i B ~ ~ ~, ~
O.Z--O,4 O~=O.e I-I.Z 1.4-1.6
Compression Increment (%)
(c) V e r t i c o l P r e s s u r e = I S 0 kPo

~
50
i
45-

,', 4 0 -
0')
35- MD (Soil P)

•~ zs-
-~ MD (.Soil I )
20 °

J" 15-

~ I0-

0
i~1 m BI []= • 4
I i i ] ~ I
0-0.2 0.4 -0~ 0 -I
0,2-0.4 0.6-G8 I ; 1.2
Compression increment (°/o)
(d) Verticol Pressure = 2 0 0 k P o

Fig. 4.-contd. (c) vertical pressure = 150 kPa; (d) vertical pressure = 200 kPa.

(1) The composite geosynthetic strip drain clearly performed better than
the monolithic drain. The difference in performance was accentuated
in the case of finer soil.
(2) The poorer performance of the monolithic drain is attributed to clogging
of the perforations in its tubes rather than reduced core flow capacity.
(3) Wrapping the monolithic drain with the geotextile filter increased its
performance to the same level as the composite drain or beyond.
(4) Consolidation curves drawn by assuming ch = Cv are inaccurate.
(5) For further research, tests using larger samples and several different
soils may be appropriate, but it is expected that the main findings of
the present study will still be valid.
 Performance of geosynthetic band drains 677

REFERENCES

Anon. (1983). Desol band drain. Canal Publicite, Paris.

Anon. (1990). Geotextile Design and Construction Guidelines, Publication No.
FHWA-HI-90-001, US Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Bergado, D.T., Alfaro, M.C. & Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1993). Improvement of
Soft Bangkok Clay using vertical drains. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12,
615 63.
Berry, P.L. & Wilkinson, W.B. (1969). The radial consolidation of clay soils.
Geotechnique, 19(2), 253-84.
Cheikhismailzada, M. (1991). Wick drains. PhD thesis, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara.
Davies, S.A. & Humpheson, C. (1981). A comparison between the performance
of two types of vertical drains beneath a trial embankment in Belfast.
Geotechnique, 31(1), 19-31.
Den Heodt, G, (1981). Laboratory testing of vertical drains. In Proceedings o.1
Tenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 627 31.
Eriksson, L. & Ekstr6m, A. (1983). The efficiency of three different types of
vertical drains--results from a full scale test. In Proceedings of Eighth
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3,
Helsinki, pp. 605-10.
Faisal, H.A. (1991a). The influence of filter jacket and core geometry on the
longitudinal permeability of a prefabricated drain. Soils and Foundations.
31(3), 120-6.
Faisal, H.A. (1991b). The flow behaviour of deformed prefabricated drains.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 10, 235-48.
Faisal, H.A. & Yong, K.W. (1988). Performance of prefabricated vertical drains.
In Proceedings of First Indian Geotextile Conference on Rein)Cbrced Soil and
Geotextiles, pp. E9-13.
Guido, V.A. & Ludewig, N.M. (1986). A comparative laboratory evaluation of
band-shaped prefabricated drains. In Consolidation of Soils, Testing and
Evaluation, ASTM, STP 892, Philadelphia, pp. 642-62.
Hansbo, S. & Torstensson, B.A. (1977). Geodrain and other vertical drain beha-
viour. In Proceedings of Ninth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Japan, pp. 533-40.
Hergiil, T. (1994). An experimental evaluation of the performance of geosynthetic
strip drains. MSc Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
John, N.W.M. (1987). Geotextiles. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Lawrance, C.A. & Koerner, R.M. (1988). Flow Behaviour of Kinked Strip Drains.
ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 18, pp. 22-39.