2 Numerical Analyses of Soft Soil Foundations Improved by PVDs and Vacuum Preloading

NUMERICAL ANALYSES OF SOFT SOIL FOUNDATIONS IMPROVED BY PVDS AND
VACUUM PRELOADING
Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics, 20 August 2015, Hanoi, Vietnam
Dr William Cheang, Plaxis Asiapac, Singapore

Dr Lee Siew Wei, Golder Associates, Hong Kong
Dr Nallathamby Sivasithamparam, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
• Introduction
• Section 1: Modelling of Soft Clays
• Section 2: Modelling of Embankment Construction Process
• Section 3: Modelling of Prefabricated Vertical Drains
• Section 4: Modelling of Vacuum Preloading
• Section 5: Case Histories
• Conclusions
• References
Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 2

INTRODUCTION
Numerical Modelling of Soft Soil Foundations Improved by PVDs and Vacuum Preloading
Introduction

SECTION 1: MODELLING OF SOFT SOILS
Modelling of Soft Soils
A. Predictive techniques for estimate of soil displacements require good soil

models.
B. Critical to adopt soil model that simulate the correct soil response.
C. Herein, we describe a few soil models that have be used successfully.

1. Soft Soil (Soft Soil Creep) Model
2. Sekiguchi Ohta Class of Soil Models ( SO-viscid, SO-inviscid, SO-EC)
3. S-Clay Class of Soil Models
4. Anistropc Creep Model
D. Examples analyses are also presented to illustrate the importance of

checking the simulated Su profile.
Soft Soil Model
Characteristics:
1. Based on Cam-Clay theory
2. Logarithmic stress-strain relationship

(stiffness linearly dependent on p’)
3. Plastic strain in primary compression

(cap hardening)
4. Elastic unloading / reloading
5. M based on K0nc in 1D compression

instead of on ’
6. Failure behaviour according to the

Mohr-Coulomb criterion
Parameters for Soft Soils
Parameters;
• * Modified compression index

• * Modified swelling index
• ur Poisson’s ratio for unloading / reloading
• c’ Cohesion
• ’ Friction angle
•  Dilatancy angle
• K0nc Horiz./vertical stress ratio in normally consolidated 1D compression(determines M)

Sekiguchi-Ohta Class of Soil Models
Characteristics:
1. Developed in Japan
2. Based on original Cam-Clay model
3. Anisotropic yield contour based on K0nc
4. Creep behaviour (viscid SO model)
Parameters for SO Ohta & Iizuka (1987)

S-Clay1S Class of Soil Models
Parameters for S-Clay1 (s)

Modelling of Undrained Shear Strength
Determine design undrained strength Su profile based on ground
investigation information;
1. Use field Vane shear
2. Cone Penetration Test (Piezocone)
3. Triaxial consolidated undrained tests on high quality samples
4. Ensure whatever soil model selected for analysis will predict the
correct design Su profile
Undrained Shear Strength
Field Vane Shear vs. Triaxial Compression &

Su for Marine Clays from Field Vane Shear
Extension
tests (Yeung and So, 2001)
• Undrained strength cu
•Su/s′v0 ≈ 0.3 (from FV tests)
• Different field and lab results on cu for an
• Su of TC ≈ 1.1 × Su of FV
Italian soft clay
• Su/s′v0 ≈ 0.33 (inferred for TC)
• cu of TC ≈ 1.1 × cu of FV
• Su of TE ≈ 0.7 × Su of FV
• cu of TE ≈ 0.7 × cu of FV
• Su/s′v0 ≈ 0.21 (inferred for TE)
• Data by Ghionna, Jamiolkoeski, Lacasse,
Ladd, Lancellotta and Lunne (1983) • PLAXIS triaxial modelling to check cu in
triaxial comp. and ext.
1. Triaxial modelling using Mohr Coulomb (MC), Modified Cam Clay
(MCC) & Soft Soil (SS) models.
2. Three soil models use effective shear strength parameters c′ and f′ in
undrained shearing
3. Compare predicted cu with the measured cu by FV
4. Investigate the effect of initial effective horizontal stress (s′h0) of soft
clay
• s′h0 = 1-sin(f′) × s′v0 [K0-consolidated]
• s′h0= 1 × s′v0 [Isotropically-consolidated]
5. Select a particular s′v0, say 100 kPa
p′=0.5*(′1+ ′3), q′=0.5*(′1- ′3)
c′=0 kPa, ′=30°
• Triaxial Consolidated Undrained tests with pwp measurement

• Hong Kong Marine Clays offshore Lamma Island
• Data by Yeung and So (2001)
• Oedometer tests for compression
index Cc of Marine Clays (Yeung
and So, 2001)
• Average Cc = 0.6
•  = Cc/2.3 = 0.26 [MCC input]
Ave. Cc=0.6
•  = /5 (assumed) = 0.052 [MCC
input]
• e0 = 2.0 (assumed)
• * = /(1+e0) [SS input]
• * = /(1+e0) [SS input]
•  &  (or * & *) affect effective
stress path in undrained shearing
• PLAXIS triaxial
a modelling
• Axisymmetry analysis
• Consolidated Undrained
test
• Compression shearing
r (a ↑, r ~constant) –
beneath surcharge
• Extension shearing (a
~constant, r ↑) – near
the edge of surcharge
Modelling of Undrained Shear Strength
′h0 = 1-sin() × ′v0 [K0-consolidated]

140
120 q=2cu M=6sin()/3-sin()
100
80 Measured q SS
q (kPa) =(1-3)
ult MCC MC
60
40
20 K0 Compression
0
-20 Extension
Measured qult
-40
M=6sin()/3+sin()
-60
-80
MC
-100
MCC M=6sin()/3-sin()
-120 Soft Soil
-140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
p' (kPa) =1/3×(′1+′2+′3)
Comparison of cu (kPa) bet. measurements & predictions

′h0 = 1-sin() × ′v0 , ′v0=100 kPa [K0-consolidated]
Measurement* Mohr Coulomb Modified Cam Clay Soft Soil
Tx. Comp. 33 40 30 33
Tx. Ext. 21 28 30 24
* For tx. compression cu/′v0 ≈ 0.33, for tx. extension cu/′v0 ≈ 0.21
′h0 = 1 × ′v0 [Isotropically-consolidated]
140
q=2cu M=6sin()/3-sin()
120
100 Compression
80 Measured q MC
ult SS
q (kPa) =(1-3)
60
MCC
40
20
K0
0
-20 M=6sin()/3+sin()
Measured qult
-40
-60
-80
MC
-100
MCC
-120 Soft Soil Extension M=6sin()/3-sin()
-140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
p' (kPa) =1/3×(′1+′2+′3)
Modelling cu of Soft Clay

Comparison of cu (kPa) bet. measurements & predictions
′h0 = 1 × ′v0 , ′v0=100 kPa [Isotropically-consolidated]
Modified Cam
Measurement* Mohr Coulomb Soft Soil
Clay
Tx. Comp. 33 61 35 42
Tx. Ext. 21 43 35 30
* For tx. compression cu/′v0 ≈ 0.33, for tx. extension cu/′v0 ≈ 0.21
• For isotropically-consolidated soft clay (′h0=′v0), MC, MCC &
SS all over-predict cu in both tx. compression and tx. extension
• For K0-consolidated soft clay ′h0=1-sin()×′v0,
• in tx. compression MCC and SS predict cu close to
measurement, whereas MC over-predicts cu
• in tx. extension MC, MCC and SS all over-predict cu
• For tx. compression the failure line in q-p′ space is
• M=6sin()/3-sin() for MC, MCC and SS
• For tx. extension the failure line in q-p′ space is
• M=6sin()/3+sin() for MC and SS
• M=6sin()/3-sin() for MCC (single M value is input)
• Mohr Coulomb model with effective friction angle ′ overestimates

undrained strength cu
• Modified Cam Clay & Soft Soil models better predict cu in triaxial
compression. But they show deficiencies in
1. over-prediction of cu in triaxial extension
2. over-prediction of cu for highly anisotropic clays in triaxial
compression (results not presented herein)
• If difficult to understand advanced soil models, consider specify
the measured cu value directly to the Mohr Coulomb model, i.e.
c′=cu, ′=0°.
SECTION 2: MODELLING OF EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
Modelling of Embankment Construction Process
A. In real world, embankments (reclamation) or surcharge loads are

constructed in stages.
B. In numerical analyses, this process can be simulated by;

1. Distributed Load approach (i.e. Asaoka et al.,1992)
2. Gravitational Loading approach
3. Sequential placement of soil layers/elements (Britto and Gunn, 1987)
C. Which method is the best?

Distributed Load Approach
A. Possibilities
1. Simple and easy to setup
2. Suitable for small loads and pure “elastic soil” conditions
B. Limitations
1. Foundation soil not restraint as physical presence of embankment not simulated.
2. Lateral spreading, especially in elastoplastic soil, not correctly modelled
Gravitational Load Approach
A. Possibilities
1. Applying incremental load by increasing the gravitational force for the entire embankment
or surcharge fill (more realistic than surcharge loading approach).
2. Easy set-up with a single stage input
3. For elastic soil behaviour
B. Limitations
1. Embankment or surcharge fill load not closely simulated (Remember: Physically it is
constructed a layer at time.)
2. Soil is Elasto-plastic (can be Elasto-visco-plastic) so ground response is dependent on

sequence of build-up and load increase.

Sequential placement of soil layers/elements (Britto and Gunn, 1987)

Sequence of construction is properly simulated by adding the layers from one
phase to another. This is currently the most popular method (Chai and Carter,
2011)
A. Possibilities
1. Best suited for advanced analysis. Sequence of construction is adequetly captured
2. Sequence and time-dependent nature of construction is simulated
3. Geometric, physical and mechanical influence of embankment is explicitly incorporated
4. Sequential build-up of soil layers will influence strength and stiffness change in foundation
soil
B. Limitations
1. Longer setup of phased calculations
2. Requires advanced modelling techniques (i.e. “Update Mesh” )
SECTION 3: MODELLING OF PREFABRICATED VERTICAL DRAINS

Consolidation Settlement with Vertical Drains
• PVD spacing = 1m
c/c in triangle
• PVD installed from 1st layer of Filling to the bottom of soft clay
Vertical Drains
• With vertical drains, horizontal consolidation is predominant

• Hansbo’s (1979) equation for average degree of horizontal
consolidation (Ūh) accelerated by vertical drains
  8Th 
U h  1  exp 
  
 kh 
n
  ln   0.75    
 ln s    2lz  z 2 h
k
s  k h  qw
Drain Smear Well

spacing effect resistance
Vertical Drains
Th = cht/D2 b = width of band drain = 100 mm

t = time s = rs/rw
ch = coefficient of horizontal rs = radius of smear zone
consolidation ≈ 1 m2/year
kh = horizontal permeability outside
D = drain spacing = 1 m smear zone
De = equivalent diameter of soil k′h = horizontal permeability inside
cylinder = 1.05×D for triangular grid = smear zone
1.05 m
l = length of drain
n = R/rw = 16
z = depth of drain under
R = De/2 = 0.53 m consideration
rw = radius of drain = (a+b)/=0.033m qw = discharge capacity of drain
a = thickness of band drain = 3 mm Note: numbers quoted are for the
Tanjung Bin case
 kh 
n
  ln   0.75    
 ln s    2lz  z 2 h
k
s  k h  qw
Drain Smear Well

spacing effect resistance
• Well resistance can be ignored if discharge capacity of drain qw >

150 m3/year and clay horizontal permeability kh < 1×10-9 m/sec
• Parameters to determine are
s (=rs/rw, radius of smear zone/radius of drain)
kh/k′h (clay horizontal permeability/smear zone permeability)
• s and kh/k′h obtained from curve fitting of the Hansbo’s equation to
initial settlement data
00
Measured
Best-fit line
0.2
0.2 s=3, kh/k'h = 2
S = Ūh × Sult
0.4
0.4
(m)
S (m)
Settlement magnitude
0.6
0.6
Settlement,
0.8
0.8
Hansbo’s Ūh; s=3, kh/k′h=2

1.0
1
  8Th 
U h  1  exp 
1.2
1.2
  
1.4
1.4
00 10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40 50
50
60
60
70
70
Time Timelag after

Lag After first
First Lift lift(Days)
+ PVD + PVD (Days)
Conversion of 3D Radial Flow into 2D Plane Strain
3D axisymmetry 2D plane strain
Real situation PLAXIS 2D modelling
Plan view
Indraratna & Chu (2005)

• Objective: achieve an equivalence between 3D axisymmetric

and 2D plane strain flow in terms of consolidation settlement
• Different methods available:
1. Shinsha et al. (1982) – permeability transformation
2. Hird et al. (1992) – geometry and permeability matching
3. Bergado and Long (1994) – equal discharge concept
4. Chai et al. (1995) – extension of Hird et al. by incorporating
well resistance and clogging
5. Kim and Lee (1997) – time factor analysis
6. Indraratna and Redana (1997) – rigorous solution for parallel
drain wall
• Bergado and Long’s (1994) equal discharge concept
D(1  as )k h
k hps 
  D  k h 
2S ln   ln(s )
  d s  k 
h 
• khps = converted horizontal permeability in plane strain, i.e. the

kx value input into PLAXIS 2D modelling
• At Tanjung Bin kh ≈ 2.5×10-10 m/s, khps ≈ 1×10-10 m/s
as = drain thickness/drain spacing ≈ 0

S = 0.866D for drains installed in triangular pattern = 0.866 m
 = 1.13 for triangular pattern
ds = diameter of smear zone = 0.2 m
Time (day)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
0
Drain
10
Ave. degree of horizontal consol. (%)_
Hansbo’s (1979)
20
  8Th 
30 U h  1  exp 
  
40
50 2D mesh models plane

strain flow of an equivalent
60
soil cylinder towards an
70 equivalent band drain at
PLAXIS 2D
80 centre
kx=khps
90
ky=ky (unchanged)
100
Comparison between Hansbo’s solution and PLAXIS 2D modelling
SECTION 4: MODELLING OF VACUUM PRELOADING

SECTION 5: CASE HISTORIES
TANJUNG BIN LAND RECLAMATION (MALAYSIA)
Case 1

Tanjung Bin Reclamation
1. Southern Malaysia
2. 2100 MW power plant
3. 70 ha reclamation
4. 20 - 25 m very soft to soft
Marine Clay
5. cu = 5 to 40 kPa
6. 7-15m high hydraulic Fill
7. Prefabricated vertical drains
(PVD) to accelerate settlement
Description and Aims
1. PLAXIS used in Detailed Engineering Design of staged

reclamation construction
2. PLAXIS predictions on
• consolidation settlement of Marine Clay accelerated
by PVD
• stability of reclamation slope
3. Key modelling issues are
• advanced constitutive model (Soft Soil Model) for soft
clay
• conversion of 3D PVD radial flow to 2D plane strain
flow
4. FOS of reclamation slope calculated by phi-c′ reduction
Soil Condition
mbgl 0 0
Very soft to soft (firm) clay
cu peak: 7 to 42 kPa
cu remoulded: 3 to 15 kPa
5 5
10 10
Very soft to soft clay

15 cu peak: 11 to 26 kPa 15
cu remoulded: 2 to 8 kPa
20 20
Ground Conditions
25 25
30 30
Soil Condition (Undrained Strength)
• Tanjung Bin soft clay

undrained strength (cu)
• cu measured from field
Soft Soil model Vane shear/lab UU tests
c′=2kPa, =23°
• cu predicted by PLAXIS Soft
*=0.14, *=0.04 Soil model in undrained
triaxial compression
• PLAXIS cu are moderately
conservative compared with
field Vane shear peak cu
Undrained Shear Strength
1. Equation for undrained strength cu given by Mohr Coulomb, Modified Cam Clay &
Soft Soil models
2. Under conditions of
• undrained triaxial compression (q-p′ space)
• input of effective friction angle f′
3. Mohr Coulomb (overestimates cu of n.c./lightly overconsolidated clays)
1 6 sin  
cu   
 pini
2 3  sin  
p′ini = initial mean effective stress
Modified Cam Clay

• M = (6 sin′)/(3 - sin′); M is input directly in PLAXIS
• p′0 ini = initial pre-consolidation pressure
• q2 = M2p′(p′0 – p′); yield locus of Modified Cam-Clay model
• q = deviatoric stress
 
  p0 ini 
M pini 
cu   
2 2 
 ini 
p
Soft Soil
 * *
  M p0 ini 
2 *
M pini
cu   2 
px

2  M  M 2
px p 
ini 
• M = (6 sin′)/(3 - sin′); ′ is input in PLAXIS

• Mpx ≈ 3 - 2.8(K0), where K0 = 1 - sin′
• q2 = Mpx2p′(p′0 – p′); yield locus of Soft Soil model
2D Modelling of Staged Reclamation Construction
Reclamation by hydraulic filling

Activity (B1 area) Time (day)
1st Filling 3.25m 5
Install PVDs 14
1st Rest period 23
2nd Filling 2.25m 7
2nd Rest period 23
3rd Filling 2m 7
3rd Rest period 23
4th Filling 2m 7
4th Rest period 23
5th Filling 1.25m 7
Staged reclamation construction 5th Rest period 139
(existing ground level ≈ 0.75 MLSD) Trim to +4MLSD 7
Deformed mesh at completion of staged reclamation

(exaggerated scale)
Sandfill
W.T.
PVD Soft CLAY

Sandy SILT
• Mohr Coulomb model for Sandfill and Sandy SILT

• Soft Soil model for soft CLAY
• “Drain” elements model individual PVDs at 1m c/c
• Model five stages of filling & rest periods and trimming of fill to +4 MLSD
• Activate “Updated mesh” and “Updated water pressures” for

large deformation analysis (e.g. settlement > 1m)
• For reduction of permeability with time (effective stress),
consider activate ck in material properties window of SS model
• Large deformation analysis • log(k/k0) = e/ck

• ck is only relevant for Soft Soil (Creep)
• ck ≈ Cc (compression index)
Settlement Comparison between Predictions & Measurements
ASG10 ASG15
Time (Day) Time (Day)
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
50
0
0.0 0.0
Measurement Measurement
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 PLAXIS: ch=1 m^2/yr PLAXIS: ch=1 m^2/yr
-0.4
-0.6 PLAXIS: ch=3 m^2/yr PLAXIS: ch=3 m^2/yr
-0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1.0 -1.0
Settlement (m)
Settlement (m)
-1.2 -1.2
-1.4 -1.4
-1.6 -1.6
-1.8 -1.8
-2.0 -2.0
-2.2 -2.2
-2.4 -2.4
-2.6 -2.6
-2.8 -2.8
Comparison of settlement for Area A

(Fill thickness = 7.5m)
ASG10 ASG15
9 9
8 8
7 7
Sand Fill Level (+MLSD)
Sand Fill Level (+MLSD)
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 Measurement 2 Measurement
PLAXIS: ch=1 m^2/yr PLAXIS: ch=1 m^2/yr
1 1
PLAXIS: ch=3 m^2/yr PLAXIS: ch=3 m^2/yr
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Comparison of sandfill level for Area A

(Fill thickness = 7.5 m)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0.0 0.0
PLAXIS PLAXIS
-0.5 BSG02 -0.5 BSG12
BSG14
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
Settlement (m)
-2.0
Settlement (m)
-2.0
-2.5 -2.5
-3.0 -3.0
-3.5 -3.5
-4.0 -4.0
-4.5 -4.5
-5.0 -5.0
Comparison of settlement for Area B

(Fill thickness 15 m)
6.0
5.5
Measurement (m)
5.0
+10%
4.5
-10%
4.0
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Prediction (m)
Comparison of final primary settlement for Area B

(Fill thickness 11-15 m)
Predictions on Excess Pore Water Pressure
Time (Day)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
160
140 5 lifts & rest periods rest period

120
100
Excess PWP (kPa)
80
60
40
Compression
20
0
-20 surcharge
removal swelling Suction
-40
-60
Unfortunately no reliable measurement on pore water pressure is

available for comparison
Comparison of Slope FOS between PLAXIS & SLOPE/W
Area C, 1st + 2nd Fill thickness = 5.5 m
PLAXIS phi-c′ reduction (FOS = 1.09)
1
2
5 3
4
SLOPE/W M&P limit equilibrium (FOS = 1.13)
• For SLOPE/W the increase of cu in clay is calculated from cu/′v=0.28

• ′v is calculated from standard consolidation theory incorporating drains
Comparison of Slope FOS between PLAXIS & SLOPE/W
Area C, 1st + 2nd + 3rd Fill thickness = 7.5 m
PLAXIS phi-c′ reduction (FOS = 1.12)
1
2
6 3
5 4
SLOPE/W M&P limit equilibrium (FOS = 1.11)
• For SLOPE/W the increase of cu in clay is calculated from cu/′v=0.28

• ′v is calculated from standard consolidation theory incorporating drains
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF VACUUM CONSOLIDATION

Dr Richard Witasse et al.
Case 3

Layout and 2-D Model
Soil Properties

Comparison of axisymmetric unit cell radial flow into
plane strain flow
Results

Results
MURRO TEST EMBANKMENT

Dr Nallathamby Sivasithamparam et al.
Case 3

Murro Test Embankment
A. Finnish Road Administration
B. Constructed on 1993
C. Monitored for 14 years
D. Western Finland
Typical Characteristics of Murro Deposit

Undrained shear strength profile
A. Field vane test
Instrumentation of Murro Test Embankment

Model Parameters
Time Settlement Curves

Surface Settlement
Horizontal Displacement
Time Settlement Curves
STABILITY OF MUAR TEST EMBANKMENT
Case 4

Muar Test Embankment
CONCLUSIONS & REFRENCES

References
1. Bergado, D. T. and Long, P. V. (1994). Numerical analysis of embankment on subsiding ground improved by
vertical drains and granular piles. Proc. of 13th ICSMFE, New Delhi, India, 1361-1366.
2. Chai, J. C., Miura, N., Sakajo, S. and Bergado, D. (1995). Behaviour of vertical drain improved subsoil under
embankment loading. J. Soil Found., Japanese Geotechnical Society, 35(4), 49-61.
3. Ghionna, V., Jamiolkowski, M., Lacasse, S., Ladd, C. C., Lancellota, R. and Lunne, T. (1983). Evaluation of
self-boring pressuremeter. Proc. Int. Symp. on Soil and Rock Investigation by In Situ Testing, Paris, Vol.2,
293-301.
4. Hansbo, S. (1979). Consolidation of clay by band-shaped prefabricated drains. Ground Engineering, 12(5),
16-25.
5. Hird, C. C., Pyrah, I. C. and Russell, D. (1992). Finite element modelling of vertical drains beneath
embankments on soft ground. Geotechnique, 42(3), 499-511.
6. Indraratna, B. and Chu, J. (2005). Ground improvement - case histories. Elsevier Geo-engineering Book
Series Volume 3, ISBN: 0-080-44633-7.
7. Indraratna, B. and Redana, I. W. (1997). Plane strain modelling of smear effects associated with vertical
drains. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 123(5), 474-478.
8. Kim, Y. T. and Lee, S. R. (1997). An equivalent model and back-analysis technique for modelling in situ
consolidation behaviour of drainage-installed soft deposits. Comput. Geotech., 20(2), 125-143.
9. Plant, G. W., Covil, C. S. and Hughes, R. A. (1998). Site preparation for the new Hong Kong International
Airport. Thomas Telford, ISBN 0-7277-2696-X.
10. Shinsha, H., Hara, H., Abe, T. and Tanaka, A. (1982). Consolidation settlement and lateral displacement of
soft ground improved by sand drains. Tsuchi-to-Kiso, Japanese Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 30(2), 7-12.
11. Trenter, N. A. (2001). Earthworks – a guide. Thomas Telford, ISBN 0-7277-2966-7.
12. Yeung, A. T. and So, S. T. C. (2001). Geotechnical engineering properties of Hong Kong Marine Clays. Proc.
of 3rd Int. Conf. on Soft Soil Engrg., Hong Kong, 695-700.
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION!
Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam

2 Numerical Analyses of Soft Soil Foundations Improved by PVDs and Vacuum Preloading

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2 Numerical Analyses of Soft Soil Foundations Improved by PVDs and Vacuum Preloading

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NUMERICAL ANALYSES OF SOFT SOIL FOUNDATIONS IMPROVED BY PVDS AND

Dr William Cheang, Plaxis Asiapac, Singapore

• Section 1: Modelling of Soft Clays

• Section 2: Modelling of Embankment Construction Process

• Section 3: Modelling of Prefabricated Vertical Drains

• Section 4: Modelling of Vacuum Preloading

• Section 5: Case Histories

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 2

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 4

Modelling of Soft Soils

A. Predictive techniques for estimate of soil displacements require good soil

C. Herein, we describe a few soil models that have be used successfully.

2. Sekiguchi Ohta Class of Soil Models ( SO-viscid, SO-inviscid, SO-EC)

3. S-Clay Class of Soil Models

4. Anistropc Creep Model

D. Examples analyses are also presented to illustrate the importance of

2. Logarithmic stress-strain relationship

3. Plastic strain in primary compression

4. Elastic unloading / reloading

5. M based on K0nc in 1D compression

6. Failure behaviour according to the

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 7

Parameters for Soft Soils

• * Modified compression index

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 8

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 9

Parameters for SO Ohta & Iizuka (1987)

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 10

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 11

Parameters for S-Clay1 (s)

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 12

Undrained Shear Strength

Field Vane Shear vs. Triaxial Compression &

p′=0.5*(′1+ ′3), q′=0.5*(′1- ′3)

c′=0 kPa, ′=30°

• Triaxial Consolidated Undrained tests with pwp measurement

′h0 = 1-sin() × ′v0 [K0-consolidated]

Comparison of cu (kPa) bet. measurements & predictions

Measurement* Mohr Coulomb Modified Cam Clay Soft Soil

Modelling cu of Soft Clay

• Mohr Coulomb model with effective friction angle ′ overestimates

Modelling of Embankment Construction Process

A. In real world, embankments (reclamation) or surcharge loads are

B. In numerical analyses, this process can be simulated by;

2. Gravitational Loading approach

3. Sequential placement of soil layers/elements (Britto and Gunn, 1987)

C. Which method is the best?

Distributed Load Approach

2. Suitable for small loads and pure “elastic soil” conditions

2. Lateral spreading, especially in elastoplastic soil, not correctly modelled

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 27

Modelling of Embankment Construction Process

Gravitational Load Approach

2. Easy set-up with a single stage input

3. For elastic soil behaviour

2. Soil is Elasto-plastic (can be Elasto-visco-plastic) so ground response is dependent on

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 28

Sequential placement of soil layers/elements (Britto and Gunn, 1987)

Numerical Analysis in Geotechnics 2015 | 20 August 2015 | Hanoi, Vietnam 29

SECTION 3: MODELLING OF PREFABRICATED VERTICAL DRAINS

• With vertical drains, horizontal consolidation is predominant

Drain Smear Well

Th = cht/D2 b = width of band drain = 100 mm

Consolidation Settlement with Vertical Drains

p′=0.5(′1+ ′3), q′=0.5(′1- ′3)