970

Effectiveness of partially penetrating vertical

drains under a combined surcharge and vacuum
preloading
Xueyu Geng, Buddhima Indraratna, and Cholachat Rujikiatkamjorn

Abstract: This paper considers the consolidation of a layer of clay in which partially penetrating prefabricated vertical
drains (PVDs) are used in conjunction with a combined surcharge and vacuum preloading. Analytical solutions for partially
penetrating PVDs are derived by considering vacuum pressure (suction), time-dependent embankment surcharge, well resist-
ance, and smear zone. Three-dimensional seepage with a virtual vertical drain is assumed to reflect real seepage into the
soil beneath the tip of a PVD. Analytical solutions were then used to examine the length of the vertical drain and vacuum
pressure on soft clay to determine the consolidation time and degree of consolidation, associated settlement, and distribution
of suction along the drain. The proposed solutions are then employed to analyse a case history. Finally, an appropriate PVD
length in relation to clay thickness and drain spacing is recommended for various loading patterns.
Key words: consolidation, partially penetrating, pore-water pressure, time dependent, vacuum, vertical drains.
Résumé : Cet article discute de la consolidation d’une couche d’argile dans laquelle des drains verticaux préfabriqués
(DVP) à pénétration partielle sont utilisés, avec une surcharge combinée et un pré-chargement à vide. Des solutions analyti-
ques pour les DVP à pénétration partielle sont dérivées en considérant la pression à vide (succion), la surcharge du remblai
dépendante du temps, la résistance du puits et la zone de souillure. Le modèle suppose que l’infiltration en trois dimensions
avec un drain vertical virtuel reflète l’infiltration réelle dans le sol sous la pointe du DVP. Les solutions analytiques ont en-
suite été utilisées pour évaluer la longueur du drain vertical et la pression à vide sur l’argile molle, ainsi que pour déterminer
le temps et le degré de consolidation, le tassement associé, et la distribution de la succion le long du drain. Les solutions
proposées sont ensuite utilisées pour analyser un exemple de cas. Finalement, une longueur appropriée pour un DVP est re-
commandée en relation avec l’épaisseur d’argile et l’espacement entre les drains et ce, pour différents patrons de charge-
ment.
Mots‐clés : consolidation, pénétration partielle, pression interstitielle, dépendant du temps, vide, drains verticaux.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction When a vacuum is applied to a layer of clay sandwiched

Stabilising soft soils for pre-construction with a surcharge
load alone is a time-consuming process, especially in areas
with thick soft soils or marine deposits. Installing prefabri-
cated vertical drains (PVDs) and using vacuum pressure can
significantly reduce this preloading period because it de-
creases the length of the drainage path, sometimes by a factor
of 10 or more (Chu and Yan 2005; Indraratna and Rujikiat-
kamjorn 2008). However, when the loaded area is relatively
small compared to the total depth of compressible soil, any
major increase in stress due to loading is sustained within
the upper layer of soil; therefore, the need to accelerate con-
solidation can be restricted mainly to this part of the soil
where partially penetrating drains may be quite adequate.
Received 20 May 2010. Accepted 9 February 2011. Published at
www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 3 June 2011.
X. Geng, B. Indraratna, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. Centre for
Geomechanics and Railway Engineering, School of Civil, Mining
and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
Corresponding author: Buddhima Indraratna (email: in-
dra@uow.edu.au).
between the top and bottom drainage layers, the PVDs must
be shorter than the thickness of clay to prevent the vacuum
from leaking through the bottom drainage layer. When PVDs
only partially penetrate the layer of clay, the soft clay beneath
the tip of the PVD does not consolidate the same as the over-
lying stratum. Due to the complexity of the problem, the soil
consolidation with partially penetrated vertical drains has al-
ready been analysed by numerical methods (Runesson et al.
1985; Onoue 1988; Tang and Onitsuka 1998), while some
simple approximation methods have also been developed
(Hart et al. 1958; Zeng and Xie 1989). Hart et al. (1958)
adopted Barron’s (1948) solution and Terzaghi’s (1943) one-
dimensional (1-D) consolidation solution to calculate consol-
idation due to radial flow and vertical flow, respectively. The
consolidation solution from a combination of radial and ver-
tical flow was obtained by Carrillo’s (1942) method, where it
was assumed that the drainage distance of the layer without
vertical drains was equal to the thickness of the whole layer.
The well resistance and smear effects were not considered ei-
ther. Zeng and Xie (1989) further modified and improved the
equation proposed by Hart et al. (1958) to capture the im-
proved drainage even below the tip of PVD as well as the
well resistance and the smear effect. However, it overesti-

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 970–983 (2011) doi:10.1139/T11-011 Published by NRC Research Press
Geng et al. 971

mated the influence of well resistance on consolidation com- Fig. 1. Analysis scheme of consolidation of clay with partially pe-
pared to Zeng and Xie (1989). Subsequently, Tang and Onit- netrated PVDs combined with vacuum pressure and surcharge pre-
suka (1998) proposed an analytical solution using the loading. kh, horizontal coefficient of permeability of the soil; ks,
variables separation method, which can consider both vertical horizontal coefficient of permeability of remoulded soil; kv, vertical
and radial drainage in the PVD zone, whereas consolidation be- coefficient of permeability of the soil; kw, coefficient of permeability
low this zone was still assumed to be purely one-dimensional. of the vertical drain; p, vacuum pressure; re, radius of influence
Most of the studies to date adopt 1-D theory to simplify zone, kh is the horizontal coefficient of permeability of the soil; rs,
consolidation beneath the PVD. However, the seepage ve- radius of the smear zone; rw, radius of the vertical drain; u, pore
locity directly beneath the drain tip should be faster than pressure.
the soil further away, and ideally, such drainage should be
considered as a true three-dimensional rather than a 1-D
problem.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous re-
search includes the effect of vacuum pressure with partially
penetrating PVDs. Although most commercial finite element
method software can be used to solve this problem, it is often
cumbersome if a parametric study is to be incorporated.
Therefore, this paper provides analytical solutions that con-
sider a partially penetrating drain combined with a vacuum
and surcharge preloading. Moreover, a virtual vertical drain
is considered to represent real three-dimensional seepage in
the soil beneath the PVD tip. The normalized settlement –
time factor curves, which can be used by practicing engi-
neers, are also provided.

Mathematical model and solution

A single unit cell theory was adopted to represent a single
drain surrounded by a soil annulus in axisymmetric condi-
tions (Fig. 1). Here, a virtual vertical drain with three-dimen-
sional seepage was assumed to represent real seepage in the
soil beneath the tip of a partially installed PVD, where Lw ≤
z ≤ H (Lw is the thickness of the sand layer; z is the vertical
coordinate; H is the thickness of the whole layer). The vac-
uum pressure can be assumed to be constant (i.e., no loss)
along the drain, whereas a zero pore pressure boundary is as-
sumed at the interface between the bottom of the clay layer
and the underlying drainage layer. It is also assumed that dur-
ing consolidation, the vacuum pressure directly increases the
effective stress and has no effect on the total stress of the
soil. In the soil stratum improved by PVD (0 ≤ z ≤ Lw), the is the vertical coefficient of permeability of the soil, rw is the
overall three-dimensional consolidation (i.e., combined axial radius of the vertical drain, and rs is the radius of the smear
and radial consolidation) can be expressed by zone.

 Consolidation in the undisturbed zone can be expressed as
@3v1 @u1 dq

½1 ¼ mv 
@t @t dt kh 1 @un @ 2 un kv @ 2 u1 @3v1
½3  þ 2  ¼ ;
g w r @r @r g w @z2 @t
where ɛv1 is the vertical strain of the soil stratum improved
by PVD, mv is the coefficient of volume compressibility of soil, rs  r  re
u1 ðz; r; tÞ is the average excess pore pressure of the soil stratum where re is the radius of influence zone, kh is the horizontal
improved by PVD at any depth, q(t) is the time-dependent coefficient of permeability of the soil, and un is the pore
surcharge preloading, t is the time for a given degree of pressure at any point in the zone of natural soil.
consolidation, and r is the radial coordinate. Continuity at the interface between the vertical drain and
For consolidation of soil within the smear zone the smear zone can be determined from


ks 1 @us @ 2 us kv @ 2 u1 @3v1 @ 2 uw1 2ks @us1 
½2  þ 2  ¼ ; ½4 ¼
g w r @r @r g w @z2 @t @z 2 rw kw @r
r¼rw

rw  r  rs
where ks is the horizontal coefficient of permeability of re-
moulded soil, gw is the unit weight of water, us(r, z, t) is the
excess pore-water pressure at any point in the smear zone, kv
where uw1(r, z, t) is the excess pore-water pressure within the
real vertical drain, us1 is the excess pore-water pressure in the
smear zone improved by PVD, and kw is the coefficient of
permeability of the vertical drain.

Published by NRC Research Press

972 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

The average excess pore-water pressure at a given depth is Fig. 2. Comparison of model prediction of different methods: (a) de-
then given by gree of consolidation without smear zone and well resistance; (b) de-

Z rs Z re  gree of consolidation with smear zone and well resistance. de,
1
½5 u1 ¼ 2prus dr þ 2prun dr diameter of influence zone; ds, smear diameter; dw, drain diameter;
pðre2  rw2 Þ rw rs U , degree of consolidation.

In the analysis of the section without PVDs, a virtual drain

with the same permeability as the clay is considered. It is
used to simulate consolidation under the tip of the PVD
(Lw ≤ z ≤ H). The governing equations for consolidation in
the clay layer can be written as


@3v2 @u2 dq
½6 ¼ mv 
@t @t dt
where ɛv2 is the vertical strain of the soil stratum unimproved by
PVD and u2 is the average excess pore pressure of the soil stra-
tum for the section without improvement by PVD at any depth.
The soil consolidation equation beneath the PVD tip is
given by


kh 1 @u2 @ 2 u2 kv @ 2 u2 @3v2
½7  þ 2  ¼ ;
g w r @r @r g w @z2 @t
rw  r  re
where u2(r, z, t) is the excess pore-water pressure of the soil
stratum outside the area of the virtual vertical drain.
To satisfy flow continuity, the flow between the virtual
drain and the soil is represented by
@ 2 uw2 2kh @u2 
½8 ¼  r¼rw
@z2 rw kv @r
where uw2(r, z, t) is the excess pore-water pressure within the
virtual vertical drain.
Average excess pore-water pressure at a given depth of soil
under the PVD tip can now be expressed by
Z re
1
½9 u2 ¼ 2pru2 dr
pðre2  rw2 Þ rw

The boundary conditions in the radial and vertical direc-

tions are as follows:
Impermeable wall at r = re
@un @u2
½10a ¼ 0; ¼0 At the bottom of the clay layer z = H (pervious boundary)
@r @r
Continuity of pore-water pressure gradient at r = rs ½10f  uw2 ¼ 0; u2 ¼ 0

@us @un The continuity and boundary conditions at the interface be-
½10b ks ¼ kh neath the clay layer and the top of the bottom drainage layer
@r @r
(z = Lw) can be expressed by
where p is the vacuum pressure.
Continuity of pore-water pressure at r = rs ½10g z ¼ Lw : uw1 ¼ uw2

½10c us ¼ un
½10h z ¼ Lw : u1 ¼ u2
Continuity of pore-water pressure at r = rw implies
@uw1 @uw2
½10d us ¼ uw1 ; u2 ¼ uw2 ½10i z ¼ Lw : kw ¼ kv
@z @z
At the top of the clay layer z = 0 ensures
@u1 @u2
½10e uw1 ¼ p and u1 ¼ p ½10j z ¼ Lw : ¼
@z @z

Published by NRC Research Press

Geng et al. 973

Fig. 3. Finite element discretization for partially penetrating drain in unit cell: (a) nodes and integration points for a single eight-node biqua-
dratic displacement, bilinear pore pressure element; (b) mesh discretization and vacuum pressure distribution for short-drain analysis. qu, sur-
charge preloading pressure.

The initial conditions are ½11 uw1 ðZ; SÞ ¼ X1 ea1 Z þ X2 ea1 Z þ X3 ea2 Z þ X4 ea2 Z
b
½10k t ¼ 0; u1 ¼ u2 ¼ u0 ðzÞ ¼ q0 b
þ QðSÞ
where q0 is the initial value of preloading.
uwi ðZ; SÞ and b
The solutions for b ui ðZ; SÞ (i = 1, 2) obtained ½12 uw2 ðZ; SÞ ¼ Y1 eb1 Z þ Y2 eb1 Z þ Y3 eb2 Z þ Y4 eb2 Z
b
by Laplace transformation are (where complete derivations b
þ QðSÞ
are given in Appendix A)

Published by NRC Research Press

974 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Fig. 4. Comparison of model prediction between authors’ method and finite element (FE) analysis: (a) surcharge only (case a); (b) vacuum
only (case b); (c) vacuum and surcharge (case c).

b 1 @ 2b
uw1 ðZ; SÞ Fig. 5. Site plan of Tianjin East Pier project.
½13 u1 ðZ; SÞ ¼ b
uw1 ðZ; SÞ 
B2 @2Z

b 1 @ 2b
uw2 ðZ; SÞ
½14 u2 ðZ; SÞ ¼ b
uw2 ðZ; SÞ 
B2 @2Z

In the above, the parameters a1, a2, b1, b2, and B2 are de-
termined explicitly using algebraic functions (details in Ap-
pendix A). Z = z/H, S is the Laplace transform of the
dimensionless time factor Th ¼ Ch t=de2 (where Ch is horizon-
tal coefficients of consolidation and de is the diameter of the
b
influence zone); QðSÞ is the Laplace transform of the time-
dependent surcharge preloading q(t); and b uwi ðZ; SÞ and
b
ui ðZ; SÞ (i = 1, 2) are the Laplace transforms of uwi(Z, Th)
and ui ðZ; Th Þ (i = 1, 2), respectively.
Considering the boundary conditions (eqs. [10a]–[10f]),
continuity at the interface between the underlying soil and
the sand blanket (eqs. [10g]–[10j]) together with the initial

Published by NRC Research Press

Geng et al. 975

Fig. 6. Soil properties before improvement. CD, chart datum ; UU Fig. 7. Settlement due to vacuum preloading combined with sur-
test, unconsolidated undrained test; w, water content; wL, liquid charge preloading: (a) surcharge preloading versus time; (b) vacuum
limit; wp, plastic limit. preloading versus time; (c) surface settlement versus time. DOC, de-
gree of consolidation.

condition (eq. [10k]), the following matrix obtained from

eqs. [11] and [12] can be written as
½15 x88 jT ¼ PT

The mathematical forms of the parameters x8×8, jT, and

PT are given in Appendix A. Fig. 8. Pore-water pressure (at r = 0.5 m) from vacuum preloading
The solutions for the excess pore-water pressure uwi(i = 1, 2) combined with surcharge preloading.
could be obtained applying the inverse Laplace transforms
for eq. [15] and [16], hence
Z
1 aþI1 b
½16 ui ðZ; Th Þ ¼ u2 ðZ; SÞeST dS ði ¼ 1; 2Þ
2pI aI1

Z aþI1
1 b
½17 ui ðZ; Th Þ ¼ ui ðZ; SÞeST dS ði ¼ 1; 2Þ
2pI aI1
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where a is a real number and I ¼ 1. The settlement of
the soil is now given by
ZH
½18 sðtÞ ¼ 3 dz
0

where 3 is the strain.

The analytical solutions of eqs. [16]–[18] can be readily
obtained using the numerical inversion of the Laplace trans-
form (Durbin 1974).

Published by NRC Research Press

976
Comparisons with previous studies
Figure 2 illustrates the comparative results of the overall
average degree of consolidation due to the surcharge preload-
ing alone, obtained using different methods (with zero vac-
uum pressure).
Hart et al. (1958) adopted Barron’s (1948) solution and
Terzaghi’s (1943) 1-D consolidation solution to calculate
consolidation due to radial flow and vertical flow, respec-
tively. The consolidation solution from a combination of ra-
dial and vertical flow was obtained by Carrillo (1942)’s
method, where it was assumed that the drainage distance of
the layer without vertical drains was equal to the thickness
of the whole layer. The well resistance and smear effects
were not considered either. The overall degree of consolida-
tion given by Hart et al. (1958) for zero vacuum pressure
(surcharge only) is smaller than that predicted by the solution
of Tang and Onitsuka (1998) and the present solution pro-
posed by the authors (Fig. 2a). Zeng and Xie (1989) overes-
timates the well resistance on consolidation, and hence
deviates considerably from the present solution for Th < 0.5
(Figs. 2a and 2b). In the absence of vacuum pressure, the de-
gree of consolidation obtained by Tang and Onitsuka (1998)
is higher than the authors’ solution that applies the concept
of virtual vertical drain to capture three-dimensional seepage
under the drain tips. It is also shown in Fig. 2 that even the
partially penetrating drains with vacuum pressure accelerate
consolidation progress significantly faster than the partially
penetrating drain with surcharge only.
Solution verification using finite element
analysis
In this section, the predictions based on the analytical sol-
utions developed by the authors are compared with those
based on numerical analysis using the commercial software,
ABAQUS (version 6.5). A total number of 1400 elements
(eight-node biquadratic displacement and bilinear pore pres-
sure) were used in the finite element analysis (Figs. 3a and
3b). The consolidation of the unit cell with a central vertical
drain was simulated based on Biot’s (1941) theory. The Pois-
son’s ratio (n) = 0 creates a nonlateral displacement condi-
tion to justify the behaviour at the embankment centreline
(exploiting symmetry). For soft Moruya clay, the horizontal
undisturbed soil permeability (kh,ax) was determined from 1-
D consolidation tests to be approximately 10–10 m/s, and the
coefficient of soil compressibility (mv) as 10–3 m2/kN. Ac-
cording to Indraratna and Redana (2000), the ratio of the ini-
tially undisturbed permeability to the smear zone
permeability (kh/ ks) was assumed to be 4.0. The outer boun-
dary was set as impermeable, whereas the top and bottom
boundaries were assumed pervious (see Fig. 3b). The equiva-
lent drain diameter (dw) was taken to be 100 mm, hence, the
smear diameter (ds) was considered to be 300 mm, based on
the laboratory outcomes described ealier by Indraratna and
Redana (1998). In the following analysis, the discharge ca-
pacity (qw) of the drain is assumed to be high enough for
well resistance to be neglected. For the analytical and numer-
ical analysis, the following three cases were examined:
1. Surcharge preloading only (80 kPa).
2. Vacuum preloading only (80 kPa).
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Table 1. Vertical drain parameters and soil properties.
Spacing, S 1.0 m (square)
Length of vertical drain 18 m
Dimension of drain 100 mm × 4 mm
Discharge capacity, qw 100 mm3/year (per drain)
Dimension of mandrel 120 mm × 50 mm
kh/kw 1.05 × 10–6
kh/kv 1.0
kh/ks 4.0
Vertical coefficients of 1.589 × 10–7 m2/s
consolidation, cv
Horizontal coefficients of 2.514 × 10–7 m2/s
consolidation, ch
3. Vacuum (40 kPa) plus surcharge preloading (40 kPa).
The comparison of normalized settlement between the ana-
lytical model and numerical predictions for the above three
cases is shown in Fig. 4. For a given applied load, the nor-
malized settlement was calculated based on the ratio of settle-
ment divided by the ultimate settlement of the clay layer.
Overall, a good agreement between the analytical and numer-
ical techniques was found. It can be seen that the ultimate
normalized settlements obtained for cases (b) and (c) are al-
ways less than unity, because of the vacuum pressure loss at
the bottom pervious boundary.
Case history analysis
Tianjin port is situated on the western side of the Bohai
Gulf in China. The soil in and under the reclaimed land had
to be improved to enhance its capacity to sustain heavy loading
from the stacking yard. Vacuum preloading combined with sur-
charge preloading was used to accelerate the time-dependent
settlement of the underlying soft soil strata. In the pilot test
area (Fig. 5), the soil profile consisted of a 4 m thick hy-
draulic fill underlain by 15 m of silty clay followed by
7 m of clayey sandy loams, which were in turn overlain by
fine sand. The hydraulic fill was dredged silty clay with
clayey silt laminations while the particle-size distribution,
frequency, and thickness of the clayey silt laminations de-
pended largely on the distance from the discharge points of
the hydraulic fill. As the discharge points were mainly on
the southern side of the reclamation and the outlet points
in the northern side, the particle-size distribution was finer
in the northern half of the site. The soil properties deter-
mined before improvement (Fig. 6) were reported by Choa
et al. (1990).
All the PVDs were 18 m long and the clay was 24 m thick
(i.e., vertical drain penetration ratio r = 0.75). The required
preloading intensity was 107 kPa, while the maximum pre-
loading that could be obtained from vacuum suction was ex-
pected to vary between 80 and 90 kPa. It was proposed that a
combined vacuum and surcharge fill would be needed to
achieve the desired preloading pressure for a 95% degree of
consolidation after about 6 months (Figs. 7a and 7b). The
progress of the treatment works was monitored through ex-
tensive instrumentation, sampling, as well as field and labo-
ratory testing. Typical settlement and pore-water pressure
Published by NRC Research Press
Geng et al. 977

Fig. 9. Normalized settlement–time factor curves under surcharge pressure only.

Fig. 10. Normalized settlement–time factor curves under vacuum pressure only.

Published by NRC Research Press

978 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Fig. 11. Normalized settlement–time factor curves under the surcharge combined with vacuum pressure.

Table 2. Vertical drain penetration ratio (r) for different conditions to achieve a 90% dimensionless settlement.

r
de = 1.0 m de = 1.5 m
H (m) SP (80 kPa) VP (–80 kPa) VP and SP SP (80 kPa) VP (–80 kPa) VP and SP
10 0.8 Cannot achieve 0.9 and SP > 0.8 Cannot achieve 0.9 SP > 50%
90% normal- 50% total ap- 90% normal- total applied
ized settle- plied pres- ized settle- pressure
ment sure ment
20 0.85 0.9 0.9 SP > 40% 0.8 Cannot achieve 0.9 SP > 40%
total applied 90% normal- rotal applied
pressure ized settle- pressure
ment
Note: SP, surcharge preloading; VP, vacuum preloading; VP and SP, vacuum combined surcharge loading.

results are shown in Figs. 7c and 8. A time-dependent vac-
uum was applied based on the field measurements (Fig. 7b).
The soil and drain parameters used in the analysis adopted
from Choa et al. (1990) are tabulated in Table 1. The settle-
ment predictions based on eq. [18] agreed with the field
measurements (Fig. 7c). When a PVD is longer, but does
not totally penetrate the entire clay layer (i.e., r = 0.9), it
should cause more settlement. However, if it were to ap-
proach the layer of fine sand, there would be vacuum loss
from the bottom pervious boundary, which would create a
zero vacuum head at the bottom end of the PVD. In this
case, the analysis assumed a triangular distribution of suction
down the drain (Indraratna et al. 2004, 2005); hence, the re-
sulting settlement would be smaller. The location of the pore-
water measurement mentioned by Choa et al. (1990) is at the
boundary of the drain influence zone (i.e., r = 0.5 m). The
predicted pore-water pressure matches the field data, as
shown in Fig. 8. The nonlinear distribution of pore-water
pressure at greater depths (8–15 m) may be attributed to
ground-water pumping in the sand layer and the accuracy of
the field instrumentation.
Determining the optimum partially
penetrated length of drain
In this study, the parameters assumed for the current model
are dw = 0.1 m, de = 1.0–1.5 m, ds = 0.3 m, kh/kv = 1.0, kh/
kw = 10–6, kh/ks = 4, and H = 10–20 m, which are typical of
the case study, Tianjin Port. When the PVD tip is at or close
to the bottom pervious layer, there is a possibility of vacuum
loss that affects the ultimate settlement. In this aspect, the
conventional degree of consolidation cannot be used as a per-
formance indicator as it always converges to unity. Therefore,
the settlement normalized with the ultimate settlement deter-

Published by NRC Research Press

Geng et al.
Fig. 12. Effects on partially penetrating drains on time-dimensional settlement: (a) penetration ratio = 0.5; (b) penetration ratio = 0.9. n, re/rw;
s, rs/rw.
mined for the total applied load is employed to evaluate the
efficiency of the partially penetrated PVD. It is noted that
the ultimate normalized settlement can be less than unity if
there is vacuum loss. With the surcharge preloading only
(qu = 80 kPa), Fig. 9 illustrates the effect of partially in-
stalled vertical drains on the time factor (Th), as represented
by the time-normalized settlement curve. Two desirable crite-
ria were employed for all three loading cases: (a) surcharge
preloading only; (b) vacuum preloading only; and (c) vacuum
(40 kPa) plus surcharge preloading, as follows:
979
1. A normalized settlement of 0.9.
2. Th,req < 1.25 Th,i, where Th,req is the desired consolidation
time factor due to partially installed vertical drains and Th,i
is the time factor required to achieve a normalized set-
tlement of 0.9 where PVDs fully penetrate the entire
clay layer that is followed by an impervious boundary.
In the case of surcharge only, for a 10 m thick clay layer,
the PVD length could be reduced by about 20% of the entire
soft clay thickness for both de = 1.0 and 1.5 m, without sig-
nificantly increasing the consolidation time. For the 20 m
Published by NRC Research Press
980
thick clay layer, the PVD length could be reduced by about
15% of the soft clay thickness. Figure 10 illustrates the con-
solidation response due to vacuum preloading only. With
vacuum preloading applied to a clay thickness of 10 m, it
can be seen that even when the vertical drain penetrates 90%
of the entire clay thickness, the desired 90% normalized set-
tlement could not be attained when de = 1.5 m. When the
drain spacing is 1.0 m and penetration ratio is 0.9, a normal-
ized settlement of 90% can be achieved, but a significant pe-
riod of consolidation is required (Th,req = 1.75 Th,i). For the
case of a 20 m clay thickness, a 90% penetration of PVD
would give a normalized settlement of 90% for both de = 1.5
and 1.0 m, but with a longer consolidation time of Th,req = 2 Th,i.
This is attributed to the loss of vacuum pressure through
the pervious layer.
Figure 11 shows the normalized settlement curves deter-
mined by the combined surcharge and vacuum preloading.
Regardless of PVD spacing, for the 20 m clay thickness, a
penetration ratio of 0.9 can provide a normalized settlement
of 0.9 within an increased consolidation time (Th,req) less
than 20% of Th,i. For the 10 m thick clay layer with 1.0 m
drain spacing, the applied surcharge pressure should be more
than 40% of the total applied pressure (vacuum plus sur-
charge), to obtain a normalized settlement of 0.9 within
1.25Th,i. However, for the 10 m thick clay layer with 1.5 m
drain spacing, the surcharge pressure has to be more than
50% of the total applied pressure to achieve 90% normalized
settlement within 1.25Th,i. This analysis demonstrates that to
overcome the vacuum loss caused by the bottom pervious
layer, the combination of vacuum with surcharge pressure is
most beneficial when the PVD length is less than 90% of the
total clay thickness. Generally, the vertical drain penetration
ratio can be reduced by up to 20% of the total clay thickness
without significantly affecting the settlement time for sur-
charge loading alone. In contrast, for surcharge load com-
bined with vacuum pressure, the vertical drain length can be
reduced by 10% of the total soft clay thickness with an ap-
propriate vacuum and surcharge combination (see Table 2).
The variation of the time-dependent average pore-water
pressure (u) with depth is shown in Fig. 12. The pore pres-
sure equals the applied vacuum pressure at the top boundary
of the clay layer, whereas the pore pressure is zero at the bot-
tom pervious boundary. As expected, the excess pore pres-
sure in PVD-improved zone rapidly alters with the applied
vacuum pressure.
Conclusions
An analytical solution for partially penetrating vertical drains
for vacuum preloading and surcharge preloading was presented.
The results are then compared with the finite element predic-
tions. As the PVDs partially penetrate the clay, the area directly
beneath the PVD tips necessitates a three-dimensional consoli-
dation analysis. A virtual three-dimensional seepage mecha-
nism was assumed to represent the real flow condition of
the soil beneath the PVD tips. Subsequently, a comparison
between the current analytical solutions and the numerical
model was made. It was found that the authors’ solution in
comparison with field data was more accurate due to the
appropriate consideration of the vacuum distribution along
the drain length and the realistic flow condition beneath
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
the drain tips. It is important to note that the partially pen-
etrating drains with vacuum pressure accelerate consolida-
tion progress significantly faster than the case of surcharge
preloading only, especially when the bottom layer is impervious.
A case history taken from Tianjin Port, China, was dis-
cussed and analysed using the analytical solutions proposed
in this study, capturing the time-dependent vacuum pressure
variation and the surcharge preloading history based on the
field data. The analytical predictions agreed well with the
measured settlement and excess pore pressure. If the PVDs
fully penetrate towards the bottom of the soft clay layer to
reach the underlying pervious sand layer, then the resulting
settlement at any given time would become smaller due to
the loss of vacuum (suction).
Generally, the PVD penetration length can be reduced by
up to 20% of the total clay thickness without significantly af-
fecting the time for settlement to achieve a normalized settle-
ment of 90%. For surcharge preloading combined with
vacuum pressure, the PVD length can only be reduced by
about 10% of the entire soft clay thickness for vacuum to to-
tal applied pressure ratio of 0.4. It can be seen that vacuum
preloading alone may not be effective when there is a perme-
able layer at the bottom of the clay.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Australia Research Council
(Australia), Road and Traffic Authority (Sydney), Coffey
Geotechnics, Queensland Department of Main Roads, and
Douglas Partners for their continuous support.
References
Barron, R.A. 1948. Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells.
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 113:
718–742.
Biot, M.A. 1941. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation.
Journal of Applied Physics, 12(2): 155–164. doi:10.1063/1.
1712886.
Carrillo, N. 1942. Simple two and three-dimensional cases in the
theory of consolidation of soils. Journal of Mathematics and
Physics, 21: 1–5.
Choa, V., Wong, K.S., and Low, B.K. 1990. New airport at Chek Lap
Kok, geotechnical review and assessment. Consulting report to
Maunsell Pte Ltd., Singapore.
Chu, J., and Yan, S.W. 2005. Application of the vacuum preloading
method in soil improvement projects. In Ground improvement –
case histories. Edited by B. Indraratna and J. Chu. Elsevier,
London. Vol. 3, pp. 91–118.
Durbin, F. 1974. Numerical inversion of Laplace transform: An
efficient improvement to Dubner and Abita’s method. The
Computer Journal, 17(9): 371–376.
Hart, E.G., Kondner, R.L., and Boyer, W.C. 1958. Analysis for
partially penetrating sand drains. Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE: 84(4): 1–15.
Indraratna, B., and Redana, I.W. 1998. Laboratory determination of
smear zone due to vertical drain installation. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 125(1): 96–99.
Indraratna, B., and Redana, I.W. 2000. Numerical modeling of vertical
drains with smear and well resistance installed in soft clay. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 37(1): 132–145. doi:10.1139/t99-115.
Indraratna, B., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. 2008. Effects of partially
penetrating prefabricated vertical drains and loading patterns on
Published by NRC Research Press
Geng et al. 981

vacuum consolidation. In Proceedings of GeoCongress 2008: Using the Laplace transform technique, the solution for
Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitigation, New Orleans, La., 9– eq. [A1] is given by
12 March 2008. GSP 178. Edited by K.R. Reddy, M.V. Khire, and
 2
A.N. Alshawabkeh. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, @ 4b
uw1 SK3 h22 @ buw1 SK3 h22b
½A3  þ B 1 þ B2 þ B2 uw1
Va. pp. 596–603. @Z 4 n2 @Z 2 n2
Indraratna, B., Bamunawita, C., and Khabbaz, H. 2004. Numerical
modeling of vacuum preloading and field applications. Canadian b
 B QðSÞ ¼0
2
Geotechnical Journal, 41(6): 1098–1110. doi:10.1139/t04-054. @ 2b
uw1
Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., and Sathananthan, I. 2005. ¼ B2 ðb
u1  b
uw1 Þ
Analytical and numerical solutions for a single vertical drain @Z 2
including the effects of vacuum preloading. Canadian Geotechni-

 2
cal Journal, 42(4): 994–1014. doi:10.1139/t05-029. @ 4b
uw2 SK3 h22 @ buw2 SK3 h2
Onoue, A. 1988. Consolidation of multilayered anisotropic soils by ½A4  þ B 3 þ B4 þ B4 2 2b uw2
@Z 4 n2 @Z 2 n
vertical drains with well resistance. Soils and Foundations, 28(3):
75–90. b
 B QðSÞ ¼0
4
Runesson, K., Hansbo, S., and Wiberg, N.E. 1985. The efficiency of
@ 2b
uw2
partially penetrating vertical drains. Géotechnique, 35(4): 511– ¼ B4 ðb
u2  b
uw2 Þ
516. doi:10.1680/geot.1985.35.4.511. @Z 2
Tang, X.W., and Onitsuka, K. 1998. Consolidation of ground with
where
partially penetrated vertical drains. Geotechnical Engineering
Journal, 29(2): 209–231. kh kh kh
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, K1 ¼ ; K2 ¼ ; K3 ¼
kv kw ks
New York.
Lw H ch t
Zeng, G.X., and Xie, K.H. 1989. New development of the vertical r ¼ ; h2 ¼ ; Th ¼ 2 ;
drain theories. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference H dw de
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE), Rio de z 2 H 2 8K1 h22
Janeiro, Brazil, 13–18 August 1989. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Z ¼ ; B 1 ¼ ch 2 ¼ ;
Netherlands. Vol. 2, pp. 1435–1438. H re Fa1 cv Fa1 n2
kv 2 2 H 2 8h22 ðn2  1ÞK2
B2 ¼ ðn  1Þch 2 ¼ ;
kw re Fa1 cv Fa1 n2
Appendix A
After mathematical integration, the partial differential equa- 2 H 2 8K3 h22
B3 ¼ ch ¼ ;
tions containing only uw and ui can be expressed as follows: re2 Fa2
cv Fa2
  2 2 H 2 8h22 ðn2  1ÞK4
@ 4 uwi @ 3 uwi 2 kv 2 @ uwi B4 ¼ ðn2  1Þch ¼
½A1 cv 4  2  ch 2 1 þ ðn  1Þ re2 Fa2 cv Fa2 n2
@z @z @t re Fai kwi @z2


2 kh @uwi dq uw1 ðZ; SÞ, b
b uw2 ðZ; SÞ, b
u1 ðZ; SÞ, b b
u2 ðZ; SÞ, QðSÞ, and S are the
þ ðn2  1Þ 2  ¼0 ði ¼ 1; 2Þ
re Fai kvi @t dt Laplace transforms of uw1(Z, Th), uw2(Z, Th), u1 ðZ; Th Þ,
u2 ðZ; Th Þ, q(Th), and Th, respectively.
and
The solutions for eqs. [A2] and [A3] are
@ 2 uwi 2 kh
½A2 ¼ ðn2  1Þ 2 ðui  uwi Þ ½A5 uw1 ðZ; SÞ ¼ X1 ea1 Z þ X2 ea1 Z þ X3 ea2 Z þ X4 ea2 Z
b
@z 2 re Fai kwi
b
þ QðSÞ
where

 2
n kh 3 n ½A6 uw2 ðZ; SÞ ¼ Y1 eb1 Z þ Y2 eb1 Z þ Y3 eb2 Z þ Y4 eb2 Z
b
Fa1 ¼ ln þ lnm 
m ks 4 n 1
2 b
þ QðSÞ



m2 kh m2
þ 2 1 1 2
n 1 ks 4n b 1 @ 2b
uw1 ðZ; SÞ

 ½A7 u1 ðZ; SÞ ¼ b
uw1 ðZ; SÞ 
kh 1 1 B2 @2Z
þ 1 2
ks n 2  1 4n
b 1 @ 2b
uw2 ðZ; SÞ

 2
 ½A8 u2 ðZ; SÞ ¼ b
uw2 ðZ; SÞ 
3 n 1 1 B2 @2Z
Fa2 ¼ lnn  þ 1 
4 n2  1 n2  1 4n2 where Xi and Yi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) are the parameters that are
needed to be solved by using the boundary conditions, and
For the underlying soil with a virtual drain kw2 = k, where
n = re/rw, m = rs/rw, s = rs/rw, cv = kv/mvgw, and ch = kh/mvgw.

Published by NRC Research Press

982 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffiffi
u
u SK1 h2 r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
u SK1 h2 2 SK h 2

t n2 þ B1 þ B2 þ n2 þ B1 þ B2  4 n12 2 B2
2

a1 ¼
2

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffiffi
u
u SK1 h2 r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
u SK1 h2 2 SK h 2

t n2 þ B1 þ B2  n2 þ B1 þ B2  4 n12 2 B2
2

a2 ¼
2

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffiffi
u
u SK1 h2 r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
u SK1 h2 2 SK h 2

t n2 þ B3 þ B4 þ n2 þ B3 þ B4  4 n12 2 B4
2

b1 ¼
2

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffiffi
u
u SK1 h2 r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
u SK1 h2 2 SK h 2

t n2 þ B3 þ B4  n2 þ B3 þ B4  4 n12 2 B4
2

b2 ¼
2
Considering the boundary conditions (eqs. [10a]–[10f]), the continuity conditions at the interface between the underlying soil
and sand blanket (eqs. [10g]–[10j]) and the initial condition (eq. [10k]), the following matrix obtained from eqs. [A5] and [A6]
can be written as
½A9 x88 jT ¼ PT
where
2 3
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
6 a2 a 21 a 22 a 22 0 7
6 1 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 x35 x36 x37 x38 7
6 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 x45 x46 x47 x48 7
6 7
x¼6 7
6 x51 x52 x53 x54 x55 x56 x57 x58 7
6 7
6x x62 x63 x64 x65 x66 x67 x68 7
6 61 7
6 7
6 x71 x72 x73 x74 x75 x76 x77 x78 7
4 5
x81 x82 x83 x84 x85 x86 x87 x88

x35 ¼ b1 eb1 ; x36 ¼ b1 eb1 ; x37 ¼ b2 eb2 ; x38 ¼ b2 eb2 ; x45 ¼ b31 eb1 ; x46 ¼ b31 eb1 ; x47 ¼ b32 eb2 ;
x48 ¼ b32 eb2 ; x51 ¼ ea1 r ; x52 ¼ ea1 r ; x53 ¼ ea2 r ; x54 ¼ ea2 r ; x55 ¼ eb1 r ; x56 ¼ eb1 r ;
x57 ¼ eb2 r ; x58 ¼ eb2 r ; x61 ¼ a21 ea1 r =B2 ; x62 ¼ a21 ea1 r =B2 ; x63 ¼ a22 ea2 r =B2 ;
x64 ¼ a22 ea2 r =B2 ; x65 ¼ b21 eb1 r =B4 ; x66 ¼ b21 eb1 r =B4 ; x67 ¼ b22 eb2 r =B4 ; x68 ¼ b22 eb2 r =B4 ;
x71 ¼ k1 a1 ea1 r ; x72 ¼ k1 a1 ea1 r ; x74 ¼ k1 a2 ea2 r ; x75 ¼ k2 b1 eb1 r ; x76 ¼ k2 b1 eb1 r ;
x77 ¼ k2 b2 eb2 r ; x78 ¼ k2 b2 eb2 r ; x81 ¼ a1 ea1 r ð1  a21 =B2 Þ; x82 ¼ a1 ea1 r ð1  a21 =B2 Þ;
x83 ¼ a2 ea2 r ð1  a22 =B2 Þ; x84 ¼ a2 ea2 r ð1  a22 =B2 Þ; x85 ¼ b1 eb1 r ð1  b21 =B4 Þ;
x86 ¼ b1 eb1 r ð1  b21 =B4 Þ; x87 ¼ b2 eb2 r ð1  b22 =B4 Þ; x88 ¼ b2 eb2 r ð1  b22 =B4 Þ

j ¼ ½ X1 X2 X3 X4 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 

Published by NRC Research Press

Geng et al. 983
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P ¼ ½P b 0; Q;
b  Q; b 0; 0; 0; 0; 0 where I ¼ 1. The analytical solutions of eq. [18] were
obtained using a numerical inversion of the Laplace trans-
The solutions for excess pore-water pressure uwi (i = 1, 2) form (Durbin 1974).
were obtained using an inverse Laplace transform of eqs. [15]
Reference
and [16], hence
Z Durbin, F. 1974. Numerical inversion of Laplace transform: An
1 aþI1 b efficient improvement to Dubner and Abita’s method. The
½A10 ui ðZ; Th Þ ¼ u2 ðZ; SÞeST dS ði ¼ 1; 2Þ Computer Journal, 17(9): 371–376.
2pI aI1
Z aþI1
1 b
½A11 ui ðZ; Th Þ ¼ ui ðZ; SÞeST dS ði ¼ 1; 2Þ
2pI aI1

Published by NRC Research Press

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.