CE 5101 Lecture 9 Case

Histories and Consolidation

Monitoring
OCT 2010
Prof Harry Tan

Outline

Consolidation Monitoring Principles

Case 1 Muar Tests Embankments
Case 2 Bangkok 2nd International Airport
Case 3 German Housing Project

Objectives of Back Analysis

Calibrate the soil properties by matching
FEM predictions with field measurements for
the embankment constructed to failure
Study the effect of PVD installation on the
stability and performance of the embankment
constructed on PVD stabilized foundation soil
using the calibrated soil properties

Introduction Muar Tests

Site Condition
Depth, m
+2.5m RL
+0.5

-5.6

-15.2

Soil Description

kh (m/sec)

Yellowish brown mottled red CLAY with

roots, root holes and laterite concretions

110

Upper
Clay

Light greenish grey CLAY with a few shells,

very thin discontinuous sand partings,
occasional near vertical roots and some
decaying organic matter (<2%)

40

4x10-9

Lower
Clay

Grey CLAY with some shells, very thin

discontinuous sand partings and some
decaying organic matter (<2%)

60

1x10-9

60

2x10-9

Crust

Peat
-15.9
-19.9

c (kPa)

Sandy
Clay
Sand

Dark brown PEAT with no smell

Greyish brown sandy CLAY with a little
decaying organic matter
Dark grey, very silty medium to coarse
SAND (SPT>20)

Site Condition

PVD Properties
Drainage
Length, l
(m)

Drain
Spacing, s
(m)

Equivalent
Diameter, dw
(m)

Influence Zone
Diameter, de
(m)

Smeared Zone
Diameter, ds
(m)

18.0

1.3

0.07

1.365

0.4

Triangular Layout

Loading Characteristics for

Embankment Constructed
to Failure
Embankment constructed directly on the
subsoil
Fill compacted in 0.2m layers at a nominal
rate of 0.4m per week until failure occurred
Coupled consolidation analysis was
performed

FEM Model of Embankment

Constructed to Failure
GWT at 1.75m below
ground surface

Fill
(15 Layers)

Crust

20 m

Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)

2m
6.4 m

Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2)

10 m

Sandy Clay

4.1 m

80 m

Soil Properties Used In

FEM Analysis
References include A.S. Balasubramaniam (1994) & B. Indraratna (2000)

Material RL (m)

sat
(kN/m3)

c
(kPa)

(o )

kh
(m/day)

kv
(m/day)

Upper
Clay

+0.5
-6.0

15.5

20

0.13

0.05

1.3E-4

6.9E-5

0.15

Lower
Clay

-6.0
-15.9

15.5

22

0.11

0.08

9.5E-5

6.0E-5

0.15

Soft Soil Model

10

Soil Properties Used In

FEM Analysis
References include A.S. Balasubramaniam (1994) & B. Indraratna (2000)
Material RL (m)

sat
unsat
(kN/m3) (kN/m3)

c
(kPa)

(o)

E
(kPa)

kh
(m/day)

kv
(m/day)

Fill

20.5

20.5

19

26

5200

1.0

1.0

0.3

Crust

+2.5
+0.5

16.5

14.5

20

26

14000

1.3E-4

6.9E-5

0.3

Sandy
Clay

-15.9
-20.0

16.0

16.0

10

22

2500

9.5E-5

6.0E-5

0.3

Mohr Coulomb Model

11

Instrumentation Plan of
Embankment Constructed
to Failure

Plan View

Elevation View

12

Excess Pore Pressure Variation

Piezometer P2
Piezometer P7

13

Excess Pore Pressure Variation

FillHeight
Height = 3m
Fill
Fill Height= =5m
4m

14

Lateral Displacement
At Failure Height

Inclinometer I3

15

Surface Settlement Profile

FillHeight
Height==5m
3m
4m
Fill

16

Actual Failure Mode of

Embankment
30m from
toe

17

FEM Predicted Failure Mode

of Embankment

Upper Clay

30 m

18

Cross Section of Embankment on

PVD Stabilized Foundation Soil

19

Construction Sequence of
Embankment on PVD
Stabilized Foundation Soil
Stage

Fill Periods
(Days)

Fill Thickness
(m)

Rate of Filling
(m/day)

Rest Period
(days)

1 - 14

0.0 2.57

0.18

14 105

105 - 129

2.57 4.74

0.09

129 - present

Coupled Consolidation Analysis was performed

20

FEM Model of Embankment

on PVD Stabilized Soil
43 m
20 m

Soil Parameters were the same as

that of the embankment constructed
to failure. GWT at 1.75m below
ground surface

Fill

Crust
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)

PVD Stabilized
Zone

Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2)

Sandy Clay

2m
6.4 m
10 m
4.1 m

36 m
135 m

21

PVD Modeling Technique

(Equivalent Vertical Permeability)
n kh
3
2l 2 k h
ln( ) ln(s)
s kr
4
3qw
where

k ve

2.5l 2 k h
(1
)k v
2
De k v

l
n

=
=

Drainage length

de
dw
s

=
=
=

Diameter of unit cell

Diameter of drain

ds
kh
kr
qw
kv

=
=
=
=
=

Diameter of smear zone

Horizontal permeability of natural soil
Horizontal permeability of smear zone
Discharge capacity of PVD
Vertical permeability of natural soil

de
dw

Verified by Tay, E.L

(2002)

ds
dw

22

PVD Modeling Technique

kh
kr

General

Axisymmetric
Radial Flow

Equivalent
Flow

k h / kr

12

Spacing (m)

1.3

H(m)

18

Configuration

Triangular

12

Material

Crust

Upper Clay

Lower Clay

kv (m/day)

6.9E-5

6.9E-5

6.0E-5

qw (m3/yr)

100

dw (m)

0.07

de (m)

1.365

19.5

dm (m)

0.2

ds (m)

0.4

5.714

Material

Crust

Upper Clay

Lower Clay

kve (m/day)

5.99E-3

2.66E-3

1.97E-3

23

Instrumentation Plan of
Embankment on PVD
Stabilized Soil

24

Excess Pore Pressure Variation

Piezometer P2

Piezometer P6
Piezometer P3

25

Ground Settlement at 23m From

Centerline of Embankment

Ground Surface

5.5m Below Ground Surface

26

Surface Settlement Profile

45 Days
105 Days

413 Days

27

Factor of Safety
Height of Fill
= 2.57 m

Height of Fill
= 4.74 m

28

Case 2 2nd Bangkok

International Airport

Located at Nong
Ngu Hao in the
Central Plain of
Thailand
Project area 8
km by 4 km
situated 25 km
east
of Bangkok Metropolis
Soft clay strata
with low strength
and high
compressibility

29

Weathered Clay
Very Soft Clay
Soft Clay
Medium Clay
Stiff Clay

Dense Sand
30

TEST EMBANKMENT TS3

31

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

32

Conditions for analysis

Vertical closed consolidation boundary
conditions were set at centre of
embankment and 60.0 m from centre of
embankment
Open consolidation boundary conditions
were set at ground surface and sand
layer at 22 m below stiff clay layer
33

Conditions for analysis

Soft soil model is used for clay layers
Mohr-Coulomb model is used for
embankment
PVD installation effects not modeled,
PVD wished-in-place, followed by
stage construction of embankment
34

Method 1 Using interface element

Equivalent horizontal permeability of
soils, khpl, calculated
Different kh/ks ratio determined by the
permeabilities of different soil layers to
match instrumentation data
Method 2 Using an equivalent vertical
permeability
Treated as one-way drainage
Drainage length taken to be the length
of the vertical drain

35

FINITE ELEMENT MESH (METHOD 1)

Analysis
Number of elements used for method 1
was 1268 and 1117 for method 2
Each element has 6 nodes and 3 stress
points
Line refinement used at improved zone
by vertical drains to increase the
accuracy of solution
36

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 1 - Using Interface Element as Vertical Drains
Consider Smear Effects Only
0
-0.2

50

100

150

200

250

Settlement (m)

-0.4

300

350

400

450

500

Method 1

-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6

FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)

-1.8
Time (day)
37

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 1 - Using Interface Element as Vertical Drains
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance
0
-0.2

50

100

150

200

250

Settlement (m)

-0.4

300

350

400

450

500

Method 1

-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6

FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)

-1.8
Time (day)
38

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 2 - Using Equivalent Vertical Permeability
Consider Smear Effects Only
0
-0.2

50

100

150

200

250

-0.4

350

400

450

500

Method 2

-0.6
Settlement (m)

300

-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8

FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)

-2
Time (day)
39

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 2 - Using Equivalent Vertical Permeability
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance
0
-0.2

50

100

150

200

250

-0.4

350

400

450

500

Method 2

-0.6
Settlement (m)

300

-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8

FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)

-2
Time (day)
40

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Consider Smear Effects Only
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Settlement (m)

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2

-1.6

0-8 m (Method 1)
0-12 m (Method 1)
0-16 m (Method 1)
0-8 m (Method 2)
0-12 m (Method 2)
0-16 m (Method 2)

-2
Time (day)

41

SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Settlement (m)

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2

0-8 m (Method 1)
0-12 m (Method 1)
0-16 m (Method 1)

-1.6

0-8 m (Method 2)
0-12 m (Method 2)
0-16 m (Method 2)

-2

Time (day)

42

From the comparisons of settlements

predictions:

Difference in the 2 methods is large

when consider smear effects only, but for
realistic conditions of drain smearing
and
well resistance , difference is smaller
Difference between the two methods gets
larger with increasing depths of
settlement measurements

43

EXCESS PORE PRESSURE

Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m )

40
35

Method 1 (center of embankment, 8 m)

30

Method 2 (center of embankment, 8 m)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (day)
44

Conclusion
Coupled consolidation in FEM can predict the
excess pore pressure and settlement variation
reasonably well
PVD stabilized foundation soil showed efficient
drainage allowing for faster embankment
construction
Loading rate of embankment on PVD stabilized
foundation can be much faster but is dependent
on efficacy of PVD to accelerate consolidation

45

Case Study:
Back Analysis of
Reinforced Soil Knolls
at Pulau Tekong
46

Objectives of Back Analysis

Calibrate the soil and drain properties by
matching FEM results with field measurements
Illustrate the need for finite strain analysis in
cases where there is relatively large
displacement as compared to thickness of fill
Identify the collapse mechanism involved
Study the performance of the reinforcements
and PVD proposed in the original knoll design
Proposed possible changes to original design
which may prevent future failure
47

Introduction
Geosynthetic Reinforcements

Reinforced Knoll
Sand Blanket

Zone C
35 m

Zone B
25 m

Zone A
50 m

Zone B
25 m

Zone C
35 m

Elevation view of a Typical Knoll

48

Failure of Knoll D8

49

Site Condition of Knoll D8

Soil profile varied
significantly
Obtained from CPTs
results and Soil
Classification Chart

After Robertson and Campanella (1983)

50

Properties of Geosynthetic
Reinforcements
Type of Reinforcement

Tensile Strength (kN/m)

Elongation at Failure (%)

Rock G55/30
(Basal Reinforcement)

50

10

PEC 50 (Side
Slope Reinforcement)

50

10

TS 80 (Side
Slope Reinforcement)

30

10

51

Properties of PVD
Influence
Smeared Zone
Zone Diameter
Diameter (m)
(m)

Zone

Drainage
Length (m)

Drain
Spacing (m)

Equivalent
Diameter (m)

15.0

1.25

0.0659

1.413

0.25

10.0

1.50

0.0659

1.695

0.25

5.0

1.50

0.0659

1.695

0.25

Equivalent Vertical Permeability was used to model

PVD stabilized foundation soil

52

Loading Characteristics of
Knoll D8
Coupled Consolidation and Updated Mesh with
Pore Pressure Analysis was performed

53

FEM Model of Knoll D8

Sand
Blanket

Counter
Balance

GWT at 1m below
ground surface
Fill (40 Layers)
10 m 10 m

Sand

5m

Soft Clay (OCR = 1.2)

Stiff Clay

60 m

35 m

25 m

50 m

25 m

35 m

60 m

54

Soil Properties Used In

FEM Analysis
Reference from Tay (2002)
Material
Material
Backfill
Sand
Blanket
Soft
Clay

sat
unsat
c
(kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa)
sat
unsat
c

3
223) (kN/m22
(kN/m
) (kPa) 3 (o)
22
16

16

22

16

(o )

E
(kPa)

*
30

*
7000

kh
kv
(m/day) (m/day)
kh
kv
8.64E-2
(m/day) 8.64E-2
(m/day)

ur
0.3

30
7000 8.64E-1 8.64E-1 0.3
0.187 0.019 3.46E-4 8.64E-5 0.15

Sand

19

17

30

10000

8.64E-3 8.64E-3

0.3

Stiff Clay

20

18

15

30

10000

1.73E-3 8.64E-4

0.3

Soft Soil Model

Mohr Coulomb Model

55

Instrumentation Plan of
Knoll D8

56

Excess Pore Pressure Variation

Piezometer PP1
PP3

57

Surface Settlement Profiles

SP1

SP5

SP3

SP7

58

FEM Predicted Failure Mode

of Knoll D8

Soft Clay

59

Parametric Study
Side slope reinforcements were ignored
Half geometry was modeled
Influence of the strength and stiffness of basal
reinforcement on the allowable rate of loading
Comparison between the allowable rate of
loading for partial penetration of PVD and full
penetration of PVD through the soft clay layer
Soil properties were based on Knoll D8
Coupled consolidation and Updated mesh with
pore pressure anaylsis was performed
60

FEM Model Used For

Parametric Study
Knoll Fill
(0.5m per layer)

Partial Penetration
of PVD

10 15 m

25 m

25 m

35 m

60 m
61

FEM Model Used For

Parametric Study
Knoll Fill
(0.5m per layer)

Full Penetration
of PVD

10 15 m

25 m

25 m
62

Validation of Assumptions
Partial penetration of PVD and 50 kN/m Basal geogrid

63

Allowable Average Loading Rate

(m/wk) v.s Height of Knoll (m)
200
100
150
kN/mBasal
BasalGeogrid
Geogrid
50 kN/m

64

Allowable Average Loading Rate

(m/wk) v.s Height of Knoll (m)
50 kN/m Basal Geogrid

100 kN/m Basal Geogrid

150 kN/m Basal Geogrid

200 kN/m Basal Geogrid

65

Velocity Field at Failure

Depth of Soft Clay = 10 m

Depth of Soft Clay = 20 m

66

Tensile Force Distribution of Basal

Reinforcement at Failure

49 kN/m

Depth of Soft Clay = 10 m

50 kN/m

Depth of Soft Clay = 20 m

67

Influence of Basal
Reinforcement
Strength of Geogrid
(kN/m)

50

100

150

200

10

5.7m

7.2m

10.7m

17m

15

5.7m

6.9m

7.7m

8.5m

20

5.8m

6.7m

7.2m

7.3m

Depth of
Soft Clay (m)

68

Conclusion
Coupled consolidation and Updated mesh with
pore pressure analysis is efficient in predicting
the behaviour of large embankment
Fully penetrated PVD can significantly increase
the stability of an embankment as compared to
partially penetrated PVD
Weak and low stiffness basal reinforcement has
minimal effect on the stability of an
embankment
69

Overall Conclusion
PVD and basal reinforcement can significantly
increase the stability of an embankment if they
are properly designed
When the displacement of the embankment is
relatively large as compared to the height of fill,
finite strain analysis is necessary in order to
obtain reasonable results

70