Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Ground Improvement 163
November 2010 Issue GI4
Pages 237249
doi: 10.1680/grim.2010.163.4.237
Paper 900048
Received 31/10/2009
Accepted 14/07/2010
Keywords: geotechnical
engineering/ground improvement/
mathematical modelling

Prasenjit Basu
Assistant Professor, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA, USA

Dipanjan Basu
Assistant Professor, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Connecticut, Storrs,
CT, USA

Monica Prezzi
Associate Professor, School of Civil
Engineering, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN, USA

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

P. Basu

PhD,

D. Basu PhD and M. Prezzi

PhD

Soil disturbance caused by the installation of

prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) in soft soil deposits
has a detrimental effect on the rate of consolidation. The
current practice of accelerating consolidation using
PVDs captures the effect of soil disturbance typically by
reducing the in situ hydraulic conductivity in the
disturbed zone, and by assuming that the hydraulic
conductivity is spatially constant over the entire
disturbed zone and that preloading is instantaneous.
Through recent laboratory and field studies it has been
shown that the hydraulic conductivity varies spatially in
the disturbed zone surrounding a PVD. Based on the
data available in the literature, four possible profiles
were identified for the spatial variation of the hydraulic
conductivity in the disturbed zone. Analytical solutions
were developed for the rate of consolidation considering
these hydraulic conductivity profiles for instantaneous
and time-dependent preloading. This paper shows that
the consolidation rate depends not only on the hydraulic
conductivity profile in the disturbed zone but also on the
preloading rate.
NOTATION
ch
coefficient of consolidation
j
normalised (with respect to rd ) radial distance of a point
within the transition zone where the bilinear profile of
hydraulic conductivity changes slope in case e
k
soil hydraulic conductivity
kc
in situ hydraulic conductivity
ks
constant hydraulic conductivity in the disturbed zone
ksm
hydraulic conductivity in the inner smear zone
ktr
hydraulic conductivity in the transition (or outer smear)
zone
m
normalised (with respect to rd ) outer radius of the inner
smear zone
mv
coefficient of volume compressibility
n
normalised (with respect to rd ) radius of the unit cell
p
maximum value of the applied total stress due to
preloading
q
normalised (with respect to rd ) outer radius of the
transition zone
r
radial distance measured from the centre of PVD
rc
radius of unit cell
rc,eq
equivalent radius of unit cell
rd
radius of vertical drain
rd,eq
equivalent radius of prefabricated vertical drain
Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

rj

rm,eq
rsm
rtr
sx , sy
T
t
Tc
tc
u
uc
ui
usm
utr
vc
vsm
vtr

j
t
w

v

9

radial distance at which the slope of the bilinear profile

of hydraulic conductivity within the transition zone
changes slope in case e
equivalent radius of mandrel
equivalent radius of inner smear zone
equivalent radius of transition zone
spacings of PVDs in two mutually perpendicular
directions
time factor
time
time factor corresponding to the time tc of preload
construction
time of preload construction
average excess pore pressure in the unit cell developed
due to preloading
excess pore pressure in the undisturbed zone
initial average excess pore pressure in the unit cell
excess por pressure in the inner smear zone
excess pore pressure in the transition (or outer smear)
zone
specific discharge in the undisturbed zone
specific discharge in the inner smear zone
specific discharge in the transition (or outer smear) zone
degree of soil disturbance within the inner smear zone
just adjacent to the PVD
degree of disturbance (for use in case e) at radial
distance rj
degree of soil disturbance at the boundary between the
inner smear zone and the transition zone
unit weight of water
uniform vertical strain within the unit cell
average total stress (due to preloading) in the unit cell
average effective stress (due to preloading) in the unit cell

1. INTRODUCTION
Prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) have been successfully used
in conjunction with preloading to improve the mechanical
properties of soft soils since the early 1970s (Bergado et al.,
1993a; Holtz, 1987; Holtz et al., 1991; Johnson, 1970; Lo and
Mesri, 1994). The installation of PVDs facilitates the dissipation
of excess pore pressure generated during preloading by reducing
the drainage path within the ground. This speeds up the
consolidation process and thereby increases the strength and
stiffness of soft clayey soils. PVDs consist of a plastic core
surrounded by a filter sleeve and have typical cross-section
dimensions of 100 mm 3 4 mm. PVDs are installed (using

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

237

bw
Filter
Core
bt

Mandrel
(a)

s
Hexagonal unit
cells

PVDs
(b)

Rectangular unit
cells

sx

sy

PVDs

closed-ended mandrels) in square or triangular patterns (Figure

1) with a centre-to-centre spacing of 13 m (Holtz, 1987). Each
PVD collects water from a surrounding zone of influence known
as the unit cell. The dimension and shape of the unit cell depend
on the installation arrangement of the PVDs. For square pattern
of PVD installation, the unit cell is square in shape whereas for
triangular installation pattern, the unit cell is hexagonal in shape.
During installation, as the closed-ended mandrel (with the drain
in it) is pushed into the ground, the surrounding soil is
displaced making room for the PVD. Once the desired depth is
reached, the mandrel is withdrawn leaving the drain within the
ground. The installation of PVDs creates a disturbed soil zone
around them. Because of soil disturbance, the hydraulic
conductivity within the disturbed zone is less than the in situ
(undisturbed) hydraulic conductivity kc . This reduction in
hydraulic conductivity due to soil disturbance causes a decrease
in the consolidation rate. In this paper, the disturbed zone is
subdivided into two zones: the inner smear zone and the
transition zone (sometimes referred to as the outer smear zone).
Traditionally, however, the division of the disturbed zone into
two distinct zones is not done; the single disturbed zone is
commonly referred to in the literature as the smear zone.
Both theoretical and experimental research has been done on
PVDs to estimate the discharge rate of PVDs (i.e. the rate of
consolidation) and to determine and mitigate operational
problems associated with soil disturbance (Barron, 1948; Basu
and Madhav, 2000; Basu and Prezzi, 2007, 2009; Bo et al.,
2003; Chai et al., 1997; Hansbo, 1981, 1997; Indraratna and
Redana, 1997; Sathananthan and Indraratna, 2006; Walker and
Indraratna, 2006). Traditionally, the effect of soil disturbance is
accounted for by assuming a constant value for the hydraulic
conductivity, ks , over the disturbed zone (traditionally referred
to as the smear zone). The degree of disturbance in this
smear zone has been quantified in the literature in terms of the
ratio ks /kc (Table 1). The radial distance from the centre of the
PVD to the outer boundary of the smear zone has also been
defined by some authors in terms of the equivalent mandrel
radius rm,eq (Table 2); the assumption made in these estimations
is that both the mandrel and the smear zone cross-section can
be converted to equivalent circles.

(c)

Figure 1. (a) PVD and mandrel, (b) triangular arrangement and

(c) square (when sx sy ) arrangement

Recent experimental investigations have shown that the

hydraulic conductivity in the disturbed zone is not spatially
constant (Indraratna and Redana, 1998; Onoue et al., 1991;
Madhav et al., 1993; Sharma and Xiao, 2000). Figure 2 shows

Degree of disturbance ks /kc

Authors
Casagrande and Poulos (1969)
Bergado et al. (1991)
Onoue et al. (1991)
Bergado et al. (1993a, 1993b)
Madhav et al. (1993)
Hansbo (1997)
Hansbo (1986); Hird and Moseley (2000)
Chu et al. (2004)

0.001
0.500.66
0.200.60
0.10
0.20
0.250.30
0.33
0.170.5

Table 1. Degree of disturbance in the soil adjacent to the drain boundary

238

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

Authors

Equivalent radius of smear zone

Holtz and Holm (1973); Hansbo (1986, 1987); Bergado et al. (1991, 1993b)
Jamiolkowski et al. (1983)
Mesri et al. (1994)
Chai and Miura (1999); Hird and Moseley (2000)
Sathananthan and Indraratna (2006)

2rm,eq
(2.53)rm,eq
(24)rm,eq
(23)rm,eq
2.5rm,eq

Table 2. Extent of smear zone

while the field study reported by Madhav et al. (1993) was

done with PVDs installed using square mandrels. These
experimental investigations show that the assumption of a
single value for the hydraulic conductivity in the disturbed
zone is not strictly valid.

10

08

06

k/kc

rc

rtr
rsm
rd

Soft deposit
Case b
04
Case c

Transition zone
Case e
Undisturbed zone

02
Field data
(Madhav et al., 1993)

Vertical drain
Inner smear zone

0
0

8
12
Normalised distance, r/rm,eq
(a)

16

20
Unit cell

10

Pervious boundary

Impervious boundary
08

(a)

Linear hydraulic conductivity

profiles based on results of
experimental studies

k/kc
Case a

06

k/kc

k/kc
04
Case b

Experimental studies

Onoue et al. (1991)

02

Case c
0

8
12
Normalised distance, r/rm,eq
(b)

16

k/kc

Sharma and Xiao (2000)

Indrarata and Redana (1998)

1
t

20

k/kc
Case d

Figure 2. Hydraulic conductivity profiles from (a) field samples

(Madhav et al., 1993) and (b) laboratory model studies

k/kc
Case e

1
j

profiles for the hydraulic conductivity k (normalised with

respect to kc ) in the vicinity of vertical drains, observed in
laboratory and field studies, as functions of normalised radial
distance r/rm,eq (r measured from the centre of the drain). Note
that the laboratory experiments of Onoue et al. (1991),
Indraratna and Redana (1998) and Sharma and Xiao (2000)
were performed using circular drains and circular mandrels,
Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

r
rj

(b)

Figure 3. (a) Idealised domain: a circular unit cell with circular

inner smear zone and transition zone and (b) different
variations of the hydraulic conductivity with radial distance
from the centre of the drain

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

239

Figure 3 shows an idealised (circular) unit cell with a PVD

located centrally within it. The figure also shows different
possible variations of k within the unit cell. As can be seen
in this figure, there are three zones surrounding a PVD: the
inner smear zone (in which the hydraulic conductivity
remains constant at its least value k s ), the transition zone or
outer smear zone (in which the hydraulic conductivity
increases with increasing radial distance from the drain) and
the undisturbed zone (where the hydraulic conductivity kc
remains at its in situ value). According to Madhav et al.
(1993) and Miura et al. (1993), k increases approximately
linearly (case b, Figure 3(b)) from a value equal to ks at the
inner smear zone boundary (i.e. the boundary between the
inner smear zone and the transition zone) to the in situ
value kc at the transition zone boundary (i.e. the boundary
between the transition zone and the undisturbed zone).
Onoue et al. (1991) assumed a linear variation for k in the
inner smear zone (case c, Figure 3(b)). In their model, the
hydraulic conductivity k follows a bilinear curve; k increases
at a given rate (slope) from ks at the drain boundary (i.e. the
drainsoil interface) to kt at the inner smear zone boundary
and, at another rate, from kt at the inner smear zone
boundary to kc at the transition zone boundary. Holtz and
Holm (1973) and Holtz et al. (1991) suggested that the
degree of disturbance decreases monotonically as the
horizontal distance from the drain increases and, therefore,
there is no distinguishable inner smear zone (case d, Figure
3(b)). The results of the laboratory experiments (Figure 2(b))
by Indraratna and Redana (1998) and Sharma and Xiao
(2000) support the approximate linear variation of k in the
transition zone; however, the experimental data immediately
adjacent to the drain are insufficient to ascertain the
variation of the hydraulic conductivity in the inner smear
zone. Based on the experimental data (Figure 2), a bilinear
variation of the hydraulic conductivity in the transition zone
(case e, Figure 3(b)) can also be assumed.
The transition zone radius (measured from the centre of the
drain to the transition zone boundary) has been found to be
(67)rm,eq by Onoue et al. (1991), more than 7rm,eq by
Indraratna and Redana (1998), (1014)rm,eq from the data
reported by Sharma and Xiao (2000) and approximately 12rm,eq
by Madhav et al. (1993). Jamiolkowski et al. (1983), based on
studies on pile driving in clay, suggested that the transition
zone radius can be as large as 20rm,eq .
In this paper, closed-form solutions that can be used to
estimate the degree of consolidation in the unit cell
surrounding a PVD are presented. Both instantaneous and ramp
loading (the ramp loading is a simple form of time-dependent
preloading) are considered. The mathematical model considers
a circular PVD surrounded by a circular zone of influence (unit
cell) with circular inner smear, outer smear (transition) and
undisturbed zones. Flow in the vertical direction is neglected.
Well resistance is also neglected and, hence, the solutions
presented in this paper are generally applicable at any depth
along a PVD. The vertical strain (due to consolidation) is
assumed to be constant at different radial distances measured
from the centre of the PVD. Different hydraulic conductivity
profiles (cases b to e in Figure 3(b)) are assumed in the
disturbed zone. The use of the proposed solutions is illustrated
through a practical example.
240

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

2. PREVIOUS THEORETICAL STUDIES

Analytical solutions that can be used to calculate the degree
of consolidation as a function of time were developed by
Barron (1948) and Hansbo (1981) for case a. These
formulations consider only a single disturbed (smear) zone
with circular cross-sections for both the vertical drain and the
smear zone, and assume axisymmetric flow of water into the
drain. The hydraulic conductivity was assumed to be a
constant in these analyses; thus, no transition zone was
considered in the derivation of these solutions. The solution
by Barron (1948) is based on the TerzaghiRendulic theory of
radial consolidation, whereas that by Hansbo (1981) is a
simplified approach based on continuity of flow and Darcys
law. The solution by Hansbo (1981) matches closely the
rigorous solution by Barron (1948) and is widely used in
practice. Leo (2004) developed analytical solutions for case a
considering both radial and vertical flow.
Chai et al. (1997) obtained analytical solutions for the degree
of consolidation and the average excess pore pressure
assuming linear and bilinear variations for the hydraulic
conductivity in the disturbed zone, as represented in case d and
case c, respectively. Walker and Indraratna (2006) provided an
analytical solution for the case of a parabolic variation of the
hydraulic conductivity in the disturbed zone.
Numerical solutions considering only a single smear zone (case
a) also exist (Basu and Madhav, 2000; Indraratna and Redana,
1997). Numerical studies considering the variation of the
hydraulic conductivity in the transition zone, described by
cases b and c, have also been done (Basu and Prezzi 2007;
Hawlader et al., 2002; Madhav et al., 1993).
The above-mentioned studies considered that preloading is
applied instantaneously. However, for most practical cases,
preloading is applied through several lifts placed on the
ground over a finite period of time. Studies that considered
time-dependent preloading are rather few (Conte and Trocone,
2009; Lekha et al., 1998; Leo, 2004; Olson, 1977; Tang and
Onitsuka, 2000; Zhu and Yin, 2004). These studies did not
separately consider the inner smear and the transition zones;
rather, a single smear zone with constant hydraulic
conductivity was used. Moreover, two broad categories of
analysis assuming equal vertical strain (e.g. Leo, 2004) and
free vertical strain (e.g. Zhu and Yin, 2004) are present in the
literature.
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND ASSUMPTIONS
A drain, installed in a saturated clay deposit, is assumed to
have a circular cross-section with radius rd . The length of the
drain spans over the entire thickness of the soft clay layer. An
annular cylinder of soil with inner and outer radii rd and rc
(measured from the centre of the drain) is considered as the
unit cell (Figure 3(a)); rd and rc are the radii of the drain and
unit cell, respectively. The flow of water is assumed to be
horizontal within the unit cell. Therefore, the only pervious
boundary is the interface between the drain and the unit cell.
This results in radially convergent horizontal flow of water
towards the drain. Note that the assumption of purely
horizontal flow implies that the consolidation achieved through
vertical flow is neglected. According to Carrillo (1942),
irrespective of the value of the vertical degree of consolidation,

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

the degree of consolidation due to combined radial and vertical

drainage approaches that due to radial drainage alone only
when the latter approaches 100%. For a homogeneous deposit
with no horizontal strain in the soil cylinder, flow patterns are
identical along any horizontal plane. Hence, analysis
considering only one such horizontal plane with axisymmetric
flow is sufficient to solve the problem. It is also assumed that
the vertical strain within the unit cell (due to consolidation) is
spatially uniform. This represents the case of equal-strain
consolidation (Richart, 1959). Additionally, flow of water is
assumed to follow Darcys law.
For cases b and c, the inner smear and transition zones are
assumed to be annular in cross-section with outer radii
(measured from the centre of the drain) rsm and rtr , respectively,
with rd , rsm , rtr , rc (Figure 3). For case d, no distinctive
inner smear zone is considered; hence, rsm does not exist. Case
e is a combination of cases b, c and d. For all the cases, the
undisturbed zone lies between rtr < r < rc , with r measured
radially outward from the centre of the drain. Three
dimensionless terms (n, m and q) are defined to normalise
radial distances from the centre of the PVD with respect to the
radius of the drain as n rc /rd , m rsm /rd , q rtr /rd . Note that
no overlapping of disturbed zones surrounding two adjacent
drains was considered. Thus, the solution presented herein is
valid for m , q , n.
4. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE EXCESS PORE
PRESSURE
4.1. Case b
An axisymmetric coordinate system, with r representing the
radial distance from the centre of the drain, is used in the
analysis. In this case, the hydraulic conductivity ksm (r) within
the inner smear zone (i.e. for rd < r < rsm ) is assumed to be
constant at ks . In the transition zone (i.e. for rsm < r < rtr ), the
hydraulic conductivity ktr (r) increases linearly from ks at the
inner smear zone boundary (r rsm ) to kc at the transition zone
boundary (r rtr ). The hydraulic conductivity in the
undisturbed zone (i.e. for rtr < r < rc ) remains constant at its in
situ value kc . The linear variation of ktr (r) within the transition
zone can be expressed mathematically as

ktr (r)
1a

ks rtr
kc rsm kc
ks

r
rtr
rsm
rtr
rsm

1b

8
for 1 < r  < m
k(r  ) <
Ab Bb r  for m < r  < q
:
kc
1
for q < r  < n

where
Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

A q
m

kc
q
m

Bb

Brd 1

q
m
kc

The specific discharge vc in the undisturbed zone can be

written as

2a

vc

kc @u c
; for rtr < r < rc
w @ r

where w is the unit weight of water and uc is the excess pore

pressure at a distance r in the undisturbed zone. Similarly, the
specific discharges vtr and vsm within the transition and inner
smear zones, respectively, can be written as

2b

vtr

ktr @u tr
; for rsm < r < rtr
w @ r

2c

vsm

ks @u sm
; for rd < r < rsm
w @ r

where utr and usm are the excess pore pressures in the
transition zone and in the inner smear zone, respectively.
Considering a cylinder of radius r (r , rc ) within the unit cell,
the total volume of water entering into the cylinder (of radius
r) from the outer hollow cylinder (of thickness rc
r) must be
equal to the change in volume of the outer hollow cylinder.
Using this concept, the pore pressure at any distance r within
the unit cell can be related to the rate of change of vertical
strain
v (which is assumed uniform throughout the unit cell)
with time t as

3a

 @
v
2rvc r 2c
r 2
; for rtr < r < rc
@t

3b

 @
v
; for rsm < r < rtr
2rvtr r 2c
r 2
@t

3c

 @
v
; for rd < r < rsm
2rvsm r 2c
r 2
@t

A Br; for rsm < r < rtr

This expression of hydraulic conductivity can be rearranged to
make it dimensionless by dividing it by the hydraulic
conductivity of the undisturbed zone. In the dimensionless
form, the variation of the hydraulic conductivity k(r*) at any
radial distance r* ( r/rd ; r measured from the centre of PVD)
within the unit cell can be expressed as

Ab

Substituting Equations 2a, 2b and 2c for vc , vtr and vsm into

Equations 3a, 3b and 3c gives

4a



@u c w r 2c
@
v

r
; for rtr < r < rc
@r
2kc r
@t

4b



@u tr w r 2c
@
v

r
; for rsm < r < rtr
@r
2ktr r
@t

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

241

4c



@u sm w r 2c
@
v

r
; for rd < r < rsm
@r
2ks r
@t

Integrating Equation 4c and using the boundary condition that

the excess pore pressure gets fully dissipated at the drain
boundary, namely usm 0 at r rd , gives

5a

u sm

(q
m)(q
m)2
5(q
m) (q
m)
2(1
)3

 
(q
m)(q
m)3
1
q4


ln


4

4
(1
)

 

 @
v
w 2
r
1

r c ln

r 2
r 2d
rd
2
2ks
@t

Integrating Equation 4b and using the continuity condition

utr usm at r rsm , gives
(



r 2c
ks r
ln
(A Br)rsm
A



1
A Br

2 A Br
ks
A ln
B
ks
)
 

 @
v
1 2
rsm
1
2
2

r ln

r sm
r d
ks c
2
rd
@t

u tr w
2
5b

Similarly, integrating Equation 4a and using the continuity

condition uc utr at r rtr , yields

uc w
2
5c

 


1 2
r
1

r c ln

r 2
r 2tr
kc
rtr
2

 


1 2
rsm
1

r c ln

r 2sm
r 2d
rd
ks
2




 )
r 2c
rtr ks
1
kc
@
v

2 kc
ks
A ln
ln
A
rsm kc
ks
@t
B

where n rc /rd , m rsm /rd , q rtr /rd and ks /kc . Equation 8

is cumbersome for use in design. However, a number of terms
on the right-hand side of Equation 8 have negligible
contributions to the value of . If those terms are neglected,
then Equation 8 simplifies to

Let u be the average excess pore pressure throughout the unit

cell. Then, the following equation can be written


r 2c
r 2d u

rsm

2ru sm dr

rd

rtr

2ru tr dr

rsm

rc
2ru c dr
rtr

Substituting usm , utr and uc from Equations 5a, 5b and 5c,

respectively, in Equation 6 and rearranging the terms, yields

r 2 @
v
u w c

2kc @ t

where is given by
242

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

ln

 
 
n
1
(q
m)
q
3
ln


ln m
q

(q
m)
m
4

We present a simple example to illustrate the difference that

would result in the value of from using the simplified
expression given in Equation 9. For m 5.11, n 34.09,
q 12.27 and 0.2, calculated using Equations 8 and 9
are equal to 10.73 and 10.4, respectively a difference of only
3%.
4.2. Case c
For this case, the hydraulic conductivity ksm (r) in the inner
smear zone varies from ks at the drainsoil interface (r rd ) to
kt at the boundary between the inner smear zone and the
transition zone (r rsm ), and is given by

10a

"  
#
 
n2
n
1
(q
m)
q
3
2
ln


ln
ln m
q

(q
m)
m
4
n
1
"

2
#
2
1
1 2
2 (q
m) q
m

2
m
1
q
n
1
(q
m)


1
1
1
3
m4
1
q
m3 q
m
2 2
3(1
)
n n
1 4

ksm (r) ks

r
rd
kt
ks ; for rd < r < rsm
rsm
rd

Accordingly, the degree of disturbance within the inner smear

zone varies from at the drainsoil interface to t ( kt /kc ) at
the inner smear zone boundary (r rsm ). The expression for the
hydraulic conductivity ktr (r) in the transition zone can be
obtained from Equation 1a by replacing ks by kt . The in situ
hydraulic conductivity kc in the undisturbed zone is again a
constant. In this case, the variation of the hydraulic
conductivity k(r*) within the unit cell can be expressed in the
following dimensionless form

10b

8



k(r ) < Ac1 Bc1 r  for 1 < r < m
Ac2 Bc2 r for m < r < q
:
kc
1
for q < r  < n

where
Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

Ac1

m
t
t

t q
m
1
t
, Ac2
, Bc2
, Bc1
m
1
q
m
m
1
q
m

4.5. Case a
Finally, the simplified expression of for case a, as obtained
by Hansbo (1981), is also reproduced for the sake of
completeness

Following the same steps described for case b, the expression

for in Equation 7, after eliminating the negligible terms, is
15
 
 
m
1
n
m
ln

m
t
q
t
 
t q
3
q
m


ln

t q
m
m
4

ln

 
n
1
3
ln q

q

ln
11

where t kt /kc .
4.3. Case d
The disturbed zone in this case consists entirely of the
transition zone of radius rtr , with the hydraulic conductivity
ktr (r) varying from ks at the drain boundary (r rd ) to kc at the
transition zone boundary (r rtr ). The expression for ktr (r) can
be obtained from Equation 1a by replacing rsm by rd . As before,
the in situ hydraulic conductivity kc in the undisturbed zone is
a constant. Thus, the variation of the hydraulic conductivity
k(r*) within the unit cell can be expressed as

12

k(r  )

kc

Ad Bd r  for 1 < r  < q

1
for q < r  < n

5.1. Consolidation due to instantaneous preloading

Assuming that all the excess pore pressure due to preloading is
developed instantly (Figure 4(a)), the following relationship can
be written

16

where

Ad

q
1
1

, Bd
q
1
q
1

The expression for is derived following the same steps

outlined for case b. Eliminating the terms with negligible
contributions, the following equation is obtained for

13

5. DEGREE OF CONSOLIDATION
Calculation of the degree of consolidation achieved at any
particular time can be done based on two different assumptions
related to the rate of preloading (see Figure 4): (i) the preload is
applied all at once at time t 0 (instantaneous preloading) and
(ii) the preload is applied gradually over a period of time
(multistage preloading). For loading case (i), the applied
average total stress  (due to preloading) reaches its maximum
value p instantly at time t 0 and remains constant at p
thereafter (Figure 4(a)). For loading case (ii), the total stress  is
applied over the construction time tc (Figure 4(b)); at time
t tc ,  reaches its maximum value p and remains constant
after that.

ln

 
n
3
q
1

ln q

q
1
q
4

4.4. Case e
For case e, the hydraulic conductivity remains constant at ks
within the inner smear zone (rd < r < rsm ) and increases in the
transition zone following a bilinear curve with one slope from
ks (at r rsm ) to kj (at r rj ) and with another slope from kj (at
r rj ) to kc (at r rtr ). For this case, another two dimensionless
terms, namely j rj /rd and j kj /kc , are defined. With this
variation, the following simplified expression for is obtained
omitting the higher-order terms
!
 
n
1
j
j
m
 ln
ln
ln m

q

jm
j
j m
14

 
jq
3
j
p
 ln


j
4
jq
j

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4



@
v
@9
@ @u
@u
mv



mv
mv
@t
@t @t
@t
@t

where 9 is the average effective stress in the unit cell at the

end of consolidation, u is the average excess pore pressure
within the unit cell, and mv is the coefficient of volume
compressibility. Note that, for instantaneous loading, the rate
of change of the average total stress @=@ t 0. The
coefficient of consolidation ch in the horizontal direction and
the time factor T are defined as

17

18

ch

kc
mv w

ch t
4r 2c

Substituting Equation 7 into Equation 16, we get the following

linear differential equation

19

du 2ch

u0
dt r 2c

Solving Equation 19 using the initial condition that

u u i ( p) at t 0, where u i is the initial average excess pore
pressure within the unit cell, and using the terms defined in
Equations 17 and 18, we get an expression for the change in the
average excess pore pressure with time (or the time factor T)

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

243

5.2. Consolidation due to multistage preloading

Multistage preloading can be approximated by a linear increase
in the preload, as shown in Figure 4(b). The total average stress
increases at a constant rate @=@ t R. Consequently

Total stress
increment

23
Instantaneous
application of
preload





@
v
@9
@ @u
@u
mv


mv R

mv
@t
@t @t
@t
@t

Substituting Equation 7 in Equation 23 and rearranging the

terms produces
du 2ch

uR
dt r 2c

24
Time t
(a)

The above linear differential equation is valid at all times up to

the end of preloading (i.e. for 0 < t < tc ) and for all hydraulic
conductivity profiles (cases a to e). Consequently, in
Equation 24 is calculated using one of Equations 9, 11, 13, 14
or 15, depending on the hydraulic conductivity profile selected.
Solution of Equation 24 with the initial condition u i 0
results in

Total stress
increment

25

Rr 2c
1
e
8T= ; for 0 < T < Tc
2ch

Rt

R
1

t tc

tc

Time t

Preload construction in
multiple lifts
Linear approximation
(b)

Figure 4. Preloading: (a) instantaneous loading and (b) ramp

loading

20

26

u u i e
8T=

For instantaneous preloading, the degree of consolidation U at

a particular time t (or time factor T) is the ratio of the excess
pore pressure dissipated to the total excess pore pressure
generated immediately after preloading. U can be expressed
mathematically as

21

U 1

u
u
1

p
ui

22

244

U 1
e

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

uc

Rr 2c
1
e
8Tc =
2ch

After the end of preloading (i.e. for t . tc ), Equation 19 is the

governing differential equation for u. However, in the case of
multistage preloading, the initial condition required to solve
Equation 19 is u u c at t tc . Solving Equation 19 with this
initial condition, the excess pore pressure at any time t . tc is
obtained.
27

Hence, substituting Equation 20 in Equation 21, the following

expression results for the degree of consolidation

8T =

Equation 25 describes how u varies with t (or T) for t < tc (i.e.

for T < Tc , where Tc is the time factor corresponding to t tc )
due to a linearly increasing total stress (t) Rt. Note that the
term e
8T= in Equation 25 is a decreasing function of time t
(or T). Therefore the term (1
e
8T= ) increases with T. Hence,
the variation of u described by Equation 25 is an increasing
function of time. The excess pore pressure increases
monotonically with time up to the end of preloading (i.e. up to
t tc ). As consolidation starts immediately after preloading,
the average excess pore pressure u at any time t is always less
than the applied total stress (t) at time t (for t < tc ). At the
end of preloading (i.e. at t tc or T Tc ), the average excess
pore pressure u c is given by

u u c e
T
Tc ; for T . Tc

Equation 27 shows that, at the end of preloading, the excess

pore pressure decreases following an exponential function.
For multistage preloading, the degree of consolidation U at any
particular time t (or time factor T) can be defined as the ratio
of the dissipated excess pore pressure (within time t ) to the

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

total excess pore pressure that would be present at the end of

loading (i.e. at time tc ) if there were no consolidation. In the
case of a perfectly impermeable medium (i.e. where no
consolidation can take place), the excess pore pressure present
at time t is equal to the applied total stress (t) at time t.
Therefore, U is given by

28a

28b

 t
u t t u t


; for t , t c
p
t c Rt c

U 1

u(t)
u(t)
1

; for t > t c
p
Rt c

6. CALCULATION OF EQUIVALENT RADIUS

The analytical solutions presented in this paper are valid for a
circular drain with an associated circular disturbed zone.
Therefore, to use these solutions for PVDs (which have
rectangular cross-section), an equivalent circular radius rd,eq
has to be calculated from (Hansbo, 1981)

29

1
rd,eq (bw bt )

where bw and bt are the width and thickness of the PVD,

respectively.
Rixner et al. (1986) proposed an alternative expression for
calculating rd,eq
30

rd,eq

bw bt
4

Rixner et al. (1986) recommended the use of Equation 30 for

values of the ratio bw /bt equal to 50 or less. For PVDs installed
in rectangular, square or triangular patterns, the unit cells are
rectangular, square or hexagonal in shape (in plan view). In
order to use the analytical solutions presented in this paper, the
rectangular, square or hexagonal unit cells need to be
converted to equivalent circles as well. These equivalent circles
have the same cross-sectional areas as those of the rectangular,
square or hexagonal unit cells (Rixner et al., 1986). For a
rectangular installation pattern, the equivalent radius rc,eq of
the unit cell is given by

31

r
sx sy
rc,eq

where sx and sy are the spacings of the PVDs in two mutually

perpendicular directions. Note that Equation 31 can also be
used to calculate rc,eq for a square installation pattern by
making sx sy . For a triangular installation pattern with a
spacing s, the equivalent radius of the unit cell is given by

32

s
p
3
rc,eq
s
2

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

7. RESULTS
The use of the solutions presented herein is illustrated through a
practical example. It was assumed that the PVDs were installed
in a square arrangement, using a square mandrel having a
cross-section of 120 mm 3 120 mm (i.e. rm,eq 67.7 mm), with
a centre-to-centre spacing of 2 m (i.e. rc,eq 1128.4 mm). The
PVDs had a cross-section of 100 mm 3 4 mm (i.e.
rd,eq 33.1 mm). The clay at the site has a ch 10 m2 /year.
Both instantaneous preloading and ramp loading with a
maximum increase in total stress max ( p) due to preloading
of 500 kPa were considered. All the hydraulic conductivity
profiles represented by cases a to e were considered and their
effects on the rate of consolidation were studied. It was assumed
for all cases that the radii of the inner smear and transition
zones were equal to 2.5rm,eq and 6rm,eq , respectively. For the
hydraulic conductivity profile of case e, rj was assumed to be
equal to 4rm,eq . The degree of disturbance at the drain
boundary was taken as 0.2 for all cases. The values of t and j
were assumed to be 0.75 and 0.9 for cases c and e, respectively
(see Table 3).
Figure 5(a) shows normalised excess pore pressure u= p as a
function of time factor T for instantaneous preloading. The
figure also shows the increase in total stress (t) normalised
with respect to the maximum total stress increase max p.
For instantaneous preloading (see Figure 5(a)), u reached its
initial maximum value u i instantly at T 0 (making u= p 1
at T 0) and then decreased monotonically with time
following an exponential decay function (Equation 20). In
contrast, for ramp loading (linearly increasing preload), u
gradually increased up to the end of preloading (i.e. up to
T Tc ) and then decreased thereafter (see Figure 5(b)). For
instantaneous preloading, the degree of consolidation U at any
time factor T was equal to the ratio A1 /(A1 + A2 ), as illustrated
in Figure 5(a). On the other hand, for ramp loading, the degree
of consolidation U was equal to the ratio A3 /(A3 + A4 ) before
the end of preloading (i.e. for T , Tc ) and was equal to the
ratio A5 /(A5 + A6 ) after preloading (i.e. for T > Tc ), as
illustrated in Figure 5(b).
Parameters

Mandrel dimension
bw
bt
s x , sy
ch
p
rm,eq (calculated)
rc,eq (calculated)
rd,eq (calculated)
rsm
rtr
rj
m
n
q
j

t
j

Assumed/calculated values for

different parameters
120 mm 3 120 mm
100 mm
4 mm
2m
10 m2 /year
500 kPa
67.7 mm
1128.4 mm
33.1 mm
2.5rm,eq
6rm,eq
4rm,eq
5.11
34.09
12.27
8.18
0.20
0.75
0.90

Table 3. Parameters used in the practical example

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

245

A1

08

04

08

04

A2

02

04
06
Time factor T

08

0
1

Parameters used:
m 511, n 3409,
q 1227, 02,
u/p for instantaneous preloading 075
t
Increase in total stress due to
instantaneous preloading

Degree of consolidation U: %

12

Normalised increase in total stress /p

Normalised excess pore pressure u/p

12

100
80

Results are for Case c

Parameters used:
Tc 027, m 511, n 3409
q 1227, 02, t 075

60
40

For instantaneous
preloading

20

For ramp loading

0
0001

001

01
Tc
Time factor T

10

Figure 6. Effect of instantaneous preloading and ramp loading

on the degree of consolidation U for hydraulic conductivity
profile c

A3

08

04

A5

04

A4

08

A6

0
04
06
08
1
Time factor T
Increase in total stress due
Parameters used:
to ramp loading
Tc 027, m 511,
n 3409, q 1227,
u/p for ramp loading
02, t 075
02

(b)

Figure 5. Variation of normalised average excess pore

pressure u with time factor T for hydraulic conductivity
profile c: (a) instantaneous preloading, and (b) ramp loading

Normalised excess pore pressure u/p

12

12

Normalised increase in total stress /p

Normalised excess pore pressure u/p

(a)

08

06

04

02

0
0001

Figures 7 and 8 show u= p plotted against T and U plotted

against T, respectively, for the different hydraulic
conductivity profiles considered in this paper and for both
instantaneous preloading and ramp loading. Furthermore, the
results obtained for cases a to e were compared (see Figures
7(a) and 8(a)) with those obtained for a parabolic hydraulic
conductivity profile within the disturbed zone, as proposed
by Walker and Indraratna (2006). The results obtained for
cases b and e were almost identical. For ramp loading, the
average excess pore pressure u at any given time within the
construction period was almost unaffected by the different
profiles of hydraulic conductivity considered in the disturbed
zone (see Figure 7(b)). This happened because relatively less
excess pore pressure was dissipated within the construction
time tc ; at t tc , the degree of consolidation was only about
246

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

Case a
Case b
Case c
Case d
Case e
Parabolic variation of k
within the disturbed
zone (Walker and
Indraratna, 2006)

Parameters used:
m 511, n 3409,
q 1227, j 818,
02, t 075, j 09
001

01
Time factor T
(a)

10

10

1
Ramp loading

Normalised excess pore pressure u/p

Figure 6 shows that, at any point of time, the degree of

consolidation U attained due to instantaneous preloading was
greater than that attained with gradual preload application. The
difference in U between these two cases became a maximum at
T Tc . For case c, U at T Tc for instantaneous preloading
was 47% higher than that achieved with ramp loading (Figure
6). Thus, the assumption of instantaneous application of
preloading always led to overestimation of the degree of
consolidation.

Instantaneous preloading

08

06

04

Case a
Case b
Case c
Case d
Case e
Parameters used:
Tc 027
m 511, n 3409,
q 1227, j 818,
02, t 075, j 09

02

0
0001

001

Tc
01
Time factor T
(b)

Figure 7. Variation of normalised excess pore pressure u with

time factor T for different hydraulic conductivity profiles:
(a) instantaneous preloading and (b) ramp loading

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

above and presented in Figure 8(a). Figure 9(a) shows that the
difference in U was a maximum ( 9%) for case c when m was
varied from 4.01 to 8.18 (i.e. rsm was varied from 2 to 4rm,eq ).
Note that U calculated for cases a and d did not change with
m. Similar variation of U was observed when two possible
extreme values of q were used. Differences in U (calculated
with q equal to 10.23 and 20.45, i.e. rtr was varied from 5 to
10rm,eq ) were equal to 6.9, 4 and 8.6%, respectively, for cases a,
b and d (Figure 9(b)). For all other cases, U was insensitive (1.1
and 0.3% difference for cases c and e, respectively) to the
variation of q. U was most sensitive to changes in the degree of
disturbance . The differences in U were equal to 50.8, 47,
22.1, 30.7 and 46.5%, respectively, for cases a, b, c, d and e, for
varying from 0.1 to 0.5.

100

Instantaneous preloading

Degree of consolidation U: %

80

Case a
Case b
Case c
Case d
Case e

60

Parabolic variation of k
within the disturbed
zone (Walker and
Indraratna, 2006)

40

20

Parameters used:
m 511, n 3409,
q 1227, j 818,
02, t 075, j 09

0
0001

001

01
Time factor T
(a)

10

Figure 10 shows the effect of preloading time tc on the degree

of consolidation. Note that, for the results shown in Figure 10,
p was kept constant at 500 kPa; thus, the rate of application of
preload R was varied in the simulations to obtain different
values of tc . Time-dependent preloading prolonged the

100
Ramp loading
Case a
Case b
Case c
Case d
Case e

Degree of consolidation U: %

Degree of consolidation U: %

80

60

40

Parameters used:
Tc 027
m 511, n 3409,
q 1227, j 818,
02, t 075, j 09

Tc
01
Time factor T
(b)

10

Figure 8. Degree of consolidation plotted against time factor

for different hydraulic conductivity profiles: (a) instantaneous
preloading and (b) ramp loading

816% (U 8.0, 9.7, 16.0, 13.6, and 10.1% for the hydraulic
conductivity profiles a, b, c, d and e, respectively) (see Figure
8(b)). The effect of the different hydraulic conductivity
profiles became prominent for t . tc as more and more
excess pore pressure dissipated.
To consider different hydraulic conductivity profiles, a
parametric study was performed to investigate the effects of
possible variations of m, q and on the degree of
consolidation U achieved at a particular time. Values of U were
calculated for a time factor T 1.0 and for some extreme
values of m, q and . One parameter was set to its minimum or
maximum probable value while keeping the values of all other
parameters equal to the values reported in Table 3. The
calculated extreme values of U were compared (see Figure 9)
with values obtained from the practical example described
Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

Degree of consolidation U: %

001

n 3409, q 1227, j 818,

02, t 075,
j 09, T 10

60
40
20

Case a

Case b

Case c
(a)

Case d

Case e

Instantaneous preloading

100

q 1023
q 1227
q 2045

80

n 3409, m 511, j 818,

02, t 075,
j 09, T 10

60
40
20
0

Degree of consolidation U: %

0
0001

m 401
m 511
m 818

80

20

Instantaneous preloading

100

Case a

Case b

Case c
(b)

Case d

Case e

Case a

Case b

Case c

Case d

Case e

100
80
60
40
20
0

01
02
05

Instantaneous preloading
n 3409, m 511, q 1227,
j 818, t 075, j 09, T 10
(c)

Figure 9. Effects of m, q and on the degree of consolidation

U for different hydraulic conductivity profiles; (a) variation of
U with m, (b) variation of U with q and (c) variation of U
with

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

247

consolidation process; for a given p, the greater the

construction time tc , the less was the degree of consolidation U
at any given time t.
8. CONCLUSIONS
Installation of prefabricated vertical drains causes soil
disturbance. The hydraulic conductivity of the disturbed soil is
less than that of the in situ (undisturbed) soil; this causes a
reduction in the rate of consolidation. In this paper, the
experimental data available in the literature concerning the
variation of the hydraulic conductivity in the disturbed zone
were collected and analysed. Four possible variations for the
hydraulic conductivity in the disturbed zone (cases b, c, d and
e) were identified from field and laboratory experiments
performed on PVDs. Analytical solutions describing the rate of
consolidation considering these different hydraulic
conductivity profiles were developed for both instantaneous
and time-dependent preloading. A practical example is
presented to illustrate how the analytical solutions can be used
in these different cases to calculate the degree of consolidation
achieved at any given time.
Our analyses showed that the rate of consolidation depends not
only on the degree of disturbance of the soil adjacent to the
drain but also on how the hydraulic conductivity varies within
the disturbed zone. Hence, proper identification of the
operative hydraulic conductivity profile in the vicinity of the
drain is necessary for accurate prediction of the rate of
consolidation. Moreover, time-dependent preloading has an
impact on the rate of consolidation that needs to be accounted
for in design.
REFERENCES
Barron RA (1948) Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain
wells. Transactions of the ASCE 113(2346): 718742,
Reprinted in A History of Progress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 2003,
vol. 1, pp. 324348.

100
Results are for Case c

Degree of consolidation U: %

80

Instantaneous preloading
Tc 005
Tc 011
Tc 016

60

Tc 027
Tc 054

40

Parameters used:
m 511, n 3409,
q 1227, p 500 kPa
02, t 075

20

0
001

01

10

Time factor T

Figure 10. Effect of construction time on the degree of

consolidation U

248

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

Basu D and Madhav MR (2000) Effect of prefabricated vertical

drain clogging on the rate of consolidation: a numerical
study. Geosynthetics International 7(3): 189215.
Basu D and Prezzi M (2007) The effect of the smear and
transition zones around prefabricated vertical drains
installed in a triangular pattern on the rate of soil
consolidation. International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE
7(1): 3443.
Basu D and Prezzi M (2009) Design of prefabricated vertical
drains considering soil disturbance. Geosynthetics
International 16(3): 147157.
Bergado DT, Asakami H, Alfaro MC and Balasubramaniam AS
(1991) Smear effects on vertical drains on soft Bangkok clay.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 117(10): 1509
1530.
Bergado DT, Alfaro MC and Balasubramaniam AS (1993a)
Improvement of soft Bangkok clay using vertical drains.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12(7): 615663.
Bergado DT, Mukherjee K, Alfaro MC and Balasubramaniam AS
(1993b) Prediction of vertical-band-drain performance by
the finite-element method. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
12(6): 567586.
Bo MW, Chu J, Low BK and Choa V (2003) Soil Improvement:
Prefabricated Vertical Drain Techniques. Thomson Learning,
Singapore.
Carrillo N (1942) Simple two-and-three-dimensional cases in
the theory of consolidation of soils. Journal of Mathematics
and Physics 21(1): 15.
Casagrande L and Poulos S (1969) On the effectiveness of sand
drains. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 6(3): 287326.
Chai J-C and Miura N (1999) Investigation of factors affecting
vertical drain behavior. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 125(3): 216226.
Chai JC, Miura N and Sakajo S (1997) A theoretical study on
smear effect around vertical drain. Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Hamburg. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 15811584.
Chu J, Bo MW and Choa V (2004) Practical considerations for
using vertical drains in soil improvement projects.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22(1): 101117.
Conte E and Trocone A (2009) Radial consolidation with
vertical drains and general time-dependent loading.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 46(1): 2536.
Hansbo S (1981) Consolidation of fine-grained soils by
prefabricated drains. Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, vol. 3, pp.
677682.
Hansbo S (1986) Preconsolidation of soft compressible subsoil
by the use of prefabricated vertical drains. Annales des
travaux publics de Belgique 6: 553563.
Hansbo S (1987) Design aspects of vertical drains and lime
column installations. Proceedings of the 9th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok. Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Society, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 112.
Hansbo S (1997) Practical aspects of vertical drain design.
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Hamburg. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 17491752.
Hawlader BC, Imai G and Muhunthan B (2002) Numerical study
of the factors affecting the consolidation of clay with

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

vertical drains. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20(4): 213

239.
Hird CC and Moseley VJ (2000) Model study of seepage in
smear zones around vertical drains in layered soil.
Geotechnique 50(1): 8997.
Holtz RD (1987) Preloading with prefabricated vertical strip
drains. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 6(13): 109131.
Holtz RD and Holm BG (1973) Excavation and sampling
around some sand drains in Ska-Edeby, Sweden. Sartryck
och preliminara rapporter 51: 7985.
Holtz RD, Jamiolkowski MB, Lancellotta R and Pedroni R
(1991) Prefabricated Vertical Drains: Design and
Performance. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Indraratna B and Redana IW (1997) Plane-strain modeling of
smear effects associated with vertical drains. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
123(5): 474478.
Indraratna B and Redana IW (1998) Laboratory determination
of smear zone due to vertical drain installation. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
124(2): 180184.
Jamiolkowski M, Lancellotta R and Wolski W (1983)
Precompression and speeding up consolidation. Improvement
of Ground: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, vol. 3, pp. 12011226.
Johnson SJ (1970) Foundation precompression with vertical
sand drains. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE 96(SM1): 145175.
Lekha KR, Krishnaswamy NR and Basak P (1998) Consolidation
of clay by sand drain under time-dependent loading. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
124(1): 9194.
Leo CJ (2004) Equal strain consolidation by vertical drains.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE 130(3): 316327.
Lo DOK and Mesri G (1994) Settlement of test fills for Chek Lap
Kok airport. In Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of
Foundations and Embankments, vol. 2, Geotechnical Special
Publication 40, ASCE, New York, pp. 10821099.
Madhav MR, Park Y-M and Miura N (1993) Modelling and
study of smear zones around band shaped drains. Soils and
Foundations 33(4): 135147.
Mesri G, Lo DOK and Feng T-W (1994) Settlement of

embankments on soft clays. In Vertical and Horizontal

Deformations of Foundations and Embankments:
Proceedings of Settlement 94, vol. 1, Geotechnical Special
Publication, 40, ASCE, New York, pp. 856.
Miura N, Park Y and Madhav MR (1993) Fundamental study on
drainage performance of plastic-board drains. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Japan Society of Civil Engineers
481(III-25): 3140.
Olson RE (1977) Consolidation under time dependent loading.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 103(1):
5560.
Onoue A, Ting N-H, Germaine JT and Whitman RV (1991)
Permeability of disturbed zone around vertical drains.
Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Proceedings of the
Congress of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Geotechnical Special Publication 27, ASCE, New York,
pp. 879890.
Richart FE (1959) Review of the theories for sand drains.
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineering,
ASCE 124(1): 709736.
Rixner JJ, Kraemer SR and Smith AD (1986) Prefabricated
Vertical Drains: Vol. 1 Engineering Guidelines. Federal
Highway Administration, McLean, VA, Report No. FHWA/
RD-86/168.
Sathananthan I and Indraratna B (2006) Laboratory evaluation
of smear zone and correlation between permeability and
moisture content. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 132(7): 942945.
Sharma JS and Xiao D (2000) Characterization of a
smear zone around vertical drains by large-scale
laboratory tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37(6):
12651271.
Tang X-W and Onitsuka K (2000) Consolidation by vertical
drains under time-dependent loading. International Journal
of Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
24(9): 739751.
Walker R and Indraratna B (2006) Vertical drain consolidation
with parabolic distribution of permeability in smear zone.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE 132(7): 937941.
Zhu G and Yin J-H (2004) Consolidation analysis of soil with
vertical and horizontal drainage under ramp loading
considering smear effects. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
22(12): 6374.

What do you think?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the
journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be
20005000 words long (briefing papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can
submit your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines.

Ground Improvement 163 Issue GI4

Analysis of PVD-enhanced consolidation with soil disturbance

Basu et al.

249