Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Preliminary Study On Real-Time Pore Water Pressure Response and Reinforcement Mechanism of Air-Booster Vacuum Preloading Treated Dredged Slurry
Preliminary Study On Real-Time Pore Water Pressure Response and Reinforcement Mechanism of Air-Booster Vacuum Preloading Treated Dredged Slurry
Preliminary Study On Real-Time Pore Water Pressure Response and Reinforcement Mechanism of Air-Booster Vacuum Preloading Treated Dredged Slurry
settlement, the pore water pressure dissipation and the shear cm and a sensitivity of 1 mm. The data sampling frequency was
strength of the soil have been quantitatively analyzed by set to 1 Hz during the test.
comparing with the results from conventional vacuum 2.3 Test procedures
preloading test (i.e. model test without air pressurizing). The Two parallel tests were conducted as shown in Fig. 2. One
real-time response of the pore water pressure were recorded was for the conventional vacuum consolidation of the dredged
during the course of air pressurization. Based on the test results slurry (Test A). The other is the air-booster vacuum
and the finite element modeling results, the mechanism of consolidation of the dredged slurry (Test B). The operating
promotions in drainage consolidation of the dredged slurry by procedures of the two tests were briefed as: Step 1, one PVD
the air pressurizing has been analyzed and discussed. and three PWP transducers were fixed to a racket made of thin
steel wire. The horizontal distances between the transducers and
2 Model test the PVD were 0 cm (i.e. right against the PVD membrane), 10
2.1 Soil sample cm, and 20 cm, respectively. And the three transducers were
The test soil was sampled from a tideland reclamation site placed at the same height, i.e. 20 cm above the racket bottom.
located at Dongtou area of Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. The The same rackets were placed into the buckets of the two tests;
basic physical and mechanical properties of the soil sample are Step 2, the vacuum tube and the wires connected to the
summarized in Table 1. The particle gradation curve of the soil transducers exited the bucket through the side opening; Step 3,
sample is given in Fig.1. the evenly mixed slurry (See Table 1) was poured into the
bucket to the height of 0.55 m; Step 4, one layer of geotextile
Table 1 Physical and mechanical properties of dredged and two layers of airtight membranes were placed on top of the
slurry slurry; Step 5, a lid was placed and fastened to top of the bucket
Density Water content Specific Liquid limit Plastic limit Average using bolts. The edge of the geotextile and membrane between
/(g·cm3) /% gravity /% /% diameter
the lid bottom and the bucket top were clamped to make the
1.52 95.00 2.68 53 32 5 system airtight. The same LVDT transducers were placed on top
of the membrane at the same locations for the two tests; Step 6,
100
the vacuum pump was turn on, and the vacuum preloading
80
lasted for 35 consecutive days; Step 7, after the test
Percentage passing /%
established by the industry or the academy societies. For the bucket can be deemed as fixed and impervious boundaries,
model test in this paper, the length of the booster tube is 12 cm which correspond to the no-displacement and no-flux boundary
which is about 34% of the PVD length (35 cm). However, due conditions at the edge of the influence zone that are commonly
to the limited size of the bucket (the soil height is 0.55 m), a adopted in drain-well consolidation theory for the PVD treated
small value (20 kPa) is set to the boosting pressure, so the soft ground (the PVDs are inserted generally in a triangular or
possible destroy of the whole sealing system can be avoided. rectangular pattern). There is no drainage on top of the slurry
The boosting time is chosen as 10 mins per day to avoid too because of the airtight membrane; however, the slurry is free to
much air accumulated in soil and the resultant destroys of the settle. Those boundary conditions are the same as those the
soil and the sealing system. A similar boosting time has been vacuum preloading in engineering practice. As for the drainage
reported in the literature [20]. paths of the model test, the pore water of the slurry seeps into
2.4 Boundary conditions and drainage paths the PVD first, and then it flows into the separator through the
As shown in Fig.2, the side walls and the bottom of the steel tubes.
Booster tube
150 mm
120 mm
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
200 mm
Air
Air-moisture Vacuum Air-moisture boost
pump
seperator seperator pump
Time /d away from the PVD, the average shear strength of Test B is
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 1.14 times larger than that of Test A; and for the soil 20 cm
2 radially away from the PVD, the former is 1.13 times higher
Air pressurization
4 than the latter. The comparison demonstrates that the air-booster
6 vacuum preloading technology can help improving the soil
Settlement /cm
8 strength.
10
12 Vane shear strength /kPa
14 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
16 0
18 5
Conventional vacuum preloading (Test A)
20 Air-booster vacuum preloading (Test B)
10
Depth /cm
Fig.3 Variations of surface settlement with respect to time
15 Before test
Test A
Located 10 cm away from PVD
10 20
Test B
0 P1 Located 10 cm away from PVD
P2 25
-10 Test A
Pore water pressure /kPa
-20
-30 are presented in Figs.6(a), (b),and (c), respectively, for the 19th,
-40 20th and 21st day of Test B. The three figures show similar
-50
variations in PWP response with respect to time, i.e. the PWP
-60
-70 increases to a stable value within 60 s after the start of boosting;
-80 for the time after, the PWP fluctuates slightly around the stable
-90 value; and then the PWP decreases rapidly when the boosting
Air pressurization
-100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 stops. Take Fig. 6(a) as an example, the largest increase in PWP
Time/d is observed for transducer P4 (the closest one to the booster
tube) when compared to the other transducers, i.e., the PWP of
(b) Air-booster vacuum preloading(Test B)
P4 increases 15.3 kPa (from -14.9 kPa to 0.4 kPa) shortly after
Fig.4 Variations of pore water pressure with the activation of the booster pump. For transducers P5 and P6,
respect to time
the increases in PWP are 12 kPa and 2.5 kPa, respectively. Since
3.3 Vane shear strength the PWP difference between P4 and P6 increases from 10 kPa
Using the mini-vane shearing instrument, the shear strength before the boosting to 23 kPa after the boosting, the hydraulic
was measured for the soil of both buckets when the vacuum gradient measured radially between the booster tube and the
preloading ended. Two test locations, i.e. 10 cm and 20 cm PVD is improved accordingly during the air boosting period. As
radially away from the PVD, were chosen. And at each location, a result, the seepage consolidation of the slurry between the
the test was carried out at 0 cm, 15 cm, and 30 cm below the booster tube and the PVD is enhanced. At the moment the
soil surface, respectively. Test results on the shear strength are boosting stops, the PWPs at P4, P5 and P6 drops rapidly to
shown in Fig.5. It is obvious that shear strength at the test point -22.4 kPa, -20 kPa and -27 kPa, respectively, which are 7.5 kPa,
from Test B is larger than the value at the corresponding 3.8 kPa and 2.1 kPa lower than the corresponding values
location from Test A. Specifically, for the soil 10 cm radially recorded before the boosting.
SHI Li et al./ Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2020, 41(1): 185193 189
-5 P4
P5 be estimated, and it is in the order of 10-6 m/s. Similarly,
-10 P6 according to the radial drainage consolidation theory, the soil
-15 permeability before the first boosting is estimated as in the
order of 10-8 m/s using the recorded PWP dissipation values.
-20
Details of both estimations are given in Appendix A. That is to
-25 say, the soil permeability has been improved by two orders of
Boosting stops
Boosting starts
-30 magnitude by the air pressurization. The comparison indicates
0 200 400 600 800 1 000
Time/s
that micro cracks may generate within the soil during the
boosting, which substantially increases the overall soil
(a) On the 19th day(boost duration10 min)
permeability. Those cracks continue to promote the PWP
0
dissipation even though the boosting stops, as can be seen from
-5 P4 Fig.4.
P5
Pore water pressure /kPa
-10
P6 5 Discussion
-15
The real-time PWP response in Section 4 demonstrates that
-20
the air pressurization in soil leads to two folds of consequences.
-25 The first consequence is the increased hydraulic gradient
-30 between the booster tube and the PVD, which increases the
Boosting starts Boosting stops
seepage velocity of pore water, and thus increases the drainage
-35
0 200 400 600 800 1 000 and thus improves the effect of vacuum consolidation. However,
Time/s
the increased gradient disappears once the air boosting stops.
(b) On the 20th day(boost duration10 min)
The second consequence is the possible micro cracks generated
-5 within the soil due to the pressurized air, which effectively
-10 increases soil permeability. Moreover, these cracks remain open
P4 after the boosting stops and keep providing drainage paths for
Pore water pressure /kPa
-15
P5 pore water , and thus improve PWP dissipation and seepage
-20 P6
consolidation.
-25 First, let us assume that the increased hydraulic gradient is
the only reason for the positive effects on vacuum consolidation
-30
by the air boosting. A finite element model was constructed to
-35
Boosting starts Boosting stops simulate Test B using ABAQUS. The PVD with a rectangular
-40 section was simulated as a cylinder with an equivalent diameter
0 200 400 600 800 1 000
0.06 m. Linear elastic response was assumed for the soil in the
Time /s
numerical model, i.e. no cracks shall be generated. The same
(c) On the 21st day(boost duration10 min)
elastic modulus (0.04 MPa) and Poisson’s ratio (0.3) were
Fig.6 Real-time variations of pore water pressure during assigned to the soil and the PVD. The permeabilities of the soil
the first air pressurization in barrel B and the PVD were taken as 1×10-8 m/s and 1×10-5 m/s,
respectively. No-displacement and no-flux boundary conditions
The drop in PWP indicates that the soil between the booster were set to the bottom of the model. The boundary conditions
tube and the PVD is largely in an undrained condition. As a for the side of the model were taken as zero flux and traction
result, most of the air pressure is carried by the pore water, and free (to consider the radially inward displacement of soil during
then the PWP drops rapidly once the air pressure stops, since the vacuum consolidation). The boundary conditions on top of
the compressibility of the pore water is very low. However, it is the model were taken the same as those for the side boundaries
noted that the PWP will drop to a lower value than that right to model the effects of the airtight membrane. The excess pore
before the boosting, which means part of the excess PWP is water pressure of the PVD was set to -80 kPa to simulated the
transferred into the effective stress of the soil skeleton within vacuum pressure. A positive pressure of 20 kPa was set to the
the 10 mins duration of the boosting. Consequently, the soil elements occupying the volume of the booster tube (i.e. the
unloading expansion of the soil skeleton due to termination of booster tube was not explicitly modeled) in a
boosting generates negative PWP in soil, i.e., -7.5 kPa, -3.8 kPa, Heaviside-function manner to generate the increased hydraulic
and -2.1 kPa at transducers P4, P5, and P6, respectively. The gradient between the booster tube and the PVD. The settlement
change in effective stress of the soil skeleton indicates that monitor point was at the center of the top surface, and the
seepage consolidation happens during the boosting. Based on monitor point for both the PWP and the seepage velocity was at
190 SHI Li et al./ Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2020, 41(1): 185193
the midpoint of an imaginary line that connecting the top of the Conventional vacuum preloading
120
Air-booster vacuum preloading
booster tube and the middle of the PVD.
-20 real-time PWP response during the air boosting were recorded
-30 and analyzed. The following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) The air-booster vacuum preloading technology is
-40
superior to the conventional vacuum preloading technology, as
-50 Air pressurization the settlement, the accumulated PWP dissipation and the shear
strength of the former are 20.5%, 5.7% and 1.13%, respectively,
-60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 higher than those of the latter.
Time/d (2) The real-time PWP response demonstrates that the air
Fig.8 Time variations of pore water pressure from pressurization in soil is leads to two folds of consequences. One
numerical simulation is the increased hydraulic gradient between the booster tube and
SHI Li et al./ Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2020, 41(1): 185193 191
the PVD, which enhances the seepage velocity and thus the super-soft soil vacuum preloading model test[J]. Rock
drainage consolidation correspondingly. The second and Soil Mechanics, 2011, 32(4): 984-990.
consequence is the possible micro cracks generated within the [10] LIU S Y, ZHANG D W, DU G Y, et al. A new combined
soil mass by the pressurized air. The cracks that provide high
vacuum preloading with pneumatic fracturing method for
permeable and shorter drainage paths can effectively improve
soft ground improvement[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2016,
the drainage consolidation of slurry for both during and after
the boosting period. 143: 465-461.
(3) After comparing to the computational results from [11] CHEN Geng, HONG Xiu-min, WANG Bo, et al.
ABAQUS, it is found that the increased hydraulic gradient Laboratory test of plastic drain filter clogging under
contributes little to the consolidation effects by vacuum vacuum preloading[J]. China Harbour Engineering, 2016,
preloading, which makes the micro cracks as the only reason 36(1): 23-27.
for the improved settlement, shear strength and PWP [12] SHI L, WANG Q Q, XU S L, et al. Numerical study on
dissipation as observed in the air-booster vacuum preloading
clogging of prefabricated vertical drain in slurry under
technology. The micro cracks generated by the pressurized air
vacuum loading[J]. Granular Matter, 2018, 10:20-74.
would remain open and thus improve seepage for both during
[13] WANG J, NI J, CAI Y Q, et al. Combination of vacuum
and after the boosting period.
preloading and lime treatment for improvement of
References dredged fill[J]. Engineering Geology, 2017, 227:
149-158.
[1] WANG Jun, CAI Yuan-qiang, FU Hong-tao, et al. Indoor
[14] WANG Jun, ZHANG Le, LIU Fei-yu, et al. Experimental
and field experiment on vacuum preloading with new
study of vacuum preloading combined reinforcement with
anti-clogging measures[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock
electro-osmosis in soft clay ground[J]. Chinese Journal of
Mechanics and Engineering, 2014, 33(6): 1257-1268.
Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2014, 33(Suppl.2):
[2] JIANG Yan-bin, HE Ning, XU Bin-hua, et al. Model test
4181-4192.
of vacuum preloading negative pressure distribution[J].
[15] CAI Y Q, XIE Z W, WANG J, et al. New approach of
Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017,
vacuum preloading with booster prefabricated vertical
39(10): 1874-1883.
drains (PVDs) to improve deep marine clay strata[J].
[3] CAO Jie, ZHENG Jian-guo, LIU Zhi, et al. Engineering
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2018, 10: 1359-1371.
application of vacuum preloading method in soft soil
[16] SHEN Yu-peng, FENG Rui-ling, YU Jiang, et al.
foundation treatment[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Reinforcement of vacuum preloading with air pressure
Engineering, 2017, 39(Suppl. 2): 124-127.
boosted for soft ground treatment[J]. Journal of Jilin
[4] HUANG Chao-yuan, WANG Zheng-zhong, FANG
University (Earth Science Edition), 2012, 42(3): 792-797.
Yong-lai. Analytical solution of vacuum preloading
[17] ZHU Ping, SUN Li-qiang, YAN Shu-wang, et al. Model
foundation consolidation considering non-linearity of gas
test of vacuum preloading with controlled ventilation
leakage and well resistance[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,
and its mechanism analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock
2017, 38(9): 2574-2582. Mechanics and Engineering, 2011, 30(Suppl.1):
[5] LIU Zhi-zhong, DING Jian-wen, WANG Gang, et al. 3141-3148.
Vacuum preloading settlement calculation method [18] YAN Shu-wang, ZHANG Li-li, SUN Li-qiang, et al.
considering vacuum attenuation[J]. Journal of Southeast Experimental research on the method of importing air
University (Natural Science Edition), 2016, 46(1): flow to accelerate drainage in vacuum pre-pressure[J].
191-195. Highway Transportation Technology (Applied
[6] YAN S W, CHU J. Soil improvement for a storage yard Technology Edition), 2011, 7(1): 30-33+46.
using the combined vacuum and fill[J]. Canadian [19] ZHANG Ding-wen, LIU Song-yu, GU Chen-ying, et al.
Geotechnical Journal, 2005, 42(4): 1094-1104. Model tests on pneumatic fracturing in soils[J]. Chinese
[7] CHU J, YAN S W, YANG H. Soil improvement by the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2009, 31(12):
vacuum preloading method for an oil storage station[J]. 1925-1929.
Geotechnique, 2000, 50(6): 625-632. [20] ZENG Fang-jin, WEI Hui-xing, WANG Jun, et al.
[8] JIANG Yan-bin, HE Ning, ZHOU Yan-zhang, et al. Laboratory model test of treating soft soil ground using
Research on the concept and measurement technology of deep air-boosted vacuum preloading[J]. Industrial
vacuum preloading groundwater level[J]. Chinese Journal Construction, 2014, 44(7): 90-94.
of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016, 38(10): 1917-1922. [21] SHEN Yu-peng, YU Jiang, LIU Hui, et al. Experimental
[9] SUN Li-qiang, YAN Shu-wang, LI Wei, et al. Study of study on air-boosted vacuum preloading of soft station
192 SHI Li et al./ Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2020, 41(1): 185193
foundation[J]. Journal of the China Railway Society, 2011, air-boosted vacuum preloading on soft soil foundation
33(5): 97-103. treatment in Lianyungang[J]. China Harbour Engineering,
[22] LIN Yan, LI Biao, ZHUGE Ai-jun. Application of 2016, 36(11): 46-51.
Appendix A By following the same procedure depicted for Table A1, the
incremental volumetric strain of the soil skeleton for the same
A.1 Estimation on bulk modulus of pore water
period before the first boosting can be determined
Based on Biot’s theory, the excess pore water pressure is
as z 1.297 5 104 , according to the measured settlement
related to the volumetric strains of the soil skeleton and the
development in Fig.3.
pore water by
The spherical incremental stress is applied to the soil
Kf skeleton through vacuum pressure. With the assumption of
p ( ) (A1)
n homogeneity of the dredged slurry, the volumetric strain of the
where Kf is the bulk modulus of pore water; n is the porosity; soil skeleton can be estimated as
1 K / K s , K is the bulk modulus of soil skeleton, Ks is the
3 z 3.892 6 104 (A2)
bulk modulus of soil grain. 1 because K K s .
The variations of accumulated drainage mass with respect By following the same procedure depicted for Table A1, the
to time are presented in Fig.A.1 for both Tests A and B. The incremental pore water pressure for the same period before the
drainage volume (=drainage mass divided by density of water first boosting can be determined as p 1.296 kPa .
.
1.0 g/cm3) during 5 days (i.e. the 14th−18th day) before the first According to the measured pore water pressure variation in
boosting is extracted from the figure and then put in Table A1 Fig.4. Substituting , and p into Eq. (A1), the
for Test B. The incremental drainage volume between two bulk modulus of pore water Kf divided by the porosity n can be
consecutive days can be obtained by subtracting the drainage Kf
obtained as 6.4751×103 kPa.
volume on Day n-1 from that on Day n, where n=15, …, 18. n
Then, the volumetric strain of pore water on Day n is calculated A.2 Estimation of soil permeability for boosting period
as the incremental drainage volume divided by volume Vs of From Section 4, it is known that the unloading expansion of
slurry on Day n. Vs equals to πD 2 ( H 0 s ) / 4, where D is the the soil skeleton triggered by the termination of the boosting
diameter of the bucket; H0=0.55 m is the initial height of the generates negative pore water pressure in soil, i.e., -7.5 kPa,
slurry; s is the measured settlement on Day n (see Fig. 3). -3.8 kPa and -2.1 kPa at transducers P4, P5 and P6, respectively.
The volumetric strains for the two periods (i.e. the 16th After substituting a representative value of -3.8 kPa into Eq.
−18th days and the 15th−17th days) are averaged, respectively. (A1), the volumetric strain of soil skeleton due to unloading
And subtracting between them gives the incremental volumetric expansion can be calculated as (the soil is assumed as
strain of the pore water 5.850 7 10 4 for the period undrained at the moment of unloading, i.e. =0)
shortly before the first boosting.
np 3.8
5.868 6 104 (A3)
K f 6 475.1
35
Test A
30 Test B From the compression-rebound curve of the tested slurry
(see Fig.A2, the void ratios at different pressure levels are
25
Drainage mass /kg
Table A2 Porosity variations under different consolidation using the radial drainage consolidation theory by Hansbo for
pressures the vacuum preloading before the boosting. The diameter ratio
Consolidation nw is
3.1 6.2 12.5 25.0 12.5
pressure p /kPa
de 0.5
Void ratio e 1.843 1.718 1.568 1.416 1.425 nw 7.55 (A7)
d w 0.066
In other words, during the process (10 mins) of air boosting where de and dw are equivalent diameters of the influence area
(the boosting pressure for the soil is 12 kPa, as given by the and the PVD, respectively. With nw, the dimensionless factor
pore water pressure transducer P5), the soil has undergone Fn is determined by
drainage consolidation and gained an effective stress of 1.797 nw2 3n 2 1
Fn ln nw w 2 1.312 (A8)
kPa. Since the booster tube is pervious, the soil between the n 1
2
w 4nw
tube and the PVD can be assumed as one-dimensional The average degree of consolidation in radial direction is
consolidation with double drainage boundaries, i.e. one is at the given by
pervious tube surface, and the other is at the PVD filter
8 Ch
t
Fn de2
membrane. Then, Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation ur 1 e (A9)
theory can be readily applied and
8
1 mπT 2 2 k
Ch 21.12k (A10)
U 1 exp 4 v (m 1,3,5,)
π 2 m 1 m2
(A5) mv w
After substituting Ch、Fn and de into Eq. (A9), the degree of
where U is the degree of consolidation; Tv Cvt / H 2 is the consolidation can be expressed as
time factor of consolidation; Cv is the coefficient of
consolidation; t is time; H is the drainage distance. According ur 1 e 515.12 kt (A11)
the incremental effective stress , the consolidation degree
With the time t =18×24×3 600=1.555 2×106 s taken right before
is determined as U=1.979/12= 16.49%.
the first boosting, u r is expressed as
Substituting H=0.1 m (obtained from Fig. 2) and t=10 mins
8
into Eq. (A5), Cv =3.56×107 m2/s can be back calculated. Cv ur 1 e515.12 kt 1 e8.0110 k
(A12)
is related to the soil permeability k and the volumetric
compressibility coefficient mv of the soil as Since the accumulate pore water pressure dissipation right
before the first boosting is u =25 kPa, the degree of
Cv k / (mv w ) (A6) consolidation expressed in pore water pressure dissipation is
calculated as
where w is the unit weight of water. From Fig.A2, mv =
4.735 8×103 kPa1 can be obtained for the pressure in range of u 25
ur 100% 100% 31.3% (A13)
12.5-25.0 kPa. Then, from Eq. (A6) the soil permeability k p 80
1.685 9×108 m/s can be determined. Substituting Eq. (A13) nto Eq. (A12), the soil permeability
A.3 Estimation of soil permeability before air boosting averaged over the period before the first boosting is obtained as
The drainage consolidation of the slurry can be described k 4.686 9×1010 m/s.