Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology,

an International Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jestch

Full Length Article

Settlement of a railway embankment on PVD-improved Karakore soft

alluvial soil
Jemal Jibril Muhammed a,⇑, Priyantha W. Jayawickrama b, Alemayehu Teferra c, M. Aydin Özer d
a
Transportation Engineering Program, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Jimma Institute of Technology, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia
b
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, Texas Tech University, Box 41023, Lubbock, TX 79409
1023, USA
c
Emeritus Professor, Ph.D., Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
d
Geology and Geotechnics Manager, Yapı Merkezi Ins _ ßaat, Awash – Kombolcha – Hara Gebaya Railway Project, Kombolcha, Ethiopia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a case history of the settlement performance of a railway embankment built on a
Received 3 September 2019 Prefabricated Vertical Drain (PVD) improved soft alluvial soil of Karakore area, Wollo province, north-
Revised 23 January 2020 east of Ethiopia. The embankment was constructed on Awash - Kombolcha - Haragebaya (AKH) railway
Accepted 11 March 2020
project for the purpose of preloading so as to facilitate the consolidation settlement in a short period of
Available online 24 March 2020
time; and it was monitored for more than 750 days. Numerical predictions of Class A and Class C (based
on back-calculation procedure) were performed using Plaxis 2D. The soft soil creep (SSC) model was
Keywords:
employed for the soft soil layers, while the Mohr-Coulomb (MC) model was used for the drainage and fill
Karakore soft alluvial soil
PVD-improved
layers. The predictions were compared with the field monitoring settlement data. Quite a reasonable
Embankment agreement was achieved from the finite element modelling of Class C prediction when the prediction
Settlement was compared with the actual field settlement values. Parametric sensitivity studies were carried out
Numerical modelling to examine the influence of parameters on the rate and magnitude of settlements. The results of the
Class A prediction numerical predictions and parametric studies have been discussed in detail. The soil on the flood plain
Class C prediction area of Karakore is found to be very soft to soft alluvial deposit and formed over Tertiary Eocene stiff clay.
Consolidation parameters The variable conditions of the soil formation and deposition highly dictated the deformation and excess
pore water pressure behaviour of the soft subsoil sediment. The parametric sensitivity study showed that,
following the compression index, the initial void ratio, the hydraulic conductivity, and the OCR highly
influenced the settlement responses of PVD-improved soft alluvium soil respectively.
Ó 2020 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction analysed. Such unfavourable soft soil conditions pose imminent

As part of sustainable development initiative, Ethiopia has
made major investments in transportation infrastructure including
several railway transportation projects. Awash – Kombolcha-
Haragebeya (Woldiya) (AKH) Railway Project is one of the National
Railway Network (NRNE) projects undertaken. The project involves
the construction of a 390 km long railway line which connects
cities Awash, Kombolcha and Haragebeya. At several locations
along the corridor, the railway route traverses on different prob-
lematic ground conditions including soft soil deposits. In this
study, embankment settlement resulting from soft soil found near
Karakore, Wollow province, north-eastern part of Ethiopia was
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jibril.mohammed@ju.edu.et, jj.civil7@gmail.com
Muhammed).
Peer review under responsibility of Karabuk University.
challenges to the construction of infrastructures as they lead to
bearing capacity failures, excessive settlement, and slope instabil-
ity. The soft soils in this project were improved by installing pre-
fabricated vertical drains (PVDs) and then preloading. PVDs, also
called wick drains, have been commonly used in practice as an
effective ground treatment method for controlling. Field monitor-
ing of settlement was done at different locations on PVD-
improved sections. The settlement monitoring would provide data
that can be used to determine when the rate of settlement would
diminish to an acceptable level before laying of the railroad tracks
in future or ongoing fill construction projects on similar soils.
Studies suggest that PVD assisted preloading method improves
by facilitating rapid consolidation of the soft soils by reducing the
drainage length from tens of meters to less than 2 m [1]. PVDs are
also used to accelerate the dissipation of excess pore water pres-
(J.J. sure which is generated as a result of embankment loading [2]. Like
other ground improving techniques such as stone column [3],

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2020.03.004
2215-0986/Ó 2020 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1016 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027
consolidation of the soft subsoil accompanied by inclusion of PVDs
would eventually increase the shear strength before placing the
subsequent railway structures. The drainage capacity of PVDs is
generally affected by several factors such as time, deformation, fil-
tration and clogging of the wick drain [4]. The vertical hydraulic
conductivity of a soft soil can be increased remarkable by inclusion
of PVDs with up to one order of magnitude [5]. For the reasons of
low cost and short installation time, like stone columns [3], PVDs
are usually installed before the embankment is constructed on
the soft subsoil.
The behaviour of PVD-improved soft clay under an embank-
ment surcharge loading can be modelled by finite element (FE)
analysis to predict the anticipated consolidation settlement. Settle-
ments of the fills can be monitored at selected locations on the
field. The field monitoring data may be used to compare and adjust
the magnitude and rate of the settlements estimated by the
numerical modelling. The comparison of the numerically-
predicted and field-measured deformation of the embankment
constructed on soft soil mainly contributes to a mechanism that
can be used to examine the relevance of the soil constitutive model
employed in modelling activities. Many of the study efforts made
to model soft grounds which are improved with PVDs to predict
settlements are done on coastal area deposits such as marine soft
clay [4,6–8]. However, the soft soils in the current study area are
different in their mode of formation, characteristic, and
classification.
Hence, this study aims at evaluating the field settlement perfor-
mance of the AKH railway embankment built on PVD-improved
Karakore soft alluvial soil deposit. The numerical simulations were
performed based on Class A and Class C prediction approaches and
field monitoring settlement data. Sensitivity analyses of stiffness
and permeability parameters were carried out depending on Class
C prediction. Systematic comparisons were made between
numerically-predicted values of the Class A and Class C predictions
and field measured settlement values.
2. Fundamentals in PVD modelling
2.1. Effects of PVD
Engineering practitioners commonly prefer simplified analysis
methods to determine the behaviour of PVD-improved soft ground
under an embankment surcharge loading. The two prominent
authors who developed analytical frameworks on this subject are
Barron [9] and Hansbo [10]. These authors are pioneers in studying
on the concepts, theories and applications of a unit cell condition
(surrounded by a soil cylinder) and a radial drainage in the PVD-
induced consolidation processes. However, in many practical situ-
ations, the forms of ground deformations do not represent the
behaviour of a unit cell condition. As a result, a number of simpli-
fied approximate methods have been devised as alternatives. The
simplified methods are represented by an equivalent vertical per-
meability which take into account the effects of the natural soil
on the vertical drainage and the PVD on the radial permeability
[2,11]. Four types of methods have been commonly used in mod-
elling the behaviour of PVD-improved soft subsoils under embank-
ment [12,13]. The first method is a one dimensional (1D) drainage
element model that the PVD is represented by a line element with-
out a distinct cross-sectional area [14]. The second one assumes as
a cylindrical unit cell model of the PVDs and the surrounding soil
mass. The PVD is considered as a macro-element representing
the vertical drainage behaviour [5]. The third one represents the
PVDs as a solid element [15]. The fourth method assumes an
approximate and equivalent vertical hydraulic conductivity (kve)
of the PVD-improved subsoil. In this method, kve is computed from
the effect of vertical and horizontal permeability of the natural
subsoil and the drainage capacity of the PVDs [5,14,16–18]. The
fourth method has been found to be more convenient and simple
to apply in an actual engineering practice.
2.2. Methods in deformation prediction and constitutive soil models
Several methods have been proposed for predicting the magni-
tude and rate of settlement of structures supported on soft soils.
Lambe (1973) proposed that the predictions in soil engineering
can be classified into different types. Among them Class A and
Class C predictions are widely used for estimating settlement in
geotechnical structures such as embankments and piles. Class A
prediction is carried out using available laboratory and field soil
investigation data before the construction activity is begun. In
Class C prediction, the estimation of values is performed after the
construction activity had started and when a complete set of field
data is available. Class C prediction can also be used to back-
calculate the properties of soils by matching of curves from the
numerical and field data analyses [19,20]. A Class A prediction is
performed without having measured field data, while a Class C pre-
diction is performed after data has been obtained from field mea-
surements. Both Class A and Class C methods have relative
advantages to predict values in different design situations.
Mohr-Coulomb (MC) and Modified Cam-Clay (MCC) are the
most popular elastoplastic soil models. They are widely used to
model the behaviour of soils because of their simplicity and having
the capability to describe strain softening, yielding conditions, and
failure mechanisms. Particularly, MCC is used to simulate the
behaviour of clay soils. But, since MCC is an isotropic model, it does
not consider creep (viscous behaviour) of soft soils [14]. To repli-
cate the behaviour of soft natural soil accurately, it is essential to
develop a constitutive model that capable of capturing soil aniso-
tropy, de-structuration, and creep [21]. A constitutive law integrat-
ing all three characteristics, however, is very complicated and
would require many constitutive parameters to be determined by
different complicated stress path tests. The method which
accounts the behaviour of soft soil materials including the creep
effect, though it does not account for the de-structuration effect,
is Soft Soil Creep (SSC) model. For this reason, the Soft Soil Creep
(SSC) model was employed in this study to reproduce the beha-
viour of the Karakore soft deposit. SSC is a second order model for-
mulated based on a visco-plastic framework [22].
2.3. Parameters in PVD modelling
The main parameters required for the PVD-induced consolida-
tion process are the discharge capacity of PVD (qw), the smear zone
diameter (ds) around the PVD and the ratio of horizontal perme-
ability of the undisturbed zone (kh) to the soil smear zone (ks),
i.e. kh/ks [11,23]. In the past decades, several efforts have been
made to determine these key parameters. Authors suggest that if
test data are not readily available , qw can be assumed as
100 m3/year and ds = 3 dm, where dm is an equivalent diameter
of the mandrel of the machine which is used to install the PVDs
[11].
According to Eriksson et al. (2000) and Chu et al. (2004), kh/ks
ranges from 2 to 6 [24]. As reported by Long et al. (2013) kh/ks cov-
ers a wide range from 1.4 to higher than 10 [6]. In the 3D model,
the ratio of kh/ks can be assumed to be 20 and ds = 5 dm for Poko
clay in Finland [25]. The vertical permeability was always half
the horizontal value [18]. Hansbo (1987) proposed that that kv = ks
based on laboratory test results. But, laboratory Oedometer tests
usually underestimate the coefficient of permeability of the field
deposits [11]. In general, the relationship between field and labora-
tory coefficient of permeability can be estimated as [11]:
 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027 1017


ðkh =ks Þf ¼ C f :kh =ks l orðkh Þf ¼ C f :ðkh Þl
where Cf = coefficient of permeability ratio of field to laboratory val-
ues. The value of Cf is greater than one and needs to be estimated
from field and laboratory coefficient of permeability tests or by
back-analysis [5,23].
Tavenas et al. [42] studied for Canadian marine clays that kh/kv is in
the range of 0.91–1.42. Similarly, Bergado et al. (1991) estimated that
the ratio for Bangkok clay is between 1.5 and 2.0. For certain Japanese
clays, Shogaki et al. (1995) reported that the range falls between 1.36
and 1.57 [24]. Jamiolkowski et al. [48] and other authors reported that
the ratio of kh/kv ranges from about 2 to 15 [14,26].
2.4. Geometry model
ð1Þ where ksp is permeability of the smear zone for plane strain case; ks
is permeability of smear zone for axisymmetric case; n = R/rw - R is
the radius of influenced zone by the PVD and for a rectangular pat-
tern of drain installation and computed as in [10], rw is the equiva-
lent radius of the drain considering a corner effect and can be
calculated as suggested by [28], s = rs/rw - rs is the radius of the
smear zone and related to the diameter of the mandrel [11]; l is
the length of the drain; z is the depth of the drain; qw is the dis-
charge capacity of the drain. qz is the equivalent discharge capacity
of the drain in plane strain, and dimensions B is half-width of the
influence zone, bs is half-width of the smear zone, and bw is half-
equivalent width of the drain in 2D, and the schematic detail is pre-
sented as in [15].
Ignoring the effect of well resistance, the equation becomes:

A PVD, as a unit cell, theoretically works in an axisymmetric ksp b

¼ h   i ð3Þ
condition. But, in situations where an embankment’s length is khp khp ln
n þ kh lnðsÞ
3
a
kh s ks 4
much larger than its width, where the strain along the length is
assumed to be zero, the embankment’s behaviour can be modelled If both the smear and well resistance are ignored in Eq. (2a),
as a plane strain condition [14,18]. Plane strain conditions (2D) are horizontal permeability of 2D is:
reasonably used in designing some civil engineering structures
0:67
such as road and railway embankments [13]. In plane strain condi- khp ¼ kh  ð4Þ
tions, drainage does not capture the complete behaviour of lnðnÞ
34
axisymmetric condition of horizontal flow towards the vertical The value of kh needs to be determined first from laboratory or
drains (PVDs). Hence, to symbolize and match the axisymmetric field; subsequently, khp can be estimated from Eq. (4). Eventually,
condition, Indraratna and Redana (1997) proposed a modification by substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (3) and then Eq. (2g) and Eq. (3) into
of soil permeability and space between the vertical drains under Eq. (2a), the matched horizontal coefficient of permeability for the
the plane strain conditions. This method is called geometry and/ plane strain condition can be computed.
or permeability matching analyses [13,15,17,27]. In other terms, As a second alternative procedure, considering smear effect, one
in plane strain conditions, PVD cell has the same permeability as can use a relationship which involves the permeability matching
the undisturbed soil in the axisymmetric cell, and no explicit smear instead of the drain spacing matching and is given as in eqn.5
zone is required [18]. [15,18,24,27,29].
As it was suggested by Indraratna and Redana [15], considering
the radius of influence zone of a single drain in the axisymmetric is 0:67kh
khp ¼ h       i ð5Þ
the same as a half-width in plane strain condition, the following ln rRs þ kkhs ln rrws
34
relationship helps to estimate the horizontal permeability (khp)
in plane strain modelling. As a third alternative, to estimate khp is the method of Nguyen
et al. (2018) which is based on 50% degree of radial consolidation
kh lp
khp ¼ ð2Þ (U h = 50%) can be employed [12].
l

pBU h kh
or khp ¼
 ð6Þ
h
i lln 1
U h
kh a þ
k
b khp þ h 2lz
z2
khp ¼ h
   i Furthermore, in general, in the vertical direction, PVD improves
sp
ð2aÞ
ln s þ kkhs lnðsÞ
34 þ pð2lz
z2 Þ qkwh
n the mass permeability of the subsoil. It is therefore logical to
attempt to create an equivalent value of the vertical coefficient of
where, permeability (kve), which roughly reflects both the impact of natu-
khp
 ral subsoil vertical drainage and radial drainage owing to the pres-
lp ¼ a þ b þ h 2lz
z2 ð2bÞ ence of PVDs [23].
ksp
!
2
n k  3
 kh kv e ¼ 1þ
2:5l kh
kv ð7Þ
l ¼ ln lnðsÞ
þ p 2lz
z2 4lR2 kv
h
þ ð2cÞ
s ks 4 qw
and,
! 3. Geology and soil properties
2
2 2bs bs b
a¼
1
þ s2 ð2dÞ
3 B B 3B 3.1. Geological setting

1 2 bs 2 2
The existing ground is generally gently undulating, crossed by
b¼ 2
ðbs
bw Þ þ 3
ð3bw
bs Þ ð2eÞ gullies, with few volcanic rock outcrops. The map of the study area
B 3B
is presented in Fig. 1. At station KM 160 + 750 (Borehole 160BH-
 2  01), the groundwater table (GWT) is close to the ground surface
2khp bw
h¼ 0 1
ð2fÞ and it is located at 1.9 m from the original ground level. The
k sp Bqz B
GWT measurement was taken during the rainy season on August
8th, 2015. The bearing capacity and settlement performance of
2 these soil was not sufficient to carry the embankment and railway
qz ¼ qw ð2 gÞ
pr e traffic loads without proper ground treatment.
1018 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027
Fig. 1. Location of the project area (source: Author’s reconstructed map and from Google map).
In the study site of AKH railway project, four major groups of
lithostratigraphic units are encountered. The units are Eocene vol-
canic, Oligocene-Miocene volcanic, Upper Miocene volcanic, Qua-
ternary volcanic. Besides, these units are overlain by associated
Quaternary deposits of lacustrine, fluvial and colluvium origin in
the plains and sometimes on the slope areas. The Tertiary Eocene
volcanic of Ashangi formation (Tas) is overlain by Quaternary-
ancient alluvium (Qal-A) and in river banks and gully areas is by
recent alluvium (Qal-R) [30]. Hence, the geological profile of the
Karakore site corresponds to the Quaternary lacustrine and fluvial
deposits, particularly of alluvium sediments (Qal-A). The antici-
pated railway tracks and embankments were laid on this ancient
alluvium deposit. The subsoil deposit is mainly composed of cohe-
sive soils with coarse-grained interbeds in irregular patterns. The
top crust can be classified as a black cotton soil and characterized
by dark gray, dark brownish gray or black in colour.
3.2. Vertical soil profile and laboratory test results
Tables 1–3 present the soil properties and classification of the
soft silty clay deposit at KM 160 + 750 station. Some of the soil
properties are also reported in [31,47]. The soft deposit has an
average relative resistance of SPT value of N = 2. From particle size
distribution (PSD) curve, both clay and silt soil are the dominant
grain sizes. At shallower depths, the soft silty clays have water con-
tents that exceed their liquid limits. It indicates that these soils in
this region contain organic materials. The average bulk density of
the soft soil is nearly 17 kN/m3. Pre-overburden pressure (POP) is
preconsolidation pressure (r0 p) less vertical effective stress (r0 vo)
and has an average value of 27 kPa. The soft alluvium deposit
has an average OCR value of 1.6 and can be classified as lightly
over-consolidated clay. The soft soil has low hydraulic conductivity
and lower shear strength. The stiffness parameters such as com-
pression index (Cc) and recompression index (Cr) were determined
from incremental loading (IL) of Oedometer test. Cc and Cr range
from 0.13 to 1.38 and 0.017 to 0.14 respectively, whereas an
adopted mean value of initial void ratio (eo) is 1.28. Vertical
hydraulic conductivity (kv) was estimated from the coefficient of
consolidation (cv) of consolidation test. However, for the loose
gravelly sand (GS) layer, the values were adopted from literature
for the numerical analysis and its values are presented as in Table 5
and under subsection 5.3.
 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027 1019

Table 1
Particle size distribution and classification of Karakore soft subsoil.

Soil Depth (m) Gravel/Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Natural water content, wn (%) Liquid limit, LL (%) Plasticity index, PI (%) Classification (ASTM-D2487)
0.50–3.25 16 50 34 57 41 27 CL
3.25–6.50 27 49 24 135 58 23 MH
6.50–9.50 89 11 – 108 – – SP-SM
9.50–12.75 20 40 40 41 52 28 CH
12.75–15.75 5 35 60 42 57 31 CH
15.75–18.25 4 26 70 40 65 40 CH
18.25–21.25 6 45 49 40 59 37 CH
21.25–26.00 13 53 34 42 48 26 CL

Table 2
In-situ properties and pressure history of Karakore soft subsoil.

Soil Depth (m) SPT (N) Gs cb (kN/m3) r’vo(kPa) r’p (kPa) POP OCR
0.50–3.25 2 2.59 16.83 21 52 32 2.4
3.25–6.50 2 2.59 15.50 27 45 18 1.7
6.50–9.50 3 2.64 – – – – –
9.50–12.75 2 2.50 17.67 88 103 15 1.2
12.75–15.75 8 2.48 17.17 109 125 16 1.2
15.75–18.25 11 2.48 17.00 127 210 83 1.6
18.25–21.25 10 – – – – – –
21.25–26.00 15 – – – – – –

Table 3
Compression and consolidation parameters from IL Oedometer tests.

Soil Depth (m) Cc Cr eo cv (m2/yr.) kv (m/d)

Mean Stdev. Mean Stdev Mean Stdev. Mean Stdev. Mean Stdev.
0.50–3.25 0.32 0.085 0.042 0.005 1.031 0.168 19.281 7.051 1.59E-04 8.00E-05
3.25–6.50 0.79 0.486 0.076 0.046 1.497 0.671 35.420 0.446 2.84E-04 1.29E-04
6.50–9.50 – – – – – – – – – –
9.50–12.75 0.14 0.013 0.020 0.004 1.074 0.053 32.446 3.071 2.99E-04 3.93E-05
12.75–15.75 0.15 0.010 0.022 0.058 0.936 0.151 36.229 2.279 2.49E-04 3.12E-05
15.75–18.25 0.24 0.158 0.047 0.009 0.960 0.158 31.061 9.586 1.97E-04 4.20E-05

4. Field monitoring of embankment
4.1. Description of the embankment system
The embankment considered in this analysis is a part of the
2 km long PVD-improved soft ground and located near Karakore
town at KM 160 + 750. The embankment has a base width of
60 m and 6.5 m top width with side slope of 3H:1V. The total
height of the embankment surcharge fill including extra fill is
8 m. A typical vertical section of the embankment is presented in
Fig. 2. The embankment section has three important parts. The first
part involved of the PVD-improved soft alluvial subsoil. The first
layer of this part is a very soft silty clay (SC1) deposit of 6.5 m thick.
The next layer is an interbedded loose gravelly sand (GS2) having a
3.0 m thickness and is followed by a 3.0 m thick very soft silty clay
(SC3). The entire PVD-improved zone was 12 m thick and extended
to this depth. Below the soft clay soil is a firm to very stiff Eocene
silty clay (ESC4) having a 13. 50 m thickness and extending down
to 25.95 m depth. The thickness of the soft silty clay deposit
improved with PVDs is about 12 m, while the stiff silty clay portion
without PVDs is about 13.5 m. For the stiff clay, the N value is
greater than 8. The second part consisted of a working platform,
drainage blanket, and filter layers. The third part comprised of a
surcharge embankment fill constructed with selected granular
materials. Procedurally, the working platform with a 0.5 m thick-
ness was constructed before the installation of the PVDs. Over
the top of the platform a 0.6 m crushed rock drainage and 0.2 m
filter layers were placed after the installation of PVDs in a 1.3 m
square pattern. The preloading fill activity was done stage by stage
with 0.5 m thickness at regular time intervals.
4.2. Monitoring of the embankment fill
A field monitoring was performed to measure the vertical set-
tlement of the fill on the PVDs-improved soft ground. Several opti-
cal monitoring points (MP) (at selected 25 different locations) were
placed on the top surface of the fill (embankment + extra sur-
charge) at reasonable distances along the railway line after the fill
activity was completed. The survey readings were taken using an
accurate optical survey equipment (with 1  10
11m accuracy)
from the centreline (CL) and edges of the fill. The monitored had
been done on a regular basis (every seven days).
This paper utilised the field settlement data from the monitor-
ing point of the 23rd (KM 160 + 750) location. The monitoring
activity was started on December 2, 2016 and has been continued
for more than 600 days. The observation usually provides data for
ongoing fill and future construction on similar soils and will also
ensure that the rate of settlement has subsided to an acceptable
level prior to laying of the railroad tracks. Observation of the settle-
ments was designed to use settlement beacons, with a base plate
placed under the fill and more sophisticated instrumentation (such
as rod extensometers). Unfortunately, these instrumentations
were damaged due to different reasons. Instead, optical topograph-
ical surveying (OTS) has been used reliably to measure the vertical
settlements of the fill. The description of the monitored embank-
ment section at the 23rd point and detail of PVDs are provided in
1020 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027

Fig. 2. Right side section of an embankment on PVD-improved soft alluvial deposit.

the Table 4. The PVDs related information was obtained from the 3D -axisymmetric condition to 2D plane strain condition, perme-
ceTeau company [30]. ability matching procedure was employed based on several inten-
sive studies [11,13,15,23,34,35]. These studies reported that both
3D and 2D methods reasonably achieved similar time-settlement
5. Finite element modelling
curves. According to Indraratna and Redana [15], Rujikiatkamjorn
et al. [35] and Muthing et al. [17] the settlement computed from
5.1. The modelling approaches
a 3D modelling and a transformed modelling from 3D in to 2D gave
excellent matching of results.
The numerical analysis was carried out by finite element (FE)
FE analysis was performed by PLAXIS 2D geotechnical computer
program using Plaxis 2D. Class A prediction followed by Class C
program. To modify some of the input soil parameters such as per-
back-calculation were employed for the prediction of settlement.
meability, so as to represent the radial behaviour of the field con-
In Class A prediction, laboratory test values were used in estimat-
dition, the axisymmetric problem (3D) was transformed in to plane
ing settlements. The parameters adopted in the Class A prediction
strain condition (2D). The permeability in the horizontal direction
are summarized as in Table 5.
was converted in to 2D model using the matching formula given in
SCC model considers time-dependent behaviour of soft soils
Eq. (5). This relationship considers smear effect, relatively simple
such as primary and secondary compressions [32]. SSC model
and most convenient in computational efficiency and provides a
was applied in the FE analysis to overcome the limitations of its
reasonable estimation for horizontal permeability in plane strain
predecessor models. Hardening soil (HS) model also used for com-
condition [18,24]. For qw greater than 150 m3/year, the impact of
parison with SSC modelling results. Mohr-Coulomb was employed
well resistance and kinking can be neglected [36]. Hence, in this
for the granular fill materials such as for embankment, drainage
study, as the PVD has qw of more than 2300 m3/year, Eq. (5) is
and working platform layers. For the stiff silty clay layer underlain
rationally applicable to use.
the PVD-improved region, as this layer was found to be nearly nor-
The equivalent drain radius (R) was calculated as 2R = 1.13.S
mally consolidated clay, Modified Cam-Clay (MCC) model was used
and R = 1.13/2.1.3 m = 0.735 m, where S is the drain spacing; radius
[33]. The input parameters for MCC were determined from labora-
of smear zone (rs) is related to the diameter of mandrel (dm) and
tory tests of strain-log pressure history curve. They were obtained
was assumed as 2rs = 3 dm [11] and hence, rs = 3/2.(120 mm) =
and calibrated based on loading–unloading of two cycle process.
180 mm = 0.18 m; 2rw = (w + t)/2 and rw = 1/2.(98 + 3)/2 mm =
25.25 mm = 0.0253 m, where w and t are width and thickness of
5.2. Permeability matching procedure the PVD respectively; the reduced permeability in the smear zone
was assumed as ks = kh/2. As the value of (kh/ks)Cf can be affected
PVD-improved grounds are usually 3D problems and can be by several uncertain field factors, Cf was assumed to be 1 for Class-
solved with axisymmetric solutions. However, several studies have A prediction, and it was back-calculated during Class C prediction.
been performed by transforming 3D into 2D finite element method
to reduce time of computation and effort. In such studies, widely
acceptance and successful transformations are made by Indraratna 5.3. Model input parameters
and Redana [15], Hird et al. [27] and Chai et al. [11]. Transformed
2D modelling captures well the settlement behavior of soft soils In Class A prediction, laboratory tests data accompanied by
[19]. In this study, so as to achieve a realistic transformation from some assumptions for the unknown parameters, were directly

Table 4
Embankment geometry and PVD description.

Embankment Name H (m) Hp (m) Hd (m) Hcomp (m) hPVD(m) Remarks on CT-D1010 PVD
E23 6.2 8 1.3 12 12 w = 98 mm, t = 3 mm, cc = 36 channels

Note: H = final embankment height; Hp = Height of embankment before removing the extra fill; Hd = thickness of drainage and working platform layer; hcomp = thickness of
compressible layer; hPVD = depth of PVD improved; w = width of PVD; t = thickness of PVD; cc = core configuration.
 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027
used for the analysis. In Class C prediction the influential and sen-
sitive parameters were revised to match the field measured settle-
ment. For the fill of the embankment, drainage and working
platform a unit weight of 20 kN/m3 and an internal angle of friction
(/) of 40° were used. The strength parameters such as reference
cohesive strength (cref) of 4 kN/m2 and an internal angle of friction
of (/) 26° were used for all the soft layers.
For the loose gravelly sand layer (GS2), basic engineering prop-
erties such as unit weight and classification were determined from
laboratory tests. Whereas, as coefficient of permeability and
strength parameters were not carried out in the lab, the values
for the model analyses were systematically adopted from literature
[37–39]. As the layer consists of gravelly size with poor gradation
and loose deposition, a coefficient of permeability of 0.5 m/day and
an internal angle of friction of 34° were used.
The soil parameter values and employed soil models are listed
in Tables 5–7. As literature suggest, the horizontal coefficient of
permeability of the soil (kh) was assumed to be two times of the
vertical permeability (kv). The secondary consolidation coefficient
(Ca) was reasonably supposed to be 3% of Cc [4,40]. Coefficient of
permeability variation with void ratio was estimated as per the
suggestion by Taylor’s solution [41].
k ¼ ko :10
ðeo
eÞ=C k
where k0 is the initial permeability; e0 is the initial void ratio; k is
the current permeability; e is the present void ratio; and Ck is the
permeability change index and is a constant value and can be
adopted from Ck = 0.5e0 [42].
5.4. Numerical analysis
In PLAXIS 2D, for both the embankment fill and the soft subsoil
layers, a plane strain condition with a discretization of 15-node of
triangular elements were used. The embankment fill, working plat-
form, the drainage layer and the interbedded gravelly sand layers
were modelled as ‘drained’ condition, while the other soft and stiff
silty clay layers were modelled as ‘undrained’ [40].
The PVDs were modelled as vertical drains which are prescribed
lines inside the geometry model where excess pore water pressure
(EPWP) are supposed to be zero in the consolidation analysis in
PLAXIS 2D [22]. But PLAXIS has limitations that it does not explic-
itly account for the drainage capacity of vertical drains, smear zone
effect and well resistance.
When the anticipated deformation of the soft subsoil under the
embankment is large, Large Strain (LS) analysis is a more rational
approach than small deformation (SS) one. Large strain calculation
is significant when deformation affects the geometry of the
embankment geometry [22]. To consider the large deformation
effect, the mesh update option in PLAXIS 2D incorporates a LS anal-
ysis based on the updated Lagrange formulation [43]. The LS
approach accounts for the increase in unit weight of soil mass by
taking into consideration the change in void ratio due to surcharge
stress increment. Furthermore, the LS analysis also accounts
updated water pressure which results in considering the surcharge
Table 5
Input parameters of alluvial subsoil in Class A prediction.
Layer Thickness (m) cb (kN/m3)
Soft silty clay (SC1) 6 16.10
Loose sand (GS2) 3 18.00
Soft silty clay (SC3) 3 17.30
Stiff Eocene silty clay (ESC4) 13.45 17.30
Note: mur = Poisson’s ratio for loading/unloading; modified compression index, k*= Cc/2.303(1 + eo), modified swelling index, j* = 2Cr/2.303(1 + eo), modified secondary
compression index, m* = Ca/2.303(1 + eo); kvo = initial vertical permeability, kvo = initial horizontal permeability; MC = Mohr-Coulomb; SSC = soft soil creep, MCC = modified
cam clay. a,b,c are values given for Cam-Clay compression, swelling and secondary compression indices, respectively.
1021
fill’s effective weights. The analysis simulates the dependency of
settlements with the real thickness of the soft and compressible
layers by considering the deformation of the previous phases.
The reduced thickness of the soil is therefore logically resulted in
lesser settlements, and it makes the design reasonably economical
[44].
The boundary condition for displacement was modelled in such
a way that at the bottom both vertical and horizontal displace-
ments were fixed; for the left and right side boundaries the hori-
zontal movement was fixed while the vertical boundaries were
free to move. The bottom, vertical and horizontal drainage bound-
aries were closed to flow and consolidation effect while the top
boundary was free to flow and consolidation.
6. Modelling results and comparison with the field data
6.1. Class a prediction
Class A settlement was predicted from numerical soil model
using the laboratory test data from Borehole160BH-01 (station
KM 160 + 750) and the soil parameters are presented in Table 5.
The settlement results were considered from the top centre of
the embankment which was at the centreline of the railway line.
ð8Þ
The comparison between Class A prediction and field monitoring
results for the vertical settlement-time curve is presented in
Fig. 3. The field monitoring was started 7 days after the completion
of the final fill placement. It was nearly 128 days from the start of
the surcharge fill placement. The analysis was carried out from 128
to 438 days (from December 2, 2016 to October 17, 2017) which
was for the period of 310 effective days from the beginning of
observation of the embankment fill.
The numerical simulation revealed that there were uncertain-
ties associated with the settlement estimation of the alluvial soft
subsoil deposit. Overall, though the simulation underestimated
the settlement value, the prediction of the settlement-time profile
curve agreed with the in situ measurements. Unlike the field mea-
surement, the settlement-time curve from the numerical simula-
tion was very smooth, because it represented an ideal situation.
The discrepancy between the predicted and measured data was
nearly 25% on the 438th day of observation. The limitation with
Class A prediction was that it overestimated the stiffness of the soft
subsoil. The reason for the difference in results might be attributed
to the uncertainties associated with the laboratory test results. The
laboratory test values could depend on sample qualities such as
sample disturbance, less representation of the entire subsoil, test
conditions and soil heterogeneity. It clearly suggested that the soil
model parameters in Class A prediction need to be modified and
back-calculated in the subsequent analysis for Class C prediction.
6.2. Back-Analysis: class C prediction
6.2.1. Class C modelling
In this study, the authors have attempted to develop a practical
and simplified methodology for selecting appropriate soil parame-
mur(
) eo (
) k* (
) j* (
) l* (
) kvo (m/day) Kho (m/day) Khp (m/day)

04
04
0.15 1.3 0.147 0.023 0.004 1.93 10 3.86 10 2.81 10
05
– – – – – 0.5 0.5 –
0.15 1.1 0.038 0.006 0.001 2.72  10
04 5.43  10
04 3.95  10
05
0.15 0.96 0.11a 0.04b 0.003c 2.84  10
04 5.69  10
04 4.14  10
05
1022 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027

Table 6
Modified model parameters of the soft subsoil in Class C prediction.

Layer Thickness (m) cb (kN/m3) mur (
) eo (
) k* (
) j* (
) l* (
) kvo (m/day) kho (m/day) Khp (m/day)
Soft silty clay (SC1-1) 3.0 16.10 0.15 1.30 0.189 0.038 0.006 2.00E-04 2.42E-04 3.50E-05
Soft silty clay (SC1-2) 3.0 16.10 0.15 2.50 0.236 0.049 0.007 1.00E-04 1.70E-04 2.50E-05
Loose sand (GS2) 3.0 18 – – – – – 0.5 0.5 –
Soft silty clay (SC3) 3.0 17.3 0.15 1.10 0.062 0.012 0.002 3.00E-04 4.50E-04 4.00E-05
Stiff Eocene silty clay (ESC4) 13.5 17.3 0.15 0.96 0.11a 0.04b – 2.84E-04 5.69E-04 4.14E-05
a,b
Input parameters for MCC modelling.

Table 7
Modified model parameters of the soft subsoil in Class C prediction for HS Model.

Layer Thickness (m) cb (kN/m3) eo(-) ERef 2

50 (kN/m ) ERef 2
oed(kN/m ) ERef 2
ur (kN/m ) m(-) kvo (m/day) kho (m/day) Khp (m/day)
Soft silty clay (SC1-1) 3.0 16.10 1.30 661 529 4761 0.60 2.00E-04 2.42E-04 3.50E-05
Soft silty clay (SC1-2) 3.0 16.10 2.50 545 436 3726 0.60 1.00E-04 1.70E-04 2.50E-05
Loose sand (GS2) 3.0 18.00 – – – – – 0.5 0.5 –
Soft silty clay (SC3) 3.0 17.3 1.10 2013 1610 14,490 0.60 3.00E-04 4.50E-04 4.00E-05
Stiff Eocene silty clay (ESC4) 13.5 17.3 0.96 2348 1878 8114 0.60 2.84E-04 5.69E-04 4.14E-05

Note: ERef Ref Ref

50 = Secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test; Eoed = Tangent stiffness for primary Oedometer loading; Eur = Unloading/loading stiffness at engineering strains
(e  10-3
10-2); m = power for stress-level dependency of stiffness

As shown in Figs. 7–10 and to be discussed latter in the subse-

quent section, the stiffness and consolidation parameters highly
influenced the deformation behaviour of the soft subsoil. The pre-
dicted ground surface settlements were evaluated against the mea-
sured field data at two different locations, which are at centreline
(CL) and 3.75 m offset from the centreline of the railway track. The
field monitoring at the centre line of the railway trackway was car-
ried out up to 438 days since surcharge placement. Later, when the
extra 1.75 m thick surcharge fill was removed and planned to place
the superstructure components of the railway track, the OTS settle-
ment monitoring points were relocated to a 3.75 m distance from
the centreline of the railway line.

6.3. Result analyses and discussions

Fig. 3. Settlement-time curve for Class A prediction.
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 present comparison of curves between pre-
dicted settlement using Class C and field measured values at the
ters to reduce prediction discrepancies. Modification of sublayers centreline and at 3.75 m distance from the centreline. The Class
soil parameters contribute to the accuracy level and reliability C settlement prediction resulted in a better accuracy as compared
associated with prediction of settlement. with Class A prediction. In Class C prediction, numerically esti-
The most influential model parameters and layers were identi- mated settlement was in a very good agreement with the field
fied using preliminary sensitivity analysis technique by taking into data. Notably, the agreement has been well demonstrated beyond
account the field data. Then, based on the sensitivity level (degree 121 days since the field monitoring was started. The variation
of influence) of parameters, adjustments were performed system- before 121 days might have attributed to (1) the deformation of
atically until the predicted settlement agreed reasonably well with
the field measurement data. In Class A prediction, for simplicity a
single soft silty clay layer (SC1) was considered and average model
parameters were used for the modelling analysis. From the analy-
sis of the effect of soft layers, it was more realistic to consider the
layer above the gravelly sand layer (GS2) as two separate sub-
layers (SC1-1 and SC1-2). A better detail can be captured using a
large number of layers and sub-layers. SC1-2 layer contains organic
contents (the natural moisture contents exceed 100%) and more
compressible than SC1-1. Dividing the soil profile into several lay-
ers (discretization) can provide accurate predictions for deforma-
tion behaviours of the soft subsoil [45,46]. Hence, the top soft
silty clay layer (SC1) was sub-divided into SC1-1 is from 0 to
3.5 m and SC1-2 is from 3.5
6.5 m.
Among the modified model parameters are compression index,
initial void ratio and coefficient of permeability. The detail of the
input parameters for Class C prediction are reported in [31] and
also summarized as in Tables 6 and 7. Fig. 4. Settlement of Class C predictions at CL for SSC and HS models.
 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027
Fig. 5. Settlement of Class C prediction at 3.75 m distance from the CL of the
railway track.
the embankment body itself, although the fill was assumed as a
rigid in the modelling, (2) the creep settlement was started during
earlier period of observation than it was considered in the simula-
tion, and (3) time dependent deformation of the interbedded gran-
ular layer (GS2) was not modelled explicitly.
In class C prediction, the standard error of the estimates (SEest.)
for the conformity between the prediction and field settlement at
different time of observations was found to be 5.5 for SSC mod-
elling. Similarly, the coefficient of determination (R2) from the
overlap/association of estimated and field settlement was 0.974.
Both inferential statistic values showed that the prediction well
correlated with the field condition with a very good precision.
Fig. 4 also compares the results of SSC modelling with HS mod-
elling. Generally, SSC better predicted the field condition than HS
model. During early period of observations, the two models closely
predicted the settlement – time relations. But during the latter per-
iod of observations the two models showed significant differences.
The differences in predictions were attributed to the effect of creep
behaviour in which SSC model accounted while HS did not involve
creep coefficient.
However, the Class C prediction was not perfectly simulated the
settlement rate and magnitude of the field conditions. The discrep-
ancies might be attributed to some of the following expected rea-
sons. One, the field surface settlements were performed under
variable environmental conditions such as moisture content varia-
tions and groundwater table fluctuations in different seasons. Sec-
ond, as the geotechnical investigation showed that the subsoil is
interbedded by gravelly sand and very compressible organic mate-
rial, the SSC model could not adequately simulate these interbed-
ded layers. The third reason could be the that the high fill
embankment itself might have been deformed, though the
assumption made was that the compacted embankment fill was
rigid and its body deformation was negligible.
Installation of PVDs has significantly improved the subsoil
behaviour in accelerating consolidation settlements and the dissi-
pation of EPWP as presented in Figs. 4 and 6. The EPWP
distribution-time curves of Fig. 6 was considered at 4.5 m depth
from the bottom of the drainage layer. The EPWP was found higher
at the centre of the more compressible layer (SC1-2) which is
nearly at 4.5 m depth from the ground surface. The curves have
been demonstrated for the Class C prediction with PVDs and with-
out PVDs. The deformation and pore water pressure development,
distribution and dissipation have been considerably dictated by the
interference of highly permeable soil layer (GS2).
The settlement (Fig. 5) and excess pore water pressure (Fig. 6)
against time curve profiles were influenced by loading of the sur-
charge fill and removing of the extra surcharge fill. When the extra
1023
Fig. 6. EPWP distribution at 4.5 m depth from the ground surface.
fill was removed since the 438th day, the settlement and EPWP
curves had been raised up. The settlement curve resilience was
likely attributable to its swelling/elastic behaviour of the subsoil
and elastic rebound of the embankment body; whereas, for the
pore water pressure curve, it was owing to the development of
EPWP when the water ingressed to the subsoil mass. The ingres-
sion of water resulted in the development of suction pressure
around the PVD wells and subsequently the settlement showed a
heaving response (Fig. 5). The developed suction pressure under
the centre of the embankment ranged from
19 to
2 kPa, which
was due to the removal of extra surcharge loading (36 kPa). The
curves again went down (after the 481th day) very gradually with
time. It was most likely because of uncompleted primary consoli-
dation from the embankment preloading, the loading effect from
the newly laid track components and due to creep behaviour from
the surcharge fill and superstructure track layers. The simulated
settlement curve has been compared with the field measured data
(Fig. 5).
From Fig. 6, one can observe that when the extra surcharge fill
was removed, the water has got the freedom to enter the soil mass
for both with PVDs and without PVDs scenarios. Subsequently, the
EPWP reduced(dropped) due to the development of suction pres-
sure (negative pressure). For both scenarios, the same trend of
reduction in EPWP was clearly observed. However, the rate of drop
was different. The rate for without PVDs case was relatively rapid
with
0.48 kPa/day, while it was slower for with PVDs case with a
rate of
0.39 kPa/day.
The ratio of kh/kv assumed during modelling was 2 and used for
the analysis in all layers. After the back-analysis and sensitivity
studies were carried out, the values of kh/kv were found in the
range of 0.95 to 1.75. The average value of coefficient of permeabil-
ity ratio (Cf) of the field to the laboratory was found to be 1.5 from
the back-analysis of Class C prediction.
7. Parametric sensitivity analysis
7.1. Model parameters of consolidation
In soft soil deformation analysis, stiffness and consolidation
parameters (Cc, Cr, Ca, eo, kv) are deemed key inputs. The effect of
the model parameters on the results of the analysis was assessed
by varying one parameter at a time and keeping others the same
and by comparing the output with the reference value which is
so called the most probable value (MPV). To evaluate the sensitiv-
ity of parameters, a lower limit (LB) and an upper limit (UB)
estimation were established. The LB and UB were estimated from
mean values for 68% confidence interval, which means one
1024 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027

standard deviation minus and plus from mean values respectively.

Before carrying out sensitivity analysis, standard error of estimate
and coefficient of determination were determined to evaluate the
conformity and parametric correlations between predicted and
measured settlement results. So that, from these values and pre-
sented under Subsection 6.3, it found that the predicted settlement
was compatible to perform parametric studies.
The study was focused to estimate the surface settlement at the
centre of the embankment. Six different scenarios were considered
in this parametric analysis. The results are summarized in Figs. 7
and 8. In order to keep the analysis as simple as possible while
evaluating the effect of a parameter on the model output, the
remaining model parameters were kept constant as they were esti-
mated in the Class C prediction (MPV).
Compression index was found to be the most influential and
sensitive parameter for the settlement response of Karakore soft
alluvium deposit. Hydraulic conductivity influenced the settlement

Fig. 8. Effect of (a) initial void ratio, (b) vertical coefficient of permeability (c) over
consolidation ratio on settlement responses.

behaviour with the same extent that the initial void ratio had influ-
enced. The value of eo did not affect only the magnitude of the ver-
tical settlement but also the shape of the settlement-time curve.
Recompression index has the least impact on the magnitude of
deformation of the soft subsoil. Since the field settlement-time
curve was considered after the final surcharge load (160 kPa)
was applied, the level of stress applied was much higher than the
preconsolidation pressure (yield stress (52 kPa)) of the subsoil.
Applying a load beyond the yield stress, it makes the soil to be in
a state of normally consolidated condition.

7.2. Other influencing parameters

Influence of layers on the settlement response was evaluated by

Fig. 7. Effect of (a) compression index, (b) recompression index, (d) secondary varying certain more influencing parameters such as layer param-
compression. eters, depth of PVD and permeability change index. To investigate
 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027
Fig. 9. Effect of (a) soft layers and (b) PVD installation depth on settlement.
Fig. 10. Effect of permeability change index.
layer influence, the most sensitive parameter (Cc) was increased by
30% uncertainty for each layer alternatively. The employed percent
increment was equal to the coefficient of variance (COV), as some
authors reported COV for Cc is within this limit [17,40]. As shown
in Fig. 9(a), among the three soft silty clay layers (SC1-1, SC1-2, and
SC3), the top two layers (SC1-1 and SC1-2) were the most domi-
nant layers in dictating the deformation behaviour of the subsoil.
Though SC1-2 is more compressible and underlying SC1-1, it con-
tributed equally with the SC1-1 for the deformation response.
From this, we can infer that stress coming from the surcharge fill
and super track structures have been distributed over a large area
1025
and its effect distributed and reduced as it went deep down to the
soft soil mass.
The thickness of soft soil usually determines the depth of PVDs.
Fig. 9(b) presents the effect of PVD depth on settlement perfor-
mance. Increasing the PVD depth has improved the rate and mag-
nitude of consolidation settlement. Up to 6 m depth from the
surface of the ground, the depth of installation of the PVD has a
substantial contribution on the rate of deformation. But, increasing
the depth beyond 6 m has not contributed much for the improve-
ment. This is likely due to the presence of highly permeable grav-
elly sandy layer below the depth of 6 m. The 3 m thick gravelly
sand layer has considerably affected the development, distribution
and dissipation of pore water pressure. Hence, in this particular
section, 6 m PVDs might be sufficient to improve the rate of consol-
idation. However, in consideration to the pressure applied from the
machine during installation, additional depth of PVD might be
required.
Fig. 10 compares the effect of different permeability change
index on the settlement prediction. Initially, Ck = 0.5eo was adopted
to model the predicted settlement. Later, different Ck values ranged
from 0.2eo to 0.9eo were used. 0.2eo and 0.3eo under-predicted,
0.4eo, 0.5eo and 0.9eo are closely predicted whereas 0.6eo best pre-
dicted the settlement of the soft soil deposit of the study site.
8. Final Remarks and conclusions
8.1. Final Remarks
In the actual field projects such as in railway and highway pro-
jects, it is usually a big challenge in having sufficient and quality
data to characterize deformation characteristics of soft grounds
at all locations, particularly for a high degree of variability of
grounds such as Karakore alluvial deposit. In such situations,
geotechnical engineers must decide how the variability of soil pro-
file affect, which model parameters shall be taken into account and
which model be able to capture well the settlement response of
soft alluvial ground.
Rare works have been done in the region to characterize and
evaluate the ground deformation of the of soft grounds. Such
works which are related to a certain site-specific case history
would help a geotechnical engineer how to deal with problems
with close geological formations, soil depositions and profile vari-
abilities for analysis of settlement responses. So that, the study
showed that the soft deposit in the region found that it has some
distinct features from coastal areas’ soft clay deposits. Some site-
specific coefficients such as coefficient of permeability ratio (Cf)
and permeability change index (Ck) were determined.
It can be understood that with limited field and lab data, it can
be systematically able to capture well the consolidation settlement
behaviour of soft alluvial soil of the region. From the finding of this
study, the compression parameters and the intercepted loose grav-
elly sand layer were found controlling the settlement response
behaviour of Karakore soft alluvial deposit. This showed that a
more realistic constitutive soft soil model can be used to predicted
the settlements in a simplified way for practical applications. The
prediction technique can be utilized for settlement resulted before
placing the superstructure components of railway tracks and to
predict the evolved settlement over a long period of time after
the completion of the project work (post-construction
deformations).
Therefore, for practical embankment problems built on similar
soft alluvial rounds and improved with PVDs, one can employ this
methodology to evaluate the settlement performance of structures
situated on these improved grounds. The approach has the capabil-
ity of capturing the range of settlements for variable soil profile at
1026 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027
different time of observations. It will also both contribute to the
level of accuracy and reliability associated with settlement
predictions.
8.2. Conclusions
In consideration of the model analysis results and to achieve the
stated objectives, the authors have come up with the following
conclusions.
 The geotechnical investigation showed that the soft subsoil of
Karakore area is very soft to soft alluvial deposit and formed
over Tertiary Eocene stiff clay.
 Modelling of the soft alluvial silty clay deposit using a homoge-
neous layer with average soil parameters as predicted in Class A
gave a similar shape of settlement-time curve with the field
value, but the prediction did not correctly fit the field condition
to the required degree. In Class C prediction, after modification
of layer divisions and adjusting the most influencing and sensi-
tive model parameters, the simulated settlement values
resulted in an improved accuracy of prediction.
 The applied elasto-viscooplastic soft soil model (SSC) gave a
better and reliable prediction than the elastoplastic model
(HS). For considering creeping (secondary settlement) effect,
SCC model has been found practically applicable for the soft
and highly compressible silty clayey deposits improved with
PVDs.
 From the back-analysis of the Karakore silty clay deposit, the
coefficient of permeability ratio (Cf) of the field to the laboratory
was found to be 1.5. And permeability change index (C) was
computed as Ck = 0.5eo.
 The contributing factors for the discrepancies between the pre-
dicted and measured settlement values could be attributed to
the assumption that the high embankment fill was a rigid body,
the heterogeneity of the subsurface alluvium deposits, intrusion
of loose granular layer, and seasonal factors, topographic config-
urations and limitations on some of the assumptions made in
the analysis.
 Parametric sensitivity analysis showed that the stiffness param-
eters (Cc, OCR) were found to be most influential than consoli-
dation parameters (eo, kv) on the prediction of settlement rate
and magnitude.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support given by Ministry of
Science and Higher Education, Jimma University and Texas Tech
University. The authors also thank the Ethiopian Railway Corpora-
tion - AKH Project office, esp. the project manager- Eng. Abdulk-
erim Muhammed. and his co-workers Sileshi K. and Sualih T.
_ ßaat (YMI) - Geology and Geotechnics and QA team
Yapi Merkezi Ins
members deserve great appreciation for their continuous support
in providing me the required facilities and data. Our thank also
goes to Mr. Murad M. and Mr. Seid Y. for their encouragement
and support.
References
[1] R.D. Espinoza, L.D. Melo, C. Li, Design Methodology for PVD Installation in
Embankments over Soft Soils – A Case Study, IFCEE 2018 GPP 11, ASCE (2018)
380–390.
[2] J. Chen, S. Shen, Z. Yin, Y. Xu, S. Horpibulsuk, J.U.N. Chen, et al., Evaluation of
effective depth of PVD improvement in soft clay deposit : a field case study
evaluation of effective depth of PVD improvement in soft clay deposit : a field
case study, Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 34 (2016) 420–430, https://doi.org/
10.1080/1064119X.2015.1016638.
[3] M.Y. Fattah, M.A. Al-neami, A.S. Al-suhaily, Estimation of bearing capacity of
floating group of stone columns, Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 20 (2017) 1166–1172,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2017.03.005.
[4] D.T. Bergado, A.S. Balasubramaniam, R.J. Fannin, R.D. Holtz, Prefabricated
vertical drains (PVDs) in soft Bangkok clay : a case study of the new Bangkok
International Airport project, Can. Geotech. J. 39 (2002) 304–315, https://doi.
org/10.1139/T01-100.
[5] S. Shen, J. Chai, Z. Hong, F. Cai, Analysis of field performance of embankments
on soft clay deposit with and without, Geotext. Geomembr. 23 (2005) 463–
485, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.05.002.
[6] P.V. Long, D.T. Bergado, L.V. Nguyen, A.S. Balasubramaniam, Design and
Performance of Soft Ground Improvement Using PVD with and without
Vacuum Consolidation, Geotech. Eng. J. SEAGS AGSSEA 44 (2013) 36–51.
[7] A. Arulrajah, M. Bo, Finite element modeling of soft soil treated with
prefabricated vertical drains, Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 4 (2) (2010) 165–179,
https://doi.org/10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.02.165-179.
[8] H.G. Poulos, C.Y. Lee, J.C. Small, Prediction of embankment performance on
Malaysian marine clays, Int. Symp. Trial Embankments Malaysian Mar Clays
(1989) 22–31.
[9] A.R. Barron, Consolidation of fine-grained soil by drain wells, Trans. Am. Soc.
Civ. Eng. 113 (1948) 718–742.
[10] Hansbo S. Consolidation of Fine-Grained Soils by Prefabricated Drains. Proc.
10th Int Conf Soil Mech found Engrg. C, vol. 3, Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers
University of Technology, 1981, pp. 677–82.
[11] B.J. Chai, N. Miura, Investigation of factors affecting vertical drain behaviour, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125 (1999) 216–226.
[12] B.P. Nguyen, D.H. Yun, Y.T. Kim, An equivalent plane strain model of PVD-
improved soft deposit, Comput. Geotech. 103 (2018) 32–42, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.07.004.
[13] J. Chai, S. Shen, D.T. Bergado, Modelling prefabricated vertical drain improved
ground in plane strain analysis, Proc. ICE – Eng. Improv. 166 (2013) 65–78.
[14] J.C. Chai, J.S.L. Shen, M.D. Liu, D.J. Yuan, Predicting the performance of
embankments on PVD-improved subsoils, Comput. Geotech. 93 (2018) 222–
231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.05.018.
[15] B. Indraratna, I.W. Redana, Plane Strain Modeling of Smear Effects Associated
with Vertical Drains, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. - ASCE 123 (1997) 474–478.
[16] H.P. Jostad, F. Palmieri, L. Andresen, N. Boylan, Numerical prediction and back-
calculation of time-dependent behaviour of Ballina test embankment, Comput.
Geotech. 93 (2018) 123–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.05.026.
[17] N. Müthing, C. Zhao, R. Hölter, T. Schanz, Settlement prediction for an
embankment on soft clay, Comput. Geotech. 93 (2018) 87–103, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.06.002.
[18] C.C. Hird, L.C. Pyrah, D. Russell, F. Cinicioglu, lntroduct ion Theory for matching
behaviour in axisymmetry and plane strain Results of applying the matching
procedure, Can. Geotech. J. 32 (1995) 795–807.
[19] B. Indraratna, P. Baral, C. Rujikiatkamjorn, D. Perera, Class A and C predictions
for Ballina trial embankment with vertical drains using standard test data
from industry and large diameter test specimens, Comput. Geotech. 93 (2018)
232–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.06.013.
[20] T.W. Lambe, Predictions in soil engineering, Geotechnique 23 (1973).
[21] A. Yildiz, Numerical analyses of embankments on PVD improved soft clays,
Adv. Eng. Softw. 40 (2009) 1047–1055, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
advengsoft.2009.03.011.
[22] PLAXIS bv. 2D Reference Manual 2018 2018; Build 9462: 1–831. doi: 10.1016/
j.matchar.2009.10.005.
[23] J.-C. Chai, S.-L. Shen, N. Miura, D.T. Bergado, Simple method of modelling PVD-
improved subsoil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 127 (2001) 965–972.
[24] R. Müller, S. Larsson, Veda trial embankment — comparison between
measured and calculated deformations and pore pressure development,
Geitechn. Soft Soils Focus Gr Improv. (2009) 405–410.
[25] Yildiz A, Karstunen M. Three-dimensional analyses of PVD-improved soft soils.
Geotech. soft soils Focus Gr. Improv., London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2009,
pp. 197–203.
[26] D.T. Bergado, M.C. Alfaro, Improvement of Soft Bangkok Clay Using Vertical
Drains, Geotext Geomembr. 12 (1993) 615–663.
[27] C.C. Hird, C. Pyrah, D. Russell, Finite element modelling of vertical drains
beneath embankments on soft ground, Geotechnique 42 (1992) 499–511.
[28] Rixner JJ, Kraemer SR, Smith AD. Prefabricated Vertical Drains, Vol. I, II and III:
Summary of Research Report-Final Report. Fed Highw Admin, Rep No FHWA-
RD-86/169, Washingt DC, 1986.
[29] J. Chai, Y. Igaya, T. Hino, J. Carter, Computers and geotechnics finite element
simulation of an embankment on soft clay – case study, Comput, Geotech, 48
(2013) 117–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.10.006.
[30] Y.M.I. Alignmnet, Geotechnical Report for KM:158+000 to 164+000. Awash
Kombolcha Haragabaya, Railw. Proj. (2016) 3016.
 J.J. Muhammed et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 23 (2020) 1015–1027
[31] Muhammed J.J., Jayawickrama P.W., Theoretical and Numerical Settlement
Predictions of an Embankment on PVD-improved Soft Alluvial Soil, In: 15th
Int. Conf. Geotech. Eng., Lahore, Pakistan, 2019, In Press.
[32] R.B. Brinkgreve, W.M. Swolfs, S. Kumarswamy, PLAXIS 2D Reference Manual.
Plaxis Bv 2014; Anniversar.
[33] PLAXIS 2D. Scientic Manual 2018:1–120.
[34] J.-C. Chai, N. Miura, S. Sakajo, D. Bergado, Behavior of vertical drain improved
subsoil under embankment loading, Soils Found 35 (1995) 49–61.
[35] C. Rujikiatkamjorn, B. Indraratna, J. Chu, 2D and 3D numerical modeling of
combined surcharge and vacuum preloading with vertical drains, Int. J.
Geomech. 8 (2008) 144–156.
[36] B. Indraratna, I.W. Redana, Numerical modeling of vertical drains with smear
and well resistance installed in soft clay, Can. Geotech. J. 37 (2000) 132–145,
https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-115.
[37] J.K. Mitchell, K. Soga, J. Wiley, Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, Third Ed.,
2005.
[38] Kirsch K, Bell A. Ground Improvement, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
540-89230-4.
[40] Y. Gong, Y.H. Chok, Predicted and measured behaviour of a test embankment
on Ballina clay, Comput. Geotech. 93 (2018) 178–190, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compgeo.2017.06.003.
[41] D.W. Taylor, Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, 2nd., John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
New York, 1948.
1027
[42] F.P.J. Tavenas, P. Leblond, S. Leroueil, The Permeability of natural soft clays.
PartII: Methods of Laboratory measurement, Can. Geotech. J. 20 (1983) 644–
659.
[43] T. Benz, N. Steinar Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering. In:
Proceeding 7th Eur. Conf. Numer. Methods Geotech. Eng. Trondheim Norway,
2–4 June 2010, 2010.
[44] P.J.V. Oliveira, L.J.L. Lemos, Numerical analysis of an embankment on soft soils
considering large displacements, Comput. Geotech. 38 (2011) 88–93, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.08.005.
[45] D. Zheng, J. Huang, D.Q. Li, R. Kelly, S.W. Sloan, Embankment prediction using
testing data and monitored behaviour: a Bayesian updating approach, Comput.
Geotech. 93 (2018) 150–162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.05.003.
[46] R.B. Kelly, S.W. Sloan, J.A. Pineda, G. Kouretzis, J. Huang, Outcomes of the
Newcastle symposium for the prediction of embankment behaviour on soft
soil, Comput. Geotech. 93 (2018) 9–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compgeo.2017.08.005.
[47] J.J. Muhammed, P.W. Jayawickrama, S. Ekwaro-Osire, Uncertainty Analysis in
Prediction of Settlements for Spatial Prefabricated Vertical Drains Improved
Soft Soil Sites, Geosciences 10 (2/42) (2019) 1–24, https://doi.org/
10.3390/geosciences10020042.
[48] M. Jamiolkowski, R. Lancellotta, W. Wolski, Pre-compression and speeding up
consolidation, General Report, Special Session 6, Proc. Eighth Europe Conf. Soil
Mech. and Found. Engrg. (1983) 1026–1201.