EFFECT OF STORAGE CAPACITY ON VERTICAL DRAIN

PERFORMANCE IN LIQUEFIABLE SAND DEPOSITS

Juan M. Pestana1, M. ASCE

Christopher E. Hunt2, Student M. ASCE
R. Robert Goughnour3, M. ASCE
Ann M. Kammerer2, Student M. ASCE

ABSTRACT
The use of vertical drains to improve the performance of potentially liquefiable
ground during earthquakes has received increased attention over the last two
decades. This paper briefly describes the formulation of a finite element code,
FEQDrain, developed to analyze the development of excess pore pressure in a
layered soil profile, accounting for vertical and horizontal drainage. The code
includes equations describing a vertical drain with a non-constant “equivalent
hydraulic conductivity” which more accurately describes the flow properties of
perforated pipes and wick drains, and head losses due to horizontal flow into the
drain. It can also model the presence of a reservoir directly connected to the drain,
allowing the accumulation of the water discharged by the drain element as well as
head losses in the reservoir itself. In contrast, most analyses used in practice assume
the water level in the drain is at the ground surface and therefore all flow into the
drain escapes. The accumulation of water within the drain, however, can lead to a
significant retardation of flow into the drain, causing an increase in the predicted
pore pressures developed during the earthquake.

INTRODUCTION
Over the past several decades, research into seismically induced liquefaction, largely
in the United States and Japan, has followed several different paths. Early
investigations focused on the causes of liquefaction and determination of the

1
Assistant Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept, University of California, Berkeley,
CA 94720
2
Graduate Student Researcher, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720
3
Principal, Geotechnics America, Inc., P.O. Box 2324, Peachtree City, GA 30269
1 Pestana, et al.
susceptibility of soils and sites to this phenomenon (Seed & Peacock, 1971; Seed &
Idriss, 1971; Lee & Albaisa, 1974). In latter years, while research has continued in
these areas, there has been much more focus on quantifying the effects of
liquefaction on sites and structures.

In addition to the research into causes and effects of seismically induced

liquefaction, many researchers and practitioners have attempted to develop field
techniques for remediation of susceptible sites. These methods generally involve
densification of the soil to reduce its ability to generate excess pore pressures, or
installation of drains to dissipate much of the excess pore pressure generated during a
seismic event, or, in some instances, a combination of the two techniques (Baez &
Martin, 1992). Along with these field techniques, analytical tools have been
developed to aid in the design of remediation schemes.

Two of the most widely used analytical tools for designing remediation schemes
using drainage are a computer code called LARF by Seed and Booker (1976), and
another by Onoue (1988), both of which were also used to develop simplified design
charts. These codes attempt to analyze the effect of gravel drains on a liquefiable
soil system. LARF, probably the most widely used of these tools, is a finite element
code which analyzes a single elevation within a liquefiable soil profile. It examines
radial drainage towards a “perfect”, infinitely permeable drain at the center of the
system, and assumes that any flow of excess pore pressure that reaches that drain has
exited the system. Onoue’s experiments (Onoue, 1987) and finite difference code
(Onoue, 1988) challenge the “perfect” drain concept of LARF, adding well
resistance as a key component of the analysis, and stating that by ignoring this
component, LARF yields unconservative results.

The analysis in this paper is performed using a new finite element computer code,
FEQDrain (Pestana et al., 1997), which incorporates and improves upon the
capabilities of the previous ones by Seed and Booker and by Onoue. In addition,
FEQDrain provides the capability to analyze remediation with newer composite
drainage products, which typically feature a perforated geopipe for transmission of
water and a geotextile fabric to prevent clogging of the drain. A key component of
FEQDrain, which will be explored in this paper, is its ability to look at storage of the
flow entering the drain. This storage appears as a rise in the water level within the
drain and acts as an additional static head that retards subsequent flow into the drain.
It has been found that this additional head can have a significant effect on the ability
of the drain to reduce the excess pore pressures within the liquefiable layer.

FEQDrain ANALYTICAL METHOD

The basic equations FEQDrain uses to analyze the generation and dissipation of pore
water pressure are the same ones used by Seed and Booker (1976), Booker, Rahman
and Seed (1976), and Onoue (1988), with modifications in the treatment of boundary
conditions and drain elements. The flow of pore water is governed by Darcy’s Law
as

2 Pestana, et al.
  u   ∂u ∂u g 
{∇}T [k ]∇  = mv  −  (1)
 γw  ∂t ∂t 
where ∇ is the gradient operator, [k] is the matrix of permeability coefficients
assuming isotropic conditions in a horizontal plane, u is the excess pore pressure, γw
is the unit weight of water, mv is the coefficient of volume compressibility (assumed
isotropic), and ug is the excess pore pressure generated by cycling shear stresses due
to earthquake loading. The generation term can be expressed in terms of the number
of stress cycles in an earthquake, N, as
∂u g ∂u g ∂N
= (2)
∂t ∂N ∂t

Widely used pore pressure generation curves (Seed et al., 1975b) are described by
the equation
1
ug 2  N  2θ
= arcsin  (3)
σ 'o π  Nl 
where σ’o is the initial mean effective stress, Nl is the number of uniform stress
cycles that will cause liquefaction if no drainage is provided, and θ is an empirical
constant dependent on soil type and test conditions which is taken as 0.7 for a wide
range of soils (Seed et al., 1975b). Taking the derivative of equation (3) yields
∂u g σ 'o 1 π u
= 2θ −1
where X = (4)
∂N θπN l sin ( X ) cos( X ) 2 σ 'o
By representing the cyclic loading of an earthquake as a series of uniform stress
cycles, Neq, over a duration td (Seed et al., 1975a), the last part of equation (2) can be
represented as
∂N N eq ∂N
= (0 < t ≤ td) and = 0 (t > td) (5)
∂t td ∂t

Drain treatment in FEQDrain is handled in one of four different ways. In the first
case, there is no drain, thus allowing the site to be analyzed prior to remediation.
The second method uses a “perfect” drain, similar to LARF, in which excess pore
pressures below the water table within the drain are uniform. Thus, if the water level
in the drain starts out at the ground surface, the excess pore pressures in the drain
will always be zero. If however, the water level is below the ground surface, water
can accumulate within the drain, leading to a uniform rise in the excess pore
pressures throughout the drain, thus retarding subsequent entry of water.

The third method follows an Onoue-type analysis in which the drain is represented
by a soil element with both horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities which
can be set independently of the soil outside the drain. Thus, a very high permeability
channel can be created. As in the “perfect” drain method, FEQDrain has the
additional capability for allowing water to accumulate within the drain itself.

3 Pestana, et al.
The last drain type in FEQDrain was created to model newer composite drains
consisting of a perforated geopipe, frequently wrapped in a geofabric to prevent
clogging. For this analysis, the head loss in the drain is calculated in two parts.
First, there is a lateral component calculated as
Q2 Q
∆h = 2 + (6)
Aorf ⋅ 2 g Asurf ⋅ψ
where ∆h is the head loss, Q is the flow across the pipe, Aorf is the area of the orifices
through which Q flows, Asurf is the surface area of the geofabric through which Q
flows, and ψ is the permittivity of the geofabric. Second, there is a vertical
component of head loss for the water that has gotten into the drain and is flowing
through it, computed using a form of Manning’s Equation as
∆h
= c1(Q ) or ∆h = ∆z ⋅ c1(Q )
c2 c2
(7)
∆z
where ∆z is the horizontal distance over which the head loss is being calculated, and
c1 and c2 are parameters specific to the composite drain being used.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASES TO BE STUDIED

Figure 1 shows a schematic of the system being analyzed. A two-layer soil system

s
d

Low Permeability DWL

1m GWT
Clay
Drain

5m Liquefiable
Sand Deposit

Impermeable Base

Figure 1: Schematic of System Being Analyzed

4 Pestana, et al.
with a very low permeability clay overlying the liquefiable sand layer was chosen.
The parameter s is the diameter of the drain, d is the diameter of the tributary area
the drain is acting upon, GWT is the depth to the ground water table, and DWL is the
depth to the water level within the drain.

Analysis was performed on the profile in Figure 1 to compare cases with and without
storage capabilities, with differing amounts of storage, with different constant
hydraulic conductivity (Onoue-type) drain resistances, with different sized reservoirs
in the upper layer, and over several different spacing ratios. In order that each case
be comparable, the initial effective stresses in the liquefiable layer were set equal by
adding a constant value of overburden at the surface. This however, caused the
initial effective stresses in the upper layer to be unequal. For this reason, the upper
layer was effectively disconnected from the lower layer by giving it very low
hydraulic conductivities and by giving it zero potential for generation of pore
pressures. In effect, this prevents FEQDrain from analyzing the vertical migration of
pore pressures through the upper soil layer, and forces all flow through the lower
layer and the drain.

“PERFECT” DRAIN WITHOUT STORAGE CAPACITY

Figure 2 shows average pore pressure ratios, Ruz(max), versus cycle ratio, rN. Ruz is
the average pore pressure ratio at a depth z in the liquefiable layer. In all of the cases
run for this paper, as the upper soil layer acted as a barrier to continuing vertical

1.0

0.8 s/d = 10
s/d = 8
s/d = 7
s/d = 6
s/d = 5
Ru (max)

0.6 s/d = 4
z

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
r
N

Figure 2: Pore Pressure Ratio Variation with Drain Spacing (no storage)

5 Pestana, et al.
flow, the maximum value of Ruz, Ruz(max), occurred at the interface between the
upper and lower soil layers. The cycle ratio, rN, is a ratio of the number of uniform
stress cycles in an earthquake versus the number of uniform stress cycles required to
cause liquefaction in the soil layer in question under undrained conditions. The
purpose of extending the tests to very large, and likely unreasonable, values of rN
was to generate enough pore pressure to show the full effect of the drain. There may
be specific soils that reach these same levels of pore pressure ratio in fewer cycles,
and thus at smaller values of rN.

The main purpose in examining the “perfect” drain case without storage is to show
the general trends that occur with pore pressure generation and dissipation. At tight
drain spacings (s/d = 4, 5 & 6), where the tributary area given by the parameter s is
not too large, the pore pressure ratio rises steeply at first, but reaches an equilibrium
point quickly as well, where the pore pressure being generated is equivalent to the
amount being dissipated. At this point, the curve levels out into a flat line. At very
wide drain spacings (s/d = 8 & 10) pore pressures ratios rise very steeply and
continue to rise as there the tributary area is large enough to continue generating
more pore pressure than the drain can handle. Thus, the soil liquefies. The average
value may be lower than 1.0 as the soil close to the drain will still be much lower
than 1.0 while, the soil at the edge of the tributary will almost definitely be
completely liquefied. The intermediate drain spacing (s/d = 7) rises steeply at first
and appears to be bending over toward an equilibrium value similar to the smaller
drain spacings. However, there are two factors that cause the curve to steepen again.
First, the generation curve is nonlinear, and as the soil approaches a liquefied state,
pore pressure is generated more quickly. Second, following the work of Lee and
Albaisa (1974) and Seed et al. (1975b), FEQDrain implements a nonlinear
coefficient of volumetric compressibility which increases rapidly at high values of
pore pressure ratio, thus increasing the storage capacity within the soil itself, leading
to lower dissipation of pore pressures.

“PERFECT” DRAIN WITH STORAGE CAPACITY

If the water table in the system is not at the ground surface, there is room within the
drain for water to rise. This rise of water in the drain distributes itself as an increase
in static head throughout the drain, thus creating a back pressure that prevents pore
pressures from dissipating into the drain as easily as before. Figure 3 demonstrates
the, in some cases drastic, effect that allowing water to accumulate in the drain has
on the system. For all storage cases shown, the water level in the drain began at a 1
meter depth.

Once again, the problem can be divided into three zones, depending on the drain
spacing of the system. At the small drain spacing (s/d = 4), the rise in the water level
in the drain forces a steady rise in the pore pressure ratios in the drain compared to
the case with no storage. The curve does not reach an equilibrium point because the
water level is continuing to rise throughout the whole earthquake, thus adding more
resistance continually. In the case of s/d = 6, where the previous case reached an

6 Pestana, et al.
 1.0

0.8 s/d = 10
s/d = 10 (stor)
s/d = 8
s/d = 8 (stor)
s/d = 6
s/d = 6 (stor)
Ru (max)

0.6 s/d = 4
s/d = 4 (stor)
z

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
r
N
Figure 3: Pore Pressure Ratio Variation with Drain Spacing and Storage

equilibrium point early on, the rise in the water table increased the pore pressures
enough to push the curve into the nonlinear range which eventually led to full
liquefaction. Finally, at the high values of drain spacing (s/d = 8 & 10), as the pore
pressure ratio is already rising very quickly, the increased resistance to flow does not
have as much of an effect. Still, in the steepest portion of the curve for s/d = 8, there
is a 10% increase in pore pressure ratio.

DRAIN WITH STORAGE AND CONSTANT Kx & Ky RESISTANCE

Research by Onoue (1988) showed the effect of including drain resistance in the
form of constant values of kx and ky in the drain. He demonstrated that ignoring this
resistance was unconservative, even when kx and ky in the drain were 400 times
larger than the hydraulic conductivity in the soil, when Seed and Booker (1976) said
the drain need only be 200 times more permeable than the soil for an essentially free
draining condition to occur. Figure 4 shows a combined plot of storage and several
different levels of drain resistance, given by the ratio kd/ks, where kd is the hydraulic
conductivity of the drain and ks is the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. The plots
are only for a drain spacing of s/d = 5 with water level in the drain beginning at a 1
meter depth.

The data displays the relative scale of importance between storage and drain
resistance. It is immediately obvious that neither of them can be ignored in the
analysis. The case of infinite kd/ks is equivalent to zero resistance. For the drain

7 Pestana, et al.
 1.0

0.8
No Storage
k /k = Infinity
d s
k /k = 1000
d s
Ru (max)

0.6 k /k = 750
d s
k /k = 500
d s
k /k = 250
d s
z

k /k = 100
0.4 d s
k /k = 50
d s
k /k = 10
d s

0.2

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
r
N

Figure 4: Pore Pressure Ratio with Storage and Varying Drain Resistance (s/d = 5)

spacing shown, the pore pressure ratio rises gradually to approximately 0.7 by the
end of the test and is beginning to curve up into the steep nonlinear portion. The
addition of even a very small amount of resistance (kd/ks = 1000) is sufficient to
drive the soil to liquefaction by the end of the test. There is a steady increase in pore
pressure ratio as the resistance goes up. The case with kd/ks = 250, which is close to
Seed and Booker’s cutoff ratio of 200, shows nearly equal influence of storage and
drain resistance. Thus, as one would expect, the addition of drain storage takes a
situation which Onoue already pointed out as being unconservative, and shows it to
be even more critical. In addition, for a larger tributary area,

DRAIN WITH VARIATION OF INITIAL WATER DEPTH

All of the previous cases involving storage have looked at an initial water depth of 1
meter in the drain. In some cases, there is sufficient water from the earthquake to fill
the drain up to the surface, at which point the pore pressure ratio curve then tends to
find an equilibrium value. Figure 5 looks at the case where the starting water level in
the drain is raised to several values. This has the effect of reducing the amount of
storage that can occur within the drain, thus putting a cap on the amount of resistance
the drain can feel due to the rise in the water table. As the initial water level rises,
the series of pore pressure curves generated are bracketed by the maximum values
with water at 1 meter and the zero storage case with water at the ground surface. As
the earthquake progresses, all of the curves with initial water levels below the
surface follow the same curve. When the water level in any given case reaches the

8 Pestana, et al.
 1.0

DWL = 1.0m
DWL = 0.8m
DWL = 0.6m
0.8 DWL = 0.4m
DWL = 0.2m
DWL = 0.0m
Ru (max)

0.6
z

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
r
N

Figure 5: Pore Pressure Ratio with Varying Initial Drain Water Levels (s/d = 5)

ground surface, there is no more increase in drain resistance and the pore pressure
ratio curve seeks out an equilibrium level. Thus, the cases that have less room for
water to rise in yield a lower maximum pore pressure ratio. Once again, the curves
in Figure 5 are for s/d = 5 and a larger tributary area will generate more pore
pressures, leading to curves that may become nonlinear with effects that are not
nearly as regular as shown here.

DRAIN WITH PRESENCE OF RESERVOIR OF VARYING SIZE

Geotechnics America, Inc., has taken a novel approach to reducing both the
resistance to flow into a drain, but also reducing the rise in the water level within the
drain itself. By using a composite drainage product consisting of a perforated
geopipe surrounded by a filter fabric to prevent clogging of the orifices, they are
using a vertical drain that, while it has resistance to radial flow into the drain, has
very low resistance to vertical flow within the drain as compared to the typical gravel
drains used in practice. Additionally, because the pipes are not filled with gravel,
they can achieve the same flow and storage capacities with a smaller cross sectional
area. Geotechnics America, Inc. has also developed a technique by which they auger
a hole larger than the diameter of the drain near the ground surface and fill it with
crushed rock or gravel. This acts as a reservoir for flow rising out of the drain during
an earthquake, and at the same time, if the equivalent area of the reservoir is larger
than that of the drain, provides a means for reducing the rise in water level within the
drain as the same volume of water is now spread out over a larger area.

9 Pestana, et al.
 1.0
R/D = 1
R/D = 2
R/D = 3
0.8 R/D = 4
R/D = 5
Ru (max)

0.6
z

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
r
N

Figure 6: Pore Pressure Ratio with Varying Effective Reservoir Area (s/d = 5)

Figure 6 shows a series of cases where the water level in the drain began at a 1 meter
depth, with a reservoir modeled above 1 meter. The value R/D is the ratio of the
effective cross sectional area of the reservoir to that of the drain. Thus, a value of
R/D = 2 indicates a reservoir that can store twice as much water as the drain. For the
case of s/d = 5 shown, a doubling of the size of the reservoir leads to a significant
reduction in the maximum pore pressure ratio. This comes about as in the R/D = 1
case, by the end of the earthquake the water has risen to 0.14 meters from the ground
surface. In the R/D = 2 case, the water rises only to .55 meters from the surface, just
over half the rise of the first case. This translates into a much smaller static head
retarding the flow of water into the drain. As the reservoir to drain spacing ratio
increases, the pore pressure ratio curves converge on the case of zero storage when in
effect the reservoir is the ground surface and thus is infinite in dimension.

CONCLUSIONS
Historically, analysis performed for the remediation of earthquake induced
liquefaction through the use of drainage, most notably gravel drains, has included the
assumption that water could not accumulate within the drain. This only holds for
cases in which the water table is at the surface. If the initial water level in the drain
is below the surface, it will rise within the drain, creating a backpressure that will
retard subsequent flow out of the susceptible soil deposit. This will in turn lead to
higher pore pressures within the soil. Analyses that do not take this phenomenon
into account may lead to unconservative design of remediation systems.

10 Pestana, et al.
Both the finite element code LARF (Seed & Booker, 1976) and the finite difference
code by Onoue (1988) were used to create simplified design charts. The finite
element code presented herein, FEQDrain, is capable of reproducing the charts by
Seed and Booker, and those by Onoue. However, with the additional ability of
calculating the effect of storage capacity within the drain, the number of parameters
involved in any normalizations to produce design charts capable of handling flow
through drains with resistance and storage was not considered feasible. Instead, a
series of representative figures were presented to serve as guidelines for the potential
issues that may arise while performing this type of analysis. Any comprehensive
remediation scheme involving drainage should be examined on a site specific basis.

REFERENCES
Baez, J.I., and Martin, G.R. (1992). “Quantitative evaluation of stone column
techniques for earthquake liquefaction mitigation,” Proceedings, Tenth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, Vol. 3, 1477-1483.
Booker, J.R., Rahman, M.S., Seed, H.B. (1976). “GADFLEA: A Computer Program
for the Analysis of Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipation During Cyclic or
Earthquake Loading,” Report No. EERC 76-24, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, October 1976.
Lee, K.L., and Albaisa, A. (1974). “Earthquake Induced Settlements in Saturated
Sands,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No.
GT4, 387-406.
Onoue, A., Mori, N., and Takano, J. (1987). “In-Situ Experiment and Analysis on
Well Resistance of Gravel Drains,” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 27,
No. 2, 42-60.
Onoue, A. (1988). “Diagrams Considering Well Resistance for Designing Spacing
Ratio of Gravel Drains,” Technical Note, Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol.
28, No. 3, 160-168.
Pestana, J.M., Hunt, C.H., Kammerer, A.M. (1997). “FEQDRAIN: A Finite Element
Program for the Analysis of Pore Pressure Generation and Dissipation with a
Drain, During an Earthquake,” Not yet published.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. (1971). “Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil
Liquefaction Potential,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, 1249-1273.
Seed, H.B., and Peacock, W.H. (1971). “Test Procedures for Measuring Soil
Liquefaction Characteristics,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM8, 1099-1119.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., Makdisi, F., and Banerjee, N. (1975a). “Representation of
Irregular Stress Time Histories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in
Liquefaction Analyses,” Report No. EERC 75-29, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, October 1975.
Seed, H.B., Martin, P.P., and Lysmer, J. (1975b). “The Generation and Dissipation
of Pore Water Pressures During Soil Liquefaction,” Report No. EERC 75-26,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, August 1975.

11 Pestana, et al.
Seed, H.B., and Booker, J.R. (1976). “Stabilization of Potentially Liquefiable
Deposits Using Gravel Drain Systems,” Report No. EERC 76-10, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, April 1976

KEYWORDS
Liquefaction, Sands, Drainage, Finite Element Method, Pore Pressure, Generation,
Dissipation, Finite Element Method, Vertical Drains, Geopipes

12 Pestana, et al.