geosciences

Article
Study of VCM Improved Soft Soil Properties Using
Non-Destructive and Destructive Techniques
Diandri Fakhri Alditra, Susit Chaiprakaikeow * and Suttisak Soralump
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand;
diandrifakhrialditra.a@ku.th (D.F.A.); soralump_s@yahoo.com (S.S.)
* Correspondence: fengssck@ku.ac.th




Received: 22 June 2020; Accepted: 3 August 2020; Published: 6 August 2020


Abstract: In Bangkok, the demand for housing is extensively high due to the city growing rapidly,
so some swampy areas are filled with soil. A Prefabricated Vertical Drain (PVD) with the Vacuum
Consolidation Method (VCM) is required to make the soil applicable for construction. However,
it is difficult to monitor the soil strength during the process because the airtight sheet will be broken.
This research aims to study the possibility of using the Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW)
test to monitor the effectiveness of the VCM method and to study the development of shear-wave
velocity over the consolidation period. Multiple instruments were installed on site, namely, vacuum
gauges, settlement plates, and a piezometer, as well as a borehole to monitor the pump pressure,
settlement, porewater pressure, and soil properties. Ten SASW tests were taken to measure the
change in shear-wave velocity (Vs) over 7 months. The results showed an increment in the Vs along
with increments in the settlement and undrained shear strength (Su), as well as a decrement in
pore pressure during the consolidation period. The correlation between Vs and soil settlement was
developed to predict the amount of settlement using Vs. These all indicated the potential of using the
SASW method for soil improvement monitoring purposes.

Keywords: Prefabricated Vertical Drain (PVD); Vacuum Consolidation Method (VCM); Spectral
Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW); shear-wave velocity (Vs); settlement; monitoring

1. Introduction
In Bangkok, the demand for housing is extremely high due to the city growing rapidly. This raises
the question as to where the new housing should be, since most of the area has already been occupied.
Some swampy areas were filled with soil to meet this demand. Soil improvement is vital because
the backfilled material with its soft soil properties is initially not feasible for construction due to the
settlement issue. The function of soil improvement is to increase the soil strength and performance in
order to be able to withstand the load applied to the soil due to the construction. One of the examples
of the soil improvement method is using a Prefabricated Vertical Drain (PVD) for a faster consolidation
rate [1]. Furthermore, a PVD can be applied together with the Vacuum Consolidation Method (VCM)
to replace the surcharge load. Many countries have been successfully using this method for land
reclamation and soil improvement work [2–7]
An airtight sheet is used above the installed PVD area, as an impermeable layer covering the
soil surface, allowing both the air and water to be sucked from the ground by the pump [8,9].
This airtight-sheet method has successfully been used for vacuum consolidation projects at soil
improvement sites [10,11]. The destructive soil test to monitor the soil parameters during the
improvement cannot be performed without damaging the sheet itself due to the presence of this airtight
sheet. Nevertheless, an in situ, non-destructive test is still an option, and one of the tests is the Spectral

Geosciences 2020, 10, 300; doi:10.3390/geosciences10080300 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences

Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 2 of 15
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

Waves (SASW)
Analysis method.
of Surface Waves This will bemethod.
(SASW) the first This
SASW test
will betothe
monitor the backfilled
first SASW soil at the PVD
test to monitor with
backfilled
the
soil VCM
at theat a site
PVD in Thailand.
with the VCM at a site in Thailand.
The SASW method is a seismic method utilizing surface waves of the Rayleigh type and has
been developed to determine the shear-wave velocity (Vs) and shear modulus profiles of geotechnical
sites [12].
[12]. The
Thetest
testuses
usesimpact
impactsources
sourcesto produce
to produce the the
surface wave
surface and and
wave receivers to retrieve
receivers the data.
to retrieve the
A periodical
data. SASW test
A periodical SASWis proposed as a method
test is proposed to monitor
as a method the development
to monitor of the soil
the development of stiffness
the soil
overtime. This SASW
stiffness overtime. Thistest
SASW willtest
be will
compared
be comparedwith various field-instrument
with various results
field-instrument to check
results the
to check
compatibility
the compatibility between
betweenthe the
SASWSASW test test
datadata
andand
other instruments.
other instruments.TheTheobjectives of this
objectives research
of this are
research
firstly to study
are firstly thethe
to study possibility of of
possibility using
using thetheSASW
SASWmethod
methodtotomonitor
monitorthe theeffectiveness
effectiveness of of the
the VCM
method; then,
then, to
tostudy
studythethedevelopment
development ofofthethe shear-wave
shear-wave velocity
velocity overover the consolidation
the consolidation period;
period; and,
and,
lastly,lastly, to create
to create a correlation
a correlation between between
the Vs andthe Vs and settlement
settlement for a VCM forsettlement
a VCM settlement
predictionprediction
based on
based
the Vs.on the Vs.

2. Methodology
2. Methodology

2.1. Study
2.1. Study Area
Area
The VCM
The VCM sitesite is
is located
located inin the
the north-eastern
north-eastern part
part of
of Bangkok,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Thailand. It It is
is located
located onon an
an old
old
pond that has been filled with soil material. Figure 1 shows that the site is divided into
pond that has been filled with soil material. Figure 1 shows that the site is divided into 3 zones: Zone3 zones: Zone A,
Zone B, and Zone C. Figure 2 shows the boundary between Zone A and Zone
A, Zone B, and Zone C. Figure 2 shows the boundary between Zone A and Zone B. In this research,B. In this research, only
ZoneZone
only B thatBwill
thatbe monitored
will with with
be monitored the SASW test. The
the SASW test. area of Zone
The area B is approximately
of Zone B is approximately m2 and
6700 6700 m2
the original soil at the site was soft Bangkok clay. In the past, approximately a 15-m-thick
and the original soil at the site was soft Bangkok clay. In the past, approximately a 15-m-thick slice of slice of the
original
the soil was
original removed,
soil was turning
removed, the area
turning theinto
areaainto
pond. Recently,
a pond. the pond
Recently, thewas
pond backfilled with thewith
was backfilled soil
for construction
the purposes.
soil for construction On top ofOn
purposes. thetop
backfilled soil, layers
of the backfilled of materials
soil, were placed
layers of materials werein aplaced
particular
in a
order, namely, a layer of geotextile, a layer of a 0.5-m-thick sand blanket, another layer
particular order, namely, a layer of geotextile, a layer of a 0.5-m-thick sand blanket, another layer of of geotextile,
and then anand
geotextile, airtight-sheet (geomembrane)
then an airtight-sheet layer at thelayer
(geomembrane) very at
topthe
to very
covertopthetosurface.
cover the surface.

Figure 1. The
Figure 1. overall zone
The overall zoneofofthe
theVacuum
VacuumConsolidation
ConsolidationMethod
Method (VCM)
(VCM) sitesite
andand a view
a view of the
of the planplan
for
for
the the instruments'
instruments’ location
location in Zone
in Zone B. B.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 3 of 15
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

Figure 2.2.AAphoto
Figure photoofof Zone
Zone A and
A and Zone
Zone B, three
B, three months
months after
after the the pumping
pumping startedstarted
(camera(camera facing
facing south).
south).
2.2. Boreholes and Soil Properties
2.2. Boreholes and Soil Properties
The two boreholes are located approximately 2.5 m apart with different times, from before the soil
improvement (26 February
The two boreholes are2019)
locatedandapproximately
after the soil improvement
2.5 m apart with (15 March
different 2020).
times,Boring
fromlog datathe
before of
30.45 m in Zone B provided information of the soil properties, such as soil
soil improvement (26 February 2019) and after the soil improvement (15 March 2020). Boring log data strength, Atterberg’s limits,
the watermcontent,
of 30.45 in Zoneand the unit weight
B provided of soil of
information from theasoil
soil properties,
sample of 0.5 suchm long,
as soil which was collected
strength, Atterberg’sat
every
limits,1.5
themwaterdepth.content,
A thin walland thetubeunit
andweight
spilt spoon
of soilsampler
from aweresoil used
sample forofsoft
0.5clay layer which
m long, and dense
was
sand layer, respectively. It is worth noting that the backfilled soil was collected
collected at every 1.5 m depth. A thin wall tube and spilt spoon sampler were used for soft clay layer from various locations.
In
andthis study,sand
dense however,
layer,the soil was assumed
respectively. It is worthto benoting
a homogeneous soil.
that the backfilled soil was collected from
Before the pump started, the boring log data had shown
various locations. In this study, however, the soil was assumed to be a homogeneous that there were 2 layers of soil.
the soil profile
in Zone B. The first layer ranges from very soft to soft High Plasticity
Before the pump started, the boring log data had shown that there were 2 layers of the soilClay (CH), according to Unified
profile
Soil Classification
in Zone B. The firstSystem [13], with
layer ranges fromaverydepth ofto
soft between
soft High 0 and 21 m. Clay
Plasticity The second layer wastodense
(CH), according to
Unified
very dense Silty Sand (SM), with a depth of between 21 and 30.45 m (end
Soil Classification System [13], with a depth of between 0 and 21 m. The second layer was dense to of borehole). The following
soil
veryproperties
dense Siltyuse an average
Sand (SM), with value. For of
a depth the clay layer,
between the 30.45
21 and undrained
m (end shear strength The
of borehole). (Su)following
from the
Unconfined Compression Test value.
was 9.68 2 3
soil properties use an average ForkN/m
the clay , the unit the
layer, weight 1.6 t/mshear
undrained , the strength
water content 56.96%,
(Su) from the
the Liquid Limit 77.33, and the Plastic Limit 27.44. For the sand layer,
Unconfined Compression Test was 9.68 kN/m , the unit weight 1.6 t/m , the water content 56.96%,
2 the
3 (N1)60 value was 25 and
water content
the Liquid 19.85%.
Limit 77.33, and the Plastic Limit 27.44. For the sand layer, the (N1)60 value was 25 and
water content 19.85%.stopped, there were some soil property changes that were observed from the
After the pump
boring log data.
After the pumpFromstopped,
a 1.5 to 4.5 m depth,
there were some the strength was increased
soil property changesby that t/m2 ,observed
3.5were the waterfrom content
the
was decreased 3
boring log data.byFrom 30%,a and
1.5 to the
4.5unit weightthe
m depth, was increased
strength wasby 0.36 t/mby
increased . From
3.5 t/ma2,4.5thetowater
21 mcontent
depth,
the 2 , the water content was decreased by 8.5%, and the unit weight
wasstrength
decreased wasbyincreased
30%, andby 1.7unit
the t/mweight was increased by 0.36 t/m3. From a 4.5 to 21 m depth, the
was increased by 0.12 t/m 3 . From a 21 to 30.45 m depth, there were insignificant changes
strength was increased by 1.7 t/m , the water content
2 was decreased by 8.5%, and the unitinweight
the SPT-N
was
value and water
increased by 0.12content. The summary
t/m3. From a 21 to 30.45of them boring
depth, log theredata
werebefore and after changes
insignificant the soil improvement
in the SPT-N
are shown
value in Figures
and water 3 andThe
content. 4. summary of the boring log data before and after the soil improvement
are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Soil properties from the consolidation test results were available from the borehole samples at 3
different depths. From a depth 6 to 6.5 m, the water content was 69.8%, the total unit weight 1.61 t/m3,
the preconsolidation pressure 5.6 t/m2, the Cc 1.193, the Cs 0.132, the OCR 1.19, and the Cv 5.09
cm2/sec. From a depth of 12 to 12.5 m, the soil was a normally consolidated clay with a water content
of 68.7%, a total unit weight of 1.56 t/m3, a Cc of 0.707, a Cs of 0.083, and a Cv of 2.22 cm2/sec. From a
depth of 18 to 18.5 m, the soil was a normally consolidated clay with a water content of 58.1%, a total
unit weight of 1.61 t/m3, a Cc of 0.546, a Cs of 0.074, and a Cv of 0.18 cm2/sec.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 4 of 15
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

BORING LOG ZONE B

TOTAL DEPTH : 30.45 m BORING COMPLETED : 26/2/2019

SAMPLE NO

RECOVERY
STANDARD UNDRAINED SHEAR ATTERBERG LIMITS TOTAL UNIT

SPT (N1)60
DEPTH (m)

SYMBOL

METHOD
SPT-N

SOIL
PENETRATION STRENGTH Wn WEIGHT
SOIL DESCRIPTION (per
12ft) TEST VALUE UC (t/m3)
2
(blows/ft) (t/m ) (%)

0 25 50 75 100 0 1 2 3 4 0 25 50 75 100 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4

0.00- Ground Surface - 0.00
- (0.00 - 21.00 m) CLAY (CH) -
WO
- Grey, Very Soft to Soft, -

- high plasticity. ST 1 - 0.59 1.54

2.00- - 2.00
WO
- -

- ST 2 - 1.02 1.62
- -
WO
4.00- - 4.00
- ST 3 - 1.05 1.63
- -
WO
- -

6.00- ST 4 - 6.00 1.08 1.63

- -
WO
- -

- ST 5 - 1.18 1.61
8.00- - 8.00
WO
- -

- ST 6 - 1.30 1.62
- -
WO
10.00- - 10.00
- ST 7 - 0.51 1.60
- -
WO
- -

12.00- ST 8 - 12.00 1.00 1.61

- -
WO
- -

- ST 9 - 1.22 1.63
14.00- - 14.00
WO
- -

- ST 10 - 1.33 1.63
- -
WO
16.00- - 16.00
- ST 11 - 0.68 1.55
- -
WO
- -

18.00- ST 12 - 18.00 0.48 1.53

- -
WO
- -

- ST 13 - 1.39 1.57
20.00- - 20.00
WO
- -

- SS 1 - 17.6 38 38 NP
- (21.00 - 30.45 m) Silty SAND (SM) -
WO
22.00- Brown, Grey, Dense to Very Dense, - 22.00
- fine to coarse grained. SS 2 - 24.7 55 55
- -
WO
- -

24.00- SS 3 - 20.1 46 24.00 46 NP

- -
WO
- -

- SS 4 - 29.4 69 69
26.00- - 26.00
WO
- -

- SS 5 - 19.1 46 46 NP
- -
WO
28.00- - 28.00
- SS 6 - 29.5 73 73
- -
WO
- -

30.00- SS 7 - 30.8 78 30.00 78 NP

End of boring 30.45 m

Thin Wall Tube Wash Out UC : Unconfined Compression Test Wn : Natural Water Content

Split Spoon Augering

Figure3.3.Summary
Figure Summaryof
ofZone
Zone B’s
B’s boring
boring log
log data
data before
before the
the soil
soil improvement
improvementon
on26
26February
February2019.
2019.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 5 of 15

Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

BORING LOG ZONE B

TOTAL DEPTH : 30.45 m BORING COMPLETED : 15/03/2020

SAMPLE NO

RECOVERY
STANDARD UNDRAINED SHEAR ATTERBERG LIMITS TOTAL UNIT

SPT (N1)60
DEPTH (m)

SYMBOL

METHOD
SPT-N

SOIL
PENETRATION STRENGTH Wn WEIGHT
SOIL DESCRIPTION (per
12ft) TEST VALUE Undisturbed (t/m3)
2
(blows/12ft) (t/m ) (%)

GROUND SURFACE 0 25 50 75 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.00- -
0.0
- TOPSOIL (0m - APROX. 1.5m) -

- WO -

- -
ST 1 4.33 1.90
2.00- (APROX. 1.50m - APROX. 4.50m) -
2.0
- CLAY (CH) WO -

- MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF -

ST 2 5.38 1.96
- HIGH PLASTICITY -

4.00- WO -
4.0
- -

- ST 3 - 3.39 1.80
(APROX. 4.50m - APROX. 19.50m)
- CLAY (CH) WO -

6.00- SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF -

6.0
ST 4 1.98 1.58
- HIGH PLASTICITY -

- WO -

- -
ST 5 1.92 1.64
8.00- -
8.0
- WO -

- -
ST 6 1.76 1.64
- -

10.00- WO -
10.0
- -
ST 7 2.73 1.83
- -

- WO -

12.00- -
12.0
ST 8 2.00 1.61
- -

- WO -

- -
ST 9 2.40 1.76
14.00- - 14.0
- WO -

- -
ST 10 3.93 1.78
- -

16.00- WO - 16.0
- -
ST 11 1.71 1.58
- -

- WO -

18.00- - 18.0
ST 12 2.66 1.81
- -

- WO -

- -
ST 13 5.39 1.89
20.00- (APROX. 19.50m - APROX. 21.00m) - 20.0
- CLAY (CH) STIFF WO -

- -
(APROX. 21.00m - APROX. 22.50m) SS 1 21
- - 9.7 21
22.00- SILTY SAND (SM) MEDIUM DENSE WO - 22.0
- -
SS 2 35.4 79 79
- (APROX. 22.50m - APROX. 28.50m) -

- SILTY SAND (SM) WO -

24.00- VERY DENSE -

26.1 60 24.0
SS 3 60
- -

- WO -

- -
SS 4 65
26.00- - 27.6 65 26.0
- WO -

- -
SS 5 66
- - 27.3 66

28.00- WO - 28.0
- -
(APROX. 28.50m - E.O.B) SS 6 23.3 58 58
- -

- CLAYEY SAND (SC) WO -

30.00- VERY DENSE - 20.9 53

SS 7 30.0 53 2.08

END OF BORING 30.45 m

Thin Wall Tube Wash Out UC : Unconfined Compression Test Wn : Natural Water Content

Split Spoon Augering

Figure4.4.Summary
Figure Summaryof
of Zone
Zone B’s
B’s boring
boring log
log data
data after
after the
the soil
soilimprovement
improvementon
on15
15March
March2020.
2020.

2.3.Soil
VCM, PVD, andfrom
properties Instrumentations
the consolidation test results were available from the borehole samples at 3
different depths.
In the earlyFrom a depth
1950s, Vacuum 6 toconsolidation
6.5 m, the water
wascontent wasby
suggested 69.8%, the total
Kjellman [14].unit
The weight
PVD and t/m3 ,
1.61sand
the preconsolidation
drains were used topressure 5.6the
discharge
2
t/mpore
, thewater
Cc 1.193,
andthe
to Cs 0.132, the
distribute theOCR 1.19, and
vacuum loadthe CvThe
[15]. cm /sec.
2
5.09vertical
From
drainage systems significantly reduce the drainage path, consequently accelerating the 68.7%,
a depth of 12 to 12.5 m, the soil was a normally consolidated clay with a water content of soil
a consolidation
total unit weight of 1.56 t/m3study,
, a Cc of 2 /sec. From a depth
[16–20]. In this the0.707, a Cs of 0.083,
airtight-sheet methodandwasa Cv of 2.22
used cmseal
for the system for the
vacuum consolidation. A vacuum pump was used with an average pressure of around −80 kPa—
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 6 of 15

of 18 to 18.5 m, the soil was a normally consolidated clay with a water content of 58.1%, a total unit
weight of 1.61 t/m3 , a Cc of 0.546, a Cs of 0.074, and a Cv of 0.18 cm2 /sec.

2.3. VCM, PVD, and Instrumentations

In the early 1950s, Vacuum consolidation was suggested by Kjellman [14]. The PVD and sand drains
were used to discharge the pore water and to distribute the vacuum load [15]. The vertical drainage
systems significantly reduce the drainage path, consequently accelerating the soil consolidation [16–20].
In this study, the airtight-sheet method was used for the seal system for the vacuum consolidation.
A vacuum pump was used with an average pressure of around −80 kPa—continuously during the
consolidation settlement process. A PVD was installed in Zone B with an average depth of 14 m with a
triangular pattern of a 1.0 m × 1.0 m spacing. The vertical drain penetrated the backfilled soil and
the original soil below that. Zone B was instrumented with multiple instruments for monitoring the
progress of the soil improvement.
Five vacuum gauges were placed to monitor the sub-surface pressure with a monitoring frequency
of once per day. Four settlement plates were placed on the sand blanket below the airtight-sheet layer
to observe the soil settlement. There were 3 monitoring plans for the settlement plates. Firstly, for the
first month it was one time per day. Secondly, after the first month to the last half month, it was two
times per week. Thirdly, for the last half month it was one time per day. A piezometer with a vibrating
wire sensor was placed at a depth of 8.5 m at the center of Zone B to observe the change in porewater
pressure over time. Figure 1 also shows the locations of the instruments.

2.4. The SASW Test

Surface waves were used by [21,22], one of the first researchers who tried to examine pavement
systems. The engineers were able to build more advanced tools and equipment due to the advancement
of technology. Because of these new tools, researchers were able to perform better and more accurate
calculations in very little time. Provided with the new, advanced equipment, [23] was able to change
from the empirical to the theoretical level regarding the surface wave method.
SASW is an in situ, low strain, non-destructive test. which has successfully been implemented
by researchers of the University of Texas at Austin, as well as other researchers, to investigate the Vs
and shear modulus of many pavements and highway materials [24–26] and to predict the long-term
settlement based on the Vs and damping characteristics [27]. In Thailand, many SASW tests were
implemented at several dams for material stiffness examination [28–31], measuring the Vs of a dyke
and liquefaction site [32–34], as well as investigating the small strain modulus of the silty sand
subgrades [35].
In this research study, a series of SASW tests were conducted 10 times in a 7-month period—before
the pumping of the VCM started until the pump was shut down; this was the time necessary for the
soil settlement to reach the desired target. The frequency of the SASW testing was twice a month for
the first two months and once a month after that. The test repetition was set in such conditions as the
soil settlement was expected more at the beginning of the consolidation settlement.
The SASW test used receiver spacings of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 20 m. This study used 2 different
configurations of the SASW test, namely, the common source array test configuration and common
receiver mid-point configuration, which are shown on Figure 5. For receiver spacings of 12 and
20 m, the tests were conducted with the former test configuration, while the rest of the spacings were
conducted with the latter test configuration. There are three impact sources used in this study, as shown
in Figure 6. A 300 kg drop weight was used for far receiver spacings, to generate a low frequency
wave to investigate the deep profile, but can only be dropped on the soil outside of Zone B to prevent
this from damaging the airtight sheet in Zone B. A 25 kg small drop weight and a sledgehammer
were used for the intermediate and short spacings and can be used on top of the airtight sheet to
preserve the membrane itself. Since the original backfilled soil was very soft, the sledgehammer could
not generate sufficiently high energy for the receiver spacings larger than 4 m without breaking the
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 7 of 15

air-tight sheet; hence, the 25 kg small drop weight, which can generate higher energy, was used for the
intermediate spacings instead. Two 2-Hz geophones were used as the receivers. The procedure for
the SASW test consisted of the following: firstly, to acquire the data from the field that were collected
by the spectrum analyzer, and then to analyze the dispersion curves and shear-wave velocity profile
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
using the2020,
Geosciences WinSASW
10, x FORprogram developed by Joh in 1996 [36].
PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Two
Twodifferent
differenttest
testconfigurations conducted
configurations in in
conducted thisthis
research: (a) the
research: (a) common receiver
the common mid-
receiver
Figure
point; 5. Two
(b) the different source.
common test configurations conducted in this research: (a) the common receiver mid-
mid-point; (b) the common source.
point; (b) the common source.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The impact sources
sources of the Spectral
Spectral Analysis
Analysis of
of Surface
Surface Waves
Waves(SASW)
(SASW)test:test: (a)
(a) aa 300
300 kg
kg drop
drop
Figure 6. The
weight for farimpact sources of the Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) test: (a) a 300 kg drop
weight far spacing;
spacing;(b)
(b)a a2525kgkg
drop weight
drop forfor
weight intermediate
intermediatespacing; (c) a(c)
spacing; sledge hammer
a sledge for short
hammer for
weight for far spacing; (b) a 25 kg drop weight for intermediate spacing; (c) a sledge hammer for short
spacing.
short spacing.
spacing.
The
The SASW
SASW testtest centerline
centerline was was located
located as as nearly
nearly as as possible
possible to to aa borehole
borehole location
location in in Zone
Zone BB in in
order The
to SASW
be able test
to centerline
compare bothwas located
test data as
sets. nearly
The as
300 possible
kg heavy to a
drop
order to be able to compare both test data sets. The 300 kg heavy drop weight cannot be dropped on borehole
weight location
cannot be in Zone
dropped B in
on
order
the to be able
the surface
surface of to compare
of Zone
Zone both testabove
BB as mentioned
mentioned data and,
above sets. The 300 kgthe
and, therefore,
therefore, heavy
the heavy
heavy dropdrop
dropweight
weight
weight cannot
can
can onlybe dropped
only be
be dropped
dropped on
the surface
outside
outside of of
of ZoneZone B
Zone BB and as
and frommentioned
from the
the edge above
edge of and,
of the
the zonetherefore,
zone as as nearly the
nearly as heavy
as possible,drop
possible, so weight
so the can
the centerlineonly
centerline of be dropped
of the
the SASW
SASW
outside
test of Zone B and from the edge of the zone as nearly as possible,
test is approximately 30 m away from the borehole location. It is worth noting that the centerline of
is approximately 30 m away from the borehole location. It is worth so the
noting centerline
that the of the SASW
centerline of
test
the is
12approximately
the 12 mm spacing
spacing was was30 m awayfrom
different
different from
from thethe
the borehole
rest
rest of
ofthe location.for
thespacing
spacing It ais
for worth noting
asimilar
similar reasonthat
reason as the centerline
asabove.
above. The
The SASW
SASW of
the 12 m spacing
centerline
centerline sometimes
sometimeswas shifted
different
shifted ininfrom
the the restof
the vicinity
vicinity of55the
of m spacing
m due
due to
to somefor asubmerged
some similar reason
submerged water
waterasarea
above.
area being
beingThetrapped
SASW
trapped
centerline
on top of sometimes
on membrane
the membrane shifted inrain.
after
after the vicinity
rain. The of 5 mof
Theduration
duration due
of toSASW
thethe some
SASW submerged
testtest varied
varied water area
between
between 30 being
30 min
min totrapped
1toh;1the
h;
on
thetop of the
increasing
increasing membrane
amount
amount after
of time
of time rain.
was was The duration
because
because ofofthe of the
thenoise SASW
noisepresented test varied
presentedatatthe between
the site.
site. A 30 min to 1 h; the
A lot of construction
construction
increasing
machineryamount
machinery was of time
was operating
operating and
andwas because
creating
creating of the
noises
noises andnoise
and was presented
was captured
captured byat
by thethe
the site. A lot
geophones,
geophones, of construction
rendering
rendering the
the data
data
machinery
unusable. was operating
unusable. The test must be and creating
be repeated
repeated or noises
or even and
even stopped was
stopped until captured
until the by
the source the
source of geophones,
of the
thenoises rendering
noiseswas cleared. data
wascleared. the
unusable.
An The testshear-wave
An average must be repeated velocity or even
of 15stopped
m deepuntil of the theimproved
source of the soilnoises
(Vs was
wascleared.
average shear-wave 15 ) was
(Vs15) used
used as as the
the
An
monitoring average shear-wave
parameter because velocity
the Vs of
can 15
be m deep
different of
at the
each improved
depth
monitoring parameter because the Vs can be different at each depth and the approximate PVD length and soil
the (Vs15)
approximatewas used
PVD as the
length
monitoring
was 14.7 m.parameter
The Vs15 because the Vs canby
can be calculated bethe
different at each
following depthadapted
formula and the approximate
from the Vs30PVD , whichlength
was
was 14.7 m. The Vs15 can be calculated by the following formula
used in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NERHP) for site classification [37]: adapted from the Vs 30, which was

used in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NERHP) for site classification [37]:
15
𝑉𝑠 = 15
𝑉𝑠 = 𝛴 (ℎ ) (1)
ℎ (1)
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 8 of 15

was 14.7 m. The Vs15 can be calculated by the following formula adapted from the Vs30 , which was
used in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NERHP) for site classification [37]:

15
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW Vs15 =  
hx 8 of(1)
15
ΣN
x=1 vx
where hx and vx represent the thickness (in meters) and shear-wave velocity (in m/s) of the xth layer,
where hx and vx represent the thickness (in meters) and shear-wave velocity (in m/s) of the xth layer,
in a total of N, existing in the top 15 m.
in a total of N, existing in the top 15 m.

3.
3. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion

3.1. SASW
SASW Result
Figure 7 shows the Vs profiles for Zone B over over the
the consolidated
consolidated time. The first test was on the
30th of July 2019, before the pump started, and the last test was on the 2nd of March 2020, after the
pump stopped. The The increment
increment in Vs was noticeable over time. The The top
top layer was the sand blanket
with a thickness of approximately 0.5 m, showing a high value of Vs. The middle layer was the very
soft soil with an approximate thickness
thickness of 10 m, showing
showing a low value of Vs. The bottom layer was the
soil with a higher Vs from the layers before. Since the first test to the last, the Vs has changed around
40 m/s
m/s at
at the
thetop
toplayer
layerand andmiddle
middlelayer,
layer,and
and around
around 7070
m/s m/s at the
at the bottom
bottom layer.
layer. TheThetoptop layer
layer has has
the
the highest value of Vs because it is a sand blanket that was affected the most
highest value of Vs because it is a sand blanket that was affected the most by the vacuum by the vacuum pressure
from the pump.
pump. On Onthetheother
otherhand,
hand,the thebottom
bottomlayerlayerhas
hasaahigh
highvalue
valueofofVs,
Vs,potentially
potentiallybecause
becauseofof
a
high
a highoverburden
overburdenpressure
pressurefrom
fromthe theupper
upperlayer.
layer.Note
Notethat
thatthe
theVs
Vsprofile
profile was
was measured
measured from the
ground surface
surface and
and the
theactual
actualground
groundlevellevelatateach
eachtime
timeisisdifferent
differentfrom
fromthethe initial
initial ground
ground level
level due
due to
to
thethe settlement
settlement over
over time.
time.

Figure 7. The
The Vs
Vs profile of the Zone B at different times, from before the start of the pumping until
after the pumping stopped.

3.2. Comparison
3.2. Comparison of
of Settlement
Settlement and
and Vs
Vs
The result
The result from
from the
the settlement
settlement plates
plates was
was recorded
recorded toto determine
determine the
the change
change inin the
thesoil
soilsettlement.
settlement.
The settlement plate of SP-B-01 was used since the location was the closest to the
The settlement plate of SP-B-01 was used since the location was the closest to the SASW test line. SASW test line.
The
The initial
initial SASW SASW testperformed
test was was performed
aroundaround 3 weeks
3 weeks beforebefore the installation
the installation of theinPVD
of the PVD in the
the field. field.
Figure
8Figure
shows8 the
shows the changing
changing of the settlement
of the settlement overVstime.
and Vs15and 15 over
Thetime. The Vs15 with
Vs15 increased increased with the
the increasing
settlement of soil as the soil became denser during the consolidation process. While the settlementthe
increasing settlement of soil as the soil became denser during the consolidation process. While is
settlement is faster at the beginning and then starting to slow down through the end, the
faster at the beginning and then starting to slow down through the end, the total settlement was 1.12 total settlement
m. In contrast, the development of the Vs shows a steady increment over time, with the maximum
deviation from the “linear” trend line being 6.14 m/s.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 9 of 15

was 1.122020,
Geosciences m. 10,
In xcontrast,
FOR PEERthe development of the Vs shows a steady
REVIEW increment over time, with
9 ofthe
15
Geosciences
maximum 2020, 10, x FOR from
deviation PEER REVIEW
the “linear” trend line being 6.14 m/s. 9 of 15

Figure 8. Comparison between the settlement and Vs15 over time.

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Comparison
Comparison between
between the
the settlement
settlement and Vs1515over
and Vs overtime.
time.
Figure 9 shows the correlation between settlement and the Vs15. The correlation between
Figure 99shows
Figure showsthethecorrelation between
correlation settlement
between settlement Vs15the
and theand . The
Vscorrelation between settlement
15. The correlation between
settlement and the Vs15 is well-suited with a straight trendline, where the Vs15 increases gradually
and the Vsand
settlement 15 isthe
well-suited with a straight
Vs15 is well-suited with atrendline, where thewhere
straight trendline, Vs15 increases graduallygradually
the Vs15 increases with the
with the increasing settlement over time. The settlement roughly increased 0.25 m for every 10 m/s
increasing
with settlement
the increasing over time.over
settlement The time.
settlement roughly increased
The settlement roughly0.25 m for every
increased 0.25 m10for
m/severy
increment in
10 m/s
increment in Vs15. An equation was made from this correlation to predict the amount of settlement
Vs .
increment
15 An equation was made from this correlation to predict the amount of settlement
in Vs15. An equation was made from this correlation to predict the amount of settlementby the value of
by the value of the Vs15. The equation can be written as
by Vs15
thethe . Theofequation
value the Vs15. can
Thebe writtencan
equation as be written as
𝑠 = 0.00248 𝑥 𝑉𝑠 x Vs
s = 0.00248 − 1.0484
− 1.0484
(2)
𝑠 = 0.00248 𝑥 𝑉𝑠 − 151.0484 (2)(2)
where
wheresssstands
standsfor
for settlement
settlement (in
(in meter).
meter).
where stands for settlement (in meter).

Figure 9. Relationship
Figure 9. Relationshipbetween settlementand
between settlement andVsVs
15 .15.
Figure 9. Relationship between settlement and Vs15.
The field
The field measurement
measurement resultresult was
was then
then compared
compared withwith the
the theoretical
theoretical model
model of of settlement
settlement
The field
prediction frommeasurement
[38] and withresult
a was then compared
back-analysis model of withVsthe
the theoretical
from the model
SASW of
test, settlement
as shownin in
prediction from [38] and with a back-analysis model of the Vs1515from the SASW test, as shown
prediction
Figure 10. from
10. The [38]
The model and
model of with
of [38] a back-analysis model of the Vs 15 from the SASW test, as shown in
Figure [38] was
was commonly
commonlyused usedfor
forsettlement
settlementprediction,
prediction, with thethe
with time
time based on on
based the
Figure 10. The model of [38] was commonly used for settlement prediction, with the time based on
the measured settlement data. The prediction was based on an observational procedure and derived
the measured settlement data. The prediction was based on an observational procedure and derived
from a 1-dimensional consolidation equation. Vertical strain can be calculated as follows:
from a 1-dimensional consolidation equation. Vertical strain can be calculated as follows:
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 10 of 15

measured settlement data. The prediction was based on an observational procedure and derived from
a 1-dimensional consolidation equation. Vertical strain can be calculated as follows:

1 z2 . 1 z4 .. 1 z3 . 1 z4 ..
! ! ! !
ε ε(t, z) = T + T + T + · · · + zF + F + F +··· (3)
2! Cv 4! Cv 3! Cv 5! Cv

where ε(t,z) is the vertical strain of depth z at time t, T and F are unknown functions of time, and Cv is
the coefficient
Geosciences of xconsolidation.
2020, 10, FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure 10. Settlement

Figure 10. Settlement curve.
curve.

The equations
3.3. Comparison of settlement
of Pore Pressure and forVsdouble drainage can be written as in the following formula:

The result of pore pressure 1was H2obtained 4 .. the piezometer

from installed at a depth of 8.5 m (in
! !
. 1 H H
ρ+ ρ + ρ +··· = ε+ε)
(zone. (4)
the middle of the improved soil layer) 3! Cv at the center
5! Cv of the study 2 Figure 11 shows the change in
pore pressure over time versus Vs at the 8.5 m depth over time. The pore pressure decreased because
where ρ is dissipates
the water H is
settlement,out of soil
the thickness,
soil through and theε is the vertical
PVD, making strain atstiffer,
the soil its initial time.in turn, increases
which,
Each
the Vs. individual
Both time can
pore pressure and beVs
expressed
are nicely as suited as both parameters increase linearly over time.
Unlike the SASW test, the pore pressure data from the piezometer was monitored roughly 1 time per
day while the SASW tests were performed ∆t· j(10
t j =only j= 2, . . .) the settlement period, about 7 months
0, 1, during
times (5)
since the pump had been started until it was stopped.
where ∆t is the time interval.
Additionally, the effective vertical stress was calculated from the change in pore pressure over
From Equations (4) and (5), the settlement equation at time j can be calculated as follows:
time. Figure 12 shows the correlation between effective vertical stress and Vs at a 8.5 m depth. The
Vs had linearly increased along with the increase ρ j = β0 +inβthe effective vertical stress as the pore pressure
1 ρ j−1 (6)
dissipated out and made the soil stiffer.
where ρj and ρj−1 are the value of settlement at the specific time of j and j − 1; β0 and β1 are
unknown parameters.
The final settlement can be calculated using the following formula:

ρ j = ρ j−1 = ρ f (7)

where ρf is the final settlement.

Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 11 of 15

The final settlement can be predicted by finding the intersection from the line ρj and ρj−1 , which
has a 45◦ angle from the ρj and ρj−1 graph. Based on this, Equation (6) can be simplified by substituting
ρj and ρj−1 with ρf and can be written as

β0
ρf = (8)
1 − β0

And finally, the settlement ρ(t) at specific time t can be predicted by the following formula:

β0 β0
!
ρf = − − ρ0 βt1 (9)
1 − β0 1 − β0
Figure 10. Settlement curve.
where ρ0 is the value of the settlement at its initial time.
3.3. Comparison of Porethe
The result from Pressure and Vs of the Vs15 prediction is very close to the field measurement
back-analysis
settlement, with the range of deviation being between 0.004 and 0.070 m, as well as to the result taken
The result of pore pressure was obtained from the piezometer installed at a depth of 8.5 m (in
from the predicted settlement from [38], with the range of deviation being between 0.002 to 0.202 m.
the middle of the improved soil layer) at the center of the study zone. Figure 11 shows the change in
poreComparison
3.3. pressure over time
of Pore versus and
Pressure Vs atVsthe 8.5 m depth over time. The pore pressure decreased because
the water dissipates out of the soil through the PVD, making the soil stiffer, which, in turn, increases
TheBoth
the Vs. result of pore
pore pressure
pressure and Vswasareobtained from the
nicely suited piezometer
as both installed
parameters at a linearly
increase depth ofover8.5 m (in
time.
the middle
Unlike of the improved
the SASW soilpressure
test, the pore layer) atdata
the center of the
from the study zone.
piezometer wasFigure 11 shows
monitored the 1change
roughly in
time per
pore pressure over time versus Vs at the 8.5 m depth over time. The pore pressure
day while the SASW tests were performed only 10 times during the settlement period, about 7 months decreased because
the
sincewater dissipates
the pump out ofstarted
had been the soiluntil
through
it wasthe PVD, making the soil stiffer, which, in turn, increases
stopped.
the Vs. Both pore pressure and Vs are nicely suited
Additionally, the effective vertical stress was calculated as both parameters increase
from the change linearly
in pore over time.
pressure over
Unlike the SASW test, the pore pressure data from the piezometer was monitored
time. Figure 12 shows the correlation between effective vertical stress and Vs at a 8.5 m depth. roughly 1 time The
per
day while
Vs had the SASW
linearly tests were
increased alongperformed only 10 times
with the increase in theduring thevertical
effective settlement period,
stress as theabout
pore7pressure
months
since the pump had been started
dissipated out and made the soil stiffer.until it was stopped.

Figure 11. Pore pressure and Vs. Vs over time at a depth of 8.5 m.
Figure 11. Pore pressure and Vs. Vs over time at a depth of 8.5 m.
Additionally, the effective vertical stress was calculated from the change in pore pressure over time.
Figure 12 shows the correlation between effective vertical stress and Vs at a 8.5 m depth. The Vs had
linearly increased along with the increase in the effective vertical stress as the pore pressure dissipated
out and made the soil stiffer.
 Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 12 of 15
Geosciences 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

Figure 12. The relationship between effective vertical stress and Vs15 at a depth of 8.5 m.
Figure 12. The relationship between effective vertical stress and Vs15 at a depth of 8.5 m.
Figure 12. The relationship between effective vertical stress and Vs15 at a depth of 8.5 m.
3.4.
3.4. Comparison
Comparison of of Su
Su and
and VsVs
3.4. Comparison of Su and Vs
The
The Su Su data
data were
were acquired
acquired from from an an unconfined
unconfined compression
compression test test of
of undisturbed
undisturbed soil soil samples
samples
The
collected Su
collectedfrom data
frombore were
boreholesacquired
holesfromfrom from
twotwo an unconfined
different
different times,
times, compression
before thethe
before soilsoiltest of
improvement undisturbed
improvement (26 Februarysoil
(26 Februarysamples
2019)2019)
and
collected
after thefrom
and after soil bore holes from
theimprovement
soil improvement (15 two (15different
March March times,
2020). 2020).
It Itbefore
is worth thenoting
noting
is worth soil improvement
that thethat
Vs the
values (26 February
that
Vs values werethatused
were 2019)
forused
the
and after
comparison the soil
wereimprovement
the ones (15
measured March from 2020).
the It is
closest worth
times noting
to the
for the comparison were the ones measured from the closest times to the Su measurements. Figure that
Su the Vs
measurements.values that
Figurewere 13 used
shows
forthe
13the comparison
comparison
shows were the
between
the comparison ones
Subetween
and Vs measured
at and from
Suthose atthe
times.
Vs closest
After
those times
the pump
times. After to
had thestopped,
the Su measurements.
pump hadSu from
stopped,the Figure
first 5m
Su from
13range
shows
the firstthe
increased
5m comparison
significantly
range between
increased anSu and Vs at
to significantly
approximate to those
of 30
an times. ,After
kN/m
approximate2
ofthe
30pump
considering kN/mthe had
2stress stopped, Su
distribution
, considering thefromof the
stress
theatmospheric
first 5 m
distribution of range increased
pressure
the atmospheric significantly
is higher pressure to
at the topislayer an
higher approximate
thanat thethetop
layer of 30
below.
layer kN/m
than At 2, considering the stress
thethe
layer middle
below. part of the
At the soil,
middle
distribution
from
part of 5 to
the 9ofsoil,
mthe atmospheric
depth,
from the
5 toSu9m pressure
values
depth, is Su
increase
the higher
only
valuesat
tothe an top layer
onlythan
approximate
increase to anofthe layer 2below.
7 kN/m
approximate ofAt
. At the the middle
7bottom
kN/m 2.part of
At the
part
the ofsoil,
bottom thepart
soil,of
from from
9 the
to 155soil,
to
m 9depth,
m depth,
from 9 the
to 15the Su
Sumvalues values
depth, theincrease
increase only
approximately
Su values to an approximate
increase 15 kN/m2 . The
approximately of 715
SukN/m 2. 2At the
of the
kN/m .bottom
The Su
bottom
part
of the ofpart
theof
bottom the
soil soil,
layer
part from
ofincreases9 tolayer
the soil 15 mincreases
depth,more
potentially the Suthanvalues
potentially increase
themore
middle than approximately
part
thedue to the
middle part15 kN/m
higher
due 2. The Su
overburden
to the higher
ofpressure
the bottom
overburden andpart of theand
dissipation
pressure soil layer
waterincreases
ofdissipation
to theofsand potentially
water layer
to the morelayer
below.
sand thanbelow.
the middle part due to the higher
overburden pressure and dissipation of water to the sand layer below.

Figure 13. Su and Vs from

Figure 13. from before
before the
the soil
soil improvement
improvement and
and after
after the
the soil
soil improvement.
improvement.
Figure 13. Su and Vs from before the soil improvement and after the soil improvement.
The
The SASW
SASW data
data shows
shows anan increment
increment atat the
the top
top of
of the
the layer,
layer, the
the sand
sand blanket,
blanket, of
of approximately
approximately
40 m/s.
The In the
SASW middle
data part
shows of
anthe soil, from
increment 1
at to
the 11 m
top depth,
of the the
layer,Vs increase
the sand
40 m/s. In the middle part of the soil, from 1 to 11 m depth, the Vs increase aroundaround 40
blanket, ofm/s in comparison
approximately
40 m/s in
40 m/s. In the middle part of the soil, from 1 to 11 m depth, the Vs increase around 40 m/s in
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 13 of 15

with the initial Vs number. At the bottom part of the soil, from 11 to 15 m depth, the Vs increase around
70 m/s. It is noticeable that the increment in Vs at the bottom part of the soil layer is higher than the
middle part, which is similar to the increment in Su due to similar reasons.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The change in Vs and soil properties were studied over time during the VCM process. The SASW
testing was able to investigate the soil down to 15 m deep. The results showed the change in Vs along
with the alteration of the conventional soil monitoring parameters, including the settlement, Su, and
pore pressure during the consolidation period. The Vs15 had increased linearly from 45 m/s to 98 m/s
from the beginning until the end of the consolidation process, while the total settlement was 1.12 m,
Su increased about 7 to 15 kN/m2 , and the pore pressure decreased about 40 kPa. The settlement
prediction curve using Vs was created and good compatibility was shown with the settlement curve
from field measurements and the settlement prediction curve from [35]. These results indicated the
likelihood of using the SASW method for soil improvement monitoring purposes.
There were several difficulties of testing SASW at the PVD sites. Firstly, the location of the SASW
center line and borehole data location is different as the 300 kg drop weight could not be used on top
of the airtight-sheet region. Secondly, sometimes the test line was shifted within the range of 5 m
knowing that the water is being trapped at the testing spot after rain. Thirdly, the presence of noises
in the field from a moving truck to a working backhoe, which creates poor quality data, meant that
the operations on site had to be interrupted during the SASW test in order to improve the quality of
the data. It is important to note that the correlation was made from backfilled soil material that was
characterized by high plasticity clay and an assumption of homogenous soil. The study of other soil
types is encouraged.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.F.A., S.C. and S.S.; data curation, D.F.A.; formal analysis, D.F.A. and
S.C.; funding acquisition, S.C. and S.S.; investigation, D.F.A. and S.C.; methodology, D.F.A., S.C. and S.S.; project
administration, D.F.A., S.C. and S.S.; resources, S.C. and S.S.; supervision, S.C. and S.S.; validation, S.C. and S.S.;
visualization, D.F.A., S.C. and S.S.; writing—original draft, D.F.A. and S.C.; writing—review and editing, S.C. and
S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The scholarship was provided by the Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University (KU),
Bangkok, Thailand.
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate the scholarship provided by the Department of Civil Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, KU, Bangkok, and they are grateful to the graduate students and the staff members of the
Geotechnical Division and Geotechnical Engineering Research and Development Center (GERD) of KU and SILA
GEOTECHNIQUE Co., Ltd. for the support and opportunity that has been given in this research project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Budhu, M. Soil Mechanics and Foundation, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010;
pp. 246–249. ISBN 978-040-55684-9.
2. Holtz, R.D.; Wager, O. Preloading by Vacuum: Current Prospects. Transp. Res. Rec. 1975, 548, 26–29.
3. Chen, H.; Bao, X.C. Analysis of Soil Consolidation Stress under the Action of Negative Pressure. In Proceedings
of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, Finland, 23–26
May 1983; pp. 591–596.
4. Choa, V. Soil Improvement Works at Tianjin East Pier project. In Proceedings of the 10th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 16–20 April 1990; pp. 47–52.
5. Jacob, A.; Thevanayagam, S.; Kavazanjian, E. Vacuum-assisted Consolidation of a Hydraulic Landfill.
In Proceedings of the Conference on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments
Part 2 (of 2), College Station, TX, USA, 16–18 June 1994; pp. 1249–1261.
6. Bergado, D.T.; Chai, J.C.; Miura, N.; Balasubramaniam, A.S. PVD Improvement of Soft Bangkok Clay with
Combined Vacuum and Reduced Sand Embankment Preloading. Geotech. Eng. J. 1998, 1, 95–122.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 14 of 15

7. Chu, J.; Yan, S.W.; Yang, H. Soil Improvement by the Vacuum Preloading Method for an Oil Storage Station.
Geotechnique 2000, 6, 625–632. [CrossRef]
8. Chai, J.C.; Carter, J.P. Deformation Analysis in Soft Ground Improvement; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
2011.
9. Chai, J.; Carter, J.P.; Liu, M.D. Methods of Vacuum Consolidation and Their Deformation Analyses. Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 2014, 1, 35–46. [CrossRef]
10. Wahyu, A.L.; Mochtar, I.B. The Effectiveness of Vacuum Preloading on Eliminate Secondary Settlement; Case
Study in Summarecon City Bandung Area’s Development Project. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Makassar, Indonesia, 1–2 November 2018; Volume 279, p. 012023.
11. Phakdimek, S.; Soralump, S. Pore Pressure Behavior of Clayey Backfilled Soil in a Pond Improved by Vacuum
Consolidation Method. In Proceedings of the 8th Regional Symposium on Infrastructure Development in
Civil Engineering (RSID8), Quezon City, Philippines, 25–26 October 2018.
12. Stokoe, K.H.; Wright, S.G.; Bay, J.A.; Roesset, J.M. Characterization of Geotechnical Sites by SASW Method,
Technical Report: Geophysical Characterization of Sites; Woods, R.D., Ed.; Oxford and IBS Publishing Co.:
New Delhi, India, 1994; pp. 15–25.
13. ASTM. Test Method D2487/D2487-17, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified
Soil Classification System); ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
14. Kjellman, W. Consolidation of Clayey Soils by Atmospheric Pressure. In Proceedings of the Conference on
Soil Stabilization, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA, 18–20 June 1952; pp. 258–263.
15. Chu, J.; Yan, S.W. Application of the Vacuum Preloading Method in Soil Improvement Project. In Elsevier
Geo-Engineering Book Series; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Volume 3, pp. 91–117.
16. Hansbo, S. Consolidation of Fine-grained Soils by Prefabricated Drains and Lime Column Installation.
In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, Sweden, 15–19 June 1981; pp. 677–682.
17. Indraratna, B.; Redana, I.W. Numerical Modeling of Vertical Drains with Smear and Well Resistance Installed
in Soft Clay. Can. Geotech. J. 2000, 37, 133–145. [CrossRef]
18. Bergado, D.T.; Balasubramaniam, A.S.; Jonathan, F.R.; Holtz, R.D. Prefabricated Vertical Drains in Soft
Bangkok Clay: A case study of the new Bangkok International Airport project. Can. Geotech. J. 2002, 39,
304–315. [CrossRef]
19. Indraratna, B.; Bamunawita, C.; Khabbaz, H. Numerical Modelling of Vacuum Preloading & Field
Applications. Can. Geotech. J. 2004, 41, 1098–1110.
20. Chai, J.C.; Hong, Z.S.; Shen, S.L. Vacuum-Drain Method Induced Pressure Distribution and Ground
Deformation. Geotext. Geomember. 2010, 28, 525–535. [CrossRef]
21. Jones, R. Surface Wave Technique for Measuring the Elastic Properties and Thickness of Roads: Theoretical
Development. Br. J. Appl. Phys. 1962, 13, 21–29. [CrossRef]
22. Heukelom, W.; Klomp, J.G. Dynamic Testing as a Means of Controlling Pavements During and After
Construction. In Proceedings of International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements; University of
Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1962; pp. 495–510.
23. Nazarian, S. In Situ Determination of Elastic Moduli of Soil Deposits and Pavement Systems by
Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Waves Method. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Texas, Department of Civil
Engineering, Austin, TX, USA, 1984.
24. Nazarian, S.; Stokoe, K.H. In Situ Determination of Elastic Moduli of Pavement Systems by
Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Waves Method: Practical Aspects; Research report 368-1F; The University of
Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 1985; 161p.
25. Nazarian, S.; Stokoe, I.; Kenneth, H.; Briggs, R.C.; Rogers, R. Determination of Pavement Layer Thicknesses
and Moduli by SASW Method. Transp. Res. Rec. 1988, 1196, 133–150.
26. Ismail, M.; Samsudin, A.; Rafek, A.; Nayan, K. Road Pavement Stiffness Determination Using SASW Method.
Unimas E J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 3, 9–16. [CrossRef]
27. Omar, M.N.; Abbiss, C.P.; Taha, M.R.; Nayan, K.A.M. Prediction of Long-Term Settlement on Soft Clay using
Shear Wave Velocity and Damping Characteristics. Eng. Geol. 2011, 4, 259–270. [CrossRef]
28. Bay, J.A.; Chaiprakaikeow, S. Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) testing of Srinagarind and
Vajiralongkorn Dams. In Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) Report, Bangkok, Thailand;
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand: Nonthaburi, Thailand, 2006.
Geosciences 2020, 10, 300 15 of 15

29. Bay, J.A.; Chaiprakaikeow, S. Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) testing of Sirikit and Rajjaprabha
Dams. In Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) Report, Bangkok, Thailand; Electricity Generating
Authority of Thailand: Nonthaburi, Thailand, 2009.
30. Chaiprakaikeow, S.; Bay, J.A.; Chaowalittrakul, N. Study of Dynamic Properties of Mae Chang Dam Using
Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves and Resonance Tests. In Proceedings of the 21th National Convention on
Civil Engineering, Songkla, Thailand, 28–30 June 2016; p. 1426.
31. Chaiprakaikeow, S.; Bay, J.A.; Chaowalittrakul, N.; Brohmsubha, P. Evaluation of the Effect of Concrete Blocks
on Seismic Response of Bhumibol Dam Using In-Situ Dynamic Tests. In Proceedings of the 85th Annual
Meeting of International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD2017), Prague, Czech Republic, 3–7 July 2017.
32. Mase, L.Z.; Likitlersuang, S.; Tobita, T.; Chaiprakaikeow, S.; Soralump, S. Local Site Investigation of Liquefied
Soils Caused by Earthquake in Northern Thailand. J. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 22, 1–24. [CrossRef]
33. Jotisankasa, A.; Pramusandi, S.; Nishimura, S.; Chaiprakaikeow, S. Field Response of an Instrumented Dyke
subjected to Rainfall. Geotech. Eng. J. SEAGS AGSSEA 2019, 50, 81–91.
34. Shrestha, A.; Jotisankasa, A.; Chaiprakaikeow, S.; Pramusandi, S.; Soralump, S.; Nishimura, S. Determining
Shrinkage Cracks Based on the Small-Strain Shear Modulus–Suction Relationship. Geosciences 2019, 9, 362.
[CrossRef]
35. Barus, R.M.N.; Jotisankasa, A.; Chaiprakaikeow, S.; Sawangsuriya, A. Laboratory and Field Evaluation
of Modulus-Suction-Moisture Relationship for a Silty Sand Subgrade. Transp. Geotech. 2019, 19, 126–134.
[CrossRef]
36. Joh, S.H.; Stokoe, K.H. Advances in Interpretation and Analysis Techniques for Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Waves
(SASW) Measurements; Offshore Technology Research Center: College Station, TX, USA, 1997.
37. BSSC. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings,
Part I: Provisions, Building Seismic Safety Council; Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
38. Asaoka, A. Observational Procedure of Settlement Prediction. Soil Found. 1978, 4, 87–101. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).