INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

SOIL MECHANICS AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.

The paper was published in the proceedings of XVI Pan-

American Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (XVI PCSMGE) and was edited
by Dr. Norma Patricia López Acosta, Eduardo Martínez
Hernández and Alejandra L. Espinosa Santiago. The
conference was held in Cancun, Mexico, on November
17-20, 2019.
Geotechnical Engineering in the XXI Century: Lessons learned and future challenges 813
N.P. López-Acosta et al. (Eds.)
© 2019 The authors and IOS Press.
This article is published online with Open Access by IOS Press and distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0).
doi:10.3233/STAL190117

Assessment of the Settlement and

Horizontal Displacement of Test
Embankments with Preloading, Drains,
and Vacuum in the Former
Texcoco Lake, Mexico
Norma P. LÓPEZ-ACOSTAa,1,Víctor M. PINEDA-NÚÑEZa, Alejandra L.
ESPINOSA-SANTIAGOa, Manuel J. MENDOZAa, Miguel RUFIARa
and Raúl GARCÍAa
a
Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, CDMX, Mexico

Abstract. In this paper, the settlement and horizontal displacement of four test
embankments (TEs) built in the former Texcoco Lake are evaluated. The
embankments are part of the New Mexico City International Airport (NAICM)
project and were constructed to study the effects of different soil improvement
techniques based on surcharge preloading with (a) sand drains and prefabricated
vertical drains (PVDs), (b) PVDs and drain-to-drain vacuum pressure, and (c)
PVDs, vacuum pressure, and an airtight membrane. Their behavior is compared
with that of an unimproved reference embankment. The site conditions are
described, and the geometric and construction characteristics of each embankment
are presented. A monitoring period of 360 days after the start of construction is
discussed. In addition, the degree of consolidation in each trial embankment is
calculated based on in situ records from settlement plates. Finally, the
effectiveness of each soil improvement technique is analyzed, and some
concluding comments are provided.

Keywords. Test embankment, lateral displacement, settlement, vacuum

consolidation.

1. Introduction

Many infrastructure projects have been damaged by the settlement and lateral
movement of underlying soft clay, which are mainly due to inadequate soil
improvement prior to construction [6]. Soil stabilization using improvement techniques
prevents inadmissible behavior in buildings, such as differential settlement or tilting,
even collapses in extreme cases.
Due to the construction of the New Mexico City International Airport (NAICM, in
Spanish abbreviation) in the area of former Texcoco Lake and especially the
infrastructure on the airport side (such as runways, platforms, and taxiways), it was

1
Researcher and Head of Department of Geotechnics, Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México,CDMX, Mexico ; E-mail: nlopeza@iingen.unam.mx.
814 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement

necessary to build test embankments (TEs) to evaluate different solutions for the
foundations of these structures.
In soft soils, such as clays, it is possible to induce consolidation using the
surcharge preloading technique. With surcharge preloading, which uses only earth
material, the soil may take a very long time to settle. An effective method that
decreases the time required for primary consolidation is the use of vertical drains [12].
The purpose of these drains is to provide a shorter distance for water to travel and
thereby accelerate the consolidation process [3]. In addition, if the cost of the earth
material for preloading is high or if there is a shortage, preloading using vacuum
pressure is a viable alternative [2, 8].
This paper evaluates the evolution of settlement and lateral displacement over the
course of one year after the construction of four TEs located at the NAICM site. The
degrees of consolidation achieved with the different improvement techniques
implemented are also estimated. In the end, some concluding comments about their
behavior are given.

2. Geotechnical characteristics of the site

Figure 1 shows the results of geotechnical surveys conducted at the study site. The
water content (w %) of altered soil samples obtained from a standard penetration test
(SPT) with a tip resistance (qc) was determined at different depths by means of a cone
penetration test (CPTu). Based on geotechnical exploration, it has been determined that
the stratigraphic profile of the area of interest is composed of the following strata [4]:
• Surface Crust (SC). The SC has an approximate thickness of 1.0 m and
consists of light brown clay with some sand. Its average water content is
approximately w=86%, and its volumetric weight is γ=14.5 kN/m3. The water
table is located 1.0 m below the natural ground level (NGL).
• Upper Clayey Formation (UCF). The UCF is composed of gray-green clay
with high compressibility (HC) and a very soft consistency that includes ash
and sand lenses. It has an average water content w=217% and a volumetric
weight γ=12 kN/m3. This stratum is located between 1.0 and 30.6 m deep.
• Hard Layer (HL). The HL is composed of a greenish-gray sandy-silty material
(SM) with a hard consistency, volumetric weight γ=18 kN/m3, and average
water content w=48%. It is located between 30.6 and 32.6 m deep.
• Lower Clayey Formation (LCF). The LCF is composed of a greenish-brown
clay with intercalations of gray clay with hight plasticity and high carbonate
content. Its average water content is w=140%, and its volumetric weight is
γ=13 kN/m3. It is located from 32.6 to 43.8 m deep.
• Deep Deposits (DD). These are located between 43.8 and 50 m deep and are
composed of sandy-silty soil. Their volumetric weight is γ=19 kN/m3.

3. Characteristics of the TEs

The four TEs described in this paper, TE-1 to TE-4, are located within a test polygon at
the south side of runway 3 of the NAICM (Figure 2) whose exact location is illustrated
in Figure 3. Their general characteristics are described below:
 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement 815

Figure 1. Water content records and tip resistance at the site.

• TE-1: Reference embankment. This embankment does not have any soil
improvement; its dimensions are 60×60 m with a maximum height of 2.1 m at
the center (Figure 4a). It is composed of three layers: (a) tezontle with
volumetric weight γ=12 kN/m3 that is 1.0 m thick, (b) a 0.5-m-thick sandy-
silty layer (γ=17 kN/m3), and (c) a third layer of pavement that is 0.6 m thick
at the surface. This embankment transmits a pressure of 37.4 kPa.
• TE-2: Embankment with surcharge preloading combined with prefabricated
vertical drains (PVDs) and sand drains (SDs). Its dimensions are 30×60 m,
and it is composed of a 1-m-thick layer of tezontle (γ=11 kN/m3) that
underlies a 1.8-m-thick silty-sandy layer (γ=18 kN/m3) in the central part of
the embankment. The preload is 2.8 m high at the center and uses two soil
improvement techniques: the eastern half has PVDs, and the western half has
SDs (Figure 4b). The PVDs are placed at a depth of 30 m below the NGL in a
triangular arrangement with separation S=2.0 m. The SDs have a diameter of
0.4 m and are placed at a depth of 27 m below the NGL with a triangular
arrangement and S=3.0 m. This embankment transmits a pressure of 43.4 kPa.
• TE-3: Embankment with surcharge preloading, PVDs, and drain-to-drain
vacuum pressure. Its dimensions are 50×70 m, and it consists of four layers
of tezontle (γ=11.25 kN/m3), with a total height of 2.0 m (Figure 4c). Vacuum
pressure was applied for 6 months to the UCF through flexible horizontal
pipes connected to the PVDs. A total of 3,045 PVDs with star-type cross-
816 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement

sections (called star drains) 30 mm in diameter were placed in a triangular

arrangement with S=1.2 m and placed at a depth of 28 m below the NGL.
Vacuum pressure was generated by six pumps located at the southern end of
the embankment (outside the platform) that were connected directly to the
flexible horizontal pipes. The embankment transmits a pressure of 22.5 kPa,
plus an average pressure caused by the vacuum that was equivalent to -58 kPa
[4, 9,10].
• TE-4: Embankment with surcharge preloading, PVDs, vacuum pressure,
and an airtight membrane. Its dimensions are 50×70 m, and it consists of
four layers of tezontle with different volumetric weights (γ1=γ2=13.7, γ3=19,
and γ4=11 kN/m3), with a total height of 2.0 m (Figure 4d). The first two
layers are covered by an airtight membrane 1.5 mm thick, which is anchored
in a trench located on the perimeter of the embankment. Under the membrane
(immersed in the tezontle), 43 horizontal drains are installed, and within the
subsoil, 2,808 wick-type PVDs are placed in a triangular arrangement with
S=1.2 m and placed at a depth of 27 m below the NGL. The PVDs are not
connected to horizontal drains. Vacuum pressure was applied for 6 months
and was generated by two pumps, one on the south side and one on the north
side of the embankment (outside the platform). The pumps were connected
directly to the horizontal drains of the system. The embankment transmits a
pressure of 27.1 kPa, plus an average pressure caused by the vacuum that was
equivalent to -63 kPa [5].


TE-1

TE-2

TE-3 TE-4

Figure 2. Location of the polygon of TEs in the Figure 3. Locations of TE-1 to TE-4 within the
NAICM. polygon of TEs.
 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement 817

Figure 4. Characteristics of test embankments TE-1 to TE-4.

4. Geotechnical instrumentation

In the TEs, a variety of geotechnical instruments were installed to analyze the behavior
of each of the improvement techniques. The evolution of the settlement and lateral
displacement over time was evaluated using in situ records of horizontal inclinometers
(HIs), settlement plates (SPs), and vertical inclinometers (VIs) as explained in the
following paragraphs.

5. Assessment of settlements

Figure 5 shows the dimensions (plan view), the in situ measurement points, the
settlement measurements, and the estimated settlement rate per day in TE-1 to TE-4 for
360 days (the square symbol) from the onset of construction. The settlement in the
center of platforms TE-1 to TE-3 was measured using HIs, and for TE-4, the settlement
was measured with an SP. Day zero (0) indicates the beginning of construction.
The construction times (the circular symbols) were 62, 63, 127, and 175 days for
TE-1 to TE-4, respectively. For TE-3 and TE-4, the first settlement measurements (the
diamond-shaped symbols) were made on days 80 and 23, respectively; similarly, the
beginning and end of the application of vacuum pressure are indicated by triangular
and star-shaped symbols, respectively. In addition, in TE-4, due to the pump shutdown
protocol, vacuum pressure was retained inside the membrane keeping the valves closed
for 15 days after the vacuum was turned off. With the above, it was possible to observe
the effect of the remaining vacuum pressure in the event of an electric power failure.
The pentagonal symbol indicates when the valves were opened.
818 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement

Figure 5. Settlement and settlement rate per day in TE-1 to TE-4.

5.1. Settlement measurements

After 360 days of monitoring, a clear difference can be seen in the evolution of the
settlement for each soil improvement technique (Table 1). TE-2 developed a total
settlement of 190.5 cm, which was 3.6 times that observed for TE-1 (53.2 cm). TE-3
and TE-4 settled by 203.8 cm and 286.4 cm, respectively, which were 3.8 and 5.4 times
that observed for TE-1.
The settlement recorded at the end of the vacuum application (6 months) for TE-4
was 45% higher than that for TE-3. Due to the pump shutdown protocol, when the
valves were opened and the remaining vacuum pressure in TE-4 was released, an
expansion of approximately 3% (8.49 cm) of the maximum settlement reached (295 cm
on day 316) was observed from day 316 to 360.
Table 1. Settlements in the test embankments.
Embankment S360days (cm) Vmax (cm/day) TVmax (days) Vavg(cm/day)
TE-1 53.3 0.1 298 0.1
TE-2 190.5 3.4 15 0.5
TE-3 203.8 1.7 57 0.7
TE-4 286.5 3.9 14 0.8
S360days = Settlement at 360 days, Vmax = Maximum settlement rate, TVmax = Duration of the maximum
settlement rate, Vavg = Average settlement rate (weighted average).

5.2. Settlement rates

The magnitude and the settlement rate facilitated by soil improvement techniques have
been studied based on the compressibility, preconsolidation stress, and permeability
reached after soil stabilization [11]. Recent studies have focused on assessing the
 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement 819

relationship between the settlement rate observed during surcharge preloading in

constant increments and settlement following embankment construction [14].
Figure 5 shows that the settlement rate recorded during embankment construction
is influenced mainly by the pressure exerted on the soil by its constituent materials. The
settlement rates of the embankments with vacuum pressure, TE-3 and TE-4, are similar
even before applying the vacuum pressure because both have 2 m height of tezontle. In
contrast, TE-1 and TE-2 exhibit different settlement rates at the end of construction
because they have different heights and materials, but mainly because TE-2 has vertical
drains that facilitate the expulsion of groundwater and thereby accelerate consolidation
settlement. In contrast, the maximum settlement rate for TE-3 and TE-4 is maintained
for a short time and gradually tends to decrease as consolidation progresses. The
average settlement rate (Vavg, Table 1) of TE-3 and TE-4 is up to 60% greater than that
of TE-2 and up to 800% that of the TE-1. The average settlement rate of TE-4 is 14%
greater than that of TE-3.

6. Assessment of lateral displacements

Figures 6a-d show the lateral displacement δx as a function of depth in TE-1 to TE-4
recorded from the start of construction up to approximately 360 days. In TE-1 and TE-
2 (without vacuum pressure, Figures 6a and 6b), the lateral movement is toward the
outside of the test platform throughout this period. In TE-3 and TE-4 (with vacuum
pressure, Figures 6c and 6d), the lateral displacement is toward the outside until
vacuum pressure is applied; however, when the vacuum starts, the movement becomes
inward and continues until the vacuum is stopped (on days 290 and 301 for TE-3 and
TE-4, respectively). Once the vacuum has stopped, due to the pressure transmitted by
the surcharge preloading, the lateral movement is again toward the outside of the
embankment. In fact, during surcharge preloading, the soil goes from a state of rest to
an active state associated with lateral deformation toward the exterior of the treated
area [8].
In contrast, the consolidation caused by suction (vacuum pressure) is isotropic, and
the corresponding horizontal displacement is compression toward the treated platform,
which decreases the lateral displacement toward the outside of the embankment due to
surcharge [13]. In addition, Figure 7 shows that the vacuum techniques implemented in
the soft clays of the former Texcoco Lake have influence on surface lateral
displacement up to approximately 22 to 35 m from the toe of the embankments. Other
investigations have recorded alterations of the surrounding soil due to vacuum pressure
up to 10 m from the toe of an embankment [7].

7. Degree of consolidation

Based on the settlements measured by the geotechnical instruments installed in the test
sections, it is possible to estimate the ultimate primary settlement with the Asaoka's
method [1] and consequently determine the degree of consolidation (DOC) [12]
achieved with each technique used. Figures 8a and 8b show the plan distribution of the
DOC in the embankments with vacuum pressure, TE-3 and TE-4, obtained from the
SPs surface measurements at the end of vacuum pressure application. Because TE-1
and TE-2 did not have installed SPs, these embankments are not included in the
820 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement

calculations. Figure 8 shows that the DOC is more uniform in the area of TE-4 than
that of TE-3. For TE-3, the vulnerability was observed in the connections as the ground
settled, which caused vacuum losses that affected the settlement [9,10]. In both TEs,
the values are higher in the center than in the periphery and much smaller in the corners.

δx (mm) δx (mm)
-200 0 200 400 600
-200 0 200 400 600 0
0
8díaday
8 50
díaday
50
díaday
30 30 63
díaday
63 10
10
día 200
200 day UCF 200 day
día 200
UCF día 351
351 day 357 day
día 357
20

Depth (m)
20
Depth (m)

30 HL 30
HL

N TE-1 N
40 LCF TE-2 40
LCF IV

(-) (+) IV (-) (+)

50 50

(a) TE-1 (b) TE-2

0 0

100 day
día 100
200 day
día 200 10 100 day
día 100
10
290 day
día 290 200 day
día 200
UCF UCF 301 day
día 301
351 day
día 351
Depth (m)

20 351 day 20
Depth (m)

día 351

HL N 30 HL 30
N N
TE-3 TE-3
IV TE-4
LCF 40 LCF 40
IV IV

(-) (+) (-) (+)

50 50
-600 -400 -200 0 200 -600 -400 -200 0 200
δx (mm) δx (mm)
(c) TE-3 (d) TE-4

Figure 6. Horizontal displacement δx as a function of depth for TE-1 to TE-4.

 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement 821

35 m 35 m
N

? 28 m
?

≈0 mm
(a) TE-3
0 cm
? ?
N

0 cm 0 cm

30 m

? 22.5 m
?
0 cm
(b) TE-4
Figure 7. Approximate distance of the effect of vacuum pressure on the lateral displacement measured on the
ground surface from the toe of the embankment.

Figure 8. Plan view distribution of the DOC for (a) TE-3 and (b) TE-4 based on surface measurements
in SPs.

8. Concluding remarks

The techniques that include PVDs and vacuum pressure significantly accelerate soil
consolidation, resulting in higher levels of settlement in less time than other methods of
improvement without vacuum pressure. However, applying vacuum pressure is
relatively expensive because the vacuum pumps must remain in operation for long
periods until the soil is left in a preconsolidated state. For this studied case, the
membrane technique resulted more efficient than the drain-to-drain procedure, because
822 N.P. López-Acosta et al. / Assessment of the Settlement and Horizontal Displacement

larger settlements were reached in the observed period. However, the airtight
membrane was vulnerable to the angularity of the tezontle used as surcharge
preloading; then the placement of a fine sand layer of the same tezontle, directly behind
the membrane was mandatory. It was also observed that, to maintain the efficiency of
the vacuum pressure, the pumps had to remain at the same elevation as the ground in
the process of consolidation settlement. In turn, the drain-to-drain vacuum technique
was vulnerable in the connections between the horizontal pipes and the PVDs as the
ground settled.

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to the Grupo Aeroportuario de la Ciudad de México (GACM)
for the support and opportunity to participate analyzing and discussing the test
embankments monitoring data. Thanks are also due to PIMOSA and MENARD, the
construction companies, for supplying most of the field data used to produce this paper.

References

[1] Asaoka A. (1978). “Observational procedure of settlement prediction”, Soils and Foundations, 18(4): 87-
101.
[2] Bergado D. T., Chai J. C., Miura N. & Balasubramaniam A. S. (1998). “PVD improvement of soft
Bangkok clay with combined vacuum and reduced sand embankment preloading”, Geotechnical
Engineering, 29(1).
[3] Holtz R. D., Jamiolkowski M. B., Lancellotta R. & Pedroni R. (1991). “Prefabricated Vertical Drains:
Design and Performance”, CIRIA, 1-131.
[4] II-UNAM. (2017). Nota Técnica G-46 “Comentarios del II-UNAM del tramo de prueba de consolidación
con vacío dren a dren en el NAICM”, prepared to GACM. CDMX, Mexico.
[5] II-UNAM. (2018). Nota Técnica G-72 “Comentarios del II-UNAM del tramo de prueba de consolidación
con vacío con membrana hermética en el NAICM”, prepared to GACM. CDMX, Mexico.
[6] Indraratna B. & Chu J. (2005). Ground Improvement Case Histories Book, Elsevier, London.
[7] Indraratna B., Rujikiatkamjorn C., MaIntosh G. & Balasubramaniam A. (2007). “Vacuum consolidation
effects on lateral yield of soft clays as applied to road and railway embankment”, Ground Improvement
and Geosynthetics for Human Security and Environmental Preservation, 31-62.
[8] López-Acosta N. P., Mendoza M. J., Espinosa A. L. & Ossa A. (2016). “Sistemas de precarga con vacío
para consolidación acelerada de suelos: membrana hermética o dren a dren”, Memorias XXVIII RNIG,
SMIG, Mérida, Yucatán.
[9] López-Acosta N. P., Espinosa A. L., Pineda V. M., Ossa A., Mendoza M. J., Botero E., Ovando E.,
Rufiar M. & Juárez O. (2017). “Consolidación de las arcillas del ex Lago de Texcoco con la tecnología
de vacío dren a dren”, Proceedings of the 4th ICDF, SMIG, 11-22.
[10] López-Acosta N. P., Espinosa-Santiago A. L., Pineda-Núñez V. M., Ossa A., Mendoza M. J., Ovando-
Shelley E. & Botero E. (2019). “Performance of a test embankment on very soft clayey soil improved
with drain-to-drain vacuum preloading technology”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, (In press).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103459
[11] Mesri G. & Choi Y. K. (1985). “Settlement analysis of embankments on soft clays”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 111(4): 441-464.
[12] Terzaghi K., Peck R. & Mesri G. (1996). Soils mechanics in engineering practice, J Wiley & Sons, 3rd
Ed. New York.
[13] Varaksin S. (2010). “Vacuum consolidation, vertical drains for the environment friendly consolidation
of very soft polluted mud at the Airbus A-380 factory site”, In New Techniques on Soft Soils, Márcio
Almeida ed., 87-102.
[14] Yang T. & Li G. W. (2006). “Settlement rate method for determining surcharge removal time for
embankment on soft ground”, Yantu Gongcheng Xuebao (Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering), 28(11):1942-1946.