Bangkok Field Study of Vertical Wick

Drains
GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. | www.geo-slope.com
1200, 700 - 6th Ave SW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 0T8
Main: +1 403 269 2002 | Fax: +1 888 463 2239

Introduction
In anticipation of the construction of a new airport in Bangkok, Thailand, full-scale test embankments
were constructed on the soft clay at the site to study the effectiveness of prefabricated vertical
drains (PVDs) for accelerating the consolidation and dissipation of the excess pore-water pressures
resulting from fill placement. The results of the field tests have been studied and analyzed by two
different research groups: one at the Asian Institute of Technology in Thailand, the other at the
University of Wollongong in Australia. The findings are presented in two papers listed in the
reference section below.

We have re-analyzed portions of this case history to demonstrate how GeoStudio can be used to
model the effect of PVDs in the consolidation of soft soils. We have not attempted to replicate all
aspects of the published information; rather, our objective is only to provide sufficient information to
show how GeoStudio users can do this type of geotechnical numerical modeling.

Numerical Simulation
The Bangkok Airport is situated in a wet area, where there is about 10 m of soft clay under a 2 m
surficial, over-consolidated crust. Stiff clay, extending to a depth of 20 to 24 m, underlies the soft
clay. For analysis purposes, the subsoil is divided into three layers (Figure 1) and the lower stiff clay is
ignored.

Three test embankments were constructed, each with a different PVD spacing, but only the scenario
with drain spacing of 1.5 m is discussed here. The PVD drains were installed to a depth of 12 m.

1
The embankments were constructed to a height of 4.2 m with 3H:1V side slopes. The base areas
were approximately 40 x 40 m. There were actually 1 m high berms around the base extending out
5 m, but this detail is not included in the illustrative GeoStudio analysis presented here.

Figure 1. Configuration of Bangkok test embankment used in GeoStudio analysis.

A 1 m thick sand blanket was placed on the site as a construction working pad. The drains were
installed from on top of the sand pad. The sand blanket was presumably also included to ensure that
there would be no build-up of excess pore-water pressures at the base of the embankment, and to
drain away water being squeezed out of the clay.

The position of the drains in the two-dimensional analysis is shown in Figure 2. The horizontal
spacing is 1.5 m, except at the embankment toe where the spacing is 2 m (this was done purely for
modeling convenience, so that there is a drain at the embankment toe). Figure 2 also shows the
layering used to simulate the sequential fill placement.

Figure 2. Position of the vertical drains and layers used for sequential fill placement.

2
The sand blanket is not included in the model as a separate material. A seepage face boundary
condition is applied along the toe of the embankment and the ground surface. The physical
implication is that there will be no build-up of excess pore-water pressures at the ground surface.
Any water arriving at the ground surface will have the opportunity to disappear through the sand
somehow. This is much simpler than trying to include the sand blanket in the model, but achieves
the same objective.

The Modified Cam-Clay constitutive relationship is used here for the soft clay. The parameters used
can be viewed in the GeoStudio data files. The clay is essentially normal to slightly over-consolidated.
It appears that the degree of over-consolidation varies somewhat with depth. For the illustrative
analysis here, the clay is treated as having an over-consolidation ratio (OCR) of 1.5. Also, the Lambda
and Kappa values were taken to be the same for the very soft and the lower soft clay. This gives
settlements closer to what was measured.

The weathered surficial clay is over-consolidated and, consequently, it is acceptable to treat this layer
as behaving in an isotropic elastic manner. Using an isotropic elastic constitutive relationship also
helps with maintaining numerical convergence near the ground surface where the stresses approach
zero.

The embankment fill is also treated as a soft, isotropic elastic material, with the Hydraulic property
“no change in water pressure due to volumetric strain” active (Figure 3). This avoids having to deal
with pore-water pressures in the fill. These simplifying assumptions are acceptable because we are
primarily interested in using the fill as a means to apply the load. The actual stress-strain response of
the sand is not of significant importance.

Figure 3. Hydraulic properties for the embankment fill.

The most critical parameter in an analysis like this is the hydraulic conductivity (coefficient of
permeability). By the very nature of the deposition process, the conductivity can vary significantly.
In addition, the stratification tends to make the conductivity somewhat higher in the horizontal
direction than in the vertical direction. Furthermore, the insertion of the drains disturbs the soil
around the drain and alters the conductivity. The disturbed zone is often called a smear zone.

Drains are installed in some kind of pattern and spacing, and flow to the drains is two-dimensional in
plan view. Analyses, however, are generally more conveniently carried out in a 2D cross-section.

3
Indraratna and Redana (2000) have done extensive studies on how to adjust conductivities for a 2D
plane-strain analysis, how to assess the smear zone thickness and conductivity, and how to model
the size of the drain itself. The details are in the paper reference cited at the end. A brief summary is
presented here to show how these effects can be accounted for in a GeoStudio analysis.

The flow is predominately horizontal to the drains and, consequently, most of the discussion centers
around the horizontal conductivity (𝐾𝑥). In GeoStudio, the vertical conductivity (𝐾𝑣) can be a ratio of
the horizontal conductivity, but this is not all that important since there is very little or no vertical
flow.

The equivalent thickness of a drain for a 2D analysis (𝑑𝑤) can be taken as:

2 (𝑎 + 𝑏 ) Equation 1
𝑑𝑤 =
𝜋
where 𝑎 is the thickness of the PVD drain and 𝑏 is the width. So, for a typical drain that is 4 mm thick
and 100 mm wide, the 2D model thickness can be 66 mm or say 0.06 m. In GeoStudio, the drain can
be represented with an interface element that is 0.06 m thick, for example.

The simplest form of converting from an axisymmetric to plane-strain conductivity is:

𝐾ℎ𝑝 0.67 Equation 2

=
𝐾ℎ [ln (𝑛) ‒ 0.75]

where 𝑛 is the ratio of the drain spacing (𝐷) to the equivalent drain thickness (𝑑𝑤). If the drain
spacing is 1.5 m and the equivalent drain thickness is 0.06 m, then 𝑛 is 25. The plane-strain
conductivity then is about 27 percent of the corresponding axisymmetric horizontal conductivity.
This is in the absence of any well resistance and any effect of a smear zone. As an easy figure to
remember, the plane-strain conductivity is about a quarter of the corresponding axisymmetric
conductivity.

Indraratna and Redana (2000) suggest that the radius of a smear zone around a drain will typically be
five (5) times the equivalent radius of the mandrel. For a mandrel that is 45 mm thick and 125 mm
wide, the equivalent radius is about 55 mm. The radius of the smear zone then is 270 mm (0.27 m).
For a 2D analysis, the smear zone thickness would then be 0.54 m.

Indraratna and Redana (2000) have presented an equation to estimate the conductivity of the smear
zone which involves various dimensional ratios and conductivity ratios. We will not go into all the
details here, as they are available in the Indraratna and Redana (2000) paper for those interested. As
a broad rule, the horizontal smear zone conductivity is about 10% of the horizontal plane-strain
conductivity. For the cases presented by Indraratna and Redana (2000), the ratio varies between 8-
16%. Stated another way, the disturbance resulting from the insertion of the drain reduces the
conductivity by about an order of magnitude in the smear zone.

4
With flow across a layered system, the less permeable layer can quickly dominate the head loss and,
in turn, govern the flow behavior. Consider the simple layered system in Figure 4, where each
segment is 1 m long. A total head (H) of 10 m is applied on the left end and a total head of 1 m on the
right end. The conductivity of the right segment is 10 times less than on the left. The head loss
distribution across the system is as shown in Figure 5. Note that most of the head loss occurs in the
less conductive material and the gradient is much higher in the less conductive material. In other
words, the less conductive material on the right essentially governs the flow.

0 1 2
Figure 4. Flow in a layered system.
Head loss distribution
10

8
Pressure Head (m)

0
0 1 2
X (m)

Figure 5. Head loss distribution in a layered system.

For a layered system like this, we can compute an equivalent conductivity as follows:

𝑑 Equation 3
𝐾=
𝑑1 𝑑2
( 𝑘1
+
𝑘2 )
Say 𝑑1 is 1 m, 𝑑2 is 1 m, 𝑘1 is 10 m/sec and 𝑘2 is 1 m/sec. The blended equivalent 𝐾 then is 1.818 m/sec.
We can use this information to represent the conductivity of the native clay together with the smear
zone rather than create separate geometric regions for the two different zones. This makes the
numerical modeling easier.

The implication for our analysis is that the smear zone around the drain dominates the dissipation of
the excess pore-water pressures and, in turn, the rate of consolidation.

Indraratna and Redana (2000) presented a table of conductivities used in their analyses. For a 1.5 m
drain spacing, the conductivities are as in Table 1, where the conductivities have been converted to
m/day. The blended 𝐾 is computed based on drain spacing of 1.5 m (radius = 0.75 m) and a smear
zone thickness of 0.54 m (radius = 0.27 m). For discussion and mental interpretation purposes, it is

5
worth noting that the soft clay at depth has a conductivity of about one order of magnitude less than
the upper weathered clay.

Table 1. Conductivities used in the analysis presented by Indraratna and Redana (2000) converted to m/day.

TS1 – depth Hhorizontal Kplane-strain Ksmear Kblended

(m) (m/day) (m/day) (m/day) (m/day)
0 to 2 4.52e-03 1.27e-03 1.02e-04 2.48e-4
2 to 7 1.04e-03 2.90e-04 2.33e-05 5.67e-5
7 to 12 4.54e-04 1.28e-04 1.03e-05 2.50e-5

The values from Table 1 have been added to the analysis using the Saturated Only material model in
the Hydraulic tab. The Ky’/Kx’ Ratio has also been defined as 0.5, to define the vertical hydraulic
conductivity as half the horizontal conductivity.

From a modeling perspective, it is best in a case like this to start with analyzing just one cell. It makes
the modeling process much more manageable while the key issues are being resolved. So, to begin
with, let us look at a single cell (Analysis 1).

Figure 6 shows a single cell with a 1.5 m drain spacing. The drain is in the middle of the cell.

Figure 7. One cell with a boundary condition to represent the effect of the drain.

In this case, we will treat the drain as a “perfect” drain, meaning that there is no head loss in the
drain or no well resistance. We can model this condition with a specified boundary condition.

6
Making the boundary condition a total head equal to 12 m (H = 12) says that the pressure distribution
will be perfectly hydrostatic at all times.

Recall that when we specify a head or pressure at a node, the finite element analysis will compute a
flux (Q) at that node. So specifying a head at the drain means flow comes out of the system at these
nodes. This is not what happens physically, but numerically it is equivalent to water flowing out of
the top of the drain where there is no head loss due to the flow.

The pore-water pressure across the top is set to zero to represent the water table at the ground
surface. We can assign the soil the blended conductivity based on the reasoning presented above.

The loading from the embankment can be applied with a pressure type boundary condition (Figure
7). There are long periods with no increase in the loading while the pore-water pressure is allowed
to dissipate. Also, the time can run past the end of the graph at 300 days. It simply means there is
no more loading, but the pore-water pressure can continue to dissipate. The analysis is carried out
up to 400 days.

Loading history TS1

80

70
Normal Boundary Stress (kPa)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 100 200 300

Time (d)

Figure 7. Applied pressure to represent the embankment fill placement.

The drain itself can actually be modeled with what are known as interface elements (Analysis 2). The
drain is included with special finite elements with their own properties (Figure 8). The drain in this
case is sometimes referred to as a well.

7
Figure 8. Interface elements represent the drain or well.

For the analysis here, the drain (interface) is given the same mechanical properties as the
surrounding soil. This is to say that the mechanical stiffness of the drain has no effect on the
behavior. The well resistance can be modeled with an equivalent hydraulic conductivity. A very high
𝐾 value means little or no resistance and a low 𝐾 would mean some well resistance.

An approximate 𝐾 can be estimated from a known discharge capacity for a particular drain design
and consideration of Darcy’s law. Let’s say the discharge capacity is 100 m3/year – this is about
0.275 m3/day. Also, let’s assume the head loss in the 12 m long drain is 1.2 m. In our model, the drain
thickness is 0.06 m. With a unit thickness, the drain cross-sectional area is 0.06 m2. The equivalent 𝐾
is then:

𝑞 Equation 4
𝐾= = 45 𝑚/𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑖𝑎

This is just a crude estimate to give us some idea of an appropriate equivalent 𝐾 for the drain. From
this, it was decided to try a first run by making the 𝐾 equal to 0.5 m/day to see if this would produce
any build-up of head in the drain. Note that now no boundary condition has been applied along the
length of the drain, as in the previous case.

Results and Discussion

The computed surface settlement for the perfect drain case (Analysis 1) is shown in Figure 9. The
total settlement is about 1.13 m. The field measured settlement after 400 days of consolidation was
around 1 m. This suggests that the one-cell model is a reasonable representation of the actual field
conditions.

8
 h) settlement
0

-0.2

-0.4
Y-Displacement (m)

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2

-1.4
0 100 200 300 400

Time (d)

Figure 9. Surface settlement with 1.5 m drain spacing.

One other observation of significance is that the largest part of the compression occurred in the very
soft clay (Figure 10). About 70% of the total 1.13 m of settlement is in the very soft clay. Also very
little compression occurs on the surficial over-consolidated crust.

12

10

8
Y (m)

0
-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0

Y-Displacement (m)

Figure 10. Settlement profile at the end of 400 days.

This type of information is valuable to assess the material properties selected for each of the layers.
At this stage, adjustments could be made if deemed necessary before proceeding to a full scale 2D
analysis.

The pore-water pressure at the mid-way point between two drains (edge of model for one-cell case)
is shown in Figure 11. These pore-water pressures are at the contact between the very soft clay and
the underlying slightly more competent clay.

9
 105

100

95
Water Pressure (kPa)

90

85

80

75

70

65
0 100 200 300 400

Time (d)

Figure 11. Pore-water pressures at the mid-way point between two drains at the contact between the very soft clay and
the underlying slightly more competent clay (El 5 m).

The following graph (Figure 12) shows the excess head in the well on Day 250 in Analysis 2, when the
pore-water pressures are generally high. The excess head at the base of the well is about 1.5 m.
Also, the computed surface settlement is more or less the same as the case of a perfect drain. This
indicates that at a K of 0.5 m/day for the drain, the well resistance, is not a factor.

12

10

8 0 sec
Y (m)

4
250 days

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Water Pressure Head (m)

Figure 12. Excess pressure head distribution in the well.

If we reduce the well K by an order of magnitude to 0.1 m/day, the excess head distribution is as
shown in Figure 13. Now there is about 4 m of excess head at the base of the well and the total
settlement is approximately 0.80 m, as opposed to the 1.13 m with a perfect drain. In other words,
the well resistance is now affecting the pore-water pressure dissipation and settlement.

10
 12

10

8 0 sec
Y (m)

4
250 days

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Water Pressure Head (m)

Figure 13. Excess pressure head distribution in the well with a reduced conductivity.

It is difficult to exactly quantify the well resistance, particularly if the drains become damaged or
partially clogged. The procedure described here at least makes it possible to investigate the effect of
resistance to flow in the drains.

Another important observation is that if we make the assumption that there is no well resistance,
then we can simulate the drains with a boundary condition. This greatly simplifies the modeling,
especially for 2D field cases.

If we now use the same properties in a 2D field model as were used in the one-cell analyses, the
surface settlement profile is as shown in Figure 14 (Analysis 3). The total computed settlement under
the centerline of the embankment is 1.26 m. This is higher than the 1.13 m computed for the one-cell
analysis. The exact reason for the difference is not entirely clear. One difference between the
analyses is the loading. Simulating the actual fill placement results in a different loading pattern than
used for the one-cell analysis. There are, of course, some two-dimensional effects which can also
have an effect. The 2D and one-cell results are close enough that a good picture of the settlement
can be obtained from a one-cell analysis. The 1.26 m of settlement is reasonably close to the value
measured in the field.

f) surface settlement
0.2

-0.2
10 days
Y-Displacement (m)

-0.4

60 days
-0.6

120 days
-0.8

-1 210 days

-1.2 1.1 yrs

-1.4

-1.6
0 10 20 30 40

X (m)

Figure 14. Ground surface settlement profiles in 2D field model.

11
Figure 15 shows the deformation at the end of 400 days as a deformed mesh at a true 1:1 scale (no
exaggeration). This provides a picture of the overall settlements.

Figure 15. Settlements presented as a deformed mesh.

Summary and Conclusions

These analyses show that GeoStudio has all of the features to model the effect of prefabricated
vertical drains installed to aid in the dissipation of excess pore-water pressures in soft soil arising
from surface loading. The results presented here are different than that reported by others. Our
objective here is not necessarily to replicate exactly what others have done. The objective is to
demonstrate that GeoStudio has the capability to do this type of analysis, and the trends in the
results are sufficient to confirm that this is the case. More could likely be done to match the
published information, but the effort is not warranted in light of these objectives.

The results ultimately come down to the one overriding, controlling parameter, which is the
hydraulic conductivity of the clay. As is well known, the conductivity of natural marine deposits can
vary significantly, often within an order of magnitude. In addition, in cases like this, we have the
disturbance of the clay and the effect this has on the conductivity due to the insertion of the drains.
So the accuracy of predicting the rate of the settlement is directly related to the confidence with
which the conductivity can be defined and to what degree the drains will become clogged and
damaged. Careful consideration needs to be given to the results in the context of this field reality.

There are several modeling lessons in this demonstration. Much of the behavior can be studied with
a simple one-cell model. Any study like this should at least start with a one-cell analysis to resolve
most of the modeling issues before proceeding to a 2D field analysis. The effect of the drains can be
modeled with boundary conditions. It is not necessarily a requirement that the actual physical drains
are included in a complex 2D analysis – it can unnecessarily over-complicate the model. As always,
the best lesson is to start simple and gradually move to the more complex in stages.

12
References
Bergado, D.T., Balasubramian, A.S., Fannin, R.J. and Holtz, R.D. (2002). Prefabricated vertical drains
(PVS’s) in soft Bangkok clay: a case study of the new Bangkok International Airport project, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 304-315.

Indraratna, B. and Redana, I.W. (2000) Numerical modeling of the vertical drains with smear and well
resistance installed in soft clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 132-145.

13