Ground Improvement in Transport

Geotechnics - from Theory to Practice

Prof. Buddhima Indraratna
Professor of Civil Engineering & Research Director
Centre for Geomechanics and Railway Engineering
Program Leader, ARC Centre of Excellence in Geotechnical Science & Engineering
University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia

Dr. Sanjay Nimbalkar

Research Fellow, Centre for Geomechanics and Railway engineering
University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia

A/Prof. Cholachat Rujikiatkamjorn

Dr. Ana Heitor

Associate Professor, School of Civil, Mining & Environmental Engineering

University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia

Lecturer, School of Civil, Mining & Environmental Engineering

University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia

14th IACMAG 2014, Kyoto, Japan

 Demand for freight and passenger transport has increased in the past decade.
Increased traffic tonnage necessitates use of ground improvement techniques in
Rail, Road and Port Infrastructure.

Part A

Part B

Figures from Road and rail freight: competitors or complements? Bureau of

Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Australian Government Canberra.

Particle degradation

Track buckling

Subgrade clay pumping

PART A:
Railways Granular media stabilisation
Effect of confining pressure on track design
DEM - Particle degradation modelling
Cyclic loading and FEM modelling
Track Contamination and design implications
3

Dynamic Process Simulation Test Facilities, Designed and Built at UoW

Prismoidal Triaxial Rig to Simulate a

Track Section
(Specimen: 800x600x600 mm)
Cylindrical Triaxial Equipment
(Specimen: 300 mm dia.x600 mm high)
4

Effect of High Impact Loads and Track Degradation

Subgrade
type

Location of shock mat

Ballast Breakage
Index (BBI)

Without shock mat

Stiff

0.170

Soft

0.080

With Shock mat

Stiff

Above ballast

0.145

Stiff

Below ballast

0.129

Stiff

Above & below ballast

0.091

Soft

Above ballast

0.055

Soft

Below ballast

0.056

Soft

Above & below ballast

0.028

Shock Mat

Nimbalkar, Indraratna, Dash & Christie (2012). JGGE, ASCE, Vol. 138(3), 281-294

Effect of Confining Pressure on Strain Behaviour of Ballast

(Indraratna, Lackenby and Christie (2005), Geotechnique, Vol. 55(4), 325-328)
Monotonic Loading
-16

-4

3
1 kPa
8 kPa
15 kPa
30 kPa
60 kPa

-12
-10
-8

90 kPa
120 kPa
240 kPa

-6
-4
-2

dilation

0
compression

qmax = 500 kPa

-3

Volumetric Strain (%)

-14

Volumetric Strain (%)

Cyclic Loading
-2
-1
dilation
compression

0
1

2
4
5

4
0

10

15

20

60 kPa
90 kPa
120 kPa
180 kPa
240 kPa

3 kPa
10 kPa
20 kPa
30 kPa
45 kPa

25

Axial Strain (%)

10

15

20

25

30

35

Axial Strain (%)

60

Friction angle, (degree)

p, of

fresh ballast

52
Dilatancy (+)

48

(-) Compression
Particle breakage

44
f

Friction Angle ()

Peak friction angle,

56

(excludes particle breakage and dilatancy)

Dilation

fb (includes breakage but excludes dilatancy)

Compression

44

40

f (excludes particle breakage and dilatancy)

36
0

100

200

300

Effective confining pressure (kP a)

400

50

100

150

200

Confining Pressure (kPa)

250

Increasing Confining Pressure using: Intermittent

Lateral Restraints or Embedded Winged Sleepers

Intermittent lateral
restraints

Lateral restraints

Rail

Sleepers

Winged sleepers

Lackenby, Indraratna, McDowell and Christie (2007) Geotechnique, ICE, UK. Vol. 57(6), 527-536

Effect of Confining Pressure on Particle Degradation

(Cyclic Loading)
1
0.06

ea
br

um

im

ax

of
m

ry
da
un
bo
ry

Shift in PSD
caused by
degradation

0.04

qmax = 500 kPa

qmax = 230 kPa

Optimum Contact

0.02

Compressive Stable
Degradation Zone

Ar

bi

tra

Fraction Passing

PSD = particle size distribution

2.36 = smallest sieve size
d95i = d95 of largest
sieve size

Unstable Dilation Zone

Ballast Breakage Index, BBI

dmax

ka

A
A B

ge

BBI

Optimum
Degradation Zone

d95i

(I)

Initial PSD

Sieve Size (mm)

Ballast Breakage Index (BBI)

Indraratna, Lackenby and Christie (2005)

Geotechnique, Vol. 55(4), 325-328
8

50

100

150

200

Effective Confining Pressure (kPa)

2.36

(III)

Final PSD

(II)

63

250

Constitutive Modelling Incorporating Ballast Breakage

Energy Approach

dEB = increment of energy consumption due to particle breakage

f
d v 2
1
tan 45 1
d 1
2
q

p 2 1 d v 2
f
tan 45
1
2

3 3 d 1

dE B / d 1 1 sin f
2 1 d v 2
f
tan 45
p 1
2

3 3 d 1

Conventional theory
p = Effective mean stress
q = Deviator stress

f = basic friction angle

Indraratna and Salim (2002)

Geotechnical Engineering,
ICE Proceedings, UK.

Constitutive Modelling of Particle Breakage

Salim & Indraratna (2004), Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 41(4), 657-671

1600

3 = 300 kPa

1200

200 kPa

800

100 kPa
50 kPa

400

v (%)

Model prediction

Test data for crushed basalt

(Indraratna and Salim 2001)

-6.0

Volumetric strain,

Distortional stress, q (kPa)

-8.0

Test data for crushed basalt

(Indraratna and Salim 2001)

2000

-4.0

Dilation

-2.0

100 kPa

0.0
2.0

200 kPa
4.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Deviatoric
Strain,
s (%)
Distrortional
strain,
s (%)

25.0

8.0
0.0

Stress-Strain behaviour

d sp

d sp

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Distrortional
strain,
s (%)
Deviatoric
Strain,
s (%)

25.0

Volume Change Behaviour

po ( i )
p
9 3M 2 * M d
1
2

p
p
cs ( i )
cs

2 po

B
M 2 1 ei
1 9M * M *
p
p

d vp

300 kPa

Contraction

6.0
0

3 = 50 kPa

Model prediction

B M *
9M

9 3M 2 * M
p
9 3M 2 * M

Model Parameters need to

be determined by largescale testing
10

Distinct Element Modelling: Train Velocity vs Breakage

Model particle shapes and sizes

11

Hossain, Indraratna, Darve, & Thakur (2007).

Geomech & Geoengg, Vol. 2(3), 175-181

Particle Breakage near the top plate

Constitutive model: Critical State capturing particle breakage

Indraratna, B., Sun, Q. D. & Nimbalkar, S. (2014). Can. Geotech. J. in press.

M c M c0 1 exp BBI
Mc0 is critical state stress ratio for BBI = 0

c ref a exp b BBI ln p'

12

DEM Modelling Geogrid-reinforced Ballast under Shearing Loads

DEM - geogrid

DEM particle shapes and sizes

13

Comparison of shear stress and displacements for

DEM simulation of reinforced ballast

Ngo, Indraratna, and Rujikiatkamjorn (2014). Computers & Geotechnics, Vol. 55, 224-231

DEM Model for Geogrid-reinforced Ballast under Direct Shearing

14

Role of Ballast Fouling on Track Performance

Infiltration of coal

Slurried Clay infiltration

Void Contaminant Index (VCI) proposed by UOW

VCI =

(1+ef)
eb

15

Gs.b
Gs.f

Mf
Mb

100

eb
ef
Gs-b
Gs-f
Mb
Mf

= Void ratio of clean ballast

= Void ratio of fouling material
= Specific gravity of clean ballast
= Specific gravity of fouling material
= Dry mass of clean ballast
= Dry mass of fouling material

d v d ev d pv

Bounding Surface Model for Fouled Ballast

(Indraratna et al., 2014; Geotechnique, in press)
q

Bounding Surface

Bounding Surface
F=0

ln( p'c p'

F q p a p' o M p'

lnR

1N

Non-Associated Flow rule

d pv
Mf
p
d q

Mf=f(VCI)

ij

Loading Surface
f=0

p'

p'c Pc/R

Hardening modulus

ln p'c p
M p a p' o p
lnR

hb
Np'c ln p'c p

16

h=hb + hf

1 e o

p'
c

mp
F

1 p'c

hf
p
pc v max

f VCI

Impeded Track Drainage due to Ballast Fouling

0

10

Coal-fouled ballast: Experimental

Coal-fouled ballast: Theoretical
Sand-fouled ballast: Experimental
Sand-fouled ballast: Theoretical

-1

Hydraulic Conductivity, k (m/s)

10

-2

10

Bellambi Site
VCI=33%

-3

10

-4

Rockhampton Site
VCI=72%

hydraulic conductivity
of coal fines

10

Sydenham Site
VCI=22%

-5

10

hydraulic conductivity
of clayey fine sand

-6

10

-7

10

20

40

60

80

100

Void Contaminant Index, VCI (%)

Variation of hydraulic conductivity vs. Void Contaminant Index

Large-scale permeability test apparatus

Hydraulic Conductivity (k) of fouled ballast

kb k f
k
k f VCI
(k k f )
100 b
17

Tennakoon, Indraratna, Cholachat, Nimbalkar and Neville

(2012) ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 35(4), 1-12

kb = Hydraulic conductivity of clean ballast

kf = Hydraulic conductivity of fouling material

Cyclic loading (sinusoidal form) of Track

Initial static loading to reach the minimum cyclic deviator stress.
Frequency conditioning phase (f = 1 Hz, N = 10) to prevent any loss of actuator
contact with the specimen.
Cyclic loading phase ( f = 5, 10, 20 and 40 Hz, N = 500 000).

18

Effect of frequency on the axial strain of ballast

Sun, Q. D., Indraratna, B. & Nimbalkar, S. (2014). Gotechnique, doi: 10.1680/geot./14-T-015.

Range I: Plastic shakedown (5Hz f 20 Hz)

Range II: Plastic shakedown followed by Ratcheting (30 Hz f 50 Hz)
Range III: Plastic collapse (f = 60 Hz)
19

Field Trial on Instrumented Track in Bulli and Singleton

Geocomposite layer (geogrid+geotextile)

before ballast placement

20

Geogrid layer placed

above the capping

Ballast placement over the

geocomposite

Settlement pegs
placement in the track

Field Instrumentation - Bulli

Settlement pegs
installed at ballastcapping interface

Displacement
transducers installed at
sleeper-ballast interface

Field Deformation Response

Indraratna et al. (2010). JGGE, ASCE, Vol. 136(7), 907-917
Indraratna et al. (2014). ICE Proc. Ground Improvement, Vol. 167(1), 24-34

Singleton Track

Bulli Track
1x10

2x10

3x10

4x10

5x10

6x10

7x10

8x10

Fresh Ballast (uniformly graded)

Recycled Ballast (broadly graded)
Fresh Ballast with Geocomposite
Recycled Ballast with Geocomposite

9x10
0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

12

4.00

15

5.00

18
0

10

12

14

16

6.00
18

time, t (months)

20

40

60

80

100
0

Type of Section

Aperture
Size (mm)
Geogrid 1
44 44
Geogrid 2
65 65
Geogrid 3
40 40
Geocomposite 31 31

12

18

24
0.0

5.0x10

1.0x10

1.5x10

2.0x10

Vertical Strain of Ballast, v (%)

0
0

Average vertical strain of ballast, (1)avg (%)

Average vertical deformation of ballast, (Sv)avg (mm)

Number of load cycles, N

Vertical Deformation of Ballast, Sv (mm)

Time, t (days)
0

8
5
2.5x10

Number of Load Cycles, N

The recycled ballast performed well

because, it was broadly graded compared
to the relatively uniform fresh ballast.
22

Optimum aperture size of geogrids is

about 1.15D50 of ballast.

Plane Strain FEM Analysis of Track Substructure

(Confining Pressure @ 50 kPa by geocells)

1000
'

Effective confining pressure 3 = 50 kPa

'

'

Deviator Stress, q = - (kPa)

900
800

E50

700

asymptote

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

10

15

Axial Strain, a (%)

23

20

25

Track transverse section deformation

Track longitudinal section deformation

PART B:
Road Embankments and Port Reclamation Soft Soil
Stabilisation

Concepts of vacuum consolidation

Factor affecting vacuum consolidation
2D and 3D FEM modelling of vacuum
consolidation
26

Membrane-type Vacuum Application (Courtesy Austress-Menard)

Drain Installation

Horizontal drain
installation

Membrane installation

Peripheral bentonite
trench

Connection between horizontal

drainage and vacuum pump

Principle of Vacuum Consolidation

150

75

p (preloading
pressure)

0
Time
-75

Stress/
Pressure (kPa)

Stress/
Pressure (kPa)

150

Maximum excess
pore pressure

0
Time
-75

Excess pore
pressure (kPa)

Excess pore
pressure (kPa)

75

75

0
Time

-150

-75

p0 (Vacuum
pressure)

Time

Governing Equation

150

Maximum excess
pore pressure

75

0
Time
-75

VP directly adjusts the initial

pore pressure boundary
conditions.

75

0
Time
-75

-150

Consolidation: (a) conventional surcharge loading;

(b) idealised vacuum preloading (Indraratna et al. 2005).
28

1 u 2u
2u u
ch (
2 ) cv 2
r r r
z
t

-150
150

Vertical effective
stress (kPa)

Vertical effective
stress (kPa)

-150
150

-75

p (preloading
pressure)

-150

-150
150

75

Vertical consolidation term

can be ignored if Z is
very large.

Pore Pressure generation and retarded dissipation within the Smear Zone

Excess Pore Pressure is

rapidly created during
mandrel intrusion
Excess PWP dissipates
very gradually after
mandrel withdrawal in
spite of the drain.

Mandrel Driving INCREASES effective vertical stress, hence, the lateral permeability
decreases within the smear zone (Sathananthan, Indraratna, & Rujikiatkamjorn (2008),
29

ASCE J. of Geomechanics, Vol. 8(6), 355-365).

Analytical and Numerical Simulation

Multi-drain Analysis and Plane Strain Conversion
Field condition: Axisymmetric

Maintain geometric
equivalence

2D plane strain FEM

Reduce the
convergence time
and require less
computer memory

Must give the same

consolidation response
30

Conversion of an Axisymmetric Unit Cell into Plane Strain

Indraratna et al., 2000 & 2005
Average excess pore pressure ratio

0.8

2 graphs coincide

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.1

ch=0.32m2/year
de=0.45m
Axisymmetric
Plane strain

10
Time (days)

100

Conversion must give

the SAME timesettlement curve

k
2
k
4
l
hp
hp

h
k
3B qwp
hp

k
hp

2
k
k
n
2

h
ln

ln s 0.75

3 qw
s k
h

31

1000

Normalized average excess pore pressure in axisymmetric

condition with vacuum (Indraratna et al., 2005), CGJ

u
u vac
1
uo
uo
CL

8Th
u vac
exp

u0

u 0 = initial pore pressure

Smear zone

-p0

u = pore pressure at time t (average values)

Th = time factor

Vacuum pressure
distribution
ks

kh

u vac = average applied vacuum pressure

2l 2 k h
n k h
ln ln(s) 0.75
3 qw
s k 'h
-k1p0
ds/2
de/2

32

Undisturbed zone

kh = undisturbed horizontal permeability

k'h = smear zone permeability

Applications at Port of Brisbane

Sea wall and

development area

70m

84.5m

41m

Tough Luck! No Vertical Drains here

84.5m

Liquid and plastic limit

(%)
0
40
80
WD5A
35m

WD5B

MS22-1

WD1 VWP2-WD1

MS16-1

0.6

0.8

Cv, Ch (m2/yr)
2
4
6
8

20

MS17-1

155m

WD3

Upper Holocene sand

MS18-1

MS19VWP5

70m
MS27WD3

VWP1-WD2
MS20-VWP5

VC1

VC1-2

50m

Elevation (m)

WD2

80

Dredged mud

VWP4-WD4
VC2-1

Su (kPa)
40 60

70m

MS15-1

VC2

0.4

10

WD4

WD5B

Cc

-10
Holocene Clay

MS28-VC1

-20
169m

Surface settlement plates

Inclinometers

33

Plan view

w LL
PL
LL
Water Content

210m

Piezometers

PL

Ch
Cv

-30

Soil Properties

Pleistocene

3D modelling at corner of embankment or at marine boundary

Effect of vacuum application (negative movements) may extend more than 10 m
from the edge of the embankment

34

10

21/11/08

24/10/08

26/09/08

29/08/08

01/08/08

04/07/08

06/06/08

09/05/08

11/04/08

14/03/08

15/02/08

18/01/08

21/12/07

23/11/07

26/10/07

28/09/07

31/08/07

03/08/07

06/07/07

08/06/07

-0.2

11/05/07

Time-Settlement, Pore Pressure & Lateral Yielding Response

8

0
11/05/07

Degree of Consolidation
(%)

0.2

Settlement (m)

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2

19/08/07

27/11/07

06/03/08

14/06/08

22/09/08

Platform
Platform

10
20
30

UOW Predicted DOC (%)

40
50
60

70

Dredged mud

Dredged mud

Holocene sand

HS

80

-2

90

100

Upper Holocene Clay

UHC

-4

Prediction
Field

-6
Depth (m)

1.4
1.6
1.8
2

-8

LHC

-10
-12
-14

60

-16
Dredged Mud
Upper Holocene Sand
Upper Holocene Clay
Lower Holocene Clay
Measurement

40

Excess pore pressure (kPa)

-20
-22

20

-24
0
11/05/07

19/08/07

27/11/07

06/03/08

14/06/08

22/09/08

Section/Plate No.
VC1/MS28
WD3/MS27

-26
-28

-20

-40

-60

(a) Settlement and (b) excess pore pressure

for a typical vacuum site
-80

35

Lower Holocene Clay

-18

-30
0

1
2
Lateral displacement/Total change in effective stress
(mm/kPa)

(b) Reduction of lateral displacement for a

typical vacuum site

Part A + Part B: PVD Applications to Rail Embankment at Sandgate and FEM Analysis
Class A Prediction (Indraratna et al.

2010; ASCE, JGGE, Vol. 136(5), 686-696)

Soft Alluvial Clay

Stiffer Silty Clay

0
0

10

Lateral displacement (m)

20
30

40

Field Data
Prediction-Class A

0.1

-4

Depth (m)

Settlement (m)

0.05

0.15

-12

0.2
-16

0.25
0

36

100

200
Time (days)

Reduction in
lateral displacement

-8

300
-20

Field

No PVD
PVDs @ 1.5m spacing

50

Conclusions

Geogrids increase confining pressure and reduce particle dilation

and breakage in rail tracks.

Vacuum preloading effectively controls excess pore pressure and

lateral displacement of soft soil. VP is often the ideal choice, where
lateral movement at a marine boundary needs to be curbed.

PVDs effectively mitigate the build-up of excess PWP under high

cyclic loading (e.g. applications to railways and airport runways).

DEM models are most useful to analyse track degradation,

compared to current empirical assessments.

Fully-instrumented Field trials are imperative to study complex

issues of track behaviour and for performance verification.

37

Acknowledgment

Australian Research Council (ARC) for substantial funding

Past and Present research students, Research Associates and

Technical Staff

Industry Organisations: RailCorp (NSW), ARTC, QLD Rail,

ARUP, Coffey Geotechnics, Douglas Partners. Roads & Traffic
Authority, Queensland Department of Main Roads, Port of
Brisbane Corporation

Thank You!
38