TY - JOUR ID - 167386 TI - Numerical Simulation of Embankment Settlement in Vacuum Preloading Systems JO - International Journal of Engineering JA - IJE LA - en SN - 1025-2495 AU - Mulyawati, I. B. AU - Riza, M. AU - Dermawan, H. AU - Pratiwi, V. AD - Department of Civil Engineering Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia AD - Department of Civil Engineering, Universitas Komputer Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia Y1 - 2023 PY - 2023 VL - 36 IS - 4 SP - 817 EP - 823 KW - Soft Soil Settlement KW - Vacuum preloading KW - Prefabricated vertical drain KW - Geostudio DO - 10.5829/ije.2023.36.04a.18 N2 - In Indonesia, the construction of the road has challenges because the road was built on soft clay soil. The vacuum preloading method was used to improve the shear strength and compressibility properties of soft soil in this project. Moreover, what needs to be a concern for practitioners is the issue of increasing simulation accuracy in predicting soil settlement in a vacuum preloading system. The research objective of this study was to determine changes in soil settlement behavior that occurred from the vacuum preloading system using a numerical simulations Geostudio with the 2D Multi Drain-Plane Strain approach and the settlement result of the simulation will be compare with instrumentation data. In this study the vacuum pressure distribution is modeled using water total head negative pore water pressure and the pressure value used following vacuum gauge data in the field with distribution approach is 100% at the surface of the sand platform, 85% to a depth of 5 m, then 60% to the end of the PVD. Based on the simulations, the conlusion is the vacuum pressure applied along the vertical drainage is not modeled constant, but changes with depth, the value of 60% at the bottom of the vertical drainage is quite representative of the conditions in the field and the settlement from the simulation is quite good at approaching the field observation with a prediction of the settlement due to vacuum preloading of ±0.93 m, when compared to the field observation data there is a difference of about 1.6%. UR - https://www.ije.ir/article_167386.html L1 - https://www.ije.ir/article_167386_2ed266ed92b8fc713901e8d1b3654cd7.pdf ER -