Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237371956
CITATIONS
READS
444
2 authors:
Linbing Wang
J. David Frost
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
760
Abstract: The dissipated strain energy method (DSEM), a new method for determining the preconsolidation pressure,
is presented in this paper. Compared with the energy method, the DSEM uses dissipated strain energy and the slope of
the unloadingreloading cycle (in the strain energy effective consolidation stress space) for the plot to minimize the
sample disturbance effects and eliminate the effect of elastic deformation. Dissipated strain energy, in terms of micromechanics, is directly related to the irreversible process of consolidation and can be supported by theories dealing with
consolidation and compaction. The use of the unloadingreloading slope to simulate the elastic reloading for the
recompression stage can minimize sample disturbance effects. Examples presented indicate that the proposed new
method is less operator dependent than most of the existing methods.
Key words: dissipated strain energy, preconsolidation pressure, consolidation, energy method, dissipated strain energy
method.
Rsum : On prsente dans cet article une nouvelle mthode pour dterminer la pression de consolidation, soit la
mthode dnergie de dformation dissipe (DSEM). Compare la mthode dnergie, la nouvelle mthode utilise
lnergie de dformation dissipe, et la pente du cycle de dchargement-rechargement (dans lespace nergie de
dformation-contrainte effective de consolidation) pour le graphique devant minimiser les effets de remaniement de
lchantillon et liminer leffet d la dformation lastique. Lnergie de dformation dissipe en termes de micromcanique est directement relie au processus irrversible de consolidation et peut sappuyer sur des thories traitant de la
consolidation et du compactage. Lutilisation de la pente dchargement-rechargement pour simuler le rechargement lastique pour le stade de recompression peut minimiser les effets de remaniement de lchantillon. Les exemples prsents
indiquent que la nouvelle mthode propose est moins dpendante de loprateur que la plupart des mthodes existantes.
Mots cls : nergie de dformation dissipe, pression de prconsolidation, consolidation, mthode dnergie, mthode
dnergie de dformation dissipe.
[Traduit par la Rdaction]
768
Introduction
Preconsolidation pressure c , according to Casagrande
(1936), is the largest overburden in which soil had been
consolidated. The significance of determining the preconsolidation pressure lies in the fact that the compressibility,
deformation, and strength characteristics of soil on either
side of c are eminently different, which also serves as the
basis of the methods for determining c .
The importance of determining c has attracted many researchers. Different methods such as those by Casagrande
(1936), Burmister (1951), Schmertmann (1955), Janbu
(1967), and Butterfield (1979) have been developed. These
Received 2 April 2002. Accepted 22 December 2003.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cgj@nrc.ca on 31 August 2004.
L.B. Wang.1 Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Louisiana State University and Southern
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
J.D. Frost. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
1
doi: 10.1139/T04-013
761
Fig. 2. Schmertmanns (1955) reconstitution of the field consolidation curve.
762
Energy method
The energy method (Becker et al. 1987) also uses Casagrandes (1936) first conclusion and the conclusion of Mesri
and Choi (1985) on the unique relation between end of primary consolidation void ratio and effective stress. As for the
term similar in Casagrandes second conclusion, Becker et
al. (1987) assume a linear relation between total strain energy E and the effective stress p (Ep) for the recompression
part directly from the laboratory recompression curve without considering the unloadingreloading portion of the tests.
In actuality, the Becker et al. energy method is the same
[1]
de = C c d log p
[2]
E =
763
p2
p2
p
p C dp C ( p p )
1 + e0 de = 1 + e0 cp = c1 +2 e0 1
p
p
d log(1 + e) = C d log p
[4]
de
C dp
=
1+ e
p
[5]
E =
de = CpC 1 dp
or
p2
p2
p
p
1 + e de = pC CpC 1 dp = C ( p2 p1)
p
p
Comments
As illustrated in the first two sections of the paper, the key
to determining c is the understanding of the relation of the
unloadingreloading curve to the virgin compression curve
(as according to Casagrande 1936, the close similarity)
and the effects on the relation due to sample disturbance.
Therefore the following three observed phenomena are important in constituting any method for the assessment of
preconsolidation pressure: (i) the more the disturbance, the
steeper the slope of the recompression curve before c (section I in Fig. 1, referred to as the recompression curve);
(ii) the recompression curve becomes more rounded towards
the stress where unloading starts and merges into the virgin
compression curve at a stress slightly larger than the stress
where unloading starts; and (iii) the unloadingreloading
slope is highly nonlinear with effective consolidation pressure.
The first two phenomena have been widely recognized.
Leonards (1976) and Fang (1985) have noticed the first phenomena, and Crawford (1985) commented that test results of
consolidation in the recompression range are not reliable.
Leonards also found the value estimated from a rebound
recompression cycle is more likely to approximate the field
results. Schmertmann (1955) found that the unloading
reloading line is less affected by disturbance and adopted the
unloadingreloading slope in his reconstitution of the field
compression curve.
In applying the Becker et al. (1987) energy method, it is
also evident that the recompression slope is generally steeper
than the unloadingreloading slope; the Ep curve becomes
more rounded towards the virgin compression line and thus
it is difficult for the operator to select the recompression
line.
The literature review suggests the adoption of the
unloadingreloading slope as the recompression line instead
of the initial slope of the laboratory recompression curve.
This is also based on the authors observations of the roundness of the Ep curve towards the virgin compression line
and the better linear relation of the unloadingreloading
curve. To avoid the uncertainty associated with the selection
of the recompression line, a line parallel to the unloading
reloading line was drawn and it was found that the value of
c thus obtained was closer to the expected value based on
results from a laboratory-consolidated specimen (see the
section titled Experimental justifications). It is this finding
that initiated the present work on the DSEM.
Since the slope (e log p space) of the unloadingreloading curve is stress dependent, the adoption of the unloading
reloading slope of only one unloadingreloading cycle is
still an approximation. This approximation could be rational
for the typical stress range in a consolidation test, however.
In reality, some simpler models are even more popular than
complicated models if only they capture the major properties. For example, the Cam-Clay model assumes a constant
unloadingreloading slope for different stress levels and thus
has some limitations in applications. With greater use of the
model, however, this could be compensated by the experience gained. In this case, the accuracy could be technically
2004 NRC Canada
764
improved by unloading at a reasonably estimated preconsolidation pressure, or the consolidation rate could be monitored so that unloading can take place at the stress where the
consolidation rate has some significant variations. In this
regard, a reasonable approach to this problem is suggested
as follows: (i) perform unloadingreloading cycles at two
stresses; and (ii) obtain a correlation between effective stress
where unloading starts and the average slope of the
unloadingreloading cycle and then iterate to obtain c . This
approach is derived from the following correlation equation
proposed by Schmertmann (1955):
[6]
log
C r1
Cr2
= 2.5 log
er 2 + 1
er1 + 1
where C r1 and C r2 are the recompression indices at two different stresses corresponding to two different void ratios er1
and er2. Equation [6] is based on 59 individual consolidation
tests with distinct recompression slopes. The tests were performed on clays from 16 sites in nine US states and five
sites in four foreign countries. The value of 2.5 is the average value of regression analysis and is related to the clay
structure. This coefficient may vary significantly for different clays. A more common result that might be used is the
stress-dependent soil resilient modulus. For simplicity, however, this approach is not investigated in this paper.
In summary, the Becker et al. (1987) energy method uses
total strain energy and the laboratory recompression curve to
assess the preconsolidation pressure. The unreliability of the
laboratory recompression curve due to sample disturbance
effects is not accounted for. It is also difficult to select the
recompression line when points on the recompression curve
do not obviously follow a straight line. Total strain energy is
theoretically not associated with the consolidation process
but dissipated strain energy is. The unloadingreloading
slope is less affected by sample disturbance and is more representative of the field recompression characteristics.
ep = pv
[8]
ee = ev
765
Experimental justifications
Fig. 7. Actual consolidation tests in strain energy p space. OD,
dissipated strain energy; OE, elastic strain energy; OT, total
strain energy.
OD (i.e., dissipated strain energy line), and (vii) the p coordinate of the intersection of line Rp and OD is the preconsolidation pressure.
Characteristics of the DSEM
The characteristics of the DSEM can be summarized as
follows:
(1) In strain energy effective stress space, consolidation
tests start at the point that corresponds to the dissipated
strain energy at the preconsolidation stress. This point is
the base point that serves as reference for other strain
energy calculations. The total strain energy method does
not have such a characteristic.
(2) The total strain energy method by Becker et al. (1987)
uses only the recompression curve, whereas the DSEM
uses both the recompression curve and the unloading
reloading curves from the same test and thus will decrease the systematic errors.
(3) By knowing the value OR, c can be obtained numerically, which makes computer implementation simpler:
c = OR / tan(DOP).
(4) For each step, the operator has a more objective procedure to follow. Therefore the method is less operator dependent.
(5) The DESM has a strong theoretical basis, in that the
consolidation process is an irreversible process and most
766
Table 1. Preconsolidation pressures (Pc) and coefficients of determination from the different methods.
Coefficient of determination
Method
Pc
Initial loading
Second loading
First unloading
Second unloading
e log p
Log (1 + e) log p
Energy method (EM)
DSEM
380
367
480
435
0.800
0.799
0.973 (0.973)
0.973 (0.973)
0.820
0.818
0.995 (0.995)
0.995 (0.995)
0.750
0.750
0.915 (0.929)
0.915 (0.929)
0.963
0.965
0.997 (0.997)
0.997 (0.997)
Note: The values in parentheses are for the workp (total work, elastic work, plastic work) correlation and indicate
that this correlation can be used without changing much of the linear relation, but the method is greatly simplified.
Preconsolidation
pressure (kPa)
Casagrande
Burmister
Becker
Butterfield
Intersecting tangent
DSEM
469
560
494
467
492
408
Conclusion
A new method, called the dissipated strain energy method
or DSEM, has been developed and presented in this paper.
Dissipated strain energy is mechanically the cause of consolidation; its linear relation with effective consolidation stress
Acknowledgment
Dr. Beckers kind presentation of some of the test data for
this study from an engineering project is sincerely appreciated.
2004 NRC Canada
767
References
Sridharan, J.B.T. 1991. Improved technique for estimation of preconsolidation pressure Gotechnique, 41(2): 263268.
Tavenas, F., Des Rosiers, J.-P., Leroueil, S., Rochelle, P.L., and
Roy, M. 1979. The use of strain energy as a yield and creep criterion for lightly overconsolidated clays. Gotechnique, 29(3):
285303.
Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H.A., Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1987.
Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in
clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24: 549564.
Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H.A., Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1989.
Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in
clays: Reply. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26: 327328.
Burmister, D.M. 1951. The applications of controlled test methods
in consolidation testing. In Symposium on Consolidation
Testing of Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Special Technical Publication STP 126, pp. 8397.
Butterfield, R. 1979. A natural compression law for soils (an advance on e ln p ). Gotechnique, 29(4): 469480.
Casagrande, A. 1936. The determination of the preconsolidation
load and its practical significance. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Cambridge, Mass. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands. Vol. 3, pp. 6064.
Crawford, C.B. 1985. State of the art: evaluation and interpretation
of soil consolidation tests. In Consolidation of soils: testing and
evaluation. Edited by R.N. Yong and F.C. Townsend. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication
STP 892.
Den Haan, E.J. 1992. The formulation of virgin compression of
soils. Gotechnique, 42(3): 465483.
Fang, H.Y. (Editor). 1985. Foundation engineering handbook. 2nd
ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, Inc., New York.
Hashiguchi, K. 1995. On the linear relations of v ln p and ln v
ln p for isotropic consolidation of soils. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 19: 367
376.
Holtz, R.D., Jamiolkowski, M.B., and Lancellotta, R. 1986. Lessons from oedometer tests on high quality samples. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112(8): 768776.
Houlsby, G.T., and Sharma, R.S. 1999. A conceptual model for the
yielding and consolidation of clays. Gotechnique, 49(4): 491
501.
Janbu, N. 1967. Settlement calculations based on the tangent
modulus concept. Institutt for Geoteknokk og Fundamenteringslaere, Meddelelse 2. Norge Tekniske Hogskole, Trondheim, Norway.
Leonards, G.A. 1976. Estimating consolidation settlements of shallow foundations on overconsolidated clays. Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Special Report 163, pp. 1316.
Li, K.S. 1989. Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield
stresses in clays: Discussion. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
26: 324326.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. 1985. The uniqueness of the end-ofprimary (EOP) void ratio effective stress relationship. In
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Calif., 12
16 August 1985. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Vol. 2, pp. 587590.
Nagaraj, T.S., and Srinivasa Murthy, B.R. 1983. Rationalization
of Skemptons compressibility equation. Gotechnique, 33(4):
433443.
Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A.N., and Wroth, C.P. 1958. On the
yielding of soils. Gotechnique, 8(1): 2253.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1955. The undisturbed consolidation behavior
of clay. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 20: 12011233.
Appendix A
This appendix documents an example of how to use conventional one-dimensional consolidation test results to calculate the specific accumulative total strain energy (strain
energy per unit volume), specific accumulative elastic strain
energy, and specific accumulative dissipated strain energy.
In this example, e0 = 0.3551 (see Table A1). The soil is a
brown sandy silty clay and was tested in the Central Laboratory of Law Engineering and Environmental Service, Inc.,
Atlanta, Georgia. The incremental volumetric strain (IVS) is
given as
e
1 + e0
v =
under one-dimensional conditions and is equal to the incremental vertical strain z; the incremental total strain energy
(ITSE) is given as
pi + pi 1
v
2
Eit =
Eit = Ekt
k =1
C r pi
1 + e0
e
log ps log pe
768
DIAL
(in.)
Void
ratio
0.0
0.1
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
0.04070
0.04270
0.05090
0.06110
0.06830
0.06470
0.06615
0.06940
0.08270
0.09640
0.3551
0.3524
0.3412
0.3274
0.3177
0.3225
0.3206
0.3162
0.2982
0.2796
IVS
0.0000
0.0020
0.0083
0.0102
0.0072
0.0035
0.0014
0.0032
0.0133
0.0137
ITSE
(ksf)
ATSE
(ksf)
ATSE
C (ksf)
AESE
(ksf)
ADSE
(ksf)
ADSEC
(ksf)
0.0000
0.0001
0.0025
0.0076
0.0107
0.0044
0.0011
0.0049
0.0398
0.0824
0.0000
0.0001
0.0026
0.0102
0.0210
0.0165
0.0176
0.0224
0.0623
0.1447
0.0000
0.0188
0.0213
0.0289
0.0397
0.0353
0.0363
0.0412
0.0810
0.1634
0.0000
0.0006
0.0029
0.0059
0.0118
0.0029
0.0059
0.0118
0.0235
0.0471
0.0000
0.0005
0.0004
0.0043
0.0092
0.0136
0.0117
0.0107
0.0388
0.0976
0.0000
0.0182
0.0184
0.0231
0.0279
0.0323
0.0304
0.0294
0.0575
0.1163
using Eid = Eit Eie and Eie = C n pi /(1 + e0). These values
should be corrected by adding a term equal to OR in Fig. 5.
RO can be obtained by regression analysis of the last three
points on the OD plot, i.e., (2, 0.0107), (4, 0.0388), and (8,
0.0976) (see Table A1, the Load column and the ADSE column). In this case, OR = 0.0187 ksf.
The accumulative total strain energy corrected (ATSEC) =
ATSE + OR, which is equivalent to coordinate transform
from R origin to O origin (see Fig. 5), and the accumulative
dissipated strain energy corrected (ADSEC) = ADSE + OR,
the meaning of which is as given previously.
Figure A1 plots the strain energies in the energy consolidation stress space. The p coordinate that corresponds to the
RpOD intersecting point, 1.3 ksf, is the preconsolidation
stress.
Fig. A1. Strain energy versus consolidation stress for the example test.