See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270049049

FINITE STRAIN THEORY OF CONSOLIDATION OF CLAYS: FINITE VOLUME

APPROACH

Conference Paper · December 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 147

3 authors, including:

Rakesh Pratap Singh Mahendra Singh

National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   454 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Numerical modelling of reinforced rock mass using ECA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rakesh Pratap Singh on 27 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference
December 13-15, 2012, Delhi

FINITE STRAIN THEORY OF CONSOLIDATION OF CLAYS: FINITE VOLUME

APPROACH

Rakesh Pratap Singh, Research Scholar, Civil Eng. Dept. I I T Roorkee, singhrpnitjsr@yahoo.com
Mahendra Singh, Professor, Civil Eng. Dept. I I T Roorkee, msingh_civil@yahoo.com
C S P Ojha, Professor, Civil Eng. Dept. I I T Roorkee, Cojhafce@iitr.ernet.in

ABSTRACT: The Finite Strain Theory of one-dimensional consolidation finds its application with more generality for
consolidation of thick clay strata, dredged fill deposits; consolidation induced solute transport through clay liners and such
other similar cases. Upwind differencing, linear upwind differencing, central differencing, QUICK and min-max QUICK
schemes of FVM have been used to work out the equation with explicit formulation. The consolidation equation, in the
Material Coordinate system, has been solved first and then the solutions are transformed into Lagrangian and Convective
coordinate system for lucid interpretation of the results. A comparative study of FDM and FVM solutions on an example
problem, shows a good match in case of consolidation of dredged fills, however in case of consolidated soils, FVM solutions
give the faster rate of consolidation than that of FDM.

INTRODUCTION 3. Pore fluid flow velocities are small and governed by

The one-dimensional finite strain consolidation theory
overcomes many limitations of Terzaghi’s theory of
consolidation. It takes into account not only the large strains
but also the variations of the compressibility and permeability
during consolidation. The equation thus developed in terms
of void ratio as independent variable, is typically nonlinear
and contains geometric as well as material nonlinearity [1].
Numerical solutions to this equation in the same form or in
some other equivalent form have been presented by various
investigators either by finite difference method or finite
element method [1-5]. Fox and Berles [6] using another
concept presented a piecewise linear numerical model for
one-dimensional consolidation. However, it is noteworthy
that the conservation laws are the time dependent systems of
partial differential equations (usually nonlinear) and the finite
strain one-dimensional consolidation equation by falls into
this category. The finite volume (control volume)
formulations uses integration over small control volumes and
the flux at the interface of control volumes is represented by
the same expression, thus the material is rigorously conserved
[7]. This paper presents the finite volume formulation of the
finite strain one-dimensional consolidation equation and its
solution using FVM schemes, upwind differencing (UD),
linear upwind differencing (LUD), central differencing (CD),
quadratic upstream interpolation for convective kinetics
(QUICK) and min-max QUICK. Further, the solutions have
been obtained in time domain directly using the explicit time
marching scheme.
Darcy's law.
4. The soil permeability (k) and vertical effective stress
(σ’’) have the unique relationships with void ratio.
k  k (e) (1 )
' '
   (e) (2)
Coordinate System
Lagrangian and convective coordinate system are the measure of
soil solids and pore fluid matrix whereas the material
coordinates are the measure of only solid particles in the matrix.
The Lagrangian coordinates of a consolidating soil matrix
represents initial measurements of it i.e. at time t=0 whereas the
convective coordinates are the measurements at any time after
the start of the consolidation i.e. for any time t>0. Thus the
values of Lagrangian coordinates and material coordinates are
fixed and independent of time while the convective coordinates
keep on changing with time.
For the conversion of coordinates from one system to other, the
following relationship may be easily deducted. Consider a
differential element of soil shown below.

MODEL DESCRIPTION

Basic Assumptions
The basic assumptions of the theory of one-dimensional finite
strain consolidation are:
1. The soil matrix is compressible, but the pore fluid and
individual soil particles are incompressible.
2. The soil is homogeneous and loading is monotonic.

731
R. P. Singh, M. Singh & C.S. P. Ojha
θ = 1; fully implicit scheme,
da= 1+ e (3 ) for explicit formulation, Eq. (13) may be written as follows.
0
   σ '  e  
n

d =1+e  k  γs  k
(4 )
  -1     
dz= 1 (5 )   1+e  γ w  γ w (1+e)   e  z   i  1 
Δt   (14)
e i =e i 
n+1 n 2
dz 1
 (6) Δz   n 
da 1 e
0    k  γ s -1   k   σ '  e   
 
  1+e  γ w  γ w (1+e)   e  z   1 
dz

1
   i 
d 1 e
(7 )
 2 

d 1 e Here the superscript ‘n’ denotes time element and subscript

 (8 ) ‘i’ denotes the space elements.
da 1 e
0 Finally, Eq. (14) may be rearranged in the form given below.
a
z= 
da
(9 )  e  
1 + e ( a ,0 )   β (e) 1 + α (e) 1 ( ) 1  
0
n+ 1 n Δt  i+
2
i+
2
 z i+ 2  
z ei =ei - (15)
ξ =  [ 1 + e ( z ,t ) ] d z (1 0 ) Δz   

0    β (e) + α (e) (  e )  
   z i- 2  
1 1 1
Governing equation i-
2
i-
2
The governing equation of one-dimensional consolidation,
k(e)  γ s  k(e)  σ ( e )
'
in terms of void ratio (e), permeability k (e) and effective
Where, β (e)=  -1  ; α (e)=
stress σ’ (e), may be given in the following form. 1+ e  γ w  γ w (1+ e)  e
 k  γs   Eq. (15) may calculate the next time step value of void ratio
   1  
with suitable boundary conditions for any type of linear or
e   (1 + e)  γ w  
 (1 1 ) nonlinear relationship of permeability and void ratio, k = k
t z   (e) and effective stress and void ratio, σ’= σ’ (e), which may
k   ' e 
   be obtained from the oedometer test on a soil sample in the
 γ w (1 + e)   e  z   laboratory. For calculating the values of void ratio (e) and its
Finite volume formulation gradient at the elementary cell (control volume) boundaries
The integration of Eq. (11) over the elementary control volume (i+1/2 and i-1/2) following schemes have been used.
dV gives, 1
  k  γs   e 1 =ei + ψ (r 1 )(e i+ 1 -e i ) (1 6 )
 i+ 2 i+
  -   1    2 2

 t+Δt  e  t+Δt
   1+e  γ w    1
    t dt  dV =     z 
  e 
'
dV
 
(12) e 1
= e i-1 + ψ (r 1
)(e i -e i-1 ) (1 7 )
CV  t  k 2
i- i-
 CV  

t 2 2

  γ w (1  e )   e  z    e i -e i-1 e i-1 -e i-2
 r = ; r = (1 8 )
1 1
Integrating Eq. (12) using Gauss-divergence theorem and the i+
2
e i+ 1 -e i i-
2
e i -e i-1
one-dimensional consolidation, it will take the following form
For Upwind differencing (UD) scheme; ψ(r) = 0
for ith control volume element.
1
For Central differencing (CD) scheme; ψ(r) = 1
i+ For Linear upwind differencing (LUD) scheme; ψ(r) = r
 k  γs   2
For Quadratic upstream interpolation of convective kinetics
  -1  
(QUICK) scheme; ψ(r) = (3+r)/4
 1+e  γ w  
 e t
t+ Δ t
Δ z= Δt (1 3 ) For Min-Max QUICK scheme; ψ(r) = max [0, [min {2r,
 
k  σ e 
'
(3+r)/4, 2}]]
   The gradients may be approximated as follows.
 γ w (1 + e)   e  z   i- 1
2  e  e i + 1 -e i
Further using the following definition,   1  (1 9 )
t+ Δ t
  z  i+ Δz
2

 R i d t=  θ R i + (1 -θ )R i 
n+1 n
IT =
 e  e i -e i -1
t
  1  (20)
  z  i- Δz
2
θ = 0; explicit scheme,
θ = 1/2; Cranck-Nicolson scheme,

732
 Finite strain theory of consolidation of clays: finite volume approach
The functions α (e) and β (e) at any value of void ratio may
be evaluated from the input data values (or curves) of k = k
(e) and σ’ =σ’ (e) for the subject soil.
Initial and boundary conditions
The initial values of void ratio may be assumed consistent
with the void ratio and effective stress input data set for self
load or/ and any surcharge on a compressible layer. The
possible boundary conditions are as follows [4].
Impermeable boundary
The boundary condition where the compressible layer meets
the impervious strata, there is no flow across such boundary
and the following equation may be used for the purpose.
e γ s -γ w
 =0 (2 1 )
z
'
dσ
de
Semipermeable boundary
This b. c. is based on the propositions that the flow coming
out of lower part is equal to the flow into the upper part at the
common boundary and the equal fluid pressures exist in pore
water at the common boundary and these lead to the
following equations.
(u ) 1 = (u ) 2 (22)
normally consolidated under its own weight. The other input
data from the oedometer tests of fill material and
compressible foundation soil may be referred from Cargill
[4]. The dredged fill is divided into 6 elements and
compressible foundation into 10 elements. Elementary time
has been taken as 1 day.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The FVM solutions of Eq. (11), in terms of equation
variables, material coordinates and void ratio (z e), have
been shown below along with the FDM solution of it as given
by Cargill [4]. Table-1 presents the solution for compressible
foundation, the figures in bold shows the difference between
the FDM solution and the FVM solutions successively for
upwind differencing (UD), central differencing (CD), linear
upwind differencing (LUD), quadratic upwind interpolation
for convective kinetics (QUICK) and Min-Max QUICK
(MQK) schemes. The similar values are shown in Table-2 for
dredged fill. The absolute values of differences in the
compressible foundation are comparatively less than
difference values for dredged fill, but in case of the dredged
fill, the differences are negative in upper segments and
positive in the lower segments.

 k u   k u  Table-2 Material coordinates (z) and void ratio (e) of various

     ( 2 3) schemes for dredged fill
 1 + e  z 1  1+ e z  2
e  u  e Material► 0.0000 1.2626 3.7878 5.0504 6.3130
  w   s   (24) Coordinates
z z  σ
'

FDM (e) 1.9132 1.9719 2.1477 2.3144 2.6974
Free draining boundary UD (e) 1.9065 1.9594 2.1499 2.2778 2.7000
For free draining boundary, the excess pore pressure is
FDM-UD 0.0067 0.0125 -0.002 0.0366 -0.003
always zero, thus effective stress is equal to total stress and
CD (e) 1.9121 1.9683 2.1345 2.2717 2.6723
the corresponding void ratio may be interpolated on the input
FDM-CD 0.0011 0.0036 0.0132 0.0427 0.0251
data of void ratio and effective stress.
LUD (e) 1.9130 1.9650 2.1408 2.2754 2.6890
Solution of the governing equation
The above FVM formulation of the Eq. (11) has been FDM-LUD 0.0002 0.0069 0.0069 0.0390 0.0084
implemented through the computer program in FORTRAN- QUICK (e) 1.9124 1.9670 2.1364 2.2721 2.6750
77 for its solution. The solution, obtained in terms of material FDM-QK 0.0008 0.0049 0.0113 0.0423 0.0224
coordinates and void ratio, may be used to get convective MQK (e) 1.9124 1.9670 2.1364 2.2721 2.6751
coordinates using Eq. (10). However, the material FDM-MQK 0.0008 0.0049 0.0113 0.0423 0.0223
coordinates and void ratio has only been presented here and
the comparison of various FVM solutions with FDM solution Table-2 Material coordinates (z) and void ratio (e) of various
for the example problem of consolidation. schemes for dredged fill
The example problem
Disposal of dredged material is to be done at a site, 3 ft/ year Material► 0.0000 0.1250 0.2500 0.3125 0.3750
in the first year, 2ft/ year in the second and third year and 1ft/ Coordinates
year in the fourth year. The total amount of each year will be FDM (e) 5.6319 5.8984 6.2725 6.5369 7.0000
deposited during first few weeks of each year so that it may UD (e) 5.5621 5.8393 6.2838 6.5994 7.0000
be assumed that dumping is instantaneous in the beginning of FDM-UD 0.0698 0.0591 -0.011 -0.063 0.0000
the year. The fill is overlain by the compressible foundation CD (e) 5.5593 5.8609 6.2903 6.5981 7.0000
of thickness 20 ft below which a semi-permeable silt layer FDM-CD 0.0726 0.0375 -0.018 -0.061 0.0000
exists that has a void ratio as 1.8 and the permeability as LUD (e) 5.6057 5.8903 6.2969 6.5907 7.0000
1.03×10-4 ft/day. The drainage path length for this semi- FDM-LUD 0.0262 0.0081 -0.024 -0.053 0.0000
permeable boundary is taken as 4.0 ft. The dredged material QUICK (e) 5.5667 5.8641 6.2882 6.5942 7.0000
is assumed to have a uniform initial void ratio of 7.0 and the FDM-QK 0.0652 0.0343 -0.016 -0.057 0.0000
specific gravity of solids as 2.75. The foundation is assumed MQK (e) 5.5671 5.8639 6.2867 6.5911 7.0000
to have the specific gravity of solids as 2.83 and to be FDM-MQK 0.0648 0.0345 -0.014 -0.054 0.0000

733
R. P. Singh, M. Singh & C.S. P. Ojha
Fig. 1 Time verses degree of consolidation curves of various
schemes for compressible foundation
Fig. 2 Time verses degree of consolidation curves of various
schemes for dredged fill
Further, the Fig. 1 and 2 shows the variation of degree of
consolidation with time for compressible foundation and the
dredged fill. In case of compressible foundation the transient
views of consolidation by FDM and FVM schemes are
matching qualitatively, but differ quantitatively. However, in
case of dredged fill it is matching quite well. If Terzaghi’s
theory is considered with the following input data for the
dredged fill and the foundation soil, the degree of
consolidation is shown there.
Dredged fill: Void ratio (e) =7.0; Permeability (k) =
8.66×10-3 ft/day; Unit weight of water (γw) = 62.4 Pound/ ft3;
‫׳‬
Effective stress gradient with void ratio (dσ /de) = -6.0
2
Pound/ ft
Degree of consolidation (for two way drainage) = 0.94
Degree of consolidation (for one way drainage) = 0.58
734
View publication stats
Foundation Soil: Void ratio (e) =3.0; Permeability (k) =
1.21×10-3 ft/day; Effective stress gradient with void ratio
‫׳‬
(dσ /de) = -84.0 Pound/ ft2
Degree of consolidation (for two way drainage) = 0.17
Degree of consolidation (for one way drainage) = 0.087
The above results show that the Terzaghi’s theory solutions,
FVM and FDM solutions have considerable mismatch in
predicting the consolidation of the consolidated foundation
soil. One way of verification of these results may be the
experimental study on consolidation of thin and relatively
thick samples of compacted clays and the attempt will be
taken up in future.
Conclusion
The explicit FVM formulation of finite strain consolidation
equation gives convergent and stable results like FDM
formulation. The results are almost similar in case of
consolidation of loose fills, but in case of soils with lower
void ratios the various schemes in FVM formulation give
faster rate of consolidation.
References
1. Gibson, R.E., England G.L. and Hussey, M.J.L.
(1967), The theory of one-dimensional consolidation
of saturated clays, Geotechnique, 17, 261-273.
2. Olson R.E. (1977), Consolidation under time
dependent loading. Journal of Geotech Eng Div,
ASCE, GT1, 55–60.
3. Gibson R.E., Schiffman R.L., Cargill K.W. (1981),
The theory of one-dimensional consolidation of
saturated clays: II, Finite nonlinear consolidation of
thick homogeneous layers, Can Geotech Journal,
1981, 18(2), 280–93.
4. Cargill K.W. (1982), Consolidation of soft layers by
finite strain analysis, Final report, Geotechnical
laboratory, U.S. Army engineer waterways
experiment station, P.O. box 631, Vicksburg, Miss.,
39/80.
5. Lee P.K.K., Xie K.H. Cheung Y.K. (1992), A study
on one-dimensional consolidation of layered
systems, Int. Journal of Numerical and Analytical
Method Geomechanics, 16, 815–831.
6. Fox, P. J., Berles, J.D. (1997), CS2: A piecewise
linear model for large strain consolidation, Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 21, 453-475.
7. Botte G. G., Ritter J. A., White, R.E. (2000),
Comparison of finite difference and control volume
methods for solving differential equations,
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 24, 2633–
2654.
8. Versteeg, H.K. and Malalasekera, W. (2007), An
introduction to computational fluid dynamics: The
finite volume method, second edition, Pearson
Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow Essex
CM20 2JE, England.