Consolidation of Soils: ABSTRACT: Primary Compression and Secondary Compression of Saturated Soils Are Consistent

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE.
For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Consolidation of Soils
G. Mesri1, M. ASCE and T.W. Feng2, M. ASCE

1
Ralph B. Peck Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801;
gmesri@illinois.edu
2
Professor of Civil Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chung-li, Republic of China;
twfeng@cycu.edu.tw
ABSTRACT: Primary compression and secondary compression of saturated soils are consistent
with the Terzaghi effective stress principle. Both primary compression and secondary
compression, and associated settlement and increase in undrained shear strength, result from the
rearrangement of soil particles to more compact packing, assisted by soil particle deformation,
soil particle compression, and soil particle damage. The secondary compression behavior of soils
is well explained and predicted by the Cα/Cc law of compressibility. The debate on the
independence of end-of-primary (EOP) void ratio versus effective vertical stress relation from the
duration of primary consolidation continues in spite of the following series of convincing
evidence (a) EOP e versus σ′v relation from laboratory consolidation tests is independent of the
duration of primary consolidation, (b) preconsolidation pressure mobilized in the field is equal to
EOP preconsolidation pressure determined from laboratory oedometer tests on 20 mm thick
undisturbed soil specimens, (c) surface and subsurface settlements measured in the field during
primary consolidation of soil subjected to embankment loading, are equal to the settlement
predicted using the EOP e versus σ′v relation from laboratory oedometer tests on 20 mm thick
undisturbed soil specimens, and (d) data on compressibility with time, (∂e / ∂t )σ′v , provide an
explanation for the independence of EOP e versus σ′v relation from the duration of primary
consolidation. There is no direct observed evidence supporting the “extreme” hypothesis B.
INTRODUCTION
Consolidation is the time-dependent compression of saturated soils. Consistent with the

Terzaghi effective stress principle (Terzaghi 1923), compression begins with an increase in
effective stress; however, compression continues indefinitely at decreasing rate after the effective
stress increase comes to an end at elapsed time tp. The compression that takes place during the
increase in effective stress is termed primary compression, and the compression that follows at
constant effective stress is termed secondary compression. The practical consequences of
consolidation are an increase in stiffness and strength of soil and settlement of the soil surface as
water is squeezed out of the soil, and total volume decreases.
Compression of soils mainly results from the rearrangement of soil particles to a more
compact packing; however, it may also result from deformation of soil particles as in micaceous
silts, compression of soil particles as in fibrous peats, and from soil particle damage as in
fracturing of quartz sand particles. Secondary compression phenomenon is not inconsistent with
the effective stress principle as the definition of the Terzaghi effective stress is in terms of total
stress and porewater pressure, both of which are external to the soil structure. Secondary
compression is the manifestation of continued readjustments of the internal components of
322
From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

FROM SOIL BEHAVIOR FUNDAMENTALS TO INNOVATIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 323
effective stress toward a more stable fabric and interparticle forces. The subsequent interpretation
in this paper is for horizontally constrained vertical compression, and consolidation is in response
to an increase in effective vertical stress:
σ′v = σv – u (1)
where σv is the total vertical stress and u is porewater pressure.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Secondary Compression and Effective Stress

The Cα/Cc law of compressibility (Mesri and Godlewski 1977, Mesri 1987, Mesri and Castro
1987, Mesri 2001, Mesri and Ajlouni 2007, Mesri and Vardhanabhuti 2009), where Cα = Δe/Δ log
t is the slope of e versus log t relation at any σ′v and time greater than tp, and Cc = Δe/Δ log σ′v is
the slope of e versus log σ′v relation at any time equal or greater than tp, explains and predicts for
a wide variety of soils:
1. Secondary settlement after loading to the recompression, to the transition from
recompression to compression (near σ′p), or to the compression range (Mesri et al. 1994,
Mesri and Ajlouni 2007).
2. Secondary settlement after the removal of surcharge (Mesri 1986, Mesri and Feng 1991,
Mesri et al. 1997, Mesri et al. 2001, Mesri and Ajlouni 2007).
3. Shape of the settlement versus log t curve in the transition from primary compression to
secondary compression (Mesri and Godlewski 1977, Mesri and Choi 1980, Mesri 1987).
4. Strain rate effect on e versus log σ′v relation, preconsolidation pressure, and undrained shear
strength (Mesri and Choi 1979, 1984, Mesri 1987).
5. Imposed strain rate for CRS oedometer test to obtain the EOP e versus log σ′v relation (Mesri
and Feng 1992, Mesri et al. 1994).
6. Preconsolidation pressure, shear modulus, and undrained shear strength resulting from
secondary compression (Mesri and Choi 1979, 1983, Mesri 1987).
7. Decrease in effective stress resulting from the arresting of secondary compression (Mesri
1987).
8. Increase in coefficient of earth pressure at rest resulting from secondary compression (Mesri
and Hayat 1993).
9. Post-densification penetration resistance of granular soils (Mesri et al. 1990).
One remarkable aspect of the Cα/Cc law of compressibility, shown in Table 1 (Terzaghi et al.
1996) is that the magnitude of Cα/Cc for each soil type, such as inorganic soft clays and silts,
amorphous and fibrous peats, and granular soils, has a narrow range of values; and even the total
range for all soils, 0.01 to 0.07, is remarkably small in comparison to the observed ranges for
other soil properties. This result, plus the general applicability of the compressibility law to all
particulate materials, suggests a more fundamental meaning for Cα/Cc than merely a
compressibility ratio. An examination suggests that the magnitude of Cα/Cc is actually a measure
of the increase in internal effective stress with time, as follows:
Δ log σ′v = (Cα/Cc) Δ log t (2)
Thus, it is not surprising that Cα/Cc has a narrow range of values because a limited set of
interparticle primary valence bonding, attraction, and repulsion mechanisms control the internal
interparticle stress in all soil compositions. The total range in the magnitude of Cα/Cc reflects the
difference in importance of specific particle interaction mechanisms among different soil
compositions ranging from granular space lattice silicates to organic fibrous peats (Mesri and
Ajlouni 2007, Mesri and Vardhanabhuti 2009).

324 FROM SOIL BEHAVIOR FUNDAMENTALS TO INNOVATIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Table 1. Values of Cα/Cc for Geotechnical Materials.
Material Cα/Cc
Granular soils including rockfill 0.02 ± 0.01
Shale and mudstone 0.03 ± 0.01
Inorganic clays and silts 0.04 ± 0.01

Organic clays and silts 0.05 ± 0.01
Amorphous and fibrous peats 0.06 ± 0.01
After an effective vertical stress increase, Δσ′v = Δσv - Δus, is realized in primary
consolidation time period tp, at any time t equal or greater than tp, the internal effective vertical
stress from Eq. 2 is:
Cα / Cc
 t 
σ ∗vf = σ ′vf   (3)
 tp 
 
where σ′vf = σ′vo + Δσ′v. In general, in normally consolidated soil deposits of age t, the internal
effective vertical stress is
Cα / Cc
 t 
σ ∗v = σ ′v   (4)
 tp 
 
where σ′v = σv – us, and tp is the end-of-primary consolidation time required to realize the last
increment of σ′v, and us = static or steady state porewater pressure. According to this general
principle of effective stress, compression of normally consolidated saturated soils depends on the
consolidation pressure which is an internal effective stress defined by Eq. 4.
For a normally consolidated young deposit that experiences a Δσ′v in a time period tp, the
settlement at elapsed time t equal or greater than tp is:
Cc σ∗
S= L o log vf (5)
1 + eo σ ′vo
or
Cc  σ′  t 
Cα / Cc

S= L o log  vf    (6)
1 + eo  σ ′vo t  
  p  
which may be rewritten as:
Cc  σ′ C t 
S= L o log vf + α log  (7)
1 + eo  σ ′vo C c t p 

Equation 7 is the well-known expression for primary settlement plus secondary settlement of a
normally consolidated young soil with a linear EOP e versus log σ′v relation in the range of σ′vo to
σ′vf, and a linear e versus log t relation in the elapsed time range tp to t (Terzaghi et al. 1996, Art.
16.6).
For a normally consolidated young deposit that experiences a Δσ′v in a primary
consolidation time period tp, undrained shear strength at elapsed time t equal or greater than tp is:
s 
s u =  u σ *vf (8)
 σ ′v 
or
Cα / Cc
s   t 
s u =  u  σ ′vf   (9)
 σ ′v   t p 
where su = undrained shear strength, and σ′vf = consolidation pressure reached at time tp.
In summary, secondary compression is consistent with the Terzaghi principle of effective
stress, and the Cα/Cc law of compressibility explains and predicts observed implications of
secondary compression in terms of settlement and undrained shear strength behavior.
Primary Compression and Duration of Primary Consolidation

The most commonly used procedure for computing settlement resulting from primary
compression is implicitly based on the assumption of end-of-primary (EOP) void ratio versus
effective vertical stress relation independent of the duration of primary consolidation (e.g.,
Leonards 1972, Ladd et al. 1977, Mesri 1977, Mesri and Choi 1985a, Jamiolkowski et al. 1985,
Mesri et al. 1994, Leonards and Deschamps 1995, Mesri et al. 1995). The significant implication
of this assumption is that the EOP e versus σ′v relation determined from oedometer testing of 20
mm thick undisturbed soil specimens with duration of primary consolidation in minutes or days is
used for settlement analysis of field soil layers with duration of primary consolidation in months
or years.
Mesri and co-workers have proposed an EOP compression independent of tp based on the
following observations (Mesri 2001):
1. Primary compression of thin and thick specimens:
Based on consolidation tests on thin and thick undisturbed specimens of five soft clay
deposits, Mesri and Choi (1985a) and Mesri et al. (1995) have demonstrated an EOP void
ratio versus effective vertical stress relation independent of duration of primary
consolidation (Fig. 1). The typical duration of primary consolidation, tp, in Fig. 1, for the
pressure increments in the compression range, for specimens with maximum drainage
distance of 125 mm is in the range of 4 to 25 days, whereas the same range for maximum
drainage distance of 500 mm is 54 to 354 days. Similarly reliable data on thin versus thick
specimens have been published by Aboshi (1973).
2. Preconsolidation pressure mobilized in the field compared to σ′p from oedometer tests:
Using the interpretations proposed by Hoeg et al. (1969) and Sällfors (1975), porewater
pressure measurements under embankments have been used to determine preconsolidation
pressure mobilized in the field, which is then compared to the preconsolidation pressure
obtained from the EOP e versus log σ′v relation of 20 mm thick undisturbed laboratory
specimens. Mesri et al. (1995) and Mesri (2001) have summarized data from the literature
for over 70 separate measurements on some 25 soft clay and silt deposits that are shown in
Fig. 2. That σ′p/σ′vo determined from oedometer tests on 20 mm thick specimens correctly
defines the σ′p in the field, is most fortunate because the preconsolidation pressure from the

326
(b) (c)
(a)

Figure 1. EOP e versus log σ′v relations of a thin and thick layer: (a) Saint Alban Clay, (b) San Francisco Bay
Mud, and (c) Louiseville Clay (Mesri and Choi 1985a)
FROM SOIL BEHAVIOR FUNDAMENTALS TO INNOVATIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
(d) (e)

Figure 1 (cont.). EOP e versus log σ′v relations of a thin and thick layer: (d) Batiscan Clay, and (e) Saint Hilaire
Clay (Mesri et al. 1995).
FROM SOIL BEHAVIOR FUNDAMENTALS TO INNOVATIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
327
laboratory tests has been utilized not only for settlement analysis, but also for interpretation
of other important soil properties, especially the undrained shear strength of soft clay and silt
deposits (Terzaghi et al. 1996).
3. Settlement analysis based on EOP e versus σ′v relation from laboratory oedometer tests:
Primary settlement of soft clay and silt deposits is computed for embankment loading, using
the EOP e versus log σ′v relation from oedometer tests on 20 mm thick specimens, and is
compared with the field observations of settlement (Table 2). The details of the ILLICON
procedure for settlement analysis have been described by Mesri and Choi (1985b) and Mesri
et al. (1994), with the results shown in Fig. 3. The computed surface and subsurface
settlements during and at the end of primary consolidation are in excellent agreement with
observations.
Table 2. Case Histories of Embankment Construction on Soft Clay Deposits.
Case Record wo % wℓ % σ′p/σ′vo Cα/Cc SS SUS

Olga B & C, Canada 30-92 30-68 2.0-3.0 0.033 2 -
Rupert 7, Canada 27-62 30-36 1.6-2.6 0.030 3 -
Vasby, Sweden 43-122 40-125 1.1-1.3 0.060 1 5
Gloucester, Canada 25-90 37-64 1.4-1.9 0.031 1 4
Ellingsrud, Norway 30-45 24-27 1.1-2.4 0.044 1 1
Skå-Edeby, Sweden 50-130 50-150 1.2-1.3 0.050 7 21
Changi, Singapore 30-75 35-95 1.5-3.1 0.035 11 26
ChekLapKok, Hong Kong 25-125 40-100 1.1-6.6 0.03-0.065 7 28
LaGrande, Canada 34-62 25-43 1.3-2.5 0.054 2 6
Bangkok, Thailand 50-120 72-100 1.1-2.0 0.050 2 -
SS = number of surface settlement observations
SUS = number of subsurface settlement observations
4. Compressibility parameters during primary consolidation:

Reasoning either implicitly, or explicitly in terms of the following general equation
for primary compression:
tp tp
 ∂e  dσ ′v  ∂e  
   ∂σ′v
de = 
 t dt
+   dt
 ∂t  σ′v 
(10)
o o
one might suppose that with increasing tp, the compressibility of soil structure with
time, (∂e / ∂t )σ′v , may contribute more to primary compression. However, such a
reasoning is based on the implicit assumption that (∂e / ∂t )σ′v is independent of tp. In
fact (∂e / ∂t )σ′v is related to the rate of effective stress increase and thus tp. Mesri et
al. (1995) have shown that a combination of a small value of tp together with large
values of (∂e / ∂t )σ′v leads to the same EOP e versus σ′v relation as the combination of
a large tp together with small values of (∂e / ∂t )σ′v .
In spite of these observed data favoring the EOP void ratio versus effective stress
relation independent of the duration of primary consolidation, the uniqueness concept
(Mesri and Choi 1985a) has been challenged. The debate has continued in terms of the

Figure 2. Preconsolidation pressure mobilized in the field compared with EOP σ′p from
20 mm thick oedometer specimens (Mesri et al. 1995).
(a)
Figure 3. (a) Computed and measured EOP or EOO surface settlement of embankments
on soft clay and silt deposits (Mesri et al. 1994).

(b) (c)
Figure 3 (cont.). Computed and measured surface settlement (b) and subsurface
settlement (c) during primary consolidation for embankments on soft clay and silt
deposits (Mesri et al. 1994).
two alternative hypotheses A (EOP e-σ′v independent of tp) and B (EOP e-σ′v dependent
on tp) defined by Ladd et al. (1977) for the possible relation of primary settlement to the
duration of primary consolidation, illustrated in Fig. 4. If in fact hypothesis B were true,
then primary settlement observed in the field would have been significantly larger than
computed using EOP e versus σ′v relation from 20 mm thick undisturbed specimen in
oedometer tests. This has not been the general experience (e.g., Leonards 1972, Mesri
1977, Ladd et al. 1977, and Jamiolkowski et al. 1985), and the data in Fig. 3.
The most recent objection to the uniqueness concept has come from Degago et al.
(2009, 2011). Degago et al. (2009) reinterpreted laboratory data in Feng (1991), and
using a computer program based on Soft Soil Creep (Stolle et al. 1999) predicted
consolidation behavior of laboratory specimens. Degago et al. (2009) used the Cα/Cc law
of compressibility, intended for secondary compression, to define their so-called creep
parameter during primary consolidation. Having decided that the pressure increment
durations in the Feng (1991) consolidation tests for the 500 mm thick specimens were not
long enough, Degago et al. (2009) subtracted an increment of void ratio from the EOP
void ratio of the 125 mm specimens at consolidation pressures of 62.1 kPa and 96.6 kPa,
respectively, for Batiscan clay and St. Hilaire clay (Figs. 1d and 1e). In other words, for
the 125 mm thick specimens, the EOP void ratio was incorrectly defined by Degago et al.
(2009) at an elapsed time significantly less than tp. More importantly, the additional
compression that took place at 62.1 kPa and 96.6 kPa, respectively, for Batiscan clay and
St. Hilaire clay, were not included in the next EOP compression at 96.6 kPa and 138.0
kPa, respectively, of Batiscan clay and St. Hilaire clay.
The fundamental question for Degago et al. (2009) was “… whether or not creep acts
as a separate phenomenon during primary compression, while excess pore pressure
dissipates.” Creep as a separate phenomenon originates from the concept of springs and

Figure 4. Hypotheses A and B proposed by Ladd et al. (1977).
dashpots – i.e., one spring associated with effective stress increase and a separate spring,
completely unaware of the first spring, associated with progress of time. In fact,
compressibility with time contributes during primary compression; however, soil has
only one structure which controls both compressibility with effective stress and
compressibility with time.
Degago et al. (2009) propose that “strictly speaking, it is the degree of dissipation of
the excess pore pressure that should establish a true EOP criterion.” Degago et al. (2009)
do not seem to be aware of Mesri et al. (2005): “Excess porewater pressure during
secondary compression.” Two of the conclusions of that article are: a) The value of
excess porewater pressure at the beginning of secondary compression stage (i.e., end of
primary consolidation) corresponds to u′m/σ′v values in the range of 1 to 3%, where u′m is
the maximum excess porewater pressure within the layer and σ′v is the consolidation
pressure, and b) For soft clay deposits, with u′m/σ′v near 2%, EOP u′m is often near 1 kPa
and is not expected to exceed 10 kPa. The important implication of these conclusions is
that it is not always straight forward to use the measurements of excess porewater
pressure to “… establish a true EOP criterion”, especially for pressure increments
spanning the preconsolidation pressure of the highly structured soft clays of Eastern
Canada such as the Batiscan clay and St. Hilaire clay.
Degago et al. (2009) then proceeded to examine the excess porewater pressure at
EOP compression of the 125 mm and 500 mm specimens. The excess porewater
pressures were in the range of 0.1 to 0.8 kPa for Batiscan clay and 1.0 to 2.2 kPa for St.
Hilaire clay. Degago et al. (2009) concluded that primary consolidation “… time for the
500 mm thick specimen has been too short …”. For the pressure increment from 62.1
kPa to 82.8 kPa after about 382 days the excess porewater pressure at the impermeable
boundary (i.e., maximum excess porewater pressure) is less that 1 kPa.
Thus, having satisfied themselves that “… creep acts as a separate phenomenon …”
during primary consolidation, Degago et al. (2009) proceeded to make predictions of

compression rate “… using concepts derived from the Isotache concept …”. Degago et
al. (2009) report that “the material model used is the Soft Soil Creep (SSC) … the Model
incorporates creep during the consolidation process and yields a non-unique EOP strain
for different specimen thickness.” However, Degago et al. (2009) do not illustrate as to
how non-unique is the prediction by the SSC model. In other words, for a field situation,
does it predict EOP vertical strain 1 percent greater than the EOP strain of a 20 mm
oedometer specimen or does it predict 100% greater vertical strain? Therefore, two main
conclusions of Degago et al. (2009) are quite unjustified and troubling. These are: (a)
Re-evaluation of the measurements gave “… results that support Hypothesis B” and (b)
“According to the isotache concept … any distinction between thick and thin specimen is
revealed through the respective preconsolidation stress …”. The “extreme” hypothesis B
as originally defined (Ladd et al. 1977) could predict settlements for field conditions that
are as much as 100 percent larger than those predicted using the uniqueness of EOP
compression. The observed behaviors in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 dismiss the main conclusions of
Degago et al. (2009).
Degago et al. (2009) does not include an application of the SSC model to field
situations. However, Neher et al. (2001) use SSC to predict settlement of two test
embankments. In connection with one embankment they conclude that “… SSC-model
is not so useful.” It is the settlement predictions by Neher et al. (2001) for the second
embankment – Skå-Edeby Area IV - that is quite revealing about the SSC model.
Mesri and co-workers have carried out settlement analyses using the ILLICON
computer program for all of the test fills at the Skå-Edeby test site in Sweden (Mesri et al.
1994). For example, for the 12 m thick soft clay deposit at Skå-Edeby test field,
subjected to the same embankment load, however with duration of primary consolidation,
for different drainage boundaries by vertical drains, of about 2, 4, 8, and 38 years, the
measured EOP settlements are, respectively, 114, 100, 108, and 107 cm (Mesri et al.
1994; Terzaghi et al. 1996, Fig. 25.16; Mesri and Huvaj-Sarihan 2009). Neher et al.
(2001) concluded that “… the SSC-model and measured data agree fairly well.”
However, the SS-model (i.e., SSC-model without “creep”) predicted, for an elapsed time
of 20 years, a settlement of 15 cm as compared to the observed settlement of 90 cm. The
incredible implication of this result is that using hypothesis A one may underpredict
settlement by a factor of 6. No such experience assuming hypothesis A has ever been
reported in the geotechnical literature (see, e.g., Leonards 1972). In order to understand
the unusual prediction by Neher et al. (2001), one needs only to examine their input data
on Cc/(1+eo) of the Skå-Edeby clay. It turns out that Cc/(1+eo) magnitudes in Table 3 of
Neher et al. (2001) are about 1/6 of the true values for the Skå-Edeby clay. In other
words, in order for the SSC-model and measured data to agree, Neher et al. (2001) used
Cc/(1+eo) values about 1/6 of the true magnitudes, and this resulted in the unusual
prediction of 15 cm settlement for the SS-model. If Neher et al. (2001) had used the true
values of Cc/(1+eo), their SSC-model would have overpredicted settlements by a huge
factor (Mesri and Feng 2009).
Degago et al. (2011) conclude that “… the isotache approach can capture the main
characteristics of the time-dependent compressibility of clays during both the primary
and secondary consolidation phases”. They admit, however, that “… when the isotache
concept was first presented (Suklje 1957), it was meant to describe compressibility of
soils subjected to long-term creep, such that the primary consolidation phase plays a

minor role in the whole compression process”. The linear secondary compression-log
time relations in the Degago et al. (2011) “simulation” illustrate the limitations of the
isotache concept, as only in certain cases Cα/(1+eo) may remain constant with time when
Cc/(1+eo) remains constant with effective vertical stress (Mesri 1987,Mesri and Castro
1987.
Degago et al. (2011) adapted the explanations by Mesri et al. (1995) of the
uniqueness of EOP void ratio-effective vertical stress relation, or hypothesis A, by stating

that for stress increments in the compression range beyond σ′p, “… the thin specimen
deforms with a higher creep rate for a shorter consolidation period, whereas the thick
specimen deforms with a lower creep rate for a longer consolidation period.
Consequently, the incremental EOP strains, in the normally consolidated regime, will be
almost the same for both specimens”. Among the objections to this rewording of the
Mesri et al. (1995) explanation is that Mesri and Choi (1985a) and Mesri et al. (1995) did
not use the so-called “incremental EOP strains”. Mesri and co-workers have obtained
EOP e versus log σ′v relations independent of duration of primary consolidation not by
adding primary compression of pressure increments, but rather by computing EOP void
ratio at each consolidation pressure, thus taking into account previous compression
history. In other words, we have always used the so-called “nominal strain”. For a
further clarification of the confusion associated with Degago et al.’s (2011) “nominal
strain” as opposed to “incremental EOP strain”, the reader is referred to Mesri (1986).
The 125 mm and 500 mm thick undisturbed specimens of five soft clay deposits,
including the Batiscan clay and St. Hilaire clay, were subjected to equal all around
pressure (to avoid side friction and to maintain constant applied pressure over periods in
excess of one year) and volumetric compression of the specimen was measured by the
volume of water that flowed out. The volumetric compression data were used to compute
the EOP void ratio-consolidation pressure relations. The results on undisturbed
specimens of five soft clay deposits support hypothesis A, and they indicate EOP void
ratio versus consolidation pressure relation independent of duration of primary
consolidation (Fig. 1).
The porewater pressure at the bottom and axial compression at the top of each 125
mm sublayer of the 500 mm thick specimens of Batiscan clay and St. Hilaire clay were
also measured (see e.g., Figs. 8 and 9 in Mesri et al. 1995 or Fig. 3 in Mesri 2001). The
observed data in Feng (1991) that Degago et al. (2011) selected to justify their preference
for hypothesis B are the 125 mm sublayer compression measurements for the pressure
increment spanning the preconsolidation pressure for Batiscan and St. Hilaire clays. The
authors’ reinterpretation of the alternative methods examined by Feng (1991) only for the
computing of fundamental compressibility parameters (∂e / ∂σ ′v )t and (∂e / ∂t )σ′v ,
exaggerates the importance they attach to these data. The alternative assumptions
examined by Feng (1991) to compute local change in void ratio had no effect whatsoever
on the EOP e versus σ′v relations which were computed using the volumetric compression
of the entire specimen. Disregarding existing evidence, Degago et al. (2011) generalize
that the behavior of clays “... agrees w ell with hypothesis B”. There is no justification to
conclude even the Batiscan and St. Hilaire clay behavior observed for the pressure
increment spanning the preconsolidation pressure, supports the “extreme” hypothesis B
as it is defined in Fig. 4. Further interpretation of the sublayer compression measure-
ments for a highly structured soft clay from Eastern Canada as it is destructured by a

small equal all around pressure increment spanning the preconsolidation pressure, is
beyond the scope of this paper (see e.g., Mesri and Choi 1979, Mesri 1981, Mesri et al.
2005, etc.)
Degago et al. (2011) also conclude that “… the in situ EOP preconsolidation stress is
lower than that determined from EOP laboratory tests.” This serious claim is obviously
ignoring the data in Fig 2 that includes over 70 separate measurements on some 25 soft
clay and silt deposits. It is suggested that the potential of the isotache concept and
“extreme” hypothesis B, for describing consolidation of soils should be substantiated by
conducting settlement analyses and comparing with observations, for an adequate number
of full-scale cases of embankments on soft clay and silt deposits. Leonards (1972) and
Ladd (see Ladd et al. 1977) were “... biased toward hypothesis A ...” based on significant
experience with consolidation of soils.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on the analyses, data, and interpretation
presented in this paper:
1. The Terzaghi effective stress principle, when interpreted in terms of the internal
interparticle stress in soils, is consistent with both primary compression and
secondary compression.
2. Both primary compression and secondary compression, and associated settlement
and the increase in undrained shear strength, result from the rearrangement of soil
particles to more compact packing, assisted by soil particle deformation, soil particle
compression, and soil particle damage.
3. The secondary compression behavior which results from the continued internal
redistribution of interparticle stress, is completely explained and predicted by the
Cα/Cc law of compressibility.
4. The debate on the independence of EOP void ratio versus effective vertical stress
from the duration of primary consolidation continues in spite of the following series
of convincing evidence (a) EOP e versus σ′v from laboratory consolidation tests is
independent of the duration of primary consolidation, (b) preconsolidation pressure
mobilized in the field is equal to the preconsolidation pressure determined from
laboratory oedometer tests on 20 mm thick undisturbed soil specimens, (c) surface
and subsurface settlements measured in the field during primary consolidation of soil
subjected to embankment loading, are equal to the settlement predicted using the
EOP e versus σ′v relation from laboratory oedometer tests on 20 mm thick
undisturbed soil specimens, and (d) data on compressibility with time, (∂e / ∂t )σ′v ,
provide an explanation for the independence of EOP e versus σ′v relation from the
duration of primary consolidation.
5. The existing direct reliable laboratory and field evidence support primary
consolidation in accordance with hypothesis A; there is no direct convincing
evidence supporting the “extreme” hypothesis B.
6. The proponents of hypothesis B need to verify the claim in terms of settlement
analyses together with comparison with measurements, for a sufficient number of
embankment loading case histories of soft clay and silt deposits.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author’s introduction to consolidation testing was in Professor Roy Olson’s
laboratory, and together they explored solutions of the Terzaghi theory of consolidation
for a wide range of initial and boundary conditions.
NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Cc = compression index = Δe/Δ log σ′v

Cα = secondary compression index = Δe/Δ log t
e = void ratio
eo = insitu void ratio under effective overburden pressure σ′vo
Lo = preconstruction thickness of compressible layer with void ratio eo
S = settlement
su = undrained shear strength
t = elapsed time
tp = duration of primary consolidation
u = porewater pressure
um = maximum porewater pressure within a layer
us = reference porewater pressure
wℓ = liquid limit
wo = in situ water content under effective overburden pressure σ′vo
σ′p = preconsolidation pressure determined from EOP e versus log σ′v relation
σv = total vertical stress
σ′v = effective vertical stress
σ*v = internal effective vertical stress
σ′vf = postconstruction effective overburden pressure
σ′vo = preconstruction effective overburden pressure
EOO = end-of-observation
EOP = end-of-primary consolidation
REFERENCES
Aboshi, H. (1973). “An experimental investigation on the similitude in the consolidation

of a soft clay, including the secondary creep settlement.” Proc. 8th Int. Conf. soil
Mech. Found. Engrg., Moscow 4(3), 88.
Degago, S.A., Grimstad, G., Jostad, H.P., and Nordal, S. (2009). “The non-uniqueness
of the end-of-primary (EOP) void ratio-effective stress relationship.” Proc. 17th Int.
Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Engrg., Alexandria 1, 324-327.
Degago, S.A., Grimstad, G., Jostad, H.P., Nordal, S., and Olsson, M. (2011). “Use and
misuse of isotache concept with respect to creep hypotheses A and B.”
Géotechnique, 61(10), 898-908.

Feng, T.W. (1991). “Compressibility and permeability of natural soft clays and
surcharging to reduce settlements.” PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Hoeg, K., Andersland, O.B., and Rolfsen, E.N. (1969). “Undrained behavior of quick
clay under load tests at Asrum.” Géotechnique, 19(1), 101-115.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T.,, and Lancellotta, R. (1985). “New
developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.” Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engrg., San Francisco, 1, 57-153.
Ladd, D.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H.G. (1977). “Stress-
deformation and strength characteristics.” General Report, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engrg, 2, 421-494.
Leonards, G.A.. (1972). “Shallow foundations.” Discussion, Proc. Spec. Conf. on
Performance of Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE, Lafayette, Indiana, 3, 169-173.
Leonards, G.A., and Deschamps, R.J. (1995). “Origin and significance of the quasi-
preconsolidation pressure in clay soils.” Proc. Compression and Consolidation of
Clay Soils, Hiroshima, Japan, 1, 341-347.
Mesri, G. (1977). “Stress-deformation and strength characteristics.” Discussion, Proc.
9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Tokyo, 3, 354-355.
Mesri, G. (1981). “Groundwater and seepage problems.” Discussion, 10th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engrg., Stockholm, 4, 659.
Mesri, G. (1986). “Post construction settlement of an expressway built on peat by
precompression.” Discussion, Canadian Geot. J., 23(3), 403-407.
Mesri, G. (1987). “Fourth law of soil mechanics: A law of compressibility.” Proc. Int.
Symp. Geot. Engrg. Soft Soils, Mexico City, 179-187.
Mesri, G. (2001). “Primary compression and secondary compression.” In Soil behavior
and soft ground construction, (eds. J.T. Germain, T.C. Sheahan and R.V. Whitman),
Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, 119, 122-166.
Mesri, G., and Ajlouni, M. (2007). “Engineering properties of fibrous peats.” J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 133(7), 850-866.
Mesri, G., Ajlouni, M.A., Feng, T.W., and Lo, D.O.K. (2001). “Surcharging of soft
ground to reduce secondary settlement.” Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Soft Soil Engrg., Hong
Kong, 55-65.
Mesri, G., and Castro, A. (1987). “The Cα/Cc concept and Ko during secondary
compression.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 113(3), 230-247.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1979). “Strain rate behavior of Saint-Jean-Vianney clay.”
Discussion, Canadian Geotech. J., 16(4), 831-834.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1980). “Excess pore water pressure and preconsolidation
effect developed in normally consolidated clays of some age.” Discussion, Soils and
Foundations, 20(4), 131-136.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1983). “Dynamic properties of soft clays for wide strain
range.” Discussion, Soils and Foundations, 23(1), 125-127.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1984). “Time effects on the stress-strain behavior of natural
soft clays.” Discussion, Géotechnique, 34(3), 439-442.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1985a). “The uniqueness of the end-of-primary (EOP) void
ratio-effective stress relationship.” Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg.,
San Francisco, 2, 587-590.

Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1985b). “The behavior of embankments on clay foundation.”
Discussion, Canadian Geotech. J., 18(3), 460-462.
Mesri, G., and Feng, T.W. (1991). “Surcharging to reduce secondary settlement.” Proc.
Int. Conf. Geotech. Engrg. For Coastal Development, Yokohama, Japan, 1, 359-364.
Mesri, G., and Feng, T.W. (1992). “Constant rate of strain consolidation testing of soft
clays.” Proc. Marsal Symposium, Mexico City, 49-59.
Mesri, G., and Feng, T.W. (2009). “The non-uniqueness of the end-of-primary (EOP)
void ratio-effective stress relationship.” Discussion, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Geotech. Engrg., Alexandria, 3559-3561.
Mesri, G., Feng, T.W., and Benak, J.M. (1990). “Postdensification penetration resistance
of clean sands.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 116(7), 1095-1115.
Mesri, G., Feng, T.W., and Shahien, M. (1995). “Compressibility parameters during
primary consolidation.” Proc. Int. Symp. Compression and Consolidation of Clayey
Soils, Hiroshima, 2, 1021-1037.
Mesri, G., and Godlewski, P.M. (1977). “Time and stress compressibility
interrelationship.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 103, GT5, 417-430.
Mesri, G., and Hayat, T.M. (1993). “The coefficient of earth pressure at rest.” Canadian
Geotech. J., 30(4), 647-666.
Mesri, G., and Huvaj-Sarihan, N. (2009). “The Asaoka Method revisited.” Proc. 17th
Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Geotech. Engrg., Alexandria, Egypt, 1,131-134.
Mesri, G., Huvaj. N., Vardhanabhuti, B., and Ho, Y-H. (2005). “Excess porewater
pressure during secondary compression.” Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech.
Engrg., Osaka 2, 1087-1090.
Mesri, G., Lo, D.O.K., and Feng, T.W. (1994). “Settlement of embankments on soft
clays.” ASCE Conf. on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and
Embankments, College Station, Texas, 8-56.
Mesri, G., Stark, T.D., Ajlouni, M.A., and Chen, C ..S. (1997). “Secondary compression
of peat without or with surcharging.” J. of Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 411-421.
Mesri, G., and Vardhanabhuti, B. (2009). “Compression of granular materials.”
Canadian Geot. J., 46, 369-392.
Neher, H.P., Wehnert, M., and Bonnier, P.G. (2001). “An evaluation of soft soil models
based on trial embankments, computer methods and advances in geomechanics.”
Balkema, 373-378.
Sållfors, F. (1975). “Preconsolidation pressure of soft high plastic clays.” PhD thesis,
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Stolle, D.F.E., Vermeer, P.A., and Bonnier, P.G. (1999). “Consolidation model for
creeping clay.” Canadian Geotech. J., 36(4), 754-759.
Suklje, L. (1957). “The analysis of the consolidation process by the isotache method.”
Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., London, 1, 200-206.
Terzaghi, K. (1923). “Die Berechnung der Durchlässigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem
Verlauf der Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen.” Sitz. Akad. Wissen. Wien
Mathnaturw Kl Abt. Ila, 132, 105-124.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 549 p.

Consolidation of Soils: ABSTRACT: Primary Compression and Secondary Compression of Saturated Soils Are Consistent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Consolidation of Soils: ABSTRACT: Primary Compression and Secondary Compression of Saturated Soils Are Consistent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consolidation of Soils: ABSTRACT: Primary Compression and Secondary Compression of Saturated Soils Are Consistent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

G. Mesri1, M. ASCE and T.W. Feng2, M. ASCE

Consolidation is the time-dependent compression of saturated soils. Consistent with the

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

where σv is the total vertical stress and u is porewater pressure.

Secondary Compression and Effective Stress

Δ log σ′v = (Cα/Cc) Δ log t (2)

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

Table 1. Values of Cα/Cc for Geotechnical Materials.

Inorganic clays and silts 0.04 ± 0.01

which may be rewritten as:

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

Primary Compression and Duration of Primary Consolidation

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

Case Record wo % wℓ % σ′p/σ′vo Cα/Cc SS SUS

4. Compressibility parameters during primary consolidation:

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 4. Hypotheses A and B proposed by Ladd et al. (1977).

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

uniqueness of EOP void ratio-effective vertical stress relation, or hypothesis A, by stating

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Cc = compression index = Δe/Δ log σ′v

Aboshi, H. (1973). “An experimental investigation on the similitude in the consolidation

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering

You might also like