Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 31, No.

1
Paper ID GTJ101007
Available online at: www.astm.org

Pérsio L. A. Barros1 and Paulo R. O. Pinto1

Oedometer Consolidation Test Analysis by

Nonlinear Regression

ABSTRACT: A numerical method based on least squares nonlinear regression for the evaluation of the consolidation parameters of soils from
consolidation tests is presented. A model which includes the initial compression, the primary consolidation, and the secondary compression is used
in the regression. This approach allows the resulting regression curve to better fit the experimental data. The method takes the settlement-time
readings from the oedometer step-loading consolidation test and calculates automatically the magnitudes of the coefficients of consolidation and of
secondary compression. The performance of the proposed method is accessed through consolidation tests executed on four different clay soils, which
are analyzed by nonlinear regression and by the usual graphical methods. It is concluded that the proposed method gives results that are close to those
obtained by the standard methods of analysis.
KEYWORDS: consolidation test, nonlinear regression, least squares, coefficient of consolidation, secondary compression

Introduction The initial settlement is easily treated by the various graphical

The oedometer step-loading consolidation test is one of the most
widely used tests in the soil mechanics laboratory. Introduced by
Terzaghi as an experimental support for his one-dimensional con-
solidation theory (Terzaghi 1943), the oedometer test has remained
essentially unchanged since then.
The main objective of the consolidation test is to access the con-
solidation characteristics of a soil from the measured settlement-
time curve. From the consolidation theory, those characteristics are
expressed by the soil coefficient of consolidation cv and total con-
solidation settlement ␦100.
The evaluation of cv and ␦100 from the measured consolidation
curve is generally performed by hand-draft curve fitting, being the
Taylor’s ␦ ⫻ 冑t method (Taylor 1948) and the Casagrande’s ␦
⫻ log t method (Casagrande and Fadum 1940), the most used.
Those are regarded as standard methods of cv evaluation. Other
methods were developed later for this same purpose, such as the
rectangular hyperbola method (Shidharan and Prakash 1985) and
the early stage log t method (Robinson and Allam 1996). But all the
curve fitting methods above require graphical constructions that in-
troduce undesirable subjective interpretations in the process.
The various curve fitting methods lead, in general, to results that
are different from each other because each one focuses on different
portions of the consolidation curve. The main cause of these dis-
crepancies is the experimental consolidation curve departure from
theory, which is mainly caused by:
• There is an initial settlement ␦0 just after the load applica-
tion, which is due to incomplete sample saturation, confining
ring expansion, and deformation of the loading apparatus.
• The settlement continues after the theoretical end of consoli-
dation in a process known as secondary compression.
Manuscript received January 15, 2007; accepted for publication July 16,
2007; published online September 2007.
1
Associate Professor, Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, and
Graduate Student of Civil Engineering, respectively; State University of Campi-
nas, Brazil.
methods and poses no special difficulties to the analysis. On the
other hand, secondary compression interpretation is much more
challenging for there is no well established theoretical model for it.
Even the point in time when secondary compression may first be
detected is subject to controversy (see, e.g., Robinson 2003).
Added to those discrepancies, the observed consolidation curve
may also differ from the theoretical model due to the nonlinear be-
havior of the soil compressibility during the load increment and
even due to limitations of the test equipment and instrumentation.
It is worth noting that if the soil behavior during the consolida-
tion followed Terzaghi’s consolidation theory then all those fitting
methods would lead to the very same results. But the deviations
from theory make the result dependent on the particular aspect of
the theoretical behavior each fitting method arbitrarily takes into
account. In this way, a less arbitrary procedure, with a sounder sta-
tistical base, like those based on least squares regression, is desir-
able.
The automatic interpretation of the consolidation curve through
least squares regression was implemented in recent works (Robin-
son and Allam 1998; Chan 2003; Day and Morris 2006). The pro-
posed method adds to those the inclusion of secondary compres-
sion in the regression model. As a consequence, the resulting
regression curve fits better to the final points of the experimental
consolidation curve. Thus, the effects of the secondary compres-
sion on the resulting cv value can be controlled. Furthermore, the
regression formulation developed here can be easily implemented
in spreadsheet programs which are available in most soil mechanics
laboratories. The main benefits of the proposed method are:
• The need for human intervention in the interpretation pro-
cess is kept to a minimum. In this way, manual calculation
errors are avoided.
• The interpretation process takes much less time, so the labo-
ratory technicians can focus their attention on the test execu-
tion procedures.
• The values of the consolidation parameters obtained are es-
sentially free of subjectivity, which makes correlations be-
tween them and other soil parameters more consistent.

Copyright © 2008 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1
2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

• All measured points are considered in the analysis.
• The secondary compression characteristics of the soil are
also obtained in the process.
• It is possible to couple an automatic data-logging system to
the evaluation method, resulting in a completely integrated
system for logging, calculating, and interpreting the test
results.
pressure measurements (Robinson 2003), showed secondary com-
pression beginning, as indicated by the pore pressure measure-
ments, from about 65 % of primary consolidation for organic clays
to about 95 % for inorganic clays. Unfortunately, it is not feasible
to identify the beginning of secondary compression from the stan-
dard oedometer test results. Thus, the value of t0 should be arbi-
trarily fixed. If t0 is taken as a function of U共T兲, then a relation
between t0 and cv can be established:

Regression Model and Evaluation of Parameters TBoSH2d

t0 = (6)
cv
The nonlinear regression model considered here comprises three where TBoS is the time factor corresponding to the model beginning
parts: of secondary compression.
1. The initial instantaneous settlement ␦0. The choice of t0 (or of TBoS) do have some influence on the re-
2. The primary consolidation ␦p. sulting cv and ␦100. Smaller values of t0 lead to larger values of cv
3. The secondary compression ␦s. and to smaller values of ␦100. This influence depends on the amount
Then, the settlement at any given time t is given by: of secondary compression exhibited by the soil. This limitation is
common to all curve fitting methods. But for the method proposed
␦共t兲 = ␦0 + ␦p共t兲 + ␦s共t兲 (1) here, since the model beginning of secondary compression is ex-
plicitly chosen by the user, the influence of the secondary compres-
The primary consolidation is given by Terzaghi’s one- sion on the calculated cv values can be assessed. Furthermore, the
dimensional consolidation theory (Terzaghi 1943), expressed by: application of the results to field problems can take this choice into
␦p共t兲 = ␦100U共T兲 (2) account.
It is worth noting that Taylor’s method implicitly assumes that
where ␦100 is the total primary consolidation settlement and U共T兲 is no secondary compression occurs before T90 (the time factor corre-
the degree of primary consolidation, given by: sponding to 90 % of primary consolidation), and the graphical con-
⬁
共2m + 1兲2␲2
struction used for the ␦100 evaluation in Casagrande’s method im-
8 1
U共T兲 = 1 − 2 兺
␲ m=0 共2m + 1兲 2e
−
4
T
(3) plies that the secondary compression, if present, should be linear
with log t and should begin at around T95.
The complete model resulting from the superposition of the
and T is the time factor:
three parts is expressed by:

冉 冊 冉 冊
c vt
T= (4) c vt H t
H2d ␦共t兲 = ␦0 + ␦100U 2 + c␣ log10 max 1, (7)
Hd 1 + e0 t0
where cv is the coefficient of consolidation and Hd is the drainage
height. with model parameters ␦0, ␦100, c␣, and cv. The model expressed by
For the secondary compression part, a number of alternatives Eq 7 is linear with respect to ␦0, ␦100, and c␣, and nonlinear only
are available. Rheological models (Gibson and Lo 1961; Whals with respect to cv. This fact allows for a specialized nonlinear least
1962), can describe very well the secondary compression, but re- squares regression procedure.
quire long-term tests to fully evaluate the model parameters. For the The least squares procedure is expressed by the minimization:
standard short-term tests, which takes 24 hours for each load step,
empirical models are preferred. Among the empirical models, the N

linear-log t model (Buisman 1936) is the older, simpler, and most
used.
According to the linear-log t model, the secondary compression
can be expressed by:
H t
␦s共t兲 = c␣ log10 (5)
1 + e0 t0
where c␣ is the coefficient of secondary compression, H is the
sample height, e0 is the initial void ratio, and t0 is the time when the
secondary compression is supposed to begin. The previous equa-
tion is valid only for t ⱖ t0; for t ⬍ t0 no secondary compression is
supposed to occur.
It is important to note that t0 may differ substantially from the
actual beginning of secondary compression; t0 is the time when the
linear-log t secondary compression model is assumed to begin.
Therefore, t0 is called the model beginning of secondary compres-
sion.
The time of beginning of secondary compression t0 is usually
defined in terms of U共T兲. Special consolidation tests with pore
min 兺 关␦共ti兲 − ␦i兴2
␦0,␦100,c␣,cv i=1
(8)
where 共ti , ␦i兲 are the time-settlement pairs measured during the
consolidation test and N is the number of readings in the load incre-
ment stage being analyzed.
Since the model is linear with respect to all but one parameter,
the problem reduces, through the use of derivatives with respect to
each parameter, to a system of three linear simultaneous equations
coupled to one nonlinear equation. Then, the solution of the com-
plete system of equations can be obtained using a simple 3 ⫻ 3 sys-
tem of linear equations solver coupled to a numerical root finding
method. The proposed regression method can be implemented in
common spreadsheet programs in a very straightforward way, ei-
ther through macro-programming or entirely with spreadsheet built
in functions. In the last case, most spreadsheet programs do incor-
porate in their standard configuration a solver for systems of linear
equations and also a root finding facility called “goal seek,” which
can be used in the procedure. Derivation details for the proposed
method are given in the Appendix.
 BARROS AND PINTO ON OEDOMETER CONSOLIDATION TEST ANALYSIS 3

TABLE 1—Clay samples characteristics.

Sample Description Gs LL PI
1 Bluish-gray clay 2.63 46 % 23 %
2 Commercial bentonite 2.75 237 % 188 %
3 Organic clay 1.95 230 % 46 %

As an alternative, one can use Eq 8 directly as input to a general

minimization routine, also found in some spreadsheet programs.
This approach has some drawbacks when compared to the proce-
dure used here, though. An initial guess for all four model param-
eters is required when using a general minimization routine,
whereas for the specialized procedure, only an initial guess for cv is
required. Moreover, general minimization routines are more ill-
convergence prone. That is, the minimization procedure can fail to FIG. 1—Consolidation curve for load increment from 100 kPa to 200 kPa, for
Specimen 1.
converge, or converge to unsatisfactory values. The proposed pro-
cedure is, by contrast, much more stable and robust, because the
nonlinear minimization is performed in only one direction. In the After each load increment, settlement measurements at times t in a
geometric sequence with ratio ti / ti−1 = 冑2 were taken. For those
other three directions the minimization is accomplished by the so-
lution of a simple system of linear equations.
measurements, a digital dial gage with 0.001 mm resolution, linked
to a data logging program in a computer was used. Each load incre-
ment was left on the soil specimen for 24 hours, or until the second-
Consolidation Tests ary compression was clearly defined.
In order to access the performance of the proposed regression After the tests, the datasets were processed both by hand calcu-
method, a series of consolidation tests on different types of clay lation and by the proposed regression method. The hand calculation
soils were executed. Three clay samples were used. The first one is was carried out independently by two experienced laboratory tech-
a low plasticity, bluish-gray clay from a deposit near the city of nicians; one of them using Taylor’s square root of time method and
Santa Gertrudes, in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. The second clay the other using Casagrande’s logarithm of time method.
is a commercial bentonite sample, from the State of Paraiba, Brazil.
The last sample is a highly organic, black, marine clay, from the
city of Cubatão, State of São Paulo, Brazil. The main characteris- Results and Discussion
tics of those samples are given in Table 1, where Gs is the specific
gravity of soil solids, LL is the liquid limit, and PI is the plasticity The plots in Figs. 1–4 show the measured points along with the
index. regression curves obtained with the proposed method, for the load
Four remolded soil specimens for the consolidation tests were increment from ␴⬘v = 100 kPa to ␴⬘v = 200 kPa, for the four speci-
prepared with those three samples. The first one was prepared with mens. The agreement between the data points and the regression
Sample 1 only. The second and third specimens were prepared from curves is excellent in all cases. The diversity in the curve character-
mixtures of Sample 1 and Sample 2. Finally, Specimen 4 was pre- istics for each soils is worth noting. Specimen 1 curve shows small
pared with Sample 3 only. The specimens’ composition is shown in deformability and high coefficient of consolidation cv. As the con-
Table 2. tent of bentonite in the soil is increased in Specimens 2 and 3, the
The specimens, measuring 71.4 mm in diameter and 20 mm in deformability increases and the magnitude of cv decreases. The co-
height, were prepared for the tests by putting the soil mixture at a efficient of secondary compression c␣ also increases with the ben-
water content in the plastic range and then gently molding by hand tonite content.
a small block from which the specimen was cut with the test ring. In
this way, very soft, saturated specimens for which the magnitude
order of the coefficient of consolidation remained constant for all
load increments could be molded. The specimens initial water con-
tent w0 and void ratio e0 are also shown in Table 2.
The consolidation cell uses a fixed-type ring setup with drainage
on both top and bottom ends of the specimen. The consolidation
tests were conducted in the standard way, with load increment ratio
LIR= 1, with first load q1 = 12.5 kPa and last load q8 = 1600 kPa.

TABLE 2—Specimens composition and initial data.

Specimen Bluish-gray clay Bentonite Organic Clay w0 e0

1 100 % 0% 0% 36.9 % 1.00
2 75 % 25 % 0% 63.4 % 1.72
3 50 % 50 % 0% 79.6 % 2.23
4 0% 0% 100 % 177.1 % 3.33 FIG. 2—Consolidation curve for load increment from 100 kPa to 200 kPa, for
Specimen 2.
4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 3—Consolidation curve for load increment from 100 kPa to 200 kPa, for
Specimen 3.
FIG. 5—Coefficient of consolidation cv for Specimen 1 evaluated by different
methods.
For the organic clay (Specimen 4), the consolidation curve
shows high deformability and also high values for both cv and c␣.
The almost absence of the inflexion point in this last curve should whereas the smaller values were obtained for the low plasticity clay.
be noted. This fact makes the application of the standard graphical Also, the effect of the bentonite content on c␣ can be clearly ob-
methods to the analysis very difficult, specially the Casagrande’s served in the plot, increasing c␣ by a large amount. It should be
method. But the regression method is capable of dealing with this
type of situation without much trouble.
The application of the proposed method to the analysis of the
other load increments, not shown here for brevity, presented similar
results. Figures 5–8 show the variation of cv as a function of the
applied vertical effective stress ␴⬘v for the four specimens, calcu-
lated for all the load increments by the two standard manual meth-
ods and by the automatic least squares regression method. It can be
seen that the results obtained by the three methods are not far from
each other, with exception of the cv values obtained for the organic
clay. For that soil, the differences between the cv values obtained
with the three methods as well as the cv variation with the applied
vertical stress is larger than for the other specimens. In all cases,
however, the regression method gives results that are in the range of
variation of the values obtained by the standard methods.
The magnitude of the coefficient of secondary compression c␣ is
also obtained with the proposed method. Figure 9 shows the varia-
tion of c␣ with the vertical effective stress ␴⬘v for the four speci-
FIG. 6—Coefficient of consolidation cv for Specimen 2 evaluated by different
mens. methods.
The plot in Fig. 9 shows that c␣ is heavily dependent on the soil
type, but is less dependent on the applied load magnitude. As ex-
pected, the larger values of c␣ were obtained for the organic clay,

FIG. 4—Consolidation curve for load increment from 100 kPa to 200 kPa, for FIG. 7—Coefficient of consolidation cv for Specimen 3 evaluated by different
Specimen 4. methods.
 BARROS AND PINTO ON OEDOMETER CONSOLIDATION TEST ANALYSIS
FIG. 8—Coefficient of consolidation cv for Specimen 4 evaluated by different
methods.
noted, however, that the obtained c␣ values, specially those values
for Sample 3, which has the lowest coefficient of consolidation, are
not completely trustful, since they are based on a small number of
readings in the secondary compression range of the consolidation
curve. Long-term consolidation tests would be necessary to get
higher confidence on the c␣ values. Anyway, the obtained c␣ values
for all soils are in the range reported in the literature for those types
of soil (Mesri and Godlewski 1977).
As stated in the previous section, the model beginning of sec-
ondary compression should be arbitrarily set in the proposed
method. For the numerical results shown hereto, the model begin-
ning of secondary compression is set to 95 % of the primary con-
solidation 共TBoS = 1.129兲. This setting has some effect on the ob-
tained values of cv, depending on the amount of secondary
compression in the soil behavior. Figure 10 shows the variation of
the cv values obtained for the load increment from ␴⬘v = 100 kPa to
200 kPa with the setting of the beginning of secondary compres-
sion, for all samples.
The increment of the calculated cv values with the reduction of
t0, shown in Fig. 10, is much larger for the organic clay than for the
other three samples, due to the larger amount of secondary com-
pression in the organic clay settlement. But the earlier values of t0
used to get the results in Fig. 10 are hardly justified, without addi-
FIG. 9—Variation of c␣ with ␴v⬘ for the four clay specimens.
5
FIG. 10—Variation of cv with the model beginning of secondary compression as
a percentage of the primary consolidation (load increment from ␴v⬘ = 100 kPa to
200 kPa).
tional information on the ongoing secondary compression, even
taking the reports of beginning of secondary compression, based on
experimental observations, at points prior to 75 % of primary con-
solidation for peat (Robinson 2003), into account. The linear-log t
model used here probably does not apply to those reported, extreme
cases, which require a more refined secondary compression model
to match the experimental observations. Also, those early begin-
ning of secondary compression times were observed in consolida-
tion tests with load increment ratio much lower than 1. Thus, in
order to stay consistent with the standard graphical methods, values
between 90 and 95 % are suggested for the model beginning of sec-
ondary compression, for all soil types, when LIR= 1 and the linear-
log t model is used, unless more information on the secondary com-
pression for that soil type is available.
It is interesting to note, also, that the regression curves resulting
from different settings of the model beginning of secondary com-
pression are close to each other. Figure 11 shows the regression
curves for Specimen 4, obtained by setting t0 at 50 %, 75 %, and at
FIG. 11—Regression curves obtained with the beginning of secondary com-
pression set at 50 %, 75 %, and 90 % of the primary consolidation (Specimen
4, load increment from ␴v⬘ = 100 kPa to 200 kPa).
6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
TABLE 3—Coefficient of consolidation values for original, reduced, and
reduced-with-noise datasets (load increment from ␴v⬘ = 100 kPa to ␴v⬘
= 200 kPa).
103 ⫻ cv 共mm2 / s兲
Set with Noise
Specimen Original Set Reduced Set Mean Std. Dev.
1 73.9 75.6 76.6 13.3 共17.3 % 兲
2 5.72 5.80 5.94 0.87 共14.6 % 兲
3 1.81 1.82 1.79 0.20 共10.9 % 兲
4 33.2 31.5 32.2 3.97 共12.3 % 兲
95 % of the primary consolidation. The plot in Fig. 11 shows the
three regression curves almost coincident. Thus, it is not feasible to
use a regression method to estimate an optimal point for the model
beginning of secondary compression.
It should be noted that the linear-log t secondary compression
model introduces a small “kink” in the regression curve at t0. This
kink, which is an artifact of the regression model, is apparent only
when the coefficient of secondary compression is high, as for soft
organic clays. A consequence of this discontinuity is that in some
rare cases the numerical procedure may fail to converge. This may
happen when a test reading point is too close to t0 and the quality of
the data is poor. As a workaround, one can try small changes in the
TBoS, so t0 is moved away from that reading point.
As a final note on this topic, it should pointed out that the sec-
ondary compression model can be replaced by another one more
appropriate, if it is available, with only minor modifications in the
proposed method.
The test data used in this research were obtained with an equip-
ment setup that may be of higher quality than the equipment avail-
able in some laboratories, specially the apparatus setup for settle-
ment measuring, which employs a high precision electronic dial
gage coupled to an automatic data logging system. In many cases,
mechanical dial gage extensometers with 0.01 mm precision and
manual data logging are used in practice. In those cases, a much
reduced number of settlement readings are taken, usually at times
8, 15, and 30 s, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 30 min, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 h.
Moreover, the manual data logging can lead to even less precision
in the readings, specially for the initial ones, when the dial pointer
is moving faster.
In order to test the proposed method behavior in face of those
adverse conditions, a number of numerical simulations were made.
The simulation process was applied in two steps. First, the extra
readings between those taken at times close to those listed above
were deleted from the datasets and the kept settlement values were
rounded to two decimal figures. New values of cv were then ob-
tained with the regression method from these reduced datasets.
Next, in the second step, a Gaussian random noise with a pessimis-
tic standard deviation of 0.02 mm (two divisions on the mechanical
dial gage face) was added to that reduced settlement values and the
regression was applied to the resulting datasets. This second step
was repeated ten times for each reduced dataset. Then, mean and
standard deviation values of the cv were calculated. Table 3 shows
the results obtained with those simulations.
The numerical results in Table 3 show that the regression
method works very well with the datasets with reduced number of
points and lower precision, since the cv values obtained with both
the original and reduced datasets are very close to each other for all
four specimens. Also, the mean cv values obtained with the reduced
set with added noise are close to the original cv values. The ob-
served relative standard deviation magnitude can be considered
low, given the magnitude of the Gaussian noise introduced. As ex-
pected, the relative standard deviation magnitude is higher for the
stiffer specimens, specially for Specimen 1, because the noise am-
plitude relative to the total settlement is higher for those specimens.
It is concluded, from the simulations made, that the proposed re-
gression method is very stable and gives consistent results.
Additional extensions to the regression method proposed herein
can be devised. One can assign different weights to the readings,
thus favoring some of them over the others. For example, larger
weights can be assigned to the initial readings, which are less af-
fected by secondary compression. In this way the resulting cv will
be less affected by the secondary compression. This weighted re-
gression method can be implemented by replacing the least square
procedure in Eq 8 with a weighted least square procedure:
N
兺 wi关␦共ti兲 − ␦i兴2
min (9)
␦0,␦100,c␣,cv i=1
where wi are the weights assigned to each reading.
Another possible development is to perform a compound simul-
taneous regression with datasets from more than one load incre-
ment at once, sharing the same cv (and possibly the same c␣)
(Bowen and Jerman 1995). This procedure will result in an average
value for cv (and c␣) that is appropriate for a load range wider than
one single load increment.
Concluding Remarks
A nonlinear regression method based on the least squares proce-
dure for the analysis of the oedometer consolidation test data was
presented. The method can deal with test data from different types
of clay soils and calculates the values of the coefficient of consoli-
dation cv and of secondary compression c␣ without the need of
hand drawing the consolidation curve and of other graphical con-
structions. The resulting cv and c␣ obtained with this method have
statistical significance since the least squares procedure is used.
The regression method can be implemented in spreadsheet com-
puter programs that is commonly found in most soil laboratories.
This implementation can be done with macro-programming or with
the spreadsheet built in functions. In the last case the “goal seek”
facility found in those computer programs can be used.
Numerical values for cv, from consolidation tests executed on
different types of clays, show that the values obtained by the pro-
posed method are in good agreement with those obtained by the
standard graphical methods. Also, the values of c␣ obtained with
the proposed method are in the range of values reported in the lit-
erature.
Simulations through variation of data quality showed that the
numerical regression procedure is very stable and leads to consis-
tent results for most cases. For the rare cases that have convergence
problems, a simple workaround can be applied.
The main limitation of the proposed method is the time of model
beginning of secondary compression which has to be arbitrarily set
at some degree of the primary consolidation. This limitation is
common to all analysis methods based only on settlement measure-
ments.
Possible extensions of the proposed method include the use of
different models for the secondary compression, the use of a
weighted least squares procedure, and the compound simultaneous
 BARROS AND PINTO ON OEDOMETER CONSOLIDATION TEST ANALYSIS 7

冤 冥冦 冧 冦 冧
regression, in which more than one load increment dataset is pro- N U共c̄v,ti兲 S共t0,ti兲 ␦0 ␦i
cessed at once.
U共c̄v,ti兲 U 共c̄v,ti兲
2
U共c̄v,ti兲S共t0,ti兲 ␦100 = ␦iU共c̄v,ti兲
S共t0,ti兲 U共c̄v,ti兲S共t0,ti兲 S2共t0,ti兲 c̄B ␦iS共t0,ti兲
Acknowledgments (16)

The authors want to thank to the laboratory technicians, L. E. with implied summation over i.
Meyer and J. B. Cipriano, for the graphical calculations, and to the A fourth equation is obtained by taking the derivative of D rela-
technicians, E. Jurgensen and R. B. L. Silva, for the help with the tive to c̄v and equating it to zero:
consolidation tests. The second author was partially supported by n
⳵D
the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tec-
nológico CNPq, Brazil. This research has received partial support
F=
⳵ c̄v i=1
兺
= 2 关␦100U⬘共c̄v,ti兲 + c̄BS⬘共c̄v,ti兲兴Ri = 0 (17)
from Maccaferri do Brasil Ltda.
where
⬁
⳵ U共c̄v,t兲 共2m + 1兲2␲2
Appendix: Algorithm Derivation for the Regres- U⬘共c̄v,t兲 =
⳵ c̄v
= 2t
m=0
e− 4 兺 c̄vt
(18)
sion Method
and

冋 冉 冊册
The model assumed for the soil sample settlement in the oedom-
ti

冦
eter, under a stress increment, as a function of the time is:
⳵ log10 max 1, 0 t ⱕ t0
t0
␦ = ␦0 + ␦100U共c̄v,t兲 + c̄BS共t0,t兲 (10) S⬘共c̄v,t兲 = = 1 (19)
⳵ c̄v t ⬎ t0
where ␦0 is the initial instantaneous displacement, ␦100 is the total c̄v ln 10
primary consolidation displacement, The solution of the set of four equations is obtained by an itera-
⬁
tive procedure based on a simple solution for the 3 ⫻ 3 linear sys-
8 1 共2m + 1兲2␲2
U共c̄v,t兲 = 1 − 兺
␲2 m=0 共2m + 1兲2
e −
4
c̄vt
(11)
tem and on the Newton-Raphson root-finding method for the last
equation.
First, an initial guess c̄0v is estimated. The initial t0 is then calcu-
is the percentage of primary consolidation from Terzaghi’s theory, lated from Eq 13 and ␦0, ␦100, and c̄B are calculated from Eq 16.
c̄v = cv / H2d is the modified coefficient of consolidation, Hd is the Next, a better approximation for c̄v can be obtained from:

冏 冏
height of drainage, c̄B = cBH = c␣H / 共1 + e0兲 is the modified coeffi-
cient of secondary compression, H is the sample height, e0 is the F
c̄共k+1兲 = c̄共k兲
v − (20)
initial void ratio, and v
F⬘ c̄v共k兲

S共t0,t兲 = log10 max 1, 冉 冊

t
t0
(12)
where
n n
⳵F
where t0 is the time of the model beginning of secondary compres- F⬘ =
⳵ c̄v i=1
兺
= 2 关␦100U⬙共c̄v,ti兲 + c̄BS⬙共c̄v,ti兲兴Ri + 2 关␦100U⬘共c̄v,ti兲
i=1
兺
sion. The parameters for the model above, to be determined from
the measured settlement ␦i at time ti during the consolidation test, + c̄BS⬘共c̄v,ti兲兴2 (21)
are ␦0, ␦100, c̄v, and c̄B. The time t0 is supposed to be related to c̄v by:
and
TBoS ⬁
t0 = (13) ⳵2U共c̄v,t兲 ␲2 共2m + 1兲2␲2
c̄v U⬙共c̄v,t兲 =
⳵ c̄2v
= − t
2 m=0
共2m + 1兲 2 −
e 兺 4
c̄vt
(22)
where TBoS is the time factor which corresponds to the model be-

冋 冉 冊册
ginning of secondary compression, which is supposed to be known.
ti

冦
The regression algorithm is based on a least-squares fit proce- ⳵2 log10 max 1, 0 t ⱕ t0
dure. The sum of the squared differences between the model dis- t0
S⬙共c̄v,t兲 = = 1 (23)
placements at ti and the measured displacement di is: ⳵ c̄2v − t ⬎ t0
c̄2v ln 10
N
兩c̄共k+1兲 − c̄共k兲
D= 兺
i=1
R2i (14) The procedure is repeated until
required precision.
v v 兩 ⱕ ⑀, where ⑀ is the

The initial guess c̄共0兲

v can be taken as:
where
T50 0.192
Ri = ␦0 + ␦100U共c̄v,ti兲 + c̄BS共t0,ti兲 − ␦i (15) c̄共0兲
v = = (24)
t̄50 t̄50
is the residue at the ith point.
Taking the derivatives of D relative to ␦0, ␦100, and c̄B, and where t̄50 is the estimated time for 50 % of the consolidation, which
equating each one to zero in order to get a minimum, a linear sys- can be taken as the time that corresponds to half of the total settle-
tem of equations is obtained. This system, in matricial form, is: ment, excluding the initial settlement, due the load increment, ␦¯ 50:
8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
␦1 + ␦N
␦¯ 50 = (25)
2
After calculating ␦¯ 50, t̄50 may be estimated by linear interpola-
tion from the two available readings closest to ␦¯ 50.
References
Bowen, W. P. and Jerman, J. C., 1995, “Nonlinear Regression Using
Spreadsheets,” Trends Pharmacol. Sci., Elsevier, Vol. 16, No.
12, pp. 413–417.
Buisman, A. S. K., 1936, “Results of Long Duration Tests,” Pro-
ceedings of the First International Conference on Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundation Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Vol. 1, pp. 103–105.
Casagrande, A. and Fadum, R. E., 1940, “Notes on Soil Testing for
Engineering Purposes,” Harvard University Graduate School of
Engineering Publication, n. 8.
Chan, A. H. C., 2003, “Determination of the Coefficient of Con-
solidation Using a Least Squares Method,” Geotechnique, Vol.
53, No. 7, pp. 673–678.
Day, R. A. and Morris, P. H., 2006, Discussion on “Determination
of the Coefficient of Consolidation Using a Least Squares
Method,” by Chan, A. H. C., Geotechnique, Vol. 56, No. 1,
pp. 73–76.
Gibson, R. E. and Lo, K. Y., 1961, “A Theory of Consolidation for
Soils Exhibiting Secondary Compression,” Norwegian Geo-
technical Institute Publication 41, pp. 1–16.
Mesri, G. and Godlewski, P. M., 1977, “Time- and Stress-
Compressibility Interrelationship,” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div.,
ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT5, pp. 417–430.
Robinson, R. G., 2003, “A Study on the Beginning of Secondary
Compression of Soils,” J. Test. Eval., ASTM, Vol. 31, No. 5,
pp. 1–10.
Robinson, R. G. and Allam, M. M., 1996, “Determination of the
Coefficient of Consolidation from Early Stage of Log t Plot,”
Geotech. Test. J., ASTM, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 316–320.
Robinson, R. G. and Allam, M. M., 1998, “Analysis of Consolida-
tion Data by a Non-Graphical Matching Method,” Geotech. Test.
J., ASTM, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 140–143.
Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K., 1985, “Improved Rectangular Hy-
perbola Method for Determination of Coefficient of Consolida-
tion,” Geotech. Test. J., ASTM, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 37–40.
Taylor, D. W., 1948, Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Wahls, H. E., 1962, “Analysis of Primary and Secondary Consoli-
dation,” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 88, No.
SM6, pp. 207–231.