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

net/publication/315664041

Comparative Study of Curve Fitting Methods and Field Observatory Methods

Practiced to Evaluate the Coefficient of Consolidation-A Review

Conference Paper · March 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 463

3 authors, including:

Ganesh Sutar Chandra Bogireddy

Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Consolidation analysis within limited time frame View project

Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ganesh Sutar on 27 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics

Comparative Study of Curve Fitting Methods and Field Observatory

Methods Practiced to Evaluate the Coefficient of Consolidation- A Review

Ganesh Sutar1*, Chandra Bogireddy2, C. H. Solanki3

1*
Postgraduate Student, Applied Mechanics Department, S.V.NIT, Surat, Gujarat
(*E-mail:ganeshmsutar1@gmail.com, Ph: +91 9763624140, Corresponding Author)
2
Research Scholar, Applied Mechanics, Department, S.V. NIT, Surat, Gujarat, India
3
Professor & Head, Applied Mechanics Department, S.V.NIT, Surat, Gujarat, India

Abstract The coefficient of consolidation (cv) is required for predicting the rate of settlement
of saturated cohesive soils to adopt proper foundation design with a suitable method of soil
improvement. In the past few decades, a lot of research has been conducted to decide suitable
method to calculate the cv value. The conventional curve fitting methods, Casagrande
logarithm of time and Taylor square root of time methods are being used in geotechnical
engineering practice. The other alternative methods viz inflection point, velocity, rectangular
hyperbola fitting and revised logarithm of time fitting methods are sometimes gives even
better results than the two conventional methods at laboratory condition. Some researchers
are proven that the ratio of field and laboratry results of cv may exceed one hundred
percentage; bacause of undetermined errors due to load increament ratios variation with
depth. In this present paper, an attemt has been made to compare and critical review about
both field and laboratory methods. Based on the comparative review it has been revealed that
the revised log t method by Robinson and Field observatory method by Asaoka gives better
values of cv.
Keywords coefficient of consolidation; field methods; laboratory methods; comparisson
INTRODUCTION
The one dimensional consolidation is carried out by Oedometer test in laboratory to
determine the cv of saturated cohesive soil. Also the test is used to determine consolidation
characteristics of soil such as preconsolidation pressure σp’, recompression Index cr,
compression Index cc, duration of primary consolidation tp, secondary compression index cα.
The tests are usually performed in floating or fixed ring type Oedometers which are rounded
soil specimens (minimum diameter = 60 mm; minimum initial height = 20 mm, but not less
than ten times the maximum soil particle diameter) [1] with the pressure applied in
increments. The compression versus time test data are commonly used for the purpose of
determining cv, which is required for predicting the rate of settlement of structures founded
on cohesive soil deposits The consolidation process is a combination of two phenomena; the
permeability, which controls the rate at which the water is expelled out of the soil and thus
the rate of settlement at any time, and the compressibility, which controls the evolution of
excess pore pressures and thus the duration of the consolidation [2].
Two curve fitting methods, the Casagrande logarithm of time fitting and the Taylor square
root of time fitting methods, are being used in geotechnical engineering practice as the
conventional methods even though both having limitations. The other alternative methods viz
inflection point [3,4], velocity [5,6,7], rectangular hyperbola fitting [8] and revised logarithm
of time fitting [9] methods sometimes gives even better results than the two conventional
285 | Sutar et al.
 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics
methods. It is found that, most of the current methods have been developed in terms of
characteristic features of average degree of consolidation (U) versus time factor (T)
relationship from the Terzaghi consolidation theory. Many times the curve fitting methods
mentioned are not practiced because of their complications and lack of comparisons to field
values. As in situ load increment ratios vary with depth, it is necessary to accept the fact that
experimental values of cv obtained in the laboratory by any specific procedure are subject to
undetermined errors, which in some instances may exceed 300 percent as reported by
Leonards [2]. A comparison of cv values obtained from the field observations and the
laboratory data are required for governing the suitability of all the methods practiced. The
various methods available for estimating the field values of cv amongst which, Asaoka [10]
and Hyperbolic method [11] are mentioned here due to its wide applicability.

METHODS OF EVALUTAION OF COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION (cv)

Several methods are proposed by researchers to evaluate cv of soil from lab and field
observaions are discussed briefly;
Curve Fitting Methods
Many of the curve fitting methods are based on the Terzaghi’s one dimensional consolidation
theory. Which explains that the degree of consolidation U plotted against the logarithm of the
theoretical time factor T shows an initial parabolic region up to about U = 60%, followed by a
steep portion then it flattens rapidly, approaching a horizontal asymptote corresponding to U
= 100%
Casagrande Logarithm of Time Fitting Method [1]
For determination of the cv compression readings are to be taken for 24 hrs duration with
particular load increment. Due to which secondary compression evaluation can be possible.
Figure 1(a) showing dial reading vs time curve is used to evaluate value of cv from value of
50% time of consolidation t50 and corresponding time factor(T) = 0.197.
(H=depth as per drainage condition of the specimen) (1)

(a) (b)
Figure 1 (a)dial readings vs time curve for Casagrande logarithm of time fitting method
(b) dial readings vs time curve by Taylor square root of time fitting method[1]

286 | Sutar et al.

 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics
Taylor Square Root of Time Fitting Method [1]
The dial readings for particular stress increment are taken for at least 90% of primary
consolidation t90. The time t90 is noted as mentioned in figure 1(b) and corresponding time
factor T=0.848 is used to evaluate cv. as per equation (2).
(2)

Inflection point method [3,4]

It developed on the basis of Terzaghi’s one dimensional consolidation theory. The only
requirement for the determination of cv is the time t of the inflection point on the real time
curve. T corrsponding to inflection point is obtained when the slope M = dU/dlogT of the U
vs log T curve, is plotted against log T, the inflection point, of maximum slope (Mi) (Figure
2.(b)) is found at U = Ui = 70.15% and T= Ti = 0.405 with Mi = 0.6868. Where, t70 is the time
corresponding to U = 70% and T70 =0.405. into Equation (3)..
(3)
Apart from obtaining cv, this method (which has not received attention in the past) can also be
used effectively to obtain both Cα and the total primary consolidation settlement δ100 without
any graphical construction.[3]

Velocity method [5,6,7]

It was proposed by Parkin [5,6], and it was later improved by Pandian [7].The compression
curve of Terzaghi’s consolidation equation is reduced and plotted in terms of velocity vs
time. The settlement behaior is geometrically similar unless it encorporates secondary
compression effect. the experimental rate of settlement is determined between successive
intervals of time and plotted against time in a log-log scale.
The time t on the experimental curve is found corresponding to T93 = 1 on the theoretical
curve and cv obtained as:
(4)
The effects of seondary compression were improved by pandian[7] and developed an
equation corresponding to T78=0.524 as
(5)

Rectangular hyperbola fitting method [8]

This method recognizes that Terzaghi U vs T relationship is a rectangular hyperbola over a
fairly wide range of T. Hence, when T and U are plotted in the form of T/U versus T, a curve
is obtained up to about U = 60% and a straight line for 60% ≤ U ≤ 90% (Figure 4) for
uniform initial pore water pressure distribution with depth. cv is determined by obtaining the
values of time (t) and deformation (δ) from the standard oedometer test, then the slope m and
intercept c is calculated from the plot of t/ δ vs t for linear portion (Figure 4).
(6)

287 | Sutar et al.

 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics

Figure 2 (a) Theoretical U vs log Tv curve (b) dU/dlogTv vs logTv plot showing
inflection[3]

Figure 3 Settlement rate vs time curve by Figure 4 Theoretical T/U vs T relationship [8]
velocity method [6]
Revised logarithm of time fitting method [9]
Combining the concepts of the Casagrande method and the inflection point method,
Robinson[9] proposed a method that reduces effect of secondary consolidation. The initial
reading correction is obtained as per the method of casagrande (figure 5(b)); The time
obtained from drawing a tangent through inflection point (figure 5(a)) which intesect to
horizntal line extended parallel to absessa corresponds to U = 22.14% (T = 0.0385) on the
theoretical consolidation curve as U versus log T plot; and using T22.14, cv value can be
calcuated as per Equation (8)
(8)
As the influence of secondary compression is reduced, the value obtained by this method is
greater than that yielded by both the standard methods. It was reported that the permeability
values computed from cv values obtained from this method are more in agreement with the
288 | Sutar et al.
 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics
laboratory measured values than the standard methods, thus showing that the effects of
secondary compression are minimized. Moreover, the time-compression data for a shorter
duration are adequate for the determination of cv by this method.[2]

(a) (b)
Figure 5 (a) Theoretical U vs log T graph (b) Compression vs log t plot locating t22.14 [9]

(a) (b)
Figure 6 (a),(b) Hyperbolic plots of Terzaghi theory and field settlement data[11]

FIELD OBSERVATORY METHODS

Asaoka method [10]
In this section, the ordinary differential equation derived gives a settlement vs time
relationship.As a fundamental equation, Mikasa’s equation is adopted, that is
(9)
Where, ε (t, z ) is vertical strain (volumetric strain) ,
t (≥0) :time, z : depth from the top of clay stratum and
cv: coefficient of consolidation.
In Equation. (9) the upper dot, represents time-differentiation and the lower script, z
the differentiation with respect to depth, z. Even if the coefficients of both
permiability and volume compressibility vary from time to time, the Equation(9) is
289 | Sutar et al.
 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics
still effective when cv remains constant (Mikasa)[10] Based on the analysis of
above equation.(9) Asaoka found it easy to express settlement and proposed new
equation beyond Terzaghi’s theory.The final equation to obtain cv is expressed as

{ (10)

Where, β1 unitless coefficient independent of boundary values and

c1 is the ratio of cv and drainage depth of sample.
Table 1 Values of cv calculated by Casagrande’s and Taylor’s Methods [12]
Initial pressure cv values in (m2/yr)
Soil 2
(kg/cm ) Casagrande Taylor
SF Bay mud 0.5 0.54 0.85
1.0 0.84 1.27
2.0 1.67 2.37
4.0 1.81 4.49
8.0 2.97 5.24
Leda clay 4.0 4.7 12.8
8.0 10.3 23.3
4.0 9.2 11.3
8.0 10.4 11.3
Mexico city clay 0.2 2.1 4.7
Drammen clay 0.94 0.51 0.78
0.95 1.97 1.99
0.91 4.12 3.29
Cubzac-les ponts clay 8.0 0.39 1.25
8.0 1.15 2.24
8.0 1.09 3.72
8.0 1.28 3.24
Batiskan 0.7 0.1 0.21
0.7 0.2 0.27
Kansai alluvial clay 1.6 1.1 1.5
3.2 1.6 2.1
Remoulded Karita clay 0.4 .48 0.78
0.8 0.64 0.86
1.6 0.98 1.3
3.2 1.5 2.3
6.4 2.0 3.1
Remolded hiroshima clay 2.0 9.1 10.8
2.0 10.5 10.7
2.0 10.6 12.2
2.0 17.6 20.3
2.0 12.4 14.6
Remolded Kaolinite 1.0 3.2 3.4
3.0 5.1 5.2
290 | Sutar et al.
 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics
Table 2 Values of cv Casagrande, Taylor and Velocity Method [13]
Soil Pressure cv mm2/min
range (kPa) Casagrande Taylor Velocity
1 100-200 0.35 0.44 0.42
2 200-400 0.37 0.45 0.46
3 150-300 0.16 0.23 0.24
4 400-800 0.24 0.41 0.44
5 100-200 0.20 0.32 0.32
6 25-75 0.41 0.58 0.46
7 25-125 0.50 0.61 0.48
8 150-750 0.87 1.03 0.87
9 100-500 0.80 0.92 0.83
Table 3 Values of cv by casagrande, Taylor and Rectangular Hyperbola method [8]
Pressure cv cm2/sec
Soil
range (kPa) Casagrande Taylor Rectangular
32 12.5-25 4.684 - 1.986
52 25-50 107.517 - 12.648
3 50-100 0.702 - 0.996
2 50-100 - 0.082 0.050
8 50-100 - 0.043 0.290
34 50-100 0.088 - 0.873
35 50-100 17.556 - 2.886
44 50-100 0.049 - 0.125
45 50-100 0.081 - 0.133
50 50-100 0.156 49.843 0.174
51 50-100 - 2.034 0.114
52 50-100 92.215 143.327 25.136
53 50-100 0.282 - 1.297
35 100-200 18.734 7.119 0.591
50 100-200 0.038 6.797 3.171
52 100-200 146.427 15.064 9.786
34 200-400 0.024 - 0.32
35 200-400 21.672 1.681 0.514
50 200-400 - 53.455 3.127
52 200-400 92.32 80.421 7.815

Hyperbolic method [11]

The hyperbolic method was developed by Tan had its origin in the rectangular hyperbola
fitting method proposed by Shridharan which is the method for obtaining cv. From figure
6(b), δ60 is the settlement at the 60% consolidation stage and t60 is the corresponding time.
Thus δ60 can be obtained using following equation.
(11)
Where, αi is the slope of the theoretical Tv/Uv vs Tv plot and
Si is the slope of initial linear segment of t/δ vs t plot.
291 | Sutar et al.
 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics
Similar comments can be advanced for the 90% consolidation point.Also using the values of
time and corresponding time factors cv can be obtained.
Table 4 Values of cv by Casagrande, Taylor and Revised Log t methods [9]

Pressure cv *10-4 cm2/sec

Soil
range (kPa) Casagrande Taylor Revised logt
Red earth 25-50 4.63 5.45 6.12
50-100 6.43 7.98 9.00
100-200 7.32 9.99 11.43
200-400 8.14 10.90 12.56
400-800 8.10 11.99 12.80
Brown soil 25-50 3.81 4.45 5.42
50-100 3.02 3.77 3.80
100-200 2.86 3.40 3.52
200-400 2.09 2.21 2.74
400-800 1.30 1.45 1.36
Black cotton soil 25-50 5.07 6.55 9.73
50-100 3.06 3.69 4.78
100-200 2.00 2.50 3.45
200-400 1.15 1.57 2.03
400-800 0.56 0.64 0.79
Illite 25-50 1.66 2.25 2.5
50-100 1.34 3.13 3.32
100-200 2.20 3.18 3.65
200-400 3.15 4.59 5.14
400-800 4.15 5.82 6.45
Bentonite 25-50 0.063 0.130 0.162
50-100 0.046 0.100 0.130
100-200 0.044 0.052 0.081
200-400 0.021 0.022 0.04
400-800 0.015 0.017 0.022
Chicago Clay 12.5-25 25.10 45.50 46.00
25-50 20.10 23.90 31.50
50-100 13.70 17.40 20.20
100-200 3.18 4.71 4.97
200-400 4.56 4.40 4.91
400-800 6.05 6.44 7.41
800-1600 7.09 8.62 9.09

292 | Sutar et al.

 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics

Table 5 Values of cv by Conventional, Hyperbolic and Asaoka’s methods [11]

cv (mm2/sec)
Pressure (kPa) Hyperbola
Casagrande Taylor Asaoka
t60 t90
2-4 0.513 0.613 0.545 0.552 0.721
4-8 0.469 0.494 0.450 0.456 0.529
8-16 0.666 0.717 0.662 0.671 0.805
16-32 1.206 1.294 1.061 1.076 1.298
Table 6 Values of radial coefficient of consolidation(ch) by field observations, hyaperbolic
Asaoka methods for Sweden-SkaEdeby site [11]
ch (m2/yr)
Site Drains Hyperbola
Observed Asaoka
For t60 For t90
V03 Sand 0.45 0.38 0.38 0.41
V08 Sand 0.15 0.19 0.14 0.15
V13 Sand 0.3 0.26 0.26 0.32
AII Sand 0.45 0.49 0.46 0.43

REVIEW RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Many researchers have conducted variety of studies on the consolidation analysis of cohesive
soil all over the world. The comparative results of few highlighted methods are as follows:
(Note : The tests results are referred as per the requirement of the present paper. In detail
results can be analysed at corresponding reference). The results enlisted in Table(1-3) for
correspoding methods shows that the alternative methods gives nearly intermediate values of
Casagrande’s and Taylor’s method of cv Whereas revised log t method has given values of cv
greater than that by conventional methods Table(4).In case field observatory methods Asaoka
method evaluated better values of cv using laboratory test data of oedometer test Table(5).
Table(6) represents comparison of in-situ observed values, where Asaoka method obtained
better values to that of observed.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the comparative review of available methods i.e. Casagrande’s log t, Taylor’s root t,
rectangular hyperbola, Inflection point, the velocity and Revised log t method and two field
observatory methods viz. Asaoka’s method and Hyperbolic method are studied in this paper.
Amongst all the curve fitting methods studied, the revised log t method minimises the effect
of secondary compression more effectively than other methods on the basis of the results
reviewed. Asaoka and hyperbolic methods can be used to estimate both laboratory and field
coefficients of consolidation.Where as Asaoka’s method gives better values of cv by
minimising effects of secondary compression compared to hyperbolic method of Tan.
293 | Sutar et al.
 CoNMiG-2017
Conference on
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics

REFERENCES

1. Bereau of Indian Standards (1986) methods of test for soils, ‘Determination of

consolidation properties’ (IS : 2720 (Part 15) 1986(Reaffirmed 2002))

2. Shukla, S.K., Sivakugan, N and Das B.M. (2009), ‘Methods for determination of the
coefficient of consolidation and field observations of time rate of settlement-an overview’
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 3: (89-108)
3. Robinson, R.G. (1997), ‘Consolidation analysis by an inflection point method’
Geotechnique 47, No.1, 199-200
4. Mesri, G; Feng, T.W. and Shahien M. (1999), ‘Coefficient of consolidation by inflection
point method,’ Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125,
No. 8, August, 1999
5. Parkin, A.K.,(1978) ‘Coefficient of consolidation by velocity method,’ Geotechnique 28,
No. 4, 472- 474.
6. Parkin, A.K. and Lun, P.T.W.(1984), ‘Secondary consolidation effects in the application
of the velocity method,’ Geotechnique, pp. 126-128
7. Pandian, N.S., Sridharan, A. and Kumar, K.S. (1994). ‘Improved velocity method for the
determination of coefficient of consolidation.’ Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM,
17(1), 113-118.
8. Shridharan, A., Murthy, N.S.and Prakash, K.(1987), ‘Rectangular hyperbola method of
consolidation analysis,’ Geotechnique 37, No.3, 355-368

9. Robinson, R.G. and Allam, M.M.,(1996) ‘Determination of Coefficient of Consolidation

from Early Stage of Log t Plot’, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 19, No. 3,
September 1996, pp. 316-320.
10. Asaoka A. (1978), ‘Observational procadure for settlement prediction’ Soil and
Foundations Vol.18, No.4, Dec, 1978, Japanese Society of soil mechanics and foundation
engineering.
11. Tan, S.A. and Chew S.H. (1996), ‘Comparison of hyperbolic and Asaoka observational
method of monitoring consolidation with vertical drains’ Soil and Foundations Vol.36,
No.3, 31-42, Sept.1996, Japanese Geotechnical Society.
12. Duncan, J.M.,(1993), ‘Limitations of conventional analysis of consolidation settlement,’
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 9, September, 1993
13. Lun, P.T.W.and Parkin, A.(1985), ‘Consolidation behaviour determined by the velocity
method,’ Can. Geotech. J. 22, 158-165.

294 | Sutar et al.

View publication stats