HBRC Journal (2017) 13, 47–53

Housing and Building National Research Center

HBRC Journal

http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj

On the evaluation of pre-consolidation pressure

of undisturbed saturated clays
Adel H. Hammam *,1, Ashraf I. Abel-Salam 1, Mostafa A. Yousf 2

Housing & Building National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt

Received 27 October 2014; revised 6 February 2015; accepted 12 February 2015

KEYWORDS
Pre-consolidation pressure;
Sample disturbance;
Pocket penetrometer;
Sample quality
Abstract The objective of this research was to show the effect of sample disturbance on the values
of pre-consolidation pressure ,c by using Schmertmann method. A prediction of ,c form pocket
penetrometer is also achieved. This was carried out by comparing the values of ,c that were
estimated from the results of consolidation tests, with the readings of pocket penetrometer for same
samples. Pocket penetrometer is a simple tool that can be easily used in field and laboratory to
initially predict unconfined compressive strength for clayey soils. Before carrying out the consol-
idation tests on undisturbed samples, pocket penetrometer readings were recorded. The correlation
obtained between pocket reading and ,c values that resulted from consolidation tests was found to
be valid for a wide range of clay stiffness, ranging between medium stiff to very stiff clay. As for soft
clay, this correlation was found not to be applicable where its behavior is believed to be greatly
affected by the degree of disturbance occurring to samples during drilling.
ª 2015 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building
National Research Center. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction accurate value of ,c. Many researchers did their best for how
one can estimate ,c from the results of consolidation tests.
Pre-consolidation pressure ,c is an important parameter, which Moreover several researchers tried to predict ,c from empirical
expresses the stress history of soil especially for the behavior of correlations depending on soil properties such as moisture con-
cohesive soil. It is well known that accurate estimation of tent, Atterberg limits, void ratio, shear strength and overbur-
settlement of cohesive soil depends to large extent on the den pressure. Cone penetration test was widely used to
estimate ,c to overcome the disadvantages of disturbances,
* Corresponding author. which occurred during drilling and when carrying out lab-
E-mail address: adelhamam@yahoo.com (A.H. Hammam). oratory tests. The concept of pre-consolidation pressure and
1
Associate Professor. its importance is well defined in geotechnical engineering for
2
Researcher. calculating settlement. Pre-consolidation pressure, ,c is com-
Peer review under responsibility of Housing and Building National monly defined as the highest pressure to which the soil had been
Research Center. exposed in the past. Consolidation test results are considered
the main laboratory test that can be used for determining the
value of ,c. Several researchers established different methods
Production and hosting by Elsevier for obtaining ,c from the consolidation tests. Casagrande [1]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2015.02.003
1687-4048 ª 2015 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building National Research Center.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
48
Fig. 1 Casagrande method for estimating pre-consolidation
pressure.
is the oldest and most commonly used method based on the
relation e  log ,0 , as shown in Fig. 1. This relation shows that
the soil is under elastic behavior up to a certain pressure then it
starts plastic behavior. According to the break point between
the two behaviors, one can estimate ,c graphically.
Good results can be obtained if the break point is well defined
on the curve e  log ,0 . In general, this curve is affected by
the degree of sample disturbance, as shown in Fig. 2.
Many researchers developed other methods depending on
Casagrande method or new ones to define ,c [2,3], as shown
in Table 1.
Schmertmann method, e  log ,0 [4] was an attempt to
compensate the effect of sample disturbance by adjusting the
results of consolidation test, as shown in Fig. 2.
Butterfield method [5] is based on plotting the variation
between effective stress and volume change of specimen,
log (1 + e)  log ,0 or ln (1 + e)  ln ,0 . The pre-consolidation
Fig. 2 Schmertmann method for predicting sample disturbance.
A.H. Hammam et al.
pressure is defined as the intersection point of the two straight
lines.
Pre-consolidation pressure is affected not only by sample
disturbance, but also by load durations and load increment
ratios during testing [10,11]. Al-Zairjawi [2] carried out experi-
mental study and he concluded that the values of ,c decreased
as load durations and load increment ratios increased.
Correlations of pre-consolidation pressure
‘‘Settlement analysis – the backbone of Foundation
Research’’, said Terzaghi in 1929 [12]. It is well known that
the accuracy of determining the consolidation settlement is
considered the corner stone of estimating the total settlement
of cohesive soil. Therefore, over past decades researchers
developed several approaches to define the factors included
in the consolidation equations. The amount of settlement
depends mainly on three unknown factors that are included
in the settlement equation, among them are compression index
Cc or re-compression index Cr, void ratio e and pre-
consolidation pressure ,c. For saturated soil, void ratio can
be estimated from moisture content Wc and specific gravity
Gs. Moreover, Bowles [13] reported several correlations for
estimating Cc (accordingly Cr) from simple soil properties such
as moisture content and Atterberg limits. Hammam and
Abdul-fadiel [14] have established a new correlation to
estimate Cc from moisture content (Cc = 1.38 Wc  15). On
the other hand, to overcome the complicated defects related
to estimating ,c from consolidation test researchers tried to
develop empirical correlations between ,c and some of soil
properties. There are few correlations in the literatures among
them are as follows:
– Nagaraj and Srinivasa [15] established the following
correlation:
0
log ,c ¼ 5:97  5:32 ðWc =WL Þ  0:25 log ,vo ½kPa ð1Þ
– Solanki and Desai [16] developed new correlation as
follows:
0
,c ¼ 137:924  0:179 ,vo  30:48 ðe=eL Þ ½kPa ð2Þ
where e = void ratio, eL = void ratio at liquid limit (WL),
,0 vo = effective over burden pressure.
By examining the above correlations, it can be noticed that
the first one depends mainly on the ratio (Wc/WL) which can
be considered as an indication of soil stiffness and hence it
can be valid for certain soil conditions. While the second cor-
relation assumed that value of ,c should be less than certain
value (137.924 kPa). Moreover, the authors themselves
reported that this correlation depended on data of alluvial
deposits of south Gujarat region.
Several researchers considered that the best estimation can
be developed from the field tests especially cone penetration
tests, CPT. Therefore, pre-consolidation pressure ,c could be
expressed by the following simple formula (after Mayne
et al.) [17]:
,c ¼ 0:33ðqt  ,vo Þ ½kPa ð3Þ
where qt = total cone tip resistance, ,vo = total overburden
pressure.
Evaluation of pressure of undisturbed saturated clays 49

Table 1 Most important methods developed to define pre-consolidation pressure.

Year Method to define Pc Space Comments
1936 Casagrande method [1] e  log ,0 Graphical, subjective, most commonly used
1955 Schmertmann method [4] e  log ,0 Suitable for soft and stiff soil
1969 Janbu method [6] DH/H  ,0 Empirical, graphical construction
1970 Pacheco Silva method e  log ,0 Graphical, easy to use, good results for soft soil, widely in Brazil
1979 Tavenas method [7] ,0 * DH/H  ,0 Regression analysis
1979 Butterfield method [5] log (1 + e)  log ,0 Graphical, depends on critical state theory
1989 Jose method [8] log e  log ,0 Fitted lines, regression analysis
1997 Van Zelst method DH/H  log ,0 Regression analysis, depends on Tavenas method
2000 Senol and Saglamer ,0 * DH/H  log ,0 The abscissa of point of intersection between the
method [9] extensions of first and third lines represents ,c

Mayne [18] reported at low over-consolidation ratio, 1.65

OCR=1, Wc=63%, D=15m
OCRs < 2, the back analyses of failure case records involving 1.55 OCR=1, Wc=57%, D=23m
corrected shear vane strengths for embankments, footings, and 1.45 OCR=1, Wc=53%, D=30m
OCR=1.2, Wc=60%, D=38m
excavations, indicated that the relation between the mobilized 1.35

Void Ratio
undrained shear strength and pre-consolidation pressure ,c 1.25
may be taken simply as: 1.15
1.05
,c  4:5 su ð4Þ
0.95
where su = undrained shear strength. 0.85
The fourth formula related directly ,c with undrained shear 0.75
strength that was derived from CPT data. The constant value 0.65
10 100 1000 10000
of [4.5] included in the above formula is still debatable.
Applied pressure kPa

Experimental study Fig. 3 e  log ,0 curve for four samples at different depths form
a same borehole.
During the routine daily works of Housing and Building
National Research Center, undisturbed clayey samples have
been collected from different locations around Egypt. The 1.60
pocket penetrometer is considered a main tool for testing the 1.50
cohesive samples in the field, besides it is always used during 1.40
sample classification in the laboratory. Hundreds of consol- 1.30
Voids ratio

idation tests were performed and values of ,c were estimated 1.20

and compared with the pocket penetrometer readings.
Consolidation tests and sample disturbance
The consolidation test is generally considered the main test for
estimating the soil properties related to settlement prediction.
The settlement equation included three unknowns, void ratio,
compression index or recompression index and pre-
consolidation pressure ,c. As mentioned above and away from
consolidation test, one can easily get the void ratio as soon as
measuring the sample moisture content. The compression
index can be estimated from simple soil properties and hence
the values of recompression index ranged between 10% and
20% of that for compression index. Therefore, the best
estimation of settlement value depends mainly on the sound
choice between compression and recompression index that
depends mainly on the value of pre-consolidation pressure.
Pocket penetrometer testing is believed to overcome the
difficulties that have been found during the analysis of the
results of consolidation tests. Although well-controlled
undisturbed samples were achieved during drilling works at
Port-Said city in Egypt, the disturbed behavior dominated
on the shape of e  log ,0 curves. Fig. 3 shows e  log ,0 curves
for four samples from a borehole at different depths ranging
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
10 100 1000
e =0.42eo
10000
Applied pressure, kPa
Fig. 4 e  log ,0 curve for sample at depth 15 m.
between 15, 23, 30 and 38 m. Although the samples have
similar over consolidation ratios OCR and natural moisture
contents, they had different e  log ,0 curves. These differences
are attributed to sample disturbance, which cannot be noticed
or estimated by naked eye. Schmertmann method was used to
estimate the disturbance and to correct the compression
curves in order to match the in-situ stress history, as shown
in Figs. 4–7. The gap between the solid and dashed curves is
considered to be as criterion for the disturbance, the more
the gap is the more the disturbance.
Although the samples shown in Figs. 4–6 have approxi-
mately same properties with stiffness soft to medium stiff, they
have different disturbances. It can also be seen that the
50 A.H. Hammam et al.

1.65 0.90
1.55 OCR=3.1, Wc=33%, D=8m
0.85
1.45 0.80
1.35
Voids ratio

0.75

Void Ratio
1.25
0.70
1.15
0.65
1.05
0.95 0.60

0.85 0.55
0.75 0.50
0.65 0.45
10 100 1000 e =0.42eo 10000 10 100 1000 10000
Applied pressure, kPa Applied pressure kPa e =0.42eo

Fig. 5 e  log ,0 curve for sample at depth 23 m. Fig. 8 e  log ,0 curve for stiff sample at depth 8 m extracted by
single core.
1.50

1.40 1.50
1.30 OCR=1.3, Wc=52%, D=10m
1.40
Voids ratio

1.20
1.30
1.10

Void Ratio
1.20
1.00
1.10
0.90
1.00
0.80
0.90
0.70
10 100 1000 e =0.42eo 10000 0.80
Applied pressure, kPa
0.70
10 100 1000 10000
Fig. 6 e  log ,0 curve for sample at depth 30 m.
Applied Pressure kPa e =0.42eo

Fig. 9 e  log ,0 curve for soft to medium sample at depth 10 m

1.70
extracted by Shelby tube.
1.60
1.50
1.40
Void Ratio

1.30 According to Sample Quality Designation, S.Q.D. devel-

1.20
oped by some researchers [12], the rating of the four samples
1.10
was poor to very poor, see Table 2. Sample Quality
Designation can be estimated by measuring the strain of sam-
1.00
ple at effective overburden pressure ,0 vo and compares them
0.90
with the values in Table 2. According to S.Q.D., it was sug-
0.80
10 100 1000 10000 gested that reliable estimate of engineering parameters of soil
Applied Pressure kPa e =0.42eo
should require samples with rating at least good to fair.
Samples with disturbance poor or more should not be trusted
Fig. 7 e  log ,0 curve for sample at depth 38 m. for deriving soil-engineering properties.
The following Figs. 8 and 9 show a comparison between
two different samples from different locations indicating the
stiffness of the samples minimized to some extent the sample effect of soil stiffness on the sample disturbance. Fig. 8 shows
disturbance as shown in Fig. 7 in which the sample is stiff clay. e  log ,0 curve for stiff cohesive soil at relatively shallow

Table 2 Quantification of sample disturbance, after Kontopoulos [3].

Specimen Quality Designation (S.Q.D.) (Terzaghi et al.) [12] Criteria of De/eo at ,0 vo (Lunne et al.) [19]
0
Vertical strain at , vo% S.Q.D. level OCR = 1–2 OCR = 2–4 Rating
De/eo De/eo
<1 A <0.04 <0.03 Very good to excellent
1–2 B 0.04–0.07 0.03–0.05 Good to fair
2–4 C 0.07–0.14 0.05–0.10 Poor
4–8 D >0.14 >0.10 Very poor
>8 E Worst
Evaluation of pressure of undisturbed saturated clays 51

300 be estimated at the field or at laboratory, as shown in Plate

Pre-consolidation pressure, kPa 1. There are different shapes and models for the pocket, as
250
shown in Plate 2.
200
The approximate unconfined compressive strength for each
sample was the average of at least three readings taken by
150 pocket penetrometer. The readings were taken during perform-
ing the consolidation test. Table 3 shows samples of test
100
results, while Fig. 12 shows comparison between the readings
50
of pocket and the measured pre-consolidation pressures.
It can be seen that there is good agreement between the
0 readings of pocket and the values of pre-consolidation pres-
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 sure. There are some notes in the Fig. 12 as follows:
∆e/eo
Soft clay
Fig. 10 Effect of disturbance of sample De/eo on ,c (after
Kontopoulos [3]). Refer to the above discussion of the outcome results, the sam-
ples of soft clay having pocket readings less that 50 kPa, have
been exposed to high degree of disturbance so that the pocket
1 can give false values to its bearing capacity. Therefore, pocket
readings cannot represent the pre-consolidation pressure for
0.8 soft clay.
Vs s / Vs CPTU

0.6 Medium stiff clay

The unconfined compression strength of medium stiff clay
0.4
ranged between 50 and 100 kPa. It can be noticed from
Fig. 12 that pocket readings indicated conservative values for
0.2

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
∆e/e o

Fig. 11 Relationship between Vss/Vs CPTU and disturbance of

sample De/eo (after Landon et al. [20]).

depth. Although this sample was extracted by single core of a

drilling machine, which is not matching with the minimum
requirement of undisturbed sample, its S.Q.D. was good to fair.
Fig. 9 shows e  log ,0 curve for soft to medium cohesive
soil at relatively shallow depth. Although this sample was
extracted by Shelby tube of auger machine, its S.Q.D. was
poor to very poor.
The above discussion indicated that the disturbance of sam-
ples whether soft or stiff could not be easily avoided. This dis-
turbance affects the engineering properties of soil especially Plate 1
void ratio, compression index and pre-consolidation pressure.
Kontopoulos [3] reported that the value of ,c obviously
decreased with increasing the disturbance of sample, as shown
in Fig. 10.
The disturbance of samples could be estimated through an
interesting nondestructive method achieved by Landon et al.
[20]. They used bender elements to measure shear wave veloci-
ties, Vss for samples with different qualities and shear wave
velocities VsCPTU in the field by seismic piezocone at the same
depth. By comparing shear wave velocities for sample and that
for field, it could be seen that the ratio Vss/Vs CPTU decreased
with increasing sample disturbance De/eo, as shown in Fig. 11.

Correlation between pocket penetrometer readings and pre-

consolidation pressure

Pocket penetrometer is a very simple tool by which approxi-

Plate 2
mate unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil could
52 A.H. Hammam et al.

Table 3 Samples of values of pocket and pre-consolidation pressure at different locations in Egypt.
Location Depth (m) Pocket (kPa) ,c (kPa) Location Depth (m) Pocket (kPa) ,c (kPa)
Port-said 15 100 100 Middle of delta 8.0 180 200
23 70 Nona 6.0 150 200
29 100 180 10.0 150 150
18 80 100 12.0 60 70
38.5 400 350 6.0 40 80
21.5 80 90 8.0 40 60
37.5 200 300 10.0 200 200
Assiut 7.0 250 200 6.0 220 220
10.0 200 200 5.0 180 250
4.0 300 250 7.0 100 120
5.0 200 200 10.0 120 120
11.0 40 Nona 4.0 250 200
5.0 230 250 3.0 200 240
9.0 50 Nona 6.0 150 150
3.0 180 150 9.0 150 200
Giza 6.0 180 200 6.0 180 160
9.0 180 180 8.0 200 200
7.0 180 180 6.0 170 170
5.0 180 180 8.0 160 150
8.0 200 200 12.0 250 250
3.0 170 180 5.0 150 190
10.0 250 280 8.0 100 100
6.0 200 200 10.0 270 280
7.0 280 270 7.0 200 200
9.0 240 300 4.0 150 170
6.0 50 Nona 5.0 80 90
5.0 150 150 8.0 200 250
4.0 240 250 5.0 250 250
8.0 120 120 4.0 170 200
North of delta 12.0 40 100 11.0 320 320
26.0 40 Nona South of delta 4.0 200 250
10.0 80 80 6.0 230 240
12.0 60 60 9.0 250 250
a
,c cannot be easily estimated from e  log ,c curve.

500 Stiff to very stiff clay

450
Medium clay As the stiffness of clay increased, the disturbance of samples
Stiff clay
decreased so that the reading of the pocket can directly give
2
Preconsolidation Pressure, kN/m

Very stiff clay

400 good estimation for the ,c.
350

300 Conclusions

250
Accurate values of pre-consolidation pressure could be esti-
200 mated from the results of consolidation tests providing that
150 a break point should be found between the initial and virgin
lines of e  log ,0 curve. The disturbance of samples whether
100
soft or stiff could not be easily avoided and hence affect the
50 engineering properties of soil especially void ratio, compres-
sion index and pre-consolidation pressure so that the esti-
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 mated values of ,c usually include uncertainties. This paper
Pocket Readings, kN/m
2 showed very simple prediction for ,c depending on pocket
readings. The pocket measures directly the unconfined com-
Fig. 12 Comparison between pocket readings and measured pre- pression strength of cohesive soil. For soft clay, it cannot
consolidated pressure. be relied on the readings of pocket for estimating ,c. For
medium stiff clay, ,c can be estimated after multiplying the
,c, that could be attributed to the samples disturbance. This readings of pocket by a value of 1.2. The values of ,c for stiff
effect can be neglected if the pocket readings multiply by a to very stiff clay could be directly expressed by the pocket
constant equal to 1.2. readings.
Evaluation of pressure of undisturbed saturated clays
These correlations between pocket readings and ,c could be
considered the first step, and more studies are needed for dif-
ferent types of clays.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there are no conflict of interests.
References
[1] A. Casagrande, The determination of pre-consolidation load
and its significance, in: 1st Int. Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, vol. 3, Cambridge, Mass, 1936.
[2] M.K. Al-Zairjawi, Influence of load duration and load ratio on
pre-consolidation pressure, J. Eng. Dev. 12 (3) (2008) 133–141
(ISSN 1813-7822).
[3] N.S. Kontopoulos, The effect of sample disturbance on pre-
consolidation pressure for normally consolidated and over
consolidated clays, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, M.I.T. Cambridge, Mass, 2012, p.
285.
[4] J.H. Schmertmann, The undisturbed consolidation behavior of
clay, Trans. ASCE 120 (1955) 1201–1233.
[5] R. Butterfield, A natural compression law for soils,
Geotechnique 29 (4) (1979) 469–480.
[6] N. Janbu, The resistance concept applied to deformation of
soils, in: Proc. 7th Int. Conference on SMFE, vol. 1, Mexico
city, 1969, pp. 191–196.
[7] F. Tavenas, S. Leroueil, Clay behavior and selection of design
parameters, in: Proc. 7th European Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1, 1979, pp. 281–291.
[8] B.T. Jose, Log–log method for determination of pre-
consolidation pressure, GTJ ASTM 12 (3) (1989) 230–237.
53
[9] A. Senol, A. Saglamer, New method for determination of the
pre-consolidation pressure in a low plasticity clay, Teknik Dergi.
13 (2000) 2527–2555.
[10] C.B. Crawford, Interpretation of the consolidation tests, J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 90 (SM5) (1964) 93–108.
[11] C.B. Crawford, State of the art: evaluation and interpretation of
soil consolidation test, ASTM STP 892 (1986) 71–103.
[12] K. Terzaghi, R.B. Peck, G. Mesri, Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1996.
[13] J.E. Bowles, Foundations Analysis and Design, international
ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
[14] A.H. Hammam, M. Abdul_fadiel, Best estimation of
compression index (Cc) from moisture content, in: 13th Al-
Azhar Engineering Int. Conf. Cairo, Egypt, 2014.
[15] T.S. Nagaraj, B.R. Srinivasa, Prediction of the pre-
consolidation pressure and recompression index of soils, GTJ
ASTM 8 (4) (1985) 199–202.
[16] C.H. Solanki, M.D. Desai, Pre-consolidation pressure from soil
index and plasticity properties, in: 12th International
Conference of International Association for Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Goa, India, 2008.
[17] P.W. Mayne, J.K. Mitchell, J.A. Auxt, R. Yilmaz, U.S.
National Report on CPT, in: Proc. Int. Symposium on Cone
Penetration Testing, vol. 1, Swedish Geotechnical Society,
Report 3:95, Linköping, 1995, pp. 263–276.
[18] P.W. Mayne, Cone penetration testing: state-of-practice,
NCHRP Project 20-05, Final Report, Topic 37–14, 2007, p. 137.
[19] T. Lunne, T. Berre, S. Strandvik, Sampling disturbance effect in
soft low plastic Norwegian clay, in: Almeidia (Ed.), Recent
Developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1997, pp. 81–102.
[20] M.M. Landon, D.J. DeGroot, T.C. Sheahan, Non-destructive
sample quality assessment of a soft clay using shear wave
velocity, J. Geotech. Geo-environ. Eng. 1090-0241 133 (4) (2007)
424.