Porewater Pressure Dissipation

Evaluating Porewater ƒ Applicable to any penetration in clays, silts, and fine-

Pressure Dissipation grained soil, including pile foundation installation,
piezoprobes, push-in piezometers, and piezocones.
Specifically for CPTù:
cvh = coefficient of consolidation
kvh = permeability (hydraulic conductivity) ƒ Stop in penetration (often rod break ~ 1 meter)
ƒ Measure porewater pressure (PWP) = fctn (time)
'u ƒ Eventually excess PWPs decrease to zero ('u o 0)
o cvh i.e., total umeas o u0 hydrostatic
o kvh
u2 ƒ Time to completion depends on coefficient of
consolidation (cvh) and permeability (kvh)
log Time ƒ Monitor either u1 or u2 position

CoefficientofConsolidationfrom CoefficientofConsolidationfromCPT
Piezocone DissipationTesting(CPTù) PermeabilityAnisotropy(Leroueil&Hight,2003)

• CoefficientofConsolidation,cvh:
Table:Permeability Anisotropy inNaturalSoils
Nature of the Formation Ratio
kh/kv
1. Homogeneous clays of marine, alluvial, deltaic, and lacustrine origin 1to1.5
• Permeability,kvh (orhydraulicconductivity) 2. Sedimentary clays with discontinuous lenses and layers, having a wellͲ 2to3
developed macrofabric
• D'=constrainedmodulus 3. Varved clays and silts with continuous permeable layers 1.5to5

• Jw =unitweightofwater 4. Highly stratified soils with interbedded layers of clay, silt, sand, and/or gravel 2to10

(adapted after Leroueil&Jamiolkowski,1991)

• Piezocone:Porewater PressureDissipationTesting
Note:kh =horizontalhydraulicconductivity;kv =verticalhydraulicconductivity

PermeabilityAnisotropy Cooper River Bridge, Charleston, South Carolina

Leroueil & Hight (2003), Leroueil & Jamiolkowski (1991)

DURING
PENETRATION

HYDROSTATIC

 
 CoefficientofConsolidationfromCPTù
Evaluationoft50 correspondingto50%consolidation
Solutions for Piezo-Dissipation
‰ Tortensson (1977)– CavityExpansion
‰ Randolph&Wroth(1979)– CavityExpansion
‰ Battaglio etal.(1981)– CE+Skempton’s Af
‰ Jones&VanZyl (1981)– EmpiricalApproach
‰ Senneset etal.(1982)– ConsolidationTheory
‰ Baligh &Levadoux (1986)– StrainPath
‰ Gupta&Davidson(1986)– Seriesofcavities
‰ Houlsby &Teh (1988,1991)– StrainPathMethod
‰ Elsworth (1993)Ͳ DislocationTheory
‰ Burns&Mayne(1998,2002)Ͳ HybridCE+CSSM
‰ Chai&Carter(2004)Ͳ Empirical

CoefficientofConsolidationfromCPTù
Strain Path Method
• Method1:Empiricalapproach(Jones&VanZyl,1981): Oxford University (Houlbsy & Teh, 1991)

ƒ PositionofElement(tip,midface,
shoulder,uppershaft)

wherecvh (cm2/min);d=conediameter(cm),and ƒ Oftenappliedwithmeasuredtimeto50%

measuredt50 (minutes)
• Method2:StrainPathMethod(OxfordUniv.)
• Method3:HybridCavityExpansionͲCriticalStateSoil
MechanicsSolution (GeorgiaTech)
completion,t50 (singlepoint)
ƒ Needestimateofundrained rigidity
index,IR =G/su
ƒ MonotonicDecayof'uwithtimeonly

Dissipations at Univ. Massachusetts - Amherst STRAIN PATH METHOD U

(Houlsby & Teh, 1991) 0%

DegreeofConsolidation:
zw = 1m 50%

U =1Ͳ 'u/'ui 50%

T*=0.118
100%
where'ui =umeasͲuo
Z = 15.2 m duringpenetration;
'u2 'u1 a=radius;t=time; U
0%
'u=remainingexcess
porewater pressure.
50%
T*=modifiedtime
uo = (9.8 kN/m3 )(14.2 m) = 139 kPa factor(SPM)where T*=0.245 50%
100%

ch =T*a2 IR0.5/t

 
 Monotonic Porewater Pressure Decay Define Rigidity Index, IR
W = shear stress
Wmax = su = cu = undrained shear strength

Strain Path Solution: Undrained Rigidity Index:

IR = G/su
where T50* = 0.118 for Type 1
= 0.245 for Type 2 W/Js = G= shear modulus
a = probe radius
= 1.78 cm for 10-cm2 cone
= 2.20 cm for 15-cm2 cone u1
JRef = 1/IR Js = shear strain
IR = G/su = Rigidity Index

Laboratory Determination of Rigidity Index RigidityIndexestimatedfromPIandOCR

(Keaveny &Mitchell,ASCE GSP 6,1986)

Direct Simple Shear (DSS)

shear at constant volume
su = Wmax
IR = G/su

CIUC or CKoUC Triaxial

Gu = Eu /3
su = ½(V1-V3)max
IR = G/su

CaseStudy:Bothkennar DissipationTests
RigidityIndexfromCamͲClay(K&M’90) (data from Jacobs & Coutts, Geotechnique, June 1992)

Bothkennar Clay at 12 m depth

600
550
Measured Porewater Pressure (kPa)

Measured u1
u2 500 Measure u2

Cs/Cc u1 Hydrostatic u0
406
400
u50=½(550+110)
= 330 kPa
300

u50=½(406+110)
= 258 kPa 200

110
100

0
1 10 100 1000 10000

Time (seconds) t50 = 700 s (Type 1)

t50 = 995 s (Type 2)

 
 Example:Bothkennar CPTU PenetrationData CaseStudy:Bothkennar Dissipations
Index
Parameters: ‰ Using OCR=1.82and
LL = 77 PlasticityIndexPI=50
PL = 27
PI = 50 ‰ EstimatedRigidity

wn = 62 Index,IR =43

ƒ Scaleddataatz=12m:qt=653kPa,u2 =405kPa
Approximation:
ƒ Calculated:Vvo =192;u0 =108kPa;Vvo'=84kPa
ƒ Evaluate:Vp'=0.33(qtͲVvo)=154kPa
Vp'=0.53(u2Ͳu0)=157kPa ave Vp'=153kPa
Vp'=0.60(qtͲu2)=149kPa
ƒ AssessaverageOCRat12meters=(Vp'/Vvo')=1.82

CaseStudy:Bothkennar CPTU Dissipations:IR =43

CaseStudy:Bothkennar PiezoͲDissipations
coefficient of consolidation, cvh permeability, kvh
(LaboratorydatafromNash,etal. Geotechnique 1992)

Type Meas. Modified Coef. Coef. Permeab. Permeab. 0

Element t50 TimeFactor Consol. Consol. k k
(sec) T* cvh (cm2/s) 2
cvh (m /yr) (m/yr) (m/s)
5
u1 700 0.118 0.0035 11.0 0.0468 1.48ͼ10Ͳ9
Depth (m)

u2 995 0.245 0.0051 16.2 0.0689 2.19ͼ10Ͳ9

10

Notes: a = cone/pile radius; a = 1.785 cm (for 10-cm2 cone)

Jw = 9.8 kN/m3 = unit weight water 15
D' = constrained modulus § 5 (qt-Vvo) for clays, silts & sands
At z = 12 m: qt = 653 kPa Vvo = 192 kPa D' = 2305 kPa
20

MonotonicDissipationResponse CalibrationofPiezoͲDissipations
StrainPathSolution(Houlsby &Teh,1991)

 
 CalibrationofPiezoͲDissipations Full SPM Dissipation Example: Rio de Janeiro
StrainPathSolution(Houlsby &Teh,1991) 1.0
Data: Danzinger et al. (1997)
Sarapui Clay: z = 8.2 m

Normalized 'u/'ui
0.8

Small 5-cm2 piezocone

Rigidity Index IR = 50
0.6 cvh = 0.22 cm2/min

0.4
Measured u1
Measured u2

0.2 SPM u1

SPM u2

0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time (seconds)

Types of Piezo-Dissipation Responses Types of Piezo-Dissipation Responses

Measurements by Lunne et al. (NGI 1985)
600
PoreWater Pressure(kPa)

FissuredOCLondonClay
MONOTONIC 500
BrentCrossSite,England
Depth=18m
400
ch =0.0067mm2/s
300

200

DILATORY u0
100

DILATORY
-100
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time(sec)

HybridCPTù Modelusing Thin Highly

Sheared Zone MeasuredPenetrationPorewater Pressures
CavityExpansion+CSSM

um =uo +'uoct +'ushear

Undisturbed rp=ro(Ir)0.333
Zone: rc
qMIT
'us
E = 2G(1+Q)
Plasticized
ZoneͲCavity
Expansion rp= rc IR0.33 pMIT

(su) Hydrostatic Spherical Cavity Stress Path

Rigidity Index uo = hwJw Expansion (shear)
IR= G/su

 
 Hybrid Cavity Expansion - CSSM Solution for
Piezodissipation with time
ƒ Burns & Mayne (1998) - Report to
NSF and ARO
ƒ Burns & Mayne (1998) - Canadian
Geot. J.
ƒ Burns & Mayne (1999) -
Transportation Research Record
ƒ Mayne (2001) - In-Situ Conference,
Bali
ƒ Burns & Mayne (2002) - Soils &
Foundations
CEͲCSSM ModelFormulationforDissipation
Initialconditions:
• Initialmagnitudeofporepressurecalculated
usingCavityExpansionͲ CriticalStateModel
• Finitedifference(1hourinExcel)
• ClosedformresultsinsolutionofBessel
functionsofthefirstandsecondorder
(Mathcad in15secs.)
Monotonic Decay of Pressures with Time
LTRC (1999) data

UncoupledLinearConsolidationAnalysis
forPorewater PressureDissipation
ƒ Utilizeanalyticalsolutiontotheradial
consolidationequation(2ndorderpartial)
ƒ Boundaryconditions:
¾ Coneisimpermeable
¾ Noporewater pressureincreaseoutside
plasticizedzone
InputDatatoHybridCEͲCSSM Model
ƒ I’ =EffectiveStressFrictionAngle
ƒ OCR=Overconsolidation Ratio
ƒ / =1Ͳ Cs/Cc fromconsolidationresults
ƒ Vvo’=EffectiveOverburdenStress
ƒ uo =HydrostaticPorePressure
ƒ Ir =G/su =RigidityIndex(G=shearmodulusand
su =undrained shearstrength)
ƒ rcone =a =coneradius
‰ Monotonicand/ordilatoryresponse
‰ Matchalldissipationdata(notjustonepoint)
‰ CoefficientofConsolidation:cvh =T*a2 IR0.75/t
‰ T*=modifiedtimefactorfromCEͲCSSM model
‰ t=measuredtime
DilatoryPorewater Dissipation:Cowden,UK
(NorwegianGeot.Inst.&BuildingResearchEstablishment,UK)

 DilatoryPorewater Response– Taranto,Italy
Calibration of Hybrid CE-CSSM Solution
‰ Piezocone tests at15claysitesworldwide(Burns
&Mayne,CanadianGeotechnicalJournal,1998)
ƒ 6softintactclaysiteswithmonotonicdecay
of'uwithtime
ƒ 9hardtostiffoverconsolidated claysites
(fissured,crusts)withdilatoryresponse
‰ Appliedtoinstrumenteddrivenpilings (Burns&
Mayne,TransportationResearchRecord1999)

Data from Pane, et al. (CPT ’95)

Calibration of cvh: Piezocone and Laboratory Data Calibration of Cavity Expansion-Cam Clay Model

Site FieldValue(mm2/s) LabValue(mm2/s)

Bothkennar,Scotland 0.2 0.3
Drammen,Norway 0.2 0.5Ͳ1.5
McDonaldFarm,BC 1.9 1.8Ͳ5.5
Onsoy,Norway 0.05 0.1Ͳ0.2
PortoTolle*,Italy 0.2 0.3Ͳ0.5
St.Alban,Quebec 0.6 0.3
Amherst,Massachusetts 0.4 0.1
BrentCross,UK 0.0005 0.008Ͳ0.03
Canon’sPark**,UK 0.25 0.01Ͳ0.03
Cowden,UK 0.2 0.05Ͳ0.2
Madingley**,UK 0.05 0.03Ͳ0.08
Raquette River,NY 0.5 0.04Ͳ0.7
StLawrence,NY 0.3 0.25Ͳ0.8
StrongPit,BC 0.2 0.06Ͳ0.3
Taranto,Italy 0.4 0.1Ͳ0.25
Notes:
*15mmpiezoprobe
**Pile

RigidityIndex(IR)fromCEͲCSSM HybridModel

whereM=6sinI’/(3ͲsinI’)

Applied to CPTu data

from Cooper Marl
Charleston, SC

 
 CoefficientofConsolidationfromCPTù CoefficientofConsolidationfromCPTù
• EvaluatePorewaterPressureComponents
• HybridcavityexpansionͲ criticalstateapproachfor
('uoct)i = (2Mc/3)(OCR/2)/ ln(IR) Vvo'
clays(Burns&Mayne,1998;2002)
time t is the
• EvaluatetheinͲsituOCR ('ushear)i = [1 - (OCR/2)/ ] Vvo' variable

• CEͲCSSM ModifiedTimeFactor,T':

• Mc =6sinI'/(3ͲsinI');/ =1Ͳ Cs/Cc у0.8

• ExcessPorewater Pressures:
'u2 = ('uoct)i + ('ushear)i • xs =thicknessofthinshearzone(mm)
• St =sensitivity

Approximate Spreadsheet Solution: Hybrid CE-CSSM

Approximate Spreadsheet Soln: Hybrid CE-CSSM

Approximate Spreadsheet Solution: Hybrid CE-CSSM CoefficientofConsolidationfromCPTù

Data from Hird, Johnson, & Sangtian (15th ICSMGE, Vol. 1, pp. 113, Istanbul) SCEͲCSSMSolution(Burns&Mayne,2002)
Speswhite Kaolin
800
PorewaterPressure,u2 (kPa)

700

600

500
CEͲCSSMSolution
400 Measured

300 Hydrostaticuo

200

100

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Time(seconds)