A. Sridharan, 1 K. Prakash, 2 and S. R.
Asha 3
Consolidation Behavior of Soils
REFERENCE: Sridharan, A., Prakash, K., and Asha, S. R., "Consoli-
dation Behavior of Soils," Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ,
Vol. 18, No. I, March 1995, pp. 58-68.
ABSTRACT: Based on Terzaghi's consolidation theory, percent of
consolidation, U, versus the time factor, T, relationship for constant/
linear excess pore water pressure distribution, it is possible to generate
theoretical loglo(HZlt) versus U curves where H is the length of the
drainage path of a consolidating layer, and t is the time for different
known values of the coefficient of consolidation, c~. A method has
been developed wherein both the theoretical and experimental behavior
of soils during consolidation can be simultaneously compared and
studied on the same plot. The experimental log io(H21t) versus U curves
have been compared with the theoretical curves. The deviations of the
experimental behavior from the theory are explained in terms of initial
compression and secondary compression. Analysis of results indicates
that the secondary compression essentially starts from about 60% con-
solidation. A simple procedure is presented for calculating the value
of c~ from the ~-t data using Ioglo(H21t) versus U plot.
KEYWORDS: Atterberg limits, clays, compressibility, coefficient of
consolidation, soil properties, time dependence
Notation
cv Coefficient. of consolidation in vertical direction
H Length of the drainage path of a consolidating layer
T Time factor
t Time
qo0 Time corresponding to the end of primary
consolidation
U Degree of consolidation
8 Compression of a consolidating layer
8i Initial compression
~f Final compression
810o Compression at the end of primary consolidation
WL Liquid limit
wp Plastic limit
Introduction
Terzaghi's one-dimensional consolidation theory has been an
endless source of interesting studies for researchers in the field of
i Professor and chairman, Division of Mechanical Sciences, Department
of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India.
2 Lecturer in civil engineering, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engi-
neering, Mysore 570 006, India.
3 Postgraduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore 560012, India.
58
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
consolidation, particularly in dealing with determination of the
coefficient of consolidation, c v. Most of the methods available to
determine c v from the laboratory compression, 8, versus time,
t, data are curve-fitting procedures. In all these methods, some
similarity between the theoretical percent consolidation, U, versus
the time factor, T, relation and experimental ~-t data, when
expressed in different modes of representation, is identified that
leads to the determination of c~, This forms the basis for most of
the graphical techniques available in the literature (Casagrande
and Fadam 1940; Naylor and Doran 1948; Parkin 1981a, 198tb;
Sridharan and Sreepada Rao 1981; Scott 1961). Of the various
methods, the square root of the time-fitting method (also known
as Taylor's method) and the logarithm of the time-fitting method
(also known as Casagrande's method) are the most widely used.
Each method has its own advantages and limitations (Olson 1986;
Sridharan et al. 1987). However, no method is available that gives
a comparison of the theoretical and experimental behavior of the
soil throughout the period of consolidation on the same plot. The
present article illustrates a procedure based on Terzaghi's U - T
relationship for constant/linear excess pore water pressure distribu-
tion in which the theoretical curves and the experimental results
are compared with each other on the same plot from beginning to
end of the consolidation period. The method has been proposed to
study the consolidation behavior of soils with time with particular
attention to the effect of initial and secondary compression and
also to determine the value of Cv from the laboratory consolidation
test data.
LOglo(H2/t) Versus U Curves
The coefficient of consolidation can be calculated from the equa-
tion
TH 2
cv - (1)
t
where H is the length of the drainage path of a consolidating soil
layer. For different known values of c~, a family of theoretical
l o g l o ( H 2 / t ) versus U curves can be generated (Fig. 1), which
describes how the consolidation takes place theoretically with
time. When the experimental 8-t data are superimposed on this
theoretical representation in the same mode, the theoretical and
experimental behavior of soils can be compared as the consolida-
tion progresses. The experimental curve is expected to follow the
theoretical curves. If such is the case, the value of c v can be easily
obtained at any point along the curve by interpolation or by simple
calculation using Eq 1. However, one-to-one correspondence
between the theoretical and experimental curves will not exist
© 1995 by the American Society for Testing and Materials
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 SRIDHARAN ET AL. ON CONSOLIDATION OF SOILS 59

O.I

0.01
. cm2/s

0.001
x 16 3
J
0.0001
x 16 4

0.00001
x I0-s

0.000001

I I 1111 I | t | l l l l l l l l l | | l l l l | l l l [ ] 1111 |~'|II III tl I|1 I I

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. l--Theoretical lOglo(H2/t) versus U curves for different values of cx.

when the soil exhibits initial and secondary compressions since
Terzaghi's theory does not consider these two factors.
Test Results and Discussions
As a part of this study, a series of consolidation tests were
conducted using fixed ring consolidometers with an inside diameter
of 60 mm and a height of 20 mm. The tests were carded out on
remolded soil specimens with varying plasticity characteristics,
the liquid limit varying between 40 and 110%. The specimens
were remolded into the consolidation ring by hand molding. Suffi-
cient care was taken to minimize the ring friction. In general, a
load increment ratio of 1 was adopted in these tests, starting with
a nominal seating load of 6.25 kPa. Short-duration tests (minimum
standard loading period of 24 h for each pressure increment) and
long-duration tests (extending over 16 days for each pressure incre-
ment) were conducted. In order to save space, only typical test
results are presented. Table 1 gives the necessary information
regarding the soils for which the ~-t data are presented in this
article.
For the experimental ~-t data, if the compression at the end of
the normal testing period of 24 h for a given pressure increment
is considered as the final compression, ~f, and if the same is
used to compute the percent consolidation at any time, t, the
experimental logjo(H2/t) versus U curves obtained will appear as
shown in Figs. 2a and 2b. The curves of Soils A and B do not
follow the theoretical behavior all along, obviously due to the
effect of initial and secondary compressions involved in the values
of 8. The curve of Soil C compares with the theoretical curves in
a much better way, which may be due to the insignificant amount
of initial and secondary compressions.
Effect of Initial Compression
The initial compression, ~i, can be obtained by both Taylor's
method ( ~ - ~ plot) and Casagrande's method (~-logt plot) (Leo-
nards 1962). For the data of Soils A and B of Fig. 2a, the compres-
sion values obtained up to a normal loading period of 24 h were
corrected for initial compression (using ~i values obtained by both
Taylor's method and Casagrande's method). The corrected ~-t data

TABLE 1 Details of the soils represented by the curves shown in Figs. 2a and 2b.
Pressure range,
Soil Description kPa eia H i, mm HI~ mm wt.% wp%
A Narayanpur clay 200-400 1.069 17.92 16.64 100 45.2
B Dommalur clay 200-400 0.489 16.44 15.73 47 21.5
C Chicago clay (Taylor 1959) 200-400 ... 11.19 10.33 ...
D Kaolinite 25-50 1.18 19.18 18.70 53 3"5"
E Cochin marine clay 50-100 1.663 14.24 12.92 110 44
F Mangalore marine clay 12.5-25 2.214 17.32 15.88 104 40.7
aVoid ratio at the beginning of the pressure range.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 •~ g V l a au?dvut
~aOlVgUVl/g pun 'au~.arnu u?vooD 'oi?U?lOWI aof (q Pg fo po?aad gu?pnol aof) saaana fl snsaaa (l/zH)olgol ivtuauaaodxo vuv lVa!lmoav1--qE "OI~I
uo!~ep!losuo3 luoOaOd
O0 T O0 09 O~ O~ 0
| l J | | l t l i i | l | | | l l l | | | | l | | t I l l l | l l l | | | l i | | | | | l l l I | !
100000"0
s_Ot x
IO000"O
7Ot x i
[000"0
e.,-
E_Ot x
foo'o
~0
S/zLU3 ' ,
IO'O
I'O
l
SdVlO ogva~.VD pup 'anlmUUmG 'anduo,fvavN sol (V P~ fo pouad gu?pvo 1 aof) .s'amno FI #nsaaa (l/zH)ol8ol ivtuaua!ladxa puv IVa!laJoarll--v ~ "Did
uoDep!losuo 3 ~luaoaa d
OOT 08 09 Of' O~ 0
[ l l l | t l | t | 11 I | l i l i l I ~ | J J [ l i l l l J l | | l | l l J i ~ | l | | l l f l l
IO0000"O
s.Ot x t
TO000"O
~Ot x t Io
IO00"O ~-.
~_Ot x t
,A
IO0"O o=
IO'O
T'O
lVNUnOr E)NIIS::IllVOINH031039 09
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 SRIDHARAN ET AL. ON CONSOLIDATION OF SOILS 61

Soil A
0.1
*** * * Casagrande's Method
o o o o ° Taylor's Method

0.01

1 x 10-3
o
0.0001 '
- ~ 1 x 10-~

0.00001
x t0-s

0.000001

0 20 4O 6O 80 I00
Consolidation
Percent
FIG. 3a--Experimental lOglO(H2/t) versus U curves, corrected for initial compression (for loading period of 24 h), with theoretical curves for
Narayanpur clay.

e
0.1

0.01

, cm2/s
0.001
x I0-3

J
0.0001
x 16 ~

0.0000t
Ix 10-5

0.000001

IIl11111]I1|11111111111117111~'1|| |1 | II1~ II1111111 ]

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 3b--Experimental loglo(H2/t) versus U curves, corrected for initial compression (for loading period of 24 h), with theoretical curves for
Dommalur clay.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
62 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

Soil A
0.1
o o o o o Uneorreeted
. * * * * Corrected

0.01

r/'l

o
.d
o.0o0t 2-
%

0.0000l ~ 2-
: ~',~..,,._._~- x I0-5

0.000001

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 4a--Experimental lOglo(H2/t) versus U curves, uncorrected and corrected for initial compression (for loading period of 24 h), with theoretical
curves for Narayanpur clay.

Soil B
0.1 * \\~ o ooooo Urlcorrected
~ ~ ..... Corrected

o.oj "' %

O r
v

0.001 ~ Cv, cm2/s

" --"~'~----T- 1 x 10 -3

..s O. 0 0 0 1
_ 1 × lo-

0.00001
1 x lff 5

0.000001

I I I I I I ! I ~ I l I I I ! I I I~"J ! | I I"~"I ~ l - I 1 I I I-|-] I I I ! I I f I I I ! |

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 4b~Experimental log lo(H2/t) versus U curves, uncorrected and corrected for initial compression (for loading period of 24 h), with theoretical
curves for Dommalur clay.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 SRIDHARAN ET AL. ON CONSOLIDATION OF SOILS 63

Soit A
o o o o o Uncorrected
0.1 * * * * * Corrected for both initial and
secondary compression

0.01

Cv, cm2/s
® 0.001
t~ ..----.1 x 10-3

J
t~
0.0001
- - - - - ] 1 x l 0 -¢

0.00001
----~_ l x 10"s

0.000001

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 5a--Experimental loglo(H*'/t) versus U curves, uncorrected and corrected for both initial and secondary compressions (for loading period of
24 h), with theoretical curves for Narayanpur clay.

0.1

0.01

v , cm?/s
® 0.001
1 x 10"3

J
~ 0.000!
x 10-L'

0.00001
t x 1(~ s

0.000001

ii ii ii i III I III ii III II III II lllIl II'II I III|I II III III I

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 5b~-Experimental lOglo(H2/t) versus U curves, uncorrected and corrected for both initial and secondary compressions (for loading period of
24 h), with theoretical curves for Dommalur clay.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
64 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

~d

0.1

0.01

• cm~/s
0.001
x 163

-.. o.oool
x 10-~

0.00001
x 10-s

0.000001

I Ili It t II I I IIII [ I| I'] | I I I I I| I I I] I I I It Ifl l|llTlll I I I I

0 20 40 60 00 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 5c--Experimental loglo(H2/t) versus U curves, uncorrected and corrected for both initial and secondary compressions (for loading period of
24 h), with theoretical curves for Chicago clay (Taylor 1959).

0.1

0.01
, cm2/s

0.001
1 x 10-3

0.0001
t x 16 t"

0.00001
lx 1() 5

0.000001

Percent Consolidation
FIG. 5d--Experimental lOglo(H2/t) versus U curves, uncorrected and corrected for both initial and secondary compressions (for loading period of
24 h), with theoretical curves for Kaolinite.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 SRIDHARAN ET AL ON CONSOLIDATION OF SOILS 65

0.1

0.01

, Cm2/s
® 0.001
x 10.3
0

"~ 0.0001 ~
x 16 4

0.00001
x I()s

0.000001

I III III II Illll IIII III Ill II lllIl II II llllIlll III II~" I

0 20 40 60 80 1 O0
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 5e--Experimental lOglo(H2/t) versus U curves, uncorrected and corrected for both initial and secondary compressions (for loading period of
24 h), with theoretical curves for Cochin Marine clay.

o o o o o Uncorrected
..... Corrected for both initial and
secondary compression
0.1

0.01

® 0 . 0 0 1 -~ - ~ ~ c v , cm2/s

0.0001

0.00001
× lf5s

0.000001

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 5f--Experimental IOglo(H2/t) versus U curves, uncorrected and corrected for both initial and secondary compressions (for loading period of
24 h), with theoretical curves fi~r Mangalore Marine clay.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
66 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

o o o o o Up t o tl0o
* ° ° ° 0 Up t o one day
" ' = " ', ,, Up t o two days
o o , o o Up t o four days
0.1 **+++Up to eight days
..... Up t o sixteen days

0.01

0.001 Cv' cmZ/s

: " " ~ I x t0 -3

.d •
0.0001
-= " - - ~ . I x 10"'

0.00001 ~
x 15 5
* +o "~-
Soil A * +0
,, + ¢@

0.000001

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 6a--Effect of duration of pressure increment on experimental lOglo(H2/t) versus U curves corrected for initial compression for Narayanpur clay.

ooooo U to tloo

0.t
1

0.01

v, cm2/s
0.001
1 x 10-3

o.oool
x 10-6

0.00001
1 x I(~ 5

0.000001

I III III II II llllllIl~l IIIIIIII |III I I III I I I ll'ill III |

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Consolidation
FIG. 6b---Effect of duration of pressure increment on experimental loglo(H 2It) versus U curves corrected for initial compression for Dommatur clay.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
 SRIDHARAN El" AL. ON CONSOUDATION OF SOILS 67

are plotted in the form of logm(H2/t) versus U curves (Figs. 3a
and 3b). The study of these curves indicates the following:
I. Almost identical experimental curves are obtained when ~-
t data are corrected for ~i by both Taylor's and Casagrande's
methods. This is obvious as the initial compressions obtained
by both the methods are almost the same (Sridharan et al.
1987).
2. The corrected curves are identical with the theoretical curves
except for the final portion of the curves where the secondary
compression effect prevails.
error. The recommended procedure for determining the value of
c v from loglo(H21t) versus U curve is indicated below.
1. Plot loglo(H2/t) versus U curve considering the ~-t data up
to a one-day loading period on a preprinted sheet containing
a family of theoretical curves of known Cv values.
2. Identify a zone where the experimental curve is parallel to
the theoretical curve.
3. Get the value of c~ directly by interpolation anywhere in that
parallel zone or calculate the value of Cv from Eq 1 using
the values of (H2/t) and U read in the parallel zone.

Figures 4a and 4b show the curves uncorrected and corrected
for initial compression (obtained by Casagrande's method) for the
data of curves of Soils A and B of Fig. 2a, with a normal loading
duration of 24 h. It is very clear from these figures that the effect
of initial compression is to increase the value of c~, particularly
in the initial stages of consolidation.
For soils for which the time for primary consolidation is much
less than 24 h (ex. kaolinitic clays), ~-t data corresponding to a
lower loading period can be considered for plotting the curve;
otherwise, the observed value of Cv may be comparatively lower
due to the effect of secondary compression. Likewise, if the primary
consolidation continues for more than 24 h, it is advisible to wait
for the completion of the primary consolidation to get ~f.

Effect of Secondary Compression

For the experimental ~-t data of curves shown in Figs. 2a and
2b, the compressions corresponding to 100% primary consolida-
tion, ~10o, were calculated by Casagrande's method. The compres-
sions in excess of ~100 were considered to represent the secondary
compressions. The actual ~-t data, corresponding to a loading
period of 24 h, corrected for both initial and secondary compres-
sions, are shown in Figs. 5a to 5f Following are the correspond-
ing observations.
1. The effect of secondary compression that may occur during
a normal loading period of 24 h for soils of low liquid limit
appears to be very small.
2. For soils exhibiting appreciable secondary compression
within 24 h of the test itself, the cv value will tend to decrease
with the percent consolidation.
The study of such figures for a number of different soils indicates
that the secondary compression essentially starts from about 60%
consolidation for most of the cases.
Effect of Duration of Pressure Increment
The experimental ~-t data of Soils A and B (Fig. 2a), corrected
for initial compression and considering the compressions corres-
ponding to tloo, 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 8 days, and 16 days as ~f
values for obtaining U, are represented in Figs. 6a and 6b, respec-
tively. In Fig. 6b, which corresponds to a soil exhibiting less
secondary compression, the curves with different loading durations
form a narrow band up to about 60% consolidation and start
deviating from each other later on. However, the effect of secondary
compression can be noticed from Fig. 6a, which corresponds to
a soil exhibiting more secondary compression, even from about
10% consolidation itself for larger loading periods.
cv by One Point Method
After studying a number of experimental loglo(H2/t) versus U
curves, it has been observed that the value of c v may be calculated,
without much loss of accuracy, without even plotting the curve.
It has been noticed that the experimental curve will follow the
theoretical behavior fairly well in the range 40% --< U --< 60%.
Hence, c v can be obtained by substituting in Eq 1 the value of
(H2/t) corresponding to U ~ 50% obtained from the experimental
data. To have better accuracy, for four or five values of (H2/O
within the range 40% --< U --< 60%, the values of cv may be
obtained from Eq 1 and the average be taken.
Table 2 shows the values of cv obtained for typical cases by the
methods proposed in this article and also by the conventional
methods. The values of c v obtained by using the data in the range
40% --< U < 60% do not differ much from those obtained after
plotting the complete curve. The value of Cv obtained by the
proposed methods compare well with those obtained by the other
existing methods.
Conclusions
Terzaghi's one-dimensional U-T relationship for constant/linear
excess pore-water-pressure distribution can be used to generate a
family of theoretical log 1o(H2/t) versus U curves for known values
of cv. Loglo(H2/t) versus U mode of representation, which has
the advantage of comparing the theoretical and actual behavior of
soils on the same plot as the consolidation progresses.
Detailed study of the experimental curves indicates that the
TABLE 2---Comparison of c v values.
q.(... × 10-4) cm2/s
Taylor's Casagrande's Loglo(H2/t)-U One Point
Soil Method Method R.H. Methoda method Method

Cv by Loglo(H21t) Versus U Method A 0.43 0.4 0.37 0.40 0.4

B 1.67 1.21 1.72 1.60 1.57
After examining a number of logl0(H2/t) versus U curves, it C 5.16 4.72 5.42 3.43 3.42
has been observed, which is also evident from the figures presented D 49.51 21.03 28.38 28.30 26.91
in the earlier part of this article, that the loglo(H2/t) versus U E 0.93 0.92 1.1 0.76 0.74
F 0.5 0.56 0.4 0.49 0.5
curves corresponding to a normal loading period of one day (i.e.,
24 h) can be considered for the determination of c~ with negligible aRectangular hyperbola method (Sridharan et al. 1987).

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
68 GEOTECHNICALTESTINGJOURNAL
effect o f initial compression is to increase the value of cv in the
initial stages o f consolidation, and that the effect of secondary
compression is to decrease the value of c~. In the range of about
40 to 60% of consolidation, the c v values are unaffected by initial
or secondary compressions. For the majority of available soils, a
loading duration of 24 h may be considered sufficient for calculat-
ing U, required for constructing logl0(H21t) versus U plot,
Simple methods have been proposed in which the range of U
over which the experimental curve follows the theoretical behavior
is identified, and the value of Cv is determined in that range, either
from the curve or by using Eq 1.
References
Casagrande, A. and Fadum, R. E., 1940, "Notes on Soil Testing for
Engineering Purposes," Harvard Graduate School of Engineering, Soil
Mechanics Series, No. 8.
Leonards, G. A , 1962, "Engineering Properties of Soils," Foundation
Engineering, G. A. Leonards, Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 164-
169.
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW
Naylor, A. H. and Doran, I. G., 1948, "Precise Determination of Primary
Consolidation," Proceedings, Second International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 34--40.
Olson, R. E., 1986, "State of the Art: Consolidation Testing," Consolidation
of Soils: Testing and Evaluation, ASTM STP 892, R. N. Yong and
E C. Townsend, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, pp. 7-70.
Parkin, A. K., 1981a, "Coefficient of Consolidation by the Velocity
Method," Geotechnique, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp, 472-474.
Parkin, A, K., 198 lb, "Consolidation Analysis by the Velocity Method,"
Proceedings, Tenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol, I, pp. 723-726.
Scott, R. E, 1961, "New Method of Consolidation Coefficient Evaluation,"
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, VoL 87, SM1, pp. 29-39.
Sridharan, A. and Sreepada Rao, A., 1981, "Rectangular Hyperbola Fitting
Method for One Dimensional Consolidation," Geotechnical Testing
Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 161-168.
Sridharan, A., Murthy, N. S., and Prakash, K., 1987, "Rectangular Hyper-
bola Method of Consolidation Analysis," Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No.
3, pp. 355-368.
Taylor, D. W., 1959, Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, Asia Publishing
House, Bombay, pp. 248-249.
ODOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG7KX-DQ*07
'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
,QGLDQ,QVWRI7HFK0XPEDL%RPED\SXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG