SUMMARY

A CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF “PRE CONSOLIDATION PRESSURE”

INTERPRETATIONS USING THE OEDOMETER TEST

1.1 OBJECTIVE OF PAPER

The importance and use of determining the pre consolidation pressure for analyzing the settlement
behavior of compressible soils cannot be negated. For the last seven decades the same has been achieved
by graphical interpretation of odometer test results which on the other hand is prone to certain
uncertainties and difficulties. The objective of this paper is to highlight the unambiguity in existing
predictive techniques and proposing an alternate method for determining more precise value of pre
consolidation stress.

2.2 METHODOLOGY APPLIED

Casagrande 1936, proposed graphical determination of Ϭ´p based on void ratio vs effective
consolidation plot with a purpose to determine compressibility behavior of soils and thus calculation of
primary consolidation settlement. Afterwards a number of alternate techniques were proposed including
Janbu, Pacheo Silva, Butterfield, Becker, Oikawa, Burland, Jacobsen and Onituska. These were later on
summarized and analyzed by Grozic who concluded that these methods possess certain uncertainties and
the values of pre consolidation pressure calculated are conflicting and depend mainly on initial part of
the load curve in e vs effective consolidation plot. Keeping these aspects in view the author has
proposed an alternate method for calculation of Ϭʹp encompassing following points:
a. If the engineering problem under study is effected by unloading and swelling behavior
then only deformation behavior is relevant between minimum stress and Ϭ´vo
b. Sample disturbance is associated with initial part of test curve
c. Use of eo in primary consolidation settlement equations based on insitu water content
d. Cc (max) most representative value of Cc

Based on above principles the alternate method

proposed by author consists of steps highlighted in the
figure. It includes:
a. Determination of slope of line between
load increments that pass through Ϭʹvo for
mathematical calculation of evo through
interpolation
b. Determination of Cc(max)
c. Determination of Cr
d. Intercept values at void ratio interface

e. Determination of void ratio at Ϭʹp

 f. Determination of pre consolidation pressure

More than 160 oedometer tests were carried out on low-plasticity silt clay, quick Leda clay and sensitive
clays in order to check efficacy of proposed alternate method. Pre consolidation pressure was examined
between 30 and over 600 kPa with OCR variation between about 1 and more than 10. PI values of
samples ranged between 4 and 60.

3.3 RESULTS

Comparison of proposed alternated method with Casagrande, Pacheco Silva and Becker for 169 tests
reveals that proposed method is closely related to strain energy density method. Plot of range between
Ϭʹp(max) and Ϭʹp(min) with natural water content for each test reveals that interpreted values of Ϭʹ p from all
methods trend towards higher water content samples. Furthermore, the pre consolidation pressure
determined by alternate method has been used to analyze settlement of embankments in four cases
mentioned below
a. Case I: Sault ste Embankment (6.5 m height and side slope 22º)
b. Case II: Multiple span Highway Bridge with abutments built over low plasticity cohesive
soils (9.8 m high embankment with side slope 26.5º)
c. Case III: Highway bridge on local road (3m height of embankment with 26.5º side
slopes)
d. Case IV: Two simly supported Highway bridges at Ontario (length 15 m)
Analysis of results of above cases show that overestimation of settlements is mainly due to
underestimation of pre consolidation pressure and also Casagrande procedure was difficult to be
employed in these scenarios.
Moreover, results of over 100 oedometer tests on Ontario region soil show that instead of sample
disturbance, rounded curves represented soil composition and mechanical behavior.

3.4 SPECIFIC TAKEAWAYS FROM STUDY

The alternate method shows lower values of Ϭʹ p for disturbed samples and larger value of Ϭʹ p
with higher Cr values due to change in soil structure.
Proposed alternated method is simple and gives a single value result and does not require
graphical interpretations or best matching approaches to non-linear data.
This method corresponds well with Su/Ϭʹp and settlement measurement for field cases and is also
affected by poor quality sampling, disturbance, issues related with strain rate and selection of increment
time on each end.
Rounded test data curves on semi-logarithmic scales represent character of soils instead of
disturbance and such curves are result of soils being over consolidated.
In case of saturated soils evo calculated from water content for such soils is more appropriate for
calculation of settlements as eo represents greatest value after unloading and swelling.
Ϭʹp is overestimated on use of unloading-reloading cycles above Ϭʹvo
Error in calculation of Cc(max) or Cr may result in inappropriate results of alternate method