Lab 7: Consolidation

Random State University Geotechnical Testing

Somewhere, Someplace 15235
November 11, 2014
Attn: C. H. Clay
Subject: One-Dimensional Consolidation Test
Dear Mr. Clay,
The provided soil samples of soft clay have been received at the laboratory. It is understood that
these samples are representative of a soft, compressible clay layer underlying the proposed
location of the new hospital building in Denver. In this area a gravel fill is being considered over
the foundation area for preloading. This report includes details of the one-dimensional
consolidation test preformed over a 10-day period on a sample of clay. This report includes the
following:
1. Plots of deformation versus time for each load increment of consolidation were created
and the coefficient of consolidation (Cv) for each was determined. Semi-logarithmic plots
of Cv versus logarithm of average effective stress were also created.
2. A plot of semi-logarithmic void ratio (e) versus logarithm effective stress and a plot of
vertical strain versus logarithm effective stress were produced. From these plots the
compression index, the modulus of volume compressibility, and the unloading/reloading
index were determined. Then the compression index and the unloading/reloading index
were compared. Finally, the maximum previous consolidation stress or preconsolidation
stress was calculated
3. An analysis was conducted to determine the feasibility of using the gravel fill as a
surcharge to preload the foundation for one year after which the gravel would be removed
and the proposed hospital is then built on that area. The mat foundation load is assumed
to be 8000 psf. The expected ultimate settlement, (Wc) due to preloading, the expected
settlement after one year of preloading, and the expected settlement after the hospital is
built were all determined.
Please contact the lab with any further questions or for further testing needs. Samples will remain
in the laboratory until November 20th should examination of samples be required.
Sincerely

Introduction and Objectives:

A consolidometer and a dial gauge were used to record the changes in height of a soft clay soil
sample as it was compressed over time. One the first day of testing the consolidometer was
calibration simply by recording the machines initial deflection. A soil sample of soft clay was
placed in a mold and then placed under compression by the consolidometer. The soil sample was
placed between two porous stones, which allowed for water to inflow and outflow through the
soil sample keeping it saturated throughout the entirety of the testing period. The specimen was
submerged under water for the entirety of the test to ensure 100% saturation. Ten days of testing
followed starting with no load added for the first day. Every successive day more weight was
added to the device until a maximum compressive load of 32000 grams was achieved by the fifth
day. The soil sample was then unloaded in the same increments that it had been loaded. Every
24-hour period a subsequent load was added to the consolidometer and deformations from the
dial gauge were read and recorded every 6 seconds, 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes,
4 minutes, 8 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, 8 hours, and 24 hours.
Basic soil variables, such as water content, unit weights, saturation, and void ratio were
determined before and after testing.
Once this data from the 10 days of consolidation testing was compiled, calculations were
completed to determine consolidation parameters (see calculations). After this objective was
completed, the time rates and magnitudes of consolidation settlement were determined. These
parameters were then used to predict the consolidation settlement due to stress increase from
surface loads such as building foundations, dams, and surcharge fills. Total settlement was
calculated to be the combination of immediate elastic settlement, primary consolidation
settlement, and secondary compression. Saturated, soft, fine-grained soils are the primary
concern regarding consolidation settlement; hence the testing of this material is very important
before proceeding with construction. Also, total settlement can take a long time to achieve,
therefore the test must take place over an extended time period. Unloading after loading of the
sample is also key to analyzing the soil under unloading conditions.

Results
Soil properties pertaining to consolidation were determined from the provided soil sample. The
consolidation coefficient parameters can be seen in table R.1. These value were found using
equation (1) in appendix C. A different consolidation coefficient was calculated for each of the
loading phases.
Table R.1 Cv Parameters
Load
Coefficient of
Increment Consolidation, cv
(ft2/day)
Seating
0
x
1
0.0481
2
0.0446
3
0.0428
4
0.0418
Loading
5
0.0418
6
0.0429
7
0.0370
8
0.0284
1
x
Unloading
2
0.0341
3
0.0333
The compression, recompression, and swelling indexes were also determined from the loading
and unloading procedure and are listed in table R.2.
Table R.2 Cc, Cr, and Cs Values
Soil Property
Value
Compression Index (Cc)

0.158

Recompression Index (Cr)

0.0118

Swelling Index (Cs)

0.0126

These values were used to determine the ultimate settlement and the settlement after one year for
the proposed gravel fill and hospital. The ultimate settlement of the clay soil is 9.72 inches. This
settlement is the maximum settlement that they clay layer can achieve. The settlement was also
found for a period of one year since the proposed fill is to be removed after that amount of time.

The total settlement of the clay layer is 1.36 inches after one year with the gravel fill in place.
This value coincides with 14% consolidation. For your convenience, various tables and graphs
with relevant information have been provided in the appendices. Please refer to appendix B for
charts pertaining to effective stress, void ratio, and cumulative deformation. Also refer to
appendix C for sample calculations.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the construction of the new hospital is approached with caution. The
possibility of almost ten inches of consolidation could cause structural failure in the future. If the
clay consolidation is taken into account during the design of the structure, the potential for future
settlement damages should be relatively low. It also recommended that the gravel fill either be
increased in size or be left in place for a longer period of time. Either of these methods would
allow the clay layer to consolidate more and would result in less settlement after the hospital is
built. It is likely that the construction of the hospital cannot be delayed for several years, so it is
suggested that the size of the gravel fill be increased. This will reduce the amount of
preconsolidation time required to compact the soil. It will also bring the total forces of the fill
and the hospital closer together. As proposed, the forces applied to the soil from the hospital are
roughly three times that of the fill. A larger fill will better prepare the soil for the future stresses
that will be applied by the hospital.
It should be noted that sources of error may exist in the data. It is possible that the measurements
were not taken accurately during the experiment. It is also possible that the consolidation
apparatus was bumped during the experiment. Also, values that were taken from the graphs are
subject to interpretation and does not allow for extreme precision. The error in the data is
expected to be small since the results reflect typical values that are expected for consolidating
soils.

Appendix A. Tables
Table A1. Coefficient of Consolidation for each Increment
Load
Increment
Seating

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3

Loading

Unloading

Effective
Stress,
(psf)
29
191
353
676
1323
2616
5203
10376
20724
10376
5203
2616

Coefficient of
Consolidation, cv
(ft2/day)
x
0.0481
0.0446
0.0428
0.0418
0.0418
0.0429
0.0370
0.0284
x
0.0341
0.0333

Table A2. Void Ratio and Vertical Strain for each Increment
Load
Increment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3

Effective
Stress,
(psf)
29
191
353
676
1323
2616
5203
10376
20724
10376
5203
2616

Void
ratio, e
0.638
0.634
0.625
0.610
0.588
0.554
0.509
0.446
0.396
0.397
0.399
0.405

Vertical
Strain,

0.10
0.35
0.88
1.80
3.19
5.25
8.00
11.80
14.90
14.80
14.70
14.34

Table A3. Consolidation Test Results

Soil Property

Value

Compression Index (Cc)

0.158

Recompression Index (Cr)

0.0118

Swelling Index (Cs)

0.0126

Modulus of Volume
Compressibility (mv)
Modulus of Volume
Recompressibility (mvr)
Preconsolidation Stress

(
)

0.0962
0.0077
1600 psf

Appendix B. Figures
0.018

Cumulative Deformation (in)

0.02
0.022
0.024
0.026
0.028
0.03
0.032
0.034
0.1

10

100

1000

10000

Time (min)

Figure B1. Cumulative Deformation vs. Time including lines

0.0600

0.0500

Cv (ft2/day)

0.0400

0.0300

0.0200

0.0100

0.0000
100

1000
Effective Vertical Stress

10000
(lb/ft2)

Figure B2. Coefficient of Consolidation vs. Effective Vertical Stress

100000

16
14
12

Strain (%)

10
8
6
4
2
0
10

100

1000
Effective Vertical Stress

10000

100000

(lb/ft2)

Figure B3. Strain (%) vs. Effective Vertical Stress

0.7
0.65

Void Ratio

0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
10

100

1000
Effective Vertical Stress

10000
(lb/ft2)

Figure B4. Void Ratio vs. Effective Vertical Stress

100000

0.7
0.65

Void Ratio

0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4

= 1600

0.35
10

100

1000
Effective Vertical Stress

10000
(lb/ft2)

Figure B4. Void Ratio vs. Effective Vertical Stress with lines

100000

Appendix C. Sample Calculations

C1. Consolidation Test Results
1. Calculation for cv (ft2/day) for load 6:

2
)
2

50

= 0.197 = 50%
=

+ 0.9475 + 0.92
=
= 0.93375
2
2
50 = 10.0

0.93375 2
)
1 2 1440
2

10.0
144 2

0.197(

2
= 0.0429

2. Calculation for Cc using values from Load 4 and 7:

=

(1 2 )

log( 2 )
1

(0.588 0.446)
= 0.158
10376
log( 1323 )

3. Calculation for Cr using values from Load 0 and 2:

=

(1 2 )

log( 2 )
1

(1)

(0.638 0.625)
= 0.0118
353
log( 29 )

4. Calculation for Cs using values from Unload 1 and 3:

=

(1 2 )

log( 2 )
1

(0.405 0.397)
= 0.0126
10376
log( 2616 )

5. Calculation for mv using values from Load 4 to 7:

=

(2 1 )

log( 2 )
1

(0.118 0.032)
= 0.0963
10376
log( 1323 )

6. Calculation for mvr using values from Load 0 to 2:

=

(2 1 )

log( 2 )
1

(0.0088 0.0001)
= 0.0963
353
log( 29 )

C2. Settlement Calculations for Proposed Hospital

Note use a Cv value corresponding to 8000 psi on the loading section of Figure B2,
approximately 0.0395 ft2/day
a) Total Consolidation
vo = (102.4psf x 15ft)-(62.4psf x 15ft) = 600 psf
= (130psf x 20ft) = 2600 psf
f = + vo = 600psf + 2600psf = 3200psf
600<1600<3200
vo<vc<f Case 3
=

30
1600
30
3200
(0.0118) log (
(0.158) log (
)+
) = 0.81
1 + 0.64
3200
1 + 0.64
1600
= 0.81

12
= 9.72

b) 1 year of preloading

(0.0395

2
)(365)

= 0.016
(30)2

From consolidation chart, U = 0.14 or 14% at 1 year

() = = 9.72 0.14 = 1.36 1
c) Settlement after removing the fill and placing the hospital
Unloading new clay layer H = 30-(1.36/12) = 29.9 ft

(Close enough to still use 15ft)

vo = (102.4psf x 15ft) + (130psf x 20ft) - (62.4psf x 15ft) = 3200 psf

= (130psf x 20ft) = 2600 psf

30
3200 2600
(0.0126) log (
) = 0.168
1 + 0.64
3200
= 0.168

12
= 2.0

Hospital Loading new clay layer H = 30 + (2/12) = 30.2 ft

(Close enough to still use 15ft)

vo = (102.4psf x 15ft)-(62.4psf x 15ft) = 600 psf

= 8000 psf
=

30
1600
30
8600
(0.0118) log (
(0.158)log(
)+
) = 1.95
1 + 0.64
8600
1 + 0.64
1600
= 1.95

12
= 23.4

Total elevation change from initial ground level before the preloading:
1.36 in 2 in + 23.4 in = 22.8 in below original ground surface.