Consolidation of Soils: ABSTRACT: Primary Compression and Secondary Compression of Saturated Soils Are Consistent
Consolidation of Soils: ABSTRACT: Primary Compression and Secondary Compression of Saturated Soils Are Consistent
Consolidation of Soils: ABSTRACT: Primary Compression and Secondary Compression of Saturated Soils Are Consistent
Consolidation of Soils
ABSTRACT: Primary compression and secondary compression of saturated soils are consistent
with the Terzaghi effective stress principle. Both primary compression and secondary
compression, and associated settlement and increase in undrained shear strength, result from the
rearrangement of soil particles to more compact packing, assisted by soil particle deformation,
soil particle compression, and soil particle damage. The secondary compression behavior of soils
is well explained and predicted by the Cα/Cc law of compressibility. The debate on the
independence of end-of-primary (EOP) void ratio versus effective vertical stress relation from the
duration of primary consolidation continues in spite of the following series of convincing
evidence (a) EOP e versus σ′v relation from laboratory consolidation tests is independent of the
duration of primary consolidation, (b) preconsolidation pressure mobilized in the field is equal to
EOP preconsolidation pressure determined from laboratory oedometer tests on 20 mm thick
undisturbed soil specimens, (c) surface and subsurface settlements measured in the field during
primary consolidation of soil subjected to embankment loading, are equal to the settlement
predicted using the EOP e versus σ′v relation from laboratory oedometer tests on 20 mm thick
undisturbed soil specimens, and (d) data on compressibility with time, (∂e / ∂t )σ′v , provide an
explanation for the independence of EOP e versus σ′v relation from the duration of primary
consolidation. There is no direct observed evidence supporting the “extreme” hypothesis B.
INTRODUCTION
322
effective stress toward a more stable fabric and interparticle forces. The subsequent interpretation
in this paper is for horizontally constrained vertical compression, and consolidation is in response
to an increase in effective vertical stress:
σ′v = σv – u (1)
Thus, it is not surprising that Cα/Cc has a narrow range of values because a limited set of
interparticle primary valence bonding, attraction, and repulsion mechanisms control the internal
interparticle stress in all soil compositions. The total range in the magnitude of Cα/Cc reflects the
difference in importance of specific particle interaction mechanisms among different soil
compositions ranging from granular space lattice silicates to organic fibrous peats (Mesri and
Ajlouni 2007, Mesri and Vardhanabhuti 2009).
Material Cα/Cc
Granular soils including rockfill 0.02 ± 0.01
Shale and mudstone 0.03 ± 0.01
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
After an effective vertical stress increase, Δσ′v = Δσv - Δus, is realized in primary
consolidation time period tp, at any time t equal or greater than tp, the internal effective vertical
stress from Eq. 2 is:
Cα / Cc
t
σ ∗vf = σ ′vf (3)
tp
where σ′vf = σ′vo + Δσ′v. In general, in normally consolidated soil deposits of age t, the internal
effective vertical stress is
Cα / Cc
t
σ ∗v = σ ′v (4)
tp
where σ′v = σv – us, and tp is the end-of-primary consolidation time required to realize the last
increment of σ′v, and us = static or steady state porewater pressure. According to this general
principle of effective stress, compression of normally consolidated saturated soils depends on the
consolidation pressure which is an internal effective stress defined by Eq. 4.
For a normally consolidated young deposit that experiences a Δσ′v in a time period tp, the
settlement at elapsed time t equal or greater than tp is:
Cc σ∗
S= L o log vf (5)
1 + eo σ ′vo
or
Cc σ′ t
Cα / Cc
S= L o log vf (6)
1 + eo σ ′vo t
p
Cc σ′ C t
S= L o log vf + α log (7)
1 + eo σ ′vo C c t p
Equation 7 is the well-known expression for primary settlement plus secondary settlement of a
normally consolidated young soil with a linear EOP e versus log σ′v relation in the range of σ′vo to
σ′vf, and a linear e versus log t relation in the elapsed time range tp to t (Terzaghi et al. 1996, Art.
16.6).
For a normally consolidated young deposit that experiences a Δσ′v in a primary
consolidation time period tp, undrained shear strength at elapsed time t equal or greater than tp is:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
s
s u = u σ *vf (8)
σ ′v
or
Cα / Cc
s t
s u = u σ ′vf (9)
σ ′v t p
where su = undrained shear strength, and σ′vf = consolidation pressure reached at time tp.
In summary, secondary compression is consistent with the Terzaghi principle of effective
stress, and the Cα/Cc law of compressibility explains and predicts observed implications of
secondary compression in terms of settlement and undrained shear strength behavior.
326
(b) (c)
(a)
(d) (e)
laboratory tests has been utilized not only for settlement analysis, but also for interpretation
of other important soil properties, especially the undrained shear strength of soft clay and silt
deposits (Terzaghi et al. 1996).
3. Settlement analysis based on EOP e versus σ′v relation from laboratory oedometer tests:
Primary settlement of soft clay and silt deposits is computed for embankment loading, using
the EOP e versus log σ′v relation from oedometer tests on 20 mm thick specimens, and is
compared with the field observations of settlement (Table 2). The details of the ILLICON
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
procedure for settlement analysis have been described by Mesri and Choi (1985b) and Mesri
et al. (1994), with the results shown in Fig. 3. The computed surface and subsurface
settlements during and at the end of primary consolidation are in excellent agreement with
observations.
Table 2. Case Histories of Embankment Construction on Soft Clay Deposits.
tp tp
∂e dσ ′v ∂e
∂σ′v
de =
t dt
+ dt
∂t σ′v
(10)
o o
one might suppose that with increasing tp, the compressibility of soil structure with
time, (∂e / ∂t )σ′v , may contribute more to primary compression. However, such a
reasoning is based on the implicit assumption that (∂e / ∂t )σ′v is independent of tp. In
fact (∂e / ∂t )σ′v is related to the rate of effective stress increase and thus tp. Mesri et
al. (1995) have shown that a combination of a small value of tp together with large
values of (∂e / ∂t )σ′v leads to the same EOP e versus σ′v relation as the combination of
a large tp together with small values of (∂e / ∂t )σ′v .
In spite of these observed data favoring the EOP void ratio versus effective stress
relation independent of the duration of primary consolidation, the uniqueness concept
(Mesri and Choi 1985a) has been challenged. The debate has continued in terms of the
Figure 2. Preconsolidation pressure mobilized in the field compared with EOP σ′p from
20 mm thick oedometer specimens (Mesri et al. 1995).
(a)
Figure 3. (a) Computed and measured EOP or EOO surface settlement of embankments
on soft clay and silt deposits (Mesri et al. 1994).
(b) (c)
Figure 3 (cont.). Computed and measured surface settlement (b) and subsurface
settlement (c) during primary consolidation for embankments on soft clay and silt
deposits (Mesri et al. 1994).
two alternative hypotheses A (EOP e-σ′v independent of tp) and B (EOP e-σ′v dependent
on tp) defined by Ladd et al. (1977) for the possible relation of primary settlement to the
duration of primary consolidation, illustrated in Fig. 4. If in fact hypothesis B were true,
then primary settlement observed in the field would have been significantly larger than
computed using EOP e versus σ′v relation from 20 mm thick undisturbed specimen in
oedometer tests. This has not been the general experience (e.g., Leonards 1972, Mesri
1977, Ladd et al. 1977, and Jamiolkowski et al. 1985), and the data in Fig. 3.
The most recent objection to the uniqueness concept has come from Degago et al.
(2009, 2011). Degago et al. (2009) reinterpreted laboratory data in Feng (1991), and
using a computer program based on Soft Soil Creep (Stolle et al. 1999) predicted
consolidation behavior of laboratory specimens. Degago et al. (2009) used the Cα/Cc law
of compressibility, intended for secondary compression, to define their so-called creep
parameter during primary consolidation. Having decided that the pressure increment
durations in the Feng (1991) consolidation tests for the 500 mm thick specimens were not
long enough, Degago et al. (2009) subtracted an increment of void ratio from the EOP
void ratio of the 125 mm specimens at consolidation pressures of 62.1 kPa and 96.6 kPa,
respectively, for Batiscan clay and St. Hilaire clay (Figs. 1d and 1e). In other words, for
the 125 mm thick specimens, the EOP void ratio was incorrectly defined by Degago et al.
(2009) at an elapsed time significantly less than tp. More importantly, the additional
compression that took place at 62.1 kPa and 96.6 kPa, respectively, for Batiscan clay and
St. Hilaire clay, were not included in the next EOP compression at 96.6 kPa and 138.0
kPa, respectively, of Batiscan clay and St. Hilaire clay.
The fundamental question for Degago et al. (2009) was “… whether or not creep acts
as a separate phenomenon during primary compression, while excess pore pressure
dissipates.” Creep as a separate phenomenon originates from the concept of springs and
dashpots – i.e., one spring associated with effective stress increase and a separate spring,
completely unaware of the first spring, associated with progress of time. In fact,
compressibility with time contributes during primary compression; however, soil has
only one structure which controls both compressibility with effective stress and
compressibility with time.
Degago et al. (2009) propose that “strictly speaking, it is the degree of dissipation of
the excess pore pressure that should establish a true EOP criterion.” Degago et al. (2009)
do not seem to be aware of Mesri et al. (2005): “Excess porewater pressure during
secondary compression.” Two of the conclusions of that article are: a) The value of
excess porewater pressure at the beginning of secondary compression stage (i.e., end of
primary consolidation) corresponds to u′m/σ′v values in the range of 1 to 3%, where u′m is
the maximum excess porewater pressure within the layer and σ′v is the consolidation
pressure, and b) For soft clay deposits, with u′m/σ′v near 2%, EOP u′m is often near 1 kPa
and is not expected to exceed 10 kPa. The important implication of these conclusions is
that it is not always straight forward to use the measurements of excess porewater
pressure to “… establish a true EOP criterion”, especially for pressure increments
spanning the preconsolidation pressure of the highly structured soft clays of Eastern
Canada such as the Batiscan clay and St. Hilaire clay.
Degago et al. (2009) then proceeded to examine the excess porewater pressure at
EOP compression of the 125 mm and 500 mm specimens. The excess porewater
pressures were in the range of 0.1 to 0.8 kPa for Batiscan clay and 1.0 to 2.2 kPa for St.
Hilaire clay. Degago et al. (2009) concluded that primary consolidation “… time for the
500 mm thick specimen has been too short …”. For the pressure increment from 62.1
kPa to 82.8 kPa after about 382 days the excess porewater pressure at the impermeable
boundary (i.e., maximum excess porewater pressure) is less that 1 kPa.
Thus, having satisfied themselves that “… creep acts as a separate phenomenon …”
during primary consolidation, Degago et al. (2009) proceeded to make predictions of
compression rate “… using concepts derived from the Isotache concept …”. Degago et
al. (2009) report that “the material model used is the Soft Soil Creep (SSC) … the Model
incorporates creep during the consolidation process and yields a non-unique EOP strain
for different specimen thickness.” However, Degago et al. (2009) do not illustrate as to
how non-unique is the prediction by the SSC model. In other words, for a field situation,
does it predict EOP vertical strain 1 percent greater than the EOP strain of a 20 mm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
oedometer specimen or does it predict 100% greater vertical strain? Therefore, two main
conclusions of Degago et al. (2009) are quite unjustified and troubling. These are: (a)
Re-evaluation of the measurements gave “… results that support Hypothesis B” and (b)
“According to the isotache concept … any distinction between thick and thin specimen is
revealed through the respective preconsolidation stress …”. The “extreme” hypothesis B
as originally defined (Ladd et al. 1977) could predict settlements for field conditions that
are as much as 100 percent larger than those predicted using the uniqueness of EOP
compression. The observed behaviors in Figs. 1, 2 and 3 dismiss the main conclusions of
Degago et al. (2009).
Degago et al. (2009) does not include an application of the SSC model to field
situations. However, Neher et al. (2001) use SSC to predict settlement of two test
embankments. In connection with one embankment they conclude that “… SSC-model
is not so useful.” It is the settlement predictions by Neher et al. (2001) for the second
embankment – Skå-Edeby Area IV - that is quite revealing about the SSC model.
Mesri and co-workers have carried out settlement analyses using the ILLICON
computer program for all of the test fills at the Skå-Edeby test site in Sweden (Mesri et al.
1994). For example, for the 12 m thick soft clay deposit at Skå-Edeby test field,
subjected to the same embankment load, however with duration of primary consolidation,
for different drainage boundaries by vertical drains, of about 2, 4, 8, and 38 years, the
measured EOP settlements are, respectively, 114, 100, 108, and 107 cm (Mesri et al.
1994; Terzaghi et al. 1996, Fig. 25.16; Mesri and Huvaj-Sarihan 2009). Neher et al.
(2001) concluded that “… the SSC-model and measured data agree fairly well.”
However, the SS-model (i.e., SSC-model without “creep”) predicted, for an elapsed time
of 20 years, a settlement of 15 cm as compared to the observed settlement of 90 cm. The
incredible implication of this result is that using hypothesis A one may underpredict
settlement by a factor of 6. No such experience assuming hypothesis A has ever been
reported in the geotechnical literature (see, e.g., Leonards 1972). In order to understand
the unusual prediction by Neher et al. (2001), one needs only to examine their input data
on Cc/(1+eo) of the Skå-Edeby clay. It turns out that Cc/(1+eo) magnitudes in Table 3 of
Neher et al. (2001) are about 1/6 of the true values for the Skå-Edeby clay. In other
words, in order for the SSC-model and measured data to agree, Neher et al. (2001) used
Cc/(1+eo) values about 1/6 of the true magnitudes, and this resulted in the unusual
prediction of 15 cm settlement for the SS-model. If Neher et al. (2001) had used the true
values of Cc/(1+eo), their SSC-model would have overpredicted settlements by a huge
factor (Mesri and Feng 2009).
Degago et al. (2011) conclude that “… the isotache approach can capture the main
characteristics of the time-dependent compressibility of clays during both the primary
and secondary consolidation phases”. They admit, however, that “… when the isotache
concept was first presented (Suklje 1957), it was meant to describe compressibility of
soils subjected to long-term creep, such that the primary consolidation phase plays a
minor role in the whole compression process”. The linear secondary compression-log
time relations in the Degago et al. (2011) “simulation” illustrate the limitations of the
isotache concept, as only in certain cases Cα/(1+eo) may remain constant with time when
Cc/(1+eo) remains constant with effective vertical stress (Mesri 1987,Mesri and Castro
1987.
Degago et al. (2011) adapted the explanations by Mesri et al. (1995) of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
small equal all around pressure increment spanning the preconsolidation pressure, is
beyond the scope of this paper (see e.g., Mesri and Choi 1979, Mesri 1981, Mesri et al.
2005, etc.)
Degago et al. (2011) also conclude that “… the in situ EOP preconsolidation stress is
lower than that determined from EOP laboratory tests.” This serious claim is obviously
ignoring the data in Fig 2 that includes over 70 separate measurements on some 25 soft
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
clay and silt deposits. It is suggested that the potential of the isotache concept and
“extreme” hypothesis B, for describing consolidation of soils should be substantiated by
conducting settlement analyses and comparing with observations, for an adequate number
of full-scale cases of embankments on soft clay and silt deposits. Leonards (1972) and
Ladd (see Ladd et al. 1977) were “... biased toward hypothesis A ...” based on significant
experience with consolidation of soils.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on the analyses, data, and interpretation
presented in this paper:
1. The Terzaghi effective stress principle, when interpreted in terms of the internal
interparticle stress in soils, is consistent with both primary compression and
secondary compression.
2. Both primary compression and secondary compression, and associated settlement
and the increase in undrained shear strength, result from the rearrangement of soil
particles to more compact packing, assisted by soil particle deformation, soil particle
compression, and soil particle damage.
3. The secondary compression behavior which results from the continued internal
redistribution of interparticle stress, is completely explained and predicted by the
Cα/Cc law of compressibility.
4. The debate on the independence of EOP void ratio versus effective vertical stress
from the duration of primary consolidation continues in spite of the following series
of convincing evidence (a) EOP e versus σ′v from laboratory consolidation tests is
independent of the duration of primary consolidation, (b) preconsolidation pressure
mobilized in the field is equal to the preconsolidation pressure determined from
laboratory oedometer tests on 20 mm thick undisturbed soil specimens, (c) surface
and subsurface settlements measured in the field during primary consolidation of soil
subjected to embankment loading, are equal to the settlement predicted using the
EOP e versus σ′v relation from laboratory oedometer tests on 20 mm thick
undisturbed soil specimens, and (d) data on compressibility with time, (∂e / ∂t )σ′v ,
provide an explanation for the independence of EOP e versus σ′v relation from the
duration of primary consolidation.
5. The existing direct reliable laboratory and field evidence support primary
consolidation in accordance with hypothesis A; there is no direct convincing
evidence supporting the “extreme” hypothesis B.
6. The proponents of hypothesis B need to verify the claim in terms of settlement
analyses together with comparison with measurements, for a sufficient number of
embankment loading case histories of soft clay and silt deposits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author’s introduction to consolidation testing was in Professor Roy Olson’s
laboratory, and together they explored solutions of the Terzaghi theory of consolidation
for a wide range of initial and boundary conditions.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
NOTATION
REFERENCES
Feng, T.W. (1991). “Compressibility and permeability of natural soft clays and
surcharging to reduce settlements.” PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Hoeg, K., Andersland, O.B., and Rolfsen, E.N. (1969). “Undrained behavior of quick
clay under load tests at Asrum.” Géotechnique, 19(1), 101-115.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T.,, and Lancellotta, R. (1985). “New
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.” Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engrg., San Francisco, 1, 57-153.
Ladd, D.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F., and Poulos, H.G. (1977). “Stress-
deformation and strength characteristics.” General Report, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engrg, 2, 421-494.
Leonards, G.A.. (1972). “Shallow foundations.” Discussion, Proc. Spec. Conf. on
Performance of Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE, Lafayette, Indiana, 3, 169-173.
Leonards, G.A., and Deschamps, R.J. (1995). “Origin and significance of the quasi-
preconsolidation pressure in clay soils.” Proc. Compression and Consolidation of
Clay Soils, Hiroshima, Japan, 1, 341-347.
Mesri, G. (1977). “Stress-deformation and strength characteristics.” Discussion, Proc.
9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., Tokyo, 3, 354-355.
Mesri, G. (1981). “Groundwater and seepage problems.” Discussion, 10th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engrg., Stockholm, 4, 659.
Mesri, G. (1986). “Post construction settlement of an expressway built on peat by
precompression.” Discussion, Canadian Geot. J., 23(3), 403-407.
Mesri, G. (1987). “Fourth law of soil mechanics: A law of compressibility.” Proc. Int.
Symp. Geot. Engrg. Soft Soils, Mexico City, 179-187.
Mesri, G. (2001). “Primary compression and secondary compression.” In Soil behavior
and soft ground construction, (eds. J.T. Germain, T.C. Sheahan and R.V. Whitman),
Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, 119, 122-166.
Mesri, G., and Ajlouni, M. (2007). “Engineering properties of fibrous peats.” J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 133(7), 850-866.
Mesri, G., Ajlouni, M.A., Feng, T.W., and Lo, D.O.K. (2001). “Surcharging of soft
ground to reduce secondary settlement.” Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Soft Soil Engrg., Hong
Kong, 55-65.
Mesri, G., and Castro, A. (1987). “The Cα/Cc concept and Ko during secondary
compression.” J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 113(3), 230-247.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1979). “Strain rate behavior of Saint-Jean-Vianney clay.”
Discussion, Canadian Geotech. J., 16(4), 831-834.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1980). “Excess pore water pressure and preconsolidation
effect developed in normally consolidated clays of some age.” Discussion, Soils and
Foundations, 20(4), 131-136.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1983). “Dynamic properties of soft clays for wide strain
range.” Discussion, Soils and Foundations, 23(1), 125-127.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1984). “Time effects on the stress-strain behavior of natural
soft clays.” Discussion, Géotechnique, 34(3), 439-442.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1985a). “The uniqueness of the end-of-primary (EOP) void
ratio-effective stress relationship.” Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg.,
San Francisco, 2, 587-590.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. (1985b). “The behavior of embankments on clay foundation.”
Discussion, Canadian Geotech. J., 18(3), 460-462.
Mesri, G., and Feng, T.W. (1991). “Surcharging to reduce secondary settlement.” Proc.
Int. Conf. Geotech. Engrg. For Coastal Development, Yokohama, Japan, 1, 359-364.
Mesri, G., and Feng, T.W. (1992). “Constant rate of strain consolidation testing of soft
clays.” Proc. Marsal Symposium, Mexico City, 49-59.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIV on 06/17/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mesri, G., and Feng, T.W. (2009). “The non-uniqueness of the end-of-primary (EOP)
void ratio-effective stress relationship.” Discussion, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Geotech. Engrg., Alexandria, 3559-3561.
Mesri, G., Feng, T.W., and Benak, J.M. (1990). “Postdensification penetration resistance
of clean sands.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 116(7), 1095-1115.
Mesri, G., Feng, T.W., and Shahien, M. (1995). “Compressibility parameters during
primary consolidation.” Proc. Int. Symp. Compression and Consolidation of Clayey
Soils, Hiroshima, 2, 1021-1037.
Mesri, G., and Godlewski, P.M. (1977). “Time and stress compressibility
interrelationship.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 103, GT5, 417-430.
Mesri, G., and Hayat, T.M. (1993). “The coefficient of earth pressure at rest.” Canadian
Geotech. J., 30(4), 647-666.
Mesri, G., and Huvaj-Sarihan, N. (2009). “The Asaoka Method revisited.” Proc. 17th
Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Geotech. Engrg., Alexandria, Egypt, 1,131-134.
Mesri, G., Huvaj. N., Vardhanabhuti, B., and Ho, Y-H. (2005). “Excess porewater
pressure during secondary compression.” Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech.
Engrg., Osaka 2, 1087-1090.
Mesri, G., Lo, D.O.K., and Feng, T.W. (1994). “Settlement of embankments on soft
clays.” ASCE Conf. on Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and
Embankments, College Station, Texas, 8-56.
Mesri, G., Stark, T.D., Ajlouni, M.A., and Chen, C ..S. (1997). “Secondary compression
of peat without or with surcharging.” J. of Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 411-421.
Mesri, G., and Vardhanabhuti, B. (2009). “Compression of granular materials.”
Canadian Geot. J., 46, 369-392.
Neher, H.P., Wehnert, M., and Bonnier, P.G. (2001). “An evaluation of soft soil models
based on trial embankments, computer methods and advances in geomechanics.”
Balkema, 373-378.
Sållfors, F. (1975). “Preconsolidation pressure of soft high plastic clays.” PhD thesis,
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Stolle, D.F.E., Vermeer, P.A., and Bonnier, P.G. (1999). “Consolidation model for
creeping clay.” Canadian Geotech. J., 36(4), 754-759.
Suklje, L. (1957). “The analysis of the consolidation process by the isotache method.”
Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engrg., London, 1, 200-206.
Terzaghi, K. (1923). “Die Berechnung der Durchlässigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem
Verlauf der Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen.” Sitz. Akad. Wissen. Wien
Mathnaturw Kl Abt. Ila, 132, 105-124.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 549 p.