Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Casagrande, A. (1936). "The determination of the preconsolidation load and its

practical significance." Proc, 1st Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg.,
Vol. I, 60.
McManis.K. L.,Ferrell, R. E., Jr., and Arman, A. (1983). "Interpreting the physical
properties of a clay using microanalysis techniques." Geotech. Testing J., 6(2), 8792.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd Ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.

SOA:

L A R G E STRAIN CONSOLIDATION PREDICTIONS 8

Discussion by Vlasta Szavits-Nossan,3 Robert L. Schiffman,4 and

Robert E. Gibson5
The paper presents an interesting and valuable contribution to the evergrowing literature on consolidation. Unfortunately, the writers were unable
to participate in the prediction symposium. However, we are taking the
opportunity to add our results to the ones reported in the paper and to
provide some additional information.
We used two computer programs written at the University of Colorado
(Schiffman et al. 1985). These are A C C U M and A C C U M V . Both programs
are based on the governing equation expressed in reduced (Lagrangian)
coordinates (Gibson et al. 1967), in which the void ratio is the primary
dependent variable and the spatial independent variable is Lagrangian (material coordinates). A C C U M is based on the method of lines; and A C C U M V
is based upon an explicit finite-difference procedure. In all the cases reported
here the consolidating layer was discretized to 20 spatial mesh points. Our
results are as follows:

Scenario AFinal height: 13.6 ft (4.14 m); time: infinite height after
one year: 22.5 ft (6.86 m); base void ratio (one year): 6.48 base excess
pore-water pressure (one year): 181.4 psf (8.71 kPa).
Scenario BHeight at 540 days: 11.8 ft (3.60 m); final height: 9.8 ft
(2.99 m); height after one year: 6.9 ft (2.10 m); base void ratio (one
year): 6.5; base excess pore-water pressure (one year): 38.8 psf (1.86
kPa).
Scenario CFinal height: 8.0 ft (2.44 m); time: infinite; height after
one year 15.6 ft (4.75 m); base void ratio (one year): 6.46; base excess
pore-water pressure (one year): 323.6 psf (15.53 kPa).
Scenario DSurface final height: 16.9 ft (5.15 m); interface final height:
13.0 ft (3.96 m); time: infinite; height after one year: 22.8 ft (6.95 m);

February, 1990, Vol. 116, No. 2, by F. C. Townsend and M. C. McVay (Paper

24340).
3
Docent, Gradvinski Institut, Zagreb, Yugoslavia.
4
Prof., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Architectural Engrg., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428.
5
Adjoint Prof., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
168

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1992.118:168-169.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

base void ratio (one year): 5.45; base excess pore-water pressure (one
year): 316.0 psf (15.16 kPa).
Comparing the foregoing results with those published in the paper indicates that the results of all the software used fall into the same range of
values.

Discussion by Vicenzo Pane,6 Robert L. Schiffman,7 and Robert E. Gibson8

The paper provides interesting data on the numerical procedures for
analyzing consolidation problems and also on the results of using theories
that are less restrictive than the conventional theories. Two points are noted.
First is the nature of the numerical procedure. It is our understanding
that Somogyi-based and Cargill-based numerical models, and the ones reported in the preceding discussion are fundamentally solutions to the consolidation formulation in Lagrangian (material) coordinates. As such, they
are all based on the theory developed by Gibson et al. (1967). Further, they
solve scenarios A and C directly and use a Lagrangian updating procedure
for solving scenario B . On the other hand it is our understanding that the
piecewise linear programs are based upon conventional consolidation theory
(Terzaghi 1943) and use an Eulerian (spatial) updating procedure.
We would like to stress the point that an Eulerian updating procedure
is, in the general case, a poor means of analysis. Expressing the Eulerian
governing equation in terms of the excess pore-water pressure results in

(1 + e) i-

k(e)
du
(1 + e)7, to

d(t)
1 + e

av du
1 + e dt

(13)

dx
Eq. (13) accounts for nonlinearity of properties. However, we note that we
have one governing equation with two dependent variables, e and u, and
an unknown function of time d(t)/(l + e), which depends on among other
things the boundary conditions and the location of the origin of x. In the
given scenarios, one boundary is impervious; and if the origin is located
there, then d(t) = 0 and an Eulerian update is a feasible procedure. However, if the origin is located at the free-draining boundary then d(i) = dHI
dt, where H = thickness of the layer, which is not known ab initio but must
be discovered as part of the solution (Schiffman et al. 1988, 1989). Thus,
for an impervious boundary an Eulerian updating (piecewise linear) method
is feasible if the coordinate origin is judiciously selected. For all other
boundary conditions, d(t) will set the coordinate origin as a function of time,
and this is a problem by itself. This fact makes the Eulerian updating method
in the general case unnecessarily difficult, and not useful for engineering
purposes.
As a matter of interest, the Eulerian formulation of the governing equation where e is the only dependent variable is (Gibson and Schiffman,
unpublished class notes, 1989)
6

Univ, of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Prof., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Architectural Engrg., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428.
8
Adjoint Prof., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Architectural Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
7

169

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1992.118:168-169.