760

Dissipated strain energy method for determining

preconsolidation pressure
L.B. Wang and J.D. Frost

Abstract: The dissipated strain energy method (DSEM), a new method for determining the preconsolidation pressure,
is presented in this paper. Compared with the energy method, the DSEM uses dissipated strain energy and the slope of
the unloading–reloading cycle (in the strain energy – effective consolidation stress space) for the plot to minimize the
sample disturbance effects and eliminate the effect of elastic deformation. Dissipated strain energy, in terms of micro-
mechanics, is directly related to the irreversible process of consolidation and can be supported by theories dealing with
consolidation and compaction. The use of the unloading–reloading slope to simulate the elastic reloading for the
recompression stage can minimize sample disturbance effects. Examples presented indicate that the proposed new
method is less operator dependent than most of the existing methods.
Key words: dissipated strain energy, preconsolidation pressure, consolidation, energy method, dissipated strain energy
method.
Résumé : On présente dans cet article une nouvelle méthode pour déterminer la pression de consolidation, soit la
méthode d’énergie de déformation dissipée (DSEM). Comparée à la méthode d’énergie, la nouvelle méthode utilise
l’énergie de déformation dissipée, et la pente du cycle de déchargement-rechargement (dans l’espace énergie de
déformation-contrainte effective de consolidation) pour le graphique devant minimiser les effets de remaniement de
l’échantillon et éliminer l’effet dû à la déformation élastique. L’énergie de déformation dissipée en termes de micromé-
canique est directement reliée au processus irréversible de consolidation et peut s’appuyer sur des théories traitant de la
consolidation et du compactage. L’utilisation de la pente déchargement-rechargement pour simuler le rechargement élas-
tique pour le stade de recompression peut minimiser les effets de remaniement de l’échantillon. Les exemples présentés
indiquent que la nouvelle méthode proposée est moins dépendante de l’opérateur que la plupart des méthodes existan-
tes.
Mots clés : énergie de déformation dissipée, pression de préconsolidation, consolidation, méthode d’énergie, méthode
d’énergie de déformation dissipée.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Wang and Frost 768

Introduction methods are usually based on the experimental void ratio

Preconsolidation pressure σc , according to Casagrande
(1936), is the “largest overburden in which soil had been
consolidated.” The significance of determining the precon-
solidation pressure lies in the fact that the compressibility,
deformation, and strength characteristics of soil on either
side of σc are eminently different, which also serves as the
basis of the methods for determining σc .
The importance of determining σc has attracted many re-
searchers. Different methods such as those by Casagrande
(1936), Burmister (1951), Schmertmann (1955), Janbu
(1967), and Butterfield (1979) have been developed. These
Received 2 April 2002. Accepted 22 December 2003.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cgj@nrc.ca on 31 August 2004.
L.B. Wang.1 Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Louisiana State University and Southern
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
J.D. Frost. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: lwang@lsu.edu).
(e) – effective consolidation stress (p) relations and are em-
pirical by nature. Hereafter they are referred to as classical
methods. Among the classical methods, the most popular are
the e − log p method (Casagrande 1936) and the log(1 + e) −
log p method proposed by Butterfield and supported by
Sridharan (1991).
Although different authors use different characteristics of
the e − log p or log(1 + e) − log p plots, the following conclu-
sions, based on numerous experimental observations, are
fundamental for all the methods: (i) the disturbance by un-
loading during sampling, etc. does not obliterate or seriously
distort the impression created by the largest previous load;
(ii) the shape of the recompression curve before σc (section I
in Fig. 1) and the shape of the unloading–reloading curve
are similar, and their relations to the virgin compression line
are also similar; and (iii) the relation between end of pri-
mary void ratio and effective stress is unique.
The first two conclusions were drawn by Casagrande
(1936); the third conclusion was drawn by Mesri and Choi
(1985). Every one of the classical methods implicitly uses
the first and third conclusions, and different methods distin-
guish themselves in their interpretation of “similar” in the

Can. Geotech. J. 41: 760–768 (2004) doi: 10.1139/T04-013 © 2004 NRC Canada
Wang and Frost
Fig. 1. Illustration of Casagrande’s (1936) observations. The
relationship between section I (recompression curve) and the vir-
gin compression curve is closely similar to that between the
unloading–reloading curve and the virgin compression curve.
second conclusion. Because of the difficulties in obtaining
the true preconsolidation pressure, however, it is hard to
evaluate the relative merits of the different methods.
The energy method proposed by Becker et al. (1987) is
relatively new. It is based on the total strain energy – p rela-
tion rather than the e − log p relation. Theoretically, the en-
ergy method is equivalent to the e − log p method (Li 1989)
or the log(1 + e) − log p method (see the following sections),
but its linear coordinate system enhances the accuracy and
decreases operator dependence for the determination of σc .
Because the total energy method is just a mapping of the
log(1 + e) − log p relationship into energy–p space, however,
this method fails to present a mechanical interpretation of
the relation between the total energy and the irreversible
process of consolidation. Therefore it is hard to establish the
linear relation between the total energy and the effective
stress through analyzing the fundamental phenomena in the
consolidation process.
In the view of soil plasticity, preconsolidation pressure
is actually the largest yielding stress that a soil has ever
reached. At stresses up to the preconsolidation pressure,
loading and unloading could be theoretically modeled as
elastic or the irrecoverable deformation is negligible. Be-
yond the preconsolidation pressure, the irrecoverable defor-
mation is much more significant. This phenomenon is
similar in metals and ceramics and can be explained by
micromechanics. In terms of micromechanics, consolidation
is a process in which soil particles change configuration irre-
versibly. The external work by the consolidation force is
partly transformed into heat in overcoming the friction be-
tween particle contacts and is partly stored as elastic strain
energy. Unlike elastic strain energy, the part dissipated into
heat, the dissipated strain energy, is not recoverable. There-
fore it can be postulated that dissipated strain energy rather
than elastic strain energy is essentially associated with the
irrecoverable volumetric strain. As a matter of fact, some
theories such as the double-layer theory and micromechanics
theory have been successfully applied to predict that the re-
lation between the irreversible volumetric deformation and
761
Fig. 2. Schmertmann’s (1955) reconstitution of the field consoli-
dation curve.
the logarithm of consolidation stress is linear (Nagaraj and
Srinivasa Murthy 1983; Houlsby and Sharma 1999).
Dissipated strain energy has been widely accepted as a
parameter for representing yielding criteria and hardening
rules. According to Janbu (1967), the yielding surface is
actually the contours of dissipated strain energy. It is a fun-
damental concept related to irreversible process. In this pa-
per, a new method, namely the dissipated strain energy
method (DSEM), is proposed for the assessment of the pre-
consolidation pressure of soil. The advantages of the pro-
posed new method are illustrated by analyzing experimental
data.
Common problems with existing methods
As soil is a heterogeneous, anisotropic material, the linear
relation such as e − log p is often violated. Common prob-
lems in applying existing methods can be categorized as fol-
lows: (i) quantities used in these methods, such as total void
ratio or total strain energy, do not have the implications that
are associated with the fundamental phenomena in the con-
solidation process; (ii) it is hard to account for sample
disturbance effects; and (iii) most methods are operator de-
pendent in constituting straight lines and reading the coordi-
nates in logarithmic scales.
Figure 2 is an illustration of the Schmertmann (1955)
method of reconstitution of the field recompression and vir-
gin consolidation curve. The reconstituted curve consists of
three different sections that have different mechanical impli-
cations. The first section is a horizontal line up to the in situ
stress (σ0), which implies that there is no irrecoverable de-
formation in this section. The second section is a line be-
tween the in situ stress and the preconsolidation stress (σc ).
This section is parallel to the unloading–reloading line,
which implies an elastic deforming process (there are usu-
ally still some irrecoverable deformations in this section).
The third section is a straight line connecting the σc point to
the 0.42e0 point (where e0 is the initial void ratio), beyond
which irrecoverable deformation dominates. This reconstitu-
tion clearly illustrates the field irrecoverable deformation
characteristics. The sampling and consolidation testing pro-
cess is parallel to the field recompression and virgin consoli-
dation process. As only total deformation is measured in the
conventional consolidation tests, however, classical methods
actually plot the total deformation – p (or e − log p) relation,
© 2004 NRC Canada
762 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

which generally obscures the distinctness of the deformation Fig. 3. Sample disturbance effects on preconsolidation pressure
rate between pre-σc and post-σc sections. This phenomenon (adapted from Holtz et al. 1986).
also exists in the energy method proposed by Becker et al.
(1987), where total strain energy is used. Because the me-
chanical implication of σc lies in the fact that beyond σc the
irrecoverable deformation rate (against load increment) of
soil increases drastically, a separation of the irrecoverable
deformation from the total deformation will enhance the
contrast between the deformation characteristics of the pre-
and post-σc sections.
Figure 3 is adapted from Holtz et al. (1986), where the ef-
fects of different levels of disturbance on the assessment of
σc are illustrated. Figure 3 shows that the slope of the
recompression curve increases when the soil samples are
more severely disturbed (i.e., piston samples versus block
samples), which results in an underestimation of the precon-
solidation pressure. It can also be deduced from Fig. 3 that
the laboratory consolidation curve will be closer to the vir- Fig. 4. Uncertainty in defining the recompression line in the
gin consolidation curve if the soil is less severely disturbed work – effective stress plot.
or destructured. As most conventional tests do not study the
sample preparation and disturbance effects, for a given test
result, it is hard to evaluate how severe it is distorted by
sample disturbance.
Even if sample disturbance is minimized, it is still diffi-
cult to construct the straight lines in the cases of the log(1 +
e) − log p and work–p methods. Figure 4 illustrates this
effect using the work–p method to present data from a con-
solidation test performed on a silty clay (tube sample from
the field by Law Engineering and Environmental Service,
Inc., Atlanta, Ga.), showing the difficulties in selecting the
recompression line.
Due to the complexity of soil properties, the three prob- as the method of Butterfield (1979) in the mapped space:
lems described previously cannot be completely avoided. log(1 + e) − log p, mapped into E–p space. Unlike Casa-
Rational methods should minimize these effects, however. In grande’s method, which focuses more on the local properties
this regard, the following observed phenomena should be (the largest curvature) around the preconsolidation pressure,
mentioned: the Becker et al. energy method has adopted the average
(1) The disturbing effects due to stress release, etc. become slope of the recompression curve before the preconsolidation
smaller when the reloading stress exceeds the stress pressure.
where stress release starts. This suggests the use of un- The energy method is relatively new, more inclusive, and
loading–reloading slopes at a stress level higher than the conceptually very promising. Considering preconsolidation
in situ stress. as the maximum yielding stress to which a soil has ever
(2) Any quantities to be used should be physically or me- been subjected, work by Roscoe et al. (1958) and Tavenas et
chanically related to the process in the analysis. In the al. (1979) is supportive of this method. Apart from the more
case of the consolidation process, quantities causing the accurate determination of σc due to the advantages of the lin-
consolidation process should be more relevant. For ex- ear coordinates and the flexibility of the concept of strain
ample, the dissipated strain energy that causes the parti- energy in dealing with consolidation induced by other
cles to slide and rotate could be better quantitatively mechanical and nonmechanical effects such as evaporation
related to preconsolidation pressure. through energy equivalency, the theoretical equivalency of
the E–p linear relation to the e − log p and log(1 + e) − log p
Energy method linear relations is even more important in that no violations
are introduced against previous experimental observations.
The energy method (Becker et al. 1987) also uses Casa- The proof of the equivalency of the E–p linear relation to
grande’s (1936) first conclusion and the conclusion of Mesri the e − log p and log(1 + e) − log p linear relations is simple;
and Choi (1985) on the unique relation between end of pri- however, it is briefly described here for completeness and to
mary consolidation void ratio and effective stress. As for the provide an introduction to the linear relations between total
term “similar” in Casagrande’s second conclusion, Becker et strain energy, elastic strain energy, and dissipated strain en-
al. (1987) assume a linear relation between total strain en- ergy versus effective consolidation stress.
ergy E and the effective stress p (E–p) for the recompression There are basically two types of strain definitions, engi-
part directly from the laboratory recompression curve with- neering strain and true strain. When engineering strain is
out considering the unloading–reloading portion of the tests. adopted, the E–p linear relation is equivalent to the e − log p
In actuality, the Becker et al. energy method is the same linear relation:

© 2004 NRC Canada

Wang and Frost
[1] de = C c d log p
p2 p2
p p C dp C ( p − p )
[2] ∇E = ∫ 1 + e0 de = ∫ 1 + e0 cp = c1 +2 e0 1
p p
1 1
When true strain is adopted, the E–p linear relation is
equivalent to the log(1 + e) − log p linear relation:
[3] d log(1 + e) = C d log p
de C dp
[4] = or de = CpC −1 dp
1+ e p preconsolidation pressure: (i) the more the disturbance, the
p2 p2
p p
[5] ∇E = ∫ 1 + e de = ∫ pC CpC −1 dp = C ( p2 − p1)
p1 p 1
where ∇E is the total strain energy increment corresponding
to an effective consolidation stress increment; and Cc and C
are the slopes of the e − log p and log(1 + e) − log p plots, re-
spectively. To obtain the absolute value of the total strain
energy, a reference is needed. In the Becker et al. (1987)
presentation, E is actually the total strain energy increment
referred to the stress-free status completely released from
the preconsolidation stress. The dissipated strain energy cor-
responding to the preconsolidation pressure in the virgin
consolidation is not included. This will be explained in the
next section.
Li (1989) pointed out the equivalency but did not notice
that Becker et al. (1987) actually used true strain. Li consid-
ered the theoretical equivalency without taking into account
the actual differences between experimental data representa-
tion and the theoretical prediction (the superiority of data
presentation in the energy method is illustrated later in the
paper). In reality, experimental data do not follow the exact
linear relation; it is impossible to have an infinitesimal load
step. Therefore, the energy method does not yield the same
value of σc as those from the e − log p and log(1 + e) − log p
methods but will generally give better linear correlation than
that of the e − log p and log(1 + e) − log p methods. On the
whole, these equivalencies indicate the wide applicability of
the energy method.
According to Butterfield (1979), Sridharan (1991), and
Den Haan (1992), log(1 + e) − log p correlation is better than
e − log p correlation for several reasons, such as a better
log(1 + e) − log p linear relation, the physical meaning of the
reference volume of (1 + e) as the total volume, and the pos-
sibility of yielding a negative void ratio by the e − log p
method. Hashiguchi (1995) points out that e − log p correla-
tion violates some kinematics in elastoplastic theories. These
discoveries could serve as guidelines for choosing a proper
strain definition. In terms of strain energy, however, it seems
there is no such violation if only the stress and strain are
conjugate to the stress power: ␴: D = ␴1 p: F, where ␴ is the
Cauchy stress tensor, D is the stretch tensor, F is the defor-
mation gradient, and ␴1 p is the first Piola Kirshhof stress
tensor. In the case of one-dimensional consolidation, both
definitions are acceptable. Because of the conventional
adoption of Cauchy’s stress tensor, however, the true strain
should be adopted. Since the e − log p relation is convenient
in many cases and the e − log p linear relation will yield a
763
log(1 + e) − log p linear relation, no special efforts towards
distinguishing the two cases are made in this paper.
Comments
As illustrated in the first two sections of the paper, the key
to determining σc is the understanding of the relation of the
unloading–reloading curve to the virgin compression curve
(as according to Casagrande 1936, the close similarity…)
and the effects on the relation due to sample disturbance.
Therefore the following three observed phenomena are im-
portant in constituting any method for the assessment of
steeper the slope of the recompression curve before σc (sec-
tion I in Fig. 1, referred to as the recompression curve);
(ii) the recompression curve becomes more rounded towards
the stress where unloading starts and merges into the virgin
compression curve at a stress slightly larger than the stress
where unloading starts; and (iii) the unloading–reloading
slope is highly nonlinear with effective consolidation pres-
sure.
The first two phenomena have been widely recognized.
Leonards (1976) and Fang (1985) have noticed the first phe-
nomena, and Crawford (1985) commented that test results of
consolidation in the recompression range are not reliable.
Leonards also found the value estimated from a rebound–
recompression cycle is more likely to approximate the field
results. Schmertmann (1955) found that the unloading–
reloading line is less affected by disturbance and adopted the
unloading–reloading slope in his reconstitution of the field
compression curve.
In applying the Becker et al. (1987) energy method, it is
also evident that the recompression slope is generally steeper
than the unloading–reloading slope; the E–p curve becomes
more rounded towards the virgin compression line and thus
it is difficult for the operator to select the recompression
line.
The literature review suggests the adoption of the
unloading–reloading slope as the recompression line instead
of the initial slope of the laboratory recompression curve.
This is also based on the authors’ observations of the round-
ness of the E–p curve towards the virgin compression line
and the better linear relation of the unloading–reloading
curve. To avoid the uncertainty associated with the selection
of the recompression line, a line parallel to the unloading–
reloading line was drawn and it was found that the value of
σc thus obtained was closer to the expected value based on
results from a laboratory-consolidated specimen (see the
section titled Experimental justifications). It is this finding
that initiated the present work on the DSEM.
Since the slope (e − log p space) of the unloading–reload-
ing curve is stress dependent, the adoption of the unloading–
reloading slope of only one unloading–reloading cycle is
still an approximation. This approximation could be rational
for the typical stress range in a consolidation test, however.
In reality, some simpler models are even more popular than
complicated models if only they capture the major proper-
ties. For example, the Cam-Clay model assumes a constant
unloading–reloading slope for different stress levels and thus
has some limitations in applications. With greater use of the
model, however, this could be compensated by the experi-
ence gained. In this case, the accuracy could be technically
© 2004 NRC Canada
764
improved by unloading at a reasonably estimated precon-
solidation pressure, or the consolidation rate could be moni-
tored so that unloading can take place at the stress where the
consolidation rate has some significant variations. In this
regard, a reasonable approach to this problem is suggested
as follows: (i) perform unloading–reloading cycles at two
stresses; and (ii) obtain a correlation between effective stress
where unloading starts and the average slope of the
unloading–reloading cycle and then iterate to obtain σc . This
approach is derived from the following correlation equation
proposed by Schmertmann (1955):
C r1 er 2 + 1
[6] log = 2.5 log
Cr2 er1 + 1
where C r1 and C r2 are the recompression indices at two dif-
ferent stresses corresponding to two different void ratios er1
and er2. Equation [6] is based on 59 individual consolidation
tests with distinct recompression slopes. The tests were per-
formed on clays from 16 sites in nine US states and five
sites in four foreign countries. The value of 2.5 is the aver-
age value of regression analysis and is related to the clay
structure. This coefficient may vary significantly for differ-
ent clays. A more common result that might be used is the
stress-dependent soil resilient modulus. For simplicity, how-
ever, this approach is not investigated in this paper.
In summary, the Becker et al. (1987) energy method uses
total strain energy and the laboratory recompression curve to
assess the preconsolidation pressure. The unreliability of the
laboratory recompression curve due to sample disturbance
effects is not accounted for. It is also difficult to select the
recompression line when points on the recompression curve
do not obviously follow a straight line. Total strain energy is
theoretically not associated with the consolidation process
but dissipated strain energy is. The unloading–reloading
slope is less affected by sample disturbance and is more rep-
resentative of the field recompression characteristics.
Dissipated strain energy method (DSEM)
To clearly illustrate the DSEM, the concepts of total volu-
metric strain, elastic volumetric strain, plastic volumetric
strain, and their corresponding void ratios are first intro-
duced. The linear relation between the dissipated strain en-
ergy and effective stress is also investigated.
Following the conventional assumption that soil grains are
not deformable, the concept of using the elastic void ratio ee
to represent the volume change due to elastic deformation is
introduced. This treatment is used to bring compliance with
the concepts of elastic and plastic volumetric strains. The
elastic volumetric strain might actually result from the elas-
tic deformation between contacts, and the implication of
plastic void ratio (ep) is that it is related to the material
structure at a stress-free status. From the concepts of ep and
ee , the total volume can be expressed as 1 + e = 1 + ep + ee
(where e is the total void ratio) and the following two equa-
tions can be obtained:
[7] ∆ep = εpv
[8] ∆ee = εev
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004
Fig. 5. Idealized consolidation tests in strain energy (E) – p
space. OD, dissipated strain energy; OE, elastic strain energy;
OT, total strain energy.
where εpv and εev are the plastic and elastic volumetric strains,
respectively.
Since e = ep + ee, it is easy to verify that the e − log p or
(ep + ee) – log p linear relation and the ee – log p linear rela-
tion (for example, in critical state soil mechanics; Roscoe et
al. 1958) will result in the ep – log p linear relation. In fact,
the ep – log p linear relation can be theoretically predicted
by using double-layer theory (Nagaraj and Srinivasa Murthy
1983) or micromechanics theory (Houlsby and Sharma
1999). These three linear relations result in three lines in the
E–p space (see Fig. 5). In Fig. 5, OT represents total strain
energy, OE elastic strain energy, and OD dissipated strain
energy. Line UR represents the stress release and recom-
pression, where incremental dissipated strain energy is
assumed to be negligible. Therefore, in E–p space, consoli-
dation tests start from R and follow the path R–U–T on the
total strain energy line. OR = PM represents no dissipated
strain energy change in the unloading–reloading cycle.
From Fig. 5, it can be deduced that idealized consolida-
tion tests will follow the path R–P–D in the dissipated strain
energy space shown in Fig. 6. The advantage of using dissi-
pated strain energy is that the recompression part is always a
horizontal line.
There are two ways to separate irrecoverable deformation
from total deformation or to separate dissipated strain
energy from total energy: (i) directly subtract the elastic de-
formation obtained by using unloading–reloading character-
istics from total deformation, or (ii) use the graphical
method presented in Fig. 7.
For an actual soil sample, the idealized straight lines in
Fig. 6 may not be followed. More likely the curved line
illustrated in Fig. 7 will be followed. Due to sample distur-
bance, consolidation deformation also exists in the recom-
pression process and results in an average slope of
recompression larger than the unload slope. In the laboratory
plot, the consolidation tests follow the path R–U–Y–X–Y–T.
The following steps are proposed for separating the dissi-
pated strain energy from the total strain energy and for
determining the preconsolidation pressure from Fig. 7:
(i) extend the straight-line portion TY to O on the E axis,
(ii) draw the OP′ axis, (iii) draw line OE that is parallel to
XY, (iv) draw vertical line TE that intersects the OP′ axis at
N, (v) locate point D on TE so that TD = EN, (vi) draw line
© 2004 NRC Canada
Wang and Frost
Fig. 6. Idealized consolidation tests in dissipated strain energy
(Ed) – p space.
Fig. 7. Actual consolidation tests in strain energy – p space. OD,
dissipated strain energy; OE, elastic strain energy; OT, total
strain energy.
OD (i.e., dissipated strain energy line), and (vii) the p′ coor-
dinate of the intersection of line Rp and OD is the precon-
solidation pressure.
Characteristics of the DSEM
The characteristics of the DSEM can be summarized as
follows:
(1) In strain energy – effective stress space, consolidation
tests start at the point that corresponds to the dissipated
strain energy at the preconsolidation stress. This point is
the base point that serves as reference for other strain
energy calculations. The total strain energy method does
not have such a characteristic.
(2) The total strain energy method by Becker et al. (1987)
uses only the recompression curve, whereas the DSEM
uses both the recompression curve and the unloading–
reloading curves from the same test and thus will de-
crease the systematic errors.
(3) By knowing the value OR, σc can be obtained numeri-
cally, which makes computer implementation simpler:
σc = OR / tan(DOP′).
(4) For each step, the operator has a more objective proce-
dure to follow. Therefore the method is less operator de-
pendent.
(5) The DESM has a strong theoretical basis, in that the
consolidation process is an irreversible process and most
765
of the work done during the process is dissipated in
overcoming the friction between particles.
In plasticity theory, an irreversible process is usually de-
scribed by dissipated strain energy; most of the hardening
rules describing the conditions for evolution of irreversible
processes also adopt dissipated strain energy as an independ-
ent variable. Therefore, it is natural and easier to be adapted
to other theories by using dissipated strain energy to de-
scribe the consolidation process. In addition, as shown by
Janbu (1967), the yielding surface is actually contours of
dissipated strain energy. The computation of the dissipated
strain energy in a consolidation test also presents a method
for calculating the evolution of the yielding envelop.
Experimental justifications
Although a large database is very important in verifying a
method or a technique, the method’s theoretical rationality
based on the fundamental phenomena of the process in the
analysis is also important. The authors realize the difficulties
for a widespread justification due to the lack of high-quality
data where preconsolidation pressure is known. Therefore,
instead of presenting as many experimental examples as pos-
sible, the authors present one example for each of the two
critical questions explored: the better linear relation of the
dissipated strain – effective consolidation stress, and the en-
hancement in the accuracy for assessing the preconsolidation
pressure. The authors encourage readers to analyze their
own database and establish their own judgment. Justification
by many people is better than justification by a few people;
in this respect, the authors appreciate the ideas of Becker et
al. (1989).
To investigate whether a better linear relation between the
dissipated strain energy and the effective stress could be ob-
tained using the proposed method, a typical consolidation
test (see Fig. 8 for the e − log p plot from this test) carried
out at the Mississauga, Ontario, laboratory of Golder Asso-
ciates and provided by D.E. Becker was analyzed using dif-
ferent methods. The coefficients of determination from the
different methods are presented in Table 1. The coefficient
of determination is a criterion for the quality of linear corre-
lation. A perfect linear correlation has a coefficient of deter-
mination equal to 1. Natural strain was used in calculating
the total strain energy, the elastic strain energy, and the dissi-
pated strain energy. In addition, total work, elastic work, and
plastic work are calculated for the correlation analysis. The
analytical results indicate, in practice, the total work, elastic
work, and plastic work can be directly used for the correla-
tion analysis and the plots to obtain σc. This makes the
DSEM very convenient. The example also indicates that, al-
though the energy method is theoretically equivalent to the
e − log p and log(1 + e) − log p methods, in practice the meth-
ods are not equivalent. The coefficients of linear correlation
show the relative merits of these methods, but this is difficult
to determine by looking at the graphs. In this example, it
is shown that both second loading and unloading follow a
better linear relation and there is no apparent enhancement
in the linear relation for the strain energy plots (dissipated or
total strain energy).
Since no other information is available for judging the ra-
tionality of the preconsolidation pressures obtained, it is dif-
© 2004 NRC Canada
766 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 8. The e – log p plot for a typical consolidation test.

Table 1. Preconsolidation pressures (Pc) and coefficients of determination from the different methods.
Coefficient of determination
Method Pc Initial loading Second loading First unloading Second unloading
e − log p 380 0.800 0.820 0.750 0.963
Log (1 + e) − log p 367 0.799 0.818 0.750 0.965
Energy method (EM) 480 0.973 (0.973) 0.995 (0.995) 0.915 (0.929) 0.997 (0.997)
DSEM 435 0.973 (0.973) 0.995 (0.995) 0.915 (0.929) 0.997 (0.997)
Note: The values in parentheses are for the work–p (total work, elastic work, plastic work) correlation and indicate
that this correlation can be used without changing much of the linear relation, but the method is greatly simplified.

ficult to evaluate the relative merits of the different methods Table 2. Preconsolidation pressures deter-
through this example. To investigate how well the different mined by the different methods.
methods assess the preconsolidation pressure, the results
from a man-made sample consolidated in the laboratory at Preconsolidation
Georgia Tech to a maximum stress of 400 kPa have been an- Method pressure (kPa)
alyzed using the different methods. The results are presented Casagrande 469
in Table 2 and indicate that the DSEM gives the closest esti- Burmister 560
mate of the preconsolidation pressure. Becker 494
Although it cannot be concluded that the newly proposed Butterfield 467
method will always work better than other methods based on Intersecting tangent 492
these two examples, the authors invite readers to analyze DSEM 408
their own tests to establish their confidence in using the pro-
posed method. It is also the authors’ pleasure to analyze any
data that readers are willing to provide. can be analytically established through micromechanics. The
To give better illustrations of the calculations of the vari- newly developed method is less operator dependent and can
ous strain energies, a detailed example is presented in Ap- account for sample disturbance effects to a certain degree.
pendix A. The examples investigated herein show that the new method
has potential and should be investigated further.
Conclusion
Acknowledgment
A new method, called the dissipated strain energy method
or DSEM, has been developed and presented in this paper. Dr. Becker’s kind presentation of some of the test data for
Dissipated strain energy is mechanically the cause of consol- this study from an engineering project is sincerely appreci-
idation; its linear relation with effective consolidation stress ated.

© 2004 NRC Canada

Wang and Frost
References
Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H.A., Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1987.
Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in
clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24: 549–564.
Becker, D.E., Crooks, J.H.A., Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1989.
Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield stresses in
clays: Reply. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26: 327–328.
Burmister, D.M. 1951. The applications of controlled test methods
in consolidation testing. In Symposium on Consolidation
Testing of Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Special Technical Publication STP 126, pp. 83–97.
Butterfield, R. 1979. A natural compression law for soils (an ad-
vance on e − ln p ′ ). Géotechnique, 29(4): 469–480.
Casagrande, A. 1936. The determination of the preconsolidation
load and its practical significance. In Proceedings of the 1st In-
ternational Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Cambridge, Mass. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands. Vol. 3, pp. 60–64.
Crawford, C.B. 1985. State of the art: evaluation and interpretation
of soil consolidation tests. In Consolidation of soils: testing and
evaluation. Edited by R.N. Yong and F.C. Townsend. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication
STP 892.
Den Haan, E.J. 1992. The formulation of virgin compression of
soils. Géotechnique, 42(3): 465–483.
Fang, H.Y. (Editor). 1985. Foundation engineering handbook. 2nd
ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, Inc., New York.
Hashiguchi, K. 1995. On the linear relations of v − ln p and ln v −
ln p for isotropic consolidation of soils. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 19: 367–
376.
Holtz, R.D., Jamiolkowski, M.B., and Lancellotta, R. 1986. Les-
sons from oedometer tests on high quality samples. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112(8): 768–776.
Houlsby, G.T., and Sharma, R.S. 1999. A conceptual model for the
yielding and consolidation of clays. Géotechnique, 49(4): 491–
501.
Janbu, N. 1967. Settlement calculations based on the tangent
modulus concept. Institutt for Geoteknokk og Fundamen-
teringslaere, Meddelelse 2. Norge Tekniske Hogskole, Trond-
heim, Norway.
Leonards, G.A. 1976. Estimating consolidation settlements of shal-
low foundations on overconsolidated clays. Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Special Report 163, pp. 13–16.
Li, K.S. 1989. Work as a criterion for determining in situ and yield
stresses in clays: Discussion. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
26: 324–326.
Mesri, G., and Choi, Y.K. 1985. The uniqueness of the end-of-
primary (EOP) void ratio – effective stress relationship. In
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Calif., 12–
16 August 1985. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Vol. 2, pp. 587–590.
Nagaraj, T.S., and Srinivasa Murthy, B.R. 1983. Rationalization
of Skempton’s compressibility equation. Géotechnique, 33(4):
433–443.
Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A.N., and Wroth, C.P. 1958. On the
yielding of soils. Géotechnique, 8(1): 22–53.
Schmertmann, J.H. 1955. The undisturbed consolidation behavior
of clay. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, 20: 1201–1233.
767
Sridharan, J.B.T. 1991. Improved technique for estimation of pre-
consolidation pressure Géotechnique, 41(2): 263–268.
Tavenas, F., Des Rosiers, J.-P., Leroueil, S., Rochelle, P.L., and
Roy, M. 1979. The use of strain energy as a yield and creep cri-
terion for lightly overconsolidated clays. Géotechnique, 29(3):
285–303.
Appendix A
This appendix documents an example of how to use con-
ventional one-dimensional consolidation test results to cal-
culate the specific accumulative total strain energy (strain
energy per unit volume), specific accumulative elastic strain
energy, and specific accumulative dissipated strain energy.
In this example, e0 = 0.3551 (see Table A1). The soil is a
brown sandy silty clay and was tested in the Central Labora-
tory of Law Engineering and Environmental Service, Inc.,
Atlanta, Georgia. The incremental volumetric strain (IVS) is
given as
∆e
∆εv =
1 + e0
under one-dimensional conditions and is equal to the incre-
mental vertical strain ∆ε z; the incremental total strain energy
(ITSE) is given as
pi + pi −1
∆Eit = ∆εv
2
for i = 1 K N and p0 = 0; the accumulative total strain energy
(ATSE) is given as
i
Eit = ∑ Ekt
k =1
and the accumulative elastic strain energy (AESE) is given
as
C r pi
Eie =
1 + e0
where the recompression index
∆e
Cr =
log ps − log pe
in which ∆e is the void ratio change of the unload cycle, and
ps and pe are the consolidation stresses when the unloading
starts and ends, respectively. In this example, ps = 2 ksf,
pe = 0.5 ksf, and ∆e = 0.3225 – 0.3177 = 0.0048. Thus Cr =
0.00797 (see Table A1). The accumulative dissipated strain
energy (ADSE) is given as Eid = Eit − Eie .
In these calculations, i represents the ith load, and pi rep-
resents the consolidation stress of the ith loading step.
It should be noted that strains thus defined in this example
follow the definition of engineering strain for simplification.
The computed strain energies are specific strain energies
(strain energies per unit volume).
It should also be noted that due to the loading relief in the
sampling process the first part of the consolidation is actu-
ally elastic recompression (only a little consolidation defor-
mation). Therefore, the dissipated strain energy is negative
© 2004 NRC Canada
768 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Table A1. Numerical example of the calculation of various strain energies.

Load DIAL Void ITSE ATSE ATSE AESE ADSE ADSEC
(ksf) (in.) ratio IVS (ksf) (ksf) C (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf)
0.0 0.04070 0.3551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.1 0.04270 0.3524 –0.0020 0.0001 0.0001 0.0188 0.0006 –0.0005 0.0182
0.5 0.05090 0.3412 –0.0083 0.0025 0.0026 0.0213 0.0029 –0.0004 0.0184
1.0 0.06110 0.3274 –0.0102 0.0076 0.0102 0.0289 0.0059 0.0043 0.0231
2.0 0.06830 0.3177 –0.0072 0.0107 0.0210 0.0397 0.0118 0.0092 0.0279
0.5 0.06470 0.3225 0.0035 –0.0044 0.0165 0.0353 0.0029 0.0136 0.0323
1.0 0.06615 0.3206 –0.0014 0.0011 0.0176 0.0363 0.0059 0.0117 0.0304
2.0 0.06940 0.3162 –0.0032 0.0049 0.0224 0.0412 0.0118 0.0107 0.0294
4.0 0.08270 0.2982 –0.0133 0.0398 0.0623 0.0810 0.0235 0.0388 0.0575
8.0 0.09640 0.2796 –0.0137 0.0824 0.1447 0.1634 0.0471 0.0976 0.1163

using Eid = Eit − Eie and Eie = C n pi /(1 + e0). These values Fig. A1. Strain energy versus consolidation stress for the exam-
should be corrected by adding a term equal to OR in Fig. 5. ple test.
RO can be obtained by regression analysis of the last three
points on the OD plot, i.e., (2, 0.0107), (4, 0.0388), and (8,
0.0976) (see Table A1, the Load column and the ADSE col-
umn). In this case, OR = 0.0187 ksf.
The accumulative total strain energy corrected (ATSEC) =
ATSE + OR, which is equivalent to coordinate transform
from R origin to O origin (see Fig. 5), and the accumulative
dissipated strain energy corrected (ADSEC) = ADSE + OR,
the meaning of which is as given previously.
Figure A1 plots the strain energies in the energy – consol-
idation stress space. The p coordinate that corresponds to the
Rp–OD intersecting point, 1.3 ksf, is the preconsolidation
stress.

© 2004 NRC Canada