×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

coefficient of consolidation Cv

coefficient of consolidation Cv

coefficient of consolidation Cv

(OP)
Does anyone have an opinion on which way is a better way to obtain the coeifficent of Consolidation? The lab reported the coefficient of consolidation using both Taylor's square root of time fitting method and Casagrande's logarithm of time fitting method. Plugging the two different numbers into my settlement calculations gives me rather large differences in the time rate of settlement.

RE: coefficient of consolidation Cv

Are you using the same time factor for each way?  Were the Taylors and Casagrande charts based on the same stress increment on the same specimen?  

RE: coefficient of consolidation Cv

My suggestion is to look at the data plots for both methods.  Typically the data "fits" one plot much better than the other, in which case I would use the better fit.

Additionally, Taylor's method tends to work better soils with more silt/sand, i.e. those that drain/consolidate quicker.

RE: coefficient of consolidation Cv

Generally, the root time method requires compression reading covering a much shorter period of time compared. On the contrary the log time method requires longer period of times as it is important to define accurately the second linear part of the curve well into the secondary compression range.

For the root-time method is not always possible to obtain a straight-line portion. In such cases the log time method is more useful.

Both methods should give similar results. So, I suggest checking again your data for possible omissions.
If you have values for the in-situ coefficient of permeability (k), you can estimate the mv from the oedometer and then use the following equation:

Cv= k[in-situ]/(mv[lab] *?w)

RE: coefficient of consolidation Cv

Cv= k[in-situ]/(mv[lab] *gw)

gw=unit weigth of water

RE: coefficient of consolidation Cv

(OP)
Thanks for the help everyone!!!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources