See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339500037

In-Situ Consolidation Analysis By Asaoka And Hyperbola Methods

Article in International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research · February 2020

CITATIONS READS
3 1,786

5 authors, including:

Suresh Kommu Madhusudhan Reddy Mittamidi

VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering & Technology Institute of Aeronautical Engineering
39 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Madhusudhan Reddy Mittamidi on 26 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

In-Situ Consolidation Analysis By Asaoka And

Hyperbola Methods
Venkateswararao Lakkoju, Suresh Kommu, M. Madhusudhan Reddy, Bodanapu sony, SS.Asadi

Abstract: This research aims to consolidation settlement evolution of eight-story building by applying surcharge preloading, constructed for commercial
purposes at Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania where preloading was used to escalate the settlement. The consolidation process was
carried out by installing two settlement sensors and six settlement plates in the site area. In-situ values are recorded at all the devices throughout the
surcharge filled area with an interval of one month for a year. In this study, Asaoka and Hyperbola methods were compared for monitoring the evolution
of consolidation to conclude their similarities and differences, and their precision of predictions compared to actual observations. It has been observed
that settlement data beyond a 60% consolidation stage are needed to make a precise prediction of final settlements. It was observed that both methods
are good enough to predict final settlement and consolidation coefficients.

Index terms: Asaoka method, Consolidation, Hyperbola method, Settlement, and Surcharge.
————————————————————

1. INTRODUCTION 2. Objective
To construct a shallow foundation in fine-grained soils, it is  The ultimate goal of the current study is only, to
needed to calculate settlement of Consolidation, is usually a compare the in-situ Consolidation Analysis by Asaoka
controlling design issue when constructing a shallow and Hyperbola methods.
foundation at a site, it consists of saturated and smooth soils.
The settlement due to the loads from the foundation and 3. Methodology
supporting structure includes a small amount of elastic
compression and secondary settlement along with a larger 3.1. Geotechnical data
amount of primary settlement, where the pore water is The subsurface circumstances at the site have been explored
"squeezed out" from the soil. Generally, although consolidation through numerous test borings, cone penetration investigation,
parameters are obtained from in-situ and laboratory tests. The and comprehensive laboratory testing [19]. An in-situ
settlement and consolidation time is complicated to precisely instrumentation program was conducted to closely monitoring
predict [1-8]. Owing to such imprecision, it is typical practice to the settlements and excess pore pressures during preloading
be correct the settlement vales at the design stage based on and unloading. The subsurface soil profile (from top to bottom)
obtained and observed values from the site Several methods comprises of (1) existing fill consists sixty sand(loose to
that are broadly used in exercise are known to offer medium-dense) with a thickness of 1 meter,(2) recent
reasonable estimations of final settlement and coefficient of Delaware River deposit (very loose to loose silty sand) and
consolidation, such as Asaoka method (1978), Hyperbolic sandy silt with fly ash with a thickness of 2.5 meter, (3)
method (Tan et al. 1991; Tan 1995), and other methods like Delaware River siltvery soft to soft organic) with a thickness
Tan et al. (1996) compared the Asaoka and Hyperbola varies from 2.3 to 3.8 meter across the building pad and (4)
methods for monitoring the evolution of consolidation to sandy gravel and gravelly sand (medium-dense to dense)
conclude their similarities and differences, and their precision extended about 27 m below the base of the silt to the top of
of predictions compared to actual observations [9-14]. It has mica schist bedrock. A well-compacted surcharge fill material
been observed that both methods gave good agreement with was placed on these four subsurface soils for the preloading
predictions. Chung et al. (2009) predicted the performance of program. Evidently, any significant load from the structure
wick drains by hyperbola method which is developed based on would result in the organic silt layer an excessive consolidation
Barron’s solution and validated by using three documented settlement. However, to eradicate this settlement ahead of the
case studies and found that this method is suitable within the construction, a preloading plan was accomplished [20]. As
degrees of consolidation of 60–90% [15-18] such, an earth embankment was placed on the building pad
area to act as a surcharge over the underlying organic silt. For
this reason, addressing the shallow foundations became
_______________________________
practicable to support the hotel building.

 Venkateswararao Lakkoju, Suresh Kommu, M. Madhusudhan Reddy,

Bodanapu sony, SS.Asadi
 PG student and 2Assistant Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and
Technology, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
 Research scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru
Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Green Fields, Vaddeswaram,
Andhra Pradesh, India.
 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Vignan’s Foundation for
Science, Technology and Research, deemed to be University,
Andhra Pradesh, India.
 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Guru Nanak
Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. Fig. 1. Cumulative settlement throughout the surcharge
 Corresponding Author E-mail: [email protected] program (With permission from ASCE).

6296
IJSTR©2020
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

Generally, Terzaghi’s 1-D consolidation theory (Terzaghi, hyperbola method, which is based on Terzaghi’s U-Tv
1925) has been extensively used to calculate Settlements. relationship equation, is a rectangular hyperbola over an
Although this theory is inefficient due to the improbability of the adequate wide range of Tv and the coefficient of consolidation
coefficient (Asaoka, 1978). Based on observational data, can be calculated by using the eq. (3).
several methods have also been proposed to predict the final
Settlements. For example, Asaoka proposed a new method in 𝐂 =
. 𝐦
eq. (3)
1978 and the hyperbolic method proposed by Tan et al., in
1991 and in the year 2000, Xu and Xu proposed a new Where c, is the intercept and m is the slope of the initial liner
method and named it as parabola method and field tests by line respectively in the t/s v/s t plot as shown in Figs.
Bergado et al., in 1991. However, due to their simplicity, the 3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and 17.
Asaoka method and hyperbolic method are extensively used
(Anderson et al., 1994; Tan, 1994, 1995, 1996).In this study, a 4. Results and discussions
measured settlement with respect to time data as shown in The parameters which are used to predict the final settlement
Fig. 1, has been used for calculating the final settlements and and consolidation coefficient, like thickness of compressible
coefficient of consolidation (by using Asaoka and Hyperbola layer(H), time interval (Δt), slope of the linear line (β) for
methods) across the site with respect to the locations of eight Asaoka method and slope of linear line (m), intercept (c) for
settlement devices. hyperbola method are tabulated in tabulated table1. It has
been observed that the total amount of measured settlement
3.2. Asaoka method was ranges from361 to 588mm as shown in Fig. 1. This
In 1978, a new method was introduced by Asaoka for indicates the settlement rate is varying across the site are due
prediction of final settlement, which is based on ―observational to thickness variation of the compressible layer (organic silt)
procedure‖. The final settlement can be obtained by plotting Si ranges from 2.3 to 3.8m. The predicted consolidation
values on the y-axis and Si-1 values on the x-axis. Where Si is parameters by Asaoka and hyperbola methods for all the
the settlements at the time I and Si-1 are the settlements at settlement devices are tabulated in table2. The final settlement
time i-1. In this method, the intersection of the relationship line by the Asaoka method ranges from 375 to 615mm whereas
between Si and Si-1 with 450line in the Si versus Si-1 plot the final settlement by Hyperbola method ranges from 373mm
represents the final settlement as shown in Figs. to 613mm. The average predicted ultimate settlement ranges
2,4,6,8,10,12,14 and 16. The consolidation coefficient can be from 374mm to 614mm as shown in Fig.19. It was found that
calculated using eq. (1). the coefficient of consolidation from the Asaoka method
ranges from 2.33 m2/yr to 6.82 m2/yrwhereas, from the
𝐂 =- 𝐥𝐧 𝛃 𝐞𝐪. (1)
Hyperbola method, it ranges from 1.74 m2/ yr to 5.29 m2/ yr.
The average coefficient of consolidation is ranging from 2.03
3.3. Hyperbola method m2/yr to 6.05 m2/yr as shown in Fig 20. Finally, the authors
Tan et al. (1991)introduced a hyperbolic relationship between conclude that the measured field settlements and the
recorded settlement (s) and consolidation time (t), which predicted final settlements by both Asaoka and Hyperbola
includes two linear segments. Hence, the final settlement was methods slightly differ and are seemed to follow similar
defined as eq. (2). settlements rates as shown in Fig.18. It has been observed
that the final settlement by the Asaoka method predicts the
S= (or) = + 1.013 times the Hyperbola method. The agreements between
. measured and predicted final settlements are well within an
𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐬 = 𝐥𝐢𝐦 = Sf = (or) = eq. (2) error of 2.5%. Certainly, it is quite complicated to sufficiently
fund a linear line and time interval in the Asaoka plot, which
In 1987 Sridharan et al., recommended the rectangular should depend on individual results.

Fig. 2. Si versus Si-1 plot for settlement sensor-1 (ss1) Fig. 3. t/s versus t plot for settlement sensor-1(ss1)

6297
IJSTR©2020
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

Fig. 4. Si versus Si-1 plot for settlement sensor-2 (ss2) Fig. 5. t/s versus t plot for settlementsensor-2 (ss2)

Fig. 6. Si versus Si-1 plot for settlement plate-1(spl1) Fig.7. t/s versus t plot for settlement plate-1(spl1)

Fig. 8. Si versus Si-1 plot for settlement plate-2(spl2) Fig. 9. t/s versus t plot for settlement plate-2(spl2)

6298
IJSTR©2020
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

Fig. 10. Si versus Si-1 plot for settlement plate-3(spl3) Fig. 11. t/s versus t plot for settlement plate-3(spl3)

Fig. 12. Si versus Si-1 plot for settlement plate-4(spl4) Fig. 13. t/s versus t plot for settlement plate-4(spl4)

Fig. 14. Si versus Si-1 plot for settlement plate-5(spl5) Fig. 15. t/s versus t plot for settlement plate-5(spl5)

6299
IJSTR©2020
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

Fig. 16. Si versus Si-1 plot for settlement plate-6(spl6) Fig. 17. t/s versus t plot for settlement plate-6(spl6)

Notation consolidation stage of settlement data is required to precisely

H = thickness of the compressible soil layer. predict the final settlements and consolidation coefficients. The
Δt = time interval. consolidation coefficient results from the Asaoka method are
Β = slope of a straight line on the curve in the Si versus slightly larger compared to the results from the Hyperbola
Si-1 plot. method. It was found that the hyperbola method
M = slope of the initial linear line in the t/s versus t plot. underestimating the consolidation coefficients by 1.26 times
C = interception the t/s versus t plot. the Asaoka method. Although both Ashoka and Hyperbola,
Cv = coefficient of consolidation methods gave very good predictions of final settlement and
Sf = final settlement consolidation coefficients. It can be concluded that both
methods can be applied effectively for estimating consolidation
It has been observed that for both methods, more than 60% settlement.

Table 1. Description of H, ∆t, β, m and c values for methods of Asaoka and Hyperbola.

Settlement H ASAOKA METHOD HYPERBOLA METHOD

device (m) ∆t (days) β m c
ss1 2.6 20 0.744 0.0015 0.0693
ss2 3.4 20 0.7445 0.0023 0.124
spl1 3.8 20 0.7746 0.0014 0.0837
spl2 2.4 20 0.7592 0.00174 0.0934
spl3 2.3 20 0.7882 0.0021 0.1401
spl4 2.9 20 0.732 0.00154 0.0701
spl5 2.9 20 0.7958 0.0019 0.1075
spl6 3.4 20 0.7367 0.0019 0.1036

Table 2. Final settlement (Sf) and coefficient of consolidation (Cv) for Asaoka and Hyperbola method

ASAOKA METHOD HYPERBOLA METHOD

Settlement
device Sf Sf
Cv (m2/yr) Cv (m2/yr)
(mm) (mm)
ss1 580 3.70 573 3.20
ss2 375 6.31 373 4.70
spl1 615 6.82 613 5.29
spl2 500 2.93 494 2.35
spl3 420 2.33 409 1.74
spl4 565 4.85 558 4.05
spl5 460 3.55 452 3.26
spl6 460 6.53 452 4.64

6300
IJSTR©2020
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

Fig. 18. Comparison of final settlements (Sf) of Measured, Asaoka’s and Hyperbola methods

Fig. 19. The Average final settlements from Asaokas and Hyperbola methods

Fig. 20. Comparison of Coefficient consolidation (Cv) from Asaokas and Hyperbola methods.

6301
IJSTR©2020
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 9, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2020 ISSN 2277-8616

References [17]. Reddy, T. Siva Sankar, Bodanapu Sony, M.

[1]. Asaoka, A. (1978). ―Observational procedure of Madhusudhan Reddy, U. Praveen Goud, and Shaik
settlement prediction.‖ Soil Found. 18 (4), P. 87–101. Ahamed Mynuddin. "Estimation of Conventional Pcc
[2]. Magnan, J. P., Pilot, G., and Queyroi, D. (1983). Strength And Durability with Partial Replacement of
―Back analysis of soil consolidation around vertical Cement using Aluminium Powder and Rice Husk
drains.‖ Proc., 8th ECSMFE, Vol. 2, Balkema, Ash."
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, P. 653–658 [18]. Sony, Bodanapu, Ankit Chakravarti, and M.
[3]. Sridharan, A., Murthy, N. S., and Prakash, K. (1987). Madhusudhan Reddy. "Traffic Congestion Detection
―Rectangular hyperbola method of consolidation using Whale Optimization Algorithm and Multi-
analysis.‖ Geotechnique, 37(3), P. 355–368. Support Vector Machine." In International Conference
[4]. Bergado DT, Daria PM, Sampaco CL, Alfaro MC on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE-2019), vol.
(1991). Prediction of embankment settlement by in- 21, p. 23. 2019.
situ tests. Geotechnical Testing Journal; 14(4): P. [19]. Reddy, M.M. and Reddy, K.R., 2019, March. A
425–39. Critical Evaluation on Geotechnical Characterization
[5]. Tan, T. S., Inoue, T., and Lee, S. L. (1991). of Medical and Health Infrastructure Building Site at
―Hyperbolic method for consolidation analysis.‖ J. Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Geotech. Engrg., 117(11), 1723–1737. In International Conference on Advances in Civil
[6]. Tan SA. (1994),―Hyperbolic method for settlements in Engineering (ICACE-2019) (Vol. 21, p. 23).
clays with vertical drains‖. Canadian Geotechnical [20]. Sony, B., Chakravarti, A. and Reddy, M.M., 2019,
Journal; 31(1): P. 125–31. March. Traffic Congestion Detection using Whale
[7]. Anderson LR, Sampaco CL, Gilani SH, Keane E, Optimization Algorithm and Multi-Support Vector
Rausher L. (1994), Settlements of highway Machine. In International Conference on Advances in
embankments on soft lacustrine deposits. In: Albert Civil Engineering (ICACE-2019) (Vol. 21, p. 23).
TY, Felio GY, editors. Vertical and Horizontal
Deformations of Foundations and Embankments.
ASCE Geotech-nical Publication No. 40; P. 376–95.
[8]. Tan SA. (1995), ―Validation of hyperbolic method for
settlement in clays with vertical drains‖. Soils and
Foundations 1995; 35(1): P. 101–13.
[9]. Tan, S. A., and Chew, S. H. (1996). ―Comparison of
the Hyperbolic and Asaoka observational method of
monitoring consolidation with vertical drains.‖ Soils
Found. 36(3), P. 31–42.
[10]. Xu Y, Xu Z. A (2000), ―New method to predict the
settlement of embankment‖. Journal of Hohai
University; 28(5): P. 111–3 (in Chinese).
[11]. Indraratna, B., and Bamunawita, C. I. (2002). ―Soft
clay stabilization by mandrel driven geosynthetic
vertical drains.‖ Proc., ISSMGE-TC36 Workshop,
Mexico City, P. 57–86.
[12]. Earth Systems Pacific (2009). Geotechnical
Engineering Report and Addendums 1 through 3 -
Prefumo Creek Commons, San Luis Obispo,
California.
[13]. S.G. Chung and N.K. Lee. (2009). ―Hyperbolic
Method for Prediction of Prefabricated Vertical Drains
Performance.‖ Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering © ASCE.
[14]. Manal Salem, Rami El-Sherbiny(2013), ―Comparison
of measured and calculated consolidation
settlements of thick under consolidated clay‖,
―Alexandria Engineering Journal‖.
[15]. Bashar S. Qubain, Jianchao Li and Kristen E.
Chang(2014), "Cam Clay–Coupled Consolidation
Analysis of Field Instrumented Preloading Program",
Journal of Geotechnical and Geo environmental
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/04013048(8)/$25.00.
[16]. Robb Eric S. Moss, Judd King, Gregg L. Fiegel
(2016), Teaching Consolidation: Case Study of
Preloading with Vertical Drains, ―International Journal
of Geo engineering Case Histories‖ ©, Vol. 3, Issue
4, P. 222.
6302
IJSTR©2020
View publication stats
www.ijstr.org