The preconsolidation pressure, σ′y, is commonly interpreted by means of empirical observations (or graphical constructions) with respect to e–logσ′ stress patterns (e = void ratio, and σ′ = effective stress) exhibited in the conventional oedometer test. As with any empirical/graphical procedure, the resulting estimations are associated with subjective variability and thus yield inconsistent results among individuals. Recently, the mathematical translational technique was implemented by the authors, thereby promoting a subjective-free computational framework, denoted as the 3PRH framework, for interpretation of σ′y with respect to four common graphical constructions (i.e., three semi-log and one bi-log construction), covering a variety of geometrical complexity. In this article, the 3PRH framework was first revisited in a more practical sense. The framework was then implemented to a compiled database of 34 consolidation tests to arrive at reliable correlations/comparisons between the four graphical constructions. Finally, the settlement dependency on σ′y (or type of graphical construction) was statistically examined to recommend measures for reliable settlement analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soltani et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: