Comparison of Geotechnical Engineering Consolidation and Physical Science Filtration Testing Techniques for Soils and Suspensions
ASTM International

Books & Journals/Geotechnical Testing Journal/Citation Page/

Volume 28, Issue 6 (November 2005)

ISSN: 0149-6115
Published Online: 31 August 2005
Page Count: 9

Click here to download this paper now

View License Agreement

Comparison of Geotechnical Engineering Consolidation and Physical Science Filtration Testing Techniques for Soils and Suspensions
Stickland, AD
Particulate Fluids Processing Special Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Scales, PJ
Particulate Fluids Processing Special Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Styles, JR
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

(Received 31 January 2003; accepted 5 April 2005)

Abstract
Traditionally, there have been two approaches to the modelling and prediction of the extent and rate of dewatering of particulate networks: consolidation theory and filtration theory, developed by geotechnical engineers and physical scientists, respectively. The physical situations and governing equations for Terzaghi's consolidation model (Terzaghi and Peck 1967) and Landman and White's filtration model (Landman and White 1997) are essentially the same. However, their methods of determining the relative dewatering parameters differ. The consolidation method matches experimental data from oedometer testing to the theoretical predictions of the model in order to determine the coefficient of consolidation, cv. The filtration method determines a solids diffusivity coefficient, D, based upon the experimental data from a filtration rig, which is then used in modelling to make predictions.


This work aims to highlight the similarities between the two approaches, initially by demonstrating the theoretical relationship between the two parameters, cv and D, and then through experimental determination. The material characteristics of a kaolin sample undergoing one-dimensional (zero lateral strain) compression are determined using both oedometer and filtration testing and equated using the developed theoretical relationship. The results indicate that the two testing methods are essentially the same, and that their relevant analysis techniques give similar outcomes. Consequently, geotechnical engineers can use filtration methods and physical scientists can use consolidation methods.

Keywords:
coefficient of consolidation, compressibility, consolidation testing, dewatering, filtration, oedometer, permeability, soils, solids diffusivity, suspension

Paper ID: GTJ11887
DOI: 10.1520/GTJ11887

ASTM International is a member of CrossRef.
Author Stickland, AD Affiliation Particulate Fluids Processing Special Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Author Scales, PJ Affiliation Particulate Fluids Processing Special Research Centre, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Author Styles, JR Affiliation Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Author Stickland AD, Scales PJ, Styles JR Title Comparison of Geotechnical Engineering Consolidation and Physical Science Filtration Testing Techniques for Soils and Suspensions Symposium , Committee on

 
Copyright © 1996-2007 ASTM. All Rights Reserved.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 USA