Variation of (pore pressure) due to consolidation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the variation of pore pressure due to consolidation in soils, specifically questioning the shape of the pore pressure curve over depth and the underlying reasons for it. Participants explore the relationship between applied forces and pore pressure in the context of soil mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the variation of pore pressure should be a linear decrease with depth due to the maximum force being applied at the top, suggesting that the influence of force decreases with depth.
  • Others argue that both solid and fluid loads increase with depth, which contradicts the initial claim of a linear decrease. They reference classic models from Terzaghi and Peck to support their view of a parabolic curve in non-equilibrium conditions.
  • Questions are raised about the source of the applied force and the conditions under which the pore pressure is measured, indicating a need for clarification on the context of the discussion.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their understanding of the material and seeks further context regarding whether the discussion pertains to soils or sediments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are competing views regarding the shape of the pore pressure curve and the factors influencing it. The discussion remains unresolved with ongoing questions and clarifications needed.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding assumptions about the applied forces and the definitions of terms used, which may affect the interpretation of the pore pressure variation.

tzx9633

Homework Statement


In the last picture , we can see that at time between 0 and infinity , the variation of pore pressure across depth is parabolic curve , why is it so ?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I think it's incorrect . I think it should be linearly decrease with depth . This is because the top part will receive max force from the applied force . The influnece of force decrease with the depth
 

Attachments

  • 738.PNG
    738.PNG
    35.4 KB · Views: 558
  • 740.png
    740.png
    36.5 KB · Views: 507
  • 741.png
    741.png
    32.9 KB · Views: 533
  • 742.png
    742.png
    33.6 KB · Views: 581
  • 743.png
    743.png
    16.3 KB · Views: 531
Physics news on Phys.org
tzx9633 said:

The Attempt at a Solution


I think it's incorrect . I think it should be linearly decrease with depth . This is because the top part will receive max force from the applied force . The influnece of force decrease with the depth
I'm not completely clear what you are saying here. What are you conceiving as the source of the applied force? You have two components: loading from the solid portion of the soil, sediment or rock and loading from the fluid content of the pore space. In an equilibrium situation the solid load is supported by the soil/rock and the fluid load by the pore space content. Both of these are proportional to depth and increase with depth, not decrease, as you appear to suggest.

One of your diagrams looks like the classic model from Terzaghi and Peck's classic paper published 50+ years ago, which describes a non-equilibrium condition and relates to the parabolic curve you have been asked to account for.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara
Ophiolite said:
I'm not completely clear what you are saying here. What are you conceiving as the source of the applied force? You have two components: loading from the solid portion of the soil, sediment or rock and loading from the fluid content of the pore space. In an equilibrium situation the solid load is supported by the soil/rock and the fluid load by the pore space content. Both of these are proportional to depth and increase with depth, not decrease, as you appear to suggest.

One of your diagrams looks like the classic model from Terzaghi and Peck's classic paper published 50+ years ago, which describes a non-equilibrium condition and relates to the parabolic curve you have been asked to account for.
if it's increasign down the depth , why the graph of pore pressure has parabolic shape ? Sholdnt it has a straight line graph ?
 
Ophiolite said:
I'm not completely clear what you are saying here. What are you conceiving as the source of the applied force? You have two components: loading from the solid portion of the soil, sediment or rock and loading from the fluid content of the pore space. In an equilibrium situation the solid load is supported by the soil/rock and the fluid load by the pore space content. Both of these are proportional to depth and increase with depth, not decrease, as you appear to suggest.

One of your diagrams looks like the classic model from Terzaghi and Peck's classic paper published 50+ years ago, which describes a non-equilibrium condition and relates to the parabolic curve you have been asked to account for.
Is there anything wrong with the notes ? If so , then , why the graph has parabolic shape ?
 
I need to take a thorough look at all the material. I'll aim to get back to you within 24hours. It would be helpful to know what context this is in. Are you considering soils (which I know little about) or sediments (where I have a pretty solid grounding)?
 
Ophiolite said:
I need to take a thorough look at all the material. I'll aim to get back to you within 24hours. It would be helpful to know what context this is in. Are you considering soils (which I know little about) or sediments (where I have a pretty solid grounding)?
Hi , it the soil . Do you have any updates now ?
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K