1

11. NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF THE 1-D CONSOLIDATION EQUATION

The 1-D equation of consolidation cannot be solved analytically except for some very simple
situations. For more difficult cases it is necessary to use approximate numerical techniques. One
numerical technique that can be used for consolidation problems is the finite difference approach.
In this method the solution is evaluated at a number of points at different times as indicated on
the figure below.

t=0 t=t1 t=t2

t
t
1
z
2

Fig. 1 Grid showing points at which solution calculated

Fig. 1 Finite difference grid

11.1 Finite Difference Formulae

The 1-D consolidation equation and the boundary conditions are approximated by finite
difference formulae. These can be derived by referring to the figure below and taking local axes at
B:

A u = uA z = - z

B u = uB z = 0
u
z

C u = uC z = + z

Fig. 2 Excess pore water pressure variation at time t

 2
Suppose that the excess pore pressure at any time t can be approximated by a parabola

u a1 a 2 z a 3z 2 (1a)

The constants in this equation can be related to the values of the excess pore pressures at points
A, B, C. Taking B as the origin for z gives:

uA a 1 a 2 z a 3 z 2

uB a1 (1b)
uC a 1 a 2 z a 3 z 2
so that
a1 uB
uC uA
a2 (1c)
2 z
u A u C 2u B
a3
2 z 2

thus evaluating the slope and curvature of u at the point B (z = 0) it is found:

u uC uA
z
B 2 z
(1d)
u2
u A u C 2u B
2
z B z 2

11.2 Finite Difference Approximation of Consolidation Equation

The equation of consolidation is:

2u u q
cv
z 2 t t
(2a)

where q is the change in total stress, due to applied loads, from the initial equilibrium situation
when the excess pore pressures were zero.

When this equation is evaluated at any point in the soil it is equivalent to evaluating the equation
at point B, and hence the finite difference formulae developed above can be introduced so the
equation becomes:

u q
c u A u C 2u B
t t v (2b)
B B z 2

if the above equation is now integrated from times t to t+t it is found that:
t t
cv
u B q B
z 2 [u A u C 2 u B ]dt (2c)
t

where u B u B (t t ) u B (t ) and q B q B (t t ) q B ( t )
 3

Error in approximation
F(t)

t t
F( t)dt F(t )t
t

t
t
t t
Fig. 3 Approximate integral evaluation
Fig 3 Approximation of integral

If the integral appearing in equation (2c) is now approximated as indicated in Fig. 3, it is found
that:

uB q B [ u A ( t ) u C ( t ) 2 u B ( t )] (2d)

cv t
where
z2

Or
u B ( t t ) q B u B ( t ) [ u A ( t ) u C ( t ) 2u B ( t )]
(2e)

Suppose the solution for u has been found up to time t. The applied load will be known at time t
+ t and so the quantity q is known. This means all the quantities on the right hand side of
equation (2e) are known and thus that u at time t + t can be calculated. Thus a knowledge of
the distribution of u at time t means that the distribution of u at time t + t can be inferred. Now
the initial distribution of u can always be determined and thus the solution can be found by
marching forward in time.

11.3 Stability

There is an important restriction on the use of equation (2e) to obtain a numerical solution of the
equation of consolidation, this is

cv t 1
2

z 2

If this condition is violated the calculation becomes unstable and is invalid.

 4
11.4 Boundary Conditions

The solution of the equation of consolidation depends on the boundary conditions.

11.4.1 Fully Permeable Boundary

At a free draining boundary there is no impediment to flow and so the pore pressure remains
constant and thus the excess pore water pressure is zero, this is illustrated in figure 4a.

Drainage Boundary u=0

Saturated soil

Fig. 4a Finite difference approximation of a drainage boundary

Fig. 4a Finite difference approximation of a drainage boundary

11.4.2 Impermeable Boundary

Saturated soil

A .
z
B .
.
z Impermeable barrier
C

Fig. 4b Finite difference approximation of an impermeable boundary

Fig. 4b Finite difference approximation of an impermeable boundary
At an impermeable boundary, such as that illustrated in figure 4b there can be no flow in a
direction perpendicular to the boundary. As outlined earlier this implies:
u
0 (3a)
z
the finite difference analogue of this equation is
uC uA
0 (3b)
2 z
and hence
uC uA (3c)
An impermeable boundary is modelled by equating the excess pore pressure at C to that at A. To
do this a dummy node has to be introduced at C into the finite difference grid. This dummy node
has no affect other than to give the correct excess pore pressure at the impermeable boundary.
Example - Numerical Solution when =1/2
 5

Suppose that a 4m layer of clay, shown in figure 5, which is free to drain at its upper boundary
and rests on an impermeable base, is subjected to a surface loading of 64 kPa.

q = 64 kPa

4 sub-layers
4m
cv = 2 m2/year
mv = 0.0003 m2/kN

Impermeable bedrock

Fig. 5 Clay layer subjected to a surcharge loading

Fig . 5 Clay layer subjected to a surcharge loading

If = 0.5 the finite difference equation takes a particularly simple form:

u A (t ) u C (t )
u B ( t t ) q (4)
2

In the case under consideration the surcharge is applied at t = 0 and remains constant thereafter
so that q = 0

The solution then proceeds as follow:

Step 1: Divide the deposit into layers - this fixes the value of z.

In this case the deposit is divided into 4 sub-layers (all with the same thickness) and thus
z = 1m

Step 2: select = 0.5 this fixes the value of t

For the case under consideration:

c v t 2 t 1
2

z 12 2
thus

t 0.25 years
 6
Step 3: Calculate the initial pore pressure

Because there cannot be an instantaneous volume change it follows that

u( t 0 ) q ( t 0) 64 kPa

Step 4: Introduce the dummy node to simulate the impermeable boundary

Step 5: March the solution forward using the finite difference equation and
introducing the boundary conditions

The solution is shown in the table below:

t(years) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

q(kPa) 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
z=0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0
z=1m 64 64 32 32 24 24 20
z=2m 64 64 64 48 48 40 40
z=3m 64 64 64 64 56 56 48
z=4m 64 64 64 64 64 56 56
dummy 64 64 64 64 56 56 48

Step 6: Calculate settlement

The settlement is calculated as follows

H
S v dz
0
H
m v (q u) dz (5)
0
H
m v q H m v u dz
0
In the above equation the integral of the excess pore pressure cannot be evaluated exactly
because the excess pore pressures are only calculated at the grid points. However, the integral
can be evaluated approximately using numerical techniques. The simplest approach, and that used
here, is to use the trapezoidal method:

Thus
H
1 1
u dz
2
( u 0 u 1 ) z ( u n 1 u n ) z
2
0

u u n (6)
z 0 u 2 u n 1
2
where

ui u i ( z, t )

Thus after 1.5 years

 7
H
S m v qH m v udz
0
0 56
0.0003 64 4 0.0003 ( 20 40 48) 1
2
0.036 m

36 mm

The settlement at other times can be similarly calculated from the excess pore pressures hence the
values can be determined as shown in the table below.

t(years) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

q(kPa) 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
z=0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0
z=1m 64 64 32 32 24 24 20
z=2m 64 64 64 48 48 40 40
z=3m 64 64 64 64 56 56 48
z=4m 64 64 64 64 64 56 56
dummy 64 64 64 64 56 56 48
Settlement (mm) 0 9.6 19.2 24 28.8 32.4 36

Example - Numerical Solution when 1/2

Suppose now the previous example is solved using a step size of 2 months but keeping the
number of layers the same. If this is the case =1/3. The numerical solution proceeds as above
but now using the more complex form of the finite difference equation, viz. equation (2e), the
solution is shown in the table below:

t(mths) 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
settlement(mm) 0.00 9.60 16.00 20.27 23.82 26.90 29.67 32.20 34.54 36.73
q(kPa) 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00
z=0 64.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
z=1m 64.00 64.00 42.67 35.56 30.81 27.65 25.28 23.44 21.92 20.61
z=2m 64.00 64.00 64.00 56.89 52.15 48.20 45.04 42.32 39.92 37.74
z=3m 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 61.63 59.26 56.63 53.99 51.39 48.86
z=4m 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 62.42 60.31 57.85 55.28 52.68
dummy 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00 61.63 59.26 56.63 53.99 51.39 48.86

For z = 3 m at 12 months the calculations are

u B ( t t ) q B u B ( t ) [ u A ( t ) u C ( t ) 2u B ( t )]
u B ( t t ) 0 + 59.26 + 0.3333 [48.20 + 62.42 - 2 59.26] = 56.63

The results for the two analyses are quite close. After 18 months the settlement predicted in
example 1 is 36 mm, which compares well with the settlement calculated in example 2, viz.
36.7mm.

Example - Variable loading

Suppose fill having unit weight 20 kN/m3 is placed at a rate of 0.5 m/month for 12 months after
which no more load is applied, the analysis only differs from that in the previous examples in that
 8
the value of q needs to be included in the finite difference equation. Choosing = 0.5 with 4
layers gives a time step of 0.25 years as before. The results are shown in the table below.

t(years) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5

settlement(mm) 0 4.5 13.5 24.75 38.25 48.938 56.813
q(kPa) 0 30 60 90 120 120 120
z=0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z=1m 0 30 45 60 71.25 52.5 46.875
z=2m 0 30 60 82.5 105 93.75 82.5
z=3m 0 30 60 90 116.25 112.5 105
z=4m 0 30 60 90 120 116.25 112.5
dummy 0 30 60 90 116.25 112.5 105

Note that when the load is applied gradually the excess pore pressure at the permeable upper
boundary remains at zero. This is because there is no instantaneous change in load.

If the calculation is repeated for the case in which there are 5 sub-layers, and a time step of 0.1
years is adopted, this gives = 0.3125 and the results are shown below:

t (years) 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
settlement(mm) 0.00 1.44 3.78 6.74 10.21 14.13 18.45 23.13 28.16 33.50 39.15
q(kPa) 0.00 12.00 24.00 36.00 48.00 60.00 72.00 84.00 96.00 108.00 120.00
z=0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
z=0.8m 0.00 12.00 20.25 27.09 33.04 38.38 43.27 47.80 52.04 56.05 59.85
z=1.6m 0.00 12.00 24.00 34.83 44.78 54.00 62.64 70.78 78.50 85.86 92.90
z=2.4m 0.00 12.00 24.00 36.00 47.63 58.86 69.66 80.07 90.11 99.81 109.18
z=3.2m 0.00 12.00 24.00 36.00 48.00 59.89 71.60 83.10 94.35 105.33 116.04
z=4.0m 0.00 12.00 24.00 36.00 48.00 60.00 71.93 83.72 95.33 106.72 117.85
dummy 0.00 12.00 24.00 36.00 48.00 59.89 71.60 83.10 94.35 105.33 116.04

t (years) 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

settlement(mm) 39.145 43.6 47.495 50.997 54.236 57.269
q(kPa) 120 120 120 120 120 120
z=0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z=0.8m 59.851 51.5 46.697 43.186 40.441 38.191
z=1.6m 92.904 87.7 82.158 77.59 73.681 70.29
z=2.4m 109.18 106 103 99.486 96.068 92.804
z=3.2m 116.04 114 112.6 110.44 108.01 105.41
z=4.0m 117.85 117 115.31 113.61 111.63 109.37
dummy 116.04 114 112.6 110.44 108.01 105.41

Again the settlements at 1.5 years are quite similar. Thus although greater refinement of the grid
leads to more accurate excess pore pressures and settlements there is, in practice, little advantage
of using 0.5.
 9
Example - Abrupt change of load

Suppose that in the case detailed in example 1 a further surcharge of 32 kPa is added after 12
months. The solution in this case is best handled in two stages.

Stage 1 follows exactly the path outlined in example 1 and is detailed in the table below. Just after
1 year the load is abruptly increased, and since there can be no instantaneous volume strain there
can be no increase in effective stress and no change in settlement. This means that the increase or
decrease in applied stress must be matched by a corresponding increase or decrease in pore water
pressure. This enables the excess pore water pressure to be calculated.

t 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

settlement(mm) 0 9.6 19.2 24 28.8
q(kPa) 64 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00
z=0 64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
z=1m 64 64.00 32.00 32.00 24.00
z=2m 64 64.00 64.00 48.00 48.00
z=3m 64 64.00 64.00 64.00 56.00
z=4m 64 64.00 64.00 64.00 64.00
dummy 64 64.00 64.00 64.00 56.00

Stage 2 of the calculation then proceeds in the same way as in stage 1 or in example 1. This is
shown in the table given below:

t 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5

settlement(mm) 28.8 37.2 45.6 51 56.4 60.75 65.1
q(kPa) 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
z=0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0
z=1m 56 56 36 36 29 29 24.5
z=2m 80 72 72 58 58 49 49
z=3m 88 88 80 80 69 69 59
z=4m 96 88 88 80 80 69 69
dummy 88 88 80 80 69 69 59