LIPKIN,J., BENNETT,R. H. & MCTIGUE,D. F. (1986).

Giorechnique

36, No. 1.11-25

Consolidation under an isotropic total stress

increase : part II, experimental results
for marine clay
J. LIPKIN,*

R. H. BENNETT?

Deformation and internal pressure changes have been

measured in a large sample (of the order of 1 m3) of
remoulded, reconsolidated
marine sediment subjected to
a series of step-like, 6.9 MPa changes in hydrostatic
pressure. Undrained
surface displacements
of 0.24.4
mm were observed in response to each increment
in
external pressure. The surface then slowly rebounded
with a characteristic
time of about lo6 s. The excess
pore pressure induced by each step in pressure at the
boundary was of the order of from - 1 kPa to -2 kPa
(suction) and likewise relaxed as external fluid diffused
into the sample. Predictions
based on a poroelastic
material response model agree qualitatively
with these
observations
when values of material properties are estimated from independent measurements.
The experimental data can also be used to determine parameter values.
Such a procedure yields very good fits to the data and
indicates permeability,
drained bulk modulus and solid
bulk moduli of the order of lo-l6 m*, 10 MPa and 10
GPa respectively,
in reasonable
agreement
with independent measurements.

and D. F. McTIGUE$
Ceci saccorde
dantes.

assez

bien

avec

les mesures

KEYWORDS:
clays; compressibility;
elasticity; pore pressures; soil properties.

indbpen-

consolidation;

INTRODUCTION

An in situ heat transfer experiment (ISHTE) has

been under development
for several years as part
of the US Subseabed
Disposal Program (SDP)
(Hollister,
Anderson
& Heath,
1981). It is
intended that this experiment will be fielded over
a one-year period at a water depth of approximately 6000 m in the central North Pacific
Ocean. The experiment will involve the emplacement of a heat source and associated instrumentation in the sea floor to a depth of 1 m. The
instrumentation
will be capable of making in situ
measurements
of the sediment thermal, mechanical and chemical responses to this heat source.
The data acquired will be used to assess the validity of some of the numerical modelling techniques
being used in the SDP feasibility study (Percival,
1983).
A large-scale simulation experiment
has been
completed as a prelude to the fielding of ISHTE.
The details and purposes
of this simulation
experiment
have been described
by Percival
(1982); however, it is only necessary here to note
that the experiment made use of a temperaturecontrolled pressure vessel to cool and pressurize a
large volume (approximately
1 m3) of remoulded,
reconsolidated
marine sediment. Simulated deep
ocean conditions of 55.2 MPa hydrostatic
pressure and 4C were achieved in this way before
carrying out the experiment.
These conditions
were then maintained for 30 days while a heater
experiment was conducted in the sediment, after
which the sediment was returned to atmospheric
pressure.
In this Paper data obtained during the isothermal phases of the simulation
experiment
(i.e.
during pressurization
and depressurization)
are
presented and compared with the predictions
of
the poroelastic material response model presented
by McTigue, Lipkin & Bennett (1986). The particular data considered are time-resolved
measurements of

Des changements
de dbformation
et de pression interne
ont et& measures dans un grand &chantillon (de Iordre
de 1 m3) de sidiment
marin remani& et reconsolidt
soumis g une s&ie de modification
de pression hydraulique par paliers de 6,9 MPa. Des d&placements nondrain&s superficiels compris entre 0,2 et 0,4 mm ont 8t&
observks en rCponse B chaque augmentation
de pression
externe. Puis la surface sest lentement
restauree
au
tours dun temps caractkristique
denviron
lo6 s. Les
surpressions
induites & la limite lors de chaque palier de
pression
etaient de Iordre de - 1 kPa a -2 kPa
(suction) et se relichaient
de faGon analogue au fur et B
mesure
que du fluide externe
se diffusait
dans
l&chantillon. Des prkvisions bashes sur un modtle de
rkponse dune mat&e
porotlastique
saccordent
de
faGon qualitative
lorsque les valeurs des propriCt&s des
matitres
sont estimCes B partir de mesures indkpendantes. Les donnies exp6rimentales
peuvent semployer
aussi pour dkterminer les valeurs des paramttres.
Une
telle procbdure
donne des rttsultats tris compatibles
avec les don&es et indique une perm&abilit&, un module
de masse drain&e et des modules de masse solide de
lordre de lo-l6 m*, 10 MPa et 10 GPa respectivement.

Discussion
on this Paper closes on 1 July 1986. For
further details see inside back cover.
* Sandia National Laboratories,
Livermore.
t Naval Ocean Research and Development
Activity.
$ Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque.
11

LIPKIN, BENNETT AND McTIGUE

12

(a) the displacement

of the sediment-water
interface
(b) the sediment pore pressure at two interior
points in the sample volume.
A great deal of important
information
can be
extracted
from these data. Indeed, it will be
shown that the simulation experiment provided a
unique opportunity
to examine marine sediment
physical properties
under simulated deep ocean
conditions.
By fitting the predictions
of the analytical
model to the experimental data for undrained displacement jumps, asymptotic (late time) displacements, pore pressure jumps and relaxation rates,
values of four sediment material constants can be
estimated. Use of this procedure, however, also
requires independent
knowledge
of four additional material constants (McTigue et al., 1986).
By way of review (from part I), the following eight
parameters
are regarded as fundamental
in the
material model
initial porosity
fluid bulk modulus
elastic shear modulus
first solid bulk modulus
second solid bulk modulus
drained bulk modulus
permeability
fluid viscosity
&, p, K, and G are assumed to be known.
However, values for the solid bulk moduli K,
and K, are difficult to obtain directly, and only a
few have been reported in the literature. Therefore K, and K, are regarded as material constants whose values are to be determined
from
the displacement
and pore pressure data. In addition, the permeability
k and drained
bulk
modulus K are found.
It should be noted that sediment permeability
is perhaps the single most important mechanical
parameter
that arises in the radionuclide
transport and porewater convection analyses that are
being done for generic sub-sea bed waste repositories (Seabed Programs Division 6334, 1983). An
independent
determination
of permeability
made
from in situ measurements
at high pressure and
low temperature
is thus a valuable result that can
provide increased confidence
in existing laboratory data. In addition, the data and analysis presented here provide a unique opportunity
to
explore effects of fluid and solid compressibility
on the deformation
of a saturated marine sediment. These effects are commonly
neglected in
classical soil mechanics.
However,
it will be
shown that obtaining
an understanding
of the
sediment
response
observed
in the simulation

experiment demands careful treatment of the relative compressibilities

of the fluid and solid sediment constituents.
Sediment
characteristics
and sample
preparation are reviewed in the following section. The
instrumentation
used to obtain surface displacement and pore pressure data is described in the
next section, and the data are presented and compared with analytical predictions
in the fourth
section. Discussion and conclusions derived from
this study are given in the final section.
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
SAMPLE PREPARATION

AND

The sediment used in the ISHTE simulation

experiment
was dredged from the floor of the
North Pacific Ocean about 1500 km north-west
of Hawaii. The water depth in the area is about
5800 m. The sediment is approximately
65% clay
and approximately
35% silt, with the clay fraction dominated
by illite. The in situ porosity is
about 0.75.
Sample preparation
was carried out by the
University
of Rhode
Island
Marine
Geomechanics
Laboratory
(Silva, Jordan
& Criscenzo, 1984). The sediment was first sieved to
remove manganese nodules. It was then reconstituted to a thick slurry by adding sea water and
mixing. A reinforced steel tank was specially fabricated to contain the sediment sample during its
consolidation
as well as during the simulation
experiment. This tank was 1 m in diameter with a
fixed height of 1 m plus a detachable sleeve that
increased the height to 1.5 m to accommodate
the
additional
sediment volume needed before consolidation.
A highly permeable
drainage fabric
and an adjacent layer of filter material were used
to line the tank before it was filled with the sediment slurry. In the filling process, the sediment
slurry was poured into the tank in layers approximately 0.2 m thick. After each layer had been
added, the tank was sealed and a 30 kPa vacuum
was applied for 1200 s to remove any air that
may have been trapped in the slurry during the
mixing process. This procedure was carried out
continuously
for 43.2 x lo3 s (12 h). After the full
height of 1.5 m had been reached, the top of the
tank was covered by filter material and drainage
fabric.
Reconsolidation
was directed
towards
returning the sediment to its in situ porosity. This
was accomplished
by loading the sample with
steel plates placed on the top surface. The load
was increased in three increments over 60.5 x lo4
s (7 days) to a maximum stress of 12.9 kPa. After
an additional
51.8 x lo4 s (6 days), the entire
tank was placed in a cold box at 5C and consolidation was allowed to proceed for 6.22 Ms (72

CONSOLIDATION

UNDER

days). At this time, the load was removed, the

sediment surface rebounded
and, after an additional 259 x lo4 s (3 days), the final state was
reached. The sample was then trimmed to the
fixed height of the tank (1 m).
The trimmed material was sampled radially for
water content. These measurements
indicate the
degree of uniformity
in the sediment
sample
before the simulation experiment. As anticipated,
the water content was lower near the drained
boundaries
of the tank, but the variation was
small. The porosity at the centre was 0.76, and
that at the boundary was 0.73, a change of about
4%. Post-test water content analyses show variations of the same order (Silva er al., 1984).
INSTRUMENTATION

General
All the instrumentation
used in the ISHTE
simulation
experiment
was attached
to a steel
frame developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University
of Washington,
Seattle,
Washington
(Miller, Miller & Olson, 1984). This
frame was in turn mounted on the sediment tank
so that the instruments
could be positioned relative to the rigid structure.
In addition
to the
instrumentation
discussed
in this Paper,
the
experiment included the use of a resistance heater,
thermal
sensors
(both
thermocouples
and
thermistors),
a thermal conductivity
probe and a
porewater
sampler. Miller er al. (1984) present
details related to the development
and calibration
of the thermal instrumentation.
Sediment surface displacement
Figure 1 is a schematic drawing of the device
used to obtain a time-resolved
measurement
of
the displacement
of the top surface of the sediment. The sensing element in this device was a

STRESS

INCREASE

linear variable differential

transducer
(LVDT)
made by Shaevitz Engineering, Pennsauken, New
Jersey, which was modified so that its electrical output would be insensitive to hydrostatic
pressure.
Space limitations on the instrumentation
frame
required remote positioning of the LVDT. A lever
arm-sediment
follower arrangement
was therefore developed
so that displacements
could be
measured near the centre of the sediment tank.
Such positioning
of the follower was important
for obtaining data during the thermal part of the
experiment.
However, the resulting closeness of
the follower to the heater implant arm suggests a
possible source of error in the isothermal
displacement
data. A discussion of such measurement errors is deferred to the final section.
An additional
consideration
associated
with
the use of an LVDT in a simulated deep ocean
environment
is the need to isolate it from the
potentially detrimental
effects of extended exposure to sea water. In the present application, this
isolation
was accomplished
by mounting
the
LVDT in a plastic tube with a very flexible latex
bladder on one end to permit access of the lever
arm. The tube and bladder
were filled with
mineral oil, and the required electrical connections were made through oil-filled lines to the
pressure
vessel feed throughs.
Excitation
and
signal voltages were transmitted
through these
lines, and the signal voltages were recorded at
preprogrammed
intervals on an Esterline Angus
(Indianapolis,
Indiana) data logger. The same
data logging system was used to record pore
pressure data during the experiment. The recording interval was varied depending
on the frequency of the changes expected to occur in a
particular
phase of the one-month
experiment.
An interval
of 9 x 10 s was used for the

LVDT electrical leads

(in oil-fllled tube)
/

s!/

13

LVDT housing

LVDT body (flxed)

Heater Implant tube

LVDT core rod (movable)

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the sediment surface displacement measuring system

LIPKIN, BENNETT AND McTlGUE

14

Differential
pressure

Tubing to pressure
Porous transducer (porewater)
Cone angle = 5-3

conducttng
cable

electronic signal
conditioner

+D

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the deep ocean piezometer probe

3.9 x lo5 s (4.5 days) pressurization
phase. The
time required for each individual pressure change
during this phase was approximately
2 x lo3 s,
with hold times at constant pressure after each
step of the order of 2 x lo4 s; the 9 x 10 s data
logging
interval
was therefore
adequate
to
capture the essential features of the sediment
response during this phase of the experiment.
Before pressurization,
the sediment and the salt
water above it were cooled to 277 k 1 K. This
temperature
was maintained with excellent stability throughout
the simulation experiment. Bench
testing of the LVDT revealed that its voltage
output at a given displacement
depended
on
ambient temperature. It was therefore essential to
calibrate this device at a temperature
equal to
that used in the experiment.
Such a calibration
was carried out following the simulation experiment using a controlled temperature environment
chamber. The calibration factor obtained in this
way, 0.333 V/mm, was used to convert LVDT
voltage output to sediment surface displacement.

Pore pressure (piezometer) probe

The piezometer probe consists of an 8 mm dia.
titanium tube attached .to a tip having a cone
angle of approximately
5.3. Details regarding the
choice of probe tip design can be found in
Bennett & Faris (1979). A porous stone, which
allows porewater
pressure to be transmitted
to
the pressure sensor, is fastened between the titanium tube and the probe tip (Fig. 2). Pore pressure is transmitted
through the porous stone to an
internal tube attached to the pressure sensor. The
differential
pressure sensor is pressure balanced
by a similar internal tube that runs from the
pressure sensor to the top of the porous stone
retainer. The pressure sensor is enclosed in a

stainless steel housing that is pressure compensated to in situ hydrostatic pressure (Fig. 2). The
stainless steel pressure sensor housing is separated from the titanium probe components
by high
dielectric
polycarbonate
material.
The total
lengths of the piezometer probes can be changed
depending on the experimental
design objectives.
Only one pore pressure measurement
at a preselected depth below the sediment-water
interface
(mud line) is possible with each piezometer probe.
A variable
reluctance
differential
pressure
transducer
measures the excess porewater pressure (differential above hydrostatic)
directly. A 5
kHz sine wave is supplied to the differential transducer by a carrier oscillator in the signal conditioner unit, producing
an alternating
current
output from the Wien bridge-type transducer circuitry whose amplitude
is proportional
to the
transducer
imbalance.
The alternating
current
signal is amplified, demodulated
and filtered by
the signal conditioning
unit, producing a k5 V
direct current output level corresponding
to the
full-scale range of the transducer
(f68.9
kPa).
Solid state signal conditioning
electronics
are
enclosed (at atmospheric
pressure) in a stainless
steel capsule located directly above the pressure
sensor capsule. Data were recorded with both
analog strip charts and a data acquisition system
with a hard copy printer for the duration of the
experiment.
Testing

and calibration

of pressure

transducers

The pressure transducers

were tested at high
hydrostatic
pressure (68.9 MPa) over a period of
2.7 Ms (31 days) before the ISHTE simulation
experiment
to determine
sensor characteristics
and long-term
stability
(Bennett,
Burns
&
Lambert,
1982). The pressure sensors exhibit a

CONSOLIDATION

UNDER

15

STRESS INCREASE

Displacement gauge
Far field
piezomeler probe
piezometer probe

-Steel

tank

Porous stone

fT3.*
cm

35.9cm

y,ITcm
j

Fig. 3. Positions of piezometer probes in the sediment tank

zero shift during pressurization

but display excellent long-term
stability under high pressure. A
correction
can be made for the zero shift and
applied
to the pore pressure
measurements
observed
during
pressurization.
The two piezometer probes were calibrated
at laboratory
ambient conditions
before use in the simulation
experiment.
Immediately
following the experiment, the pressure sensors were again checked
and calibrated
(McTigue,
Lipkin & Bennett,
1985).
Piezometer insertion data
Pore pressures
were monitored
with two
piezometer probes placed at different positions in
the sediment sample. The near field piezometer
monitored
pore pressures
0.015 m from the
heater (skin to skin) and 0.17 m below the mud
line. The far field piezometer measurements
were
monitored 0.26 m below the mud line and 0.34 m
from the heater (skin to skin), as depicted in Fig.
3. Each probe was inserted separately.
During
probe
insertion,
soil deformation
occurs and excess porewater pressures are generated. The maximum
pressure
occurs at the
probeesoil interface and decays at a characteristic
time which depends on the probe size and sediment properties (Randolph & Wroth, 1979). Normalizing the excess pressure using the initial and
final values obtained during decay and plotting
the data as a function of time reveals significant
differences in the decay curves (Fig. 4). Applying
the logarithmic fitting method from consolidation
theory (Lambe & Whitman, 1969), t,,, is approx-

imately 1.2 x lo3 s for the near field probe and

3.7 x lo3 for the far field probe. The induced
excess pore pressure at the far field probe has a
time delay of approximately
36 s, whereas the
near field probe has a nearly instantaneous
decay
of pressure following insertion. Furthermore,
the
maximum pore pressures generated differ significantly: 6.6 kPa and 12.9 kPa for the near and far
field probes
respectively.
These discrepancies
suggest that the sediment near the heater may
have been altered or disturbed by insertion of the
heater and various other probes before the simulation experiment.
The effect of introducing
a
short drainage path near the heater is treated
approximately
in the analysis in part I, and is
discussed extensively by McTigue et nl. (1985).
The radial variation in porosity described in
the foregoing also may have contributed
to the
difference in response at the far field probe. Posttest analyses for water content show a porosity of
0.74 in the vicinity of the near field probe and
0.73 in the area of the far field probe. Extensive
correlations
of undrained
shear strength
and
water content (Williams, 1982) indicate that this
small decrease
in porosity
can increase
the
undrained shear strength by as much as 50%.

COMPARISON
MEASURED

OF

CALCULATED

AND

RESPONSES

A computer code was written to predict the

surface displacement
and the internal pore pressure based on the analytical solutions given in part
I. The cumulative
response to a succession of

LIPKIN, BENNETT AND McTIGUE

16

0.1

1.0

10.0

100

1000

Term? ml

Fig. 4. Normal&d

dissipation of pore pressure induced by piezometer insertion

external pressure increases is calculated by superposition. Early time approximations

are used for
each step until the elapsed time, normalized
by
the relaxation
time, exceeds 0.02. Because the
relaxation
time is approximately
lo6 s and the
typical ramp time for each pressure increment is
approximately
lo3 s, the early time approximation is employed well past the corner at the
end of each external load step.
A pressure-dependent
fluid bulk modulus K,
was used in these calculations. Over the range of
pressure encountered
in the ISHTE simulation
experiment,
from 0 MPa to 55.2 MPa, K, for
sea water at 4C increases about 16%, from 2.14
GPa to 2.49 GPa (Riley & Skirow, 1975). Such
an increase
affects the undrained
volumetric
behaviour
of the sediment,
i.e. the sediment
stiffness
increases
during
pressurization.
The
variation in K, is small between successive load
steps, however, and the effects of previous steps
decay exponentially
with time. Thus, the solution
for constant properties is used and K, is updated
to the current value to calculate the contributions
of all previous load increments
to the present
deformation. This results in a very slight overestimate of K, when fitting the model to the data.
Further, it is assumed that the sediment always
rests on the bottom of the tank, so that the measured displacement
represents
twice the symmetric displacement.
This assumption
has been
examined in detail by McTigue et al. (1985).
The displacement
and pore pressure responses
of the sediment are dominated
by three factors,
K, , B and c, defined in part I. The magnitude
of
the jumps in surface displacement
scales with
p,, L/K,, where p. is the external pressure and L
is half the sample length. The undrained modulus

K, can be written
parameters

in terms

of the fundamental

K 1 - K,JK,

K, = KS

1+&.3--K, 1 - K/K,
+

K, 1 - K,JK,
z f 1 _ KJK s

The jumps in pore pressure difference scale with

(1 - B)p, In this case, B is very close to unity,
and approximately
1

9.

K 1 - WKs
K, 1 - KJK,

Finally, the relaxation rate for both the displacements and the pore pressure depends on the consolidation coefficient c, which scales with kK/,u.
The overall pattern of the computer simulations,
then, depends primarily on these three parameters.
The first calculation of interest is to model the
experiment
using the best available estimates of
material properties
obtained
from independent
tests. These values are given in Table 1 along with
the sources
used to obtain them. The fluid
properties K, and p are well established and are
available in extensive tables (Riley & Skirow,
1975). The solid bulk moduli K, and K, are
usually assumed to be equal Few measurements
for clays are reported in the literature; that given
by Skempton
(1961) is adopted. Representative
drained properties are given by Baladi & Akers
(1981). Permeability
and porosity measurements
for the marine sediment used in the ISHTE simulation have been reported by Silva et al. (1984).
Calculations
based on the set of parameters

CONSOLIDATION

Table 1.

UNDER STRESS INCREASE

17

Independent estimates of material properties

Parameter
Viscosity
Fluid bulk modulus
Porosity
Shear modulus
Drained bulk modulus
Solid bulk modulus
Permeability

Symbol

Value

Source

K,, K,
k

1.66 x 10m3 Pa s
2.14 x lo9 + 6.41~ Pa
0.75
6.0 x lo5 Pa
2.0 x 10 Pa
5.0 x 10 Pa
(lG3.0)
x 10-16m2

Riley & Skirow (1975)

Riley & Skirow (1975)
Silva et al. (1984)
Baladi & Akers (1981)
Baladi & Akers (1981)
Skempton (1961)
Silva et al. (1981)

in Table 1 are shown in Figs 5-8 along with

the data measured in the simulation experiment.
In Fig. 5 the maximum calculated displacement is
seen to be 1.4 mm, while the observed value is 1.6
mm. However, it is quite evident that the computed undrained modulus K, is too small and the
relaxation rates are too large. In Fig. 6 results for
the surface displacement
during depressurization
show undrained
displacements
that are only
slightly too large, and relaxation rates that are
again too fast, particularly at late time when the
cumulative
relaxation
from previous steps contributes
significantly.
The large displacement
associated with the last depressurization
step is
ascribed to expansion
due to exsolution
of air.
The model does not account for this phenomenon. In Figs 7(b) and 8(b) the calculated pressures
are quite different from the data; 1 - B is clearly
far too large.
The model fails to represent
the data using
independent
estimates of the material properties.
This suggests the possibility of seeking a set of
parameters
that yields a good fit, thus using the
data to determine
material
properties.
If the
given

z
X
E

parameter sensitivity is high, a good fit should be

reasonable
values
for the
attainable
using
material properties.
Fitting the model to the experimental data was
carried out by trial and error, varying several
parameters
about their nominal, independently
measured
values. This approach
cannot guarantee that a good fit yields a unique set of parameters.
However,
experience
gained
through
numerous calculations strongly suggests that the
data
can be matched
for only one, wellconstrained set of material parameters.
K,, p, & and G are regarded as known, and k,
K, K, and K, are varied to find a good fit.
Although the displacement
history is dominated
by only two parameters,
K, and c, it was found
that the four primary parameters
regarded as
unknowns all act in concert in affecting the calculated displacements.
The same is found for the
pore pressure trends, which again depend principally on 1 - B and c. Thus, each data set is
used to determine values for all four primary variables.
The best fits obtained for surface displacements

-a-

E
x
Z-,2:

-16I

IO

20

30

40

T&me: s X 1 O4

Fig. 5. Comparison of sediment surface displacement data and

model predictions during the pressurization phase of the experiment (magnitudes of the model parameters used are given in
Table 1)

LIPKIN,

BENNETT

Time.

AND McTIGUE

s X 10

Fig. 6. Comparison of sediment surface displacement data and

model predictions during the depressurization
phase of the
experiment (magnitudes of the model parameters used are given
in Table 1)

are shown in Figs 9 and 10 for the pressurization

and depressurization
phases respectively.
Similarly, the best fit for the far field pressure data is
shown in Fig. 11. The values of the material
properties required for these three fits are given in
Table 2. It is evident that the parameter
values
obtained for these three cases are generally quite
consistent
among themselves,
and they are all
within an order of magnitude of the independent
parameter estimates summarized in Table 1. The
drained bulk modulus K, solid modulus K, and
permeability
k are all smaller than the independent measurements
by factors of 2-3. The second

solid modulus K, is commonly assumed to be

equal to K,, but the sensitivity to this parameter
is very high, and it was found that good fits could
be obtained only with distinctly different values.
This observation
is usually ascribed to unconnected porosity in the soil (e.g. Biot & Willis,
1957). It should be noted that the required K,
values are close to, but greater than, the fluid
modulus K,.
It is particularly interesting to note the apparent stiffening exhibited by both the data and the
calculations
for surface
displacement
during
pressurization.
The last eight external pressure
0

Far field
-10
m

m-

20

ii
a,
?z -30
0
Y
2
(0 -40
a,
a
-

- 71
0

10

20
Ttme: s x 1 O4
(a)

50

30

20
Time

30

s X 1 O4
(b)

Fig. 7. (a) Sediment pore pressure changes measured by the far field piezometer during the pressurization phase of the
experiment and (b) a comparison of far geld piezometer data and model predictions during the pressurisation phase of
the experiment (magnitudes of the model parameters used are given in Table 1)

CONSOLIDATION

UNDER

STRESS

INCREASE

19

-60

20

10
Time:

I
10

30

s X 1 O4

1
20
Time:

30

s X 1 O4
(b)

(a)

Fig. 8. (a) Sediment pore pressure changes measured by the near field piezometer during the pressurization phase of the
experiment and (b) a comparison of near field piezometer data and model predictions during the pressurization phase of
the experiment (magnitudes of the model parameters used are given in Table 1)

increments
are all of the same magnitude
(6.9
MPa), yet the undrained displacements
associated
with each become successively smaller (Fig. 5).
The model results show the same trend due to the
pressure-dependent
increase in K,, but the degree
of apparent stiffening seen in the data is underestimated.
Model calculations for the far field pore pressure capture the essential.features
of the measured
although
the computed
undrained
response,
jumps are too small for the earliest and latest
external increments. The pressure data are probably noisier than the displacement
data. Pore

pressures were measured

at single points, and
thus may reflect material inhomogeneities
and
other local effects. In contrast, the displacements
that were measured result from strains integrated
over the entire body, and thus they tend to be
very smooth.
Despite
the apparent
success in modelling
surface displacement
and far field pore pressure
histories, a serious problem is revealed by calculations for the near field pressure. Fig. 12 shows
model results for the near field using the parameters obtained by fitting the far field data. There
is clearly a large discrepancy between the model

IData

-_

1
I
I

-16-

10

20
Time:

30

s X 1 O4

Fig. 9. Comparison of sediment surface displacement

data and beat-fit model predictions during the preasurization phase of the experiment (magnitudes of the model
parameters are given in Table 2)

3
Time.

s X 1 O4

Fig. 10. Comparison of sediment surface displacement

data and best-fit model predictions during the depressurization phase of the experiment (magnitudes of the
model parameters are given in Table 2)

LIPKIN, BENNETT AND McTIGUE

20

-71

I
10

I
20
Tfme:

I
30

I
0

s X 1 O4

10

20
Time:

30

s X 1 O4

Fig. 11. Comparison of far field piezometer data and

best-fit model predictions during the pressurization phase
of the experiment (magnitudes of the model parameters
are given in Table 2)

Fig. 12. Comparison of near field piezometer data and

model predictions based on the parameters determined by
fitting data for the far field probe (Fig. ll), pressurization phase of the experiment (magnitudes of the model
parameters are given in Table 2)

and the data. The model predicts

a maximum
cumulative pressure difference of about -8 kPa,
while the test reached only -3 kPa. Furthermore, the measured cumulative
pressure difference in the far field (- 6 kPa) exceeds that in the
near field (- 3 kPa). This observation
cannot be
represented
by the model. Since the excess pore
pressure relaxes by the diffusion-like
process of
fluid flow, the characteristic
time for the relaxation scales with 12/c, where 1is the drainage path
length. In the experimental configuration
(Fig. 3),
the minimum drainage path from the far field
probe is 0.14 m (to the side boundary), while that
for the near field probe is 0.17 m (to the top
boundary). Thus, the relaxation time for the near
field is expected to be longer, and the cumulative

pressure
difference
larger.
The opposite
is
observed.
A second possible influence on the far field
measurements
may have entered
through
the
radial variation in porosity discussed previously.
However, while a small change in porosity can
have a significant effect on the shear strength, its
effect on the elastic properties and permeability is
expected to be small. Indeed, on the basis of
typical variations in drained bulk modulus with
porosity (Hamilton,
1971), the modulus in the
denser far field region may have been as much as
15% greater than that in the near field. The permeability may have been decreased as much as
25% relative to the near field (Silva & Calnan,
1981). These effects are partially offsetting and

Table 2.

Material properties determined bv fitting models to data*

I

Displacement
K(x 106Pa)
K, ( x 100 Pa)
K, ( x 109 Pa)
k Cx IO-"II?)

u{: 1 i5.2 MPa

Cylinder model

7.0
1.7
3.0
8.3
6.28
9.13
7.03
3.55
2.60
0,458
0.49995
0.49997

kpressurizati
displacemeni

Displacement

pressure

Far field
pressure

Near field
pressure

7.0
1.7
2.7
8.3
7.60
12.23
5.09
1.61
2.60
0.458
0.49996
0.49998

8.0
1.2
4.0
10.0
4.06
5.09
13.00
9.06
3.52
0,463
0.49993
0.49994

7.0
1.5
3.2
8.3
5.47
7.52
8.12
4.65
2.60
0,458
0.49994
0.49996

6.0
1.7
2.8
8.3
7.07
10.90
4.96
1.97
2.27
0.452
0.49996
0.49997

6.0
1.7
2.7
8.3
7.60
12.23
4.36
1.38
2.27
0.452
0.49996
0.49998

Far field

* p. K,, 4, and G are fixed to the values given in Table 1

CONSOLIDATION

UNDER

result in a maximum
decrease in the consolidation coefficient c of about 15% in the far field
and, consequently,
a similar decrease in the relaxation time. Calculations of the type shown in Fig.
11, when repeated for the near field pore pressure,
indicate a relaxation
time of the order of l/20
that observed in the far field. This can be ascribed
only to an unexpectedly small value of the length
scale 1.
These
considerations
strongly
suggest
the
possibility that a shorter drainage path existed in
the neighbourhood
of the near field probe. In
part I, the model for an annular region was developed to address this problem. Results using such
a modified model are summarized in the following section.

STRESS INCREASE

-8I
0

21

20

10
Time,

APPLICATION

OF

ANNULUS

MODEL

Smaller cumulative pressure differences at the

near field probe, ostensibly further from a drained
boundary than the far field probe, raise the possibility that free fluid may have penetrated the sediment near the centre of the tank. This seems
likely since surface cracks were observed extending from the heater probe as it was inserted into
the sediment. A solution for the response of an
annular porous body to external pressure changes
was developed in part I to simulate the penetration of free fluid near the centre of the sediment
tank. Because the configuration
of the cracks or
gaps that may have been present in the sediment
is unknown, the inner radius is arbitrarily taken
to be equal to the radius of the heater probe. This
results in a minimum drainage path to the near
field pore pressure probe of 0.02 m (Fig. 3) and,

30

s X 10

Fig. 14. Comparison of far field piezometer data and

annulus model predictions during the pressurization phase
of the experiment (magnitudes of the model parameters
are given in Table 2)

consequently,
can be expected to lead to rapid
relaxation of pore pressure changes in this area.
Figures 13-15 show the best fits obtained for
the annulus model. The solutions for step changes
in external pressure were used for these calculations, and the early time approximations
were
not employed. A reasonable representation
of the
displacement
data can again be obtained capturing both the undrained step responses and the
relaxation rates (Fig. 13). The far field pressure
data are also well represented
(Fig. 14). The
material properties derived from both sets of calculations differ little from those obtained from the

-8-

E
-i
c
E
g-12s
::
0
-16-3.51
Time

sXl@

Fig. 13. Comparison of sediment surface displacement

data and annulus model best-fit predictions during the
pressurization phase of the experiment (magnitudes of
the model parameters are given in Table 2)

0.0

I
IO.0

I
20.0
Time.

30.0

s X 1 O4

Fig. 15. Comparison of near field piezometer data and

annulus model predictions during the pressurization phase
of the experiment (magnitudes of the model parameters
are given in Table 2)

22

LIPKIN, BENNETT AND McTIGUE

solid cylinder model (Table 2). This is to be

expected, because the surface displacement
integrates over the entire sample and the far field
probe should sense little influence from boundary
conditions
at small values of r/R,,
where R, is
the outer radius.
The principal difference in the annulus calculations is seen in the results for the near field pore
pressure. The model is able to represent the essential features of the data (Fig. 15) including the
maximum
pressure difference attained and the
relaxation
rates. The calculated pressure jumps
are notably larger than those measured during
the middle portion of the test. Most importantly,
however,
it should
be emphasized
that the
annulus model predicts smaller cumulative pressure differences
at the near field probe,
as
observed.
Material
constants
determined
from
this fit are shown in Table 2 along with those
from the other fits.
SUMMARIZING REMARKS
Calculations
based on independent
measurements or estimates of material properties exhibit
marked departures
from the experimental
data
(Figs 5-S). To some extent, such discrepancies are
related to parameter
sensitivity in the poroelasticity model. There are several other factors,
however, that may have contributed
to the measured response. These are discussed briefly in the
following paragraphs.
The sediment sample is idealized as a finite circular cylinder that deforms freely in response to
external pressure changes. There are two possible
constraints,
however, that may affect the actual
experimental
results. The first of these is due to
the heater probe, which was fixed to a rigid structure and penetrated 0.33 m into the sample. If a
no-slip condition or any sort of frictional resistance prevailed along the 12.7 mm radius probe,
the surface displacement,
which was measured at
a radius of 38 mm, may have been restricted. The
material would then appear to be stiffer than it
actually is. It should be noted that the undrained
bulk modulus determined by matching the model
and data is of the order of 6 GPa, while conventional measurements
for clays usually yield values
about half as large.
In addition, it was noted that the model underpredicts the apparent stiffening observed in the
undrained response. Assuming that no relaxation
takes place during each pressure increment, the
undrained modulus K, inferred from the surface
displacement
measurements
increases from about
5 GPa to 13 GPa during pressurization.
The
model incorporates
a pressure-dependent
fluid
modulus K, that gives rise to an increase in K,.
However, for the calculations shown in Fig. 5, the

change in K, results in only a 44% increase in

K,. It is possible that drag on the heater probe
may manifest itself more strongly as the surface
displacement increases, contributing
to the apparent stiffening.
A second factor that could give rise to a large
apparent undrained modulus K, is the assumption that the sediment
always rested on the
bottom of the tank. The calculated surface displacement
represents
the axial strain integrated
over the entire sample length. If, however, the
sediment were able to deform without settling
over a time-scale
that is comparable
with or
longer than the time of each pressure increment
(about 1800 s), the measured displacements
could
be as little as one-half of the value calculated.
Simplifying and conservative
assumptions
were
used by McTigue et al. (1985) to estimate
the
likelihood of such an occurrence.
These results
suggest that a small gap between the bottom of
the sediment sample and the sample tank would
close on a time-scale that is much less than that
of the pressure build-up and therefore would not
contribute to the displacement
of the top surface
of the sample.
A third factor that results in a high apparent
undrained
bulk modulus is deformation
of the
steel tank. The surface displacements
were measured relative to the tank, which was assumed to
be rigid. However, the tank itself was also fully
immersed in the external fluid and deformed with
each pressure increment. For a bulk modulus of
K,,= 180GPa, the tank would shorten by about
0.01 mm with each pressurization
step. Thus, the
measured undrained displacements
are about 3%
low, making the material appear to be slightly
stiffer than it actually is. This small correction is
neglected.
Values for the modulus K, of clay particles
used in the initial model calculations are another
area of uncertainty. Slates are comprised of clays
and have almost no porosity, so that moduli
obtained
from measurements
on slates should
provide a reasonable estimate for individual clay
particles. Clark (1966) reports K, values for slate
in the range 20-50 GPa. Another estimate for an
aluminium silicate clay can be obtained by adopting the modulus for metallic aluminium, 69 GPa.
These values bracket that used by Skempton
(1961), 50 GPa, which was used in the preliminary calculations.
The sensitivity of the calculations to changes in
the input parameters
has been examined
by
varying each parameter about its nominal best-fit
value while holding the other parameters
constant. Because &,, K, and p are well known, and
since the value of G has little influence on the
deformation,
the bulk moduli K, K,'and K,",
and

CONSOLIDATION

23

UNDER STRESS INCREASE

3E
i; 1 o-6 E
a,
;
5
8
s
fj 10-7
=
::
6
0

10~8
01

1.0
Drained

I
I
I 1

10.0

100.0

K. MPa

bulk modulus
(a)

7-

6-

Baladi

0001

I
I 0.100
1

0 010
Shear

modulus

I
I

1.000

10~000

G, MPa

ib)

Fie. 16. Predicted dependence of the consolidation

buik modulus and (h) the shear modulus

the permeability
k, are regarded as unknowns.
The permeability
affects only the consolidation
coefficient c, which varies linearly with k. Thus,
the influence of variations in K, K, and K, on
the observable parameters c, 1 - B and K, are of
particular interest. Figs 1618 show the results of
these sensitivity calculations.
The consolidation
coefficient c varies only with changes in K, and c
and K are approximately
proportional
near the
nominal fit. The parameter
c (Fig. 16) is quite
insensitive to K,, and thus it does not vary with
pressure. The undrained pore pressure difference
scales with 1 - B (Fig. 17), which varies linearly
with K and varies very strongiy with K, as K,
approaches
K,. The undrained modulus K, (Fig.

coefficient

on (a) the drained

18) varies roughly linearly with K, near the

nominal fit, and is very sensitive to K,. These
results are summarized qualitatively in Table 3.
In conclusion
the analysis of the isothermal
mechanical
response
of the sediment
in the
ISHTE simulation
experiment
shows that the
dominant deformation
processes are well understood. Fitting calculated results using a poroelastic model to surface displacement
and pore
pressure data determines
a number of material
properties. These results are of particular interest
because they are derived from a very large sediment sample under simulated deep ocean conditions. Some of the inferred properties
can be
checked against independent
laboratory measure-

LIPKIN, BENNETT AND McTIGUE

24
Sohd bulkmodulus K,":GPa
100
10

1
10-z

1000

10-zco

10-b-

10-s
0.1

'

I I

1
10
DraInedbulkmodulus K: MPa

100

Fig. 17. Predicted dependence of 1 - B on the drained

bulk modulus and the solid bulk modulus KS

ments, while others are uniquely determined

in
this analysis.
The sediment is modelled as a porous elastic
material with compressible
constituents.
Such an
analysis distinguishes
this problem from many
others in soil mechanics where the water and soil
particles
are assumed
to be incompressible.

Table 3.

Sensitivity of derived parameters to changes in material properties

Parameter

Sensitivity
K

If,
K..

Indeed, the mechanical

response data from the
the
experiment
that
indicate
simulation
undrained Poissons ratio of the sediment is v, z
0.49995. None the less, all the measured effects
during pressurization
and depressurization
are
due to the small difference in the compressibilities
of the water and clay particles. The model shows
that, because the water is more compressible than
the solid, a change in external pressure results in
a very small difference between the pressure in the
sediment pores and that at the sediment boundaries. The sediment undergoes an undrained isotropic deformation,
which relaxes as external
water flows into the body. The material thus
expands slowly until only the strain due to compression of the solid remains. This phenomenology is clearly seen in the data for surface
displacement and pore pressure.
Calculations based on independently
measured
or estimated material properties
show order-ofmagnitude
agreement with the data but fail to
represent the detailed behaviour accurately. The
parameter
sensitivity is found to be quite high,
however, and very good fits are obtained
by
varying the magnitude of the material properties
over reasonable ranges. The best fits are found for
values of permeability, drained bulk modulus and
solid bulk modulus that are all within a factor of
2-3 of independent measurements.

Moderate
Moderate
Zero

of parameter

KS
Zero
Zero
Moderate

to the following

K,"
Zero
High
High

SolIdbulk modulus K,, K,:

Low
Zero
Zero

k
Moderate
Zero
Zero

GPa

Fig. 18. Predicted dependence of the undrained hulk modulus on the solid bulk moduli

CONSOLIDATION

UNDER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ISHTE simulation experiment was a collaborative effort of numerous individuals under
the direction of C. M. Percival (Sandia National
Laboratories).
The successful execution
of the
experiment was in large measure due to the technical expertise of L. 0. Olson and the staff of the
University
of Washington
Applied
Physics
Laboratory. Sample preparation
and geotechnical
analyses were carried out by the University
of
Rhode Island Marine Geotechnical
Laboratory,
co-ordinated
by A. J. Silva. Technical assistance
for the piezometer instrumentation
was provided
by J. T. Burns (Naval Ocean Research and Development Activity). Technical
assistance
for the
sediment
surface displacement
instrumentation
was provided by E. Boespflug (Sandia National
Laboratories).
An anonymous referee pointed out
the potential influence of sample inhomogeneity
due to lower water content near the drainage.
This work was supported by the US Department
of Energy under contract DE-AC04-76DPOO789.
REFERENCES

Baladi, G. Y. & Ackers,

S. A. (1981). Constitutive
properties
and material
model development
for
marine sediments in support of the subseabed disposal program.
In Subseabed
Disposal
Program
annual report January to December 1980, vol. II, part
1, pp. 621-781 (ed. K. R. Hinga). Report SANDIl1095/H,
Sandia
National
Laboratories,
Albuquerque.
(Available
from
National
Technical
Information
Service, US Department
of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia.)
Bennett, R. H., Burns, J. T. & Lambert, D. N. (1982).
Fabrication
and testing of deep ocean piezometer
system and components.
In Subseabed Disposal
Program annual report January to September 1981,
vol. II, part 1, pp. 641-645. Report SAND82-0664/
II, Sandia
National
Laboratories,
Albuquerque.
(Available
from National
Technical
Information
Service, US Department
of Commerce,
Springfield,
Virginia.)
Bennett, R. H. & Faris, J. R. (1979). Ambient and
dynamic pore pressures in fine-grained
submarine
sediments: Mississippi Delta. Appl. Ocn Res. 1, 115123.
Biot, M. A. & Willis, D. G. (1957). The elastic toe%
cients of the theory of consolidation.
J. Appl. Mech.
24594-601.
Clark, S. P. (1966). Handbook of physical constants.
Memoir 97, Geological
Society of America, New
York.
Hamilton,
E. L. (1971). Elastic properties
of marine
sediments. J. Geophys. Res. 76, 579-604.
Hollister, C. D., Anderson, D. R. & Heath, G. R. (1981).
Subseabed disposal of nuclear wastes. Science 213,
1321-1326.
Lambe, T. W. & Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil mechanics.
New York: Wiley.
McTigue, D. F., Lipkin, J. & Bennett, R. H. (1985).
Isothermal mechanical response of sediments in the

STRESS

INCREASE

25

ISHTE
simulation experiment. Report
SAND831847, Sandia National
Laboratories,
Albuquerque.
(Available
from National
Technical
Information
Service, US Department
of Commerce,
Springfield,
Virginia.)
McTigue, D. F., Lipkin, J. & Bennett, R. H. (1986).
Consolidation
under
an isotropic
total
stress
increase:
part I, model analysis for compressible
constituents.
Gtotechnique 36, No. 1, l-9.
Miller, J. B., Miller, V. W. & Olson, L. 0. (1984).
ISHTE simulation
APL-UW engineering
report. In
1982 Subseabed Disposal Program annual report:
thermal response studies October 1981 through September 1982, pp. 81-168 (ed. C. M. Percival). Report
SAND82-2717,
Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque. (Available from National Technical Information
Service, US Department
of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia.)
Percival, C. M. (1982). Laboratory
simulation
of deep
ocean in situ heat transfer experiment. In Oceans 82
Conference
Record, pp. 679-684.
Washington:
Marine Technology
Society and IEEE Council on
Oceanic Engineering.
Percival, C. M. (1983). The Subseabed Disposal Program
in situ heat transfer experiment (ISHTE).
Report
SAND80-1202,
Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque. (Available from National Technical Information
Service, US Department
of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia.)
Randolph,
M. F. & Wroth, C. P. (1979). An analytical
solution for the consolidation
around a driven pile.
Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech. 3, 217-229.
Riley, J. P. & Skirow, G. (1975). Chemical oceanography.
New York: Academic Press.
Seabed Programs
Division 6334 (1983). The Subseabed
Disposal- Program:
1983 status report
Report
SAND83-1387,
Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque. (Available from National Technical Information
Service, US Department
of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia.)
Silva, A. J. & Calnan, D. I. (1981). Geotechnical
aspects
of subseabed
disposal
of high level radioactive
wastes. In Subseabed Disposal Program annual report
January-December 1979; vol. II, appendix, pp. j35744. Report
SAND80-2577/H.
Sandia
National
Laboratdries,
Albuquerque.
(Available from National Technical Information
Service, US Department
of
Commerce, Springfield, Virginia.)
Silva, A. J., Jordan, S. A. & Criscenzo S. J. (1984). URI
technical report of the simulation experiment for in
situ heat transfer experiment project. In 1982 Subseabed Disposal Program annual report: thermal
response studies October 1981 through September
1982, pp. 253-340
(ed. C. M. Percival).
Report
SAND82-2717,
Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque. (Available from National Technical Information
Service, US Department
of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia.)
Skempton,
A. W. (1961). Effective stress in soils, concrete, and rocks. In Pore pressure and suction in soils
pp. 4-16. London: Butterworths.
Williams, N. D. (1982). The effects of elevated temperature on the engineering-. properties of seapoor
sediments. PhD thesis, University
of California,
Berkeley.