This section compares the differences and similarities between the nonlinear and linear models. To ensure consistency in the stress state between the two models, an initial consolidation stress of 8 kPa is applied in both models via the Load module. As a result, the effective stress field in the linear model ranges from 8 kPa at the top to 25 kPa at the bottom. Based on the e–ln p relationship, the corresponding void ratios are calculated as 1.403 at the top and 1.315 at the bottom, with both the stress and the void ratio assumed to vary linearly with depth.
4.1. Vertical Stress Spatial Distribution and Settlement Deformation Process
Figure 5 presents a comparison of the spatial distributions of deformation and vertical effective stress at the late stage of consolidation (
t = 3.0 × 10
7 s) for both the nonlinear and linear models. In the linear model, the soil exhibits uniform deformation characteristics during the late stages of consolidation; in other words, vertical deformation at the same elevation is nearly unchanged across the domain. Similarly, vertical effective stress remains almost constant along the horizontal planes. This uniformity arises from the homogeneous distribution of soil properties—such as the coefficient of consolidation—throughout the soil layer. At any given depth, the initial stress state and boundary conditions are the same. Furthermore, due to the path-independent nature of linear elastic problems, the final stress state is unaffected by the consolidation path. As a result, both the stress distribution and the degree of consolidation tend to be consistent at each depth level.
In contrast, the nonlinear model displays significant spatial nonuniformity in deformation. Settlement is markedly greater on the right side of the top surface compared to the left. Additionally, vertical effective stress decreases with increasing distance from the PVD, and a local maximum stress is observed near the bottom adjacent to the drainage boundary. This behavior is primarily attributed to pore pressure dissipation near the PVD, which elevates effective stress and, consequently, the compression modulus. The high-modulus region leads to stress concentration. Moreover, asynchronous consolidation progress across regions causes stress redistribution, further amplifying stress near the drainage boundary. In both models, vertical effective stress increases with depth due to the effect of gravity; however, the nonlinear model demonstrates significantly more complex mechanical behavior.
This complexity fundamentally stems from nonlinear material effects that differentiate constitutive responses. In the linear model, initial stress disequilibrium persists until pore pressure propagates uniformly throughout the domain, after which both stress and strain converge to a symmetric equilibrium configuration. Crucially, the linear model reaches a unique final state independent of loading history. Conversely, the nonlinear model exhibits path-dependent evolution, where both the initial conditions and transient consolidation processes govern the mechanical response.
To further investigate the mechanisms underlying stress development in the two models, a dimensionless position parameter is defined as
R = (
r −
rw)/(
re −
rw). At a depth of 0.5 m, two nodes are selected for analysis: one located at
R = 1/8 (near the PVD) and one at
R = 1 (far from the PVD). The evolution of their stress paths is illustrated in
Figure 6. In the nonlinear model, the generalized shear stress
q at both locations initially remains constant, followed by a decrease and subsequent increase throughout the consolidation process. However, the onset of the decrease occurs later at the point farther from the PVD. At the final time step, the values of
q are 29.7 kPa at
R = 1 and 39.0 kPa at
R = 1/8. Regarding the evolution of the mean effective stress
p’, both positions exhibit a similar trend, but consistently higher values are observed near the PVD, reaching 97.3 kPa at
R = 1/8 and 77.7 kPa at
R = 1. This nonuniform stress distribution leads to greater changes in the void ratio (i.e., the difference between the initial and final values) near the PVD, resulting in significant differential settlement.
In contrast, the linear model shows a moderate rise–fall trend in generalized shear stress q near the PVD, with a small peak value. The mean effective stress development at R = 1 is similar to that in the nonlinear model; however, the curve at R = 1/8 exhibits a steady increase without significant fluctuations. At the final time step, both positions converge to consistent stress values: 45.7 kPa for q and 57.0 kPa for p′. The uniform stress distribution in the linear model results in consistent changes in the void ratio throughout the soil mass, leading to uniform settlement.
Comparing the stress field responses of the two models reveals that the final generalized shear stress in the linear model is approximately 1.2 to 1.5 times greater than in the nonlinear model. Conversely, the final mean effective stress in the nonlinear model is approximately 1.3 to 1.7 times higher than in the linear model, with the disparity more pronounced near the PVD. This divergence stems from the stress-dependent behavior in the nonlinear model, where both permeability and compressibility vary dynamically. In high-stress regions, decreased permeability induces localized clogging, causing a greater load to be borne by the nearby soil, thereby amplifying void ratio changes. In contrast, the use of constant parameters in the linear model leads to uniform stress transfer, failing to capture the complex behavior exhibited by real soils.
Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between surface settlement and time at the top of the soil for various distances from the PVD under both modeling approaches. The settlement curves reveal several key observations. Throughout the consolidation process, the linear model consistently shows greater settlement during the early stages and reaches its final (stabilized) value earlier than the nonlinear model. Near the PVD, the final settlement values of both models are nearly identical (
Figure 7a,b). However, as the distance from the PVD increases, the final settlement of the nonlinear model increases—from 10.3 cm in
Figure 7a to 11.5 cm in
Figure 7d—whereas the final settlement in the linear model remains nearly constant at approximately 10.3 cm.
At t = 1.2 × 105 s, the settlement at R = 1/8 is 1.04 cm, while at R = 1, it is only 0.25 cm. By t = 8.4 × 106 s, the settlements at both positions converge to nearly identical values of 6.93 cm. At the end of consolidation (t = 5.0 × 107 s), the settlement reaches 10.81 cm at R = 1/8 and 12.33 cm at R = 1. These results suggest that the nonlinear model produces a distinct settlement pattern: it shows greater settlement near the PVD during the early consolidation stage, while the far side experiences more significant settlement in the later stage. This uneven settlement progression ultimately results in slight upward bulging (heaving) near the drainage boundary.
Table 5 consolidates strain data at element centers (depth: 0.05 m) for normalized radial positions
R = 1/10 and
R = 9/10, captured at two consolidation stages: the initial consolidation phase (
t = 10,000 s) and final consolidation completion (
t = 6.16 × 10
7 s). At the initial stage, all strain components at
R = 1/10 markedly exceed those at
R = 9/10, reflecting intensified radial deformation near the PVD. Upon full consolidation, volumetric strains
εv converge to comparable magnitudes (−0.1592 at
R = 1/10 vs. −0.1555 at
R = 9/10). However, greater settlement manifests at
R = 9/10—a paradox resolved by contrasting axial strains
εz. During the late stage of consolidation, this apparent contradiction arises from fundamentally distinct strain states: proximal zones (
R = 1/10) experience radial compression (
εr < 0), whereas distal regions (
R = 9/10) develop tensile radial strains (
εr > 0). Although
εv =
εr +
εz +
εθ yields similar magnitudes, The dominant
εz component (−0.1522 at
R = 9/10 vs. −0.0957 at
R = 1/10) signifies a fundamental shift in the soil deformation mechanism, wherein axial strain governs settlement behavior in distal regions (
R = 9/10), while radial drainage dominates proximal zones (
R = 1/10). This fundamental strain mechanism governs the observed spatiotemporal settlement evolution.
4.2. Pore Pressure and Mandel–Cryer Effect
Figure 8 illustrates the evolution of pore water pressure over time at different locations in both models. Due to gravitational effects, the initial pore pressure at the bottom of the model is higher than that at the top. As shown in
Figure 8a, in the linear model, during the early stage of consolidation, the pore pressure at the bottom near the PVD (
R = 1/8) decreases more rapidly than that at the top. Around
t = 3.0 × 10
4 s, the bottom pressure drops to the same level as the top, after which both decrease at an equal rate until stabilizing at −80 kPa. As the distance from the PVD increases (from
R = 1/8 to 1), the time required for the top and bottom pore pressures to equalize becomes progressively longer.
In contrast, in the nonlinear model, the bottom pore pressure not only decreases to match that at the top but continues to drop below it before both stabilize at −80 kPa. Moreover, the evolution of pore pressure is more complex in the nonlinear case. Notably, during the early stage of consolidation, the pore pressure at the top initially rises before beginning to dissipate. Meanwhile, at the bottom near the PVD (
Figure 8a), the pore pressure initially drops rapidly, then encounters resistance to further dissipation, and ultimately aligns with the top pore pressure.
Figure 8d shows that at locations far from the PVD, the initial pore pressure at the top remains nearly constant and close to zero.
Under single-drain consolidation conditions, the degree of consolidation is typically characterized using the time factor . However, in the nonlinear model, both the permeability coefficient and the modulus vary with space and time, making this time factor inapplicable for accurately describing the degree of consolidation.
After the application of vacuum loading, the pore water pressure within the soil does not decrease immediately; instead, it increases until it reaches a peak, after which it begins to decline. This phenomenon, first identified by Mandel and Cryer, is referred to as the Mandel–Cryer effect, or the stress transfer effect. To characterize the timing and impact of the Mandel–Cryer effect, a dimensionless pore pressure, denoted as
ηt, is defined.
In this context, a Mandel–Cryer effect factor
M is introduced. This factor is derived by applying a logarithmic transformation to the dimensionless pore pressure
ηt. To ensure the validity of the logarithmic function’s domain, an infinitesimal constant
is added.
Figure 9 illustrates the variation in the Mandel–Cryer effect factor corresponding to pore pressure during the early stage of consolidation in both the nonlinear and linear models. The peak times of the Mandel–Cryer effect at different locations are summarized in
Table 6. The timing of the peak value of this effect factor varies with location. In soils near the PVD, the peak of the Mandel–Cryer effect occurs early in the consolidation process (
Figure 9a). As the distance from the PVD increases, the peak time of the effect factor is progressively delayed. Comparing the peak times at the top and bottom at the same radial position, it is observed that the peak always occurs earlier at the bottom than at the top. As shown in
Figure 9b, the linear model produces the Mandel–Cryer effect only at the top region near the PVD (
R < 1/2), with a relatively early peak time. The effect concludes during the early consolidation stage, around
t = 2.3 × 10
5 s.
The engineering implications of the Mandel–Cryer effect warrant rigorous examination. During initial consolidation, this phenomenon induces critical excess pore pressure rises of 2.7 kPa at the top and 3.3 kPa at the bottom. Significantly, these pressures constitute 33.7% of the initial vertical stress at the top (8 kPa) and 13.2% at the bottom (25 kPa), transiently reducing the effective stresses to 5.3 kPa (top) and 21.7 kPa (bottom). Notably, the top zone exhibited exceptionally high susceptibility, with pore pressure rises reaching over one-third of the initial stress state. This significant, albeit temporary, reduction in effective stress can potentially compromise the shear strength and stability of the soil. Critically, the elevated pore pressures, particularly near the PVD, may induce hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, the risk of localized soil instability in highly sensitive clays experiencing this transient stress state should be considered. Although subsequent stress evolution diminishes the relative impact when pore pressure peaks, the Mandel–Cryer effect remains non-negligible—particularly in top regions during early consolidation—due to its pronounced impact on effective stress and associated risks.
4.3. Spatiotemporal Variation in Void Ratio and Clogging Effect
The clogging effect refers to the substantial reduction in soil permeability near the PVD during vacuum preloading, primarily caused by a decrease in the surrounding soil’s void ratio. This reduction leads to clogging and a sharp decline in drainage capacity. Experimental observations [
26] indicate that severe clogging reduces drainage rates by 90% and permeability by 50–100 times, sometimes causing complete blockage. Given the gradual permeability evolution governed by the
e-lg
k relationship, the compression-induced low-permeability region is referred to as the clogging zone for clarity in subsequent discussions. The onset of clogging is defined as a two-thirds reduction (3-fold decrease) from the initial maximum permeability coefficient (6.64 × 10
−10 cm·s
−1). While this definition of the clogging zone is inherently bounded by idealized threshold criteria that may not fully capture the continuous, spatially heterogeneous nature of permeability degradation in real soils, it remains a pragmatic and optimized approach for quantifying clogging effects within computational frameworks. Base on the empirical
e-lg
k relationship defined by Equation (6), where each void ratio
e uniquely determines permeability
k, the critical void ratio for clogging in the nonlinear model is
ec = 1.03 (corresponding permeability = 2.21 × 10
−10 cm·s
−1). In contrast, because permeability remains constant in the linear model, the clogging effect does not develop.
Figure 10 depicts the spatial distribution of the void ratio in the nonlinear model at four consolidation stages: early stage (
t = 5.0 × 10
6 s), mid-stage (
t = 1.0 × 10
7 s), late stage (
t = 2.0 × 10
7 s), and completion (
t = 6.16 × 10
7 s). As shown in
Figure 10a, the clogging phenomenon (defined as regions where the void ratio
e ≤ 1.03, indicated in black) is not prominent during the early stage of consolidation, with the clogging zone appearing only in the upper portion of the PVD. As shown in
Figure 10b, the clogging zone begins to extend downward along the PVD and eventually covers its entire length, with a slight increase in its radial extent. During the middle-to-late stages of consolidation, as illustrated in
Figure 10c,d, the clogging zone further expands radially, and its thickness continues to increase. By the late stage of consolidation, the maximum thickness of the clogging zone reaches 3/80.
Figure 11 presents the temporal evolution of the void ratio at different locations for both models. As shown in
Figure 11a, in the nonlinear model, the void ratio at the top decreases rapidly to match the value at the bottom, after which the rate of decrease slows. This trend indicates that in the early stage of consolidation (
t < 3.0 × 10
5 s), the formation of the clogging zone significantly reduces the consolidation rate and prolongs the overall process. This effect is particularly evident near the PVD, where the clogging zone alters local consolidation behavior.
As shown in
Figure 11, in the linear model, the void ratio at the top of the model consistently remains higher than that at the bottom throughout the consolidation process. The void ratio at the top stabilizes earlier, and the stabilization time increases with distance from the PVD. In contrast, in the nonlinear model, the void ratio at the top—particularly near the PVD—decreases much more rapidly than at the bottom, even falling below the bottom value during the early consolidation stage. This results in a denser soil state near the PVD, which aligns with the clogging effect discussed earlier.
A comparison between the nonlinear and linear models reveals distinct differences in the development of top-layer void ratios. Near the PVD (
Figure 11a), the linear model shows a noticeably faster rate of reduction than the nonlinear model. Additionally, the time required to reach a stable void ratio is significantly shorter in the linear model. For bottom-layer void ratio development, the linear model generally displays lower values than the nonlinear model within the range
R ≤ 1/4 (
Figure 11a,b). In the zones where
R = 1/2 and
R = 1 (
Figure 11c,d), both models exhibit similar initial development trends. However, between approximately
t = 3.0 × 10
5 s and
t = 8.0 × 10
5 s, the linear model consistently maintains lower void ratios than the nonlinear model.
As the distance from the PVD increases (from R = 1/8 to 1), the difference in stabilization times for the top and bottom void ratios between the two models gradually diminishes. By the end of consolidation, the void ratios at the bottom in the nonlinear model are 1.06, 1.08, 1.11, and 1.12, indicating that the final void ratio increases with distance from the PVD. In contrast, the final void ratios in the linear model remain nearly uniform (top = 1.17; bottom = 1.07). The fact that the top-layer void ratio in the linear model is higher than in the nonlinear model suggests that the nonlinear model achieves a denser state at the top, indicating better consolidation performance.
In the nonlinear model, the top-layer void ratio curve near the PVD (
Figure 11a) exhibits a sharp decline in the early stage of consolidation, followed by gradual stabilization. This indicates that the formation of the clogging zone hinders further consolidation. Additionally, the void ratio at the bottom is significantly higher than at the top upon completion of consolidation, and this difference increases with distance from the PVD. This behavior is primarily attributed to the fully fixed boundary condition at the model base, which restricts soil movement and limits volumetric deformation. As permeability decreases along the drainage path, excess pore pressure caused by external loading cannot dissipate efficiently, further slowing the consolidation rate. Therefore, soil consolidation behavior is influenced not only by soil properties and external loads but also by boundary conditions.