← All summaries · 01 Fundamentals

Terzaghi's principle of effective stress

At any depth, the total stress σ is the weight of everything above — sediment grains plus water — per unit area. That load is constant; it is set by geology and does not change when you pump. It is carried partly by the pore-water pressure u and partly by grain-to-grain contact, the effective stress σ′:

\[ \sigma = \sigma' + u \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \sigma' = \sigma - u \] \(\sigma\) = total vertical stress · \(\sigma'\) = effective (intergranular) stress · \(u\) = pore-water pressure

Only σ′ deforms the skeleton. Pore water carries pressure but provides no shear support between grains. So compaction is driven entirely by changes in effective stress — not by the absolute water level, but by how the load is shared.

\[ \Delta\sigma' = -\gamma_w\,\Delta h \] a head drop \(\Delta h\) below a point raises \(\sigma'\) there by \(\gamma_w\,\Delta h\)  (\(\gamma_w \approx 0.433\ \mathrm{psi/ft} \approx 9.81\ \mathrm{kN/m^3}\))

The key move

Pumping lowers head, which lowers pore pressure u. Because total stress σ is unchanged, every pascal that u loses is a pascal that σ′ gains:

  • Total stress σ — constant (geostatic load).
  • Pore pressure u — falls with head.
  • Effective stress σ′ — rises one-for-one.

This is why a recoverable water-level change can cause an unrecoverable ground-surface change: the water comes back, but the rearranged grains do not.

Interactive stress–depth explorer

Inputs

Total stress σ at readout depth psi
Pore pressure u (initial → now) psi
Effective stress σ′ (initial → now) psi
Increase in σ′ (Δσ′) psi
Figure 1. Vertical stress profiles vs. depth. Total stress σ (gray) is essentially fixed by the overburden. Lowering the water table reduces pore pressure u (blue) below the new water table; the dashed blue line is the original u. Effective stress σ′ (orange) is the gap between them — and it grows by almost exactly \(\gamma_w\,\Delta h\) at every depth below the decline. That increase is the load the clay skeleton must now carry.
Why the fine-grained layers do almost all the compacting

Same Δσ′, very different response

The increase in effective stress is felt by every layer alike. But the resulting strain depends on compressibility, which differs by one to two orders of magnitude between sands and clays — a difference rooted in particle shape and how the grains were deposited.

Sand: bulky grains, dense packing

Sand and coarser grains are roughly equant and rounded. As they settle they come to rest in a tight, mechanically stable framework of grain-to-grain contacts already close to its densest packing, so added stress causes little further rearrangement. Low compressibility — and high conductivity dissipates the pressure change almost instantly — so the deformation is small and essentially elastic.

Clay: platy particles, open fabric

Clay minerals are thin, plate-shaped particles. Deposited in quiet water they flocculate (edge-to-face attraction) into an open, high-porosity "card-house" fabric riddled with voids. That loose arrangement sits far from a stable packing, so rising effective stress collapses it — the platelets rotate and slide into a denser, face-to-face stack. The result is compaction that is large, slow to drain (page 06), and largely permanent (pages 04–05).

Two refinements worth knowing

Confined vs. water-table response

In a confined aquifer, lowering head reduces pore pressure but the sediment stays saturated and total stress barely changes — so \(\Delta\sigma' \approx \gamma_w\,\Delta h\) exactly, applied over the full thickness below. In a water-table aquifer, the dewatered interval also loses the buoyant support of water and shifts from saturated to moist unit weight, adding a smaller second term. Most large-magnitude subsidence is driven by head decline in confined systems.

The geostatic baseline

Total stress is the integrated unit weight of overburden:

\[ \sigma(z) = \int_0^z \gamma(z')\,dz' \approx \sum_i \gamma_i\,b_i \] \(\gamma \approx 115\ \mathrm{lb/ft^3}\) moist, \(\approx 125\ \mathrm{lb/ft^3}\) saturated sediment

Lofgren (1968) worked out these stress balances for the San Joaquin Valley and showed that measured compaction tracked the computed change in effective stress — the field confirmation of Terzaghi's principle at basin scale.

Key references

  1. Terzaghi, K. (1925). Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer Grundlage. Deuticke, Vienna. (The origin of the effective-stress principle; see also Terzaghi 1943.)
  2. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York.
  3. Meinzer, O.E. (1928). Compressibility and elasticity of artesian aquifers. Economic Geology 23(3): 263–291.
  4. Jacob, C.E. (1940). On the flow of water in an elastic artesian aquifer. Transactions, AGU 21(2): 574–586.
  5. Lofgren, B.E. (1968). Analysis of stresses causing land subsidence. USGS Professional Paper 600-B, p. B219–B225.
  6. Lofgren, B.E. & Klausing, R.L. (1969). Land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, Tulare–Wasco area, California. USGS Professional Paper 437-B.
  7. Freeze, R.A. & Cherry, J.A. (1979). Groundwater. Prentice-Hall (§2.9, effective stress and consolidation).
  8. Mitchell, J.K. & Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior (3rd ed.). Wiley (soil fabric, flocculation, and the compressibility contrast between platy and bulky particles).