## 4 Examples for the Prediction of One-Dimensional Consolidation Settlement  
In this section, analytical computations are conducted using real soil parameters--three well-documented clays commonly referenced in geotechnical research, and applied to hypothetical loading and layering scenarios to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. To demonstrate the applicability and accuracy of the proposed equations, example calculations are performed to predict total consolidation settlement. A rectangular footing measuring 15 m \(\times\) 30 m on a 12 m thick clay layer is used as the reference condition. Three virtual modeling scenarios were developed to examine the influence of different soil layering approaches on settlement prediction. The scenarios include:  
1. A single-layer clay model;
2. A multi-layer model with uniform layer thickness of 1 m;
3. A variable-thickness layered model, in which thinner layers are used near the surface and layer thickness increases with depth. It should be noted that the soil parameters employed in these examples were derived from previously published laboratory test results [22; 23; 24]. These well-documented clays provide a reliable basis for validating the proposed analytical model under controlled conditions. All soil parameters used in the tables and figures below are drawn from these established data sources and serve as reference inputs for the model evaluation. Three soil test datasets from distinct continents were used for the consolidation test (i.e., Bangkok clay [22], Boston blue clay [23], and London clay [24]). Figures 6-8 depict the test results from [22; 23; 24] with the best fit curves. Prior to the analysis, the soil parameters based on the proposed method were extracted. Table 1 summarizes the fitting parameters for all three clays mentioned above. It should be noted that the soil parameters employed in these examples were derived from previously published laboratory test results [22; 23; 24]. These well-documented clays provide a reliable basis for validating the proposed analytical model under controlled conditions. The parameters \(\Gamma\), \(R\), \(\alpha\), and \(\theta\) are for the AJOP  
Figure 11: Footing on clay to be used for consolidation settlement calculations: (c) Varying thickness. Figure 10: Footing on clay to be used for consolidation settlement calculations: (b) Equal thickness layers. Figure 9: Footing on clay to be used for consolidation settlement calculations: (a) Single layer. Figure 10: Footing on clay to be used for consolidation settlement calculations: (b) Equal thickness layers. Table 2 shows the results of settlement calculations based on the aforementioned methods and conditions of the normally consolidated clay. It is evident that the settlement from the LF is much greater than that from the CF and AJOP because the actual initial stress on the shallow points is not located on the straight line of \(e-log\sigma^{\prime}{}_{\rm{p}}\). Therefore, the equations that provide the curved portion, i.e., CF and AJOP, give lower value and give more reliable results. It is also indicated in Table 2 that the results from CF and AJOP are close together, due to the impact of error on deeper depts being less than the impact at shallow depts. In addition, when the method of layer dividing is considered, the results using a single layer give the lowest value for all clays and all models. The results from the equal layer thickness model are close to the results for the method of varying layer thickness for all clays. For the overconsolidated clay, the analyses were divided into two cases i.e., (1) low surface loading 200 kN/m\({}^{2}\), and (2) high surface loading 1000 kN/m\({}^{2}\). Tables 3 and 4 present the consolidation calculation results for overconsolidated clay in case (1) and case (2), respectively. In Table 3, the selected AJOP method is identified as the most reliable approach. The findings highlight the significant influence of the layer division method on the results.