Xiao Huawen

YIELDING AND FAILURE OF CEMENT TREATED SOIL
XIAO HUAWEN
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

2009
YIELDING AND FAILURE OF CEMENT TREATED SOIL
XIAO HUAWEN
(B.Eng., M.E., HHU)
A THESIS SUBMITTED
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2009
Dedicated to my wife and daughter
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his profound gratitude and sincere appreciation to
his supervisor, Professor Lee Fook Hou for the valued advice, constructive criticisms
and endless guidance throughout this research study. Without his help, this research
work could not have been accomplished.
Grateful acknowledgement is given to the technical staffs who have assisted the
author in the experimental studies. They are, Mdm. Jamilah Bte Mohd, Mr. Foo Hee
Ann, Mr. John Choy Moon Nien, and Mr. Tan Lye Heng. Sincere appreciation is also
expressed to Dr Chew Soon Hoe, the lab supervisor.
The author also deeply appreciates the financial assistance in the form of research
scholarship as well as facilities provided by the National University of Singapore to
perform his research study.
Acknowledgements are also due to:
(a) Dr. Chin Kheng Ghee who gave grate help at the beginning of the research.
(b) Fellow colleagues of NUS, in particular Dr Shen Ruifu, Dr. Xie Yi, Dr. Cheng
Yonggang, Dr. Zhou Xiaoxian, Mr. Sun Daojun, Dr. Sindhu Tjahyono, Dr. Yeo Chong
Hun, Dr. Subhadeep Banerjee, Dr. Liu Xuemei, Dr. Ma Kang, Dr. Wang Zhengrong,
Mr. Vincent, Mr. Harrish, Miss Charlene, Mr. Meas; Mr. Isaac.
Finally, the author would like to express special appreciation to his wife Ms Liu
Wenyan for her always care, support, and encouragement and selfless accompany
during these years. Without her help, the author could not come through his research.
ii
TABLE of CONTENTS
Dedication i
Acknowledgements ii
Table of Contents iii
Summary x
List of Tables xiii
List of Figures xiv
List of Symbols xxxii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Behavior of cement-treated soil 3
1.2.1 Behavior of natural and artificially lightly cemented soil 4
1.2.2 Behavior of cement-treated sand and clay 5
1.2.3 Behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay 6
1.3 Objectives and organization of the thesis 6
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Basic concepts and mechanism of cement stabilization 9
2.2.1 Mechanism of cement stabilization 9
2.2.2 Structure and microstructure of treated soil 11
2.3 Factors on the strength of cement-treated soil 13
2.3.1 Characteristics of stabilizing agents 14
iii
2.3.2 Characteristics of soil 15
2.3.3 Mixing conditions 16
2.3.4 Curing conditions 16
2.4 Experimental studies on cement-treated soil 17
2.4.1 Changes in basic property of cement-treated soil 17
2.4.2 Engineering behavior 18
2.4.2.1 Prime factors on strength and deformation of 18

cement-treated soil
2.4.2.2 Permeability 20
2.4.2.3 Compressibility 20
2.4.2.4 Stiffness 22
2.4.2.5 Shear strength parameters 22
2.4.3 Stress-strain behavior of cement-treated soil under 23

triaxial condition
2.4.4 Studies on cement-treated Singapore marine clay 24
2.4.5 Primary yielding and post-yield behavior of cemented 26

soil
2.4.6 Softening and post-peak shearing behavior of cemented 29

soil
2.5 Theoretical studies 32
2.5.1 Review of theoretical studies for natural or artificial 32

cemented soil
2.5.2 Constitutive frameworks for cement-treated soil – a 36

summary
2.6 Outstanding issues 37
2.6.1 Outstanding issues 37
2.6.2 Scope of work in the current Study 38
iv
3 EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY AND SETUP 57
3.1 Materials 57
3.1.1 Untreated marine clay 57
3.1.2 Ordinary Portland cement 57
3.2 Variables investigated 58
3.3 Sample preparation procedure 60
3.4 Testing procedure and apparatus 62
3.4.1 Basic properties 63
3.4.2 Isotropic compression 63
3.4.3 Triaxial compression and strength 63
3.4.4 Microstructural properties 65
3.4.5 Tensile splitting strength test 66
3.4.6 Remoulded cement-treated marine clay 67
4 PREPEAK BEHAVIOR OF CEMENT-TREATED SINGAPORE 77

MARINE CLAY
4.1 Purpose of experiment 77
4.2 Definition of primary yielding and yield locus for 81

cement-treated soil
4.2.1 Definition of artificial structure 81
4.2.2 Definition of yielding and yield locus for cemented soils 82
4.2.3 Summary 89
4.3 Isotropic compression behavior of cement-treated soil 89
4.3.1 General behavior under isotropic compression 89
4.3.2 Cement content effect 90
v
4.3.3 Total water content effect 90
4.3.4 Curing stress effect 91
4.3.5 Curing period effect 92
4.3.6 Summary 92
4.4 Triaxial compression behavior of samples consolidated at 93

pressures below the primary isotropic yield stress p 'py
4.4.1 General behavior under triaxial compression 93
4.4.2 Cement content effect 95
4.4.3 Total water content effect 95
4.4.4 Curing stress effect 96
4.4.5 Curing period effect 96
4.4.6 Summary 97
4.5 Yielding behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay 97
4.5.1 Primary yielding and yield locus 98
4.5.2 Relation of primary yield locus to other parameters 99
4.5.2.1 Correlation of isotropic yield stress to 100

unconfined compressive strength
4.5.2.2 Correlation of isotropic yield stress to 101

post-curing void ratio
4.5.2.3 Direct correlation of isotropic yield stress to 102

cement and total water content
4.5.2.4 Correlation of unconfined compressive 103

strength to mix proportions
4.5.2.5 Summary 105
4.6 Triaxial compression behavior of samples consolidated at 105

effective pressure higher than the isotropic primary yield
stress p 'py
vi
4.6.1 General behavior under triaxial compression 106
4.6.2 Evolution of yield locus 108
4.7 Tensile splitting strength test and modification of primary yield 109
locus
4.7.1 Stresses along radial loading section 109
4.7.2 Tensile strength of cement-treated marine clay 110
4.7.3 Correlation of tensile strength to unconfined 112

compressive strength
4.7.4 Modification of primary yield locus of cement-treated 112

marine clay under triaxial loading condition
5 ULTIMATE STATE OF CEMENT-TREATED MARINE CLAY 193
5.1 Introduction 193
5.2 Post-peak behavior 195
5.2.1 Onset of strain softening 195
5.2.2 Special specimen with lubrication and radial excess 196
5.2.2.1 Effect of slenderness ratio 198
5.2.2.2 Effect of lubrication 199
5.2.2.3 Effect of combination of slenderness and 199

lubrication
5.2.2.4 Effect of enlarged low-friction end caps 200
5.2.2.5 Stress state at post-peak stage 200
5.2.2.6 Results of CID short specimens 202
5.2.3 Critical state and residual state 203
5.3 Constitutive behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine clay 205
5.3.1 Effects of remoulding on cement-treated marine clay – 205

previous works
vii
5.3.2 Isotropic compression behavior of remoulded 208
cement-treated marine clay
5.3.3 Triaxial compression behavior 211
5.3.3.1 Remoulded marine clay 211
5.3.3.2 Remoulded cement-treated marine clay with 212

100% pre-remoulding total water content
5.3.3.3 Remoulded treated marine clay with 50% 216

cement content –effect of pre-remoulding total
water content
5.3.3.4 Remoulded treated marine clay with 50% 217

cement content and 133% pre-remoulding total
water content –effects of curing stress
5.3.3.5 Summary of findings 218
5.4 Discussion 219
6 A CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR CEMENT-TREATED 269

MARINE CLAY
6.1 Introduction 269
6.1.1 Expanded structure surface approach 270
6.1.2 Superposition method 275
6.1.3 Other methods 278
6.1.4 Difficulties in using existing models for cement-treated 278

marine clays
6.2 An empirical constitutive framework for cement-treated marine 279

clay
6.2.1 Empirical yield function one 280
6.2.2 Empirical yield function two 281
6.3 A theoretical constitutive framework for cement-treated marine 282

clay
6.3.1 Basis of theoretical model 286
viii
6.3.2 Yield locus 288
6.3.2.1 Deduction of yield locus 288
6.3.2.2 Consistency checks 291
6.3.2.3 Comparison with test data 292
6.4 Parameters of theoretical yield function 294
6.4.1 Friction coefficient M 295
6.4.2 Preconsolidation stress p0' 295
6.4.3 Determination of cohesion 298
6.4.3.1 Determination of initial cohesion C0 299
6.4.3.2 Cohesion degradation 301
7 CONCLUSIONS 329
7.1 Conclusions 329
7.1.1 Pre-peak behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine 329

clay
7.1.2 Ultimate state of cement-treated marine clay 332
7.1.3 Constitutive frame work of cement-treated marine clay 334
7.2 Recommendations for future study 335
REFERENCES 337
ix
SUMMARY
This study deals with the development of a constitutive framework for cement-treated
Singapore marine clay. Element testing was conducted for a wide range of mix proportions and
different curing conditions to shed light on the constitutive behavior of the cement-treated clay.
Based on the experimental results, common trends were identified which forms the basis of a
framework of behavior of this material. Finally, a constitutive framework was postulated for
the primary yielding and early post-yield behavior of cement-treated marine clay.
Coop and Atkinson’s method was introduced to define the primary yield stress and the
primary yield locus. The results showed that a reasonably consistent primary yield locus of
cement-treated marine clay can be obtained.
The results of isotropic compression tests showed that the post-yield compression index
seems to be independent on cement content and curing period. The post-yield compression
index is also independent on total water content and curing stress. However, the isotropic
primary yielding stress increases with the increase in cement content, curing load and curing
time as well as decrease in total water content.
The experiment results showed that behaviors under triaxial compression are consistent
with Chin’s (2006) study. The results also showed that increasing the cement content, curing
stress and curing period or decreasing the total water content all has a similar effect in
increasing the peak strength of the specimens. The post-yield behavior of the cement-treated
soil appears to be influenced by densification effects as well as breakage of inter-aggregate
bonds. The yield locus of the cement-treated marine clay evolves into a shape which is
well-fitted by an ellipse.
x
Experiment results suggest that excess pore pressure and stress ratio may be better
indicators for shear band initiation than the deviator stress itself. The short specimens with
enlarged low-friction end caps showed significantly slower rate of strain softening and a more
uniform post-peak behavior than that of conventional specimens showing a single shear band.
The short specimens probably reached a critical state at a shear strain of about 20%, with a
friction coefficient much higher than that of conventional long specimen.
The experiment results showed that the isotropic compression curve of the remoulded
treated marine clay depends mainly on the cement content and lies between the compression
curves of the untreated marine clay and the corresponding intact treated marine clay. The
undrained stress path and deviator stress-strain of remoulded cement-treated marine clay is
similar to that of remoulded untreated marine clay. The excess pore pressure changes very
small after peak point. Base on the experiment study, the remoulded cement-treated marine
clay may be considered as a reference “remoulded” state towards which the microstructure of
the cement-treated clay will evolve with continual shearing. The ultimate state of remoulded
cement-treated specimen seems to be only dependent on the cement content, thereby making it
a convenient reference state.
Based on the observation that the cement-treated soils do have a structure surface (or
primary yield surface) but that this yield surface can change shape and size during shearing, a
new theoretical approach was attempted. In the theoretical framework, a new yield function
was derived by introducing true cohesion parameter into a modified form of the modified Cam
Clay energy equation. The proposed yield function can fit well the observed primary yield
locus and evolution of yield locus for cement-treated marine clay specimens. The parameters
xi
of the proposed model can be obtained from conventional test.
Keywords: cement-treated marine clay, primary yield, post-yield, cohesion, remoulded
state, constitutive framework
xii
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Typical properties of Singapore marine clay 2
2.1 Factors affecting the strength increase (after Terashi, 1997) 14
3.1 Basic properties of Singapore upper marine clay 57
3.2 Chemical compositions and physical properties of Ordinary Portland 58

Cement
3.3 Mixture proportions and experiments in this study 60
3.4a Basic and engineering properties in this study 68
3.4b Basic and engineering properties in this study 69
4.1 Summary of tensile splitting strength test results 114
5.1 Summary of Friction Coefficient and Microstructure after Different 220

Processes
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Schematic illustrations of improved soil (after Saitoh et al., 1985) 40
2.2 SEM micrographs of lime improved soil (after Locat et al., 1990) 40
2.3 Microstructures on slip planes of several cement-treated specimens at the 41

end of triaxial shearing tests: CID50; CIU50; CIU500;
CIU1500; CID500; CID1500 (after Chin, 2006)
2.4 Effect of cement type on compressive strength of soil-cement for: (a) 42

Kanagawa; and (b) Saga soils (after Kawasaki et al., 1981)
2.5 Effect of different stabilizers on compressive strength of different soils in 42

Sweden (after Ahnberg et al., 1995)
2.6 Effect of grain size distribution on cement stabilization (after Niina et al., 43
1977)
2.7 Effect of organic content on the unconfined compressive strength of peat 43

soils (after Huat, 2006)
2.8 Effect of mixing time on cement stabilization (after Nakamura et al., 44

1982)
2.9 Effect of curing time on strength (after Kawasaki et al., 1981) 44
2.10 Effect of curing temperature on compressive strength of silt (after Enami 45

et al., 1985)
2.11 UCT results for specimens treated under drained isotropic curing stress 45
(after Chin, 2006)
2.12 Plasticity chart for cement treated clay under various stress states during 46
curing period (after Chin, 2006)
2.13 Effect of initial water content and cement content on e-logσ’v 46

relationship (after Kamruzzaman, 2002)
2.14 Isotropic compression behavior for cement treated clay under various 47
stress states during curing period (after Chin, 2006)
xiv
2.15 Peak strength envelope for treated specimens with OCR=1 in p’-q 47
stress plane (after Chin, 2006)
2.16 Triaxial behaviour of treated clay under (a) drained; and (b) undrained 48
conditions (after Endo, 1976)
2.17 Consolidated drained triaxial behaviour with different confining 48

pressures (after Tatsuoka and Kobayashi, 1983)
2.18 Undrained stress path of cement-treated clay for (a) 10%; (b) 30%; and 49
(c) 50% of cement contents (after Kamruzzman, 2002)
2.19 Definition of yield surfaces (after Smith, 1992) 50
2.20 Variation of incremental yield stress with curing void ratio and cement 50
content(after Rotta et al, 2003)
2.21 Relationship between initial curing void ratio, unconfined compressive 51

strength, incremental yield stress and initial bulk density (after Consoli et
al, 2006)
2.22 Undrained triaxial compression of Todi clay: stress-strain response, pore 52

water pressure difference and strain homogeneity indexes (after Viggiani
et al,1993)
2.23 Size effect on triaxial behavior of specimen with height-diameter ratio 52

1(after Abdulla & Panos, 1997)
2.24 Effect of slenderness ratio on drained triaxial behavior of specimen with 53

cement content 4% and confining stress 200kPa(after Abdulla & Panos,
1997)
2.25 Effect of the slenderness of the specimen on the results obtained from 53
constant p’ triaxial test (after Callisto & Calabresi, 1998)
2.26 Post-ruptured strength envelope of samples with mix proportion 54

s:c:w=5:1:6 (after Chin, 2006)
2.27 Successive yield surfaces for increasing degrees of bonding. Surface A 54

corresponds to unbonded material (after Gens and Nova, 1993)
2.28 Reference surface, structure surface and bubble (yield surface) for 55
destructuration model (after Rouaina & Wood, 2000)
xv
2.29 Representation of composite action of frictional and bond forces in 55
cemented soil (after Vatsala et al., 2001)
2.30 yield surface for cement treated clay (after Lee et al., 2004) 55
2.31 A new family of yield locus (after McDowell, 2000) 56
3.1 Soil-cement and water-cement ratios for some previous studies on deep 70
mixing and jet grouting (after Lee, 2005) and for this study
3.2 Working ranges of dried-pulverized and slurry clay cement mixes (after 70
Lee, 2005, mix proportion for this study were added into the same plot)
3.3 Distribution curve of air content (%) 71
3.4 A fully computer controlled triaxial stress path 71
3.5 Normal triaxial test apparatus (a) high pressure with GDS pressure 72
controller (b) lower pressure
3.6 Hitachi Tabletop microscope TM-1000 73
3.7 Tensile strength test setup (a) setup without sample (b) loading platform 74
with sample (c) loading platform with sample under water
3.8 Preparing remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimen (a) 75

cement-treated marine clay specimens, (b) cutting into pieces, (c) dried
pieces, (d) powder of remoulded specimen, (e) setup for preloading of
remoulded specimen, (f) preloading of remoulded specimen
4.1 Determination of initial yield stress 115
4.2 Determination of primary yield locus for cement-treated marine clay 117
specimen (mix proportion 10:3:13 cured under atmospheric pressure for
7days)
4.3 Isotropic compression curves for specimens with different cement 118
content and 100% total water content cured under atmospheric pressure
for 7 days
4.4 Effect of cement content on primary yielding stress under isotropic 118
compression for specimens with 100% total water content cured under
atmospheric pressure for 7 days
xvi
4.5 Isotropic compression curves for specimens with different total water 119
content and 50% cement content cured under atmospheric pressure for 7
days
4.6 Effect of total water content on primary yielding stress under isotropic 119
compression for specimens with 50% cement content cured under
atmospheric pressure for 7 days
4.7 Isotropic compression curves for specimens with mix proportion 10-1-11 120
cured under different curing stress for 7 days
4.12 Effect of curing stress on primary yielding stress under isotropic 122
compression for specimens with different mix proportion cured for 7
days
and different curing time under atmospheric pressure
4.16 Isotropic compression curves for specimens with mix proportion 2-1-4.5 124
4.18 Effect of curing time on primary yielding stress under isotropic 125
compression for specimens with different mix proportion cured under
xvii
atmospheric pressure
4.19 Undrained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion 126
10-1-11 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days (a) stress path (b)
deviator stress-strain curve
4.20 Drained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion 127
10-1-11 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
4.30 Drained triaxial behaviors of specimens with mix proportion 2-1-4 cured 137
under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
xviii
2-1-5.5 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days (a) stress path (b)
2-1-5.5 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
2-1-4 cured under 50kPa effective confining pressure for 7 days (a) stress
path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
2-1-4 cured under 50KP effective confining stress for 7 days
2-1-4 cured under 100kPa effective confining pressure for 7 days (a)
stress path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
4.39 Undrained triaxial shearing behaviors of specimens with mix proportion 146
2-1-4 cured under 250kPa effective confining pressure for 7 days (a)
stress path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
2-1-4 cured under 250KP effective pressure for 7 days
4.41 Cement content effect on undrained stress-strain behavior of specimens 148

cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days of curing period (a) stress
path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
4.42 Cement content effect on drained stress-strain behavior of specimens 149

cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days of curing period
4.43 Total water content effect on undrained stress-strain behavior of 150

specimens cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days of curing period
xix
(a) stress path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
4.44 Total water content effect on drained stress-strain behavior of specimens 151
4.45 Curing stress effect on stress-strain behavior of specimens with mix 152
proportion 2-1-4 cured for 7 days (a) stress path (b) deviator stress-strain
curve
4.46 Curing stress effect on drained stress-strain behavior of specimens with 153
mix proportion 2-1-4 cured for 7 days
4.47 Curing time effect on undrained triaxial behavior of specimens with mix 154
proportion 2-1-4 cured under atmospheric pressure (a) stress path (b)
4.48 Curing time effect on drained triaxial behavior of specimens with mix 155
proportion 2-1-4 cured under atmospheric pressure
4.49 Curing time effect on undrained triaxial behavior of specimens with mix 156
proportion 51-6 cured under atmospheric pressure (a) stress path (b)
4.50 Curing time effect on drained triaxial behavior of specimens with mix 157
proportion 5-1-6 cured under atmospheric pressure
4.51 Primary yield loci normalized by isotropic primary yield stress for 158
specimens with different mix proportion and curing stress and cured for
7 days(a) fitted by function (4-1) (b) fitted by function (4-2)
4.52 Primary yield loci normalized by isotropic primary yield stress with 159
different curing period (a) fitted by function (4-1) (b) fitted by function
(4-2)
4.53 Unconfined compressive strength tests for specimens with different 160
curing stress and 7 days of curing time period (a-d)
curing stress and 7 days of curing time period (e-h)
curing time and zero curing stress (a-d)
xx
curing time and zero curing stress (e-g)
4.57 Relationship between Isotropic primary yield stress and unconfined 164
compressive strength for specimens (a) with 7 days of curing and (b)
different curing time period
4.58 Relationship between incremental Isotropic primary yield stress and 165
post-curing void ratio for cement-treated marine clay specimens cured
for 7 days
4.59 Relationship between parameters and ratio of pre-curing total water 165
content to the cement content Cw/Aw (a) A1-Cw/Aw, (b) B1-Cw/Aw
4.60 Relationship between Isotropic primary yield stress and cement content 167
and total water content for cement treated specimens cured under
atmospheric pressure for 7days (a) p 'py versus cement content (b)
parameter A2 versus total water content (c) parameter B2 versus total

water content (d) comparison between experimental data and simulation
results by using formula (4-11)
4.61 Comparison between unconfined compressive strength obtained from 168

this study and Lee’s study (1999)
4.62 Simulated unconfined compressive strength by using Lee et al.’s (2005)’s 169
formula and this study’s formula
4.63a Simulated unconfined compressive strength by using modified formula 170

of this study and experimental unconfined compressive strength from
Lee’s (1999) study
4.63b Simulated unconfined compressive strength by using Lee’s (2005) 170

formula with different q0 and experimental unconfined compressive
strength from this study
4.64a Post-yield stress-strain behavior of CIU specimen with mix proportion 171
10:1:11 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7days (a) stress path, (b)
4.64b Post-yield stress-strain behavior of CID specimen with mix proportion 172
10:1:11 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7days
xxi
4.66a Post-yield stress-strain behavior of specimen with mix proportion 175

4.66b Post-yield stress-strain behavior of specimen with mix proportion 176

4.67a Post-yield stress-strain behavior of specimen with mix proportion 2:1:3 177
cured under atmospheric pressure for 7days (a) stress path, (b) deviator
stress-strain curve
4.67b Post-yield stress-strain behavior of specimen with mix proportion 2:1:3 178
cured under atmospheric pressure for 7days
4.69 Evolution of yield locus for cement treated marine clay specimens on 183
normalized stress space (a) mix proportion 10:1:11 (b) 5:1:6 (c) 10:3:13
(d) 2:1:3 (e) 2:1:4
4.70 Comparison between evolutions of yield locus for cement treated marine 184
clay specimens on normalized stress space (a) different cement content
(b) different total water content
4.71 Microstructure of cement treated marine clay specimens with mix 185
proportion 5:1:6 under IPC pressure 2500kPa and drained shearing
(CID2500-1250) (a) outside of slip band (b) inside of slip band
4.72 Microstructure of cement treated marine clay specimens with mix 186
proportion 5:1:6 under IPC pressure 2500kPa and undrained shearing
(2500-1250CU) (a) outside of slip band (b) inside of slip band
4.73 Theoretical solutions to the stress distribution of cylinder specimen with 187
thickness t and diameter D under two radial and opposite line loading
xxii
(after Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970)
4.74 The failure pattern of cement-treated marine clay cylinder specimen 187
(a)split specimen (b) top loading face after Brazilian test (c) specimen
with central crack
4.75 The tensile splitting strength of cement-treated marine clay cylinder 188
specimen (a) tensile strength versus cement content (b) tensile strength
versus total water content (c) tensile strength versus curing stress
4.76 Comparisons between very fast and vey slow compression rate 189
4.77 Comparisons between compression under dry condition and water 189
4.78 Prolonged submerged test (a) remoulded marine clay sample (b) 190
cement-treated marine clay sample
4.79 Relationship between tensile strength and unconfined compressive 190

strength
4.80 Modified primary yield locus for cement-treated marine clay specimens 191
with different cement content and under triaxial loading
with different total water content and under triaxial loading
with different curing stress and under triaxial loading
with different curing time period and under triaxial loading
5.1 Undrained triaxial compression of Todi clay: stress-strain response, pore 222
water pressure difference and strain homogeneity indexes(after Viggiani
et al,1993a)
5.2 Localization of cement-treated marine clay specimens with mix 223

proportion 2-1-4 in CIU test (a) 50CIU, (b) 100CIU, (c) 250CIU
5.3 Localization of cement-treated marine clay specimens (mix proportion 224

2-1-4) in CIU test with maximum consolidation stress 500kPa (a)
500-50CIU, (b) 500-250CIU
xxiii
2-1-4) in CIU test with maximum consolidation stress 2000kPa (a)
2000-50CIU, (b) 2000-400CIU

5-1-6) in CIU test with maximum consolidation stress 50kPa, 1000kPa
and 2000kPa respectively (a) 50CIU, (b) 1000-250CIU, (c) 2000-50CIU
5.6 Effect of slenderness ratio (ratio of height to diameter H/D) on 227

specimens in CIU test (mix proportion 2-1-4, with confining stress
1500kPa, lateral space Ls=0, sample diameter is the same as that of caps)
5.7 Samples after shearing in CIU test (mix proportion 2-1-4) 227
5.8 Effect of end restraint (lubrication) on specimens in CIU test (mix 228
proportion 2-1-4, with confining stress 1000kPa, Ls=0, sample diameter
is the same as that of caps), slenderness ratio = 2.
5.9 Samples after shearing in CIU test (mix proportion 2-1-4) 228
5.10 Effect of slenderness and end restraint on specimens in CIU test (mix 229
proportion 2-1-4, with confining stress 1000kPa)
5.11 Samples after shearing in CIU test (a) Specimen H/D=1, porous stone, 229
Ls=0, (b) Specimen H/D=1, Teflon, Ls=0 (c) Specimen -H/D=1, Teflon,
Ls=6mm
5.12 Effect of slenderness, end restraint and lateral space on specimens in 230
CIU test (mix proportion 2-1-4, specimen 1 and 2 with confining stress
1000kPa, specimen 3 and 4 with confining stress 500kPa)
5.13 Post-peak stress statuses at different range of axial strain in CIU test 231
(mix proportion 2-1-4, with confining stress 1000kPa)
5.14 Post-peak stress statuses at very larger axial strain in CIU test (mix 232
5.15 Short samples with enlarged low friction platens after shearing to axial 233
strain of about 55% in CIU test (a) confining stress 1000kPa (b)
confining stress 500kPa
5.16 Comparison between conventional specimen and short specimen in CID 233
test (mix proportion 2-1-4, effective confining stress 250kPa)
5.17 Comparison between conventional specimen and short specimen in CID 234
xxiv
5.18 Critical state of conventional specimen and short specimen 235
5.19 Microstructure of cement treated marine clay short specimens with mix 236
proportion 2:1:4 under effective confining pressure 500kPa and drained
shearing (500CID)
5.20 Isotropic compression curves for remoulded cement-treated marine clay 237
specimens with different cement content and 100% total water content
cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days before remoulding
5.21 Isotropic compression curves for remoulded and unremoulded 237

cement-treated marine clay specimens and remoulded marine clay
specimens with different total water content and 50% cement content
cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days before remoulding
specimens with different curing stress and 50% cement content and
133% total water content before remoulding
specimens with different cement content and curing time before
remoulding
5.25 Undrained triaxial shearing behaviors of remoulded marine clay 240

specimens with 70 kPa preconsolidation pressure
5.26 Undrained triaxial shearing behavior of remoulded cement-treated 241

marine clay specimens with 10% cement content and 70 kPa
preconsolidation pressure

marine clay specimens with 10% cement content and different

marine clay specimens with 10% cement content and 70kPa
preconsolidation pressure and different curing period

xxv



preconsolidation pressure and different curing periods







marine clay specimens with different cement content and 70 kPa
5.40 Simulation of stress path of remoulded cement-treated marine clay 255

specimens with 50% cement content by modified Cam clay model
xxvi


5.44 Experiment and simulated Stress paths of remoulded cement-treated 259

marine clay specimens with preloading 44kPa (from cement-treated
marine clay with 50% cement content and different total water content,
cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days)
5.45 Stress-strain curve of remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimens 260

with preloading 44kPa (from cement-treated marine clay with 50%
cement content and different pre-remoulding total water content, cured
under atmospheric pressure for 7 days)
5.46 Excess pore pressure-strain curve of remoulded cement-treated marine 261

clay specimens with preloading 44kPa (from cement-treated marine clay
with 50% cement content and different pre-remoulding total water
content, cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days)

marine clay specimens with preconsolidation pressure 70kPa (remoulded
from cement-treated marine clay with 50% cement content and 133%
total water content and cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days)

total water content and 50kPa curing stress)

5.50 Uundrained triaxial shearing behavior of remoulded cement-treated 265
xxvii
5.51 Microstructure at post-rupture states, as shown in the mechanical 266

behaviour (after Chin (2006))
5.52 Comparison between SEM of remoulded cement-treated marine clay and 267
cement-treated marine clay after drained shearing test (a)remoulded
cement-treated marine clay specimen, (b)rupture plane of cement-treated
marine clay (CID2500-1250)
6.1 Relationship between stress ratio at the top of the yield locus(empirical 304
method one) and plastic volumetric strain for different mix proportion (a)
10-1-11, (b) 5-1-6, (3) 10-3-13, (d) 2-1-3, (e) 2-1-4, (f) for all mix
proportions
6.2 Simulated yield loci through empiric method one with experimental data 307
for different mix proportion (a) 10-1-11, (b) 5-1-6, (3) 10-3-13, (d) 2-1-3,
(e) 2-1-4
6.3 Relationship between stress ratio at the top of the yield locus(empirical 308
method two) and plastic volumetric strain for different mix proportion
(a) 10-1-11, (b) 5-1-6, (3) 10-3-13, (d) 2-1-3, (e) 2-1-4, (f) for all mix
proportions
6.4 Simulated yield loci through empiric method two with experimental data 311
for different mix proportion (a) 10-1-11, (b) 5-1-6, (3) 10-3-13, (d) 2-1-3,
(e) 2-1-4
6.5 Simulated yield loci through empiric method one with tensile strength (a) 312
mix proportion 10-1-11, (b) mix proportion 10-3-13
6.6 313
Demonstration of proposed yield locus (a) p '− q plane (b) p '/ p0' − q / p0'
plane
6.7 Simulated primary yield loci for cement-treated marine clay specimens 314
with different cement content and cured under atmospheric pressure for 7
days
with different total water content and cured under atmospheric pressure
for 7 days
xxviii
with 50% cement content and 133% total water content and cured under
different confining pressure for 7 days
with 50% cement content and 133% total water content and cured under
atmospheric pressure for different curing time periods
6.11 Simulated evolution of yield locus for cement-treated marine clay 316
specimens with 10% cement content and 100% total water content and
6.16 Isotropic compression curves of remoulded and unremoulded 319

cement-treated marine clay specimens with 10% cement content




cement-treated marine clay specimens with 50% cement content and
133% total water content before remoulding
xxix
6.21 Idealization of the isotropic compression behavior of reconstituted and 321
structured soils
6.22 Relationships between q1 and qu 322
6.23 Comparison between Cot and Cos (Cot was obtained from experiment, 322
Cos was obtained by using qu and yield function)
6.24 Relationship between C0 and qu 323
6.25 Degradation of C with plastic work on normalized plane for 323

cement-treated marine clay (with mix proportion 10:1:11)
6.26 Degradation of inherent cohesion C for cement-treated specimen with 324
10% cement content and 100% total water content




6.31 Cohesion degradation with evolution of yield locus and plastic strain for 326
100% total water content and cured under atmospheric pressure for
7days
7days
7days
xxx
7days
7days
xxxi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Ac Cement content
Aw Total water cotent
Al O Aluminium oxide
2 3
C True or inherent cohesion
C0 Initial true or inherent cohesion
C0s Simulated value of initial true cohesion
C0t Experimental value of initial true cohesion
C´ Cohesion intercept
CS Di-calcium silicate
2
CA Tri-calcium aluminate
3
CS Tri-calcium silicate
3
C AF Tetra-calcium alumino-ferrite
4
Ca(OH) Calcium hydroxide, or lime

2
CAH Calcium aluminate hydrates
CaO Calcium Oxide
CASH Calcium Aluminate Silicate Hydrate
Cc compression index
CDM Cement Deep Mixing
CID Isotropically consolidated drained triaxial test
CIU Isotropically consolidated undrained triaxial test
CSH Calcium Silicate Hydrate
Cu Undrained shear strength
xxxii
e Void ratio
ecur Post-curing void ratio
e0 Initial void ratio
E Tangential elastic Young’s modulus
Fe O Iron oxide
2 3
G Tangent shear modulus
Gs Specific gravity
HO Water
2
ICL Intrinsic compression line, Burland (1990)
ICT Isotropic compression test
I Liquidity index
L
IOCR Isotropic overconsolidation ratio
K0 Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
K 2O Potassium Oxide
L/D Slenderness ratio, ratio of length to diameter
LL Liquid limit
'
M Stress ratio, q/p at critical state
MgO Magnesia
N Stress ratio at the top of yield locus
NaOH Sodium hydroxide
Na2O Sodium Oxide
NCL Normally Consolidation Line
P line loading along central vertical section
xxxiii
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
PI Plasticity index
PL Plastic limit
p' Mean normal effective stress
p'1 The mean effective stress at the intersection between yield locus and apparent
tensile cut-off line
Pap atmospheric pressure
p'cur Effective isotropic curing stress
p'c Pre-shear effective confining pressure
p'0 Precompression pressure
p'0u Precompression pressure borne by the remoulded soil skeleton
p'u mean effective stress carried by the remoulded or unstructured cement-treated
q Deviator stress
q1 The deviator stress at the intersection between yield locus and apparent tensile
cut-off line
q0 Experimentally fitted value, Lee et al. (2005)’s framework
qu Unconfined compressive strength
S/C Soil-cement ratio
SCL sedimentation compression line
S:C:W Soil-cement-water ratio
SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy
SiO Silica
2
SO3 Sulphuric Anhydride
TST Tensile splitting strength test
xxxiv
u Excess pore water pressure
UCT Unconfined compressive test
V Specific volume, 1+e
VIU initial specific volume of unstructured soil when p0u

'
=1
Vpy specific volume of structured soil at primary yield stress
W plastic work
w Moisture content
Wvp plastic work due to plastic volumetric strain ε vp
Wsp plastic work due to plastic shear strain ε sp
w/c Water-cement ratio
γb Bulk density
γd Dry density
εa Axial strain
εs Deviatoric strain
εv Volumetric strain
'
η Stress ratio, q/p
κ Slope of unloading-reloading line in v-lnp' plane after initial-yield
κU Slope of unloading-reloading line in v-lnp' plane of unstructured soil
λ compression index in natural log scale ( λ )
λU isotropic compression index of the unstructured soil
σ'1,σ'3 Principle effective stresses
σt Tensile strength
σx stress along horizontal direction(x)
xxxv
σy stress along vertical direction(y)
∆ p'0s additional preconsolidation stress that can be resisted due to structure
∆ p's additional mean effective stress that can be resisted due to structure
∆ p'0si The initial value of additional preconsolidation stress that can be resisted due
to structure
ϕ' frictional angle
xxxvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
About one quarter of Singapore Island is underlain by marine clays of the Kallang
Formation (Pitts, 1992). As noted by Tan et al. (2002), Singapore marine clay is a lightly over-
consolidated, structured soil. Details of the Singapore marine clay have been presented by Tan
(1983) and Yong et al. (1990), amongst others. Table 1.1 shows some of the engineering
properties of Singapore marine clay. As this Table shows, Singapore marine clay is
characterized by low undrained shear strength and high compressibility; these two properties
often give rise to a variety of geotechnical problems in construction, such as ground heave,
large soil settlement and collapse in foundation and sub-structure construction, which can
cause superstructural damage such as crack, tilt and collapse. Ground improvement techniques
such as sand and vertical drain and chemical stabilization have been used to improve the
properties of soft soils in foundation and sub-structure construction. In Singapore, one of the
most commonly used ground improvement schemes is chemical stabilization using cement
because cement is relatively abundant (compared to other chemicals), cheap and efficient
(Broms, 1984). The improvement process is also relatively fast compared to methods
involving consolidation and incurs little or no settlement to the surrounding ground. Dynamic
compaction cannot be used as the Singapore marine clay is highly compressible with low
permeability and the vibration due to dynamic compaction would have been unacceptable in a
densely built urban environment.
There are two main approaches to introduce cement into the soil matrix. They are cement
deep mixing (CDM) and jet grouting pile (JGP). The former introduces and mixes cement
slurry or powder into the soil matrix by a rotating mixing tool (e.g., Babasaki et al. 1991;
Bruce et al. 1998) whereas the latter involves breaking up the soil matrix by a high velocity
1
CHAPTER 1
grout or water jet with concurrent introduction of cement grout (e.g., Gallavresi 1992; Chia
and Tan 1993; Yong et al. 1996).
Table 1.1 Typical properties of Singapore marine clay

Geotechnical properties Tan(1983) Yong et al.(1990)
Upper Lower Upper Lower
member member member member
Unit weight(kN/m3) 14.0-16.0 15.0-17.5 15.0-16.0 15.0-17.5
Water content (%) 60-110 47-70 60-90 50-70
Atterberg limits Liquid limit (%) 75-115 63-80 80-120 60-90
Plasticity index 50-77 39-55 50-80 40-55
(%)
Undrained shear strength Undrained 5-20 8-50 … …
Su(kPa) unconsolidated
triaxial test
Field vane 8-40 35-50 … …
Su/p0’ 0.18-0.41 0.25-0.41 0.18-0.30 0.25-0.30
Sensitivity 1.5-6 3-5 1.5-6 3-5
Compression index Cc 0.70-1.30 0.45-0.95 0.60-1.20 0.40-1.00
In situ void ratio 1.72-2.50 1.40-1.85 1.70-2.50 1.40-1.85
Coefficient of 0.01-0.20 … 0.10-1 1
permeability k(x10-9m/s)
Coefficient of lateral 0.52-0.72 0.52-0.72 0.58-0.70 0.58-0.70
Earth pressure at rest(ko)
Note: p0' denotes effective overburden stress
It is well known that the introduction of cement will increase in the strength of soft clay.
The short-term gain in strength is the result of primary hydration reaction, which also leads to
a reduction in moisture content during the chemical reaction. The long-term gain in strength is
largely a result of secondary pozzolanic reaction between the lime and the clay minerals (e.g.,
Kezdi, 1979; Bergado et al., 1996). Besides the increase in strength, the cement stabilization
also causes significant improvement in other engineering properties such as compressibility,
stiffness, permeability and stress-strain behavior due to the formation of structure within the
soil grain assemblage induced by cementation.
Because of the rapidly rising demand for cement stabilization in soft soils for urban
development, the engineering behavior of cement-treated soil has attracted worldwide interest.
However, constitutive framework of improved marine clay is still not available due to
insufficient research. In fact, the cement-treated marine clay is often modeled as a Mohr-
Coulomb linear elastic-perfectly plastic material in numerical modeling (e.g. COI 2005; Lee
2
CHAPTER 1
2008), which may not be consistent with the real constitutive behavior of cement-treated
marine clay.
1.2 Behavior of cement-treated soil
The constitutive behaviors of natural soils have been extensively investigated (e.g. Al-
Tabbaa and Muir Wood, 1989; Smith et al., 1992; Shen, 1993a, 1993b; Wheeler, 1997;
Rouania and Muir Wood, 2000; Kavvadas and Amorosi, 2000; Asaoka, 2000; Gajo et at., 2001;
Liu and Carter, 2002; Koskinen and Karstunen, 2002; Baudet and Stallebrass, 2004;
McDowell and Hau, 2004). The constitutive behaviors of natural, weakly cemented soils or
soft rocks have also been studied by various researchers (e.g. Wong et al., 1975; Oka et al.,
1985; Nova, 1988; Gens and Nova, 1993; Airey, 1993; Lagioia and Nova, 1995; Malandraki
and Toll, 1995, 2000; Callisto et al. 2004). The engineering properties especially the
unconfined compressive strength, modulus and permeability of cement-treated soil have been
studied since 1960’s (e.g. Wissa et al., 1965; Enami et al., 1980; Nakamura et al., 1982;
Kauschinger et al., 1992; Terashi, 1997; Uddin et al., 1997; Balasubramanian et al., 1998; Yin
and Lai, 1998; Huang and Airey, 1998; Miura et al., 2001; Kamruzzaman, 2002; Hopribulsuk
et al, 2003; Lorenzo and Bergado, 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Chin, 2006). However, the
constitutive behaviors of cement-treated soils have been studied relatively late. Most of the
studies were mainly based on isotropic compression and undrained triaxial shear test (Hirai et
al., 1989; Matsuoka et al., 1995; Uddin et al., 1997; Yu et al., 1998; Kasama et al., 2000; Rotta
et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2004; Horpibulsuk et al., 2004; Namikawa et al., 2006; Namikawa et al.,
2007; Chiu et al., 2008; Horpibulsuk et al., 2009). The constitutive model for cement-treated
soil especially for cement-treated clay is very scarce (Lee et al., 2004; Horpibulsuk et al.,
2009). As such, the stress-strain behavior of cement-treated clayey soil is still largely unclear
and research on this area remains scanty. As mentioned earlier, up to now, cement-treated
marine clay is often modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb material in numerical modeling (e.g. COI
2005; Lee 2008).
3
CHAPTER 1
1.2.1 Behavior of natural and artificially lightly cemented soil
Numerous studies on the mechanical behavior of natural cemented soil have been
conducted over the last 30 years (e.g. Wong et al., 1975; Oka et al., 1985; Leroueil et al., 1990;
Airey, 1993; Coop and Atkinson,1993; Cuccovillos and Coop, 1999; Callisto et al. 2004).
Based on the stress-strain behavior under triaxial loading condition, many constitutive models
have been developed for the behavior of natural cemented soil for a long time, which considers
the ‘small strain’ response, the material’s memory of its stress history and soil structuration
effects (e.g. Jardine et al, 1986; Gens and Nova, 1993; Matsuoka and Sun, 1993; Kavvadas,
1995; Muir Wood, 1995b; Liu et al., 1997).
For cemented soils, Leroueil and Vaughan (1990) stated that the patterns of behavior
observed in all cemented soils are similar even though the cementation may result from
different causes. More recently, researchers used artificially created lightly cemented soil to
study the naturally cemented soil by re-creating cementation under controlled condition (e.g.
Abdulla & Panos, 1997; Malandraki and Toll, 2000; Consoli et al, 2000; Kasama et al., 2000;
Rotta et al, 2003; Consoli et al, 2006). However, the cement content in these studies is often
too low to be representative of cement-treated soil and the results of these studies may
therefore not be applicable for cement-treated soils due to the following reasons. For instance,
in Rotta et al.’s (2003) experiments, the cement content used ranges from 1% to 3%, which is
well below what is usually used in cement treatment of soft clays. In such models, the effect of
cementation is often modeled by an enlarged yield surface with the same shape as that of the
remoulded soil (e.g. Gens and Nova, 1993; Rouainia & Wood, 2000). During undrained
loading, the loss of shear strength is often associated with a loss of effective stress arising from
volumetric collapse, rather than a direct loss of bonding. In drained conditions, loss of strength
is usually not modeled as volumetric densification offsets the loss of bonding. Chin (2006)
noted that, in cement-treated marine clay, strain softening can occur after an episode of
volumetric densification and strain hardening. Furthermore, during the strain softening, there is
a significant decrease in the stress ratio, which is suggestive of a “flattening” of the yield locus.
4
CHAPTER 1
1.2.2 Behavior of cement-treated sand and clay
In general, the behavior of cement-treated soil is very different from that of untreated soil
due to the structure effect. As such, the significance of structure to cement-treated soil is
obvious. The structure and its effect on the behavior of cement-treated soil attracted wide
interest (e.g. Kezdi, 1979; Saitoh et al., 1985; Chew et al., 2004; Chin, 2006).
Changes in physical properties such as water content, liquid limit, plastic limit with
cement content, curing time and curing stress has been investigated widely (e.g. Locat, 1990;
Uddin et al., 1997; Petchgate et al., 2001; Chew et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2005; and Chin, 2006).
The change in particle size, particle distribution and some aspects of micro-structure due to
cementation has been also studied (e.g. Suzuki et al. 1981, Shen 1998, Chew et al., 2004; Chin
2006).
The early research works carried out to understand the effects of the various factors on the
strength of cement-treated soil were based on unconfined compressive strength, which is
widely used as an engineering property to represent the effectiveness of the stabilization
method. Factors which have been found to affect the unconfined compressive strength
included stabilization agents, characteristics of soil, mixing condition, and curing condition
(e.g. Niina et al., 1977; Enami et al., 1980; Kawasaki et al., 1981; Nakamura et al., 1982;
Terashi, 1997).
The engineering behavior of cement-treated soil such as permeability, compressibility,
stiffness, shear strength, and stress-strain behavior was also investigated widely. In general, the
results obtained by different researchers showed the same trend for compressibility, stress-
strain behavior (e.g. Endo, 1976; Tatsuoka and Kobayashi, 1983; Shibuya et al., 1992; Uddin
et al., 1997; Balasubramanian et al., 1998; Miura et al., 2001; Chin, 2006) whereas the results
for permeability and shear strength by different researchers showed more variation (e.g.
Suzuki et al.,1981; Kauschinger et al., 1992; Uddin et al., 1997;Yin & Lai, 1998).
However, to date, the constitutive behavior of cement-treated soft clay has not been
investigated sufficiently to enable development of constitutive models. Consequently only a
5
CHAPTER 1
few of constitutive models were proposed for cement-treated soil and these are mainly for
cement-treated sand or sandy soil (e.g. Hirai et al., 1989; Yu et al., 1998; Namikawa et al.,
2007).
1.2.3 Behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay
The behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay has been investigated since 1990’s.
Lee (1999) and Lee et al.(2005) studied the strength characteristics of cement-treated
Singapore marine clay specifically in the context of jet grouting. Tan et al. (2002) investigated
the properties of cement-treated Singapore marine clay through unconfined strength test with
local strain measurement method. Kamruzzaman (2002) and Chew et al. (2004) studied the
physicochemical and micro-structural properties of cement-treated marine clay, while Chin
(2006) focused on the micro-structural changes and macroscopic behavior of cement-treated
marine clay under triaxial loadings at low and high stresses. So, however, a complete
constitutive framework for cement-treated Singapore marine clay is still not available.
1.3 Objectives and organization of the thesis
This study follows upon the work of Chin’s (2006) initial study on the constitutive
behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay. This study can be sub-divided into several
parts. Firstly, element testing was conducted for a wide range of mix proportions and different
curing conditions to shed light on the constitutive behavior of the cement-treated clay. Next,
based on the experimental results, common trends were identified which forms the basis of a
framework of behavior of this material. Finally, a constitutive framework was postulated for
the primary yielding and early post-yield behavior of cement-treated marine clay. The detailed
issues to be studied will be discussed in the next chapter. The main objectives of the thesis are
summarized as below.
(a) To investigate the primary yielding behavior of cement-treated marine clay, including the
proper method to determine the primary yield locus.
6
CHAPTER 1
(b) To investigate the early post-yield behavior of cement-treated marine clay, especially the
evolution of yield locus during hardening phase.
(c) To develop a constitutive model for the primary yielding and early post-yield behavior of
cement-treated marine clay.
The layout of the thesis following this chapter is introduced briefly as below.
Chapter 2 presents a comprehensive literature review on experimental and theoretical study
as well as the outstanding issues relevant to cemented soil. The scope of the current study is
also highlighted.
Chapter 3 introduces experiment set-up and methodology, including the experiment work
done in this research.
Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 present experimental results and analysis, mainly on primary
yielding and post-yield behavior of cement- treated clay. Instead of trying to investigate the
critical state of cement treated marine clay, a reference state to study the structure effect on
constitutive behavior of cement treated marine clay is also introduced. The ultimate state of
cement-treated soil is also discussed.
Chapter 6 introduces the proposed empirical constitutive framework as well as theoretical
constitutive framework based on experimental study. Parameters of the proposed constitutive
model are also discussed.
Chapter 7 summarizes the main findings of the current study and discussions on the
proposed constitutive model. Besides, recommendations are made for future studies.
7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a review on experimental and theoretical studies on the behavior of
cement-treated soil. The fundamental concepts and mechanism of cement stabilization is first
discussed, followed by the factors on the hardening characteristic of cement-treated clay. In
experimental study, current understanding on the changes of soil properties and behavior due
to the cement stabilization is presented. The limitations of those studies are reviewed. In
theoretical modelling, current approaches to model the constitutive behavior of cemented soil
are discussed. Some outstanding issues relating to yielding and softening are then presented.
Finally the issues which will be examined in the current study are presented.
2.2 Basic concepts and mechanism of cement stabilization
2.2.1 Mechanism of cement stabilization
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) is the most commonly used cement in cement-soil
stabilization. Its main components are tricalcium and dicalcium silicates (C3S and C2S),
tricalcium aluminate (C3A) and tetracalcium alumino-ferrite (C4AF). In accordance with the
notation commonly used in cement chemistry, C herein represents CaO, S represents SiO2, A
represents Al2O3 and F represents Fe2O3. In the presence of water, hydrations of these
compounds form colloidal hydrated products of very low solubility, which are calcium silicate
hydrates [CSH]; calcium aluminate hydrates [CAH]; and calcium aluminate silicate hydrates
[CASH]. The hydrations of aluminates are mainly responsible for setting, i.e. solidification of
the cement paste whereas the hydrations of silicates lead to hardening of cement paste. Also,
the hydration of calcium silicates produces calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2], or lime. The
9
CHAPTER 2
Ca(OH)2, together with NaOH and KOH that are present in small amounts, causes a rise in pH
in the pore liquid.
For simplicity, tricalcium silicate is chosen to illustrate the cement stabilization
mechanism in the discussion below. There are two major chemical reactions which govern the
soil cement stabilization mechanism: the primary hydration and the secondary pozzolanic
reactions. The former is represented by Equation (2.1) below and occurs between cement and
water (from soil or cement slurry), resulting in rapid strength gain due to the formation of
primary cementitious products such as CSH. This reaction also leads to the short-term
hardening of cement-treated soil. In addition, lime is produced and the concentrations of Ca2+
and OH- ions in the pore water increases [Equation (2.2)] through the hydrolysis of the lime.
C3S + H2O C3S2HX (hydrated gel) + Ca(OH)2

(2.1)
(primary cementitious products)
Ca(OH)2 Ca2+ + 2(OH)- (2.2)

(hydrolysis of lime)
The secondary pozzolanic reaction, also termed as solidification, occurs once the pore
chemistry in soil system achieves a sufficiently alkaline condition when sufficient
concentration of OH- ions is present in the pore water. The resulting alkalinity of the pore
water promotes dissolution of silica and alumina from the clays, which then react with the Ca2+
ions, forming calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH), which are
the secondary cementitious products [Equations (2.3) and (2.4)]. These compounds crystallize
and harden with time, thereby enhancing the strength of the soil cement mixes.
Ca2+ + 2(OH)- C-S-H

(2.3)
+ SiO2 (soil silica) (secondary cementitious product)
Ca2+ + 2(OH)- C-A-H

(2.4)
+ Al2O3 (soil alumina) (secondary cementitious product)
It should be noted that the Eqs. (2.1) – (2.4) only apply to tricalcium silicate (C3S), which
is the main constituent of OPC. The others main constituents of cement such as dicalcium
silicates (C2S), tricalcium aluminate (C3A) and tetracalcium alumino-ferrite (C4AF) are also
involved in both the hydration and pozollanic reactions to produce calcium silicate hydrate
(CSH), calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) and calcium aluminate silicate hydrates (CASH). A
10
CHAPTER 2
complete set of chemical equations involving these reactions as well as lime treated clay have
been presented by Kezdi (1979).
2.2.2 Structure and microstructure of treated soil
The term “structure” was first introduced for clays (e.g. Mitchell, 1976), and has been
described by Burland (1990) as being the combination of bonding (i.e. inter-particle cementing)
and fabric (i.e. the arrangement and distribution of the particles comprising the soil). A
common effect of structure is to give the soil a higher strength and stiffness and to allow the
soil to exist at a higher volumetric state than that of the same material in a reconstituted state.
For sands, structure has often been equated solely with interparticle bonds although the fabric
of geologically aged sands may also influence the peak strength (e.g., Dusseault &
Morgenstern, 1979; Cuccovillo & Coop, 1999). The effect of structure has been observed on a
wide range of natural soils and weak rocks of both sedimentary and residual soils, and also for
artificially cemented soils. The structure of natural soils has been examined by numerous
researchers (Lerouiel and Vaughan, 1990; Burland, 1990; Nagaraj et al., 1998; Liu and Carter,
1999; Asaoka et al., 2000; Baudet and Stallebrass, 2004; Low et al., 2008), which are often
formed by solute deposition at inter-particle contacts, charge deficiencies, and van der Waal
forces (Mitchell 1993), rather than by hydration and pozzolanic reactions. The structure of
lime-treated clays has been studied by Locat et al. (1990, 1996) and Rao and
Rajasekaran(1996), amongst others. However, the absence of the primary hydration reaction in
lime treatment may lead to a different microstructure from that produced by cement treatment.
The structure of artificially cemented soils has been investigated by various researchers (e.g.
Hirai et al. ,1989; Coop & Atkinson, 1993; Huang &Airey, 1998; Kasama et al., 2000;
Malandraki and Toll, 2000; Consoli et al., 2000; Schnaid et al., 2001; Kamruzzaman, 2002;
Rotta et al., 2003; Chew, 2004; Chin, 2006). However, most of them focused on lightly
cemented soils (usually less than 5% cement content), which may not have the same behavior
as heavily cement-treated soil created by ground improvement (usually higher than 10%
cement content).
11
CHAPTER 2
The microstructure of cement-treated clay is often significantly different from that of the
untreated clay. Kezdi (1979) suggested that a soil-cement skeleton matrix may be formed due
to the inclusion of cement with each skeletal unit consisting of a core of hydrated cement gel
(tobermorite gel) and secondary cementitious product (CSH and CAH) connecting the adjacent
clay particles. In addition, the inter-particle bond strength also increases due to reduction of
diffused double (absorbed) layer and flocculation of the secondary cementitious materials.
Saitoh et al. (1985) proposed schematic diagrams to illustrate the change in structure of
soil-cement mixtures during hardening, as shown in Fig 2.1. They postulated that the initial
condition immediately after mixing consists of clusters of clay particles, surrounded by cement
slurry. The primary hydration reaction involves only the shell of cement slurry, which forms
hardened cement bodies. The secondary pozzolanic reaction involves the inner clay particles,
leading to the formation of hardened soil bodies. They also postulated that the strength of the
improved soil will depend upon the strength characteristics of both types of hardened bodies.
Locat et al. (1990) presented micrographs on the microstructure of lime-treated sensitive
clay (see Fig 2.2). As Fig 2.2(A) shows, before addition of lime, the clay has an open
microfabric, and individual particles and aggregates could be seen. As Fig 2.2(B) shows, after
10 days of curing with quicklime, the soil has been flocculated into larger lumps; Fig 2.2(C-F)
show the lumps cemented together by the subsequent pozzolanic reaction products.
For cement-treated clay, Chew et al. (2004) noted that, as the cement content increases
from 10% to 50%, the flocculated nature of the fabric becomes more evident, with soil particle
clusters interspersed by large opening. They attributed this to the dissolution of silica and
alumina from the clay minerals and their subsequent reaction with the Ca2+ ions to form CSH
and CASH, which are then deposited onto the particle surface. They also noted a significant
amount of entrapped water within the flocculated particle clusters, similar to that observed by
Locat el al. (1996) for lime stabilized clay.
More recently, Kamruzzaman (2009) and Chin (2006) also explore the evolution of
cement-treated clay microstructure under different loading conditions and its effect on
macroscopic properties. Kamruzzaman(2009) found that during Ko consolidation(oedometer
12
CHAPTER 2
consolidation), the largest intercluster voids are collapsed at the early stage of consolidation
and small intracluster pores are compressed only after the pressure exceeded the
preconsolidation pressure. A significant reduction in apparent compression index of the treated
clay is observed after a certain level of stress, which indicates that a complete destructuration
is possible by applying a very high stress. By investigating specimens sheared under undrained
condition, Kamruzzaman (2009) stated that at high confining stress (beyond the yield stress),
the specimens has apparently destructured during isotropic consolidation stage but still
appeared to have some cementation effect during shearing. At low confining stress, the
destructuration of treated clay only takes place during shearing stage. However, Kamruzzaman
(2009) didn’t conduct drained triaxial test and generalize destructuration for both undrained
and drained stress paths under different loading conditions. Chin (2006) found that loss of
structure in the cement-treated soil under triaxial loading depends on the stress status. For
specimens sheared at effective confining stresses much lower than their isotropic yield stress,
large aggregates remained visible even within the rupture band. On the other hand, for
specimens sheared at higher effective confining stresses(i.e. at stresses close to and higher than
isotropic yield stress), the dominant microstructure change appears to be aggregate squashing
and void closure at pre-peak stage and massive aggregate and particle break-up at post-peak
stage, which increases in severity with compression pressure and volumetric
compression(Figure 2.3). However, Chin’s (2006) study was limited to only one mix
proportion. As such, whether there is similarity among different mix proportions is not clear.
2.3 Factors on the strength of cement-treated soil
The strength of the cement-treated soil can be affected by a number of factors. The early
research works carried out to understand the effects of the various factors on the strength of
cement-treated soil were based on unconfined compressive strength which is widely used as an
engineering index to represent the effectiveness of the stabilization method.
13
CHAPTER 2
Terashi (1997) summarized the factors that influence the strength of the improved soil
into four categories: characteristics of stabilizing agent; characteristics and condition of soils;
mixing conditions; and curing conditions (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Factors affecting the strength increase (after Terashi, 1997)
I. Characteristic of stabilizing agent 1. Type of stabilizing agent

2. Quality
3. Mixing water and additives
II. Characteristics and conditions of soil 1. Physical chemical and mineralogical
(especially important for clays) properties of soil
2. Organic content
3. pH of pore water
4. Water content
III. Mixing conditions 1. Degree of mixing
2. Timing of mixing/re-mixing
3. Quantity of stabilizing agent
IV. Curing conditions 1. Temperature
2. curing time
3. Humidity
4. Wetting and drying/freezing and thawing,
etc.
2.3.1 Characteristics of stabilizing agents
In general, the strength of an improved soil increases with the amount of stabilizing agent.
However, the rate of increment is not proportional to cement contents (Kawasaki et al. 1981).
For Bangkok Clay, Uddin et al. (1997) observed that the greatest increment rate lies in cement
contents ranging from 10% to 25%. For Singapore marine clay, Kamruzzaman (2002) noted
significant increase in the strength of the treated soil within the cement content range of 5-40%.
On the other hand, Miura et al. (2001) and Horpibulsuk et al. (2003) noted that the ratio of the
initial water content of the clay to the cement content (clay-water/cement ratio) is a more
appropriate parameter for quantifying the strength development of the cement treated soft
clays, instead of cement content only. Similarly, Lee et al. (2005) showed that the unconfined
compressive strength of the improved clay is dependent on both soil/cement and water/cement
ratios.
Differences of improvement arising from the use of different types of cement have also
been investigated. Kawasaki et al. (1981) compared the effect of slag cement and ordinary
14
CHAPTER 2
Portland cement for two different types of soils in Japan, Kanagawa and Saga soils. The result
in Figure 2.4 shows that the improvement obtained is dependent on the type of stabilizing
agent and soil, or more precisely the chemical reactions that occur between the stabilizing
agents and the soils. Similarly, Ahnberg et al. (1995) compared the effect of cement, lime and
mixture of cement and lime mixed with different soils in Sweden, as shown in Figure 2.5.
Based on field results from sandy ground with 5% of fines, Saitoh et al. (1990) noted that
blast-furnace cement produces higher compressive strength than ordinary Portland cement.
Besides cement or lime, a mixture of different stabilizing agents such as fly ash-cement
mixture has also been studied (Balasubramaniam et. al, 1998).
2.3.2 Characteristics of soil
It is well-recognised that different types of soil (e.g. peat, clay, silt, sand, etc.) affect the
chemical reactions between the soils and stabilizing agents and thus the properties of the
treated soil. Niina et al. (1977) noted the influence of grain size distribution on the unconfined
compressive strength of the cement-treated soil. As shown in Figure 2.6, the highest
improvement effect was obtained when the sand fraction is about 60%, irrespective of the
amount of cement content. Taki and Yang (1991) also revealed that coarse grained soil shows
a larger strength increase for given cement content. Stavridakis (2006) stated that the decrease
of bentonite and increase of sand induced the increases of strength of cement stabilized clay-
sand mixtures.
Among clay types, the effect of different mineralogy was studied by Wissa et al. (1965).
They noted that, generally, soils with higher pozzolanic reactivity show greater strength
increase upon cement treatment. For instance, montmorillonitic and kaolinitic clayey soils
were effective pozzolanic agents, compared to clays which contain mainly illite, chlorite or
vermiculite. They explained that the pozzolanic reaction between clay particles and hydrated
lime is dependent on mineral composition, especially the amorphous silica and alumina that
present in the soil. Saitoh et al. (1985) also highlighted the importance of pozzolanic reactivity
in the effectiveness of the cement-clay improvement.
15
CHAPTER 2
Endo (1976) showed that the increase in initial water content in the soil significantly
reduces the compressive strength of the mixture at any particular cement content. However,
Terashi et al. (1980) stated, at very low moisture content, i.e. near to plastic limit, the degree of
improvement is also not significant.
Huat (2006) investigated the effect of the organic content on the strength of cement
stabilized tropical peat soils. As shown in Figure 2.7, higher organic content of the soil
induced lower strength of cement stabilized soil.
2.3.3 Mixing conditions
The mixing conditions include factors such as the types of mixer, installation method,
timing and degree of mixing. The importance of mixing is to create a treated soil mass with a
high degree of uniformity. For cement-stabilized clay, Nakamura et al. (1982) investigated the
relationship between the unconfined compressive strength and mixing period for laboratory
prepared samples mixed under both cement powder and cement slurry (see Figure 2.8). The
figure shows that the decrease in mixing time caused the decrease in unconfined compressive
strength. In laboratory, the standardization procedure by the Japanese Geotechnical society
(JGS, 2000) arguably suggests a mixing period of 10 minutes as appropriate time to obtain a
“sufficient mixing” in the laboratory, using a Hobart mixer.
For in-situ soil-cement mixing, Yoshizawa et al. (1996) showed that the number of
mixing shafts, mixing blades and rotational speed may affect the strength of improved soil.
They stated that better improvement could be obtained when using four mixing shafts and
higher rotational speed as compared to single shaft with low speed. Other configurations which
may also influence the degree of mixing during installation of soil-cement mixing such as the
number of shafts, the configuration of mixing blades, the penetration/withdrawal speed, the
rotational speed of the shafts and the injection methods were also studied(e.g. Nishibayashi et
al., 1985; Enami et al., 1986; Nishibayashi, 1988; Saitoh et al., 1990)
2.3.4 Curing conditions
16
CHAPTER 2
During treatment period, the curing temperature, stresses, time and humidity also affect
the strength development of the treated soil. In general, the longer the curing period, the better
is the strength development, due to the progress of the pozzolanic reaction (Kezdi, 1979). As
shown in Fig. 2.9, the strength increases with curing time irrespective of soil types (Kawasaki
et al., 1981). A similar test results were obtained with Portland cement or fly ash cement
(Saitoh, 1988; Uddin et al., 1997; Lorenzo et al., 2004; Stavridakis, 2006; Kamruzzaman et al.,
2009)).
The influence of curing temperature on the unconfined compressive strength of the
laboratory treated soil was also studied by Enami et al. (1980), as shown in Figure 2.10. In
general, it shows that a higher strength could be obtained under a higher curing temperature.
The increase in unconfined compressive strength is almost linear with curing temperature
ranging from 0°C to 30°C, for samples of different ages up to 28 days.
Chin (2006) showed that unconfined compressive strength increases with the confining
stress at which cement-treated specimens were cured under drained condition whereas
increasing the confining stress in undrained curing condition does not lead to a significant
increase in the unconfined compressive strength (Figure 2.11).
Harleston et al. (2009) studied the humidity effect on the strength of cement stabilized
pavement layers. They cured the specimens under 100% humidity and room humidity (50%-
80%) and found that as humidity increases, strength increases.
2.4 Experimental studies on cement-treated soil
2.4.1 Changes in basic property of cement-treated soil
Many studies have shown that cement treatment leads to an increase in plastic limit as
well as liquid limit (e.g. Locat, 1990; Uddin et al., 1997; Petchgate et al., 2001; Chew et al.,
2004; Lee et al., 2005; and Chin, 2006). Both Locat et al. (1996) and Chew et al. (2004)
attributed the increase in the liquid limit to the presence of trapped water within the largely
hollow cemented-soil clusters. Chew et al. (2004) also attributed the increase in plastic limit to
17
CHAPTER 2
the clustering of the soil particles to larger clusters of particles. As shown in Fig. 2.12, Chin
(2006) also found that liquid limit increases after cement treatment but decreases with curing
load. Chin (2006) attributed this decrease to the squashing of the clusters which reduces the
amount of trapped water within the clusters.
Studies have also shown that cement treatment leads to decrease in water content and
specific gravity (Uddin et al., 1997; Chew et al., 2004; Lorenzo et al., 2004, Chin, 2006).
Lorezo et al. (2004) attributed the decrease in water content with increasing cement content
and curing time to hydration and pozzolanic reaction.
Assarson et al. (1974) and Chew et al. (2004) noted that the soluble products of cement
hydration lead to an increase in the electrolytic concentration of the pore fluids and hence
increases the pH value. The dissolved bivalent calcium ions (Ca2+) replace the monovalent ions
(e.g. Na+, K+), which are normally attracted to the surface of the negatively charged clay
particles. The crowding of Ca2+ ions on the surface of the clay particles brings about the
flocculation of the clay particles (Suzuki et al., 1981; Shen 1999). Therefore, the particle
(actually clusters of cemented soil particles) size increases with increase of cement content.
2.4.2 Engineering behavior
2.4.2.1 Prime factors on strength and deformation of cement-treated soil
Cement content and curing time are generally used as controlled parameters in previous
studies on the behaviour of cement-treated clay (e.g. Kamon and Bergado, 1991; Bergado et al.,
1999). Miura et al. (2001) suggested that the ratio of the initial water content of the clay to the
cement content (water-clay/cement ratio) is a prime parameter influencing the strength and
deformation behavior of cement-treated clay at high water content. Based on unconfined
compression tests and oedometer tests on cement-treated remoulded soft Bangkok clay,
Lorenzo et al. (2004) found that the after-curing void ratio and cement content are sufficient to
characterize the strength and compressibility of cement-treated clay at high water contents. For
naturally cemented soils, Leroueil & Vaughan (1990) suggested that the density and bond
18
CHAPTER 2
strength are the two most important parameters governing the behavior of cemented soil. This
is consistent with the notion that void ratio (which is a measure of density) and cement content
(which is related to bond strength) are the two most important parameters governing the
behavior of cemented soil.
Huang & Airey (1998) found that the strength and stiffness increase with increasing
density and cement content, but the relative influence of cementation decreases as the density
increases, which is the coupled effect between cementation and density of treated soil. Huang
& Airey (1998) stated that the cementation bonding was dominant for specimen with low
density and the effect mitigates with increase in packing density of the soil. They attributed the
reducing influence of cementation to the greater contribution of friction and particle
interlocking to the strength as the density increases.
Tatsuoka and Kobayashi (1983) among others investigated the effect of confining stress
on behavior of cement-treated soil. They noted that the behavior of cement-treated soil under
drained triaxial compression changed from strain softening to strain hardening as the confining
stress increases. Similarly, Yu et al. (1997), Uddin et al. (1997) and Chin (2006) also observed
similar effects of confining pressure on the drained triaxial behaviour of cement-treated soil.
The importance of ambient effective stress (curing stress) during the formation of
cementation bonds on the behavior of naturally and artificially cemented soils was also well-
recognized (Consoli et al., 2000; Rotta et al., 2003; Suzuki et al., 2004; Chin et al., 2004;
Bergado, 2004; Consoli et al., 2006; Chin, 2006). Chin (2006) found that samples cured under
loading show increases in unconfined compressive strength and gross yield, which appear to
be well-correlated to their post-cured void ratio. He also stated that the post-yield compression
curves of samples with different curing stress converge towards a single line. Similar result
were reported by Rotta et al.(2003) and Consoli et al.(2006). Consoli et al. (2006) noted that
incremental yield stress in isotropic compression, unconfined compressive strength, and the
initial bulk modulus can be related with curing void ratio and cement content. They also
pointed out that the effects of increasing cement contents on soil compressibility, yielding and
strength were consistently more pronounced at lower void ratios, clearly demonstrating the
19
CHAPTER 2
coupled effect of density and cementation on the overall response of bonded soils, which was
postulated by Huang & Airey (1998).
2.4.2.2 Permeability
The permeability or the hydraulic conductivity of cement-treated soil has also been
investigated (e.g. Jefferies, 1981; Kilpatrick and Garner, 1992; Deschens et al., 1995; Yu et al,
1999; Porbaha et al 2000; Kamruzzaman, 2002; Chin, 2006). This property is important for the
design of cut-off walls where seepage needs to be suppressed. Porbaha at al (2000) noted that
the distribution of pore sizes inside the soil cement mix influences the coefficient of
permeability of the treated soil. Kauschinger et al (1992) found that the permeability of the
cement-treated clay reduces with the increase of cement content and curing time. Broderic and
Daniel (1990) suggested that this reduction could be due to the pozzolanic cementitious
products, which block the pores in the soil cement matrix. In contrast, Suzuki et al (1981)
observed an increase in permeability due to flocculation of cemented soil. Chin (2006)
reported that the permeability of cement-treated marine clay reduces with consolidation and is
much lower than that of untreated clay at a given void ratio.
2.4.2.3 Compressibility
The reduction in compressibility of soft clay arising from inclusion of cement is well
established. Uddin et al. (1997) postulated that a certain amount of cement (>5%) is required to
improve the compressibility of the untreated clay. Miura et al. (2001) suggested that the
resistance to compression of the treated clay is markedly enhanced until the consolidation
pressure reaches the apparent pre-consolidation pressure (yield stress on one dimensional
compression curve), after which large volumetric compression occurs. Huang &Airey (1998)
also suggested that the effects of the bonding are only significant for stresses below an
apparent pre-consolidation stress. Kamruzzaman (2002) found that in odometer consolidation
test, both of cement content and initial water content affects the position of the post-yield
20
CHAPTER 2
compression line and the magnitude of the one-dimensional vertical apparent preconsolidation
stress(see Fig.2.13). Similarly, Chin (2006) found that isotropic yield stress increases with
curing load (see Fig. 2.14).
Balasubramanian et al (1998) reported that, at stresses much higher than the apparent pre-
consolidation pressure, the e − log p ' relationship of the treated clay is almost parallel to the
virgin compression line of the untreated clay. Huang & Airey (1998) stated that the slopes of
the compression lines are practically independent of the amount of cement added, basing on
the results of isotropic compression with a range of cell pressure capacity up to 70MPa. As the
cement content increases, the normal consolidation line shifts to the right in a v : ln p ' plot,
which was attributed to the change in grading of the soil. They also found that at confining
pressures greater than 20MPa, departures from the linear v : ln p ' responses occurred and the
compression index in natural log scale ( λ ) decreases for all cement content. Rotta et al. (2003)
and Chin (2006) reported similar results for slightly artificially cemented soil and heavily
artificially cemented clay cured under stress. In Rotta et al.’s (2003) study, the treated soil was
cured under confined pressure up to 2MPa and isotropically consolidated up to 6MPa. It was
found that after primary yield, the paths of the specimens with different initial void ratios all
follow a post-yield compression line that is unique for each degree of cementation and
converges with the intrinsic compression line of the untreated soil as the isotropic stress
increases. Cuccovillo and Coop (1999) also observed similar feature for natural calcarenites
with different void ratio. However, Rotta et al’s (2003) study only used cement content up to
3%. Chin’s (2006) study used higher cement content up to 20%. In Chin’s study, the treated
soil was cured under confined pressure up to 250kPa and tested under isotropic compression. It
was observed that the post-yield compression line tends to converge to a unique compression
line as the isotropic compression stress increases.
Uddin et al. (1997) found that compression index (Cc) reduces with the increase in
cement content when cement content is lower than 15%. Kamruzzaman (2002) also reported
that compression index reduces with the increase in cement content and curing time. In
21
CHAPTER 2
contrast, Rotta et al. (2003) and Lorenzo and Bergado (2004) found that higher cement content
resulted in higher compression index at the post-yield state.
2.4.2.4 Stiffness
The small-strain elastic modulus of cement-treated soil has been measured using local
strain transducer (Goto et al., 1991; Shibuya et al., 1992; Tatsuoka et al., 1997, Tan et al, 2002;
Kamruzzaman, 2002). Tatsuoka et al. (1997) used Local Displacement Transducer (LDT) in
consolidated undrained triaxial test to measure the stiffness of cement-treated sandy soil in the
linear elastic range of less than 0.01% of strains. They reported that the strain measured from
local transducer showed much higher stiffness than that of the conventional method. In
addition, the stiffness is almost constant and independent of initial loading, unloading and
reloading cycle with the elastic range of strain of about 0.01%. Kamruzzaman (2002) used
Hall’s effect transducer in unconfined compression and undrained triaxial test. It was found
that the stiffness measured by Hall’s effect local transducer is about 3.0 and 2.16 times of that
by conventional method for unconfined compression and undrained triaxial test respectively.
Yin and Lai (1998) reported that the secant modulus of elasticity (conventional strain
measurement) increases with the increase in cement content and confining pressure, but
decreases with the increase of initial water content. They also suggested that at very high
confining stresses, the cemented structure may have been partially destroyed, thereby reducing
the stiffness.
2.4.2.5 Shear strength parameters
Broms (1986) postulated that the two components of the strength, namely frictional
resistance ( ϕ ' ) and cohesion intercept ( c ' ) increase via two processes. The frictional
resistance increases due to the formation of significant amounts of particle interlocking in the
clay-cement skeleton while the cohesion component increases due to the reduction of the
thickness of the diffused doubled-layer of adsorbed water. Yin & Lai (1998) reported that, for
22
CHAPTER 2
Hong Kong marine clay deposit, the cohesion of the treated soil increases with increase in
cement content and decrease in initial water content of the untreated soil. However, the
internal friction angle decreases with the increase of cement content and decrease of initial
water content. In contrast, Uddin et al. (1997) reported that, for Bangkok clay, both the
cohesion and friction angle increase with the increase of cement content and curing time and
reached asymptotic values at about 15% cement content. Horpibulsuk et al. (2004) also
reported similar results.
Azman et al. (1994) studied the effect of cement content and consolidation pressure on
shear strength parameters of black soil in Malaysia. They found that, as the cement content
increases, the treated soil showed higher friction angle and lower cohesion; this is clearly the
opposite of what Yin & Lai (1998) has reported. On the other hand, higher cohesion and lower
friction was achieved as the confining pressure decreased. Azman et al. (1994) classified the
failure patterns of cement-treated clays into “friction-dominated” at very high confining stress,
“cementation-plus-friction” at medium confining stress and “cementation-dominated” at low
confining stresses.
Consoli et al. (2000) found that the curing stress increases the friction angle but does not
affect the cohesive intercept. Chin (2006) found that the peak strengths of cement-treated
marine clay appeared to be a curve, with higher peak stress ratio (q/p’) at low p’ value (Fig.
2.15), which is similar to the findings of Tatsuoka and Kobayashi (1983). This indicates that
the contribution of soil structure during occurrence of peak has a greater relative influence at
lower confining pressures.
2.4.3 Stress-strain behavior of cement-treated soil under triaxial condition
The stress-strain behaviour of the cement-stabilized clay under triaxial condition have
been extensively investigated (e.g. Endo, 1976; Tatsuoka and Kobayashi, 1983; Shibuya et al.,
1992; Uddin et al., 1997; Yu et al., 1997; Yin and Lai, 1998; Miura et al., 2001; Kamruzzaman,
2002; Horpibulsuk et al., 2004; Chin, 2006, Chiu et al., 2008). Figure 2.16 shows the typical
stress-strain behaviour under isotropically consolidated drained (CID) and undrained (CIU)
23
CHAPTER 2
triaxial compression test on laboratory prepared 5% cement treated marine clay (Endo, 1976).
The result showed that higher deviator stress could be achieved by increasing the confining
pressure, in both drained and undrained conditions. However, for the CID samples, the
maximum deviator stress was reached at a relatively high strain level of about 20% or more.
In contrast, the CIU samples reached peak deviator stress at a much lower strain level of about
3%. The CIU samples also failed at stress levels lower than the CID samples, presumably
because of the generation of excess positive pore water pressure. Uddin et al. (1997) reported
that the deviator stress-shear strain relation for cement-treated Bangkok Clay is linear up to 60
to 70% of maximum deviator stress and that at high cement content and low confining pressure,
the treated clay showed distinct strain softening behavior.
Tatsuoka and Kobayashi (1983) suggested that the effective stress principle can be
applied to analyze the behaviour of cement treated clay under drained and undrained
conditions. They noted that undrained samples which were tested under low effective
confining pressure normally failed near to or on the tension cut-off line. Similar observations
have also been reported by Chin (2006). On the other hand, for drained triaxial, as the
confining stress increases, the stress-strain relationship change from strain softening to strain
hardening, while the volumetric strain changes from dilation to contraction (Figure 2.17). Such
behavior in turn caused the drained samples (with high confining stress) to fail at higher
effective stress levels, far away from the tension cut-off line.
2.4.4 Studies on cement-treated Singapore marine clay
Lee (1999) studied the unconfined compressive strength of cement-treated Singapore
marine clay with soil/cement/water ratios which are relevant to jet grouting. It was found that
the strength was found to be dependent not only on the water/cement ratio but also the
soil/cement ratio. Lee (1999) also proposed an empirical relationship for the unconfined
compressive strength of jet grout piles and investigated the cause of ground movement during
jet grouting. Two models for predicting the constituent contents of a jet grout pile and one
method for estimating the pressure gradient of two-phase flow of jet grouting effluent were
24
CHAPTER 2
proposed in Lee’s (1999) study. Lee’s study concluded that ground movement during jet
grouting is due to the pressure built up in the jet grout cavity when the opening in the ground
for discharging the effluent slurry is clogged.
Tan et al (2002) investigated the properties of Singapore marine clay through unconfined
strength test using internal strain measurement techniques. It was shown that a convenient
normalization can produce a consistent pattern for evaluation of improved strength of clays
from different parts of Singapore. It was found that the cement-treated marine clay behave in a
non-linear fashion even at very small strain.
Kamruzzaman (2002) focused on the physico-chemical and microstructural aspects of
cement treated marine clay. The flocculated structure of the treated clay was highlighted in his
study. It was noted that the apparent pre-consolidation pressure, effective shear strength
parameters, reduction in compression index, and stiffness increases with the cement content
and curing time. The treated marine clay has a more brittle nature with a well-defined yield
point, which is associated with the breaking of the cementation bond. At higher stress level,
beyond the yield stress, progressive destructuration (breaking of cementation bond) of the
treated clay particles occurred. However, complete destruction (crushing of clay-cement
cluster) only takes place on the shear plane (in undrained shearing test).
Kamruzzaman (2002) reported that increase in the confining stress changes the behaviour
of the specimens from an “over-consolidated” type, characterized by dilatant and negative
excess pore pressure, to a “normally consolidated”, characterized by compression and positive
excess pore pressure (Figure 2.18). Undrained stress paths were often observed to show a peak
stress either near to the tension cut-off line or on the Hvorslev envelope. However, in
Kamruzzaman’s (2002) study, no drained triaxial test was conducted. Furthermore, no
framework or explanation was provided to generalize both undrained and drained stress paths
under different loading conditions, nor for specimens cured under different curing stresses.
Chin (2006) focused on the microstructural changes and macroscopic behaviour of
cement-treated marine clay under triaxial loadings at low and high stresses. It was found that
samples sheared at stresses much lower than their isotropic yield stress behave elastically up to
25
CHAPTER 2
peak stress, followed by strain softening and volumetric dilation. Though the slip plane is
subjected to large strains, large aggregates still can be seen. It was also found that samples
which were sheared undrained under higher effective stress reaches peak strength shortly after
yielding while samples which were sheared drained at higher effective stresses (i.e. at stresses
close to and higher than isotropic yield stress) displayed loss of structure in two stages. The
first stage is a stable strain-hardening stage, wherein densification was able to offset the loss in
strength due to destructuration. The dominant microstructural changes appear to be aggregate
squashing and void closure. The second stage is characterized by strain-softening and slip
plane formation, with the soil within the slip plane undergoing massive aggregate and particle
break-up.
It was also found that the ultimate angle of friction within the slip plane is not a constant,
but decreases with increase in effective stress. This reduction can be attributed to the finer
particulate texture on the slip plane, which suggests increasing severity of aggregate and
particle break-up with increasing effective stress level. Samples cured under loading show
increases in unconfined compressive strength and isotropic yield points which were well-
correlated to their void ratio. As the curing stress increases, the liquid limit and compressibility
decrease. However, there are several limitations in Chin’s (2006) study. Firstly, it was limited
to only one mix proportion, the variation of the isotropic yield stress and peak strength with
mix proportion and curing loading had not been fully investigated. Secondly, the changes in
the yield surface during the hardening phase of the shearing and the hardening parameters
governing these changes are not clearly manifested. Thirdly, the conditions governing the
onset of strain softening and the existence or otherwise of a critical state line was not fully
clarified.
2.4.5 Primary yielding and post-yield behavior of cemented soil
The phenomenon of yielding in clay soils was well known and the detailed discussion
on concepts involved in yielding of soft clays can be found in Roscoe & Schofield’s (1963)
paper. It has been observed that when natural clays are subjected to changes in effective stress,
26
CHAPTER 2
they show a rather stiff behaviour, while the stress vector remains within a domain in the stress
space, the boundary of which is called the “yield locus” (e.g. Mitchell, 1970; Wong & Mitchell,
1975; Crooks & Graham, 1976). There are different definitions about soil yielding. The
detailed discussion on the definition of yield for bonded materials can be found in Malandraki
and Toll’s (1996) paper. Callisto & Calabresi (1998) proposed that the yield locus can be
regarded as a boundary between stress states that cause a relatively stiff, pseudo-elastic
behaviour, and stress states inducing large deformability. Thus, in laboratory testing, yielding
is more often identified by a substantial decrease in stiffness rather than the onset of
irreversible (plastic) strains. This is actually similar to the conventional definition of soil
yielding. They further pointed out that plasticity and elasticity theories are used as tools in
order to interpret the results and to suggest possible way to model the clay behaviour. Airey
(1993) also suggested a similar concept.
Smith et al. (1992) provided detailed information about yield processes of Bothkennar
clay and suggested a provisional framework for identifying and characterizing yield. As shown
in Fig. 2.19 the stress space within the initial bounding surface may be divided into three zones
separated by three types of yield surfaces, namely Y1, Y2, and Y3 respectively. Within Zone 1,
the soil is linear elastic, while within Zone 2, the soil becomes non-linear (no significant
plastic strains are generated). Large-scale changes in particle packing (yield Y3) are delayed
until the stress path reaches the initial bounding surface, producing what is commonly referred
to as soil yield (conventional definition of soil yield). Y3 envelope represents an initial
bounding surface in that it cannot be crossed by the effective stress paths arising from
undrained events, including cycling loading. However, drained stress paths may be able to
progress beyond the initial bounding surface, through a fourth region Zone 4 towards an outer
state boundary surface. Some natural soils may behave in a less stable way, with the
normalized current boundary surface contracting inwards as straining continues.
Coop & Atkinson (1993) reported that at low confining stresses, shearing of cemented
carbonate sands may result in yield stress higher than the frictional failure envelope of the
uncemented soil and continued loading leads to strain softening while at high confining
27
CHAPTER 2
stresses yield occurs during compression and the soil behavior is strain hardening and its
strength is frictional.
Cuccovillo and Coop. (1997) reported the pre-failure behaviour of two structured sands in
triaxial compression performed over a wide range of pressures. It was found that the bond
degradation resulted in a progressive transformation of the structured soil into a frictional
material, giving rise to changes in the yield stress and shear stiffness. It was suggested that as
bonding degraded, the variation of the shear stiffness with state was seen to depend on which
structural feature was predominant.
However, all of the works mentioned above are studied under certain condition, without
considering various factors such as mix proportion and curing load. Rotta et al. (2003) found
that for artificially cemented soil, the variation in yield stress with void ratio and cement
content is dependent on the curing stress and independent of the stress history (see Fig. 2.20).
Consoli et al. (2006) stated that a unique relationship between incremental yield stress,
unconfined compressive strength and bulk modulus was obtained, regardless of the cement
content (see Fig.2.21). On the other hand, the relationship between unconfined strength, initial
bulk modulus, and the primary yield stress was found to depend on the cement content.
However, their works, as are those of Coop & Atkinson (1993) and Cuccovillo Coop (1997),
are only focused on weakly cemented soil, which were intended to simulated naturally
cemented soil.
As mentioned above, some studies have been conducted on cement-treated soil, which are
often more heavily cemented than natural clay (e.g. Uddin et al., 1997; Tan et al., 2003; Chew
et al., 2004; Horpibulsuk et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2005; and Chin, 2006). Tan et al.’s (2003) and
Lee et al.’s (2005) studies were concerned mainly with unconfined compressive test. Uddin et
al.’s (1997), Horpibulsuk et al.’s (2004) and Chew et al.’s (2004) studies involved some
consolidated undrained tests, but these were not supplemented by consolidated drained tests,
scanning electron micrography and other tests, which, as Chin’s (2006) study showed, are
critical for understanding the microstructural changes that occurred during shearing.
28
CHAPTER 2
Chin’s (2006) study only covered one mix proportion, wherein the mass ratios of
soil:cement:water are 5:1:6. Chin (2006) did not investigate the effects of different mix
proportions and curing stress on the primary yield locus. Similarly, the effect of curing time on
the primary yield locus has also not been investigated.
As the primary yield locus has not been defined until now and the evolution of post yield
locus under different mix proportion has not been studied, the difference between the primary
yield locus and post- yield behaviour remains largely unknown. Thus the development of yield
locus during pre-peak shearing is needed to investigate to describe the shearing behavior at
pre-peak stage. Although the softening behavior of cement treated soil is observed very often,
the governing factor of onset of the behavior is still unclear. This is one part of the
experimental work in this study.
2.4.6 Softening and post-peak shearing behavior of cemented soil
There are significant amounts of research on softening behavior of cemented soil.
Georgiannou and Burland (2001) stated that the brittle shearing behaviour of natural stiff clays
in triaxial compression at low to intermediate confining pressures results from the localisation
of strain at around peak strength and thereafter approximately rigid block sliding along the
resulting slip surface. It was noted that the shear strength drops rapidly from peak strength to a
reasonably constant value after a few millimetres, which is termed as post-rupture strength by
Burland (1990). They suggested that the rapid post-peak loss of strength results largely from
changes in microstructure due mainly to the breaking of inter-particle bonds. Georgiannou and
Burland (2001) suggested that this softening process is likely to be rather more dramatic than
that due to the well-known phenomenon of the formation of shear bands in over-consolidated
reconstituted soils, which is essentially due to dilation, loss of interlocking and local drainage
without the breaking of bonds (e.g. Atkinson & Richardson, 1987). Moreover, they pointed out
that when strain localisation takes place, as it frequently does, measurements of volume change
are no longer representative.
29
CHAPTER 2
However, as shown in Fig. 2.22, Viggiani et al. (1993) suggested that localization is
initiated at the maximum stress ratio q/p’, occurring before and developing up to the peak
strength. Using local measurements of axial displacements (triaxial tests) and of horizontal
displacements (biaxial tests), they also found that the shear band completely forms and
emerges from the boundaries of the specimen well after the onset of localization.
Some studies have been done on the effect of dimension and slenderness ratio (i.e. the
ratio of height to diameter) on the behaviour of cemented soil. Abdulla et al (1997) identified
potential effects of specimen size and slenderness ratio on the stress-strain-strength
characteristic of cemented sands. They stated that smaller specimens with the same slenderness
ratio exhibit stiffer and stronger behaviour than the larger specimens when tested under similar
stress paths (see Fig. 2.23). Shearing of shorter specimens results in a significantly smaller
volume of degraded material thus providing a more representative material response (see Fig.
2.24). They also suggested that large specimens of slenderness ratio equal to one may be
preferable if appropriate end lubrication measures are taken.
Callisto & Calabresi (1998) carried out a conventional triaxial test on a specimen with 1:1
height/diameter ratio and lubricated ends and found that the development of the usual slip
surface was not kinematically possible. Instead, the deformation pattern at failure appeared to
be more uniform (see Fig. 2.25), this being similar to that observed in true triaxial test. It was
also noted that although the initial part of deviator stress-strain curve is very similar to that of
conventional specimen with ratio 2:1 and rough ends, the strengths measured in two tests are
quite different.
Petchgate et al. (2001) studied the effects of specimen dimensions and the ratios of height
to diameter of the specimens on strength characteristics of soft Bangkok clay stabilized with
cement. It was noted that sample with L/D ratio of 1.0, 1.5 and 1.8 showed unconfined
compressive strength (UC strength) of 6%, 3% and 1%, respectively, higher than sample with
L/D ratio of 2.0 while samples with diameters of 27.75, 55.5 and 83.3 mm have UC strengths
of 64%, 30% and 14%, respectively, higher than the sample with diameter 107.3mm. However,
they only studied the effect of specimen dimension and slenderness on UC strength.
30
CHAPTER 2
Some studies have also been done on the ultimate state of cemented soil. Airey (1993)
obtained an ultimate critical state line for naturally cemented carbonate soil. However, this was
done by discounting those samples that developed pronounced rupture planes. Leroueil (1998)
noted that the critical state of natural and reconstituted clay can be different, indicating that
even at larger strains, soil behavior is influenced by the initial structure. He cited Saint-Jean-
Vianney clay as an example where the intrinsic and natural critical state angles of shearing
resistance are 30.5 and 44.4 respectively.
Wood (1990) stated that even for reconstituted clays it is often not easy to discern the
critical state at high over-consolidation ratios. It was noted that strength reduction after peak,
accompanied by dilatancy, tends to be a continuous process leading to stress ratios below the
normally consolidated critical-state value.
Rouainia & Wood (2000) pointed out that unless a mechanical test systematically
destroys the structure of the entire sample, the condition of the natural soil may not approach a
structureless asymptote. The occurrence of localization will prevent any further homogeneous
destructuring: only within the zone of concentrated shearing will loss of structure be complete.
Cotecchia & Chandler (1997) also noted that it will not be possible to deduce the asymptotic
behaviour externally. Burland et al. (1996) suggested that their results may indicate that the
material in the rupture plane has a fabric similar to that of the reconstituted material but this
may not always be the case.
Kasama et al. (2000) found that the failure state line of lightly cemented clay is parallel to
that of an uncemetned clay in the p '− q space whereas its slope is steeper than that of an
uncemented clay in the e − ln( p ') space. In contrast, Chin (2006) noted that ultimate failure
envelope of artificially heavily cemented clay is a curve rather than straight line (see Fig.2.26).
However, the stress state of the material within the slip plane cannot be fully defined. To this
extent, the critical state line cannot be clearly defined. Chin (2006) also suggested that an
appropriate governing criterion for the onset of softening is the stress ratio ( η = q / p ' ).
However, the indications from his data are not definitive and the conclusion is not definitive
31
CHAPTER 2
due to shear band formation and further data are needed to confirm this. Therefore, further
study needs to investigate the relevant issues such as governing criterion of softening and for
the post-peak, softening behavior of cement-treated soil.
2.5 Theoretical studies
2.5.1 Review of theoretical studies for natural or artificial cemented soil
Over the last 30 years, there have been significant developments in the development of
constitutive models incorporating the influence of soil structure (e.g. Wong & Mitchell, 1975;
Oka and Adachi, 1985; Hirai et al., 1989; Gens and Nova, 1993; Chazallon and Hicher, 1995,
1998; Wheeler 1997, Kasama et al., 2000; Rouania and Muir Wood, 2000; Kavvadas and
Amorosi, 2000; Vatsala et al., 2001; Liu and Carter, 2002; Lee et al., 2004; Baudet and
Stallebrass, 2004; Horpibulsuk et al., 2009).
Wong & Mitchell (1975) constructed a quasi-elastic work-hardening plastic model for
sensitive cemented clay. In the quasi-elastic range the soil may be considered isotropic but the
relevant parameters are stress dependent. Initial yielding is associated with the breaking down
of cementation bonds and a unique yield envelope, independent of stress path, is defined. The
post-yield locus is expanding with volumetric hardening, with the shape assumed to be the
same. However, the yield locus is developed based on experimentally defined non-associated
flow rule.
Two examples of constitutive models which make explicit introduction of structure and
damage to structure within a single yield locus elastic-plastic framework are provided by Oka
et al. (1985) and Gens & Nova (1993) separately. Gens and Nova (1993) presented a
conceptual framework for elasto-plastic modelling of bonded soils. They assumed that the
yield surface has the same shape and form as that of the uncemented soil but it was enlarged to
account for the additional strength provided by the bonds (see Fig. 2.27). Hardening parameter
was considered to be made up of two components, namely the hardening of the unbonded soil
and the softening due to degradation of cementation bonds with plastic strain. The flow rule is
32
CHAPTER 2
applied with respect to the combined stress state (the bond stress and the stress carried by the
soil skeleton). Similarly, Lagioia &Nova (1993, 1995) proposed an elasto-plastic strain
hardening model allowing for material degradation due to loss of bonding.
Oka and Adachi (1985) and Adachi and Oka (1995) developed a model to describe the
strain softening response of soft clay or soft rocks by introducing a stress history tensor. The
material strength is made up of two components: frictional strength and cementation strength
or cohesion. The frictional component is considered to be some fraction of the overall stress.
The degradation or softening law and the flow rule are applied with respect to the combined
stresses, a feature which is similar to the one used in the model by Gens and Nova (1993).
Burland (1990), Leroueil & Vaughan (1990), Chandler (2000) and many others have
shown that the properties of a reconstituted soil (termed intrinsic properties) form a useful
frame of reference for interpreting the behaviour of the associated natural undisturbed soil. In
particular, such a frame of reference can be used to assess the influence of microstructure (i.e.
fabric and bonding) in the natural material, and its progressive breakdown during loading and
shearing.
Rouainia & Wood (2000) developed a rate-independent constitutive model for natural
clays, which assumes that the size of the structure surface depends on the value of a pre-
selected damage parameter. As shown in Fig.2.28, this model introduces three elliptical loci in
the (p,q) plane. These three loci include a kinematically hardening bubble separating regions of
elastic and plastic response and moving with the current stress, a structure surface acting as a
bounding surface and containing information about the current magnitude and anisotropy of
structure, and a reference surface representing the behaviour of the reconstituted or completely
remoulded soil. As plastic strain occurs, the structure surface tends to collapse towards the
state boundary surface. Drop in stiffness occurs when the soil reaches the plastic regime and
the current stiffness depends on some measure of the separation of the kinematic surface and
the structure surface.
In the models of Rouainia & Wood (2000), Oka et al. (1985) and Gens & Nova (1993),
the elastic properties have been assumed to remain constant and the damage to the structure is
33
CHAPTER 2
contained in the plastic formulation. Chazallon & Hicher (1995, 1998), by contrast, consider
the alternative strategy of allowing for damage through a change to the elastic properties
according to a specified thermodynamically acceptable damage energy release rate. The
overall response is reflected in bonds and non-bonded material and modeled respectively.
Similarly, Vatsala et al (2001) presented a model for cemented soils within the framework
of hardening plasticity. The strength of a cemented soil comes from the usual strength of the
soil skeleton and the strength of cementation bonds while the deformation of the soil is
associated with the soil skeleton and cement bond at any given strain level. The overall
response of the soil under loading can be visualized as two stiffness acting in parallel for the
given unit strain. Separate stress-strain relations are defined for the two components and they
are then combined to give the overall response (see Fig.2.29). Modified cam-clay model is
used for the soil skeleton component while a simple elasto-plastic model is proposed for the
‘cemented’ component, which incorporates strain softening.
Liu & Carter (2002) also introduced the influence of soil structure into the Modified Cam
Clay model. They assumed that the void ratio for a structured soil during virgin compression is
composed of two parts: an elastic part which is dependent on the current mean effective stress
and a plastic part which is dependent on the size of the current yield surface. The plastic part is
subdivided into two components: one associated with the intrinsic properties of the soil and the
other associated with the soil structure. During virgin yielding the yield surface includes the
current stress state and expands isotropically causing destructuration of the material. However,
this model is only suitable for naturally structured clays with negligible or light cementation.
Kasama et al. (2000) proposed a constitutive model for lightly cement treated clay by
assuming the failure state of cement treated clay is the same as that of uncemented clay. Base
on the similar assumption, Lee et al. (2004) proposed a constitutive model for cement treated
clay by introducing bonding stress ratio m and critical state parameter λ’(see Fig. 2.30). These
parameters are used to simulate the increase in the initial stiffness and shear strength of cement
treated soil and subsequent progressive reduction in stiffness and strength due to breaking of
the bonding as a result of shearing. Similarly, based on Liu & Carter’s (2002) model, Liu et al.
34
CHAPTER 2
(2006) and Horpibulsuk et al.(2009) proposed a constitutive model for cement treated clay by
introducing a modified mean effective stress. In this model, the new parameter C, which is
related to the shear strength contributed by cementation, is assumed constant before peak point.
As such, the structure surface will expands according to virgin compression before peak point.
After peak strength, the structure surface will move toward right and collapse.
Callisto & Sebastiano (2004) stated that by defining a normalizing pressure that accounts
for the progressive loss of structure occurring during a test, the state of natural clay during
loading can be completely described in a normalized stress space.
Cuccovillo &Coop (1999) investigated the behavior of two natural sands (calcarenite and
silica sandstone) by triaxial testing over a wide range of pressures. They suggested that to
develop a general framework which is valid for both frictional and cohesive behavior, the
strain-softening and strain-hardening modes of shear behavior should be distinguished on the
basis of the location of the state of the soil relative to its isotropic boundary rather than to its
critical-state or intrinsic normal compression line.
McDowell (2000) proposed work equation which accounts for energy dissipated in
particle fracture and frictional rearrangement, where the relative proportion of plastic work
dissipated in fracture and friction is a simple function of stress ratio, and the normality
principle is applied to generate a new family of yield loci (see Fig. 2.31). However, normality
should not be used in sands at high stress ratios where extensive particle rearrangement is
occurring. In this case, a non-associated flow rule could be used together with the family of
yield loci. Furthermore, McDowell & Hau (2004) suggested a generalized Modified Cam Clay
model for clay and sand incorporating kinematic hardening and bounding surface plasticity.
So far, much of the researches have been focused on natural or artificially lightly
cemented soil. There is much less work on constitutive modeling of heavily cemented soils
such as cement-treated soft clay of the type encountered in deep mixing or jet grouting. At the
present, jet-grouted and deep-mixed soil are often treated as a linear elastic-perfectly plastic
material in finite element modeling. A constitutive framework for cement-treated marine clay
is currently not available.
35
CHAPTER 2
2.5.2 Constitutive frameworks for cement-treated soil – a summary
This section summarizes the principles and frameworks adopted by the constitutive
models presented above. Some researchers developed constitutive models by introducing
damage mechanics to consider the structure and structure loss in soil under loading (Shen,
1993a, 1993b; Chazallon and Hicher, 1995, 1998; Yu et al., 1998; Vatsala et al. 2001; Zhao et
al. 2002; Liu & Shen, 2005). Theses models considered the response of structure soil to be the
sum of the soil skeleton (i.e., friction between grains) and cementation bond and modeled them
separately. However, only Yu et al.’s (1998) and Chazallon & Hicher’s (1998) model were
applied to cement-treated clay. Some researchers developed kinematic hardening constitutive
model for natural clays by adding some initial structure, which can then be progressively
destroyed, to an extension of modified Cam-clay within the framework of kinematic hardening
and bounding surface plasticity (Muir Wood, 1995; Rouainia and Muir Wood, 2000). However,
the shape of structure surface was assumed to be the same as that of the remoulded soil. Some
researchers introduced tensile strength to consider bond strength or cohesion and proposed
elasto-plastic model for cemented soils within a single yield locus modeling framework (Gens
& Nova, 1993, Lagioia and Nova, 1993, 1995; Oka et al., 1989; Adachi and Oka, 1993, 1995).
In Gens & Nova’s model (1993), the yield surface has the same shape and form as that of the
uncemented soil but was enlarged to account for the additional strength provided by the bonds.
The current size and location of the yield surface depend on the amount of damage, through a
combination of distortional and volumetric effects. Lagioia and Nova (1995) modified Gens &
Nova’s model (1993) but only compared the modeling results with Gravina Calcarenite. In
Oka et al.’s (1989), and Adachi & Oka’s model (1993, 1995), the material strength was
thought to be made up of friction strength and cementation strength or cohesion. The friction
strength is considered to be some fraction of the overall stress whereas the degradation or
softening is applied with respect to the combined stresses. However, both models were
proposed mainly for soft clay or rocks and have not been validated for cement-treated soils.
36
CHAPTER 2
There are only a few constitutive models developed for cement-treated sand or sandy soil
(Hirai et al., 1989; Abdulla & Kiousis, 1997; Namikawa &Mihira, 2007). In Hirai et al.’s
model (1989), a generalized form of Modified Cam-clay model was applied to plastic potential.
Two yield functions and two hardening functions were used to describe the characteristic of
the plastic behavior of improved sandy soil. A failure criterion was also proposed to define the
ultimate strength of material. In Namikawa and Mihria’s model (2007), two failure criteria are
employed to express tensile and shear failure characteristic. However, as Hirai’s model (1989),
the yield surface does not have compression cap. In Abdulla & Kiousis’s model (1997), a
micro-mechanical approach was used to model clean sand, cementation bond and pore
pressure separately. By assembling all models, the elasto-plastic behavior of cemented sand
was predicted. However, whether this model is applicable to cement-treated clay is still not
clear.
Constitutive models for cement-treated clay soils remain very scarce (Kasama et al., 2000;
Lee et al., 2004; Horpibulsuk et al., 2009). The present models were applied only for light or
low cement content (usually less than 10%). And the structure surfaces are usually assumed to
be an enlarged surface of the unstructured or reconstituted soils, which may not be true for
cement-treated clay soils.
To date, no validated constitutive model exists for cement-treated Singapore marine clay.
This is one part of the theoretical work in this study.
2.6 Outstanding issues
2.6.1 Outstanding issues
Based on the reviews of the previous sections, this section presents the some outstanding
issues in relation to constitutive behaviour studies on cement-treated soft clays.
Firstly, knowledge of the primary yielding and evolution of yield locus under loading, for
example, triaxial loading, is still unclear and triaxial experiment data for cement-treated soft
clay remains limited. Secondly, the effects of soil/cement/water ratio, curing stress and other
37
CHAPTER 2
treatment conditions such as curing time on the yield surface are also unclear. Thirdly, the
conditions governing the onset of strain softening are still largely unknown. Fourthly, the
existence and form of the intrinsic and critical states in improved soil are also unclear. Indeed,
the applicability of the critical state concept to improved soil is still unknown. Hence,
constitutive frameworks for cement-treated soil remain relatively scarce and that for cement-
treated Singapore marine clay is still not available so far.
2.6.2 Scope of work in the current study
This study will focus largely on the pre-peak constitutive behavior of cement-treated
Singapore marine clay. Cement-treated Singapore marine clay specimens with different mix
proportions and curing conditions will be studied firstly to examine the behavior under quite
different mix proportion and curing condition. The effect of mix proportion and curing stress
and curing time on the primary yield locus will be investigated. The post-yield behavior and
post-yield changes in the yield locus will also be investigated for specimens with different mix
proportions. Short sample used in triaxial testing to study post-peak softening behavior while
preventing shear band formation will also be attempted.
The present study will not address the following aspects of cement-treated soil behavior:
1. Pre-yield behavior of the cement-treated soil including small-strain nonlinear behavior.
2. Anisotropic effects.
3. Post-peak softening behavior including the critical state (for standard specimen). However,
the constitutive behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine clay will be investigated in
detail and its use as an intrinsic state will be explored.
Based on the observations of the experiment of this study, a new energy equation will be
proposed for cement-treated marine clay, from which a new yield locus will be derived. This
new yield locus incorporates a cohesion parameter. The initial value of the cohesion can be
easily deduced from unconfined compression tests, thereby allowing the primary yield locus of
cement-treated marine clay to be readily determined from conventional tests. Furthermore, the
decrease in the cohesion parameter as a function of strain can be determined from the
38
CHAPTER 2
experimental data. By decreasing the cohesion parameter after yielding, changes in the yield
locus after primary yielding can be reproduced reasonably well.
Following this Chapter, the next four Chapters will address the main work of this study,
including experimental study and theoretical study.
39
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.1: Schematic illustrations of improved soil (after Saitoh et al., 1985)
Figure 2.2: SEM micrographs of lime improved soil (after Locat et al., 1990)
40
CHAPTER 2
1 4
2 5
3 6
Figure 2.3: Microstructures on slip planes of several cement-treated specimens at

the end of triaxial shearing tests: ①CID50; ②CIU50; ③CIU500; ④CIU1500;
⑤CID500; ⑥CID1500 (after Chin, 2006)
41
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.4: Effect of cement type on compressive strength of soil-cement

for: (a) Kanagawa; and (b) Saga soils (after Kawasaki et al., 1981)
Figure 2.5: Effect of different stabilizers on compressive strength of

different soils in Sweden (after Ahnberg et al., 1995)
42
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.6: Effect of grain size distribution on cement stabilization

(after Niina et al., 1977)
Figure 2.7: Effect of organic content on the unconfined compressive

strength of peat soils (after Huat, 2006)
43
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.8: Effect of mixing time on cement stabilization

(after Nakamura et al., 1982)
Figure 2.9: Effect of curing time on strength

(after Kawasaki et al., 1981)
44
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.10: Effect of curing temperature on compressive strength of silt

(after Enami et al., 1985)
1100
Drained isotropic curing stress, p'cure

1000 without curing stress
p'cure=50kPa
900 p'cure=100kPa
p'cure=250kPa
800 p'cure=500kPa
Axial stress, σa (kN/m2)
700
600 Unload elastically Localisation of strain

(sweating disappear) at rupture plane
flaws start to form and propagate

500
Axial stress, σa (kN/m2 )
Rupture plane
400
Intact part
300
Specimen breaks apart
whole intact specimen

200 been compressed
Axial strain, εa (%)

100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Axial strain, εa (%)
Figure 2.11: UCT results for specimens treated under drained isotropic curing stress
(after Chin, 2006)
45
CHAPTER 2
70
CE
60 ME
freshly mixed
untreated clay
50 CV
0CON0
Plasticity index, %
40
MV 250CON0
CH 50CON0
30 500CON0 100CON0
CI MH
20
10 CL MI
ML
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Liquid limit, %
Figure 2.12: Plasticity chart for cement treated clay under various
Fig. 2.13: Effect of initial water content and cement content on e-log σ v'
relationship (after Kamruzzaman, 2002)
46
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.14: Isotropic compression behavior for cement treated clay under various
Figure 2.15: Peak strength envelope for treated specimens with OCR=1 in p’-q stress
plane (after Chin, 2006)
47
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.16: Triaxial behaviour of treated clay under (a) drained; and (b)
undrained conditions (after Endo, 1976)
Figure 2.17: Consolidated drained triaxial behaviour with different confining

pressures (after Tatsuoka and Kobayashi, 1983)
48
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.18: Undrained stress path of cement-treated clay for

(a) 10%; (b) 30%; and (c) 50% of cement contents (after Kamruzzman, 2002)
49
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.19: Definition of yield surfaces (after Smith, 1992
Figure 2.20: Variation of incremental yield stress with curing

void ratio and cement content(after Rotta et al, 2003)
50
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.21: Relationship between initial curing void ratio, unconfined compressive
strength, incremental yield stress and initial bulk density (after Consoli et al, 2006)
51
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.22: Undrained triaxial compression of Todi clay: stress-strain response,

pore water pressure difference and strain homogeneity indexes
(after Viggiani et al,1993)
(a) under low confining stress (b) under high confining stress
Figure 2.23: Size effect on triaxial behavior of specimen with height-diameter

ratio 1(after Abdulla & Panos, 1997)
52
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.24: Effect of slenderness ratio on drained triaxial behavior of specimen

with cement content 4% and confining stress 200kPa(after Abdulla & Panos,
1997)
Figure 2.25: Effect of the slenderness of the specimen on the results obtained
from constant p’ triaxial test (after Callisto & Calabresi, 1998)
53
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.26: Post-ruptured strength envelope of samples with mix proportion

s:c:w=5:1:6
(after Chin, 2006)
Figure 2.27: Successive yield surfaces for increasing degrees of bonding. Surface A
corresponds to unbonded material (after Gens and Nova, 1993)
54
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.28: Reference surface, structure surface and bubble (yield surface)
for destructuration model (after Rouaina & Wood, 2000)
Figure 2.29: Representation of composite action of frictional and bond forces in

cemented soil (after Vatsala et al., 2001)
Figure 2.30: yield surface for cement treated clay (after Lee et al., 2004)
55
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.31: A new family of yield locus (after McDowell, 2000)
56
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY AND SETUP
This Chapter presents the test programme and experimental aspects of this study. The
materials used in this study will be discussed first, followed by the mix proportions of the
cement-treated marine clay specimens. The sample preparation procedure is then discussed.
Finally the testing procedure and apparatus are described and the engineering properties of the
treated soil specimens are summarized.
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Untreated marine clay
The untreated marine clay used in this study was collected from 4 to 5m depth below
seabed at a dredge site offshore of Pulau Tekong and belongs to the Singapore Upper marine
clay of Kallang formation. According to Pitts (1992) and Tan et al. (1983), the sediment was
deposited around 10,000 years ago. The undrained shear strength and compression index Cc of
Singapore upper marine clay ranges from 5~20kPa and 0.7~1.3, respectively (Tan et al. 1983).
The basic properties of the marine clay in this study are summarized in Table 3.1. This is
essentially the same as the clay used by Chin (2006).
Table 3.1: Basic properties of Singapore upper marine clay

Properties Values Properties Values
Liquid Limit, LL (%) 88 Grain Size Distribution:

Plastic Limit, LL (%) 38 Sand (%) 8
Plasticity Index, PI (%) 50 Silt (%) 72
In-situ Moisture Content, m 72% Clay (%) 20
(%)
Liquidity Index, IL 0.68 Total Unit weight, γb (kN/m3) 15
Initial void ratio, eo 1.93 Dry Unit weight, γd (kN/m3) 8.72
Specific gravity, Gs 2.70 K0 0.62
Note: In-situ Moisture Content, initial void ratio, Unit weight and K0 were referred to Chin
(2006), which were determined upon collection from the site.
3.1.2 Ordinary Portland cement
57
CHAPTER 3
The additive used to treat Singapore upper marine clay in this study is Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC). The definition of cement content ( Aw ) used in this study is synonymous with
the mass ratio of cement: soil (c/s), which is the ratio of dry weight of cement to the dry weight
of clay particles and is expressed in percentage. The soil: cement (s/c) mass ratio is therefore
the reciprocal of the cement content. The total water content ( Cw ) is defined as the ratio of the
mass of water in the resulting mix to the mass of dry soil solid and cement and is expressed in
percentage. These definitions are the same as those used by Chin (2006). By using Lee et al.’s
(2005) definition, the water-cement ratio is defined as the ratio of the mass of water in the
resulting mix to the mass of cement solids while the soil-cement ratio is defined as the ratio of
the mass of soil solids in the mix to the mass of cement solids. The chemical composition and
physical properties of OPC are given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Chemical compositions and physical properties of Ordinary Portland Cement (after
Sun, 2008)
Chemical compositions Values Physical Properties Values
Lime Saturation, Factor (L.S.F) 0.93 Consistency (%) 29.0

Magnesia, MgO (%, m/m) 3.25 Penetration (mm) 7
Sulphuric Anhydride as SO3 (%, m/m) 2.06 Initial Setting Time (min) 180
Loss on Ignition (%, m/m) 2.53 Final Setting Time (min) 210
Silica, SiO2 (%, m/m) 20.26 Soundness (mm) <1
Calcium Oxide, CaO (%, m/m) 63.19 Fineness (m2/kg) 363
Iron Oxide, Fe2O3 (%, m/m) 3.61 Specific Gravity, Gs 3.15
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 (%, m/m) 4.31 2-days Strength (N/mm2) 22.7
Sodium Oxide, Na2O (%, m/m) 0.25 28-days Strength (N/mm2) 55.5
Potassium Oxide, K2O (%, m/m) 0.3
3.2 Variables investigated
The main objective of the experiment in this study is to investigate the constitutive
behavior of cement-treated soil under triaxial loading conditions, which provides the basis for
the constitutive framework of this study. For this reason, various cement contents, water
contents, curing stresses and curing time were used during the test program. For load-cured
specimens, the curing stress was applied isotropically. During load-curing, water was allowed
to drain into and out of the specimens via the ends of the specimens, which were covered by
58
CHAPTER 3
filter paper. The isotropic curing stresses p'cure used were 0 (atmospheric curing) ~350kPa.
The curing period is up to 210days.
Chin (2006) used a mix proportion with mass ratio of soil:cement:water (S:C:W) of 5:1:6.
This is equivalent to a cement content of 20% and total water content of 100%. In order to
investigate the general stress-strain behavior under triaxial loading for cement-treated
Singapore marine clay, 10% to 100% cement contents and 72% to 183% total water contents
were used, which resulted in soil:cement ratio ranging from 1 to 10 and water-cement ratios
ranging from 2 to 11. The soil-cement-water ratios of the different composition sets used are
summarized in Table 3.3. Chin (2006) reported that his cement-treated soil composition is
representative of deep mixing operation in Singapore Marine Clay. The mix proportions
selected for this study are representative approximately of the full range of water-cement and
soil-cement ratios used in a number of deep mixing and jet-grouting studies and projects
involving soft, fine-grained soils, as reported by Lee et al. (2005), Figure 3.1. As Figure 3.2
shows, all the mix proportions are in the workability range, which was provided by Lee et al.
(2005). According to Lee et al. (2005), the “bleeding limit” is defined as the water content at
which the settlement reaches 1% of the original height of the slurry. Slurry clay was prepared
by mixing the required amount of water with Singapore marine clay in its natural state. Dried-
pulverized clay was prepared by ovendrying the clay at 105°C and then crushing it into a fine
powder, before reconstituting it with water. They also reported that there is a significant
reduction in the Atterberg limits of the clay upon drying, which indicates that the activity of the
clay had been lowered in the process of drying and subsequent crushing. As such, the slurry clay
behaves different from dried-pulverized clay upon mixing with cement. Consequently, the liquid
and bleeding limits of dried-pulverized clay-cement mixes are significantly lower than those of
slurry clay-cement mixes, and its “workability range,” that is the region between the liquid
limit and the bleeding limit, is much narrower than that of slurry clay cement mixes (see
Figure 3.2). It should be noted that the definition of cement content used herein is different
from that used by Lee et al. (2005) and in Figure 3.2. In Lee et al. (2005) and Figure 3.2,
59
CHAPTER 3
cement content is defined as the mass of cement divided by the mass of soil and cement.
Strength and basic properties assessments were made after specified curing period.
Table 3.3: Mixture proportions and experiments in this study

Mix Soil- Water- Cement Total curing curing Test in this study
proportion cement cement content Water load time
(s:c:w) ratio ratio Aw(%) content (kPa) (days)
(s:c) (w:c) Cw(%)
10:1:11 10:1 11:1 10 100 0~350 7~28 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID,k0,
TST
20:3:23 20:3 23:3 15 100 0~250 7~210 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID,k0, η
, TST
5:1:6 5:1 6:1 20 100 0~250 7~180 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID,k0, η
, SEM, TST
10:3:13 10:3 13:3 30 100 0 7~28 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID,k0, η
, TST
10:3:17.3 10:3 17.3:3 30 133 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT
10:3:19.5 10:3 19.5:3 30 150 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT
2:1:3 2:1 3:1 50 100 0 7~28 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID,k0, η
, TST
2:1:4 2:1 4:1 50 133 0~250 7~180 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID,k0, η
,SEM, TST
2:1:4.5 2:1 4.5:1 50 150 0~100 7~100 UCT,ICT
2:1:5 2:1 5:1 50 167 0~200 7~28 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID
2:1:5.5 2:1 5.5:1 50 183 0 7~28 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID, TST
1.3:1:3.06 1.3:1 3.06:1 77 133 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT
1.3:1:3.45 1.3:1 3.45:1 77 150 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT
1.3:1:3.5 1.3:1 3.5:1 77 152 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID
1:1:2 1:1 2:1 100 100 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT,CIU,CID
1:1:2.66 1:1 2.66:1 100 133 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT
1:1:3 1:1 3:1 100 150 0~100 7~90 UCT,ICT
10:1:7.9 10:1 7.9:1 10 72 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT
6:1:5 6:1 5:1 17 71 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT
4:1:3.6 4:1 3.6:1 25 72 0~100 7~28 UCT,ICT
remarks 1. basic property tests including after-curing water content, after-curing unit weight,
after-curing specific gravity were conducted on all samples;
2. CIU/CID: isotropic consolidated undraiend/drained compression test;
3. ICT: isotropic compression test; UCT: unconfined compressive strength test;
4. η : constant stress ratio test; k0: k0 consolidation test;
5. SEM: scanning electronic microscopy test;
6. TST: tensile strength test
3.3 Sample preparation procedure
Untreated marine clay was prepared from its natural wet state without pre-drying. Lee et
al. (2005) noted that pre-drying causes largely irreversible changes to the Atterberg’s Limits of
60
CHAPTER 3
the clay, which are indicated of chemical changes. Distilled and de-aired water was first added
to the natural marine clay to bring its water content up to 100%. The resulting clay slurry and
the prescribed amount of cement slurry were then mixed in a Hobart Mixer using a rotational
speed of 125 rpm for about 10 minutes.
Apart from the mix composition, the procedure for sample preparation largely follows
that used by Chin (2006). For samples with zero curing loads, the specimen was placed into a
cylindrical PVC split-mould and then submerged in distilled water for curing. For samples
with curing load, the specimen was placed into a cylindrical PVC split-mould, which has been
pre-lined with a thin latex sleeve (membrane), and then put into triaxial chamber for drained
load-curing. The latex sleeve and cylindrical mould each has a diameter of 50mm and a height
of 100mm. No mechanical compaction of any form was applied. Before application of cell
pressure, the split mould was removed. O-rings were used to seal the membrane to the top cap
and base pedestal, so as to prevent slurry mix from flowing out when confining stress was
applied. Porous stones were provided at both ends of the specimen to allow double drainage.
Microscopic air pockets that might have been trapped within the specimen during preparation
were dissolved into solution by the application of 350kPa of back-pressure. The use of de-aired
water also encourages dissolution of air pockets and enhances saturation of the specimens.
Drained condition was ensured by opening the drainage valves during consolidation.
The elapsed time taken from mixing clay with cement to the application of curing stress is
slightly less than 30 minutes. The short time was used so as to minimize the formation of
structure within the treated clay.
It should be pointed out that during mixing and placement of cement-clay mixture into the
PVC mould, some of the air might have been trapped inside. Tan et al. (2002) showed that the
presence of air voids has an adverse effect on the strength of cement-treated clay. Generally
the UCT strength reduced about 5% for every 1% increase in air voids (Tan et al. 2002).
Therefore, it is important to control the amount of air voids within the specimen. Fig. 3.3 using
the same method as that of Chin (2006) shows a statistical analysis on the air content of
cement-clay mixtures just after mixing. The statistical analysis was carried out assuming the
61
CHAPTER 3
air content follows a normal distribution curve. As can be seen, the mean of the air content in
the mixtures is about 1.45% with the standard deviation (fluctuation about the mean) of 0.43%.
The probability of the air content within the mixtures exceeds 2.15% is about 0.08. As such,
the presence of air voids within the specimens was properly controlled in the present study.
On the other hand, excessive water in the soil-cement mixture may lead to “bleeding” (e.g.
Tan et al. 1997), or segregation of cement and soil solids from the water. Such bleeding occurs
when the mixture exceed its bleeding limit and may induce inhomogeneity into the specimens,
which should be avoided. Figure 3.2 shows the liquid and bleeding limits for cement-clay
mixtures with different admixture proportions as reported by Lee et al. (2005). Also plotted in
the same figure are the soil-cement-water ratios used in the present study. As can be seen, the
compositions used in the current study all lie within the workable range bounded by liquid and
bleeding limits.
3.4 Testing procedure and apparatus
After the specified curing time, the cement-treated marine clay specimens were taken
out and tested. Most of the specimens were trimmed to standard dimension of 38mm diameter
by 76 mm height and tested under triaxial loading system. The triaxial test included
unconfined compressive strength test (UCT), isotropic compression test (ICT), isotropic
consolidated undrained (CIU) and drained (CID) triaxial tests, K0 consolidation test and
constant stress ratio ( η ) test. Some of the specimens were tested for tensile strength using the
Brazilian test or radial compression test. In addition, some of them were used for scanning
electron Microscopy (SEM) test before and after triaxial loading. Some of the specimens were
also remoulded and tested under triaxial system. It should be noted that, following the
guidelines in BS1377 (1990), all specimens were also back-pressured to saturation prior to
triaxial loading. In accordance with (Black and Lee, 1973), the back-pressure was increased
until a B-value of at least 0.9 was obtained. The B value in this study is usually higher than
0.95. Tests conducted in this study are summarized in Table 3.3.
62
CHAPTER 3
3.4.1 Basic properties
The basic properties, which include moisture content, bulk density, initial void ratio and
specific gravity, were determined for all specimens after 7 days of curing. The basic properties
of most of samples with 28 days or longer curing time were also examined. These tests were
carried out according to the procedures and apparatuses described in BS1377 (1990). The
results are summarized in table 3.4.
3.4.2 Isotropic compression
Isotropic compression tests were carried out on the treated specimens as to assess
compressibility properties and isotropic compression yielding of the cement- treated clay, by
using a computer controlled triaxial stress path apparatus supplied by GDS as shown in Figure
3.4 or high pressure test system as shown in Figure 3.5a. Unless otherwise stated, the
specimens all have a diameter of 38mm and a height of 76mm. Prior to isotropic compression,
the specimen was saturated under back-pressure until the B value approaching or higher than
0.9 (Black and Lee, 1973); this often requires a back-pressure of about 400kPa. Such a high
back pressure was needed due to the high stiffness of the treated specimen. A constant rate of
confining stress which equals to 0.5~1 kPa/min was then applied to the specimen. Side
drainage was permitted to facilitate dissipation of pore water pressure through an outlet line
connected to the top cap. During the test, volumetric as well as pressure changes were
monitored by volume change and pressure transducers, respectively. This enables the effective
stress and void ratio to be determined accordingly. At the end of compression test, isotropic
unloading was carried out with a stress rate similar to that applied for the loading rate. The test
results are summarized in Table 3.4.
3.4.3 Triaxial compression and strength
63
CHAPTER 3
The stress-strain behavior and strength were studied using triaxial tests. The treated
specimens were tested using isotropic consolidated undrained (CIU) and drained (CID) triaxial
tests, K0 consolidation test and constant stress ratio ( η ) test. For CIU /CID tests, K0
consolidation test and constant stress ratio (η ) test, strip side drains were used along with filter
paper at the top and bottom of the specimen. Specimens sheared under high effective confining
stress were tested using the GDS equipment or normal triaxial test system with GDS pressure
controller shown in Fig. 3.5a. Tests involving effective confining stress less than 250kPa were
conducted using conventional triaxial equipment shown in Fig.3.5b. Strains rates of
0.01mm/min and 0.005mm/min were selected for undrained and drained triaxial shearing,
respectively. According to BS1377: Part 8: 1990, in order to calculate the rate of axial
displacement (shearing rate), triaxial consolidation tests were conducted to estimate the
significant testing time. The test results showed that the time tf is less than 2h. Thus 2h is used
as significant testing time. However, due to the brittle behavior of cement treated soil, the
significant strain interval for the test specimen is significantly smaller than that of reconstituted
clay, which is around 2.0%. By calculation, the shearing rate for CIU is around 0.01mm/min.
On the other hand, CID test needs to run slowly enough to ensure that pore pressure changes
due to shearing are negligible. Thus the sharing rate should be lower than that of CIU test.
Preliminary CID tests showed that a shearing rate of 0.005mm/min is suitable for this study.
Ko consolidation test is based on volumetric control by GDS test system, where the axial
displacement of the sample will be slowly adjusted thus ensuring the diameter of the
specimen remains constant, where the specimen diameter change is calculated from the
back pressure volume change. The loading procedure followed GDS test menu. In
constant stress ratio test, a stress path p-q was defined according to expected constant stress
ratio (q/p'), which will be completed within specified time. The GDS test system will attempt
to perform linear stress paths between the current values and the target values. For test
conducted under GDS system, the axial and volumetric strains were monitored by an internal
LVDT within the ram motor and volume change gauge in back-pressure controller,
64
CHAPTER 3
respectively. For tests conducted under normal triaxial system, the axial and volumetric strains
were measured by external LVDT and automatic volume change gauge and monitored by a
data logger. The test results are summarized in Table 3.4.
Unconfined Compressive Tests (UCT) were also conducted on some specimens.
Unconfined compressive strength is a commonly used strength parameter for cement-treated
soil. For UCT test, the specimen was sheared at a strain rate of 1.0mm/min, according to the
procedures and apparatuses described in BS1377 (1990) and Head (1986).
3.4.4 Microstructural properties
Scanning electron Microscopy (SEM) investigations were used to study the
microstructure of cement-treated marine clay specimens and remoulded cement-treated marine
clay specimens. SEM tests were conducted by using Hitachi Tabletop microscope TM-1000 as
shown in Figure 3.6. Two types of specimens were prepared for SEM tests. Type One was
taken from intact specimens before triaxial loading or after triaxial loading. Type Two was
taken from remoulded samples after triaxial loading. For Type One specimen, Following Chin
(2006), the specimens were first air dried (Mitchell, 1993) and the observation surface was
prepared by breaking specimen length-wise using finger pressure, while the other sides of the
specimen were then trimmed to a dimension of about 5 mm square by 3 mm thick. The
observation surface was then coated with gold for conductivity. Care was taken to minimize
disturbance on the observation surface during handling of these specimens. For Type Two
tests, post-triaxial loading specimens were broken into pieces and remoulded with a small
amount of water so that the remoulded specimens were scanned in a dispersed state. The
remoulded soil was then allowed to precipitate onto a small plate in a container. The
precipitated soil was then air-dried for about a week and then sputter-coated with gold for
SEM. The final thickness of the precipitate was usually about 1mm. This process causes the
soil grains and aggregates to be more dispersed and more readily discerned under SEM.
During scanning, magnification levels of 1.0k ~5.0k were used.
65
CHAPTER 3
3.4.5 Tensile splitting strength test
As an indirect method, Brazilian test is widely used to test the tensile strength of quasi-
brittle material (e.g. concrete, rock). Bazant & Planas (1998) noted that the Brazilian test (also
termed as radial compression test or tensile splitting strength test), “… has been used as a
measure of tensile strength (even though the stress state is not uniaxial) and has been included
in most standards as a routine method of estimating the tensile strength (ASTM C496 ，
BS1881-117，ISO 4108)”.
In this study, 50mm by 50mm cylindrical specimens were used for tensile strength test. A
triaxial test system was modified to conduct tensile strength test (Figure 3.7a). Displacement
controlled loading is used in this test. As can be seen, a stainless steel ram, with a load cell
mounted at its end, was modified to transfer the load to the specimen. The jig comprises two
loading platens, which were parallel to each other and put on the top and the bottom of the
specimen separately (Figure 3.7b). The top platen was designed to incorporate a steel strip
with rectangle section of 3.5mm by 4mm whereas the bottom one was designed to incorporate
steel strip with cylinder section with thickness 2mm and string length 8mm. This ensures that
the load is applied along a center line on the surface of the specimen and that the latter does
not move out of line during loading.
The specimen was loaded under water so as to simulate fully drain condition during test,
see Figure 3.7c. Very fast loading rate of 0.5mm/s and very slow loading rate of 0.005 mm/s
was used in this study to investigate the loading rate effect. Specimen was also tested under
dry condition to investigate the effect of drainage during test. The sample preparation
procedure is the same as section 3.3. The samples was placed into PVC model with dimension
of 50mm by 50mm and cured under water. Some of the specimens were cured under pressure
and then trimmed to dimension of 38mm by 38mm before test. The dimensions of each
specimen were measured before the test.
66
CHAPTER 3
3.4.6 Remoulded cement-treated marine clay
Cement-treated marine clay specimens were also remoulded and traixial tested to assess
the applicability of the “intrinsic state” concept. These cement-treated marine clay specimens,
with cement content 10%-50% and total water content 100%-167.7%, were prepared using the
procedure presented in section 3.3 and cured under different confining pressure for 7days or 28
days. After 7 days or 28 days of curing, the cement-treated marine clay specimens were taken
out and cut into small pieces before put into oven for 24 hours. The dried specimen pieces
were then pounded manually by using pestle and ground by using electronic grinder separately
(Figure 3.8). The ground specimens were sieved using a 75μm sieve before mixing with water.
After mixing, the remoulded specimens were put into a perforated steel tube and consolidated
under dead loading 50N or 80N for about 2 days. During consolidation, the water was allowed
to pass through both ends as well as tube side. The tube was specially perforated with small
holes, each approximately 2mm diameter, on the side. Before the mixed specimen was put into
tube, a thin coating of grease was put inside the tube to reduce wall friction during
consolidation and a filter tissue(towel) was wrapped around the tube on its outside to allow
water passing through the side holes. Another thin adhesive type was fully wrapped around the
tissue to ensure soil particles not flow out during consolidation while the water flows along the
tissue. The setup for preloading is shown in Figure 3.8.
67
CHAPTER 3
Table 3.4a Basic and engineering properties in this study
Notation Aw Cw pcur ' p 'py Gs w γ qu

(%) (%) (kPa) (%) (kN / m3 ) (kPa)
(kPa)
10-1-11 10 100 0 135 2.69 92.81 14.43 220

50 220 2.69 86.42 14.83 286
100 300 2.69 79.18 15.21 369
250 590 2.69 70.33 15.50 647
350 800 2.69 65.03 15.80 840
20-3-23 15 100 0 210 2.68 92.74 14.58 320
50 275 2.68 83.55 14.85 398
100 400 2.68 79.15 15.12 535
250 700 2.68 70.53 15.47 851
5-1-6 20 100 0 260 2.67 91.24 14.65 412
50 350 2.67 84.63 14.87 509
100 450 2.67 77.73 15.13 618
250 720 2.67 71.43 15.49 900
10-3-13 30 100 0 350 2.66 89.09 14.77 559
10-3-17.3 30 133 0 130 2.66 118.99 13.76 195
50 460 2.66 92.79 14.46 /
100 / 2.66 87.05 14.69 677
10-3-19.5 30 150 0 110 2.66 133.14 13.30 158
50 / 2.66 100.86 14.20 509
100 / 2.66 94.08 14.47 647
2-1-3 50 100 0 580 2.65 84.92 14.84 920
2-1-4 50 133 0 275 2.65 114.6 13.84 385
50 600 2.65 83.73 14.85 939
100 800 2.65 78.84 15.05 1206
250 1350 2.65 67.02 15.59 1691
2-1-4.5 50 150 0 160 2.65 127.58 13.48 264
50 / 2.65 101.66 14.31 782
100 / 2.65 84.48 14.83 1143
2-1-5 50 167 0 100 2.65 132.58 13.36 149
50 475 2.65 94.35 14.42 783
100 700 2.65 86.60 14.65 1059
200 1050 2.65 80.15 15.11 1427
2-1-5.5 50 183 0 80 2.65 168.75 13.14 114
Remarks 1. Gs , w(%) , γ is after-curing specific gravity, water content and unit
weight of specimen tested respectively.
2. pcur ' , p 'py , qu is curing stress, primary isotropic yield stress and
unconfined compressive strength respectively.
68
CHAPTER 3
Table 3.4b Basic and engineering properties in this study
Notation Aw Cw pcur ' p 'py Gs w γ qu

(%) (%) (kPa) (%) 3
(kN / m ) (kPa)
(kPa)
1.3-1-3.06 77 133 0 400 2.64 110.35 13.95 650

50 / 2.64 76.56 15.15 /
100 / 2.64 68.62 15.39 2400
1.3-1-3.45 77 150 0 250 2.64 125.05 13.49 438
50 / 2.64 81.94 14.72 1964
100 / 2.64 72.89 15.34 2650
1.3-1-3.5 77 152 0 350 2.64 114.13 13.84 602
25 650 2.64 92.61 14.59 1132
50 800 2.64 85.24 14.67 1392
100 1400 2.64 74.12 14.90 2349
1-1-2 100 100 0 950 2.63 78.54 14.91 2251
50 / 2.63 60.56 15.11 4153
100 / 2.63 58.60 15.50 /
1-1-2.66 100 130 0 500 2.63 108.40 14.04 823
50 / 2.63 66.72 15.38 3298
100 / 2.63 64.4 15.52 /
1-1-3 100 150 0 325 2.63 122.68 13.62 541
50 1100 2.63 72.64 15.29 1967
100 / 2.63 58.68 15.62 /
10-1-7.9 10 72 0 270 2.69 66.47 15.45 430
30 400 2.69 64.97 15.83 640
100 525 2.69 62.11 16.09 737
6-1-5 16.7 71.4 0 500 2.68 64.73 15.66 844
30 600 2.68 63.80 15.90 975
100 700 2.68 62.65 16.11 1005
4-1-3.6 25 72 0 600 2.67 63.38 15.85 980
50 800 2.67 62.00 16.02 1332
100 950 2.67 59.96 16.19 1424
Remarks 1. Gs , w(%) , γ is after-curing specific gravity, water content and unit
weight of specimen tested respectively.
2. pcur ' , p 'py , qu is curing stress, primary isotropic yield stress and
unconfined compressive strength respectively.
69
CHPATER 3
Figure 3.1: Soil-cement and water-cement ratios for some previous studies
on deep mixing and jet grouting (after Lee et al., 2005) and for this study
Figure 3.2: Working ranges of dried-pulverized and slurry clay cement mixes
(after Lee et al., 2005, mix proportion for this study were added into the same
plot)
70
CHPATER 3
Figure 3.3: Distribution curve of air content (%)
Figure 3.4: A fully computer controlled triaxial stress path
71
CHPATER 3
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.5: Normal triaxial test apparatus (a) high pressure with GDS
pressure controller (b) lower pressure
72
CHPATER 3
Figure 3.6: Hitachi Tabletop microscope TM-1000
73
CHPATER 3
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 3.7: Tensile strength test setup (a) setup without sample (b)
loading platform with sample (c) loading platform with sample under water
74
CHPATER 3
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 3.8: Preparing remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimen (a)

cement-treated marine clay specimens, (b) cutting into pieces, (c) dried pieces,
(d) powder of remoulded specimen, (e) setup for preloading of remoulded
specimen, (f) preloading of remoulded specimen
75
CHAPTER 4
PREPEAK BEHAVIOR OF CEMENT-TREATED
SINGAPORE MARINE CLAY
This and the next chapter discuss the experiment results for cement-treated Singapore
marine clay. These results allow the primary yielding, yield locus and post-yield behavior
under different mix proportions, curing stress and curing period to be highlighted. The
experiment was conducted mainly under triaxial loading condition. In addition, results
obtained from K0 and isotropic compression tests as well as unconfined compression test,
tensile splitting strength test and SEM results are also presented. The organization of this
Chapter is as follows:
Section 4.1 introduces the objectives of the various tests in the light of work which has
been done previously.
Section 4.2 discusses the definitions of artificial structure and primary yielding of
cement treated soil.
Sections 4.3 to 4.6 present results relating to isotropic compression behavior and
triaxial shearing, with emphasis on primary yielding and post-yield behaviors and factors
affecting them.
Sections 4.7 introduce and discuss the tensile strength of cement-treated soil.
4.1. Purpose of experiment
Since this study follows on directly from Chin’s (2006) study, its objectives have to be
77
CHAPTER 4
discussed against the backdrop of Chin’s (2006) findings, which can be summarized as
follows:
1. Cement-treated soil possesses a yield stress in the same manner as natural soils do. The
yield stress can be characterized by a decrease in stiffness under loading, which was
similar to the recommendations of Cotecchia & Chandler (2000). Microstructurally, the
yield stress appears to be associated mainly with breakage of inter-aggregate, but not
with large-scale break-up of intra-aggregate, bonds.
2. Triaxial shearing of cement-treated soil produces different behavioral traits under
different conditions. When samples are sheared undrained under low effective confining
stress (typically less than one-third of the current isotropic yield stress), the stress paths
tend to be constrained by the tensile cut-off envelope (that is the line given by q = 3p')
and the failure is accompanied by vertical cracking of the specimens which is consistent
with the attainment of zero lateral effective stress. Peak strength is reached on or near
the tensile cut-off envelope and is characterized by shear banding. Microstructurally, the
soil within the slip band still contains relatively large and unbroken aggregates.
3. Samples which were sheared drained at confining stresses much lower than their
isotropic yield stress (say 1/10 of the current isotropic yield stress) show stiff response
up to peak strength, followed by strain softening and volumetric dilation. Large
aggregates remained visible within the rupture band.
4. Samples which were sheared undrained under higher effective confining stress reaches
peak strength shortly after yielding. The post-peak behavior of the sample is marked by
shear band development and decrease in mean effective stress. Microstructurally, the
78
CHAPTER 4
soil within the shear band shows signs of massive aggregate breakage and crushing into
smaller fragments.
5. Samples which were sheared drained under higher effective confining stress undergo
strain hardening, which is marked large volumetric compression, prior to reaching peak
strength. Peak strength is reached at much larger value of shear strain than that in
undrained tests. The post-peak behavior of drained samples is marked by shear band
development and decrease in mean effective stress. Microstructurally, the soil within the
shear band shows signs of very severe aggregate breakage and crushing into much
smaller, often sub-micron, fragments. For the same confining stress, drained samples
show more severe aggregate breakage than undrained specimens. For a given type of test
(i.e. drained or undrained), the severity of aggregate breakage increases with confining
stress.
6. Samples which were cured under loading show increases in unconfined compressive
strength and gross yield which appear to be well-correlated to their post-curing void
ratio.
Chin’s (2006) study has several limitations, viz.
a) It is limited to only one mix proportion. There is a need to study if similar
behavioral trends apply to other mix proportions.
b) Chin’s (2006) parametric studies were not sufficiently extensive to permit their use
alone in the development of constitutive model. For instance, the variation of the
isotropic yield stress and unconfined compressive strength with mix proportion and
curing loading had not been investigated. Furthermore, the shape of the yield
79
CHAPTER 4
surfaces may not remain the same for different mix proportions, this needs further
quantitative investigations. As such, a constitutive model was not developed in
Chin’s study (2006).
c) Chin (2006) noted that shear banding prevented definitive measurements of the
stress state of the material within the slip plane. This is a common bifurcation
problem encountered by investigators in strain softening soils. Given this, it is
uncertain whether the specimens actually reached critical state, post-critical state
(e.g. some state between critical and residual) or something different altogether.
The main objective of the current study is to investigate if Chin’s (2006) framework is
applicable to other mix proportions and curing loads, with a view to producing sufficiently
detailed quantitative information for the development of a model for primary yielding and
early post-yield behaviour. In pursuance of this objective, the scope of experiment work
covered in this Chapter and next Chapter is expected to cover the following aspects:
a) Definition of initial or primary yield locus and its dependence on various factors.
Determination of primary yield locus and its possible relationship with other
engineering properties of the cement-treated soil, such as the unconfined
compressive strength.
b) Evolution of the yield locus during the hardening phase (if this exists) of the
shearing, primary how the shape and size of the yield locus change after initial
yielding.
c) The conditions governing the onset of strain softening. Chin’s (2006) data appear to
indicate that an appropriate governing criterion is the stress ratio (η = q/p’).
80
CHAPTER 4
However, the indications from his data are not definitive and further data are needed
to confirm this.
d) The existence or otherwise of a critical state line and, if affirmative, its shape. Chin
(2006) noted that ultimate failure envelope is a curve rather than straight line.
However, the stress state of the material within the slip plane cannot be fully defined.
To this extent, the critical state line cannot be clearly defined. Thus work is still
needed to ascertain the complete stress state of the sample during strain softening.
4.2. Definition of primary yielding and yield locus for
cement-treated soil
In this section, the definition of artificial structure will be discussed firstly. The
definition of primary yielding will then be discussed. The determination of primary yield
locus will be discussed furthermore.
4.2.1 Definition of artificial structure
Previous research works have shown that many natural soils possess some form of
structure (e.g. Burland, 1990; Leroueil & Vaughan, 1990). According to Burland (1990), the
differences in properties of natural and reconstituted soil could be attributed to soil structure.
Similarly, Leroueil & Vaughan (1990) noted that a soil possesses structure if the soil
behaviour cannot be described by void ratio and stress history alone. Burland (1990)
postulated an intrinsic compression line (ICL) and a sedimentation compression line (SCL)
to define the differences in behavior for the reconstituted and natural soils respectively. The
81
CHAPTER 4
ICL defines the compression behavior of reconstituted (i.e. unstructured) soil whereas the
SCL defines the compression behavior of natural deposits which possess certain
sedimentation structure.
Soil improvement processes such as deep mixing and jet grouting which make use of
cement, lime or other chemical agents are also likely to generate structure in soils. In most
cases, this kind of soil structure is characterized by a considerable amount of bonding, which
is likely to be created over and on top of a remoulded soil. For this reason, the kind of soil
structure resulting from chemical soil improvement processes may differ substantially from
those resulting from natural processes. In the discussion which follows, the termed “artificial
soil structure” will be used to define the soil structure resulting from the mixing of cement
(typically in the form of slurry) into a soil matrix.
4.2.2 Definition of yielding and yield locus for cemented soils
Yielding in clay soils is well-known and Roscoe & Schofield (1963) discussed in detail
the concepts involved in yielding of soft clays. Theoretically, the yield locus marks the limit
of elastic behaviour. However, this is often not easy to apply to experimental observation.
Many researchers have reported the difficulties in determining the yield point of soils, for
example, residual soils (Barksdale & Blight 1997), soft rocks (Cecconi et al. 1998),
Bothkennar clay (Smith et al. 1992). As Rotta et al. (2003) stated for artificially cemented
soil, the gradual onset of the breakage of the cement bonds, the grading of the soil and the
micro-features of the cememtitious agent can significantly add difficulties to the
identification of the yield point for cemented soils.
82
CHAPTER 4
The “yielding” in soils was characterized as “single yield” or “multiple yield” by
different researchers. The “single yield” concept has been used by many researchers (e.g.
Mitchell, 1970; Wong & Mitchell, 1975; Atkinson, 1990; Anagnostopoulos et al., 1991;
Coop and Atkinson, 1993; Kavvadas et al., 1993, 1994; Cuccovillo and Coop, 1997; Callisto
& Calabresi, 1998; Cotechia and Chandler, 2000; Rotta et al., 2003). Most of these
researchers define the yielding as a state where a substantial decrease in stiffness occurs. For
instance, Anagnostopoulos et al.(1991) defined “initial yield” as an abrupt decrease in
stiffness observed in the stress-strain curves of Corinth marl under triaxial compression.
Kavvadas et al. (1993, 1994) defined an “initial yield” for a soft rock (lignite) from the
stress-strain curve at the transition between a linear domain to a more plastic region.
However, some of these researches define “yielding” as the limit of elastic range, which is
the same as the classical meaning of “yielding” in mechanics. Atkinson (1990) suggested
that the term “yielding” should be restricted to describing the end of the elastic range. Based
on this concept, Coop and Atkinson (1993) defined the yield of artificially cemented
carbonate sand from stress-strain curve. Furthermore, Cuccovillo and Coop (1997) defined
the yielding of two structured sand (i.e., silica sandstone, calcarenite) from the change in the
tangent shear modulus in G- log ε s or G- log q curve.
Multiple yield points have also been proposed by some researchers (e.g. Vaughan, 1988;
Maccarini, 1987; Bressani, 1990; Leddra et al., 1990; Jardine et al., 1991; Jardine, 1992;
Smith et al, 1992; Malandraki and Toll, 1996). Vaughan (1985, 1990b) defined yielding as a
state at which a material shows a discontinuity in stress-strain behavior. As Malandraki and
Toll (1996) pointed out, this allows for the possibility for more than one yield point.
83
CHAPTER 4
Vaughan (1988) proposed two yield points for residual soil. The first yield point represents
the stress at which some of the bonds start to fail whereas the second yield causes a dramatic
loss in stiffness. Maccarine(1987) and Bressani(1990) defined two yields for an artificially
bonded soil while Leddra et al. (1990) defined two yield points for soft rocks. Based on the
study on the small strain behavior of reconstituted soil, Jardine et al.(1991) and Jardine
(1992) proposed three yields, which were designated “Y1”, “Y2”, “Y3”. “Y1” is the limit
of linear elastic behavior. “Y2” is the limit of recoverable behavior. “Y3” is the onset of
large-strain yielding. Similarly, Smith et al.(1992) suggested a provisional framework for
identifying and characterizing yielding in Bothkennar clay. Malandraki and Toll (1996)
suggested three yields for bonded materials, which are “first yield”, “second yield” and
“final yield”. The “first yield” is the same as “Y1”, which is defined at the point the first
change in stiffness occurs. The “second yield” is defined at the point where a major drop in
stiffness is initiated. The “final yield” is compatible with “Y3”, which is defined at the point
where the material has already lost almost all of its stiffness due to bonding. Malandraki and
Toll (1996) further pointed out that for normally consolidated clays and loose sands, the
“second yield” does not exist whereas for overconsolidated clays, dense sands and soft rocks,
“second yield” can be easily identified from log tangential stiffness-log axial strain curve.
By using local instrumentation, Tatsuoka and Shibuya (1991) suggested that the elastic
strain limit is about 0.0001% for normally consolidated clays but increases with
over-consolidation and that hard rocks may exhibit elastic strain limit of 0.01%. Jardine
(1995) found that the elastic strain limit increases as a result of bounding. Clayton et al.
(1994) also reported that the elastic strain limit for chalk might be as high as 0.03%.
84
CHAPTER 4
Cuccovillo and Coop (1997) found that at a confining stress of 1800kPa, the elastic strain
limit for structured sand (i.e., silica sandstone, calcarenite) is about 0.015%. However, by
using Maccarini’s (1987) and Bressani’s (1990) methods, Malandraki and Toll (1996)
reported that the “second yield” occurred at about 2% of axial strain. Hence, Malandraki and
Toll (1996) suggested that the “second yield” in some researcher’s method (e.g. Maccarini,
1987; Bressani, 1990; Vaughan, 1988; Vaughan et al., 1988) is most similar to the “final
yield”. According to Malandraki and Toll’s (1996) definition, the “second yield” from log
tangential stiffness-log axial strain curve coincides with the definitions of “initial yield” by
Anagnostopoulos et al.(1991) and Kavvadas et al.(1993, 1994), and “yield” by Coop and
Atkinson(1993).
Malandraki and Toll (1996) also postulated that “Y2” defined by some researchers (e.g.,
Jardine et al., 1991 and Jardine, 1992) may coincide with “first yield” defined by other
researchers (e.g., Vaughan, 1988 and Bressani, 1990) for strongly bonded materials, which
indicates that the material is elastic before a major drop in stiffness is initiated. Therefore,
the yield point from Coop and Atkinson(1993) and Cuccovillo and Coop(1997), “Y2” from
Jardine (1992) and Smith et al.(1992), and “second yield” from Malandraki and Toll (1996)
seems to be able to define the “yielding” of strongly bonded material such as cement treated
soil. This is also applicable to Rotta et al’s (2003) definition of “primary yielding”. In
Rotta’s (2003) method, the “primary yielding” is defined as the point in which the
stress-strain (i.e. p'-v) starts to deviate from the initial linear behavior.
The “yielding” of cemented soils can be identified and determined by different methods
according to “single yield” or “multiple yield” concept, namely “stress-strain method”,
85
CHAPTER 4
“stiffness method” and other method. In the “stress-strain method” method, the deviator
stress or mean effective stress is plotted with deviator strain or volumetric strain in natural or
log scale (e.g. Mitchell, 1970; Wong & Mitchell, 1975; Maccarini, 1987; Bressani, 1990;
Airey, 1993; Coop and Atkinson, 1993; Cotechia and Chandler, 2000; Rotta et al., 2003). For
instance, Mitchell (1970) plotted a one-dimensional consolidation curve on a linear stress
scale and defined a yield point by using Standard Casagrande method (Figure 4.1a). Mitchell
noted that “…at stresses less than the yield stress, the specimen compression is small, mostly
recoverable, and nearly a linear function of the applied stress. At stresses exceeding the
yield point stress, the specimen compression is relatively large and mainly irrecoverable”.
However, on the same plot, Mitchell also pointed out an actual yield point, which is the
same as that defined by Rotta’s method discussed later.
Wong & Mitchell (1975) used Taylor & Quinney’s (1931) method to define the yield
point from a given experimental stress-strain curve for sensitive cemented clay (Figure 4.1b).
They stated that “this method of defining the yield envelope is considered appropriate for
cemented clays since there is always a fairly sharp break in the stress-strain curves”.
Furthermore, they pointed out “the existence of a unique yield surface is of great importance
for sensitive cemented soils. After initial breakdown of the cementation bonds (initial
yielding) a small increment of applied stress produces a relatively large amount of strain
that is analogous to plastics flow. There appears to be a progressive breakdown of
cementation bonds following initial yield and it would be an oversimplification to identify
the post-yield sensitive clay with an insensitive normally consolidated clay. Exceptionally
large volumetric strain (up to 50%) is required to reach the normally consolidated or
86
CHAPTER 4
unstructured state.”
Rotta et al.’s (2003) proposes the point where the stress-strain curve deviates from its
initial linear trend as the “primary yield” point, at which breakage of bonds first commenced
(Figure 4.1c). Coop and Atkinson (1993) used the same method to identify the “yield” for
cemented carbonate sands on the plot of deviator stress-strain and mean effective
stress-volumetric strain. Airey (1993) also applied the same method to define the “yield” for
naturally cemented carbonate sand on the plot of deviator stress-axial strain.
Cotechia and Chandler’s (2000) also proposed ‘gross yield point’ as the point of
tangency between the compression curve and a line drawn parallel to the intrinsic
compression line (Burland 1990), at which the ratio of the stress on the compressive curve to
that on the intrinsic compression line is maximum (Figure 4.1d). Chin (2006) applied
Cotechia and Chandler’s (2000) method to determine the gross yield locus for
cement-treated Singapore marine clay.
Maccarini (1987) identified “first yield” at the end of the linear part of the curve of
deviator stress versus axial strain and “second yield” as the point of maximum curvature on
the same graph plotted at natural scale. The “first yield” is similar to Rotta’s “primary yield”
while the “second yield” is similar to Wong & Mitchell’s yield point. Bressani (1990) used
the same graph plotted on a log-log scale in an attempt to identify a clearer change in
behavior (see Figure 4.1e).
In the “stiffness method” method, the tangential modulus, usually E or G, is plotted
against strain in log-log scale or log-natural scale (e.g. Malandraki and Toll, 1996;
Cuccovillo and Coop, 1997). Malandraki and Toll (1996) identified yield of an artificially
87
CHAPTER 4
bonded soil from changes in the tangential stiffness (Etan) versus axial strain plotted to a
log-log scale (see Figure 4.1f). Cuccovillo and Coop (1997) defined the yield of structured
sand from changes in tangential shear modulus G versus log deviator strain or stress (see
Figure 4.1g).
There are also other methods for defining the “yielding” of soils. For example, Bergado
et al. (2006) define “yielding” of cement-treated soft Bangkok clay on the plot of shear
strain versus volumetric strain. They found that the shear strain versus volumetric strain is
bi-linear relationship and the transition point is defined as the yield point (see Figure 4.1h).
Airey (1993) used stress path of CIU specimen to define yield point for naturally cemented
carbonate soil. On the stress space, the transition point of effective stress path is defined as
yield point for most cases (see Figure 4.1i).
In this study, Coop and Atkinson’s method was used to determine the primary yield
points. As Figure 4.2 shows, by combining the primary yielding points obtained from
isotropic compression test, K0-consolidation test, constant stress ratio test and CID test, a
reasonably self-consistent primary yield locus of cement-treated marine clay can be obtained.
It should be pointed out that as shown in Figure 4.2, for CID specimen with lower confining
stress (e.g. 50kPa), the defined primary yield point is much lower than that defined by other
CID specimens with higher confining stress. This indicates that primary yield point for CID
specimen with lower confining stress is not well defined. Although consolidated undrained
(CIU) tests at effective confining pressures less than the isotropic primary yield stress shows
different stress path upon the compression pressure, Figure 4.2 shows that all peak strength
points are lower than or close to the primary yield locus formed by the primary yield points
88
CHAPTER 4
from isotropic compression test, K0-test, constant stress ratio test and CID test. Thus the
primary yield locus may be considered as the initial boundary surface in that it can not be
crossed by the effective stress path developed due to undrained events.
4.2.3 Summary
The definition of “yielding” of soils was discussed in detail. In this study, Coop and
Atkinson’s method was introduced to determine the yielding points for the primary yield
locus. The results showed that a reasonably consistent primary yield locus of cement-treated
marine clay can be obtained.
4.3. Isotropic compression behavior of cement-treated soil
In this section, isotropic compression behavior of cement-treated marine clay,
especially primary yielding, and the factors affecting it, is discussed.
4.3.1 General behavior under isotropic compression
Figures 4.3, 4.5, 4.7 - 4.11 and 4.13 - 4.17 show the isotropic compression curves for
specimens with different cement contents, total water contents, curing stresses and curing
periods, respectively. The first point plotted on each curve represents the specific volume
and the isotropic stress at the beginning of isotropic compression. Examination of all the
compression curves indicates that the initial void ratio decreases with the increase in cement
content, curing stress and curing time and the decrease in total water content. The specimens
show stiff behavior initially and become gradually softer as the isotropic stress increases,
89
CHAPTER 4
which is similar to behaviours reported in the literature for naturally/artificially structured or
cemented soils (e.g. Leroueil & Vaughan, 1990).
4.3.2 Cement content effect
Figure 4.3 shows the isotropic compression curve for specimens with different cement
content and 100% total water content cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days. From
Figure 4.3, it can be seen that all compression curves seem to be parallel. The compression
index of specimens does not vary significantly with different cement content. This is
consistent with Huang & Airey’s (1998) results. Huang & Airey’s (1998) stated that the
slopes of the compression lines are practically independent of the amount of cement added.
As the cement content increases, the normal consolidation line shifts to the right in a
v : ln p ' plot, which was attributed to the change in grading of the soil. Figures 4.3 to 4.4
show that the primary yielding stress Ppy' under isotropic compression increases with the
increase in cement content of cement-treated soil. Thus cement-treated soil becomes stiffer
as the cement content increases. This is consistent with Kamruzzaman’s (2002) finding that
the apparent pre-consolidation pressure in one dimensional consolidation increases with
cement content.
4.3.3 Total water content effect
Figure 4.5 shows the isotropic compression curve for specimens with 50% cement
content and different total water content and cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days.
From Figures 4.5 and 4.6, it can be seen that primary yielding stress under isotropic
90
CHAPTER 4
compression increases while the post-curing void ratio decreases with the decrease in total
water content. However, samples with different total water content appear to converge to the
same normal compression line, which indicates that the compression index seems to be
constant when only the total water content is varied. This is consistent with Lorenzo and
Bergado’s (2004) results. Lorenzo and Bergado (2004) stated that only the amount of cement
and soil solids or minerals controls the amount of new cementing products being formed
which eventually decide the initial structure of the soil. As a result, for a given cement
content, the higher total water content, the higher after-curing void ratio, the lesser the
bonded contacted area, the lesser the inherent cohesion, which results in a lower primary
yield stress.
4.3.4 Curing stress effect
Figures 4.7 to 4.11 show the isotropic compression curve for specimens with different
mix proportions cured under different curing stresses for 7 days. As Figure 4.12 shows, for
the same mix proportion, primary yield stress Ppy' under isotropic compression increases
while the post-curing void ratio decreases with increase in curing load (Figures 4.7 to 4.11).
For a given mix proportion, all samples appear to converge to the same normal compression
line regardless of curing stress. Rotta et al. (2003) and Chin (2006) also noted the same trend
for lower cement contents. Rotta et al. (2003) stated that an increase in density resulted in an
increase in the number of contact points between the soil particles where the cement can
form a bond. Consequently, the primary yield stress increases with the curing stress which
induced the decrease in the post-curing void ratio. However, as Lorenzo and Bergado (2004)
91
CHAPTER 4
noted, the initial structure is only controlled by the amount of cement and soil solids or
minerals which controls the amount of new cementing products being formed. As such,
when the compression pressure is much higher than the primary yield stress, the destructured
soil tends to converge with a unique compression line regardless of after–curing void ratio or
curing stress.
4.3.5 Curing period effect
Figures 4.13 to 4.17 show the isotropic compression curve for specimens with different
mix proportions and curing period under atmospheric pressure. From these figures, it can be
seen that for the same mix proportion, primary yield stress increases while post-curing void
ratio decreases with the curing time (Figure 4.18). However, the compression index seems to
be independent on curing period.
4.3.6 Summary
The results of isotropic compression tests in this section showed that the post-yield
compression index seems to be independent on cement content and curing period. The
post-yield compression index is also independent on total water content and curing stress.
However, the primary yielding stress Ppy' under isotropic compression increased with the
increase in cement content, curing load and curing time as well as decrease in total water
content.
92
CHAPTER 4
4.4. Triaxial compression behavior of samples consolidated at
pressures below the primary isotropic yield stress Ppy'
4.4.1 General behavior under triaxial compression
The naming convention used in this section (Figures 4.19 to 4.50) is
Aw-Cw-Pcur-CIU/CID-Pc'-Tcur, i.e., cement content (in percentage)-total water content (in
percentage)-curing stress-CIU/CID reconsolidation pressure-curing period. For example, test
10%-100%-0-ciu50-7ds (Figure 4.19) involves a sample with cement content 10% and total
water content 100% (mix proportion 10:1:11), which was cured under atmospheric pressure
for 7 days before test and then subjected to an isotropic consolidation pressure of 50 kPa and
sheared under undrained condition.
Figures 4.19 to 4.40 illustrate stress-strain behavior of cement-treated marine clay
specimens with different mix proportions, curing stress and curing time, which were
re-consolidated to a mean effective stress that is lower than the primary isotropic yield stress
prior to shearing. As can be seen, all samples sheared under undrained condition show stiff
response up to peak strength. Samples which were sheared undrained at high yield ratio
(ratio of consolidation stress Pc' to primary isotropic yield stress Ppy' ) >2 or ~2 show
approximately vertical stress path at the initial stages and reaches their peak strength along
the tensile failure envelope, which is represented by a straight line with a gradient of 3,
passing through the Origin. Stress states on this tensile failure envelope are associated with
zero effective radial stress on the triaxial specimen. This will be discussed further below.
Specimens sheared at lower yield ratio ~1 failed at peak point close to the tensile failure
envelope, with stress path trending toward the tensile failure envelope. All these suggest an
93
CHAPTER 4
stiff behavior up to the peak strength. The peak point in CIU test appears between 1% and
2% of shear strain or axial strain.
It should be noted that, owing to the limitations of the triaxial test, the undrained stress
path cannot cross the tensile failure envelope. For undrained triaxial test under low confining
stress, the build-up of excess pore pressure can easily lead to a state of zero effective radial
stress in the specimen. When this occurs, the pore pressure within the specimen becomes
equal to or larger than the total radial confining stress. This causes the rubber membrane to
detach from the specimen, thereby allowing pore water to drain out from the sides of the
specimen. Consequently, the state of the specimen is akin to that under unconfined
compression, with water being allowed to drain from the sides. Many researchers have
already reported the phenomenon of water being expelled from the sides of the specimens
under unconfined compression (e.g. Chin, 2006). This explains why all CIU specimens
reconsolidated under pressure lower than isotropic compression primary yield stress cannot
cross the tension failure envelope illustrated in Figures 4.19 to 4.40. This may not reflect the
true behavior of the cement-treated soil because unlike unstructured soils, one would expect
all cement-treated soil to contain some amount of inherent cohesion, which may also be
reflected as a tensile strength. If there is indeed true cohesion, then the yield envelope should
cross the q-axis at a positive intersect. This will be discussed later.
Samples which were tested drained at high yield ratio (>>2) showed nearly elastic
behavior before peak strength. Samples which were tested drained at low yield ratio showed
large volumetric compression up to the peak strength, which is often reached at larger shear
strain than CIU tests. Under higher effective confining stress, the point of peak strength is
94
CHAPTER 4
reached well after primary yield point, which indicates significant pre-peak strain hardening.
The above behavior was also reported by Chin (2006) for his cement treated marine clay
specimens.
4.4.2 Cement content effect
Figures 4.19 - 4.28 and 4.41 - 4.42 show triaxial stress-strain behavior for specimens
prepared by using different cement contents Aw ranging from 10% to 50%, total water
'
content Cw of 100% , zero curing stress Pcur and curing period 7 days. The test parameters of
the specimens are reflected in the specimen identifier. The results show that the cement
content has a significant effect on peak strength in CIU test and compression index in CID
test for specimen with the same consolidation stress. As shown in Figure 4.41, in CIU tests,
specimens with higher cement content show higher peak strength, which is reached at shear
strain of about 1% for all specimens. On the other hand, Figure 4.42 shows that for CID tests
the peak strength increases while the strain to peak (for same effective confining stress)
decreases as cement content increases. Moreover, specimens with higher cement content
show lower initial void ratio and lower compression index. These indicate that specimens
with higher cement content are also stiffer.
4.4.3 Total water content effect
Figures 4.27 to 4.34 and Figures 4.43 to 4.44 show triaxial stress-strain behavior for
specimens prepared by using different total water contents ranging from 100% to 183.3%,
with a constant cement content of 50% ,zero curing stress and 7 days of curing period. The
95
CHAPTER 4
results in Figures 4.43 and 4.44 show that in both CIU and CID tests, peak strength increases
as total water content decreases, which is not surprising. In addition, Figure 4.44 shows that
CID specimens with lower total water cement content also show smaller strain to peak (for
same effective confining stress). On the compression space, specimens with lower cement
content show lower initial void ratio and lower compression index.
4.4.4 Curing stress effect
Figures 4.35 to 4.40 and Figures 4.45 to 4.46 shows the stress-strain curves for
specimens with cement content 50% and total water content 133.3% (mix proportion 2:1:4)
cured under different curing stresses ranging from 0 to 250kPa for 7 days. The results in
Figures 4.45 and 4.46 show that in both CIU and CID tests, peak strength increases with
curing stress, which is not surprising. In addition, Figure 4.44 shows that CID specimens
with higher curing stress also show smaller strain to peak (for same effective confining
stress). Thus, increasing the curing stress has a similar effect as decreasing the total water
content.
4.4.5 Curing period effect
Figures 4.47- 4.50 show the stress-strain behavior for specimens with mix proportion
2:1:4 (cement content 50% and total water content 133.3%) and 5:1:6 (cement content 20%
and total water content 100%) cured under atmospheric pressure for different curing periods
ranging from 7days to 180days. As Figures 4.47 to 4.50 show, both CIU and CID specimens
show increase in strength with curing period. In addition, in CID specimens, the shear strain
96
CHAPTER 4
to peak strength decreases as curing period increases. On the compression space, specimens
with longer curing period show lower initial void ratio and lower compression index.
4.4.6 Summary
The results of triaxial compression test with consolidation stress lower than isotropic
compression primary yield stress in this section showed that for specimens with different
mix proportion under different curing condition, in CIU test all specimens show stiff
behavior with peak strength appearing around 1%~2% of axial strain whereas in CID test the
stress-strain behavior is depend on the effective confining stress or yield ratio. The results
also showed that increasing the cement content, curing stress and curing period or
decreasing the total water content all has a similar effect in increasing the peak strength of
the specimens. In all these cases, the increase in strength seems to be correlated at least
partially to a decrease in post-curing void ratio.
4.5. Yielding behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay
In this section, the yielding behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay is
discussed in detail. In this discussion, yielding is defined by the primary yield locus as
proposed by Coop and Atkinson (1993). A normalized primary yield locus will be fitted to
the experimental data. Following this, a correlation will be presented between the
unconfined compressive strength and the primary yield stress under isotropic compression.
This relation allows primary yield stress under isotropic compression to be deduced
indirectly. The effect of curing period on the primary yield locus of cement-treated
97
CHAPTER 4
Singapore marine clay will also be discussed.
4.5.1 Primary yielding and yield locus
Figures 4.19 to 4.50 demonstrate the primary yield points of specimens with different
mix proportion, total water content, curing stress and curing time. The primary yield point
was obtained by fitting data obtained largely from CID tests, isotropic compression test and
to a lesser extent K0-consolidation tests and constant stress ratio tests by using the method
described in Section 4.2. It was observed that the stress paths for specimens in CIU tests
generally tend to trend along or near to the tension failure envelope. Some CIU specimens
also reach peak strength around the primary yield locus. In such cases, the peak value of
deviator stress of CIU specimen was taken to be a primary yield point.
Figures 4.41 to 4.50 illustrate the effect of cement content, total water content, curing
stress and curing time on the primary yielding locus of cement-treated Singapore marine clay.
As these figures show, the primary yield locus expands with an increase in cement content,
curing stress and curing period as well as the decrease in total water content. The expansion
of the primary yield locus with cement content can be explained by the increased
cementation. The expansion of the primary yield locus with curing period can be explained
by the formation of secondary cementitious products through pozzolanic reaction. The
expansion of the primary yield locus with curing stress or the decrease in total water content
can be explained by the decrease in the post-curing void ratio.
Figures 4.51 to 4.52 show the yield points from a large number tests, with the mean
effective and deviator stresses normalized by their respective primary yield stress under
98
CHAPTER 4
isotropic compression. As can be seen, although the size of the yield locus changes with the
four factors as discussed above, they have virtually the same shape. As Figures 4.51 to 4.52
show, the normalized primary yield locus can be fitted approximately by either of these
relationships:
2
q ⎛ p' ⎞ ⎛ p' ⎞
= 3.65 ⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ (4-1)
p 'py ⎝ p py ⎠ ⎝ p py ⎠
q p'
= 3.65 ' [−1.5ln( p ' / p 'py )]1/1.5 （4-2）
p 'py p py
However, it was noted that these relationships are both empirically fitted relations and
are only valid within the range represented. As will be shown in Chapter 6, the yield locus
may also be represented by a relationship which is derived from a theoretically motivated
energy equation. That yield locus will have more theoretical underpinning.
4.5.2 Relation of primary yield locus to other parameters
In the last section, it was shown that, once the isotropic primary yield stress Ppy' is
known, the corresponding primary yield locus can be determined. In this section, the yield
stress under isotropic compression will be correlated to two other engineering parameters,
which if known, can potentially allow the isotropic yield stress to be estimated. The first
parameter is the unconfined compressive strength qu and the second is the post-curing
void ratio. A relationship between the isotropic yield stress Ppy' , unconfined compressive
strength qu and cement content and total water content will also be proposed. This allows
the size of the primary yield locus to be estimated from the cement and total water contents.
99
CHAPTER 4
4.5.2.1 Correlation of isotropic yield stress to unconfined compressive strength
Figures 4.53 to 4.54 present the results of unconfined compressive strength test
respectively for specimens with different mix proportion and cured under different curing
stress for 7 days. By combining the results from these two figures with the isotropic yield
stress from Figures 4.3 to 4.11, a correlation can be obtained. As shown in Figure 4.57a, a
remarkably linear relationship is obtained between the unconfined compressive strength and
the difference between the isotropic yield stress and curing stress. Following Rotta et al.
(2003), the latter quantity will be termed hereafter as the incremental isotropic yield stress.
This allows the isotropic yield stress to be correlated to the unconfined compressive strength
via the relationship:
p 'py − pcur
'
= Aqu + B (4-3)
Where A=0.5476, B=19.679 in this study.
Figures 4.55 to 4.56 show the unconfined compressive strength test for specimens with
different mix proportions and curing period. By combining the results in these figures with
isotropic primary yield stress results from Figures 4.13 – 4.17, a similar correlation can be
obtained for different mix proportions and different curing period. As Figure 4.57b shows,
Equation 4-3 also fits remarkably well for specimens with different curing time. Similar
relationships have been proposed by previous researchers. For instance, Rotta et al. (2003)
showed that for artificially slightly cemented soil, incremental isotropic yield stress
p 'py − pcur
'
can be related to post-curing void ratio ecur and cement content Aw. Lorenzo &
Bergado(2004) also proposed that for cement-admixed clay at high water content,
unconfined compressive strength can be correlated to post-curing void ratio ecur obtained at
100
CHAPTER 4
the end of the curing stage and cement content. Thus incremental isotropic yield stress can
be related to unconfined compressive strength as described above. Therefore, the isotropic
primary yield stress may be estimated if the unconfined compressive strength is known.
4.5.2.2 Correlation of isotropic yield stress to post-curing void ratio
As shown in Figure 4.58, the incremental yield stress p 'py − pcur

'
can also be related to
the post-curing void ratio via a logarithmic function of the form
ecur = A1 ln( p 'py − pcur

'
) + B1 (4-4)
As Figure 4.58 shows, specimens with the same cement content can still have different
post-curing void ratio and incremental yield stress. Thus, the cement content is not the only
parameter affecting the incremental yield stress. Miura et al. (2001) has also reported that,
for cement-stabilized clay at high water content, the ratio of the initial water content of the
clay to the cement content is the prime parameter for analysis of strength and deformation
behavior.
Figure 4.59 shows the variation of the coefficients A1 and B1 in Eq. 4-4 with the ratio of
the pre-curing total water content to the cement content, which is Cw/Aw. The relationship
can be fitted by the functions:
A1 = −0.566 − 0.461(Cw / Aw) −0.8919 , R 2 = 0.987 (4-5)
B1 = 9.1372(Cw / Aw)0.2198 , R 2 = 0.981 (4-6)
Substituting Equations (4-5) and (4-6) into Eq. 4-4 leads to
ecur − 9.1372(Cw / Aw) −0.2198

p 'py − pcur
'
= exp( ) (4-7)
−0.566 − 0.461(Cw / Aw) −0.8919
101
CHAPTER 4
4.5.2.3 Direct correlation of isotropic yield stress to cement and total water
content
Since the post-curing void ratio may also be related to the cement content and total
water content, it is possible that the isotropic yield stress may be related directly to the
cement and total water contents. Figure 4.60 plots the relationship between isotropic
compression primary yield stress p 'py and cement content Aw for specimens with different
total water content Cw without curing stress. As it can be seen from Figure 4.60a, the
isotropic primary yield stress p 'py can be expressed as below:
p 'py
= A2 Aw + B2 (4-8a)
Pap
Where Pap is atmospheric pressure.
Pap = 101.325kPa (4-8b)
Figure 4.60b - c show that parameter A2 and B2 can be related to total water content Cw
in the formula below respectively:
A2 = cCw d (4-9)
B2 = eCw + f (4-10)
Where c=9.8652, d=-2.5042, e=-0.8201, f=1.189 in this study.
Thus the isotropic primary yield stress p 'py can be written as below:
p 'py
= cCw d Aw + eCw + f (4-11)
Pap
Figure 4.60d illustrates the predicted p 'py by using Equation 4-11. It can be seen that
the difference between the predicted value and experimental value of p 'py is very small
(generally less than about 10%).
102
CHAPTER 4
4.5.2.4 Correlation of unconfined compressive strength to mix proportions
By combining Eqs. (4-11) and (4-3), the unconfined compressive strength of
cement-treated marine clay can be written as below:
Pap (cCwd Aw + eCw + f ) − Pcur

'
−B
qu = (4-12a)
A
Or
qu = Pap (c ' Cwd Aw + e ' Cw + f ') − Pcur

'
/A (4-12b)
In which c ' = c / A , e ' = e / A , f ' = ( f − B / Pap ) / A
For specimens cured under atmospheric pressure, formula (4-12a) or (4-12b) becomes
qu = Pap (c ' Cwd Aw + e ' Cw + f ') (4-12c)
Where c'=18.015, d=-2.504, e'=-1.498, f'=1.817 in this study
Figure 4.61a shows good match between the experimental and predicted qu by Eq.
(4-12c). As can be seen, the difference between the experimental and predicted qu is lower
than 15%. Lee et al. (2005) has also proposed a relationship between unconfined
compressive strength and soil/cement ratio and water/cement ratio for cement treated
Singapore marine clay as below:
em( s / c )
qu = q0 (4-13)
( w / c)n
Where q0 =4000, m=0.62, n=3.0 for 7 days of curing period.
Figure 4.61b shows the unconfined compressive strength qu of cement-treated
Singapore marine clay specimens with different mix proportions and 7 days of curing period.
Also plotted in this figure are Lee’s (1999) data. It can be seen from Figure 4.61, the value
of qu from this study is higher than that of Lee’s(1999). Figure 4.62 shows the simulated
103
CHAPTER 4
results of Lee’s (1999) data in Figure 4.61 by using formula (4-13) and (4-12c) respectively.
The simulation curve by Lee et al.’s method in Figure 4.62 is the same as that of Figure 4.61.
As it can be seen, the simulated qu by formula (4-12c) and by formula (4-13) is generally
consistent for various of s/c and w/c except that the value of qu simulated by formula (4-12c)
is generally higher than that by formula (4-13) when water content is lower than 150 %( i.e.
w/c is 2.2 to 7.5 corresponding s/c 0.47 to 4.0). This is not surprising because the marine
clay used by Lee (1999) was taken from a different location in Singapore, and the property
of marine clay may have a significant effect on the experiment results. In addition, Lee
(1999) investigated a range of mix ratios which is not exactly the same as the range
investigated in this study. The maximum cement content and water content used in this study
is 100% and 150% respectively, which is lower than 213% and 280% respectively used in
Lee’s study (1999). As Figure 4.63a shows, by modifying the formula (4-12c) proposed by
this study, the simulated results are very close to those obtained from Lee et al.’s (2005)
formula. The modified formula is as below:
qu = Pap (c ' Cwd Aw + e ' Cwg ) (4-14)
Where Pap = 101.325kPa , c’=6.994, d=-3, e’=1.835, g=-3.
Alternatively, as Figure 4.63b shows, an improved matching with the experiment
results of this study can also be obtained if q0 in Lee et al.’s (2005) relationship is increased
from 4000kPa to 7000kPa. As Lee et al. (2005) noted, the value of q0 is dependent upon the
properties of the untreated soil, especially the plasticity index, with a higher plasticity index
giving a higher value of q0. Marine clay from different locations in Singapore has somewhat
different plasticity index and this could have accounted for the differences in q0. This fitted
104
CHAPTER 4
value of q0 also lies within Gallavresi’s (1992) range of 5000kPa to 10000kPa.
4.5.2.5 Summary
The above discussion shows that
1. The primary yield locus can be approximately normalized by the isotropic primary yield
stress.
2. The isotropic primary yield stress can be determined by
a) unconfined compressive strength qu (considering curing stress), or
b) cement content and total water content (only for specimens without curing stress), or
c) post-curing void ratio together with the ratio of total water content to the cement
content (considering curing stress).
4.6. Triaxial compression behavior of samples consolidated at
effective pressure higher than the isotropic primary yield
stress Ppy'
In this section, the triaxial compression behavior of cement-treated marine clay
specimens reconsolidated to effective confining stress p0' higher than isotropic primary
yield stress will be presented. The effective confining stress p0' is termed as
pre-compression pressure hereafter. The evolution of yield locus with the pre-compression
pressure p0' will be examined here. The effects of confining stress, cement content, total
water content on post-yield stress-strain behavior of cement-treated marine clay will be also
discussed.
105
CHAPTER 4
4.6.1 General behavior under triaxial compression
The naming convention used in this section (Figures 4.64 to 4.68) is
Aw-Cw-CIU/CID p0' - pc' , i.e., cement content-total water content-CIU/CID isotropic
pre-compression pressure-effective confining pressure during shearing. All specimens
discussed in this section were cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days before testing.
The naming convention used in section 4.4 is not applicable to this section as all of the
specimens here were reconsolidated under a stress higher than isotropic yield stress and then
most of them were swelled to a lower stress. For example, test 10%-100%-ciu300-50
(Figure 4.61) involves a sample with cement content 10% and total water content 100%
(mix proportion 10:1:11), which was reconsolidated to 350kPa and then swelled to 50kPa
and sheared under undrained condition.
Figures 4.64 to 4.68 illustrate stress-strain behavior of cement-treated marine clay
specimens with different mix proportion, which were isotropically reconsolidated to an
effective confining stress which is higher than the isotropic primary yield stress. These
samples were either sheared at their isotropic pre-compression (IPC) pressure or else
allowed to swell to a lower pressure before shearing. The latter will be characterized by an
isotropic overconsolidation ratio (IOCR), which is the ratio of the IPC pressure to the mean
effective stress after swelling. The isotropic overconsolidation ratios of the specimens in
these figures are ranged from 1 to 50. As Figures 4.64 to 4.68 show, these samples exhibit
similar trend of stress-strain behavior to those discussed in section 4.4, which have not been
consolidated past the isotropic primary yield stress Ppy' . In all samples, by using the method
106
CHAPTER 4
described in sections 4.2 and 4.4, yield loci can be drawn through the IPC pressures and the
yield points deduced from CID and stress path tests.
However, there are several differences. Firstly, samples which have been isotropically
consolidated past the isotropic primary yield points show much more abrupt drop in stiffness
and change in the compression path upon yielding, especially for the drained samples. The
drained samples which were sheared at their IPC pressure all show small elastic zones in
their stress-strain curves. This may be attributed to the relatively short curing period of the
samples, which gives rise to further formation of structure during and after consolidation.
Secondly, both CIU and CID samples which were sheared under high IOCRs, such as
CIU1500-50 and CID1500-50, show stiff response up to the peak strength, followed by
dilation and strain softening. In such cases, the yield points are taken to be coincident with
the peak strength (see Figures 4.64-4.68). CIU specimens which were sheared at lower
IOCR of ~2 also show stiff response up to peak strength. Their stress paths are also roughly
vertical, which suggest largely elastic behavior up to the peak strength. The above behavior
also is same as that reported by Chin (2006) for specimens with mix proportion 5:1:6 and
maximum consolidation pressure 1500kPa, which is lower than that used in this study, i.e.
2500kPa.
For CIU specimen with high IPC pressure (e.g. 1500kPa) and low IOCR of ~2 (e.g.
swelling from 1500kPa to 750kPa), the peak strength may be slightly higher than the yield
locus deduced from CID and stress path tests. However, as can be seen from Figures 4.64 to
4.68, it was found that the transition point of stress path for this case is close to the yield
locus deduced from CID and stress path test. It was also found that this point occurs at about
107
CHAPTER 4
0.55% of axial strain and seems to coincide with the transition point on the deviator
stress-strain curve, in which the deviator stress-strain relationship starts to deviate from
linear behavior. The definition of yield stress from stress path here is similar to Airey’s
(1993) method for CIU test.
4.6.2 Evolution of yield locus
Figures 4.64 to 4.68 illustrate the evolution of yield locus for specimens with different
mix proportions. As expected, the yield locus expands with IPC pressure, owing to
densification effects. However, as figures 4.69 to 4.70 show, the normalized yield locus
tends to contract, changing from a steep arch to an ellipse. This is due to kinematic softening
induced by the breakage of inter-aggregate bonds or destructuration. The destructuration
mainly comes from isotropically reconsolidation and appears to continue after the yield
locus has been reached during shearing. Thus, the post-yield behavior of the cement-treated
soil appears to be influenced by densification effects as well as breakage of inter-aggregate
bonds. This is similar to that proposed by Gens and Nova (1993) and highlighted by Huang
and Airey(1998). However, Figures 4.70a to 4.70b also show that even under higher IPC
pressure (2500kPa), the friction coefficient M of the yield locus is still much higher than that
of reconstituted marine clay (with M value of 0.9) This indicates that even under severe
shearing, the cemented-treated soil is not equivalent to that of reconstituted marine clay. This
is not surprising since cement-treatment does not merely superimpose bonding on the marine
clay particles, and the cement actually reacts with the clay mineral and changes its
mineralogy. Thus, it is highly possible that reconstituted marine clay does not represent an
108
CHAPTER 4
intrinsic state of the cement-treated clay.
Some SEM tests were conducted to investigate the destructuration of cement treated
specimens under triaxial loading condition. The specimen was isotropically reconsolidated
under 2500kPa and then swelled back to 1250kPa before undrained shearing or drained
shearing. Two types of samples were obtained from cement- treated specimens post-test.
One is taken from the outside of the slip band whereas another one from the inside of the
slip band. Figures 4.71 to 4.72 show that dominant microstructure changes outside of slip
band appear to be aggregate squashing and void closure with less aggregate or particle
break-up. On the other hand, massive aggregate and particle break-up appeared to have
occurred within the slip band, especially for CID specimens. This indicates that
destructuration may only complete within the slip band. Results also show that
microstructure change in CIU specimens is less serious than that in CID specimens due to
undrained condition during shearing stage. Kamruzzaman (2002) and Chin (2006) also
reported similar results.
4.7. Tensile splitting strength test and modification of primary yield
locus
This section discusses the results of tensile strength measurement by the Brazilian test,
the procedure of which has been described in Chapter 3.
4.7.1 Stresses along radial loading section
For a solid cylinder (disk) with thickness t and diameter D under two equal and
109
CHAPTER 4
opposite line loading P along central vertical section, the stress along horizontal direction(x)
σ x at any point within vertical central section can be expressed as (Timoshenko and Goodier,
1970):
2P
σx = − (4-15a)
π Dt
The stress along vertical direction (y) σ y at any point within vertical central section can be
considered as superposition of two kinds of stresses (Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970):
2P
a. A uniform tension in the plane of the disk : −
π Dt
b. Two simple radial stress distributions: 2 P /(π r1t ) and 2 P /(π r2t ) . r1 , r2 is the distance
of the point from the top loading and bottom loading separately. For any point with y
D D
distance from the center of the disk, we have r1 = − y and r2 = + y . Therefore,
2 2
σ y can be expressed as below:
2P 4D2
σy = ( 2 − 1) (4-15b)
π Dt D − 4 y 2
For quasi-brittle material (e.g. concrete, rock), the tensile splitting strength is suggested
as (e.g. BS1881-117, 1983):
2P
σt = (4-16)
π tD
The theoretical solution to the stress distribution along the central vertical section is
shown in Figure 4.73.
4.7.2 Tensile strength of cement-treated marine clay
As shown in Figure 4.74, cement-treated marine clay specimens show similar brittle
behavior as rock or concrete, with cracking along the central vertical plane under radial
compression. Table 4.1 summarizes the tensile strength results.
110
CHAPTER 4
As can be seen from Figures 4.75a to 4.75c, the tensile strength σ t of cement-treated
marine clay specimen increases with the increase in cement content Aw, the decrease in total
water content Cw, as well as the increase in curing time and curing stress. Additionally, to
investigate the effect of radial compression rate on the tensile strength, two compression
rates, viz. 0.005mm/min and 0.5mm/min, were used for each specimen configuration.
Besides this, the Brazilian test was also conducted under dry condition to study the drainage
condition effect on the tensile strength. Figure 4.76 shows the strengths obtained under the
two compression rates, plotted against each other. As can be seen, all points plot within a
±15% sector, with the tensile strength obtained under 0.5mm/min usually being equal to or
slightly higher than that obtained under 0.005mm/min. This shows that the hundred-fold
increase in compression rate does not significantly increase the measured tensile strength.
Figure 4.77 shows the comparisons between compression test under dry condition and water
condition. It was found that the tensile strength obtained under dry testing is usually equal to
or slightly higher than that obtained under water, the relative difference between different
loading environments being no more than 15% range for most cases.
The evidence presented above points to the existence of a true tensile strength which is
largely unaffected over a range of compression rates and drainage conditions. This would
suggest the presence of some inherent or “true” cohesion, as opposed to that arising from
negative pore pressure or suction; the latter would be expected to be more dependent upon
drainage conditions and compression rates. The presence of such inherent or “true” cohesion
can be demonstrated by a simple prolonged submergence test, in which a sample is simply
submerged in water for a prolonged period of time. As shown in Figure 4.78, one remoulded
111
CHAPTER 4
and preloaded marine clay sample and a cement-treated marine clay sample was placed into
different containers and left submerged in water. After several weeks, the remoulded marine
clay sample has largely disintegrated. On the other hand, the cement-treated sample remains
largely intact.
4.7.3 Correlation of tensile strength to unconfined compressive strength
Figure 4.79 shows the relationship between tensile strength and unconfined
compressive strength. As can be seen, a good linear relationship can be obtained. As such,
the tensile strength can also be correlated to the unconfined compressive strength via the
relation
qu = 7.87σ t (4.17a)
Or
σ t = 0.127 qu (4.17b)
The ratio of tensile to compressive strength lies within the ranges reported in other studies.
For instance, Huang and Airey (1998) reported values between 0.1 and 0.3 for artificially
cemented carbonate sand. Mitchell (1976) reported values between 0.2 and 0.3 for cement
treated soils. Clough et al.(1981) gave a value of about 0.1 for cemented sand.
4.7.4 Modification of primary yield locus of cement-treated marine clay under
triaxial loading condition
As mentioned before, for CIU cement-treated specimens with low compression
pressure or effective confine stress, the stress path tends to trend along or close to the tension
112
CHAPTER 4
cut-off line passing through the origin of stress space p’-q when the specimens reach peak
value of deviator stress. This is due to the occurrence of outward drainage through the sides
of the specimens when the rubber membrane detaches from the specimen under condition of
zero lateral effective stress. This may not reflect the true behaviour of cement-treated soil. In
this section, the tensile strength measured by Brazilian test will be used to redefine the
tension failure envelope which could not be determined by triaxial tests. Assuming that the
specimens are isotropic and a single tension strength is applicable to all stress situations, the
condition for the actual tension cut-off under triaxial condition can be expressed as
σ 3' = −σ t (4-18)
Then
q = σ 1' − σ 3' = σ 1' + σ t (4-19)
And
1 1
p ' = (σ 1' + 2σ 3' ) = (σ 1' − 2σ t ) (4-20)
3 3
Eliminating σ1'from Eq. 4-15 and 4-16 leads to
q = 3( p '+ σ t ) (4-21)
Figures 4.80 to 4.83 illustrate the redefined tension failure envelope based on the
tensile strength form Brazilian test. Base on the relationship between the primary yield locus
determined earlier and the tension cut-off line passing through origin of the stress plane, the
primary yield locus may be extrapolated to match the redefined tension failure envelope.
Figures 4.80 to 4.83 illustrate the modified primary yield locus for cement-treated marine
clay specimens by extrapolating if true undrained conditions can be enforced within the CIU
specimens without allowing water to egress from the sides.
113
CHAPTER 4
Table 4.1 Summary of tensile splitting strength test results
Mix Curing Curing Tensile

Tensile strength σ t (kPa) Tensile strength σ t (kPa)
proportion period stress strength
Slow Compression rate(0.005mm/min) fast Compression rate(0.5mm/min)
S-C-W (days) (kPa) σ t (kPa)
sample under water Sample Under water Without water
(average)
7 0 30.97 31.00 29.34 30.33 28.94 33.61 26.14 28.78 29.43 30.80 30.26 NA 29.97
10-1-11
28 0 NA 43.30 52.66 47.78 44.78 46.49 48.97 47.33
7 0 54.64 48.14 50.78 45.70 49.36 55.04 51.95 50.45 52.82 NA 50.98
5-1-6
28 0 NA 66.62 84.54 72.20 83.22 73.4 80.25 76.72
7 0 72.78 70.26 65.02 68.27 62.78 68.47 62.70 74.46 62.22 NA 67.44
10-3-13
28 0 NA 111.63 101.91 114.02 125.79 109.25 112.18 111.87
7 0 117.23 116.02 118.32 119.08 121.69 111.14 116.87 126.31 114.55 117.72 128.88 128.61 NA 119.71
2-1-3
28 0 158.30 174.76 182.07 174.13 NA 172.31
7 0 55.34 51.04 52.27 52.17 55.11 56.55 58.68 59.08 62.20 62.63 57.29 61.71 53.12 56.71
2-1-4
28 0 NA 83.15 84.74 80.15 76.62 81.31 74.84 80.14
7 50 117.95 130.06 137.11 120.55 116.25 125.14 121.41 126.67 125.60 NA 124.53
7 100 152.62 165.68 167.53 145.03 168.56 156.59 145.81 NA 157.40
7 250 280.06 255.11 310.35 253.33 258.15 281.35 311.21 257.30 NA 275.86
7 0 22.90 16.89 20.37 22.85 20.19 19.30 21.76 20.94 NA 20.65

2-1-5
28 0 41.35 34.26 38.61 36.49 40.16 36.81 36.65 37.85 37.77
2-1-5.5 7 0 18.23 22.56 16.38 18.19 17.37 NA 18.55
114
CHAPTER 4
(a) After Mitchell (1970) (b) After Wong and Mitchell (1975)
parallel to ICL
3.6 ICL
p'gy
Specific volume
3.2
2.8
2.4
1 10 100 1000 10000

Consolidation pressure, p' (log scale)
(c) After Rotta et al. (2003) (d) After Cotechia and Chandler (2000)
Figure 4.1: Determination of initial yield stress (a-d)
115
CHAPTER 4
(e) After Bressani (1990) (f) After Malandraki and Toll (1996)
Yield point
Yield point
Yield point
(g) After Cuccovillo and Coop (1997) (h) After Bergado et al. (2006)
(i) After Airey (1993)
Figure 4.1: Determination of initial yield stress (e-i)
116
CHAPTER 4
750 750 10-3-13 CIU TEST

10-3-13 CIU TEST
CIU50 CIU50
CIU100 CIU100
CIU150
CIU150
CIU300
CIU350 CIU300
600 600
tension cut-off line CIU350
primary yield point
primary yield locus
ko test
constant stress ratioη=1.5
deviator stress q(kPa)

450 450
300 300
150 150
0 0
0 200 400 600 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
mean normal effective stressP'(kPa)
axial strain εs(%)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

3.4
10-3-13 CID TEST

CID50
CID150
CID200
CID250
3.3 primary yield point
specific volume v
3.2
3.1
Figure 4.2: Determination of primary yield locus for cement-treated marine clay
specimen (mix proportion 10:3:13 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7days)
117
CHAPTER 4
10 100 p'(kPa) 1000 10000

Ppy'
3.6
Aw=10%,ppy'=130kPa
Aw=15%,ppy'=210kPa
Aw=20%,ppy'=250kPa
Aw=30%,ppy'=355kPa
Aw=50%,ppy'=580kPa
3.2
specific volume v
2.8
2.4
Figure 4.3: Isotropic compression curves for specimens with different cement content
and 100% total water content cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
600
500
primary yielding stress Ppy'(kPa)
400
300
200
100
10 20 30 40 50
cement content Aw(%)
Figure 4.4: Effect of cement content on primary yielding stress under isotropic
compression for specimens with 100% total water content cured under atmospheric
pressure for 7 days
118
CHAPTER 4
10 100 p'(kPa) 1000 10000

5
Ppy'
4.75 Cw183%,ppy'=80kPa
Cw167%,ppy'=105kPa
Cw150%,ppy'=180kPa
4.5 Cw133%,ppy'=275kPa
specific volume v
Cw100%,ppy'=580kPa
4.25
3.75
3.5
3.25
Figure 4.5: Isotropic compression curves for specimens with different total water
content and 50% cement content cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
600
500
400
300
200
100
100 120 140 160 180 200

total water content Cw(%)
Figure 4.6: Effect of total water content on primary yielding stress under isotropic
compression for specimens with 50% cement content cured under atmospheric
pressure for 7 days
119
CHAPTER 4
10 100 1000 10000

p'(kPa)
3.6
Ppy'
mix proportion 10-1-11
pcur'=0kPa, ppy'=130kPa
3.2
specific volume v
2.8
2.4
Figure 4.7: Isotropic compression curves for specimens with mix proportion 10-1-11
10 100 1000 10000
p'(kPa)
3.6
Ppy' pcur'=0kPa, ppy'=210kPa
3.2
specific volume v
2.8
2.4
120
CHAPTER 4
10 100 1000 10000

p'(kPa)
3.6
Ppy' mix proportion 5-1-6

3.4
3.2
specific volume v
2.8
2.6
2.4
10 100 1000 10000

p'(kPa)
4

Ppy'
3.6
specific volume v
3.2
2.8
121
CHAPTER 4
10 100 1000 10000

p'(kPa)
4.4
Ppy'
4 pcur'=200kPa, ppy'=1050kPa
specific volume v
3.6
3.2
2.8
1600
curing stress effect
1200
800
400
0 50 100 150 200 250

curing stress Pcur'(kPa)
Figure 4.12: Effect of curing stress on primary yielding stress under isotropic
compression for specimens with different mix proportion cured for 7 days
122
CHAPTER 4
10 100 1000 10000

p'(kPa)
3.6
Ppy'
tcur'=7days, ppy'=210kPa
tcur=28days, ppy'=285kPa
3.4
3.2
specific volume v
2.8
2.6
10 100 1000 10000
p'(kPa)
3.6

Ppy' tcur'=7days, ppy'=260kPa
3.4 tcur'=180days, ppy'=535kPa
specific volume v
3.2
2.8
123
CHAPTER 4
10 100 1000 10000

p'(kPa)
4
Ppy'
3.8

3.6
specific volume v
3.4
3.2
2.8
and different curing time under atmospheric pressure (test for curing period 90 days
did not complete)
10 100 1000 10000

p'(kPa)
Ppy' mix proportion 2-1-4.5

4.4 tcur=35days, ppy'=300kPa

specific volume v
3.6
3.2
Figure 4.16: Isotropic compression curves for specimens with mix proportion 2-1-4.5
124
CHAPTER 4
10 100 1000 10000

p'(kPa)
4.4
Ppy' tcur=90days, ppy'=600kPa
4.2
specific volume v
3.8
3.6
600
500
400
curing time effect

mix proportion 2-1-4.5
300
200
0 50 100 150 200 250

curing time tcur(day)
Figure 4.18: Effect of curing time on primary yielding stress under isotropic
compression for specimens with different mix proportion cured under atmospheric
pressure
125
CHAPTER 4
10-1-11 CIU TEST

270 10%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
10%-100%-0-CIU75-7ds
10%-100%-0-CIU100-7ds
10%-100%-0-CIU120-7ds
tension cut-off line
primary yield point
primary yield locus
180
90
0
0 40 80 120 160
(a)
270 10-1-11 CIU TEST
10%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
10%-100%-0-CIU75-7ds
10%-100%-0-CIU100-7ds
10%-100%-0-CIU120-7ds
180
90
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
axial strain εs
(b)
Fig. 4.19: Undrained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion
10-1-11 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days (a) stress path (b) deviator
stress-strain curve
126
CHAPTER 4
600 600
10-1-11 CID TEST
10%-100%-0-CID25-7ds
10%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
10%-100%-0-CID75-7ds
500
10%-100%-0-CID100-7ds
400 400

300
200 10-1-11 CID TEST 200

10%-100%-0-CID25-7ds
10%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
10%-100%-0-CID75-7ds
10%-100%-0-CID100-7ds 100
primary yield point
primary yield locus
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
mean normal effective stressP'(kPa) deviator strain εs
0 100 200 300
10-1-11 CID TEST

3.6 10%-100%-0-CID25-7ds
10%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
10%-100%-0-CID75-7ds
10%-100%-0-CID100-7ds
primary yield point
3.5
specific volume v
3.4
3.3
3.2
Figure 4.20: Drained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion 10-1-11 cured
127
CHAPTER 4
450 20-3-23 CIU TEST

15%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
15%-100%-0-CIU100-7ds
15%-100%-0-CIU150-7ds
15%-100%-0-CIU200-7ds
360 tension cut-off line
primary yield point
primary yield locus

270
180
90
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
(a)
450
20-3-23 CIU TEST
15%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
15%-100%-0-CIU100-7ds
15%-100%-0-CIU150-7ds
360 15%-100%-0-CIU200-7ds
270
180
90
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
axial strain εs
(b)
Figure 4.21: Undrained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion
stress-strain curve
128
CHAPTER 4
1000 1000
20-3-23 CID TEST
15%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
900 15%-100%-0-CID100-7ds
15%-100%-0-CID150-7ds
800 800
700

600 600
500
400 400
20-3-23 CID TEST 300

15%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
15%-100%-0-CID100-7ds
200 200
15%-100%-0-CID150-7ds
primary yield point 100
primary yield locus
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500
3.6
20-3-23 CID TEST

15%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
15%-100%-0-CID100-7ds
3.5
15%-100%-0-CID150-7ds
primary yield point
specific volume v
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
Figure 4.22: Drained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion
129
CHAPTER 4
630
5-1-6 CIU TEST
20%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
20%-100%-0-CIU100-7ds
540
20%-100%-0-CIU200-7ds
primary yield point
450 primary yield locus

360
270
180
90
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
(a)
450
5-1-6 CIU TEST
20%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
20%-100%-0-CIU100-7ds
20%-100%-0-CIU200-7ds
360
270
180
90
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
axial strain εs
(b)
stress-strain curve
130
CHAPTER 4
1100 1100
5-1-6 CID TEST
20%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
1000 1000
20%-100%-0-CID100-7ds
20%-100%-0-CID200-7ds
900 900
800 800

700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 5-1-6 CID TEST 300

20%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
20%-100%-0-CID100-7ds
200 200
20%-100%-0-CID200-7ds
100 100
primary yield point
primary yield locus
0 0
0 200 400 600 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

3.5
5-1-6 CID TEST

20%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
3.4 20%-100%-0-CID100-7ds
20%-100%-0-CID200-7ds
primary yield point
3.3
specific volume v
3.2
3.1
2.9
Figure 4.24: Drained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion 5-1-6
cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
131
CHAPTER 4
750 10-3-13 CIU TEST

30%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
30%-100%-0-CIU100-7ds
30%-100%-0-CIU150-7ds
30%-100%-0-CIU300-7ds
30%-100%-0-CIU350-7ds
primary yield point
primary yield locus
450
300
150
0
0 100 200 300 400
(a)
750
10-3-13 CIU TEST
30%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
30%-100%-0-CIU100-7ds
30%-100%-0-CIU150-7ds
600 30%-100%-0-CIU300-7ds
30%-100%-0-CIU350-7ds
450
300
150
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
axial strain εs
(b)
stress-strain curve
132
CHAPTER 4
1600 1600
10-3-13 CID TEST
30%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
1400 1400 30%-100%-0-CID150-7ds
30%-100%-0-CID200-7ds
30%-100%-0-CID250-7ds
1200 1200

1000 1000
800 800
600 600
10-3-13 CID TEST
30%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
400 30%-100%-0-CID150-7ds 400
30%-100%-0-CID200-7ds
30%-100%-0-CID250-7ds
200 tension cut-off line 200
primary yield point
primary yield locus
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

3.4
10-3-13 CID TEST

30%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
30%-100%-0-CID150-7ds
30%-100%-0-CID200-7ds
30%-100%-0-CID250-7ds
specific volume v
3.2
3.1
Fig. 4.26: Drained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion 10-3-13
133
CHAPTER 4
1100 2-1-3 CIU TEST

50%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
50%-100%-0-CIU250-7ds
1000
50%-100%-0-CIU300-7ds
50%-100%-0-CIU450-7ds
primary yield point
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 200 400 600
(a)
1100
2-1-3 CIU TEST
50%-100%-0-CIU50-7ds
1000 50%-100%-0-CIU250-7ds
50%-100%-0-CIU300-7ds
900 50%-100%-0-CIU450-7ds
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
axial strain εs
(b)
stress-strain curve
134
CHAPTER 4
2600 2600 2-1-3 CID TEST

50%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
2400 2400
50%-100%-0-CID150-7ds
2200 2200
50%-100%-0-CID250-7ds
50%-100%-0-CID450-7ds
2000 2000
1800 1800

1600 1600
1400 1400
1200 1200
1000 1000
800 2-1-3 CID TEST 800

50%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
600 50%-100%-0-CID150-7ds 600
50%-100%-0-CID250-7ds
400 50%-100%-0-CID450-7ds 400
200 primary yield point 200
primary yield locus
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
3.4
2-1-3 CID TEST
50%-100%-0-CID50-7ds
50%-100%-0-CID150-7ds
3.3 50%-100%-0-CID250-7ds
50%-100%-0-CID450-7ds
primary yield point
3.2
specific volume v
3.1
2.9
2.8
Figure 4.28: Drained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion 2-1-3
135
CHAPTER 4
2-1-4 CIU TEST

600
50%-133%-0-CIU50-7ds
50%-133%-0-CIU100-7ds
50%-133%-0-CIU150-7ds
50%-133%-0-CIU200-7ds
500 50%-133%-0-CIU250-7ds
primary yield point
primary yield locus
deviator stress q(kPa) 400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a)
600
2-1-4 CIU TEST
50%-133%-0-CIU50-7ds
50%-133%-0-CIU100-7ds
50%-133%-0-CIU150-7ds
50%-133%-0-CIU200-7ds
50%-133%-0-CIU250-7ds
450
300
150
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
axial strain εs
(b)
stress-strain curve
136
CHAPTER 4
2-1-4 CID TEST

1600 1600
50%-133%-0-CID50-7ds
50%-133%-0-CID100-7ds
50%-133%-0-CID200-7ds
1400 1400 50%-133%-0-CID250-7ds
1200 1200

1000 1000
800 800
600 600
2-1-4 CID TEST

400 50%-133%-0-CID50-7ds 400
50%-133%-0-CID100-7ds
50%-133%-0-CID200-7ds
50%-133%-0-CID250-7ds
primary yield point
primary yield locus
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

3.9
2-1-4 CID TEST

50%-133%-0-CID50-7ds
3.8
50%-133%-0-CID100-7ds
50%-133%-0-CID200-7ds
50%-133%-0-CID250-7ds
3.6
specific volume v
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
Figure 4.30: Drained triaxial behaviors of specimens with mix proportion 2-1-4 cured
137
CHAPTER 4
300
2-1-5 CIU TEST
50%-167%-0-CIU25-7ds
50%-167%-0-CIU50-7ds
50%-167%-0-CIU75-7ds
primary yield point
primary yield locus
200
100
0
0 50 100 150
(a)
300
2-1-5 CIU TEST
50%-167%-0-CIU25-7ds
50%-167%-0-CIU50-7ds
50%-167%-0-CIU75-7ds
150
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
axial strain εs
(b)
stress-strain curve
138
CHAPTER 4
600 600
2-1-5 CID TEST
2-1-5 CID TEST 50%-167%-0-CID25-7ds
50%-167%-0-CID25-7ds 50%-167%-0-CID50-7ds
50%-167%-0-CID50-7ds 50%-167%-0-CID75-7ds
50%-167%-0-CID75-7ds
primary yield point
primary yield locus
400 400

200 200
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250
4.6
2-1-5 CID TEST

50%-167%-0-CID25-7ds
50%-167%-0-CID50-7ds
50%-167%-0-CID75-7ds
primary yield point
4.5
specific volume v
4.4
4.3
4.2
139
CHAPTER 4
180
2-1-5.5 CIU TEST
50%-183%-0-CIU25-7ds
50%-183%-0-CIU50-7ds
50%-183%-0-CIU75-7ds
150
primary yield point
primary yield locus
120
90
60
30
0
0 50 100
(a)
180
150
120
90
2-1-5.5 CIU TEST

50%-183%-0-CIU25-7ds
60 50%-183%-0-CIU50-7ds
50%-183%-0-CIU75-7ds
30
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3
axial strain εs
(b)
2-1-5.5 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days (a) stress path (b) deviator
stress-strain curve
140
CHAPTER 4
400 400
2-1-5.5 CID TEST
50%-183%-0-CID25-7ds
50%-183%-0-CID50-7ds
300

200 200
100 2-1-5.5 CID TEST

50%-183%-0-CID25-7ds
50%-183%-0-CID50-7ds
primary yield point
primary yield locus
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 40 80 120 160
4.9
2-1-5.5 CID TEST

50%-183%-0-CID25-7ds
50%-183%-0-CID50-7ds
primary yield point
4.8
specific volume v
4.7
4.6
4.5
Fig 4.34: Drained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion
2-1-5.5 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
141
CHAPTER 4
1200 2-1-4-50 CIU TEST

50%-133%-50-CIU50-7ds
1100 50%-133%-50-CIU100-7ds
50%-133%-50-CIU250-7ds
1000 50%-133%-50-CIU400-7ds
primary yield point
900
primary yield locus
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
(a)
1200 2-1-4-50 CIU TEST

50%-133%-50-CIU50-7ds
50%-133%-50-CIU100-7ds
1050 50%-133%-50-CIU250-7ds
50%-133%-50-CIU400-7ds
900
750
600
450
300
150
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
axial strain εs
(b)
2-1-4 cured under 50kPa effective confining pressure for 7 days (a) stress path (b)
142
CHAPTER 4
2400 2200 2-1-4-50 CID TEST

2-1-4-50 CID TEST 50%-133%-50-CID50-7ds
50%-133%-50-CID50-7ds
50%-133%-50-CID250-7ds
2200 50%-133%-50-CID250-7ds 2000
50%-133%-50-CID450-7ds
50%-133%-50-CID450-7ds
primary yield point
1600
1600

1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200 200
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
3.4
2-1-4-50 CID TEST

3.3
50%-133%-50-CID50-7ds
50%-133%-50-CID250-7ds
50%-133%-50-CID450-7ds
primary yield point
3.2
specific volume v
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.7
Fig 4.36: Drained triaxial shearing behavior of specimens with mix proportion 2-1-4 cured
under 50KP effective confining stress for 7 days
143
CHAPTER 4
2-1-4-100 CIU TEST

50%-133%-100-CIU100-7ds
1500
50%-133%-100-CIU250-7ds
1400 50%-133%-100-CIU400-7ds
1300
primary yield point
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
(a)
1500
2-1-4-100 CIU TEST
50%-133%-100-CIU100-7ds
1350 50%-133%-100-CIU250-7ds
50%-133%-100-CIU400-7ds
1200
1050
900
750
600
450
300
150
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
axial strain εs
(b)
144
CHAPTER 4
2600 2600
2-1-4-100 CID TEST
2400 2400 50%-133%-100-CID100-7ds
50%-133%-100-CID200-7ds
2200 2200 50%-133%-100-CID250-7ds
50%-133%-100-CID400-7ds
2000 2000
1800 1800

1600 1600
1400 1400
1200 1200
1000 1000
800 2-1-4-100 CID TEST 800

50%-133%-100-CID100-7ds
600 50%-133%-100-CID200-7ds 600
50%-133%-100-CID250-7ds
400 50%-133%-100-CID400-7ds 400
primary yield point
200 200
primary yield locus
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
3.2 2-1-4-100 CID TEST

50%-133%-100-CID100-7ds
50%-133%-100-CID200-7ds
50%-133%-100-CID250-7ds
3.1
50%-133%-100-CID400-7ds
primary yield point
specific volume v
2.9
2.8
2.7
145
CHAPTER 4
2600
2-1-4-250 CIU TEST
2400 50%-133%-250-CIU100
50%-133%-250-CIU250
primary yield point
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
(a)
2400
2-1-4-250 CIU TEST
2200 50%-133%-250-CIU100
50%-133%-250-CIU250
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
axial strain εs
(b)
Figure 4.39: Undrained triaxial shearing behaviors of specimens with mix proportion
146
CHAPTER 4
3800 3800
3600 3600 2-1-4-250 CID TEST
50%-133%-250-CID100-7ds
3400 3400
50%-133%-250-CID250-7ds
3200 3200 50%-133%-250-CID500-7ds
3000 3000 50%-133%-250-CID650-7ds
2800 2800 50%-133%-250-CID900-7ds
2600 2600

2400 2400
2200 2200
2000 2000
1800 1800
1600 1600
1400 2-1-4-250 CID TEST 1400
1200 50%-133%-250-CID100-7ds 1200
50%-133%-250-CID250-7ds
1000 1000
50%-133%-250-CID500-7ds
800 50%-133%-250-CID650-7ds 800
600 50%-133%-250-CID900-7ds 600
400 400
primary yield point
200 primary yield locus 200
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
2-1-4-250 CID TEST

2.9 50%-133%-250-CID100-7ds
50%-133%-250-CID250-7ds
50%-133%-250-CID500-7ds
50%-133%-250-CID650-7ds
2.8 50%-133%-250-CID900-7ds
primary yield point
specific volume v
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2-1-4 cured under 250KP effective pressure for 7 days
147
CHAPTER 4
cement content effect-CIU TEST

Aw=10%-ciu50
Aw=10%-ciu75
Aw=10%-ciu100
Aw=10%-ciu120
Aw=15%-ciu50
Aw=15%-ciu100
Aw=15%-ciu150
1200 Aw=15%-ciu200
Aw=20%-ciu50
Aw=20%-ciu100
Aw=20%-ciu200
Aw=20%-ciu50
Aw=30%-ciu100
1050 Aw=30%-ciu150
Aw=30%-ciu300
Aw=30%-ciu350
Aw=50%-CIU50
Aw=50%-CIU250
Aw=50%-CIU300
Aw=50%-CIU450
primary yield locus
primary yield point-10%
750 primary yield point-50%
600
450
300
150
0
0 200 400 600
(a)
cement content effect-CIU TEST
Aw=10%-ciu50
Aw=10%-ciu75
Aw=10%-ciu100
1050 Aw=10%-ciu120
Aw=15%-ciu50
Aw=15%-ciu100
Aw=15%-ciu150
Aw=15%-ciu200
Aw=20%-ciu50
Aw=20%-ciu100
Aw=20%-ciu200
900 Aw=30%-ciu50
Aw=30%-ciu100
Aw=30%-ciu150
Aw=30%-ciu300
Aw=30%-ciu350
Aw=50%-ciu50
Aw=30%-ciu250
750 Aw=50%-ciu300
Aw=50%-ciu450
600
450
300
150
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
axial strain εs
(b)
Figure 4.41: Cement content effect on undrained stress-strain behavior of specimens
with 100% water content cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days of curing period
(a) stress path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
148
CHAPTER 4
2800 2600
cement content effect-CID TEST
Aw=10%-CID25
2600 2400 Aw=10%-CID50
Aw=10%-CID75
2400 Aw=10%-CID100
2200 Aw=15%-CID50
Aw=15%-CID100
2200 Aw=15%-CID150
2000 Aw=20%-CID50
Aw=20%-CID100
2000 Aw=20%-CID200
1800 Aw=30%-CID50
Aw=30%-CID150

1800
Aw=30%-CID200
1600 Aw=30%-CID250
cement content effect -CID TEST
1600 Aw=10%-CID25 Aw=50%-CID50
Aw=10%-CID50 Aw=50%-CID150
Aw=10%-CID75 1400 Aw=50%-CID250
Aw=10%-CID100
1400 Aw=15%-CID50
Aw=50%-CID450
Aw=15%-CID100 1200
Aw=15%-CID150
1200 Aw=20%-CID50
Aw=20%-CID100
Aw=20%-CID200 1000
1000 Aw=30%-CID50
Aw=30%-CID150
Aw=30%-CID200 800
800 Aw=30%-CID250
Aw=50%-CID50
Aw=50%-CID150
600
600 Aw=50%-CID250
Aw=50%-CID450
200 primary yield point-20% 200
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
3.6
cement content effect-CID TEST
Aw=10%-CID25
Aw=10%-CID50
Aw=10%-CID75
3.5 Aw=10%-CID100
Aw=15%-CID50
Aw=15%-CID100
Aw=15%-CID150
Aw=20%-CID50
3.4 Aw=20%-CID100
Aw=20%-CID200
Aw=30%-CID50
Aw=30%-CID150
Aw=30%-CID200
3.3 Aw=30%-CID250
specific volume v
Aw=50%-CID50
Aw=50%-CID150
Aw=50%-CID250
Aw=50%-CID450
3.2 primary yield point-10%
3.1
2.9
2.8
Figure 4.42: Cement content effect on drained stress-strain behavior of specimens

149
CHAPTER 4
water content effect-CIU TEST

100%-CIU50
100%-CIU250
100%-CIU300
100%-CIU450
133.3%-CIU50
1200 133.3%-CIU100
133.3%-CIU150
133.3%-CIU200
133.3%-CIU250
166.7%-CIU25
166.7%-CIU50
1050 166.7%-CIU75
183.3%-CIU25
183.3%-CIU50
183.3%-CIU75
primary yield locus
900 primary yield point-100%
primary yield point-133.3%
750
600
450
300
150
0
0 200 400 600
(a)
water content effect-CIU TEST

1050
100%-CIU50
100%-CIU250
100%-CIU300
100%-CIU450
900 133.3%-CIU50
133.3%-CIU100
133.3%-CIU150
133.3%-CIU200
133.3%-CIU250
750 166.7%-CIU25
166.7%-CIU50
166.7%-CIU75
183.3%-CIU25
183.3%-CIU50
600 183.3%-CIU75
450
300
150
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3
axial strain εs
(b)
Figure 4.43: Total water content effect on undrained stress-strain behavior of
specimens with 50% cement content cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days of
curing period (a) stress path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
150
CHAPTER 4
2800 2600 water content effect-CID TEST

100%-CID50-7ds
2600 100%-CID150-7ds
2400
100%-CID250-7ds
100%-CID450-7ds
2400 2200 133.3%-CID50-7ds
133.3%-CID100-7ds
2200 133.3%-CID200-7ds
2000
133.3%-CID250-7ds
2000 166.7%-CID25-7ds
1800 166.7%-CID50-7ds
166.7%-CID75-7ds

1800
1600 183.3%-CID25-7ds
183.3%-CID50-7ds
1600 water content effect-CID TEST
100%-CID50 1400
100%-CID150
1400
100%-CID250
100%-CID450 1200
1200 133.3%-CID50
133.3%-CID100
133.3%-CID200
1000
1000 133.3%-CID250
166.7%-CID25
800
800 166.7%-CID50
166.7%-CID75
183.3%-CID25 600
600 183.3%-CID50
200 primary yield point-166.7% 200
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
4.9
4.8 water content effect-CID TEST
100%-CID50-7ds
4.7
100%-CID150-7ds
4.6 100%-CID250-7ds
4.5 100%-CID450-7ds
133.3%-CID50-7ds
4.4
133.3%-CID100-7ds
4.3 133.3%-CID200-7ds
4.2 133.3%-CID250-7ds
166.7%-CID25-7ds
4.1
specific volume v
166.7%-CID50-7ds
4 166.7%-CID75-7ds
3.9 183.3%-CID25-7ds
183.3%-CID50-7ds
3.8
3.7 primary yield point-133.3%
3.6 primary yield point-166.7%
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
Fig 4.44: Total water content effect on drained stress-strain behavior of specimens with
50% cement content cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days of curing period
151
CHAPTER 4
curing stress effect-CIU TEST

0-CIU50
0-CIU100
0-CIU150
0-CIU200
0-CIU250
50-CIU50
50-CIU100
2600 50-CIU250
50-CIU400
100-CIU100
100-CIU250
2400
100-CIU400
250-CIU100
250-CIU250
primary yield locus
primary yield point-0kPa
2000 primary yield point-50kPa
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
(a)
2400 curing stress effect-CIU TEST
0-CIU50
0-CIU100
2200 0-CIU150
0-CIU200
2000 0-CIU250
50-CIU50
50-CIU100
1800 50-CIU250
50-CIU400
100-CIU100
1600
100-CIU250
100-CIU400
1400 250-CIU100
250-CIU250
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
axial strain εs
(b)
Figure 4.45: Curing stress effect on stress-strain behavior of specimens with mix
proportion 2-1-4 cured for 7 days (a) stress path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
152
CHAPTER 4
3800 3800 curing stress effect-CID TEST

0-CID50
3600 3600 0-CID100
0-CID150
3400 3400 0-CID200
0-CID250
3200 3200 50-CID50
50-CID250
3000 3000 50-CID450
100-CID50
2800 2800 100-CID200
100-CID250
2600 2600 100-CID400
250-CID100

2400 curing stress effect-CID TEST 2400 250-CID250

0-CID50 250-CID500
2200 0-CID100 2200 250-CID650
0-CID150 250-CID900
2000 0-CID200 2000
0-CID250
1800 50-CID50 1800
50-CID250
1600 50-CID450 1600
100-CID100
1400 100-CID200 1400
100-CID250
1200 100-CID400 1200
250-CID100
1000 250-CID250 1000
250-CID500
800 250-CID650 800
250-CID900
primary yield locus
400 primary yield point-0kPa 400
200 primary yield point-100kPa 200
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
3.9
curing stres effect-CID TEST
3.8 0-CID50
0-CID100
3.7 0-CID150
0-CID200
0-CID250
3.6 50-CID50
50-CID250
3.5 50-CID450
100-CID100
100-CID200
3.4 100-CID250
100-CID400
specific volume v
3.3 250-CID100
250-CID250
3.2 250-CID500
250-CID650
250-CID900
3.1 primary yield point-0kPa
3 primary yield point-100kPa
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
Figure 4.46: Curing stress effect on drained stress-strain behavior of specimens with
mix proportion 2-1-4(cement content 50%, water content 133.3%) cured for 7 days
153
CHAPTER 4
2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU50-7ds
CIU100-7ds
CIU200-7ds
CIU50-28ds
CIU100-28ds
CIU200-28ds
1100 CIU50-90ds
CIU250-90ds
CIU450-90ds
1000 CIU50-180ds
CIU250-180ds
CIU450-180ds
primary yield point-7ds
800
primary yield locus
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
(a)
2-1-4 CIU TEST
CIU50-7ds
1000 CIU100-7ds
CIU200-7ds
CIU50-28ds
900
CIU100-28ds
CIU200-28ds
800 CIU50-90ds
CIU250-90ds
CIU450-90ds
700 CIU50-180ds
CIU250-180ds
CIU450-180ds
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
axial strain εs
(b)
Figure 4.47: Curing time effect on undrained triaxial behavior of specimens with mix
proportion 2-1-4 cured under atmospheric pressure (a) stress path (b) deviator
stress-strain curve
154
CHAPTER 4
2200 2200
2-1-4 CID TEST
CID50-7ds
2000 2000 CID100-7ds
CID200-7ds
1800 1800 CID250-7ds
CID50-28ds
CID100-28ds
1600 1600 CID200-28ds
2-1-4 CID TEST CID50-90ds

CID50-7ds CID100-90ds
1400 1400
1200 CID250-7ds 1200 CID450-90ds
CID50-28ds
CID100-28ds
CID50-180ds
1000 1000
CID100-90ds
800 CID200-90ds 800
CID250-90ds
CID450-90ds
600 CID50-180ds 600
CID250-180ds
CID450-180ds
primary yield points-7ds
200 primary yield points-90ds 200
primary yield locus
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
3.9
2-1-4 CID TEST
CID50-7ds
3.8 CID100-7ds
CID200-7ds
CID250-7ds
3.7 CID50-28ds
CID100-28ds
CID200-28ds
CID50-90ds
3.6
CID100-90ds
specific volume v
CID200-90ds
CID250-90ds
3.5 CID450-90ds
CID50-180ds
CID250-180ds
3.4 CID450-180ds
3.3
3.2
3.1
Figure 4.48: Curing time effect on drained triaxial behavior of specimens with mix
proportion 2-1-4(50% cement content, 133.3% water content) cured under
155
CHAPTER 4
5-1-6 CIU TEST

CIU50-7ds
CIU100-7ds
CIU200-7ds
CIU50-28ds
CIU100-28ds
1100 CIU200-28ds
CIU250-28ds
CIU50-90ds
1000 CIU250-90ds
CIU50-180ds
CIU200-180ds
900 CIU400-180ds
tension cutoff line
800 primary yield points-90ds
primary yield locus
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
(a)
5-1-6 CIU TEST
1000
CIU50-7ds
CIU100-7ds
900 CIU200-7ds
CIU50-28ds
CIU100-28ds
800 CIU200-28ds
CIU250-28ds
CIU50-90ds
700 CIU250-90ds
CIU50-180ds
CIU200-180ds
600
CIU400-180ds
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22
axial strain εs
(b)
Figure 4.49: Curing time effect on undrained triaxial behavior of specimens with mix
proportion 51-6 cured under atmospheric pressure (a) stress path (b) deviator
stress-strain curve
156
CHAPTER 4
2000 2000 5-1-6 CID TEST

CID50-7ds
CID100-7ds
1800 1800 CID200-7ds
CID50-28ds
CID100-28ds
1600 1600
CID200-28ds
CID250-28ds
1400 1400 CID50-90ds
CID250-90ds

5-1-6 CID TEST
CID400-90ds
CID50-7ds
1200 1200 CID50-180ds
CID100-7ds
CID200-7ds
CID200-180ds
1000 1000
CID100-28ds
CID200-28ds
CID250-28ds
800 800
CID50-90ds
CID250-90ds
CID400-90ds
600 600
CID50-180ds
CID200-180ds
CID400-180ds
400 400
200 primary yield points-90ds 200
primary yield locus
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
3.5
5-1-6 CID TEST
CID50-7ds
CID100-7ds
3.4 CID200-7ds
CID50-28ds
CID100-28ds
CID200-28ds
3.3 CID250-28ds
CID50-90ds
CID250-90ds
specific volume v
CID400-90ds
3.2
CID50-180ds
CID200-180ds
CID400-180ds
3.1
2.9
2.8
Figure 4.50: Curing time effect on drained triaxial behavior of specimens with mix
proportion 5-1-6(20% cement content, 100% water content) cured under
157
CHAPTER 4
mix proportion-curing stress-curing time

2
10-1-11-0-7ds
q ⎛ p' ⎞ ⎛ p' ⎞
20-3-23-0-7ds
= 3.65 ⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟
5-1-6-0-7ds p 'py ⎝ p py ⎠ ⎝ p py ⎠
1.6 10-3-13-0-7ds
2-1-3-0-7ds
2-1-4-0-7ds
2-1-5-0-7ds
2-1-5.5-0-7ds
1.2 2-1-4-50-7ds
2-1-4-100-7ds
q/ppy'
2-1-4-250-7ds
normalized primary yield locus
tension cutoff line
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/ppy'
(a)
2
10-1-11-0-7ds
20-3-23-0-7ds q p'
5-1-6-0-7ds
'
= 3.65 ' [−1.5ln( p ' / p 'py )]1/1.5
1.6 10-3-13-0-7ds p py p py
2-1-3-0-7ds
2-1-4-0-7ds
2-1-5-0-7ds
2-1-5.5-0-7ds
2-1-4-50-7ds
1.2
2-1-4-100-7ds
2-1-4-250-7ds
q/ppy'

tension cutoff line
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/ppy'
(b)
Figure 4.51: Primary yield loci normalized by isotropic primary yield stress for
specimens with different mix proportion and curing stress and cured for 7 days(a)
fitted by function (4-1) (b) fitted by function (4-2)
158
CHAPTER 4
2
q ⎛ p' ⎞ ⎛ p' ⎞
= 3.65 ⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ ' ⎟⎟
1.6 p 'py ⎝ p py ⎠ ⎝ p py ⎠
10-1-11-0-7ds
20-3-23-0-7ds
5-1-6-0-7ds
1.2 10-3-13-0-7ds
2-1-3-0-7ds
2-1-4-0-7ds
q/ppy'
2-1-5-0-7ds
2-1-5.5-0-7ds
2-1-4-50-7ds
0.8 2-1-4-100-7ds
2-1-4-250-7ds
2-1-4-0-28ds
2-1-4-0-90ds
2-1-4-0-180ds
5-1-6-0-28ds
0.4
5-1-6-0-90ds
5-1-6-0-180ds
tension cutoff line
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/ppy'
(a)
q p'
1.6 '
= 3.65 ' [−1.5ln( p ' / p 'py )]1/1.5
p py p py
10-1-11-0-7ds
20-3-23-0-7ds
5-1-6-0-7ds
1.2
10-3-13-0-7ds
2-1-3-0-7ds
q/ppy'
2-1-4-0-7ds
2-1-5-0-7ds
2-1-5.5-0-7ds
0.8 2-1-4-50-7ds
2-1-4-100-7ds
2-1-4-250-7ds
2-1-4-0-28ds
2-1-4-0-90ds
2-1-4-0-180ds
0.4 5-1-6-0-28ds
5-1-6-0-90ds
5-1-6-0-180ds
tensin cutoff line
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/ppy'
(b)
Figure 4.52: Primary yield loci normalized by isotropic primary yield stress with
different curing period (a) fitted by function (4-1) (b) fitted by function (4-2)
159
CHAPTER 4
900
10-1-11 UCS test 900
10-1-11-7ds-0kPa
20-3-23 UCS test
800 10-1-11-7ds-50kPa
20-3-23-7ds-0kPa
10-1-11-7ds-100kPa 800 20-3-23-7ds-50kPa
10-1-11-7ds-250kPa 20-3-23-7ds-100kPa
700 10-1-11-7ds-350kPa 20-3-23-7ds-250kPa
700
600
600

500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
axial strain εs axial strain εs
(a) mix proportion 10-1-11 (b) mix proportion 20-3-23
1000 2200
5-1-6 UCS test 2-1-4 UCS test
5-1-6-7ds-0kPa 2-1-4-7ds-0kPa
900 5-1-6-7ds-50kPa 2000 2-1-4-7ds-50kPa
5-1-6-7ds-100kPa 2-1-4-7ds-100kPa
5-1-6-7ds-250kPa 1800 2-1-4-7ds-250kPa
800
1600
700
1400
600
1200
500
1000
400
800
300
600
200
400
100 200
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
(c) mix proportion 5-1-6 (d) mix proportion 2-1-4
Figure 4.53: Unconfined compressive strength tests for specimens with different curing
stress and 7 days of curing time period (a-d)
160
CHAPTER 4
1200 1600
2-1-4.5 UCS test 2-1-5 UCS test
2-1-4.5-7ds-0kPa 2-1-5-7ds-0kPa
2-1-5-7ds-50kPa
2-1-4.5-7ds-50kPa
1400 2-1-5-7ds-100kPa
2-1-4.5-7ds-100kPa 2-1-5-7ds-250kPa
1000
1200
800

1000
600 800
600
400
400
200
200
0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
axial strain εs
axial strain εs
(e) mix proportion 2-1-4.5 (f) mix proportion 2-1-5
2800 2400
1.3-1-3.45 UCS test 1.3-1-3.5 UCS test
2600 1.3-1-3.45-7ds-0kPa 1.3-1-3.5-7ds-0kPa
2200
1.3-1-3.45-7ds-50kPa 1.3-1-3.5-7ds-50kPa
2400 1.3-1-3.45-7ds-100kPa 1.3-1-3.5-7ds-100kPa
2000
2200
1800
2000
1600
1800
1600 1400
1400 1200
1200 1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200 200
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
(g) mix proportion 1.3-1-3.45 (h) mix proportion 1.3-1-3.5
stress and 7 days of curing time period (e-h)
161
CHAPTER 4
400 800
10-1-11-7ds 20-3-23-7ds
10-1-11-28ds 20-3-23-28ds
700 20-3-23-90ds
20-3-23-210ds
300 600

500
200 400
300
100 200
100
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(a) mix proportion 10-1-11 (b) mix proportion 20-3-23
900 1400
5-1-6-7ds 1300 2-1-4-7ds
800 5-1-6-28ds 2-1-4-28ds
5-1-6-90ds 1200 2-1-4-90ds
5-1-6-180ds
2-1-4-180ds
700 1100 2-1-4-730ds
1000
600
900
800
500
700
400
600
500
300
400
200 300
200
100
100
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
(c) mix proportion 5-1-6 (d)mix proportion 2-1-4
time and zero curing stress (a-d)
162
CHAPTER 4
600
2-1-4.5 UCS test 700
2-1-4.5-7ds 1.3-1-3.45 UCS test
2-1-4.5-28ds 1.3-1-3.45-7ds
2-1-4.5-100ds 1.3-1-3.45-28ds
500
600
400 500

400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
axial strain εs
axial strain εs
(e) mix proportion 2-1-4.5 (f) mix proportion 1.3-1-3.45
1000
1-1-3 UCS test
1-1-3-7ds
900 1-1-3-28ds
1-1-3-90ds
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
axial strain εs
(g) mix proportion 1-1-3
Fig 4.56: Unconfined compressive strength tests for specimens with different curing
time and zero curing stress (e-g)
163
CHAPTER 4
1350
1200
1050
900
ppy'-pcur'(kPa)
750 10-1-11
20-3-23
5-1-6
10-3-13
600 2-1-3
2-1-4
2-1-4.5
2-1-5
450 2-1-5.5
10-3-17.3
10-3-19.5
300 1.3-1-3.06
1.3-1-3.45
1.3-1-3.5
1-1-3
150 1-1-2.66
fitted line p0'-pcur'=0.5476qu+19.679
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
unconfined compressive strength qu(kPa)
(a)
1350
1200
1050
10-1-11
20-3-23
900 5-1-6
10-3-13
2-1-3
2-1-4
ppy'-pcur'(kPa)
750 2-1-4.5
2-1-5
2-1-5.5
10-3-17.3
600 10-3-19.5
1.3-1-3.06
1.3-1-3.45
450 1.3-1-3.5
1-1-3
1-1-2.66
fitted line p0'-pcur'=0.5476qu+19.679
300
2-1-4(7ds,28ds,90ds,180ds)
5-1-6(7ds,28ds,90ds,180ds)
10-1-11(7ds,28ds)
150 20-3-23(7ds,28ds,90ds,210ds)
1-1-3(7ds,28ds,90ds)
1.3-1-3.45(7ds,28ds)
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
unconfined compressive strength qu(kPa)
(b)
Fig 4.57: Relationship between Isotropic primary yield stress and unconfined
compressive strength for specimens (a) with 7 days of curing and (b) different curing
time period
164
CHAPTER 4
4 incremental yield stress-post-curing voild ratio

10-1-11
20-3-23
5-1-6
2-1-4
2-1-5
3.5 1.3-1-3.5
Fit 1.3-1-3.5:Y = -0.8014* X + 7.9223,R2=0.96
Fit 10-1-11: Y = -0.6260 * X + 5.6232,R2=0.966
Fit 20-3-23: Y = -0.6472* X + 5.9538,R2=0.985
Fit 5-1-6: Y = -0.6790* X + 6.2352,R2=0.999
2
3 Fit 2-1-4: Y = -0.7790* X + 7.3357,R =0.994
Fit 2-1-5: Y = -0.7186* X + 7.1273,R2=0.959

ecur
2.5
1.5
4 5 6 7 8
Ln(ppy'-pcur')
Fig 4.58 Relationship between incremental Isotropic primary yield stress and
post-curing void ratio for cement-treated marine clay specimens cured for 7 days
-0.6 8
A1-Cw/Aw B1-Cw/Aw
A1=-0.566-0.461(Cw/Aw)-0.8919, R=0.987 Fit : Y=9.1355X-0.2196,R2=0.9811
-0.64
7.5
-0.68
7
B1
A1
-0.72
6.5
-0.76
6
-0.8
-0.84 5.5
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
Cw/Aw Cw/Aw
(a) (b)
Figure 4.59: Relationship between parameters and ratio of pre-curing total water
content to the cement content Cw/Aw (a) A1-Cw/Aw, (b) B1-Cw/Aw
165
CHAPTER 4
12 p py'-Aw relationship
Cw=72%
Cw=100%
Cw=133.3%
Cw=150%
10 fit 4: Cw=150%-- p0'=3.4455Aw-0.0543,R2=0.985
fit 2: Cw=100%-- p0'=10.52Aw+0.3737,R2=0.999
fit 3: Cw=133.3%-- p0'=4.8754Aw+0.1129,R2=0.990
fit 1: Cw=72%-- p0'=21.642Aw+0.5923,R2=0.992
8
p'py/Pap
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
cement content Aw
(a)
25
A2-Cw
Fit 1: A2=9.8652Cw(-2.5042),R2=0.997 0.6
B2-Cw
fit 1: B2=-0.8201Cw+1.189,R2=0.998
20
0.5
0.4
15
A2(kPa)
0.3
B2(kPa)
10
0.2
5 0.1
0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 total water content Cw
-0.1
total water content Cw
(b) (c)
166
CHAPTER 4
1300 p py'-Aw relationship

Cw=72%
Cw=100%
1200
Cw=133.3%
Cw=150%
1100 1:1 line
+10% line
1000 -10% line
900
experimental p' py (kPa) 800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
predicted Ppy'(kPa)
(d)
Fig 4.60 Relationship between Isotropic primary yield stress and cement content and
total water content for cement treated specimens cured under atmospheric pressure for
7days (a) p 'py versus cement content (b) parameter A2 versus total water content (c)
parameter B2 versus total water content (d) comparison between experimental data and
simulation results by using formula (4-11)
2000 qu-Aw relationship
Cw=72%
Cw=100%
1800 Cw=133.3%
Cw=150%
1:1 line
1600 +15% line
-15% line
1400
experimental qu (kPa)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
predicted qu(kPa)
(a)
167
CHAPTER 4
(b)
Figure 4.61: (a) Comparison between experimental and predicted qu by formula

(4-12c); (b) Comparison between unconfined compressive strength obtained from this
study and Lee’s study (1999)
10000 10000
simulation of qu---s/c=0.47
simulation of qu ---s/c=1.0
simulation by using Lee et al.'s(2005) Formula
simulation by using Formula of this study
1000 1000
qu (kPa)
qu (kPa)
100 100
10 10
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
w/c w/c
(a) S/C=0.47 (b)S/C=1.00
168
CHAPTER 4
1000 simulation of qu ---s/c=3.14

10000
simulation of q u---s/c=1.54 simulation by using Lee et al.'s(2005) Formula
simulation by using Lee et al.'s(2005) Formula simulation by using Formula of this study
1000
q u (kPa)
100
q u (kPa)
100
10
10
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8
w/c
w/c
(c) S/C=1.54 (d) S/C=3.14
1000
simulation of q u---s/c=4.0
q u (kPa)
100
10
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
w/c
(e) S/C=4
Figure 4.62: Simulated unconfined compressive strength by using Lee et al.’s (2005)’s
formula and this study’s formula
169
CHAPTER 4
Figure 4.63a: Simulated unconfined compressive strength by using modified formula

of this study and experimental unconfined compressive strength from Lee’s (1999)
study 10000
simulation of qu
test s/c=3.33
test s/c=2.00
test s/c=1.30
test s/c=1.00
simulation by Lee's(2005) formula
with different q0
1000
qu(kPa)
100
10
1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6 6.4 6.8 7.2
w/c
Figure 4.63b: Simulated unconfined compressive strength by using Lee’s (2005)

formula with different q0 and experimental unconfined compressive strength from this
study
170
CHAPTER 4
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
10-1-11 post yielding behaivor

1200 10%-100%-CIU300-50
10%-100%-CIU300-150
10%-100%-CIU500-50
10%-100%-CIU500-250
1000 10%-100%-CIU1000-50
10%-100%-CIU1000-500
10%-100%-CIU1500-50
10%-100%-CIU1500-750
800 10%-100%-CIU2000-50
10%-100%-CIU2000-500
10%-100%-CIU2000-1000
10%-100%-CIU2500-50
600 10%-100%-CIU2500-1250
yield point-P'0=300kPa
400 yield point-P'0=1000kPa
yield locus
primary yield locus
primary yield point from CIU test
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
(a)
2200 10-1-11 post yielding behavior

10%-100%-CIU300-50
10%-100%-CIU300-150
10%-100%-CIU500-50
2000 10%-100%-CIU500-250
10%-100%-CIU1000-50
10%-100%-CIU1000-500
1800 10%-100%-CIU1500-50
10%-100%-CIU1500-750
10%-100%-CIU2000-50
10%-100%-CIU2000-500
1600
10%-100%-CIU2000-1000
10%-100%-CIU2500-50
10%-100%-CIU2500-1250
1400 primary yield point from CIU test
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
deviator strain εs
(b)
Figure 4.64a: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of CIU specimen with mix proportion
10:1:11 cured under atmospheric pressure for 7days (a) stress path, (b) deviator
stress-strain curve
171
CHAPTER 4
10-1-11 post yielding behavior

10%-100%-CID300-100 10%-100%-CID300-100
5500 10%-100%-CID300-150 5500 10%-100%-CID300-150
10%-100%-CID500-50
10%-100%-CID500-50
10%-100%-CID500-100
10%-100%-CID500-150 10%-100%-CID500-100
5000 10%-100%-CID500-250
5000 10%-100%-CID500-150
10%-100%-CID1000-50 10%-100%-CID500-250
10%-100%-CID1000-200
10%-100%-CID1000-250 10%-100%-CID500
10%-100%-CID1000-500 10%-100%-CID1000-50
4500 10%-100%-CID1500-50 4500 10%-100%-CID1000-200
10%-100%-CID1500-375
10%-100%-CID1500-500
10%-100%-CID1000-250
10%-100%-CID1500-750 10%-100%-CID1000-500
4000 10%-100%-CID2000-500 4000 10%-100%-CID1000
10%-100%-CID2000-1000
10%-100%-CID2000-1250
10%-100%-CID1500-50
10%-100%-CID2500-50 10%-100%-CID1500-375

10%-100%-CID2500-500 10%-100%-CID1500-500
3500 3500
10%-100%-CID2500-1250
10%-100%-CID2500-1750
10%-100%-CID1500-750
tension cut-off line 10%-100%-CID2000-500
yield point-P'0=300kPa 10%-100%-CID2000-1000
3000 yield point-P'0=500kPa 3000 10%-100%-CID2000-1250
2500 yield locus
2500 10%-100%-CID2500-1250
primary yield locus 10%-100%-CID2500-1750
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500
3.4
10%-100%-CID300-100
10%-100%-CID300-150
10%-100%-CID500-50
3.2 10%-100%-CID500-100
10%-100%-CID500-150
10%-100%-CID500-250
10%-100%-CID500
10%-100%-CID1000-50
10%-100%-CID1000-200
3 10%-100%-CID1000-250
10%-100%-CID1000-500
10%-100%-CID1000
10%-100%-CID1500-50
10%-100%-CID1500-375
specific volume v
2.8 10%-100%-CID1500-500
10%-100%-CID1500-750
10%-100%-CID2000-500
10%-100%-CID2000-1000
10%-100%-CID2000-1250
10%-100%-CID2500-50
2.6 10%-100%-CID2500-500
10%-100%-CID2500-1250
10%-100%-CID2500-1750
2.4 yield point-P'0=1000kPa
2.2
Figure 4.64b: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of CID specimen with mix proportion
172
CHAPTER 4
2500
2250
2000
1750

20%-100%-CIU380-50
1500 20%-100%-CIU380-190
20%-100%-CIU500-50
20%-100%-CIU500-250
20%-100%-CIU1000-50
1250 20%-100%-CIU1000-250
20%-100%-CIU1000-500
20%-100%-CIU1500-50
20%-100%-CIU1500-500
1000 20%-100%-CIU1500-750
20%-100%-CIU2000-50
20%-100%-CIU2000-1000
20%-100%-CIU2500-50
20%-100%-CIU2500-500
750 20%-100%-CIU2500-1250
500
yield locus
primary yield locus
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
(a)

20%-100%-CIU380-50
20%-100%-CIU380-190
20%-100%-CIU500-50
2250 20%-100%-CIU500-250
20%-100%-CIU1000-50
20%-100%-CIU1000-250
2000 20%-100%-CIU1000-500
20%-100%-CIU1500-50
20%-100%-CIU1500-500
20%-100%-CIU1500-750
1750 20%-100%-CIU2000-50
20%-100%-CIU2000-500
20%-100%-CIU2000-1000
1500 20%-100%-CIU2500-50
20%-100%-CIU2500-500
20%-100%-CIU2500-1250
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
deviator strain εs
(b)
Fig 4.65a: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of CIU specimen with mix proportion 5:1:6
cured under atmospheric pressure for 7days (a) stress path, (b) deviator stress-strain
curve
173
CHAPTER 4

20%-100%-CID380-50 20%-100%-CID380-50
20%-100%-CID380-190 20%-100%-CID380-190
6500 20%-100%-CID500-50 6500
20%-100%-CID500-100
20%-100%-CID500-50
6250 20%-100%-CID500-250
6250 20%-100%-CID500-100
6000 20%-100%-CID500 6000 20%-100%-CID500-250
20%-100%-CID1000-50
20%-100%-CID500
5750 20%-100%-CID1000-250 5750
20%-100%-CID1000-500 20%-100%-CID1000-50
5500 20%-100%-CID1000 5500 20%-100%-CID1000-250
20%-100%-CID1500-50
5250 20%-100%-CID1500-500 5250 20%-100%-CID1000-500
20%-100%-CID1500-750 20%-100%-CID1000
5000 20%-100%-CID2000-50
5000 20%-100%-CID1500-50
4750 20%-100%-CID2000-500 4750 20%-100%-CID1500-500
20%-100%-CID2000-1000
4500 20%-100%-CID2000-1500 4500 20%-100%-CID1500-750
20%-100%-CID2500-50 20%-100%-CID2000-50
4250 4250

20%-100%-CID2500-500
20%-100%-CID2000-500
20%-100%-CID2500-850
4000 20%-100%-CID2500-1250 4000 20%-100%-CID2000-1000
3750 20%-100%-CID2500-1750 20%-100%-CID2000-1500
20%-100%-CID2500-2000
3750
20%-100%-CID2500-50
3500 20%-100%-CID2500-500
20%-100%-CID2500-1250
3000 yield point-P'0=1500kPa 3000
yield locus
2250 2250
2000 2000
1750 1750
1500 1500
1250 1250
1000 1000
750 750
500 500
250 250
0 0
0 250 500 750 1000125015001750200022502500275030003250350037504000 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0 250 500 750 1000125015001750200022502500275030003250350037504000

3.4
3.3 20%-100%-CID380-50
20%-100%-CID380-190
20%-100%-CID500-50
3.2 20%-100%-CID500-100
20%-100%-CID500-250
20%-100%-CID500
3.1 20%-100%-CID1000-50
20%-100%-CID1000-250
20%-100%-CID1000-500
3 20%-100%-CID1000
20%-100%-CID1500-50
20%-100%-CID1500-500
2.9 20%-100%-CID1500-750
20%-100%-CID2000-50
specific volume v
20%-100%-CID2000-500
2.8
20%-100%-CID2000-1000
20%-100%-CID2000-1500
2.7 20%-100%-CID2500-50
20%-100%-CID2500-500
20%-100%-CID2500-850
2.6 20%-100%-CID2500-1250
20%-100%-CID2500-1750
20%-100%-CID2500-2000
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
Fig 4.65b: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of CID specimen with mix proportion
174
CHAPTER 4
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750

1500 30%-100%-CIU500-50
30%-100%-CIU500-150
30%-100%-CIU500-250
30%-100%-CIU1000-50
1250 30%-100%-CIU1000-500
30%-100%-CIU1500-50
30%-100%-CIU1500-750
1000 30%-100%-CIU2000-50
30%-100%-CIU2000-500
30%-100%-CIU2000-1000
30%-100%-CIU2500-50
750 30%-100%-CIU2500-500
250
yield locus
primary yield locus
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
(a)
30%-100%-CIU500-50
30%-100%-CIU500-150
30%-100%-CIU500-250
2250 30%-100%-CIU1000-50
30%-100%-CIU1000-500
30%-100%-CIU1500-50
30%-100%-CIU1500-750
2000 30%-100%-CIU2000-50
30%-100%-CIU2000-500
30%-100%-CIU2000-1000
1750 30%-100%-CIU2500-50
30%-100%-CIU2500-500
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
deviator strain εs
(b)
Fig 4.66a: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of specimen with mix proportion 10:3:13
curve
175
CHAPTER 4

30%-100%-CID500-50
6500 10-3-13 post yielding behaivor
30%-100%-CID500-50
6500 30%-100%-CID500-150
30%-100%-CID500-150 30%-100%-CID500-250
30%-100%-CID500-250 30%-100%-CID1000-50
6000 30%-100%-CID1000-50 6000
30%-100%-CID1000-250
30%-100%-CID1000-250
30%-100%-CID1000-500 30%-100%-CID1000-500
5500 30%-100%-CID1500-50 5500 30%-100%-CID1500-50
30%-100%-CID1500-375 30%-100%-CID1500-375
30%-100%-CID1500-500 30%-100%-CID1500-500
30%-100%-CID1500-750
5000 30%-100%-CID2000-500 5000 30%-100%-CID1500-750
30%-100%-CID2000-1000 30%-100%-CID2000-500
30%-100%-CID2000-1250 30%-100%-CID2000-1000
4500 30%-100%-CID2500-50 4500 30%-100%-CID2000-1250
30%-100%-CID2500-500 30%-100%-CID2500-50

30%-100%-CID2500-1250
30%-100%-CID2500-500
30%-100%-CID2500-1500
4000 30%-100%-CID2500-1250
yield locus
3000
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750
3.4
10-3-13 post-yielding behavior
30%-100%-CID500-50
3.3 30%-100%-CID500-150
30%-100%-CID500-250
30%-100%-CID1000-50
3.2
30%-100%-CID1000-250
30%-100%-CID1000-500
3.1 30%-100%-CID1500-50
30%-100%-CID1500-375
30%-100%-CID1500-500
3 30%-100%-CID1500-750
30%-100%-CID2000-500
30%-100%-CID2000-1000
2.9 30%-100%-CID2000-1250
specific volume v
30%-100%-CID2500-50
30%-100%-CID2500-500
2.8 30%-100%-CID2500-1250
30%-100%-CID2500-1500
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
Fig 4.66b: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of specimen with mix proportion 10:3:13
176
CHAPTER 4
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750

50%-100%-CIU1000-50
1500
50%-100%-CIU1000-500
50%-100%-CIU1500-50
50%-100%-CIU1500-500
1250
50%-100%-CIU1500-750
50%-100%-CIU2000-50
50%-100%-CIU2000-750
1000
50%-100%-CIU2000-1000
50%-100%-CIU2500-50
50%-100%-CIU2500-750
500
250 yield locus
primary yield locus
0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
(a)

50%-100%-CIU1000-50
50%-100%-CIU1000-500
2500 50%-100%-CIU1500-50
50%-100%-CIU1500-500
50%-100%-CIU1500-750
50%-100%-CIU2000-50
2250
50%-100%-CIU2000-750
50%-100%-CIU2000-1000
50%-100%-CIU2500-50
2000 50%-100%-CIU2500-750
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
deviator strain εs
(b)
Fig 4.67a: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of specimen with mix proportion 2:1:3
curve
177
CHAPTER 4

50%-100%-CID1000-50 50%-100%-CID1000-50
5750 50%-100%-CID1000-250
5750 50%-100%-CID1000-250
50%-100%-CID1000-500
5500 50%-100%-CID1000-500 5500
50%-100%-CID1000 50%-100%-CID1000
5250 50%-100%-CID1500-250 5250 50%-100%-CID1500-250
50%-100%-CID1500-375 50%-100%-CID1500-375
5000 50%-100%-CID1500-500
5000 50%-100%-CID1500-500
4750 50%-100%-CID1500-750 4750 50%-100%-CID1500-750
50%-100%-CID1500-1000 50%-100%-CID1500-1000
4500 50%-100%-CID2000-500 4500 50%-100%-CID2000-500
50%-100%-CID2000-1000 50%-100%-CID2000-1000
4250 50%-100%-CID2000-1250
4250
50%-100%-CID2000-1250
4000 50%-100%-CID2500-500 4000 50%-100%-CID2500-500
50%-100%-CID2500-750 50%-100%-CID2500-750
3750 3750

50%-100%-CID2500-1250 50%-100%-CID2500-1250

3500
yield locus
2750
2500 2500
2250 2250
2000 2000
1750 1750
1500 1500
1250 1250
1000 1000
750 750
500 500
250 250
0 0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250
3.2
2-1-3 post-yielding behavior
50%-100%-CID1000-50
50%-100%-CID1000-250
3.1 50%-100%-CID1000-500
50%-100%-CID1000
50%-100%-CID1500-250
50%-100%-CID1500-375
3 50%-100%-CID1500-500
50%-100%-CID1500-750
50%-100%-CID1500-1000
50%-100%-CID2000-500
50%-100%-CID2000-1000
2.9
50%-100%-CID2000-1250
50%-100%-CID2500-500
50%-100%-CID2500-750
specific volume v
50%-100%-CID2500-1250
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
Fig 4.67b: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of specimen with mix proportion 2:1:3
178
CHAPTER 4

50%-133%-CIU500-50
50%-133%-CIU500-100
50%-133%-CIU500-250
50%-133%-CIU1000-50
2500 50%-133%-CIU1000-500
50%-133%-CIU1500-50
50%-133%-CIU1500-375
50%-133%-CIU1500-750
50%-133%-CIU2000-50
50%-133%-CIU2000-400
50%-133%-CIU2000-1000
50%-133%-CIU2500-50
50%-133%-CIU2500-500
2000 50%-133%-CIU2500-1250
yield locus
primary yield locus
1500 primary yield point from CIU test
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(a)

50%-133%-CIU500-50
50%-133%-CIU500-100
50%-133%-CIU500-250
50%-133%-CIU1000-50
50%-133%-CIU1000-500
50%-133%-CIU1500-50
2000 50%-133%-CIU1500-375
50%-133%-CIU1500-750
50%-133%-CIU2000-50
50%-133%-CIU2000-400
50%-133%-CIU2000-1000
50%-133%-CIU2500-50
50%-133%-CIU2500-500
50%-133%-CIU2500-1250
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
deviator strain εs
(b)
Fig 4.68a: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of CIU specimen with mix proportion 2:1:4
curve
179
CHAPTER 4

2-1-4 post yielding behaivor 50%-133%-CID500-50
8000 50%-133%-CID500-50 8000 50%-133%-CID500-100
50%-133%-CID500-100
50%-133%-CID500-250 50%-133%-CID500-250
7500 50%-133%-CID500-350 7500 50%-133%-CID500-350
50%-133%-CID1000-50
50%-133%-CID1000-50
50%-133%-CID1000-250
7000 50%-133%-CID1000-350 7000 50%-133%-CID1000-250
50%-133%-CID1000-500 50%-133%-CID1000-350
50%-133%-CID1000-650
50%-133%-CID1000-500
6500 50%-133%-CID1500-50 6500
50%-133%-CID1500-375 50%-133%-CID1000-650
50%-133%-CID1500-500 50%-133%-CID1500-50
6000 50%-133%-CID1500-750 6000 50%-133%-CID1500-375
50%-133%-CID2000-50
50%-133%-CID2000-400 50%-133%-CID1500-500
5500 50%-133%-CID2000-500 5500 50%-133%-CID1500-750
50%-133%-CID2000-1000 50%-133%-CID2000-50

50%-133%-CID2000-1500
5000 50%-133%-CID2500-50 5000 50%-133%-CID2000-400
50%-133%-CID2500-500 50%-133%-CID2000-500
50%-133%-CID2500-1250 50%-133%-CID2000-1000
4500 50%-133%-CID2500-1750 4500
50%-133%-CID2500-2000
50%-133%-CID2000-1500
tension cut-off line 50%-133%-CID2500-50
50%-133%-CID2500-1250
yield locus
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

3.8
3.7 50%-133%-CID500-50
50%-133%-CID500-100
3.6 50%-133%-CID500-250
50%-133%-CID500-350
50%-133%-CID1000-50
3.5
50%-133%-CID1000-250
50%-133%-CID1000-350
3.4 50%-133%-CID1000-500
50%-133%-CID1000-650
3.3 50%-133%-CID1500-50
50%-133%-CID1500-375
3.2 50%-133%-CID1500-500
50%-133%-CID1500-750
3.1 50%-133%-CID2000-50
specific volume v
50%-133%-CID2000-400
3 50%-133%-CID2000-500
50%-133%-CID2000-1000
50%-133%-CID2000-1500
2.9 50%-133%-CID2500-50
50%-133%-CID2500-500
2.8 50%-133%-CID2500-1250
50%-133%-CID2500-1750
2.7 50%-133%-CID2500-2000
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
Fig 4.68b: Post-yield stress-strain behavior of CID specimen with mix proportion
180
CHAPTER 4
2
10-1-11 evolution of yield locus
primary yield point
yield point-p'0=300kPa
1.6
primary yield locus
yield locus
1.2
q/p 0 '
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/p0'
(a)
2
primary yield point
1.6
primary yield locus
yield locus
1.2 tension cut-off line
q/p 0 '
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/p0'
(b)
181
CHAPTER 4
2
primary yield point
1.6
primary yield locus
yield locus
1.2
q/p 0 '
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/p0'
(c)
2
primary yield point
1.6
primary yield locus
yield locus
1.2
q/p 0 '
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/p0'
(d)
182
CHAPTER 4
2
primary yield point
1.6
primary yield locus
yield locus
1.2
q/p 0 '
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/p0'
(e)
Fig 4.69 Evolution of yield locus for cement treated marine clay specimens on
normalized stress space (a) mix proportion 10:1:11 (b) 5:1:6 (c) 10:3:13 (d) 2:1:3 (e)
2:1:4
183
CHAPTER 4
2
cement content effect on evolution of yield locus
tension cutoff line
yield locus-Aw=10%
yield locus-Aw=20%
yield locus-Aw=50%
1.6 remoulded marine clay with M=0.9
1.2
q/p 0 '
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/p0 '
(a)
2
total water content effect on evolution of yield locus
tension cutoff line
yield locus-2-1-3
yield locus-2-1-4
remoulded marine clay with M=0.9
1.6
1.2
q/p 0 '
0.8
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p'/p0 '
(b)
Fig 4.70 Comparison between evolutions of yield locus for cement treated marine clay
specimens on normalized stress space (a) different cement content (b) different total
water content
184
CHAPTER 4
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.71 Microstructure of cement treated marine clay specimens with mix
proportion 5:1:6 under IPC pressure 2500kPa and drained shearing (CID2500-1250) (a)
outside of slip band (b) inside of slip band
185
CHAPTER 4
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.72: Microstructure of cement treated marine clay specimens with mix
proportion 5:1:6 under IPC pressure 2500kPa and undrained shearing (2500-1250CU)
(a) outside of slip band (b) inside of slip band
186
CHAPTER 4
y/D/2
1
0.5
0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2P/πDt
-0.5
-1
Figure 4.73: Theoretical solutions to the stress distribution of cylinder specimen with
thickness t and diameter D under two radial and opposite line loading [after
Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970]
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4.74: The failure pattern of cement-treated marine clay cylinder specimen
(a)split specimen (b) top loading face after Brazilian test (c) specimen with central
crack
187
CHAPTER 4
180
curing time 7 days
curing time 28 days
160
140
120
100
σt(kPa)
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
cement content Aw
(a)
180 280
curing time 7 days
260
160
curing time 7 days
240
curing time 28 days
140 220
200
120
180
160
100
σt(kPa)
σt(kPa)
140
80
120
100
60
80
40 60
40
20
20
0 0
50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250
total water content Cw curing strss pcur'
(b) (c)
Figure 4.75: The tensile splitting strength of cement-treated marine clay cylinder
specimen (a) tensile strength versus cement content (b) tensile strength versus total
water content (c) tensile strength versus curing stress
188
CHAPTER 4
curing stress-s-c-w-curing time

200 0-10-1-11-7days
0-5-1-6-7days
0-10-3-13-7days
180 0-2-1-3-7days
0-2-1-5-7days
0-2-1-5.5-7days
160 50-2-1-4-7days
100-2-1-4-7days
tensil strength under compresson rate 0.005mm/Min

250-2-1-4-7days
140 0-10-3-13-28days
0-2-1-3-28days
0-2-1-5-28days
1:1 line
120
15% line
-15% line
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
tensil strength under compression rate 0.5mm/Min
Figure 4.76: Comparisons between very fast and vey slow compression rate
curing stress-s-c-w-curing time

140 0-10-1-11-28days
0-5-1-6-28days
0-10-3-13-28days
0-2-1-5-28days
120 0-2-1-4-7days
0-2-1-4-28days
1:1 line
15% line
-15% line
100
compression under water
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
compression under dry condition
Figure 4.77: Comparisons between compression under dry condition and water
189
CHAPTER 4
(a) (b)
Figure 4.78: Prolonged submerged test (a) remoulded marine clay sample (b)
cement-treated marine clay sample
2500
qu-σt
Fit 2: qu=7.87σt, R2=0.996
2000
1500
qu(kPa)
1000
500
0
0 100 200 300
tensile strength σt(kPa)
Figure 4.79: Relationship between tensile strength and unconfined compressive

strength
190
CHAPTER 4
1200 modified primary yield locus

s-c-w
10-1-11
1100
5-1-6
10-3-13
1000
2-1-3
900 10-1-11 tension failure envelop
5-1-6 tension failure envelop

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 4.80: Modified primary yield locus for cement-treated marine clay
specimens with different cement content and under triaxial loading

s-c-w
2-1-3
1100
2-1-4
2-1-5.5
1000
900
2-1-5.5 tension failure envelop
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
specimens with different total water content and under triaxial loading
191
CHAPTER 4

cruing stress-s-c-w
0-2-1-4
2500 50-2-1-4
100-2-1-4
2250 250-2-1-4
2000 0-2-1-4 tension failure envelop
50-2-1-4 tension failure envelop
1750

1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
-500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
specimens with different curing stress and under triaxial loading

5-1-6-7days
2-1-4-7days
800 5-1-6-28days
2-1-4-28days
700
5-1-6-7days tension failure envelop
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400
specimens with different curing time period and under triaxial loading
192
CHAPTER 5
ULTIMATE STATE OF CEMENT-TREATED MARINE
CLAY
In this chapter, the post peak behavior and issues related to the ultimate state of
cement-treated marine clay are discussed. First, the previous works on ultimate state of
cemented soil are reviewed briefly. Second, the onset of strain softening and post-peak
behavior of cement-treated marine clay is discussed. Some preliminary results under triaxial
test on special specimen with lubrication and radial excess are presented. Third, a remoulding
process was also used to remould the soil in an attempt to achieve an ultimate state. The
triaxial behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine clay was investigated and the relevant
results are presented in detail. Finally some issues on the ultimate state of cement-treated
marine clay are discussed, based on the experiment observations.
5.1. Introduction
As discussed earlier, natural and artificial cemented soils possess structure, which makes
their behavior very different from that of reconstituted soil. In order to consider the effect of
structure, an intrinsic state is usually introduced by many researchers (e.g. Burland, 1990;
Leroueil & Vaughan, 1990). Many constitutive models for structured soils make use of an
intrinsic state as an “ultimate state” towards which the state of the soil evolves with continual
shearing. However, this ultimate state is often not easy to discern in practice due to the
difficulties in achieving the fully destuctured state of cemented or structured soil. Rouainia &
193
CHAPTER 5
Wood (2000) pointed out that unless a mechanical test systematically destroys the structure of
the entire sample, the condition of the natural soil may not approach a structureless asymptote.
Cotecchia & Chandler (1997) also noted that it will not be possible to deduce the asymptotic
behaviour externally.
Moreover, Leroueil (1998) noted that the critical state of natural and reconstituted clay
can be different, indicating that even at larger strains, soil behavior may be influenced by the
initial structure. He cited Saint-Jean-Vianney clay as an example where the intrinsic and
natural critical state angles of shearing resistance are 30.5 and 44.4 respectively. Wood (1990)
stated that even for reconstituted clays it is often not easy to discern the critical state at high
over-consolidation ratios. He noted that strength reduction after peak, accompanied by
dilatancy, tends to be a continuous process leading to stress ratios below the normally
consolidated critical-state value.
Some studies have also been done on the ultimate state of cemented soil. Airey (1993)
obtained an ultimate critical state line for naturally cemented carbonate soil. However, Airey
(1993) noted that the evidence for the existence of a critical state line in the compression line is
less clear cut. Kasama et al. (2000) found that the failure state line of lightly cemented clay is
parallel to that of the uncemented clay in the p’-q space whereas its slope is steeper than that of
an uncemented clay in the e-ln(p’) space. In contrast, Tatsuoka (1983) and Chin (2006) noted
that ultimate failure envelope of artificially cemented clay is a curve rather than straight line.
However, Chin (2006) also noted that the stress state of the material within the slip plane
cannot be fully defined. As such, the ultimate state of cement-treated marine clay is still not
clear. Based on experiment observations on different specimens, the ultimate state of
194
CHAPTER 5
cement-treated marine clay will be discussed here.
5.2. Post-peak behavior
So far all analyses are focused on pre-peak behavior of cement-treated marine clay. In this
section, the post-peak behavior of cement-treated marine clay will be briefly discussed.
However, it should be noted that the main focus of this study is on pre-peak, not post-peak
behavior.
5.2.1 Onset of strain softening
Strain localization or softening of stiff clay has been studied by many researchers (e.g.
Viggiani et al., 1993a, 1993b; Finno et al., 1994; Saada et al., 1994, 1995; Georgiannou &
Burland, 2001). Saada et al. (1994) also studied strain localization and shear banding in
saturated clayey soils. However, only global measurements of deformations and visual
examination of the photographs were used to interpret the results. Viggiani et al. (1993a, 1993b)
used local measurements of both pore pressures and deformations to study strain localization
in natural stiff overconsolidated clays. Viggiani et al. (1993a) showed that the pore pressure
measured at the base is different from that at the mid-height of the specimen; see Figure 5.1,
with maximum difference being observed at the point of maximum stress ratio q / p ' . By
introducing two indices on the strain homogeneity based on the local measurement of axial
deformation (Figure 5.1), Viggiani et al. (1993a) showed that localization is initiated at the
maximum stress ratio q / p ' and localization is a progressive phenomenon, leading eventually
to the formation of a shear band.
195
CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.2 shows the results of CIU specimens with 50% cement content, 133% total
water content under low consolidation stress (50~250kPa). In these figures, all quantities are
normalized by their maximum values. As can be seen, the normalized stress ratio q / p ' usually
coincides with normalized pore pressure until maximum stress ratio q / p ' , which occurred
before or at peak value of deviator stress q. After maximum stress ratio q / p ' , the normalized
stress ratio curve and pore pressure curve starts to deviate from each other. This phenomenon
can also be seen in other cases with maximum consolidation pressure of 500kPa, 2000kPa
(Figures 5.3 and 5.4). Figure 5.5 shows similar results for CIU specimens with 20% cement
content, 100% total water content under low to high consolidation stress. This phenomenon,
which shows the stationary points for the excess pore pressure and stress ratio coinciding with
each other, is similar to that observed by Viggiani et al. (1993a) and suggests that excess pore
pressure and stress ratio may be better indicators for shear band initiation than the deviator
stress itself.
5.2.2 Special specimen with lubrication and radial excess
All the results presented up to now were for specimens with height of 76mm and diameter
of 38mm. All these specimens showed post-peak softening behavior and shear band formation
in CIU and CID test, similar to what has been reported by Chin (2006). As noted by Chin
(2006), once the shear band is formed, the soil specimen is not uniform anymore, and
macroscopic changes in shear strain, specific volume and pore pressure do not reflect those
which occur within the shear band.
Vardoularkis (1978) suggested that shear band formation may be inhibited by using short
196
CHAPTER 5
specimens. The motivation for using short specimens stems from the belief that shear bands
are necessarily inclined at an angle to the horizontal and therefore need a certain minimum
length of specimen to develop. By using short specimens, it was felt that shear band formation
can be inhibited by the close proximity of the end caps. Much work has been conducted on
short specimens. For instance, Abdulla and Kiousis (1997) reported that “…the experimental
program implemented here is based on the following principles: (1) the specimen must have
lubricated ends; (2) the specimen must be as large (in diameter) as possible; and (3) the
specimen must be as short as possible...”. In general, the results of this work indicate that short
specimens alone do not completely inhibit shear banding; they need to be used in conjunction
with lubricated platens in order to enhance the uniformity of strain in the specimen. Where
both conditions can be achieved, what is often observed is the formation of multiple shear
bands rather than completely uniform behaviour (e.g. Samieh and Wong 1997, Wong 1999,
Desrues and Chambon 2002, Desrues and Viggiani 2004). Notwithstanding this, it is felt that,
compared to a single shear band, multiple shear bands allow macroscopic volumetric and shear
strain measurements as well as pore pressure measurements to be more reflective of that within
the shear band, and is therefore preferable. For example, Samieh and Wong (1997) noted that
“…For tests with high H/D ratios and conventional ends, a single shear band is developed
(Figure 5a). The formation of the single shear band not only restricts the dilation developed
within this localized zone, resulting in the least induced shear dilation, but also causes the
dilation rate to drop abruptly close to zero at the residual stress. The use of free ends in long
specimens does increase the total dilation. However, the dilation is still limited at the zones
adjacent to the top and bottom free ends. Series of shear bands in conical configurations are
197
CHAPTER 5
developed near the free ends as illustrated in Figure 5b. The use of a short specimen and free
ends changes the stress–strain response and mode failure drastically. Multiple shear bands are
developed uniformly within the specimen. There is no preferred orientation in these shear
bands. Formation of multiple shear bands results in a remarkable increase in the total dilation.
The occurrence of the residual stress and dilation rate is also delayed. However, the residual
dilation rate is constant with increasing axial strain, showing that the specimen has not
reached the critical state….”.
The implementation of free ends (or frictionless end caps) has been reported by various
researchers (e.g. Rowe & Barden 1964, Barden & McDermott 1965). Lee (1978) discussed the
end restraint effect in CIU test. Abdulla & Panos (1997) discussed the end friction, specimen
size and slenderness for cemented sand in triaxial test. Petchgate et al. (2000) discussed the
effect of height-to-diameter ratio on strength of cement-treated Bangkok Clay. In the
discussion below, the results of some preliminary tests using short specimens to investigate
post-peak behavior will be presented and discussed.
5.2.2.1 Effect of slenderness ratio
Figure 5.6 shows the results of two specimens, with slenderness ratios (ratio of height to
diameter or H/D) of 2 and 1 but with the porous stone ends in CIU tests with 1500kPa
effective confining stress. As can be seen, the shorter specimen (with H/D ratio of 1) shows a
significantly slower rate of strain softening than the taller specimen. However, there is much
less difference in terms of excess pore pressure development and stress path. In both cases, a
single shear band is clearly visible after the test, with post-peak stress path far away from
198
CHAPTER 5
tension cut-off line (see Figure 5.7). This indicates that the post-peak failure may be mainly
shear failure in these cases.
5.2.2.2 Effect of lubrication
Figure 5.8 shows the results of two specimens with different end platens but with the
same H/D ratio of 2 in CIU tests under 1000kPa confining stress. The two types of end platens
are the normal porous stone platen (high friction) and Teflon platens (low friction). As can be
seen, the specimen with Teflon platens also shows a slightly slower rate of strain softening
than that with the porous stone platens. Stress paths and excess pore pressure development are
nearly identical for both specimens. Each specimen shows a single shear band (see Figure5.9),
with post-peak stress path far away from tension cut-off line. This indicates that only low
friction platen does not change the post-peak failure pattern of the specimen.
5.2.2.3 Effect of combination of slenderness and lubrication
Figure 5.10 shows the results of two specimens with different end caps and H/D ratios
(specimen 1 and specimen 2). As can be seen, the short specimen with Teflon end caps shows
significantly slower rate of strain softening than that with porous stones and H/D ratio of 2.
The stress path and maximum excess pore pressure are almost identical, but the shorter
specimen (also with Teflon end caps) shows almost no post-peak pore pressure drop. As Figure
5.11 shows, the shorter specimen now develops two shear bands instead of one. In both cases,
the post-peak stress path are still far away from the tension cut-off line, indicating that short
specimen with low friction shows similar post-peak failure pattern to long specimen.
199
CHAPTER 5
5.2.2.4 Effect of enlarged low-friction end caps
Specimen 3 in Figure 5.10 is a short specimen tested with enlarged Teflon platens. The
use of enlarged low-friction platens was suggested by Rowe and Barden (1964) and arises out
of the observation that, as the specimen is compressed, it expands laterally, allowing the platen
to punch into it and creating a stress-concentration zone, from which a shear band usually
starts. Current tests also show that shear bands tend to initiate from the edge of the end caps.
As Figure 5.10 shows, the short specimen (i.e. Specimen 3) with enlarged low-friction platens
shows slower rate of strain softening than the other two specimens. In this Figure, the
parameter Ls is the difference between the diameter of the platen and the initial diameter of the
specimen, hereafter termed “radial excess”. Furthermore, the excess pore pressure also appears
to continue to increase, albeit slightly, after the peak strength is reached instead of decreasing,
as the other specimens show. Finally, the post-peak stress paths of Specimen 2 and 4 appear to
trend to tension cut-off line at large strain. This may indicate that for short specimen with
enlarged lower friction platens, the post-peak failure tends to change to tensile failure at large
strain, with the fissures over the specimens (see Figure 5.11c). As Figure 5.12 shows, a similar
trend is obtained with a lower effective confining stress of 500kPa (specimen 3 and 4). As
Figure 5.11c shows, the shorter specimen now shows multiple shear bands.
5.2.2.5 Stress state at post-peak stage
In order to check whether the tendency of increase in deviator stress and excess pore
pressure at post-peak stage will continue with axial strain, specimens with slenderness ratio of
1, lubrication and radial excess of 6mm were sheared up to very large axial strain of roughly
200
CHAPTER 5
55% under confining stress of 1000kPa in CIU tests. The tests results are shown in Figure 5.13.
As can be seen, there is a very gradual decrease in deviator stress and excess pore pressure
with axial strain. However, beyond about 20% strain, the deviator stress and excess pore
pressure have reached almost constant values. Similar trend was also observed with 35-mm
diameter short specimen with enlarged Teflon platens under 1000kPa effective confining stress
(see Figure 5.14, specimen 2). All these results suggest that the short specimens probably
reached a critical state at a shear strain of about 20%.
Similarly, Figures 5.13 to 5.14 show that the post-peak stress path of short specimens with
enlarged low friction platens trend to tension cut-off line, indicating tensile failure occurred at
large strain. As shown in Figure 5.15, instead of a single shear band, the short specimens with
enlarged Teflon platens after shearing to very large axial strain of about 55% show multiple
shear bands or fissures distributed all over the specimen surface. This is in accordance with the
observations of previous researchers and indicates a more uniform post-peak behavior than
that exhibited by long specimens showing a single shear band.
The differences between the conventional long specimens and the short specimens with
enlarged Teflon platens can be attributed to the following reasons:
a) In conventional specimens, shear strains are concentrated into the shear band.
Thus, for the same axial compression, the shear strain inside the shear band is much
higher. Microstructure study may account for this, which showed that destructuration
in the slip plane is much more serious than that of outside of the slip plane (section 4.6
and also Chin (2006)). Thus, the post-peak stress-strain curve of a conventional
specimen, plotted using the macroscopic shear strain, is reflective of that with much
201
CHAPTER 5
higher level of shear strain inside the shear band. This explains the apparently faster
drop in stress at post-peak stage in the conventional specimens.
b) Chin(2006) reported that conventional samples which were sheared at lower
IOCR(e.g. specimen 1, Figure 5.13c) tend to reach peak strength below the tensile
failure envelope, this usually occurring at shear strain levels of about 2.5% or less.
Such samples develop slip planes at peak strength. Strain softening is accompanied by
a decrease in mean normal effective stress. As the soil outside the slip plane is
unloading, the excess pore pressure is likely to be generated by the soil within the slip
plane. The typical duration of the post-peak shearing stage is about 90minutes, which
is less than the typical time required for equilibration of excess pore pressure during
isotropic swelling. Therefore, excess pore pressure within slip plane may not have
completely equilibrated to the rest of the specimen, and the measured excess pore
pressure may be an underestimate of that within the slip plane. The rest of the
specimens are actually swelling as the load reduces and this swelling, together with the
relatively small positive pore pressure reservoir which was confined to a single shear
band, leads to the rapid drop in post-peak excess pore pressure.
5.2.2.6 Results of CID short specimens
All the results presented above were obtained from CIU tests. Stress-strain behavior of
short cement-treated specimen in CID test is still unknown. To investigate the stress-strain
behavior of short sample in CID test, low consolidation stress (250kPa) and high consolidation
stress (500kPa) were applied before shearing. Consolidation stress higher than 500kPa was not
202
CHAPTER 5
applied due to the limitation of the current setup. Figures 5.16 to 5.17 show the results for
conventional specimen and short specimen in CID test. As can be seen, compared with
conventional specimens, the short CID samples show hardening behavior over a much larger
range of shear strain, with much larger volumetric strain at peak strength. The shear strains at
peak strength in short CID samples are about 55%, which are about three times of
conventional samples. Post-peak decrease in deviator stress persists up to about 65% shear
strain, at which point the test was terminated. Multiple shear bands or fissures were also
clearly distributed all over the specimen surface. Shear strain larger than 65% was not
achievable due to the limitation of the current setup; this is already much larger than that
observed by other researchers (e.g., Wong & Mitchell, 1975). Short CID specimens did not
show any stabilization of the post-peak strength reduction, even at very large shear strain under
the current setup. Hence the critical state could not be observed in short CID samples with the
current setup if it does exist. This finding is similar to those reported by other researchers (e.g.,
Samieh and Wong, 1997).
5.2.3. Critical state and residual state
The results on the short specimens raise the question on what is the critical state for
cement-treated marine clay. Chin (2006) regarded the critical state to be that reached by long
specimens after about 10% to 20% strain. He based this conclusion on the observation that the
deviator stress and pore pressure has more or less stabilized and scanning electron micrographs
which showed highly broken-up particles. As discussed above and shown in Figures 5.12 and
5.13, the stress ratio q/p’ reached in such circumstances is much lower than that achieved by
203
CHAPTER 5
short specimens at ~20% strain. As highlighted earlier, for the short specimens, deviator stress
and pore pressure have also stabilized after ~20% strain, but with the stress ratio at a much
higher level than that reached by the longer specimens. As shown in Figure 5.18, the “critical
state” line for the CIU short specimens has a gradient of about 2.60 (critical state of CID short
specimens could not be reached in this study as explained earlier) and is evidently much
steeper than that for conventional long specimens reported by Chin (2006) (mix proportion
5-1-6) as well as in this study (mix proportion 2-1-4), which has a gradient of about 1.12. The
Figure 5.18 also shows that the critical states reported by Chin (2006) and this study are very
close within the same stress range. It also must be pointed out that the maximum confining
stress for CIU specimen in Figure 5.18 is 1500kPa while that for CID specimen is 500kPa. As
Chin’s (2006) study and this study noted, the friction coefficient at critical state decreases with
the increase in effective confining stress, especially for CID specimens. As such for those CID
long specimens with maximum confining stress higher than 500kPa, the critical state line is
lower than that in Figure 5.18. However, for the stress range covered in Figure 5.18, the short
specimen and long specimens have gradients which are higher than that for marine clay critical
state line with M value of about 0.9(Chua, 1990). The question is therefore: which is closer to
the definition and concept of critical state?
It is clear that, in the case of Chin’s (2006) specimens, the shear strain within the shear
band would have been much higher than 20%, given the small thickness of the shear band.
Indeed, a magnitude of several hundred percent strains would not be unlikely. This would be
highly unusual for a critical state, which is often reached within about 20% strain. On the other
hand, as mentioned above, the gradient of the critical line for the short specimens is much
204
CHAPTER 5
higher than that normally encountered for natural soils. Moreover, scanning electron
micrograph of short specimens after testing (see Figure 5.19) do not show the high degree of
particle break-up seen in Chin’s (2006) specimens and Figure 4.70.
Given this anomaly, one possible way is to regard the short specimens’ critical state as an
engineering critical state, which is useful for engineering testing and design. At a
microstructural level, one may surmise that, at this critical state, particle break-up is not
necessarily completely and clusters may still remain. However, the destructuration has reached
a point where plastic flow can occur on a macroscopic scale. As this plastic flow occurs,
further destructuration may still continue to take place. On the other hand, Chin’s (2006)
“critical state” may be more representative of an “intrinsic” or truly unstructured state, rather
than critical state. This would then necessarily imply that the critical state is not necessarily an
“intrinsic” or truly unstructured state.
5.3. Constitutive behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine clay
5.3.1. Effects of remoulding on cement-treated marine clay – previous works
As discussed above, the reconstituted or remoulded state of a soil is often regarded as its
destructured state. As mentioned above, the “ultimate state” reached by short and long
specimens appear to be very different. In this section, the behaviour of remoulded
cement-treated marine clay are presented and discussed to assess its relation to the “critical
state” observed from short and long CIU specimens. Some of the properties of remoulded
cement-treated marine clay have been reported by Chin (2006), who noted that, in contrast to
many natural structural soils, it is not easy to define an unstructured or “intrinsic” state for
205
CHAPTER 5
cement-treated marine clay, even with prolonged hand remoulding. This is because the particle
size distribution of the remoulded cement-treated clay becomes finer with continuous
remoulding, and this was observed to persist even after a few hours of remoulding. Chin (2006)
attributed this to the cluster structure of cement-treated clay. In natural cemented soils, the
bonding often develops long after the soil has been sedimented. In other words, the bonding is
overlaid on top of a pre-existing sedimentation structure.
In the case of cement-treated soils, the situation is rather different. Chew et al. (2004)
noted that early bonding in cemented-treated clay is facilitated by the hydration reaction,
which also releases lime into the pore water, thereby changing its pH. This causes flocculation
of the clay particles, resulting in the formation of largely hollow particle clusters. Subsequent
cementation is overlaid on top of this cluster structure.
Based on scanning electron micrograph observations, Chin (2006) concluded that yielding,
and indeed shearing up to the peak strength, appears to be associated with the break-up of
inter-cluster bonds, but not intra-cluster bonds. In other words, the bonds between clusters
were broken up but the clusters themselves were not. The clusters behave as much larger
particles than the marine clay particles, but are nonetheless small enough to allow plastic flow
to take place.
Chin (2006) further reported that break-up of the individual clusters only occurred within
the shear band after a significant amount of strain softening. The degree of cluster break-up
also depends upon the effective confining pressure. At high confining pressure, clusters
break-up into very fine particles, whereas at lower confining pressure, larger fragments remain.
Given this situation, it is not surprising that a large amount of remoulding effort is required to
206
CHAPTER 5
complete break-up the cluster.
Chin (2006) also noted that, even under high degree of cluster break-up, the friction
coefficient of the cement-treated soil remains much higher than that of the untreated marine
clay. This is not surprising. The action of the cement is not merely that of a binder; it actually
changes the mineralogical make-up of the clay. Chew et al. (2004) noted that the lime
produced by the cement consumes virtually all of the kaolinite, but relatively little of the illite.
In return, the cement covers the soil particles with layers of calcium silicate hydrates (CSH)
and calcium aluminate silicate hydrates (CASH), which are the cementitious products; this is
likely to lead to a decrease in the level of surface activity of the particles.
The discussion highlights several difficulties with identifying or using the intrinsic state.
These are
1. A fully destructured state, wherein all clusters are broken up, may not be reached
under normal condition in a triaxial test.
2. Depending upon the effective confining pressure, one may reach different ultimate
states characterized by different degrees of cluster break-up.
Notwithstanding the above, however, many constitutive models for structured soils do
make use of an intrinsic state as an “ultimate state” towards which the state of the soil evolves
with continual shearing. However, given the philosophical difficulties associated with defining
an ultimate state discussed earlier, the approach adopted in herein is to define a reference
“remoulded” state as a state towards which the microstructure of the cement-treated clay will
evolve with continual shearing, but not necessarily the real ultimate state. Indeed, it is
uncertain if there is a unique ultimate state towards which all specimens will transit towards. In
207
CHAPTER 5
this section, the constitutive behavior of the cement-treated clay which has been subjected to a
fixed remoulding effort will be studied under isotropic compression and undrained triaxial. As
described in Chapter 3, the remoulding procedure used in this study involves drying the treated
soil and then pounding and grinding the soil into a powder form. This is different from the wet
remoulding approach used by Chin (2006) and is probably more severe.
5.3.2. Isotropic compression behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine clay
In order to investigate isotropic compression behavior of remoulded cement-treated
marine clay, cement-treated marine clay specimens with 10% to 50% cement content, 100% to
167% total water content and cured under 0 to 250kPa confining pressure for 7 to 28 days were
remoulded by following the procedure described in Chapter 3. It should be noted that the
remoulded treated marine clay was consolidated in a tube under preloading 80N (i.e.
pre-consolidation pressure 70kPa) for about 2 days. Figure 5.20 shows the isotropic
compression curves for remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimens with different
cement contents and 100% total water content cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
before remoulding. As can be seen, the isotropic compression index increases with the increase
in cement content, albeit not by a very significant margin. The initial specific volume of the
remoulded specimen also increases with cement content. This can be explained by higher
liquid limit as cement content increases. Chin (2006) and Chew et al. (2004) among others
found that the liquid limit of cemented soil increase with cement content. As such, for the same
amount of remoulded soil solid, the mass of water needed for mixing increases with cement
content. In other words, the remoulded specimens with higher cement content require more
208
CHAPTER 5
water for mixing to get the expected uniform mixture.
Figure 5.21 compares the isotropic compression behaviors of remoulded marine clay,
remoulded cement-treated marine clay and intact cement-treated marine clay. As this Figure
shows, when the cement content is low (e.g. 10%~20%), the compression index λ of the
remoulded treated marine clay is lower than that of untreated marine clay. On the other hand,
when the cement content is high (e.g., 30%~50%), it’s slightly higher than that of untreated
marine clay. For all the four cement contents tested, the isotropic compression index of
remoulded treated marine clay is much lower than that of intact (i.e. not remoulded) treated
marine clay; the trend being more obvious when the cement content is low. The position of the
isotropic compression curve of remoulded treated marine clay lies between those of the
remoulded untreated marine clay and the corresponding intact treated marine clay.
Figure 5.22 shows the isotropic compression curves of remoulded treated marine clay,
which were obtained from cement-treated marine clay with 50% cement content and different
total water contents. As can be seen, all isotropic compression curves appear to converge
together with the increase in the compression pressure. This is consistent with the observation
on the isotropic compression behavior of cement-treated marine clay in Chapter 4, wherein it
was noted that the isotropic compression curves of cement-treated marine clay with 50%
cement content and 100% to 183% total water content tend to converge together when the
isotropic pressure increases due to destructuration. This would suggest that even the remoulded
cement-treated clay still has some residual structure and can undergo further destructuration
with increasing compression pressure.
Figure 5.23 shows the isotropic compression curve of remoulded treated marine clay,
209
CHAPTER 5
which was obtained from cement-treated marine clay with 50% cement content and 133% total
water content cured under 0~250kPa confining stress for 7 days. As can be seen, the isotropic
compression index for all cases seems to be almost the same. This is also consistent with the
observation on the isotropic compression behavior of cement-treated marine clay in Chapter 4.
In Chapter 4, it was pointed out that the isotropic compression curve of cement-treated marine
clay with the same cement content and total water content and different curing stress seems to
converge on the same curve with the increase in the isotropic pressure due to the fact that the
curing stress only induced densification during curing. And the densification may only
contribute to the post-curing void ratio and isotropic compression primary yield stress. As such,
when the isotropic pressure is higher than the isotropic compression primary yield stress, the
isotropic compression follows the same behavior, which indicates that after destructuration, the
isotropic compression behavior should be the same for specimens with different curing stress.
Figure 5.24 demonstrates the isotropic compression behavior of remoulded treated marine
clay, which was obtained from treated marine clay cured for 7 days and 28 days respectively.
As can be seen from Figure 5.24, the isotropic compression index of remoulded treated marine
clay after 7 days curing is generally slightly higher than that with 28 days curing but the
difference is small. This parallels the finding in Chapter 4 that the curing time does not have a
significant effect on the isotropic compression index of the intact treated clay.
Therefore, in general, the isotropic compression curve of the remoulded treated marine
clay depends mainly on the cement content and lies between the compression curves of the
untreated marine clay and the corresponding intact treated marine clay.
210
CHAPTER 5
5.3.3 Triaxial compression behavior
5.3.3.1 Remoulded marine clay
The stress-strain behavior of remoulded untreated marine clay has been studied by Chua
(1990). He noted that remoulded, isotropically reconsolidated Singapore marine clay behaves
in a manner that is reasonably well-described by the modified Cam-clay model with M~0.9. To
check whether the remoulded marine clay used in this study has the same characteristics as that
in Chua’s study, some CIU tests were conducted on remoulded marine clay with
preconsolidation pressure 70kPa.
Figure 5.25 shows the CIU test results of remoulded marine clay specimens. The naming
convention used here is CIUPc'. Pc' is effective confining stress during shearing. For example,
CIU100 involves a remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimen, which was reconsolidated
to 100kPa and then sheared under undrained condition. As Figure 5-25b and c show, the
critical state is reached after about 13% strain. Furthermore, as Figure 5-25a shows, the friction
coefficient M for remoulded marine clay is about 0.88, which agrees well with Chua’s
recommended value of 0.9. Chua (1990) reported an isotropic compression index λ of 0.30,
which also agrees well with the value of 0.231 shown in Figure 5.21. Thus, the properties of
the remoulded marine clay used in this study are very similar to that of Chua (1990). Figure
5-25a also compares the experimental stress paths with the theoretical undrained stress paths of
the modified Cam Clay model. These stress paths were calculated based on the measured
friction coefficient and compression index, with an assumed swelling index κ of 0.05
recommended by Chua (1990). As can be seen, above a re-consolidation pressure of 70kPa, the
fit between the measured stress paths and the modified Cam Clay predictions is remarkably
211
CHAPTER 5
good. This supports Chua’s conclusion that remoulded marine clay behavior is well-described
by the modified Cam Clay.
5.3.3.2 Remoulded cement-treated marine clay with 100% pre-remoulding total
water content
Figures 5.26 to 5.43 illustrate the results of remoulded treated marine clay with 100%
total water content and 10% to 50% cement content. It was found that the trend is basically the
same regardless of cement content. It should be noted that the remoulded treated marine clay
was reconsolidated under 100kPa to 1250kPa before shearing. Preconsolidation pressure effect
and pre-remoulding curing time effect is highlighted here. As mentioned in chapter 3, the
preconsolidation pressure is 70kPa (i.e. preload 80N) and 44kPa (i.e. preload 50N) respectively.
And the pre-remoulding curing period is 7 days and 28 days before the cement-treated soil was
remoulded.
Figure 5.26 shows undrained triaxial behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine clay
specimen with 70 kPa preconsolidation pressure, which was obtained from cement-treated
marine clay with 10% cement content and 100% total water content cured under atmospheric
pressure for 7 days. As can be seen, the undrained stress path is very similar to that of
remoulded untreated marine clay before reaching the critical state line; it is also well-described
by the modified Cam Clay’s undrained stress path with appropriate M, λ and κ values. The
deviator stress-strain curve is much more ductile than that of intact cement-treated marine clay
and quite similar to that of remoulded untreated marine clay. It was also found that the
undrained traxial shearing behavior is dependent upon the confining stress. When the
212
CHAPTER 5
confining stress is low (e.g. lower than 250kPa), the stress-strain curve shows a slight peak at
around 6%~8% axial strain, with only a small amount of post-peak softening. When the
confining stress is high (e.g., higher than 500kPa), the peak value of deviator stress occurs at
around 10%-12% axial strain, after which obvious shear band may be seen, especially at
confining stress 1000kPa. As can be seen later, other cases also indicated that the shear band
usually can be seen at high confining pressure like 1000kPa.
specimens with 10% cement content and different preconsolidation pressure (i.e., 70kPa and
44kPa respectively). As can be seen, the peak value of specimens with 70kPa preconsolidation
pressure is usually slightly higher than that with preconsolidation pressure of 44kPa. However,
the difference in the undrained stress path is very small and the friction coefficient M is nearly
the same at about 1.5. This indicates that the preconsolidation pressure effect on undrained
shearing behavior of remoulded treated marine clay is very small when the cement content is
low, say at about 10%.
specimens with 10% cement content and 70kPa preconsolidation pressure, with different
pre-remoulding curing period. As can be seen, the peak value of specimens remoulded after 28
days of curing is slightly higher than that remoulded after 7 days of curing. However, the
difference in the undrained stress path is small and the friction coefficient M is nearly the same,
at about 1.5. This indicates that the pre-remoulding curing time has little effect on the
undrained behavior of remoulded treated marine clay when the cement content is low (e.g.,
10%), and for pre-remoulding curing periods between 7days and 28days.
213
CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.29 shows the undrained triaxial behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine
clay specimens with 10% cement content and 44kPa preconsolidation pressure, with different
curing periods. The trend is similar to that shown in Fig. 5.28.
Figures 5.30 to 5.33 and figures 5.34 to 5.37 show the undrained triaxial behavior of
remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimens with 20% and 30% cement content
respectively. As these figures show, the trend is similar to that shown in figures 5.26 to 5.29.
Similarly, Figures 5.30a and 5.34a show that the undrained stress path is also well-described
by the modified Cam Clay’s undrained stress path with appropriate M, λ and κ values. The
results also show that the preconsolidation pressure and the pre-remoulding curing period have
little effect on the undrained behavior of remoulded treated marine clay when the cement
content is between 20% and 30%. However, Figure 5.31 and Figure 5.35 show that the friction
coefficient increases with preconsolidation pressure, with a slightly higher increase for 30%
cement content than 20% cement content. This indicates that the preconsolidation effect on
undrained shearing behavior of remoulded treated marine clay is dependent on cement content.
Figures 5.30 to 5.33 and figures 5.34 to 5.37 show the friction coefficient is 1.61 to 1.65
and 1.67 to 1.73 for 20% and 30% cement content respectively. This indicates that the
introducing cement to remoulded marine clay changed the shearing property of remoulded
marine clay even after destructuration. As such, unlike untreated marine clay, the critical state
line for remoulded cement-treated marine clay is dependent on the cement content introduced
to the marine clay.
Figures 5.38 to 5.39 show undrained triaxial behavior of remoulded cement-treated
marine clay specimen with 70 kPa preconsolidation pressure and 50% cement content. As can
214
CHAPTER 5
be seen, the behaviour is similar to that with 10%-30% cement content. However, as figure
5.39 shows, the critical state line of remoulded cement-treated marine clay with 50% cement
content is higher than that with 10% cement content. The peak strength of specimens with 50%
cement content is higher than that with 10% cement content. However, the pore pressure
stabilized at about the same value for the same confining pressure.
Figure 5.38 also shows the simulated stress path by modified Cam clay model. As can be
seen, the simulated stress path is lower than that of experiment stress path due to the very high
cement content. This is also evident even for specimens with 28 days of pre-remoulding curing
period as shown in Figure 5.40a. However, as Figures 5.40b and 5.40c show, for the specimens
with 44kPa preconsolidation pressure, the simulated stress path is closer to the experimental
results. This indicates that preconsolidation pressure does have effect on the stress path
behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine clay when the cement content is very high (e.g.
50%).
Figure 5.41 shows the preconsolidation pressure effect on stress-strain behavior of
remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimens with 50% cement content. As can be seen,
the peak value of specimens with 70kPa preconsolidation pressure is usually a bit higher than
that with 44kPa preconsolidation pressure, which is the same as that with 10%-30% cement
content. However, the preconsolidation pressure effect on the stress-strain curves is more
evident than that with 10%-30% cement content. The increase in friction coefficient with
preconsolidation pressure is also slightly higher than that with 10%-30% cement content.
specimens with 50% cement content and 70kPa preconsolidation pressure, with different
215
CHAPTER 5
pre-remoulding curing periods. As can be seen, the peak strength of specimens remoulded after
28 days of curing is generally a bit higher than that from samples after 7 days of curing.
However, the difference in the undrained stress path is quite small and the friction coefficient
is practically the same, at 1.77 and 1.74 respectively. This indicates that the pre-remoulding
curing time effect on undrained shearing behavior of remoulded treated marine clay is also
quite small even under high cement content of, say 50%.
Similarly, Figure 5.43 shows undrained triaxial behavior of remoulded cement-treated
marine clay specimens with 50% cement content and 44kPa preconsolidation pressure, and
different pre-remoulding curing periods. As can be seen, the trend is the same as that with
70kPa, with a friction coefficient of about 1.70. This indicates that under lower
preconsolidation pressure, the curing period has little effect on the undrained behavior of
remoulded treated marine clay even at high cement content, of say 50%.
5.3.3.3 Remoulded treated marine clay with 50% cement content –effect of
pre-remoulding total water content
Figures 5.44 to 5.46 show the undrained behavior of remoulded treated marine clay with
50% cement content and different pre-remoulding total water contents. As can be seen, the
trend is the same for all cases and similar to those discussed above. The critical state line is
virtually the same regardless of total water content, with a friction coefficient of 1.70. This
indicates that the pre-remoulding total water content does not affect the undrained shearing
behavior and critical state of remoulded cement-treated marine clay, which is consistent with
the isotropic compression results in the previous section. The isotropic compression results
216
CHAPTER 5
also show that the compression line tends to converge with isotropic pressure regardless of
pre-remoulding total water content.
Figures 5.44 show that the undrained stress paths are also well-described by the modified
Cam Clay’s undrained stress paths with appropriate M, λ and κ values, especially for confining
stress between 250kPa and 500kPa.
5.3.3.4 Remoulded treated marine clay with 50% cement content and 133%
pre-remoulding total water content –effects of curing stress
Figures 5.47 to 5.50 show the undrained shearing behavior of remoulded treated marine
clay with 50% cement content and 133% total water content and different pre-remoulding
curing stress. As can be seen, the trend is the same for all cases and similar to those discussed
above. The critical state line is nearly the same regardless of curing stress, with a friction
coefficient of 1.70. This indicates that the pre-remoulding curing stress does not significantly
affect undrained shearing behavior and critical state of remoulded cement-treated marine clay,
which is consistent with the isotropic compression results. The isotropic compression results
also show that the compression lines of remoulded treated marine clay specimens with
different curing stress tend to converge with isotropic pressure. As stated before, the curing
stress only contributes to densification. Therefore, after destructuration, the specimens with
different curing stress show the same behavior of undraiend triaxial behavior.
Consequently, it may be concluded that the undrained triaxial behavior as well as critical
state of remoulded cement-treated marine clay is affected mainly by the cement content.
217
CHAPTER 5
5.3.3.5 Summary of findings
As such, the undrained triaxial behavior of remoulded treated marine clay with different
cement content can be summarized as below.
a) The undrained stress path of remoulded cement-treated marine clay has a similar shape
as those of remoulded marine clay, which is well-described by the modified Cam Clay. The
deviator stress-strain is much ductile than that of intact treated marine clay and similar to that
of remoulded marine clay. The excess pore pressure changes very small after peak point. The
peak value usually occurs at about 6%~8% of axial strain when the confining stress is lower
than 250kPa, after which very small fluctuation can be seen. The peak value usually occurs at
about 10%~12% of axial strain when the confining stress is higher than 500kPa, after which
shear band may be seen.
b) The preconsolidation pressure effect on the undrained triaxial behavior increases with
cement content. When cement content is low (e.g., 10%), the preconsolidation pressure effect
is very small and the friction coefficient is almost the same. For higher cement content, the
difference appears to be more significant.
c) Pre-remoulding curing stress and pre-remoulding total water content does not
significantly affect undrained shearing behavior and critical state of remoulded cement-treated
marine clay.
d) Pre-remoulding curing period has little effect on the undrained triaxial behavior
regardless of cement content and preconsolidation pressure.
e) The M value is between 1.50 and 1.77 for preconsolidation pressure 70kPa while it is
between 1.50 and 1.7 for preconsolidation pressure 44kPa when cement content is between
218
CHAPTER 5
10% and 50%.
5.4. Discussion
As mentioned earlier, the real ultimate state of cement-treated soil is very difficult to
discern with conventional triaxial test because the ultimate state obtained from triaxial test is
dependent on mean effective stress. This may result in a friction coefficient lower than that of
untreated soil as observed in Chin’s (2006) and this study.
In this chapter, three different ultimate states were discussed. Notwithstanding this,
however, one can surmise that a trend actual exists and there appears to be a correlation
between the degree of break-up of the particle clusters and the friction coefficient M. Both
Chin’s (2006) study and this study showed that an ultimate state may be achieved within the
rupture plane. However, the ultimate state line in the p'-q plane is a curve rather than straight
line. This curve may be interpreted as a manifestation of the fact that ultimate secant friction
coefficient M actually decreases with mean effective stress, as illustrated in Figure 5.51.
Moreover, Chin’s (2006) study and this study showed that for CID specimens, particle
break-up within the rupture plane may be very severe under high effective confining pressure,
as seen in specimen 6 of Figure 5.51 and Figure 4.71. On the other hand, Chin (2006) also
showed that at low effective confining stress, the break-up is less severe and aggregates are
still discernible from the SEM, as seen specimens 1 and 2 of Figure 5.51.
SEMs of remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimens prepared in this study show
that, while there is some particle break-up, it does not appear to be as severe as that within the
rupture plane for specimens under high effective confining stress (see Figure 5.52). Finally,
219
CHAPTER 5
SEMs of short CIU specimens after failure show that large aggregates are still discernible.
Table 5-1 shows the values of M and microstructural state after different processes. As can be
seen, the values of M appear to decrease as particle break-up increases in severity.
As Table 5.1 shows, short CIU specimens seem to inflict the lightest damage to the
aggregates. Long CIU specimens under low effective confining stress (inside the rupture plane)
and remoulded, pulverized cement-treated marine clay seem to inflict similar degree of
damage to the particles and the resulting friction coefficient is also similar. Long CID
specimens under high effective confining stress (inside the rupture plane) inflict the heaviest
damage to the aggregates, with massive break-up and low resulting friction coefficient. This
may be due to the large shear strain within the rupture plane coupled within the large effective
normal stress arising from the high effective confining pressure.
Table 5.1 Summary of Friction Coefficient and Microstructure after Different Processes
Specimen Description Microstructure Description M
Short CIU specimens at Large aggregates still 2.6
“critical state” discernible
Long CIU specimens under Aggregates still visible but 1.6-1.88
low effective confining stress there seems to be some
(inside rupture plane) amount of break-up
Remoulded, pulverized Aggregates still visible but 1.5-1.70
cement-treated marine clay there seems to be some
amount of break-up
Long CID specimen under Aggregates appears to be 0.75-0.96
high effective confining stress severely broken up into fine
(inside rupture plane) particles
In the discussion that follows, the fully destructured state will be taken to be that of the
remoulded, pulverized cement-treated marine clay. The “critical state” of short CIU specimens
was not chosen because the friction coefficient is high, indeed almost equal to the peak friction
coefficient of the long specimens under low effective confining stress. The friction coefficient
of the remoulded cement-treated marine clay, on the other hand, is much lower. The state of
220
CHAPTER 5
the material within the rupture of long CID specimens under high confining state is even more
destructured, but this state of the material cannot be achieved through any means of
remoulding or sample preparation, it can only be reached with a rupture plane under high
effective stresses. This makes it unsuitable for use as a reference state. Furthermore, the
ultimate state of remoulded cement treated specimen seems to be only dependent on the
cement content, thereby making it a convenient reference state.
221
CHPATER 5
Fig. 5.1: Undrained triaxial compression of Todi clay: stress-strain response, pore
water pressure difference and strain homogeneity indexes(after Viggiani et al,1993a)
222
CHPATER 5
2-1-4-50CIU
0.8 (q/p')/(q/p')max~εa
q/qmax~εa
1
u/umax~εa
(q/p')/(q/p')max,q/q max,u/u max

(q/p')/(q/p')max,q/q max,u/u max 0.9
2-1-4-50CIU
0.4 (q/p')/(q/p')max~εa
q/qmax~εa 0.8
u/umax~εa
0.7
0 0.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

axial strain
-0.4
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2

axial strain
(a)
1 2-1-4-100CIU
2-1-4-100CIU
(q/p')/(q/p')max~εa
q/qmax~εa
q/qmax~εa
u/umax~εa 1 u/umax~εa
0.8

0.9
(q/p')/(q/p')max,q/qmax,u/umax
0.6 0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

axial strain
0.2
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2

axial strain
(b)
1
0.8
1
0.9
0.6
2-1-4-250CIU 0.8 2-1-4-250CIU

(q/p')/(q/p')max~εa (q/p')/(q/p')max~εa
q/qmax~εa q/qmax~εa
0.4 0.7
u/umax~εa u/umax~εa
0.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

0.2 axial strain
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

axial strain
(c)
Figure 5.2: Localization of cement-treated marine clay specimens with mix proportion
2-1-4 in CIU test (a) 50CIU, (b) 100CIU, (c) 250CIU
223
CHPATER 5
2-1-4-500-50CIU
1
0 q/qmax~εa

2-1-4-500-50CIU
0.9 u/umax~εa
q/qmax~εa
u/umax~εa 0.8
-1
0.7
0.6
-2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

axial strain
-3
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2

axial strain
(a)
1
2-1-4-500-250CIU
q/qmax~εa
u/umax~εa
1
0.8
2-1-4-500-250CIU
(q/p')/(q/p')max,q/qmax,u/u max
0.96 (q/p')/(q/p')max~εa
q/qmax~εa
0.92 u/umax~εa
0.6
0.88
0.84
0.4
0.8
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

axial strain
0.2
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2

axial strain
(b)
Figure 5.3: Localization of cement-treated marine clay specimens (mix proportion

2-1-4) in CIU test with maximum consolidation stress 500kPa (a) 500-50CIU, (b)
500-250CIU
224
CHPATER 5
2-1-4-2000-50CIU
2-1-4-2000-50CIU 1 (q/p')/(q/p')max~εa
(q/p')/(q/p')max~εa q/qmax~εa
-2 q/qmax~εa 0.9
u/umax~εa
u/umax~εa
0.8
-4 0.7
0.6
-6 0.5
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

axial strain
-8
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

axial strain
(a)
1
2-1-4-2000-400CIU
q/qmax~εa
u/umax~εa
0.8
1 2-1-4-2000-400CIU
(q/p')/(q/p')max,q/q max,u/umax
q/qmax~εa
0.9 u/umax~εa
0.6
0.8
0.4 0.7
0.6
0.2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

axial strain
0 0.02 0.04 0.06

axial strain
(b)

2-1-4) in CIU test with maximum consolidation stress 2000kPa (a) 2000-50CIU, (b)
2000-400CIU
225
CHPATER 5
1 5-1-6-50CIU
q/qmax~εa
5-1-6-50CIU
u/umax~εa
1 q/qmax~εa
0.8
u/umax~εa
0.9
(q/p')/(q/p')max,q/q max,u/umax
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03

axial strain
0.2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

axial strain
(a)
5-1-6-1000-250CIU
q/qmax~εa
0.8
u/umax~εa 5-1-6-1000-250CIU
1
q/qmax~εa
u/umax~εa
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.7
0
0.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03

axial strain
-0.4
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16

axial strain
(b)
0
5-1-6-2000-50CIU
5-1-6-2000-50CIU 1 (q/p')/(q/p')max~εa
q/qmax~εa
q/qmax~εa
u/umax~εa
u/umax~εa 0.9
-2
0.8
0.7
-4 0.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03

axial strain
-6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

axial strain
(c)
5-1-6) in CIU test with maximum consolidation stress 50kPa, 1000kPa and 2000kPa
respectively (a) 50CIU, (b) 1000-250CIU, (c) 2000-50CIU
226
CHPATER 5
2000 2000
specimen 1-H/D=2, porous stone,Ls=0
1600 1600
1200 1200
q(kPa)
q(kPa)
800 800
400 400
specimen 2-H/D=1,porous stone,Ls=0
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 εs 0.15 0.2 0.25

0 400 800 1200 1600
p'(kPa)
(a) Stress path (b) Deviator stress-strain curve
1400
1200
1000
800 specimen 1-H/D=2, porous stone,Ls=0

u(kPa)
600
400
200
0 0.05 0.1 εs 0.15 0.2 0.25
(c) Excess pore pressure versus axial strain
Figure 5.6: Effect of slenderness ratio (ratio of height to diameter H/D) on specimens
in CIU test (mix proportion 2-1-4, with confining stress 1500kPa, lateral space Ls=0,
sample diameter is the same as that of caps)
(a) Specimen 1-H/D=2, porous stone, Ls=0, (b) Specimen2-H/D=1, porous stone, Ls=0
Figure 5.7: Samples after shearing in CIU test (mix proportion 2-1-4)
227
CHPATER 5
1200 1200

specimen 2-H/D=2, teflon,Ls=0
800 800
q(kPa)
q(kPa)
400 400

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 εs 0.15 0.2 0.25

0 200 p'(kPa) 400 600 800 1000

1000
800
600
u(kPa)

400
200
0 0.05 0.1 εs 0.15 0.2 0.25
Figure 5.8: Effect of end restraint (lubrication) on specimens in CIU test (mix
proportion 2-1-4, with confining stress 1000kPa, Ls=0, sample diameter is the same as
that of caps), slenderness ratio = 2.
(a) Specimen 1-H/D=2, porous stone, Ls=0, (b) Specimen 2-H/D=2, Teflon, Ls=0
Figure 5.9: Samples after shearing in CIU test (mix proportion 2-1-4)
228
CHPATER 5
1200 1200
800
q(kPa) 800
q(kPa)
400 400
specimen 1-H/D=2, porous stone,Ls=0 specimen 1-H/D=2, porous stone,Ls=0

specimen 2-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=0 specimen 2-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=0
specimen 3-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm specimen 3-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm
0 0
0 200 400 p'(kPa) 600 800 1000 0 0.04 0.08 εs 0.12 0.16 0.2
1000
800
600
u(kPa)
400
specimen 3-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm
200
0
εs
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
Figure 5.10: Effect of slenderness and end restraint on specimens in CIU test (mix
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5.11: Samples after shearing in CIU test (a) Specimen H/D=1, porous stone,
Ls=0, (b) Specimen H/D=1, Teflon, Ls=0 (c) Specimen -H/D=1, Teflon, Ls=6mm
229
CHPATER 5

tension cut-off line specimen 1-H/D=2, porous stone,Ls=0
1200 1200 specimen 2-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm
800 800
q(kPa)
q(kPa)
400 400
0 0
εs
0 200 400 p'(kPa) 600 800 1000 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
(a) Stress path (b) deviator stress-strain curve
1000
800
600
u(kPa)
400

200
0
εs
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
Figure 5.12: Effect of slenderness, end restraint and lateral space on specimens in CIU
test (mix proportion 2-1-4, specimen 1 and 2 with confining stress 1000kPa, specimen
3 and 4 with confining stress 500kPa)
230
CHPATER 5

specimen 3-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm, very large strain
1200
1000
800
q(kPa)
600
400
200
0 200 400 p'(kPa) 600 800 1000 1200
(a) Stress path
1200 specimen 1-H/D=2, porous stone,Ls=0

specimen 3-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm,very large strain
800
q(kPa)
400
0 0.2 εs 0.4 0.6
(b) Deviator stress-strain curve
1000
800
600
u(kPa)

400 specimen 2-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm
specimen 3-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm,very large strain
200
0
εs
0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Figure 5.13: Post-peak stress statuses at different range of axial strain in CIU test (mix
231
CHPATER 5
specimen 1-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm, specimen diameter 38mm

1200
1000
800
q(kPa)
600
400
200
0 200 400 600 p'(kPa)800 1000 1200
(a) Stress path
1200
800

q(kPa)
400
0 0.2 εs 0.4 0.6
1000
800
600 specimen 1-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=6mm, specimen diameter 38mm

u(kPa)
400
200
0
εs
0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Figure 5.14: Post-peak stress statuses at very larger axial strain in CIU test (mix
232
CHPATER 5
(a) (b)
Figure 5.15: Short samples with enlarged low friction platens after shearing to axial
strain of about 55% in CIU test (a) confining stress 1000kPa (b) confining stress
500kPa
3000 mix proportion 2-1-4
CID250
specimen 2-H/D=2, poroston,Ls=0mm
2000
q(kPa)
1000
0 0.2 0.4 εs 0.6 0.8
(a) Deviator stress-strain curve

p'(kPa)
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
mix propotion 2-1-4

CID 250
3.6 specimen 2-H/D=2, poroston,Ls=0mm
3.2
v
2.8
2.4
(b) Compression space
Figure 5.16: Comparison between conventional specimen and short specimen in CID
233
CHPATER 5

CID500
4000 specimen 1-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=10mm
3000
q(kPa)
2000
1000
0 0.2 0.4 εs 0.6 0.8
(a) Deviator stress-strain curve
p'(kPa)
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
mix propotion 2-1-4

CID 500
3.6 specimen 1-H/D=1, teflon,Ls=10mm
3.2
v
2.8
2.4
(b) Compression space
Figure 5.17: Comparison between conventional specimen and short specimen in CID
234
CHPATER 5
short CIU specimen with mix proprotion 2-1-4

conventional specimen with mix proportion 5-1-6
2000 conventional specimen with mix proportion 2-1-4
critical state line for short specimen
critical state line for conventional specimen
1600
1200
q(kPa)
800
400
0 200 400 600 800 1000

p'(kPa)
Figure 5.18: Critical state of conventional specimen and short specimen
(a) Microscopy within multiple shear bands
235
CHPATER 5
(b) Microscopy outside of multiple shear bands (without remoulding)
(c) Microscopy outside of multiple shear bands (after remoulding)
Figure 5.19: Microstructure of cement treated marine clay short specimens with mix
proportion 2:1:4 under effective confining pressure 500kPa and drained shearing
(500CID)
236
CHPATER 5
10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
Aw=50%
Aw=30%
3.2 Aw=20%
Aw=10%
Aw=50%-v=4.74-0.285Ln(p')
Aw=30%-v=4.19-0.25Ln(p')
Aw=20%-v=3.885-0.23Ln(p')
Aw=10%-v=3.52-0.20Ln(p')
2.8
specific volume V
2.4
Figure 5.20: Isotropic compression curves for remoulded cement-treated marine clay
specimens with different cement content and 100% total water content cured under
atmospheric pressure for 7 days before remoulding
10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
3.6
3.2
2.8
specific volume V
2.4
1.6
Aw=10%-unremoulded-v=6.44-0.54Ln(p')
remoulded marine clay- v=3.23-0.231Ln(p')
Aw=10%-remoulded-v=3.52-0.20Ln(p')
Figure 5.21: Isotropic compression curves for remoulded and unremoulded

cement-treated marine clay specimens and remoulded marine clay
237
CHPATER 5
10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
3.4
Cw=100%
Cw=133%
Cw=167%
3.2 Cw=100%-v=4.74-0.285Ln(p')
Cw=133%-v=4.85-0.30Ln(p')
Cw=167%-v=4.86-0.30Ln(p')
3
specific volume V
2.8
2.6
2.4
specimens with different total water content and 50% cement content cured under
atmospheric pressure for 7 days before remoulding
10 100 p'(kPa) 1000 10000
p'cur=0kPa
p'cur=50kPa
p'cur=100kPa
3.2
p'cur=250kPa
p'cur=0kPa-v=4.85-0.30Ln(p')
p'cur=50kPa-v=4.78-0.31Ln(p')
p'cur=100kPa-v=4.71-0.30Ln(p')
p'cur=250kPa-v=4.715-0.30Ln(p')
specific volume v
2.8
2.4
specimens with different curing stress and 50% cement content and 133% total water
content before remoulding
238
CHPATER 5
10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
3.2
Aw=50%-7ds
Aw=30%-7ds
Aw=20%-7ds
Aw=10%-7ds
Aw=50%-v=4.74-0.285Ln(p')
Aw=30%-v=4.19-0.25Ln(p')
2.8 Aw=20%-v=3.885-0.23Ln(p')
Aw=10%-v=3.52-0.20Ln(p')
Aw=50%-28ds
Aw=30%-28ds
specific volume V
Aw=20%-28ds
Aw=10%-28ds
Aw=50%-v=4.60-0.28Ln(p')
Aw=30%-v=4.12-0.24Ln(p')
2.4 Aw=20%-v=3.855-0.218Ln(p')
Aw=10%-v=3.62-0.22Ln(p')
specimens with different cement content and curing time before remoulding
239
CHPATER 5
700 remoulded marine clay

CIU100-experiment
CIU250-experiment
600 CIU500-experiment
CIU1000-experiment
M=0.88
CIU100-simulated
500
CIU250-simulated

CIU500-simulated
CIU1000-simulated
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(a) Simulated stress path (by modified Cam clay model) and experimental stress path
600
500
remoulded marine clay CIU TEST
CIU100
400 CIU250
CIU500
CIU1000
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

600
500
remoulded marine clay CIU TEST
CIU100
CIU250
400
pore pressure u(kPa)
CIU500
CIU1000
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
(c) Pore pressure versus axial strain

Figure 5.25: Undrained triaxial shearing behaviors of remoulded marine clay
specimens with 70 kPa preconsolidation pressure
240
CHPATER 5
Aw=10% CIU TEST
CIU100-experiment
CIU250-experiment
*CIU500-experiment
900 *CIU750-experiment
*CIU1000-experiment
800 M=1.50
CIU100-simulated
CIU250-simulated
700 CIU500-simulated
CIU750-simulated

500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(a) Experiment and simulated stress path by MCC (M=1.5, λ =0.20, κ =0.024)
Aw=10% CIU TEST

900
CIU100
CIU250
800 *CIU500
*CIU750
700 *CIU1000
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

Aw=10% CIU TEST
800 CIU100
CIU250
*CIU500
700
*CIU750
*CIU1000
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

Figure 5.26: Undrained triaxial shearing behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine
clay specimens with 10% cement content and 70 kPa preconsolidation pressure
(*indicates shear band was formed after peak value at about 12% axial strain)
241
CHPATER 5
Aw=10% CIU TEST
1000 P=70kPa,CIU250
P=70kPa,*CIU500
900 P=70kPa,*CIU1000
P=44kPa,CIU250
800 P=44kPa,CIU500
P=44kPa,*CIU1000
M=1.50
700
M=1.52

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(a) Stress path of specimen with preconsolidation pressure 70kPa and 44kPa
respectively 900
Aw=10% CIU TEST

800
P=70kPa,CIU250
P=70kPa,*CIU500
700 P=70kPa,*CIU1000
P=44kPa,CIU250
600 P=44kPa,CIU500
P=44kPa,*CIU1000
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
800
700
Aw=10% CIU TEST

600 P=70kPa,CIU250
P=70kPa,*CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
500
P=44kPa,CIU250
P=44kPa,CIU500
400 P=44kPa,*CIU1000
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

clay specimens with 10% cement content and different preconsolidation pressure (*
indicates shear band was formed after peak value at about 12% axial strain)
242
CHPATER 5
Aw=10%, P=70kPa, CIU TEST

CIU250-7ds
900
*CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
800 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
700 *CIU1000-28ds
M=1.50
600

500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
(a) Stress path of specimen with curing period 7 days and 28 days respectively
900
800 Aw=10%,P=70kPa, CIU TEST

CIU250-7ds
*CIU500-7ds
700
*CIU1000-7ds
CIU250-28ds
600
CIU500-28ds
*CIU1000-28ds
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
Aw=10%,P=70kPa, CIU TEST

600 CIU250-7ds
*CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
500
CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
400 *CIU1000-28ds
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

clay specimens with 10% cement content and 70kPa preconsolidation pressure and
different curing period (* indicates shear band was formed after peak value at about
12% axial strain)
243
CHPATER 5
CIU250-7ds
1000 CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
900 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
800 CIU750-28ds
M=1.52
M=1.50
700

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(a) Stress path of specimen with curing period 7 days and 28 days respectively
900 Aw=10%, P=44kPa,CIU TEST
CIU250-7ds
CIU500-7ds
800
*CIU1000-7ds
CIU250-28ds
700
CIU500-28ds
CIU750-28ds
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
(b) Deviator stress-strain curve Aw=10%, P=44kPa,CIU TEST

CIU250-7ds
800
CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
700 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
CIU750-28ds
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

12% axial strain)
244
CHPATER 5
Aw=20% CIU TEST
CIU100-experiment
CIU250-experiment
CIU500-experiment
*CIU750-experiment
*CIU1000-experiment
1100 M=1.65
CIU100-simulated
CIU500-simulated
CIU1000-simulated
800

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Aw=20% CIU TEST

CIU100
1100 CIU250
CIU500
1000 *CIU750
*CIU1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
axial strain εs(%)
800
700 Aw=20% CIU TEST

CIU100
CIU250
600 CIU500
*CIU750
*CIU1000
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
axial strain εs(%)

(*indicates shear band was formed after peak value or about 12% axial strain)
245
CHPATER 5
Aw=20% CIU TEST

1100 P=70kPa,CIU250
P=70kPa,CIU500
1000 P=70kPa,*CIU1000
P=44kPa,CIU225
900 P=44kPa,CIU500
P=44kPa,CIU1000
800 M=1.65
M=1.62

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
respectively 1100
1000
900 Aw=20% CIU TEST

P=70kPa,CIU250
800 P=70kPa,CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
700
P=44kPa,CIU225
P=44kPa,CIU500
600
P=44kPa,*CIU1000
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
Aw=20% CIU TEST
P=70kPa,CIU250
600 P=70kPa,CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
500 P=44kPa,CIU225
P=44kPa,CIU500
P=44kPa,*CIU1000
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
246
CHPATER 5
1000 CIU100-7ds
CIU500-7ds
900 *CIU750-7ds
CIU100-28ds
800 CIU500-28ds
CIU750-28ds
M=1.65
700
M=1.61

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(a) Stress path of specimen with pre-remoulding curing period 7 days and 28 days
respectively 900
800
700
600
500
CIU100-7ds
400 CIU500-7ds
*CIU750-7ds
300 CIU100-28ds
CIU500-28ds
200 CIU750-28ds
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
600
500
400
300 Aw=20%,P=70kPa, CIU TEST

CIU100-7ds
CIU500-7ds
200 *CIU750-7ds
CIU100-28ds
CIU500-28ds
CIU750-28ds
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
different curing periods (* indicates shear band was formed after peak value at about
12% axial strain)
247
CHPATER 5
CIU225-7ds
1100 CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
1000 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
900 *CIU1000-28ds
M=1.62
800 M=1.61

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
respectively 1100
1000

CIU225-7ds
800 CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
700
CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
600
*CIU1000-28ds
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
Aw=20%, P=44kPa,CIU TEST

600 CIU225-7ds
CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
500 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
*CIU1000-28ds
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
12% axial strain)
248
CHPATER 5
Aw=30% CIU TEST

CIU250-experiment
*CIU750-experiment
1200
*CIU1000-experiment
1100 M=1.73
CIU250-simulated
CIU750-simulated

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Aw=30% CIU TEST

CIU250
1200
CIU500
*CIU750
1100
*CIU1000
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
Aw=30% CIU TEST

600 CIU250
CIU500
*CIU750
*CIU1000
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
axial strain εs(%)

249
CHPATER 5
1300 Aw=30% CIU TEST

P=70kPa,CIU250
1200 P=70kPa,CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
1100 P=44kPa,CIU215
P=44kPa,CIU500
1000
P=44kPa,*CIU1000
900 M=1.73

M=1.67
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
respectively 1200
1100

P=70kPa,CIU250
900 P=70kPa,CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
800
P=44kPa,CIU215
700 P=44kPa,CIU500
P=44kPa,*CIU1000
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
Aw=30% CIU TEST
600 P=70kPa,CIU250
P=70kPa,CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
500 P=44kPa,CIU215
P=44kPa,CIU500
400 P=44kPa,*CIU1000
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

250
CHPATER 5

CIU250-7ds
1300 CIU500-7ds
*CIU750-7ds
1200
*CIU1000-7ds
1100 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
1000 CIU750-28ds
CIU1000-28ds
900
M=1.73

800 M=1.71
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
respectively 1200 CIU250-7ds
CIU500-7ds
1100 *CIU750-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
1000
CIU250-28ds
900 CIU500-28ds
*CIU750-28ds
800
*CIU1000-28ds
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
800
CIU250-7ds
CIU500-7ds
700 *CIU750-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
600
CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
*CIU750-28ds
500 *CIU1000-28ds
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

12% axial strain)
251
CHPATER 5
1200 Aw=30%, P=44kPa, CIU TEST

CIU215-7ds
1100 CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
1000 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
900 *CIU1000-28ds
M=1.67
800

M=1.67
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
1100
respectively
CIU215-7ds
900 CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
800
CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
700
*CIU1000-28ds
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

800
700

600 CIU215-7ds
CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
500
CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
400 *CIU1000-28ds
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

12% axial strain)
252
CHPATER 5
Aw=50% CIU TEST

CIU500-experiment
*CIU1000-experiment
1100
M=1.77
CIU500-simulated

900
CIU750-simulated
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
1300
1200
1100
Aw=50% CIU TEST
1000 CIU100
CIU150
900 CIU200
CIU500
800 *CIU750
*CIU1000
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
600
Aw=50% CIU TEST
CIU100
CIU150
500
CIU200
CIU500
*CIU750
400
*CIU1000
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

253
CHPATER 5
Aw=10% CIU TEST
CIU100-10%
CIU250-10%
1400 *CIU500-10%
*CIU750-10%
1300 *CIU1000-10%
1200 M=1.50
CIU100-50%
1100 CIU250-50%
CIU500-50%
1000
CIU750-50%

900 CIU1000-50%
M=1.77
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
(a) Stress path of specimen with 10% and 50% cement content respectively
CIU100-10%
1200 CIU250-10%
*CIU500-10%
1100
*CIU750-10%
1000 *CIU1000-10%
900 CIU100-50%
CIU250-50%
800 CIU500-50%
700 *CIU750-50%
*CIU1000-50%
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
(b) Deviator stress-strain curve Aw=10% CIU TEST

800 CIU100-10%
CIU250-10%
*CIU500-10%
700
*CIU750-10%
*CIU1000-10%
600 CIU100-50%
CIU250-50%
CIU500-50%
500
*CIU750-50%
*CIU1000-50%
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

Figure 539:: Undrained triaxial shearing behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine
clay specimens with different cement content and 70 kPa preconsolidation pressure
254
CHPATER 5
Aw=50%, P=70kPa, 28days, CIU TEST
CIU250-experiment
CIU500-experiment
CIU750-experiment
CIU250-simulated
1300
CIU500-simulated
1200 *CIU750-simulated
*CIU1000-simulated
1100
M=1.74
1000

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
(a) With preconsolidation pressure 70kPa and curing period 28days (M=1.74, λ =0.29,
κ =0.015) Aw=50%, P=44kPa, 7days, CIU TEST
1200
CIU250-experiment
*CIU1000-experiment
CIU500-simulated
M=1.70
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(b) With preconsolidation pressure 44kPa and curing period 7days (M=1.70, λ =0.29,
κ =0.015)
Aw=50%, P=44kPa, 28days, CIU TEST
CIU500-experiment
1100
CIU1000-experiment
CIU250-simulated
1000
CIU500-simulated
900 *CIU1000-simulated
M=1.70
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(b) With preconsolidation pressure 44kPa and curing period 28days (M=1.70, λ =0.29,
κ =0.015)
Figure 5.40: Simulation of stress path of remoulded cement-treated marine clay
specimens with 50% cement content by modified Cam clay model
255
CHPATER 5

P=70kPa,CIU250
1300 P=70kPa,CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
1200
P=44kPa,CIU250
1100 P=44kPa,CIU500
P=44kPa,*CIU1000
1000
M=1.77

900 M=1.70
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
respectively 1300
Aw=50% CIU TEST
1200
P=70kPa,CIU250
1100 P=70kPa,CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
1000 P=44kPa,CIU250
P=44kPa,CIU500
900
P=44kPa,*CIU1000
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
800
700
Aw=50% CIU TEST

600 P=70kPa,CIU250
P=70kPa,CIU500
P=70kPa,*CIU1000
500
P=44kPa,CIU250
P=44kPa,CIU500
400 P=44kPa,*CIU1000
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

256
CHPATER 5

CIU100-7ds
CIU250-7ds
CIU500-7ds
*CIU750-7ds
1400
*CIU1000-7ds
1300 CIU100-28ds
CIU250-28ds
1200 CIU500-28ds
1100 CIU750-28ds
*CIU1000-28ds
1000 M=1.77

M=1.74
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
respectively 1400
1300 CIU100-7ds
CIU250-7ds
1200
CIU500-7ds
1100 *CIU750-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
1000 CIU100-28ds
900 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
800 CIU750-28ds
700 *CIU1000-28ds
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

800
CIU100-7ds
700
CIU250-7ds
CIU500-7ds
600 *CIU750-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
CIU100-28ds
500
CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
400 CIU750-28ds
*CIU1000-28ds
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

12% axial strain)
257
CHPATER 5
1300 CIU250-7ds
CIU500-7ds
1200
*CIU1000-7ds
1100 CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
1000 CIU1000-28ds
M=1.70
900
M=1.70

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
respectively CIU250-7ds
CIU500-7ds
*CIU1000-7ds
1300
CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
1200 CIU1000-28ds
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

800
700

CIU250-7ds
CIU500-7ds
500 *CIU1000-7ds
CIU250-28ds
CIU500-28ds
400
CIU1000-28ds
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)

12% axial strain)
258
CHPATER 5
1200 Aw=50%, P=44kPa, 7days, CIU TEST

CIU250-experiment
*CIU1000-experiment
CIU500-simulated
M=1.70
800

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(a) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-3(M=1.70, λ =0.29, κ =0.015)

1200
2-1-4-P=44kPa-CIU TEST
CIU250-experiment
1100
CIU500-experiment
CIU1000-experiment
1000 M=1.70
CIU250-simulated
CIU1000-simulated
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
(b) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-4 (M=1.7, λ =0.30, κ =0.015)
1200
2-1-5 CIU TEST
CIU250-experiment
CIU1000-experiment
1000 M=1.70
CIU250-simulated
CIU100-simulated
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
(c) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-5 (M=1.7, λ =0.30, κ =0.015)

Figure 5.44: Experiment and simulated Stress paths of remoulded cement-treated
marine clay specimens with preloading 44kPa (from cement-treated marine clay with
50% cement content and different total water content, cured under atmospheric
pressure for 7 days)
259
CHPATER 5
1200
1100
1000
2-1-3 CIU TEST
CIU250
900 CIU500
*CIU1000
800

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
axial strain εs(%)
(a) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-3

1100
1000
900 2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU250
800 CIU500
CIU1000
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
axial strain εs(%)
(b) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-4

1100
1000
900 2-1-5 CIU TEST

CIU100
800 CIU250
CIU500
CIU1000
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
(c) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-5

Figure 5.45: Stress-strain curve of remoulded cement-treated marine clay specimens
with preloading 44kPa (from cement-treated marine clay with 50% cement content and
different pre-remoulding total water content, cured under atmospheric pressure for 7
days)
260
CHPATER 5
800
700
600
2-1-3 CIU TEST
CIU250
CIU500

500
CIU1000
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
axial strain εs(%)
(a) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-3

800
700
2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU250
600 CIU500
CIU1000
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
axial strain εs(%)
(b) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-4

800
700
2-1-5 CIU TEST

CIU100
600 CIU250
CIU500
CIU1000
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
axial strain εs(%)
(c) Remoulded from mix proportion 2-1-5

Figure 5.46: Excess pore pressure-strain curve of remoulded cement-treated marine
clay specimens with preloading 44kPa (from cement-treated marine clay with 50%
cement content and different pre-remoulding total water content, cured under
atmospheric pressure for 7 days)
261
CHPATER 5
0-2-1-4-P=70kPa CIU TEST

CIU250-experiment
CIU500-experiment
CIU1000-experiment
CIU750-experiment
CIU1250-experiment
1300 M=1.70
CIU250-simulated
CIU750-simulated
1100
CIU1000-simulated
900

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
1100
1000
900 0-2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU250
800 CIU500
CIU1000
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
0-2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU250
600
CIU500
CIU1000
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15
axial strain εs(%)

clay specimens with preconsolidation pressure 70kPa (remoulded from cement-treated
marine clay with 50% cement content and 133% total water content and cured under
atmospheric pressure for 7 days)
262
CHPATER 5
50-2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU100-experiment
CIU250-experiment
CIU750-experiment
M=1.70
1000
CIU250-simulated
CIU500-simulated
900
CIU750-simulated

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
1100
1000
900 50-2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU100
800 CIU250
CIU500
CIU1000
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
50-2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU100
600
CIU250
CIU500
CIU1000
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
axial strain εs(%)

marine clay with 50% cement content and 133% total water content and 50kPa curing
stress)
263
CHPATER 5
1200
100-2-1-4 CIU TEST
CIU250-experiment
CIU750-experiment
M=1.70
CIU500-simulated
CIU1000-simulated

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
100-2-1-4 CIU TEST
CIU250
200
CIU500
CIU750
100
CIU1000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
600
100-2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU250
500
CIU500
CIU750
CIU1000
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
axial strain εs(%)

marine clay with 50% cement content and 133% total water content and 100kPa curing
stress)
264
CHPATER 5
1200
250-2-1-4 CIU TEST
CIU250-experiment
CIU750-experiment
M=1.70
CIU500-simulated
CIU1000-simulated

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
250-2-1-4 CIU TEST
200 CIU250
CIU500
100 CIU750
CIU1000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
axial strain εs(%)

800
700
600
250-2-1-4 CIU TEST

CIU250
500
CIU500
CIU750
400 CIU1000
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
axial strain εs(%)

Figure 5.50: Uundrained triaxial shearing behavior of remoulded cement-treated
marine clay specimens with preconsolidation pressure 70kPa (remoulded from
cement-treated marine clay with 50% cement content and 133% total water content
and 250kPa curing stress)
265
CHPATER 5
5000 4
peak strength line (OCR=1)
OCR=1 (peak strength) p'≅po'/2
varies YSR (peak strength)
varies OCR (peak strength) 3.6 4.1

1 8.2
4000 8.2 1.6
post-rupture strength 2
4.1
10
3
5
1 2
Deviatoric stress, q (kN/m2)
3.2
tension cut-off line 20 1.6
30
Specific volume, ν
3000 peak strength envelope 20 2
(OCR=1) 2
30
2.8 3
4 1 1
5 2 3
2000
SEM points SEM points
3
2.4
2
1 0CID50 1 0CID50
30
30 6 2 0CIU50 2 0CIU50 1
3
post-ruptured
2 2
3 0CIU500 3 0CIU500 isotropic compression
1000 20 strength envelope
20 1.6
2 of 0CON0 specimen
4 0CIU1500 4 0CIU1500 6 1
2 10 PYCL
5
5 0CID500
8.2 4.1 5 0CID500 5 CCL
1.6
4.1 4 post-ruptured strengths
8.2
3 6 0CID1500 6 0CID1500
0 2 1.6
1
20 30 50 200 300 500 2000 3000 5000
0 1000 2000 3000 10 100 1000
Mean normal effective stress, p' (kN/m2) Mean normal effective stress, p' (kN/m2)
1 4
2 5
3 6
Figure 5.51: Microstructure at post-rupture states, as shown in the mechanical behaviour (after
Chin (2006))
266
CHPATER 5
(a) (b)
Figure 5.52 Comparison between SEM of remoulded cement-treated marine clay and
cement-treated marine clay after drained shearing test (a) remoulded cement-treated
marine clay specimen, (b) rupture plane of cement-treated marine clay
(CID2500-1250)
267
CHAPTER 6
A CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR CEMENT-TREATED
MARINE CLAY
In this chapter, a constitutive model will be proposed for cement-treated marine clay. First,
general framework for describing the behavior of structured soil such as natural and artificially
cemented soil is discussed. Second, by introducing hardening parameter and structure-relevant
parameter, an empirical framework for cement-treated soil based on experimental study in
Chapter 4 was proposed. Third, by considering inherent cohesion and internal friction, a
theoretical framework based on the observation of constitutive behavior of cement-treated soil
and energy equation was proposed furthermore. In order to determine the structure effect and
the degradation of structure during loading, based on the experiment study of the previous
chapter, the remoulded cement-treated marine clay was used as a reference state of
cement-treated marine clay. Finally, the hardening parameter and structure-relevant parameter
were investigated and appropriate relationship between these parameters and plastic strains and
works were proposed.
6.1. Introduction
Many constitutive models have been proposed for natural or artificial structured or
cemented soils. In the discussion below, the constitutive models are grouped into a few broad
categories, namely
1. those using expanded structure surfaces,
269
CHAPTER6
2. those using a superposition approach, as well as
3. other methods such as ‘history stress tensor’ method and micromechanical method.
6.1.1. Expanded structure surface approach
Many researchers used an enlarged yield surface to model the effect of soil structure (e.g.
Rouainia and Muir Wood, 2000; Kavvadas and Amoros, 2000; Liu and Carter, 2002; Asaoka et
al, 2000; Baudet and Stallebrass et al, 2004).
Many models do not model the tensile strength (e.g. Muir Wood, 1995; Liu and Carter,
2002; Asaoka et al, 2000; Baudet and Stallebrass et al, 2004). In these models, the structure
surface is enlarged yield surface of uncemented or reconstituted soil. Since the structure
surface passes through the origin of the stress space, the effect of the expanded structure
surface is essentially to increase the “pre-consolidation” pressure (often called isotropic yield
stress since there is really no over-consolidation), thereby inducing an over-consolidation
effect on the soil. Thus, philosophically, the effect of structure is considered to be equivalent to
that of over-consolidation.
The position and size of the structure surface will change with loss of structure or
cementation. When the soil becomes totally unstructured, the structure surface will coincide
with the yield surface of the unstructured or reconstituted soil. For example, Muir Wood (1995)
proposed a constitutive model for structured soil based on the kinematic hardening modified
Cam-clay model. The structure yield surface is expanded elliptic surface of reference surface
or intrinsic surface. The evolution of the structure surface is controlled by a structure
parameter and pre-consolidation stress, which changes with plastic strain.
270
CHAPTER6
Similarly, Asaoka et al. (2000) proposed a constitutive model for highly structured soil by
introducing superloading yield surface, which is an enlarged original Cam-clay yield locus.
The state of the structure is defined as the ratio of the size of the original Cam-clay yield
surface and structure yield surface, and this ratio changes with plastic strain. The soil finally
reaches a remoulded and normally consolidated state, with the structure surface coinciding
with the original Cam-clay yield surface.
Liu and Carter (2002) also proposed a Structured-Cam Clay model expanding the
Modified Cam Clay yield surface into a structure surface. In this model, the structured Cam
Clay is idealized as an isotropic hardening and destructuring material with elastic and virgin
yielding behavior.
More recently, Baudet and Stallebrass (2004) proposed a constitutive model for structured
clays by introducing sensitivity to the existing structure. Sensitivity is, in reality, a structure
parameter and is assumed to decrease exponentially with damage strain, which equals to the
magnitude of the vector of plastic strain increment. In the computation of the “damage” strain,
both volumetric and shear strains are accorded equal weightage. The evolution of the structure
surface is controlled by the sensitivity and pre-consolidation stress, which changes with plastic
strain. At ultimate failure, the structure surface coincides with the intrinsic (i.e. unstructured)
surface. All these models do not model any tensile strength or true cohesion of cemented soil
imparted by cementation or bonding. In this discussion, the true cohesion refers to the ability
of the soil to withstand shear or deviator stress even in the absence of effective stress. As
shown in Chapter 4, cement-treated marine clay submerged unconfined in a bowl of water for
a prolonged period of time still maintains its shape; this is suggestive of the presence of true
271
CHAPTER6
cohesion. These models also assume the shape of structure surface is the same as that of
uncemented or reconstituted soil, which as discussed in Chapter 4, is not the case for
cement-treated marine clay. Thus, expanded yield surface alone is unlikely to be able to model
the behavior of cement-treated marine clay.
Some constitutive models do model tensile strength (e.g. Liu et al., 2006; Horpibulsuk et
al., 2009; Lee et al., 2004; Rouainia and Muir Wood, 2000; Kavvadas and Amoros, 2000; Gens
and Nova, 1993; Lagioia and Nova, 1993; 1995). A common method of doing this is to
left-shift the structure surface or yield locus so that part of it lies in the tensile region of the
stress space. As in the models without tensile strength, the position and size of the structure
surface also changes with loss of structure or bonding and finally coincides with the yield
surface of unstructured or reconstituted soil. For example, Gens and Nova (1993) proposed a
conceptual constitutive model for bonded soils and weak rocks by including a single yield
surface and non-associated flow rule. Two parameters were used to define the new enlarged
yield locus. The first parameter, P 'c 0 , controls the yielding of the bonded soil in isotropic
compression while the second parameter, Pt ' , relates to the cohesion and tensile strength. The
evolution of yield locus is controlled by volumetric hardening (as in unstructured soil) and
bond degradation. Under high confining pressure, the yield locus initially moves rightwards (to
model a decrease in tensile strength) and expands. As plastic strain continues to increase, the
yield locus continues moving rightwards but decreases in size. Under low confining pressure,
the initial expansion phase does not occur. Lagioia and Nova (1993, 1995) also proposed a
similar constitutive model for soft rocks.
Kavvadas and Amorosi (2000) proposed a constitutive model for structured soil by
272
CHAPTER6
introducing a bond strength envelope (BSE) which is effectively an outer structure surface.
Compared to Gens and Nova’s (1993) model, this model requires two surfaces. The inner
surface delimits elastic and plastic state. The external surface is controlled by bond strength.
The evolution of yield surface is controlled by two hardening rules. The first rule, kinematic
hardening, controls the position of the surfaces while the second rule, isotropic hardening,
controls the size of the structure surface. The later is composed of two components. The
volumetric component models the intrinsic volumetric hardening and the
volumetric-strain-induced structure degradation, which is similar to Gens and Nova’s (1993),
and Lagioia and Nova’s (1995) model. The deviator component models shear-induced
structure degradation. This enables the structure surface to decrease in size with plastic shear
strain.
Based on Wood’s (1995) model, Rouainia and Wood (2000) proposed a kinematic
hardening constitutive model for natural clays that considered tensile strength. Three yield
surfaces were used in this model. The reference surface represents the behavior of
reconstituted or completely remoulded soil and will move with plastic volumetric strain. A
kinematically hardening bubble delimits the elastic and plastic regions and moves with the
current stress. Once the current stress approaches the bubble, plastic strain occurs. A structure
surface contains information about the magnitude and anisotropy of structure. As plastic strain
occurs, it tends to collapse towards the reference surface. The evolution of structure surface is
similar to that proposed in Gens and Nova (1993)’s model. When the structure is totally lost,
the reference surface coincides with structure surface.
The expanded yield surface approach, with tensile strength, has also been used for
273
CHAPTER6
modeling cement treated soils (e.g. Liu et al., 2006; Horpibulsuk et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2004).
Lee et al. (2004) proposed a constitutive model for cement treated clay by introducing bonding
stress ratio m and critical state parameter λ ' . These parameters are used to simulate the
increase in the initial stiffness and shear strength of cement treated soil and subsequent
progressive reduction in stiffness and strength due to breaking of the bonding as a result of
shearing. The initial yield locus is an elliptic surface, including tensile strength. The evolution
of yield locus is similar to Gens and Nova (1993)’s model. The yield locus will move
rightwards and expands with plastic strain. After peak strength, the yield locus tends to shrink.
Finally, the structure surface becomes a “critical state” surface, which is the same as the yield
surface of the unstructured or reconstituted material.
Based on Liu and Carter’s(2002) model, Liu et al (2006) and Horpibulsuk et al. (2009)
proposed a constitutive model for cement treated clay based on concept similar to Lee et al.’s
(2004) model by introducing a modified mean effective stress. In this model, the new
parameter C, which is related to the shear strength contributed by cementation, is assumed
constant before peak point. As such, the structure surface expands according to virgin
compression curve before peak point. After peak strength, the structure surface will move
rightwards and collapse. Finally the structure surface will be the same as that of the
unstructured or reconstituted material. Obviously, the shortcomings of these models are the
same as those for natural cemented soils.
It may be noted that left-shifting the yield locus to allow for negative p' actually preserves
the shape of the yield locus. This may be difficult to justify on philosophical grounds since
different strength and failure mechanisms come into play in compression and tension. Yielding
274
CHAPTER6
under compression is likely to mobilize friction, interlocking (or densification) and kinematic
hardening. On the other hand, tensile failure is probably more appropriate related to cracking
and fracture. It is difficult to see how friction and interlocking can exist under tensile
conditions. For this reason, although left-shifted yield surface with the same shape may be able
to model the effect of tensile stress on a phenomenological level, they may ultimately lack
physical underpinning
6.1.2. Superposition method
Another approach which have been used for constitutive models of cemented soils is the
superposition approach (e.g. Chazallon and Hicher, 1998; 1995; Vatsala et al., 2001; Yu et al.,
1998; Shen, 1993a, 1993b; Liu and Shen, 2005). In these models, the response of cemented
soil was assumed to be the sum of the soil skeleton (i.e., friction between grains) and
cementation bond, which were modeled separately. In most cases, the response variable used is
either stress or stress-strain matrix.
Vatsala et al. (2001) proposed an elastoplastic model for cemented soils in which the
strength is assumed to be made of two components: the usual strength of the remoulded soil
skeleton, and the strength of cementation bond. The overall response of the cemented soil
under loading are reflected in these two components. The modified Cam-clay model is used for
soil skeleton stress-strain relationship whereas a simple elastic-plastic model is proposed for
cemented component.
Similarly, Chazallon and Hicher (1995, 1998) proposed a constitutive model for bonded
geomaterials. The overall response is composed from that of the bonds and non-bonded
275
CHAPTER6
material, which are modeled by an elasto-plastic model and an elastic model with damage
separately. However, Chazallon and Hicher (1998) stated that their model is only applicable for
cemented soil in which the cement bonds exist only at the particle contacts and not in the
interstitial pore spaces. This is likely to severely affect their applicability to cement-treated
marine clay.
Shen (1933a, 1993b) and Liu and Shen (2005) proposed nonlinear elastic model and
elasto-plastic model for structured clays, which involves superimpose the stress-strain matrices
of an unstructured component and of the cementation. The philosophical basis of their models
is the assumption that, at any stage during loading, a structured soil body is a binary medium
consisting of bonded blocks and weakened bands which are idealized as elastic-brittle
elements and elasto-plastic elements, respectively. Before destructuration, the soil response is
reflected in elasto-brittle material. After the elasto-brittle material is damaged, it is
considered to be transformed into an elasto-plastic material and can be modeled by modified
Cam clay model. The superposition process therefore treats structured and unstructured
portions to be physical entities occupying different points within the soil body, rather than as
components of strengths and stiffness within a same material. A weighting function is used to
define the relative proportion of damaged to undamaged material within the soil body. The
validity of this philosophy has not been established and it is difficult to see how structured and
unstructured parts can be delineated in space within a soil body.
Yu et al. (1998) proposed a constitutive model for cement treated soil (with clay， sand
and gravel) using a similar philosophy but representing both the structured and unstructured
components by Mohr-Coulomb models. The strength of cement treated soil is assumed to be
276
CHAPTER6
composed of structural strength and frictional resistance strength, both of which satisfy
Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion.
In these models, direct superposition often involves the superposition of two independent
constitutive models. This often leads to a large number of material parameters. For instance,
Yu et al.’s (1998) model involves 12 parameters without even considering compression
yielding. The evaluation of these parameters may be difficult and without a proper test
programme, parametric values may not be uniquely defined. In severe cases, this may lead to
highly counter-intuitive and unreasonable values. For example, Yu et al.’s (1998) requires two
cohesion values, one for the structured part and another one for the frictional resistance, that is
unstructured part. Yu et al. stated that “…for the structural part, the value of c is generally
fairly large and that of ϕ is fairly low; otherwise, for the frictional resistance part, c is
generally fairly low and ϕ is fairly large”. This is however, not reflected in their proposed
parameters for 4 different mixes. In three out of the four mixes, the value of c ranges from
200kPa to 500kPa for the frictional resistance part. This is counter-intuitive for an unstructured
part which is not supposed to have any cohesion. Furthermore, in one of the mixes, the friction
angle for the structural part is larger than the value for frictional resistance part; this clearly
contradicts Yu et al.’s statement. Thirdly, comparison of parameters of two different mixes
shows that a mix which has a higher cement content and lower water content has a lower
structural c value than another with lower cement content and higher water content, which is
counter-intuitive. Finally, the friction angles for the structural part shows large fluctuations
ranging from 11.5° to 40.7°. This highlights the danger of models which have a large number
of parameters and are based largely on mathematical devices with little or no physical basis.
277
CHAPTER6
In addition, in cases such as cemented-treated soil, where the truly unstructured state may
not be readily defined, the unstructured constitutive model may also not be evaluated readily.
6.1.3. Other methods
Other methods were also used in the constitutive modeling of cemented soil by some
researches (e.g. Wong and Mitchell, 1975; Oka et al., 1989; Hirai et al., 1989; Adachi T. and
Oka F., 1993, 1995; Abdulla and Kiousis, 1997; Namikawa and Mihria, 2007). For instance,
Oka et al. (1989) proposed a constitutive model for natural soft clay by introducing stress
history tensor and including tensile strength. The material strength is composed of frictional
strength and cementation. The frictional strength is relatively small at the early stages of the
straining process and the strength due to cementation decreases with the advances of
deformation and eventually frictional strength develops. Adachi and Oka (1993, 1995)
proposed a similar constitutive model for soft rock by introducing stress history tensor.
Abdulla and Kiousis (1997) proposed a constitutive model for lightly cement-treated sand by
using micromechanical method. In this model, the clean sand, the cementing bond and the pore
pressure are modeled independently. Some constitutive models were also proposed for cement
treated sand or sandy soil (Hirai et al., 1989; Namikawa and Mihria, 2007). In most of these
models, yield locus does not feature compression caps.
6.1.4. Difficulties in using existing models for cement-treated marine clays
The models discussed above suffer from two shortcomings when applied to
cement-treated marine clay. These are as follows:
278
CHAPTER6
1. The experimental data clearly shows a change in the shape, or at least the aspect ratio,
of the yield surface. This is not modeled by most of the models.
2. Many of the models have numerous parameters which cannot be readily evaluated.
As discussed above, in extreme cases, this can lead to highly counter-intuitive or
unreasonable parametric values.
6.2. An empirical constitutive framework for cement-treated marine
clay
In this section, an empirical constitutive framework for cement-treated marine clay is
introduced, which is basically based on the analysis of experimental results in Chapter 4. Two
different yield functions were introduced in this framework. One is mainly based on original
modified Cam-clay, with elliptical yield locus shape passing through the origin of the stress
plane p’-q and change in stress ratio on the top of the yield locus. This is the approach used by
Lee et al. (2004). In Lee et al’s (2004) model, a bonding stress ratio was introduced to consider
the change in stress ratio on the top of the yield locus. The bonding stress ratio is composed of
two components. The first component is the critical stress ratio M in the modified Cam clay
model. The second component is related to structure effect and destructuration process.
Another one is based on McDowell’s (2000) yield function, with yield locus passing through
the origin of the stress plane and change in stress ratio on the top of the yield locus. In both
yield functions, the yield locus expands with the increase in the plastic volumetric strain and
flattens with destructruation due to plastic strain. The former is actually volumetric hardening
whereas the later is referred to kinematic softening.
279
CHAPTER6
6.2.1. Empirical yield function one
Based on formula (4-1) and experiment results (e.g., Figures 4-63 to Figures 4-69), the
yield function is given below:
q = N p ' p0' − p '2 (6-1)
Where N is the stress ratio at the top of the yield locus
It must be pointed out that N is always higher than critical state friction dissipation
constant M at unstructured status due to the structure effect. Clearly, when N=M, which is
critical state friction coefficient, formula (6-1) is modified Cam-clay model yield function. N
may equal to M only after the cementation bond is destroyed fully, which may be only found
within the shear band in triaxial compression test. Consequently, there are two hardening
parameters. One parameter is po' , which is responsible for volumetric hardening and nothing
new. However, the conventional way is not suitable for determination of po' as a reference
state is needed when po' is higher than isotropic compression primary yield stress p 'py . The
determination of p 'py was discussed in detail in Chapter 4, which will also coved in section
6.4. The determination of po' after p 'py will be introduced in detail in section 6.4.
Another parameter is N, which is responsible for destructuration or kinematic softening.
For simplicity and convenience, N is considered as a function of plastic volumetric strain ε vp .
Figures 6-1 shows the relationship between N and ε vp for different mix proportion. As can be
seen, N can be express as below:
N = a1ε vpb1 (6-2)
Where a1=1.2299, b1=-0.2543 in this study.
280
CHAPTER6
Place formula (6-2) in formula (6-1), the yield function in empirical method one is as
below:
q = a1ε vpb1 p ' p0' − p '2 (6-3)
By using formula (6-3), at the certain po' and ε vp , a corresponding yield locus can be obtained.
Figures 6-2 shows the simulated yield locus and experimental yield points. Therefore, by using
two hardening parameters, the yield locus and its evolution can be obtained approximately.
6.2.2. Empirical yield function two
McDowell (2000) derived a family of yield loci, using a proposed work equation together
with the application of the normality principle. The yield function is as below:
η = M [α ln( p0' / p ')]1/ α (6-4)
McDowell found that when parameter α equals to 1.5, the yield locus is quite close to that of
original Modified Cam-clay. Therefore, another empirical yield function can be as below:
η = N [1.5ln( p0' / p ')]1/1.5 (6-5)
N has similar meaning as that in formula (6-1) and can also be related to volumetric plastic
strain. Also, when N=M, formula (6-5) reduces to McDowell’s yield function. Figures 6-3
show the relationship between N and ε vp for different mix proportion. Finally N can be
expressed as below:
N = a2ε vpb2
(6-6)
Where, a2=1.2748, b2=-0.2479 in this study.
Combining formula (6-5) and (6-6), the yield function in empirical method 2 is given below:
η = a2ε vpb [1.5ln( p0' / p ')]1/1.5

2
(6-7)
281
CHAPTER6
Similarly, for a given po' and ε vp , a yield locus can be obtained. Figures 6-4 show the
simulated yield locus and experimental yield points. Therefore, by using two hardening
parameters, the yield locus and its evolution can also be obtained approximately.
It must be pointed out that in empirical yield functions, the inherent cohesion or tensile
strength were not be able to be considered, which do not reflect the real status of cemented
soils. As such these yield function are only suitable for some loading conditions, for example,
triaxial loading condition. In order to overcome the shortcomings of these empirical yield
functions, a conceptual yield function was proposed based on theoretical study. This will be
addressed in next section.
6.3. A theoretical constitutive framework for cement-treated marine
clay
As discussed in Chapter 4, the observed primary yield locus is different from that of
untreated marine clay. Previous research has shown that the yield locus of remoulded marine
clay can be modeled by original modified Cam-clay. For example, Chua (1990) noted that
remoulded, isotropically reconsolidated Singapore marine clay behaves in a manner that is
reasonably well-described by the modified Cam-clay model with M~0.9. More importantly, as
presented in Chapter 4, upon shearing, the yield locus gradually evolves into an elliptical shape
which is akin to the modified Cam Clay, even though the friction coefficient M remains much
higher than that of remoulded untreated marine clay. As discussed above, using a model which
involves a primary yield locus of the same shape and aspect ratio but different size will not
replicate what the test data show. In the previous section, it has been shown using a series of
282
CHAPTER6
elliptical structure surfaces with changing aspect ratios can give a reasonable well fit to the
evolution of the yield surface during destructuration. However, there are shortcomings in these
two empirical yield functions. Firstly, it is not clear which parameter physically captures the
loss of structure. In the first model, the parameter N is used to change the aspect ratio of the
elliptical yield locus, but N is, in fact, the same parameter as the friction coefficient M in the
modified Cam Clay. Thus, while it may be possible to account for structure by increasing
friction coefficient, this is clearly less than satisfying from a physical viewpoint. The same
goes for the modified McDowell’s function. Secondly, both empirical yield functions do not
prescribe any true cohesion; the deviator stress goes to zero when the mean effective stress
decreases to zero. It is also evident that both yield functions do not prescribe any tensile
strength, which is contrary to what was measured from the Brazilian tests. Attempts to fit the
observed yield loci using a non-zero tensile strength, i.e. by allowing p' to go negative,
following the approach of some researchers (e.g. Liu et al., 2006; Horpibulsuk et al., 2009; Lee
et al., 2004) did not meet with much success. As shown in Figure 6.5, if negative p’ is allowed
in the yield locus, the resulting N (or M) value is exceedingly high, as much as ~5. Using
lower N-values led to very poor fit. In addition, using the same function to describe yielding
under compression and tensile failure (not yielding) may not be theoretically viable. For
instance, the elliptical yield function was originally founded upon the notions that interlocking
and friction are the components giving rise to shear strength in the soil. Left-shifting the yield
locus to allow for negative p' would imply that these components also apply under tension and
it is difficult to see how friction and interlocking can exist under tensile conditions. Similarly,
McDowell’s relation was based on the original Cam Clay energy equation, which is also based
283
CHAPTER6
on interlocking and friction. For this reason, it may be better to acknowledge the existence of
another mechanics, possibly fracture mechanics, under tension and that compressive yielding
and tensile failure may not be governed by the same function.
As mentioned earlier, the use of a yield locus with a constant shape during destructuration
does not match experimental observations herein. A superposition approach with damage
parameter may be more viable. Most of the superposition approaches used to date (e.g. Shen
1993a, 1993b; Chazallon and Hicher, 1998; Yu et al., 1998; Vatsala et al., 2001; Liu and Shen,
2005) consider the cemented soil as the sum or mixture of two components, a remoulded
(unstructured) soil component and a bonding component. The moduli, stress-strain matrices
and, in some cases, the yield loci of the two components are then added up directly or using
theory of mixture (e.g. Yu et al. 1998). Thus direct superposition in effect involves the
superposition of two independent constitutive models. This often leads to a large number of
material parameters. In addition, it is not easy to separate the constitutive model for the
bonding component from that of the unstructured component. Moreover, in cases such as
cemented-treated soil, where the unstructured state may not be readily defined, the
unstructured constitutive model may also not be evaluated readily. For instance, Yu et al.’s
(1998) model for cement-bentonite-treated soil has 12 parameters, all of which appear to
require a considerable amount of fitting to experimental data. Furthermore, some of the
parameters appear to rather counter-intuitive. For example, Yu et al. used the Mohr-Coulomb
envelope for both the frictional (i.e. remoulded) and bonding components. Their parameters for
several of the samples show very high Mohr-Coulomb cohesion for the “frictional”
components, ranging from 200kPa to 500kPa, where one have expected the cohesion to be
284
CHAPTER6
very small given that the bonding has been discounted from this component. Similarly, the
bonding component returns almost as high an angle of friction as the “frictional” component.
Yu et al.’s (1998) study also presented other difficulties. For example, the sample with the
highest cement: soil ratio (~8.8%) has a cohesion value for its bonding component which is
almost half that of another sample with lower cement: soil ratio and higher water content. In
addition, some of the cohesion values of the bonding component appear to be exceedingly high,
e.g. 840kPa, which is very surprising given the relatively low cement content of 9% or less.
This underscores the danger of fitting a large number of parameters to relatively few samples,
especially when the parameters have little or no physical meaning and cannot be independently
evaluated.
Finally, the superposition approach does not consider the interaction between the packing
of the soil and bond strength. As Figure 4.6 shows, the primary yield stress of cement-treated
soil specimens falls very drastically with water content, even if the cement content is kept
constant. The same goes the unconfined compressive strength since as discussed in chapter 4,
the primary yield stress is correlated with unconfined compressive strength. This should not be
so if one applies the ideas of the superposition approach. Since the cement content is kept
constant, the bonding component should be unchanged, the increase in water content would
only lead to an increase in void ratio, which presumably affects the remoulded component, and
one would not expect such a drastic decrease in shear strength.
The above discussion highlights some of the shortcoming of current approaches to model
structure or cementation effects. In this section, a new theoretical approach is attempted. This
approach is based on the observation that the cement-treated soils do have a structure surface
285
CHAPTER6
(or primary yield surface) but that this yield surface can change shape and size during shearing.
The assumption of a structure surface is similar to that for the expanded yield locus approach.
The difference here is that the yield function is derived for cement-treated marine clay using a
modified form of the modified Cam Clay energy equation, which takes into account
interlocking, friction and cohesion.
6.3.1. Basis of theoretical model
The starting point of the theoretical model is the experimental observation that under
triaxial loading, the yield locus of the cement-treated soil evolves into a shape which is
well-fitted by an ellipse. Furthermore, as discussed in the previous chapter, the behavior of the
remoulded cemented-treated marine clay is also well-described by a modified Cam Clay, albeit
with a much higher value of M than the untreated marine clay. This motivates the hypothesis
that loss of structure in the cement-treated marine clay leads eventually to an elliptical yield
locus, which was the hallmark of Roscoe and Burland’s (1968) modified Cam Clay model,
probably the earliest model to propose an elliptical yield locus. The energy equation used by
Roscoe and Burland (1968) was
p' dε pv + qdε sp = M 2 p' 2 dε sp2 + p' 2 dε p2

v (6.8)
In which d ε vp and d ε sp represent the plastic volumetric and shear strain increment,
respectively. In Eq. 6.8, interlocking is embodied within the dilatancy term p ' d ε vp on the
left-hand side while the right-hand side contains the dissipative components, which are the
frictional shear component and plastic volumetric change component. This leads to the
modified Cam Clay yield function
286
CHAPTER6
M 2 p '2 + q 2 = M 2 p0' p ' (6.9)
In which p0' is the pre-compression pressure.
The use of an expanded yield locus for structured soil (e.g. Muir Wood, 1995; Liu and
Carter, 2002; Asaoka et al, 2000; Baudet and Stallebrass et al, 2004) is equivalent to increasing
pre-compression pressure. Seen in this light, using an expanded yield locus is equivalent to
postulating that the effect of structure is to raise the pre-compression pressure and thereby
increasing the yield ratio of the soil. However, if p ' is 0, then q must also be 0. Thus, this
way of representing structure does not prescribe any true cohesion to the structured soil.
Furthermore, the experimental data presented earlier show that, in cement-treated clay, the
shape of the yield locus does indeed change. Hence, merely increasing the pre-compression
pressure cannot fully describe the behavior of cement-treated soil.
The fact that the initial yield locus is always steeper than the subsequent yield loci
suggests that there is another component which has not been considered in Eq. 6.8 and this
component has the effect of increasing the deviator stress at yielding, independently of the
effect on the mean effective stress p’. This component is postulated to be the true cohesion,
denoted herein by the term C. It is also postulated that work done against this component is
irrecoverable, that is, this component is dissipative. This motivates the inclusion of true
cohesion C on the right-hand side of Eq. 6.8 and not the left-hand side. Finally, the fact that
true cohesion C affects only the deviator stress suggests that it is related purely to the plastic
shear strain increment dεsp.
There are many ways of incorporating C into the right-hand side of Eq. 6.8, but one way
that preserves the general form of the equation is
287
CHAPTER6
p ' d ε v p + qd ε s p = (C + Mp ')2 d ε p 2s + p '2 d ε p v2 (6-10)
It will be noted that Eq. 6-10 involves, in effect, a superposition of the dissipative component
related to the plastic shear strain and that this method of superposition is not unlike the
approach in the Mohr-Coulomb strength envelope, in that the cohesive component, C, is added
directly to the frictional component Mp'.
We note that when C = 0 in Eq. 6.10, it reduces to Eq. 6.8. Furthermore when p ' = 0 ,
q = C . Hence C is indeed a measure of the cohesion when p ' = 0 , that is, it is the cohesion
intercept of the prospective yield locus with the q-axis.
6.3.2. Yield locus

6.3.2.1 Deduction of yield locus
Eq. 6-10 can be rewritten as
q 2 d ε p 2s = (C + Mp ') 2 d ε sp 2 − 2 p ' qd ε vp d ε sp (6-11a)
Or
d ε vp
q2 + 2 p ' q = (C + Mp ') 2 (6-11b)
d ε sp
Assuming normality,
d ε vp dq
=− (6-12)
dε s p
dp '
Substituting Eq. 6-12 into 6-11 leads to
dq
q2 − 2 p ' q = (C + Mp ') 2
dp ' (6-13)
q
We can define the stress ratioη = , so that
p'
dq dη
=η + p' (6-14)
dp ' dp '
288
CHAPTER6
Substituting Eq. 6-14 into Eq. 6-13 gives
dη
p '2η 2 + 2η p '3 '
+ (C + Mp ') 2 = 0 (6-15)
dp
Or
dη η (C + Mp ') 2 −1
+ =− η (6-16)
dp ' 2 p ' 2 p '3
We noted that Eq. 6-16 has the form
dη
+ g ( p ')η = h( p ')η −1 (6-17)
dp '
1 (C + Mp ') 2
wherein g ( p ') = , and h( p ') = −
2p' 2 p '3
Which is a Bernoulli Equation.
The general form of the Bernoulli Equation is
dy
+ g ( x ) y = h( x ) y n (6-18)
dx
where g(x) and h(x) are functions of x, and n ≠ 0 or 1.
We now define z = η 2 , so that
dz dη 1 dz dη
= 2η or = (6-19)
dp ' dp ' 2η dp ' dp '
Substituting Eq. 6-19 into Eq. 6-16 leads to
dz z (C + Mp ') 2
+ =− (6-20)
dp ' p ' p '3
This is a first-order linear differential equation.
A first-order linear differential equation has the form
dy
+ f ( x ) y = m( x ) (6-21)
dx
Where f(x) and m(x) are functions of x. The solution of this first-order differential equation has
the form
289
CHAPTER6
− f ( x ) dx ⎛ ∫ f ( x ) dx dx + c ⎞
y= e ∫
⎝∫
⎜ m( x )e 0⎟ (6-22)
⎠
In which c0 is the constant of integration.
1 1
Letting f ( p ') = , ∫ f ( p ') dp ' = ∫ dp ' = ln p ' , so that
p' p'
e∫
f ( p ') dp '
= p' (6-23)
And
1
e ∫
− f ( p ') dp '
= (6-24)
p'
We also know that
( C + Mp ')
2
m( p ') = − (6-25)
p '3
In view of Eqs. 6-22 to 6-25, the solution of Eq. 6-20 is given by
1 ⎛ ( C + Mp ')2 ⎞
z=- ⎜∫ dp '− c ⎟
p' ⎜ p '2
0
⎟
⎝ ⎠
1 ⎛ C 2 + 2CMp '+ M 2 p '2 ⎞

=- ⎜∫ 2
dp '− c0 ⎟
p' ⎝ p' ⎠
C2 ln p ' c
= '2
− 2 MC −M2 + 0 (6-26)
p p' p'
Or
C2 ln p ' c
η2 = '2
− 2 MC −M2 + 0 (6-27)
p p' p'
To evaluate c0, set p ' = p0' and η = 0 , which gives
C2
c0 = M 2 p0' + 2 MC ln p0' − (6-28)
p0'
Substituting Eq. 6-28 into Eq. 6-27 leads to
290
CHAPTER6
p0'
M 2 ( p0' − p ') + 2MC ln( )
C2 p' C2
η2 = + − (6-29)
p '2 p' p0' p '
Or
C2 '
q 2 = M 2 p '( p0 '− p ') + 2MCp 'ln( p0' / p ') + ( p0 − p ') (6-30)
p0'
which is the plastic potential, and also the yield function if the associated flow rule is assumed.
It should be noted that the associated flow rule is essentially an assumption. Studies on natural
clays (e.g. Wood, 1990) have shown that this assumption of associated flow is reasonably
realistic for clays on the wet side of critical and are undergo strain hardening. In the critical
state framework, this would refer to the Roscoe Surface. For cement-treated soil, the critical
state is only reached at an advanced stage of destructuration. Even then, as discussed in
Chapter 5, there is uncertainty as to which state constitutes the critical state. Anyway, all states
on the primary or early yield surfaces would lie above the fully-destructured yield surface.
Thus, the notion of wet or dry side of critical really does not apply to primary yielding.
Furthermore, as discussed above, cement-treated clay under drained loading conditions
continues to strain hardening considerably after primary yield and the “compression cap”
occupies a significant portion of the stress space. This compression cap is akin to the Roscoe
surface in remoulded soils. In view of this, the assumption of associated flow is unduly
unreasonable when it is applied to the compression cap.
6.3.2.2 Consistency checks

The yield function was subjected to a few consistency checks, as follows:
1. When p ' = p0' , q=0, which gives the isotropic compression condition.
2. When C=0, q = M p '( p0 '− p ') , which is exactly the equation of modified Cam-clay
291
CHAPTER6
model. This means that when the true cohesion C = 0, the yield locus becomes an ellipse..
3. When p’ = 0, then
q 2 = C 2 − 2 MC lim p ' Lnp ' (6-31)

p' → 0
To evaluate the limit, we use L’Hopital’s rule and express
f ( p' )
p ' Lnp ' = (6-32)
g ( p' )
in which f ( p ' ) = Lnp ' and g ( p ' ) = 1/ p '
Using L’Hopital’s rule,
1
f ( p ') f ' ( p ') p'
lim = lim ' = lim = lim(− p ') = 0 (6-33)
p '→ 0 g ( p ') p '→ 0 g ( p ') p '→ 0 − 1 p '→ 0
'2
p
Thus, when p’ = 0, q = C.
6.3.2.3 Comparison with test data

Figure 6.6 demonstrates the proposed yield locus. As can be seen, the cementation effect
is reflected in both the initial cohesion and isotropic primary yield stress. The initial cohesion
is responsible for the increasing in deviator stress upon yielding as shown in Figure 6.6a. The
isotropic primary yield stress is actually the initial value of p0', which is responsible for the
expanding of the primary yield locus with respect to unstructured soil. Figures 6.7 to 6.10
assesses the ability of the proposed yield function to fit the observed primary yield loci for
cement-treated marine clay specimens with different mix proportion and cured under different
confining pressure for different curing period, using different values of M and C. As shown in
Figures 6.7 to 6.10, with appropriately chosen values of M and C, the matching is remarkably
good, considering the theoretical, rather than fitted, nature of the yield loci.
292
CHAPTER6
In these figures, the tension failure envelopes were also included, these being based on
the tensile strengths of cement-treated marine clay from Brazilian tests and a straight line of
gradient 3. The rationale for using this as the tensile failure envelope is based on the idea that,
if the soil has a tensile strength of σt, then under triaxial compression conditions, tensile failure
would not occur until the minor principal effective stress or effective radial stress σ3’ satisfies
the condition
σ 3' = −σ t (6-34)
Then
1 1
p ' = (σ 1' + 2σ 3' ) = (σ 1' − 2σ t ) (6-35)
3 3
And
q = σ 1' − σ 3' = σ 1' + σ t (6-36)
Eq. 6-35 leads to
1
p ' + σ t = (σ 1' + σ t ) (6-37)
3
Dividing Eq. 5-37 by Eq. 5-36 gives
q
=3 (6-38)
p' +σ t
Hence the postulate that cement-treated marine clay specimens have a tensile strength that
is isotropic and can be evaluated via the Brazilian test, would, under triaxial compression
condition, lead to a tensile failure envelope which has the form of straight line with gradient 3
and intercepts the p ' -axis at p ' = −σ t . It should also be noted that, in a triaxial compressive
condition, tensile cracking would intuitively occur longitudinal planes. In Brazilian test, tensile
cracking is also induced along the longitudinal diametral plane. This gives added confidence to
the notion that the tensile strength measured in Brazilian tests would also apply to triaxial
293
CHAPTER6
compression tests.
The use of a tensile failure envelope that has a different shape from the yield locus relates
to the point made earlier on the different mechanisms which govern yield and tensile failure.
The yield locus was derived based on the interaction between friction, interlocking, cohesion
and volumetric dissipation. It is difficult to see how friction, interlocking and volumetric
dissipation can be effective under conditions of tension. Thus, the use of left-shifted yield
locus to represent tensile failure of cemented soil may well be fundamentally problematic in
this respect.
Figures 6.11 to 6.15 also compare the proposed yield function with observed yield loci at
various stages of shearing after initial yielding. In each figure, which is for a given mix, curing
period and curing stress, the value of M is kept constant while C is decreased and p0'
increased. In general, the agreement between the theoretical and observed yield loci is
remarkably good. There was some discrepancy in some of initial yield loci, such as Fig. 6.13,
in which some measured end points on the apparent tensile failure envelope (i.e. the line q =
3p') appear to suggest yield beneath the yield locus. However, these points might have been
affected by the inability of triaxial tests to reach any states with σ3' < 0; this has been discussed
earlier in Chapter 4. Methods for determining C, po' as well as M will be discussed in detail
later.
6.4. Parameters of theoretical yield function
There are three parameters in the proposed yield function, i.e., the friction coefficient M,
the mean effective stress under isotropic compression p0' and cohesion C. In this study, the
initial value of p0' is actually isotropic primary yield stress. After isotropic primary yield
294
CHAPTER6
stress p 'py , p0' is also named preconsolidaiton stress of cement-treated soil, which is similar to
original modified Cam clay model. Based on the concept of reference state of cement-treated
soil, when the cement-treated soil reaches at the reference state, p0' is actually the
preconsolidation stress of remoulded cement-treated soil. As the determination of isotropic
primary yield stress has been discussed in detail in Chapter 4, only preconsolidation stress of
cement-treated soil will be discussed in this section
6.4.1 Friction coefficient M
As shown in Figure 6.2, if the evolution of the yield loci between initial yielding and
peak strength is fitted using an ellipse, the apparent friction coefficient N of the ellipse will
decrease. In the theoretical model, however, a constant friction coefficient M is presumed in
place of a variable friction coefficient N. This is in keeping with a basic premise of the Cam
Clay model, wherein M is taken to be a material constant. In the subsequent discussion, the
friction coefficient M will be assumed to be a constant for a given mix, curing period and
curing stress. The value of M used in each fitting attempt to find C is based on the value of
M of the corresponding remoulded cement-treated soil. This is consistent with the discussion
in Chapter 5 that, while remoulded cement-treated soil may not really be totally unstructured,
it does provide a reasonably good basis for a “critical” state which can be used in practical
engineering.
6.4.2 Preconsolidation stress p0'
Figures 6.16 to 6.20 show the isotropic compression curves of cement-treated marine clay
295
CHAPTER6
and remoulded cement-treated marine clay. As can be seen, these figures are similar to that of
natural structured soil presented by many researches (e.g. Liu and Carter, 1999, 2000). In each
case, the compression of the intact specimen converges towards the corresponding curve of the
remoulded specimen.
Using an approach similar to Liu and Carter’s (2002), we can consider that, under
isotropic compression, the mean effective stress in cement-treated marine clay p0' is composed
'
of two components, i.e., p0u and Δp0s
'
, such that
p0' = p0' u + Δp0' s (6-39)
'
In which p0u is the component which is borne by the remoulded soil skeleton and Δp0s
'
is
the additional stress that can be resisted due to structure, as shown in Figure 6.21a.
It is also assumed that the superposition rule expressed in Eq. 6-39 applies also to all
stress situations, so that, in general
p ' = pu' + Δps' (6-40)
Where pu' is mean effective stress carried by the remoulded or unstructured cement-treated
marine clay and Δps' is that component corresponding to structure effect.
During triaxial shearing or volumetric compression, both p0' and p0' u increases with the
increase in volume change whereas Δp0s

'
deceases with destructuration due to plastic work.
When the soil reaches a fully destructured state, Δp0s

'
equals to zero, so that p0' equals
to p0' u . This is similar to the compression of structured soil described by Liu and Carter (2002)
(Fig 6.21b).
Following Liu and Carter (2002), for any state ( po' , v) of unstructured soil, the specific volume
can be expressed as below:
296
CHAPTER6
v = vIU − λU LN ( p0' u ) (6-41)
Where vIU is initial specific volume of unstructured soil when p0' u =1 and λU is the isotropic
compression index of the unstructured soil.
Hence, the pre-consolidation stress of unstructured or remoulded soil p0' u can be determined
by equation (6-41).
At the isotropic yield point ( p 'py , v py ) , Equations (6-39) and (6-41) can be written as
p 'py = p0' ui + Δp0' si (6-42)
v py = vIU − λU LN ( p0' ui ) (6-43)
The determination of the isotropic compression yield stress p 'py has been addressed in detail
in Chapter 4. Hence, by using the above two equations, the initial value of Δp0s
'
before initial
yielding, i.e. Δp0si

'
can be determined.
Loss of structure is assumed to commence when po' > p 'py ; this is consistent with Liu and
Carter’s (2002) assumption. Following Liu and Carter (2002), the extra pre-consolidation
stress Δp0s
'
due to structure effect may be expressed as a power function of pre-consolidation
stress p0' .
p 'py
Δp0' s = Δp0' si ( )b (6-44)
p0'
The parameter b can be obtained by fitting the isotropic compression curve of cement-treated
marine clay.
Combining Equations (6-39) and (6-44), the pre-consolidation stress of cement-treated soil can
be expressed as below.
p 'py
p0' = pou
'
+ Δp0' si ( )b (6-45)
p0'
The differential form of equation (6-45) is as below:
297
CHAPTER6
p 'py Δp0'
Δp0' = Δpou
'
− bΔp0' si ( )b (6-46a)
p0' p0'
Or
Δp0' u ( p0' )b +1
Δp0' = (6-46b)
bΔp0' si ( p 'py )b + ( p0' )b +1
Following the Cam-clay model (Schofield and Wroth, 1968), for unstructured or remoulded
soil, Δpou
'
can be expressed as below.
Δv p
Δp0' u = − p0' u (6-47)
λU − κU
Where κU and λU are isotropic compression parameters of unstructured soil.
Combining Equations (6-47), (6-46b) and (6-41), the incremental pre-consolidation stress of
cement-treated soil may be written as below.
Δv p vIU − v
− exp( )( p0' )b +1
λU − κU λU
Δp0' = (6-48)
bΔp ( p ) + ( p0' )b +1
'
0 si
'
py
b
We note that
vIU − v
exp( ) = p0' u (6-49)
λU
When cement-treated soil is fully destructured, p0' equals to p0u

'
and is much bigger
than p 'py . Consequently, equation (6-48) reduces to equation (6-47).
6.4.3 Determination of cohesion
Recall yield function (6-30).
C2 '
q 2 = M 2 p '( p0 '− p ') + 2MCp 'ln( p0' / p ') + ( p0 − p ') (6-30)
p0'
So far, the determination of M and p0' has been demonstrated in the previous sections. The
only left main parameter is inherent cohesion C. Since C is only dependent on structure of soil,
the initial value of C, termed hereafter as initial cohesion C0, and degradation of C will be
298
CHAPTER6
discussed separately.
6.4.3.1 Determination of initial cohesion C0

If M and p0' or p 'py is known, any point on the primary yield locus can be used to
determine C0. One way is to use the intersection ( p1' , q1 ) between yield locus and apparent
tensile cut-off line may be used to get C0. On the cut-off line,
q1
p1' = (6-50)
3
Thus the yield function becomes
q1 q q p' C2 q
q12 = M 2 ( p0 '− 1 ) + 2 MC 1 ln( 0 ) + ' ( p0' − 1 )
3 3 3 q1 p0 3
3
Or
M2 q 2 3 p' q
p0' q12 = q1 p0' ( p0 '− 1 ) + Mq1 p0' ln( 0 )C + ( p0' − 1 )C 2 (6-51)
3 3 3 q1 3
Let
q1
g1 ( p0' , q1 ) = p0' − , (6-52a)
3
2 3 p'
g 2 ( p0' , q1 ) = Mq1 p0' Ln( 0 ) , (6-52b)
3 q1
M2 M2
g3 ( p0' , q1 ) = q1 p0'2 − ( + 1) p0' q12 (6-52c)
3 9
Thus the yield function becomes
g1C 2 + g 2C + g3 = 0 (6-52d)
The solution is
g 22 − 4 g1 g 3 − g 2
C= (6-52e)
2 g1
As shown in Figure 6.22, q1 is nearly equal to qu . This suggests that unconfined
compression test specimens generally follow the apparent tensile cut-off line and fails at the
point of intersection of this apparent cut-off line and the primary yield surface and the use of
299
CHAPTER6
the developed yield surface together with a tensile cut-off gives a good prediction of the
unconfined compressive strength. This is not surprising; in the unconfined compression test,
the confining stress is zero. If we further assumed, as was suggested in Chapter 4, that any
positive excess pore pressure will be able to dissipate through the sides of the specimens, then
the effective stress path will have to be along the apparent tensile cut-off line. Therefore, C0
can be estimated by replacing q1 with qu and p0' with p 'py in equations (6-52a) to (6-52d) and
using Equation (6-52e). It should be noted that, in most unconfined compression tests, failure
is accompanied by the formation of a shear band. However, it was also observed that, in most,
if not all specimens, shear bands only started to propagate after the peak unconfined
compressive strength was reached. The qu measured in the unconfined compression tests in
these studies are the peak values and they therefore represent the strength of the specimens
prior to shear band formation, at which point, the specimens are still continuous. Thus, it is not
surprising that a continuum model, like the one developed herein, should give a good
prediction of the unconfined compression strength.
Figure 6.23a shows the deduced C0s by using q1(qu) and C0t obtained by experiment. As
can be seen, C0 s = 0.769Cot , indicating that C0 is generally underestimated if we use Eq. 6-52.
The underestimated C0 may due to test error in qu and some of the unconfined compression
specimens might have failed just before reaching the apparent cut-off line. As Figure 6.23b
shows, if we apply a correction of about 1.3 to the deduced C0, good agreement is obtained
with the experimental C0t.
Alternative, Figure 6.24 shows the relationship between C0t obtained by experiment
and qu . It was found that C0t = 0.95qu . This means that the inherent cohesion is about the same
300
CHAPTER6
as the unconfined compressive strength.
6.4.3.2 Cohesion degradation

This section examines the relationship between the cohesion at any point of time during
testing and plastic work. In this discussion, the plastic work is computed from drained triaxial
tests by the following algorithm or relations:
W = Wvp + Wsp (6-53)
Where Wvp is the component due to plastic volumetric strain ε vp and may be written in the
accumulation form below:
pi' + pi' +1
Wvp = ∑ (ε vp ( i +1) − ε vp ( i ) ) (6-54)
2
and Wsp is the component due to plastic shear strain ε sp and may be written in the
accumulation form below:
qi + qi +1
Wsp = ∑ (ε sp ( i +1) − ε sp ( i ) ) （6-55）
2
For a given drained triaxil test, different C and W values can be obtained corresponding to
each post-yield locus, which was determined by triaxial tests. These (C, W) points are then
plotted on a normalized plane. For each mix proportion, several drained triaxial test were
chosen to obtain the relationship between C and W. Consequently, as can be seen later, there
were several points with the same C/C0 because all these points are on the same yield locus,
which has the same C/C0 value. Undrained test data are much more difficult to incorporate into
the present framework as the specimens usually strain soften fairly rapidly after primary
yielding, with formation of shear band. This violates the continuum assumption which is
needed for application of the model.
Figure 6.25 shows the degradation of C with plastic work for cement-treated marine clay.
301
CHAPTER6
In this figure, C is normalized by the corresponding initial cohesion C0 while the plastic work
on the horizontal axis is also normalized by C0. As can be seen, the degradation curve indicates
that there is nonlinear relationship between normalized C and normalized plastic work W. As
this figure shows, the true cohesion C decreases very rapidly with work done at the beginning,
but the rate of decrease tail off towards the end when the work done becomes very large. This
is intuitively correct since one would expect the rate of destructuration to be maximum at the
start but it should trend towards zero as cohesion approaches zero.
Figures 6.26 to 6.30 show the degradation of C with plastic work for cement-treated
specimens with different mix proportions. In these figures, the normalized plastic work on the
horizontal axis is raised to a best-fit power by fitting the data. As can be seen, the normalized
C and normalized with plastic work W expressed in a power function has a good linear
relationship. This indicates that the degradation of C can be expressed as power function of
plastic work.
C / C0 = a1 (W / C0 )b1 + 1 (6-56)
From these figures, the degradation of C for different mix proportion may have the forms
below.
For mix proportion 10-1-11, degradation of C is
C / C0 = −0.6634(W / C0 )0.199 + 1 (6-57)
Similarly, for mix proportion 5-1-6, degradation of C is
C / C0 = −0.7006(W / C0 )0.186 + 1 (6-58)
C / C0 = −0.6522(W / C0 )0.182 + 1 (6-59)
302
CHAPTER6
C / C0 = −0.7019(W / C0 )0.042 + 1 (6-60)
C / C0 = −0.5579(W / C0 )0.099 + 1 (6-61)
Eq. 6-56 – 6-61 shows that
C / C0 = 1 − a1 (W / C0 ) m (6-62)
Or y = 1 − a1 x m (6-63)
In which x = W / C0 and y = C / C0
Differentiating Eq.6-63 leads to
dy / dx = − a1mx ( m −1) (6-64)
If m ≥ 1.0, then dy / dx will not tend to zero as x tends to ∞ , which would be counter-intuitive.
Hence m should be less than 1, and Eq. 6-57-6.61 show that this is indeed the case.
Figures 6.31 to 6.35 show the cohesion degradation with evolution of yield locus and plastic
strain needed to degrade the cohesion. As can be seen, the cohesion degradation and the
needed plastic strain are dependent on the mix proportion.
303
CHAPTER 6
4 4
10-1-11 5-1-6
Fit : N=1.1609εvp(-0.2616), R2=0.988 Fit : N=1.2284εvp(-0.2654), R2=0.995
3.5 3.5
3 3
N
N
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
plastic volumetric strain εpv plastic volumetric strain εpv
(a) (b)
4
10-3-13 4
2-1-3
Fit : N=1.3006εvp(-0.2392), R2=0.977
Fit : N=1.1788εvp(-0.2575), R2=0.980
3.5
3.5
3
3
N
2.5
N
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
plastic volumetric strain εpv 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
plastic volumetric strain εpv
(c) (d)
4 4
2-1-4 cement content 10%-50%,
Fit : N=1.3118εvp(-0.2387), R2=0.974 total water content 100%-133%
3.5 3.5 Fit : N=1.2299εvp(-0.2543), R2=0.97
3 3
N
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
plastic volumetric strain εp v plastic volumetric strain εpv
(e) (f)
Figure 6.1: Relationship between stress ratio at the top of the yield locus(empirical
method one) and plastic volumetric strain for different mix proportion (a) 10-1-11, (b)
5-1-6, (3) 10-3-13, (d) 2-1-3, (e) 2-1-4, (f) for all mix proportions
304
CHAPTER 6
simuated yield locus

10-1-11
simulated yield locus
2000 Extension cut-off line
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(a)
5-1-6
Extension cut-off line
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(b)
305
CHAPTER 6

10-3-13
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(c)

2-1-3
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(d)
306
CHAPTER 6

2-1-4
deviator stress q(kPa) 2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(e)
Figure 6.2: Simulated yield loci through empiric method one with experimental data
for different mix proportion (a) 10-1-11, (b) 5-1-6, (3) 10-3-13, (d) 2-1-3, (e) 2-1-4
307
CHAPTER 6
4
10-1-11 4
5-1-6
Fit : N=1.1741εvp(-0.2595), R2=0.989
Fit : N=1.2847εvp(-0.2537), R2=0.991
3.5
3.5
3
3
N
2.5
N
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
(a) (b)
4
10-3-13 4
2-1-3
Fit : N=1.2904εvp(-0.2428), R2=0.985
Fit : N=1.1489εvp(-0.2648), R2=0.984
3.5
3.5
3
3
N
2.5
N
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 1
plastic volumetric strain εpv 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
(c) (d)
4 4
2-1-4
cement content 10%-50%,
Fit : N=1.3568εvp(-0.2352), R2=0.989 total water content 100%-133%
3.5 3.5 Fit : N=1.2748εvp(-0.2479), R2=0.947
3 3
N
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
plastic volumetric strain εp v plastic volumetric strain εpv
(e) (f)
Figure 6.3: Relationship between stress ratio at the top of the yield locus(empirical
method two) and plastic volumetric strain for different mix proportion (a) 10-1-11, (b)
5-1-6, (3) 10-3-13, (d) 2-1-3, (e) 2-1-4, (f) for all mix proportions
308
CHAPTER 6

2500 10-1-11
2000 simulated yield locus
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(a)
5-1-6
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(b)
309
CHAPTER 6

10-3-13
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(c)
2-1-3

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(d)
310
CHAPTER 6

2-1-4
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(e)
Figure 6.4: Simulated yield loci through empiric method two with experimental data
for different mix proportion (a) 10-1-11, (b) 5-1-6, (3) 10-3-13, (d) 2-1-3, (e) 2-1-4
311
CHAPTER 6
450
10-1-11 primary yield locus
theoretical method
emperical method-without tensile strength N=3.65
emperical method-with tensile strength N=5.10

primary yield point
300
150
0
-40 0 40 80 120 160
(a)
1050
10-3-13 primary yield locus
theoretical method
emperical method-without tensile strength N=3.65
900
primary yield point

750
600
450
300
150
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400
(b)
Figure 6.5: Simulated yield loci through empiric method one with tensile strength (a)
mix proportion 10-1-11, (b) mix proportion 10-3-13
312
CHAPTER 6
500 demonstration of yield locus

untreated soil
isotropic expanding
enlarging alonge q axis
Enlarging
Expanding
0
0 100 200 300
(a)
1.5 demonstration of yield locus

untreated soil
isotropic expanding
enlarging alonge q axis
1
Enlarging
q/po'
0.5
0
0 0.5 1
P'/po'
(b)
Figure 6.6: Demonstration of proposed yield locus (a) p '− q plane (b)
p '/ po' − q / po' plane
313
CHAPTER 6
1300 simulated primary yield locus

s-c-w
1200 10-1-11-M=1.50,C=245.68kPa
5-1-6-M=1.62,C=450.00kPa
1100 10-3-13-M=1.65,C=620.00kPa
2-1-3-M=1.70,C=960.00kPa

primary yield point
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 6.7: Simulated primary yield loci for cement-treated marine clay specimens
with different cement content and cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
s-c-w
1200 2-1-3-M=1.70,C=960.00kPa
2-1-4-M=1.70,C=460.00kPa
1100 2-1-5-M=1.70,C=175.00kPa
2-1-5.5-M=1.70,C=132.00kPa
800 2-1-5.5 tension failure envelop

primary yield point
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
with different total water content and cured under atmospheric pressure for 7 days
314
CHAPTER 6
simulated primary yield locus

2750 cruing stress-s-c-w
0-2-1-4-M=1.70,C=460.00kPa
2500 50-2-1-4-M=1.70,C=1000.00kPa
100-2-1-4-M=1.70,C=1220.00kPa
250-2-1-4-M=1.70,C=2000.00kPa
2250
2000
1750

primary yield point
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
-500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
with 50% cement content and 133% total water content and cured under different
confining pressure for 7 days
5-1-6-7days-M=1.62,C=450.00kPa
2-1-4-7days-M=1.70,C=460.00kPa
800 5-1-6-28days-M=1.62,C=680.00kPa
2-1-4-28days-M=1.70,C=680.00kPa
700
5-1-6-7days tension failure envelope
600
primary yield point

500
400
300
200
100
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400
with diffeern mix proportion and cured under atmospheric pressure for different curing
time periods
315
CHAPTER 6

10-1-11


1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Figure 6.11: Simulated evolution of yield locus for cement-treated marine clay
specimens with 10% cement content and 100% total water content and cured under
atmospheric pressure for 7days
5-1-6
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
316
CHAPTER 6
2500 simuated yield locus

10-3-13
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
2-1-3
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
317
CHAPTER 6

2-1-4
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
318
CHAPTER 6
10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
3.6
3.2
specific volume V
2.8
2.4
2
Aw=10%-cement-treated marine clay
Aw=10%-remoulded cement-treated marine clay
1.6
Figure 6.16: Isotropic compression curves of remoulded and unremoulded

10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
3.6
3.2
specific volume V
2.8
2.4
2 Aw=20%-cement-treated marine clay


319
CHAPTER 6
10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
3.6
3.2
specific volume V
2.8
2.4

2 Aw=30%-unremoulded-v=6.80-0.53Ln(p')

10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
3.6
3.2
specific volume V
2.8

2.4 Aw=50%-remoulded-v=4.74-0.285Ln(p')

320
CHAPTER 6
10 100 p'(kPa)
1000 10000
4.5
3.5
specific volume V
2.5
Aw=50%, Cw=133%-cement-treated marine clay

Aw=50%, Cw=133%-remoulded cement-treated marine clay
2 Aw=50%, Cw=133%-unremoulded-v=5.8-0.38Ln(p')
Aw=50%, Cw=133%-remoulded-v=4.50-0.275Ln(p')

cement-treated marine clay specimens with 50% cement content and 133% total water
content before remoulding
Δp0s
'
'
p0u
(a) In this study (b) after Liu and Carter, 2002
Figure 6.21: Idealization of the isotropic compression behavior of reconstituted and

structured soils
321
CHAPTER 6
2500
q 1-qu
fitting line q1=1.1qu, R2=0.998
2000
1500
q1(kPa)
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
qu(kPa)
Figure 6.22: Relationships between q1 and qu
1600 2400
simuated Co and tested Co simuated Co after correction and test Co
fitting line C0s=0.769C0t, R2=0.994 fitting line C0s=0.999C0t, R2=0.994
2000
1200
1600
C0s(kPa)
C0s(kPa)
800 1200
800
400
400
0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
C0t(kPa) C0t(kPa)
(a) Before correction (b) After correction
Figure 6.23: Comparison between Cot and Cos (Cot was obtained from experiment,
Cos was obtained by using qu and yield function)
322
CHAPTER 6
2000
C-qu
fitting line C0=0.95qu,R2=0.99
1600
1200
C0(kPa)
800
400
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
qu(kPa)
Figure 6.24: Relationship between C0 and qu

1
degradation of C -10-1-11
0.8
C/C 0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
W/C0
Figure 6.25: Degradation of C with plastic work on normalized plane for

cement-treated marine clay (with mix proportion 10:1:11)
323
CHAPTER 6
1
Fit line: C/C0=-0.6634(W/C0)0.199+1,R2=0.985
0.8
C/C 0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.4 0.8 1.2
(W/C0)0.199
Figure 6.26: Degradation of inherent cohesion C for cement-treated specimen with

1
Fit line: C/C0=-0.7006(W/C0)0.186+1,R2=0.985
0.8
C/C 0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(W/C0)0.186

324
CHAPTER 6
1
Fit line: C/C0=-0.6522(W/C0)0.182+1,R2=0.988
0.8
C/C 0
0.6
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(W/C0)0.182

1
Fit line: C/C0=-0.7019(W/C0)0.042+1,R2=0.994
0.8
C/C 0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(W/C0)0.042

325
CHAPTER 6
1
Fit line: C/C0=-0.5579(W/C0)0.099+1,R2=0.949
0.8
C/C 0
0.6
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(W/C0)0.099

10-1-11

0.10 simulated yield locus

1750
0.08
1500 0.32
εsp
1250
0.06 0.29
εvp
1000
0.045 0.03
0.25 75
750
0.02 0.07 C
εsp 0.16 85
0.03
500
εvp 100 135
160
115 245
250
C
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Figure 6.31: Cohesion degradation with evolution of yield locus and plastic strain for
content and cured under atmospheric pressure for 7days
326
CHAPTER 6

5-1-6
2000
0.09
0.075
1500
εsp
0.055
0.30
0.265
1000 0.04 0.025 εvp
0.22 0.015
εsp 0.06
0.12 150 C
175 0.02
500 270
εvp 195 300
230 450
C
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
2500 simuated yield locus

10-3-13
0.077 simulated yield locus

2000
0.057
1500
0.04 0.035 εsp
0.235
0.035 0.20 0.008

1000 εvp
0.145
εsp 0.00 0.0075
0.045
εvp 0.00 C
270 450
500
300 620
330
350
C
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
327
CHAPTER 6

2-1-3
0.05 Extension cut-off line
2000
0.03
0.025
0.16
1500
0.12
0.0065
0.083
1000 εsp
0.0055
0.00 320
350
εvp 370
500 400
960
C
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2-1-4
0.085 Extension cut-off line
2000
0.075
εsp
1500
0.052
0.28 0.04
0.245
0.04 εvp
1000 0.20
0.02
εsp
0.10 0.05
0.00
200 C
500 εvp 220 0.00
240 275
260
C 460
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
328
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Conclusions
This study deals with the post-yield constitutive behavior of cement-treated Singapore
marine clay with emphasis on the pre-peak behavior. Cement-treated Singapore marine clay
specimens with different mix proportions and curing conditions was studied firstly to examine
the behavior under different mix proportion and curing condition. The effect of mix
proportion and curing stress and curing time on the primary yield locus was investigated. The
post-yield behavior and post-yield changes in the yield locus were also investigated for
specimens with different mix proportions. Secondly, short samples were also used in triaxial
testing to study post-peak softening behavior, as part of the measures to prevent shear band
formation. The constitutive behavior of remoulded cement-treated marine clay was
investigated and its use as an intrinsic state was explored. Finally, based on the observations
of the experiment of this study, a new energy equation was proposed for cement-treated
marine clay, from which a new yield locus was derived. Based on these studies, the following
conclusions can be drawn.
7.1.1. Pre-peak behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay
1. In this study, Coop and Atkinson’s method was used to define and determine the
primary yield stress and the primary yield locus. The results showed that a reasonably
consistent primary yield locus of cement-treated marine clay can be obtained, using this
method.
2. The results of isotropic compression tests showed that the post-yield compression
index seems to be independent on cement content and curing period. The post-yield
compression index is also independent on total water content and curing stress. However, the
isotropic primary yielding stress increased with the increase in cement content, curing load
and curing time as well as decrease in total water content.
329
CHAPTER 7
3. Triaxial compression test on specimens with consolidation stress lower than isotropic
primary yield stress showed stiff behavior with peak strength appearing around 1%~2% of
axial strain. On the other hand, in CID tests, the stress-strain behavior is dependent upon the
effective confining stress or yield ratio.. Specifically, all CIU samples reach their peak
strength on or close to the tensile failure envelope, with the stress paths trending along or
toward the tensile failure envelope. All CID samples tested at high yield ratio (>>2) showed
highly elastic behavior before peak strength while CID samples tested at low yield ratio
showed large volumetric compression up to the peak strength, which is often reached at larger
shear strain than CIU tests. Under higher effective confining stress, the point of peak strength
is reached well after primary yield point, which indicates significant pre-peak strain hardening.
These behaviors under triaxial compression are consistent with Chin’s (2006) study. The
results also showed that increasing the cement content, curing stress and curing period or
decreasing the total water content all has a similar effect in increasing the peak strength of the
specimens. In all these cases, the increase in strength seems to be correlated, at least partially,
to a decrease in post-curing void ratio.
4. The experimental results showed that although the primary yield locus expands with
an increase in cement content, curing stress and curing period as well as the decrease in total
water content, it can be approximately normalized by the isotropic primary yield stress. The
isotropic primary yield stress can be correlated to the
a) unconfined compressive strength (considering curing stress), or
b) cement content and total water content (without considering curing stress), or
c) post-curing void ratio together with the ratio of total water content to the cement content
(considering curing stress).
5. Samples reconsolidated to effective confining stress higher than isotropic primary
yield stress exhibit similar trend of stress-strain behavior to those which have not been
consolidated past the isotropic primary yield stress. However, samples which have been
isotropically consolidated past the isotropic primary yield points show much more abrupt
changes in stiffness and compression curve upon yielding. Both CIU and CID samples which
330
CHAPTER 7
were sheared under high isotropic over-consolidation ratios show stiff response up to the peak
strength, followed by dilation and strain softening. CIU specimens which were sheared at
lower isotropic over-consolidation ratio of ~2 also show stiff response up to peak strength.
Their stress paths are also roughly vertical, which would be consistent with largely elastic
behavior up to the peak strength. These behaviors under triaxial compression are consistent
with Chin’s (2006) study. In all samples, yield loci can be drawn through the isotropic pre-
compression pressures and the yield points deduced from CID and stress path tests.
6. The experiment results showed that the post-yield locus expands with isotropic pre-
compression pressure, owing to densification effects. However, the normalized yield locus
tends to contract, changing from a steep arch to an ellipse. This can be attributed to kinematic
softening induced by the breakage of inter-aggregate bonds. The destructuration mainly
comes from isotropically reconsolidation and appears to continue after the yield locus has
been reached during shearing. Thus, the post-yield behavior of the cement-treated soil appears
to be influenced by densification effects as well as breakage of inter-aggregate bonds.
However, it was also found that even under higher pre-compression pressure (e.g., 2500kPa),
the friction coefficient M of the yield locus is still much higher than that of reconstituted
marine clay (with M value of 0.9) This indicates that even under sustained shearing, the
cemented-treated soil does not degrade to the same friction coefficient as that for
reconstituted marine clay.
7. The tensile splitting strength test showed that cement-treated marine clay specimens
show similar brittle behavior as rock or concrete, with cracking along the central vertical
plane under radial compression. The tensile strength of cement-treated marine clay specimen
increases with the increase in cement content, the decrease in total water content, as well as
the increase in curing period and curing stress. The experiment results indicated the existence
of a true tensile strength which is almost constant over a range of compression rates and
drainage conditions. The tensile strength can also be correlated to the unconfined compressive
strength, with the ratio of tensile to compressive strength lying within the ranges reported in
other studies. By assuming that the specimens are isotropic and that one single tension
331
CHAPTER 7
strength is applicable to all stress situations, the tensile strength measured by Brazilian test
could be used to redefine the tension failure envelope which could not be determined by
triaxial tests.
7.1.2 Ultimate state of cement-treated marine clay
1. The experimental results suggest that excess pore pressure and stress ratio may be
better indicators for shear band initiation than the deviator stress itself.
2. The short specimens with enlarged low-friction end caps showed significantly slower
rate of strain softening than that of conventional specimens. The short specimens with
enlarged low-friction end caps after shearing to very large axial strain of about 55% also
showed multiple shear bands or fissures distributed all over the specimen surface. This is
consistent with the observations of previous researchers and indicates a more uniform post-
peak behavior than that exhibited by conventional long specimens showing a single shear
band. It was found that the deviator stress and pore pressure stabilize after ~20% strain, but
with the stress ratio at a much higher level than that reached by the conventional specimens.
As such, the short specimens probably reached a critical state at a shear strain of about 20%.
However, the critical state could not be observed in short CID samples with the current setup
if it does exist.
3. The “critical state” line for the CIU short specimens has a gradient of about 2.60 and
is evidently much steeper than that for conventional long specimens reported by Chin (2006)
as well as in this study, which has a gradient of about 1.12 in the same stress range. Scanning
electron micrographs of short specimens after testing do not show the high degree of particle
break-up seen within the shear bands of conventional long specimens of Chin’s (2006) study
and this study.
4. In general, the isotropic compression curve of the remoulded treated marine clay
depends mainly on the cement content and lies between the compression curves of the
untreated marine clay and the corresponding intact treated marine clay. The isotropic
332
CHAPTER 7
compression index of remoulded treated marine clay is much lower than that of intact (i.e. not
remoulded) treated marine clay; the trend being more obvious when the cement content is low.
When the cement content is low (e.g. 10%~20%), the isotropic compression index of the
remoulded treated marine clay is slightly lower than that of untreated marine clay. On the
other hand, when the cement content is high (e.g., 30%~50%), it’s slightly higher than that of
untreated marine clay. It was found that the curing period, total water content and curing
stress all have little effect on the isotropic compression index of the remoulded treated clay.
5. The experiment results showed that the undrained stress path of remoulded cement-
treated marine clay has a similar shape as those of remoulded marine clay, which is well-
described by the modified Cam Clay. The deviator stress-strain curve is much ductile than
that of intact treated marine clay and similar to that of remoulded marine clay. The excess
pore pressure changes very little after the peak point. The peak value usually occurs at about
6%~8% of axial strain when the confining stress is lower than 250kPa, after which very small
fluctuation can be seen. For confining stress higher than 500kPa, the peak value usually
occurs at about 10%~12% of axial strain, followed by shear band formation. It was found that
the preconsolidation pressure effect on the undrained triaxial behavior increases with cement
content. When cement content is low (e.g. 10%), the preconsolidation pressure effect is very
small and the friction coefficient is almost the same. For higher cement content, the difference
appears to be more significant. However, curing stress and total water content does not
significantly affect undrained shearing behavior and critical state of remoulded cement-treated
marine clay. Curing period also has little effect on the undrained triaxial behavior regardless
of cement content and preconsolidation pressure. For the range of the specimens tested (i.e.
10% to 50% cement content), the friction coefficient of remoulded cement-treated marine
clay lies between 1.50 and 1.77 for preconsolidation pressure of between 44kPa and 70kPa.
6. In this study, the remoulded cement-treated marine clay was considered as a reference
“remoulded” state towards which the microstructure of the cement-treated clay will evolve
with continual shearing. The ultimate state of remoulded cement-treated specimen seems to
be only dependent on the cement content, thereby making it a convenient reference state.
333
CHAPTER 7
7.1.3 Constitutive frame work of cement-treated marine clay
1. Two empirical yield functions for cement-treated marine clay were proposed. The first
yield function is mainly based on original modified Cam-clay, with elliptical yield locus
shape passing through the origin of the stress plane p’-q and change in stress ratio on the top
of the yield locus. Another is adopted from McDowell’s (2000) yield function, with yield
locus passing through the origin of the stress plane and change in stress ratio on the top of the
yield locus. In both yield functions, there are two hardening parameters. One parameter is
responsible for volumetric hardening while another parameter is responsible for
destructuration or kinematic softening. Both parameters are assumed to be only related with
plastic volumetric strain. Consequently, the yield locus expands with the increase in the
plastic volumetric strain and flattens with destructruation due to volumetric plastic strain. By
using two hardening parameters, the yield locus and its evolution can also be obtained
approximately. However, the inherent cohesion or tensile strength could not be considered in
the empirical framework; this clearly deviates from observations which indicate that
cemented soil has a tensile strength.
2. A theoretical yield function was also derived based on an energy equation which was
modified from that of the modified Cam Clay. This follows from experimental observations
that continued shearing led to an elliptical yield locus. The modification involves introducing
a true cohesion parameter into the modified Cam Clay energy equation. This allows the
energy equation to take into account interlocking, friction and cohesion. The new yield
function has three parameters, i.e., true cohesion, friction coefficient of remoulded cement-
treated marine clay, and mean effective stress under isotropic condition of treated marine clay.
3. The proposed yield function fits well with the observed primary yield loci for cement-
treated marine clay specimens with different mix proportion and cured under different
confining pressure for different curing time period, using appropriate values of friction
coefficient and true cohesion. The proposed yield function also fits reasonably well with
observed yield loci at various stages of shearing after initial yielding. For a given mix, curing
334
CHAPTER 7
period and curing stress, the value of the friction coefficient is constant while the cohesion is
decreased (much as hardening, or softening parameter) and the pre-consolidation pressure is
increased.
4. In the theoretical framework, the friction coefficient is taken to be a material constant
and can be obtained from corresponding remoulded cement-treated soil. It was found that the
isotropic compression curves of cement-treated marine clay and remoulded cement-treated
marine clay are similar to that of natural structured soil reported by previous researchers.
Therefore, using an approach similar to Liu and Carter’s (2002), the pre-consolidation
pressure can be determined from isotropic compression curves of remoulded and intact
cement-treated marine clay specimens. The initial cohesion can be easily deduced from
unconfined compression tests, thereby allowing the primary yield locus of cement-treated
marine clay to be readily determined from conventional tests. The degradation of the cohesion
parameter can be expressed as power function of plastic work. By decreasing the cohesion
parameter after yielding, changes in the yield locus after primary yielding can be reproduced
reasonably well.
7.2 Recommendations for future study
1. The pre-yield behavior of the cement-treated soil including small-strain nonlinear
behavior was not covered in this study. The stiffness of cement-treated marine clay and its
dependence on various factors such as cement content, total water content, curing stress and
curing period should be investigated under triaxial loading condition. The change in the
stiffness during destructuration should also be studied. The incorporation of local strain
measurement in conventional triaxial test system would be able to meet with these
requirements although it may be more difficult under triaxial compression condition than
under unconfined compression condition. The knowledge about stiffness of cement-treated
marine clay would be useful to practical engineering and numerical analysis.
2. The basic assumption in this study is that all specimens are isotropic. The specimens
were isotropically reconsolidated under specified pressure before shearing. Although this is
335
CHAPTER 7
suitable for laboratory study, it’s different from the field situation of cement-treated soil,
which is cured and loaded under anisotropic condition. The effect of anisotropy on behavior
of cement-treated marine clay could be investigated by curing and testing the specimens
under anisotropic condition, provided that the curing and testing system can be designed
properly.
3. All conventional long specimens in this study and in Chin’s (2006) study showed
post-peak softening behavior and shear band formation in CIU and CID test. As noted by
Chin (2006), once the shear band is formed, the soil specimen is not uniform anymore, and
macroscopic changes in shear strain, specific volume and pore pressure do not reflect those
which occur within the shear band. This is a common bifurcation problem encountered by
investigators in strain softening soils which would benefit for further study. However, this
may require special technique to setup the specimen and measurements.
4. The proposed model can replicate the primary yielding locus and the evolution of
post-yield locus reasonable well, using appropriate parameters. The parameters of the
proposed model can be easily obtained from conventional test. However, it should be pointed
out that this is not fully complete constitutive model. Some issues are needed to investigate
furthermore to develop a full model. For instance, the recompression line under compression
space is needed to study in detail. Moreover, more validation work is necessary to asses the
capability of the proposed model to replicate the stress-strain behavior of cement-treated
marine clay specimens with different mix proportions, curing conditions and triaxial loading
conditions.
336
REFERENCES
Adachi, T., and Oka, F.(1995). “An elasto-plastic constitutive model for soft rock with
strain softening”. Int. J. Numer. and Anal. Methods in Geomech., 19(4), 233-247.
Adachi, T., and Oka, F.(1993). “An elasto-viscoplastic constitutive model for soft rock
with strain softening”. Proc., Int. Conf. on Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, 327-333.
Abdulla Ali A. and Kiousis Panos D. (1997). “Behavior of cemented sands-I. Testing”.
Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Methods Geomech., Vol. 21, 533-547.
Abdulla Ali A. and Kiousis Panos D. (1997). “Behavior of cemented sands-II.

Modelling ”. Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Methods Geomech., Vol. 21, 549-568.
Ahnberg, H., Ljungkrantz, C. and Holmqvist, L. (1995). “Deep Stabilization of Different

Types of Soft Soils”. Proc. 11th ECSMFE, Copenhagen, Vol. 7:7.167-7.172.
Airey D. W. (1993). “Triaxial testing of naturally cemented carbonate soil”. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol-119, No. 9, 1379-1398.
Al-Tabbaa, A. and Wood, D. M.(1989). “An experimentally based bubble model for
caly”. In Numerical models in geomechanics, Niagara Falls(edited by S.Pietruszczak
and G.N. Pande), Rotterdam, 91-99.
Anagnostopoulos, A., Kalteziotis, N., Tsiambaos, G.K. and Kavvadas, M. (1991).

“Geotechnical properties of the Corinth Canal marls”. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, Vol.9, 1-26.
Asaoka A., Nakano M. and Noda T.(2000). “Superloading yield surface concept for
highly structured soil behavior”. Soils and Foundations, Vol.40(2), 99-110.
Assarson, k., Broms, B., Granhom, S. and Paus, K.(1974). “Deep foundations and ground
improvement schemes”. proceedings on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Other
Geosynthetics in Ground Improvement, Bangkok, 161-173.
Atkinson, J.H. and Richardson, D.(1987). “The effect of local drainage in shear zones on
the undrained strength of overconsolidated clay”. Geotechnique 37, No.3, 393-403.
337
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J.H. (1990). “Discussion of Session 1.2. Proceedings of the Conference on

Engineering Geology of Weak Rock”. Leeds, Cripps, J.C., Coulthard, J.M., Culshaw,
M.G., Forster, A.,Hencher, S.R. and Moon, C.F. (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, 150.
Azman, Md., Amin Md., Ismail, B. and Hyde. A.F.L.(1994). “Deep foundations and
ground improvement schemes”. Proceedings on Geotexiles, Geomembranes and
Other Geosynthetics in Ground Improvement, Bangkok, 161-173.
Babasaki, R., Suzuki, K., Saitoh, S., Suzuki, Y., and Tokitoh, K.(1991). “Construction
and testing of deep foundation improvement using the deep cement mixing method”.
Deep Foundation Improvements: Dsign, Construction and Testing. ASTMSTP 1089,
M. I. Esrig and R.C. Bachus, eds. ASTM, Philadephia, 224-233.
Balasubramaniam, A.S., Kamruzzaman, A.H.M., Uddin, K., Lin, D.G., Phienwij, N. and
Bergado, D.T. (1998). “Chemical Stabilization of Bangkok Clay with Cement, Lime
th
and Flyash Additives”. Proc. 13 SEAGC, Taipei, 253-258.
Barden L. and McDermott Richard J. W. (1965). “ Use of free ends in triaxial testing of
clays”. Journal of the soil mechanics and foundation division, ASCE, Vol-91, No.
SM6, 1-23.
Barksdale, R. D. & Blight, G. E. (1997). “Compressibility and settlement of residual

soils”. In Mechanics of residual soils, (G. E. Blight ed.), Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, 95–
154.
Baudet B. and Stallebrass S. (2004). “A constitutive model for structured clays”.

Geotechnique 54, No.4, 269-278.
Bazant Z.P.，Planas J.(1998). “Fracture and Size in Concrete and Other Quasi-brittle
Materials”. Boca Raton FL：CRC Press，291-291.
Bergado, D.T., Anderson, L.R., Miura, N. and Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1996). “Soft
Ground Improvement in Lowland and Other Environments”. ASCE press, New York.
Bergado, D. T., Ruenkrairergsa, T., Taesiri, Y., and Balasubramainam, A. S.(1999).

“Deep soil mixing to reduce embankment settlement”. Ground Improvement J., 3(3),
145-162.
338
REFERENCES
Black, D.K. and Lee, K.L. (1973). “Saturating laboratory samples by back pressure”. J.
Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division , ASCE, Vol. 99(SM1), 9484, 75-93.
Bressani, L.A. (1990). “Experimental properties of bonded soils”. PhD thesis, University
of London.
Broderic, G. P. and Daniel, D. E. (1990). “Stabilizing compacted clays against chemical

attack”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(10), 1549-1567.
Broms, B. B., 1984. “ Stablisation of soft clay with lime columns”. Proceedings, Seminar
on Soil Improvement and Construction Techniques in Soft Ground, NanYang
Technological Institute, Sigapore.
Bruce, D. A., Bruce, M. E. C. and DiMillio, A. F.(1998). “Deep mixing method: a global
perspective”. Geotechnical Special Publication No.81. Soil Improvement for Big Digs,
Proc. Sessions of Geo-Congree 98, Boston, 1-26.
BS1377 (1990). “British Standard Mehtods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes”. British Standard Institution, London.
BS1881 (1983). “Testing concrete-Part 117: Method for determination of tensile splitting
strength”. British Standard Institution, London.
Burland, J.B. (1990). “On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays”.
Geotechnique, Vol. 29(3), 329-378.
Burland, J.B., Rampello, S., Georgiannou, V.N., and Calabresi, G. (1996). “A Laboratory
Study of the Strength of Four Stiff Clays’. Geotechnique, Vol. 46(3), 491-514.
Callisto L. and Rampello S.(2004). “ An interpretation of structural degradation for three

natural clays”. Can. Geotech. J.Vol-41, 392-407.
Callisto L. and Calabresi G. (1998). “Mechanical behavior of a natural soft clay”.

Getochnique 48, No.4, 495-513.
Cecconi, M., Viggiani, G. & Rampello, S. (1998). “An experimental investigation of the
mechanical behaviour of a pyroclastic soft rock”. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Geotech.
339
REFERENCES
Engng of Hard Soils–Soft Rocks, Naples 1, 473–482.
Chazallon, C., and Hicher, P. Y.(1995). “An elasto-plastic model with damage for bonded
geomaterials”. Numerical Models in Geomechanics NUMOG-5 Conf., G.N. Pande
and S.Pietruszezak, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam,. The Netherlands, 21-26.
Chazallon, C., and Hicher, P. Y.(1998). “A constitutive model coupling elastoplasticity

and damage for cohesive-frictional materials”. Mechanics Cohesive-Frictional
Materials 3, 41-63.
Chandler, R.J.(2000). “Clay sediments in depositional basins: the geotechnical cycle”. Q.

J. Engng Geol. Hydrogeol, Vol.33, 7-39.
Chia, B.H., and Tan, T. S.(1993). “The use of jet grouting in the construction of drains in
soft soils”. Innovation in infrastructure development: Proc., 11th Conf. of ASEAN Fed.
of Eng. Organisations, 20-26.
Chiu C. F., Zhu W. and Zhang C.L. (2008). “Yielding and shear behaviour of cement-
treated dredged materials” . Engineering Geology, Vol. 103, 1-12.
Chua Tong Seng (1990). “ Some considerations in undrained triaxial testing of very soft
clay”. Master thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Chew S. H., Kamruzzaman, and Lee F. H. (2004). “Physicochemical and Engineering

behavior of cement treated clays”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 696-705.
Chin, K.G., Lee, F.H., and Dasari, G.R. (2004). “Effects of Curing Stress on Mechanical
Properties of Cement-Treated Soft Marine Clay”. Proc. Int. Symp. on Engineering
Practice and Performance of Soft Deposits, Osaka, 217-222.
Chin Kheng Ghee (2006). “constitutive behavior of cement treated marine clay”. PhD
thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
COI (2005). “Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Incident at the MRT Circle
Line Worksite that led to the Collapse of the Nicoll Highway on 20 April 2004”.
Ministry of Manpower, Singapore.
Consoli N. C., Rotta G. V. and Prietto P. D. M.(2000). “ Influence of curing under stress
on the triaxial response of cemented soils”. Geotechnique 50, No.1, 99-105.
340
REFERENCES
Consoli N. C., Rotta G. V. and Prietto P. D. M.(2006). “ Yielding-compressibility-

strength relationship for an artificially cemented soil under stress”. Geotechnique 56,
No.1, 69-72.
Coop M. R. and Atkinson J. H. (1993). “ The mechanics of cemented carbonate sands”.

Cotecchia, F., and Chandler, R.J. (1997). “ The Influence of Structure on the Pre-Failure
Behaviour of a Natural Clay”. Geotechnique, Vol. 47(3), 523-544.
Crooks, J. H. A. and Graham, J.(1976). “Geotechnical properties of the Belfast estuarine

deposits”. Geotechnique 30, No. 2, 293-315.
Cuccovillos T. and Coop M. R. (1997). “Yielding and pre-failure deformation of

structured sands”. Geotechnique 47, No.1, 69-72.
Cotecchia, F., and Chandler, R.J. (2000). “A General Framework for the Mechanical
Behaviour of Clays”. Geotechnique, Vol. 50(4), 431-447.
Cuccovillos T. and Coop M. R. (1999). “On the mechanics of structured sands”.

Deschenes, J., Massiera, M. and Tournier, J. (1995). “Testing of a Cement Bentonite Mix
for a Low Permeability Plastic Barrier” . In Dredging, Remediation, and Containment
of Contaminated Sediments, ASTM 1293, 252-270.
Desrues J. and Viggiani G.(2004). “Strain localization in sand: an overview of the

experimental results obtained in Grenoble using stereophotogrammetry”. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 28,.279–321.
Desrues J.and Chambon R.(2002). “Shear band analysis and shear moduli calibration”.
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 39, 3757–3776.
Desrues J.(1998). “Localisation Patterns in Ductile and Brittle Geomaterials”. In Material

Instabilities in Solids, Edited by René de Borst snd Erik van der Giessen, 137-1258.
341
REFERENCES
Dusseault, M.B. and Morgenstern, N.R.(1979). “Locked sands”. J. Engng Geol. 12, 117-
131.
Enami, A., Hibino, S., Takahashi, M., Akiya, K., and Yamada, M. (1986). “ Properties of
Soil Cement Columns Produced by Compact Machine System for Tenocolumn
Method”. Proc. 21st Annual Meeting of JSSMFE, Tokyo, 1987-1990. (in Japanese)
Endo, M. (1976). “Recent Development in Dredged Material Stabilization and Deep

Chemical Mixing in Japan”. Soil and Site Improvement, University of California,
Berkeley, lifelong learning seminar.
Gajo, A. and Muir Wood, D.(2001). “A new approach to anisotropic bounding surface
plasticity: general formation and simulations for natural and reconstituted clays”. Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech, Vol. 18, 314-333.
Gallavresi, F.(1992). “Grouting improvement of foundation soils”. Proc., Grouting, soil

improvement and geosynthetics, ASCE, New York, vol.1, 1-38.
Gens , A., and Nova, R.(1993). “Conceptual bases for a constitutive model for bonded
soils and weak rocks”. Proc., Int. Conf. on Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, 485-494.
Georgiannou V. N. and Burland J. B. (2001). “A laboratory study of post-rupture

strength”. Geotechnique 51, No. 8, 665-675.
Goto, S., Tatsuoka, F., Shibuya, S., Kim, Y.S. and Sato, T. (1991). “A Simple Gauge for
Local Small Strain Measurements in the Laboratory”. Soils & Found., Vol. 31(1),
169-180.
Harleston N. and Wang X. H.(2009). “Laboratory evaluation of cement reinforced and

cement-flyash-gravel (CFG) reinforced concrete pavement sections”. EJGE, Vol.14,
bundle B.
Head, K.H. (1986). “Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing”. ELE International Limited,
Pentech Press, London.
Hirai H., Takahashi M. and Yamada M. (1989). “An elastic-plastic constitutive model for
the behavior for improved sandy soils”. Soils and Foundations, Vol.29(2), 69-84.
342
REFERENCES
Horpibulsuk, S., Miura, N. and Nagaraj, T.S. (2003). “Assessment of Strength

Development in Cement-Admixed High Water Content Clays with Abrams Law as a
Basis”. Geotechnique, Vol. 53(4), 439-444.
Horpibulsuk S., Miura N. and Bergado D. T. (2004). “Undrained shear behavior of

cement admixed clay at high water content”. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 1096-1105.
Horpibulsuk S., Liu M. D., Liyanapthirana D. and Suebsuk J. (2009). “Behavior of

cemented clay simulated via the theoretical framework”. Computers and Geotechnics,
in press.
Huang J. T. and Airey D. W. (1998). “ Properties of artificially cemented carbonate sand”.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 492-499.
Huat B. B. K. (2006). “Effect of cement admixtures on the engineering properties of

tropical peak soils”. EJGE paper, Vol. 11, Bundle B.
Jardine, R.J.(1985). “Investigations of pile-soil behavior with special reference to the

foundation of offshore structures”. PhD thesis, University of London.
Jardine, R.J., St. John, H.D., Hight, D.W. and Potts, D.M. (1991). “Some practical
applications of a non-linear ground model”. Proceedings of the lOth European
Conference on Soil Mechanics, Florence, Vol. 1, pp. 223-8.
Jardine, R.J. (1992). “Some observations on the kinematic nature of soil stiffness”. Soils
and Foundations, 32, 111-24.
Jardine, R.J. (1995). “One perspective of the pre-failure deformation characteristics of

some geomaterials”. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pre-Failure
Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Hokkaido, Japan, Shibuya, S., Mitachi,
T. and Miura, S. (eds),Vol. 2, 855-885.
Jefferies, S.A. (1981). “Bentonite-Cement Slurries for Hydraulic Cutoff”. Proc. 10th
ICSMFE, Stockholm, Vol. 1, 435-440.
343
REFERENCES
Kaomon, M. and Bergado, D. T. (1991). “Ground improvement techniques”. Proceedings

of the 9th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Bankok, 2, 526-546.
Kamruzzaman, A.H.M (2002). “Physico-Chemical & Engineering Behaviour of Cement
Treated Singapore Marine Clay”. PhD thesis, National University of Singapore,
Singapore.
Kamruzzaman A. H. M., Chew S. H., and Lee F. H. (2009). “Structuration and

Destructuration behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay”. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 4, 573-589.
Kasama K., Ochiai H. and Yasufuku N.(2000). “On the stress-strain behavior of lightly
cemented clay based on an extended critical state concept”. Soils and Foundations,
Vol.40, No.5, 37-47.
Kaushinger, J. L., Perry, E. B., and Hankour, R.(1992). “Jet grouting state of the practice”.
Proc., Grouting, soil improvement and geosynthetics: ASCE, New York, vol. 1, 169-
181.
Kavvadas, M., Anagnostopoulos, A., Leonardos, M. and Karras, B. (1993). “Mechanical

properties of Ptolemais lignite”. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the
Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Athens, Anagnostopoulos A.,
Schlosser, F., Kalteziotis, N. and Frank, R. (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp.
585-92.
Kavvadas, M., Papadopoulos, B. and Kalteziotis, N. (1994). “Geotechnical properties of

Ptolemais lignite”. Geotechnieal and Geological Engineering, 12, 87-112.
Kavvadas M. (1995). “A plasticity approach to the mechanical behavior of bonded soils”.

Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Computational Plasticity, Barcelona.
Kavvadas M. and Amorosi A.(2000). “A constitutive model for structured soils”.

Geotechnique 50, No. 3, 263-273.
Kawasaki, T., Niina, A., Saitoh, S., Suzuki, Y. and Honjo, Y. (1981). “Deep Mixing
Method using Cement Hardening Agent”. Proc. 10th ICSMFE, Vol. 3, 721-724.
344
REFERENCES
Kezdi, A. (1979). “Stabilized Earth Roads”. Development in Geotechnical Engineering,

Elsevier Scientific, New York.
Kilpatrick, B.L., and Garner, S.J. (1992). “Use of Cement Bentonite for Cut-Off Wall
Construction”. Proc. of Grouting, Soil Improvement, and Geosynthetics, ASCE
Geotechnical Publication 30, 803-815.
Koskinen, M., Karstunen, M. and Wheeler, S. J. (2002). “Modelling destructuration and

anisotropy of a soft natural clay”. Proc. 5th Eur. Conf. Numer. Methods Geotech.
Engng, Paris, 11-20.
Lee Kenneth L. (1978). “End restraint effects on undrained static triaxial strength of
sand”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol-104, No. GT6, 687-703.
Lagioia R. and Nova R. (1995). “An experimental and theoretical study of the behavior of
a calcarenite in triaxial compression”. Geotechnique 45, No. 4, 663-648.
Lagioia R. and Nova R. (1993). “A constitutive model for soft rocks”. Proc., Int. Conf. on
Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, 625-632.
Leddra, M.J., Jones, M.E. and Goldsmith, A.S. (1990). “Compaction and shear
deformation of a weakly-cemented, high porosity sedimentary rock”. Proceedings of
the Conference on Engineering Geology of Weak Rock, Leeds, Cripps, J.C.,
Coulthard, J.M., Culshaw, M.G., Forster, A., Hencher, S.R. and Moon, C.F. (eds)
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 45-54.
Lee F. H., Lee Yong, Chew S. H. and Yong K. Y.(2005). “Strength and modulus of
marine clay-cement mixes”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 178-185.
Lee F.H(2008). "How Useful is Numerical Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering?".

Proceedings of the International Conference on Deep Excavation (ICDE) 2008 , Land
Transport Authority, Singapore.
Lee K., Chan D. and Lam K. (2004). “Constitutive model for cement treated clay in a
critical state frame work”. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 44, No.3, 69-77.
345
REFERENCES
Lee Yeong(1999). “A framework for the design of Jet Grouting Piles in Singapore marine
clay”. Master thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Leroueil S. and Vaughan P. R. (1990). “The general and congruent effects of structure in
natural soils and weak rocks”. Geotechnique 40, No. 3, 467-488.
Leroueil S. (1998). “Contribution to the round table: peculiar aspects of structured soils”.
Proc. 2nd Symp. Geotech. Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Napoli 3, 1669-1678.
Liu E. L. and Shen Z.J. (2005). “ Binary medium model for structured soils”. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 36(4), 1-7. (in Chinese)
Liu M. D. and Carter J. P. (1999). “Virgin compression of structured soils”.

Liu M. D. and Carter J. P. (2000). “Modelling the destructuring of soils during virgin
compression”. Geotechnique 50, No. 4, 479-483.
Liu M. D. and Carter J. P. (2002). “A structured Cam Clay model”. Can. Geotech. J.Vol-
39, 1313-1332.
Liu MD, Carter JP, Horpibulsuk S, Liyanapathirana DS.. “Modelling the behaviour
of cemented clay”. In: Geo-Shanghai 2006; 65–72 [Geotechnical special
publication no. 152].
Lagioia, R., and Nova, R.(1995). “An experimental model for structured soils”.
Geotechnique, 50(3), 263-273.
Locat, J., Berube, M.-A., and Choquette, M. (1990). “ Laboratory Investigations on the
Lime Stabilization of Sensitive Clays Shear Strength Development”. Can. Geotech. J.,
Vol. 27, 294-304.
Locat, J. Tremblay, H., and Leroueil, S. (1996). “ Mechanical and Hydraulic Behaviour
of a Soft Inorganic Clay Treated with Lime”. Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 33, 654-669.
346
REFERENCES
Lorenzo G. A. and Bergado D. T. (2004). “ Fundamental parameters of cement-admixed

clay-new approach”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 1042-1050.
Low H. E., Phoon, K. K., Tan T.S., and Leroueil S.(2008). “Effect of soil microstructure
on the compressibility of natural Singapore marine clay”. Can. Geotech. J.45, 161-
176.
Maccarini, M. (1987). “Laboratory studies of a weakly bonded artificial soil”. PhD thesis,
University of London.
Malandraki, V. and Toll, D.G. (1994). “Yielding of a Weakly Bonded Artificial Soil”.
Proc. Int. Symp. Pre-failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Sapporo,
Japan (ed. Shibuya, S., Mitachi, T. and Miura, S.), Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 315-320.
Malandraki, V. and Toll, D.G. (1996). “The definition of yield for bonded materials”.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol.14, 67-82.
Malandraki, V. and Toll, D. G. (2000). “Drained probing triaxial tests on a weakly

bonded artificial soil”. Geotechnique 50, 141-151.
Matsuoka H. and SUN, D. A. (1993). “A constitutive law for frictional and cohesive
materials”. JSCE, No. 463/III-22, 163-172(in Japanese).
Matsuoka H. and SUN, D. A. (1995). “Extension of spatially mobilized plane(SMP) to

frictional and cohesive materials and its application to cemented sands”. Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 35, No. 4, 63-72.
McDowell G. R. (2000). “A family of yield loci based on micro mechanics”. Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 40, No.6, 133-137.
McDowell G. R. and Hau .K. W. (2004). “ A generalized modified cam clay model for
clay and sand incorporating kinematic hardening and bounding surface plasticty”.
Granunlar Matter 6, 11-16.
Mitchell R. J. (1970). “On the yielding and mechanical strength of Leda clays”. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, vol.7, 297-312.
347
REFERENCES
Mitchell, J.K. (1976). “Fundamentals of Soil Behavior”. Wiley, New York.
Mitchell, J.K. (1993). “Fundamentals of Soil Behavior”. 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Miura N., Horpibulsuk S. and Nagagaj T. S. (2001). “Engineering behavior of cement

stabilized clay at high water content”. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 41, No.5, 33-45.
Mroz, Z., Norris, V.A. and Zienkiewicz, O. C.(1978). “An anisotropic hardening model
for soils and its application to cyclic loading”. Int. J. Num. Anal. Methods
Geomechanics 2, 203-221.
Mroz, Z., Norris, V. A. and Zienkiewicz, O. C.(1979). “Application of an anisotropic
hardening model in the analysis of elasto-plastic deformation of soils”. Geotechnique
29, No.1, 1-34.
Wood, D. M. (1990). “Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics”. Cambridge
University Press.
Muir Wood (1995). “Kinematic hardening model for structured soil”. Numerical Models
in Geomechanics-NUMOG V, Pande and Pietruzczak(eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, 83-
88.
Nagaraj. T.S., Pandain, N.S. and Narasimha Raju, P.S.R.(1998). “Compressibility
behavior of soft cemented soils”. Geotechnqiue, 48, NO.2, 281-287.
Nakamura, M., Matsuzawa, S., and Matsushita, M. (1982). “Study of the Agitation
Mixing of Improvement Agents”. Proc. 17th Japan National Conf. on SMFE, Vol. 2,
2585-2588. (in Japanese)
Namikawa T, Koseki J.(2006). “Experimental determination of softening relations for
cement-treated sand”. Soils and Foundations, Vol.46(4), 491–504.
Namikawa T. and Mihira S. (2007). “Elasto-plastic model for cement-treated sand”. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 31, 71-107.
Niina, A., Saitoh, S., Babasaki, R., Tsutsumi, I., and Kawasaki, T. (1977). “Study on
DMM Using Cement Hardening Agent (Part 1)”. Proc. 12th Japan National Conf. on
SMFE, 1325-1328. (in Japanese)
Nishibayashi, K. (1988). “Research on Low Strength Improvement Using the Deep

Mixing Method for the Purpose of Post-Improvement Excavation (Part 2)”. Proc.
23rd Annual Meeting of JSSMFE, Tokyo, 2297-2300. (in Japanese)
348
REFERENCES
Nishibayashi, K., Matsuo, T., Hosoya, Y., Hirai, Y., and Shima, M. (1985).
“Experimental Research into Mixing Devices Used for the Deep Mixing Method of
Soil Improvement (Part 4)”. Proc. 20th Annual Meeting of JSSMFE, Tokyo, 1747-
1750. (in Japanese)
Nova, R. (1988). “Sinfonietta classica: an exercise on classical soil modeling”. Proc.

Symp. Constitutive Eq. for Granular Non-Cohesive Soils, Rotterdam, 501-520.
Oka, F., and Adachi, T.(1985). “An elasto-plastic constitutive equation of geologic
material with memory”. Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Numer. Methods in Geomechanics,
293-300.
Petchgate K., Voottipruex P. and Suknognkol W. (2000). “ Effect of height and diameter
ratio on strength of cement stabilized soft Bangkok clay”. Geotechnical Engineering
Journal, Vol. 31, No.3, 227-239.
Pitts, J. (1992). “Landforms and Geomorphic evolution of the Islands during the
Quaternary”. In: Physical Adjustment in a Changing Landscape: The Singapore Story,
A.Gupta and J.Pitts, eds., Singapore University Press, Singapore, 83-143.
Porbaha, A., Shibuya, S. and Kishida, T. (2000). “State of Art in Deep Mixing
Technology. Part III: Geomaterial Characterization”. Ground Improvement, Vol. 3,
91-110.
Prevost, J. H.(1978). “ Plasticity theory for soil stress-strain behavior”. J. Engng Mech.
Div. ASCE104, No.5, 1177-1194.
Rao, S.N., and Rajasekaran, G. (1996). “Reaction products formed in lime-stabilized

marine clays”. J. Geotech. Engrg., 122(5), 329-336.
Roscoe, K.H., and Burland, J.B. 1968. “On the generalized stress strain behaviour of ‘wet
clay”. In Engineering plasticity. Edited by J. Heyman and F.A. Leckie. Cambridge
University Press, 535–609.
Rotta G. V., Consoli N. C., Prietto P. D. M., Coop M .R. and Graham J.(2003). “Isotropic
yielding in an artificially cemented soil cured under stress”. Geotechnique 53, No. 5,
493-501.
349
REFERENCES
Rouania M. and Wood D. M. (2000). “A kinematic hardening constitutive model for

natural clays with loss of structure”. Geotechnique 50, No. 2, 153-164.
Rowe P. W. and Barden Laing(1964). “ Importance of free ends in triaxial testing”.

Journal of the soil mechanics and foundation division, ASCE, Vol-90, No. SM1, 1-27.
Saada A. S., Bianchin G. F. and Liang L.(1994). “ Cracks, bifurcation and shear bands
propagation in saturated clays”. Geotechnique 45, No. 2, 339-343.
Saitoh, S., Suzuki, Y., Shirai, K. (1985). “Hardening of Soil Improved by Deep Mixing
Method”. Proc. 11th ICSMFE, Vol. 5, 1745-1748.
Saitoh, S. (1988). “Experimental Study of Engineering Properties of Cement Improved

Ground by the Deep Mixing Method”. PhD thesis, Nihon University, Japan. (in
Japanese)
Saitoh, S., Shirai, K., Okumura, R., and Kobayashi, Y. (1990). “ Laboratory Experiments
on the Mixing Methods for Improvement of Sandy Soils”. Proc. 25th Annual Meeting
of JSSMFE, Tokyo, 1955-1958. (in Japanese)
Samieh A. M. and Wong R. C.K.(1997). “Deformation of Athabasca oil sand at low

effective stresses under varying boundary conditions”. Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 34,
985–990.
Schnaid, F., Prietto, P. D. M. and Consoli, N.C.(2001). “Characterization of cemented

sand in triaxial compression”. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng. ASCE 127, No. 10,
857-868.
Shen, S.-L. (1998). “ Behaviour of Deep Mixing /Columns in Composite Clay Ground”.
PhD thesis, Saga University, Japan.
Shen Zhu-jiang (1993a). “A elasto-plastic damage model for cemented clay”. Chinese
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.15(3), 21-28. (in Chinese)
Shen Zhu-jiang (1993b). “A nonlinear elastic damage model for structured clay”. Journal
of Nanjing hydraulic research institute, Vol.3, 247-255. (in Chinese)
350
REFERENCES
Shibuya, S., Tatsuoka, F., Teachavorasinskun, S., King, X.J., Abe, F., Kim, Y.S. and Park,
C.S. (1992). “ Elastic Deformation Properties of Geomaterials”. Soils & Found., Vol.
32(3), 26-46.
Smith P. R., Jardine R. J. and Hight D. W. (1992). “The yielding of Bothkennar clay”.
Stavridakis E. I. (2006). “Effect of curing time and bentonite content on the quantitative
evaluation of engineering behavior of cement treated clayed mixtures under soaked
conditions”. EJGE paper, Vol. 11, Bundle A.
Sugawara, S., Shigenawa, S., Gotoh, H., and Hosoi, T.(1996). “Large scale jet grouting
for prestrutting in soft clay”. Grouting and deep mixing: Proc. IS Tokyo’96, 2nd Int.
Conf. on Ground Improvement FGeosystems, 353-356.
Sun Dao Jun (2008). “ Effect of a newly developed lignosulphonate superplasticizer on

properties of cement pastes and mortars”. Master thesis, National University of
Singapore, Singapore.
Suzuki, K., Nichikawa, T., Hayashi, J. and Ito, S.(1981). “Approach by zeta potential on
the surface change of hydration of C3S”. Cement and Concrete Research, 11, 759-764.
Suzuki, M., Fujimoto, T., Yamamoto, T., and Okabayashi, S. (2004). “Strength Increase
of Cement-Stabilized Soil due to Initial Consolidation”. Proc. Int. Symp. on
Engineering Practice and Performance of Soft Deposits, Osaka, 211-216.
Taki, O. and Yang, D. (1991). “Soil Cement Mixed Wall Technique”. Geotechnical
Engineering Congress, ASCE, Special Publication, No. 27, 298-309.
Tatsuoka F. and Kobayashi A. (1983). “Triaxial strength characteristics of cement-treated

soft clay”. Proc. 8th ECSMFE, Vol. 8, No. 1, 421-426.
Tatsuoka, F. and Shibuya, S. (1991). “Deformation characteristics of soils and rocks from
feld and laboratory tests”. Proceedings of the Ninth Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, Bangkok,
Vol. 2, 53-114.
351
REFERENCES
Tatsuoka, F.,Uchida, K., Imai, K., Ouchi, T., and Kohata, Y. (1997). “Properties of
Cement Treated Soil in Trans-Tokyo Bay Highway Project”. Ground Improvement,
Vol. 1(1), 37-57.
Timoshenko and Goodier (1970). “Theory of elasticity”. Third Ed, McGraw-Hill, Japan,
122-123.
Terashi, M. (1997). “Theme Lecture: Deep Mixing Method – Brief State-of-Art”. Proc.
14th ICSMFE, Vol. 4, 2475-2478.
Tan S. T., Goh T. L. and Yong K. Y. (2002). “Properties of Singapore marine clays
improved by cement mixing”. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 25, No.4, 1-11.
Tan, T.S., Phoon, K.K., Lee, F.H., Tanaka, H., Locat, J., and Chong, P.T. (2003). “A
Characterisation Study of Singapore Lower Marine Clay”. In Characterisation and
Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Tan et al. (eds.). Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 429-
454.
Tan, S. L. (1983). “Geotechnical properties and Laboratory testing of soft soils in

Singapore”. Proc., 1st International Seminar on Construction Problems in soft soils,
Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore, 1-47.
Uddin, K., Balasubramaniam A. S. and Bergado D .T. (1997). “Engineering Behavior of

Cement-Treated Bangkok Soft Clay”. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 28(1), 89-119.
Vatsala A., Nova R., and Murthy B. R. Srinivasa(2001). “Elastoplastic model for
cemented soils”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 127, 679-687.
Vaughan, P.R. (1988). “Characterising the mechanical properties of the in-situ residual
soil”. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Geomechanics in Tropical
Soils, Singapore, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 469-87.
Vaughan, P.R., Maccarini, M. and Mokhtar, S.M. (1988). “Indexing the engineering
properties of residual soil”. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 21, 61-84.
352
REFERENCES
Vaughan, P.R. (1990b). “Discussion of session 1.1, Proceedings of the Conference on

Engineering Geology of Weak Rock”. Leeds, Cripps, J.C., Coulthard, J.M., Culshaw,
M.G., Forster, A., Hencher, S.R. and Moon, C.F. (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 111.
Viggiani, G., Rampello, S. and Georgiannou, V.N.(1993). “Experimental analysis of

localization phenomenon in triaxial tests on stiff clays”. Proc. 1st Symp. Geotech.
Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Athens 2, 849-856.
Wheeler, S. J.(1997). “A rotational hardening elasto-plastic model for clays”. In

Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Hamburg, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol.1, 431-434.
Wissa, A.E.Z., Ladd, C.C. and Lambe, T.W. (1965). “Effective Sress Strength Parameters
of Stabilized Soils”. Proc. 6th ICSMFE, Montreal, Vol. 1, 412-416.
Wong P. K. K. and Mitchell R. J. (1975). “Yielding and plastic flow of sensitive

cemented clay”. Geotechnique 25, No. 4, 763-782.
Wong R. C. K.(1999). “Mobilized strength components of Athabasca oil sand in triaxial

compression”. Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 36, 718–735.
Wood D. M. (1990). “Soil behavior and critical state soil mechanics”.150-153,

Cambridge University Press.
Wood D. M.(1995b). “Kinematic hardening model for structured soil”. Proceedings of

the international symposium on numerical models in geomechanics, Davos, 83-88.
Wood D. M. (2004). “Experimental inspiration for kinematic hardening soil models”.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 656-664.
Yin, J.H., and Lai, C.K. (1998). “Strength and Stiffness of Hong Kong Marine Deposits
Mixed with Cement.”. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 29(1), 29-44.
Yoshizawa, H., Okumura, R., Hosoya, Y., Sumi, M., Yamada, T. (1996). “JGS Technical
Committee Report: Factors affecting the quality of treated soil during execution of
DMM”. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, Grouting and
Deep Mixing, Tokyo, Vol. 2, 931-937.
353
REFERENCES
Yu, Y., Pu, J. and Ugai, K. (1997). “Study of Mechanical Properties of Soil Cement
Mixture for a Cutoff Wall”. Soils & Found., Vol. 37(4), 93-103.
Yu, Y.Z., Pu, J.L. and Ugai, K. (1998). “A damage model for soil-cement mixture”. Soils
and Foundations, 38(3), 1-12.
Yu, Y. Z, Pu, J. L., Ugai, K. and Takashi, H.(1999). “A study of the permeability of soil-
cement mixture”. Soils and Foundations, 39(5), 145-149.
Yong, D. M., Hayashi, K., and Chia, B. H.(1996). “Jet grouting for the construction of a
RC canal in soft marine clay”. Grouting and deep mixing: Proc. IS Tokyo’96, 2nd Int.
Conf. on Ground Improvement Geosystems, 375-380.
Yong, K. Y., Karunaratne, G. P., and Lee, S. L.(1990). “Recent developments in soft clay
engineering in Singapore”. Proc. Kansai Int. Geotech. Forum’90: Comparative
Geotechnical Engineering. Osaka, Japan, 1-8.
Zhao X. H., Sun H. and Lo K.W.(2002). “An elastoplastic damage model for soil”.
354

Xiao Huawen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xiao Huawen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

YIELDING AND FAILURE OF CEMENT TREATED SOIL

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

work could not have been accomplished.

expressed to Dr Chew Soon Hoe, the lab supervisor.

scholarship as well as facilities provided by the National University of Singapore to

perform his research study.

Acknowledgements are also due to:

1.2 Behavior of cement-treated soil 3

1.2.1 Behavior of natural and artificially lightly cemented soil 4

1.2.2 Behavior of cement-treated sand and clay 5

1.2.3 Behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay 6

1.3 Objectives and organization of the thesis 6

2.2 Basic concepts and mechanism of cement stabilization 9

2.2.1 Mechanism of cement stabilization 9

2.2.2 Structure and microstructure of treated soil 11

2.3 Factors on the strength of cement-treated soil 13

2.3.1 Characteristics of stabilizing agents 14

2.3.3 Mixing conditions 16

2.3.4 Curing conditions 16

2.4 Experimental studies on cement-treated soil 17

2.4.1 Changes in basic property of cement-treated soil 17

2.4.2 Engineering behavior 18

2.4.2.1 Prime factors on strength and deformation of 18

2.4.2.5 Shear strength parameters 22

2.4.3 Stress-strain behavior of cement-treated soil under 23

2.4.4 Studies on cement-treated Singapore marine clay 24

2.4.5 Primary yielding and post-yield behavior of cemented 26

2.4.6 Softening and post-peak shearing behavior of cemented 29

2.5 Theoretical studies 32

2.5.1 Review of theoretical studies for natural or artificial 32

2.5.2 Constitutive frameworks for cement-treated soil – a 36

2.6 Outstanding issues 37

2.6.1 Outstanding issues 37

2.6.2 Scope of work in the current Study 38

3.1.1 Untreated marine clay 57

3.1.2 Ordinary Portland cement 57

3.2 Variables investigated 58

3.3 Sample preparation procedure 60

3.4 Testing procedure and apparatus 62

3.4.1 Basic properties 63

3.4.2 Isotropic compression 63

3.4.3 Triaxial compression and strength 63

3.4.4 Microstructural properties 65

3.4.5 Tensile splitting strength test 66

3.4.6 Remoulded cement-treated marine clay 67

4 PREPEAK BEHAVIOR OF CEMENT-TREATED SINGAPORE 77

4.1 Purpose of experiment 77

4.2 Definition of primary yielding and yield locus for 81

4.2.1 Definition of artificial structure 81

4.2.2 Definition of yielding and yield locus for cemented soils 82

4.3 Isotropic compression behavior of cement-treated soil 89

4.3.1 General behavior under isotropic compression 89

4.3.2 Cement content effect 90

4.3.4 Curing stress effect 91

4.3.5 Curing period effect 92

4.4 Triaxial compression behavior of samples consolidated at 93

4.4.1 General behavior under triaxial compression 93

4.4.2 Cement content effect 95

4.4.3 Total water content effect 95

4.4.4 Curing stress effect 96