JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, B03209, doi:10.

1029/2011JB008661, 2012

Critical state soil constitutive model for methane hydrate soil

S. Uchida,1 K. Soga,1 and K. Yamamoto2
Received 7 July 2011; revised 15 January 2012; accepted 27 January 2012; published 16 March 2012.

[1] This paper presents a new constitutive model that simulates the mechanical behavior
of methane hydrate-bearing soil based on the concept of critical state soil mechanics,
referred to as the “Methane Hydrate Critical State (MHCS) model”. Methane
hydrate-bearing soil is, under certain geological conditions, known to exhibit greater
stiffness, strength and dilatancy, which are often observed in dense soils and also in bonded
soils such as cemented soil and unsaturated soil. Those soils tend to show greater resistance
to compressive deformation but the tendency disappears when the soil is excessively
compressed or the bonds are destroyed due to shearing. The proposed model represents
these features by introducing five extra model parameters to the conventional critical state
model. It is found that, for an accurate prediction of ground settlement, volumetric yielding
plays an important role when hydrate soil undergoes a significant change in effective
stresses and hydrate saturation, which are expected during depressurization for methane
gas recovery.
Citation: Uchida, S., K. Soga, and K. Yamamoto (2012), Critical state soil constitutive model for methane hydrate soil,
J. Geophys. Res., 117, B03209, doi:10.1029/2011JB008661.

1. Introduction [5] Methane hydrate-bearing soil is generally categorized

into two types based on hydrate morphology, in relation to
[2] Methane hydrate-bearing soil is a natural soil deposit
the location where hydrate is formed in the pore space:
that contains methane hydrate inside its pores. Methane
[6] 1. Pore filling - hydrates exist inside pore space. The
hydrate is a metastable solid material that consists of
hydrates may bridge neighboring grains, the type also
methane gas (CH4) and water molecules. The water mole-
known as “load bearing”, when the hydrate saturation in
cules form a structure in which a floating methane gas
volume fraction exceeds 25–40% [e.g., Yun et al., 2007; Lee
molecule is encaged. Typically, 1 m3 of methane hydrate
and Waite, 2008]. As a result, the hydrate-bearing soil is
can release 164 m3 of methane gas and 0.87 m3 of water
effectively denser (i.e. less pore space) than that without
when the hydrate dissociates (i.e. becomes unstable) under hydrate and is likely to behave as an overconsolidated or
standard conditions of temperature and pressure.
dense soil.
[3] Methane hydrate-bearing soil can exist under condi-
[7] 2. Cementing - hydrates exist at soil grain contacts and
tions of high pressure and low temperature (e.g. 100 kPa at
act as bonding agent. Thus, the soil is likely to behave as a

80  C and 2.5 MPa at 0  C). Therefore, natural methane
bonded soil.
hydrate-bearing soil is usually found in deep water sedi-
[8] Based on the review of the mechanical properties of
ments (e.g. 1–2 km below sea level) or permafrost regions
methane hydrate-bearing soil by Soga et al. [2006] and
(e.g. 1–2 km below the ground surface) [Collett, 2002;
Waite et al. [2009], the following characteristics are apparent
Kvenvolden, 1999].
for both pore filling and cementation types: (1) the peak
[4] Deep water sediments with a high concentration of
strength of hydrate-bearing soil depends on hydrate satura-
methane hydrate in the pore space are considered to be a tion (Sh); (2) the hydrate contribution to its shear behavior is
possible energy resource for future exploitation. This has
of a cohesive nature rather than frictional, meaning that the
triggered numerous researchers to investigate the physical,
peak strength may vary but the critical strength at large shear
chemical and mechanical properties of methane hydrate- strain is similar regardless of hydrate saturation; (3) the
bearing soil. Two methods are generally accepted to be
dilation angle increases with hydrate saturation; and (4) the
feasible for dissociating methane hydrate and thus extracting
stiffness of hydrate-bearing soil tends to be greater than that
methane gas in situ: (1) the use of depressurized wells,
of soil without hydrate.
which reduce the pressure in the soil around the wells; and
[9] Note that the degree of these changes depend highly
(2) the use of thermal injection wells, which increase the
on hydrate morphology. For example, the rate of increase in
temperature in the surrounding soil by injecting hot fluid.
small strain stiffness with increase in hydrate saturation is
much greater in the cementing type compared to that in the
1 pore filling type [e.g., Clayton et al., 2010; Priest et al.,
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
2
Japan Oil, Gas and Metal National Corporation, Chiba, Japan. 2009]. The detailed explanation on modeling of mechani-
cal behavior at larger strains with different morphologies is
Copyright 2012 by the American Geophysical Union. shown later.
0148-0227/12/2011JB008661

B03209 1 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL
Figure 1. Conventional drained triaxial compression test on bonded and dense soil.
[10] Once the hydrate dissociates either through a decrease
in pore pressure or increase in temperature, the hydrates
inside the pore space disappear and the soil may behave as
less dense soil or unbonded soil. The loss of shear resistance
and increase in pore space due to hydrate dissociation may
lead to some geomechanical problems. For example, the
depressurization process used for methane gas extraction
significantly increases the effective stress state by the
reduction in pore pressure and may change the mechanical
properties of hydrate soils, which may lead to potential
geomechanical hazards such as excessive ground settlement,
submarine landslide or wellbore collapse, which have been
considered theoretically by many researchers [e.g., Settari,
2002; Sultan et al., 2004; Xu and Germanovich, 2006;
Freij-Ayoub et al., 2007].
[11] This paper presents a new constitutive model that
incorporates the effect of hydrate on the stress-strain
behavior of soils. A simple example of the application of the
model is presented by evaluating the possible magnitudes of
ground deformation of hydrate-bearing sediments when
methane gas is recovered by the depressurization method.
2. Summary of Mechanical Behavior
of Hydrate Soils
2.1. The Effect of Hydrate on Stress-Strain Behavior
[12] Bonded soils such as cemented soil (i.e. cement
bonding) and unsaturated soil (i.e. meniscus bonding)
exhibit greater stiffness, strength and dilatancy compared to
unbonded soils with the equivalent soil skeleton structure
under the same confining stress. Although different in
magnitudes, it is also known that denser soils (i.e. less pore
space) exhibit similar mechanical enhancements under the
same confining stress due to greater interlocking of soil
grains. The mechanical behavior of such soils is well studied
2 of 13
B03209
[e.g., Lade and Overton, 1989; Consoli et al., 1998; Miura
et al., 2001; Asghari et al., 2003; Wang and Leung, 2008]
for cemented soils [e.g., Cui and Delage, 1996; Rampino
et al., 1999; Toll and Ong, 2003; Tarantino and Tombolato,
2005; Zhan and Ng, 2006], for unsaturated soils [e.g.,
Lade, 1977; Been and Jefferies, 1985; Bolton, 1986;
Burland, 1990], for dense soils. Figure 1 shows idealized
geomechanical behavior of bonded soils and dense soils.
The formation of bonds at grain contacts or the interlocking
of grains increases the contact stiffness and hence the
macroscopic stiffness, which is illustrated by the greater
gradient of deviator stress q to deviatoric strain
d in
Figure 1. The enhanced adhesion at grain contacts and
interlocking of grains increase the shear resistance and
hence the peak strength, represented by greater values of q
in Figure 1. However, once the bonds or the interlocking
break due to shearing, the soil exhibits strain softening
behavior, decreasing its shear resistance. With increased
bonding in the soil pores or increased density, more dilation
(i.e. volume increase when the soil is sheared) is observed,
which can be seen as an increase in the specific volume v
(i.e. 1 + e, where e is the void ratio) in Figure 1. This occurs
because of two mechanisms: (1) the bonding aggregates the
soil grains and thus creates larger sized grains with more
kinematic constraints; and (2) soil grains with dense
arrangement need to be lifted upwards when the soil skel-
eton is sheared.
[13] The degree of bonding and soil density also influence
the compressive response of the soil [e.g., Burland, 1990;
Cui and Delage, 1996; Rotta et al., 2003; Consoli et al.,
2005; Futai and Almeida, 2005; Chiu et al., 2009;
Sivakumar et al., 2010]. Figure 2 shows a typical relation-
ship between mean effective stress p′ (i.e. mean value of
three normal effective stresses) and the change in the
1þe
specific volume (i.e. 1þe 0
) of bonded soils and dense soils
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL B03209

Figure 2. A typical compressive response of bonded and dense soil under isotropic loading.

under an isotropic loading condition (i.e. zero shear loading).
As bonding or interlocking strengthens the structure of the
soil skeleton, such soils tend to resist compressive deforma-
tion. However, once the skeleton structure is destroyed by
excessive compression (i.e. volumetric yielding), greater
deformation occurs, which can be seen as an abrupt change in
slope of the compression curve in Figure 2.
[14] Soil straining may deteriorate the bonds and the
degree of interlocking, which in turn reduces its contribution
to the enhancement of stiffness and strength. This is partic-
ularly evident in unconsolidated weak soils with bonding
[e.g., Leroueil and Vaughan, 1990; Cuccovillo and Coop,
1997; Malandraki and Toll, 2001; Sharma and Fahey,
2003; DeJong et al., 2006; Hamidi and Haeri, 2008].
[15] As the hydrates in the pore space make the soil
“effectively” denser or more bonded, it is natural to assume
that hydrate-bearing soil behaves similarly to such soils.
This is confirmed by results of drained triaxial tests on arti-
ficially created hydrate-bearing soils [e.g., Hyodo et al.,
2005; Masui et al., 2005; Miyazaki et al., 2008; Yun et al.,
2007]. Some of the data are replotted in Figure 3, showing
the effect of hydrate saturation (defined as the ratio of the
hydrate volume to the pore volume) on maximum tangent
stiffness (i.e. initial gradient of deviator stress against axial
strain; Figure 3a), peak strength (i.e. maximum deviator
stress; Figure 3b) and dilation angle (Figure 3c). All the
samples presented are tested at an effective confining stress
of 1 MPa. These mechanical values at different hydrate
saturations are normalized by those without hydrate. From
Figure 3, it is clear that hydrate-bearing soil exhibits greater
stiffness, strength and dilatancy compared to soils without
hydrate.
[16] Some researchers investigated the mechanical
behavior of tetrahydrofuran (THF) hydrate soil. Yun et al.
[2007] showed the degradation of tangent stiffness of syn-
thetic THF hydrate-bearing soil due to shearing. Dai et al.
[2010] showed that the compressibility of THF hydrate soil
increases with a decrease in hydrate saturation.

Figure 3. The effect of hydrate on (a) stiffness, (b) strength and (c) dilatancy.

3 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL B03209

plastic, also known as the slope of the normal compression

Figure 4. Isotropic loading in critical state models.
2.2. Constitutive Soil Model Incorporating the Effect
of Hydrate
[17] Constitutive modeling of the mechanical behavior of
bonded soils and dense soils has been researched for more
than three decades. Most of the models adopt the critical
state concept [Roscoe et al., 1958] due to its capability of
modeling both shear and volumetric yielding, the latter of
which Mohr-Coulomb model cannot capture. Figure 4
shows the volumetric yielding in the critical state model
framework. Under isotropic loading, the soil becomes fully
plastic when the mean effective stress p′ reaches the volu-
metric yield stress p′cs, and the volumetric response then
dramatically changes. It is usually defined by two material
parameters: k which represents the slope of the line in v:lnp′
space while the soil is elastic, also known as the slope of the
swelling line; and l represents the slope of the line while
line. Critical state models also give both strain softening and
hardening behavior depending on the stress state and soil
density, which avoids the explicit modeling of strain soft-
ening used in Mohr-Coulomb model. Further details of
critical state models can be found elsewhere [e.g., Schofield
and Wroth, 1968; Wood, 1990; Schofield, 2005].
[18] For modeling of bonded soils, critical state models are
further extended by introducing new state parameters such
as water saturation and bonding strength that change the size
of the yield surface [e.g., Alonso et al., 1990; Wheeler and
Sivakumar, 1995; Rampino et al., 2000; Gallipoli et al.,
2003] for unsaturated soils; [e.g., Gens and Nova, 1993;
Vatsala et al., 2001; Liu and Carter, 2002; Nova et al.,
2003; Lee et al., 2004] for cemented soils. The increased
stiffness by bonding has been modeled by Alonso et al.
[1990], Gens and Nova [1993], and Liu and Carter [2002].
Degradation of bonding due to shearing has been modeled
by Liu and Carter [2002], Lee et al. [2004], and Vatsala
et al. [2001].
[19] Ideally, a constitutive model for hydrate-bearing soil
should include the mechanical characteristics of bonded
soils and dense soils, which are enhanced stiffness, strength
and dilatancy; limited compressibility; and degradation of
hydrate cementing and interlocking. Table 1 summarizes the
constitutive models currently available for simulating
hydrate-bearing soil behavior. An extension of Mohr-
Coulomb (MC) model has been a popular choice as shown in
Table 1. Typically, the stiffness and strength parameters are a
function of hydrate saturation. Klar et al. [2010] acknowl-
edge the importance of enhanced dilation characteristics of
methane hydrate-bearing soil and used their model to simu-
late wellbore stability problems. Most hydrate-bearing soil
models focus on shear deformation but ignore volumetric
yielding. Such behavior may be of engineering importance
during the depressurization process as the effective stress
increases due to pore pressure reduction. Kimoto et al.
[2010] extended the original Cam-clay (OCC) model
[Roscoe et al., 1958] for hydrate-bearing soil but did not
include the stiffness enhancement by the presence of
hydrate. To date, none of the hydrate-bearing soil models
considers the degradation of hydrate cementing and inter-
locking by plastic straining. Such behavior at large strains
may be important for wellbore stability and landslide
problems.
3. Methane Hydrate Critical State Model
[20] In this section, a new constitutive model for the
mechanical behavior of methane hydrate-bearing soil,

Table 1. Hydrate Constitutive Model

Mohr-Coulomb Model Based Critical State Model Based
Parameter Freij-Ayoub et al. [2007] Rutqvist and Moridis [2007] Klar et al. [2010] Kimoto et al. [2010] Methane Hydrate Critical State
Stiffness Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Strength Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dilation No No Yes Yes Yes
Softening explicit explicit No Yes Yes
Vol. yield No No No Yes Yes
Bond deg. No No No No Yes

4 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL B03209

associated flow rule and hence the plastic potential g is the

same as the yield function f:
f ¼ g ¼ q2 þ M 2 p′ðp′
p′cs Þ ð3Þ

where q is the deviator stress and M is the material property

that relates to a frictional behavior of the soil.
[25] Methane hydrate-bearing soil exhibits both enhanced
dilation and cohesion due to hydrate bonding (cementing)
and less pore space (pore filling) (cf. Figure 3). As men-
tioned before, it is known that hydrate morphology dom-
inates the cohesive or dilative nature of the hydrate-bearing
soils [e.g., Masui et al., 2005; Soga et al., 2006; Waite et al.,
Figure 5. Dilation enhancement by hydrate.
2009]. In the proposed model, the two mechanisms are
separately modeled so that the effect of morphology can be
named as the methane hydrate critical state (MHCS) model, produced by adjusting two additional model parameters
is derived. (shown later). Figure 5 illustrates the mechanism of dilation
enhancement and the mathematical representation of the
3.1. Volume Change Behavior yield surface expansion in the p′ : q space. The additional
[21] In critical state models, the stress-dependent elastic hardening parameter p′cd is added to the yield function in
soil bulk modulus K′ is given by [Roscoe et al., 1958; such a way that the yield surface expands to the right hand
Roscoe and Burland, 1968] side of the original ellipse. As a result, using an associative
flow rule, greater dilation is given by a greater normal angle
v to the tangent of the surface when the soil yields at a given
K′ ¼ p′ ð1Þ
k mean effective stress p′ at the dry side of the critical state.
[26] Figure 6 shows the mechanism of cohesion enhance-
where v is the specific volume (=1 + e), k is the slope of a
ment and the mathematical representation of yield surface
swelling line and p′ is the mean effective stress (compression
expansion in the p′ : q space. The additional hardening
positive).
parameter p′cc is added to the yield function to enlarge the
[22] Under isotropic conditions, full plastic volumetric
yield surface uniformly both the left and right hand sides of
deformation occurs when the isotropic stress reaches the
the original oval. This allows an increase in cohesive
volumetric yield stress p′cs as shown in Figure 4. In this
strength but the dilatancy characteristic upon yielding at a
study, the volumetric yield stress is used as a hardening
given mean effective stress is not affected.
parameter of the yield surface (cf. equation (4)) and increa-
[27] Adding the enhanced dilation (cf. equation (5)) and
ses with plastic volumetric strain (i.e. hardening law). Using
cohesion (cf. equation (6)), equation (3) becomes
Figure 4, the following conventional evolution law used by
many critical state models is adopted in this study: f ¼ q2 þ M 2 ðp′ þ p′cc Þ½p′
ðp′cs þ p′cd þ p′cc Þ ð4Þ
vp′cs
dp′cs ¼ d
p ð2Þ [28] This yield surface is shown in Figure 7.
l
k v
3.3. Degradation of Mechanical Properties
where p′cs is the volumetric yield stress (also known as pre-
consolidation stress), l is the slope of the normal compres- [29] The two hardening parameters defined in section 3.2
sion line and
vp is the plastic volumetric strain (compression are modeled as a function of hydrate saturation:
positive).
b
p′cd ¼ a Shmec ð5Þ
[23] At low confining stress, it is known that the normal
compression line of sand is nonlinear in v:lnp′ space. At high
d
confining pressure (e.g. above 1–10 MPa), however, the p′cc ¼ c Shmec ð6Þ
slope becomes constant [Been et al., 1991]. At such stress
levels, sand grains start crushing and the compression
behavior becomes greater [e.g., McDowell and Bolton,
1998; Bolton, 2000; Cheng et al., 2003]. The effective
confining stress of 1–10 MPa is approximately equivalent to
100–1000 meters below the seabed, where hydrate com-
monly exists. Therefore, a critical state model with constant
l is considered to be appropriate for typical hydrate-bearing
sediments.
3.2. Dilation and Cohesion Enhancement by Hydrate
[24] For the mechanical behavior of sand without hydrate,
the proposed model utilizes the following yield function f of
the modified Cam-clay model [Roscoe and Burland, 1968].
Note that the plastic strain development is modeled using the Figure 6. Cohesion enhancement by hydrate.

5 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL B03209

very high hydrate saturation conditions, very limited

Figure 7. Yield surface of MHCS model.
where a, b, c and d are material constants that describe the
degree of hydrate contribution to the two hardening para-
meters, which are hydrate morphology dependent and
determined from the experimental data, and Shmec is the
“mechanical” hydrate saturation.
[30] In equations (5)–(6), the “mechanical” hydrate satu-
ration is used rather than the actual hydrate saturation Sh in
order to model the behavior of hydrate bonding degradation
as the soil is sheared. This is done by introducing a degra-
dation factor c:
experimental data (with the exception of Yun et al. [2007] in
which THF hydrate is used) exists for such conditions and
further work is needed.
[34] For the elastic shear stiffness, however, the presence
of hydrate inside pores may contribute to shear resistance of
hydrate-bearing soil as shown in Figure 3. Thus, the elastic
shear modulus of hydrate-bearing soils Ghs is assumed to be
the summation of the stress-dependent shear modulus of soil
skeleton Gs and the shear stiffness increase due to presence
of hydrate Gh. For simplicity, the increase is modeled to be a
linear function of hydrate saturation:
1
2n
Ghs ¼ Gs þ Gh ¼ 3K′ þ m2 Shmec ð11Þ
2ð1 þ n Þ
where n is the Poisson’s ratio of soil skeleton and m2 is a
parameter that gives the degree of increase in shear modulus
with hydrate saturation, which is hydrate morphology
dependent and is determined from experimental data.
3.4. Yield Function and Plastic Strains
[35] It is a well-known fact that irrecoverable plastic
strains develop even when the stress state is inside the yield
surface [Jardine, 1992; Mitchell and Soga, 2005]. In order to
provide a smooth transition from elastic to plastic behavior,
a subloading surface ratio R [Hashiguchi, 1989] can be used
such that equation (4) becomes

Shmec ¼ cSh ð7Þ f ¼ q2 þ M 2 ðp′ þ p′cc Þ½p′
Rðp′cs þ p′cd þ p′cc Þ ð12Þ

where Sh is the hydrate saturation. 


1 þ p′cd þ p′cc
[31] The evolution of the degradation factor c is modeled dR ¼
u ln R jd
p j ð13Þ
as follows: p′cs

dc ¼
mcd
dp ð0 ≤ c ≤ 1Þ ð8Þ
where m is the material parameter that gives the rate of
mechanical degradation upon shearing and
dp is the plastic
deviatoric strain.
[32] This implies the change in the mechanical hydrate
saturation can be achieved by either shearing, hydrate dis-
sociation or a combination of the two as shown by the dif-
ferential form of equation (7):
where
p is the plastic strain vector and u is the material
constant that controls the plastic deformation while the soil
is elastic, which represents the development of plastic strain
when the stress state is inside the yield surface. A smaller
value u generates more plastic strain. dR > 0 represents the
plastic state and dR < 0 when the soil is elastic.
[36] The yield function of the proposed model is a func-
tion of six variables: q, p′, p′cs, p′cd, p′cc and R. The consis-
tency equation becomes

dShmec ¼ dcSh þ cdSh ¼
mcd
dp Sh þ cdSh ð9Þ ∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f

df ¼ dq þ dp′ þ dp′ þ dp′ þ dp′ þ dR ¼ 0
∂q ∂p′ ∂p′cs cs ∂p′cd cd ∂p′cc cc ∂R
[33] The model assumes that the contribution of hydrates ð14Þ
to the mechanical behavior becomes zero when the soil is
excessively sheared even though “sheared” hydrates exist in [37] Together with the definition of the plastic strains
∂g p ∂g
the soil pores, unlike crushed sand grains altering the soil d
pv ¼ L ∂p ′ and d
d ¼ L ∂q, solving equation (14) in terms of
properties [Guimaraes et al., 2007]. This assumption is the plastic multiplier L gives
based on the fact that the stiffness of hydrate crystal is sig-
nificantly smaller than that of soil grains. This also leads to ∂f ∂f
an assumption that the elastic bulk stiffness of hydrate- dq þ dp′ þ Lh
∂q ∂p 
  
L¼
bearing soil is dominated by that of soil skeleton: ∂f vp′cs ∂g ∂g ∂f 1 þ p′cd þ p′cc  ∂g 

þ mLh þ u ln R  
∂p′cs l
k ∂p′ ∂q ∂R p′cs ∂s′
Khs ¼ K′ þ Kh ≈ K′ ð10Þ
∂f ∂f
where Khs is the elastic bulk stiffness of hydrate-bearing Lh ¼ abðcSh Þb þ cd ðcSh Þd
∂p′cd ∂p′cc
soil and Kh is the stiffness enhancement due to presence of
ð15Þ
hydrate. Although this assumption may not be realistic at

6 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL B03209

3.5. Stress Relaxation Due to Hydrate Dissociation thus the term (s′
s′0) remains. It also depends on how
[38] Natural hydrate-bearing soil is often formed in sandy much hydrate dissociates and thus the term contains the
sediments under confinement with continuous growth of change in hydrate saturation dSh.
hydrate inside pores. That is, the original soil skeleton car- [43] The effective stress change due to the change in
ries most of the in situ stresses s′0 . When the additional temperature is caused by the expansion of soil grains and
effective stresses s′ are applied such as by wellbore con- hydrate. The third term of equation (19) can be obtained by
struction and depressurization, however, both the hydrate ∂s′ d
and soil skeleton will be loaded. This results in dT ¼ ½ð1
nÞb s þ nSh b h K′ddT ¼ Dehs b ∗ dT
∂T 3
s′
s′0 ¼ Deh
eh þ Des
es ¼ Dehs
e ð16Þ b ∗ ¼ ½ð1
nÞbs þ nSh b h  ð20Þ

where s′ is the effective stress vector of hydrate-bearing soil where n is the porosity, b is the thermal expansion coeffi-
after deformation from the original in situ stress s′0 (com- cient, d is the Kronecker’s delta vector = (1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)T
pression positive),
e is the elastic strain vector and Dehs is the and the subscripts s and h are soil and hydrate, respectively.
hydrate-soil combined elastic stiffness matrix (using [44] The definition of strain is given by
equations (1) and (11)). This unique behavior of hydrate-
∂g
bearing soil was first introduced by Klar et al. [2010] (see d

¼ d

e þ d

p ¼ d

e þ L ð21Þ
the referred paper for more detail). The formulation was ∂s′
further developed by A. Klar et al. (Explicitly coupled [45] Combining equations (15), (20), and (21), equation (19)
thermal-flow-mechanical formulation for gas hydrate sedi- can be rewritten as
ments, submitted to Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
2011), incorporating thermomechanical effects. Herein, a " T #
∂g ∂f
Dehs ∂s′ e
∂s′ Dhs
brief summary of the formulation will be presented. ds′ ¼ Dehs
d


∂f T e ∂g ∂f ∂k T ∂g
[39] Considering the thermomechanical effect, the incre- ∂s′ Dhs ∂s′
∂k ∂
p ∂s′
2  e 
1 3
mental form of equation (16) can be expressed as ∂f T e ∂f
 
1 ∂s′ Dh c Dhs ðs′
s′0 Þ þ ∂S e ∂g 5
 þ4Deh c Dehs ðs′
s′0 Þ
h
D dSh
 ∂f T ∂f ∂k T ∂g hs
∂s′
∂s′ ∂s′
∂k ∂

p ∂s′
ds′ ¼ Dehs d

e þ dDehs d
¼0
e þ dT ð17Þ " #
∂T T
De ∂g ∂f De d ∗
þ Dehs
T hs ∂s′ ∂s′ hs T
∂f
b dT ð22Þ
De ∂g
∂f ∂kp ∂g 3
∂s′ hs ∂s′ ∂k ∂

∂s′
[40] Because only hydrate elastic stiffness changes due to
hydrate dissociation (i.e. soil elastic stiffness is independent [46] Equation (22) shows that the effective stress change
of hydrate, dDes ¼ 0), the following stiffness relation can be can be caused by soil straining, hydrate dissociation and
obtained using equation (11): temperature change, which are represented by each line on
dDehs jd
¼0 ¼ dDeh ¼ Deh cdSh
the right hand side.
0 4 2 2 1 4. Verification of the MHCS Model
m
m2
m2 0 0 0
B 3 2 3 3 C
B 2 4 2 C 4.1. Synthetic Hydrate-Bearing Soil
B
m
m2 C
B 3 2 m2 0 0 0 C ð18Þ [47] Hydrate morphology (i.e. pore filling and cementing)
B 3 3 C
Dh ¼ B
e 2
B
m2
2 4 C
C plays an important role on the mechanical behavior of
B 3
m2 m2 0 0 0 C
B 0 3 3 C hydrate-bearing soil. Masui et al. [2005] created both pore
B 0 0 m2 0 0 C filling and cementing types of synthetic hydrate-bearing
@ 0 0 0 0 m2 0 A
soils with Toyoura sands and conducted drained triaxial
0 0 0 0 0 m2
compression tests. Figure 8 shows that stress-strain rela-
tionship and volumetric behavior of hydrate-bearing
[41] Thus, equation (17) becomes Toyoura sands by Masui et al. [2005] and the simulations
made by the Methane Hydrate Critical State (MHCS) model.
∂s′ It is clear that the cementing case exhibits more enhance-
ds′ ¼ Dehs d

e þ Deh cdSh
e þ dT ment in stiffness, strength and dilatancy than the pore filling
∂T
 
1 ∂s′ case. In order to produce the differences, the hydrate
¼ Dehs d

e þ Deh cdSh Dehs ðs′
s′0 Þ þ dT ð19Þ dependent parameters such as additional hardening para-
∂T
meters for cohesion p′cc and for dilation p′cd and the elastic
where T is the temperature. shear stiffness Gh are adjusted accordingly as shown in
[42] The first term of the right hand side of equation (19) is Table 2. The degradation parameter m is also dependent on
the conventional incremental stress-strain relationship, the hydrate morphology and the cementing case has a greater
second term is the stress relaxation term due to hydrate degrading effect of shearing on mechanical behavior. Con-
dissociation under zero straining and the third term is the ventional critical state parameters such as the slopes of
stress change caused solely by the temperature change. critical state line, the normal compression line, the swelling
Stress relaxation occurs because “stressed” hydrate dis- line are M = 1.07, l = 0.16 and k = 0.004, respectively.
appears due to hydrate dissociation. The magnitude depends These parameters are soil material properties and are inde-
on how much additional stress is carried by the hydrate and pendent of hydrate morphology. The measured porosity is

7 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL
Figure 8. Drained triaxial tests on hydrate-bearing Toyoura sands by Masui et al. [2005] (normal lines)
and the MHCS model (bold lines).
approximately 0.37, resulting in the specific volume v
of 1.59.
[48] Using the calibrated parameters for the synthetic
hydrate-bearing Toyoura sand samples (cf. Table 2), the
MHCS model gives the change in the mechanical properties
with different hydrate saturations. Figure 9 shows the vari-
ation of peak strength with hydrate saturation for the
cementing and pore filling cases presented by Masui et al.
[2005]. The model predicts the rate of increase in the peak
strength to be greater in the cementing case than that in the
pore filling case, as demonstrated by the experimental data.
As discussed before, the model is intended to be used for
methane hydrate-bearing soil samples with hydrate satura-
tion of up to 70%, where the experimental data exists. Fur-
ther experimental data and model modification are needed
for very high hydrate saturation conditions.
4.2. Natural Hydrate-Bearing Soil
[49] Masui et al. [2006] performed drained triaxial com-
pression tests on natural methane hydrate-bearing soil
samples that were recovered from Eastern Nankai Trough,
Japan. These experimental data are simulated by using the
Methane Hydrate Critical State (MHCS) model and the
Methane Hydrate (MH) Mohr-Coulomb model by Klar et al.
[2010]. Table3 summarizes the soil properties calibrated for
the Nankai methane hydrate-bearing soil. For the MH
Mohr-Coulomb model, the elastic stiffness K′ and G, dila-
tion angle y and cohesion c′ are dependent on hydrate sat-
uration as suggested by Klar et al. [2010], Soga et al.
[2006], and Waite et al. [2009]. For the MHCS model,
the slope of the normal compression line and the slope of
the swelling line are l = 0.15 and k = 0.01, respectively, for
the Nankai methane hydrate-bearing soil. The experiments
were conducted at the initial effective stress of 1 MPa (i.e.
p′0 ¼ 1 MPa). The porosity is assumed to be 0.35, equivalent
to the initial specific volume of 1.54.
[50] Figure 10 shows the results of the model predictions
as well as the experimental data. The dotted line, the dashed
line and the normal line represent the experimental data, the
8 of 13
B03209
MH Mohr-Coulomb model and the MHCS model, respec-
tively. It is clear that the natural hydrate-bearing soils exhibit
greater stiffness, strength and dilatancy with increasing
hydrate saturation. The MH Mohr-Coulomb model is an
elastic-perfectly plastic model and thus the deviator stress
develops linearly during the elastic state and then becomes
constant after it fails in shear. This model therefore cannot
capture nonlinear elasticity and softening behavior of the
natural methane hydrate-bearing soil specimens. However,
the volumetric response of the soil upon shearing is captured
by introducing the hydrate dependent dilation angle.
[51] The MHCS model gives the variation of peak strength
using the calibrated model parameters (cf. Table 3), which is
shown by the solid line in Figure 9. The model prediction
fits well with the experimental data presented by Masui et al.
[2006].
5. Soil Compaction Due to Depressurization
and Hydrate Dissociation
[52] In this section, a hydrate-bearing formation that is
subjected to depressurization is modeled. The depressuriza-
tion increases effective stress in the formation and hence the
soil will be compacted. As shown in Figure 11, two extreme
geometric cases are considered. The first case is at a location
Table 2. Soil Properties for the Toyoura Specimens
Properties Pore Filling Cementing
l 0.16 0.16
k 0.004 0.004
p′cs (MPa) 12.0 12.0
M 1.07 1.07
n 0.37 0.37
u 15 15
p′cd (MPa) 14Sh1:6 42Sh1:6
p′cc (MPa) 0.8Sh 0.1Sh
G (MPa) 0.75K′ + 250 0.75K′ + 850
m 1 3
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL B03209

Figure 9. Change in peak strength with different hydrate saturations.

close to the wellbore, where the pore pressure reduction by Sh = 50%; and Case 2: no hydrate Sh = 0%. Each case
depressurization causes an increase in mean effective pres- model undergoes both depressurization and pressure
sure. It is assumed that a soil element at this location recovery stages.
experiences large volumetric compression in an isotropic [55] Before hydrate dissociation takes place at the effec-
manner due to large change in pore pressure. The second tive stress of 6 MPa, both MHCS and MH Mohr-Coulomb
case is at a location relatively far away from the wellbore, models show that the initial loading curve of Case 1 is stiffer
where the soil deformation is more likely to be one dimen- than that of Case 2 because of additional resistance by the
sional in the vertical direction (i.e. K0 condition). The actual presence of hydrate. However, once the dissociation initiates
deformation mechanism by depressurization is more com- at 6 MPa, the compressibility increases and the loading
plicated and a proper numerical simulation is required curve of Case 1 moves toward that of Case 2. In the MHCS
(S. Uchida et al., Geomechanical study of the mallik model (Figure 12a), the loading curve of Case 2 follows the
methane gas production field trials, submitted to Bulletin- normal compression line l as the volumetric yield stress is
Geological Survey of Canada, 2010). However, the solu- p′cs ¼ 3:6 MPa, which is slightly larger than the initial state
tions obtained from these two cases are indicative of general p′ = 3 MPa. Thus, the soil immediately experiences plastic
soil compaction behavior due to depressurization. deformation. In Case 1, the initial part of the loading curve is
[53] For the simulation, the in situ vertical and horizontal almost elastic (i.e. k) due to the strength enhancement by the
effective stresses are 3 MPa (i.e. K0 = 1.0) and the initial two hardening parameters p′cc and p′cd . After dissociation,
pore water pressure is 13 MPa. The model parameters are the however, the contribution of these two hardening parameters
same as those of Nankai methane hydrate-bearing soil, pre- disappears and the soil exhibits large plastic deformation.
sented in section 4.2 (cf. Table 3). The temperature T0 is set When unloading occurs by the recovery process, the soil
to be 285.23 K and kept constant throughout the dissociation swells and the deformation is elastic. Hence, a permanent
process. At this temperature, methane hydrate starts to dis- residual volumetric strain develops at the end and the mag-
sociate at a pore pressure of 10MPa. The well is depressur- nitude is approximately 12% in this case.
ized from 13 MPa to 4 MPa to simulate the methane gas [56] In the MH Mohr-Coulomb model (Figure 12b), the
production process and then pressurized back to 13 MPa to stress state is always elastic due to isotropic stress loading
simulate the pressure recovery process. As the total “over-
burden” vertical stress is kept constant at 16 MPa, the soil Table 3. Soil Properties for the Nankai Hydrate-Bearing
element therefore undergoes effective stress loading from 3 Specimens
MPa to 12 MPa and then unloading back to 3 MPa. Such
Properties MH MC MHCS
loading and reloading process will produce permanent soil
deformation due to volumetric yielding. The hydrate starts to n 0.2 0.2
dissociate when the effective stress is 6 MPa (i.e. total stress K′ (MPa) 417Sh + 72 1.54p′/0.01
16 MPa - pore pressure 10 MPa). G (MPa) 313Sh + 54 200Shmec + 0.75K′
∘
Dilation y ¼ 24Sh0:6 p′cd ¼ 20Shmec (MPa)
5.1. Isotropic Compression Coh. (MPa) c′ ¼ 10Sh + 0.15
3
p′cc ¼ 0:1Shmec
M ¼6sinf′cri
Friction f′cri = 33.9∘
[54] Figure 12 shows the volumetric strain
v against the l
3
sinf′cri
0.15
mean effective stress p′ under isotropic compression and p′cs 3.6 MPa
unloading of the Nankai hydrate-bearing soil with the m 2
MHCS model and the MH Mohr-Coulomb model. There are u 30
two cases considered: Case 1: initial hydrate saturation of

9 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL B03209

Figure 10. Drained triaxial tests on Nankai hydrate-bearing soil specimens.

conditions. Hence, the loading curve of both Case 1 and 2
are linear because of the use of linear elastic bulk modulus
(i.e. Young’s modulus with constant value of Poisson’s
ratio), which is a function of hydrate saturation (cf. Table 3).
When unloading occurs by the recovery process, the soil
swells and the deformation is again elastic. Hence, there is
no development of permanent residual volumetric strain
using this model. This highlights the deficiency of this
model to reproduce soil compaction due to loading and
unloading when the change in the effective stress is signif-
icant (as in the case of depressurization).
5.2. One-Dimensional Compression
[57] Figure 13 shows the vertical strain against the effec-
tive vertical stress during one-dimensional compression and
unloading with the MHCS model and the MH Mohr-
Coulomb model. The simulated behavior is similar to that
observed in the isotropic loading cases. During the depres-
surization stage, the hydrate-bearing soil layer consolidates,
producing vertical settlement. The MHCS model predicts
vertical strain of 11%, whereas the MH Mohr-Coulomb
model predicts vertical strain of 6%. The greater vertical
strain prediction of the MHCS model is due to its capability
of modeling shear induced volume contraction in normally
consolidated K0 conditions, which is a unique feature of soil
behavior that cannot be captured by the MH Mohr-Coulomb
model. The computed residual vertical strain by the MHCS
model is approximately 10%, which is equivalent to
2 meters of vertical displacement for a 20 meter thick
methane hydrate-bearing soil layer with hydrate saturation
of 50%. Again, there is no residual strain in the MH Mohr-
Coulomb model as the compression behavior is modeled by
elastic theory, as discussed previously.
5.3. Effect of Initial Hydrate Saturation, Hydrate
Dissociation and Drawdown Pressure
[58] Results from sections 5.1 and 5.2 highlight the
importance of modeling plastic volumetric behavior when
simulating ground deformation by depressurization. The
plastic behavior is generated by a significant increase in
vertical effective stress (3 to 12 MPa). The degree of hydrate
dissociation also determines the amount of the plastic
deformation. Therefore, the magnitudes of vertical strain
during depressurization and after pressure recovery depend
on initial hydrate saturation, the degree of hydrate dissocia-
tion as well as the magnitude of drawdown pressure.
[59] Figure 14 shows the maximum vertical strain under
one dimensional depressurization with different drawdown
pressures (i.e. DPw = 4, 7 and 10 MPa) and different degrees
of hydrate dissociation (i.e. 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%) using
the MHCS model.
[60] Hydrate-bearing soils with greater hydrate saturation
exhibit more elastic behavior. In the case of no dissociation
(i.e. 0% lines in Figure 14), the plastic behavior is solely
caused by the increase in the effective stresses. The greater
depressurization causes the volumetric yielding at greater
initial hydrate saturation, which are denoted as arrows in
Figure 14 (e.g. Sh = 20% for DPw = 4 MPa, Sh = 45% for

Figure 11. Isotropic and one-dimensional compression on wellbore model.

10 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL B03209

Figure 12. Isotropic compression simulation with (a) MHCS model and (b) MH Mohr-Coulomb model.

DPw = 10 MPa). This implies that even strong hydrate-
bearing soils with high hydrate saturation may cause large
settlement under substantial depressurization.
[61] Figure 14 also shows that vertical settlement is pro-
duced by hydrate dissociation. The more dissociation occurs,
the more vertical strain develops as the additional effective
stress carried by the hydrate is transferred to the soilskeleton.
This can be seen as each curve is shifted downward with
increasing dissociation. When full dissociation is achieved,
the magnitude of vertical strain converges with that of pure
soil (Sh = 0), denoted as the dotted line in Figure 14.
[62] Although the results are preliminary, Figure 14 may
be used to predict a settlement caused by depressurization
and pressure recovery in the Eastern Nankai Trough, pro-
vided the magnitude of pressure drawdown, the initial
hydrate saturation and the final hydrate saturation are
known. Suppose 20 meters of hydrate bearing sediments that
contain alternating unit layers (Layer 1: Sh = 40% and Layer
2: Sh = 60%) are depressurized by 7 MPa and eventually the
hydrate saturation in each layer becomes 10% (75% disso-
ciation) in Layer 1 and 30% (50% dissociation) in Layer 2,
respectively, then the vertical settlement can be estimated by
using the chart shown in Figure 14. From Figure 14, the
values of the maximum vertical strain of the layers can be
estimated as
z = 7% in Layer 1 and
z = 2% in Layer 2. As a
result, the expected vertical settlement is 1.8 meters for a

Figure 13. 1D compression with (a) MHCS model and (b) MH Mohr-Coulomb model.

11 of 13
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL
Figure 14. Maximum vertical strain induced under 1D compression with different drawdown pressures
and different degrees of dissociation.
hydrate-bearing sediment with a summed thickness of
20 meters.
6. Summary
[63] In this paper, a new constitutive model for hydrate-
bearing soil, Methane Hydrate Critical State (MHCS) model,
was presented. The model incorporated (1) volumetric
yielding; (2) enhanced cohesion, dilation and stiffness by the
presence of hydrate in pores; (3) strain softening due to
shearing deformation; (4) smooth nonlinear stress-strain
relationship; and (5) stress relaxation due to hydrate
dissociation.
[64] In addition, a simple model of wellbore in hydrate-
bearing sediments that was subjected to depressurization
was simulated. Several key issues were noted:
[65] 1. Under isotropic loading condition, the MHCS
model and the MH Mohr-Coulomb model exhibited similar
maximum volumetric strain when the models were cali-
brated with triaxial test data.
[66] 2. After pressure recovery, residual strain remained in
the MHCS model, whereas the MH Mohr-Coulomb model
exhibited zero residual strain due to full elastic recovery.
The permanent strain may be important to be considered
when the soils undergo significant change in the effective
stresses.
[67] 3. Under one dimensional compression, greater ver-
tical strain was generated in the MHCS model compared to
that in the MH Mohr-Coulomb model. This is because of
its capability of modeling shear induced volumetric
yielding. Thus, modeling plastic volumetric deformation is
important for predicting the amount of soil compaction
due to depressurization.
[68] 4. Greater depressurization induced more plastic
deformation in the Eastern Nankai Trough scenario.
[69] 5. Greater amount of hydrate dissociation caused
more plastic deformation.
[70] 6. Vertical strain can be estimated using the proposed
chart (Figure 14), provided the magnitude of depressuriza-
tion, the initial hydrate saturation and the final hydrate sat-
uration are known.
12 of 13
B03209
[71] As described in this paper, the proposed model is a
simple extension of critical state model. Although the model
provides an accurate stress-strain relationship for methane
hydrate-bearing soils, it may be necessary to test its capa-
bility with more experimental data and field data. The pro-
posed wellbore model is considered at the element level and
thus a numerical model with more realistic geometry and
hydrate saturation profile needs to be analyzed for better
prediction of the geomechanical behavior of hydrate-bearing
sediments during depressurization (e.g., S. Uchida et al.,
submitted manuscript, 2010).
[72] Acknowledgments. This research was funded by the Research
Consortium for Methane Hydrate Resources in Japan (MH21).
References
Alonso, E. E., A. Gens, and A. Josa (1990), A constitutive model for par-
tially saturated soils, Geotechnique, 40(3), 405–430.
Asghari, E., D. G. Toll, and S. M. Haeri (2003), Triaxial behavior of a
cemented gravely sand, Tehran alluvium, Geotech. Geol. Eng., 21, 1–28.
Been, K., and M. G. Jefferies (1985), A state parameter for sands,
Geotechnique, 35(2), 99–112.
Been, K., M. G. Jefferies, and J. Hachey (1991), The critical state of sands,
Geotechnique, 41(3), 365–381.
Bolton, M. D. (1986), The strength and dilatancy of sands, Geotechnique,
36(1), 65–78.
Bolton, M. D. (2000), The role of micromechancs in soil mechanics, Tech.
Rep. CUED D-Soils TR 313, Univ. of Cambridge, Cambridge, U. K.
Burland, J. B. (1990), On the compressibility and shear strength of natural
clays, Geotechnique, 40(3), 329–378.
Cheng, Y. P., Y. Nakata, and M. D. Bolton (2003), Discrete element simu-
lation of crushable soil, Geotechnique, 53(7), 633–641.
Chiu, C., W. Zhu, and C. Zhang (2009), Yielding and shear behavior of
cement-treated dredged materials, Eng. Geol., 103(1–2), 1–12.
Clayton, C. R. I., J. A. Priest, and E. V. L. Rees (2010), The effects of
hydrate cement on the stiffness of some sands, Geotechnique, 60(6),
435–445.
Collett, T. S. (2002), Energy resource potential of natural gas hydrates,
AAPG Bull., 86(11), 1971–1992.
Consoli, N. C., P. D. M. Prietto, and L. A. Ulbrich (1998), Influence of fiber
and cement addition on behavior of sandy soil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 124(12), 1211–1214.
Consoli, N. C., M. D. T. Casagrande, and M. R. Coop (2005), Effect of
fiber? Reinforcement on the isotropic compression behavior of a sand,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131(11), 1434–1436.
Cuccovillo, T., and M. R. Coop (1997), Yielding and pre-failure deforma-
tion of structured sands, Geotechnique, 47(3), 491–508.
B03209 UCHIDA ET AL.: MHCS MODEL
Cui, Y. J., and P. Delage (1996), Yielding and plastic behavior of an unsat-
urated compacted silt, Geotechnique, 46(2), 291–311.
Dai, S., C. Lee, and J. C. Santamarina (2010), Formation history and phys-
ical properties of sediments from the Mount Elbert Gas Hydrate Strati-
graphic Test Well, Alaska North Slope, Mar. Pet. Geol., 28(2), 427–438.
DeJong, J. T., M. B. Fritzges, and K. Nusslein (2006), Microbially induced
cementation to control sand response to undrained shear, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 132(11), 1381–1392.
Freij-Ayoub, R., C. Tan, B. Clennell, B. Tohidi, and J. Yang (2007), A
wellbore stability model for hydrate bearing sediments, J. Pet. Sci.
Eng., 57(1–2), 209–220.
Futai, M. M., and M. S. S. Almeida (2005), An experimental investigation
of the mechanical behavior of an unsaturated gneiss residual soil,
Geotechnique, 55(3), 201–213.
Gallipoli, D., A. Gens, R. Sharma, and J. Vaunat (2003), An elasto-plastic
model for unsaturated soil incorporating the effects of suction and degree
of saturation on mechanical behavior, Geotechnique, 53(1), 123–136.
Gens, A., and R. Nova (1993), Conceptual bases for a constitutive model
for bonded soils and weak rocks, in Proceedings of the 15th European Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: Geotechnics of
Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, edtied by A. Anagnostopoulos et al., pp. 485–494,
IOS Press, Washington, D. C.
Guimaraes, M. S., J. R. Valdes, A. M. Palomino, and J. C. Santamarina
(2007), Aggregate production: Fines generation during rock crushing,
Int. J. Miner. Process., 81, 237–247.
Hamidi, A., and S. M. Haeri (2008), Stiffness and deformation characteris-
tics of a cemented gravely sand, Int. J. Civ. Eng., 6(3), 159–173.
Hashiguchi, K. (1989), Subloading surface model in unconventional plas-
ticity, Int. J. Solids Struct., 25(8), 917–945.
Hyodo, M., Y. Nakata, N. Yoshimoto, and T. Ebinuma (2005), Basic
research on the mechanical behavior of methane hydrate-sediments
mixture, Soils Found., 45(1), 75–85.
Jardine, R. J. (1992), Some observations on the kinematic nature of soil
stiffness, Soils Found., 32(2), 111–124.
Kimoto, S., F. Oka, and T. Fushita (2010), A chemo-thermo-mechanically
coupled analysis of ground deformation induced by gas hydrate dissocia-
tion, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 52(2), 365–376.
Klar, A., K. Soga, and M. Y. A. Ng (2010), Coupled deformation-flow
analysis for methane hydrate extraction, Geotechnique, 60(10), 765–776.
Kvenvolden, K. A. (1999), Potential effects of gas hydrate on human
welfare, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 96, 3420–3426.
Lade, P. V. (1977), Elasto-plastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless soil
with curved yield surfaces, Int. J. Solids Struct., 13(11), 1019–1035.
Lade, P. V., and D. D. Overton (1989), Cementation effects in frictional
materials, J. Geotech. Eng., 115(10), 1373–1387.
Lee, K., D. Chan, and K. Lam (2004), Constitutive model for cement
treated clay in a critical state frame work, Soils Found., 44(3), 69–77.
Lee, M. W., and W. F. Waite (2008), Estimating pore-space gas hydrate
saturations from well log acoustic data, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.,
9, Q07008, doi:10.1029/2008GC002081.
Leroueil, S., and P. R. Vaughan (1990), General and congruent effects of
structure in natural soils and weak rocks, Geotechnique, 40(3), 467–488.
Liu, M., and J. Carter (2002), A structured cam clay model, Can. Geotech.
J., 39(6), 1313–1332.
Malandraki, V., and D. G. Toll (2001), Triaxial tests on weakly bonded soil
with changes in stress path, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(3),
282–291.
Masui, A., H. Haneda, Y. Ogata, and K. Aoki (2005), The effect of satura-
tion degree of methane hydrate on shear strength of synthetic methane
hydrate sediments, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference
on Gas Hydrates, pp. 657–663, Curran Assoc., Red Hook, N. Y.
Masui, A., H. Haneda, Y. Ogata, and K. Aoki (2006), Triaxial test on sub-
marine sediment containing methane hydrate in deap sea off the coast off
Japan, paper presented at 41st Annual Conference, Jpn. Geotech. Soc.,
Kagoshima, Japan.
McDowell, G. R., and M. D. Bolton (1998), On the mechanics of crushable
aggregates, Geotechnique, 48(5), 667–679.
Mitchell, J. K., and K. Soga (2005), Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, John
Wiley, Hoboken, N. J.
Miura, N., S. Horpibulsuk, and T. S. Nagaraj (2001), Engineering behavior
of cement stabilized clay at high water content, Soils Found., 41(5),
33–45.
Miyazaki, K., A. Masui, H. Haneda, Y. Ogata, K. Aoki, and T. Yamaguchi
(2008), Variable-compliance-type constitutive model for methane hydrate
13 of 13
B03209
bearing sediment, paper presented at 6th International Conference on Gas
Hydrates, Univ. B. C., Vancouver, B. C., Canada.
Nova, R., R. Castellanza, and C. Tamagnini (2003), A constitutive model
for bonded geomaterials subject to mechanical and/or chemical degrada-
tion, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 27(9), 705–732.
Priest, J. A., E. V. L. Rees, and C. R. I. Clayton (2009), Influence of gas
hydrate morphology on the seismic velocities of sands, J. Geophys.
Res., 114, B11205, doi:10.1029/2009JB006284.
Rampino, C., C. Mancuso, and F. Vinale (1999), Laboratory testing on an
unsaturated soil: Equipment, procedures, and first experimental results,
Can. Geotech. J., 36(1), 1–12.
Rampino, C., C. Mancuso, and F. Vinale (2000), Experimental behavior
and modeling of an unsaturated compacted soil, Can. Geotech. J., 37,
748–763.
Roscoe, K. H., and J. B. Burland (1968), On the Generalized Stress-Strain
Behavior of ‘Wet’ Clay, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.
Roscoe, K. H., A. N. Schofield, and C. P. Wroth (1958), On the yielding of
soils, Geotechnique, 8(1), 22–53.
Rotta, G. V., N. C. Consoli, P. D. M. Prietto, M. R. Coop, and J. Graham
(2003), Isotropic yielding in an artificially cemented soil cured under
stress, Geotechnique, 53(5), 493–501.
Rutqvist, J., and G. Moridis (2007), Numerical Studies on the Geomecha-
nical Stability of Hydrate-Bearing Sediments, paper presented at Off-
shore Technology Conference, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., Huston, Tex.
Schofield, A. N. (2005), Disturbed Soil Properties and Geotechnical
Design, Thomas Telford, London.
Schofield, A. N., and C. P. Wroth (1968), Critical State Soil Mechanics,
McGraw-Hill, London.
Settari, A. (2002), Reservoir compaction, J. Pet. Technol., 54(8), 62–69.
Sharma, S. S., and M. Fahey (2003), Degradation of stiffness of cemented
calcareous soil in cyclic triaxial tests, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
129(7), 619–629.
Sivakumar, V., R. Sivakumar, E. Murray, P. Mackinnon, and J. Boyd
(2010), Mechanical behavior of unsaturated kaolin (with isotropic and
anisotropic stress history). Part 1: Wetting and compression behavior,
Geotechnique, 60(8), 581–594.
Soga, K., S. L. Lee, M. Y. A. Ng, and A. Klar (2006), Characterization and
engineering properties of methane hydrate soils, paper presented at 2nd
International Workshop on Characterization and Engineering Properties
of Natural Soils, Natl. Univ. of Singapore, Singapore.
Sultan, N., P. Cochonat, J. Foucher, and J. Mienert (2004), Effect of gas
hydrates melting on seafloor slope instability, Mar. Geol., 213(1–4),
379–401.
Tarantino, A., and S. Tombolato (2005), Coupling of hydraulic and
mechanical behavior in unsaturated compacted clay, Geotechnique, 55
(4), 307–317.
Toll, D. G., and B. H. Ong (2003), Critical-state parameters for an unsatu-
rated residual sandy clay, Geotechnique, 53(1), 93–103.
Vatsala, A., R. Nova, and B. R. S. Murthy (2001), Elastoplastic model for
cemented soils, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(8), 679–687.
Waite, W. F., et al. (2009), Physical properties of hydrate-bearing sedi-
ments, Rev. Geophys., 47, RG4003, doi:10.1029/2008RG000279.
Wang, Y.-H., and S.-C. Leung (2008), A particulate-scale investigation of
cemented sand behavior, Can. Geotech. J., 45(1), 29–44.
Wheeler, S. J., and V. Sivakumar (1995), An elasto-plastic critical state
framework for unsaturated soil, Geotechnique, 45(1), 35–53.
Wood, D. M. (1990), Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechanics,
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.
Xu, W., and L. N. Germanovich (2006), Excess pore pressure resulting
from methane hydrate dissociation in marine sediments, J. Geophys.
Res., 111, B01104, doi:10.1029/2004JB003600.
Yun, T. S., J. C. Santamarina, and C. Ruppel (2007), Mechanical properties
of sand, silt, and clay containing tetrahydrofuran hydrate, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, B04106, doi:10.1029/2006JB004484.
Zhan, T. L., and C. W. Ng (2006), Shear strength characteristics of an
unsaturated expansive clay, Can. Geotech. J., 43(7), 751–763.
K. Soga and S. Uchida, Department of Engineering, University of
Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK. (su224@cam.
ac.uk)
K. Yamamoto, Japan Oil, Gas and Metal National Corporation, 1-2-2
Hamada, Mihama-ku, Chiba-city, Chiba 261-0025, Japan.