This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]

On: 17 November 2012, At: 08:07

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International

Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgeo20

Soil creep effects on ground lateral deformation and

pore water pressure under embankments
a a a a
Behzad Fatahi , Thu Minh Le , Minh Quang Le & Hadi Khabbaz
a
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney (UTS),
Sydney, Australia
Version of record first published: 08 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Behzad Fatahi, Thu Minh Le, Minh Quang Le & Hadi Khabbaz (2012): Soil creep effects on ground lateral
deformation and pore water pressure under embankments, Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal,
DOI:10.1080/17486025.2012.727037

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2012.727037

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal
iFirst, 2012, 1–18

Soil creep effects on ground lateral deformation and pore water pressure
under embankments
Behzad Fatahi*, Thu Minh Le, Minh Quang Le and Hadi Khabbaz

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia

(Received 25 March 2011; final version received 31 August 2012)

Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

Analysing the behaviour of the soft ground under embankments is a challenging task and is of significant interest to practising geotechnical engineers.
This paper revisits a well known case study of an embankment of Boston Blue Clay, which was thoroughly instrumented and measured with
piezometers, settlement rods and inclinometers over a long time period during and after construction. The soil parameters were very comprehensively
collected by both in situ and laboratory tests in several major test programs. The behaviour of the ground considering the modified Cam-Clay model
including and excluding soil creep is simulated using finite element method. The analysed data are verified with field measurements and a parametric
study is conducted to evaluate the influence of creep index on excess pore water pressures generated and the displacement of the ground under the
embankment. It is observed that both horizontal displacements and excess pore water pressures of the ground under the embankment increased by
the creep index. Thus effects of soil creep should be precisely considered in predicting the ground performance under embankments.

Keywords: soil creep; secondary consolidation; embankment; settlement; pore water pressure; lateral deformation

1. Introduction every now and again, post construction settlements of struc-

As the world’s population continues to grow and expand,
the availability of sites with adequate soil for construction
becomes increasingly rare. Furthermore, soft soils such as
clays are more prevalent around lakes and coastal environ-
ments, where demand for construction is generally higher.
Soft soils generally consist of clay and silt with remarkable
amount of pore water, and their shear strengths and bearing
capacities are low, and they will suffer extraordinary settle-
ment when they undergo structural and non-structural loads.
Any site with soft soils needs to be analysed, so that the miti-
gating strategies/techniques to avoid problems associated with
soft soil can be best identified and implemented. Therefore,
knowledge of how to identify a soft soil and its engineering
properties and characteristics are critical. This will assist the
engineer to identify if the ground improvement is viable, and
which methods would be available for the site. Consolidation
and creep are significant in soft soils and hence, their long
term deformation must be taken into account in engineering
design and practice. For quantifying the long term settlement of
soil under pressure, viscous creep is a key deformation mech-
anism. Even assuming the secondary compression of soils to
be a small percentage of primary compression, the creep would
be important in soft soils with large primary compression. Yet,
tures have been observed to be more than those predicted,
or the predicted settlement versus time curve is not correct.
In the other hand, embankments are very popular structures
constructed for the utilisation of themselves (e.g. roads, dams)
or as means for ground improvement by densification (preload-
ing). Embankments may be constructed on problematic alluvial
soil such as soft clay or loose sand. One important aspect
of embankments constructed on these grounds is that their
behaviour is highly influenced by the underground water con-
dition and also the long term creep deformation of these soils
significantly influences the future maintenance cost of the struc-
tures. It is especially dangerous when the load increases over
the maximum history stress meaning that over consolidated
clay becomes normally consolidated and large secondary set-
tlement can happen without the warning sight of large primary
settlement.
Soil loading history is important as it clearly shows whether
the soil is normally consolidated or over-consolidated. A soil is
considered normally consolidated if the current stress in the soil
is the maximum it has ever experienced, and over-consolidated
if it has been subjected to a larger stress than the current stress.
Over-consolidated soil is advantageous when settlement is
to be limited because the void ratio is reduced, resulting in
greater density and lower initial pore pressures. This allows the

∗ Corresponding author. Email: behzad.fatahi@uts.edu.au

ISSN 1748-6025 print/ISSN 1748-6033 online

© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2012.727037
http://www.tandfonline.com
 2 B. Fatahi et al.
e
e0
–Cr
A slip circles occur when the soil is in its undrained state, which
–Cr –Cc
B loading, hence the fill placement sequence can be determined
0
log (σ ′0) log (σ ′p) log (σ ′)
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
Figure 1. Stress vs. void ratio.
consolidation process to be more cost and time efficient.
Bergado et al. (1994) stated that this is why preloading should
provide a surcharge that is greater than the soils past pressure,
as well as being greater than the structures future surcharge.
Figure 1 shows the void ratio – stress relationship for both
normally and over consolidated soils.
In Figure 1, eo is the initial void ratio of the soil, Cr is known
as the recompression index, associated with over-consolidated
soil, and Cc is the compression index, and should be used for
the void ratio calculation when soil is normally consolidated.
The point A on the graph represents the location of the max-
imum stress the soil has experienced (initial preconsolidation
pressure), and its void ratio (e). Once stress increases, the soil’s
void ratio reduces much faster, resulting in greater deforma-
tion. At point B, the stress is relaxed, and the void ratio then
increases. We can now graphically see the difference between
the normally consolidated and over-consolidated soils under
the same stresses. Point B is the point where maximum pres-
sure (preconsolidation pressure) was experienced, and is the
soil’s new preconsolidation point. Once soil is unloaded, it will
now rebound according to its recompression index. The ratio
of Cr /Cc is in the order of 0.1–0.2, which shows that expected
settlement of an over-consolidated soil is 10–20% of the con-
solidation of a normally consolidated soil. It is also suggested
that the preconsolidation pressure should be much higher than
the final design pressure, thus reducing secondary settlement.
One of the major issues associated with embankment con-
struction, is how to ensure stability of the site and the soil under
Fill Height
the embankment. The prime stability issue of embankments is
failure and slumping of the ground due to the formation of slip
circles. Slip circles can be avoided quite easily, with two meth-
ods being the most common; staged construction and use of
toe berms. It should also be noted that slip circles and other
failures will be more likely to occur if the soil is normally con-
solidated. Staged construction uses a controlled rate of load
application to increase the stability of structures on soft cohe-
sive clay (Ladd 1991). In embankment construction, this refers
to the method of placing fill in stages, and waiting until the soil
has acquired sufficient strength before the addition of the next
stage (Hewitt and Munfakh 2006). Slip circles occur when soil
is in its undrained state (voids filled with water), and are more
likely if the surcharge is too high. Stability problems such as
occurs when there is an excess pore pressure. By placing the fill
material in stages, the soil is able to drain slightly, which lets the
soil gain sufficient strength to be able to withstand the higher
surcharge associated with the next stage of loading. Drained
and more importantly, undrained shear strength testing should
be undertaken to be able to predict the behaviour of soil under
(Ladd 1991). Staged construction can be carried out using two
methods. The first method is employing a controlled rate of
continuous loading, which is mainly used when the preload sur-
charge comes from ponds or water tanks. The second method
is where the fill is placed in stages over time, which is used
when the preload surcharge comes from fill materials. Figure 2
shows a graph of fill height versus time for staged construction.
Staged construction is advantageous in that it requires no extra
fill to consolidate the soil. However, it also increases the time
needed to achieve the desired consolidation, and in some soft
soils (such as peat), slip circles are unavoidable. In this paper,
after a brief review of soil creep mechanisms and models, a case
study of an embankment constructed in stages in north Boston
over a thick layer of Boston Blue Clay is numerically inves-
tigated. After verifying the developed numerical model using
the field measurements, a parametric study, investigating the
influence of the soil creep parameter is conducted incorporating
the elasto-viscoplastic model developed by Vermeer and Neher
(2000) on ground deformation and pore water pressure below
the embankment.
2. Soil creep
2.1 Soil creep mechanisms
After Terzaghi proposed his outstanding theory of one dimen-
sional consolidation of soils in 1923 based on excess pore water
pressure dissipation, laboratory results and field observations
Hf
Lower Bound
H2
H1
nd
ou
e rB
H0 pp
U
t1 t2 t3 tc
Time
Figure 2. Staged construction – fill height vs. time.
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal
have shown that the settlement continues even after the dissi-
pation completes. In order to distinguish the two components
of the compression, the term of ‘primary consolidation’ is used
to describe the time dependent process due to the change in
volume induced by the expulsion of water from the voids,
and transferring load from the pore water pressure to the soil
particles. On the other hand, creep or so-called secondary
compression is generally defined as the deformation under a
constant effective stress. It is necessary to exclude creep phe-
nomenon from the deformation under constant load because the
effective stresses can be variable under a constant load. The
research on the long-term settlement of soils has become impor-
tant and been developed for many decades. However, there has
been no unified approval to explain the mechanism of creep
deformation resulting in different schools of thought and con-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
sequently various methods to predict soil settlement. Based on
the existing literature, the mechanisms of creep deformation are
explained by different theories such as (i) the breakdown of
interparticle bonds, (ii) the jumping of bonds of molecule struc-
tures, (iii) the sliding between particles, (iv) water drainage
from micropores to macropores, and (v) the structural viscosity
(Le et al. 2012).
According to Taylor and Merchant (1940) and Terzaghi
(1941), the process of primary and secondary compressions is
based on the transfer of stress and the adjustment of soil struc-
ture. During the primary consolidation, the total stress is carried
by the pressure in the pore water, plus the plastic resistance
of the adsorbed double layer and by the solid-to-solid bonds
between the clay particles. The effective stress includes the
resistance of the film of absorbed layer and the grain bonds of
clay particles. During creep deformation, the stress is shared
by the resistance of the film and grain bonds; and the pro-
cess ceases after all stresses are transferred from the film to
the grain bond. This explanation has been widely accepted and
become a basic for further study by various researchers such
as Gibson and Lo (1961), Mesri (1973, 2003) and Mesri and
Godlewski (1977). Bolt (1956) explained the deformation of a
natural soil as the combinations of both mechanical and chem-
ical factors because natural soils are composed of coarse-grain
components mixed with clay particles, whose mechanism of
compressibility is different from each other. Under an applied
load, the compression is induced by the mechanical interaction
between coarse-grained particles plus the physico-chemical
interaction between absorbed water layer and clay minerals in
the fine-grained part.
Another school of thought believes that structural viscosity
has significant impact on soil creep. The theory of structural
viscosity assumes that clayey soils exhibit viscosity inside their
internal structure, which is generated by the contacts between
the soil particles. It is believed that the adsorbed water on the
clay-mineral particles causes the viscosity, and has different
properties from the free-water, or normal water. This theory is
supported by Terzaghi (1941), Barden (1969), Bjerrum (1967),
Garlanger (1972), Christie and Tonks (1985) and Graham and
Yin (2001) and others. According to Yin (2003), creep mainly
results from the combination of two processes including (1)
3
viscous flow of absorbed water in double layers on clay par-
ticles and (2) viscous adjustment of clay structures (plate
structure) to reaches a new equilibrium to balance with the
external effective stress. Therefore, creep occurs as long as the
effective stress exists in the soil, and creep is not related to free
pore water whose flow is controlled by the hydraulic gradient.
Creep mechanism can also be explained based on theory
of double porosity. The explanation is based on double struc-
ture levels of soils including micro-pore and macro-pore. Creep
results from the transfer of pore water from microstructure to
macrostructure. This theory is also called the dual porosity
hypothesis pursued by many researchers including Berry and
Poskitt (1972), Zeevaart (1986), Navarro and Alonso (2001),
Mitchell and Soga (2005) and Wang and Xu (2006). The
soil structure is a combination of two structures with differ-
ent rheological properties (Figure 3). The primary structure is
coarse grains performing as a continuous skeleton structure to
support the effective stresses. The primary structure also con-
tains large pores that can be filled by “air free gravitational
water”. The secondary structure is clay clusters between large
grains and around the primary structure, and pores filled by
water with different viscosity. The relative displacement of clay
clusters (clay mineral grains) is believed to be induced by the
viscous behaviour of the adsorbed water layers around the clay
mineral grains.
Meanwhile, Murayama and Shibata (1961), Christensen and
Wu (1964) and Mitchell (1964) explained the creep mechanism
based on the theory of rate process. The creep deformation is
caused by the movement of the atoms and molecules under
the effect of constant stress to a new equilibrium position.
Because the movement of atoms and molecules (called flow
unit) relative to each other is resisted by virtual energy barriers,
a sufficient activated energy is required to conquer the barri-
ers. In fact, the flow units do not rest static, but vibrate with a
frequency. Considering that creep is defined as a rate process,
the deformation of soils is evaluated based on the activation
energy and the number of inter-particle bonds per unit area.
Coarse
grains
Primary
Structure
Large pore (macro-
pore)
Clay mineral
grains Micro-pore
Secondary structure - Clay cluster
Figure 3. Schematic concept of clay structure (after Zeevaert 1986).
 4 B. Fatahi et al.
The inter-particle bonding is referred to solid-to-solid bonds
(such as between soil particles), or mineral-to-mineral, or min-
eral to mineral through the interlayer adsorbed layer. Kuhn
and Mitchell (1993) proposed a new concept also derived from
the principle of rate process for creep deformation, which is
described as a sliding movement between the particles. The
sliding movement is caused by the tangential component of
the contact force of soil particles, ft . The deformation is pro-
posed by the relationship between the sliding velocity(ṡ), the
sliding force and the friction ratio between the tangential and
the normal forces (ft /fn ).
2.2 Soil creep theories
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
As aforementioned, there is no unique theory for creep defor-
mation. However, there are two major approaches for prediction
of soils settlement, called Hypothesis A and Hypothesis B
(Ladd et al. 1977, and Jamiolkowski et al. 1985). Figure 4
provides a brief description for Hypothesis A and Hypothesis
B. The difference between these hypotheses is the origin of
time that creep effect occurs. Hypothesis A believes that creep
has no contribution on the primary consolidation, i.e., creep
deformations are directly/separately considered just after the
primary consolidation finishes or after the dissipation of excess
pore water pressure completes. Because the primary compres-
sion is independent of creep deformation, it is supposed that
the void ratio at the end of primary consolidation (EOP) phase
is unique regardless of the thickness of soil layers, drainage
conditions as well as the time to reach the end of primary con-
solidation (tEOP ). This hypothesis is accepted by Ladd et al.
(1977), Jamiolkowski et al. (1985), Leonards and Deschamps
(1995). One of remarkable methods to estimate the total set-
tlement of soils is the uniqueness concept of Mesri and his
co-worker, which partially supports the concept of Hypothesis
A. It is noted that Mesri and his co-workers emphasised that
Thin
Thin sample
sample
Hypothesis A
Void ratio e
Hypothesis A & B
Hypothesis B
eEOP
Same initial conditions and
Δp/po for samples eEOP
Time (log scale)
Figure 4. Hypotheses A and B (after Ladd et al. 1977).
creep does occur during the primary process, but it is pos-
sible to exist an interrelationship between creep and primary
compression components during the primary stage. That inter-
relationship causes the uniqueness of eEOP and effective stress
at the end of primary consolidation (Mesri and Choi 1985).
In contrast, Hypothesis B suggests that the creep contribution
starts simultaneously with the primary consolidation. In other
words, creep occurs in the whole compression process. Due
to the effect of creep during the whole process, the relation-
ship between the void ratio and effective stress at the end of
primary consolidation is non-unique, but depends on the thick-
ness of soil layers and/or drainage conditions. This hypothesis
has been widely accepted by geotechnical community (Leroueil
1988 and 1996, Kabbaj et al. 1988, Murakami 1988, Yin and
Graham 1989, Imai and Tang 1992, Aboshi 2004, Degago et al.
2009) even though the prediction method is quite complicated
compared to that of Hypothesis A.
According to Leroueil et al. (1985), most of the recent one-
dimensional consolidation models for evaluation of soil settle-
ment are listed in four main categories as shown in Table 1.
In Table 1, σv is the vertical
 effective stress, e the void ratio,
t the time, and ė = ∂e ∂t is the rate of change in void ratio,

and σ̇v = ∂σv ∂t is the rate of change in the effective stress.

The void ratio can be replaced by strain (ε), and ε̇ = ∂ε ∂t
is the strain rate. Most of models in Table 1 were proposed
for one-dimensional (1D) straining, although some of them
can be extended and developed further for three dimensional
(3D) stress conditions. The theory of consolidation of Terzaghi
(1941) was the noteworthy foundation for further studies on
the deformation behaviour of soils. This theory provides a sim-
ple approach relating the effective stress and the void ratio.
However, as stated by the reviewer, the influence of soil creep
was not captured in this model.
Concept of instant and delayed compressions of Bjerrum
(1967) has significantly influenced the time dependent consti-
tutive model developments, although Bjerrum (1967) did not
propose a constitutive model for his proposal except empirical
relations to determine the total compression after 3000 years.
Bjerrum (1967) divided the consolidation process of soils into
instant and delayed compression instead of primary and sec-
ondary compression, because he believed that it would be
impossible to separate these two processes. An instant com-
pression occurs simultaneously with the increase of the effec-
tive stress, and causes the reduction in void ratio until reaching
the new equilibrium state to support the overburden pressure.
Besides, delayed compression is the volume change under con-
stant effective stress. His remarkable work is the proposal of
time line system which can be used to represent the relation-
ship between the void ratio, pressure and time. It can be noted
that Garlanger (1972) and Yin and Graham (1989) developed
their detailed constitutive models based on Bjerrum’s time line
system.
The elastic visco-plastic model proposed by Yin and Graham
(1989) is one of the models included the influence of effec-
tive stress and strain rates on the time dependent behaviour
of soils. This constitutive model has various applications for
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 5

Table 1. Summary of Existing Model Category (modified after Leroueil 1985)

Model category Reference Features

R (σ  v , e) = 0 Terzaghi’s theory of consolidation (1941)
R (σ  v , e, t) = 0 Bjerrum (1967), Hansen (1969), Garlanger (1972), Mesri and
Rokhsar (1974), Vermeer and Neher (1999)
R (σ  v, e, σ̇v , ė) = 0 Taylor and Merchant (1940), Gibson and Lo (1961), Yin and
Graham (1989), den Haan (1996), Yin (1999), Zhou et al.
(2005), Kimoto and Oka (2005), Karim and Gnanendran
(2009), Karstunen and Yin (2010)
R (σ  v , e, ė ) = 0 Leroueil et al. (1985), Kabbaj et al. (1986)
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
The relationship between effective stress and void ratio is
independent of the time and unique. This approach shows
the limit since the void ratio is observed to vary under
constant effective stress. The influence of soil creep has not
been captured in this model.
The void ratio is a function of effective stress and time.
The rate of change in void ratio is a function of effective
stress, void ratio and rate of change in effective stress.
The void ratio is a function of effective stress and strain rate

different stress – strain conditions such as creep, relaxation, and Due to the advancement in technology and equipments, var-
constant rate of strain, and could be developed further for 3D ious computer programs are developed to provide complicated
conditions. However, the model parameters are not uniquely analysis of time-dependent settlement process, in which con-
determined, since they depend on the choice of the reference solidation and creep occur simultaneously. PLAXIS software
time line. The thickness of the laboratory soil sample influences has become one of the most popular computer programs apply-
the determined model parameters, and consequently when this ing the finite element method to analysis various geotechnical
model is incorporated into the governing equations of consol- problems. Soft-Soil and Soft-Soil Creep models are the two sig-
idation (e.g. Yin and Graham 1996), the field predictions may nificant models to analyse the deformations of soils adopted
be significantly influenced. in PLAXIS 2D (version 9.0). A brief description of these two
The unique relationship of stress – strain – strain rate pro- models is provided as follows.
posed by Leroueil et al. (1985) provides reliable predictions
for 1D straining. However, as the reviewer clarified, this rela-
tionship cannot be applied for various stress – strain conditions 2.3 Soft soil model
such as stress relaxation.
In this model which is Cam-Clay based model, for isotropic
In addition, the creep ratio (Cα /Cc , where Cα is the creep
stress state (σ1 = σ2 = σ3 ) the virgin isotropic compression
index and Cc is the compression index) proposed by Mesri and
is expressed as a logarithmic relation between the volumetric
his co-workers is another remarkable approach in this field.
strain, εv, and the mean effective stress, p , in Equation (1).
The creep ratio is considered constant for a particular soil,
The isotropic unloading and reloading is formulated as in
and can be used in company with the unique eEOP concept in
Equation (2).
order to estimate the total settlement (Mesri and Rokhsar 1974,
Mesri and Godlewski 1977, Mesri and Choi 1985). However, p
the method of Mesri and his co-workers have been challenged εv − εv0 = −λ∗ ln (1)
po
for many years in various publications such as Leroueil et al.
(1985, 1988), Leroueil (1988, 1996), Kabbaj et al. (1988), Yin where, εvo is the initial volumetric strain, and σo is the initial
and Graham (1989). mean effective stress.
Many researchers working on time dependent behaviours
of soils (e.g. Adachi and Oka 1982, Yin and Graham 1999, p
Vermeer and Neher 2000, Yin et al. 2002, Bodas-Freitas et al. εve − εvo
e
= −κ ∗ ln (2)
po
2011) adopted general three dimensional stress state conditions
to predict deformation of soils. Majority of the proposed 3D where, εvo and εvo e
are assumed to be elastic with the super-
time dependent stress – strain constitutive models have com- script e.
bined the theory of viscoplasticity proposed by Perzyna (1963, For triaxial stress state with σ2 = σ3 ,
1966) and the framework of modified Cam Clay. Generally,
these models can be applied to varying stress and boundary
conditions. Although most of these models can provide a good f = f̄ − pp (3)
agreement with the laboratory measurement, the prediction
for the actual field measurements requires further investiga- q2
tion. Moreover, the large number of required model parameters f̄ = + p (4)
M 2 p
is a challenge for the model implementation, since the accu-
racy of parameter determined in the laboratory is significantly −εvp
pp = ppo exp (5)
influenced by the type of the test and experience of the designer. λ∗ − κ ∗
 6 B. Fatahi et al.

6 sin ϕcs Table 2. Correlation between Soft Soil Creep indices with Cam-Clay
M= (6) parameters and normalised parameters (after Vermeer and Neher 1999)
3 − sin ϕcs
Relationship to Relationship to
  Parameter Cam – Clay parameters normalised parameters
q = σ1 − σ2  (7)
λ
Modified Compression λ∗ = 1+e λ∗ = Cc
2.3(1+e)
 Index (λ∗ )
where, f is the yield function, f̄ the function of (p ,q), and pp κ
Modified Swelling κ∗ = 1+e κ∗ ≈ 3 1−vur Cr
2.3 vur 1+e
the pre-consolidation stress as a function of plastic strain. Index (κ ∗ )
Modified Creep μ∗ = Cα
2.3(1+e)
Index (μ∗ )
2.4 Soft soil creep model

The employed soft soil creep constitutive model (adopted in
PLAXIS software) considers logarithmic creep law for sec-
ondary compression and is the 3D extension of 1D creep
model obtained from oedometer-type strain conditions. The
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
precisely constant period of τ = 1 day. Further explanation can
be found in Vermeer and Neher (2000) and Neher et al. (2001).
The additional parameter in Soft Soil Creep Model is μ∗ ,

model considers Modified Cam Clay model as well as some
aspects of viscous behaviour of soil under compression. The
total volumetric strain in the adopted soft soil creep model
(SSC) is calculated as the summation of the elastic and visco-
plastic strains, which is similarly to the approach adopted by
other researchers such as Adachi and Oka (1982), Yin et al.
(2002) and Bodas-Freitas et al. (2011). The visco-plastic part
is separated into a part occurring while the excess pore water
pressure is dissipating (traditional primary consolidation) and
another part occurring after primary consolidation. The model
ignores the creep deformation due to the shearing and assumes
a constant creep rate with time and stress level (μ∗ param-
eter in Equation (9) is a constant parameter). It should be
noted that many researchers (e.g. Mesri and Castro 1987, Yin
1999) believe that the creep rate decreases with time, and con-
sequently constant creep rate assumption results in an over
estimation and unrealistic prediction of the long term deforma-
tions. The detailed explanation of the Soft Soil Creep model can
be found in Vermeer and Neher (2000) and Neher et al. (2001).
In the soft soil creep model developed by Vermeer and Neher
(1999) adopted in this study, a new 3D stress measure peq ,
which is considered as a constant on ellipses in p - q plane is
derived by the invariants p and q as follows:
the modified creep index. The modified creep index along with
the modified swelling index, κ ∗ , and the modified compression
index λ∗ can be determined based on the isotropic compression
tests, as well as one-dimensional compression tests. Moreover,
these indices can be determined based on normalised param-
eters and Cam-Clay parameters as shown in Table 2.
3. Case study of embankment on Boston Blue Clay
This project is a portion of Interstate Highway I-95 North of
Boston, which was constructed in 1965 over a thick layer of
Boston Blue Clay (BBC). The MIT-MDPW was a trial embank-
ment, constructed during 1967 to 1969. The crest is 28 m, the
height is 12.2 m with footing of 84 m. Detail geometry and
instrumentation can be found in Figure 5. The comprehensively
collected data is used for evaluating various behaviour anal-
ysis such as deformations, pore pressures and stability (e.g.,
D’Appolonia et al. 1971, Wolfskill and Soydemir 1971, Whittle
1974). Ground surface is at El. = +1.5 m (mean sea level);
soft peat above El. 0 m; a layer of poorly graded marine sand
(N ≈ 20); thick layer of Boston Blue Clay (BBC), a post-glacial

q2
peq = p + (8)
M 2 p

The volumetric creep strain is calculated by the following

equation.
  λ∗μ−κ∗ ∗
μ∗ peq
−ε̇vc = eq (9)
τ pp

−εvc
p = ppo exp
peq eq
(10)
λ∗ − κ ∗

where, peqp is the generalised preconsolidation pressure, ppo is

eq

the generalised preconsolidation pressure at the initial condi-

tions (at t = 0, εvc = 0). τ is defined as the loading period of each
loading step. For example in conventional oedometer testing the Figure 5. MIT-MDPW Test Embankment (Sta. 246): Vertical settlement and
load is stepwise increased and each load step is maintained for a lateral displacement points of interest.
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 7

Table 3. Main features and Soil Parameters of Soft Soil Model and Soft Soil Creep Model (after Vermeer et al. 2002)

Soft Soil Model Soft Soil Creep Model

Main features • Stress dependent stiffness • Stress – dependent stiffness

• Distinction between primary loading, unloading – reloading • Distinction between primary loading, unloading – reloading
• Use of pre-consolidation stress as a yield stress • Creep compression (visco-plastic behavior)
• Failure behavior according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion • Pre-consolidation stress as a yield stress
• Failure behavior according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion
Basic parameters • λ∗ : Modified compression index • λ∗ : Modified compression index
• κ ∗ : Modified swelling index • κ ∗ : Modified swelling index
• c : Cohesion (kN/m2 ) • μ∗ : Modified creep index
• ϕ : Friction angle (◦ )  : Friction angle (◦ )
• ϕcs
• ψ : Dilatancy angle (◦ ) • vur : Possion’s ratio for unloading/reloading

illitic marine clay with various parameters given in Table 3; filling was continuing to El. +2.75 m during Construction Day
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

dense glacial till composed of clayey sand and gravel; and
grey shale bedrock (Cambridge Argillite). Mean phreatic level
located at El. +0.76 m and there is water head of 1.52m in
the till layer which is assumed that this pressure decrease lin-
early through the BBC layers. The natural water content ( W N )
of Boston Blue Clay rises quickly within the first 10m depth
of the ground and reaches an average from 40% to 45%. The
BBC clay deposit has values of liquid limit, W L = 45% ±7%
and plasticity index, Ip = W L - wp = 23% ±6%. The mean field
vane strength drops with depth up to El. -22m, the minimum
value is su (FV) = 35 kPa, and then increases nearly linearly
with depth.
The test embankment, named MIT-MDPW (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology – Massachusetts Department of Public
Works), was systematically setup with piezometers, settlement
rods, and inclinometers. Figure 5 shows the instrumentation
plan of the test embankment at Sta. 246 by Whittle (1974).
Construction of the embankment has taken 1.5 years in three
stages and post construction field measurement took another
4 years. Figure 6 shows the construction sequence of the Test
Embankment consisted of three stages. In stage one, the peat
layer was removed and replaced with well graded sand fill. The
Construction Year
0 1
20
Initial Measurements Piezometers
Inclinometers
Embankment Elevation (m)
(CD) 92 to 123. Stage two started at CD 298 and stopped at CD
461, the filling height was +11.0 m. After consolidation time of
4.5 months, stage three started at CD 598 and the construction
finished at CD 620 with total height of 12.2m. The compacted
sand fill has an average total unit weight of γ t = 18.7 kN/m3 .
Figure 6 also shows when the first reading of each instrument
was initiated.
Geotechnical data of Boston Blue Clay was comprehensively
collected by both in situ and laboratory test programs during
1966 to 1980. This case study presents an ideal object for
assessing the performance of prediction of real time ground
behaviour in embankment/preloading scenario during and after
construction. Indeed, there are a number of analyses of this Test
Section. D’Appolonia et al. (1971) evaluated the pore pres-
sure behaviour during loading using an undrained total stress
soil model, with a focus on the occurrence of local yielding
within the clay. Whittle (1974) used a hyperbolic total stress-
strain model (FEECON, as described in Simon et al. 1974)
to predict undrained pore pressures and deformations during
construction and also attempted to back-calculate field val-
ues of compressibility and coefficients of consolidation using
one-dimensional and uncoupled, elastic two-dimensional con-
solidation solutions. Ladd et al. (1994) applied two generalised
effective soil models, Modified Cam Clay (MCC) and MIT-
2 3 4 56 E3 to perform finite elements analyses that incorporate coupled
consolidation. Similar to the current study, Neher et al. (2001)
End of Construction used field measurement from the Test Embankment to evaluate
CD620

15 performance of different soil constitutive models on prediction

Settlement Rods of real time settlements, horizontal displacements and excess
+12.2m
+11.0m Stage 3 pore water pressure of BBC layers.
10 Data of sand, fill, peat and till layers are adapted from
Ladd et al. (1994) and Neher et al. (2001) as summarised
Stage 2 in Tables 4 and 5. Sand and fill layer were modelled by
Remove/Replace
5 Peat Hardening Soil (HS) model (Brinkgreve et al. 2008). The
+2.75m γs = 18.7kN/m3 peat and fill were analysed with Mohr-Coulomb model (MC).
+1.5m Stage 1
However, according to Ladd et al. (1994), selected stiffness
γs = 15.7kN/m3
0 and strength parameters of these layers have negligible influ-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1000
ence on the final results. Another major parameter not directly
Construction Day (CD)
available is the coefficient of permeability of the till layer, how-
Note: CD1 = 01/09/1967
ever field measurement support the notion of free drainage
Figure 6. Construction Sequence (after Whittle 1974). condition and the value was adapted from study of Whittle
 8 B. Fatahi et al.

Table 4. Selected soil parameters for Boston Blue Clay (after Neher et al. 2001)

Layer A B1 B2 C1 C2 D E1 E2 E3 F1 F2 F3

γ t (kN/m3 ) 19 19 17.7
kh (10−9 m/s) 3.160 2.080 0.945 1.065 1.170 0.885
kv (10−9 m/s) 1.580 1.040 0.630 0.710 0.780 0.590
λ∗ 0.0522 0.0652 0.0870 0.1304 0.1957 0.1522
κ∗ 0.0131 0.0163 0.0218 0.0326 0.0489 0.0381
μ∗ 0.00149 0.00186 0.00249 0.00373 0.00559 0.00435
OCR 8.34 4.60 3.07 2.25 1.77 1.44 1.25 1.21 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.11
K0 1.35 1.08 0.85 0.80 0.65 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55
M 1.86
c 1 kPa
ϕ 33.40

Table 5. Selected soil parameters for Boston Blue Clay (after Ladd et al. 1994, Neher et al. 2001)
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

ref ref ref

Soil layer Model γ t (kN/m3 ) E50 (MPa) Eur (MPa) Eoed (MPa) m1 ν2 c3 (kPa) ϕ’4 (0 ) OCR

Sand HS 18 40 120 – 0.5 0.2 1 37 1

Fill HS 18.7 40 120 – 0.5 0.2 5 35 1
Peat MC 11.8 – – 0.208 – 0.3 5 25 1
Till MC 20.4 – – 100 0.3 1 43 1

Note: 1 parameter simulating stress dependent stiffness according to a power law; 2 Poisson’s ratio; 3 cohesion; 4 effective friction angle.

(1974) which is several order of magnitude larger than those
of BBC.
In this study, a comparison of measured pore pressures, set-
tlements and horizontal displacements at the test section versus
those predicted from finite element analyses using two soil
models: the Soft Soil Model (SS) and Soft Soil Creep Model
(SSC) is presented. A parametric study is also conducted to
evaluate the long term behaviour of the excess pore water pres-
sure. The mains objectives are (i) assessing major aspects of
embankment performance, i.e., pore pressures and deforma-
tions measured both during and after loading at many locations
within the clay, and (ii) studying the influence of creep on the
real time behaviour of the ground under embankment in long
term period.
The numerical analysis in this case study is based on two
constitutive models called soft soil and soft soil creep incor-
porated in PLAXIS 2D (version 9). A two-dimensional plane
strain finite element mesh with the 6-node triangular ele-
ments is adopted. Figure 7 illustrates the finite element mesh
employed for the simulation in this study. As the geometry of
the proposed mesh is sufficiently large, there may be marginal
implications associated with the elements located at the far
sides of the model. Because of symmetry, a zero flux boundary
was applied along the left boundary of the mesh. It is assumed
that rainfall and evaporation can balance each other, thus ‘no
water inflow’ condition is applied on the top surface.
Consolidation analysis is conducted as it is required to anal-
ysis the development and dissipation of excess pore water

Figure 7. Finite element model of the embankment on Boston Blue Clay.

 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 9

pressure in the saturated clay layers as a function of time. In the Time (Day)
model, excess pore water pressure can only dissipate through 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0.0
the ground surface and bottom of the BBC layer via the sand Field Measurement
and till layers, respectively. Initial stresses before excavation Soft Soil Model
0.1 Soft Soil Creep Model
of the top peat layer and placement of the embankment were

Settlement (m)
generated using k0 procedure balancing horizontal and vertical 0.2
stresses with the in-situ stresses due to gravity. Construction of
the embankment has been simulated using staged construction 0.3
procedure in PLAXIS considering the constriction progress as
presented in Figure 6. 0.4
SP3
0.5

4. Results and discussion Figure 10. Settlement versus time for SP3.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

Results of the numerical predictions are compared with

the actual field measurements for validation of the model. Time (Days)
Figures 8–12 show the results of the ground settlement. The 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0.0
soft soil model including creep results in a more accurate Field Measurements
results better matching the field measurements for the settle- 0.1
Soft Soil Model
Soft Soil Creep Model
ment plates located on the ground surface right below the

Settlement (m)
embankment crest (SP1 and SP2; Figures 8 and 9), while the 0.2
soft soil model excluding the creep underestimates the ground
settlement. However, based on Figures 10–12, soft soil creep 0.3
model overestimates the ground settlement under the slope of
0.4
SR5
Time (Days) 0.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0.0 Figure 11. Settlement versus time for SR5.
Field Measurement
Soft Soil Model
0.2 Soft Soil Creep Model
Time (Days)
Settlement (m)

0.4 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

0.0

0.6
0.1
Settlement (m)

0.8
0.2
SP1
1.0
0.3 Field Measurement
Soft Soil Model
Figure 8. Settlement versus time for SP1. Soft Soil Creep Model
0.4
SR11
Time (Days)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0.5
0.0
Field Measurement
Soft Soil Model Figure 12. Settlement versus time for SR11.
0.2 Soft Soil Creep Model
Settlement (m)

0.4 the embankment and in the deep layers (SP3, SR11; Figures 10
and 12).
0.6 Figures 13–18 show the comparison of the predicted excess
pore water pressure values considering soft soil model includ-
0.8 ing and excluding creep and field measurements for the
SP2 construction (620 days) and long time after construction
1.0 (1944 days). The results indicate that the model including soil
creep leads to a higher excess pore water pressure values bet-
Figure 9. Settlement versus time for SP2. ter fitting the field measurements. As expected, the difference
 10 B. Fatahi et al.

Pore Water Pressure (kPa) Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
0 0
P25-P28
P5-P11
5 5 (620 days)
(620 days)
10 10

15 15

20 20
Depth (m)

25

Depth (m)
25

30
30
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

35
35
40
40
45
45
Field Measurement
50 Field Measurements
Soft Soil Model
Soft Soil Creep Model 50 Soft Soil Model
55 Soft Soil Model
55
Figure 13. Excess pore water pressure versus depth for P5-P11 at the end of
construction. Figure 15. Excess pore water pressure versus depth for P25-P28 at the end of
construction.
Pore Water Pressure (kPa)
0 50 100 150 200 Pore Water Pressure (kPa)
0
0 50 100 150
P20-P24 0
5 (620 days)
P5-P11
5 (2053 days)
10
10
15
15
20
20
Depth (m)

25
Depth (m)

25
30
30
35
35
40
40
45
Field Measurement 45
50 Soft Soil Model Field Measurement
Soft Soil Creep Model 50 Soft Soil Model
55 Soft Soil Creep Model

Figure 14. Excess pore water pressure versus depth for P20-P24 at the end of
construction.
between the excess pore water pressure values increases with
the distance from the high permeability/drainage boundaries.
The soft soil model excluding creep can underestimate the pore
water pressure by up to 50%. The maximum excess pore water
pressure occurs at the depth 30–35 m having a good agreement
55
Figure 16. Excess pore water pressure versus depth for P5-P11 after
2053 days.
with the field measurements. The maximum excess pore water
pressure occurs below the middle of the embankment crest
(close to the symmetry line) and the values reduce with the
distance from the centreline of the embankment.
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 11

Pore Water Pressure (kPa) Horizontal Displacement (m)

0 50 100 150 200 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0 0
P20-P24
5
5 (2053 days) I3
10 (1944 days)
10
15
15
20
20

Depth (m)
25
Depth (m)

25 30

30 35
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

40
35
45 Field Measurement
40 Soft Soil Model
50 Soft Soil Creep Model
45 Tavenas et al. (1979) (Eqn.11)
Field Measurement 55
50 Soft Soil Model
Soft Soil Creep Model
Figure 19. Horizontal displacement profile of the ground 1944 days after
construction at I3.
55

Figure 17. Excess pore water pressure versus depth for P20-P24 after Horizontal Displacement (m)
2053 days. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
0
I5
Pore Water Pressure (kPa) 5 (1944 days)
0 50 100 150 200
0 10
P25-P28
5 (2053 days) 15

10 20
Depth (m)

15 25

20 30
Depth (m)

25 35

30 40

35 45
Field Measurement
Soft Soil Model
40 50 Soft Soil Creep Model
Tavenas et al. (1979) (Eqn.11)
45 55
Field Measurement
Figure 20. Horizontal displacement profile of the ground 1944 days after
50 Soft Soil Model
construction at I5.
Soft Soil Creep Model
55
lateral displacement while the soft soil model excluding creep
Figure 18. Excess pore water pressure versus depth for P25-P28 after (Soft Soil model) predicts the lateral movements more reason-
2053 days.
ably. However, the location of the point with the maximum
horizontal displacement is predicted reasonably well by both
Figures 19 and 20 present the predicted lateral deformations models. As expected, the lateral displacement of the ground
and the field measurements. It is observed that soft soil model increases with the distance from the embankment centreline
including soil creep (Soft Soil Creep model) overestimates the (symmetry line).
 12 B. Fatahi et al.

As mentioned earlier, in the adopted soft soil creep model,
the creep rate (μ∗ ) is constant and there is no limit for the
creep deformation. However, many researchers (e.g., Bjerrum
1967, Leroueil et al. 1985, Mesri and Castro 1987, Yin 1999)
have indicated that the creep rate decreases with time and also
depends on the stress level. In addition, creep deformations
obviously cease in a long term when there are only incom-
pressible solid particles left. Thus, the soft soil creep model
adopted in this study tends to ignore the above mentioned varia-
tions leading to over-estimation of displacements. As expected,
lower values of the modified creep index (μ∗ ) compensating
the decreasing creep rate with time may result in better fit-
ting predictions, which is explained in the parametric study in
Section 5.
In addition, the initial stress state, soil constitutive mod-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
ratios (Cα /Cc ) of 101 1 1 1 1
, 15 , 25 , 35 , 50 . Figures 21–23 illustrate the
influence of creep ratio on the predicted ground settlement.
As expected, the ground settlement increases with the creep
ratio. Comparing Figures 21 and 22 with Figure 23, the equiv-
alent creep ratio resulting in a better prediction of the ground
surface settlement under the batter of the embankment (creep
ratio = 25
1
) is less than the ratio back calculated for the crest
(creep ratio = 501
).
Figures 24–26 illustrates the profiles of the pore water
pressure under the embankment at the end of construction con-
sidering various creep ratios. The results indicate that the excess
pore water pressure increases with the creep ratio. For example,
when the creep ratio increases from 0.02 to 0.1, the maximum
excess pore water pressure at the end of construction increases

by 150% (from 100 kPa to 250 kPa) for P5–P11.

els including shear deformation and anisotropy, and the flow Effects of soil creep on the excess pore water pressure have
rules can influence the predictions significantly (Tavenas and been studied for a long time. Many field measurements show
Leroueil 1981, Mesri and Hayat 1993, Seah and Koslanant
2003, Leoni et al. 2008). For example, numerical simulations,
reported by Neher et al. (2001), indicate that for overconsoli-
Time (Days)
dated soils Soft Soil Creep (SSC) model similar to the model
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
used in this study has no advantages compared to soft soil 0.0
SP1
model ignoring the creep component. 0.2
0.4
0.6
Depth (m)

5. Parametric study 0.8

1.0
According to the results summarised by Mesri and Godlewski 1.2
Field Measurement
(1977) and presented in Table 6, it can be observed that the 1.4 Creep Ratio = 1/50
Creep Ratio = 1/35
values of (Cα /Cc ) changes between 0.02 and 0.1 for different 1.6
Creep Ratio = 1/25
Creep Ratio = 1/15
types of soils. 1.8
Creep Ratio = 1/10

To assess the influence of soil creep index, the results of

the reference case study are compared for five different creep Figure 21. Influence of creep ratio on the settlement at SP1.

Cα
Table 6. Values Cc for natural soil deposits (after Mesri and Godlewski 1977)

Reference (cited in Mesri and

Soil Cα /Cc Godlewski 1977)

Whangamarino clay 0.03–0.04 Newland and Allely (1960)

Norfolk organic silt 0.05 Barber (1961)
Calcareous organic silt 0.035–0.06 Wahls (1962)
Amorphous and fibrous peat 0.035–0.083 Lea and Brawner (1963)
Canadian muskeg 0.09–0.10 Adams (1965)
Leda clay 0.03–0.055 Walker and Raymond (1968)
Leda clay 0.04–0.06 Walker and Raymond (1969)
Peat 0.075–0.085 Weber (1969)
Post-glacial organic clay 0.05–0.07 Chang (1969)
Soft blue clay 0.026 Crawford and Sutherland (1971)
Organic clays 0.04–0.06 Ladd (1971)
Sensitive clay, Portland 0.025–0.055 Ladd (1971)
Peat 0.05–0.08 Samson and La Rochelle (1972)
San Francisco Bay mud 0.04–0.06 Su and Prysock (1972)
New Liskeardvarved clay 0.03–0.06 Quigley and Ogunbadejo (1972)
Silty clay C 0.032 Samson and Garneau (1973)
Nearshore clays and silts 0.055–0.075 Brown and Rashid (1975)
Fibrous peat 0.06–0.085 Berry and Vickers (1975)
Mexico City clay 0.03–0.035 Mesri, et al. (1975)
Hudson River silt 0.03–0.06 Mesri, Personal files
Leda clay 0.025-0.04 Mesri and Godlewski (1977)
New Haven organic clay silt 0.04–0.075 Mesri and Godlewski (1977)
Organic Silt 0.043 Iyer (1987)
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 13

Time (Days) Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 200 400
0.0 0
SP2
0.2 P5-P11
5 (620 days)
0.4
0.6 10
Depth (m)

0.8 15
1.0
20
1.2
Field Measurement

Depth (m)
Creep Ratio = 1/50 25
1.4 Creep Ratio = 1/35
Creep Ratio = 1/25
1.6 Creep Ratio = 1/15 30
Creep Ratio = 1/10
1.8
35
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

Figure 22. Influence of creep ratio on the settlement at SP2.

40

Time (Days) 45 Field Measurement

Creep Ratio = 1/50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Creep Ratio = 1/35
0.0 50 Creep Ratio = 1/25
SP3 Creep Ratio = 1/15
0.2 Creep Ratio = 1/10
55

0.4 Figure 24. Influence of creep ratio on excess pore water pressure at P5-P11 at
Depth (m)

the end of construction.

0.6

Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

0.8
Field Measurement 0 100 200 300
Creep Ratio = 1/50 0
Creep Ratio = 1/35
1.0 Creep Ratio = 1/25
Creep Ratio = 1/15
P20-P24
Creep Ratio = 1/10 5 (620 days)
1.2
10
Figure 23. Influence of creep ratio on the settlement at SP3.
15

that the pore pressure values do not decrease immediately at 20

the end of loading or construction, but increase for a period
Depth (m)

before decreasing (Crook et al. 1984, Conlin and Maddox 25

1985, Kabbaj et al. 1988, Rowe and Li 2002). Recently two
30
main reasons have been proposed to explain that abnormal
excess porewater pressure behaviour, which are called Mandel 35
- Cryer effect and viscous effect. According to Schiffman et al.
(1969), Mandel – Cryer effect is due to the increase in total 40
stress, which is caused by the volumetric strain compatibility.
Mandel – Cryer effect is named after Mandel (1953) and Cryer 45 Field Measurement
Creep Ratio = 1/50
(1963) base on their observations related to the anomalous Creep Ratio = 1/35
50 Creep Ratio = 1/25
excess pore water pressure generation. Cryer (1963) analysed Creep Ratio = 1/15
Creep Ratio = 1/10
the process of consolidation by applying all-around pressure on 55
a saturated porous sphere. As the surface of the sphere is free
to drain, under the applied pressure the total stress at the cen- Figure 25. Influence of creep ratio on excess pore water pressure at P20-
P24 at the end of construction.
tre of the sphere is temporary increased because the dissipation
of excess pore water pressure at the centre delays. That results
to the increase in the excess pore water pressure for some time that creep deformation may cause the delay of dissipation of
before the dissipation starts. He also recognised that the effect the excess pore water pressure (Holzer et al. 1972, Rowe and
is dependent on the Poisson’s ratio, ν, and is maximum as ν is Li 2002, Yin et al. 1994, Yin and Zhu 1999). Holzer et al.
equal to zero in a small strain and constant permeability. (1972) carried out undrained creep tests of San Francisco Bay
Another remarkable reason is related to the viscous effect, mud to investigate the correlation of the excess pore water pres-
which results from creep deformation of soils. It is believed sure and creep. The mechanism of creep deformation, which
 14 B. Fatahi et al.

Pore Water Pressure (kPa) the stress paths depart from the failure line. The constitutive
0 100 200 300 model developed by Kimoto and Oka (2005) can capture the
0
pore water pressure increase due to stagnation. In addition, as
P25-P28
5 reported by Asaoka et al. (2000), as the decay of over consol-
(620 days)
idation is much faster than degradation of the structure in clay
10 during consolidation process, softening becomes possible with
volume compression even under a considerably low stress ratio.
15
Figures 27, 28 and 29, 30 show the influence of the creep
20 ratio on the lateral deformations of the ground under the
embankment crest and toe, respectively. According to the
Depth (m)

25 results, the lateral deformations of the ground due to embank-

30 ment construction increases by the creep ratio and time. For
example, increasing the creep ration from 0.02 to 0.1 indices
35 136%, and 122% increase in the maximum horizontal displace-
ment at the end of construction for inclinometers I3 (crest) and
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

40
I5 (toe), respectively.
45 Field Measurement Lateral displacement has been paid insignificant attention
Creep Ratio = 1/50 in comparison to vertical settlement. In the case of embank-
Creep Ratio = 1/35
50 Creep Ratio = 1/25 ment construction, it is important to estimate the maximum
Creep Ratio = 1/15
55
Creep Ratio = 1/10 lateral displacement, especially at the toe of the embankment.
Tavenas et al. (1979) reported that the ratio of the maximum
Figure 26. Influence of creep ratio on excess pore water pressure at P25- lateral displacement to the settlement under the centre of the
P28 at the end of construction. embankment, ( ym / s), during the consolidation stages varies
from 0.18 to 0.23. From the field observations, Loganathan
accounts for the increase in the excess pore water pressure, et al. (1993) suggested the ratio about 0.28 similar to the ratio
is explained as the drainage of pore water from micropores of 0.24 of Suzuki (1988). It is noted that this ratio can be
to macropores. That mechanism assumes that two levels of influenced by various factors such as the size of the embank-
pore systems called micropores and macropores exist within ment and the thickness of the soil layer. The difference between
the whole soil structure. Crooks et al. (1984) also observed the the predicted and measured values also results from the position
generation of pore water pressure after the end of construc-
tion, and suggested creep induced by the deformation of soil
structure (‘breakdown of soil structure’) is the cause of the Horizontal Displacement (m)
increase in pore water pressure after completion of construc- 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
tion. Yin et al. (1994) implemented their elastic visco-plastic 0
model to predict the increase of excess pore water pressure after
5
the end of construction. They explained the developed excess
pore water pressure due to the viscous creep of soils under con- 10
stant total stress σ z . Under the applied stress σ z , the water in
the element located far from the drainage surface delay to flow 15
out for some time after loading, which results to the volume of
that element to remain unchanged. That element is considered 20
in relaxation stage, and as a result the effective stress decreases
Depth (m)

with the increase in the pore water pressure in order to keep the 25
constant total stress. Yin and Zhu (1999) emphasised the condi-
30
tion for rising the excess pore water pressure, which is that the I3
rate of volume change due to the excess pore water pressure 35 (676 days)
dissipation is much slower than the rate of creep compression.
Moreover, Zhu and Yin (2001) examined both Mandel–Cryer 40
effect and the viscous effect, and concluded that either of two
effects or a combination of both can produce the increase in the 45 Creep Ratio = 1/50
excess pore water pressure as long as the rate of dissipation of Creep Ratio = 1/35
Creep Ratio = 1/25
pore water pressure is slower than that induced by the viscous 50 Creep Ratio = 1/15
Creep Ratio = 1/10
effect and/or the Mandel–Cryer effect. Field Measurement
55
In addition, the increase in the excess pore water pres-
sure may be the result of the volumetric strain softening due Figure 27. Influence of creep ratio on lateral displacement of I3 inclinometer
to the unstable behaviour during consolidation process when after 676 days.
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal 15

Horizontal Displacement (m) Horizontal Displacement (m)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
0 0

5 5

10 10

15
15
20
20
Depth (m)

25

Depth (m)
25
30
30
35 I3
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012

(1944 days) 35
40
40 I5
45 Creep Ratio = 1/50
Creep Ratio = 1/35 (1944 days)
Creep Ratio = 1/25 45
50 Creep Ratio = 1/15 Creep Ratio = 1/50
Creep Ratio = 1/10 Creep Ratio = 1/35
Field Measurement Creep Ratio = 1/25
55 50 Creep Ratio = 1/15
Creep Ratio = 1/10
Field Measurement
Figure 28. Influence of creep ratio on lateral displacement of I3 inclinometer 55
after 1944 days.
Figure 30. Influence of creep ratio on lateral displacement of I3 inclinometer
after 1944 days.

Horizontal Displacement (m)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 to the clay thickness D. Equation (11) is suggested to be used
0 while the entire soil layers are normal consolidated. If there
5
are some over consolidated layers large displacements are
expected in the normally consolidated layers in comparison to
10 the over-consolidated layers and therefore Equation (11) should
not be applied. However, that prediction curve is reported to
15 have good agreement for all loading stages in the analysis
of the Juturnaiba Embankment Dam (Coutinho et al. 1994).
20
Furthermore, Equation (11) can be employed to predict the
Depth (m)

25 long-term horizontal deformation of the ground below embank-

ments. Figures 19 and 20 indicate the predicted pattern of
30 the lateral deformations at I3 and I5 at construction day (CD)
1944 based on the maximum measured horizontal movement in
35
the field and Equation (11).
I5
40
(676 days)
Y = 1.78Z 3 − 4.7Z 2 + 2.21Z + 0.71 (11)
45 Creep Ratio = 1/50
Creep Ratio = 1/35
Creep Ratio = 1/25
50 Creep Ratio = 1/15 According to Zhu and Yin (2001), in all cases after instantly
Creep Ratio = 1/10 loading the lateral displacement reaches the maximum value,
Field Measurement
55 and then decreases with time as the vertical settlement keeps
increasing with time. However, they suggested that the creep
Figure 29. Influence of creep ratio on lateral displacement of I5 inclinometer
after 676 days. parameter ( ψV ) proposed in their elastic viscoplastic model has
no significance on the change in lateral deformation compared
to its effects on excess pore water pressure and vertical set-
of the measure equipment (Tavenas et al., 1979). Moreover, tlement. On the other hand, soil permeability has impact on
Tavenas et al. (1979) also predicted the variation of lateral the lateral displacement since lower permeability corresponds
displacement with depth by Y = f(Z) curve (Equation 11) in to larger displacement. Tavenas et al. (1979) have similar
which Y is the ratio (y/ym ) of lateral displacement y to its observation about the time dependent behaviour of lateral dis-
maximum value ym , and Z is the ratio (z/D) of the depth z placement. The lateral displacement will increase linearly with
 16
End of Construction (620 days)
3.4
Soft Soil Model (Creep Ratio = 0)
Creep Ratio = 1/50
3.0
Creep Ratio = 1/35
Creep Ratio = 1/25
Factor of Safety
2.6 Creep Ratio = 1/15
Creep Ratio = 1/10
2.2
1.8
1.4
1.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (days)
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
Figure 31. Influence of creep ratio on factor of safety against slope instability.
the vertical settlement during the initial period of consolidation
stages, but the ratio of lateral displacement to the vertical set-
tlement may decrease with time for long term consolidations.
It should be mentioned that generally the creep effect on lateral
displacement is investigated indirectly based on that effect on
vertical settlement and the relationship between the maximum
lateral displacement and vertical settlement.
Figure 31 illustrates variations of the factors of safety against
slop instability with time for various creep ratios. The factor
of safety is calculated during and after the embankment con-
struction using c-φ reduction approach. As expected, during
construction (till 620 days), the factor of safety increases dur-
ing consolidation process unless during fill placement which
decreases. According to the results presented in Figures 31, the
factor of safety decreases with the creep ration, while the rate
of increases with time after the end of construction decreases
with the creep ratio. The reason of the decrease in the factor of
safety with the creep ratio is linked to the fact that both pore
water pressure and lateral deformations, as can be observed in
Figures 24–30, increases with the creep ratio.
6. Conclusions
The ever increasing population and growth of cities and towns
has lead to more frequent construction occurring on sites with
soils that have poor engineering characteristics. Considerable
damage or cracks to structures a long time after construc-
tion remains a challenging issue for organisations dealing with
design and construction of foundations on soft clay. Although
many companies, involved in ground modification projects,
consider various methods to reduce settlement of structures,
some unexpected post construction and differential settlements
are still observed. In this study, after a brief review of soil creep
mechanisms, the case study of 12.2 m high embankments over a
thick layer of Boston Blue Clay as a part of Highway I-95 North
of Boston is numerically investigated. After a validation exer-
cise, a parametric study on the influence of soil creep parameter
has been conducted. The results indicate that the soft soil model
B. Fatahi et al.
based on the modified Cam-Clay model including soil creep
can predict the ground settlement and the excess pore water
pressure more precisely below the embankment crest. However,
field measurements below the toe and slope of the embank-
ment have a better agreement with the numerical predictions
considering soft soil model excluding soil creep. Results of
the parametric study indicate that soil settlement, excess pore
water pressure and lateral deformations increase when the soil
creep rate (e.g., creep ratio) increases. Although the soil creep
induces higher settlement of the ground, due to the increased
pore water pressure, the factor of safety against stability of the
embankment decreases, while the creep ratio increases.
2500
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance from the Australian
Research Council. The contributions and feedback from Menard Bachy Pty
Ltd., particularly Mr. Daniel Berthier and Mr. Philippe Vincent, are very much
appreciated.
References
Aboshi, H. 2004. Long-term effect of secondary consolidation on con-
solidation settlement of marine clays. Advances in Geotechnical
Engineering: The Skempton Conference, ICE, Thomas Telford,
London, 345–355.
Adachi, T. and Oka, F., 1982. Constitutive equations for normally
consolidated clay based on elasto-viscoplasticity. Soils and
Foundations, 22 (4), 57–70.
Asaoka, A., Nakano, M., Noda, T. and Kaneda, K., 2000. Delayed
compression /consolidation of natural clay due to degradation of
soil structure. Soils and Foundations, 40 (3), 75–85.
Barden, L., 1969. Time dependent deformation of normally consoli-
dated clays and peats, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, 95 (SM1), 1–31.
Bergado, D.T., Long, P.V., Lee, C.H., Loke, K.H. and Werner, G.,
1994. Performance of reinforced embankment on soft bangkok
clay with high strength geotextile reinforcement. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 13 (6–7), 403–420.
Berry, P.L. and Poskitt, T.J., 1972. The consolidation of peat.
Geotechnique, 22 (1), 27–52.
Bjerrum, L., 1967. Engineering geology of Norwegian normally con-
solidated marine clays as related to the settlement of buildings.
Geotechnique, 17 (2), 83–118.
Bodas-Freitas, T.M., Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovic, L., 2011. A time
dependent consitutive model for soils with isotach viscosity.
Computers and Geotechnics, 38, 809–820.
Bolt, G.H., 1956. Physico-chemical analysis of the compressibility of
pure clays. Geotechnique, 6 (2), 86–93.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Broere, W. and Waterman, D., 2008. PLAXIS
2D (version 9) finite element code for soil and rock analyses.
Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema.
Christensen, R.W. and Wu, T.H., 1964. Analysis of clay deforma-
tion as a rate process. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, 90 (SM6), pp. 125–157.
Christie, I.F. and Tonks, D.M., 1985. Developments in the time line
theory of consolidation. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
vol. 2, San Francisco, 423–426.
 Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal
Conlin, B.H. and Maddox, W.P., 1985. An assessment of the
behaviour of foundation clay at Tarsiut N-44 Caisson retained
island. Proceedings of the 17th Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, 379–388.
Coutinho, Q., Almeida, M.S.S. and Borges, J.B., 1994. Analysis of
the Juturnaiba Embankment Dam built on an organic soft clay.
In: A. T. Yeung and G. V. Felio, eds. Vertical and Horizontal
Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, Geotechnical
Special Publication No.40, ASCE, New York, 348–363.
Crooks, J.H.A., Becker, D.E., Jerreries, M.G. and McKenzie, K., 1984.
Yield behaviour and consolidation. I: Pore water response. In:
R.N. Yong and F.C. Townsend, eds., Proceedings of Symposium
on Sedimentation consolidation models, ASCE, New York,
344–355.
Cryer, C.W., 1963. A comparison of the three dimensional con-
solidation theories of Biot and Terzaghi. Quarterly Journal of
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 16 (4), 401–412.
D’Appolonia, D.T., Poulos, H.G. and Ladd, C.C., 1971. Initial settle-
ment of structures on clay. J. Soil Mech. Found. Dev., ASCE, 97
(10), 1354–1377.
Degago, S.A., Grimstad, G., Jostad, H.P. and Nordal, S. 2009. The
non-uniqueness of the end of primary (EOP) void ratio - effec-
tive stress relationship. Proceedings of the 17th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Alexandria, Egypt, 324–327.
Den Haan, E.J., 1996. A compression model for non-brittle soft clays
and peat. Geotechnique, 46 (1), 1–16.
Garlenger, J.E., 1972. The consolidation of soils exhibiting creep
under constant effective stress. Geotechnique, 22 (1), 71–78.
Graham, J. and Yin, J.H., 2001. On the time-dependent stress-
strain behaviour of soft soils. Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on Soft Soil Engineering, Hong Kong, 13–24.
Gibson, R.E. and Lo, K.Y., 1961. A theory of consolidation
exhibiting secondary compression. Trondheim-Norges Tekniske
Vitenskapsakad, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Hansen, B. 1969. A mathematical model for creep phenomena in
clay. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, 12–18.
Hewitt, P. and Munfakh, G., 2006. Soft ground improvement-issues
and selection. Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney chapter
2006 Symposium on Soft Ground Engineering, 1–21.
Holzer, T.L., Hoeg, K. and Arulanandan, K. 1972. Excess pore
pressure during undrained clay creep’, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 12–24.
Imai, G. and Tang, Y.X., 1992. A constitutive equation of one-
dimensional consolidation derived from inter-connected tests.
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
32 (2), 83–96.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C.C., Germaine, J.T. and Lancellota, R.,
1985. New developments in the field and laboratory testing of
soils. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, USA,
57–153.
Kabbaj, M., Tavenas, F. and Leroueil, S., 1988. In situ and laboratory
stress-strain relationships. Geotechnique, 38 (1), 83–100.
Karim Md.R. and Gnanendran, C.T., 2009. A new Elastic Viscoplastic
soil model that takes into account of the non-linear nature of
creep. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Long
Term Behaviour of Dams (LTBD09), 12–13 October 2009, Graz
University of Technology, Graz, Austria (Europe).
17
Karstunen, M. and Yin, Z.Y., 2010. Modelling time-dependent
behaviour of Murro test embankment. Geotechnique, 60 (10),
735–749.
Kimoto, S. and Oka, F., 2005. An elasto-viscoplastic model for
clay considering destructuralisation and consolidation analysis of
unstable behaviour. Soils and Foundations, 45 (2), 29–42.
Kuhn, M.R. and Mitchell, J.K., 1993. New perspectives on soil creep.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119 (3), 507–524.
Ladd, C.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Scholosser, F. and Poulos, H.G.,
1977. Stress deformation and strength characteristics, state of
the art report. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 2, Tokyo,
Japan, 421–491.
Ladd, C.C., 1991. Stability evaluation during staged construction.
ASCE J. of Geotechnical Engineering, 117 (4), 540–615.
Ladd, C.C., Whittle, A.J. and Legaspi, D.E., 1994. Stress-deformation
behavior of an embankment on Boston Blue Clay. In: Vertical
and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embankments,
Proc. of Settlement ‘94, June 16–18, 1994, College Station,
Texas. ASCE Geotech. Eng. Div., 1730–1759.
Le, T.M., Fatahi, B. and Khabbaz, H., 2012. Viscous behaviour of
soft clay and inducing factors. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering: An International Journal, 30(5), 1069–1083.
Leoni, M., Karstunen, M. and Vermeer, P.A., 2008. Anisotropic creep
model for soft soils. Geotechnique, 58 (3), 215–226.
Leonards, G.A. and Deschamps, R.J., 1995. Origin and significance of
the quasi preconsolidation pressure in clay soils, In: H. Yoshikuni
and O. Kusakabe, eds. Compression and Consolidation of Clayey
Soils, Brookfield: A.A Balkema, 341–347.
Leroueil, S., 1988. Recent development in consolidation of natural
clays, The 10th Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 25 (1), 85–107.
Leroueil, S., 1996. Compressibility of clays: fundamental and practi-
cal aspects. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122 (7),
534–543.
Leroueil, S., Kabbaj, M. and Tavenas, F., 1988. Study of the validity
of a σ  v - εv - εv model in situ conditions. Soils and Foundations,
28 (3), 13–25.
Leroueil, S., Kabbaj, M., Tavenas, F. and Bouchard, R., 1985. Stress
- strain - strain rate relation for the compressibility of sensitive
natural clays. Geotechnique, 35 (2), 159–180.
Loganathan, N., Balasubramaniam, A.S. and Bergado, D.T., 1993.
Deformation analysis of embankments. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 119 (8), 1185–1206.
Mandel, J., 1953. Consolidation Des Sols (Étude Mathématique).
Geotechnique, 3 (7), 287–299.
Mesri, G., 1973. Coefficient of secondary compression. Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 99 (1),
123–137.
Mesri, G., 2003. Primary compression and secondary compression. In:
Soil behavior and soft ground construction, Geotechnical special
publication. Reston: ASCE, vol. 119, 122–166.
Mesri, G. and Choi, Y.K., 1985. The uniqueness of the end
of primary (EOP) void ratio - effective stress relationship.
Proceedings of The 11th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, USA,
587–590.
Mesri, G. and Godlewski, P.M., 1977. Time and stress compressibility
interrelationship. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 103 (5),
417–430.
 18 B. Fatahi et al.
Mesri, G. and Castro, A., 1987. The Cα /Cc concept and Ko during
secondary compression. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, 113
(3), 230–247.
Mesri, G. and Hayat, T.M., 1993. The coefficient of earth pressure at
rest. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30 (4), 647–666.
Mesri, G. and Rokhsar, A., 1974. Theory of consolidation for clays.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 100, 889–904.
Mitchell, J.K., 1964. Shearing resistance of soils as a rate process.
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 90
(SM1), 29–61.
Mitchell, J.K. and Soga, K., 2005. Fundamentals of soil behavior, 3rd
ed. New York: Wiley.
Murakami, Y., 1988. Secondary compression in the stage of primary
consolidation. Soils and Foundations, 28 (3), 169–174.
Murayama, S. and Shibata, T., 1961. Rheological properties of clays.
Process 5th International Conference Soil Mechanics, Paris, 1,
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 08:07 17 November 2012
269–273.
Navarro, V. and Alonso, E.E., 2001. Secondary compression of clay as
a local dehydration process. Geotechnique, 51 (10), 859–869.
Neher, H.P., Wehnert, M. and Bonnier, P.G., 2001. An evaluation of
soft soil models based on trial embankments. In: C. S. Desai, ed.
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. Rotterdam:
Balkema, 373–378.
Rowe, R.K. and Li, A.K., 2002. Behaviour of reinforced embankments
on soft rate sensitive soils. Geotechnique, 52 (1), 29–40.
Seah. T.H. and Koslanant, S., 2003. Anisotropic consolidation behav-
ior of soft Bangkok clay. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 26 (3),
266–276.
Schiffman, R.L., Chen, A.T.-F. and Jordan, J.C., 1969. An analy-
sis of consolidation theories. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 95 (SM1), 285–312.
Simon, M., Christian, T. and Ladd, C., 1974. Analysis of undrained
behavior of loads on clay. Proceedings, ASCE Specialty
Conference on Analysis and Design in Geotechnical Engineering,
Austin, TX, vol. 1, 51–84.
Skempton, A.W., 1964. Fourth Rankine Lecture: Long-term stability
of clay slopes. Geotechnique, 14 (2), 77–101.
Suzuki, O., 1988. The lateral flow of soil caused by banking on soft
clay ground. Soils and Foundations, 28 (4), 1–18.
Tavenas, F. and Leroueil, S., 1981. Creep and failure of slopes in clays.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18 (1), 106–120.
Tavenas, F., Mieussens, C. and Bourges, F., 1979. Lateral dis-
placements in clay foundations under embankments. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 16, 532–550.
Taylor, D.W. and Merchant, W.A., 1940. A theory of clay con-
solidation accounting for secondary compression. Journal of
Mathematics and Physics, 19, 167–185.
Terzaghi, K., 1941. Undisturbed clay samples and undisturbed clays.
Journal of Boston Society of Civil Engineering, 29 (3), 211–231.
Vermeer, P.A. and Neher, H.P., 2000. A soft soil model that accounts
for creep. In: R.B.J. Brinkgreve, ed. Beyond 2000 in
Computational Geotechnics - Ten Years of Plaxis International.
Rotterdam: Balkema, 249–261.
Wang, Y.H. and Xu, D., 2006. Dual porosity and secondary
consolidation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133 (7), 793–801.
Yin, J.H., 1999. Non-linear creep of soils in oedometer tests.
Geotechnique, 49 (5), 699–707.
Yin, J.H., 2003. Calculation of settlements of foundation soils con-
sidering creep. Soft Ground Engineering in Coastal Areas:
Proceedings of The Nakase Memorial Symposium Yokosuka,
Japan, 205–211.
Yin, J.H. and Graham, J., 1989. Viscous-elastic-plastic modelling of
one dimensional time-dependent behaviour of clays. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 26, 199–209.
Yin, J.-H. and Graham, J., 1996. Elastic visco-plastic modelling of
one-dimensional consolidation. Geotechnique, 46 (3), 515–527.
Yin, J.H. and Graham, J., 1999. Elastic viscoplastic modelling of
the time-dependent stress-strain behaviour of soils. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 36 (4), 736–745.
Yin, J.H., Graham, J., Clark, J.I. and Gao, L., 1994. Modelling unantic-
ipated pore-water pressure in soft clays. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 31, 773–778.
Yin, J.H. and Zhu, J.G., 1999. Elastic visco-plastic consolidation mod-
elling and interpretation of pore water pressure responses in clay
underneath Tarsuit island. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36
(4), 708–717.
Yin, J.H., Zhu, J.G. and Graham, J., 2002. A new elastic viscoplastic
model for time-dependent behaviour of normally and overcon-
solidated clays: theory and verification. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 39 (1), 157–173.
Wang, Y.H. and Xu, D., 2006. Dual porosity and secondary
consolidation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133 (7), 793–801.
Whittle, J.F., 1974. Consolidation behavior of an embankment on
Boston Blue Clay. Thesis (MEng). Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), USA.
Wolfskill, L.A. and Soydemir, C., 1971. Soil instrumentation for the
I-95 MIT-MDPW test embankment, Research Report R71-28.
Massachusetts: Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T.
Zeevaart, L., 1986. Consolidation in the intergranular viscosity of
highly compressible soils. In: ASTM, eds., Consolidation of
soils: Testing and Evaluation, Philadelphia, PA: ASTM Special
Technical Publication, vol. 892, 257–281.
Zhou, C., Yin, J.H., Zhu, J.G. and Cheng, C.M., 2005. Elastic
anisotropic viscoplastic modeling of the strain-rate-dependent
stress–strain behavior of K0 -consolidated natural marine clays
in triaxial shear tests. International Journal of Geomechanics,
ASCE, 5 (3), 218–232.
Zhu, J.G. and Yin, J.H., 2001. Deformation and pore-water pressure
responses of elastic visco-plastic soil. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 127 (9), 899–908.