Technical Note

Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio Model for Cement

Treated Clay
Palanidoss Subramaniam1; Subhadeep Banerjee2; and Taeseo Ku, M.ASCE3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A hyperbolic model-based normalized shear modulus reduction (G/Gmax) formulation for cement treated clay is presented. This
three-parameter normalized shear modulus reduction model can be constructed using maximum shear modulus and isotropic compression
experiments. The model assumes that cemented clay follows the failure pattern of a modified structured Cam-clay model. The effects of
cement content and confining pressures on G/Gmax are modeled and validated with experimental results from resonant column and cyclic triax-
ial testing. In addition, the damping ratio is calculated based on the Masing rule; however, for cement treated clays, this rule overestimates the
damping ratio at all ranges of shear strain. In this study, correction factors are established to propose a reliable damping ratio model. The newly
proposed G/Gmax and damping formulations provide reasonable estimates that match well with the experimental results. These formulations
can be used in the seismic response analysis of cement treated ground. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001448. © 2019 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cemented clay; Shear modulus reduction; Damping ratio; Masing model.

Introduction such as an extended Mohr Coulomb model (Potts et al. 1990), an

elastoplastic constitutive model that takes into account cementation
Shear modulus and damping ratio are essential parameters used to (Kasama et al. 2000; Tatsuoka 2006), a modified Cam-clay model
characterize soil behavior during dynamic loading conditions, such that considers the cementation bonding effect (Lee et al. 2004), a
as earthquakes, traffic loads, and ocean waves. Factors affecting the structured Cam-clay model (Liu and Carter 2002), and a combined
dynamic properties of clayey and sandy soils are generally well mean effective stress–shear degradation model (Nguyen et al.
documented in the literature (Kokusho et al. 1982; Ishihara 1996; 2017) have been proposed to simulate the strength and compressi-
Towhata 2008), and it is known that the shear modulus decreases bility behavior of cement treated clay.
and material damping ratio increases with an increase in shear strain Although several experimental studies and constitutive formula-
amplitude. Several phenomenological models have also been pro- tions are available to quantify the static behavior of cement treated
posed to quantify the shear modulus and damping ratio of unce- clay, studies related to the normalized shear modulus reduction and
mented natural cohesive soils (Hardin and Drnevich 1972; Ishibashi damping properties are scarce. Hoyos et al. (2004) extended the
and Zhang 1993; Darendeli 2001), and these models are being used power regression function of Borden et al. (1996) to model the
in the seismic response analysis of natural soil sites. G/Gmax [Eq. (1)] of chemically stabilized sulfate-rich clay. This
In fact, these soft cohesive soils usually have low bearing model consists of three fitting parameters and shear strain amplitude;
capacity and high compressibility (Moon and Ku 2018). To in addition, the damping ratio D (percentage) [Eq. (2)] was expressed
improve the strength and stiffness characteristics of soil, various in terms of G/Gmax through the least-squares method. The model still
additives are often used. Cement-soil mixing (e.g., deep cement requires experimental data to compute the curve-fitting parameters
mixing, jet grouting, pneumatic flow mixing) is a well-known
G 1
industrial practice to improve the strength and stiffness characteris- ¼n oc (1)
tics of soft soil and reclaim land. Numerous studies have been con- Gmax 1 þ að g Þb
ducted to assess the static shear strength and compressibility charac-
teristics of cement admixed clay (CDIT 2002; Sasanian and
Newson 2014; Wang et al. 2017). Different constitutive models, D ¼ mðG=Gmax  1Þ2 þ n (2)
where a, b, c, m, and n = best fit parameters; and g = shear strain
amplitude.
1
Research Fellow, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tsai and Ni (2011) used the Ramberg-Osgood model to con-
National Univ. of Singapore, 1 Engineering Dr. 2, 117576 Singapore. struct normalized shear modulus reduction curves. This model
Email: psmani100@gmail.com requires two material constants that can only be obtained from the
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
experimental G/Gmax [Eq. (3)]; in addition, no damping formula-
Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India. Email: subhadeep@iitm.ac.in
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, tions were reported. Tsai and Ni (2011) conducted resonant column
National Univ. of Singapore, 1 Engineering Dr. 2, 117576 Singapore (cor- experiments to obtain the required material constants of cement-
responding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3603-8097. Email: stabilized silty clay
ceekt@nus.edu.sg    R    R
G G t t
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 3, 2018; approved on g¼ g þC g ¼ þC
January 8, 2019; published online on April 16, 2019. Discussion period Gmax Gmax Gmax Gmax
open until September 16, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for (3)
individual papers. This technical note is part of the International Journal
of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641. where C and R = regression constants; and t = shearing stress.

© ASCE 06019010-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 06019010

 Saride and Dutta (2016) proposed a generalized power equation
[Eq. (4)] to model the G/Gmax of fly ash-stabilized expansive clays,
which is similar to the Hoyos et al. (2004) power model. The equa-
tion consists of three fitting parameters (A, B, and C) and shear
strain amplitude ( g ). The curve-fitting parameters were established
based on regression analysis between experimental values of
G/Gmax and the generalized equation
 ð1=BÞ
G Bg
¼A 1þ
Gmax C
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
such as the Ramberg-Osgood model (Jennings 1963), the Iwan
series-parallel model (Iwan 1966), and the MKZ model (Matasovic
and Vucetic 1993) are available, the newly proposed model does
not require complex parameters, which enables relatively simple
application. Similarly, the cementation effect is incorporated by
considering the modified deviatoric stress at failure. This is one of
the simplest methods to represent the cementation effect through
cohesion, and the required parameter can be identified through iso-
tropically consolidated undrained triaxial tests.
(4)
Shear Modulus Reduction Model

The most comprehensive model with which to simulate the G/

The stress–strain relationship for the backbone curve can be defined
Gmax of cemented clay would be the “SimSoil-CC” model [Eqs.
as (Nasim 1999)
(5)–(7)] (Yang and Woods 2015). This six-parameter model was
developed based on the SimSoil model of Pestana and Salvati Gmax
(2006). The model was used to simulate the G/Gmax of compacted q ¼ qf  (9)
ðR þ R2  ɛÞ
cement/gypsum admixed kaolinite, bentonite, and an equal mix of
kaolinite and bentonite. However, this model underestimated the
where q = deviator stress; qf = deviator stress at failure; ɛ = general-
G/Gmax of gypsum admixed bentonite at all values of shear strain.
ized shear strain; Gmax = maximum shear modulus; and R = modu-
In addition, damping calculations [Eq. (8)] based on the Ishihara
lus ratio.
(1996) formulation did not match the experimental data well
The modulus ratio,
 n
Gmax p
¼ Gb e1:3 (5) R ¼ Gmax =qf (10)
pat pat
The yield function of the modified Cam-clay model (Roscoe and
Gtan 1 Burland 1968) in p0 –q space is described as
¼ (6)
Gmax 1 þ v c z s0:75 þ v c z s þ v 2a z 2s  
f ¼ q2  M2 p0 p0y  p0 ¼ 0 (11)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
v c ¼ v s þ e acc ðCCÞ (7) where M = slope of the critical state line; p0 = mean effective stress;
and p0y = tip stress representing the reference size of yield locus. At
p t  p t  critical state
2 =pat 2 pat
zs ¼   2
 s  2
(8) q ¼ Mp0 (12)
s =pat þ acc ðCCÞ =pat þ acc ðCCÞ
 
 ¼ C  λln p0 (13)
where Gb, n, v s , v a , and acc = defined as material constants; and e,
CC, p, pat , t , and s are, respectively, void ratio, cement content,
confining pressure, atmospheric pressure, shear stress, and normal where  = specific volume; λ = slope of the isotropic normal com-
stress. pression line; and C = specific volume corresponding to the mean
There are only a limited number of models available in the cur- effective stress of 1 kPa at the critical state line. The parameters λ
rent literature to simulate the shear modulus reduction of cemented and M can be found from the isotropically consolidated undrained
clays. All existing models contain three to four material constant pa- triaxial test (CIU test).
rameters, which only can be determined from resonant column and The Horpibulsuk et al. (2010) elliptical yield surface for
cyclic triaxial experiments. In addition, only very limited experi- cemented clay in p0 –q space is described as
 
mental damping properties are available for cemented clays, and the q2  Mp0 p0s  p0 ¼ 0 (14)
existing data are hugely inconsistent. Moreover, the damping mod-
els are not properly modeled for cement-treated clay. wherep0s = size of the yield surface. The modified mean effective
In the present study, a G/Gmax formulation is developed based stress p0 at failure for cemented clay is defined as
on the hyperbolic stress–strain relationship and the failure envelope
C
of cemented clays. Experiments were performed for a wide range of p0 ¼ p0 þ (15)
shear strain amplitudes (0.001%–1%). The parameters of this new M
model can be found more efficiently using an isotropic compression where p0 = mean effective confining pressure; M = slope of the criti-
test and any small strain tests for Gmax. The damping ratio is mod- cal state line in the q–p0 plane; and C = intercept of the failure enve-
eled following Masing’s rule using the hyperbolic stress–strain rela- lope at q in the q–p0 plane.
tionship. The proposed damping formulation can capture the damp- The modified stress ratio,
ing ratio at a wide range of shear strain amplitudes (0.001%–1%).
h
 ¼ q=p0 (16)
Formulation of Proposed Models
When the cemented clay reaches the critical state,
In the present study, a hyperbolic stress–strain relationship is used
to represent the backbone curve. Although several other frameworks, h
 ¼h ¼M (17)

© ASCE 06019010-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 06019010

 The failure line would be Experimental Validation of the Proposed Models
0
qf ¼ Mp þ C (18)
The present models are validated by comparison with experimental
The secant shear modulus at a particular strain data on cement treated Chennai marine clay. The marine clay (liq-
q uid limit: 54%; plasticity index: 24%) was sampled from the
G¼ (19)
ɛ Ennore coast region of Chennai at the depth of 2 m from the ground
level. The 53 grade ordinary portland cement was used to treat the
By combining Eqs. (9), (10), and (19), the normalized shear marine clay. The marine clay slurry was prepared at a water content
modulus can be newly expressed as equivalent to two times the liquid limit. Cement slurry was prepared
G 1 at the water to cement ratio of 0.6. The cement slurry was added to
¼ (20) clay slurry and mixed for 10 min at the rate of 61 rpm in a Hobart
Gmax ð1 þ R  ɛÞ mixer. The cemented clay was transferred to a cylindrical tube and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cured under the stress of 30 kPa at 27°C temperature for 28 days,

and the specimens were trimmed to the height of 100 mm. In all
Damping Ratio Formulation tests the 50-mm-diameter specimens were saturated and consoli-
dated. The isotropically consolidated undrained triaxial tests ðCIU Þ
The damping ratio during cyclic loading can be defined as the ratio
were conducted using the triaxial system with automatic pressure
of the energy stored in the soil to the energy dissipated during cyclic
controllers (pneumatic) to control and measure cell pressure, back
loading.
pressure, and volume. The CIU tests were conducted at three dif-
According to Ishihara (1996)
ferent mean effective confining pressures (p0 ), i.e., 100, 200, and
1 DW 300 kPa. Fig. 1 illustrates the stress path and failure envelope of
Damping ratio; D ¼ (21) cement-treated clay.
4p W
In the resonant column tests, the bottom of the specimen was
where W = maximum stored energy; and DW = energy loss during fixed and a torsional drive was attached at the top of the specimen to
cyclic loading vibrate the specimen to find the natural frequency. A noncontacting
proximity sensor was used to measure the rotational displacement.
1 The damping ratio was calculated using the half-power bandwidth
W ¼ ɛ f ðɛ Þ (22)
2 method. All the specimens were saturated and consolidated prior to
the application of torsional load.
where f ðɛÞ = stress–strain function, as shown in Eq. (9) The cyclic triaxial tests were performed using an electropneumatic-
ð e
controlled piston attached to the internal 5-kN load cell. All the
cyclic triaxial tests were performed at the loading frequency of
DW ¼ 8 f ðɛÞ dɛ  W (23)
0 1 Hz. At each shear strain amplitude, three loading cycles were
applied, and the hysteresis loop corresponding to the third cycle
By substituting Eqs. (9), (22), and (23) into Eq. (21) was used to find the shear modulus and damping ratio. Resonant
2 3 column experiments were performed up to 0.1% shear strain,
2Gmax whereas cyclic triaxial tests were performed at three shear strain
26 f2q ɛ   ln ð 1 þ Rɛ Þ 7
 R
2
 amplitudes (0.3%, 0.7%, and 1%). All the experiments were
D¼ 6  17 (24)
p 4 Gmax 5 repeated three times and averaged. An experimental program is
ɛ qf  listed in Table 1. The model parameters for the proposed model
RþR ɛ 2
are given in Table 2; the model parameters, namely the slope of
Damping formulations based on the Masing (1926) rule-based the failure envelope M, and the intercept of the failure envelope
hyperbolic model tend to overpredict the damping ratio at high
strain levels. Correction factors are usually proposed for use with
damping models (Darendeli 2001; Subramaniam and Banerjee 250
10% cc 10% cc, M=1.92
2013) 7.5% cc
Dcorrected ¼ Dmin þ FD (25) 200 5% cc 7.5% cc, M=1.77
5% cc, M=1.42
where Dcorrected = corrected damping ratio; Dmin = minimum damp-
ing ratio; and F = correction factor. 150
q (kPa)

The correction factor,

100
F ¼ A ðG=Gmax Þ log B (26)

where A and B = regression constants 50

"   #
G log B
Dcorrected ¼ Dmin þ A 0
Gmax 0 50 100 150 200 250
2 3
2Gmax p' (kPa)
ð
2 62qf ɛ  R2 ln 1 þ Rɛ Þ 7
 6    17 (27)
p4 Gmax 5 Fig. 1. Undrained stress path for cement-treated Chennai marine clay.
ɛ qf  cc = cement content.
RþR ɛ 2

© ASCE 06019010-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 06019010

 Table 1. Experimental program 1.0
Test Cement content (%) Confining pressure
Isotropic consolidation test 2.5 100 0.8
200
300 0.6

G/Gmax
5 100
5% cc_100 kPa_Exp
200
300
0.4 5% cc_200 kPa_Exp
7.5 100 5% cc_300 kPa_Exp
200 0.2 5% cc_100 kPa_Model
300 5% cc_200 kPa_Model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Resonant column testa 2.5 100 5% cc_300 kPa_Model

200
0.0
-3 -2 -1 0
300 10 10 10 10
5 100
Shear Strain (%)
200 (a)
300
7.5 100 1.0
200
300 0.8
Cyclic triaxial test 2.5 100
200
300 0.6

G/Gmax
5 100 7.5% cc_100 kPa_Exp
200 0.4 7.5% cc_200 kPa_Exp
300 7.5% cc_300 kPa_Exp
7.5 100 7.5% cc_100 kPa_Model
200 0.2
7.5% cc_200 kPa_Model
300 7.5% cc_300 kPa_Model
a
For each parametric study, two specimens were used for different sets of 0.0
-3 -2 -1 0
shear strain amplitude (0.001%–0.01% and 0.01%–0.1%). 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain (%)
(b)

Table 2. Model parameters for cemented clays 1.0

Cement content (%)
0.8
Category Parameter 5 7.5 10
Normalized shear modulus Gmax (MPa) 30 38 63
M 1.02 1.77 1.92
0.6
G/Gmax

C (kPa) 5 10 35 10% cc_100 kPa_Exp

Damping parameters Dmin (percentage) 1.22 1.15 1 0.4 10% cc_200 kPa_Exp
A 0.02 0.0251 0.0251 10% cc_300 kPa_Exp
B 0.0125 0.0031 0.0079 10% cc_100 kPa_Model
0.2
10% cc_200 kPa_Model
10% cc_300 kPa_Model
0.0
at C in the q–p0 plane, are obtained from an isotropic compres- 10
-3
10
-2 -1
10 10
0

sion test. Figs. 2(a–c) compare the normalized shear modulus
obtained from experiments and the predicted results from the
proposed model for treated clays with cement contents of 5%,
7.5%, and 10%, respectively. Figs. 2(a–c) also present the effect
of confining pressures, which were investigated by applying
100, 200, and 300 kPa. It is very common to observe a mismatch
in trend between resonant column and cyclic triaxial experi-
ments (El Mohtar et al. 2013). The model fits reasonably well
with the experimental data.
Figs. 3(a–c) compare the experimental and modeled damping ra-
tio of treated clay with cement contents of 5%, 7.5%, and 10%,
respectively. The Masing rule-based damping ratio significantly over-
predicts the experimental damping ratio at all levels of shear strain.
A similar observation has been noted in untreated clays by
Shear Strain (%)
(c)
Fig. 2. Comparison of experimental (Exp) and computed normalized
shear modulus versus shear strain for cement treated clay with a cement
content (cc) of (a) 5%; (b) 7.5%; and (c) 10%.
numerous researchers, and different correction factors have been
proposed for untreated clays (Ishihara 1996; Romo and Ovando-
Shelley 1996; Darendeli 2001). The effects of confining pressure
on the damping ratio are almost negligible, so the corrected damp-
ing model is plotted only for a confining pressure of 100 kPa. The

© ASCE 06019010-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 06019010

 90 1.0
5% cc_100 kPa_Exp 5% cc_100 kPa
5% cc_200 kPa_Exp 5% cc_200 kPa
75 0.8 5% cc_300 kPa
5% cc_300 kPa_Exp
7.5% cc_100 kPa
Damping ratio (%)
5% cc_Dmasing
60

Computed G/Gmax
7.5% cc_200 kPa
5% cc_Dcorrected 0.6
45
0.4 7.5% cc_300 kPa
30
10% cc_100 kPa
15 0.2 10% cc_200 kPa
10% cc_300 kPa
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Line of equality
0 0.0
-3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Shear Strain (%) Actual G/Gmax
(a) (a)

90 7.5% cc_100 kPa_Exp 16

5% cc_100 kPa
7.5% cc_200 kPa_Exp 7.5% cc_100 kPa

Computed damping ratio (%)

75
7.5% cc_300 kPa_Exp 10% cc_100 kPa
12
Damping ratio (%)

60 7.5% cc_Dmasing Line of equality

7.5% cc_Dcorrected
45 8

30
4
15

0 0
-3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 0 4 8 12 16
Actual damping ratio (%)
Shear Strain (%)
(b)
(b)
Fig. 4. The 1:1 plots of model versus experimental data for
90
10% cc_100 kPa_Exp (a) normalized shear modulus; and (b) damping ratio of cement treated
10% cc_200 kPa_Exp clay.
75 10% cc_300 kPa_Exp
10% cc_Dmasing
Damping ratio (%)

60 A ¼ 0:0004cc2 þ 0:0071cc  0:0055 (28)

10% cc_Dcorrected
45
B ¼ 0:0011cc2  0:018cc þ 0:0739 (29)
30
where cc = cement content.
Fig. 4(a) gives the actual and computed normalized shear modu-
15
lus and the line of equality for all cement contents and confining
pressures; the figure indicates the best model fit validated with the
0 experimental data. Similarly, the actual and computed damping
-3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 ratios for all three cement contents are plotted in Fig. 4(b).
Shear Strain (%) Although there are few misfits in the cyclic triaxial data, in general,
(c) the model predictions are in good agreement with the experimental
data.
Fig. 3. Comparison of experimental (Exp) and computed damping ra-
tio versus shear strain for cement treated clay with a cement content
(cc) of (a) 5%; (b) 7.5%; and (c) 10%. Conclusions

A hyperbolic model-based normalized shear modulus reduction

corrected damping ratio matches the experimental results fairly
well. The regression constants A and B for the clay used in the pres-
ent study can be related with the amount of cement content as
follows:
curve for cement treated clay was newly proposed. The proposed
model uses the failure envelope of a modified structured Cam-
clay model; the model parameters can be easily obtained from an
isotropic compression test. The model effectively captures the
effect of cement content and confining pressure for a wide range

© ASCE 06019010-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 06019010

 of shear strain values (0.001%–1%). This study also showed that
Masing rule-based damping calculations overestimate the damp-
ing ratio at all strain levels. Thus, correction factors were sug-
gested to adjust this overestimation. It was found that the effects
of confining pressure on damping properties are negligible,
whereas the confining pressure has evident influences on the nor-
malized shear modulus. The proposed formulations can be used
to perform nonlinear or equivalent linear site response analysis of
cement treated ground. The accuracy of the proposed formulation
for G/Gmax of cement-treated clay needs to be further validated
with other types of cemented clay. Similarly, regression constants
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute of Technology on 08/04/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for the corrected damping ratio need to be established for other
cemented clays.
References
Borden, R., L. Shao, and A. Gupta. 1996. “Dynamic properties of piedmont
residual soils.” J. Geotech. Engrg. 122 (10): 813–821. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:10(813).
CDIT (Coastal Development Institute of Technology). 2002. The deep mix-
ing method: Principle, design and construction, 1–123. Lisse,
Netherlands: A. A. Balkema.
Darendeli, M. B. 2001. “Development of a new family of normalized modu-
lus reduction and material damping curves.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Texas.
El Mohtar, C. S., V. P. Drnevich, M. Santagata, and A. Bobet. 2013.
“Combined resonant column and cyclic triaxial tests for measuring
undrained shear modulus reduction of sand with plastic fines.” Geotech.
Test. J. 36 (4): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20120129.
Hardin, B. O., and V. P. Drnevich. 1972. “Shear modulus and damping in
soils: Design equations and curves.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. Div. 98
(7): 667–692.
Horpibulsuk, S., M. D. Liu, S. Liyanapathirana, and J. Suebsuk. 2010.
“Behaviour of cemented clay simulated via the theoretical framework of
the structured cam clay model.” Comput. Geotech. 37 (1–2): 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.06.007.
Hoyos, L., A. Puppala, and P. Chainuwat. 2004. “Dynamic properties of
chemically stabilized sulfate rich clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
130 (2): 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)
130:2(153).
Ishibashi, I., and X. Zhang. 1993. “Unified dynamic shear moduli and
damping ratios of sand and clay.” Soils Found. 33 (1): 182–191. https://
doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.33.182.
Ishihara, K. 1996. Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford, UK:
Clarendon Press.
Iwan, W. D. 1966. “A distributed-element model for hysteresis and its
steady-state dynamic response.” J. Appl. Mech. 33 (4): 893–900. https://
doi.org/10.1115/1.3625199.
Jennings, P. C. 1963. “Response of simple yielding structures to earthquake
excitation.” Ph.D. dissertation, California Institute of Technology.
Kasama, K., H. Ochiai, and N. Yasufuku. 2000. “On the stress-strain
behaviour of lightly cemented clay based on an extended critical state
concept.” Soils Found. 40 (5): 37–47. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf
.40.5_37.
Kokusho, T., Y. Yoshida, and Y. Esashi. 1982. “Dynamic properties of soft
clay for wide strain range.” Soils Found. 22 (4): 1–18. https://doi.org/10
.3208/sandf1972.22.4_1.
© ASCE 06019010-6
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 06019010
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. https://
doi.org/10.3208/sandf.44.3_69.
Liu, M. D., and J. P. Carter. 2002. “A structured Cam Clay model.” Can.
Geotech. J. 39 (6): 1313–1332. https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-069.
Masing, G. 1926. “Eigenspannungen und verfestigung beim messing
(1926).” [Self stretching and hardening for brass.] In Proc., 2nd Int.
Congress Applied Mechanics, 332–335. Zurich, Switzerland: Orell
Füssli.
Matasovic, N., and M. Vucetic. 1993. “Cyclic characterization of liquefi-
able sands.” J. Geotech. Engrg. 119 (11): 1805–1822. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:11(1805).
Moon, S. W., and T. Ku. 2018. “Undrained shear strength in cohesive soils
estimated by directional modes of in-situ shear wave velocity.”
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 36 (5): 2851–2868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706
-018-0508-9.
Nasim, A. S. M. 1999. “Numerical modeling of soil profile and behaviour in
deep excavation analyses.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
National Univ. of Singapore.
Nguyen, L., B. Fatahi, and H. Khabbaz. 2017. “Development of a constitu-
tive model to predict the behavior of cement-treated clay during cemen-
tation degradation: C3 model.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (7): 1–32. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000863.
Pestana, J., and L. Salvati. 2006. “Small-strain behavior of granular soils. I.
Model for cemented and cemented sands and gravels.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (8): 1071–1081. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2006)132:8(1071).
Potts, D. M., G. T. Dounias, and P. R. Vaughan. 1990. “Finite element anal-
ysis of progressive failure of Carsington embankment.” Geotechnique
40 (1): 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.1.79.
Romo, M. P., and E. Ovando-Shelley. 1996. “Modelling the dynamic
behaviour of Mexican clays.” In Proc., 11th World Conf. Earthquake
Engineering, 1024. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Roscoe, K. H., and J. Burland. 1968. “On the generalized stress-strain
behavior of wet clays.” In Engineering Plasticity, edited by J. Heyman
and F. Leckie. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Saride, S., and T. Dutta. 2016. “Effect of fly-ash stabilization on stiffness
modulus degradation of expansive clays.” J. Mater. Civil Eng. 28 (12):
04016166. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001678.
Sasanian, S., and T. A. Newson. 2014. “Basic parameters governing the
behaviour of cement-treated clays.” Soils Found. 54 (2): 209–224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.02.011.
Subramaniam, P., and S. Banerjee. 2013. “Shear modulus degradation
model for cohesive soils.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 53 (Oct): 210–
216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.07.003.
Tatsuoka, F. 2006. “Inelastic deformation characteristics of geomaterial.”
In Vol. 146 of Soil stress-strain behavior: Measurement, modeling and
analysis, edited by H. I. Long, L. Callisto, D. Leschinsky, and J. Koseki,
26–133. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Towhata, I. 2008. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Berlin: Springer.
Tsai, P. H., and S. H. Ni. 2011. “A study on dynamic properties of cement-
stabilized soils.” Adv. Mater. Res. 243–249: 2050–2054. https://doi.org
/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.243-249.2050.
Wang, D., N. Abriak, and R. Zentar. 2017. “Stress-dependent behavior
of artificially structures and reconstituted marine soils.” Int. J.
Geomech. 17 (4): 04016103. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000804.
Yang, L., and R. D. Woods. 2015. “Shear stiffness modeling of cemented
clay.” Can. Geotech. J. 52 (2): 156–2015. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj
-2012-0377.
Int. J. Geomech.