Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full length article

Stone column settlement performance in structured anisotropic clays:

the inuence of creep
Brian G. Sexton a, Bryan A. McCabe a, *, Minna Karstunen b, Nallathamby Sivasithamparam c
a
College of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
c
Computational Geomechanics Division, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The recently developed elasto-viscoplastic Creep-SCLAY1S model has been used in conjunction with
Received 23 February 2016 PLAXIS 2D to investigate the effectiveness of vibro-replacement in a creep-prone clay. The Creep-
Received in revised form SCLAY1S model accounts for anisotropy, bonding, and destructuration, and uses the concept of a con-
14 April 2016
stant rate of viscoplastic multiplier to calculate creep strain rate. A comparison of settlement improve-
Accepted 19 May 2016
Available online 15 July 2016
ment factors with and without creep indicates that total settlement improvement factors (primary plus
creep) are lower than their primary counterparts (primary settlement only). The lowest settlement
improvement factors arise for analyses incorporating the effect of bonding and destructuration. Exam-
Keywords:
Stone columns
ination of the variations of vertical stress with time and depth has indicated that vertical stress is
Creep transferred from the soil to the column as the soil creeps. This results in additional column yielding. In
Anisotropy addition, the radial and hoop stresses in the soil are lower for the creep case. The reduced radial stresses
Destructuration lead to additional column bulging and hence more settlement, whereas the hoop stress reductions
Finite element (FE) method appear to be a secondary effect, caused by additional plastic deformation for the creep case.
2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction The majority of analytical settlement design methods pertain to

Vibro-replacement has traditionally been considered to be an
effective means of improving the bearing capacity and settlement
characteristics of mixed lls and weak soils. Vibro-replacement
solutions can be more cost-effective, quicker to implement and
less CO2-intensive than piling alternatives in certain circumstances.
The technique is becoming increasingly popular for the treatment
of soft ne-grained deposits; some of these soils can comprise a
signicant organic content, in which case creep settlements can
contribute a signicant proportion of the total settlement.
The settlement reduction potential of vibro stone columns is
typically quantied using a settlement improvement factor (n):
n duntreated/dtreated (1)
where duntreated and dtreated are the nal settlements of untreated
(i.e. no columns) and treated ground, respectively.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bryan.mccabe@nuigalway.ie (B.A. McCabe).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
primary settlement only (e.g. Priebe, 1995; Castro and Sagaseta,
2009; Pulko et al., 2011), and so the same n value tends to be
applied to both primary and creep settlements in routine designs.
In addition, the majority of n values measured in the eld (McCabe
et al., 2009) tend to be lumped, with no distinction between initial
compression, primary consolidation settlement, and creep. The
length of time required to measure pure long-term creep settle-
ments in soft low permeability soils serves as the main impediment
in the latter case.
While the majority of laboratory-scale testing carried out to date
has been informative (e.g. Black et al., 2011), it tends to be limited
by scale effects and a difculty in replicating realistic boundary
conditions. Additionally, Castro et al. (2013) have noted that the
reconstituted soils used in laboratory testing are not fully repre-
sentative of natural clay behaviour, while Mesri (1973) has pointed
out that the rate of creep is lower in reconstituted soils. There are
also difculties associated with extrapolating long-term perfor-
mance in the eld from short-term laboratory tests (Mitchell and
Kelly, 2013).
Moorhead (2013) carried out a series of laboratory tests in
one- (1D) and three-dimensional (3D) loading chambers, and is,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.05.004
1674-7755 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688
to the authors knowledge, the only researcher to date to inves-
tigate the creep settlement reduction potential of vibro stone
columns in the laboratory. The tests were carried out on recon-
stituted samples of kaolin and Belfast sleech and examined stone
column behaviour for both a rigid raft and an isolated loading
scenario. Although the laboratory data showed a signicant
amount of scatter, it was tentatively concluded that columns
effectively reduced primary settlement at low bearing pressures
but were ineffective at high pressures, and had only a minor
inuence on reducing initial compression and creep settlements.
The ndings need to be treated with caution because the initial
conditions in the untreated and treated soil beds were different
in some cases.
In this paper, a series of axisymmetric analyses carried out using
the PLAXIS 2D nite element (FE) program (Brinkgreve et al., 2011)
is reported with a view to assess the settlement reduction potential
of vibro-replacement in a structured anisotropic creep-prone clay.
The Bothkennar soft clay test site in Scotland, comprising an
overconsolidated crust overlying two layers of lightly over-
consolidated Carse clay, has been used as a representative soil
prole for the numerical analyses.
In previous studies, Sexton and McCabe (2013, 2015) carried
out some preliminary numerical work using a simplied single-
layer version of the multi-layer Bothkennar prole to gauge the
inuence of creep on settlement improvement factors. Subse-
quently, Sexton and McCabe (2016) extended this work to a multi-
layer scenario. The commercially available soft soil creep (SSC)
model was used to represent the host clay behaviour in these
studies. The latter study in particular provided valuable insight
into the likely behaviour of stone columns in creep-prone soils
and formed an important frame of reference for one using a
more advanced constitutive model, such as the Creep-SCLAY1S
model, which is used to model the soft clay in this paper. The
Creep-SCLAY1S model (Sivasithamparam et al., 2013, 2015) in-
corporates anisotropy, bonding, and destructuration, each of
which can be switched off individually or in various combina-
tions by adjusting the input parameters. The model is not yet
commercially available, and therefore a user-dened model
implementation into the PLAXIS FE code was used. The hardening
soil (HS) model (Schanz et al., 1999) is used to represent the
granular column material. For simplicity, any installation effects
have been ignored.
2. Modelling creep using advanced constitutive models
2.1. Model classication
Constitutive models for describing the time-dependent behav-
iour of soft soils can be classied as either empirical models,
rheological models, or general stressestrainetime models, each of
which have been reviewed in detail by Liingaard et al. (2004).
Empirical models are generally obtained by tting mathematical/
constitutive expressions to experimental data whereas rheological
models tend to be used to gain a conceptual understanding of time
effects in soil.
General stressestrainetime models are capable of describing
the rate-dependent behaviour of soils under a variety of different
loading conditions. These models tend to be formulated incre-
mentally and so are suitable for implementation within the FE
method. The majority of elasto-viscoplastic general stressestraine
time models are based on overstress theory (e.g. Perzyna, 1963,
1966), either conventional overstress or extended overstress.
Extended overstress models are preferable to conventional over-
stress models (Yin et al., 2010).
673
2.2. 3D elasto-viscoplastic models
2.2.1. Isotropic models
The commercially available isotropic SSC model (Vermeer et al.,
1998; Vermeer and Neher, 1999) can be classied as either an
extended overstress model or a creep model, as dened by Yin et al.
(2010). Creep models use the creep coefcient, Ca, or its isotropic
equivalent, m*, as the soil viscosity input parameter. The isotropic
elasto-viscoplastic model developed by Yin et al. (2002) is also
denoted a creep model.
2.2.2. Anisotropic models
Anisotropic elasto-viscoplastic soil models have been developed
as extensions to the EVP and SSC models, e.g. the anisotropic EVP
model (Zhou et al., 2005) and the anisotropic creep model (ACM,
Leoni et al., 2008), respectively. These creep models assume that
the viscoplastic volumetric strain rate is independent of the stress
state, and consequently they predict unrealistic strain-softening
behaviour for undrained triaxial tests on isotropically consoli-
dated samples (Yin et al., 2010; Sivasithamparam et al., 2013, 2015).
To overcome this deciency, Yin et al. (2010) proposed a new
anisotropic elasto-viscoplastic soil model in which the volumetric
strain rate is dependent on the stress ratio, h q/p0 (where p0 and q
denote the mean effective stress and deviatoric stress,
respectively).
2.2.3. Anisotropic models with bonding and destructuration
The Creep-SCLAY1S model (Sivasithamparam et al., 2015) is an
anisotropic soil model that also takes account of bonding and
destructuration. Destructuration refers to the progressive break-
down/degradation of bonds during straining (Leroueil et al., 1979)
and is accommodated using the concept of an intrinsic yield surface
proposed by Gens and Nova (1993). Other models which t in this
category are the AniCreep model developed by Yin et al. (2011) as
an extension to the model developed by Yin et al. (2010), the EVP-
SCLAY1S model (Yin and Karstunen, 2008) which is categorised as a
conventional overstress model, and the non-associated structured
anisotropic creep (n-SAC) model developed by Grimstad et al.
(2010).
The key feature of the n-SAC model is that the time resistance
concept is introduced to the viscoplastic multiplier rather than to
the viscoplastic volumetric strain. Models which assume constant
contours of volumetric creep strain (e.g. SSC or ACM) yield unre-
alistic creep strains for almost all stress paths (Olsson, 2013). In
keeping with the n-SAC model, the Creep-SCLAY1S model also uses
the concept of a constant rate of viscoplastic multiplier to calculate
creep strain rate, but the commonly used semi-logarithmic creep
coefcient, Ca, is used as the viscosity input parameter, making the
model attractive from a practical modelling perspective.
3. Formulation of the Creep-SCLAY1S model
The formulation of the Creep-SCLAY1S model (in triaxial stress
space) was described by Sivasithamparam et al. (2013) and it was
extended to 3D for FE analyses by Sivasithamparam et al. (2015). In
the version used in this paper, destructuration has also been
incorporated. The anisotropy and destructuration components of
the model were formulated using the constitutive equations from
the rate independent S-CLAY1 (Wheeler, 1997; Wheeler et al.,
2003) and S-CLAY1S (Koskinen et al., 2002; Karstunen et al.,
2005) models, which accounted for anisotropy and both anisot-
ropy and destructuration, respectively.
For simplicity, the Creep-SCLAY1S model is briey explained
here in triaxial stress space. For the extension to 3D, readers can
refer to Sivasithamparam et al. (2015). The total strain rate (_) is
674 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688

composed of an elastic component (_e ) and a viscoplastic (creep)  

component (_c ), i.e. cv
p0 p p0 p0 exp (6)
l*  k*
_ _ e _ c (2)
q  ap0 2
The rotational hardening law, describing the changing inclina- p0 eq p0   (7)
tion of the yield surface due to creep strains, takes the form shown M2 q  a2 p0
as follows:
where M(q) is the stress ratio at critical state, which is a function of

  h 

3h   Lode angle (q) to incorporate a smooth failure surface (see

da u  a dcv ud  a dcd (3) Sivasithamparam et al., 2015); and l* and k* are the modied
4 3
compression and swelling indices, respectively, and hence related
where u and ud are two additional soil constants; dcv and dcd are to the 1D compression and swelling indices (Cc and Cs).
the increments of creep volumetric and deviatoric strains, respec- In contrast to the SSC model and the ACM, which calculate the
tively; and hi denote Macaulay brackets. The constant ud controls volumetric creep strain rate according to Eq. (8), the Creep-
SCLAY1S model uses the rate of viscoplastic multiplier (L) _ (Eq. (9)):
the relative effectiveness of the deviatoric and volumetric creep
strains in determining the overall target value for a, while u con- * *
trols the absolute rate at which a approaches the target value, !l  k
where a is the angle of inclination of the yield surface (Fig. 1). m* p0 eq m*
_ cv (8)
The destructuration law describing the breakdown of bonding s p0 p
caused by creep strains takes the following form:
 
dc xc dcv xd dcd (4)
where x and xd are two additional soil constants controlling the
absolute rate of destructuration and the relative effectiveness of
volumetric and deviatoric creep strains, respectively, in destroying
the bonding.
The initial amount of bonding (c0) relates the size of the natural
yield surface (p0 p0 ) to the size of the intrinsic yield surface (p0 p0i ),
i.e.
p0 p0 1 c0 p0 p0i (5)
The yield surface (normal consolidation surface, NCS) evolves
with the creep volumetric strains according to Eq. (6), with the
equivalent mean stress measure (p0 eq , Eq. (7)) dening the inter-
section of the current stress surface (CSS) with the p0 axis (Fig. 1), i.e.
Fig. 1. Yield surfaces of the Creep-SCLAY1S model in triaxial stress space.
* *
!l  k
m* p0 eq m* M 2 q  a2K nc
_
L 0
(9)
s p0 p M2 q  h2K nc
0
where the additional term in Eq. (9) was added to ensure that under
oedometric conditions, the resulting volumetric creep strain cor-
responds to Eq. (8); aK0nc denotes the inclination of the yield ellipse
in the normally consolidated condition; and s is a reference time,
which is usually 1 day if m* is calculated using an incremental load
oedometer test with a loading duration of 1 day.
The determination of the additional model parameters required
for the Creep-SCLAY1S model is straight-forward. The anisotropy
parameters, a0 (initial yield surface inclination) and ud can be
calculated from the critical state friction angle (f0 ) and the coef-
cient of lateral earth pressure in the normally consolidated condi-
tion (K0nc ). The value of u should be calculated/optimised by
simulating undrained triaxial extension tests, or in their absence,
simply estimated based on compressibility (Zentar et al., 2002).
The initial amount of bonding, c0, can be calculated based on the
sensitivity, St (see Eq. (10)), and the other destructuration param-
eters (xd and x) can be calibrated using the optimisation procedure
described in Koskinen et al. (2002). The intrinsic compression and
*
creep indices, li and m*i (measured from oedometer tests on
reconstituted samples), should be used as opposed to l* and m*
(measured from oedometer tests on natural samples) when
modelling destructuration using the FE method.
c0 St  1 (10)
4. Soil prole
4.1. Soil parameters
The Bothkennar soft clay test site in Scotland was purchased by
the UK Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) in 1987 as
a national soft clay test bed. The silty clay at Bothkennar is highly
structured with an organic content of 3e5%, depending on the
facies type (bedded, laminated, mottled and weathered) (e.g. Paul
et al., 1992), and a bulk unit weight of g 16.5 kN/m3 (e.g. Nash
et al., 1992a). The multi-layer soil prole (Table 1) adopted in this
study is based on the HS model soil prole used by Killeen and
McCabe (2014). The authors obtained the parameters from ICE
(1992) and validated their prole against a eld load test on an
 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688 675

Table 1
Bothkennar material parameters.

Type Depth (m) g (kN/m3) OCR POP (kPa) K0 e0 l* li* k* m* mi* c0 (kPa) j ( ) n kx (m/d) ky (m/d)

Crust 0e1.5 18 e 15 1.5 1 0.015 0.006 0.002 0.0006 0.0002 3 0 0.2 1  104 6.9  105
Upper Carse clay 1.5e2.5 16.5 e 15 1 1.2 0.049 0.018 0.006 0.002 0.0007 1 0 0.2 1  104 6.9  105
Lower Carse clay 2.5e14.5 16.5 1.5 e 0.75 2 0.162 0.06 0.023 0.0065 0.0024 1 0 0.2 1  104 6.9  105

Note: OCR s0 p =s0 0 ; POP s0 p  s0 0 .

unreinforced rigid pad footing described by Jardine et al. (1995).
However, creep was not considered in their study and so the
additional creep parameters in Table 1 were calculated based on a
Ca/Cc ( m*/l*) ratio of 0.04 (e.g. Nash et al., 1992b). The additional
anisotropy and destructuration parameters for Bothkennar clay
quoted in Table 2 have previously been calibrated by Karstunen
et al. (2013).
The initial stress state for the FE model has been generated using
a pre-overburden pressure (POP) of 15 kPa for the upper layers and
an overconsolidation ratio (OCR) of 1.5 for the lower Carse clay, with
s0 0 and s0 p denoting the initial effective stress and 1D pre-
consolidation stress, respectively. The in situ at-rest earth-pressure
coefcients (K0) are based on a series of spade cell, self-boring
pressuremeter (SBPM), and Marchetti dilatometer tests carried
out by Nash et al. (1992a).
The slopes of the critical state lines (CSLs) in compression (Mc)
and extension (Me) have been selected based on a series of triaxial
stress paths tests on reconstituted clay carried out by Allman and
Atkinson (1992). The Mc corresponds to a critical state friction
angle of 34 ; this high friction angle is attributable to both a high
organic content and an abundance of silt-sized grains. Nominal
cohesion values (c0 1 kPa) have been used for numerical stability
and a dilatancy angle (j) of 0 was adopted as representative of a
lightly overconsolidated clay. The horizontal and vertical perme-
abilities (kx and ky) were measured by Leroueil et al. (1992) using
both in situ (e.g. pushed-in-place piezometers, self-boring per-
meameters, BAT system) and laboratory (e.g. oedometer cells,
triaxial cells, radial ow cells) methods.
The adopted soil parameters derived predominantly from the
results of oedometer tests have been validated by using the PLAXIS
Soil Test facility to simulate the undrained triaxial compression
tests reported by Atkinson et al. (1992) (see Sexton, 2014).
4.2. Scenarios
Three separate scenarios have been considered for the Creep-
SCLAY1S model analyses described in Section 6:
(1) Anisotropy and destructuration have been switched off by
setting the relevant parameters to zero and by setting
Me Mc. For these isotropic analyses, the rotational hard-
ening law (Eq. (2)) is switched off and K0 will be over-
predicted, analogous to the modied Cam-Clay (MCC) model.
(2) Anisotropy has been switched on while destructuration is
switched off.
(3) Both the anisotropy and bonding/destructuration parame-
ters have been switched on. The intrinsic compression and
creep indices quoted in Table 1 have been used for the ana-
lyses incorporating destructuration.
ISO is used hereafter to denote the isotropic response of the
Creep-SCLAY1S model with anisotropy and destructuration
switched off, ANIS is used to denote the anisotropic response with
destructuration switched off, and A&D denotes the response with
both anisotropy and bonding/destructuration switched on.

5. Modelling stone columns using the nite element method

Table 2
Additional material parameters.
5.1. Previous numerical studies
Mc Me a0 ud u c0 xd x
1.375 1 0.5267 0.9281 50 8 0.2 9 The majority of numerical studies investigating stone column
behaviour have used 2D analysis techniques, e.g. plane strain (Gb

Fig. 2. Typical column grids encountered in practice. (a) Triangular; (b) Square; (c) Hexagonal.
676 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688

Fig. 3. Bothkennar soil prole (not to scale).

Table 3 Bouassida, 2009; Killeen and McCabe, 2014). Kamrat-

Properties of granular column material. Pietraszewska and Karstunen (2009) used the MCC, S-CLAY1, and
g (kN/m3) f0 ( ) j ( ) c0 (kPa) Eoed
ref ref
E50 ref
Eur pref m kx ky S-CLAY1S models for the soil and the HS model for the column.
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kPa) (m/d) (m/d) Kamrat-Pietraszewska (2011) and Sexton and McCabe (2013) were
19 45 15 1 70 70 210 100 0.3 1.7 1.7 among the rst to use a model incorporating viscous effects with an
application to stone columns.
The majority of numerical studies investigating stone column
et al., 2008) or axisymmetry (Ambily and Gandhi, 2007); 3D behaviour have declined to use interface elements at the boundary
modelling has been used by Weber et al. (2008), Kamrat- between the granular column material and the in situ soil (e.g.
Pietraszewska and Karstunen (2009), and Killeen and McCabe Ambily and Gandhi, 2007; Domingues et al., 2007a, b; Gb et al.,
(2014). In the majority of cases, either the Mohr Coulomb (MC) or 2008), consistent with eld observations that columns are tightly
HS models have been used to represent the behaviour of both the interlocked with the surrounding soil due to the lateral displace-
granular column material and the treated soil (e.g. Ellouze and ment caused by re-lowering the poker during column installation

Time (d)
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
0.0

0.5
Settlement (m)

1.0
No Creep (ISO)
No Creep (ANIS)
1.5
No Creep (A&D)
Time-settlement
Creep (ISO)
behaviour for
2.0
Creep (ANIS) the isotropic and
anisotropic cases
Creep (A&D) is almost identical
2.5

Fig. 4. Settlement vs. log(time) plots for untreated soil.

 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688 677

Time (d)
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
0.0

0.2

0.4
Settlement (m)

0.6 Untreated

A/Ac = 15
0.8
A/Ac = 10

1.0 A/Ac = 6

A/Ac = 3
1.2
(a)

Time (d)
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Settlement (m)

1.0
Untreated
1.2
A/Ac = 15
1.4
1.6 A/Ac = 10

1.8 A/Ac = 6
2.0 A/Ac = 3
2.2
(b)

Fig. 5. Settlement vs. log(time) plots for the isotropic case. (a) Very low creep coefcient; (b) Standard creep coefcient.

(e.g. McCabe et al., 2009). This assumption of full contact at the
columnesoil interface is adopted in this study.
5.2. Axisymmetric unit cell concept
The axisymmetric unit cell concept is used in this paper,
representative of the behaviour of a large grid of regularly-spaced
columns subjected to a uniform load, as would be used to sup-
port an embankment or a large oor slab, for example. The extent of
treatment is usually measured using the areaereplacement ratio:
 
Ac 1 Dc 2
(11)
A g s
where Ac is the cross-sectional area of a single stone column; A is
the cross-sectional area of its unit cell; s and Dc denote the column
spacing and column diameter, respectively; and g is a constant
depending on the column arrangement (Fig. 2). The boundary
conditions applied to the unit cell are shown in Fig. 3.
5.3. Stone column material parameters
The hyperbolic elastoplastic HS model has been used to model
the column material. The parameters have also been derived from
Killeen and McCabe (2014) (see Table 3). The model has two yield
surfaces: a shear hardening yield surface to incorporate shear
hardening and a cap yield surface for compression hardening. The
sizes of these yield surfaces are governed by the secant (E50) and
oedometric (Eoed) moduli, respectively; the unloadereload
modulus, Eur, is used to control the elastic unloadereload behav-
iour. The model accounts for the stress dependency of soil stiffness
using the following power law:
 m
p
E Eref (12)
pref
where m is the power dictating the stress dependency of soil
stiffness and Eref is a reference stiffness modulus corresponding to a
reference pressure, pref.
678 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688

4.0 (2) The n values with and without creep for the anisotropic case
nPRIMARY(ISO) are denoted by nTOTAL(ANIS) and nPRIMARY(ANIS), respectively.
3.5
Direct comparison with the isotropic results enables the in-
3.0 nTOTAL(ISO) uence of anisotropy to be established.
2.5 (3) The n values with and without creep for the analyses incor-
porating anisotropy, bonding, and destructuration are
2.0
n

denoted by nTOTAL(A&D) and nPRIMARY(A&D), respectively. The

1.5 inuence of soil destructuration can then be examined.
1.0
The variations of radial, vertical, and hoop stress with time and
0.5 depth corresponding to scenarios (1)e(3) can be expounded.
0.0 The general analysis stages are as follows:
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time (d) (1) Generate initial stresses using the K0 procedure (Brinkgreve
(a) et al., 2011).
(2) Install the stone columns in undrained conditions using the
4.0
wished-in-place technique (any changes in stresses and
3.5 nPRIMARY(ANIS) state parameters due to column installation are not
accounted for). Any out-of-equilibrium stresses generated by
3.0
nTOTAL(ANIS) the wished-in-place installation are restored using a plastic
2.5 nil-step.
2.0 (3) Apply a load (pa) of 100 kPa in undrained conditions
n

through a plate element placed over the surface of the unit

1.5 cell. The plate acts as a loading platform and prevents dif-
1.0 ferential settlements at the surface between the column
and the soil.
0.5 (4) Allow a consolidation phase; settlements effectively
0.0 cease after full pore pressure dissipation for the no
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 creep case.
Time (d)
(b)
7. Computational results and discussion
4.0

3.5 nPRIMARY(A&D) 7.1. Timeesettlement behaviour

3.0 nTOTAL(A&D)
Settlement versus time plots in logarithmic scale for the un-
2.5 treated creep and no creep cases for the three different sce-
2.0 narios are presented in Fig. 4. The timeesettlement behaviour for
n

the isotropic and anisotropic cases is almost identical. This will be

1.5
the case for 1D loading if the anisotropy parameters are derived
1.0 based on the K0 state. The end-of-primary (EOP) consolidation
0.5 times for the no creep and creep cases are approximately 15,000
days (w40 years) and 40,000 days (w100 years), respectively. The
0.0 EOP consolidation times are shorter and settlements are lower for
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 *
the case with bonding and destructuration (since li  l* and
Time (d)
m*i  m*).
(c) The timeesettlement behaviour for the treated case (at different
reciprocal areaereplacement ratios, A/Ac) is compared to that of the
Fig. 6. Evolution of n with time at A/Ac 6. (a) ISO; (b) ANIS; (c) A&D.
untreated case in Fig. 5a and b for the no creep and creep cases,
respectively; these plots pertain to the isotropic case. It is evident
6. Axisymmetric 2D modelling that the granular columns signicantly accelerate the consolidation
process; the consolidation time reduces with increasing stone
The impact of creep on stone column settlement performance is replacement. The ndings are consistent with those reported by
examined by performing two sets of analyses: one set using the Kok Shien (2013), who also modelled stone columns using the
standard soil properties in Table 1 and the other using very low axisymmetric unit cell concept, albeit using a different soil model
creep coefcients (m*  1% of the standard value), in effect elimi- and soil prole. Settlementelog(time) plots for the anisotropy and
nating most of the creep effects. It is not possible to use m* 0 as it anisotropy and destructuration cases are not presented here
would result in division by zero. because the patterns are relatively consistent with the isotropic
These two sets of analyses (referred to subsequently as creep case; settlement differences will be reected in the relevant n
and no creep) are carried out with a view to deriving settlement values.
improvement factors (n values) for the three separate scenarios laid
out in Section 4.2: 7.2. Evolution of settlement improvement factor with time

(1) The n values with and without creep for the isotropic case are The evolution of n with time for the creep and no creep cases
denoted by nTOTAL(ISO) and nPRIMARY(ISO), respectively. is plotted in Fig. 6 for the different scenarios; A/Ac 6 is chosen for
 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688 679

12

11 nPRIMARY(ISO)

10 nPRIMARY(ANIS)

9 nPRIMARY(A&D)
8
Priebe's n2 (1995)
nPRIMARY

7
Castro & Sagaseta (2009)
6
Pulko et al. (2011)
5

1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A/Ac
(a)
9
nTOTAL(ISO)
8

nTOTAL(ANIS)
7

6 nTOTAL(A&D)
nTOTAL

1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A/Ac
(b)
5.0
nCREEP(ISO)
4.5

nCREEP(ANIS)
4.0

3.5 nCREEP(A&D)
nCREEP

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A/Ac
(c)

Fig. 7. (a) Comparison of nPRIMARY values; (b) Comparison of nTOTAL values; (c) Comparison of nCREEP values.
680 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688

6.0 for the analyses incorporating bonding and destructuration. For the
isotropic analyses, K0 is overpredicted (see Section 4.2), resulting in
5.0 larger horizontal soil stresses which provide more resistance
against column bulging. This results in lower settlements for the
4.0 treated case, and since the settlements of untreated soil for the
nTOTAL1

isotropic and anisotropic cases are similar, nPRIMARY(ISO) >

3.0
nPRIMARY(ANIS).
For the analyses incorporating bonding and destructuration
2.0 *
(li  l* and m*i  m*), the ratio of column stiffness to soil stiffness is
1.0 y = 0.6225x lower and slightly lower n values would be expected. However, the
R = 0.9974 n values in Fig. 7a and b are still much lower than those expected
0.0 because n is not very sensitive to soil stiffness (and hence the ratio
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 of column stiffness to soil stiffness) above a threshold value. The
nPRIMARY 1 lower n values can be explained as follows:
(a)
(1) Increased settlement leads to a reduction in the bonding
4.0
parameter, c.
3.5 (2) Creep (i.e. more settlement) leads to additional bond
3.0 degradation (for both the untreated and treated cases), and
hence a larger reduction in c.
2.5
nTOTAL1

(3) For the no creep case, columns reduce settlement to a larger

2.0 extent than they do for the creep case (and hence they
1.5 curtail the amount by which c is reduced).

1.0 The extent to which destructuration should be accounted for in

y = 0.6168x
0.5 R = 0.9948 design will depend on the initial amount of bonding, c0, which is
0.0 dictated by the soil sensitivity, St (see Eq. (9)).
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Analytical predictions obtained using Priebe (1995), Castro and
Sagaseta (2009), and Pulko et al. (2011) are superimposed with
nPRIMARY 1
the nPRIMARY values in Fig. 7a for comparison. The n values predicted
(b) by Castro and Sagaseta (2009) and Pulko et al. (2011) fall between
3.0 the nPRIMARY(ISO) and nPRIMARY(ANIS) for 4 < A/Ac < 15.
Creep settlement improvement factors for the different sce-
2.5 narios are compared in Fig. 7c. These creep settlement improve-
ment factors have been derived based on the slopes of the
2.0 settlementelog(time) plots after EOP:
nTOTAL1

1.5 .
nCREEP m*untreated m*treated (13)
1.0
y = 0.7691x where m*untreated and m*treated denote the slopes of the untreated and
0.5 R = 0.9968 treated settlementelog(time) plots, respectively. For each scenario
0.0 considered, these nCREEP values are lower than the corresponding
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 nPRIMARY values. However, given that the nCREEP values are greater
nPRIMARY1 than 1, the columns have a positive impact on reducing long-term
creep settlements. The nTOTAL values in Fig. 7b are effectively a
(c) weighted average of the nPRIMARY and nCREEP values, dependent on
Fig. 8. (nTOTAL  1) vs. (nPRIMARY  1) plots. (a) ISO; (b) ANIS; (c) A&D.
the relative percentages of primary/creep settlement. In general,
larger differences between nPRIMARY and nTOTAL would be observed
in situations where nPRIMARY is larger to begin with. This occurs
illustrative purposes. In all cases, the predicted n values are less because the nPRIMARY values are much greater than the nCREEP values
than unity initially because the settlement of treated ground occurs and so a larger effect would be seen in the weighted average.
more rapidly than that of untreated ground; however, these n The relative differences between the nTOTAL and nPRIMARY values
values are of no practical signicance. Regardless of the scenario, for each scenario are investigated in Fig. 8 by plotting (nTOTAL  1)
the steady-state nTOTAL values after EOP are less than the corre- against (nPRIMARY  1) at different values of A/Ac; for an untreated
sponding nPRIMARY values; this holds at all values of A/Ac and is soil, both nTOTAL and nPRIMARY will be equal to 1. Each data point in
consistent with the ndings of Sexton and McCabe (2013, 2015, Fig. 8 corresponds to a nPRIMARY value and a nTOTAL value at a single
2016): when creep is present, settlement improvement factors value of A/Ac. Best-t lines have been added to each gure, along
are lower. with their corresponding coefcients of determination (R2). The
relationship takes the following form:
7.3. Comparison of settlement improvement factors
nTOTAL  1 bnPRIMARY  1 (14)
The nPRIMARY and nTOTAL values (after EOP) for the different
scenarios are presented in Fig. 7a and b, respectively. At all values of where b is the slope of the line. For the isotropic and anisotropic
A/Ac, the highest n values arise for the isotropic case and the lowest cases, the b values are almost identical, suggesting that the relative
 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688 681

400

350 A/Ac=3 (No Creep) at S

300 Column

250 A/Ac=3 (Creep) at S

'yy (kPa)

200

150 A/Ac=3 (No Creep) at C

Soil
100

50 A/Ac=3 (Creep) at C

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time (d)

Fig. 9. Variation of vertical stress (s0 yy ) with time at mid-depth for the isotropic case.

70

60

A/Ac=3 (No Creep) at S

50
'xx (kPa)

40

30

20
A/Ac=3 (Creep) at S

10

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time (d)

(a)

60

50
A/Ac=3 (No Creep) at S
40
'zz (kPa)

30

20
A/Ac=3 (Creep) at S
10

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time (d)

(b)

Fig. 10. Variations of (a) radial stress (s0 xx ) and (b) hoop stress (s0 zz ) in the soil with time at mid-depth.
682 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688

0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
7 7
A/Ac = 3 Untreated A/Ac = 3 Untreated
8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12
ISO ISO
13 13
ANIS ANIS
14 14
A&D A&D
15 15
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
'yy (kPa) 'yy (kPa)
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Proles of vertical stress in the soil for A/Ac 3. (a) No creep; (b) Creep.

0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12
ISO ISO
13 13
ANIS ANIS
14 14
A&D A&D
15 15
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
'xx (kPa) 'xx (kPa)
(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Proles of radial stress in the soil for A/Ac 3. (a) No creep; (b) Creep.
 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688
Fig. 13. Total shear strains for A/Ac 3 (isotropic case). (a) No creep; (b) Creep.
values of nTOTAL and nPRIMARY are rather independent of anisotropy.
For the case incorporating anisotropy and bonding/destructuration,
the value of b is higher because (i) the nPRIMARY(A&D) values are
lower to begin with and (ii) m*i  m* so the weighted effect of creep
is less visible.
7.4. Variations of vertical, radial, and hoop stress with time
For the no creep case, the stresses on the soil and column are
constant after EOP. For the creep case, vertical stress is transferred
from the soil to the column as the soil creeps. This is illustrated in
Fig. 9 by plotting the variations of vertical stress (s0 yy ) with time for
A/Ac 3 (for the isotropic case) at points C and S (mid-depth of the
lower Carse clay layer) in Fig. 3. The spacing represented by A/Ac 3
has been selected for presentation purposes because the stress
transfer is most pronounced at close spacings, although the same
trend holds for the range 3 < A/Ac < 15 considered. The additional
stress transferred to the already yielded column results in addi-
tional yielding, and hence lower n values for the creep case.
The corresponding variations of radial (s0 xx ) and hoop (s0 zz )
stress in the soil with time are plotted in Fig. 10a and b, respectively.
For the no creep case, both s0 xx and s0 zz are constant after EOP. For
683
the creep case, these stresses continue to reduce after EOP, with
s0 zz reducing to a greater extent than s0 xx . The reduction in s0 xx
means that the lateral support imparted onto the column by the soil
diminishes due to creep. This leads to additional column bulging,
more settlement, and ultimately, a lower load-carrying capacity.
The s0 xx and s0 zz reductions will be discussed in more detail in
Sections 7.5.2 and 7.5.3.
7.5. Proles of stress and strain with depth
In this section, distributions of stress and strain with depth in
the soil for A/Ac 3 (with and without creep) are compared after
100 years (after EOP for the untreated case) to highlight the effect of
the different features (e.g. anisotropy, bonding and destructura-
tion). The stress and strain proles have been obtained at the same
radius from the column centre as a vertical plane through point S in
Fig. 3.
7.5.1. Vertical stress proles
The vertical stress proles in the soil for A/Ac 3 are plotted in
Fig. 11 for the different scenarios without and with creep, respec-
tively. The stress proles for the untreated case are also included on
the gure to provide a frame of reference for comparison between
the creep and no creep cases. The Updated Mesh option (e.g.
McMeeking and Rice, 1975) has been used for these analyses and so
the nal ground surface will be lower when there is more settle-
ment, e.g. for the analyses incorporating creep.
For each scenario, the columns reduce the vertical stress carried
by the soil over the full column length in comparison with the
untreated case. For the creep case (Fig. 11b), the stress reductions
are larger and increase with depth. These are illustrated using ar-
rows and markers for visual purposes. The surplus stress unloaded
from the soil is transferred to the column, as discussed in Section
7.4. The stress transfer (i.e. the stress reduction in the soil) is the
smallest for the analyses incorporating destructuration (Fig. 11b)
because of the lower creep coefcient (i.e. m*i  m*).
7.5.2. Radial stress proles
The corresponding radial stress proles in the soil for A/Ac 3
are presented in Fig. 12; reference lines (with no physical signi-
cance) have been included on this gure for ease of comparison
between the creep and no creep cases. The stress proles for the
untreated case have not been included on these gures for the sake
of clarity; the radial stresses in the soil for the untreated case are
almost equivalent to those in the soil for the no creep case
(Fig. 12a), apart from the isotropic case, for which the untreated
radial stresses are overpredicted. For the creep case (Fig. 12b), the
radial stresses in the soil are lower than those for the no creep case
(Fig. 12a).
The magnitudes of the radial stress reductions are relatively
consistent for the three scenarios considered, although there are
signicant stress oscillations for the creep case. These oscillations
are caused by shear-plane formation in the column (due to addi-
tional yielding, e.g. Fig. 13, illustrated for the isotropic case) and
extend much deeper for the anisotropic case than for the isotropic
case. For the isotropic case, the horizontal stresses in the soil are
overpredicted and so additional resistance is provided against
lateral column bulging; this inhibits the formation of shear-planes
in the column. The magnitudes of the shear-planes are similar for
the anisotropy and destructuration case, despite the lower creep
coefcient (m*i  m*); for this scenario, columns do not have the
same benecial effect on c, as discussed in Section 7.3.
The shear-plane formations can also be identied by examining
proles of radial strain (xx) in the soil with depth (Fig. 14). For the
creep case, there is a sharp decrease of radial strain at the base of
684 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688

0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12
ISO ISO
13 13
ANIS ANIS
14 14
A&D A&D
15 15
-0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00
xx xx
(a) (b)

Fig. 14. Proles of radial strain in the soil for A/Ac 3. (a) No creep; (b) Creep.

0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

Floating 13 Floating 13

14 14
End-bearing End-bearing
15 15
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00
xx xx
(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Proles of radial strain in the soil for A/Ac 3 (isotropic case): oating vs. end-bearing columns. (a) No creep; (b) Creep.
 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688 685

0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12
ISO ISO
13 13
ANIS ANIS
14 14
A&D A&D
15 15
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
'zz (kPa) 'zz (kPa)
(a) (b)

Fig. 16. Proles of hoop stress in the soil for A/Ac 3. (a) No creep; (b) Creep.

the unit cell (Fig. 14b); this explains the jump in the radial stress
prole at the base in Fig. 12b. Additional analyses have shown that
these jumps also occur at the base of oating columns; oating
columns punch into the underlying soil and so there is also a
sudden lateral/radial strain reduction. This is illustrated in Fig. 15
for the isotropic case.
isotropic case (additional plastic deformation and shear
plane formation lead to a larger hoop stress reduction, e.g.
Fig. 14b). The hoop stress prole for the analyses incorpo-
rating anisotropy and bonding/destructuration is approxi-
mately parallel to that for the anisotropic case, although the
hoop stress reduction is lower (less plastic deformation
because m*i  m*, e.g. Fig. 14b).

7.5.3. Hoop stress proles

The corresponding distributions of hoop stress in the soil with
depth for A/Ac 3 are presented in Fig. 16. The plots are presented
in a similar format to those for radial stress. The hoop stresses are
equal to the radial stresses for the untreated case. The following
points are relevant:
(1) The hoop stresses in the soil are lower than the radial
stresses (comparing Fig. 16 with Fig. 12) and hence lower
than the corresponding hoop stresses in the soil for the un-
treated case.
(2) The hoop stress reductions for the no creep case are more
prominent in the regions where the strains are the largest,
e.g. at the depth of the maximum column bulging (which can
be approximated from Figs. 13 and 14 as being between 3 m
and 4 m below ground level). The hoop stress reductions are
caused by plastic deformation which leads to the dissipation
of energy; there is more plastic deformation at the bulging
depth than that at the base.
(3) The hoop stress reductions are larger for the creep case
(Fig. 16b) because there is more plastic deformation
throughout the full depth of the prole. A larger hoop stress
reduction occurs for the anisotropic case than for the
8. Conclusions and recommendations for future research
A series of axisymmetric analyses has been carried out in
conjunction with the elasto-viscoplastic Creep-SCLAY1S model to
assess the effectiveness of stone columns in soft creep-prone soils.
The columns were wished-in-place and hence installation effects
have not been accounted for. Three different scenarios have been
considered: (i) isotropy, (ii) anisotropy, and (iii) anisotropy and
bonding/destructuration. The main ndings are as follows:
(1) For all three scenarios, incorporating creep leads to lower
total settlement improvement factors, i.e. lower than pri-
mary settlement improvement factors. The total settlement
improvement factors are effectively a weighted average of
primary and creep settlement improvement factors; the
latter are much lower than the former but are, nevertheless,
greater than unity. If creep constitutes a signicant propor-
tion of total settlement, lower settlement improvement
factors for creep settlements should be used in design.
(2) The ratios of total to primary settlement improvement
factors are almost identical for the isotropic and aniso-
tropic cases, suggesting the effectiveness of stone columns at
686 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688

arresting creep settlements is independent of anisotropy. A Ca coefcient of secondary compression/creep

smaller ratio is observed for the case incorporating anisot- coefcient
ropy and bonding/destructuration because (i) the primary c0 effective cohesion
settlement improvement factors for this scenario are lower Dc column diameter
to begin with and (ii) the intrinsic creep index is less than E50 secant/triaxial modulus
the creep index for natural clay (m*i  m*) so the effect of Eoed oedometric modulus
creep on the weighted average is less visible. Eur unloadereload modulus
(3) For the creep case, vertical stress is transferred from the e0 initial void ratio
creeping soil to the granular column. The additional vertical K0 coefcient of lateral earth pressure at rest
stress transferred to the already yielded column causes K0nc coefcient of lateral earth pressure in the normally
additional yielding and explains why total settlement consolidated condition
improvement factors are lower than their primary g constant dependent on column arrangement (square,
counterparts. triangular, or hexagonal)
(4) The actual n values (both primary and total) are lower for k, kx, ky permeability, horizontal permeability, vertical
the analyses incorporating bonding and destructuration. The permeability
extent to which destructuration should be accounted for in M, Mc, Me slope of CSL, slope of CSL in compression, slope of CSL
design will depend on the initial sensitivity of the clay; in in extension
highly sensitive clays, destructuration will be a greater M(q) stress ratio at critical state
consideration. m power dictating the stress dependency of soil
(5) In addition to the vertical stress transfer process, the radial stiffness (HS model)
and hoop stresses in the soil also reduce for the creep case. n settlement improvement factor, n duntreated/dtreated
The radial stress reduction results in additional column nTOTAL Total settlement improvement factor (i.e.
bulging and a lower load-carrying capacity. The hoop stress primary creep)
reduction is more of a secondary effect, caused by additional nCREEP Creep settlement improvement factor
plastic deformation (and hence energy dissipation) for the nPRIMARY Primary settlement improvement factor
creep case. n2 Priebes (1995) settlement improvement factor
(6) The simulations ignored any installation effects, which p, p0 mean principal total stress, mean principal effective
inevitably are signicant (e.g. Castro and Karstunen, 2010; stress
Castro et al., 2014). Hence for future work, it is recom- pa applied load/load level
mended to complement the present study with analyses that pp preconsolidation stress/pressure (3D)
account for installation effects for a more complete under- pref reference pressure
standing of how the stone columns behave in soft sensitive q deviatoric stress
creep-prone soils. Rc column radius
St sensitivity
s column spacing
Conict of interest a0, a initial yield surface inclination, yield surface
inclination
We wish to conrm that there are no known conicts of interest g bulk unit weight
associated with this publication and there has been no signicant d settlement
nancial support for this work that could have inuenced its xx radial strain
outcome. q Lode angle
k, k* swelling indices
l, l* compression indices
Acknowledgements li, li intrinsic compression indices
m, m* creep coefcients/indices
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided by n Poissons ratio
the Irish Research Council (IRC) for the research into stone column x rate of destructuration
behaviour in creep-prone soils. The development of the soil model xd effectiveness of shear and volumetric strains in
used herein was carried out as part of CREEP (Creep of Geo- destroying the bonding
materials, PIAP-GA-2011-286397) project supported by the Euro- s0 0 initial effective stress/pressure (1D)
pean Community through the programme Marie Curie Industry- s0 p preconsolidation stress/pressure (1D)
Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP) under the 7th s0 xx , s0 yy , s0 zz effective radial, vertical (axial), and hoop (tangential)
Framework Programme. The support from the BIG (Better Interac- stresses
tion in Geotechnics) project from the Swedish Transport Adminis- f0 friction angle
tration is also gratefully acknowledged. u rate of yield surface rotation
ud effectiveness of shear and volumetric strains in
Notation rotating the yield surface
c0 initial amount of bonding
The following symbols are used in this paper: j dilatancy angle
A cross-sectional area of soil unit treated with granular _
L rate of viscoplastic multiplier
material
Ac cross-sectional area of granular column
References
Ac/A areaereplacement ratio
Cs swelling index Allman MA, Atkinson JH. Mechanical properties of reconstituted Bothkennar soil.
Cc compression index Gotechnique 1992;42(2):289e301.
 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688
Ambily AP, Gandhi SR. Behavior of stone columns based on experimental and FEM
analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
2007;133(4):405e15.
Atkinson JH, Allman MA, Boese RJ. Inuence of laboratory sample preparation
procedures on the strength and stiffness of intact Bothkennar soil recovered
using the Laval sampler. Gotechnique 1992;42(2):349e54.
Black JA, Sivakumar V, Bell A. The settlement performance of stone column foun-
dations. Gotechnique 2011;61(11):909e22.
Brinkgreve RBJ, Swolfs WM, Engin E. PLAXIS 2D 2010. Delft, the Netherlands:
PLAXIS B.V.; 2011.
Castro J, Karstunen M, Sivasithamparam N, Sagaseta C. Numerical analyses of stone
column installation in Bothkennar clay. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Installation Effects in Geotechnical Engineering (ICIEGE), Rot-
terdam, the Netherlands; 2013. p. 212e8.
Castro J, Karstunen M, Sivasithamparam N. Inuence of stone column installation
on settlement reduction. Computers and Geotechnics 2014;59:87e97.
Castro J, Karstunen M. Numerical simulations of stone column installation. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal 2010;47(10):1127e38.
Castro J, Sagaseta C. Consolidation around stone columns: inuence of column
deformation. International Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics 2009;33(7):851e77.
Domingues TS, Borges JL, Cardoso AS. Stone columns in embankments on soft soils:
analysis of the effects of the gravel deformability. In: Proceedings of the 14th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid,
Spain; 2007. p. 1445e50.
Domingues TS, Borges JL, Cardoso AS. Parametric study of stone columns in em-
bankments on soft soils by nite element method. In: Proceedings of the 5th
International Workshop on Applications of Computational Mechanics in
Geotechnical Engineering, Guimaraes, Portugal; 2007. p. 281e91.
Ellouze S, Bouassida M. Prediction of the settlement of reinforced soft clay by a
group of stone columns. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
New Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Nicosia,
North Cyprus; 2009. p. 182e7.
Gb M, Schweiger HF, Kamrat-Pietraszewska D, Karstunen M. Numerical analysis of
a oating stone column foundation using different constitutive models. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Geotechnics of Soft Soils
e Focus on Ground Improvement, Glasgow; 2008. p. 137e42.
Gens A, Nova R. Conceptual bases for a constitutive model for bonded soils and
weak rocks. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Geotechnical
Engineering of Hard Soils e Soft Rocks, Athens, Greece; 1993. p. 485e94.
Grimstad G, Degago SA, Nordal S, Karstunen M. Modeling creep and rate effects in
structured anisotropic soft clays. Acta Geotechnica 2010;5(1):69e81.
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). Bothkennar soft clay test site: characterization
and lessons learned. Gotechnique 1992;42(2):161e378.
Jardine RJ, Lehane BM, Smith PR, Gildea PA. Vertical loading experiments on rigid
pad foundations at Bothkennar. Gotechnique 1995;45(4):573e97.
Kamrat-Pietraszewska D, Karstunen M. The behaviour of stone column supported
embankment constructed on soft soil. In: Computational Geomechanics,
COMGEO I e Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Computational
Geomechanics, Juan-les-Pins; 2009. p. 829e41.
Kamrat-Pietraszewska D. Numerical modelling of soft soils improved with stone
columns [PhD Thesis]. Glasgow, UK: University of Strathclyde; 2011.
Karstunen M, Krenn H, Wheeler SJ, Koskinen M, Zenter R. Effect of anisotropy and
destructuration on the behavior of Murro test embankment. International
Journal of Geomechanics 2005;5(2):87e97.
Karstunen M, Sivasithamparam N, Brinkgreve RBJ, Bonnier PG. Modelling rate-
dependent behaviour of structured clays. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Installation Effects in Geotechnical Engineering (ICIEGE), Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands; 2013. p. 43e50.
Killeen MM, McCabe BA. Settlement performance of pad footings on soft clay
supported by stone columns: a numerical study. Soils and Foundations
2014;54(4):760e76.
Kok Shien NG. Numerical study of oating stone columns [PhD Thesis]. Singapore:
National University of Singapore; 2013.
Koskinen M, Karstunen M, Wheeler SJ. Modelling destructuration and anisotropy of a
natural soft clay. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on
Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering (NUMGE 2002), Paris; 2002.
p. 11e20.
Leoni M, Karstunen M, Vermeer PA. Anisotropic creep model for soft soils. Go-
technique 2008;58(3):215e26.
Leroueil S, Lerat P, Hight DW, Powell JJM. Hydraulic conductivity of a recent estu-
arine silty clay at Bothkennar. Gotechnique 1992;42(2):275e88.
Leroueil S, Tavenas F, Brucy F, La Rochelle P, Roy M. Behaviour of destructured
natural clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1979;105(6):759e78.
Liingaard M, Augustesen A, Lade PV. Characterization of models for time-
dependent behavior of soils. International Journal of Geomechanics
2004;4(3):157e77.
McCabe BA, Nimmons GJ, Egan D. A review of eld performance of stone columns in
soft soils. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers e Geotechnical En-
gineering 2009;162(6):323e34.
McMeeking RM, Rice JR. Finite-element formulations for problems of large elastic-
plastic deformation. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1975;11(5):
601e16.
687
Mesri G. Coefcient of secondary compression. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division 1973;99(1):123e37.
Mitchell JK, Kelly R. Addressing some current challenges in ground improvement.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers e Ground Improvement
2013;166(3):127e37.
Moorhead MC. Effectiveness of granular columns for containing settlement of foun-
dations supported on soft clay [PhD Thesis]. Belfast, UK: Queens University; 2013.
Nash DFT, Powell JJM, Lloyd IM. Initial investigations of the soft clay test site at
Bothkennar. Gotechnique 1992a;42(2):163e81.
Nash DFT, Sills GC, Davison LR. One-dimensional consolidation testing of soft clay
from Bothkennar. Gotechnique 1992b;42(2):241e56.
Olsson M. On rate-dependency of Gothenburg clay [PhD Thesis]. Gothenburg,
Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology; 2013.
Paul MA, Peacock JD, Wood BF. Engineering geology of the Carse clay at the National
Soft Clay Research Site, Bothkennar. Gotechnique 1992;42(2):183e98.
Perzyna P. Fundamental problems in viscoplasticity. Advances in Applied Mechanics
1966;9(2):244e377.
Perzyna P. The constitutive equations for work-hardening and rate sensitive plastic
materials. Proceedings of Vibration Problems 1963;4:281e90.
Priebe HJ. The design of vibro replacement. Ground Engineering 1995;28(10):
31e7.
Pulko B, Majes B, Logar J. Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: analytical calcu-
lation model. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2011;29(1):29e39.
Schanz T, Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG. The hardening soil model: formulation and
verication. In: Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics. Ten
Years of PLAXIS. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema; 1999. p. 281e
90.
Sexton BG, McCabe BA. Modeling stone column installation in an elasto-
viscoplastic soil. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2015;9(5):
500e12.
Sexton BG, McCabe BA. Numerical modelling of the improvements to primary and
creep settlements offered by granular columns. Acta Geotechnica 2013;8(4):447e
64.
Sexton BG, McCabe BA. Stone column effectiveness in soils with creep: a numerical
study. Geomechanics and Geoengineering 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17486025.2016.1151556.
Sexton BG. The inuence of creep on the settlement of foundations supported by
stone columns [PhD Thesis]. Galway, Ireland: National University of Ireland;
2014.
Sivasithamparam N, Karstunen M, Bonnier P. Modelling creep behaviour of aniso-
tropic soft soils. Computers and Geotechnics 2015;69:46e57.
Sivasithamparam N, Karstunen M, Brinkgreve RBJ, Bonnier PG. Comparison of two
anisotropic models at element level. In: Proceedings of the International Con-
ference on Installation Effects in Geotechnical Engineering (ICIEGE), Rotterdam,
The Netherlands; 2013. p. 72e8.
Vermeer PA, Neher HP. A soft soil model that accounts for creep. In: Beyond 2000 in
Computational Geotechnics. Ten Years of PLAXIS. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
A.A. Balkema; 1999. p. 249e61.
Vermeer PA, Stolle DFE, Bonnier PG. From the classical theory of secondary
compression to modern creep analysis. In: Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Wuhan,
China; 1998. p. 2469e78.
Weber TM, Springman SM, Gb M, Racansky V, Schweiger HF. Numerical modelling
of stone columns in soft clay under an embankment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Workshop on the Geotechnics of Soft Soils e Focus on Ground
Improvement, Glasgow; 2008. p. 305e11.
Wheeler SJ, Ntnen A, Karstunen M, Lojander M. An anisotropic
elastoplastic model for soft clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2003;40(2):
403e18.
Wheeler SJ. A rotational hardening elasto-plastic model for clays. In: Proceedings of
the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Hamburg; 1997. p. 431e4.
Yin JH, Zhu JG, Graham J. A new elastic viscoplastic model for time-dependent
behaviour of normally and overconsolidated clays: theory and verication.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2002;39(1):157e73.
Yin ZY, Chang CS, Karstunen M, Hicher PY. An anisotropic elastic-viscoplastic
model for soft clays. International Journal of Solids and Structures
2010;47(5):665e77.
Yin ZY, Karstunen M, Chang CS, Koskinen M, Lojander M. Modeling time-dependent
behavior of soft sensitive clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 2011;137(11):1103e13.
Yin ZY, Karstunen M. Inuence of anisotropy, destructuration and viscosity on
the behavior of an embankment on soft clay. In: Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference of the International Association for Computer Methods
and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), Goa, India; 2008. p. 4728e35.
Zentar R, Karstunen M, Wiltafafsky C, Schweiger HF, Koskinen M. Comparison of
two approaches for modelling anisotropy of soft clays. In: Proceedings of the
8th International Symposium of Numerical Models in Geomechanics (NUMOG
VIII), Rome; 2002. p. 115e21.
Zhou C, Yin JH, Zhu JG, Cheng CM. 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 2005;5(3):
218e32.
688 B.G. Sexton et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 672e688
Brian G. Sexton graduated with a BE in Civil Engineering
from National University of Ireland (NUI) Galway in
October 2010 and then a PhD in Civil Engineering, also at
NUI Galway, in October 2014. He is currently working as a
Geotechnical Engineer with AGL Consulting in Dublin,
Ireland on a wide range of design projects. His research
interests include ground improvement techniques, nu-
merical modelling, soft soil behaviour, and retaining wall
design. Brian represented Ireland at the 25th European
Young Geotechnical Engineers Conference in Sibiu,
Romania, in June 2016.
Bryan A. McCabe completed both his Bachelors Degree in
Civil Structural and Environmental Engineering and PhD in
Geotechnical Engineering at Trinity College Dublin,
Ireland. Bryan has been a lecturer in Civil Engineering
since 2001, with the exception of a one-year secondment
to Keller Ground Engineering, Coventry, UK. Bryan is
currently Head of Civil Engineering at NUI Galway. His
research interests include piling, ground improvement,
tunnelling and the Irish pyrite problem.
Minna Karstunen is Professor in Geotechnical Engineering at
Chalmers University of Technology, a Fellow of the Institution
of Civil Engineers and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Sciences
and Arts in Gothenburg. After her PhD research at the Uni-
versity of Wales Swansea, she had academic appointments in
e.g. University of Glasgow and Strathclyde. Minnas research
combines Applied Mechanics with Geotechnics, motivated by
the societys need to design, construct and maintain infra-
structure and buildings on/with materials with geological
origin, in the most safe, economic and sustainable way.
Minnas eld of expertise is constitutive and numerical
modelling of geomaterials, and she has coordinated
numerous EC funded projects related to her research eld.
Nallathamby Sivasithamparam is a project engineer and
researcher in the eld of Computational Geomechanics at
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Norway. He received
his BSc Eng. (Hons) in Civil Engineering from University of
Peradeniya, Sri Lanka in 2004, MEng in Earthquake Engi-
neering from University of Tokyo, Japan in 2007, and PhD in
Computational Geomechanics from University of Strath-
clyde, Scotland in 2012. He was a Marie-Curie Research
Fellow at PLAXIS (The Netherlands), National Autonomous
University of Mexico (Mexico) and Chalmers University of
Technology (Sweden). His main research interests cover
development of constitutive models for natural soils and
their numerical implementation into nite element codes.