Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 290 33

A Centrifuge Study of the Influence of Dense Granular Columns on the Performance of

Gently Sloping Liquefiable Sites
Mahir Badanagki, S.M.ASCE1; Shideh Dashti, M.ASCE2; and Peter Kirkwood3
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Univ. of Colorado Boulder, Dept. of Civil, Env,. and Arch.
Engineering, Boulder, CO 80309. E-mail: mahir.badanagki@colorado.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Univ. of Colorado Boulder, Dept. of Civil, Env., and Arch. Engineering,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Boulder, CO 80309. E-mail: shideh.dashti@colorado.edu

3
Research Associate, Univ. of Colorado Boulder, Dept. of Civil, Env., and Arch. Engineering,
Boulder, CO 80309. E-mail: peter.kirkwood@colorado.edu

ABSTRACT
Dense granular columns are commonly used to reduce the risk of liquefaction or its
associated ground deformations in gentle slopes through: 1) enhancing drainage; 2) providing
shear reinforcement; and 3) densifying and increasing lateral stresses in the surrounding soil
during installation. However, the independent influence and contribution of these mitigation
mechanisms on excess pore pressures, accelerations, and lateral and vertical deformations is not
sufficiently understood to facilitate reliable design. This paper presents the results of a series of
dynamic centrifuge tests to evaluate the influence of dense granular columns on the seismic
performance of gentle slopes (e.g. <5%). Granular columns with greater area replacement ratios
(Ar about 20%) were shown to be highly effective in reducing seismic settlement and lateral
slope deformations, owing primarily to expedited dissipation of excess pore water pressures
rather than shear reinforcement. The influence of granular columns on accelerations in the
surrounding soil depended on the column’s Ar and drainage capacity. The insight from these
experiments aims to improve our understanding of the mechanics of liquefaction and lateral
spreading mitigation with granular columns.

INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes-induced liquefaction and its associated ground displacements have been a major
source of damage during past earthquakes (e.g., Seed et al. 1990; Ishihara et al. 1992; Bardet et
al. 1995; Ansal et al. 1999; Krinitzsky and Hynes 2002). Mitigation techniques are often
warranted to prevent excessive lateral deformations in slopes founded on liquefiable deposits and
the subsequent damage to infrastructure. A number of researchers have previously performed
numerical studies to evaluate the contribution of shear reinforcement provided by granular
columns and showed their effectiveness in reducing lateral displacements in treated soils due to a
combination of drainage and shear reinforcement (Elgamal et al. 2009; Asgari et al. 2013;
Rayamajhi et al. 2016a) However, the results presented in these numerical studies were often not
validated with physical model studies or case history observations. A reliable and performance-
based design of liquefaction remediation techniques for slopes requires a clear understanding of
the influence of different mitigation mechanisms that control performance.
A number of researchers have evaluated the influence of granular columns experimentally,
typically in centrifuge. Due to the difficulties of drain installation in flight, previous centrifuge
experiments primarily focused on the reinforcement and drainage mechanisms of mitigation, as
opposed to installation-induced densification or an accurate representation of the increase in
lateral earth pressures in the surrounding soil, which may not be relied on in all cases even in the

© ASCE

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 290 34

field. As an example, Adalier et al. (2003) performed centrifuge experiments with stone columns
in a uniform and level deposit of saturated, soft silt with an overlying model of a rigid footing.
This study showed that stone columns can be effective in reducing foundation settlement by
reducing shear strains and excess pore pressures in the soil. They did not, however, evaluate the
influence of granular columns on the performance of sites with more realistic layering and
geometry and under different earthquake motions.
Dashti et al. (2010) performed a series of centrifuge experiments to identify the dominant
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mechanisms of settlement on layered liquefiable soil deposits. The study classified the primary
settlement mechanisms as: (a) sedimentation or solidification (εp-SED), which occur after
significant strength loss as settling particles from the uppermost part of the liquefiable sand
accumulate at the bottom to form a solidified zone. This zone increases in thickness with time
and concurrently consolidates under its own weight; (b) reconsolidation (εp-CON), which occurs as
excess pore pressures dissipate and the soil’s effective stress increases back to its initial value.
As excess pore pressures reduce, the degree of particle contact forces increases, leading to
permanent volumetric strains as the solidified soil structure consolidates; and (c) partial drainage
and loss of water during cyclic loading (εp-DR) that occur according to 3D transient hydraulic
gradients. These deformations can be notable, as they occur while hydraulic gradients are being
kept at their peak during shaking. Drainage enhancing granular columns, such as those
investigated in this study, locally reduce the duration, or amplitude, of elevated excess pore
pressures. This along with altered shear stress and strain profiles likely reduces the contribution
of sedimentation to volumetric strains. However, the increased rate of drainage likely increases
volumetric strains due to partial drainage. The net effect of granular columns on competing
mechanisms leading to volumetric strains is uncertain and requires investigation.
In this research, a series of centrifuge tests was conducted at the University of Colorado
Boulder (CU-Boulder) facility modeling granular columns in gently sloping sites (e.g. <5%)
underlain by a layered liquefiable deposit. The data obtained from these experiments: 1) facilitate
a mechanistic evaluation of the influence of granular columns and their different properties (e.g.,
area replacement ratio, shear reinforcement, and enhanced drainage) on slope performance in
terms of acceleration, excess pore pressure, settlement, and lateral spread; and 2) provide data for
the calibration and validation of advanced numerical models in the future.
0 75 150 mm Model
Acc. (A) PPT (P) LVDT (D) 0 5.3 10.5 m [Prototype]
Treated side Untreated side Without latex With latex
[1.5m]
21mm

Model 1 (Ar=20%) Model 2 (Ar =0%) Model 3 (Ar =10%) Model 4 (Ar=10%)
Monterey sand Test #1 3° Test #2 3°
Silica silt

Ottawa sand 115mm

[0.5m]

Latex [8m]
7mm

Dr=40%
Ottawa sand 115mm
Dr=90% [8m]

956mm 158mm 144mm 177mm

[66.9m] [11m] [10m] [12.4m]

Figure 1. Schematic and instrumentation layout of two centrifuge tests conducted at CU-
Boulder.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Centrifuge Testing Plan: A series of two centrifuge experiments (at 70 g) comprising of

© ASCE

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 290 35

four separate models were designed and conducted at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU)
to systematically evaluate the influence and relative importance of different granular column
parameters on the performance of a gentle slope underlain by a layered liquefiable deposit during
1D horizontal earthquake loading. Detailed plan and elevation-view drawings of the model tests
and their instrumentation layouts are presented in Figure 1. Dimensions are presented in both
prototype and model scales following accepted scaling relations (Tan and Scott 1985, Garnier et
al. 2007).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For all tests, a dense layer (8 m-thick in prototype scale) of Ottawa sand F65 was dry
pluviated to attain a relative density (Dr) of approximately 90% at the bottom of a flexible-shear
beam (FSB) container. Subsequently, a loose layer of Ottawa sand (8m-thick) with Dr  40%
was pluviated as the liquefiable material. This layer was subsequently overlaid by a 0.5 m-thick
layer of Silica silt (Sil-Co-Sil 120) to restrict rapid excess pore pressure dissipation vertically and
represent a case with void redistribution, followed by a 1.5 m-thick layer of coarse Monterrey
sand 0/30 with Dr  90%, to create a non-liquefiable, thin crust. For all treated models (Models
1, 3 and 4), the granular columns with diameter = 1.75 m (in prototype scale) were placed
vertically at the bottom of the container prior to the pluviation of sand, to avoid localized
densification of sand during their installation. This was done to isolate the influence of drains
from ground densification, and keep the density of the surrounding soil well controlled and
uniform within each layer. Table 1 provides the engineering properties of the materials used.

Table 1. Soil engineering properties

Monterey
Ottawa sand F65 Silica silt Gravel
0/30
Specific graveity, Gs 2.65 2.64 2.65 2.66
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.53 0.54 - 0.62
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.81 0.84 - 0.92
Uniformity coefficient, Cu 1.56 1.30 7.3 1.54
Critical friction angle, cs (degree) 31.4 - 25 36.5
1.41×10-2 (Dr=40%)
Hydraulic conductivity, k (cm/s) 5.29×10-2 3×10-5 2.9
1.19×10-2 (Dr=90%)

Both soil specimens were constructed of two symmetric slopes on the two sides of the
container separated by an open channel, as shown in Figure. 1. In Test 1, one side of the slope
(Model 1) was treated with a grid of 1.75 m-diameter, dense granular columns encased with geo-
textile filters (to avoid clogging), separated by 3.5 m (center-to-center) with an area replacement
ratio (Ar) of 20%. The Ar is defined as the area of the granular columns to the total treatment area
(Baez and Martin 1993). The other side of the slope (Model 2) in Test 1 was left untreated to
evaluate the effectiveness of the granular columns as a mitigation technique. In Test 2, both sides
of the slope (Models 3 and 4) were treated with 1.75 m-diameter, dense granular columns,
separated by 5 m (center-to-center) with Ar=10%. In Model 3, the granular columns were
encased with geo-textile filters (similar to Model 1), while in Model 4 they were encased with
geo-textile and a thin (0.2 mm-thick) latex membrane to evaluate the influence of stiffness alone
without drainage. The ground water table was at the soil surface in all tests, and all model
specimens were spun to a centrifugal acceleration of 70 g prior to the application of earthquake
motions.
Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose was used as the pore fluid during model saturation with the

© ASCE

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 290 36

viscosity 70 times greater than the water (Stewart et al., 1998), in order to satisfy dynamic
scaling laws (Taylor 1995). In the saturation phase, the model (soil with structures) was first
flushed with CO2. Then, the model and fluid container was kept under a vacuum pressure of 70
kPa. The vacuum pressure in the fluid container was decreased automatically at a controlled rate
to initiate and continue flow at a constant rate, similar to the procedure used by Stringer and
Madabhushi (2009), until saturation was completed. All the model specimens were subjected to a
series of earthquake motions at the container base in flight using the servo-hydraulic shaking
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

table. In this paper, the result of only one motion, Kobe, with an achieved PGA = 0.38 g, Mean
period (Tm) = 0.86 s, and Arias Intensity (Ia) = 1.92 m/s, are discussed in detail.

Figure 2. The acceleration and Arias Intensity (Ia) time histories and response spectrum
(5%-damped) of the Kobe earthquake motion recorded at different depths in Models 1 and
2.
CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Influence of Granular Columns and Area Replacement Ratio on Slope Performance:
The effectiveness of granular columns was assessed in reducing the extent of excess pore
pressure generation, accelerations, vertical settlements, and lateral spreading in a gently sloping
site. Models 2, 3, and 1 contained a gentle slope treated with granular columns that had Ar =0%
(no drains), Ar =10%, and Ar =20%, respectively. Large excess pore pressures were measured in
the dense layer of Ottawa sand, but liquefaction (ru=1) was typically not reached in this layer in
the presence of a gentle slope (even for the untreated case of Ar =0%). Importantly, the greater
Ar of 20% in Model 1 successfully reduced the extent and duration of large excess pore pressures
in all layers compared to the other two models. Model 3 (Ar=10%) also appeared to slightly
increase the rate of excess pore pressure dissipation compared to the untreated Model 2 (Ar=0%),
but not as well as Model 1.

© ASCE

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 290 37
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. The acceleration and Arias Intensity (Ia) time histories and response spectrum
(5%-damped) of the Kobe earthquake motion recorded at different depths in Models 3 and
4.
Figures 2 and 3 show that surface accelerations in the soil tended to de-amplify slightly as Ar
increased from 0 to 10%, due to the reinforcement provided by the granular columns. For
example, the PGA of the surface motion was decreased from 0.51 to 0.14 g as Ar increased from
0 to 10%. On the other hand, accelerations amplified considerably when Ar was increased from
10 to 20%, particularly in terms of Arias Intensity. This apparently contradictory pattern in
accelerations may be explained by the counteracting effects of shear reinforcement and drainage
provided by granular columns. For the treated Models 3 (Ar=10%) and 1 (Ar=20%), the added
shear stiffness of columns tended to reduce the amplitude of accelerations and shear stresses in
the surrounding soil. In the presented experiments, an Ar of 10% provided shear reinforcement,
resulting in a reduction of accelerations compared to the unmitigated slope. This model also
enhanced drainage, but not sufficiently to amplify accelerations. For the greater Ar of 20%,
drainage rates were increased sufficiently to prevent soil liquefaction. Therefore, average soil
stiffness was increased and damping decreased compared to Models 2 (Ar=0%) and 3 (Ar=10%).
This impacted the propagation and amplification of accelerations particularly above the dense
Ottawa layer.
Figure 4 compares the excess pore pressure ratio (ru) time histories at different depths
together with vertical and horizontal displacements recorded at the top of the slope during the
Kobe motion in the three models with different area replacement ratios (Models 1 through 3).
Horizontal displacement is considered positive in the fall-line or downslope direction for all
models. The rate of excess pore pressure build-up at all depths was generally decreased and rate
of post-shaking dissipation increased when Ar increased from 0% to 10% and to 20%, as
expected. The fastest rate of dissipation was observed at lower elevations, due to an upward flow
tendency.

© ASCE

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 290 38
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Base acceleration, excess pore pressure ratio, vertical and horizontal
displacement time histories in Model 1, 2, 3 and 4 (ru 1 indicates the soil has liquefied).
The settlements were primarily dominated by volumetric strains and to a smaller degree by
deviatoric or shear strains (due to the slope’s small angle). Settlements recorded at the top of the
slopes generally decreased with increasing Ar due to the reduction in the extent and duration of
large excess pore pressures and hence, reduction in volumetric strains caused by sedimentation
(εp-SED) and deviatoric strains caused by the existing static and dynamic shear stresses. These
factors were more significant than the increase in volumetric strains due to partial drainage (εp-
DR). Lateral displacements were recorded in slopes at the LVDT locations shown in Figure 1.
Lateral displacements were generally reduced as Ar increased. The results generally support the
conclusion that using granular columns reduces volumetric settlements and deviatoric lateral
displacements in slopes containing liquefiable clean sand. The magnitude of this reduction has
been shown to depend strongly on Ar. The use of granular columns was highly effective at
reducing the magnitude of lateral spreading. Vertical settlements were also reduced, but
additional mitigation measures may be required to limit settlements for structures or other
sensitive infrastructure. These conclusions may not apply to liquefiable soils with a large degree
of silt content, because of the reduced role of drainage. Additional research is needed to clarify
the role of granular columns in silty sites.
Relative Influence of Shear Stiffness and Drainage on Slope Performance: The influence
and relative importance of mitigation arising from the mechanisms of shear reinforcement and
enhanced drainage in granular columns were evaluated experimentally by comparing the
response of Models 3 and 4. Both models contained a gentle slope treated with granular columns
at Ar =10%. In Model 3, the granular columns were encased only within geo-textile to avoid
clogging, combining the drainage and shear reinforcement mechanisms. In Model 4, on the other
hand, the dense granular columns were encased within both a geo-textile and a thin (0.2 mm-
thick) latex membrane to avoid drainage, while providing only shear reinforcement. These

© ASCE

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 290 39

effects have not previously been separated experimentally under controlled conditions.
The use of draining granular columns (Model 3) slightly reduced net excess pore pressures
generated during shaking and increased the rate of dissipation after shaking compared to non-
draining columns in Model 4 (with latex). The faster rate of pore pressure dissipation in Model 3
is also evident in Figure 4 during shaking. Faster drainage in Model 3 limited settlements of the
slope, by limiting both sedimentation and shear-type deformations. Similar effects were observed
when comparing lateral displacements in Figure 4. The non-draining granular columns with latex
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

extended the duration of large excess pore pressures, which notably amplified lateral
displacements in slope (e.g., increase from 25 to 50 cm during Kobe, which was similar to the
case with no mitigation). These results show that for the conditions investigated here (the
specific Ar of 10% and a liquefiable deposit of clean sand), the benefitting effect of granular
columns on slope performance in terms of deformations was almost entirely due to its ability to
enhance drainage.
Figure 3 shows the acceleration and Arias Intensity (Ia) time histories and response spectra
(5%-damped) during the Kobe motion recorded at different depths in Models 3 and 4. For both
models, significant de-amplification of accelerations occurred from the base toward the surface
due to soil softening. The enhanced drainage in Model 3 caused amplification of accelerations,
particularly at lower elevations, by increasing the rate of pore pressure dissipation, increasing
shear stiffness, and reducing damping in the surrounding soil. The influence of granular columns
on accelerations was, therefore, expected to depend on the column’s drainage ability and Ar as
well as soil properties.

CONCLUDING
Use of granular columns in gentle, layered, liquefiable slopes was found to be effective in
reducing the lateral and vertical deformations, primarily through enhancing drainage rather than
reinforcement. The drain’s area replacement ratio (Ar) was experimentally shown to be a critical
parameter in reducing both settlements and lateral spreading of the slope. In addition, the
influence of granular columns on the seismic demand and accelerations was shown to depend on
Ar and drainage capability. The shear reinforcement provided by columns tended to de-amplify
accelerations slightly, while enhanced drainage provided by granular columns could
simultaneously increase rate of excess pore pressure dissipation and recovery of shear stiffness,
amplifying accelerations depending on Ar. The possible increase in accelerations at the surface of
a treated site must be considered when evaluating liquefaction triggering, consequences, and
response of overlying structures. The conclusions in this paper, however, are limited to the
conditions evaluated with the liquefiable layer consisting of clean sand. Additional experimental
studies are required to evaluate the impact of drainage, reinforcement, and densification provided
by granular columns in silty deposits.

REFERENCES
Adalier, K., Elgamal, A., Meneses, J., Baez, I.J., (2003). “Stone columns as liquefaction counter-
measure in non-plastic silty soils.” J. of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng. 23 (7), 571–
584.
Ansal, A., Bardet, J.P., Barka, A., Baturay, M.B., Berilgen, M., Bray, J., Cetin, O., Clu, L.,
Durgunoglu, T., Erten, D., Erdik, M., Idriss, I.M., Karadayilar, T., Kaya, A., Lettis, W.,
Olgun, G., Paige, W., Rathje, E., Roblee, C., Stewart, J., Ural, D., 1999. Initial Geotechnical
Observations of the November 12, 1999, Duzce Earthquake. A Report of the Turkey–US

© ASCE

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V

 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V GSP 290 40

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Reconnaissance Team.

Asgari, A., Oliaei, M., Bagheri, M., 2013: ‘Numerical simulation of improvement of a
liquefiable soil layer using stone column and pile pinning techniques’, J. of Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Eng. 51(2013)77–96.
Bardet, J.P., Oka, F., Sugito, M., Yashima, A., 1995. The Great Hanshin Earthquake disaster.
Preliminary Investigation Rep., Dept. of Civil Engineering Univ. of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Elgamal, A., Lu, J. and Forcellini, D. (2009). "Mitigation of liquefaction-induced lateral

deformation in a sloping stratum: three-dimensional numerical simulation," J. of Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Eng. ASCE, 135(11), 1672-1682.
Garnier, J., Gaudin, C., Springman, S.M., Culligan, P.J., Goodings, D., Konig, D., Kutter, B.,
Phillips, R., Randolph, M.F., Thorel, L. (2007). “Catalogue of scaling laws and similitude
questions in centrifuge modeling. Intern. J. of Phy. Mod. In Geotech., 7(3), 1-24
Ishihara, K., Haeri, S.M., Moinfar, A.A., Towhata, I., Tsujino, S.,1992. Geotechnical aspects of
the June 20, 1990 Manjil Earthquake in Iran. Soils and Foundations 32 (3), 61– 78.
Krinitzsky, E.L., Hynes, M.E., 2002. The Bhuj, India, earthquake: lessons learned for earthquake
safety of dams on alluvium. Engineering Geology 66 (3– 4), 163– 196.
Stringer, M., & Madabhushi, S. (2009). “Novel computer-controlled saturation of dynamic
centrifuge models using high viscosity fluids.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, 32(6), 559-
564.
Rayamajhi, D., Ashford, S. A., Boulanger, R. W., and Elgamal, A. (2016). “Dense granular
columns in liquefiable ground. I: Shear reinforcement and cyclic stress ratio reduction.” J. of
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng., vol. 142, no. 7, pp. 4016023.
Seed, R.B., Dickenson, S.E., Riemer, M.F., Bray, J.D., Sitar, N., Mitchell, J.K., Idriss, I.M.,
Kayen, R.E., Kropp, A., Hander Jr., L.F., Power, M.S., 1990. Preliminary report on the
principal geotechnical aspects of the October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta Earthquake. Rep. No.
UCB/EERC-90/05, Earthquake Eng. Research Center, U. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Stewart, D. P., Chen, Y. R., and Kutter, B. L. (1998) “Experience with the Use of
Methylcellulose as a Viscous Pore Fluid in Centrifuge Models.” Geotechnical Testing
Journal, GTJODJ, 21(4): 365-369.
Tan, T. S. and Scott, R. F. (1985). “Centrifuge scaling considerations for fluid-particle systems.”
Geotechnique 35(4), 461–470.
Taylor, R. N. (1995). Geotechnical centrifuge technology, 1st Ed., Blackie Academic and
Professional. New York; London.

© ASCE

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V