7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

Charles W. W. Ng
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR

ABSTRACT: Static liquefaction failure of soil slopes has often been reported in literature. It appears that
some researchers and engineers use different criteria to define and describe static liquefaction and they refer to
different failure mechanisms. What is static liquefaction? How is it triggered? How can we identify and define
static liquefaction failures? Does a strain-softening material necessarily mean static liquefaction? These are
not all easy questions to answer and some of them may be even controversial. Based on some centrifuge mod-
el and triaxial element tests, suggested answers to some of these questions are explored, discussed and veri-
fied in this paper.

1 INTRODUCTION static liquefaction occur in unsaturated soil slopes?

Slope failures occur in many parts of the world. A
slope will become unstable when its shear resistance
is smaller than any external driving shear stress,
which may be induced by mechanical and hydraulic
means
seepage.such as rainfall,
Alternatively, earthquake,
a slope will alsovibration and
become un-
stable if its shear resistance is deteriorated and re-
duced due to weathering and any other mechanisms
such as static liquefaction. Very often the terminolo-
gy static liquefaction is used to describe soil slope
failures and reported in literature. However, it is evi-
dent that different researchers and engineers may re-
fer to different failure mechanisms. Some use debris
mobility (travel angle or run out distance) to judge
whether a slope failure is caused by liquefaction or
not. Clearly there is no direct relationship between
liquefaction and mobility. For instance, a level
ground can liquefy (at zero/small effective stress un-
der seismic loading) with zero run out distance. On
the contrary, a steel ball can run down a bare slope to
reach a very long travel distance and this is nothing
to do with liquefaction or not (Ng 2007).
What is static liquefaction? How is it triggered?
What is the effective stress at failure, if the slope is
fully saturated initially such as undersea slopes?
How can we identify and define static liquefaction
failures? Does a strain-softening material necessarily
mean static liquefaction? Is there any difference be-
tween slide failure and flow failure? What is the role
of hydrofracture? How the angle of a slope affects
the so-called static liquefaction? Is there any differ-
ence between fluidization and liquefaction? Will
How does the angle of a slope affect the potential of
static liquefaction? Is there any relationship between
the so-called static liquefaction failure and run out
distance? Can soil nails be used to stabilize any
loose fill slopes? Some of these questions have not
been well be
them may understood and addressed
even controversial. In thisand some
paper, of
some
selected issues from above are investigated via la-
boratory triaxial element tests and centrifuge model
tests on loose fill slopes using gap-graded Leighton
Buzzard (LB) sand and completely decomposed gra-
nite (CDG), which is a well-graded silty sand. Ob-
served key failure mechanisms of static liquefaction
in the LB sand and non-liquefied slides of CDG fill
slopes are identified and discussed, mainly following
on the papers by Ng (2005, 2007 & 2008).
2 CLARIFICATION OF SOME
TERMINOLOGIES RELATING TO STATIC
LIQUEFACTION
Figure 1 shows some typical results from monotonic
triaxial tests on saturated, anisotropically consoli-
dated sand specimens (Ng 2008). As shown in Fig.
1a, a very loose sand specimen, A, exhibits a peak
undrained shear strength at a relatively small shear
to much smaller shear
strength at large strains. This behaviour is often
causally referred to c flow liquefac-
by many researchers and engineers. No matter
c-
e-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 1/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

haviour observed in the laboratory is rather confus- equal to ( 1 2 3 ) /3 and ( 1 3 ) , respectively.

ing and, strictly speaking, incorrect. Would it be
clearer and more precise to describe the material be-
haviour of the loose specimen, A, and a dense
- -
ctively, in the deviator stress-axial
strain space (see Fig. 1a)? In the mean effective
stress-deviator stress space (see Fig. 1b), would it be
After the peak state, q drops (the soil collapses) with
a large deformation develops until the quasi-steady
state (a shear strain of about 15%) or the critical
state (shear strain = 30%) is reached. The critical
state friction angle ( c ) of the sand is 30° (Cai
2001). Following the approach proposed by Lade
(1992), the angle of instability ( ins ) determined for

more precise to use-called

the terms
collapse (Sladen et al. the sandonis void
pendent 18.6°. It is
ratio andwell-known
stress levelthat
ins is de-
(Chu & Leong
escribe 2002). For engineering assessment and design of re-
the strength changes of specimen A and specimen B, medial work for loose fill slopes, it may be reason-
respectively? Of course, it is well-recognised that a able to assume this angle is a constant as the first
reduction and an increase in undrained shear strength approximation.
s
are caused by the respective tendency of sample con- s
e B Strain hardening
tr (a)
traction and dilation, leading to a respective increase s
r Dilation
and a reduction in pore water pressure ( u ) for to
ia
specimens A and B during undrained shearing (see v
e C
D Strain softening
relationship between u and axial strain in Figure Limited
Strain hardening
1c). It must be pointed out that these are just material liquefaction
element behaviour that does not necessarily capture
and represent the global behaviour of an entire fill A
Liquefaction Strain softening
slope or an earth structure. Axial strain

(b) B
s Dilation
s
e Undrained
3 INVESTIGATION OF THE FAILURE tr
s
r strength increase
MECHANISM OF LIQUEFIED FLOW IN SAND to Phase trans- C due to dilative
ia
FILL SLOPES BY CENTRIFUGE TESTS v
e
formation tendency
D point
Limited
3.1 Model material liquefaction
contractive tendency
Centrifuge model tests were carried out at the GCF A
Liquefaction Undrained strength reduction
of HKUST (Ng et al. 2002a, Ng et al. 2006a) to in- due to contractive tendency
vestigate the failure mechanisms of static liquefac-
Mean effective stress
tion of loose fill slopes subjected to rainfall, a rising
Contractive tendency Liquefaction
ground water table and dynamic earthquake loadings er (c) A
(Zhang 2006, Zhang et al. 2006, Ng 2007). Leighton u
s
s
Buzzard (LB) Fraction E fine sand was selected as re
p
er
the fill material for the model tests. Fig. 2 shows the o
p
gap-graded particle size distribution of LB sand. D 10 s
s
Axial strain
e
and D 50 of the sand were 125 m and 150 m, re- c
x Limited li- C
E
spectively. Following BSI (1990), the maximum and quefaction
minimum void ratios of the LB sand were found to contractive tendency
B
be 1.008 and 0.667, respectively (Cai 2001). The es- Dilation Dilative tendency
timated saturated coefficient of permeability was 1.6 Figure 1. Liquefaction, limited liquefaction, and dilation in
-4
10 m/s. LB sand was chosen because of its pro- monotonic loading tests (modified from Castro 1969, Kramer
nounced strain-softening characteristics with its high 1996).
liquefaction potential, LP, i.e., a substantial strength
reduction in shear strength when it is subjected to
3.2 Model package and test procedures
undrained shearing (see Fig. 3a). The results from
o
four loose specimens with different initial void ratios Figure 4 shows an instrumented 29.4 loose sand fill
(e o ) shown in the figure are obtained from isotropi- slope model together with the locations of the pore
cally consolidated undrained compression triaxial water pressure transducers (PPTs) (Zhang & Ng
tests. The loose sand clearly shows pronounced 2003, Ng 2008, Ng et al. 2009). The model slope
strain-softening behaviour and substantial strength was prepared by moist tamping. The initial relative
reduction in the deviator stress and shear strain ( q- compaction was 68%.
q ) space and contractive responses in the mean ef- The body of the sand slope was instrumented with
fective stress ( p ) and deviator stress ( q ) space, i.e. p seven PPTs and arrays of surface markers were in-
decreases continuously as q increases until the peak stalled for image analysis of soil movements. Linear
state is attained (see Fig. 3b), where p and q are variable differential transformers (LVDTs) and a la-

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 2/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

ser sensor were mounted at the crest of the slope to implies that the slope was vulnerable to instability,
monitor its settlement. which could lead to liquefaction (see Fig. 3). At 60
100 g, the 18 m-height (prototype) slope was de-
LB-Sand stabilised by rising ground water from the bottom of
) 80 SKW-CDG
% CKL-CDG
the model (Zhang 2006, Ng et al. 2009). The loose
(
r
e BH-CDG sand slope liquefied statically and flowed rapidly
ifn 60
e
WTS-CDG (see Fig. 5b), i.e., it followed a process in which the
g
ta loose slope was sheared under undrained conditions,
n 40
cer
e lost
duceditshigh
undrained shearpressure
pore water strength (see
as a Fig.
result
6)of thethen
and in-
P
20
flew like a liquid, called
0
LVDT
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 Model scale
LVDT & Laser sensor
Particle size (mm)
Drainage
board Model
Figure 2. Particle size distributions of LB sand and CDG. container

800 Temporary
Inlet hole
reservoir
(a) PPT7 5
0
3
700 Reflector
PPT 5 PPT 6
PPT4 .4 O utlet hole
y 2
9
PPT2 PPT3
600 PPT1

x
Sand
500
e 0=0.973
Liquefaction potential (LP) 1130,7
1130.7
)
a
P 400
k
(
q
e 0=0.970 Figure 4. Centrifuge model of a loose sand fill slope subjected
300 to rising ground water table at 60 g (Zhang & Ng 2003).
Quasi-steady state
Quasi-steady state
200
Figure 6 shows the measured rapid increases in
100 e 0=0.983 the excessive pore water pressure ratio ( u/ v)
e0=0.992 within about 25 seconds (prototype) at failure at a
0
0 10 20 30 40 number of locations in the slope during the test. The
q
(%) maximum measured u/ v was about 0.6, which
would be much higher if a properly scaled viscous
(b) pore fluid were used to reduce the rate of dissipation
700
of excess pore pressure in the centrifuge. This means
that the slope would liquefy much more easily. As
shown in Figure 5b, the completely liquefied slope
500 o o
inclines at about 4 to 7 to the horizontal after the
test. The observed fluidization from in-flight video
cameras and the significant rise in excessive pore
300
water pressures during the test clearly demonstrated
the static liquefaction of the loose sand fill slope. It
should be noted that measurements of sudden and
100
significant rise of excessive pore water pressures are
essen
liquefaction of loose fill slopes if no video recording
is available. The liquefaction of the loose sand slope
was believed to be initially triggered by seepage
Figure 3. Contractive behaviour of loose LB sand under con-
forces in the test (Ng et al. 2009). It is obvious that
solidated undrained tests (a) in the q - q and (b) in p - q planes
(modified from Zhang 2006, data from Cai 2001). soil nails cannot be used to stabilize a loose sand fill
slope which has a high liquefaction potential (see
Fig. 3a).
3.3 Observed static liquefaction mechanism Figure 7 shows five postulated zones, Z 1 -Z 5 , rep-
Although the initial angle of the loose slope was resenting the sequence of the failure and liquefaction
o process of the slope (Ng et al. 2009). Z 1 is a failure
prepared
80% of theat 29.4 at 1 relative
maximum g, the slope was densified
compaction due toto region de-stabilised by the loss of its toe due to the
self-weight compaction at 60 g. The slope angle was seepage force in the gully (drained failure). The soil
therefore flattened to 24
o
(see Fig. 5a), which is mass at the toe of Z 1 slid with the soil at the gully
steeper than the angle of instability of 18.6°. This head to trigger the failure of Z 2. The soil mass in Z 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 3/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

collapsed rapidly (undrained) which was then fol-

lowed by the collapse of Z 3 (undrained) without in- Subsequently, Z 4 also collapsed as a result of the
ducing obvious deformation in the lower part. The strain-softening associated with the significant
collapses of Z 2 and Z 3 were due to the strain- strength reduction (high liquefaction potential) of the
softening associated with the significant strength re- loose LB sand (see Fig. 3). The dotted line drawn be-
duction (i.e. high liquefaction potential) of the loose tween Z 4 and Z 5 in Fig. 7 represents the upper
LB sand as illustrated in Figure 3. The rapid boundary of the stable region (Z 5 ), monitored by
undrained collapses of Z 2 and Z 3 were evident from markers and the small excess pore pressures at PPT1
the
PPT7measured
(see Fig.large
6). excess positive pore pressures at and
ess. PPT2 (see Fig. 6) during the liquefaction proc-
Based on the observed mechanism, it is fair to
suggest that soil nails cannot be used to stop any liq-
uefied flow of loose sand fill slopes. However, the
use of soil nails can reduce the magnitude of any ex-
cessive positive pore water pressure generated in a
loose sand slope, minimize the chance of liquefac-
tion and reduce damages after liquefaction (Zhang et
al. 2006).
Gully erosion Water flow
B Gully head
Sand movement
A
20
Z1 Water
Z2
15 Slope profile
PPT7
Z3 Final slope profile
PPT5 before failure
10 PPT4
PPT6
B Z4
PPT2 PPT3
5 PPT1

A Z5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 (m)

Figure 7. Postulated failure zones during the liquefaction of

slope SG30 (Ng et al. 2009).

4 OBSERVED EXCESSIVE SETTLEMENTS OF

THICK LOOSE CDG FILL SLOPES IN
CENTRIFUGE
4.1 Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of CDG from
Beacon Hill (BH)
Prior to centrifuge model tests, a series of undrained
Figure 5. Slope profile in a loose sand fill test (a) before rising monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests on normally con-
ground water table; (b) after static liquefaction (Zhang & Ng solidated CDG specimens (70 mm in diameter and
2003). 140 mm in height) were performed to assist in the
interpretation of centrifuge tests on loose CDG fill
1.0
Slope failure slopes. Figure 2 shows the particle size distribution
0.8
of the well-graded CDG samples obtained from Cha
' )
v
0.6 PPT7 Kwo Ling (CKL), Kowloon. In the figure, the well-
/
u
w
0.4 PPT4 graded CDG taken from Beacon Hill (BH) is also in-
( PPT5
ito 0.2 cluded for comparison. The mean particle size, D 50 ,
ar PPT2
er
u 0.0 PPT1
of the CDG from CKL is 1.18 mm and the sample
s
s
er
p -0.2 PPT6
contains about 15% fines content. According to the
re
o
British Standard, BS1377 (1990), CDG can be clas-
p -0.4
s
s
e
c PPT3
sified as well-graded silty sand.
-0.6
E
x
The triaxial specimens tested (Fig. 8) were pre-
-0.8
pared by moist tamping at the optimum moisture
-1.0
37.8 38.2 38.6 39.0 39.4 39.8 40.2 40.6 41.0 41.4 41.8 42.2 42.6 43.0
content of
paction (Ngtheetspecimens
al. 2004a).
wasThe initial
70% relative
before com-
saturation.
Duration (min)
Enlarged lubricated end platens were used in the
Figure 6. Measured sudden and substantial increases in pore tests to reduce the end constraints on the soil speci-
water pressure at seven locations inside the slope (Zhang & Ng mens. In the undrained monotonic triaxial compres-
2003).

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 4/12
7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 5/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

Figure 10 illustrates the changes of the initially that had survived self-weight consolidation (Fig.
moist-tamped structure of the model fill at the crest 10c). Although the slope was suffered from exces-
during the test. At 1 g, the very loose soil had an ini- sive settlement, no flow slide and no liquefaction
tially very open structure (see Fig. 10a), which con- were observed in the test. This finding is consistent
sisted of large voids supported by capillary suction. with the test in CDG reported by Ng et al. (2002b).
One such void is circled in the figure. At 60 g, many
of these macro-voids were observed to collapse (Fig.
10b). However, not all the voids collapsed. In par-
ticular,
depths) the
suchvoids
as theat highlighted
low stress levels
void in(i.e. shallow
Figure 10a
simply settled along with the fill. The observations
of the collapse and the mechanisms shown in these
two figures cannot be easily obtained from the field
or numerical analyses even with large-strain formu-
lations.
After the initial self-weight consolidation, the fill
slope was subjected to the equivalent of six weekly
periods of rainfall infiltration in centrifuge. A sig-
nificant portion of the soil suction was destroyed
very rapidly at the shallow location after the arrival
of rainfall on the slope surface (Take et al. 2004).
The loose model fill responded immediately to this
loss of surface tension by collapsing the macro-voids Figure 9. Model geometry of CDG fill slope (Take et al. 2004).

Figure 10. The observed changes of soil structure of the crest region due to rainfall infiltration (Take et al. 2004).

4.3 Response of loose fill slope subjected to rising during and after the test. This was probably because
ground water in centrifuge (Ng et al. 2002b) of the small liquefaction potential of the CDG (Ng et
al. 2004a).
To complement the rainfall infiltration tests carried
out at Cambridge, a series of centrifuge model tests 18.900
on loose CDG fill slopes with and without soil nails
was subjected to rising ground water at HKUST (Ng Prototype Scale
et al. 2002b, Zhang 2006). The CDG fill material
used for the tests in Hong Kong was also from BH.
o 0

A model slope was initially prepared to incline at 45 .

4
2

to the horizontal and the initial relative compaction 4

2

of the fill was less than 80%. At 60 g, a 300 mm 0.600 0

high model slope was equivalent to an 18 m high Scale
4
2
Unit in metre .

prototype slope. Figure 11 shows the measured dis-

6

o
placement vectors of a 45 unreinforced loose CDG
fill slope destabilised by the rise of the ground water. Figure 11. Displacement vectors in unreinforced slope (CG45)
Excessive settlement was measured but no sign of (Ng 2007).
liquefied flow or slide of the slope was observed

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 6/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

4.4 Response of loose CDG fill slopes to 4.4.2 Measured responses of the loose CDG fill
earthquake loading in centrifuge slope subjected to bi-axial shaking (M2D-0.3)
(Ng et al. 2004b)
4.4.1 Centrifuge model and test procedures (Ng et
Figure 13 shows some measured horizontal accelera-
al. 2004b, Ng 2007)
tion time histories in the X- and Y-directions to-
To further investigate the possibility of flow lique-
gether with their normalized amplitudes in the Fou-
faction of loose CDG fill slopes, uni-axial and bi-
rier domain. In the biaxial shaking test, the base
axial dynamic centrifuge tests were carried out using
input accelerations (recorded by ACC-T-X & ACC-
soil samples taken from BH (Ng et al. 2004b). The
model CDG fill slopes were subjected to shaking T-Y as shown
prototype) and in theg figure)
7.77 (0.19 gwere 11.26 gin (0.28
prototype) the Xg
ranging from 0.08 g to 0.28 g (prototype) in the cen-
direction and Y-direction, respectively. The win-
trifuge at HKUST. All the models were essentially
dowed sinusoid waveform applied in the Y-direction
the same in geometrical layout and made of loose
lagged the X-direction input signal by 90°. Recorded
CDG with the same initial dry density. Figure 12
by the accelerometer near the crest, the peak accel-
shows a typical model slope (6 m in prototype) ini-
o eration in the X-direction increased by 45% at
tially inclined at 30 to the horizontal with its in-
ACC4-X, higher than that measured in a correspond-
strumentation. A rigid rectangular model box was
ing uni-axial shaking test (Ng et al. 2004b). A simi-
used to contain the CDG samples compacted to an
3 lar trend of variations in the acceleration was also
initial dry density of about 1.4 g/cm (or 77% of
found in the Y-direction. The normalized spectral
relative compaction). Five pairs of miniature accel-
amplitudes of acceleration at the predominant fre-
erometers were installed in the slope. Each pair was quency of 50 Hz decreased by about 9% in the X-
arranged to measure soil accelerations in two hori-
direction but increased by about 4% in the Y-
zontal directions (i.e., X- and Y-directions). Four
direction in the upper portion of the embankment.
miniature pore pressure transducers were installed in
the soil near the accelerometers to record pore water
pressures during shaking. On top of the slope, three
LVDTs were mounted to measure the crest settle-
ment, and one LVDT and one laser sensor (LS) were
used to measure horizontal movement of the crest.
To simulate the correct dissipation rate of exces-
sive pore pressures in the centrifuge tests, sodium
carboxy methylcellulose (CMC) powder was mixed
with distilled deionized water to form the properly
scaled viscous pore fluid and to saturate the loose
CDG model slopes.
After model preparation, the speed of the centri-
fuge was increased to 38 g. Once steady state pore
pressure condition was reached at all transducers, a
windowed 50 Hz (1.3 Hz prototype), 0.5 s (19 s pro-
totype) duration sinusoidal waveform was then ap-
plied (Ng et al. 2004b). After triggering each earth- Figure 13. Seismic acceleration history and Fourier amplitude
quake, the centrifuge acceleration was maintained spectrum (M2D-0.3) (extracted from Ng et al. 2004b).
long enough to allow the dissipation of any excess
pore pressure. Due to page limits, only some results poreFigure 14 shows
pressure the time
ratios along the history
height of the model
of the excess
from one biaxial shaking test are discussed here.
Other details of all the tests are presented in Ng et al. embankment during shaking. Peak acceleration oc-
(2004b). curred at about 0.25 s after the start of shaking. The
140 maximum pore pressure ratio occurred at about 0.33
LVDT-v3 LVDT-v2 LVDT-v1
s at each of the three transducers (PPT1, PPT2 &
PPT4). PPT1 and PPT2 recorded about the same
LVDT-h1 LS-h1
maximum pore pressure ratio of 0.87, whereas PPT4
X registered the smallest of 0.75. These measured val-
ues were less than the theoretical value of 1.0 for
PPT4 ACC4-Y
ACC4-X
ACC3-Y
0

liquefaction, even though the pore fluid was cor-

ACC5-Y ACC3-X 5
PPT3 ACC2-Y 1
PPT2
ACC2-X
ACC-T-X,Y,Z ACC5-X

rectly scaled in the test. The excess pore pressures

ACC1-X 0
ACC1-Y 3
PPT1

660 Z dissipated to zero at about 12 s (6.8 minutes in pro-

712
totype) after the start of shaking.
Figure 15 is a photograph of the model taken after
Figure 12. Configuration of the model slope and instrumenta- the completion of a shaking test. The deformation
tion (Ng et al. 2004b). profile for the slope was similar in both the uni-axial

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 7/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

and bi-axial shaking tests. The observed profile of most of the existing fill slopes formed before 1977
the deformed slope clearly illustrates that no lique- in Hong Kong.
fied flow and non-liquefied slide took place during
the shaking. The significant difference between the
observed physical test results from the loose LB sand
and CDG fill slopes may be attributed to the differ-
ence in fine contents, gradation and liquefaction po-
tential of the two materials (see Fig. 3).
1.0 1.0
PPT2 (Z=100mm) PPT1 PPT2

0.5

PPT1 (Z=145mm) 0.0

v
0.5 PPT4
/
-0.5
u
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time (s)

0.0

PPT4 (Z=10mm)
Figure 16. General view of the slope (from Tang & Lee 2003).

-0.5 Two rows of grouted nails were installed at a grid

0 5 10 15 o
Time (s)
of 1.5 m x 1.5 m at an inclination of 20 from the ho-
rizontal. Holes of 100 mm diameter with two differ-
Figure 14. Measured excess pore-water pressure ratios in bi- ent lengths (8 m and 6 m) were drilled. A 25 mm di-
axial shaking test M2D-0.3 (Ng et al. 2004b). ameter steel ribbed bar was inserted into each hole
and the hole was filled with grout from the bottom
up using a plastic hose.
In order to destabilize the slope, a water re-charge
Ground water level system was used. This re-charge system comprised
crest recharge trench, buried piping system and sur-
LVDT
Laser sensor face sprinkler and they were installed separately so
that a rise in groundwater table in combination with
LVDT
Laser sensor

a rainfall event could be simulated in the field.

To increase destabilising forces, 1 m x 1 m x 0.6
Laser sensor
Laser sensor
m concrete blocks were stacked up to 3m high at the
central area of the slope crest. They imposed a sur-
Original liquid surface
charge loading of 72 kPa.
The slope was heavily instrumented. Details of
the instrumentation are described by Tang & Lee
(2003). After water was being recharged into the
slope through the piping system, it was observed that
the deformation of the slope increased rapidly. The
Figure 15. A typical profile of a loose fill slope after shaking
(Ng et al. 2004b, Ng 2007). total
139 mmdeformations
and 33 mm,at the crest andDue
respectively. mid-slope were
to the large
deformation, the surcharged blocks tilted and col-
lapsed (Fig. 17). The settlement-induced toppling
5 OBSERVED EXCESS SETTLEMENT OF CDG
failure of the blocks was restricted at the crest zone
FILL SLOPE IN THE FIELD
and the slope remained intact. No sign of static li-
quefaction and flowslide was observed in this large-
Tang & Lee (2003) reported a large-scale field trial
o scale field test. The observed excessive settlements
on a partly reinforced 33 loose CDG fill slope (see
and large measured nail forces in the field are similar
Fig. 16). The bulk fill material was taken from BH.
to those measured in the centrifuge model tests, as
The height and width were 4.75 m and 9 m, respec-
shown in Figure 18 (Ng et al. 2002b, Ng 2008).
tively. It was constructed by the end-tipping method
and resulted from
sity ranging in a loose state
70% to 75%with
of an
theinitial
maximumdry den-
dry
density. It was considered that the stress state of this
slope would represent reasonably well to that of

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 8/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

loose CDG fill slopes. Centrifuge model tests were

Figure 17. General view of slope after failure (from Tang &
Lee 2003)
Figure 18 compares the displacement vectors of
the loose CDG fill slopes obtained from two centri-
fuge tests, one without and one with soil nails. The
soil nails were installed in-flight at 60 g and it can be
seen that the soil nails substantially reduced soil
commissioned to investigate possible failure mecha-
nisms of loose fill slopes. Figure 19 shows an in-
strumented centrifuge model created to study the po-
tential static liquefaction of a loose shallow CDG fill
slope subjected to a rising ground water table. The
particle size distribution of the CDG used is denoted
as WTS in Figure 2. The initial fill density was 66%.
This
high model
layeredwas
fillused
slopetowhen
simulate a 1.5
tested at m
60thick,
g. In 24 m
addi-
tion to laser sensors (LSs) installed for monitoring
soil surface movements, PPTs were installed to
measure excess pore water pressures during the tests.
Effects of layering were considered by tilting the
model container during model preparation. The slope
was destabilised by downward seepage created by a
hydraulic gradient, which was controlled by the wa-
ter level inside the upstream temporary reservoir and
the conditions of the outlet hole located downstream
(see Fig. 19). Two failures were induced in the test.
PPT
Unit: mm

movements by at least a factor of 5. No sign of static Model box

liquefaction of the slopes was observed during and Upstream drainage

board Coarse soil

after the tests. Similar findings are also reported by

Take et al. (2004) from independent centrifuge PPT1 PPT2
Downstreamdrainage

model tests using the same loose CDG fill at Cam- PPT3
Loose CDG (WTS)
LS3
board

bridge University and by Tang & Lee (2003) from Upstream temporary
PPT4
LS2
Downstreamtemporary
reservior
reservoir

large-scale field tests conducted at Hong Kong Uni-

reservoir
reservior PPT5
Wood block LS1 Outlet hole
Coarse soil
Inlet hole PPT6
versity. PPT7 PPT8

PPT B PPT9 PPT C

Figure 19. Model package of an instrumented shallow fill slope

(Ng et al. 2007).

Figures 20 and 21 show the occurrence of a non-

Figure 18. Comparisons of measured soil displacements with-
out (CG45) and with soil nails (CGN45) in two centrifuge tests
using CDG loose fill at 60 g (dimensions in metres at prototype
scale) (Ng et al. 2002b).
6 OBSERVED NON-LIQUEFIED SLIDE
MECHANISMS OF SHALLOW CDG FILL
SLOPES IN CENTRIFUGE
6.1 Destabilisation of loose shallow CDG fill slopes
liquefied slide and the measured excessive pore wa-
ter pressure during two failures, respectively. The
slide was initiated near the crest. Based on the ob-
served failure mechanisms and the small excessive
pore water pressures measured, it was concluded that
non-liquefied slide of loose shallow CDG fills slopes
could occur but static liquefaction was very unlikely
to happen in the slopes.
6.2 Destabilisation of loose shallow CDG fill slope
at the toe in centrifuge (Take et al. 2004)
Take et al. (2004) also carried out centrifuge model
tests to investigate the possible slide-flow failure
mechanism of a loose thin CDG fill layer. The CDG
used was taken from Beacon Hill. Figure 22 shows
o
the geometry adopted. The slope angle was 33 . At

near the crest (Ng et al. 2007) 30 g, thewith

height, model corresponded
a vertical depth oftofill
a fill
of slope
3 m. of
The9m in
cho-
The Housing Department of HKSAR has been ac- sen soil profile for the model fill also represents an
tively looking for innovative methods to preserve the idealized case of layering in which the CDG fill ma-
environment by minimizing the need for felling trees terial has been sieved and separated into its coarse
when improving the stability of existing shallow

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes 9/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?
and fine fractions and placed one on top of the other
to form a layered backfill. The layer ends blindly at
the toe of the slope to generate elevated transient
pore pressures (Take et al. 2004). This ensures that
the rate of arrival of the seepage water at the toe
greatly exceeds that of the leakage, thereby ensuring
a more rapid local transient build up of pore water
pressures in this region than would have existed in
the absencebedrock
permeable of layering.
layerInwas
thismodelled
experiment,
by the im-
a solid
wooden block, the top surface of which was coated
with varnished coarse decomposed granite to ensure
a high interface friction angle.
The density of the fill material in the first layered
slope model was very loose, with an approximate
relative compaction of 77%. After preparation, the
model fill slope was installed on the centrifuge and
slowly brought to the testing acceleration of 30 g.
Figure 20. Top view of the model showing a non-liquefied slide
(Ng et al. 2007).
Figure 21. Variations in the measured pore water pressure at
the crest (PPT2) and at the toe (PPT7) of the slope with time
(Ng et al. 2007).
Figure 23a shows the arrival of the transient pore
water at the toe of the slope. Once the line source of
seepage water was activated, the high transmissivity
of the coarse layer quickly delivered water to the toe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes
of the fill slope. As intended, the rate of water trans-
fer into the toe region exceeded the seepage velocity
through the model fill, causing a transient increase in
the pore water pressure at the toe. The local pore wa-
ter pressure was observed to increase at a nearly con-
stant rate reaching a maximum value of 16 kPa at
point B in Figure 23a. As this seepage front pro-
gressed towards the toe, the slope was slowly creep-
ingAfter
(Fig. 23b).
time B, the slope mass is observed to accel-
erate (points B-C on Figure 23b). By analysing im-
ages captured by PIV (White et al 2003) at the onset
of more rapid failure, it is found that the toe acceler-
ated horizontally with an average velocity of ap-
proximately 6 mm/s (Fig. 24). The observed dis-
placement field over this time interval indicates that
the surface of the model fill moved down-slope at a
slower velocity. When the fill material finally came
to rest, it formed a low-angle run-out. This failure
mechanism differs from that of the slope destabilised
by downward seepage in the test for the Housing
Department in which the slope was not blinded hy-
draulically at the toe (see Fig. 19). The initiation of
the non-liquefied slides differed in these two slopes.
Figure 22. A slide-to-flow landslide triggering mechanism
model (Take et al. 2004).
Figure 23. Observed behaviour of slide-to-flow models (Take
et al. 2004).
10/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?
Figure 24. Displacement field prior to final acceleration of
loose fill model (Take et al. 2004).
6.3 Destabilisation of a dense shallow CDG fill
slope at the toe in centrifuge (Take et al. 2004)
Unlike the static liquefaction mechanism of loose
sand fill slopes, the non-liquefied slide triggering
mechanism is argued to be independent of soil den-
sity (Take et al. 2004, Ng 2007). In order to verify
this hypothesis, the experiment was therefore re-
peated with a fill compacted to 95% maximum Proc-
tor density while all other factors remained constant
(Take et al. 2004).
As before, seepage water was introduced to the
crest of the model fill slope and it was quickly
transmitted to the toe of the slope, building up local-
ized transient pore water pressures at an identical
rate as in the loose fill model (Fig. 23a). Since the
slope material was dry, the position of the wetting
front could be observed. This dense slope exhibited
a much stiffer response to the build up of pore water
pressures, with less than one half of the pre-failure
displacements signalling the onset of failure (see
Fig. 23b). Just before reaching the failure pore water
pressure, the brittle fill material cracked and water
rapidly entered the fill. As high-pressure water en-
tered theThe
creased. crack,
extenttheto acceleration of the
which this crack slidewa-
injected in-
ter into the fill material at time B is shown in Fig.
23a. After time B, the slope mass accelerated, al-
though at a slower slide velocity than observed in the
loose fill slope (points B-C in Fig. 23b). The subse-
quent behaviour of the model fill slope is laid out
pictorially in the remainder of Fig. 25. As the toe
continued to accelerate horizontally, the surface of
the model fill accelerated towards the toe (Fig. 25b),
with the velocity increasing to such a point that it
exceeded the shutter speed of the camera (Fig. 25c).
Eventually, the slope came to rest (Fig. 25d). Simi-
larly to in the shallow loose fill slope, the landslide
event triggered from localized transient pore water
pressures formed a low-angle run-out. The densifica-
tion of the fill slope slightly increased the pore water
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes
pressure required to initiate failure (see Fig. 23a),
but it made the failure more brittle (Take et al.
2004).
Based on the non-liquefied slides observed in
both loose and dense CDG shallow fill slopes, it is
evident that soil nails
these non-liquefied slides since the CDG still pos-
sess sufficiently large shear strength after the peak
(see Fig. 8b).
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 25. Failure mechanism in the dense fill model (modified
from Take et al. 2004).
7 CONCLUSIONS
Both static and dynamic model tests on LB and CDG
were carried out. In-flight rainfall infiltration, rising
ground water and dynamic loadings were simulated.
Based on the tests, it can be concluded that static
liquefaction/fluidization of the loose LB sand fill
slope due to a rising ground water table was success-
fully created in the centrifuge. The occurrence of
liquefaction in sand was observed by in-flight video
cameras and verified by the significant and sudden
build-up of excessive positive pore water pressures
measured at various locations in the slope. It is
found that strain softening of the material is a neces-
sary but not a sufficient condition to cause flow liq-
uefaction. A trigger such as seepage force or addi-
tional loading is needed.
No liquefied flow and slide was observed in thick
loose CDG fill slopes when they were subjected to
rising ground water tables, heavy rainfall infiltration
and very strong bi-axial shaking. Only excessive soil
settlements were induced. Consistency was found
between centrifuge model tests and full-scale field
trial of a loose CDG fill slope. The significant dif-
ference between the observed physical test results on
the LB sand and CDG models may be attributed to
the difference in the fine contents, gradation and liq-
uefaction potential of the two materials.
11/12
 7/24/2019 What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?
Although static and dynamic liquefaction did not
occur in loose CDG fill slopes because of
small liquefaction potential, non-liquefied shallow
slides were observed in both loose and dense shal-
low fill slopes. Depending on the boundary condi-
tions, different initiations of non-liquefied shallow
slides were captured in the centrifuge. The landslide
event triggered by highly localized transient pore
water
out in pressures at the
both shallow toe and
loose results in aCDG
dense low-angle run-
fill slopes.
For improving the stability of loose fill slopes, it is
vital to differentiate the potential differences be-
tween a liquefied flow and a non-liquefied slide. It is
evident that a potentially non-liquefied slide can be
stabilized by soil nails.
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented here was supported by research
grants DAG00/001.EG36 and HKUST3/CRF-SF/08
provided by HKUST. The author is grateful for re-
search contracts provided by the Geotechnical Engi-
neering Office of the Civil Engineering and Devel-
opment Department and the Housing Department of
the HKSAR. Moreover, the author thanks Dr Robin
Zhou for checking and formatting the paper.
9 REFERENCES
BSI.neering
1990. purposes
BS1377: .Methods of tests for
British Standards soils forLondon.
Institution, civil engi-
Cai, Z.Y. 2001. A comprehensive study of state-dependent dila-
tancy and its application in shear band formation analysis.
PhD thesis, HKUST.
Castro, G. 1969. Liquefaction of sands.
Harvard Soil Mechan-
ics Series 87 , Harvard University, Massachusetts.
Chu, J. & Leong, W.K. 2002. Effect of fines on instability be-
haviour of loose sand. Géotechnique 52(10): 751-755.
Kramer, S.L. 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering
Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey, USA.
Lade, P.V. 1992. Static instability and liquefaction of loose fine
sandy slopes. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE , 118(1): 51 71.
Ng, C.W.W. 2005. Invited Country report: Failure mechanisms
and stabilisation of loose fill slopes in Hong Kong.
International Seminar on Slope Disasters in Geomorpho-
logical/Geotechnical Engineering. Osaka. 71-84.
Ng, C.W.W. 2007. Keynote paper: Liquefied flow and non-
th
liquefied slide of loose fill slopes. Proc. 13 Asian Region-
al Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-
neering, Kolkata. Vol. 2. Allied Publishers Private Ltd.
Ng, C.W.W. 2008. Invited special lecture: Deformation and
failure mechanisms of loose and dense fill slopes with and
th
without soil nails. Proc. of 10 Int. Sym. On Landslides and
Engineered Slopes. Vol. 1, 159-177.
Ng, C.W.W & Chiu, C.F. 2003. Laboratory study of loose satu-
rated and unsaturated decomposed granitic soil. J. Geotech.
Ng, and Geoenviron.
C.W.W. 2007. 129(6):
Eng.,B.ASCE
& Menzies, 550-559.
Advanced Unsaturated Soil
Mechanics and Engineering. Publisher: Taylor & Francis.
ISBN: 978-0-415-43679-3 (Hard copy). 687p.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-static-liquefaction-failure-of-loose-fill-slopes
Ng, C.W.W., Van Laak, P., Tang, W.H., Li, X.S. & Zhang,
L.M. 2001. The Hong Kong Geotechnical Centrifuge. Proc.
3rd Int. Conf. Soft Soil Engineering, Hong Kong: 225-230.
Ng, C.W.W., Van Laak, P.A., Zhang, L.M., Tang, W.H., Zong,
G.H., Wang, Z.L., Xu, G.M. & Liu, S.H. 2002a. Develop-
ment of a four-axis robotic manipulator for centrifuge mod-
eling at HKUST. Proc. Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics , St. John's, Canada: 71-76.
Ng, C.W.W., Zhang, M. & Shi, X.G. 2002b. Keynote (In Chi-
nese): An investigation into the use of soil nails in loose fill
slopes. Proc. of the 1st Chinese Symposium on Geoenvi-
ronment and Geosynthetics , Hangzhou, China: 61-80.
Ng, C.W.W., Kusakabe, O. & Leung, C.F. 2003. Theme lec-
ture: Applications of centrifuge modelling technology in
geotechnical engineering practice. Proc. of 12th Asian Re-
gional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering , August, Singapore, Vol. 2: 1277-1285.
Ng, C.W.W., Fung, W.T., Cheuk, C.Y. & Zhang, L.M. 2004a.
Influence of stress ratio and stress path on behaviour of
loose decomposed granite. J. Geotech. and Geoenviron.
Eng., ASCE 130(1): 36-44.
Ng, C.W.W., Li, X.S., Van Laak, P.A. & Hou, Y.J. 2004b.
Centrifuge modelling of loose fill embankment subjected to
uni-axial and bi-axial24(4):
quake Engineering earthquake.
305-318. Soil dynamics and earth-
Ng, C.W.W, Zhang, L.M. & Wang, Y.H. 2006a. Proceedings
th
of 6 Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics . Vo-
lumes 1 and 2. Publisher: Taylor & Francis. ISBN: 978-0-
415-41587-3 and 978-0-415-41588-0.
Ng, C.W.W., Zhang, E.M. & Zhou, R.Z.B. 2006b. Centrifuge
modelling of use of soil nails in loose and dense fill slopes.
GEO Report , CEDD of HKSAR.
Ng, C.W.W., Pun, W.K., Kwok, S.S.K., Cheuk, C.Y. & Lee,
D.M. 2007. Centrifuge modelling in engineering practice in
Hong Kong.
Seminar, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, 55-68.
Ng, C.W.W., Zhang, M., Pun, W.K., Shiu, Y.K. & Chang, G.
W.K. 2009. Investigation of static liquefaction mechanisms
in loose sand fill slopes. Submitted to CGJ .
The lique-
faction of sands, a collapse surface approach. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 22: 564-578.
Take, W.A., Bolton, M.D., Wong, P.C.P. & Yeung, F.J. 2004.
Evaluation of landslide triggering mechanisms in model fill
slopes. Landslides, Japan , Vol. 1: 173-184.
Tang, W.H. & Lee, C.F. 2003. Potential use of soil nails in
,
loose fill slope: an overview. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Slope Engineering , Hong Kong, 974-
997.
White, D.J., Take, W.A. & Bolton, M. D. 2003. Soil deforma-
Proc. tion measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV)
and photogrammetry. Géotechnique 53(7): 619-631
Zhang, M. 2006. Centrifuge modelling of potentially liquefi-
able loose fill slopes with and without soil nails. PhD The-
sis, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Zhang, M. & Ng, C.W.W. 2003. Interim Factual Testing Re-
port I SG30 & SR30 . Hong Kong University of Science &
Technology.
Zhang, M., Ng, C.W.W., Take, W.A., Pun, W.K., Shiu, Y.K. &
Chang, G.W.K. 2006. The role and mechanism of soil nails
in liquefied loose sand fill slopes. Proc. of 6th Int. Conf.
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics , Hong Kong. Vol. 1:
391-396.
12/12