Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13 (1994) 23-41

Liquefaction Potential of Reinforced Sand

N. R. K r i s h n a s w a m y & N. T h o m a s I s a a c
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India
(Received 28 July 1992: revised version received 1 September 1992: accepted 18 October
1992)

ABSTRACT

A simple stress-controlled cyclic triaxial testing system developed for lique-

faction testing is described. Using this system, a series of cyclic undrained
triaxial tests were peoCormed on sands with different densities and with dif-
ferent types of reinforcements to investigate the effect of reinforcement in
enhancing resistance to liquefaction. The feasibility of using natural fibres
as a substitute for geosynthetics, in increasing liquefaction resistance was also
studied. It was found that the inclusion of reinforcement significantly
increased liquefaction resistance. The reinforcement effect was more pro-
nounced at lower relative densities and with reinforcements having higher
stiffness and inteoracefriction. Coir, a natural fibre, was found to be a good
substitute for geosynthetics.

INTRODUCTION

The seismic response of saturated sand deposits have attracted

considerable attention since the Niigata earthquake of 1964 (Ohsaki,
1966). Investigations of later earthquakes indicate that besides consider-
ing the gross b e h a v i o u r a n d rotational stability of dams, e m b a n k m e n t s
a n d slopes, the liquefaction potential of f o u n d a t i o n materials a n d placed
fills must also be considered. In cohesionless soils, liquefaction is
defined as the transformation from a solid state to a liquefied state
resulting from increased pore-water pressure a n d reduced effective
stress. The potential for liquefaction of sands during earthquakes or
23
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 0266-i 144/94/$06.00 © 1994 Elsevier Science Publishers
Ltd, England. Printed in Ireland
24 N.R Krishnaswamy, N, Thomas Isaac

other type of cyclic loading conditions has been studied in detail by

many investigators (Seed & Lee, 1966; Liou et al., 1977; Pyke et al., 1978;
Tokimatsu et al., 1986; Seed, 1987).
Soil liquefaction following earthquakes can result in landslides,
subsidence of foundations, damage to earth structures, lateral movement
of structures resting on soil, and disruption of services. Many cases of
widespread damage related directly to soil liquefaction have been
reported in the literature (Kishida, 1966; Ohsaki, 1966; Seed, 1968; Dixon
& Burke, 1973). The enormous damage potential associated with lique-
faction, has stimulated geotechnical studies of earthquake-induced
liquefaction and much progress has been made in developing procedures
for evaluating the potential for liquefaction during earthquakes or other
type of cyclic loading conditions.
Limiting or eliminating damage during liquefaction would be a
reasonable criterion in studying this problem. If a particular design is
susceptible to liquefaction, steps can be taken to improve the soil con-
ditions to reduce the risk of liquefaction. At present, the methods most
commonly adopted to prevent liquefaction are densification and
chemical stabilization. Densification of deep deposits is often ineffective
and requires suitable field equipment; chemical stabilization is expensive
and it is difficult to inject chemicals effectively. In the present work the
liquefaction behaviours of soils reinforced with different types of
geosynthetics and a natural fibre are studied. The main aim of the study
is to check the feasibility of coir, a natural fibre, as a substitute for
geosynthetics.
It may be noted that both coir and jute are available in large quantities
in India and other tropical countries. Both of these natural fibres have
found extensive industrial applications, particularly in the packaging
industry and in civil engineering construction. Coir is less biodegradable,
more durable and stronger than jute. Research is being carried out to
increase the durability of these fibres by chemical treatment.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

The technique of ground improvement using geosynthetics has attracted

the attention of many geotechnicai engineers, and a large number of
papers have been published in this area. This may be attributed to the
fact that the level of engineering in this area has been high in both
research and practical works. However. only a few works have
documented the behaviour of reinforced earth under dynamic loading
conditions. Mochizuki et al. (1988) conducted shaking table tests on
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 25

saturated sands reinforced with wires to study the effectiveness of the

reinforced earth method as a counter-measure for liquefaction and
reported that the reinforced earth technique is an effective and
inexpensive measure to prevent liquefaction during earthquakes. Maher
and Woods (1990) studied the dynamic response of sand reinforced with
r a n d o m l y distributed fibres.
In an earthquake, the earth moves in a nearly r a n d o m fashion in all
directions and the shear stresses induced on a soil element in the ground
vary erratically both in magnitude and frequency. However, the effect of
this can be represented with a reasonable degree of accuracy by an
equivalent n u m b e r of constant amplitude stress cycles (Seed & Idriss,
1971). Thus the stresses developed on elements of soil due to wave
loading or earthquake shaking can be closely approximated by cyclic
horizontal shear stresses applied on horizontal planes as shown in Fig.
l(a) and (b). Initial shear stress may exist on horizontal planes when the
ground surface is sloping while the same may not exist when the surface

L--IA DB

"-t-" H-,
Cyclic loading Cyclic loading

¢y'Oe
,I

+ ;5
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Stress conditions for soil elements under cyclic loading. (a) Element A; (b)
element B.
26 N.R. Krishnaswamy, N. Thomas Isaac

is horizontal. The presence of initial shear stresses tends to reduce the

rate of pore pressure generation during cyclic loading, the most critical
conditions are therefore likely to be associated with no initial shear stress
on horizontal planes, a case analogous to that shown in Fig. l(a). Hence
the scope of the present research is restricted to the response of soil under
essentially level ground conditions.
A significant part of soil deformations during earthquakes may be
attributed to the upward propagation of shear waves from the underlying
soil layers. As a result, a typical soil element may be envisaged as being
subjected to a sequence of cyclic shear stress applications as shown in
Fig. 2.
A n u m b e r of testing methods and equipment have been developed
over the past years in an effort to simulate in-situ conditions and
characterize the soil response to cyclic loading. A comprehensive review
of laboratory test methods used for evaluating liquefaction potential has
been presented by Seed and Peacock (1971).
The cyclic triaxial test has been widely used (Seed & Lee, 1966; Lee &
Seed, 1967; Finn et al., 1971; Shibata et al., 1972) to define the dynamic
response of soils. Strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests are used to deter-
mine the dynamic stress-strain properties of soils. Stress-controlled
cyclic triaxial tests are performed to evaluate the liquefaction potential of
soils when subjected to cyclic stresses.
In the simplest form of a cyclic triaxial test, samples of saturated soil
are initially consolidated under an ambient pressure and then subjected
to a constant cyclic deviator stress, keeping the lateral pressure constant
(Fig. 3), under undrained condition. The stresses induced on the sample
on a plane inclined at 45 ° to the horizontal, corresponds approximately
to those depicted in Fig. 2. Care must be taken to ensure that the deviator
stresses do not exceed the initial effective confining pressure and that
proper corrections are applied to the observed pore-water pressures
(Seed & Lee, 1966). It should be noted that the above test procedure is
applicable only for saturated samples.

o-~ o"o' ¢rj

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Idealized field loading conditions. (a) Initial stresses; (b) cyclic load sequence.
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 27

T "f'
o~ o~ 1
l
1 T T
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 3. Stress conditions for cyclic triaxial tests on saturated soils.

TEST APPARATUS

In the present study, all the cyclic tests were performed using a simple
stress-controlled cyclic triaxial test apparatus specially designed for
liquefaction testing. The schematic diagram of the apparatus is shown in
Fig. 4. The main components of the system are the triaxial cell,
compressor, air filter, pressure regulator, solenoid valve, air cylinder,
timer, measuring unit and recording unit.
A compressor capable of generating air pressures up to 1000 kN/m 2

gQuge~
Pressure ~
Regutaton
mer
acting pneumatic cytinder
Solenoid

Loudceil- -
LDVT
I II Air pressure chamber

,.
/ L / =amp,,--
I I P~,,s.ton.__ 3ressure transducer

F~---I~Fro~m
. Qir?o~p;eU;;assembl----------~=
y
Fig. 4. Layout of the pneumatic cyclic triaxial equipment.
28 N.R. Krishnaswamy. N. Thomas Isaac

was used for performing the tests. Any dust particles and other external
impurities in the air which may impair the working of the air cylinder
were removed with the help of the air filter which was connected to the air
line from the air pressure chamber. The air regulator helped in supplying
a constant desired pressure to the cylinder, thus enabling a constant
amplitude cyclic load to be applied to the specimen. Air compressed to
the desired pressure enters the four-way solenoid valve. This plays an
important role in the experimental set-up, ensuring repeatability of load.
The valve was operated using a timer, which controls the frequency of the
loading. Cyclic loads were applied to the test sample with the help of the
regulator and the double-acting air cylinder. The cylinder used was of 20-
m m bore diameter and 50-mm stroke. A conventional triaxial cell was
used for housing the specimen.
In contrast to conventional triaxial testing, the loading plunger was
screwed firmly on to the top platen of the sample. Because of this, an area
corresponding to the diameter of the plunger was not effective in trans-
ferring the load to the top of the specimen when the confining pressure
was applied. So during consolidation, the additional load required to
compensate for the above loss was applied through the plunger
pneumatically to simulate the stress condition shown in Fig. 3(a). In fact,
this additional load was taken as the deviator load. During the repeated
movement of the air cylinder piston, a load equal to 2 times the deviator
load was applied. W h e n the air cylinder piston comes in contact with the
loading plunger of the triaxial cell, the specimen is subjected to the stress
condition depicted in Fig. 3(b). W h e n the piston loses contact with the
plunger, the stress condition on the specimen corresponds to that shown
in Fig. 3(c). The load trace with this system approximated a rectangular
wave.
A linear variable displacement transducer with a stroke of _+20 mm
was used to measure the deformations of the sample. Its tip was
positioned on a circular plate attached to the loading plunger of the
triaxial cell. A load cell with a capacity of I kN was mounted between the
air cylinder piston and the loading plunger to record the load accurately.
A pressure transducer was connected to the pore pressure outlet of the
triaxial cell to monitor the change in pore pressure during undrained
loading.
In order to record axial load, displacement and pore pressures during
cyclic loading, a high-speed data acquisition system was utilized. An
amplifier was used to excite and amplify the output from the load cell,
LVDT, and the pore pressure transducers. The output from each of the
above devices was recorded on a four-channel thermal tip recorder.
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 29

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Test materials

To investigate the liquefaction resistance of reinforced sand, cyclic

triaxial tests were carried out on sands with different densities and
various type of reinforcements. Uniformly graded fine sand was used in
this investigation; their physical properties are listed in Table 1.
Woven and non-woven geotextiles and coir were used as reinforce-
ments; the properties of these materials are presented in Table 2.
Stiffness is defined as the property of the fabric to resist bending under its
own weight. To measure this, a 25-mm-wide strip of fabric specimen is

Table 1
Physical Properties of Sand Tested

Grain Size
Di0 (mm) 0-20
D60 (mm) 0-30
Coefficient of uniformity, C, 1-50
Specific gravity, G~ 2.65
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m 3) 16.31
Minimum dry unit weight (kN/m 3) 13.20
Void ratio at densest state 0.625
Void ratio at loosest state 1.000
Coefficient of permeability (m/s) 1.31 × 10 -4
Angle of internal friction, ~ 42 °

Table 2
Engineering Properties of Reinforcing Materials

Type of reinforcement Mass per Average 5% Secant Stiffness Angle of

unit area thickness modulus (rag~m) inte.rface
(g/m:) (mm) (kN/rn) friction
(degrees)

Woven geotextile 209 0.50 140.0 2.50 38.0

(polypropylene)
Non-woven geotextile 460 3-90 50.0 100.0 38.5
(Needle-punched
polypropylene)
Needled coir felt 1000 7.00 40-0 125.0 4l-0
(natural fabric)
30 N.R. Krishnaswamy, N. Thomas Isaac

made to slide out lengthwise over the edge of a horizontal surface. The
length of the overhang is measured when the tip of the fabric bends
under its own weight and just touches an inclined plane making an angle
of 41.5 ° with the horizontal. One half of this length is the bending length
of the specimen. The cube of this quantity multiplied by the mass per unit
area of the fabric gives the value of the stiffness of the fabric (Koerner,
1990).

Sample preparation

Previous investigations have indicated that specimen preparation

methods affect the liquefaction behaviour of soils (Ladd, 1974; Mulilis et
al., 1977) and thus the choice of a proper specimen preparation tech-
nique is important in determining the liquefaction potential of sands. A
wet rodding specimen preparation technique as reported by Silver et al,
(1976) was selected for this study.
In this procedure, first, the weight of dry sand needed to obtain a
specimen of desired density was determined based on the volume of the
split mould. About 5% of distilled de-aired water was then added to the
sand, and the components were mixed thoroughly. The mixture was then
divided into five approximately equal parts and each part was carefully
spooned into the split mould and compacted using a 10-mm-diameter
tamping rod. The top of each compacted layer was scarified slightly
before placing the next layer to promote proper bonding. W h e n the last
layer was compacted, the excess material was carefully levelled offwith a
screed and collected for oven-drying and weighing. This dry weight was
then deducted from the initial amount of dry sand to obtain the weight of
solids, which was used for the final density calculation.

Selection of density, confining pressure and frequency

Stress-controlled liquefaction tests conducted on loose to medium dense

sand show a gradual increase in pore-water pressure with increasing
n u m b e r of stress cycles until the pore pressure equals the chamber
pressure, which is defined as liquefaction. It may also be seen that for
these sands, axial strains are often negligible until liquefaction occurs,
after which strains often become excessively large in amplitude and may
even exceed 10% double amplitude strain within a couple of cycles
following liquefaction.
In the case of dense sands also, pore pressures increase with increasing
n u m b e r of stress cycles. However, in contrast to loose sands, the strain
amplitude may often increase relatively slowly after the point of
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 31

liquefaction and 10% double-amplitude strain may not occur even long
after liquefaction. Hence, catastrophic failures of foundation materials
due to earthquakes are most likely to occur in loose to medium dense
sand layers. Therefore, most of the tests reported herein were performed
on sands compacted to a density of 60% relative to model soils known to
be susceptible to liquefaction. However, a few tests were also conducted
on dense sands to study the effect of relative density on the effectiveness
of reinforcement in reducing the potential for liquefaction.
Investigations by Seed and Lee (1966) have provided clear evidence
that the characteristics of saturated sands under cyclic loading are
significantly influenced by the effective confining pressure to which the
sample is subjected. Later investigations by Seed and Idriss (1971)
revealed that the effects of confining pressure on the liquefaction
potential of soils may be normalized using a stress ratio, SR, given
by

SR - era
20"3' (1)

where era is the single-amplitude cyclic vertical stress and er3' is the initial
effective confining pressure. In addition, it is generally considered that
soils at depths about 12 m below the ground surface are less susceptible
to liquefaction (Seed & Idriss, 1971). Therefore, all tests reported herein
were performed at an effective confining pressure of 100 kN/m 2 and the
results were normalized as explained above.
In cyclic load triaxial testing for earthquake analyses, it is customary
to use a loading frequency of 0-5-3 Hz. All tests presented in this paper
were performed at a loading frequency of I Hz. Use and acceptance of
this faster loading frequency was based on previous observations that the
loading frequency seems to have very little effect on the cyclic loading
strength of sands (Peacock & Seed, 1968: Yoshimi & Oh-Oka, 1975).

Test procedure

A conventional triaxial cell was made use of for performing the tests. The
sample was prepared on the specimen base of the cell. A cylindrical split
mould was used to facilitate the preparation of each specimen, which
was contained in a rubber membrane. The specimens were prepared by
wet rodding as explained earlier. The samples prepared measured
76 m m in height and 38 m m in diameter. After the assembled triaxial cell
was transported to the loading platform, the loading plunger was care-
fully screwed on to the top platen of the sample. The top platen made of
32 N.R. Krishnaswamy, N. Thomas Isaac

cast iron weighed 3 N, which also acted as a seating load. After filling the
cell with water, the required confining pressure was applied before
leaving the sample for saturation.
Saturation of the sample was achieved by applying a back pressure of
300 k N / m 2. An effective confining pressure of 50 k N / m 2 was maintained
for 1 h to attain proper saturation without disturbing the soil structure.
A qualitative understanding of the degree of soil saturation was obtained
by measuring the pore-pressure parameter B (Skempton, 1954). During
all the tests, the saturation of the sample was ensured by making sure that
the pore-pressure parameter B value was above 0-95 prior to consolida-
tion.
After saturation, the sample was consolidated to an effective confining
pressure of 100 k N / m 2 and then sheared in undrained cyclic loading as
explained earlier. The axial load, displacement and pore-water pressure
were recorded continuously during each test on the high-speed
electronic recorder as previously described. The loading was continued
till the pore pressure equalled the cell pressure and the deformations
of the sample became very large. Table 3 summarizes the testing equip-
ment and procedures adopted.
The tests were conducted for both unreinforced and reinforced sand.
The reinforcements were placed horizontally as shown in Fig. 5.

TEST RESULTS
A total of 150 cyclic triaxial tests were performed to study the liquefaction
behaviour of reinforced sand. A typical time history of axial load, axial

Table 3
Summary of Cyclic Triaxial Testing Programme

Pulsating load wave form Square

Test frequency (Hz) 1.0
Test system Pneumatic
Piston seal O-Ring
Specimen diameter (mm) 38
Specimen height (mm) 76
Specimen preparation method Wet rodding
Compaction layers 5
Membrane number 1
Time to saturate (h) 1
Back pressure (kN/m 2) 300
Effective confining pressure (kN/m 2) 100
Reinforcement orientation Horizontal
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 33

A = Spacing of reinforcement
• • . . . . ...j
J~
: ...... "l T
(:5---*

Fig, 5. Arrangement of reinforcement inside the specimen.

deformation and excess pore-water pressure during the cyclic loading is

shown in Fig. 6.
It may be seen from the figure, that under a constant cyclic vertical
load, the pore-water pressure increases uniformly until liquefaction. It
may also be noted that the cyclic deformations induced prior to lique-
faction were very small, but afterwards they rose steadily. The trend was
the same for both reinforced and unreinforced samples.

-
O
s0 t
o 50~"

+25

E
8i-i
o.
.,a ,25

4°°t
,- ~ 2°°t
oF
O ¢-
Q. ,'~

Fig. 6. Typical record of load, deformation and excess pore-water pressure developed
during the tests.
34 N.R. Krishnaswamy, N. Thomas Isaac

The laboratory-measured liquefaction potential for a given soil is

defined as the combination of cyclic shear stress and the corresponding
number of stress cycles causing some degree of soil strength loss. As
mentioned earlier, the reults of these tests are often expressed in terms of
the relationship between the stress ratio, SR, and the n u m b e r of cycles
required to produce liquefaction or a given cyclic strain.
This relationship for a series of tests conducted on medium dense sand
(Dr = 60%) at an initial effective confining pressure of 100 k N / m 2 is
shown in Figs 7 and 8 for specimens reinforced with woven and non-
woven geotextiles and coir. Figure 7 shows the number of stress cycles
required to produce liquefaction and Fig. 8 shows the same required for
10% double-amplitude vertical strain.
The figures clearly show that the reinforced sand required more
loading cycles than the unreinforced sand for the same stress ratio, hence
the effect of reinforcement. The results of studies on various factors that
affect the reinforcing effect are discussed in detail in the following para-
graphs.

DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

Effect of stress ratio

The stress ratio at which the cyclic load is applied has a significant effect
on the contribution of reinforcement to liquefaction resistance. The
effect of stress ratio can be understood from Figs 7 and 8. It can be seen
that the reinforcing effect is less at low stress ratios. This result is similar
to the results reported by Mochizuki et al. (1988).

Effect of relative density

Relative density of the soil influences the reinforcement effect against

liquefaction. The effect of relative density on liquefaction resistance is
shown in Fig. 9. The figure indicates that the reinforcement effect is more
pronounced at lower relative densities. It is interesting to note the
behaviour of the natural fibre, coir. At higher densities, inclusion of coir
has rather reduced the resistance to liquefaction. This may be attributed
to the overall reduction in the stiffness of the composite soil sample due
to the introduction of the compressible coir layers. Coir gave the
m a x i m u m effect at medium densities. It should be noted, however, that
there is no need to reinforce the soil at higher relative densities and hence
the behaviour of coir is quite encouraging from the point of view of a
ground improvement engineer.
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 35

(a) 030
Reinforcement : Woven g e o t e x t i l e
Dr = 0 6 0

0-25 • Unreinforced
u 1 layer of rft
.9 o 2 layers of r f t
+ 3 layers of rft
0.20

0.15

0.1C
lb 16o lO'OO
N u m b e r of cycles to liquefaction

(b) 0'30
R e i n f o r c e m e n t ; Non-woven geotextile
DF=O'60
,~ • Unreinforced
0,25 1 layer of r f t
~ \*~, o 2 1 a y e r s o f rft
._o
+ 3 layers of r f t

0.20

0.15

0,10
10 160 1000
Number of cycles to liquefaction

(c) 030
Reinforcement : Coir
Dr = 0 . 6 0

0.25 • Unreinforced
~.\ o 1 layer of r f t
,o + x ~ + 21ayersof rft

0.20

0-15

0.10
lb l&O ldoo
N u m b e r of cycles t o liquefaction

Fig. 7. Effect of reinforcement on relationship between stress ratio and n u m b e r of cycles

to liquefaction using (a) woven geotextiles (Dr = 0.60): (b) non-woven geotextiles
(Dr = 0.60): and (c) coir (Dr = 0.60).
36 (a) 0"30
Reinforcement : Woven geotextile
Dr =0.60

0.25 • Unreinforced
o ~ 1 layer of r f t
._o \ o 2 layers of r f t
3 layers of r f t
0"2C
t_

O.15

olo i'o 15o io'oo

Number of cycles to 10°/o double amplitude
strain

(b) 030
Reinforcement : Non-woven geotextile
Dr = 0 6 0
• Unreinforced
025
u 1 layer of r f t
I o 2 layers of r f t
.9 • 3 layers of r f t

o.20
2

0-15

010
10 100 1000
Number of cycles to 10°/o double amplitude
strain

(c) 030
Reinforcement : Col r
Dr =0-60

0.25 o Unreinforced
4\ u 1 layer of r f t
9 , \ \ * 2 layers of r f t

L 0'20

0.1£

01C
'" 1'O 150 1000
Nur,~ber of cycles to 10°/o double amplitude
strain

Fig. 8. Effect of reinforcement on relationship between stress ratio and number of cycles
to 10% double-amplitude strain using (a) woven geotextiles ( D r = 0.60); (b) non-woven
geotextiles (Dr = 0.60): and (c) coir (Dr = 0-60).
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 37

(a)
Reinforcement : Woven geotexile
Stress ratio =0.168
20
, Unreinforced
D 1 layer of rft
40

N 6o

80

100
Ib 60 1000
'

Number of cycles to liquefaction

(b)
Reinforcement Non-woven geotexile
S t r e s s ratio =0.168

20
• Unreinforced
\ ~ : 121ayer°frft
5 40 layers of rft
~ layers of rft

~ 60
@
c~

80

100
10 100 1000
Number of cycles to liquefaction

(c) o
Reinforcement : Coir
Stress ratio =0.168
20

c 40 a 1 layer of rft
¢ + 2 layers of rft

N 6o

80

~oo f6 ~6o ~obo

Number of cycles to liquefaction

Fig. 9. Effect o f relative density on l i q u e f a c t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f reinforced sand using

(a) woven geotextile; (b) non-woven geotextile: and (c) coir. Stress ratio = 0.168.
38 N.R. Krishnaswamy, N. Thomas Isaac

Effect of type of reinforcement

The provision of reinforcement has significantly enhanced the resistance

to liquefaction and this effect varied with the type of reinforcement. To
study this behaviour, a comparison of the types of reinforcement was
made, as shown in Fig. 10. The figure shows clearly that the coir reinforce-
ment had the greatest effect. This trend was noticeable in all cases and
can be attributed mainly to the higher interface friction provided by the
coir reinforcement. The increased strength of non-woven geotextiles over
woven geotextiles can be attributed mainly to the higher stiffness of the
former. It can be concluded that the higher the interface friction and
stiffness, the greater the effect of reinforcement. A similar behaviour has
been reported by Mochizuki et al. (1988).

Effect of reinforcement spacing

Figures 7 and 8 clearly show the effect of reinforcement spacing and the
number of layers of reinforcement on the liquefaction resistance. All the
figures clearly show that as the reinforcement spacing is reduced, the
reinforcement effect becomes greater. The above behaviour was also
noticed by Mochizuki et al. (1988).

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation was conducted to study the liquefaction

potential of reinforced sands under stress-controlled cyclic triaxial test
conditions. The principal conclusions of this study are as follows:
(1) The cyclic triaxial testing apparatus which has been developed at
the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras is quite simple and
effective for studying the liquefaction potential of soils.
(2) The deployment of reinforcement has a significant effect in
increasing the liquefaction resistance of sand.
(3) The reinforcement effect is found to be less significant at low
stress ratios.
(4) The role of reinforcement in resisting liquefaction is significant at
low relative densities.
(5) An increase in the stiffness of reinforcement resulted in an
increase in resistance to liquefaction.
(6) The reinforcement effect is more pronounced with reinforce-
ments having higher interface friction.
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 39

0.30

One loiter o f reinforcement

Dr.= 0.60
025

= ,- : Unreinforced
l::l-~--o : Woven Geofexfile
0.20 _* ~ : Non-wovenCleOf~xfih
_= : Coir

0.15

0.10 , , J , , 1 , , 1 , , , , , . , , I . , , , , , i l l

10 100 1000
Number of cycles to liquefaction

(a)

One l a y e r of r e i n f o r c e m e n t
Stress r a t i o =0.168

20
- - : Unreinforced
: Woven geofextile

~0

60

80

I
1000
No, of c y c l e s to l i q u e f a c t i o n

(b)
Fig. 10. Effect of type of reinforcement (one layer) on relationship between (a) stress
ratio (Dr = 0-60) and (b) relative density (stress ratio = 0.168) and n u m b e r of cycles to
liquefaction.
40 N,R. Krishnaswamy, N. Thomas Isaac

(7) A decrease in reinforcement spacing by an increase in the n u m b e r

of layers of reinforcement resulted in higher resistance to lique-
faction,
(8) Coir, a natural fibre, is f o u n d to be an effective substitute for
geotextiles for improving the liquefaction resistance.

REFERENCES

Dixon, S.J. & Burke, J.W. (1973). Liquefaction case history. J. Soil Mech. Found.,
ASCE, 99(11), 921-37.
Finn, W.D.L., Picketing, D.J. & Bransby, P.L. (1971). Sand liquefaction in
triaxial and simple shear tests. J. Soil Mech. Found., ASCE, 97(4), 639-59.
Kishida, H. (1966). Damage to reinforced concrete buildings in Niigata City
with special reference to foundation engineering. Soils Foundations, 6(1),
71-88.
Koerner, R.M. (1990). Designing with Geosynthetics. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
Ladd, R.S. (1974). Specimen preparation and liquefaction of sands. J. Geotech.
Engng, ASCE, 100(10), 1180-4.
Lee, K.L. & Seed, H.B. (1967). Cyclic stress conditions causing liquefaction
of sand. J. Soil Mech. Found., ASCE, 93(1), 47-70.
Liou, C.P., Streeter, V.L. & Richart, F.E. (1977). Numerical model for lique-
faction. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE, 103(6), 589-606.
Maher, M.H. & Woods, R.D. (1990). Dynamic response of sand reinforced
with randomly distributed fibres. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE, 116(7), 1116-31.
Mochizuki, Y., Fukushima, S. & Kagawa, K. (1988). Shaking table test on rein-
forced sand. In International Geotechnical Symposium on Theory and Practice
of Earth Reinforcements. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 135-40.
Mulilis, J.P., Seed, H.B., Chan, C.K., Mitchell, J.K. & Arulanandan, K. (1977).
Effects of sample preparation on sand liquefaction. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE,
103(2), 91-108.
Ohsaki, Y. (1966). Niigata earthquakes, 1964, building damage and soil con-
ditions. Soils Foundations, 6(2), 14-37.
Peacock, W.H. & Seed, H.B. (1968). Sand liquefaction under cyclic loading
simple shear conditionsJ. Soil Mech. Found., ASCE, 94(3) 689-708.
Pyke, R.M., Knuppel, L.A. & Lee, K.L. (1978). Liquefaction potential of hydraulic
fills. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE, 104(llL 1335-54.
Seed, H.B. (1968). The Fourth Terzaghi Lecture: Landslides during earthquakes
due to liquefaction. J. Soil Mech. Found., ASCE, 94(5), 1053-122,
Seed, H.B. (1987). Design problems in soil liquefaction.J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE,
113(8), 827-45.
Seed, H.B. & Idtiss, I.M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluating soil lique-
faction potential. J. Soil Mech. Found., ASCE, 97(9), 1249-73.
Seed, H.B. & Lee, K.L. (1966). Liquefaction of saturated sands during cycling
loading. J. Soil Mech. Found,, ASCE, 92(6), 105-34.
Seed, H.B. & Peacock, W.H. (1971). Test procedures for measuring soil lique-
faction characteristics. J. Soil Mech. Found., ASCE, 97(8), 1099-119.
 Liquefaction potential of reinforced sand 41

Shibata, T., Yukitomo, H. & Miyoshi, M. (1972). Liquefaction process of sand

during cyclic loading. Soils Foundations, 12(1), 1-16.
Silver, M.L., Chan, C.I~, Ladd, R.S., Lee, K.L., Tiedemann, D.A., Townsend,
F.C., Valera, J.E. & Wilson, J.H. (1976). Cyclic triaxial strength of standard
test sand. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE, 102(5), 511-23.
Skempton, A.W. (1954). The pore pressure coefficients A and B. Geotechnique,
4, 143-7.
Tokimatsu, K., Yamazaki, T. & Yoshimi, Y. (1986). Soil liquefaction evaluations
by elastic shear moduli. Soils Foundations, 26(1), 25-35.
Yoshimi, Y. & Oh-Oka, H. (1975). Influence of degree of shear stress reversal
on the liquefaction potential of saturated sands. Soils Foundations, 15(3),
27-40.