Ground Improvement (2005) 9, No.

3, 91–104 91

Evaluation of gravel drains and compacted sand

piles in mitigating liquefaction
A. SADREKARIMI and A. GHALANDARZADEH
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran

Liquefaction induced by earthquakes can cause major
destruction to foundations and buildings, mainly as a
result of excess pore water pressure generation and soft-
ening of the subsoil. Several remediation methods are
performed that reduce the excess pore pressure, enhance
the shear deformability of the soil, and fortify the soil.
Two well-known methods—gravel drains and compacted
sand piles—are discussed and compared in this paper.
Some precisely prepared 1g shaking table tests are per-
formed regarding these methods. Tests are done with and
without the presence of an improvement method, and the
accelerations, pore water pressures and settlements are
monitored during the tests. The outcomes, judged against
each other, reveal that compacted sand piles are more
efficient than gravel drains in the case of liquefaction
resistance and settlement of the subsoil during the shaking
period. Nevertheless, after shaking, the efficiency of the
gravel drains is ameliorated by the means of excess pore
pressure dissipation.
Keywords : acceleration; compacted sand piles;
excess pore water pressure; gravel drains;
liquefaction; settlement
La liquéfaction provoquée par les séismes peut gravement
endommager les fondations et les bâtiments, principale-
ment à cause d’une pression d’eau de pore excessive et
d’un amollissement du sous-sol. Plusieurs remèdes sont
employés pour réduire la pression interstitielle excessive,
améliorer la déformabilité au cisaillement du sol et
fortifier le sol. Nous examinons et évaluons ici deux
méthodes bien connues, celle des drains de graviers et
celle des piles de sable compacté. Nous effectuons des
essais sur table à secousse sur 1g préparé avec précision
pour évaluer ces méthodes. Les essais sont menés avec et
sans la présence d’une méthode d’amélioration ; l’accéléra-
tion, les pressions d’eau de pore et les tassements sont
contrôlés pendant les essais. Les résultats, jugés les uns
par rapport aux autres, montrent que les piles de sable
compacté sont plus efficaces que les drains de gravier en
ce qui concerne la résistance à la liquéfaction et le
tassement du sous-sol pendant la période de secousse.
Cependant, après les secousses, l’efficacité des drains de
gravier est améliorée en raison de la dissipation de la
pression interstitielle excessive.

Notation
shear stress

 rotation of transducer
a acceleration
a(z) acceleration at depth z
ahor horizontal acceleration
B width of footing Introduction
Cc coefficient of gradation
Cu coefficient of uniformity
During recent earthquakes, it was observed that liquefaction
Dr relative density can cause severe damage to buildings in the form of signifi-
D50 diameter through which 50% of the total soil mass passes cant subsidence and shear failure of the foundation soil. This
d1 displacement at location of lower acceleration transducer damage is known to be due to the build-up of pore water
d2 displacement at location of upper acceleration transducer pressure and hence a reduction of soil strength. For example,
emax maximum possible void ratio recently during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) earth-
emin minimum possible void ratio quake with a magnitude of 7.2, extensive liquefaction of
Gs specific gravity of soil solids natural and artificial fill deposits occurred along much of the
g gravitational acceleration shorelines on the north side of Osaka Bay, and included the
h vertical spacing between two consecutive acceleration
failures of relatively modern fills on Rokko Island and Port
transducers
K coefficient of permeability
Island. A salient feature of this earthquake was the extensive
Ru excess pore water pressure ratio liquefaction observed in well-graded, decomposed granite
z depth soils. Liquefaction was the single most important geotechni-
ª shear strain cal factor affecting the performance of port facilities and
r specific weight of soil waterfront areas in Kobe (Inagaki et al., 1996; Kamon et al.,
1996; Shibata et al., 1996). The continuing development of
waterfront properties and the construction of offshore
(GI 4214) Paper received 12 July 2004; last revised 17 January 2005; artificial islands impose increasing pressure on the develop-
accepted 4 April 2005 ment and implementation of remediation measures for

1365-781X # 2005 Thomas Telford Ltd

Sadrekarimi and Ghalandarzadeh

liquefaction-prone sites. Several mitigating actions can be experimental facilities in the Civil Engineering Department
taken, such as removal or replacement of undesirable soil, of the University of Tehran (Khaki Khatibi, 2002; Abdi, 2004;
densification of the in-situ material, in-situ soil improvement Sadrekarimi, 2004). Throughout these tests a geometrical
by grouting and chemical stabilisation, and the use of relief scaling factor of 1 : 25 can be assumed, so that a model width
wells such as gravel or rock drains for the control of of 20 cm represents a prototype width of 5 m.
undesirable pore water pressure (Das, 1983). Although these
types of mitigation techniques are developed, the effective-
ness of these methods is not well defined and understood.
All mitigation techniques that are frequently employed to Model preparation
reduce large deformations and subsidences of buildings are
based on the following philosophies Figure 1 shows a three-dimensional view of the model.
The test set-up was intended to simulate a plane-strain
(a) reducing the build-up of pore water pressure by means condition under the foundation. The main concern in
of quick drainage of water during and immediately simulating a plane-strain condition is to avoid the side
after the earthquake effects of the test container. This is achieved by maintaining
(b) improving the shear deformability of the soil skeleton to the rigidity of the test container (Ko and Davidson, 1973);
prevent large cyclic deformation during the earthquake also, the model foundation is placed at a reasonable distance
(c) reinforcing the soil skeleton, which in turn can reduce from the sides of the container. Furthermore, during the
both the shear strain and the generation of excess pore tests the failure surfaces on the sides of the foundation did
water pressure, and increases the soil strength. not reach the sides of the container, so that boundary effects
were trivial.
One widely used mitigation method is the use of gravel
Models were constructed in a transparent Plexiglas con-
columns. The possible benefits of gravel columns include
tainer with dimensions of 180 cm 3 45 cm 3 70 cm. In order
densification of the surrounding non-cohesive soil, dissipa-
to reduce boundary effects, before each test the Plexiglas
tion of excess pore water pressure, and redistribution of
sides of the container were cleaned and lubricated with
earthquake-induced or pre-existing stress (due to the intro-
silicone oil. The bottom of the container was covered with a
duction of the stiffer columns). The high internal frictional
fine-screen mesh so that the saturation process could be
resistance of the gravel imparts a significant frictional
performed by percolating water gradually and uniformly
component to the treated composite, improving both its
from the bottom of the soil box.
strength and its deformational behaviour. The gravel column
Firuzkooh sand was used as the subsoil. Table 1 shows
technique is ideally suited for improving soft silts and clays,
the physical properties of this sand, which can be compared
and loose silty sands. This technique offers an efficient in-
with those of Toyoura sand (Park, 2000) and Ottawa sand
situ treatment method for increasing bearing capacity and
(Vaid et al., 1985). A model foundation with dimensions of
slope stability, reducing settlement, increasing the time rate
20 cm 3 30 cm 3 15 cm was placed on the saturated Firuz-
of consolidation, and reducing liquefaction potential.
kooh sand, providing an overburden pressure of 3 kPa.
Sites remedied with vertical gravel drains have performed
Different types of transducer were employed to measure
well in past earthquakes (Mitchell et al., 1995). However, the
acceleration, pore water pressure and displacement at differ-
improvement in performance cannot be attributed solely to
ent positions, as shown in Fig. 2. The pore pressure
drainage, as densification typically occurs during their
transducers were fixed in place to monitor the pore water
installation (Yasuda et al., 1996). Several shortcomings of
pressure in the exact locations; however, the acceleration
gravel drains have been reported in the literature. Collective
transducers were free to move with the adjacent soil.
experience suggests that, although drains can certainly
It is possible to make controlled loose to dense deposits
provide a solution, settlement can still occur to an unsatis-
using the wet tamping method: hence the Firuzkooh sand
factory degree (Brennan and Madabhushi, 2002).
was mixed with 5% water. Wet Firuzkooh sand was poured
Regarding the aforesaid remarks, in the current study
inside the container and carefully tamped to a submerged
some aspects of the effectiveness of gravel drains and
unit weight of 8.75 kN/m3 : thus a target void ratio of 0.9
compacted sand piles in mitigating excess pore water
was gained for the liquefiable soil through the tests. As
pressure and reducing the subsidence of buildings have
shown in Fig. 3, dyed gridlines were created to make the
been studied using 1g shaking table tests.
behaviour of the model ground visible. The soil models were

Shaking table tests 45 cm 180 cm

Significant studies have been performed through the com- D1 20 cm
parison of 1g shaking table and centrifuge tests. One study
m
was a series of model tests on composite deposits of dense 30 c
and loose sand (Gibson and Scott, 1995). Another was a
60 cm

series of model tests on an embankment founded on a A1 P1

A2 P3
70 cm

liquefiable foundation (Hayashi et al., 1997). In both of these P2

A3 P5
studies, the results of 1g model tests agree well with those of P4
centrifuge tests, suggesting a good applicability of the
scaling relations for shaking table tests, and indicating that
shaking table tests, if carefully performed, have the potential Accelerometer
A4
to be a powerful means for studying the performance of Pore pressure transducer
complicated soil–structure interaction problems. Loose Firoozkooh sand
Displacement transducer
In this research a series of shaking table tests were
conducted on model gravel drains and compacted sand
piles. The tests were performed using the shaking table and Fig. 1. Three-dimensional view of model apparatus

92
 Evaluation of gravel drains and compacted sand piles

Table 1. Physical properties of Firuzkooh sand and two other well-known sands
Type of sand Gs emax emin D50 : mm Cu Cc K: cm/s
Firuzkooh sand 2.658 0.943 0.603 0.3 2.58 0.97 0.0125
Toyoura sand 2.65 0.963 0.605 0.19 1.24 – –
Ottawa sand 2.67 0.820 0.500 0.4 1.54 – –

D1

20 cm

20 cm 60 cm
10 cm

10 cm

15 cm
A1

P1 P3 P5

15 cm

20 cm
A2
60 cm

20 cm P2 P4

A3

25 cm
15 cm

A4

180 cm

Fig. 2. Schematic view of model and transducers: A1–A4, accelerometers; P1–P5, pore water pressure transducers; D1, displacement transducer

Fig. 3. View of model before shaking

percolated with carbon dioxide to help dissolve the air in
the void space, in order to facilitate full saturation by water.
Afterwards the model was saturated from the bottom with a
very low steady discharge rate in order to sustain the
controlled density of the tamped sand. The input shaking in
all tests was a harmonic wave. The shaking duration,
frequency of shaking and amplitude of base acceleration
were 10 s, 3 Hz and 0.28g respectively, in all of the tests.
Test O was performed without any improvements, for
comparison purposes. In tests G1 and G2 the gravel
drains, which had a diameter of 5 cm and were sand-
wiched by textile filters, were placed inside the model
ground. The horizontal centre-to-centre spacing of these
columns was 36 cm in test G1 and 25 cm in test G2. The
vertical centre-to-centre spacing in test G2 was 30 cm.
Dynamic compaction in tests C1 and C2 was applied by
dropping a 2.0 kg weight with a circular bottom area of
19.6 cm2 , 10 times, from a height of 30 cm. The ground
could be improved to a depth of almost 30 cm in model
scale using this method. The resulting compacted sand
piles had a relative density of about 65–70%. The centre-
to-centre distance of the piles was 5 cm. These piles
covered an abscissa of 1B in test C1 and 3B in test C2.
Fig. 4 shows schematically the models as described above.
A dynamic data acquisition system was utilised to record
the behaviour of the model during the input shaking.
During all tests, data were recorded at a sampling rate of
1000 samples per second.
Test results
As shown in Fig. 4 three types of test were carried out.
Test O was performed on model ground without any
improvement, whereas tests G1/G2 and C1/C2 were those
with improvements applied by using gravel drains and
dynamic compaction respectively. Figs 5 and 6 show typical
test results. It is worth noting that, because of liquefaction-
induced rotation of the acceleration transducers, there was a

93
Sadrekarimi and Ghalandarzadeh

30 cm

45 cm

45 cm
30 cm
A A A A
20 cm 20 cm
Gravel column Plan
Plan

60 cm

60 cm
180 cm 180 cm
Section A–A Section A–A
(a) (b)

45 cm
30 cm

45 cm
30 cm
A A A A
Gravel column 20 cm
Compacted area 20 cm
Plan Plan
60 cm

60 cm
180 cm 180 cm
Section A–A Section A–A
(c) (d)
45 cm
30 cm

A A
60 cm
Compacted area
20 cm
60 cm

180 cm
Section A–A
(e)

Fig. 4. Schematic views of test arrangements: (a) test O; (b) test G1; (c) test G2; (d) test C1; (e) test C2

residual acceleration after the tests. This error was corrected

by the following equation
a ¼ g sin ðÞ þ ahor cos ðÞ
where a is the uncorrected acceleration, g is gravitational
acceleration,  is the amount of rotation of the transducer,
and ahor is the amended horizontal acceleration. The numer-
ical value of the term gsin() is obtained by averaging the
acceleration time history, so by dividing it by g (¼ 9.81), 
can be calculated at every time step. By doing so, the only
unknown in equation (1), which is the horizontal accelera-
tion, can be obtained. The above procedure was performed
for all acceleration transducers in the tests.
Acceleration time histories
(1) As can be seen in Fig. 5, the acceleration time histories
look different in various tests. A clear reduction of accelera-
tion after the second cycle in test O shows very severe
liquefaction and softening of the soil, particularly at posi-
tions A1 and A2. This type of behaviour also occurred in test
G1, but the acceleration did not start to reduce until the
seventh cycle. It can be concluded that the presence of gravel
drains has delayed softening of the soil, but it has not
mitigated it completely. In test G2, the seismic shaking is
effectively transferred, with some amplification directly from
the base of the deposit up to the footing by the stiff

94
 Evaluation of gravel drains and compacted sand piles

0·30 0·4
0·15 0·2
0·00 A1 0·0 A1
20·15 20·2
20·30 20·4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·30 0·4
0·15 0·2

Acceleration: g
Acceleration: g

0·00 A2 0·0 A2
20·15 20·2
20·30 0 20·4
2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·30 0·4
0·15 0·2
0·00 A3 0·0 A3
20·15 20·2
20·30 0 20·4
2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·30 0·4
0·15 0·2
0·00 A4 0·0 A4
20·15 20·2
20·30 20·4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time: s Time: s
(a) (b)

0·6 0·30
0·3 0·15
0·0 A1 A1
20·3 0·00
20·6 20·15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 20·30
0·6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·3 0·30
Acceleration: g

0·0 A2 0·15

Acceleration: g
20·3 0·00 A2
20·6 20·15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 20·30
0·6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·3 0·30
0·0 A3 0·15
20·3 0·00 A3
20·6 20·15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 20·30
0·6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·3 0·30
0·0 A4 0·15
20·3 0·00 A4
20·6 20·15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 20·30
Time: s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(c) Time: s
(d)

0·30
0·15
0·00 A1
20·15
20·30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·30
0·15
Acceleration: g

0·00 A2
20·15
20·30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·30
0·15
0·00 A3
20·15
20·30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0·30
0·15 A4
0·00
20·15
20·30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time: s
(e)

Fig. 5. Time histories of accelerations: (a) test O; (b) test G1; (c) test G2; (d) test C1; (e) test C2

composite ground (sand–gravel drains). Thus the composite
soil block under the foundation sustained enough of its
initial stiffness to transmit and amplify the base acceleration
to the footing. The loss of strength in test G1 is significantly
more rapid than that in tests C1 and C2. At corresponding
locations, both the softening-induced initial amplification
and the subsequent severe attenuation phases are signifi-
cantly delayed in tests C1 and C2, compared with tests G1
and O. This can be attributed to the reinforcing–stiffening
effect of the compacted sand piles. In general, throughout
shaking, model tests C1 and C2 behaved in a stiffer manner.
Additionally, in test G1, as well as tests C1 and C2, the shear
strength (stiffness) increased with depth. In tests C1 and C2
softening occurred gradually after eight cycles of shaking at
shallower depths A1 and A2; moreover, some hardening
occurred for deeper elevations, where the soil may be on the
dry side of the steady-state line, having a dilative character-
istic. The soil behaviour has changed with depth; the depth
where this change of behaviour occurs is dependent on the
relative densities (Dr ) of the compacted pile and the nearby
soil. The compacted soil piles were stiff enough to change
the soil’s behaviour, but the gravel drains were not suffi-
ciently stiff to reverse the behaviour of the soil.
The soil in tests C1 and C2 appeared to be stronger, and
its strength was not noticeably degraded. This could be due
to the more dilative characteristics of compacted sandy soil.
The spiky forms of the recorded accelerations indicate soil
hardening at the instant of peak acceleration due to the
dilative behaviour of the soil beneath the model foundation.
The acceleration responses in tests C1 and C2 show a
‘double cycling’ effect (Adalier and Elgamal, 2002), suggest-
ing that the soil is dilating in both directions. All acceler-
ometer records of tests C1 and C2 start with cycles that are
similar in shape and magnitude to the input motion,

95
Sadrekarimi and Ghalandarzadeh

1·0 P1 1·0 P1
0·5 0·5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Excess pore pressure ratio: RU

Excess pore pressure ratio: RU

1·0 P2 1·0 P2
0·5 0·5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P3 1·0 P3
0·5 0·5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P4 1·0 P4
0·5 0·5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P5 1·0 P5
0·5 0·5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time: s Time: s
(a) (b)

1·0 1·0
0·5 P1 0·5 P1
0 0
Excess pore pressure ratio: RU

Excess pore pressure ratio: RU

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 1·0 P2
0·5 P2 0·5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P3 1·0 P3
0·5 0·5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P4 1·0
0·5 0·5 P4
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P5 1·0 P5
0·5 0·5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time: s Time: s
(c) (d)

1·0 P1
0·5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Excess pore pressure ratio: RU

1·0 P2
0·5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P3
0·5
0
20·5
0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P4
0·5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
1·0 P5
0·5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time: s
(e)

Fig. 6. Time histories of excess pore pressure ratios: (a) test O; (b) test G1; (c) test G2; (d) test C1; (e) test C2

followed by an attenuation-spiky behaviour, which reveals amplitudes have attenuated owing to excess pore pressure
gradual strength degradation induced by excess pore water build-up, whereas the chronological agreement between the
pressure, with stress-path excursions along the phase trans- maximum excess pore pressure and the drastic attenuation
formation line. The more spiky response and an overall of acceleration amplitude is obviously seen from these
stiffer response of the compacted sand piles exhibit a more figures. At P1, right under the foundation, excess pore water
pronounced cyclic mobility behaviour of the stratum. This pressure initially rises, inducing material softening. Owing
cyclic mobility behaviour explains why the accelerations to the large static shear stresses under the foundation, the
vanish later than those in the untreated ground. softened foundation soil attempts to move sideways away
from the footing centreline. The horizontal normal strains
occurring at this location are large, dictating significant
Excess pore water pressure reductions in excess pore pressure observed in P1, and slight
Figure 6 shows the recorded time histories of normalised reductions in P3. As the shaking and lateral straining of the
excess pore water pressure Ru at different locations. Looking foundation soil stops, the excess pore pressure in P1 and P3
at both Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 it is observed that acceleration starts increasing again, fed by the surrounding far-field

96
 Evaluation of gravel drains and compacted sand piles

areas; this phenomenon was also observed by Liu and tests are remarkable. The deeper fluid uses the full drain
Dobry (1997). Although in deeper locations the pore water capacity, and overlying deposits must wait for the way to be
pressure started to dissipate gradually after cessation of clear. At shallower sections fluid leaves through the surface
shaking, it starts to increase in shallower deposits (P1, P3) rather than through the drain itself. Such a phenomenon
owing to the upward movement of water from the lower was also observed by Brennan and Madabhushi (2002). In
deposits. Obviously gravel drains have reduced this excess dynamic conditions, their effectiveness in excess pore pres-
pore pressure development due to upward seepage resulting sure reduction is not predominant; and for all tests any
from dissipation of excess pore pressure in deep soil change in the behaviour of the remediated ground is
deposits after shaking. Such a trend was observed during primarily a result of the stiffening effect of the gravel drains.
the 1995 Kobe earthquake, where upward seepage was During the period of shaking their efficiency as a mechanism
evident in Rokko Island up to an hour after the main event for reducing excess pore pressure has decreased with depth,
(Shibata et al., 1996). This migration of water may reduce the which is opposite to the stiffening behaviour described
strength of surface soils, or may generate ‘secondary’ (or earlier. Maximum excess pore pressure ratio Ru was
seepage-induced) liquefaction, causing large deformations or achieved during some initial cycles and remained almost
loss of bearing capacity (Yoshimi and Kuwabara, 1973). unchanged within the shaking period. Dissipation of excess
The pore pressure transducers located at the edge-line of pore pressure started a few seconds after the shaking period
the foundation (P2 and P4) show asymmetric spikes in all of with a rapid rate at the beginning and a slower rate at the
the tests. This is due to the effect of asymmetric foundation later stage until the excess pore pressure completely dis-
loading in those locations. sipated. Also, the maximum excess pore pressure ratios in
The excess pore water pressure ratio data show that at all tests were almost the same. However, the number of
any specific depth there is a time after which the excess pore cycles causing this maximum Ru is not the same in different
pressure starts to dissipate at a much higher rate. This can tests. The presence of gravel drains has increased the
be the initial period, where vertical dissipation has not had a resistance against liquefaction, and Ru has reached its maxi-
chance to get hold on the soil at the corresponding depth, mum within a larger number of cycles. A similar trend can
and only radial drainage is experienced in that depth. Time be observed in tests with compacted subsoils. Compaction
histories of excess pore pressure ratio Ru recorded at two was able to increase liquefaction resistance more than gravel
elevations, 15 cm and 35 cm below the centre of the founda- drains.
tion, are shown more precisely in Fig. 7. As observed earlier in Fig. 6, after shaking there is an
It can be seen in Figs 6 and 7, that the presence of the increase in the excess pore pressure ratio at the depth of
gravel drains has speeded up the excess pore pressure 15 cm: this can be related to flows draining from the
dissipation after shaking, proving their effectiveness in non- surrounding far-field areas, three-dimensional hydraulic
dynamic cases. After shaking it can be observed from Fig. 7 gradients and induced drain pressures.
that deeper strata drain faster than shallower layers, and the The isopiestic lines for excess pore water pressure ratio,
excess pore pressures remain longer in the shallower strata, 5 s after the shaking has started, are shown in Fig. 8.
which reduces the effectiveness of the drain for near-surface It can be observed that the excess pore water pressures
soil layers. The differences in dissipation rates in various right under the foundation never reached zero effective

1·0 1·0
0·9 0·9
Z 5 35 cm
Excess pore pressure ratio, RU
Excess pore pressure ratio, RU

0·8 0·8
Z 5 35 cm
0·7 0·7
0·6 0·6
0·5 0·5
0·4 0·4
0·3 0·3
0·2 Z 5 15 cm 0·2
0·1 0·1
0·0 0·0 Z 5 15 cm
20·1 20·1
20·2 20·2
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time: s Time: s
(a) (b)
1·0 1·0
0·9 0·9
Excess pore pressure ratio, RU

Z 5 35 cm
Excess pore pressure ratio, RU

0·8 0·8
0·7 0·7
0·6 0·6
0·5 0·5
0·4 0·4 Z 5 15 cm
Z 5 35 cm
0·3 0·3
0·2 0·2
0·1 Z 5 15 cm 0·1
0·0 0·0
20·1 20·1
20·2 20·2
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time: s Time: s
(c) (d)
Fig. 7. Time histories of excess pore pressure ratio under the foundation centreline: (a) test O; (b) test G1; (c) test G2; (d) test C1

97
Sadrekarimi and Ghalandarzadeh

0 0
0·22 0·33 0·33 0·22
0·44 0·66
25 0·30 25
0·40 0·33
0·55 0·33
210 210
0·50 0·44 0·55
0·44 0·22

Depth: cm
Depth: cm

215 215 0·66 0·33

0·22
0·60
220 220
0·70
0·80
225 225 0·55
0·90 0·33
230 230
0·22 0·33 0·66 0·22

235 235
230 220 210 0 10 20 30
230 220 210 0 10 20 30
Distance from foundation centreline: cm
Distance from foundation centreline: cm
(b)
(a)

0
20·53 20·53
0·66 20·36 0·49
25
20·19
0·15
210
20·020
Depth: cm

215

220 0·32

225
0·66
230

235
230 220 210 0 10 20 30
Distance from foundation centreline: cm
(c)

Fig. 8. Excess pore water pressure ratio isopiestic lines: (a) test O; (b) test G1; (c) test C1. Time ¼ 5 s

stress condition in any of these tests, and the corresponding
excess pore pressure ratios never gained a value of 100%.
This is probably due to the presence of the foundation;
otherwise the shaking intensity was enough to create
complete liquefaction. Looking at the locations farther from
the effect of the foundation shows that achieving 100% of
excess pore water pressure ratio was possible. In other
words, the Ru values are lowest immediately below the
foundation, revealing a significantly less contractive soil
response within the foundation soil. This phenomenon could
be completely reversed if there were no foundations placed
on the soil, whereas soils at shallower depths are more
susceptible to liquefaction than soils at deeper depths.
Earlier centrifuge and 1g shaking table tests on foundations
supported by sandy deposits have revealed that excess pore
water pressure was generally smaller under the foundation
than in the free field (Whitman and Lambe, 1988; Laak et al.,
1994; Liu and Dobry, 1997; Adalier et al., 1998). This was
explained by the shear-induced dilative soil response during
deformation of the saturated soil below the footing. More-
over, the superimposed footing loads might have caused a
beneficial reduction of liquefaction potential as well (Adalier
and Elgamal, 2002). Similar behaviour was observed by
Koga and Matsuo (1990) in 1g shaking table tests on earth
embankments, and was attributed to the inability of the
earlier liquefied free-field soil to provide lateral stress more
than its initial vertical effective stress to the foundation soil.
According to the liquefaction mechanism, the cyclic shear
strain is an important factor in increasing pore water
pressure. To investigate this phenomenon, shear strain is
plotted against excess pore water pressure in Fig. 9. Because
a pore pressure transducer was placed between each pair of
acceleration transducers, the shear strain calculated for the
midpoint of the acceleration transducers would be the shear
strain at the location of the pore pressure transducer. The
shear strain is calculated as below
ð d1
d2 Þ
ª¼ (2)
h
where ª is the shear strain, h is the vertical spacing between
the two consecutive acceleration transducers, d1 is the
displacement at the location of the upper acceleration
transducer, and d2 is the displacement at the location of the
lower acceleration transducer. By double numerical integra-
tion of the acceleration time histories, d1 and d2 are obtained.
As observed in Fig. 9, excess pore pressure is developed
during the first cycles of shear deformation. It seems that
pore pressure development initiates by a minimum shear
strain of almost 0.2%.
Subsidence
The tendency of sands to densify when subjected to
earthquake shaking is well documented. Subsurface densifi-
cation is manifested at the ground surface in the form of
settlement. Earthquake-induced settlement frequently causes

98
 Evaluation of gravel drains and compacted sand piles

4·0 4·0

3·5 3·5
Excess pore pressure: kPa

Excess pore pressure: kPa

3·0 3·0

2·5 2·5

2·0 2·0

1·5 1·5

1·0 1·0

0·5 0·5

0 0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05 20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04 20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
Shear strain Shear strain
(a) (b)

4·0 4·0

3·5 3·5

Excess pore pressure: kPa

Excess pore pressure: kPa

3·0 3·0

2·5 2·5

2·0 2·0

1·5 1·5

1·0 1·0

0·5 0·5

0 0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05 20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04 20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
Shear strain Shear strain
(c) (d)
4·0

3·5
Excess pore pressure: kPa

3·0

2·5

2·0

1·5

1·0

0·5

0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
Shear strain
(e)

Fig. 9. Excess pore water pressure generated by cyclic shear strain at a depth of 35 cm: (a) test O; (b) test G1; (c) test G2; (d) test C1; (e) test C2

distress to structures supported on shallow foundations, tion in a curved form, as shown in Fig. 10
damage to utilities that serve pile-supported structures, and (b) loss of shear strength, which causes a punching settle-
damage to pipelines that are commonly buried at shallow ment of the model foundation
depths. The settlement of a saturated sand deposit requires (c) settlement of subsoil following liquefaction, which is
more time, and settlement can occur only as earthquake- caused by excess pore pressure dissipation during the
induced pore pressures dissipate. The time required for this earthquake.
settlement to occur depends on the permeability and
compressibility of the soil, and on the length of the drainage The third phenomenon is illustrated for an element of soil in
path (Kramer, 1996). To study subsidence, various tests have Fig. 11. Initially, the element is at a drained equilibrium
been compared to study the failure mechanisms in each test. condition (zero excess pore pressure) at point A. Earthquake
Failure in all tests appeared in the form of considerable shaking causes excess pore pressure to build up under
subsidence of the model foundation, as shown in Fig. 10. It undrained conditions, thereby reducing the effective stress
is observed that the foundation subsides into the subsoil for to that shown at point B. The excess pore pressure produces
the following reasons a hydraulic gradient that drives the pore water out of the
voids. The flow of water reduces the hydraulic gradient until
(a) softening of the subsoil, which causes lateral deforma- the excess pore pressure has completely dissipated (point

99
Sadrekarimi and Ghalandarzadeh
Fig. 10. Failure patterns observed after shaking: (a) test O; (b) test G1
e
Consolidation curve
Generation of excess pore pressure
B A
e0
Dissipation of Äe
excess pore C
pressure
Seismically induced
excess pore pressure
ó¢v
Fig. 11. Process of earthquake-induced settlement from dissipation of
seismically induced excess pore pressure (Kramer, 1996)
C). As the water flows from the voids, the volume of the
element decreases. As Fig. 11 clearly illustrates, the magni-
tude of the volume change increases with the magnitude of
the seismically induced excess pore pressure. Even small
excess pore pressures, which may not be sufficient to
produce flow liquefaction or cyclic mobility, can produce
some post-earthquake settlements (Kramer, 1996). The ef-
fects of the first and second mechanisms, (a) and (b),
predominated.
Figure 12 shows the recorded time histories of foundation
settlement in the tests. As shown in this figure, at the
beginning of shaking the settlement rate in test O is greater
than in the other tests. The initial rapid settlement shows a
very fast softening of the subsoil. This observation is
identical to the behaviour of the response acceleration that
was described earlier. The generation of maximum excess
pore pressure at early cycles is also in accordance with the
explained behaviour. Larger lateral deformation and lateral
outflow of the subsoil in these tests show the dominance of
this mechanism in generating the large subsidence.
100
(a)
(b)
Although in tests with gravel drains the maximum
settlement is not affected, the slower rate of early settlement
is obvious. Smaller lateral deformation shows that the
settlement was probably due to shear failure of the subsoil.
It is observed that the overall settlement rates in tests G1
and G2 are greater than in test O; however, settlement has
initiated earlier in test O. It can be said that in gravel drains
with large voids and large particles, settlement (densifica-
tion), when initiated, is accompanied by larger displace-
ments, so increasing the settlement rate.
Settlement in tests C1 and C2 seems to be reasonably
ó¢
controlled. Compaction could reduce the rate and the maxi-
mum amount of settlement as well as delaying the settle-
ment initiation time. The dynamic compaction retrofitting
process was found to reduce the permanent settlements of
the footing by about 50%. As seen in Figs 7 and 8, in test C1
a strong negative excess pore pressure build-up tendency
was observed right beneath the foundation. However, in
deeper locations, significant positive excess pore water
pressure was attained. Correspondingly the ground surface
was observed to have negligible net vertical deformations, as
shown in Fig. 12, and settlements were partially due to the
migration of underlying foundation soil towards the free
field. In other words, the settlements were largely masked
by the heave.
Considering Fig. 12, in all of the tests regarding the 10 s
shaking period, over 90% of the foundation settlement
occurred during shaking, with only a small portion contrib-
uted by post-shaking soil reconsolidation due to excess pore
water pressure dissipation. This means that the inertial
forces due to shaking played a decisive role in the deforma-
tion of the soil–foundation system (Liu and Dobry, 1997).
Also, a large portion of the foundation settlement occurred
because of the penetration of the heavy footing into the
foundation soil. The lower efficiency of gravel drains can be
well understood by comparing these two phenomena, where
excess pore water pressure is mostly reduced after shaking,
 Evaluation of gravel drains and compacted sand piles

120 120

100 100

80 80
Settlement: mm

Settlement: mm
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
Time: s Time: s
(a) (b)

120 120

100 100

80 80
Settlement: mm
Settlement: mm

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 0 3 6 9 12 15
Time: s Time: s
(c) (d)

120

100

80
Settlement: mm

60

40

20

0
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time: s
(e)

Fig. 12. Observed foundation settlements: (a) test O; (b) test G1; (c) test G2; (d) test C1; (e) test C2

and most of the settlement occurs during shaking. However,
more recently, vertical drains have been used to reduce
post-earthquake settlement resulting from soil recompres-
sion due to excess pore pressure dissipation (Pestana et al.,
1997).
Soil behaviour
The stress–strain behaviour of the soil is also considered.
Calculation of the cyclic shear strain was described earlier.
In order to calculate the shear stress at a specific location,
the soil column above the point is assumed to be a rigid
column, and the system of forces acting on the rigid column
is sketched. A shear force is applied beneath the column,
and the distributed inertial force is applied on the full height
of the column. As that the inertial force is obtained from the
acceleration data, and such data are not available for the
entire height of the column, a simplifying assumption is
made, supposing that acceleration is distributed linearly
between the corresponding transducers and deeper strata.
So by solving the dynamic equilibrium equation for the
aforesaid column, the shear stress at the specific location is
obtained. The formula used is as follows
ð

¼ r½ að zÞdz (3)
where
is the shear stress; r is the specific weight of the
soil, which is taken as 1880 kg/m3 ; z is depth; and a(z) is the

101
Sadrekarimi and Ghalandarzadeh

acceleration at depth z. By calculating the cyclic shear strain Discussion

and shear stress, the stress–strain behaviour of the soil can
be plotted, as shown in Fig. 13.
Without any soil improvement (i.e. test O), the soil
stiffness degrades rapidly, and the stress–strain curve
becomes a horizontal line with infinite damping and zero
stiffness. In the tests with gravel drains or compacted sand
piles, soil strength is preserved to a desirable extent, which
reveals their positive presence. In other words, without any
improvement flow liquefaction occurs, but by using gravel
drains or compacted piles, cyclic mobility dominates.
Although the improvement provided by the dynamic
compaction method appears small in terms of excess pore
pressure dissipation, the stiffer compacted sand piles pro-
vided higher overall foundation shear strength and bearing
capacity, preventing excessive settlement. Unlike the gravel
drains, these compacted sand piles have attenuated the base
accelerations propagated to the footing–superstructure sys-
tem. It can be concluded that gravel drains have improved
the shear stiffness, amplifying the shear waves propagated

2·0 2·0
1·5 P1 1·5 P1
1·0 1·0
0·5 0·5
0·0 0·0
20·5 20·5
21·0 21·0

Shear stress: kPa

Shear stress: kPa

21·5 21·5
22·0 22·0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05 20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04 20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
2·0 2·0
1·5 P2 1·5 P2
1·0 1·0
0·5 0·5
0·0 0·0
20·5 20·5
21·0 21·0
21·5 21·5
22·0 22·0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05 20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04 20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
Shear strain Shear strain
(a) (b)
2·0 2·0
1·5 P1 1·5 P1
1·0 1·0
0·5 0·5
0·0 0·0
20·5 20·5
21·0 21·0
Shear stress: kPa
Shear stress: kPa

21·5 21·5
22·0 22·0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05 20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04 20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
2·0 2·0
1·5 P2 1·5 P2
1·0 1·0
0·5 0·5
0·0 0·0
20·5 20·5
21·0 21·0
21·5 21·5
22·0 22·0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05 20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04 20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
Shear strain Shear strain
(c) (d)
2·0
1·5 P1
1·0
0·5
0·0
20·5
21·0
Shear stress: kPa

21·5
22·0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
2·0
1·5 P2
1·0
0·5
0·0
20·5
21·0
21·5
22·0
20·05 20·03 20·01 0·01 0·03 0·05
20·04 20·02 0 0·02 0·04
Shear strain
(e)

Fig. 13. Stress–strain behaviour of sand at locations of P1 and P2: (a) test O; (b) test G1; (c) test G2; (d) test C1; (e) test C2

102

to the footing. Compacted sand piles are stiffer in compres-
sion, providing greater support for the overlying foundation
to reduce settlement compared with gravel drains; however,
they attenuate the shear waves propagating towards the
footing because of their lower shear stiffnesses. From this
view it can be said that settlement was mainly due to
migration of the underlying foundation soil towards the free
field (lateral spreading) in the tests with compacted sand
piles. However, with the gravel drains, the main cause of
settlement is the effect of densification attained by the
shaking process, where much of this densification has
occurred in the gravel drain itself. In the non-remediated
cases, the settlement is caused by lateral spreading, punch-
ing and densification mechanisms. Sufficient vertical stress
or confining pressure might be required to engage the full
reinforcing effect of the gravel columns, as suggested by
Baez (1995). This confinement can be obtained with the
weight of the structure (Adalier et al., 2003); so proper
installation is essential for producing high-quality gravel
drains. Because gravel is a frictional material possessing
negligible cohesion, confining pressure applied by the soil is
of paramount importance. The installation process should
embed the drains tightly within the soil matrix, while
preventing mixing of the in-situ soft soil with the drain
material. Such contamination not only compromises the
strength of the drains, but also reduces their drainage
capacity.
In general, the test results suggest that vibro-concrete
columns or soil–cement columns as stiffer elements are
likely to be more viable solutions in mitigating liquefaction
where the only possible mitigation benefit is from the
stiffening stress concentration criterion (Baez, 1995). Also,
Brennan and Madabhushi (2002) suggested that the real
advantages of drains may lie not in preventing liquefaction
but in reducing the time that deposits spend in a liquefied
state. This should prevent problems caused by prolonged
post-earthquake excess pore pressures, such as rotation of
bridge piers or high backfill pressures behind quay walls.
Conclusions
The following are the important observations from the
current study.
(a) After a threshold shear strain of almost 0.2%, pore
pressure development initiates.
(b) The recorded acceleration showed that the resistance to
liquefaction could be improved mostly by compaction,
compared with the use of gravel drains. Compaction
imparts more dilatant and stiffer behaviour to the
subsoil.
(c) Both the gravel drains and compacted sand piles can
postpone excess pore water pressure generation; how-
ever, gravel drains are not very effective during the
application of shaking, whereas they could well dis-
sipate the excess pore pressure after shaking, so effec-
tively mitigating secondary liquefaction due to the
upward flowing water after earthquake.
(d) During shaking, the effectiveness of the gravel drains is
due to their stiffening effect.
(e) Although the intensity of shaking was sufficient to
produce complete liquefaction, the excess pore pressure
ratio never reached 100% just under the centre and edge
of the foundation.
( f ) Settlement of the foundation occurred owing to the
softening and shear failure of the subsoil.
Evaluation of gravel drains and compacted sand piles
( g) Lateral deformation indicates that softening and punch-
ing settlement represent shear failure.
(h) Comparison between the methods of gravel drains and
dynamic compaction shows that the compaction method
can reduce settlement better than gravel drains.
(i) The efficiency of gravel drains would be improved in
short-duration earthquakes.
( j ) Soil improvement by means of gravel drains and
compacted sand piles will transform the liquefaction
mechanism from flow liquefaction to cyclic mobility.
The results recorded here represent the limits of the current
study. The effectiveness of the improvement methods
depends not only on the mechanism of their behaviour but
also on the quality and quantity of the techniques employed.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the University of
Tehran for providing the laboratory and computing facilities.
They would also like to express their thanks to Mr Alijani
from the soil mechanics laboratory.
References
Abdi F. (2004) Seismic Behaviour of the Asalouyeh Harbors Breakwater
Using 1g Shaking Table Tests. MSc thesis, University of Tehran,
Iran.
Adalier K. and Elgamal A. W. (2002) Seismic response of adjacent
saturated dense and loose sand columns. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 22, No. 2, 115–127.
Adalier K., Elgamal A. W. and Martin G. R. (1998) Foundation
liquefaction countermeasures for earth embankments. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 124, No. 6,
500–517.
Adalier K., Elgamal A. W., Meneses J. and Baez J. I. (2003) Stone
columns as liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic silty
soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 23, No. 7,
571–584.
Baez J. I. (1995) A Design Model for the Reduction of Soil Liquefaction by
Vibro-Stone Columns. PhD thesis, University of Southern Califor-
nia, USA.
Brennan A. J. and Madabhushi S. P. G. (2002) Effectiveness of
vertical drains in mitigation of liquefaction. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 22, No. 9, 1059–1065.
Das B. M. (1983) Fundamentals of Soil Dynamics. Elsevier Science,
New York.
Gibson A. D. and Scott R. F. (1995) Comparison of a 1g and
centrifuge model dynamic liquefaction test: preliminary results.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, Tokyo, 773–778.
Hayashi K., Fujii N., Murakami T. and Houjyou K. (1997) Direct
comparison of gravity model and centrifuge model for the
seismic problem. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Japan Society
of Civil Engineers, III-41, 207–216.
Inagaki H., Iai S., Sugano T., Yamazaki H. and Inatomi T. (1996)
Performance of caisson type quay walls at Kobe Port. Soils and
Foundations, Special issue on the geotechnical aspects of the
January, 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, 119–136.
Kamon M., Wako T., Isemura K., Sawa K., Mimura M., Tateyama
K. and Kobayashi S. (1996) Geotechnical disasters on the
waterfront. Soils and Foundations, Special issue on the geotechni-
cal aspects of the January, 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earth-
quake, 137–147.
Khaki Khatibi A. (2002) Dynamic Performance of Shallow Footings
Using 1g Shaking Table Tests. MSc thesis, University of Tehran,
Iran.
Ko H. Y. and Davidson L. W. (1973) Bearing capacity of footings in
plane strain. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Division, ASCE, 99, No. SM1, 1–22.
Koga Y. and Matsuo O. (1990) Shaking table tests of embankments
103
Sadrekarimi and Ghalandarzadeh
resting on liquefiable sandy ground. Soils and Foundations, 30,
No. 4, 162–174.
Kramer S. L. (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Laak V. P., Elgamal A. W. and Dobry R. (1994) Design and
performance of an electro-hydraulic shaker for the RPI centri-
fuge. Proceedings of Centrifuge’ 94, Singapore, 139–144.
Liu L. and Dobry R. (1997) Seismic response of shallow foundation
on liquefiable sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 123, No. 6, 557–567.
Mitchell J. K., Baxter C. D. P. and Munson T. C. (1995) Perform-
ance of improved ground during earthquakes. In Soil Improve-
ment for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation (ed. R. D. Hryciw), ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 49, pp. 1–36.
Park S. S. (2000) Bearing Behaviour of Crushable Volcanic Sands. MEng
thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan.
Pestana J. M., Hunt C. E. and Goughnour R. R. (1997) FEQDrain:
A Finite Element Computer Program for the Analysis of the Earth-
quake Generation and Dissipation of Pore Water Pressure in Layered
Sand Deposits with Vertical Drains. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, Report
No. UCB/EERC 97-15.
Sadrekarimi A. (2004) Dynamic Performance of Hunchbacked Quay Walls
Using a 1g Shaking Table. MSc thesis, University of Tehran, Iran.
104
Shibata T., Oka F. and Ozawa Y. (1996) Characteristics of ground
deformation due to liquefaction. Soils and Foundations, Special
issue on the geotechnical aspects of the January, 17 1995
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, 65–79.
Vaid V. P., Chern J. C. and Tumi H. (1985) Confining pressure,
grain angularity, and liquefaction. Journal of Geotechnical En-
gineering, 111, No. 10, 1229–1235.
Whitman R. V. and Lambe P. C. (1988) Earthquake like shaking of
a structure founded on saturated sand. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Geotechnical Centrifuge Modelling,
Paris, pp. 529–538.
Yasuda S., Ishihara K., Harada K. and Sinkawa N. (1996) Effect
of soil improvement on ground subsidence due to liquefaction.
Soils and Foundations, Special issue on the geotechnical aspects
of the January, 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, 99–108.
Yoshimi Y. and Kuwabara F. (1973) Effects of subsurface liquefac-
tion on the strength of surface soil. Soils and Foundations, 13, No.
2, 67–81.
Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the
editor by 1 November 2005