See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305701265

Dynamic Centrifuge Testing of Improved Ground

Conference Paper · January 2001

CITATIONS READS
3 120

2 authors, including:

Nicholas Sitar
University of California, Berkeley
182 PUBLICATIONS   6,758 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Levee Vegetation View project

Yosemite Rockfall Monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicholas Sitar on 28 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 XV ICSMGE Istanbul, 2001. Recent developments in ground improving. The Netherlands: AA Balkema, 27-31
Dynamic Centrifuge Testing of Improved Ground

E.A. HAUSLER, University of California, Berkeley

N. SITAR, University of California, Berkeley

ABSTRACT: Liquefaction-induced foundation displacement during earthquakes continues to be a major cause of damage to all types
of structures, including buildings, bridges, dikes, levees, and seawalls. However, historical evidence from events as far back as the
1964 Niigata earthquake and, most recently, the devastating 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu (Kobe), Japan, and 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, earth-
quakes indicates improved sites suffer less ground deformation and subsidence than nearby unimproved areas. The field case histo-
ries, however, lack sufficient quantitative information on building settlement, vertical ground strain, and the level, depth, and lateral
extent of ground improvement. Therefore, a series of dynamic centrifuge tests designed to explore the influence of remediation zone
geometry on foundation displacement and soil deformation is currently underway. Measurements of acceleration, excess pore water
pressure, and soil deformations and the response of a rigid structure on an embedded mat foundation are used to evaluate the relative
performance of improved and unimproved zones. Preliminary results indicate that a structure founded on unimproved ground experi-
ences a much greater amount of settlement and tilt, but a lower amount of shaking. In addition, pore pressure generation is inhibited
in the improved zones and in the unimproved zones near the base of the structure.

1 INTRODUCTION identical to that in a larger prototype, if the model is 1/N of the

1.1 Background
Liquefaction-induced foundation displacement during earth-
quakes continues to be a major cause of damage to all types of
structures, including buildings, dikes, levees, and seawalls. De-
spite widespread implementation of ground improvement to
mitigate liquefaction-induced ground deformation over the past
four decades (Hausler & Sitar, 2000, Mitchell et al., 1995, Hay-
den & Baez, 1994), until recently the effectiveness of improve-
ment methods to limit ground strain remained largely unevalu-
ated due to a lack of field performance data under strong shaking
(Dobry, 1996). Dobry and others (1995) also observed that there
is an absence of seismic response observations of actual struc-
tures supported on improved ground.
There is also ample historical evidence from events as far
back as the 1964 Niigata earthquake and most recently the dev-
astating 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu (Kobe), Japan, 1999 Kocaeli,
Turkey, and 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquakes that improved
sites suffer less ground deformation and subsidence than adja-
cent, unimproved areas. The case histories clearly indicate that
ground improvement reduces, and in some cases eliminates,
large ground displacements during seismic loading. In addition,
there is a body of centrifuge-based and 1g shaking table test data
on various aspects of the performance of improved ground under
seismic loading (see e.g., Adalier et al., 1998, Balakrishnan et
al., 1998, Hatanaka et al., 1987, Hiro-oka et al., 1995, Kimura et
al., 1997, and Liu and Dobry, 1995). The majority of studies
concentrated on measurement of pore pressures and good quan-
titative data on the distribution of deformations and the influence
of the geometry of the improved zone is rare.
The intent of our dynamic centrifuge test program is to ex-
plore the influence of the depth and lateral extent of the reme-
diation zone on the acceleration, settlement, and tilt of a rigid
structure on an embedded mat foundation during seismic load-
ing. The results of the first test in the experimental program are
presented herein.
1.2 Dynamic Geotechnical Centrifuge Testing
The basic premise for dynamic centrifuge testing is that a re-
duced scale model will have the strength, stiffness and stress
size of the prototype and the gravitational acceleration during
spinning is N times the acceleration of gravity. The time period
of shaking is scaled by a factor of 1/N to produce waves with N
times greater acceleration, N times smaller displacement, and
equal stress to those in the prototype (Balakrishnan et al., 1998).
Scaling conflicts between the time rate of cyclic loading and the
dissipation of pore water pressure can be resolved by reducing
the permeability by N by using a pore fluid with viscosity N
times that of water (Stewart et al., 1998). Thorough discussions
of centrifuge scaling laws are given by Kutter (1995) and Scott
(1988).
The test described in this paper was performed on the 400g-
ton dynamic centrifuge at the University of California, Davis
Center for Geotechnical Modeling. The centrifuge has a 9.1m
radius, maximum payload of 4,500kg, and an available bucket
area of 4m2. Additional technical specifications for the centri-
fuge and shaker are available elsewhere (Kutter et al., 1994,
Kutter, 1995). All units presented here have been scaled to pro-
totype units unless otherwise indicated.
2 MODEL DESCRIPTION
2.1 Test Set-up
The model configuration is shown in Figure 1 in model units.
Two distinct zones with square, rigid plexiglass structures are
present. In prototype scale, the model consists of approximately
20m of potentially liquefiable (Dr = 35%) material. The im-
proved block (Dr = 85%) in the south half of the model extends
down to the bottom of the container, through the full liquefiable
thickness. Relative to the improved depth, the lateral extent of
the improvement beyond the foundation is 20%. The improved
zone extends laterally beyond the foundation to a distance about
half of the building plan dimension. In the north half of the
model container, the soil beneath the structure is unimproved.
The structure is “rigid” in that it is assumed to perform as a rigid
block and does not possess properties of a single degree of free-
dom structure or a flexible foundation. It is intended to simulate
a mat foundation with a bearing pressure of 96 kPa (2 ksf).
The model was constructed in a flexible shear beam container
with internal dimensions of 1.651m long by 0.788m wide by ap-
 XV ICSMGE Istanbul, 2001. Recent developments in ground improving. The Netherlands: AA Balkema, 27-31
D12 D5 D6 D13
200 x 200 200 x 200
A30 D8 D10 A32
312.75
Rigid Plexiglass Rigid Plexiglass
D14,16 D1 D2 D3 D4 D15,17
Structure Structure

25

25
9

1
A2

A3
D7 D9
A28
93.75

50 50
Monterey Sand
P25 P26 P27 P28
P16 A16 P5 A5 P10 A10 P20 A20 P15 A15 P24 A24
Nevada Sand

100
Settlement Settlement Dr= 85%
Pads Pads
P4 A4 P9 A9 P14 A14

589
100
490
P3 A3 P8 A8 P19 A19 P13 A13 P23 A23
H1 H2 H3

100
P2 A2 P7 A7 P12 A12
Nevada Sand

100
Dr= 35%
P1 A1 P6 A6 P11 A11
Z

40
A26 A27
X 387
412.75 412.75
826 Units: mm South
North 1,651

Depth Improved = 100% Liquefiable Thickness

Width Improved = 20% Improved Depth
A Acceleration D Linear Shaking Direction
Potentiometer 50 100 150 200 250 mm: model scale
Mini Air
Hammer P Pore Pressure 6 m: prototype scale @ 40g
2 4 8 10

Figure 1. Model configuration, section view.

proximately 0.59m deep (the bottom surface of the container is

coated with grains of coarse sand and is uneven). The box con-
sists of a series of stacked aluminum rings separated by neoprene
rubber. To minimize boundary effects, the design of the con-
tainer is such that the natural frequency of the container is much
less than the initial natural frequency of the soil (Kutter, 1995).
2.2 Soil Properties
Nevada sand, used for the saturated and potentially liquefiable
material in this model, is a fine, uniform, angular sand. The
mean grain size is between 0.14 and 0.17mm and the uniformity
coefficient of is 1.67. The minimum and maximum dry densities
determined by Kammerer et al. (2000) using the dry tipping
method and the modified Japanese method, as developed by
University of California, Berkeley, respectively, yield values for
saturated unit weights of 20 kN/m3 for the dense sand and 19.2
kN/m3 for the loose sand. A layer of Monterey 20/30 sand was
placed over the Nevada sand to serve as a dense, unsaturated,
2.4 Shaking Events
Six shaking events were applied to this model in flight at an ap-
proximate 40g centrifugal acceleration. The shaking was applied
parallel to the long sides of the model container.
Three of the six ground motions consisted of scaled versions
of the ground motion recorded at 80 m depth at Port Island in the
1995 Kobe earthquake. The remaining three events were small
step waves used to measure the shear wave velocity of the soil.
Figure 2 shows the acceleration response spectra (5% damping)
for the scaled Port Island motions as recorded on the bottom, in-
side of the container. The prototype base peak ground accelera-
tions for the small, intermediate, and large Port Island events
used in the experiments were 0.18, 0.31, and 0.98g, respectively.
3
Spectral Acceleration (g)

nonliquefiable fill material.

2
2.3 Model Preparation

The sand was placed using dry pluviation in seven layers defined
on the right of Figure 1. To achieve different densities, the drop 1
height, mesh opening, and speed of drop were varied. The dense
(improved) and loose (unimproved) sections were separated by a
square made out of thin metal that was pulled out slowly as con-
struction progressed. After placement of each layer, the surface 0
was smoothed with a vacuum and colored sand grid lines and ac- 0.01 0.1 1 10
celeration and pore water pressure gages were placed. At two Period (s)
levels within the soil profile, settlement pads were embedded. Figure 2. Acceleration response spectra (5% damping) from recordings
Prior to saturation, the void space was evacuated of air and on the inside, bottom of the model container (instrument A26) for large
flooded with CO2. De-aired methyl cellulose solution with a (solid) intermediate (dashed) and small (dotted) Port Island events.
viscosity of 10 times that of water was dripped down tubes at the
ends of the model under a constant vacuum pressure of 92 kPa.
Although a pore fluid with viscosity of 40 times that of water 3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
would be necessary to satisfy the scaling laws discussed in Sec-
tion 1.2, the less viscous fluid was used to expedite the saturation 3.1 Acceleration Time Histories
process, thus increasing the rate of dissipation of excess pore As shown in Figure 1, accelerations were recorded at numerous
water pressure by a factor of 4. Saturation was confirmed using locations throughout the soil profile. Figure 3 illustrates the dif-
a manual p-wave test. ference in response recorded in the unimproved and improved
 XV ICSMGE Istanbul, 2001. Recent developments in ground improving. The Netherlands: AA Balkema, 27-31
arrays for the large Port Island event. It is apparent that the mo- 1.2

P1 (unimproved)
1
tion is significantly attenuated in the loose sand. In addition, ac- 0.8
celeration spikes associated with the cyclic mobility of dense 0.6
0.4
sand are present in the improved ground recordings and the bot- 0.2
tommost recording in the unimproved ground. Such a response 0
0 20 40 60
is common in centrifuge tests and occasionally observed in the
field (Iai et al., 1995). 1.2

P11 (improved)
1
1 1 0.8
0.6

ACC A15 (g)

ACC A5 (g)

0.5 0.5 0.4

0 0 0.2
0
0.5 0.5 0 20 40 60

1 1 1
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

A26 BASE (g)

0.5
1 1 0
ACC A14 (g)
ACC A4 (g)

0.5 0.5 0.5

0 0 1
0 20 40 60
0.5 0.5
t (s)
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Figure 4. Excess pore water pressure time histories for large Port Island
event (P1 in unimproved and P11 in improved).
1 1
1.2

P16 (unimproved)
ACC A13 (g)
ACC A3 (g)

0.5 0.5 1
0 0 0.8
0.6
0.5 0.5 0.4
1 1 0.2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0
0 20 40 60
1 1
1
ACC A12 (g)
ACC A2 (g)

P5 (unimproved)
0.5 0.5
0.8
0 0 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.4
1 1 0.2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0
0 20 40 60
1 1
1
ACC A11 (g)

P10 (unimproved)
ACC A1 (g)

0.5 0.5
0.8
0 0 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.4
1 1 0.2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0
0 20 40 60
BASE ACC A26 (g)

BASE ACC A27 (g)

1 1
1
0.5 0.5
P15 (improved)

0.8
0 0 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.4
1 1 0.2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0
0 20 40 60
Figure 3. Acceleration time histories for the North (unimproved) array
(left) and South (improved) array (right), large Port Island event. 0.2
A26 BASE (g)

0.1
3.2 Excess Pore Water Pressure Generation 0

Excess pore water pressure ratios were computed by dividing the
generated excess pore water pressures by the initial effective
overburden stress. An excess pore water pressure ratio of 1 sig-
nals the occurrence of liquefaction. Figure 4 shows the excess
pore water pressure time histories for the bottommost pore pres-
sure transducers in the improved and unimproved zones for the
large Port Island event. The rise to an excess pore water pres-
sure ratio of 1 is very quick in the unimproved zone. In the im-
proved zone, several spikes of negative pore pressure are pres-
ent, and the rise is more gradual, however, it never goes above 1,
and levels off at excess pore water pressure ratio of 0.8.
In Figure 5, excess pore water pressure ratios for transducers
4m below the ground surface are shown for the small Port Island
event. P15, located in the improved zone, demonstrates a sub-
stantial reduction in pore water pressure generation, reaching a
maximum of 0.4. Although P16, P5, and P10 are all located in
unimproved zones, P5 is confined by the structure, and as a re-
sult, its rise in excess pore water pressure is significantly less.
0.1
0.2
0 20 40 60
t (s)
Figure 5. Excess pore water pressure time histories for small Port Island
event (P16 and P10 in unimproved in free field, P5 in unimproved under
structure, and P15 in improved under structure).
3.3 Soil Deformations
Real time vertical soil deformation measurements were taken at
four points on the soil surface (D1 to D4) and at four points
within the soil profile using the settlement pads (Figure 1). In
addition, a careful post-test excavation was undertaken to deter-
mine the three-dimensional soil deformations at the colored sand
grid points on each of the layers. A cross-sectional deformation
plot is shown in Figure 6 in model units. The vertical strains are
highest (in the range of 10-17%) in the unimproved zone under
the structure.
 XV ICSMGE Istanbul, 2001. Recent developments in ground improving. The Netherlands: AA Balkema, 27-31
3.4 Structure Acceleration, Settlement and Tilt White at the University of California, Davis Center for Geotech-
nical Modeling. Erica Mikesh provided invaluable assistance
Perhaps the most important quantitative assessment of the per-
with data post processing at UC Berkeley. This work was sup-
formance of improved ground comes in terms of structural ac-
ported by the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program
celeration, settlement, and final tilt. Table 1 lists these quantities
of the National Science Foundation under Award Number EEC-
for the small, large, and intermediate Kobe events (in order of
9701568 and by the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research Program
shaking). Clearly the structure supported on improved ground
for Urban Earthquake Disaster Mitigation of the National Sci-
experienced less settlement and tilt than the one on unimproved
ence Foundation under Award Number CMS-0070278.
ground. However, the settlement of the improved structure was
still significant, almost 40 cm, for the large Kobe event. In ad-
dition, the horizontal acceleration experienced by the structure
6 REFERENCES
on improved soil was over three times as high as that felt by the
structure on unimproved ground. The acceleration time histories
recorded on the structures are shown in Figure 7. Adalier, K., Elgamal, A-W., and Martin, G.R., 1998. Foundation
800 Liquefaction Countermeasures for Earth Embankments, J. Geotech.
and Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 124 No. 6: June, 500-517.
Balakrishnan, A., Kutter, B.L., and Idriss, I.M., 1998. Centrifuge
600
Testing of Remediation of Liquefaction at Bridge Sites,
Transportation Research Record 1633: 26-37.
400
Dobry, R., Taboada, V., and Liu, L., 1995. Centrifuge Modeling of
Liquefaction Effects During Earthquakes, Proc., IS-Tokyo ’95, The
First International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
200 Engineering, A.A. Balkema: 1291-1324.
Dobry, R., 1996. Geotechnical Engineering and Performance
Quantification of Foundations, Issue Paper No. 5, Performance Based
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Seismic Design of Buildings: An Action Plan for Future Studies,
Figure 6. Cross-sectional deformation plot in model units (mm), original Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency: March, 54-
ground surface and improved zone shown as dotted. 62.
Hatanaka, M., Suzuki, Y., Miyaki, M., and Tsukuni, S., 1987. Some
Table 1. Settlement, Tilt, and Acceleration of Structures. Factors Affecting the Settlement of Structures Due to Sand
Max Absolute Differential Final Tilt Maximum Liquefaction in Shaking Table Tests, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 27
PGA Settlement Settlement (degrees) Acceleration No. 1: March, 94-101.
(g) (cm) (cm) (g) Hausler, E.A. and Sitar, N., 2000. Performance of Improved Ground
N* S N S N S N S During Earthquakes, Field Case Histories, Project Web Site,
0.18 56 8 9 0 0.7 0 0.14 0.22 http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~hausler/home.html .
0.98 126 38 26 2 2.7 0.2 0.16 0.42 Hayden, R.F. and Baez, J.I., 1994. State of Practice for Liquefaction
0.31 42 11 9 0 0.9 0 0.1 0.29 Mitigation in North America, Proc., 4th U.S.-Japan Workshop on
Total 224 57 44 2 4.3 0.2 Soil Liquefaction: Remedial Treatment of Potentially Liquefiable
*Recall North structure sits on unimproved ground, South on improved Soils, Public Works Research Institute, Japan: 27-48.
Hiro-oka, A., Okamura, M., Takemura, J., and Kimura, T., 1995.
1 1 Dynamic Behaviors of Compacted Sands Surrounded by Liquefied
Loose Sands, Proc., IS-Tokyo ’95, The First International
ACC A29 (g)

ACC A32 (g)

0.5
0 0
0.5
1
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 7. Acceleration time histories recorded on the structures, North
(loose) on the left and South (dense) on the right.
4 CONCLUSIONS
This is the first in a series of centrifuge-based shaking table test
studies on the influence of remediation zone geometry on build-
ing settlement, tilt, and acceleration. In this case, ground im-
provement as a countermeasure against liquefaction significantly
minimized, by a factor of 4, the amount of settlement of the
structure. While the settlement of the structure on improved
ground for the largest shaking event was still significant at 40 cm
(prototype scale), the differential settlement and tilt were negli-
gible. However, as has been illustrated before (Liu and Dobry,
1995), ground improvement leads to a substantially increased
level of shaking of the structure, in this case by a factor of 2 to 3.
As would be expected, excess pore water pressure generation
is minimized by ground improvement, with no liquefaction in the
improved zones. Excess pore water pressure is also inhibited in
the near surface by the presence of the structures.
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions and sug-
gestions provided by Prof. Bruce Kutter, Dr. Dan Wilson, Tom
Coker, Chad Justice, Tom Kohnke, Scott Brandenberg, and Mike
0.5
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, A.A.
Balkema: 681-686.
0.5 Iai, S., Morita, T., Kameoka, Y., Matsunaga, Y., and Abiko, K., 1995.
1
0 5 10 15 20
Response of a Dense Sand Deposit During 1993 Kushiro-Oki
Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 35 No. 1: March, 115-131.
Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M., and Seed, R.B.,
2000. Cyclic Simple Shear Testing of Nevada Sand for PEER Center
Project 2051999, Geotechnical Engineering Report No. UCB/GT/00-
01, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Kimura, T., Takemura, J., Hiro-oka, A., and Okamura, M., 1997.
Countermeasures Against Liquefaction of Sand Deposits with
Structures, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Ishihara (ed.),
Balkema, 1203-1224.
Kutter, B.L., 1995. Recent Advances in Centrifuge Modeling of Seismic
Shaking, Proc., 3rd Int’l. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis: Vol. II, 927-
941.
Kutter, B.L., Idriss, I.M., Kohnke, T., Lakeland, J., Li, X.S., Sluis, W.,
Zeng, X., Tauscher, R.C., Goto, Y., Kubodera, I., 1994. Design of a
Large Earthquake Simulator at UC Davis, Centrifuge 94, Leung, Lee,
and Tan (eds.), Balkema: 169-175.
Liu, L. and Dobry, R., 1995. Seismic Response of Shallow Foundation
on Liquefiable Sand, J. Geot. and Geoenv. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 123
No. 6: June 557-567.
Mitchell, J.K., Baxter, C.D.P., and Munson, T.C., 1995. Performance of
Improved Ground During Earthquakes, Proc., Soil Improvements for
Earthquake Hazard Mitigation, Geotechnical Special Publication No.
49, ASCE: 1-36.
Scott, R.F., 1998. Centrifuge Modeling and Technology: A Survey,
Revue Francaise de Geotechnique, 48, 15-34.
Stewart, D.P., Chen, Y-R., and Kutter, B.L., 1998. Experience with the
Use of Methylcellulose as a Viscous Pore Fluid in Centrifuge
Models, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ: Vol. 21, No. 4,
December, 365-369.

View publication stats