Evaluation of the Effect of Encased Stone Columns Technique in Liquefaction Mitigation of Sandy Soil Using UBC3D-PLM Model

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sohag University, Sohag, 82524, Egypt

2 Civil department , faculty of engineering , sphinx university , new assuit

Abstract

Liquefaction of sandy soil during earthquakes poses a significant risk to infrastructure, leading to severe ground deformation and structural failure. The encased stone column (ESC) is a promising ground improvement technique to mitigate this phenomenon. This study utilized two-dimensional Finite Element analyses using PLAXIS 2D software with the UBC3D-PLM model to evaluate the ESC technique's efficacy. The research deals with the role of encased stone columns in mitigating liquefaction at different permeabilities, with a strong focus on their effectiveness in reducing excess pore pressure at various depths. The numerical study used the 1940 El Centro earthquake data to assess liquefaction potential. The results showed a significant reduction in excess pore pressure and soil stability with ESCs.Also, the technique of ESC demonstrates their superior performance over traditional stone columns. ESCs enhanced ground stability by reducing the settlement of the soil, making them a more effective solution for liquefaction mitigation in sandy soils. Furthermore, it was found that the higher permeability in the stone columns helps to dissipate pore pressure more effectively, thereby reducing the risk of liquefaction. These findings provide valuable insights for engineering practice, enhancing the safety and resilience of infrastructure against seismic hazards.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. B. Seed and K.L. Lee, “Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1966. 92(6): pp. 105-134.
  2. Elgamal, Z. Yang, and E. Parra, “Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2002. 22(4): pp. 259-271.
  3. Ecemis, N., “Simulation of seismic liquefaction: 1-g model testing system and shaking table tests,”. European journal of environmental and civil engineering, 2013. 17(10): pp. 899-919.
  4. Galavi, A. Petalas, and R. Brinkgreve, “Finite element modeling of seismic liquefaction in soils,”. Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 2013. 44(3): pp. 55-64.
  5. M Idriss and R.W. Boulanger, “Soil liquefaction during earthquakes,”. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,2018.
  6. Sukkarak , Et al. , “Liquefaction analysis of sandy soil during a strong earthquake in Northern Thailand,” Soils and Foundations, 2021. 61(5): pp. 1302-1318.
  7. Adalier and A. Elgamal, “Mitigation of liquefaction and associated ground deformations by stone columns,” Engineering Geology, 2004. 72(3-4): pp. 275-291.
  8. Elgamal, J. Lu, and D. Forcellini, “Mitigation of liquefaction-induced lateral deformation in a sloping stratum: Three-dimensional numerical simulation,”. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 2009. 135(11): pp. 1672-1682.
  9. Bahmanpour, et al., “The effect of underground columns on the mitigation of liquefaction in shaking table model experiments,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019. 116: pp. 15-30.
  10. K Mitchell, and T.R. Huber, “Performance of a stone column foundation,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1985. 111(2): pp. 205-223.
  11. Demir and P. Özener, “Determination of seismic performance of high modulus columns in liquefiable soils,” 3rd Int. Con. on Perform.-Based Design in Earthquake Geotech. Eng.(PBD-III), 2017.
  12. Demir and P. Özener, “Numerical investigation of seismic performance of high modulus columns under earthquake loading,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2019. 18: pp. 811-822.
  13. G.D Abdelrazek, and S.A.Y. Akl, “Estimating Liquefaction Resistance Improvement Due To Stone Columns From Quality Control Tests,” GEOMATE Journal, 2021. 21(86): pp. 147-158.
  14. Adalier, et al., “Stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic silty soils,”  Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2003. 23(7): pp. 571-584.
  15. Kumar, S. Kumari, and V.A. Sawant, “Numerical investigation of stone column improved ground for mitigation of liquefaction,”. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2020. 20(9): pp. 04020144.
  16. Asgari, M. Oliaei, and M. Bagheri, “Numerical simulation of improvement of a liquefiable soil layer using stone column and pile-pinning techniques,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2013. 51: pp. 77-96.
  17. Rayamajhi, et al., “Dynamic centrifuge tests to evaluate reinforcing mechanisms of soil-cement columns in liquefiable sand,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2015. 141(6): pp. 04015015.
  18. Meshkinghalam, M. Hajialilue-Bonab, and A. Khoshravan Azar, “Numerical investigation of stone columns system for liquefaction and settlement diminution potential,”. International Journal of Geo Engineering, 2017. 8: pp. 1-24.
  19. Şahinkaya, M. Vekli, and C.C. Çadır, “Numerical analysis under seismic loads of soils improvement with floating stone columns,” Natural Hazards, 2017. 88: pp. 891-917.
  20. -G. Zhou, et al., “Liquefaction mitigation mechanisms of stone column-improved ground by dynamic centrifuge model tests,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021. 150: pp. 106946.
  21. Pal and K. Deb, “Filtration performance of geotextile encasement to minimize the clogging of stone column during soil liquefaction,”. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2021. 49(3): pp. 771-788.
  22. A. Ambadan, G.K.S. Shankar Kandasamy, and S. Bhuvaneshwari, “Effectiveness of geosynthetic encased stone column technique for liquefaction mitigation,” Indian Geotechnical Conference,2020.Theme 8 : pp.479.
  23. Tang, et al., “Numerical study on ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation using stone columns encased with geosynthetics,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2015. 43(2): pp. 190-195.
  24. Tang, X. Zhang, and X. Ling, “Numerical simulation of centrifuge experiments on liquefaction mitigation of silty soils using stone columns,” KSCE J Civ Eng 20: 631–638. 2016.
  25. Geng, et al., “Three-dimensional analysis of geosynthetic-encased granular columns for liquefaction mitigation,”. Geosynthetics International, 2017. 24(1): pp. 45-59.
  26. Laera and R. Brinkgreve, “Site response analysis and liquefaction evaluation,” Plaxis report, 2015.
  27. Chakraborty and V. Sawant, “Numerical simulation of earthen embankment resting on liquefiable soil and remediation using stone columns,” International Journal of Geomechanics, 2022. 22(11): pp. 04022205.
  28. Kumari, V.A. Sawant, and S. Mehndiratta, “Effectiveness of stone column in liquefaction mitigation,” in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V. 2018, American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA. p. 207-216.
  29. Bhatnagar, S. Kumari, and V.A. Sawant, “Numerical analysis of earth embankment resting on liquefiable soil and remedial measures,” International Journal of Geomechanics, 2016. 16(1): pp. 04015029.
  30. Petalas and V. Galavi, “Plaxis liquefaction model UBC3D-PLM,” Plaxis report, 2013.
  31. Daftari and W. Kudla, “Prediction of soil liquefaction by using UBC3D-PLM model in Plaxis,” International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2014. 8(2): pp. 106-111
  32. Parra, et al. “Analyses and modeling of site liquefaction using centrifuge tests,” in Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 1996, pp. 23-28.
  33. M. Byrne, et al., “Numerical modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2004. 41(2): pp. 193-211.

 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics