Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Direct evaluation of effectiveness of prefabricated vertical

drains in liquefiable sand
Wen-Jong Changa,*, Ellen M. Rathjeb, Kenneth H. Stokoe IIb, Brady R. Coxb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Chi Nan University, No. 1 University Road, Puli 545, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA

Abstract
A dynamic full scale testing program was performed to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of prefabricated vertical drains as a
liquefaction countermeasure. The testing program involved a new in situ liquefaction testing technique, which uses a large hydraulic vibrator
to generate waves propagating through an embedded instrumentation area to measure the coupled soil-pore water response. The effectiveness
of prefabricated vertical drains is assessed experimentally by comparing the pore pressure generation, pore pressure dissipation, and
settlement from two reconstituted soil specimens; one without a drain in place and the other with a single drain installed. Because the
prefabricated drain was installed during the specimen preparation process, no accompanying densification during installation occurred.
Therefore, the effect of drainage alone was evaluated. The testing results show that the drainage provided by prefabricated drains can
significantly reduce pore pressure generation, accelerate post-shaking pore pressure dissipation, and limit associated settlement. The outcome
also shows that the new developed in situ liquefaction testing technique can be an alternative to quantitatively evaluate the effects of various
liquefaction remediation techniques.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Liquefaction; In situ liquefaction test; Remediation; Prefabricated drains

1. Introduction Drainage techniques involve the installation of a

Liquefaction of saturated granular soil deposits during
seismic loading is one of the most dramatic threats to the
safety of structures during earthquakes and has been
observed in almost all major earthquakes. Liquefaction-
induced damage includes sand boils, excessive settlement,
lateral spreads, landslides, and slope failures. Soil liquefac-
tion is a complicated phenomenon involving the coupled
response of the soil skeleton and pore water. Although the
term ‘liquefaction’ has been used historically to describe a
variety of phenomena that involve soil deformations caused
by static or dynamic loading under undrained conditions,
the generation of excess pore water pressure plays a key role
in all liquefaction-related phenomena. Accordingly, most
mitigation methods for liquefaction are developed
principally based on: (1) reducing the excess pore pressure
generation by densification, or/and (2) quickly remove the
accumulated pore water pressure by drainage.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886-49-2911072x4966; fax: þ 886-49-
2918679.
E-mail addresses: wjchang@ncnu.edu.tw (W.-J. Chang), e.rathje@
mail.utexas.edu (E.M. Rathje).
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.06.007
drainage system to shorten the drainage path, hence
accelerating the excess pore pressure dissipation and
reducing liquefaction effects. Conventionally, gravel drains
and stone columns are used to provide vertical drainage and
have been shown to perform reasonably well in past
earthquake [1]. Several shortcomings have been reported
regarding the effectiveness of gravel drains and stone
columns, such as construction defects due to mixing of the
drain material with the native soils resulting in an increased
impedance to drainage [2], long-term hydraulic conduc-
tivity variations due to clogging [3], and difficulties in
installation at developed sites. An alternative to gravel
drains is prefabricated vertical drains that consist of
corrugated, perforated, plastic pipe encased in a filter fabric.
Because prefabricated drains are installed with steel casing,
construction defects due to mixing with native materials are
minimized. In addition, the outer filter fabric prevents
clogging after installation. These prefabricated drains can
also be installed with smaller drilling equipment and driven
statically, which makes them attractive for space-restricted
or vibration-sensitive sites. However, in this case no
densification accompanies installation, and the drains rely
on drainage alone to prevent liquefaction.
724 W.-J. Chang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731
There are no case histories regarding the performance of
prefabricated drains during intensive earthquakes. Thus, no
information regarding the field performance of prefabri-
cated drains against liquefaction is available now. A series
of full-scale liquefaction tests were conducted to directly
evaluate the effectiveness of prefabricated drains in terms of
generated excess pore pressure ratio, post-shaking dissipa-
tion of excess pore pressure, and liquefaction-induced
settlement. The testing program involved a new in situ
testing technique developed at the University of Texas at
Austin [4,5]. Two reconstituted specimens of clean, loose
sand were prepared by water pluviation. One specimen was
constructed without a prefabricated drain and the other with
a full size prefabricated drain. Because the prefabricated
drain was placed prior to water pluviation process, no
densification of the surrounding soil occurred. Therefore,
the effectiveness of drainage alone can be quantitatively
evaluated. This paper describes these tests in detail and
presents the primary test results. Current results indicates
the prefabricated drain can significant reduce the excess
pore pressure ratio, accelerate the post-shaking dissipation,
and reduce liquefaction-induced settlement.
2. Drainage techniques
Since Seed and Booker [6] first proposed drainage as a
mitigation technique for liquefaction in 1977, much
research has been done regarding analytical design methods,
experimental techniques, and field observations. This work
is discussed below. In addition, details of prefabricated
drains are provided.
2.1. Analytical background
Seed and Booker [6] first proposed the analytical
framework for pore pressure generation and dissipation of
a soil deposit with vertical drains. Under the assumptions of
purely radial drainage, a constant coefficient of compressi-
bility, and infinite permeability of drains, design charts were
developed to evaluate the drain diameter and spacing. These
charts consider the consolidation properties of the liquefi-
able soil, the pore pressure generation model, the expected
earthquake loading, and the allowable excess pore pressure
ratio. The developed chart-based approach had been widely
used in engineering practice.
Onoue et al. [7] demonstrated that drain resistance has
a major influence on drain performance and design, and
concluded that drain resistance should be taken into
consideration in drain design. Furthermore, the mixing of
native soils and drain materials during the installation
process could reduce the permeability of drain
significantly, resulting in an increase in drain resistance.
Various chart-based approaches that consider
drain resistance have been developed, such as Onoue
et al. [7] and Onoue [8].
Pestana et al. [9] developed a finite element code for
analyzing three-dimensional pore pressure generation and
dissipation with vertical drains in place. Because the
mathematical formulation includes drain resistance and
reservoir capacity, the program is capable of analyzing
prefabricated drains.
2.2. Experimental work
Onoue et al. [7] performed large-scale in situ experi-
ments to study the drainage resistance of gravel drains. A
1.2 m diameter thin steel pipe was slowly driven into the
ground. The center of the pipe was excavated to construct a
gravel drain with diameter between 0.3 and 0.5 m. The steel
pipe was vibrated from the surface with a vibrohammer to
induce cyclic shear strain and generate excess pore pressure.
The tests revealed that the gravel drain reduced the excess
pore pressure ratio, but that drain resistance was present.
Iai et al. [10] use a 2 m high ring stack on a shaking table
to investigate the drain behavior. Limited by the size of ring
stack, the far-field pore pressure dissipated vertically to the
surface and radically to the drains as well. Yang and Ko [11]
performed a centrifuge test on a trench shape drain. The
centrifuge test showed that excess pore pressures generated
farther from the drain took longer to dissipate and the
maximum excess pore pressure occurred after the shaking
due to redistribution of excess pore pressure. Brennan and
Madabhushi [12] conducted centrifuge tests and suggested
that the effects of vertical drainage and drainage discharge
capacity should be considered in analyses.
2.3. Field performance of gravel drainage
Sonu et al. [13] describe the performance of gravel drains
during the 1993 Kushiro-Oki ðMJMA ¼ 7:8Þ earthquake in
Japan. Wharf areas in the Port of Kushiro treated with gravel
drains showed minor to no damage, whereas untreated areas
suffered severe damage including excessive settlement,
movement and failure of bulkheads, and sand boils.
Yasuda et al. [14] investigated the performance of
various liquefaction remediation techniques after the 1995
Hyogoken-Nambu ðMw ¼ 6:9Þ earthquake. Two reclaimed
islands with liquefiable soils (Port Island and Rokko Island)
were intensely shaken by the earthquake. Observations after
the earthquake indicated that sand drains performed well,
with ground settlements in areas treated with sand drains
averaging more than 50% less than those measured in
untreated areas. However, because densification occurs
during the installation of these types of drains, the improved
performance cannot be solely attributed to drainage.
2.4. Prefabricated drains
Prefabricated vertical drains are an alternative to gravel
drains or stone columns to quickly dissipate excess pore
water pressures and prevent liquefaction. A typical
 W.-J. Chang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731
Fig. 1. Typical prefabricated vertical drain used for liquefaction
remediation.
prefabricated drain used for liquefaction remediation is
shown in Fig. 1. These drains consist of corrugated, plastic
pipe with open slots, and can range in size from 75 to
150 mm in diameter. Filter fabric is placed around the pipe
to prevent the migration of fines into the pipe. The
perforated plastic pipe provides a larger discharge capacity
than a gravel drain, which makes it more effective to
dissipate excess pore pressure. Also, the volume inside the
pipe functions as a reservoir that stores the water flowing
into the pipe, which slows the increase of static water
pressure in the drain. The better discharge and storage
capacities of prefabricated drains result in smaller drain
resistance and are crucial to reduce accumulated excess pore
pressure.
Prefabricated drains are installed with conventional
drilling equipment. They are carried within a steel casing,
which protects the drains from driving stresses. The casing
is driven, statically or dynamically, into the soil to the
desired depth. At this point the casing is removed, leaving
the drain in place. Because no mixing occurs, prefabricated
drains can reliably provide the desired drain permeability.
When driven dynamically, prefabricated drains also provide
some densification to the surrounding soil. When driven
statically, the drains can be installed beneath existing
structures, which represents one of the only cost-effective
means to remediate liquefiable soils at developed sites.
Although prefabricated drains have been installed
recently for liquefaction remediation, none of these sites
has experienced severe earthquakes. Thus, no case histories
are available to validate the effectiveness of prefabricated
drains against liquefaction. Some recent field tests have
been conducted to evaluate the performance of prefabri-
cated drains during dynamic loading. Rollins et al. [15] used
controlled blasting to test prefabricated drains installed at
two sites with liquefiable soils. The results show that the
settlements in treated area were 40 to 80% less than those in
untreated area and the rates of dissipation in treated area
significantly faster than untreated area. However, the drains
for these tests were installed with vibratory methods, which
induced some densification of the soil during installation
725
(, 3 –4% volumetric strain). Consequently, the effective-
ness of drainage alone in reducing pore pressure generation
and liquefaction-induced settlement could not be evaluated
from these tests.
3. Experiment methodology
The testing program in this study was aimed at specifically
focusing on how drainage alone, without any accompanying
densification, affects pore pressure generation, post-shaking
dissipation rate, and subsequent settlement. To achieve this
goal, full-scale tests were performed. The tests involved a
new in situ dynamic liquefaction testing technique developed
at the University of Texas. Testing details, analytical
background, and test setup are presented here.
3.1. In situ dynamic liquefaction test
The in situ dynamic liquefaction test is a recently
developed testing technique that dynamically loads a soil
deposit in situ and monitors the response of the soil deposit
using embedded instrumentation [4,5]. The essential
components for in situ dynamic liquefaction testing are
the dynamic loading source and the instrumentation system
for simultaneously monitoring the ground response and pore
pressure generation. A mobile shaker is used to generate
surface waves that propagate through an instrumented test
area and cyclically shear the soil. Embedded instrumenta-
tion, which integrates geophones and miniature pore
pressure transducers (PPT) in an acrylic case, is used to
measure the particle velocity-time histories and pore
pressure-time histories at several locations within the soil.
In addition, settlement plates are installed at different depths
to measure the induced settlements. The collected data are
processed to evaluate induced cyclic shear strains and pore
pressure ratios within the soil deposit throughout the
dynamic loading phase of testing. Post-shaking pore
pressure dissipation is also monitored.
The developed liquefaction testing technique utilizes a
vibroseis truck as dynamic source. Vibroseis trucks have
been used extensively in the geophysical exploration field as
a wave source for seismic studies. Hryciw et al. [16] reported
a unique case history in which a flow slide of an embankment
was induced by liquefaction triggered by six vibroseis trucks
that were being used as sources for a reflection survey. The
vibroseis truck owned by the University of Texas has been
modified for dynamic pavement testing [17,18] and in situ
nonlinear soil property studies [19,20]. This truck includes a
servo-controlled hydraulic ram that can vibrate a base plate
vertically at variable loading frequencies and force levels.
The vibroseis truck used in this study has a frequency range
that is limited to between 15 to 100 Hz, and a maximum
applied force of 175 kN.
For a vertically vibrating footing, Rayleigh waves are the
dominant waves that carry the most energy (67%) and decay
726 W.-J. Chang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731
most slowly along the surface (1=R0:5 ; R is the distance from
the source) [21]. To take advantage of Rayleigh wave
propagation, a concrete footing was constructed on the
ground at the site and the vibroseis was used to vibrate this
footing. The instrumented area was constructed near the
ground surface adjacent to the vibroseis. The in situ
dynamic liquefaction test involves staged loading, where
small shaking levels are applied first followed by increasing
levels of loading. In this way, a pore pressure generation
curve (PPGC), which represents the relationship between
excess pore pressure ratio and shear strain level under a
specific number of loading cycle, is measured.
3.2. Instrumentation system
The major instrumentation for the in situ dynamic
liquefaction test consists of embedded sensors for monitor-
ing particle motion and pore pressure variation, associated
signal conditioners, and high-speed data acquisition sys-
tems. A new sensor called the liquefaction test sensor was
designed to measure particle velocities and pore pressure at
the same location. This sensor consists of two perpendicu-
larly oriented (horizontally and vertically) 28 Hz geophones
and a miniature PPT integrated in an acrylic case. A
schematic of the liquefaction sensor is shown in Fig. 2. The
case was designed such that the final density of the sensor
Fig. 2. Schematic drawing of liquefaction test sensor.
with the instrumentation installed (2.24 g/cm3) was close to
the total density of the soil (2.0 g/cm3). Matching the
density of the instrumentation and soil prevents the
instrumentation from sinking or floating after significant
pore pressure generation. The cylindrical shape and the
small size provide better integrity between the soil and
sensor.
An individually shielded, four-pair cable was used to
provide DC power to the miniature PPT and to connect the
two geophones and PPT with the signal conditioning and
data acquisition systems at the ground surface. Dynamic
data acquisition systems were developed to record the
particle motion during the loading and the full process of
pore pressure generation and dissipation.
3.3. Excess pore pressure analysis
The measured pore pressure is composed of static,
hydrodynamic, and residual pore pressures. To compute
excess pore pressure ratio (Ru ¼ Du=s0v ; Du; residual excess
pore pressure, s0v ; effective vertical stress), the static and
hydrodynamic pore pressure components must be removed.
Initial values are subtracted from the signals to remove the
static pore water pressure. A low pass filter with a 2 Hz cut-
off frequency is used to separate the residual excess pore
pressure from the hydrodynamic excess pore pressure. The
peak of the residual pore pressure is used to calculate the
excess pore pressure ratio for the PPGC. In addition, to
present both the residual and hydrodynamic components, a
low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 28 Hz is applied to
eliminate background noise above 28 Hz. These filters are
applied in the frequency domain. The processed signals are
transferred back to the time domain after filtering.
3.4. Strain evaluation
Several techniques have been proposed to compute shear
strains from recorded particle velocities. In the early stage
of this research, the displacement-based (DB) method was
developed and utilized to calibrate other methods. Three
wave propagation-based approaches had been proposed and
field data showed that the apparent wave (AW) method
provides better match with the DB method.
The DB method computes the strain components using a
simple assumption of linear variation of displacement
across a square instrumentation array as shown in Fig. 3.
Four liquefaction sensors are configured to form the
instrumentation array with four nodes at locations of
liquefaction sensors. The strain component within the
array at a specific time is computed using:
1 ¼ B·u ð1Þ
  
where 1; the strain vector, B; strain –displacement trans-
 
formation matrix, and u; displacement vector at nodes. The

measured horizontal and vertical velocity-time histories at
four nodes are numerically integrated with respect to time to
 W.-J. Chang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731
Fig. 3. Schematic layout of instrumentation array for DB method.
produce displacement – time histories at the corners (nodes)
of the array. Using Eq. (1) and the displacement – time
histories at the nodal points, the strain-time histories at any
point inside the field array can be computed. Although the
DB method requires particle velocity measurements at four
separate locations, this method incorporates only one major
assumption (the linear variation of displacement between
measurement points), which makes it the baseline strain
computation method to which other strain computation
methods are compared.
Wave propagation-based methods for calculating
dynamic strains have been used in the earthquake
engineering and the seismic exploration fields [22,23].
However, the wave propagation behavior for current testing
configuration is too complicated to be described by a single
wave type or analyzed by a single analytical technique. An
approximation method named the AW method is proposed
that computes strain at a point simply as the ratio of the
particle velocity to the AW velocity. For shear strain
computation, the directions of particle motion and wave
propagation are orthogonal. In the in situ dynamic liquefac-
tion test, the shear strain is computed approximately by:
PVv
gxz ¼ 2
Vah
where PVv ; vertical particle velocity and Vah ; AW velocity
propagating in the horizontal direction. The minus sign is
included for the phase shift. Both properties are measured by
the embedded geophones. The vertical particle velocity is
from the vertical geophones and the AW velocity is the
horizontally propagating wave velocity. The AW propa-
gation velocity is computed using the phase difference at the
loading frequency (20 Hz) between adjacent recording at
the same depth and the distance between these geophones.
The AW method only requires particle velocity measure-
ments at two locations and provides a more localized
estimate of shear strain. Comparisons between shear strains
at the center of array computed by the DB and AW wave
methods from field test are shown in Fig. 4, which indicates
that they are within 10% of one another over a large strain
range [4].
727
Fig. 4. Comparison of shear strains at the center of array computed by AW
method and DB method (Ref. [4]).
3.5. Test setup and testing procedure
The test site is located on a flood plain with the ground
water table below 2 m and the natural soil is cemented and
non-liquefiable above the water table. The reconstituted test
specimens were constructed in a 1.2 m by 1.2 m by 1.2 m
excavation. An impermeable liner was lined over the
excavation to prevent water from flowing out of the
specimen. The test soil is an aggregate sand, which is a
poorly-graded, medium sand with less than 1% fines and
D50 ¼ 0:65 mm.
Two reconstituted specimens were constructed. The
configurations of the test specimens for the ‘No Drain’
and ‘Drain’ tests are shown in Fig. 5. The test specimens
were constructed by water pluviation. Sand and water were
mixed before it was placed in the test pit, while always
maintaining about 30 cm of water above the top of the
ð2Þ specimen. This specimen preparation technique produced
repeatable saturated specimens, with specimens having a
void ratio of about 0.56, a relative density of 36%, and shear
wave velocities between 90 and 115 m/s. According to
Andrus and Stokoe [24], these specimens have small cyclic
stress resistance ratio (, 0.1) and are highly susceptible to
liquefy. Liquefaction test sensors were installed during the
specimen preparation at specific locations/depths with the
horizontal geophones parallel to the radial direction of
the footing.
For the No Drain test (Fig. 5(a)), four liquefaction test
sensors were placed in a square array, with a fifth sensor
placed at the center of the array. This sensor arrangement
facilitates DB method strain computations (Eq. (1)), as
described in the previous section, and was used for
calibration and verification of the testing technique. For
the Drain test, a 100 mm inside diameter drain was placed at
the far end of the test pit. In this way, the experiment
728 W.-J. Chang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731
Fig. 5. Testing setup for the (a) No Drain test and (b) Drain test.
approximately represents a 200 mm inside diameter drain
spaced at 2.4 m (center-to-center). Unlike conventional field
installation, the drain was placed in the test pit before
specimen preparation. In this way, the soil could be placed
around the drain in an undisturbed state; hence the effects of
drainage alone can be quantified. The liquefaction test
sensors in the Drain test were placed within the drain and at
different radial distances from the drain, all at a depth of
0.69 m (Fig. 5(b)). Because of the test sensor layout in the
Drain test, developed shear strain was only computed using
the AW method (Eq. (2)). This configuration enables
measurement of variation of the induced shear strain and
excess pore pressure at different radial distance. In addition,
settlement plates were buried at different depths to monitor
the settlements induced by pore pressure generation at
different depths. For both tests, a thin layer of clay and a
layer of dry sand were placed on top of the test specimen to
impede drainage and to increase the effective stresses in the
test specimens.
The in situ dynamic liquefaction test involves staged
loading, where small shaking levels are applied first followed
by increasing levels of loading. Between loading stages, the
test specimens were allowed to rest to allow any excess pore
pressures to dissipate completely. For each stage of loading,
a 20 Hz sinusoidal load was applied on the footing for
3 seconds, resulting in 60 cycles of load. In this way, a PPGC,
which represents the relationship between excess pore
pressure ratios and shear strains under a specific number of
loading cycle, is measured.
4. Test results
Test results from No Drain and Drain test are presented
in terms of PPGC, shear strain and pore pressure ratio-time
histories and induced settlements, and post-shaking dissipa-
tion. Effectiveness of drains is discussed based on the
comparison of the two tests in these three aspects.
4.1. Pore pressure generation curve
To compare the results from the two test specimens, the
shear strain and pore pressure generation data from sensor 5
in the No Drain test (Fig. 5(a)) and sensor 4 in the Drain test
(Fig. 5(b)) are used, because the spatial locations of these two
sensors are relatively close. The shear strains at sensor 5 in
the No Drain test are calculated using the DB method
(Eq. (1)). The shear strains at sensors 4 in the Drain test are
calculated using the AW method (Eq. (2)). The mean shear
strain, which represents the average shear strain during
loading phase, is used to establish the PPGC. The PPGCs for
the Drain and No Drain tests are shown in Fig. 6. The result
indicates that under the same shear strain level, the specimen
with drain experienced a smaller pore pressure ratio. Under
the maximum loading condition of the test series, the
maximum pore pressure ratio in the No Drain test reached the
initial liquefaction state ðRu ¼ 100%Þ: However, the maxi-
mum pore pressure ratio in the Drain test was only about
30%, which is well below the suggested value to minimize
liquefaction effects (Ru ¼ 60%; Seed and Booker [6]).
Comparisons of PPGCs from two tests show that the
existence of a prefabricated drain had notably increased the
strain level required to generate same pore pressure ratio,
hence more intensive earthquake is required to initiate
liquefaction. Furthermore, this difference of the required
Fig. 6. Pore pressure generation curves of No Drain and Drain tests.
 W.-J. Chang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731 729

stress level to generate same pore pressure ratio between

two configurations increases as pore pressure ratio increase.
This observation implies that the effectiveness of drainage
increases as strain level increase.
The magnitude of the threshold shear strains that
generated significant excess pore pressure in this test series
was very small (, 0.003%). The generally accepted value of
threshold strain for pore pressure generation is about 0.01%,
and initial liquefaction ðRu ¼ 100%Þ generally occurs at
shear strains between 0.5 and 1.0% [25]. However, the
vertical effective stresses in the specimen at the sensor
locations were approximately only 15 kPa. Most of the
laboratory experiments used to evaluate the threshold strain
for pore pressure generation were performed at effective
stresses close to 100 kPa. Considering the effect of stress
state on threshold strain [26], a threshold shear strain of
about 0.005% is not unreasonable [4].

4.2. Time histories and settlement

The shear strain-time histories and pore pressure ratio-

time histories of the largest loading level for both tests are
shown in Fig. 7. In the No Drain test (Fig. 7(a)), the shear
strain varies during shaking because of the effects of pore
pressure generation on wave propagation. At this loading
level, the mean shear strain amplitude was about
1.2 £ 1022%, which is greater than the threshold shear
strain (0.005%) of the specimen as shown in Fig. 6.
Therefore, significant pore pressures were generated at this
loading level. The pore pressure ratio increased rapidly in
the first 20 cycles and reached 100% after about 35 cycles of
loading. After this point, the residual pore pressure remains
at 100% and the hydrodynamic pore pressure stabilizes at
þ /2 23%. At this loading level, 2.5 cm settlement was
measured, which corresponds to 2.1% volumetric strain.
The hydrodynamic pore pressures are due to changes in
mean stress induced by the passage of stress waves. To
capture the hydrodynamic pore pressure, the PPT must be
fully saturated. The PPT within the liquefaction test sensor
was saturated in the laboratory using a pressure chamber
and maintained saturation during the transportation and
installation process. For both test series, the hydrodynamic
pore pressures occurred at a frequency coincident with the
loading frequency (20 Hz) and the hydrodynamic pore
pressure amplitudes are linearly proportional to the Fig. 7. Shear strain-time and pore pressure ratio-time histories of the largest
measured particle velocity amplitudes. The particle velocity loading level test for (a) No Drain test, (b) Drain test.
amplitudes are proportional to the amplitudes of generated
surface waves and are a measure of the change in mean in a linear fashion and the maximum pore pressure ratio,
stress. Both trends indicate that the PPTs are fully saturated. which is 35%, occurred at the end of shaking. The maximum
In the Drain test (Fig. 7(b)), the shear strain amplitude is pore pressure ratio is considerably smaller than required for
relatively constant during shaking because of the low excess liquefaction. The hydrodynamic pore pressure ratio was
pore pressure ratio. The mean shear strain amplitude was relatively consistent during shaking, maintaining a level of
about 1.4 £ 1022%, which is approximately equal to the about þ /2 20%, which is approximately equal to the stable
shear strain induced in the No Drain test (Fig. 7(a)). The rate hydrodynamic pore pressure in the No Drain test. The
of pore pressure generation is significantly slower than in similar hydrodynamic pore pressure ratio indicates that
the No Drain test. The excess pore pressure ratio increased similar stress levels had applied on both tests. Only 0.6 cm
730 W.-J. Chang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731

settlement, which corresponds to 0.5% volumetric strain,

was observed in the Drain test. The results indicate that the
presence of a single prefabricated drain had effectively
reduced pore pressure ratio under suggested value to
minimize liquefaction effects (Ru ¼ 60%; [6]). In addition,
the excess pore pressure associated settlement had been
reduced 76%.

4.3. Dissipation behavior

In the Drain test, liquefaction test sensors were placed

within the drain as well as at radial distances from the drain
between 0.1 and 0.78 m (Fig. 5(b)) to measure the pore
pressure variation with radial distance. The residual pore
pressure ratio-time histories (hydrodynamic pore pressures
were removed) for the first 10 s of each sensor at the largest
loading level are shown in Fig. 8. Theoretically, larger pore
pressure ratios are expected at distances further from drain
due to longer drainage paths. The pore pressure time-
histories of the Drain test generally agree with the trend
except the furthest sensor from drain (sensor 5 in Fig. 5(b)).
The discrepancy for the furthest sensor from drain is
possibly due to the imperfect contact between the imperme-
able liner and the specimen, which may have provided a
drainage path for the surrounding soil. In addition, the post-
shaking pore pressure inside the prefabricated drain
dissipated slower than the surrounding soil because of the
excess pore pressure within the specimen flow vertically to
the top of the specimen.
To compare the dissipation rate in the Drain and the No
Drain tests, pore pressure ratio-time histories of sensor 5 in
the No Drain test and sensor 4 in the Drain test are plotted in
Fig. 9. The results show that the post-shaking dissipation
rate, which is the slope of pore pressure ratio time-histories,
in the Drain test is notably greater than in the No Drain test.
The fastest dissipation rates for both tests were observed
within 1 s after the end of shaking. The fastest dissipation
rate of the Drain test is 75% faster than the largest
dissipation rate of the No Drain test. The excess pore
water pressure in the Drain test fully dissipates after about
60 s since shaking started but it takes over 100 s in the No
Fig. 8. Pore pressure ratio-time histories at different radial distances from
the edge of the drain.
Fig. 9. Comparison of dissipation rate for No Drain and Drain test.
Drain test. Evidently, the prefabricated drain can effectively
accelerate post-shaking pore pressure dissipation.
5. Conclusions
A full-scale experimental study was conducted to
directly investigate the effects of drainage alone on excess
pore pressure generation, post-shaking pore pressure
dissipation, and the associated settlement. The recently
developed in situ dynamic liquefaction testing technique
that uses a vibroseis truck to generate waves propagating
through an embedded instrumentation area was utilized to
study the effects of drainage. Both specimens were
constructed in a lined test pit by water sedimentation. In
situ liquefaction test results from two configurations, a soil
deposit with a full-scale drain (Drain test) and a soil deposit
without a drain (No Drain test), were compared. In the Drain
test, the drain was installed before water sedimentation,
such that no densification occurred during the installation
process. Therefore, the effects of drainage alone can be
studied. The effectiveness of drainage is quantitatively
evaluated in terms of excess pore pressures ratio, post-
shaking dissipation rate, and induced settlement.
The in situ experiments showed that at large strain levels
the pore pressure and shear strain responses of two
specimens were different. Comparisons of PPGCs from
the two configurations show that the drainage alone had
significantly increased the strain level required to generate
same excess pore pressure ratio. At the strain level that
liquefaction initiated in the No Drain test ðg ¼ 1:2 £
1022 %Þ; only 30% excess pore pressure ratio was generated
in the Drain test. As pore pressure ratio increases, the
difference of strain levels, corresponding to same pore
pressure ratio, between two tests increases.
In the No Drain test, the specimen experienced a pore
pressure ratio of 100% and about 2% volumetric strain
occurred. However, in the Drain test, the specimen showed a
maximum pore pressure ratio of 35% at a depth of 0.69 m
and about 0.5% volumetric strain was measured. Because
the hydrodynamic pore pressure amplitudes between two
specimens were almost the same, the stress levels applied on
 W.-J. Chang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 723–731
both specimens were the same. Therefore, the reduction of
excess pore pressure was due to drainage alone. In addition,
the pore pressure generation induced settlement had been
reduced 76% because only limited pore pressure ratio was
generated in the Drain test. The faster post-shaking
dissipation rate and shorter time required to fully dissipate
in the Drain test indicate that drains are beneficial in post-
shaking excess pore pressure dissipation as well.
The results of this study indicate that drainage alone can
considerably reduce pore pressure generation, accelerate
post-shaking pore pressure dissipation, and minimize
settlement in loose saturated sands under large dynamic
loading. In addition, the outcome shows that the new
developed in situ liquefaction testing technique can be an
alternative to quantitatively evaluate the effects of various
liquefaction remediation techniques.
Acknowledgements
Financial support was provided by the National Science
Foundation under the CAREER award CMS-9875430 and
grant CMS-9973717. This support is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The authors wish to thank Dr Robert Goughnour and
Mr Jimmy Foster of Nilex Inc. for providing the drain
material and advice during testing.
References
[1] Mitchell JK, Baxter CDP, Munson TC. Performance of improved
ground during earthquakes. Proceedings of the Soil Improvement for
Liquefaction Hazard Mitigation. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publi-
cation No. 49; 1995. p. 1– 36.
[2] Boulanger RW, Idriss IM, Stewart JP, Hashash Y, Schmidt B.
Drainage capacity of stone columns or gravel drains for mitigating
liquefaction. Proceedings of the Geotechnical Earthquake Engineer-
ing and Soil Dynamics III. Seattle, WA: ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 75; 1998. p. 678–90.
[3] Onoue A, Mori N, Takano J. In situ experiment and analysis on well
resistance of gravel drains. Soils Found 1987;27(2):42–60.
[4] Chang W-J. Development of an in situ dynamic liquefaction test. PhD
Dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA; 2002.
[5] Rathje EM, Chang W-J, Cox BR, Stokoe KH. Effect of prefabricated
vertical drains on pore pressure generation in liquefiable sand. 11th
International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engin-
eering. Berkeley, California; 2004.
[6] Seed HB, Brooker JR. Stabilization of potentially liquefiable sand
deposits using gravel drains. J Geotechn Engng Div, ASCE 1977;
103(GT7):757–68.
[7] Onoue A, Mori N, Takano J. In situ experiment and analysis on well
resistance of gravel drains. Soils Found 1987;27(2):42–60.
[8] Onoue A. Diagrams considering well resistance for designing spacing
ratio of gravel drains. Soils Found 1988;28(3):160 –8.
731
[9] Pestana JM, Hunt CE, Goughnour RR. FEQDrain: a finite element
computer program for the analysis of the earthquake generation and
dissipation of pore water pressure in layered sand deposits with
vertical drains. Report No. UCB/EERC-97-15; 1997.
[10] Iai S, Koizumi K, Noda S, Tsuchida H. Large scale model tests and
analysis of gravel drains. Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan; 1988. p. 261–6.
[11] Yang TF, Ko H-Y. Reduction of excess pore-water pressure by the
gravel drainage method during earthquakes. Centrifuge 1998;98:
301–6.
[12] Brennan AJ, Madabhushi SPG. Effectiveness of vertical drains in
mitigation of liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Engng 2002;22(9):
1059– 65.
[13] Sonu CJ, Ito K, Oishi H. Harry seed, liquefaction, and the gravel drain.
ASCE Civil Engng 1993;63(12):58–60.
[14] Yasuda S, Ishihara K, Harada K, Sinkawa N. Effect of soil
improvement on ground subsidence due to liquefaction. Soils and
Foundations 1996;99–108. Special issue on the geotechnical aspects
of the January, 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake.
[15] Rollins KM, Anderson J, McCain A, Goughnour R. Vertical
composite drains for mitigating liquefaction hazard. 13th Inter-
national Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Honolulu,
Hawaii; 2003. p. 498–505.
[16] Hryciw RD, Vitton S, Thomann TG. Liquefaction and flow failure
during seismic exploration. J Geotechn Engng, ASCE 1990;116(12):
1881– 99.
[17] Bay JA. Development of a rolling dynamic deflectometer for
continuous deflection testing of pavements. PhD Dissertation.
University of Texas at Austin; 1997. p. 75–78.
[18] Stokoe IIKH, Bay JA, Rosenblad BL, Murphy MR, Fults KW, Chen
DH. Super-accelerated testing of a flexible pavement with the
stationary dynamic deflectometer (SDD). 2000 Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board; 2000.
[19] Phillips RD. Initial design and implementation of an in situ test for
measurement of nonlinear soil properties. MS Thesis. The University
of Texas at Austin; 2000.
[20] Axtell PJ. In situ measurements of linear and nonlinear properties of a
near-surface, poorly graded sand. MS Thesis. The University of Texas
at Austin; 2001.
[21] Woods RD. Screening of surface waves in soils. J Soil Mech Found
Div, ASCE 1968;94(SM4):951–79.
[22] White JE. Seismic Waves: Radiation, Transmission, and Attenuation.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1965.
[23] Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Gillespie D, Rice A. Seismic CPT to
measure in situ shear wave velocity. In: Woods RD, editor.
Measurement and use of shear wave velocity for evaluation dynamic
soil properties. ASCE; 1985.
[24] Andrus RD, Stokoe II KH. Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-
wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Engng, ASCE 2000;126(11):
1015– 25.
[25] Dobry R, Ladd RS, Yokel FY, Chung RM, Powell D. Prediction
of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during
earthquake by the cyclic strain method. NBS Builing Science
Series 138, Gaithersburg, MA: National Bureau of Standards;
1982.
[26] Dobry R, Swiger WF. Threshold strain and cyclic behavior of
cohesiobless soils. Proceedings of the Third ASCE/EMDE Specialty
Conference. Austin, TX; 1979. p. 521–525.