Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Parametric investigation of effectiveness of high modulus columns in

liquefaction mitigation
Selçuk Demir a, Pelin Tohumcu Özener b, *
a
Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Turkey
b
Yildiz Technical University, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, an extensive parametric study is carried out in order to examine the effectiveness of high modulus
Liquefaction mitigation columns (HMCs) in liquefaction mitigation using a nonlinear three-dimensional (3D) finite-element (FE) soft­
Shear strain compatibility ware. For this purpose, a hypothetical liquefiable soil profile of 20 m thick is modeled and parametric analyses
High modulus columns
are performed by considering different area replacement ratios, shear modulus ratios, improvement depth
Numerical modeling
OpenSeesPL
(slenderness) ratios and input motion intensities. The results of the parametric analyses are evaluated by
examining shear stress reduction, shear strain distribution, peak surface acceleration, maximum horizontal ac­
celeration, factor of safety against soil liquefaction, excess pore water pressure ratio, surface settlements, lateral
displacements and response spectra. Comparative analyses between unimproved liquefiable soil and improved
soil are performed to show the influence of high modulus columns on the response of liquefiable soil. The seismic
performance of liquefiable soil reinforced with HMCs is specifically investigated by focusing on the shear strain
and shear stress distribution between liquefiable soil and high modulus columns. Therefore, the analysis results
are discussed in terms of assumption of shear strain compatibility by comparing the modified equations for shear
stress reduction factors suggested in the literature with the one developed in this paper. Additionally, the reli­
ability of the current design methodology for evaluating shear reinforcement of HMCs is discussed by showing
effects of shear strain compatibility and incompatibility on the values of factor of safety against liquefaction and
recommendations are made related to the use of HMCs in engineering practice.

1. Introduction
Different ground improvement mechanisms such as densification,
drainage, reinforcement, or a combination of these mechanisms are
commonly used in engineering practice to prevent or minimize the
liquefaction-induced soil deformations and its associated damages.
These mechanisms are applied in liquefiable soils in order to reduce the
risk of liquefaction and its related hazards with different improvement
techniques called high modulus columns (HMCs) such as stone columns,
rammed aggregate piers, jet grout columns [1–13].
In recent years, the performance of HMCs in liquefiable soils has
been investigated through available case histories, physical model tests
and well-calibrated numerical models [1,2,5,8,9,14–17]. In particular,
these researches questioned the performance of HMCs in liquefaction
mitigation in terms of shear stress distribution or site response effects [2,
8,15,17–19]. Although various researches have been carried out on the
effectiveness of HMCs in liquefaction mitigation, many questions still
remain regarding the use of HMCs as a reinforcing element for lique­
faction remediation. In particular, the effect of HMCs on site response
has not been cleared yet, and the influence of HMCs on shear stress
reduction, peak ground accelerations, excess pore water pressure ratios,
liquefaction potential, and liquefaction induced settlements and hori­
zontal displacements are not sufficiently understood. Hence, there is a
great need for reliable physical and numerical models to evaluate the
effectiveness of HMCs in liquefaction mitigation and its impact on the
site response.
In this study, seismic performance of a hypothetic liquefiable soil
reinforced with HMCs is investigated by focusing on the effects of HMCs
on seismic shear stress reduction, liquefaction potential, liquefaction
induced displacements and site response. Numerical analyses are per­
formed through 3D nonlinear finite element models by applying unit cell
approach available in OpenSeesPL. In order to calibrate the constitutive
models used in the finite element model, numerical simulation of a
laboratory experiment and a centrifuge test are carried out and the

* Corresponding author. Yıldız Technical University, Davutpaşa Campus, Civil Engineering Department, 34220, Esenler, İstanbul, Turkey.
E-mail addresses: selcukdemir@ibu.edu.tr (S. Demir), tohumcu@yildiz.edu.tr (P.T. Özener).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106337
Received 20 February 2020; Received in revised form 9 June 2020; Accepted 19 July 2020
Available online 21 August 2020
0267-7261/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Demir and P.T. Özener
analysis results are compared with the experimental measurements.
Following the verification of the numerical model, responses of the
improved and unimproved soils under earthquake loading are investi­
gated and evaluated by considering different parametric variables
including, area replacement ratio (Ar ), shear modulus ratio (Gr ), and
improvement depth ratio (slenderness ratio) (L/d).
2. Background and prior numerical studies on seismic
performance of high modulus columns
In common engineering practice, HMCs are considered to be an
effective ground improvement method because of three primary reasons
[1,20]; (1) installation of HMCs generally leads to a densification of the
surrounding soil. Thus, lateral effective stress and load bearing capacity
of the surrounding soil increase, (2) HMCs enhance drainage capacity of
the composite soil and reduce the post-construction settlements, (3)
stiffer column elements reduce the seismic shear stresses acting on the
surrounding soil.
The performance of high modulus columns against liquefaction has
been discussed by many researchers through the examination of limited
well-documented case histories from past earthquakes [5,6,21,22]. In
addition, valuable experimental studies were performed for better un­
derstanding of the performance of HMCs in liquefiable soils. Adalier
et al. [1] performed centrifuge experiments to investigate the mecha­
nism and effectiveness of stone columns on the seismic performance of
shallow footings. They concluded that stone columns can be an effective
technique in the remediation of liquefaction induced settlements.
Recently, Rayamajhi et al. [9] discussed the reinforcing mechanisms of
soil-cement columns in liquefiable soils by dynamic centrifuge tests.
This experimental study showed that for the conditions of Ar = 30%, Gr
= 9.8, the shear reinforcement mechanism of soil-cement columns is not
effective in stiffening the liquefiable soil profile and reducing the cyclic
stress ratios in the improved soil or reducing the liquefaction potential.
Badanaghki et al. [2] conducted centrifuge experiments and questioned
the performance of the granular columns in level ground and sloped soil
conditions including, non-liquefiable soil deposit and a 3 storey building
on the top surface. Their results showed that although granular columns
reduce soil surface settlements and lateral soil displacements, acceler­
ations at the soil surface and in the surrounding soil are seen to be
slightly amplified compared to unimproved soil cases.
In addition to field observations and experimental studies, there are
many numerical studies in the literature on liquefaction mitigation
improved with HMCs. While some of these studies focused on the per­
formance of the HMCs on reducing lateral displacements and excess pore
pressure dissipation behavior [14,23,24], others investigated the
seismic shear stress distribution mechanism of the HMCs in liquefiable
soils [8,15,17–19].
The first design approach for the seismic shear stress distribution of
HMCs was proposed by Baez [20]. This design approach requires the
assumption of shear strain compatibility (γr = 1) between the column
and the surrounding soil. Here, γr is defined as the ratio of shear strains
of the stiff column (γ sc ) to shear strains of the surrounding soil (γ s ) be­
tween the stiff columns. In this approach, the seismic shear stress
reduction can be evaluated by computing shear stress reduction factor
(KG ), which is the ratio of shear stress in the soil after improvement over
shear stress in the soil before improvement (Eq. (1)).
1
KG = [ ] (1)
Gr Ar + G1r (1 − Ar )
However, recent 2D and 3D numerical studies have questioned the
applicability of the shear strain compatibility [9,16,18–20]. In 2014,
Rayamajhi et al. [15] performed 3D linear-elastic numerical analyses
and concluded that the shear strain compatibility assumption signifi­
cantly overestimates the seismic shear stress reduction for the columnar
elements. As a result of their study, a new shear stress reduction factor
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337
(Rrd ) including shear strain incompatibility was proposed (Eq. (2)).
1
Rrd = [ ] ≤ 1.0 (2)
Gr Ar γ r CG + G1r (1 − Ar )
where CG is an equivalent shear factor (CG = 1.0 for circular columns)
and γr is expressed as follows;
γ r = 1.04(Gr )− 0.65
− 0.04 ≤ 10 (3)
In 2016, Rayamajhi et al. [8] numerically carried out nonlinear 3D
finite-element analyses in order to analyze the contribution of the shear
reinforcement provided by granular columns with and without the
generation of excess pore pressures. Their simulations showed that 3D
nonlinear results are consistent with 3D linear elastic results and the
shear stress reduction value can be reasonably estimated from Eq. (2) for
Gr = 2 to 7. Lastly, Demir and Özener [17] investigated the seismic
performance of HMCs using 2D nonlinear numerical simulations. They
found that the shear strain compatible behavior does not appear be­
tween the columns and the surrounding soil. In addition, they concluded
that values of shear strain ratio (γr ) obtained from 2D nonlinear analyses
are lower than those which are obtained based on the shear strain
compatibility assumption [20] and the shear strain incompatibility
formulation [15] given in Eq. (3).
Despite Rayamajhi et al. [15]’s linear elastic numerical analyses, KG
and γr equations given in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) should be validated by
different nonlinear numerical studies. These equations are not appli­
cable for columns having higher shear modulus. In Ref. [15], KG tends to
an increase instead of decrease when KG exceed 20 due to γr formulation
given in Eq. (3), while KG decreases in accordance with Gr increase in Eq.
(1). Rayamajhi et al. [8] showed that KG reasonably estimated from Eq.
(2). However, Eq. (2) was not examined in their study using higher shear
modulus ratios and it is unclear to what extent the findings of Rayamajhi
et al. [8] generalize to the estimation of KG . There is no research has
shown that Eq. (2) or Eq. (3) can be used for all improved soils profiles to
reveal shear stress reduction mechanism of HMCs. It also has not been
completely demonstrated what the effectiveness of HMCs in liquefaction
mitigation and the impact of the HMCs on the site response effects is.
Addressing these limitations, an extensive parametric numerical study
was carried out in this study.
3. Finite element modeling studies with OpenSeesPL
The seismic response of a liquefiable soil reinforced with HMCs and
shear stress/strain distributions between liquefiable soil and HMCs were
investigated by using a three-dimensional (3D) finite element model
OpenSeesPL [25]. This software, which is based on OpenSees [26], can
reproduce the high non-linear plasticity of soils under cyclic loads and
the corresponding liquefaction induced effects. OpenSeesPL has a
graphical user interface that is provided pre and post-processing for the
input of model details and for plotting the output data. In recent years,
OpenSeesPL has been widely used in many pile-soil/column-soil inter­
action problems [14,23,24,27].
3.1. Soil profile and input motion properties
A hypothetic soil profile was defined in the numerical analysis,
which is composed of 0.5 m thick unliquefiable sand layer overlain by a
20 m thick liquefiable sand layer. The liquefiable soil was represented
with loose Nevada sand properties having a relative density (Dr ) of 40%.
On the other hand, unliquefiable soil was modeled as a dense sand
corresponding to Dr of 90%. The groundwater table (GWT) was located
below 0.5 m from the ground level. At the bottom of the liquefiable soil,
a rigid layer was formed to provide input earthquake motion from this
layer. A real acceleration-time history was used as input motions for the
analyses. The input motion used in this study was a scaled version of the
S. Demir and P.T. Özener Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337

recording at IZT090 station during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Fig. 1

illustrates the scaled version of the acceleration-time history of the input
motion.

3.2. Modeling details

In this study, a unit cell approach was used in the numerical analyses.
The discretization of the numerical model (Ar = 10%, L/ d = 15) is
shown in Fig. 2.
For a periodic large (infinite) group column system, the unit cell
approach is chosen in order to simplify the numerical simulations and
investigate the whole group behavior with a periodic boundary condi­
tion. A detailed description of the periodic boundary condition used in
this study can be found in Ref. [28]. The unit cell approach was applied
in the numerical model with the following boundary conditions;

1. Due to the symmetry, only half of the unit cell was modeled, and the
nodes along the symmetric (inner and outer) boundaries were fixed
against out-of-plane (i.e., y-direction) displacement but allowed to
displace along with the shaking (i.e., x-direction) and vertical di­
rection (i.e., z-direction).
2. The displacement degrees of freedom of the right and left boundary
nodes (periodic boundary) were tied together both longitudinally
and vertically to provide identical movement of the nodes at any
given depth using the penalty method.
3. The base of the model was fully fixed, and seismic excitation was
applied along the base in the x-direction.
4. The base of the model and symmetric boundaries were modeled to be
impervious.
5. The soil surface was modeled as stress-free.
The soils and HMC were modeled by 8-node, brickUP elements [29,
30] with solid-fluid fully coupled material, which was based on the
solid-fluid formulation for saturated soil [31,32]. Each node of the
8-node brickUP element had four degrees of freedom (DOFs), three for
translational displacements of a soil skeleton, and one for pore water
pressure. Pressure Dependent Multi Yield02 (PDMY02) constitutive
model by Ref. [30] was used to represent unliquefiable and liquefiable
soil behavior. The high modulus column was modeled using the Pressure
Independent Multi Yield (PIMY) constitutive model [30]. The selection
of the PDMY02 and PIMY model parameters were discussed in Section
3.3. HMCs were connected to the soil elements directly with no interface
elements.
In order to avoid numerical dispersion and simulate the wave
propagation with accurately, an average element size (AES) was defined
by considering the criteria suggested by Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer [33].
According to Ref. [33], an average element size should be equal to or
smaller than approximately one-eighth of the wavelength (λ) associated
with the highest-frequency component (fmax ) of the input wave (Eq. (4)).
λ Vs,min
AES ≤ =
8 8fmax
Fig. 2. Details of the finite element discretization and modeling properties of
the numerical model.
minimum shear wave velocity (Vs,min ) were considered about 80 m/s.
With the parameters of this study, the average element size was deter­
mined to be 0.67 m. Fig. 3 shows a detailed mesh configuration of the
numerical model in the horizontal direction with varying Ar values. As
seen from Fig. 3, maximum AES was obtained about 0.5 m in the case of
Ar = 5% and smaller than 0.67 m. In addition, unliquefiable and liq­
uefiable soil layer meshes in the vertical direction were uniformly
divided as 0.25 m and 0.5 m, respectively.
The material behavior was considered as linear-elastic during the
application of gravity load (initial condition). After the initial stress
stage was completed, all materials were set to the plastic stage and dy­
namic loading was applied to the base of the model. The Newmark
integrator method with the parameters γ = 0.6 and β = 0.3025 was used
to integrate the equations of motion. The energy increment test with the
tolerance of 1.0e− 6 was utilized to control convergence checking. For
each time step, the solution was obtained using the Krylov-Newton al­
gorithm with Krylov subspace acceleration [26,34]. A Rayleigh damping
of 3% was used in the numerical analyses.
3.3. Calibration of the constitutive model
The liquefiable and unliquefiable layers were modeled using the
Pressure Dependent Multi Yield02 (PDMY02) constitutive model [30,35,
(4)

fmax is typically around 10–15 Hz. In this study, fmax = 15 Hz, and the

Fig. 3. Comparison of the mesh views of the numerical model for different
Fig. 1. Acceleration-time history of the input motion. Ar value.

3
S. Demir and P.T. Özener Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337

36], which is based on the multi-yield-surface-plasticity theory [37]. Table 1

This model is an elastoplastic model used to simulate the cyclic response PDMY02 and PIMY model parameters of the soil layers and HMC.
of soils whose behavior is sensitive to applied stresses (cohesionless Parameters Description Liquefiable Unliquefiable HMC
soils). The PDMY02 model includes various features such as dilatancy, Layer Layer
nonflow liquefaction, permanent shear strain accumulation, and Dr (%) Relative density 40 90 –
continuously updating pressure dependent shear modulus. These fea­ ρ (ton/m3) Density 1.96 2.04 2.30
tures play important role for modeling the undrained response of sands pref (kPa) Reference effective 101 101 101
subjected to cyclic loading [30]. Besides, shear modulus, friction angle, confining stress
phase transformation angle, and contraction-dilation parameters are the Gmax,oct Octahedral low- 11.8a 34.0a b

critical parameters of the model that control the behavior in the (MPa) strain shear modulus

PDMY02. γmax,r (%) Maximum 0.1d 0.1d 0.1d

octahedral shear
For HMC material, Pressure Independ Multi Yield (PIMY) model [30]
strain
is used. The PIMY model is an elastoplastic model used to simulate Br (MPa) Bulk modulus 31.5c 90.8c b,c

monotonic or cyclic response of materials whose shear behavior is d Pressure dependency 0.5d 0.5d 0d
insensitive to the confinement change. It uses nested Von Mises yield coefficient
surfaces [38,39] and an associative flow rule. Plasticity is exhibited in c (kPa) Cohesion 0.1d 0.1d 215.3e
the deviatoric stress-strain response, while the volumetric stress-strain φ∘ txc Triaxial friction 32f 42f 0
angle
response is linear-elastic and independent of the deviatoric response φ∘ pt Phase 27g 32g –
[26]. transformation angle
Liquefiable soil model parameters were calibrated in two steps. As a c1, c2, c3 Contraction 0.25, 4.5, 0.014, 2.0, –
first step, model parameters were calibrated based on undrained cyclic coefficients 0.2g 0.15g
d1, d2, d3 Dilation coefficients 0.4, 3.0, 0.0g 0.36, 3.0,
direct simple shear (CDSS) test results of saturated Nevada sand per­
–
0.005g
formed by Arulmoli et al. [40] (VELACS project, CDSS-4009). In the NYS Number of yield 20d
20d 20d
second step, results of a centrifuge test performed by Rayamajhi et al. surface
[9] was used to demonstrate the capability of the model under dynamic k (cm/sec) Permeability 0.006 0.005 1.10–7h
loading. coefficient
a
Shear modulus of the soil layers were calculated based on Ref. [41].
3.3.1. CDSS test results b
Shear modulus and bulk modulus of the HMCs were assigned relative to
The cyclic response of the Nevada sand was evaluated through cyclic liquefiable soil material.
c
simple shear test simulations using OpenSees 2.4.5. On the other hand, Bulk modulus was calculated from shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio as
the recommended and default parameters for a dense soil with Dr = 90% described in Ref. [41].
d
The default parameters were used suggested by Ref. [25].
were used in the numerical analyses to simulate unliquefiable soil e
Cohesion was obtained from shear modulus as described in Ref. [41].
behavior. The calibrated soil model parameters were summarized in f
The friction angles were approximately selected based on relative density
Table 1. Comparisons of experimentally measured and numerically based empirical relationship in Ref. [42].
predicted responses of Nevada sand during CDSS test were presented in g
Appropriate values were selected recommended by Refs. [25,26].
Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 4, a good agreement with the laboratory h
In this study, drainage mechanism of the HMCs are ignored and the
experiment results was achieved under different conditions. permeability coefficient is employed too low for the HMCs.

3.3.2. Centrifuge test results history, and displacements.

The numerical model was also validated with the results of a The measured and computed excess pore pressure ratio (ru ) and ac­
centrifuge test model performed by Rayamajhi et al. [9] using calibrated celeration time histories at different depths are shown in Fig. 6. It is seen
soil parameters. The centrifuge test setup and the instrumentation lay­ from Fig. 6(a) that a good agreement is obtained between the measured
outs are shown in Fig. 5(a). This centrifuge test model consists of and computed ru values (where ru = Δu/σ ’v0 ; Δu = excess pore water
three-layered soil profile. The top and bottom layers are in 2 m thick­
pressure, σ’v0 = initial vertical effective stress). Fig. 6(b) shows measured
nesses and were formed with medium dense Monterey sand ( Dr ≈ 60%)
and computed acceleration-time histories at points a3, a4, a5, and a6. It is
and dense Monterey sand (Dr ≈ 90%), respectively. Loose Nevada sand
concluded that the numerical model is capable of predicting the
(Dr of about 40%) was used in the middle layer to represent liquefiable
acceleration-time history responses. However, the measured accelera­
soil. Soil layers were saturated with a de-aired mixture of
tions exhibit large spikes at some points and numerical simulations
methyl-cellulose and deionized water. The water level was located at a
underestimated the magnitudes of the accelerations at these corre­
depth of 1.5 m from the ground surface. The model was built in a hinge
sponding nodes. This is due to the cyclic mobility behavior of the loose
plate container having internal prototype dimensions of 19 m length, 10
sand layer under strong level of shaking [43].
m width and 10.5 m height. Model test was performed under 50 g of
Soil and column surface settlements and horizontal displacement
gravitational acceleration. Permeability coefficients of soils in the model
obtained from numerical simulations are compared with those measured
were 1.67 times higher than the actual values at 50 g due to the laws of
during the centrifuge test as shown in Fig. 7. In general, the numerical
centrifuge modeling. The soil profile was excited horizontally at the base
results are seen to be in close agreement with the measured horizontal
with a scaled version of a 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. The time history of
displacement throughout the shaking. Column surface settlement is
the input motion is shown in Fig. 5(b). Calibrated soil parameters given
computed to be in good agreement with the measured settlement,
in Table 1 were used to simulate the soil layers with relative densities of
whereas the computed soil surface settlement is about 10% lower than
90% and 40%. On the other hand, parameters suggested by Ref. [25]
the measured settlements.
were used to simulate the soil layer with Dr of 60%. Soil profile was
reinforced with 18 soil-cement columns having a diameter of 1.75 m
4. Parametric analysis and evaluation of the analysis results
with 2.8 m spacing in a rectangular grid and with an area replacement
ratio of 30%. PIMY model was used to model column behavior by taking
The main aim of this paper is to show the effect of HMCs on the
into account columns Elasticity modulus (E) and Poisson ratio (ν) to be
seismic performance of free field liquefiable soil deposit and to evaluate
417 MPa and 0.2, respectively [9]. Measured and predicted results were
the effectiveness of the HMCs in liquefiable soil conditions through
compared in terms of excess pore pressure ratio, acceleration-time

4
S. Demir and P.T. Özener
Fig. 4. Comparisons of the laboratory measurements and simulated results of Nevada sand (σ’v = 80 kPa, CSR = 0.093).
Fig. 5. (a) Centrifuge test setup and instrumentation layout (Model 2), (b) Time history of the input motion, (Rayamajhi et al. [9]).
parametric analysis. For this purpose, a 20 m thick hypothetical lique­
fiable soil profile was modeled and the effect of HMCs on reducing the
liquefaction potential was investigated both for improved and unim­
proved cases. A set of parametric analyses were performed for both
unimproved and improved soil conditions with different values of area
replacement ratio (Ar ), shear modulus ratio (Gr ) and improvement depth
ratio (L/d). The length to diameter ratios of HMCs were selected to be L/
d = 5, 10, 15, and 20 in the numerical analyses. Besides, four different
area replacement ratios (Ar ) of 5%, 10%, 20%, 40% and six different
stiffness ratios (Gr ) of 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 were considered in the ana­
lyses. A detailed illustration of the parametric cases is shown in Fig. 8.
In the improved soil condition, Gr denotes the shear modulus ratio
(stiffness ratio) between shear modulus of the HMC to shear modulus of
the surrounding soil. Also, Ar is defined as the area of the HMC to the
total plan area;
Ar =
πd2
(5)
4s2
where d = HMC diameter, s = spacing between center of HMCs (Fig. 2).
Analysis results were evaluated in terms of shear stress reduction
factor (KG ), shear strain ratio between HMC and surrounding soil (γ r ),
peak surface accelerations (amax,s ), maximum horizontal accelerations
(amax ), factor of safety against soil liquefaction (Fs), excess pore pressure
5
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337
ratio (ru ), ground surface settlements (uy ), lateral displacements (ux ) and
response spectra (Sa ).
4.1. Shear stress reduction factor (KG )
The principle mechanisms of HMCs may be considered as the
densification of the surrounding soil during installation, reducing the
generation of excess pore water pressure (in stone columns and rammed
aggregate piers) and decreasing the seismic shear stress of the sur­
rounding soil. Based on the improvement mechanism of HMCs against
soil liquefaction, the seismic shear reinforcement mechanism can be
obtained using shear stress reduction factor (KG ), which is the ratio
shear stress in the soil after improvement over the shear stress in the soil
before improvement.
In this study, the peak values of the seismic shear stresses are used to
calculate KG for both the improved and unimproved condition. In
addition, site response effects are not taken into account (i.e., the peak
surface accelerations are considered to be the same before and after soil
improvement).
Since the design parameters such as area replacement ratio (Ar ),
shear modulus ratio (Gr ) and improvement depth ratio (L/d) play an
important role in the shear stress reduction behavior of a liquefiable soil
improved with HMCs, their effects on the shear stress reduction are
S. Demir and P.T. Özener
Fig. 6. Comparison of measured and computed excess pore water pressure ratios and accelerations at different depths.
Fig. 7. Comparison of measured and computed displacements at ground sur­
face level.
investigated separately and shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. In Fig. 9, the
variation of KG values with different Ar , Gr , and constant L/ d (L/ d= 15)
is shown. As it seen from Fig. 9, in general KG values are seen to decrease
with increasing Gr and Ar values. In these analyses, KG values decrease
about 11% for the case of Ar = 5% and about 55% in case of Ar = 40%
when Gr increases from 2 to 80. It is concluded that the effect of Gr in­
crease on the KG values is much more pronounced at higher Ar values.
Besides, KG values are calculated to be equal or more than 1.0 for all Gr
values when Ar = 5%, which means that the improved soil experience
higher seismic shear stress than the unimproved soil. This result also
implies that seismic shear stress reduction is not seen when Ar = 5% and
seismic shear stresses acting on the improved soil are increased based on
unimproved soil condition. In addition, KG is obtained more than 1.0 for
all Ar values when Gr = 2 and Gr = 5.
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337
The effect of the improvement depth ratio (L/d) on the KG by fixing
Ar to 20% is also investigated and presented in Fig. 10. The results in
Fig. 10 show that improvement depth ratios slightly change the varia­
tions of KG with depth. KG values are seen to decrease with increasing Gr
for different values of improvement depth ratios (L/d). These results
regarding the effect of various design parameters (Ar , Gr , L/d) on shear
stress reduction factor (KG ) suggest that for low shear modulus ratios
such as Gr = 2 and Gr = 5, seismic shear stress reduction may not be
achievable in design and it appears to be more significant for higher
shear modulus ratios. Additionally, these results drawn from the
nonlinear analyses are also consistent with the linear elastic results re­
ported by Rayamajhi et al. [15].
4.2. Shear strain ratio (γr )
In order to be able to analyze if shear compatibility deformation
develops in the improved soil or not, the ratio of shear strains in the
HMCs to shear strains in the surrounding soil is computed. As a result of
the numerical analyses, the peak shear strains developed in HMC and
surrounding soil are used to calculate shear strain ratio (γ r ). The γ r
values plotted with depth for different Ar and Gr values are shown in
Fig. 11, while the γr values with respect to different values of Gr and L/d
values are shown in Fig. 12. As can be seen in Fig. 11, for different values
of Ar and Gr values ranging from 5 to 40, the γ r values are below 1.0 and
a significant shear strain incompatibility is seen to occur between HMC
and the surrounding soil. For the performed range of Ar and Gr values,
the γr values are seen to increase with depth and strain compatible
deformation (γr =1.0) is only obtained at 15 m depth when Gr is 2.
Additionally, in general under a constant improvement depth ratio
(L/d), γr values are seen to decrease with increasing Gr . The results
presented in Fig. 11 also show that the increase in Ar values slightly
affects the γ r distributions with depth. The effect of improvement depth
(L/d) on the values of shear strain ratio is also examined and plotted in
Fig. 12. As it is seen in Fig. 12, the increase in L/d values causes an in­
crease in γr values if the soil profile depth is more than 6.0 m. Conse­
quently, nonlinear numerical analysis results showed that the shear
S. Demir and P.T. Özener Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337

Fig. 8. Parametric analysis details, a) unimproved soil condition, b) improved soil condition with different parameters.

Fig. 9. Variation of the KG values for different Ar and Gr values (L/d= 15).

Fig. 10. Variation of the KG values for different L/d and Gr values (Ar = 20%).

strain compatible behavior does not appear to develop between the
HMCs and the surrounding soil.
4.3. Peak surface accelerations (amax,s )
Fig. 13 shows the comparison of peak surface accelerations of the
improved soil (amax,s ,I ) and unimproved soil (amax,s,U ) for different Ar , Gr ,
and L/d values. In general, it can be said that the ratio of
amax,s ,I /amax,s,U > 1.0 and the presence of the HMCs amplifies soil surface
accelerations. From the numerical analysis results, it is found that the
amax,s,I /amax,s,U ratio generally increases with the increase in Ar and Gr as
they both affect natural frequency of the improved soil, shear modulus
and damping properties. While the ratio of amax,s,I /amax,s,U remains
almost constant with the increase of Gr and L/d for Ar = 5%, the ratio is
seen to increase prominently in case of Ar = 40%.
Besides, recent experimental studies [2,44] concluded that soil
improvement with columns caused acceleration increase at the ground
surface which means that these columns generally increase ground
surface accelerations and may cause soil amplification. Therefore, since
the horizontal accelerations transferred to the superstructure have a
critical role in the superstructure safety and improved system perfor­
mance, the impact of HMC on the surface accelerations needs to be
considered in liquefiable soils improved with rigid columns.

7
S. Demir and P.T. Özener Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337

Fig. 11. Variation of the γr values for different Ar and Gr values (L/d= 15).

Fig. 12. Variation of the γr values for different Gr and L/d values (Ar = 20%).

Fig. 13. Variation of amax,s,I /amax,s,U ratio with respect to Ar , Gr , and L/d.

The site response effects have an important role in evaluating actual improved soil can be used to obtain the actual seismic shear stresses in
seismic shear stresses in the surrounding soil for the improved case. the soil as follows;
Hence, the shear stress reduction factor (KG ) used in seismic shear stress amax,s,I
computations needs to be modified considering site response effects. For KG,mod = KG (6)
amax,s,U
this, a modified (design) shear stress reduction factor (KG,mod ) for the

8
S. Demir and P.T. Özener
It should be noted that in numerical models, strong impedance
contrasts can play a major role in soil amplifications. However, in this
study the influence of different impedance contrasts between soil and
underlying bedrock are not evaluated.
4.4. Variations of maximum horizontal acceleration (amax ) with depth
The variation of the maximum horizontal accelerations (amax ) in the
surrounding soil obtained along with depth with varying values of Ar
and Gr are shown in Fig. 14. In general, amax values increase up through
the soil profile and reaches the maximum value at the soil surface both
for unimproved soil and improved soil cases. The presence of the HMCs
causes amax increase through the soil profile as compared to the unim­
proved soil. Besides, the Ar and Gr increase slightly effect amax variations
with depth for a given constant Ar (Ar = 20%) and Gr (Gr = 20) values.
The amax at the ground surface is about 0.14 g for the unimproved soil
and this value increases when the soil is improved with HMCs for all Ar
and Gr combinations. For values of Ar = 20% and Gr = 80, amax is seen to
reach a maximum value of 0.18 g. As a result, comparing with the un­
improved soil condition, it is seen that installation of HMCs in a lique­
fiable soil profile may amplify ground surface accelerations and cause an
increase in maximum horizontal accelerations throughout the soil
profile.
4.5. Excess pore pressure ratio (ru )
Fig. 15 shows the variation of the maximum excess pore pressure
ratios (ru ) throughout the soil profile. Excess pore pressure ratios for the
improved soil with varying Ar and Gr parameters are compared with the
unimproved soil conditions. The results of the effects of Ar and Gr on the
values of ru under fixed Gr (Gr =20) and Ar (Ar = 20%) values are pre­
sented in Fig. 15(a) and (b), respectively. In general, as seen from Fig. 15
(a) and (b) when the liquefiable soil is improved with HMCs, ru values
are seen to vary between 0.9 and 1.0 and no significant decrease is seen
in the ru values with increasing Ar and Gr as compared to the unim­
proved soil. This behavior is expected, since in the numerical analyses, a
low permeability coefficient (k = 1.10− 7 cm/s) is assigned to the HMCs,
so the presence of the HMCs causes a decrease of the composite system
(soil + column) permeability as compared to the unimproved soil.
Therefore, any significant decrease is not seen in the ru values of the
surrounding soil with increasing Ar and Gr values. On the other hand, it
should be noted that high modulus columns such as stone columns or
rammed aggregate piers that have high permeability may reduce the
peak values of ru and may cause an excess pore pressure dissipation in
the surrounding soil.
Fig. 14. Variation of amax values throughout the soil profile.
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337
4.6. Maximum surface settlements and lateral displacements (uy and ux )
In order to be able to see the effectiveness of high modulus columns
in reducing the liquefaction induced soil deformations, the numerical
analysis results were evaluated by examining the effect of Ar and Gr on
ground surface settlements (uy ) and lateral displacements (ux ). Each
value was obtained on the soil nodes in the horizontal plane (x axis) as
shown in Fig. 16(a). Fig. 16(b) shows the variation of the maximum
ground surface settlements (uy ) for different values of Ar and Gr . It is
seen from Fig. 16(b) that, the increase of Ar and Gr generally led to a
slight difference in surface settlements as compared to the unimproved
soil case. Some possible reasons of this finding can be attributed to the
use of low permeability coefficient for representing a composite soil
system composed of liquefiable soil reinforced with HMCs and not using
a variable permeability function for liquefiable soil layer during earth­
quake motion. Recent studies [45–47] showed that a variable perme­
ability function should be used instead of a constant permeability
coefficient in order to obtain more realistic excess pore water distribu­
tions and ground surface settlements. Hence, it is thought that a
meaningful result may be obtained in terms of ground surface settle­
ments if the liquefiable soil permeability is modeled with variable
permeability function. In order to support this idea simply, instead of
using a variable permeability function, permeability coefficient of the
liquefiable soil (k) was assumed to be ten times (10k) greater than the
actual soil permeability. Simulation results with increased permeability
are presented in Fig. 16(c). As seen from Fig. 16(c), reasonable results
were obtained in settlement values and the presence of the HMCs
decreased soil surface settlements as compared to unimproved soil with
Ar and Gr increase. These results are consistent with the results reported
by Adalıer et al. [1] and Rayamajhi et al. [9].
Fig. 17 presents the variation of lateral displacements throughout the
soil profile at the end of the shaking for fixed Ar and L/d values (Ar =
20% and L/d = 20) and fixed Gr and L/d values (Gr = 20 and L/d = 20).
In general, horizontal displacements in improved soil case decrease as Ar
and Gr increase. The maximum lateral displacement of the improved soil
at the soil surface is only 1.0 cm smaller than the unimproved soil (ux
decreases from 4.5 to 3.5 cm). The analyses results show that HMCs
slightly reduce the lateral displacements as observed by Rayamajhi et al.
[9]. As a result of the centrifuge test results performed by Rayamajhi
et al. [9], it is observed that the soil improvement with soil-cement
columns did not put significant contribution in reducing lateral de­
formations of the liquefiable soil profile. On the other hand, some
experimental studies investigated the impact of the columns on the
lateral displacements and concluded that these columns notably effec­
tive in reducing lateral displacements [2,44].
4.7. Acceleration response spectra (Sa )
Fig. 18(a) and Fig. 18(b) compare the acceleration response spectra
of the improved and unimproved soil cases with varying Ar and Gr
values, respectively. As it is seen from Fig. 18(a) and (b), the spectral
accelerations of the unimproved soil are lower than the improved case at
periods lower than 1.0 s (T < 1.0 s). On the other hand, spectral accel­
erations of the improved soil are seen to decrease between the periods of
1.0s and 2.4s. Under a fixed Gr value (Gr = 20), spectral accelerations are
seen to increase with the increase of Ar from 5% to 40%. Additionally,
for a constant value, spectral acceleration amplitudes are seen to in­
crease as increases at periods lower than 1.0 s. On the other hand, de-
amplifications are seen to occur with increasing value of and at vibra­
tion periods higher than 1.0 s.
The overall numerical analysis results presented in Fig. 18 show that
Ar and Gr increase may lead to an increase in spectral accelerations at
periods less than 1.0 s. This increase in spectral accelerations is impor­
tant since it means that increased seismic demand may arise for struc­
tures which are seating on soils improved with high modulus columns.
S. Demir and P.T. Özener Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337

Fig. 15. Distribution of the ru values with depth.

Fig. 16. (a) Top view of the soil profile, (b) variation of uy under different Ar and Gr values, (c) effect of increased permeability on the soil surface settlements.

5. Discussion

The assumption of shear strain compatibility used in the design of

liquefiable soils reinforced with high modulus columns is questioned by
several studies carried out recently [15,17–19]. In this study, based on
the numerical analysis results given in Fig. 9, the average KG values were
computed with depth and a shear stress reduction chart was plotted by
considering different Ar and Gr values as shown in Fig. 19(c). Addi­
tionally, as seen in Fig. 19(a) and (b), shear stress reduction factors (KG )
were also computed according to the design expressions proposed by
Baez [20] and Rayamajhi et al. [15] and compared with the results of
this study. As seen in Fig. 19, KG curves obtained from the nonlinear
numerical analyses presented in this study are quite different from the
curves developed by Baez [20] and Rayamajhi et al. [15] in terms of KG
values. Additionally, the chart which is created based on the relationship
proposed by Rayamajhi et al. [15] seems to be not applicable for higher
modulus columns (for large Gr values) since KG values tend to increase
when Gr values are more than 20.
Fig. 17. Plots of ux versus depth for different Ar and Gr values. For a given improved case with Ar = 20%, Gr = 40 (e.g deep mixing
columns, jet grout columns) and L/d = 15, KG (shear stress reduction
factor) values are obtained by using three different approaches (shown

10
S. Demir and P.T. Özener
Fig. 18. Spectral accelerations of improved and unimproved soil at the soil surface under different Ar and Gr values.
Fig. 19. Variation of shear stress reduction factor (KG ) with Ar and Gr , (a) Baez [20], (b) Rayamajhi et al. [15] (c) This study.
in Fig. 19) and the values are computed to be KG = 0.11, KG = 0.81, and
KG = 0.75 according to Baez [20], Rayamajhi et al. [15] and this study,
respectively. The KG values computed based on Rayamajhi et al. [15]
and this study implies that the presence of high modulus columns with
high stiffness may not significantly reduce the seismic shear stresses in
the surrounding liquefiable soil as considered in current engineering
design. On the other hand, the lowest shear stress reduction factor (KG )
is obtained by using the approach of Baez [20] which is based on the
assumption of shear strain compatibility. Based on this comparisons, it
seems that the current design method proposed by Baez [20] signifi­
cantly overestimates the seismic shear stress reduction in soils improved
with HMCs.
Baez [20] assumed that rigid columns behave as a shear beam so, γ r
becomes 1.0 due to shear strain compatibility. However, the study
performed by Rayamajhi et al. [15] showed that shear strain compati­
bility assumption is not valid between HMC and the surrounding soil.
11
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337
According to the linear elastic numerical analysis results reported by
Rayamajhi et al. [15], γr is estimated from a function that depends on Gr .
In this paper, the average γr values are calculated along with depth from
Fig. 12 (Ar = 20%, L/d = 20) and compared with the results of linear
elastic numerical study carried out by Rayamajhi et al. [15]. As shown in
Fig. 20, the relationship between γ r and Gr obtained from this study is
similar to the curve obtained from the relationship proposed by Raya­
majhi et al. [15]. However, it is seen that γ r -Gr distribution shown in
Fig. 20 differs from Rayamajhi et al. [15] in the range of between Gr = 5
and 40. Two main reasons may have led this difference in γr versus Gr
curves. Firstly, in this study, the peak seismic shear strains in HMC and
the surrounding soil were used to calculate γ r values, whereas seismic
shear strain values at the time when shear stress reduction factor (KG ) is
maximum were used to calculate γr values in the study performed by
Rayamajhi et al. [15]. Secondly, in this study, the γr values were
computed based on the results of 3D nonlinear numerical analyses,
S. Demir and P.T. Özener
Fig. 20. Comparison of γr versus Gr plots obtained from different studies.
while the results carried out by Rayamajhi et al. [15] are based on 3D
linear elastic analyses.
5.1. Effect of shear strain compatibility and incompatibility on the factor
of safety against liquefaction (Fs)
In order to evaluate the effect of HMCs on liquefaction resistance, the
values of factor of safety against liquefaction (Fs) are computed based on
simplified procedure [48] for the improved and unimproved cases.
For the unimproved soil, the Fs against liquefaction can be calculated
by the ratio of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) over cyclic stress ratio (CSR)
as shown in Eq. (7).
CRR
Fs = MSF
CSR
where, MSF is a magnitude scaling factor that is used to adjust the CSR to
a specific value of the earthquake magnitude. The CSR and CRR values
can be computed as follows,
amax,s σ v
CSR = 0.65 rd
g σ ’v
1 N1,60 50 1
CRR = + +( )2 −
34 − N1,60 135 200
10N1,60 + 45
where g is gravity, σ v is the total stress in the soil, σ ’v is the effective stress
of the soil, rd is the depth reduction factor to account for non-rigid
response of the soil column and N1,60 is corrected SPT blow count.
The corrected SPT blow count of the liquefiable layer is computed to
be about N1,60 = 8 which corresponds to a relative density of Dr = 40%
based on the correlation given in Ref. [49]. The factor of safety Fs of
unimproved soil is calculated by using Eq. (7), in which the MSF is
assumed to be 1.0, the CRR is calculated to be 0.096 by using Eq. (9)
prior to HMC installation, and the CSR is computed by using the pa­
rameters of amax,s , σv , σ’v , and rd . The amax,s , which is the peak surface
acceleration, is obtained to be 0.14 g from Fig. 14 for the unimproved
soil condition.
For the improved case, the performance of improved soil against
liquefaction (Fs) was investigated by using the modified shear stress
reduction factor (KG,mod ) as given in Eq. (10).
CRR
Fs = MSF
CSR*KG,mod
In practice, the factor of safety against liquefaction of the improved
soil is calculated based on the assumption of shear strain compatibility
and site response effects are ignored. However, as obtained from the
results of this study, the shear strain compatibility does not occur be­
tween HMC and surrounding soil. Additionally, it is computed that the
maximum horizontal accelerations at the ground surface before and
after soil improvement is not the same. Therefore, in design
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337
applications, modified shear stress reduction factor (KG,mod ) should be
used in Eq. (10) instead of using KG .
For the improved soil conditions, Ar , Gr and L/d parameters are
considered to be 20%, 80 and 20 respectively and Fs against liquefaction
is computed using Eq. (10). Here, KG,mod is computed from Eq. (6). In Eq.
(6), the ratio of amax,s,I /amax,s,U and KG value are determined to be 1.36
and 0.58 from Figs. 13 and 19, respectively.
Fig. 21(a) shows the significance of site response effects on the
determination of liquefaction potential. As seen from Fig. 21(a), the
variation of the factor of safety against liquefaction for unimproved case
and improved cases are illustrated comparatively. when site response
effects are ignored, the Fs values computed for improved soil conditions
become more than 1.0 compared to the unimproved soil conditions. On
the other hand, if site response effects are considered (amax,s,I /amax,s,U ∕
=
1.0), Fs values are seen to drop below 1.0 throughout the soil profile.
Therefore, for Fs computations against liquefaction, site response effects
need to be considered if the liquefiable soil is improved with HMCs.
Additionally, in order to point out the effect of the shear stress
reduction values (KG ) on the liquefaction resistance in the case of
amax,s,I /amax,s,U = 1.0, Fs values obtained from different approaches ([15,
20] and this study) are calculated and results are presented in Fig. 21(b).
As seen from Fig. 21(b), significant differences are obtained from the
results of the three approaches. The KG obtained from the approach
proposed by Ref. [20] gave the lowest value and consequently led to the
highest value of Fs. On the other hand, the similar Fs values along depth
are seen to be obtained from the result of this study and Ref. [15].
Accordingly, the shear strain compatibility assumption proposed by
Baez [20] gives Fs higher than expected in the current design
methodology.
(7)
5.2. Effect of input motion intensity (amax )
In order to investigate the effect of input motion intensity on shear
stress reduction factor (KG ) and shear strain ratio (γr ), the input motion
(8) given in Fig. 1 was scaled from amax ¼ 0.10 g to 0.49 g. The effect of input
motion intensity on shear stress reduction factor (KG ) and shear strain
ratio (γr ) for different values of Ar and Gr are shown in Figs. 22 and 23. In
(9) Fig. 22(a) the variation of KG values for amax = 0.49 g are shown for
different Ar and Gr values. It is observed that KG values are seen to
decrease with the increase in Ar and Gr for amax = 0.49 g. These varia­
tions are different from the variations given in Fig. 19(c) for amax = 0.1 g.
Fig. 22(b) compares the variations of KG for shaking intensities of amax =
0.1 g and 0.49 g for Gr = 5, 20, and 80. As seen from 22(b), the increase
of the input motion intensity from amax = 0.1 g to 0.49 g leads to a
decrease in KG values for all values of Ar and Gr . Additionally, the
comparisons of γ r -Gr distributions obtained from numerical simulations
for two different input motion intensities and relationships proposed by
Baez [20] and Rayamajhi et al. [15] are also shown in Fig. 23. As shown
in Fig. 23, as the input motion intensity amax increases, γr -Gr distribution
decreases and difference between these two curves becomes more pro­
nounced for the Gr values below 10. Also, it is seen from Fig. 23 that the
γ r -Gr distribution obtained at amax = 0.1 g is in accordance with Raya­
majhi et al. [15] for smaller Gr values. Similar observations are reported
by Rayamajhi et al. [8] for Gr = 5, 7, and 9 that γ r -Gr distribution ob­
tained from nonlinear analysis results is reasonably similar with the
results of linear-elastic study by Rayamajhi et al. [15] at 0.05 g and 0.2 g
(10) input motion intensities. However, it should be noted that the curves
obtained from this study for amax = 0.1 g differ from the curves reported
by Rayamajhi et al. [15] for higher Gr values. This discrepancy becomes
more pronounced if the value of Gr is between 2 and 30 for input motion
intensity of amax = 0.49 g. It should be also noted that, as seen in Fig. 23,
γ r -Gr curves estimated from this study are completely different from the
curves proposed by Baez [20]. The overall evaluations and discussions
made in this paper indicate that more field data from case histories and
well-instrumented experimental studies are needed to reveal the shear
12
S. Demir and P.T. Özener Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337

Fig. 21. Variation of Fs values throughout the soil profile.

Fig. 22. (a) Variation of shear stress reduction factor (KG ) for amax ¼0.49 g, (b) Comparison of KG values for amax = 0.1 g and amax = 0.49 g (L/ d=20).

reinforcement and shear strain mechanism of high modulus columns

Fig. 23. Distribution of γr -Gr curves for amax = 0.1 and amax = 0.49 g
installed in liquefiable soils.
Fig. 24 shows the acceleration response spectra (5% damping) of the
improved and unimproved soil profiles at amax = 0.49 g for Gr = 20
andAr = 20%, respectively. It is observed that the maximum spectral
acceleration of the unimproved soil occurs at period T = 0.8 s which is
approximately 2.5 times smaller than the improved soil cases with
different Ar and Gr values. Nonetheless, approximately the same spectral
accelerations were observed at T = 0.8 s for the improved and unim­
proved soils for the amax = 0.1 event. Soil improvement drastically
amplifies soil surface accelerations and approaching to 1.0 g for Ar =
40% at periods lower than 1.2 s. In addition, all models exhibited similar
amplifications with increasing Gr values (Ar = 20%), shown in Fig. 24
(b).

Fig. 24. Spectral accelerations of improved and unimproved soil at the soil surface (amax = 0.49 g).

13
S. Demir and P.T. Özener
6. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive numerical study
carried out to investigate the seismic performance of HMCs in a lique­
fiable soil profile. Based on the outcomes of this study, the following
conclusions are drawn:
• The HMC with higher area replacement ratio (Ar ) and shear modulus
ratio (Gr ) decreased the shear stress reduction factors (KG ) in the
improved soil profile. The improvement depth ratios (slenderness
ratio), L/d, slightly changed the variations of KG along depth.
• For the improved soil profiles, the shear strain compatibility (γr =
1.0) is seen to not develop between HMC and surrounding soil. Thus,
the current design method based on the assumption of shear strain
compatibility proposed by Baez [20] significantly overestimates the
seismic shear stress reductions in soils improved with HMCs.
• KG and γr distributions obtained in this study are seen to differ from
equations proposed by other researchers. Therefore, these equations
should be validated by different nonlinear numerical studies by using
different soil profiles or input motion intensities.
• The numerical analysis results showed that the presence of the HMCs
influence the peak surface accelerations and maximum horizontal
accelerations throughout the soil profile. Therefore, site response
effects need to be considered in liquefiable soils which are improved
with rigid columns.
• The presence of HMCs in liquefiable soil slightly reduced lateral
displacements with increasing Ar and Gr values as compared to the
unimproved soil. On the other hand, beneficial effect of HMCs in
terms of reducing the ground surface settlements was not seen to
occur due to using low permeability coefficient for composite soil
system and not using a variable permeability function for liquefiable
soil layer during earthquake motion.
• In general, the improved soil profiles with HMCs were seen to in­
crease spectral accelerations at the ground surface with increasing
area replacement and stiffness ratios. This increase is crucial since it
means an increase in inertial seismic forces that may impose on the
structures seating on improved soils.
• The overall numerical analysis results indicated that both shear
strain incompatibility and change in peak surface accelerations need
to be taken into account in the computation of factor of safety against
liquefaction in liquefaction mitigation applications with HMCs.
Consequently, the results of the numerical analysis indicated that site
specific response analyses should be performed in liquefiable soils which
are improved with HMCs and the performance of the composite system
should be investigated by performing necessary sensitivity analyses.
Additionally, the behavior of HMCs in a liquefiable soil needs to be
examined in more detail by analyzing more field data from case histories
and performing additional physical and numerical models considering
more realistic soil profiles under different input earthquake motion
characteristics.
It should be also noted that the numerical simulations presented in
this paper include a number of significant approximations and simpli­
fications. Only the reinforcing mechanism of the HMCs was modeled in
the numerical analyses by considering different values of stiffness ratio,
area ratio and improvement depth. On the other hand, the other bene­
ficial mechanisms such as densification and drainage are not addressed
in the numerical modeling process presented in this study. Despite some
simplifications and uncertainties in the numerical modeling, the results
of this study show the need for detailed and advanced numerical studies
when evaluating the effectiveness of the HMCs in liquefaction mitiga­
tion applications.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Selçuk Demir: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing -
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337
original draft, Writing - review & editing. Pelin Tohumcu Özener:
Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Prof. Ahmed Elgamal and Dr. Jinchi
Lu for providing the support assistance with OpenSeesPL.
References
[1] Adalier K, Elgamal A, Meneses J J, Baez J. Stone columns as liquefaction
countermeasure in non-plastic silty soils. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2003;23:571–84.
[2] Badanagki M, Dashti S, Paramasivam B, Tiznado JC. How do granular columns
affect the seismic performance of non-uniform liquefiable sites and their overlying
structures? Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2019;125:105715.
[3] Boulanger RW, Idriss IM, Stewart DP, Hashash Y, Schmidt B. Drainage capacity of
stone columns or gravel drains for mitigating liquefaction. In: Specialty conference
on geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics III. Seattle. Washington:
Geotechnical Special Publications; 1998. p. 678–90. 1(75).
[4] Brennan AJ, Madabhushi SPG. Effectiveness of vertical drains in mitigation of
liquefaction. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2002;22:1059–65.
[5] Martin JR, Olgun OC, Mitchell JK, Durgunoglu HT. High-modulus columns for
liquefaction mitigation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2004;130:561–71.
[6] Mitchell JK, Baxter CDP, Munson TC. Performance of improved ground during
earthquakes. Soil improvement for earthquake hazard mitigation, vol. 49. New
York: Geotechnical Special Publication; 1995. p. 1–36. Soil Improvement for
Earthquake Hazard Mitigation (GSP 49), ASCE.
[7] Mitchell JK, Wentz FJ. Performance of improved ground during the Loma Prieta
earthquake. In: Earthquake engineering research center. University of California
Berkeley; 1991. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-91/12.
[8] Rayamajhi D, Ashford SA, Boulanger RW, Elgamal A. Dense granular columns in
liquefiable ground. I: shear reinforcement and cyclic stress ratio reduction.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2016;142:04016023.
[9] Rayamajhi D, Tamura S, Khosravi M, Boulanger RW, Wilson DW, Ashford SA,
Olgun CG. Dynamic centrifuge tests to evaluate reinforcing mechanisms of soil-
cement columns in liquefiable sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2015;141:
04015015.
[10] Rollins KM, Price BE, Dibb E, Higbee JB. Liquefaction mitigation of silty sands in
Utah using stone columns with wick drains. Proc., ground modification and seismic
mitigation. Reston, VA: ASCE; 2006. p. 343–8.
[11] Rudolph RW, Serna B, Farrell T. Mitigation of liquefaction potential using rammed
aggregate piers. Geo-Frontiers 2011:557–66. Advances in Geotechnical
Engineering; 2011.
[12] Seed HB, Booker JR. Stabilization of potentially liquefiable sand deposits using
gravel drains. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1977;103:757–68.
[13] Wissmann KJ, van Ballegooy S, Metcalfe BC, Dismuke JN, Anderson CK. Rammed
aggregate pier ground improvement as a liquefaction mitigation method in sandy
and silty soils. In: Proc. 6th international conference on earthquake geotechnical
engineering; 2015. p. 1–9. Christchurch, New Zealand.
[14] Asgari A, Oliaei M, Bagheri M. Numerical simulation of improvement of a
liquefiable soil layer using stone column and pile-pinning techniques. Soil Dynam
Earthq Eng 2013;51:77–96.
[15] Rayamajhi D, Nguyen TV, Ashford SA, Boulanger RW, Lu J, Elgamal A, Shao L.
Numerical study of shear stress distribution for discrete columns in liquefiable
soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2014;140:04013034.
[16] Sedighi P, Schweiger HF, Wehr WJ. Effect of jet-grout columns on the seismic
response of layered soil deposits. Int J GeoMech 2016;17:04016085.
[17] Demir S, Özener P. Numerical investigation of seismic performance of high
modulus columns under earthquake loading. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2019;18:811–22.
[18] Green RA, Olgun CG, Wissmann KJ. Shear stress redistribution as a mechanism to
mitigate the risk of liquefaction. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics 2008;IV:1–10.
[19] Olgun CG, Martin JR. Numerical modeling of the seismic response of columnar
reinforced ground. Reston, VA: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics IV; 2008. p. 1–11. ASCE.
[20] Baez JI. A design model for the reduction of soil liquefaction by using vibro-
granular columns. Los Angeles: Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California;
1995.
[21] Yasuda S, Ishihara K, Harada K, Shinkawa N. Effect of soil improvement on ground
subsidence due to liquefaction. Soils Found 1996;36:99–107.
[22] Adalier K, Elgamal A. Mitigation of liquefaction and associated ground
deformations by stone columns. Eng Geol 2004;72:275–91.
[23] Elgamal A, Lu J, Forcellini D. Mitigation of liquefaction-induced lateral
deformation in a sloping stratum: three-dimensional numerical simulation.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135:1672–82.
S. Demir and P.T. Özener
[24] Lu J, Kamatchi P, Elgamal A. Using stone columns to mitigate lateral deformation
in uniform and sratified liquefiable soil strata. Int J GeoMech 2019;19:04019026.
[25] Lu J, Elgamal A, Yang Z. OpenSeesPL: 3D lateral pile-ground interaction user
manual (Beta 1.0). San Diego: Department of Structural Engineering, University of
California; 2011.
[26] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott HM, Fenves GL. Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation user command-language manual-OpenSees version 2.0,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California;
2009.
[27] Huang D, Wang G, Jin F. Effectiveness of pile reinforcement in liquefied ground.
J Earthq Eng 2018:1─23.
[28] Law HK, Lam IP. Application of periodic boundary for large pile group. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2001;127:889–92.
[29] Lu J. Parallel finite element modeling of earthquake ground response and
liquefaction. UC San Diego: Univ. of California; 2006. Ph.D. thesis.
[30] Yang Z, Lu J, Elgamal A. OpenSees soil models and solid-fluid fully coupled
elements user’s manual. San Diego: Dept. of Structural Engineering; 2008. Univ. of
California, San Diego.
[31] Biot MA. Theory of elasticity and consolidation for a porous anisotropic solid.
J Appl Phys 1955;26:182–5.
[32] Chan AHC. A unified finite element solution to static and dynamic problems of
geomechanics. Swansea University; 1988. Ph.D. thesis.
[33] Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J. Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation
problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 1973;99. Technical Report.
[34] Carlson NN, Miller K. Design and application of a gradient-weighted moving finite
element code I: in one dimension. SIAM J Sci Comput 1998;19:728–65.
[35] Parra E. Numerical modeling of liquefaction and lateral ground deformation
including cyclic mobility and dilation response in soil systems. Troy, NY:
Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 1996. PhD
dissertation.
[36] Yang Z, Elgamal A, Parra E. Computational model for cyclic mobility and
associated shear deformation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2003;129:1119–27.
15
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106337
[37] Prevost JH. A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils. Int J Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 1985;4:9–17.
[38] Iwan WD. On a class of models for the yielding behavior of continuous and
composite systems. J Appl Mech 1967;34:612–7.
[39] Mroz Z. On the description of anisotropic work hardening. J Mech Phys Solid 1967;
15:163–75.
[40] Arulmoli K, Muraleetharan K, Hossain M, Fruth L. VELACS: verification of
liquefaction analyses by centrifuge studies, laboratory testing program. soil data
research report; 1992.
[41] Khosravifar A. Analysis and design for inelastic structural response of extended pile
shaft foundations in laterally spreading ground during earthquakes. Davis:
University of California; 2012. PhD dissertation.
[42] Meyerhof GG. Compaction of sands and bearing capacity of piles. J Soil Mech
Found Div 1959;85:1–30.
[43] Boulanger RW, Khosravi M, Khosravi A, Wilson DW. Remediation of liquefaction
effects for an embankment using soil-cement walls: centrifuge and numerical
modeling. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;114:38–50.
[44] Bahmanpour A, Towhata I, Sakr M, Mahmoud M, Yamamoto Y, Yamada S. The
effect of underground columns on the mitigation of liquefaction in shaking table
model experiments. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2019;116:15–30.
[45] Shahir H, Pak A, Taiebat M, Jeremić B. Evaluation of variation of permeability in
liquefiable soil under earthquake loading. Comput Geotech 2012;40:74–88.
[46] Shahir H, Mohammadi-Haji B, Ghassemi A. Employing a variable permeability
model in numerical simulation of saturated sand behavior under earthquake
loading. Comput Geotech 2014;55:211–23.
[47] Gao GY, Xie W, Song J, Wang Y. Prediction of seismic compression of saturated
sand considering the ground motion characteristics and variable permeability. Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 2020;130:105971.
[48] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.
J Soil Mech Found Div 1971;97:1249–73.
[49] Idriss IM, Boulanger RW. Soil liquefaction during earthquake, EERI monograph
MNO-12 on earthquake engineering. Oakland: EERI; 2008.