Centrifuge Modeling for Liquefaction Mitigation

Using Colloidal Silica Stabilizer

Carolyn T. Conlee1; Patricia M. Gallagher2; Ross W. Boulanger3; and Ronnie Kamai4

Abstract: This paper reports the results of two centrifuge tests that were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of colloidal silica for lique-
faction mitigation. Colloidal silica has been selected as a stabilizer material in soils because of its permanence and ability to increase the strength
of soils over time. The centrifuge model geometry was selected to study the effects of lateral spreading in a 4.8-m-thick liquefiable layer overlain
by a silty clay sloping toward a central channel. The centrifuge test evaluates the response of untreated loose sands versus loose sands treated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with 9, 5, and 4% colloidal silica concentrations (by weight). The models were subjected to a series of peak horizontal base accelerations ranging
from 0.007 up to 1:3g (prototype) with a testing centrifugal acceleration of 15g. The results show a reduction in both lateral spreading and
settlement in colloidal silica–treated sands versus untreated sands. The shear modulus at low strains was determined from shear wave velocity
measurements for the untreated and treated loose sands. The hysteretic response during cyclic loading was also determined for various levels of
shaking. The results from the centrifuge tests show an increase in cyclic resistance ratios and a decrease in cyclic shear strains for increasing
colloidal silica concentrations. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000703. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Soil liquefaction; Centrifuge models; Strain.
Author keywords: Colloidal silica; Liquefaction; Centrifuge testing; Shear strain.

Introduction characterized in terms of accelerations, displacements, and the hys-

Liquefaction is a phenomenon marked by a rapid and dramatic loss
of soil strength that occurs in loose, saturated soil deposits sub-
jected to earthquake motions. At developed sites, traditional
ground improvement methods to mitigate the liquefaction risk are
often infeasible because of site constraints or the potential for
adverse effects on adjacent structures as a result of vibration,
densification, and increased lateral stresses. Passive site stabilization
is a noninvasive technique in which a stabilizer is injected at the edge
of a site and delivered to target locations through augmented or natural
groundwater flow (Fig. 1). As the stabilizer material flows through
the formation, it displaces the existing groundwater within the
pore spaces and forms a permanent gel that binds to soil particles,
resulting in a stronger, stiffer formation (Gallagher 2000).
Colloidal silica (CS) has been shown to stabilize soils and
mitigate the effects associated with liquefaction-induced damage.
This paper reports the results of centrifuge model tests to compare
the dynamic response of sands treated with 4, 5, and 9% (by weight)
of CS with untreated sands. The effects of improvement levels are
1
Geotechnical Engineer, Geocomp Corporation, 125 Nagog Park,
Acton, MA 07120 (corresponding author). E-mail: ctc5681@gmail.com
2
Professor, Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Drexel
Univ., 3141 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: pmg24@drexel.edu
3
Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California–
Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: rwboulanger@
ucdavis.edu
4
Graduate Research Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California–Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616. E-mail:
rkamai@ucdavis.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 21, 2010; approved on
February 6, 2012; published online on October 15, 2012. Discussion period
open until April 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 11, November 1, 2012.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2012/11-1334–1345/$25.00.
teretic stress-strain response.
Colloidal Silica Properties
CS is an aqueous dispersion of negatively charged, spherical, silica
nanoparticles (7–22 nm). Gelation is induced by reducing the repulsive
forces, resulting in the formation of a coherent network of siloxane (Si-
O-Si) bonds (Iler 1979) that bind the soil particles together and im-
mobilize the pore fluid (Fig. 2). In dilute solution, CS has a low initial
viscosity and a wide range of controllable gel times. It is permanent,
nontoxic, biologically and chemically inert, and has excellent dura-
bility characteristics (Iler 1979; Whang 1995). Gel time decreases with
increasing percent silica, decreasing particle size, and increasing ionic
strength. Higher ionic strengths decrease gel time; cations cause the
double layer around the particles to shrink, increasing the probability of
interparticle collisions. With respect to pH, a broad minimum gel time
is exhibited in a neutral range of 5 , pH , 7 (Gallagher 2000).
The shape of the gel time curve is similar regardless of gel time
(Fig. 3). Persoff et al. (1999) provide a chart of gel state descriptions
with corresponding viscosities that range from Gel State 1 (
2 cP)
to Gel State 11 (
2,500 cP). Gel State 1 is the period during which
the viscosity of the catalyzed solution remains virtually unchanged
(
2 cP) and behaves as a Newtonian fluid. During Gel State 2, the
viscosity gradually begins to increase (up to
10 cP) and becomes
a non-Newtonian fluid. At the initiation of Gel State 3, the solution
begins a rapid progression through several states until it finally
becomes a rigid gel.
The strength of sands treated with CS increases with increasing
concentration of silica in the grout (Persoff et al. 1999; Gallagher and
Mitchell 2002). After gelation, the strength continues to increase.
Persoff et al. (1999) measured the strength for a year after CS
treatment and found it continued to increase gradually during that
period. However, Gallagher and Lin (2005) found that the strength
gain occurred during the initial curing or within about four times the
time required to reach the resonating gel state (Gel State 10).

1334 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.


Fig. 1. Passive site stabilization concept
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Formation of siloxane bonds as a colloidal silica particle gel
(after Moridis et al. 1995)
Fig. 3. Typical gel time curve of colloidal silica at various normalities
Use of Colloidal Silica for Liquefaction Mitigation
Laboratory, bench-scale model, and full-scale field tests have
demonstrated the effectiveness of CS treatment against liquefaction
and liquefaction-induced damage. Gallagher and Mitchell (2002)
conducted cyclic triaxial shear tests on loose sand treated with 5–
10% by weight CS and the results showed a dramatic increase in
deformation resistance. Kodaka et al. (2005) compared the hysteretic
stress-strain behavior of CS-treated sand and untreated sands using
cyclic torsional shear tests and showed the CS-treated sand initially
demonstrated behavior similar to that of dense sand with significant
damping and cyclic mobility with continued loading.
The small-strain dynamic behavior of CS sands from resonant
column tests showed higher G for treated soils compared with un-
treated soils with minimal differences between CS concentrations
(Spencer et al. 2008). The G for each CS concentration appeared to
be unaffected up to strains of about 1 3 1023 % and then gradually
decreased at higher strain amplitudes from about 65 to 45 MPa.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1335
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.
The feasibility of CS for liquefaction mitigation was investigated
in centrifuge model tests by Gallagher et al. (2007b) and Pamuk et al.
(2007). For peak accelerations of 0.2 and 0:25g, Gallagher et al.
(2007b) showed significantly lower levels of strains (1/2–1%)
for 6% (by weight) CS soils versus strains recorded in similar
centrifuge tests done on untreated models (3–6%). Pamuk et al.
(2007) compared the effects of 6% by weight CS treatment on pile
foundations embedded in sloping liquefiable sands and showed CS
provided significant liquefaction resistance, greatly reduced the
free-field lateral deformation, and reduced the surface settlement
by 90%. A full-scale field test was performed (Gallagher et al.
2007a) to treat the upper 20% of a liquefiable sand layer with 8%
CS and a controlled blasting technique was implemented to induce
liquefaction. The results showed a 30% reduction in settlement in
the treated area compared with that of an adjacent, untreated area.
Purpose and Configuration of the Test
The purpose of the centrifuge model tests was (1) to compare the
liquefaction and deformation response of loose sands treated with
various CS concentrations (4, 5, and 9% by weight) with untreated
sands in the liquefiable layer and (2) to characterize the effects of
improvement in terms of accelerations, displacements, and the hys-
teretic stress-strain response. Each centrifuge model consisted of two
slopes that sloped 3
toward a 3-m-wide central channel (Fig. 4). In
this way, four configurations could be investigated using two models.
The slopes were constructed with the following three distinct layers:
(1) a bottom layer of dense Monterey No. 0/30 sand with a prototype
thickness of 0.75 m overlain by (2) a 4.8-m-thick liquefiable layer of
loose Nevada sand that was overlain by (3) a 1.0-m-thick layer of
compacted Yolo loam (Fig. 4). He data and results are presented in
prototype units hereafter, unless otherwise noted.
In Test 1 (CTC01), one slope was treated with 9% CS (denoted as
CS-9), while the second slope was left untreated (Fig. 4). In Test 2
(CTC02), one slope was treated with 4% CS (denoted as CS-4) and
the second slope was treated with 5% CS (denoted as CS-5) (Fig. 4).
Laboratory tests using CS concentrations of less than 5% have been
shown to gel; however, they do not achieve a rigid gel (i.e., they do
not reach Gel State 11). The purpose of using 4% CS in CTC02
was to compare the effectiveness of liquefaction mitigation for
a weak gel to a strong gel that had achieved the majority of its
strength gain.
Model Preparation
Soil and Sensor Placement
Both models were built inside a flexible shear-beam container. The
sand layers were placed in several lifts using a dry pluviation tech-
nique with a calibrated pluviator. Each sensor was placed at the
desired location during model construction and the model container
was weighed at each lift to confirm the relative density of the soil.
The average relative densities in the loose sand layer were estimated
to be 35 and 45% for CTC01 and CTC02, respectively.
Accelerometers, pore pressure transducers, linear potentiometers
(LPs), and linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were
placed at the locations shown in Fig. 4. The instrumentation in the
liquefiable layer consisted of 10 piezoelectric accelerometers (PCB
Piezotronics, Inc.) and nine pore pressure transducers (PDCR-81
Series by Druck, Inc.) placed in a vertical array on each side of the
model. The LPs (Duncan 600 Series by BEI Technologies, Inc.) and
the LVDTs (DCTH Series by RDP Group) were placed on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Model geometry and sensor layout

surface of the model to measure the surface settlement and lateral Table 1. Colloidal Silica Properties
spreading. Bender elements (PiezoSystems, Inc.) were placed within Colloidal silica
the liquefiable layer to measure the shear wave velocity. Open steel concentration CS-9a CS-5b CS-4c
tubes were also placed vertically on each side of the model, which
were filled with colored sand and subsequently used to observe the Normality (N) 0.24 0.33 0.27
lateral movement of the soil profile, including the relative movements Time at Gel State 3 (h) 13 15 84
at the interface between the crust and the loose sand after testing. Resonating time (h)b 16 26 120
N* gel time at maximum 4 4 NA
strength gainc
Colloidal Silica Preparation and Saturation N* gel time at time of 10 12 NA
The target gel state of the CS was selected to allow ample time to shaking
saturate the treated zones of the model before the viscosity increased Density (g/cc) 1.06 1.05 1.04
too much and to provide sufficient curing time prior to model testing. Initial viscosity (cP) 1.3 1.15 1.1
a
The gel times of the CS solution were controlled by altering the ionic Viscosity of solution measured by the Cannon Ubbelohde viscometer.
b
strength through the addition of sodium chloride (NaCl). Prior to Refers to Gel State 10 (Persoff et al. 1999).
c
model preparation, CS gel time tests were conducted to determine Defined as 4* resonating time or 4* Gel State 10 (Gallagher and Mitchell
the normality that resulted in the desired gel time for each CS con- 2002).
centration. The curing time to reach Gel State 10 was determined via
visual and manual inspection of laboratory specimens. The prop-
deionized water upon completion of CS-9 and placement of the crust
erties of each CS grout solution are summarized in Table 1.
(described subsequently). In CTC02, the preparation and saturation
The CS solution was prepared in a saturation tank. First, deion-
of CS-5 and CS-4 followed a similar approach as CS-9.
ized water was mixed with the appropriate amount of granular NaCl
Once saturation was complete, the vacuum pressure was slowly
(Fisher Scientific) using an air circulation pump. Red food dye was
released from the model and the height of the fluid was carefully
added to enable visual inspection of the treatment coverage during
monitored. While the vacuum pressure was released, the solution
model dissection. The appropriate volume of Ludox SM-30 was
elevation decreased, indicating the solution was continuing to fill
added and the entire batch was mixed.
in dry pockets within the liquefiable layer. The vacuum release was
Prior to saturation, a vacuum pressure of approximately 90 kPa
stopped and more CS solution was added to the model. The process
was applied and the model was flooded with carbon dioxide gas to
was repeated until no further drop in fluid height was observed to
displace any air trapped in the soil voids. Troughs with saturation
ensure complete saturation. Saturation occurred at 1g; however,
tubes were mounted on the north and south ends of the container. The
grouting with CS under increasing levels of confinement resulted in
saturation tubes extended to the bottom of the model container. The
increasing strength in the sands (Kodaka et al. 2005). The strength
fluid was introduced in the troughs under vacuum pressure from
gains provided by CS likely would have been higher had they been
a deaired water chamber. For CTC01, the plan was to drip the CS
allowed to cure under the testing acceleration of 15g.
solution into the north trough, after which it would flow through the
saturation tubes such that saturation would occur from the bottom up.
When saturation was near completion, the injection rate decreased
Crust Placement and Saturation of the Untreated Side
dramatically and the saturation procedure was modified such that the
solution flowed over the lip of the trough and saturated the model from The crust was constructed using Yolo loam sieved to pass a #10 sieve.
the top down. The untreated side of CTC01 was saturated with The crust was placed at the optimum water content of about 12–15%

1336 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.

 in several lifts. Each lift was compacted with a model-sized sheepsfoot
roller that created a normal stress on the surface of approximately
9 kPa such that compaction pressure would not exceed the prototype
pressure on the top of the sand layer. The crust was trimmed to the
appropriate sloped geometry and the surface was marked with colored
sand lines (running east/west) to evaluate the uniformity of the lateral
deformations and boundary effects on the container after testing. The
container was mounted on the arm of the centrifuge and the untreated
side was saturated as described previously.
Soil Properties
Overview
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
load cells; thus, the tip force could be measured in addition to the
combined effect of the tip resistance and sleeve friction.
The data from both tests are plotted in Fig. 5 as cone tip re-
sistance, qc , which is the penetration force divided by the tip cross-
sectional area. The value of qc from CTC01 was greater than the true
value because it included the shaft friction force; however, the error
was estimated to be less than about 1% based on the ratio of the shaft
friction to the tip force in CTC02. The CS treatment in CTC01
increased qc of the loose sand layer from about 2.5 to 5.0 MPa.
CTC02 shows that qc increased from about 10 MPa on CS-4 to
about 23 MPa on CS-5. The difference in qc between these two sides
was again a factor of about 2, which is attributed to the fact that CS-4
only reached Gel State 7 whereas CS-5 achieved a fully resonated
gel. For similar effective stresses (10–40 kPa), typical qc values of
saturated sands were estimated using the empirical correlations from

The soil properties are summarized in Table 2. The mmnimum and

maximum relative densities for Nevada sand were determined using Table 2. Soil Properties
Japanese Standard Method Number JIS A1244. The cyclic stress ratio
(CSR)—defined as the ratio of the cyclic shear stress amplitude to the Parameter Dense sand Loose sand Crust
initial effective confining stress required to cause an excess pore Soil type Monterey 0/30 Nevada sand Yolo loam
pressure ratio of 1.0 in 15 uniform loading cycles for the saturated Specific gravity 2.64 2.64a —
loose sand layer (Dr
40%)—was estimated to be between 0.09 and Mean grain size, D50 (mm) 0.4b 0.17 0.32
0.13 based on torsional hollow cylinder tests (Kano, personal com- Coefficient of uniformity — 1.64 10
munication, 2010) and direct simple shear tests (Doygun 2009). The gmax;dry (kN/m3 ) 16.81b 17.5 —
wet unit weight of the Yolo loam crust was defined as the average unit gmax;dry (kN/m3 ) 13.96 (CTC01) 14.5 —
weight of the Yolo loam samples collected during model preparation. 13.74 (CTC02)b
The water content of the crust layer after shaking was determined by Relative density (%) 95 (CTC01) 35 (CTC01) —
averaging the wet and dry weights of the samples collected. 98 (CTC02) 45 (CTC02)
Wet unit weight (kN/m3 ) 19.6 (CTC01) 19 21.8 (CTC01)
19.7 (CTC02)c 21.5 (CTC02)d
Cone Penetration Tests
Permeability (cm/s) — 2 3 1023 —
One cone penetration test (CPT) was performed in each slope at 15g Water content — — 15% (CTC01)
prior to shaking. A hydraulic actuator was used to push the 0.095-m- 12% (CTC02)
diameter (prototype) cone into the sand at a constant rate of ap- a
Chen (1995) and Cruz (1995).
proximately 1 cm/s. In CTC01, the CPT had a rod length of 16 cm b
Kammerer et al. (2004).
(model scale) and one working load cell at the back to measure the c
Based on emax 5 0:821 and emin 5 0:631 (Polito 1999).
combined effect of the tip resistance and sleeve friction. In CTC02, d
Estimation based on the average of two samples collected during
the CPT had a rod length of 32 cm (model scale) and two separate placement.

Fig. 5. Cone penetration test

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1337

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.

 Salgado et al. (1997) and were found to range from 2 to 4 MPa (Dr 5
35%) and 3 to 5 MPa (Dr 5 45%). The values of qc for the untreated
sand in CTC01 agree with these estimates; however, the overall
increase in qc between CTC01 and CTC02 is likely a result of the
combined effect of increased relative density and CS treatment.
Model Testing
The tests were conducted on the 9-m-radius centrifuge at the Uni-
versity of California at Davis. Eight shaking events were applied to
the models in the north-south (longitudinal) direction at a centrifugal
acceleration of approximately 15g. Each motion consisted of 20
cycles of a sinusoidal wave at a frequency of 2 Hz. The testing and
shaking sequence are shown in Table 3.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The crust layer on the treated side remained virtually intact and
experienced minimal settlement. The posttesting measurements
revealed cracks on the treated side up to 1.5 cm in the direction
perpendicular to shaking.
The visual observations indicated that the surface lines on all CS-
treated sides moved laterally in a uniform manner, suggesting the
crust surface moved as a continuous block with minimal boundary
effects. On the untreated side, the surface lines were washed away
when the crust was submerged and movement could not be observed
by visual inspection (Fig. 6). Visual inspection of the vertical colored
sand markers showed a portion of the lateral movement occurred as
localized shear strains at the interface between the liquefiable sand
and crust layer (Fig. 7).
The LP and LVDT readings recorded during each shaking event
were used to compute the settlements and lateral spreading on the

crust surface. Figs. 8 and 9 compare the cumulative settlement and

Lateral Spreading and Settlement
Immediately after testing CTC01, visual inspection showed the crust
on the untreated side was completely submerged in water as a result
of the occurrence of large settlements when the underlying sand
layer liquefied. The sloped crust was completely washed away and
experienced significant lateral spreading and settlement [Fig. 6(b)].
lateral spreading for the treated and untreated zones measured on the
surface of the model for Shakes 1–5. The positive values for lateral
spreading indicate movement toward the central water channel and
the negative values for settlement indicate downward movement.
The data analysis reveals the surface settlements to be minimal
with CS treatment when compared with no treatment. At the end of

Table 3. Testing Sequence

CTC01 CTC02
a b a
Event PBA Event PBAb
CTC01_01 (Shake 1) 0.007 CTC02_01 (Shake 1) 0.007
CTC01_02 (Shake 2) 0.03 CTC02_02 0.03
(pulse wave test) (Shake 2) (bender test)
CTC01_03 (Shake 3) 0.1 CTC02_03 0.15
(pulse wave test) (Shake 3) (bender test)
CTC01_04 (Shake 4) 0.2 CTC02_04 0.25 Fig. 7. Model profile near the open channel after the test
(pulse wave test) (Shake 4) (bender test)
CTC01_05 (Shake 5) 0.56 CTC02_05 0.69
(pulse wave test) (Shake 5) (bender test)
CTC01_06 (Shake 6) 0.03 CTC02_06 0.03
(pulse wave test) (Shake 6) (bender test)
CTC01_07 (Shake 7) 0.2 CTC02_07 0.25
(pulse wave test) (Shake 7) (bender test)
CTC01_08 (Shake 8) 1.28 CTC02_08 1.37
(pulse wave test) (Shake 8) (bender test)
a
Rest time between events is approximately 15 min and shaking time is 10 s.
b
Peak base acceleration determined by average recordings at the north and
south bases of the container.

Fig. 6. Model surface: (a) before the test; (b) after the test Fig. 8. Cumulative surface settlement for Shakes 1–5

1338 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.

 Shake 5, the cumulative surface settlements for the untreated side
ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 m (Fig. 8), with the greatest settlements
occurring closest to the container wall and the smallest settlements
occurring closest to the central water channel. The reason for such
large settlements along the wall and smaller settlements near the
water channel was a result of the fact that the entire crust layer was
sloped 3
toward the central water channel. When liquefaction in the
untreated side occurred, water migrated to the surface and slope
failure of the crust occurred. At this point, the entire crust layer
moved laterally toward the central water channel and the visual
observations revealed the crust layer was completely flattened
and filled into the central water channel (Fig. 6). The surface set-
tlements for CS-9 were relatively uniform, and at the end of Shake 5
cumulative settlements of about 0.05, 0.07, and 0.05 m occurred for
the boundary, midcrust, and channel locations, respectively. In
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
CTC02, the surface settlements were minimal overall because of the
fact that liquefaction did not occur on either side of the model and
slope failure did not occur on the crust. However, the surface set-
tlements were slightly greater in CS-4 compared with CS-5. At the
Fig. 9. Cumulative lateral spreading for Shakes 1–5
Fig. 10. Acceleration and pore pressure response at the midpoint of the untreated liquefiable layer for Shakes 1–5
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1339
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.
end of Shake 5 cumulative settlements ranged from about 0.05
to 0.08 m for CS-5 and 0.07 to 0.1 m for CS-4.
Similarly, lateral spreading was reduced with CS treatment
compared with no treatment (Fig. 9). At the end of Shake 5 in
CTC01, CS-9 reduced the cumulative lateral spreading on the
model surface from 0.9 to 0.15 m closest to the open channel. In
CTC02, the lateral spreading was greater for CS-4 compared with
that of CS-5. The lateral spreading for CS-5 ranged from about 0.02
to 0.1 m while the lateral spreading for CS-4 ranged from about 0.1 to
0.2 m. It should be noted that the maximum lateral spreading at the
channel and midcrust locations for CS-9 was greater than for CS-5.
This is primarily a result of the fact that in CTC02 the pore fluid on
both sides of the model consisted of gel while in CTC01 the water on
the untreated side allowed for greater movement throughout the
overall model. Fig. 9 also shows that at the end of Shake 5 the lateral
spreading on the boundary of CS-4 is slightly greater than that of the
untreated sand as a result of the significant cracking that occurred
along the boundary where the sensor was located.
Pore Pressure and Acceleration
The pore pressure was measured on the untreated side of the model
within the liquefiable layer to identify the occurrence of liquefaction.
The pore pressure ratio, rU , was computed for the untreated sand as the
ratio of excess pore pressure to the initial vertical effective stress. The
pore pressure data of the CS soils are not reported in this paper. The
mechanism for generating pressure on CS gel in the sand pores is not
yet well understood and requires further study. Although liquefaction
is conventionally defined as the time when rU 5 1:0, the significance
of rU for CS sands does not represent the same physical meaning.
The acceleration and pore pressure responses at the midpoint of the
untreated liquefiable layer are shown in Fig. 10 for Shakes 2–5. In
Shake 2 the model was subjected to a peak base acceleration (PBA) of
0:03g. Fig. 10 shows that rU remains low and the acceleration reveals
a uniform response similar to the base shaking motion. During Shake 3
(PBA 5 0:1g), liquefaction was initiated 3 s into the shaking event. At
this same time, amplification was observed in the acceleration record
followed by deamplification in the subsequent cycles. This same
pattern was observed during Shakes 4 and 5; however, the amplifi-
cation and deamplification responses became more dramatic. Based on
the acceleration and pore pressure responses in Fig. 10, the untreated
loose sand layer continued to liquefy for successive shaking events.
From the acceleration records, the amplification in the acceleration
response occurred when rU 51:0, followed by deamplification.
Fig. 11 compares the acceleration response at the midpoint of the
untreated and treated liquefiable layers for Shakes 2–5. Fig. 11 shows
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Acceleration response at the midpoint of the untreated liquefiable layer, CS-9, CS-5, and CS-4 for Shakes 2–5

a uniform response for each soil type during Shake 2 when the applied
shaking amplitude was small (PBA 5 0:03g). When the shaking
amplitudes were increased in Shakes 3 and 4, the acceleration response
in the treated soils showed a relatively uniform response in terms of the
acceleration amplitudes compared with that of the untreated soil. On the
other hand, the response in Shake 5 showed nonuniformity and high-
frequency amplification spikes in CS-4 and CS-5 compared with CS-9.
In general, the deamplification of the acceleration response ob-
served in the untreated sand is directly related to a change in the ratio
between input frequency (which was constant) and the soil profile’s
natural frequency (which progressively decreased). The significance
of these trends indicates that the stiffness in the untreated sand is
continuously degrading for each loading cycle. On the other hand,
the trends in the acceleration response for CS-9 suggest strength and
stiffness is being maintained for cyclic loading up to 0:56g. The
amplification that occurred in CS-5 and CS-4 in Shake 5 suggests
changes in the behavior of the grouted medium.
Shear Wave Velocity
The shear modulus degradation curve is characterized using both the
maximum shear modulus, Gmax , and the variation in modulus ratio,
G/Gmax , with cyclic strain amplitude; Gmax can be obtained by
measuring the shear wave velocity (VS ) at low strain amplitudes by
Gmax ¼ r × Vs2 ð1Þ
where VS is measured as
VS ¼ L ð2Þ
t compared because of the differences in the measurement methods.
where L 5 effective distance between two signal measurement points
and t 5 travel time for the shear wave to travel through the medium.
In CTC01, the VS measurements were planned to be determined
using bender elements. However, the bender elements failed; there-
fore, an alternative method utilizing the centrifuge shaker was pro-
posed. The shaker was used to generate a single 0.1 s (model scale) sine
wave at the base of the model container, which was recorded in vertical
accelerometer arrays (Fig. 4) with a sampling rate of 20,000 Hz. The
pulse wave had an average PBA of 0:025g. As the shear wave traveled
through the liquefiable soil, the vertical array of accelerometers picked
up the signal and captured the wave propagation through the profile
(Fig. 12). The distance between the two signal measurement points, L,
is the difference in elevation between accelerometers. The travel time,
t, was taken as the time shift of the pulse wave from successive
accelerometers in the array using cross-correlation methods. Prior to
cross correlation, a seventh-order band-pass Butterworth filter was
applied to the original records to remove higher-frequency noise.
In CTC02, bender elements were used to estimate small-strain VS .
The bender element tests used the signal stacking procedure by
Brandenberg et al. (2008). Ten pulses were sent out in quick suc-
cession and the signals were stacked to improve the signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR). Once the SNR was satisfactory, the multiple waves were
stacked into a single signal. The data were transmitted and received
through a data acquisition system and processed from a built-in
software program (i.e., LabVIEW). A square source wave (9 V am-
plitude) was sent and sampled at a frequency of 90,000 Hz. Here, L is
the tip-to-tip distance from the source to the receiving bender and
t is the time of first arrival of the receiving signal (Fig. 13). The source
and receiver benders were placed approximately 100 mm apart at four
different elevations in the liquefiable soil (Fig. 4). The duration of the
bender element test was approximately 2 ms.
The values of VS from CTC01 and CTC02 cannot be directly
The bender element tests typically induced strains lower than 3 3
1024 % while the shear strains induced from the pulse wave were
determined to range about 0.01%. This difference in strains can

1340 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.

 Table 4. Shear Wave Velocity Summary
After PBA
Type shake (g) Depth (m) s90 (kPa) Vs (m/s) G (MPa)
Untreateda 0.007 2.6 30 174 59
CS-9a 0.007 2.6 30 185 66
CS-5b 0.007 2.66 32 176 60
CS-4b 0.007 2.66 32 151 44
a
Measurement from pulse wave.
b
Measurement from Bender elements.

Stress-Strain Analysis

The interpretation of the stress-strain response based on the accel-

erometer data are based on the method presented in Zeghal et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1995) with the appropriate modifications as presented in Kamai and

Fig. 12. Normalized signals of the vertical accelerometer array in
untreated soil
Boulanger (2010). The analysis assumes a one-dimensional (1D)
shear-beam response, with upward propagation of the shear waves.
Other forms of waves, such as P waves reflected off the container
walls, are assumed to be negligible with respect to the shaking-
induced, upward propagating shear waves. This assumption is be-
lieved to be reasonable, based on the following two main factors: (1)
the test was performed within a flexible shear-beam container, which
deforms with the soil and, hence, is expected to produce smaller
inertia loads on the soil; and (2) the vertical array is located in the
middle of the soil mass, at a prototype distance of about 6 m from the
container wall, to reduce the boundary effects.
The accuracy of the inverse analysis techniques require in-
strument spacing to be less than about one-eighth of the shortest
wavelength. Based upon estimates of VS during dynamic loading, the
maximum wavelength ranged from about 115 m for the smaller
shakes to a minimum of about 10 m for the larger shaking events as
a result of softening. This equated to a maximum sensor spacing of
14 m for the smaller shakes and 1.25 m for the larger shakes. The
maximum sensor spacing was measured at 1.2 m with an average
sensor spacing of about 0.65 m (prototype) and, therefore, con-
sidered dense enough to capture wave transmission accurately.

Fig. 13. Travel time determination from the Bender element tests
cause a 30% difference in the shear modulus as demonstrated by
Spencer et al. (2008). The step-wave technique used in CTC01 also
had lower resolution, in part because of limits on the sampling
frequency and input wave frequency. In general, both methods can
be used to assess trends in G; however, the bender elements offer
a more accurate means to obtain Gmax .
The VS and G measurements are summarized in Table 4 for CTC01
and CTC02, respectively, after a small shaking event (PBA 5 0:007g)
was applied to the model. For CTC01, VS of the untreated sand at 30
kPa confinement was measured as 174 m/s. The results are generally
consistent with the studies by Kasantikul (2009), which reported VS

160–180 m/s for loose-to-medium sand at 30 kPa confinement. The
G for CS-9 showed an increase of about 12% compared with the
untreated sand. These results are also consistent with the initial small-
strain G obtained through the resonant column tests for loose Nevada
sand treated with CS (Spencer et al. 2008). The values of VS from
CTC02 indicated an increase of about 14% in G between CS-4 and
CS-5. Although strength gains in soils are reported to increase with
increasing CS concentration, such large differences between the two
treatment concentrations are not expected to occur. The discrepancy is
likely a result of the fact that CS-4 represents treatment with a weak
grout characteristic of a highly deformable, nonflowing gel.
Calculation of Shear Stress
The shear stresses were determined at the midpoints between the
accelerometers in the vertical arrays (Fig. 14). The calculations fol-
lowed 1D shear-beam behavior where the shear stress at any depth, z,
can be obtained by integration of the soil density, r, times acceler-
ation, a
ðz
tðzÞ ¼ r × a × dz ð3Þ
0
Unlike field data, surface accelerations (when z 5 0) cannot be
directly measured in centrifuge models because the instruments re-
quire sufficient contact with the soil and must be buried within the
model. As a result, rigid body motion in the centrifuge was assumed
for the first soil element in the array. This is a reasonable assumption
because the distance from the surface to the first accelerometer was
only about 0.8 m. Based on rigid body motion, the acceleration at the
surface is considered equal to the acceleration measured at Node 1
from Fig. 14. The equations used for calculation of shear stress are
presented in Kamai and Boulanger (2010). The shear stresses were
normalized by the initial effective overburden pressure at the be-
ginning of each shake to establish the CSR. The CSR was determined
as the ratio of shear stress at the midpoints of each element by the
corresponding initial effective vertical stress at a similar depth.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1341

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.

 Calculation of Shear Strains
The shear strains were obtained from the vertical accelerometer
array. The acceleration records were double integrated in time to
obtain transient displacements and then differentiated in space to
obtain shear strains. A sixth-order Butterworth band-pass filter was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Schematic of the 1D shear-beam model for interpreting the
vertical array data (after Kamai and Boulanger 2010)
Fig. 15. CSR versus shear strain for Shakes 3–5 at the midpoint of the liquefiable layer (D 5 3:1 m) for untreated, 9% CS, and 5% CS
1342 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.
applied to the accelerometer records before the integration. Differ-
entiation of the displacements utilized a weighted residual method
following Kamai and Boulanger (2010) to determine the shear
strains at the midpoints between the sensor locations.
Figs. 15–17 show the stress-strain response for (1) small base
shaking amplitude; (2) medium base shaking amplitude when rU 51:0
occurs in the untreated sand; and (3) large base shaking amplitude. Fig.
15 shows the stress-strain response for Shakes 2–5 at the midpoint of
the liquefiable layer (D 5 3:1 m). However, CS-4 exhibited erratic
stress-strain behavior and was omitted from the analysis. The erratic
behavior is likely attributed to minor rotations of the sensors along with
the poor quality of the signals in one or more sensors, which become
extremely sensitive to the analysis (Kamai and Boulanger 2010). For
a CSR of approximately 0.1, the shear strain (g) is about 0.025% for
each soil type and does not indicate development of additional shear
strain for additional loading cycles. The values of g for Shake 2 were
also consistent for liquefiable soils with g
0:01% (Drnevich and
Richart 1970; Dobry et al. 1982). The response for Shake 3 showed
a rapid development of g in the untreated soil of up to 1%. Compared
with the untreated soil, gmax was reduced to 0.3 and 0.6% for CS-9 and
CS-5, respectively. Similar reductions in g occurred for Shakes 4 and 5
when the model was subjected to stronger base shaking, and the
reductions appear to correlate well with the CS concentrations (Fig. 15).
In the untreated soil, liquefaction was triggered (rU 5 1:0) during
Shake 3. Based on the pore pressure response from Fig. 12, rU 5 1:0
occurred about 3 s into the shaking event, corresponding to the sixth
shaking cycle. Fig. 16 shows the stress-strain profiles at specific
cycles in the shaking event to capture the behavior during (1) the
beginning of shaking (Cycle 2); (2) the middle of shaking (Cycle 6);
and (3) the end of shaking (Cycle 19). In Cycle 2 (prior to rU 5 1:0)
there was development of g
0:5% for the untreated soil while the
treated soils during Cycle 2 developed g
0:2%.
As rU approached 1.0 in the untreated soil, g developed rapidly up
to 0.5% during Cycle 6 for a CSR of 0.3 (Fig. 16). At this time, the
 untreated soil experienced zero effective stress and reached the
failure envelope, during which the sand underwent dilative behavior
and was accompanied by transient stiffening as well as temporary
drops in rU . Comparatively, the CS sands showed reductions in
g with increasing CS concentrations. For example, at the midpoint of
the liquefiable soil layer, g from Cycles 2 to 6 increased by 0.1 and
0.3% for CS-9 and CS-5, respectively.
Toward the end of the shaking event (Cycle 19), the differences in
behavior between the grouted and ungrouted soils were more pro-
nounced. Fig. 16 shows significant loss in stiffness in the untreated soil
indicated by dramatic differences in the stress-strain path between
Cycles 2 and 19. The unusual stress-strain path during Cycle 19 was
primarily attributed to further soil softening by additional loading
cycles applied to the liquefied soils, thus precluding transmission of
motions along the profile. Another contributing factor to the unusual
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
movement of the sensors in the loose sand layer as it liquefies and
experiences large deformations. On the other hand, CS-9 from Fig. 16
shows that the response during Cycle 19 is nearly identical to that from
Cycle 6. The characteristic response for CS-9 shows that for a CSR of
about 0.2, a maximum value of g is reached (0.3%) early in the
shaking sequence at which point there is no further increase with
increasing loading cycles. On the other hand, for a CSR of 0.25, CS-5
experienced continuously incremental increases in shear strain with
further loading cycles. For example, at the midpoint of the layer, CS-5
showed an increase in g from 0.2% (Cycle 2) up to 0.65% (Cycle 19).
Overall, the maximum CSRs and shear strains that developed were
both reduced for the CS sands and the reductions correlated well with
the treatment levels. For example, the averages of the maximum CSRs
determined along the profile were 0.3, 0.25, and 0.2 and the average
values of gmax that developed along the profile were determined to be

stress-strain path observed from Cycles 6 and 19 may be a result of the 0.7, 0.4, and 0.3% for the untreated sand, CS-5, and CS-9, respectively.

Fig. 16. CSR versus shear strain for Shake 3 (PBA 5 0.1–0:15g)

Fig. 17. CSR versus shear strain for Shake 5 (PBA 5 0.56–0:69g)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1343

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.

 The stress-strain response for Shake 5 represents an applied PBA
of 0.56 and 0:69g for CTC01 and CTC02, respectively, and is shown
in Fig. 17, which also shows that g
2:7% along the profile of the
untreated soil during Cycle 2 of the shake sequence. Soon after Cycle
2, there was a limited response in the untreated soil during Cycle 6 as
a result of further soil softening that impeded motions from prop-
agating up through the profile.
The behavior of the grouted soils indicated quick development
of g in the early stages of cyclic loading with smaller g developed
for increasing CS concentrations. During Cycle 2, both concen-
trations showed a CSR 5 0.8 corresponding to g
1.2 and 1.8%
along the profile for CS-9 and CS-5, respectively. CS-9 exhibited
no further change in CSR or g for up to 20 additional loading
cycles. CS-5 underwent cyclic mobility with only minor increases
in g.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In general, the stress-strain loops determined from the model
tests demonstrate the cyclic mobility behavior of CS sands is very
similar to that associated with dense-of-critical sands in undrained
cyclic loading. Additionally, the hysteretic response determined
for increasing applied horizontal base accelerations in subsequent
shakes confirms the ability of CS sands to provide adequate cyclic
shear resistance despite the occurrence of the increasing shear
strains that were observed. In this way, the gelled sand matrix
continued to provide significant shear resistance, which also
translates well with the expanded dilation region observed for CS
sands during phase transformation under monotonic loading
(Kodaka et al. 2005).
Conclusions
The centrifuge tests provided comparisons of the dynamic re-
sponse for untreated, loose sands, and loose sands treated with 4,
5, and 9% CS (by weight) subjected to a sequence of dynamic
shaking events. The dynamic responses were characterized by
surface displacements, accelerations, and the hysteretic behavior
characterized through integration and inverse analysis methods to
obtain stress-strain responses. After comparing the response be-
tween a liquefiable sand layer saturated with various concen-
trations of CS and a liquefiable sand layer saturated with only
water, the key findings from the test show the following:
• Ground deformations were progressively reduced with increas-
ing levels of CS treatment.
• CS treatment can dramatically reduce lateral spreading in slopes
resting on liquefiable soil layers.
• Sands treated with CS yield higher cone tip resistance and shear
wave velocity.
•
The stress-strain responses of the treated sands were consistent
with the laboratory element test data in that they exhibited a cyclic
mobility behavior consistent with the undrained response of
dense-of-critical sands.
• Increasing treatment levels produced greater cyclic resistance
ratios and lower cyclic shear strains. These results are consistent
with reductions of ground deformations determined for increas-
ing concentrations of CS treatment.
CS grouting offers the potential advantage of enabling passive
stabilization of soils that underlay existing structures that may be
otherwise difficult to treat by other methods. The results of these
centrifuge tests support the findings from the laboratory element
studies in demonstrating the treated soil’s improved resistance to
seismic deformations. The archived experimental data also provide
a basis for future evaluation of numerical models that may be used
in the design or analysis of CS-treated sites.
1344 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.
Acknowledgments
Model tests were performed at the Center for Geotechnical Modeling,
University of California at Davis. The writers would like to acknowl-
edge the assistance of Dan Wilson, Chad Justice, Peter Rojas, Ray
Gerhard, Nick Sinikas, and Lars Pederson. This research was per-
formed as part of a NEES Grand Challenge project, and benefitted
from discussions and collaborations with Glenn Rix, Ellen Rathje,
Rachelle Howell, and Tony Marinucci. This material is based on
work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under
Grant No. CMS-0530478. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed in this material are those of the writers and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of NSF. Recent upgrades have been funded
by NSF Award No. CMS 0086566 through the George E. Brown,
Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).
References
Brandenberg, S. J., Kutter, B. L., and Wilson, D. W. (2008). “Fast stacking
and phase corrections of shear wave signals in a noisy environment.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 134(8), 1154–1165.
Chen, Y. R. (1995). “Behavior of fine sand in triaxial, torsional and rotational
shear tests.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California–Davis, Davis, CA.
Cruz, R. D. (1995). “Rate dependent shear and consolidation of remolded San
Francisco Bay mud.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California–Davis, Davis, CA.
Dobry, R., Ladd, R. S., Yokel, F. Y., Chung, R. M., and Powell, D. (1982).
Prediction of pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands
during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method, Building Science Series
183, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.
Doygun, O. (2009). “Monotonic and cyclic undrained loading behavior of
intermediate soils.” M.S. thesis, Technische Univ. Darmstadt, Darm-
stadt, Germany.
Drnevich, V. P., and Richart, F. E., Jr. (1970). “Dynamic prestraining of dry
sands.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 96(2), 453–469.
Gallagher, P. M. (2000). “Passive site remediation for mitigation of liq-
uefaction risk.” Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Gallagher, P. M., Conlee, C. T., and Rollins, K. M. (2007a). “Full-scale field
testing of colloidal silica grouting for mitigation of liquefaction risk.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133(2), 186–196.
Gallagher, P. M., and Lin, Y. (2005). “Column testing to determine colloidal
silica transport mechanisms.” Innovations in grouting and soil im-
provement, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 136, E. M. Rathje, ed.,
ASCE, Reston, VA.
Gallagher, P. M., and Mitchell, J. K. (2002). “Influence of colloidal silica
grout on liquefaction potential and cyclic undrained behavior of loose
sand.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 22(9-12), 1017–1026.
Gallagher, P. M., Pamuk, A., and Abdoun, T. (2007b). “Stabilization of
liquefiable soils using colloidal silica grout.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 19(1),
33–40.
Iler, R. K. (1979). The chemistry of silica: Solubility, polymerization, colloid
and surface properties, and biochemistry, Wiley, New York.
Kamai, R., and Boulanger, R. W. (2010). “Characterizing localization
processes during liquefaction using inverse analyses of instrumentation
arrays.” Meso-scale shear physics in earthquake and landslide me-
chanics, Y. H. Hatzor, J. Sulem, and I. Vardoulakis, eds., CRC, Leiden,
Netherlands, 219–238.
Kammerer, A., Wu, J., Riemer, M., Pestana, J., and Seed, R. (2004). “Shear
strain development in liquefiable soil under bidirectional loading con-
dition.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE),
Paper No. 2081, Vancouver, Canada.
Kasantikul, P. (2009). “Resonant column and torsional shear testing to
evaluate soil properties deposited using dry pluviation and hydraulic
fill.” M.S. thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Kodaka, T., Oka, F., Ohno, Y., Takyu, T., and Yamasaki, N. (2005).
“Modeling of cyclic deformation and strength characteristics of silica
treated sand.” Geomechanics: Testing, modeling, and simulation, Geo-
technical Special Publication No. 143, ASCE, Reston, VA, 205–216.
 Moridis, G. J., Pruess, K., Persoff, P., and Apps, J. A. (1995). “Performance
and properties of colloidal silica and polysiloxane grouts.” Proc., Int.
Containment Technology Workshop, Baltimore.
Pamuk, A., Gallagher, P. M., and Zimmie, T. (2007). “Remediation of pile
foundations against lateral spreading by passive site stabilization
technique.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 27(9), 864–874.
Persoff, P., Apps, J., Moridis, G., and Whang, J. M. (1999). “Effect of
dilution and contaminants on strength and hydraulic conductivity of sand
grouted with colloidal silica gel.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125(6),
461–469.
Polito, C. P. (1999). “The effects of non-plastic and plastic fines on the
liquefaction of sandy soils.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engi-
neering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Xavier Vera on 11/10/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Salgado, R., Boulanger, R. W., and Mitchell, J. K. (1997). “Lateral stress
effects on CPT liquefaction resistance correlations.” J. Geotech. Geo-
environ. Eng., 123(8), 726–735.
Spencer, L. M., Rix, G. J., and Gallagher, P. M. (2008). “Colloidal silica gel
and sand mixture dynamic properties.” Proc., Conf. of Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 181, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Whang, J. M. (1995). “Chemical-based barrier materials.” Assessment of
barrier containment technologies for environmental remediation appli-
cations, R. R. Rumer and J. K. Mitchell, eds., National Technical In-
formation Service, Springfield, VA, 211–247.
Zeghal, M., Elgamal, W. A., Tang, H. T., and Stepp, J. C. (1995). “Evaluation
of soil nonlinear properties.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 121(4), 363–378.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2012 / 1345

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1334-1345.