Characteristics of Liquefaction in Embankment Models Reinforced with Hybrid Piles
Downloads
Liquefaction of saturated loose sand poses a serious threat to the stability of embankments subjected to seismic loading. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative and environmentally friendly liquefaction mitigation technique using hybrid piles (HPs) that combine structural stiffness and vertical drainage functions. A series of 1-g shaking table tests was conducted on embankment models constructed over saturated sand with an initial relative density of 40%. The models were subjected to repeated sinusoidal seismic excitations with peak ground accelerations (PGA) ranging from 0.3 g to 0.5 g. The performance of the HPs system was assessed by analyzing cone penetration resistance, acceleration response, excess pore water pressure ratio, changes in relative density and void ratio, and surface settlement. The experimental results demonstrate that the HPs system significantly enhances soil densification and stiffness, as indicated by a 1.3–3.0-fold increase in penetration resistance and a relative density increase of up to 7–10% in deeper layers. The HPs system reduced the maximum excess pore water pressure ratio by up to 16.26%, thereby delaying liquefaction onset and enhancing pore pressure dissipation under repeated seismic loading. In addition, settlement was reduced by approximately 37–42% compared with the unreinforced model across all PGA levels. The novelty of this study lies in the integrated use of locally sourced timber and prefabricated vertical drains within a single reinforcement element, providing combined mechanical reinforcement and drainage enhancement. These findings confirm that HPs offer a sustainable and effective solution for mitigating liquefaction and controlling deformation in embankment foundations under seismic conditions.
Downloads
[1] Ishihara, K. (1996). Soil Behaviour in Earthquake Geotechnics. Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198562245.001.0001.
[2] Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 97(9), 1249–1273. doi:10.1061/jsfeaq.0001662.
[3] Zhao, J., Zhu, Z., Liu, J., & Zhong, H. (2023). Damping Ratio of Sand Containing Fine Particles in Cyclic Triaxial Liquefaction Tests. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 13(8), 4833. doi:10.3390/app13084833.
[4] Molina-Gómez, F., Viana, A., da Fonseca Ferreira, C., & Caicedo, B. (2024). Liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon sand: a comparison between cyclic triaxial and cyclic direct simple shear tests. Geotechnical Engineering Challenges to Meet Current and Emerging Needs of Society, CRC Press, Boca Raton, United States. doi:10.1201/9781003431749-221.
[5] Shinde, N. S., & Kumar, J. (2022). Assessing the liquefaction potential of a sand specimen by using resonant column test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 159, 107343. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107343.
[6] Setiawan, H., Serikawa, Y., Sugita, W., Kawasaki, H., & Miyajima, M. (2018). Experimental study on mitigation of liquefaction-induced vertical ground displacement by using gravel and geosynthetics. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 5(1), 22. doi:10.1186/s40677-018-0115-3.
[7] Padmanabhan, G., & Shanmugam, G. K. (2024). Performance assessment of prefabricated vertical drains in mitigating soil reliquefaction subjected to repeated seismic events using shaking table experiments. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 18(3), 411–427. doi:10.1007/s11709-024-1057-3.
[8] Farzalizadeh, R., Hasheminezhad, A., & Bahadori, H. (2021). Shaking table tests on wall-type gravel and rubber drains as a liquefaction countermeasure in silty sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(6), 1483–1494. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2021.06.002.
[9] Bahadori, H., Farzalizadeh, R., Barghi, A., & Hasheminezhad, A. (2018). A comparative study between gravel and rubber drainage columns for mitigation of liquefaction hazards. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 10(5), 924–934. doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.03.008.
[10] Hasheminezhad, A., Farzalizadeh, R., Rahimi, H., & Bahadori, H. (2022). Seismic performance assessment of wall-type gravel and rubber drains in liquefaction mitigation of sands. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 20(8), 3699–3714. doi:10.1007/s10518-022-01358-3.
[11] GuhaRay, A., Mohammed, Y., Harisankar, S., & Gowre, M. S. (2017). Effect of micropiles on liquefaction of cohesionless soil using shake table tests. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2(1), 13. doi:10.1007/s41062-017-0064-9.
[12] Ghorbani, A., Hasanzadehshooiili, H., Somti Foumani, M. A., Medzvieckas, J., & Kliukas, R. (2023). Liquefaction Potential of Saturated Sand Reinforced by Cement-Grouted Micropiles: An Evolutionary Approach Based on Shaking Table Tests. Materials, 16(6), 2194. doi:10.3390/ma16062194.
[13] Ou Yang, F., Fan, G., Wang, K., Yang, C., Lyu, W., & Zhang, J. (2021). A large-scale shaking table model test for acceleration and deformation response of geosynthetic encased stone column composite ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(5), 1407–1418. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2021.05.013.
[14] Shanmugam, G. K., Godson, M. D., Yogesh, R. V., Jeeva, S. K., & Madhiyarasu, P. (2023). Experimental Observations on In-Situ Ground Response During Sequential Installation of Stone Column Improvement in the Saturated Ground. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 9(6), 69. doi:10.1007/s40891-023-00489-0.
[15] Bayati, H., & Bagheripour, M. H. (2019). Shaking table study on liquefaction behaviour of different saturated sands reinforced by stone columns. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 37(7), 801–815. doi:10.1080/1064119X.2018.1492051.
[16] Diana, N. A., Soemitro, R. A. A., Ekaputri, J. J., Satrya, T. R., & Warnana, D. D. (2025). Dynamic Analysis of MICP-Stabilized Soil and Liquefiable Soil With Varying Salinity Levels. Civil Engineering Journal, 11(4), 1432–1446. doi:10.28991/CEJ-2025-011-04-010.
[17] Padmanabhan, G., & Shanmugam, G. K. (2021). Liquefaction and reliquefaction resistance of saturated sand deposits treated with sand compaction piles. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19(11), 4235–4259. doi:10.1007/s10518-021-01143-8.
[18] Zhu, Z., Zhou, Y., Han, K., Wu, H., & Zhao, S. (2022). Liquefaction and Reliquefaction Characteristics of Aeolian Sand Foundation Reinforced by Precast Cement Piles Based on Shaking Table Test. Geofluids, 5344230. doi:10.1155/2022/5344230.
[19] Yoon, J. C., Son, S. W., & Kim, J. M. (2024). Comparison of Liquefaction Damage Reduction Performance of Sheet Pile and Grouting Method Applicable to Existing Structures Using 1-G Shaking Table. Buildings, 14(9), 2676. doi:10.3390/buildings14092676.
[20] Suyadil, Harianto, T., Muhiddin, A. B., & Arsyad, A. (2023). Soil Reinforcement Model Test Using Timber Pile at Liquefaction Area. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran), 9(6), 1509–1521. doi:10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-06-016.
[21] Maheshwari, B. K., & Padmanabhan, G. (2025). Liquefaction and reliquefaction mitigation of sand specimen treated with prefabricated vertical drains: An experimental investigation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 53(1), 295–310. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2024.09.018.
[22] Padmanabhan, G., & Shanmugam, G.K. (2025). Effect of Drainage and Densification Mechanism in Mitigating Liquefaction During Repeated Shaking Events. Soil Dynamics and Computational Geomechanics. IYGEC 2021. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, Springer, Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-96-1368-7_7.
[23] Ghassemi, S., Ekraminia, S. S., Hajialilue-Bonab, M., Tohidvand, H. R., Azarafza, M., & Derakhshani, R. (2025). Innovative insights into micropile seismic response: Shaking table tests reveal critical dependencies and liquefaction mitigation. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 84(4), 206. doi:10.1007/s10064-025-04225-y.
[24] Yogesh, R. V., Ganesh Kumar, S., & Santha Kumar, G. (2026). Synergetic effect of densification, drainage and shear reinforcement mechanism of sustainable pervious concrete pile for liquefaction and reliquefaction mitigation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 200, 109842. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2025.109842.
[25] ASTM D4253-16e1. (2025). Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table. ASTM International, Pennsylvania, United States.
[26] ASTM D4254-16. (2025). Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density. ASTM International, Pennsylvania, United States.
[27] Lombardi, D., & Bhattacharya, S. (2012). Shaking table tests on rigid soil container with absorbing boundaries. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15 WCEE), 24-28 September, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal.
[28] Lombardi, D., Bhattacharya, S., Scarpa, F., & Bianchi, M. (2015). Dynamic response of a geotechnical rigid model container with absorbing boundaries. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 69, 46–56. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.008.
[29] ASTM D5311-11. (2012). Standard Test Method for Load Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Strength of Soil. ASTM International, Pennsylvania, United States. doi:10.1520/D5311-11.
[30] GS 0541-2020. (2020). Method for cyclic undrained triaxial test on soils. Japanese Geotechnical Society Standard, Bunkyo-ku, Japan.
[31] Bharathi, M., Dubey, R. N., & Shukla, S. K. (2019). Experimental investigation of vertical and batter pile groups subjected to dynamic loads. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 116, 107–119. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.10.012.
[32] Li, W. W., Chen, Y. M., Liu, H. L., Yang, Y. H., & Zhang, X. L. (2018). Shaking table tests on efficiency of improvement of X-section piles against lateral spreading. Yantu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 40(5), 945–952. doi:10.11779/CJGE201805021.
[33] ASTM D3441-05. (2016). Standard Test Method for Mechanical Cone Penetration Tests of Soil. ASTM International. doi:10.1520/D3441-05.
[34] Jamiolkowski, M., Lo Presti, D. C. F., & Manassero, M. (2003). Evaluation of Relative Density and Shear Strength of Sands from CPT and DMT. Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction, 201–238. doi:10.1061/40659(2003)7.
[35] Robertson, P. K. (2016). Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system — An update. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53(12), 1910–1927. doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0044.
[36] García-Torres, S., & Madabhushi, G. S. P. (2019). Performance of vertical drains in liquefaction mitigation under structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17(11), 5849–5866. doi:10.1007/s10518-019-00717-x.
[37] Iai, S. (1989). Similitude for Shaking Table Tests on Soil-Structure-Fluid Model in 1g Gravitational Field. Soils and Foundations, 29(1), 105–118. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.29.105.
- Authors retain all copyrights. It is noticeable that authors will not be forced to sign any copyright transfer agreements.
- This work (including HTML and PDF Files) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
