What is Static Liquefaction Failure of Loose Fill Slopes?

Charles W. W. Ng
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR

ABSTRACT: Static liquefaction failure of soil slopes has often been reported in literature. It appears that
some researchers and engineers use different criteria to define and describe static liquefaction and they refer to
different failure mechanisms. What is static liquefaction? How is it triggered? How can we identify and define
static liquefaction failures? Does a strain-softening material necessarily mean static liquefaction? These are
not all easy questions to answer and some of them may be even controversial. Based on some centrifuge model and triaxial element tests, suggested answers to some of these questions are explored, discussed and verified in this paper.
1 INTRODUCTION
Slope failures occur in many parts of the world. A
slope will become unstable when its shear resistance
is smaller than any external driving shear stress,
which may be induced by mechanical and hydraulic
means such as rainfall, earthquake, vibration and
seepage. Alternatively, a slope will also become unstable if its shear resistance is deteriorated and reduced due to weathering and any other mechanisms
such as static liquefaction. Very often the terminology static liquefaction is used to describe soil slope
failures and reported in literature. However, it is evident that different researchers and engineers may refer to different failure mechanisms. Some use debris
mobility (travel angle or run out distance) to judge
whether a slope failure is caused by liquefaction or
not. Clearly there is no direct relationship between
liquefaction and mobility. For instance, a level
ground can liquefy (at zero/small effective stress under seismic loading) with zero run out distance. On
the contrary, a steel ball can run down a bare slope to
reach a very long travel distance and this is nothing
to do with liquefaction or not (Ng 2007).
What is static liquefaction? How is it triggered?
What is the effective stress at failure, if the slope is
fully saturated initially such as undersea slopes?
How can we identify and define static liquefaction
failures? Does a strain-softening material necessarily
mean static liquefaction? Is there any difference between slide failure and flow failure? What is the role
of hydrofracture? How the angle of a slope affects
the so-called static liquefaction? Is there any difference between fluidization and liquefaction? Will

static liquefaction occur in unsaturated soil slopes?

How does the angle of a slope affect the potential of
static liquefaction? Is there any relationship between
the so-called static liquefaction failure and run out
distance? Can soil nails be used to stabilize any
loose fill slopes? Some of these questions have not
been well understood and addressed and some of
them may be even controversial. In this paper, some
selected issues from above are investigated via laboratory triaxial element tests and centrifuge model
tests on loose fill slopes using gap-graded Leighton
Buzzard (LB) sand and completely decomposed granite (CDG), which is a well-graded silty sand. Observed key failure mechanisms of static liquefaction
in the LB sand and non-liquefied slides of CDG fill
slopes are identified and discussed, mainly following
on the papers by Ng (2005, 2007 & 2008).
2 CLARIFICATION OF SOME
TERMINOLOGIES RELATING TO STATIC
LIQUEFACTION
Figure 1 shows some typical results from monotonic
triaxial tests on saturated, anisotropically consolidated sand specimens (Ng 2008). As shown in Fig.
1a, a very loose sand specimen, A, exhibits a peak
undrained shear strength at a relatively small shear
VWUDLQ DQG WKHQ FROODSVHV to much smaller shear
strength at large strains. This behaviour is often
causally referred to OLTXHIDcWLRQRUflow liquefacWLRQ by many researchers and engineers. No matter
ZKHWKHULWLVFDOOHGIORZOLTXHIDFWLRQRUOLTXHIDcWLRQ WKH WHUPLQRORJ\ WR GHVFULEH WKH PDWHULDO Ee-

3.1 Model material

Centrifuge model tests were carried out at the GCF
of HKUST (Ng et al. 2002a, Ng et al. 2006a) to investigate the failure mechanisms of static liquefaction of loose fill slopes subjected to rainfall, a rising
ground water table and dynamic earthquake loadings
(Zhang 2006, Zhang et al. 2006, Ng 2007). Leighton
Buzzard (LB) Fraction E fine sand was selected as
the fill material for the model tests. Fig. 2 shows the
gap-graded particle size distribution of LB sand. D10
and D50 of the sand were 125 Pm and 150Pm, respectively. Following BSI (1990), the maximum and
minimum void ratios of the LB sand were found to
be 1.008 and 0.667, respectively (Cai 2001). The estimated saturated coefficient of permeability was 1.6
u 10-4 m/s. LB sand was chosen because of its pronounced strain-softening characteristics with its high
liquefaction potential, LP, i.e., a substantial strength
reduction in shear strength when it is subjected to
undrained shearing (see Fig. 3a). The results from
four loose specimens with different initial void ratios
(eo) shown in the figure are obtained from isotropically consolidated undrained compression triaxial
tests. The loose sand clearly shows pronounced
strain-softening behaviour and substantial strength
reduction in the deviator stress and shear strain (qHq) space and contractive responses in the mean effective stress (pc) and deviator stress (q) space, i.e. pc
decreases continuously as q increases until the peak
state is attained (see Fig. 3b), where pc and q are

Deviator stress

(a)

B Strain hardening
Dilation

Strain softening

C
Strain hardening
Limited
liquefaction

Liquefaction Strain softening

A
Axial strain

Deviator stress

3 INVESTIGATION OF THE FAILURE

MECHANISM OF LIQUEFIED FLOW IN SAND
FILL SLOPES BY CENTRIFUGE TESTS

equal to (V 1c  2V 3c ) /3 and (V1c  V 3c ) , respectively.

After the peak state, q drops (the soil collapses) with
a large deformation develops until the quasi-steady
state (a shear strain of about 15%) or the critical
state (shear strain = 30%) is reached. The critical
state friction angle (Icc) of the sand is 30 (Cai
2001). Following the approach proposed by Lade
(1992), the angle of instability (Icins) determined for
the sand is 18.6. It is well-known that Icins is dependent on void ratio and stress level (Chu & Leong
2002). For engineering assessment and design of remedial work for loose fill slopes, it may be reasonable to assume this angle is a constant as the first
approximation.

Excess pore pressure

haviour observed in the laboratory is rather confusing and, strictly speaking, incorrect. Would it be
clearer and more precise to describe the material behaviour of the loose specimen, A, and a dense
VSHFLPHQ % DV VWUDLQ-VRIWHQLQJ DQG VWUDLQKDUGHQLQJUHVSHctively, in the deviator stress-axial
strain space (see Fig. 1a)? In the mean effective
stress-deviator stress space (see Fig. 1b), would it be
more precise to use the terms XQGUDLQHG VWUHQJWK
UHGXFWLRQ RU VR-called collapse (Sladen et al.
DQGXQGUDLQHGVWUHQJWKLQFUHDVHWRGescribe
the strength changes of specimen A and specimen B,
respectively? Of course, it is well-recognised that a
reduction and an increase in undrained shear strength
are caused by the respective tendency of sample contraction and dilation, leading to a respective increase
and a reduction in pore water pressure ('u) for
specimens A and B during undrained shearing (see
relationship between 'u and axial strain in Figure
1c). It must be pointed out that these are just material
element behaviour that does not necessarily capture
and represent the global behaviour of an entire fill
slope or an earth structure.

B Dilation

(b)

Undrained
strength increase
Phase transC
due to dilative
formation
tendency
point
Limited
liquefaction
contractive tendency
A
Liquefaction Undrained strength reduction
due to contractive tendency
Mean effective stress
Contractive tendency Liquefaction
(c)
A

Axial strain
Limited li- C
quefaction
contractive tendency
B

Dilation Dilative tendency

Figure 1. Liquefaction, limited liquefaction, and dilation in

monotonic loading tests (modified from Castro 1969, Kramer
1996).

3.2 Model package and test procedures

Figure 4 shows an instrumented 29.4o loose sand fill
slope model together with the locations of the pore
water pressure transducers (PPTs) (Zhang & Ng
2003, Ng 2008, Ng et al. 2009). The model slope
was prepared by moist tamping. The initial relative
compaction was 68%.
The body of the sand slope was instrumented with
seven PPTs and arrays of surface markers were installed for image analysis of soil movements. Linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) and a la-

ser sensor were mounted at the crest of the slope to

monitor its settlement.
LB-Sand
SKW-CDG
CKL-CDG
BH-CDG
WTS-CDG

60
40
20
0
0.001

LVDT

0.01

0.1
Particle size (mm)

10
Drainage
board

Figure 2. Particle size distributions of LB sand and CDG.

800

Temporary
reservoir

(a)

700

Model
container

Inlet hole
PPT7

Reflector
y

PPT5

q (kPa)

PPT6

PPT4

PPT2
PPT1

600
500
e0=0.973

Model scale

LVDT & Laser sensor

305

80

29.4

Percentage finer (%)

100

implies that the slope was vulnerable to instability,

which could lead to liquefaction (see Fig. 3). At 60
g, the 18 m-height (prototype) slope was destabilised by rising ground water from the bottom of
the model (Zhang 2006, Ng et al. 2009). The loose
sand slope liquefied statically and flowed rapidly
(see Fig. 5b), i.e., it followed a process in which the
loose slope was sheared under undrained conditions,
lost its undrained shear strength as a result of the induced high pore water pressure (see Fig. 6) and then
flew like a liquid, called OLTXHILHGIORZ

Liquefaction potential (LP)

Outlet hole
PPT3

Sand
1130,7

1130.7

400

Figure 4. Centrifuge model of a loose sand fill slope subjected

to rising ground water table at 60 g (Zhang & Ng 2003).

e0=0.970

300

Quasi-steady state
Quasi-steady state

200
e0=0.983

100

e0=0.992

0
0

10

20

30

40

Hq (%)

700

(b)

500

300

100

Figure 3. Contractive behaviour of loose LB sand under consolidated undrained tests (a) in the Hq - q and (b) in pc - q planes
(modified from Zhang 2006, data from Cai 2001).

3.3 Observed static liquefaction mechanism

Although the initial angle of the loose slope was
prepared at 29.4o at 1 g, the slope was densified to
80% of the maximum relative compaction due to
self-weight compaction at 60 g. The slope angle was
therefore flattened to 24o (see Fig. 5a), which is
steeper than the angle of instability of 18.6. This

Figure 6 shows the measured rapid increases in

the excessive pore water pressure ratio ('u/Vcv)
within about 25 seconds (prototype) at failure at a
number of locations in the slope during the test. The
maximum measured 'u/Vcv was about 0.6, which
would be much higher if a properly scaled viscous
pore fluid were used to reduce the rate of dissipation
of excess pore pressure in the centrifuge. This means
that the slope would liquefy much more easily. As
shown in Figure 5b, the completely liquefied slope
inclines at about 4o to 7o to the horizontal after the
test. The observed fluidization from in-flight video
cameras and the significant rise in excessive pore
water pressures during the test clearly demonstrated
the static liquefaction of the loose sand fill slope. It
should be noted that measurements of sudden and
significant rise of excessive pore water pressures are
essenWLDOWRSURYHRUYHULI\WKHRFFXUUHQFHRIVWDWLF
liquefaction of loose fill slopes if no video recording
is available. The liquefaction of the loose sand slope
was believed to be initially triggered by seepage
forces in the test (Ng et al. 2009). It is obvious that
soil nails cannot be used to stabilize a loose sand fill
slope which has a high liquefaction potential (see
Fig. 3a).
Figure 7 shows five postulated zones, Z1-Z5, representing the sequence of the failure and liquefaction
process of the slope (Ng et al. 2009). Z1 is a failure
region de-stabilised by the loss of its toe due to the
seepage force in the gully (drained failure). The soil
mass at the toe of Z1 slid with the soil at the gully
head to trigger the failure of Z2. The soil mass in Z2

collapsed rapidly (undrained) which was then followed by the collapse of Z3 (undrained) without inducing obvious deformation in the lower part. The
collapses of Z2 and Z3 were due to the strainsoftening associated with the significant strength reduction (i.e. high liquefaction potential) of the loose
LB sand as illustrated in Figure 3. The rapid
undrained collapses of Z2 and Z3 were evident from
the measured large excess positive pore pressures at
PPT7 (see Fig. 6).

Subsequently, Z4 also collapsed as a result of the

strain-softening associated with the significant
strength reduction (high liquefaction potential) of the
loose LB sand (see Fig. 3). The dotted line drawn between Z4 and Z5 in Fig. 7 represents the upper
boundary of the stable region (Z5), monitored by
markers and the small excess pore pressures at PPT1
and PPT2 (see Fig. 6) during the liquefaction process.
Based on the observed mechanism, it is fair to
suggest that soil nails cannot be used to stop any liquefied flow of loose sand fill slopes. However, the
use of soil nails can reduce the magnitude of any excessive positive pore water pressure generated in a
loose sand slope, minimize the chance of liquefaction and reduce damages after liquefaction (Zhang et
al. 2006).
Gully erosion

B
20

Water flow
Sand movement

Gully head

A
Water

Z1
Z2

15

PPT7

10

Z3

PPT5
PPT4

PPT6

PPT2
PPT1

Slope profile
before failure

Final slope profile

Z4
PPT3

Z5

A
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

(m)

Figure 7. Postulated failure zones during the liquefaction of

slope SG30 (Ng et al. 2009).

4 OBSERVED EXCESSIVE SETTLEMENTS OF

THICK LOOSE CDG FILL SLOPES IN
CENTRIFUGE
4.1 Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of CDG from
Beacon Hill (BH)
Figure 5. Slope profile in a loose sand fill test (a) before rising
ground water table; (b) after static liquefaction (Zhang & Ng
2003).
1.0
Slope failure

0.6

PPT7

0.4

PPT4
PPT5

'

Excess pore pressure ratio ('uw/Vv )

0.8

0.2
0.0
-0.2

PPT2
PPT1
PPT6

-0.4
-0.6

PPT3

-0.8
-1.0
37.8 38.2 38.6 39.0 39.4 39.8 40.2 40.6 41.0 41.4 41.8 42.2 42.6 43.0
Duration (min)

Figure 6. Measured sudden and substantial increases in pore

water pressure at seven locations inside the slope (Zhang & Ng
2003).

Prior to centrifuge model tests, a series of undrained

monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests on normally consolidated CDG specimens (70 mm in diameter and
140 mm in height) were performed to assist in the
interpretation of centrifuge tests on loose CDG fill
slopes. Figure 2 shows the particle size distribution
of the well-graded CDG samples obtained from Cha
Kwo Ling (CKL), Kowloon. In the figure, the wellgraded CDG taken from Beacon Hill (BH) is also included for comparison. The mean particle size, D50,
of the CDG from CKL is 1.18 mm and the sample
contains about 15% fines content. According to the
British Standard, BS1377 (1990), CDG can be classified as well-graded silty sand.
The triaxial specimens tested (Fig. 8) were prepared by moist tamping at the optimum moisture
content (Ng et al. 2004a). The initial relative compaction of the specimens was 70% before saturation.
Enlarged lubricated end platens were used in the
tests to reduce the end constraints on the soil specimens. In the undrained monotonic triaxial compres-

4.2 Centrifuge modelling of loose CDG fill slope

due to rainfall infiltration (Take et al. 2004)
With the support of the Geotechnical Engineering
Office (GEO) of the Civil Engineering and Development Department of HKSAR, collaborative and
complementary centrifuge model tests were carried
out at the University of Cambridge and HKUST.
Bulk samples of CDG taken from BH were delivered
to the two universities for centrifuge model tests.
Figure 9 shows an initially 45o loose fill model
slope. The model was constructed by moist-tamping
with only a minimal compaction effort. To reduce
particle size effects, the fill material was first sieved
to remove all particles in excess of 5 mm in diameter. To simulate effects of rainfall infiltration by con-

trolling water contents (or moisture), the fill slope

was installed in an atmospheric chamber, which was
sealed from the external environment (Take et al.
2004). It is well known that suction is related to the
water contents in soil pores (Ng & Menzies 2007).
In Take et als test, positive and negative pore
water pressures were measured using a network of
miniature PPTs and pore pressure tension transducers (PPTT), respectively, at each of locations indicated by open circles in the figure. The deformation
of the model fill slopes was captured by PIV (White
et al. 2003) at 60 g.
300

CU050

CU100

CU200

CU300

CU400

(a)

Shear stress, q (kpa)

250
Mins=1.12 (I'ins=28.2o)

M=1.54 (I'=37.8o)

200

Critical state line

150
Instability line

100

e=0.78
e=0.82
e=0.85

50
e=0.94
e=1.05

0
0

50

100
150
200
250
300
350
Effective mean normal stress, p' (kPa)

400

450

300

CU050

CU100

CU200

CU300

CU400

(b)

250

Shear stress, q (kpa)

sion tests, the soil specimens were consolidated isotropically to different initial mean effective stresses
before shearing. Figure 8a shows the effective stress
paths of five isotropically consolidated undrained
compression tests with the initial pc ranging from 50
kPa to 400 kPa (corresponding to void ratios varying
from 1.05 to 0.78). The effective stress path of each
loosely compacted specimen is characterized by its
initial increasing q with decreasing pc, due to an increase in pore water pressure during undrained
shearing resulting from the contractive tendency of
the soil. After a peak is reached, q decreases with a
further reduction in pc until the critical state
(M=1.54, I o) is reached, illustrating the unstable nature of the specimen. By joining the stress origin and the peak of each stress path, an instability
line (Lade 1992) can be identified with its slope
equal to 1.12, corresponding to Iins=28.2o. Strainsoftening behaviour with very small liquefaction potential but without any phase transformation phenomenon was noted in these tests (see Fig. 8b).
During the cyclic tests (Ng et al. 2004b), a cyclic
deviator stress of equal magnitude in compression
and extension was applied to the specimens. Figure
8c shows a typical result of CDG (e=0.821) from a
cyclic triaxial test with a cyclic stress ratio (CSR) of
0.1, where CSR is defined as the single amplitude
cyclic shear stress (d) divided by twice the initial effective confining pressure (
3), i.e. CSR=d
3).
In the test, pc decreased monotonically but the rate of
the pore water pressure build-up decreased as the
number of cycles increased, due to the relatively low
CSR. Eventually, the pore water pressure ceased to
develop further as the contractive and dilative tendency of the soil specimen balanced out. The total
deviator strain developed was less than 0.2% at the
end of the test. On the other hand, for a cyclic test on
CDG with CSR=0.15 (e=0.821) as shown in Figure
8d, the pore water pressure accumulated continuously and resulted in a continuous decrease in pc, illustrating a typical cyclic mobility phenomenon
(Castro 1969).

e=0.78, Vc=400kPa

200

e=0.82, Vc=300kPa

150

e=0.85, Vc=200kPa

100

e=0.94, Vc=100kPa

50

e=1.05, Vc=50kPa

0
0

10

15
20
Axial strain, Ha (%)

25

30

(c)

(d)

Figure 8. Triaxial tests on loose CDG: (a) Stress paths of static

triaxial tests; (b) Stress-strain relationships of static triaxial
tests; (c) Cyclic triaxial test with CSR = 0.1; (d) Cyclic triaxial
test with CSR = 0.15.

Figure 10 illustrates the changes of the initially

moist-tamped structure of the model fill at the crest
during the test. At 1 g, the very loose soil had an initially very open structure (see Fig. 10a), which consisted of large voids supported by capillary suction.
One such void is circled in the figure. At 60 g, many
of these macro-voids were observed to collapse (Fig.
10b). However, not all the voids collapsed. In particular, the voids at low stress levels (i.e. shallow
depths) such as the highlighted void in Figure 10a
simply settled along with the fill. The observations
of the collapse and the mechanisms shown in these
two figures cannot be easily obtained from the field
or numerical analyses even with large-strain formulations.
After the initial self-weight consolidation, the fill
slope was subjected to the equivalent of six weekly
periods of rainfall infiltration in centrifuge. A significant portion of the soil suction was destroyed
very rapidly at the shallow location after the arrival
of rainfall on the slope surface (Take et al. 2004).
The loose model fill responded immediately to this
loss of surface tension by collapsing the macro-voids

that had survived self-weight consolidation (Fig.

10c). Although the slope was suffered from excessive settlement, no flow slide and no liquefaction
were observed in the test. This finding is consistent
with the test in CDG reported by Ng et al. (2002b).

Figure 9. Model geometry of CDG fill slope (Take et al. 2004).

Figure 10. The observed changes of soil structure of the crest region due to rainfall infiltration (Take et al. 2004).

18.900

Prototype Scale

e
0.600
Unit in metre

Scale

6.240

To complement the rainfall infiltration tests carried

out at Cambridge, a series of centrifuge model tests
on loose CDG fill slopes with and without soil nails
was subjected to rising ground water at HKUST (Ng
et al. 2002b, Zhang 2006). The CDG fill material
used for the tests in Hong Kong was also from BH.
A model slope was initially prepared to incline at 45o
to the horizontal and the initial relative compaction
of the fill was less than 80%. At 60 g, a 300 mm
high model slope was equivalent to an 18 m high
prototype slope. Figure 11 shows the measured displacement vectors of a 45o unreinforced loose CDG
fill slope destabilised by the rise of the ground water.
Excessive settlement was measured but no sign of
liquefied flow or slide of the slope was observed

during and after the test. This was probably because

of the small liquefaction potential of the CDG (Ng et
al. 2004a).

24.240

4.3 Response of loose fill slope subjected to rising

ground water in centrifuge (Ng et al. 2002b)

Figure 11. Displacement vectors in unreinforced slope (CG45)

(Ng 2007).

4.4 Response of loose CDG fill slopes to

earthquake loading in centrifuge
4.4.1 Centrifuge model and test procedures (Ng et
al. 2004b, Ng 2007)
To further investigate the possibility of flow liquefaction of loose CDG fill slopes, uni-axial and biaxial dynamic centrifuge tests were carried out using
soil samples taken from BH (Ng et al. 2004b). The
model CDG fill slopes were subjected to shaking
ranging from 0.08 g to 0.28 g (prototype) in the centrifuge at HKUST. All the models were essentially
the same in geometrical layout and made of loose
CDG with the same initial dry density. Figure 12
shows a typical model slope (6 m in prototype) initially inclined at 30o to the horizontal with its instrumentation. A rigid rectangular model box was
used to contain the CDG samples compacted to an
initial dry density of about 1.4 g/cm3 (or 77% of
relative compaction). Five pairs of miniature accelerometers were installed in the slope. Each pair was
arranged to measure soil accelerations in two horizontal directions (i.e., X- and Y-directions). Four
miniature pore pressure transducers were installed in
the soil near the accelerometers to record pore water
pressures during shaking. On top of the slope, three
LVDTs were mounted to measure the crest settlement, and one LVDT and one laser sensor (LS) were
used to measure horizontal movement of the crest.
To simulate the correct dissipation rate of excessive pore pressures in the centrifuge tests, sodium
carboxy methylcellulose (CMC) powder was mixed
with distilled deionized water to form the properly
scaled viscous pore fluid and to saturate the loose
CDG model slopes.
After model preparation, the speed of the centrifuge was increased to 38 g. Once steady state pore
pressure condition was reached at all transducers, a
windowed 50 Hz (1.3 Hz prototype), 0.5 s (19 s prototype) duration sinusoidal waveform was then applied (Ng et al. 2004b). After triggering each earthquake, the centrifuge acceleration was maintained
long enough to allow the dissipation of any excess
pore pressure. Due to page limits, only some results
from one biaxial shaking test are discussed here.
Other details of all the tests are presented in Ng et al.
(2004b).
140

LVDT-v3

LVDT-v2

LVDT-v1

LVDT-h1

LS-h1

660

30

ACC-T-X,Y,Z

150

X
PPT4
ACC4-Y
ACC4-X
ACC3-Y
PPT3 ACC5-Y ACC3-X ACC2-Y
PPT2
ACC2-X
ACC5-X
ACC1-X
ACC1-Y
PPT1

712

Figure 12. Configuration of the model slope and instrumentation (Ng et al. 2004b).

4.4.2 Measured responses of the loose CDG fill

slope subjected to bi-axial shaking (M2D-0.3)
(Ng et al. 2004b)
Figure 13 shows some measured horizontal acceleration time histories in the X- and Y-directions together with their normalized amplitudes in the Fourier domain. In the biaxial shaking test, the base
input accelerations (recorded by ACC-T-X & ACCT-Y as shown in the figure) were 11.26 g (0.28 g
prototype) and 7.77 g (0.19 g prototype) in the X
direction and Y-direction, respectively. The windowed sinusoid waveform applied in the Y-direction
lagged the X-direction input signal by 90. Recorded
by the accelerometer near the crest, the peak acceleration in the X-direction increased by 45% at
ACC4-X, higher than that measured in a corresponding uni-axial shaking test (Ng et al. 2004b). A similar trend of variations in the acceleration was also
found in the Y-direction. The normalized spectral
amplitudes of acceleration at the predominant frequency of 50 Hz decreased by about 9% in the Xdirection but increased by about 4% in the Ydirection in the upper portion of the embankment.

Figure 13. Seismic acceleration history and Fourier amplitude

spectrum (M2D-0.3) (extracted from Ng et al. 2004b).

Figure 14 shows the time history of the excess

pore pressure ratios along the height of the model
embankment during shaking. Peak acceleration occurred at about 0.25 s after the start of shaking. The
maximum pore pressure ratio occurred at about 0.33
s at each of the three transducers (PPT1, PPT2 &
PPT4). PPT1 and PPT2 recorded about the same
maximum pore pressure ratio of 0.87, whereas PPT4
registered the smallest of 0.75. These measured values were less than the theoretical value of 1.0 for
liquefaction, even though the pore fluid was correctly scaled in the test. The excess pore pressures
dissipated to zero at about 12 s (6.8 minutes in prototype) after the start of shaking.
Figure 15 is a photograph of the model taken after
the completion of a shaking test. The deformation
profile for the slope was similar in both the uni-axial

and bi-axial shaking tests. The observed profile of

the deformed slope clearly illustrates that no liquefied flow and non-liquefied slide took place during
the shaking. The significant difference between the
observed physical test results from the loose LB sand
and CDG fill slopes may be attributed to the difference in fine contents, gradation and liquefaction potential of the two materials (see Fig. 3).

most of the existing fill slopes formed before 1977

in Hong Kong.

1.0
1.0
PPT1

PPT2 (Z=100mm)

PPT2

0.5

'u / Vcv

PPT1 (Z=145mm)

0.0

0.5

PPT4

-0.5
0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Time (s)

0.8

1.0

0.0
PPT4 (Z=10mm)

Figure 16. General view of the slope (from Tang & Lee 2003).
-0.5
0

10

15

Time (s)

Figure 14. Measured excess pore-water pressure ratios in biaxial shaking test M2D-0.3 (Ng et al. 2004b).

Ground water level

LVDT
LVDT

Laser sensor
Laser sensor

Laser sensor

Laser sensor

Original liquid surface

Figure 15. A typical profile of a loose fill slope after shaking

(Ng et al. 2004b, Ng 2007).

5 OBSERVED EXCESS SETTLEMENT OF CDG

FILL SLOPE IN THE FIELD
Tang & Lee (2003) reported a large-scale field trial
on a partly reinforced 33o loose CDG fill slope (see
Fig. 16). The bulk fill material was taken from BH.
The height and width were 4.75 m and 9 m, respectively. It was constructed by the end-tipping method
and resulted in a loose state with an initial dry density ranging from 70% to 75% of the maximum dry
density. It was considered that the stress state of this
slope would represent reasonably well to that of

Two rows of grouted nails were installed at a grid

of 1.5 m x 1.5 m at an inclination of 20o from the horizontal. Holes of 100 mm diameter with two different lengths (8 m and 6 m) were drilled. A 25 mm diameter steel ribbed bar was inserted into each hole
and the hole was filled with grout from the bottom
up using a plastic hose.
In order to destabilize the slope, a water re-charge
system was used. This re-charge system comprised
crest recharge trench, buried piping system and surface sprinkler and they were installed separately so
that a rise in groundwater table in combination with
a rainfall event could be simulated in the field.
To increase destabilising forces, 1 m x 1 m x 0.6
m concrete blocks were stacked up to 3m high at the
central area of the slope crest. They imposed a surcharge loading of 72 kPa.
The slope was heavily instrumented. Details of
the instrumentation are described by Tang & Lee
(2003). After water was being recharged into the
slope through the piping system, it was observed that
the deformation of the slope increased rapidly. The
total deformations at the crest and mid-slope were
139 mm and 33 mm, respectively. Due to the large
deformation, the surcharged blocks tilted and collapsed (Fig. 17). The settlement-induced toppling
failure of the blocks was restricted at the crest zone
and the slope remained intact. No sign of static liquefaction and flowslide was observed in this largescale field test. The observed excessive settlements
and large measured nail forces in the field are similar
to those measured in the centrifuge model tests, as
shown in Figure 18 (Ng et al. 2002b, Ng 2008).

Figure 17. General view of slope after failure (from Tang &
Lee 2003)

Figure 18 compares the displacement vectors of

the loose CDG fill slopes obtained from two centrifuge tests, one without and one with soil nails. The
soil nails were installed in-flight at 60 g and it can be
seen that the soil nails substantially reduced soil
movements by at least a factor of 5. No sign of static
liquefaction of the slopes was observed during and
after the tests. Similar findings are also reported by
Take et al. (2004) from independent centrifuge
model tests using the same loose CDG fill at Cambridge University and by Tang & Lee (2003) from
large-scale field tests conducted at Hong Kong University.

loose CDG fill slopes. Centrifuge model tests were

commissioned to investigate possible failure mechanisms of loose fill slopes. Figure 19 shows an instrumented centrifuge model created to study the potential static liquefaction of a loose shallow CDG fill
slope subjected to a rising ground water table. The
particle size distribution of the CDG used is denoted
as WTS in Figure 2. The initial fill density was 66%.
This model was used to simulate a 1.5 m thick, 24 m
high layered fill slope when tested at 60 g. In addition to laser sensors (LSs) installed for monitoring
soil surface movements, PPTs were installed to
measure excess pore water pressures during the tests.
Effects of layering were considered by tilting the
model container during model preparation. The slope
was destabilised by downward seepage created by a
hydraulic gradient, which was controlled by the water level inside the upstream temporary reservoir and
the conditions of the outlet hole located downstream
(see Fig. 19). Two failures were induced in the test.
PPT
Unit: mm
Model box
Upstream drainage
board

Coarse soil

PPT1 PPT2
PPT3
Loose CDG (WTS)

Downstream drainage
board

LS3
PPT4

Downstream temporary
reservior
reservoir

LS2

Upstream temporary
reservior
reservoir

PPT5
LS1

Wood block

Coarse soil

PPT6

Inlet hole

PPT7

PPT B

Outlet hole

PPT8
PPT9 PPT C

Figure 19. Model package of an instrumented shallow fill slope

(Ng et al. 2007).

Figure 18. Comparisons of measured soil displacements without (CG45) and with soil nails (CGN45) in two centrifuge tests
using CDG loose fill at 60 g (dimensions in metres at prototype
scale) (Ng et al. 2002b).

6 OBSERVED NON-LIQUEFIED SLIDE

MECHANISMS OF SHALLOW CDG FILL
SLOPES IN CENTRIFUGE
6.1 Destabilisation of loose shallow CDG fill slopes
near the crest (Ng et al. 2007)
The Housing Department of HKSAR has been actively looking for innovative methods to preserve the
environment by minimizing the need for felling trees
when improving the stability of existing shallow

Figures 20 and 21 show the occurrence of a nonliquefied slide and the measured excessive pore water pressure during two failures, respectively. The
slide was initiated near the crest. Based on the observed failure mechanisms and the small excessive
pore water pressures measured, it was concluded that
non-liquefied slide of loose shallow CDG fills slopes
could occur but static liquefaction was very unlikely
to happen in the slopes.
6.2 Destabilisation of loose shallow CDG fill slope
at the toe in centrifuge (Take et al. 2004)
Take et al. (2004) also carried out centrifuge model
tests to investigate the possible slide-flow failure
mechanism of a loose thin CDG fill layer. The CDG
used was taken from Beacon Hill. Figure 22 shows
the geometry adopted. The slope angle was 33o. At
30 g, the model corresponded to a fill slope of 9 m in
height, with a vertical depth of fill of 3 m. The chosen soil profile for the model fill also represents an
idealized case of layering in which the CDG fill material has been sieved and separated into its coarse

and fine fractions and placed one on top of the other

to form a layered backfill. The layer ends blindly at
the toe of the slope to generate elevated transient
pore pressures (Take et al. 2004). This ensures that
the rate of arrival of the seepage water at the toe
greatly exceeds that of the leakage, thereby ensuring
a more rapid local transient build up of pore water
pressures in this region than would have existed in
the absence of layering. In this experiment, the impermeable bedrock layer was modelled by a solid
wooden block, the top surface of which was coated
with varnished coarse decomposed granite to ensure
a high interface friction angle.
The density of the fill material in the first layered
slope model was very loose, with an approximate
relative compaction of 77%. After preparation, the
model fill slope was installed on the centrifuge and
slowly brought to the testing acceleration of 30 g.

of the fill slope. As intended, the rate of water transfer into the toe region exceeded the seepage velocity
through the model fill, causing a transient increase in
the pore water pressure at the toe. The local pore water pressure was observed to increase at a nearly constant rate reaching a maximum value of 16 kPa at
point B in Figure 23a. As this seepage front progressed towards the toe, the slope was slowly creeping (Fig. 23b).
After time B, the slope mass is observed to accelerate (points B-C on Figure 23b). By analysing images captured by PIV (White et al 2003) at the onset
of more rapid failure, it is found that the toe accelerated horizontally with an average velocity of approximately 6 mm/s (Fig. 24). The observed displacement field over this time interval indicates that
the surface of the model fill moved down-slope at a
slower velocity. When the fill material finally came
to rest, it formed a low-angle run-out. This failure
mechanism differs from that of the slope destabilised
by downward seepage in the test for the Housing
Department in which the slope was not blinded hydraulically at the toe (see Fig. 19). The initiation of
the non-liquefied slides differed in these two slopes.

Figure 20. Top view of the model showing a non-liquefied slide

(Ng et al. 2007).

Figure 22. A slide-to-flow landslide triggering mechanism

model (Take et al. 2004).

Figure 21. Variations in the measured pore water pressure at

the crest (PPT2) and at the toe (PPT7) of the slope with time
(Ng et al. 2007).

Figure 23a shows the arrival of the transient pore

water at the toe of the slope. Once the line source of
seepage water was activated, the high transmissivity
of the coarse layer quickly delivered water to the toe

Figure 23. Observed behaviour of slide-to-flow models (Take

et al. 2004).

pressure required to initiate failure (see Fig. 23a),

but it made the failure more brittle (Take et al.
2004).
Based on the non-liquefied slides observed in
both loose and dense CDG shallow fill slopes, it is
evident that soil nails VKRXOGEHDEOHWRQDLOGRZQ
these non-liquefied slides since the CDG still possess sufficiently large shear strength after the peak
(see Fig. 8b).

Figure 24. Displacement field prior to final acceleration of

loose fill model (Take et al. 2004).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

6.3 Destabilisation of a dense shallow CDG fill

slope at the toe in centrifuge (Take et al. 2004)
Unlike the static liquefaction mechanism of loose
sand fill slopes, the non-liquefied slide triggering
mechanism is argued to be independent of soil density (Take et al. 2004, Ng 2007). In order to verify
this hypothesis, the experiment was therefore repeated with a fill compacted to 95% maximum Proctor density while all other factors remained constant
(Take et al. 2004).
As before, seepage water was introduced to the
crest of the model fill slope and it was quickly
transmitted to the toe of the slope, building up localized transient pore water pressures at an identical
rate as in the loose fill model (Fig. 23a). Since the
slope material was dry, the position of the wetting
front could be observed. This dense slope exhibited
a much stiffer response to the build up of pore water
pressures, with less than one half of the pre-failure
displacements signalling the onset of failure (see
Fig. 23b). Just before reaching the failure pore water
pressure, the brittle fill material cracked and water
rapidly entered the fill. As high-pressure water entered the crack, the acceleration of the slide increased. The extent to which this crack injected water into the fill material at time B is shown in Fig.
23a. After time B, the slope mass accelerated, although at a slower slide velocity than observed in the
loose fill slope (points B-C in Fig. 23b). The subsequent behaviour of the model fill slope is laid out
pictorially in the remainder of Fig. 25. As the toe
continued to accelerate horizontally, the surface of
the model fill accelerated towards the toe (Fig. 25b),
with the velocity increasing to such a point that it
exceeded the shutter speed of the camera (Fig. 25c).
Eventually, the slope came to rest (Fig. 25d). Similarly to in the shallow loose fill slope, the landslide
event triggered from localized transient pore water
pressures formed a low-angle run-out. The densification of the fill slope slightly increased the pore water

Figure 25. Failure mechanism in the dense fill model (modified

from Take et al. 2004).

7 CONCLUSIONS
Both static and dynamic model tests on LB and CDG
were carried out. In-flight rainfall infiltration, rising
ground water and dynamic loadings were simulated.
Based on the tests, it can be concluded that static
liquefaction/fluidization of the loose LB sand fill
slope due to a rising ground water table was successfully created in the centrifuge. The occurrence of
liquefaction in sand was observed by in-flight video
cameras and verified by the significant and sudden
build-up of excessive positive pore water pressures
measured at various locations in the slope. It is
found that strain softening of the material is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to cause flow liquefaction. A trigger such as seepage force or additional loading is needed.
No liquefied flow and slide was observed in thick
loose CDG fill slopes when they were subjected to
rising ground water tables, heavy rainfall infiltration
and very strong bi-axial shaking. Only excessive soil
settlements were induced. Consistency was found
between centrifuge model tests and full-scale field
trial of a loose CDG fill slope. The significant difference between the observed physical test results on
the LB sand and CDG models may be attributed to
the difference in the fine contents, gradation and liquefaction potential of the two materials.

Although static and dynamic liquefaction did not

occur in loose CDG fill slopes because of &'*V
small liquefaction potential, non-liquefied shallow
slides were observed in both loose and dense shallow fill slopes. Depending on the boundary conditions, different initiations of non-liquefied shallow
slides were captured in the centrifuge. The landslide
event triggered by highly localized transient pore
water pressures at the toe results in a low-angle runout in both shallow loose and dense CDG fill slopes.
For improving the stability of loose fill slopes, it is
vital to differentiate the potential differences between a liquefied flow and a non-liquefied slide. It is
evident that a potentially non-liquefied slide can be
stabilized by soil nails.
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented here was supported by research
grants DAG00/001.EG36 and HKUST3/CRF-SF/08
provided by HKUST. The author is grateful for research contracts provided by the Geotechnical Engineering Office of the Civil Engineering and Development Department and the Housing Department of
the HKSAR. Moreover, the author thanks Dr Robin
Zhou for checking and formatting the paper.
9 REFERENCES
BSI. 1990. BS1377: Methods of tests for soils for civil engineering purposes. British Standards Institution, London.
Cai, Z.Y. 2001. A comprehensive study of state-dependent dilatancy and its application in shear band formation analysis.
PhD thesis, HKUST.
Castro, G. 1969. Liquefaction of sands. Harvard Soil Mechanics Series 87, Harvard University, Massachusetts.
Chu, J. & Leong, W.K. 2002. Effect of fines on instability behaviour of loose sand. Gotechnique 52(10): 751-755.
Kramer, S.L. 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering,
Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey, USA.
Lade, P.V. 1992. Static instability and liquefaction of loose fine
sandy slopes. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE, 118(1): 5171.
Ng, C.W.W. 2005. Invited Country report: Failure mechanisms
and stabilisation of loose fill slopes in Hong Kong. Proc.
International Seminar on Slope Disasters in Geomorphological/Geotechnical Engineering. Osaka. 71-84.
Ng, C.W.W. 2007. Keynote paper: Liquefied flow and nonliquefied slide of loose fill slopes. Proc. 13th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Kolkata. Vol. 2. Allied Publishers Private Ltd.
Ng, C.W.W. 2008. Invited special lecture: Deformation and
failure mechanisms of loose and dense fill slopes with and
without soil nails. Proc. of 10th Int. Sym. On Landslides and
Engineered Slopes. ;LDQ&KLQDVol. 1, 159-177.
Ng, C.W.W & Chiu, C.F. 2003. Laboratory study of loose saturated and unsaturated decomposed granitic soil. J. Geotech.
and Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 129(6): 550-559.
Ng, C.W.W. & Menzies, B. 2007. Advanced Unsaturated Soil
Mechanics and Engineering. Publisher: Taylor & Francis.
ISBN: 978-0-415-43679-3 (Hard copy). 687p.

Ng, C.W.W., Van Laak, P., Tang, W.H., Li, X.S. & Zhang,
L.M. 2001. The Hong Kong Geotechnical Centrifuge. Proc.
3rd Int. Conf. Soft Soil Engineering, Hong Kong: 225-230.
Ng, C.W.W., Van Laak, P.A., Zhang, L.M., Tang, W.H., Zong,
G.H., Wang, Z.L., Xu, G.M. & Liu, S.H. 2002a. Development of a four-axis robotic manipulator for centrifuge modeling at HKUST. Proc. Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics, St. John's, Canada: 71-76.
Ng, C.W.W., Zhang, M. & Shi, X.G. 2002b. Keynote (In Chinese): An investigation into the use of soil nails in loose fill
slopes. Proc. of the 1st Chinese Symposium on Geoenvironment and Geosynthetics, Hangzhou, China: 61-80.
Ng, C.W.W., Kusakabe, O. & Leung, C.F. 2003. Theme lecture: Applications of centrifuge modelling technology in
geotechnical engineering practice. Proc. of 12th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, August, Singapore, Vol. 2: 1277-1285.
Ng, C.W.W., Fung, W.T., Cheuk, C.Y. & Zhang, L.M. 2004a.
Influence of stress ratio and stress path on behaviour of
loose decomposed granite. J. Geotech. and Geoenviron.
Eng., ASCE 130(1): 36-44.
Ng, C.W.W., Li, X.S., Van Laak, P.A. & Hou, Y.J. 2004b.
Centrifuge modelling of loose fill embankment subjected to
uni-axial and bi-axial earthquake. Soil dynamics and earthquake Engineering 24(4): 305-318.
Ng, C.W.W, Zhang, L.M. & Wang, Y.H. 2006a. Proceedings
of 6th Int. Conf. on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics. Volumes 1 and 2. Publisher: Taylor & Francis. ISBN: 978-0415-41587-3 and 978-0-415-41588-0.
Ng, C.W.W., Zhang, E.M. & Zhou, R.Z.B. 2006b. Centrifuge
modelling of use of soil nails in loose and dense fill slopes.
GEO Report, CEDD of HKSAR.
Ng, C.W.W., Pun, W.K., Kwok, S.S.K., Cheuk, C.Y. & Lee,
D.M. 2007. Centrifuge modelling in engineering practice in
Hong Kong. 3URF RI WKH *HRWHFKQLFDO 'LYLVLRQV $QQXDO
Seminar, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, 55-68.
Ng, C.W.W., Zhang, M., Pun, W.K., Shiu, Y.K. & Chang, G.
W.K. 2009. Investigation of static liquefaction mechanisms
in loose sand fill slopes. Submitted to CGJ.
6ODGHQ-$'+ROODQGHU 5'  .UDKQ -  The liquefaction of sands, a collapse surface approach. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 22: 564-578.
Take, W.A., Bolton, M.D., Wong, P.C.P. & Yeung, F.J. 2004.
Evaluation of landslide triggering mechanisms in model fill
slopes. Landslides, Japan, Vol. 1: 173-184.
Tang, W.H. & Lee, C.F. 2003. Potential use of soil nails in
loose fill slope: an overview. Proceedings of the International Conference on Slope Engineering, Hong Kong, 974997.
White, D.J., Take, W.A. & Bolton, M. D. 2003. Soil deformation measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV)
and photogrammetry. Gotechnique 53(7): 619-631
Zhang, M. 2006. Centrifuge modelling of potentially liquefiable loose fill slopes with and without soil nails. PhD Thesis, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Zhang, M. & Ng, C.W.W. 2003. Interim Factual Testing Report I SG30 & SR30. Hong Kong University of Science &
Technology.
Zhang, M., Ng, C.W.W., Take, W.A., Pun, W.K., Shiu, Y.K. &
Chang, G.W.K. 2006. The role and mechanism of soil nails
in liquefied loose sand fill slopes. Proc. of 6th Int. Conf.
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Hong Kong. Vol. 1:
391-396.