Evaluation of Liquefaction Properties of East Coast Sand of New Zealand Mixed with Varied Kaolinite Contents Using the Dynamically Induced Porewater Pressure Characteristics  
[PERSON]  
10000-0002-0111-0111-01  
infrastructures, which summarily resulted in high collateral damage (huge economic loss), loss of lifeline (i.e., utilities), and in some cases, loss of lives. The economic losses resulted from the 2010-2011 CES were estimated 15 billion New Zealand Dollars [3,4]. The quest for sustainable, economic, environment-friendly, and effective means of mitigating earthquake-induced liquefaction necessitates the need to conduct more research/studies on composite or mixed soils, which are most likely encountered in fields. The common conventional liquefaction-mitigation methods work with the principles of densification, solidification, improvement of soil engineering properties, soil reinforcements, soil replacement, and drainage improvement-based techniques for water repellence [5,6]. Conventional and emerging soil liquefaction-mitigation methods are effective but are mostly associated with one or more limitations. Such limitations include poor cost feasibility associated with larger projects, negative environmental impacts/non-sustainable (due to introducing chemical agents), and disturbance to ancillary structures that are sensitive to deformation and vibrations, due to waves and disruptive installation effects [5,7,8,9,10]. More recently, [11] presented a review of the existing liquefaction mitigation methods and highlighted some limitations associated with them, indicating their effectiveness, applicability, duration time, durability, cost, and long-term observation. A tree diagram (infographic), broadly classifying the existing liquefaction mitigation methods, is summarized in Figure 1. The textbook soils referred to as clean sands and pure clays are well-researched, while in reality, in-situ soils are mainly composed of both cohesionless and cohesive particles. This necessitates the need to shift the research focus onto mixed soils for possible soil replacement alternatives/choices in small to medium-scale projects. Varieties of physical model testing methods to mimic the effects of earthquakes on soils have evolved over the years and may broadly be classified into the following two groups: shaking table (ST) experiment (typically executed under the earth's gravitational field, i.e., 1 g) and geotechnical centrifuge experiment (performed under higher gravitational field). Although, the boundary effects and similitude/scaling laws on physical models executed in the laboratory are well-known challenges for adequate interpretation of model-prototype correlations. Consequently, previous researchers tend to study the dynamic characteristics of soils by utilizing large-scale models to make up for the boundary effects usually experienced in small-scale models. Nevertheless, it is still challenging to model in-situ soils with infinite lateral extents in a laboratory, with soil specimens confined in model containers of finite boundaries. Although, researchers have made several attempts  
Figure 1: A summary of soil liquefaction mitigation techniques. to mimic the infinite lateral extents with the application of the laminar shear box container types [2; 3]. However, these soil container types cannot completely mitigate the restraints in lateral movements, as concluded based on a comprehensive review of the varieties of soil container types [4]. A review of the topic shows that large-scale physical model tests with the shaking table have associated advantages and limitations. Large-scale soil models' benefits may include experimenting with a substantial quantity of geomaterials to provide a near in-situ (i.e., field) response similar to the prototype soils. Possible minimal boundary effects may be attained, and the soil volume located around the central area of the soil model container is mainly considered an adequate representation of the free-field dynamics of the model soil.