International Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, JAEE, Vol.

1, 2012

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON SUBSIDENCE OF

SURFACE STRUCTURES DUE TO LIQUEFACTION
AND ITS MITIGATION

Rouzbeh RASOULI1, Toshihiko HAYASHIDA2 and Ikuo TOWHATA3

1
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan, rouzbehrasouli@geot.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
2
Researcher, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan, toshihiko.hayashida@fudotetra.co.jp
3
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan, towhata@geot.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

ABSTRACT: Liquefaction-induced subsidence of structures is not a new issue in the

field of geotechnical earthquake engineering. Mechanism of subsidence is now relatively
well understood by recent studies. A series of shaking table tests were performed to
examine mitigation of subsidence using sheetpiles. It is seen that constraining the
underlying soil lateral displacement could significantly control the magnitude of
subsidence. Fixity of top and bottom of sheetpiles and rigidity of sheetpiles are found to
be important in improving the efficiency of this mitigation technology.

Key Words: Shallow foundation, Liquefaction-Induced settlement, Soil-structure

interaction, Liquefaction mitigation

INTRODUCTION

The history of liquefaction-induced subsidence of structures dates back to the 1964 Niigata earthquake.
From that time almost all earthquakes in liquefaction prone areas have been accompanied by structures
subsiding in liquefied soil (eg. Dagupan City, Philippines 1990; Chi-Chi, Taiwan, 1999; Koaleci,
Turkey, 1999 and the most recent ones East Japan and New Zealand earthquakes in 2011).
Numerous researches have been conducted to examine different important factors affecting the
mechanism and magnitude of subsidence. (see eg. Yoshimi and Tokimatsu 1977, Liu and Dobry 1997,
Dashti et al. 2010a and Rasouli et al. 2012). Outcomes of aforementioned studies lead to two different
approaches toward treating this problem: 1-structural approach, dealing with supporting structures on
deep foundations resting on reliable soil and also strengthening the structural members 2-
Geotechnical approach in which safety factor of soil liquefaction is increased by applying different
measures. These two approaches are applicable in case of future structures. This is the fact that still
many structures are overlying liquefiable soil. In addition, doing expensive structural or geotechnical
measures is scarcely possible for private small properties. Currently there is no world-wide accepted
approache toward this issue. In case of New Zealand experience for example, demolishing all
structures on liquefiable soil is considered to be the solution. However, in a highly-populated country

1
like Japan this cannot be the solution. Dashti et al. 2010b conducted centrifuge tests and showed that
constructing in-ground stiff structural wall and also installing impermeable barrier can decrease the
magnitude of subsidence. However, except quite few researches, not so many studies have been
conducted on possible measures for this issue.
Previous studies have shown liquefaction-induced subsidence of structures is accompanies by
considerable underlying soil lateral displacement (eg. Rasouli et al. 2012 and Dashti et al. 2010a). It is
expected by reducing this lateral displacement the structural subsidence can also be reduced. Aiming
this goal, installing sheetpile walls adjacent to the structure is proposed. The use of this measure has
been found effective against river dikes subsidence with the same mechanism (see eg. Mizutani and
Towhata 2001b and Mizutani et al. 2001a).
A series of 8 1-g shaking table tests were conducted to examine performance of adjacent sheetpile
walls against structure settlement. Fixity of both ends and rigidity of the sheetpiles were the variable
factors in this series of experiments.

METHOD OF SHAKING TABLE TESTS

A soil box of 2m in length, 0.6m in height, and 0.4m in width was used for conducting the experiments.
For canceling the effects of rigid ends, two 2.5cm shock absorbers were attached to each ends of the
box. Silica sand number 7 with ρs=2.64, emax=1.252 and emin=0.749 was used for making the
model ground. The particle distribution of the soil in shown in Fig.2(a). The first 10cm of the model
ground was made by air pluviation method and then compacted to reach relative density of 80%. This
first layer is considered as unliquefiable layer. The other layers were made by water pluviation method.
Relative density of these layers were 46%. Ground water level was adjusted on the surface of ground.
Figure 1 shows the model schematically.

Fig. 1 Schematic view of model box, Sheetpile and model structure

For studying the lateral displacement of soil due to structure subsidence, vertical columns of color
sand were installed close to the transparent wall of the box. Wooden box with the base area of 0.38m
×0.38m was used for modeling the surface structure supported on a mat foundation. The weight of
model structure was equal to 20 kg (1.36 kPa surface pressure). A laser displacement transducer
installed above the structure, recorded time history of subsidence accurately. Aluminum plates were
used for modeling the sheetpiles. For some experiments the bottom of plates were completely fixed.

2
This represented very stiff soil layer below the liquefiable layer. In some other experiments, lower
ends of sheetpile were pasted to the box by means of tape. This means the plate at bottom could not
move laterally and could not bear any bending moment as well. This represented softer layer under
liquefiable layer comparing with the fixed bottom cases. Top end of the sheetpile was constrained
from moving laterally in some cases by means of metal wire. The model ground was instrumented
with several pore water pressure transducers and accelerometers. Nine pairs of strain gauges were also
pasted to the sheetpile to measure the induced bending moment. All models were shaken by sinusoidal
waves of 350 Gal and 10 Hz frequency. Shaking duration was 30 seconds. Figure 2(b) shows the input
acceleration to the models.

(b)
(a)

Fig. 2 (a) Grain size distribution of silica sand No. 7 (b) Input acceleration to the models

Program of experiments

In total, 8 experiments were conducted to study different parameters affecting the subsidence of
structure and the efficiency of proposed mitigation. Cases 1 and 2 were performed without any
mitigation to examine the effect of liquefiable layer height. In first case the whole ground was
liquefiable and in the second the first 10cm layer was unliquefaible ground. Cases 3 to 6 were
conducted using 2mm sheetpiles. The fixity of both ends of sheetpiles were the variable factor in these
experiments. For studying the effects of sheetpile rigidity, cases 7 and 8 were performed using 1mm
sheetpiles. Table 1 summaries experimental program and the variable factors in each experiment.

Table 1 Experiments Program

Unliquefiable Thickness of Bottom

Case No. Top fixity
Layer sheetpile fixity
Case 1 None NA NA NA
Case 2 10 cm NA NA NA
Case 3 10 cm 2 mm Fixed Free
Case 4 10 cm 2 mm Fixed Hinge
Case 5 10 cm 2 mm Hinge Hinge
Case 6 10 cm 2 mm Hinge Free
Case 7 10 cm 1 mm Fixed Hinge
Case 8 10 cm 1 mm Hinge Hinge

3
 DISCUSSION ON INTERACTING BEHAVIOR OF SOIL-SHEETPILE-STRUCTURE

Subsidence of a structure overlying a liquefiable ground is affected by various factors. Many

researchers studied this issue from different point of views: Dimensions of the overlying structure's
base, height of liquefiable layer, weight of structure, duration of shaking, input motion intensity, etc.
These series of experiments examined the interacting effects of proposed mitigation on behavior of
soil and structure.

High shear deformation at the bottom

Figure 3a shows observed lateral displacement of soil under structure when no mitigation is applied to
the model and the first 10 cm is unliquefiable. High displacements can be recognized at the bottom
part of liquefiable layer. This happens when the height of liquefiable layer is not enough to
compensate the lateral displacement along the layer homogenously (effect of liquefiable layer height is
discussed later). In such a case, liquefied sand goes down until facing a stiff layer and then changes the
displacement direction to horizontal. This considerable displacement leads to shear dilatancy in the
soil. Figure 3b compares excess pore water pressures of same levels at different distances from the
model structure. It is expected that the pore water pressure transducers show same values in the same
level or due to the pressure of overlying structure, transducer near to the structure shows higher values
than farther one. However, due to the high dilatancy of shear deformation, observed excess pore water
pressure near to the structure is less than farther one.

(a) Case2

(b) (b)

Fig. 3 Case 2 (a) Lateral displacement of soil under structure (b) excess pore water pressures records

Using sheetpiles adjacent to the structures constrains underlying soil lateral displacements (Fig.
4a). Stiff sheetpiles, especially when fixed at bottom and hinged at the top, could control high shear
deformation at the bottom. Consequently the excess pore water pressure of the same levels show same
values (Fig 4b).

4
 Case4
(a)

(b) (b)

Fig. 4 Case 4 (a) Lateral displacement of soil under structure (b) excess pore water pressures records

Figure 5 shows the maximum lateral displacement of each experiment which occurred near the
unliquefiable layer in all cases (except case 1). The ultimate subsidence of structure is also shown in
the same figure. It can be seen that there is logical relationship between the reduction of maximum
lateral displacement (by means of sheetpiles) and subsidence of structure. However, in cases with
2mm sheetpiles, hinged at top and fixed or hinged bottoms end, the subsidence of structure is not
reduced as much as reduction in maximum lateral displacement. This happened due to the overtopping
of liquefied sand which is discussed in the following section.

Fig. 5 Maximum lateral displacements of liquefied soil and subsidence of structure

5
Liquefied soil overtopping effects

Installing sheetpiles close to the structure constrains the underlying soil from easy volumetric and
deviatoric deformations. When the sheetpiles are too stiff, they deform even less. Consequently
subsidence of building cannot be compensated only by volumetric change of soil and the liquefied soil
tends to heave and overtop the sheetpile from the narrow space between walls and structure. It was the
phenomena which was observed especially in case 4. This phenomena led to considerable subsidence
of structure although the lateral displacement of liquefiable layer was reasonably reduced (Fig. 5).
This phenomenon led to high values of bending moment in the sheetpiles in the middle time of
shaking and then reduction of bending moment due to overtopping of liquefied soil, because the
constrained pressure was released by over topping of the soil (Fig. 6).

Case4

Fig. 6 Observed bending moment in the sheetpile in 8 seconds and 28 seconds of shaking

In reality the ground water level is not usually exactly at surface. It is expected that when the
water level is not at surface overtopping will not happen easily. However, the experiments with lower
ground water level were not included in this study and need to be studied in future.

Sheetpile activation point

Experiments showed that the constraining effects of sheetpile are not working from the beginning of
structure subsidence. This behavior is reflected in the time history of subsidence. As shown in Fig. 7 in
cases with sheetpile, subsidence of structure started with a rate equal and then slightly less than the
case of no mitigation. When the bending moment in the sheetpile reached its maximum, the rate of
subsidence suddenly decreased considerably. The reason of this observation stems from the sequence
of dominating mechanism in subsidence. In the very beginning stages of subsidence, underlying soil
tends to consolidate and lateral displacement of soil is not dominating phenomenon. That is the reason
of same path of subsidence in the beginning stage of subsidence (Fig. 7, Consolidation). After this
stage consolidation and lateral displacement take place simultaneously until reaching a compatibility
between soil displacement and sheetpile bending moment (Fig. 7 Consolidation+Lateral Dis.).
Reaching this point is equal to reaching the maximum bending moment in sheetpile which is called
sheetpile activation point here. From this point, theoretically the soil confined between the sheetpiles
and overlying structure reached its maximum consolidation according to the applied pressure and
confining conditions. In that stage heaving of liquefied soil from the edges of structure was the
dominating phenomena in subsidence (Fig. 7 Heaving from the edges). However, because of small
gaps between the edges of sheetpile and transparent wall of the box, some liquefied sand could pass
away from those paths. Figure 8 proves that the sheetpile activation point happens when the sheetpile

6
reaches its maximum bending moment.

Sheetpile activation
point

Case7

Case2

Fig. 7 Dominating mechanism in subsidence time history

Fig. 8 Subsidence time history versus sheetpile bending moment time history

DISCUSSION ON DIFFERENT FACTORS EFFECTS ON SUBSIDENCE

This study examined effects of liquefiable layer height on magnitude and mechanism of subsidence.
Regarding proposed mitigation measure, effects of fixity of both ends of sheet pile and rigidity of
sheetpiles also were studied.

Effect of liquefiable layer height

Figure 9 shows lateral displacement of soil when the whole ground is liquefiable. Comparing this
figure with Fig. 3a (in which the first 10 cm was not liquefiable) it can be recognized that when the
liquefiable layer is thicker such concentrated lateral displacement in lower levels is not dominant.
However, thickness of liquefiable layer does not affect the magnitude of subsidence. In case of 40cm
liquefiable ground 75.4 mm subsidence and in case of 50cm liquefiable ground 73.3 mm subsidence

7
were recorded .

Fig. 9 Lateral displacement of underlying ground (Case 1)

Effect of sheetpile ends fixity

In practice, installing sheetpiles adjacent to the structures may or may not reach very stiff, reliable
ground at the bottom. Stiffness of the unliquefiable ground in which the sheetpile is penetrated is
modeled by changing the fixity of sheetpiles in model experiments. Stiff and reliable ground is
modeled by perfectly fixed ends of sheetpiles. When not very good soil is the case, the bottom of
sheetpiles are modeled as hinge ends. Regarding the top end of sheetpiles, it is not recommended to fix
them by attaching to the structure foundation. Because it can apply unexpected forces to the structure's
foundation which is not considered in its design. However, practically it is possible to constrain lateral
displacement of sheetpile tops by connecting sheetpile tops to each other.
Figure 10(a) compares subsidence time history of cases with 2mm sheetpile with different bottom
and top fixity conditions. It can be seen that by fixing the bottom and top of sheetpile tightly the
magnitude of subsidence can be reduced. The least subsidence occurred in case of fixed bottom and
hinge at top. While when the bottom is hinge and top is free no mitigation effect of sheetpile can be
recognized.
Figure 10(b) shows the residual bending moments in the sheetpile. The maximum bending
moment was recorded in case with fixed bottom and free top. Constraining lateral displacement of
sheetpile top, could reduce the maximum bending moment in the sheetpile. Very less subsidence in
that case (Fix at bottom and Hinge at top), suggests considerable increase in efficiency of sheetpiles by
constraining their top from lateral displacement.

(a) (b)

Fig. 10 (a) Subsidence time history (b) Residual bending moment

8
Effect of sheetpile rigidity

From previous section it was understood that constraining sheetpiles top is effective in their behavior
efficiency. Thus, for studying the effects of sheetpile rigidity, two other experiments were conducted
with 1mm sheetpiles and in both of them tops were constrained and bottom fixity was variable.
Figure 11 shows subsidence time history for cases with same fixity conditions and different
sheetpile thickness. As could be expected cases with softer sheetpile experienced higher magnitudes of
subsidence. However, detailed force-displacements calculations should be studied in future to
globalize the relationship between sheetpile rigidity and structural subsidence.

(a) (b)

Fig. 11 Comparison of subsidence time history of 1mm and 2mm sheetpiles (a) Top: Hinge Bottom:
Hinge (b) Top: Hinge Bottom: Fix

CONCLUSIONS

Several experiments were conducted to examine different features of a new proposed mitigation
method against liquefaction-induced structural subsidence. Important findings of this study are as
follows:
1- When the height of liquefiable layer is not large enough, considerable shear deformations occur
at the bottom of liquefiable layer.
2- Installing sheetpiles adjacent to the structure can reduce the magnitude of lateral shear
deformation of soil under the structure. If the sheetpiles are too stiff and well constrained at both ends,
overtopping of liquefied sand can occur.
3- Subsidence time history of structure, confined by sheetpiles, can be divided into three distinct
stages: (a)- Consolidation of underlying soil (b)- Simultaneous Consolidation and Lateral
displacement (c)- Heaving of the liquefied soil.
4- It is found that constraining top ends of sheetpiles can reduce both subsidence of structure and
maximum induced bending moment in the sheetpile. This means increase in efficiency of sheetpiles
performance.
5- Strength of confinement of underlying soil (stiffness of sheetpiles) is important in magnitude of
subsidence. Using stiffer sheetpiles leads to less subsidence.

REFERENCES

Dashti, S., Bray, J.D., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.R. and Wilson, D. (2010a). "Mechanisms of
seismically-induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil", Journal

9
 of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 1, ASCE, 151-164.
Dashti, S., Bray, J.D., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.R. and Wilson, D. (2010b). "Centrifuge testing to
evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms ", Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 7, ASCE, 918-929.
Liu, L. and Dobry, R. (1997). "Seismic response of shallow foundation on liquefiable sand", Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 6, ASCE, 557-567.
Mizutani, T., Towhata, I., Shinkawa, N., Ibi, S., Komatsu, T. and Nagai, T. (2001a) "Shaking table tests
on mitigation of liquefaction-induced subsidence of river dikes", Proc. of 15th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics ans Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 1207-1210
Mizutani, T. and Towhata, I. (2001b) "Model tests on mitigation of liquefaction-induced subsidence of
dike by using embedded sheet-pile walls", Proc. of 4th International Conference of Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, USA, paper No.
5.24
Rasouli, R., Liu, B. and Towhata, I. (2012). "Shaking table tests on mechanism of liquefaction-induced
subsidence of structures", Proc. Geo-Kanto Conference, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshimi, Y. and Tokimatsu, K. (1977). "Settlement of buildings on saturated sand during earthquakes",
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 17 No. 1, 23-38.

10