Proceedings of the Twenty-second (2012) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.

org
Rhodes, Greece, June 17–22, 2012
Copyright © 2012 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-94–4 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Design and Installation of Soil Improvement against Liquefaction in Reclaimed Ground with Coal Ash
Kazumi Ogura, Hiroshi Kawamura, Mitsuhiro Yoshida and Tomoya Harada
The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc., Osaka, Japan
Hideo Tsuboi, Akito Sone, Nobuyuki Endo and Hiroaki Sato
NEWJEC Inc., Osaka, Japan
Tamotsu Matsui
Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, Japan

consistency of these results with the existing simplified method is

ABSTRACT
In this paper, a case study of soil improvement against liquefaction in a
reclaimed ground with coal ash was described. As for the ground
improvement method, the reduced displacement cement deep mixing
(CDM) method with lattice-type layout was applied. In the design of
the CDM method, FEM analysis was adopted, the validity of which
was checked by the previously conducted laboratory tests results and
the existing simplified method. Then, based on the ground
improvement specifications determined by the analytical method, the
installation of ground improvement on two actual field sites was carried
out, followed by confirming the predetermined improved soil strength
and little lateral deformation during the installation of CDM walls.
confirmed. Then, this numerical method is applied to the actual field
sites, to determine the ground improvement specifications. Finally, the
installation of ground improvement on two actual field sites is carried
out, to check the predetermined improved soil strength and lateral
deformation during the installation of CDM walls.
CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUND CONDTIONS
Fig.1 shows new buildings sites (Site-A and Site-B) and locations of
the ground investigation. At Site-A and Site-B, the new building
facilities are planned near the neighboring structures, and the
improvement of the surrounding ground is applied as the
countermeasure against liquefaction.

KEY WORDS: Cement deep mixing method; coal ash; FEM Fig.2 shows the ground profile around Site-A and Site-B, obtained at
analysis; liquefaction; reclaimed ground; soil improvement. four soil investigation locations shown in Fig.1. The top layer is the
reclaimed fill (Bsc) which consists of coal ash (fly ash) of about 8 m
INTRODUCTION thick except the uppermost layer of 1 meter thick, underlain by Alluvial
Deposits (As, Ac and Ag) and Pleistocene Deposit (Dg). As for the
Many countermeasures against liquefactions during the earthquake in physical property of the coal ash layer, the soil particle density is
reclaimed sandy ground have been developed and applied by many around 2.2, which is a little smaller than that of available sands.
previous researches (see, for example, JGS (1998) and Harada et al
(2006)). However, little countermeasure examples are available on the
reclaimed ground with coal ash, in which it is assumed that the Site-B No.2-1
settlement and lateral deformation of the ground will be caused by the No.5
liquefaction during earthquakes, occurring various troubles in
surrounding structures and facilities. Site-A
H20-2-2
In this paper, a case study of soil improvement against liquefaction in a No.7 No.2-1
reclaimed ground with coal ash is discussed. As for the ground No.2-3
improvement method, the reduced displacement type of the cement
deep mixing (CDM) method is selected, in order to avoid as possible No.6
the lateral deformation of surrounding structures, such as neighboring
buildings and buried pipelines, during the installation. Also, the CDM
Reclaimed Legend
method with lattice-type layout is applied, which is more economical
than the block-type layout. In the design of the CDM method, FEM ground Ground investigation point
analysis is adopted to verify the performance characteristics during area
earthquakes. The validity of the numerical analysis is firstly checked, Seismometer PS logging point
point
based on the previously conducted laboratory tests results, followed by
Seismometer point
determining the analytical method with the parameters. The 800m

633
 Fig.1 New buildings sites (Site-A and Site-B) and locations of values are used obtained by three procedures of FL value calculation
ground investigation shown in Fig.7, i.e. “Method 1: Building Code (Design Guide of
Site-A Site-B Building Foundation Structure), Method 2: Port Code (Standard Port
(m) No.2-3 No.2-2 No.5 No.2-1 (m)
4.00 4.00
and Harbor Structure Code), Method 3: Highway Code (Volume V:
2.00 2.00 Earthquake Resistance)”.
0.00 Bsc 0.00
-2.00 -2.00
-4.00 As -4.00
-6.00 -6.00
-8.00 Ac -8.00
Screw
スクリュー
-10.00 -10.00 Stirring
攪拌混合翼 mixing blades
-12.00 Ag -12.00
-14.00 -14.00
-16.00 -16.00
Removed
排出土 soil
-18.00 Dg -18.00

0.00 10.00 20.00(m)

Fig.2 Ground profile around Site-A and Site-B

OUTLINE OF REDUCED DISPLACEMENT CDM METHOD

Although the CDM method with block-type layout has been

conventionally applied so far, that with lattice-type layout is sometimes
used recently from the economical viewpoint. Also, although the target Positioning Withdrawal , slurry
移動 貫入 引抜・吐出攪拌
sites need a countermeasure against liquefaction because of the loose 杭芯セット
Penetration injection and mixing
reclaimed ground with coal ash, the ground improvement method for 打設完了・排土
Mixing contacts to
着底・先端部処理 Completion of mixing
the countermeasure is restrained, because some important neighboring
stiff layer and removed soil
structures and facilities exist. For this reason, the reduced displacement
CDM method was planned, by which the lateral deformation can be
reduced, together with little effect to the neighboring structures and Fig.3 Installation procedure of reduced displacement CDM Method
facilities. Examination of lattice-type CDM

Simple analysis Numerical analysis

Fig.3 shows the installation procedure of the reduced displacement
Setting of Liquefaction judgement Verification of validity of earthquake
CDM method which is widely adopted in Japan. Compared with the FL-value Calculation of FL-value response analysis (FLIP analysis)
other CDM methods, little lateral displacement of ground during the Method 1（Building code） Application of previous model test result
Simple decision Method 2（Port code） Verification of analysis model
installation occurs by this method. In this installation procedure, the of lattice space Method 3（Highway code） Examination of element width
lateral deformation of the ground can be reduced by attaching a screw
Confirmation of specification
Site-A
to the upper part of the conventional stirring mixing blades, and Rough specification Examination of joint elements
Site-B
discharging the amount of soils equivalent to the amount of injected Examination improved depth

cement slurry by the screw. Decision of detailed specification classified by

Examination of construction procedure improved strength
Reduced displacement deep mixing method Site-A Site-B
ANALYTICAL EXAMINATION FOR LATTICE-TYPE CDM
METHOD Practical work (reduced displacement deep mixing method, lattice improvement method)
Confirmation of improved strength
Monitoring of lateral displacement at surrounding area
Flow for Analytical Examination
Fig.4 Flow chart of analytical examination
The analytical examination of lattice-type improvement in CDM
method is carried out, following the flow chart shown in Fig.4. Both Fig.8 shows the calculated result of the grid spacing by the
the conventional simple method and the detailed numerical method conventional simple method. Based on this result, the setup of initial
based on "effective stress seismic response FEM analysis (FLIP grid spacing is decided as 4.8 m at Site-A and 4.0 m at Site-B with
analysis)" (Iai et.al. (1990)) are performed. Especially, in order to some margin.
confirm the reliability of the latter examination method, the validity of
the numerical analytical technique is examined and checked by two
previously conducted model tests results. The ground of the target sites ○ Vibratory model test
is analyzed, followed by checking the safety during earthquake. ● Centrifuge model test

Conventional Simple Method

Pore water pressure ratio

In the conventional simple method, the design specification of Vibratory direction

Maximum excess

countermeasure against liquefaction for the lattice-type CDM method is

examined, based on the design construction manual on
countermeasures against liquefaction (tentative) (PWRI (1999)). In the
PWRI method, the dimension ratio of improved zone is set up, using
Figs.5 and 6. It is also examined, based on "Simple setting-up method
of the grid spacing in lattice-type improvement" proposed by Taya and
Dimension ratio L/H (Lattice space length / Improved Hight)
others (2008). In this method, a grid spacing estimation equation is
derived through the results of model test and analysis, and the grid Fig. 5 Relationship between dimension ratio and maximum excess
spacing can be set up using FL value. In the present case study, three FL pore water pressure ratio

634
 Factor of liquefaction resistance FL
Inside wall
뽋볙

Modeled Inside
面内壁
section wall
Outside
wall Outside
wall
面外壁

륶벍뺴뛀
Vibratory direction Non-
未改良 Non- 未改良 Non- 未改良
treated
地盤 soil treated
地盤 soil treated
地盤 soil
part part part

Excess pore water pressure ratio Lu(=Δu/σv’)

Fig.9 FEM modeling of lattice-type improvement in CDM method
Fig.6 Relationship between resisting ratio against liquefaction and
excess pore water pressure ratio Table 1. Analytical parameters of non-treated ground

Method 1：Building Code (Design Guide of Building Foundation Structure) Reference

Unit weight Effective elasticity Dependency Maximum Poisson’s
・Maximum shear stress ratio Ｌ・・・Followed by Building Code confining damping
(kN/m3) pressure shear of depth (G) ratio ratio
・Dynamic shear strength ratio Ｒ・・・ Followed by Highway Code modulus
・Using the result of calculated surface acceleration by SHAKE γ γ' σma'(kN/m2) Gma(kN/m ) 2
MG hmax ν
14.70 4.70 98.0 63386 0.91 0.24 0.33
Method 2：Port Code (Standard Port and Harbor Structure Code)
・Maximum response acceleration and Maximum shear stress are calculated by Reference Dependency Shear
elasticity Cohesion resistance Density Porosity
SHAKE , and then maximum shear stress ratio L shall be calculated in using modulus of depth (K) angle
these results. Kma(kN/m )3
MK c(kN/m ) 2
φf(°) ρ(t/m )3
n
・Dynamic shear strength ratio R is calculated by liquefaction test.
165298 0.91 0 34.50 1.47 0.59

Method 3：Highway Code (Volume V : Earthquake Resistance) Liquefaction parameters

・Maximum shear stress ratio L is calculated by the Code. In the present case,
the surface acceleration is calculated by SHAKE. φp S1 W1 P1 P2 C1
・Dynamic shear strength ratio R is calculated by liquefaction laboratory test. 28.000 0.005 7.200 0.500 1.088 17.280

treated soil parts as independent elements, the right and left ends of
Fig.7 Procedures of FL value calculation
which share the element nodes of the outside wall. By such modeling,
three dimensional lattice-type walls can be simulated in two-
Lattice space (Grid spacing) L dimensional form. In contrast, the element nodes of the non-treated soil
Setting Method Site-A Site-B
(Judging of liquefaction)
Improved depth H=9.7m Improved depth H=8.0m parts are separated from those of walls, just keeping the frictional
PWRI method FL＝1.25 → 4.8m FL＝1.25 → 4.0m
resistance. Also, the joint elements are set in between the improved
zone and non-improved zone, in order to remove the stress
Surface acceleration 251gal Surface acceleration 256gal
for original ground for original ground concentration in the vertical direction in the self-weight stage analysis.
Method 1
(Building Code) FL＝0.67 (Minimum) FL＝0.67 (Minimum) Table 1 shows the analytical parameters of the non-treated ground.
FL＝1.25 → 7.3m FL＝1.25 → 6.0m
Surface acceleration 251gal Surface acceleration 256gal Confirmation of numerical analysis technique
Method 2 for original ground for original ground
FL＝0.45 (Minimum) FL＝0.37 (Minimum)
In order to check the validity of the numerical analysis technique, the
(Port Code)
FL＝1.25 → 6.2m FL＝1.25 → 4.8m analytical results are compared with experimental ones of available
Surface acceleration 251gal Surface acceleration 256gal model tests (Goto et al (1992) and Shibata et al (1992)), which were
Method 3 for original ground for original ground carried out by the reduced scale of λ= 1/13 using coal ash ground in
(Highway Code) FL＝0.51 (Minimum) FL＝0.48 (Minimum) 1G field. Fig.10 shows the comparison between excess pore water
FL＝1.25 → 6.2m FL＝1.25 → 4.8m
pressure distributions in the previously conducted test and the
Fig.8 Calculated result of grid spacing by conventional method numerical analysis. It is seen in this figure that the analytical results
approximately reproduce the experimental ones, followed by
Numerical Analysis by FLIP confirming the validity of the numerical analysis technique.

Outline of numerical method
The lattice-type improvement in CDM method is modeled by two-
dimensional section, which is indicated by dotted line shown in Fig.9.
The improved zone of lattice type improvement consists of the outside
and inside walls located in perpendicular and parallel to the modeled
section, respectively, and the non-treated soil parts surrounded by the
walls, as shown in Fig.9. As the inside walls cannot be modeled in the
two-dimensional modeling, they are modeled by piling up on the non-
Table 2 shows the dimension ratio L/H and the maximum excess pore
water pressure ratio by the numerical analysis. Fig.11 shows the
analytical and experimental relationships between the dimension ratio
and the maximum excess pore water pressure ratio, in which the
experimental data are obtained, based on the PWRI method (1999) in
the design construction manual on countermeasures against
liquefaction (tentative). A good reproducibility due to numerical
analysis technique is also confirmed in this figure.

635
 Non-improved zone Improved zone Non-improved zone
Excess pore過剰間隙水圧 (gf/cm2)(kN/m2)
water pressure 5.00m 5.00m
Upper Bg
0.0 0.5
5.0 1.0
10.0 1.5
15.0 2.0
20.0 2.5
25.0 2.41m Upper Bcg 2.41m
0.0
0.0 1.74m 1.74m
有効土被り圧 Bcg Non-treated soil
Effective confining pressure
5.0
5.0 part
FLIP結果（未改良）
Result by FLIP (non-treated) -4.42m
As ① ② ③ -4.42m
FLIP結果（格子状改良） -6.72m -6.72m
10.0
10.0 Result by FLIP (lattice-type) Ac
実験結果（格子状改良） -8.17m -8.17m
Result by model tests (lattice-type)
15.0
15.0 Improved
Ag outside wall
Depth (cm)

20.0
20.0
地盤高さ (cm)

-17.22m -17.22m
25.0
25.0
-30.00m -30.00m

30.0
30.0 Fig. 12 Analytical Model (Site-A)
35.0
35.0
Non-improved zone Improved zone Non-improved zone
40.0
40.0

45.0
45.0 3.50m
2.70m Upper Bg
Upper Bcg
3.50m
2.70m
1.74m 1.74m
Bcg
50.0
50.0 -0.77m
Non-treated soil -0.77m
As ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ part
-4.62m -4.62m
Fig.10 Comparison between excess pore water distributions of Ac
-7.22m -7.22m
previously conducted test and numerical analysis Ag
Improved
outside wall
-13.27m -13.27m
Table 2. Dimension ratio L/H and maximum excess pore water
-30.00m -30.00m
pressure ratio by numerical analysis
Fig.13 Analytical Model (Site-B)
Lattice space Improved Excess pore
L/H Table 3. Soil parameters for each layer at the seismometer location
(L) depth(H) water ratio
around the target sites
400mm 490mm 0.82 0.31
200mm 490mm 0.41 0.23 Elevation (m) Density ρ Shear wave velocity Equivalent N-value
Soil layer
300mm 490mm 0.61 0.26 Top Bottom (t/m3) Vs(cm/sec) N65
Bg (Over water level) 3.50 2.70 1.8 222 15.3
Bcg (Over water level) 2.70 1.74 1.5 236 2.9
Bcg (Under water level) 1.74 -0.77 1.5 236 2.9
○ Vibratory model test As -0.77 -4.62 1.8 218 11.6

● Centrifuge model test Ac -4.62 -7.22 1.8 207 2.5

Numerical analysis Ag -7.22 -13.27 2.0 409 33.4

Dg1 -13.27 - 2.0 435 -
pore water pressure ratio

Vibratory direction parameters for each layer at the seismometer location around the target
Maximum excess

sites (see Fig.1).

Both Bcg and As layers are examined for the liquefaction, because the
layers deeper than 20m from the ground surface and the layers of about
25 or more of equivalent N value do not become liquefied ones. The
various parameters of these soil layers are set based on the cyclic
triaxial test results.
Dimension ratio L/H (Lattice space length / Improved Hight)

Fig. 11 Relationship between dimension ratio and maximum excess
pore water pressure
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF IMPROVED GROUND
Numerical simulations are carried out for the improved ground at two
locations (Site-A and Site-B) of field site, in order to determine the
ground improvement specifications.
Analytical Model and Condition
Figs.12 and 13 show the analytical models of two locations (Site-A,
Site-B), respectively. Level 1 seismic motion is used as the input data.
As for the seismic bedrock for engineering, the upper surface of
Pleistocene gravel layer (Dg) is assumed, based on the PS logging data
measured at between two Sites (see Fig.1). Table 3 shows the soil
The seismic wave is made by changing the available site amplification
characteristics of level 1 seismic motion at around this area, which is
opened at National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management
(NILIM)), into the ones at the target sites, following " Standard Port
and Harbor Structure Code " (2007). Fig.14 shows the seismic wave at
the seismic bedrock for engineering.
The design strength of improved soil is assumed as quck=1,000kN/m2
or 2,000kN/m2, and the design compressive strength as fc = αβ ・
quck=800kN/m2 , based on Deep Mixing Method Technical Manual
(revised version) (2008.7)."
Analytical Examination
Site-A
Fig.15 shows the average excess pore water pressure ratio of all meshes

636
 specification at Site-A is fixed by the layout of lattice-type improved
Maximum Acceleration
zone with double rows of surrounding walls, as shown in Fig.16.

Site-B
Fig.17 shows the average excess pore water pressure ratio of all meshes
within each non-treated soil part surrounded by improved walls at Site-
B, as the same as Fig.15. It is seen in this figure that the excess pore
water pressure ratios become less than 0.5 only in the case of double
rows of surrounding walls with quck =2,000kN/m2. However, the
design improvement strength of 2,000kN/m2, which means the
laboratory strength of 6,000kN/ m2, seems to be too high to execute in
field sites.
Fig.14 Seismic wave at seismic bedrock for engineering (Level-1)
Then, the additional cases are analyzed, in which the depth of improved
within each non-treated soil part surrounded by improved walls at Site- walls reaches to the lower end of non-liquefied Ac layer with quck
A. The excess pore water pressure ratio herein is signified by the ratio =1,000kN/m2. The analytical results are also shown in Fig.17. It is seen
of the excess pore water pressure to the available pore water pressure of that the excess pore water pressure ratios in the additional case become
the ground. It is seen in this figure that the excess pore water pressure less than 0.5. Based on this result, the ground improvement
decreases as increasing the design improved strength from quck specification at Site-B is fixed by the layout of lattice-type improved
=1,000kN/m2 to 2,000kN/m2, and that within the central lattice is zone with longer double rows of surrounding walls with quck
smaller than those within both side ones. As the whole, however, the =1,000kN/m2, as shown in Fig.18.
sufficient improved effect is not obtained, because the excess pore
water pressure ratios remain over 0.5. CONFIRMATION OF MONITORING DATA IN SITES

Then, the additional cases are analyzed, in which the outer improved Unconfined Shear Strength of Improved Soil
walls surrounding the improved zone are added. The analytical results
are also shown in Fig.15. It is seen that the excess pore water pressure Fig.19 shows the relationship between the unconfined compressive
ratios become less than 0.5 even in the additional case with quck strengths of σ ７ and σ 28 and the amount of additional cement for
=1,000kN/m2. Based on this result, the ground improvement
specimens of coal ash, alluvial sand and alluvial clay mixed in the
1.0
1.0 quck=1000kN/m2
0.9
Excess pore water pressure ratio

0.9
Excess pore water pressure ratio

0.8 quck=2000kN/m2
0.8
0.7
0.7 quck=1000kN/m2 quck=1000kN/m2
0.6
0.6 Double rows of
quck=2000kN/m2 0.5 surrounding walls
0.5
0.4 quck=2000kN/m2
0.4 quck=1000kN/m2
Double rows of 0.3 Double rows of
0.3 surrounding walls
surrounding walls 0.2
0.2 quck=2000kN/m2 quck=1000kN/m2
0.1 Longer double rows of
0.1 Double rows of
surrounding walls 0.0 surrounding walls to
0.0
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ Ac layer
① ② ③
Analyzed location Analyzed location

Fig. 15 Average excess pore water pressure ratio (Site-A) Fig.17 Average excess pore water pressure ratio (Site-B)

N Existing pile Monitoring point New pile

800 34400 800
2400 3200 3200 4000 3200 2400 3200 4000 3200 3200 2400 conduit
Existing
11400 pile 11400 500 500
9600 800 800 9600
50
24740 3200 2400 4000 22460 4000 2400 32007209
3200

New pile 600 2200 2520 2520 1550

600
800

4000 800

800

4000 800

4000
810
4000

4000

A
2400 4000
12200

12200
800

800

800
9600

9600

21600

23400
3600
2000 3600

2000 3600

2000 3600
8002000

4000
800

800

1050 6670 6670 700

4000

50
800

800

700 700
800 800 5800
37000

Fig.16 Layout of lattice-type improved zone (Site-A) Fig.18 Layout of lattice-type improved area (Site-B)

637
 9000
石炭灰
Coal ash σ7
σ7 Soil Bg
石炭灰
Coal ash σ28
σ 28
8000

Unconfined compressive strength

沖積砂sand
Alluvial σ7 σ 7 Reclaimed soil Bcg
Alluvial
沖積砂sand σ28 σ 28
7000 Alluvial
沖積粘土 clayσ7σ7 Lateral Lateral Alluvial clay Ac
Alluvial σ 28
clayσ28
6000
沖積粘土
displacement
東 西 累 計 量 mm displacement
東 西 累 計 量 mm Alluvial sand As
高炉セメント
Blast furnace cement
East
東 West
西 East
東 West
西 Alluvial gravel Ag
qu (kN/m2)
5000 ○ N値
SPT-N-Value

-20

-10
-20

-10
○

10

20
10

20
-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20

0
0
4000 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.0 1.0
Bg
3000 2.0 2.0

2000 3.0 3.0 Bcg

4.0 4.0
1000
5.0 5.0
Ac
0 6.0 6.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 7.0 7.0
Amount of additional cement (kg/m3) 8.0
8.0 As
Fig. 19 Relationship between unconfined compressive strength and 9.0 9.0
amount of additional cement for each soil 10.0 10.0
Unconfined compression strength 11.0 11.0
quq(kN/m
( )2)
Ac
12.0 12.0
0 5000 10000 15000 Field target strength
現場目標強度
0 Reference design計基準強度
strength μ-σ μ μ+σ
13.0 13.0
18
2 14.0 14.0
16 　　　　全数の分布
Distribution (Total) 12/17～12/19 12/17～12/28
4
14 　　　　石炭灰層の分布
Distribution (Coal ash) Measurement
15.0 Measurement
15.0 Ag
Frequency

12
during
16.0 3days during
16.0 12days
6 10
17.0 17.0
8
8 6
Fig 22 Distribution of measured lateral displacements with depth
( )
Depth (m)

4
10 2 during installation
0
12
Average (all)m2
5565kN/m 2
　　　　 全平均 5565kN/
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00

10 0
11 0
12 0
0

Fig.20 shows the frequency distribution of measured unconfined

0
00
00
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

　　　　　Coal ash 5227kN/m2 2

14 石炭灰 5227kN/ m
Bsc(Coal ash) Unconfined compressive strength: qu(kN/m2)
Bcs（
Ac (Alluvial 石炭灰)
clay)
compressive strengths after improvement in the field. It can be
16 Ac(沖積粘土) Average (Total) μ 5565 (kN/m2)
As (Alluvial sand)
As(沖積砂) Standard deviation σ 1762 (kN/m2) confirmed in this figure that the targeted in-situ design strength of
18 Bg(Reclamation
Bg(埋立砂)sand)
改良前（
Non-treated 石炭灰層)
(Coal ash) μ-σ 3803 (kN/m2) 1,000kN/ m2 (on-site target strength of 3,000kN/ m2) is completely
20 Average (Coal ash) μ 5227 (kN/m2)
satisfied.
Fig. 20 Measured unconfined compressive strength and its
frequency distribution Monitoring of Lateral Displacement during Installation
－ ＋
10 Improved zone
Ｘ 測定点
Measurement point
Fig.21 shows the relationship between lateral displacements at the
8 改良域 Ｌ ground surface during installation of CDM walls and the distance of
Previous results
減 x/L. The previous results of solid and open data points are indicated for
Lateral displacement

6
4
2 displacement CDM method is very small and much smaller than that
0 the lateral displacement of ground.
-2
0 0.2 0.4
Fig. 21 Relationship between lateral displacements at ground
surface and distance of x/L
laboratory. It is seen in this figure that, in case of the same amount of
additional cement, the unconfined compressive strengths for clay are
greater than those for coal ash and sand in which a clear difference is not
seen. In the field execution, however, the same amount of additional
cement is used from the upper part of the ground to the bottom to control
the quality, because the soil profile is not uniform and alluvial clays
sometimes exist in a thin layer.
Based on the result of Fig.19, the ground improvement in the target
sites is executed by the following specification.
- Used cement type : blast furnace cement B type
- On-site target strength : 3,000kN/ m2
(laboratory strength of 3,000kN/ m2)
- Amount of additional cement : 230 kg/m3 (Site-A)
260 kg/m3 (Site-B)
○通Conventional type (Clay) ●変Reduce type (Clay) the reduced displacement and conventional CDM methods, respectively.
CDM-LODIC(siteB)□通
Conventional type (Sand) ■変Reduce type (Sand)
Monitoring data (Site-B) The monitoring data at Site-B are shown in Fig.21. It is clearly
confirmed in this figure that the lateral displacement due to the reduced
due to the conventional one, followed by satisfying the initial target of
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Fig.22 shows the distributions of measured lateral displacements with
ｘ／Ｌ depth during installation of CDM walls, which were monitored by .the
in-situ strain meter. As the result, although the maximum lateral
displacement shows about 5mm, all data are within the acceptable
value. Therefore, it can be confirmed that the installation of CDM walls
was carried out satisfactorily.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes about the design and installation of soil
improvement against liquefaction in a reclaimed ground with coal ash.
The ground improvement as the countermeasure against liquefaction
was set up by selecting the reduced displacement cement deep mixing
(CDM) method with lattice-type layout, considering the influence of
the installation to neighboring structures and facilities. After
determining the ground improvement specifications by numerical
analyses, the installation of ground improvement was carried out on
two actual field sites.
The main conclusions in this paper are summarized as follows:

638
 1) The reliability of the applied seismic response FEM analysis is
confirmed to the liquefaction behavior of the previously conducted
model tests for coal ash ground.
2) By applying the seismic response FEM analysis, the improvement
specification for real improved ground can be determined. For
example, the ground improvement specification at Site-A is fixed
by the layout of lattice-type improved zone with double rows of
surrounding walls. Also, that at Site-B by the layout of lattice-
type improved zone with longer double rows of surrounding walls.
3) The targeted in-situ design unconfined compressive strength is
completely satisfied in the real ground improved by the CDM
method. This is an evidence for that the determined specification
for the design and installation of the applied CDM method is
adequate.
4) The lateral displacement due to the reduced displacement CDM
method is very small and much smaller than that due to the
conventional one, followed by satisfying the initial target. This is
also an evidence for that the determined specification for the
installation of the applied CDM method is adequate.
.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their deepest appreciations to the

site-engineers cooperated in drawing up this paper.

REFERENCES

Goto, K, Harada, T, Morimoto, H and Takezawa, K (1992). "Shaking Tests

of Solidified Soil Improvement Models to Prevent Liquefaction of Coal
Ash Fills," Soils and Foundation, Vol.40, No.5, pp.29-33.
Harada, K, Ohbayashi, J, Tsuboi, H, Seki, T, and Fukada, M, (2006).
"Liquefaction Countermeasures in Japan; Recent Trends, Issues and
Responses," Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Manila, pp.10-11.
Iai, S, Matsunaga, Y and Kameoka,T (1990). "Parameter Identification for
a Cyclic Mobility Model," Report of the Port and Harbor Research
Institute, Japan, Vol.29, No.4.
Japanese Geotechnical Society (1998), Remedial Measures against Soil
Liquefaction, From investigation and design to Implementation,
A.A.Balkema, pp.124-135.
Public Works Research Institute (1997) . River bank anti-earthquake design
construction manual , the Ministry of Construction, Japan.
Shibata, T and Goto, K (1992). "A numerical simulation of shaking table
test of coal fly ash deposit with cement mixing column," Proceeding of
the 4th International Conf on Numerical Models in Geo mechanics,
Swansea, pp.411-420.
Taya, Y, Uchida, A, Yoshizawa, M, and Tsukuni, S (2008). "Simple
method for determining lattice intervals in grid-form ground
improvement," JGS-Journal, Vo.l3, No.3, pp.203-212.

639