DFI Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations

Institute

ISSN: 1937-5247 (Print) 1937-5255 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ydfi20

Commentary on the Selection, Design and

Specification of Ground Improvement for
Mitigation of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction

Ground Improvement Committee

To cite this article: Ground Improvement Committee (2013) Commentary on the Selection,
Design and Specification of Ground Improvement for Mitigation of Earthquake-Induced
Liquefaction, DFI Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute, 7:1, 3-12, DOI:
10.1179/dfi.2013.001

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/dfi.2013.001

Published online: 23 Jan 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 67

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ydfi20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 30 May 2016, At: 16:58
 Commentary on the Selection, Design and
Specification of Ground Improvement for Mitigation
of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction
By the Ground Improvement Committee of The Deep Foundations Institute

ABSTRACT
The evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction has become a routine part of geotechnical
engineering design. For a given project, if an analysis identifies a potential for liquefaction and the
consequences of liquefaction are deemed unacceptable, then some form of hazard mitigation is
required. Mitigation efforts may consist of removing the liquefiable soils, bypassing the liquefiable
soils with deep foundations, structurally accommodating the deformations or strength loss caused by
liquefaction, or preventing the onset of liquefaction through ground improvement. The fundamental
ground improvement mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation include densification, drainage, and
reinforcement. When evaluating, recommending and specifying various ground improvement methods
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016

for liquefaction mitigation, practitioners should understand the fundamental mechanics involved
and applicability and limitations of the various methods. The DFI Ground Improvement Committee
offers a review of the fundamental mechanics and commentary on the applicability and limitations
of each method to provide clarity and guidance on the issues related to ground improvement for
liquefaction mitigation.

INTRODUCTION of the International Building Code (IBC) in 2000

Liquefaction and its effect on engineered
structures was recognized as an earthquake
hazard in the 1960s after the widespread
liquefaction-induced damage caused by the
1964 Niigata (Japan) and Alaskan earthquakes
(Seed and Lee, 1966; Seed and Idriss, 1967).
Independently and concurrently, Whitman
(1971) and Seed and Idriss (1971) proposed
a “simplified procedure” for evaluating
earthquake-induced (cyclic) liquefaction. The
simplified procedure evaluates the potential for
liquefaction based on the relationship between
earthquake-generated cyclic shear stresses
and empirically-based liquefaction resistance
as a function of field testing (e.g., Standard
Penetration Test N-values, Cone Penetration
Test tip resistance, etc.). Alternative methods
for the evaluation of cyclic liquefaction have
been proposed by others (e.g., Arulmoli
et al, 1985; Poulos et al, 1985; Kayen and
Mitchell, 1997; Andrus and Stokoe, 2000)
but the simplified procedure remains the
most commonly used liquefaction evaluation
methodology. Although liquefaction analysis
and the design of liquefaction mitigation
have been part of engineering practice in the
western United States for at least 40 years and
guidelines are in place (CGS, 2008; Martin and
Lew, 1999), only with the widespread adoption
did earthquake hazards become an important
design consideration in the central and
eastern U.S.
As a result of the increased seismic demand
presented in the IBC, many sites throughout
the U.S. are classified as liquefiable under
the design earthquake parameters. In the
case of the IBC, engineers are instructed to
“address” liquefaction. Options for addressing
liquefaction include the following: 1) move the
project to a different site that is not liquefiable,
2) design the structure to withstand liquefied
conditions, or 3) use ground improvement to
reduce the risk of liquefaction to an acceptable
level. Because moving the project or designing
for the consequences of liquefaction is often
technically or financially unfeasible, liquefaction
mitigation by ground improvement is frequently
a preferred option.
The membership of the Deep Foundations
Institute (DFI) includes government agency
engineers, private consultants, and contractors;
all of which have significant roles in the
design, construction, and evaluation of ground
improvement methods for the mitigation of
liquefaction. As such, the DFI has a vested
interest in examining the state-of-practice
for the benefit of its members and their
clients. This paper describes the fundamental

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [3]

 mechanics of the most common mitigation
methods, and provides brief commentary on the
state-of-the-practice.
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
Workshops were held in 1996 and 1998 by the
National Center for Earthquake Engineering
and Research (NCEER) in an effort to develop
a consensus on the evaluation of liquefaction
potential. These workshops led to the
publication of a summary report (Youd et
al., 2001) which, for a short time, served as
a consensus document on the evaluation of
liquefaction triggering.
Numerous modifications and additions to the
simplified procedure have been proposed in the
last decade resulting in a diminished consensus
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016
on liquefaction evaluation procedures.
Additionally, following the 1999 Kocaeli
earthquake and the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake,
various researchers expanded the range of
potentially liquefiable materials to include
some fine-grained soils that would previously
not have been considered in a liquefaction
evaluation. Various screening procedures have
been proposed (e.g., the “Chinese” Criteria
summarized in Youd et al, 2001; Bray and
Sancio, 2006; Boulanger and Idriss, 2006;
Idriss and Boulanger, 2008). The “Chinese”
Criteria has been generally disregarded as
a valid design method; however a general
consensus on the alternate methods has not
been achieved. This paper offers no guidance on
the evaluation and screening procedures, but as
subsequently presented the selected evaluation
procedures must be clearly identified and
communicated in the project documents related
to liquefaction mitigation.
FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISMS
OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT FOR
LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION
A survey of the available ground improvement
liquefaction mitigation techniques by the
National Research Council (NRC, 1985)
determined that three fundamental mechanisms
are usually involved: 1) densification,
2) drainage, and/or, 3) reinforcement.
These three methods are discussed in the
following sections:
Densification. For sands below the groundwater
table, the resistance to liquefaction is largely
a function of relative density (Seed and Lee,
[4] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
1966). It rationally follows that a substantial
number of liquefaction mitigation techniques
(e.g., vibro-compaction, vibro-stone columns,
dynamic compaction, compaction grouting,
etc.) are intended to sufficiently densify the
soil so that liquefaction will not occur, or
its consequences may be controlled, during
the design earthquake. When compared to
other methods, densification is attractive
because improvement can be verified using
the properties of the improved soil (e.g.
post-improvement Standard Penetration
Test N-values or Cone Penetration Test tip
resistances). Baez, 1995 developed design
densification models that allow an estimation
of approximate improvement levels when using
vibro-stone columns. Design and construction
considerations of densification include (but are
not limited to) the following:
• Fines Content: As the fines content of a
granular soil increases, the effectiveness
of all densification methods will decrease.
Figs 1 and 2 illustrate this trend.
Additionally, whether the fines are plastic
or non-plastic and/or silt-sized or clay-
sized is also important. Even a small clay
fraction may limit the ability of a soil to be
effectively densified (Mackiewicz & Camp,
2007). Therefore, densification methods
may not be able to mitigate liquefaction
in silty and clayey soils. However, it has
been possible, in some cases, to increase
densification of silty sands and silts when
wick drains are pre-installed in combination
with vibro-stone columns (Luehring et
al., 2001; Seed et al., 2003, ). Micaceous
sands may also present a challenge to
densify. This is because the mica portion
gravel sand silt clay
ϭϬϬ
ϵϬ
ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶnjŽŶĞ
WĞƌĐĞŶƚWĂƐƐŝŶŐďLJtĞŝŐŚƚ;йͿ
ϴϬ
ϳϬ
ϲϬ
ϱϬ
ĚĞŶƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐ ĚĞŶƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐŶŽƚ
ϰϬ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ
ϯϬ
ϮϬ
ϭϬ
Ϭ
ϭϬ ϭ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬϬϭ
'ƌĂŝŶ^ŝnjĞ;ŵŵͿ
[FIG. 1] - Gradation curves that lie to the left of the
transition zone are more easily densifiable. Soil gradation
curves within the transition zone require additional
engineering judgment and test programs.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016
[FIG. 2] – Relationship of compactibility to CPT friction
ratio (after Massarsch 1991) A larger friction ratio is
typically indicative of a higher fines content.
is typically retained on the No 200 sieve
and is therefore not included in the fines
content. However, the flat sheet particles
are not easily re-arranged into a denser
configuration via vibratory and cavity
expansion ground treatments.
• The densification process (via vibratory
energy or undrained cavity expansion)
elevates pore pressures and will
temporarily destroy ageing-related bonding,
cementation, micro-structure, etc. As a
result, penetration testing (e.g., SPT N-value
or cone tip resistance) performed soon after
densification may not be representative of
the true degree of improvement, and the
post-improvement penetration resistances
may be expected to increase over time
(Mitchell and Solymar, 1984; Schmertmann,
1987; Mesri et al., 1990; Charlie et al., 1992).
In practice, a minimum 7 day “rest” period
is often necessary to evaluate densification
effects. For many projects, it is not feasible
to delay the project in order to confirm the
effectiveness of the ground improvement.
Consequently, the analysis of the field
data may consider the effects of time on
penetration resistance using published
relationships (Joshi, et al., 1995; Leon et
al., 2006).
• There will be variation in the degree of
soil improvement between the point of
application of the vibroflot, point of impact,
compaction grout, etc. Degan (1997) reports
a 20% variation in CPT tip resistance over
a lateral distance of 20 inches (500 mm).
While it would be ideal that the design
computations and post-improvement testing
include consideration of the lateral variation
of the improvement, it is conservative to
perform the post-improvement testing at
the maximum distance between adjacent
application points.
Drainage. By definition, cyclic liquefaction is
the state of essentially zero effective stress that
results when the ratio of excess pore pressure
to the initial vertical effective stress (also called
the pore water pressure ratio) is essentially 1.
Liquefaction can be mitigated in sands if the
development of high excess pore water pressure
can be prevented using drains. Seed and Booker
(1977) published design charts for vertical
gravel drains based on the soil properties, the
liquefaction susceptibility, and the earthquake
conditions. More recently, Pestana et al.
(1997) developed the finite element computer
program FEQDrain to assist in the design of
prefabricated drains consisting of a corrugated
perforated plastic pipe with a geosynthetic
covering (known commercially as EQ drains). As
illustrated in Fig. 3, the compressibility of sand
increases dramatically once the pore pressure
ratio exceeds 0.6. Therefore, the objective of
the design of an earthquake drain liquefaction
mitigation program is to determine the spacing
such that the pore pressure ratio is maintained
below 0.6 to minimize deformation.
16.00
14.00
Dr = 30%
12.00
Dr = 40%
Dr = 50%
Volumetric Compressibility
Normalized Coefficient of
10.00
Dr = 60%
Dr = 70%
8.00 Dr = 80%
Dr = 90%
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Peak Pore Pressure Ratio
[FIG. 3] - Relationship of compressibility to peak pore
pressure ratio (Seed and Booker 1977).
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [5]
 Design and construction considerations for
the use of enhanced drainage as a liquefaction
mitigation method include (but are not limited
to) the following:
• Aggregate drains have been used with
success in Japan. These drains are
constructed using aggregate gradations that
consider filter requirements for the soils in
which they are being installed. Additionally,
the drains are installed using low-energy
methods that do not cause crushing of the
aggregate or mixing of the aggregate and
surrounding soil.
• Conventional stone column or aggregate
pier construction in the US may not create
an element that is capable of effectively
functioning as a drain for purposes of
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016
liquefaction mitigation (Green, 2012). Even
with the typical highly permeable aggregate
that such columns or piers use, mixing/
infiltration of the surrounding soils into
the stone and/or crushing of the aggregate
during the compaction process results in an
in situ matrix with measured soil intrusions
of about 20% by weight and permeability
values on the order of 1E-02 cm/sec (Baez
and Martin, 1995). If stone columns or
aggregate piers are intended to enhance
drainage, consideration must be given to
the gradation and hardness of the backfill
stone, the potential for mixing during the
installation process, and the process used to
construct the columns.
• The spacing of drains is dependent on
the permeability of the soil that is to
be mitigated. The spacing will become
impractical for silts or sands with
significant fines content. Oftentimes, soils
that are most appropriate for mitigation
through drainage are also appropriate for
densification (high permeability sands).
• Although drains can successfully mitigate
liquefaction and the associated substantial
loss of soil strength, the potential for
volumetric compression may remain after
drain installation and consideration must
be given to allowable deformations. Large
shaking table test research in Japan (Iai,
1988) has demonstrated that the volume
of water drained during the seismic event
is approximately equal to the amount of
settlement observed at the surface of the
drain treated ground. This suggests that
[6] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
the drains effectively facilitate, rather
than prevent volume change, which is not
a desired consequence for an effective
liquefaction countermeasure designed to
reduce seismic settlements.
• When using drainage as the sole liquefaction
countermeasure (i.e., no densification
or reinforcement), the designer is also
cautioned to take into account the
variability of the brief high seismic pulses
from large earthquakes and their effect on a
temporary clogging of the drain which may
render it ineffective. Seed et al., 2003 refer
to a drainage countermeasure as a “brittle”
solution which may only be effective
if it promotes the rapid pore pressure
dissipation during the few critical seconds
of the earthquake.
• The effectiveness of an earthquake drain
installation cannot be verified through field
testing. Therefore, designers must rely on
the analytical design method.
Reinforcement. Liquefaction mitigation by
shear reinforcement relies on the installation
of stiffer elements within a soil mass to reduce
the cyclic shear stress applied to liquefiable
soils. Soil reinforcement options include: full
soil treatment (via permeation grouting, jet
grouting, or mass soil mixing), cellular or panel
reinforcement (using jet grouting, soil mixing,
or slurry wall systems), or individual column
elements (using jet grout columns, mechanically
mixed columns, stone columns, aggregate
piers, grout columns, etc.). Post-earthquake
observations suggest that reinforcement also
reduces the earthquake-related settlement by
providing an improved axial stiffness.
Baez (1995) presented a design methodology
based on fundamental principles of strain
compatibility between reinforcing elements
and soil, and force equilibrium to calculate
the reduction in cyclic shear stress on a soil
mass as a function of the soil shear modulus,
reinforcement shear modulus, and the amount
of treatment. This methodology has been used
in practice to design reinforcement-based
ground improvement programs for liquefaction
mitigation. However, numerous researchers
have evaluated the Baez procedure and
concluded that, for columnar reinforcement,
it significantly overestimates the effectiveness
of reinforcement in terms of shear stress
reduction (Goughnour and Pestana, 1998;
 Martin and Olgun, 2006, Olgun and Martin,
2008, Rayamajhi et al., 2012, Nguyen et al.,
2012, Boulanger, 2012). More specifically, the
research findings indicate that there is a lack
of strain compatibility between the soil and
the reinforcement element (stone column,
aggregate pier, soilcrete column, etc.) and
significant benefits of the stiffer element in
terms of shear reinforcement are not realized.
In contrast, research shows that wall panels
arranged to form a cellular pattern maintain
shear strain compatibility between the soil and
the reinforcement and contribute significantly
to shear stress reduction. In summary, if shear
stress reduction is the design objective, as
might be the case for a soil that is not easily
densified or drained, current research and
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016
models indicate that wall panels or a cellular
pattern of reinforcement can be effective,
whereas discrete columns are not. Cellular and
panel reinforcement geometries have been
widely and successfully implemented in Japan
and an increasing use of these geometries for
non-densifiable soils will likely occur in the U.S.
Numerous researchers have evaluated the
performance of improved sites after they
have been subjected to earthquakes and
sites with ground improvement have out-
performed (i.e., settled less, suffered less
foundation damage, etc.) similar nearby
sites without ground improvement (Iai et
al, 1994; Mitchell et al, 1995; Yasuda et al,
1996; Mitchell and Wentz, 1998; Mitchell et
al, 2000; Hausler, 2002; Martin and Olgun,
2006). In particular, some sites with column
reinforcement (e.g., stone columns, soilcrete
columns, jet grout columns) out-performed
sites without any improvement indicating
that even if the column reinforcement does
not provide a shear stress reduction benefit
as initially assumed (i.e., does not prevent the
onset of liquefaction), it may still be effective
in limiting the consequences of liquefaction.
Not all of the possible mechanisms for the
improved performance are fully understood
but a likely component is a reduction in
vertical deformation due to the increased axial
stiffness provided by the elements (Martin and
Olgun, 2006). Additionally, the increase in the
effective lateral stress that is produced by some
improvement methods (e.g., aggregate piers,
stone columns) may reduce shear strains during
shaking, thereby reducing the potential or
extent of liquefaction. Confinement pressures
and the engagement of discrete columns
via caps and mats that connect the columns
are another possible contributing factor to
improved performance, as compared to free
field conditions. Current analytical models have
not evaluated such conditions, but experimental
centrifuge tests (Adalier et al. 2003) show
improved liquefaction consequence results
for discrete columns subjected to building
pressures and confinement. Most discrete
column applications include a building or
structure slab or mat atop the discrete columns.
With respect to the mechanism of reinforcement
for liquefaction mitigation, a number of issues
remain for consideration:
• The shear stress reduction potential for
individual reinforcing elements (e.g., stone
columns, aggregate piers, grout columns,
soilcrete columns) appears to be very small.
The stress reduction potential decreases
as the diameter of the element decreases
and the efficiency of the system decreases
as the modulus of the element increases
(Boulanger, 2012) but it does increase as
the confining stress increases (Green et al
2008). Discrete column designs based on
the Baez (1995) concept may be significantly
unconservative.
• Panel or cellular reinforcement can
effectively reduce the shear stresses within
a soil mass and the recent work by Nguyen
et al. (2012) provides a design methodology
that is applicable for all sites. This
methodology generally matches the Baez
(1995) methodology when panel coverage is
in excess of about 25%.
• Individual reinforcing elements may be
effective in reducing vertical displacements
following ground shaking. A rational
analytical approach for the use of individual
elements to reduce seismic settlement
(while not eliminating liquefaction potential)
has not been developed.
• Much like drainage for mitigation, the
effectiveness of reinforcement cannot be
field verified post-treatment. Engineers
must rely on theoretical analysis for their
design, the methods for which have not
reached an industry-wide consensus.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [7]
 SPECIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS
Development of appropriate specifications
for liquefaction mitigation is not a trivial
matter and is an area of practice that needs
improvement. The means and methods for
ground improvement are extremely diverse
and, as a result, ground improvement programs
are frequently contracted using a performance
or design-build specification. When compared
to a detailed design-bid-build approach, these
contracting methods offer many benefits to
both owners and specialty geo-constructors, but
the following items should be addressed when
developing the specifications:
• The design earthquake criteria should [FIG. 4] Six story structure that experienced 0.26m
be thoroughly described in the project of liquefaction-induced differential settlement (after
specifications. If the specialty geo- Cubrinovski and McCahon, 2011)
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016

constructor is allowed to develop the design

criteria, the owner’s representative should
be of sufficient sophistication to confirm
that the methodology used in developing
the design criteria is consistent with the
state-of-practice.
• Because there is no consensus on
liquefaction evaluation and screening
procedures and different methods will
yield different results, the acceptable
evaluation and screening method(s) should
be specifically defined in the project
specifications. The definition should include
the required procedures for evaluating
the efficacy of the ground improvement.
[FIG. 5] Two story structure that experienced 0.1
If post-improvement in situ testing is to 0.25m of liquefaction-induced settlement (after
required, the interpretation and correction Cubrinovski and McCahon, 2011)
(e.g., corrections to N-values for energy, rod
length, overburden stress, etc.) procedures associated with liquefaction can only be
should be specified. crudely estimated. The expectation of a
guaranteed maximum settlement with little
• A “seismic” or post-earthquake settlement
or no tolerance is unrealistic.
tolerance is frequently specified. The
selection of the settlement tolerance • As noted above, ground improvement
should reflect the performance objectives programs that rely on densification are
(i.e., collapse prevention in accordance particularly attractive since the effectiveness
with the International Building Code or a of the densification can be evaluated using
more stringent serviceability requirement). post-improvement in situ testing. For such
With respect to collapse prevention, post- programs, a post-improvement criteria (e.g.,
earthquake reconnaissance routinely cone penetrometer tip resistance, Standard
shows that structures tolerate very large Penetration Test N-value, dilatometer
liquefaction-induced settlement (e.g., 0.1 horizontal stress index, etc.) is frequently
to 1 m or 0.33 to 3.3 ft) without collapse. specified. The criteria should reflect the
Examples from the 2010-2011 Christchurch values needed in accordance with the
Earthquakes are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. specified evaluation procedure and design
With respect to serviceability requirements, hazard. Additionally, it must be recognized
it should be recognized that deformations that some soils (e.g., silty sands, slightly

[8] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

 clayey sands, silts) will not be able to
be densified and the post-improvement
criteria must make allowances for such
strata. The criteria should also reflect the
time-dependency of the post-improvement
test results.
• Use of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is
widely accepted as an economical way
to evaluate improvement based on tip
resistance. A boundary for what may be
considered non-liquefiable, and therefore
not in need of improvement, is typically
the use of the calculated parameter, Ic
(soil behavior type index). However, the
designer must recognize that this index was
originally defined for non-disturbed and
often normally consolidated conditions.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016
Ground treatments with vibratory energy
and cavity displacement countermeasures
work by remolding and reconstituting the
soil structure. Therefore, pre-treatment
Ic soil type definitions do not necessarily
match post treatment Ic calculations (Baez,
2005). A calibration of this parameter may
need to be taken into account for the proper
interpretation of post treatment CPT results.
• For soils that cannot be densified and/
or for ground improvement methods that
cannot be evaluated via post-improvement
testing, the efficacy of the program must
be based on construction observation
and the fundamental mechanics and
empirical observations. The tools available
to researchers and practitioners have
advanced significantly, but continuing
research has illustrated limitations on
using past practices (such as the lack
of strain compatibility). Liquefaction
mitigation solutions should be based on
sound soil mechanics, particularly when
designing mitigation programs that are not
field verifiable.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This document presented a brief overview
of the three mechanisms - densification,
drainage and reinforcement - currently used for
liquefaction mitigation within the geotechnical
construction industry. The summaries provided
describe the basic mechanics and potential
concerns related to each method. Significant
concerns include the following:
• When used in appropriate soils,
densification allows for improvement
verification, unlike drainage and
reinforcement. However, densification is
only applicable in cohesionless soils with
less than 20% fines (and a significantly
lower clay content). In cases where
wick drains have been pre-installed,
densification may be possible for soils
with fines content up to 65% and small
clay fractions. Note that successful cases
using wick drains and stone columns
generally require area replacement ratios
in excess of 20-30% as well as wick drains
that are close to the densification point.
Engineers are encouraged to consider the
soil characteristics and drainage properties
when writing specifications that require
post-treatment verification of densification.
• Because ground improvement methods that
apply drainage and/or reinforcement are
not amenable to post-treatment verification,
the analysis used to design these types of
ground improvement methods must be
based on fundamental mechanical principles
and empirical observations.
• Although post-earthquake observations
indicate that reinforcement can effectively
mitigate the effects of liquefaction,
consensus has not been reached for
developing a state-of-the-practice design
methodology for liquefaction mitigation
using soil reinforcement. Furthermore,
recent research indicates that columnar
reinforcement is not as effective in reducing
the soil shear stress as previously believed.
This is resulting in an inconsistent and
potentially unconservative range of designs
for this method. Engineers and agencies
must be conscious of this inconsistency
when evaluating reinforcement proposals
and designs and continue to rely on
fundamental mechanics and the most
current research findings.
The geotechnical engineering community will
be well served by a continued focus on the
mechanics, effectiveness, and limitations of
all liquefaction mitigation methods. With each
new earthquake, the engineering knowledge
base expands, and the engineering practice
will evolve.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [9]
 REFERENCES
1. Adalier, K., Elgamal, A., Meneses, J.
and Baez, J.I. (2003) “Stone columns as
liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic
silty soils”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 23(7), pp. 571-584.
2. Andrus, R. D., and Stokoe, K. H., II (2000).
‘‘Liquefaction resistance of soils from
shear-wave velocity”, Journal of Geotechical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
126(11), pp. 1015–1025
3. Arulmoli, K., Arulanandan, K., and Seed,
H.B. (1985) “New Method for Evaluating
Liquefaction Potential”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 111(1), pp. 95-114.
4. Baez, J.I. (1995) “A design model for the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016
reduction of soil liquefaction by vibro-
stone columns”, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
5. Baez, J.I., and Martin, G.R., (1995)
“Permeability and Shear Wave Velocity
of Vibro-Replacement Stone Columns”,
Soil Improvement for Earthquake Hazard
Mitigation, Edited by Roman D. Hryciw,
ASCE. Geotechnical Special Publication No.
49. October, 1995.
6. Baez, J.I. (2005) “Liquefaction Mitigation
of Fine Grained Soils”, 2005 US-Japan
Workshop on Ground Improvement: New
Applications and Challenging Soils for
Ground Improvement Technologies, Kyoto,
Japan, September 8-10, 2005.
7. Boulanger, R.W. (2012) “Shear reinforcement
effects for liquefaction mitigation”, DFI
Liquefaction Forum: Consequences and
Mitigation, St. Louis, MO.
8. Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2006).
“Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for
silts and clays”, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Enineering, 132(11),
pp. 1413-1426.
9. Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B. (2006).
“Assessment of the liquefaction
susceptibility of fine-grained soils”, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132(9), pp. 1165-1177.
10. CGS, California Geological Survey (2008)
“Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California”, Special
Publication 117, Public Information Offices
of the California Geological Survey.
[10] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
11. Charlie, W.A., Rwebyogo, M.F.J. and
Doehring, D.O. (1992). “Time-dependent
cone penetration resistance due to blasting”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,118(8),
pp. 1200-1215.
12. Cubrinovski, M. and McCahon, I. (2011).
“Foundations on Deep Alluvial Soils”,
Technical Report Prepared for the
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ
13. Degan, W.S. (1997) Vibroflotation Ground
Improvement, Vibroflotation AG, Altendorf,
248 p.
14. Goughnour, R.R., and Pestana, J.M., (1998).
“Mechanical behavior of stone columns
under seismic loading”, Proceedings 2nd
International Conference on Ground
Improvement Techniques, Singapore.
15. Green, R.A. (2012) “Liquefaction risk
mitigation by excess pore pressure
dissipation through compacted gravel piles”,
DFI Liquefaction Forum: Consequences and
Mitigation, St. Louis, MO.
16. Green, R.A., Olgun, C.G., and Wissmann,
K.J., (2008). “Shear stress redistribution
as a mechanism to mitigate the risk of
liquefaction”, Proceedings Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
IV, ASCE GSP 181, Sacramento, CA.
17. Hausler, E.A., (2002). “Influence of
ground improvement on settlement and
liquefaction: a study based on field case
history evidence and dynamic geotechnical
centrifuge tests”, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley.
18. Iai, S. (1988) “Large Scale Model Tests and
Analyses of Gravel Drains”, Report of the
Port and Harbour Research Institute Japan,
Vol 127, No. 3.
19. Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., Morita, T., Miyata, M.,
Sakurai, H., Oishi, H., Ogura, H., Ando, Y.,
Tanaka, Y., and Kato, M. (1994). “Effects of
remedial measures against liquefaction at
1993 Kishiro-Oki Earthquake”, Proceedings
5th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake
Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures Against Soil Liquefaction,
NCEER-94-0026, Nov, pp. 135-152.
 20. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008)
Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,
Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
21. Joshi, R.C., Achari, G., Shenbaga, R.K., and
Wijeweera, H. (1995). “Effect of aging on the
penetration resistance of sands”, Canandian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol 32, pp. 767-782.
22. Kayen, R.E. and Mitchell, J.K. (1997)
“Assessment of Liquefaction Potential
During Earthquakes by Arias
Intensity”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(12), pp.
1162-1174.
23. Leon, E., Gassman, S.L., and Talwani, P.
(2006). “Accounting for soil aging when
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016
assessing liquefaction potential”, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132(3), pp. 363-377.
24. Luehring, R., Snorteland N., Stevens, M., and
Mejia, L. (2001) “Liquefaction Mitigation of
a Silty Dam Foundation Using Vibro-Stone
Columns and Drainage Wicks: A case History
at Salmon Lake Dam”, 21st USSD Annual
Meeting and Lecture Proceedings, Denver,
Colorado, July 30 – August 03, 2001.
25. Mackiewicz, S. M., and Camp, W. M.
(2007). “Ground Modification: How Much
Improvement?”, Proceedings Geo-Denver,
ASCE GSP 172, Denver, CO.
26. Martin G.R., and Lew M. (Editors)
(1999). “Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication
117 – Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction in California”,
Southern California Earthquake Center,
University of Southern California, March.
27. Martin, J.R., II, and Olgun, C.G. (2006).
“Liquefaction mitigation using jet-grout
columns – 1999 Kocaeli earthquake case
history”, Ground Modification and Seismic
Mitigation, ASCE GSP 152, pp. 349-358.
28. Massarsch, K.R., (1991). “Deep Soil
Compaction Using Vibratory Probes”,
ASTM Symposium on Design, Construction,
and Testing of Deep Foundation
Improvement: Stone Columns and Related
Techniques, Robert C. Bachus, Ed. ASTM
Special Technical Publication, STP 1089,
Philadelphia, pp. 297-319.
29. Mesri, G., Feng, T.W. and Benak, J.M. (1990).
“Postdensification penetration resistance
in clean sands”, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 116(7), pp. 1095-1115.
30. Mitchell, J.K., Baxter, C.D.P., and Munson,
T.C. (1995). “Performance of improved
ground during earthquakes”, Soil
Improvement for Earthquake Hazard
Mitigation, ASCE GSP No. 49, pp. 1-36.
31. Mitchell, J. K., Martin, J. R., Olgun, C. G.,
Emrem, C., Durgunoglu, H. T., Cetin, K. O.,
and Karadayilar, T. (2000). "Performance of
Improved Ground and Earth Structures”,
Earthquake Spectra, 16(Supplement "A"), pp.
191-225
32. Mitchell, J.K. and Solymar, Z.V. (1984).
“Time-dependent strength gain in freshly
deposited or densified sand”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 110(11), pp. 1559-
1576.
33. Mitchell, J.K., and Wentz, F.J., Jr., (1998).
“Improved-ground performance during
the earthquake”, The Loma Prieta,
California, earthquake of October 17,
1989 - Liquefaction, Holzer, T.L., Ed., U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1551-
B, pp. B241-B272.
34. Moseley, M.P. and Kirsch, K. (2004) “Ground
Improvement, 2nd Edition”, Spon Press, New
York, NY.
35. National Research Council (1985)
“Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes”,
National Research Council, Committee
on Earthquake Engineering, Washington,
District of Columbia.
36. Nguyen, T.V., Rayamajhi, D., Boulanger, R.W.,
Ashford, S.A., Lu, J., Elgamal, A., and Shao, L.
(2012) “Effect of DSM grids on shear stress
distribution in liquefiable soil”, Proceedings
GeoCongress 2012, State of the Art and
Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
GSP 255, Oakland, CA, pp. 1948-1957.
37. Olgun, C.G. and Martin, J.R., II, (2008)
“Numerical modeling of the seismic
response of columnar reinforced ground”,
Proceedings Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, ASCE GSP
181, Sacramento, CA.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [11]
 38. Pestana, J.M., Hunt, C.E. and Goughnour,
R.R. (1997) “FEQDrain: A Finite Element
Computer Program for the Analysis of the
Earthquake Generation and Dissipation
of Pore Water Pressure in Layered Sand
Deposits with Vertical Drains”, Report No.
UCB/EERC-97/15, University of California,
Berkeley, 88 p.
39. Poulos, S.J., Castro, G., and France, J.W.
(1985) “Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(6),
pp. 772-792.
40. Rayamajhi, D., Nguyen, T.V., Ashford, S.A.,
Boulanger, R.W., Lu, J., Elgamal, A., and Shao,
L. (2012) “Effect of discrete columns on
shear stress distribution in liquefiable soil”,
Proceedings GeoCongress 2012, State of the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:58 30 May 2016
Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE GSP 255, Oakland, CA, pp. 1918-1927.
41. Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1966) “Liquefaction
of Saturated Sands During Cyclic Loading”,
Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM6, pp. 105-
134.
42. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1967) “Analysis
of Soil Liquefaction: Niigata Earthquake”,
Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM3, pp. 83-108.
43. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971) “Simplified
Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential”, Journal Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9.
44. Seed, H.B. and Booker, J.R. (1977)
“Stabilization of Potentially Liquefiable Sand
Deposits Using Gravel Drains”, Journal Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE,
Vol. 103, No. GT7, pp. 757-768.
[12] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
45. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S.,
Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M.,
Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J.D., Kayen,
R.E., and Faris, A. (2003) “Recent Advances
in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified
and Consistent Framework”, 26th Annual
ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring
Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S Queen
Mary, Long Beach, California.
46. Schmertmann, J.H. (1987) Discussion on
“Time-dependent strength gain in freshly
deposited or densified sand by J.K. Mitchell
and Z.V. Solymar", Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, pp. 117(9), pp. 171-176.
47. Whitman, R.V. (1971) “Resistance of Soil
to Liquefaction and Settlement”, Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. Vol. 11, No. 4. December.
48. Yasuda, S., Ishihara, K., Harada, K. and
Shinkawa, N. (1996). “Effect of improvement
on ground subsidence due to liquefaction”,
Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Special Issue,
January, pp. 99-107.
49. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango,
I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn,
W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara,
K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F.,
III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki,
Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed,
R.B., Stokoe, K.H., II. (2001) “Liquefaction
resistance of soils: Summary report from
the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
workshop on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils”, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10),
pp. 817-833.