20-Seismic Ground Improvement of Soft Soil Sites With Compacted Soil Cement Panels and Deep Soil Mixing Panels

SEISMIC GROUND IMPROVEMENT OF SOFT SOIL SITES WITH COMPACTED
SOIL-CEMENT PANELS AND DEEP SOIL MIXING PANELS

____________________________________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State University, Fullerton

____________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
in
Civil Engineering
____________________________________
By
Prakash Chandra Khanal
Thesis Committee Approval by:
Chair: Binod Tiwari, Ph.D., P.E., Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Co-Chair: Beena Ajmera, Ph.D.,Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
David Naish, Ph.D., P.E., Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Fall, 2015
ProQuest Number: 1605566
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 1605566
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ABSTRACT
Based on previous studies, ground reinforcement methods such as stone columns,
jet grouting, dynamic compaction, soil cement mixing, etc. are commonly used against
potential liquefaction, settlement and to improve the bearing capacity of soil. However,
additional benefits of ground improvement such as the possible reduction in seismic
ground shaking are not usually considered in the practice or in the current International
Building Code (IBC). As seismic damage is a major concern, soil-cement mixing was
found to be the most effective in reducing of ground shaking levels. Among soil-cement
mixing, compacted soil-cement panels have been considered as one among the most
effective improvement techniques for seismic remediation. Past research shows that
replacement of a portion of soil up to certain depth using compacted soil-cement mixture
works effectively in improving soft clays and loose dry sand. However, field compaction
effort requires some preparation and additional cost. The present study compares the
results obtained through deep soil mixing panels with the results obtained with
compacted clay based soil-cement panel. The compacted soil-cement panels and deep soil
mixing panels corresponding to replacement ratios of 10% and 20% were prepared and
cured for 14 days. A series of small-scale shake table tests were performed using models
with unimproved and improved soil with reinforcement panels at different seismic
shaking levels. The research results show that compacted soil-cement panels are more
effective in reducing seismic amplification than deep soil mixing panels. The compacted
ii
soil cement panels could reduce the seismic amplification by 12% and 25%, whereas the
reduction for deep soil mixing panels was 9% and 15% for the replacement ratios of 10%
and 20%, respectively.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................... xv
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 3
3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 20
Study Material ................................................................................................... 20

Soil Characterization ......................................................................................... 20
Index Properties .......................................................................................... 20
Compaction Characteristics ......................................................................... 21
Consolidation Characteristics ...................................................................... 21
Shear Strength Properties ........................................................................... 22
Soil Modification Using Cement ........................................................................ 23
Preparation and Curing of Soil-cement Samples .......................................... 24
Unconfined Compressive Strength Test ...................................................... 27
Preparation of Model ......................................................................................... 29
Sample Preparation ..................................................................................... 30
Consolidation.............................................................................................. 31
Construction of Compacted Soil-Cement Panel.................................................. 32
Construction of Wooden Mold .................................................................... 32
Soil-Cement Mixing.................................................................................... 33
Compaction ................................................................................................ 34
Curing......................................................................................................... 34
Construction of Deep Soil Mixing Panel ............................................................ 35
Construction of Metal Mold ........................................................................ 35
Soil-Cement Mixing.................................................................................... 36
Casting ....................................................................................................... 37
Curing......................................................................................................... 37
iv
Experimental Modelling on Shake Table ........................................................... 38
Shake Table Testing .................................................................................... 39
Soil-Cement Panel Replacement ................................................................. 41
4. TEST RESULTS ............................................................................................... 43
Soil Characterization ......................................................................................... 43

Index Properties .......................................................................................... 43
Compaction Characteristics ......................................................................... 43
Consolidation Characteristics ...................................................................... 44
Drained and Undrained Shear Strength under Static Conditions .................. 45
Soil Modification Using Cement ........................................................................ 48
Unconfined Compressive Strength .............................................................. 48
Modulus of Elasticity .................................................................................. 52
Ground Motion Improvement ............................................................................ 53
Amplification of Base Motion ..................................................................... 53
Soil-cement Panel Replacement .................................................................. 55
Comparison with Loose Sand ...................................................................... 64
5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 67
6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 71
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 73
A. SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................... 73

C. GROUND MOTION AMPLIFICATION.................................................... 76
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4-1. Basic geotechnical properties of Granular Kaolin clay ..................................... 43
4-2. Standard Proctor Compaction Results .............................................................. 43
4-3. Amplification factors for different input motions for unimproved soft clay
profile .............................................................................................................. 54
A.1. Liquid limit results for Granular Kaolin clay.................................................... 73
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1. Schematic of the Instrumentation (Turan et al., 2009) ...................................... 7
2-2. The influence of the box boundaries on the dynamic response

(Turan et al., 2009) .......................................................................................... 7
2-3. Measured and calculated acceleration time-histories and amplification factors

at the input motion intensities of (a) 0.12g, (b) 0.35g, (c) 0.55g and (d) 0.7g
(Turan et al., 2009) .......................................................................................... 10
2-4. Soil settlements for simple sine wave motion at peak acceleration of 0.1g (a)
at free field surface, (b) at passive zone surface (c) at north-east corner of
shallow foundation, (d) at south-west corner of shallow foundation (Yang et
al., 2010) ......................................................................................................... 12
2-5. The stress-strain relationship for treated and untreated soil at different initial
water and Cement contents (28 days of curing) (Pakbaz and Alipour, 2012) .... 13
2-6. Variation of unconfined compressive strength with cement content (Consoli

et.al, 2007)....................................................................................................... 14
2-7. Variation of unconfined compression strength with porosity (Consoli et al.,

2007) ............................................................................................................... 15
2-8. Amplification factor (AF) vs. replacement ratio (RR) for the shaking observed
during the Northridge Earthquake in different tests (Tiwari et al., 2014) .......... 16
2-9. Overall peak acceleration reduction ratio on top of the building with the
installation of the soil-cement panel at the RR of 25% (Tiwari et al., 2014) ..... 17
2-10. Average amplification factor (AF) vs. replacement ratio (RR) for different
shaking conditions (Upadhaya et al., 2015) ..................................................... 19
3-1. Consolidation device ....................................................................................... 22
3-2. Simple shear device ......................................................................................... 23
vii
3-3. Deep soil Mixing (a) Preparation of mix (b) Casting sample ........................... 25
3-4. Deep soil mixing: Curing process .................................................................... 25
3-5. Preparation of clay model for UCS samples ..................................................... 26
3-6. Soil cement samples (a) casting inside the clay profile (b) the curing process
(c) and (d) samples removed for testing UCS after the curing process .............. 27
3-7. Unconfined Compression Testing Device ........................................................ 28
3-8. Failed soil cement samples: (a) casted inside clay profile (b) Casted inside
plastic mold ..................................................................................................... 28
3-9. Preparation of bottom drainage with outlet....................................................... 29
3-10. Preparation of side drains with 5mm thick geotextile ....................................... 30
3-11. Preparation of slurried clay sample for the model............................................. 31
3-12. Granular kaolin clay model (a) before consolidation (b) during consolidation
(c) excess pore water during consolidation (d) and, after consolidation ............ 32
3-13. Wooden molds used for soil-cement panel construction (a) 20.5x 20.5x12 in
(b) 24.2x24.2x12 in ......................................................................................... 33
3-14. Mixing of Soil, Cement and Water................................................................... 33
3-15. (a) Compaction process (20% RR); (b) Compacted soil-cement mix (10% RR) 34
3-16. Curing process of the compacted soil-cement panel ......................................... 35
3-17. Metal molds for panel construction (a) 20.5x 20.5x12 in (b) 24.2x24.2x12 in .. 36
3-18. Mixing of Soil, Cement and Water for deep sol mixing samples ...................... 36
3-19. Deep Soil Mixing: (a) after excavation process (b) after casting (10% RR) ...... 37
3-20. Curing process inside the clay for deep sol mixing samples ............................. 38
3-21. Shake table at California State University, Fullerton ........................................ 38
3-22. Installation of accelerometers........................................................................... 39
3-23. Shake table experiment .................................................................................... 40
viii
3-24. Excavation process (a) 10% RR (b) 20 % RR ................................................. 42
3-25. Compacted soil cement panel replacement (10% RR) (a) Before and (b) After. ….42
3-26. Deep Soil mixing panel replacement (RR 10%) (a) Before and (b) After ......... 42
4-1. Pressure-void ratio relationship for granular kaolin clay................................... 45
4-2. Shear stress versus shear strain curves for Granular Kaolin clay at different
normal stresses ................................................................................................ 46
4-3. Pore water pressure versus shear strain curves for Granular Kaolin at different
normal stresses ................................................................................................ 46
4-4. Undrained shear stress ratio versus shear strain curves at different normal
stresses ............................................................................................................ 47
4-5. Shear envelopes for granular kaolin clay from direct simple shear test ............. 48
4-6. Stress-strain behavior of the cement treated soil (cast and cured inside mold)
at various cement days of curing ...................................................................... 49
4-7. Unconfined compressive strength of cement treated soil (cast and cured inside
mold) at various curing period ........................................................................ 49
4-8. Stress-strain behavior of the cement treated (cast and cured inside clay) soil at
various days of curing ...................................................................................... 50
4-9. Unconfined compressive strength of cement treated soil (cast and cured inside
clay) at various curing period .......................................................................... 51
4-10. Unconfined compressive strength on various methods of curing ...................... 52
4-11. Modulus of elasticity of samples on various methods of curing ........................ 53
4-12. Amplification of sinusoidal input motion with amplitude of 0.1g and

frequency of 1 Hz at the ground surface ........................................................... 54
4-13. Ground motion reduction with compacted soil-cement panel replacement for
sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz ..................... 55
4-14. Ground motion reduction with Deep soil mixing panel replacement for
sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz ..................... 56
4-15. Comparison of ground acceleration with base acceleration for sinusoidal

motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz without replacement ...... 56
ix
motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz at 10% RR-Compacted
Soil Cement Panel ........................................................................................... 57

motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz at 20% RR- Compacted
soil cement panel ............................................................................................. 57

motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz at 10% RR- Deep Soil
Mixing ............................................................................................................. 58

motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz at 20% RR- Deep Soil
Mixing ............................................................................................................. 58
4-20. Comparison of amplification factor at amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of

1Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for both methods ................................... 59
4-21. Comparison of normalized amplification factor for sinusoidal motion of

amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for
both methods ................................................................................................... 60
4-22. Comparison of normalized amplification factor for sinusoidal motion with

amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz, 2Hz and 3Hz 10% RR and 20% RR . 61
4-23. Overall reduction in normalized amplification factor for compacted soil

cement panel at different replacement ratios and various input motions ........... 62
4-24. Overall reduction in normalized amplification factor for deep soil mixing at
different replacement ratios and various input motions .................................... 63
4-25. Comparison of normalized amplification factor for both methods at different

replacement ratios and various input motions ................................................... 64
4-26. Comparison of normalized amplification factor with replacement ratio in

loose sand and soft clay profiles ...................................................................... 66
A.1. Flow curve for Liquid Limit test for Granular Kaolin clay ............................... 73
A.2. Standard Proctor Compaction Curve for Granular Kaolin Clay ........................ 74
A.3. Pressure-void ratio curve for Granular Kaolin .................................................. 75
B.1. Comparison of ground acceleration with base acceleration for sinusoidal

motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz without replacement ...... 76
x
B.2. Comparison of ground acceleration for compacted soil cement panel with 0%
RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.1g and
frequency of 2Hz ............................................................................................. 76
frequency of 3Hz ............................................................................................. 77
frequency of 1Hz ............................................................................................. 77
frequency of 2Hz ............................................................................................. 77
frequency of 3Hz ............................................................................................. 78
frequency of 1Hz ............................................................................................. 78
frequency of 2Hz ............................................................................................. 78
frequency of 3Hz ............................................................................................. 79
frequency of 2Hz ............................................................................................. 79
frequency of 3Hz ............................................................................................. 79
B.12. Comparison of ground acceleration for deep soil mixing with 0% RR, 10%
RR and 20% RR for sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency
of 1Hz ............................................................................................................. 80
xi
of 2Hz ............................................................................................................. 80
of 3Hz ............................................................................................................. 80
of 1Hz ............................................................................................................. 81
of 2Hz ............................................................................................................. 81
of 3Hz ............................................................................................................. 81
of 1Hz ............................................................................................................. 82
of 2Hz ............................................................................................................. 82
of 3Hz ............................................................................................................. 82
of 2Hz ............................................................................................................. 83
of 3Hz ............................................................................................................. 83
B.23. Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of

1Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for both methods. .................................. 84

xii
B.26. Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.2g and frequency

of1Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for both methods................................ 85







B.34.Comparison of Normalized amplification factor with amplitude of 0.1g and

frequency of 1Hz, 2Hz and 3Hz for both methods ............................................ 89
B.35. Comparison of Normalized amplification factor with amplitude of 0.2g and



frequency of 1 Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for both methods ............. 91


xiii





xiv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is a great pleasure to acknowledge the helpful hands who made this thesis
possible. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my faculty advisor, Dr. Binod
Tiwari, Professor of Civil Engineering at California State University, Fullerton, for his
proficient guidance, constructive comments, and encouragement with an excellent
atmosphere to conduct my research study. His continuous support made it possible to
complete this study smoothly.
I am also grateful to Dr. Beena Ajmera, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at
California State University, Fullerton, for her valuable assistance in operating and
understanding lab test and data analysis. I would like to thank Dr. David Naish, Assistant
Professor of Civil Engineering at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) for his
valuable suggestions during the experimental process for this thesis.
I would like to thank my senior Sneha Upadhaya, former graduate student at CSUF
for her guidance during initial phases. I am also grateful to undergraduate student
Michael Mann (California State University, Fullerton) and international students Caroline
Sales, Julia C. Tricca and Mateus G. Romanielo for their help during summer 2015. I also
would like to extend my graduate to our Lab Technicians, Hector Zazueta and Jon
Woodland, for their assistance.
Last but not least, I take the opportunity to thank my family for always standing by
my side cheering and supporting.
xv
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Improving the engineering qualities of soil by soil modification has been
implemented in practice for a number of years. To mitigate the influence of geotechnical
hazards and the unsatisfactory performance of existing soil, various soil improvement
techniques have been studied to evaluate the effectiveness of the different methods
available.
Construction over soft soil sites poses serious problems in the performance of
infrastructure, such as huge settlement, lower foundation support and large deformations
during a seismic event. Therefore, there is a strong need to develop efficient and cost
effective measures to reduce the related risk induced by earthquakes on such soils.
Significant damage and loss of life have been reported during several earthquake events
(1985 Mexico City, 1989 Loma Prieta, 1994 Northridge, and 1995 Kobe earthquakes
among the others). The amplification of ground motion plays an important role in
increasing seismic damage.
Different ground reinforcement methods such as stone columns, jet grouting and
deep soil mixing are commonly used in practice to minimize the seismic damage at soft
soil sites. Many studies reported that these methods have been found to be very effective
in increasing the foundation support, excavation support, reducing earthquake induced
deformations, and for liquefaction mitigation (Porbaha et al., 1999; Durgunoglu et al.,
2
2001, 2004; Ou et al., 2007; and Guetif et al., 2007). However, the effect of such ground
improvement techniques on seismic ground shaking has not been studied in detail.
One of the most effective methods of improvement of soft soil sites is soil
modification using cement. Soil-cement mixes are widely used in soil improvement for
embankment and soil stabilization to reduce seismic effect on infrastructure, soil-
reinforcement either through deep mixing or soil-cement panels and others. Previous
studies at California State University, Fullerton have suggested that the use of stiff soil-
cement panels as ground reinforcement can significantly reduce the seismic amplification
potential on loose sand (Tiwari et al., 2014) and on soft clay (Upadhaya et al., 2015).
Such approach indicated that the compacted soil-cement mix panels could be effectively
used in reducing the seismic ground shaking levels, especially in soft soil sites.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of deep soil
mixing panels in reducing the seismic ground shaking intensity on soft clay sites. The
compacted soil-cement panels and deep soil mixing panels corresponding to replacement
ratios of 10% and 20% were prepared and the results through deep soil mixing were
compared with the results obtained with compacted clay based soil-cement panels.
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Soil modification has been studied and practiced for over a century and numerous
methods have been studied for different types of soils and additives. Local site effects
can cause substantially different amounts of structural damage in the same general area,
but, in general, softer geologic conditions may cause a larger amplification of the seismic
motions. Therefore, understanding the effects of local site conditions on the strong
ground motion is of particular importance for the mitigation of seismic damage as well as
future earthquake resistant design (Rayhani and El Naggar, 2007).
Some aspects of ground motion amplification during the 19 September 1985
Michoacan Earthquake, in and near Mexico City were studied by Singh et al. (1988). The
analysis of strong motion data recorded in Mexico City showed that the ground motions
in the lake bed zone amplified 8 to 50 times with respect to a hill zone site in Ciudad
Universitaria. Ground motion at lake bed sites in Mexico City appeared to be amplified
75 times with respect to hard-rock coastal sites at equal distances from the source. Such
high ground motion amplification was recognized as one of the major causes of the huge
destruction during this earthquake.
Different researchers in the past have performed studies on the mitigation of
seismic damage potential of weak soil sites. The effectiveness of various ground
improvement methods in reducing the earthquake induced ground failures has been well
4
documented. Durgunoglu et al. (2001, 2004) investigated the performance of ground
improvement measures against liquefaction, at Carrefoursa Shopping Center in Izmit,
Turkey, during the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake. Soil improvement was performed at the
shopping center site to reduce the anticipated large settlements in soft cohesive soils and
to mitigate liquefaction-related ground damage from the loose sands. Parts of the site
were preloaded with surcharge fills and wick drains were installed to improve the
consolidation of clayey soils. Jet grout columns were also installed across the site to
provide extra bearing support and prevent liquefaction of the loose sandy soils. The jet
grout columns were prepared at a water/cement ratio of 1:1. Compressive strength values
of the 7 day-old jet grout columns varied between 1.4 MPa and 6.7 MPa with an average
value of 2.9 MPa. Following the earthquake, field reconnaissance indicated that excessive
settlement or liquefaction-related damage did not occur at the improved site. However,
significant liquefaction-related damages in the vicinity of the site, including settlements,
sand boils, and lateral spreading were observed in adjacent areas that were not yet treated.
Guetif et al. (2007) demonstrated a significant improvement in the Young’s
modulus of soft clay subjected to vibrocompacted column installation. In their paper, they
stated that the improvement of the soft soil was due to two factors. The first factor was
the inclusion of stiffer column materials such as gravels, crushed stones, etc. and the
second factor was the densification of the surrounding soft soil during the installation of
the vibrocompacted soil column and subsequent consolidation process occurring in the
soft soil before the actual loading.
Deep mixing technology has been applied as a countermeasure for liquefaction
induced damage for road embankments, river dikes, excavations and open cuts, building
5
foundations, underground openings such as tunnels and ducts, and the protection of tank
foundations on soft reclaimed ground. Deep mixing is an in-situ soil stabilization
technique based on the solidification principle that mixes in-situ soil with a cementitious
reagent, mainly cement, injected as a slurry or powder to improve the engineering
characteristics of the liquefiable ground. According to Porbaha et.al (1999), there are
several uses of soil improvement: (1) It increases the bearing resistance against shearing
deformation; (2) It prevents the uplift of underground facilities resulting from
liquefaction; (3) It prevents seepage by creating a cutoff wall; and (4) It retains the soil
behind an excavation.
Ou et al. (2008) conducted a study on the analysis and design of partial ground
improvement in deep excavations. Excessive wall deflection and ground settlement,
which frequently damage the surrounding structures, were the most common problems
encountered during the deep excavations in soft clays since the excavation tends to move
laterally inward when the soil is excavated. Strengthening the soil in front of the
excavation wall by jet grouting or mechanical deep mixing method is one of the
preventive measures to reduce the inclined lateral movement of excavation. In this study,
the ground columns were constructed with the deep mixing pile method and installed at
the excavation site. These columns resulted in significant reductions in the ground
settlements as well as the wall deflection.
Several research studies conducted in this field have reflected that such ground
improvement methods are effective ways to minimize the earthquake induced
deformations and potential liquefaction, but the effect of ground improvement on the
possible ground motion reduction has not been studied in detail. However, Porbaha et al.
6
(1999) reported that lattice type ground improvement using deep mixing performed well
during strong shaking.
In the field of geotechnical earthquake engineering, achieving an improved
understanding of phenomenon like site amplification, dynamic soil behavior and soil–
structure interaction has significant importance. The studies related to geotechnical
earthquake engineering consist of various approaches and methodologies such as
laboratory tests, reduced-scale model tests, numerical and analytical models and full-
scale field tests. Scaled model tests can provide information about ground amplification,
change in pore water pressures, non-linear behavior of soils, occurrence of failure, and
soil-structure interaction; so scaled model tests can be beneficial for seismic studies. Full-
scale field experiments have the advantage of simulating realistic site conditions;
whereas, model tests play an important role in a controlled environment. Generally,
scaled seismic model tests are performed either at N-G in a centrifuge or at 1-G using a
shaking table (Turan et al., 2009). A series of shaking table tests and numerical analyses
were performed at The University of Western Ontario to study the performance of the
laminar box and dynamic behavior of a clayey soil. A total of seven accelerometers
(ACC1–ACC7) and one laser displacement transducer (DISP1) were used to monitor the
response of the model clay deposits as presented in Figure 2-1.
Soil amplification and non-linear soil behavior was studied using sinusoidal
displacement time-histories at 10 Hz with various intensities ranging from 0.12 to 0.7g.
The study result reflects the insignificant difference between the response on the middle
of the box (ACC1, ACC2, and ACC3) and 50 mm away from the box boundary (ACC4)
suggesting that the flexible boundaries of the laminar box functioned appropriately
7
(Figure 2-2). Moreover, it was noted that the boundary conditions did not affect the
results at all.
Figure 2-1: Schematic of the Instrumentation (Source: Turan et al., 2009).
Figure 2-2: The influence of the box boundaries on the dynamic response
(Source: Turan et al., 2009)
8
Amplification factors were calculated using the recorded response acceleration
and were compared with the numerical amplification factors. A good agreement between
the experimental and numerical amplification factors for the various acceleration time-
histories was observed (Figure 2-3).

9
Figure 2-3: Measured and calculated acceleration time-histories and amplification factors
at the input motion intensities of (a) 0.12g, (b) 0.35g, (c) 0.55g and (d) 0.7g (Source:
Turan et al., 2009)
10
Prasad et al. (2004) reported that research using the shaking table has provided
valuable insight into liquefaction, post-earthquake settlement, foundation response and
lateral earth pressure problems. Shake table tests have the advantage of a well-controlled
large amplitude, multi-axis input motions and easier experimental measurements and
their use is justified if the purpose of the test is to validate a numerical model or to
understand the basic failure mechanisms. A study was performed by Gao et al. (2011) to
study the dynamic interactive behavior of soil–pile foundations in liquefying ground
under different shaking frequencies and amplitudes. The soil profile consisted of a clayey
layer (300 mm thick) over liquefiable sand (1200 mm thick) over clay (400 mm thick).
The model was tested on a shake table with a series of El Centro earthquake motions with
peak accelerations ranging from 0.15g to 0.50g, and time step from 0.006 to 0.02 s. These
tests provided the first available data on soil–pile interaction during soil liquefaction
under realistic time histories of medium and intense earthquake shaking.
A series of shaking table tests were performed at the Public Works Research
Institute (PWRI), Tsukuba, Japan, to model the behavior of shallow foundation during
earthquakes. The performance of a model shallow foundation, resting at the surface of a
laminar box filled with dry sand, excited at various levels of amplitude exhibited by real
accelerograms, was studied. Paolucci et.al, (2008) reported that the approach was found
to provide very satisfactory results in predicting the rocking behavior of the system and
the seismic actions transmitted to the superstructure.
At the University of Nevada, Reno, another research study was carried out to
evaluate the settlement and soil-structure interaction under seismic loading of a dry sand.
A laminar soil box having internal dimensions of 10 ft x 10 ft x 6 ft was filled with dry
11
sand and a square foundation (2 ft x 2 ft x 3 ft) with an attached light structure of three
lumped masses was embedded in the middle of the soil box. The box was placed on a
biaxial, multiple shake table and tested with different input motions including a series of
simple sine waves and the El Centro earthquake motions scaled up to 0.5g. Test data
were collected on the acceleration at different soil depths, the settlement of the
foundation, the free field soil surface, the deformation and the strain along the soil box
boundary as well as the relative density of dry sand at different input motions. Significant
differential settlement due to the homogenous quality of large amount of the dry sand
deposited in the laminar soil box was observed as shown in Figure 2-4 (Yang et al.,
2010).
12
Figure 2-4: Soil settlements for simple sine wave motion at peak acceleration of 0.1g (a)
at free field surface, (b) at passive zone surface (c) at north-east corner of shallow
foundation, (d) at south-west corner of shallow foundation (Yang et al., 2010).
In addition, Pakbaz and Alipour (2012) studied the effect of the addition of
cement on the geotechnical properties of Iranian clay. Portland cement was added to
natural lean clay in different percentages, i.e., 4, 6, 8 and 10 at three different water
contents, i.e., 30, 48 and 70%, and the samples were cured for 7, 14 and 28 days.
Unconfined compression tests showed that the addition of cement increased the strength
and stiffness of soil and that the increase was higher for higher cement contents (Figure
2-5). However, at higher cement and lower water contents, the treated specimen became
more brittle.
13
Figure 2-5: The stress-strain relationship for treated and untreated soil at different initial
water and cement contents (28 days of curing) (Source: Pakbaz and Alipour, 2012)
Consoli et al. (2007) conducted a study to evaluate the impact of the amount of
cement, the porosity and moisture content on the strength of artificially cemented sandy
soil. A number of unconfined compression tests, Consolidated Undrained tri-axial tests
and matric suction measurements were carried out on the cylindrical samples that were
molded, cured for 6 days and submerged in water for 24 hours after curing. It was
observed that when increasing the cement content, the unconfined compressive strength
increased linearly and the rate of strength gain elevated with an increase in the dry
density (Figure 2-6). In addition, the strength increased exponentially with a decrease in
the porosity (Figure 2-7).

14
Figure 2-6: Variation of unconfined compressive strength with cement content

(Source: Consoli et.al, 2007).
15
Figure 2-7: Variation of unconfined compression strength with porosity

(Source: Consoli et al., 2007)
Among others, Tiwari et al. (2014) utilized the strength and stiffness properties of
soil-cement mixtures and investigated the effect of soil-cement mix panel reinforcement
on reducing ground motions using a shake table. Natural silty sand (SM) was mixed with
various proportions of cement to identify the optimum proportion of cement for soil
modification (Tiwari and Das, 2013). Annular compacted soil-cement panels were
prepared in wooden molds corresponding to two different replacement ratios and cured
for 14 days. A loose sand deposit of dimensions 1.2 m x 1.2 m x 0.6 m was modeled in a
Plexiglas box and tri-axial accelerometers were set at four different locations to measure
the ground motions within the model, which was shaken with different base motions with
a) no soil replacement, b) 10% and c) 25% soil-cement panel replacement area by surface
area. The applied motions included a recording from the Northridge Earthquake as well
as a series of sinusoidal waves of different frequencies and amplitudes. The research

16
result showed an approximately 10% and 30% reduction in ground motion amplification
factor for 10% and 25% soil-cement panel replacement ratio, respectively. Figure 2-8
shows the reduction in amplification factor at different replacement ratios for the
Northridge earthquake ground motion at Station 90095.
Moreover, a 50 cm tall 3-story building constructed using 1 cm diameter steel bar
columns at four corners and 0.4 m by 0.4 m Plexiglas slabs, covered with walls made of
poster boards, was modeled on top of the soil without any improvement and with the
implementation of soil-cement panel at 25% RR. It was observed that the maximum
acceleration on top of the building reduced from 1.16g at no replacement to 0.92g with a
replacement ratio of 25%, as shown in Figure 2-9.
Figure 2-8: Amplification factor (AF) versus replacement ratio (RR) for the shaking
observed during the Northridge Earthquake (Source: Tiwari et al., 2014)
17
Figure 2-9: Overall peak acceleration reduction ratio on top of the building with the
installation of the soil-cement panel at the RR of 25% (Source: Tiwari et al., 2014)
As shown by Tiwari et al. (2014), the stiffening effect of the panels contributes to
the reduction in seismic ground shaking levels in loose sand profiles. This indicates that
ground improvement using soil-cement mix panels can have a beneficial influence on
seismic response and can be a potentially cost-effective earthquake mitigation solution.
However, the study was performed on loose dry sand and a different material (SM) was
used to prepare soil-cement mix panels.
In addition, Upadhaya et al. (2015) used stiff soil-cement mix panels in reducing
the seismic shaking intensity of soft clay sites. Physical shake table model testing was
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of stiff soil-cement panels as ground
reinforcement in order to reduce the seismic ground shaking intensities of soft soil sites.
Kaolin clay was mixed with 10% of cement for the construction of the soil-cement panel.
The soil-cement mixtures were prepared at the water content equal to optimum moisture
content of the parent soil. Two different compacted soil-cement panels of 30 cm depth
18
corresponding to replacement ratios of 16% and 30% were prepared and cured for 14
days. For the experimental modeling on the shake table, a Plexiglas container with
internal dimensions of 1.08 m x 1.02 m x 0.92 m was used. The Plexiglas box was filled
with slurried clay prepared at the liquid limit. The clay was, then, consolidated to a
vertical stress of 10 kPa. Tri-axial accelerometers were set at different locations to
measure the resulting acceleration when the model was shaken with a series of sinusoidal
waves for 20 cycles at different frequencies (1, 2, 3 Hz) and amplitudes (0.1, 0.2, 0.24,
0.3g). The center of the clay was, then, excavated and was replaced with the soil-cement
panel. Accelerometers were set on the same locations and the same intensities and modes
of shaking were repeated for RRs of 16% and 30%. An amplification of the base shaking
was observed at the ground surface as the waves travelled through the clay. Reduction in
ground motion was observed by the use of soil-cement panels at the replacement ratios of
16% and 30%. The accelerations on ground surface were compared with the base
accelerations and the amplification factor (AF) was calculated for no replacement, 16%
replacement and 30% replacement conditions. From the experimental study results, it was
observed that soil-cement panels can be effectively utilized to reduce seismic shaking. It
was observed that use of shallow soil-cement panels could reduce the seismic
amplification potential significantly, as high as 45% for the replacement ratio of 16% and
54% for the replacement ratio of 30%, as shown in Figure 2-10. Thus, there is a need to
perform detailed studies on other methods of soil-cement mixing.
The current study is an extension of the work completed by Upadhyaya et al.
(2015), in soft clay profiles. Soil-cement panels and deep soil mixing panels are
constructed by modifying the soft clay material and are used as partial ground
19
replacement. The effectiveness of using such panels in reducing seismic ground shaking
intensity is studied.
Figure 2-10: Average amplification factor (AF) versus replacement ratios (RR) for
different shaking conditions (Source: Upadhaya et al., 2015).
20
CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY
Study Material
For this research, granular kaolin clay, commercially available as Hydrite Flat DS,
was used both for both the lab test specimens and to construct the soil-cement and deep
soil mixing panels. For the soil-cement panels used in this study, high early strength
cement, Type III, manufactured by the California Portland Co. was used. This type of
cement is used to reduce the initial setting time. De-ionized water was used for all the
laboratory tests and tap water was used for the shake table modeling.
Soil Characterization
Several laboratory tests have been conducted to characterize the geotechnical
properties of kaolin clay that was used for the shake table. Various tests were done in the
laboratory to determine the index properties, compaction characteristics, consolidation
characteristics, and drained and undrained shear strength of the granular kaolin clay. The
details of these tests are given in the following subsections.
Index Properties
The liquid limit of the clay, as well as the plastic limit, were found using the
ASTM Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils (ASTM D 4318-10). These properties of the soil were used to find the plasticity
index. The clay fraction and activity were determined by performing hydrometer tests
21
following the ASTM Standard Test Method for Particle- Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM
D422-63).
Compaction Characteristics
The optimum moisture content and the maximum dry density of the clay was
determined by using Standard Proctor Compaction test, following the ASTM Standard
Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil using Standard Effort
(12 400ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3))(ASTM D698-07). The optimum moisture content was
used when making the soil-cement panels.
Consolidation Characteristics
One-dimensional consolidation test (Figure 3-1) was performed following the
ASTM Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of
Saturated Cohesive Soils using Controlled- Strain Loading (ASTM D4186-98) to obtain
various parameters such as the coefficient of consolidation (cv), pressure-settlement
relations, compression index (c c), and recompression index (cr) of the slurried clay
sample.
22
Figure 3-1: Consolidation device.
Shear Strength Properties
To determine the drained and undrained static shear strength parameters,
monotonic simple shear tests was performed (Figure 3-2). The tests were performed on
the slurried clay sample prepared at the moisture content equal to the liquid limit. The
monotonic simple shear test was conducted following the ASTM Standard Test Method
for Unconsolidated Undrained Direct Simple Shear Testing of Cohesive Soils (ASTM D
6528-00).
23
Figure 3-2: Simple shear device.
Soil Modification Using Cement
Two different methods of ground modification was used to investigate the effect
of seismic shaking on ground surface. These are as outlined below:
 Compacted Soil Cement Panel. For the compacted soil cement panel, soil-
cement mixtures were prepared by adding 10% cement to the soil at water
content equal to optimum moisture content of the soil, as determined from the
standard proctor compaction test. Based on the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) test results from previous studies (Upadhaya et al., 2015), soil
24
with 10% cement was identified as the strongest soil-cement mix for the
panel.
 Deep soil mixing. Different soil-cement mixtures were prepared for the deep
soil mixing samples. A ratio of 1:1.9:2.9 of cement, clay and water was
selected as the soil-cement mixture for the shake table tests. The mix was
chosen based on workability of the soil-cement mixture and to minimize the
internal and surface voids at interface between the soil and the panels.
Preparation and Curing of Soil Cement Samples
Two series of cylindrical soil-cement samples were prepared to investigate the
possible effects of curing environment on the soil-cement strength. Unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) tests were performed on the following soil-cement
specimens. The samples are casted and cured in following two different ways:
1. Cylindrical samples cast and cured in a plastic mold outside the clay profile
2. Cylindrical samples cast and cured inside the clay profile.
The details of these two casting and curing processes is given in the following sections.
Cylindrical samples cast and cured in a plastic mold outside clay profile. In this
approach, plastic molds of 2 inches in diameter and 4 inches in height were filled with the
soil-cement slurry (Figure 3-3) using a table spoon. Fifteen soil-cement samples were
prepared and allowed to cure for 3 days, 7 days, 9 days, 14 days, and 28 days. During the
curing period, the soil-cement samples were wrapped with moist paper towels and stored
in air tight containers, as shown in Figure 3-4.

25
Figure 3-3: (a) Deep soil mixing and (b) Casted in a plastic Mold.
Figure 3-4: Curing process.
Cylindrical samples cast and cured inside clay profile. In the first stage, a clay
model was prepared to cast the samples. The kaolin clay was mixed with water content
equal to liquid limit of clay to obtain an initial liquidity index of one. A plastic container
with dimensions of 21 in x 14 in x 16 in was filled with the slurried clay after providing a
drainage layer at the bottom. The clay was consolidated to vertical stress of 10 kPa
(Figure 3-5).
26
Figure 3-5: Preparation of clay model for UCS samples.
In the second stage, the cylindrical samples, 2 inch in diameter and 4 inches in
height, were casted and cured inside the clay profile. For this approach, 15 holes 2 inches
diameter were made using hollow metal tubes. The soil inside the tube was excavated
using a spatula and spoons. The excavated soil was replaced with the soil-cement slurry.
Once the soil-cement slurry was filled, the metal tubes are removed from the clay and
allowed the samples to cure for 3 days, 7 days, 9 days, 14 days and 28 days, as shown in
Figure 3-6.
27
Figure 3-6: Soil cement samples (a) casted inside the clay profile; (b) the curing process;
(c) and (d) Samples removed for testing UCS after the curing process.
Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
The unconfined compressive strength tests were performed following the ASTM
Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil (ASTM
D2166-06) on the above mentioned soil-cement samples after the curing period. Figure
3.7 shows the unconfined compression testing device that was utilized to perform the
tests. Axial load was applied to the sample until it failed. The rate of axial strain was
adjusted to 0.5%/min for all the tests. Pictures of the failed samples casted inside the clay
profile and plastic mold are shown in Figure 3-8 (a) and (b), respectively.
28
Figure 3-7: Unconfined compression testing device.
Figure 3-8: Failed soil-cement samples: (a) casted inside clay profile; and
(b) casted inside plastic mold.
29
Preparation of Clay Model
A Plexiglas container of internal dimension of 40.5 in. x 42.5 in. was used for the
preparation of model. The container was fixed to the shake table using eleven bolts.
Bottom drainage and side drainage was provided for the consolidation process of the
slurried kaolin clay (Figure 3-3-9). The bottom drainage consisted of a 3 inch thick gravel
layer placed at 1% slope, overlaid by a layer of geotextile. The geotextile was used as a
filter material between the clay and drainage layer (Figure 3-10). A 5 mm thick geotextile
was provided on the side for drainage to expedite the consolidation process. The water
collected at the base of the box was drained to a central perforated pipe and was released
through an outlet at the front of the box.
Outlet
Figure 3-9: Preparation of bottom drainage with outlet.
30
Figure 3-10: Preparation of side drain with 5 mm thick geotextile.
Sample Preparation
The slurried soil sample was prepared by mixing granular kaolin clay with a water
content equal to the liquid limit, i.e., 43%. The mixing was done in large tubs using
shovels (Figure 3-11). The mixing was continued until a homogeneous mixture was
obtained. The wet clay was then placed inside the Plexiglas box on top of gravel and a
layer of geotextile in several lifts to obtain the required depth of 24 inches.

31
Figure 3-11: Preparation of slurried clay sample for the model.
Consolidation
To simulate field stress conditions, the slurried clay sample was allowed to
consolidate to a normal stress of 10 kPa. Geotextile was used to cover the soil and a
wooden plate was placed on top. Heavy metal bricks were used to apply the vertical
loading. The bricks were placed evenly on the wooden plate to ensure a uniform
distribution of the load. The loading was applied gradually in steps until the desired stress
level of 10 kPa was achieved. The total load corresponding to a stress of 10 kPa was
calculated to be 1104.68 kg. The drainage valve was kept open during the consolidation
process to allow the excess pore pressures to dissipate. The clay sample was allowed to
consolidate for ten days. The reduction of water leaving the sample was noticed each day.
After the consolidation process, the loads were slowly removed. The soil sample before
and after the consolidation process is shown in Figure 3-12.

32
Figure 3-12: granular kaolin clay model (a) before consolidation; (b) during
consolidation; (c) excess pore water exiting the box during the
consolidation; and (d) after Consolidation.
Construction of Compacted Soil-Cement Panel
Construction of Wooden Mold
In order to prepare the compacted soil-cement panels and cure it for 14 days, two
different wooden molds, 2 inches in depth, were prepared for the two different
replacement ratios (RR) of 10% and 20% tested in this study. The mold for the 10%
replacement ratio panel had a thickness of 2.25 in and outside dimensions of 20.5 in. x
20.5 in. and the mold for the 20% replacement ratio panel had a thickness of 4.1 in. and
external dimensions of 24.2 in. x 24.2 in. (Figure 13). Before the compaction, the wooden
33
mold was covered with plastic to prevent water absorption by wooden mold from the
mixture and also to ensure that moisture is preserved.
Figure 3-13: Wooden molds used for the soil-cement panel construction (a) 20.5 x 20.5 x
12 inches (b) 24.2 x 24.2 x 12 inches.
Soil-Cement Mixing
Soil-cement panels were prepared by mixing 10% cement and the optimum
moisture content of 26.3% by dry weight of soil with the kaolin clay in large tubs using
shovels until a homogeneous mixture was obtained (Figure 3-14).
Figure 3-14: Mixing of Soil, Cement and Water.

34
Compaction
The height of the wooden mold was divided into five equal layers. The mass for
each layer was identified based on the maximum dry density and the volume of each
layer. Each layer of the mix was compacted by using the modified proctor compaction
hammer until the mark was reached (Figure 3-15).
Figure 3-15: (a) Compaction process (20% RR); (b) Compacted

soil-cement mix (10% RR).
Curing
Based on the laboratory test results, the highest strength of the mixture was
identified after 14 days of curing. To achieve this desired maximum strength, the
compacted soil-cement panels were allowed to cure for 14 days. The panels were
wrapped with plastic to maintain constant humidity and temperature (Figure 3-16).
35
Figure 3-16: Curing process of the compacted soil-cement panel.
Construction of Deep Soil Mixing Panels
Construction of Metal Mold
To prepare the deep-mixed soil panels inside the clay profile, thin metal plates of
required size for 10% and 20% replacement ratios were constructed (Figure 3-17). The
size of the deep soil mixing panels were same as the size of compacted soil-cement
panels.
36
Figure 3-17: Metal molds used to construct the deep soil mixing panels (a) 10% RR with
dimensions of 20.5 x 20.5 x 12 inches (b) 20% RR with dimensions of 24.2 x24.2 x 12
inches.
Soil-Cement Mixing
Deep soil mixing panels were prepared by mixing 1 parts of cement with 1.9
parts of clay and 2.9 parts of water. The material was mixed in large tubs using shovels
until a homogeneous mixture was obtained (Figure 3-18).
Figure 3-18: Mixing of Soil, Cement and Water foe deep soil mixing panels.
37
Casting
Two metal plates were inserted into the clay model at the specified spacing equal
to the required thickness of the compacted soil-cement panels. The metal sheets were
supported by spacers (wooden blocks) to strengthen them laterally. The excavation was
performed using spatulas and spoons. Once the excavation was complete, the excavated
space was filled with soil-cement slurry and the metal sheets were removed (Figure 3-
19).
Figure 3-19: Deep soil mixing panel construction (a) after the excavation process; and (b)
after casting (10% RR).
Curing
The deep soil mixing panel was allowed to cure for 14 days inside the clay
profile before shaking (Figure 3-20).

38
Figure 3-20: Curing process inside the clay for the Deep Soil Mixing Panels.
Experimental Modeling on Shake Table
In this research, the shaking and modeling processes have been conducted on a
shake table available in the Civil and Environmental Department at the California State
University, Fullerton. The shake table used in this study has dimensions of 1.5 m x 2 m
and uses a hydraulic actuator of 25 kN force capacity with ±6.5 cm horizontal
displacement (Figure 3-21).
Figure 3-21: Shake table used for this study at California State University, Fullerton.
39
Shake Table Experiment
To measure the response acceleration during shaking, four triaxial accelerometers
(A1, A2, A3 and A4) were set at different locations on the clay surface after the
consolidation process (Figure 3-22). The accelerometers were aligned such that the z-axis
was along the horizontal direction of shaking. A data acquisition system was used to
obtain the acceleration time history data from the accelerometers and also, the base
acceleration on shake table. Shaking was performed using a series of sinusoidal waves
for 20 cycles at frequencies of 1 Hz, 2 Hz, 3 Hz and various amplitudes of 0.1g, 0.2g,
0.24g, 0.3g (Figure 3-23). In addition, ground motion representing the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake at Station 90095 was applied.
Figure 3-22: Installation of accelerometers.

40
Figure 3-23: Shake table experiment.

41
Soil-Cement Panel Replacement
In order to replace the soil with the compacted soil-cement panel and deep soil
mixed panel, an excavation was performed. To prevent the collapse of soil during the
excavation process, two metal frames were used to support the clay. The metal frames
were inserted into the clay and the soil between the metal frames was excavated up to a
depth of 12 inches, as shown in Figure 3-24. For compacted soil panel, the panels were
carefully removed from the mold after the completion of desired curing period (Figure 3-
25). A forklift was used to lift the panel and lower it into the excavation such that the
panel was flushed against the metal frames (Figure 3-36). Once the panel was in, the
metal frames were pulled out with the help of straps and forklift. The gap between the
panels and the soil was filled with the excavated clay. For the deep soil mixing panels,
the metal frames were removed after the excavated space is replaced with soil-cement
slurry.
The shake table test was, first, performed without any soil modification to identify
the seismic amplification through the soft soil deposit. The same intensities and modes
of shaking were, then, repeated in the model with 10% and 20% replacement of the
surface for both types of soil-cement panels. Accelerometers were set on the same
locations for all tests.

42
Figure 3-24: Excavation process (a) 10% RR (b) 20% RR.
Figure 3-25: Compacted soil panel replacement (10% RR) (a) Removed from wooden
mold and (b) placed in soft clay profile.
Figure 3-26: Deep soil mixing panel replacement (RR 10%) (a) Excavation between
metal frame and (b) placed panel in soft clay profile.
43
CHAPTER 4
TEST RESULTS
Soil Characterization
Index Properties
The basic geotechnical properties of the soil as obtained from the Atterberg limit
tests and hydrometer tests are presented in Table 4-1. The soil was classified as ML based
on Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Table 4-1: Basic geotechnical properties of granular kaolin clay
Liquid Limit (%) 43

Plastic Limit (%) 26
Plasticity Index (%) 17
Clay fraction 25
Activity 0.68
USCS ML
Compaction Characteristics
The optimum moisture content and corresponding maximum dry density were
obtained from the Standard proctor compaction test. The results are presented in Table 4-
2.
Table 4-2: Standard proctor compaction results
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 24

Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 94
44
Consolidation Characteristics
Following Casagandre’s method, the displacement versus the logarithm of log
time graph was plotted for all the vertical stresses. The coefficient of consolidation (c v)
was calculated using the equation shown below for each of the normal stresses. The
results for cv for each step are available in the Appendix. The average cv was found to be
0.017 cm2/sec.
2
0.197𝐻𝑑𝑟
𝑐𝑣 =
𝑡50
Where, Hdr is the height of the drainage path and t50 is the time required for 50%
consolidation.
In addition, void ratio was calculated at each normal stresses. Figure 4-1 shows
the pressure-void ratio curve for the granular kaolin clay sample. The compression index
(cc) and recompression index (cr) were found to be 0.288 and 0.041, respectively, from
the slopes of the best fit lines for the compression and recompression segments of the
test.
45
Figure 4-1: Pressure-void ratio relationship for granular kaolin clay.
Drained and Undrained Shear Strength under Static Conditions
Shear tests was conducted to evaluate drained and undrained shear strengths of
the normally consolidated granular kaolin clay. The tests were conducted for a range of
vertical stresses from 25 kPa to 800 kPa. Shown in Figure 4-2 is a stress versus shear
strain curves for the different normal stresses in saturated conditions. The pore pressure
was back calculated from the change in vertical stresses to maintain a constant volume
during the shearing stage. The change in pore pressure with shear strain is shown in
Figure 4-3.
46
Figure 4-2: Shear stress versus shear strain curves for granular kaolin clay at different
normal stresses.
Figure 4-3: Pore water pressure versus shear strain curves for granular kaolin
at different normal stresses.
47
Similarly, the undrained shear stress ratio was calculated by normalizing the shear
stress () by the consolidation pressure (’). Figure 4-4 contains the undrained stress ratio
versus shear strain curves for the range of normal stresses tested. It can be seen that the
undrained shear stress ratio decreases as the normal stress increases.
Figure 4-4: Undrained shear stress ratio versus shear strain curves at different
normal stresses.
Figure 4-5 shows the total and effective shear envelopes for the granular kaolin
clay. The undrained friction angle () and drained friction angle (’) were found to be
13.3° and 21°, respectively. Similarly, the undrained and drained cohesion were found to
be 4.7 kPa and 4.6 kPa, respectively.

48
Figure 4-5: Shear envelopes for granular kaolin clay from the direct simple shear test.
Soil Modification Using Cement
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Unconfined compression (UC) tests for deep soil mixing were conducted on
samples cured for 3, 7, 9, 14 and 28 days. The tests were performed to investigate the
effects of curing environment on the following soil-cement specimens. Two different
curing environments were examined by testing:
1. Cylindrical samples cast and cured in a plastic mold
2. Cylindrical samples cast and cured inside the clay profile
Cylindrical samples cast and cured in a plastic mold. The stress-strain behavior of
samples cast and cured in a plastic mold after various days of curing is shown in Figure
4-6. It can be observed that the unconfined compressive strength increased with curing
period, as shown in Figure 4-7. In Figure 4-7, the data points represent the average of the
range of unconfined compressive strengths measured from multiple samples allowed to
cure for any particular period. The bars are an indication of this range of observed
strengths.
49
Figure 4-6: Stress-strain behavior of the cement treated soil (cast and cured inside mold)
at various cement days of curing.
Figure 4-7: Unconfined compressive strength of cement treated soil (cast and
cured inside clay) at various curing period; the bars represent the range of
data obtained for each curing period.
50
Cylindrical samples cast and cured in a plastic mold. Similarly, the unconfined
compressive tests were performed on samples cast and cured in a plastic mold (Figure 4-
8). The relationship between the measured unconfined compressive strength and the
curing period in days is given in Figure 4-9. In Figure 4-9, the data points represent the
average unconfined compressive strength measured and the bars represent the range of
the strengths measured from the multiple samples tested for each curing period.
Figure 4-8: Stress-strain behavior of the cement treated (cast and cured inside clay)
soil at various days of curing.
51
Figure 4-9: Unconfined compressive strength of cement treated soil (cast and cured inside
clay) at various curing period; the bars represent the range of unconfined compressive
strengths obtained for each curing period.
The effects of the curing environment on the soil-cement strength is presented in
Figure 4-10. It can be seen that the compressive strength was significantly higher for the
samples cast and cured inside plastic mold than the compressive strength measured for
the samples cast and cured inside the clay. The reason for this could be the non-
uniformity in the thickness along the depth of the sample due to soil pressure.
52
Figure 4-10: Unconfined compressive strength comparison for two methods of curing.
Modulus of Elasticity
In this study, the moduli of elasticity for the soil-cement mixtures at all different
cement contents were calculated at 30% of the peak strength. The comparison between
modulus of elasticity for two different curing environments is provided in Figure 4-11. It
can be seen that the soil-cement samples cast and cured for inside plastic mold had higher
moduli of elasticity in comparison to those cast and cured inside clay. Again, this may be
attributed to the uniformity in the dimensions of the samples that were cast and cured
inside the plastic mold.

53
Figure 4-11: Modulus of elasticity of samples for the two different curing environments.
Ground Motion Improvement
Amplification of Base Motion
After applying the motions of various amplitudes (0.1g, 0.2g, 0.24g and 0.3g) and
frequencies (1 Hz, 2 Hz and 3 Hz) at 20 cycles, as well as a recorded motion of the 1994
Northridge Earthquake at Station 90095, an amplification in the base motion was
observed at the ground surface as the waves travelled through the soft clay deposit.
Amplification factors were calculated for the different input motions and are presented in
Table 4-3. Amplification factor (AF) is defined as the normalized ratio of the maximum
acceleration at the ground surface with the maximum acceleration at the base of the shake
table. Figure 4-12 illustrates the amplification observed at the center of the ground for
54
the ground motion with an amplitude of 0.1 g and a frequency of 1 Hz. Similar behavior
were observed in the other applied ground motions and are presented in Appendix B.
Table 4-3: Amplification factors for different input motions

for unimproved soft clay profile.
Amplitude (g) Frequency(Hz) (AF)

0.1 1 1.142
0.1 2 1.155
0.1 3 1.180
0.2 1 1.199
0.2 2 1.203
0.2 3 1.228
0.24 1 1.435
0.24 2 1.306
0.24 3 1.279
0.3 2 1.244
0.3 3 1.207
Northridge Actual 1.131
Figure 4-12: Amplification of the sinusoidal input motion with amplitude of 0.1g and
frequency of 1 Hz at the ground surface.
55
Soil-Cement Panel Replacement
The acceleration response of unimproved profile and improved profile with
replacement ratios of 10% and 20% were compared at the ground surface. Figures 4-13
and 4-14 illustrate the reduction in seismic shaking due to different replacement ratios of
the compacted soil-cement panel and deep soil mixing panel, respectively, for a ground
motion with an amplitude of 0.1g and a frequency of 1 Hz. Similar results that were
obtained for other amplitudes and frequencies tested are presented in Appendix B.
For both methods of soil-cement mixing, the accelerations on ground surface were
compared with the base accelerations and the amplification factor (AF) was calculated for
the no replacement, 10% replacement and 20% replacement conditions. In general, the
use of compacted soil-cement panels led to higher reduction in amplification factor
compared to deep soil mixing. The reduction in amplification factor for a sinusoidal
motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz for both methods of soil-cement
mixing is illustrated in Figure 4-15 to 4-19, respectively.
Figure 4-13: Ground motion reduction with compacted soil-cement panel replacement for
sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz.
56
Figure 4-14: Ground motion reduction with deep soil mixing panel replacement for
sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz.
Figure 4-15: Comparison of ground acceleration with base acceleration for sinusoidal
motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz without replacement.
57
motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz at 10% RR for the
compacted soil cement panel.
motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz at 20% RR for the
compacted soil cement panel.
58
motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz at 10% RR for
deep soil mixing panel.
motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz at 20% RR for
deep soil mixing panel.
59
The amplification factor at different locations of Plexiglas box for different
replacement ratios were obtained and compared in Figure 4-20.
Figure 4-20: Comparison of amplification factor for ground motion with amplitude
of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for both
methods; DM stands for deep soil mixing and SCP stands for compacted
soil-cement panel).
The normalized amplification factor (NAF) and replacement ratio for the different
amplitudes and frequencies were plotted for compacted soil-cement panels and deep
mixing panels (Figure 4-21). The normalized amplification factors were calculated by
dividing the amplification factors of the improved profile by the corresponding
amplification factors of the unimproved profile.

60
Figure 4-21: Comparison of normalized amplification factor for sinusoidal motion with
amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1 Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20 % RR for both
types of panels; DSM stands for deep soil mixing and SCP stands for compacted
soil-cement panel).
The normalized amplification factor (NAF) and frequency for the different
amplitudes and frequencies were obtained for compacted soil-cement panels and deep
mixing panels (Figure 4-22).

61
Figure 4-22: Comparison of amplification factor for sinusoidal motion with amplitude of
0.1g and frequencies of 1 Hz, 2 Hz and 3 Hz at 10% RR and 20 % RR for both types of
panels; DSM stands for deep soil mixing and SCP stands for
compacted soil-cement panel).
To summarize all the results due to various amplitudes and frequencies of
shaking, normalized amplification factors were plotted for both methods against the
replacement ratios. For the compacted soil-cement panel, at 10% RR, the average
reduction in amplification factor was 12%. At a RR of 20%, the average reduction was
25%. Similarly, for the deep soil mixing panel, the reduction in amplification was 9%
with the 10% RR panel and 15% for the 20% RR panel. Figures 4-23 and 4-24 show the
reduction in the normalized amplification factor due to compacted soil-cement and deep
soil mixing panels. The average for the normalized amplification factors from ground
motions with various amplitudes (0.1g, 0.2g, 0.24g, 0.3g and Northridge) and frequencies
(1 Hz, 2 Hz and 3 Hz) was calculated. The average normalized amplification decreased
with increase in replacement ratio of panels. A comparison for both methods is presented
in Figure 4-25.
62
Figure 4-23: Overall reduction in normalized amplification factor for compacted soil
cement panel at different replacement ratios for the various input motions;
the bars represent the range of NAF values obtained from the different
ground motions tested.
63
Figure 4-24: Overall reduction in normalized amplification factor for deep soil mixing
panels at different replacement ratios for the and various input motions;
the bars represent the range of NAF values obtained from the
different ground motions tested.
64
Figure 4-25: Comparison of normalized amplification factor for both types of panels at
different replacement ratios; the bars represent the range of NAF values obtained
from the different ground motions tested.
Comparison of Results with those from the Loose Sand (Tiwari et al., 2014 and for Soft
Clay (Upadhaya et al., 2015)
The results obtained from this study were compared to those from the study
performed on loose sand by Tiwari et al. (2014) and for soft clay performed by Upadhaya
et al. (2015). The average normalized amplification factors for both loose sand and soft
kaolin clay were plotted against the replacement ratios, as shown in Figure 4-26. It can be
seen that the reduction in normalized amplification factor for the improved profiles for
soft kaolin clay was considerably higher when compared to the normalized amplification
factors for the loose sand. By using soil-cement panels at 10% and 25% replacement
ratios in sand, Tiwari et al. (20140 found that the reduction in amplification factor was
65
10% and 30%, respectively. Whereas, in soft clay, 27% and 46% reduction in the ground
motion amplification factor was observed by Upadhyaya et al. (2015) for soil-cement
panels with 16% and 30% replacement ratios, respectively. Similarly, the compacted soil-
cement panels from this study could reduce the seismic amplification by 12% and 25%,
whereas the reduction due to the deep soil mixing panels are 9% and 15% for the
replacement ratios of 10% and 20%, respectively. This suggests that soil-cement panels
could be more effective in reducing the seismic shaking intensity in soft clay profiles
when compared to loose sand sites. Also, deep soil mixing panels are not as effective as
the compacted soil-cement panels. The possible reason behind for such high reduction in
the amplification with the compacted soil-cement panel could be the higher stiffness of
the panel as compared to deep soil mixing panel. However, deep mixing has multiple
construction benefits in comparison to the compacted soil-cement panels.

66
Figure 4-26: Comparison of normalized amplification factors with replacement ratio

in loose sand profile tested by Tiwari et al. (2014) and soft clay profile
tested by Upadhyaya et al. (2015).
67
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The structures built over the soft soil sites are prone to seismic amplification. It
can be too expensive to construct seismic resistant structures on such types of soil. Thus,
ground reinforcement using compacted soil-cement panels and deep mixing soil panels
may be an economical and practical alternative in reducing the effects of ground shaking
on infrastructure. The use of compacted soil-cement panels and deep mixing soil panels
can significantly reduce the design seismic loads on building components, thus reducing
construction costs.
In this research, the tri-axial accelerometers were set at different locations to
measure the ground motion along the direction of shake table movement. However, the
accelerometers could have rotated during the shaking due to the sloshing of clay during
the test. The resultant peak acceleration is obtained to find the amplification. During the
analysis, the noise from shake table was removed to obtain the best possible results.
The observations from this study show the influence of compacted soil-cement
panels and deep mixing soil panels in strengthening the soft clay. The amplification
factors at the ground surface for ground motions with different amplitudes and
frequencies have been studied for panels corresponding to 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR.
It is found that both type of panels can significantly reduce the amplification of ground
68
motions through the soft clay profile and such an improvement, ultimately, results in
reducing seismic load on the superstructure.
In the studies performed by Tiwari et.al. (2014) and Upadhaya et.al. (2015),
compacted soil cement panels worked effectively to improve the soft clays and loose dry
sand. However, the results obtained from this study were compared to those results
obtained from the study performed on loose sand by Tiwari et al. (2014) and Upadhaya et
al. (2015) without corrections for the noise obtained during the testing procedures.
The compacted soil-cement panel reduced the seismic amplification effectively as
compared to deep soil mixing as a result of its higher stiffness. Also, the soil-cement
samples casted inside the clay were not uniform along the depth of the sample due to the
soil pressure, and thus, the unconfined compressive strength was found to be lower when
compared to the results for the samples cast and cured inside a plastic mold.
There are, however, some limitations to this study. Since the primary objective of
the study was to compare the results of deep soil mixing with the results obtained with
compacted soil-cement panel by comparing the unimproved and improved profiles, the
boundary effects due to rigid boundary conditions were not taken into account. This
provides an opportunity to make suggestions for future research. Further research can be
performed with a variety of conditions to evaluate the effect of the panel strength and
stiffness, depth of improvement, construction of panels in grid pattern, soil profiles, and
wide range of shaking intensities and input motions on the seismic amplifications. In
addition, laminar containers with flexible side walls can be utilized for the model
preparation to better simulate field conditions and the free field response.
69
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
Shake table model experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of
stiff soil-cement panels as ground reinforcement in reducing the seismic ground shaking
intensities on soft soil sites. Laboratory tests to characterize of the clay specimen were
performed and used to determine various geotechnical properties including the index
properties, compaction characteristics, consolidation properties, and drained and
undrained static shear strength properties. The strength and stiffness properties of the soil
was studied by using cement as an additive. The following conclusions can be made from
the results of this study:
1. Upon adding cement to the soil, the unconfined compressive strength and
modulus of elasticity increased significantly and was dependent on the
number of days of curing.
2. For deep soil mixing, an average loss in unconfined compressive strength of
29% was observed for the soil-cement samples casted inside the clay when
compared to the samples casted and cured instead the plastic molds.
3. The peak acceleration magnified as the ground motion wave travelled from
the base of the shake table to the ground surface of the soft soil.
4. Compacted soil-cement panels are more effective in reducing seismic
amplification than the deep soil mixing panels. The compacted soil cement
70
panels could reduce the seismic amplification by 12% and 25%, whereas the
reduction from the deep soil mixing panels are 9% and 15% for replacement
ratios of 10% and 20%, respectively.
5. The panels are effective in reducing the ground shaking intensity on both
loose sand and soft clay profiles. However, the reduction was higher in soft
clay when compared to the reduction in loose sand.
6. By replacing some portion of soft soil with a soil-cement panel, the soil
profile becomes stiffer and denser when compared to unimproved profile.
The compacted soil cement panels were precast and installed into the soil by
excavation whereas deep mixing soil panels were casted inside the clay directly.
Although the compacted soil-cement panels are more effective in reducing the seismic
amplification, in practice, it might not be a feasible approach for field applications when
compared to the deep soil mixing panels. The extension of this research will involve the
use of laminar box to reduce the effects of the boundary conditions. For the deep soil
mixing, most important parameters in the design of soil cement mixture is the strength of
the soil-cement. The critical factors influencing the strength of the soil-cement mixture
are the type of cement, soil-cement water ratio, temperature and curing environment.
Since deep mixing has multiple construction benefits compared to the compacted panels,
the future study with different soil-cement-water ratio and grid pattern of panel may be
beneficial.
71
REFERENCES
ASTM D 698-07. “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of

Soil Using Standard Effort,” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM D 2166-06. “Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of

Cohesive Soil,” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM D 4186-98. “Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation

Properties of Soils Using Controlled-Strain Loading,” American Society for
Testing and Materials.
ASTM D 4318-10. “Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity
Index of Soils,” American Society for Testing and Materials.
Consoli, N. C., Foppa, D., Festugato, L., and Heineck, K. S. (2007). “Key parameters for
strength control of artificially cemented soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(2), 197-205.
Durgunoglu, H. T., Chinchelli, M., Ikiz, S., Emrem, C., Hurley, T., and Catalbas, F.
(2004). “Soil Improvement with Jet-Grout Columns; A Case Study from the 1999
Kocaeli Earthquake,” In Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, New York, NY.
Durgunoglu, H. T., Emrem, C., Karadayilar, T., Mitchell, J. K, Martin, J.R., and Olgun,
C. G. (2001), “Case History for Ground Improvement Against Liquefaction
Carrefoursa Shopping Center-Izmit, Turkey,” Proceedings of Satellite Conference
Lessons Learned From Recent Strong Earthquakes, August 24, 2001, Istanbul,
pp.299-304.
Gao, X., Ling, X. Z., Tang, L., and Xu, P. J. (2011). “Soil–pile-bridge structure
interaction in liquefying ground using shake table testing,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 31(7), 1009-1017.
Guetif, Z., Bouassida, M., and Debats, J. M. (2007). “Improved soft clay characteristics
due to stone column installation,” Computers and Geotechnics, 34(2), 104-111.
Ou, C. Y., Teng, F. C., and Wang, I. W. (2008). “Analysis and design of partial ground
improvement in deep excavations,” Computers and Geotechnics, 35(4), 576-584.
Pakbaz, M. S., and Alipour, R. (2012). “Influence of cement addition on the geotechnical
properties of an Iranian clay,” Applied Clay Science, 67, 1-4.
72
Paolucci, R., Shirato, M., and Yilmaz, M. T. (2008). “Seismic behaviour of shallow
foundations: Shaking table experiments vs numerical modelling,” Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(4), 577-595.
Porbaha, A., Zen, K., and Kobayashi, M. (1999). “Deep mixing technology for
liquefaction mitigation,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 5(1), 21-34.
Prasad, S. K., Towhata, I., Chandradhara, G. P., and Nanjundaswamy, P. (2004),

“Shaking table tests in earthquake geotechnical engineering,” Current Science-
Bangalore, 87, 1398-1404.
Rayhani, M. H. T., and El Naggar, M. H. (2007). “Centrifuge modeling of seismic

response of layered soft clay,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 5(4), 571-589.
Singh, S. K., Mena, E. A., and Castro, R. (1988). “Some aspects of source characteristics
of the 19 September 1985 Michoacan earthquake and ground motion
amplification in and near Mexico City from strong motion data,” Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 78(2), 451-477.
Tiwari, B., Das, K.L. (2013). “Influence on Cement Content and Curing Period on the
Geotechnical Properties of Cement-Modified Soil,” International Journal of
Engineering, Science and Management, 3(2), 42-46.
Tiwari, B., Fanaiyan, S., Hastings, R., and Olgun, G. (2014). “Reduction in Seismic
Ground Shaking With The Use of Soil-Cement Panels,” Geo-Congress 2014
Technical Papers, 1186-1195.
Turan, A., Hinchberger, S. D., and El Naggar, H. (2009). “Design and commissioning of
a laminar soil container for use on small shaking tables,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 29(2), 404-414.
Yang H., Elfass S., and Norries, G. (2010). “Settlement behavior of a shallow foundation
in dry sand under simulated earthquake motion on a biaxial shake table.”
GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling and Design, 1700-1707.
S. Upadhyaya, B. Tiwari, A. San Pablo, K. Melgar, P. Pandey, and G. Olgun (2015).

“Reduction in Seismic Shaking Intensity of Soft Soil Sites Using Soil-Cement
Panels as Stiff Ground Reinforcement.” Proceedings of the 12th International
Symposium on Geo-disaster Reduction (ISGdR-12)
73
APPENDIX A
SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
Figure A.1: Flow curve for Liquid Limit test for Granular Kaolin clay.
Table A. 1: Plastic limit results for Granular Kaolin clay.
Test No. 1 2 3 4 5
Can No. L-1 l-2 L-3 L-4 L-5
Mass of Can, Mb (g) 11.34 11.48 11.24 11.24 11.38
Mass of Can + moist soil, Mm (g) 18.62 21.95 18.02 17.03 17.61
Mass of Can + dry soil, Ms (g) 16.33 18.84 16.01 15.37 15.89
Moisture content, w (%) 45.89 42.26 42.14 40.19 38.14
Number of blows, N 17 23 24 33 38
74
Figure A.2: Standard Proctor Compaction Curve for Granular Kaolin Clay.
Table A.2: Coefficient of consolidation (cv) from one-dimensional consolidation test.
Effective vertical
cv (cm2/sec)
pressure (psi) d50 (inch) t50 (min)
7 0.0215 1.4 0.004
14 0.0565 0.5 0.011
28 0.094 1.8 0.003
56 0.143 0.25 0.021
112 0.15 0.25 0.021
224 0.2155 0.12 0.044
Average cv: 0.017
75
Figure A.3: Pressure-void ratio curve for Granular Kaolin.

76
APPENDIX B
GROUND MOTION AMPLIFICATION
Figure B.1: Comparison of ground acceleration for compacted soil-cement panel with 0%
RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of
1Hz.
2Hz.
77
3Hz.
1Hz.
2Hz.
78
3Hz.
Figure B. 7: Comparison of ground acceleration for compacted soil-cement panel with

0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.24g and
frequency of 1Hz.
Figure B. 8: Comparison of ground acceleration for compacted soil-cement panel with

frequency of 2Hz.
79
RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.24g and frequency
of 3Hz.
Figure B.10: Comparison of ground acceleration for compacted soil-cement panel with
frequency of 2Hz.
Figure B.11: Comparison of ground acceleration for compacted soil-cement panel with
frequency of 3Hz.
80
Figure B.12: Comparison of ground acceleration for deep soil mixing with 0% RR, 10%
RR and 20% RR for sinusoidal motion with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of 1Hz.
81
82
83
84
Figure B.23: Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of
1Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for both methods.
85
86
87
Figure B.29: Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.24g and frequency
of 1Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for both methods.
88
89
Figure B.34: Comparison of Normalized amplification factor with amplitude of 0.1g and
frequency of 1Hz, 2Hz and 3Hz for both methods.
90
Figure B. 35: Comparison of Normalized amplification factor with amplitude of 0.2g and
frequency of 1Hz, 2Hz and 3Hz for both methods.
Figure B. 36: Comparison of Normalized amplification factor with amplitude of 0.24g

and frequency of 1Hz, 2Hz and 3Hz for both methods.
91
frequency of 1Hz at 0% RR, 10% RR and 20% RR for both methods.
92
93

20-Seismic Ground Improvement of Soft Soil Sites With Compacted Soil Cement Panels and Deep Soil Mixing Panels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20-Seismic Ground Improvement of Soft Soil Sites With Compacted Soil Cement Panels and Deep Soil Mixing Panels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEISMIC GROUND IMPROVEMENT OF SOFT SOIL SITES WITH COMPACTED

SOIL-CEMENT PANELS AND DEEP SOIL MIXING PANELS

California State University, Fullerton

of the Requirements for the Degree

Prakash Chandra Khanal

Thesis Committee Approval by:

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

Based on previous studies, ground reinforcement methods such as stone columns,

additional benefits of ground improvement such as the possible reduction in seismic

replacement of a portion of soil up to certain depth using compacted soil-cement mixture

and 20%, respectively.

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... vii

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 3

3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 20

Study Material ................................................................................................... 20

4. TEST RESULTS ............................................................................................... 43

Soil Characterization ......................................................................................... 43

A. SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................... 73

4-1. Basic geotechnical properties of Granular Kaolin clay ..................................... 43

4-2. Standard Proctor Compaction Results .............................................................. 43

A.1. Liquid limit results for Granular Kaolin clay.................................................... 73

2-1. Schematic of the Instrumentation (Turan et al., 2009) ...................................... 7

2-2. The influence of the box boundaries on the dynamic response

2-3. Measured and calculated acceleration time-histories and amplification factors

2-6. Variation of unconfined compressive strength with cement content (Consoli

2-7. Variation of unconfined compression strength with porosity (Consoli et al.,

3-1. Consolidation device ....................................................................................... 22

3-2. Simple shear device ......................................................................................... 23

3-4. Deep soil mixing: Curing process .................................................................... 25

3-5. Preparation of clay model for UCS samples ..................................................... 26

3-7. Unconfined Compression Testing Device ........................................................ 28

3-9. Preparation of bottom drainage with outlet....................................................... 29

3-10. Preparation of side drains with 5mm thick geotextile ....................................... 30

3-11. Preparation of slurried clay sample for the model............................................. 31

3-14. Mixing of Soil, Cement and Water................................................................... 33

3-16. Curing process of the compacted soil-cement panel ......................................... 35

3-21. Shake table at California State University, Fullerton ........................................ 38

3-22. Installation of accelerometers........................................................................... 39

3-23. Shake table experiment .................................................................................... 40

4-1. Pressure-void ratio relationship for granular kaolin clay................................... 45

4-10. Unconfined compressive strength on various methods of curing ...................... 52

4-11. Modulus of elasticity of samples on various methods of curing ........................ 53

4-12. Amplification of sinusoidal input motion with amplitude of 0.1g and

4-15. Comparison of ground acceleration with base acceleration for sinusoidal

4-17. Comparison of ground acceleration with base acceleration for sinusoidal

4-18. Comparison of ground acceleration with base acceleration for sinusoidal

4-19. Comparison of ground acceleration with base acceleration for sinusoidal

4-20. Comparison of amplification factor at amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of

4-21. Comparison of normalized amplification factor for sinusoidal motion of

4-22. Comparison of normalized amplification factor for sinusoidal motion with

4-23. Overall reduction in normalized amplification factor for compacted soil

4-25. Comparison of normalized amplification factor for both methods at different

4-26. Comparison of normalized amplification factor with replacement ratio in

A.3. Pressure-void ratio curve for Granular Kaolin .................................................. 75

B.1. Comparison of ground acceleration with base acceleration for sinusoidal

B.23. Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of

B.24. Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.1g and frequency of

B.26. Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.2g and frequency

B.27. Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.2g and frequency of

B.28. Comparison of amplification factor with amplitude of 0.2g and frequency of