LIQUEFACTION: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

AND MITIGATION BY GROUND IMPROVEMENT

Roy Anthony C. Luna, MSCE, 1,2
Alexis Philip A. Acacio, PhD, 1,2
Michael Paolo V. Follosco, MSCE, 1,2
Flor Angel G. Prelligera1
Maria Cristelle A. San Antonio1

1
AMH Philippines, Inc., Diliman, Quezon City
2
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City

Abstract: Liquefaction is the phenomenon of the loss of shear strength of saturated sandy soil layers when
subjected to monotonic or cyclic loading (mainly earthquake). Typical manifestations in relatively recent
earthquake events include excessive settlement, sand boils, lateral spreading, and uplift of buried structures.

Assessment methodologies have been developed through the years – Seed and Idriss, the JSCE Method,
and the NCEER Approach. They have proven to be reasonably reliable and accurate; and sound basis in the
formulation of mitigating measures and risk reduction strategies. A new SPT-N correlation for evaluating
liquefaction potential is also introduced.

The utilization of ground improvement techniques is a cost-effective approach in mitigating liquefaction.

These include grouting and soil-cement columns, rammed aggregate piers (RAP), stone columns,
vibroflotation, and dynamic compaction.

This paper presents the various methods of liquefaction analysis commonly used in practice, as well as the
different options for liquefaction-mitigation. Case studies are presented, highlighting the importance of an
exhaustive geotechnical investigation and assessment, and a well-developed and well-executed program for
ground improvement works to mitigate liquefaction.

Key Words: liquefaction, lateral spreading, liquefaction analysis, ground improvement, liquefaction-
mitigation

1 INTRODUCTION methods in evaluating liquefaction potential as

well as mitigating measures are continuously
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon where high being developed.
excess pore water pressure develops in saturated
soil as a result of cyclic loading [1]. When the soil
reaches zero effective stress state, it loses a large
portion of its shear strength and behaves in a
liquid-like manner. Liquefaction is a major
contributor to devastating damages due to large
earthquakes worldwide.

Liquefaction-induced damages such as significant

subsidence, tilting, and lateral displacement of Figure 1. Tilting & sinking of a building in
structures were observed in the recent years, and Dagupan, 1990[1]
This paper presents the four (4) assessment
methodologies commonly used in practice in the
country: Seed and Idriss, JSCE, NCEER and the
new SPT-based (by Cetin), and discuss several
methods for mitigating liquefaction. Two case
studies of different ground improvement
techniques used to mitigate soil liquefaction
potential are also discussed.
2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Different methods have been studied and utilized
in the assessment of soil liquefaction. Although
the simplified method introduced by Seed & Idriss
(1971) has been extensively used as a standard for
evaluating liquefaction of soil, the methods
produced by Japan Society of Civil Engineers or
JSCE (1980), and the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research or NCEER
(1997) are also adopted in recent years. Since
several factors affect the characterization of the
soil, it is considered good practice to adopt more
than one approach in evaluating liquefaction.
2.1 Seed and Idriss
The Seed & Idriss (1971) method requires the
calculation of two terms: (1) the earthquake-
induced cyclic stress ratio CSR, and (2) the
capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction or cyclic
resistance ratio CRR. If CSR is greater than CRR,
the soil is assessed to be susceptible to
liquefaction.
The cyclic stress ratio CSR is calculated with the
following equation by Seed & Idriss (1971):
𝑎𝑣 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑣𝑜
CSR = ′𝑣𝑜 = 0.65 ( ) (′𝑣𝑜) rd (1)
𝑔 Soil layers with liquefaction resistance factor FL
where
av = average cyclic shear stress,
amax = peak ground acceleration due to
earthquake,
g = acceleration of gravity,
vo and 'vo = total and effective overburden
stresses and
rd = stress reduction coefficient dependent
on depth, generally in the range  0.8 to 1.
The liquefaction resistance CRR is evaluated from
correlations with in-situ parameters. Such
parameters are derived from in-situ tests, including
the cone penetration test CPT, the standard
penetration test SPT and shear wave velocity VS
measurements. Charts are often used, wherein
CRR is plotted as a function of a normalized
penetration resistance or shear wave velocity, with
data obtained at sites where liquefaction was or
was not observed.
2.2 JSCE Method
The JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers)
method is another widely-used approach in
liquefaction analysis. Based on its 1980
Specifications, saturated sandy layers within 20
meters from ground surface and the groundwater
table within 10 meters from the ground surface,
and with D50 values on the grain size accumulation
curve between 0.02 and 2.0 mm, should be
considered vulnerable to liquefaction.
The parameter which approximates the
liquefaction potential of a soil layer is the
liquefaction resistance factor FL, which is defined
by the equation
R
FL  (2)
L
where
FL = liquefaction resistance factor
R = resistance of soil elements to dynamic
loads
L = dynamic loads to soil elements induced
by earthquake motion.
less than 1.0 are judged to liquefy during
earthquakes. For those soil layers within 20 meters
of the actual ground surface which are judged to
liquefy by the above estimation, bearing capacities
and other soil constants should either be neglected
or reduced in the seismic design, by multiplying
the original bearing capacities by reduction factors
DE which are determined in accordance with FL
values and tabulated in Table 1.
 Table 1. Reduction Factors for Liquefiable Layers
FL Depth, z (m) Reduction Factor, DE
FL ≤ 0.6 0 ≤ z≤ 10 0
10 ≤ z≤ 20 1/3
0.6 ≤ FL ≤ 0.8 0 ≤ z≤ 10 1/3
10 ≤ z≤ 20 2/3
0.8 ≤ FL ≤ 1.0 0 ≤ z≤ 10 2/3
10 ≤ z≤ 20 1
0.6 ≤ FL --------- 1

2.3 NCEER Method

The National Center for Earthquake Engineering where:

CRRV is corrected CRR7.5 (Magnitude=7.5)
Research (NCEER) has recommended a procedure
K is the correction factor for initial shear
in evaluating soil liquefaction, consolidating
stress and is set to 1
several methods from different studies.
K is the correction factor for overburden
stress
The Factor of Safety (FS) for liquefaction potential
is calculated as the ratio of the Cyclic Resistance
1.2
Ratio (CRR) to the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR).
1
𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀
𝐹𝑆 = 0.8
𝐶𝑆𝑅𝑓𝑠
(3)
K

0.6
The CRR liquefaction curves are developed for an
0.4
earthquake magnitude of 7.5 and is hereafter
called CRR7.5. To take different magnitudes into 0.2
account, the factor of safety against liquefaction is
0
multiplied with a magnitude scaling factor (MSF). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Effective Confining Pressure (tsf)
CRR7.5 is determined using the formula below
Figure 2. SPT Overburden correction for CRR7.5
(Blake, 1997):

𝑎 + 𝑐𝑥 + 𝑒𝑥 2 + 𝑔𝑥 3 In the chart, the effective confining pressure, 𝜎'm,

𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5 = is in tsf, which can be calculated as:
1 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑑𝑥 2 + 𝑓𝑥 3 + ℎ𝑥 4
(4) 1 + 2𝐾0
where: 𝜎′𝑚 = = 0.65 ∙ 𝜎′0
3
x = N60,cf e = 0.0006136 (6)
a = 0.048 f = -0.0003285 Ko is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure and
b = -0.1248 g = -1.673x10-5 by default set to 0.47. 𝜎'o and 𝜎'm are the effective
c = -0.004721 h = 3.714x10-6 vertical overburden pressure in tsf, based on water
d = 0.009578 table during the in-the testing and fill does not
affect them.
Additional vertical overburden stress correction of
CRR7.5 is suggested as: CRRV is based on earthquake with magnitude of
7.5. For a given earthquake with different
𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑣 = 𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5 𝐾𝛼 𝐾𝜎 (5)
magnitude, CRRV need to be corrected. MSF is
applied to the CRRV to obtain CRRM, which is the
magnitude-corrected cyclic stress ratio. CSR* = CSReq.,M=7.5,1atm = CSReq.,M=7.5 / K

𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀 = 𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑣 ∙ 𝑀𝑆𝐹 (7) The resulting value together with Figure 3 can be
used to assess the probability of initiation of
MSF is a magnitude-scaling factor given by:
liquefaction.
102.24
𝑀𝑆𝐹 =
𝑀2.56
(9)
On the other hand, CSR is calculated using the
Seed & Idriss method (1971).
𝜎𝑜
𝐶𝑆𝑅 = 0.65 𝑎 𝑟
𝜎′𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑑
(10)
where:
amax = peak ground acceleration (in g)
o = total vertical stress
'o = effective vertical stress
rd = stress reduction factor, for soil flexibility
rd = 1.0 - 0.00765z (for z≤9.15m)
rd = 1.174 - 0.0267z (for 9.15m<z≤23m)
rd = 0.744 - 0.008z (for 23m<z≤30m)
rd = 0.5 (for z>30m)

Liquefaction-induced settlements are based on the

Ishihara and Yoshimine (1990). The volumetric
strain is plotted against the factor of safety against
liquefaction.
Figure 3. Recommended Probabilistic SPT-Based
Liquefaction Trigerring Correlation [3]
2.4 Proposed New SPT-Based Correlation

A new SPT-correlation for the evaluation of 3 OPTIONS FOR MITIGATION

liquefaction potential, developed by Cetin, et.al.
(2000, 2003) [2][3] is presented in this section.
The new method reduces the overall uncertainty
and eliminate sources of bias found in previous
established correlations.
Additional factor not directly considered in
previous studies is the increased susceptibility of
soils to cyclic liquefaction with increases in
effective overburden stress, for the same CSR.
This is in addition to the normalization of N-values
for overburden effects.
The adjusted CSReq.,M=7.5,1atm is the inverse of the
CSR equation presented by NCEER:
There are several methods in mitigating
liquefaction potential that have been developed
through the years. The effectiveness and reliability
of each method varies depending on several
factors such as soil condition, constructability, etc.
This paper is limited to the discussion of some of
the common methods used in local practice.
3.1 Jet Grouting
Jet grouting is a ground stabilization procedure
which uses the principle of ultra-high pressure
injection of cement grout (>100m/s) into the
ground. It increases the soil bearing capacity of the
underlying weak soil. Jet grouting can be
employed in all types of soils, from clay to coarse
gravel.
Jet grouting creates in situ geometries of soilcrete
(grouted soil, typically 3000 – 6000 psi), using a
grouting monitor attached to the end of a drill
stem. The jet grout monitor is advanced to the
maximum treatment depth, at which time high
velocity grout jets (and sometimes water and air)
are initiated from ports in the side of the monitor.
The jets erode and mix the in situ soil as the drill
stem and jet grout monitor are rotated and raised.
Jet grouts can be installed at angles from vertical
to 45°.
One of main applications of jet grouting is the
underpinning of structures, that is, strengthening
the foundations of existing structures. Some
advantages of jet grouting are:
 Eliminates problems with space
restrictions as the jetting machine can
crawl into very tight spaces;
 There is minimal disturbance to adjacent
structures as there is no vibration or shock;
and
 Recovers loss due to settlement with the
aid of chemical jacking.
Figure 4. Typical execution of jet grouting
For structures found beneath the ground level
(~1m below EGL), jet grouting can be applied
along the perimeters. This ground improvement
technique increases the strength of the soil and
reduces susceptibility to settlement.
Jet grouting is currently one of the commonly used
ground improvement technique in the country.
This method provides a ‘containment’ of the
underlying soil by controlling the lateral spread
and thus, settlement. However, this may have
difficulties in applying to soils with significant
amount of fines.
3.2 Rammed Aggregate Piers
Alternatively, Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAP)
can also provide similar mitigating effects, by
densification effects and passageway to relieve
developed excess pore water pressures during a
seismic event. This solution will require
construction of rammed aggregate piers around or
underneath a structure.
Rammed aggregate pier (RAP) is a type of stone
column. Aggregate columns are installed by
compacting successive lifts of aggregate material
and compacted in lifts with a beveled tamper to
create passive soil pressure conditions both at the
bottom and the sides of the piers. Although
constructed differently than stone columns or
vibro piers, all provide similar improvement to
cohesive soils. The vertical tamping used to
construct RAPs results in minimal densification in
adjacent granular soils.
Figure 5. Rammed aggregate piers concepual design2
RAP is constructed by drilling a shaft into the
ground and then crushed rock is poured into the
bottom of the shaft and then rammed typically by
hydraulic hammer. Successive layers of crushed
rock of around 300m lift are rammed along the
depth of the shaft, forming a very dense crushed
rock pier/column.
3.3 Vibro Replacement
Vibro Replacement is usually an effective
technique for improvement of silts and sands with
more than 10% fines with interspersed layers of
soft clays. It reduces the liquefaction potential of
fine sands where the ground water table is at a
shallow level.
Originally used for improving loose, granular
soils, these techniques have been improved to
extend their range of application from loose
granular soils to poor cohesive soils in which stone
columns are built by the wet or dry method.
Stone columns refer to columns of compacted,
gravel size stone particles constructed vertically in
Table 2. Expected Densification and Reinforcement Achieved with Stone Columns2
3.4 Dynamic Compaction
Dynamic compaction is a technique that improves
granular soil deposits through densification. This
process involves the dropping of a heavy weight or
hammer repeatedly on the ground at regular
intervals [4]. The weight of the hammer used
varies over a range of 80 to 360 kN (18 to 80 kip),
and the height of the hammer drop varies between
7.5 and 30.5 m (25 and 100 ft). Stress waves
emanate from the hammer and dissipates deeper
into the soil. The degree of compaction achieved
at a given site depends on the following three
factors: (1) weight of hammer, (2) height of
the ground to improve the performance of soft or
loose soils. The stone can be compacted with
impact methods, such as with a falling weight or
an impact compactor or with a vibroflot, the more
common method. The method is used to increase
bearing capacity (up to 5 to 10 ksf or 240 to 480
kPa), reduce foundation settlements, improve
slope stability, reduce seismic subsidence, reduce
lateral spreading and liquefaction potential, permit
construction on loose/soft fills, and pre-collapse
sinkholes prior to construction in karst regions.
A specific application is referred to as vibro piers.
The process refers to short, closely spaced stone
columns designed to create a stiff block to increase
bearing capacity and reduce settlement to
acceptable values. Vibro piers are typically
constructed in cohesive soils in which a full depth
predrill hole will stay open. The stone is
compacted in 1 to 2 ft (0.4 to 0.8 m) lifts, each of
which is rammed and compacted with the
vibroflot.
hammer drop, (3) spacing of locations at which the
hammer is dropped.
Leonards, Cutter, & Holtz (1980) suggested that
the significant depth of influence for compaction
D for a hammer of weight WH and a drop h, can be
approximated by using the equation,
1
𝐷= √𝑊𝐻 ℎ
2
Poran & Rodriguez (1992) also suggested that the
approximate shape of the compacted area, for
specific width and weight of hammer and height of
drop, will be a semi-prolate spheroid, as shown in 4 CASE STUDY NO. 1
Figure 4.
The subsoil in a proposed power plant south of
Metro Manila, Philippines is generally made up of
very soft to soft clays that are usually interspersed
with very loose to loose sands. These are underlain
by sands with varying relative conditions until
15m to 20m depth. These layers are ultimately
underlain by tuffaceous siltstone, sandstone, and
Figure 6. Approximate shape of compacted area sandy tuff. An idealized subsurface condition from
boreholes is shown in Table 3.
3.5 Screen Pipes
Table 3. Site Subsurface Condition
USCS Consistency
Screen pipes are special type of vertical drain SPT-N
Depth, m Classification / / Relative
composed of slender rods in combined with Value
Description Condition
circular rings. The spacing of rings of about 0.1– 0.0 – 3.0 CH / MH [SM] HW / 6 - 10 Soft / loose
0.3mm allows ground water to be drained into the SM / SP-SM / [22] [26] 36
3.0 – 8.0 Dense
hollow pipe. The pipe is dynamically penetrated SC-SM / [MH] – 37
into the liquefiable layers which allows 8.0 –
SM 33 – 38 [59] Dense
11.5
installation using small equipment.
11.5 – Medium
SM 14
13.0 dense
Studies were conducted to validate the efficacy of 13.0 –
using screen pipes in liquefaction. Field shaking SM 1 Very loose
14.0
tests were also carried out to determine the effects Sandy tuff / Very dense
14.0 – ‘refusal’
of screen spacing to the ratio of excess pore water Tuffaceous CRR = 37 –
30.0 [coring]
pressure and initial overburden stress. It was siltstone 100%
determined from the tests that the narrower the
pipe spacing is, the lower the excess pore water Liquefaction analysis considering the SPT data
pressure [5]. was undertaken with the aid of LiquefyPro
Software, which is based on NCEER method. In
general, the analysis in most boreholes have
shown that the very loose to loose sands at 12.0m
to 15.0m depth are susceptible to liquefaction.

In order to densify the loose sand layers at the

Figure 7. Screen Pipe [5]
12.0m to 15.0m subsoil and mitigate liquefaction
potential, grouting was conducted at the power
plant site. A trial area shown in Figure 6,
consisting of a total of forty nine (49) grouting
points (1.5m center to center spacing) was
identified. Three (3) new SPTs were carried out
before the grouting works to serve as control data
and seven (7) SPTs were drilled after grouting.
 Table 6. Averaged SPT-N values
SPT-N values
Depth, m
Pre-Grouting Post-Grouting
12.0 – 13.0 21 31
13.0 – 14.0 10 20
14.0 – 15.0 16 28

Generally, there is an increase in the N-values after

the ground improvement procedure and
liquefaction-induced settlements were diminished.
The resulting liquefiable layer after grouting in the
upper soil layers has a very minimal settlement of
0.10 cm which is deemed negligible. The analysis
Grouting points
shows a potentially liquefiable region in the upper
layer, but is deemed non-liquefiable as these are
Figure 8. Grouting and Testing Location Plan dense sand layers (Nv>30).

Table 4. SPT-N values before grouting

Pre-Grouting
Depth, m
SPT-1 SPT-2 SPT-3
12.0 –
31 16 17
13.0
13.0 –
9 9 14
14.0
14.0 –
23 14 11
15.0

Table 5. SPT-N values after grouting

Post-Grouting
Depth, (testing done, in days after grouting)
m 25 1-A 18A 18B 30A 33A 47A
(2 d) (11 d) (1 d) (10 d) (7 d) (10 d) (6 d)

12.0 – 50/
14 9 10 60 18 11
13.0 18

13.0 –
15 14 15 11 9 13 64
14.0

14.0 – 50/
20 17 15 12 16 18
15.0 13

The averaged pre-grouting and post-grouting SPT-

N values, as presented in Table 5, were analyzed
and compared.

Figure 9. Liquefaction Analysis Result –

Pre-grouting state
 Table 7. Subsurface Condition within site (A4)+
USCS Consistency
SPT-N
Depth, m Classification / / Relative
Value
Description Condition
0.0 – 2.0 SP-SM 7–8 Loose
2.0 – 6.0 SP-SM / SM 14 Medium dense
6.0 – 12.0 SM 6 – 10 Loose
12.0 – Medium Stiff
25.5 CH 6 – 13
to stiff
25.5 – Medium dense
40.0 SM 12 – 38
to dense

Vibroflotation ground improvement measure was

conducted to address the susceptibility of the area
to liquefaction. The post-ground improvement
subsurface condition is presented below.

Table 8. Subsurface Condition within site (1C)

USCS Consistency
SPT-N
Depth, m Classification / / Relative
Value
Description Condition
0.0 – 1.0
SM 8 Loose
1.0 – 12.0 SM / SW-SM /
13 – 20 Medium dense
SP-SM

As evident in the results, there is an increase of 14-

200% in the SPT-N values. Liquefaction analysis
for the pre- and post-ground improvement data are
Figure 10. Liquefaction Analysis Result – shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Post-grouting state

CASE STUDY NO. 2

Another power plant site in northern Mindanao,

Philippines, has a potentially liquefiable subsoil,
based on the initial subsurface investigation.
Table 7 shows the idealization for a borehole
located in the main power block of the power
plant. It can be seen from the analysis of the pre-
ground improvement data in Figure 12 that the
sand layers are potentially liquefiable, with
settlement of about 33cm.
 N-value
0 5 10 15 20 25
0

5
Depth (m)

10

11

12

BH-1C (new) A4 (old)

Figure 11. Depth vs. N-value (A4 vs. BH-1C)

Table 9. Comparison of old and new SPT-N

values

Nnew Nold % Increase

Figure 12. Liquefaction Analysis Result - Pre-
8 7 14.3 improvement
13 8 62.5
17 14 21.5
16 14 14.3
17 14 21.5
16 14 14.3
17 9 88.9
18 9 100
19 10 90
20 6 233.4
18 6 200
19 10 90
 References:

[1] Seed, H. & Lee, K., 1966. Liquefaction of

Saturated Sands during Cyclic Loading. Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, 92(SM6), pp. 105 - 134.
[2] Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., Der Kiureghian, A.,
Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. Jr., Kayen, R.E.,
2000. SPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic
Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Initiation
Hazard.

[3] R. B. Seed, K. O. Cetin, R. E. S. Moss, A. M.

Kammerer, J. Wu, J. M. Pestana, M. F. Riemer,
R.B. Sancio1, J.D. Bray, R. E. Kayen, and A.
Faris, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction
Engineering: A unified and Consistent
Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles
Geotechnical Spring Seminar.

[4] Ishihara, K., Acacio, A. & Towhata, I., 1993.

Liquefaction-induced ground damage in Dagupan
in the July 16, 1990 Luzon Earthquake. Soils and
Foundations, 33(1), pp. 133 - 154.

[5] Towhata, I., 2008. Geotechnical Earthquake

Engineering. Tokyo: Springer.

Figure 13. Liquefaction Analysis Result - Post- [6] Das, B., 2007. Soil Compaction. In: Principles
improvement of Geotechnical Engineering. 7th ed. Stamford:
Cengage Learning, pp. 151 - 153.

5 CONCLUSION

Evaluating the site subsoil for liquefaction

potential is essential in coming up with adequate
and robust foundation design. The two ground
improvement cases for liquefaction presented in
this paper have shown that grouting and
vibroflotation can be an effective method of
improving strength parameters of the subsoil and
in mitigating liquefaction potential.