Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Lattice-shaped ground improvement by mixing soil and

alkali-activated slag for liquefaction mitigation
Xiaoyu Zhang a, Haibo Zhu a, Zhenzhen Jiao b, *, Zhihao Cen a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China
b
School of Transportation, Civil Engineering and Architecture, Foshan University, Foshan 528225, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Alkali-activated slag (AAS), an environmentally friendly material, has recently attracted
Liquefaction increasing attention for applications in soil improvement. However, most of the studies focused
Deep soil mixing on the geomechanical behavior of non-liquefiable soils strengthened with AAS. The objectives of
Alkali-activated slag
this study are to examine whether AAS is effective for strengthening liquefiable soil and to
Pile foundation
Earthquake response
evaluate the effectiveness of AAS in deep soil mixing (DSM) technology for mitigation of lique­
faction. The mechanical properties and microscale mechanism of the improvement of liquefiable
soil by AAS under standard curing, water curing, and seawater curing conditions are studied first.
Then, the strengthening effect of the DSM technique using the soil-AAS mixture on the soil-pile-
superstructure system is studied by three-dimensional numerical analyses. The results show that
the compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture is much greater than that of the soil-cement
mixture. Compressive strength of 32 MPa was obtained for a soil-ASS mixture with 25% slag
content under 28-day standard curing. Moreover, the DSM technique using the soil-AAS mixture
is an effective method for liquefaction mitigation; the maximum lateral displacement of the pile
during shaking can be reduced by half when the area improvement ratio is 20 %.

1. Introduction

Soil liquefaction, which is caused by the accumulation of excess pore water pressure in loose or medium saturated sand under
earthquake loads, leads to a drastic loss in the strength and stiffness of soil. Soil liquefaction causes damage to pile foundations and
associated superstructure failures have been observed in many earthquake events [1,2]. To mitigate damage to piles, it is necessary to
improve the liquefiable soil surrounding piles. The common methods used to mitigate soil liquefaction include dynamic compaction,
stone columns, biomaterials (bacteria and enzymes), and the deep soil mixing (DSM) technique [3]. Case histories show that the
construction of a grid of in-ground shear walls by the DSM technique (i.e., DSM grids) is a reliable method to prevent damage to pile
foundations in liquefiable deposits [4]. For example, the 14-story Oriental Hotel was supported by piles that were protected by DSM
grids survived the 1995 Kobe earthquake, and no damage to the piles or soil liquefaction was observed within the DSM grid zone
despite obvious liquefaction in the surrounding area [5].
Recently, an increase amount of literature has been published about evaluations of the effectiveness of the DSM technique for
liquefaction mitigation. O’Rourke and Goh [6], Kitazume and Takahashi [7], and Namikawa et al. [8] explained the relationship

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: xiaoyu@gzhu.edu.cn (X. Zhang), 2112016289@e.gzhu.edu.cn (H. Zhu), jiaozhenzhenhit@163.com (Z. Jiao), 2112116084@e.
gzhu.edu.cn (Z. Cen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01445
Received 21 June 2022; Received in revised form 24 August 2022; Accepted 29 August 2022
Available online 5 September 2022
2214-5095/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

between lattice spacing and maximum pore pressure ratio. Kitazume and Takahashi [7] confirmed that the improvement of lique­
faction prevention was influenced by the magnitudes of excitations and the relater depths. Namikawa et al. [8] found that increasing
the improvement area ratio (Ar) effectively prevented the occurrence of liquefaction, and the elastic modulus of soil-cement has a great
impact on liquefaction mitigation. Khalili et al. [9] revealed that DSM technology decreased excess pore water pressure by between 20
% and 50 %.
The DSM technique used in the above studies was performed by mechanically mixing soil with cement, and the mechanical
properties of soil-cement have been studied extensively [10–14]. Hasan and Canakci [15] investigated the physical-mechanical
properties of the soil-cement column constructed in clay soil. Chaiyaput et al. [16] studied the influence of curing conditions on
the strength of soil cement. However, using cement in the DSM technique can cause severe environmental problems: between
approximately 6 % and 7 % of the total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the world are caused by cement production [17,18], and the
cement industry is becoming a severe threat to ecology [19].
Meanwhile, over the past decades, the increased production of steel has produced increasing amounts of byproducts (e.g., slag) that
require efficient recycling. As reported by Luo et al. [20], slag is capable of developing high strength after being excited by alkali
activators. The strength of alkali-activated slag (AAS) is greater than that of ordinary Portland cement. Furthermore, as a promising
cement substitute [11,20], AAS can greatly improve the utilization rate of solid waste and reduce pollution, thus AAS is an envi­
ronmentally friendly material [21]. Recently, there has been increasing interest in the mechanical properties of soil strengthened with
alkali-activated materials. Slaty et al. [22] investigated the physical, thermal, mineralogical, and microstructural properties of
alkali-activated kaolinitic clay. Ojo et al. [21] utilized a low molarity alkali activator solution to strengthen muscovite rich soil.
Correa-Silva et al. [23] studied the behavior of a sandy clay stabilized with NaOH-activated blast furnace slag. However, previous
studies all focused on non-liquefiable soils, and no studies have examined whether AAS is effective for strengthening liquefiable soil.
Moreover, most current research is focuses on the mechanical properties, workability, and durability of soil-AAS mixture, while its
application in engineering receives less attention.
This study aims to explore the mechanical properties of liquefiable soil treated by AAS, the microscale mechanism of the
improvement of the soil and the application of AAS in the DSM technique for liquefaction mitigation. First, the strength of soil-AAS
mixtures is measured by mechanical property testing, and the feasibility of construction is evaluated by testing the setting time and
fluidity. Second, the microscale mechanism of the soil-AAS mixture is explained by applying mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) and
scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Finally, three-dimensional numerical analyses were used to investigate the strengthening effect
of the DSM technique using soil-AAS mixtures on the soil-pile-superstructure system.

Fig. 1. Raw materials for the test: (a) Yellow River sand; (b) ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS); (c) NaOH; and (d) water glass.

2
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

2. Experimental program

2.1. Materials

The sand (Fig. 1a) used in this study was Yellow River sand from Shanxi, China. Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), as
shown in Fig. 1b, was provided by Gongyi Longze Water Purification Material Co., Ltd., China. NaOH (Fig. 1c) and water glass (Fig. 1d)
were used as alkaline activators. Water glass is a water-soluble silicate with the chemical formula R2O⋅nSiO2, in which R2O is an alkali
metal oxide and n is the modulus. In this study, water glass was obtained from Huixin Chemical Co., Guangzhou, China, and it is
composed of Na2O (8.2 %), SiO2 (26 %), and H2O (65.8 %). NaOH particles with a purity of 96 % were provided by Guangzhou Xilong
Science Co., Ltd., China.

2.2. Mixing proportions

Nine mix proportions were used to combine the liquefiable sand with different relative densities of 25 %, 45 %, and 65 %, with
GGBFS powder contents of 15 %, 20 %, and 25 % (Table 1). As reported by Burciaga-Díaz et al. [24], the compressive strength of
alkali-activated cementitious materials increases with increasing Na2O content from 5 % to 10 % but decreases when the Na2O content
exceeds 10 %. Moreover, the compressive strengths of alkali-activated slag cementitious materials are 28 MPa, 33 MPa, 47 MPa, and
35 MPa when the contents of Na2O are 3.5 %, 5.5 %, 6.5 %, and 10.5 %, respectively [25]. When the content of Na2O is 10.5 %, the
saturation of Na+ results in more Na that does not react when forming a stable phase, which is conducive to the mechanical properties.
Wang et al. [26] pointed out that a water glass modulus between 1.0 and 1.5 is the best choice. Therefore, in this study, the Na2O
content was set as 8%, and the modulus of water glass was 1.2, which was achieved by adding the appropriate amounts of water glass
and NaOH. The mass amount of Na2O came from two source: NaOH and water glass. In addition, 2 mol NaOH is equivalent to 1 mol
Na2O and 1 mol water, according to Eq. (1):
2NaOH → Na2 O + H2 O (1)
The mass amount of water included three parts: NaOH (Eq. (1)), water glass, and extra tap water. The total water content was equal
to the water content of sand used at a certain relative density in the saturated state, and the water content was calculated according to
Eq. (2):
(emax − Dr (emax − e min))ρw ms
mw = (2)
ρs

where mw and ms are the masses of water and sand, respectively, emax and emin are the maximum void ratio and minimum void ratio,
respectively, ρs and ρw are the dry density of sand and the density of water, respectively, and Dr is the relative density of sand. The
mixed proportions of the nine groups of samples tested in this study are shown in Table 1. The code “D25S15” in Table 1 represents a
specimen consisting of sand with a relative density of 25%, and GGBFS accounts for 15% of the sand.

2.3. Sample preparation

The flowchart of the experimental procedure is presented in Fig. 2. First, NaOH particles were added to water and stirred evenly for
two minutes to prepare the NaOH solution. After cooling the NaOH solution, water glass was added and mixed to prepare the alkali
activator (Fig. 3a). Next, wet sand and GGBFS were added to the mixer and mixed slowly and evenly for five minutes. Then, the
prepared alkali activator was added to the mixture of wet sand and GGBFS, and stirring was continued. The mixture was stirred slowly
for one minute and then stirred quickly for two minutes, as shown in Fig. 3b. The soil-ASS mixture after stirring is shown in Fig. 3c. In
the last step, the soil-ASS mixture was added to a 40 × 40 × 160 mm triple test mold placed on a shaking table (Fig. 3d), and the
mixture was poured while the table vibrated. The whole process was controlled at 120 ± 5 s

Table 1
Mix proportions of the soil-ASS mixture.
Sample Dr (%) GGBFS (%) GGBFS (g) NaOH (g) Water glass (g) Water (g) Sand (g)

D25S15 25 15 225 14.72 80.39 358.23 1500

D25S20 25 20 300 19.62 107.19 339.49 1500
D25S25 25 25 375 24.53 133.99 320.75 1500
D45S15 45 15 225 14.72 80.39 317.87 1500
D45S20 45 20 300 19.62 107.19 299.13 1500
D45S25 45 25 375 24.53 133.99 280.39 1500
D65S15 65 15 225 14.72 80.39 277.51 1500
D65S20 65 20 300 19.62 107.19 258.77 1500
D65S25 65 25 375 24.53 133.99 240.03 1500

3
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 2. Experimental flowchart.

2.4. Methods

2.4.1. Setting time test

The setting time was determined according to the JGJ/T 70–2009 standard [27]. The inner diameter and height of the mortar
container in the setting time tester were 140 mm and 75 mm, respectively. The cross-sectional area of the test needle used to measure
the setting time of the mortar was 30 mm2. After the test needle contacted the mortar surface, it was slowly, evenly, and vertically
pressed into the mortar to a depth of 25 mm within 10 s, as shown in Fig. 4a. Because the setting time of the soil-ASS mixture was very
short, data were recorded every ten minutes for three groups of samples, D25S15, D25S20, and D45S15, and data were recorded every
five minutes for the other groups. The setting time was defined as the time from the addition of the alkali activator to the sand and
GGBFS mixture to the penetration resistance of 15 N.

2.4.2. Fluidity test

The fluidity was tested by using a jumping table (Fig. 4b) according to the GB/T 2419–2005 standard [28]. In the first step, the fresh
soil-ASS mixture was poured into a conical mold in two parts and vibrated with a tamping rod 15 and 10 times. In the second step, the
mold was lifted vertically, and the jumping table was run 25 times. Finally, the diameter was measured in two vertical directions after
the vibrations were stopped, and the average diameter was used to determine the fluidity of the soil-ASS samples.

2.4.3. Compressive strength test

According to the GB/T 17671–1999 standard [29], the soil-ASS mixture was poured into a 40 × 40 × 160 mm triple test mold, and
the vibration test mold made the test block denser. A layer of plastic film covered the surface of the test block to prevent moisture from
evaporating. Due to the high water content and low compressive strength in the early stage, the specimens were placed under standard
room conditions (20 ± 2 ℃ and RH>95%) for 3 days. After demolding, the specimens were cured under standard curing room, water,
and artificial seawater conditions. The temperatures of these three curing conditions were controlled at 20 ± 2 ℃, and the chemical
composition of artificial seawater is shown in Table 2. The compressive strengths of the samples after 3 days of standard curing and 7,
14, and 28 days of curing were determined by pressing with a loading rate of 0.1 mm/min (Fig. 4c), and the average value for the six
samples was taken as the compressive strength of the soil-ASS mixture during the corresponding curing time.

2.4.4. Microstructural methods

The pore size distribution of the soil-ASS mixture was measured by mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP). An Autopore IV 9510
high-performance automatic mercury injection instrument produced by Mike Instrument Company of the United States was used to
complete the test. The microstructure morphology was determined using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray

4
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 3. Preparation of a sample of the soil-ASS mixture material: (a) preparation of the alkaline activator; (b) mixing process; (c) soil-ASS mixture;
and (d) vibration process.

spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) with a Regulus 8100 instrument produced by Hitachi in Japan.

3. Experimental results and discussions

3.1. Material characteristics

The grain size distributions of Yellow River sand and highly liquefaction-prone sands suggested by the Japanese Seismic Code [30]
are shown in Fig. 5. The selected Yellow River sand had great potential for liquefaction. The properties of the sand are listed in Table 3.
The chemical compositions of the sand was measured by X-ray fluorescence (XRF), as given in Table 4. The oxide compositions of
GGBFS measured by XRF are summarized in Table 5.

3.2. Setting time

Fig. 6 shows the setting time of the soil-AAS mixture with different GGBFS contents and the relative density of sand. The setting
time of the soil-AAS mixture was in the range of 16–118 min. The blending process (Fig. 2) lasted only 2–3 min from the addition of the
alkali activator to the pouring of the soil-ASS mixture into the mold; this was much less than the setting time. Therefore, the sample
preparation in this study was not be affected by the curing and hardening times. The setting time of the soil-AAS mixtures for the loose
sand (Dr=25%) and medium sand (Dr=45 %), except for D45S25, was more than 50 min. However, for the medium dense sand (Dr=65
%), the setting time of every groups was less than 50 min. Moreover, the higher GGBFS contents resulted in a shorter setting time,
which was due to the increase in CaO content [31]. Yip [32] also indicated that CaO, as the main chemical component of slag, could
accelerate the hydration reaction. In summary, the setting time of the soil-AAS mixtures decreased with increasing relative density of
sand and GGBFS content. The shorter setting time was attributed to the decomposition and hydration of the slag and the rapid initial
formation of C-S-H [33]. Because the setting time has a great influence on the construction process, the GGBFS content should be
carefully selected according to the relative density of sand in engineering applications.

5
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 4. Testing process of the samples.

Table 2
Chemical composition of artificial seawater.
Composition NaCl Na2SO4 MgCl20.6 H2O KCl CaCl2
3
Artificial seawater (kg/m ) 24.5 4.1 11.1 0.7 1.2

Fig. 5. Grain size distribution curve of the sand sample.

3.3. Fluidity

The fluidity of the soil-AAS mixtures is shown in Table 6. The fluidity of the mixtures is negatively correlated with the relative
density in the sand and the content of GGBFS. With the increase in the relative density of sand, the water content increases, and a high

6
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Table 3
Properties of the Yellow River sand.
Mean diameter d50 Uniformity coefficient Curvature coefficient cc=d230/ Maximum void ratio Minimum void ratio Specific Gravity
(mm) cu=d60/d10 (d10 d60) emax emin Gs

0.26 3.01 1.09 0.781 0.442 2.52

Table 4
Chemical composition of Yellow River sand.
Composition SiO2 Al2O3 CaO K2 O Na2O MgO Fe2O3 Others

Yellow River sand 73.42 % 12.25 % 4.19 % 3.45 % 3.09 % 1.51 % 1.41 % 0.68 %

Table 5
Chemical composition of GGBFS.
Composition CaO SiO2 Al2O3 SO3 TiO2 Fe2O3 MnO K2O Others

GGBFS 58.71 % 26.24 % 6.25 % 2.57 % 2.18 % 1.81 % 0.95 % 0.72 % 0.57 %

Fig. 6. Setting time of soil-AAS mixtures with different GGBFS contents.

Table 6
Experimental fluidity results.
Sample Fluidity (mm)

D25S15 > 300

D25S20 > 300
D25S25 > 300
D45S15 > 300
D45S20 298.1
D45S25 294.8
D65S15 248.5
D65S20 245.6
D65S25 235.4

water content makes it easier for the mixture to flow. The increase in GGBFS content absorbs some of the water, thus leading to a
decrease in fluidity. In the experiment, the fluidity of all groups was greater than 235 mm, which was due to the high water content in
the soil-AAS mixture. The fluidity of sand with relative densities of 25% and 45% was close to 300 mm or even greater than 300 mm,
which was due to the high water content in loose sand and medium dense sand. This also indicated that it was easier to construct
structures in loose sand and medium dense sand. The fluidity can provide a reference for DSM technology, and large fluidity is
conducive to the use of the DSM technique.

7
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

3.4. Compressive strength

The compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixtures for various relative densities of sand and various GGBFS contents at standard,
water, and seawater curing ages of 3, 7, 14, and 28 days are shown in Figs. 7–9, respectively. Fig. 7 shows that under the three-day
standard curing conditions, the strengths of all samples were less than 6 MPa except sample D65S25 (13.64 MPa). The compressive
strength increased particularly rapidly from the 3rd day to the 7th day and the compressive strength at 7 days was 70–85 % of that at
28 days. Figs. 7–9 show that the increasing trends under the three curing conditions were similar during the 28 days of curing. The
compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture increased as the curing ages increased. A similar trend was also reported in previous
studies, such as those by Hu et al. [34], Bayati and Saadabadi [35], and Jiao et al. [36]. Moreover, the order of the compressive
strengths under the three different curing conditions was as follows: standard curing > seawater curing > water curing. The
compressive strength was reduced under seawater curing conditions, which was attributed to rapid penetration by sulfate and chloride
ions [37]. The difference in compressive strength between standard curing and seawater curing was 5–8 %, and that between standard
curing and water curing was 7–11 %.
The compressive strength test results for the soil-AAS mixture with different GGBFS contents at 28 days are shown in Fig. 10. The
GGBFS content varied from 15 % to 25 %, and the compressive strength of specimens under the three curing conditions increased as the
content of GGBFS increased. A similar conclusion was obtained by Timothy et al. [38], who found that the compressive strength of AAS
increased as the slag to fly ash ratio was increased from 0/10–7/3, which was due to the increased calcium dissolution and formation of
C-A-S-H [39]. The influence of the GGBFS content on the changing trend of the compressive strength of sand with different curing
conditions and different relative densities was basically the same. Specifically, the sample with Dr= 45 % under water curing con­
ditions was taken as an example (Fig. 10b). As the content of GGBFS was increased from 15 % to 20 % and 25 %, the compressive
strength of the soil-AAS mixture increased slowly from 9.81 MPa to 13.81 MPa and then quickly to 25.15 MPa. In summary, increasing
the content of GGBFS effectively improved the compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture, especially when the content of slag
powder was greater than 20 %.

Fig. 7. Compressive strength of specimens under standard curing conditions: (a) Dr = 25 %; (b) Dr = 45 %; and (c) Dr = 65 %.

8
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 8. Compressive strength of specimens under water curing conditions: (a) Dr = 25 %; (b) Dr = 45 %; and (c) Dr = 65 %.

Singh et al. [40] studied the compressive strength of the soil-cement mixture with a cement content of 25 %. Fig. 11 compares the
compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture (25 % GGBFS) in this study and the soil-cement mixture in the study of Singh et al. [40]
under 28-day standard curing. At the same mixing ratio, the compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture was much larger than that of
the soil-cement mixture. For instance, when the water-cement ratio was 1.1, the compressive strengths of the soil-AAS mixture and the
soil-cement mixture were 23.06 MPa and 13.78 MPa, respectively.

3.5. MIP

The effects of the relative density of sand, the content of GGBFS, and the curing conditions on the pore size distributions of the soil-
AAS mixture are shown in Figs. 12–14. The porosity of the soil-AAS mixture increased as the content of GGBFS decreased. There was a
negative correlation between the porosity and compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture with decreasing content of GGBFS. The
samples with 25 % GGBFS had higher compressive strength due to the denser pore structures with lower porosity. From Fig. 13, the
higher relative density of sand resulted in a lower total pore volume. More pores with a diameter > 100 nm led to the lower
compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture [41,42]. The porosity proportion of > 100 nm decreased from 14.0 % to 6.6 % as the
relative density of sand increased from 25 % to 65 %, which was consistent with the results of the compressive strength mentioned
above (Section 3.4). The same conclusion was obtained by Allahverdi et al. [43]. Moreover, curing conditions also played an important
role in the pore structures. Compared with that in standard curing, the peak at pore diameters between 100 nm and 500 nm shifted to
smaller pores in water or seawater curing. Gu and Fang [44] also found that, compared with the cement mortars, the seawater
environment can improve the mechanical performance of alkali-activated slag mortars due to the difference in porosity and pore
structures. However, another peak at pore diameters > 10,000 nm was found with seawater curing, which was consistent with the
larger porosity. The microcracks were the main reason for the reduction in the compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture in
seawater curing [45].

9
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 9. Compressive strength of specimens under seawater curing conditions: (a) Dr = 25 %; (b) Dr = 45 %; and (c) Dr = 65 %.

3.6. SEM-EDS

The SEM images of the soil-AAS mixture with different curing conditions are shown in Fig. 15. As shown in Fig. 15, the micro­
structures of the soil-AAS mixture appeared homogeneous under standard curing conditions; however, there were some microcracks
under seawater curing conditions, which caused the porosity to increase from 16.3 % (standard curing) to 16.8 % (seawater curing)
and the compressive strength to decrease from 25.0 MPa to 23.4 MPa. The microcracks and interconnected voids may be an important
reason for the increasing porosity [46]. Jin et al. [47] also found obvious cracks in geopolymers on day 21 of seawater curing, which
was due to Friedel’s salt. Furthermore, more products with a higher Si/Al ratio were found in the soil-AAS mixture under water curing
conditions, and they filled the pore structures, leading to the lowest porosity (14.6 %). Mengasini et al. [46] also indicated that there
were no microcracks in alkali-activated concrete under water curing conditions.

4. Engineering applications

Failure of pile-supported structures is one of the most catastrophic phenomena occurring due to earthquake-induced liquefaction.
Lattice-shaped DSM walls (Fig. 16a) can be used in liquefaction mitigation [4]. Numerical analysis is an effective method to investigate
the soil-structure interaction [48]. In this study, the soil-AAS mixtures were used to construct lattice-shaped DSM walls (Fig. 16a).
Three-dimensional finite element analyses of the soil-pile-structure system were conducted to evaluate the strengthening effect of the
DSM technique using the soil-AAS mixtures. All numerical simulations were performed using OpenSees [49].

4.1. Numerical modeling

Numerical analyses were carried out for a unit cell from a vast square grid pattern. Fig. 16a shows the repetitive nature of the DSM
grids, while Fig. 16b shows the plan view of a unit cell. The unit cell can represent the vast square grid pattern when the periodic
boundary technique is applied (Fig. 16b) [50]. On this basis, to further improve the efficiency of computation, only half of the unit cell
was meshed (Fig. 16b and Fig. 17).
In this finite element model, the saturated sand was simulated with an 8-node brick element. For this element, every node had four

10
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 10. Twenty-eight day compressive strength of soil-AAS mixtures with different GGBFS contents: (a) standard curing; (b) water curing; and (c)
seawater curing.

Fig. 11. Comparison of compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture and the soil-cement mixture under 28-day standard curing.

degrees of freedom (DOFs), where DOFs 1–3 represented the translational displacements of the soil skeleton, and the pore water
pressure was represented by DOF 4. Based on Chan’s u-p formulation [51] (i.e., u is the displacement of the soil skeleton and p is the
pore water pressure). The advantage of this element is that it can characterize the solid-fluid coupled material. The constitutive model

11
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 12. Pore size distribution of the soil-AAS mixture with different contents of GGBFS under 28-day standard curing (Dr=45 %).

proposed by Yang et al. [52] was used to predict the strength and deformation of the saturated sand. The above constitutive model was
able to simulate the characteristics of saturated sand under monotonic or cyclic loading, which was confirmed by earlier studies [53].
The DSM wall constructed by the soil-AAS mixture was modeled by a linear elastic material for simplicity, as the results of the sub­
sequent analyses showed that the peak strain in the DSM wall was much less than the measured yield strain. A linear elastic material
has been widely used to represent the DSM wall in previous studies [54].
The pile was simulated using fiber-section nonlinear force-based beam-column elements. Every node of this element had six DOFs:
DOFs 1–3 were translational displacements and DOFs 4–6 were rotations [49]. The geometric space of the pile was characterized by
rigid beam-column links. The zero-length interface element was used to connect the soil element and the pile rigid beam-column links
to describe the slippage between the pile and soil. More details about the soil-pile interface model were provided in Zhang et al. [55]. A
lumped mass was applied to the pile head to represent the superstructure.

4.2. Validation of the numerical model

The above finite element method was validated by comparing the centrifuge test and computed results. The centrifuge test was
carried out by Wilson [56] to investigate the seismic performance of pile foundations in liquefiable soils. In this centrifuge test, the soil
profile consisted of two horizontal strata of saturated Nevada sand. The upper loose sand stratum (Dr≈35 %) was 9.1 m thick, and the
underlying dense stratum (Dr ≈80 %) was 11.4 m thick. An aluminum pipe pile with an outer diameter of 667 mm and an inner
diameter of 522 mm was partly embedded in the soil. The embedded length of the pile was 16.8 m. A mass of 50 tons was applied to the
pile top to represent the superstructure.
The material and geometrical parameters of the pile were the same as those in the centrifuge test. The constitutive model

12
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 13. Pore size distribution of the soil-AAS mixture with different relative densities of sand under 28-day standard curing (20 % GGBFS).

parameters for the loose and dense Nevada sand were in accord with earlier research by Yang et al. [57]. The earthquake ground
motion (Fig. 16e) in the centrifuge test was applied to the model base as a uniform acceleration boundary condition. Fig. 18 presents
the comparison of the computed results with the centrifuge test, including the excess pore water pressure time histories at a depth of
3.8 m (Fig. 18a), acceleration time histories of soil at a depth of 10.7 m (Fig. 18b), acceleration time histories of the superstructure
(Fig. 18c), and bending moment time histories of the pile at a depth of 1.5 m (Fig. 18d). The results obtained using the finite element
method agreed fairly well with those obtained by experiments. More comparisons of the computed and experimental results can be
found in Zhang et al. [55].

4.3. Effectiveness of the DSM technique using the soil-AAS mixture in liquefaction mitigation

To study the strengthening effect of the DSM technique using the soil-AAS mixture on the seismic performance of the soil-pile-
structure system, a parameter study was performed by varying the area replacement ratio (Ar). Ar is conventionally defined as the
area of the improved soil (i.e., DSM wall) with respect to the tributary area.
In this parameter study, the baseline model was developed based on the above-validated model. For the baseline model (Fig. 17),
the soil profile consisted of two horizontal strata of saturated Yellow River sand. The upper sand stratum was 9.1 m thick, and the
underlying stratum was 11.4 m thick. Table 7 presents the parameters used for the constitutive models of the Yellow River sands.
Sample D45S20 in Table 1 was used to construct the DSM wall, which was 0.8 m thick and 9.1 m deep. The measured Young’s modulus
and Poisson’s ratio of the DSM wall were 15 GPa and 0.25, respectively. The material and geometrical parameters of the pile and
superstructure were the same as those in the centrifuge test. The ground motion recorded from the Los Angeles Reservoir station during
the 1994 Northridge earthquake was selected as the input motion in the parameter study (Fig. 19).
Fig. 20 shows the maximum lateral displacement along the pile depth with different area replacement ratios. From the figure, the

13
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 14. Pore size distribution of the soil-AAS mixture with different curing conditions (Dr=45 %, 20 % GGBFS).

maximum lateral displacement of the pile without any strengthening reached 0.2 m, and the maximum lateral displacement of the pile
for Ar= 10 %, Ar= 20 %, Ar= 30 %, and Ar= 40 % were 0.123 m, 0.097 m, 0.085 m, and 0.076 m, respectively. The DSM technique
using the soil-AAS mixture effectively reduced the lateral deformation of the pile. For the cases of Ar= 10 % and Ar= 20 %, the
maximum lateral displacements of the pile were reduced by 36 % and 52 %, respectively. With increasing Ar, the maximum lateral
displacement of the pile decreased. When Ar increased to 20 %, the maximum lateral displacement of the pile was less than half of the
maximum lateral displacement of the pile without any strengthening (i.e., Ar=0 %). However, with increasing Ar, the improvement in
the reinforcement effect was not obvious. Therefore, Ar= 20 % was a more economical reinforcement scheme.
The excess pore water pressure ratio is a key indicator for the development of soil liquefaction. The excess pore water pressure ratio
refers to the ratio of excess pore water pressure to overlying effective stress. When the excess pore water pressure ratio reaches 1.0, the
soil is fully liquefied. Fig. 21 illustrates the excess pore pressure ratio along with the soil depth with different Ar values. For the cases of
Ar= 0 and Ar= 10 %, the saturated sand at depths of 2.28 m, 5.31 m, and 8.34 m was fully liquefied during shaking. For the cases of
Ar= 20 %, Ar= 30 %, and Ar= 40 %, the saturated sand at a depth of 2.28 m was fully liquefied, while the excess pore water pressure
ratio of the soil at depths of 5.31 m and 8.34 m was less than 1.0; that is, no liquefaction occurred. Fig. 21 clearly shows that the DSM
technique using the soil-AAS mixture had a good effect on preventing the pore water pressure from increasing in the soil. This was
because the DSM grids acted as a confined shear box, which provided additional shear stiffness and strength for the sites, and reduced
the shear strains imposed on the enclosed saturated sand, thereby slowing the generation of excess pore water pressures [4].

5. Conclusions

This study examined the effectiveness of AAS in improving liquefiable soil. The findings of this study provide an effective way to
utilize waste slag. In this study, the mechanical properties and microscale mechanism of the soil-AAS mixture under three different
curing conditions were explored by experimentation, and the strengthening effect of the DSM technique using the soil-AAS mixture on

14
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 15. SEM-EDS images of the soil-AAS mixture under different curing conditions.

Fig. 16. Improvement of the liquefiable soil using the DSM technique: (a) schematic view of DSM grids; and (b) plan view of the representative
unit cell.

15
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 17. Finite element mesh in the numerical simulation (Ar=10%).

Fig. 18. Comparison of the computed results with the centrifuge test: (a) excess pore water pressure; (b) acceleration of the soil; (c) acceleration of
the superstructure; (d) bending moment of the pile; and (e) input motion (after [55,56]).

the soil-pile-superstructure system was studied by numerical methods. The main conclusions were as follows:

(1) Liquefiable soil can be improved by using AAS instead of cement. Notably, AAS is an environmentally friendly material, and the
production of cement causes great amounts of pollution. In addition, the compressive strengths of the soil-AAS mixture were
much larger than those of the soil-cement mixtures at the same mixing ratios.
(2) The compressive strength of the soil-AAS mixture increased with increasing curing age. Compressive strength of 32 MPa was
obtained for the soil-ASS mixture with 25 % slag content under 28-day standard curing. Increasing the content of GGBFS
effectively improved its compressive strength. The compressive strength increased rapidly by 3–4 times as the content of GGBFS

16
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Table 7
Constitutive model parameters for the soil.
Parameter (Unit) Medium sand (Dr =45%) Dense sand (Dr =85%) Description and source [Reference]

ρ (kg/m3) 1933 2018 Saturated mass density, ρ = ρw (Gs + 1)/(1 + e), ρw= 1.0 [58]
(N1)60 12.15 43.35 Standard penetration test blow counts, (N1)60 = 60D2r [59]
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Gr (MPa) 65.47 120.91 Reference low-strain shear modulus, Gr = 1.5 Gmax [59,60]
Br (MPa) 175.33 392.74 Reference bulk modulus [59]
ϕ (◦ ) 33 40 Friction angle, related to Dr [5]
ϕPT (◦ ) 27 27 Phase transformation angle [49]
c1 0.07 0.03 Contraction parameter [49]
d1, d2 0.4, 2 0.8, 5 Dilation parameter [49]

Fig. 19. Base input motion.

Fig. 20. Maximum pile displacement profiles for different area replacement ratios.

increased from 15 % to 25 %. Moreover, the order of the compressive strengths under the three curing conditions was as follows:
standard curing > seawater curing > water curing.
(3) The soil-AAS mixtures had particularly large fluidity, which was conducive to the use of the DSM technique. The larger the
relative density of sand was, the larger the GGBFS content, and the shorter the setting time of the soil-AAS mixture. Sand with
larger relative density can be reinforced with lower GGBFS content to ensure the feasibility of construction.
(4) The porosity of the soil-AAS mixtures increased as the content of GGBFS and relative density of sand decreased. The micro­
structure of the soil-AAS mixtures appeared homogeneous for standard curing, while some microcracks formed during seawater
curing, which affected the increase in porosity. Furthermore, more products with higher Si/Al ratio were found in the soil-AAS
mixtures under water curing conditions, and these products filled the pore structures and led to the lowest porosity.
(5) The DSM technique to form in-ground shear walls using soil-AAS mixtures is a reliable method to reduce the damage caused by
soil liquefaction. The higher the area replacement ratio was, the better the effects on the remediation. When Ar= 10 %, the
maximum lateral displacement of the pile was reduced by 1/3. When Ar= 20 %, the maximum lateral displacement of the pile
was reduced by half. Ar= 20 % was a more economical reinforcement scheme because when Ar was greater than 20 %, the
reduction in the maximum lateral displacement did not change much compared with that in the case where Ar= 20 %.

17
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

Fig. 21. Excess pore water pressure ratio time histories.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41902287 and 52020105002), and the Science and
Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou (202102010436).

References

[1] Finn, W.D. Liam, 1st Ishihara Lecture: an overview of the behavior of pile foundations in liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils during earthquake excitation, Soil.
Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 68 (2015) 69–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.009.
[2] X. Zhang, L. Tang, X. Li, X. Ling, A. Chan, Effect of the combined action of lateral load and axial load on the pile instability in liquefiable soils, Eng. Struct. 205
(2020), 110074, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110074.
[3] X. Bao, Z. Jin, H. Cui, X. Chen, X. Xie, Soil liquefaction mitigation in geotechnical engineering: an overview of recently developed methods, Soil. Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 120 (MAY) (2019) 273–291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.01.020.
[4] T. Nguyen, D. Rayamajhi, R. Boulanger, S. Ashford, J. Lu, A. Elgamal, L. Shao, Design of DSM grids for liquefaction remediation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
139 (11) (2013) 1923–1933, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)gt.1943-5606.0000921.
[5] K. Tokimatsu, H. Mizuno, M. Kakurai, Building damage associated with geotechnical problems, Soil. Found. 36 (1996) 219–234, https://doi.org/10.3208/
sandf.36.Special_219.
[6] T. O’rourke, S. Goh, Reduction of liquefaction hazards by deep soil mixing, Tech. Rep. Nceer 97–0005 (1997) 87–105.
[7] M. Kitazume, H. Takahashi, Centrifuge model tests on effect of deep mixing wall spacing on liquefaction mitigation, Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering & 5th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 2010,
pp. 473–478.

18
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

[8] T. Namikawa, J. Koseki, Y. Suzuki, Finite element analysis of lattice-shaped ground improvement by cement-mixing for liquefaction mitigation, Soil. Found. 47
(3) (2007) 559–576, https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.47.559.
[9] H. DehqanKhalili, A. Ghalandarzadeh, M. Moradi, R. Karimzadeh, Effect of distribution patterns of DSM columns on the efficiency of liquefaction mitigation,
Sci. Iran. 27 (5) (2020) 2198–2208, https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2019.21647.
[10] A. Carvalho, G. de Castro Xavier, J. Alexandre, L.G. Pedroti, A.R.G. De Azevedo, C.M.F. Vieira, S.N. Monteiro, Environmental durability of soil-cement block
incorporated with ornamental stone waste, https://doi-org.kth.80599.net/, Mater. Sci. Forum, Trans. Tech. Publ. (2014) 548–553, https://doi.org/10.4028/
www.scientific.net/MSF.798-799.548.
[11] M.T. Marvila, A.R.G. de Azevedo, L.B. de Oliveira, G. de Castro Xavier, C.M.F. Vieira, Mechanical, physical and durability properties of activated alkali cement
based on blast furnace slag as a function of% Na2O, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15 (2021), e00723, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00723.
[12] M. Amiri, M. Sanjari, F. Porhonar, Microstructural evaluation of the cement stabilization of hematite-rich red soil, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022), e00935,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00935.
[13] B.R. França, A.R.G. Azevedo, S.N. Monteiro, F.D.C. Garcia Filho, M.T. Marvila, J. Alexandre, E.B. Zanelato, Durability of soil-cement blocks with the
incorporation of limestone residues from the processing of marble, Mater. Res. 21 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5373-MR-2017-1118.
[14] Areias, C. Vieira, H. Colorado, G. Delaqua, S. Monteiro, A. Azevedo, Could city sewage sludge be directly used into clay bricks for building construction? A
comprehensive case study from Brazil, J. Build. Eng. 31 (2020), 101374, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101374.
[15] M.F. Hasan, H. Canakci, Physical-mechanical assessment of full-scale soil-cement column constructed in clayey soil, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022),
e00943, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00943.
[16] S. Chaiyaput, N. Arwaedo, N. Kingnoi, T. Nghia-Nguyen, J. Ayawanna, Effect of curing conditions on the strength of soil cement, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16
(2022), e01082, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01082.
[17] C.M. Anjaneyulu, M. Malikarjuna, Impact of Nano Titanium Dioxide on Geopolymer Concrete, Journal homepage: www. ijrpr.com ISSN 2582 7421.
[18] N.A. Odeh, A.H. Al-Rkaby, Strength, Durability, and Microstructures characterization of sustainable geopolymer improved clayey soil, Case Stud. Constr. Mater.
16 (2022), e00988, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00988.
[19] A.M. Zeyad, H.M. Magbool, B.A. Tayeh, A.R.G. de Azevedo, A. Abutaleb, Q. Hussain, Production of geopolymer concrete by utilizing volcanic pumice dust, Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022), e00802, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00802.
[20] W. Luo, S. Liu, Y. Jiang, X. Guan, Y. Hu, D. Hu, B. Li, Utilisation of dewatered extracted soil in concrete blocks produced with Portland cement or alkali-activated
slag: Engineering properties and sustainability, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15 (2021), e00760, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00760.
[21] E.B. Ojo, K. Mustapha, R.S. Teixeira, H. Savastano Jr, Development of unfired earthen building materials using muscovite rich soils and alkali activators, Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 11 (2019), e00262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00262.
[22] F. Slaty, H. Khoury, J. Wastiels, H. Rahier, Characterization of alkali activated kaolinitic clay, Appl. Clay Sci. 75 (2013) 120–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2013.02.005.
[23] M. Correa-Silva, M. Rouainia, T. Miranda, N. Cristelo, Predicting the mechanical behaviour of a sandy clay stabilised with an alkali-activated binder, Eng. Geol.
292 (2021), 106260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106260.
[24] L.Y. Burciaga-Díaz, J.I.Escalante-García Gómez-Zamorano, Influence of the long term curing temperature on the hydration of alkaline binders of blast furnace
slag-metakaolin, Constr. Build. Mater. 113 (2016) 917–926, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.111.
[25] A.M. Rashad, S.R. Zeedan, A.A. Hassan, Influence of the activator concentration of sodium silicate on the thermal properties of alkali-activated slag pastes,
Constr. Build. Mater. 102 (2016) 811–820, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.023.
[26] S.D. Wang, K.L. Scrivener, P.L. Pratt, Factors affecting the strength of alkali-activated slag, Cem. Concr. Res. 24 (6) (1994) 1033–1043, https://doi.org/10.1016/
0008-8846(94)90026-4.
[27] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, JGJ/T 70–2009: Standard for Test Method of Basic Properties of
Construction Mortar, China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2009.
[28] China Standardization Administration, GB/T 2419–2005: Test Method for Fluidity of Cement Mortar, China Standards Press, Beijing, 2005.
[29] State Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision, GB/T 17671-1999: Method of testing cements-Determination of strength, Beijing: China Standards Press,
2011, pp. 6–12 (in Chinese).
[30] D. Lombardi, S. Bhattacharya, M. Hyodo, T. Kaneko, Undrained behaviour of two silica sands and practical implications for modelling SSI in liquefiable soils,
Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 66 (2014) 293–304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.07.010.
[31] N.K. Lee, H.K. Lee, Setting and mechanical properties of alkali-activated fly ash/slag concrete manufactured at room temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. 47
(2013) 1201–1209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.107.
[32] C.K.-B. Yip, The role of calcium in geopolymerisation, University of Melbourne, 2004.
[33] S. Aydın, B. Baradan, Effect of activator type and content on properties of alkali-activated slag mortars, Compos. B Eng. 57 (2014) 166–172, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.10.001.
[34] X. Hu, C. Shi, Z. Shi, L. Zhang, Compressive strength, pore structure and chloride transport properties of alkali-activated slag/fly ash mortars, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 104 (2019), 103392, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.103392.
[35] M. Bayati, L.A. Saadabadi, Efficiency of bacteria based self-healing method in alkali-activated slag (AAS) mortars, J. Build. Eng. 42 (2021), 102492, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102492.
[36] Z. Jiao, Y. Wang, W. Zheng, W. Huang, Effect of dosage of sodium carbonate on the strength and drying shrinkage of sodium hydroxide based alkali-activated
slag paste, Constr. Build. Mater. 179 (2018) 11–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.194.
[37] M.M. Islam, M.S. Islam, B.C. Mondal, M.R. Islam, Strength behavior of concrete using slag with cement in sea water environment, J. Civ. Eng. (IEB) 38 (2)
(2010) 129–140.
[38] T.A. Aiken, J. Kwasny, W. Sha, K.T. Tong, Mechanical and durability properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete with increasing slag content, Constr. Build.
Mater. 301 (2021), 124330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124330.
[39] M. Hojati, A. Radlińska, Shrinkage and strength development of alkali-activated fly ash-slag binary cements, Constr. Build. Mater. 150 (2017) 808–816, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.040.
[40] S.B. Singh, P. Munjal, N. Thammishetti, Role of water/cement ratio on strength development of cement mortar, J. Build. Eng. 4 (2015) 94–100, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2015.09.003.
[41] S. Aydın, B. Baradan, Mechanical and microstructural properties of heat cured alkali-activated slag mortars, Mater. Des. 35 (2012) 374–383, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2011.10.005.
[42] B. Uzal, L. Turanlı, H. Yücel, M.C. Göncüoğlu, A. Çulfaz, Pozzolanic activity of clinoptilolite: A comparative study with silica fume, fly ash and a non-zeolitic
natural pozzolan, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (3) (2010) 398–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.10.016.
[43] A. Allahverdi, E.N. Kani, M. Yazdanipour, Effects of blast-furnace slag on natural pozzolan-based geopolymer cement, Ceram. Silikáty 55 (1) (2011) 68–78.
[44] Y.M. Gu, Y.H. Fang, Durability of alkali-activated slag cement in seawater environment, https://doi-org.kth.80599.net/, Adv. Mater. Res. 450–451 (2012)
778–781, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.450-451.778.
[45] A.M. Rashad, A.S. Ouda, Effect of tidal zone and seawater attack on high-volume fly ash pastes enhanced with metakaolin and quartz powder in the marine
environment, Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 324 (2021), 111261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2021.111261.
[46] L. Mengasini, M. Mavroulidou, M.J. Gunn, Alkali-activated concrete mixes with ground granulated blast furnace slag and paper sludge ash in seawater
environments, Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 20 (2021), 100380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2021.100380.
[47] M. Jin, Z. Wang, F. Lian, P. Zhao, Freeze-thaw resistance and seawater corrosion resistance of optimized tannery sludge/metakaolin-based geopolymer, Constr.
Build. Mater. 265 (2020), 120730, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120730.
[48] J.P. Rizzuto, I.G. Shaaban, S.A. Paschalis, T.S. Mustafa, Z. Benterkia, Experimental and theoretical behaviour of large scale loaded steel mesh reinforced concrete
ground-supported slabs, Constr. Build. Mater. 327 (2022), 126831, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126831.

19
X. Zhang et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01445

[49] S. Mazzoni, F. McKenna, M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, OpenSees command language manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, 2006.
[50] H.K. Law, I.P. Lam, Application of periodic boundary for large pile group, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (10) (2001) 889–892, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(889).
[51] A.H.C. Chan, A unified finite element solution to static and dynamic geomechanics problems, University College of Swansea, UK, 1988.
[52] Z. Yang, A. Elgamal, E. Parra, Computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation, https://doi-org.blk.80599.net/, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. 129 (12) (2003) 1119–1127, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:12(1119).
[53] X. Zhang, L. Tang, X. Ling, A.H.C. Chan, J. Lu, Using peak ground velocity to characterize the response of soil-pile system in liquefying ground, Eng. Geol. 240
(2018) 62–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.04.011.
[54] B.A. Bradley, K. Araki, T. Ishii, K. Saitoh, Effect of lattice-shaped ground improvement geometry on seismic response of liquefiable soil deposits via 3-D seismic
effective stress analysis, Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 48 (2013) 35–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.01.027.
[55] X. Zhang, J. Chen, Y. Wu, L. Tang, X. Ling, Predicting the maximum seismic response of the soil-pile-superstructure system using random forests, J. Earthq. Eng.
(2021) 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1988766.
[56] D.W. Wilson, Soil-Pile-superstructure Interaction in Liquefying Sand and Soft Clay, University of California, Davis, 1998.
[57] Z. Yang, J. Lu, A. Elgamal, OpenSees soil models and solid-fluid fully coupled elements user’s manual, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San
Diego., 2008.
[58] B.M. Das, Principles of foundation engineering, Cengage learning 2015.
[59] X. Wang, A. Ye, B. Ji, Fragility-based sensitivity analysis on the seismic performance of pile-group-supported bridges in liquefiable ground undergoing scour
potentials, Eng. Struct. 198 (2019), 109427, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109427.
[60] Z. Yang, Numerical Modeling of Earthquake Site Response Including Dilation and Liquefaction, Columbia University, 2000.

20