SOIL LIQUEFACTION

WHAT IS SOIL LIQUEFACTION?

Description
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by
earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction and related phenomena have been
responsible for tremendous amounts of damage in historical earthquakes around the world.

Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual
particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that
influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the
water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to
increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other.

Earthquake shaking
often triggers this increase in
water pressure, but
construction related activities
such as blasting can also
cause an increase in water
pressure. When liquefaction
occurs, the strength of the soil
decreases and, the ability of a
soil deposit to support
foundations for buildings and
bridges is reduced as seen in
the photo (SC) of the
overturned apartment
complex buildings in Niigata in
1964.

The type of ground failure shown above can be simulated in the laboratory.

Liquefied soil also exerts higher pressure

on retaining walls, which can cause them to tilt
or slide. This movement can cause settlement of
the retained soil and destruction of structures on
the ground surface (GH).

Increased water pressure can also trigger

landslides and cause the collapse of dams. Lower
San Fernando dam (SC) suffered an underwater
slide during the San Fernando earthquake, 1971.
Fortunately, the dam barely avoided collapse,
thereby preventing a potential disaster of
flooding of the heavily populated areas below
the dam.
 Flow Liquefaction & Cyclic Mobility

The term liquefaction has actually been used to describe a number of related
phenomena. Because the phenomena can have similar effects, it can be difficult to distinguish
between them. The mechanisms causing them, however, are different. These phenomena can be
divided into two main categories: flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility.

Flow Liquefaction

Flow liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the static equilibrium is destroyed by static

or dynamic loads in a soil deposit with low residual strength. Residual strength is the strength of
a liquefied soil. Static loading, for example, can be applied by new buildings on a slope that exert
additional forces on the soil beneath the foundations. Earthquakes, blasting, and pile driving are
all example of dynamic loads that could trigger flow liquefaction. Once triggered, the strength of
a soil susceptible to flow liquefaction is no longer sufficient to withstand the static stresses that
were acting on the soil before the disturbance.

An analogy can be seen in the picture above, where the static stability of a ski jumper in
the starting gate is disturbed when the jumper pushes himself from the start seat. After this
relatively small disturbance, the static driving force caused by gravity, being greater than the
frictional resisting force between the ski and snow, causes the skier to accelerate down the ramp.
The path that brings the ski jumper to an unstable state is analogous to the static or dynamic
disturbance that triggers flow liquefaction - in both cases, a relatively small disturbance proceeds
an instability that allows gravity to take over and produce large, rapid movements.
 Failures caused by
flow liquefaction are often
characterized by large and
rapid movements which can
produce the type of disastrous
effects experienced by the
Kawagishi-cho apartment
buildings, which suffered a
remarkable bearing capacity
failure during the Niigata
Earthquake 1964. The
Turnagain Heights landslide,
Alaska Earthquake 1964 which
is thought to be triggered by
liquefaction of sand lenses in
the 130-acre slide area
provides another example of flow liquefaction. Sheffield Dam suffered a flow failure triggered by
the Santa Barbara Earthquake in 1925. A 300-ft section (of the 720 feet long dam) moved as
much as 100 ft downstream. The dam consisted mainly of silty sands and sandy silts excavated
from the reservoir and compacted by routing construction equipment over the fill (Seed, 1968).

As these case histories illustrate, flow failures, can involve the flow of considerable
volumes of material, which undergoes very large movements that are actually driven by static
stresses. As described in the state criteria section, the disturbance needed to trigger flow
liquefaction can, in some instances, be very small. Read more about the initiation of flow
liquefaction.

Cyclic Mobility

Cyclic mobility is a liquefaction phenomenon, triggered by cyclic loading, occurring in soil

deposits with static shear stresses lower than the soil strength. Deformations due to cyclic
mobility develop incrementally because of static and dynamic stresses that exist during an
 earthquake. Lateral spreading, a common
result of cyclic mobility, can occur on
gently sloping and on flat ground close to
rivers and lakes. The 1976 Guatemala
earthquake caused lateral spreading
along the Motagua River. Observe the
cracks parallel to the river in the picture.

On level ground, the high

porewater pressure caused by
liquefaction can cause porewater to flow
rapidly to the ground surface. This flow
can occur both during and after an
earthquake. If the flowing porewater
rises quickly enough, it can carry sand
particles through cracks up to the
surface, where they are deposited in the
form of sand volcanoes or sand boils.
These features can often be observed at
sites that have been affected by
liquefaction, such as in the field along
Hwy 98 during the 1979 El Centro
earthquake shown in the picture.

WHEN HAS LIQUEFACTION OCCURRED IN THE PAST?

Earthquakes
Liquefaction has been observed in earthquakes for many years. In fact, written records
dating back hundreds and even thousands of years describe earthquake effects that are now
known to be associated with liquefaction. Nevertheless, liquefaction has been so widespread in a
number of recent earthquakes that it is often associated with them. Some of those earthquakes
are listed below.

Alaska, USA, 1964

Niigata, Japan, 1964
Loma Prieta, USA, 1989
Kobe, Japan, 1995

1964 Alaska Earthquake, USA

As a part of the Pacific Ring, the southern coast area of Alaska experiences many
earthquakes. On Good Friday, March 27, 1964, a great earthquake of magnitude 9.2 struck
Prince William Sound and caused severe damage in the form of landslides and liquefaction as
seen in the pictures (SC). This seismic event is not only the second largest ever to have been
recorded but it lasted for over 3 minutes and was felt over an area of 500,000 square miles. A
tsunami, heavily increased the amount of damage to wharf and waterfront facilities, and caused
five deaths hours after the earthquake in Crescent City, California
 Liquefaction

Liquefaction in sand layers, and in sand and silt seams in the clayey soils beneath
Anchorage, caused many of the destructive landslides that occurred during the earthquake (Seed
1973). The liquefied seams and lenses disturbed the sensitive clays, and caused their strengths
to drop below the levels needed for stability.

Cracked Highway, Alaska, 1964

Lateral spreading in the soil beneath the roadway embankment caused the embankment
to be pulled apart, producing the large crack down the center of the road.

1964 Niigata Earthquake, Japan

The Niigata earthquake of June
16, 1964 had a magnitude of 7.5 and
caused severe damage to many structures
in Niigata. The destruction was observed
to be largely limited to buildings that were
founded on top of loose, saturated soil
deposits. Even though about 2000 houses
were totally destroyed, only 28 lives were
lost (General report on the Niigata
earthquake 1964). A tsunami, triggered by
movement of the sea floor associated with
the fault rupture, totally destroyed the
port of Niigata.

Liquefaction

The Niigata earthquake, together with the Alaska earthquake

also of 1964, brought liquefaction phenomena and their devastating
effects to the attention of engineers and seismologists. A remarkable
ground failure occurred near the Shinano riverbank where the
Kawagishi-cho apartment buildings suffered bearing capacity failures
and tilted severely. Despite the extreme tilting, the buildings
themselves suffered remarkably little structural damage.

Sand boils (SC) and ground fissures were observed at various

sites in Niigata. Lateral spreading caused the foundations of the
Showa Bridge to move laterally so much that the simply supported
spans became unseated and collapsed (below, SC).
 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, USA
The October 17 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
(M=7.1) caused severe damage not only in the vicinity of
the epicenter near Santa Cruz, but also in more distant
areas to the north around San Francisco and Oakland.

Liquefaction

Soil liquefaction caused major

damage to waterfront facilities, structures,
and buried pipelines at locations in the Bay
Area where loose saturated, sandy soils
were susceptible to liquefaction. The numerous sandboils that were observed provided
indisputable evidence of the occurrence of liquefaction. Liquefaction was observed at a number
of sites, including the Oakland airport, sites along the
Salinas River, and Moss Landing Marine Station (USGS).

1995 Kobe Earthquake, Japan

The 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake (M=6.9),
commonly referred to as the Kobe earthquake, was one
of the most devastating earthquakes ever to hit Japan;
more than 5,500 were killed and over 26,000 injured.
The economic loss has been estimated at about $US 200
billion. The proximity of the epicenter and the
propagation of rupture directly beneath the highly
populated region, help explain the great loss of life and
the high level of destruction. (On line report of Kobe
earthquake). The spectacular collapse of the Hanshin
expressway illustrates the effects of the high (KG) loads
that were imposed on structures in the area. The strong
 ground motions that led to collapse of the Hanshin
Express way also caused severe liquefaction
damage to port and wharf facilities as can be seen
to the left and below (GH).

WHERE DOES LIQUEFACTION COMMONLY OCCUR?

Locations
Because liquefaction only occurs in
saturated soil, its effects are most commonly
observed in low-lying areas near bodies of
water such as rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans.
The effects of liquefaction may include major
sliding of soil toward the body slumping and of
water, as in the case of the 1957 Lake Merced
slide shown above, or more modest
movements that produce tension cracks such
as those on the banks of the Motagua River
following the 1976 Guatemala Earthquake.

Port and wharf facilities are often located

in areas susceptible to liquefaction, and many
have been damaged by liquefaction in past
earthquakes. Most ports and wharves have major
retaining structures, or quay walls, to allow large
ships to moor adjacent to flat cargo handling
areas. When the soil behind and/or beneath such
a wall liquefies, the pressure it exerts on the wall
can increase greatly - enough to cause the wall to
slide and/or tilt toward the water. As illustrated
below, liquefaction caused major damage to port
facilities in Kobe, Japan in the 1995 Hyogo-ken
Nanbu earthquake.
 Retaining wall damage and lateral
spreading, Kobe 1995. (KG)

Lateral displacement of a quay wall on

Port Island, Kobe 1995. (KG)

Lateral spreading caused 1.2-2 meter

drop of paved surface and local flooding, Kobe
1995. (KG)

Damaged quay walls and port facilities

on Rokko Island. Quay walls have been pushed
outward by 2 to 3 meters with 3 to 4 meters
deep depressed areas called grabens forming
behind the walls, Kobe 1995. (KG)

Liquefaction also frequently causes damage to bridges that cross rivers and other bodies
of water. Such damage can have drastic consequences, impeding emergency response and
rescue operations in the short term
and causing significant economic
loss from business disruption in the
longer term. Liquefaction-induced
soil movements can push
foundations out of place to the
point where bridge spans loose
support (Showa Bridge) or are
compressed to the point of buckling
(SC).

WHY DOES LIQUEFACTION OCCUR?

Explanation
To understand liquefaction, it is important to recognize the conditions that exist in a soil
deposit before an earthquake. A soil deposit consists of an assemblage of individual soil particles.
If we look closely at these particles, we can see that each particle is in contact with a number of
neighboring particles. The weight of the overlying soil particles produce contact forces between
the particles - these forces hold individual particles in place and give the soil its strength.
 Soil grains in a soil deposit. The height of the blue column to the right represents the
level of porewater pressure in the soil.

The length of the arrows represents the size of the contact forces between individual soil
grains. The contact forces are large when the porewater pressure is low.

Liquefaction occurs when the structure of loose, saturated sand breaks down due to
some rapidly applied loading. As the structure breaks down, the loosely-packed individual soil
particles attempt to move into a denser configuration. In an earthquake, however, there is not
enough time for the water in the pores of the soil to be squeezed out. Instead, the water is
"trapped" and prevents the soil particles from moving closer
together. This is accompanied by an increase in water pressure
which reduces the contact forces between the individual soil
particles, thereby softening and weakening the soil deposit.

Observe how small the contact forces are because of

the high water pressure. In an extreme case, the porewater
pressure may become so high that many of the soil particles
lose contact with each other. In such cases, the soil will have
very little strength, and will behave more like a liquid than a
solid - hence, the name "liquefaction".

Initiation of liquefaction

To understand how soil liquefaction is initiated, some basic soil mechanics concepts are
important. They are briefly described below. For a more thorough explanation, see the
references.

Critical Void Ratio

In 1936, Dr. Arthur Casagrande performed a series of drained strain-controlled triaxial

tests and discovered that initially
loose and dense specimens at the
same confining pressure approached
the same density when sheared to
large strains. The void ratio
corresponding to this density was
called the critical void ratio (ec).

Behavior of dense and loose soils in monotonic strain controlled triaxial tests (after
Kramer, 1996).
 Performing tests at various effective confining pressures, Casagrande found that the
critical void ratio varied with effective confining pressure. Plotting these on a graph produced a
curve which is referred to as the critical void ratio (CVR) line. The CVR line constituted the
boundary between dilative and contractive behavior in drained triaxial compression. A soil in a
state that plots above the CVR line exhibits contractive behavior and vice versa (see figure
below). CVR-line for arithmetic and logarithmic confining pressure.

Steady State of Deformation

In the mid-1960s,
Gonzalo Castro, a student of
Casagrande, performed an
important series of
undrained, stress-controlled
triaxial tests. Castro observed
three different types of
stress-strain behavior
depending upon the soil
state. Dense specimens
initially contracted but then
dilated with increasing effective confining pressure and shear
stress. Very loose samples collapsed at a small shear strain
level and failed rapidly with large strains. Castro called this
behavior "liquefaction" - it is also commonly referred to as
flow liquefaction. Medium dense soils initially showed the same
behavior as the loose samples but, after initially exhibiting
contractive behavior, the soil "transformed" and began
exhibiting dilative behavior. Castro referred to this type of
behavior as "limited liquefaction".

Castro plotted the relationship (see figure below) between effective confining pressure
and void ratio at large strains for these undrained, stress-controlled tests. Castro referred to the
curved produced by this plot, which is similar to the CVR line for the drained strain controlled
tests performed by Casagrande, as the Steady State Line (SSL). The difference between the
CVR and SSL was attributed to the existence of what Casagrande called a "flow structure", in
which the grains orient themselves so the least amount of energy is lost by frictional resistance
during flow.

Left: 3-D steady state line. Right: 2-D Projection of SSL plotted on graph of void ratio
versus the logarithm of confining pressure or steady state strength.

As seen above, the SSL is actually a 3-dimensional curve in e- '- space. Using the 2-D
projection on the e-' plane (see figure above), one can determine if a soil is susceptible to flow
liquefaction. Soils in an initial state that plots below the SSL are not susceptible to flow
liquefaction whereas soils plotting above the SSL are susceptible to flow liquefaction - if (and only
if) the static shear stress exceeds the residual strength of the soil.

Cyclic mobility, another liquefaction-related phenomenon, can occur in dense as well as

loose soils.

Figure showing zones of flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility susceptibility.

Flow Liquefaction

On the left below is a plot of stress paths for five undrained shear tests. Three test
specimens (C, D, and E) were subjected to loads greater than their residual strengths, and
experienced flow liquefaction. A straight line (shown in red in the figure) drawn through the
points where flow liquefaction was initiated projects back through the origin. This line is called
the Flow Liquefaction Surface (FLS). Since flow liquefaction cannot take place if the static shear
stress is lower than the steady state strength, the FLS is truncated by a horizontal line through
the steady state point (see right figure below). The steady state strength is the strength a soil
has when undergoing a steady state of deformation, i.e. continuous flow under constant shear
stress and constant effective confining pressure at constant
volume and constant velocity. Flow liquefaction will be
initiated if the stress path crosses the FLS during undrained
shear regardless of whether the loading is cyclic or
monotonic loading (Vaid and Chern, 1983).
 Graphical explanation of Flow Liquefaction Surface.

The stress paths for monotonic and cyclic loading can be seen below. The flow
liquefaction process can be described in two stages. First, the excess pore pressure that develops
at low strains moves the effective stress path to the FLS, at which point the soil becomes
unstable. When the soil reaches this point of instability under undrained conditions, its shear
strength drops to the residual strength. As a result, the static shear stresses drive the large
strains that develop as the soil "collapses". A great amount of strain softening takes place when
the stress path moves toward the steady state point.

Flow Failure induced by cyclic and monotonic loading.

Cyclic Mobility

Cyclic mobility can occur even when the static shear stress is less than the steady state
shear strength (see figure below); it can be initiated in three different ways: All of them starts of
with a static shear stress lower than the steady state strength. In the first case (a) the shear
stress induced by the cyclic loading is not large enough to cause a negative shear stress, so the
stress path simply moves to the left as excess pore pressure is build up. Since the FLS is not
intersected a flow failure will not occur, however large permanent strains may develop due to the
low stiffness at the very low effective confining pressures. The second case (b) differs from the
first in that the induced shear stress is large enough to bring the stress path up to the FLS
causing momentary instabilities leading to large permanent deformations. The last case (c)
involves a stress reversal, which has been shown to cause a faster development of excess pore
pressure (Mohamad and Dobry, 1986), making the stress path move quicker towards the origin
and finally going through the origin. When passing through the origin the soil is at a state of zero
effective stress and has momentarily no stiffness at all, but if a static load was to be applied at
this state of zero effective stress, the soil would strain and dilate to until its steady state strength
is reached (see figure below).

Cyclic mobility stress path type a. Cyclic mobility stress path type b. Cyclic
mobility stress path type c.
 Figure demonstrating the dilation occurring during monotonic loading of a soil that was
subjected to cyclic mobility.

HOW CAN LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS BE REDUCED?

Options
There are basically three possibilities to reduce liquefaction hazards when designing and
constructing new buildings or other structures as bridges, tunnels, and roads.

Avoid Liquefaction Susceptible Soils

The first possibility is to avoid construction on liquefaction susceptible soils. There are
various criteria to determine the liquefaction susceptibility of a soil. By characterizing the soil at a
particular building site according to these criteria, one can decide if the site is susceptible to
liquefaction and therefore unsuitable for the desired structure.

Criteria

There are a number of different ways to evaluate the liquefaction susceptibility of a soil
deposit. Here they are organized as follows (adopted from Kramer, 1996).

Historical Criteria

Observations from earlier earthquakes provide a great deal of information about the
liquefaction susceptibility of certain types of soils and sites. Soils that have liquefied in the past
can liquefy again in future earthquakes. If you are building a house and want to find out if your
site is susceptible to liquefaction, you could investigate previous earthquakes to see if they
caused liquefaction at your site. Information is also available in the form of maps of areas where
liquefaction has occurred in the past and/or is expected to occur in the future (Dept. Conserv.,
Div Mines & Geol., California). Many local government agencies have prepared maps of sensitive
areas, including areas susceptible to liquefaction. Check with your local building department or
public library.

Geological Criteria

The type of geologic process that created a soil deposit has a strong influence on its
liquefaction susceptibility. Saturated soil deposits that have been created by sedimentation in
rivers and lakes (fluvial or alluvial deposits), deposition of debris or eroded material (colluvial
deposits), or deposits formed by wind action (aeolian deposits) can be very liquefaction
susceptible. These processes sort particles into uniform grain sizes and deposit them in loose
state, which tend to densify when shaken by earthquakes. The tendency for densification leads to
increasing pore water pressure and decreasing strength. Man-made soil deposits, particularly
those created by the process of hydraulic filling, may also be susceptible to liquefaction. For more
details read, why liquefaction occurs.

Compositional Criteria

Liquefaction susceptibility depends on the soil type. Clayey soil, particularly sensitive
soils, may exhibit strain-softening behavior similar to that of liquefied soil, but do no liquefy in
the same manner as sandy soils are. Soils composed of particles that are all about the same size
are more susceptible to liquefaction than soils with a wide range of particle sizes. In a soil with
many different size particles, the small particles tend to fill in the voids between the bigger
particles thereby reducing the tendency for densification and porewater pressure development
when shaken. The geologic process described above produce rounded particles. The friction
between angular particles is higher than between rounded particles, hence a soil deposit with
angular particles is normally stronger and less susceptible to liquefaction.

A uniformly graded soil is more susceptible to soil liquefaction than a well-graded soil
because the reduced tendency for volumetric strain of a well-graded soil decreases the amount of
excess pore pressure that can develop under undrained conditions. Historically, sands were
considered the only type of soil susceptible to liquefaction, but liquefaction has also been
observed in gravel and silt. Strain softening of fine-grained soils can produce effects similar to
those of liquefaction. Fine-grained soils are susceptible to this type of behavior if they satisfy the
criteria (Wang, 1979) shown in the table below.

Fraction finer than 0.005 mm< 15%

Liquid Limit, LL < 35%
Natural water content > 0.9 LL
Liquidity Index < 0.75

Liquefaction susceptibility also depends on particle shape. Soil deposits with rounded
particles, usually found in the types of deposits described in geological criteria, are more
susceptible to liquefaction than soils with angular particles.

State Criteria

The initial "state" of a soil is defined by its density and effective stress at the time it is
subjected to rapid loading. At a given effective stress level, looser soils are more susceptible to
liquefaction than dense soils. For a given density, soils at high effective stresses are generally
more susceptible to liquefaction than soils at low effective stresses.

Many factors can be incorporated in the state of soil deposit. Here are some described
that are of importance to the liquefaction susceptibility. At constant confining pressure, the
liquefaction resistance increases with the relative density, Dr, and, at constant relative density,
the liquefaction resistance increases with increasing confining pressure. Various investigations
(Castro, 1969; Geotechnical Engineers, Inc., 1982; and Kramer and Seed, 1988) have shown that
pre-existing shear static stress in a soil deposit is critical to a soil's susceptibility to static
liquefaction. The higher the initial shear stresses, the greater is the liquefaction potential and the
smaller disturbance is needed to liquefy the soil.
 Build Liquefaction Resistant Structures

If it is necessary to construct on liquefaction susceptible soil because of space

restrictions, favorable location, or other reasons, it may be possible to make the structure
liquefaction resistant by designing the foundation elements to resist the effects of liquefaction.

Liquefaction Resistant Structures

A structure that possesses ductility, has the ability to accommodate large deformations,
adjustable supports for correction of differential settlements, and having foundation design that
can span soft spots can decrease the amount of damage a structure may suffer in case of
liquefaction (Committee on Earthquake Engineering, NRC, 1985). To achieve these features in a
building there are various aspects to consider.

Shallow foundation Aspects

It is important that all foundation elements

in a shallow foundation is tied together to make the
foundation move or settle uniformly, thus
decreasing the amount of shear forces induced in
the structural elements resting upon the foundation.
The photo to the right shows a house wall under
construction in Kobe, Japan. The well-reinforced
perimeter and interior wall footings (KG) are tied
together to enable them to bridge over areas of
local settlement and provide better resistance
against soil movements. A stiff foundation mat
(below) is a good type of shallow foundation, which

can transfer loads from locally liquefied zones to adjacent stronger ground.

Buried utilities, such as sewage and water pipes, should have ductile connections to the
structure to accommodate the large movements and settlements that can occur due to
liquefaction. The pipes in the photo connected the two buildings in a straight line before the
earthquake (KG).

Deep foundation Aspects

Liquefaction can cause large lateral loads on pile foundations. Piles driven through a
weak, potentially liquefiable, soil layer to a stronger layer not only have to carry vertical loads
from the superstructure, but must also be able to resist horizontal loads and bending moments
induced by lateral movements if the weak layer liquefies. Sufficient resistance can be achieved by
piles of larger dimensions and/or more reinforcement. It is important that the piles are connected
to the cap in a ductile manner that allows some rotation to occur without a failure of the
connection. If the pile connections fail, the cap cannot resist overturning moments from the
superstructure by developing vertical loads in the piles (see figure below).

Improve the Soil

The third option involves mitigation of the liquefaction hazards by improving the
strength, density, and/or drainage characteristics of the soil. This can be done using a variety of
soil improvement techniques.

Techniques

The main goal of most soil improvement techniques used for reducing liquefaction
hazards is to avoid large increases in pore water pressure during earthquake shaking. This can be
achieved by densification of the soil and/or improvement of its drainage capacity.

Vibroflotation

Vibroflotation involves the use of a vibrating probe that can penetrate granular soil to
depths of over 100 feet. The vibrations of the probe cause the grain structure to collapse thereby
densifying the soil surrounding the probe. To treat an area of potentially liquefiable soil, the
vibroflot is raised and lowered in a grid pattern. Vibro Replacement (right, HB) is a combination
of vibroflotation with a gravel backfill resulting in stone columns, which not only increases the
amount of densification, but provides a degree of reinforcement and a potentially effective means
of drainage.

Dynamic Compaction

Densification by dynamic compaction is performed by dropping a heavy weight of steel or

concrete in a grid pattern from heights of 30 to 100 ft. It provides an economical way of
improving soil for mitigation of liquefaction hazards. Local liquefaction can be initiated beneath
the drop point making it easier for the sand grains to densify. When the excess porewater
pressure from the dynamic loading dissipates, additional densification occurs. As illustrated in the
photograph, however, the process is somewhat invasive; the surface of the soil may require
shallow compaction with possible addition of granular fill following dynamic compaction.

Stone Columns

As described above, stone columns are columns of gravel constructed in the ground.
Stone columns can be constructed by the vibroflotation method. They can also be installed in
other ways, for example, with help of a steel casing and a drop hammer as in the Franki Method.
In this approach, the steel casing is driven in to the soil and gravel is filled in from the top and
tamped with a drop hammer as the steel casing is successively withdrawn.

Compaction Piles

Installing compaction piles is a very effective way of improving soil. Compaction piles are
usually made of prestressed concrete or timber. Installation of compaction piles both densifies
and reinforces the soil. The piles are generally installed in a grid pattern and are generally driven
to depth of up to 60 ft.
 Compaction Grouting

Compaction grouting is a technique whereby a slow-flowing water/sand/cement mix is

injected under pressure into a granular soil. The grout forms a bulb that displaces and hence
densifies the surrounding soil (right, HB). Compaction grouting is a good option if the foundation
of an existing building requires improvement, since it is possible to inject the grout from the side
or at an inclined angle to reach beneath the building.

Drainage Techniques

Liquefaction hazards can be reduced by increasing the drainage ability of the soil. If the
porewater within the soil can drain freely, the build-up of excess pore water pressure will be
reduced. Drainage techniques include installation of drains of gravel, sand or synthetic materials.
Synthetic wick drains can be installed at various angles, in contrast to gravel or sand drains that
are usually installed vertically. Drainage techniques are often used in combination with other
types of soil improvement techniques for more effective liquefaction hazard reduction.

Verification of Improvement

A number of methods can be used to verify the effectiveness of soil improvement. In-situ
techniques are popular because of the limitations of many laboratory techniques. Usually, in-situ
tests are performed to evaluate the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit before the
improvement was attempted. With the knowledge of the existing ground characteristics, one can
then specify a necessary level of improvement in terms of in situ test parameters. Performing in-
situ tests after improvement has been completed allows one to decide if the degree of
improvement was satisfactory. In some cases, the extent of the improvement is not reflected in
in-situ test results until some time after the improvement has been completed.

REFERENCES
TEXT REFERENCES

Bolt, Bruce. A., Earthquakes: A primer, pp.25-27, Publ. W.H. Freeman and Company,1978

Castro, G., "Liquefaction of Sands", Harvard Soil Mechanics Series 87, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969

Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems,

National Research Council, Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes, 1985

Committee on the Alaska Earthquake of the Div. of Earth Sciences, National Research Council,
The Great Alaska earthquake 1964, Engineering, Geology, and Summary Volumes, National
Academy of Sciences,1973
Papers from report above:
Seed, H. Bolton, "Landslides caused by soil liquefaction", Eng. vol. P. 73 ff. Reprinted from
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, September 1968, "Landslides
during Earthquakes due to Soil Liquefaction"
Seed, H. Bolton, Wilson, D. Stanley, "Turnagain Heights Landslide", Reprinted from Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, July 1967, " Turnagain Heights
Landslide, Anchorage, Alaska".
Glaser, Steven D.; Chung, Riley M., "Estimation of Liquefaction Potential by In Situ Methods", p.
431, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11, No. 3, August, 1995

Holtz, Robert D.; William, Kovacs D., An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, publ. Prentice
Hall, 1981

Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1995, "Preliminary Report on The Great Hanshin Earthquake,
January 17,1995"

Fang, Hsai-Yang, Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed., 1990

Kawasumi-Hirosi (editor), General report on the Niigata earthquake of 1964, 1968

Kramer, Steven L., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Publ. Prentice Hall, 1996

Kramer, Steven L.; Seed, Bolton H., "Initiation of Soil Liquefaction Under Static Loading
Conditions", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 4, April, 1988

Mohamad, R.; Dobry, R., "Undrained monotonic and cyclic triaxial strength of sand", Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 10, pp. 941-958, 1986

Shunzo Okamoto, Introduction to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd ed., p84-89, p. 264-272

Vaid, Y.P.; Chern, J.C., "Effect of static shear on resistance of liquefaction", Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 47-60, 1983

Zehgal, Mourad; Elgamal, Ahmed-W., "Analysis of Site Liquefaction Using Earthquake Records",
p. 996, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 6, June, 1994

Zorapapel, George T.; Vucetic, Mladen, "The Effects of Seismic Pore Water Pressure on Ground
Surface Motion", p. 403, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994

ONLINE REFERENCES

http://ceor.princeton.edu/~radu, Soil Dynamics and Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering at

Princeton University

http://ceor.princeton.edu/~radu/soil/velacs, Velacs Research Project

http://geosystems.gatech.edu/Research/gpr.html, Georgia Institute of Technology, Liquefaction

research

http://nisee.ce.berkeley.edu, National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering

http://peer.berkeley.edu, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

http://quake.wr.usgs.gov, United States Geological Survey Earthquake Information

http://rccg01.usc.edu/GEES/velacs/velacs.html, Velacs Research Project

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ msad06jan98_1.htm, Soil Mechanics research

at NASA
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov, USGS, Western Region Geologic Information Server

http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/liquefac/bayaliqs.gif, Hazard map for the bay area in

San Francisco, ABAG 1983

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/Programs/Geotech/ Kobe/KobeReport/title.html, Online report on

Kobe Earthquake, 1995

http://www.civil.ualberta.ca/geot/document/canlex.htm, Canadian Liquefaction Experiment,

CANLEX

http://www.consrv.ca.gov, California Department of Conservation, Div. Mines and Geology

http://www.eerc.berkeley.edu, Earthquake Engineering Research Center

http://www.eerc.berkeley.edu/bertero/html/ earthquake-resistant_construction.html, Earthquake

resistant construction

http://www.eqe.com/publications, EQE, Earthquake engineering consulting firm

http://www.gcts.com/main.html, Geotechnical Consulting and Testing Systems

http://www.geotechnics.com, Geotechnics America, soil improvement contractor

http://www.haywardbaker.com, Hayward Baker, soil improvement contractor

http://www.liquefaction.com, Web site with general liquefaction information and more specialized
research information

http://www.phri.go.jp/division/ge/geout01e.html, Geotechnical Engineering Division, Port and

Harbour Research Institute Ministry of Transport, JAPAN

LINKS TO SITES ON LIQUEFACTION RESEARCH

http://ceor.princeton.edu/~radu
Soil Dynamics and Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering at Princeton University

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad06jan98_1.htm
Soil Mechanics research at NASA.

http://geosystems.gatech.edu/Research/gpr.html
Georgia Institute of Technology, Liquefaction research.

http://rccg01.usc.edu/GEES/velacs/velacs.html
Velacs Research Project.

http://ceor.princeton.edu/~radu/soil/velacs/
Velacs Research Project.

http://www.civil.ualberta.ca/geot/document/canlex.htm
Canadian Liquefaction Experiment,CANLEX

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER)

LINKS TO SITES WITH LIQUEFACTION AND EARTHQUAKE

INFORMATION
http://www.eerc.berkeley.edu
Earthquake Engineering Research Center

http://www.eerc.berkeley.edu/bertero/html/earthquake-resistant_construction.html
Earthquake resistant construction.

http://nisee.ce.berkeley.edu/
National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering

http://www.liquefaction.com
Web site with general liquefaction information and more specialized research information

http://quake.wr.usgs.govUnited States Geological Survey Earthquake Information

http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov:80/
USGS, Western Region Geologic Information Server.

http://peer.berkeley.edu/
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/Programs/Geotech/Kobe/KobeReport/title.html
Online report on Kobe Earthquake, 1995.

http://www.eqe.com/publications/
EQE, Earthquake engineering consultingfirm.

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/
California Department of Conservation, Div. Mines and Geology.

http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/liquefac/bayaliqs.gif
Hazard map for the bay area in San Francisco, ABAG 1983

http://www.phri.go.jp/division/ge/geout01e.html
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Port and Harbour Research Institute Ministry of Transport,
JAPAN.

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER).