Ground Improvement in The 21st Century: A Comprehensive Web-Based Information System

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 08/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ground Improvement in the 21st Century: A Comprehensive Web-Based
Information System
Vernon R. Schaefer1, M. ASCE, P.E., James K. Mitchell2, Dist. M. ASCE, P.E., Ryan
R. Berg3, F. ASCE, D.GE, P.E., George M. Filz4, F. ASCE, P.E., and S. Caleb
Douglas, M. ASCE, P.E.5
1
Professor of Civil Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010-3232; vern@iastate.edu
2
University Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0105;
jkm@vt.edu
3
Ryan R. Berg & Associates, Inc., Woodbury, MN, 55125-3504; ryanberg@att.net
4
Charles E. Via, Jr. Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
24061-0105; filz@vt.edu
5
Ph.D. candidate, Civil Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010-3232; calebd@iastate.edu
ABSTRACT: There exist a large number of ground improvement methods that can be
employed to overcome poor soil site conditions, some in use many decades, others
recently developed. The growth in ground improvement methods, products, systems,
and engineering tools has been tremendous, resulting in a very large body of
knowledge. The selection of the most appropriate ground improvement technology is a
complex undertaking that depends upon integration of available knowledge and a
number problem-specific and site-specific factors. These factors are summarized and
discussed in relation to the essential elements for success of a ground improvement
project. A new comprehensive, web-based ground improvement information and
guidance system, developed to summarize and organize this knowledge to facilitate
informed decisions, is introduced and illustrated. The system can be used for
engineering and construction practice that incorporates these essential elements.

INTRODUCTION
Ground improvement methods have developed markedly over the past five decades to
the point where they are almost routinely used in geotechnical design and
construction. The impetus for ground improvement has been both the increasing need
to use marginal sites for new construction purposes and to mitigate risk of failure or
potential poor performance. Every potential construction site presents the design
engineer with several alternatives should unsuitable or marginal soil conditions be
encountered. These alternatives include: (1) bypassing the poor soil through relocation
of the project to a more suitable site or through the use of a deep foundation; (2)
272
Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE 273
removing and replacing the unsuitable soils; (3) designing the planned structure to
accommodate the poor/marginal soils; or (4) modifying (improving) the existing soils,
either in-place or by removal, treatment and replacement of the existing soils; or (5)
completely abandoning the project (ASCE 1978; Mitchell 1981). Through a wide-
variety of modern ground improvement and geoconstruction technologies, marginal
sites and unsuitable in-situ soils can be improved to meet demanding project
requirements, making the latter alternative an economically preferred solution in many
cases.
Ground improvement is now recognized as a major sub-discipline of Geotechnical
Engineering. The growth in ground improvement methods, products, systems, and
engineering tools has been tremendous, with a very large body of knowledge and large
number of technologies available. Progress in this development has been chronicled
by means of many conferences, workshops, papers and reports - far too many for all to
be cited herein. However, a few comprehensive references that describe the methods,
their design and construction procedures, applications, advantages and limitations, and
illustrate how the technologies have developed are noted. An early comprehensive
State-of-the-Art (SOA) report on Soil Improvement was presented by Mitchell (1981)
at the 10th ICSMFE in Stockholm. Recently, Chu et al. (2009) devoted a large part of
their State of the Art report on Construction Processes prepared for the 17th ICSMGE
in Alexandria to current developments in Ground Improvement. Within ASCE and the
Geo-Institute three committee publications document the progress to 1997: Soil
Improvement History, Capabilities, and Outlook (ASCE 1978), Soil Improvement-A
Ten Year Update (ASCE 1987), and Ground Improvement, Ground Treatment,
Ground Reinforcement-Developments 1987-1997 (ASCE 1997). Numerous specialty
sessions have been organized at Geo-Institute conferences, and many Geotechnical
Special Publications are now available on different aspects of ground improvement.
The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First is to summarize the essential elements
for success in any ground improvement project. Second is to introduce and illustrate a
new comprehensive, web-based information and guidance system for use in
engineering and construction of ground improvement works that incorporates these
essential elements.

PART 1. ENGINEERING OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Ground improvement is the modification of site foundation soils or project earth
structures to provide better performance under design and/or operational loading
conditions (USACE 1999). Ground improvement objectives can be achieved using a
large variety of geotechnical construction methods or technologies that alter and
improve poor ground conditions where soil replacement is not feasible for
environmental or technical reasons, or it is too costly (Elias et al. 2006). Several
considerations that are essential in the selection, design, construction, validation, and
monitoring of any successful ground improvement project are listed and discussed in
the following sections.
Among the first questions to answer when considering ground improvement is:
When and where is Ground Improvement an option? Ground improvement is an
option when site soils are amenable to improvement in performance, sufficient
expertise and equipment exists to accomplish the improvement, and, perhaps most

274 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE
importantly, the costs of improving the soils are warranted compared to other options
available. Ground improvement has one or more of the following main functions
(Munfakh 1997a; Elias et al. 2006), to:

x increase shear strength,
x increase bearing capacity,
x increase density,
x transfer embankment loads to more competent layers,
x control deformations (settlement, heave, distortions),
x accelerate consolidation,
x decrease imposed loads,
x provide lateral stability,
x form seepage cutoffs or fill voids and,
x increase resistance to liquefaction.
These functions can be accomplished by a wide variety of ground improvement and
geoconstruction technologies. When improving soils at or near the ground surface, the
improvement is generally easy to accomplish and relatively inexpensive (e.g.
excavation and replacement). Ground improvement at depth becomes more difficult,
requiring more investigation and analysis, and often specialized equipment and
construction methods (Munfakh 1997a). Thus in making selections about the types of
ground improvement to use at a given site, the engineer must have comprehensive and
detailed knowledge of the methods available and the criteria to use in their selection.
Ground Improvement Methods
Many ground improvement and geoconstruction technologies are available to improve
the properties of soils, and the methods can be categorized in a number of ways.
Mitchell (1981) provided the following categories for his State-of-the-Art paper:
compaction, with emphasis on in situ deep densification of cohesionless soils;
consolidation by preloading and/or vertical drains and electro-osmosis; grouting; soil
stabilization using admixtures and by ion exchange; thermal stabilization; and
reinforcement of soil. More recently, Munfakh and Wyllie (2000) suggested eight
main categories: Densification, Consolidation, Weight Reduction, Reinforcement,
Chemical Treatment, Thermal Stabilization, Electrotreatment, and Biotechnical
stabilization. The current International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering (ISSMGE) technical committee on ground improvement (TC 211,
formerly TC17) lists five categories: improvement without admixtures in non-cohesive
soils; improvement without admixtures in cohesive soils; improvement with
admixtures or inclusions; improvement with grouting type admixtures; and earth
reinforcement (Chu et al. 2009). Table 1 shows main categories, functions and
methods of ground improvement methods adapted from several sources including
Mitchell (1981), ASCE (1978, 1987, 1997), Munfakh and Wyllie (2000), Terashi and
Juran (2000), Elias et al. (2006), and Chu et al. (2009).

Table 1. Ground Improvement Categories, Functions and Methods.

Category Function Methods

Densification Increase density, bearing Vibrocompaction
capacity, and frictional Dynamic compaction
strength; increase Blasting compaction
liquefaction resistance of Compaction grouting
granular soils; decrease Surface compaction (including rapid
compressibility, increase impact compaction)
strength of cohesive soils
Consolidation Accelerate consolidation, Preloading without drains
reduce settlement, increase Preloading with vertical drains
strength Vacuum consolidation
Electro-osmosis
Load Reduce load on foundation Geofoam
Reduction soils, reduce settlement, Foamed concrete
increase slope stability Lightweight fills, tire chips, etc.
Reinforcement Inclusion of reinforcing Mechanical stabilized earth
elements in soil to improve Soil nailing/anchoring
engineering characteristics; Micro piles
provide lateral stability Columns (aggregate piers, stone
columns, geotextile encased columns,
sand compaction piles, jet grouting)
Fiber reinforcement
Column supported embankments with
load transfer platforms
Geosynthetic reinforced embankment
Chemical Increase density, increase Permeation grouting with particulate
Treatment compressive and tensile or chemical grouts
strength, fill voids, form Bulk filling
seepage cutoffs Jet grouting
Compaction grouting
Deep soil mixing-wet and dry
Fracture grouting
Lime columns
Thermal Increase shear strength, Ground freezing
stabilization provide cutoffs Ground heating and vitrification
Biotechnical Increase strength, Vegetation in slopes as reinforcing
stabilization reinforcement Microbial methods
Miscellaneous Remediate contaminated Electrokinetic methods, chemical
soils methods

Selection Criteria
The selection of potentially suitable technologies, or the best suited technology for a
specific project, can only be made after the evaluation of several problem-specific and
site-specific factors. A list of the most important of these factors was originally
developed by Mitchell (1981) and subsequently enhanced by Holtz (1989) and by
Munfakh (1997b):
1. The operational criteria for the facility; e.g. stability requirements, allowable
total or differential settlement, rate of settlement, seepage criteria, durability
and maintenance requirements, etc. These criteria establish the level of
improvement required in terms of soil properties such as strength, modulus,
compressibility, and hydraulic conductivity.
2. The area, depth, and total volume of soil to be treated.
3. The soil type to be treated and its initial properties.
4. Depth to groundwater table.
5. Availability of materials, e.g., sand, gravel, water, admixtures, reinforcing
elements.
6. Availability of specialized equipment and skilled labor force.
7. Construction and environmental factors; e.g., site accessibility and constraints,
waste disposal, erosion, water pollution; and effects on adjacent facilities and
structures.
8. Local experience and preferences; politics and tradition.
9. Time available.
10. Cost; generally construction cost, but life-cycle costs can be important.
Today the value of accelerating construction is often relayed into a cost to explicitly
consider potential project savings by the use of a more expensive method to reduce
time constraints. Many of the methods shown in Table 1 are best suited to certain
types of soil. Figure 1 relates improvement methods to the range of soil grain sizes for
which the method is most applicable.
Thus to decide among several methods, an engineer must be knowledgeable about
the above factors for a wide variety of technologies. Fortunately such information is
available, often in tabular form, in key references such as ASCE (1978, 1988, 1997),
Mitchell (1981), Munfakh (1997a, 1997b), Elias et al. (2006), Holtz (1989), Holtz et
al. (2001), and Chu et al. (2009). The incorporation of such information into an easily
accessible on-line media is discussed in the second part of the paper.
Ground Improvement Design
The design of a ground improvement method for a particular problem is dependent
upon the function of the improvement and the method(s) selected to carry out the
function. The function will establish whether settlement, stability, density, geometry,
and/or other parameters are the critical design parameters. Some technologies have
well-established design procedures, some have a variety of published design
procedures, some have proprietary design procedures, and for others design
procedures are still being developed. In the second part of the paper, the design of
particular ground improvement technologies is further addressed. For a particular
technology, specific input and output items appropriate to the technology can be
determined. These can be categorized in terms of Performance Criteria/Indicators,


Figure 1. Available Ground Improvement Methods for Different Soil Types.
Subsurface Conditions, Loading Conditions, Material Characteristics, Geometry, and

Construction Techniques. Examples of specific items in each category are listed in
Table 2.
Table 2. Input and Output Items for Analysis and Design.
Categories of Input and

Output Items for Analysis and Some Example Items
Design Procedures
Minimum factor of safety values, load and
resistance factor values, allowable settlements,
Performance Criteria/Indicators
allowable lateral deformations, reliability,
drainage, time
Stratigraphy, ground water level, particle size
distribution, plasticity, unit weight, relative
Subsurface Conditions
density, water content, strength, compressibility,
chemistry, organic content, variability
Traffic load, embankment pressure, structure
Loading Conditions loads, earthquake acceleration and duration, water
pressures
Unit weight, water content, particle size
distribution, internal friction angle, shear strength,
inclusion dimensions, compressive strength,
Material Characteristics
tensile strength, compressibility, modulus,
stiffness, interface friction angle, permeability,
equivalent opening size
Method of installation and/or densification, e.g.,
Construction Techniques
vibrocompaction
Diameter, spacing, depth, thickness, length, area,
Geometry
slope
QC/QA Requirements
The satisfactory performance of improved ground is dependent upon verification that
the ground improvement was constructed properly. Hence, suitable quality control
(QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are absolutely imperative. As with design
methods, the selection of appropriate QC/QA methods for a particular site is
dependent upon the function of the ground improvement technology. Ground
improvement effectiveness during and after construction is usually evaluated by
standard methods and tests, including one or more of the following methods:
inspection during construction; construction data records (power, energy input,
pressures, quantities, spacings, rates, etc.); surface settlement and heave; sampling of
admixture treated soil; penetration tests (SPT, CPT, BPT, DMT); shear wave velocity;
undisturbed samples; pore pressure measurement; inclinometers; hydraulic

conductivity (in-situ); and others. During construction, observations should be made

and recorded at each improvement location. After construction, in-situ methods or
performance monitoring can be used to verify that the required level of improvement
is achieved; laboratory testing on undisturbed samples can also be used to verify some
types of improvement.
Establishing suitable QC/QA procedures is arguably the critical limiting factor
preventing more widespread application of some technologies. Providing clear,
precise, and effective guidelines for QC/QA procedures will remove an important
source of uncertainty that currently makes some designers hesitant to apply such
technologies. Full scale test sections are an important means of assessing the expected
performance of improved ground prior to full project application of a technology. In
the second part of the paper, the QC/QA requirements for particular ground
improvement technologies are further addressed.
Performance of Improved Ground
Several decades of experience in the use of the more well-known ground improvement
methods in “conventional” applications such as bearing capacity improvement, slope
stabilization, precompression and acceleration of consolidation, and construction of
seepage barriers have shown that the required performance can be obtained if (1) the
appropriate method is chosen for the problem and (2) the design and construction are
done well. A common “trouble spot” with most methods is the difficulty in verifying
that the desired level of improvement has been obtained, emphasizing again the need
for a well-designed and implemented QC/QA program.
In recent years various ground improvement methods have been used at many sites
to reduce the settlement and lateral spreading caused by earthquakes. Although some
of these sites have been subjected to strong ground motions, few have been subjected
to ground accelerations and durations of shaking as large as the design values.
Nonetheless, the observed behavior confirms that ground improvement will help
prevent liquefaction and ground failure from occurring, and reduce significantly the
settlements and lateral displacements if liquefaction does occur (Mitchell et al., 1995).
Observations suggest that when sites are improved to the “no liquefaction” side of
generally accepted liquefaction potential curves; e.g., Youd et al. (2001), the adverse
effects of the earthquake shaking should be minor. Thorough analysis of sites affected
by recent (2011) earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan is likely to further document
quantitative understanding of improved ground performance in seismic areas.
Summary
The selection of appropriate ground improvement technologies for a particular
problem is a complex undertaking that depends upon a number of the factors outlined
above. The web-based guidance system described in the remainder of this paper
provides an integrated and formalized basis for combining the above considerations in
a way that can enable those new to the field of ground improvement, as well as
experienced engineers, to obtain both guidance on the selection of methods for
specific applications and projects, and detailed information about the many different
ground stabilization and improvement technologies that are contained in the system.
This system provides the user with critically important information with which to
make sound engineering decisions appropriate for specific projects.

PART 2: A COMPREHENSIVE WEBBASED INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE

SYSTEMFORGROUNDIMPROVEMENT
The second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) was created by the U.S.
Congress in 2006 to address challenges of moving people and goods efficiently and
safely on the nation’s highways. SHRP 2 has four main focus areas: Safety, Renewal,
Reliability, and Capacity, with a least a dozen projects under each area. Geotechnical
transportation issues are addressed under the SHRP 2 Renewal Focus Area, in which
the goal is to develop a consistent, systematic approach to the conduct of highway
renewal that is (1) rapid, (2) causes minimal disruption, and (3) produces long-lived
facilities. The SHRP 2 R02 project is aimed at identifying geotechnical solutions for
three elements: (1) construction of new embankments and roadways over unstable
soils, (2) widening and expansion of existing roadways and embankments, and (3)
stabilization of the working platform through a project titled: Geotechnical Solutions
for Soil Improvement, Rapid Embankment Construction, and Stabilization of the
Pavement Working Platform. The R02 research team identified a large number of
ground improvement and geoconstruction technologies and processes applicable to the
three elements. The number of technologies was winnowed to 46 particularly
applicable to the three elements, shown in Table 3. For each of these technologies the
research team developed a comprehensive technical summary and assessed the current
state of the practice of design, QC/QA, costs, and specifications. The resulting
information was cataloged in a database and made accessible through a web-based
system.
The main product of the R02 project is a web-based information, guidance, and
selection system for geoconstruction and ground improvement solutions. The value of
the system is that it collects, synthesizes, integrates, and organizes a vast amount of
critically important information about geotechnical solutions in a system that makes
the information readily accessible to the user. The target audience for the system is
primarily public agency geotechnical engineering personnel at local, state, and federal
levels. However, civil/structural, construction, pavement, and construction engineers
in consulting, contracting, and academia will also find the system useful, as will
transportation managers and decision makers. Although developed for the
transportation industry, the technologies in the system can be applied equally well to
non-transportation projects, and thus the system should have broad appeal to the
overall geotechnical community.
The system was developed along the lines of the three elements; however, the final
applications were divided into four areas, as shown in Figure 2. The system was
developed with input from the research team members, the project Advisory Board, an
Expert Contact Group, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and SHRP 2.
Meetings were conducted throughout the project to bring together state agency
transportation personnel, practitioners, contractors, and academics who work with the
relevant geotechnical materials, systems, and technology areas. These meetings
provided valuable brainstorming opportunities to identify technical and non-technical
obstacles limiting widespread effective use of these technologies; to identify the
available best opportunities for advancing the state of practice of existing and
emerging technologies; and future directions of these technologies in transportation

works. Comments from these meetings assisted in developing the objectives and
strategies of the final system. The goal of the system is to provide a comprehensive
tool that provides guidance for applying these geoconstruction solutions to

transportation infrastructure.
Table 3. List of Technologies in the System
Aggregate Columns Geotextile Encased Columns
Beneficial Reuse of Waste Materials High-Energy Impact Rollers
Hydraulic Fill + Vacuum
Bio-Treatment for Subgrade
Consolidation + Geocomposite
Stabilization
Drains
Blasting Densification Injected Lightweight Foam Fill
Bulk-Infill Grouting Intelligent Compaction
Chemical Grouting/Injection Systems Jet Grouting
Chemical Stabilization of Subgrades Lightweight Fill, EPS Geofoam,
and Bases Low-Density Cementitious Fill
Mechanical Stabilization of
Column-Supported Embankments
Subgrades and Bases
Combined Soil Stabilization with
Micro-Piles
Vertical Columns (CSV)
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall
Compaction Grouting
Systems
Onsite Use of Recycled Pavement
Continuous Flight Auger Piles
Materials
Deep Dynamic Compaction Partial Encapsulation
Prefabricated Vertical Drains and Fill
Deep Mixing Methods
Preloading
Drilled/Grouted and Hollow Bar Soil
Rapid Impact Compaction
Nailing
Electro-Osmosis Reinforced Soil Slopes
Excavation and Replacement Sand Compaction Piles
Fiber Reinforcement in Pavement
Shoot-in Soil Nailing
Systems
Geocell Confinement in Pavement
Screw-in Soil Nailing
Systems
Geosynthetic Reinforced Construction Shored Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Platforms Wall System
Geosynthetic Reinforced
Stone Columns
Embankments
Geosynthetics Reinforcement in Vacuum Preloading with and without
Pavement Systems PVDs
Geosynthetics Separation in Pavement
Vibrocompaction
Systems
Geosynthetics in Pavement Drainage Vibro-Concrete Columns

Construction over Unstable Soils Construction over Stabile/Stabilzed Soils
Geotechnical Pavement Components Working Platforms

(Base, Subbase, and Subgrade)
FIG. 2. Illustration of four application areas for the technologies.
Framework for the System

The development of the information system required planning on several levels. The
framework for development required defining (1) overall system characteristics, (2)
the user, (3) the knowledge, (4) the operating system, and (5) the approach to the
system. The details of this development are summarized in Schaefer et al. (2011) and
contained in the web-based system development report (Douglas et al. 2011).
The overall system developed is termed an information and guidance system
because this system is meant to guide the user in selecting appropriate geoconstruction
technologies for the project at hand. The knowledge base is contained in tables and the
inference engine is shown graphically through flow charts. The flow charts and tables
were programmed into a web-based system for ease of use. The system is intended to
be used by both technical and nontechnical personnel, although to different levels.
The knowledge for identifying potentially applicable technologies to a set of
geotechnical and loading conditions comes from the R02 team's work efforts,
including the development of Comprehensive Technology Summaries (CTS), Design
Procedure Assessments, and QC/QA Assessments for each of the technologies listed
in Table 3. CTS development entailed development of an in-depth technology
overview that included advantages, potential disadvantages, applicable soil types,
depth/height limits, groundwater conditions, material properties, project specific
constraints, equipment needs, and environmental considerations. Additionally, for
each technology case histories, design procedures, QC/QA procedures and
specifications were collected. The assessment efforts then qualitatively and
quantitatively assessed the present design and QC/QA methods. The development of
these CTS and assessment documents provided significant technical information

related to each technology and the application of that technology with regard to
geotechnical and loading conditions. Available FHWA manuals and guidance
documents were identified in the CTS and assessment work efforts, and the
information in those documents has been incorporated into the system.
The web-based system is programmed utilizing Adobe ColdFusion® software in
conjunction with a Microsoft Access® database. This combination of software allowed
the tables developed as part of the selection system to be ported to a database which
could be dynamically queried via the web. The desired characteristics of the operating
system were (Chouicha and Siller 1994):
1. Built-in mechanisms such as searching, control, and backtracking.
2. An internal database to hold the knowledge base.
3. Tools with windows, menus, frames, and drop boxes.
4. The ability to house the system on a server and allow the program to be run by
multiple users via the World Wide Web.
Like most geotechnical analytical solutions, the results of the analysis must be
measured against the opinion of an experienced geotechnical engineer practicing in the
local area of the project. The system was developed with a “keep the system simple”
philosophy, using two approaches. The first approach is that the system conservatively
removes potentially inapplicable technologies during the process. The second
approach, which will be a common theme throughout the selection procedure, is that
the final selection of the appropriate technology will be the responsibility of the user.
The system will lead the user to multiple technologies and provide all the means for
technology explanation, design, and cost estimating. This system does not replace the
project Geotechnical Engineer. The Geotechnical Engineer’s “engineering judgment”
is the final selection process, which takes into consideration the following:
construction cost, maintenance cost, design and quality control issues, performance
and safety (pavement smoothness; hazards caused by maintenance operations;
potential failures), inconvenience (a tangible factor, especially for heavily traveled
roadways or long detours); environmental aspects, and aesthetic aspects (appearance
of completed work with respect to its surroundings) (Johnson 1975 and Holtz 1989).
The Web-based Information System
The homepage for the web-based information system is shown in Figure 3. The title of
the web page is shown in the upper left. Along the left hand side of the page are
buttons to the home page, project background, geotechnical design process, the
catalog of technologies, the technology selection system, glossary, abbreviations,
frequently asked questions, submit a comment, links, and an about this website, that
are always available to the user. The part outlined in the bold box will change as other
pages are selected. In subsequent screen shots only the material within the bold box
will be shown. As shown within the bold box in Figure 3, there are four main parts to
the system: Geotechnical Design Process, Catalog of Technologies, Technology
Selection, and Glossary.

FIG. 3. Homepage for the SHRP 2 R02 project information and guidance
system.
The Geotechnical Design Process page is included to alert the user to the basic
background information needed to conduct geotechnical design such as project
loading conditions and constraints, soil site conditions, and evaluation of alternatives.
The page contains links to FHWA documents on review of geotechnical reports,
evaluation of soil and rock properties, subsurface investigation and instrumentation.
Additionally, links to several state departments of transportation geotechnical design
manuals are provided. During the development of the system it was realized that a
large number of technical terms and abbreviations were used and that in some cases
different technologies used terms in different ways. Thus, an Abbreviations and
Glossary is included with the system so that system users are able to find definitions of
terms used in the various documents.
The technologies can be accessed in several ways. The Catalog of Technologies
page provides a listing of the 46 ground improvement and geoconstruction
technologies in the system that addresses the three element areas. Two traditional
technologies—excavation and replacement, and traditional compaction—are included
as they are often-used “base” technologies, to which ground improvement and
geoconstruction methods are compared. The list of technologies in the catalog is
shown in Table 3. The name of each technology is a hot-link button on the website
that takes the user to a web page for that technology, which will be discussed in more

detail subsequently. The Technology Selection page provides two further means of
accessing technologies: through a classification system and through an interactive
selection system. In the classification system, the technologies are grouped in the
categories shown in Table 4. Thus an experienced engineer can access solutions
according to particular categories of problems. The interactive selection system
provides the user the opportunity to assess technologies based on several applications.
An information and guidance procedure has been developed for each “application”
area shown in Figure 2 and as defined in the R02 project work scope. In developing
the system, the importance of properly identifying the potential applications was
recognized. The Interactive Selection System is entered through the screenshot shown
in Figure 4, wherein the first decision in the process is to select the potential
application. In the selection system the list of applicable technologies is shown on the
right-hand side of the page (see Figure 4), all of which are hot-linked to the respective
technology pages. At the start of the selection all technologies will be shown on the
right hand side, and as decisions are made, non-applicable technologies will be grayed
out.
Table 4. Classification of Geotechnical Solutions by Application Categories

Earthwork Construction Soft Ground Drainage & Consolidation
Densification of Cohesionless Soils Construction of Vertical Support Elements
Embankments Over Soft Soils Lateral Earth Support
Cutoff Walls Liquefaction Mitigation
Increased Pavement Performance Void Filling
Sustainability
After clicking on one of the four application areas shown in Figure 4, the user will
encounter a page requesting additional information to narrow the list of candidate
technologies for the particular application. The number of possible queries for
additional information is quite large and is dependent upon the application selected.
The requested input and order of queries to the user were selected after considering the
effect of the requested information on the determination of the potential technologies
list. The potential queries (in no particular order) generated during development of the
system are:
x What type of project is being constructed?
x What is the size of the project being constructed?
x Are there any project constraints to be considered in selecting a possible
technology?
x What is the soil type that needs to be improved?
x To what depth do to the unstable soils extend?
x At what depth do the unstable soils start?
x Is there a “crust” or “rubble fill” at the ground surface?
x What is the depth to the water table?
x How does the water table fluctuate?

x What constraints exist? (i.e., utilities, material sources, existing adjacent

structures, etc.)
x What is the desired outcome of the improvement? (i.e., decrease settlement,

decrease construction time, increase bearing capacity, etc.)
x What technologies does the user already have experience with?
The questions used to narrow the technologies are dependent upon the application
selected. Generally, three or four questions are used to develop a short-list; which can
then be further defined with answering additional questions. To illustrate the use of the
system, solutions for Construction Over Unstable Soils are presented herein in more
detail.
FIG. 4. Screenshot for the interactive selection system page.
Construction Over Unstable Soils

Selecting the Construction Over Unstable Soils application leads to a decision process
for foundation soil improvement or reduced loading. This application is focused on
ground improvement to support embankments of any height or transportation
structures such as walls or box culverts over unstable soils. This system is focused on
identifying geoconstruction solutions to these problems; however, users must also
consider that structural solutions to such problems may be preferred alternatives.
From the list of potential queries, the two questions “What is the soil condition that
needs to be improved?” and “To what depth do to the unstable soils extend?” were
selected as the initial questions to reduce the number of potential technologies for this

application. These two queries were found to be most useful in providing a

preliminary short list of applicable technologies. A screenshot of the first page for the
Construction Over Unstable Soils application is shown in Figure 5. The list of

technologies shown on the right of this page has narrowed from the complete list
shown on the previous Interactive Selection System page (Figure 4). The unstable soil
conditions considered in the system are:
x Unsaturated and saturated, fine-grained soils
x Unsaturated, loose, granular soils
x Saturated, loose, granular soils
x Voids – sinkholes, abandoned mines, etc.
x Problem soils and sites – expansive, collapsing, dispersive, organic, existing
fill, and landfills
FIG. 5. Screenshot for the first Construction Over Unstable Soils page.
The screenshot after answering the soil type is shown in Figure 6. On the right-hand
side of the screenshot it can be seen that several technologies are grayed out,
indicating that they generally are not appropriate for the soil type selected (unsaturated
and saturated, fine-grained soil).
The next question to be answered is the depth range for improvement. The depth
ranges selected for inclusion in the system are
x 0 – 5 feet (ft) (0 – 1.5 meters (m))
x 5 – 10 ft (1.5 – 3 m)
x 10 – 20 ft (3 – 6 m)
x 20 – 50 ft (6 – 15 m)
x Greater than 50 ft (15 m)

After answering the unstable soil depth question additional technologies may be
grayed out on the right-hand side. At this point the user can stop and assess the
candidate list of technology solutions or enter additional project-specific information

as shown in Figure 7. Since many of these technologies are used in combination with
other ground improvement methods, guidance on combining technologies is contained
in the linked Integrated Technologies for Embankments on Unstable Ground white
paper (see Figure 5 or 6).
FIG. 6. Screenshot for the second Construction Over Unstable Soils page.
A final technology selection screenshot in Figure 8 shows the resulting candidate
technologies on the right-hand side of the page, when the questions have been
answered as shown. It can be seen that the list of technologies applicable to the
selected conditions has been narrowed. At this point one can click on any of the
highlighted technologies to obtain technology specific information. For example,
clicking on Prefabricated Vertical Drains and Fill Preloading will bring up the
screenshot shown in Figure 9. The documents listed can be accessed through hot-links
on the website. Ratings are provided for each technology on the degree of technology
establishment and a technology’s potential application to SHRP 2 objectives.
As shown in Figure 9 a number of information documents about a given technology
are accessible from the system. The list of documents available is shown in Table 5,
which also indicates the format for the document. These documents are hot-linked and
can be opened from this page or the box shown can be clicked and the selected
documents can be printed or saved to a file for further use.

FIG. 7. Screenshot for the Project-Specific Technology Selection for

Construction Over Unstable Soils.
FIG. 8. Screenshot for the Project-Specific Technology Selection for

Construction Over Unstable Soils.

FIG. 9. Screenshot for the Prefabricated Vertical Drains and Fill Preloading
Technology showing list of available documents.
TABLE 5 Documents Available Through the Information and Guidance System
Available for Review or Download File Format

Technology Fact Sheets Adobe pdf
Photos Adobe pdf
Case Histories Adobe pdf
Design Procedures Adobe pdf
QC/QA Procedures Adobe pdf
Cost Estimation Adobe pdf and Microsoft Excel
Example and/or Guide Specifications Adobe pdf and/or Microsoft Word
Bibliography Adobe pdf
The information documents are generally provided in Adobe pdf format. The
Technology Fact Sheets are two-page, summary information sheets that provide basic
information on the technology including basic function, general description, geologic

applicability, construction methods, SHRP 2 applications, complementary

technologies, alternate technologies, potential disadvantages, example successful
applications, and key references. The Photos show pictorially the equipment or
methods used in the technology and can be valuable to get a perspective on the
technology. The Case Histories provide a summary of project(s), in most cases
conducted in the United States by a state department of transportation (DOT), that
contains project location, owner, a project summary, performance, and contact
information. The Design and QC/QA Procedures documents provide a summary of
recommended procedures for the technology. The recommended design and QC/QA
procedures come from an assessment of the current state of the practice of each
technology. In cases where a well-established procedure (e.g., a FHWA manual)
exists, that procedure is recommended. In cases of technologies with multiple
procedures, but with no established procedure, the assessment led to a
recommendation of procedure(s) to use. For a few technologies, design and/or QC/QA
procedures were established based on additional research conducted during the
project. For most technologies, there are two Cost Estimation documents available.
The first provides an explanation of the cost item specific to the technology, generally
emanating from the pay methods contained in specifications. Available regional and
cost numbers, generally from DOT bid tabs or national data bases are compiled for
each technology. The second document for Cost Estimation consists of an Excel
spreadsheet developed to estimate costs for the use of the technology. The second
document could not be prepared for some technologies due to insufficient information.
The spreadsheet can be modified by the user to estimate specific project cost based on
either a preliminary or final design. Guide specifications are provided for each
technology in Adobe pdf and Microsoft Word (if available). The final document
available for each technology is a bibliography compiled during the research project.
CONCLUSION
The selection of a suitable method of ground improvement and optimization of its
design and construction of ground improvement to meet specific project needs
requires extensive background knowledge of available ground treatment technologies
and careful evaluation of several factors. These factors include understanding the
functions of the method, utilization of several selection criteria, the use of appropriate
design procedures, implementation of the right methods for quality control and quality
assurance, and consideration of all relevant cost components and environmental
factors.
A knowledge base has been compiled for 46 ground improvement and
geoconstruction technologies, and a web-based information and guidance system has
been developed to facilitate and organize this knowledge so that informed decisions
can be made. The value of the system is that it collects, synthesizes, integrates, and
organizes a vast amount of critically important information about ground improvement
solutions in a system that makes the information readily accessible to the user.
The selection of ground improvement technologies and systems needs to be made
with clear understanding of performance objectives relative to project needs and of
agency governance and risk tolerance. The web-based system described herein

provides the user with critically important information with which to make sound
engineering decisions appropriate for specific projects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts of their colleagues on the research
team: Donald Bruce, Barry Christopher, Jim Collin, Gary Fick, Jie Han, Dennis
Turner, Linbing Wang, and David White, who served as co-principal investigators on
the SHRP 2 R02 project. The following students/researchers from Iowa State
University, Virginia Tech and the University of Kansas developed many of the
materials for the project, their efforts are greatly appreciated: Bhagaban Acharya,
Amanda Barngrover, Andrew Beatty, Anil Bhandari, Jamie Brickman, Peter Becker,
Kolleen Carlson, Conrad Cho, Ryan Corey, Ashley Disberg, Critian Druta, Heath
Gieselman, Micah Hatch, Peter Hunsinger, Deeep Khatri, Kyle Lawson, Wenjuan Li,
Shengting, Li, Daniel Maine, Caitlin McCarthy, James Meyer, Alex Reeb, Gary
Riggins, Kurt Schimpke, Joel Sloan, Pavana Vennapusa, Jitendra Thakur, Lee
Vanzler, and Chadd Yeatts. The members of the SHRP 2 R02 Advisory Board
provided invaluable advice during the project and are: James Brennan, Allen Cadden,
Mike Cowell, David Horhota, Mark Morvant, Hooshmand Nikoui, Seth Pearlman,
Steve Saye, Allen Sehn, David Shiells, and John Siekmeier. This study was funded by
the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 of the National Academies, with Dr. James
Bryant as program manager. The opinions, findings and conclusions presented here
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the research sponsor.

REFERENCES
ASCE. (1978). Soil Improvement-History, Capabilities, and Outlook. J.K Mitchell,
Editor. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 182 pp.
ASCE. (1987). Soil Improvement—A Ten Year Update. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 12. J.P. Welsh, Editor. American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, 331 pp.
ASCE. (1997). Ground Improvement, Ground Treatment, Ground Reinforcement-
Developments 1987-1997. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 69. V.R. Schaefer,
Editor. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 616 pp.
Chouicha, M.A. and Siller, T.J. (1994). “An Expert System Approach to Liquefaction
Analysis – Part 1: Development and Implementation.” Computers and Geotechnics,
Volume 16, Elsevier Science Ltd, England, pp.1-35.
Chu, J., Varaksin. S., Klotz, U., and Menge, P. (2009). “Construction Processes, State
of the Art Report.” 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, 5-9 October 2009, 130 pp.
Douglas, S.C., Schaefer, V.R., and Berg, R.R. (2011). “Web-Based Information and
Guidance System Development Report—SHRP 2 R02 Project.” Report prepared
for the Strategic Highway Research Program 2, September (under review).
Elias, V., Welsh, J, Warren, J. Lukas, R., Collin, J.G., and Berg, R.R. (2006). Ground
Improvement Methods. FHWA NHI-06-019 (Vol. 1) and FHWA NHI-06-020 (Vol.
2), 1056 pp.
Holtz, R.D. (1989). Treatment of Problem Foundations for Highway Embankments.

National Cooperative Highway Research Report 147, Synthesis of Highway

Practice, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C.
Holtz, R.D., Shang, J.Q., and Bergado, D.T. (2001). “Soil Improvement,” Chapter 15
in Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Handbook edited by R.K.
Rowe, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 429-462.
Johnson, S.J. (1975). Treatment of Soft Foundations for Highway Embankments.
National Cooperative Highway Research Report 29, Synthesis of Highway
Practice, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C.
Mitchell, J. K. (1981). "Soil Improvement: State-of-the-Art," 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden,
June, Vol. 4, pp. 509-565.
Mitchell, J.K., Baxter, C.D.P., and Munson, T.C. (1995). “Performance of Improved
Ground During Earthquakes.” Soil Improvement for Earthquake Hazard
Mitigation, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 49, ASCE, pp. 1-36.
Munfakh, G.A. (1997a). “Ground improvement engineering–the state of the US
practice: Part 1. Methods.” Ground Improvement, 1(4): 193-214.
Munfakh, G.A. (1997b). “Ground improvement engineering–the state of the US
practice: Part 2. Applications.” Ground Improvement, 1(4): 215-222.
Munfakh, G.A. and Wyllie, D.C. (2000). “Ground Improvement Engineering—Issues
and Selection.” GeoEng 2000, Volume 1: Invited Papers, Technomic Publishing
Company, Inc., Lancaster, PA, 333-359.
Schaefer, V.R., Douglas, S.C., and Berg, R.R. (2011). “SHRP2 R02 Geotechnical
Solutions for Transportation Infrastructure: Guidance and Selection System.”
Transportation Research Board 2011 Annual Meeting.
Terashi, M. and Juran, I. (2000). “Ground Improvement—State of the Art.” GeoEng
2000, 19-24 November 2000, Melbourne, Australia, Volume 1: Invited Papers,
Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., Lancaster, PA, 461-519.
USACE. (1999). Guidelines on Ground Improvement for Structures and Facilities.
Technical Letter No. 1110-1-185, Department of the Army. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, D.C., February, 109 pp.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango. I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry,
R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao,
S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S.,
Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H. (2001). “Liquefaction Resistance of
Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops
on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, J. of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817 - 833.

Ground Improvement in The 21st Century: A Comprehensive Web-Based Information System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ground Improvement in The 21st Century: A Comprehensive Web-Based Information System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

(Munfakh 1997a; Elias et al. 2006), to:

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Table 1. Ground Improvement Categories, Functions and Methods.

Category Function Methods

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Subsurface Conditions, Loading Conditions, Material Characteristics, Geometry, and

Categories of Input and

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

conductivity (in-situ); and others. During construction, observations should be made

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

PART 2: A COMPREHENSIVE WEBBASED INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

tool that provides guidance for applying these geoconstruction solutions to

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Construction over Unstable Soils Construction over Stabile/Stabilzed Soils

Geotechnical Pavement Components Working Platforms

FIG. 2. Illustration of four application areas for the technologies.

Framework for the System

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Table 4. Classification of Geotechnical Solutions by Application Categories

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

x What constraints exist? (i.e., utilities, material sources, existing adjacent

x What is the desired outcome of the improvement? (i.e., decrease settlement,

FIG. 4. Screenshot for the interactive selection system page.

Construction Over Unstable Soils

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

application. These two queries were found to be most useful in providing a

Construction Over Unstable Soils application is shown in Figure 5. The list of

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

candidate list of technology solutions or enter additional project-specific information

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

FIG. 7. Screenshot for the Project-Specific Technology Selection for

FIG. 8. Screenshot for the Project-Specific Technology Selection for

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

TABLE 5 Documents Available Through the Information and Guidance System

Available for Review or Download File Format

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

applicability, construction methods, SHRP 2 applications, complementary

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

National Cooperative Highway Research Report 147, Synthesis of Highway

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

You might also like