A PROJECT ON

GROUND IMPROVEMENT
TECHNIQUES
FOR REDEVELOPEMENT IN
EARTHQUAKE PRONE AREAS

Presented by

Sukanya Doshi 061011017

Kapil Valecha 061010026
Devyani Mhatre 061011037
Utkarsh Mital 061010039

Under the Guidance of

Prof. S. Y. Mhaske

Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute

Mumbai 400 019
 Contents

1 Introduction 2

1.1 Earthquakes 2

1.2 Effect on Structures 2

1.3 Secondary Phenomena 2

2 Liquefaction 2

2.1 Cause 3

2.2 Effect 4

3 Ground Improvement Techniques 6

3.1 Vibroflotation 7

3.2 Dynamic Replacement 8

3.3 Dynamic Compaction 9

3.4 Vibratory Probe 10

3.5 Earthquake Drains 11

3.5.1 Drain Piles 11

3.5.2 Synthetic Drain Pipes 12

3.6 Grouting 12

3.6.1 Compaction Grouting 13

3.6.2 Permeation Grouting 13

3.6.3 Jet Grouting 14

3.7 Soil Mixing 14

4 Tests 15

5 Case Study: The Kobe Earthquake in Japan: 1995 15

5.1 Kobe Earthquake 15

5.2 Ground Improvement Techniques 15

6 Conclusion 18

7 Questions 18

1
1. Introduction

1964, Niigata, Japan, 1989, Loma Prieta, USA, 1995, Kobe, Japan, 2001, Bhuj,
Gujarat, 2008, Sichuan, China. These are only some of the most devastating
earthquakes in the last 50 yrs. It has taken scientists and engineers many decades to
merely understand the causes of this mass destruction and find viable safeguards
against them. Building an earthquake-safe structure is not enough. Even buildings
designed for earthquake loads collapse due to the state of the ground during an
earthquake. So, one of the most important things is to study the ground conditions and
improve them as a primary step to prevent earthquake damage.

1.1 Earthquakes

Stability of the Earth’s crust is an essential condition for the propagation of life on
our planet. The earth’s crust consists of seven tectonic plates which slide over the hot,
molten outer core. Such movement is believed to be the origin of tectonic
earthquakes. In effect, earthquakes are caused due to displacement of blocks along
faults.
Earthquakes are the strongest, quickest and most unexpected of natural calamities.

1.2 Effect on Structures

Low magnitude earthquakes may leave structures unaffected. However, the major
earthquakes may cause disastrous damages. Twisting, sinking, buckling, deformation
are some of the commonly seen effects. Earthquakes may damage lifelines (such as
roads, bridges, railway lines, pipes etc.) which may hinder attempts to help an
earthquake hit region.

1.3 Secondary Phenomena

There are a few other phenomena caused by earthquakes. These are indicative of
the extent of damage caused by earthquakes. These are:
1. Landslides
2. Ground shaking
3. Fire
4. Tsunami
5. Liquefaction

In this report, we shall be studying the most common ground improvement

techniques used all over the world in order to mitigate the hazards of earthquakes.

2. Liquefaction

Of all the other effects of earthquakes, liquefaction has many effects. In order to
minimize the damage caused by earthquakes, it will be necessary to discuss

2
 liquefaction in great detail. We shall look into the cursory details about the cause and
effects of liquefaction before discussing the ground improvement techniques
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.

2.1 Cause

Liquefaction generally occurs in saturated cohesionless deposits. During an

earthquake, base rock movements generate shear waves that propagate through
overlying soils. Liquefaction results when these shear waves, passing through
saturated sand layers, distort the granular structure and cause loosely packed grains to
collapse. This densification causes an increase in pore pressure if drainage cannot
occur. If these pore pressures exceed roughly sixty percent (60%) of the soil's
effective stress, large settlements and translational deformations can occur. As these
pore pressures approach one hundred percent (100%) of the effective stress of the
soil, the sands lose all shear strength and behave as a fluid, i.e. become "quick".
The phenomenon of pore pressure build up followed by loss of soil strength is
known as liquefaction
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.

Conditions for Liquefaction -

 Soil-type - Soils with 50% or more of their grain size in the range of 0.02mm to
0.2mm are potentially liquefiable when saturated.
 Intensity of Ground Pressure - To initiate liquefaction local ground acceleration
greater than 0.10g is required.
 Initial Confining Pressure - The stress required to initiate liquefaction increases
with confining pressure.
 Duration of shaking - It is necessary for the shaking to continue for some time (a
characteristic of large earthquakes).

3
2.2 Effect

Liquefaction and related phenomenon have been responsible for tremendous

amounts of damage in historical earthquakes around the world. The potential damage
caused by liquefaction phenomena includes:
1. Loss of Bearing Capacity and Excessive Settlement
2. Flow Failure
3. Lateral Spreading
4. Sand Boils
5. Pore Pressure Generation

2.2.1 Loss of Bearing Capacity and Excessive Settlement

Buildings and other structures situated above a liquefied soil layer may tilt or
collapse due to lack of bearing strength.

2.2.2 Flow Failure

Liquefaction develops beneath the ground surface causing the soil to flow down a
steep slope and finally rest after traveling many kilometers.

4
2.2.3 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading involves large horizontal displacement on the ground surface as
a result of liquefaction in a shallow underlying soil deposit. In large-magnitude
earthquakes, lateral spreading causes tremendous damage, often times disruptive and
pervasive though rarely catastrophic.

2.2.4 Sand Boils

Sandboils are formed when sediment that is below the surface and has high water
content. This sediment is blown to the surface due to increases in pore pressure.

2.2.5 Pore Pressure Generation

Pore pressure generation plays an important role in earthquakes. Increased water
pressure can also trigger landslides and cause the collapse of dams. Liquefied soil
also exerts higher pressure on retaining walls, bulkheads and quay walls causing them
to tilt or slide.

5
3. Ground Improvement Techniques

In the past, the conventional method for handling loose sands, soft clays and
poorly compacted fills which are susceptible to seismic damage was to undercut and
replace those materials or to bypass them with deep foundations. Today, geotechnical
and structural engineers have several options to improve soils in-place. We shall look
into some of these methods which have been employed over the years as
countermeasures for damage caused by earthquakes.
Structures founded on soils, especially if soft, tend to be subjected to stronger
shaking with longer-period motions while structures founded on hard rock itself face
least amplified shaking.

Ground Improvement techniques to mitigate liquefaction hazards are mainly soil

densification techniques. The soil is densified mainly by vibratory or compaction
method and backfill is used to occupy the freed space. Grouting is another technique
used for this purpose. In effect, it is a densification technique. Ground improvement
can also be achieved by changing the properties of the soil. This is done by mixing
existing soil with other types. Along with these, a new but apparently very effective
technique is that of Earthquake Drains (EQ Drains).
IS Codes:
IS 13094 : 1992 (Reaffirmed 1997)
“In poor and weak subsoils, the design of conventional shallow foundation for
structures and equipment may present problems with respect to both sizing of
foundations as well as control of foundation settlements. Traditionally, pile
foundations have been employed often at enormous costs. A more viable alternative
in certain solutions, developed over the recent years, is to improve the subsoil itself to
an extent such that the subsoil improvement would have resultant settlements within
acceptable limits. The techniques for ground improvement have developed rapidly
and have found large scale application in industrial projects.”
Ground improvement is indicated if
→ Net loading intensity of the foundation exceeds the allowable bearing pressure as
per IS 6403:1981
→ Resultant settlement or differential settlement (per IS 8009 Part 1 or 2) exceeds
acceptable limits for the structure
→ The subsoil is prone to liquefaction in seismic event

6
3.1 Vibroflotation or Vibro compaction or Sand Column

Vibroflotation uses a vibrating unit in the ground, which vibrates horizontally.

The equipment includes the vibrator, extension tubes, and a supporting crane. This
process includes forming a cavity in the ground using vibrator, advancing the vibrator
to the desired depth, and raising and lowering the vibrator and backfilling, both
processes at the same time. Vibrations are generally close to the tip of the vibrator
and are produced by rotating eccentric weights mounted on a shaft. This method is
used primarily for densifying clean granular cohesionless soils. The action of the
vibrator usually used in conjunction with water jetting momentarily reduces the
intergranular friction of the loose sand grains causing these to assume a denser state
due to vibratory excitation. The backfill material used for this technique is typically
sand. Typical spacing between 2 points is 1.5 to 3.0m

Most Suitable Soil

Cohesionless soil with less than 20% fines
Type
Max effective
30 m
treatment depth
Special materials
Granular Backfill
required
Special equipment
Vibroflot equipment, steel casing, hopper for backfill
required
Properties of
Can obtain high relative density
treated material
Special advantages + Rapid, useful for a wide range of soil types
and limitations – May require a large volume of backfill, noisy
Relative Cost Moderate

3.2 Dynamic Replacement or Stone Column

7
 Stone columns technique is similar to vibro-compaction. The difference is in the
backfill that is used. Stone columns generally use gravel or crushed stone as backfill.
In general, stone columns can be installed in two ways: dry or wet method. In the dry
method, compressed air is used to assist the advance of the vibrator. The stone is fed
by pipes directly to the nose of the vibrator. Little soil is extracted during the
installation. Stone columns installed using dry methods are referred to as vibro-
displacement stone columns. The wet method uses water jets and the self-weight of
the vibrator to advance into the cavity. Unlike the dry method, some collapsible soils
are removed to the surface by the water. The stone is fed to the annulus of the
vibrator, which falls by gravity and vibrations to the cavity under the nose of the
vibrator. Stone columns installed using wet methods are referred to as vibro-
replacement stone columns.
In cohesionless soils (sands), the intense vibrations generated by the vibroflot
rearrange the loose particles into a much denser configuration. These dense sands
have higher bearing capacities, reduced static and seismic settlements and greater
liquefaction resistance.
For sites with cohesive soils (uncontrolled fill/alluvial deposits), stone columns
can be used for direct support of shallow foundations. Vibro-replacement results in
columns of stone throughout the weaker soil profile. The resulting matrix of columns
and original soil has composite elastic and shear moduli far greater than the original
deposit.
.

Aggregate Pier Foundation System – A special type of stone column

The aggregate pier foundation system was developed initially by Fox in the spring
of 1984. The use of aggregate pier of particular importance is in reducing settlement
of the upper-structures, increasing the bearing capacity of soil, increasing the uplift
capacity, increasing the lateral stress of soil and withstanding seismic loading.
The typical construction process of aggregate pier foundation system can be
divided into four main stages as shown:
1. Creating a cylindrical or rectangular prismatic (linear) cavity in the soil matrix
by auguring or trenching,
2. Placing aggregate (clean stone) at the bottom of cavity

8
 3. Making the bottom bulb by ramming the aggregate with tamper which has a 45
degrees beveled foot
4. Building the shaft with undulating layers in thin lifts (12 inches or less)
consisting of well-graded aggregate, typically stone as used for highway base course
material

3.3 Dynamic Compaction

Dynamic Deep Compaction is an economic site improvement technique used to

treat a range of porous soil types and permit shallow, spread footing construction.
Soils are densified at depth by the controlled impact of a crane-hoisted, heavy weight
(15-35 tons) on the ground surface in a pre-determined grid pattern. The procedure
involves the dropping of a heavy tamping weight over a free fall height of greater
than 10 meters in order to cause shock waves. The effective depth of treatment
depends on the energy of the falling weight as it impacts on the ground. Dynamic
Deep Compaction is also successful in densifying landfill material for highway
construction or recreational landscaping.

Most Suitable Soil Cohesionless soil, waste fills, partly saturated soils,
Type soils with fines
Max effective 30 m, less at the surface, degree of improvement
treatment depth usually decreases with depth
Special materials
None
required
Special equipment
Tamper and crane
required
Properties of treated
Good improvement and reasonable uniformity
material
+ Rapid, simple, may be suitable for soils with
fines
Special advantages
– lack of uniformity with depth, not possible near
and limitations
existing structures, may granular backfill surface
layer
Relative Cost low

9
3.4 Vibratory Probe

The vibratory probe method uses heavy vibrator that is clamped to the upper end
of a long steel probe. Unlike the previous two methods, the vibratory probe method
induces vertical vibrations. The vibrator is mounted on the top of the probe and does
not penetrate the ground. Typical construction process includes the advance of the
probe to the desired depth and densification of the soil during extraction of the probe.
Backfill material is not commonly used for this method

Most Suitable
Saturated or dry clean sand
Soil Type
Max effective
20 m, ineffective in upper 3-4 m.
treatment depth
Special materials
None
required
Special
Vibratory pile driver or vibroflot equipment
equipment required
Properties of
Can obtain up to Dr = 80%
treated material
+ Rapid, simple, cheaper than VR stone columns,
Special compaction piles
advantages and – less effective than methods that employ compaction
limitations as well as vibration, difficult to penetrate stiff overlayers,
may be ineffective for layered systems
Relative Cost Moderate

10
 Graph showing relation of grain size with technique

3.5 Earthquake Drains

Of very great importance is the recognition that pore water pressure relief through
the use of vertical drainage materials will assist in preventing the set up of pore
pressures to cause liquefaction. This method is a low vibration method and can be
used in areas surrounding existing lifelines.

3.5.1 Drain Piles

Gravel drain pipes are constructed using a casting auger. The casing is screwed
into the ground. Gravel and water are poured into the casing. As the casing is
removed, gravel is pushed out of the end of the casing and is compacted. In case of
liquefaction, large amount of water enters drain pipe from surrounding soil due to
excess pore water pressure. Since drain pipes are made of coarse gravel, water is
allowed to rise, thus preventing liquefaction.

11
3.5.2 Synthetic Drain Pipes

Advantages of Prefabricated Synthetic Earthquake Drains:

1. Reduced cost of installation
2. Shorter installation time
3. Greater flow capacity than stone columns
4. Densification during installation
5. May provide mitigation for silty sands which are difficult to densify

A drain layout must be prepared for anticipated earthquake. Trials and

experiments have shown that settlement is notably reduced by this method. The rate
of dissipation of groundwater is increased. At the same time, significant densification
is provided.

3.6 Grouting

Techniques selected to improve the ground surrounding existing lifelines should

be those which do not cause excessive levels of disturbance to the lifeline. Grouting is
an apt technique for this purpose. There are 3 main types of grouting – compaction,
permeation and jet grouting.

12
3.6.1 Compaction Grouting

Compaction Grouting is defined as the staged injection of low slump mortar-type

grout into soils at high pressures (500 to 600 pounds per square inch). It is used to
densify loose granular soils. The low mobility grout remains homogeneous mass
without entering soil pores. As the soil mass expands, surrounding soil is displaced
and densified.
At each grout location a casing is drilled to the bottom of a previously specified soil
target zone. Compaction grout is then pumped into the casing at increments of one
lineal foot.
Compaction grouting has been successfully used to correct structural settlement,
increase bearing capacity and densify liquefiable soil. This technique is not effective
in thick saturated clayey soils and silty soils.

3.6.2 Permeation Grouting

Permeation Grouting is injection the injection under pressure of low viscosity

particulate or chemical fluids into soil pore space with little change to the physical
structure of the soil. Particulate grouts consist of cement, fly-ash and water while
chemical grouts sodium silicates, lignosulfonates and resins. It improves the strength
and rigidity of the soil to limit ground movement during construction. Chemical
grouting is used extensively to aid soft ground tunneling and to control groundwater
intrusion.

13
3.6.3 Jet Grouting

In jet grouting, high pressure (40 to 60 MPa) fluid jets are used to erode and
replace soil with grout. A small hole 90 to 150 mm is drilled and grout (water-cement
slurry) is jetted in through nozzles. Bentonite is added where low permeability is
required. This technique has been used successfully to underpin foundations, support
excavations, control ground water flow and strengthen soils.
Single, double or triple fluid methods can be used. Single fluid system uses only
grout. Double fluid system employs grout as well as pressurized air which are
released from two nozzles. Triple fluid system uses grout, pressurized air as well as
water.
Single fluid method is most effective is cohesionless soils.

3.7 Soil Mixing

In Situ Soil Mixing is also referred to as auger mixing, deep mixing method etc.
In situ soil mixing is the mechanical mixing of soil and stabilizer using rotating auger
and mixing-bar arrangements. Flat mixing bars attached to the auger shaft mix
injected stabilizer and soil. Upon reaching the designed depth, a second mixing
occurs as augers are withdrawn. The result is high strength or low permeability
columns and panels. Multiple columns and panels are commonly layedout in a
pattern.
In Situ Soil Mixing is used to create structural elements for foundations and
retaining walls, soil improvement, and in situ treatments of buried contaminates. It is
also used with specialized cementing and chemical reagents for hazardous waste
treatment, sludge stabilization / solidification, lagoon stabilization, chemical
oxidation, and for constructing underground vertical barriers for groundwater
containment.

14
4. Tests
Before we use any method of improvement , the soil at the site must be tested to
determine various conditions like at what depth liquefaction occurs, type of soil,
position of ground water table, etc .There are certain standard tests carried out such
as:

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)

Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT)
Dilatometer Tests (DMT)
Load testing
Shear wave velocity profiling.

5. Case Study: The Kobe Earthquake in Japan: 1995.

In this section we shall cover a few facts about the 1995 earthquake at Kobe,
Japan. This is a cursory study of the ground improvement techniques employed and
the performance of the same during this devastating earthquake.

5.1 The Kobe Earthquake

Kobe is located on the Nojima fault which lies above a destructive plate margin.
The Japanese islands were formed due to plate tectonics and Japan is under constant
threat of earthquakes. Kobe is built on a complex formation of various hardness of
ground and ranges from solid mountains to soft reclaimed port land.
This earthquake of magnitude 7.2 on the Richter scale occurred on the 17 th of
January, 1995. The focus being close to the surface led to greater damage. The
ground moved 18 cm horizontally and 12 cm vertically. 716 aftershocks were
recorded.
Nearly 2, 00,000 buildings collapsed. Over 5,500 people died and 40,000 were
injured. The notable structures destroyed included the Hanshin Expressway, Kobe
West Civic Hospital, and Sannomiya Shopping District. In the port of Kobe, 120 of
the 150 quays were destroyed. The Akashi Bridge moved 1.1m to the west. The
earthquake cause many huge fires which destroyed over 7,500 homes.

5.2 Ground Improvement Techniques

Japan is highly susceptible to earthquakes. Therefore, over a period of time,
construction in Japan incorporates various techniques in order to curtail earthquake
related damage. Various ground improvement techniques have been used extensively.
This case study mentions some of these techniques and the performance of treated areas
versus non-treated ones. Performance of the following ground improvement techniques
was studied during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake:
1. Sand Drains
2. Cement Mixing
3. Deep Dynamic Compaction
4. Sand Piles
5. Vibroflotation

15
5.2.1 Sand Drains

Site: Port Island Building

Site Description: 275m inland of south quay wall
Soil Profile: 23m of decomposed granite underlain by 10m of Holocene clay.
15% fines, 5%clay, large gravel particles also in existence
Ground water table 3m below surface
Foundation: Mat foundation
Damage: Minor settlement and tilt
To accelerate dissipation of pore water pressure in the consolidating Holocene
clay layer, the site was improved with sand drains extending to the bottom of the
Holocene clay layer. It is likely that the vibration and compaction associated with
sand drain installation densified the surrounding fill. Improvement extended
throughout the entire liquefiable thickness.
Improved ground showed an average settlement of 8.3cm and tilt of 1/680
radian. No sand boils were found. Surrounding unimproved ground showed
widespread evidence of liquefaction.

5.2.2 Cement Mixing

Site: Oriental Hotel on Merikan Wharf

Site Description: 14 storey hotel situated on the wharf
Surrounded by water on 3 sides
Under construction at the time of earthquake
Soil Profile: 10 to 12m of soft reclaimed sand and gravel (fill) over the seabed
Alternating layers of alluvial clay and gravelly sand
Ground water table varies with the tide. Max. 1.3m below ground
Foundation: Cast-in-situ piles
Damage: Minor, architectural
Because of the potential for liquefaction in the upper 10-12 m of loose fill, the
site was improved using a Deep Cement Mixing (DCM) grid. Improvement was
intended to restrain liquefaction of the soil and secure lateral resistance of the
piles by limiting the potential for shear deformation of the soil inside the grid.
Because the building is surrounded by water on three sides, it was expected that
soil under the building could flow out into the surrounding sea if the concrete
caissons underwent lateral deformation associated with backfill liquefaction.
No evidence of lateral flow from within the walls. Abandoned steel bars and
vertical temporary timber supports in the pits underneath the building were found
standing, with no evidence of loss of bearing capacity. No settlement of the soil
was reported, and there was no evidence of damage to the inspected pile heads or
differential settlement in the first floor. Thus the improvement was successful at
mitigating seismically induced ground surface disruption.
On the other hand, nearby quay walls slid into the sea. Sand boils and fissures
were observed even further inland.

16
5.2.3 Deep Dynamic Compaction

Site: Awaji Island Sea Life Park

Site Description: Awaji Island near Fishing Port
Soil Profile: 7 to 10m of landfilled masa soil from Awaji
Yellow-gray sand with gravel and fine sand
Ground water table is 2.5m below ground surface
Foundation: Shallow Foundation
Damage: None
Improvement was intended to increase strength and densify the loose fill that
was prone to liquefaction as well as prevent differential settlement. Liquefaction
was thought possible to a depth of 8 m below ground surface, which was the
target depth of improvement. Heavy tamping was chosen as the remedial method.
Within the improved area, no sand boils or water boils were observed. No
differential settlement for the water tank and the attached facilities is reported. In
the unimproved areas such as roads adjacent to the site, asphalt heave, sand boils,
and water boils were seen. In area with ground improvement and the surrounding
5 to 10m, no evidence of liquefaction was observed, and there was no damage to
the buildings.

5.2.4 Sand Compaction Piles

Site: Rokko Island Building

Site Description: 400m from quay wall
Soil Profile: 26 m crushed tuff and sandstone fill lying on 15 m of Holocene clay
Well graded soil, 20% fines, 10% clay
Ground water 8m below ground level
Foundation: Floating Mat
Damage: Minor settlement
The site was improved using 700 mm diameter sand compaction piles in a 2.0
m square pattern. The depth of improvement was 16 m.
The average absolute building settlement was 1.9 cm. The maximum tilt was
1/2666 radians in improved ground. Surrounding areas of the island showed
extensive liquefaction. Sand boils were common and settlements were in the order
of 30 to 40cm.

5.2.5 Vibroflotation

Site: Port Island Container Pier

Site Description: Buildings are located on the wharf
Surrounded on 3 sides by the sea
Soil Profile: 18m of reclaimed decomposed granite
Underlain by 14m of alluvial clay over sandy soil
Well graded soil, 30% fines, large gravel particles
Ground water 2 to 5.5m below surface

17
 Foundation: Piles and spread footings
Damage: Settlement, tilt, damage to pile heads
A vibro-rod steel hammer with an H-shaped cross section was used in a
square pattern at 2.6m spacing to 18m depth, 10m from building perimeter. The
projected steel plate wings were attached to increase the effectiveness of
compaction.
Some buildings show no damage. Maximum differential settlement was
90mm, maximum tilt was 1/265 although vertical settlements up to 38cm have
been reported. On the other hand, surrounding unimproved ground faced
settlement as large as 120 cm. Quay walls were largely displaced toward the sea.
Sand boils were also widespread in areas further inland.

6. Conclusion

From the above case studies, it is evident that the correct technique, if applied,
can not only limit damage but, in some cases, even prevent it. In this way, ground
improvement can prove to be a boon in earthquake prone areas for prevention as well
as cure.

7. Questions

1. What is liquefaction? Explain the effects.

2. Write a short note on the two methods of earthquake drains.
3. What are the various methods of grouting used to mitigate liquefaction
hazards?
4. What are vibroflotation, dynamic compaction, and stone column method of
improvement?
5. Compare Traditional Drain Piles and Pre-fabricated Synthetic Drains

18