Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275 – 291

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Mitigation of liquefaction and associated ground

deformations by stone columns
Korhan Adalier a,*, Ahmed Elgamal b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180, USA
b
Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA

Abstract

Soil liquefaction and associated ground failures have been a major source of damage during the past earthquakes. The risk of
liquefaction and associated ground deformation can be reduced by various ground-improvement methods including the stone
column (gravel drain) technique. This paper presents the current state of the stone column technologies as a liquefaction
countermeasure. A comprehensive review is provided aiming to: (a) identify key considerations for the general use of stone
columns as a liquefaction countermeasure, (b) provide insights for design and construction, (c) compile the latest research
developments, and (d) identify sources of useful information. Case histories of field applications and observed field
performance are cited to portray different stone column applications and observed effectiveness. The paper identifies areas
where more research is needed and includes recommendations for future research and development.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthquake; Alluvium; Liquefaction; Ground improvement; Gravel drain; Stone column; Holocene deposits

1. Introduction areas with high ground water levels. Evidence of

liquefaction has been prevalent in recent as well as in
Soil liquefaction and associated ground failure have historic earthquakes (Obermeier, 1998; Tuttle et al.,
been a major source of damage during many past 2000; Schneider et al., 2001). Sediments most suscep-
earthquakes (e.g., Seed et al., 1990; Ishihara et al., tible to liquefaction include saturated Holocene to late
1992; Bardet et al., 1995; Sitar, 1995; Japanese Geo- Pleistocene age deposits, river channel and flood plain
technical Society, 1996; Ansal et al., 1999; Sugito et al., alluvium, aeolian deposits, and poorly compacted fills
2000; Krinitzsky and Hynes, 2002). In general terms, (Youd, 1991; Krinitzsky and Hynes, 2002).
liquefaction refers to the loss of strength in saturated, During many large earthquakes, soil liquefaction
cohesionless soils due to the build-up of pore pressures results in ground failures in the form of sand boils,
during dynamic loading. Liquefaction primarily occurs differential settlements, flow slides, lateral spreading,
in geologically young sediments of sands and silts in and loss of bearing capacity beneath buildings. Such
ground failures have inflicted much damage to the
built environment and caused significant loss of life.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-518-276-8043; fax: +1-518-
276-4833.
The risk of liquefaction and associated ground
E-mail addresses: adalik@rpi.edu (K. Adalier), deformation can be reduced by various ground-im-
elgamal@ucsd.edu (A. Elgamal). provement methods including densification, solidifi-

0013-7952/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2003.11.001
276 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291

cation (e.g., cementation), and gravel drains or stone Seed et al., 1976; Tokimatsu, 1979; Ishihara and
columns. Use of gravel drains is a rather recent devel- Yamazaki, 1980; Tatsuoka et al., 1984; Saito et al.,
opment compared with the more traditional soil densi- 1987; Iai, 1988; Nagase and Ishihara, 1988). Large
fication approaches (INA, 2001). settlements at high ru values are caused by the high
Gravel drains (stone columns) as a liquefaction volume compressibility of liquefied soil at low
mitigation procedure was initially studied by Seed and confining stresses. Scott (1986) and Adalier and
Booker (1977). Since then, the gravel drain technique Elgamal (1992) attributed this behavior mainly to
has attracted the attention of leading researchers (e.g., the presence of a significant sedimentation com-
Ishihara and Yamazaki, 1980; Tokimatsu and Yosh- ponent in addition to the volume compressibility at
imi, 1980; Baez and Martin, 1995; Boulanger et al., low effective stresses due to consolidation. At low
1998), practicing consultants (e.g., Nippon Kokan, ru values, the relatively low consolidation volume
Japan, http://www.nkk.co.jp) and construction com- change is apt to occur.
panies (e.g., Konoike Construction in Japan, http:// (3) Reducing high hydraulic gradients that may cause
www.konoike.co.jp, and Hayward Baker in the United migration of fine soil particles into the gravel
States, http://www.haywardbaker.com). In 1985, the drain, thus diminishing the drainage capability.
gravel drain technique received the Technical Devel-
opment Award of the Civil Engineering Society of Conceptually, even if high ue build-up occurs within
Japan (Saito et al., 1987). the remediated soil, the imposed shear stresses during
Installation of stone columns by vibro-replacement seismic loading will be shared between the dense
mitigates the potential for liquefaction by increasing gravel columns and the surrounding soil in proportion
the density of surrounding soil, allowing drainage for to the relative stiffness of the two materials, thus
the control of pore pressures, introducing stiff ele- increasing overall stability. Currently, this stress con-
ments (stone columns) which can potentially carry centration mechanism in liquefied soils is not well
higher stress levels causing reduction in stress levels understood or sufficiently verified phenomenon (Ada-
in the surrounding soil (Priebe, 1989, 1991), and lier et al., 2003).
providing a deformation restricting effect. All these This paper includes a thorough summary of
benefits may reduce the tendency for pore pressure technical literature on stone columns (gravel drains),
build-up, and some may increase the rate of excess aiming at identifying key considerations for use of
pore water pressure dissipation, keeping the pore stone columns as a ground stabilization measure
pressure ratio (ru) low (ru = ue/rvV where ue is excess against seismic-liquefaction. The intent is to provide
pore water pressure and rvV is initial effective vertical insight for design and construction, and more impor-
stress). The main advantages of maintaining a low ru tantly to identify sources of useful information. In
value (e.g., ru < 0.5) are: the next four sections, the following relevant aspects
are discussed based on a thorough literature review:
(1) A large portion of the overall soil strength and (a) stone column construction practice, (b) available
stiffness is preserved. This will enable the stratum case histories of stone columns and documented
to continue providing the necessary vertical and seismic performance, (c) related analytical work,
lateral support to the overlying structure. Preserv- and (d) earlier model test studies. The paper pro-
ing strength may substantially decrease the extent vides a comprehensive list of significant publications
of lateral ground deformation due to dynamic that discuss stone columns as a seismic liquefaction
excitation. Such deformation may be severely countermeasure in North America, Europe, and
aggravated by the presence of a natural ground Japan.
slope, even if mild (lateral spread of as much as 3
m has been observed in ground slopes of less than
3%, NRC, 1985). 2. Stone column construction
(2) Preventing large settlements (and differential
settlements) which are often associated with ru An overview of construction methods, and techni-
values above 0.5 to 0.6 (Lee and Albeisa, 1974; cal issues related to stone columns (gravel drains) and
 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291 277

other liquefaction remediation techniques can be found The typical auger-casing system generally involves
in Andrus and Chung (1995), Adalier (1996), PHRI little or no densification. However, current Japanese
(1997), Schaefer (1997), JGS (1998), Mitchell et al. practice involves an auger-casing (Fig. 2) with an
(1998), and INA (2001). Unlike other stabilization internal gravel feeding and compaction-rod system,
methods, such as blasting and dynamic compaction thus adding the important densification effect (Saito et
techniques, construction of stone columns produces no al., 1987; Ono et al., 1991; Oishi and Tanaka, 1993).
significant vibration or noise, making it suitable for Typically, construction of a gravel column of 20 m in
sites in urban areas adjacent to existing structures. length may be executed in less than 1 h (Sonu et al.,
The two most common methods of stone column 1993). A further discussion of other available gravel
installation are vibro-replacement, and the auger-cas- drain installation methods can be found in Welsh et al.
ing system. In vibro-replacement (Fig. 1), a probe is (1987) and FHWA (1988). Tabata et al. (1993) present
inserted to the desired depth by vibration and water or more recent gravel drain installation techniques de-
air jetting. Thereafter, a gravel backfill is fed in veloped in Japan.
increments either around the surface annulus (top feed Verifying that the required level of improvement
method) or from the vibrator tip (bottom feed meth- has been obtained is a difficult but extremely impor-
od), compacted by vibration and by raising and tant aspect of ground improvement (Schaefer, 1997).
lowering the vibrator. This action of the vibrator tends Quality assurance and control include observation
to ram the stone into the sides of the hole, which during construction, and geotechnical verification
further densifies the surrounding soil (in addition to testing after construction is completed. During con-
densification due to the probe driving, displacement, struction, observations should be made and recorded
and vibration). The degree of resulting densification is at each stone column location including ground sur-
a function of soil type, fines content, soil plasticity, face movement, volume of backfill material used, and
pre-densification relative density, vibrator type, stone amount of energy expended (Dobson, 1987). After
shape and durability, stone column area, and spacing construction, in situ methods such as SPT, CPT,
between stone columns. Brown (1977), Lopez and Pressuremeter tests, Dilatometer tests and/or shear
Hayden (1992), and Baez (1997) discuss the state of wave velocity testing may be performed to observe
practice in design and construction by vibro-replace- that the required level of improvement was achieved
ment for seismic applications. (e.g., densification, shear strength increase). Mitchell

Fig. 1. Gravel drain construction by vibro-replacement.

278 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291

Fig. 2. Gravel drains constructed by auger-casing with internal gravel feeding compaction-rod system (after Sonu et al., 1993).

Fig. 3. Examples of gravel drain application in Japan (after Saito et al., 1987, 1991).
 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291 279

(1986) reports a brief overview of such verification

techniques. A more general discussion about in situ
testing methods for ground improvement verification
is provided by Welsh (1986).
When determining post-treatment properties, it is
preferable to use the same test technique that was used
to determine pre-treatment properties. It should be
noted that in densification methods, time-dependent
gains should be factored into the evaluation of im-
provement (Mitchell and Solymar, 1984). For the
vibro-replacement stone column method, it is impor-
tant to record the location of treatment points, the Fig. 5. Route 5/56 Interchange Bridge (California); schematic
illustrating stone column island proving substructure support in the
volume and depth distribution of material used to liquefied zone (after Jakura and Abghari, 1994).
backfill the probe holes, and the vibro-float energy
and time spent densifying the backfill at each location
and depth. Settlement of the ground surface should be improvement is measured by the percent of soil
monitored. These observations give a general indica- replaced and displaced by the stone column (Baez
tion of the overall effectiveness of the treatment and and Martin, 1994).
the level of achieved densification. The average When stone columns are used for dissipation of
change in relative density can be calculated based excess pore water pressure (ue), it is difficult to predict
on surface settlement and the amount of added back- the effective permeability that can be obtained. During
fill. Experience has shown that usually soils with less installation, there is mixing between the stone and the
than 15% fines content and clay content of less than in situ soil, so the final drain contains a mixture of soil
2% will densify due to vibration. Soils with more silt and stone. Different studies have estimated that the in
or clay content do not react as much to vibration, and situ soil comprises about 20% of the completed stone

Fig. 4. Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam downstream remediation plan (after Nickell et al., 1994).
 280
Table 1
Selected gravel drain projects as a liquefaction countermeasure
Project Liquefiable Soil GWT Treat. Drain % of Average Average Average Average Source
layer depth depth backfill drain pre-CPT post-CPT pre-SPT post-SPT
(m) (m) area (MPa) (MPa)
Eastern Shore, At depth of Hydraulically 1.5 Up to Crushed rock, 27 4.0 8.0 15 22 Mitchell and
Marina Bay, 3–8 m placed loose 5.5 grain size 9 to Wentz (1991)
CA silty sand and 25 mm
sandy silt
Route 5/56 0 – 12 m Young alluvial 0–3 18.3 Crushed stone 11 0 – 6 m: 24 – 29; – – Mitchell and

K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291

Interchange sediments of 5; 6.7; 26 Wentz (1991)
Bridge, CA clays, silts and 6 – 12 m:
sands 4;
12 – 18 m:
16
Wastewater Upper 9 – Soft estuarine 1.5 8 – 15 Coarse gravel, 50 (under – – 0 – 9 m: 18; 26 Mitchell and
treatment 12 m sediments of grain size 8 to structures); 6; Huber (1982)
plant, Santa sands/silty 20 mm 20 9 – 12 m:
Barbara, CA sands and (between 20
clays structures)
7th Street Upper 11 m Hydraulic sand 6 13.4 Crushed stone, 13 – – 14 32 Egan et al.
Marine fill of fine (max) grain size 10 (1992)
Terminal, grained silty or to 38 mm
Port of clayey sands
Oakland, CA
Steel creek dam Upper 12 m Loose to very 0.3 10 – 18 Crushed stone 15 – 25 – – 6 20 Keller et al.
foundation loose clayey (1987)
sands
LNG Tank, Upper 21 m Sandy silt, f 1.0 23 Crushed rock, 12 – – 0 – 10 m: 18; 50 Dobson
Vancouver, silty sand and grain size 9 to 6; (1987)
BC, Canada loose to 37 mm 10 – 23 m:
medium sands 20
Fallon Upper 6 m Loose to 1.6 6.4 Well graded 11 6.7 12.5 – – Hayden and
naval air medium dense gravel; 9 to Welch (1991)
station, sands and silty 38mm
Nevada sands
Marina, 1.5 – 12 m Loose fine 1.7 12 Crushed rock, 15 5 – 12 10 – 30 2 – 10 25 – 32 Kerwin and
Redondo sand (1 – 7 m); grain size 10 (1.7 – 7 m) (1.7 – 7 m) (1.7 – 7 m) (1.7 – 7 m) Stone (1997)
Beach King soft clayey silt to 40 mm
Harbor, CA and loose to
dense sand
(7 – 11 m)
Albany airport 1.5 – 6 m Loose to dense 1.6 6.6 Crushed stone, 5 – – 1 – 15 14 – 30 Soydemir
expansion, fine silty sand grain size 4 to et al. (1997)
NY 10 mm
 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291 281

column (Boulanger et al., 1998). Generally, it is stone column islands of 30-m diameter (Fig. 5). The
difficult to measure permeability properties of stone second site used underground stone column but-
columns in the field. tresses for minimizing lateral spreading. Design
considerations of the principal mechanisms of im-
provement included quick drainage and densification
3. Field case histories of the surrounding soil.
Andrews (1997) reports a case study on vibro-stone
Since the first application in Santa Barbara, CA, to column remediation of a silty soil site, and in situ
treat liquefaction at a wastewater treatment plant in verification testing of the remediation at the Fern Hill
1973 (Mitchell and Huber, 1982, 1985), U.S. design Water Treatment Plant near Portland, Oregon. A 15-m-
approaches have usually considered the increase in thick non-plastic potentially liquefiable silt layer was
relative density only, leaving the drainage and stiff- recommended for improvement to limit total and dif-
ening factors out. In Japan, stone columns that are ferential settlements to 0.10 and 0.05 m, respectively.
installed without densification are designed to act as The 1.07-m diameter vibro-stone columns were placed
pore pressure dissipation systems in the event of an using the dry bottom feed method at a 2.13-m center-to-
earthquake (Baez and Martin, 1992, 1993). center spacing in a square grid pattern, resulting in an
In 1978, the gravel drain method was applied for the area replacement ratio of 20%. In situ testing to
first time in Japan as a liquefaction countermeasure evaluate effectiveness of soil remediation included
(Saito et al., 1987). As of 1993, more than 200,000 SPT, CPT, the Seismic Cone Test, and the Flat Dila-
gravel drains were installed in Japan alone (Sonu et al., tometer Test. Test results indicated that the remediation
1993). It is estimated that another 150,000 gravel was effective when the fines were non-plastic.
drains were installed in Japan during the period of Additional case histories on the use of this tech-
1993 –2002 (Okamura, 2001). Examples of such ret- nique to reduce liquefaction risk are reported by
rofit measures for foundations, ports, and buried struc- Schroeder and Byington (1972), Westberg and Ireland
tures are shown in Fig. 3 (Saito et al., 1987, 1991). (1972), Englehardt and Golding (1975), DiMaggio
(1987), Kirsch and Chambosse (1981), Andreu et al.
3.1. Field application case histories (1983), Mitchell (1986, 1988), Solymar et al. (1986),
Dobson (1987), Keller et al. (1987), Saito et al.
Ledbetter et al. (1991), Nickell et al. (1994), and (1987), Rinne et al. (1988), Hayden and Welch
Allen et al. (1995) discuss the seismic remediation at (1991), Mitchell and Wentz (1991), Ohno and Nakata
Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam in California. The (1991), Murakami and Nakano (1993), Boley et al.
downstream foundation was treated by gravel drains (1994), Raison et al. (1995), Baez and Martin (1995),
and vertical gravel curtain drains (Fig. 4) for both Swenson et al. (1995), Adalier (1996), Baez (1996),
densification and for controlling ue. Egan et al. Kerwin and Stone (1997), Somasundaram et al.
(1992) report a case history on seismic repair at (1997), Soydemir et al. (1997), Boulanger et al.
the Seventh Street Marine Terminal of the Port of (1998), Koelling and Dickenson (1998), and TC4
Oakland, California. The desired dike performance (2001). Table 1 provides a summary of some major
and cost/benefit objectives were achieved by install- projects where stone columns have been adopted as a
ing stone columns (gravel drains) using vibro-re- liquefaction countermeasure.
placement to improve a 12-m-wide zone of soil in
the perimeter dike along the wharf alignment. The 3.2. Observed seismic performance
design process considered both densification and
drainage effects of the gravel drain installation. Although theoretical analyses and model testing
Drainage analysis was conducted using methods results indicate that stone column can be efficient in
developed by Seed and Booker (1977). Jakura and mitigating liquefaction, well-documented case histo-
Abghari (1994) discuss the seismic remediation of ries of successful utilization under seismic conditions
two California bridge sites. The first site was mod- are rather limited (TC4, 2001). However, based on
ified to develop increased lateral pile support via these limited observations, it is fair to say that sites
282 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291

where stone columns were used have generally per- Mitchell et al. (1995) report on several earthquake
formed well during recent earthquake shaking events. performance case histories in Japan where gravel drains
Mitchell and Wentz (1991) evaluated the performance were used alone or in combination with other improve-
of 12 sites with ground improvement subjected to the ment techniques. In all cases, the treated ground
Loma Prieta Earthquake (1991). They found without performance in terms of observed vertical deformations
exception that there was little or no distress or damage was improved. It is not clear if the primary benefits
due to ground shaking to either the improved ground resulted from drainage or from densification of the
or to the installed facilities and structures. At three of surrounding ground during installation. Remediation in
these sites, the ground was improved by gravel drains. the form of gravel drains and sand compaction piles
In sharp contrast, in many cases, untreated ground was implemented behind sheet-pile quay walls at
adjacent to the improved ground cracked and/or Kushiro Port before occurrence of the January 1993
settled, primarily due to liquefaction. However, nei- Kushiro-Oki earthquake. The quay walls where reme-
ther the intensity nor the duration of shaking was as diation was implemented suffered no damage during
great as the design values at these sites. In all cases, this strong shaking event (peak ground acceleration of
only the densification effect of the gravel drain about 0.47 g, Iai et al., 1995). Damage was moderate to
treatment was considered for design. severe elsewhere (Iai et al., 1994; TC4, 2001).
After observing large liquefaction-induced defor-
mations at a major filtration plant site during the 1971
San Fernando earthquake, a buttress of coarse sand 4. Analytical investigations
drains was constructed in 1986 (TC4, 2001) as a
remedial measure (Fig. 6). This remedial measure In the early study by Seed and Booker (1977),
was implemented to mitigate lateral spreading effects gravel drains were introduced as a viable means of
on the main control building of the filtration plant. stabilizing potentially liquefiable sand deposits (see
The design mainly relied on drainage capacity of the also Iai, 1988). A simple radial consolidation analyt-
columns, as installation of the sand drains did not ical model was proposed to analyze the relatively fast
involve compaction. These drains were constructed pore pressure dissipation through an installed gravel
prior to the availability of significant research results, drain. The governing equation for purely radial drain-
particularly those related to drain resistance. The site age is described by (Seed and Booker, 1977):
was subjected to significant seismic excitation during  
the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The drains were not kh B2 u 1 Bu Bu Bug BN
þ ¼  ð1Þ
sufficiently effective in preventing further deforma- cw mv3 Br2 r Br Bt BN Bt
tions during this event (TC4, 2001). Hayden and Baez
(1994) surveyed two sandy soil sites where stone where: kh = soil permeability in the horizontal direc-
columns were used, after the 1994 Northridge earth- tion, cw = density of water (pore fluid), mv3 = coeffi-
quake. The structures at both sites were undamaged cient of volume compressibility of soil, u = excess
and there was no evidence of ground distress or hydrostatic pore-water pressure, r = radius, t = time,
liquefaction around the structures. ug = pore pressure generated by the alternating shear

Fig. 6. Schematic cross-section showing sand drains constructed as a liquefaction countermeasure at Jensen Filtration Plant (California) in 1986
(after TC4, 2001).
 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291 283

stresses, N = number of cycles of alternating shear age and stiffening effects of the installed drains (in
stress. This equation, combined with an estimate of addition to the already widely accepted densification
Neq (the number of equivalent cycles representing a effect in the US), the spacing between drains can be
possible earthquake record) was used to produce a set wider, leading to substantial reductions in overall cost
of design curves (for a single uniform liquefiable of the ground modification program. As a result, Baez
stratum) in order to maintain the excess pore pressure (1995) proposed a design method that allows practic-
ratio ru below a desired small value. Such diagrams ing engineers to design vibro-stone columns for
may be employed to determine the size of gravel drain liquefaction mitigation in clean sands and non-plastic
diameter and effective spacing between drains in order silts. This method is based on an evaluation of the
to maintain ru at a desirable low value (e.g., < 0.5). vibro-stone column mechanisms of densification by
Seed and Booker (1977) suggested that the perme- SPT and CPT field tests, assessment of stone column
ability of the gravel drains should be at least two drainage parameters and response in the field and the
orders of magnitude larger than the surrounding soil to laboratory, and development of a mathematical model
avoid significant generation of ue within the gravel capable of modeling earthquake stress redistribution.
drains. The limitations of this analytical method are: Such potential stress redistribution effects have yet to
(1) infinite gravel drain permeability is assumed so be verified physically (i.e., through in situ full-scale or
that no ue are developed in the columns and the drain small-scale physical model testing), and analytically
(well) resistance is not account for, and (2) it applies (Goughnour and Pastena, 1999). Preliminary centri-
only to low ru values where a linear process of fuge physical model testing studies by Adalier et al.
consolidation is valid. (2003) have shed some light on this issue and are
Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1980), Sasaki and Tani- briefly discussed in the next section.
guchi (1982), Matsubara et al. (1988), Onoue (1988), Additional studies on this topic include those of
and Okita et al. (1991) report results similar to those Yoshikuni and Nakanodo (1974), Balaam and Booker
of Seed and Booker (1977) taking into consideration (1981), Iai and Koizumi (1986), Iai and Matsunaga
additional factors such as well resistance (finite per- (1989), Onoue et al. (1987), Onoue (1988), Xu (1991),
meability of gravel drain) and drain slenderness ratio Yoshimi and Tokimatsu (1991), Boulanger and Idriss
(slenderness ratio: L/r, where L is the length, and r is (1999), Blewett and Woodward (2001a), and Han and
the radius of the gravel drain). These studies demon- Ye (2001). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1974),
strated the importance of these two factors for design. Kenney et al. (1984), Sherard et al. (1984), Saito et al.
Iai and Koizumi (1986), Onoue et al. (1987), Iai (1987), and Iai (1988) discuss the gradation require-
(1988), Iai et al. (1988), Onoue (1988), and Onoue ments for filters to prevent ue build-up around the drain
et al. (1991) present design procedures for gravel and migration of the soil into the drain.
drains derived analytically and verified by model or
in situ tests. All of the above studies considered only
the drainage effect of gravel drains. 5. Model testing studies
Millea (1990) studied the seismic behavior of a
liquefiable ground treated by gravel drains using a Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1980), and Tanaka et al.
finite element program. He showed that pore pressures (1983) conducted small-scale shake table tests to
within the stone columns vary significantly, contrary to study the performance of gravel drains, and presented
the Seed and Booker (1977) assumption. Such behav- the results in a form suitable for design purposes.
ior was also observed by Sasaki and Taniguchi (1982) Sasaki and Taniguchi (1982) presented results of a
in their experimental work. Furthermore, the analyses series of gravel drain tests using the National Re-
indicated a re-distribution of load towards the gravel search Center for Disaster Prevention (NIED) large
drains during the shaking event (Millea, 1990). shake table (12  12 m) at Tsukuba Science City. The
Baez and Martin (1993) introduced a relatively investigated models (Fig. 7) were 12 m long, 2 m
simple procedure to account for densification, drain- wide, and 3 m deep, with gravel drains built as a wall,
age, and the stiffening effect of stone columns (gravel rather than as piles. In these studies, gravel drains
drains). They concluded that by including the drain- prevented liquefaction within a radius of 0.5 m around
284 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291

Fig. 7. Cross-sectional view of models used in shaking table tests by Sasaki and Taniguchi (1982).

the drain axis (gravel drain diameter was 0.4 m). As gravel drain and four without. Extensive instrumenta-
part of this test series, a buried road model was tested tion was installed to measure accelerations, pore water
(Model 5, Fig. 7). It was observed that the model pressures, earth pressures, settlements, displacements,
uplift was remarkably reduced by the installation of a and amounts of drained water. The results were
gravel drain system. However, test results indicated analyzed using the radial consolidation analysis of
that high frequency strong earthquakes (e.g., 0.2 g at 5 Seed and Booker (1977). Conclusions of this study
Hz) leading to quick ue build-up in the native soil may were: (1) the gravel drain system is quite efficient if ru
overpower the stone column drainage capabilities values remain below a value of about 0.5; (2) the
thereby rendering it ineffective as a drain. theory of radial consolidation (and linear consolida-
Iai (1988) studied the performance characteristics tion theory) provide reasonable predictions for
of a gravel drain under conditions of lateral sinusoidal ru < 0.5; and (3) for ru>0.5, the efficiency of the drain
earthquake shaking. A large shake table model (2 m in system was observed to decrease as ru increased. At
diameter and 2 m high) was employed. Along the ru = 1.0, drainage through the gravel was drastically
height of 2 m, a stack of 64 aluminum rings repro- reduced and the settlements were quite large. Based
duced a 1-D shear-beam shaking condition. A single on these conclusions, the success of a gravel drain
drain, 0.6 m in diameter, was installed in the center of system appeared to stem from its ability to maintain ru
the circular ring stack and was surrounded by a below 0.5. Even ru values lower than 0.5 may be
uniform loose sand layer. This test configuration necessary if a driving shear stress is present (e.g.,
was deemed to be an accurate simulation of the presence of a super-structure and/or a ground slope).
contribution of each gravel drain in a large system. In the test series of Sasaki and Taniguchi (1982) and
A series of nine tests were conducted, five with a Iai (1988), the effect of densification of soil between
 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291 285

the gravel columns was not included (due to the the surrounding soil. The shear strength of the
method of installation). combined mass of stone columns and natural soil
Through seismic large-scale field-testing of (while the soil was liquefied) was measured by in
stone columns, Englehardt and Golding (1975) situ shear tests with a 1.79-m diameter steel ring
showed that adequate shear resistance can develop confining area (area = 2.5 m2) of one stone column
under earthquake conditions despite liquefaction of and the contributory surrounding domain of natu-

Fig. 8. (A) Cross-sectional view of geotechnical centrifuge models tested by Adalier et al. (2003) to evaluate the liquefaction mitigation
effectiveness of stone columns in non-plastic silty deposits. (B) Footing settlement during Model 3 and 4 tests (Adalier et al., 2003).
286 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291

ral soil in accordance with the stone column the deformation mechanism is totally different, and
pattern. the stone columns were found to reduce settlements
The process of controlling liquefaction by the by about 50% (Fig. 8B). More details regarding
vibro-replacement technique was studied in full-scale results of this testing program are reported in
field tests by Baez and Martin (1992). It was observed Adalier et al. (2003).
that densification occurred due to vibration-induced Additional informative experimental studies in-
liquefaction followed by ue dissipation in the soil clude in situ tests (Onoue et al., 1987, 1991; Ohno
surrounding the probe. Further densification occurred and Nakata, 1991; Okita et al., 1991; Boulanger et
because of pushing the gravel into the surrounding al., 1998), large-scale tests (Iai et al., 1988; Okita et
soil. al., 1991; Ono et al., 1991; Nakata et al., 1991),
Ashford et al. (2000a,b) report on full-scale lique- small-scale tests (Shifeng, 1984; Kawamura et al.,
faction experiments involving stone columns. Blast- 1988; Miyajima et al., 1992), laboratory tests
ing was employed to liquefy a loose cohesionless (Andrews, 1997; Blewett and Woodward, 1998,
remediated site at Treasure Island, near San Francisco. 2001b), and centrifuge tests (Satoh and Miyake,
A total of 24 vibro-replacement stone columns (0.8 m 1991; Adalier et al., 2002). Along with field obser-
with spacing of about 2.5 m) were installed in a square vations, this body of experimental work is currently
pattern to a depth of 6 m. It was found that excess the basis for analyses and development of design
pore water pressures (ue) were reduced, and these procedures.
pressures were dissipated faster due to the installed
stone columns.
Adalier et al. (2003) studied the liquefaction 6. Additional comments
mitigation effectiveness of stone columns in non-
plastic silty soils through a series of highly instru- (1) Currently, more research is needed concerning
mented dynamic centrifuge physical model tests. The granular saturated soil compressibility and per-
study was focused on the possible stiffening benefit, meability as a function of effective confining
rather than improved drainage and densification due stress. When ru = 1.0 is reached, the excess pore
to stone column installation. The response of saturat- water pressure dissipation and associated settle-
ed silt strata (prototype scale of 8 and 10 m in ments are believed to be governed by a
thickness) was analyzed under base dynamic excita- sedimentation – consolidation process (Scott,
tion conditions. In a series of four separate model 1986; Adalier and Elgamal, 1992) rather than
tests (Fig. 8A), the behavior was studied first without, by the widely accepted consolidation theory
then with stone columns. Free-field and surface alone. This aspect potentially affects drain
foundation surcharge situations were investigated. permeability and related analyses.
Settlement, acceleration, and ue data indicated an (2) Most of the past experimental and analytical
overall stiffer foundation material response during research has been focused on the drainage
shaking in the models remediated by stone columns. characteristics of stone columns, which are
Stone columns considerably retarded ue build-up (in effective provided ru remains less than 0.5– 0.6
the soil between columns), increased the foundation approximately. However, it is believed that a
soil overall stiffness, and much reduced the sur- major gain from stone columns lies in their
charge-footing settlements. ability in: (i) densifying surrounding soils during
In the free-field situation, the stiffening effect construction, (ii) restricting shear deformation
provided by the stone columns was only primarily and offering containment of the ‘‘encapsulated’’
effective in reducing ue at depths below 5 m (45 soils, and (iii) providing stiffening-matrix effects
kPa or 1000 psf) approximately (i.e., near ground (i.e., reducing the stresses in adjacent soil).
surface, the installed columns were only of margin- (3) The influence of stone column stiffening-matrix
al effect in reducing ue). However, this outcome and containment effects has not been adequately
does not substantially affect the important situation clarified yet, and more research is needed in this
of remediation below shallow foundations, where direction.
 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291 287

7. Summary and conclusions diameter has not received adequate attention. The
possibility of stone column clogging remains a
A comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in major concern as ru increases. Thus, stone columns
stone column (gravel drain) application for seismic should be designed to reduce clogging and loss of
liquefaction and associated ground deformation miti- drainage effectiveness.
gation is presented. The review aims to: (a) identify  Stone column techniques have been applied by
key considerations for the general use of stone column specialty contractors based on heuristic rules and
as a liquefaction countermeasure, (b) provide insights procedures developed through practical experience.
for design and construction, (c) examine the latest To complement these efforts, there remains a need
advancements in research and development, and more for research-based guidelines.
importantly, (d) identify sources of useful information.  An improved understanding of liquefaction hazard
Some significant case histories reported in the tech- mitigation effects of stone columns is necessary,
nical literature are cited to portray various functions of for applications in silty soil deposits.
stone columns, along with references to exemplify
current practice and our present understanding of the
technology. References
Some of the major conclusions include:
Adalier, K., 1996. Mitigation of earthquake induced liquefaction
 Due to the different installation procedures, stone hazards, PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer
column systems may offer different liquefaction Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA, 659 pp.
Adalier, K., Elgamal, A.W., 1992. Post-liquefaction behavior of soil
mitigation effects (Baez, 1995; JGS, 1998; INA, systems. Technical Report. Dept. of Civil and Environ. Eng.,
2001), and therefore should be dealt with on a case Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. 203 pp.
by case basis. If no attempt is made to densify the Adalier, K., Abdoun, T., Dobry, R., Phillips, R., Yang, D., Naes-
soil during installation, the outcome will depend on gaard, E., 2002. Centrifuge modeling for seismic retrofit design
the increased drainage effects. When densification of an immersed tube tunnel. International Journal of Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics 3 (2), 23 – 32.
is a significant component of the installation Adalier, K., Elgamal, A., Meneses, J., Baez, I.J., 2003. Stone col-
process, it is generally relied upon in the design umns as liquefaction counter-measure in non-plastic silty soils.
considerations. In both cases, influence of the stone Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 23 (7),
columns as a stiffening-matrix and ability to restrict 571 – 584.
Allen, M.G., Jones, R., Gularte, F.B., 1995. Bottom-feed stone
shear deformation, have not been investigated
columns, wet replacement construction method: Mormon Island
adequately at present. In this regard, centrifuge Auxiliary Dam modification. Proc., Soil Improvement for Earth-
physical modeling studies may be of particular quake Hazard Mitigation. ASCE Geotech. Special Publication,
value. vol. 49, pp. 1 – 36.
 While theoretical analyses and model testing Andreu, J., Arcones, A., Soriano, A., 1983. Ground improve-
results indicate that stone column methods can be ment and pile driving at Los Barrios (Spain). Proc., 8th Euro-
pean Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Helsinki, vol. 1,
efficient in mitigating liquefaction, well-docu- pp. 193 – 198.
mented case histories of successful utilization Andrews, D.C.A., 1997. Liquefaction of silty soils: susceptibility,
under seismic conditions are rather limited. There deformation, and remediation. PhD thesis, Los Angeles, CA,
remains a great need for well-documented data sets University of Southern California.
of field performance scenarios. Andrus, R., Chung, R., 1995. Ground improvement techniques for
liquefaction remediation near existing lifelines. Report, Building
 Limited small-scale modeling data suggests that
and Fire Research Laboratory. National Institute of Standards
stone columns designed only for drainage may not and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
be sufficiently effective at high input acceleration Ansal, A., Bardet, J.P., Barka, A., Baturay, M.B., Berilgen, M.,
levels (roughly above 0.2 g; e.g., Sasaki and Bray, J., Cetin, O., Clu, L., Durgunoglu, T., Erten, D., Erdik,
Taniguchi, 1982-) due to concerns about the flow M., Idriss, I.M., Karadayilar, T., Kaya, A., Lettis, W., Olgun, G.,
Paige, W., Rathje, E., Roblee, C., Stewart, J., Ural, D., 1999.
capability at high ru values. The drainage influence Initial Geotechnical Observations of the November 12, 1999,
zone appears to be limited to about one diameter Duzce Earthquake. A Report of the Turkey – US Geotechnical
from the drain center. Currently, the effect of drain Earthquake Engineering Reconnaissance Team.
288 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291

Ashford, S.A., Rollins, K.M., Baez, J.I., 2000a. Comparison of Brown, R.E., 1977. Vibroflotation compaction of cohesionless
deep foundation performance in improved and non improved soils. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division
ground using blast induced liquefaction. Proc., Geo-Denver 103 (12), 1435 – 1451.
2000, Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction. ASCE Geotech. Special DiMaggio, J.A., 1987. Stone Columns for Highway Construction.
Publ., vol. 107, pp. 20 – 34. Demonstration Project No. 46. Report No. FHWA-DP-46-1,
Ashford, S.A., Rollins, K.M., Bradford, S.C., Weaver, T.J., Baez, Federal Highway Administration, 80 pp.
J.I., 2000b. Liquefaction mitigation using stone columns around Dobson, T., 1987. Case histories of the vibro systems to minimize
deep foundations: full scale test results. Proc., Transportation the risk of liquefaction. In: Welsh (Ed.), Proc., Symposium on
Research Board Meeting, Washington, D.C. Soil Improvement—A Ten Year Update. ASCE Geotechnical
Baez, J.I., 1995. A design model for the reduction of soil liquefac- Special Publication, vol. 12, pp. 167 – 183. Atlantic City.
tion by vibro-stone columns. PhD thesis, University of Southern Egan, J.A., Hayden, R.F., Scheibel, L.L., Otus, M., Serventi,
California, Los Angeles, CA, 207 pp. G.M., 1992. Seismic repair at seventh street marine terminal.
Baez, J.I., 1996. Seismic ground improvement for bridge sites. Proc., Proc., Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics, New Or-
4th CALTRANS Seismic Research Workshop, Sacramento, leans. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30, vol. 2,
Calif. pp. 867 – 878.
Baez, J.I., 1997. Vibro-stone columns, soil improvement—a 20 year Englehardt, K., Golding, H.C., 1975. Field testing to evaluate stone
update. In: Shaefer (Ed.), Proc., Ground Improvement, Ground column performance in a seismic area. Geotechnique 25 (1),
Reinforcement, Ground Treatment 1987 – 1997, Logan, UT. 61 – 69.
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, vol. 69. FHWA, 1988. Design and construction of stone columns. Technical
Baez, J.I., Martin, G.R., 1992. Quantitative evaluation of stone Report FHWA/RD/026, 1(1), Federal Highway Administration,
column techniques for earthquake liquefaction mitigation. Proc., Berksdale, R.D., Bachus, R.C. (Eds.), 210 pp.
10th World Conference on Earthquake Eng., Madrid, Spain. Goughnour, R.R., Pastena, J.M., 1999. Mechanical behavior of
Baez, J.I., Martin, G.R., 1993. Advances in the design of vibro stone columns under seismic loading. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on
systems for the improvement of liquefaction resistance. Proc., Ground Improvement Techniques, Singapore, 157 – 162.
Symposium of Ground Improvement, Vancouver Geotechnical Han, J., Ye, S., 2001. Simplified method for consolidation rate
Society, Vancouver, B.C. of stone column reinforced foundations. ASCE Journal of
Baez, J.I., Martin, G.R., 1995. Permeability and shear wave veloc- Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (7),
ity of vibro-replacement stone columns. Soil Improvement for 597 – 603.
Earthquake Hazard Mitigation. ASCE Geotechnical Special Hayden, R.F., Baez, J.I., 1994. State of practice for liquefaction
Publication, vol. 49, pp. 66 – 81. New York, NY. mitigation in North America. Proc., Int. Workshop on Remedial
Balaam, N.P., Booker, J.R., 1981. Analysis of rigid rafts supported Treatment of Liquefiable Soils, Japan.
by granular piles. Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods Hayden, R.F., Welch, C.M., 1991. Design and installation of stone
in Geomechanics 5, 379 – 403. columns at naval air station. In: Esrig, Bachus (Eds.), Deep
Bardet, J.P., Oka, F., Sugito, M., Yashima, A., 1995. The Great Han- Foundation Improvements: Design, Construction and Testing,
shin Earthquake disaster. Preliminary Investigation Rep., Dept. of pp. 172 – 184. ASTM STP 1089.
Civil Engineering Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles. Iai, S., 1988. Large scale model tests and analysis of gravel drains.
Blewett, J., Woodward, P., 1998. Measurement of the liquefaction Report of Port and Harbor Research Institute English Edition
resistance provided by granular drainage columns. In: Booth 27 (3).
(Ed.), Proc., 6th Int. Conf. SECED on Seismic Design Practice Iai, S., Koizumi, K., 1986. Estimation of earthquake induced excess
into the Next Century, pp. 219 – 226. Oxford, UK. pore water pressure for gravel drains. Proc., 7th Japan Earth-
Blewett, J., Woodward, P.K., 2001a. The dissipation of excess pore quake Engineering Symposium, 679 – 684.
pressures in contractive vibro-columns at small strains. Journal Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., 1989. Diagrams considering well resistance
Ground Improvement 5 (2). for designing spacing ratio of gravel drains, discussion. Soils
Blewett, J., Woodward, P.K., 2001b. A triaxial system for vibro- and Foundations 29 (4), 135 – 136.
replacement liquefaction mitigation studies. Journal Ground Im- Iai, S., Koizumi, K., Noda, S., Tsuchida, H., 1988. Large scale
provement 5 (2), 75 – 83. model tests and analysis of gravel drains. Proc., 9th World Con-
Boley, D.L., Pagano, M.A., Swenson, E.J., 1994. Ground improve- ference on Earthq. Eng., Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, vol. III.
ment by vibro-floatation techniques. Geotechnical News 12 (4). Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., Morita, T., Miyata, M., Sakurai, H., Oishi,
Boulanger, R., Idriss, I., 1999. Discussion of liquefaction failure H., Ogura, H., Ando, Y., Tanaka, Y., Kato, M., 1994. Effects of
and remediation: King Harbor Redondo Beach, California. remedial measures against liquefaction at 1993 Kushiro-Oki
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi- Earthquake. Proc., 5th US – Japan Workshop on Earthq. Resist-
neering 25 (3), 231 – 233. ant Design of Lifeline Facil. and Countermeasures against Soil
Boulanger, R., Idriss, I., Stewart, D., Hashash, Y., Schmidt, B., Liquefaction, Buffalo-NY, 135 – 152.
1998. Drainage capacity of stone columns or gravel drains Iai, S., Morita, T., Kameoka, T., Matsunaga, Y., Abiko, K., 1995.
for mitigating liquefaction. Proc., Geotech. Earthquake Eng. Response of a dense sand deposit during 1993 Kushiro-Oki
and Soil Dynamics III. ASCE Geotech. Special Publ. No. 75, Earthquake. Soils and Foundations 35 (1), 115 – 131.
vol. 1, pp. 678 – 690. INA, 2001. Seismic design guidelines for port structures. Working
 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291 289

Group No. 34 of the Maritime Navigation Commission, Interna- Millea, M.T., 1990. Liquefaction mitigation technology. Technical
tional Navigation Association, A.A. Balkema. Note. National Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme,
Ishihara, K., Yamazaki, F., 1980. Cyclic simple shear tests on sa- CA.
turated sand in multi-directional loading. Soils and Foundations Mitchell, J.K., 1986. Material behavior and ground improvement.
20 (1), 49 – 59. Proc., Int. Conference on Deep Foundations, Beijing, China.
Ishihara, K., Haeri, S.M., Moinfar, A.A., Towhata, I., Tsujino, S., Mitchell, J.K., 1988. Densification and improvement of hydraulic
1992. Geotechnical aspects of the June 20, 1990 Manjil Earth- fills. Proc., Conference on Hydraulic Fills Densification, New
quake in Iran. Soils and Foundations 32 (3), 61 – 78. York, NY. ASCE Geotech. Special Publ., vol. 21.
Jakura, K., Abghari, A., 1994. Mitigation of liquefaction hazards at Mitchell, J.K., Huber, T.R., 1982. Stone column foundations for a
three California bridge sites. Proc., 5th US – Japan Workshop, wastewater treatment plant: a case history. Proc., Symposium on
Snowbird, Utah. Recent Developments in Ground Improvement Techniques,
Japanese Geotechnical Society, 1996. Special Issue on Geotechnical Bangkok, Thailand.
Aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. Mitchell, J.K., Huber, T.R., 1985. Performance of a stone columns
Soils and Foundations Journal. foundation. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 111 (2),
JGS, 1998. The Japanese Geotechnical Society (Ed.), Remedial 205 – 223.
Measures against Soil Liquefaction. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Mitchell, J.K., Solymar, Z.V., 1984. Time dependent strength gain
Kawamura, M., Kuribayashi, E., Tuchiyama, S., Ogino, A., 1988. in freshly deposited or densified sand. ASCE Journal of Geo-
Estimation of effect of preventing measures for uplift of man- technical Engineering 110 (11), 1559 – 1576.
hole due to liquefaction. Proc., 9th World Conference on Earth- Mitchell, J.K., Wentz, F.J., 1991. Performance of improved ground
quake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, vol. III. during the Loma Prieta Earthquake University of California,
Keller, T.O., Castro, G., Rogers, J.H., 1987. Steel Creek Dam foun- Berkeley UCB/EERC Report 91/12.
dation densification. In: Welsh, J.H. (Ed.), Proc., Symposium on Mitchell, J.K., Baxter, C.D.P., Munson, T.C., 1995. Performance of
Soil Improvement—A Ten Year Update, Atlantic City. ASCE improved ground during earthquakes. Proc., Soil Improvement
Geotechnical Special Publication, vol. 12. for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation. ASCE Geotechnical Special
Kenney, T.C., Chahal, R., Chiu, E., Ofoegbu, G.I., Omange, G.N., Publication, vol. 49, pp. 1 – 36.
Ume, C.A., 1984. Controlling construction sizes of granular Mitchell, J.K., Cooke, H.G., Schaeffer, J.A., 1998. Design consid-
filters. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 22, 32 – 43. erations in ground improvement for seismic risk mitigation.
Kerwin, S., Stone, J., 1997. Liquefaction failure and remediation: Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
King Harbor Redondo Beach, California. ASCE Journal of Geo- III. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 75, vol. 1,
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (8), 760 – 769. pp. 580 – 613.
Kirsch, K., Chambosse, G., 1981. Deep Vibratory compaction pro- Miyajima, M., Yoshida, M., Kitaura, M., 1992. Small scale tests on
vides foundation for two major overseas projects. Ground En- countermeasures against liquefaction for pipelines using gravel
gineering, November. drain system. Proc., 4th US – Japan Workshop on Earthquake
Koelling, M., Dickenson, S., 1998. Ground improvement case his- Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures
tories for liquefaction mitigation of port and near-shore struc- against Soil Liquefaction, Buffalo, NY.
tures. Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Murakami, K., Nakano, M., 1993. The construction method pre-
Dynamics III. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 75, venting a manhole from floating due to liquefaction. Proc., 4th
vol. 1, pp. 614 – 626. US – Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Life-
Krinitzsky, E.L., Hynes, M.E., 2002. The Bhuj, India, earthquake: line Facilities and Countermeasures against Soil Liquefaction,
lessons learned for earthquake safety of dams on alluvium. En- Buffalo-NY, USA.
gineering Geology 66 (3 – 4), 163 – 196. Nagase, H., Ishihara, K., 1988. Liquefaction induced compaction
Ledbetter, R.H., Liam Finn, W.D., Nickell, J.S., Wahl, R.E., Hynes, and settlement of sand during earthquakes. Soil and Foundations
M.E., 1991. Liquefaction induced behavior and remediation for 28 (1), 66 – 76.
Mormon Island auxiliary dam. Proc., Int. Workshop on Remedial Nakata, H., Miyake, K., Muraoka, T., 1991. Shaking table tests of
Treatment of Liquefiable Soils, Japan, Tsukuba Science City. submerged tunnel in sandy ground. Proc., Geo-Coast’ 91, Yo-
Lee, K.L., Albeisa, A., 1974. Earthquake induced settlement in kohama-Japan.
saturated sands. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun- Nickell, J.S., Allen, M.G., Ledbetter, R.H., 1994. Seismic remedia-
dation Division 100 (4), 387 – 406. tion for liquefiable gravels: Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam and
Lopez, R.A., Hayden, R.F., 1992. The use of vibro systems in others in Northern California. Proc., Int. Workshop on Remedial
seismic design. In: Borden, Holtz, Juran (Eds.), Proc., ASCE Treatment of Liquefiable Soils, Japan, Tsukuba Science City.
Conference in Grouting, Soil Improvement, and Geosynthetics, NRC, 1985. Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. National
New Orleans. ASCE Geotech. Special Publication No. 30, vol. 2, Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
pp. 1433 – 1445. 240 pp.
Matsubara, K., Mihara, M., Tsujita, M., 1988. Analysis of gravel Obermeier, S.F., 1998. Liquefaction evidence for strong earth-
drain against liquefaction and its application to design. Proc., quakes of Holocene and latest Pleistocene ages in the states of
9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Indiana and Illinois, USA. Engineering Geology 50 (3 – 4),
vol. 3, pp. 249 – 254. 227 – 254.
290 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291

Ohno, M., Nakata, H., 1991. Liquefaction damages to port and ment, ground treatment, developments 1987 – 1997. ASCE Geo-
harbor facilities of Akita Port. Proc., Geo-Coast’ 91, Yokoha- technical Special Publication, vol. 69.
ma-Japan, 487 – 490. Schneider, J.A., Mayne, P.W., Rix, G.J., 2001. Geotechnical site
Oishi, H., Tanaka, Y., 1993. Densification of surrounding soils due characterization in the greater Memphis area using cone pene-
to gravel drain construction. Proc., 4th U.S. – Japan Workshop tration tests. Engineering Geology 62 (1 – 3), 169 – 184.
on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Coun- Schroeder, W.L., Byington, M., 1972. Experience with compaction
termeasures against Soil Liquefaction, Buffalo, NY. of hydraulic fills. Proc., 10th Annual Engineering Geology and
Okamura, M., 2001. Private Communication. Soils Engineering Symposium, Moscow, Idaho.
Okita, Y., Ito, K., Nakajima, Y., Oishi, H., 1991. Gravel drains Scott, R., 1986. Solidification and consolidation of a liquefied sand
installed with compaction rod type machine. Proc., Geo-Coast’ column. Soils and Foundations 26 (4), 23 – 31.
91, Yokohama-Japan. Seed, H.B., Booker, J.R., 1977. Stabilization of potentially liquefi-
Ono, Y., Ito, K., Nakajima, Y., Oishi, H., 1991. Efficient installation able sand deposits using gravel drains. ASCE Journal of Geo-
of gravel drains. Proc., 2nd Int. Conference on Recent Advances technical Engineering Division 103 (7), 757 – 768.
in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Seed, H.B., Martin, P.P., Lysmer, T., 1976. Pore water pressure
Louis, Missouri. Paper No. 3.24. changes during soil liquefaction. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Onoue, A., 1988. Diagrams considering well resistance for design- Engineering 102 (4), 323 – 346.
ing spacing ratio of gravel drains. Soils and Foundations 28 (3), Seed, R.B., Dickenson, S.E., Riemer, M.F., Bray, J.D., Sitar, N.,
160 – 168. Mitchell, J.K., Idriss, I.M., Kayen, R.E., Kropp, A., Hander Jr.,
Onoue, A., Mori, N., Takano, S., 1987. In-situ experiment and L.F., Power, M.S., 1990. Preliminary report on the principal
analysis on well resistance of gravel drains. Soils and Founda- geotechnical aspects of the October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta
tions 27 (2), 42 – 60. Earthquake. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-90/05, Earthquake Engng.
Onoue, A., Ting, N., Germaine, J.T., Whitman, R.V., Mori, N., Research Center, U. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
1991. Smear zone around a drain pile and well resistance of Sherard, J.L., Dunnigan, L.P., Talbot, J.R., 1984. Basic properties of
drains. Proc., Geo-Coast’ 91, Yokohama-Japan. sand and gravel filters. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineer-
PHRI, 1997. Port and Harbor Research Institute (Ed.), Handbook ing 110 (6), 684 – 699.
on liquefaction remediation of reclaimed land. Balkema, Rotter- Shifeng, W., 1984. Experimental study on liquefaction-inhibiting
dam, Netherlands. effect of gravel drains. Proc., 8th World Conference on Earth-
Priebe, H.J., 1989. The prevention of liquefaction by vibro-replace- quake Eng., San Francisco, CA, vol. 3, pp. 207 – 214.
ment. Proc., Earthquake Resistance Construction and Design, Sitar, N. (Ed.), 1995. Geotechnical reconnaissance of the effects of
Berlin, Germany. the January 17, 1995, Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake Japan.
Priebe, H.J., 1991. Vibro-replacement—design criteria and quality Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Califor-
control. In: Esrig, Bachus (Eds.), Deep Foundation Improve- nia, Berkeley, CA. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-95/01.
ments: Design, Construction, and Testing, ASTM STP 1089, Solymar, Z.V., Samsudin, O.J., Purnomo, B.J., 1986. Ground im-
pp. 62 – 72. Philadelphia. provement by compaction piling. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Raison, C.A., Slocombe, B.C., Baez, J.I., Bell, A.L., 1995. North Engineering 112 (12), 1069 – 1083.
Morecombe Terminal, Barrow, ground stabilization and pile Somasundaram, S., Weeeratunga, G., Best, J., 1997. Ground
foundations. Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geo- improvement at Long Beach aquarium of the Pacific—a
technical Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MS, vol. I, case study. In: Shaefer (Ed.), Proc., Ground Improvement,
pp. 187 – 192. Ground Reinforcement, Ground Treatment 1987 – 1997, Lo-
Rinne, E.E., Shields, C.S., Nardi, C.R., 1988. Mitigation of lique- gan, UT. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, vol. 69,
faction potential. Proc., 9th World Conference on Earthquake pp. 457 – 475.
Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, vol. 3, pp. 243 – 248. Sonu, C.J., Ito, K., Oishi, H., 1993. Harry Seed, liquefaction and
Saito, A., Taghawa, K., Tamura, T., Oishi, H., Nagayama, H., Shi- gravel drain. Civil Engineering ASCE 63 (12), 58 – 60.
maoka, H., 1987. A countermeasure for sand liquefaction: gravel Soydemir, C., Swekosky, F.J., Baez, J.I., Mooney, J.S., 1997.
drain method. Nippon Kokan Technical Report, Overseas No. 51, Ground improvement at Albany Airport, New York. In: Shaefer
Japan. (Ed.), Proc., Ground Improvement, Ground Reinforcement,
Saito, A., Ito, K., Ohoshi, H., 1991. Development of gravel drain Ground Treatment 1987 – 1997, Logan, UT. ASCE Geotech.
systems as a remedial measure for soil liquefaction. Proceed- Special Publ., vol. 69, pp. 224 – 506.
ings of Japanese Society of Civil Engineering 427 (III-14), Sugito, M., Oka, F., Yashima, A., Furumoto, Y., Yamada, K., 2000.
41 – 46. Time-dependent ground motion amplification characteristics at
Sasaki, Y., Taniguchi, E., 1982. Shaking table tests on gravel drains reclaimed land after the 1995 Hyogoken Nambu Earthquake.
to prevent liquefaction of sand deposits. Soils and Foundations Engineering Geology 56 (1 – 2), 137 – 150.
22 (3), 1 – 14. Swenson, E.J., Boley, D.L., Pagano, M.A., Wyatt, S., 1995. Mariner
Satoh, T., Miyake, M., 1991. Centrifuge model tests studying the Square bulkhead ground improvement—a case history. Proc.,
effect of gravel drain to prevent liquefaction. Proc., Geo-Coast’ Soil Improvement for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation. ASCE
91, Yokohama-Japan, 501 – 504. Special Geotechnical Publication, vol. 49, pp. 127 – 137.
Schaefer, V.R. (Ed.), 1997. Ground improvement, ground reinforce- Tabata, T., Shiota, K., Saito, T., 1993. Advanced soil improvement
 K. Adalier, A. Elgamal / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 275–291 291

methods for liquefaction in Japan. Proc., 3rd Int. Offshore and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1974. Earth Manual, 2nd ed. Denver,
Polar Engineering Conference, Singapore, vol. 1. 810 pp.
Tanaka, Y., Kokusho, T., Esashi, Y., Matsui, I., 1983. Effects of Welsh, J.P., 1986. In situ testing for ground modification techni-
gravel piles on stabilizing a sand deposit susceptible to lique- ques. In: Clemence (Ed.), Proc., In Situ’86, Blacksburg. ASCE
faction: Part 2. On the designing method of gravel piles with Geotechnical Special Publication, vol. 6, pp. 322 – 335.
finite permeability. Rep. Cent. Res. Inst. Elec. Pow. Ind. 382058 Welsh, J.P., Anderson, R.D., Barksdale, R.D., Satyapriya, C.K.,
(in Japanese). Tumay, M.T., Wahls, H.E., 1987. Densification, soil improve-
Tatsuoka, F., Sasaki, T., Yamada, S., 1984. Settlement on saturated ment—a ten year update. In: Welsh (Ed.), Proc., Symposium on
sands induced by cyclic undrained simple shear. Proc., 8th Soil Improvement—A Ten Year Update, Atlantic City, ASCE
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, Geotechnical Special Publication, vol. 12, pp. 67 – 97.
CA, vol. III, pp. 95 – 102. Westberg, R.J., Ireland, H.O., 1972. Sand compaction by vibro-
TC4, S., 2001. Case histories of post-liquefaction remediation. Re- flotation at Cape May, New Jersey. Proc., ASCE Conference
port, Technical Committee for Earthquake Geotechnical Engi- on Performance on Earth Dams and Earth Supported Structures,
neering TC4, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Lafayette, Indiana.
Geotechnical Engineering ISSMGE. The Japanese Geotechnical Xu, Z.Y., 1991. Analysis of liquefiable sand deposits using gravel
Society, Tokyo, Japan. drains. Proc., 2nd Int. Conference on Recent Advances in Geo-
Tokimatsu, K., 1979. Generation and dissipation of pore water technical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis,
pressures in sand deposits during earthquakes. PhD thesis, To- Missouri, Paper No. 35.
kyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. Yoshikuni, H., Nakanodo, H., 1974. Consolidation of soils by ver-
Tokimatsu, K., Yoshimi, Y., 1980. Effects of vertical drains on the tical drain wells with finite permeability. Soils and Foundations
bearing capacity of saturated sand during earthquakes. Proc., 14 (2), 35 – 46.
International Conference on Engineering for Protection from Yoshimi, Y., Tokimatsu, K., 1991. Ductility criterion for evaluating
Natural Disasters, Bangkok, Thailand, 643 – 655. remedial measures to increase liquefaction resistance of sands.
Tuttle, M.P., Sims, J.D., Dyer-Williams, K., Lafferty, III, R.H., Soils and Foundations 31 (1), 162 – 168.
Schweig, III, E.S., 2000. Dating of liquefaction features in the Youd, T.L., 1991. Mapping of earthquake-induced liquefaction for
New Madrid seismic zone. Technical Report, US Nuclear Reg- seismic zonation. Proc., Fourth International Conference on
ulatory Commission NUREG/GR-0018, 78 pp. Seismic Zonation, vol. 1, pp. 111 – 147.