Vol. 7, No.

1 August 2013

DFI JOURNAL
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

PAPERS:
Commentary on the Selection, Design and
Specification of Ground Improvement for Mitigation
of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction
– Ground Improvement Committee of DFI [3]
Liquefaction Mitigation Synthesis Report prepared
for the Ground Improvement Committee of the DFI
– Timothy C. Siegel [13]
Grouted Micropiles for Foundation Remediation in
Expansive Soil (8th Michael W. O’Neill Lecture)
– John D. Nelson, Kuo-Chieh Chao, Daniel D. Overton,
Zachary P. Fox, Jesse S. Dunham-Friel [32]
Relationship between Installation Torque and
Axial Capacities of Helical Piles in Cohesive Soils
– Mohammed Sakr [44]
Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soil
– Lassad Hazzar, Mourad Karray, Mounir Bouassida,
Mahmoud N. Hussien [59]
TECHNICAL NOTE: Direct Solution of the
Brinch-Hansen 90% Pile Ultimate Failure Load
– Don W. Dotson [69]
Deep Foundations Institute is the Industry Association of
Individuals and Organizations Dedicated to Quality and
Economy in the Design and Construction of Deep Foundations.
From the Editors and Publisher 2013 DFI Board
The DFI Journal has been encouraging the Technical Committees of the DFI to produce of Trustees
committee authored papers describing state-of-the-art subjects within the realm
President:
of their committee’s special interests. We are pleased to include in this edition the
Robert B. Bittner
first such paper, “Commentary on the Selection, Design and Specification of Ground Bittner-Shen Consulting
Improvement for Mitigation of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction, authored by the Engineers, Inc.
Ground Improvement Committee. A companion paper which reports" the results of Portland, OR USA
a DFI Committee Project Fund program follows, in the form of a report authored by Vice President:
Timothy C. Siegel entitled "Liquefaction Mitigation Synthesis Report". We are hopeful Patrick Bermingham
Bermingham Foundation
that will set a precedent, to be followed by other committee authored papers. Solutions
Hamilton, ON Canada
This edition includes a paper authored by John D. Nelson et al, “Grouted Micropiles
Secretary:
for Foundation Remediation in Expansive Soil”, which was the subject of the 8th Matthew Janes
Michael W. O’Neill Memorial Lecture. There is also another paper from Mohammed Isherwood Associates
Sakr, who has been a prolific contributor to the DFI Journal on the subject of Helical Burnaby, BC Canada
Piles, which discusses the relationship between installation torque and axial capacity Treasurer:
of helical piles in cohesive soils. John R. Wolosick
Hayward Baker Inc.
We wish to thank our dedicated reviewers for their attention to detail and service Alpharetta, GA USA
to the authors, the DFI Journal publication, and the industry in providing input to Immediate Past President:
James A. Morrison
enhance quality of the papers. We are pleased to report that new names are popping Kiewit Infrastructure
up as well as repeat services by some very responsive reviewers. Engineers
Omaha, NE USA
We continue to encourage submission of case history papers in particular. We Other Trustees:
are also open to publishing another themed edition and again request that any David Borger
Technical Committee desiring to have their topic as the focus of a future themed Skyline Steel LLC
edition contact the Publisher. Parsippany, NJ USA
Maurice Bottiau
Other comments, suggestions, and submissions are welcome and may be submitted Franki Foundations Belgium
via the DFI website at www.dfi.org. Saintes, Belgium
Dan Brown
Dan Brown and Associates,
PLLC
Sequatchie, TN USA
Gianfranco Di Cicco
GDConsulting LLC
Journal Publisher Lake Worth, FL USA
Manuel A. Fine, B.A.Sc, P.Eng Rudolph P Frizzi
Langan Engineering &
Journal Editors Environmental Services
Ali Porbaha, Ph.D., P.E. Elmwood Park, NJ USA
DFI JOURNAL Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Sacramento, CA, USA
Bernard H. Hertlein
GEI Consultants Inc.
Mission/Scope Dan A. Brown, Ph.D. Dan Brown and Libertyville, IL USA
Associates, Sequatchie, TN, USA James O. Johnson
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute Zia Zafir, Ph.D., P.E. Condon-Johnson & Associates,
publishes practice-oriented, high quality Kleinfelder Sacramento, CA, USA
Inc.
papers related to the broad area of “Deep Associate Editors Oakland, CA USA
Lance A. Roberts, Ph.D., P.E. Douglas Keller
Foundations Engineering”. Papers are welcome Richard Goettle, Inc.
RESPEC Consulting & Services
on topics of interest to the geo-professional Rapid City, SD USA Cincinnati, OH USA
community related to, all systems designed Thomas Weaver, Ph.D., P.E. Samuel J. Kosa
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monotube Pile Corporation
and constructed for the support of heavy Rockville, MD USA Canton, OH USA
structures and excavations, but not limited Kirk A. McIntosh
to, different piling systems, drilled shafts, Published By Deep Foundations Institute AMEC Environment &
Infrastructure, Inc.
ground improvement geosystems, soil nailing Copyright © 2013 Deep Foundations Institute.
Jacksonville, FL USA
AII rights reserved. Written permission must be
and anchors. Authors are also encouraged obtained from DFI to reprint journal contents, in Raymond J. Poletto
whole or in part.
to submit papers on new and emerging Mueser Rutledge Consulting
Contact Engineers
topics related to innovative construction DFI Headquarters New York, NY USA
326 Lafayette Avenue
technologies, marine foundations, innovative Hawthorne, NJ 07506 Arturo L. Ressi di Cervia
retaining systems, cutoff wall systems, and staff@dfi.org Kiewit Infrastructure Group
www.dfi.org Woodcliff Lake, NJ USA
seismic retrofit. Case histories, state of the DFI, its directors and officers, and journal editors Michael H. Wysockey
practice reviews, and innovative applications assume no responsibility for the statements Thatcher Engineering Corp.
expressed by the journal’s authors. International
are particularly welcomed and encouraged. Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 1937-5247
Chicago, IL USA

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [1]

Commentary on the Selection, Design and
Specification of Ground Improvement for Mitigation
of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction
By the Ground Improvement Committee of The Deep Foundations Institute

ABSTRACT
The evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction has become a routine part of geotechnical
engineering design. For a given project, if an analysis identifies a potential for liquefaction and the
consequences of liquefaction are deemed unacceptable, then some form of hazard mitigation is
required. Mitigation efforts may consist of removing the liquefiable soils, bypassing the liquefiable
soils with deep foundations, structurally accommodating the deformations or strength loss caused by
liquefaction, or preventing the onset of liquefaction through ground improvement. The fundamental
ground improvement mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation include densification, drainage, and
reinforcement. When evaluating, recommending and specifying various ground improvement methods
for liquefaction mitigation, practitioners should understand the fundamental mechanics involved
and applicability and limitations of the various methods. The DFI Ground Improvement Committee
offers a review of the fundamental mechanics and commentary on the applicability and limitations
of each method to provide clarity and guidance on the issues related to ground improvement for
liquefaction mitigation.

INTRODUCTION of the International Building Code (IBC) in 2000

Liquefaction and its effect on engineered
structures was recognized as an earthquake
hazard in the 1960s after the widespread
liquefaction-induced damage caused by the
1964 Niigata (Japan) and Alaskan earthquakes
(Seed and Lee, 1966; Seed and Idriss, 1967).
Independently and concurrently, Whitman
(1971) and Seed and Idriss (1971) proposed
a “simplified procedure” for evaluating
earthquake-induced (cyclic) liquefaction. The
simplified procedure evaluates the potential for
liquefaction based on the relationship between
earthquake-generated cyclic shear stresses
and empirically-based liquefaction resistance
as a function of field testing (e.g., Standard
Penetration Test N-values, Cone Penetration
Test tip resistance, etc.). Alternative methods
for the evaluation of cyclic liquefaction have
been proposed by others (e.g., Arulmoli
et al, 1985; Poulos et al, 1985; Kayen and
Mitchell, 1997; Andrus and Stokoe, 2000)
but the simplified procedure remains the
most commonly used liquefaction evaluation
methodology. Although liquefaction analysis
and the design of liquefaction mitigation
have been part of engineering practice in the
western United States for at least 40 years and
guidelines are in place (CGS, 2008; Martin and
Lew, 1999), only with the widespread adoption
did earthquake hazards become an important
design consideration in the central and
eastern U.S.
As a result of the increased seismic demand
presented in the IBC, many sites throughout
the U.S. are classified as liquefiable under
the design earthquake parameters. In the
case of the IBC, engineers are instructed to
“address” liquefaction. Options for addressing
liquefaction include the following: 1) move the
project to a different site that is not liquefiable,
2) design the structure to withstand liquefied
conditions, or 3) use ground improvement to
reduce the risk of liquefaction to an acceptable
level. Because moving the project or designing
for the consequences of liquefaction is often
technically or financially unfeasible, liquefaction
mitigation by ground improvement is frequently
a preferred option.
The membership of the Deep Foundations
Institute (DFI) includes government agency
engineers, private consultants, and contractors;
all of which have significant roles in the
design, construction, and evaluation of ground
improvement methods for the mitigation of
liquefaction. As such, the DFI has a vested
interest in examining the state-of-practice
for the benefit of its members and their
clients. This paper describes the fundamental

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [3]

 mechanics of the most common mitigation
methods, and provides brief commentary on the
state-of-the-practice.
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
Workshops were held in 1996 and 1998 by the
National Center for Earthquake Engineering
and Research (NCEER) in an effort to develop
a consensus on the evaluation of liquefaction
potential. These workshops led to the
publication of a summary report (Youd et
al., 2001) which, for a short time, served as
a consensus document on the evaluation of
liquefaction triggering.
Numerous modifications and additions to the
simplified procedure have been proposed in the
last decade resulting in a diminished consensus
on liquefaction evaluation procedures.
Additionally, following the 1999 Kocaeli
earthquake and the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake,
various researchers expanded the range of
potentially liquefiable materials to include
some fine-grained soils that would previously
not have been considered in a liquefaction
evaluation. Various screening procedures have
been proposed (e.g., the “Chinese” Criteria
summarized in Youd et al, 2001; Bray and
Sancio, 2006; Boulanger and Idriss, 2006;
Idriss and Boulanger, 2008). The “Chinese”
Criteria has been generally disregarded as
a valid design method; however a general
consensus on the alternate methods has not
been achieved. This paper offers no guidance on
the evaluation and screening procedures, but as
subsequently presented the selected evaluation
procedures must be clearly identified and
communicated in the project documents related
to liquefaction mitigation.
FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISMS
OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT FOR
LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION
A survey of the available ground improvement
liquefaction mitigation techniques by the
National Research Council (NRC, 1985)
determined that three fundamental mechanisms
are usually involved: 1) densification,
2) drainage, and/or, 3) reinforcement.
These three methods are discussed in the
following sections:
Densification. For sands below the groundwater
table, the resistance to liquefaction is largely
a function of relative density (Seed and Lee,
[4] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
1966). It rationally follows that a substantial
number of liquefaction mitigation techniques
(e.g., vibro-compaction, vibro-stone columns,
dynamic compaction, compaction grouting,
etc.) are intended to sufficiently densify the
soil so that liquefaction will not occur, or
its consequences may be controlled, during
the design earthquake. When compared to
other methods, densification is attractive
because improvement can be verified using
the properties of the improved soil (e.g.
post-improvement Standard Penetration
Test N-values or Cone Penetration Test tip
resistances). Baez, 1995 developed design
densification models that allow an estimation
of approximate improvement levels when using
vibro-stone columns. Design and construction
considerations of densification include (but are
not limited to) the following:
• Fines Content: As the fines content of a
granular soil increases, the effectiveness
of all densification methods will decrease.
Figs 1 and 2 illustrate this trend.
Additionally, whether the fines are plastic
or non-plastic and/or silt-sized or clay-
sized is also important. Even a small clay
fraction may limit the ability of a soil to be
effectively densified (Mackiewicz & Camp,
2007). Therefore, densification methods
may not be able to mitigate liquefaction
in silty and clayey soils. However, it has
been possible, in some cases, to increase
densification of silty sands and silts when
wick drains are pre-installed in combination
with vibro-stone columns (Luehring et
al., 2001; Seed et al., 2003, ). Micaceous
sands may also present a challenge to
densify. This is because the mica portion
gravel sand silt clay
ϭϬϬ
ϵϬ
ƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶnjŽŶĞ
WĞƌĐĞŶƚWĂƐƐŝŶŐďLJtĞŝŐŚƚ;йͿ
ϴϬ
ϳϬ
ϲϬ
ϱϬ
ĚĞŶƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐ ĚĞŶƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐŶŽƚ
ϰϬ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ
ϯϬ
ϮϬ
ϭϬ
Ϭ
ϭϬ ϭ Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬϬϭ
'ƌĂŝŶ^ŝnjĞ;ŵŵͿ
[FIG. 1] - Gradation curves that lie to the left of the
transition zone are more easily densifiable. Soil gradation
curves within the transition zone require additional
engineering judgment and test programs.

[FIG. 2] – Relationship of compactibility to CPT friction
ratio (after Massarsch 1991) A larger friction ratio is
typically indicative of a higher fines content.
is typically retained on the No 200 sieve
and is therefore not included in the fines
content. However, the flat sheet particles
are not easily re-arranged into a denser
configuration via vibratory and cavity
expansion ground treatments.
• The densification process (via vibratory
energy or undrained cavity expansion)
elevates pore pressures and will
temporarily destroy ageing-related bonding,
cementation, micro-structure, etc. As a
result, penetration testing (e.g., SPT N-value
or cone tip resistance) performed soon after
densification may not be representative of
the true degree of improvement, and the
post-improvement penetration resistances
may be expected to increase over time
(Mitchell and Solymar, 1984; Schmertmann,
1987; Mesri et al., 1990; Charlie et al., 1992).
In practice, a minimum 7 day “rest” period
is often necessary to evaluate densification
effects. For many projects, it is not feasible
to delay the project in order to confirm the
effectiveness of the ground improvement.
Consequently, the analysis of the field
data may consider the effects of time on
penetration resistance using published
relationships (Joshi, et al., 1995; Leon et
al., 2006).
• There will be variation in the degree of
soil improvement between the point of
application of the vibroflot, point of impact,
compaction grout, etc. Degan (1997) reports
a 20% variation in CPT tip resistance over
a lateral distance of 20 inches (500 mm).
While it would be ideal that the design
computations and post-improvement testing
include consideration of the lateral variation
of the improvement, it is conservative to
perform the post-improvement testing at
the maximum distance between adjacent
application points.
Drainage. By definition, cyclic liquefaction is
the state of essentially zero effective stress that
results when the ratio of excess pore pressure
to the initial vertical effective stress (also called
the pore water pressure ratio) is essentially 1.
Liquefaction can be mitigated in sands if the
development of high excess pore water pressure
can be prevented using drains. Seed and Booker
(1977) published design charts for vertical
gravel drains based on the soil properties, the
liquefaction susceptibility, and the earthquake
conditions. More recently, Pestana et al.
(1997) developed the finite element computer
program FEQDrain to assist in the design of
prefabricated drains consisting of a corrugated
perforated plastic pipe with a geosynthetic
covering (known commercially as EQ drains). As
illustrated in Fig. 3, the compressibility of sand
increases dramatically once the pore pressure
ratio exceeds 0.6. Therefore, the objective of
the design of an earthquake drain liquefaction
mitigation program is to determine the spacing
such that the pore pressure ratio is maintained
below 0.6 to minimize deformation.
16.00
14.00
Dr = 30%
12.00
Dr = 40%
Dr = 50%
Volumetric Compressibility
Normalized Coefficient of
10.00
Dr = 60%
Dr = 70%
8.00 Dr = 80%
Dr = 90%
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Peak Pore Pressure Ratio
[FIG. 3] - Relationship of compressibility to peak pore
pressure ratio (Seed and Booker 1977).
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [5]
 Design and construction considerations for
the use of enhanced drainage as a liquefaction
mitigation method include (but are not limited
to) the following:
• Aggregate drains have been used with
success in Japan. These drains are
constructed using aggregate gradations that
consider filter requirements for the soils in
which they are being installed. Additionally,
the drains are installed using low-energy
methods that do not cause crushing of the
aggregate or mixing of the aggregate and
surrounding soil.
• Conventional stone column or aggregate
pier construction in the US may not create
an element that is capable of effectively
functioning as a drain for purposes of
liquefaction mitigation (Green, 2012). Even
with the typical highly permeable aggregate
that such columns or piers use, mixing/
infiltration of the surrounding soils into
the stone and/or crushing of the aggregate
during the compaction process results in an
in situ matrix with measured soil intrusions
of about 20% by weight and permeability
values on the order of 1E-02 cm/sec (Baez
and Martin, 1995). If stone columns or
aggregate piers are intended to enhance
drainage, consideration must be given to
the gradation and hardness of the backfill
stone, the potential for mixing during the
installation process, and the process used to
construct the columns.
• The spacing of drains is dependent on
the permeability of the soil that is to
be mitigated. The spacing will become
impractical for silts or sands with
significant fines content. Oftentimes, soils
that are most appropriate for mitigation
through drainage are also appropriate for
densification (high permeability sands).
• Although drains can successfully mitigate
liquefaction and the associated substantial
loss of soil strength, the potential for
volumetric compression may remain after
drain installation and consideration must
be given to allowable deformations. Large
shaking table test research in Japan (Iai,
1988) has demonstrated that the volume
of water drained during the seismic event
is approximately equal to the amount of
settlement observed at the surface of the
drain treated ground. This suggests that
[6] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
the drains effectively facilitate, rather
than prevent volume change, which is not
a desired consequence for an effective
liquefaction countermeasure designed to
reduce seismic settlements.
• When using drainage as the sole liquefaction
countermeasure (i.e., no densification
or reinforcement), the designer is also
cautioned to take into account the
variability of the brief high seismic pulses
from large earthquakes and their effect on a
temporary clogging of the drain which may
render it ineffective. Seed et al., 2003 refer
to a drainage countermeasure as a “brittle”
solution which may only be effective
if it promotes the rapid pore pressure
dissipation during the few critical seconds
of the earthquake.
• The effectiveness of an earthquake drain
installation cannot be verified through field
testing. Therefore, designers must rely on
the analytical design method.
Reinforcement. Liquefaction mitigation by
shear reinforcement relies on the installation
of stiffer elements within a soil mass to reduce
the cyclic shear stress applied to liquefiable
soils. Soil reinforcement options include: full
soil treatment (via permeation grouting, jet
grouting, or mass soil mixing), cellular or panel
reinforcement (using jet grouting, soil mixing,
or slurry wall systems), or individual column
elements (using jet grout columns, mechanically
mixed columns, stone columns, aggregate
piers, grout columns, etc.). Post-earthquake
observations suggest that reinforcement also
reduces the earthquake-related settlement by
providing an improved axial stiffness.
Baez (1995) presented a design methodology
based on fundamental principles of strain
compatibility between reinforcing elements
and soil, and force equilibrium to calculate
the reduction in cyclic shear stress on a soil
mass as a function of the soil shear modulus,
reinforcement shear modulus, and the amount
of treatment. This methodology has been used
in practice to design reinforcement-based
ground improvement programs for liquefaction
mitigation. However, numerous researchers
have evaluated the Baez procedure and
concluded that, for columnar reinforcement,
it significantly overestimates the effectiveness
of reinforcement in terms of shear stress
reduction (Goughnour and Pestana, 1998;
Martin and Olgun, 2006, Olgun and Martin,
2008, Rayamajhi et al., 2012, Nguyen et al.,
2012, Boulanger, 2012). More specifically, the
research findings indicate that there is a lack
of strain compatibility between the soil and
the reinforcement element (stone column,
aggregate pier, soilcrete column, etc.) and
significant benefits of the stiffer element in
terms of shear reinforcement are not realized.
In contrast, research shows that wall panels
arranged to form a cellular pattern maintain
shear strain compatibility between the soil and
the reinforcement and contribute significantly
to shear stress reduction. In summary, if shear
stress reduction is the design objective, as
might be the case for a soil that is not easily
densified or drained, current research and
models indicate that wall panels or a cellular
pattern of reinforcement can be effective,
whereas discrete columns are not. Cellular and
panel reinforcement geometries have been
widely and successfully implemented in Japan
and an increasing use of these geometries for
non-densifiable soils will likely occur in the U.S.
Numerous researchers have evaluated the
performance of improved sites after they
have been subjected to earthquakes and
sites with ground improvement have out-
performed (i.e., settled less, suffered less
foundation damage, etc.) similar nearby
sites without ground improvement (Iai et
al, 1994; Mitchell et al, 1995; Yasuda et al,
1996; Mitchell and Wentz, 1998; Mitchell et
al, 2000; Hausler, 2002; Martin and Olgun,
2006). In particular, some sites with column
reinforcement (e.g., stone columns, soilcrete
columns, jet grout columns) out-performed
sites without any improvement indicating
that even if the column reinforcement does
not provide a shear stress reduction benefit
as initially assumed (i.e., does not prevent the
onset of liquefaction), it may still be effective
in limiting the consequences of liquefaction.
Not all of the possible mechanisms for the
improved performance are fully understood
but a likely component is a reduction in
vertical deformation due to the increased axial
stiffness provided by the elements (Martin and
Olgun, 2006). Additionally, the increase in the
effective lateral stress that is produced by some
improvement methods (e.g., aggregate piers,
stone columns) may reduce shear strains during
shaking, thereby reducing the potential or
extent of liquefaction. Confinement pressures
and the engagement of discrete columns
via caps and mats that connect the columns
are another possible contributing factor to
improved performance, as compared to free
field conditions. Current analytical models have
not evaluated such conditions, but experimental
centrifuge tests (Adalier et al. 2003) show
improved liquefaction consequence results
for discrete columns subjected to building
pressures and confinement. Most discrete
column applications include a building or
structure slab or mat atop the discrete columns.
With respect to the mechanism of reinforcement
for liquefaction mitigation, a number of issues
remain for consideration:
• The shear stress reduction potential for
individual reinforcing elements (e.g., stone
columns, aggregate piers, grout columns,
soilcrete columns) appears to be very small.
The stress reduction potential decreases
as the diameter of the element decreases
and the efficiency of the system decreases
as the modulus of the element increases
(Boulanger, 2012) but it does increase as
the confining stress increases (Green et al
2008). Discrete column designs based on
the Baez (1995) concept may be significantly
unconservative.
• Panel or cellular reinforcement can
effectively reduce the shear stresses within
a soil mass and the recent work by Nguyen
et al. (2012) provides a design methodology
that is applicable for all sites. This
methodology generally matches the Baez
(1995) methodology when panel coverage is
in excess of about 25%.
• Individual reinforcing elements may be
effective in reducing vertical displacements
following ground shaking. A rational
analytical approach for the use of individual
elements to reduce seismic settlement
(while not eliminating liquefaction potential)
has not been developed.
• Much like drainage for mitigation, the
effectiveness of reinforcement cannot be
field verified post-treatment. Engineers
must rely on theoretical analysis for their
design, the methods for which have not
reached an industry-wide consensus.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [7]
 SPECIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS
Development of appropriate specifications
for liquefaction mitigation is not a trivial
matter and is an area of practice that needs
improvement. The means and methods for
ground improvement are extremely diverse
and, as a result, ground improvement programs
are frequently contracted using a performance
or design-build specification. When compared
to a detailed design-bid-build approach, these
contracting methods offer many benefits to
both owners and specialty geo-constructors, but
the following items should be addressed when
developing the specifications:
• The design earthquake criteria should [FIG. 4] Six story structure that experienced 0.26m
be thoroughly described in the project of liquefaction-induced differential settlement (after
specifications. If the specialty geo- Cubrinovski and McCahon, 2011)

constructor is allowed to develop the design

criteria, the owner’s representative should
be of sufficient sophistication to confirm
that the methodology used in developing
the design criteria is consistent with the
state-of-practice.
• Because there is no consensus on
liquefaction evaluation and screening
procedures and different methods will
yield different results, the acceptable
evaluation and screening method(s) should
be specifically defined in the project
specifications. The definition should include
the required procedures for evaluating
the efficacy of the ground improvement.
[FIG. 5] Two story structure that experienced 0.1
If post-improvement in situ testing is to 0.25m of liquefaction-induced settlement (after
required, the interpretation and correction Cubrinovski and McCahon, 2011)
(e.g., corrections to N-values for energy, rod
length, overburden stress, etc.) procedures associated with liquefaction can only be
should be specified. crudely estimated. The expectation of a
guaranteed maximum settlement with little
• A “seismic” or post-earthquake settlement
or no tolerance is unrealistic.
tolerance is frequently specified. The
selection of the settlement tolerance • As noted above, ground improvement
should reflect the performance objectives programs that rely on densification are
(i.e., collapse prevention in accordance particularly attractive since the effectiveness
with the International Building Code or a of the densification can be evaluated using
more stringent serviceability requirement). post-improvement in situ testing. For such
With respect to collapse prevention, post- programs, a post-improvement criteria (e.g.,
earthquake reconnaissance routinely cone penetrometer tip resistance, Standard
shows that structures tolerate very large Penetration Test N-value, dilatometer
liquefaction-induced settlement (e.g., 0.1 horizontal stress index, etc.) is frequently
to 1 m or 0.33 to 3.3 ft) without collapse. specified. The criteria should reflect the
Examples from the 2010-2011 Christchurch values needed in accordance with the
Earthquakes are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. specified evaluation procedure and design
With respect to serviceability requirements, hazard. Additionally, it must be recognized
it should be recognized that deformations that some soils (e.g., silty sands, slightly

[8] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

 clayey sands, silts) will not be able to
be densified and the post-improvement
criteria must make allowances for such
strata. The criteria should also reflect the
time-dependency of the post-improvement
test results.
• Use of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is
widely accepted as an economical way
to evaluate improvement based on tip
resistance. A boundary for what may be
considered non-liquefiable, and therefore
not in need of improvement, is typically
the use of the calculated parameter, Ic
(soil behavior type index). However, the
designer must recognize that this index was
originally defined for non-disturbed and
often normally consolidated conditions.
Ground treatments with vibratory energy
and cavity displacement countermeasures
work by remolding and reconstituting the
soil structure. Therefore, pre-treatment
Ic soil type definitions do not necessarily
match post treatment Ic calculations (Baez,
2005). A calibration of this parameter may
need to be taken into account for the proper
interpretation of post treatment CPT results.
• For soils that cannot be densified and/
or for ground improvement methods that
cannot be evaluated via post-improvement
testing, the efficacy of the program must
be based on construction observation
and the fundamental mechanics and
empirical observations. The tools available
to researchers and practitioners have
advanced significantly, but continuing
research has illustrated limitations on
using past practices (such as the lack
of strain compatibility). Liquefaction
mitigation solutions should be based on
sound soil mechanics, particularly when
designing mitigation programs that are not
field verifiable.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This document presented a brief overview
of the three mechanisms - densification,
drainage and reinforcement - currently used for
liquefaction mitigation within the geotechnical
construction industry. The summaries provided
describe the basic mechanics and potential
concerns related to each method. Significant
concerns include the following:
• When used in appropriate soils,
densification allows for improvement
verification, unlike drainage and
reinforcement. However, densification is
only applicable in cohesionless soils with
less than 20% fines (and a significantly
lower clay content). In cases where
wick drains have been pre-installed,
densification may be possible for soils
with fines content up to 65% and small
clay fractions. Note that successful cases
using wick drains and stone columns
generally require area replacement ratios
in excess of 20-30% as well as wick drains
that are close to the densification point.
Engineers are encouraged to consider the
soil characteristics and drainage properties
when writing specifications that require
post-treatment verification of densification.
• Because ground improvement methods that
apply drainage and/or reinforcement are
not amenable to post-treatment verification,
the analysis used to design these types of
ground improvement methods must be
based on fundamental mechanical principles
and empirical observations.
• Although post-earthquake observations
indicate that reinforcement can effectively
mitigate the effects of liquefaction,
consensus has not been reached for
developing a state-of-the-practice design
methodology for liquefaction mitigation
using soil reinforcement. Furthermore,
recent research indicates that columnar
reinforcement is not as effective in reducing
the soil shear stress as previously believed.
This is resulting in an inconsistent and
potentially unconservative range of designs
for this method. Engineers and agencies
must be conscious of this inconsistency
when evaluating reinforcement proposals
and designs and continue to rely on
fundamental mechanics and the most
current research findings.
The geotechnical engineering community will
be well served by a continued focus on the
mechanics, effectiveness, and limitations of
all liquefaction mitigation methods. With each
new earthquake, the engineering knowledge
base expands, and the engineering practice
will evolve.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [9]
 REFERENCES
1. Adalier, K., Elgamal, A., Meneses, J.
and Baez, J.I. (2003) “Stone columns as
liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic
silty soils”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 23(7), pp. 571-584.
2. Andrus, R. D., and Stokoe, K. H., II (2000).
‘‘Liquefaction resistance of soils from
shear-wave velocity”, Journal of Geotechical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
126(11), pp. 1015–1025
3. Arulmoli, K., Arulanandan, K., and Seed,
H.B. (1985) “New Method for Evaluating
Liquefaction Potential”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 111(1), pp. 95-114.
4. Baez, J.I. (1995) “A design model for the
reduction of soil liquefaction by vibro-
stone columns”, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
5. Baez, J.I., and Martin, G.R., (1995)
“Permeability and Shear Wave Velocity
of Vibro-Replacement Stone Columns”,
Soil Improvement for Earthquake Hazard
Mitigation, Edited by Roman D. Hryciw,
ASCE. Geotechnical Special Publication No.
49. October, 1995.
6. Baez, J.I. (2005) “Liquefaction Mitigation
of Fine Grained Soils”, 2005 US-Japan
Workshop on Ground Improvement: New
Applications and Challenging Soils for
Ground Improvement Technologies, Kyoto,
Japan, September 8-10, 2005.
7. Boulanger, R.W. (2012) “Shear reinforcement
effects for liquefaction mitigation”, DFI
Liquefaction Forum: Consequences and
Mitigation, St. Louis, MO.
8. Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2006).
“Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for
silts and clays”, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Enineering, 132(11),
pp. 1413-1426.
9. Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B. (2006).
“Assessment of the liquefaction
susceptibility of fine-grained soils”, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132(9), pp. 1165-1177.
10. CGS, California Geological Survey (2008)
“Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California”, Special
Publication 117, Public Information Offices
of the California Geological Survey.
[10] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
11. Charlie, W.A., Rwebyogo, M.F.J. and
Doehring, D.O. (1992). “Time-dependent
cone penetration resistance due to blasting”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,118(8),
pp. 1200-1215.
12. Cubrinovski, M. and McCahon, I. (2011).
“Foundations on Deep Alluvial Soils”,
Technical Report Prepared for the
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ
13. Degan, W.S. (1997) Vibroflotation Ground
Improvement, Vibroflotation AG, Altendorf,
248 p.
14. Goughnour, R.R., and Pestana, J.M., (1998).
“Mechanical behavior of stone columns
under seismic loading”, Proceedings 2nd
International Conference on Ground
Improvement Techniques, Singapore.
15. Green, R.A. (2012) “Liquefaction risk
mitigation by excess pore pressure
dissipation through compacted gravel piles”,
DFI Liquefaction Forum: Consequences and
Mitigation, St. Louis, MO.
16. Green, R.A., Olgun, C.G., and Wissmann,
K.J., (2008). “Shear stress redistribution
as a mechanism to mitigate the risk of
liquefaction”, Proceedings Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
IV, ASCE GSP 181, Sacramento, CA.
17. Hausler, E.A., (2002). “Influence of
ground improvement on settlement and
liquefaction: a study based on field case
history evidence and dynamic geotechnical
centrifuge tests”, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley.
18. Iai, S. (1988) “Large Scale Model Tests and
Analyses of Gravel Drains”, Report of the
Port and Harbour Research Institute Japan,
Vol 127, No. 3.
19. Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., Morita, T., Miyata, M.,
Sakurai, H., Oishi, H., Ogura, H., Ando, Y.,
Tanaka, Y., and Kato, M. (1994). “Effects of
remedial measures against liquefaction at
1993 Kishiro-Oki Earthquake”, Proceedings
5th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake
Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures Against Soil Liquefaction,
NCEER-94-0026, Nov, pp. 135-152.
20. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008)
Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,
Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
21. Joshi, R.C., Achari, G., Shenbaga, R.K., and
Wijeweera, H. (1995). “Effect of aging on the
penetration resistance of sands”, Canandian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol 32, pp. 767-782.
22. Kayen, R.E. and Mitchell, J.K. (1997)
“Assessment of Liquefaction Potential
During Earthquakes by Arias
Intensity”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(12), pp.
1162-1174.
23. Leon, E., Gassman, S.L., and Talwani, P.
(2006). “Accounting for soil aging when
assessing liquefaction potential”, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132(3), pp. 363-377.
24. Luehring, R., Snorteland N., Stevens, M., and
Mejia, L. (2001) “Liquefaction Mitigation of
a Silty Dam Foundation Using Vibro-Stone
Columns and Drainage Wicks: A case History
at Salmon Lake Dam”, 21st USSD Annual
Meeting and Lecture Proceedings, Denver,
Colorado, July 30 – August 03, 2001.
25. Mackiewicz, S. M., and Camp, W. M.
(2007). “Ground Modification: How Much
Improvement?”, Proceedings Geo-Denver,
ASCE GSP 172, Denver, CO.
26. Martin G.R., and Lew M. (Editors)
(1999). “Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication
117 – Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction in California”,
Southern California Earthquake Center,
University of Southern California, March.
27. Martin, J.R., II, and Olgun, C.G. (2006).
“Liquefaction mitigation using jet-grout
columns – 1999 Kocaeli earthquake case
history”, Ground Modification and Seismic
Mitigation, ASCE GSP 152, pp. 349-358.
28. Massarsch, K.R., (1991). “Deep Soil
Compaction Using Vibratory Probes”,
ASTM Symposium on Design, Construction,
and Testing of Deep Foundation
Improvement: Stone Columns and Related
Techniques, Robert C. Bachus, Ed. ASTM
Special Technical Publication, STP 1089,
Philadelphia, pp. 297-319.
29. Mesri, G., Feng, T.W. and Benak, J.M. (1990).
“Postdensification penetration resistance
in clean sands”, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 116(7), pp. 1095-1115.
30. Mitchell, J.K., Baxter, C.D.P., and Munson,
T.C. (1995). “Performance of improved
ground during earthquakes”, Soil
Improvement for Earthquake Hazard
Mitigation, ASCE GSP No. 49, pp. 1-36.
31. Mitchell, J. K., Martin, J. R., Olgun, C. G.,
Emrem, C., Durgunoglu, H. T., Cetin, K. O.,
and Karadayilar, T. (2000). "Performance of
Improved Ground and Earth Structures”,
Earthquake Spectra, 16(Supplement "A"), pp.
191-225
32. Mitchell, J.K. and Solymar, Z.V. (1984).
“Time-dependent strength gain in freshly
deposited or densified sand”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 110(11), pp. 1559-
1576.
33. Mitchell, J.K., and Wentz, F.J., Jr., (1998).
“Improved-ground performance during
the earthquake”, The Loma Prieta,
California, earthquake of October 17,
1989 - Liquefaction, Holzer, T.L., Ed., U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1551-
B, pp. B241-B272.
34. Moseley, M.P. and Kirsch, K. (2004) “Ground
Improvement, 2nd Edition”, Spon Press, New
York, NY.
35. National Research Council (1985)
“Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes”,
National Research Council, Committee
on Earthquake Engineering, Washington,
District of Columbia.
36. Nguyen, T.V., Rayamajhi, D., Boulanger, R.W.,
Ashford, S.A., Lu, J., Elgamal, A., and Shao, L.
(2012) “Effect of DSM grids on shear stress
distribution in liquefiable soil”, Proceedings
GeoCongress 2012, State of the Art and
Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
GSP 255, Oakland, CA, pp. 1948-1957.
37. Olgun, C.G. and Martin, J.R., II, (2008)
“Numerical modeling of the seismic
response of columnar reinforced ground”,
Proceedings Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, ASCE GSP
181, Sacramento, CA.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [11]
 38. Pestana, J.M., Hunt, C.E. and Goughnour,
R.R. (1997) “FEQDrain: A Finite Element
Computer Program for the Analysis of the
Earthquake Generation and Dissipation
of Pore Water Pressure in Layered Sand
Deposits with Vertical Drains”, Report No.
UCB/EERC-97/15, University of California,
Berkeley, 88 p.
39. Poulos, S.J., Castro, G., and France, J.W.
(1985) “Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(6),
pp. 772-792.
40. Rayamajhi, D., Nguyen, T.V., Ashford, S.A.,
Boulanger, R.W., Lu, J., Elgamal, A., and Shao,
L. (2012) “Effect of discrete columns on
shear stress distribution in liquefiable soil”,
Proceedings GeoCongress 2012, State of the
Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE GSP 255, Oakland, CA, pp. 1918-1927.
41. Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1966) “Liquefaction
of Saturated Sands During Cyclic Loading”,
Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM6, pp. 105-
134.
42. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1967) “Analysis
of Soil Liquefaction: Niigata Earthquake”,
Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM3, pp. 83-108.
43. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971) “Simplified
Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential”, Journal Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9.
44. Seed, H.B. and Booker, J.R. (1977)
“Stabilization of Potentially Liquefiable Sand
Deposits Using Gravel Drains”, Journal Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE,
Vol. 103, No. GT7, pp. 757-768.
[12] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
45. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S.,
Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M.,
Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J.D., Kayen,
R.E., and Faris, A. (2003) “Recent Advances
in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified
and Consistent Framework”, 26th Annual
ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring
Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S Queen
Mary, Long Beach, California.
46. Schmertmann, J.H. (1987) Discussion on
“Time-dependent strength gain in freshly
deposited or densified sand by J.K. Mitchell
and Z.V. Solymar", Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, pp. 117(9), pp. 171-176.
47. Whitman, R.V. (1971) “Resistance of Soil
to Liquefaction and Settlement”, Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. Vol. 11, No. 4. December.
48. Yasuda, S., Ishihara, K., Harada, K. and
Shinkawa, N. (1996). “Effect of improvement
on ground subsidence due to liquefaction”,
Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Special Issue,
January, pp. 99-107.
49. 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., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara,
K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F.,
III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki,
Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed,
R.B., Stokoe, K.H., II. (2001) “Liquefaction
resistance of soils: Summary report from
the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
workshop on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils”, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10),
pp. 817-833.
Liquefaction Mitigation Synthesis Report
Prepared for: The Ground Improvement Committee of the Deep Foundations Institute
By: Timothy C. Siegel, P.E., G.E., D.GE, Dan Brown and Associates PC, Knoxville; (865) 357-1715;
tsiegel@danbrownandassociates.com
PROLOGUE
This report presents the results of a synthesis on the design and analysis of ground improvement for
liquefaction mitigation. The synthesis included an industry survey concerning the practice of ground
improvement for liquefaction mitigation. Participation in the survey was solicited by advertisements
in several trade magazines and by e-mail for the DFI membership. The survey participants numbered
150. Their professional roles include consulting engineers, specialty contractors, design engineers,
government engineers, and academicians. They represent a variety of geographical areas including
North/Central/South America, United Kingdom, Middle East, Caribbean, Hawaii, Japan, India, Egypt,
France, Australia and New Zealand. Upon completion of the survey, several professionals in the field
of liquefaction and ground improvement were interviewed for them to elaborate on the survey results.
The interviews are included in the Appendix of this report. Financial support for the project was
provided by DFI and Dan Brown and Associates PC.
The concept of the liquefaction mitigation synthesis was developed by DFI’s Ground Improvement
Committee in recognition that:
(a) The results of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance have challenged previously long-
held beliefs about liquefaction and associated mitigation techniques, and;
(b) The DFI membership and the engineering/construction industry are interested to know if and how
engineers and designers are subsequently adjusting their practice in consideration of recent research
and post-earthquake reconnaissance.
For more detailed information on recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance, presentations
are available from the State-of-the-Art Forum: Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation that
was held in St. Louis in 2012. A commentary of the state-of-practice in ground improvement for
liquefaction mitigation (prepared by DFI’s Ground Improvement Committee) is included in this
issue of the DFI Journal.
The author would like to thank the participants of the survey and especially Mr. Mike Jeffries, Dr. Les
Youd, and Dr. Ikuo Towhata for their willingness to share their expertise in interviews. The author also
acknowledges Mary Ellen Bruce of DFI, Billy Camp of S&ME, Inc., and Marty Taube of DGI Menard
(and Chair of DFI’s Ground Improvement Committee) for their significant contributions.

INTRODUCTION shear strength and large ground settlements.

Cyclic liquefaction is a phenomenon where
high excess pore-water pressure develops in
saturated soil as a result of cyclic loading (Seed
and Lee, 1965 and 1966). When the ratio of
pore-water pressure to the total vertical stress
is essentially 1 (i.e., the state of zero effective
stress), the soil is considered “liquefied” and
loses a large portion of its shear resistance. At
lower relative densities (less than approximately
70%), soils may contract resulting in large
ground settlements. Soils with higher relative
densities (greater than approximately 70%)
are dilative, preventing a substantial loss of
Liquefaction and its impact on engineering
structures came to the engineering forefront
in the 1960s due, in part, to the widespread
liquefaction-induced damage (primarily
settlement, tilting and lateral displacement
of buildings) that occurred as a result of the
1964 Niigata (Japan) and 1964 Good Friday
Alaska earthquakes (Grantz, et al., 1964;
Japan National Committee on Earthquake
Engineering, 1965; Seed and Idriss, 1967).
Liquefaction also caused severe damage in the
1959 Jaltipan (Mexico) earthquake (Marsal,
1961) and the 1960 Chilean earthquake (Duke

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [13]

 and Leeds, 1963). In 1971, the “simplified
procedure” (Seed and Idriss, 1971; Whitman,
1971) for anticipating liquefaction was developed
based on the soil conditions and the design
earthquake. Seed and Booker (1977) proposed
the installation of columnar gravel drains in soil
of high liquefaction potential to prevent the
development of excessively high pore-water
pressure. In this way, a routine framework
was established. First, the liquefaction potential
is evaluated using a rational method involving
either field or laboratory testing. Second, if a
potential for liquefaction is present and the
effects of liquefaction are determined to present
unacceptable risk to the performance of the
structure, then ground improvement can be
designed to mitigate the risk.
Over the past 40 years, the evaluation of
liquefaction and the methods for mitigation
design has continued to rapidly evolve. The
evolution process is not without difficulties.
Due, in part, to the use of the research
community as the primary technical source
serving practicing engineers and contractors,
new insights are continuously being delivered.
Practicing engineers and contractors are
challenged to implement the conclusions of the
most recent findings in a coherent and rational
manner. However, considerable controversy
and an absence of consensus exist regarding
several aspects related to liquefaction including
the subject of the efficacy of various mitigation
techniques. The resulting negative impacts
may include over-conservatism (and increased
cost) by the designers and consultants, conflicts
within the design team, and confusion among
owners and their representatives.
The dichotomy between research and practice
on the subject liquefaction is not new. In his
technical note from 1979, Ralph Peck advised
that engineers and those that depend on
engineers would be well served to distinguish
between research (or science) and practice:
In short, engineering science and engineering
practice are not identical. Advances
in science may temporarily appear to
run counter to good practice. When
this occurs, the implications should be
evaluated carefully, but it should by no
means be assumed that the latest scientific
advancement is always the right direction.
Science has its own ways of making
progress, as evidence accumulates it corrects
[14] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
its errors and improves its predictions. In
the end, it is certain to improve practice as
well. But science may temporarily mislead
the unwary, and it should not intimidate
either the experienced engineer or the
overburdened regulatory agency.
Another way of saying this is that engineering
practice should be careful not to assume that
the most recent opinion on the subject of
liquefaction must be correct to the extent that it
automatically invalidates those that precede it.
LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION
SYNTHESIS
As primarily an effort to support the
Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) membership,
this synthesis attempts to help define the
current state-of-practice in liquefaction
mitigation by surveying practicing engineers
and specialty contractors involved in the
selection and implementation of ground
improvement techniques for liquefaction.
The survey was divided into four sections:
(1) general practice, (2) liquefaction analysis,
(3) mitigation design, and (4) verification.
This report summarizes the results of the
survey and presents the conclusions that may
be made from the survey results.
General Practice
These questions are intended to provide
a profile of the participant. Taken as a
summary, this information will characterize
the population involved in the survey. The
questions and the answers (in terms of
percentages) are:
1. What best describes your position in the
liquefaction mitigation industry?
• Consulting Engineer (58%)
• Design Engineer (16%)
• Specialty Contractor (14%)
• Other (12%)
Commentary: The ground improvement
industry, especially for liquefaction mitigation,
is different from most other geotechnical/
foundation designs. The design engineer for
liquefaction mitigation is typically employed
directly by the specialty contractor performing
the installation. Because the owner and the
owner’s consultants often do not have the
technical expertise to prepare or review the
liquefaction mitigation design, they provide
the performance requirements (which can
be very stringent). Such an environment
has its problems ranging from performance
requirements that are unrealistic to significant
differences between competing designs.
2. What area of the US are most of your
projects involving liquefaction
(check all that apply)?
• California (29%)
• Western US (ID, UT, NE, MT, WY) (6%)
• Pacific Northwest (OR, WA) (19%)
• Midwest (New Madrid) (10%)
• Southeast (Charleston) (10%)
• Other (26%)
Commentary: Earthquake and liquefaction
concerns have been an essential part of
engineering design in California and other parts
of the Western United States since the 1960s.
Because of the adoption of the International
Building Code and the associated increase in
seismic demand since the mid to late 1990s,
liquefaction analysis and mitigation have become
part of engineering design in parts of the eastern
United States.
3. How many projects involving liquefaction
analysis, mitigation design and/or
construction do you participate in over a one
year period?
• less than 5 (39%)
• between 5 and 10 (38%)
• between 10 and 40 (18%)
• over 40 (5%)
4. How standardized do you believe the state-
of-practice in liquefaction mitigation using
ground improvement techniques is?
Test 1 2
Standard penetration test (SPT) 58% 27%
Cone penetration test (CPT) 32% 43%
Shear-wave velocity test 3% 15%
Cyclic lab test 1% 5%
Liquefaction maps 6% 10%
• very consistent and uniform (3%)
• somewhat consistent and uniform (33%)
• somewhat non-uniform (46%)
• highly non-uniform (18%)
Commentary: As recently as the last few years,
research and post-earthquake reconnaissance
have provided results that contradict previously
held beliefs on liquefaction and the effectiveness
of some mitigation efforts. This is one reason
why it has been particularly difficult to establish
a more uniform and standardized state-of-
practice in ground improvement for liquefaction
mitigation and that it is not unexpected that over
half of the participants believe that state-of-
practice is “somewhat” or “highly non-uniform”.
5. How significant have recent considerations
of liquefaction of fine-grained soil (i.e., >
30% passing No.200 sieve) been to your
projects?
• very significant (24%)
• significant (39.5%)
• marginally significant (24.5%)
• not significant (12%)
Commentary: Results of recent research
(Boulanger and Idriss, 2006; Bray and Sancio,
2006) and earthquake reconnaissance (Martin
and Olgun, 2008) support that fine-grained soils
can be susceptible to liquefaction. Engineering
practice has, in many areas, incorporated fine-
grained soils into the triggering analysis and
design of mitigation by adapting the procedures
developed for sands.
Liquefaction Analysis
These questions relate to liquefaction analysis
in engineering practice. The questions and the
answers (in terms of percentages) are:
3 4 5
8% 3% 4%
16% 5% 3%
43% 30% 9%
11% 35% 49%
22% 27% 35%
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [15]
 6. How often are the following techniques used
for site characterization associated with
liquefaction analysis on your projects?
1 is most often…..5 is least often.
Commentary: The standard penetration test
(SPT) (Seed et al., 1983 and 1985) can involve
significant error due to the variation in energy
delivered by the hammer during the test. In this
regard, the more controlled in situ tests – cone
penetration test (Robertson and Wride, 1998)
and shear-wave velocity test (Andrus and Stokoe,
2000) – provide more repeatable and reliable
results. However, there can be limitations
with any test. For example, Dr. Brady Cox of
the University of Texas at Austin showed that
calcareous sands experienced liquefaction during
the 2010 Haiti earthquake even though the
shear-wave velocity profile would have indicated
otherwise (DFI Presentation, 2012).
7. What presumptive analytical maximum
depth do you consider in your liquefaction
analysis?
• 30 ft (9 m) or less (8%)
• between 30 ft and 40 ft (9 m and 12 m)
(4%)
• between 40 ft and 50 ft (12 m and 15 m)
(25%)
• between 50 ft and 75 ft (15 m and 23 m)
(25%)
• No presumptive analytical maximum
depth (38%)
Commentary: The recently published FHWA
reference manual entitled LRFD Seismic
Analysis and Design of Transportation
Geotechnical Features and Structural
Foundations (2011) recommends that
liquefaction be evaluated over the greatest of
the following depths: (a) at least 20 ft (6 m)
below the lowest expected foundation level for
deep foundations, or (b) 80 ft (24 m) below
the existing ground surface or lowest proposed
finished grade. It should be noted that the
geologic and hydrogeologic setting of the site
should also be part of the basis for determining
the required depth of analysis.
8. What water level do you use in the
liquefaction analysis for level sites?
• water level observed during field
exploration (43%)
[16] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
• an assumed elevated water level for
earthquake (48%)
• ground surface (9%)
Commentary: Selection of the water level
determines the minimum depth of potential
liquefaction and an emphasis on identification
of the water level during site exploration is
well placed. A significant amount of published
research exists (e.g., Okamura and Soga, 2006;
Hossain et al, 2013) that supports the conclusion
that partially saturated soils (even those soils near
saturation) have a significantly greater resistance
to liquefaction than fully saturated soil. It is
understood that the water table can fluctuate, but
trapped air is typically present for short term high
water table events. It may be overly conservative
to select a high water table for liquefaction
analysis, especially where the high water table is
a temporary condition.
9. What water level do you use in the
liquefaction analysis for slopes?
• water level observed during field
exploration (40%)
• an assumed elevated water level for
earthquake (53%)
• ground surface (7%)
10. What is the minimum thickness of soil layer
that you consider to be significant with
respect to liquefaction potential?
• no minimum thickness (31%)
• 6 to 12 inches (150 to 300 mm) (20%)
• 12 to 24 inches (300 to 600 mm) (23%)
• greater than 24 inches (600 mm) (26%)
Commentary: Whether or not to exclude thin
zones that may be categorized as liquefiable
can have a dramatic effect on code-related
design decisions. For example, the 2012
International Building Code requirements for steel
reinforcement for cast-in-place deep foundations
can be controlled by the location of “strata that
are liquefiable”. To illustrate an extreme but not
unrealistic scenario, a long reinforcing cage length
could be interpreted to be a code requirement based
on a few data point(s) within a very detailed CPT
sounding. Judgment should be applied as there are
typically other important considerations, such as
constructability and quality.
11. What screening criteria do you primarily
use to differentiate between “sand-like” and
“clay-like” cyclic behavior of soils?
• Chinese criteria (9%)
• Idriss and Boulanger (69%)
• Bray and Sancio (13%)
• Other (9%)
Commentary: The Chinese criteria are no longer
considered to provide a suitable indication of
“clay-like” cyclic behavior.
12. What reference in published literature do you
primarily use for estimating liquefaction-
induced settlement for sands?
• Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987 (45%)
• Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1990 (30%)
• Zhang, Robertson and Brachman,
2002 (16%)
• Other (9%)
Commentary: In his 2012 H. Bolton Seed
lecture in Oakland, California, Dr. Geoffrey
Martin presented laboratory test results
supporting that sands may experience
different degrees of liquefaction-induced
compression depending on their gradation,
shape, etc. Shamoto et al. (1996) showed that
the liquefaction-induced compression can be
uniquely related to the relative compression
defined by Δe/(ei – emin).
In his 2013 Ralph B. Peck lecture in San Diego,
California, Dr. Jonathan Bray presented the
results of post-earthquake reconnaissance and
concluded that the procedures described above
are not applicable for building settlements.
While the procedures may be applicable to
free-field conditions, they do not represent
the conditions within the zone of influence of
foundations. In general, these procedures are
expected to under-predict building settlement,
particularly for thinner liquefiable strata.
13. Do you estimate liquefaction-induced
settlement of liquefiable fine-grained soils
using the published charts for sands?
• Yes (45%)
• No (55%)
Commentary: Considering the recent
developments that show that fine-grained
soils are liquefiable, the absence of research
concerning liquefaction-induced compression
for these soils is understandable. Dr. Ed
Kavazanjian at the Arizona State University
stated that limited research suggests that
published literature for estimating liquefaction-
induced settlement for sands provides reasonable
results for non-plastic silts (DFI Seminar, 2012).
14. What approach do you primarily use for
estimating lateral spread in liquefiable sand?
• Empirical correlations (53%)
• Laboratory-based methods (13%)
• Newmark sliding block analysis (15%)
• Numerical modeling/analyses (10%)
• Other (9%)
15. What approach do you primarily use for
estimating lateral spread in liquefiable fine-
grained soil?
• Empirical correlations (47%)
• Laboratory-based methods (13%)
• Newmark sliding block analysis (18%)
• Numerical modeling/analyses (11%)
• Other (11%)
16. How much confidence do you put in the
calculated lateral spread displacement?
• 0 to 10% (12%)
• 10 to 50% (64%)
• 50 to 90% (21%)
• greater than 90% (3%)
Commentary: Dr. Scott M. Olson of the
University of Illinois presented the results of
his research indicating that actual lateral spread
displacements are within one-half to 2 times
the predictions made based on the accepted
estimation approaches (DFI Seminar, 2012)
Mitigation Design
These questions relate to liquefaction mitigation
design in engineering practice. The questions
and the answers (in terms of percentages) are:
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [17]
 17. How do you rank the following engineering respondents, the results to this question may be
tools for liquefaction mitigation designs? broadly categorized as follows:
Engineering Very Less Least • The criteria are established by the consultant
Tool important important Important but the design, implementation and
theory/ verification are made the responsibilities of
analysis/ 49% 33% 19%
modeling
the specialty contractor;
local • Spreadsheets and commercial software, and;
25% 34% 41%
precedence
• Numerical models (e.g., Plaxis and FLAC)
published
reconnaissance 21. How often do you use the following
26% 33% 40%
of earthquake reinforcement methods to mitigate
damage
liquefaction on your projects?
Commentary: While it is recognized that
Reinforcement Most Often Less Least
analysis should be validated by field method often often often
performance, this is problematic in the practice
vibro-stone
of earthquake design where the opportunities 55% 28% 11% 6.5%
columns
for first-hand observations are rare. The
rammed
implementation of liquefaction mitigation 19% 28% 17% 35%
aggregate piers
techniques solely on precedence does not
grout columns 11% 20% 42% 26.5%
explicitly consider the variation in soil and
deep soil
seismic conditions; however, numerical 15% 24% 30% 32%
mixing cells
modeling without calibration and validation can
provide misleading results.
22. What technical resources (literature,
18. How often do you use the following software, etc.) do you primarily use in
fundamental approaches to mitigate designing against liquefaction using
liquefaction on your projects? reinforcement?
Fundamental Most Least Commentary: The results to this question may
Less often
Approach often often be broadly categorized as follows:
densification 51% 35% 14% • No analysis is typically performed but
reinforcement 40% 46% 14% rely on precedence and judgment with the
drainage 9% 19% 72% recognition that reinforcement may not fully
mitigate the liquefaction;
19. How often do you use the following
densification methods to mitigate • Use of methodology proposed by Baez and
liquefaction on your projects? Martin (1993)
Densification Most Less Least • Use of numerical models (e.g., Plaxis and
method often often often FLAC)
vibrocompaction 66% 27% 8%
23. How often do you use the following drainage
dynamic
18% 41% 41% methods to mitigate liquefaction on your
compaction
projects?
compaction grouting 16% 32% 51%
Drainage Most Less Least
20. What technical resources (literature, method often often often
software, etc.) do you primarily use in EQ drains 22% 20% 57%
designing against liquefaction using gravel drains 41% 44% 15%
densification? pre-fabricated
37% 36% 28%
vertical drains
Commentary: There was a wide variety
of responses to this question. Specialty
contractor’s typically responded that their design
approaches were proprietary. For the remaining

[18] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

Commentary: Vertical gravel drains were
described by Seed and Booker (1972). However,
they are not widely used in the United States.
One reason is a concern about their effectiveness
and reliability. It is recognized that vertical
gravel drains need to reliably provide a high
ratio of permeability between the drain material
and the adjacent soil to prevent the buildup of
high excess pore water pressure. Dr. Russell
Green with Virginia Tech (DFI Seminar, 2012)
presented research results showing that high
degree of control during installation is required
to maintain an effective gradation in order to
achieve the target permeability.
From the comments provided by participants, it
may be concluded that the use of drains is rarely
relied upon as the primary or sole mechanism for
mitigating liquefaction in the U.S. The use of
EQ drains is focused on parts of the US, namely
Charleston, SC.
24. What technical resources (literature,
software, etc.) do you primarily use in
designing against liquefaction using
drainage?
Commentary: FEQDrain (Pestana et al., 1997)
was recognized as a technical resource for the
design of EQ drains. Gravel drains, which have
been more popular in Japan (Towhata, 2008),
can be designed by using the charts presented
by Onoue (1988).
25. What is the typical liquefaction-induced
settlement tolerance or design criteria used
on your foundation projects?
• No liquefaction as determined by a
required post-improvement SPT or
CPT resistances (23%)
• 1 inch (25 mm) (27%)
• 3 inches (76 mm) (21%)
• Greater than 3 inches (76 mm) (6%)
• No maximum settlement so long as there
is an adequate factor-of-safety against
bearing capacity failure (23%)
Commentary: Participants commented that the
type of structure and that whether the design
is to be determined based on life safety or
serviceability were important considerations
regarding selection of the tolerable settlement.
Assuming that most foundations can tolerate
about one inch of settlement with only cosmetic
damage, the results indicate that about half of
the participants of the participants typically
design for serviceability. Considering that
we often use the one inch as the tolerable
foundation settlement for non-seismic conditions
as well, it is very conservative to use either one
inch of liquefaction-induced settlement or no
liquefaction even for serviceability.
26. Is the typical liquefaction-induced settlement
tolerance or design criteria used on
your foundation projects reasonable and
achievable?
• Yes (82%)
• No (18%)
27. What is the typical lateral spread tolerance
used on your foundation projects?
• less than 1 foot (0.3 m) (55%)
• 1 to 3 ft (0.3 to 0.9 m) (35%)
• greater than 3 ft (0.9 m) (10%)
28. Is the typical lateral spread tolerance or
design criteria used on your foundation
projects reasonable and achievable?
• Yes (87%)
• No (13%)
29. What primary reference do you use in
estimating residual strength of liquefied
soils?
• Seed and Harder, 1990 (23%)
• Olson and Stark, 2002 (17%)
• Idriss and Boulanger, 2008 (50%)
• Other (10%)
30. Would you be in favor of performance-
based design where the tolerable ground
movements were more closely related to the
design of the structure?
• Yes (96%)
• No (4%)
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [19]
 Verification
These questions relate to verification of
liquefaction mitigation efforts in engineering
practice. The questions and the answers (in
terms of percentages) are:
31. For mitigation dependent on densification,
what approximate percentage of your
projects includes post-improvement
verification testing?
Commentary: The responses ranged from 0
to 100%. Approximately ½ of the participants
responded that 100% of their projects included
post-improvement verification testing and the
majority of the remaining participants responded
with values that were between 25% and 50%.
32. How often do you use the following
techniques for post-improvement verification
testing?
Verification test Most Less
technique often often
Standard Penetration
40% 42%
Test
Cone Penetration Test 55% 38%
Shear-Wave Velocity Test 5% 20%
33. When evaluating the densification by the
CPT, do you use the fines content estimated
from the pre-improvement or
post-improvement?
• Pre-Improvement (61%)
• Post-Improvement (39%)
Commentary: The fines content interpreted
from CPT data can change between the pre-
improvement testing and post-improvement
testing. This emphasizes that a good practice
is to validate CPT data with the fines content
determined from laboratory gradation testing
performed on samples collected in the field.
34. For sites improved by densification, does
your post-improvement liquefaction analysis
consider ageing effects?
• Yes (29%)
• No (71%)
Commentary: Research supports that dynamic
compaction, blasting and vibro-compaction can
[20] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
temporarily destroy inter-particle structure and
bonds associated with aging. Therefore, the
cone tip resistance is expected to increase with
time after improvement using these techniques
(Mitchell and Solymar, 1984; Schmertmann,
1986; Mesri et al., 1990; Charlie et al., 1992).
Other densification methods such as compaction
grouting, displacement piles, or compaction piles
may also have the same effect although it has
not been documented. Lunne et al. (1997) states
the recommended procedure is to perform field
trials at the start of the project by performing
CPT at different time intervals after compaction
to evaluate the significance of any time effect.
There are financial drawbacks to such field trials
including extending the construction schedule
and requiring a greater amount of CPT services.
35. For sites improved by densification, does
your post-improvement liquefaction analysis
consider lateral stress relaxation?
Least
often • Yes (27%)
• No (73%)
18%
6% Commentary: Mejia and Boulanger (1995)
76%
performed SPT and CPT to evaluate the
effects of compaction grouting in silt and sand.
The study observed a large increase in the
penetration resistance one week after treatment.
A loss of approximately 30% of the average
increase was subsequently observed within the
following 18 months.
36. For sites improved by densification, does
your post-improvement liquefaction analysis
consider lateral variation in the degree of
densification?
• Yes (48%)
• No (52%)
Commentary: Degen (1998) reports that the
practice of testing at the mid-point between
three vibro-compaction improvement points
(assuming an equilateral triangular spacing)
introduces “a rather large additional factor of
safety into the design”. Field data suggest that
the CPT resistance is about 20% higher, only
500 mm (20 in) away from the midpoint.
37. How do you model the response of
liquefied soil when evaluating lateral loading
on a deep foundation?
• use a p-multiplier of 0.1 for loose sand
and 0.25 for dense sand (16%)
• use the equivalent fluid pressure of the
liquefied sand (19%)
• use a p-y curve for soft clay based on
the residual strength (26%)
• use the Rollins et al. (2005) liquefied
sand p-y curves (27%)
• other (12%)
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the subject survey, the following
conclusions are presented:
1. The state-of-practice is perceived to be
“somewhat” to “highly” non-uniform by a
majority of the survey respondents. This
illustrates the need for continued efforts to
develop greater consensus within engineering
practice for many of the issues included in this
synthesis.
2. The SPT and CPT are the two primary tools
for evaluating the site conditions for the design
and verification for ground improvement for
liquefaction mitigation.
3. A majority of the survey respondents use
an elevated ground water level or a ground
water level at the ground surface for their
liquefaction analysis. Such a practice is
expected to introduce conservatism because
unsaturated soil (even soil near saturation)
has a higher resistance to liquefaction than
saturated soil.
4. Almost one-third of the survey respondents
do not apply a minimum liquefied thickness
when performing liquefaction analysis. Such a
practice may introduce conservatism, especially
where liquefaction is isolated to one or a few
thin zones within the subsurface profile.
5. A performance-based design where the design
criteria are determined based on the tolerance(s)
of the proposed structure, is overwhelmingly
preferred. While two levels of design
performance were recognized (serviceability
and life safety), it was not clear which level
provides the basis of most designs.
6. Densification is the most implemented
primary mechanism for liquefaction mitigation
and is followed by reinforcement. Post-
improvement testing for densification projects
may involve significant judgment to consider
the effects of cementation associated with
aging, stress relaxation and lateral variation in
improvement.
7. While the owner’s consulting engineers
typically define the densification requirements,
it is the specialty contractor (and/or their
subconsultant) that is given the responsibilities
of design, implementation and verification of
the means and methods.
8. The application of reinforcement for
liquefaction mitigation relies on precedence
and judgment, as well as, the results of
numerical modeling. Research is in progress
to better define the efficacy of reinforcement
and to develop simplified design methods
(Nguyen et al., 2012; Rayamajhi et al., 2012.)
9. Drainage as the primary mechanism does not
appear to be widely implemented in the U.S.
Towhata (2008) reports that the installation
of drains for liquefaction mitigation has
experienced a decrease in Japan.
REFERENCES
1. Andrus, R.D. and Stokoe, K.H. II (2000)
“Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-
wave velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
126(11), pp. 1015-1025.
2. Arulmoli, K., Arulanandan, K., and Seed,
H.B. (1985) “New method for evaluating
liquefaction potential”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111
(1), pp. 95-114.
3. Baez, J.I. and Martin, G.R. (1993) “Advances
in the design of vibro systems for the
improvement of liquefaction resistance”,
Proceedings of the Symposium on Ground
Improvement, Vancouver Geotechnical
Society, B.C. Canada.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [21]
 4. Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2006)
“Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts
and clays”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(11), pp.
1413-1426.
5. Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B. (2006)
“Assessment of the liquefaction
susceptibility of fine-grained soils”, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132(9), pp. 1165-1177.
6. Charlie, W.A., Rwebyogo, M.F.J. and
Doehring, D.O. (1992) “Time-dependent
cone penetration resistance due to blasting”
7. Cox, B.R. (2012) Liquefaction lessons
learned from recent post-earthquake
reconnaissance, DFI State-of-the-Art Forum:
Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation,
St. Louis, MO.
8. Degen, W.S. (1998) Vibration Ground
Improvement, Vibroflotation AG,
Altendorf, 194 p.
9. Duke, C.M. and Leeds, D.J. (1963)
“Response of soils, foundations and earth
structures to the Chilean earthquake of
1960”, Bulletin Seismological Society of
America, 63(2).
10. Grantz, A., Plafker, G. and Kacherdoorian,
R. (1964) “Alaska’s Good Friday
Earthquake, March 27, 1964”, Geologic
Survey Circular 491, Department of the
Interior, Washington.
11. Hossain, M.A., Andrus, R.D. and Camp,
W.M. (2013) “Correcting liquefaction
resistance of unsaturated soil using wave
velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, in press.
12. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008)
“Soil liquefaction during earthquakes”,
Monograph MNO-12, EERI.
13. Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M. (1992)
“Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits
following liquefaction during earthquakes",
Soils and Foundations, 32(1), pp. 173-188.
14. International Code Council (2012)
International Building Code, 690 p.
[22] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
15. Japan National Committee on Earthquake
Engineering (1965) “Niigata Earthquake of
1964”, Proceedings, 3rd World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering.
16. Kavazanjian, E. Jr. (2012) Evaluation and
mitigation of liquefaction impacts: an
overview, DFI State-of-the-Art Forum:
Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation,
St. Louis, MO.
17. Kavazanjian, E. Jr., Wang, J-W., Martin,
G.R., Shamsabadi, A., Lam, P., Dickenson,
S.E., and Hung, C.J. (2011) LRFD Seismic
Analysis and Design of Transportation
Geotechnical Features and Structural
Foundations, Report No. FHWA-
NHI-11-032, 592 p.
18. Kayen, R.E. and Mitchell, J.K.
(1997) “Assessment of liquefaction
potential during earthquakes by Arias
Intensity”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(12),
pp. 1162-1174.
19. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell,
J.J.M (1997) Cone Penetration Testing in
Geotechnical Practice, Spon Press, 312 p.
20. Marsal, R.J. (1961) “Behavior of a sandy
uniform soil during the Jaltipan Earthquake,
Mexico”, Proceedings, 5th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Paris.
21. Martin, J.R. II and Olgun, C.G. (2008)
“Soil improvement for damage mitigation
along Izmit Bay during the 1999 Kocaeli
earthquake”, Geotechnical Engineering for
Disaster Mitigation and Rehabilitation.
22. Mejia, L.H. and Boulanger, R.W. (1995)
“A long term test of compaction grouting
for liquefaction mitigation”, Earthquake-
Induced Movements and Seismic
Remediation of Existing Foundations and
Abutments, ASCE, GSP No.55, 94-109.
23. Mesri, G., Feng, T.W. and Benak, J.M.
(1990) “Post-densification penetration
of clean sands”, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 116(7), pp. 1095-1115.
24. Mitchell, J.K. and Solymar, Z.V. (1984)
“Time-dependent strength gain in freshly
deposited or densified sand”, Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
104(GT7), pp. 995-1012.
25. Nguyen, T.V., Rayamajhi, D., Boulanger,
R.W., Ashford, S.A., Lu, J., Elgamal, A. and
Shao, L. (2012) “Effect of DSM grids on
shear stress distribution in liquefiable soil”,
Proceedings, Geo-Institute GeoCongress,
Oakland, pp. 1948-1957.
26. Okamura, M. and Soga, Y. (2006) “Effects
of pore fluid compressibility on liquefaction
resistance of partially saturated sand”, Soils
and Foundations, 46(5), pp. 695-700.
27. Olson, S.M. (2012) Lateral spreading during
liquefaction, DFI State-of-the-Art Forum:
Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation,
St. Louis, MO.
28. Olson, S.M. and Stark, T.D. (2002)
“Liquefied strength ratio from liquefaction
flow case histories”, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 39, pp. 629-647.
29. Onoue, A. (1988) “Diagrams considering
well resistance for designing spacing ratio of
gravel drains”, Soils and Foundations, 28(3),
160-168.
30. Pestana, J.M., Hunt, C.E. and Goughnour,
R.R. (1997) “FEQDrain: A finite element
computer program for the analysis of the
earthquake generation and dissipation of
pore water pressure in layered sand deposits
with vertical drains”, Report No. UCB/
EERC-97/15, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, College of Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley.
31. Peck, R.B. (1979) “Liquefaction potential:
science versus practice”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
105(GT3), pp. 393-398.
32. Rayamajhi, D., Nguyen, T.V., Ashford,
S.A., Boulanger, R.W., Lu, J., Elgamal,
A. and Shao, L. (2012) “Effect of discrete
columns on shear stress distribution in
liquefiable soil”, Proceedings, Geo-Institute
GeoCongress, Oakland, pp. 1948-1957.
33. Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1998)
“Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential
using the cone penetration test”, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 35, 442-459.
34. Rollins, K.M., Gerber, T.M., Lane, J.D. and
Ashford, S.A. (2005) “Lateral resistance
of a full-scale pile group in liquefied
sand”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(1), pp.
115-125.
35. Schmertmann, J.H. (1986) “CPT/DMT
QC of ground modification at a power
plant”, Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty
Conference, In Situ ’86: Use of In Situ Tests
in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg,
pp. 985-1001.
36. Seed, H.B. and Booker, J.R. (1977)
"Stabilization of Potentially Liquefiable Sand
Deposits Using Gravel Drains", Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT7, pp. 757-
768
37. Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F., Jr. (1990)
“SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure
generation and undrained residual strength”
in H.B. Seed Memorial Symposium, J.M.
Duncan, Editor, Bi-Tech Publishers Ltd,
Vancouver, Canada, Vol.2, pp. 351-376.
38. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1967) “Analysis
of soil liquefaction: Niigata Earthquake”,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 93(SM3),
pp. 83-108.
39. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971)
“Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential”, Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
97(SM9), pp. 1249-1273.
40. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I.
(1983) “Evaluation of liquefaction potential
using field performance data”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 109(3), pp. 458-
482.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [23]
 41. Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1965) “Studies
of the liquefaction of sands under cyclic
loading conditions”, Report No. TE-65-5
to the State of California Department of
Water Resources, University of California at
Berkeley, 46 p.
42. Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1966)
“Liquefaction of saturated sands during
cyclic loading”, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE,
92(SM6), pp. 105-134.
43. Shamato, Y., Sato, M. and Zhang, J-M.
(1996) “Simplified estimation of earthquake-
induced settlements in saturated sand
deposits”, Soils and Foundations, 36(1), pp.
39-50.
44. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. (1987)
“Evaluation of settlements in sands due
to earthquake shaking”, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
113(8), pp. 861-878.
45. Towhata, I. (2008) Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering, Springer Series in
Geomechanics and Geoengineering,
46. Whitman, R.V. (1971) “Resistance of soil
to liquefaction and settlement”, Soil and
Foundations, 11(4).
47. Youd, T.L. (2011) “Evaluation and
mitigation of liquefaction hazard”,
Geostrata, ASCE, 15(5), pp. 53-54.
48. Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M. and Bartlett, S.F.
(2002). “Revised multilinear regression
equations for prediction of lateral spread
displacement”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(12), pp.
1007-1017.
49. Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K. and Brachman,
R.W.I. (2002) “Estimating liquefaction-
induced ground settlements from CPT for
level ground", Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 39, pp. 1168-1180.
APPENDIX: INTERVIEWS
Interview with Mike Jefferies with Golder
Associates who co-authored with Ken Been
the book entitled “Soil Liquefaction: A critical
state approach” (2006) from CRC Press.
[24] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
(1) What are your reservations regarding the
use of numerical modeling in the design
of ground improvement for liquefaction
mitigation? Please elaborate.
The biggest reservation is the generic
classification “numerical modeling”, which
would seem to allow anybody to pick up a
standard package (Plaxis, Flac) with some
standard properties lifted from the user manual
to generate a result… “Garage In, Garbage
Out”.
In principle I am a great fan of numerical
modeling and think it will become the way
forward. But, when specifying “modeling”
it is also essential to add the following:
a) an appropriate stress strain model. you
can do a lot with standard Mohr Coulomb
provided that an appropriate dilation angle
is chosen and G = Gmax/3, but for many
ground improvement projects we will need
to go further and adopt a “good” stress
strain model that predicts how the proposed
improvement changes the soil stiffness and
strength. And the problem that you then run
into is that none of the standard numerical
codes used by engineers in practice have
such models as one of their “menu” choices.
So, you wind up with a decent numerical
model that actually requires a user defined
model where you code one of the “good”
models for yourself – predictably, rarely
done! Things will improve in the future
as the software developers pre-pack good
models into commercial codes, but even
then users will need to be aware of how
their, seemingly innocent, choice of model
impacts their results.
b) Relevant and reliable soil properties.
Too many times I have seen people
(both clients and fellow engineers) ask
for sophisticated finite element analysis
using SPT blowcounts as the basis of
soil properties; this is complete nonsense
and simply produces delusions about
adequacy. The very minimum is that
anything using numerical analysis must
have measured Gmax data as the starting
point for the analysis (at least we get the
 elastic response right, and Gmax/3 is not a
bad approximation for the secant modulus
to mobilized strength for many soils at
usual FS). This is actually not a big $$$
requirement, as geophysical methods to
assess Gmax are cheap and easy to do in
situ and ‘bender elements’ are becoming
readily available in commercial testing labs.
It is a matter of appropriate understanding
and attitude. How often do you see the
analyst reporting calibration of their
model to the soil behavior they are
trying to capture?
c) Validation studies have been done.
Although one might like to think (and
hope) that numerical modeling would be
formally correct, in reality there are ways of
setting up the problems, sorting out initial
conditions, and dealing with the loading
conditions that all affect the results. As
well as modeling in 2D when the works
are 3D… All of which means that the
procedures used need to be validated
against ‘case histories’. This validation
of modeling procedures is actually a
requirement in the European standard EN
1997 (Eurocode 7), but not often done by
the consulting firms I know.
If you put (a) – (c) together, you wind up with
my fear that simply giving numerical methods
as an allowable/desirable design approach
will allow all sort of bogus work to be put in
front of clients as good engineering. Done
well, numerical methods are a brilliant
technology to help us in what we do. But, they
are done badly 95% of the time (in my view)
and it would be better to not do them at all in
this situation.
(2) What future improvements do you consider
most important regarding the different
technical aspects related to ground
improvement for liquefaction mitigation -
liquefaction analysis, design, verification?
Please elaborate.
“None of the above”; the biggest problem I
see is intellectual dishonesty/incompetence in
academia where we have largely outsourced
all development – possibly a surprising view,
but it is detailed in my book! In reality,
liquefaction is not difficult to analyze, but
what is acceptable has been hijacked by one
faction (lets us be charitable and call them the
‘engineering geology view’) and they have the
support of the regulators. As engineers, we
can do much better than present practice but it
simply is not allowed.
On the bright side, I think the survey results
show a super-majority consensus on post-
treatment validation, and it would be easy to
pull an ASTM standard together on this issue.
The only real issue seems to be the degree of
post-treatment aging we include and how that is
assessed.
(3) What practices (either technical or non-
technical) by those involved - consultant,
designer, specialty contractor, owner
- do you consider problematic to the
consistency within the practice? Please
elaborate.
a) Continued use of the SPT. The test, and
its correction factors, are so variable that
even a single organization is challenged
in producing a uniform standard between
projects if they base their work on the SPT.
b) Uncertainty and/or lack of understanding
of how “fines content” affect liquefaction
susceptibility, leading to wildly inconsistent
engineering in anything other than clean
sand. And it is not the contractors or
owners who are the problem; academia is at
a loss and consultants seemingly take little
interest in challenging them.
c) Lack of best-practice guides. I’ve just been
part of a consensus guide to compaction
grouting, and really similar guides are
needed for dynamic compaction and vibro-
densification (in its various forms).
(4) Are you satisfied with the current
approach for considering liquefaction-
induced settlement and lateral spread?
Do you consider these estimates as relative
measures of liquefaction severity or actual/
accurate values? Please elaborate.
No! None of the approaches to settlement
are properly based on soil behavior (post
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [25]
 liquefaction settlement is a consolidation
problem requiring Cc as a basic input
parameter; any method without Cc as a soil
property is bogus mechanics). Similar
comments follow about lateral spreads with the
exception of Newmark’s method.
(5) Do you have any other comments
that haven't been covered by the survey
or this interview?
Could I suggest the compaction grout guide as
a prototype of what is needed across other areas
of the ground improvement industry?
Interview with Dr. Les Youd, Professor
Emeritus of Civil Engineering at Brigham
Young University.
(1) Do you have any reservations regarding
the use of numerical modeling in the
design of ground improvement for
liquefaction mitigation? Please elaborate.
I have major reservations on this issue.
Numerical modeling is only one of several
tools that should be applied by designers.
Over reliance on numerical modeling can lead
to nonsensical results because of imperfect
or inadequate models. With the present state
of practice, it is generally impossible to
construct accurate models of (1) subsurface soil
stratigraphy, (2) lateral and vertical variances
in stratigraphy, (3) soil properties, (4) variances
in soil properties in space and time, and (5)
imposed seismic loads in both space and time.
Numerical analyses are generally useful to
gain a rough perspective of expected results
and to perform parametric analyses to estimate
how the results might change with variations
in stratigraphy, soil properties, loading
assumptions, etc., but not as the sole basis
for design.
A more important tool, in my opinion,
is assessment of case histories of past
performance compiled from post-earthquake
investigations and successful or unsuccessful
similar projects. Empirical procedures
are generally applied in present practice;
these procedures were primarily developed
from analysis of case histories, and thus are
[26] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
grounded on observed actual performance.
Although past performance and empirical
techniques may not allow exact duplication of
site conditions and constraints for each project,
they usually provide realistic estimates as a
guide to the design engineer.
The third tool that should be applied is
engineering judgment. Expert guidance from
those with past earthquake experience and
from analysis and design should be sought
after to assure that sound engineering judgment
is applied on all critical ground modification
projects. Conversely, design of critical ground
modification projects should not be entrusted
to inexperienced engineers, although they may
have attained expert computer skills but with
little practical experience.
(2) What future improvements do you consider
most important regarding the different
technical aspects related to ground
improvement for liquefaction mitigation -
liquefaction analysis, design, verification?
Please elaborate.
I believe that much money has been wasted in
the past on mitigation to prevent liquefaction
from occurring, when the occurrence of
liquefaction would not lead to significant
damage. To avoid such waste, education
of the profession is needed to increase
understanding of the following key points
(extracted from a short paper I prepared for
the ASCE publication Geo-Strata (Youd,
September-October 2011, p. 53-54)). This
paper was written to increase this needed
understanding. “In analyzing liquefaction
the following fundamental questions should
be asked and appropriate answers and actions
determined: 1. Will liquefaction occur? If the
answer to this question is “no,” mitigation is
obviously not required. If the answer is “yes,”
the analysis proceeds to the second question: 2.
Will liquefaction lead to potentially damaging
ground deformations, displacements or ground
failure? If the answer is “no,” liquefaction will
not cause significant damage and the hazard
can be safely accepted without mitigation. If
the answer is “yes,” the analysis proceeds to the
third question: 3. What mitigative measures are
required to reduce the hazard to an acceptable
risk?” Only when this level of understanding
has been gained should the analysis proceed to
design of mitigation measures.
Verification of the effectiveness of ground
modifications has been a major issue for
several projects I have encountered. Additional
research, discussion and consensus building is
required to improve verification procedures for
use in engineering practice.
(3) What practices (either technical or non-
technical) by those involved - consultant,
designer, specialty contractor, owner - do
you consider problematic to the consistency
within the practice? Please elaborate.
Procedures for liquefaction hazard evaluation
and mitigation relies heavily upon empirical
procedures, which are generally based on
analyses of collected case histories and
performance assessments. Development
of empirical procedures usually occurs
through research and analyses by individual
investigators or teams of investigators; these
investigators or teams do not always (or seldom)
agree; thus development of empirical procedures
tends to be a messy and often chaotic process;
disagreements and disputes are common and
to be expected. Most of this chaos occurs at
the researcher and consultant levels. Because
of this chaos, practitioners and designers often
are confused or uncertain as to which expert
they should rely on or which procedure they
should follow. With time the chaos usually
calms as procedures are vetted or tested and
consensus builds. Sometimes professional
societies or other professional groups can
speed the process through workshops or expert
panels to develop consensus guidelines for
engineering practice. Such was the case with
the NCEER/NSF workshop I chaired in 1996
on evaluation of liquefaction resistance, which
developed consensus guidelines that calmed the
atmosphere for triggering evaluations for about
10 years. Groups such as DFI may assist by
organizing or supporting workshops or panels
of this type to build consensus and reduce chaos
and develop improved and more consistent
usage within the profession.
(4) Are you satisfied with the current approach
for considering liquefaction-induced
settlement and lateral spread? Do you
consider these estimates as relative
measures of liquefaction severity or actual/
accurate values? Please elaborate.
a) Lateral Spread: As an author of the
empirical MLR procedure, one of the more
widely used procedures for evaluating
lateral spread displacement, I feel that the
MLR procedure is a valid procedure if
applied within the limitations specified by
the authors (Youd et al 2002 from Journ
of Geotech and Geoenviron Engr, v. 128,
no 12, p. 1007-1017). This procedure
provides mean predicted values that are
demonstrated to be accurate within a factor
of plus or minus two if applied within the
specified limits. Extension beyond the
stated limits leads to greater uncertainty
of results. Because the MLR procedure is
empirical, it is not valid for all conditions
that may be encountered. In some instances
extrapolation using numerical procedures
may allow reasonable, but still uncertain,
results for a wider range of site conditions.
For example, inclusion of a deep foundation
for a bridge in a sediment cross-section to
be analyzed creates a condition beyond that
in the empirical database. The additional
influence of this bridge foundation could
be analyzed through numerical procedures.
An accuracy of plus or minus 2 may seem
too uncertain for engineering applications,
however, such uncertainties are common in
other geotechnical engineering calculations.
For example, similar uncertainty is
inherent in calculations of bearing capacity
and foundations settlement under static
conditions.
One of the greater sources of erroneous
results that I have encountered reviewing the
work of others using the MLR procedure is
insufficient geotechnical information. Often
analyses are made on the basis of one or
a few boreholes or soundings exacerbated
by an improper assumption that penetrated
soil layers are laterally homogeneous
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [27]
 and continuous across and beyond site
boundaries. If critical layers thin or pinch
out or important facies changes occur
within the layer, inaccurate to nonsensical
predicted displacements may be calculated.
Thus, I feel that adequately accurate tools
are available for calculation of lateral
spread displacements for many applications.
However, MLR and other empirical
procedures need to be verified and updated
as additional earthquakes occur and new
case histories are developed.
b) Ground Settlement: The same general
limitations apply to empirical procedures
for calculation of liquefaction-induced
ground settlement as for lateral spread.
However, the limitations for ground
settlement do not seem to be as well
defined as for lateral spread. For example,
most empirical settlement procedures
appear to be based on relatively clean sand
conditions. Limits on the procedure with
respect to silt and gravel contents do not
seem to be clearly defined. Thus, the
user must evaluate soil conditions at a site
in question, compare those conditions
against those implicit in the development
of the empirical procedure, and then
make an unspecified adjustment for
incompatible soil conditions. Such
adjustments increase the uncertainty of
the calculated settlements.
(5) Do you have any other comments that
haven't been covered by the survey or this
interview?
From reading the survey text and these
questions, difficulties faced by design engineers
appear to stem from one or more of the
following issues:
(1) lack of adequate communication between
researchers, expert consultants, analysts, and
designers;
(2) confusion within these same groups with
respect to which procedures should be
recommended for application in practice,
and;
[28] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
(3) lack of adequate research and verification
of procedures to answer many fundamental
questions.
DFI and other professional organizations
could play a major role in fostering
communication, supporting studies to
develop and verify procedures, education of
professionals at all levels, assisting profession
to identify unresolved issues, and assisting
in the development of support for research,
workshops and other means to resolve
important issues.
Interview with Ikuo Towhata, Professor of
Geotechnical Engineering at the University
of Tokyo and author of the “Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering” from Springer Series.
(1) Do you have any reservations regarding
the use of numerical modeling in the
design of ground improvement for
liquefaction mitigation? Please elaborate.
Everybody points out the shortcomings of the
use of numerical analysis in design. Those
shortcomings are caused by the complex stress-
strain-dilative behavior of soils, heterogeneous
subsoil conditions that cannot be fully
recorded by current soil investigations and
many others. Although those critical attitudes
are understandable, I feel that some critics
use those shortcomings as an excuse for not
challenging advanced (numerical) studies.
Recent desires towards seismic performance
design require approaches that can calculate
residual deformation of structures in place of
the conventional factor of safety. I would ask a
question whether or not the traditional
non-numerical approaches are more reliable and
more useful than the numerical approaches. The
traditional approaches often rely on empirical
knowledge and their use is certainly limited
within the range of available knowledge. It is
risky to apply them to totally new soil and load
conditions. Moreover, the traditional methods
cannot be applied to the behavior of complicated
underground structures that are subject to
liquefaction of soils around. In this regard, we
should not discriminate numerical methods.
They should be considered to be tools which
give us indices that help us assess the seismic
performance of structures to be designed.
Do not misunderstand that I am trying to
favor numerical methods. Good numerical
methods have to be associated with elaborate
but costly field / laboratory investigations. I
feel that many current projects do not allocate
reasonable budget to investigations, resulting
in unexpected difficulty during the later
construction stages. A small investigation
budget results in a great loss of money and time
during construction.
The attitudes of numerical people are also a
problem. They do not go to the site. They prefer
to stay in a comfortable office and 100% trust
documented data. They do not imagine that the
reality is more complicated than information
in paper.
Because my most interested field of study is
the assessment of liquefaction-induced large
displacement, I should make one more point
about numerical approaches. To my knowledge,
the constitutive models that are employed
in major computer codes were developed in
1970s and 80s when nobody cared that the
liquefaction-induced large deformation of
subsoil. Also, even today laboratory devices
cannot reproduce such large shear deformation
as 30%, 50%, or more. Laboratory tests after
the onset of liquefaction are not possible
because of segregation of water and sand grains
within a tested specimen. Therefore, those
constitutive models are not fully supported by
laboratory test data after onset of liquefaction
and development of large shear deformation.
In summary, I would propose to use both
simple traditional approaches and numerical
approaches and compare them prior to drawing
the final conclusion.
(2) What future improvements do you consider
most important regarding the different
technical aspects related to ground
improvement for liquefaction mitigation -
liquefaction analysis, design, verification?
Please elaborate.
After the M=9 gigantic earthquake in 2011,
I encountered a very difficult problem of soil
improvement. It was how to improve soil
(reduction of liquefaction vulnerability) under
existing houses with relatively low financial
burden to house owners.
The current solution is two-fold. For a frequent
design earthquake (return period being about 50
years), public and private funds are combined.
Liquefaction vulnerability is mitigated by either
constructing underground rigid walls under
streets and house-lot borders to constrain cyclic
shear deformation of soil, or pumping ground
water to lower the ground water level and to
create an unliquefiable soil crust. The former
has a limitation that the spacing of walls cannot
be very small because of existing houses at the
surface. The latter has a problem of possibly
triggering consolidation settlement in the
underlying thick soft clay.
Note further that house owners have to spend
their own money on soil improvement, if
they wish to do it, against a stronger design
earthquake with a return period of hundreds
of years. This is difficult and costly because
the ground surface is occupied by a house
and compaction or other traditional soil
improvement is not possible.
Soil improvement under existing structures
is further important for big industries as
well. This is because the intensity of design
earthquake tends to be increased and existing
old structures cannot satisfy the safety
requirement under newer regulations.
I suppose that the following kinds of soil
improvement are feasible under existing
structures; installation of drainage, compaction
grouting by good technicians, injection
of colloidal silica, and construction of
underground walls around the foundation
of houses. Noteworthy is that some
improvement methods cannot prevent the
onset of liquefaction but reduce the residual
deformation. Thus, methodology is necessary
to assess the residual deformation of subsoil
and surface structures (possibly by a numerical
method) and also to determine the allowable
extent of deformation.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [29]
 Gravel drains became less popular after the
1995 Kobe earthquake. This is because the
intensity of design earthquake was increased
and design calculation could not prove that
gravel drains under the stronger design
earthquake can still maintain the development
of excess pore water pressure less than 50%
of the full liquefaction. However, it is possible
that the columns of gravel drain maintain
some rigidity during a strong earthquake and
reinforce the stability and integrity of subsoil.
Further study is needed in this direction.
(3) What practices (either technical or non-
technical) by those involved - consultant,
designer, specialty contractor, owner
- do you consider problematic to the
consistency within the practice?
Please elaborate.
Owners try not to spend sufficient money
on subsoil investigation. Hence all the input
data for analysis have to be determined by
SPT-N only. Although liquefaction of fine-
grained soil is important, plasticity index is
hardly measured. Owners should understand
that they should allocate more money on
soil investigation so that they can avoid
unnecessary big expenditures on construction
and unnecessary liquefaction damage during
future earthquakes.
Some consultants do not want to visit sites.
They prefer to stay in the office and analyze
the supplied borehole data. For them, the
data on paper is the reality and they do not
want to experience the reality on site. One
reason for this situation is found in the
owners who do not pay sufficient money for
field activities. To accurately interpret bore
hole data, it is important for consultants to
have good knowledge of local soils and local
geological history as well as history of human
action on soils such as land reclamation and
consolidation settlement. Hence, it is possible
that a local experienced consultant is better
than an international famous consultant.
(4) Are you satisfied with the current
approach for considering liquefaction-
induced settlement and lateral spread? Do
you consider these estimates as relative
[30] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
measures of liquefaction severity or actual/
accurate values? Please elaborate.
My attitude towards numerical methods was
described already in (1). I do not think that
numerical methods are worse than simplified
and traditional factor-of-safety approach. All
the methods give us an index to assess the
performance of a designed structure.
Numerical methods can assess the lateral
displacement of liquefied subsoil with an
error of +- 50%. This is not too bad. The error
of non-numerical methods is most probably
similar.
Some people state that the Newmark rigid
block analogy is better than other methods
to assess the liquefaction-induced lateral
displacement. I would say that the use of the
Newmark method in liquefaction problem
is beyond the applicability of this method,
because Newmark intended to calculate the
movement of a "rigid block" subjected to
seismic action. Liquefied soil is never a rigid
block.
(5) Do you have any other comments
that haven't been covered by the survey
or this interview?
There are several methods of subsoil
investigation. In publications, I often encounter
such an article in which the author insists that
his device is able to determine all the required
soil data accurately. In reality, this is difficult.
Every method has good points and bad points.
I suggest that we should combine different
methods and get the best subsoil data. It is good
to interpolate a big spacing among SPT by
means of less expensive CPT or other device.
It is often stated that engineering judgment is
extremely important and that less experienced
engineers should not be trusted. Then it
becomes important how to produce the next
generation of experienced engineers. If a
young engineer is not trusted, he will never
become an experienced one. Moreover, the
engineering judgment is a kind of empiricism.
During the medieval time, technology relied
totally on empiricism. There was no systematic
education. Hence, the power of technology was
poor. This situation was changed drastically patience behind a “meister” is not necessary
during the time of modern technology and any more. It should be borne in mind that too
education because the problems were analyzed, much emphasis on empiricism will push things
interpreted, understood, and solved. Long back to the medieval time.

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [31]

 Grouted Micropiles for Foundation Remediation in
Expansive Soil (8th Michael W. O’Neill Lecture)
John D. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE., CEO and Principal Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering
Analytics, Inc., and Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA: 970-
488-3111, jnelson@enganalytics.com
Kuo-Chieh Chao, Ph.D., P.E., Vice President and Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering
Analytics, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, USA; 970-488-3111, gchao@enganalytics.com
Daniel D. Overton, M.S., P.E., President and Principal Geotechnical Engineering, Engineering
Analytics, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Zachary P. Fox, M.S., Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Analytics, Inc., Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA
Jesse S. Dunham-Friel, M.S., P.E., Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Analytics, Inc., Fort
Collins, Colorado, USA

ABSTRACT
Foundation underpinning is a common component of remediation schemes for distressed foundations
on expansive soils. For many applications in expansive soil, micropiles have distinct advantages
over other techniques. This paper will concentrate on the design and construction of micropiles in
expansive soil. It discusses the nature of building distress and the relationship between foundation
movement and soil heave. It presents methods for determining the factors that are required for
the design of micropiles. Such factors include calculation of expected free-field heave, depth of soil
wetting, and prediction of pier movement. A finite element program developed by the authors and
others to determine pier heave and internal forces is presented. The input parameters that are required
for pier analysis are discussed, and the nature of the output and the sensitivity of the results to the
output are described. A case example illustrates the advantages of micropiles over other methods.

INTRODUCTION performance of the micropiles also involves

Heave of expansive soils is a common cause of
differential movement of building foundations
resulting in structural distress. For foundations
constructed on soils consisting of highly
expansive clay, underpinning of the foundation
is the most reliable method of remediation.
Recently, micropiles have found increasing
use for underpinning, particularly in the Front
Range of Colorado because of the reliability
of the method and its ease of installation. The
drilling equipment for micropiles is easily
attached to existing foundations utilizing the
weight of the structure for reaction. This makes
the use of micropiles advantageous in places
such as crawlspaces, garages, basements, and
other confined areas.
Appropriate design of the micropiles involves
careful site investigation, calculation of
anticipated free-field heave, and then analysis
of the required micropile length. The successful
careful attention to detail during construction.
The following sections present examples of
the nature of distress caused by heave of
expansive soil and typical foundation types
that have been underpinned. They outline the
geotechnical engineering parameters that are
necessary for design and present methods for
analysis of the micropiles. The input parameters
required and methods of determination of these
parameters are discussed. Important aspects
of the construction are also discussed. A case
example is used to demonstrate the advantages
of micropiles in terms of ease of installation
and reliability.
FOUNDATION TYPES AND NATURE
OF DISTRESS
When highly expansive soils are encountered
on a given site, the most reliable foundation
type is a deep foundation consisting of drilled

[32] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

pier and grade beam systems. Drilled pier and
grade beam foundations isolate the structure
from the expansive soils by creating a void
space beneath the superstructure such that
only the shaft of the drilled pier is in contact
with the problematic soil. As will be discussed
in greater detail later, uplift forces acting on
the upper portion of a pier due to soil heave in
the active zone are resisted by the embedment
or anchorage zone below. Distress in pier and
grade beam foundations caused by expansive
soils is typically the result of differential pier
heave and manifests itself through cracking of
the pier and/or grade beam causing distortion
of the superstructure above. Fig. 1 shows a
grade beam that experienced diagonal cracking
due to pier heave. Fig. 2 shows a diagonal crack
in a 30 inch (762 mm) diameter drilled pier near
the intersection with the grade beam. In this
case lateral forces were also imposed on the
pier due to soil heave.
[FIG. 1] - Grade beam crack due to pier heave
[FIG. 2] - Diagonal crack in a 30 inch drilled pier
Associated with the pier and grade beam foun-
dation is a structural floor to isolate the floor
slab from the soil. Slab-on-grade basement
floors can experience large amounts of heave
that can also be transmitted to the superstruc-
ture above. Fig. 3 shows a scenario where sig-
nificant slab heave has necessitated the cutting
of the interior wall studs in the basement of a
residence to avoid lifting the first floor. Fig. 4
shows a “center lift” condition in a basement
slab-on-grade.
[FIG. 3] - Wall studs sawed off due to slab heave
[FIG. 4] - Differential heave of basement slab
Regardless of the foundation type, distress as-
sociated with expansive soils typically results in
significantly increased maintenance and repair
costs throughout the life cycle of the structure.
Additionally, differential movements result in
racked doors and windows which in addition
to inconvenience, may result in loss of emer-
gency egress. To remediate such distress and
losses of functionality, foundations are often
underpinned with structural elements such
as micropiles.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [33]
 DESIGN OF MICROPILES IN by the manner in which the CH parameter is
EXPANSIVE SOILS determined. It considers both the change in
suction due to wetting and the applied stress
Micropiles have been used to underpin
that is acting on the soil when it is wetted.
foundations since the early 1950s and they
are increasingly being used for underpinning The determination of CH is depicted in Fig. 5
foundations experiencing heave due to which is a three dimensional plot of the stress
expansive soils. Despite their increasing usage, paths followed during the inundation and heave
there is a lack of published literature regarding of a soil. In a conventional consolidation-swell
micropile design, installation, or performance in oedometer test, a sample of soil is consolidated
expansive soils. The following offers a method under an inundation stress, labelled as σ’i in
for analysis of the behavior of micropiles Fig. 5. The initial state of the soil under the
installed in expansive soils. inundation stress, σ’i, is represented by the
point labeled K. At that point the soil suction is
Heave Prediction
equal to some value labelled as hc1. The initial
Free-field heave is defined as the amount percent swell, εs%, at point K (and H) is equal to
of heave the ground surface will experience zero. When the sample is inundated, the suction
without
PILES IN EXPANSIVE any applied surface load. The
SOILS is reduced to ho and the soil swells along the
MICROPILES distribution
IN EXPANSIVEofSOILS
heave with depth is the primary path KB. The projection of that stress path on
data on which pier heave is calculated. the plane defined by the axes for εs% and log σ’
Therefore, a review of free-field heave is the line GB. The sample is then loaded back
calculations is presented below. to its original height along the path BA. The
Various heave prediction methods have been value of stress corresponding to point A is the
developed based on results of one-dimensional “consolidation-swell swelling pressure”, σ’cs.
oedometer tests (Fredlund et al. 1980; U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1983; Nelson and
Miller, 1992; Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993;
Fredlund et al. 2012). These methods utilize
the net mechanical stress, σ’ = (σ – ua), and
the matric suction, h = (ua - uw) as the stress
state variables. In these variables, σ is the total
stress and ua and uw are the pore air and pore
water pressures. The soil heave takes place as
the suction is decreased. These methods are
commonly referred to as “oedometer” methods.
The oedometer methods all use the same basic
equation for calculation of heave. The equation
for heave of a soil layer of thickness, ∆zi,
subjected to an applied stress, ∆σ’v, is [FIG. 5] - Stress Paths for Soil Expansion

ªσ vo' + Δσ v' º
ρ i = C H ⋅ Δzi log « » [1]
¬ σ cv
'
¼i
and the heave of the entire soil column is,
n
ρ = ¦ ρi
i =1
where: ρ = free-field heave; ∆zi = thickness of
each soil layer; σ’vo = overburden stress; ∆σ’v =
applied stress; σ’cv = constant-volume swelling
pressure, and CH = constitutive parameter.
The parameter CH defines the amount by which
a soil sample will swell when it becomes wetted.
The method presented here is characterized
In a conventional constant-volume oedometer
test, the sample is constrained from swelling
during inundation and the stress required
to prevent swell is determined. The initial
[2] point for this test is also point K but because
it is constrained from swelling it develops a
confining stress as the suction decreases to
ho and the stress path would be along a line
such as KE. The value of stress corresponding
to point E is the “constant volume swelling
pressure”, σ’cv. Due to hysteretic effects, the
value of σ’cv is generally less than that of σ’cs.
The reason for this is somewhat intuitive in that
it should be easier to prevent water molecules

[34] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

from entering into the soil lattice than to force
the water out once it has entered into the soil.
For an element of soil at some depth in the
ground, the initial stress conditions could be
at some point suchPaths
[FIG. 5] Stress as J.
forWhen that sample is
Soil Expansion
inundated it will swell along a stress path such
as JD. Point D will fall between points B and E.
Our experience and data has shown that the
line BDE is close to being a straight line (Justo
et al. 1984; Reichler, 1997; Nelson et al. 2006;
Fredlund et al. 2012). Thus, the slope of the
line BDE defines the constitutive relationship
between the percent swell, εs%, that a soil will
undergo, and the applied stress when it is
wetted. The slope of that line is CH.
It is important to note that, as shown in Fig. 5,
the line BDE which defines CH represents the
expansion, or heave, that will occur due
to suction changes under different values
of applied stress. Thus, it is a constitutive
relationship that incorporates both of the
independent stress state variables, σ’ and (ua –
uw), for use in computing heave.
Fig. 6 shows the projection of the stress paths
shown in Fig. 5 onto the εs% and log σ’ plane.
The results of both consolidation-swell test and
constant-volume test are shown as the lines
GBA and GFE, respectively.
The heave index, CH, is the slope of the line BDE
in Fig. 6 and is equal to:
ε contents in the soil have increased since
C = s%
H § ı' · the time of construction, and the expansion
[3]
100 × log ¨ cv ¸ potential of the various soil strata. As water
¨¨ ' ¸¸
ı
© i ¹
where εs% is the percent swell corresponding to
σ’i expressed as a percent, and σ’i is the vertical
stress at which the sample is inundated.
[FIG. 6] - Determination of Heave Index, CH
The value of CH can be determined from the
results of a consolidation-swell test and a
constant volume test using identical samples of
the same soil. However, in practice it is virtually
impossible to obtain two identical samples from
the field. Therefore, it is convenient to utilize
a relationship between σ’cs and σ’cv so that CH
can be determined from a single consolidation-
swell test. On the basis of data that has
been assembled from a number
[FIG. 6] Determination of Cdifferent
of Heave Index, H
sources, it was found that experimental data
corresponded well to Equations 4a and 4b.
The authors have found that for use in the
Front Range area of Colorado a value of λl of
0.6 is reasonable when Equation 4a is used
or a value of λa of 0.3 is reasonable when
Equation 4b is used. However, for application
of these equations to other soil types, it would
be prudent to perform tests to determine an
appropriate value for the soil being considered
(Nelson et al. 2012a).
σ cs'
logı = logσ + λl (log ' )
'
cv i
'
[4a]
σi
ı 'cv = σ i' + λa (σ cs' − σ i' ) [4b]
Zone of Soil Contributing to Heave
The depth of soil that is contributing to heave
at a particular point in time depends on two
factors. These are the depth to which water
migrates through a soil profile different strata
become wetted, some of which may have more
swell potential than others. Consequently, the
zone of soil that is contributing to heave varies
with time.
The amount of heave that will occur at a
particular time depends on the manner in
which the groundwater migrates in the soil and
the expansion potential of the soil at depth.
Movement of the soil surface will begin almost
immediately after construction, whereas some
time will be required for the soil at deeper
depths to become wetted. Thus, the surface of
the soil will begin to heave almost immediately,
but movement of piers will be delayed,
sometimes by several years.
The term “active zone” has been in common
usage in the field of expansive soils. However,
the usage of that term has taken different
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [35]
 meanings at different times and in different
places. Therefore, for purposes of clarity and
consistency, the following definitions have been
put forth (Nelson et al. 2001).
Active Zone, ZA, is that zone of soil that is
contributing to heave due to soil expansion at a
particular point in time.
Zone of Seasonal Moisture Fluctuation, Zs, is
that zone of soil in which water contents change
seasonally due to climate changes.
Zone of Wetting, Zw, is that zone in which
water contents have increased beyond the pre-
construction conditions.
Depth of Potential Heave, Zp, is the depth to
which the overburden vertical stress equals or
exceeds the swelling pressure of the soil. This
represents the maximum depth of Active Zone
that could occur.
Design Active Zone, ZAD, is the zone of soil
that is expected to become wetted during the
design life of the structure. It may be less than
the depth of potential heave if the entire depth
of potential heave is not expected to become
wetted. If water migration analyses are not
performed and if the depth of potential heave is
of reasonable value for design, it is prudent to
assume the depth of the design active zone is
equal to the depth of potential heave.
Construction of buildings and pavements in
arid regions typically results in a reduction of
evapotranspiration from the soil. Additionally,
the introduction of irrigation typically exceeds
the evapotranspiration of the vegetation.
These factors as well as others result in
the development of a wetting front that
progresses downward in the soil. Above the
wetting front, the soil may be saturated or
unsaturated. The difference in soil suction
between the wetter and drier zones will result
in downward flow of water, and the wetting
front will continue to move downward until
an impermeable boundary or a water table is
reached (McWhorter and Nelson, 1979). Once
a low permeability boundary is reached by the
wetting front, a perched water table will be
formed. Full wetting of the soil profile would
be expected to occur if the soil above the
wetting front is saturated and the wetting front
advances to below the depth of potential heave.
If full wetting is not expected to occur, analyses
should be conducted to determine the water
content profile at the end of the design life.
[36] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
Pier Heave Calculations
The simplest method used to design piers
in expansive soil is termed the “Rigid Pier”
method. This method assumes that the pier will
not move and determines a required pier length
by equating the negative, or downward, skin
friction below the depth of the design active
zone, plus the dead load, to the uplift pressures
exerted on the pier by the swelling soil. Chen
(1965), O’Neill (1988), and Nelson and Miller
(1992) present methods for rigid pier analysis
in expansive soil. Rigid pier design generally
produces conservative pier lengths for a light
structure founded on a deep deposit of highly
expansive soil. The rigid pier design works well
if the stratum of expansive soil is not thick and
is underlain by a stable non-expansive stratum.
However, in a deep deposit of expansive soil,
the design rigid pier length is generally not
practical for a light structure.
In reality almost all structures are able to
tolerate some amount of pier heave. The
amount of tolerable heave to be used for
design depends on the nature of the structure.
Methods of analysis of pier heave were
developed by Poulos and Davis (1980) and were
adapted by Nelson and Miller (1992) to develop
design charts for calculating pier heave. This
method is termed the “Elastic Pier” method.
The elastic pier method calculates the pier
heave assuming the pier is a stiff inclusion in
an elastic half space. The elastic pier method
presented in Nelson and Miller (1992) was
developed for piers with uniform properties
installed in a uniform soil profile. Additionally,
the elastic pier analysis formulation breaks
down when the length to diameter ratio
becomes too great. Micropiles typically have
non-uniform properties with depth, are often
installed in non-uniform soil profiles, and have
large length to diameter ratios. Therefore,
the elastic pier method is not well suited for
their analysis.
Finite element approaches to pier analyses
provide versatility to consider such details as
non-uniform soil or pier interface properties
with depth and large length to diameter ratios.
Nelson et al. (2012b) presents one such finite
element based numerical analysis approach
termed APEX for Analysis of Piers in EXpansive
Soils. This finite element based approach is
discussed below.
APEX Formulation
The APEX formulation is discussed in detail in
Nelson et al. (2012b) and is briefly summarized
below. Swell is assumed to be isotropic and
it is simulated using conventional analyses
of thermal strains in solids. The constitutive
equations are as follows:

1
ε rr = ª σ rr − ν (σ θθ + σ zz ) º¼ + ε iso [5]
E ¬

1
ε θθ = ª σ θθ − ν (σ zz + σ rr ) º¼ + ε iso [6]
E ¬ [FIG. 7] - Boundary Conditions: (a) Soil Boundary, (b)
Mixed Boundary (after Nelson et al. 2012b)
1
ε zz = ªσ zz − ν (σ rr + σ θθ ) º¼ + ε iso [7]
E ¬
where: εiso = isotropic swelling strain; and εrr,
εθθ, εzz = components of stress and strain in
cylindrical coordinates. The pier-soil interface is
accounted for with a mixed boundary condition.
The mixed boundary condition is shown in
Fig. 7 and can be written as follows:

(
Ft = k H p − U t ) [8]

where: Ft = nodal force tangent to pier; Hp =

pier heave; Ut = nodal displacement tangent to
pier; and k = parameter used to adjust shear
stress, which serve a purpose similar to a
spring constant.
Fig. 8 depicts the manner in which APEX
calculates pier heave. The pier is modeled as a
rigid body connected to an elastic, expansive
medium by springs with a spring constant k.
Fig. 8a illustrates the conditions before swell
takes place when there are no uplift forces on
the pier. Fig. 8b illustrates the conditions after
swelling takes place but before any pier heave,
when the shear forces exerted on the pier result
in an upward force on the pier. At this point the
pier is not in equilibrium, and the pier is then
allowed to move up until forces are balanced.
Fig. 8c illustrates the condition after forces are
balanced and the pier is in equilibrium.
The APEX formulation allows for movement
between the pier and the expansive soil
mass by either slip between the pier-to-soil
interface or failure of the soil adjacent to the
pier. The slip and soil failure mechanisms are
calculated at each iteration to evaluate which
condition governs.
[FIG. 8] - Schematic of pier and soil interface: (a) initial-
no force on pier, (b) soil heave-upward force on pier, (c)
pier heave-resultant force on pier is zero (after Nelson et
al. 2012b)
Input Parameters for APEX
The soil and heave profiles are the primary
input parameters used in the APEX analysis.
Detailed and accurate characterization of the
soil profile to the full depth to which the soil
will influence the behavior of the piers is a
critical element of pier design. If the depth of
exploration is too shallow, or if an insufficient
number of samples are collected and tested,
variations in the soil profile will not be detected.
Fig. 9 shows two examples of soil profiles.
Fig. 9a illustrates a simplified soil profile
where one relatively uniform expansive soil
such as clay or claystone is encountered to
the full depth of exploration. In this case the
incremental heave is high at the surface and
decreases exponentially with depth to the depth
of potential heave. Relatively uniform soil

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [37]

 [FIG. 9] - Examples of soil and heave profiles: (a) uniform expansive soil and (b) complex soil profile
profiles such as that shown in Fig. 9a are rarely
encountered in the field. Instead it is typical
to encounter multiple soil layers with varying
expansion potential such as in the profile
shown in Fig. 9b. Fig. 9b illustrates a complex
soil profile which is typical of many expansive
soil sites in the Front Range Area of Colorado.
The soil profile shown in Fig. 9b has multiple
layers with varying expansion potential.
Accurate analysis of pier heave constructed
in complex soil profiles such as that requires
a detailed analysis which can account for the
variations in heave with depth. Incremental
free-field heave computed for such profiles
is the most important input parameter in the
APEX analysis. The free-field heave profile can
be determined by predicting heave versus depth
as discussed in the above sections.
The primary elastic input properties used in
APEX analysis are the Young’s modulus (E),
Poisson’s ratio (ν), and coefficient of lateral
stress (Ko). The sensitivity of the analysis to
those parameters is discussed in detail in
Nelson et al. (2012b).
Example calculations performed by Nelson et
al. (2012b) have demonstrated that changes
to the interface friction parameters, α, do
not substantially affect the calculated pier
heave but do have a significant impact on the
tensile force in the pier when the frictional
interface is uniform with depth. However, if
[38] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
the upper portion of the micropiles installed
in expansive soils is sleeved with PVC, the
frictional properties for each part require
accurate determination of the value for α with
depth along the micropile. The APEX analysis
developed by the authors and others allows for
α to be changed with depth in order to allow
for accurate representation of the frictional
properties at all locations along the micropile.
The frictional interfaces that typically occur
during the construction of micropiles in
expansive soils are soil to grout, grout to
PVC, and PVC to soil as is discussed in Schaut
et al. (2011). The values of α presented in
the literature for a concrete to soil interface
generally range from 0.1 to 0.25 (Chen, 1988;
O’Neill, 1988; Sorochan, 1991; Nelson and
Miller, 1992). However, field test results
presented by Benvenga (2005) indicate that α
generally ranges from about 0.4 to 0.6 and can
be as high as 0.9. Schaut et al. (2011) completed
testing on the soil to grout interface as well
as the grout to PVC and PVC to soil interfaces
using typical micropile construction materials
and claystone soil from the Front Range Area of
Colorado. The results of this research indicate
that the value of α depends on the method of
testing, whether the soil is remolded and what
the water content of the soil is during testing.
It was shown that PVC casing reduces the
frictional resistance along the cased section of
the micropile.
Output Results from APEX
Typical APEX input and output for a soil profile is presented on Fig. 10. Fig. 10a shows the heave
profile input into the APEX program. Fig. 10b shows the distribution of slip along the pier. This figure
indicates that for this case, slip was the failure mechanism along the entire length of the pier and
therefore soil failure was not experienced. Fig. 10c shows the distribution of shear stress along the
pier with positive shear stresses in the anchorage zone and negative shear stresses in the uplift zone.
Fig. 10d shows the axial force in the pier with the maximum value occuring at the interface between
the uplift and anchorage zones.

[FIG. 10] - Typical output from APEX Program: (a) cumulative heave used as input, (b) variation of slip along pier, (c) shear
stress distribution along pier, (d) axial force distribution (after Nelson et al. 2012a)

Pier Design Chart portion of the micropile is cased with a PVC

An example of a pier design chart that was
derived using the results of APEX analyses is
shown in Fig. 11. Design charts of this nature
can be developed using APEX and can be used
to design micropiles. EA is the modulus of
elasticity of the soil in bars.
sleeve while the bottom portion has grout in
direct contact with the soil. Depending on the
method of construction and the fit between the
PVC casing and the drilled hole, grout can flow
up in the annulus between the PVC and the side
of the hole as shown on Fig. 12. An all thread
bar is typically used to reinforce the micropile
and provide a means for attachment to the
foundation.

[FIG. 11] - Pier heave versus pier length - nonlinear free-

field heave (after Nelson et al. 2012a)

MICROPILE TYPES AND TYPICAL

CONSTRUCTION IN EXPANSIVE
SOIL
Micropiles have been classified into different
types based on construction technique (FHWA,
2005 and AASHTO, 2012). A typical micropile
[FIG. 12] - Schematic of typical micropile in expansive soil
installed in expansive soil has a configuration (after Schaut et al. 2011)
similar to that shown in Fig. 12. The upper

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [39]

 Micropiles used in expansive soils typically
consist of drilling a 4 to 6 inch (102 to 152 mm)
hole using a hydraulic drill rig that mounts
to the foundation as shown in Fig. 13. After
drilling, casing made of rigid PVC pipe or other
material is placed in the open hole in order to
reduce the friction between the micropile and
the surrounding expansive soil. Fig. 14 shows
PVC casing placed in the drilled hole prior to
grout placement. Micropiles are typically tremie
grouted from the bottom of the hole which
often allows the grout to flow up the inside
of the PVC casing as well as into the annulus
between the side of the hole and casing as
discussed in Schaut et al. (2011). Soil swelling or
worn cutting teeth on the auger bit may restrict
flow of grout into the annulus between the soil
and the casing. Fig. 15 shows a micropile during
tremie grouting. After curing of the grout, the
micropile is then connected to the bracket.
[FIG. 13] - Micropile drill rig bolted to grade beam
foundation
[FIG. 14] - Micropile prior to grouting with annulus
around the outside of casing
[40] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
[FIG. 15] - Micropile during grouting. Note that the grout
is tremied into the hole
CASE EXAMPLE
An interesting case example regarding the use
of grouted micropiles in the remediation of
distressed structures is the case of a single
family home originally constructed on spread
footings in Loveland, Colorado during the
summer of 1995. After the original homeowners
reported evidence of structural distress, local
geotechnical and structural engineering firms
were hired to investigate potential causes.
Results of their investigations indicated
that differential movement of the expansive
soils beneath the residence had resulted in
the basement and garage slabs being up to
7.0 in (178 mm) out of level, respectively. The
respective reports recommended underpinning
of the residence and a number of alternative
underpinning methods were proposed including
helical piers, push-pins, straight shaft piers
and micropiles. A combination of steel push
pins and helical piers were ultimately used to
underpin the residence during the winter of
2001. The push pins and helical piers were
recommended to be installed to a minimum
depth of 30 ft (9 m). In 2010, continuing
structural distress was observed by the
homeowners and measured by performing
inverted joist level surveys of the basement and
garage. Figs. 16 and 17 illustrate some of the
observed distress to the residence in 2010 after
the initial underpinning.

[FIG. 16] - Diagonal Brick Cracking
[FIG. 17] - Diagonal Drywall Cracking
The lack of as-built information regarding
the installation of the steel push-pins and the
nature of the distress caused suspicion that the
push-pins may not have been installed to the
depths specified. To investigate, a geophysical
survey was conducted by Zonge International,
Inc. using a magnetic difference meter and a
conductivity meter. In order to conduct the
survey, a micropile drill rig was used to drill
4-in (102 mm) diameter holes to a depth of
35 ft (10.7 m) adjacent to three existing push-
pins and one helical pier. The boreholes were
cased with PVC pipe and the geophysical meters
were inserted into the boreholes allowing
data collection along the entire length of the
boreholes. Fig. 18 shows the magnetometer/
conductivity probe with the PVC-cased borehole
in the background. Results of the geophysical
survey clearly showed that the depth of the
push-pin piers and helical piers ranged from
9 to 21 ft (2.7 to 6.4 m), significantly less than
the depth specified. Due to the very hard state
of the claystone beneath the residence it was
not possible to install the push-pins and helical
piers to the depths specified. The micropile
drill rig used in this investigation was secured
to the foundation in order to drill in the
hard claystone. The fact that the exploratory
holes for the geophysical testing were drilled
to a depth of 35 ft (10.7 m) using micropile
technology shows that grouted micropiles could
have been drilled and installed to the depths
specified in the underpinning plans. In contrast,
push pins and helical piers had not been able to
be successfully installed to the depths specified,
thereby significantly reducing their ability to
resist uplift caused by heave of the expansive
soils. This case study demonstrates the
advantage of micropiles as compared to other
underpinning options for use in hard expansive
soil conditions.
[FIG. 18] - Magnetic Gradiometer, Testing Apparatus and
Cased Hole
CONCLUSIONS
The authors offer the following conclusions
regarding the use of grouted micropiles for
underpinning of foundations on expansive soils.
• Grouted micropiles began to find substantial
use in the United States as far back as the
1970s. Since that time they have been used
for a wide variety of applications including
use as a structural element to underpin
foundations constructed on expansive soils.
• The design of grouted micropiles in
expansive soils is complex due to the use of
low friction casing, large length to diameter
ratios and typically complex soil and
wetting profiles. The use of finite element
based solutions can be used to model pier
heave and tensile force if the free field
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [41]
 heave and other input parameters are
determined accurately.
• The depth and degree of wetting must
be accurately determined for use in a
formulation such as APEX to predict pier
heave and tensile force in micropiles
installed in expansive soil.
• Micropiles have distinct advantages as
compared to alternative methods for
underpinning of foundations on expansive
soils. These advantages include ease of
construction, ability to use the foundation
as a reaction block on which to secure
drilling equipment, ability to be installed
in confined spaces and ability to be
advanced to a specified design depth in stiff
expansive soil.
REFERENCES
1. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012.
Design specifications customary U.S. units.
Publication Code LRFDUS-6.
2. Benvenga, M. M., 2005. "Pier-soil adhesion
factor for drilled shaft piers in expansive
soil", Master’s Thesis, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
3. Chen, F. H., 1965. "The use of piers
to prevent the uplift of lightly loaded
structures founded on expansive soils",
Proceedings of the International Conference
on Expansive Soils, College Station, Texas.
4. Chen, F. H., 1988. Foundations on expansive
soils. Elsevier. New York, NY.
5. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
2005. Micropile design and construction
reference manual. Publication No. NHI-05-
039, NHI Course No. 132078, U.S. Dept. of
Transportation. December.
6. Fredlund, D. G. and Rahardjo, H., 1993. Soil
mechanics for unsaturated soils. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
7. Fredlund, D. G., Hasan, J. U., and Filson,
H., 1980. "The prediction of total heave",
Proceedings 4th International Conference on
Expansive Soils, Denver, Colorado, June 16-
18, pp. 1-11.
[42] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
8. Fredlund, D. G., Rahardjo, H., and Fredlund,
M. D., 2012. Unsaturated soil mechanics in
engineering practice. John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
9. Justo, J. L., Saura, J., Rodriguez, J. E.,
Delgado, A., and Jaramillo, A., 1984. "A finite
element method to design and calculate
pier foundations in expansive-collapsing
soils", Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Expansive Soils, Adelaide,
Australia, pp. 199-123.
10. McWhorter, D. B. and Nelson, J. D., 1979.
"Unsaturated flow beneath tailings
impoundments", Journal. Geotechnical and
Engineering Division, ASCE, November, Vol.
105(GT11), pp. 1317-1334.
11. Nelson, J. D. and Miller, D. J., 1992.
Expansive soils: problems and practice in
foundation and pavement design. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
12. Nelson, J. D., Chao, K. C., Overton, D. D., and
Schaut, R. W., 2012a. "Calculation of heave
of deep pier foundations", Geotechnical
Engineering Journal of the Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Society and Association of
Geotechnical Societies in Southeast Asia, Vol.
43, No. 1, pp. 12-25.
13. Nelson, J. D., Overton, D. D., and Durkee, D.
B., 2001. "Depth of wetting and the active
zone", Proceedings of the Geo-Institute
Shallow Foundation and Soil Properties
Committee Sessions at the ASCE Civil
Engineering Conference 2001, Houston,
Texas, October 10-13, in “Expansive Clay
Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow
Foundations” ed. C. Vipulanandan, M.B.
Addison, and M. Hansen, GSP115, pp. 95-
109.
14. Nelson, J. D., Reichler, D. K., and Cumbers, J.
M., 2006. "Parameters for heave prediction
by oedometer tests", Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Unsaturated
Soils. Carefree, Arizona. April, GSP 147, pp.
951-961.
15. Nelson, J. D., Thompson, E. G., Schaut, R. W.,
Chao, K. C., Overton, D. D., and Dunham-
Friel, J. S., 2012b. "Design considerations
for piers in expansive soils", Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 138, No. 8, pp. 945-
956.
16. O’Neill, M. W., 1988. "Special topics
in foundations", Proceedings of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division National
Convention, ASCE, Nashville, Tennessee, pp.
1-22.
17. Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H., 1980. Pile
foundation analysis and design. John Wiley,
New York, NY.
18. Reichler, D. K., 1997. "Investigation of
variation in swelling pressure values for an
expansive soil", Master’s Thesis, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
19. Schaut, R. W., Nelson, J. D., Overton,
D. D., Carraro, J. A. H., and Fox, Z. P.,
2011. "Interface testing for the design of
micropiles in expansive soils", Proceedings
of the 36th Annual Conference on Deep
Foundations, Boston, MA, Oct 18-21, Deep
Foundations Institute.
20. Sorochan, E. A., 1991. Construction of
buildings on expansive soils. A.A. Balkema
Publishers, Brookfield, VT.
21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1983.
Technical manual TM 5-818-7, foundations
in expansive soils. Washington, DC.,
September 1.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [43]
 Relationship between Installation Torque and Axial
Capacities of Helical Piles in Cohesive Soils
Mohammed Sakr, PhD., P.Eng, Manager, Geotechnical Engineering, Vertex, Sherwood Park, AB
Canada; Ph: (780) 920-0652; mohammed.sakr2011@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The empirical relationship between torque measured during installation and pile capacity has gained
a wide acceptance in the helical pile industry in the last few decades. This paper presents a theoretical
model developed to estimate torsional resistance of cohesive soils to helical pile installation. The
proposed torsional resistance model was then used to establish torque factor, Kt, a factor that is widely
used in the industry. The results of the study indicated that the Kt factor is a function of the load path
(i.e. tension or compression), pile geometry and soil properties. The assessed Kt factors in tension
and compression were validated by the results of 74 installation records and full-scale helical pile
load tests. A parametric study was also performed to qualitatively assess the relative importance of
different parameters that affect the Kt factors.

INTRODUCTION of helical piles under compressive loads or for

Empirical relationship between measured
torque during installation and helical pile
capacity is widely used in the industry in North
America especially for small-size helical piles.
The empirical relationship can be expressed
as (Hoyt and Clemence, 1989; Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM) 2006,
Perko 2009).
Qt = KtT [1]
where
Qt = ultimate capacity of screw pile;
Kt = empirical factor; and
T = average installation torque.
Torque-load correlation factors, Kt, were
statistically established based on a large
database, and the method has been used
successfully in the installation of thousands of
piles and anchors over the past two decades, as
indicated by Hoyt et al. (1995). However, the
obtained Kt values did not differentiate between
compression and tension loading. For example,
Hoyt and Clemence proposed a Kt factor equal
to 9.8 m-1 (32.2 ft-1) for 89 mm (3.5 in) diameter
round shaft helical piles regardless of load
path (i.e. compression or tension). The Kt
values published in literature and adapted in
the Canadian Engineering Foundation Manual
(CFEM; 2006) were mainly based on the results
of pullout (tension) tests for small diameter
piles. Therefore, the available Kt values may be
not suitable for estimating the axial capacities
large diameter helical piles.
Perko (2001) proposed a correlation between
installation torque and pile capacity based
on an energy model similar to that model for
driven piles. However, the main limitation to
the energy model is that it requires numerous
parameters, some of which are not easily
measurable during pile installation.
Perko (2009) proposed another empirical
relationship between Kt and effective
shaft diameter (deff) based on exponential
regression analysis of over 300 load tests in
both compression and tension. The empirical
equation can be expressed as:
λk
Kt = 0.92 [2]
d eff
where
λ k = fitting factor equal to 1433 mm0.92/m
deff = shaft diameter for round shaft, mm.
It should be noted that in Eqn. 2, torque factor
is inversely proportional to pile shaft diameter.
However, the main limitations to Eqn. 2 are the
lack of explanation of the physical meaning
of fitting factor and the estimated Kt values in
compression and tension were identical.
Despite the effort over decades to empirically
correlate between installation torque and pile
capacity, a comprehensive relationship has not
been attainable. Moreover, some practitioners

[44] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

have misgivings about determining the capacity
of helical piles using only torque measurements,
without taking into consideration geotechnical
parameters (Cannon, 2000). There are a number
of factors that affect installation torque such
as pile configuration, soil conditions, operator
skill level, and accuracy of measurements. Pile
configuration such as shaft size and shape,
number of helices, diameter of helix, and pitch
size are some parameters that affect torque
measurements. The presence of cobbles or
boulders during installation results in a sharp
rise in torque values, which is not necessarily
an indication of better soil conditions. The use
of empirical torque correlations is viewed with
reservation by some engineers, who see the
dependency of the procedure adopted by the
installer on the results (Beim and Luna, 2012).
Installation procedures such as applying down-
pressure (crowd) on the pile, use of predrilling
process and speed of rotary head are other
factors that impact torque measurements.
[FIG. 1] Typical Helical Pile Installation
Methods of measuring torque using either a
differential hydraulic pressure measured using
mechanical devices or using an electronic load installation, operator experience, and accuracy
cell attached to the pile head may also impact of measurements. Pile configuration such as
the torque measurements. The frequency of shaft diameter, shape of pile shaft, number of
calibrating torque measurement devices is helices, diameter of the helices, and pitch are
another parameter that affects the quality and measurable values and can be included in the
reliability of torque measurements. theoretical torque model. Soil conditions and
groundwater level have a considerable effect
The main objective of the paper is to propose on pile installation and can be reasonably
a comprehensive theoretical model to estimate evaluated at the geotechnical investigation
torque factors for helical piles installed into stage. However, there are other non-measurable
cohesive soils. The proposed torque factors parameters that affect measured torque values
can be used to assess torque requirements for such as installation procedure, method of
selecting the suitable equipment for installation. torque measurements, and accuracy of torque
They can be also used as a quality control measuring devices. Methods of installation
measure for production piles to accept or reject are highly dependent on the manufacturer’s
installed piles. Moreover, the proposed torque installation specifications, availability of
factors can be used to approximately assess equipment, operators’ experience, and speed of
axial pile capacities in tension and compression. installation. The accuracy of measuring torque
Other objectives of the study are to evaluate the devices depends on the method used for torque
effect of different parameters on torque factors, reading, such as differential pressures or using
Kt and to assess their relative importance. strain gauges at pile head. The reliability of
torque measurements depends on the frequency
THEORETICAL MODEL of equipment calibration. These factors are
Helical piles are typically installed through the difficult to quantify and do not affect the
use of mechanical torque applied at the pile torsional resistance of soils to pile installation,
head with a rotary hydraulic head. Fig. 1 shows but they adversely affect the measurements
a typical installation of helical piles. Torque of torque values. Therefore, installation
measured during pile installation is a function procedures and quality of measurements will
of numerous factors that includes pile not be considered for the development of a
configuration, soil conditions, method of theoretical torque model.

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [45]

 The theoretical model assumes that the
exerted torque during helical pile installation
into cohesive soils is resisted by torsional
shear along the pile shaft and torsional shear
along the helices, as shown in Fig. 2. The
main assumptions that are considered for the
development of the proposed torque model
include the following:
1. Down pressure force (crowd) applied on the
pile during installation is neglected.
2. Torsional shear along the pile shaft is equal
to axial unit shaft friction.
3. The soil layer is assumed to be a
homogenous layer that extends to infinite
depth.
4. Resisting torque during pile installation
is independent of the speed of the robust
hydraulic head.
5. The pile is advanced into the soil at a [FIG. 2] Torsional Moments during Pile Installation

constant penetration rate equal to the pitch,

and soil disturbance is minimal.
6. Helices are a true spiral shape, and their
projected area is equal to the size of a disk
with a diameter equal to the helix diameter.
Therefore, the exerted torque during pile
installation may be given by the following
expression:
N 2
T = Ts + ∑ Thi
1
where:
Ts = torsional moment acting on pile shaft,
(kN.m)
Thi = torsional moment acting on helix i, (kN.m)
N = number of helices
In the present model, the torsional resisting
moment of the pile shaft is a function of
the shaft resistance and can be given by the
following equation:
where:
L = embedded pile length, (m)
fs = unit shaft friction, (kPa).
Therefore, the torsional resistance of pile shaft
to installation can be given by:
πd 2 Lf s
Ts = [6]
[3]
Eqn. 6 assumes that the torsional stress on the
pile-soil interface reaches a limiting value equal
to the pile-soil unit shaft friction (Basile, 2010).
The unit shaft friction for piles installed in
cohesive soils can be given from the following
equation (CFEM 2006):
f s = αCur [7]
where:
α = adhesion factor, (m)
Cur = remoulded undrained shear strength, (kPa).

Qs d Adhesion factor, α is given by:

Ts = [4]
2 0.26 p a
α = 0.21 + ≤1 [8]
where: Cu
d = shaft diameter, (m) for round shaft piles where:
and equivalent diameter for square shaft piles.
pa = atmospheric pressure, (101 kPa).
Assuming a homogenous soil layer, the shaft
Therefore Eqn. [6] can be rewritten as:
friction resistance of the helical pile may be
given by: πd 2 Lα j C uj
Ts = [9]
Qs = πd Lf s [5] 2

[46] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

The torsional resisting moment on a helix
during pile installation, as indicated in Fig. 3,
is analogous to a giant vane shear test with
a height equal to the pitch of helix, p, and
diameter equal to the diameter of helix, D.
Therefore, the torque required to shear the
soil surrounding the helix can be estimated as
the torque required to shear a cylinder of soil
with height equal to the pitch of helix, p, and
diameter equal to the diameter of the helix, D
(Fig. 3). The torque required to separate the
cylinder of soil is proportional to the undrained
shear strength of the clay (Cu). The model
assumes that installation is consistent with
minimal soil disturbance and that the pile is
advanced into the soil at a constant rate equal
to pitch per full revolution of drive head.
The torque required to separate a helix i is
the sum of the torsional moment at the upper
surface of the helix, Tti; torsional moment due
to the resistance of the separated cylinder, Tci;
and the moment at the bottom of helix, Tbi; as
shown on the following equation:

Thi = Tti + Tci + Tbi [10]

[FIG. 3] Torsional Resistance Model of a Helix during Pile
Torque due to shearing the cylinder of soil Installation
around a helix i can be expressed as:
Therefore, resisting moment acting on helix i
Di Di2 [11]
Tci = ∫ Cui da = π pi Cui can be expressed as:
2 2
where ( Di3 − d i3 )
Ti = π (Cuti + Cubi ) + πDi2 pi Cui / 2 [14]
Cui = undrained shear strength at helix level i, (kPa). 12
D = helix diameter, m. Assuming that soil around the helix i is
Torque due to shearing resistance at the top of homogenous, (i.e. Cui = Cuti = Cubi), Equation [14]
the soil cylinder can be expressed as: can be rewritten as:
Di
2 ( Di3 − d i3 ) ⎛ Di2 pi ( Di3 − d i3 ) ⎞
Tti = ∫d C uti rda = π C uti [12] Ti = πCui ⎜
⎜ + ⎟⎟ [15]
2 12 ⎝ 2 6 ⎠
where It should be noted that, since the installation of
Cuti = undrained shear strength at top of helix a helical pile typically requires a relatively large
level i, (kPa). number of revolutions to install the pile to final
Di = helix i diameter, m. depth, remoulded undrained shear strength
Torque due to shearing resistance at the bottom values are suggested for use in Equation [15].
of the soil cylinder can be expressed as: However, for the bottom helix, the intact
undrained shear strength values (peak values)
Di
( Di3 − d i3 ) are suggested for use. For the bottom helix, the
Tbi = ∫d 2
Cubi rda = π Cubi [13] resisting torsional moment can be expressed as:
2 12
where ⎛ D2 p D 3 ( D 3 − d13 ) ⎞
T1 = πC u1 ⎜⎜ 1 1 + 1 + 1 ⎟
⎟ [16]
Cubi = undrained shear strength at bottom
⎝ 2 12 12 ⎠
surface of helix i, (kPa).

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [47]

 MODEL VERIFICATION Torque, kN-m
50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00
In order to verify the 0
3
Dense sand φ 33°, γ=19 kN/m
proposed theoretical torque 1.9 d
Avg Torque 88 kN-m

model, the measured torque 2

values versus depth for 3

Stiff silty clay, c 80kPa, γ=18 kN/m
4 Avg Torque 160 kN-m
u

a helical pile with double 6.9

helices, ST72, reported by 6

Sakr (2012b) are presented in 10.8 3
Very stiff silty clay,c 115kPa, γ=18 kN/m
u
Avg Torque 233 kN-m
Fig, 4. Pile ST72 had a shaft 8

Depth, m
diameter of 406 mm (16 in), 13.7
10
with two helices, 813 mm
(32 in) in diameter spaced at 12
Hard silty clay, c 180kPa, γ=19 kN/m 3

1.63 m (5.35 ft) (i.e. two times

u
Avg Torque 296 kN-m

helix diameter). The pitch 14

for both helices was 152 mm

16
(6 in). The side friction from 


Cone Test Penetration Test 18

ST72 Torque estimated CPT Sleeve Frictiion

(CPT) sounding at the test 0 100
location is also presented in
[FIG. 4] Comparison between Measured Torque and Estimated Torsional Resistance
Fig. 4. The main advantage
of a CPT test is that it provides a
near-continuous soil profile and, therefore, the
data is of great importance for verification of
the proposed torque model.
Soil properties at the test site location, as
interpreted from CPT data and summarized
in Table 1, consisted of surficial sandy silt, to
a depth of about 1.9 m (6.2 ft) below existing
grade, over a stiff to very stiff silty clay layer,
to a depth of about 13.7 m (45 ft) , underlain
by a hard silty clay layer that extended to
the end of sounding at 16.4 m (53.8 ft). The
estimated undrained shear strength, Cu, for
the stiff and very stiff silt clay were 80 kPa and
115 kPa (11.6 psi and 16.7 psi), respectively.
The estimated undrained shear strength of the
lower hard silty clay layer was 180 kPa (26 psi).
Based on the results of the CPT sounding, soil
properties for each soil layer were relatively
consistent with the exception of few peaks, such
as at a depth of about 14.6 m (48 ft), where an
abrupt increase in sleeve friction was observed.
200 300 400 500 600 700
Cone side shear, kPa
of Pile ST72 during Installation
The measured torque values during pile ST72
installation are also presented in Fig. 4. The
torque values were measured using differential
pressures displayed on mechanical gauges. The
estimated torque values using equations [3],
[9]; [15] and [16] at different depths for pile
ST72 are also presented in Fig. 4. The following
observations were made based on comparing
between measured torque values at pile head
and estimated torsional resistance of pile ST72:
1. Measured torque at the pile head increased
considerably as the upper helix advanced
into the ground. The estimated torsional
resistance of the soil followed a similar
trend to the measured values. As expected
when the bottom helix travels through
different soil layers, the torque value shows
an abrupt change to reflect the properties of
the soil layer at the bottom helix level.
2. When both helices travel through the same
soil layer, torsional resistance increases

[TABLE 1] Summary of Soil Properties

Depth Frictional
Total unit Undrained Shear
Soil description resistance angle,
m weight, kN/m3 Strength, kPa
φ (o)
0 – 1.9 Sand, compact 18.5 - 33

1.9 – 6.9 Glacial Till, stiff 18 80 0

6.9 – 13.7 Glacial Till, very stiff 18 115 0

13.7 – 16.4 Glacial Till, very stiff to hard 19 180 0

[48] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

 linearly due to the increase of resisting
moment of the shaft.
3. Torque measured up to a depth of about
8 m (26.2 ft) was considerably higher than
the estimated torque.
4. The slope of the measured and estimated
torque between depths of about 9 m and
13 m (29.5 ft and 42.7 ft) was similar.
5. In general, the measured and estimated
installation torque values both agreed
reasonably.
6. The estimated torsional resistance at the
end of pile installation agreed reasonably
with the measured values.
7. Spikes were observed from the CPT data
(sleeve friction) indicating that the soil
layers were not truly homogenous.
The comparison between measured and
estimated torque values at different levels
indicated that both estimated and measured
values generally followed similar trend and
agreed reasonably. It should be noted that
remoulded undrained shear strength values
were used for the torque estimate. The
estimated lower torque values up to depth
of 9 m (29.5 ft) could be as a result of using
remoulded shear strength as opposed to intact
undrained shear strength of native materials.
COMPARISON BETWEEN
MEASURED AND ESTIMATED
TORQUE VALUES
As indicated in Eqns. [3]; [9] and [15], the
estimated torsional soil resistance values at the
end of installation are a function of shaft size
(i.e. either diameter or width of square shaft
helical piles); helix diameter; pitch; and number
of helices. The estimated torsional resistance
is also a function of soil strength parameters,
including undrained shear strength, adhesion
and soil sensitivity. Moreover, as indicated on
the model assumption, it is assumed that the
pile is advanced into the soil at a constant rate
equivalent to the pitch. Therefore, operator
experience and pile installation consistency
affect the measured torque values during pile
installation. Auguring effect, where the pile
is advanced at a smaller rate less than pitch
size, may cause additional soil disturbance
and reduce the measured torque during
installation. Sensitivity of the torque reader
and accuracy and frequency of calibrating the
device are other factors that affect the quality
of measurements.
In order to compare between measured
and estimated torque values, a total of 74
installation tests were considered in the present
study. Pile configuration and a summary of soil
parameters are presented elsewhere (Zhang
1999; Tappenden 2007; Livneh and El Nagger
2008; Cerato and Victor 2009; Sakr 2008, 2011,
2012a and 2012b; Beim and Luna 2012). The
selected installation cases were selected to
satisfy the following conditions:
1. Pile configuration, including shaft sizes and
helix diameters, cover a wide range. For
example, shaft sizes varied between square
shafts 44 mm (1.73 in) in width to round
shafts with diameters up to 508 mm (20 in).
Helix diameters varied between 203 mm
(8 in) and 1016 mm (40 in). The number of
helices varied between 1 and 4. Pitch was
either 76 mm or 152 mm (3 in or 6 in).
2. Selected piles were also installed by
different operators so that the data reflect
the variability in installation procedures for
different contractors.
3. Installation technique included standard
installation and use of predrilled pilot holes.
4. Soils considered for the study varied
between soft clays to clay shale with
undrained shear strength, Cu, that varied
between 5 kPa and 400 kPa (0.73 psi and
58 psi) (very soft to very hard clay materials).
The measured and estimated torque values for
different piles were compared in Fig. 5. The
prediction ratio, which is the ratio between
estimated and measured torque values, varied
between 0.78 and 1.29. The data were also
linearly fitted with a standard deviation of
0.96. Therefore, the proposed torque model
reasonably estimated installation torque for
helical piles considered in the study.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
AXIAL TENSILE CAPACITY AND
INSTALLATION TORQUE
The empirical torque-capacity relationship,
expressed in Eqn. [1], assumes a proportional
relationship between measured torque at the
end of installation and axial pile capacity by
torque factor. To separate different torque
factors (i.e. compression versus tension); torque
factor in tension, Kt, is defined as the ratio
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [49]
 360 AHi = net surface area of bearing helix (helix
area – shaft area), m2; and
320
N is the number of helices.
280
For round shaft piles, the net surface area of
240 Dhi2 − d 2
Estimated Torque (kN.m)

helix i, AHi = π ( ) where d = shaft

200 4
Equity Line
160 diameter, (m). Therefore the torque factor due
to shaft, Kts can be estimated as:
120 Qs 1
K ts = =
80
T d π ⎜⎛ N
+ ∑ C ui
⎛ Di2 p i ( Di3 − d i3 ) ⎞
⎜ +
⎛ D2 p D 3 ( D 3 − d 13 ) ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎟ + C u1 ⎜ 1 1 + 1 + 1 ⎟ [20]
2 Qs ⎜⎝ i = 2 ⎜⎝ 2 6 ⎟ ⎜ 2 12 12 ⎟⎟
Compression ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎠
Tension
40 It should be noted that neglecting the
interaction between different helices is a
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 reasonable assumption for most cases where
the spacing between helices is equal to or
Measured Torque (kN.m)
greater than three times the helix diameter.
[FIG. 5] Comparison between Measured and Estimated
However, for the cases where spacing between
Torque Values
helices is less reduction of helix capacities due
to interaction should be considered. Therefore,
between axial tensile capacity of the pile and the torque factor due to helices can be
the measured torque at the end of installation. expressed as following:
Therefore, Kt, can be expressed as: N

Qh ∑ ( )
AHi C ui N ui + γ / D h1
Q Q Q K th = = n =1

[21]
K t = t = s + h = K ts + K th [17] T ⎛ D p ( D 3 − d i3 ) ⎞
2
Qs d ⎛ N ⎛ D2 p D 3 ( D 3 − d 13 ) ⎞ ⎞⎟
+ ⎜ ∑i = 2 πC ui ⎜⎜ i i + i ⎟ + πC u1 ⎜ 1 1 + 1 + 1
⎟ ⎜ 2
⎟
⎟⎟
T T T 2 ⎜ 2 6 12 12
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎠

Eqn. [17] suggests that the torque factor

in tension, Kt, can be uncoupled into two
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AXIAL
components including torque factor due to COMPRESSIVE CAPACITY AND
shaft, Kts, and torque factor due to helices, Kth. INSTALLATION TORQUE
For predicting the ultimate uplift resistance of a Similar to torque-factor in tension, torque factor
helix i installed into cohesive soils considering in compression Kc, defined as the ratio between
the individual helix capacity method (i.e. the axial compressive capacity and measured
neglecting the interaction factors between torque at the completion of pile installation can
different helices), the following expression may be expressed as the sum of torque factor due to
be used (Das and Seeley, 1975): the shaft, Kcs and torque factor due to helices, Kch.
N N For simplicity, the frictional resistance of pile
Qh = ∑Q + γ ′AH 1 D h1 = ∑A C ui N ui + γ ′AH 1 D h1 [18]
1
hi
1
Hi
shaft in tension may be assumed similar to
Dh that value in compression. Hence, Eqn. [20] can
N U = 1. 2( )≤9 [19] be used to estimate torque factor due to shaft
D resistance, Kcs.
where: For the case of compressive loading for helical
γ’ = Average effective unit weight of soil above piles founded in cohesive soils, the axial
the top helix, (kN/m3); compressive resistance of a helix i can be
Qhi = ultimate helix i resistance, (kN); estimated as follows:
Cui = undrained shear strength of soil layer at Qchi = AHi Cui Nci [22]
helix i, kPa where
Dhi = depth to helix i, (m); Nci = dimensionless bearing capacity factor for
Di = diameter of helix i, (m); helix i;
Nui = Dimensionless uplift bearing capacity (Nc = 9 for helices smaller than 0.5m; Nc = 7 for
factor for helix i; helices between 0.5 m (20 in); and Nc = 6 for
helixes larger than 1 m (40 in) in diameter)

[50] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

For round shaft piles, the ultimate compressive Tables 2 and 3. The measured torque factors
resistance for helix i can be expressed as: were based on the results of full-scale axial
π compressive and tension tests reported in
Qchi = ( Dhi2 − d 2 )C ui N ci [23]
4 literature. A total of twenty-one axial tensile
For round shaft piles, the ultimate compressive load tests and fifty-three axial compression
resistance of the bottom helix 1 can be tests were used to assess the tension and
expressed as: compression torque factors (Kt and Kc). The
π theoretical torque factors in tension and
Qch1 = Dh21C ub1 N c1 [24] compression were estimated using Eqns. [20],
4 [21] and [25].
The torque factor in compression for helices
The comparison between measured and
can be expressed as:
estimated torque factors in tension and
compression are also presented in Figs. 6 and
N
1⎛ 2 ⎞
⎜ Dh1C ub1 N c1 + ∑ ( Dhi2 − d 2 )C ui N ci ⎟
Qch 4⎝ ⎠
[25]
n=2
K ch =
T
=
Qs d ⎛ N ⎛ D2 p ( D 3 − d i3 ) ⎞ ⎛ D2 p D 3 ( D 3 − d 13 ) ⎞ ⎞⎟ 7. It can be seen that there is a reasonable
+ ⎜ ∑i = 2 C ui ⎜⎜ i i + i ⎟ + C u1 ⎜ 1 1 + 1 + 1 ⎟
2π ⎝⎜ ⎝ 2 6 ⎟
⎠
⎜ 2
⎝ 12 12 ⎟⎟
⎠⎠ agreement between measured and estimated
torque factors both in tension and compression.
COMPARISON BETWEEN However measured Kc values for square
THEORETICAL AND MEASURED shaft piles were generally lower than the
TORQUE FACTORS estimated values. Possible reason for that is
that for square shaft piles, soil disturbance is
Measured and estimated torque factors in
considerably higher compared to round shaft
tension and compression are presented in
piles due to the rotation of the square shaft

[TABLE 2] Comparison between Measured and Estimated Torque Factors in Tension, Kt.
Shaft Theoretical Measured
Diameter No of Kt Kt
Pile ID Soil Type Reference Notes
helices
m m-1 m-1
T1 Silty Clay 0.089 1 18.2 12.7 Sakr (2011)
ST62 Clay Till 0.406 2 4.8 4.8 Sakr (2012a) predrilled
ST72 0.406 2 5.8 6.2 hole

ST14 Clay Shale 0.406 1 4.4 5 Sakr (2012a) predrilled

ST5 0.324 2 6.3 5.7 hole

TL Clay Till 0.219 3 8.4 9.9 Zhang

TS 0.219 3 9.3 7.6 (1999)

Tprod 0.219 2 9.8 9.2

T7 Clay Till 0.273 1 8.8 9.8 Tappenden
T8 Clay Till 0.273 2 9.3 10.9 (2007)

7 Clay Till 0.0445 3 25.6 21.3

Livneh and
8 0.0445 3 26 26.5 El Naggar
(2008)
16 0.0445 3 25.5 23.6
20 0.0445 3 24.7 29.2
10 0.0445 3 23.9 24.7
T1 Clay 0.219 3 7.7 7 Sakr (2008)
T2 Clay Till 0.273 2 7.7 10.7
T1 0.273 1 8.5 9.9
Clay Till 0.508 1 4.9 2.6 Sakr (2012b)
Clay Till 0.508 2 3.8 1.9
Clay Till 0.508 2 4.4 5.2

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [51]

 [TABLE 3] Comparison between Measured and Estimated Torque Factors in Compression
Shaft Theoretical Measured
Diameter No of Kt Kt
Pile ID Soil Type Reference Notes
helices
m m-1 m-1
Silty Clay 0.089 1 19.2 19.8 Sakr (2011)
ST61 Clay Till 0.406 2 6.1 5.5 Sakr (2012a) predrilled
ST15 Clay Shale 0.508 1 5.2 7.1 hole

ST14 Clay Shale 0.406 1 6.3 6.8

ST7 Clay Shale 0.406 1 7.7 7.3
Clay Till 0.219 3 14.4 9.2 Zhang
0.219 3 10.9 7.6 (1999)

0.219 2 10.9 10.8

C7 Clay 0.178 1 9.5 11.8 Tappenden
C8 Clay 0.219 1 9 9.9 (2007)

C9 Clay 0.178 2 9.7 12.8

C10 Clay Shale 0.24 2 9.8 14.1
C11 Clay Till 0.273 1 12.1 8.9
C12 Clay Till 0.273 2 10.1 8
C15 Clay 0.14 3 13.7 13.7
C16 Clay 0.114 2 15.4 18.1
C17 Clay 0.114 1 15.9 21.1

2 Clay Till 0.0445 3 28.6 42.6 Livneh and Square shaft

El Naggar
6 0.0445 3 25.5 37.8 (2008)
Clay 0.324 1 6.3 5.6 Sakr (2012b)
Clay 0.324 1 6.3 5.3
Clay 0.324 1 6.3 6
Clay 0.324 3 7.8 7.1
Clay 0.324 2 7.7 7.9
Clay 0.324 2 8.3 9.3
Clay Till 0.324 4 6.5 6.1
Clay Till 0.324 3 6.3 6.1
Clay Till 0.324 2 7.6 7.8
Clay Till 0.324 2 7.3 6.8
C1 Clay 0.324 3 5.9 7.1 Sakr (2008)
C2 0.324 4 6.9 7.6
C2 Clay Till 0.273 2 8 14.1 Sakr (2012b)
C1 0.273 1 8.1 12.1
0.324 1 6.7 5.5
0.406 1 5.4 5.6
0.508 1 4.4 4.2
0.508 1 4.6 4.4
0.508 2 5 5.3
0.508 3 5.5 6
0.508 2 6.2 6

[52] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

[TABLE 3] Comparison between Measured and Estimated Torque Factors in Compression (continued)
Shaft Theoretical Measured
Diameter No of Kt Kt
Pile ID Soil Type Reference Notes
helices
m m-1 m-1
0.406 1 5.3 4.6
0.508 2 4.4 4.6
0.508 2 4.6 5.7
HP5 Varved Clay 0.073 3 26.7 54.1 Beim and
HP10 0.073 3 26.7 46.6 Luna (2012)

HP15 0.073 3 26.7 44.3

HP4 0.073 3 32.1 33.3
HP7 0.073 3 32.1 31.9
HP9 0.073 3 32.1 40.4
HP12 0.073 3 32.1 43.3
HP14 0.073 3 32.1 37.7

and causing void around pile shaft during piles in compression), and therefore torque
installation. The mean prediction ratio for factor in compression may not be accurate.
Kc is 1.06 with a coefficient of variation of It can be seen from Tables 2 and 3 that torque
17.8%, while the mean prediction ratio for Kt factors in tension were generally lower than
is 0.98 with a coefficient of variation of 17.2%. torque factors in compression. For example,
Generally, torque factors in tension were more pile ST61 and ST62 with similar configurations,
predictable than torque factors in compression. measured torque factors in tension and
This can be explained by the fact that during compression were 4.8 and 5.5, respectively.
helical pile installation, torque measured at It can be also seen from Tables 2 and 3 that
the end of installation can be considered to torque factors for square shaft piles were
be representing average soil conditions within considerably higher than those for cylindrical
pile embedment depth. However, for the case shafts. Discrepancies between measured and
of torque factor in compression, there are no estimated torque factors were also higher for
torque measurements within the soil layer square shaft piles.
immediately below the bottom helix (which
considerably affects the performance of helical 55.00

50.00
40.00
45.00
35.00
40.00
Estimated Torque Factor, Kc (m-1)

30.00 35.00
Estimated Torque Factor, Kt (m-1)

30.00
25.00

y = 0.9955x 25.00
20.00 R² = 0.9234
20.00
15.00
15.00

10.00 10.00

5.00 Measured and Estimated Torque 5.00 Measured and Estimated Torque Equity Line
Equity Line
Linear (Measured and Estimated Torque) 0.00
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Measured Torque Factor, Kt (m-1) Measured Torque factor, Kc (m-1)

[FIG. 6] Comparison between Measured and Estimated [FIG. 7] Comparison between Measured and Estimated
Torque Factors in Tension Torque Factors in Compression

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [53]

 PARAMETERS INFLUENCING high Kt factors. However, the increase in
TORQUE FACTORS torque factor Kt due to increasing undrained
shear strength was relatively insignificant. For
Parameters affecting torque factors in cohesive
example, the torque factor for a pile installed
soils can be grouped into five main groups:
into very hard clay (Cu = 400 kPa or 58 psi) at
1. soil properties such as undrained shear an embedment depth of about 8 helix diameters
strength, adhesion and sensitivity; were about 7 m-1 (23 ft-1) compared to 6 m-1
2. pile configuration (i.e. shaft diameter, helix (19.7 ft-1) for a pile with a similar configuration
diameter, pitch, number of helices and installed in soft clay (Cu = 25 kPa or 3.64 psi)
embedment depth); Adhesion around a pile shaft is typically
3. installation procedure; proportional to the undrained shear strength,
4. reliability of torque measurements; and as indicated in Eqn. [7]. The adhesion factor
expressed in Eqn. [8] is inversely proportional
5. loading path (i.e. tension or compression).
to the undrained shear strength of soils.
Parameters 1 to 4 are discussed in more For soft clay, the adhesion around a pile
detail in the following sections, while the last shaft is equivalent to the undrained shear
parameter has been discussed earlier. strength value.

Soil Properties Sensitivity of soils is another factor that affects

the torsional resistance of soils to installation
In order to evaluate the effect of undrained
and torque factors. For sensitive clays where the
shear strength on torque factors, a hypothetical
ratio between undisturbed shear strength and
pile configuration was assumed, consisting of a
remolded shear strength is high, the effect of
round shaft pile, 0.324 m (12.75 in) in diameter
soil disturbance on pile installation is expected
with a single-helix diameter of 0.762 m
to be high. Therefore, the predicted torsional
(30 in) in diameter. Estimated torque factors in
soil resistance to installation using undisturbed
tension, Kt versus embedment depth ratio (i.e.
undrained shear strength is likely to be in error.
embedment depth divided by helix diameter)
for cohesive soils with undrained shear strength Pile Configurations
are presented in Fig. 8. A homogeneous soil
To evaluate the effect of increasing shaft
layer with undrained shear strengths that
diameter on torque factor in tension, Kt, Eqns.
varied between 25 kPa (3.64 psi) ( soft clay) and
[20] and [21] were used to estimate torque
400 kPa (58 psi) (very hard clay) was assumed.
factors for helical pile with a single-helix,
It can be seen from Figure 8 that at shallow
0.4 m (1.3 ft) in diameter, installed into cohesive
embedment depths, up to depth of about
soil with undrained shear strength Cu = 50 kPa
4.5 D, the softer soils showed lower Kt factors
(7.25 psi). The shaft diameters were 89 mm
compared to harder soils. At deeper embedment
(3.5 in), 178 mm (7 in) and 273 mm (10.75 in)
depths, the harder clay soils showed relatively
respectively. The torque factors in tension, Kt,
versus embedment depth ratios are presented
10.00 in Fig. 9. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that, as
9.00 expected, increasing the shaft diameter resulted
8.00 in considerably reducing torque factors. For
7.00
example, at an embedment depth of 7.5 D, the
torque factors for piles with shaft diameters of
Estimated Torque Factor, Kt (m-1)

6.00
89 mm, 178 mm and 273 mm (3.5 in, 7.0 in and
5.00
10.75 in) were 17 m-1, 12 m-1 and 8 m-1 (55.8 ft-1,
4.00 39.4 ft-1,and 26.2 ft-1) respectively.
3.00
In order to evaluate the effect of varying helix
2.00 Cu = 50 kPa
100 kPa
diameters on the torque factors in tension,
1.00
200 kPa
400 kPa Kt, the torque factors were estimated for a
25 kPa
0.00
pile with a shaft diameter of 406 mm (16 in)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 equipped with a single helix installed into clay
Embedment Depth Ratio (H/D)
material with undrained shear strength of
[FIG, 8] Effect of Undrained Shear Strength on Torque 50 kPa (7.25 psi). Helix diameters of 0.763 m
Factors in Tension, Kt.

[54] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

 24.00
10.00

22.00
Undrained Shear Strength, Cu = 50 kPa 9.00
Helix Dia. = 0.4 m Undrained Shear Strength Cu = 50 kPa
20.00 Shaft Dia = 406 mm
8.00
18.00

Estimated Torque Factor, Kt (m-1)

7.00
16.00
Estimated Torque Factor, Kt (m-1)

6.00
14.00
5.00
12.00

10.00 4.00

8.00 3.00

6.00 2.00
168 mm
shaft Helix Dia 762 mm
4.00 89 mm 1.00
shaft Helix Dia 1200 mm
2.00 273 mm
0.00
shaft
0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Embedment Depth Ratio (H/D)

Embedment Depth Ratio (H/D) [FIG. 10] Effect of Varying Helix Diameters on Torque
[FIG. 9] Effect of Shaft Size on Torque Factors in Tension, Factors in Tension, Kt.
Kt.

10.00
(30 in) and 1.2 m (48 in) were considered for
9.00
the comparison, and the results are presented
in Fig. 10. As seen in Fig. 10, increasing helix 8.00

diameter resulted in slightly increasing Kt. 7.00

Estimated Torque Factor, Kt (m-1)
Fig. 11 shows piles with helix and shaft 6.00
diameter ratios of 2, 2.5 and 3. As seen in
5.00
Fig. 11, increasing the ratio between D/d
4.00
resulted in considerably increasing torque
factors. For example, Kt for piles with D/d ratios 3.00

of 2, 2.5 and 3 at embedment depth of 7.5 D 2.00

D/d = 3
were about 6.5, 7.5 and 9.0 respectively. 1.00
Undrained Shear Strength = 50 kPa D/d = 2
D/d = 2.5
Torque factors in tension Kt for piles with a 0.00
shaft diameter of 0.324 m (12.75 in), single helix 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Embedment Depth Ratio (H/D)
and pitch of either 76 mm or 152 mm (3 in or
6 in) are presented in Fig. 12. As seen in Fig. 12, [FIG. 11] Effect of Varying Helix to Shaft Diameter Ratio
on Torque factors in Tension, Kt.
the pitch had a minor effect on the torque
factors. However, it should be noted that the
pitch for piles with small shaft diameters may 10.00
have more pronounced effects (Sakr 2012b).
9.00
As indicated in Figs. 8 to 12, the torque Cu = 50 kPa
factors increased with increasing embedment 8.00 Shaft Dia = 324 mm
Single Helix 763 mm in Dia
depths for relatively short piles (i.e. piles 7.00
with embedment depth ratios up to about 8),
Estimated Torque Factor, Kt (m-1)

6.00
beyond which the torque factors were relatively
independent of embedment depth. 5.00

Torque factors in tension Kt for piles with 4.00

single, double or triple helices are presented in
3.00
Fig. 13. The torque factors were estimated using
a pile with shaft diameter of 0.324 m (12.75 in) 2.00 pitch = 76 mm
and helix diameter of 0.763 m (30 in), installed pitch = 152 mm
1.00
into clay with undrained shear strength of
50 kPa (7.25 psi). The assumed spacing between 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
different helices is 3D, and pitch is 152 mm
Embedment Depth Ratio (H/D)
(6 in). As seen in Fig. 13, Kt at lower embedment
[FIG. 12] Effect of Varying Pitch Size on Torque Factors
depths is inversely proportional to number of in Tension, Kt.

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [55]

 10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
Estimated Torque Factor, Kt (m-1)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 2
[FIG. 13] Effect of Increasing Number of Helices on
Torque Factors in Tension, Kt.
helices. However, at higher embedment depths,
Kt increased with increasing the number of
helices.
The method of installation is one of the major
factors that affects the quality of torque
values used in practice. In general, methods of
installations that cause more soil disturbance
negatively impact the torque measurements
and reduce the reliability of torque data. For
example, the presence of cobbles or boulders
during installation results in a sharp rise
in torque values, which is not necessarily
an indication of stronger soil conditions.
Installation procedures such as applying down
pressure, predrilling, or advancing the pile at
a smaller rate than the pitch are other factors
that impact torque measurements. An auguring
effect (or spinning), where pile rotation is
continued and little or no advancement into
ground (usually occurs when pile hit hard
soil layer or spinning on rock), is likely to
considerably reduce the torque requirement
during installation and cause significant soil
disturbance.
Reliability of Torque Readings
Methods of measuring torque during pile
installation are mainly either using a mechanical
gauge that measures the differential pressure
across the gear motor, or using an electronic
torque transducer that consists of a series
of strain gauges attached to the drive head.
Theoretical torque using differential pressure
may be estimated as:
[56] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
ΔP × CID × PGR × η
T= [26]
π (24 )
where

ΔP = Differential pressure across the motor,
(psi);
CID = Cubic inch displacement of the hydraulic
motor;
PGR = Planetary gear ratio; and
Single helix
η = Combined motor and planetary gear
2 helices
3 helices
efficiency.
It should be mentioned that, when using
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
torque measuring method based on differential
Embedment Depth Ratio (H/D)
pressures, the hydraulic gear motor torque
versus differential pressure curves may not
reflect the manufacturer’s stated performance
data. Equipment and hydraulic line size may
also affect the torque versus differential
pressure curve for the same motor. Deardorff
(2011) advocated that installation speed and
flow rate at the lower end of differential
pressure curve may also affect the torque
versus differential pressure curve for the
same motor and same equipment line setup.
Therefore, the use of torque measurement
based on differential pressures may not be
accurate. Electronic torque transducers may
provide more reliable means of measuring
torque during pile installation. Frequency of
calibrating torque measurement devices is
another factor that affects the reliability of
torque measurements.
Moreover, a clear definition of the average
torque value at the end of installation is
required. For example, Hoyt and Clemence
(1989) averaged the installation torque over
the final distance of penetration equal to
three times the largest helix diameter. Some
contractors specify the use of average torque
over the last 0.3 m (1 ft), while others specify
that torque should be averaged over the last
1 m (3.3 ft) of installation.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a theoretical model for
predicting torsional resistance to helical pile
installation into cohesive soils. The developed
model was validated by comparing the
estimated torque to the measured values at
different embedment depths for a case reported
in the literature. The measured and estimated
torque values at the end of pile installation
from total of seventy four (74) field installations
reported in the literature were also compared.
Both measured and estimated torque values
agreed reasonably. The developed torque model
was then used to assess torque factors. The
following general conclusions may be drawn:
1. Torque required to install piles into
cohesive soils can be reasonably estimated
using the theoretical model developed in
this paper.
2. Based on the proposed torque model,
theoretical torque factors (Kt and Kc) that
represent the ratio between ultimate
capacity and installation torque were
proposed.
3. Parameters required to assess theoretical
torque factors include pile geometry and
soil strength parameter such as undrained
shear strength. The required soil parameters
to assess torque factors are standard
parameters and therefore it is relatively easy
to obtain for the project site.
4. Pile geometry, including shaft shape, ratio
of helix to shaft diameter, and embedment
depth has a considerable effect on the
torque factors. Other factors that influence
torque factors include pitch and number of
helices.
5. Torque factors in compression and tension
for piles with similar configurations
installed into similar cohesive soils are
different. It was found that torque factors in
compression are generally higher than those
factors in tension.
6. Torque measurements are also influenced
by other factors such as the method of
installation, operator experience, and
accuracy of the measurement device.
Therefore, in absence of precise installation
procedures and quality torque device
measurements, installation torque readings
should be used with caution and may only
be used to qualitatively assess installation.
REFERENCES
1. Basile, F. 2010. "Torsional response of
pile groups", Proceedings 11th DFI & EFFC
International Conference on Geotechnical
Challenges in Urban Regeneration,
London, UK.
2. Beim, J., and Luna, S.C. 2012. "Results of
dynamic and static load tests on helical
piles in the varved clay of Massachusetts",
DFI Journal, Deep Foundations Institute,
In print.
3. Cannon, J.G. 2000. "The application of high
strain dynamic pile testing to screwed steel
piles", In Proceedings of 6th International
Conference On the Application of Stress
Wave Theory to Piles, Sussumu Niyama and
Jorge Beim ed., Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp. 393-
398.
4. Cerato, A.B., and Victor, R. 2009. "Effects
of long-term loading on fluctuating water
table on helical anchor performance for
small wind tower foundations", Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE
23(4): pp. 251-261.
5. CFEM. 2006. Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual. 4th Edition. Canadian
Geotechnical Society, Technical Committee
on Foundations, BiTech Publishers Ltd.,
Richmond, BC.
6. Das, B.M. and Seeley G. R. 1975. "Breakout
resistance of horizontal anchors", Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
101(9): pp. 999–1003.
7. Deardorff, D. 2011. "A comparison of gear
motor performance curves for helical pile
installation", Seminar presented at DFI
Helical Foundations and Tiebacks Specialty
Seminar, Deep Foundations Institute, March
17, 2011, Dallas, Texas, USA.
8. Hoyt, R.M., and Clemence, S.P. 1989.
"Uplift capacity of helical anchors in soil",
Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janerio,
Brazil, Vol. 2, pp. 1019-1022.
9. Hoyt, R., Seider, G., Reese, L. C., and Wang, S.
T. 1995. "Buckling of helical anchors used
for underpinning: Foundation upgrading
and repair for infrastructure improvement",
Edited by William F. K. and Thaney, J. M.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 50,
ASCE, pp. 89-108.
10. Livneh, B., and El Naggar, M.H. 2008. "Axial
testing and numerical modeling of square
shaft helical piles under compressive and
tensile loading", Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 45: pp. 1142–1155.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [57]
 11. Perko, H.A. 2001. "Energy method for
predicting the installation torque of
helical foundations and anchors", New
Technologies and Design Developments in
Deep Foundations, Reston, VA, ASCE, pp.
342:352.
12. Perko, H. A. 2009. Helical Piles: A Practical
guide to design and installation. John Wiley
& Sons. New York, N.Y.
13. Sakr, M. 2008. "Helical piles for power
transmission lines: Case study in Northern
Manitoba, Canada", Ninth International
Conference on Permafrost, Extended
Abstracts, NICOP 2008, Fairbanks, Alaska,
USA, pp. 261:262.
14. Sakr, M. 2011. Helical piles - "An effective
foundation system for solar plants", 64th
Canadian Geotechnical Conference and
Pan-AM CGS, Toronto, Ontario, 2-6 October
2011, Toronto.
[58] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
15. Sakr, M. 2012a. "Installation and
performance characteristics of high capacity
helical piles in cohesive soils", DFI Journal,
6(1): 41-57, July 2012.
16. Sakr, M. 2012b. "Torque prediction of helical
piles in cohesive soils", The 65th Canadian
Geotechnical Conference (CGC); at the
Fairmont Hotel, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
from September 30 to October 3, 2012.
17. Tappenden, K.M. 2007. "Predicting the axial
capacity of screw piles installed in Western
Canadian soils", MSc. Thesis, The University
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
18. Zhang, D.J.W. 1999. "Predicting capacity of
helical screw piles in Alberta soils", MSc.
Thesis, The University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
Ultimate Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soil
Lassaad Hazzar, University of Sherbrook, Canada; (819) 446 5100; lassaed.hazzar@USherbrooke.ca
Mourad Karray, University of Sherbrook, Canada
Mounir Bouassida, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia
Mahmoud N. Hussien, University of Sherbrook, Canada

ABSTRACT
The ultimate lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soil is studied using the well-known finite difference
code, FLAC2D. The Modified Cam Clay (MCC) constitutive relation is adopted in the analyses to model
the cohesive soil behavior, whereas the structural pile model with three degree of freedoms, available
in FLAC2D library, is adopted to model the piles. The reliability of Broms's method, still used in the
current design practice of piles under lateral loads, is verified. Comparisons between the ultimate
lateral resistances of piles and those deduced from the graphs proposed by Broms (1964) are
presented in graphs. Different factors thought to affect the lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soil,
not adequately considered in Broms's method, such as clay stiffness, pile length, pile diameter and
axial load are parametrically studied. A special concern is devoted to elucidate the effects of
over-consolidation ratio (OCR) on the ultimate lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soil.

INTRODUCTION problem, finding a rigorous solution is very

Pile foundations have been used extensively
for supporting both axial and lateral loads
for a variety of structures including heavy
buildings, transmission lines, power stations,
and highway structures. In some cases, the
lateral loads may be relatively light and there
is no need to account for them in pile design;
however, in other cases, lateral loads govern
the design of piles. A key element in the design
of pile foundations under lateral loads is the
determination of the ultimate lateral resistance
that can be exerted by the soil against the
pile (Murff and Hamilton, 1993). For example,
the ultimate lateral resistance is required for
calculating the p-y curves, which have been
used extensively in recent years in piles design.
Several methods have been published for
predicting the ultimate lateral resistance of pile
in cohesive soils (Brinch Hansen, 1961; Broms,
1964; Poulos and Davis, 1980; Fleming et
al.,1992; Reese and Van Impe, 2001). However,
these methods often produce significantly
different predictions of the ultimate resistance.
This makes it difficult for engineers to
effectively select the appropriate method when
designing laterally loaded piles in cohesive
soils.
Because the problem of determining the
ultimate resistance of a laterally loaded pile
is a three dimensional (3D) and nonlinear
unlikely. Thus existing solutions for the
ultimate lateral resistance of the pile are
either of a semi-empirical nature or employ
approximate analysis which often involves
many simplifications (Jamiolkowski and
Garassino, 1977). These approximations may
account for the significantly different ultimate
resistance values obtained from the different
methods. This makes it difficult for practicing
engineers to effectively select the appropriate
method when designing laterally loaded piles in
cohesive soils. In this paper an assessment of
the most important method, Broms's method,
still used in the current design practice of
piles under lateral loads, is done. A two-
dimensional (2D) finite difference code, FLAC2D
(Version 6, Manual [2008]) is used to this end.
The Modified Cam Clay (MCC) constitutive
relation is adopted in the analyses to model the
cohesive soil behaviour, whereas the structural
pile model with three degrees of freedom,
available in FLAC2D elements library, is adopted
to model the piles. Different factors thought to
affect the ultimate lateral resistance of piles in
cohesive soil such as clay stiffness, pile length,
pile diameter and axial load are parametrically
studied. A special concern is devoted to
elucidate the effects of over-consolidation ratio
(OCR) on the ultimate lateral resistance of piles
in cohesive soil. The investigations were carried
out for single piles in a type of clay which has

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [59]

 been used by several studies conducted at the
University of Sherbrook, Quebec, Canada.
The existing methods of predicting the ultimate
lateral resistance of pile foundations under
lateral loads are first reviewed, to be followed
by the main part of the study with respect
to the effects of clay stiffness, pile length,
pile diameter, axial loads and OCR on the
lateral ultimate resistance of pile foundations.
The primary findings from this study are
summarized as conclusions.
EXISTING METHODS OF
PREDICTION OF ULTIMATE
LATERAL RESISTANCE
The existing methods used to estimate the
lateral resistance of vertical piles can be
divided into two main categories: methods
of ultimate lateral resistance and methods of
acceptable deflection at a given working lateral
load. First investigation by Terzaghi (1955)
consisted in the use of variable passive earth
coefficients for modeling the lateral reaction
of soil as a function of its internal angle of
friction. Adopting the method proposed by
Brinch Hansen (1961), the pile is assumed to
rotate with respect to its centre of rotation, the
ultimate lateral load is then estimated and the
shearing force and bending moment diagrams
are drawn. Broms (1964) presented a method to
determine the ultimate lateral load in cohesive
and cohesionless soils. Kasch (1977), stated that
using Rankine’s passive states will result in very
conservative solutions. Reese (1977) developed a
[Fig. 1] Ultimate Lateral Load of Piles in Cohesive Soils; (a) Short Pile, (b) Long Pile (Broms, 1964)
[60] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
computer program that is widely used to predict
the performance of piles subjected to lateral
loading. This program solves a differential
equation derived on the assumption that the pile
is linearly elastic and that the soil reaction may
be represented as a line load. In recent years,
extensive research and developments have been
undertaken to predict theoretically the behavior
of laterally loaded piles in clayey soils (Poulos
and Davis, 1980; Brown and Shie, 1991; Fleming
et al.,1992; Liang, 1998; Reese and Van Impe,
2001).
Broms's method is still used in the current
design practice of piles under lateral loads to
calculate the lateral bearing capacity of piles
because of its simplicity. This method will be
briefly reviewed in the next paragraph.
Broms’ method (1964), proposed for the
prediction of lateral resistance of vertical piles,
is similar to that developed by Brinch Hansen
without consideration of c-φ’ soil parameters.
In fact, Broms’s method is based on earth
pressure for calculation of lateral resistance
of vertical piles, but quite simple assumptions
are made for the distribution of ultimate soil
resistance over the length of the pile. These
methods study two types of piles, a short-rigid
and long-flexible, embedded in mono layered
half space. Broms (1964) elaborated charts for
determination of the ultimate lateral load for
each class as illustrated in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)
respectively (FHWA, 1997). Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)
show also that the ultimate lateral resistance
of the piles is affected by pile head conditions.
The ultimate lateral resistance of a fixed head
pile is higher than that of free-head conditions
for both cases of short and long piles. In this
method, the load-deflection relationships of
laterally loaded piles driven into cohesive soils
are similar to the stress-strain relationships as
obtained from consolidated-undrained tests
(Broms, 1964).
In fact, Broms method calls for some comments
that be discussed later. Broms’ contribution
does not consider the effect of axial loading on
lateral bearing capacity of piles.
In this study, the finite differences method is
implemented to examine how the lateral load
capacity of the pile is influenced by varying
the length of the pile, its diameter and by
considering the vertical component of load as
well. The numerical modeling also aims to verify
whether the OCR for clayey soil has a significant
effect when determining the lateral capacity
at failure of the loaded pile. Note that the
OCR has not been taken into consideration in
several previous investigations made about the
ultimate lateral capacity of piles. Elsewhere, as
for Broms’ method, the vertical load component
was not considered in prior analyses, this study
aims to clarify how the behavior of laterally
loaded piles will be affected when subjected to
additional vertical load.
Therefore, the main objective is to draw
design charts making possible the design of
laterally loaded piles in cohesive soils and to
compare the numerical predictions by FLAC2D
(Fast Lagrangian Analyses of Continua in 2D)
program with the Broms’ solution.
[Fig. 2] Numerical plane strain model
STUDIED MODEL
Finite-Difference code
In this study the finite-difference code FLAC2D
(Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) is used
to model the behavior of single piles embedded
in a clay layer in non-symmetric loading plane
strain condition. FLAC2D is a commercial finite
difference program that adopts an explicit
numerical scheme which solves the dynamic
equations of motion (even for static problems)
in conjunction with an incremental constitutive
law over a small time step, at discrete points in
space. This method is particularly well adapted
for analyzing nonlinear behavior of soils.
Geometry of the model
Fig. 2 shows the general layout and meshing
of the finite differences model. Side boundary
displacements were fixed in the horizontal
direction, while those at the bottom boundary
were fixed in both the horizontal and vertical
directions. The pile is modeled by means
of a structural pile model, available in the
FLAC2D library, with three degrees of freedom:
horizontal and vertical displacements and a
rotation with respect to perpendicular axis of
the plan in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2, the pile
toe is anchored in a separate stratum (rock).
The finite difference analyses were performed
in two stages. In the first stage (self-weight
analysis), the in-situ stresses were initialized
in the soil due to the self weight of the soil.
Properties of the pile were set to be zero during
this stage of analysis. During the second stage
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [61]
 of analysis (lateral load analysis), the actual
properties of soil and pile were assigned.
The applied loading was simulated by the
application of a lateral load at the top of the
pile. The modeling of the pile installation
process is rather complicated, so that pile
is assumed to be in a stress-free state at the
beginning of the analysis, and the effect of the
pile installation is ignored.
Soil properties
The soil was a soft post-glacial clay of marine
origin, sampled from the site of Grande Baleine
River (Demers, 1980). Two specimens (COE-01
and COE-02) have been tested to identify the
geotechnical characteristics of this clay.
These samples were extracted from three (3)
holes using a sampler developed by the
University of Sherbrook (Quebec-Canada).
The tool provides specimens of clay having a
diameter ranging between 250 and 270 mm
(9.8 and 10.6 in) and about 350 mm (14 in)
in height. In the laboratory, the samples were
cut into slices of 110 to 120 mm (4.3 4.7 in)
in height, surrounded by paraffin and stored
in a room where the humidity hovers around
97% and the temperature is maintained at
about 14 °C (57 °F) . Laboratory tests such as
Consolidation oedometer tests and triaxial tests
CU (isotropically consolidated triaxial tests
and sheared under undrained conditions) were
carried out on the soil samples. In situ tests
such as the Swedish cone were also carried out
to measure the undrained shear strength of
the clay. The obtained value of the undrained
shear strength of the clay was found to vary
between 40 and 80 kPa (5.8 and 11.6 psi).
Table1 summarizes the recorded geotechnical
characteristics of tested clays.
The Modified Cam-Clay Model (CCM) (Roscoe
and Burland, 1968) was adopted as quite
appropriate, particularly for materials whose
behavior is influenced by volume variation.
In fact, the CCM may be used to represent
materials when the influence of volume change on
bulk property and resistance up to failure should
be taken into consideration, as for soft clays.
The CCM may give softening behavior
for particular stress paths. Without special
regularization techniques, this softening behavior
may lead to mesh dependency and numerical
instability. The use of the CCM in practical
applications is not recommended.
The CCM is expressed in terms of three variables:
the mean effective pressure, p; the deviator
stress, q; and the specific volume, v. In the FLAC
implementation of this model, principal stresses
σ1, σ2, σ3 are used, the out-of-plane stress, σzz,
being recognized as one of these. (By convention,
traction and dilation are positive.)
The generalized stress components p and q may
be expressed in terms of principal stresses, as
follows:
1
p=− ( σ1 + σ2 + σ3 )
3
1 [1]
q= (σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2
2
(Note that q = 3J 2 , where J2 is the second
invariant of the effective stress deviator tensor).
The incremental strain variables associated with
p and q are the volumetric strain increment, Δe,
and distortional strain increment, Δeq , and we
have
Δe = Δe1 + Δe2 + Δe3
2 [2]
Δeq = (Δe1 − Δe2 )2 + (Δe2 − Δe3 )2 + (Δe1 − Δe3 )2
3
Where Δej, j = 1, 3 are principal strain
increments. The principal strain increments may
be divided into elastic and plastic parts so that
Δei = Δeie + Δeip i = 1,3 [3]
The specific volume, υ, is defined as:

[TABLE 1] Geotechnical properties of clay studied

Test no Plasticity Initial void Effective Pre-con- Compression Swelling Total unit Undrained
index, Ip (%) ratio, e0 (-) stress, σ0’ solidation index, CC (-) coefficient weight, γ shear
(kPa) pressure, σP’ CS (-) (kN/m³) strength, cu
(kPa) (kPa)
COE-01 11.7 1.59 40.7 105 0.90 0.08 16.7 16.0-39.0
COE-02 7.0 1.57 41.0 112 0.88 0.06 16.7 43.0- 62.0

[62] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

 V required to specify the soil model, including
υ=
Vs
Where Vs is the volume of solid particles
(assumed incompressible), contained in a volume,
V, of soil. The incremental relation between
volumetric strain, e, and specific volume has the
form
Δυ
Δe =
υ Fig. 3 presents the oedometer curve in the
Starting with an initial specific volume, υ0,
we may thus write, for small volumetric strain
increments,
υ = υ0 (1 + e )
Where e is the current accumulated volumetric
strain.The incremental expression of Hooke’s law
in principal axes may be expressed in the form
Δσ1 = α1Δe1e + α 2 ( Δee2 + Δe3e )
Δσ2 = α1Δee2 + α 2 ( Δee2 + Δe3e )
Δσ3 = α3 Δe3e + α 2 ( Δee2 + Δe3e )
Where: α1 = K + 4G/3; and α2 = K − 2G/3.
In this study, eight material parameters were
[Fig. 3] Oedometer curves of tested clays (Demers, 1980)
[4]
either the elastic bulk modulus “K” or elastic
shear modulus “G”, mass density “ρ”, Poisson’s
ratio “µ”, slope of the normal consolidation
line “λ”, slope of the elastic swelling line“κ”,
frictional constant “M”, pressure of reference “p1”
and the specific volume at pressure of reference,
p1, on the normal consolidation line “υλ”.
[5]
semi-logarithmic plot (υ, ln p) where p, is the
effective vertical pressure and, υ, the specific
volume of specimen.
[6] The material properties adopted in the analyses
for soft, medium and hard clay are presented
in Table 2. In this table, the coefficient of earth
pressure (K0) is defined as the ratio of effective
horizontal stresses (σh) to applied effective
vertical stresses (σv) at zero stress strain
[7] (Donath, 1981):
σh = K 0 ⋅ σ v [8]
Alpan (1967) indicated that K0 is a function of
over consolidation ratio (OCR), defined as the
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [63]
 [TABLE 2] Parameters according to CCM

Soil rigidity ρ (kg/m3) G (MPa) K (MPa) µ (-) λ (-) κ (-) M (-) p1 (kPa) υλ (-) K0 (-)

Soft clay 1670 4.80 12.48 0.33 0.262 0.065 0.77 1 5.3 0.63
cu = 16.0 kPa
medium clay 1670 11.70 30.42 0.33 0.262 0.065 0.77 1 5.3 0.63
cu = 39.0 kPa
Stiff clay 1670 19.20 49.92 0.33 0.257 0.064 0.77 1 5.25 0.58
cu = 64.0 kPa

ratio of initial pre-consolidation pressure to the d4 y

in situ overburden effective stress, and in over EI + p(x) = 0 [12]
dx 4
consolidated clays:
Fig. 4 details how the horizontal resistance of
K 0(OCR) = K 0(NC) ⋅ OCR n [9]
soil p(x) can be determined by adopting the
K 0(NC) = 0.15 + 0.233log (Ip) [10] spring equation:
p(x) = k(x) ⋅ y [13]
n = 0.54 ⋅10− Ip / 281 [11]
k(x) : modulus of the horizontal reaction of soil
Pile properties (kN/m²);
The pile is modeled as a structure element y : horizontal displacement of the pile at depth x
made up of concrete material characterised by a (m);
Poisson’s ratio of 0.2, a unit mass of 2500 kg/m3 E : young’s modulus of the pile (kPa);
(4200 lb/ yd3) and Young’s modulus equal to
I : moment of inertia of the cross section at
25 GPa (3.6x106 psi).
x (m4);
The length D and the diameter b of pile are x: current depth along the length of pile.
variable in order to investigate their influences
on the lateral bearing capacity of the pile.
The ultimate lateral load of the pile, Qu, is
represented by the dimensionless factor defined
by “Qu/cu b2” for which the influence of several
parameters will be studied.
Limitations of 2D analysis
A pile foundation subjected to lateral loads is
a class of problem that incorporates pile-soil
interaction in 3D. In this paper, the soil-pile
interaction in the direction perpendicular to the
loading direction is not accounted for in the used
simple 2D finite difference formulation. This
simplification leads to overestimation of the
lateral displacement of the pile compared to
the actual behavior encountered in the field.

Prediction of lateral resistance of pile [Fig. 4] Model of soil reaction by elastic springs

The adopted modeling of a beam element

Introducing the bending moment, M (kN.m) and
subjected to the lateral action/reaction of soil
the shear force, V (kN) at depth x within a current
is derived from the well-known equilibrium
cross section of the pile, the equilibrium equation
equation of beams:
provides relationships between the bending
moment and shear force, and, then as illustrated in

[64] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

Fig. 6, the lateral resistance of soil is derived from
Eqn. (9). The complete solution is obtained once
the horizontal deflection of pile is determined.
Therefore, we concluded that the lateral soil
reaction p (x) can be determined as follows
(see Fig. 5):
[Fig. 5] Shear and lateral load
For a pile of length D = 8.0 m (26 ft) and
diameter b = 0.8m (2.6 ft), Fig. 6 displays the
diagrams for profiles of pile behavior under a
lateral load equal at 250 kN (28.1 ton).
EFFECT OF SOIL STIFFNESS ON
LATERAL RESISTANCE
The undrained shear strength has been varied in
order to study the effect of the stiffness of clayey
soils on the ultimate lateral resistance of the pile.
For capped plasticity model, like the Modified
Cam Clay here investigated, the undrained shear
strength, cu, is uniquely related to the specific
volume, υ, by the equation [14]:
Mp1 §Γ−υ·
cu = exp ¨ ¸ [14]
2 © λ ¹
Where the specific volume, Γ, at the critical state
[Fig. 6] Behaviour of pile under lateral load
line for p=p1, is given by:
Γ = υλ − ( λ − κ ) × ln ( 2 ) [15]
The numerical analysis has been conducted by
adopting zero free vertical distance from the
head of pile to the soil surface (ec=0), and
varied ratio D/b, D is the embedment of pile in
the clay layer. The comparison between
numerical predictions and Broms’ results are
presented in Fig. 7. For this case, it can be seen
that Broms’ assumption greatly overestimates
the ultimate lateral resistance of pile in purely
cohesive clays that was assumed equal to 9bcu,
but numerical predictions show that the soil
will collapse much earlier.
EFFECTS OF VERTICAL LOAD AND
PILE DIAMETER ON ITS LATERAL
RESISTANCE
The influence on pile diameter has been also
investigated. Fig. 8 shows that the variation of
pile diameter, especially when D/b is less than
14, does not significantly affect the normalized
ultimate lateral bearing capacity of the pile.
The influence of vertical load on the ultimate
lateral bearing capacity is studied. At this stage,
first, the ultimate vertical bearing capacity is
obtained, and then by introducing a factor of
safety equal to 3 the allowable vertical load is
deduced. The ultimate lateral bearing capacity
of the pile is finally determined. Results of
Fig. 9 show that the ultimate lateral resistance
will decrease when the vertical load component
increases. Therefore special care should be
accorded when it comes to the prediction of the
ultimate lateral resistance of a pile.
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [65]
 [Fig. 7] Effect of soil stiffness on lateral load capacity compared with Broms method

[Fig. 8] Effect of diameter on lateral bearing of capacity pile

[Fig. 9] Effect of vertical load, ec/b = 0

[66] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

EFFECT OF OVER-CONSOLIDATION
RATIO
The influence of OCR on the ultimate lateral
load capacity of a single pile is presented in
this section. The same soil proprieties presented
in Table 2 were adopted with changing the
OCR values from 1 to 10 (K0 values vary
between 0.4 to 1.23).
Fig. 10 shows the effect of OCR on the ultimate
lateral capacity of the pile. When the OCR
increases from 2 to 10, the increase in the
[Fig. 10] The ultimate lateral capacity vs OCR
CONCLUSIONS
The ultimate resistance of pile foundations
embedded in cohesive soil has been studied
in this paper through a series of 2D finite
differences analyses. FLAC2D was employed
to this end. The Modified Cam Clay (MCC)
constitutive relation was adopted in the
analyses to model the cohesive soil behavior;
whereas the structural pile model with three
degrees of freedom is adopted to model the
piles. The reliability of the well-known Broms'
method is discussed in this paper. Different
factors thought to affect the lateral resistance
of piles in cohesive soil, not adequately
considered in Broms' method, such as clay
stiffness, pile length, pile diameter and axial
load were parametrically studied.
Of the findings of this study, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
- The ultimate lateral capacities of pile
ultimate lateral load is about 20%. The
increase of the OCR values is accompanied
by an increase in the K0 values. This increase
in the K0 values is due to the increase of
the horizontal lateral stress of the soil, the
confining pressure, compared to the applied
vertical stresses. The increase of the confining
pressure is the major deriving factor causing
the increase in the ultimate resistance of a pile
to lateral loads. Thus, it is concluded that the
role of pre-consolidation pressure cannot be
neglected in the pile design.
foundations obtained from the current
finite differences analyses were found to
be smaller than that obtained by Broms'
graphs.
- The pile diameter, not considered in
Broms's method, seems to have a significant
effect on the ultimate lateral capacities
- For low values of soil stiffness, Broms'
method overestimates the ultimate lateral
resistances of piles. As the soil stiffness is
increased, the ultimate lateral resistances
obtained from the current analyses
approach that obtained using Broms'
graphs.
- The axial load increases ultimate bearing
capacity and special care to choose the
ultimate bearing capacity of pile should be
taken.
- The CCM is a suitable model to describe
sensitive clays, and it is necessary to
DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [67]
 take care of the value of OCR or pre-
consolidation pressure in the design of piles
embedded in cohesive soils.
REFERENCES
1. Alpan, I. "The Empirical Evaluation of
the Coefficient K0 and Kor", Soils and
Foundations, Vol.7, No.1, 1967, pp. 31-40.
2. Brinch Hansen, J. "The Ultimate Resistance
of Rigid Piles against Transversal Forces",
Geoteknish Institute Bulletin No.12, Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 1961, pp. 5-9.
3. Britto, A. M., and Gunn, M.J. Critical
State Soil Mechanics via Finite Elements.
Chichester U.K.: Ellis Horwood Ltd, 1987.
4. Broms, B.B. "Lateral Resistance of Piles in
Cohesive Soils", Journal of Soil Mechanics
Foundation Division, Vol. 90(2), 1964, pp.
27-64.
5. Brown, D.A., and Shie, C.F. "Evaluation
of the Relative Influence of Major
Parameters for Laterally Loaded Piles in
three Dimensional Finite Element Models",
Civil Engineering Department, Harbert
Engineering Center. Auburn University,
Alabama, 1991.
6. Demers, B. "Résistance Cyclique d’une
Argile Extra-Sensible", Thesis M.Sc.,
University of Sherbrook, Quebec, Canada,
1980.
7. Donath, A.D. Untersuchungen Veber den
Erddruck auf Stuetz waende. Zeitschrift
Fuer Bauwesen, 1981.
8. Federal Highway Administration.
Design and Construction of Driven Pile
Foundations. Workshop Manual – Vol. I,
Publication no13, Washington, D.C. 1997.
9. Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph,
M.F. and Elson, W.K. Piling Engineering.
Surrey University Press, London, 1992.
[68] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013
10. Itasca Consulting Group. FLAC: Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua User’s and
Theory Manuals, Version 6.0, Minneapolis,
USA, 2008.
11. Jamiolkowski, M. and Garassino, A. "Soil
Modulus for Laterally Loaded Piles",
Proceedings, 9th International Conference,
Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering.
Tokyo, 1977, pp. 87-92.
12. Kasch, V.R. "Lateral Load test of Drilled
Shaft in Clay", Research report 211-1.
Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M
University, 1977.
13. Liang, R. "Development and
Implementation of New Driven Piles
Technology", The Ohio Department of
Transportation and the US Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 1998.
14. Murff, J.D. and Hamilton, J.M. "P-Ultimate
for Undrained Analysis of Laterally
Loaded Piles", Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 119(1), 1993, pp. 91-107.
15. Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. Pile
Foundation Analysis and Design. Wiley,
New York, 1980.
16. Reese, L.C. "Laterally Loaded Piles:
Program Documentation", Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE.
Vol. 103(GT4), 1977, pp. 287-305.
17. Reese, L.C. and Van Impe, W.F. Single Piles
and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading. A.
A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 2001.
18. Roscoe, K.H. and Burland, J.B. On the
Generalized Stress-Strain Behavior of ‘Wet
Clay’. Engineering Plasticity, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1968, pp. 535-
609.
19. Terzaghi, K. "Evaluation of Coefficients of
Subgrade Reaction", Géotechnique. Vol.
5(4), 1955, pp. 297-236",
TECHNICAL NOTE
Direct Solution of the Brinch-Hansen 90% Pile
Ultimate Failure Load
Don W. Dotson, PhD., PE, DGE, Chief Designer, Geo-Structural Design Group, AMEC
Environment and Infrastructure, Adj. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tennessee State University,
Nashville, TN, USA’ Ph: (615) 333-0630; don.dotson@amec.com

ABSTRACT
In 1962, Kondner prepared several papers dealing with hyperbolic stress-strain response of cohesive
soils. The following year, Brinch Hansen proposed 80% and 90% failure criteria for stress-strain
behavior of cohesive soils. Fellenius was instrumental in popularizing these failure criteria for pile load
tests and offered a direct solution equation for the failure load according to the 80% failure criterion.
Since the 90% Criterion has been incorporated into the International Building Code, equations for the
direct solution of the failure load at the 90% Criterion would be useful to practicing engineers. This
Technical Note supplies the derivation methodology for the 80% Criterion and provides expressions to
determine the load and deflection at failure for the 90% Criterion.

INTRODUCTION
Robert Kondner (1962a, 1962b) proposed
that the stress-strain behavior of cohesive
soils in triaxial testing could be reasonably
approximated by a two-constant rectangular
hyperbola (Eqn. 1) which could be algebraically
transformed into a linear relationship with
determinable slope and intercept (Eqn. 2):


















these hyperbolic curves “seem to apply, not
where: σ = stress
ϵ = strain
a,b = constants
In a discussion of Kondner (1963), Hansen
(1963) reported equations similar to Kondner’s,
especially Eqn. 3.

these criteria, including the 80% Criterion along








(Note: Hansen’s original formulation contained
an erroneous minus sign which was later
corrected in Kondner, 1964.) The linear
transformation of Eqn. 3 is shown in Eqn. 4.









Hansen (1963) observed that when this latter
form gave a good approximation to the test
data, it could be used to provide a general,
simple failure criterion in which failure is
represented by the stress for which the strain is
equal to four times the strain at a 20% smaller
stress. This became known as the Brinch
Hansen 80% Failure Criterion.
Hansen (1963) compared this 80% Failure
Criterion to a definition he previously proposed
(source not cited) in which he defined the
[1] stress at failure as equal to two times the strain
at a 10% smaller stress (i.e., the 90% Failure
[2] Criterion). Hansen (1965) further noted that
only to direct shear tests, but to almost any
test, in which shear stresses play a dominant
role, for example triaxial tests, plate loading
tests, pile loading tests.”
Fellenius (1975) compared various failure
criteria for pile load testing. Fellenius (1980)
gave more detailed examples of a number of
[3]
with algebraic expressions used to calculate the
load and deflection at failure.
Fig. 1 is a digitization of a load-movement
curve for a driven concrete pile load test using
the Constant Rate of Penetration method
(Fellenius, 1980). Fig. 2 is a plot of 15 of the
[4] data points prior to pile plunging using the
transformed ordinate axis along with a “best fit”
line. (Note: any consistent set of units could be
used. Fellenius multiplied the ordinate by 103
for presentation. That same format has been
preserved here.)

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [69]

 The derivation of these expressions for the 80%
Criterion were not provided, nor were similar
expressions provided for the 90% Criterion.
Since the 90% Criterion has been incorporated
into the International Building Code (2000),
and not the 80% Criterion, equations for the
direct solution of the failure load at the 90%
Criterion would be useful to the practicing
engineer. This Technical Note supplies the
derivation methodology for the 80% Criterion
and provides expressions to determine the load
and deflection at failure for the 90% Criterion.
In practice, the results obtained from either
direct solution method should be validated by
comparison to the load-movement curve.
[FIG. 1] - Pile Test Results (after Fellenius 1980)
DERIVATION
For both the 80% and 90% Failure Criteria, a plot
of the pile test data is prepared in which pile
head deflection (∆) is plotted along the abscissa
and the square root of the deflection divided
by the test load (P) is plotted along the ordinate
(Fig. 2). A “best fit” linear approximation is

fitted to the data and the slope and intercept



are determined. The portion of the curve with
the highest loads is of principal interest, thus
points at lower loads may be omitted since they
tend to skew the “best fit” line. Failure for the
80% Criterion corresponds to the values of Pu
and ∆ that satisfy Eqn. 6 and Eqn. 9 as a system
of linear equations (equating P with Pu).

(inches)


[FIG. 2] - Brinch Hansen Transformation (after Fellenius


[9]
1980)









The equation of the line that can be fitted to the Eqn. 7 is the solution to this system of equations.
data in Fig. 2 is:
Similarly, failure for the 90% Criterion

corresponds to the values of Pu and ∆ that









[5]



satisfy Eqn. 6 and Eqn. 10.
where C1 is the slope and C2 is the y-intercept of

[10]
the fitted line. The load P can be determined at 









any point as:

After solving and rearranging (see Appendix),



[6] an approximate solution can be written as:










Fellenius (1980) gives the following equation for


[11]






the 80% failure load:





with deflection

[12]







[7]








As Hansen (1963) noted, the 80% and 90%
and the corresponding deflection: failure criteria give approximately the same



failure load, although the IBC code specifies the


[8] 90% Criterion.

[70] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

Using Eqn. 11 and the best-fit coefficients from




Fellenius, the calculated 90% Criterion failure






[A2]







load is 209 tons (190 tonnes), which compares

favorably with the 205 tons (186 tonnes) Solve Eqn. A1 for Pu
reported (Fellenius, 1980).






[A3]







ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my colleague Siphay Solve Eqn. A2 for Pu
Douangvilay for his review and comments along 


with the anonymous reviewers.


[A4]



REFERENCES Set Eqn. A3 and A4 equal to each other:

1. Fellenius, B. H. (1975). “Test loading of piles 



[A5]















and new proof testing procedure”, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering Division pp. Find a common denominator
101(9), 855-869.


















2. Fellenius, B. H. (1980). “The analysis of




[A6]





























results from routine pile load tests”, Ground
Engineering. 13(6), pp. 19-31. Multiply the numerator on the left-hand side of
3. Hansen, J. Brinch. (1963). “Discussion: the equal sign of Eqn. A6
Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive






















[A7]
soils”, Journal of Soil Mechanics, Foundations
Division, 89(4), pp. 241-242.
Multiply the numerator on the right-hand side
4. Hansen, J. Brinch. (1965). “Some stress- of the equal sign of Eqn. A6
strain relationships for soils”, The Danish
Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin, No. 19, pp. [A8]






















231-234.
5. International Building Code. (2000). Substitute the results of Eqn. A7 and Eqn. A8
International Code Council, Inc. Falls into Eqn. A6 and rewrite
Church, VA 22041-3401.
























6. Kondner, R. L. (1962a). “Hyperbolic Stress-





[A9]


































Strain Relation in Direct Shear”, Technical
Report, Civil Engineering Department, Subtract the right-hand side of the equal sign
Northwestern University. from the left-hand side of Eqn. A9
7. Kondner, R. L. (1962b). “Friction pile groups
























in cohesive soil”, Journal of Soil Mechanics,

[A10]



















Foundations Division, 88(3), pp. 117-149.
8. Kondner, R. L. (1963). “Hyperbolic stress- Factor √Δ out of the numerator
strain response: cohesive soils”, Journal of





















Soil Mechanics, Foundations Division, 89(1),

[A11]



















pp. 115-143.
9. Kondner, R. L. (1964). “Hyperbolic stress- Remove √Δ by dividing both sides of the
strain response: cohesive soils – Closure”, equation by √Δ:
Journal of Soil Mechanics, Foundations






















Division, 90(1), pp. 121-126.

[A12]

APPENDIX Multiply both sides of Eqn. A12 by 9:

Solve the following system of equations:























[A13]







 [A1]

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [71]

 To avoid trivial or undefined solutions, the After evaluation, the approximate solution to
constraints on Eqn. A13 are that Eqn. A17 is:
∆ ≠ 0, (C2 + C1∆) ≠ 0, and (2C2 + C1∆) ≠ 0.





[A18]
Therefore, the numerator of Eqn. A13 must be

= 0 for a valid solution. Set the numerator = 0 Substituting Eqn. A18 into Eqn. A3 gives
and solve for ∆:



























[A14]






[A19]

Rearrange terms
Simplifying





















[A15]






[A20]

Factor Eqn. A15

If desired, a more precise solution can be


















[A16] obtained by substituting Eqn. A17 into Eqn. A3.
In the Fellenius (1980) example, the difference
Solve for ∆ between approximate solution Eqn. A20






and a more precise solution determined




[A17]






by incorporating Eqn. A17 into Eqn. A3, is
0.004 tons (0.0036 tonnes).

[72] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

Underwriters: Gold

Your Solutions
Provider.
CANADA & WESTERN U.S.
CHAMPION EQUIPMENT SALES, LLC
562.634.8180

EASTERN & CENTRAL U.S.

AMERICAN EQUIPMENT & FABRICATING CORP
401.438.2626

www.soilmec.com

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [73]

 DFI Journal Paper Review Process
The peer review process for documents considered for publication in the DFI Journal is still evolving.
The following is a description of the current process, however, the publication is still in its infancy and
the review process is still in a state of flux. DFI reserves the right to alter the procedures as necessary.

Paper Submittal
Papers may be submitted at any time. Authors wishing to submit their papers for consideration of
publication in the DFI Journal are invited to access www.dfi-journal.org. The website will ask for a
login or, for new submitters, will ask for creation of an account. Once logged in the author must
upload a full paper in MS Word format as well as any ancillary files such as figures, photos and other
graphics which are included in the paper. The paper is then converted to a PDF file which the author
must approve before the paper will be released to the publisher and journal editors for viewing. The
journal editors preliminarily review the paper for relevancy to the Journal mission.

Paper Review
The journal editors assign those papers deemed to be worthy of consideration for Journal publication
to the appropriate editorial board member, which currently consists of DFI technical committee
chairmen and other industry leaders, so that appropriate reviewers for the paper topic can be obtained.
Reviewers are chosen based on their knowledge, areas of expertise, and qualifications to act as a
reviewer on the particular subject matter of the paper in question. At least three reviewers will be
assigned to each paper.
After the reviewers are selected, they are provided with instructions and a password for entry into
the website where they can view the paper PDF and submit their evaluation. The criteria on which
they base their review fall under two areas: technical content and quality of paper presentation.
The criteria for technical content include relevancy, originality, appropriate references to support
statements, significance of results and exclusion of personal opinion and commercialism. The criteria
for paper presentation include quality of figures, quality of English language, paper organization and
completeness. The reviewers enter their evaluation by responding to a number of questions rating the
paper as well as entry of comments to authors. They are also required to make a recommendation to
the journal editors of: accept as is; accept with mandatory changes; or reject. The author is advised
by automatic email of the posting of reviews and he/she can access the reviews and respond and/or
modify the paper to satisfy comments by the reviewers. A second round review can then take place if
necessary, ultimately leading to second round reviewer recommendations. The publisher and editors,
acting as a final review committee, make the decision, based on the reviewers’ recommendations, as to
acceptance of the paper for publication in the next issue of the journal or in a subsequent issue.
Throughout the process, automatic emails are sent out to reviewers when papers are ready for their
review and to the authors to keep them aware of the progress of their paper.

Paper Finalization
Upon acceptance, the final paper submission by the author and all graphic files are downloaded by
the publisher for processing and formatting for publication. The publisher is provided with proofs by
the production house and these are edited to ensure acceptable layout, the absence of typos, clarity of
figures, etc. In most cases the author(s) are provided with a final PDF for their review and approval.

[74] DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013

DFI Journal Call for Papers
The Deep Foundations Institute compiles and publishes a Journal of practical and technically rigorous
papers on a bi-annual schedule. The DFI Journal is distributed to ~3,000 DFI members plus non-
member subscribers.
The DFI Journal content is subject to quality technical review, and must meet a standard in quality on
practical subjects dealing with case studies, deep foundations history, design, construction, testing,
innovations and research in the field.
Each journal consists of at least five documents collected from technical papers that are invited
or selected from papers submitted by international industry members based on this call. Papers
presented at the DFI Annual Conference and Specialty Seminars may be included if expanded to the
Journal standard and review process.
The editors are herein sending out a call for original papers for consideration of inclusion in the
upcoming journals. Full draft papers up to 15 pages in length are to be submitted to: http://www.
dfijournal.org for review. Authors will be required to create a login account and will be notified via
email on the status of their submission.
Papers are solicited on the following topics:
• Case studies involving foundation systems with technical data support
• Historical evolution of deep foundations
• Relationship between use of design, construction and equipment
• Quality control, quality assurance and non-destructive testing
• Innovation in all aspects of deep foundations and earth retention
• Practice-oriented research
The Publisher and the Journal Editorial Board will review submitted papers for acceptability for
publication in the current or future issues of the Journal, subject to full peer reviews as described
on the preceding page entitled "DFI Journal Paper Review Process". Authors of papers accepted for
publication will be required to sign a copyright licence agreement.

DFI JOURNAL Vol. 7 No. 1 August 2013 [75]

Deep Foundations Institute was incorporated in 1976 in the State of New Jersey as a non-profit
educational activity. DFI is a technical association of firms and individuals in the field of designing and
constructing deep foundations and excavations. DFI covers the gamut of deep foundation construction
and earth retention systems.

Although the bulk of the membership is in North America, the Institute is worldwide.

DFI’s strengths are: DFI Sustaining Members

• Communication of information concerning AECOM USA INC.
the state-of-the-art and state of the practice AMEC - ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE
of deep foundation technologies AMERICAN EQUIPMENT & FABRICATING CORP.
• Offering networking opportunities for ANDERSON DRILLING
our members APE/J&M
BAUER FOUNDATION CORP.
• Offering opportunities for members to
BAUER - PILECO INC.
improve the industry through publications
produced by volunteer committees BEN C. GERWICK INC.
BERKEL & COMPANY CONTRACTORS INC.
• Offering educational conferences, seminars
BRASFOND FUNDAÇÕES ESPECIAIS S/A
and workshops in the industry
BRAYMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
The core strength of DFI is the broad spectrum
CAJUN DEEP FOUNDATIONS LLC
of its membership. All disciplines participate
on an equal footing, be they contractors, CASE FOUNDATION COMPANY
engineers, owners, academicians, equipment CIPORT S.A.
manufacturers and distributors or materials DEAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
manufacturers and suppliers. All types of DEWITT CONSTRUCTION INC.
foundation systems are represented, whether
FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS INC.
installed by driving, drilling or other means.
This diversity and openness without bias FOUNDATION SUPPORTWORKS INC.
provides a forum for the free exchange of FOUNDATION TECHNOLOGIES INC.
knowledge and a platform for the development GEOKON INC.
of new technology and opportunity. GOETTLE
HAYWARD BAKER INC.
DFI is: HJ FOUNDATION COMPANY
• An international network of heavy KELLER FOUNDATIONS LTD.
construction professionals dedicated to KLEINFELDER
quality and economy in foundation design L.G. BARCUS & SONS INC.
and construction LANGAN ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
• A forum open to all construction SERVICES
professionals across disciplines MCKINNEY DRILLING COMPANY
and borders. MENARD
• A technological association devoted to MORETRENCH
gathering, storing and disseminating MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
practical information NICHOLSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
• A resource for identifying and locating the O.C.I. DIVISION / GLOBAL DRILLING SUPPLIERS INC.
specialists and sources of expertise. PND ENGINEERS INC.
SAS STRESSTEEL INC.
• An initiator and participant in research
SCHNABEL FOUNDATION COMPANY
TEI ROCK DRILLS INC.
Deep Foundations Institute Sustaining Members
are Corporate Members of DFI who have THATCHER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
voluntarily granted funding to the Institute for URBAN FOUNDATION/ENGINEERING LLC
expanded support of the Industry. The fund is WILLIAM F. LOFTUS ASSOCIATES FOUNDATION
managed by the DFI Educational Trust. ENGINEERS
WURSTER ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION INC.
DFI JOURNAL
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 1937-5247

Deep Foundations Institute

326 Lafayette Avenue
Hawthorne, New Jersey 07506 USA
Tel: 973-423-4030
Fax: 973-423-4031
www.dfi.org