CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ON LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED FAILURE

AND GROUND IMPROVEMENT RELATIVE TO BRIDGES

2.1 Liquefaction-Induced Failure Mechanisms

Liquefaction of loose, saturated, cohesionless soils can produce several different types of
ground failure depending on site conditions. These failure mechanisms include lateral spreading,
loss of bearing capacity and settlement, ground oscillations, and flow failure (Youd, 1992). Any
of these mechanisms can potentially cause damage to bridges due to the ground and foundation
movements that occur.

2.1.1 Types of Failure Mechanisms

2.1.1.1 Lateral Spreading

Damage to many bridges due to earthquake-induced liquefaction has resulted from lateral
spreading of gently sloping ground towards river channels. Lateral spreading consists of the
displacement of ground down gentle slopes (i.e. - typically having inclinations less than 3
degrees according to Youd, 1992) or towards an incised channel, as a result of liquefaction of
underlying soils. The displacements are usually incremental, occurring at periods during the
earthquake when the strength of the liquefied material is less than needed to resist the lateral
forces acting on the overlying non-liquefied soil (Kramer, 1996). The overlying soil is usually
broken up in blocks which displace downslope or towards the incised channel, on top of the
liquefied soil, as shown in Figure 2.1. General characteristics of lateral spreading that are
manifested in the ground, as described by Youd (1993), are “… extensional deformations at the
head of the feature, shear deformations along the margins, and compressed ground at the toe.”
Displacements can range from a few centimeters to several meters.
Since bridges are typically located at the toe of a lateral spread, they are commonly
subjected to compression. Damage to the bridge is generally caused by differential lateral
ground displacement. The type and magnitude of damage depend on the foundation,
superstructure, substructure, and connection characteristics of the bridge.

6
2.1.1.2 Loss of Bearing Capacity and Settlement
Loss of bearing capacity results from the loss of soil strength associated with the increase
in pore water pressures and softening of the soil occurring during partial or full liquefaction. The
reduction in bearing capacity can result in excessive settlements/movements of a bridge pier or
abutment whose foundation bearing pressure exceeds the reduced capacity, as shown
schematically in Figure 2.2.
Excessive movements can also occur in the absence of a catastrophic or sudden ground
failure, as a result of the cyclic loading of the foundation which causes it to gradually penetrate
into the weakened soil. In addition, settlements can be induced due to the densification which
occurs when excess pore water pressures dissipate in partially or fully liquefied soils.
Similar to a loss of bearing capacity is the loss of axial and lateral support for deep
foundations extending through liquefiable soil. This loss of support can cause excessive
deformations and stresses in piles or drilled shafts resulting in damage.

2.1.1.3 Ground Oscillation

Ground oscillation is a phenomenon that occurs on relatively level ground where lateral
spreading does not occur. In this phenomenon, broken blocks of nonliquefied soil oscillate back
and forth and up and down on top of an underlying liquefied layer during an earthquake, as
shown in Figure 2.3 (Youd, 1992). A bridge supported by the surficial layer can experience
severe deformations when substructure columns or walls supported by shallow foundations on
the blocks undergo differential movements.

2.1.1.4 Flow Failure

Flow failure is the rapid movement of liquefied soil and overlying layers down more
steeply inclined slopes (i.e. - typically greater than 3 degrees according to Youd, 1992), as
illustrated in Figure 2.4. According to Youd (1992), “these failures commonly displace large
masses of soil tens of meters and, in a few instances, large masses of soil have traveled tens of
kilometers down long slopes at velocities ranging up to tens of kilometers per hour.” The large
displacements result from the residual strength of the liquefied soil being less than necessary to
resist the static gravitational forces acting on overlying nonliquefied soils during and after
earthquake shaking (Kramer, 1996). Although such failures have primarily been observed to
occur in offshore seabeds or tailings dams, they may be possible at a bridge site given sufficient

7
ground slope and the proper subsurface conditions. This type of failure could cause severe
damage to a bridge supported on, or even through, the liquefiable soil.

2.1.2 Implications for Bridges

Although all of the failure mechanisms mentioned above are possible at a bridge site
given the proper conditions, lateral spreading and bearing capacity failure are probably more
common. In order to mitigate the potential for damage to a bridge due to one or several of these
mechanisms, improvement measures must be implemented to counter the development of failure
and limit movements. Ground improvement methods that might be considered for this purpose
are discussed below.

2.2 Remediation Using Ground Improvement

2.2.1 Improvement Categories and Methods

There are a variety of ground treatment methods available for improving the properties of
liquefiable soils in order to reduce the potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction and
associated damage. These methods can generally be separated into broad categories based on the
primary mechanism used to achieve the improvement. The categories applicable to liquefaction
mitigation at existing bridges include densification, cementation, reinforcement and containment,
in-situ stress increase, and drainage. Descriptions of the principles behind the improvement
mechanism associated with each category are provided in Table 2.1, along with a list of
particular treatment techniques in the category that can potentially be used at existing bridges.
Details concerning the specific treatment methods can be found in references on ground
improvement (i.e. – Cooke and Mitchell, 1999; Andrus and Chung, 1995; Xanthakos et al., 1994;
Hausmann, 1990).

2.2.2 Applicability to Different Bridge Types

The applicability of using different ground improvement methods for remediating
liquefaction effects at existing highway bridges are dependent on:

8
 • Space and geometry limitations of the bridge site affecting accessibility and working
space for construction equipment,
• Subsurface conditions affecting the effectiveness of a particular method in producing
the required improvement,
• Potential for construction-induced movements and vibrations of the bridge caused by
the remediation method along with the likelihood of resulting damage,
• Desired post-treatment performance of the bridge,
• Potential environmental effects of improvement implementation, and
• Cost of the improvement method relative to other methods.

The potential applicability of treatment methods to some typical bridge configurations is

discussed below.

2.2.2.1 Bridge Configurations Considered

There are many different types of configurations used for highway bridges. Inherent in
the bridge configuration are the abutments and piers with their supporting foundations, approach
embankments, span lengths and widths, and limited clearance. Site factors that influence the
bridge configuration and also impact the feasibility of remediation methods include the ground
surface topography and the presence of a water body, structures or other roadways.
Since it is not feasible to evaluate ground improvement relative to all of these
configurations, improvement methods are discussed relative to some commonly used abutment
and pier types. Abutment types considered include pile-supported stub, full-height wingwall,
and floating stub abutments, as shown in Figure 2.5. Pier types considered include solid wall or
multi-column, hammerhead, and single circular column piers, as shown in Figure 2.6.
Pile supported stub abutments are commonly used at the end of an approach embankment
having a sloping face. The piles are typically driven through the embankment fill and several
feet into underlying natural soils.
Full-height wingwall abutments are essentially retaining walls supported by either
shallow or deep foundations. They are commonly used where space restrictions forbid a sloping
face at the ends of approach embankments.

9
 Floating stub abutments are typically used where site topography and soil conditions
permit the abutments to be founded on shallow spread footings in natural soils having adequate
bearing capacity.
Bridge piers are commonly supported by deep foundations due to the magnitude of loads
supported and, when the pier is located in rivers or streams, concern for scour. The term pier, as
used here and throughout this dissertation, refers to substructure elements constructed between
the abutments for the purpose of supporting the superstructure of the bridge. Pier is not used
herein to refer to deep foundation elements, such as drilled shafts, piles, or caissons.
The abutment and pier types shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6 are typical for small (6 to 15
meter spans) to medium (15 to 60 meter spans) bridges. Since the majority of bridges in the
United States fall in these categories, the evaluation of ground improvement methods presented
throughout this dissertation is for bridges within this range of sizes. However, some of the
results and conclusions can likely be extrapolated to large (60 to 150 meter spans) bridges.

2.2.2.2 Assessment of Applicability

Table 2.2 presents an assessment of the applicability of the ground improvement methods
listed in Table 2.1 to the different abutment and pier types shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6. In
addition the table also provides brief descriptions of the principles behind each method, soil
types for which it is suitable, properties of treated materials, relative costs, and pertinent
comments.
The stated applicabilities given in Table 2.2 are subjective, based only on the limitations
imposed by space and geometry factors and the potential for damage to the existing structure due
to movements or vibrations induced by the improvement procedures. The adequacy of any
method to achieve the required level of ground improvement and the improvement cost are
dependent on site specific conditions; therefore these factors are not included in the assessment
of the methods general applicability given in the table.

2.3 Focus of Research

The ability of various ground improvement methods to limit movements of piers and
abutments to acceptable levels under earthquake loading and liquefaction are the primary focus

10
of analyses performed for this research. These evaluations were limited to ground improvement
at (1) a floating stub abutment at the crest of an approach embankment and (2) a multi-column
pier supported by a spread footing foundation.
In evaluating the effectiveness of ground treatment techniques for liquefaction mitigation,
the methods investigated for stub abutments and multi-column piers on shallow foundations were
generally limited to those qualitatively judged to have high applicability (refer to Table 2.2).
These methods included densification of the soil with compaction grouting and cementation of
the soil with chemical or jet grouting. Schematics are shown in Figures 2.7 and 2.8 of potential
improved ground zones formed with any one of these methods at a multi-column pier and stub
abutment, respectively.
A few treatment techniques judged to have moderate applicability were also investigated
as part of the research. They included mixed-in-place or jet grouted walls used for reinforcement
and containment around multi-column piers and buttress fills at stub abutments used to increase
effective stresses in the ground and provide additional mass. Figures 2.9 and 2.10 show
schematics illustrating the use of these two improvement methods.
The actual sizes of the improved zones shown in Figures 2.7 through 2.10 are dependent
in part on the particular treatment method utilized. A primary focus of the quantitative analyses
performed for this dissertation was the evaluation of the impact of improvement type, size, and
location on the predicted performance of abutments and piers. Information in the literature
regarding this topic, as well as analytical methods that can be used for predicting the response of
improved ground and supported structures within liquefiable deposits, is presented in the next
chapter.

11
 TABLE 2.1: Categories of Ground Improvement Methods for Liquefaction Mitigation at
Existing Bridges

Improvement Principle Potential Improvement

Mechanism Methods
Densification Soil particles moved into tighter • Compaction grouting
configuration increasing density • Vibro-systems (vibratory
probe, vibro-compaction,
vibro-replacement)
Cementation Soil particles bound together by • Particulate grouting
filling voids with cementing • Chemical grouting
material • Jet grouting
Reinforcement and Soil mass reinforced with stiff • Mixed-in-place columns and
Containment elements used to provide walls
additional shear resistance. • Jet grouting
When elements are overlapped • Vibro-replacement
and arranged to form enclosed • Root piles
areas, containment also provided.
In-situ stress In-situ effective stresses within • Surcharge or buttress2 fill
increase soil mass are increased resulting • Compaction grouting1
in an increase in shear resistance.
Drainage High permeability drainage • Gravel, sand, and wick drains
elements installed to decrease • Vibro-replacement1
drainage distance in soil mass
limiting development, and
providing faster dissipation, of
excess pore water pressures.

Notes:
1. For this specific treatment method the cited improvement mechanism is generally considered
to be a secondary mechanism.
2. When used at the toe of a slope, a buttress fill also provides additional mass to resist a slope
stability failure and increases the potential failure surface length.

12
 TABLE 2.2: Summary of Ground Improvement Methods for Liquefaction Remediation at Existing Bridges

Method Principle Suitable Treated Soil Relative Abutment Applicability* Pier Comments
Soil Properties Costs Stub Full-Height Applicability*
Types Wingwall
Compaction Highly viscous Compres- Increased Dr Low ma- 1. High. 1. Generally High for solid Must control
Grout grout acts as sible soils SPT: (N1)60 = terial cost; Treat high. Treat wall, multi- heave and/or
spherical with some 25 to 30 high anywhere be- under and column, and hydraulic
hydraulic jack fines CPT: qc1 = 80 injection tween abut- around foun- hammer- fracture of
when pumped to 150 tsf cost. ment and em- dation. head piers. soil.
under high (Kg/cm2) bankment High to moder-
pressure resulting toe; treat ate for circular
in densification. under and column piers. Particulate
around and chemi-
Particulate Penetration Clean, Cement Lowest of abutment if 2. High. cal grouting:
Grouting grouting: fill soil medium grouted soil: grouting excessive Treat around 1. Treat under verify size
pores with to coarse high strength systems settlement pile groups. and around and strength
cement, soil sand and expected. foundation. of grouted
and/or clay. gravel soil mass.

Chemical Solutions of two Medium Low to high High to 2. High. 2. Treat around
Grouting or more chemicals silts and strength very high Treat around pile groups. Jet grouting:
react in soil pores coarser pile groups. stage work to
to form a gel or limit settle-
solid precipitate. ments. Evalu-
Jet Grouting High speed jets at Sands, Solidified High ate potential
depth excavate, silts and columns and damage to
inject and mix clays walls piles from
stabilizer with soil jetting pres-
to form column or sure.
panels.

Notes: * Item No. 1 under applicability indicates applicability of improvement method for foundations over or in liquefiable soils. Item No. 2
indicates applicability for pile (or drilled shaft) foundations extending through liquefiable.

13
 TABLE 2.2 (cont.): Summary of Ground Improvement Methods for Liquefaction Remediation at Existing Bridges

Method Principle Suitable Properties of Relative Abutment Applicability* Pier Comments

Soil Treated Soil Costs Stub Full-Height Applicability*
Types Wingwall
Vibratory Densification by Sand Dr: up to Moderate 1. Moderate 1. Low. 1. Low. Overhead
Probe vibration,liquefac- (< 15% 80+% for lateral Potential for Potential for clearance
tion-induced passing Ineffective in spreading; excessive set- excessive limitations
settlement No. 200 some sands. low for tlement and settlement and will restrict
underwater. sieve) settlement. vibrations of vibrations of use. Monitor
Vibro- Densification by Sand Dr: up to Moderate Treat at bridge. Over- bridge. Over- bridge for
Compaction vibration and (<20% 85+% embankment head clear- head clearance excessive
compaction of passing SPT: (N1)60 = toe to reduce ance limita- limitations. vibrations.
backfill at depth. No. 200 25 to 30 risk of con- tions. Construction
sieve) CPT: qc1 = 80 struction 2. Moderate to in water
to 150 tsf settlement. 2. Low. high. Treat requires
(Kg/cm2) Treating around pile special
Vibro- Densely Soft silty Increased Dr Moderate 2. Low. around piles groups. procedures.
Replace- compacted gravel or clayey SPT: (N1)60 = to high Treating difficult due
ment columns provide sands, 25 to 30 around piles to access
densification, silts, CPT: qc1= 80 difficult due problems.
reinforcement, clayey to 150 tsf to access
and drainage. silts (Kg/cm2) problems.
Surcharge/ Weight of sur- Any soil Increase in Low 1. High for 1 & 2. Mod- 1 & 2. Mod- Need large
Buttress Fill charge increases surface strength slope stabil- erate. Place erate to low. area.
liquefaction resist- provided ity; low for buttress fill in Place sur- Evaluate
ance by increasing it will be settlement. front of wall. charge around loads and
effective stresses. stable Place at em- pier. settlement
Buttress fill bankment toe imposed on
increases stability 2. Low. Inef- bridge.
by increasing fective in in-
resisting moment creasing soil
and extending stresses at
failure surface. piles.

Notes: * Item No.1 for foundations over or in liquefiable soils. Item No. 2 for pile (or drilled shaft) foundations extending through liquefiable soils.

14
 TABLE 2.2 (cont.): Summary of Ground Improvement Methods for Liquefaction Remediation at Existing Bridges

Method Principle Suitable Properties of Relative Abutment Applicability* Pier

Soil Treated Soil Costs Stub Full-Height Applicability* Comments
Types Wingwall
Mix-In- Lime, cement or All soft or Solidified High 1. Moderate 1. Moderate 1. Moderate to Extend to
Place Walls asphalt introduced loose soils soil walls or for lateral for lateral low. Install firm strata.
& Columns through auger or columns of spreading; spreading, completely Stage work to
special in-place relatively low for low for around pier. control
mixer. high strength settlement. settlement. construction
confine Install along Install at toe 2. Moderate to settlements.
and/or toe of of wall. low. Install Space limi-
reinforce embankment. completely tations may
potentially 2. Moderate around pier restrict use.
liquefiable 2. Low. Hard to low. Install pile groups. Construction
soils to install around abut- in water
around ment pile requires spe-
abutment pile group. cial proce-
group. dures.
Root Piles Small-diameter All soils Reinforced Moderate 1. Moderate 1. Moderate 1. Moderate to Extend piles
inclusions used to zone behaves to high to low. Zone to low. Install low. Install to firm strata.
carry tension, as a coherent for installing piles beneath piles beneath Large
shear and mass piles same as and around and around number of
compression. described for foundation. pier founda- piles may be
for grouting. tion. required to
2. Moderate provide
2. Moderate to low. Install 2. Moderate to adequate
to low. Install piles around low. Install reinforce-
piles around pile groups. piles around ment. Avoid
pile groups. pile groups. damage to
existing piles.

Notes: * Item No.1 for foundations over or in liquefiable soils. Item No. 2 for pile (or drilled shaft) foundations extending through liquefiable soils.

15
 TABLE 2.2 (cont.): Summary of Ground Improvement Methods for Liquefaction Remediation at Existing Bridges

Method Principle Suitable Properties of Abutment Applicability* Pier

Soil Treated Soil Relative Stub Full-Height Applicability* Comments
Types Costs Wingwall
Drains: Relief of excess Sand, silt Improved Low to 1&2. Mod- 1&2. Mod- 1&2. Mod- Topography
Gravel porewater drainage moderate erate. Install erate.Install erate. Install and space
Sand pressure to drains around drains around drains around limitations
Wick prevent zone zone zone improved may restrict
liquefaction. improved by improved by by other use.
Intercept and other other method(s).
dissipate excess method(s). method(s).
pore water
pressure plumes
from adjacent
liquefied soil.

Notes: * Item No.1 for foundations over or in liquefiable soils. Item No. 2 for pile (or drilled shaft) foundations extending through liquefiable soils.

16
Nonliquefiable
Layer

Liquefiable Soil
Initial Section

Sand Boil Displacement Vectors

Liquefied Soil
Deformed Section

FIGURE 2.1: Lateral Spreading Mechanism (after Youd, 1984)

Structure Structure
Bearing
Liquefied
Failure
Soil

Liquefiable Soil
Upward Flow

Prior to Liquefaction Liquefaction

FIGURE 2.2: Bearing Capacity Failure (after Youd, 1984)

17
Nonliquefiable
Layer

Liquefiable Soil

Before Earthquake

Sand Boil Liquefied

Zone

During Earthquake

FIGURE 2.3: Ground Oscillation Phenomena (after Youd, 1984)

Surficial Soil

Slope Prior to Earthquake

Displaced Material Resulting

from Flow Down Slope
Failure Zone Resulting
from Liquefaction

Slope After Earthquake

FIGURE 2.4: Flow Failure (after Youd, 1984)

18
 Embankment Pile-Supported Stub Embankment Wingwall Bridge Stub Bridge
Bridge Natural
Abutment Deck Abutment Deck
Deck Ground
2
1

Liquefiable
Soils Liquefiable
Liquefiable Soils
Soils
Full-Height Wingwall Abutment
Pile-Supported Stub Abutment Floating Stub Abutment (Non-Pile Supported)
(Pile or Non-Pile Supported)
Elevation View Elevation View
Elevation View

Toe Abutment
of Wall Sloping
2H:1V Slope 2H:1V Natural
Ground

Bridge
Roadway Bridge Roadway Deck Bridge
Deck Roadway Deck

Edge of
Pile-Supported Footing or Stub
Stub Pile Cap Abutment

Pile-Supported Stub Abutment Full-Height Wingwall Abutment Floating Stub Abutment (Non-Pile Supported)
Plan View (Pile or Non-Pile Supported) Plan View
Plan View

FIGURE 2.5: Some Typical Bridge Abutments (from Mitchell and Cooke, 1995)

19
 Bridge Deck Bridge Deck Bridge Deck
Pier Pier Pier

Cross Beam
Piles Pile Cap Piles Pile Cap Piles Pile Cap

Liquefiable Liquefiable Liquefiable

Soils Soils Soils

Nonliquefiable Nonliquefiable Nonliquefiable

Soil Soil Soil

Solid Wall or Multi-Column Pier Hammerhead Pier Single Column Circular Pier
Elevation View Elevation View Elevation View

Pile Cap Pile Cap

Piles Piles Pile Cap Piles

Bridge Bridge Bridge Pier

Deck Deck Deck

Top of Pier Top of Pier Cross Beam

Solid Wall or Multi-Column Pier Hammerhead Pier Single Column Circular Pier
Plan View Plan View Plan View

FIGURE 2.6: Some Typical Bridge Piers (from Mitchell and Cooke, 1995)

20
 Bridge Deck

Pier Column
Spread Footing

Surficial Soil

Liquefiable Improved Zone

Soil

Nonliquefiable
Soil

(a) Elevation View

Pier
Columns

Liquefiable Spread
Soil Footing

Improved Zone

(b) Plan View

FIGURE 2.7: Ground Improvement at Bridge Pier

21
 Stub Abutment
and Footing

Embankment

Surficial Soil

Improved Zone Liquefiable

Soil

Nonliquefiable
Elevation View Soil

Liquefiable
Soil

Limits of
Improved Zone
Toe of
embankment

Top of
Embankment

Embankment and Abutment Footing

Bridge Centerline
Plan View

FIGURE 2.8: Ground Improvement at Stub Abutment

22
 Bridge Deck

Pier Column Spread Footing

Surficial Soil

Liquefiable
Soil

Nonliquefiable Mixed-in-Place or
Soil Jet Grouted Walls
(a) Elevation View

Pier
Columns

Spread
Liquefiable Footing
Soil

Mixed-in-Place or
Jet Grouted Wall

(b) Plan View

FIGURE 2.9: Mixed-in-Place or Jet Grouted Wall at Bridge Pier

23
 Stub Abutment
and Footing
Buttress
Fill
Embankment

Liquefiable Soil

Nonliquefiable
Soil

FIGURE 2.10: Buttress Fill at Stub Abutment

24