Evolution of anti-liquefaction performance of foundation soils after dam construction

  • Yu HuangEmail author
  • Yang Yang
  • Lin Wang
Original Paper


This research examines the foundation of a 7-year-old reservoir dam. No anti-liquefaction reinforcement treatment was applied before or during dam construction because the designers believed that the overburden load of the levee improved the soil liquefaction resistance. Here, we reassess the anti-liquefaction performance of the foundation and evaluate the reinforcement effect of the levee overburden load. Standard penetration tests and cone penetration tests were conducted to assess and compare the liquefaction potential of the foundation soils before and after the dam construction to reveal the evolution of anti-liquefaction performance. The confining pressure and relative density of the liquefiable soils were obtained before and after dam construction. Laboratory resonant column tests and dynamic triaxial tests were conducted under different confining pressures to obtain the dynamic properties of the soils before and after dam construction and the evolution mechanism of the anti-liquefaction performance of the foundation soils.


Dam construction Seismic liquefaction Performance evolution Site test Resonant column test Dynamic triaxial test 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants Nos. 41625011 and 41372355) and the Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader (Grant No.17XD1403700).


  1. Boulanger RW (2003) High overburden stress effects in liquefaction analyses. J Geotech Eng 129(12):1071–1082Google Scholar
  2. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2004) State Normalization of Penetration Resistance and the Effect of Overburden Stress on Liquefaction Resistance. Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd Intl. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Doolin D et al. (eds) vol. 2, Stallion Press, pp. 484–491Google Scholar
  3. Chen ZY, Shen H (2014) Dynamic centrifuge tests on isolation mechanism of tunnels subjected to seismic shaking. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 42:67–77Google Scholar
  4. Chen ZY, Yu HT, Yuan Y (2014) Full 3D seismic analysis of a long-distance water conveyance tunnel. Struct Infrastruct E 10(1):128–140Google Scholar
  5. Chu BL, Hsu SC, Chang YM (2004) Ground behavior and liquefaction analyses in central Taiwan-Wufeng. Eng Geol 71(1–2):119–139Google Scholar
  6. Davis CA, Bardet JP (1996) Performance of two reservoirs during 1994 Northridge earthquake. J Geotech Eng 122(8):613–622Google Scholar
  7. Dobry R, Abdoun T (2015) Cyclic shear strain needed for liquefaction triggering and assessment of overburden pressure factor Kσ. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(11):04015047Google Scholar
  8. Dong JY, Yang JH, Huang ZQ, Ma SJ, Geng YS (2015) Dynamic numerical analysis of liquefaction and deformation and failure of sand soil of middle-route of the south-to-north water diversion project: case of the Zhanghe River floodplain. J Basic Sci Eng 23(3):421–429 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  9. Drnevich VP, Hardin BO, Shippy DJ (1978) Modulus and damping of soils by the resonant column method. Dyn Geotech Test ASTM STP 654:91–125Google Scholar
  10. Fu SC, Tatsuoka F (1984) Soil liquefaction during Haicheng and Tangshan earthquake in China: a review. Soils Found 24(4):11–29Google Scholar
  11. General Ministration of Quality and Technical Supervision of China (2001) Seismic ground motion parameter map of China (GB18306–2001). China Standards Publishing House, Beijing. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  12. General Ministration of Quality and Technical Supervision of China, Ministry of Construction of China (1999) Specification of soil test (GB /T50123–1999). China Planning Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  13. Guettaya I, Ouni MRE, Moss RES (2013) Verifying liquefaction remediation beneath an earth dam using SPT and CPT based methods. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:130–144Google Scholar
  14. Huang Y, Jiang XM (2010) Field-observed phenomena of seismic liquefaction and subsidence during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Nat Hazards 54(3):839–850Google Scholar
  15. Huang Y, Yu M (2013) Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major earthquakes of the 21st century. Nat Hazards 65(3):2375–2384Google Scholar
  16. Huang Y, Zhu CQ (2017) Safety assessment of Antiliquefaction performance of a constructed reservoir embankment. I: experimental assessment. J Perform Constr Facil 31(2):04016101Google Scholar
  17. Huang Y, Yashima A, Sawada K, Zhang F (2008) Numerical assessment of the seismic response of an earth embankment on liquefiable soils. B Eng Geol Environ 66(1):31–39Google Scholar
  18. Huang Y, Zheng H, Zhuang ZJ (2012) Seismic liquefaction analysis of a reservoir dam foundation in the south–north water diversion project in China. Part I: liquefaction potential assessment. Nat Hazards 60(3):1299–1311Google Scholar
  19. Juang CH, Fang SY, Tang WH, Knor EH, Kung GT, Zhang J (2009) Evaluating model uncertainty of an SPT-based simplified method for reliability analysis for probability of liquefaction. Soils Found 49(1):135–152Google Scholar
  20. Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Chaloulos YK (2013) Insight into the seismic liquefaction performance of shallow foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron 139(4):599–607Google Scholar
  21. Karthikeyan J, Kim D, Aiyer BG, Samui P (2013) SPT-based liquefaction potential assessment by relevance vector machine approach. Eur J Environ Civ En 17(4):248–262Google Scholar
  22. Liu HM, Yang CH, Zhang C, Mao HJ (2012) Study on static and dynamic strength characteristics of tailings silty sand and its engineering application. Saf Sci 50(4):828–834Google Scholar
  23. Mori T, Tobita Y, Imanishih (2012) Seismic damages to geo-structures in the southern district of Miyagi prefecture during the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake. Jpn Geotech J 7(1):67–78 in JapaneseGoogle Scholar
  24. Mulilis JP, Chan CK, Seed HB (1975) The effects of method of sample preparation on the cyclic stress-strain behavior of sands. Report No. EERC 75–18, U.C. Berkeley Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  25. Pei XJ, Zhang XC, Guo B, Wang GH, Zhang FY (2017) Experimental case study of seismically induced loess liquefaction and landslide. Eng Geol 223:23–30Google Scholar
  26. Sanchez M (2010) Mobilité des sédiments fins en milieu côtier. Eur J Environ Civ En 14(2):181–192Google Scholar
  27. Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 109(3):458–482Google Scholar
  28. Seo MW, Olson SM, Sun CG, Oh MH (2012) Evaluation of LPI along western coast of South Korea using SPT and CPT. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 30(3):234–260Google Scholar
  29. Shahri AA, Esfandiyari B, Rajablou R (2012) A proposed geotechnical-based method for evaluation of liquefaction potential analysis subjected to earthquake provocations (case study: Korzan earth dam, Hamedan province, Iran). Arab J Geosci 5(4):555–564Google Scholar
  30. Shanghai Construction and Traffic Committee (2012) Code for investigation of geotechnical engineering (DGJ–37–2012). Shanghai Building Materials Industry Market Management Center, Shanghai. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  31. Soga K (1998) Soil liquefaction effects observed in the Kobe earthquake of 1995. Proc Instn Civ Engrs Geotech Engng 131:34–51Google Scholar
  32. Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Hasancebi N (2007) Liquefaction assessments by field-based methodologies: foundation soils at a dam site in Northeast Turkey. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66:361Google Scholar
  33. Vaid YP, Stedman JD, Sivathayalan S (2001) Confining stress and static shear effects in cyclic liquefaction. Can Geotech J 38(3):580–591Google Scholar
  34. Varghese RM, Latha GM (2013) Effect of overburden stress and surcharge pressure on the liquefaction response of sands. Int J Geotech Eng 7(4):402–410Google Scholar
  35. Wang JH, Zhou XL, Lu JF (2003) Dynamic response of pile groups embedded in a poroelastic medium. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23(3):235–242Google Scholar
  36. Watabe Y, Sassa S (2012) Sedimentary stratigraphy of natural intertidal flats with various characteristics. Soils Found 52(3):411–429Google Scholar
  37. Xenaki VC, Athanasopoulos GA (2008) Dynamic properties and liquefaction resistance of two soil materials in an earthfill dam-laboratory test results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:605–620Google Scholar
  38. Youd TL, Holzer TL (1994) Piezometer performance at wildlife liquefaction site, California. J Geotech Eng 120(6):975–995Google Scholar
  39. Yuan JY, Xu C, Jia MC, Xing HF (2011) Testing technology in geotechnical engineering. China Water & Power Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  40. Zhu CQ, Huang Y (2017) Safety assessment of antiliquefaction performance of a constructed reservoir embankment. II: numerical assessment. J Perform Constr Facil 31(2):04016102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of EducationTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Nanjing Center, China Geological SurveyNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations