Assessment of Ground Improvement by Vibro-compaction Method for Liquefiable Deposits from In-Situ Testing Data

  • Wei Duan
  • Guojun Cai
  • Songyu Liu
  • Jun Yuan
  • Anand J. Puppala
Research paper


Seismic piezocone penetration tests, resistivity piezocone penetration tests, and standard penetration tests (SPT) were conducted to quantitatively assess the effects of soil improvement by vibro-compaction. The differences of piezocone penetration test (CPTU) basis readings, improvement index for densification, electrical resistivity of soils, and state parameters before and after ground treatment were analyzed, and the effect of the increase in stiffness on the site response was also analyzed for the effect of densification. A combination of shear wave velocity, Vs, and cone tip resistance, qc, was used for the interpretation of the changes of coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0, and mean grain size, D50, before and after compaction. The dissipation process of excess pore pressures during vibro-compaction has been presented to show the effect of drainage. In addition, liquefaction potential was also estimated by CPTU and SPT for its effect of reinforcement. The results showed that the liquefied soil was densified and the use of a combination of in-situ tests could be used for ground improvement needed to mitigate liquefaction.


Vibro-compaction SCPTU RCPTU Ground improvement Liquefiable deposits 



Majority of the work presented in this paper was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFC0800200), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41672294), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (KYCX17_0139). These financial supports are gratefully acknowledged. The authors also would like to thank Prof. Liyuan Tong, Guangyin Du, and YuanCheng for their assistance in field tests.


  1. 1.
    Massarsch KR, Fellenius BH (2002) Vibratory compaction of coarse-grained soils. Can Geotech J 39(3):695–709. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bo MW, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S, Leong M, Disfani MM (2013) Densification of land reclamation sands by deep vibratory compaction techniques. J Mater Civ Eng 26(8):06014016. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cai G, Lin J, Liu S, Puppala AJ (2017) Characterization of spatial variability of CPTU data in a liquefaction site improved by vibro-compaction method. KSCE J Civ Eng 21(1):209–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hussin JD (2006) Methods of soft ground improvement. The foundation engineering handbook. Taylor & Francis Group, New York, pp 529–565Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Massarsch KR, Fellenius BH (2014) Use of CPT for design, monitoring, and performance verification of compaction projects. In: Proceedings Edited by Robertson, PK, Cabal, KL, pp 1187–1200Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tong B, Schaefer VR (2016) Optimization of vibrocompaction design for liquefaction mitigation of gravity caisson quay walls. Int J Geomech 16(4):04016005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juang CH, Ching J, Wang L, Khoshnevisan S, Ku CS (2013) Simplified procedure for estimation of liquefaction-induced settlement and site-specific probabilistic settlement exceedance curve using cone penetration test (CPT). Can Geotech J 50(10):1055–1066. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rollins KM, Kim J (2010) Dynamic compaction of collapsible soils based on US case histories. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(9):1178–1186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou Y, Sun Z, Chen J, Chen Y, Chen R (2017) Shear wave velocity-based evaluation and design of stone column improved ground for liquefaction mitigation. Earthq Eng Eng Vibr 16(2):247–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Youd TL et al (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils [J]. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(10):817–833. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cai G, Liu S, Puppala AJ (2012) Assessment of soft clay ground improvement from SCPTU results. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 165(2):83–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daniel CR, Howie JA, Campanella RG, Giacheti HL (1999) The resistivity piezocone penetration test (RCPTU) for quality control of geotechnical ground densification. In: Symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems (SAGEEP). Oakland, California, March, pp 133–142.
  13. 13.
    Cheng Y, Liu S, Liu Z, Cai G (2012) Seismic cone penetration test assessment of vibratory probe compaction for liquefaction mitigation. In: GeoCongress 2012: state of the art and practice in geotechnical engineering, ASCE pp 1898–1907Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baziar MH, Ziaie-Moayed R (2006) Evaluation of cone penetration resistance in loose silty sand using calibration chamber. Int J Civ Eng 4(2):106–119Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campanella RG, Gillespie, Robertson PK (1982) Pore pressures during cone penetration testing. ESOPT-II, Proceedings of the second European symposium on penetration testing, Amsterdam. 2, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 507–512Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baziar MH, Azizkandi AS, Kashkooli A (2015) Prediction of pile settlement based on cone penetration test results: an ANN approach. KSCE J Civ Eng 19(1):98–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cai G, Chu Y, Liu S, Puppala AJ (2016) Evaluation of subsurface spatial variability in site characterization based on RCPTU data. Bull Eng Geol Env 75(1):401–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASTM D5778 (2012) International standard test method for electronic friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils, annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Blackie Academic and Professional, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISSMGE (1999) International reference test procedure (IRTP) for the cone penetration test (CPT) and the cone penetration test with pore pressure (CPTU). Report of the ISSMGE technical committee 16 on ground property characterization from in-situ testing. Proceedings of the 12th European conference of soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, 3. Balkema, Amsterdam, pp 2195–2222Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dove JE, Boxill LEC, Jarrett JB (2000) A CPT-based index for evaluating ground improvement. Adv Grouting Ground Modif ASCE Geotech Spec Publ 104(GSP104):296–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Massarsch KR, Fellenius BH (2017) Evaluation of resonance compaction of sand fills based on cone penetration tests. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improv 170(3):149–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Been K, Jefferies MG (1985) A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique 35(2):99–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jafarian Y, Abdollahi AS, Vakili R, Baziar MH (2010) Probabilistic correlation between laboratory and field liquefaction potentials using relative state parameter index (ξR). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(10):1061–1072. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Been K, Jefferies MG, Crooks JHA, Rothenburg L (1987) The cone penetration test in sands: part II, general inference of state. Geotechnique 37(3):285–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Been K, Crooks JHA, Jefferies MG (1988) Interpretation of material state from the CPT in sands and clays. In: Penetration testing in the UK. Thomas Telford, London, pp 89–92Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jefferies MG, Been K (2006) Soil liquefaction—a critical state approach. Taylor and Francis Group, London (ISBN 0-419-16170-8) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Campanella RG, Martens S, Tomlinson S, Davies MP (1995) In-situ measurement of hydraulic conductivity in sands. In: Proceedings of 48th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Canadian Geotechnical Society, Vancouver, BC, 1, pp 309–318Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Howie JA, Daniel C, Asalemi AA, Campanella RG (2000) Combinations of in situ tests for control of ground modification in silts and sands. In Innovations and applications in geotechnical site characterization, pp 181–198Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang T, Cai G, Liu S, Duan W (2016) Laboratory observation of engineering properties and deformation mechanisms of cemented rubber–sand mixtures. Constr Build Mater 120:514–523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mayne PW, Schneider JA, Martin GK (1999) Small-and large-strain soil properties from seismic fiat dilatometer tests. In: Jamiolkowski M, Lancellotta R, Lo Presti D (eds) Prefailure deformation of geomaterials: proceedings of the 2nd international symposium, Torino, 1 ed. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, pp 419–426Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hussien MN, Karray M (2015) Shear wave velocity as a geotechnical parameter: an overview. Can Geotech J 53(2):252–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baldi G, Bellotti R, Ghionna V, Jamiolkowski M, Pasqualini E (1986) Interpretation of CPTs and CPTUs-2nd part: drained penetration of sands. In Proceedings of 4th international geotechnical seminar on field instrumentation and in situ measurements, Nanyang Technology Institute, Singapore, pp 143–156Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eslaamizaad S, Robertson PK(1996) Estimation of in situ lateral stress and stress history in sands. In: Proceedings of 49th Canadian geotechnical conference S, Vol 1, pp 439–447Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu S, Cheng Y (2012) Resonance compaction method for highway ground improvement at liquefaction site. China J Highway Transp 25(6):24–29 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder JrLF, Kayen RE, Moss RE (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(12):1314–1340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yang Y, Chen L, Sun R, Chen Y, Wang W (2017) A depth-consistent SPT-based empirical equation for evaluating sand liquefaction. Eng Geol 221:41–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442–459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2015) CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(2):04015065. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boncio P, Amoroso S, Vessia G, Francescone M, Nardone M, Monaco P, Galadini F (2018) Evaluation of liquefaction potential in an intermountain Quaternary lacustrine basin (Fucino basin, central Italy). Bull Earthq Eng 16(1):91–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Design Code (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings GB 50011-2010. China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46(11):1337–1355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Duan
    • 1
  • Guojun Cai
    • 1
  • Songyu Liu
    • 1
  • Jun Yuan
    • 1
  • Anand J. Puppala
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Geotechnical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringThe University of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations