REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NUMERICAL STUDIES ON THE EFFICIENCY OF JET

GROUT COLUMNS IN LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION

MASTER OF SCIENCE

GİZEM ŞAHİN

SEPTEMBER 2021
MUĞLA
 MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN UNIVERSITY
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

APPROVAL OF THE THESIS

The thesis entitled NUMERICAL STUDIES ON THE EFFICIENCY OF JET

GROUT COLUMNS IN LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION is submitted by
GİZEM ŞAHİN in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Master of
Science in Civil Engineering Department by,

____________________________________________________________________
EXAMINING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Selman SAĞLAM (Head of Committee)
Civil Engineering Department,
Adnan Menderes University, Aydın,

Assist. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Rıfat KAHYAOĞLU (Supervisor)

Civil Engineering Department,
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Deniz ÜLGEN (Member)

Civil Engineering Department,
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla
___________________________________________________________________
APPROVAL OF HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
Prof. Dr. Recep BİRGÜL
Head, Civil Engineering Department,
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla

Assist. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Rıfat KAHYAOĞLU

Supervisor, Civil Engineering Department,
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla

Date: 03/09/2021
____________________________________________________________________
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that,
as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material
and results that are not original to this work.

Gizem Şahin
03/09/2021

iii
 ABSTRACT
NUMERICAL STUDIES ON THE EFFICIENCY OF JET GROUT
COLUMNS IN LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION

Gizem ŞAHİN

Master of Science (M.Sc.)

Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
Department of Civil Engineering
Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. M. Rıfat KAHYAOĞLU
September 2021, 64 pages

Liquefaction, one of the main research topics of geotechnical engineering, is one of

the major causes of structural damage caused by dynamic loads. In this study, the
contribution of jet grout columns to bearing capacity, settlement problems and
liquefaction was tried to be determined by numerical investigations. The results of
the ground studies conducted in the field where the Transformer Assembly-
Dismantling Building is located in Kocaeli were evaluated. The local soil consists of
silty sand. The bearing capacity, settlement and liquefaction potential were evaluated
using different methods based on the data of the drillings, the index properties of the
research pits and soils. The liquefaction risk of the ground in the work isn't the
acceptable value. In the study area where bearing capacity, settlement and
liquefaction problems were determined according to the determined soil properties, it
was investigated by analytical and numerical methods whether the problems in
question disappeared after the production of the jet grout columns selected as an
improvement method. To investigate the effectiveness of jet grout columns in
preventing liquefaction through a field study, MIDAS GTS NX performed numerical
analyses using the UBCSAND constitutive model. One of the most important
features of the model is that it is an elastoplastic model that can examine the pore
water pressure depending on time. The shear stresses, shear deformations, and
changes in excess pore pressure ratios in the liquefied soil during the earthquake
were examined by considering different column strength ratios and area ratios. The
results were evaluated and interpreted. As a result, it has been shown that although
jet-grout columns are more rigid and subjected to greater shear stress, they do not
significantly reduce shear deformations and excess pore water pressures in
liquefiable soil.

Keywords: Jet Grout Column, Bearing Capacity, Settlement, Liquefaction, Finite

Element Model, UBCSAND Constitutive Model.

iv
 ÖZET
JET-GROUT KOLONLARININ SIVILAŞMA AZALTIMINDA ETKİNLİĞİ
ÜZERİNE SAYISAL ÇALIŞMALAR

Gizem ŞAHİN

Yüksek Lisans Tezi

Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
İnşaat Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı
Danışman: Dr. Öğr. Üyesi M. Rıfat KAHYAOĞLU
Eylül 2021, 64 sayfa

Geoteknik mühendisliğinin ana araştırma konularından biri olan sıvılaşma, dinamik

yüklerin neden olduğu yapısal hasarların önemli nedenlerinden biridir. Bu çalışmada,
jet grout kolonlarının taşıma ve oturma problemleri ile sıvılaşmaya karşı katkısı,
sayısal araştırmalar ile belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Kocaeli İli Alstom Grid Enerji
Endüstrisi A.Ş. bölgesinde bulunan Trafo Montaj-Demontaj binasının bulunduğu
sahada yapılan zemin etüd çalışmalarının sonuçları değerlendirilmiştir. Zemin siltli
kumdan oluşmaktadır. Sondajlara ait veriler, araştırma çukurları ve zeminlerin indeks
özellikleri temel alınarak, taşıma kapasitesi, oturma ve sıvılaşma potansiyeli farklı
yöntemlerle değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma alanındaki zeminin sıvılaşmaya karşı
güvenlik katsayısı kabul edilebilir değerin altındadır. Belirlenen zemin özelliklerine
göre taşıma kapasitesi, oturma, sıvılaşma problemleri tespit edilen çalışma alanında,
iyileştirme yöntemi olarak seçilen jet grout kolonlarının imalatından sonrası için söz
konusu problemlerin ortadan kalkıp kalkmadığı analitik ve nümerik yöntemlerle
araştırılmıştır. Bir saha çalışması yoluyla sıvılaşmayı önlemede jet grout
kolonlarının etkinliğini araştırmak için MIDAS GTS NX, UBCSAND bünye modeli
kullanılarak nümerik analizler gerçekleştirmiştir. Modelin en önemli özelliklerinden
biri de zamana bağlı boşluk suyu basıncı da inceleyebilen elasto plastik bir model
olmasıdır. Farklı kolon dayanım oranları ve alan oranları dikkate alınarak deprem
sırasında sıvılaşan zeminde oluşan kayma gerilmeleri, kayma deformasyonları ve
aşırı boşluk suyu basıncı oranları değişimleri incelenmiş, sonuçlar değerlendirilerek
yorumlanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, jet-grout kolonlarının daha rijit olmasına ve daha fazla
kayma gerilmesine maruz kalmasına rağmen, sıvılaşabilir zeminde kayma
deformasyonlarını ve aşırı boşluk suyu basınçlarını, önemli ölçüde azaltmadığını
göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Jet Grout Kolon, Taşıma Kapasitesi, Oturma, Sıvılaşma, Sonlu
Elemanlar Modeli, UBCSAND Bünye Modeli.

v
 To my family,

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest and sincere gratitude to my supervisor Assist.

Prof. Dr. Mehmet Rıfat KAHYAOĞLU for his technical guidance and
encouragement throughout the course of this dissertation. I would also like to thank
him for his kindly attitude, help and constant support.
I would also like to thank head of examining committee Assoc. Prof. Dr. Selman
SAĞLAM not only for his constructive comments about my thesis but also his
endless encouragement.
I am thankful to examining committee member Assoc. Prof. Dr. Deniz ÜLGEN for
his contributions and suggestions regarding the improvement of this dissertation.
I am thankful to Research Assistant Onur TOYGAR whose contributions are
gratefully appreciated.
The study leading to these results has received funding from Muğla Sıtkı Koçman
University Scientific Research Projects with the BAP Code: 18-001. The financial
support from BAP Coordinatorship of Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University is gratefully
acknowledged.
Site data used in this study was supplied from Alstom Energy Industry Inc. I am
thankful to Project manager civil engineer Turgay ERDOĞAN for procurement of
site data.
I wish to thank my husband civil engineer Şafak Çağlar ŞAHİN for their constant
support during the whole stages of my thesis.
My deepest gratitude goes to my family for their unflagging love and support over
years; this dissertation would be simply impossible without them.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank our new baby, who will join us, for
accompanying me in my studies.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ viii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................. xiii
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1. General Overview .............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Objective of the Study ....................................................................................... 2
1.3. Outline of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................... 4
2.1. Overview of Liquefaction ................................................................................. 6
2.2. Mechanism of Liquefaction ............................................................................... 8
2.2.1. Flow liquefaction ........................................................................................ 9
2.2.2. Cyclic mobility ......................................................................................... 10
2.3. Factors Affecting Liquefaction........................................................................ 11
2.3.1. Effect of source ......................................................................................... 11
2.3.2. Properties of soil ....................................................................................... 12
2.3.2.1.Geological process ............................................................................. 12
2.3.2.2. Soil type ............................................................................................. 13
2.4 Determination of Liquefaction Risk ................................................................. 16
2.4.1. Simplified method .................................................................................... 16
2.4.2. Experimental studies ................................................................................. 21
2.5. Constitutive Models Used in Liquefaction Analysis ....................................... 22
3. SITE....................................................................................................................... 24
3.1. Site Properties.................................................................................................. 24
3.2. Seismicity of the Region ................................................................................. 26
3.3. Assessment of Liquefaction Risk by Using Analytical Method ..................... 27
3.3.1. Liquefaction analysis based on SPT ......................................................... 27
3.3.2. Liquefaction analysis based on Vs ........................................................... 29
3.3.3. Settlement due to liquefaction .................................................................. 30

viii
 3.4. Assessment of Liquefaction Risk by Using MIDAS GTS-NX ....................... 31
3.4.1. Constitutive model .................................................................................... 31
3.4.2. Analysis .................................................................................................... 34
4. SOIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT with JET GROUT COLUMNS ............ 39
4.1. Properties of Jet Grout ..................................................................................... 39
4.2. Numerical Analysis ......................................................................................... 39
4.3. Affecting of Jet Grout...................................................................................... 41
4.3. Assessment of Liquefaction Risk by Using MIDAS GTS-NX ....................... 44
4.3.1. Constitutive model .................................................................................... 44
4.4. Parametric Study ............................................................................................. 45
4.4.1. Shear stress and shear strain distribution .................................................. 46
4.4.2. The effect of Jet-Grout columns on the formation of excess pore water
pressure ............................................................................................................... 54
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 56
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 57
CURRICULUM VITAE .......................................................................................... 64

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Liquefaction criteria of non-plastic fine-grained soils (Andrews and

Martin, 2000) ............................................................................................................. 14

Table 2.2. Correction factors used to determine N1,60 (Robertson and Wride 1998;
Youd et al. 2001) ........................................................................................................ 18

Table 3.1. Required nonlinear parameters for UBCSAND........................................ 33

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Liquefaction process a) before b) during c) after ...................................... 8

Figure 2.2. Tilting of Kawagishi-cho apartments in 1964 Niigata Earthquake (Liu,

2009) ............................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 2.3. Alaska Earthquake in 1964 (Taylor, 2014).............................................. 10

Figure 2.4. Motagua Riverside ground cracks in 1976 Guatemala Earthquake......... 11

Figure 2.5. Liquefaction susceptibility criteria proposed by Seed et al. (2003) ........ 14

Figure 2.6. (a) soil with a low coefficient of uniformity Uc <3.5; (b) soil with a high
coefficient of uniformity Uc ≥ 3.5. Grain size distribution curves with the ranges of
the possibility of liquefaction marked (Anonymous, 2007)....................................... 15

Figure 2.7. Relationship with liquefaction resistance-standard penetration pulse count

(Seed et al. 1975)........................................................................................................ 19

Figure 2.8. Collected liquefaction data from the events of history and curve
recommended calculation of CRR from CPT's corrected tip resistance (qc1N)
(Robertson and Wride 1998) ...................................................................................... 20

Figure 3.1. Work site location .................................................................................... 24

Figure 3.2. Area planned as Transformer Assembly-Disassembly building and drilled

drilling pits ................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 3.3. (a) Variation of SPT N1,60 with the depth (b) soil profile and properties 25

Figure 3.4. Distribution of M ≥ 4.0 earthquakes that took place between 1900-2000
by years (Anonymous, 2003) ..................................................................................... 26

Figure 3.5. 17 August 1999 earthquake rupture and fault segments (Demirtaş et al.
1999) .......................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 3.6. Liquefaction graph based on 225 land shear wave velocity (Vs1) records
for clay, silt and gravel ground (Andrus and Stokoe, 2000) ...................................... 29

Figure 3.7. N1=(N1)90, Relationship between volumetric strain after liquefaction and
safety factor (Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992) ............................................................ 30

Figure 3.8. Finite Element Model (MIDAS-GTS NX) .............................................. 32

xi
Figure 3.9. Non-Linear soil parameters of UBCSAND constitutive model in MIDAS
GTS NX ..................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 3.10. Percentage modal effective mass ........................................................... 35

Figure 3.11. Total translation a) mode 1 b) mode 13 ................................................. 35

Figure 3.12. Periods value for 1st and 13th modes ...................................................... 36

Figure 3.13. Free field a) infinite boundary b) absorbent boundary .......................... 36

Figure 3.14. a) PGA=0,309g b) PGA=0,546g c) Kocaeli earthquake (1999) – Record

obtained in Düzce station ........................................................................................... 37

Figure 3.15. UBCSAND results, liquefiable soil ....................................................... 38

Figure 4.1. Ground improvement calculations ........................................................... 41

Figure 4.2. Finite Element Model with Jet Grout (MIDAS-GTS NX) ...................... 45

Figure 4.3. UBCSAND results, improved soil with jet grouts................................... 45

Figure 4.4. Time-dependent shear stress variation at different depths a) 5m b) 7m c)

9m d)11m ................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 4.5. Maximum shear stress variation at different depths improved soil and jet
grout column .............................................................................................................. 48

Figure 4.6. Time-dependent shear strain variation at different depths a) 5m b) 7m c)

9m d)11m ................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 4.7. Shear strain (%) variation at different depths, improved soil and jet grout
column ........................................................................................................................ 51

Figure 4.8. Time-dependent shear stress variation at different depths (Demir and
Özener, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 52

Figure 4.9. Variation of shear stress ratio with depth for different jet-grout area ratios
(Gr=38.6).................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 4.10. Variation of shear stress ratio with depth for different jet-grout strength
ratios (Ar=%8.7) ........................................................................................................ 53

Figure 4.11. Variation of excess pore water pressure with time for different area
ratios (Gr=38.6) (7 m) ................................................................................................ 54

Figure 4.12. Variation of excess pore water pressure with time for different strength
ratios (Ar=8.7%) ........................................................................................................ 55

xii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

v Poission Ratio
g Acceleration of Gravity
w Water Content
 Internal Friction Angle
c Cohesion
Es Elasticity Modulus
Pa Atmosphere Pressure
Uc Coefficient of Uniformity
Dr Relative Density
Vs Shear Wave Velocity
Vp Primary (Compressional) Wave Velocity
τcyc Uniform Cyclic Shear Stress Amplitude of the Earthquake
σvo Total Vertical Stress
σ’vo Vertical Effective Stress
amax Maximum Ground Acceleration
rd Stress Reduction Factor
z Depth of the Ground Level
N Number of SPT blow counts
CN Correction Factor of According to Vertical Geological Stress
CR Correction Factor of Stem Bar Length
CS Correction Factor of According to the Method of Sampling
CB Correction Factor of Diameter of the Drilling Pit
CE Correction Factor of the Energy Rate of the Rammer
N1,60 Corrected SPT Blow Count
MW Moment Magnitude of the Earthquake
qc1N Corrected CPT Tip Resistance
Gs Shear Modulus
CM Moment Magnitude Correction Coefficient
Liquefaction Resistance
earthquake Average Repetitive Shear Stress in Soil Caused by an Earthquake
xiii
σ’v0 Effective Stress
σv0 Total Stress
SDS Short Period Design Spectral Acceleration Value
σ'v Effective Vertical Stress
Ɛv% Post Liquefaction Volumetric Strain
ue Excess Pore Pressure
ru Excess Pore Pressure Ratio
r'3c Consolidation Stress (for Triaxial Pressure Test)
r'vc Consolidation Stress (for Free Soil)
kGe Elastic Shear Modulus Number
kGP Plastic Shear Modulus Number
ne Elastic Shear Modulus Exponent
np Plastic Shear Modulus Exponent
Фcv Constant Volume Friction Angle
Фp Peak Friction Angle
Rf Failure Ratio
fdens Soil Densification Calibration
fEPOST Post Liquefaction Calibration
Δt Time Interval
σc Unconfined Compressive Strength
σt Tensile Strength
t0 28-Day Shear Strength
qu Compressive Strength
B Diameter
S Distance
KG Shear Stress Ratio
ts Ratio of Redunreduced stress,
t Unreduced Shear Stress
Gr Shear Modulus Ratio
Ar Displacement Ratio
A Foundation Area
GWT Groundwater Level
FC Fine Content
SM Non-plastic Silty Sand

xiv
SPT Standard Penetration Test
CPT Cone Penetration Tests
DMT Dilatometer Index
CSR Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio
CRR Cyclic Resistance Ratio
FS Safety Coefficient
LL Liquid Limit
PI Plasticity Index
MSF Magnitude Scaling Parameter
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
ML Local Size
UCS 28 Days Free Compressive Strength

xv
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. General Overview

The energy released during earthquakes can cause many problems. Soil improvement
methods are used to increase the ground strength, especially on soils that are
sensitive to problems such as bearing capacity, settlement, liquefaction originating
from earthquake-related problems. Jet grout columns, also known as high modulus
columns as a soil improvement method, are widely preferred as bearing capacity
increasing, settlement reducing and liquefaction prevention methods (Durgunoğlu,
2004).

Fact that this method is widely used today, the reliability of the jet grout method has
made it necessary to compare and examine the field tests during and after the
manufacturing phase with various methods and methods. Jet grout columns have
become a general engineering practice that is used as a preventive measure for such
problems, although their efficiency has not been sufficiently examined by case
analysis or numerical studies.

In this project, the contribution of jet grout columns against transport and settlement
problems and liquefaction was tried to be determined with a case study. Alstom Grid
Energy Industry Inc. The field studies report carried out in the project area received
from the authorized person was examined in detail, and using the soil parameters
determined as a result of the field tests, the bearing capacity, settlement and
liquefaction were analyzed. The soil improvement project has been designed using
jet grout columns for the site where bearing capacity, settlement and liquefaction
problems are detected. After the production of the designed jet grout columns, the
site improved soil parameters were determined by analytical methods, and the post-
improvement bearing capacity, settlement and liquefaction calculations were
repeated using these parameters. In addition, numerical liquefaction analysis was
performed with two-dimensional finite element programs. The bearing capacity in

1
the subject, whether settlement and liquefaction problems have been eliminated has
been determined by analytical and numerical analysis.

1.2. Objective of the Study

The results have been evaluated of the ground surveys carried out in the area where
the Transformer Assembly-Dismantling Building is located in the Kocaeli Province
Alstom Grid Energy Industry Inc. Bearing capacity, settlement and liquefaction
problems were determined İn the study area. It was investigated by analytical and
MIDAS GTS NX performed numerical analyzes using the UBCSAND constituent
model whether these problems disappear after the production of the jet grout
columns selected as an improvement method. The shear stresses, shear deformations,
and changes in excess pore pressure ratios in the liquefied soil during the earthquake
were examined by considering different column strength ratios and area ratios. The
results were evaluated and interpreted.

1.3. Outline of the Thesis

This study is organized into five chapters. A summary of the thesis structure is given
as below:

• Chapter 1 gives brief information about the liquefaction of the ground and the
jet grout method, one of the ground improvement methods. The existing gaps
and needs for the present study are described. The objectives and scope of
work are presented briefly.

• Chapter 2 provides a detailed literature review. The liquefaction mechanism,

what are the factors affecting liquefaction and how the liquefaction risk is
explained. Constitutive models used in liquefaction analysis and mitigation
measures are explained.

• Chapter 3 details site properties and seismicity of the region in the site
explained. Liquefaction Risk by using analytical method and MIDAS GTS-
NX evaluated. In addition, other founding models are also mentioned and
2
 analyses made with the UBCSAND model without soil improvement are
included.

• In Chapter 4, findings Jet grout properties as a soil improvement method and

findings obtained jet grout columns study are presented. Using the MIDAS
GTS NX UBCSAND model, Jet grout analyzes were repeated statically and
dynamically for each different spacing between adjacent columns. Jet grout
columns in reducing the liquefaction potential in the field, numerical analyzes
(nonlinear stress-time analysis) were made for different strength and area
ratios. These parametric studies were evaluated in terms of shear stress-shear
deformation distribution and the effect of Jet-Grout columns on the formation
of excess pore water pressure.

• Chapter 5 presents the summary and conclusion of the dissertation.

Concluding jet grout columns performance of in liquefiable soil are outlined.
Recommendations for further investigations are provided.

3
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Liquefaction can be defined as its transformation into a liquid state by losing its
effective stress for a certain period as a result of the increase in pore water pressure
caused by repeated shear stresses in undrained loading conditions in water-saturated
cohesionless soils (Mogami and Kubo, 1953; Terzaghi, 1956).

Liquefaction and lateral flow behaviours occur on loose sandy soils saturated with
water, which are the most important factor that causes loss of bearing capacity on the
ground during earthquakes, are among the important research topics in recent years.
First, liquefaction and related structural damages were observed as a result of the
1906 San Francisco earthquake (Youd and Hoose, 1976). However, it was started to
be investigated due to the problem that occurred on the soil due to the effect of two
big earthquakes (Alaska, 1964 and Niigata, 1964) in the 1960s, and research on the
subject has continued since then. Two examples in which the detrimental effects of
liquefaction have been observed in recent history are the 1995 Kobe and 1999
Gölcük earthquakes. The liquefaction caused by the Gölcük earthquake has affected
a significant portion of approximately 55,000 buildings with mild, moderate and
severe intensity.

By the reason of these negativities, several effective prevention strategies have been
developed to reduce the risk of liquefaction, including building safety (Idriss and
Boulanger, 2008). The choice of liquefaction prevention method is directly related to
risk management or risk probability assessment. Mitchell (2008) categorized the
improvement methods according to their applicability in different particle sizes. The
effectiveness of the soil improvement method depends on the grain size distribution.
Depending on the grain size, vibration methods, deep dynamic compaction,
compression grouting, soil mixing, drainage and jet grouting are the most common
examples of soil improvement methods.

According to Moseley and Kirch (2004), jet injection is a multi-purpose soil

improvement method that involves both mixing and partial displacement of the soil
4
with cement. In terms of liquefaction prevention, the effectiveness of jet injection has
been studied with many studies based on various case analyses (Hausler and Sitar,
2001; Martin and et al., 2004; Spagnoli, 2008). Apart from these case studies,
Adalier et al. (2003) determined that stone columns prevent liquefaction in non-
plastic silty sands with their centrifuge experiments. Similar to the stone column
approach, Özsoy and Durgunoğlu (2003) showed that the effectiveness of jet grout
columns is theoretically dependent on the ratio of jet grout column shear modulus
and soil shear modulus. In addition to these studies, the contribution of jet grout
columns in liquefaction prevention was confirmed by a few numerical analyzes.
While some of these analyses are performed using the simplified approach, which is
also named the total stress approach (Martin & Olgun, 2007; Olgun & Martin, 2008;
Unutmaz, 2012; Callisto et al., 2013; Cristovao et al., 2015), some are based on the
effective stress approach depending on the pore water pressure ratio (Almani et
al.2012; Almani et al., 2013; Keepa et al., 2014). According to the aforementioned
studies, it has been determined that the effectiveness of jet grout columns in
preventing liquefaction will increase due to the difference between jet grout and soil
shear strength.

Liquefaction and related uncertainties have not yet been resolved, despite the serious
progress achieved through many studies (Hausler & Sitar, 2001). Studies are needed
to more clearly determine the effect of soil behaviour and liquefaction mechanism on
increasing the liquefaction resistance of jet grout columns. For this reason, besides
case analyses, numerical analyzes using finite element and finite difference methods
should be preferred mostly (Unutmaz, 2012). To determine the behaviour of soils
during liquefaction, the numerical model to be developed should define the
earthquake movement that will cause the movement of the soil, the response of the
soil to this effect and the internal effects that will occur in the soil during this process
(pore water pressure increase, distribution and damping) in a way that best suits the
conditions in the site. For this reason, a numerical solution created using the
UBCSAND constitutive model in case of insufficient site data is very important,
especially for situations that require calculating more than one size such as
liquefaction analysis, and post-earthquake observations are necessary to obtain site
data.

5
This chapter aims to give detailed information about liquefaction. Firstly, the
liquefaction phenomenon and its mechanism during an earthquake is explained in
general and exemplified by cases in Turkey and worldwide. Then, determination of
liquefaction risk using the simplified analytical method, laboratory tests and other
numerical analyses. Finally, mitigation measures against liquefaction are discussed
with both numerical and field studies in the literature.

2.1. Overview of Liquefaction

Seismic risks can be classified as tsunamis, landslides, ground shaking, liquefaction,

morphological risk, retaining structure failures (Muduli, 2013). Liquefaction of soil
is an essential creator of both losses of life and destruction of structures and
infrastructure systems. Liquefaction is one of the most quirky, complicated,
important issues discussed in the geotechnical earthquake engineering branch
(Kramer, 1996). In general expression, liquefaction is the loss of strength of fully
saturated, cohesionless soils due to an increase in pore water pressure during an
earthquake (Rauch, 1997).

Firstly, Casagrande (1936) was able to show the behaviour of saturated sand under
undrained conditions without using the liquefaction term. It is the first study that
shows the occurrence of quick strength loss of fully saturated loose sand deposits
flow like viscous fluid even under not fully saturated (Terzaghi and Peck, 1948).
There are many definitions and studies about liquefaction. The term liquefaction can
be expressed as a partially or completely loss of shear strength in saturated soils due
to high pore water pressure generation during sudden, strong ground motions such as
an earthquake (Seed and Lee, 1966). During liquefaction, the soil may behave similar
to a viscous fluid, so that they may flow significant distances. The resulting
settlement may cause destruction of structures conducing towards both casualties and
economical loss.

The pore water pressure increases due to cyclic shear stress induced by the spread of
shear waves (Ishihara, 1985). The earthquake occurs suddenly in a very short time
interval and pore water pressure increases continuously during the earthquake. For
cohesionless soils in undrained conditions, water inside the soil matrix tries to move
6
due to high pore water pressure and flows to the ground surface. Contact between
soil particles disappears due to the movement of liquid particles (water). This event
results that effective stress becomes zero and soil losing its capability of bearing
shear load. The phenomenon is called liquefaction.

Liquefaction, one of the most dangerous geotechnical problems, can be seen during
and/or after the earthquake and the results are highly damaging (Tonaroğlu, 2006).
The effects of liquefaction were firstly observed in the San Francisco earthquake in
the 1900s. Thereafter, liquefaction was observed in Loma Prieta (1989), Los Angeles
Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995), Kocaeli (1999) earthquakes. In the 1906 San
Fransisco earthquake, several bridges, roadways, pipelines and buildings were
damaged ground failures associated with liquefaction (Youd and Hoose, 1976). In
the 1995 Kobe earthquake, Port of Kobe, ranked 6th among container ports all
around the world, was heavily damaged and shut down for 2 years. The economic
extend of the event cause loss of more than US$ 100 billion (Chang, 2000). Daniell
et al. (2012) reported that 1906 San Fransisco, 1989 Loma Prieta, 1994 Northridge,
1995 Kobe and 1999 Kocaeli earthquakes caused approximately more than 6bn.
US$, 2.5bn. US$, 23.5bn. US$, 6.5bn. US$, 3.5bn. US$, respectively. The economic
loss along with the loss of many lives may externalize the effects of liquefaction after
earthquakes.

The first studies on liquefaction were reported after the Niigata (Japan, 1964) and
Alaska (USA, 1964) earthquakes in the 1960s (Anonymous, 1997). These two major
earthquakes have caused terrible damage. As a result of these events, liquefaction has
become important and started to be investigated. The first soil liquefaction observed
in Turkey was in the 1992 Erzincan earthquake. After that, there were liquefaction
events in Dinar (1995), Adana-Ceyhan (1998), Kocaeli (1999) and Düzce (1999)
earthquakes (Orhan et al. 2013). Especially, the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake showed
devastating effects of liquefaction after rupturing of the western part of the North
Anatolian Fault (Ulusay et al. 2001). In summary, soil liquefaction is a very
damaging phenomenon and needs special attention.

7
2.2. Mechanism of Liquefaction

As aforementioned in Chapter 2.1, liquefaction phenomena may be summarized as a

sudden loss of shear strength in soil due to a decrease in effective stress. Pore water
pressure increases under repetitive stresses (dynamic loadings such as an earthquake)
for saturated, cohesionless sand or sandy silt. Knowing effective stress is mainly
dependent on pore water pressure, shear strength of the soil decreases or even
completely lost. Then, soil behaves like a liquid (Youd, 1984). This is the main
description of the liquefaction process.

Figure 2.1. Liquefaction process a) before b) during c) after

The phases of the liquefaction process are illustrated in Figure 2.1. Initially, the soil
strata below the ground water table have both water and solid particles. The contact
between solid particles implies the existence of effective stress. In the case of
liquefaction, the loading increases rapidly and causes excess pore pressure. These
results decrease in contact between solid particles and decrease in effective stress.
After the liquefaction process is completed, the soil becomes in a denser form as
shown in Figure 2.1.c.

Soil liquefaction can be divided into two categories as flow liquefaction and cyclic
liquefaction (Kramer, 1996). Cyclic mobility occurs more frequently, but the effects
of flow liquefaction are more destructive. The mechanism and the characteristics of
flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility are discussed in Chapter 2.2.1 and Chapter
2.2.2 in detail.

8
2.2.1. Flow liquefaction

Flow liquefaction can take place when the shear stress necessary for static
equilibrium of a soil mass (the static shear stress) is greater than the shear strength of
the soil in its liquefied condition (Kramer, 1996). Once large deformations are
generated by flow liquefaction, the soil mass is driven by static shear stresses. In
cases where static stresses as produce as flow failure reduce the ground strength,
cyclic stresses can easily make the ground unstable. Static loading, for instance, can
be affected by new constructions on a slope that applies additional forces on the soil
beneath the foundations (Johansson, 2000). Pile driving, blasting, seismic waves etc.
are all cases of dynamic loads that could occur flow liquefaction. After triggered, the
strength of a soil precision to flow liquefaction is no more sufficient to resist the
static stresses that act on the soil before the disturbance. Flow liquefaction is
characterized by sudden occurrence, rapid development and generally, movement of
liquefied material at great distances (Kramer, 1996). For example, a sudden decrease
in bearing capacity caused 80° tilting of Kawagishi-cho apartments due to
liquefaction in the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (Figure 2.2.) having a magnitude of 7.5
(Liu, 2009).

Figure 2.2. Tilting of Kawagishi-cho apartments in 1964 Niigata Earthquake (Liu, 2009)

Flow liquefaction was observed also in Alaska Earthquake on March 27, 1964
(Taylor, 2014). The moment magnitude was 9.2 which was the second most powerful
earthquake ever recorded. The initial seismic wave and following underwater

9
landslides caused a wide range of tsunamis so, coastal towns were damaged to cities
of Valdez, Whittier, Seward, and Kodiak (Figure 2.3.).

Figure 2.3. Alaska Earthquake in 1964 (Taylor, 2014)

Valdez is located on the seaward edge of a large outwash delta containing saturated
silty sand comprising some gravel (Coulter and Migliaccio, 1966). This liquefaction,
its accompaniment waves and other conditions were responsible for the loss of 30
lives and damages to many buildings. The reason was that loose, saturated sand
suffered a loss of bearing capacity when subjected to earthquake (Terzaghi et al.,
1948). The geologic environment at Valdez provided ideal conditions for flow
liquefaction and many similarities to other liquefaction flow sites (Terzaghi, 1956).

2.2.2. Cyclic mobility

Cyclic mobility is another type of liquefaction that causes large and permanent
deformations during earthquake shaking (Kramer, 1996). In comparison to flow
liquefaction, cyclic mobility occurs when the shear strength of the liquefied soil is
more than the static shear stress. The deformations caused by cyclic mobility
gradually form during an earthquake shaking. The cause of deformations due to
cyclic mobility is the gradually decreasing of the strength due to cyclic stresses.
Lateral spreading, a prevalent result of cyclic mobility, can occur on mildly sloping
and on flat ground near lakes and rivers (Johansson, 2000). An example of cyclic

10
mobility is demonstrated in Figure 2.4. 1976 Guatemala Earthquake caused lateral
spreading along the Motagua River.

Figure 2.4. Motagua Riverside ground cracks in 1976 Guatemala Earthquake

2.3. Factors Affecting Liquefaction

2.3.1. Effect of source

Earthquakes are required to liquefy soil because the most overall cause of
liquefaction is the seismic energy released during the earthquake (Day, 2002). In
addition to earthquakes, situations that produce strong vibrations in the soil, such as
caused by pile driving, train traffic, and underground explosions can cause
liquefaction. However, the most important factor causing liquefaction is the
earthquake. Depending on the earthquake, numerous factors direct the liquefaction
process of the ground. For example, earthquake duration, magnitude, peak ground
acceleration (PGA) and seismic history of this region.

With relation to the effect of the source Seed and Idriss (1971), The susceptibility of
the soil in certain conditions to the liquefiable can be explained by depending on the
magnitude of an earthquake and with stresses and deformations by earthquake forces.

Ground motion characteristics such as acceleration and vibration time are important
factors that determine shear stresses and residual pore water pressure (Day, 2002).
The liquefaction potential increases as the the ıntensity of the earthquake and shake

11
duration increase. As the earthquake magnitude increases, ground acceleration and
earthquake duration increase.

Until the 20th century, the size of earthquake was some vehicles with quantitative
measurements were based on qualitative observations before they were discovered
(Kramer, 1996).

Acceleration is often used to describe the magnitude of the earthquake. Anonymous

(1985) and Ishihara (1985) for the formation of liquefaction peak ground acceleration
of 0.1g and local size (ML) is less than 5 so liquefaction analysis may not be required
for the site.

2.3.2. Properties of soil

2.3.2.1.Geological process

Generally, Holocene older delta and stream sediments are more liquefiable soils to
older sediments (Youd and Perkins 1978). Particularly sensitive to liquefaction are
those formed in lacustrine, alluvial and marine deposition soil (Day, 2002). The
underwater fillings are liquefiable soil due to the fact that the soil grains are in a
loose and decomposed soil structure also the natural soil sediments formed in the
lakes, rivers and seas that are prone to form this structure are also tend to
liquefaction.

One of the conditions for liquefaction is that soil is saturated. So, groundwater level
(GWT) from the surface depth is important for liquefaction (Karaca, 2001).
Liquefaction develops rarely at the groundwater level where it is deeper than 10 m
from the surface. Generally, ıt doesn't occur in environments where the groundwater
level is deeper than 20 m (Youd, 1984). The liquefaction events haven't been
reported at depths exceeding 15 m when the liquefaction events to date have been
examined (Derinöz, 2004). However, in critical structures such as the dam, in some
cases, it may be necessary to perform a liquefaction analysis for more than 15m deep
soils (Wang and Law, 1994).

It also affects the sensitivity of the soil to liquefaction, the intensity and durations of
the stresses that it is exposed to during the geological process (Seed, 1976). Under
12
stresses, the grains of the soil are better subsided and cementing may occur
depending on the geological process. This increases the resistance of the soil to
liquefaction.

In addition, both laboratory studies and field observations show that in the past,
liquefied soil is the bigger possibility to liquefaction with new earthquakes (Ansal
and Ogunc, 1981). For this reason, the seismic history of the soil is preliminary
information of the danger of liquefaction. The maps produced by the micro-zoning
method are quite suitable the way in this regard.

2.3.2.2. Soil type

Soil type for liquefaction is in sediments consisting of fine, medium sands and fine
grains with low plasticity sands (Ishihara, 1985). Also, it has been reported that
liquefication occasional occurs in gravelly soils. Youd et al. (1985) were able to
indicate sandy soils containing significant amounts of gravel (~ 50%) can be
liquefied. If water-saturated gravelly soil levels are overlapped by less permeable
levels, an increase in pore water pressure isn't able to absorb and the soil can liquefy
(Aslan, 2010). The best example of this is gravelly ground that liquefied during the
Alaska earthquake of 1964 (Obermeier, 1996). In addition, non-plastic silt has also
been reported to be liquefiable (Dobry and Alvarez, 1967). Generally, agreeable that
there is no liquefaction on clayey soil (Ozaydın, 2007). That means the increased
clay content is a factor that reduces the risk of liquefaction on non-cohesive soils
(Kramer, 1996). Consequently, it can be said that the types of soils prone to
liquefaction are generally cohesionless soils.

The fact that the fine-grained material is silty or clay and more importantly shows
plastic or non-plastic properties, has been accepted by many researchers the fact that
there are consistent differences in ground cyclic strength (Polito, 1999). In the
majority of the studies conducted on this subject, it is reported that the liquefaction
strength of the soil is increased if there is a plastic thin grain on the soil. The widely
used method for the liquefaction of low plasticity, fine-grained soils is the modified
Chinese method four criteria (Wang, 1979);

Ratio finer than 0,005 mm ≤ %15

13
Liquid limit, LL ≤ %35

Natural water content ≥ 0.9LL

Liquidity index ≤ 0.75

Andrews and Martin (2000) modified the Chinese criterion taking consider the 0.002
mm value for fine-grain content (Table 2.1). Kocaeli earthquake, the test results
obtained from Adapazarı indicate that the liquefied soils are not included in the
Chinese criteria and according to Andrews and Martin (2000) are not considered to
be liquefaction (Dülger, 2015). Based on this data Seed et al. (2003) defined new
relationships to determine the liquefaction performance of fine-grained soils (Figure
2.5).

Table 2.1. Liquefaction criteria of non-plastic fine-grained soils (Andrews and Martin, 2000)

Liquid Limit (LL) <%32 Liquid Limit (LL)> %32

Content of Clay <%10 Liquifiable soil Need research
Content of Clay> %10 Need research Not liquifiable soil

Figure 2.5. Liquefaction susceptibility criteria proposed by Seed et al. (2003)

In addition, these properties, grain size distribution, grain shape and relative density
are also important in the interpretation of liquefaction. Nonuniformly status,
cohesionless soils are more susceptible to liquefaction as they tend to form more
unstable grain patterns than well-graded soils. The grain size distribution ranges of
the well-liquefied soils are given in Figure 2.6.

14
Figure 2.6. (a) soil with a low coefficient of uniformity Uc <3.5; (b) soil with a high coefficient of
uniformity Uc ≥ 3.5. Grain size distribution curves with the ranges of the possibility of
liquefaction marked (Anonymous, 2007)

In non-cohesive loose soils, shrinkage occurs at the level of residual cavity pressure
during the earthquake shake (Day, 2002). When initial liquefaction occurs, a sudden
and striking increase in slip displacement occurs for loose sands. More dense grained
soil compare to low density grained soil is higher resistance to liquefaction so
relative density (Dr) increases resistance to liquefaction increases (Aslan, 2010).
Silver and Seed (1971) was determined that the sands having a relative density (Dr)
of less than 60 percent showed a much more volumetric change. Then, Tezcan and
Teri (1996) said If relative density (Dr) is less than 47% soils are in a looser position
and they would be more susceptible to liquefaction.

The round grained soils tend to be more easily together than the soil containing
angular grains so their liquefaction potential is higher (Kramer, 1996). Round
grained soils are observed in stream environments where loose saturated soils
deposit.

15
2.4 Determination of Liquefaction Risk

Liquefaction risk analysis required performed by a possible earthquake prediction in

regions with high liquefaction potential (Dülger, 2015). The first stage of soil
liquefaction calculations is to determine the probability of liquefaction risk using
numerical methods.

Liquefaction can be investigated in the laboratory or site, the natural conditions of

the soil (Öz, 2015). It is possible to determine the stress-strain behaviour of soils
during and after the earthquake by various experimental systems in the laboratory.
Particularly, the water-saturated sandy soils performance under repetitive loads and
after their liquefaction behaviour can be analysed by dynamic test systems such as
dynamic simple shear, dynamic triaxial, dynamic torsion shaking table test in the
laboratory. Laboratory tests are difficult to taking a sample and occurring disturbance
as a result of a consolidation of the sample due to stresses in the field (Dülger, 2015).

In field tests, a continuous definition can be made at the desired depth in a larger
volume in the natural environment of the ground, but it is difficult to show seismic
activity in the field in the experiments so, in experiments conducted to measure
liquefaction potential, the soil parameters directly associated with liquefaction
resistance cannot be reached (Öz, 2015). Four different site test methods are used to
determine the liquefaction potential. These tests are; measurement of land shear
wave velocity (Vs) standard penetration tests (SPT), Becker penetration tests and
cone penetration tests (CPT) (Dülger, 2015).

2.4.1. Simplified method

Seed and Idrıss (1971) proposed a method called simplified procedure which
evaluates the liquefaction resistance of soils. This method was later developed and
finally in January 1996; Youd and Idriss combined the results of the last 10 years and
the simplified procedure 20 experts and finalized them (Youd and Idrıss, 2001).
Simplified method field, data from a laboratory experiment, site observations and site
experiments consist of empirical equations using the data. Caused by the earthquake

16
and require for liquefaction is cyclic shear stress ratio (CSR) calculates with the
following Eq. 2.1 for an earthquake of 7,5.

CSR=τ c yc /σ’ vo =0,65xa max /gxσ vo /σ’ vo xr d (2.1)

τcyc = Uniform cyclic shear stress amplitude of the earthquake (lb/ft2 or kPa)

σvo = Total vertical stress (lb/ft2 or kPa)

σ’vo = Vertical effective stress (lb/ft2 or kPa)

amax = Maximum ground acceleration (ft/s2 or m/s2)

g = Acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s2 or 9.81 m/s2 )

rd = Stress reduction factor (dimensionless)

The stress reduction factor (rd) is depending on the depth of the ground level (z)
being examined and indicates the flexibility of the ground profile. For general
applications or projects the average value of rd is given below (Eq. 2.2, 2.3) (Liao
and Whitman, 1986).

r d =1,0–0,00765z z≤ 9,15m (2.2)

r d =1,174–0,0267z 9,15≤ z≤ 23m (2.3)

z = Depth of ground level (meter)

The second parameter used in the simplified method is the cyclic resistance ratio
(CRR), For calculate CRR, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count can be used
by making corrections (Eq. 2.4). SPT, shear wave velocity (Vs) and CPT
measurements were used to investigate the liquefaction areas by many researchers.
Depending on the correction factors based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT),
the following calculation method is performed.

N 1,60 =NC N C R C S C B C E (2.4)

N= Number of SPT blow counts

CN= Correction factor of according to vertical geological stress

CR= Correction factor of stem bar length

17
CS= Correction factor of according to the method of sampling

CB= Correction factor of the diameter of the drilling pit

CE= Correction factor of the energy rate of the rammer

CN value, should not be less than 0.5 and not exceed 1.7 (Liao and Whitman, 1986)
(Eq. 2.5).

C N =√(P a /σ’ vo ) (2.5)

Pa ≅ 100kPa (Atmosphere pressure)

Table 2.2. Correction factors used to determine N 1,60 (Robertson and Wride 1998; Youd et al.
2001)

Correction Factors System Correction

CN - (Pa/σ′v)0.5 ** CN ≤ 2

Safety pile driver 0.60-1.17

CE
*Donut pile driver *0.45-1.00

65-115 mm 1.00
CB 150 mm 1.05
200 mm 1.15

3-4 m 0.75
4-6 m 0.85
CR 6-10 m 0.95
10-30 m 1.0
>30 m, <1.0

1.0
CS Standard lined
1.15-1.30

* The equipment used and its value in Turkey

** Liao and Whitman (1986)

When the soil contains fine grain, correction to the N value should be made to allow
for the effect of these particles.

(N 1,60 ) cs = α +β N 1,60 (Youd and Idriss, 1997) (2.6)

18
Percentage of fine grain ≤ %5 for α=0 and β=1.0

%5< Percentage of fine grain < %35 for α=e(1.76-(190/fine grain^2))

β= (0.99-(fine grain1.5/1000))

Percentage of fine-grain ≥ %35 for α=5.0 and β=1.2

(N1,60) cs is used in Figure 2.7 to find the CRR under magnitude 7.5 earthquakes

N1,60 = Corrected SPT blow count

α and β = Coefficients determined from the above relationships

Calculated a value is used to find the seismic resistance (CRR7.5) by the following
chart (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7. Relationship with liquefaction resistance-standard penetration pulse count (Seed et
al. 1975)

The seismic resistance ratio found in the previous step is a value that should be taken
for an earthquake with a moment magnitude of 7.5. The seismic resistance ratio must
be corrected using the magnitude scaling parameter (MSF) for the possible
earthquake magnitude. Youd et al. (2001) has made an offer for this correction (Eq.
2.7).
19
 MSF= 10 2.24 /M W -2.56 (2.7)

Mw= Moment Magnitude of the Earthquake

The number of safety against liquefaction is calculated (Eq. 2.8).

FS=(CRR 7.5 /CSR)xMSF (2.8)

It is agreeable that, liquefaction will occur for values less than and equal to 1 of the
safety coefficient (FS) against liquefaction and it will not occur for values greater
than 1 (Seed and Idriss 1982).

Another method is the calculation method based on Cone Penetration Test (CPT).
Figure 2.8 includes collected liquefaction data from the events of history. It shows
CPT clean sand base curve and separates regions into liquefaction and non-
liquefaction regions. In addition, the curve recommended calculation of CRR from
CPT's corrected tip resistance (qc1N).

Figure 2.8. Collected liquefaction data from the events of history and curve recommended
calculation of CRR from CPT's corrected tip resistance (qc1N) (Robertson and Wride 1998)

20
2.4.2. Experimental studies

We use various field and laboratory experiments to examine the liquefaction

potential of soil layers. Experiments conducted to investigate the liquefaction
potential of soils in the laboratory;

•Dynamic triaxial pressure tests

•Dynamic simple shear experiments

•Torsional shear experiments

• Laboratory model experiments (shake table experiments, centrifuge experiments)

(Özaydın, 2007).

Even if the disturbance effect is considered negligible when using laboratory test
methods, laboratory test results may not reflect the properties of the entire layer,
since the samples were taken to represent a very small area of the soil layer. The
results can better represent the soil layer as field tests are applied over a larger area
and stress conditions are available. Field tests are frequently used to eliminate
particles the difficulty of sampling in split-grained soils and the problems of sample
disturbance in fine-grained soils (Sivrikaya and Toğrol, 2007).

Experiments conducted to investigate the liquefaction potential of soils in situ;

•Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT)

•Cone Penetration Resistance (CPT)

•Shear Wave (Vs) Velocity

•Dilatometer Index (DMT)

In geotechnical investigations, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance is by far

the most widely used field test parameter for the characterization of liquefaction
resistance (Kramer, 1996).

21
2.5. Constitutive Models Used in Liquefaction Analysis

Pore water pressure should be taken into consideration to determine the rigidity and
strength loss that may occur in the soil and possible settlements (Özener, 2007).
Also, the physical aspect of the problem should be considered in addition to a
mechanically based approach in the calculation of large displacements occurring in
sandy soils (Özener, 2007). In all methods used for stress-strain analysis in soil, to
model material behaviour stress-strain relationships, or in other words, constitutive
models are needed (Özener, 2007).

A numerical model to be developed to calculate the liquefaction potential of soils

under the effect of an earthquake and their behaviour during/after liquefaction,
defining the effect that will cause the movement of the ground (earthquake motion),
the response of the ground to this effect (stress-deformation behaviour) and the
internal effects that will occur during this process (damping of the movement, pore
pressure increase, distribution and damping) should be defined in a way that best
suits the conditions in the site (Tonaroğlu,2006).

The choice of a constitutive model for a geotechnical practice depends on the

mechanical properties of the soil (i.e., strength, stiffness and permeability), history of
the soil and the stress changes that will happen in future (Wood and Muir, 1990). In
finite element analysis, dependable forecasts can be achieved by using an appropriate
constitutive model for a particular geotechnical problem (Khalid, 2013).

There are constitutive models based on elasticity and elastoplasticity theories to

express the behaviour of the soil under dynamic loads, and incremental elastoplastic
constituent models constituted to explain the behaviour of sand under dynamic loads
(Özener, 2007).

There are several ways to include the liquefaction behaviour in numerical methods,
ranging from total-stress based empirical schemes to estimate liquefaction conditions
such as the UBCTOT model (Beaty and Byrne, 2000), to simple effective-stress
shear-volume coupling schemes partial combined effective stress-based models such
as the TARA-3 (Finn and Kumar, 1989) and the “Roth” model (Dawson et al., 2001),
to more comprehensive constitutive models "full combined effective stress-based
models" such as the UBCSAND model (Beaty and Byrne, 2011); PM+Sand model
22
(Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2012); NTUA-SAND Model (Papadimitriou et
al.,2001); METUSAND (Oral, 2014) and Wang Model (Wang, 1990) bounding
surface model (Oral, 2014).

Choosing the constitutive model is very important to obtain reliable results. An

advanced structural soil model is required to perform effective dynamic analysis.
Inelastic behaviours under cyclic loading can be accurately defined using elastic-
plastic constructive models (Khalid, 2013). Initially, one of the best options for
dynamic analysis can be considered from the structural models found in Plaxis, the
hardening soil model (HSsmall) with small strain values. However, this model does
not include the gradual softening behaviour under cyclic loading conditions and
liquefaction behaviour under dynamic loading conditions (Brinkgreve, 2011).
Therefore, the hardening soil model (HSmall) is not suitable for liquefaction
analysis. The UBCSAND model is especially one of the models developed for the
prediction of liquefaction. UBCSAND model, Byrne et al. (1995) is based on the
elastic-plastic stress-strain model proposed. Model, Puebla et al. (1997 and 1999)
and Beaty and Byrne (1998), the model was implemented as a user-defined soil
model in the finite element program Plaxis (Petalas ve Galavi, 2013). The
UBCSAND model has also been implemented in MIDAS GTS NX. One of the most
important features of the model is that it is an elastoplastic model that can examine
the pore water pressure depending on time. In the model, the hysterical response of
sand under cyclic loading is captured in a simplified way, and therefore the model
can be used to more accurately predict unload-reload cycles. Since loading and
unloading is one of the features of dynamic loading, this model can be used in the
case of dynamic loading such as earthquake loads (Puebla, 1999).

23
 3. SITE

3.1. Site Properties

Our site of work is within limits within Alstom Grid Energy Industry Inc. (Figure
3.1). As shown in Figure 3.2, our field of study is the area planned as a Transformer
Assembly-Disassembly building with an area of 1119.73 m2 with in Alstom Grid
Energy Industry Inc. The stress transferred to soil by the structure to be built was
calculated as 150 kPa.

Alluvium form, which is formed by the accumulation of pebble, sand and clay units,
is dominant in the surface area. As a result of the drilling work, it was determined
that the ground profile consisted of very deep silty sand with clay bands after the first
1 m fill layer on the surface. A groundwater layer was observed that started at 3 m
levels during ground surveys.

Figure 3.1. Work site location

Figure 3.2. Area planned as Transformer Assembly-Disassembly building and drilled drilling
pits
24
4 base boreholes were drilled in the study area (Figure 3.2). The physical and
strength properties of the soil profile were calculated with the help of experiments
performed on samples taken at various depths from these drillings and various
correlations were used depending on the properties of the samples and SPT-N values.
The entire soil profile is non-plastic silty sand (SM) consisting of 10% gravel, 58%
sand and 32% silt and clay, and the average water content (w) is 21.5% (Figure 3.3).

By examining the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results (Figure 3.3), the SPT-
N'1,60 value was taken as 13 on average. Using the average SPT-N value, the
elasticity modulus (Es) value and the internal friction angle () value were calculated
as 14 MPa and 25°, respectively. The shear wave velocities for the Z3-C group and
the soil profile with silty sand were determined as Vs=230 m/s and Vp=506 m/s. The
Poison ratio (v) was calculated as 0.37 depending on the Vp and Vs, the relative
stiffness (Dr) 50% depending on the soil class, the shear modulus (Gs) as 5100 kPa
depending on the Poison ratio and the modulus of elasticity. Soil idealized profile
and features are given in Figure 3.3. In the study area, the effective ground
acceleration was determined as PGA 475 = 0.546g.

Figure 3.3. (a) Variation of SPT N1,60 with the depth (b) soil profile and properties

25
3.2. Seismicity of the Region

When the earthquakes in the region are examined; There were 16 earthquakes with
intensities of 6 and greater around Izmit, until 1900. The distribution of M ≥ 4.0
earthquakes that took place between 1900-2000 by years is given in Figure 3.4
(Anonymous, 2003). Before the 17 August 1999 earthquake, there was an earthquake
activity in the region, and an increase in earthquake activity was observed with large
earthquakes that occurred in 1912, 1953, 1957, 1967, 1975, 1983 (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4. Distribution of M ≥ 4.0 earthquakes that took place between 1900-2000 by years
(Anonymous, 2003)

This activity reached its maximum value with the Izmit earthquake that occurred in
1999 (Figure 3.5). The Izmit Bay earthquake with a magnitude of Mw = 7.6, whose
epicentre was Gölcük on August 17, 1999, and caused great destruction and loss of
life in our country, occurred on the North Anatolian Fault Line.

Figure 3.5. 17 August 1999 earthquake rupture and fault segments (Demirtaş et al. 1999)

26
The high seismicity of the study area and the destructive effect of past earthquakes in
this region, the groundwater being close to the ground level, and the non-plastic silty
sand (SP-SM) type of loose material constituting the general ground profile showed
the necessity of careful and detailed investigations on the soil of the building.

3.3. Assessment of Liquefaction Risk by Using Analytical Method

3.3.1. Liquefaction analysis based on SPT

Silty sand layers found in the study area have the potential to cause liquefaction
below the groundwater level due to their situation of compactness. In force as of
2019, according to "the Turkey Earthquake Building Regulations" are liquefaction
analysis has to be done on such soils. For this reason, liquefaction analyzes were
carried out in 4 borehole locations as summarized below. Liquefaction risk is
between 3.0-20.0 m from the ground surface. The risk of liquefaction below 20.0 m
from the surface is not taken into account in the current analysis method, and the
effect of possible liquefaction below this level on shallow-based structures on the
surface remains negligible. In the study area, the effective ground acceleration was
determined as PGA 475 = 0.546g and calculations were made based on the 0.546g
acceleration value.

The method followed in liquefaction analysis: 1996 ve 1998 NCEER Liquefaction

Resistance Workshop Recommendations (Youd and Idriss, 2001).

Earthquake magnitude, Mw: 7.6

Peak ground acceleration, PGA 475 =0.546g

Ground water table: 3.0 m

(N 1,60 ) cs = α + β(N 1,60 ) av FC=%25 (3.1)

α = exp [1.76 – 190/(FC) 2 ] (3.2)

α = exp [1.76 – 190/ (25) 2 ] = 4.4289

β = [0.99 + (FC) 1.5 /1000] (3.3)

27
 β = [0.99 + (25) 1.5 /1000] = 1.115

(3.4)

(3.5)

(3.6)

(3.7)

rd = 1- 0.00765z z ≤ 9.15 m (3.8)

rd = 1.174 – 0.0267z 9.15 m < z ≤ 23 m (3.9)

(3.10)

CM= Moment magnitude correction coefficient

R= Liquefaction resistance

earthquake= Average repetitive shear stress in soil caused by an earthquake

σ’v0= Effective stress

σv0= Total stress

SDS= Short period design spectral acceleration value

According to TBDY 2018, the factor of safety (F.S.) should be a minimum 1.1.

F.S.= 0.745≤ 1.1

There is a risk of liquefaction. In the analysis, against liquefaction, the safety factors
were found F.S. ≤ 1.1 in the range of 3.0-20.0 m in the silty sand (SM) unit.
Liquefaction potential is quite high in this range.

28
3.3.2. Liquefaction analysis based on Vs

V s =230m/s with correction V s =V s1

V s1 =V s (Pa/(σ' v ) av )
0.25
(3.11)

using Eq. 3.11, V s1 =216m/s

FC=25% using Figure 3.8, CSR=0.33

CRR=a(V s1 /100)2+b ((1/ (V s - V s1 )) - (1/ V s )) (3.12)

M=7.5 (a=0.03, b=0.9); CRR=0.20

FS=CRR/CSR=0.20/0.33=0.61 < 1 (3.13)

σ'v= Effective vertical stress

There is a risk of liquefaction.

Figure 3.6. Liquefaction graph based on 225 land shear wave velocity (Vs1) records for clay, silt
and gravel ground (Andrus and Stokoe, 2000)

29
3.3.3. Settlement due to liquefaction

[(N' 1,60 ) CS ] av =α+β(N' 60 ) av , (α=4.289 β=1.115) (3.14)

[(N' 1,60 ) CS ] av =4.289+1.115x13=19

[(N' 1,90 ) CS ] av =19x60/90=13 , (FS) av =0.58

Ɛ v =3% equals 0.03

ΔH=H x Ɛv (3.15)

Ɛv%= Post liquefaction volumetric strain

When liquefaction analysis is made for the soil profile depending on the SPT-N and
Vs values, it has been determined that the first 20 m of the soil is liquefiable. In
addition, the settlement amount after liquefaction is calculated as approximately 60
cm. Considering the ground properties and settlement amount, the jet grout method
was considered the most suitable method and jet grout columns were designed for the
study area.

Figure 3.7. N1=(N1)90, Relationship between volumetric strain after liquefaction and safety factor
(Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992)
30
3.4. Assessment of Liquefaction Risk by Using MIDAS GTS-NX

3.4.1. Constitutive model

UBCSAND model is an elastoplastic constitutive model is presented that simulates

the liquefaction reactions of sands in a comparatively uncomplicated method. The
model, UBCSAND, is based on the representative conduct of the soil skeleton as
observed in laboratory element tests and it is shown to reasonably represent the soil
reaction as observed in element tests. It is believed that a model which seizes the
characteristic behaviour of granular soil can be a worthful tool in evaluating and
understanding its performance under static and cyclic loading. The model has a few
essential properties, including a hyperbolic relationship between stress ratio and
plastic shear strain, a flow rule for estimating plastic volumetric strain from plastic
shear strain, and the ability to handle anisotropy (Beaty ve Byrne, 1998).

UBCSAND is an effective stress plasticity model for use in advanced

stress‐deformation analysis of geotechnical structures. This model is used to observe
the liquefaction behaviour of granular soils in dynamic loading statuses. The model
computes the stresses for each loading cycle rely on the mobilized stress ratio. Using
the mobilized stress ratio provides dropping the location of the yield surface.
Correspondingly change of the yield surface, plastic volumetric strains are generated
by using flow rule. Additionally, the pore water pressures are computed in
synchronized with others (Byrne and Beaty 2011; Gürbüz, 2019).

To evaluate the liquefaction risk of soil, 2-dimensional numerical analysis was

carried out using MIDAS GTS NX finite element program.

Although the method based on total stress is simple and practical in analysis, it does
not take into account the pore water pressure. As stated earlier, liquefaction is
thought to begin when the excess pore pressure equals the initial vertical effective
stress (Seed and Lee, 1966). In other words, the ratio of dynamically induced excess
pore pressure (ue) to initial vertical effective stress (σ'v) should be 100% as a
prerequisite for liquefaction initiation. As the effective stress approaches zero due to
the positive pore pressure, significant shear strength loss occurs according to the
Mohr-Coulomb soil model (or theory).

31
In this study, the soil has been evaluated according to the change in excess pore
pressure ratio (ru) values.

First, by performing static analysis, geostatic conditions were obtained for a

homogeneous soil profile that could liquefy under free field conditions. Then, it was
investigated whether the soil liquefied or not under dynamic load, under dynamic
load, which forms a part of free field analysis, according to ru values. The simplified
finite element model of the studied field is shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8. Finite Element Model (MIDAS-GTS NX)

The mathematical expression of ru can be given by the following equation (Idriss &
Boulanger, 2006):

r u =u exc es s /r' 3c (for triaxial pressure test) (3.16)

r u =u exc es s /r' vc (for free soil) (3.17)

uexcess= Excessive pore water pressure

r'3c= Consolidation stress

r'vc= Consolidation stress

The state of the project area before improvement was carried out with the UBC-
SAND constitutive model in using effective stress based finite element analyses
MIDAS-GTS NX software program. The UBC-SAND model is a nonlinear elastic-
plastic model that can determine the seismic liquefaction behaviour of sands and silty
sands. (Beaty and Byrne, 2011).

32
Standard earthquake boundaries are determined. While the boundaries are
determined in MIDAS-GTS NX, the "free field" property is defined to the model and
"absorbent boundary" is used. In this way, a realistic perception is created as if our
boundaries are far away and our model is that big. The purpose here is to ensure that
earthquake waves are not affected by reflections in boundary conditions. Ground
motion recording from the IZT recording station, about 8 km from the site, was used
as an entry move in the base of the model. UBCSAND model non-linear parameters
for the liquefiable soil layer are summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Required nonlinear parameters for UBCSAND

Parameters Definition Value

N1,60 SPT value 13
kGe Elastic Shear Modulus Number 766
kGp Plastic Shear Modulus Number 490
ne Elastic Shear Modulus Exponent 0.5
np Plastic Shear Modulus Exponent 0.4
Фcv Constant Volume Friction Angle 33◦
Фp Peak Friction Angle 34.3◦
c Cohesion 5 kN/m2
Rf Failure Ratio 0.75
fdens Soil Densification Calibration 1
fEpost Post Liquefaction Calibration 0.7

Constant volume friction angle (Фcv), peak friction angle (Фp) were evaluated from
SPT test results in the field. Elastic shear modulus number (kGe), plastic shear
modulus number (kGP) and failure ratio (Rf) are obtained by the following equations
recommended by Beaty and Byrne, 2011.

k G e =21.7A(N 1 ) 60 0.333 (3.18)

k G P = k G e ((N 1 ) 60 ) 2 0.003+100 (3.19)

R f =1.1(N 1 ) 60 -0.15 (3.20)

where (N1)60 is the number of SPT-N corrected for effective stress and energy ratio,
A and is constant in the range 15-20. ne is constantly equal to 0.5, and np is another
constant equal to 0.4 (Figure 3.9.).

The refraction rate (Rf) value can be taken in the range of 0.5 to 0.98. The Rf value
was obtained by curve fitting directly from the cut-off test results (Byrne et al., 1987;
Duncan et al., 1980).

33
The soil densification calibration (fdens) is taken as 1. Post liquefaction calibration
value can be taken between 0.2-1. (Petelas and Galavi, 2013).

Figure 3.9. Non-Linear soil parameters of UBCSAND constitutive model in MIDAS GTS NX

3.4.2. Analysis

After constituting the constitutive model and entering the necessary UBCSAND
parameters into the MIDAS GTS NX program, we performed eigenvalue analysis
before on to dynamic analysis.

To determine the damping values to be used in time-dependent earthquake analysis,

first of all, the vibration modes of the system will be determined by performing
eigenvalue analysis. Thus, the damping values in earthquake analysis can be
determined based on the periods in critical modes.

In the MIDAS GTS NX program, we can view the displacement status for all modes.
But, looking at the percentage modal effective mass, the 1st and the 13th modes are
more likely to occur. The probability of mode 1 occurrence is 65.25%, while the
probability of mod 13 is 9.65% (Figure 3.10.).

34
 Figure 3.10. Percentage modal effective mass

Figure 3.11. shows total translation for mod 1 and mod 13. The percentage of
unexpected behaviour will be less.

a)

b)

Figure 3.11. Total translation a) mode 1 b) mode 13

In this case, we will foresee our dampings between the recommended period value
for the 1st mode and the recommended period value for the 13th mode. Thus, we will
analyze our dampings in the correct periods (Figure 3.12.).
35
 Figure 3.12. Periods value for 1st and 13th modes

A Free field (Infinite boundary or absorbent boundary) was created as a boundary

condition for time-dependent earthquake analysis (Figure 3.13).

a) b)

Figure 3.13. Free field a) infinite boundary b) absorbent boundary

In earthquake analysis, the model must be infinitely large so that the earthquake
waves are not affected by the reflections at the model boundary. Since this situation
is not possible in practice, analysis with free field boundary conditions can be
performed in earthquake analysis. An absorbent boundary from the free field
boundary condition is used to minimize the effect of model size and eliminate
earthquake wave reflections at the substrate boundary.

We used Free field absorbent boundary for time-dependent earthquake analysis. We

chose a value greater than 104 for the Width factor (penalty parameter) parameter to
prevent our earthquake waves from being affected by the reflections at the border.
36
We performed Stress-Nonlinear Time History analysis using the period values
obtained from Eigenvalue analysis. For the Static Slope analysis part, we analyzed it
in two stages. In the first stage, we ensured the formation of stresses according to real
stress conditions. The first stage is the initial condition. In the second stage, we
defined the time-dependent earthquake load and added the dynamic load that we
defined. So, at this stage, we shook the system with the earthquake load. In the study
area, the effective ground acceleration was determined as PGA 475 = 0.546g in the
Kocaeli-Düzce region. We translated it with a scale factor and used the real
earthquake record. The time interval (Δt) is 0.02 seconds and the record lasted is
27.18 seconds of our Kocaeli earthquake (Figure 3.14.). According to the
information, the software determined our total time step as 1359.

a) b)

c)

Figure 3.14. a) PGA=0,309g b) PGA=0,546g c) Kocaeli earthquake (1999) – Record obtained in

Düzce station

37
According to MIDAS-GTS NX analysis results, the soil before any ground
improvement application is made completely liquefied (Figure 3.15).

Figure 3.15. UBCSAND results, liquefiable soil

38
 4. SOIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT with JET GROUT
COLUMNS

4.1. Properties of Jet Grout

In the jet-grout column ground improvement method, a water-cement mixture is

injected into the ground with high pressure, and the injection liquid is mixed with the
ground to ensure the formation of approximately circular cross-sectional improved
parts. In the method, injection is made using high-pressure pumps and special rods.
Injection rods are first lowered by applying hydraulic water pressure to the lower
elevation of the jet-grout column. Then, injection is started under high pressure, the
rods are rotated at a certain speed on the one hand, and jet-grout columns are formed
by pulling them towards the ground surface at a prescribed speed on the other hand.
In this way, cohesion and high-pressure strength are gained to the ground. Jet-grout
columns are more rigid than the pre-improvement condition of the soil, but it is
accepted that they have a certain degree of flexibility during an earthquake and can
monitor soil deformations. Thanks to this feature, jet-grout columns absorb some of
the earthquake energy and reduce the repeated shear stress rate that liquefies or
softens the ground.

4.2. Numerical Analysis

The shear strength parameters (c and ) of the improved soil and the deformation
modulus (E) can be calculated by taking the weighted average of the jet-grout
column and natural soil layer parameters in the plan. In this approach, jet-grout
column parameters are found using the following equations (Nishimatsu, 1972):

 c  t
c=
2 t ( c − 3 t ) 
0 .5
(4.1)

 c2 − 4 c 2
tan  = (4.2)
4 c  c

39
 σ t = (0.08-0.14) σ c (4.3)

σ c = Unconfined compressive strength

σ t = Tensile strength

 0 = 0.53+0.37(UCS)-0.0014(UCS)2 (UCS ≤ 60 kg/cm2) (4.4)

 0 = 28-day shear strength (kg/cm 2 )

UCS= 28 days free compressive strength (kg/cm 2 )

E/UCS = (362913)

In the weighted average calculations of the improved soil, the effective cohesion of
the natural ground is neglected, and the effective friction angle is taken as = 25.
The deformation modulus of the natural soil was taken as E= 14 MPa, considering
the average standard penetration resistance and depth of the soil.

According to the designed soil improvement project, the targeted jet-grout column-
free compressive strength is qu= 15 kg/cm2. The tensile strength is between 8-14% of
the free compressive strength. From here, the tensile strength was calculated as 210
kPa.

Jet grout column;

cohesion cjet =368 kPa,

internal friction angle Øjet =38

elastic modulus Ejet = 540000 kPa

shear modulus Gjet= 197000 kPa

Calculation results are in Figure 4.1.

40
 Jet-Grout Soil

Unconfined compressive strength Effective cohession: 0 kPa

qu: 1500 kPa Effective friction angle: 25.0 0
Tensile strength Elastic modulus: 14000 kPa
a: 0.14
t: 210 kPa Improved soil
Cohession Area ratio: 0.09
c jg: 368 kPa cort: 32.2 kPa
Angle of internal friction ort: 26.1 0

tan: 0.77 Eort: 59902.2 kPa

 jg: 37.7 0

Elastic modulus JG diameter 60 cm

E jg: 540000 kPa S 180 cm (S=3.0B)

Figure 4.1. Ground improvement calculations

The diameter of the designed jet-grout columns has been chosen as B=60 cm, and the
average distance between the column from the axis to the axis S=3.0B =180 cm
(Figure 4.2.). Constructive principles were also taken into consideration while
preparing the column disposition.

Number of horizontal columns;

(24.68-2x0.6)/1.8+1=14

Number of vertical columns;

(65.86-2x0.6)/1.8+1=37

Total number of columns;

14x37=518

4.3. Affecting of Jet Grout

As expected, the improved soil parameters after the jet grout application; cohesion is
cav= 32.2 kPa, internal friction angle is Øav= 26.1, modulus of elasticity is Eav=
59902 kPa and shear modulus is Gav= 21865 kPa. After the jet grout application, the
average shear wave velocity (Vs) of the improvement soil was found as Vs (av) = 542
m/s by going backwards in the liquefaction analysis correlation. The average value of
41
SPT-N of the improvement soil was found as N'1,60 average 31, based on the change
of shear wave velocity (Vs) of the soil.

Reliable foundation bearing capacity value (allowable bearing value) in the

improved soil easily provides the foundation base pressure even (1.3 kg/cm2) found
according to increased loads (1.4G + 1.6Q).

Settlements and liquefaction on the improved soil using the jet grout method were re-
examined, and it was determined that the elastic (immediate) settlement could be 20
mm, and by using the Burland Burbidge method, it was determined that there could
be a settlement in the ground at 20 mm.

Liquefaction prevention calculations for jet grout column soil improvement project
for soil,

Average groundwater level, GWT = 3.0 m

Current corrected average SPT resistance in profile, SPT-N60 = 13

Soil average shear modulus, G 10 MPa

Jet grout column features,

Manufacturing method: Jet-I

Diameter, B = 60 cm; Length, L = 11 m; Distance between axes, S = 3B = 1.8 m

Targeted free compressive strength, qu-jg = 10 kg/cm2

Modulus of elasticity, Ejg = 540 MPa

Poisson ratio,  = 0.25

Shear modulus, Gjg = 197 MPa

These columns have a reducing effect on the dynamic shear stresses affecting the soil
layers between the jet-grout columns. This effect can be expressed by the shear stress
ratio, KG. This ratio is written as the ratio of reduced shear stress, s, to unreduced
stress,  acting on the soil between the columns and is given by the following
equation:

42
 s 1 1
KG = = 
 Gr 1
[ Ar + (1 − A r )]
Gr
(4.5)

G r = G j g / G s oil (4.6)

A r = A jg / A (4.7)

Gr= Shear modulus ratio

Gjg= Jet-grout column shear modulus

Gsoil= Soil shear modulus

Ar= Displacement ratio

Ajg= Jet-grout area

A= Foundation area

G r =197/5.1= 38.6

A jg = (x0.6 2 /4) = 0.283 m 2

A r =0.283/1.8 2 = 0.087

K G = 0.462

The average rate of shear stress causing liquefaction in the soil is CSRav= 0.33

The average ratio of slip resistance against liquefaction in the soil is CRRav= 0.20

A factor of safety against liquefaction before jet-grout column manufacturing:

F.S= CRR av /CSR av (4.8)

F.S= 0.61 < 1.0 There is a liquefaction risk.

Shear stress-causing liquefaction in the soil after Jet-Grout column manufacturing,

CSR’ av = K G x CSR av (4.9)

CSR’ av = 0.462 x 0.33

43
 CSR’ av = 0.152

A factor of safety against liquefaction after Jet-Grout column manufacturing,

F.S=CRR av /CSR’ a v (4.10)

F.S=1.32 > 1.0 No risk of liquefaction.

4.3. Assessment of Liquefaction Risk by Using MIDAS GTS-NX

4.3.1. Constitutive model

As mentioned, the jet grout method was used to improve liquefied soil. In the
MIDAS-GTS NX program, the ground improvement with jet grout was analyzed.
After the improvement was done, it was investigated whether soil became liquid or
not.

jet grout columns were activated and static analysis was performed (Figure 4.2.). The
strength ratio and area ratio applied in the field were 38.6 and 8.7%, respectively.

Numerical analyzes (nonlinear stress-time analysis) were performed for different

strength and area ratios to show the effectiveness of jet grout columns in reducing the
liquefaction potential in the field. For this purpose, by keeping the shear modulus of
the soil constant, by changing the column strengths and the distances between the
columns; strength ratios and area ratios, and numerical parametric analyzes were
performed.

Jet grout analyzes were repeated statically and dynamically for each different
spacing (2B, 3B, 4B, 5B and 6B) between adjacent columns. Jet grout columns were
activated and static analysis was performed. The jet grout column spacings presented
correspond to the area change ratio of 2.2%, 3.1%, 4.9%, 8.7% and 19.6%. Strength
change ratios are 20, 38.6, 60, 80 and 100.

44
 Figure 4.2. Finite Element Model with Jet Grout (MIDAS-GTS NX)

In addition, the varying strength of jet grout columns was taken into account as
relatively less rigid, rigid and very rigid with respect to the ground.

4.4. Parametric Study

To show the effectiveness of jet grout columns in reducing the liquefaction potential
in the field, numerical analyzes (nonlinear stress-time analysis) were made for
different strength and area ratios. For this purpose, by keeping the shear modulus of
the ground constant, by changing the column strengths and the distances between the
columns; Numerical parametric analyzes were performed with Gr = 20, 38.6, 60, 80,
100 strength ratios and Ar = 2.2%, 3.1%, 4.9%, 8.7%, 19.6% area ratios.

The strength ratio and area ratio applied in the field were 38.6 and 8.7%, respectively
(Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3. UBCSAND results, improved soil with jet grouts

45
The analysis results were evaluated based on the effect of jet-grout columns the
liquefiable soil layer on the shear stress, shear deformation and excess pore water
pressure distribution and shown as a function of the depth in the liquefiable soil
layer.

4.4.1. Shear stress and shear strain distribution

The results of the numerical analyses were evaluated considering the varying
strength ratios and area ratios of the seismically induced shear stresses and shear
strains. These results were generated considering the liquefiable soil layer at a depth
of 3.0 m to 20.0 m. In Figure 4.4., and Figure 4.6., the variation of shear stresses and
shear strains over time are shown at various 5m, 7 m, 9 m and 11 m depths for Gr =
38.6 and Ar= 8.7%.

In Figure 4.5, the graph is of shear stress maximum values at different depths for
improved soil and jet grout column variation.

In Figure 4.7, the graph is of shear strain (%) values at different depths for improved
soil and jet grout column variation.

a)

46
b)

c)

47
 d)

Figure 4.4. Time-dependent shear stress variation at different depths a) 5m b) 7m c) 9m d)11m

Figure 4.5. Maximum shear stress variation at different depths improved soil and jet grout
column

48
a)

b)

49
 c)

d)

Figure 4.6. Time-dependent shear strain variation at different depths a) 5m b) 7m c) 9m d)11m

50
 Figure 4.7. Shear strain (%) variation at different depths, improved soil and jet grout column

Jet-grout columns appear to take on most of the shear stresses compared to the
surrounding soil, as they are more rigid than the liquefiable soil layer. On the other
hand, as can be seen from the plot of shear deformation versus time, the rigid
columns did not deformation much compared to the surrounding ground.

51
Figure 4.8. Time-dependent shear stress variation at different depths (Demir and Özener, 2017)

This case, according to Demir and Özener (2017) is consistent with the results stated
in Figure 4.8.

This result shows that the jet-grout columns do not provide the expected shear
deformation compatibility. Considering Figures 4.4. and 4.5, the analysis results
obtained for cases with different strength ratios and area ratios are evaluated and the
change in the maximum values of these shear stresses. The shear stress ratio (RSS) in
the graphs is the ratio of the soil shear stress to the shear stress of the jet grout
column.

Based on the analysis results, as seen in Figure 4.9, The shear stress ratio (Rss), has
been plotted along with the depth for different area ratios for Gr = 38.6. Figure 4.10.
shows shear stress ratio for different strength ratios and Ar = 8.7%.

52
 Figure 4.9. Variation of shear stress ratio with depth for different jet-grout area ratios
(Gr=38.6)

Figure 4.10. Variation of shear stress ratio with depth for different jet-grout strength ratios
(Ar=%8.7)

Thus, as the jet grout area ratio increases, the shear stress taken by the jet increases
as seen in Figure 4.9. When we examine in Figure 4.10, we can say that increasing
the area ratio is more logical than increasing the stiffness of the jet.

It has been calculated that jet grout columns are subjected to higher shear stresses
than liquefiable soils' shear stresses, since jet grout columns are more rigid than the
soil. However, based on the analyses results, it is considered that they do not have
sufficient shear deformation to significantly reduce the shear stresses in the
liquefiable soil layer. The same conclusion was reached by Olgun and Martin (2008),

53
who examined the role of jet grout columns with total stress analysis
(DIANAFLOW), which does consider pore water pressure generation.

4.4.2. The effect of Jet-Grout columns on the formation of excess pore water
pressure

In this study, the effect of jet grout columns on mitigating the negative effects of
liquefaction in soils was investigated by evaluating the effects on excess pore water
pressure production with the help of the effective stress-based UBCSAND model.
The development of excess pore water pressure is expressed as the excess pore water
pressure ratio (ru) and the change of ru over time is shown in Figures 4.8. and 4.9. for
the liquefiable soil layer (at 7 m) for different strength and area ratios.

Figure 4.11. Variation of excess pore water pressure with time for different area ratios
(Gr=38.6) (7 m)

54
 Figure 4.12. Variation of excess pore water pressure with time for different strength ratios
(Ar=8.7%)

In Figure 4.11., when we examine the graph, we can say that increasing the jet grout
area ratio has a prevention liquefaction effect. Because, when the area ratio rises
above 10%, we see that the excess pore water pressure drops below 0.7.

Increasing the strength ratio of jet grout is effective in preventing liquefaction, but
when we compare it with increasing the area ratio of jet grout, it seems more logical
to increase the area ratio. Because as can be seen in Figure 4.12., increasing the
strength ratio value above 50 does not have much effect anymore.

55
 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Within the scope of this dissertation, the performance of jet grout columns in a field
with has the bearing capacity, settlement and liquefaction problems were analyzed
through analytical methods and finite element analyses. The quantitative
contributions of the factors affecting the efficiency of the soil improvement method
(jet grout) were determined by the numerical models. The accuracy of the improved
soil parameters determined after the jet grout application has been investigated by
back analysis with various correlations.

The results of the numerical analysis carried out to investigate the effectiveness of jet
grout columns in preventing liquefaction through a field study were evaluated in
terms of shear stresses, shear deformations and excess pore water pressure ratios by
considering different columns strength ratios and area ratios. The calculated shear
stresses showed that the jet-grout columns undertake most of the shear stresses
compared to the surrounding soil, as it is more rigid than the liquefiable soil layer.

The role of jet-grout columns in reducing the negative effects of liquefaction is

expressed by the shear stress ratio (RSS), assuming compatibility with shear strain.
The shear stress ratio (RSS) in the graphs is the ratio of the soil shear stress to the
shear stress of the jet grout column.

As a result of the analysis, it can be said that the jet grouts absorbed some of the
shear stresses, but it did not have much effect on the shear deformation. Moreover,
increasing the area ratio is more effective than increasing the stiffness of the jet.

As a result of the numerical analyses, it is thought that numerical analysis studies

help to understand the mechanisms occurring in the fields reinforced with jet-grout
columns. The real data obtained from the instrumented fields and the experimental
data obtained from the model tests can provide a better understanding of the
behaviour of jet grout columns during liquefaction.

56
 REFERENCES

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: 571-584.
Almani, Z.A., Memon, N.A. and Memon, A.A. (2012) Stiff Columns as Liquefaction
Mitigation Measure for Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Mehran University
Research Journal of Engineering & Technology, 31 (4), 659-668.
Almani, Z.A., Memon A.A., Habib A.F., Lal K., and Shah S.F. (2013) 3D Numerical
Modelling of Liquefaction-Induced Settlements and Its Mitigation. Sindh
University Research Journal, 45 (2), 301-304.
Anonymous, Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes, National Research Council
(US), Committee on Earthquake Engineering Research, National Academies,
1985, Vol: 1.
Anonymous, Handbook of Liquefaction Remediation of Reclaimed Land, Port and
Harbour Research Institute, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997, 312.
Anonymous, Earthquake Research Department Report, Disaster & Emergency
Management Authority Presidential of Earthquake Department, Turkey,
2003.
Anonymous, “Ground liquefaction.” Technical Standards and Commentaries for
Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan, MLIT (Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan), Japan, 2007, 282-288.
Andrews, D.C.A. and Martin, G.R. (2000) Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils,
12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings, 30
January-4 February, Auckland, New Zealand.
Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H.II. (2000) Liquefaction Resistance of Soils from Shear-
wave Velocity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 126(11): 1015-1025.
Ansal, M.A. and Öğünç, G. (1981) Dinamik Üç Eksenli Sıvılaşma Deneyleri ve
Tekrar Sıvılaşma, Deprem Araştırma Bülteni, 35: 61-82.
Aslan, R. (2010) Gebze Atıksu Arıtma Tesisi (Kocaeli) Alanındaki Zeminlerin
Sıvılaşma Potansiyelinin Araştırılması, M.Sc. Thesis, Ankara University,
Ankara, 71.
Beaty, M.H. and Byrne, P.M. (1998) An Effective stress model for predicting
liquefaction behavior of sand, Proceedings, Specialty Conference on
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, ASCE, 75, 1:
766-777.

57
Beaty, M.H. and Byrne, P. (2000) A synthesized approach for predicting liquefaction
and resulting displacements, Proceedings of the Twelve World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 30 January-4 February, Auckland, New Zealand,
Paper No. 1589.
Beaty, M.H. and Byrne, P. (2011) UBCSAND Constitutive model version 904Ar,
Documentation Report, Itasca UDM Web Site:
http://www.itascaudm.com/media/download/UBCSand/UBCSAND_UDM_D
ocumen tation.pdf.
Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2006) Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts
and Clays, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
132(11), 1413-1426.
Boulanger, R.W. and Ziotopoulou, K. (2012) PM4SAND (Version 2): A Sand
Plasticity Model for Earthquake Engineering Applications, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis,
Report no. UCD/CGM-12/01.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Swolfs, W.M. and Engine, E. (2011) PLAXIS user’s manual
PLAXIS, the Netherlands.
Burland, J.B. and Burbidge, M.C. (1985) Settlement of Foundations on Sand and
Gravel, Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part 1, Vol. 78, 1325-
1381.
Byrne, P.M., Cheung, H. and Yan, L. (1987) Soil parameters for deformation
analysis of sand masses, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 24(3):366–376.
Byrne, P.M., Phillips, R. and Zeng, Y. (1995) Centrifuge tests and analysis of
CANLEX field event, In Proceedings, 48th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, September 1995, Vancouver, B.C., 25–27, Vol. 1: 353–365.
Callisto, L., Rampello, S. and Viggiani, G. (2013) Soil–structure Interaction for the
Seismic Design of the Messina Strait Bridge, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 52: 103-115.
Casagrande (1936) Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils Affecting the Stability of
Slopes and Earth Fills, Journal of Boston Society of Civil Engineers, 23 (1):
13-32.
Chang, S.E. (2000) Disasters and Transport Systems: Loss, Recovery and
Competition at the Port of Kobe After the 1995 Earthquake, Journal of
Transport Geography 8, Seattle, 53-65.
Coulter, H.W., Migliaccio, R.R. (1966) Effects of the earthquake of march 27, 1964
at Valdez, Alaska, The Alaska Earthquake March 27, 1964: Effects on
Communities, 27 March, Valdez, Alaska, 44.
Cristovao, A., Nogueira, A., Hutchinson, R., Brito, D., Tomasio, R., ve Pinto, R.
(2015) Jet Grouting Columns Operating as a Reaction Platform for
Christchurch Art Gallery re-level Uplift and Soil Liquefaction Mitigation, 6th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 1-4
November, New Zealand. 9.

58
Daniell, J.E. (2012) The Worldwide Economic Impact of Historic Earthquakes, 15
WCEE Lisboa, 24-28 September, Melbourne, Australia, 10.
Dawson, E.M., et al. (2001) A practice-oriented pore pressure generation model,
Proceedings of the 2th International FLAC Symposium, Lyon, France, 29-31
May. 47-52.
Day, R.W. (2002) Geotechnical earthquake engineering handbook, McGraw-Hill,
California, 700.
Demirtaş, R., Erkmen, C. and Yılmaz, R. (1999) Preliminary Results of the Trench
Studies on the 1999 Rupture of the Izmit Bay Earthquake, NW Turkey.
Earthquake Hazard and Risk in the Eastern Mediterranean, 18-22 October,
Nicosia, Northern Cyprus, 12
Derinöz, N. (2004) Hakkari Barajı ve HES projesi zemin sıvılaşma riskinin
belirlenmesi, TMH, 431(3): 33-38.
Dobry, R. and Alvarez, L. (1967) Seismic failures of Chilean tailings dams, Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 93(6): 237-260.
Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P.M., Wong, K.S. and Marby, P. (1980) Strength, stress-strain
and bulk modulus parameters for finite element analyses of stresses and
movements in soil masses, University of California, Berkeley, Report
UCB/GT/80–01.
Durgunoğlu, H. (2004) Yüksek Modüllü Kolonların Temel Mühendisliğinde
Kullanımı, Türkiye Mühendislik Haberleri, 431, 39-52.
Dülger, M. (2015) UBCSAND model ile sıvılaşma davranışının incelenmesi, M.Sc.
Thesis, Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, 165.
Finn, W.D. Liam and M. Yogendrakumar (1989) “TARA-3FL” Program for
Analysis of Liquefaction Induced Flow Deformations, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Gürbüz, Ç. (2019) Numerical Modeling of Jet Grouting Cells to Reduce
Liquefaction, Master’s Thesis, İzmir Institute of Technology, İzmir, 117.
Hausler, E. A., ve Sitar, N. (2001) Performance of Soil Improvement Techniques in
Earthquakes, Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 2001, California,
USA, 10-15.
Idriss, I. and Boulanger, R. (2008) Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Oakland,
Calif., California: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2008.
Ishihara, K. (1985) Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes, 11th Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Conference, 12-16 August, San Fransisco, Vol I:
321-376.
Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M. (1992) Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits
Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32,
No. 1, 173-188.

59
Johansson, J. (2000) The Soil Liquefaction, Website,
“https://depts.washington.edu/liquefy/html/what/what2.html”, University of
Washington, 27 January.
Karaca, G. (2001) An investigation into the large vertical displacements experienced
by structures in Adapazarı during the August 1999 Earthquake, M.Sc. Thesis,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 65.
Keepa, C., Saul, G., Murashev, A. ve McMillan J. (2014) South Brighton Bridge:
Lateral Spread Mitigation Using Jet Grout Lattice Structures, 2014 New
Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering Conference, Auckland, New
Zealand.
Khalid, M.S. (2013) Dynamic Analysis of an Upstream Tailings Dam, Master’s
Thesis, Luleå University,of Technology, Sweden, 40.
Kramer, S.L. (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 526p.
Liao, S.C.C., Whitman, R.V. (1986) Overburned Correction Factors for SPT in Sand,
Journal of Geotecnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp373-377.
Liu, G. (2009) Verification of Shear wave velocity based liquefaction criteria using
centrifuge model, Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio, 213.
Martin, J.R., Olgun, C.G., Mitchell, J.K. and Durgunoglu, H.T. (2004) High-modulus
Columns for Liquefaction Mitigation, Journal of Geotechnical
&Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(6): 561-571.
Martin, I. ve Olgun, C. (2007) Liquefaction Mitigation Using Jet-grout Columns-
1999 Kocaeli Earthquake Case History and Numerical Modelling, The 4th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 25-28
June, Thessaloniki, Greece, 349–358.
Mitchell, J.K. (2008) Mitigation of Liquefaction Potential of Silty Sands, From
Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special
Publication, 180: 433-451.
Mogami, T. and Kubo, K. (1953) The Behavior of Soil During Vibration,
Proceedings 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Zurich, Vol. 1, 152–155.
Moseley, M. P. and Kirsch, K. (2004) Ground improvement, 2, Spon Press, London
Taylor & Francis Group, Oxon, 431.
Mudılı, P.K. (2013) Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Soil Using Genetic
Programming, M.Sc. Thesis, National Institute of Technology, Odisha, 226.
Nishimatsu, Y. (1972) The Mechanics of Rock Cutting, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 9, 261-270.
Obermeier, S.F. (1996) Use of liquefaction-induced features for paleoseismic
analysis, Engineering Geology, 44: 1-76.

60
Olgun, C. and Martin, I. (2008) Numerical Modelling of the Seismic Response of
Columnar Reinforced Ground, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China.
Oral, S.Ü. (2014) Effective Stress Based Constitutive Modelling and Assessment of
Seismic Pile-Soil Interaction in Liquefiable Soils, Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East
Technical University (METU), Ankara, 284.
Orhan, M., Işık, N.S., Özer, M. and Ateş, A. (2013) Comparison of liquefaction
susceptibility maps of Saruhanlı town (Turkey) based on various liquefaction
indices, GU J Sci, 26(2): 279–302.
Ozsoy, B. ve Durgunoglu, H.T. (2003) The Mitigation of Liquefaction by Means of
High Modulus Soilcrete Columns, 5th National Earthquake Engineering
Conference, Ankara, 26-30.
Öz, M.Y. (2015) Sıvılaşmaya Karşı Jet Grouting Yöntemi ile Örnek Bir İyileştirme
Uygulamasının İncelenmesi, M.Sc. Thesis, Pamukkale University, Denizli,
163p.
Özaydın, K. (2007) Zeminlerde sıvılaşma, Altıncı Ulusal Deprem Mühendisliği
Konferansı, 16-20 October, İstanbul, 231-255.
Özener, P.T. (2007) Depremde Tabakalı Kum Zeminde Oluşan Sıvılaşma ve
Sıvılaşma Sonrası Davranışın Model Deneylerle Araştırılması, Ph.D. Thesis,
Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, 444.
Özener, P.T. and Demir S. (2017) Determination of Seismic Performance of High
Modulus Columns in Liquefiable Soils, 3rd International Conference on
Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (PBD-
III), 16-19 July, Vancouver. 7.
Papadimitriou, A.G., Bouckovalas, G.D. and Dafalias, Y. F. (2001) Plasticity model
for sand under small and large cyclic strains, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 127(11), pp. 973-983
Petalas, A., Galavi V. (2013) Plaxis liquefaction model UBC3D-PLM,
Documentation report, “http://kb.plaxis.nl/sites/kb.plaxis.nl/files/kb-
downloads/UBC3D-PLM%20%28REPORT%29.Jan2013.pdf.”, 2 April
2013.
Polito, C.P. (1999) The effects of non-plastic and plastic fines on the liquefaction of
sandy soils, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA, 274.
Puebla, H., Byrne, P.M. and Phillips, R. (1997) Analysis of CANLEX liquefaction
embankment: prototype and centrifuge models, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, No.34.
Puebla, H. (1999) A constitutive model for sand analysis of the CANLEX
embankment, PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada.
Rauch, A.F. (1997) EPOLLS: An Empirical Method for Prediciting Surface
Displacements Due to Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading in

61
 Earthquakes, Ph.D. Thesis, Virgina Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Virginia, 333.
T.C. Resmi Gazete, 2018/11275 Sayılı Bakanlar Kurulu Kararı, Türkiye Bina
Deprem Yönetmeliği, 30364, 2018, 362-373.
Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential
using the cone penetration test, Can. Geotech. Journal, Ottawa, 35(3), 442-
459.
Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1966) Liquefaction of Saturated Sands During Cyclic
Loading, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 92
(SM6): 105-134.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971) Simplified procedure for Evaluating soil
liquefaction potential, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 97: 1055-1122.
Seed, H.B., Arango, I. and Chan, C.K. (1975) Evaluation of soil liquefaction
potential during earthquakes, Report, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
75(28).
Seed, H.B. (1976) Evaluation of soil liquefaction effects on level ground during
earthquakes, ASCE National Convention on Liquefaction Problems in
Engineering, 27-52.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1982) Ground motion and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph Series,
Oakland, 134.
Seed, R.B., Çetin, K.Ö., Moss, R.E.S., Krammer, A.M., Wu j., Pestana, J.M.,
Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J.D., Kayen, R.E. and Francis, A. (2003)
Recent advences in soil liquefaction engineering a unified and consistent
framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, 30
April, California.
Silver, M.L. and Seed, H.B. (1971) Volume changes in sands during cyclic loading,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97: 1171.
Sivrikaya, O. and Toğrol, E. (2007) Türkiye’de SPT-N Değeri ile İnce Daneli
Zeminlerin Drenajsız Kayma Mukavemeti arasındaki İlişkiler, İMO Teknik
Dergi, 4229-4246.
Spagnoli, G., (2008) Theoretical Evaluations of Liquefaction Mitigation Through Jet
Grouting, Geotechnical News, 41-46.
Taylor, A. (2014) 1964: Alaska's Good Friday Earthquake, The Atlantic,
“https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/05/1964-alaskas-good-friday-
earthquake/100746/”, 30 May.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1948) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2.
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 566.
Terzaghi, K. (1956) Variety of Submarine Slope Failures, In: Proceedings of the 8th
Texas Conference on Soils and Foundation Engineering, University of Texas,
Austin, 1–41.

62
Tezcan, S. and Teri, L. (1996) Shear propagation and liquefaction in layered soils,
Journal of Turkish Earthquake Foundation, TDV/DR 96-005, 150.
Tonaroğlu, M. (2006) Sıvılaşmanın Nümerik Yöntemlerle Modellenmesi, Ph.D.
Thesis, Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, 134.
Ulusay, R., Gökçeoğlu, C., Sönmez, H. and Tuncay., E. (2001) Jeoteknik etütler için
veri toplama ve değerlendirme teknikleri, Ek notlar, Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Mühendislik Fakültesi Vakfı, Ankara.
Wang, W. (1979) Some findings in soil liquefaction, Water Conservancy and
Hydroelectric Power Scientific Research Institute, Beijing, China, 1-17.
Wang, Z.L. (1990) Bounding surface hypoplasticity model for granular soils and its
applications, Ph.D.Thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School of The University
of California, Davis. Information Service, Order No. 9110679, Ann Arbor,
MI 48106.
Wang, J.G.Z.Q. and Law, K.T. (1994) Siting in Earthquake Zones, CRC Press,
Rotterdam, 125
Wood and Muir, D. (1990) Soil behavior and critical state soil mechanics,
Cambridge University Press., New York, 462.
Youd, T.L. and Hoose, S.N. (1976) Liquefaction During the 1906 San Francisco
Earthquake, J.Geotech. Eng. Div, ASCE, 112(5), 425–439.
Youd, T.L. and Perkins, D.M. (1978) Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure
potantial, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 104 (GT4):
433-446.
Youd, T.L. (1984) Geological effects-liquefaction and associated ground failure,
Geological and Hydrogeological Hazards Training Program, United States
Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-76, 210-232.
Youd, T.L., Harp, E.L., Keefer, D.K. and Wilson R.C. (1985) The Borah peak, Idaho
earthquake of October 28, 1983-liquefaction, Earthquake Spectra EERI, 2(1):
71-89.
Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M. (1997) Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022,
31 December, Buffalo, New York, 310.
Youd and Idriss (2001) Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No.4.
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., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao,
S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power,
M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B. and Stokoe, K.H. (2001) Liquefaction
resistance of soils–Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (4),
297– 313.

63
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Information
Name, Surname :G***m Ş***n
Nationality : Turkish (TC)
Date and Place of Birth : 2*/**/***4, Amasya/TURKEY
Maritial Status :Married
Phone : +90 5** ******9
E-mail : g***********[email protected]

Education
Degree Institution Year of Graduation
High School Cumhuriyet Anatolian High School 2012
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University
B.S. 2017
Department of Civil Engineering

Work Experience
Year Place Enrollment
2018-2020 Dizayn Engineering Project Engineer
Construction Company
2021-Present Total Facade Solutions Take-off Drafter
Engineer

Foreign Languages
English
Memberships
2017- Present TMMOB-İMO (Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and
Architects-Chamber of Civil Engineers)

Project Experience
Scientific Research Project
Kahyaoğlu, M.R, Şahin, G. (2017-2020), “Jet-Grout Kolonların Zemin İyileştirme
Verimliliğinin Belirlenmesi Adına Bir Vaka Analizi”, Project Code: 18/001,
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University (as a researcher)

64