Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Seismic response of shallow foundations over liquefiable soils improved by T

deep soil mixing columns
⁎
Araz Hasheminezhad, Hadi Bahadori
Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There are limited information on how an artificially non-liquefiable soil layer created by ground improvement
Deep soil mixing (DSM) beneath shallow foundations can help the reduction of liquefaction induced foundation settlements and the
Soil Improvement deterrence of bearing capacity failure effectively. This is addressed herein, numerically through a three-di-
Seismic Response mensional finite difference model using FLAC3D. The validity of the developed model was evaluated by com-
Shallow Foundation
paring the results obtained from the model with the results of numerical studies and experimental centrifuge
tests available in the literature. Using the validated model, the seismic response of a shallow foundation in-
cluding bearing capacity and settlement was evaluated parametrically over a single DSM column in terms of its
diameter and depth and also DSM group columns in terms of the diameter of columns and their center-to-center
distance. Afterward, the influence of shallow foundation characteristic parameters was evaluated including
thickness, width and embedded depth on the seismic response of shallow foundations over liquefiable soils
improved by DSM columns. The obtained results can be used in practical engineering applications and provide
new insight into the seismic performance of shallow foundations with DSM columns located over liquefiable
soils.

1. Introduction techniques to resist liquefaction to the maximum extent possible as a

It is believed that liquefaction probably happens more in loose sa-
turated soils like silty sands or sands and gravels containing imperme-
able sediments exposed to sturdy ground motions in large-magnitude
earthquakes. Liquefaction may result in severe loss of bearing capacity,
which will extremely damage superstructures. As a result of liquefac-
tion, extensive damage has been reported to shallow foundations in
various case studies [1,30,24]. Regardless of the severity of damages,
relatively few studies have been conducted regarding the seismic re-
sponse of shallow foundations. Further, the extent of damage due to
earthquake is strongly influenced by the quality of soil [27,24]. Li-
quefiable soils are found abundantly in many regions around the world,
particularly in coastal areas. However, the construction of new struc-
tures such as embankments, storage tanks, and retaining walls on these
types of soils is sometimes unavoidable to keep up with economic de-
velopment [26,23]. In these cases, and due to the high compressibility
and the lack of bearing capacity of the ground, the soil should be im-
proved. In addition, the liquefaction vulnerability of a place should
definitely be properly evaluated before any construction in that parti-
cular place to avoid any disaster in the near future [18,7]. Therefore, it
is necessary to take advantage of numerous soil improvement
part of pre-disaster management. To this end, over the past years the
topics of interest in liquefaction studies have changed and recent in-
terests are mainly focused on advanced mitigation measures for lique-
faction which are economic and useful for structures [29]. Conse-
quently, numerous ground improvement techniques have been applied
to overcome difficulties associated with the construction on liquefiable
soils. Over time, further progress was observed in this particular field
and many new soil improvement techniques have evolved to deal with
liquefaction. The mechanisms behind most of these soil improvement
techniques mainly involve densification, drainage, reinforcement and
confinement [8,4,27,16,25,6]. In order to improve the bearing capacity
of the soils and reduce the settlement of foundations, various soil im-
provement techniques have been used including stone columns (SC),
dewatering, preloading and prefabricated vertical drains (PVD), and in-
situ mixing of admixtures such as lime and cement called deep soil
mixing method. Among these methods, DSM method has attracted a
great deal of attention worldwide. In DSM, to have a soil binder column
to increase strength and lessen the compressibility of the weak soil, the
unstable soil is mixed with cementitious and other additives. This
method is chiefly dependent on increasing the stiffness of native soil
reached through the addition of a strengthening admixture material like

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.hasheminezhad@urmia.ac.ir (A. Hasheminezhad), h.bahadori@urmia.ac.ir (H. Bahadori).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.02.019
Received 14 November 2018; Received in revised form 27 January 2019; Accepted 17 February 2019
0266-352X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori
cement, lime, gypsum and fly ash. DSM is founded on the notion of
improved natural soils or brownfield ground to meet the adopted design
requirements; hence, challenging excavation and replacement or more
costly deep foundation methods could be circumvented. Since execu-
tion of soil mixing columns has many applications and variable pat-
terns, it would be possible to find safe and cost-effective ground en-
gineering solutions. Applying non-toxic binders as soil additives like
industrial by-products, as well as decreased spoil volumes in compar-
ison with jet grouting or classical drilled piles, for instance, put DSM
forward as eco-friendly technology. DSM method as one of the most
promising ground improvement methods has proved to be effective in
stabilizing potentially liquefiable soil at several sites during earth-
quakes not only in controlling lateral spread but also in preventing li-
quefaction [20,22].
Modern seismic codes deem that shallow foundations should be
used on liquefiable soils only following the appropriate ground im-
provement underneath and around the foundation [12]. Moreover, field
case studies, as well as experimental and theoretical research reported
that it is possible to reduce the destructive effects of liquefaction on the
performance of shallow foundations by applying a non-liquefiable soil
crust having proper dimensions and shear strength. The non-liquefiable
crust can be sometimes artificially created by ground improvement.
However, there are a limited number of researches on the beneficial
effect of a non-liquefiable soil layer beneath shallow foundations for the
reduction of liquefaction induced foundation settlements and the pre-
vention of bearing capacity failure. Particularly, liquefaction mitigation
in liquefiable soil layer improved by DSM is relatively limited, and the
influence of some important design factors remains unclear. This pro-
blem is investigated herein numerically, through 3-D analyses with the
FD code in FLAC3D, to simulate the seismic response of shallow foun-
dations over liquefiable soils improved by DSMs.
2. Literature review
Since it is a complicated issue, only relatively limited references are
available in the literature on the assessment of the seismic response of
shallow foundations over liquefiable soils improved by DSMs.
Nevertheless, there are a number of numerical and experimental studies
on the seismic behavior of shallow foundations over various types of
soils like those discussed further.
Dashti et al. [11] investigated the mechanisms involved in lique-
faction-induced building settlement using series of centrifuge experi-
ments. Oliveira et al. [23] in a parametric study examined the behavior
of an embankment constructed on normally consolidated soft soil which
was improved by deep mixing columns. Dashti and Bray [10] used
UBCSAND model implemented in FLAC2D to investigate the building
response on liquefiable sand using fully-coupled numerical simulations.
By applying a critical state constitutive model called NTUA-SAND, into
the commercial finite-difference Codes FLAC and FLAC3D, Karamitros
et al. [18] evaluated shallow foundation response. Their results in-
dicated that the presence of a non-liquefiable soil (natural or artificial)
crust might efficiently mitigate the damaging effects of liquefaction and
allow the installation of shallow foundations through adopting a per-
formance-based design approach. Asgari et al. [4] parametrically in-
vestigated the effects of SCs and pile pinning on decreasing potential
liquefaction effects during earthquakes. Asgari et al. [3] in a numerical
parametric study evaluated the seismic response of shallow foundation
on loose silt and silty sand considering the soil type, weight, and
thickness of liquefiable soil layer. Rasouli et al. [24] installed sheet-pile
walls around the foundation and studied the moderation of seismic
settlement in light surface structures. Based on their obtained results,
sheet-piling with gaps delayed initiation of settlement, but might in-
tensify the eventual settlement of the structure. Further, through 3D
dynamic fully coupled analysis, Ayoubi and Pak [5] studied the set-
tlement of a shallow foundation on two-layered subsoil strata under
earthquake loading. Their results indicated that in comparison to
252
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273
Fig. 1. Cross-sectional view of the centrifuge Test No.1 [2].
constant liquefiable layer, dense layer can mitigate the settlement by up
to 50%. Dimitriadi et al. [12] investigated the performance of seismic
liquefaction in strip foundations through ground improvement. In their
numerical study, they studied the effect of the size of the improved area
on the seismic settlement and bearing capacity of the foundation.
According to the available literature, although extensive numerical
and experimental studies have been made on the seismic behavior of
shallow foundations, there is a lack of sufficient investigation regarding
the effects of liquefiable soil improvement against liquefaction on
shallow foundation seismic behavior. In particular, no studies have
been conducted on the seismic response of shallow foundations over
liquefiable soils improved by DSM columns as a reliable improvement
method. Literature review show that previous researches had some
limitations. First, lack of sufficient investigation on the effects of DSM
method in single and group columns on the liquefaction mitigation of
liquefiable soil beneath shallow foundations and their seismic behavior.
Second, lack of sufficient investigation on the effects of parameters like
DSM columns characteristics for a single DSM column regarding its
diameter and depth and also DSM group columns regarding the dia-
meter of columns and their center-to-center distance besides shallow
foundation characteristics such as thickness, width and embedded
depth. This study was applied using an extensive parametric numerical
approach to bring these limitations to light.
The present paper examines the seismic response of shallow foun-
dations over liquefiable soils improved by DSM columns through a
numerical study focusing on the effect of DSMs and shallow foundations
characteristics. The main aim of this paper is to analyze the influence of
soil reinforcement executed by DSM method as a non-liquefiable layer
on the seismic behavior of shallow foundations. Numerical simulations
were performed using of finite difference (FD) analyses in FLAC3D- in
order to identify the mechanisms and the parameters guiding the
seismic performance of shallow foundations. The applied numerical
methodology is based on a three-dimensional finite difference (FD)
model implemented in FLAC3D. The validity of the developed model
was evaluated by comparing the results obtained from the model with
the results of numerical studies and experimental centrifuge tests in-
cluding VELACS project available in the literature. Using this well-de-
veloped model, extensive parametric analyses were conducted for the
common case of a square shallow foundation overlying a liquefiable soil
layer improved by a single DSM column in terms of its diameter and
depth. Further, considering the diameter of columns and their center-
to-center distance, DSM group columns were used to gain insight into
the bearing capacity failure and mechanism of settlement. In another
part of this study, the influence of shallow foundation characteristic
parameters including thickness, width, and embedded depth was
evaluated on the seismic response of shallow foundations over liquefi-
able soils improved by DSM columns.
3. Numerical simulations
The numerical modeling involved three-dimensional dynamic finite
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Table 1
Characteristics of Nevada sand with a relative density of 40% [2].
Characteristics Dry Density Void ratio Permeability Poisson ratio Shear Modulus Friction Angle Cohesion (N1 )60

Unit kg/m 3
– m/s – MPa Degree kPa Blows
Values 1500 0.73 6 × 10−5 0.3 3.85 30 0 7

Table 2
Characteristics of DSM columns adopted in the numerical modelling [4,15].
Parameters Dry density shear modulus Permeability Friction angle Cohesion Bulk Modulus Poisson ratio Young’s modulus Void ratio

Unit kg/m3 MPa m/s Degree kPa MPa – MPa –

Values 2100 173 10−1 33 2800 375 0.3 450 0.45

Table 3 in the liquefiable soils was investigated by developing a finite difference

Characteristics of square shallow foundation adopted in the numer- model using the FLAC3D. Then, the results of this analysis were com-
ical modelling [3]. pared with the results of model test No.1 of VELACS project as an ex-
Parameter Young’s Modulus of concrete, Ec perimental centrifuge test as well as the simulation results of Esmaeili
and Hakimpoor [13]. In this way, the developed model was verified.
Unit kPa After verification of the developed model, a three-dimensional model
Value 2.3 × 1011
was developed for a square shallow foundation over a liquefiable soil
improved by DSMs individually and in groups. Afterwards, extensive
parametric analyses were performed considering DSMs and shallow
foundation characteristics. The simulation details such as model geo-
metry, soil, DSM columns and shallow foundation properties, dynamic
loading, boundary conditions, constitutive model, damping properties,
verification of the model and the analysis approach are explained fur-
ther as follows.

3.1. Model geometry

The geometry properties of the liquefiable soil were adapted from

Fig. 2. Horizontal input motion at the bottom [2].
analyses which simulated the seismic response of shallow foundations
over liquefiable soils improved by DSMs. These analyses were per-
formed using FLAC3D. For this purpose, first occurrence of liquefaction
the model test No.1 of VELACS project [2]. Fig. 1 demonstrates the
horizontally layered loose sand in a laminar box for the model test No.1
of VELACS project. The laminar box included horizontal layer of uni-
form Nevada No. 120 sand at the height of 20 cm, placed via dry plu-
viation at a relative density of 40%. It was completely saturated with
water, spun at a centrifuge acceleration of 50g, and the seismic ex-
citation was applied at the base. This combination was used to simulate

Fig. 3a. Comparison of EPWP values at a depth of 1.25 m with Esmaeili and Hakimpour [13] study and model test No. 1 of VELACS project.

253
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori
Fig. 3b. EPWP distribution at different points of the soil in the numerical model.
a 10 m soil layer in prototype. Based on the scale coefficient of 1:50 and
dimensions of the test No. 1 of VELACS project, the geometry of the
numerical model was selected as 12 × 16 m (12 m toward X direction
and 16 m toward Y direction) at a depth of 10 m.
3.2. Soil, DSM columns and Shallow Foundation properties
Table 1 indicates the characteristics of Nevada sand. Characteristics
of DSM columns and square shallow foundation adopted in this study
have been given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Terashi and Kitazume
[28] presented the compressive strengths of DSM improved soils in-
cluding peat, clay, and sand for different range of binder dosage. Ac-
cording to Terashi and Kitazume [28], binder dosage rate of
250–450 kg/m3 at different water/cement ratios could be used effec-
tively in stabilizing sandy soils. In this study, binder dosage rate of
350 kg/m3 has been considered.
3.3. Characteristics of earthquake loading and constitutive model for
liquefaction
The input horizontal acceleration time history at the base of the box
consisted of 20 cycles of a 100-Hz sinusoidal input, with a variable
amplitude and maximum peak acceleration of 11.75g. Therefore, a
frequency of 2 Hz and peak acceleration of 0.235g in the prototype, and
a zero vertical acceleration were considered for 50g centrifuge accel-
eration of the test [2]. Dynamic loading at the lower part of the model
can be seen in Fig. 2. For simulation the model test No.1 of VELACS
project, boundary conditions are fixed in the four sides and rigid in the
bottom of model.
To model a dynamic excess pore water pressure (EPWP) generation
analysis, the irretrievable volume strain in the constitutive model was
determined. A constitutive model named Finn [19] is formulated in
FLAC3D, where Eqs. (1) and (2) are connected to plastic Mohr–Coulomb
model [21] and by considering specified boundary conditions and de-
finite coefficients, is applied to pinpoint the variations in fluid pressure
by a porous medium.
254
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273
2
C3·ε vd
Δε vd = C1·(γ − C2·ε vd ) +
γ + C4·ε vd (1)
Δε vd ε
= C1·exp ⎜⎛−C2· vd ⎞⎟
γ ⎝ γ ⎠ (2)
where C1, C2 , C3 , and C4 denote constants that are linked as follows:
C1C2 C4 = C3 . Δε vd shows the soil volume decrease, γ denotes the size of
periodic shear strains, and ε vd denotes the accumulated volumetric
strain from previous cycles in percent. As explained by Byrne [9], the
amount of C1 coefficient depends on the sand relative density (Dr ) by
C1 = 7600(Dr )−2.5 . According to the empirical relation between Dr and
normalized standard penetration test values, (N1)60 i.e.
Dr = 15(N1)60−1.25 , C1 coefficient will be linked to (N1)60 by
C1 = 8.7(N1)60−1.25 . C2 parameter is also a constant fraction of C1 and can
0.4
be expressed as C2 = C . Finn constitutive model is capable of con-
1
ducting the coupled dynamic-groundwater flow calculations and si-
mulating the effects of liquefaction.
3.4. Analysis approach and solution procedure
The analysis method included static and dynamic types. Regarding
static analysis in which soil was under the load of gravity, the base
boundary was fixed across all directions and the side boundaries were
fixed in the x and y directions. A dynamic analysis is always followed by
static equilibrium calculation. Due to the 3D nature of liquefaction and
DSMs, a 3D numerical model development was indispensable in this
study. According to Fig. 2, in this simulation, the dynamic loading was
applied as acceleration time history at the lowest point of the model
with 2-Hz frequency and 0.235g acceleration. Accordingly, for inter-
pretation and further assessment, the dynamic analyses were conducted
and the results were extracted. In this regard, the static boundaries
should have been applied to the model and then the static load to the
base. After the equilibrium of the sample, dynamic boundaries and
earthquake loading could be employed. Then, the seismic acceleration
input was applied to the bottom of model. Furthermore, the dynamic
boundaries should have been such that the seismic waves did not have
any reflection toward the inside of soil after facing these boundaries;
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori
Fig. 4. Model geometry of a shallow foundation over a liquefiable soil improved by DSMs (a) Plan and (b) Transversal cut.
otherwise, the responses will be unrealistic. In the dynamic analysis, the
boundaries of the model should be considered as a free field. For soil
bedrock analysis with DSMs, a square shallow foundation was used in
the case of infinite boundaries as well as free boundaries on the four
sides of the model.
In dynamic analyses, it is necessary to determine the damping of the
material; otherwise, the model analysis will not be finite. Thus,
Rayleigh damping was applied in the present study. Rayleigh damping
is applied for materials where damping matrix (C) is linked to the
components of the toughness and mass matrixes (K, M) according to Eq.
(3), using α and β factors. α stands for the damping coefficient con-
nected to mass and β shows the damping coefficient related to stiffness.
C = αM + βK
In dynamic analyses, damping ratio of materials normally is not
dependent on frequency and for geotechnical materials; damping ratio
is often 2–5% of critical damping ratio. Rayleigh damping is specified in
FLAC3D with the parameters fmin in Hertz (cycles per second) and ξmin .
Natural frequency of model is 2 Hz in this study and damping coeffi-
cient was 5% of critical damping.
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273
3.5. Verification of the model
Fig. 3a reveals the results of numerical modeling and the centrifuge
test No. 1 in the VELACS project in the terms of EPWP at a depth of
1.25 m. Note that the soil characteristics, boundary conditions, and
seismic acceleration input in the numerical modeling were the same as
those in Esmaeili and Hakimpour [13] study. As can be seen, the results
are reasonably in good agreement with the results of the model test No.
1 of VELACS project, as well as the findings of Esmaeili and Hakimpour
[13]. In Fig. 3b reveals the EPWP distribution at different points of the
soil in the numerical model.
Figs. 4–6 illustrate the model geometry for shallow foundations over
liquefied soils improved by DSMs along with the FD model of a square
(3) shallow foundation over a single and group DSMs used in the para-
metric study, respectively.
Following the verification of the numerical methodology, the
parametric investigation of the seismic response of shallow foundations
over liquefiable soils improved by DSMs was performed. For this pur-
pose, fixed and variable parameters in each numerical analysis were
considered, summarized in Table 4.
255
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 5. FD model and boundary conditions of a square shallow foundation over a single DSM.

Fig. 6. FD model and boundary conditions of a square shallow foundation over group DSMs.

4. Parametric study improved by DSMs. The details are discussed as follows:

Parametric analyses in this study were performed in two parts in
terms of DSMs and shallow foundation characteristics. Part A called the
influence of DSM characteristics included dynamic analysis results for
EPWP and seismic response of shallow foundations for single and group
DSMs. Part B called the influence of shallow foundations characteristics
involved the effect of parameters of shallow foundation characteristics
on the seismic response of shallow foundations over liquefiable soils
Part A. Influence of DSM characteristics
4.1. Dynamic analysis results of EPWP for a single DSM
In this study, to investigate the influence of the DSM on the seismic
response of shallow foundation over liquefiable soils, as well as re-
duction of the EPWP of liquefiable soil, a dynamic analysis was

256
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Table 4
Parameters in parametric analyses.
Parametric Analyses No. Fixed parameters Variable parameters

B (m) T (m) z (m) L (m) S (m) D (m) D (m) T (m) Z (m) B (m) S/D

1 1.9 1.2 0 6 0 – 0.9,1.2,1.5 – – – 2,3,4,5

2 1.9 1.2 0 6 – – 0.9,1.2,1.5 – – – –
3 – 1.2 0 6 0 0.9 – – – 1,1.9,2.8 –
4 1.9 – 0 6 0 0.9 – 0.8,1.2,1.6 – – –
5 1.9 1.2 – 6 0 0.9 – – 0,0.5,1,2 – –

Fig. 7. EPWP at the distance of 0.5 m.

Fig. 8. EPWP at the distance of 1.5 m.

257
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 9. EPWP at the distance of 2.5 m.

Fig. 10. EPWP at the distance of 3.5 m.

Table 5 conducted using a DSM with diameters of 90, 120 and 150 cm, along
Dynamic analysis results at the depth of 1.25 m. with a square shallow foundation at the center of the model.
Distance from DSM (m) D = 90 cm D = 120 cm D = 150 cm
Accordingly, changes of EPWP were evaluated at depths of 1.25 and
ru ru ru 2.5 m and at distances of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m off the DSM center. The
results of dynamic analysis for 1.25 m depth and distances of 0.5, 1.5,
0.5 0.51 0.32 0.23 2.5, and 3.5 m from the DSM center have been presented in Figs. 7–10,
1.5 0.68 0.38 0.37
respectively.
2.5 0.92 0.89 0.87
3.5 1 1 1 According to Figs. 7–10, with increasing the DSM diameter and the
horizontal distance from the DSM, the risk of liquefaction decreases and
increases, respectively. Fig. 9 demonstrates that at the distance of 2.5 m
Table 6 from the DSM, and at the time of about 8 s, the soil sample experienced
The efficiency of DSM at the depth of 1.25 m. partial liquefaction. However, according to Fig. 10, at the distance of
Maximum reduction of liquefaction risk D = 90 cm D = 120 cm D = 150 cm
3.5 m from the DSM, the soil sample became completely liquefied.
49% 68% 77% Therefore, through the increase in the distance from the DSM center,
the effect of DSM on the liquefaction mitigation drops. In particular,

258
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 11. EPWP at the distance of 0.5 m.

Fig. 12. EPWP at the distance of 1.5 m.

only from a certain distance off the column center, the DSM can reduce
the risk of soil liquefaction.
Tables 5 and 6 reveal the results of numerical simulation for a single
DSM with a square shallow foundation at the depth of 1.25 m. As re-
ported in the Table 6, with increase of the DSM diameter, the risk of
liquefaction decreases. However, this decrease is not significant. Also,
increasing the DSM diameter raises the radius of influence. This means
that by increasing the diameter of DSM, a wider area around the li-
quefiable soil will be safe from the risk of liquefaction. The best per-
formance of the single DSM to reduce the risk of liquefaction was at the
depth of 1.25 m for a DSM with 150 cm diameter and at a distance of
0.5 m, reducing the risk of liquefaction by 77% (as shown in Table 6).
The results of dynamic analysis for the depth of 2.5 m and distances
of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 m from the DSM center are presented in
Figs. 11–14, respectively.
According to Figs. 11–14, as with the depth of 1.25 m, with increase
of the DSM diameter and the horizontal distance from the DSM, the risk
of liquefaction decreases and increases, respectively. However, there is
a significant difference among EPWPs at the depth of 2.5 m at different
distances. Fig. 13 reveals that at the distance of 2.5 m from the DSM, the
graphs relating to the EPWP of the DSM with a diameter of 90 cm have
been partially liquefied at about 7 s. On the other hand, the EPWP
diagram of the DSM with a diameter of 120 and 150 cm has not been
liquefied. Fig. 14 indicates that at the depth of 2.5 m and the distance of
3.5 m from the DSM, as with the depth of 1.25 m, all soil samples be-
came fully liquefied. Nevertheless, these graphs are closer to the stress
line than the 1.25-m depth. Same as the depth of 1.25 m, with the in-
crease of the distance from the DSM center, the effect of the existence of
DSM on the liquefaction was reduced and the EPWP diagrams ap-
proached each other and almost overlapped, as illustrated in Fig. 14.

259
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 13. EPWP at the distance of 2.5 m.

Fig. 14. EPWP at the distance of 3.5 m.

Table 7 This means that at a depth of 2.5 m, only from a certain distance off the
Dynamic analytical results at the depth of 2.5 m. column center, the DSM can reduce the risk of soil liquefaction. As
Distance from DSM (m) D = 90 cm D = 120 cm D = 150 cm
shown in Fig. 13, EPWP around 4 s has a sudden drop. The EPWP
fluctuations around 4 s can be attributed to the reduction in the effi-
ru ru ru ciency of DSM column in mitigation of liquefaction as time goes by. In
0.5 0.38 0.26 0.20 fact, as time goes by, DSM column efficiency reduces and the soil leads
1.5 0.81 0.69 0.41
2.5 1 0.94 0.79
to be liquefied. This behavior is attributed to the increase in the PWP
3.5 1 1 1 during dynamic load that causes reduction in the inter-particle forces
between solid particles of the soil skeleton, hence causing an increase in
displacement response. However, the presence of DSM columns with
Table 8 large diameters reduced this fluctuation. Therefore, with increase of the
The efficiency of DSM at the depth of 2.5 m. DSM diameter, its efficiency in decreasing risk of liquefaction improves
Maximum reduction at risk of D = 90 cm D = 120 cm D = 150 cm
and it delays liquefaction occurrence.
liquefaction 62% 74% 80% Tables 7 and 8 reveal the numerical simulation results of a single
DSM over a square shallow foundation at the depth of 2.5 m. As shown

260
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori
Fig. 15. Comparison of the efficiency of the single DSM with different dimensions on the seismic response of shallow foundations.
Fig. 16. EPWP changes for group DSM with a diameter of 90 cm and a ratio of
in Table 7, at the depth of 2.5 m, with the rise of DSM diameter, the risk
of liquefaction is reduced. Furthermore, increasing the DSM diameter
increases the radius of influence. The best performance of the DSM to
reduce the risk of liquefaction at the depth of 2.5 m for a DSM with a
diameter of 150 cm was at the distance of 0.5 m, lowering the risk of
liquefaction by 80% (as presented in Table 8).
In general, the obtained results indicated that the performance of
the DSM at the depth of 2.5 m was far better than that of the 1.25-m
depth. This means that by increasing the depth, the performance of
DSM increases.
4.2. Dynamic analysis results of a single DSM for seismic response of
shallow foundation
To evaluate the efficiency of a single DSM on the seismic response of
261
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273
( s
d )
= 2, 3, 4, 5 .
shallow foundation, dynamic analysis was performed taking into ac-
count a single DSM with diameters of 90, 120 and 150 cm, along with a
square shallow foundation at the center of the model with dimensions
of 1.9 m. The seismic parameters included the settlement and bearing
capacity of the shallow foundation. In this regard, the settlement-stress
diagram for different cases is presented in Fig. 15. As revealed in
Fig. 15, the static bearing capacity was first calculated by the FLAC3D.
Afterwards, it was compared with the bearing capacity calculated using
the Terzaghi static bearing capacity formula. It can be seen that the
static bearing capacity obtained from the FLAC3D and the Terzaghi
formula are close by an acceptable extent. Further, while the dimen-
sions of the foundation were assumed to be fixed (1.9 m), through
taking into account the DSMs with diameters of 90, 120 and 150 cm,
the bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundation were cal-
culated. Also, for better comparison, the seismic response of shallow
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 17. EPWP changes for group DSM with a diameter of 120 cm and a ratio of ( s
d )
= 2, 3, 4, 5 .

Fig. 18. EPWP changes for group DSM with a diameter of 150 cm and a ratio of ( s
d )
= 2, 3, 4, 5 .

Table 9 foundation was also calculated in the case without any DSM. According
Dynamic analysis results for group DSMs with diameters of 90, 120 and 150 cm to Fig. 15, the seismic bearing capacity is less than that of the static
at the depth of 1.25 m. state. In addition, with the increase in the DSM diameter, the seismic
S/d D = 90 cm D = 120 cm D = 150 cm bearing capacity has also increased. Notably, the diagram of the seismic
response of the foundation, in the case of using DSM, slowly changes
ru Maximum ru Maximum ru Maximum from elastic to plastic and then to a constant stress. However, in the
reduction of reduction of reduction of absence of a DSM, the graph suddenly shifts to a constant stress. This
liquefaction risk liquefaction risk liquefaction risk
suggests that during an earthquake, if the DSM is not applied to li-
2 0.52 48% 0.28 72% 0.11 89% quefiable soil, the foundation suffers a sudden breakdown, and there-
3 0.74 26% 0.53 47% 0.47 53% fore the presence of a DSM causes the soil to have a slow settlement.
4 0.91 9% 0.79 21% 0.65 35% However, this effect is insignificant at higher seismic intensities.
5 1 0 1 0 1 0
Moreover, in seismic response diagrams with DSMs, all three diagrams
reach their final seismic bearing capacity after settlement of approxi-
mately 5 cm.

262
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 19. Seismic response of shallow foundation for group DSM with a diameter of 90 cm and the ratio of ( s
d )
= 2, 3, 4, 5 .

Fig. 20. Seismic response of shallow foundation for group DSM with a diameter of 120 cm and the ratio of ( s
d )
= 2, 3, 4, 5 .

4.3. Dynamic analysis results of EPWP for group DSM
In the group DSM, the dynamic analysis was performed considering
a square pattern of the DSMs. The numerical results are presented for a
group DSM with diameters of 90, 120 and 150 cm, along with the
square shallow foundation, based on the ratio of columns spacing to
(
s
)
their diameter d = 2, 3, 4, 5 . Figs. 16–18 reveal the results of dy-
namic analysis regarding the variations of EPWP for group DSM at the
midpoint between the central column and the side column at 1.25-m
depth and for the DSMs with the diameters of 90, 120, and 150 cm. In
this regard, across all group DSMs with various column diameters, in-
creasing the space between the columns leads to an increase in EPWP.
s
( )
In all cases of the group DSMs, at the d = 5 ratio, all models ex-
perienced complete liquefaction. In other words, with the increase in
the distance between the DSMs, each DSM column will function in-
dividually. This means that the group DSM function disappears with
increase of the distance between them.
According to Fig. 16, in the group DSMs, with a diameter of 90 cm at
(
s
)
the ratio of d = 4 , partial liquefaction was observed from the begin-
ning of loading up to about 2 s. By increasing the DSM diameter (as
indicated in Figs. 17 and 18), this partial liquefaction was eliminated.
( s
)
Except for the ratio of d = 5 , where the columns acted individually
and the diagram of EPWP was approximately same for the group DSM
s
()
with different diameters, at a constant d , with the rise of the DSM
diameter, the EPWP diminished.
Table 9 provides the numerical results for the group DSMs with
diameters of 90, 120 and 150 cm along with the shallow foundation
( s
)
based on d = 2, 3, 4, 5 . As shown in Table 9, in group DSMs, with

263
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori
Fig. 21. Seismic response of shallow foundation for group DSM with a diameter of 150 cm and the ratio of
Fig. 22. The effect of foundation width on EPWP at a distance of 0.5 m from DSM.
increase of the diameter of DSMs, the risk of liquefaction diminishes.
(s
)
Also, at the d = 5 , all models experienced complete liquefaction. The
best function of the group DSMs to reduce the risk of liquefaction at the
depth of 1.25 m belonged to DSM columns with a diameter of 150 cm,
lowering the risk of liquefaction by 89%. It should be noted that in the
case of a single DSM, the maximum reduction of liquefaction risk was
77% and related to a column with a diameter of 150 cm. In other words,
in the group mode, the DSMs will be more capable than the single mode
in reducing the risk of liquefaction. Indeed, the side columns help the
central columns to reduce the risk of liquefaction.
264
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273
( s
d
= 2, 3, 4, 5 . )
4.4. Dynamic analysis results of group DSM for the seismic response of
shallow foundation
Figs. 19–21 exhibit the dynamic analysis results of the seismic re-
sponse of shallow foundation for the group DSMs with 90, 120 and
(s
)
150 cm diameters and the ratio of d = 2, 3, 4, 5 , respectively. As the
distance between DSMs increases, the seismic bearing capacity de-
creases, but the magnitude of settlement at the moment of reaching the
final bearing capacity remains almost constant. With the increase of the
diameter of DSMs, the seismic bearing capacity increases. Increasing
the distance between the columns can change the function of columns
s
( )
from group to single mode, such that at the ratio of d = 5 , the bearing
capacity is almost the same under all three conditions. In addition, in
the group DSMs, unlike single mode, the dynamic load does not
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 23. The effect of foundation width on EPWP at a distance of 1.5 m from DSM.

Fig. 24. The effect of foundation width on EPWP at a distance of 2.5 m from DSM.

significantly affect the extent of foundation settlement. As Figs. 19–21
show, the stresses in the center of stress-settlement figures decreased
sharply. This can be associated with increased PWP within dynamic
load leading to reduced inter-particle forces between solid particles.
Part B. Influence of the characteristics of shallow foundations
4.5. Effect of shallow foundation width on EPWP
In order to examine the effect of the width of shallow foundation on
its seismic response and reduction of EPWP of the liquefiable soil, a
dynamic analysis was conducted considering a DSM with a diameter of
90 cm along with a foundation at the center of the model. Changes in
EPWP were investigated at the depths of 1.25 m and at distances of 0.5,
1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m from the center of the column. The foundation was
also considered in three different dimensions with the widths of 1, 1.9
and 2.8 m.
The results of dynamic analysis at the depth of 1.25 m and the
distances of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m from the DSM are presented in
Figs. 22–25, respectively. According to these figures, with the increase
in the width of the foundation, the EPWP around the DSM sharply
drops. The sharp increase in EPWP after 4 s, as shown in Figs. 24 and
25, can be attributed to the increase in the PWP during dynamic load
that causes reduction in the inter-particle forces between solid particles
of the soil skeleton, hence preventing solid particles from interlocking
with each other to rearrange their skeleton to resist the applied dy-
namic loading. As a result, the EPWP is negatively influenced by the
widths of 2.8 m and distances of 0.5 and 1.5 m (Figs. 22 and 23). At the
distances of 2.5 m and 3.5 m from the DSM (Figs. 24 and 25), the effect
of the DSM on the liquefaction diminishes, so the EPWP reduction is

265
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 25. The effect of foundation width on EPWP at a distance of 3.5 m from DSM.

Fig. 26. The effect of the width of foundation on its seismic response.

also clearly evident. Thus, changes in the width of foundation can re-
duce EPWP. Reducing the width of the foundation from 1.9 m to 1 m
has caused the soil around the DSM to experience complete liquefaction
at all distances from 0.5 to 3.5 m. As shown, a large foundation gen-
erates negative EPWP. This is thought to be due to this fact that in-
creasing the width of shallow foundation (Large shallow foundation)
reduces the possibility of drainage and dissipation of PWP beneath the
shallow foundation. In addition, the applied load by shallow foundation
will be distributed to a larger area where a DSM column cannot drain
and dissipate it effectively. As explained by Esmaeili and Khajehei [14],
the weight of structure causes more than 50% of the applied load move
to the DSM columns and the body of shallow foundation and sandy bed
will tolerate the remainder. Besides, the central columns play more
prominent role compared to the mid and side columns regarding the
carrying the applied load. So, in a case of using DSM columns for
improvement of the liquefiable soil layer beneath the shallow founda-
tion, as the foundation width increases (larger foundation), the DSM
columns especially central columns beneath shallow foundations per-
form much for tolerating applied loads than the reducing EPWP. As a
result, a large foundation generates negative EPWP. Furthermore, as
shown in Figs. 22–25, the EPWP in the middle of figures after 4 s has a
sharp reduction. This reduction is severe and sharper for Figs. 24 and 25
in which the distance from the DSM column is 2.5 and 3.5 m, respec-
tively. This can be attributed to the increase in the PWP during dynamic
load that causes reduction in the inter-particle forces between solid
particles. In other words, as time goes by, and the distance from the
DSM column increases, the efficiency of DSM columns in liquefaction
mitigation decreases as discussed before. In turn, due to dynamic
loading, the PWP is increased and soil becomes liquefied in the end.

266
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 27. The effect of embedded depth of foundation on EPWP at a distance of 0.5 m from the DSM.

Fig. 28. The effect of embedded depth of foundation on EPWP at a distance of 1.5 m from the DSM.

4.6. Effect of the width of shallow foundation on its seismic response
In this section, the dynamic analysis results are presented to in-
vestigate the effect of the width of shallow foundation on its seismic
response. The seismic response of the shallow foundation is evaluated
based on the seismic settlements and the bearing capacity. In this re-
gard, Fig. 26 shows the stress-settlement graph. According to the ob-
tained results, expectedly with an increase in the width of the foun-
dation, the seismic bearing and settlement increased and decreased,
respectively. In fact, by increasing the width of shallow foundations, the
intensity of load is decreased and on the same soil more loads can be
placed. Through increasing the foundation width from 1 m to 1.9 m, the
seismic bearing capacity increased from approximately 75 kPa to
105 kPa, representing 40% increase in the seismic bearing capacity.
Increasing the foundation width from 1 m to 2.8 m, the seismic bearing
capacity increased from approximately 75 kPa to 130 kPa, signifying
73% increase in the seismic bearing capacity. With increase of the
foundation width from 1 m to 1.9 m, the settlement rate at the moment
of reaching the final seismic bearing capacity (where the diagram is
almost horizontal) decreased from approximately 10 cm to 4.5 cm,
suggesting 55% decrease in the settlement rate. Increasing the foun-
dation width from 1 m to 2.8 m, the settlement rate at the moment of
reaching the final seismic bearing capacity (where the diagram is al-
most horizontal) dropped from approximately 10 cm to 2.7 cm, im-
plying 73% decrease in the settlement rate. However, the stress vs
settlement graph for the cases SD90B1.0 and SD90B2.8 has a bump in
graph, which can be attributed to coincidence of shallow foundation
natural frequency with earthquake loading frequency and resonance
phenomenon, which has not been performed for SD90B1.9.

267
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 29. The effect of embedded depth of foundation on EPWP at a distance of 2.5 m from the DSM.

Fig. 30. The effect of embedded depth of foundation on EPWP at a distance of 3.5 m from the DSM.

4.7. Effect of embedded depth of shallow foundation on EPWP
In order to examine the effect of embedded depth of shallow
foundation on its seismic response and reduction of the EPWP of li-
quefiable soil, a dynamic analysis was performed considering a DSM
with a diameter of 90 cm, coupled with a foundation with a width of
1.9 m in the center of the model. The changes in EPWP were in-
vestigated at the depth of 1.25 m and distances of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and
3.5 m from the center of the column. The foundation was also con-
sidered in three different modes with embedded depths of 0, 0.5 and
1 m.
The results of dynamic analysis at the depth of 1.25 m and distances
of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m from the DSM are given in Figs. 27–30, re-
spectively. According to the results obtained in Fig. 27, the increase in
the depth of the foundation at the distance of 0.5 m from the DSM had a
positive effect on the EPWP. As the embedded depth of foundation
increased from 0 to 0.5 m up to 0.7 s of analysis, the EPWP was zero.
Also, by increasing embedded depth to 1 m up to 1.3 s of analysis, the
EPWP was negative.
Unlike Fig. 27, the increase of foundation depth at 1.5 and 2.5 m
from the DSM had a negative effect on the EPWP. As shown in Figs. 28
and 29, with increasing of embedded depth, the EPWP has also in-
creased. In Fig. 29, it can be seen that at the distance of 2.5 m and
embedded depth of zero, the soil still was not liquefied. However, with
an increase in embedded depth to 0.5 m, the soil was partially liquefied.
Consequently, with increasing the embedded depth to 1 m, the soil has
fully experienced the liquefaction. According to the Fig. 30, at the
distance of 3.5 m, the effect of embedded depth of foundation on EPWP
has been abolished. In addition, all the graphs overlapped and the soil
has undergone a fully liquefaction.

268
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 31. The effect of the embedded depth of foundation on its seismic response.

Fig. 32. The effect of the foundation thickness on the EPWP at a distance of 0.5 m from the DSM.

According to the obtained results, in case of using a single DSM
column and at 0.5 m distance from the column, shallow foundation
embedded depth increase has a positive effect on EPWP and further has
a negative effect on the EPWP. As the distance from the DSM column
increases, soil layer gets ready to become liquefied. This can be at-
tributed to this fact that by increasing the shallow foundation em-
bedded depth; much of earthquake energy is applied to the water (due
to the low displacement of soil particles) and increases the PWP.
However, since the effective stress is much more in the depths of soil,
despite the increase in the PWP, settlement is low and the probability of
liquefaction is reduced. In this regard, as the distance from the DSM
column below the shallow foundation increases, the probability of li-
quefaction also increases, and the DSM column will not have any effect
on the mitigation of liquefaction. As the distance increases (distance of
1.5 and 2.5 m in this study), the increase in stress caused by shallow
foundation decreases and at a distance of 3.5 m, this increase in stress
caused by shallow foundation is to the lowest amount and the soil be-
comes liquefied. In addition, this phenomenon is due to the change in
the “influence radius” of DSM column. According to the available lit-
erature, the circular region around the DSM column is affected by radial
drainage, and the diameter of this circle is four times bigger than the
DSM column diameter. In fact, the shallow foundation embedded depth
increase has a positive effect on EPWP in the near distances of DSM
column in which DSM column influence radius is more. However, as the
distance from the DSM column increases, its influence radius decreases.
In this condition, increase in shallow foundation embedded depth has
negative effect on EPWP. Therefore, in nearer distances of DSM column,
smaller embedment depths result in slightly larger EPWP generation.

269
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 33. The effect of the foundation thickness on the EPWP at a distance of 1.5 m from the DSM.

Fig. 34. The effect of the foundation thickness on the EPWP at a distance of 2.5 m from the DSM.

4.8. Effect of embedded depth of shallow foundation on its seismic response
In this section, the dynamic analysis results are presented to in-
vestigate the effect of embedded depth of shallow foundation on its
seismic response. The seismic parameters included the settlement and
bearing capacity of the shallow foundation. According to Fig. 31, ex-
pectedly, with of the increase in the embedded depth of shallow
foundation, the seismic bearing capacity and settlement increased and
decreased, respectively. With increase of the embedded depth of
foundation from 0 to 0.5 m, the seismic bearing capacity rose from
approximately 104 kPa to 111 kPa, showing 7% increase in the seismic
bearing capacity. With the increase of embedded depth of foundation
from 0 to 1 m, the seismic bearing capacity was augmented from ap-
proximately 104 kPa to 122 kPa, signifying 17% increase in the seismic
bearing capacity. Also, with of the development of the embedded depth
of foundation from 0 to 0.5 m, the settlement at the moment of reaching
the final seismic bearing capacity diminished from about 5.6 to 3.6 cm,
implying 35% decrease in the settlement rates. Finally, with the in-
crease of the embedded depth of foundation from 0 to 1 m, the settle-
ment at the moment of reaching the final seismic bearing capacity
lessened from about 5.6 to 4.2 cm, suggesting 25% decline in the set-
tlement rates. As shown, as the embedment depth of shallow foundation
increases, reduction in settlement decreases, in other words, the set-
tlement is increased. This is due to this fact that as the embedment
depth of shallow foundation increases, the PWP is less drained and
dissipated, so the effective stress will be low, causing the soil particles
to move and increase the settlement.

270
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273

Fig. 35. The effect of the foundation thickness on the EPWP at a distance of 3.5 m from the DSM.

Fig. 36. The effect of foundation thickness on its seismic response.

4.9. Effect of shallow foundation thickness on EPWP
In order to examine the effect of shallow foundation thickness on its
seismic response and to decrease EPWP of the liquefiable soil, a dy-
namic analysis was conducted using a DSM with a diameter of 90 cm, a
foundation of 1.9 m, and an embedded depth of 0 in the center of the
model. Changes in EPWP at the depth of 1.25 m and at distances of 0.5,
1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m from the center of the DSM column were also stu-
died. The foundation was also considered in three different modes with
the thicknesses of 80, 120 and 160 cm.
Figs. 32–35 display the dynamic analysis results at the depth of
1.25 m and distances of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m from the DSM. Ac-
cording to these figures, the increase in the thickness of the foundation
reduces the EPWP. As the distance from the DSM increases, the effect of
the foundation thickness diminishes and the soil tends to experience
liquefaction. At 2.5 m (Fig. 34), with a reduction in the foundation
thickness from 120 to 80 cm, approximately from 5 to 8 s, the soil un-
derwent partial liquefaction. At 3.5 m (Fig. 35), the effect of the foun-
dation thickness totally faded and the diagrams overlapped.
4.10. Effect of shallow foundation thickness on seismic response of shallow
foundation
In this section, the results of dynamic analysis are presented to in-
vestigate the effect of foundation thickness on its seismic response. The
seismic parameters were shallow foundation settlement and bearing
capacity. As expected and according to Fig. 36, the change in the
thickness of the foundation has had little effect on the bearing capacity,
since increasing the thickness of the foundation further increases the
shear strength of the concrete foundation. In addition, such a condition

271
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori
has a limited use because with increase in thickness of the foundation,
the weight and cost of foundation also increases.
5. Conclusions
Through an extensive parametric study, the present paper described
the numerical aspects of seismic response of shallow foundations over
liquefiable soils improved by DSMs as implemented in the finite dif-
ference code, FLAC3D. The developed model displayed reasonably good
agreement with the results of numerical studies and experimental
centrifuge tests available in the literature. The focus of the conducted
parametric studies was on variables including the characteristics of
DSMs and shallow foundations. Accordingly, it was observed that an
artificially created non-liquefiable soil layer employing DSM columns
may effectively mitigate the damaging effects of liquefaction on shallow
foundations and allow for a seismic performance design of shallow
foundations. The major findings of this research are summarized below,
involving the basic aspects of seismic response of shallow foundation
performance related to DSMs:
▪ Shallow foundation over a single DSM in a liquefiable soil: By in-
creasing the diameter of a single DSM and the horizontal distance
from the DSM, the risk of liquefaction decreased and increased,
respectively. As the distance from the center of the single DSM in-
creases, the effect of the DSM on the liquefaction decreased.
Particularly, the DSMs could reduce the risk of soil liquefaction only
from a certain distance off the center of the column. The best per-
formance of the DSM to reduce the risk of liquefaction at a depth of
1.25 m for a column with a diameter of 150 cm was at the distance
of 0.5 m, which reduced the risk of liquefaction by 77%. With the
increase of depth, the performance of the single DSM was improved.
With the increase in the diameter of the single DSM, the seismic
bearing capacity also increased.
▪ Shallow foundation over DSM group in a liquefiable soil: Across all
group DSMs with different column diameters, through increasing
the distance between columns, the extent of EPWP also increased.
By increasing the distance between the DSMs, each DSM column
functioned individually. Any increase in the distance between the
columns eliminated their group function. Increasing the distance
between the columns caused the columns to change their function
from group to single mode. In group DSMs, by increasing the dia-
meter of DSM, the risk of liquefaction diminished. The best group
performance of DSMs to reduce the risk of liquefaction was obtained
at the depth of 1.25 m for a column with a diameter of 150 cm,
lowering the risk of liquefaction by 89%. In the group mode, the side
columns helped the central column in reducing the risk of lique-
faction; therefore, group DSM would be more capable of reducing
the risk of liquefaction than single mode. By increasing the distance
between the DSMs, the seismic bearing capacity dropped, but the
extent of settlement at the moment of reaching the final bearing
capacity remained almost constant. In the group mode, with in-
crease of the diameter of DSM, the seismic bearing capacity in-
creased, to such an extent that the seismic bearing capacity with
columns 150 cm in diameter was greater than the static bearing
capacity. In the group mode of DSMs unlike single-mode, dynamic
load did not significantly affect the extent of foundation settlement.
▪ Shallow foundation characteristics: With the increase in the width of
the foundation, the EPWP around the DSM decreased dramatically.
With an increase in the width of the foundation, the seismic bearing
and settlement increased and decreased, respectively. The increase
in the depth of the foundation at the distance of 0.5 m from the DSM
had a positive effect on the EPWP. With the growth of the embedded
depth of shallow foundation, the seismic bearing capacity and set-
tlement increased and decreased, respectively. The increase in the
thickness of the foundation reduced the EPWP. As the distance from
the DSM increased, the effect of the foundation thickness diminished
272
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273
and the soil tended to undergo liquefaction. The change in the
thickness of the foundation had little effect on the bearing capacity,
since increasing the thickness of the foundation further increases the
shear strength of the concrete foundation.
Overall, considering low settlements and acceptable seismic bearing
capacity and in the presence of DSMs, it is possible to ensure adequate
seismic shallow foundation performance in liquefiable soils. At the end,
it should be noted that the results obtained from present study can be
used in practical engineering applications as well as in investigating the
seismic performance of shallow foundations with DSM columns located
over liquefiable soils. Further experimental investigation on the seismic
performance of shallow foundations over liquefiable soil improved by
DSMs is required which is in progress by the authors.
References
[1] Adalier K, Elgamal A, Meneses J, Baez JI. Stone columns as liquefaction counter-
measure in non-plastic silty soils. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2003;23(7):571–84.
[2] Arulanandan K, Scott RF. Verification of numerical procedures for the analysis of
soil liquefaction problems. International conference on the verification of numerical
procedures for the analysis of soil liquefaction problems. Davis (Calif.): AA Balkema;
1993.
[3] Asgari A, Golshani A, Bagheri M. Numerical evaluation of seismic response of
shallow foundation on loose silt and silty sand. J Earth Syst Sci
2014;123(2):365–79.
[4] Asgari A, Oliaei M, Bagheri M. Numerical simulation of improvement of a liquefi-
able soil layer using stone column and pile-pinning techniques. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng 2013;51:77–96.
[5] Ayoubi P, Pak A. Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations on two-
layered subsoil strata. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2017;94:35–46.
[6] Bahadori H, Farzalizadeh R, Barghi A, Hasheminezhad A. A comparative study
between the gravel and rubber drainage columns for mitigation of liquefaction
hazards. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2018.
[7] Bahadori H, Hasheminezhad A, Karimi A. Development of an integrated model for
seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings: application to Mahabad
City, Iran. J Build Eng 2017;12:118–31.
[8] Brennan AJ, Madabhushi SPG. Effectiveness of vertical drains in mitigation of li-
quefaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2002;22(9–12):1059–65.
[9] Byrne PM. A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore pressure model for sand; 1991.
[10] Dashti S, Bray JD. Numerical simulation of building response on liquefiable sand. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;139(8):1235–49.
[11] Dashti S, Bray JD, Pestana JM, Riemer M, Wilson D. Mechanisms of seismically
induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;136(1):151–64.
[12] Dimitriadi VE, Bouckovalas GD, Chaloulos YK, Aggelis AS. Seismic liquefaction
performance of strip foundations: Effect of ground improvement dimensions. Soil
Dyn Earthquake Eng 2018;106:298–307.
[13] Esmaeili M, Hakimpour SM. Three dimensional numerical modelling of stone
column to mitigate liquefaction potential of sands. J Seismol Earthquake Eng
2015;17(2):127.
[14] Esmaeili M, Khajehei H. Mechanical behavior of embankments overlying on loose
subgrade stabilized by deep mixed columns. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng
2016;8(5):651–9.
[15] Esmaeili M, Khajehei H, Astaraki FA. The effectiveness of deep soil mixing on en-
hanced bearing capacity and reduction of settlement on loose sandy soils. Int J
Railway Res 2017;4(2):33–9.
[16] Geng L, Tang L, Cong SY, Ling XZ, Lu J. Three-dimensional analysis of geosynthetic-
encased granular columns for liquefaction mitigation. Geosynth Int
2016;24(1):45–59.
[17] Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Chaloulos YK. Insight into the seismic liquefaction
performance of shallow foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2012;139(4):599–607.
[18] Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Chaloulos YK, Andrianopoulos KI. Numerical
analysis of liquefaction-induced bearing capacity degradation of shallow founda-
tions on a two-layered soil profile. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2013;44:90–101.
[19] Liam Finn WD, Lee KW, Martin GR. An effective stress model for liquefaction.
Electron Lett 1977;103(ASCE 13008 proceeding).
[20] Madhyannapu RS, Puppala AJ, Hossain S, Han J, Porbaha A. Analysis of geotextile
reinforced embankment over deep mixed soil columns: using numerical and ana-
lytical tools. GeoCongress 2006: geotechnical engineering in the information
technology Age. 2006. p. 1–6.
[21] Martin GR, Finn WDL, Seed HB. Fundementals of liquefaction under cyclic loading.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1975;101(ASCE# 11231 proceeding).
[22] Namikawa T, Koseki J, Suzuki Y. Finite element analysis of lattice-shaped ground
improvement by cement-mixing for liquefaction mitigation. Soils Found
2007;47(3):559–76.
[23] Oliveira PJV, Pinheiro JL, Correia AA. Numerical analysis of an embankment built
on soft soil reinforced with deep mixing columns: parametric study. Comput
Geotech 2011;38(4):566–76.
A. Hasheminezhad and H. Bahadori
[24] Rasouli R, Towhata I, Hayashida T. Mitigation of seismic settlement of light surface
structures by installation of sheet-pile walls around the foundation. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Eng 2015;72:108–18.
[25] Şahinkaya F, Vekli M, Çadır CC. Numerical analysis under seismic loads of soils
improvement with floating stone columns. Nat Hazards 2017;88(2):891–917.
[26] Shahir H, Pak A. Estimating liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations
by numerical approach. Comput Geotech 2010;37(3):267–79.
[27] Tang L, Cong S, Ling X, Lu J, Elgamal A. Numerical study on ground improvement
for liquefaction mitigation using stone columns encased with geosynthetics. Geotext
Geomembr 2015;43(2):190–5.
273
Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 251–273
[28] Terashi M, Kitazume M. QA/QC for deep-mixed ground: current practice and future
research needs. Proc Inst Civ Engineers – Ground Improve 2011;164(3):161.
[29] Towhata I. Developments of soil improvement technologies for mitigation of li-
quefaction risk. Earthquake geotechnical engineering. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. p.
355–83.
[30] Zupan JD. Seismic performance of buildings subjected to soil liquefaction (doctoral
dissertation). UC Berkeley; 2014.