Review of causes of foundation failures and their

possible preventive and remedial measures

Amit Srivastava1 Chaitanya R. Goyal2 Akash Jain2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Ph.D, Jaypee University of Engineering & Technology,
Madhya Pradesh, Guna, India 473226
E-mail: 2002.lala@gmail.com
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Undergraduate Student, Jaypee University of Engineering & Technology,
Madhya Pradesh, Guna, India 473226
E-mail: chaitanyaraj108@gmail.com, akash07jain@gmail.com

Abstract— Many structures are built with foundations that are
inadequate for the soil conditions existing on the site. Sometimes
due to the lack of suitable land, structures are often built on
marginal land that has insufficient bearing capacity to support
the substantial weight of a structure. A foundation usually rests
in the top-most layer of soil and if the soil conditions change, it
may no longer be able to support the full weight of the
foundation. Identification of foundation failures and providing
needful treatment is very important since, the failure modes of
foundations under different loadings are asymmetry and
complex. The paper reviews different failure modes of
foundations such as (i) Drag down & heave, (ii) Lateral
movements, (iii) Load transfer failures, (iv) Vibrating effects, (v)
Floating & water level changes, (vi) Design & Construction
errors, (vii) Earthquakes, (viii) Uplift forces, (ix) Slope
instability/landslide, etc. Also discussed are several remedial
measures with case studies to overcome and prevent these
failures to stabilize soil using ground improvement techniques.
The review thus provides the much needed insight into the
problems related to foundation failure and their solutions
through various ground improvement techniques.
Keywords: Foundation, Failure, Remedial, Ground improvement
INTRODUCTION
Foundations of engineering constructions are systems that
act like interface elements to transmit the loads from
superstructure to, and into, the underlying soil or rock over a
wider area at reduced pressure. Broadly foundations are
classified as shallow foundation and deep foundation. A
proper design of foundation system requires the following as in
[1] (i) purpose of engineering structures, probable service life
loadings, types of framing, soil profile, construction methods,
construction costs, and client/owner’s needs, (ii) design without
affecting environment and enough margin of safety with
respect to unforeseen events and uncertainty in determination
of engineering properties of soil and acceptable tolerable risk
level to all the parties, i.e., public at large, the owner, and the
engineer.
Additional considerations that should be taken into account
vary as per site specific requirements and purposes, such as,
foundation in extreme climate conditions, foundation on
expansive soils, foundations for special loading conditions like
overturning, sliding or uplift, consideration for future
expansion, protection against corrosion or other harmful
material present in soil, suitability with respect to local
environment standards etc. as in [1]. It is well understood that
engineering structures despite being constructed with adequate
health and safety measures do fail or collapse.
If we define failure as a catastrophic structure collapse, than
there are few, but if we include performance failures that are
less life threatening is more meaningful to discuss. Many
designers say the failure is an incident or an accident, but the
technical council on forensic engineering of American society
of Civil Engineers has adopted the definition of failure, first
advanced as in [2] “failure is an unacceptable difference
between expected and observed performance”. The failure of a
structure may be due to poor design, faulty construction,
overloads and foundation failure. The failure of foundation
leads to the failure of whole structure, loss of life as well as
economical loss. There are several factors contributing to the
failure of foundation, if overlooked or addressed improperly,
such as, construction error, improper soil investigation,
fluctuation of ground water table, seismic loads, etc. The paper
discusses these factors in detail and also suggests preventive or
remedial measures to be taken to avoid foundation failure
under those circumstances.
I. LOAD TRANSFER FAILURE
The objective of foundation is to transfer the load on
superstructure to the foundation soil on a wider area. It works
as an interface between superstructure (over the ground) and
substructure (under the ground). The size of the footing is
decided in such a way that it distributes the pressure on the
subsoil and it is expected that the applied pressure never
exceeds the permissible limit of the subsoil. A factor of safety
in geotechnical design is adopted to take care of different
sources of uncertainty involved in geotechnical design and
practice. These uncertainties include [3,4]. viz., (a) the natural
heterogeneity or inherent variability (the physical phenomenon
contributing to the variability), (b) measurement error (due to
equipment, procedural-operator, and random testing errors),
and (c) model transformation uncertainty (due to
approximation present in empirical, semi-empirical or
theoretical models to relate measured quantities to design
parameters).
 Hence, load bearing capacity of soil is always predicted
with some uncertainty and there is a possibility that foundation
is inadequate to take the load from superstructure and failure
may occur. A classic example is bearing capacity failure of the
Transcona Grain elevator in 1913.Similar example is the
failure of Fargo Grain Elevator in 1955. It is understood that
more accurate soil tests and design calculations could have
prevented the failure of the Transcona Elevator.
Under such circumstances, the most commonly adopted
remedial measure to rectify the problem is underpinning (as
shown in Figure 1). Underpinning is the process of
strengthening and stabilizing the foundation of an existing
building or other structure.
Figure 1. Foundation Underpinning by hydraulic jacking and transfers loads to
screw foundations installed into stable strata.
Underpinning is accomplished by extending the foundation
in depth or width so that it either rests on a more supportive
soil stratum or distributes its load across a greater area. Use of
steel piers, helical anchors and micro piles are common
methods in underpinning. Each system has its own pros and
cons and detailed discussions are available in [5, 6].
II. DRAG DOWN AND HEAVE
When footing is located on a compressible soil, there is a
chance of foundation failure by drag down and heave. In
plastic soils, new settlements (drag down) are often
accompanied by upward movements and heave some distance
away (Figure 2). When foundation failure does occur, it is
usually the result of differential settlement or heaving of the
soil that supports the foundation.
Figure 2. Pavement damage due to expansive sub grade soils (source FHWA-
RD-98-139, 1999).
Volume change of expansive soil sub-grades resulting from
moisture variations frequently can cause severe pavement
damage as shown in Figure 2. In swelling and shrinking soils,
hot dry wind and intense heat will often cause the soil to shrink
beneath the foundation. This settlement may cause cracks to
appear throughout the structure. Uneven saturation of the soil
around foundation (located in expansive soils) can cause the
soil to heave as it expands and contracts after drying.
In reference[1], it is suggested that structures built on
expansive soils require special construction techniques, as
preventive measures, for their foundations as follows: (i) soil
stabilization technique, (ii) compaction on wet side of optimum
moisture content, (iii) controlling direction of expansion using
“Waffle slabs”, (iv) control of soil moisture using plastic fabric
underneath the foundation, (v) use of granular blanket (0.3 to
1.0 m thick) to break capillary water, (vi) ignoring active zone
of expansion and contraction, i.e., zone of volume change by
change in moisture content by placing footing at deeper depth
or providing pile/ belled piers, (vii) heavy structure to
overcome swell pressure. Heaving is a leading cause of
foundation failure. As a preventive measure, rain gutters
provided to collect water from roof play a vital role in
protecting foundation by controlling moisture or rain water
entering the foundation soil. The possible remedial measure is
by underpinning with piers as explained in previous section.
Also, Soil stabilization is the most widely used technique to
deal with expansive soils. Stabilization with lime, lime-fly ash,
Portland cement, and bituminous materials is very popular. The
advantages of each stabilizer, mixture design procedures,
characterization for structural design, and construction methods
are covered for each Stabilization method and are available in
published work and textbooks [7, 8]
Similar problem of heave and contraction is observed when
foundation is placed in extremely cold condition (below
freezing point). Moisture present in soil expands approximately
10% upon freezing causing differential settlement and soil
pressure of the order of 2 MPa. Controlling ice expansion is
impractical. Ice adhesion and resulting uplift can be avoided by
using granular backfill around the foundation walls or footing
pedestals [1]. With insulation as in [9] it may be possible to
reduce the depth of foundation or the amount of frost heave.
A pile subjected to drag load has a load distribution
consisting of negative skin friction accumulating in the upper
portion of the pile in equilibrium with positive shaft resistance
along the lower portion of the pile plus toe resistance. The case
history paper [10] is a comprehensive field study of drag load
and down drag on piles and demonstrates the interaction
between the forces in the pile, the settlement, and the pile toe
penetration.
A thin coat of bitumen will drastically reduce the shear-
force between the pile surface and the soil and reduce the
negative skin friction. Settlement or heave caused by pile
driving may seriously damage the foundations of nearby
structures [11]. To avoid or minimize the effects of vibration,
the pile may be driven in predrilled holes or jacked into place.
 III. LATERAL LOADS
Lateral movement in soil is possible when there is removal
of existing side support adjacent to a building or there is
excessive overburden on backfill or lateral thrust on the
backside of a retaining wall. Lateral movement is also observed
during earthquake when structure fails due to lateral movement
of soil beneath the foundation following liquefaction.
Classic examples of such failures are as follows (Figure 3):
(a) major damage to thousands of buildings in Niigata, Japan
during the 1964 earthquake, (b) Failure of Lower San Fernando
dam which suffered an underwater slide during the San
Fernando earthquake, 1971. Fortunately, the dam barely
avoided collapse, thereby preventing a potential disaster of
flooding of the heavily populated areas below the dam, (c)
Liquefied soil also exerts higher pressure on retaining walls,
which can cause them to tilt or slide. This movement can cause
settlement of the retained soil and destruction of structures on
the ground surface, and (d) Collapse of the super- structure of
the Showa Bridge by falling off its piers; 1964 Niigata
Earthquake.
Figure 3. (a) Building Failure during 1964 Niigata, Japan Earthquake, (ii)
Failure of lower San Fernando dam in 1971 (c) Retaining wall failure (d)
Failure of Showa bridge during 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan.
As such there is no remedial measure reported in literature
to overcome failures of such magnitudes but definitely
preventive measures can be taken through, (i) proper planning
of Subsurface Investigation, (ii) Analysis and Design and (iii)
Construction Control and Supervision. For small scale damages
underpinning of structures are suggested.
IV. CONSTRUCTION ERROR
There are two common sources of the construction errors,
i.e., (i) Temporary protection measures (Error relating to
temporary shoring, bracings and temporary coffer dams), and,
(ii) Foundation work itself. A detailed discussion on the topic is
available in [12, 13]. This paper presents a classic case of poor
construction practice due to which foundation failure of a
building in Shanghai, China took place (Figure 4).
An unoccupied 13-storey block of flat building, still under
construction, at Lianhuanan Road in the Minhang district of
Shanghai city toppled over and ended up lying on its side in a
muddy construction field. The cause of the building collapse in
Shanghai was due to a pressure difference on two sides of the
structure. Improper construction methods are believed to be the
reason of the building collapse. It is understood that
unsupported excavation (4.6 m deep) for an underground
garage was underway on one side of the building while on the
other side earth was heaped up to 10m high, which was
apparently an error in construction. The sequence of failure of
the building is explained in Figure 5. There is no remedy for
such failures but definitely preventive measures in terms of
“supported excavation system” for “deep excavation problems”
can be adopted to avoid such failures. Detailed discussion on
the topic is available in [14,15].
Figure 4: Toppled 13-storey apartment building that toppled in Shanghai on
27th June 09 (adapted from NBM&CW AUGUST 2009 authored by Dr. N.
Subramanian, Consulting Engineer, and Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA).
Figure 5. (a) Apartment building was constructed, (b) It was decided for an
underground garage to be dug out. The excavated soil was piled up on the
other side of the building (c) Final failure of building (adapted from
NBM&CW AUGUST 2009).
Soil nailing is the latest and most widely used technique for
supporting the vertical excavation near an existing building.
Soil nailing is a construction technique that can be used as a
preventive measure to treat unstable natural soil slopes. A
classic application of soil nailing technique is reported in [16]
in which soil nail support of excavation system for the embassy
of the Peoples republic of China in the United States was
carried out as shown in Figure 6. The soil nail wall constructed
for the project was considered to be the largest soil nail wall in
the United States outside of the Pacific Northwest [17] during
that period. Wall movements were less than the limiting values
set for the projects at all monitoring points. The work
demonstrated high quality construction, and the exceptional
quality control and quality assurance measures instituted by the
field engineers. A detailed discussion on the topic is available
in [18].

Figure 6. (A) Design details of soil nail wall section (view from E) (B) work
executed for supporting vertical excavation using soil nailing technique
(adapted from Bonita et al., 2006).
V. UNEQUAL SUPPORT
Footing resting on different type of soil, different bearing
capacity and unequal load distribution will result in the unequal
settlement or what we call it a differential settlement .
Differential settlement can cause tilting of the structure. The
Tower of Pisa in Italy is the classic case study of the tilting of
the tower at 5.5 degree southward and it is leaning from 1911
and is known as the “Leaning Tower of Pisa”. The reason for
the leaning of the tower is that in the southward side the clay
soil is soft and hence more compressible than in the northward
side. There has been many strategies and attempt to prevent the
tower from collapse.
In 1934, engineers used grout injection to stabilize the
foundation, this process led to a displacement of Tower and the
tip of Tower tilted 10 mm more to South of Tower. In 1993,
600 Mg of lead weights were added to north side of Tower,
attached by a removable concrete ring placed around base of
Tower to reduce leaning by one minute an arc.
A new restoration idea was presented in the 1990 known as
soil extraction, or soil subsidence ,its goal was to excavate
earth from beneath Tower’s foundation on its northern side so
that Tower would tilt back toward perpendicular. Idea was put
into motion after various tests on Tower itself and on soil
underneath its foundation. The restoration work was completed
in 2001 reducing its tilting from 5.5 to 3.99 degree. After the
restoration work, behavior of leaning tower of Pisa was
extensively studied and reported in [19].
VI. WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATION
It is important to note that both rising and falling
groundwater levels can affect soil behavior. Rise in GWT
reduces the bearing capacity of the soil and on the other hand
rapid fall in the GWT causes ground subsidence or formation
of sinkholes due to increased overburden effective stress value.
The former is induced naturally due to heavy rain or seepage
flow but the later is caused due to human activity such as
uncontrolled pumping or dewatering during construction of
deep basement. It is clear that the effect of water on
geotechnical properties is significant. The effects of water,
particularly with respect to foundation stability and settlement,
are discussed in [20].
Formation of sinkhole is another major cause of foundation
failure due to increased water usage, altered drainage
pathways, overloaded ground surface, and redistributed soil.
The majority of the cases related to formation of sinkholes are
associated with collapsible soils. According to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the number of human-
induced sinkholes have doubled since 1930, insurance claims
for damages as a result of sinkholes has increased 120% from
1987 to 1991, costing nearly $100 million. To avoid the
destruction of property and the contamination of groundwater,
it is important to monitor potential sinkhole formation and
control on dewatering and ground water level as in [21].
VII. EARTHQUAKE
Violent shaking of an earthquake is capable of damaging
homes, buildings, bridges or any other manmade structures.
The most noticeable damage appears in the walls or roofs of
buildings, but building foundations are also drastically affected
by the Earth’s sudden movement. During an earthquake the
foundation of the building moves with the ground and the
superstructure and its contents shake and vibrate in an irregular
manner due to the inertia of their masses (weight). If the
foundation of a building is a mat foundation, it can easily crack
into pieces.
There are several case studies reported in the literatures
[22,23] that discuss failures of manmade structures and
foundations under an event like earthquake. Damage to
foundations & structures may result from different seismic
effects: (i) Ground failures (or instabilities due to ground
failures), (ii) Vibrations transmitted from the ground to the
structure, (iii) Ground cracking, (iv) Liquefaction, (v) Ground
lurching, (vi) Differential settlement, (vii) Lateral spreading,
and (viii) Landslides. Literatures also provide information on
earthquake resistant design of structures and foundation system
for various geotechnical structures [24, 25, 26, 27].
Figure 7. Overturning of a building due to liquefaction of the foundation soil
during the Kocaeli earthquake, Turkey, August 17, 1999, Magnitude 7.4.
Soil liquefaction [28] describes a phenomenon whereby a
saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in
response to an applied stress, usually earthquake shaking or
other sudden change in stress condition, causing it to behave
like a liquid. Liquefaction can cause other problems as the soil
loses its ability to resist shear and flows much like quick sand.
Anything relying on the substrata for support can shift, tilt,
rupture, or collapse. Figure 7 shows a typical case of
overturning of a building due to liquefaction of the foundation
soil during the Kocaeli earthquake, Turkey, August 17, 1999,
Magnitude 7.4.
Soil liquefaction is observed in almost all large
earthquakes. The destructive effects of soil liquefaction were
brought to the attention of engineers by the disastrous 1964
earthquake in Niigata, Japan. Seed and his co-workers at
University of California, Berkeley did landmark works on soil
liquefaction. In the last two decades impressive progress has
been made in understanding liquefaction phenomenon [29],
recognizing liquefaction hazards [24] analyzing and evaluating
the potential for liquefaction at the site [30], and developing the
technology for mitigating liquefaction hazards [31]. Reader
may get detailed information on the topic from the selected
literature.
VIII. VIBRATION EFFECT
Construction activities such as blasting, pile driving,
dynamic compaction of loose soil, and operation of heavy
construction equipment induce ground and structure vibrations.
As stated in [32], the level of ground and structural vibrations
caused by construction work depends on the construction
method, soil medium, heterogeneity and uncertainty of soil
deposit at a site, distance from the source, characteristics of
wave propagation at the site, dynamic characteristics and
susceptibility ratings of adjacent and remote structures, and
sensitivity of the local population to the vibration.
Ground vibrations from construction sources may affect
adjacent and remote structures in three major ways, i.e., (i)
structure vibration with/without the effect of resonance
structure responses, (ii) dynamic settlement due to soil
densification and liquefaction, and (iii) pile driving and
accumulated effects of repeated dynamic loads. Monitoring and
control of ground and structure vibrations provide the rationale
to select measures for prevention or mitigation of vibration
problems, and settlement/damage hazards. Active or passive
isolation systems are adopted in this regard. A detailed
discussion on the topic is available in [33, 34].
IX. INADEQUATE GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN ERROR
Proper subsurface investigation is essential to safe guard
the building and for proper design of foundation as well as
efficient super-structure system. In most of the codes it is
recommended that soil investigation up to the depth of 1.5 –
2.0B, where B is the least lateral dimension of the building
should be carried out. Occurrence of foundation failure due to
improper geotechnical investigation and design error should be
avoided. In a typical case study, it was found that weak clay
layer existed beneath the foundation but due to insufficient or
inadequate subsurface geotechnical investigation it was not
recognized and the foundation failed. For proper planning and
execution of soil exploration program, reader may refer to [1],
[35]. As highlighted in [1], the extent of site investigation
depends heavily on the project but should provide the
information:
i. To determine the type of foundation required
(Shallow or Deep)
ii. Sufficient data/laboratory tests to estimate the
allowable load capacity of the foundation and to make
settlement predictions.
iii. Location of GWT and its fluctuation over a period of
time.
iv. Identification and solution of potential construction as
well as environmental problems.
Often, a deficiency in engineering ethics is found to be one
of the root causes of an engineering failure. An engineer, as a
professional, has a responsibility to their client or employer, to
their profession, and to the general public, to perform their
duties in as conscientious a manner as possible. Usually this
entails far more than just acting within the bounds of law. An
ethical engineer is one who avoids conflicts of interest, does
not attempt to misrepresent their knowledge so as to accept
jobs outside their area of expertise, acts in the best interests of
society and the environment, fulfills the terms of their contracts
or agreements in a thorough and professional manner, and
promotes the education of young engineers within their field.
X. FOUNDATION FAILURE DUE TO
LANDSLIDE/SLOPE INSTABILITY
Foundation failure due to rapid movement of landmass over
a slope results when a natural or man-made slope on which
structure exists becomes unstable. The major causes of slope
instability/ landslide can be identified as [36]. (i) Steep slope,
(ii) Groundwater Table Changes / heavy rainfall, (iii)
Earthquakes and other vibrations, and, (iv) removal of the toe
of a slope or loading the head of a slope, both of which may be
the result of man-made and geological factors.
The resistance to a landslide or slope instability is offered
by the type of soil and the geometry of the slope. Preventive
and remedial measures include modifying the geometry of the
slope, controlling the groundwater; constructing tie backs,
spreading rock nets, providing proper drainage system,
provision of retaining walls, etc. General reviews of the
methods of landslide remediation have been made and
interested reader is particularly directed to [37, 38, 39, 40].
Reference in [41] discusses the concept of risk research and
addresses the sociological and psychological issues resulting
from landslides and integrated approach for understanding and
ability for concerned organizations, landowners, land
managers, insurance companies and researchers to develop risk
management solutions.
XI. FOUNDATION FAILURE DUE TO UPLIFT
Generally the foundation is subjected to three types of
loads, i.e., the downward force (compression), the uplift
(tension) and the horizontal shear. One of the major causes of
foundation failure due to uplift is presence of expansive soil
beneath the foundation. Expansive soils pose a significant
hazard to foundations for light buildings. Swelling clays
derived from residual soils can exert uplift pressures, which
can do considerable damage to lightly-loaded wood-frame
structures. A detailed discussion on various problems posed by
expansive soils and their possible remedial measures are
already discussed. In case of pile foundations that are used to
resist the uplift forces due to wind loads, such as, in
transmission line towers, high rise buildings, chimney, etc., the
available uplift resistance of the soil becomes the one of the
most decisive factor in defining the stability of foundation.
CONCLUSION
The paper reviewed and discussed the various causes of
foundation failure as well as their possible preventive/remedial
measures through case studies. Information on available
literatures is provided to help in identifying the potential
foundation problem in advance and taking necessary and
appropriate action for mitigation purpose.
REFERENCES
[1] Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw – Hill
Publications
[2] Leonards, G. A. (1982). Investigation of failures, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 108, No. GT-2, 187-246
[3] Phoon, K. K., & Kulhawy, F. H. (1999a). Characterization of
geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36, 612-624.
[4] Phoon, K. K., & Kulhawy, F. H. (1999b). Evaluation of geotechnical
property variability, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36, 625-639.
[5] Thorburn, S. & Littlejohn, S. G. (1993). Underpinning and retention.
Taylor & Francis.
[6] White, L. & Prentis, E. A. (2010). Modern Underpinning: Development,
Methods and Typical Examples. Biblio Bazaar
[7] USACE (1983). Foundations in Expansive Soils. Technical Manual No.
TM 5-818-7, US Department of Army, Washington, DC.
[8] Karol, R. H. ( 2003). Chemical Grouting and Soil Stabilization. CRC
Press
[9] McRoberts, E. C. (1982). Shallow foundations in cold Regions: Design,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering division, ASCE, 108, (Gt-10), 1338
– 1349.
[10] Endo M., Minou, A., Kawasaki T., & Shibata, T. (1969). Negative skin
friction acting on steel piles in clay. Proc. 8th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, August 25
- 29, 2, pp. 85- 92.
[11] USACE (1991). Design of pile foundations. Engineering Manual EM
1110-2-2906, Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000.
[12] Feld, J. & Carper, K. L. (1997). Construction Failure. John Wiley and
Sons
[13] Campbell, P. (2001). Learning from construction failures: applied
forensic engineering. John Wiley and Sons.
[14] Xanthakos, P. P. (1991). Ground anchors and anchored structures.
Wiley-IEEE.
[15] Chang-Yu, Ou ( 2006). Deep excavation: theory and practice. Taylor &
Francis/Balkema
[16] Bonita, G., Tarquinio, F. & Wagner, L. (2006). Soil Nail Support of
Excavation System for the Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China in
the United States, Proceedings of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI)
31st Annual Conference on Deep Foundations, October 2006,
Washington D.C.
[17] G. Armour, T. (2006). Bellevue Technology Tower. Proceedings of the
2nd Annual Soil Nailing, Specialty Seminar, February, 17, 2006,
Denver, CO.
[18] Lazarte, C. A., Elias, V., Espinoza, R.D. & Sabatini, P.J. (2003).
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7—Soil Nail Walls, Report
FHWA0-IF-03-017, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
[19] Burland J. B., Jamiolkowski M.B., & Viggiani, C. (2009). Leaning
Tower of Pisa: Behaviour after Stabilization Operations, Int. J of
Geoengineering: Case Histories, 1, No. 3, 156-169.
[20] Hsai-Yang Fang (1990). Foundation engineering handbook. Springer.
[21] NAVFAC (1985). Dewatering and Groundwater Control, Departments
of the Army, Air Force, and Navy Washington”, TM 5-818-5/AFM 88-
5, Chap 6/NAVFAC P-418, , DC.
[22] Lekkas, E. L. (2004). Earthquake geodynamics: seismic case studies.
WIT.
[23] Srbulov, M. (2011). Practical Soil Dynamics: Case Studies in
Earthquake and Geotechnical Engineering. Springer.
[24] Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-
Hall International series.
[25] Robert, W. Day (2002). Geotechnical earthquake engineering handbook.
McGraw-Hill publications.
[26] Duggal, S. K. (2007). Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures.
Oxford University Press.
[27] Elghazoul A. (2009). Seismic Design of Buildings to Eurocode 8. Taylor
& Francis.
[28] NRC (1985). Liquefaction of Soils. Earthquakes Committee on
Earthquake Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Report No. CETS-EE-001.1985.
[29] Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1982). Ground motions and soil liquefaction
during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Oakland, Calif
[30] Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Ronald, D., Andrus, Ignacio Arango, Gonzalo
Castro, John, T. Christian, Richardo Dobry, Liam Finn, W. D., Leslie F.
Harder Jr., Mary Ellen Hynes, Kenji Ishihara, Joseph P. Koester, Sam S.
C. Liao, William F. Marcuson III, Geoffrey R. Martin, James K.
Mitchell, Yoshiharu Moriwaki, Maurice S. Power, Peter K. Robertson,
Raymond B. Seed, & Kenneth H. Stokoe II (2001). Liquefaction
resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 nceer and 1998
nceer/nsf workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(10),
817-833.
[31] Xanthakos P. P., Abramson L. W. & Bruce D.A. (1994). Ground control
and improvement. Wiley-IEEE.
[32] Svinkin, M. R. (2004). Minimizing Construction Vibration Effects.
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 9(2),
108-115
[33] Hansen, C. H. and Snyder S. D. (1997). Active control of noise and
vibration. Taylor & Francis.
[34] Rivin, E. I. (2003). Passive vibration isolation. ASME Press.
[35] USACE (2001). Geotechnical Investigations. Engineering Manual No.
EM 1110-1-1804. Department of the Army, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-1000.
[36] Crozier, M. J. (1986). Landslides - Causes, Consequences And
Environment. Croom Helm, London.
[37] Hutchinson, J. N. (1977). The Assessment of the Effectiveness of
Corrective Measures in Relation to Geological Conditions and Types of
Slope Movement. Bulletin IAEG, 16, 131-155.
[38] Zaruba, Q. & Mencl, V. (1982). Landslides And Their Control. Elsevier
publications.
[39] Bromhead, E. N. (1992). The Stability Of Slopes. Blackie Academic &
Professional, London.
[40] Popescu, M.E. (2001). A Suggested Method for Reporting Landslide
Remedial Measures. IAEG Bulletin, 60, No. 1, 69-74.
[41] Glade, T., Anderson M. G. & Crozier M. J. (2006). .Landslide Hazard
and Risk. John Wiley