Study on the treatments and countermeasures for liquefiable foundation

Xu, Binhua; He, Nianpeng; Deng-hua, LI

doi:10.1051/matecconf/201927201012

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Liquefaction mitigation countermeasures can be classified into two types: One approach is to start with the liquefaction qualities of the foundation soil and work backwards, enhancing soil quality to boost the soil's anti-liquefaction capabilities early on. And the second one by changing the drainage characteristics of the liquefiable foundation soil so that excess PWP may be removed rapidly [12]. Some suggested mitigations can be done with gravel channels, vertical gravel, or stone columns [13].…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relief well as liquefaction mitigation option in Mpanau, Sigi, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

Kusumajati,

Rifa’i,

Istiarto

et al. 2024

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The liquefaction disaster that occurred in Central Sulawesi in September 2018 was not only in the form of flow liquefaction but also a sand boil. Sand boils are caused by excess pore water pressure (PWP) which causes sediment ejecta due to water pressure within the ground. This research focuses on the use of relief wells to relieve excess PWP. During the 2018 disaster, the research location in Mpanau, Sigi, Central Sulawesi, had many sand boil points and the emergence of new water springs after the earthquake. At this point, the increase in PWP presumably resulted from a leaking groundwater basin, thus providing additional pressure. The method used was calculating the Ejecta Potential Index (EPI) and modelling with Seep/w. This calculation determined the amount of PWP that could be released to maintain the comparison between PWP and effective stress. This comparison is also known as the PWP (Ru) ratio and should be kept at less than 0.8, indicating the absence of liquefaction in the layer. This analysis was carried out with the initial conditions without wells and after the presence of wells, then assessing the distance of the wells to eliminate artesian pressure. It was concluded that this mitigation method is appropriate for areas that have groundwater basins with layers prone to aquifer leakage to reduce additional PWP.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relief well as liquefaction mitigation option in Mpanau, Sigi, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

Kusumajati,

Rifa’i,

Istiarto

et al. 2024

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Te densely sheared saturated sand particles hinder the pore water drainage due to the dynamic efect causing a rise in volume, shear strength, and efective stress accompanied by a decline in pore water pressure. Te initiation of excess pore water pressure as well as weakening of the soil and the increment of deformation are related to the behavior of dense soil under small cyclic shear strain within undrained pore water circumstances [6,34]. As the shear strain increases, the volume increases as well, resulting in a decrease in excess pore water pressure and hence an increase in shear resistance of the soil.…”

Section: Soil Liquefactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State-of-the-Art Review: Fiber-Reinforced Soil as a Proactive Approach for Liquefaction Mitigation and Risk Management

Alqawasmeh,

Alzubi,

Mahamied

2023

Journal of Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs in which the behavior of soils changes from solid to viscous liquid due to the effect of earthquake intensity or other sudden loadings. The earthquake results in excess pore water pressure, which leads to saturated loose soil with weaker characteristics and potentially causes large ground deformation and lateral spreading. Soil liquefaction is a dangerous event that can lead to catastrophic outcomes for humans and infrastructures, especially in countries prone to earthquake shaking, where soil liquefaction is considered one of the most prevalent types of ground failure. Hence, precautions to reduce and/or prevent soil liquefaction are essential and required. One of the countermeasures to avoid soil liquefaction is the introduction of fibers in the soil since fibers can act as reinforcement by enhancing the soil’s strength and resistance to liquefaction. The process of including fibers into the soil is known as soil stabilization and is considered one of the ground improvement techniques. Therefore, this paper aims to summarize and review the consequences of adding fiber as a reinforcement technique to overcome the issue of soil liquefaction.

show abstract

Partial Saturation as a Liquefaction Countermeasure: A Review

Seyedi-Viand

2021

Geotech Geol Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study on the treatments and countermeasures for liquefiable foundation

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Relief well as liquefaction mitigation option in Mpanau, Sigi, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

Relief well as liquefaction mitigation option in Mpanau, Sigi, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

State-of-the-Art Review: Fiber-Reinforced Soil as a Proactive Approach for Liquefaction Mitigation and Risk Management

Partial Saturation as a Liquefaction Countermeasure: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About