Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938

DOI 10.1007/s11069-014-1558-9

REVIEW ARTICLE

Recent developments of soil improvement methods

for seismic liquefaction mitigation

Yu Huang • Zhuoqiang Wen

Received: 21 October 2014 / Accepted: 13 December 2014 / Published online: 21 December 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Although traditional methods of liquefaction mitigation have been widely

applied in engineering practice, some prominent problems remain such as limits on the size
of the treated areas, disturbance of existing structures sensitive to deformation or vibration,
and environmental impact. In terms of liquefaction mitigation, some relatively new concepts
have been proposed such as passive site remediation, microbial geotechnology, and induced
partial saturation, and new methods have been developed based on these concepts. In this
paper, as a reference to engineers and researchers involved in solving the problems faced by
our developing society, we review the recent development of soil improvement methods for
liquefaction mitigation. We present methods of liquefaction mitigation and suggest their
classification into three types. We review, for the first time, the engineering problems and
research trends of liquefaction mitigation and discuss several typical new methods such as
colloidal silica grouting, bentonite suspension grouting, biocementation, air injection, bio-
gas, and mitigation using tire chips. Finally, the applicability of these new methods in
solving the above problems is discussed, and future research orientations are pointed out.

Keywords Liquefaction mitigation  Colloidal silica  Biocementation  Biogas 

Grouting  Tire chips

1 Introduction

Soil liquefaction is an engineering hazard caused by earthquakes. Earthquakes such as the

1964 Niigata (Japan) and Alaska (USA) earthquakes, the 1976 Tangshan (China)

Y. Huang (&)  Z. Wen

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China
e-mail: yhuang@tongji.edu.cn

Y. Huang
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Tongji
University, Shanghai 200092, China

123
1928 Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938

earthquake, the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake, the 2008 Wenchuan (China) earth-
quake, and the 2010 Chilean earthquake caused serious liquefaction damage as a result of
the large liquefaction area and deep degree of liquefaction. During the 2011 off the Pacific
Coast of Tohoku earthquake (Japan), a distinct phenomenon of re-liquefaction occurred,
caused by aftershocks (Huang et al. 2013a). According to a field investigation, widespread
soil liquefaction and substantial damages to the built environment were observed in the
area with saturated alluvial soil deposits although the main shocks of the 2012 Northern
Italy earthquake sequence were of relatively low magnitudes (Lombardi and Bhattacharya
2014). Soil liquefaction caused partial or absolute loss of the bearing capacity of the
ground, inducing roadbed subsidence, pile foundation destruction, and considerable
damage to structures including oil containers and dams. This resulted in serious damage
and disruption to the population and the manufacturing sector. Hence, it is important to
study the engineering problems of liquefaction and the measures of liquefaction mitigation.
Previous studies examined liquefaction characteristics and liquefaction potential of
soils, and proposed models for simulating soils liquefaction. Researchers analyzed seismic
liquefaction phenomena observed in the field and obtained the soil liquefaction charac-
teristics based on data of the major earthquakes of this century (Huang and Jiang 2010;
Huang and Yu 2013). Youd et al. (2001) reviewed the simplified procedures or criteria of
different tests aimed at evaluating liquefaction resistance. Huang et al. (2013b) simulated
flow processes in liquefied soils using a soil–water-coupled smoothed particle hydrody-
namics method. In addition, many traditional methods for liquefaction mitigation were
developed; these were summarized in detail by Towhata (2008) and Hamada (2014). With
the advances in science and technology over the last decade, new mitigation methods have
been developed. However, the recently developed soil improvement technologies for liq-
uefaction mitigation have not yet been comprehensively reviewed. It is therefore necessary
to review the recent progress to provide a reference for engineers and researchers as they
face new engineering problems. In this paper, we present the methods of liquefaction
mitigation and propose a new classification for these methods. The engineering problems
and research trends regarding liquefaction mitigation are comprehensively reviewed for the
first time, and the most common new methods are reviewed in detail. Finally, the appli-
cability of these new methods in solving the above problems is discussed, and future
research paths are briefly identified.

2 Classification of liquefaction mitigation methods

The main traditional liquefaction mitigation methods are soil replacement, sand compac-
tion piles, vibration compaction, dynamic compaction, blast compaction, grouting, the
deep mixing pile method, gravel pile method, dissipation using screen pipes, and lowering
of the groundwater table. These methods have been widely applied in engineering practice,
and the construction technology and equipment they use has proven to be effective and
reliable. Hamada (2014) showed that liquefaction occurs when the soil consists of loose
sand that is saturated with groundwater. Accordingly, liquefaction mitigation methods can
be classified into three types: soil densification methods, methods that lower the ground-
water level, and drainage methods. Based on liquefaction mitigation principles, Towhata
(2008) classified the liquefaction mitigation methods into four types: soil densification,
bonding of sand grains, lowering of groundwater table, and drainage. Recently, researchers
proposed the ‘induced partial saturation’ concept that incorporates several methods
including the lowering of the groundwater table. Moreover, the soil reinforcement method

123
Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938 1929

Table 1 Classification of liquefaction mitigation methods

Number Classification Liquefaction mitigation methods

1 Soil reinforcement Soil replacement

2 Saturation degree
reduction
3 Drainage
Soil densification: sand compaction pile, vibration compaction, dynamic
compaction, blast compaction, compaction grouting
Bonding of grains: permeation grouting, splitting grouting, jet grouting,
deep mixing, pile method, biocementation
Lowering of groundwater table, air injection, biogas
Gravel pile method, dissipation using screen pipes

includes soil replacement, soil densification, and bonding of sand grains. Thus, we propose
the following classification of liquefaction mitigation methods.
(1) Soil reinforcement
(2) Saturation degree reduction
(3) Drainage
The liquefaction mitigation methods are listed in Table 1 according to the above
classification.

3 Engineering problems of liquefaction mitigation and research trends

Currently, anti-liquefaction research is faced with three main problems: how to achieve
non-disruptive mitigation of liquefaction risk at developed sites susceptible to liquefaction,
especially under vulnerable structures; how to achieve liquefaction mitigation in large
areas at low cost; and how to combine liquefaction mitigation with environmental
friendliness and low-carbon economy. Khodadadi and Bilsel (2012) noted that traditional
methods generally have high energy-consumption needs and high costs, and thus are not
suitable for use over large areas. Traditional methods are restricted by site conditions and
generally cannot be applied under structures sensitive to deformation or vibration at
developed sites (Gallagher et al. 2007). There are over 40,000 soil improvement projects
carried out worldwide per year at a total cost more than $6 billion/year; it is therefore
necessary to study new soil improvement methods that are energy-saving and environ-
mentally friendly (DeJong et al. 2010). Currently, researchers are focused on applying
recyclable materials and developing liquefaction mitigation methods that can lower carbon
emissions (Baharuddin et al. 2013). The research direction is continuously evolving, and
the focus is to achieve low-cost and non-disruptive mitigation (Towhata 2008).
Rapid advancements in science and technology and the availability of new materials
have promoted the development of geotechnical engineering technology including soil
improvement technologies for liquefaction mitigation. Several new types of nanomaterials
such as laponite, colloidal silica, and bentonite suspension have been applied for lique-
faction mitigation. In addition, biomaterials such as microbial polysaccharides or microbial
bioplastic have been developed and gradually applied to soil improvement including soil
biogrouting and bioclogging, biocementation, biodesaturation of water-satured soil, and
bioencapsulation of soft clay (Torgal et al. 2015). To meet the requirements of

123
1930 Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938

How to achieve the non-disruptive

construction at developed sites susceptible to

liquefaction?

How to achieve liquefaction mitigation Main How to achieve organic combination of

in large area with low cost? engineering environmental friendliness, low-carbon

problems economy and liquefaction mitigation?

Research
Interdisciplinary New materials
trends

Sustainable development

Fig. 1 Main engineering problems and research trends of liquefaction mitigation

geotechnical and environmental engineering in the new age, sustainable development that
uses recent advancements in science and technology is essential. The research trends of
liquefaction mitigation can be summarized as follows: develop and apply new materials to
liquefaction mitigation; strengthen the interdisciplinary studies such as biogeochemistry;
place more emphasis on combining liquefaction mitigation with sustainable develop-
ment. The main engineering problems and research trends are shown in Fig. 1.

4 Typical new liquefaction mitigation methods

In recent years, several new kinds of liquefaction mitigation methods have been put
forward. A new concept called passive site stabilization was proposed for non-disruptive
liquefaction mitigation at developed sites. A new discipline called Microbial Geotechnics
was developed, and biological treatment methods such as biocementation and biogas have
made great progress. Researchers also put forward a potential cost-effective method called
induced partial saturation (IPS), while air injection and biogas are two methods belonged to
it. In addition, liquefaction mitigation using tire chips has gained wide attention since tire
chips are one kind of solid wastes and can be widely recycled. We now review the
principles and research progress of these new methods, and their advantages in solving the
three engineering problems outlined in Sect. 3.

123
Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938 1931

4.1 Passive site stabilization

Gallagher (2000) proposed a new method or concept—the passive site remediation/sta-

bilization method that would cause minimal disruption to existing structures. Two methods
involving nanomaterials belong to this category: grouting of colloidal silica and bentonite
suspension.

4.1.1 Colloidal silica grouting

The principle of the colloidal silica grouting method is as follows: Low-viscosity diluted
colloidal silica is injected and transported from the site boundary to the target area through
augmented or natural groundwater flow. After some time, the fluid gradually restores its
viscosity as it transforms into the colloidal state, thus strengthening the bonding of the
grains in the soil (Gallagher and Mitchell 2002). The mechanism of liquefaction mitigation
is mainly related to the cementation of individual sand grains by colloidal silica (Gallagher
et al. 2007). In addition, the viscosity of pore fluid may be a beneficial factor that con-
tributes to the reduction in the excess pore water pressure by reducing the hydraulic
conductivity and this needs further study. Since the gelling time of colloidal silica can be
adjusted by changing the pH and the ionic strength of the solution, colloidal silica can be
injected into the proper location before it gels (Gallagher et al. 2007). Spencer et al. (2007)
used dynamic triaxial tests and performed a comparative analysis between the dynamic
properties of different contents of colloidal silica mixed with sand and those of clean sand,
and demonstrated that both the shear modulus and damping ratio increase with increasing
colloidal silica content. Conlee et al. (2012) compared the liquefaction mitigation in dif-
ferent colloidal silica contents through centrifuge model testing and analyzed the factors
affecting the mitigation, further verifying the effectiveness of this method.
The material cost of colloidal silica at 5 % concentration is approximately the same as
that of microfine cement used to stabilize an equal volume of soil (Gallagher et al. 2007).
In addition, since its viscosity with 5 % concentration is close to that of water, it can
permeate the foundation at low pressure; thus, the cost of this method is much lower than
that of microfine cement grouting. Colloidal silica grouting creates minimal disruption to
the foundation and can therefore be applied to existing structures that are susceptible to
liquefaction. Moreover, colloidal silica is colorless, has stable biological and chemical
properties, and is environmentally friendly.

4.1.2 Bentonite suspension grouting

The principle behind the bentonite suspension grouting method is similar to that of col-
loidal silica grouting. Bentonite suspension is permeated into the soil and becomes ben-
tonite gel. Bentonite gel can take up a certain amount of strain, reducing the excess pore
pressure under seismic vibration, thus increasing the resistance to liquefaction. After some
time, the treated soil cures and is restored to its original status.
Sodium pyrophosphate (spp) may be added to bentonite suspension to reduce the initial
viscosity, so that the bentonite suspension can permeate into the soil faster. Rugg et al.
(2011) found that clean sand has the same internal frictional angle as sand permeated with
bentonite suspension, and showed that the permeation pressure has little effect on the fabric
of the sand. Cyclic tests on treated sand with sufficient hydration times showed a significant
increase in the number of cycles required for liquefaction compared to clean sand with the
same basic relative density and cyclic stress ratio (El Mohtar et al. 2012). El Mohtar et al.

123
1932 Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938

(2013) demonstrated that the percentage of bentonite and the duration of the aging period
have a considerable effect on pore pressure generation in loose sand. Undrained static triaxial
tests demonstrated a considerable increase in liquefaction mitigation when the amount of fine
grains in the soil exceeded a threshold value (Bayat et al. 2014). It is worth noting, however,
that the principle of bentonite suspension grouting is different from that of fine grains on
liquefaction mitigation. By providing an elastic restraint to the sand grains, bentonite sus-
pension increases the elastic threshold of the sands above which the excess pore water
pressure will generate, and thus reduces the excess pore water pressure (El Mohtar 2008),
while the function of fine grains on liquefaction mitigation is that fine grains help increase
the shear strength of the sand. Bentonite is widely available, low in cost, and environmentally
friendly. Moreover, the properties of bentonite have been studied extensively; therefore,
bentonite suspension can be applied as a soil improvement agent over large areas.

4.2 Biocementation

The biocementation method works as follows: Nutrients and microorganisms are injected
into the ground foundation at the site under low pressure, and then, a series of chemical
reactions take place and products which can gel the sand grains are generated increasing
the shear strength of the soil. A biocementation method called microbial-induced carbonate
precipitation (MICP) was proposed by DeJong et al. (2006). In MICP, chemical reactions
of the injected nutrients including CaCl2 and urea occur as follows (Ng et al. 2012).
COðNH2 Þ2 þ 2H2 O ! 2NHþ 2
4 þ CO3

Ca2þ þ CO2
3 ! CaCO3 ðsÞ

Studies have shown that the main factors influencing the generation rate of the calcium
carbonate are as follows: the initial bacterial concentration, the activity of the microbial
enzymes in situ, nutrient solution concentration, PH, temperature, and sand particle size
distribution (Ng et al. 2012; Al Qabany et al. 2011). Li et al. (2011) proposed an opti-
mization scheme that selected several types of new microbial strains and separated
cementitious minerals through studying the characteristics of the microbial activity. Cheng
et al. (2013) performed dynamic triaxial tests and shaking table tests and demonstrated that
microbial grouting technology can effectively increase liquefaction resistance. Moreover,
the yield of calcium carbonate also influences the level of mitigation. If the yield is not
sufficient, the bonding of sand grains and the shear strength would decrease; otherwise, the
pores would be blocked, and thus, the hydraulic conductivity may decrease.
In biocementation, nutrients and microorganisms are injected into the foundation;
therefore, it can be classified as a grouting method in this respect and is named BioGrout in
some papers (Van Paassen et al. 2009). Microorganisms such as S. pasteurii are widely
available and are inexpensive since they can be cultivated specifically and optimized for
this process. In addition, the chemical reactions are slow, so the treatment fluid can be
injected into the foundation effectively before gelling.

4.3 Induced partial saturation

Induced partial saturation means transferring the soil from a saturated to an unsaturated
state by different measures. Bian et al. (2008) showed that transferring the soil from a
saturated to an unsaturated state can be an economical liquefaction mitigation method.

123
Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938 1933

Eseller-Bayat et al. (2011) performed simple cyclic shear tests and demonstrated that a
small decrease in saturation leads to a great increase in liquefaction resistance. Wu and Sun
(2013) presented an S-shaped liquefaction critical graph and showed that the silt does not
liquefy when the saturation is below 60 %. Gao et al. (2014) calculated the liquefaction
resistance at different saturation levels by numerical simulation based on the Biot con-
solidation theory. Based on the concept of induced partial saturation, researchers have
developed methods such as air injection and biogas.

4.3.1 Air injection

Various techniques have been developed to generate gas bubbles, such as water electrol-
ysis, drainage-recharge of pore water, air injection, and the use of sodium perborate. Nagao
et al. (2007) showed that the diameter of the bubbles needs to be in the range of 10 to
100 lm, so that the gas bubbles can diffuse into the soil evenly. Researchers developed
equipment that can create bubbles in the required range in terms of drainage–recharge of
the pore water.
Air injection uses special equipment to inject air into the ground foundation and thus
reduce the soil saturation. As air injection technology is widely used in groundwater
pollution treatment, it can serve as a technical basis for liquefaction mitigation technology.
Okamura et al. (2006) showed that during the construction process of sand compaction
piles, pressurized air would be introduced into the soil reducing the saturation degree of the
soil nearby and thus increase the liquefaction assistance. Okamura et al. (2011) adopted
three-dimensional electric resistivity tomography technology to examine the status of the
air flow using in situ measurement of the radius of the zone affected by air injection.
Yasuhara et al. (2008) performed model testing that verified that the desaturation process is
controlled mainly by the pressure of the injected air and by the soil permeability. Okamura
et al. (2011) measured the saturation and computed the liquefaction potential by using
in situ freezing technology to acquire undisturbed soil specimens of high quality. They
compared the test results with numerical simulation results and showed that air injection is
an effective method in liquefaction mitigation.

4.3.2 Biogas

Based on processes used in microbial wastewater treatment, researchers attempted to

produce gas in the internal soil environment by microbial activities. Figure 2 lists common
types of gas found on the earth’s surface and their advantages and disadvantages. The
typical volume fractions of N2, O2, CO2, H2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are 78.09, 20.94,
0.0332, 0.00005 %, respectively, and the fractions of gases in the soil could be adjusted
due to soil processes such as aerobic respiration by plant roots and microorganisms
(Bremner and Blackmer 1982). Examination of the characteristics of the various types of
gas reveals the advantages of nitrogen because it is a widely available non-greenhouse gas
with stable chemical properties. Yegian et al. (2007) tested and verified the long-term
stability of gas bubbles in ground foundation through simulation tests in hydrostatic
conditions. This method, known as biogas, uses microbial denitrification. Denitrifying
bacteria can lead to nitrate reduction and release molecular nitrogen, which can occupy
part of the pore water space and desaturate the soil. Rebata-Landa and Santamarina (2012)
analyzed the changes to mechanical properties induced by the nitrogen and demonstrated
the effectiveness of this method. He et al. (2013) cultivated the denitrifying bacteria in the
laboratory and performed shake table tests on specimens of different concentrations and

123
1934 Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938

Gas in the earth’s surface

N2 O2 CO2 H2

1.Difficult to dissolve in 1.Not easy to dissolve in 1.Easy to dissolve in 1.Explosive

water; water water 2.Not easy to dissolve in
2.Chemically stable; 2.Similar to the density 2.Greenhouse air; water
3.Similar to the density of of the air. 3.Similar to the density 3.Smaller than the density
the air. of the air. of the air.

Fig. 2 Advantages and disadvantages of surface gas

relative densities using different accelerations, and verified the effectiveness of the biogas
method in liquefaction mitigation. Their tests showed that the rate of nitrogen production is
stable and can be controlled by the concentration of the reactants. Li (2014) showed that
nitrogen would be removed from the soil if the flow in the soil increased and proposed a
method that combined biogas and biosealing to alleviate the problem.
As microbial denitrification has been widely applied to wastewater treatment, this
technology can be used in engineering practices that apply the biogas method. Moreover,
problems such as the bacteria source, the condition of the culture, and isolation and
purification of the denitrifying bacteria have been solved (He et al. 2013). Chu (2013)
summarized the advantages of biogas and noted that treatment by the biogas method costs
less than the traditional methods such as vibration compaction. Compared to air injection,
the merits of biogas are as follows: (1) As the viscosity of the microbes and nutrients is
low, the mixture can be diffused into the soil and thus the gas bubbles can be distributed
evenly; (2) the gas bubbles in the pore water are small, making escape from the foundation
difficult; (3) the method is energy efficient since no high-power device is used in the
process; (4) it can achieve good liquefaction mitigation without recompacting the foun-
dation. Biogas creates minimal disruption to the site and can be applied to existing and
vulnerable structures.

4.4 Mitigation using tire chips

Since the 1990s, engineers have been using tire chips as construction material for
embankments (Bosscher et al. 1997). At that time, tire chips were generally mixed with
natural soil or soil cement mainly to use their characteristics of low density and strong
flexibility. Participants of the International Workshop IW-TDGM in 2007 showed wide
interest in applications of tire chips and their derivatives in the field of geotechnical and
environmental engineering (Hazarika and Yasuhara 2007), and tire chips gained recog-
nition as material that may be used effectively in liquefaction mitigation.
Hazarika et al. (2010a) noted that used-tire-derived materials can be classified as a three-
dimensional geosynthetic material and described recent Japanese geotechnical-related
applications of tire chips and tire shreds. They also reviewed the following three

123
Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938 1935

applications of tire chips and tire shreds: (1) tire shreds to improve drainage; (2) sand-mixed
tire chips to mitigate earthquake damage; and (3) tire chips mixed with cement-treated clay
to improve toughness and ductility. Edil et al. (2004) performed large-scale tank tests and
field tests to compare the drainage effect of scrap tire chips with that of gravel leachate in a
simulated and real solid waste clay-lined landfill drainage layers and verified that tire chips
are an effective leachate drainage-layer material in solid waste landfills.
Towhata (2008) performed cyclic undrained tests and demonstrated that a mixture of
tire chips and sand improves the liquefaction resistance. The mechanism is as follows: As
the rigidity modulus of the mixture is lower than that of sand, volume contraction of the
mixture can occur during the repeated action of the seismic shear force, which helps to
decrease the excess pore pressure. Hazarika et al. (2010b) indicated that as backfill
material, tire chips mixed with sand exert less lateral earth pressure than sand because of
the relatively low density of the tire chips. Kaneko et al. (2012) demonstrated that the
presence of tire chips, either mixed with sand or placed as layers, can prevent soil liq-
uefaction effectively. Yasuhara et al. (2010) compared the liquefaction resistance in three
working conditions: untreated sand, sand with gravel drain, and sand with tire chips drain.
They demonstrated that tire chip drain can rapidly dissipate the excess pore pressure, thus
improving the liquefaction resistance.
The arrangement of the tire chips can be selected according to the engineering
requirements and can make full use of the material’s plasticity and its ability to dissipate
excess pore pressure. Moreover, applying tire chips to geotechnical engineering helps to
solve the problem of recycling used tires. Thus, besides providing an effective engineering
solution, the method is economical and environmentally friendly.

5 The applicability of the new liquefaction reduction methods

The majority of the studies of the above methods are currently at the experimental stage.
Centrifuge tests were conducted to verify the effectiveness of the methods mentioned above,
while large-scale experimental studies of grouting using colloidal silica or bentonite sus-
pension, biocementation, and biogas still require further work and evaluation. The use of
colloidal silica and bentonite is expected to expand as the materials are used in innovative
cost-effective liquefaction mitigation and passive site stabilization methods. Such applica-
tions have great potential in developed sites susceptible to liquefaction. DeJong et al. (2013)
adopted the criteria of cost, implementation, probability of success, and social acceptance to
evaluate the potential of different biogeochemical applications. Among these applications,
biocementation and biogas gained a high score, demonstrating their high potential in
practice. Liquefaction mitigation using tire chips recycles used tires and is therefore an
effective liquefaction mitigation method that is also environmentally friendly and conserves
resources. The scrap tire chips method is gradually being applied to engineering practice. All
of the abovementioned methods have good prospects in achieving non-disruptive, low-cost,
environmental-friendly liquefaction mitigation applicable to large areas.

6 Conclusions

This paper summarizes the engineering problems and research trends of liquefaction
mitigation and reviews the most common new liquefaction mitigation methods. Several
conclusions can be drawn:

123
1936 Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938

1. Traditional liquefaction mitigation methods generally have some prominent problems

such as limitation of the treatment area, disturbance to existing structures, and negative
environmental impact. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new methods that are non-
disruptive, economical, and environmentally friendly.
2. Considering that new methods developed recently could not be classified into the
previous criterion, we propose that liquefaction mitigation methods can be classified as
follows: soil reinforcement; saturation degree reduction; drainage.
3. The effectiveness of the methods mentioned above in mitigating the hazards of seismic
liquefaction was verified to some extent. Meanwhile, a great deal of research and
development is required such as designing and performing large-scale experiments,
studying the long-term ground stability under actual site conditions, and perfecting the
construction equipment.
4. The new methods discussed here offer new concepts and approaches for enhancing
research and solving current engineering problems in the field of liquefaction
mitigation. Application of new materials and cooperation of multidisciplinary research
will be required in the future.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 41372355).

References

Al Qabany A, Soga K, Santamarina C (2011) Factors affecting efficiency of microbially induced calcite
precipitation. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(8):992–1001
Baharuddin INZ, Omar RC, Devarajan Y (2013) Improvement of engineering properties of liquefied soil
using Bio-Ve-Grout. In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, vol 16, no 1. IOP
Publishing, p 012104
Bayat M, Bayat E, Aminpour H, Salarpour A (2014) Shear strength and pore-water pressure characteristics
of sandy soil mixed with plastic fine. Arab J Geosci 7(3):1049–1057
Bian H, Jia Y, Shahrour I (2008) A potential cost effective liquefaction mitigation countermeasure: induced
partial saturation. In: Seismic engineering conference: commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio
Calabria earthquake, vol 1020, no 1. AIP Publishing, pp 427–433
Bosscher PJ, Edil TB, Kuraoka S (1997) Design of highway embankments using tire chips. ASCE J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 123(4):295–304
Bremner MJ, Blackmer AM (1982) Composition of soil atmospheres. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR
(eds) Methods of soil analysis: part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of
Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 903–943
Cheng XH, Ma Q, Yang Z, Zhang Z, Li M (2013) Dynamic response of liquefiable sand foundation
improved by bio-grouting. Chin J Geotech Eng 35(8):1486–1495 (in Chinese)
Chu J (2013) Innovation in disaster mitigation technologies. In: Geotechnical predictions and practice in
dealing with geohazards. Springer, Netherlands, pp 375–384
Conlee CT, Gallagher PM, Boulanger RW, Kamai R (2012) Centrifuge modeling for liquefaction mitigation
using colloidal silica stabilizer. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(11):1334–1345
DeJong JT, Fritzges MB, Nüsslein K (2006) Microbially induced cementation to control sand response to
undrained shear. ASCE J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 132(11):1381–1392
DeJong JT, Mortensen BM, Martinez BC, Nelson DC (2010) Biomediated soil improvement. Ecol Eng
36(2):197–210
DeJong JT, Soga K, Kavazanjian E et al (2013) Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications:
progress, opportunities and challenges. Geotechnique 63(4):287–301
Edil TB, Park JK, Kim JY (2004) Effectiveness of scrap tire chips as sorptive drainage material. ASCE J
Environ Eng 130(7):824–831
El Mohtar CS (2008) Pore fluid engineering: an autoadaptive design for liquefaction mitigation. Ph.D.
Thesis, Purdue University

123
Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938 1937

El Mohtar CS, Bobet A, Santagata MC, Drnevich VP, Johnston CT (2012) Liquefaction mitigation using
bentonite suspensions. ASCE J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 139(8):1369–1380
El Mohtar CS, Bobet A, Drnevich VP, Johnston CT, Santagata MC (2013) Pore pressure generation in sand
with bentonite: from small strains to liquefaction. Géotechnique 64(2):108–117
Eseller-Bayat E, Yegian MK, Alshawabkeh A, Gokyer S (2011) Prevention of liquefaction during earth-
quakes through Induced partial saturation in sands. In: Geotechnical engineering—new horizons:
proceedings of the 21st European young geotechnical engineers’ conference. IOS Press, Rotterdam,
p 188
Gallagher PM (2000) Passive site remediation for mitigation of liquefaction risk. Dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University
Gallagher PM, Mitchell JK (2002) Influence of colloidal silica grout on liquefaction potential and cyclic
undrained behavior of loose sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(9):1017–1026
Gallagher PM, Pamuk A, Abdoun T (2007) Stabilization of liquefiable soils using colloidal silica grout.
ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 19(1):33–40
Gao Q, Liu Z, Yu XB (2014) Computer simulations on the effects of desaturation on soil liquefaction
resistance. Bridges 10:9780784413128.091
Hamada M (2014) Soil liquefaction and countermeasures. Engineering for earthquake disaster mitigation.
Springer, Japan, pp 125–152
Hazarika H, Yasuhara K (eds) (2007) Scrap tire derived geomaterials-opportunities and challenges. Pro-
ceedings of the international workshop IW-TDGM 2007. CRC Press, Yokosuka
Hazarika H, Yasuhara K, Kikuchi Y, Karmokar AK, Mitarai Y (2010a) Multifaceted potentials of tire-
derived three dimensional geosynthetics in geotechnical applications and their evaluation. Geotext
Geomembr 28(3):303–315
Hazarika H, Hyodo M, Yasuhara K (2010b) Investigation of tire chips–sand mixtures as preventive measure
against liquefaction. In: Geo-Shanghai International Conference, Shanghai, China
He J, Chu J, Ivanov V (2013) Mitigation of liquefaction of saturated sand using biogas. Geotechnique
63(4):267–275
Huang Y, Jiang XM (2010) Field-observed phenomena of seismic liquefaction and subsidence during the
2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Nat Hazards 54(3):839–850
Huang Y, Yu M (2013) Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major earthquakes of the twenty-
first century. Nat Hazards 65(3):2375–2384
Huang Y, Yu M, Bhattacharya S (2013a) Review on liquefaction induced damages of soils and foundations
during 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake (Japan). Chin J Geotechn Eng 35(5):834–840
(in Chinese)
Huang Y, Zhang WJ, Dai ZL, Xu Q (2013b) Numerical simulation of flow processes in liquefied soils using
a soil–water-coupled smoothed particle hydrodynamics method. Nat Hazards 69(1):809–827
Kaneko T, Orense RP, Hyodo M, Yoshimoto N (2012) Seismic response characteristics of saturated sand
deposits mixed with tire chips. ASCE J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 139(4):633–643
Khodadadi H, Bilsel H (2012) Application of microorganisms for improvement of liquefiable sand. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on new developments in soil mechanics and geo-
technical engineering. Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus
Li YS (2014) Mitigation of sand liquefaction using in situ production of biogas with biosealing. Dissertation,
Iowa State University
Li M, Guo HX, Cheng XH (2011) Application of response surface methodology for carbonate precipitation
production induced by a mutant strain of \ISporosarcina pasteurii\ N. In: Geo-Frontiers 2011@ sAd-
vances in Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, pp 4079–4088
Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S (2014) Liquefaction of soil in the Emilia-Romagna region after the 2012
Northern Italy earthquake sequence. Nat Hazards 73:1749–1770
Nagao K, Azegami Y, Yamada S, Suemasa N, Katada T (2007) A micro-bubble injection method for a
countermeasure against liquefaction. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on earthquake
geotechnical engineering. Thessaloniki, pp 25–28
Ng WS, Lee ML, Hii SL (2012) An overview of the factors affecting microbial-induced calcite precipitation
and its potential application in soil improvement. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 62:723–729
Okamura M, Ishihara M, Tamura K (2006) Degree of saturation and liquefaction resistances of sand
improved with sand compaction pile. ASCE J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 132(2):258–264
Okamura M, Takebayashi M, Nishida K, Fujii N, Jinguji M, Imasato T, Nakagawa E (2011) In-situ
desaturation test by air injection and its evaluation through field monitoring and multiphase flow
simulation. ASCE J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 137(7):643–652
Rebata-Landa V, Santamarina JC (2012) Mechanical effects of biogenic nitrogen gas bubbles in soils. ASCE
J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 138(2):128–137

123
1938 Nat Hazards (2015) 76:1927–1938

Rugg DA, Yoon J, Hwang H, El Mohtar CS (2011) Undrained shearing properties of sand permeated with a
bentonite suspension for static liquefaction mitigation. In: ASCE proceedings of the geofrontiers.
Dallas, TX, pp 677–686
Spencer LM, Glenn J, Gallagher PM (2007) Dynamic properties of colloidal silica gel and sand mixtures. In:
Proceedings of the 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, paper No.
1324
Torgal FP, Labrincha JA, Diamanti MV, Yu CP, Lee HK (2015) Biotechnologies and biomimetics for civil
engineering. Springer, Berlin
Towhata I (2008) Mitigation of liquefaction-induced damage. Geotechnical earthquake engineering.
Springer, Berlin, pp 588–642
Van Paassen LA, Harkes MP, Van Zwieten GA, Van der Zon WH, Van der Star WRL, Van Loosdrecht
MCM (2009) Scale up of BioGrout: a biological ground reinforcement method. In: Proceedings of the
17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. pp 2328–2333
Wu B, Sun DN (2013) Study of liquefaction characteristics of unsaturated silt. Rock Soil Mech
34(2):411–416 (in Chinese)
Yasuhara H, Okamura M, Kochi Y (2008) Experiments and predictions of soil desaturation by air-injection
technique and the implications mediated by multiphase flow simulation. Soils Found 48(6):791–804
Yasuhara K, Komine H, Murakami S, Miyota S, Hazarika H (2010) Mitigation of liquefaction using tire
chips as a gravel drain. In: Proceedings of the 6th international congress on environmental geotech-
nology. New Delhi, pp 1176–1181
Yegian MK, Eseller-Bayat E, Alshawabkeh A, Ali S (2007) Induced-partial saturation for liquefaction
mitigation: experimental investigation. ASCE J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 133(4):372–380
Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Stokoe KH (2001) Liquefaction
resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. ASCE J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 127(10):817–833

123