"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

"
(Albert Einstein)
KEYWORDS : Constitutive theory, Elastic-plastic, Strain localization, Parameter
calibration, In-situ soil tests, Soil liquefaction, Stochastic finite elements
I NT RODUCT I ON
Recent advances in digital computer technology and in numerical techniques such as the
finite difference or the finite element methods, have rendered possible, at least in principle,
the solution of any properly posed boundary value problems in soil mechanics. Further
progress in expanding analytical capabilities in geomechanics depends upon consistent
mathematical formulations of generally valid and realistic material constitutive relations. An
increasing effort has thus been devoted since the 1960's to a more comprehensive description
of soil behavior. Numerous formulations have been proposed in the soil mechanics literature.
All rely on a better knowledge and understanding of mechanics in general, and continuum
mechanics in particular, than has been common in traditional soil mechanics training. The
results and progress in the field of constitutive relations have thus until recently been mostly
ignored by the mainstream of soil engineering. However, recent progress and honest
validation exercises have instilled confidence and finally attracted the attention of the
practice. We should therefore see in the future more impact on the practice of this area of soil
mechanics.
It is the purpose of this paper to provide an overview of soil constitutive models and related
issues. The review is brief and makes no attempt to be exhaustive. In recent years, the


Constitutive Relations for Soil Materials

Jean H. Prevost
and
Radu Popescu
Department of Civil Engineering and Operations Research
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
growing interest in constitutive relations has led to a number of conferences devoted
exclusively to theoretical, experimental, numerical implementations and application problems
associated with this field. It would have been impossible to record all the papers and discuss
all the models that have been proposed. Also, the reader is referred to the extensive review
paper by Scott (1985) for a historical review and discussion of constitutive theories.
PREAMBLE
Soils consist of an assemblage of particles with different sizes and shapes which form a
skeleton whose voids are filled with water and air or gas. The word ``soil'' therefore implies a
mixture of assorted mineral grains with various fluids. Hence, soil in general must be looked
at as a one (dry soil) or two (saturated soil) or multiphase (partially saturated soil) material
whose state is to be described by the stresses and displacements (velocities) within each
phase. There are still great uncertainties on how to deal analytically with partly saturated
soils. The stresses carried by the soil skeleton are conventionally called ``effective stresses'' in
the soil mechanics literature (see e.g., Terzaghi (1943)), and those in the fluid phase are
called the ``pore fluid pressures.''
In a saturated soil, when free drainage conditions prevail, the steady state pore-fluid pressures
depend only on the hydraulic conditions and are independent of the soil skeleton response to
external loads. Therefore, in that case, a single phase continuum description of soil behavior
is certainly adequate. Similarly, a single phase description is also adequate when no drainage
(e.g., no flow) conditions prevail. However, in intermediate cases in which some flow can
take place, there is an interaction between the skeleton strains and the pore-fluid flow. The
solution of these problems requires that soil behavior be analyzed by incorporating the effects
of the transient flow of the pore-fluid through the voids, and therefore requires that a two
phase continuum formulation be available for porous media. Such a theory was first
developed by Biot (1955, 1956, 1957, 1972, 1977, 1978) for an elastic porous medium. An
extension of Biot's theory into the non-linear inelastic range (see e.g., Prevost (1980)) is
necessary in order to analyze the transient response of soil deposits. This extension has
acquired considerable importance in recent years due to the increased concern with the
dynamic behavior of saturated soil deposits and associated liquefaction of saturated sand
deposits under seismic loading conditions. For that purpose, soil is viewed as a multi-phase
medium and the modern theories of mixtures developed by Green and Naghdi (1965), and
Eringen and Ingram (1967), are used. General mixture results can be shown through formal
linearization of the field and constitutive equations, to reduce to Biot's linear porelastic model
(see e.g., Bowen (1982)).
During deformations, the solid particles which form the soil skeleton undergo irreversible
motions such as slips at grain boundaries, creations of voids by particles coming out of a
packed configuration, and combinations of such irreversible motions. When the particulate
nature and the microscopic origin on the phenomena involved are not sought,
phenomenological equations are used to provide a description of the behavior of the various
phases which form the soil medium. In multiphase theories, the conceptual model is thus one
in which each phase (or constituent) enters through its averaged properties obtained as if the
particles were smeared out in space. In other words, the particulate nature of the constituent is
described in terms of phenomenological laws as the particles behave collectively as a
continuum. Soil is thus viewed as consisting of a solid skeleton interacting with the pore
fluids.
Microstructural Aspects
The particulate nature of soil materials is directly responsible for their complex overall
behavior. Sands consists of an aggregate of particles with different sizes and shapes which
interact with each other through contact forces (both normal and tangential) at the points of
contact. Considering the particles essentially incompressible, deformation of the granular
assembly occurs as the particles translate, slip and/or roll, and either form or break contacts
with neighboring particles to define a new microstructure. The result is an uneven distribution
of contact forces and particle densities that manifests in the form of complex overall material
behavior such as permanent deformation, anisotropy and localized instabilities (Deresiewicz
(1958), Oda (1972), Oda and Konishi (1974), Vardoulakis (1988)). Similarly, clays are
composed of plate-shaped particles of clay mineral. Each plate is subject to gravity forces and
electrostatic forces at the points of contact, which hold the particles together. Therefore, if
one knew all about the particles' geometry (their shapes and contacts) and understood all the
physics and mechanics of interparticle contacts, then in principle one should be able to
predict the overall macroscopic response of the assembly. Such studies could lead to a
rational explanation of the observed macroscopic behavior, and allow direct correlation
between average macroscopic constitutive parameter values and microscopic entities (e.g.,
relate the overall friction angle to the individual particle-to-particle friction coefficient). A
number of studies have been initiated along these lines. Several experimental (see e.g.,
Drescher and De Josselin de Jong (1972), Oda et al. (1982), Subhash et al (1991)), analytical
(see e.g., Walton (1988), Goddard (1990)) and numerical models (see e.g., Cundall and Strack
(1979), Scott and Craig (1980), Bashir and Goddard (1991), Chang et al. (1992), Ting et al.
(1993), Thornton and Sun (1993, 1994), Hogue and Newland (1994), Zhuang et al. (1995),
Wren and Borja (1995), Borja and Wren (1995)), have been proposed to study the effect of
particle-to-particle interaction on the overall material response. Because of their
oversimplifications, these studies have had, as yet, little or no impact on the relations used in
current constitutive models. Eventually, this may change as the models are further defined.
The most popular numerical models, commonly called Distinct Element or Discrete Element
Methods, derive from the pioneering work of P.A. Cundall (Cundall (1971), Cundall and
Strack (1979)) or are adopted from the procedures used in numerical Molecular Dynamics for
which the book by Allen and Tildesley (1987) is the standard reference. They consist in
approximating the mechanical constraint of non inter-penetrability of particles (see e.g. Keller
(1986)) by some close-range steep repulsion law. Every time interval for which two particles
are close enough to be viewed as contacting (numerically, they usually are allowed to overlap
a little), they are assumed to exert on each other some dissipative forces which mimic friction.
Thus, the evolution problem is reduced to the integration of a system of second order
differential equations, to which classical methods are applied. The steeper the approximate
laws of interaction, the more realistic are the results, at the price of reducing the time-step
length to ensure numerical stability. Some researchers (see e.g., Bashir and Goddard (1991),
Borja and Wren (1995)) have recently advocated the use of semi-implicit procedures to avoid
full integration of Newtonian dynamical equations when computing quasi-static responses of
granular systems, at the price of having to approximate and/or neglect the complicated
intermediate path-dependent phenomena involved when contact and friction occur between
particles.
Macroscopic Aspects
Although very complex when examined on the microscale, soils as many other materials may
be idealized at the macroscale as behaving like continua. At the macroscale, the various
phenomena associated with the discrete soil entities such as sand grains, clay platelets, etc. ...,
are integrated and averaged to the level of a homogeneous continuum model. In the
macroscopic field, the averaging volume represents and characterizes a physical point.
Because the averaging volume is macroscopically infinitesimal, it is usually denoted by dV.
The characteristic length D of the averaging volume is selected such that
(Whitaker, (1969)) where l is the microscopic scale of the porous medium and L is the scale
of gross inhomogeneities. Typically: in sands, and in clays, whereas
. Paradoxically, despite the large differences in the nature and structure of
materials such as metals and alloys, polymers and composites, concrete, soils, there is a great
unity displayed in their macroscopic behavior. With different orders of magnitude, terms like
elasticity, viscosity, plasticity, hardening, softening, brittleness and ductility can be applied to
all these materials. Therefore, while still recognizing the underlying particulate nature of
these materials, instead of studying them as discrete systems, it is more convenient to
consider them as continua, and use concepts from continuum mechanics, thermodynamics and
rheology to analyze and model their behavior. The phenomenological behavior of the material
is therefore the standard of reference in this approach, and it is the one adopted in modern soil
constitutive theory.
The constitutive equations are formulated for a material point subject to a homogeneous state
of stress and strain. The prototype is frequently taken to be a soil sample in a carefully
performed triaxial or cube test with perfectly lubricated shear stress-free top and bottom (and
lateral if any) boundaries. The first attempt to rationalize the behavior observed in laboratory
soil tests was done by the Cambridge group (Roscoe, Schofield and Wroth (1958)) early in
the 1960' s. The work was performed mostly on clays but several of the concepts they
developed found applications to sands. The developments of the Cambridge model included
the ` ` critical state' ' theory and the ` ` Camclay' ' model ( Schofield and Wroth (1968), Roscoe
and Burland (1968)). The Camclay model was the first (and simplest) modern elasto-plastic
constitutive soil model. The model had been formulated in the p-q plane, using triaxial soil
test data, where p = hydrostatic axis and q = shearing or deviatoric axis. Its generalization to
stress states other than that of the triaxial apparatus, assumed that the yield and failure
conditions in p-q plane could be rotated around the p-axis, so that in effect, the model
corresponds to the extended von Mises failure surface originally proposed by Drucker and
Prager (1952), with a cap closing it on the hydrostatic axis as originally suggested earlier by
Drucker, Gibson and Henkel (1955), to account for permanent volumetric deformations
observed under hydrostatic stress loading conditions. The Cambridge model could account
for such experimental observations as: (1) permanent volumetric deformations occur under
hydrostatic loading conditions; (2) there is a coupling between volumetric changes and
changes in shear stress; and (3) dense soils expand in volume during pure shear whereas loose
soils contract. The most obvious limitations of the model are: (1) it does not adequately
model structural and stress-induced anisotropy; (2) it is not applicable to cyclic shear loading
conditions where it is observed that the stress-strain response is highly nonlinear with
hysteresis loops of different proportions depending on the extent of the unloading-reloading;
(3) it does not reflect the strong dependency of the shear dilatancy on the effective stress ratio
as observed mostly in cohesionless soils (see e.g., Rowe (1962), Luong (1980), Luong and
Touati (1983)), but also in cohesive soils (see e.g., Hicker (1985)); and (4) it does not account
for the viscous time-dependent stress-strain response of cohesive soils. The Camclay model
has been applied to some simple boundary-value problems(see e.g., Carter et al. (1979)).
Since the late 1960' s more elaborate constitutive models have been constructed to remove
some of the limitations of the original model.
CLAS S ES OF CONS T I T UT I VE MODELS
Considerable attention has been given since the late 1960' s to the development of constitutive
equations for soil media, but although many different models have been proposed, there is not
yet firm agreement among researchers. Further, many of the constitutive models presented
seem unnecessarily arbitrary, and at this stage it is important to emphasize that, to be
satisfactory, a material model idealization should possess the following necessary properties:
1. The model should be complete, i.e. able to make statements about the material
behavior for all stress and strain paths, and not merely restricted to a single class of
paths (e.g., axial symmetry or pure shear);
2. It should be possible to identify the model parameters by means of a small number of
standard, or simple material tests;\
3. The model should be founded on some physical interpretation of the ways in which
the material is responding to changes in applied stress or strain (e.g., the material
should not be modeled as elastic if permanent deformations are observed upon
unloading).
The first property is clearly essential if the model is to be of practical application, and the
second property is very desirable. The third property linked with the other two helps to ensure
that time is occupied on developing a useful model, and not merely on an elaborate curve-
fitting exercise of limited application - of application in fact, no wider than the data that are
being fitted. Finally, it must be added that a material model may only be deemed to be
satisfactory when with its aid, it is possible first to determine the stress-strain-strength
behavior of the material at hand in one piece of testing equipment (e.g., in triaxial tests), and
then to predict the observed behavior of the same material in some other type of testing
equipment (e.g., in simple shear tests).
Elastic (see e.g., Duncan and Chang (1970); Coon and Evans (1971)), endochronic (see e.g.,
Valanis and Read (1982); Bazant and Krizek (1976)), micromechanical and many elastic-
plastic models with various degrees of sophistication and/or complexity have been proposed.
Elastic(-visco)-plastic models appear to be the most promising. Although, experience has
shown that simple nonlinear elastic stress-strain models like the hyperbolic model are not
capable of modeling fundamental aspects of real soil behavior, they still remain popular in
practice. Also, many ` ` empirical' ' models (e.g., Finn et al. (1977)) which rely on analytical
relations based on experience and/or experimental observations between quantities of direct
interest (e.g., rate of pore-pressure build-up in a cyclic test) without going through a rigorous
framework of constitutive formulation (e.g., elastoplasticity) are still used widely. These
models are not discussed hereafter.
Elastic(-Visco)-Plastic Models
The most popular and widely used soil models are cap models (Roscoe and Burland (1968),
Schofield and Wroth (1968), DiMaggio and Sandler (1971), Sandler et al. (1976), Baladi and
Rohani (1979)) based on classical isotropic plasticity theory, and are variations and
refinements of the basic Cap model pioneered by Drucker, Gibson and Henkel (1955). The
most obvious limitations of these Cap models are:
1. they do not adequately model stress-induced anisotropy;
2. they are not applicable to cyclic loading conditions.
Similar limitations apply to other elastoplastic models based on isotropic plasticity (e.g., Lade
(1977), Pender (1978), Nemat-Nasser (1984)). In most of these models, the material behavior
is assumed to remain unchanged as the stress state rotates around the hydrostatic stress axis.
This is known to be incorrect (especially for sands), and a yield surface which more closely
resembles the Mohr-Coulomb condition is used in Lade and Duncan (1975) and Lade (1977).
A yield surface which very closely approximates the Mohr-Coulomb criterion was presented
by Matsuoka (1974).
It may be argued that plastic models based on isotropic plastic hardening rules are adequate
for situations in which only loading (and moderate unloading) occurs, however, it is unlikely
that such restrictions can be met at every point in general boundary value problems. In order
to account for hysteretic effects, more elaborate plastic models based on a combination of
isotropic (Hill (1950)) and kinematic (Prager (1959)) plastic hardening rules have been
proposed.
An important theoretical development in plasticity was made simultaneously by Mroz (1967)
and Iwan (1967). They showed how continuous yielding could be represented by a set of
nested yield surfaces in stress space. The notion, in combination with kinematic and isotropic
hardening/softening plastic rules, can give rise to a material representation of considerable
power and flexibility. The concept was adopted and enlarged upon by Prevost (1977, 1978,
1985) and Mroz (1980), while the concept of a material behavior dependent on the distance
from a yield or ` ` bounding' ' surface was constructed initially by Dafalias (1975, 1977, 1980,
and 1986), and later modified and/or enlarged by many others (e.g., Aboim and Roth (1982),
Ghaboussi and Momen (1982), Mroz and Pietruszczak (1983a, 1983b), Bardet (1986, 1990),
Crouch and Wolf (1994)). Both theories suffer inherent limitations namely: storage
requirements for the multi-surface theory, ` ` a priori' ' selection of an evolution law and
arbitrariness in the mapping rule for the bounding surface theory. This is further discussed in
Prevost (1982).
In Zienkiewicz and Mroz (1984), a generalization of classical plasticity theory is proposed.
The generalization consists of specifying the occurrence of plastic deformation for a stress
rate which points in either direction with respect to a loading direction in stress-space. The
concept of a loading direction implies the existence of a loading surface. Further, continuity
requirements make the loading surface the locus of neutral loading. The concept has been
found convenient for the description of reverse and cyclic loading (see e.g., Aboim and Roth
(1982), Zienkiewicz et al. (1985) Pastor et al. (1985 and 1990), Hirai (1987)), but has not
been confirmed experimentally.
Rate-dependency (viscous) effects in cohesive materials have been incorporated in elastic-
plastic models using mostly hypoelasticity theory (Green (1956)) as in Davis and Mullinger
(1978). Other formulations based on Perzyna' s (1963 , 1966 and 1971) viscoplasticity have
also been used (see e.g.,. Adachi and Oda (1982), and Katona (1984)).
Micromechanically Based Models
These models are constructed by superposing or integrating the response of smaller units,
either micromechanical or simply mechanisms of yielding in particular stress sub-spaces.
Often, concepts of plasticity are stated at the level of the postulated micromechanism in order
to characterize its kinetics. The most popular model in this category was first proposed by
Aubry et al. (1982) and later refined by several others (see e.g., Pande and Sharma (1983),
Matsuoka and Sakakibara (1987), Kabilamany and Ishihara (1990 and 1991)). As in the
original Mohr-Coulomb soil model (see e.g. Coulomb (1972)), this model uses the concept of
mobilized friction angle to define yielding. However, in contrast with the original Mohr-
Coulomb model, it recognizes that there are usually three distinct Mohr circles in a three-
dimensional stress-state, which are used to define their mobilized friction angles. Each
mobilized friction angle is then used to define a yielding mechanism. In stress space, these
yielding mechanisms define an elastic domain whose boundary is in general non smooth and
possesses corners (although each yield function is assumed to be smooth). An extension of
classical plasticity due to Koiter (1960) and Mandel (1965) to accommodate non smooth yield
surfaces is then used to compute the resulting plastic flow. The numerical implementation of
such models is rather delicate as discussed and presented in Simo et al. (1987), and Prevost
and Keane (1990).
More truly micromechanically based models have also been proposed. In these models soil is
viewed as an assemblage of particles, and the unit micro-mechanism response is defined at
the truly micromechanical level of contact forces with rolling and sliding kinematics among
the particles, and given macroscopic counter parts by proper definitions and averaging
procedures. Such models have been presented in Nemat-Nasser and Mehrabadi (1984), Oda et
al. (1980), Christoffersen et al. (1981), Mehrabadi et al. (1993), Iai (1993).
I NT EGRAT I ON ALGORI T HMS
Plasticity theory has recently gained widespread acceptance in large-scale numerical
simulations of practical geotechnical engineering problems, due to its extreme versatility and
accuracy in modeling real engineering materials behavior. Building upon pioneering works of
Drucker and Prager (1952) on soil plasticity, the modern trend has been toward the
development of more and more elaborate and complicated elastoplastic constitutive models
which resemble the behavior of real engineering materials more closely.
The numerical solution of elastic-plastic boundary value problems is based on an iterative
solution of the discretized momentum balance equations. Typically, for every load/time step,
solution involves the following steps: Give a converged configuration at step n:
1. The discretized momentum equations are used to compute a new configuration for step
(n+1) via an incremental motion which is used to compute at every stress point
incremental strains ;
2. At every stress point, for the given incremental strains , new values of the state
variables ( ) and are obtained by integration of the local
constitutive equations;
3. From the new computed stresses, balance of momentum is checked and if violated
iterations are performed by returning to step 1.
In this section, attention is focused on step 2 which may be regarded as the central problem of
computational plasticity since it is the main role played by the constitutive equations in the
computations. In finite difference / finite element computer codes the elastoplastic
constitutive equations are usually incorporated through a separate set of constitutive
subroutines. The purpose of these subroutines is the integration of the elastic-plastic
constitutive equations. That is, at every stress point, given a deformation history, the role of
the constitutive-equation subroutine is to return the corresponding stress history. Exact
analytical solutions for the elastic-plastic evolution problem are available only for the
simplest elastic-plastic models. The first exact solution was obtained by Krieg and Krieg
(1977) for the case of the isotropic elastic-perfectly plastic von Mises model. Later, Yoder
and Whirley (1984) extended the solution to apply to the von Mises model with arbitrary
combination of kinematic and isotropic hardening. Later, Loret and Prevost (1986) developed
an exact solution for the isotropic Drucker-Prager model with linear hardening and arbitrary
degree of non-associativity. Although error-free, these solutions are computationally too slow
to be used routinely in actual calculations. Further, exact analytical solutions are not available
for more complex models. Therefore, all elastic-plastic models are implemented in analysis
programs with some error, via an integration algorithm called the stress-point algorithm.
Evidently, the accuracy and stability of the global solutions is to be strongly affected by the
accuracy and stability of the stress-point algorithm. Also, the cost of the analysis is most
strongly affected by the efficiency of the stress-point algorithm. The best algorithm, the one
to be favored, is therefore the one which combines computational efficiency with accuracy.
The first stress-point algorithm to be developed was the radial return algorithm proposed by
Wilkins (1964) for the elastic-perfectly plastic von Mises model. The algorithm was
subsequently extended by Krieg and Key (1976) to accommodate isotropic and kinematic
hardening laws. The algorithms are analyzed in Krieg and Krieg (1977); Schreyer et al.
(1979); Yoder and Wirley (1984); and Ortiz and Popov (1985). Algorithms for the Drucker-
Prager model have also been proposed. Approximate elaborate subincrementation strategies
with successive radial stress corrections have been proposed (see e.g., Nayak and Zienkiewicz
(1972)). Other somewhat arbitrary stress corrections have also been attempted (see e.g., Chen
(1975); Vermeer (1980)) to correct for the inherent stress drift away from the yield surface.
However, all these procedures tend to be quite expensive and are not error-free. They are
analyzed in Loret and Prevost (1986). Integration algorithms for more complex models have
also been developed, typically on a case-by-case basis (see e.g., Sandler and Rubin (1979) for
the cap model). However, no general framework for developing consistent, accurate and
stable algorithms was available until recently, when the concept of an elastic predictor with a
plastic return mapping was developed (see e.g. Ortiz and Popov (1985)). It was therefore
difficult to assess in general the relative merits and/or shortcomings of the various proposed
procedures.
Since the elastic-plastic evolution problem is of a strain driven nature, the integration process
is split into an elastic predictor and a return map to restore plastic consistency. The returning
mapping is achieved by integrating the nonlinear plastic evolution equations, and there are
several ways this can be implemented (see e.g., Nguyen (1977); Simo and Ortiz (1985); Simo
and Taylor (1986); Ortiz and Simo (1986); Simo and Hughes (1987)). Due to its semi-explicit
feature, attention has been mainly focused on the so-called ` ` cutting -plane' ' algorithm (see
e.g., Simo and Hughes (1987)), in geomechanics.
PARAMET ER CALI BRAT I ON
In order to be of practical use, a constitutive model has to be calibrated, i.e. the various
coefficients which appear in the constitutive relations have to be identified based on suitable
soil tests. More than for any other engineering material, available data for soil materials in
natural and artificial deposits are affected by a number of uncertainties, such as: (1) limited
information, (2) sampling and testing errors, and (3) random spatial variability. Calibration
procedures thus have to deal with these uncertainties, and often have to rely on engineering
judgement and collateral information. Therefore, it is important to select or relate constitutive
model parameters to traditional soil parameters, as opposed to using numerical coefficients
with no physical meaning. Thus, whenever available experimental data are inadequate for a
` ` proper' ' calibration, empirical correlations or even engineering experience can be used. In
this respect, a comprehensive collection of empirical correlations formulae was presented by
Kulhawy and Mayne (1990).
Using Laboratory Soil Test Results

One vs. Multiple Laboratory Soil Tests
A common practice is curve fitting the results of one laboratory soil test. Close matching
may demonstrate the ability of the constitutive model to simulate simple stress states and is
considered a condition sine qua non for model validation. However, it does not guarantee a
correct model calibration. It is now well known that laboratory soil tests although conducted
under relatively uniform conditions, exhibit a large scatter in their results, which affects their
reliability. The scatter is due to errors related to sample disturbance (during sample
collection, transport and preparation), spatial variability of soil properties in natural deposits,
testing methods, human factors, etc. For example, the scatter in friction angles at failure
derived from a series of drained triaxial soil tests conducted at The Earth Technology
Corporation (1992) with Nevada sand at 60% relative density was found to be about
50 to 60% of the average value (Popescu and Prevost (1995b)).
The alternative to curve fitting the results of a single soil test is to use information from all
available tests performed on the material. The reliability of the results of a series of tests
performed under identical conditions (random sampling) increases with the number of tests.
For example, a measure of the random error associated with the mean of a series of test
results is the expected standard deviation of the mean, or root-mean-square error , which
decreases with the number of experiments, N (e.g. Bendat and Piersol, (1986)): .
For a detailed discussion on the expected error magnitude of soil test results and its
dependence on the number of tests the reader is referred to Popescu and Prevost (1995b).
When using the results of more than one soil test a series of values is estimated for each soil
constitutive parameter. Next, for each required parameter, one would select either (1) the
most probable value (e.g. the average) - if dealing with back-analyses or ` ` class A' ' predictions
(e.g. Popescu and Prevost (1993b), Iai et al (1993)), or (2) a ` ` conservatively assessed mean' '
or characteristic percentile - for design. An example is presented in Figure 1, showing the
estimation of friction angles at failure of Nevada sand based on the results of a relatively
large number of laboratory soil tests (Popescu and Prevost (1993a)).

Figure 1. Estimation of the friction angle at failure of Nevada sand, using results of
undrained triaxial compression soil tests.
The data presented in Figure 1 is used to illustrate the importance of repeated tests. Most of
the laboratory soil tests conducted for the VELACS project (Arulanandan and Scott (1993))
were performed by The Earth Technology Corporation (1992). Supplementary soil tests were
performed by other soil laboratories, as shown in Figure 1. If, for example, one were to use
the results of isotropically-consolidated undrained compression tests performed by The Earth
Technology Corporation to estimate the friction angle at failure of Nevada sand at 60%
relative density, one obtains an expected error magnitude of 0.85% with a scatter in friction
angle of . (The expected error magnitude is defined by Popescu and Prevost (1995b) as
the root-mean-square error normalized by the sample mean). If the results of tests performed
by other laboratories are also used, although the scatter is much larger ( ), the expected
error magnitude is reduced further by about 20% as a result of the increased number of tests.
Similarly, the expected error magnitude of the estimated friction angle at failure is reduced by
over 30% in the case of Nevada sand at 40% relative density.
Str ess- Strain Curve Generation
The calibration of elaborate soil constitutive models, especially those using multiple yield
levels (e.g. Mrz (1967), Prevost (1977, 1978 and 1985)), require that stress-strain curves
(typically obtained from triaxial or simple shear soil tests) be available. However, budget
constraints often prevent detailed laboratory tests to be conducted on every soil type present
at a given site. Further, usual paucity of field information, randomness in spatial variability of
natural deposits require in every design situation that parametric studies and/or Monte Carlo
type simulations be conducted. Therefore, the generation of stress-strain curves required for
analysis, using limited field information, is a common and significant problem.
The best known and most widely used function is a hyperbola (Kondner (1963)), which has
been applied to some quite complex soil deformation problems, most notably by Duncan and
Chang (1970). However, the failure condition is approached asymptotically by the hyperbolic
stress-strain curves, whereas in reality failure (or peak stress state) occurs at finite strain
values. Therefore, alternative functions for describing typical shear stress-strain behavior of
soil materials have been proposed.
A modified hyperbolic function shown in Figure 2 was proposed by Prevost and co-workers,
which is applicable to both simple shear (Prevost and Keane (1989)) and triaxial stress states
(Griffiths and Prevost (1990)), for a wide range of shear strain levels.

Figure 2. Modified hyperbolic function (after Griffiths and Prevost (1990)).
As illustrated in Figure 2, a large palette of shear stress-strain curves can be generated, with
shapes controlled by the factor , where - the shear stress at failure - is a
function of friction angle at failure, initial stress state and slope of the stress path in the soil
test. A drawback of this model is that spanning various shapes of the stress-strain curve
requires relatively large modifications of the initial shear modulus, , which is not always in
accord with experimental evidence.
Hayashi et al (1992) solved this problem with a hyperbola whose shape depends on another
parameter, , which is function of the grain size distribution characteristics. They developed
their model based on shear stress-strain curves obtained in a simple shear soil testing device,
using soil specimens under condition. The proposed functional stress-strain relation is a
linear combination of hyperbolas, and therefore the condition of zero slope at finite strains
(peak stress or failure) is not satisfied. The required parameters are: initial shear modulus,
, shear stress at failure, , and the stress-strain curve parameter, , depending on
maximum grain size and uniformity coefficient. The dependence of on grain size
distribution characteristics is derived on a purely empirical basis from results of soil tests
conducted by the authors on ten sands and gravels with a wide variety of grain size
distributions.
Tatsuoka and Shibuya (1992) proposed a similar relation called ` ` general hyperbolic
equation' ' , appropriate for modeling the pre -peak stress-strain behavior. Tatsuoka et al (1993)
connected the general hyperbolic equation to a post-peak strain softening relation to obtain a
more general equation for isotropically consolidated sands. This formulation considers the
effects of void ratio, stress level, and strength and deformation anisotropy. Homogeneous
strain state during the pre-peak deformation and sudden strain localization at the peak stress
state are assumed. The relation for isotropically consolidated sands was then transformed to
accommodate the behavior of anisotropically consolidated sands. Despite its performances in
simulating the true stress-strain behavior for a wide range of strain levels, the model proposed
by Tatsuoka et al (1993) has a series of limitations: (1) is only applicable to the plane-strain
compression state, (2) was developed based on soil tests conducted using only one type of
sand, and (3) has a complicate formulation, requiring a relatively large number of parameters.
Liquefaction Strength
Any constitutive model for sand materials should have at least one or more constitutive
parameters related to the shear strain induced dilatancy. Common calibration methods for this
type of soil parameters employ curve fitting of one available laboratory soil test, with all the
entailed limitations, as described in 5.1.1. These limitations can be avoided by use of the
liquefaction strength curve, which comprises results from more than one soil tests, as shown
hereafter.
The liquefaction strength curve (Figure 3) is a plot of the cyclic stress ratio as a function of
the number of cycles necessary to induce initial liquefaction ( ) in an undrained cyclic
soil test. The cyclic stress ratio is expressed either as (for triaxial tests), where is
the single amplitude cyclic axial stress and is the initial effective confining stress, or as
(for simple shear tests), where is the double amplitude cyclic shear stress and
is the initial effective vertical stress. Initial liquefaction is usually defined as the state in
which either (1) the pore water pressure builds up to a value equal to the initially applied
confining pressure, or (2) axial strains of about 5% in amplitude occur (e.g. Ishihara (1993)).
To obtain a unique liquefaction strength curve from both triaxial and simple shear laboratory
test results, the relation:

may be used to relate the stress ratio in different experiments, where is evaluated on the
basis of the criterion proposed by Castro (1975), which relates the effect of the cyclic loading
to the ratio of the octahedral dynamic shear stress to the static effective octahedral normal
stress.


Figure 3. Estimation of the dilation parameter of Nevada sand at 60% relative density, using
results of laboratory soil tests performed at The Earth Technology Corporation (1992).
The liquefaction strength curve can be obtained from the results of undrained cyclic
laboratory soil tests (markers in Figure 3), or from empirical correlations with in-situ soil test
results, as discussed in section 5.2.3.
The parameters related to dilatancy can be estimated by back-fitting the liquefaction strength
curve, using element tests. An example is presented in Figure 3 (from Popescu and Popescu
and Prevost (1993)), where the dilation parameter ( ) of a multi-yield plasticity
constitutive model (Prevost (1985)) is derived based on the results of undrained cyclic triaxial
and simple shear laboratory soil tests The Earth Technology Corporation (1992)). A similar
method was employed by Iai et al (1993) to estimate five dilatancy parameters of a multi-
mechanism constitutive model.
Usi ng I n- Si tu Soi l Test Resul ts
I n- Situ vs. Laboratory Soil Tests
Both the shear strength and liquefaction resistance of soils in natural, undisturbed state are
found to be significantly larger than measured in laboratory (e.g. Seed and De Alba (1986),
Yoshimi et al (1989)). Moreover, based on results of cyclic triaxial tests performed by Mulilis
et al (1977), Ishihara (1993) shows that the resistance to liquefaction of samples from the
same type of sand prepared at the same relative density can vary over a wide range depending
on the nature of the fabric structure created by different methods of sample preparation.
In this context, some of the advantages of using field measurements rather than laboratory
data for soil property estimation are summarized by Campanella (1994): the disturbances are
minimized, the effects of fabric and aging on measured properties are preserved, and the soil
is tested in its natural in-situ stress state. Sophisticated sampling techniques are now available
to minimize sample disturbance and to attempt to preserve the original fabric structure of the
soil in natural deposits, like freezing (e.g. Yoshimi et al (1989)). However, these procedures
are still too expensive to be used in routine practice. Further, so called ` ` homogeneous' ' soil
layers are in fact only ` ` stochastically homogeneous' ' , i.e. there are usually significant
variations of soil properties from one spatial location to another. This variability, which, as
shown in 5.3.3, may have significant influence on structural behavior, can only be captured
by in-situ soil tests.
Most common in-situ soil testing techniques (e.g. standard penetration test) can provide
information on parameters related to soil strength and deformability. Supplementary data,
coming from laboratory soil tests, are usually required to identify stratigraphy, grain size
distribution, damping properties, etc. Recently, procedures have been proposed to identify a
number of soil properties directly from the results of cone penetration type tests, without
relying on laboratory soil tests. For example a procedure for soil type identification based on
the interplay between friction ratio and cone tip resistance was proposed by Harder and von
Bloh (1988). Jefferies and Davies (1993) made use of a "soil classification index", estimated
from the results of piezocone (CPTU) tests to obtain information on the soil type and grain
size characteristics. The seismic piezocone (SCPTU) test is known to allow reliable
evaluation of small strain moduli and damping characteristics (e.g. Stewart and Stewart and
Campanella (1993), Campanella et al (1994)), and the resistivity piezocone (RCPTU or
RSCPTU) can be used to infer dilatancy characteristics (Campanella and Kokan (1993)). The
seismic piezocone and the self-boring pressuremeter (SBPM) are considered by Campanella
(1994) "the best current in-situ tools for determining earthquake engineering parameters".
However, it should be pointed out that the current data base pertaining to these two types of
field tests is still very limited and the available empirical correlations with various soil
properties do not cover a wide range of soil types.
Correlations with Penetration Test Results
Various methods are available for in-situ evaluation of geotechnical properties. The most
common are as follows:
1. Dynamic penetration tests - standard penetration test (SPT), Baecher penetration test
(BPT), and dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT).
2. Cone penetration tests - mechanical CPT, electric CPT, piezocone (CPTU), seismic
piezocone (SCPTU), resistivity piezocone (RCPTU), and horizontal stress cone (HSC).
Table 1. Comparison between SPT and CPT (after Campanella (1994))


The advantages and disadvantages of each type of test, as well as their applicability in
estimating various soil properties are discused by Campanella (1994). Table 1 provides a
comparison between the standard penetration test (SPT) and cone penetration test (electric
CPT and piezocone), for which a large database for empirical correlations with geotechnical
properties is available. Both types of tests have good applicability in estimating various soil
properties, like moduli, strength, and liquefaction resistance. However, given its advantages -
precision, repeatability, continuous logging, multiple channel measurements, as well as ease
of use in offshore testing (Jefferies and Davies (1993)) - the cone penetration test is becoming
increasingly popular for in-situ investigations (especially in Europe and Canada).
The results of penetration type soil tests represent the response of soil to an imposed
deformation. Geotechnical properties can be then estimated using either (1) an appropriate
constitutive model and an analytical solution, or (2) empirical correlations. Various theories
have been developed to express analytical dependence between cone tip resistance and soil
strength. It seems however that there is currently no satisfactory general solution for
interpreting cone test results, therefore empirical correlations are still mainly used to derive
soil properties. Numerous such correlations between the results of standard penetration and
cone penetration tests and various soil properties have been developed. References to some of
these correlations are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Empirical correlations between soil properties and penetration test results
(notations in Appendix 1)




In general, more than one empirical correlations are available to derive each particular soil
property, and the accuracy of estimations is highly dependent on selection of the appropriate
correlations for the respective material. Use of available laboratory soil test results, as well as
any other available collateral information to select the right correlation formula for each soil
material can increase significantly the confidence in the estimated parameters. The accuracy
of parameter estimation can also be increased by taking advantage of both (1) the higher
reliability of cone penetration test results and (2) the vast data base and larger experience
with using the standard penetration test, by means of transformations.
References to some of these relationships are listed in Table 3. For more detailed reviews on
transformations the reader is referred to Jefferies and Davies (1993)) and Stark
and Olson (1995).
Table 3. Transformations (notations in Appendix 1)



Liquefaction Strength
Seed and co-workers (1983 and 1985) developed a procedure for estimating the liquefaction
potential of soil deposits under level ground conditions based on correlations between the
equivalent cyclic stress ratio, , necessary to induce liquefaction in a number
cycles (this will be denoted by in the following), and the normalized SPT blow
count, . A boundary line was proposed, separating field conditions (in terms of SPT
resistance) susceptible to produce liquefaction from conditions not causing liquefaction, in
sandy soil deposits, during earthquakes with magnitude M=7.5. Similar relations have also
been proposed by other researchers (some of which are referred in Table 4), based on case
histories of liquefied and non-liquefied sites documented with SPT measurements. The
proposed correlations correspond to an earthquake of a certain magnitude (usually M=7.5),
relatively small initial overburden stress ( MPa), and level ground conditions.
Correction procedures are available for transforming these correlations to correspond to other
earthquake magnitudes (e.g. Seed et al (1983)), larger initial overburden stress and sloping
ground conditions (Seed and Harder (1990)).
Correlations between liquefaction potential and normalized cone penetration resistance, ,
were first developed using the SPT data base and converting SPT blow counts to CPT
resistance (e.g. Robertson and Campanella (1985); Seed and De Alba (1986)). Later on, when
the number of earthquake related case histories documented with CPT data increased
significantly, direct such correlations were developed (e.g. Shibata and Teparaksa (1988);
Stark and Olson (1995)). For comparative studies on correlations between liquefaction
potential and normalized cone penetration resistance, the reader is referred to Mitchell and
Tseng (1990), and Stark and Olson (1995).
Table 4. Correlations between observed field liquefaction behavior and normalized
penetration resistance (notations in Appendix 1)



Apart from penetration resistance ( or ), the liquefaction potential of sandy soil
deposits is significantly influenced by the grain size characteristics. This influence is
accounted for in all the charts referred in Table 4, in terms of the percent of fines (F= percent
passing through the #200 sieve) for SPT related correlations, and average grain size, ,
for CPT related correlations. A detailed discussion is presented by Ishihara (1993). He also
investigates the influence of the plasticity index of fines on the liquefaction potential of silty
sand deposits.
All these correlations have been originally developed as tools for the empirical assessment of
liquefaction potential of natural soil deposits (e.g. Das (1983)). However, they can also be
used to estimate soil parameters related to dilatancy by means of liquefaction strength
analysis, as illustrated in Figure 4, since they provide a point on the liquefaction strength
curve ( ). Such a procedure is presented in Popescu (1995).

Figure 4. Evaluation of the dilation parameter from the results of liquefaction strength
analysis: a. relationship between normalized penetration resistance and cyclic stress ratio
which causes liquefaction in cycles; b. illustrative example of the parametric
studies using element tests.
As for the post-liquefaction behavior, two main directions of research for estimating the
residual strength are referred to in the literature. The first approach is based on the principle
of "critical state" soil mechanics (e.g. Schofield and Wroth (1968)), and uses laboratory soil
tests to estimate the in-situ undrained residual (or "steady state") strength (e.g. Poulos et al
(1985)). For a detailed discussion on the ` ` steady state' ' approach, and useful charts for
estimating the undrained residual strength ratio with respect to the initial confining stress, the
reader is referred to Ishihara (1993). Due to the very high sensitivity of the residual strength
to small variations in void ratio, the laboratory-based techniques do not appear to be
sufficiently reliable for use in full scale engineering analyses (e.g. Seed et al (1988)). The
second approach is more empirically oriented and is based on back-analyses of liquefaction
failure case histories documented with SPT measurements (e.g. the chart by Seed (1987),
updated by Seed and Harder (1990)). Based on such field case histories, Stark and Mesri
(1992) proposed a linear correlation between the undrained residual strength ratio, ,
and the equivalent clean sand normalized SPT blow count, :

where (correction for fines content, according to Seed
(1987)).

Appendix 1: Notations used in Tables 2, 3 and 4



Accounting for Inherent Spatial Variability of Soil
Properties
The natural variability of soil properties within geologically distinct and uniform layers is
known to affect the soil system behavior itself (e.g. Ohtomo and Shinozuka (1990), Popescu
(1995) and Popescu et al (1997a) for soil liquefaction; Griffiths and Fenton (1993) and
Fenton and Griffiths (1996) for seepage; Paice et al (1996) for settlements), and therefore
should be accounted for during model calibration. A first step in acknowledging the effects of
uncertainties induced by random variability of soil properties was made by introducing the
concept of characteristic values as ` ` cautious estimates' ' of those parameters affecting the
occurrence of limit state (e.g. Eurocode (1994)). At this stage, assessment of characteristic
values as percentiles of recorded soil properties is based mainly on the degree of confidence
in the mean values, as estimated from soil test results.
The consequences of spatial variability are not well understood yet, and their exploration
requires use of stochastic field based techniques of data analysis. Due to (1) the large degree
of variability exhibited by soil properties (coefficient of variation ranging from 20% to 60%,
as reported by Phoon and Kulhawy (1996)), and (2) the strong nonlinear behavior of soil
materials, Monte Carlo simulations which combine digital generation of stochastic fields with
finite element analyses seem to represent the only appropriate analysis method at this time.
Stochastic Analysis of Field Data
Experimental evidence shows that the natural variability of soil properties within distinct
and uniform layers is significant, even in the case of supposedly homogeneous man-made
fills. This is illustrated in Figure 5a which shows the results of a series of piezocone tests
performed in a hydraulically placed sand deposit (Gulf (1984)): the recorded cone resistance
exhibits random fluctuations about some average values shown with thick lines in Figure 5.
As expected, some degree of coherence between the fluctuations can be observed, which
becomes stronger as the measuring points are closer together. This is emphasized in Figure 5a
by representing some loose pockets (where recorded values are consistently lower than the
expected average) and denser zones.
The spatial coherence is mathematically captured by the concept of a correlation function,
with its parameters expressed in terms of ` ` correlation distances' ' . The correlation distance
can be thought of as representing a length over which significant coherence is still
manifested. The ensemble of auto-correlation functions (characterizing the spatial variability
of each soil property) and cross-correlation functions (spatial correlation between pairs of
different soil properties) is represented by the so called ` ` cross -correlation matrix' ' . The cross -
correlation matrix, together with the probability distribution functions exhibited by each soil
property characterize the stochastic variability of soil properties over the domain of interest.
A rich literature on estimating the characteristics of spatial variability of soil properties is
currently available. Various methods for evaluating the correlation structure starting from a
limited amount of field test results, as well as procedures for raw data filtering and
transformations are described. For more details on available methods for stochastic analysis
of field data the reader is referred to DeGroot and Baecher (1993).



Figure 5. a. In-situ recorded cone tip resistances (from Gulf (1984)); b. simulated values
obtained at the same locations from one sample function of a stochastic field with
probabilistic characteristics estimated from field data analysis.
The probability distribution function of soil properties is another important characteristic of
spatial variability. From the results of numerous studies on the probability distribution of soil
properties reported in the literature it can be concluded that: (1) most soil properties exhibit
skewed, non-Gaussian distributions, and (2) each soil property can follow different
probability distributions for various materials and sites, and therefore the probability
characteristics and the shape of the distribution function have to be estimated for each case.
For a detailed presentation of field data analysis procedures leading to estimation of
probabilistic characteristics of spatial variability of soil properties, the reader is referred to
Popescu et al (1997b).
Digital Simulation of the Random Spatial Variability
A deterministic description of the spatial variability of soil properties is not feasible due to
the prohibitive cost of sampling and to uncertainties induced by measurement errors. In a
probabilistic approach the soil properties over the analysis domain are considered
components of a vector stochastic field, with probabilistic characteristics estimated from
analysis of field data. Sample functions of this stochastic field are digitally generated,
according to a prescribed cross-correlation matrix and prescribed probability distribution
functions. An example of such a sample function is presented in Figure 5b, and a
methodology to digitally simulate sample functions of a multi-dimensional, multi-variate,
non-Gaussian stochastic field is described by Popescu et al (1996b).
At this junction it is mentioned that complete probabilistic description of a non-Gaussian
stochastic field requires knowledge of the joint probability distribution functions of all orders.
Since these cannot be estimated in practice from real soil data, the stochastic spatial
variability of soil properties can be characterized by way of the correlation structure (cross-
correlation matrix) and marginal probability distribution functions of each soil property (e.g.
Popescu et al (1996b and 1997a)).
Effects of Spatial Variability on Dynamic Behavior
Soil liquefaction seems to be particularly affected by random spatial variability of soil
properties. Previous studies (e.g. Popescu (1995), Popescu et al (1996a and 1997a)) have
shown that both the extent and pattern of pore water pressure build-up in saturated soil
deposits subjected to seismic excitation are different when predicted by Monte Carlo
simulations, as compared to deterministic finite element analyses using the average values of
soil properties.
A numerical example is presented in Figure 6 (from Popescu et al (1996a)). A loose to
medium dense soil deposit (Figure 6a), with geomechanical properties as well as spatial
variability characteristics estimated from in-situ (piezocone) soil test results, is subjected to a
deterministic seismic excitation. Monte Carlo simulations are performed, with soil parameters
corresponding to four sample functions of a stochastic field with probabilistic characteristics
derived from field data analysis. Each sample function represents a possible realization of the
spatial distribution of in-situ recorded soil properties over the analysis domain. The multi-
yield plasticity model (Prevost (1985)) implemented in the computer code DYNAFLOW
(Prevost (1995)) was used for finite element analyses. A deterministic analysis is also
performed. The soil constitutive parameters for the deterministic analysis are variable with
depth, corresponding to the assumed linear variation exhibited by the average values of the
field measurement results (Figure 5), and have the same values as the average values used for
Monte Carlo simulations.



Figure 6. Excess pore pressure ratio in a soil deposit subjected to seismic excitation. Results
of: a. Monte Carlo simulations; b. deterministic analysis using the average values of soil
parameters; c. deterministic analyses using various percentiles of soil strength.
A comparison between the results of the deterministic and stochastic parameter input
computations is presented in Figure 6 in terms of predicted excess pore pressure ratio with
respect to the initial effective vertical stress. Four different responses in terms of excess pore
pressure ratio are predicted by the Monte Carlo simulations (Figure 6a). There are however a
series of common features of the stochastic input computational results, as compared to the
results of the deterministic input analysis shown in Figure 6b: (1) for the same average values
of the soil parameters, more pore pressure build-up is predicted by the Monte Carlo model
than by the deterministic model; (2) in the case of the Monte Carlo simulation results, there
are patches with large excess pore pressure, corresponding to the presence of loose pockets in
the material (this predicted pattern of excess pore pressure build-up explains better the
phenomenon of sand boils observed in areas affected by soil liquefaction).
Characteristic Percentile of Soil Strength
An explanation of the fact that more pore water pressure build-up is consistently predicted by
Monte Carlo simulations than by the deterministic analyses is that liquefaction is triggered by
the presence of loose pockets in the soil mass. Since deterministic analyses cannot account
for such small scale variability in soil properties, to avoid non-conservative results
geotechnical practice relies on factors of safety in the form of conservatively assessed mean
values or, more recently, percentile values of soil strength (e.g. Eurocode (1994)). These
values are recommended based on engineering judgement and experience, and there is
currently no deterministic analytical procedure to predict how well they will work in various
situations. Therefore, the recommended percentile values are most often too conservative. On
the other hand, Monte Carlo simulations are much too expensive to be routinely employed in
design, and therefore correctly defined characteristic percentiles, based on exploring the
interplay of soil property distributions and overal behavior using an advanced soil constitutive
model (as suggested by Jefferies et al, (1988)) are much needed in geotechnical design.
An attempt to define such a characteristic value of soil strength to be used in deterministic
analyses of soil liquefaction potential is illustrated in Figure 6c (after Popescu et al (1996a)).
Under the reserve of the (statistically) low number of Monte Carlo simulations, the 80-
percentile value was recommended to be used in deterministic dynamic analyses, for the type
of soil investigated in that study. For a more detailed presentation of this subject, addressing
the interplay between soil property distribution, frequency content of the seismic excitation
and dynamic characteristics of the soil deposit, the reader is referred to Popescu et al (1996a).
VERI FI CAT I ON AND VALI DAT I ON
In order to be useful to the engineering practice, a numerical model requires verification and
validation by comparison of its predictions with observed full-scale in situ performance. A
common problem in geotechnical engineering is that much data are unlikely to be obtained
soon, because of the scale of the structures involved, the cost of testing and the low
probability of having a particular instrumented geotechnical system subjected to design load.
Consequently, some form of model study is desirable to enable alternative analysis
procedures to be checked and validated.
The VELACS Project
The VELACS (VErification of Liquefaction Analysis by Centrifuge Studies) project
(Arulanandan and Scott (1993)) offered a good opportunity to verify the accuracy of various
analytical procedures. This NSF sponsored study on the effects of earthquake-like loading on
a variety of soil models was aimed at better understanding the mechanisms of soil
liquefaction and at acquiring data for the verification of various analysis procedures. The
numerical predictions were intended to be ` ` class A' ' predictions, and thus were made before
the relevant experiments were performed. The verification and validation of the various
analysis procedures were carried out by comparing their predictions with the measurements
recorded in the centrifuge experiments, in terms of excess pore water pressure, acceleration
and displacement time histories. A total of nine geotechnical models, shown in Figure 7, were
tested. The tests were performed at five centrifuge laboratories.

Figure 7. Centrifuge geotechnical models used for the VELACS project (the dimensions are
at the prototype scale).
Validation Study
For seven of the nine centrifuge models of the VELACS Project, some of the experimental
errors were minimized by duplicating the centrifuge experiments. The duplicating
experiments were intended to be performed under conditions identical to the primary
experiment, using the same type of equipment and following the same specifications for
sample preparation. The primary and duplicating tests for each model were carried out at
different laboratory facilities, to minimize the bias in results induced by human factors. From
a study on the reliability of the centrifuge soil tests performed for the VELACS project
(Popescu and Prevost (1995a and 1995b)) it was concluded that: (1) four out of the seven
centrifuge experiments which had been duplicated provide reliable excess pore water pressure
results, and (2) the experimental records in terms of displacements and accelerations have
considerably lower reliability than the recorded excess pore pressures. Therefore, it was
decided that meaningful comparisons between VELACS "class A" predictions and centrifuge
experimental results can be performed in terms of excess pore pressures. The results of the
comparison study are presented in Popescu and Prevost (1995a).
A summary of the results are presented in Figure 8. A total of 56 numerical predictions,
representing 75% of the "class A" predictions submitted by various analysts have been
available for the comparative study presented in Figure 8a. The markers indicate the
magnitude of normalized root-mean-square errors (see Figure 8b) of predicted excess pore
pressures with respect to the average of centrifuge experimental recordings, for each of the
nine centrifuge models involved in the VELACS project. For each centrifuge model, the root-
mean-square errors estimated for each predictor are averaged over all pore pressure
transducers.

Figure 8. Performance of various soil constitutive models in predicting excess pore pressure
build-up: a. averages of the root-mean-square error index; b. evaluation of the root-mean-
square error between predicted and recorded excess pore pressure time histories (after
Popescu and Prevost (1995a)).
CLOS URE
In this brief description of such a rich and complex subject matter, it has not been possible to
cover all aspects and issues related to constitutive equations. In particular, one issue the
writers have been compelled to omit is the strain localization phenomenon in soil materials,
and other issues related to unstable material behavior. Strain localization phenomena have
been examined experimentally in the laboratory by several investigators (e.g., Vardoulakis
(1980); Mulhaus and Vardoulakis (1987)). The phenomenon is known to occur in real soils in
nature very frequently and to often lead to catastrophic failures. However, its modeling
presents several formidable difficulties and is the subject of much current research.
Strain localization is the phenomenon by which the deformations in solids localize into
narrow bands of intense straining. The phenomenon is observed to occur in many materials
(polycrystals, polymers, geomaterials, etc.). The width of the bands are known to be related to
the microstructure of the materials.
Numerical simulation of strain localization requires that a characteristic length scale be
incorporated into the governing equations. Further, it requires that the multi-scale nature of
the phenomenon be addressed. Shear band widths in soils are of the order of millimeters
while the engineering macrostructure of interest may be several meters in dimension.
Previous works have been able to account for multi-scale effects, but have used simplified
phenomenological constitutive equations in the band. However, it is clear that the details of
the constitutive behavior inside the band strongly affect the response of the macrostructure.
Strain localization involves many aspects of material behavior. Its emergence, in some simple
cases, can be predicted by a local analysis, viz. a loss of hyperbolicity of the dynamical
equations (Hadamard (1903); Thomas (1961); Hill (1962); Mandel (1963); Rice (1976)). This
analysis also allows to obtain the band orientation with respect to the axes of loading.
However, the analysis cannot predict the exact location nor the thickness of the band. In
numerical simulations by finite elements, several difficulties occur: the computed shear band
has a width determined by the size of the elements; and the results exhibit a strong mesh
dependency.
The main reason for these difficulties was identified about 10 years ago, and is due to the fact
that the constitutive equations used do not incorporate a characteristic length scale parameter
in the governing equations. This difficulty has been alleviated by having recourse to various
regularization procedures (see e.g., Bazant (1984); Triantafyllidis and Aifantis (1986);
Muhlhaus and Vardoulakis (1987); Needleman (1988); Loret and Prevost (1990a, 1990b and
1991)); Sluys and de Borst (1992)). Although involving radically different mechanisms, i.e.,
by adding gradient or viscous effects in the constitutive equation, each of the aforementioned
works aim at restoring hyperbolicity by incorporating a characteristic length scale in the
governing equations.
Once the band thickness can be incorporated into the theory, several other difficulties still
remain. They are related to the multi-scale nature of the phenomenon. The shear band width
is related to the microstructure of the material (in a sand for instance, it spans about 15 to 20
grains), and is several order of magnitude smaller than the usual macrostructure of interest in
engineering. Hence any meaningful numerical discretization scheme must be able to
accurately resolve the deformation field inside the band, and at the same time resolve the field
within the macrostructure. This requires a very heterogeneous multi-scale computation for
which neither homogenization theories nor usual finite elements are properly suited. Two
complementary procedures have been developed to perform the multi-scale computations
using finite elements. In one approach the shear band is captured by successive adaptive
refinements of the finite element mesh (e.g., Deb et al. (1996a and 1996b)), in another the
mesh is enriched by adding additional equations to the localized elements (e.g., Fish and
Belytschko (1990), Loret et al. (1995)). These two approaches are necessary steps to allow
for the resolution of the appropriate length scales necessary to study the critical phenomena
which occur in the bands. Up to this stage, simplified phenomenological constitutive
equations have been used to describe the material behavior within the shear bands. An
attempt to more accurately describe the material behavior within the shear bands by using
more realistic micro-mechanical constitutive equations will bring to evidence the effects of
the microstructure on the next highest length scale. For instance, for a sand, the ` ` micro -
mechanical filter' ' should allow to retain the effects of the statistics of the grain size
distribution, the directions of contacts and the sliding motions. This is the subject of much
current research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S
The writers have been supported in work related to this paper by the National Science
Foundation (Dr. Clifford J. Astill, Program Director) and Kajima Corporation (Japan). These
supports are most gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Aboim, C.A. and W.H. Roth. (1982), Bounding- Surface Theory Applied to Cyclic
Loading of Sands. Int. Symp. Num. Models in Geom., Balkema Publ., Rotterdam, pp.
65-80.
2. Adachi, T. and F. Oda. (1982), Consititutive Equations for Normally Constituted Clay
Based on Elasto-Visco- Plasticity. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 57-70.
3. Allen, M.P. and D.J. Tildesley. (1987), Computer Simulation of Liquids, Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
4. Arulanandan, K. and R.F. Scott, editors. (1993), Proc. Int. Conf. on Verif. Numerical
Proc. for the Analysis of Soil Liq. Problems, volume 1. Balkema, Rotterdam.
5. Arulanandan, K. and R.F. Scott, editors. (1994), Proc. Int. Conf. on Verif. Numerical
Proc. for the Analysis of Soil Liq. Problems, volume 2. Balkema, Rotterdam.
6. Aubry, D., J.C. Hujeux, F. Lassoudiere and Y. Meimon. (1982), A Double Memory
Model with Multiple Mechanisms for Cyclic Soil Behavior. Proc., Int. Symp. Num.
Methods in Geomech..
7. Baladi, G.Y. and B. Rohani. (1979), Elastic-plastic model for saturated sand. J.
Geotech. Engnrg. Div. ASCE, 105(GT4):465-480.
8. Baldi, G., R. Bellotti, V. Ghionna, and M. Jamiolkowski. (1989), Stiffness of sands
from CPT, SPT and DMT - a critical review. In Proc. Geotechn. Conf. ``Penetration
Testing in the UK'', pages 299-305, Birmingham, Inst. Civil Engineers.
9. Baldi, G., R. Bellotti, M. Jamiolkowski, and E. Pasqualini. (1982), Design parameters
for sand from CPT. In Proc. European Symp. on Penetration Testing, volume 2,
pages 425-432, Amsterdam.
10. Bardet, J.P. (1990), Hypoplastic Model for Sands. J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 116, pp.
1973-1994.
11. Bardet, J.P. (1986), Bounding Surface Plasticity Model for Sands. J. Eng. Mech.,
ASCE, Vol. 112, pp. 1198- 1217.
12. Bashir, Y.M. and J.D. Goddard. (1991), A Novel Simulation Method for the Quasi-
Static Mechanics of Granular Assemblages. J. Rheol., Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 849-885.
13. Bazant, Z.P. (1984), Intricate Continuum and Its Variational Derivation. J. Mech. Eng.
Div., ASCE, Vol. 110, pp. 1693-1712.
14. Bazant, Z.P. and R.J. Krizek. (1976), Endochronic Constitutive Law for Liquefaction
of Sand. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 102, No. EM2, pp. 225-238.
15. Been, K, and M.G. Jefferies. (1985), A state parameter for sands. Geotechnique, 35
(2):99-112.
16. Been, K,, M.G. Jefferies, J.H.A. Crooks, and L. Rothenburg. (1987), The cone
penetration test in sands: Part II, general inference of state. Geotechnique, 37(3):285-
299.
17. Been, K,, B.E. Lingnau, L.H.A. Crooks, and B. Leach. (1987), Cone penetration test
calibration for Erksak (Beaufort Sea) sand. Can. Geotech. Journ., 24:601-610.
18. Bellotti, R., V. Ghionna, M. Jamiolkowski, R. Lancellotta, and G. Manfredini. (1986),
Deformation characteristics of cohesionless soils from in-situ tests. In S.P. Clemence,
editor, Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, pages 47-73. ASCE, New
York.
19. Bendat, J.S. and A.G. Piersol. (1986), Random Data, Analysis and Measurement
Procedures. Wiley-Interscience, New York, edition.
20. Biot, M.A. (1978), Variational Irreversible Thermodynamics of Heat and Mass
Transfer in Porous Solids: New Concepts and Methods. Quarterly of Applied
Mathematics, Vol. 36, pp. 19-38.
21. Biot, M.A. (1977), Variational Lagrangian Thermodynamics of Non-Isothermal Finite
Strain Mechanics of Porous Solids and Thermomolecular Diffusion. Int. J. Solids
Struct., ASCE, Vol. 13, pp. 579-597.
22. Biot, M.A. (1972), Theory of Finite Deformations of Porous Solids. Indiana University
Mathematics Journal, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 597-620.
23. Biot, M.A. and D.G. Willis. (1957), The Elastic Coefficients of a Theory of
Consolidation. J. Applied Mechanics, ASME, Vol. 79, pp. 594-601.
24. Biot, M.A. (1956), Theory of Propagation of Elastic Waves in a Fluid-Saturated
Porous Solid, I. Low Frequency Range. J. of the Acoustical Society of America. Vol.
28, pp. 168-178.
25. Biot, M.A. (1955), Theory of Elasticity and Consolidation for a Porous Anisotropic
Solid. J. Applied Physics, Vol. 26, pp. 182-185.
26. Borja, R.I. and J.R. Wren. (1996), Micromechanical Basis of Continuum Models for
Granular Materials. I: Theory. J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, in review.
27. Borja, R.I. and A.P. Amies. (1994), Multiaxial Cyclic Plasticity Model for Clays. J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 120, pp. 1051-1070.
28. Bowden, R.M. (1982), Compressible porous media models by use of the theory of
mixtures. Int. Journ. of Engnrg. Science, 20(6):697-735.
29. Campanella, R.G. (1994), Field methods for dynamic geotechnical testing: An
overview of capabilities and needs. In Proc. Symp. on Dynamic Geotechnical Testing
II, pages 3-23, San Francisco, CA.
30. Campanella, R.G. and M.A. Kokan. (1993), A new approach to measuring dilatancy in
saturated sands. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM GTJODJ, 16(4):485-495.
31. Campanella, R.G., W.P. Stewart, D. Roy, and M.P. Davies. (1994), Low strain
characteristics of soils with the downhole seismic piezocone penetrometer. In Proc.
Symp. on Dynamic Geotechnical Testing II, pages 73-87, San Francisco, CA.
32. Carter, J.P., M.F. Randolph and C.P. Wroth. (1979), Stress and Pore Pressure Changes
in Clay During and After the Expansion of A Cylindrical Cavity. Int. J. Num. Meth.
Eng., Vol. 3, pp. 305-322.
33. Castro, G. (1975), Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated sands. J. Geotech.
Eng. Div., ASCE, 101(GT6):551-569.
34. Chang, C.S., Y. Chang and M.G. Kabir. (1992), Micro-mechanical Modeling for
Stress-strain Behavior of Granular Soils. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 118, No.
12, pp. 1959-1992.
35. Chen, W.F. (1975), Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity, Developments in Geotechnical
Engineering 7, Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam.
36. Christoffersen, J., M.M. Mehrabadi and S. Nemat-Nasser. (1981), A Micro-mechanical
Description of Granular Material Behavior. J. Appl. Mech., ASME, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.
339-344.
37. Coon, M.D. and R.J. Evans. (1971), Recoverable Deformations of Cohesionless Soils.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM2, pp. 375-390.
38. Coulomb, C.A. (1972), Essai Sur Une Application des Regles de Maximis et Minimis
A Quelques Problemes de Statique Relatifs A L' Architecture. Memoires par Divers
Savants, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
39. Crouch, R. S. and J.P. Wolf. (1994), Unified 3D Critical State Bounding-surface
Plasticity Model for Soils Incorporating Continuous Plastic Loading Under Cyclic
Paths. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 18, 735-784.
40. Cundall, P.A. and O.D.L. Strack. (1979), A Discrete Numerical Model for Granular
Assemblies. Geotechnique, Vol. 29, pp. 47-65.
41. Cundall, P.A. (1971), A Computer Model for Simulating Progressive Large Scale
Movements of Blocky Rock Systems. Proceedings, ASCE, Symp. Int. Soc. Rock.
Mech., Nancy, France, Vol. 1, pp. 132-150.
42. Dafalias, Y.F. (1986), Bounding Surface Plasticity: Mathematical Foundation and
Hypo-plasticity. J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 9, pp. 966-987.
43. Dafalias, Y.F. and L.R. Herrmann. (1980), A Bounding Surface Plasticity Model.
Proc. Int. Symp. Soils Under Cyclic Trans. Load., Swansea, A.A. Balkema Publ.,
Rotterdam, pp. 335-345.
44. Dafalias, Y.F. and E.P. Popov. (1977), Cyclic Loading for Materials with a Vanishing
Elastic Domain. Nucl. Eng. Design, Vol. 41. pp. 293-302.
45. Dafalias, Y.F. and E.P. Popov. (1975), A Model of Nonlinearly Hardening Materials
for Complex Loading. Acta Mech., Vol. 23, pp. 173-192.
46. Das, B.M. (1983), Fundamentals of Soil Dynamics. Elsevier.
47. Davis, R.O., and G. Mullenger. (1978), A Rate-Type Constitutive Model for Soil with
a Critical Shake. Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geom., Vol. 2, pp. 275-282.
48. Deb, A., J.H. Prevost and B. Loret. (1996a), Adaptive Meshing for Strain-Localization
in Elasto-Visco-Plastic Solids. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., to appear.
49. Deb, A., B. Loret and J.H. Prevost. (1996b), Automated Band Identification Procedure
for Dynamic Strain Localization. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., to appear.
50. DeGroot, D.J. and G.B. Baecher. (1993), Estimating autocovariance of in-situ soil
properties. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 119(1):147-166.
51. DiMaggio, F.L. and I.S. Sandler. (1971), Material models for granular soils, J. Engnrg.
Mech. Div., ASCE, 97(EM3):935-950.
52. Douglas, B.J. and R.S. Olsen. (1981), Soil classification using electric cone
penetrometer. In G.M. Norris and R.D. Holtz, editors, Cone Penetration Testing and
Experience. ASCE, New York.
53. Drescher, A. and De Josselin de Jong. (1972), Photoelastic Verification of A Material
Model for the Flow of A Granular Material. J. Mech. Phys. Solids., Vol. 20, pp. 337-
351.
54. Deresiewicz, H. (1958), Mechanics of granular material. Adv. Appl. Mech., 5:233-306.
55. Drucker, D.C., R.E. Gibson and D.J. Henkel. (1955), Soil Mechanics and Work-
Hardening Theories of Plasticity. Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 81, pp. 1-14.
56. Drucker, D.C. and W. Prager. (1952), Soil Mechanics and Plastic Analysis or Limit
Design. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. 10, pp. 157-165.
57. Duncan, J.M. and C.Y. Chang. (1970), Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils.
Journ. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 96(SM5):1629-1653.
58. The Earth Technology Corporation. (1992), VELACS laboratory testing program soil
data report. Technical report, Earth Technology Project No. 90-0562.
59. Eringen, A.C. and J.D. Ingram. (1967), A Continuum Theory of Chemically Reacting
Media (parts I and II). Int. J. of Engineering Science, Vol. 3, pp. 197-212 and Vol. 5,
pp. 289-322.
60. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design. (1994), Technical Report ENV 1997-1,
European Committee for Standardization.
61. Fear, C.E. and E.C. McRoberts. (1995), Reconsideration of initiation of liquefaction in
sandy soils. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 121(3):249-261.
62. Fenton, G.A. and D.V. Griffiths. (1996), Stochastics of free surface flow through
stochastic earth dam. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 122(6):427-436.
63. Finn, W.D.L., K.W. Lee and G.R. Martin. (1977), An Effective Stress Model for
Liquefaction. ASCE J. Geot. Eng. Div., Vol. 103, pp. 517-533.
64. Fish, J. and T. Belytschko. (1990), A Finite Element With A Uni-Directionally
Enriched Strain Field for Localization Analysis. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.,
Vol. 78, pp. 181-200.
65. Ghaboussi, J. and H. Momen. (1982), Modeling and Analysis of Cyclic Behavior of
Sand. Soil Mechanics-Transient and Cyclic Loads, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp.
313-342.
66. Goddard, J.D. (1990), Nonlinear Elasticity and Pressure-Dependent Wave Speeds in
Granular Media. Proc. R. Soc. London A, Vol. 430, pp. 105-131.
67. Green, A.E. and P.M. Naghdi. (1965), A Dynamical Theory of Interacting Continua.
Int. J. of Engineering Science, Vol. 3, pp. 231-241.
68. Green, A.E. (1956), Hypoelasticity and Plasticity. Proc. Roy. Soc., Vol. 234, pp. 46-59.
69. Griffiths, D.V. and G.A. Fenton. (1993), Seepage Beneath Water Retaining Structures
Founded on Spatially Random Soil. Geotechnique, 43(4):577-587.
70. Griffiths, D.V. and J.H. Prevost. (1990), Stress-strain curve generation from simple
triaxial parameters. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geomech. , 14:587-594.
71. Gudehus, G. and D. Kolymbas. (1979), A Constitutive Law of Rate Type for Soils.
Proceedings, 3rd Int. Conf. Num. Meth. Geom., W. Wittke, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam.
72. Gulf Canada Resources Inc. (1984), Frontier development - Molikpaq, Tarsiut
delineation - 1984/85 season. Technical Report 84F012, Gulf Canada Resources Inc.
73. Hadamard, J. (1903), Leons Sur la Propagation des Ondes et les Equations de
L' hydrodynamique . Hermann, Paris.
74. Harder, H. and G. von Bloh. (1988), Determination of representative CPT-parameters.
In Proc. Geotechn. Conf. Penetration Testing in the UK, pages 237-240, Birmingham,
Inst. of Civil Engineers.
75. Hayashi, H., M. Honda, and T. Yamada. (1992), Modeling of nonlinear stress strain
relations of sands for dynamic response analysis. In Proc. World Conf. on
Earthquake Engnrg., volume 11, pages 6819-6825, Madrid, Spain, Balkema,
Rotterdam.
76. Hicker, P.Y. (1985), Comportement Mecanique des argiles saturees sur divers
chemins de sollicitations monotones et cycliques. Application a une modelisation
elastoplastique et viscoplastique. These de Doctorat d' Etat, Universite Paris 6, Paris,
France.
77. Hill, R. (1950), The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
England.
78. Hill, R. (1962), Acceleration Waves in Solids. J. Mech. Phys. Solids., Vol. 10, pp. 1-
16.
79. Hirai, H. (1987), An Elastoplastic Constitutive Model for Cyclic Behavior of Sands.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., Vol. 11, pp. 503-520.
80. Hogue, C. and D. Newland. (1994), Efficient Computer Simulation of Moving
Granular Particles. Powder Techn., Vol. 78, pp. 51-66.
81. Holtz, W.G. and H.J. Gibbs. (1979), Discussion of ` ` SPT and relative density in coarse
sand' ' . J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 105(GT3):439-441.
82. Huntsman, R.S., Mitchell J.K., and Klejbuk L.W. (1986), Lateral stress measurement
during cone penetration. In S.P. Clemence, editor, Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical
Engineering, pages 617-634. ASCE, New York.
83. Iai, S. (1993), Micromechanical background to a strain space multiple mechanism
model for sand. Soils and Foundations, 33(1):102-117.
84. Iai, S., T. Kameoka, and Y. Matsunaga. (1993), Numerical Class "A" prediction of
model no 1. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Verif. Numerical Proc. for the Analysis of Soil Liq.
Problems, volume 1, pages 109-127. Balkema, Rotterdam.
85. Ishihara, K., F. Tatsuoka and S. Yasuda. (1975), Undrained Deformation and
Liquefaction of Sand Under Cyclic Stresses. Soils and Found., Vol. 15, pp. 29-44.
86. Ishihara, K. (1993), Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Gotechnique,
43(3):351-415.
87. Iwan, W.D. (1967), On a Class of Models for the Yielding Behavior of Continuous and
Composite Systems. J. Appl. Mech., ASME, Vol. 34, pp. 612-617.
88. Jamiolkowski, M., C.C. Ladd, J.T. Germaine, and R. Lancellotta. (1985), New
developments in field and laboratory testing of soils. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Soil
Mech. and Foundation Engnrg., volume 1, pages 57-153, San Francisco.
89. Jefferies, M.G. and K. Been. (1987), Use of critical state representations of sand in the
method of stress characteristics. Can. Geotech. Journ., 24:441-446.
90. Jefferies, M.G. and M.P. Davies. (1991), Soil classification by the cone penetration
test: Discussion. Can. Geotech. Journ., 28:173-176.
91. Jefferies, M.G. and M.P. Davies. (1993), Use of CPTu to estimate equivalent SPT
. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(4):458-468.
92. Jefferies, M.G., B.T. Rogers, H.R. Stewart, S. Shinde, D. James, and S. Williams-
Fitzpatrick. (1988), Island construction in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. In Proc. ASCE
Spec. Conf. Hydr. Fills, pages 816-883, Fort Collins, American Society of Civil
Engineers.
93. Jones, G. and E. Rust. (1982), Piezometer penetration testing. In Proc. European
Symp. on Penetration Testing, volume 2, pages 607-613, Amsterdam.
94. Kabilamany, K. and K. Ishihara. (1991), Cyclic Behavior of Sand by Multiple Shear
Mechanism Model. Int. J. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.
74-83.
95. Kabilamany, K. and K. Ishihara. (1990), Stress Dilatancy and Hardening Laws for
Rigid Granular Model of Sand. Int. J. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 9,
No. 2, pp. 66-77.
96. Katona, M.G. (1984), Evaluation of Viscoplastic Cap Model. J. Geotech. Eng. Div.,
ASCE, Vol. 110, No. GT8, pp. 1106- -1125.
97. Keller, J.B. (1986), Impact with Friction. J. Appl. Mech., ASME, Vol. 53, pp. 1-4.
98. Koerner, R.M. (1970), Effect of particle characteristics on soil strength. J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., ASCE, 96(SM4):1221-1234.
99. Koiter, W.T. (1960), General Theorems for Elastic-Plastic Solids. Progress in Solid
Mechanics, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 165-221.
100. Kondner, R.L. (1963), Hyperbolic stress-strain response: Cohesive soils. Journ. Soil
Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 89(SM1):115-143.
101. Krieg, R.D. and D.B. Krieg. (1977), Accuracies of Numerical Solution Methods for the
Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Model. J. Pressure Vessel Technol., ASME, Vol. 99, pp. 510-
515.
102. Krieg, R.D. and S.M. Key. (1976), Implementation of a Time Dependent Plasticity
Theory into Structural Computer Programs. Constitutive Equations in Viscoplasticity:
Computational and Engineering Aspects, ASME, Vol. 20, pp. 125-137.
103. Krieg, R.D. (1975), A Practical Two Surface Plasticity Theory. J. Appl. Mech., ASME,
Vol. 42, pp. 641-646.
104. Kulhawy, F.H. and P.W. Mayne. (1990), Manual on estimating soil properties for
foundation design. Final Report 1493-6, EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA.
105. Lade, P.V. (1977), Elastoplastic Stress-Strain Theory for Cohesionless Soils with
Curved Yield Surface. Int. J. Solids Struct., ASCE, Vol. 13, pp. 1019-1035.
106. Lade, P.V. and J.M. Duncan. (1975), Elastoplastic Stress-Strain Theory for
Cohesionless Soil. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 101, pp. 1037-1053.
107. Loret, B., J.H. Prevost and A. Deb. (1995), Finite Element Simulation of Strain-
Localization: A Multi-Scale Problem. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 120, pp.
315-338.
108. Loret, B. and J.H. Prevost. (1991), Dynamic Strain-Localization in Water-Saturated
Porous Media. Engrg. Mech., Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 907-922.
109. Loret, B. and J.H. Prevost. (1990a), Dynamic Strain-Localization in Elasto-(Visco-)
Plastic Solids: Part 1-GeneralFormulation and One-Dimensional Examples. Comp.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 83, pp. 247-273.
110. Loret, B. and J.H. Prevost. (1990b), Dynamic Strain-Localization in Elasto-(Visco-)
Plastic Solids: Part 2-Plane Strain Examples. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 83,
pp. 275-294.
111. Loret, B. and J.H. Prevost. (1986), Accurate Numerical Solutions for Drucker-Prager
Elastic Plastic Models. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 258-277.
112. Luong, M.P. and A. Touati. (1983), Sols Grenus sous Fortes Constraintes. Revue
Francaise de Geotechnique, Vol. 23, pp. 51-63.
113. Luong, M.P. (1980), Phenomenes Cycliques dans les Sols Pulverulents. Revue
Francaise de Geotechnique, Vol. 10, pp. 39-53.
114. Mandel, J. (1963), Propagation des Surfaces de Discontinuite dans un Milieu Elasto-
Plastique. Proceedings IUTAM Symposium on Stress Waves in Inelastic Solids, Brown
University, (Springer, Berlin), pp. 337-344.
115. Mandel, J. (1965), Une Generalisation de la Theorie de Koiter. Int. J. Solids and
Structs., Vol. 1, pp. 273-295.
116. Marcuson, W.F. and W.A. Bieganousky. (1977), SPT and relative density in coarse
sands. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg. Div., 103(GT11):1295-1309.
117. Matsuoka, J. and K. Sakakibara. (1987), A Constitutive Model for Sands and Clay
Evaluating Principal Stress Rotation. Soils and Found., Vol. 27, pp. 73-88.
118. Matsuoka. (1974),
119. Mehrabadi, M.M., B. Loret and S. Nemat-Nasser. (1993), Incremental Constitutive
Relations for Granular Materials Based on Micromechanics. Proc. R. Soc., London,
Vol. A441, pp. 433-463.
120. Meyerhof, G.G. (1957), Discussion of session 1. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engnrg., volume 3, London.
121. Mitchell, J.K. and D.J. Tseng. (1990), Assessment of liquefaction potential by cone
penetration resistance. In J.M. Duncan, editor, Proc. H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symp.,
volume 2, pages 335-350.
122. Mroz, Z. and S. Pietruszczak. (1983a), An Constitutive Model for Sand with
Anisotropic Hardening Rule. ' Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., Vol. 7, pp. 305-
320.
123. Mroz, Z. and S. Pietruszczak. (1983b), On Hardening Anisotropy of Ko- Consolidated
Clays. Int. J. Num. Meth. Geom., Vol. 7, pp. 19-38.
124. Mroz, Z., V.A. Norris and O.C. Zienkiewicz. (1981), An Anisotropic, Critical State
Model for Soils Subjected to Cyclic Loading. Geotechnique, Vol. 31, pp. 451-469.
125. Mroz, Z. (1980), Hypoelasticity and Plasticity Approaches to Constitutive Modelling
of Inelastic Behavior of Soils. Int. J. Num. Analyt. Meth. Geom., Vol. 4, pp. 45-66.
126. Mroz, Z. (1967), On the Description of Antisotropic Workhardening. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, Vol. 15, pp. 163-175.
127. Muhlhaus, H.B. and I. Vardoulakis. (1987), The Thickness of Shear Bands in Granular
Materials. Geotechnique, Vol. 37, pp. 271-283.
128. Mulilis, J.P., H.B. Seed, C.K. Chan, J.K. Mitchell, and K. Arulanandan. (1977),
Effects of sample preparation on sand liquefaction. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 103
(GT2):91-108.
129. Naval Fac. Eng. Command, Alexandria. (1982), Soil Mechanics (DM 7.1).
130. Nayak, G.C. and O.C. Zienkiewicz. (1972), Elastic-Plastic Stress Analysis: A
Generalization for Various Consitutive Relations Including Strain Softening. Int. J.
Num. Meth. Engrg., Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 113-125.
131. Needleman, A. (1988), Material Rate Dependence and Mesh Sensitivity in
Localization Problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., Vol. 67, pp. 69-85.
132. Nemat-Nasser, S. and M.M. Mehrabadi. (1984), Micro-mechanically Based Rate
Constitutive Descriptions for Granular Materials. Mechanics of Engineering Materials,
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 451-463.
133. Nguyen, Q.S. (1977), On the Elastic-Plastic Initial Boundary Value Problem and its
Numerical Integration. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg., Vol. 11, pp. 817-832.
134. Oda, M. (1972), Initial fabrics and their relations to mechanical properties of granular
materials, Jap. Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Engnrg.: Soils Founds., 12:17-36.
135. Oda, M. and Konishi, J. (1974), Microscopic deformation mechanism of granular
material in simple shear. Jap. Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Engnrg.: Soils Founds., 14:25-
38.
136. Oda, M., J Konishi and S. Nemat-Nasser. (1980), Some Experimentally Based
Fundamental Results on the Mechanical Behavior of Granular Materials.
Geotechnique, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 479-495.
137. Oda, M. and S. Nemat-Nasser. (1982), Experimental Micro-mechanical Evaluation of
Strength of Granular Materials. Mech. Mat., Vol. 1, pp. 269-283.
138. Ohsaki, Y. and R. Iwasaki. (1973), On dynamic shear moduli and Poisson' s ratio of soil
deposits. Soils and Foundations, 13(4):61-73.
139. Ohta, Y. and N. Goto. (1978), Empirical shear wave velocity equations in terms of
characteristic soil indexes. Earthq. Engnrg. Struct. Dyn., 6:167-187.
140. Ohtomo, K. and M. Shinozuka. (1990), Two-dimensional spatial severity of
liquefaction. Proc. Japan Earthquake Engnrg. Symp., Tokyo.
141. Olsen, R.S. and J.V. Farr. (1986), Site characterization using the cone penetrometer
test. In S.P. Clemence, editor, Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, pages
854-868. ASCE, New York.
142. Ortiz, M. and J.C. Simo. (1986), An Analysis of a New Class of Integration Algorithms
for Elastoplastic Constitutive Relations. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg., Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.
353- 366.
143. Ortiz, M. and E.P. Popov. (1985), Accuracy and Stability of Integration Algorithms for
Elastoplastic Constitutive Relations. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg., Vol. 21, No. 9, pp.
1561- 1576.
144. Paice, G.M., D.V. Griffiths and G.A. Fenton. (1996), Finite Element Modeling of
Settlements on Spatially Random Soil. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 122(9):777-779.
145. Pande, G.N. and K.C. Sharma. (1983), Multilaminate Model of Clays - A Numerical
Evaluation of the Influence of Rotation of the Principal Stress Axes. Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech., Vol. 7, pp. 397-418.
146. Parry, R.H.G. (1977), Estimating bearing capacity in sand from SPT values. J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 103(GT9):1014-1019.
147. Pastor, M., O.C. Zienkiewicz, and K.H. Leung. (1985), Simple model for transient soil
loading in earthquake analysis. II. Non-associative models for sands, Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech., 9:477-498.
148. Pastor, M., O.C. Zienkiewicz, and A.C. Chan. (1990), Generalized Plasticity and the
Modelling of Soil Behavior. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., Vol. 14, pp. 151-
190.
149. Pender, M.J. (1978), A Model for the Behavior of Overconsolidated Soil.
Geotechnique, Vol. 28, pp. 1-25.
150. Perzyna, P. (1971), Thermodynamic Theory of Viscoplasticity. Q. Appl. Math., Vol.
11, pp. 243-377.
151. Perzyna, P. (1966), Fundamental Problems in Viscoplasticity. Q. Appl. Math., Vol. 9,
pp. 243-377.
152. Perzyna, P. (1963), The Constitutive Equations for Rate-Sensitive Plastic Materials. Q.
Appl. Math., Vol. 20, pp. 321-332.
153. Phoon, K.K. and F.H. Kulhawy. (1996), On quantifying inherent soil variability. In
Proc. ASCE GED Spec. Conf. on Uncertainty in the Geologic Environ.: From Theory
to Practice, volume 1, pages 326-340, Madison, Wisconsin.
154. Popescu, R. (1995), Stochastic Variability of Soil Properties: Data Analysis, Digital
Simulation, Effects on System Behavior . PhD thesis, Princeton University, Princeton,
NJ.
155. Popescu, R. and J.H. Prevost. (1993a), Centrifuge validation of a numerical model for
dynamic soil liquefaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng., 12(2):73-90.
156. Popescu, R. and J.H. Prevost. (1993b), Numerical Class ` ` A' ' predictions for
Models No. 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 6, 7, 11 and 12. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Verif. Numerical
Proc. for the Analysis of Soil Liq. Problems, volume 1, pages 1105-1207. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
157. Popescu, R. and J.H. Prevost. (1995a), Comparison between VELACS numerical
` ` class A' ' predictions and centrifuge experimental soil test results. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Eng., 14(2):79-92.
158. Popescu, R. and J.H. Prevost. (1995b), Reliability assessment of centrifuge soil test
results. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng., 14(2):93-101.
159. Popescu, R., J.H. Prevost, and G. Deodatis. (1996a), Influence of spatial variability of
soil properties on seismically induced soil liquefaction. In Proc. ASCE GED Spec.
Conf. on Uncertainty in the Geologic Environ.: From Theory to Practice, volume 2,
pages 1098-1112, Madison, Wisconsin.
160. Popescu, R., Deodatis, G., and Prevost, J.H., (1996b), Simulation of non-Gaussian
stochastic vector fields. Probabilistic Engnrg. Mechanics. (accepted for publication).
161. Popescu, R., J.H. Prevost, and G. Deodatis. (1997a), Effects of spatial variability on
soil liquefaction: Some design recommendations. Gotechnique, (submitted).
162. 162 Popescu, R., J.H. Prevost, and G. Deodatis. (1997b), Stochastic variability of soil
properties: Field data analysis. Journ. of Geotechnical Engnrg., ASCE, (submitted).
163. Poulos, S.J., G. Castro, and W. France. (1985), Liquefaction evaluation procedure.
Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 111(6):772-792.
164. Prager, W. (1959), Introduction to Plasticity, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
165. Prevost, J.H. and B. Loret. (1995), Finite Element Simulations of Strain-Localization:
a Multi-Scale Problem. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., Vol. 120, pp. 315-338.
166. Prevost, J.H. (1995), DYNAFLOW: A nonlinear transient finite element analysis
program. Technical report, Dept. of Civil Eng. and Op. Research, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ.
167. Prevost, J.H. and C.M. Keane. (1990), Multi-Mechanism Elasto-Plastic Model for
Soils. J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, Vol. 116, No. EM9, pp. 1924-1944.
168. Prevost, J.H. and C.M. Keane. (1989), Shear stress-strain curve generation from simple
material parameters. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 116(8):1255-1263.
169. Prevost, J.H. (1985), A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Eng., 4:9-17.
170. Prevost, J.H. (1982), Two-surface vs. multi-surface plasticity theories. Int. J. Num.
Anal. Meth. Geomech., (6):323-338.
171. Prevost, J.H. (1980), Mechanics of Continuous Porous Media. Int. J. of Engineering
Science, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 787-800.
172. Prevost, J.H. (1978), Anisotropic Undrained Stress-Strain Behavior of Clays. J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT8, Proc. Paper 13942, pp. 1075-1090.
173. Prevost, J.H. (1977), Mathematical modeling of monotonic and cyclic undrained clay
behavior. Int. J. Num. Meth. Geom., 1(2):195-216.
174. Rice, J.R. (1976), The Localization of Plastic Deformation. Theoretical and Applied
Mechanics, Proceedings of the 14th IUTAM Congress, Delft (North-Holland,
Amsterdam), pp. 207-220.
175. Robertson, P.K. (1990), Soil classification by the cone penetration test. Can. Geotech.
Journ., 27:151-158.
176. Robertson, P.K. and R.G. Campanella. (1983), Interpretation of cone penetration tests -
Part I: sand. Can. Geotech. Journ., 20:718-733.
177. Robertson, P.K. and R.G. Campanella. (1985), Liquefaction potential of sands using
the CPT. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 111(3):384-403.
178. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, and A. Wightman. (1982), SPT-CPT correlations.
Technical report, Soil Mech. Series No. 62, Dept. of Civil Engnrg., Univ. of British
Columbia.
179. Roscoe, K.H. and J.B. Burland. (1968), On the Generalized Stress-Strain Behavior of
Wet Clay. Engineering Plasticity, pp. 535-609.
180. Roscoe, K.H., A.N. Schofield and D.P. Wroth. (1958), On the Yielding of Soils.
Geotechnique, Vol. 9, pp. 22-53.
181. Rowe, P.W. (1962), The Stress-Dilatancy Relation for Static Equilibrium of an
Assembly of Particles in Contact. Proc. Roy. Soc., Vol. A269, pp. 500-527.
182. Sandler, I.S. and D. Rubin. (1979) ` ` An Algorithm and a Modular Subroutine for the
Cap Model. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., Vol. 3, pp. 173-186.
183. Sandler, I.S., F.L. Dimaggio, and G.Y. Baladi. (1976), Generalized Cap Model for
Geological Materials. J. Geotechn. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT7, pp. 683-697.
184. Schmertmann, J.H. (1975), Measurement of in-situ shear strength. In Proc. ASCE Spec.
Conf. on In-Situ Meas. Soil Prop., volume 2, pages 57-138, Raleigh.
185. Schmertmann, J.H. (1978), Guidelines for cone penetration test performance and
design; Rep. FHWA-TS-78-209. Technical report, U.S. Dept. Trans., Washington, DC.
186. Schofield, A. and C.P. Wroth. (1968), Critical State Soil Mechanics. McGraw-Hill,
London.
187. Schreyer, H.L., R.F. Kulak and J.M. Kramer. (1979), Accurate Numerical Solutions
for Elastic-Plastic Models. J. Pressure Vessel Technol., ASME, Vol. 101, pp. 226-234.
188. Scott, R.F. (1985), Plasticity and constitutive relations in soil mechanics. Journ.
Geotechnical Engnrg., 111(5):563-605.
189. Scott, R.F. and M.J.K. Craig. (1980), Computer Modeling of Clay Structure and
Mechanics. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT1, pp. 17-33.
190. Seed, H.B. (1987), Design problems in soil liquefaction. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg.
Div., 113(8):827-845.
191. Seed, H.B. and P. De Alba. (1986), Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the
liquefaction resistance of sands. In S.P. Clemence, editor, Use of In-Situ Tests in
Geotechnical Engineering, pages 281-302. ASCE, New York.
192. Seed, H.B., I.M. Idriss, and I. Arango. (1983), Evaluation of liquefaction potential
using field performance data. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 109(3):458-482.
193. Seed, H.B., R.B. Seed, L.F. Harder, and H.L. Jong. (1988), Reevaluation of the slide in
the Lower San Fernando dam during the earthquake of February 9, 1971. Technical
Report UCB/EERC-88/04, Univ. Calif. Berkeley.
194. Seed, H.B., K. Tokimatsu, L.F. Harder, and R.M. Chung. (1985), The influence of SPT
procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg.,
121(12):1425-1445.
195. Seed, R.B. and L.F. Harder. (1990), SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure
generation and undrained residual strength. In J.M. Duncan, editor, Proc. H. Bolton
Seed Memorial Symp., volume 2, pages 351-376.
196. Senneset, K. and N. Janbu. (1985), Shear strength parameters obtained from static
CPT. In R.C. Chaney and K.R. Demars, editors, Strength Testing of Marine Sediments.
ASTM, Philadelphia.
197. Shibata, T. and W. Teparaksa. (1988), Evaluation of liquefaction potential of soils
using cone penetration tests. Soils and Foundations, 28(2):49-60.
198. Simo, J.C. and T.J.R. Hughes. (1987), General Return Mapping Algorithms for Rate-
Independent Plasticity. Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials: Theory and
Applications, Elsevier, Vol. 1, pp. 221-232.
199. Simo, J.C., et al. (1987), Unconditionally Convergent Algorithms for Non-smooth
Multisurface Plasticity Amenable to Exact Linearization. Advances in Inelastic
Analysis, ASME, pp. 87-95.
200. Simo, J.C. and R.L. Taylor. (1986), A Consistent Return Mapping Algorithm for Plane
Strain Elastoplasticity. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg., Vol. 22, pp. 649-670.
201. Simo, J.C. and M. Ortiz. (1985), A Unified Approach to Finite Deformation
Elastoplastic Analysis Based on the Use of Hyperelastic Constitutive Equations.
Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrg., Vol. 49, pp. 221-245.
202. Skempton, A.W. (1986), Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands
of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation.
Geotechnique, 36(3):425-447.
203. Sluys, L.J. and R. de Borst. (1992), The Use of Higher- Order Continuum Models for
the Computational Modeling of Shear- Banding. Mech. Mat.. Special Issue on Strain-
Localization and Instabilities in Geomaterials. Presented at Society of Engineering
Science' s 29th Annual Meeting, San Diego, Sept. 14-16.
204. Stark, T.D. and G. Mesri. (1992), Undrained shear strength of liquefied sands for
stability analysis. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 118(11):1727-1747.
205. Stark, T.D. and S.M. Olson. (1995), Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case
histories. Journ. Geotechnical Engnrg., 121(12):856-869.
206. Stewart, W.P. and R.G. Campanella. (1993), Practical aspects of in-situ measurements
of material damping with the SCPT. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(2):211-219.
207. Subhash, G., S. Nemat-Nasser, M.M. Mehrabadi and H.M. Shodja. (1991),
Experimental Investigation of Fabric-Stress Relations in Granular Materials. Mech.
Mat., Vol. 11, pp. 87- 106.
208. Tatsuoka, F. and S. Shibuya. (1992), Deformation characteristics of soils and rocks
from field and laboratory tests. In Proc. Asian Reg. Conf. on Soil Mech. and
Found. Engnrg., volume 2, Bankok, keynote lecture.
209. Tatsuoka, F., M.S.A Siddiquee, C. Park, M. Sakamoto, and F. Abe. (1993), Modelling
stress-strain relations of sand. Soils and Foundations, 33(2):60-81.
210. Terzaghi, K. (1943), Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
211. Thornton, C. and G. Sun. (1994), Numerical Simulation of General 3D Quasi-static
Shear Deformation. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Balkema Pub.,
Rotterdam, pp. 143-148.
212. Thornton, C. and G. Sun. (1993), Axisymmetric Compression of 3D Polydisperse
Systems of Spheres. Powders & Grains 93, Balkema Pub., Rotterdam, pp. 129-134.
213. Thomas, T.Y. Plastic Flow and Fracture in Solids. Academic Press, New York.
214. Ting, J.M., M. Khwaja, L.R. Meachum and J.D. Rowell. (1993), An Ellipse-based
Discrete Element Model for Granular Materials. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., Vol. 17, pp. 603-623.
215. Tokimatsu, K. and Y. Yoshimi. (1983), Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based
on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils and Foundations, 23(4):56-74.
216. Triantafyllidis, N. and E.C. Aifantis. (1986), A Gradient Approach to Localization of
Deformation: I Hyperelastic Materials. J. Elasticity, Vol. 16, pp. 225-237.
217. Valanis, K.C. and H.J.E. Read. (1982), A New Endochronic Plasticity Model for Soils.
Soil Mechanics-Transient and Cyclic Loads, G.N. Pande and O.C. Zienkiewicz, eds.,
Wiley, pp. 375-417.
218. Vardoulakis, I. (1988), Theoretical and experimental bounds for shear-band bifurcation
strain in biaxial tests on dry sand. Res. Mechanica, 23:239-259.
219. Vardoulakis, I. (1980), Shear Band Inclination and Shear Modulus of Sand in Biaxial
Tests. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., Vol. 4, pp. 103-119.
220. Vermeer, P.A. (1980), Formulation and Analysis of Sand Deformation Problems.
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Delft University, The Netherlands.
221. Walton, K. (1988), Wave Propagation within Random Packing of Spheres.
Geophysical J., Vol. 92, pp. 89- 97.
222. Whitaker, S. (1969), Advances in Theory of Fluid Motion in Porous Media. Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 14-28.
223. Wilkins, J.L. (1964), Calculation of Elastic-plastic Flow. Methods of Computational
Physics, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 8.
224. Wren, J.R. and R.I. Borja. (1995), Macromechanical Basis of Continuum Models for
Granular Materials. II: Validation. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, in review.
225. Wren, J.R. and R.I. Borja. (1994), Macro- and Micro- mechanical Responses of
Granular Materials Under Imposed Overall Stresses: Numerical Algorithms and
Bifurcation Analyses. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., in review.
226. Yoder, P.J. and B.G. Whirley. (1984), On the Numerical Implementation of
Elastoplastic Models. J. Appl. Mech., ASME, Vol. 51, pp. 283-228.
227. Yoshimi, Y., K. Tokimatsu, and Y. Hosaka. (1989), Evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of clean sands based on high-quality undisturbed samples. Soils and
Foundations, 29(1):3-104.
228. Zhuang, X., A.K. Didwania and J.D. Goddard. (1995), Simulation of the Quasi-Static
Mechanics and Scalar Transport Properties of Ideal Granular Assemblages. J. Comp.
Physics, Vol. 121, pp. 331-346.
229. Zienkiewicz, O.C., K.H. Leung and M. Pastor. (1985), Simple Model for Transient
Soil Loading in Earthquake Analysis. I. Basic Model and Its Application. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., Vol. 9, pp. 453-476.
230. Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Z. Mroz. (1984), Generalized Plasticity Formulation and
Application to Geomechanics. Mech. Eng. Materials, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 655-679.


2002 ejge